THE PEASANTRY AS A POLITICAL FACTOR Teodor Shanineasants are the majority of mankind. For all but comparatively few countries, 'the people' (as opposed to 'the nation') still denotes 'the peasants'; the specific 'national culture' closely corresponds to peasant culture; 'the army' means young peasants in uniform, armed and officered by men diiferent from themselves. And yet one has to be reminded of it. 'Ir is a commonplace to say that agrarian history as such is neglected—the fact is too obvious to be denied"—this holds true for many branches of social science as far as the countryside is concerned. The decade which has elapsed since this passage was written has not much improved the situation, apart from several notable exceptions in the fields of anthropology and history in the last few years. Indeed in the growing flood of social science publications, the few existing rural studies have almost been submerged. But reality seems to confute this solipsism of 'civilised mind'. Day by day the peasants make the economists sigh, the politicians sweat, and the strategists swear, defeating their plans and prophecies all over the w o r l d Moscow and Washington, Peking and Delhi, Cuba and Algeria, Congo and Vietnam. Even more striking that the neglect of study, are the emotional undertones and diversity of opinion which shroud this subject. Mitrany's' 400 pages bring together but a fraction of the views expressed. Writers, scientists and politicians have all contributed to the discussion, in which the image of the peasant has swung from that of an angelic rustic humanist to a greedy, pig-headed brute. For example in Russia in the same period the peasantry has been held to be the 'real autocrat of Russia" and 'non-existent historically speaking'.* This kind of verbal contest did not make reality much clearer. The peasantry went its ovi^n way quite oblivious of being an intellectual nuisance. The emotional tension of ambiguous contempt or Utopian praise, the allegory replacing definition as well as fhe acute shortcomings in our conceptual grasp of peasantry are all strongly feit in Western 5 P Teodor Shanin intellectual tradition. The neglect of the subject is but a symptom of this. It calls for serious study in the sociolc^ of knowledge into the 'eidos' of intellectual image makers when dealing with 'the class that represents the barbarism within civilisation'.^ The peasantry as an 'undecipherable hieroglyphic to the understanding of the civilised" seems to be determined by a conglomeration of factors, of which one stands out as crucial. The real peasantry does not fit well into any of our concepts of contemporary society. This 'maddening' peasant quality seems to lie at the roots of the problems of research in this field. In this paper we shall start by trying to define the differenda specifica of the peasantry—the uniqueness by which the peasantry may be defined and selected. The definition of peasantry will necessarily consist of both static and dynamic elements, either one of which is insufficient on its own. From this starting point we shall proceed to the problem of peasantry as a part of society, and then to the patterns of political influence of this entity. In dealing with this subject other approaches are feasible and indeed needed. The translation of rich, complex reality into a verbal form df fewer dimensions makes many approaches possible and valid, subject to a rect^nition of the limitations involved. 'Peasant society and culture has something generic about it. It is a kind of arrangement of humanity with some similarities all over the world." In this way Redfield summarises a wi<fc comparison of peasants in different periods and countries. Peasantry appears to be 'a type without localisation—not a typical anthropologist's cranmunity'.^ The peasantry conskt of small producers on land who, with the help of simple equipment and the labour of their families, produce mainly for their own comiimption, and for the fulfilment of their duties to the holders of political and economic power. (i) The relation to land and the specific character of agricultural production, lies at the roots of the specific features of the peasant family farm. The produce from the farm fulfils the basic consumption needs of the peasant family, and allows the peasant relative independence from other producers and the market. This makes for the great stability of peasant households, which in crises are able 6 family labour available and farm potentialities. and on the other hand as politically formalised. 'Landlords are not needed to establish the fact of peasantry'. consumption and social life.The Peasantry as a Political Factor to maintain their existence by increased effort. which does not necessarily imply legal ownership. The holding of land by being 'a necessary and generally sufficient condition to enter the occupation'* acts together with other factore as an entrance ticket into the peasantry. and even their political and administrative interference generally failed to break the basic features of the peasant/land interrelation. These rights are expressed by the possibility of transferring them. The profit and accumulation motives rarely appear in their pure and simple 7 . the landlord or the state. legal ownership. 'The identification of interest of family and farm holding seems to be a typical characteristic of the traditicHoal peasant family'. at least temporarily. The mainly agricultural production puts limits on the density and concentration of population and influences human intercourse. ccaiimunal property or a custoniary lease-holding. appear as <me indivmble whole. The individual. production.'' The farm takes the dual form of a production and consumption unit. land appears as a traditionally defined and stable holding. strongjly influences peasant activities. the commune. Land property in a wide sense appears on the one hand as the customarily defined peasant family holdii^. the land becOTning therefore a private plot. In actual fact. The balance of consumption needs. (ii) The family farm is the basic unit of peasant ownership.'" In peasant households. Nature introduces an element of interference beyond human control. the family and the farm. We shall define land property as socially accepted rights of holding and utilizing land—rights which are apart from those gained by labour and capital input. the legal ownership of peasant land may lie with the peasant himself. lowering their ovra consumption and partially withdrawing from market relations. Moreover the position in the hierarchy of peasant sub-groups is to a great extent defined by the amount of land held. Furthermore it determines the cycle of peasant labour activities and life." Their acquisition of part erf the peasants' produce. with which all the peasant community is faced. The head of the family appears as 'the manager rather than proprietor of family land'. but on his progression through certain basic ascribed positions. The family's social structure determines the division of labour.