agrarian movements and their context

AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS AND THEIR CONTEXT’

Divisim of Compmrrrioa International Farm Policies University of Stnttgart-Hobdim, FRG

1. DELIMITATION

It seems difficult to find generally acceptable dehnitions for the subject discussed here. Some research workers would like to narrow, others to broaden the concepts both regarding the population concerned and the movements, the more so, since agriculture has fluid borders and a steady exchange of people with other sectors, too. In early stages of modem economic development, farming includes the vast majority of a society or a nation. - We propose taking a wide view, which makes cross-cultural comparison easier. All social categories dealing with primary food production - the cultivators or ultimate producers - shall be considered, independent of their social status, their legal relation to the land they use, their degree of social and economic dependence or self-determination. - The same might be said of “movements”. This term includes a wide continuum of activities and actions from joint non-action and passive resistances to agrarian revolution. Also, particularly for the agrarian population the dividing line between organisation and movement is very uncertain; its location depends on numerous factors.

Historically, peasants have played m d s t i l l play an important role in political developments, in social change and economic progress. From the peasant wars in Germany and Sweden to the revolutions in Mexico, Russia, China and to the independence movements in India and other colonies, this sector has contributed substantially to the course of history. The neglect of such an important class might lie behind the wrong assessment of strong movements, like the one in Indochina (the Vietnam ww).

Historians will pose the question: when does a cultivator become a

168 Theodor Bergmann

peasant, an economically active subject with exchange ties to home and overseas markets? They speak of peasantisation, the transition from subsistence production to a monetary e c o n ~ m y . ~ They might also ask, whether nomads or people with shifting cultivation are peasants, and then, whether their struggles for land-use rights against settled crop producers might be included under agrarian movements.

Though we mostly speak of the industrial era, the majority of the world population - j 1% - were still in farming in 1970.~ A projection by Schulte, Naiken and Bruni (1972) predicts a decrease of this rate to 42% in 1985, but an increase in actual numbers from 1.86 to 2.09 milliards, i.e. by 1 z 0 / ~ . There are, naturally, vast regional differences. A very high percentage is still in primary food production in the developing nations and in the Asian countries with planned (socialist) economies. Even in 1985, in these two groups 54 to 5604, will con- tinue farming.

Several academic institutions and many research workers have taken up the issue for research, description, analysis, attempts at typologies and categorisation. There are case-studies describing local, regional or national movements, generalisations for larger regions of the world and several anthologies, which try to generalise on a higher level of abstraction.6

A variety of difficulties arises on the stony path from description to analysis, conceptualisation and theoretical generalisation. It is defini- tely too early to attempt a general theory. Maybe such a theory is either impossible or undesirable.6 The phenomenon of agrarian movements is observed under widely varying conditions (culture, developmental phase, ecology, political systems). Thus, any imposed framework might obscure important issues or details. The joint indicators are s t i l l missing; therefore Puhle (197~) proposes searching for functional equivalents for a comparison.

This paper will try to review some more recent conceptual work, without aiming at a full coverage of a very widespread and specialised research.

2 . MOVEMENTS A S RESPONSE T O N E E D S FELT

The notion of agrarian politico-social movements implies from the outset that rural society is socially stratified and that the Werent strata have differing, sometimes contradictory, interests. Social differ- entials lead to socio-economic contradictions, tensions and struggle. This approach refutes the view of the harmonious, peaceful, idyllic

Agrarian Movements and their Confext 169 countryside, of village community, and tries to lay open the internal power-structure of the rural population. There are - no doubt - certain common features for all people living in villages and struggling with ~ ~ a l conditions; they are “all in the same boat”. But the wealth in production means, the power to distribute the fruits of all efforts and the share in the political power structure distinguishes between those above and those below. Social tensions and conflicts are, thus, viewed as “natural” expressions of societal life and development. Therefore, these tensions might become more intensive and acute with growing social differentiation and polarisation, which is another part of development in a private, profit-oriented economy. Social movements (e.g. agrarian reform movements) and socio-technical institutions (e.g. cooperatives) can be interpreted as activities to counter further inequality and to restore a certain amount of social equality after a period of growing social polarisation.

Joint activities of cultivators emerge after their needs have become tangible, after they have become aware of their needs and some organising force appears. - The basic need of the cultivator is for land; without it he has no livelihood, no employment, no status in the “community”. The land title implies, furthermore, the legal power to dispose of the produce. The opponent of the cultivator is, thus, in the first instance, the big landlord, who gets, receives, collects, and exacts a high share of the harvest. Land distribution ought to level the social gaps, which are expressed in different ways (hold on education, conspicuous consumption, Werent life-style, power posi- tions). When a feudal system is abolished, the discussion is lifted to another level: government asks for a share of the agricultural surplus to restitute the expropriated landlord,’ to take over his social functions, to build infrastructure and industries of a modern society. The same peasants, who were favoured by agrarian reform and had supported its implementation, change their attitude and can even become hostile to the government as soon as the contribution is exacted.

The fight for land can become a tribal issue among equals, where one tribe aspires to the land of another tribe or is compelled to expand to the others area. Or it can lead to tensions between nomads and settled peasants. Such struggles can hardly be called movements by the definition of Heberle (1951). But this basic problem of land can become a national issue, too, where foreigners occupy the best soils (East Africa) or where foreign rule establishes a certain system of land tenure and rent collection (India). Under such conditions, the fight for land recovery or for agrarian reform is a social problem and

170 Tbeodor Btrgmann

movement, which merges with a wider national struggle for independence. The social content determines largely the methods used and the forces supporting the conflict.

If the cultivators are saturated, i.e. their aims largely achieved, their activity fades away, the organisations dissolve; they even become conservative supporters of the powers in being.

But the surplus can be appropriated in many ways and by different groups. The state offers some services to the general public and - if it is rich enough - to the peasantry in exchange for taxation. Marketing boards, commission agents, private merchants, even co-operatives, then, try to retain “their” share for more or less important services. The question of price margins can lead to confrontation between producers and market organisers. If the prices are fixed by government, as frequently happens for basic commodities,agrarian movements can attack the authorities and fight for higher prices, lower taxation etc.

