About the Alliance between Workers and Peasants

There is much contention in Marxist theoretical circles about the potential for a revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. Many in the West may be confused about this debate because they believe that there is no such thing as "the Peasantry" anymore. That certainly is the case in all the developed countries of Europe and North America. However, a peasantry of sorts does exist in the developing world.

How can we define people as peasants when feudalism no longer exists? We much shape our answer around how peasantry functioned. In the feudal era, peasants were subsistence farmers who owed a share of their crops to their feudal lord in return for protection and a place to live and farm. Modern peasantry is similar but with a subtle difference. Modern peasants are subsistence farmers who either own their land but the plot is too small to form a profitable commercial operation or, more commonly, who rent their land from a larger landowner in exchange for either money rent or rent in the form of a portion of their crop earnings. This makes modern peasantry virtually the same as medieval peasantry, minus the religiously motivated hierarchy of feudalism.

So, how does the existence of modern peasantry matter to Marxists? The simple conclusion is that these modern peasants make logical allies for the revolutionary proletariat in places where the proletariat is not large. In fact, the Marxist school of Maoism believes that in unindustrialized states only an alliance between the Proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow capitalism. This notion makes sense.

If it makes so much sense then why is there contention between Marxists on this issue? Most of the disagreement stems from the idea that only the proletariat can be revolutionary in character. What does that mean? Basically, it is a tenant of Marxism that the proletariat is oppressed in a special way by Capitalism, namely by being alienated from the fruits of their labor, and that means that only the proletariat can be truly revolutionary. Other groups can join the revolution but they would not be considered fundamentally revolutionary. This assertion makes sense but following it dogmatically can reduce the chances for revolution in underdeveloped areas to nearly zero. This is because in underdeveloped economies the proletariat may form a small majority of the population.

Besides this theoretical disagreement, what other reasons would Marxists have to oppose an alliance with the peasantry? Because the peasantry is not fundamentally revolutionary, the fear is that if they were to be allies in a revolution then they would extort concessions from the proletariat that would not benefit the development of Socialism. One example concerns land reform. Collectivization is the fundamental form of agricultural organization in a Socialist society. Peasants would be vehemently opposed to collectivization and would instead press the proletariat to enact land redistribution. While not inherently counter-revolutionary, this can hold back Socialist development because land redistribution would enable to peasants to become petty bourgeois landowners and allow the continued existence of market economics in agriculture. This is but one of numerous examples.

Despite all of this, it is my belief that the positives outweigh the negatives in many instances regarding the alliance between peasants and the proletariat. This is because in  undeveloped economies the only hope for revolution may be in the alliance between workers and peasants. The proletariat must always be careful to maintain the revolutionary character of society but some concession may be necessary to facilitate revolution. However, given the proper path of economic development towards industrialization some concession are not necessarily a bad thing. The uneven development of Capitalism around the world all but necessitates the alliance in some areas because there are likely to always to be places in the world where the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat. Without the alliance of workers and peasants those areas may never see revolution.