on Reflections theNotionof "PeasantEconomy"*

Pierre Vilar
of I like of full awareness thedifficultiesthesubject, would to and share with someofthedoubts, concerns, evenirritations you of overthe which appeared has evoked theabundance literature by with "agrarian the econyears problem," "peasant dealing pastfew etc. "historical ofthepeasantry," Colrole reform," omy," "agrarian and between laboration economists, politicians, historisociologists, are involved: evennecessary. there tworisks But ans is desirable, I should immediately and of confusion ideasandsimplification. say that we unreservedly themeeting justheldherewasinno way guilty I was with faults. to thecontrary, delighted ofeither these of Quite in depthand to and readiness analyze to the seriousness, rigor, in that of was shown the thecomplexities thesubject appreciate andhistoridiscussions my various friends, by Spanish geographers, the ones. ans,most particularly younger the that have I do notignore fact somemasterpieces beenwritthe the northat peasantry, "peasant tenabout movement," peasants, as social transformationsfundamental thosein as has achieved doesbother is theuseoftheword me China Cuba.What or peasant as of a in without qualifiers, iftheconcept peasant, peasantry any existed. as soonas an urban civilization the For, exists, figure, itself, becomes object a doublemyth: the of theimage thepeasant of conrustic thecultofthefarmer and for {labrador) (or tempt anything and ofthe eventheshepherd!), the"glorification village." have We
Translatedby Carol Dean Nassau from Economia en de Agraria la Historia Espana of (1978) withthepermission theauthorand thepublisher, Fundacinjuan March.The in offered the Seminariode HistoriaAgrariaheld on March9-11, paper was originally of 1977, under the directionof Prof. Don Miguel Artola,catedrtico Contemporary at Autnomade Madrid. Spanish History the Universidad review, 2, 1998,151-89 xxi, 151

152

Pierre Vilar

two also been confronted with two visionsand, undoubtedly, in with truths- the politicalrole of the peasantry directconflict of each other.One sees the peasantry a locus of all the conservaas and the other(Che Guevaraor Frantz tisms,of all the reactions, Such consees itas thelocusofall revolutionary Fanon) aspirations. tradictions shouldbe enoughto make us cautiousabout usingthe further or wordpeasantwithout specifications analysis. and of For severalyearsnow,in thevocabulary sociologists histo torians,therehas been a tendency use the notionof a peasant to characterizecertainwidespread types of societies, economy ancient contemporary. former or whether My colleagueand friend, in thelate Daniel Thorner, eminent India, specialist contemporary the vocabulary A.V. Chayanov,Russian of explicitly inspiredby and between1910-30,proposedthe agronomist economist writing Conference ofpeasanteconomy 1962at theInternational in concept in and of EconomicHistorians Aix-en-Provence, laterin an article in of Annales 1964 (Thorner, in 1964). In 1973,at an internal meeting beforehis theEcole des HautesEtudesen SciencesSociales,shortly with in a Thorner death, presented paper,as yetunpublished, which, referenceto Chayanovand the concept of peasant economy,he as denouncedtheMarxist conceptofmode ofproduction notuseful it and outdated.According Thorner, was incapableof clarifying to the fundamental characteristics countrieslike Tsarist Russia, of Mexico. India,Indonesia,China,pre-1914 Japan,or pre-1930 fate I confess a thatI reacted with certain Unfortunately, vivacity. had it thatThorner'spaper was neverpublished. WhatI arguedin it the our briefdiscussions was basically following: is possiblethat are as those he mentioned, dominatedoververylarge societies, to no belonging the by whelmingly a peasanteconomy longerstrictly to feudalmode ofproduction and notfully belonging thecapitalist their thatwe clarify mode of production. whatmakesus think But, characteristics bycallingthem"peasant?" specific just if has The instrumental conceptofmode ofproduction itsfaults occaon It is possiblethat, different understood onlysuperficially. but But sions,ithas led to schematism. itis notschematic nature, by contradicrathera global concept,one thatmakesof the internal and of tionsofall systems very the dynamic theorigin principle their those transmit it oftheir transformations. Therefore, must (and can) same qualities themodelswhich derivefrom just as theopposto it, the modelsderivedfromtheconceptof a pure economy- maring

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

153

theoriesof equilibrium-separate whatis ket,perfect competition, contradictions. whatis socialand hide thefounding economicfrom as The conceptofpeasanteconomy, seen in itsvery name,discovers an ecowhatitwas lookingto find, economicmodel,an exclusively or nomicmodel.Such a modelmayaid thedescription perhapsthe thatit can but doubtful of mechanisms, itis very explanation partial In of it the theorigins, crisesand thedestiny a society. short, clarify for to be an adequate instrument global historical does not seem in to We analysis. willreturn thisconsideration theconclusion. of thatobservers India and China,which It is understandable of and have such an enormouspeasantry so manycenturies apparhave entimmobility, triedto theorizetheirseemingoriginality. My leads me to be cautious.But for own ignoranceof Asian problems the recent development, peasregionscloserto us and of relatively ant problem,or the agrarian problem,has inspiredtendencies is similarto those I havejust cited.The intent to isolatethe probHow many lemsof thecountryside. books,bothabout thepast and have titlesadorned withthe words"rural,""agriculthe present, Let tural,""countryside," "peasantry"! us recognizethat "peasant," thisis quite natural.We need go back onlytwo hundredyearsto wherethepeasantry finda world 60, represented 70, 80 % ofsociety. Is lead us to concludethatpeasantry But,wouldthat equals society? coherent? theconceptofpeasantry no Then came thetimewhenthepeasantry longeroccupiednuthatithad held in societiesthatwere theprivileged place merically for of less developed.There werethentwo temptations observers of One was to devaluethepersisting importance thepeasant society. and to become masses in thosegroupsthatare developing rapidly, the of thenwith commerce, birth industriallarge-scale preoccupied I to the emergenceof capitalism. refer those studiesthat ization, formercantile with as moderntimes beginning consider capitalism, had the fundamental that,before1760-80, in no country getting one ceased to be those of the countryside, whose social structures was very of to economy permeability thepenetration themonetary unequal. in one But thereexistsan oppositetendency, which, periodsof of if transition, emphasizesthe particularity not the extensiveness havesuggested someMarxists thepeasantworld. Here, (erroneously of in myview) in theirvocabulariesan isolation,a specificity the in the global society, speakingof a smallholding by countryside

154

Pierre Vilar

mode of production, and simplecommodity mode of production. Such expressions, takenfrom isolatedphrasesused byMarx,seem to be morerelatedto theconceptsof Chayanov Thornerthanto or Marx'sglobal thinking. in counif timesand in nearby Finally, we place ourselves recent and France,forexample-we finda surprisingly rapid tries-Spain one development, thatinjust a fewyearshas changedthe proporactive tionof theactive to population peasantpopulation theoverall And the from50 to 60% down to 20, 15, and as low as 10 percent. Some economists and reactions, applaud again,are multiple various. such a changeas rationaland proposethatitbe accelerated. Many and levelsof sincerity at and politicians, quitevarying sociologists and thesmallpeasantry. defendfamily Others, analysis, ownership becomeanthrodue to sentimental or curiosity, nostalgia intellectual of in or and our pologists ethnologists, study lastvillages themanner Frobeniusor Lvi-Strauss. deFaced withso manydifferent positions(and all, to a certain Will instruments? how can we selectour scientific gree,justified), Thatis thequestion one ofthembe thenotionofpeasanteconomy? is I would liketo address.Discovering Chayanov becominga more in attitude theWest. willitbe a scientific and morefashionable But, classist an attitude an ideologicalillusion, instinctive, or existential, reaction? one experienceswhen One quite appreciatesthe intoxication of and hopes manifested the studies, rediscovering wealth thoughts, and immediately found before theRussianintelligentsia following by on 1917.The subsequent closingof thecurtain thiswealthexplains to But admiration today's perfectly. itis important guardagainstthe can thatideologicalprejudices inciteconcernillusions and mirages at and by ingtherealvaluesrevealed pluralism freedom thedawnof the GreatRevolution. rich are and Agronomy theruraleconomy particularly subjects in Russianreflection 1880-1913 and 1917-30. Betweenthetime of the of of the emancipation theslavesand thelawsof Stolypin, Rusits retained basic it eventhough sianpeasantry in rapidchange, was both its values and its sufferings. characteristics, Alreadyat that to withrespect the Thornerdefines thethree which time, problems edition[Thorner, ThirdWorld(in hispreface Chayanov's to English 1966: xi]) werebeingposed: 1) How can traditional society emerge frommisery, and filth, illiteracy? How can it modernizeits tech2)

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

155

be into of niques?3) How can sucha society integrated theharmony nationalbutmoreadvanced? a globaleconomy, suchproblems, to Russia, compared Germany Thoughfacedwith transformation agrithattimeat thepinnacleof thescientific of (at the or compared with muchmoresimilar case ofSpain(the culture), for and ofJoaquinCosta), Spain of the Institute AgrarianReform its and activities, to be, through publications a appears enjoying The and statistics fromthe fecundity. agrariansurveys surprising fill for zemtsvas 70 volumes.The numberof agronomists working increasedfrom124 in 1895 to 2,701 in 1912. Stuinstitutions those in schoolsincreasedfrom75 to 3,922. dentenrollment agronomy whoseyouth coincided Thereshouldbe no illusions: with Chayanov, of thathave 677 the thatperiod,criticized usefulness such surveys versionof such a survey was But, when his simplified questions! 300 of the7,000people questionedrepliedand of distributed, only in manner. 164 answered an acceptable Thisgap between these, only and possibleknowledge measuresthe distance desiredknowledge The idea that one cannot initiate between practiceand theory. basic knowledge jeopardized more than one has without reforms in anarchists 1932 called the debateson Spanish agrarianreform. The criticism illof was "masterpieces pedantry." agrarianreform Leninhad thought great a butnotcompletely unjustified. tempered, Whenhe came to power, did not he deal about agrarianproblems. ofgathering call fora further information. famousdecree His stage on theland came out one monthafter politicalrevolution. the He did not have the illusion thatit could resolveeverything. it But tiedthefateofthepoor peasantto thatof theRevolution. decisively not to moreor lesssignify nostalgia a for Might thereturn Chayanov theold pedantries? is The truth thatChayanov an exceptional is He personality. is not the onlyone; he is merely mostbrilliant the of spirit a school. But he did have everything would take to earn our admiration it Witha literary he fiction and today. temperament, invented political A in was active theater. mathematician a formalist, proposed and he a paleontology economicknowledge of and a planningthatwould becomemorean artofanimating thanscience.His vocabuthought was 50 yearsahead of ours(and I do notimply thatoursis 50 lary yearsbehind). Chayanovwas bornin 1888 and by 1913 had already published thirteen and until originalstudies.In 1919, afterthe Revolution,

