“I believe in the future of agriculture… in the promise of better days through better ways, even as the better things we now enjoy have come to us from the struggles of former years.”

– FFA Creed

Our cause has long given great consideration to the conditions, struggles, and revolutionary attitudes of agriculturalists. Mao observed and defined distinctions between classes of rural agriculturalists based on land ownership and labor exploitation (Tse-tung). Lenin did the same, drawing division between the kulaks, serednyaks, and bednyaks. Much public discussion surrounding modern agriculture in the US centers around “farmers and ranchers” as a whole with little distinction between classes. In 1933, when Mao published those definitions, it is estimated that around 80%-90% of the PRC’s population was directly engaged in agriculture (Shi). Today, less than 2% of the US’s population is involved in on-farm labor (USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service). Industrialization of agriculture and differences between the US, USSR, and the PRC concerning land area, climate, population, labor force, and capital, require us to give additional consideration to the conditions and attitudes of modern US farmers. Here, we create distinction between classes of agriculturalists in the US, discuss the effects of capitalism on farmers and ranchers, analyze their necessity to the cause, and discuss ways to engage with rural ag-centered communities.

“Relatively small amounts of labor and large amounts of capital are utilized in the United States to produce an abundance of agricultural products.”

-United States Department of Agriculture

This article will primarily focus on Kansas farmers and ranchers. As a fifth-generation western Kansas farmer, this is the environment with which I am most familiar. This is not, however, my only reason for focusing on Kansas ag, as will become clear through further analysis. Kansas ag leads in commodity crop and livestock production, with wheat, cattle, and milo. Roughly half of all Kansas farm and pastureland is rented from a landlord, with around 90% of ag operations renting some amount of land (Ibendahl and O’Brian). Nationally, only about 28% of farmers and ranchers operate with some or all rented land (Winters). Land ownership is but one factor in distinguishing the class position of a farmer. We must also take into account labor exploitation. As of 2022, roughly 39,000 hired laborers were employed on 13,535 Kansas farms (out of 57,700 total farms) with the majority of farms only utilizing 1-4 workers (United States Department of Agriculture). The USDA considers labor done by spouses and/or children of operators as separate from hired labor, even if it is paid. Knowing this, we can attest that the majority of Kansas farmers and ranchers operate without additional labor beyond their immediate families. Tracking data is limited on the number of hired laborers who also run their own farming/ranching operations. However, we know that nationwide, around 84% of family farmers rely on jobs outside of their operation to support their livelihood (United States Department of Agriculture). I currently work full-time outside of our farm for additional income and health insurance. When my partner and I started taking over the family business, my dad sat us down and made sure we understood that one of us would likely always need to work elsewhere, because the farm couldn’t support a family on its own. Observationally, as an insider to Kansas ag operations, it appears to be the case that at least a portion of hired labor is done by neighboring farmers. In our own operations, we trade labor with one neighboring family member during wheat and milo harvest. Because we own a combine and he owns multiple grain trucks, he hires us for cutting grain, and we hire him, in turn, for hauling. 

Through this lens, we can place the majority of Kansas farmers within the categories of middle peasants (serednyaks) and poor peasants (bednyaks) – though there isn’t a complete absence of rich peasants (kulaks). Mao defined middle peasants as those who own some land and/or rent some land, own some farm implements, and derive their income wholly or mainly from their own labor, but generally not from selling their labor power. Poor peasants are defined similarly, with the main difference being more reliance on renting land and selling their own labor power. Then, of course, are workers, who wholly or mainly make their living by selling their labor power. Generally, today, we would not call these people farmers, but farm-workers. 

Now that we’ve made this distinction, let’s discuss the conditions in which middle and poor peasant farmers in Kansas operate under capitalism. 

“As long as the rich remain rich, as long as they own most of the land, livestock, implements, and money—as long as all this lasts, not only the poor but even the middle peasants will never be able to escape from want. One or two middle peasants may be able to climb into the ranks of the rich with the aid of all these improvements and co-operatives, but the people as a whole, and all the middle peasants, will sink deeper and deeper into poverty. “

– V.I. Lenin

In a previous article of this series (Ambition), discussion is raised surrounding the abuses ag operators receive from corporate investors who derive profit from the capital they hold, not only in land, but in other areas of production. Here, I will explore more specific details surrounding these abuses and how the “name-of-the-game” in US commodity agriculture is rooted in capital control, rather than labor exploitation. 