^* Family interest directs the choice—and an unmarried man (even a farm-owner) 'arouses unfavourable astonishment' and 'does not count'. and to the French peasant in the same period 'the people who are locked behind the same lock'."' The prestige and position of an individual in peasant society is basically determined by two factors. Whatever the imposed national legal structure.e. the functions and rights attached. the hard core of which consists of a married couple or polygamous group and their offspring. The main definition of the family lies in the full participation in the farm unit. childhood." These two dewrriptions given by different scholars about the peasantry of two different countries show striking similarities. The family to the Russian peasant at the beginning of the twentie± century is generally 'the people who eat from the same dish'.Teodor Shanin form.** Peasant property is at least de jacto fatnily property. The rhythm of the farm defines the rhythm of family life. the period after marriage but before full independence. peasants seem to act within this social frame. or by becoming head of the family farm on his parents' death or retirement. as is his own selfevaluation and image.^' and his position 'has rather the character of management of common family property'. independence which may be gained either by leaving the family farm and establishing his own.'^ The new rapidly developing patterns of industrialising society 'are found outside agriculture which still remains the domain of the familistic model'. which makes the neat conceptual models of maximisation of inccme in a market society of most doubtful applicability to peasant economy.'" not being able to carry out farm activities to the Ciill. and secondly his positicm within thl'i family. These factors are firstly the status of the family he is bom into. i. *The family is the production team of the farm and the position in the family defines the duties tq the farm. partial maturity before marriage. Moreover. His position within the family once again does not depend primarily on personal ability. and finally the period of his own retirement.'^ Therefore marriage is 'an absolute postulate'. status and social prestige.^' Family . (iii) The fundamental importance of occupation in defining men's social position. Together with the mainly natural economy. The fxasant beccmses a fanner. The ambiguity in the occupational definition of the farmer's trade. At this level the national uniqueness of political organisation and social value structure becomes increasingly influential. as well as its resistance to industrialisation. The process of growing specialisation in the countryside leads to the development of a rural. in his previously quoted book. role and personality. The relative uniformity of peasant family pattems in different societies and periods diminishes when we move to the level of the village community. for example livestock trumagcment. is well known. Peasants and Farming as an Occupation. The individualistic element of personal feelings submits to the formalised frame of accepted family role behaviour. Apart from its family structure. However. informal and conducted mainly within the 9 . though poorly studied. control and socialisation. personal. however.The Peasantry as a Political Factor solidarity provides the basic framework for mutual help. the tasks which cannot be easily divided into a few repetitive actions and mechanised. the family farm determines peasant everyday action. This leads to many special charaaeristics (rf every-day peasant life. Galeski. still remain largely his special province. These features of fanning determine the process of socialisation and occupational education of the young as one which is highly diffused. Although many of the tasks fulfilled by the peasant are also carried out by other occupational groups. concerns himself with this problem in both an analytical and empirical manner. Forming the basic nucleus of j^asant society. its uniqueness lies in its being a peculiar exceptionally wide set of interrelated functions carried out on a rather unspecialised level. Simultaneously the farmer's function is progressively narrowed and becomes more professionalised as the farm develops into an enterprise. seems to stem from its unique character. the necessary ties to land and the relatively high independence from the market. interrelation and values. noo-farming population. the uniqueness of the peasant's work is the combination of functions performed. it makes for the segmentation of peasant society into small units with a remarkable degree of self-sufficiency and ability to withstand economic crises and market pressures. The peasantry appears not only as a distinctive social group. 'The peasantry is a way of living'. KMiomics. One definition. but at this stage we should like to stress that we refer not only to the 'relicts of the way of production which already belongs to the past'. different and older elements of social interrelation. stands aside from the others. however. appear as the major indices of economic and social life. says Fei'-* in his classical dracriptirai erf Chinese society. This general pattem of social life makes its appearance as a sector of earlier tribal.'-^ Yet the importance and validity of conceptual definition of peasantry for any kind of research in this &ld seems to us beyond doubt. but as a general pattem of social life. that of A. Redfield. with part culture'. This will be taken into account. Production has become determined to an increasing extent by the labour utilised. Kroeber taken over by R. This will be elaborated in the following section. and may be used to delineate the society of 10 . according to the adopted line of reasoning." Mtst of the existing definitions of peasantry are covered by that proposed above." 'The relation between theoretical models and operational definitiwis used consciously or unconsciously in empirical studies seems to be one of the most difficult problems of modem sociology. which defines a stage in the development of human society. A concept <rf a social stratum cannot be limited to any empirically chosen group. in the section on the interrelation of peasantry with society as a whole. society. L.''" which approaches the peasantry as 'a part society.^' This stage created the basis for stable settlement. The appearance of the smallproducer pattem of life is marked by the major change referred to as 'agricultural revolution'. mainly ncHnadic. (iv) The peasantry is a pre-industrial soda! entity which carries into ctmtemporary society specific. land division and a revolutionary rise in productivity which brought with it the possibility of a comparatively stable surplus allowing for annual fluctuations in yield.not only to belated development.