156

Pierre Vilar

studiesin 1930,he headed up thewell-known collegeof agronomic Moscowwhich had 18 instructors, researchers, 140,000volume 30 a and an Institute Conjunctural of library, Analysis jointlydirected withKondratieff. untilthedecisive Therefore, phase of collectivizaHe but an was tion,Chayanov nota dissident, rather official. was an True to his first innovator whopromoted "organizachangeeagerly. tional"ideas,he believedin thespecificity theRussiansituation, of buthe had hiseyesopen towhat was happening His elsewhere. ideas outsideRussiaas wellas within, his own at werecontested strongly of Institute. untiltheabout-face collectivization whichbrought But, he on his downfall, was respected.He was exiled to Alma Ata in is 1932. After that, nothing knownofhim. Withonlytheworks or German, Spanish publishedin English, as a basis,youwillappreciatethatit is impossibleto evaluateand criticize and thisis notat all myintention. WhatI work, Chayanov's a wouldliketo characterize thespirit a school,a tendency, heriis of that. tage,forwhatwe nowdiscussofhimtodayis essentially and publishing 1908and WhenChayanov between beganwriting Russianagrarian literature 1913,thetwocrisesthathad inspired up to 1900- theworldwide longlasting of and crisisof overproduction the 1880's and the terrible famineof 1891 whichtookmillionsof lives-were, for the most part, alreadyforgotten. Young Russian no longerworked theemploy thegreatlandownin of agronomists ers as theyhad before.They made surveys the zemstvas, for were active in agricultural to societies,and consideredthemselves be on theirtechnical and ecoworking behalfof the people, through nomicexpertise. Theycalled themselves "organizational withthe and Production." slogan "Organization Today,we would say techand productivism. old controversies The betweenpopulism nocracy and Marxismon the "road to socialism"seemed to themto have been resolved. And they plannedto showittheoretically, concenby on theirdomain of the "peasanteconomy"without tratingonly the categories thattheybelievedwerecommonto classical/ using and economics the with dif(and without marginalist Marxist dealing ferences at amongthesetwo)-and thereby arriving itsfundamental concepts. A typical of visionis found Kosinski's in expression this Agrarian Questions, publishedin Odessa in 1906. He addressestherewhat will and treat greater in Chayanov merely generalize depth:

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY**

157

in or We cannotproperly speakofrent profit thepeasanteconbecausethepeasantwho incarnates land, omy simultaneously capital,and labor does not divide the value createdby the between costsand surplus-value. necessary production process is The entire valuethatis created used indivisibly is equal and and to the sum of capitalist surplus-value wages.Therefore, the idea of surplus-value, wellas theidea of capital,is foras eign to him. The peasant considersthe net income thathe to earnsthanks his naturalresources, whichhe ownshimself, to be theproductofhiswork. that consider These statements critics generally typical, together notions" in reality, rather a withthe"essential are, puerilediscovery. and wouldlater Kablukov, Chelinchev, Bruckus, Makarov, Chayanov reiterate theseviewswitha fewnuances.Theystemfrom ideathe in many first classes-that certainly, implicit, yearpoliticaleconomy all economicagents maketheir in decisions terms costand utility, of and thatno one buysa loaf of bread without first its calculating In reality, statedas an economic law marginalutility. everything to be prefaced "everything by: ought happensas if..." ratherthan theabsurdimageofa conscious calculation every at level. suggesting a One onlyneedsto study smallamount businesshistory know of to that ofcapital, redunprofitability, management, efficiency marginal etc. in dancyof theworkforce, havenotbeen operationalrealities in quite recenttimesand in veryrestricted dailypractice(except believed(many zones). A greatnumberof capitalist entrepreneurs stilldo), just as Kosinski'speasant,thatthe net income whichis calculatedgrosso modo the at generatedfromtheirown resources, end of the fiscalyear,is the productof their"labor."It took the "netproduct" thegeniusof Marx and geniusofQuesnayto discover to discover around1900,they werediscovering And, "surplus-value." thatsuch notionsdid not occupythe mindsof the averagemujik. Whatinfantilism! Butbyno meansweretheseobservations devoidofsignificance. facts aboutwhichour modernstatisticians Theymerely emphasized are frequently confused. How,forexample,can laborprovided a by traditional be labor peasantfamily comparedwiththetime-clocked ofa factory worker? WhentheFrench decided (in 1956,ifI remember correctly) considerfull-time to workdone bya farmer's wifeto be onlyhalf-time theactivepeasantwork (another approximation!),

158

Pierre Vilar

force work went downbyone million. is clearthat It (in equivalence) in declinedaccordingly. givesus greatconfidence This productivity thevalidity statistical series! of It is truethatthe peasantproprietor-or one in chargeof a the unitof productionhislabor freely, without calculations, organizes itfrom on zeroto sixteen eighteen or hoursa daydepending varying theseason. It is also truethatwhatwe call in Franceaides familiaux the women,children, sons-in-law, youngand the (family helpers)and alimentados alike-are less freethanthe old, domesticworkers father thefamily. of Theyobeyhim.Thereare thennuancesin what calls "self-exploitation." in manycases a fairly harsh It is Chayanov exploitation thenuclearfamily. by Ifwe nowshift from thatthelabor force lookingat themoment was being used to the moment it was beingremunerated, we that knowvery wellthatthelatter with essentially, family corresponded, ofthefarm Buthoware we goingto show self-consumption product. to the offered each bystatistical comparisons subsistence-equivalent unitoflaborthat at thispoint,did not was incorporated? Chayanov, use figureson the averagemonetary salarypaid in the observed to the salaried worker, since he argued that the level of region in domesticconsumption the peasant family varied considerably on A In depending space and time. debatablestatement. eighteenthFrance and Spain, serious researchinforms that the us century habitsoffamily stablein a givenregionand, werevery consumption ifthere weredifferences, werebetween richand poor,between they ownersand tenants. in the Spain of 1750, those who Therefore, conductedthe Catastro ofEnsenadadid not hesitateto assess each head ofa peasantunitofproduction each ofhis helpersa basic and tax proportionate theprevailing to agricultural wage in theregion was Then, the owner-operator taxed (withits internal hierarchy). anothertimeon the cumulative incomeof theunitless thesum of the wages alreadytakenintoaccount.Chayanovmight argue perthatEnsenada'sadvisors werewrong. whatis certain that But is haps werenotundertheinfluence theconceptof marginal of value they noroftheMarxist It conceptofsurplus-value. thusseemsquiteclear thatthe peasantproprietor, insofar he made no distinction as between laborinputand hisownership themeansofproduction, his of does notfitthecapitalist model. But it is clear thatit is equallydifficult imaginean economy to units thatwould be entirely comprisedof a collectionof family

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

159

to or their content reduce increase to consumption according the The oftheearly oftheharvests. "natural German economy" vagaries this schoolsneverexisted; is completely demonstrated historical I remember timein mychildhood a (which today. corresponded, I to most or when meta friendly more less, Chayanov's active years) socialist described idealsociety meas an ensemwho the to Utopian farms side bleofautonomous autonomas) (granjas existing bysidein I a Latin teacher dreamed who nature.alsohad,a bitlater, excellent the We ofcultivating landas he readVirgil. willsee that Chayanov, also similar One wonin thosesameyears, nourished Utopias. may his schmas. his did derifthey notreflect theoretical Frequently, and contraas an observer,technician, a manofaction a experiences and dreams. affirmations hisUtopian bothhistheoretical dicted for if An "autonomous farm," we acceptthehypotheses a mofundamental in economic havetoengage three would ment, operaand of the tions:1) guarantee existence thereproduction thelabor mort, force; amortize 2) {cheptel or dead equipment capital, repairing the inFrench), feeding livestock and cattle, (cheptel orlivecattle, vif, and sincesowing, livein French); invest, trees, raising 3) planting investments whodoesnotdo it?). are stock productive (and if lies over The problem in knowing thesethree operations- a ifnotevery would covered theoutput be of yearby period, given a of and that theunit. canimagine succession deficits surpluses We run.Thisseemstobe Chayanov's wouldbalanceoutin themiddle all deficits any or momentary deficit that But, continuous hypothesis. in occurrence theold agricultural econois too great frequent (a of the and mies)runtherisk eliminating unitofproduction labor. or On theother would hand,anyconsiderable continuous profit to at of lead thefarm grow theexpense neighboring or farms, to the outsidethe "peasant An commercialize product economy." inorder maintain as such, to itself autonomous would farm, require a a constant one. or,atleast, fairly equilibrium regular has in Eversincethere beena taxon land-income France, the has the to degree, accepted balancing peasant, a certain gameimagHe inedbyChayanov. has called"land-income" in Spanish, (renta in socialcategories, revenu French) as in thecaseofother that not, is to that is in which needed liveon,butrather which left thehands at of thehead of theunitofproduction theend oftheyearafter are and Therefore, year, expenses deducted. every living investment theFrench himself be either deficit, in a to in or peasant declaring

