RE: [OPE] "the demise of the global peasantry"

Date: Wed May 28 2008 - 08:50:35 EDT

The moral of history, also to be deduced from other observations concerning agriculture, is that the capitalist system works against a rational agriculture, or that a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system (although the latter promotes technical improvements in agriculture), and needs either the hand of the small farmer living by his own labour or the control of associated producers. question is really in what way this has really been valid - in particular, given that forced collectivization of the peasantry has typically meant lower productivity, and that a peasant is often vastly more productive on his or her own plot of land. 
Hi Jurriaan:
This shouldn't be a mystery: of course labor productivity is generally going to go down 
under conditions of *forced* collectivization.  A "rational" shift to collectivization presumes
an investment in means of production on collectives such that the productivity of labor
will be higher than in small, individually-owned plots because of economies of scale 
and new, more advanced means of production being utilized.
In any event, has there yet been a social formation which has been "under the control of
associated producers"?
In solidarity, Jerry

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2008 - 00:00:04 EDT