#JPSWriteshop .@Peasant_Journal
Shapan Adnan: According to Lenin, division of labour means that some households start to specialize, this is the factor that brings change among the peasantry.
Those who have more land will need to have more workers.
Shapan Adnan: According to Lenin, division of labour means that some households start to specialize, this is the factor that brings change among the peasantry.
Those who have more land will need to have more workers.
There are problems with Lenin and Kautsky's theories. Some of them are regarding the linear process of capitalist development of agriculture, a key critique was raised by Robert Brenner in his 1976 paper "Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe"
In analyzing land grabs, we need to be careful about using categories such as primitive accumulation, circulation of capital, centralization of capital.
Now talking about Chayanovian Peasant Economy:
Chayanov work was based in a strong and detailed statistical work, addressing questions about the viability and unchanging reproduction of peasant production
Chayanov work was based in a strong and detailed statistical work, addressing questions about the viability and unchanging reproduction of peasant production
The peasant family is both a production and a consumption unit. The family labor farm is the basic unit of the peasant economy. They produce for subsistence. Chayanov considered the notion of self-exploitation for understanding the logic of peasant production.
The number of workers, in the Family Labor Farm, varies in the time. They are governed socio-biological dynamics, the life cycle of the peasant family, and its different cycles, also impact the distribution and inequality within the peasant households.
Therefore, for Chayanov it is a matter of demography differentiation, ruled by socio-biological dynamics, and not necessarily a matter of market differentiation ruled by the development of capitalism.
@Peasant_Journal #JPSwriteshop
@Peasant_Journal #JPSwriteshop
Chayanov and the neo-populist provided a systematic analysis of the labor process in the peasant family farms. Their analysis was deeply rooted in the reality of the Russian peasantry. They combined theory with practice at the ground level!
Some critiques on the Chayanovian approach underpins the problem of the aggregation of the rural village as a homogeneous entity, the lack of consideration of gender and age differences, the questions of access to land as something that depends on law and property regimes. 
The difference between the Marxist and the Chayanovian perspectives is in terms of the social relations of production of the peasant family farm, and the emphasis that each perspective highlights.
@threadreaderapp please unroll this thread
