BBC admits: Zimbabwe land reform ‘not a failure’

[Brother No. 1]

we should still not be supporting him in the slightest.

I've seen this through the course of history

"Lets not support the Bolshevik Revoluton, even though its agaisnt Imperialism and Fuedalism."
"Lets not support the Chinese Revolution, for it gives an idea of the mass line and used aid from Japanese who joined their ranks, as well as from the evil USSR"
"Lets not give support to these anti-Imperialist struggles that will damage Imperialim's fighting force more as then it is."

Basically what you're taking your objective opinion from is directly from the bourgoise media rather then even *trying* to take a view from an anti-Imperialist perspective. So in a sense; "You're supporting the US and the MDC indirectly for your agaisnt the ZANU-PF."

[Palingenisis]

It's crucial to be critical of western media because it's not nearly as neutral as it likes to portray itself, but at the same time, it's important to question even those we'd be inclined to support. It's not a disservice to question the revolution as long as you do so with the intention of being constructive. That was true in the French Revolution just as today - a lot of excesses were committed during la Terreur that would have been best avoided.

I accept that...But what he said was that we shouldnt be supporting Zanu-PF's land reforms in the slightest, which is a different thing from criticizing excesses. Aswell as dismissing all other evidence from the country.

[The Count]

I accept that...But what he said was that we shouldnt be supporting Zanu-PF's land reforms in the slightest, which is a different thing from criticizing excesses. Aswell as dismissing all other evidence from the country.

If you're going to quote me... well then, quote me.

Whether or not Mugabe's land reforms aren't as big of a failure as most think, we should still not be supporting him in the slightest.

I said that we should not be supporting Mugabe, whether or not his land reforms are a success.

[ComradeOm]

I frankly fail to see the problem - this distributes the national wealth more equitably, providing a wider consumer base which will likely go towards improving the development of the Zimbabwean economy overall. You may not find this very progressive at all, but the low income workers who were the recipients of 70% of that land certainly seem to

Well that largely depends on whether or not you believe that the abolition of private property is a handy catchphrase or a central platform of any communist programme. Efforts to create a new class of property owners (and peasants as a class typically care about two things - how to get the land and how to keep the land) is hardly something that we should condone

As for the economic 'argument', there are countless studies through over two centuries of history that show that peasant farming is exceptionally limited and acts as a real barrier to economic growth. Most notably small plot sizes act as a barrier to increasing yields through mechanisation, chemicals and hired labour. In the long run it often actually increases landlessness as population growth outstrips the ability of the land to sustain it. Obviously its too soon to make a definite judgement on Zimbabwe but the fact that crop production has fallen significantly is not a good sign

Besides, what's your alternative? Collectivized agriculture? That's a fucking joke.

There are countless alternatives available, both socialist and capitalist. The most realistic option for the Zimbabwe would have been to simply nationalise the farms and employ the farm workers as state employees at appropriate wages. Alternatively, the new farmland could simply have been added to existing communal farms (of which I admittedly know little of in Zimbabwe). Either way, avoiding subsistence farming is a good thing

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well that largely depends on whether or not you believe that the abolition of private property is a handy catchphrase or a central platform of any communist programme. Efforts to create a new class of property owners (and peasants as a class typically care about two things - how to get the land and how to keep the land) is hardly something that we should condone

As for the economic 'argument', there are countless studies through over two centuries of history that show that peasant farming is exceptionally limited and acts as a real barrier to economic growth. Most notably small plot sizes act as a barrier to increasing yields through mechanisation, chemicals and hired labour. In the long run it often actually increases landlessness as population growth outstrips the ability of the land to sustain it. Obviously its too soon to make a definite judgement on Zimbabwe but the fact that crop production has fallen significantly is not a good sign

There are countless alternatives available, both socialist and capitalist. The most realistic option for the Zimbabwe would have been to simply nationalise the farms and employ the farm workers as state employees at appropriate wages. Alternatively, the new farmland could simply have been added to existing communal farms (of which I admittedly know little of in Zimbabwe). Either way, avoiding subsistence farming is a good thing

Though, the European colonialist holding it had over Zimbabwe was a necessary step towards any chance of Socialism. Obviously, President Mugabe is not a Socialist, and he's not leading his country towards Socialism, but he is leading his country against imperialism. Which is a necessary step for the proletarian movement. Hence why we support the land reform over European colonialism.

[ComradeOm]

Though, the European colonialist holding it had over Zimbabwe was a necessary step towards any chance of Socialism

Erasing the legacy of European colonialism is a necessary step but this has been carried out in a very retrograde manner and by choosing what is probably the worst of the alternative options available. It has weakened the power of the European landowning class at the expense of greatly strengthening the peasant class. This is quite simply not going to advance the cause of socialism or benefit the workers in Zimbabwe

And that's that. Now any economic growth or furthering of the proletariat's cause in Zimbabwe will have to deal not with European farmers but with a hostile small peasantry. We can argue about which is worse but neither are in any way desirable

[The Vegan Marxist]

Erasing the legacy of European colonialism is a necessary step but this has been carried out in a very retrograde manner and by choosing what is probably the worst of the alternative options available. It has weakened the power of the European landowning class at the expense of greatly strengthening the peasant class. This is quite simply not going to advance the cause of socialism or benefit the workers in Zimbabwe

And that's that. Now any economic growth or furthering of the proletariat's cause in Zimbabwe will have to deal not with European farmers but with a hostile small peasantry. We can argue about which is worse but neither are in any way desirable

Can you provide any evidence that this step will lead to economic disaster? Because, and don't take offense to this, you've only claimed of sources showing your point of view, but don't provide such at all.

