Shanin, Teodor - The Peasantry as a Political Factor

THE PEASANTRY AS A POLITICAL FACTOR

Teodor Shanin

Peasants are the majority of mankind. For all but comparativelyfew countries, 'the people' (as opposed to 'the nation') stilldenotes 'the peasants'; the specific 'national culture' closely

corresponds to peasant culture; 'the army' means young peasants inuniform, armed and officered by men diiferent from themselves. Andyet one has to be reminded of it.

'Ir is a commonplace to say that agrarian history as such isneglected—the fact is too obvious to be denied"—this holds true formany branches of social science as far as the countryside is concerned.The decade which has elapsed since this passage was written has notmuch improved the situation, apart from several notable exceptionsin the fields of anthropology and history in the last few years. Indeedin the growing flood of social science publications, the few existingrural studies have almost been submerged. But reality seems toconfute this solipsism of 'civilised mind'. Day by day the peasantsmake the economists sigh, the politicians sweat, and the strategistsswear, defeating their plans and prophecies all over the wor ld-Moscow and Washington, Peking and Delhi, Cuba and Algeria,Congo and Vietnam.

Even more striking that the neglect of study, are the emotionalundertones and diversity of opinion which shroud this subject.Mitrany's' 400 pages bring together but a fraction of the viewsexpressed. Writers, scientists and politicians have all contributedto the discussion, in which the image of the peasant has swung fromthat of an angelic rustic humanist to a greedy, pig-headed brute. Forexample in Russia in the same period the peasantry has been held to bethe 'real autocrat of Russia" and 'non-existent historically speaking'.*This kind of verbal contest did not make reality much clearer. Thepeasantry went its ovi n way quite oblivious of being an intellectualnuisance.

The emotional tension of ambiguous contempt or Utopian praise,the allegory replacing definition as well as fhe acute shortcomingsin our conceptual grasp of peasantry are all strongly feit in Western

5

Teodor Shanin

intellectual tradition. The neglect of the subject is but a symptomof this. It calls for serious study in the sociolc^ of knowledgeinto the 'eidos' of intellectual image makers when dealing with 'theclass that represents the barbarism within civilisation'.^ The peasantryas an 'undecipherable hieroglyphic to the understanding of thecivilised" seems to be determined by a conglomeration of factors, ofwhich one stands out as crucial. The real peasantry does not fit wellinto any of our concepts of contemporary society. This 'maddening'peasant quality seems to lie at the roots of the problems of researchin this field.

In this paper we shall start by trying to define the differendaspecifica of the peasantry—the uniqueness by which the peasantrymay be defined and selected. The definition of peasantry willnecessarily consist of both static and dynamic elements, either oneof which is insufficient on its own. From this starting point we shallproceed to the problem of peasantry as a part of society, and then tothe patterns of political influence of this entity. In dealing with thissubject other approaches are feasible and indeed needed. The transla-tion of rich, complex reality into a verbal form df fewer dimensionsmakes many approaches possible and valid, subject to a rect^nition ofthe limitations involved.

'Peasant society and culture has something generic about it. It isa kind of arrangement of humanity with some similarities all over theworld." In this way Redfield summarises a wi<fc comparison ofpeasants in different periods and countries. Peasantry appears tobe 'a type without localisation—not a typical anthropologist's cran-munity'.^

The peasantry conskt of small producers on land who, with thehelp of simple equipment and the labour of their families, producemainly for their own comiimption, and for the fulfilment of theirduties to the holders of political and economic power.

(i) The relation to land and the specific character of agriculturalproduction, lies at the roots of the specific features of thepeasant family farm.

The produce from the farm fulfils the basic consumption needsof the peasant family, and allows the peasant relative indepen-dence from other producers and the market. This makes for thegreat stability of peasant households, which in crises are able

6

The Peasantry as a Political Factor

to maintain their existence by increased effort, lowering theirovra consumption and partially withdrawing from marketrelations.

The mainly agricultural production puts limits on the densityand concentration of population and influences human inter-course. Furthermore it determines the cycle of peasant labouractivities and life. Nature introduces an element of interferencebeyond human control, with which all the peasant community isfaced.

The holding of land by being 'a necessary and generallysufficient condition to enter the occupation'* acts together withother factore as an entrance ticket into the peasantry. Moreoverthe position in the hierarchy of peasant sub-groups is to a greatextent defined by the amount of land held.'"

In peasant households, land appears as a traditionally definedand stable holding, which does not necessarily imply legal owner-ship. We shall define land property as socially accepted rightsof holding and utilizing land—rights which are apart from thosegained by labour and capital input. These rights are expressedby the possibility of transferring them, at least temporarily.

Land property in a wide sense appears on the one hand as thecustomarily defined peasant family holdii^, and on the otherhand as politically formalised, legal ownership. In actual fact,the legal ownership of peasant land may lie with the peasanthimself, the commune, the landlord or the state, the landbecOTning therefore a private plot, ccaiimunal property or acustoniary lease-holding. 'Landlords are not needed to establishthe fact of peasantry'." Their acquisition of part erf the peasants'produce, and even their political and administrative interferencegenerally failed to break the basic features of the peasant/landinterrelation.

(ii) The family farm is the basic unit of peasant ownership, pro-duction, consumption and social life. The individual, the familyand the farm, appear as <me indivmble whole. 'The identificationof interest of family and farm holding seems to be a typicalcharacteristic of the traditicHoal peasant family'.'' The farm takesthe dual form of a production and consumption unit. Thebalance of consumption needs, family labour available and farmpotentialities, strongjly influences peasant activities. The profitand accumulation motives rarely appear in their pure and simple

7

Teodor Shanin

form, which makes the neat conceptual models of maximisationof inccme in a market society of most doubtful applicability topeasant economy.'^ The new rapidly developing patterns of in-dustrialising society 'are found outside agriculture which stillremains the domain of the familistic model'.**

Peasant property is at least de jacto fatnily property. The headof the family appears as 'the manager rather than proprietor offamily land',^' and his position 'has rather the character ofmanagement of common family property'." These two dewrrip-tions given by different scholars about the peasantry of twodifferent countries show striking similarities. Whatever theimposed national legal structure, peasants seem to act withinthis social frame.

