Discussion Questions #2 on Goldstone, Ch. 3 pp. 55-64 on Wolf, Skocpol & Trimberger

[drherr]

Please post two discussion questions on today's reading and respond to two different students' questions. In your response, be sure to @ the person whose question you're answering and provide us with the number question of theirs you are responding to (ie. [1] or [2]).

[Kylie-D]

On page 55 there is a quote that ends by saying "..peasant rebellions are generally defensive." 1. Do you think that this statement is true?

2. On page 56 there is a quote that says "six major social and political upheavals, fought with peasant support, have shaken the world of the twentieth century..." It seems like peasants would play a huge role in fighting, so do you think during this time those peasants were listened to and treated a little bit more like someone in a higher class?

[samanthakoury]

1. How far, if at all, do you think a rebellion would get if one class (peasants, middle peasants, or landlords, etc.) would be the only ones to come together for a change?
2. The reading states how peasants are slow to rise as a whole, yet it also explains how much they contribute to everyday life for all members with all the work they do. Do you think the peasants realized how much they contribute? And if so, do you think they could have easily been the leaders in a rebellion over the classes that were above them if they wanted to be?

@Kylie-D

1. I could easily believe this. Peasants value the ones who came before them very much. So although they want some change, they do not want to discard the people/traditions that came before them.
2. Unfortunately, I do not believe that peasants were listened to nor treated like someone of higher class, unless they had a lot to offer. And even if peasants had a lot to offer or not, I believe they were way too easily taken advantage of compared to those of a higher class.

[Kylie-D]

@samanthakoury

1. I think that if the peasants would get together and try to rebel, it wouldn't work out so well. I think this because it was like peasants were frowned upon, so when it comes to a rebellion I don't think it would go that far. However, they were the main farmers and if it came down to them not wanting to sell their crops how everyone is used to, I feel like some time of change would be sparked.
2. I think that maybe some peasants realized how much they did to keep the system going then, but since they were treated so poorly I feel like some may have paid no attention to their contribution. I personally think that they could have tried to be the leaders of a rebellion of higher classes.

@garrettjoiner

1. There is a specific example of why it is so hard for peasants, in particular farming peasant to enact a revolution. It was early in the chapter and says that among other reasons peasant, at least lower peasants were too busy worrying about planning the year ahead, or worrying about survival to plan a rebellion.

[charlesmensa]

1. What is the difference between middlemen and middle peasants? (refer to page 62)
2. Which of the three crises (demographic, ecological, and authority) do you think plays the largest role in mobilizing the peasantry?

@Ace-Trainer

1. From what I could find, the reading presents a definition for middle peasants on page 59, and they are landowning peasants. On page 62, middlemen are defined as broker types or teacher.

@garrettjoiner

2. I would say ecological, if we are looking at the example from the book it mentions that the growing population at least correlated, with the increase of commercialization and urbanization in the regions where the peasants were used to having control separated from the ruling class.

[rushin-spy]

1. Why do you believe ethnic diversity would "enhance the solidarity of the rebels" (pg. 60)?

2. On page 63, the reading says that the number of peasant rebels rarely goes above 10% of the population. Why do you believe this may be the case?

@Kylie-D

1. Most peasant revolts may be defensive, depending on what meaning of the word is used. If "defensive" is used in a way that would mean the peasants are protecting their way of life from those trying to infringe upon what little rights they have, then peasant revolts are most definitely defensive. From a military standpoint, peasant revolts may begin as a way to defend themselves from invading armies, however, in most cases it may be more likely that the peasants would begin the fighting in some way, fighting offensively.

@samanthakoury

1. The success of a rebellion with simply one class would depend solely on which class it was. For example, if the peasants or middle peasants would rebel without each others' help, they would lack the resources (in the case of the peasants) and manpower (in the case of the middle peasants). Together, they would be able to succeed, however individually, they would fail. The landlords would stand the best chance at winning, as they would have the money and influence to raise armies and properly equip them. The only problem with this is that they would not have much reason to revolt, as they are at the top-end of the class hierarchy. With all of that being said, it is highly unlikely that a revolt would get very far without inter-class cooperation.

[Kylie-D]

@rushin-spy

2. I think that the number of peasant rebels are so low because, in my opinion, forming a group of them to rebel would be somewhat difficult. It was almost like they didn't have enough power to go forth with to rebel. As peasants, no one looked up to them at all so I think they may have just not really put effort into rebelling.

[era46]

1) Why do you think Revolutionary leaders need to have a good relationship with their "Peasant Rebels"? And do you think this strong relationship leads to a successful revolution and why? 2)For a peasant rebellion to become an actual revolution, why do peasants need the help from dissident elites if they make up the majority of the countries population and why?

