opps, I meant FARMERS role in histories revolutions

[meso349]

I am correct in believing that most if not all of the american, mexican, and european revolutions took root among the farmers/peasants? If feels to me that there is a hidden agenda to do away with the small family farm as a way to remove a potent source of revolt. Is anyone else alarmed by this coincidence? "Food Security" has our government securing food resources in 3rd world countries for a society that no longer can feed itself cause we are too busy plowing over what little airable land that is left. Our culture has devalued farmers to it's own disadvantage, no longer do we possess this powerful and righteous group of citizens to raise arms against a tyranical government. Is the local food movement an unconscious push back? Any thoughts, comments?

[S.Artesian]

I am correct in believing that most if not all of the american, mexican, and european revolutions took root among the farmers/peasants? If feels to me that there is a hidden agenda to do away with the small family farm as a way to remove a potent source of revolt. Is anyone else alarmed by this coincidence? "Food Security" has our government securing food resources in 3rd world countries for a society that no longer can feed itself cause we are too busy plowing over what little airable land that is left. Our culture has devalued farmers to it's own disadvantage, no longer do we possess this powerful and righteous group of citizens to raise arms against a tyranical government. Is the local food movement an unconscious push back? Any thoughts, comments?


Big difference between farmers and peasants. A farmer is a capitalist, engaged in production for, and determined by the markets, by exchange and not primarily for private subsistence.

Peasant production is subsistence based, providing surpluses only after subsistence has been directly supplied by the production.

A farmer can only secure subsistence through the exchange process.

Now, it's certainly true that the major social revolutions of the 20th have all contained elements of the "peasant war" in them. No such peasants' war, however, has ever been able to maintain, organized, and sustain social power. No... not even in China where, without the aid of the fSU, the revolution would have collapsed.

Good area to begin a study of the peasant wars in revolutions, the strength and weaknesses thereof, is in the study of the Mexican Revolution 1910-1920 [and beyond, even into the Cardenas rule].

[ComradeOm]

If feels to me that there is a hidden agenda to do away with the small family farm as a way to remove a potent source of revoltThere's nothing hidden about it and nor is it a matter of decreasing revolt risk. In agriculture, as in other sectors, there is a natural tendency for capitalism to concentrate enterprise to maximise productivity. This is particularly notable in agriculture (where the benefits of concentration are particularly great) where small peasant plots gave rise to larger private farms which in turn have been largely supplanted by large-scale agribusiness

Unless you are a small farmer yourself, I see absolutely nothing no reason to be alarmed by this. Its not as if small farmers have been historically pro-socialist anyway


"Food Security" has our government securing food resources in 3rd world countries for a society that no longer can feed itself...A gross exaggeration. The West obviously avails of cheap cash crops but is equally a major producer of foodstuffs in its own right. For example, seven of the top ten wheat producers are Western nations while both the EU and the US actually pay farmers to reduce their output

(Incidentally, CAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy) and similar schemes are the products of intense lobbying by small farmers as a way of subsiding their operations and thus preserving their existence. Doesn't really benefit anyone else)

And welcome to the forums

[Jimmie Higgins]

Welcome - interesting questions. Things have been covered really well by the other posts, but that's never stopped me from adding my 2 cents before:blushing:.

One example of how the US actually does produce a lot is that it is able to actually destroy farming economies in other countries by sending rice to Haiti or cheep condensed milk to Jamaica. They can undersell local producers because of trade agreements it forces onto poorer countries and because, frankly, large-scale agra-business can outproduce smaller farms.

Like Om said, this is more about economics than some plot against small farms. If there is 1000 acres divided among a bunch of small farms, then each small farm produces a smaller surplus because there is a lot of duplication of costs such as each farm having its own equipment and field-workers. Large-scale operations create much more surplus value because production is centralized and so on.

This really has been going on with farms from the beginning of capitalism - it's the same centralization tendency that causes Walmarts to displace mom and pop stores and large manufactures to displace small artisans or whatnot. Capitalism can be very good at efficiently producing things... it just wastes this potential because the goal is more capital for more investment rather than putting this production to good use.

In my opinion, the local food movement is, in part, an effort by small farmers to protect their way of life (just as local shops might back political initiatives to ban "big box" stores in their city). On the part of the general public though, the local food thing is really just a kind of rejection against the poor quality of mass-produced agriculture, use of harmful chemicals in large-scale mono-culture growing, the pollution and wasteful nature of food shipping, and so on. There's nothing wrong with not wanting these things, but the local farm "solution" is ultimately a petite-bourgeois solution and if actually adopted would decrease food production and still not solve most of the problems because the pressures of capitalism will still push these small producers towards larger-scale farming. As radicals I think we all want to be able to harness the productive potential of large-scale farming, but rather than do it on the basis of what's most profitable, do it on the basis of what produces the best food and meets our needs.

Side-note: My favorite post-revolution fantasy is large-scale urban farming. I read in a popular science magazine about how right now it is possible to build several skyscrapers in an urban area that could both feed the entire surrounding population and filter the city's water supply and produce oxygen in the center of the city. This would turn break-breaking field work into something more like a factory job (obviously post-revolution, these workers would be the ones running the thing) and would get rid of the need for harmful pesticides and so on. It would also dramatically decrease pollution from truck and ship transportation since food would be made inside the population center itself. The article said that while the technology exists, it would take a decade for a project to turn a profit - so this is not something possible in capitalism unless the capitalist state intervened and why would they when it is much easier for business to just grab a bunch of land and make a instant profit from that. It's sort of like with oil - everyone knows this is a shitty way to create power, and yet it is still more profitable for business to send workers to a glacier and dig up frozen oil or to build some huge drilling platform in the middle of the ocean than to develop something that would be better in the long-run.

[meso349]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful replies! I am really off base! I appreciate your insights and comments, great "food" for thought. I have printed out your comments and will keep them for contemplation. Thanks again, excellent forum!