The structural change of the agrarian sector, which continues after an agrarian reform and which in fact is a steady concomitant of socio- economic development, can lead to a commotion of the people concerned. The effect, expressed in movement or organisation, can range very widely, depending on the strength and pace of change, on the groups concerned, on some individual factors affecting the single farmer and on the alternative opportunities offered. The effect can be relative deprivation, a feeling of relative pauperisation (Hof- stee, 1968); it can lead to anomie and right-wing radicalism@Jooij 1969a, b); it can also lead to quiet adaptation and acceptance of proletarisation by those strata whose horizon of expectations was modest. If the pace is accelerated and the transformation compressed into a brief time-span, strong opposition can arise, as in the Soviet Union or in the German Democratic Republic. If no time is allowed for acculturation to the new status, opposition may take many forms from the most diffuse (“individual” non-delivery of food en masse, general passivity), to massive exodus and emigration or to active violence against party officials and administrators.

The movements and organisations of the upper strata should at least be mentioned, though these are rarely analysed. Sometimes these are counter-movements against attempts to change social conditions and the rural power structure. They have a great impact on agrarian developments in Latin America, where agrarian reform is an urgent issue. And they influenced developments for a long period in Japan.8 Generally, their organisational efficiency and influence on adminis- tration is quite high.

Agrarian Movements and tbcir Cotafext 171

3 . P A R T I C U L A R FEATURES O F A G R A R I A N M O V E M E N T S

The specific situation of the peasantry leads to certain difficulties when they try social change and political participation. Of these, several can be generalised: I . Physical weakness and dependence upon the village of residence for

existence and nutrition 2. Being spread over a vast area and lack of communication 3. Lack of a nation-wide political and professional organisation 4. Problem of leadership from own ranks

6. Caste-system or similar systems of social stratification,. their in- trinsic strength and solidification by religious organisations and institutions and - as a consequence - an inferiority feeling of the rural masses

7. Competition among the cultivators for land and for the share in marketing destroys or diminishes the awareness of a common destiny and of qual social interests.

8. Peasants rarely develop utopistic or far-reaching goals, which could mobilise their energies.

9. Agrarian movements generally are of short duration; they are mostly dissolved soon after they have realised their immediate

Frequently of great vehemence, agrarian movements are distinguished from other social movements in several respects. Cultivators, too, are distinct from industrial workers by social position or status, property or disposition of production means and consciousness.

I. Industrial workers more and more work in large units with common interests. They are quickly unionised with a common, easily discernible social opponent, personified in the factory manager, who is seated in the central office. Peasants, as it were, are widely spread over a region. Their direct field operations are increasingly individualised. Their societal opponents are not easy to locate; their effect on the social status of the peasants is complex and undetermin- able in simple concepts.

2. The industrial worker masters modem technology under con- trolled conditions, while the peasant has to struggle with it. He ex- periences difficulties in purchasing and using it on economically reasonable terms; technically its utilisation is difficult in a continuously changing natural environment.

j. Illiteracy

goals.

172 Theodar Bergmann

3. The cultivator is tied to the land for production and for the maintenance of his family, dependent on the natural rhythm of growth and production, which cannot be essentially changed. A full economic cycle takes a long time, for field crops 1-2 years, for cattle 5-10 years, for orchards 10-30 years.

4. Industrial workers are directly exposed to economic crises without any economic insurance.

5 . The industrial means of production are not the property of the workers, but of an opposing dass. Thus, they cannot cause splits or disunity among workers. On the contraxy, non-ownership unites the working class. The cultivator owns or disposes of his means of production and competes directly with his peers for a larger share in these.

6. The cultivator is socially oppressed, politically unorganised and culturally disadvantaged. Education in a feudal order depends upon the doas of the landlord; even under modern conditions the chances in rural education, the choices and the professional alternatives are inferior to those in town. The peasant’s class-consciousness dXers from that of a worker and remains on a lower level.

7. Peasants face difficulties in finding leaders from their own ranks. Frequently they originate from other strata and other regions. They can assume leadership only if certain basic conditions are met: charisma, integrity, peasant life-style.

8. In the early stages of development the cultivator (not in planta- tions) produces mostly for home consumption. The surplus alone is marketed, His cash income is low, sometimes much lower than the market value of his family consumption. Thus, he is not fully dependent upon market and price swings; rather he is able to level off decreasing market income in different ways : more self-consumption, less purchases of industrial and urban goods, “self-exploitation”. His basic needs can always be met by the soil. If he is Cut off from this material basis, the cultivator cannot endure very long.

9. Peasants in developing and changing societies do not form a well-defined class. They are an open social group, of which a few might become well-to-defamers or non-working landlords, while a steady stream of them leaves farming and provides the manpower for the emerging sectors of a growing economy. Part of the latter group can commute in the first stages between work and salary in the town on the one hand and residence and consumption in the countryside on the other hand. Therefore, the emergence of an organisable class-consciousness is more difficult than with industrial workers. If

&aria# Movements and their Context ‘73 the needs of the cultivators are satisfied during movements of agrarian reform, the organisable dissatisfaction is further split and their interests directed towards their own holding. 10. While industrial workers are protected by their anonymity, a

cultivator, who joins an organisation, is immediately known and thus exposed to all sorts of physical pressure from the ruling elite.

I I. Incomes at the subsistence level, combined with strong social and political pressures originating from the rural power elite to prevent peasants from organising, have so far proven to be almost insurmountable obstades to raising individual and collective bargaining power. Traditionally, the weak position of farm people has been a by-product of a permanent rural labor surplus.

12. Peasants face an entire environment hostile to collective action. In practical terms, this results from the efforts of the r u d elite to isolate farm people from the remainder of society and to atomise their efforts.

13. The difficult financial position of many peasants and lack of money create particular obstades for organisations. 14. Farm workers on large estates in the primitive stages of

latifundism are mostly unskilled, thus making them exchangeable or polyvalent. That increases the insecurity of employment - a further obstacle to collective organisation and action.

