8/7/2019 thesis.on.peasantry

1/3

THESESON PEASANTRY

J.M. Blaut, Kirsten Haring, Phil O'Keefe and Ben Wisner

Marxist theory seeks to understand theworld in order to change it(1). The major-ity 05 the world's population consists ofpeasants, and theories must therefore takeadequate account of the peasantry. We ad-vance the following theses on peasantry inorder to identify certain facts and process-es which seem to us to be crucial to aMarxist understanding of this question, andin order to call attention to certain sourcesof confusion and error.THESIS 1 .

One obstacle to theory-building aboutthe peasantry is the tendency to over-generalize: to neglect the variationsamong peasant societies in different timesand places. Some of the more importantdimensions of variation, which must be takeninto account in any general theorizing onthe peasantry, are the following:(1). The history of depopulation, spatialdisplacement, and ethnocide in the New Worldsince 1492 has led to fundamental differ-ences between New and Old World peasantries.Thus, for example, New World peasant socie-ties, under comparable socio-economic con-ditions, are likely to have a larger re-source base than Old World societies. Thusalso, New World peasant societies are oftenof very recent origin (even post-bourgeoisrevolution, as in the West Indies), and itmay be dangerous to compare them histori-cally with those Old World societies whichevolved in one place, over a long period oftime, from earlier formations.( 2 ) . Comparisons of peasantries must takeinto account differing histories of con-quest: for instance, Arab, Sudanic, Otto-man, and European conquests in parts ofAfrica.

( 3 ) . Peasant societies may display differ-ences reflecting their particular colonialhistory. Thus, the effects of Britishcolonial strategy were clearly differentfrom those of French and Portuguese strategyFurther, in any comparative analysis, it iscrucial to consider whether a given peasantsociety lies within a classical colony, aneo-colony, or a socialist state.( 4 ) . Comparisons among peasant societiesmust take into account the presence and in-tensity of pressure for European settlement,past or present. This is obviously impor-tant in cases (like the "White Highlands" ofKenya, the sugar-plantation areas of Java)where local populations were dispossessed,and in cases where the peasantry itself isderived from European immigrants (as insouthern South America).(5). The existence and types of land-expropriating enterprises will have im-portant effects on peasant societies, as inthe case of mineral concessions in Namibia,pine-forest cutting in the Dominican Repub-lic, and tourism in Kenya.(6). The existence and type of labordisplacing enterprises will also have im-portant effects, as in the case of labormigration from Emtswana, Turkey, and Mexico,and urban labor demand in Taiwan, Aden, andPuerto Rico.(7). Involvement in the production of ex-port products (cotton in the Sudan, bananasin the Windward Islands, jute in Bangladesh,etc.) is also an important variable to betaken into account in comparison amongpeasantries.

125

8/7/2019 thesis.on.peasantry

2/3

( 8 ) . Material aspects of the forces of pro-duction which derive, directly or indirectly,from environmental qualities at a given pro-duction site must also be taken into accountin comparison and generalization.ample, the availability or non-availabilityof ground water in parts of the Saheliansavanna has been a factor influencing theimpact on peasants of colonialism and neo-colonialism. On the other hand, one mustbear in mind the fact that all other rela-tions constituting the forces of production,as well as the social relations of pro-duction, must be taken into account in orderto avoid deterministic formulations, as inthe case of the Sahel famine deliberatelymisnamed a drought - that is, attributedto environmental causes, not to capitalism.Omitting ecological factors obstructs ma-terialist analysis: over-emphasizing ecolo-gical factors obstructs dialectical analy-sis.19). Comparison of peasant societies musttake into account cultural differences insuch matters as language, kinship, religion,and food preferences. The importance ofthese differences derives in part from thefact that they may antedate capitalism andeven (as in the case of some language dif-ferences) antedate class society, and leadsto important strategic outcomes, as in theproblems of organizing a liberation strugglein an area with more than one language orreligion. Again, however, the danger ofimproper invocation of cultural factors mustbe underscored. Even Marxists have at timesconfused culture and class, improperly label-led nations as cultures (or even "tribes"),and accepted such cultural stereotypes as"African traditionalism" and "Asiaticbureaucratism. 'I

