The Task of Classifying Peasants in Relation to the Revolution

Lenin and Mao made class distinctions within the peasantry, attributing different levels of revolutionary
potential to each subsidiary class. In March 1926, Mao wrote the Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society in
which he identified the peasant as part of the semi-proletariat, at a time when he regarded the industrial proletariat asthe leading force in the revolution.6 Mao later revised his analysis to place the peasantry in separate classes
consisting of rich, middle and poor peasants. The rich peasants, or rural bourgeoisie, contributed to antiimperialism,
one of the greatest threats to China, and were therefore tolerated. The middle peasants would join the
fight against imperialism and landlords and would accept socialism, rendering the class a ‘reliable ally of the
proletariat.’7 The poor peasants are identified as the class with the most revolutionary potential, having been
exploited for millennia in a country where ninety percent of the population owned only twenty to thirty percent of
the land. Lenin distinguished three subdivisions within the peasantry, each with conflicting class interests. Twelve
percent of the rural population of Russia consisted of rich farmers, termed kulaks (“hard-fisted” in Russian), who
held thirty one percent of the land. The middle peasants held only seven percent and are described as small
proprietors. The poor peasants consisted of eighty-one percent of the rural population and held only thirty-five
percent of the land.8 In terms of subsidiary classes of peasantry, Lenin and Mao were in agreement that the poorest
section of the peasantry was the most revolutionary.