SOCIAL SCIENTIST In this background the present paper starts with the abstract characterisation of capitalist agriculture by Marx and Lenin. It is followed by an appraisal of those theoretical constructs and it is shown that how the nature of agrarian capitalism is different than the urban industrial capitalism. In the process, space is created for the accommodation of petty-commodity producer and lease-holder within agrarian capitalism. MARX ON CAPITALIST AGRICULTURE The abstract understanding of capital is independent of its concrete phases and forms because both follow relatively independent logic of their movement. Nevertheless both analyses together give a more realistic picture through their interpenetration. Therefore, it is important to start with the abstract understanding of capital which is instrumental in its concrete understanding over physical time and space. Capitalist production, in abstract, can be defined as a process of valorization under socially differentiated conditions, whereby the producer work under complete alien conditions of labour. It is a process of extended reproduction of commodities by the use of commodities leading to the progressive social polarization into capital and wage labour. Capital is not a thing, but rather a definite social relation of production, belonging to a definite historical formation of society, which is manifested in a thing and lends this thing a specific social character (Marx, 1959:794). Capital and labour are interlocked through the continuous class struggle, a motive force of history. The historical character of capital, crystallized into the determinate social relations of production, implies that the nature of relations of distribution and consumption are directly reflective of the relations of production. Not all capital is productive capital. Historically, unproductive capital (usurious/trading) preceded productive capital (M-C-M). It was the trading capital(C-M-C), whose penetration into agriculture, started metamorphosising the age old relations between the controller of the conditions of production and the producer. The capitalist relations in agriculture, therefore, did not emerge as a consequence of the internal social contradictions of the process of production. It were the twin 'brothers', merchant and usurious capital, which formally subsumed agriculture under its sway and engineered structural changes from outside.1 The study of the British historical experience by Marx (1965:717-34,742) reveals that, in England, serfdom had practically disappeared in the last part of the fourteenth century, paving the way for the 'free* peasant proprietors (yeomanry). Between the last third of the fifteenth century and the first decade of the sixteenth century the old nobility was devoured by the new; the latter valuing money-power as the power of all powers. The agricultural revolution which began during the last third of the fifteenth century was complete by the end of the eighteenth century. What does we mean by capitalism in agriculture ? It is process of production of commodities with the help of wage labour which is free from the extra-economic coercion. Agricultural capital and wage labour jostle together in