For ex-

THESIS 2.A second obstacle to theory-buildinglies in the tendency to use key terms inambiguous ways, and in permitting unstatedassumptions and implicit theories to creepunnoticed into the analysis. In short, therigor and univocality found in most Marxistanalysis of industrial capitalism has notyet come to prevail in Marxist analysis ofpeasantry.

tant example of ambiguous usage. At timesit may be restricted to the very narrowmeaning of land-owning family farmers; atother times, it may comprehend all cate-gories of rural workers, including planta-tion workers and migrant farmworkers. Thecrucial point is the need for semanticclarity.

The term "peasant" itself is an impor-

Implicit theories may be obstacles toanalysis in a somewhat different way. Thevarious Marxist schools of thought will attimes subscribe to differing theories aboutmatters which abut on the analysis of pea-sants - theories about the nature of modesof production other than industrial capital-

ism, theories about "one-stage" and "two-stage" revolutions, etc.. Such thqoriesshould at the very least be made explicit,if arguments are to be joined. In addition,there is a danger that theories of this sortmay lead to a riori assumptions and blindus to the concrete-E-7iistorical reality of thepeasantry in specific areas. Fo$ example,the proposition that a stage of struggle forland reform must precede a stage of strugglefor socialism is undoubtedly true in manypeasant areas, but undoubtedly not true inothers. Land reform, and peasant land-owner-ship, is usually not a terminal goal for in-stance, in pure plantation areas where ruralpopulation densities are so high that peasantthemselves are aware that family farms arenot viable as self-sustaining productionunits, and in areas (like Puerto Rico) wherethe class of family farmers has essentiallybeen wiped out.assumption must give way to historical andgeographical fact.THESIS 3.

Thus an a prtori ideological

A third obstacle to theorizing aboutpeasants is the error which we call "Marx-ist fundamentalism," that of relying ex-clusively on classical, 19th-century textsand ignoring the late development of Marx-ist theory, the history of change in peasantsocieties and that of peasant struggles, andthe fact that classical Marxism limited itsanalysis of peasantry very largely to theyeoman peasantry of Western Europe - a caseatypical of peasants on a world-wide scale.Marxist fundamentalism leads to extremelyserious errors based on improper generali-zations from Marx's and Engels' correctcharacterization of the West-European yeo-man peasantry. These peasants were embeddedin a post-industrial-revolution societywhich was developing, not underdeveloping.Development implied, among other things, thatthe dissolution of some family farms wouldlead to enrichment of others as part of therural population emigrated to expandingcities and as demand or farm produce ex-panded. For this reason, and others relatedto it, the yeoman peasantry was, indeed,petit-bourgeois in class attributes andconsciousness, was not nationally oppressed,and hence was strikingly different from thegreat majority of peasants in the world asa whole. Furthermore, the classical textsdid not provide a thorouqh analysis ofimperialism (beyond the much more limitedidea of capitalism's spatial expansion-diffusion), and modern peasantries are pro-foundly influenced by imperialism - are inmany ways a product of imperialism.THESIS 4.

It is improper to contrast the classbehavior of peasants with that of pro-letarians in colonial and neo-colonialcountries. The tendency to do so, we feel,results from the errors and confusions de-lineated in Theses 1-3. while it is truethat non-wage family labor is a basic (per-haps universal) element in peasant farm pro-

126

8/7/2019 thesis.on.peasantry

3/3

duction, it does not follow that peasantfamilies are in any sense insulated from theforms of oppression visited upon other work-ing-class elements in these countries, orare exploited in a way fundamentally dif-ferent from that of the proletariat, or arein any sense capable of attaining the petit-bourgeois goals associated with a classicalyeoman peasantry, or are necessarily under-going rapid transformation into an industriallabor force. The great majority of peasantfarms fall among a continuum between, atone extreme, the stable farm whose householdnot only owns the means of production butowns enough of the means to provide it witha full living on the farm itself and, at theother extreme, the pure rural wage-earningproletariat. The typical peasant farm, ona world scale of comparison, tends to fallmuch closer to the proletarian end of thiscontinuum than the yeoman-peasantry end.The great majority of cases involve such acombination of insecure tenancy, small sizeof farm and scale of production, and dff-farm employment of farm family members thatthe net result is class behavior and classconsciousness strikingly close to that ofthe proletariat within the same society.