160

Pierre Vilar

or and thus,until precariousequilibrium, witha verysmallprofit is has This characteristic partof quiterecently, been "dead fiscally." the conditionof those who have combatedthe spontaneoustenand dency to eliminatethe averagepeasant through competition In concentration. spiteofthis, and elimination, concencompetition, tration triumphing are unitshavebeen defended for today. Marginal electoral,political,and social reasons. But, when the process of the intensified, peasanteconomydied. It capitalistic development in willbe arguedthatthisis notthesituation present-day India nor was it the case in Russiaat thebeginning thiscentury. with of But, to Russia,we can cite Chayanov thatis, regard againstChayanov, the and the versusChayanov, "orgaChayanov, observer technician, nizational" theorist a purely of "peasant"economy. ON "PROPERTY,""UNIT OF PRODUCTION," "LAND-RENT" The conceptof"peasant assumesa confusion between economy" unitof production, labor.It is obviousthatthepeasand property, antis notgoingto calculateyearbyyearwhatpartofhisproduct is attributable theeconomists (as say)to labor,land,and capital.But, if some dayhe decides,out of convenience necessity, rentor or to sell his land, the notion of a price of rentwill necessarily arise. does not denythe conceptof "renting land." He frethe Chayanov then,we need to knowwhat quentlytakesthatintoaccount.First, was theproportion rented of land in Russiaaround1900. Propertyunit of production-division smallplots:our discussions the into at haveshown howcrucialitis notto confusetheseconcepts. meeting If thereis renting, thenthereis rental-income from land. And, the such rental-income fromthe land, Chayanov, we will as regarding is notvery clear.He says: see, Rentas an objective economicincomecategory obtainedafter material costsof production, deducting wages,and theusual interest capital fromgross income cannot exist in the on economic unit because the otherfactors absent. are family the factors like bettersoil Nevertheless, usual rent-forming and better locationin relation themarket surely to do exist for labor economicunits, They too. family commodity-producing

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

161

of musthave the effect increasing outputand the amountof 1966: 8). labor unit(Chayanov, per payment of the are In thistext, "objective categories" capitalist production at leastforunitsthatwork"forthemarket." But, again introduced, and are for autonunitswork themarket howmany truly howmany It thatsuchcan exist)? seemsobviousthatif omousfarms (assuming therecannotbe rental income unit thefamily is outsidethemarket, the the of ofanykind.Iftheunitis within circuit themarket, lawsof value shouldbe applied and thenthereis nothing spe"imputing" is whatpermits to us cial. In anycase, ifrental-income generated, If of assumethatitwillaffect onlytheconsumption theworker? the outside("land-rent"), wouldtheworker how is rent paid to someone of consumeit?Ifitis an integral partof thegrossrevenue theunit, who keeps the head of the unit of productionfromsavingand it? investing We will also see in Chayanov'stexthow the possible "profits can with"normalinterest capon from enterprise" getconfused the of of ital,"a position disaptypical a timewhenthecategory profits And finally, fromthe horizonof capitalist theory. regarding pears fromthe land, thisincomecan onlybe differential, rental-income Ricardian. purely On thislast point,we shouldrecall the recentlessons thatthe on Le commentators Marxist thought- Floch,GillesPostelyounger havedrawnfrom notionof "articulathe ReyVinay, Pierre-Phillipe of tion of modes of production," of particularly the articulation feudal categories withcapitalist Feudal proprietorship categories. limited to accorded rightsrights, be sure-overthe land and over the personof thepeasant,and also overhis product. When,in the transition towards dominion overthepersonand customcapitalism, on whatreplaceditwas absoarylevying theproductdisappeared, lute ownership theland,thatis,a monopoly itsuse. In sucha of of a personwhodoes notownland and needs to cultivate field, a case, has to paya rent theowner, to which willbe calculatedon theprodas in thefeudalsystem. he is poor and itis a bad year, If he uct, just willbe subjectto debtsand legal persecutions thatmight eased be on some traditional remains. That depending whether paternalism is thefeudalheritage. in thiscase,expresses "relation a of Land-rent, the and if, production." Conversely, between landowner theproduct an with is itself, entrepreneur greatmeans of production inserted,

162

Pierre Vilar

therent thatthisentrepreneur to theowner, liketheinterpays just est thathe might to a capitalist moneyor goods provided, for pay would represent relationof distribution a of (distribution the surbetween The plus-value capitaland theentrepreneur). notionof"difin ferential rent" be involved thisdistribution. it suffices But might thattherebe absoluteownership land to createthepossibility of of "absoluterent." These instruments analysishave been sufficient Gilles of for to clarify ofthephenomenasurrounding "rentalPostel-Vinay many incomefrom land"whichhavebeen present Francesincethe the in seventeenth On century. the otherhand,GabrielDesertand MauriceLvy-Leboyer, abouttheproblems despitetheir deep knowledge of Normandy, because they lackedan adequate theory, havedrawn conclusions engagedin sterile and controversies. The contradictory notion of peasant economynowheresuffices characterize to the social relations involved withtheland. It is incapableof creating a cleardefinition thevarious of of from land. the types rental-income ON THE FAMILYAS A UNIT OF MANPOWER I have previously emphasized,withregardto the Catastro of thatthe Spaniardsof the eighteenth underlined Ensenada, century the between condition thedaylaborer, of the particularly difference and subjectto seasonal layoffs, thatof the young and migrating domesticworker raised and fed on the same ruralunit.The day laborer was considered permanent a socialdanger. future as His role an industrial could notbe foreseen. Domesticworkers, proletarian seemed to be a guaranteeof social stability. Classical, by contrast, traditional Marx based his chapterabout the primitive problems: accumulationof capital on the proletarianization, and expulsion, oftheEnglish Lenin made thesame procexpropriation yeomanry.

nov's school, insisting of upon the equilibrium the peasant cell, seems to be returning the hopes and fearsof the eighteenth to century. could not ignorethe factthatthe presumed Clearly, Chayanov of was in "equilibrium" peasantsociety beingthreatened right front of his eyesby markeddemographic He thentriedto pergrowth. suade himself a law of equilibrium that couldadapt thedimensions

ess the major theme of his Development Capitalism Russia. Chayain of

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

163

of it of thepeasantunitto thenumber workers has available.He exincrease in the standardof the hope that a progressive pressed in occurred France, wouldlead spontaneously which as to living, that It limit a voluntary on thesize of thepeasantfamily. is obviousthen a in whatmodel is preferred Chayanov: peasantrevolution the by in Malthusianism bothsensesof theword,social conFrenchstyle, modelbe validon thescale of the servatism. wouldtheFrench But, wouldask thesame question Russianor Asianpeasantry? Chayanov to that Ren Dumont(whenhe limitedhimself being a good obto thelargeAsianpopulations and, around1950,to server) applied lands of Murcia:if the rural family the cultivated growswithout will an the everything lead toward inevitaleaving unitofproduction, There would to ble hiddenslowdown, de factounderemployment. of no longerbe "self-exploitation"thefamily just group,but rather thatwouldbe excesthe opposite,a costof collective consumption to Wouldsuch a situation sivein proportion theworkcontributed. basis? be viableon a long-term thefollowing formula: Chayanovproposes Decreasingyieldsin to do thepeasanteconomy notper se causework stopas longas the and has necessities drudgery notbeen attained between equilibrium of of (1966: 6). Itis therecognition a limit imposedbythe"disutility levelof remulabor."Alfred Sauvyhas shownthatbelowa certain to consumeless and have nerationof full-time work, people prefer and do time.Underconsumption underemployment, morenonwork the definition "underdevelopment"? of The notconstitute very they to landswhichis helpful a for consequenceis: 1) migration foreign for timebut,on a long-term basis,supposesa loss of sustenance the to nationaleconomy; migration urban,industrial 2) underemploysuburbs(bidonvilles, mentin the overpopulated favelas,barriadas, covered Chayanov, the 3), etc.) and, finally an aspectextensively by workbysome members thepeasant of of outside, acceptance wage This lastpointdemonstrates inadequacyof therevenue the family. in the the within autonomous family group;it signifies, reality, end At of theautonomy thegroup. thesame time, assumestheexisof it or tenceof a wage sector(whether around agricultural industrial) a threat itsvery to thepeasanteconomy, existence. constituting All theseaspectsof thetransition from feudalism capitalism to havebeen extensively studiedin western Europebyour besthistorians and economists, althoughtheymay not have arrivedat any conclusions.(I am thinking, example,ofJean Meuvret.)The for

164

Pierre Vilar

same issues have also been debated about the "underdeveloped" unfortunationsof the twentieth withanyresults, century (rarely In Russia,they servedas thefocusof discussions and,later, nately). and his friends, decisions.Chayanov the basis of the revolutionary in and involved the controversies action,were who wereintimately thatthe cases we havejust prewitnessesto this.May we suggest sentedtesttheutility theconceptof "peasanteconomy"? of ON THE "PEASANT ECONOMY" IN RELATION TO FOREIGN TRADE of our We haveexpressed doubtsaboutthepossibility a "natural at of economy"or a trueautonomy the peasantreality eitherthe showswe are macro-or microlevel. Chayanov's practicalhandling concernedwiththe linen before 1917, he was particularly right: sectorof Russianagriculture. linen a very But, economy, important cannotbe eaten,so it had to be sold,and even exported.In 1916, of Chayanovwas giventhe responsibility assuringthe continuity, linen.He to thewar, theexportation theNorthofRussian of despite of of the was facedwith difficulties transport, nightmare Russian the in arrived of trade.Three-quarters thelinento be exported foreign an unusable form.Chayanovthencreateda large cooperativefor collection and sale of theproduct, very large by supported another by cooperative(Siberianbutter)and, finally, a largeinternational commercial firm. are farfromthe "noncommodity" We economy and evenfrom "simplecommodity production." of It is truethatChayanov of attributed capacity resistance the in Russian exportsof linen to the worldcrisisof overproduction the 1880-95 to thegreatelasticity production of costswithin family But,we knowthatBrazilandJapanalso handledvarious economy. commercial crises,to a greater by degreethanothercountries, selltheirproductsforless thantheirvalue, thatis, without taking ing intoaccounttheamount laborsuppliedbyan overexploited work of force. This is another of How characteristic underdevelopment. can in we believe thatsuch operationsmaybe understoodexclusively termsof a greater lesserdegreeof restriction family self-conor of To whose benefitwill the profits fromthe sumption? generated operationgo? No one tellsus.