^.Teodor Shanin framework of the family. but to a specific development.'" Property relations and nuclear units. policy and culture. that of a society of small producers and then gradually sinks as a section within industrial society. becomes decisive and marks a historically distinctive period. however. not necessarily of an absence of thcmght.*' The clash of this particular culture and its gradual weakening to the extemal and new Weltanschauung of the industrialising and 'civilised' world. Peasant logic seemed to be changeable and subjective.^* A great deaJ has been said about the irrational behaviour of the peasants as far as land.^* with dements of what can be called pre-Socratic thought.. homogeneity of values." The l^sically 'social. broke dcwn this frame. huge and complex social hierarchies and structures. 'the lack of calculation' (i. which is dearly linked to their productive life.^' They appear in their wide sense discussed above. E.^' loans. and this may serve as a generalisation of recent anrhn^(rfogical research into specific peasant cultures. is an important element of social history. The kinship group is the basis ol social relations in nomadic. etc. The individual in his own right 'does not count'. the maximising ctf income as the only aim determinant) were widely documented by Thomas and Znaniecki and stressed by every k ^ n student of peasant life.The Peasantry as a Political Factor small producers. The individual becomes the basic nuclear unit of society. by which two contradictory opinions may be hdd simultaneously. The town and marketcentred industrialising society. marked ideological egaiitarianism. R. intense group solidarity. emphasis on strict confonnity. What remains sometimes overlooked is the fact that the peasants' 'expc^ed stupidity' is evidence. and remains so in the narrower familism of a small producers' society. The society of small producers shows a distinctive 'cultural pattem'. legally formalised in the capitalistic.'" This point is bome out increasingly by recent studies. he is but a part of the family whole.^* features of which persist in the peasantry of industrialising societies. Property relations barely exist in tribal-nomadic society. and become fully. wide endogamy. tribal society. in the small producers' society. industrial one. Therefore the prevalence of family units of producticm and family property may wdl demarcate the social pattem of small producers and the historical periods in question. but rather of a frame of reference and pattem (rf thought peculiar to the group. II .*' Pitt-Rivers (tefines the main features of a dosed community as habitual personal contact. and servii^ their needs well. F.e." 'fair-prices'^" and income" are concemed. rather than ec(aiomic' way of reasoning. free to interact in the new. Smith has already pointed out the cyclical rather than linear concept of time held by Russian peasants. a significant description of its function. The village is the peasant's world. 'the world' and 'peace'. The peasant back-bone in the small producers' sodety dissolves under the influence (rf the rise of a market and town-centred economy. marriage. Furthermore. All this makes the word mir. cyclical. bears. highly centralised state. 12 . but the farms themsdves remained to a great extent apart from this new social framework. The common interests of communal rights as wdl as productive actions which need the participation of more than one family provides for co-operation generally coupled with some grass roots democracy. if any.Teodor Shanin The village structure. warfare-like. The small producers' society consisted of innumerable village segments generally under the spell and suppression of alien. by the introduction of a powerful external pressure on the world of natural economy and cyclical stabUity. the peasant reaches the level of nearly complete self-sufficiency. rdigious needs are generally taken care of at the village level. The word intermediate sometimes tends to be used interchangeably with 'unstable'. i. Indeed one does not need Witfogel's hydraulic despotism to explain the striking examples of arrested structural change collected in his book. The appropriation and division of land. the potentialities (rf structural change. with the subsistence family farm as its basic nudeus proved exceptional inner stability all over the world.*' The producing and trading town introduces general social pattems alien to the world of small producers. a surplusexhausting. the small producers* pattem of society proved as lasting as and no less stable than any other historical pattem. 'An analysis of the development of the economic surplus is needed for the understanding of this process." In the context erf the village community or peasant commune. and the consequent industrialisation. The small producers' society falls historically in the intermediate period between the nomadic tribal and the industrialising societies. used by the Russian peasants to refer to their village commune.e. The society based on organic. political hierarchies. to a much greater extent than the family farm.** The basic social nucleus of the family subsistence farm with its cyclical and organic stability seems to be much more of a common element in aU the societies quoted than their 'hydraulic' features. 'temporary' and even 'not important to look at'. However. presents us with features unique to a specific country and period. non-structural dynamics.*' The devdopment of agriculture provided the basis for industrialisation. sociability. The impersonal. spread of education.*' as well as in stsne of the Soviet sovkhozy.The Peasantry' as a Political Factor profit-centred market relations are here at the root of human relationships. Yet the special features of the fanning occupad<Mi create difficuldes for its division into simple. The poorer villagers are increasingly drained from the countryside by the expanding urban areas.*" The approach to the countryside's development in a town-centred society. the professionalisation i)f agriculture. becomes an individual participant in mass society. This. halt the processes of the 'food factory' becoming the main method of food producdcMi. political weight and population growth. proved wrong but persistent. The middle peasants. which becomes increasingly decisive in its own development. the countryside develops a special relation with the town. rise in productivity. capital intensive. Agriculture. The peasants' small producers' world becomes a mere segment of a world very differently structured. The general daim of efficiency and achievement provides the core of the social value system. mechanised agriculture. whilst still preserving elements of uniqueness.