The family's social structure determines the division of labour,status and social prestige. Moreover, *The family is the pro-duction team of the farm and the position in the family definesthe duties tq the farm, the functions and rights attached. Therhythm of the farm defines the rhythm of family life."'

The prestige and position of an individual in peasant societyis basically determined by two factors, as is his own self-evaluation and image. These factors are firstly the status of thefamily he is bom into, and secondly his positicm within thl'ifamily. His position within the family once again does not dependprimarily on personal ability, but on his progression throughcertain basic ascribed positions, i.e. childhood; partial maturitybefore marriage; the period after marriage but before full in-dependence; independence which may be gained either by leavingthe family farm and establishing his own, or by becoming headof the family farm on his parents' death or retirement; and finallythe period of his own retirement.'^ Therefore marriage is 'anabsolute postulate'.^* Family interest directs the choice—and anunmarried man (even a farm-owner) 'arouses unfavourableastonishment' and 'does not count','" not being able to carry outfarm activities to the Ciill. The main definition of the family liesin the full participation in the farm unit, the hard core of whichconsists of a married couple or polygamous group and theiroffspring. The family to the Russian peasant at the beginningof the twentie± century is generally 'the people who eat fromthe same dish', and to the French peasant in the same period'the people who are locked behind the same lock'.^' Family


solidarity provides the basic framework for mutual help, controland socialisation. The individualistic element of personal feelingssubmits to the formalised frame of accepted family role be-haviour. Forming the basic nucleus of jâsant society, the familyfarm determines peasant everyday action, interrelation andvalues. Together with the mainly natural economy, it makes forthe segmentation of peasant society into small units with a re-markable degree of self-sufficiency and ability to withstandeconomic crises and market pressures.

The relative uniformity of peasant family pattems in differentsocieties and periods diminishes when we move to the level of thevillage community. At this level the national uniqueness ofpolitical organisation and social value structure becomes in-creasingly influential.

(iii) The fundamental importance of occupation in defining men'ssocial position, role and personality, is well known, though poorlystudied. Galeski, however, in his previously quoted book,Peasants and Farming as an Occupation, concerns himself withthis problem in both an analytical and empirical manner. Theambiguity in the occupational definition of the farmer's trade,seems to stem from its unique character. Apart from its familystructure, the necessary ties to land and the relatively high in-dependence from the market, its uniqueness lies in its being apeculiar exceptionally wide set of interrelated functions carriedout on a rather unspecialised level. Although many of the tasksfulfilled by the peasant are also carried out by other occupationalgroups, the uniqueness of the peasant's work is the combination offunctions performed. This leads to many special charaaeristics (rfevery-day peasant life, as well as its resistance to industrialisation.The process of growing specialisation in the countryside leadsto the development of a rural, noo-farming population. Simul-taneously the farmer's function is progressively narrowed andbecomes more professionalised as the farm develops into anenterprise. The fxasant beccmses a fanner. However, the taskswhich cannot be easily divided into a few repetitive actions andmechanised, for example livestock trumagcment, still remainlargely his special province.

These features of fanning determine the process of socialisationand occupational education of the young as one which is highlydiffused, personal, informal and conducted mainly within the

9

Teodor Shanin

framework of the family.(iv) The peasantry is a pre-industrial soda! entity which carries into

ctmtemporary society specific, different and older elements ofsocial interrelation, KMiomics, policy and culture. This will beelaborated in the following section, but at this stage we shouldlike to stress that we refer not only to the 'relicts of the way ofproduction which already belongs to the past',^- not only tobelated development, but to a specific development."

Mtst of the existing definitions of peasantry are covered bythat proposed above. One definition, however, stands aside fromthe others, that of A. L. Kroeber taken over by R. Redfield,''"which approaches the peasantry as 'a part society, with partculture'. This will be taken into account, according to theadopted line of reasoning, in the section on the interrelation ofpeasantry with society as a whole.

A concept <rf a social stratum cannot be limited to anyempirically chosen group." 'The relation between theoreticalmodels and operational definitiwis used consciously or un-consciously in empirical studies seems to be one of the mostdifficult problems of modem sociology.'-^ Yet the importanceand validity of conceptual definition of peasantry for any kindof research in this &ld seems to us beyond doubt.

The peasantry appears not only as a distinctive social group, but asa general pattem of social life, which defines a stage in the develop-ment of human society. 'The peasantry is a way of living', says Fei'-*in his classical dracriptirai erf Chinese society. This general pattem ofsocial life makes its appearance as a sector of earlier tribal, mainlyncHnadic, society, becomes decisive and marks a historically distinctiveperiod, that of a society of small producers and then gradually sinksas a section within industrial society. The appearance of the small-producer pattem of life is marked by the major change referred to as'agricultural revolution'.^' This stage created the basis for stablesettlement, land division and a revolutionary rise in productivitywhich brought with it the possibility of a comparatively stable surplusallowing for annual fluctuations in yield. Production has becomedetermined to an increasing extent by the labour utilised.'"

Property relations and nuclear units, appear as the major indices ofeconomic and social life, and may be used to delineate the society of

10


small producers.Property relations barely exist in tribal-nomadic society.^' They

appear in their wide sense discussed above, in the small producers'society, and become fully, legally formalised in the capitalistic, in-dustrial one. The kinship group is the basis ol social relations innomadic, tribal society, and remains so in the narrower familismof a small producers' society. The individual in his own right 'doesnot count', he is but a part of the family whole. The town and market-centred industrialising society, however, broke dcwn this frame. Theindividual becomes the basic nuclear unit of society, free to interactin the new, huge and complex social hierarchies and structures.Therefore the prevalence of family units of producticm and familyproperty may wdl demarcate the social pattem of small producersand the historical periods in question.