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

165

Let us considera valid international comparisonforthe same and to 1914. In 1907-when Chayanovbegan writing yearsprior of vitithe formulated particularities thepeasanteconomyKosinski a culturein mynativeregion,Languedoc, wentthrough terrible far of of crisis mvente (lowering winepricesin themarket belowthe less cost,leaving thantheamountneeded forthefamily production crisis. to of a small viticulturist liveon). It was a typically capitalist of farmunitsthat the And nonetheless, largemajority viticultural weremade up of family statistical thisaffected mode) (their producfrom thatin Rusdifferent Thus we see a case completely tionunits. the within unit;thepeasant sia, fortherewas no self-consumption else. seemsto sold hiswineand boughteverything But thatin itself does of cell as signify wellthattheexistence a familial of manpower described theRussianagrononotimply theoretical the necessity by observedwas themodal Whatthey of mists theturn thecentury. at in formof agricultural (justas is smallorganization theircountry in scale viticulture mine).This does notmeanthatsuchan organizationis validas a model (and evenless as a mode ofproduction). ON "ADEQUACY" AND "INADEQUACY" AS NOTIONSTHE KEY TO "PEASANT ECONOMY" findthe idea thatan In the Chayanovian analyseswe regularly to economycan be judged frombeginning end by the notionsof as and inadequacy, experiencedand understoodby the adequacy I economic subjectsthemselves. findthe conceptveryinteresting have become to whatFrenchhistorians and necessary understand or accustomedto calling"economiesof theAncien Rgime" "ofthe revolutions the sevenof old style" (thatis, beforethetechnosocial in centuries western and teenth thenineteenth Europe).Butwe have about whenthe notionsof adequacy and inadeto be veryprecise in to quacy can be applied. They are somewhat contradiction anof othernotion:thatof the elasticity peasantfamily consumption Wheredoes elasticity the through ups and downsof the economy. end and inadequacy begin?Ifitis a questionofabsoluteinadequacy, we belowthephysiological minimum, knowthatit cannotbe either is People would die off.What is interesting global or continuous. are time thedifthatadequacyand inadequacy manifested: over 1) by

166

Pierre Vilar

is in ferentials harvests, which theproblemofperiodicfamine; in 2) thepeasantry. of social space,bytheinequality conditions among in DifferentialsHarvests I do notwantto spend muchtimeon thispoint.I havecovered in it sufficiently an articlewhichI dedicatedto myteacherErnest notionof old-style inventor the fundamental of crisis, Labrousse, ecoof thatis, the historical analysis the social (and not thepurely in oftheperiodicfallsin foodproduction the nomic)consequences economiesof olden times. predominantly agricultural about In thatarticleI arguedthatthemostcharacteristic thing theRussianagricultural declinebetween1900 and 1913 was not,as and European Russian between average the itseemed,thedifference per yields(forwheat,6.5 quintals hectarein Russia,13.5 in France, of but ratherin factthe severity the declinesre20 in Germany) corded fromone yearto the nextin the Russianyields.Whereas, fell after1902, no annual wheatyieldsin Germany more than4% the fromthe previousyear'sharvest, Russianwheatyieldsuffered declines of 8% from1909 to 1910 and 34.8% from1910 to 1911. Chayanov arguedthattheRussianpeasantdid notknowtheconcept of productivity (since each yearhe suppliedmoreor less the same amountof work), thathe was greatly but concernedwiththeyield, the whathe gotfrom land comparedto whathe gaveto it. It seems on to me thatthereasonforsuchattention thepartof theRussian in the threat facedbecause of the annual he peasant lay precisely in differential harvests. And we know thatthe phenomenonhas The of been persistent. famine 1891,in particular, caughttheattento tion of the agronomists. The famineof 1921 led Chetverikoff of phenomena. beginhis investigations cyclical in But Chayanovand his schoolwereless interested short-term models-which thanin statistical structural maybe cyclical dynamics circles. one ofthereasonsforhisrecent successin some intellectual if his peasant economywas reactingfundamentally However, (as it betweenadequacyand inadequacy, theyclaimed)to thecontrast could onlybe due more thananything to the periodicexperielse ence of bad yearsfollowing good years. Ifwe think of abouttheconsequences thehistory theRussian (in of the food crisesof 1921 and 1932,we maywonderif revolution) theinstruments analysis of by forged theLabrousseschoolaboutthe

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

167

useful thestudy this for not of crisis revolution old-style were more of of thanan extension theconcept peasant would for be economy oftheThird World. thestudy problems of
The Differential Social Analysis thePeasantry of

ruralsociety differentiated antproblem. Therearewithin socially from to have who,in thetransition feudalism capitalism, peasants classcomesfrom subordinawhich oftheir losttheoriginal unity that owedto thelord.The tionand theobligations every peasant it into when penetrates thepeasant mercantile economy economy, a the creates significant at itsvarious levels, hierarchy among peasthefamines. us not Let is which periodically by strengthened antry had delineated sucha hierarchy beenclearly in how, Spain, by forget in were Zbalain 1732and Craywinckel1764.The linesofdivision rich the of the between relatively peasant, located always seller some who the and ofhisproduct, poorpeasant is notself-sufficientis part the of thebuyer somepartof his subsistence finally, and, always the groups hassomething who to between two intermediate peasant lower and to sellingoodyears atconsiderably prices) much buy (but due to thescarcity grains). of in thebad years very (at prices high in notedby Meuvret seventeenth-century Another characteristic, at and France byLeninin Russia theendofthenineteenth century the strata thepeasantry of cashneedsdo notaffect highest wasthat is itself of level which regularly short as much thelowest as finding and theneedtopurchase seed. of as theresult usury, cash taxes, in the cell of Atthelevel thepoorpeasantry, peasant is disrupted incident deathofthehead themicroeconomyanysingle (illness, by the that accident- bad harvest is ofthefamily, The collective etc.). who is a buyer of for into translated hunger every poor person not but thestability of theentire peasantsociety destroys grainThe from strata. transition feudalof of rather a large part itslower it even ismtocapitalism, though doesnotautomatically reproduce doesestablish delineated Marx, a scheme theEnglish by everywhere the whether or between richpeasant, differentiation proprietor

or in ment Capitalism Russia.Thereisn't just onepeasantry onepeasof

I continue be struck, to whendiscussing problems the the of historical between the suchas analyses by peasantry, thesimilarity in of Labrousse us topractice thenotes Lenin 1893 and those taught in world TheDevelopon of or hischapters theevolution therural

168

Pierre Vilar

and leaseholder Russia,thekulak), themigrant (in peasant capitalist in in theold French the destined, the texts), Russianmujik (depoint in theworst, one worker bestofcases,to becomea proletarian and, in wouldone find of theidle unemployed thesuburbs. Where, then, the unityof the peasant or familialsociety?Such words have a motivated by positive ringto themthatare moreor less consciously ideologicalpreferences. understand howStalin, we It is because ofthisthat can perfectly on couldhaveassimilated Chayafirmly Lenin'stexts, basinghimself It nov's school to rightdeviationism. is obvious that the phrase in directed againstBukharin 1929 appliesequallyto them: and does Bukharin's mistake thathe does not understand is aboutthesocialgroups notacceptthissimplething, forgets he in the countryside, loses sightof the kulaksand the poor he mass of middle is peasants,and all thatremains one uniform peasants(1955: 48). are of the and Certainly spirit thewritings Chayanov too complex accusationfrom to keep sucha simplified unjust. beingprofoundly to Muchofit-itsflexibility, adaptability differing its circumstances, The seemsbrilliant. its discoveries both in practiceand in theory, werevery results factremainsthat, the degreethathis practical to fellintomany and his theoriesalwaysformal, scattered Chayanov contradictions: as 1) When he insisted, he oftendid, on the considerabledithe and of throughout imversity thesoil,climate, social conditions unified thebeautiful, mense Russianempire, actually he destroyed a concept of a peasant economycapable of offering model, for or eitherconservation construction. "cannot economictheory thatcapitalist Whenhe proclaimed 2) forms ecoof and should not be extendedto otherorganizational and an thatI, as a Marxist nomiclife"(1966: 24), he stateda truth like wouldpersonally to see systematically historian, accepted.But, forneverceased to reason,as a marginalist this,Chayanov despite It economics. is beand in terms an individualist subjective of malist, havepointedto himas theforeruncritics cause of thisthatcertain validforall sociohistorical ner of generalized economics, systems. nonmoneto invent incited Whenwarcommunism 3) Chayanov to economiccalculus-whichhe did withreference theisolated tary and stateofVon Thnen-he fellintoanother formalist structuralist

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

169

in revoluhad Bolshevik power beenoverthrown1934bya peasant in than inhabitants no town and has Moscow no more tion. 100,000 areas has morethan10,000.The arableland is the agricultural of cultivated peasant familike structured a checkerboard fields by butretaining into individual lies,grouped cooperatives, incentives, Thereare no longer breadfactories meat and (nor prices, wages. traditional but rather withtheirown songs, factories), villages A and costume. short distance in fairs, folk dances,crafts, away, there an idealcommunity is which visited, Arkhangelskoe, Kremnev In other international ofthetype countries, by imagined Kropotkin. as of hasexploded a result centrifugal forces. GerThe communism state continues communism the that the of of many 1984is theonly the of thegreat of factories the1920's, normal heritage capitalist has in But becauseitwas enterprise. thesamesystem failed Russia nation. Thusthethemes revisionism, of upona peasant imposed eventheosophy all anarchistic are communitarianism, populism, in fiction. proves theagronomist It how joinedtogether Chayanov's in beenenclosed a peasant ofgoodwill, oscillates beworld, having as two are tween contradictory as unrealistic they unrevolupoles and On one side,puretheory, on theother, tionary. Utopia. our within history the However, taskis notto situate Chayanov It revolution. involves rather of the socialist ourselves the asking

Alexisto theLand ofPeasantUtopiais set in Moscow in 1984. The

certain recent of which, anticipating although concepts temptation its vision the of turned backonceagainon thehistorical geography, and economy theworld. cametopresent problem theoptimal the of 4) Thus,Chayanov units of dimensions thelargeagricultural and of thefuture giant terms. example theAmerican The of in farms sovkhoz purely spatial of around1928,many his early statements lead himto abandon, As does about thelogicof thepeasanteconomy. Ren Dumont the between hopesofcapitalist endedbyoscillating Chayanov today, about"this world that we and sentimental nostalgia productivism in havelost," Laslett's language. in unbecamemoreexplicit Thisdoubt when, 1920,Chayanov, of of thebrutality thetaxcollections warcommudoubtedly by upset fiction novel theSoviet that authorities a wrote political nism, agreed constitute a cautious butwhich would topublish later, (with preface) him case against at histrial. Published the in all probability, major of the underthepseudonym IvanKremnev, Journey MyBrother of