[ComradeOm]

Can you provide any evidence that this step will lead to economic disaster? Because, and don't take offense to this, you've only claimed of sources showing your point of view, but don't provide such at all.

There is over a century of literature (more actually) on the inefficiency of small peasant farming. That this is economic orthodoxy is the product of about two centuries of actual experience in Europe. I'll give you the below quote because it happens to be in a book I'm reading ATM:

The cultivation of fragmented holdings is often extremely wasteful of labour, of capital (especially in the form of storage facilities and transport equipment) and even of land as well. In these circumstances economy in the use of resources and a consequent increase in the total output could be secured from the consolidation of holdings into contiguous properties. In other words, consolidation could raise output, and a division of the consolidated holdings is possible which in principle might improve the position of each cultivator

(Bauer and Yamey, The Economics of Under-Developed Countries. Quoted in Narkiewicz The Making of the Soviet State Apparatus*)

In other words, in agriculture, as in industry, economies of scale can be harnessed to better provide for the dependent population. Contrary to what Robocommie noted above, the individual peasants would be better off if they were working large plot sizes together. Will the subdivision of the land lead to "economic disaster"? I don't know (although the study quoted in the OP mentions that over half the new peasant farms have failed) but I would be very confident that this system will not be as productive as the old and, in the long run, will struggle to sustain the population

As for the political nature of the peasantry, well, why not go all the way back to the 1848 and the Manifesto? Witness Marx:

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat

Obviously I'm not asking you to accept this simply because it is Marx, but its a succinct summary of the peasantry's class interests and their role in history. To which I would add that if the peasantry is actually radicalised or revolutionary then it is with the sole objective of obtaining land for itself

*This is of obvious interest to the student of the Russian Revolution as the strengthening of the peasantry in 1917, together with the dissolution of the old estates, proved to be the greatest economic and political obstacle to the new Soviet state

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are countless alternatives available, both socialist and capitalist. The most realistic option for the Zimbabwe would have been to simply nationalise the farms and employ the farm workers as state employees at appropriate wages. Alternatively, the new farmland could simply have been added to existing communal farms (of which I admittedly know little of in Zimbabwe). Either way, avoiding subsistence farming is a good thing

At least you're onboard the sovkhozization train re. state farming!

[Agnapostate]

You're right, theft is distinct from rape, but I still think that the same principle is applicable in this kind of case. If [Jones] is still alive, he should take back the valuables, even if they have been passed down to Smith's son because they are his.

In the case where Smith and Jones are both dead, my position is that Jones' son should not claim the property from Smith's son.

What is the argument for that? If the descendant has been harmed because an aggressor's theft from his ancestor resulted in RDI, and the possession of the property by the aggressor's descendant is the basis for his extremely superior status to the victim's descendant, the property should be expropriated and returned to its rightful owner, the intended recipient of the inheritance. Why is that wrong?

Now -- you may disagree with the above evaluation, but you surely have to admit that in this case we do not even necessarily know whose ancestors had the land originally. You don't think that the people who got land from Mugabe actually had to prove that their ancestors owned it at some point? Not every Zimbabwean black person before the British colonization was a land owner, and no demonstration that you had land-owning black ancestors is now necessary -- the whole thing is a sham because race is the criterion.

Why does the pre-colonial or pre-Rhodesian property distribution in Zimbabwe matter? There was not a socialist economy, but an aggression-based allocation, and therefore, resurrecting that state of affairs is not a worthy ideal or endeavor. I believe that white residents ought to be allowed to remain in Zimbabwe as equal participants in a socialist economy if they wish, but I do not imagine that people that previously enjoyed ostentatious lives of luxury at the expense of others will find this an attractive prospect, particularly because of widespread hostility that would exist through informal attitudes and biases even if not as formal policy. If the effective consequence of socialist expropriation and collectivization is that the majority of whites in Zimbabwe are pressured to leave, so be it. They form a minority of the population with lesser needs (luxury), and the greater needs of the majority (decent living conditions) ought to be served first.

However, the idea that Mugabe's administration has redistributed land to "blacks" is a crude simplification anyway, since "blacks" are only an ethnic group in the minds of outsiders. Ever since ascending to power in the aftermath of their independence war, they have favored Mugabe's own ethnic group, the Shona, over peoples such as the Ndebele, who were subject to repression in the region of Matabeleland during the 1980s, and according to the allegations of at least one ethnic/regional separatist group, have een cut out of land reform.

Else Zionists indeed have every right to steal land from Palestinian Arabs, who have been there for centuries -- the land belonged to some Hebrews in Biblical times, didn't it? (The fact that there were Jews there in the BC years is very much accepted by historians.)

The Jewish population of Israel is largely Ashkenazi, primarily composed of Central and Eastern European migrants, so they actually possess a limited genetic connection to the historical Hebrew population of the Middle East, though DNA testing has proven that it does exist. What's ironic, however, is that Palestinians with higher levels of Middle Eastern and lower levels of European admixture possibly have a closer genetic relationship to those Hebrews. Those "ethnic Jews" with an indisputably closer relationship, the Mizrahim, are an underclass in the racially stratified domestic society of Israel, as documented in Rachel Shabi's bookWe Look Like the Enemy[/URL].

But it wouldn't be relevant anyway, since the dispossessed former inhabitants weren't and aren't responsible for large-scale theft from Ashkenazim, and aren't the beneficiaries of residual distributive injustice. The affluence of Israel contrasted with the abject poverty of the Occupied Territories is sufficient demonstration of that.