The society of small producers shows a distinctive 'culturalpattem',^* features of which persist in the peasantry of industrialisingsocieties." The l^sically 'social, rather than ec(aiomic' way ofreasoning, 'the lack of calculation' (i.e. the maximising ctf income asthe only aim determinant) were widely documented by Thomas andZnaniecki and stressed by every k^n student of peasant life. * Agreat deaJ has been said about the irrational behaviour of the peasantsas far as land,^' loans," 'fair-prices'^" and income" are concemed.Peasant logic seemed to be changeable and subjective,^* with dementsof what can be called pre-Socratic thought, by which two contradictoryopinions may be hdd simultaneously. What remains sometimesoverlooked is the fact that the peasants' 'expcêd stupidity' is evidence,not necessarily of an absence of thcmght, but rather of a frame ofreference and pattem (rf thought peculiar to the group, and servii^their needs well.'"

This point is bome out increasingly by recent studies. R. E. F.Smith has already pointed out the cyclical rather than linear conceptof time held by Russian peasants, which is dearly linked to theirproductive life.*' Pitt-Rivers (tefines the main features of a dosedcommunity as habitual personal contact, wide endogamy, homo-geneity of values, emphasis on strict confonnity, intense groupsolidarity, marked ideological egaiitarianism, etc., and this may serveas a generalisation of recent anrhn^(rfogical research into specificpeasant cultures.*' The clash of this particular culture and its gradualweakening to the extemal and new Weltanschauung of the industrial-ising and 'civilised' world, is an important element of social history.

II

Teodor Shanin

The village structure, to a much greater extent than the familyfarm, presents us with features unique to a specific country andperiod." In the context erf the village community or peasant commune,the peasant reaches the level of nearly complete self-sufficiency.The appropriation and division of land, marriage, sociability,rdigious needs are generally taken care of at the village level.The common interests of communal rights as wdl as productiveactions which need the participation of more than one family providesfor co-operation generally coupled with some grass roots democracy.All this makes the word mir, i.e. 'the world' and 'peace', used by theRussian peasants to refer to their village commune, a significantdescription of its function. The village is the peasant's world. Thesmall producers' society consisted of innumerable village segmentsgenerally under the spell and suppression of alien, political hierarchies.

The small producers' society falls historically in the intermediateperiod between the nomadic tribal and the industrialising societies.The word intermediate sometimes tends to be used interchangeablywith 'unstable', 'temporary' and even 'not important to look at'.However, the small producers* pattem of society proved as lasting asand no less stable than any other historical pattem. The society basedon organic, cyclical, non-structural dynamics, with the subsistencefamily farm as its basic nudeus proved exceptional inner stabilityall over the world. Indeed one does not need Witfogel's hydraulicdespotism to explain the striking examples of arrested structuralchange collected in his book.** The basic social nucleus of thefamily subsistence farm with its cyclical and organic stabilityseems to be much more of a common element in aU the societiesquoted than their 'hydraulic' features. Furthermore, a surplus-exhausting, highly centralised state, bears, if any, the potentialities(rf structural change, by the introduction of a powerful externalpressure on the world of natural economy and cyclical stabUity.

The peasant back-bone in the small producers' sodety dissolvesunder the influence (rf the rise of a market and town-centred economy,and the consequent industrialisation. 'An analysis of the developmentof the economic surplus is needed for the understanding of thisprocess.*' The devdopment of agriculture provided the basis forindustrialisation, but the farms themsdves remained to a great extentapart from this new social framework.*'

The producing and trading town introduces general social pattemsalien to the world of small producers. The impersonal, warfare-like,

12

The Peasantry' as a Political Factor

profit-centred market relations are here at the root of human relation-ships. The man freed from the ties and protection of the family,becomes an individual participant in mass society, structured by hugebureaucratic hierarchies. The accumulation of anonymous capitaldetermines economic growth. The general daim of efficiency andachievement provides the core of the social value system.

By the advantages of capita! concentration, rise in productivity,spread of education, political weight and population growth, theurban society rapidly overtakes the countryside, and becomes themain determinant of social and economic change. The peasants'small producers' world becomes a mere segment of a world verydifferently structured. Moreover, whilst still preserving elements ofuniqueness, the countryside develops a special relation with the town,which becomes increasingly decisive in its own development. Thetown's lead is fdt by the increasing influence <rf market reladons, thedrainii^ off of surplus labour and capital, the professionalisation i)fagriculture, the spread of mass culture and production and theevidence of 'social disorganisation'.*"

The approach to the countryside's development in a town-centredsociety, as simply bdated and not different, proved wrong but per-sistent. In fact, we may clearly see three parallel pattems of spon-taneous development of the countryside:

(i) The c(«npetidon of large-scale, capital intensive, mechanisedagriculture, gradually destroys the small farms. The concentrationof land-ownership is followed by growing concentradon of production.Agriculture, being fully taken over by an industrial method of-pro-ducdon, becomes 'merdy a branch of industry'.** Thh developmentis apparent in the large farms (rf the United States, North Italy andCentral France,*' as well as in stsne of the Soviet sovkhozy. Yet thespecial features of the fanning occupad<Mi create difficuldes for itsdivision into simple, repedtive actions, i.e. its full autMnatian. This,together with the compedtive strength of the family farm unit andthe fact that synthedc foods are rdatively unimportant, halt theprocesses of the 'food factory' becoming the main method of foodproducdcMi.(ii) The town-centred society makes for the devdopment of the

peasants into a professional stratum of farmers. The poorer villagersare increasingly drained from the countryside by the expanding urbanareas. The same happens to the peasant enterpreneurs and to panof the eccmomic surphii. The middle peasants, rdying on the

• 13

Teodor Shanin

advantages of the family producdon unit and the increasing co-operadve movement, fight successfully for their place in the marketsociety. These imique features of the devdopment of the farmerstratum has already been pointed out by Marx'''* and described asthe only way for the peasantry to devdop by O. Bauer.*' The lateststudies of Polish and Carman sociolc^ts have shown the growth ofa new stratum of worker-peasants who supplement their agricultural,mainly subsistence, producdon by hiring out their labour.

This pattem of devdopment of the peasantry into a cohesive, in-creasingly narrowing and professiaialised (Kcupational group offarmers, is dearly seen in most parts of North-West Europe. Althoughincreasingly tied to the industrialising society, farming still maintainsscone (rf its peculiar dements.

The socialist states which allow for the activity of small producersin the countryside, providing them with the necessary aid, andcurbing capitalist devdopment (Russia in the NEP period, contem-porary Poland and Jugoslavia) bring the above pattem to its clearestexpression.(iii) The third pattem of development appears mainly in the so-called under-developed sodedes. The populadon explosion, thedevdoping maritet relad(»is and the industrial compeddon withtraditional handicrafts breaks up the cyclical equilibrium of society.The slow industriaiisad(m is not able to drain the countryside of itsexcess \dhom nor to provide suffident capital accumuladon. Thepotential surplus is swept away by growing consumption needs. Inthe small producers framework this devdc^ment is not expressed byincreasing unemployment, but by 'hidden* under-employment, excesspopuladon in the countryside, lowering of average inc(Mne per headand increasing misery."(iv) As distinct hem these three spcmtaneous titads of devdojanent,the inca:«asing sti^ngth (rf the modem state and the wish of therevoludcaiary Elites to tackle the prt^lraa cf devdopment within theframework of socialist, cdlecdvisdc thinking makes for the appearanceof state oiânised cdlectivisadon of agriculture. ThU pattem isqualitadvdy different from the spontaneous trends, by being a con-sdous plan put into (^jeradon by a polidcal hierarchy. The evaluadonof its suas»s in any of the different forms taken would seem to bepremature. Yet in the Soviet Union, where the earliest attempts weremade, the specific dements of peasant life, the strength of the peasantfann plot and the unique ability of fanning to defeat town-designed

14


plans was proved to quite a surprising degree.

The difficulties of achieving a conceptual grasp of the peasantryhave been dearly felt in discussions about the place of the peasantryin society. Even people starting from similar theoretical assumpdonsreach opposite conclusions. The peasantry is a class to Stalin,^^ apedt bourgeois mass to Kritsman,** and 'not a class but a notion' toPlekhanov."

This, clearly, is pardy due to differences in definition. Ossowski'*elaborates the three different ways the concept of social class is usedby Marx, and many other conceptual subdivisions of society havebeen applied by different writers. Different analytical aims, inter-related with different concepts of society made for this diversity. Yetthe type of conceptual sub-division of society chcBen is crucial toany interpretation of sodal structure, functioning and change.

The main European sociological tradition'' of conceptual sub-division of contemporary society, stems from Marxian dass analysis.Social class is approached as a unity of interest, expressed in groupsub-culture, feeling of belongingness and common acdon, and shapedby conflict reladon with other classes. Society is structured by thisdialectic composition of inter-class conflict and unity.

If we take the criteria for defining class as being the distribudonof power,** the ccHOtrol of means of production,*' or the organisationof production,'" the peasantry in an industrialismg society will fallinto either a huge amorphous group of 'ruled', or into an even moreamorphous group of middle-classes." The peasantry as a qualitativelydistinct endty disappears. This leads the majority of Marxist socialscientists to approach the peasantry as a disappearing remainder ofpre-capitalist society—as 'not exisdng historically speaking'. Yetwhen a major part of the population remains outside the concept ofsociety as a whole, the definition seems to be sadly inadequate, evenif the consoladon of looking into the future is offered. Unfulfilledpre(iicdons seem to be the inevitable result of such a model.

Max Weber's modification of the Marxist concept of class putsmarket rdadons at the roots of class definidon.*- 'Qass situadon is,in this sense, ultimately market situation.''"' 'Class situations arefurther differentiated, on the one hand, according to the kind ofproperty that is usable for returns, and, on the other hand, accordingto the kind of services which can be offered in the market.'** For

15

Teodor Shanin

Weber therefore, 'owners of warehouses' and 'owners of shares', forexample, constitute social classes, as much as do industrial workersand peasants. The shortcMnings of an unlimited analytical divisionof society into small sub-groups, when approaching social reality hasalready been indicated by Marx in his unfinished manuscript on socialclass.*-'

In history, the peasantry has acted politically many dmes as a class-like social entity. Moreover, the peasantry of industrialising society hasproved its ability for cohesive polidcal action, not only when facingtraditional land-owners in belated pre-capitalist battles. For theircommon interest has also driven the peasants into polidcai conflictswith large capitalist land-owners, with various groups of townsmenand with the modern state.

The polarisation of the countryside in an industrialising societyinto capitalist owners and rural proletariat as predicted by Marxists,was arrested by the urban drain of capital and labour, as well as bythe specific features of a peasant family farm economy. The widelyaccepted image of the countryside being rapidly split by the inevitableeconomic trends of polarisation, slowed down to some extent bynon-economic factors, proved over-simplified. Econcmiic counter-trends seem to act in the opposite direction, greatly influencing thefinal result. Furthermore the dements of specific culture, conscious-ness and 'the meaning attached'*' to the class position proved mostpersistent. All this made peasant cohesiveness as the potential basisof political dass formadon much stronger than the predictions ofRussian Marxists or American strategists would lead us to believe.