** Thh development is apparent in the large farms (rf the United States. Moreover. the drainii^ off of surplus labour and capital. the urban society rapidly overtakes the countryside. gradually destroys the small farms. i. By the advantages of capita! concentration. The concentration of land-ownership is followed by growing concentradon of production. The same happens to the peasant enterpreneurs and to pan of the eccmomic surphii. North Italy and Central France. together with the compedtive strength of the family farm unit and the fact that synthedc foods are rdatively unimportant.e. structured by huge bureaucratic hierarchies. the spread of mass culture and production and the evidence of 'social disorganisation'. In fact. and becomes the main determinant of social and economic change. becomes 'merdy a branch of industry'. (ii) The town-centred society makes for the devdopment of the peasants into a professional stratum of farmers. being fully taken over by an industrial method of-producdon. we may clearly see three parallel pattems of spontaneous development of the countryside: (i) The c(«npetidon of large-scale. repedtive actions. as simply bdated and not different. its full autMnatian. The town's lead is fdt by the increasing influence <rf market reladons. The accumulation of anonymous capital determines economic growth. The man freed from the ties and protection of the family. rdying on the • 13 . *' The latest studies of Polish and Carman sociolc^ts have shown the growth of a new stratum of worker-peasants who supplement their agricultural. and curbing capitalist devdopment (Russia in the NEP period. the inca:«asing sti^ngth (rf the modem state and the wish of the revoludcaiary Elites to tackle the prt^lraa cf devdopment within the framework of socialist. (iii) The third pattem of development appears mainly in the socalled under-developed sodedes. mainly subsistence. by being a consdous plan put into (^jeradon by a polidcal hierarchy. fight successfully for their place in the market society. farming still maintains scone (rf its peculiar dements. Yet in the Soviet Union. These imique features of the devdopment of the farmer stratum has already been pointed out by Marx'''* and described as the only way for the peasantry to devdop by O." (iv) As distinct hem these three spcmtaneous titads of devdojanent. Bauer. is dearly seen in most parts of North-West Europe. producdon by hiring out their labour. cdlecdvisdc thinking makes for the appearance of state oi^anised cdlectivisadon of agriculture. This pattem of devdopment of the peasantry into a cohesive. contemporary Poland and Jugoslavia) bring the above pattem to its clearest expression. excess populadon in the countryside. lowering of average inc(Mne per head and increasing misery. The potential surplus is swept away by growing consumption needs. the strength of the peasant fann plot and the unique ability of fanning to defeat town-designed 14 . where the earliest attempts were made. Although increasingly tied to the industrialising society. The slow industriaiisad(m is not able to drain the countryside of its excess \dhom nor to provide suffident capital accumuladon. providing them with the necessary aid. The socialist states which allow for the activity of small producers in the countryside. ThU pattem is qualitadvdy different from the spontaneous trends. In the small producers framework this devdc^ment is not expressed by increasing unemployment. the specific dements of peasant life. The evaluadon of its suas»s in any of the different forms taken would seem to be premature. increasingly narrowing and professiaialised (Kcupational group of farmers.Teodor Shanin advantages of the family producdon unit and the increasing cooperadve movement. the devdoping maritet relad(»is and the industrial compeddon with traditional handicrafts breaks up the cyclical equilibrium of society. but by 'hidden* under-employment. The populadon explosion. Different analytical aims. Social class is approached as a unity of interest." The peasantry as a qualitatively distinct endty disappears. even if the consoladon of looking into the future is offered.The Peasantry as a Political Factor plans was proved to quite a surprising degree. If we take the criteria for defining class as being the distribudon of power. clearly. interrelated with different concepts of society made for this diversity. The peasantry is a class to Stalin.'" the peasantry in an industrialismg society will fall into either a huge amorphous group of 'ruled'. on the one hand. according to the kind of services which can be offered in the market. Max Weber's modification of the Marxist concept of class puts market rdadons at the roots of class definidon. according to the kind of property that is usable for returns. ultimately market situation. Society is structured by this dialectic composition of inter-class conflict and unity. expressed in group sub-culture. feeling of belongingness and common acdon. and. Ossowski'* elaborates the three different ways the concept of social class is used by Marx.*.^^ a pedt bourgeois mass to Kritsman.''"' 'Class situations are further differentiated. stems from Marxian dass analysis. the definition seems to be sadly inadequate. Yet when a major part of the population remains outside the concept of society as a whole. The difficulties of achieving a conceptual grasp of the peasantry have been dearly felt in discussions about the place of the peasantry in society.** and 'not a class but a notion' to Plekhanov.'** For 15 . and shaped by conflict reladon with other classes.** the ccHOtrol of means of production. Even people starting from similar theoretical assumpdons reach opposite conclusions. Yet the type of conceptual sub-division of society chcBen is crucial to any interpretation of sodal structure. and many other conceptual subdivisions of society have been applied by different writers. functioning and change. in this sense. is pardy due to differences in definition. This leads the majority of Marxist social scientists to approach the peasantry as a disappearing remainder of pre-capitalist society—as 'not exisdng historically speaking'. Unfulfilled pre(iicdons seem to be the inevitable result of such a model.*' or the organisation of production. or into an even more amorphous group of middle-classes. on the other hand.'Qass situadon is." This. The main European sociological tradition'' of conceptual subdivision of contemporary society. for example. we could say that the peasantry would appear as a social entity of comparadvdy low 'classness'. the diversity and vagueness of polidcal aims. proved over-simplified. consciousness and 'the meaning attached'*' to the class position proved most persistent. On the other hand the basic division of peasants into small local segments. greatly influencing the final result. with various groups of townsmen and with the modern state. as well as by the specific features of a peasant family farm economy. Moreover. All this made peasant cohesiveness as the potential basis of political dass formadon much stronger than the predictions of Russian Marxists or American strategists would lead us to believe. the peasantry has acted politically many dmes as a classlike social entity. If we posed an imaginary scale or condnuum. constitute social classes. 