AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND FORCES OF PRODUCTION 27 Mukhopadhyay^s and Rudra^s observation may be a peculiarity of the Hoogly District and not necessarily a general tendency. 21 See for example Ranajit Dasgupta and Nripendra Bandyopadhyay, "Causes of Stagnation and Paths of Growth in West Bengal Agriculture: A Discursive Review" Symposium on Problems of West Bengal Economy and Planning^ 24th February 1974, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta (mimeograph). 22 Ashok Rudra, "Loans as a part of Agrarian Relations"'9, op cit. 23 Ibid. 21 Krishna Bharadwaj, op cit., pp 3-5. 25 N K Chandra op. cit., p 1325. 26 Utsa Patnaik,"Class Differentiation within the Peasantry, An Approach to Analysis of Indian Agriculture, ^Economic and Political Weekly Vol XI, 25th September 1976, pp A-82-A 101. 27 Ibid,pA-101. 28 Apparently she had in mind the following Marxian approacli: 'Tor the peasant owning a parcel, the limit of exploitation is not set by the average profit of capital, in so far as he is a small capitalist, nor on the other hand by the the necessity of rent in so far as he is a landowner. The absolute limit for him as a small capitalist is no more than the wages he pays to himself, after deducting his actual costs. So long as the price of the product covers tliese wages, he will cultivate his land, and often at wages down to physical minimum ..This lower price is consequently a result of the producers' poverty and by no means of their labour productivity.'^ Karl Marx, Capital Vol III, pp 805-806. 29 Utsa Patnaik, op cit., p A 101. 80 Karl Schoer, op cit. p 35. 81 A subsequent fall in the price of the output is excluded.