It is wrong to think that the present peasants are completely isolated, unconnected to the
history of European peasants. On the contrary, by studying this history we realize that its
richness in struggles and creativity gives us lessons that are very relevant. Here are
examples to start our reflection:
The village community
Peasants are not isolated workers
disconnected from their society. They are
part of the local society which could be
defined as the village community.
Although in Europe such communities
hardly exist anymore, it is very useful for
linking peasants, artisans and other actors
within a common territory. I is not
something replaceable, since it varies
from one region to another, reflecting the
regional particularities, both geographical
and cultural.
The village community has always
existed, but in France was described for
the first time described in France, in the
Middle Ages. It is based on an extended
family living in the same place, following
the rhythm of the seasons and without
suffering exploitation This society
practiced equality, in particular through
collective land property (due to collective
land rights, private use is limited), active
solidarity, family ties and direct
democracy through general assemblies.
«A tacit community refers to collective
use of the lands and fair distribution of
incomes among all members. Tacit
communities did not differentiate between
farming and craftwork, it lived as a closed
economy. Except for the payment of
taxes, tacit communities seemed to be
self-sufficient and gave an image of an
agrarian society in which there was no
misery. Extract from Annales historiques de
la Révolution française I. Hartig and A.
Soboul.
The basis of this collective organization is
common property (forests, meadows, waste
lands). Today we only know as land rights
the property and the right to use (renting),
but in this time there were many other rights
called “poor’s rights”: gleaning, pasture on
harvested or fallow lands… It offered the
small property owners or the agricultural
workers to survive by means other than
selling their labour.
The concept of a collective farm can be
traced to the end of the French revolution
(G. Babeuf) and is an answer to the problem
of private property, at the time of giving
power from aristocracy to bourgeoisie. (If
you want to read more about the history of
private property, read Edgard Pisani Utopie
foncière éd. du Linteau).
My goal is not to idealize a golden age, but
to think of an ideal and to find ways to
reinvent it today. We should keep in mind
that “no state” does not mean a lack of
domination (patriarchy) in a group formed
for survival rather than by choice.
.
34
La Makhnovchtchina : a communist non authoritarian society
Makhnovchtchina is the name of the
Ukrainian insurrectional army, named after
the Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno in
the 1920s.
In February of 1917, the Russian people
were infuriated as a result of the endless
war and famine. In less than one week, they
destroyed the domination of the czar. They
created a bourgeois government, but it was
defeated a few months later for being
unable to stop the war and solve political
and economic problems. On the 25th of
October, the Bolshevik party with help
from the soviet army (red army) took
power, shouting such slogans as “Stop the
war immediately! The land for the peasants!
Factories to the workers!”. Then they
started to implement the dictatorship of the
proletariat and collectivize the production.
After signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty
(March 3, 1918), giving Ukraine to the
Germans, the Bolsheviks started to
persecute “internal enemies”, who were an
enemy to socialism. They attacked the
social-revolutionaries, but also strongly the
anarchists, who refused any form of
organization, including collectivization. It
was during this troubled period that the
Makhnovichtchina movement was born. A
few mouths later, Ukraine was given back
to Russia, after the defeat of Germany in at
the German defeat in November 1918.
Many of the Makhnovchtchina members
were anarchists and played an important
role in the movement. They defended other
ideas than the Bolsheviks. They refused the
dictatorship of the proletariat and claimed
the self-administration of workers in their
communities. They refused state-organized
production, defended an economic system
based
on
equality
and
wanted
independence that the Soviets be
independent of any political party.
In Goulaï Polié region, free communes
were organized, based on material and
moral
mutual
aid,
on
“non
authoritarianism” and equality. Despite a
tense military situation, they managed to
held 3 regional congresses between the
23rd January and the 10th April 1919.
They sought to determine the economic
and social objectives of peasant masses
and coordinate to archive them quickly.
The Makhnovchtchina did all it could to
support this self-organization and allowed
for a high level of self-organization and
freedom of expression among socialist-
revolutionaries and Bolsheviks, although
the latter had already begun to persecute
Russian Anarchists.
The movement suffered serious difficulties
which made difficult the creation of a real
anarchist social organization among
Ukrainian peasants. First, the peasant’s
freedom was guaranteed by an under
equipped army. Second, they were
constantly persecuted by the Bolsheviks
for being anarchists. The constant fight
between the white and red armies damaged
the implementation of a new sustainable
social organization. In 1921, the red army
defeated
the
insurrectional
Makhnovchtchina movement and put an
end to its libertarian experience.
Spontaneous agrarian collectives in Spain
35
In 1936 during the Spanish republic and
without help from any political party or
organization, agrarian communities were
formed. This took place in big land
properties, whom owners had abandoned
while leaving to the areas that supported
Franco or had been executed. In Aragon,
the movement was supported by Durruti
milicians and took place in almost every
village. All together, half a million peasants
were involved.
Land property certificates were burned on
the village square. The peasants brought all
their possessions to the communities: land
parcels, work instruments, animals and
others. Collectivizing allowed to modernize
agricultural techniques and to avoid land
parcelling. In some villages, they abolished
money and replaced it by bonds. Those
bonds were not a currency, they could only
be used for buying products to be
consumed, and only small quantities of
these.
In contrast to the Soviet state model, entry
in the communities was voluntary. Those
who preferred to keep working on their
family plots could continue to do so, but
they could neither take advantage of the
collective services, nor contract someone
else’s work. Both forms of production
existed side by side, but sometimes with
conflicts such as in Cataluña where people
who previously rented land became
owners of their own plots. Putting land
together allowed to avoid the problem of
having very small plots and to allow the
modernization of how they were farmed.
A few years earlier, agricultural workers
had destroyed machines in protest against
unemployment and income reduction.
Now they gladly used them to facilitate
their work. They started using fertilizers,
developed aviculture, irrigation systems,
pilot farms and improved the roads. The
churches that had not been burned were
converted into libraries, theatres or
hospitals. The anarchists believed in
education, so they implemented cultural
centres even in the most remote villages.
The peasant general assembly elected an
administration committee (often merged
with municipal council), whose members
received no material advantages. They
worked in horizontal teams, without
bosses. Generally the payments were given
to a family, with money or bonds were
money was abolished. The paradox was
then to put those who were most oppressed
in
Spain—women—under
complete
dependence from men.
Today
Family farms continue to exist today, the struggle and are open to the world, there are
farms that share land and tools, farms where people may not live as a communities,
collectives (rescued from 68 or ones that are formed anew), agricultural squats taking
further the struggle and the peasant heritage.
To understand today’s struggle and prepare those of tomorrow, it is always good to look at
history for previous initiatives, to study their context, achievements and mistakes. For
practical and political training, we can also visit active peasants (farm apprentices) and
read books that inspire us.
-Paul