On the other hand the basic division of peasants into small localsegments, the diversity and vagueness of polidcal aims, considerablyweakens their political impact. Hence, how far peasantry may beregarded as a dass is not a clear-cut problem, but rather should beseen as a quesdon of degree and historical period. If we posed animaginary scale or condnuum, we could say that the peasantry wouldappear as a social entity of comparadvdy low 'classness', which risesin crisis situations.

But the peasantry's special features as a social group are not merelyquantitative. A^rx's classical description of the duality of peasantsocial character, (on the one hand it is a class, on the other it is not)*'leaves the riddle unsolved. In so far as the peasantry is not a class,what is it—grandng its qualitative existence?

A class position is basically a social interrelation—a conflict inter-i6


relation with other classes and groups. Outside this interreladon aclass ceases to exist. Yet 'because the farmer's produce is essential,and at the lowest level, sufficient for human existence, the labour ofa fanner is necessary for the existence of a society, but the existenceof a society as a whole, is not to the same extent necessary for theexistence of a farmer'.'^ The peasants prove this by withdrawingfrom the market in crisis situations, and indeed sometimes use thisability consciously or unconsciously as a tool of political influence.

The main duality of the peasant's position in society is in theirbeing on the one hand a social class (of low 'classness') and on theother 'a different world", bearing the elements of a distinctive pattemof social relation—a highly self-sufficient society in itself.

The peasantry is the social phenomenon in which the Marxisttradition of class analysis meets the main conceptual dichotomy ofnon-Marxist sociological thinking: Maine's brotherhood—economiccompetition; de Coulangue's familistic-individualistic; Tonnies'Gemeinschaft—Gesellschaft and Durkheim's mechanic (segmen-tarian>—organic societies.'"' This unique duality of 'class' and'society' accounts for conceptual difficulties, yet may well serve asa qualitative definition of the peasantry especially when delineatingit from the wide amorphous groups of 'middle classes', 'exploitedmasses' or 'remainders of feudalism'.

As already stated A. L. Kroeber advanced a definition of peasantsas 'constituting part societies with part cultures, definitely rural, yetlive in a relation to a market town . . . lack the isolation, politicalautonomy and self-sufficiency of a tribal population, yet their localunits maintain much of their old identity, integration and attachmentto soil.''*' Redfield elaborates Kroeber's point and adds 'there is nopeasantry before the first city'."

The anthropological approach by which the extent of culturalself-sufficiency is used as an index of social development seems to bevalid. Moreover, research centred round the problem of the develop-ment from tribal to a small producer's society will necessarily stressdifferent factors than that centred round the development from a smallproducer's society into an industrialising one. However, Redfield'sdefinition of peasantry seems to be too narrow, and his definition oftribal society too all-inclusive. Settlers in many countries, cut off fromtowns, far from noblemen and even generally out of the reach of thestate and its tax-collectors can hardly be labelled tribal. Yet thesegroups share the main features common to peasants. Moreover, they

17

Teodor Shanin

seem to prove the peasantry's self-sufficiency, its ability to exist outof the spell of noblemen and the town. The social/political significanceof this ^;ems to have necessitated the structure of power reladons ofpre-capitalisdc society. For this very sdf-sufficiency made polidcalsuppression necessary to the rulers.

The political impact of the peasantry was generally marked by itsbasic socio-political weaknesses. The vertical segmentadon into localcommunides, dans and groups, the differentiation of interest withinthe communides themselves, the difficuldes in the crystallisation ofnation-wide symbols and aims and in the rise of leaderehip andorganisation made for what we have called low 'classness'. Techno-logical backwardness, especially in the fields of communication andmilitary acdon, brought to nothing many political attempte. Yet thepeasantry luid its sodo-political points of strength in being the mainfood producer, its dispersion in rural areas and its numerical size. Its'monopoly' of food producdon proved of crucial importance in timesof crisis. The spread of the countryside could become a stronghold.Numerical strength may dp the balance.

Yet in the long run the basic weakness of the pea^ntry prevails.The peasantry proved no match for the smaller, closely-knit, well-organised, technically superior groups, and was time and dme againdouble-crossed or suppressed polidcally and militarily. However,granting all this, the peasantry's existence and acdon cannot beignored as polidcaily sterile and therefore without significance. Fornot only victors and rulers determine polidcal reality.

The spread of industrialisation and mass culture gives the peasantrynew possibilities of cranmunicadon and cultural cohîveness. Yet atthe same time it lowers the importance of the countryside in thenational producdon, curtre, by intemadonal trade the 'food-monopoly',stimulates polarisation, raises the technological advantages of govem-ment's power of suppression. Once again the line of developmentseems to weaken the peasants' political influence.

However, the peasants' chances of influencing the political sphereincreases sharply in times of nadonal crises. When the non-peasantsocial forces dash, rulers split or foreign powers attack, the peasantry'sattitude and acdon may well prove decisive. Whether this potendalitybecomes reality is mainly dependent upon the peasants' ability toact in unison with or without organisation. This in turn is dependent


upon the cohesiveness of the peasantry, its economic social andcultural similarides and interacdon, and their reflecdon on theideological sphere.

A comparison between the peasantry's political and military acdonin pre-industrial and in contemporary society remains to be done. Weshall, however, concentrate on the latter.