@Ace-Trainer

1)They need to a good relationship because if they do not, then their rebels will not respect them and will not be willing to follow orders which will lead to dissent. This would be a hindrance if no one was listening to the leaders, and thus most likely acting on their own. This would divide the power that they have and make a victory that much harder.

[era46]

Kylie-D response 1) I personally don't believe that peasant rebellions are defensive because the peasants themselves usually aren't under attack before the rebellion happens. After the peasants start to rebel, they could be defensive in the sense that they will be targeted, but I usually view them as being more aggressive than defensive.

[era46]

Samanthakoury Response

1. I believe for a rebellion to be successful all these three classes such as peasants, middle peasants and landlords would have to get together to have a successful rebellion. For example if the peasant wanted to rebel and have no additional support than how are they going to be successful when the have no weapons of their own?

[mattnowakowski]

1- Do you agree with the quote on page 60 that, "it is the very attempt of the middle and free peasant to remain traditional that makes him revolutionary."?

2- Wolf discusses on page 58 that a peasant has to own land in order to have tactical power. Would you agree with that? Do peasants have to own land in order to lead a successful rebellion?

@rushin-spy 2- This might be the case because of the fact that peasants had to rely on someone like a landlord or middle peasant in order for them to survive. I think that it is just human behavior that when there is a reliance factor for survival that it makes it difficult to get a large number of individuals to rebel against those they rely on.

@charlesmensa 2- I could argue that although all three play a major role in mobilization, the demographic crisis plays the largest. The numbers displayed showing the population increase from well before revolutions and then the populations at the time of the respected revolutions show that there is a correlation there. I think it is just natural as well that when there are more people involved and living in the same conditions that the chance of there being a rebellion becomes much greater.

[tylerdascenzo]

1. On page 55, the second sentence states “participants wish to protect traditional lifestyles against mounting strains.” And after reading this chapter, I came to the conclusion peasants can also seek more than traditional peasantry life because they seek to be more in society. Do you think this is a fair assessment?

2. How do you think the elites perceive peasants when they revolt? Do you think they overlook them and fail to take them seriously?

@charlesmensa (2) I think demographic could be most important because when you have homogeneous people that share a common goal. With a large demographic, it’s harder for elites to ignore the peasants from a numbers standpoint. Although, i do not think it completely undermines ecological factors and authority.

@mattnowakowski (2) I think landowning peasants have much more power than those peasants that don’t have land. I do not think it is absolutely nessecary, but I think the more land accumulated by peasants, the more leverage they have over the state.

[aj11x7]

1. Without the control of the peasant masses, do you think a successful movement would exist for other influential powers such as elites against the government?

2. On page 56 the sentence " Rich peasants and poor peasants" contradicts itself as money is one of an elites most identifiable features. Do you think wealth in certain societies doesn't matter as much as it would in others and status by birthright matter more?

@charlesmensa The difference between a middle peasant and a peasant is that one holds more power over the other. A middle peasant has a little bit of success as they own land and are separate from relying on the government and other landlords. Peasants on the other hand rely on resources provided from higher status individuals and live a more strict and controlled life full of debt. Either way of peasantry, both lifestyles still are miserable.

@mattnowakowski In earlier times owning land sometimes represented wealth, so to own land meant to have some power, even if it wasn't a lot. However I don't think it would be necessary to lead a rebellion. Having land would help but with an organized system of leadership and a clear goal, with numbers they could lead a successful rebellion.

[Ace-Trainer]

1) What do you think of the usage of the term “cold monster” as used on page 61? It is used in the context to refer to how the peasants experience the state that rules over them. Do you think that this term is an accurate descriptor in this case?

2) Does anyone know what is being referred to on page 61 when the author uses the term “fold migration” in reference to Pancho Villa?

[charlesmensa]

@aj11x7 (1) No, I do not think a successful movement will happen without help from the peasantry. The peasantry represents most of the society. The elites only represent a small portion of it. Therefore, for a successful revolution to occur, the elites have to somehow convince the peasants that their plan for the state is better than what they are currently exposed to.