Landsberger (1974) views the basic distinctions between the two classes, which largely determine the traits of their movements, in a similar manner:

“Both kinds of movements are based on large but disadvantaged classes, hence considerable similarity might be expected. Nevertheless, the worker’s urban location, his association with an economic sector which is generally expanding, and his rather different relationship to the means of production ... are likely to produce differences in the movements in which he participates. as compared with those of the peasant’’. (p. 28)

4. T Y P O L O G I E S AND C A T E G O R I S A T I O N

Stinchcombe (1961/62) summarises the Merences in the rural social relations in a synopsis (see chart I). He establishes a close connection between type of agricultural holding, determined by the agrarian system, and the class-structure of agrarian population or the dominating type of cultivators. Herein, he does not ignore the particular features of agrarian class-structures and their difference; he formulates them in four points:

I74 Tbeodor Bergmann CHART I : CbOractm>tus of wd n:mprireJ and redting thus rehtim

Type of enterprise Characteristics of enterprise Characteristics of dass structure

Manorial Division of land into domain land and labor subsistence land, with domain land devoted toptoduction for market. Lord has police power o v a labor. T&hnically traditional; low cost of land and little market in land

Funily-~ite t-cy

Small pards of highly valuable land worked by families who do not own the land, with a large share of the production for market. Highly labor- and land-intensive culture of yearly or more frequent crops

Family small- holding

Same as family tenancy, except bene- fits remain within the enterprise. Not distinctive of areas with high valua- tion of land; may become capital-intensive at a late stage of industrialisa- tion

P!nntation Large-scale enterprises with either slavery or wage labor, producing labor-intensive crops requiring capital investment on relatively cheap land (though generally the best land within the plantation area). No or little subsistence production

Ranch Large-scale production of labor-cx- tensive crops, on land of low value (lowest in large units within ranch areas), with wage labor partly paid in kind, company barracks and mess

Source: Stinchcornbe (1961/62), p. 190

Classes difTer greatly in legal privi leges and style of life. Technical cul ture borne largely by the peasantry Low political activation and compe tcnce of peasantry; high politicaliza tion of the upper classes

Classca Ma little in legal privileges but greatly in style of life. T&ia culture generally borne by the lowc dasscs. High political dect and PO litical organization of the lower daa se, often producing revolutionar populist movements

Classes W e r neither in legal privi l egs nor in style of life. Technics culture borne by both rich and pool Generally unified and highly organ ized political opposition to urbv interests, often corrupt and u n d i s a plined

Clpsses difTer in both style of life an legal privileges. Technical cultur monopolized by upper classes. Pc lidcally apathetic and incompetu lower classes, mobilized only in tim of revolution by urban radicals

Classes may not differ in legal statu as there is no need to recruit and kee down a large labor force. Style of li! differentiation unknown. Technic culture generally relatively evenly di: tributed. Dispersed and unorgank radiulism of lower classes

Agrarian MovGmenfs and their Confexf 175

I. “Extent, to which classes are differentiated by legal privileges t . Sharpness of differentiation of life-style 3 , Distribution of the technical culture of husbandry 4. Degree of political activity and organisation, sensitivity or apathy

to political issues, degree of intraclass communication, degree of political education and competence”. @. I 84)

The relationship established by Stinchcombe between dominating agrarian system and type of movement has inspired Zagoria (1971 , 1974) in his research on peasant communism in southern Asia. He relates the socio-economic and ecological conditions and the potential for political organisation of the lower classes in a family-size tenancy system. He includes settlement structure (population density), literacy, dominating cropping pattern on the one and communist votes on the other hand. High agrarian population density, heavy inequality of land ownership, a large class of landless villagers are factors of politisation closely related to irrigated farming in southern Asia.

For the latifundia system of Latin America, Obreg6n (1967)’ gives both an historical categorisation and for the actual agrarian movements a - somewhat vague - division according to political objectives : I . messianic movements t . social banditry 3 . racial movements 4. traditional (primitive, “incipient”) movements.

All these forms - according to Obreg6n - are pre-political and have contributed in different degrees to the emergence of modern forms. He then categorises the actual movements in three groups: I . Reformist agrarianism I . political banditry 3 . revolutionary agrarianism.

Obreg6n finalIy defines three main phases in the development of agrarian movements :

I. Agitation and dependence upon the town, 2. increased peasant participation and relative independence from

3. coordination and centralisation. the town,

176 Tbeodot Bergmann

In this last phase, the leaders can participate in the political discussions in the power centres:

“Contemporary peasant movements in Latin h u r i c a arc thus characterized by the ability to sustain a modern functioning organization capable of political combat, operation on a national scale. a coordinated and centralized structure, a break with t n d i t i o ~ l feudal-religious ideologies, growing politicalization on the most develop ed ideological level, and institutionalization of a new power structure that can compete with the traditional structures in the countryside”. (Obreg6n. 1967, p. 324).

For western Africa, Post (1972) included the processes of peasantisation and the emergence of rural movements. He distinguished six forms of rural protest, which can appear simultaneously: I . Resistance against colonial conquest 2 . resistance against compulsory peasantisation under colonial rule

(i.e. against the destruction of the traditional subsistence economy and the integration in national and particularly international markets)

3. fight for better prices in marketing and against government in- tervention

4. nationalist movements 1. armed combat for national liberation 6 . revolts against the new ruling classes after political independence

as consequence of peasant disappointment.

These six forms have different aims and enemies, emerge in Merent phases of development and reflect Wering levels of awareness. Partly they aim at the restitution of seemingly idyllic old conditions of traditional village community. Post submits three generalisations derived from Western African movements for discussion:

“First, violent protest has not been a revolutionary assertion, but rather an intended retreat from reality; second, such protest has not bcen the product of established peasantrics, but of classes in rmly stages of formation; third, the assertion of ‘peasant’ interests has come about most often through alliances with other classes, has involved the acceptance of capitalism, and has taken non-violent forms”. (p. 213-54)

For the historical process and the phases of agrarian movements, Oommen (1976) derives a pattern from an analysis of numerous movements in Kerala, southern India. For this purpose he uses as main criterion the relationship between movement and legislation. He distinguishes four possible relations: I. They act in the same direction - for change. 2. Both factors turn against change. 3. Legisla- tion presses for change, while the movements oppose it. 4. The protest movement initiates the change.

