Thirdly, revolution needs a social exchangebetween the peasantry and a
revolutionary organization. The relationship between the leaders of revolu-
tionary organizations and the peasantry is central to understanding why
peasants should be induced to participate in revolutionary struggles. Migdal
(1974) rejects explanations based on ‘frustration with deprivation’, ideolog-
ical altruism, or a view of the peasantry as an inert mass which bends to ‘the
cajoling or coercion of outsiders’. He stresses the interdependence between
the peasantry and revolutionary organizations. The peasantry seek to solve
local problems with the benefits offered as incentives to participate in revo-
lutionary action. The problems and crises which confront the peasantry and
make them susceptible to revolutionary leadership are caused by increased
participation in economic markets, a participation which is fraught with
dangers associated with corruption, monopolistic merchants and economic
insecurity – an economic network that is ‘full of shortcomings and injus-
tices’. The faster the disruption to the normal social organization of the
peasantry (speeded up, perhaps, by a succession of crop failures), the more
responsive will the peasantry be to outside revolutionary organizers.
Revolutionary organizations, for their part, need to expand their power
through recruitment among the peasantry. They need to be able to demon-
strate that they can deliver what peasants need. This must be more than
other political organizations because of the risks involved, not least that of
severe retaliation by the state. Delivering what peasants need includes sub-
stitutes for the socio-economic arrangements that are to be replaced by the
revolution. Migdal’s studies showed revolutionary organizations to have
offered marketing arrangements; land reform; co-operatives; harvest
labour; public utilities such as roads, communications and irrigation
ditches; social services such as health care and education; and, most impor-
tantly, destruction of the power of corrupt officials, monopolistic merchants
and landlords. Revolutionary organizations, such as parties and armies, also
offer opportunities for social mobility.
Social exchange between revolutionary organizations and their potential
recruits is also related to governmental crisis. Revolutionary organizations,
such as those in southern Vietnam and northern Thailand, may be able to step
in when the government forfeits its opportunity to develop influence among
disaffected rural communities (Race, 1974; Goodwin and Skocpol, 1989).
Fourthly, the class structureof rural society is significant for revolution-
ary potential. Alavi compared the Russian and Chinese revolutions and
peasant movements in India in order to enquire under what circumstances
the peasantry become revolutionary. Recognizing that the peasantry is not
an undifferentiated mass, Alavi also asked ‘what roles different sections of
246 Understanding Third World Politics