I'd say there's a bit of a difference in that a shopkeeper's goods don't depend on any particular storefront (or even any storefront at all with the internet -- or a traveller's cart/van), while a farmer's land is a crucial part of the means of the crops' production. I'm also not saying that simply renting is sufficient to be working class, just that it removes one measure by which someone could be pushed out of it.
I also wonder if we're talking past each other due to misaligned definitions. On one end of the spectrum you have large-scale agricultural business owners who spend their days in the office managing the people who do the actual labour; they're definitely bourgeois. On the other you have the farmhands themselves who do largely fall into the proletariat. The people I'm talking about are the small farmers in between, who don't have a boss per se but also don't employ anyone in turn (at most they enlist a grown child or a long-time friend for a day or two's parnership to rush the harvest in when weather begins building on the horizon); who only have the one or two fields stretching out behind their own house and who aren't in any position to consider expanding.
And given the widespread political illiteracy driven by teamerism I don't think we can rely on what any person or group of people supports to reflect their actual class interests. How much of the reactionary, anti-worker support is because of identifying with the party, as opposed to identifying with the party because of those beliefs? (Also, anti-tax and anti-regulation positions aren't uniquely bourgeoise ones, they can also be libertarian/anarchist and intended, even if wrongly, as part of a larger system that is just as focused on empowering the working class.)
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll definitely check it out. It does indeed sound like something paralleling my position here. The feudal->capitalist economic distinction has always been a weak point in my understanding, and it'll be interesting to see how Varoufakis characterizes them both.
The no-censorship crowd is funny. "I wanted to block everyone whose admins block someone, in order to find the people whose admins don't block anyone, so I could talk to the few people I hadn't blocked because they don't block people."
(And that's ignoring the traditional entitlement in that people somewhere else deciding not to listen to you somehow means you're censored locally.)
Hypocracy -- and conspiracy-level rambling -- aside, there's actually an interesting kernel of commentary here on how we talk about joining and administering Fedi. On the one hand, we say that newcomers shouldn't worry about which instance to start out on, because every one connects to every other, but on the other we celebrate how the instanced architecture allows admins control over which other instances to connect to. And then you have the deeper issue of the vast majority of the software assuming DNS, so even if admins do want to connect to Tor instances, they can't feasably do so without a fair bit of host-system tweaking. Yeah, those mixed messages are just the emergent result of which layer of abstraction we're talking about in any given conversation, but it would be nice if we could find language that doesn't take literally the opposite tack on each successive layer.