It is also improper to contrast thepeasantry and the proletariat in colonialand neo-colonial countries in such a wayas to view the peasantry as a rapidly de-clining class, the proletariat as one whichis at the same time rapidly enlarging asthe peasant population leaves the country-side. In this view, the peasantry is con-sidered a class whose significance willnecessarily diminish with the further de-velopment of capitalism, as occured inEurope a century ago.not develop in colonial and neo-colonialcountries today as it did in the metro-politan countries in pre-imperialist times,and peasantries do not quickly and auto-matically dissolve. In fact, four casescan be roughly distinguished for the direc-tions of evolutionary development whichpeasantries may take under imperialist con-ditions, each of the cases representing anoutcome which will under certain circum-stances increase the total flow of surplusvalue hence fit the plans of advancingcapitalism: (l), the peasantry may dis-solve rapidly (as happened in Puerto Rico);( 2 ) , the peasantry may be undergoing a slowprocess of destruction through polarizationinto kulak or corporate farms and wage-earners (as is occurring in India), but therate of change may be so slow that capital-ism will disappear long before the processhas come close to completion, or has evensignificantly altered the rural landscape:( 3 ) , peasantries may be reinforced - pro-tected and in some cases strengthened -by capitalism as a means of lowering the re-production cost of labor, as a means of pro-viding a form unemployment insurance andwelfare at the expense of the peasants and

But capitalism does

free of charge to the capitalists, and as ameans of maintaining low wages in the non-peasant sector by reducing the cost of livingthrough peasant supply of food (and some-times housing); such purposes can be seenin some (though by no means all) peasantdevelopment schemes and land-reform projectsin many Third World countries: ( 4 ) , capital-ism may actually help to create a peasantryunder conditions where other uses of laborwould, for one of a number of reasons (in-cluding isolation), yield less surplus value:this evidently occurred in the West Indiesafter emancipation, and occurs also in someland colonization schemes (western Canada,Amazonia, etc. ) .THESIS 5 .

Class struggle and active resistanceare the normal conditions of the peasantry.There is a continuum of forms of strugglewhich spans struggle and resistance em-bedded in cultural forms to wars of libera-tion. Some specific examples include:(11,the sabotage of material infrastructure:( 2 ) , the defense of land: ( 3 ) , the defenseof production systems, from the non-adoptionof innovations to rebellion; ( 4 ) , flight fromlabor conscription; (5), the withholding ofproduce and labor pDwer; (6), strikes; (7),banditry: and ( 8 ) , wars of liberation.These forms of struggle are neither fullydocumented nor adequately understood andtheir role in the socialist revolution isfrequently underestimated.THESIS 6.

Women play a crucial role within thepeasant farm,family. They assume a majorresponsibility in the sphere of productionand almost always a complete responsibilityin the sphere of reproduction. This con-tribution to family maintenance and re-production has been underestimated consist-ently. Under capitalism, peasant women areexploited at a higher rate than men. Inmany circumstances, the articulation of thecapitalist social formation reinforces pre-existing forms of women's subjugation and/or creates new ones.FOOTNOTE

(1) The "Theses on Peasantry" is theoutput of a three day meeting between thefour authors held at Clark University inJune 1977. The purpose of the meeting wasto discuss what analysis currently existedthat could be utilized in understanding thepolitical economy of the peasantry and helpin building a Marxian theory of Peasantry.The discussion was wide ranging - "Theseson Peasantry" merely summarizes the mostimportant conclusions reached in the dis-cussion. Comments on the "Theses" would beappreciated.

127