170

Vilar Pierre

for of questionwhether thehistorical problems thepast and forthe ofthepeasantmassesundergoing transforcontemporary problems of mationin thecrucible precapitalist remnants, capitalimperialist theit ism,and socialistexperiments, is usefulto adopt Chayanov's that as Thorner to applythem, oretical proposed thinking concepts a of theywould offer betterinstrument analysisthan the Marxist if did that Thorner (I conceptofmode ofproduction. wouldobserve not seem to condemn the instruments forgedby cyclicalhistory, of to then he at least forgot includethemin his study the peasant economy.) Let us examinethe table offered Chayanovto characterize by does notobeyitslaws.The whenfacing that, capitalism, everything termmode of productiondoes not figurein the table. But the slave economyand Commueconomic systems includefeudalism, as nism and in the categories presented economic,thereis a catefor force for necessary themainteby gory regulation noneconomic and itis of Thereis no category pureeconomy nance of thesystem. at that arelooking modelscloserto theglobalconceptof we possible mode ofproduction economic-legal-political-ideological whole) (an fromthispointof than Thornerseemed to think. Unfortunately, view,the tableis nothomogenous. of an to It is interesting see Chayanov attempt economicanalysis of about?The slavery is whattypeof slavery he talking But, slavery. beforetheCivilWar? Colonialslavery? American slavery Antiquity? the in thelatter sincenothing thetable,aside from costof Probably the slaves,seems to distinguish slave economyfromthe capitalist controversies of How couldwe notfailto think therecent economy. and the"NewEconomicHistory") Genobetween Fogel(1974) (and lead us veryfar vese (1974)? Such a comparisonwould,however, from our theme. away an in More important pinpointing ideologyis the opposition and on betweenthetwoextremes thetable:capitalism Communism muchthesameas itwas presented is presented as system. Capitalism all pressurehas disappeared, earlyin thiscentury: extraeconomic interest to thestockholdis reducedto themodest paid surplus-value soil incomewhichis a resultof varying ers and to the differential do of The fertility. profits the enterprise not appear in the table; and reproduction the means of production of (thatis, production as a technological of theaccumulation capital)is described process the the and neither originof capitalnorwho appropriates capital

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

171

i li ' + +
i ir
^ S

!,

' "' +' ' "' +

+. + + + +. +

I " * .s r 1 1 I '* *tu

05 d Jj C c/58 + o w >*3 + <

>

+.

+.

++..

+.

fii Hfl

iH H 1

1 tlllriif US. 111! s

us

II _

MittyiiiiHJiin

172

Pierre Vilar

is thusaccumulated specified: guarantee the sysby given thestate Conatalllevels notdefined coercion. is as tem private to ownership of which presented devoid anymeris as the versely, Communism in be as element only Communism itis imagined itslast can cantile and theproduction reproAt ofitsevolution. that only stage, stage and ductionof themeansof production remains, it is arranged defined of to plan.But,Communism according thenorms thestate in thiswayon thisin his last pamStalininsisted emphatically assumethetotal elimination mercantile of processes phlet-would of rationalization and and bothin agriculture in industry thetotal in where administration the economic calculation a classless society the havereplaced governmentthepeople.In of ofthings really will it. ceasetocharacterize By coercion would this case,extraeconomic theone a transitional and socialism Communism, phase confusing includes of a andtheother model thedistant future, only Chayanov in Presented under concept the Communism. and planning coercion indicates contrast the thismanner, capitalism-Communism clearly in Itis theone wecanfind every tendency. Chayanov's ideological of statesmen. political speech Western and and On theother hand,between capitalism Communism we ofslavery, do not thecurrently unimportant problem eliminating existed findin Chayanov's tableanyindication there that (andstill caste hierarchical forms society, of tribal realities, exists) primitive remnants pastoral peasant of or communities. it and No, stagnation, forms family of is all reduced subtle to distinctions between various is feudal and The system subdieconomy thefeudal system. term as and videdinto economy ifthereality economy peasant seigniorial combination the of thefeudalsystem werenotprecisely organic Besides the over tenants. land and domain between tenancy eminent serfs an basedon exploiting thefeudal we economy, find economy of Itiscertain a serfdom this that deexacciones serviles). (economia type the indicates final of was obrok) stage (Chayanov thinking theRussian this between difference The of declineof thefeudal system. only to rent andfamily is thefact thefeudal appears that economy system it and be imposed upontheindividual notupontheland.In reality, on was from rent thetransition feudal (which imposed represented comes which absolute bothman and theland) to capitalist rent, of from fact the thattheproprietor total has disposition theland The nottotal hademinent domain, (theseignior disposition). having andnot table, only yes categorizing with andno (+ or-),structuralist

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

1 73

of is the of is dialectical,incapable characterizing nature what changwhat evolving. is ing, If we concern ourselves withconcrete cases of transition, we feudalism being is find that or that always by destroyed capitalism, if well has (even itis fairly developed) notyet capitalism relinquished all traces feudalism primitivisms of orslavery). give name To the (or toan intermediate autonomous stable and economy peasant system doesnotseemtometobe useful rather but What quitedangerous. matters thecombination relations is of between menand goods or whether meansofproduction the (absolute limited ownership, are commercialized not)with or relations between menand men lordsand serfs, and slaves, and workers, (owners etc.). employers The purpose assuming of between feudalism capitalism, and that, there a peasantry is feudal exactions wellas as capableofescaping thelawofthemarket of concentration, (selection, expropriationthe whenin reality transition the causesboththreats weigh to weak)in opinion, from the derives, my heavily uponthepoorpeasantryin clash themind theagronomist of between organizational his and desires theone handand his sympathy the on for technological on Feudalism ended; has has peasant oflife theother. way capitalism butvery and through somecruelselecbegundevelopment, slowly is or the tions;therevolution disappointing frightening; peasant is remains. (or Utopia thekindred ecological Utopia) all that CHAYANOVIAN TEMPTATIONS HISTORY, IN AND POLITICS SOCIOLOGY, In thelight my of rapidsketch,shallcallChayanovian I temptations oscillations many the of historians sociologists and between the topeasant inthedescription explanaand preference granted reality tionofpastsocieties theexcessive and reduction theexcessive or isolation reserved thesamepeasant for in reality present socieday ties.Chayanov's account notso longago,unusual. is becomIt was, Its is the ingincreasingly frequent today. characteristic convergence ofinterpretations.
Daniel Thorner's Arguments

editorand introducer the selected of OnlyDaniel Thorner, works Chayanov English of in has consciously assumed the (1966),

174

Pierre Vilar

heritageof the Russianschool. And he did so in the name of the of historians with themas hisaudience.His arguments 1962-64 and had a momentarily echo (FernandBraudel reproduced important in Thorner's "Peasant Economy, ConceptforEconomicHistory" the The of Italianselection articles Annales). authordid nothavetime of to pursuehis offensive conceptof the mode of againsttheMarxist I I that, despitetherespect haveforhismemory, production. confess do Thorner'sarguments notconvinceme. the for criterion characterizing peasanteconomy 1) His primary of of was thepredominance theruralpopulation, theactiveagriculin turalwork and ofagricultural force, production thecomposition of thenationalproduct. But,forThorneras in thecase of elections in meansover50 peror stockholding a corporation, predominance in marker socioeconomic cent.This is a game rule,nota significant It analysis. seems to me thatmodernsocietiesare not transformed modeluntil agricultural the intothedevelopedindustrial population has fallento less than20% of the totalactivepopulation.Then yes as theagricultural sectorcan be treated anyothereconomicsector. But beforethat(from50% to 20%), French, Spanish,Russian,etc. of societies had to continue takeintoaccountthespecificities the to socisector without beingable to call them"peasant our agricultural eties"becauseofthat. The breakpoint 50% (and ruralpopulation, of activeagricultural and agricultural productare three population, arrived a mechanical distinct is criterion, obviously very categories) at without muchthought. of secondcriterion theexistence citiescontaining is Thorner's 2) at least 5% of the totalpopulation.Anothermechanicalcriterion. Is in of Whatis the significance the city a peasanteconomy? it the of two classicopposition between types people,between types two of life?The view proposed by Thorner probablyrefersmore than to anything theadmirablearticlebyJulioCaro Baroja in Mediterranean Countrymen (1963). But thisarticleis about the psychological of and literary reflection born of the country-city antinomy, the oftheclichs handeddown(as in thecase ofthe"national continuity also studied by Caro Baroja). A theme of this kind stereotypes" level seems to fitperfectly the study the superstructural of of into the foran economichistory, codistinct modes of production. But, existenceof the country and the cityhas a more concretesignifiand molds it to its cance: the citycannotlivewithout country the while servicein complex wheatfrom Barcelonaimports Sicily ways.

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

1 75

of the countryside Tarragonaexportsitswheat.We are all familiar of withthe history moderntimesto discarda theorization enough of thatwouldreplacethecomplexities thosefacts witha simplified sectorof societiesin transition. of definition themajority of The criterion the state.Thornerwould like to eliminate 3) and tribalsocieties, even the earlyfeudalism primitive, segmentai, from peasantsociety the withparcellized politicalpower, category. I wonder if peasant societiesare not perhaps only those whose was socialclassesand political commondenominator that was power The mostsolid part of Chayanov's located in rural surroundings. an in to in concepts, anycase,was theeffort discover originality the betweenfeudalism capitalism: I don'tknowif and but social reality we coulddefinein thesame mannerall thecases Thornerenumerated under the name of peasanteconomies: Japan (without taking intoaccounttheworkof Takahashi),postcolonialIndonesia(what happened to specializedplantations?), pre-and postrevolutionary Mexico, and China whereit is recognizedthatcertainland rentals between50 and 60% of the grossproduct(in thiscase, represent of howcouldwe speak of theautonomy theunitof production?). There is stillIndia, whichThornerstudiedin particular. But, whathas happenedto India?Listento sincethetimeofhis studies, in "The Green the American,Clifton Wharton, his articleentitled or Pandora'sBox?" Revolution, Cornucopia ratesin thediffusion the new techof of As a result different the will In it nology, richerfarmers become richer. fact, may be possible that the more progressive farmers will capture served thesmaller foodmarkets semi-subsistence previously by In of producer. India,only20 percent thetotalarea plantedto of wheatin 1967-68 consisted thenewdwarf but wheats, they of 34 contributed percent thetotalproduction. Such a develin couldwelllead to a netreduction theincomeofthe opment farmers. This raises smaller,poorer and less venturesome If massiveproblemsof welfare and equity. onlya small fraction of the ruralpopulationmovesintothe moderncentury while the bulk remainsbehind,or perhapseven goes backwill ward,thesituation be highly (1969: 467-68). explosive Because it is thisverythingthathappenedwiththe old style crisis in downturn the 1970's. of (food shortage) thecyclical

