ROLE OF PEASANTS IN MOVEMENTS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE


         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
Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - Unknown

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE