Class Character of Peasantry

[Althusser]

Alright, so we've got the Maoists who believe the peasants are a revolutionary class, and the Trotskyists who don't. Something that I don't understand is whether or not the peasants spoken of owned their land and had control over the crops. I've heard mixed things from Trots and Maoists. Obviously the kulaks owned their land, but did the poor peasants own it and have free reign over what they grew. Because if it was a feudal type situation and the poor peasants were bound to the land that was owned by someone else, wouldn't the poor peasants be rather proletarianized?

I've heard trots condemn people's war movements in India and The Philippines because they are peasant oriented, but a lot of the Philippines peasants don't own land but instead grow cash crops for comprador bourgeoisie/foreign business. Can someone explain this a bit better?

[Sudsy]

An important term is middle peasants, so I think the peasantry distinctions break down like this.

Peasants:
Peasants are an exploited class who work a farm owned and controlled by the bourgeois class.

Middle Peasants:
Lenin defined these farmers as the ones who owned but also worked their own land.

And the bourgeois are just the bourgeois.

No, the peasants worked for the kulaks, the only peasants to work for themselves were the middle peasants.

Trots lol, why would they condemn something that's peasant oriented? In developing nations peasants represent such a large portion of the proletariat that if your were to disenfranchise them you'd be disenfranchising the entire revolution of those countries.

[Althusser]

An important term is middle peasants, so I think the peasantry distinctions break down like this.

Peasants:
Peasants are an exploited class who work a farm owned and controlled by the bourgeois class.

Middle Peasants:
Lenin defined these farmers as the ones who owned but also worked their own land.

And the bourgeois are just the bourgeois.

No, the peasants worked for the kulaks, the only peasants to work for themselves were the middle peasants.

Trots lol, why would they condemn something that's peasant oriented? In developing nations peasants represent such a large portion of the proletariat that if your were to disenfranchise them you'd be disenfranchising the entire revolution of those countries.

That's what I thought. I posed this question to try to understand a reason why Trotskyists don't consider peasants to be revolutionary. It seems dogmatic. Why would an exploited peasant be unfit for overthrowing whatever forces that oppress them? Why does industrialization have to take place under capitalism? When I described an exploited peasant to a Trotskyist once, he conceded in saying that they are more like the proletariat than a vulture class.

[Sudsy]

That's what I thought. I posed this question to try to understand a reason why Trotskyists don't consider peasants to be revolutionary. It seems dogmatic. Why would an exploited peasant be unfit for overthrowing whatever forces that oppress them? Why does industrialization have to take place under capitalism? When I described an exploited peasant to a Trotskyist once, he conceded in saying that they are more like the proletariat than a vulture class.
So strange, Russia was overwhelmingly a nation of peasantry, adopting farmers to their theories is just plain logic. Marx wrote his observations in Industrial England, observing the industrial proletariat, meanwhile, in very different countries like Russia the Industrial Workers were fewer, so the farmers just HAVE to be included. I think Peasantry is the driving force of the proletariat in nearly all third world countries. Marx thought the peasants would collapse in Industrial capitalism, which is still true though because when Russia transitioned from serfdom to capitalism the industrial workforce grew, but not to any degree where the peasants where no longer a driving social class.

[Blake's Baby]

The peasantry (independent producers) can't be a revolutionary class because it doesn't embody a new mode of production. Historically, they're a dead end. The lot of the peasant is to either support capitalism or to support the proletarian revolution. There is no 'third way'. Peasant capitalism is still capitalism, just inefficient capitalism.

The goal of the peasant is to have someone else work his land while the government leaves him alone but breaks up big-business monoploy. In that sense the peasant's class interest is closer to the fantasies of the 'Right-Libertarians' in the US than to socialism.

The agricultural proletariat, however, is part of the proletariat, almost always a desperately exploited and impoverished part. But, generally not one brought together in great concentrations. so it lacks some of the advantages (in terms of revolutionary potential) that the urban proletariat has.

[Professional Revolution]

The peasants in the USSR simply should have been forced to collectivize earlier rather than later. This would have been much more successful than the Stalinist attempts at it later on. The NEP also should have ended much sooner than it did. Stalin supported a quick end to the NEP but he didn't go quite far enough, as many of its policies stayed in place years after he took power.

[ind_com]

Alright, so we've got the Maoists who believe the peasants are a revolutionary class, and the Trotskyists who don't. Something that I don't understand is whether or not the peasants spoken of owned their land and had control over the crops. I've heard mixed things from Trots and Maoists. Obiously the kulaks owned their land, but did the poor peasants own it and have free reign over what they grew. Because if it was a feudal type situation and the poor peasants were bound to the land that was owned by someone else, wouldn't the poor peasants be rather proletarianized?