'owners of warehouses' and 'owners of shares'. For their common interest has also driven the peasants into polidcai conflicts with large capitalist land-owners.Teodor Shanin Weber therefore. (on the one hand it is a class. The shortcMnings of an unlimited analytical division of society into small sub-groups. Furthermore the dements of specific culture. what is it—grandng its qualitative existence? A class position is basically a social interrelation—a conflict interi6 . which rises in crisis situations. when approaching social reality has already been indicated by Marx in his unfinished manuscript on social class. The widely accepted image of the countryside being rapidly split by the inevitable economic trends of polarisation. but rather should be seen as a quesdon of degree and historical period. slowed down to some extent by non-economic factors. how far peasantry may be regarded as a dass is not a clear-cut problem. Hence. considerably weakens their political impact.*-' In history. A^rx's classical description of the duality of peasant social character. But the peasantry's special features as a social group are not merely quantitative. In so far as the peasantry is not a class. was arrested by the urban drain of capital and labour. the peasantry of industrialising society has proved its ability for cohesive polidcal action. The polarisation of the countryside in an industrialising society into capitalist owners and rural proletariat as predicted by Marxists. on the other it is not)*' leaves the riddle unsolved. Econcmiic countertrends seem to act in the opposite direction. not only when facing traditional land-owners in belated pre-capitalist battles. as much as do industrial workers and peasants. de Coulangue's familistic-individualistic.''*' Redfield elaborates Kroeber's point and adds 'there is no peasantry before the first city'. the labour of a fanner is necessary for the existence of a society. Moreover. cut off from towns. but the existence of a society as a whole. yet live in a relation to a market town . political autonomy and self-sufficiency of a tribal population. yet may well serve as a qualitative definition of the peasantry especially when delineating it from the wide amorphous groups of 'middle classes'. Kroeber advanced a definition of peasants as 'constituting part societies with part cultures. they 17 .The Peasantry as a Political Factor relation with other classes and groups. is not to the same extent necessary for the existence of a farmer'. Moreover. The main duality of the peasant's position in society is in their being on the one hand a social class (of low 'classness') and on the other 'a different world". integration and attachment to soil. far from noblemen and even generally out of the reach of the state and its tax-collectors can hardly be labelled tribal. definitely rural.'^ The peasants prove this by withdrawing from the market in crisis situations.'"' This unique duality of 'class' and 'society' accounts for conceptual difficulties. yet their local units maintain much of their old identity. and indeed sometimes use this ability consciously or unconsciously as a tool of political influence. . However. As already stated A. . 'exploited masses' or 'remainders of feudalism'. The peasantry is the social phenomenon in which the Marxist tradition of class analysis meets the main conceptual dichotomy of non-Marxist sociological thinking: Maine's brotherhood—economic competition. Yet these groups share the main features common to peasants. and his definition of tribal society too all-inclusive. Yet 'because the farmer's produce is essential. Outside this interreladon a class ceases to exist." The anthropological approach by which the extent of cultural self-sufficiency is used as an index of social development seems to be valid. L. Tonnies' Gemeinschaft—Gesellschaft and Durkheim's mechanic (segmentarian>—organic societies. lack the isolation. Redfield's definition of peasantry seems to be too narrow. Settlers in many countries. sufficient for human existence. and at the lowest level. bearing the elements of a distinctive pattem of social relation—a highly self-sufficient society in itself. research centred round the problem of the development from tribal to a small producer's society will necessarily stress different factors than that centred round the development from a small producer's society into an industrialising one. The social/political significance of this ^. the difficuldes in the crystallisation of nation-wide symbols and aims and in the rise of leaderehip and organisation made for what we have called low 'classness'. Whether this potendality becomes reality is mainly dependent upon the peasants' ability to act in unison with or without organisation. Once again the line of development seems to weaken the peasants' political influence. For this very sdf-sufficiency made polidcal suppression necessary to the rulers. the peasantry's existence and acdon cannot be ignored as polidcaily sterile and therefore without significance. stimulates polarisation. Yet in the long run the basic weakness of the pea^ntry prevails. The political impact of the peasantry was generally marked by its basic socio-political weaknesses. The vertical segmentadon into local communides.Teodor Shanin seem to prove the peasantry's self-sufficiency. its ability to exist out of the spell of noblemen and the town. The spread of the countryside could become a stronghold. by intemadonal trade the 'food-monopoly'. wellorganised. the peasants' chances of influencing the political sphere increases sharply in times of nadonal crises. especially in the fields of communication and military acdon. granting all this. The spread of industrialisation and mass culture gives the peasantry new possibilities of cranmunicadon and cultural coh^iveness. This in turn is dependent . closely-knit. Yet at the same time it lowers the importance of the countryside in the national producdon. Yet the peasantry luid its sodo-political points of strength in being the main food producer. curtre. the peasantry's attitude and acdon may well prove decisive. Its 'monopoly' of food producdon proved of crucial importance in times of crisis. its dispersion in rural areas and its numerical size. brought to nothing many political attempte. The peasantry proved no match for the smaller. However. rulers split or foreign powers attack. and was time and dme again double-crossed or suppressed polidcally and militarily. Technological backwardness. raises the technological advantages of govemment's power of suppression. However. technically superior groups. dans and groups. When the non-peasant social forces dash. the differentiation of interest within