Agrarian Movements and their Context 177 From these four possible courses Oommen attempts a periodisation

of the agrarian reform measures and laws in Kerala from before 1947 until most recent times. In the first phase, before independence, legislation was leading, but there was no organised movement. In the second phase from 1947 to 1956, the movement gave the impulses and dominated the scene, while the laws were indicators of change only. In the third phase from 1917 to 1969 a radical movement inter- acted and cooperated with legislation. In the fourth phase from 1970 onwards, the movement pfevails and determines the content of the laws.

For the fourth phase - the prevalence of the movement and its cooperation with the legislators - Oommen proposes the following thesis :

“Only in regions, where a strong agrarian movement exists, measuzcs can be thought of, that accelerate the process of effective implementation of legislation.”

Social categorisations have been attempted frequently, but as often as not the writers experienced difficulties in finding the delimitations in reality which are so easily drawn up on paper. In a socio-economic categorisation of the rural population Alavi (1968/72) followed Mao Tse-Tung’s (1914) scheme of the five clearly distinct strata or classes in Hunan, China. He isolated for India three partial sectors among the landholding classes clearly delimited from each other:

I. Landlords, who do not cultivate land themselves I . independent small or medium holders, who own the cultivated

land and do not exploit farm workers 3 . capitalist farmers or rich peasants, who “cultivate” or manage their

land and employ salaried workers. Gough (1974) in her analysis of movements in Kerala and in Tanjore (in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu) finds a different picture. According to her, the stratification of the agrarian population is too complicated to be explained by a simple pattern. There are transitions and gearings between the subsectors. She therefore distinguishes the strata by the criterion, whether or not the owner takes an active interest in the management of his land and contributes at least some of his own labour to cultivation.

5 . NEEDS A N D T H E I R EXPRESSION

The ecological, demographic and socio-economic conditions are parts of the complex of factors that are at the origin of agrarian movements.


But there is a further process of social interaction and social control from the needs felt to an explicit awareness and to a more or less organised and formalised expression of the social forces. Conditions of the process and forms of organisation are specific to the agricultural population, as outlined above (chapter 3). The transition from an in- formal movement to a closely knit organisation knows many inter- mediary forms and steps and is quite di&lse, as is the transition between the *rent forms of peasant activity. There is a wide range of forms from inactivity and banditry to highly sophisticated organisations that collect their fees by postal order. T h e actual forms, in which the needs and demands are articulated

and fought, depend among other things upon the following factors : social and political organisation of the villages literacy and educational standard available leadership degree of social and political control and potential of repression political organisation of the ruling class or group conditions of government machinery political allies and alliances. Only if the needs felt find several favorable factors for formulation, organisation, expression and implementation, a real change is achieved The social environment necessary for success is discussed by Oommen (‘974, ‘976).

6. R E G I O N A L P A T T E R N S O F A G R A R I A N MOVEMENTS

Agrarian movements are - as stated above - the response to the needs. These differ widely according to the prevailing conditions which are summarised in the agrarian systems. Therefore, a few remarks about some main world regions and principal agrarian systems and the specific forms and objectives of agrarian movements will now be offered.

6 . I Movements under conditions of LatijllndiJm

The dominant agrarian system in Central and South America is latifundism. It has been analysed by several research workers, among them Flores (I 96 I), Feder (I 969, I 97 I), Stavenhagen (r97oa, b), Lands- berger and collaborators ( I 969), Huizer ( I 973), and Gott ( I 970). - On the one side, there is a vast number of economically dependent, politi- d y oppressed, culturally retarded inquilinos, supervised and con-

Agrarian Movements and their Context 779

trolled by the landlords or their representatives. On the other side are the managers of the latifundia, representing big landlords, who are geographically inaccessible and socially entirely different. They live largely as absentee landlords in towns. Landholding is concentrated in a few hands, and the land is largely cultivated in an extensive manner; vast acreages are fallow. This again increases the inquilinos’ hunger for land.

Therefore, agrarian movements are mostly concerned with landownership. The landless and the dwarf-holders demand more land, abolition or diminution of services and payments; it is, thus, a question of movements for agrarian reform. Political counter-movements of the latifundistas, political and police oppression are their concomitants or antithesis. Feder (1973) analyses the forms and methods of these counter-reform movements.

Important forms of agrarian movements are occupation of landlords’ land, sometimes also of government or crown land or land with disputed titles, formation of peasant unions and organisations of self-help (cooperatives etc.). Frequently, parts of the lower clergy participate in the preparation, construction and guidance of such organisations.

The failure or non-existence of agrarian reform is, according to Huizer (1973), frequently the main reason for peasant dissatisfaction. Therefore, peaceful occupation of unused or badly used parts of large landholdings is an essential form of this struggle.

6.2 Movements under oriental imgation farming

The socio-economic conditions in South Asia dif€er widely from those in Latin America. In the regions of old settlement and irrigation economy, large landholdings frequently dominate, though in much smaller dimensions than in South America, but the operational holdings are tiny. Generally, land is farmed out in very small plots to tenants or for share-cropping and only for one season. Even the “owner-cultivated‘’ land of the landlord is in fact worked by tenants or share-croppers. Rapid population growth with no employment alternatives promotes further fragmentation and diminution of operational holdings, which weakens the bargaining position of the ultimate producer facing the landlord or his representative. While the man-land-ratio is narrowing, competition among the tenants is increasing. Land-rent rises, until exodus into other sectors becomes feasible.

I80 Theodor Bergmann

Zagoria (I 974) analysed the socio-economic and ecological pre- requisites and the potential for political organisation of the lower classes in an agrarian system characterised by family-size tenancy. In such a system the potential is large for 7 reasons: I. The contradictions between proprietor and tenant are clear. z. The proprietor shirks the harvest risk and shifts it largely to the

tenant, whose income thus is very unstable. 3. Contrary to the farm or plantation system, the tenant grasps his

economic position and could well produce and market without the landlord.

4. Tenure and tenancy are insecure. j . Population growth and land fragmentation worsen the position of

the tenants. Therefore, downward social mobility of large parts of the poor agrarian population charaaerises the system.

6. Concentration of the rural poor favours political organisation. 7. The greater spatial distance provides the peasants with more

independence from the landlords.