It’s important to note that ownership of land does not necessarily mean ownership of the land from the surface to the core of the Earth. In Kansas, mineral (gas, oil, and coal) rights can be severed from the surface rights, with each being owned separately. Land can also be leased out to energy companies to build wind and solar infrastructure. Generally, farming and ranching tenants are only granted surface rights. One owner could very well be renting out the mineral rights, building rights, and surface rights to separate entities, raking in incredible profits.  Farmers also face hurdles with control of the land they lease. Terraces and waterways, which help control water erosion and chemical runoff, typically must be approved by the land owner, who often sees no benefit in such nonsense, as it does not increase the value of their capital holdings. Landholders can also sell the land out from under the renter at any time, which impacts their future ability to operate, even though they are entitled to what they already planted. Often, this is done without creating an opportunity for the farmer to purchase the land before it is sold to the highest corporate bidder. They are also subject to whatever the previous tenant or owner decided to do with the land, which may have impacted soil health, water supply, or pest presence.

The cost of owning or renting land is heavily tied to the water that is available for use. When renting land, water rights (quantity, rate, place of use, diversion, etc.) are tied to the (surface) lease agreement. Agreements can be made for full use of water, limited use, or no use at all. The Ogallala Aquifer, that many in western Kansas rely on for crop irrigation and personal use, has experienced declining water levels due to prolonged drought and excessive pumping. Talk of this depletion has overwhelmed public conversation about water conservation for decades, with predictions of as little as 10-25 years until total depletion in some areas. Kansas water rights operate under a “first-in-time, first-in-right” system, which has over-appropriated water to “senior” holders for “beneficial” (read, profitable) use. The discussion of water conservation has made a resurgence nationwide as data centers continue to pop up in rural areas where land is cheap and proximity to infrastructure (such as fiber networks and energy production like solar and wind) is more affordable. 

Operation inputs, be it seed grain, feed, equipment, fertilizer, etc, widely come from the same institutional investors that are buying up all of the land. Likewise, for outputs and selling their products. Corporations like Cargill and ADM create an oligopoly which allows them to manipulate the market for their own benefit.The sale of cattle is also dominated by big buyers – Tyson, Cargill, National Beef and a few others. Policies and trade wars enacted by the administration can greatly affect the market for commodities. 

Shifting back to the input side of operations, let’s discuss seed and feed. You may ask, “If farmers are growing a crop, can’t they just store some of that crop to plant next year to save on cost?” Depending on the seed they use, very likely, the answer is “No!” Many grain varieties in the US are genetically modified for disease resistance, chemical resistance, or other yield improvement, and manufacturers have patents on their specific strain. When farmers purchase genetically modified seed, they agree to only use it once – meaning they have to pay for seed every season, rather than just holding onto some of the seed they already grew. Not only does this harm farmers directly as their input costs grow each year, it allows for monopolies to spiral out of control by eliminating research and development opportunities from their competitors. If a farmer were to take their chances and keep the seed, they could be subjected to million-dollar lawsuits. Farmers can choose to plant a non-GMO variety of seed, but risk much lower yields. In our operations, we store a small amount of wheat to plant the following year. This does come with its own costs though, as it must be cleaned and stored properly. When I was a kid, I helped my dad build a grain bin on our farm – the price of a grain bin can range anywhere from a couple thousand to a couple hundred thousand dollars. Some large-scale farmers may use personal bins to store all or most of the grain they harvest until they’re ready to sell, but most small farmers can only afford minimal storage for seed-grain; so they pay fees to store the grain at an elevator (giving even more money to Cargill and ADM).

It is not only seed monopolies that have harmed farmers but equipment monopolies, too. John Deere and CNH (Case and New Holland) dominate the US market for combines and tractors. Together, they prevent farmers from being able to repair their own equipment by restricting access to software and diagnostic tools. Many farmers are forced to wait days or weeks to have their equipment repaired at a dealership that’s potentially dozens of miles away at a much higher cost than the mechanic down the road. The cost of new machinery is consistently rising (not that small to mid size rural farmers can afford new equipment, anyways) while the quality is plummeting. Many farmers do not have the money to invest into purchasing or maintaining their own machinery so they either rent equipment, make trades with neighbors and family, take out massive loans, or hire custom crews to bring in the harvest. Each option comes with its own drawbacks. In the case of custom harvesting, there is a risk that crops may sit longer in the field, reducing yield. The demand for high-quality, lower cost, easily-maintenanced equipment has soared. Many farmers have chosen to retrofit their older equipment with automation tools that can make their operations more efficient. But even these tools are typically manufactured and sold by John Deere and CNH. Getting their hands on older equipment can have its own difficulties, as dealerships recognize the demand, purchase equipment at auction, then turn around and sell it to farmers at a higher price. Additionally, it can be difficult to source parts to service and repair older equipment because it is no longer manufactured; so, farmers either have to purchase duplicate or salvage equipment to pull parts from or find someone to manufacture custom parts. Pesticide and fertilizer are also controlled by a few large companies that dominate the industry. While some of these industry leaders are privately owned, many are publicly traded. John Deere, CNH, Nutrien, ADM, Tyson, CF Industries, and more are publicly traded, with primary ownership held by institutional investors like The Vanguard Group and BlackRock. 