[chrisdutrow]

1. Why would the Peasantry need political advisors? Think about their life.
2. How easy would it be to manipulate the peasantry to gain a possible edge during a revolution. Also, how easy would it be recruiting the Peasantry into your cause. @tylerdascenzo (2) Elites usually looked down on peasants, only using them to benefit themselves. It seems like this happens based on the viewpoints of these two radically different groups, or basically different people different problems. The peasantry spends the entirety of their lives working and supporting themselves and their families while the elites usually receive education, and experience more lavish lives than that of the peasantry. This could translate into a broad disconnect that may hinder them from working together. But if both hope to gain from a cause, cooperation between the two isn't impossible. @aj11x7 (1) That is a good but difficult question. It would depend on how many influential groups were willing to participate in such a conflict and it would also depend on where the peasants stand. Having immediate access to the peasant’s manpower would indefinitely supply any movement with an almost unlimited number of soldiers, given it catches on. Having the peasantry against you would make any conflict an uphill fight. In the end a movement could still be successful, it would just have to find a way to make up for everything the peasants have to offer. If the elites can pull and recruit from other groups (city dwellers, industrialists, middle class citizens, immigrants/foreign volunteers, etc) then the success of such a movement isn’t doomed.

[charlesmensa]

@era46 (1) Revolutionary leaders need to be in good standing with the peasants because they need the extra people. For a revolution to be successful, it requires the efforts of a large number of people and the peasants would represent a large portion of the revolutionary "army" if you will. This strong relationship will lead to a successful revolution because they will be a united front fighting for a common goal.

[alsoarushin-spy]

Both Chapter 3 and the introduction focus on the powerlessness of peasants to enact real change, but this one gives specific reasons.

1. Do these reasons make sense in the broader context of what makes a revolution?
2. How does Marx's claim for modernization being necessary to revolution tie into the peasnat social structure. @rushin-spy
3. Ethnic diversity helps the rebels when they are different or diverse from the popular culture. They become united in their sense of otherness, and see the rebellion in the context of "us versus them."

@mattnowakowski

2. Yes a peasant needs to own his own land to have tactical power. This gives the peasant control over an area and familiarity with it that his enemy does not have and an increased motivation to protect that land. A person tends to be more motivated to protect something he owns than something that he does not. I would lean towards land ownership being necessary for a successful rebellion, or at the very least a sense of entitlement to land ownership. If you have your own land and your own freedom, you tend to feel entitled to better circumstances.

[jonhoranic]

1. I noticed a common theme linking Wolf's points. It seems that owning "capital" (both social and material; community influence, traditional values, land, raw materials, production skills, etc.) is what gives peasants power, which he states is necessary for the peasantry to have in order to create successful revolutions. Do you thing it is possible to have power without capital?

2. Wolf brings up examples of crisis near the beginning of the chapter as being instigators to peasant unrest and revolution. To challenge this, here is a hypothetical. What do you think would happen if a natural disaster (plague, flood, or fire) made the elite and ruling classes disappeared instantaneously? Would a revolution still occur in this case or is this something different?

@era46 Q1: I wish to add on to what @charlesmensa said, because I do agree that if you need an army fast it would be best to rally the largest base you can. However there are other reasons that revolutionary leaders would want the backing of the peasants, mainly within the realm of ideology. Having people agree to "fight" does not just mean people out on the battlefield, it means they support the ideas you put forward and are willing to give you materials and tactical information. It sort of legitimizes the movement to have the people on side, and it also solidifies the leadership because unpopular opinions will not be able to survive.

@aj11x7 Q1: I think that for the elites there are more ways to start movements and then complete them in a much quicker way. Military coups, parliamentary freezes, or even just the backing of another royal/candidate can quickly reshape how a government will function. However, these are not really "revolutionary" right? I would imagine that after changes are made the elites have to respond to the peasantry otherwise they face other difficulties in sustainable management, let alone control over these people! So yes, I would think it is possible for elite movements to work without the immediate use of the peasantry, but the will eventually need to address them in some form.

[jpmcl23]

1. How does the unity of social classes effect the result of a rebellion or revolution?

2. On that note, what social class would be the most important?

@mattnowakowski , yes I believe that the middle class and peasant class are the keys to having a successful revolution, that being said, no I don’t believe they would have to own land to make a change. If the people want change, they will make change happen.

@charlesmensa I believe Authority plays the biggest role, it gives them a reason to be against their government, or overarching powers.

[garrettjoiner]

1. Are these really examples of peasant revolutions, or is it a case of the author cherry picking information to give the appearance for his argument?

2. Do the circumstance of what the author declares a peasant revolution qualify for just these six examples, or are there other examples of revolutions that are peasant lead that did not involve these specific circumstances?

[arb205]

1. Are the two parts of peasantry accurate to how rebellions happen?
2. What makes up a peasant "Utopia"? @garrettjoiner These are examples of actual rebellions not revolutions. @garrettjoiner There were probably some rebellions that had occurred but failed, but the ones that the author mentioned are the ones that had succeeded.

[drherr]

This discussion thread is now closed. No more questions or answers please.