I've heard trots condemn people's war movements in India and The Philippines because they are peasant oriented, but a lot of the Philippines peasants don't own land but instead grow cash crops for comprador bourgeoisie/foreign business. Can someone explain this a bit better?

Theoretically Trotskyism cannot criticize Maoism for considering the peasantry as revolutionary. Both Trotskyism and Maoism agree on the proletariat being the only revolutionary class capable of leading a revolution, and the peasantry being a revolutionary class in the sense that it can be led to revolution by the proletariat.

The only critiques that Trotsky had of the Chinese Revolution were not having enough proletarians in the rank and file of the party, and following the Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR. The second one was due to Trotsky's differences with Stalin, but the first one points to a big shortcoming of Trotskyism itself. Trotskyism has only one mechanical model of revolution, which is based on the concrete conditions of Russia in 1917. It is unable to deduce that the Russian model of insurrection became impossible as the era of proletarian revolution progressed, and hence revolutions would take different strategic forms in various parts of the world. This is why Trotskyites do not understand the dynamics of a people's war that establishes its bases first in the peasantry dominated rural areas.

Apart from this, of course you will find Trotskyites who throw the bourgeois accusations of rape and murder against Maoists. These are just cheap liberal lines and don't have any deep theoretical base or even any connection with orthodox Trotskyism. So it is best to ignore those idiots.

[Brutus]

The peasants in the USSR simply should have been forced to collectivize earlier rather than later. This would have been much more successful than the Stalinist attempts at it later on. The NEP also should have ended much sooner than it did. Stalin supported a quick end to the NEP but he didn't go quite far enough, as many of its policies stayed in place years after he took power.


You do know that these things take time, right? Collectivisation requires resources, men, convincing the peasants that this is good for them.
Do you know how much of a shit storm it would have been if they tried to collectivise earlier? The NEP was brought in as the peasants were on the brink of revolting against the USSR!
You can't just do things according to your principles whilst ignoring the material conditions.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"Peasant" is a huge category that includes communities from every corner of the planet, with very different social organization, modes of production, local governance and culture.

The main difference between the working class and the peasants are the collective modes of production of the proletariat. A worker works in a factory alongside many others and as such needs to work collectively to work efficiently. The peasants on the other hand tend land, something which can be done individually. However, there can still be collective components in agricultural production to varying degrees. Many peasant communities which have been minimally touched by neoliberalism still practice a form of agrarian communism where farmland is held by the community and distributed according to ability and needs.

One of the interesting things I have seen in my life are rural collectives. These are peasant based entities built against the kinds of large, private land ownership which hurts their economic interests. The point, however, is that the peasants themselves saw it as in their interests to form, maintain and build a collective. The problem from the revolutionaries' point of view is NOT in the unwillingness of the peasant communities to see collectivism as in their interests but in the relative difficulty of agitating and organizing these communities.

The issue for the peasants more has to do with (1) their disparate character - there are many different kinds of peasant communities, as I mentioned, including those where the collectivization of aspects of the economy is at a minimum, (2) their relative inability to make any movement a revolution, and (3) the parochialism and small-mindedness of some peasants who, because of the limited horizons of their existence, do not see the importance of solidarity with other peasants, minorities or the proletariat. It's not that peasants don't like revolution, but, generally speaking, its difficult to agitate and organize disparate villages, often speaking different dialects, in a far flung rural corner of a country, while it's easy to organize a large factory, mine or port where thousands may work side by side to go on strike.

Groups like the EZLN and others which are essentially peasant movements have not succeeded in bringing about a revolution in their countries (and seem to have given up for the time being), which speaks of the difficulties which peasant movements have in doing this on their own, however these peasant communities have come much farther and been even more radical than much of the working class in their countries.

Ultimately, many modern peasants face real problems stemming from Capitalism. We see the large scale dispossession of peasants by private landowners, the destruction of collective modes of agricultural production and the move to turn them into wage laborers. This pressure in fact can turn peasants into revolutionaries, or at least into potential revolutionaries. A great example of this is in the Aguan Valley in Honduras, where dispossessed peasants took up arms and clashed with police to take back the land they lost to Honduras's richest man.



The goal of the peasant is to have someone else work his land while the government leaves him alone but breaks up big-business monoploy. In that sense the peasant's class interest is closer to the fantasies of the 'Right-Libertarians' in the US than to socialism.


I don't think that this is the case. Yes, many peasants do have that "goal", just as many workers have the "goal" of starting their own small business. The issue you identify is that many peasants falsely think that the kind of "land reform" which serves their interests as being the one where they get private title over the land. However, this is as much a state of false consciousness as the worker who thinks he will someday own his own business. This is why peasants around the world who are class conscious have, in fact, joined up with collectivist movements.