Again, you're missing something.

That isn't a dispute of the underlying principle of expropriation, but a contention about its practical implementation in the case of a specific scenario.

Anybody who owns eighteen houses should be expropriated -- no argument.

This man is an Indian, incidentally, albeit an urbanized "Ladino." That such a person would be white nine times out of ten does not prevent the application of consistency when they happen not to be.

Whereas, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe --



At least 5% of the land went to business people -- Mugabe's allies in the business sector. And 15% went to Mugabe's full-time cronies (the civil servants).

I'm not sure why you're posting information to me as though I'm a supporter of Robert Mugabe, the dictator and orchestrator of ethnic cleansing (Prime Minister Tsvangirai just today alleged that he is violating their power-sharing agreement through unconstitutional appointment of provincial governors, incidentally). I'm simply defending the principle of expropriation, and will chime in to note that some of the results of Zimbabwean economic reform have been mixed, and not uniformly negative, as mainstream media sources would have us believe (for example, the hyperinflation was essentially eradicated after adoption of the dollar as the national currency). Even the IMF has acknowledged progress in some areas.

[the last donut of the night]

As a person of color, I may sympathize. But still, isn't land grabbing wrong, no matter how we look at it? I am not sure how this fits into socialism at all. I understand what happened with the imperialists and all, but how does it justify punishing ordinary people?

Flip this logic around. How did the rich white landowners get their land?

[robbo203]

As for the economic 'argument', there are countless studies through over two centuries of history that show that peasant farming is exceptionally limited and acts as a real barrier to economic growth. Most notably small plot sizes act as a barrier to increasing yields through mechanisation, chemicals and hired labour. In the long run it often actually increases landlessness as population growth outstrips the ability of the land to sustain it. Obviously its too soon to make a definite judgement on Zimbabwe but the fact that crop production has fallen significantly is not a good sign

I question much of what you say here. Not that I hold any brief for the Zimbabwean regime at all - obviously - but some of the things you say about small scale peasant farming are simply not true.

Research in recent years has done much to repudiate and overturn official attitudes towards small traditional farmers which you seem to be echoing here. One of my favourite books in this connection is Paul Richard's Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. You should read it if you get the opportunity.


There are many reasons why the contribution of small scale farmers is systematically undervalued. One is the deliberate witholding of information by small farmers themselves arising from an often well grounded suspicion towards the authorities. Another is male bias, an important factor given the central importance of woman in Third world agriculture. A third is the tunnel vision of much official research on the peasant question.

This shows in your assertion that "small plot sizes act as a barrier to increasing yields through mechanisation, chemicals and hired labour". That is not strictly true to begin with anyway. It is not the small size of the plot as such that is the problem but rather the economic poverty of the small farmer, aggravated in recent years by cutbacks in funding and support. More importantly, what is not always appreciated is that the typical pattern of farming for small farmers is usually quite different to large scale commercial agriculture - the former tend to resort to polyculture rather than monoculture. Thus, if you are looking at yields per given crop this can give a quite misleading picture of overall food output since other crops are grown as well besiudes the one in question.

Miguel Alteiri who is an expert in this field argues that, seen from an overall perspective "small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop" ("Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty", Miguel A. Alteiri, Monthly Review, July-August 2009, http://www.monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.php). Indeed, according to him, the same as true of small farms in developed countries like the United States where the "smallest two-hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per hectare. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare". The problem is , of course, is that the small farmers can barely survive on such an income whereas the big farmers with so much more land at their disposal can manage to get by with a comparatively much lower output per hectare. And in the capitalist market, it is those who survive who will drive out those who cannot.


You seem to be suggesting that the way ahead for agriculture in thiird world countries is to plough ahead with capital intensification of farming - more mechanisation, more chemicals and so on - and this involves replacing small scale farmers with large scale even nationalised farms. I disagree. Far better would be to build on the traditional strengths of peasant farming (which far from being backward is often extremely innovative) and move towards a more organic approach to agriculture which is less reliant on things like "terminator" seed technologies , costly and often ecologically questionable fertilisers and pesticides and big machinery

According to Geoffrey Lean:
Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. One report - published last year by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - found that 114 projects, covering nearly two million African farmers, more than doubled their yields by introducing organic or near-organic practices. Another study - led by the University of Essex - looked at similar projects in 57 developing countries, covering three per cent of the entire cultivated area in the Third World, and revealed an average increase of 79 per cent. And research at the University of Michigan concluded that organic farming could increase yields on developing countries' farms three-fold.("Organic is more than small potatoes", Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug 2009).


You also claim that small plot sizes "in the long run it often actually increases landlessness as population growth outstrips the ability of the land to sustain it". Again, this is not true. Landlessness if anything is associated with increasing land concentration as small farmers are bought out or evicted from their holding (or when communal land is enclosed as in parts of Africa). Many erstwhile small farmers in this situation tend to become agricultural labourers but you are advocating increased mechanisation which if anything will tend to reduce the demand for hired labour. What is then to become of them? To move to the already swollen cities where the prospect of employment is very slim indeed? I dont think so.

