From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
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. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch06.htmThe 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 ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2008 - 00:00:04 EDT