Thus, the landlord dass appears as foreign, superfluous, greedy and exploitative, while the lower classes develop a high degree of independence, political sensitivity and organisation. Rentier-capitalism leads to rural instability. South and East Asia differ from other development regions in several geographical, climatic and ecological factors : good soil fertility, heavy population pressure, concentration of a large, landless proletariat or semi-proletariat of tenants, share- croppers and landless labourers, widespread, parasitic landlordism. Dense population and high educational standards promote the readiness for social change, while isolation diminishes or weakens it.

6.3 Movements in inda-utriatised capitatist countries

The main factors of development in farming were analysed by Bergmann (197ja). They are: a) Structural changes, b) diminution of farms and of active population in farming, c) strong innovation, d) increased production, e) rising incomes, f ) social differentiation, g) specialisation of production, h) vertical integration, i) growing insecurity.

6.3 . I . The imptications of change

The macresocial change of agrarian structure passes in the individual

Agtotian Movements and their Context 181

case through several steps of farm reduction and status change toward proletarisation, from full-time farm via main farming plus accessory non-farm income to part-time residential holding (better: worker- peasant). This transition into the working class does not lead to material-economic, absolute pauperisation; rather it can yield higher income than that earned by a comparable industrial worker without a side-income from farming. In the individual case, the process of proletarisation is brought to an end; as a whole, however, it leads to the emergence and continuous existence of large transitional groups, which are supplemented “from above” all the time, while losing people “downwards”. The personal composition of these groups changes steadily. There is no more safety and place of security, not even for the economically best-situated group of full-time and full- income holdings.

Concomitant with proletarisa tion a change in consciousness occurs, but this is specific for different strata. When a smallholder with non- agricultural income takes up salaried work off the farm, he slowly begins to re-think his situation and becomes aware of socio-economic change. His reference group increasingly becomes his fellow-workers in the workshop. The situation of the fulltime farmer’s consciousness is different. In life-style and income expectations he compares himself with the free-profession, well-earning, hardly taxable, upper middle- class, Professional organisation and extension want to lift him into the status of entrepreneur. Insecurity about the future and slowly strengthening compulsion to leave farming create for the middle- class farmer a much larger distance between the achievable and the desirable, than for the smallholder. Hofstee (1968) therefore speaks of relative pauperisation. American sociologists write about relative deprivation, leading to anomie and to (right-wing) radicalism. Nooij (rgbga, b) has analysed these phenomena empirically and found that farmers with large holdings are more inclined to this mood than farmers with small holdings. This is confirmed by Heberle (1963) and by Morrison (1970):

“Dissatisfaction in agriculture is by no means limited to farmers with small, marginal operations. In the Michigan study . . . , two-thirds of the farmers with gross sales above the median for al l farmers in the sample were, taking their labor and investment into account, dissatisfied with their previous year’s income. On the whole, those dissatisfied farmers who engage in militant, organized, protest actions have avenge or above average socioeconomic Ievels.” @. 9)

The decrease of the agrarian population and its loss of status in society are tied and interlinked with structural change and social differentia-


tion. Just this development can lead to a reaction of political obsti- nacy; the ranks are dosed against exogenous factors and the attempt is made to push aside the causes of tension:

“The awareness, that farming is a shrinking sector, creates a corporative r d e x of unity, which often bars the open appearance of conflicts on the political lev el . . . These sentiments (of frustration, of injustice, of loneliness and fear) form a particularly &&ve mobilising factor for the agricultural organisations. Thus, they arc able to conhrm the unity of the peasantry in spite of a11 contradictions in situation and interests.” (Mendras ct Tavemicr, 1970, pp. 54/56)

In highly industrialised capitalist countries, land-ownership by the farmers prevails (with exception, see Great-Britain). Rarely land of large holdings is available for distribution. And those interested in acquiring the land of farmers leaving are not bound by solidarity, but compete with one another. Joint activity is more concentrated on questions like farm prices, security of sales, organisation of markets and government subsidies.

The structural changes - in production, in landownership, in com- mercialisation - might induce some peasants to look back in nostalgia to a past which appears harmonious. This looking back is stimulated, if the union officials represent and nurture the tradition. Organisa- tions, like all social institutions, can slow down the processes of thinking and the adaptation to necessary change under certain conditions. Whether this really happens, depends upon the entire social context, too, e.g. the readiness of society for reform and the allies of a farmers’ union. Thus, the attitude towards structural change is fully different in the peasant unions in Sweden from that of its German counterpart, though essentially the change is similar. Thus, we find, too, that agrarian movements can be directed to the right as well as to the left.

Lipset (rgjo/7r) makes the same point: “It is clear that farmers may be recruited for sharply diffuent types of politics: left, right, and center, democratic and authoritarian. .. Thus rural politics. far from being steady and traditional, often seem to be highly volatile.” @. XXI)

Puhle (I 9 7 ) ) compares the political movements in the agrarian sector of three capitalist industrial societies (USA, France, Germany) in recent history and relates them dosely to the deep structural changes. But he stresses that the same challenge provoked politically very different replies in these societies. Thus, he suggests that more factors are active, not only the economic changes and the loss of status. While in Germany the agrarian organisations prepared the soil for fascism,

Agrarian Mouements and their Context 1 8 3

their political effect in the US and in France was a certain strengthening of a liberal-democratic system. This conclusion might not sound acceptable to other research workers, e.g. Loomis and Beegle (1946).

This view is opposed by Tavernier et a l i i (197r), too; they feel that West European peasants are conservative at heart, an exception being the new generations. Mendras et Tavernier (1969) found that young farmers engage and commit themselves more to the left and keep their distance from the traditional parties @. 186). Some farmers’ groups, particularly in western France, have “shown a will for deep change of society and participated actively in the movement started by the students”. @. 190)

6.3.2. Right-xving raakafism

There is no doubt that right-wing political formations, particularly fascism, had more support from the peasantry than the socialist movement. But a uniform statement would be a simplification. Ad- herence to fascist movements varied according to the social strata. As could be expected from the theory of anomie, wealthy agrarian strata with higher reference-groups and expectations were more prone to fascist propaganda.# But Poppinga (1969, 1973) has shown that a generalising judgment does not fit reality.