[ComradeOm]

Research in recent years has done much to repudiate and overturn official attitudes towards small traditional farmers which you seem to be echoing here. One of my favourite books in this connection is Paul Richard's Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. You should read it if you get the opportunity

I'm aware of recent studies, often tabled from an environmental perspective, but they will have to be very convincing to overturn what is, as I note, an orthodoxy based on over a century of actual observations. Throughout European history the march towards ever higher agricultural yields has been closely tied to that of land consolidation

Unfortunately this simple truth has been challenged in the last decade or two by both environmentalists and neo-liberals. This is all part of the shift in 'developmental studies' away from notions that the underdeveloped world could/should industrialise; that there was a path from backwards agriculture to a modern industrial society. This is no longer considered to be desirable in many quarters (most notably the environmentalists) and the emphasis has shifted from reforming obsolete agricultural models to actually reinforcing them

And industrialisation is the elephant in the room here. It is simply not possible for a nation to industrialise while ignoring the agricultural sector. Industrialisation involves a thorough transformation of both and, in particular, the establishment of large-scale, yet not labour intensive, specialised farming to support the growing urban population. But then we don't want to be increasing Africa's carbon footprint, no?

This shows in your assertion that "small plot sizes act as a barrier to increasing yields through mechanisation, chemicals and hired labour". That is not strictly true to begin with anyway. It is not the small size of the plot as such that is the problem but rather the economic poverty of the small farmer, aggravated in recent years by cutbacks in funding and support

Cutbacks in funding and support? Where is this "funding and support" coming from? Its perfectly obvious that peasant farming can be sustained if it is subsidised by external organisations. Witness the small farms of Galicia that survive on CAP handouts

No, the real barrier to peasant prosperity is very simple - plot sizes (and resultant yields) are too small to allow for the accumulation of capital needed to invest in more effective technology. Not that a tractor would be particularly cost effective on a peasant plot anyway - utilising mechanisation (be it pumps, tractors, trucks, etc) fully is only possible on larger farms

More importantly, what is not always appreciated is that the typical pattern of farming for small farmers is usually quite different to large scale commercial agriculture - the former tend to resort to polyculture rather than monoculture. Thus, if you are looking at yields per given crop this can give a quite misleading picture of overall food output since other crops are grown as well besiudes the one in question

Which masks the one of the most notable characteristics of peasant farming - its subsistence nature. The primary customers of the peasant, varying by region of course, is the peasant family and then the local economy. Their inability to produce mass foodstuffs for a wider market (including urban areas) shows them to be a limiting factor on the overall economy

Miguel Alteiri who is an expert in this field argues that, seen from an overall perspective "small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop" ("Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty", Miguel A. Alteiri, Monthly Review, July-August 2009, http://www.monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.php). Indeed, according to him, the same as true of small farms in developed countries like the United States where the "smallest two-hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per hectare. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare". The problem is , of course, is that the small farmers can barely survive on such an income whereas the big farmers with so much more land at their disposal can manage to get by with a comparatively much lower output per hectare. And in the capitalist market, it is those who survive who will drive out those who cannot.

Watch this. According to Miguel A. Altieiri, less than one third of S America's rural population produces almost two thirds of the continent's "agricultural output for domestic consumption", the "agricultural output for export" is not noted but can be assumed to be dominated by large scale farming. Similarly, Africa's dependence on small-scale peasant farming is no longer sufficient to meet the continent's needs. "Millions of tons" must be imported to make good the inefficiencies of peasant production. What is not said is almost as illuminating as what is

But that's not what I was looking for in that article. No, I was looking for the source for the US figures quoted (particularly the crop composition and dollar prices used) but the claim appears to be entirely unsourced. Perhaps you can provide these?

And in the capitalist market, it is those who survive who will drive out those who cannot

There is anti-capitalism and then there is supporting inefficiencies through obsolescence. Do you suggest that we disband the factories and send workers home to be artisans, even though this is a form of production that cannot possibly compete with large-scale manufacturing?

You seem to be suggesting that the way ahead for agriculture in thiird world countries is to plough ahead with capital intensification of farming - more mechanisation, more chemicals and so on - and this involves replacing small scale farmers with large scale even nationalised farms

In a nutshell, yes. I'd far rather of course if the land in Zimbabwe had gone to some form of communal or collective farming but any large scale model will do at this stage. A further advantage of this is that the use of labour saving machines considerably transforms the nature of the agricultural workforce as now-landless peasants become rural wage-earners or even agricultural mechanics

The only real hope for the Zimbabwean agricultural economy now is that the high failure rate of these new peasant farms encourages consolidation around small private farmers

You also claim that small plot sizes "in the long run it often actually increases landlessness as population growth outstrips the ability of the land to sustain it". Again, this is not true

I think you'll find that it is. Subdivision of landholdings only further weakens the peasant economy (and there is furthermore a 'hard limit' on subdivision) and lowers productivity. This in turn reduces the ability of the peasant community to provide for itself and encourages migration off the land. Unlike mechanisation, these former peasants are not being maintained as agricultural wage-earners but have no choice but to flee to the cities

Now this is not in itself a bad thing so long as ample food supplies and employment are available in the cities. Unfortunately in Africa they are not. The continued dominance of peasant farming both limits food production and industrial growth. This agricultural model is a prime reason why Africa imports food and is blighted by vast slum cities

[robbo203]

I'm aware of recent studies, often tabled from an environmental perspective, but they will have to be very convincing to overturn what is, as I note, an orthodoxy based on over a century of actual observations. Throughout European history the march towards ever higher agricultural yields has been closely tied to that of land consolidation