[Aurora]

Alright, so we've got the Maoists who believe the peasants are a revolutionary class, and the Trotskyists who don't.
I just wanted to say this isn't true, Trotskyists do think that peasants can be revolutionary but they are incapable of taking a path independent of the bourgeoisie or proletariat.
In the bourgeois revolutions the peasantry followed the leadership of the bourgeois in the cities and in the socialist revolution in countries which have a large peasantry today they must be won over to the leadership of the proletariat in the cities.
The Trotskyist view is best represented by the practice of the Bolshevik Party in it's appealing to the poor and middle peasants against the Kulaks, Landowners and Bourgeoisie. The peasants and their party split with the Left supporting the revolution and the Right supporting the bourgeoisie.

But while the proletariat is a really revolutionary class i.e it's interests are in creating socialism, the peasantry can be revolutionary but doesn't have an interest in socialism, it's interests are in preserving it's private property, the peasantry is a historically dying class and whether capitalism brutally finishes it off or the proletarian dictatorship offers incentives to statize it's land and proletarianize it, it must go.

[Blake's Baby]

... Yes, many peasants do have that "goal", just as many workers have the "goal" of starting their own small business....

I'm not talking about 'workers' or 'peasants' who have that as an individual goal; perhaps I wasn't clear that I'm talking about class interest. The difference is that a worker crosses from one class to another when s/he becomes an owner. A peasant however doesn't cross from class to another, a peasant remains a peasant. It isn't in the 'class interest' of the proletariat to become bourgeois; it is in the class interest of the peasantry to become a better-off peasantry.


...The issue you identify is that many peasants falsely think that the kind of "land reform" which serves their interests as being the one where they get private title over the land. However, this is as much a state of false consciousness as the worker who thinks he will someday own his own business...

No, it isn't, for the reasons I've already explained. It's not 'false consciousness' on behalf of the peasantry at all. It is in the peasantry's class interest.


... This is why peasants around the world who are class conscious have, in fact, joined up with collectivist movements.

'Class conscious' peasants, peasants who are conscious of the interests of the peasants as a class, are a bulwark of reaction because the peasantry is a reactionary class. Peasants (as opposed to rural proletarians) who join 'collectivist movements' do so in spite of their class interest not because of it.

[Professional Revolution]

You do know that these things take time, right? Collectivisation requires resources, men, convincing the peasants that this is good for them.
Do you know how much of a shit storm it would have been if they tried to collectivise earlier? The NEP was brought in as the peasants were on the brink of revolting against the USSR!
You can't just do things according to your principles whilst ignoring the material conditions.

Comrade, collectivization needed to begin as quickly as possible so that the USSR could advance its agricultural and industrial production and thus be truly on the road to socialism. Stalin waited too long, and thus millions died and the collectives were failures.

[Comrade #138672]

Do peasants not take part in bourgeois revolutions? For example, I've heard people argue that Mao was basically a bourgeois revolutionary.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

During the Paris Commune the peasantry was not paid in money but with bills (a sort of I-Owe-U's). They were smart enough not to accept that, they did not sell the food, so the city starved.

They did not actively participate, but by staying inactive they indirectly supported the bourgious cause.

As Kropotkin said: the first thing is to feed the people.
That's why i think we should realise the importance of the peasantry as producers of food. We should actively atract them to participate if we do not want to starve during the revolution.

[Brutus]

Comrade, collectivization needed to begin as quickly as possible so that the USSR could advance its agricultural and industrial production and thus be truly on the road to socialism. Stalin waited too long, and thus millions died and the collectives were failures.

Yes, but they needed to wait until they could physically collectivise without starting another civil war with the peasantry. Also, to fully collectivise, industry was needed for the farm machinery.

[evermilion]

Do peasants not take part in bourgeois revolutions? For example, I've heard people argue that Mao was basically a bourgeois revolutionary.

I think he's called so for his opinions on "radicalizing" the national bourgeoisie to accept socialism, rather than to merely be tactical allies during the fight against imperialism and the compradores.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think he's called so for his opinions on "radicalizing" the national bourgeoisie to accept socialism, rather than to merely be tactical allies during the fight against imperialism and the compradores.

Mao never actually said this. You're thinking of Kim Il Sung

“A Democratic People’s Republic … must be built by forming a democratic united front … which embraces … even the national capitalists”. (Kim Il Sung: ‘On the Building of New Korea and the Mational United, in: ‘Works’, Volume 1; Pyongyang; 1980: p. 298).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm not talking about 'workers' or 'peasants' who have that as an individual goal; perhaps I wasn't clear that I'm talking about class interest. The difference is that a worker crosses from one class to another when s/he becomes an owner. A peasant however doesn't cross from class to another, a peasant remains a peasant. It isn't in the 'class interest' of the proletariat to become bourgeois; it is in the class interest of the peasantry to become a better-off peasantry.
...
No, it isn't, for the reasons I've already explained. It's not 'false consciousness' on behalf of the peasantry at all. It is in the peasantry's class interest.
...
'Class conscious' peasants, peasants who are conscious of the interests of the peasants as a class, are a bulwark of reaction because the peasantry is a reactionary class. Peasants (as opposed to rural proletarians) who join 'collectivist movements' do so in spite of their class interest not because of it.