the communides themselves. Numerical strength may dp the balance. For not only victors and rulers determine polidcal reality.ems to have necessitated the structure of power reladons of pre-capitalisdc society. This form of political action seems to be fairly typical of the main social classes. As stated by Marx. the peasant unions in Russia—1905. for contemporary peasantry this pattem of polidcal action is the least frequent. aims and siinbols and produces its leaders from within. aims and leadership. a social class crystallises in conflict. However. A comparison between the peasantry's political and military acdon in pre-industrial and in contemporary society remains to be done. The common element found in all these very different movements is a closely-knit group of activists. and their reflecdon on the ideological sphere. coupled by an extemal factor of a sweeping political and emodonal force. to whom the peasantry is an object to be led and/or manipulated. with its own momentum. The peasantry in this case may be 'used' (consciously tricked into action alien to its own interests) or 'led to achieve its own aims\'~^ Yet the definition of aims remains in the hands of qualitatively distinct leaders. as described by Marxist class theory. Russian cossacks. The 'Green movement' in Eastem Europe. in which the class is moved by an external uniting power elite. This pattem of action may become especially important as far as the peasantry is concemed. The conservative cyclical stability of both the farm and the village. The peasants' interests and attitudes are only one of the factoid to be taken into account. Mexican sinorquistas. referring to the French peasantry in the mid-nineteenth century.'^ 2. secret societies. Guided political action. specific structure of organisadon. In this pattem. works out Its ideology. and its political impHcadon may generally be overcome only by a severe crisis. 1. creates its nation-wide organisation. concentrate on the latter. however. 'they are consequently incapable of enforcing their class interest in their own name whether through a parliament 19 . We shall. French Bonapartism or Mao's people's army and provides the peasantry with the tnissing factor of unity on a wide scale. Independent class action. This extemal organiser of the peasantry may be found in millennial movements. its economic social and cultural similarides and interacdon.The Peasantry as a Political Factor upon the cohesiveness of the peasantry. The patterns of peasant political action and influence are determined by its character as a social entity. and China—1926. the Zapata movement in Mexico and all their counterparts in the rest of the world have to be studied comparatively to understand the mechanics of this pattem of peasant action. which has been refuted by later events. The fully spontaneous. the Russian soldiers in 1917-18). Generally easily overcome by the suppressive centralised power. makes the study of peasant movements especially illuminating for the sociological analysis of the leading elites. Furthermore. They cannot represent themselves. which was victorious in war against powerful enemies."* The only thing to be objected to in this statement is its absolutism.g. Tolstoy and Gandhi. E. the elite group dynamics seem to appear in a purer form. stubbom and silent nonfulfilment. these riots may act as a check on central policy (indicating necessary changes). (b) The second form is that of peasant passivity. The interrelation between the basic features of peasant society and passive resistance seems to be evident. Yet the spontaneous lowering of producdon activities by Russian peasantry in 1920 proved strong enough to defeat a government. The low-'classness' of peasantry. they may develop into nation-wide movements capable of determining major political changes. Moreover. . the influence of peasant conservative apathy has many times proved decisive for the victory of the establishment over the revolutionaries. When interrelated with crises in other areas and spheres. military action has a place of special importance. amorphous political action. it leads us to lcK)k into the problem of class-like masses (i. and may take one of two forms: (a) Local riots which appear as 'sudden' shon outbursts of accumulated disappointment and rebellious feeling. In the study of the political life of a society. The conceptual grasp of passivity as a factor of dynamics is not easy. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master . F. This pattem seems to be highly typical of peasant impact on political reality. Enormous numbers of govemmental decrees and orders have been defeated all over the world by the peasantry's spontaneous. social groups acting temporarily as class entities without bearing all the features of a class) and into their place in polidcal development (e. Smith and points in the same direction. they must be represented.e. elaborated and sophisticated by L. .Teodor Shanin or through a convention. 3. Owing to the lower self-consciousness of the peasantry and hence its weaker influence on its own leaders. has been suggested by R. That nonresistance is a special peasant contribution to politics. Qausewitz' remark that war is an 20 . a kind of party in arms. the army generally provides the peasant with the framework for the most active participation.''* The army. when put in the army. and not village-limited terms. Their remarkable failure in both guerilla and anti-guerilla warfare is the best comment on this approach. if not by indoctrination. i. modern techniques and military skills. is generally successfully curbed by rigid discipline and by control from non-peasant officers.e. The Russian Tamanskaya armiya and the 'Green army' of the Black Sea.L. This leads to the need for a special consideration of the army and guerilla warfare as frames of contemporary peasant political action. by its success. the peasants frequently refer back to their army experience. this suppression disappears and the peasant army. or as a 'guided' socio-political entity. The army provides him with a hierarchial insdtution through which he may rise as a leader and be trained for this position. as this kind of organisation. The ex-serviceman by his new experience tends to become a leader and a channel through which outside influences reach the villagers. the F. The segmentation of the peasantry is thereby broken. complex co-operative action. In attempting to organise politically. By cultural intercourse and intermixture. Its record seems to be as old as the peasantry itself. its attitudes. co-ordination. During the last decade partisan warfare. In21 . American strategists approach guerilla warfare as a specific military technique to be taught by smart sergeants along with saluting and target practice. may bear the marks of both the first and second patterns of political action. the Chinese 'people's militia'. Guerilla warfare