Research about agrarian support for Italian fascism (Snowden, 1972; Tarrow, 1967; Corner, 1971) stresses the differentiating approach and proves, that the conquest of the countryside by the farci was a drawn-out process. The same is true about the Lappo-movement in Finland in the late twenties. The large farmers, heavily dependent on world-market developments and crisis were quickly frustrated by the world economic crisis and joined the Finnish fascists, while the smallholders, living largely in subsistence farming and with low expectations, continued to follow the social-democrats. For Germany, differentiating research was first done by Heberle (1963), later by Loomis and Beegle (1946) and by Poppinga (mentioned above). Hindsight teaches us that the longterm interests of the individual peasants and of the peasantry as a whole were not well served by national socialism. Even a limited foresight might have taught the same. But the farmers’ organisations, led by the larger landowners, exercised a strong influence in favour of German fascism.

6.3.3. Agrarian socialism

It is, no doubt, a rare phenomenon that purely agrarian movements


in highly developed, capitalist societies profess socialism, at least temporarily, and bind themselves organisationally with the urban working class. It is even more rare that such phenomena have been objects of research.1° The American sociologist Lipset (1910/1971) analysed the movement of wheat farmers in Saskatschewan, Canada, socio-historically in 1949. He described the historical and the actual- political development ; he analysed sociologically the movement and its leadership and the voting behaviour of the agrarian population and finally risked some basic sociological and political generalisations.

The movement originated and retained its stronghold in the mono- culture wheat-belt of Canada, in the province of Saskatschewan. The farmers - no smallholders according to German, French or Dutch standards - were entirely dependent on this crop, its yields and its (world market) price. The producer's price at the farm-gate was determined until the thirties by the private railroad, the private warehouses and the private merchants, who in turn depended upon the private grain exchange. The farmers, thus, had no difficulties in clearly identifying their commercial opponents and continuously felt the consequences of their monopoly practices. This socially quite uniform and plain situation led to the emergence of class consciousness in spite of social differences in farming itself.

Program and activities appear quite radical for a party with peasant roots which maintained its strongest support in this sector over a long period. The problems of the movement are shown, e.g. the relations between members and leadership, between institutionalisation and social change, between reformist government and conservative ad- ministration, the tension between reform programs and saturated farmers, who dislike the higher taxation necessary for reforms.

Lipset himself and his contributors in 1971 look critically upon the Commonwealth Cooperative Federation (CCn. They still have no final explanation for the reasons for its (temporary?) setback in 1964. The following causes are advanced as possible answers: change of social basis by the economic growth of part of the farming group, exodus, social regrouping, saturation of demands, assured wheat prices, tear in government-office, lack of new reform ideas and of will to reform, and other factors.

6.4. The absence of agrarian movements in socialist societies

The almost total lack of agrarian movements in socialist countries contrasts strongly with the eminent, fundamental role the peasantry

Agrarian Mooentents a d their Context 185

has played in the early and in the decisive stages of communist revolutions. There are of course several political parties and professional peasant organisations. But they cannot daim to have represented peasant demands against the powers that be. In the Soviet Union, such an organisation did not even exist forrnallp. The official formula, valid until the I$O’S, was the unbreakable alliance between workers and peasants (“smytchka”). This might have suited the short-term explication and the attempt by a tough leadership to overrule the desires of the peasantry at least during the early stages of economic take-off. The nuclei of organisation, that cropped up in the early 1930’s in the Soviet Union, were discontinued and crushed. A new attempt was started in the late 1960’s only, first in Czechoslovakia and later in the Soviet Union, culminating in an All-Union conference of collective peasants in 1969. It decided to establish representative organisations and bodies on all levels. That implies that such organisations and cooperative democracy did not exist until that time and that interests and social demands do differ from those of the non-kolkhoz working class, at least on a short- and medium-term basis.

Several reasons might be suggested for the almost total absence of peasant organisations and movements during the phase of economic take-off and colleaivisation. The four main factors seem to be:

I .

2.

3 .

4.

The peasants were saturated by land distribution after agrarian reform and fell back into farm activities only.

Collectivisation changed their status radically, but gave them no time for acculturation. Thus, they were disoriented and unable to formulate any common demands. The heavy economic squeeze led to silent resistance, but they could not organise a nation-wide movement due to the hard pressure of government and party machinery. The mass exodus might have deprived the peasants of their most active and vocal potential leaders; in any case it weakened the peasantry physically and quantitatively.

With the changing economic conditions - better recognition of the agrarian sector, allocation of funds and inputs - and the changed social level of collective peasantry a new political environment might develop. In this, they could find new fields of political activity for the mutual benefit of the peasants and of society at large.

I 86 Tho& Bergmann

NOTES

1 This is a very abbreviated and revised version of a research report, published fully in the series of occasional papers at the Institute of Foreign Agriculture, University of Gottingen. Adress: Biisgenweg 2, 3400 Gattingen. It can be ordered from SSIP-Vcrlag D. Breitcnbach, Memelei Str. 50, D-6600 Saarbriidccn-3. Set Beigmann(1976). 1 Hobsbawm (1973) makes the point that concerted non-action is a form of political activity.

4 For the quantitative data ste Production Yearbook of the F A 0 (1973) and Schulte, Naiken and Bruni (1972). 6 Cf. e.g. Landsberger (1969; 1974). Stavenhagen (1970), W. J. Lewis (rg74), Huizer

Kruega (1971) makes the point that a genunl theory might even be harmful to the ulalysis of a world-wide and variegated phenomenon. ’ Gutelman (1971) shows. that the methods of agnrivl reform and the restitutions paid exprcss the relations of social forces. 8 Counterreform is discussed by Feder (1969), the landlords’ unions by Dore (1959). * Cf. Nooij (1969, a, b), Hofsttc (1968), Morrison (1971). 10 Poppinga (1973) describes some local peasant movements with leftist tendencies.

Sec e.g. Post (1972) about western Africa.

(1973). Morrison (1970). m e (197f).

REFERENCES

AUVI. H. (1968/1972). Theorie d u Bauemrevolution. (Stuttgatt : Plakat-Bauunverlag). BERGMA”, TH. (1975 a), Change Proccssu, in Fanning and Political Consciousness and

Attitudes of Peasants and Worku-Peasants, Sociologia Ruralis, 15, (I/z), 73-89.