The patterns of peasant political action and influence are determinedby its character as a social entity.1. Independent class action, as described by Marxist class theory.In this pattem, a social class crystallises in conflict, creates itsnation-wide organisation, works out Its ideology, aims and siinbolsand produces its leaders from within. This form of political actionseems to be fairly typical of the main social classes. However,for contemporary peasantry this pattem of polidcal action is theleast frequent. The 'Green movement' in Eastem Europe, thepeasant unions in Russia—1905, and China—1926, the Zapatamovement in Mexico and all their counterparts in the rest of theworld have to be studied comparatively to understand the mechanicsof this pattem of peasant action.'^

2. Guided political action, in which the class is moved by an externaluniting power elite. This pattem of action may become especially im-portant as far as the peasantry is concemed. The conservative cyclicalstability of both the farm and the village, and its political impHcadonmay generally be overcome only by a severe crisis, coupled by anextemal factor of a sweeping political and emodonal force. Thisextemal organiser of the peasantry may be found in millennial move-ments, secret societies, Russian cossacks, Mexican sinorquistas,French Bonapartism or Mao's people's army and provides thepeasantry with the tnissing factor of unity on a wide scale. Thecommon element found in all these very different movements is aclosely-knit group of activists, with its own momentum, specificstructure of organisadon, aims and leadership, to whom the peasantryis an object to be led and/or manipulated. The peasantry in this casemay be 'used' (consciously tricked into action alien to its own in-terests) or 'led to achieve its own aims\'~^ Yet the definition of aimsremains in the hands of qualitatively distinct leaders. The peasants'interests and attitudes are only one of the factoid to be taken intoaccount. As stated by Marx, referring to the French peasantry in themid-nineteenth century, 'they are consequently incapable of enforcingtheir class interest in their own name whether through a parliament

19

Teodor Shanin

or through a convention. They cannot represent themselves, theymust be represented. Their representative must at the same timeappear as their master . . ."* The only thing to be objected to in thisstatement is its absolutism, which has been refuted by later events.

The low-'classness' of peasantry, makes the study of peasant move-ments especially illuminating for the sociological analysis of theleading elites. Owing to the lower self-consciousness of the peasantryand hence its weaker influence on its own leaders, the elite groupdynamics seem to appear in a purer form. Moreover, it leads us tolcK)k into the problem of class-like masses (i.e. social groups actingtemporarily as class entities without bearing all the features of a class)and into their place in polidcal development (e.g. the Russian soldiersin 1917-18).3. The fully spontaneous, amorphous political action. This pattemseems to be highly typical of peasant impact on political reality, andmay take one of two forms:(a) Local riots which appear as 'sudden' shon outbursts of accumu-

lated disappointment and rebellious feeling. Generally easilyovercome by the suppressive centralised power, these riots mayact as a check on central policy (indicating necessary changes).When interrelated with crises in other areas and spheres, theymay develop into nation-wide movements capable of determiningmajor political changes.

(b) The second form is that of peasant passivity. The conceptualgrasp of passivity as a factor of dynamics is not easy. Yet thespontaneous lowering of producdon activities by Russianpeasantry in 1920 proved strong enough to defeat a government,which was victorious in war against powerful enemies. Enormousnumbers of govemmental decrees and orders have been defeatedall over the world by the peasantry's spontaneous, stubbom andsilent nonfulfilment. Furthermore, the influence of peasantconservative apathy has many times proved decisive for thevictory of the establishment over the revolutionaries. That non-resistance is a special peasant contribution to politics, elaboratedand sophisticated by L. Tolstoy and Gandhi, has been suggestedby R. E. F. Smith and points in the same direction. The inter-relation between the basic features of peasant society and passiveresistance seems to be evident.

In the study of the political life of a society, military action hasa place of special importance. Qausewitz' remark that war is an

20


extension of politics by other means holds true, not only in theinterrelation between countries. This leads to the need for a specialconsideration of the army and guerilla warfare as frames of contem-porary peasant political action.

The modem army of mass enlistment is one of the few nadon-wide organisadons in which the peasantry actively participates. Thesegmentation of the peasantry is thereby broken. By cultural inter-course and intermixture, if not by indoctrination, the peasant-soldieris taught to think in wide national, and not village-limited terms. Heis taught organisation, complex co-operative action, co-ordination,modern techniques and military skills. The army provides him witha hierarchial insdtution through which he may rise as a leader andbe trained for this position. Even where some national organisationsare represented on a rural level, the army generally provides thepeasant with the framework for the most active participation.

The increase in peasant ability to act politically, when put in thearmy, is generally successfully curbed by rigid discipline and bycontrol from non-peasant officers. Yet in a time of crisis, thissuppression disappears and the peasant army, its attitudes, action andrefusal to act may become decisive. Moreover, the experience gainedin army service acts as an important influence in the villages. Theex-serviceman by his new experience tends to become a leader anda channel through which outside influences reach the villagers. Inattempting to organise politically, the peasants frequently refer backto their army experience. The Russian Tamanskaya armiya and the'Green army' of the Black Sea, the F.L.N., the Chinese 'people'smilitia', the Zapata and Villa armies in Mexico served not only asmilitary but as the main political organization, a kind of party inarms.''*

The army, as this kind of organisation, may bear the marks of boththe first and second patterns of political action, i.e. the peasantry asa class for itself, or as a 'guided' socio-political entity.

During the last decade partisan warfare, by its success, has beenmoved into the centre of public attention. American strategistsapproach guerilla warfare as a specific military technique to be taughtby smart sergeants along with saluting and target practice. Theirremarkable failure in both guerilla and anti-guerilla warfare is the bestcomment on this approach.

Guerilla warfare is the most suitable form of expressing peasantmilitancy. Its record seems to be as old as the peasantry itself. In-

21

Teodor Shanin

numerable rebels, brigands and outlaws appear in popular memoryas well as in the real history of every people. The ability of theamorphous guerilla 'army' to (iisperse in times of need into thesympathetic peasant mass and the expanses of the countryside, itsability to utilise various degrees of peasant militancy and friendlypassivity, its ability to survive without outside supplies and theadequacy of primidve military techniques, may make the guerillasunbeatable by modem military methods.

