Farmers: The True Exploited

I’ve recently came to the conclusion that Marx had it all wrong. If we define exploitation as the appropriation of a surplus, and look to the most fundamental of all surpluses necessary for the very maintenance of human civilization from the dawn of agricultural onwards to present day, we arrive at the farmer. The production of surplus by the farmer allowed for the division of labor and growth of parasitic non-agricultural classes on top of it. As all other classes – including the bourgeoisie and proletariat – exploit the surpluses of farmers to even stay alive in the first place, they are exploiters and the farmer exploited. This is much more dire than the traditional view concerning surplus value. Exploitation is an inverse pyramid, with the majority brutally oppressing a civilization-sustaining agrarian producer-class.
The goal here for the liberation of this fundamental producing class is to topple the inverse pyramid, cast of the weights. And this farmer, like Atlas holding up the skin, shall return to subsistence levels, free of a world of exploitation and parasitism. Marxists ONLY look at the superstructure, never looking at the true civilization sustaining fundamentals of class-society.


Attached: F1984C38-D0FA-44B3-971C-7D203CD74503.jpeg (290x240 189.28 KB, 1.92K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Farmers are the most subsidised demographic in Europe.
They are the pillars of conservatism in Europe.
Also farmers and subsidies play a very huge part in whether or not Ohio is Democratic or Republican and therefore whether or not the PotUS is DNC or GOP.

take the green pill

Same for America. Corn is our staple crop, and we add it to everything, as a sweetener, to fatten up animals, even to our gasoline.

Marx didn't concern himself with "who are the most oppressed/exploited people", he concerned himself with the development of society and which class would become the revolutionary class.
During feudalism, the bourgeoisie and farmers joined together to overthrow the monarchy, but in the 19th and 20th century capitalist society, the industrial proletariat was the revolutionary class. There are very few farmers left in the first world.

While the use of subsidies for cash crops is indeed despicable, subsidies are pretty much mandatory in order for 1st-world agriculture to exist at all in today's open borders environment in direct competition with 3rd-world imports, even with rampant abuse of migrant labor (though, of course, such subsidized 1st-world agricultural products are themselves "dumped" into the export market or ill-devised food "aid" that devastates the agricultural sectors of 3rd-world economies, while simultaneously wasting 1st-world tax money).

This. Socialism isn't an oppression olympiad pitting classes against each other, it's the elimination of classes and the class system itself.

why does any of this matter?

if you don't have food you die, idiot.


All that means is that exploitation per capita on farmers has actually INCREASED over the centuries into a more concentrated form. Marx was a reactionary if he doesn’t care about oppression and exploitation. Farmers are suffering and everyone not involved in food production is a parasite plain and simple

Nice pseud post. The theory still stands.

god you are just baiting up a storm today aren't you?

Marx adocated for the greatest reaction of all: the rolling-back of the greatest forms of human organization: the state and the atomization of humans and endless trust in the disorganized mob, falling for the democracy meme. And finally, as this thread reveals, Marx tolerated a form of extreme exploitation by the proletariat and the capitalist class against the food-producing elements of society. Mass-depopulation will occur after the farmers go on strike and destroy the civilizational superstructure that grows from the Soil like a great tree



Attached: awww shit nigga fuckin' five star post!.jpg (287x360, 20.1K)

WHAT did Marx mean by this

Marx is urbanite scum that's why I don't read him

Can't tell if bait or twatter trankie

Attached: communist_party_mask.jpg (516x622, 90.34K)

J Barg pls

Attached: johan2-578x433.jpg (578x433, 16.37K)

Well, as successful as socialist revolutions get. Point remains, Marxists had better success in farmerstan countries like Russia/China than he did in factory-rotten Britain/France/Germany

I'm sorry I just can't help myself sometimes

this is actually true

The rootless cosmpolitan lives a life of exploitation and comfort regardless of class

Cioran noted this.

It’s almost as if Marx was wrong but his cultists can’t face the truth.

From each according to one's ability, to each according to one's ability.
Farmers are able to produce a lot of food with relatively few labour. They still need the products of the city to enjoy modern comforts, though.
Therefore it is only reasonable that they would share the fruits of their labour with urban comrades, as long as they were not alienated from their fair share of it.


that would be true in the US if urban types wouldn't treat the countryside as backwards idiots. tbqh if it keeps up they have every right to strike and shut down the farms.

Just kill everyone in the cities

why is this

Do bourgeois revolutions, get bourgeois results.