Yields have risen in the post war era although the rate of increase has been slowing noticably in the last two or three decades due to dinishing returns on agricultural inputs - particularly fertilisers. That yields have risen and may well continue to rise is not denied but is not the issue. The issue is simply about the comparative performance of small scale traditional farming vis-a-vis modern capital-intensive farming. Particularly as far as developing countries are concerned the evidence is clear cut - the former perform significantly better in terms of yields per hectare

Unfortunately this simple truth has been challenged in the last decade or two by both environmentalists and neo-liberals. This is all part of the shift in 'developmental studies' away from notions that the underdeveloped world could/should industrialise; that there was a path from backwards agriculture to a modern industrial society. This is no longer considered to be desirable in many quarters (most notably the environmentalists) and the emphasis has shifted from reforming obsolete agricultural models to actually reinforcing them

Why obsolete? In fact, for developing countries, small scale organic approaches to farming offers the most promising route to increasing output and ensuring food security. I refer you again to the report published by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which conclusivley proves this. If anything what is "obsolete" is the belief that you seem to hold along with the protagonists of capitalist agribusiness that the way ahead lies with the capital-intensification of farming. Like I said, in terms of output per hectare, traditional farmers outperform modern capital intensive farms hands down. Environmentalists and neo-liberals are not in the same boat as far as this issue is concerned. For the most part, environmentalists hold that neo liberal policies of recent decades have been partly responsible for undermining traditional farming and promoting capital intensive farming with devastating environmental consequences. I would say there is far greater congruence in thinking between the statist advocates of large scale agricultural "modernisation" and the neo-liberals, than with the environmentalists

And industrialisation is the elephant in the room here. It is simply not possible for a nation to industrialise while ignoring the agricultural sector. Industrialisation involves a thorough transformation of both and, in particular, the establishment of large-scale, yet not labour intensive, specialised farming to support the growing urban population. But then we don't want to be increasing Africa's carbon footprint, no?
Cutbacks in funding and support? Where is this "funding and support" coming from? Its perfectly obvious that peasant farming can be sustained if it is subsidised by external organisations. Witness the small farms of Galicia that survive on CAP handouts

I think you will find that the real beneficiaries of CAP handouts are big farmers, not small farms. For example, according to Oxfam the top 15 percent of French farmers consume 60 percent of the direct payments from the EU's coffers, while small French farmers get only 17 percent of the subsidies doled out

No, the real barrier to peasant prosperity is very simple - plot sizes (and resultant yields) are too small to allow for the accumulation of capital needed to invest in more effective technology. Not that a tractor would be particularly cost effective on a peasant plot anyway - utilising mechanisation (be it pumps, tractors, trucks, etc) fully is only possible on larger farms

Once again - plot sizes do not correlate with "resultant yields" . Quite the opposite tends to be the case. The yields of small traditional farmers are higher per hectare than those of large modern capital intensive farms for all sorts of reasons as peasants desparately try to squeeze as much output as possible from their tiny plots, using essentially labour intensive methods, in order to survive. Of course it is is quite true that smallness of the plots inhibits capital accumulation and the capital intensification of farming but the latter does not necessarily entail or lead to higher yields. What it tends to lead to is higher productivity per agricultural worker (and of course profits) which is a different matter entirely.

Quote:
More importantly, what is not always appreciated is that the typical pattern of farming for small farmers is usually quite different to large scale commercial agriculture - the former tend to resort to polyculture rather than monoculture. Thus, if you are looking at yields per given crop this can give a quite misleading picture of overall food output since other crops are grown as well besiudes the one in question

Which masks the one of the most notable characteristics of peasant farming - its subsistence nature. The primary customers of the peasant, varying by region of course, is the peasant family and then the local economy. Their inability to produce mass foodstuffs for a wider market (including urban areas) shows them to be a limiting factor on the overall economy

Contrary to what you assert, peasant production (still)actually plays a crucial role in the provision of staples - certainly of non cereal staples - for domestic consumption in Third world conutries (including urban markets) despite the difficulties peasant farmers face, and the extent to which it does so is often underestimated for the reasons cited in my earlier post. Many rural migrants often retain links with the countryside and the domestic household economy of the peasant family. Food may also be informally exchanged through friendship and kinship networks connecting rural and urban areas.

What I am basically questioning here is the implication in your argument that peasant production somehow operates in some kind of vacuum so that any shortfall in output can be attributed to its own inherent shortcomings. This is to completely ignore the adverse impacts on peasant producers from outside - like the implementation of neoliberal policies, or the rising costs of inputs and the development of technologoies such as terminator seeds that undermine peasant independence and a whole bunch of other factors.

Quote:

Miguel Alteiri who is an expert in this field argues that, seen from an overall perspective "small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop" ("Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty", Miguel A. Alteiri, Monthly Review, July-August 2009, http://www.monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.php).

Watch this. According to Miguel A. Altieiri, less than one third of S America's rural population produces almost two thirds of the continent's "agricultural output for domestic consumption", the "agricultural output for export" is not noted but can be assumed to be dominated by large scale farming. Similarly, Africa's dependence on small-scale peasant farming is no longer sufficient to meet the continent's needs. "Millions of tons" must be imported to make good the inefficiencies of peasant production. What is not said is almost as illuminating as what is.

Yes indeed and what you do not say is precisely what I am trying to illuminate - that peasant production is under sustained assault from an array of forces tending to promote modern capital intensive farming
You also miss the point about what Alteiri is saying. Yes small farmers produce less than large farmers in latin Amerrica - that is, 41 percent of agricultural output, However, they do so on only 34.5. percent of the total land. Which goes to prove the point Ive been making all along that the yields per hectare are higher for small farmers than for large farmers

But that's not what I was looking for in that article. No, I was looking for the source for the US figures quoted (particularly the crop composition and dollar prices used) but the claim appears to be entirely unsourced. Perhaps you can provide these?