176

Pierre Vilar

I aminperfect that with such agreement Thorner expressions as of or are subsistence semifeudal economy average society bastard to observethe articulation the twosuccessive of But, concepts. in modesof production, of is especially times crisis, undoubtedly moreoperational of theterm, thanthesimple adoption peasant The between rich, economy. distinction poorand middle peasants wasfundamental Mao'stactics strategy. historical to For obserand terms. At we willprobably needslightly morecomplicated vation, of the crossroads thetwomodesof production, whennewtechand socialconditions established thesametime, at we are niques haveto ask ourselves: Who is in charge thesenewtechniques? of its Whowill richer? will poorer? Who get then Capitalism reveals get truenature: willcall therichpeasant, it meansof with provided and to holdofthenewones,an enlightproduction prepared take enedman, entrepreneur a manager). result, an The however, (even will theelimination, pauperization, proletarianization be of the the themasses. order appropriatetechnique, needsalready In to one a tohavemeansat one'sdisposition. hadposedthis Chayanov problemwith these to I with not regard therisks. have beenabletoagree dreamed studies I regret becauseI havefrequently and it, particular ofa great andworldwide, individual collective, and effort, regional, that wouldbe called"Risks Modesof Production" would and and extend from Asianand Incaneconomies, thehydraulic the comto in Valencia, thegreatcapitalist colonialpublicor to and munity and This achievements. fundamental works, to thesocialist private theme wouldhelpin thestudy peasant the of without economies, notionof peasanteconomy general in beingable to do muchto it. clarify
On France: and Historians Sociologists France, Studying a "Peasant Nation"

The French case attracts baffles theorists peasant and the of Thereis no moreclassic of thepeasant economy. family example that works landandfrequently it.Butthere no country the owns is that more has realized bourgeois its and revolution, hasmore clearly followed on thecapitalist road.However, quickly officially, England France notcease,throughout nineteenth did the anda good century to nation of partofthetwentieth, singthepraises thepeasant par in thewritings bothconservative and of excellence, this agrarians

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

1 77

as the Itis of reformers. natural wellthat existence such andradical rural and of that stratum self-sufficient workers proprietors a large haveincited bad humor the of rich were"neither norpoor"should and of He therevolutionary proletariat thesarcasm Marxhimself. as weknow, thesuccesses for heldtheFrench responsible, peasantry did the to Not ofLouisNapoleon. only he notconsider peasantry be "a Closerto but a true socialclass, he calledthem sackofpotatoes." with was manifested, the same irritation the French us, peasant the of extreme theideological attheother gamut: admirers logically, accused suchas Maurice of rapidcapitalist Lvy-Leboyer, growth, a of created ofthepeasantrymass out Revolution having theFrench The or were satisfied ofmodest, proprietors entrepreneurs. peasants of savof but inthereality themarket, incapable large-scale experts Malthusian because and and demographically ings investment, were children. oftheir to the wish avoid proletarianization oftheir strong of It was becauseof thisthattheFrench economy the capitalist Located remained backward. half second ofthenineteenth century but modeland thelate, the between precocious somewhere English defian France constituted economically Prussian model, powerful, to stablebecauseof its slowness cientmodelbut it was socially to so of the effectuate necessary liquidation thepeasantry beneficial dreams thesame of one More revolution. than country theindustrial in haveseenthis Chayanov's case). (we stability But debatable. becauseofits and All this well-known scarcely is and it has givenrise to some theoretical character, exceptional ifnotexactly are related to historical that, identical, temptations to a Is and positions. itnecessary give nameto Chayanov's Thorner's ifnotall ofFrench which of that sector theFrench societysocietyin bondsbutonly feudal liberated 1789from waslegally marginally andyet resisted spirit? its It in involved capitalist rarely production is curiousto notethatsome Marxists do not say"Marxism"), (I Brumaire Louis of basedon fragments Marx'sThe18th of unwisely mode such have usedexpressions as the"smallholding of Bonaparte, France. to nineteenth-century Itseemstome production" describe from is this that use ofmodeofproduction a dangerous departure idea thefundamental as it was developed Marxin his mature by a is Mode of production notmerely wayofproducing work. (and It at evenless a wayofexchanging). comprises, one and thesame of a of a level, system juridical time, technological complex a certain to and socialrelations, linked therequirements this of technology,

178

Pierre Vilar

and a setofinstitutions ideologicalconvictions and thatensurethe of thesystem. generalfunctioning The massive in of of presence thepeasantreality theRevolution 1789 mustnotlead us to ignorethebasicfact was the aboutit,which and institutional ofthefeudalmode ofproduction, legal liquidation thathad alreadybeen quite transformed of before1789 as a result the underlying economicevolution, and thelegal and institutional order. The construction forthematuring thebourgeois of necessary to role a prominent of thepeasantry- richpeasantry wishing obtain thefreedom sell(bothproduceand land),and thepoor peasantry, to rebellious because ofthelackofdaily sustenanceimposedupon the for a of top-down bourgeoisrevolution minimum concessions both ofpeasants, was making thefactthatthefirst groups despite group demandsin thesame direction thebourgeoisie thesecond in and as theoppositedirection. it Therefore, has been possibleforinterpretationsto varyaccordingto theindividual of preferences historians. Immersedin theirown history, such as PorchSoviethistorians nevand Abo saythat haveinsufficiently we emphasizedthepeasant character theFrench of call whichthey themostimporRevolution, tant peasant revolution history. in But ErnestLabrousse (1944), the of a senseofhistory, with greater studying origins theRevolution distinguishedthree kinds of aspiration: the upper bourgeoisie wanted the power;themiddleclasses(including well-to-do peasants) wantedmore freedom; and the poor wantedfood,protection, and themaintenance theold,customary of Thereweremany guarantees. contradictions the within very heartof theRevolution. insisted (1979) likewise GeorgesLefebvre upon the"quasiownercharacter a good partofthetenancies of before1789,but also ship" the miseriesof the peasant masses. A scholarlike Gustave upon a and agronomist made a study landowner, (an Festy, highofficial excellentone) of agriculture the timeof the Revolution at and became angry whenhe sawpoor peasantssendinga marchioness who was a supporter Enlightened of to theguillotine. agronomy Again, the contradiction betweeninterests technological in progressand thewishforsocial equality. AntoinePelletier, because he began studying Babeuf,is deepenthehistorical of theold notionof commongood which ing analysis was widespreadamongthepoor peasantsin theAncien He Rgime. would like to establishthe peasantcommunity thatexistedbefore the individualist societyin anothermode of production.Albert

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

1 79

collection articles of about thepeasant Soboul (1976), in his recent came out againstthisabuse of of the FrenchRevolution, aspects The truth thatthe notionof is I vocabulary. believehe was right. into commongood has to be systematically reintegrated a coherent thatmakesup the feudalmode of production (and very complex modes of production).Capprobablythat of other precapitalist the for timein history, senseofcommunity, italism destroys, thefirst to theindividual hisownresort, responsibility assuming abandoning We amidsteconomiccompetition. knowthatthe Russianpopulists And it wantedto retain(or revive)thepeasantcommunalrealities. in been emphasized, thecase oftheAsianrevolutions, has frequently to in howmuchthetransition socialismcan be facilitated thecounownerifthepeasanthas notknownthestageof individual tryside exchange. shipand monetary and After French the Revolution, thesuccessof thesale of biens seized fromthe churchand migres aucand nationaux [property did tionedoffto thehighest bidder](thatis,ofredemption), a peaswerepeasantFrances. antFranceanylongerexist? No, whatexisted with as to FromtheBasque country Brittany, sharecropping a social western Francedid not at the summit, base and religious pressure In France,or in the entirely stop being feudalin spirit. northern and tenant a trueentrepreneur, in was ParisianBasin,thecapitalist in cattle-raising sale in market the of for he Normandy specialized capital. in aboutviticulture Languedoc. It said something I havealready and largecommercialized is a true agricultural industry, entirely in the hands of family scale, and yet,despiteeverything, primarily outside help. units of production, using theirown labor without in of study thisambiguRmyPech (1975) has concluded, a recent his who ous case, thatthesmallviticulturist, ownsand works land, in in hisfamily) thesense that, mostcases and himself (and exploits his formostyears, grossincomeis less thanthe averagewages he a would have paid had he employed waged labor force,of course no the into without taking account factthathe received land rentor We have This leads us back to Chayanov. profit. entrepreneurial on is no self-consumption theunit the underlined differences (there describedis not an unof production).In addition,the situation The sales the laws of the market. one. Viticulture obeys changing These muchlessthanthevalueproduced. be pricemaymomentarily But crisesof overproduction. the opposite are typically capitalist

180

PierreVilar

situation also existed. has The viticulture Languedoc has known of wars). yearsof superprofits (particularly during France the country petty of France, Smallholding producerstheseare,to be sure,formulas express that whatwas thesocialmode in ofworking soil (thatis, themethodthatwas numerically the the but not at all whatwas the economicmode, since large majority), in evengiantlandowners landowners, (particularly the case of vitisold on the mostimportant of theharvests culture)produced part the market.Consequently, there is also in France a proletariat in is in recurrent (whoseorigin migration) theserviceofagriculture of and who constitute loweststratum, worst the the paid, in terms therangeof incomein France. I have citedwithpleasure,on variousoccasions,a naivespeech deliveredin 1903 in Bziers,at the founding meetingof a farm as of workers'syndicate, testimony the growthof consciousness of of thisvery articulation twomodesofproduction. (albeitbelated) ... It would not be a bad idea, as I see it, to be somewhat concerned aboutthelot of thispoor martyr call the "cultiwe of vator" or "worker the land," since, comrades,you and I have been watering thisland withour sweat,thisland that us feedsthecapitalists whotreat likeslaves, as in thetime just it of thefeudallords.Because today is notonlythenobleswho wantthepoor to remainpoor,but I dare saythatwe also see, who to our greatdispleasure, and republicans evensocialists, conare in powerand who,when it suitsthem,shamelessly of tinue to be the enemyof the poor worker the land. Yes, and those who preach fraternity equalityto us give us the an and offer exampleof howin factsuchwordsare practiced to theenemiesoftheworker. itseemsto me that For, example when an ownerwho has radical-socialist opinions giveshis the a two workers francs dayand denies themwineafter first of ofAugust, thenoblesand opportunists thecountry as did, and like deserveto be treated capitalists enemiesof thenthey of the fatherland the "people of theland" (patrie"terrienne") without This can be seen to be thecase of all richrepublicans exception wherethe public schools of the Third ReThus, in a country truth thatthe FrenchRevoas were teaching a self-evident public the and installedequality, agricullutionhad extendedownership