Banks also own a notable portion of land that farmers claim to “own” because they either take out loans to purchase it or put their land up as collateral for line-of-credit loans just to operate. Farmers who wish to purchase more land (or equipment) can almost never afford it without a bank or FSA loan. FSA loans are through the USDA; so, just as banks own a portion of farmland, so does the government. Institutional investors are major shareholders in the banking industry and many of the large corporations discussed above employ lobbyists to influence the decisions of the government in their favor. In my area of southwest Kansas, the average cost per acre in 2024 was $2,207 for non-irrigated land and $1,475 for pastureland (“Kansas Agriculture Land Values and Trends 2024”). Being that the average farm size in the state is around 800 acres (United States Department of Agriculture), even just a marginal 10% increase in land would cost over $100,000; which, for most, would require a 25-40 year loan. 

The reality of farm-life is that a small group of capitalists own a majority of the land, the water, the seed, the feed, the fertilizer, the pesticides, and the equipment. They strip profit from both the inputs and outputs of the agriculture industry without putting any work into it themselves. To them, farmers and ranchers are merely a tool to exploit for capital. No consideration is put into their wellbeing or structuring the industry around efficiency, conservation, or feeding hungry people. Today’s farmers have an illusion of control over their operations. But when every choice we make pours money into the hands of the same few people sitting lazily in their Dubai penthouses, letting their money make more and more money, there’s really no choice to be had. 

You may have heard some say that farmers are getting rich off of subsidies. So far, we have left subsidies largely unaddressed. In 1933, the first federal Farm Bill was introduced to support struggling farms during the Great Depression. Since the beginning, the goal has been economic, rather than humanitarian focused; centering market prices over food availability. Today, subsidies most often come in the form of direct payments, loss coverage, conservation payments, and lower crop insurance premiums. Corn and soybean producers receive the greatest share of payouts (“US Federal Agricultural Farm Subsidies: How Much Farmers Get By Year”) – they also produce higher yields per acre and require more inputs in the form of water, equipment, and fertilizer. You may have noticed that corn and soybeans were not listed above as most-produced Kansas products. This is largely because these crops require more water to produce, which Kansas just doesn’t have. Therefore, more subsidies go to farmers in other states, which impacts the overall economic stability of the region. Despite the idea that subsidies are meant to support small family farms, the overwhelming majority of subsidies are delivered to the largest and most profitable farms and ranches (Edwards). Those large corporate farmers (kulaks or rich peasants) who do own their own land and receive large subsidies can expand, buy up more and more land, and hire their own workers to exploit.

Now that we understand the material conditions with which poor and middle peasant farmers are faced, we can recognize that the predicament many Kansas farmers and ranchers find themselves in is one of ownership and exploitation of labor for capital. Clearly their interests align, at least partially, with our cause. Some contradiction, though, comes inherently, with land ownership and the aspiration to acquire more land. Lenin and Mao both argued that urban workers should unite with middle and poor peasants in the fight against the rich. I agree. In their day though, agriculturalists made up much larger portions of the population in their respective countries than in the US today. It would have been strategically advantageous to include the majority of the population in revolution. Is there even a benefit to the cause with engaging less than 2% of the population? Absolutely – and maybe I led you astray with that statistic – because it’s less about the size of the demographic itself, and more about the control they have over production. It could be beneficial, or extremely detrimental, to the cause, that such a small group controls such a large portion of food production. Mistakes in messaging to ag-centered communities and mistakes in central planning could easily lead to famine, as it historically has. Successes in messaging though, could target this demographic directly due to their limited numbers, and put the production of food in the hands of the people, rather than the hands of capitalists. 

It is our struggle to design a system of central planning that places agriculturalists at the center of food production and demonstrates to them the benefits of collectivism. The effectiveness of such a campaign requires intense and specific knowledge of the harms to poor and middle peasant farmers under capitalism. Workers worldwide can largely communicate shared harms between themselves because the majority of harm comes from labor exploitation, rather than the strangling of capital. Workers unite around a desire to escape labor exploitation. Farmers unite around a desire to gain more capital. As Communists, our general message is for the former, not the later, because we disagree with the premise of owning capital altogether. Therefore, it is our struggle to educate rural ag-centered communities on how their hard work is being exploited – to shift their viewpoint from one of capital to one of labor. We must create class traitors of the people we already see ourselves in solidarity with, because they do not see themselves as in solidarity with us. Often, farmers do not view their labor from the same perspective as urban workers. They detest unions and have a fierce sense of individuality, even though they often contradictorily rely on government subsidies and community support for success, or should I say, avoidance of failure. We can not speak to them of labor exploitation in manufacturing, service work, or otherwise, because they are not in manufacturing, service work or otherwise. We can only reach them if we have great knowledge of labor exploitation in farming and ranching. We should not be talking down to or quoting theory to farmers and ranchers; most are already well aware of the situation they find themselves in. Our task, rather, is to take their rightful anger and aim it at our common class enemy. 

Resources