Yet the essentially peasant character of guerilla warfare providesnot only its strength but also its weakness: segmentarism, lack ofa crystallised ideology and aims, lack of stable membership. Theseessential weaknesses may be overcome by an injecdon of a hard coreof professional rebels, making the revolt into guided polidcai acdon.The professional rebels' nation-wide ideological and organisationalcohesiveness, their stability and zeal and their ability to work out along-term strategy enables them to unite the peasantry, transformingits revolt into a successful revolution. Yet the main key to the under-standing of guerilla warfare has to be sought not in the marvds ofthe rebels' organisadon, but in their interrelation with the peasantry,not only in the military techniques of the few, but in the sociologyof the masses.'*'

There are subjecdve determinants of military action generallylabelled 'morale', the resistance of which to quantitative analsîs doesnot limit their importance in the shaping of reality. Peasant revoltsall over the world display common cultural features which, in alltheir complexity, seem to be better grasped by the synthedc expres-sions of the arts than by the analsrtical tools of the social sciences.The leader-hero, the legends which surround him, and his personalcharisma, take to a large extent the place of ideology and organisa-don as a unidng factor. The picturesque image of the young peasantrebel challenges the miindane nature of every-day peasant life. Thechildish display of exhibidonism descril^d by Znaniecki" as typicalof the peasant's attempts to establish his own personality whenbreaking out of his rigid family ties, explains much of the spirit ofpeasant fighters. All these feature influence the general characterof peasant units as a fighting force, together with the specific valuesand self-image of the leading elites.

The main stream of contemporary sociology has by-passed the22


tradidonal peasantry. Rural sociology has been localised in, andfinanced by, rich, industrial societies, and consequently centred uponthe problem of how to promote the farming minorities into fullyproductive and wealthy members of 'civilised society'. Few sociologistshave elevated the peasantry from the footnote to the page.

Yet if historical and social significance were the criteria for subjectsof study, we would be virtually swept by publicadons dealing withpeasantry. Innumerable problems of contemporary world politicaland K:onomic development lead us back to the subject of thepeasantry, and its understanding and misunderstanding by policymakers. To take but one example, the history of the Soviet Unionwas to a great extent determined by the sequence of the ruling party'sevaluation—prediction—policy—policy's unexpected results, dme andtime again, in 1918, 1920, 1927-1929, etc." and we may continuein this vein until 1964. Countless other examples could be cited inAfrica, Asia, Latin America, etc., etc.

Only a combinadon of both conceptual and factual research bydifferent disciplines and approaches, may overcome the astonishingshort-comings of our knowledge of the peasantry and the method-ological difficuldes involved. Limping along main roads achievesmore than marching along side roads.'*

University of Birmingham.

^ F. Davring: Land and Labour in Europe igao-igso, 1956, p. 5.

^ D. Mitrany: Marx Against Peasants, 1951, dealing with Marxist as wellas populist ideology.See also S. H. Franklin: Reflections on the Peasantry, in Pacific ViewpointIII No. I.

^ V. Chernov—as quoied by J. Maynard.- The Russian Peasant, 1962,P- 97-

* G. Plekhanov on the Russian peasantry.

=• K. Marx: Capital, Vol. I l l , Hamburg, 1890, p. 348.

« K. Marx and F. Engels: Selected Works, 1950, Vol. I, p. 159.

' R. Redfield: Peasant Society and Culture, 1956, p. 25.

* Ibid. pp. 23-25.

' B. Galeski: Chlopi i Zawod Rolnika, Warszawa, 1963, p. 48.

23

Teodor Shanin

'" Ibid. p. 47: 'A rise within the professional group of farmers istraditionally achieved by enlargement of the land holding, by a rise fromthe position of owner of a small farm to the position of an owner of a biggerone, and the description "good farmer" is generally attached in the view ofthe village to all owners of the biggest farms without exception and is notlinked to the real professional skill or effectiveness of their work.'

' Redfield: op. cit., p. 28.

'- Galeski: op. dt., p. 140.

'• The proofs of that statement cannot be brought 'marginally' and thereader is referred to the studies by Znaniecki, Galeski or Chayanov and hisgroup (though this last seemed clearly to over-state his own case).

'•* Galeski: op. cit., p. 57.

''' W. I. Thomas and F. Znaniecki: The Polish Peasani, 1958. p. 92.

'" B- Mukhin: Obychnyi poryadok nasledozaniya, 1888 p. 62.

'• Ibid. p. 140.

'" Thomas and Znaniecki: op. cit., p. 93. See a very similar analysis inA. Vasil'chikov: Zemledel'e i zemvladenie, 1876, Vol. 2, p. 21. '

'" Thomas and Znaniecki: op. cit. p. 107.

-" Ibid. p. 107.

^' A. Chayanov: Organizaxsiya krest'yanskogo khozyaistfa, 1925, p. 21.

-•- K. Marx: Selected Works, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 303.

-•' Galeski: op. cit.

* In Marxist studies appearing generally as the defmition of 'small' or'middle' or 'parcela' peasant to be delineated from the capitalist farmers.

' •' A. L. Kroeber: Anthropology, 1923, p. 284. See also R, RedfieJd: ThePrimitive World and its Transformation, 1953.

* For analysis see Galeski: op. cit., pp. 16-19.

^' Ibid. p. 19.

^ R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset: Class, Status and Power, 1953, p. 32.'TTie peasantry, the key toward understanding of China is a way of living,a complex of formal organisation, individual behaviour and sociai attitudesclosely knit together for the purpose of husbanding land with simple toolsand human labour'

^ See for example V. Gordon Childe: Social Evolution, 1951.

^'' See E. Mandel: Traite d'economie marxiste, Jerusalem, 1964, pp. 33-36,41.

•" Accept fighting strangers at the tribal hunting territories.

^ Cultural pattems being defined for that purpose as 'the lens of man-kind through which men see; the medium by which they interpret andreport what they see'. C. Wright Mills, Pozaer Politics and People, 1962,p. 406.

33 Cf. Redfield: Peasant Society and Culture, op. dt.

24


•' Even Marx mentions the rural societies in which the laws of labourvalue never developed and therefore the 'general economics laws of society'do no: •.vork,

••' Thomas and Ziianiecki: op. en., p. 173.'" Ibid. p. 161-'" Ibid. p. 169.