Sorry cant help you on this one. I suspect the figures probably come from USDA though....

Quote:
And in the capitalist market, it is those who survive who will drive out those who cannot

There is anti-capitalism and then there is supporting inefficiencies through obsolescence. Do you suggest that we disband the factories and send workers home to be artisans, even though this is a form of production that cannot possibly compete with large-scale manufacturing?

Well, no, but you dont have to go from one extreme to the other do you? Personally as a socialist I would certainly favour a move away
from Fordist style large-scale manufacturing and in the direction of allowing for much greater creative (or, if you like, "artisanal)" input. In other words flexible manufacturing. Technological development is, in any case more, and more enabling this to happen and I welcome that. Fordist style manufacturing has little to recommend itself from a human-scale subjective point of view and the claim that it allows for "economies of scale" is at least questionable. There is also such a thing as "diseconomies of scale". Whether your argument or analogy about manufacturing can be usefully transferred to the sphere of agriculture is another matter anyway. The record of large scale agricultural projects has not been particularly good

Quote:
You seem to be suggesting that the way ahead for agriculture in thiird world countries is to plough ahead with capital intensification of farming - more mechanisation, more chemicals and so on - and this involves replacing small scale farmers with large scale even nationalised farms

In a nutshell, yes. I'd far rather of course if the land in Zimbabwe had gone to some form of communal or collective farming but any large scale model will do at this stage. A further advantage of this is that the use of labour saving machines considerably transforms the nature of the agricultural workforce as now-landless peasants become rural wage-earners or even agricultural mechanics

So apart from creating a few jobs for a handful of mechanics in the rural areas what is to become of the thousands of others whose labour has been duly "saved"?

The only real hope for the Zimbabwean agricultural economy now is that the high failure rate of these new peasant farms encourages consolidation around small private farmers

How is this different from what the neo liberals are themselves saying? Interestingly I recall an article in The Economist some years ago - before things unravalled under the digusting and corrupt Mugabe regime - in which the communal peasant farmers were being lauded for the significant increases in output, against all expectations. Ill try and find a copy of this article if I can. Its buried somewhere under the chaos that I call a filing system :-)

Quote:
You also claim that small plot sizes "in the long run it often actually increases landlessness as population growth outstrips the ability of the land to sustain it". Again, this is not true

I think you'll find that it is. Subdivision of landholdings only further weakens the peasant economy (and there is furthermore a 'hard limit' on subdivision) and lowers productivity. This in turn reduces the ability of the peasant community to provide for itself and encourages migration off the land. Unlike mechanisation, these former peasants are not being maintained as agricultural wage-earners but have no choice but to flee to the cities

That the subdivision of landholdings weakens the peasant economy is true enough. But nobody is denying this. However this process of subdivision may actually be greatly exacerbated by the spread of large scale farming and the enclosure of common land at the hands of state officials often in league with agribusiness. The issue here is really about the type of farming that should be encouraged. Mechanisation does not retain the population of "former peasants" on the land as you suggest but helps in the process of evicting them from the land. Labour intensive farming methods (as the term itself suggests) by contrast do the opposite, as well as being more economical , efficient and environmentally friendly in the use of resources. Peasant knowlege, for example reduces reliance on a costly inputs lure peasants into a state of indebtedness and are typically not tailored to the specific agroecological needs of the famrming community in question. More and more the independence of the peasant farmer is being eroded through the almost involuntary adoption of technologies that shifts power towards agribusiness and with the support of the state and international funding bodies.

Peasant farming is the victim of the spread of the capital-intensive technologies you are so enamoured of and you are in effect blaming the victim of the problem for the problem itself

Now this is not in itself a bad thing so long as ample food supplies and employment are available in the cities. Unfortunately in Africa they are not. The continued dominance of peasant farming both limits food production and industrial growth. This agricultural model is a prime reason why Africa imports food and is blighted by vast slum cities

Actually, it is the development of large scale export oriented cash crops which often takes up the best land and evicts peasant in the process that is at least in part responsible for limiting domestic food production. So you have the absurd situation of salad crops or flowers being flown over to the capitals of Europe from West Africa. In the meanwhile peasant agriculture is being marginalised, pushed out onto more ecologically marginal land which of course impacts negatively on output.

On the question of limiting industrial growth I dont quite see how the peasant economy as such can be held responsible for this either. It is not actually managing to staunch the flow of migrants to the city becaue, by your own admission , the subdivision of land to which it is vulnerable creates landlessness and "encourages migration off the land". So it is not as if the peasant economy as such prevents the growth of a sufficiently large labour force in the cities which you acknowlege typically take the form of "vast slums". Meaning in other words that they are characterised by massive unemployment and underemployment. As for failing to provide cheap food, well, the actions of parastatals and third world government have long been skewed in favour of the politically sensitive urban areas for which the price of food has tradtionally been subsided at least until quite recently. However in many cases this has not resulted in significant industrialisation.

What I am saying in other words that there may be quite other factors involved here than the "peasant economy" upon which you are single-mindedly heaping the blame.

[A.J.]

It is often argued that large-scale commercial farming – as many of the white Zimbabweans used to practise – is inherently more efficient than the smallholder system which replaced it, but Mr Scoones dismisses this argument and says he is backed by several studies from around the world.