is the most suitable form of expressing peasant militancy. The modem army of mass enlistment is one of the few nadonwide organisadons in which the peasantry actively participates.N. He is taught organisation. has been moved into the centre of public attention. the experience gained in army service acts as an important influence in the villages. The increase in peasant ability to act politically. the peasantry as a class for itself.The Peasantry as a Political Factor extension of politics by other means holds true. not only in the interrelation between countries. action and refusal to act may become decisive. the Zapata and Villa armies in Mexico served not only as military but as the main political organization. Even where some national organisations are represented on a rural level. Moreover.. the peasant-soldier is taught to think in wide national. Yet in a time of crisis. lack of a crystallised ideology and aims. explains much of the spirit of peasant fighters. making the revolt into guided polidcai acdon. brigands and outlaws appear in popular memory as well as in the real history of every people. The professional rebels' nation-wide ideological and organisational cohesiveness. Yet the essentially peasant character of guerilla warfare provides not only its strength but also its weakness: segmentarism. but in their interrelation with the peasantry. take to a large extent the place of ideology and organisadon as a unidng factor. their stability and zeal and their ability to work out a long-term strategy enables them to unite the peasantry.Teodor Shanin numerable rebels. together with the specific values and self-image of the leading elites. transforming its revolt into a successful revolution. and his personal charisma. not only in the military techniques of the few. Yet the main key to the understanding of guerilla warfare has to be sought not in the marvds of the rebels' organisadon. The childish display of exhibidonism descril^d by Znaniecki" as typical of the peasant's attempts to establish his own personality when breaking out of his rigid family ties. lack of stable membership. The leader-hero. All these feature influence the general character of peasant units as a fighting force. but in the sociology of the masses. The ability of the amorphous guerilla 'army' to (iisperse in times of need into the sympathetic peasant mass and the expanses of the countryside. These essential weaknesses may be overcome by an injecdon of a hard core of professional rebels. the legends which surround him. may make the guerillas unbeatable by modem military methods. its ability to utilise various degrees of peasant militancy and friendly passivity. Peasant revolts all over the world display common cultural features which. its ability to survive without outside supplies and the adequacy of primidve military techniques. The picturesque image of the young peasant rebel challenges the miindane nature of every-day peasant life.'*' There are subjecdve determinants of military action generally labelled 'morale'. The main stream of contemporary sociology has by-passed the 22 . in all their complexity. seem to be better grasped by the synthedc expressions of the arts than by the analsrtical tools of the social sciences. the resistance of which to quantitative anals^is does not limit their importance in the shaping of reality. H..The Peasantry as a Political Factor tradidonal peasantry. 1927-1929. Marx and F. ^ F. p. and financed by. Vol.'* University of Birmingham. pp. Ill. 48. and consequently centred upon the problem of how to promote the farming minorities into fully productive and wealthy members of 'civilised society'. I. See also S. p. Mitrany: Marx Against Peasants. in Pacific Viewpoint III No. P." and we may continue in this vein until 1964. dealing with Marxist as well as populist ideology. Innumerable problems of contemporary world political and K:onomic development lead us back to the subject of the peasantry. 348. ^ V. 23-25. dme and time again. etc. * Ibid. I. 1963. Asia. Chernov—as quoied by J. 23 . the history of the Soviet Union was to a great extent determined by the sequence of the ruling party's evaluation—prediction—policy—policy's unexpected results.The Russian Peasant. To take but one example. « K. p. Maynard. etc. may overcome the astonishing short-comings of our knowledge of the peasantry and the methodological difficuldes involved. Redfield: Peasant Society and Culture. Latin America. in 1918. 159. Marx: Capital. and its understanding and misunderstanding by policy makers. Davring: Land and Labour in Europe igao-igso..97* G. Vol. 1956. Hamburg. Rural sociology has been localised in. etc. 1962. Only a combinadon of both conceptual and factual research by different disciplines and approaches. Plekhanov on the Russian peasantry. 5. Countless other examples could be cited in Africa. Warszawa. 25. ' R. 1920. 1956. Few sociologists have elevated the peasantry from the footnote to the page. 1890. industrial societies. we would be virtually swept by publicadons dealing with peasantry. Engels: Selected Works. 1950. rich. 1951. Galeski: Chlopi i Zawod Rolnika. ^ D. = • K. Yet if historical and social significance were the criteria for subjects of study. ' B. Limping along main roads achieves more than marching along side roads. Franklin: Reflections on the Peasantry. p. p. individual behaviour and sociai attitudes closely knit together for the purpose of husbanding land with simple tools and human labour' ^^ See for example V. 1958. a complex of formal organisation. op. 140.. 2. 1876. 1923. Vol. 16-19. 19. 21. Vol. '" B. p. Gordon Childe: Social Evolution. See a very similar analysis in A. p. ^'' See E. 41. p... L. 32. 284. Wright Mills. 1888^ p. ^^ Cultural pattems being defined for that purpose as 'the lens of mankind through which men see. by a rise from the position of owner of a small farm to the position of an owner of a bigger one. cit. cit.Galeski: op. '•* Galeski: op. ^' A.. p. -•' Galeski: op. 93. dt. 33-36. •" Accept fighting strangers at the tribal hunting territories. cit. ^' Ibid. p. RedfieJd: The Primitive World and its Transformation. 107. Jerusalem. -•. Kroeber: Anthropology. '•^ The proofs of that statement cannot be brought 'marginally' and the reader is referred to the studies by Znaniecki. 1951. dt. ^^ R. 47: 'A rise within the professional group of farmers is traditionally achieved by enlargement of the land holding. C.K. Redfield: Peasant Society and Culture. '^•' A. 1962.Teodor Shanin '" Ibid. Thomas and F. See also R.. Lipset: Class. '. cit. Pozaer Politics and People. 57. Znaniecki: The Polish Peasani. p. 1953. 1953. p. 21. Marx: Selected Works. 33 Cf. cit. Mandel: Traite d'economie marxiste. 24 . 107. p.Mukhin: Obychnyi poryadok nasledozaniya.' '^ Redfield: op. Chayanov: Organizaxsiya krest'yanskogo khozyaistfa. and the description "good farmer" is generally attached in the view of the village to all owners of the biggest farms without exception and is not linked to the real professional skill or effectiveness of their work. p. p. II. cit. Bendix and S. cit. p. pp. p. p. 