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

181

in was analyzing a naivelanguagethe replacement of turalworker stillexisted. feudalexploitation capitalist by exploitation. Seigniors The nobles continuedto be nostalgicforthe Ancien But, Rgime. thenobleswere used a different politicalvocabulary, they although fromthe rich,or the capitalists even if the hardlydistinguishable for wereno less harshas ownersfacing latter wererepublicans, they Let the wage-workers. us observethatthewordbourgeoisdoes not indicatedthatthe patrie"terrienne" appear and thattheexpression, of the speakerreflects sentimentality thepeasantmorethanof the Theredoes existin facta peasantwayoflifewhichincludes worker. and theagricultural worker. farmer both the gentleman But,as an thereis no such thingas a peasant of instrument social analysis, mode of production (nor is therea peasanteconomy)in whichthe of feudalcharacteristic capitalism, and distinctions class struggles woulddisappearin thetransition. or theircombinations ism, not I willsaynothing, evenforcomparative purposes,about the in addressed thiscolloquiumand everycase ofSpain.Itwas already to out one here knowsit betterthanI. I willlimitmyself pointing how useless itwouldbe to speak of a singleSpanishagrarianproband is lemwhenthere an Andalusian latifundio a Galicianminifundio, Castilianwheatproand Catalonianviticulture, 2lValencianhuerta I hamlets. knowwe talkof a Spanductionand Basque polycultural of but ishpeasantry, itis a figure speech.There is no Spanishpeasant economy.The onlypointI have wantedto make clear in this fromusing concepts is conference thatwe should keep ourselves is whenhistory complexity. thatsimplify A Mexican Studies Peasants: Lookat Recent LatinAmerican contacts withLatinAmeriI In thelastfew years, havehad many from variouscountries. and can researchers Americanists Colloquia and on and congresses thetopicofagrarian problems peasantshave But documentation. it increasedand haveproducedmuchbrilliant to has proveddifficult use it forobvious reasons.Up to a certain of aroundthe theme:massivemajorities peasthereis unity point, of a ants,hardly beginning industrialization, consequencesof preof limitations evolution foreign colonial and feudalstructures, by to of and peasant populations the imperialists, theinflux overflowing of sceneis suburbs. monstrous But,thediversity theLatinAmerican no less evident:the Andes are not the pampas, the Amazonian

182

Pierre Vilar

in jungle has nothing commonwiththe Mexicanhighplateau;the colonialplantation, Mexican the haciendais nottheexport-oriented the Colonizadoes notresemble Andean pastoralcommunity. ejido and reforms, revolutions tion,independence, immigration, agrarian all havenothad thesame results overthecontinent. be as How thencan theLatinAmerican peasantreality discussed That was the case in the Paris a singlewhole?Withmonographs? of in 1965; thejuxtaposition detailswas overwhelming. colloquium That was whatthe in By specializing one theme,in one problem? wantedto do at theCongressof on Commission Social Movements Historical Sciencesin Moscowin 1970whenstudying peasantmovearound the world.But thismeant mentsof the past two centuries were whosecharacteristics the consequencesof structures studying morethan couldbe nothing The conclusions wellknown. notalways Hence thefinalstatement J. Droz: a disturbing by vagueness. the Evenwhenhe is harshly exploited, smallpeasantis capable for a whichfurnishes solid foundation of a prolongedeffort form modernsubversion. of an thearmedguerilla, essential and seventeenth of Have the peasant frenzies the fourteenth I been so modernized? have mydoubts.Here is another centuries inby diagnosis made about the Mexican peasantry Jean Meyer, a mystical residencewiththe cristeros his lengthy (1977), spiredby as We deviation thepeasantmovement. findinitially, withChayaof the between peasantnotionof adequacyand the nov,an opposition notionof calculation. capitalist in For threecenturies Mexico,therehave been twoprojects: in thatof thepeasantwhich theend is noteconomic,and that whichis. of the "agricultural developer" as Whatthemiddleclasseshavecondemned, Meyer it, interprets as a type is the whenconsidering economicproject, notthepeasant as of person,but thepeasantcondition a wayoflife. . urbanization . . haveto resolvethepeasant Industrialization, had to solvethe as theliberalsunderstood they just problem
to Indian problem: kill thepeasant in order maketheman live.

Betweenthatand thepeasantUtopiathereare onlya fewsteps:

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

183

not itself vain, in In order that have to history repeat peasants is notexcluwhom collaborate peoplefor with development in with Western defined theindustrial, mould, sively people in a whoare capableofrecognizing thepeasantrypersonality their bold and desperate to resistance and aspirations which attests. movements be The peasant of of would, then, more a defense a an inadequate oflifethana protest standard living. of way against not Butwhy bothofthem? like that aboutis theCongress One lastmeeting I would totalk in on of Americanists Mexicoin 1974.Therewas a symposium in America which hadthe(undeover I ModesofProduction Latin The was honor presiding. symposium attended all the of served) by Marxists thecontinent. tension of The between session that young rather thenature well sessions revealed of and theother congress theuse bysociologists theinstinctive prejudices against ideological of andhistorians theconcept modeofproduction. of to the I hasten addthat such doesnotsuffice resolve issues use to was raisedand thatthesymposium nota modelof problematic of of me conscious somedangers But clarity. itdidallow tobecome in inherent somevocabularies: confusion and of has 1) Yesthenotion modeofproduction beenextended the modeofcolonial becamewidespread. However, terms producmode even usedbymy and tion pre-Colombian ofproduction, when are of bestfriends, notthehappiest innovations. modeofproduction considered is as Ifthedominant 2) (rightly) itrunstherisk isolating of a single trait of determinant, excessively Frank in We that Gunder considers a system transition. know Andre becausethe since1924 as capitalist the Spanishcolonialsociety from beginning theinterests large the in of were colonies exploited is if Sucha declaration absurd theentire international commerce. A is recent of analyzed. more phenomenon theConquistahistorically on tries develop, to hand, essay Marcello by Carmagnani, theother modelofLatin AmerithelinesofWitold Kula,an economic along socialrelations with affected theinitial canfeudalism itsinternal by but of feudalism theSpaniards, whose was, surplus product inlarge for the destined Europe where necessary accumulaprimitive part, is of was but tion capitalism taking place.The essay quite interesting I fearthathe generalizes muchon thebasisof somelocal or too

184

Vilar Pierre

and regional models thatwere limitedin time (the seventeenth centuries). eighteenth 3) I also don't likewhatI call "theoretical manypages vertigo," or or devotedsolelyto abstract verbalconsiderations to arguments I and noton data. Despitethis, based on citations however, remain and said to committed whatI already previously abouttheempirical is historians: excessivetheoretical preoccupation by far positivist to lack of interest. preferable and conThe best balance betweentheoretical preoccupations crete applicationsis to be found,and admirably pursued,in the worksof scholarslikeEnriqueSemo (publishedand unpublished) as and society, wellas and RogerBartra abouttheMexicaneconomy in their journal,Historia Sociedad. y studies Semo on the I single one out,forexample, ofthelatest by Semo Mexicanhacienda in its stageof declinein the last century. ideas and constant received with prejstruggles, good reason, against the imageof the haciendawhich udices and, in particular, against on has been drawnforso long byliberalcapitalism the one hand and bydemocratic Theyconsideritan ilpropagandaon theother. thata social Semo demonstrates antieconomic enterprise. logical, the labor forceis not of a exploitation disequilibrium, ferocious for or nonproductive thosewho secureadvannecessarily illogical mainin The hacienda was a system itself, tage fromthe system. in tainedbythesocialclassthatsecuredadvantage it,withcoercions One does nothave and bothextraeconomic economic. ofevery kind, forthehaciendais notisolated to speakofa "modeofproduction," Semo demonof realities thenineteenth from capitalist the century. the of error making haciendaintoa strates thesame timeFrank's at and enterprise the errorof Tannebaum,for pure typeof capitalist unit whomtheMexicanhaciendais a quasiautonomous oflaborand to thecontrary, analyzethehacienda on Semo strives, consumption. Not dualist,not of as a typeof articulation, organiccombination. stablefora moment but a localizedelement, semi-feudal, relatively withcapitalist feudalheritage of the evolution, appeal. combining He justifiesCarmagnani'smodel up to a certainpoint,but at the overtime. in same timeshowsitslimits space and itsextensions to RogerBartra'sstudiesare equallyhelpful appreciatethe imand of notions transition articulation (and letus add mediaportant Bartraplaces and economicrealities political tionbetween systems). here thatI have criticized at himself the crossroadsof tendencies

