Chayanov- WHARTON

"As is seen from our incidental analysis, all these instances can be interpreted with the aid of the categories of the capitalist farm based on hired labor. To do this, however, we have to create an exceedingly doubtful concept; we must unite in the peasant both the entrepreneur capitalist and the worker he is exploiting...therefore, I am more inclined to use another hypothesis to explain theoretically the organizational peculiarities that have been observed-- a hypothesis based on the concept of the peasant farm as a family labor farm in which the family as a result of its year's labor receives a single labor income and weighs its efforts against the material results obtained," (Chayanov, 41)

This quote provokes many questions in my mind. For instance, from the description of the peasant farmer given in the introduction, it still seems that the peasant could serve as both entrepreneur and exploited worker. The entrepreneur aspect of the peasant just seems to be forced by the inability to grow a successful crop, therefore it is not by nature capitalist. For instance, Chayanov describes how in years of a bad harvest, peasant farmers would often turn to crafting to produce another means of income, in this way representing an entrepreneur attempting to make ends meet, as opposed to an entrepreneur attempting to turn a significant profit. His use of the term "entrepreneur" made me wonder if the term was in the past always associated with economic ventures and economic success, as in my mind "entrepreneur" implies someone who chooses or is forced to take a business risk, and does not always succeed. In my present day understanding of the term, I believe his first hypothesis has some merit.

Viewing the peasant farm as a family labor farm operating under the parameters of private economy as opposed to national economy sounds to me as if it must encompass the studies and work of an anthropologist, as opposed to an economist. However, never once does Chayanov describe himself as an anthropologist, or even mention the term. This makes me wonder, how could an anthropologist's perspective have changed the understanding of the peasant farm as a family labor farm? What insights would someone studying this system from a purely anthropological standpoint have provided that Chayanov could have potentially missed?