AbstractThis contribution explores processes of political class formation in peasant autonomy movements. The paper is based on a comparison of two peasant autonomy movements emerging from diverse agrarian structures and looks at how each movement emerged and developed. It argues that variations in class bases, cultural traditions and political histories shape the different ways autonomy is conceived and practised between peasant movements. The political expressions of autonomy struggles can be very diverse, ranging from poverty‐driven survival strategies to politicized socio‐territorial movements. The paper also highlights three main tensions in the question of autonomy for peasant movements: (1) struggles for autonomy do not involve a straightforward withdrawal from commodity markets, but also seek greater control over the terms of integration into markets; (2) states are still central focal points for the demands and tactics of autonomy struggles, and states still play an important role in allocating resources and co‐opting peasant movements; and (3) the strategy of autonomy alone is insufficient for building counter‐hegemonic movements. Leadership strategies are critical in shaping the political direction of autonomy movements.