BERGMANN, TH. (1971 b). Bctricb odcr Scholle? - Die landwirtxhaftlichc Bcvolkerung zwischen Strukturwandel und Konsupatismus, in: Grciffcnhagcn, M. und H. Schecr (Herausg.), (1975). Die Gegenrcform - Zur Frage der Reforderbarkcit von Staat und Gesellxhaft, (Reinbek: Rowohlt), IIZ-131.

BERGMANN, TH. (1976), Structural Changes and Political Activities of the Peasantry, (Gottingen: hstitut fiir aushdixhe Landwirtschaft).

CORNER, P. (1971), Fascism in Ferrara, (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis), Oxford University. DORE, R. P. (1959). Land Reform in Japan, (London: Oxford University Press). XVII

+ 5x0. FEDER, E. (1969), Societal Opposition to Peasant Movements and its Effects on Farm

People in Latin America, in: Landsbergu, Henry, A. (ed.), (1969), Latin Ameri- can Pcasant Movements, (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press), 399-450.

FEDER, E. (1971). Th e Rape of the Peasantry - Latin America’s Landholdings System, (Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday), 304.

FEDER, E. (Herausg.), (1973). Gewalt und Ausbeuhmg - Lateinamerikas Landwirtschaft. (Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe).

FL~RES. E. (1961), Tratado de economfa agricola, Muico. Gorr, R. (1970), Rural Guerrillas in Latin Ameria (Humondsworth: Penguin), 637. GUTELMAN, M. (1971), Rtformc ct mystification a@ en Amtriquc latine. Le cas du

Mexique, (Paris: Maspero).

Agrarian Movements ond tbeir Context '87 ~ E R L E , R. (1951), Social Movements, New York. HEBERLE, R. (1963), Landbevolkerung und Nationalsozialismus, (Stuttgart : Deutsche

Vcrlagsanstalt). HOBSBAWM, E. J. (1973). Peasants and Politics, The Journal of Peasant Studies, I (I),

October, 3-22. HOPSTEE, E. W. (1968). Soziologische Betrachtungcn zui Zukunft des Funilienbetriebes,

in: Hohcnheimcr Reden und Abhandlungcn, Nr. 2 4 xo0-11~. HUIZER, G. (1973), Peasant Rebellion in Lath America. The Origins, Forms of Ex-

pression, and Potential of Latin American Peasant Unrest, (Harmondswonh:

KRUEGER, C. (1971). Prairie Protest: The Medicare Conflict in Saskatschcwan, in: Lipset, S. M. (1971). Agrarian Socialism. Berkeley, Los Angcles, London, 401-434-

LANDSBERGER, H. A. (ed.), (1969). Latin American Peasant Movements, (Ithaca and London: Comcll Univm!ty Press).

LANDSBERGBR, H. A. (ed.), (1974)~ Rural Protest: Pcasant Movements and Social Change, (London: Macmillnn Press), x + 430.

LEWIS, W. J. (ed.), (1974). Peasant Rebellion and Communist Revolution in Asia, (Stan- ford, California: Stanford University Press).

LIPSET, S. M. (1950/71). Agrarian Sodalism. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatxhcwan - A Study in Political Sociology, (Berkeley and Los Angclcs: University of California Press), (Second, revised and expanded edition (1971)).

LOOMIS. CH. P. and J. A. BEEGLB (1946), The Spread of German Nazism in Rural Arcas, American Sociological Review, XI, Daember, 724-734.

MAO TSE-TUNG (1954). How to Analyse the Classes in the Rural Areas, Selected Works,

MENDRAS, H. et Y. TAVERNIER (1969). (directcurs), Terre, paysans et politiquc, I et I1 (Paris: SBDEIS), 610 + 303.

MORRISON, D. E. (ed.), (1970). Farmers' Organizations and Movements. Research Needs and a Bibliography of the United States and Canada, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University).

MORRISON, D. E. (1971). Some Notes Toward Theory on Relative Deprivation, Social Movements and Social Change, American Behavioral Sacntist, 14 (I) , May/

MORRISON, D. E. and W. K. W A B N E F C (1971). Correlates of Farmus' Attitudes Toward Public and Private Aspects of Agricultural Organization, Rural Sociology, 36

NOOIJ. A. T. J. (19691). De bocrenpartij - desorientatic en radikalismc onder de bocren,

NOOIJ, A. T. J. (1969b), Political Radicalism Among Dutch Farmers, Sociologia Ruralis,

OBREG~N, A. Qv. (1967). Contemporary Peasant Movements, in: Lipset, S. M. and A. Sohri (eds.), (1967), Elites in Latin America, 301-340. New York.

OOMYBN, T. K. (1974). F A 0 Survey on Peasant Organizations in India: The Case of Alleppey (Kerala). New Delhi, (vcrviel.).

OOMMBN, T. K. (1976). Problems of Building Agrarian Organisations in Kerala, Soci- ologia Ruralis, Assen, Vol. XVI, 3, 177-196.

POPPINGA, 0. H. (1969), Anmcrkungen zum Veihitltnis von Rcchtsradikalismus und Lnndwiitschaft in dcr Bundesrepublik Deutschhd, Diplomarbeit, Hohcnhcim.

POPPINGA, 0. H. (1973), Politisches Vcrhalten und Bewusstsein dcutschcr Bauem und

Penguin).

I, 138-140, NCW Yoik.

June. 671-690.

(11, March, r-19.

Meppcl, Nicderlande, W + 225.

As=% 9 (11,4341..

I88 Theodar Bergmann Arbciterbauern, unter besonderer kriidrsichdgung revolutionam und gegen- revolutioniier hwcgungen und Ans&zc, Diss., Hohenheim.

POST, K. (1972), ‘Pcasantization’ and Rural Political Movements in Western Africa, Archives EuropCcnns dc Sodologic, Paris, Xm, 223-254.

PUHLE, H.- J. (r97j), Politische Agrarbcwegungen in kapitalistischen Industricgesell- schaften, Dcutschland, USA und Frankreich im 20. Jahrhundert. Kritische Studicn zur Geschichtswisscnschaft 16, (Gottingen: Vandenhoack & Ruprecht),

SCHULTE, W., L. NAIKEN and A. BRUNI (19p), Projections of World Agricultural Population, Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, Rome,

SNOWDEN, F. M. (1972), On the Social Origin of Agrarian Fascism in Italy, Archives Europknnes Sociologiqus, Paris, X l X , 268-295.