'TTie peasantry. 28. p. 1925. ^* In Marxist studies appearing generally as the defmition of 'small' or 'middle' or 'parcela' peasant to be delineated from the capitalist farmers. Galeski or Chayanov and his group (though this last seemed clearly to over-state his own case). p. 1964. '• Ibid. 140. -" Ibid. the key toward understanding of China is a way of living. 303. ^* For analysis see Galeski: op. ''' W. p. 406. 92. '" Thomas and Znaniecki: op. the medium by which they interpret and report what they see'. Vasil'chikov: Zemledel'e i zemvladenie. pp. Status and Power.. I. ' '" Thomas and Znaniecki: op. 62. op. M. which reports on India as follows: During the years t94r-5i the natural growth of labour force in the countryside was absorbed in Agriculture . Marx: Capital. Geertz in Biennial Review of Anthropology. or the control of associated producers. 34-35 and the supplementary tables. 203. p.3'^1 in Industry' . p. 70. Witfogel: Onemal Despotism. at. p. I-41. 161'" Ibid.. '-' See for example Mukhin: op. p. although technical improvements in agriculture are promoted by capitalism. *^ Mandel: op. i. University of Birmingham. 1961. also Mandel: op. 1122. 144. 28. j 1 in^ £ p Smith: 'A Model of Production and Consumpiion on the Russian Farm'.A.. III.See J.4'^o 25 . '* K.The Peasantry as a Political Factor •' Even Marx mentions the rural societies in which the laws of labour value never developed and therefore the 'general economics laws of society' do no: •. Marx: A Coniribution to the critique of pohiical economy.303*^ See the reports from the international socialist symposium on the European peasantry as published in Al Hamishmar.. 1957. 138. '" Ibid. pp. *• Thomas and Znaniecki: op. •"' See for example the Polish . • • K. 1963. Tel-Aviv 1964. 1963. Eisenstadl: The Political System of Empires. agriculture needs either the hands of the self-employing small farmer.. 1926. p. or that a rational agriculture is irreconcilable with the capitalist system. Geneva.e..3".. [. ••' Thomas and Ziianiecki: op. i. a sensible thing in conditions of wasted surplus labour. '.000 small farms show a mainly natural economy. Pitt-Rivers: The Closed Commumty and Iis Friends. 173. 1963. 173. Vol. i960. in Services . Discussion Paper RC/D t. is that the capitalist system works against a rational agriculture. P.. *-• The Transition from Feudalism 10 Capitalism—a SympoHum. •• Ibid. pp. •" K. 311. 169.. p. in accordance with the pcfionaliiy of . which may also be deduced from other observations in agriculture. cit. 166. According to Mandel's evidence even in present day U.' ••' O. . 1904. at. '" See for an example Pourquoi les iravailleurs abandonneni la terre.vork.ociologiits' studies of the prestige determinants of peasant economic action or Chayanov's proofs of the 'economically irrational' renting of land when ihe cost of" rent is higher than the additional profii gained. cit... For a summary of contemporary anthropological research see C. Bauer: Bor'ba za zemlyu. 11.S. '•^ For cabulaEion sec S. stating that the peasants' court or meeting tends to decide propcriy disagreements 'according to men'.250. pp. p. 1964. en. But under this system. p. CenEre for Russian and East European Studies.he people involved rather than the proofs pre5en!ed.. p. •The moral of this story. Gerth and C. 138. 182. 39. '•* For presentation of this dichotomy sec for example: V. Alavi: Peasantry and Revolution. Rex: Key Problems of Sodological Theory. 303. 1031-1032. p. . pp. dt. 15. 139-143. 510. 1945. 1959. "" See R. p. they do not form a class. Vol.' ^'* Galeski: op. 1953. p. cit.. 31.. 1909. op. p. 284. «" See works by Bogdanov. 26 . *-• G. 1955. they form a class. etc. their interests and their culture from Umstof other classes. Ill. Dahrendorf: Class and Class Confiict in Industrial Sodety. '=' For exposition of all aspects see J. p. 'In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that sei»rate their mode of life. no national bond and no political organisation among them.. (5th ed. 64. Simon. p. «3 G. Makhaiski. Stalin: The Problems of Leninism. H. 1963. '^ See B. 1961. p. 1965. H. Lenin: What is to be done? as compared with G. '1 R. • ^ 5 Marx: Capital. I. Semenov: Problema klassov .Teodor Shcmin During the years 1931-51 the share of workers engaged in agriculture rose from 71 to 74% of the working population and in 1952 74% of peasant families held less than 2 ha. ^" Marx: Selected Works. Ossowski: Class Structure in the Social Consdousness. 1959. " Bendix: op. Redfield: The Little Community. *' See Rex: op. 49. ^* Marx: Selected Works. dt. 33 and V.. p. Bocke: Economics and Economic Policy in Dual Societies 1953. The Socialist Register. ^3 I. ^^ See R. '" Kroeber: op. xin. '= For an important insight into the influence of the stratification of peasantry on political action. Redfield: The Primitive World.. p. cit. •'^ See S. Sorel: Reflection on Violence.. dt. In so far as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants. and may be traced to St. Wright Mills: From Max Weber. op. Gaister: Rassloenie sovetskoi derevni. dt. and the identity of their interests begets no community. pp. Plekhanov. ^^ We shall not touch upon the hierarchial status groups and American studies of social stratification which are irrclevarn to our study. Lenin: Collected Works. 1928. see H. For an elaboration of the mechanism of such social processes see I. . land and 1/3 is reponed as landless. and put them in hostile opposition to the latter. p.) Vol. ^* See the introduction to A. p. 1961. Carr in Proceedings of the Briiish Academy. XLIX. GiOy and others in Monthly Retiew. op. 33. . 1963. 90-91. Vol. Hobsbawn: Primitive Rebels 1959. •' One of its forms is described by Marx in the Communist Manifesto when speaking about the early stage of bourgeois class organisation as: 'an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune'. sponsored by the Centre for Russian and East European Studies of ihe University of Birmingham. p. cit. op... especially the densely populated South Asia. The generalisations attempted here have been based on preliminary studies of Russian. 103. See Marx: Selected Works. Chinese. p. with the consequent severe limitation of excluding many important areas. H. and Vietnam and the Dynamics of Guerilla Warfare in New Left Review. on guerilla acfiviiies in Latin America. Polish and Mexican societies. cit. •• Thomas and Znaniecki: op. See also A. cit. pp. 303. '•* This paper was primarily prepared for an inter-disciplinary conference on peasantry.The Peasantry as a Political Factor •' For example Marx: Selected Works.. p. ••' Inraads into research on this subject were made by E. 34. 17. •'• See for example E.
Report "Shanin, Teodor - The Peasantry as a Political Factor"