From being a smallholder-based, food-producing country covering its basic needs, Iraq and the Kurdistan Region in Iraq (KRI) have become major importers of food. The sustainability of the agricultural sector has been systematically undermined by conflict, neglect, and mismanagement, as a result of which the capacity of its farmers to feed the population declined. Even though local policymakers, the international community, and the international organisations emphasise the potential of agriculture for food production, job creation, and income generation, they also tend to consider the current food system problematic because of an alleged low productivity that they relate to the existing smallholder system. For them, such system poses a lack of competences and skills of farmers, and a subsistence production orientation. This approach culminated in a policy-making process that offered land and water for capital investments, and thus neglecting the potentials and competencies of (small-scale) farmers. The concomitant neglect of the human dimension of agriculture, namely the family farm, is essentially the continuation of an economically and ecologically high-risk approach that may lead to a further decline of the sector’s ability to produce food for the local market.

This article focuses on two ways in which smallholders—rural families, the peasantry—are responding to the contemporary neoliberal environment in Turkey by resisting commodification. This resistance, which takes place both by definition, insofar as smallholders refuse to enter, or properly conform to, the logic of capital, and in terms of its characteristics, values and practices of autonomy and sharing, is located in the context of two sites or structures of social commons. These comprise the maintenance of non-commodity circuits, along with the development of what may be identified as a new, dual-circuit articulation, one that involves financial inputs, particularly through engagement in labour relations, in combination with the non-commodity circuits. The latter emerges through manifold, variegated, and informal linkages structured around kin and community and enabled by mobility and migration. Thus, superseding the rural–urban division of space and going beyond capitalistic relations, these comprise a contemporary form of ‘solidarity-network-based social commons’. Presented in this example from Turkey, therefore, are different ways in which smallholder farming operates as a locus of resilience for extended family and village/locality interconnectivity that offers a distance from markets, even as it utilizes them with novel forms of communally oriented autonomies in a more generalized re-spatialization that extends to the urban and goes beyond capital.

Assuming core (permanent) population to be vital to the maintenance of the village and rural life, this study investigates the population growth rate (PGR) of villages in Turkey. PGR is used as a dependent variable in the analysis, using a sample of 201 villages. The independent variables are ascertained through face-to-face interviews with village heads (mukhtars). Hypothesis tests, correlation analysis and econometric models are used to examine the development/decline trends of the PGR of the village. The results show that total land property of the village and land property per household are the strongest variables supporting the continuity of population. Agricultural income remains the biggest income item in most villages, and this increases according to land size. Beyond this, opportunities for paid work outside the village while living in it (extra-village employment) positively affect the rate of increase of the village population.

In both capitalist and socialist economies, agricultural planning has been understood as the allocation of areas for planting of certain products; the production potential and ability to act rationally of farmers, the main productive actors, have been neglected. In addition, in both economic structures, the desired results have only been partially achieved by determining prices. These experiences reveal two important results. Firstly, agriculture can not be fully planned, but it cannot be continued without planning either. Secondly, it is necessary for agricultural products to have an exchange value, but price is a multifunctional phenomenon and how it is determined is important. The current equivalent of the claim that prices are determined through the market mechanism is to advocate that prices are determined by capitalist companies that have monopoly power in the markets. The increasingly severe problems and increasing fragility of agricultural food markets, which are already largely under the control of these institutions, already show that this structure is not a solution. On the other hand, it is no longer possible to provide food security by planning for primary agricultural products alone; agro-food production and distribution have acquired different structural characteristics, and it has become necessary to address food security within the framework of agro-food systems. Therefore, effective agricultural planning requires the planning of the agricultural food system as a whole. The e-nam system being popularized in India has achieved a certain success and shows not only that it is possible to organize and manage agricultural food markets after primary production but also that technological opportunities offer effective planning opportunities. In this study, based on historical and current experiences, the inadequacies of the market mechanism, the fact that agricultural production is carried out by using living things to produce living things, and the dependency of uncontrollable factors are taken into consideration in the development of a democratic mix of centralized and decentralized planning aimed at determining both the production quantities and prices by utilizing the capacity and conditions of farmers and technological opportunities to meet today’s needs. In accordance with this result, a basic planning proposal is presented.