the peasantry play in revolutionary situations’ (Alavi, 1973, p. 292). He was
particularly concerned with the respective roles of ‘middle’ and poor peas-
ant, and the conditions likely to lead to the revolutionary mobilization of the
latter. Poor peasants are landless sharecroppers working land owned but not
cultivated by landowners. Included here are farm labourers employed by
rich peasants. Middle peasants are independent smallholders who own their
land and produce enough with their own labour to be self-sufficient. Rich
peasants own substantial amounts of land, requiring the exploitation of
wage labour. These three classes of peasant are thus distinguished in terms
of modes of production rather than merely wealth or poverty. Though there
is overlapping between these categories, the distinction between the eco-
nomic independence of the middle peasants and the subordination and
dependence of poor peasants is crucial for Alavi’s analysis.
Comparison of Russia, China and India shows the poor peasants to be the
least revolutionary in the initial stages of class conflict. This is largely
because of extreme economic dependency and a servile mentality. However,
the morale and militancy of the poor peasant can be mobilized when anti-
landlord or anti-rich peasant action is taken by the middle peasantry. Poor
peasants need to be shown that the power of landlords can be resisted,
before they will become revolutionary. The middle peasants are initially the
most militant, but may become fearful for their interests as a revolution
gathers momentum.
Wolfe’s conclusions differed from Alavi’s findings in two important
respects. First, poor peasants and landless labourers were found to need some
external power to challenge the power of landlords and employers. In Mexico
it was the Constitutionalist army in Yucatan, in Russia the return of peasant
soldiers from the army to their villages, in China the Red Army. ‘Where such
external power is present, the poor peasant and landless labourer have latitude
of movement; where it is absent, they are under near-complete constraint’
(1968, p. 289). Secondly, Wolfe agrees with Alavi that the middle peasants
have the autonomy to challenge the power of their overlords (see also Yoo,
1974), but includes in this category peasants located in peripheral areas,
whether they be poor or ‘middle’. In such areas the poor can supplement their
resources from casual labour, smuggling and livestock-raising which, not
being under external control, give the peasantry some ‘latitude of movement’.
The revolutionary potential of poor peasants is further increased when they
are located in regions that the state finds it difficult to control, such as frontier
areas. The ‘tactical mobility’ of the peasantry in such areas as Morelos
in Mexico, Kabylia in Algeria and Oriente Province in Cuba was further
enhanced by ethnic or linguistic identity: ‘Ethnic distinctions enhance the
Instability and Revolution 247