STAVENHAGEN, R. (1970a), (ed.), Agrarian Problems and Peasant Movements in Latin America, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday-Anchor), XI + 583.

STAVENHAGEN, R. (197ob), Les classes sodales dans les GOCiCttS a p i r s en Amtrique latine, in: Bulletin 1, Institut international d‘ttudes socials, 63-100.

STINCHCOMBE, A. L. (1961/62), Agricultural Enterprise and Rural class Relations, in: Bmdix, R. and S. M. Lipset (eds.), (1966), Class, Status and Power, Second Edition, 182-190. New York.

TARROW, G. (1967), Peasant Communism in Southern Italy, New Haven, Conn. TAVERNIER, Y., M. GERVAIS et C. SERVOLIN (dirccteurs), (1972), L’univers politiquc des

paysans dans la France contcmporaine, (Paris: Armand Colin). ZAGORIA, D. S. ( I ~ T I ) , The Ecology of Peasant Communism in India, The American

Political Science Review, Vol. 65, pp. 1e)-160. ZAGORIA, D. S. (rg74), Asian Tenancy Systems and Communist Mobilization of the

Peasantry, in: Lewis, J. W. (ed.), Peasant Rebdlion and Communist Revolution in Asia, Stanford University Press, 29-60.

Insurgency in Latin America (1968), Committee on Foreign Relations, US Senate. Document 86-406,15. January, Washington D.C.

F A 0 Production Yearbook (1973). Roma.

21, (I), 1-10.

S U M M A R Y

Agrarian movements, viewed here under a broad definition, play an important role for the course of modern history, since even today the majority of mankind lives in a rural society. Recent research on the subject is analysed and synthesised in the article.

Needs felt by the agrarian population, which cause their movements, differ according to the prevailing agrarian system of a region. Everywhere the movements encounter difficulties specific to the rural conditions. Thus, they are distinct from workers’ movements, as is peasant class-consciousness, which is not easily formulated. During the historical processes, in which the cultivators play a sometimes decisive pan, their role changes. Agrarian reform satisfies their demands and undermines their organisations. Successful reform turns radical tenants into conservative small landowners (willing to

Agrarian Movements and fbeir Context 189

conserve the new status). In capitalist industrial countries, part of the upper strata supported fascism or right-wing radicalism. Leftist trends among peasants have occurred, but are more rare. Agrarian

revolutions, supported and borne by the peasants, may exclude them from politics for a long period, because they afterwards oppose the economic demands of rigid socialist planning.

Several attempts to develop typologies are discussed. A general theory of these movements is still missing.

R ~ S U M B

Les mouvements agraires, compris dans cet article dans un sens large, jouent un r61e important dans le cours de l’histoire moderne, parce que meme aujourd‘hui la majoritt des hommes vit dans une socittt rurale. La recherche rdcente est analyste et synthttiste.

Les besoins ressentis par la population agraire, qui causent ces mouvements, d82rent selon le systtme agraire dominant dans chaque rtgion. Partout, les mouvements exptriencent des dificulds spCcifi- ques aux conditions rurales. Ainsi, ceux-ci sont distincts des mouvements ouvriers, de m€me que la conscience de la dasse paysanne d.i@re et est difficile h formuler. Pendant les processus historiques, dans les- quels les cultivateurs prennent m e part parfois dtcisive, leur r61e change. La rCforme agraire satisfait leurs demandes et mine leurs organisations. Une rtforme couronnte de suc& tourne des mttayers radicaux en petit proprittaires conservateurs (voulant conserver le nouveau status). Dans les pays capitalistes industrialists, une partie des couches rurales suptrieures a supportt le fascisme et le radicalisme de droite. I1 y a eu aussi des courants de gauche parmis les paysans, mais plus rarement. Les rtvolutions agraires, supporttes et initites par les paysans, finissent parfois en les excluant pour longtemps de la politique, parce qu’ils s’opposent par la suite aux demandes tconomi- ques d‘une planification socialiste rigide.

DifFCrents auteurs ont essayt de dtvelopper des typologies, qui sont discuttes ici. Une thtorie gCntrale de ces mouvements n’existe pas encore.

Z U S A M M E N F A S S U N G

Agrarische Bewegungen, die hier nach einer sehr breiten Definition betrachtet werden, spielen eine bedeutende Rolle fur den Gang der

'90 TbGodor Bergmann modemen Geschichte, da auch heute die Mehxhcit der Menschen in d u Landwirtschaft lebt. Neuere Forschungsarbeiten m dieser Frage werden in diesem Aaikel analysiert und synthetisiert.

Die Bediirfnisse der agrarischen Bevolkerung, die ihre Bewegungen verursachen, unterscheiden sich je nach dem vorhemchenden Agrar- system einer Region. lberall stossen sic auf Schwierigkeiten, die den hdlichen Bedingungen spezifisch sind. So unterscheiden sie sich von proletarischen Bewegungen, wie auch das Klassenbewusstsein von Bauem sich unterscheidet und nicht leicht zu formulieren ist. Wiihrend der historischen Prozesse, an denen die Landbewirtschafter manchmal einen entscheidenden Anteil haben, verindern sich auch ihre Rollen. Agrarreform befriedigt ihre Bedurfnisse und unterminiert gleichzeitig ihre Organisationen. Eine erfolgreiche Reform macht radikale Pa&- ter zu konservativen kleinen Landbesitzern, die den neuen Status kon- servieren wollen. In kapitalistisch-industriellen Liindern hat ein Teil der lindlichen Oberschichten Faschismus oder Rechtsradikalismus unterstiitzt. Linke Tendenzen innerhalb der Bauernschaft sind vorge- kommen, waren aber seltene Phomene . Agrarische Revolutionen, unterstiitzt und getragen von den Bauem, konnen unter Umsthden diese fur cine langere Periode von der Politik ausschliessen, weil sie ~ c h der Revolution sich den okonomischen Forderungen einer strengen sozialistischen Planung widersetzen.

Mehrere Versuche, Typologien zu entwickeln, werden diskutiert. Eine allgemeine Theorie dieser Bewegungen fehlt noch.

agrarian movements and their context

Documents