Despite their best efforts, Marx and Engels never managed to overcome the bourgeois roots of their theory of revolution, mostly coming from Hegel, and subsequent Marxists we too dumb to think for themselves. The idea that the proletariat could have its own state like the bourgeoisie and that the revolution will happen in two arbitrary stages are so absurd even those who take every word Marx has written as sacred scratch their heads over.

Attached: 1930c60201713fa1f6390781959d60b5a385e831.jpg (5245x3446, 5.73M)

Those were in fact two simultaneous social revolutions. In the countryside it was pretty much a capitalist revolution. The rural economy was obviously tending towards capitalism in the most positive sense: peasants were leaving behind whatever remained of subsistence and feudal economies remained and developing into proper small-scale farmers. One way or another, the end result would be sharing the fate of western peasantry, ie. some would sink into proletariat while the others would accumulate capital and become proper rural capitalists.
In the cities it was an anti-capitalist revolution of proles, however on the socio-economic field it was extinguished and fully returned to capitalism again once the western revolutions failed and Bolsheviks' main priority was saving proletarian political power in Russia, even if at the cost of economic concessions.

Pretty much a pure anti-feudal revolution except sprinkled with Mao's retardation. For example, "New Democracy" and "block of four social classes" were indeed good concepts, except le sparrowman apparently lacked insight to realise that reproducing the interclass alliances of 1789 or 1848 could economically result only in capitalism. Surprise surprise, a few years later Mao dies, Deng takes the steer and China indeed goes full bourgie.

That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it does.





So you're a physiocrat?

What about the farming of luxury goods (such as cocoa or coffee), or the industrial production of primary goods (such as beds or construction materials)?
The farmers are dependent on production, and need to exploit the abilities of industry to be able to maintain their own production speed and efficiency.
The farmers that make luxury goods aren't necessary, they're not really the base according to your raped bastardization of the original terms.

Farmers are obsolete in a classless society, everyone maintains their own backyard permaculture with the guidance of experts for those who need help.

Our current agricultural practices are destroying our planet

Did you know that when a farm produces "too much" of a crop they literally burn a ton of it to produce artificial scarcity and avoid lowering the price of food for consumers?
In the capitalist system farmers are some of the biggest scumbags out there right on par with the big porkies from finance and banking.

The government and corporations force them to or else risk too much market instability. Surplus as a concept exists and we probably don't need it anyways with modern technology.

You are on the right idea but half there. Farmers still need tools and houses. There is a reason the soviet symbol is a sickle AND hammer. Miners are right up there with farmers and probably lumberjacks, millers, blacksmiths, forgers, fabricators, construction workers. You need grindstones, plows, storehouses, roads, engines and so on.

non-productive "labor" is called a hobby, communism will share labor equally reducing work hours and entitling everyone to a job.

Yes, this means that unskilled people will have to rotate toilet cleaning shifts by lottery if there are no volunteers. No, this does not mean a janitor working 10 hours a month in productive labor can not go to school, or become a world renown artist in his abundant free time.

why is that wrong?

so if we lived in a socialist society people like my grandfather would be better off?

I think that buying equipment will be one of the most pricey things as well as the purchase of feedstuff. If it is a large farm, then the expenses can go up to $ 300,000. Equipment can be found by asking the right information from neighboring farmers. But what if I want to buy land for a farm in Russia? I know that there is a company that gives Russian farmland for sale to foreigners. What do I need to be able to buy such land?

I can’t wait for the farmers to general strike the cities and starve you radlib rats to death

I second this. People need to eat. Without food, people starve and eventually die. This isn't rocket science

You have never been on a farm in your life.

Do you produce the food that sustains civilization? Do you do anything of value with your life? Of course not, you’re a parasite dependent on the agriculutural class

Go fuck yourself then kys you fucking nigger.

Attached: 6174fba340c8ef5d31252016008930be7be69ae73a3485b67aa90f69a889545a.jpg (807x659, 55.69K)

Perhaps the definition of "farmer" needs to be changed

Attached: 1431630985987.jpg (500x588, 69.12K)

Cringe. Once again Marxists sell out their own kind

Read it again you dumb nigger.
Where does it says that bringing shitskins here is cool? quite the opposite.

I'd have no problem with foreign agriculture if their compensation and working conditions were held to the same standard as ours, and if domestic agriculture had regulations and labor norms (such as minimum wage) on par with unskilled labor in the rest of the economy.

Attached: Fairtrade-banner.png (3060x932, 45.23K)