Stalin and the Peasant
Marx Against the Peasant. By David Mitrany. (Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 2 Ss.) ECONOMICS and political science are taught in Britain, the United States and Western Europe as if the only type of economy in the world were the western industrial economy, and the only types of social and political structure were those which have grown up in western countries. But in almost the whole of southern and eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America—in fact, in the whole world except the industrialised " north-west corner " which contains one- fifth of the world's population—agriculture is more important than industry, and the main social and political problems are the problems of the peasantry. Even today, when the pressure on the north-west corner from the outer world is increasing almost hourly, these problems are barely considered, much less understood, in the West. To those who would like to understand, Professor Mitrany's learned and stimulating book will be of great value.
Professor Mitrany writes with more than thirty years' experience, both practical and theoretical, of peasant. problems in Eastern Europe, supplemented by much study of similar problems in Russia before and after the-Revolution, and in other parts of the world. The central subject of the book is the failure of Marx and his suc- cessors to understand the economic, social and political significance of the peasantry. His successors in Western Europe failed by their doctrinaire attitude to win peasant support, and so not only were unable to win power but succumbed to Fascism, which could have been averted if workers and peasants had stood together. ' His successors in Russia seized posirer when the Russian State collapsed, won peasant support for a time by sacrificing Marxist dogma to tactical needs, but then turned on the peasants and imposed on them by force a policy based on Marxist dogma. This provoked a passive—and in places even an active—resistance for which both Communists and peasants paid dearly. Marx's suc- cessors in Eastern Europe were even more ineffective than their co-dogmatists in the West, until they were assisted by the conquering army of Bolshevik Russia. Professor Mitrany doubts whether the struggle between the peasants and the Marxist dogmatists is yet over. His scepticism may yet be justified.
The book itself and the full and interesting notes at the end contain a wealth of information on the peasant movements of Eastern Europe. Even if Professor Mitrany is perhaps at times too generous in his judgement of the leaders and policies of these move- ments, this is a valuable and much-needed corrective to the flood of ignorant and often dishonest abuse which has been cast at them in recent years. He has 'some interesting things to say on two Marxist dogmas—that large-scale agricultural production produces higher output than small peasant holdings, and that in countries of peasant proprietorship a class differentiation is bound to develop between rich and poor peasants. Though examples of both phenomena can certainly be found, neither dogma has been sup- ported by the general development of East European agriculture and society in the last thirty years.
The Stalinists have triumphed over the peasants in a large part of the world not by their " scientific " economic predictions but by force. The paradox that Communism has achieved its successes in lands with only a very weak industrial proletariat, and has failed in those where the workers are numerous, strong and well organised has a political, not a social or economic, explanation. The peasant lands have been Stalinised not because the peasants placed them- selves with grateful enthusiasm under the protection of the Father of Peoples, but because the State machine of peasant countries is more vulnerable than that of industrial countries.
The western State is linked horizontally with every stratum of a more or less educated society ; the eastern State merely presses vertically downwards on the backs of a more or less illiterate people. In three countries only—Russia, Yugoslavia and China—have. Com- munists seized power by their own efforts. All three were peasant- bureaucratic States. In all three the State machine was smashed for the Communists by a foreign invader, no loyalty to the old order remained, and the Communists were the ablest and most ruthless of the new claimants to power. In the other countries now Stalinised power was handed to the Stalinist satraps by a conquering army. Once in power, Communists have maintained themselves by bureau- cratic force_ For the peasants they have no economic and social salvation, but only fear, contempt and hatred greater than those of the emperors, kings and war-lords whom they have replaced.
HUGH SETON-WATSON. HUGH SETON-WATSON.
Previous page
