> After all, which is more
>progressive? The 'backwards' productive methods of Mexican peasants, or
>the 'modern' productivity of an industrialised farm? If it is the
>industrialised farm, then I ask again which is more progressive - the
>peasants of the Chiapas 'autonomous municipality', or the farmers of the
>US corn belt?
Oh, without a doubt, the modern productivity of the industrialised farm.
It is inconceivable that six billion people could be fed at the level of productivity that obtains amongst Chiapas peasants. Indeed, I think that there are few peasants who would not aspire to the living conditions of wage labourers in the West.
Of course the form of social organisation of the capitalist farm means that the lion's share of productivity gains are translated into profits, not wages. But that does not gainsay the increased food production that has made it possible to celebrate the birth of the six billionth human living human being.
Marx's contemptuous attitude to peasant culture and politics is wholly justified. The later romanticisation of the peasantry is not an improvement upon Marx, but a falling back from scientific socialism into middle class sentimentality.
-- Jim heartfield