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

185

and in waysthatseemquitenewto me. He publishedand presented Chayanovin Spanish.He uses the conceptof a simplecommodity the place in the mode of productionand he cites Kula tojustify thatare perhapsparticuof framework generaleconomics problems I lar to one mode of production. have discussedthesepointswith him. observations. bases all ofhiscalculations direct on He ButBartra and does not rejectthe theoretical does so usingMarxist concepts himself whatthepeasantis naturally ofcalculating incapapossibility the of ble ofcalculating: distribution his produceamongvalidcatewhole,whichis nothowever peasantbut goriesof a socioeconomic He the rather capitalist. so perfectly perceives dangerthat precisely in and an oscillationbetweentechnocracy populismpresents, the the termof thathe has proposed applying mannerof Chayanov, technocraticpopulism to certain tendenciesof recentMexican whathe intends criticize. knows to He reformism whichis precisely have respondedto of how the defenders Mexicanagrarianreform thatwas advised by Dumontfromafarnot with the productivism but economicarguments withsocio-political arguments: of we Among the functions landed property, have to include faith and of functions a politicalnature;we have to maintain of hope among the peasantsin orderto avoid outbursts unrest Bartraderivesfromthisa historical (not a defense)of a theory distinct from boththeEnglishand the Mexicanroad to capitalism, of Diaz- theevoluroads.Begunundertheregime Porfirio Prussian it tion of the hacienda into an capitalistenterprise- imposed so muchviolenceon thepeasantsthatthey participated unexpectedly, it in theRevolution 1910,However, was onlyin 1930 of desperately, undertheguiseofdistribution theejidos of thatthegovernments, (a triedto associatethepeasof limitedform smallholding property), revolution. DemocraticCaesarantmasseswiththeinstitutionalized it.Bartracompares(he does notassimilate) called ism,some critics of utilization thepeasantry with cases of the thiscase of thepolitical Marxand Gramsci. This mediation Caesarism by analyzed European realities thepolitical and realities be will between socioeconomic the the themeof thenextgreatworkof Bartra. in Sociales Meanwhile, hissmallbookLas Clases (studied Mejicanas fromthe point of view of agrarianstructures), createsa thohe

186

Vilar Pierre

detailedclassification all the peasantstrata. of And, both roughly relations with withregardto theirinternal relations wellas their as formutheurbanand industrial he proposessome clarifying worlds, will las (or thatcan becomeso via thevery to discussions which they accumulation, paunon-proletarian primitive giverise):permanent of degreethan perization, underemployment peasantsto a greater reserve can be explainedbytheneed foran industrial Thus, army. whichis buta parhe proposesa theorization underdevelopment of made difficult to ticularformof the transition capitalism, through endowedwithfar the existence and pressure outsidecapitalisms of of means.Sucha definition the and superior technological financial similar in roleof thepeasantry transition (but poses some problems was concernednot identical)to those withwhichChayanov paras thoseoftheagronomist technocrat, reformer, economist, ticularly to and revolutionary he is trying be one). (if I I rememberthe difference discoveredbetweentwo tripsto in a not Peru(1968, 1974). I observed, without certain astonishment, of of theinterval influx millions Andean Indiansto Lima. There an as too, theyhad launchedan agrarianreform a wayof calmingthe haciendaswereputat thedisposalofpeasantcooperawaters. Large whenasked by a how the head of one of them, tives.I remember How are yougoingto manage business! "Whata magnificent visitor, "And ifyouwereput intoApollo VII, howwouldyou it?"answered: the humorsignifies very peasantlike manageit?"I do notbelievethis of of exigencies thecentury, resignation a classto thetechnological facedby the before open abyss an itdoes signify ironic but objection of so many peasantmassesas theresult theproductivist unemployed of ambitionsof the leading agricultural Agronomists enterprises. ones in Peru) believe admirable good will(I haveknownsome truly to have been naturally But,we designated preparethefuture. they and Dumont,theirtechnohave seen how,in the case of Chayanov education classical of the capitalist logicalcertitudes, prejudices their aboutthepeasantand hiswayof sentiments and their in economics, Who is goingto reconcilethe ecological or life soon intermingle. or nostalgicdreamwiththemodel of thelargeAmericanfarm the Sovkhoz?

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

187

in For Our Countries theNear Future:Problems theMarket of and theEnd ofthePeasantry?

I was reflecting thethemeofthisconference on whentworecent One cametomyattention. was aboutthedemonstrations newsitems in the streets Leon, denouncing congestion the potential of the in markets Spanishagricultural for This type unrest of wasn't products. But bornyesterday. ithas been a long timesinceSpain fearedevery Now, it seems thatSpanish year the inadequacyof the harvests. in all sectors, definitively has the agriculture, passed from old style unrestto the modern typeunrest,a transition magnificently so the Spanish Marxist, Vera: fromthe absolute Jaime expressedby inadequacyof the product,to the relative waysof proceedingof I merchandise. do notknowa moreprecisedefinition theconfor betweentwomodes ofproduction. trast Each wordis significant. The othernewsitemthatinterested was a fairly typeof me new interview thePresident Francein theElyseto 60 French of by given all A with said: personsfrom walksoflife. peasant, sincerity, moving I "Mr.President, farm fewhectares land and myson wouldlike a of them. to continue Theyare enoughforour family. farming Whyare we refusedany aid?" The responsewas astonishing: "Today,it is to expect aid for nonprofitable units of production." impossible one or (And "whatabout rent?", of Kosinski's Chayanov's peasants now on they willnot go on aiding ask.) It is clear thatfrom might marginalunits,those least endowed withmeans of production, whose survivaldepends upon a price levelmuchgreaterthanthe mean value of his productand whichis noncompetitive internain For a long time,forsocial and electoralreasons, tional markets. have ensuredthe survival such marginalunitsby of governments forsomeyears now,aid has gone solely pricesvery setting high.But, and directly peasantswho wantto leave the farm.Some critics to that haveaffirmed thischangehas been acceptedbythepeasantry, transformations toconfirm (SergioMallet, seem and technological it "Les Paysanscontrele pass"). I have triedto verify, conthrough creteinquiries thedegreetowhichthe (unfortunately limited), quite individual witheconomiccalculations, peasanthas becomefamiliar with It is difficult generalizetheresults, it seems to but accounting. that economic calculations, even forverylarge units,are in the hands of specializedorganizations financial and The poor experts. or middlepeasantdoes notparticipate theadvantages suchan in of

188

PierreVilar

if syndical, by organization he is notguidedand oriented corporate, or cooperativeassociations.What is most clear is thathe underthe for stands whathas been strikingly ignored halfa century: secret is of productiveindebtedness:France's Crdit Agricole the most in thecountry. peasanteconomy The credit important organization but likeanyother, a partthatis is now a partof the totaleconomy nowbecomingeversmaller. of The peasantas suchand thepeasantcondition yoreseem,in doomed. But, our developed societies,to be more or less rapidly We The land as a means of production? and the farm? agriculture for Plan established of The are notat all certain itsfuture. Mansholt thatfourmillionhectaresof cultivated the European Community intowoodlandsand the will within Community, be converted land, one millionintorecreational parks.The Vedel Reporton French of foundthisprovision the MansholtPlan to be ridicuagriculture for restriction the models of agricultural lous. It studiedvarious in future. The Bergmanmodel would sacrifice, France alone, 22 33 land out of every million millionhectaresof usefulagricultural land out of every18 million. and 7.5 millionhectaresof cultivated to The MODEF model (proposedbythe Movement DefendFamily and is called exaggeratedly backward, conservative, Agriculture) the with dreamsofthespecifically but anticompetitive in agreement of witha vocabulary ChayanoFrenchegalitarian (MODEF, society of Communist the peasant sector vian connotations, represents an thereis, naturally, interthe Between twoextremes, inspiration.) mediateplan (Malassis).But,theVedel Reportdoes not disdainat all theideal models: couldbe that of The modelof theruralcollectivity tomorrow surof a small citybetween5,000 and 10,000 inhabitants, and small farmsessentially rounded by villages agricultural scattered and also witha residential throughout population thecountryside. (Mendras) intobeingbycapitalism? Will Chayanov's Utopiabe brought in Buthowcan we forget, thefaceof thisEuropeanMalthusianand the ism imposed by the concept of profitability, (underlying The annual reports of by acute)hunger halftheworld? periodically forme: In thebad years, theFAO always they questions pose myriad in foodshortages; thegood years(whenCanada widespread predict and the United States have reservesof 50 or 60 milliontons of

NOTION OF "PEASANT ECONOMY"

189

whois goingto support peso as the the unsoldwheat), FAGwonders it adapts fromdemand to supply.The bad yearsreturnand the international triplesor quadruples the business grain industry The old contradiction (withcorresponding profits). arrangements and consumption between locatedunequally different in production was regional thedawnofcapitalism at (whenCamplaces,a gap that is nowglobal.The and Turgottriedto struggle pomanes againstit) is from worldof the peasanteconomy a worldthatsuffers hunger. And thenonpeasant worlddoes notknowwhatto do withtheproductsof itsfields.Perhapsthatis whyI said,at thebeginning this of literature causessomeirritation in paper,thattheimmense agrarian itsreaders.
REFERENCES de Latino, sigloXVI a del y feudal:America Carmagnani,Marcello (1976). Formation crisis un sistema neustros dias. Mexico: Siglo XXI. Caro Baroja,Julio (1963). "The Cityand the Country:Reflexionson Some AncientCommonThe d., places," inJ. Pitt-Rivers, Mediterranean Countrymen. Hague: Mouton,27-40. Homewood IL: The AmericanEconomic Chayanov,A. V. (1966). The Theory PeasantEconomy. of Association. Boston: Little,Brown. Fogel,RobertW. (1974). Timeon theCross. Roll. New York:Pantheon. Genovese,Eugene (1974). Roll, Jordan, et de Labrousse,Ernest(1944). La Crisede l'conomie franaise la fin de l'Ancien Rgime au dbut la Rvolution. Paris: PUF. Revolution. New York:Vintage. Lefebvre, of French Georges (1979). TheComing the 3 Jean (1977). La Cristiada, vols. Mexico: Siglo XXI. Meyer, et viticole capitalisme Languedoc-Rousillon: phylloxera crises en Du aux de Pech,Rmy(1975). Entreprise mvente. Toulouse: Le Mirail. de 1789-1848: Etudes d'histoire rvolutionnaire. Soboul, Albert(1976). Problmes paysans la Rvolution, Paris: Maspro. XII. Stalin,Joseph V. (1955). "The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.), April 1929," in Works, Moscow: ForeignLanguages PublishingHouse, 1-113. Thorner, Daniel (1964). "L'Economie paysanne,concept pour l'histoireconomique?" Annales E. S. C, XDC,3, mai-juin,417-32. Thorner, Daniel (1966). "Chayanov'sConcept of Peasant Economy,"in D. Thorner et al., eds., Homewood IL: The American Economic A. V. Chayanov The Theory PeasantEconomy. on of Association,xi-xxiii. R. Clifton (1969). "The GreenRevolution: Wharton, Cornucopiaor Pandora'sBox?"Foreign Affairs, XLVII, 3, Apr, 464-76.