He says it is now impossible to return to the previous set-up and even suggests that some of the evicted white farmers may one day work with the new farmers as consultants, marketing men, farm managers or elsewhere in the overall agricultural economy, such as transporting goods to market or helping to transform and add value to their produce.

Hmm not sure, the expropriated whites may serve as potential fifth columnists should any imperialist military intervention take place.

A close eye shall have to be kept on them.

[theAnarch]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Here is a really good article by somone that was actully in Zimbabwe and talk to the farmers. generally the BBCs gives the view of the British and American ruiling classes and bleeding heart librals that "this is what happens when you give land to niggers"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]

[/FONT]

Zimbabwe farmers discuss crisis facing toilers on the land

BY T.J. FIGUEROA
MUSENGEZI, Zimbabwe--En route to this rural area about 100 miles west of Harare, dodging pythons and mambas slithering across the sun-warmed tarmac as the southern hemisphere winter descends, a traveler passes long stretches that make up only a small corner of one commercial farm.

About 6 million of Zimbabwe's 12.5 million people are landless peasants eking out a living on poor agricultural land, while about 4,000 white commercial farmers control 27 million acres of the most arable, fertile soils--and much of the nation's wealth.
The land question has been at the center of the class struggle in this country for more than a century, including in the 20 years since Zimbabweans ended white-minority rule in what was then Rhodesia.
In 1980, the British government--the colonial power--in concert with the capitalist landholders, forced the parties that led the armed liberation struggle to agree to key concessions in what became known as the Lancaster House agreement.
Chiefly, the new government of Zimbabwe was prohibited from nationalizing commercial farms. London and Harare have since been in a tug of war over funds from the United Kingdom pledged to the Zimbabwean government to purchase such farms. London has withheld much of the money to pressure Harare to do its bidding. While some of the most onerous provisions of the Lancaster House deal fell away in 1990, the government has failed to carry out a radical land reform.
"Less than 15 percent of Zimbabwe's land held by large-scale commercial farmers had been redistributed by 1990 to about six percent of the rural population (65,000 families)," according to the 1998 booklet The Land Acquisition Process in Zimbabwe. "The concrete result of the 1990s policy has been less than 50,000 hectares (123,500 acres) acquired and 2,000 families settled each year so far."
This situation highlights the extent to which Zimbabwe is still trapped within the web of financial and capitalist market relations through which the system of imperialism transfers massive wealth from the vast majority of oppressed countries into the coffers of the super-wealthy minorities in a handful of great powers.
In typically cryptic language, a World Bank report on Zimbabwe says the country, "has been experiencing an economic and social crisis induced by dropping prices for its key export products, uncertainty about domestic policies, high inflation and jittery markets." Low economic growth is a "result of poor performance in agriculture and mining." It notes the Zimbabwean dollar has depreciated by 90 percent since the end of 1997 and inflation hit 64 percent last year.
Imperialist powers and capitalist concerns in South Africa stepped up their pressure on the Mugabe government this past week, demanding he put an end to the farm occupations organized by government supporters.
The Financial Times reported that at the end of a visit to Zimbabwe, Kevin Wakeford, chief executive of the South African Chamber of Business (SACOB), condemned the government for its actions. "The moment you prostitute the rule of law and allow property rights to be ignored is the moment normal business instruments are withdrawn," Wakeford said. "It really makes it very, very difficult for us to conduct normal business." Zimbabwe is South Africa's largest trading partner in Africa. SACOB backed the racist white minority regime in South Africa, which, like its partner in Rhodesia, stripped blacks of their land and rights over the course of decades.
The Times reports that the crisis in Zimbabwe has "prompted the withdrawal of credit lines and export credit guarantees for trade with Zimbabwe. Insurers are also refusing to provide further cover for goods in transit inside the country."
In an article titled, "Besieged Mugabe Turns From Reconciliation to Rage," Washington Post journalist Jon Jeter writes Mugabe "has done nothing but rage as mobs of landless peasants and black veterans from the war against white-minority rule have set fire to the country's cash crops and murdered farmers and farm workers, political dissidents and even a police officer, pushing what was once southern Africa's most promising democracy to the edge of chaos."
The rapidity with which Zimbabwe has gone from "Southern Africa's most promising democracy to the edge of chaos" does worry the imperialists, and they are working to stabilize the situation in their own interests.
Working farmers in this rural area outside of the capital here present a more complex picture on the ways in which workers, peasants, and small farmers are organizing to confront the economic and social crisis.

Black farmers face monopolies
Johannes Chikarate, 30, is chairperson of the Musengezi District Cooperative Union, which groups six farms run as cooperatives by small-scale black farmers. Nationwide, there are about 25,000 cooperative farmers. "Our cooperatives are on state land," he said. "We are pushing to have title deeds, or even a 99-year lease, which we still do not have. Most cooperatives cannot borrow without these. We just have a piece of paper that says we can occupy the land."
The 667 Musengezi farmers grow maize, baby corn, cotton, beans, and groundnuts, and also raise cattle.
Four of the farms have surpassed subsistence level and are making annual surpluses. The one farm for which accurate accounting has been done for 1999 posted a surplus of Z$170,000--about US$4,475. With the surplus, "they have started developing housing for the members," said Chikarate. "They were staying in dugouts and huts. Now they are building brick houses."
Chikarate said the farmers received no aid from the government, including for seed and fertilizer, but by pooling their resources, farmers could do better. For example, the cooperative union will pay 60 percent of the outlay for tillage, seed and other inputs, and farmers pay the balance at the end of the season.
Like working farmers in North America and Europe, the Musengezi farmers are subject to the ups and downs of the capitalist market. "The maize price last year was Z$4,200 (US$110) per ton. The return on the dollar invested was good. But we had a lot of problems with cotton, which is very labor intensive. Inputs, most of which are imported, have risen 40 percent but the price paid of Z$14,50 a kilogram (about 18 cents a pound) has stayed the same."
The chief buyer of cotton--and the entity which sets the price the farmers are paid--is Cargill, the giant U.S. agricultural merchant.
The imperialist powers' demands for economic "reform," expressed through agencies such as the International Monetary Fund, also have an impact on farmers' livelihoods.
"In the first 10 years of independence we did not pay a cent for primary school education," said Chikarate. However, when the Zimbabwean government began implementing an IMF-dictated belt-tightening program in 1990, peasants felt the pinch. "Parents are now required to pay school fees of Z$300, which is very difficult. We have a school here for grades 1-7 attended by about 560 children, but the nearest secondary school is 10 kilometers (about 6 miles) from here on a dirt road. Most of the kids run there and back."

