Abstract

As elsewhere, Marxist discussions about the peasantry in the Philippines have also been informed by ‘articulation theory’ which renders it difficult to conceive of peasants as full participants in the capitalist labour process either as ‘capitalists’ or ‘proletarians’. This conceptual difficulty is traced to ideal‐typical presuppositions about capitalism and its ‘standard’ form of productive relations. The conventional categories of Marxism thus become inadequate in analysing societies in the world‐capitalist periphery. However, the methodology of historical materialism is relevant in illuminating the capitalist nature of tenancy as well as the multiple relations of exploitation observable in small‐scale rice farming in the Philippines.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.