I'm actually arguing that it is in the class interests of peasants to push for collectivization. It does seem that collectivization is in the class interest of peasants in our modern world - or at least, many peasants, because as I pointed out, peasants around the world differ in their social organization and so on in quite drastic ways.

I offered two examples of peasant movements which pushed for collective landholding. The EZLN and Honduran campesinos in the Aguan both formed movements that have pushed for collectivization of land. This is not because they lacked class consciousness - on the contrary, they know that their existence as agriculturalists will in the future be dependent on it. In fact, many of the Leftist rebellions in Latin America were as much driven by campesinos as by the urban proletariat. Consider also the way in which peasants in Telegana initiated a revolutionary movement to combat rich landholders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telangana_Rebellion).

Substantial aspects of rural agricultural production are made more efficient by collectivism, and this is precisely why so many rural communities maintain aspects of collective life when not disrupted by bourgeois business interests. For instance, land in Mexico was and often still is held by the community. It was the breakdown of this collective landholding that actually caused more Mexicans to migrate illegally to the US, and also (among other things like NAFTA and the shitty PRI government) instigated the EZLN's rebellion in the first place. Collectivism liberates peasants from cruel landlords and from the risk of arbitrary and uncompensated land expropriation as well as giving them the collective economic power to operate more advanced means of production in their own communities. Lastly, it gives them access to material comforts of life normally denied to peasant communities.

[Comrade #138672]

I think he's called so for his opinions on "radicalizing" the national bourgeoisie to accept socialism, rather than to merely be tactical allies during the fight against imperialism and the compradores.
Bloc of Four Classes

In 1949, as Communist Party forces swept the US-backed Kuo Min Tang out of region after region, approaching the victory of the Chinese Revolution, proclaimed on 1 October 1949, Mao defined his vision of the kind of government the Communist Party would establish. In line with Stalin’s policy in Europe of establishing “People’s Democratic Republics”, which would maintain capitalism under Soviet rule, Mao defined three classes which were deemed allies of the working class: the Peasantry, the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, while – the landlord class and the bureaucratic-bourgeoisie (sometimes called compradors, i.e., agents for foreign imperialist interests) were defined as the enemies of the working class.Source: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm

(Emphasis changed.)

So, since he allied with the national bourgeoisie, wasn't it just a bourgeois nationalist revolution, which "merely" freed China from imperialism, without being able to introduce Socialism (due to the lack of a proper class basis)?

[ind_com]

Source: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/l.htm

(Emphasis changed.)

So, since he allied with the national bourgeoisie, wasn't it just a bourgeois nationalist revolution, which "merely" freed China from imperialism, without being able to introduce Socialism (due to the lack of a proper class basis)?

Allying with the national bourgeoisie doesn't make a revolution bourgeois nationalist. A bourgeois nationalist revolution has the bourgeoisie as the leading force. Also, no Maoist ever claims that the Chinese Revolution of 1949 was socialist.

[Comrade #138672]

Allying with the national bourgeoisie doesn't make a revolution bourgeois nationalist. A bourgeois nationalist revolution has the bourgeoisie as the leading force. Also, no Maoist ever claims that the Chinese Revolution of 1949 was socialist.So when did it become Socialist?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So when did it become Socialist?

This deserves a longer answer and I will provide one if asked. But the short answer is that when the Chinese Communists took over the proletariat was only 3 million people strong and the national bourgeois only owned 20% of the territory. So the politics of New Democracy are understandable insofar that the progressive classes are far too weak to abolish capitalism and fight off Japanese invasions and warlords. To quote Engels:


Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.



I would say that China can be described as exiting the New Democratic period when the experiments with free access communism and distribution according to the need occurred in the country side during the late 50's. Additionally I would say that the attempt at "mass democracy" in production and the formation of soviets during the Cultural Revolution brought it further that any other attempt at revolution so far. This isn't to say that they achieved socialism in the absolute sense, that is, that they went as far as they possibly could have within their confines. As Chang Choung noted in his work, On Exersizing All Around Dictatorship Over The Bourgeois, capitalism still could have been restored due to the young state of the DOTP. Still, despite Choung being proven correct, I do think that Mao's China went pretty far. Though next time I imagine we ought to do much better than that.