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