I did not argue "no peasants - no socialism". I argued "no peasants - no revolution Russia or China -style".
But that does not mean "no peasants - no socialism." It means that if socialism or its variant is to be implemented, it will be implemented by means other than a peasant rebellion, which was a characteristic feature of most 20th century movements popularly identified as "leftists" or "marxists" (which is truly pathetic for everyone who is familiar with the works of Karl Marx).
Peasantry is not necessarily a progressive force - it is often a reactionary force as examples of Cambodia or Afghanistan illustrate. However, communalism is often well embedded in peasantry - due mainly to theier economic conditions (relative poverty and the fact that the basic unit of production and consumption is extended household). In that light, Soviet of Chinese "communism" was in fact peasant communalism - adopted by the CP leaders for two tactical reasons: political expediency to boost its legimacy among the peasnt masses, and as an austerity measure designed to limit consuption and increase investment/accumulation.
The socialim that grows out of an advanced industrial state has to offer much more than such primitive communalism.
Wojtek