The first question in this section deals with the attitude of the peasant class towards revolutionary change. On this point, Marx (1969:479) distinguishes between the non revolutionary peasant. Peasants who remain isolated from other peasants and form no collective spirit either within or with other marginalized classes of society are non revolutionary peasant and ‘consequently (are ) incapable of enforcing their class interest in their own name “ … and being unable to represent themselves, ‘must be represented ‘ on the hand, the peasantry who attains a consciousness towards collective action, correctly identifies their class enemies, and unites with other oppressed classes are revolutionary peasants.
The conservative position of the peasantry towards revolutionary peasants
The conservative positron of the peasantry towards revolutionary change is rooted in the family based village economy, a ‘natural economy’ which ‘produced everything it needed and where almost no money was necessary” (Engels 1970:460 capitalism dooms smallholders production, but rather than sidling with the proletariat, the peasantry clings to the land and rejects socialist calls for nationalization of the land, which to them means the expropriation of their farms . they are thus susceptible to bourgeois calls for protection of private property .
Comparing the arguments in the works of wolf, Migdal, Paige, Scott, and Moore , Theda Skocpol (1994) raises three questions concerning the issue of what makes peasants revolutionary and examines each authors responses. On the question of “ which peasants are mot prone to revolution,” the issue was whether it is the landholding peasants (Wolf and Scott) or property less shareholders and landless farm workers (Paige). on the role of political and military organizations, Moor, Scott and Paige view them as external to the peasantry’s autonomous mobilizations while medal asserts that peasantries have been largely propelled by revolutionary parties. On this pint, Putzels 1996) characterization of the communist party of the Philippines (CPP) instrumentalist policy towards the Filipino peasantry is mot instructive . Finally, on the question of whether l capitalist imperialist development leads to peasant revolution, Wolf, medal, Paige and Moore aggress that this was the case with the roots to be found in the modernization, commercialization and industrialization of agriculture set ion motion by globalization forces
What then should be the attitude of the revolutionary forces to the peasantry? Lenin (1977a:217) wrote that “.. the attitude of the proletariat to the peasants … is that the peasants must be wrested from the influence of the bourgeoisie. That is the sole guarantee of salvation of the revolution.” An alliance between the working class and the peasantry is a necessary strategy but not as an alliance between equals. Natural leadership resides in the proletariat class which alone is a really revolutionary class (Marx and Engles 1973:77) . The peasantry will soon realize that capitalism is the principal cause of their ruin and will gravitate to their “natural ally and leaders,” the urban proletariat (MARX 1969:480-482). Lenin (1977b:269) pointed out that only the proletariat can accomplish “ the overthrow of an oppressive government”. The amorphous and isolated peasantry is to be organized by an outside force, the party of the proletariat
Notwithstanding the above, the actual practice of revolutionary Marxist movements showed substantial flexibility and major adjustments. Lenin called for Bolshevik support for a spontaneous peasant revolt in Russia before the outbreak of the October insurrection. Upon taking power, he decleard a “ workers and peasants’ government of the Russian republic “ cancelled all landlords titles and ordered the transfer of the land to the peasant committees without compensation (Reed 1966:264,350)
In the 1920s Mao Testing declared the poor peasants to be the ‘vanguard in the overthrow of the feudal forces ‘ and a most revolutionary group’ who have never been wrong on the , general direction of the revolution,” in 1939, he called the armed struggle in china as a “peasant war” and that the communist party’s relations with the peasantry and its close relations with the peasant war are one and the same thing” (Mao 197ib:166). During the “cultural revolution “: in the late sixties, Mao Emphasized ‘learning from the peasants, rather than from the workers (Scharm 1974:29)
after china, two other major peasant –based revolutionary movements that ended in victory were the Cuban revolution (1956-1958) and the Vietnamese revolution (1930s to 1975). Barrington Moore Jr. (1999:453) declared that the peasant can no longer be considered as a mere “ object of history,” having been in the modern era as much an “agent of revolution as the machine “
while the actual role that peasants have played in contemporary revolutionary movements have far exceeded the limitations placed on it by classical Marxist analysis, the letters view that the peasantry by themselves would be unable to overthrow the existing order has also seen its validation in the above instances, with the possible exception of the Russian case, the revolutionary peasant movements were stimulated through the media of ‘ideas, men, and organizational forms” that came from the cities and industrialized towns “ (Chesneauz 1973:151-152). In other words, the peasant movements were, for all intents and purposes, led by non-peasants
Related Posts: SOCIOLOGY
Be the first to comment