1023
Reinvented from first principles
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
1023 points (99.1% liked)
People Twitter
9989 readers
1485 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No they don't. They're landless labourers.
There's nuance here: a peasant may have owned some land, but often not enough to live off of, which made them dependent on additional labour on the land of some landlord to supplement their own land's harvest.
I recommend reading this historian's analysis of life as a peasant.
Thanks for the recommendation but I'm pretty sure peasants still exist.
As I understand the term, it generally refers to the agricultural class in pre-industrial societies. I thought it obvious that this was the comparison made by the post. I'm not aware of any more modern application of the term aside from using it as an insult.
https://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2021/August/engpdf/page-56-60.pdf
Okay, fair point, my use of the term is very eurocentric. I'll concede my ignorance on the social structures in other parts of the world where the term may still apply.
As I read this:
That seems to include marrginal farmers, i.e. those with barely enough land to sustain their family, if that much. We're back to my point: Peasants may have land, but not enough to qualify as landholders. The criterion is not whether they have any, but whether they have too little, which includes having none at all.
Fair. In India, peasant usually refers to a farmer or agricultural labourer from the SC/ST communities.