Fighting off an occupation
Kumuka Kwavatema is one of the six farms in the Musengezi cooperative union. In the Shona language, it means "the rising of the black people." The 407-acre farm was started by seven veterans of the liberation war along with some peasants and young people in the early 1980s. Today it has 47 farmer members, nine of whom are women.
Kumuka Kwavatema was occupied twice by area villagers just prior to the nationwide occupations of white-owned commercial farms that began with the support of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) government at the end of February.
Chikarate put the blame on one faction of the ZANU-PF leadership in Mashonaland West province. "The people who were pushing for the invasion were looking at the infrastructure to add to their own farms," he said, identifying the driving force behind the move as the provincial governor.
"It was the ZANU-PF headman who took the initiative for the invasion," said Jameson Zizi, 34, farmer and vice-chairperson of the Kumuka Kwavatema cooperative. "They came first in December, about 200-300 people from a nearby village. They were not ex-combatants. They said some of us should leave this area because we were not from here. It was almost a tribalist thing." After consultation with other elements of the government, he said, the villagers were pushed off the land by officials.
"But they came again in February, 200-300 people again. They said we must leave. We fired two shots into the air with our .303 rifle and about 75 percent of them left. In the morning all 47 of us gathered for a meeting along with some of our neighbors who came to help. That's when they attacked us."
"We had to fight to defend our land," said farmer Vivian Mazorodze, who described how she wielded an ax and a knobkerrie in the battle. "They did not want talks, so fighting was the only solution. We fought like hungry lions."
"We managed to drive them out," said Zizi.
While not directly part of the current land occupations led by the official war veterans association, the battle they described gives an indication of how ZANU-PF officials play on massive land hunger to advance their own interests.
Said Zizi of the current occupations: "It's not the right process of getting land 20 years after independence. The government has to get the land and resettle the people. Invasions by hungry peasants wouldn't come to this."
He did not see the opposition Movement for Democratic Change as offering an alternative to the policies of the government. "MDC is a party with no future," he said. "I have not heard anything that could see black people progressing through them."

'Land is power'
Albert Vingwe, chairperson of the Organization of Collective Cooperatives in Zimbabwe, said that a real land reform and redistribution are vital to boosting the national economy by allowing the peasantry to draw the wealth from the land. "Land is power," he said. "If you give title to a person they can be free."
In the mid-1970s, at age 15, Vingwe, the son of peasants in eastern Zimbabwe, crossed the Mozambican border and joined the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA), the military wing of what was then ZANU. After training, he was assigned to a combat unit within Zimbabwe assigned to ferret out the Rhodesian regime's "Selous Scouts"--army units that were dressed up to look like guerrilla units. At independence in 1980, he became a lieutenant in the Zimbabwean army.
In the early 1980s, longstanding factional struggles escalated between President Robert Mugabe's ZANU and the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU), then led by Joshua Nkomo. Saying that ZAPU was planning a coup, Mugabe sent troops into southwestern Zimbabwe, known as Matabeleland, ZAPU's support base and home to most of the country's Ndebele speakers. Most Zimbabweans speak Shona. Vingwe's unit was among those sent.
"A big fight took place. The army started shelling the city of Bulawayo with mortars, shelling defenseless people. I didn't like it. I immediately resigned. The army ended up slaughtering Ndebeles," he said, putting the figures in the thousands.
He and 21 other liberation war veterans pooled their demobilization allowances and bought the 300 acres on which they now farm south of Harare. The number of agricultural cooperatives nationwide eventually grew to 110, but 55 were repossessed by the government for being unproductive.
Describing the challenges faced by small farmers, Vingwe said that "commercial farms apply professional production and planning methods. Many of the cooperatives are on former commercial farms but are doing subsistence farming. Farmers had no access to credit and finance. Training was not adequate and co-ops are the last to receive inputs. Exports are done through middlemen."
The national cooperatives association helps peasants cut across these conditions by pooling resources and making expertise available.
"On state-owned land the government was supposed to provide grants for machinery and infrastructure. That didn't happen. Now they are levying a tax on us." Moreover, he said, "nobody wants to invest in land that is not titled."
Vingwe said that of the land reform that has taken place in the past decade, a number of government officials have benefited while the vast majority have not. He called this "naked robbery." "For our farmers to feed the nation they need a real resettlement program," he said.

[Agnapostate]

Allow property rights to be ignored? The elimination of capitalist distribution will ensure that they are affirmed and upheld.