•• Ibid. p. 166.

'-' See for example Mukhin: op. cit. p. 311, stating that the peasants' courtor meeting tends to decide propcriy disagreements 'according to men', i.e. inaccordance with the pcfionaliiy of ;he people involved rather than the proofspre5en!ed.

•"' See for example the Polish ;.ociologiits' studies of the prestige deter-minants of peasant economic action or Chayanov's proofs of the 'economicallyirrational' renting of land when ihe cost of" rent is higher than the additionalprofii gained, a sensible thing in conditions of wasted surplus labour.

j 1 in £ p Smith: 'A Model of Production and Consumpiion on theRussian Farm', University of Birmingham, CenEre for Russian and EastEuropean Studies, Discussion Paper RC/D t, 1964, p. 11.

'- See J. Pitt-Rivers: The Closed Commumty and Iis Friends, 1957. Fora summary of contemporary anthropological research see C. Geertz inBiennial Review of Anthropology, 1961, pp. I-41,

'• For cabulaEion sec S. Eisenstadl: The Political System of Empires,1963, pp. 34-35 and the supplementary tables.

'* K. Witfogel: Onemal Despotism, 1963.

*-• The Transition from Feudalism 10 Capitalism—a SympoHum, 1963;also Mandel: op. at.

*^ Mandel: op. at., p. 173. According to Mandel's evidence even inpresent day U.S.A. [,250,000 small farms show a mainly natural economy,

*• Thomas and Znaniecki: op. cit., p. 1122.

•" K. Marx: A Coniribution to the critique of pohiical economy, 1904,P- 303-

*^ See the reports from the international socialist symposium on theEuropean peasantry as published in Al Hamishmar, Tel-Aviv 1964.

• • K. Marx: Capital. Vol. III.•The moral of this story, which may also be deduced from other observationsin agriculture, is that the capitalist system works against a rationalagriculture, or that a rational agriculture is irreconcilable with the capitalistsystem, although technical improvements in agriculture are promoted bycapitalism. But under this system, agriculture needs either the hands of theself-employing small farmer, or the control of associated producers.'

••' O. Bauer: Bor'ba za zemlyu, 1926, p. 203.'" See for an example Pourquoi les iravailleurs abandonneni la terre,

Geneva, i960, pp. 138, 144, which reports on India as follows:During the years t94r-5i the natural growth of labour force in the country-side was absorbed in Agriculture ... 70.3";,

in Services . . 28.3' 1in Industry' ... . . i.4' o

25

Teodor Shcmin

During the years 1931-51 the share of workers engaged in agriculture rosefrom 71 to 74% of the working population and in 1952 74% of peasantfamilies held less than 2 ha. land and 1/3 is reponed as landless.For an elaboration of the mechanism of such social processes see I. H.Bocke: Economics and Economic Policy in Dual Societies 1953.

3 I. Stalin: The Problems of Leninism, 1945, p. 510.

^* See the introduction to A. Gaister: Rassloenie sovetskoi derevni, 1928,

p. xin.

*-• G. Plekhanov.

•'^ See S. Ossowski: Class Structure in the Social Consdousness, 1963.^ We shall not touch upon the hierarchial status groups and American

studies of social stratification which are irrclevarn to our study.

^^ See R. Dahrendorf: Class and Class Confiict in Industrial Sodety, 1959.

^* Marx: Selected Works, op. dt. p. 33 and V. I. Lenin: CollectedWorks, (5th ed.) Vol. 39, p. 15.

«" See works by Bogdanov, Makhaiski, etc. and may be traced to St.Simon,

'^ See B. Semenov: Problema klassov . . ., 1959.

'=' For exposition of all aspects see J. Rex: Key Problems of SodologicalTheory, 1961.

«3 G. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills: From Max Weber, 1961, p. 182.

" Bendix: op. dt., p. 64.

•5 Marx: Capital, Vol. Il l , 1909, pp. 1031-1032.

*' See Rex: op. dt., p. 138.

^" Marx: Selected Works, op. cit., p. 303.'In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existencethat sei»rate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from Umst-of other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they forma class. In so far as there is merely a local interconnection among thesesmall-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests begets no com-munity, no national bond and no political organisation among them, theydo not form a class.'

'* Galeski: op. dt., p. 49.

"" See R. Redfield: The Little Community, 1955, pp. 139-143.

'" Kroeber: op. cit., p. 284.

'1 R. Redfield: The Primitive World, 1953, p. 31.

'= For an important insight into the influence of the stratification ofpeasantry on political action, see H. Alavi: Peasantry and Revolution, TheSocialist Register, 1965.

'•* For presentation of this dichotomy sec for example: V. Lenin: Whatis to be done? as compared with G. Sorel: Reflection on Violence.

26


•' For example Marx: Selected Works, op. cit., p. 303.

•' One of its forms is described by Marx in the Communist Manifestowhen speaking about the early stage of bourgeois class organisation as: 'anarmed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune'. See Marx:Selected Works, op. cit., p. 34.

••' Inraads into research on this subject were made by E. Hobsbawn:Primitive Rebels 1959, and Vietnam and the Dynamics of Guerilla Warfarein New Left Review, 33.See also A. GiOy and others in Monthly Retiew, Vol. 17, on guerillaacfiviiies in Latin America.

•• Thomas and Znaniecki: op. cit., p. 103.

•'• See for example E. H. Carr in Proceedings of the Briiish Academy,XLIX, 1963, pp. 90-91.

'•* This paper was primarily prepared for an inter-disciplinary conferenceon peasantry, sponsored by the Centre for Russian and East EuropeanStudies of ihe University of Birmingham. The generalisations attemptedhere have been based on preliminary studies of Russian, Chinese, Polish andMexican societies, with the consequent severe limitation of excluding manyimportant areas, especially the densely populated South Asia.

Documents

Shanin, Teodor - The Peasantry as a Political Factor