Bill,
Thank you for not resisting: "another simplistic explanation of a complex
problem."
You didn't much like my "find out why the peasants are inefficient
producers." and proceeded to explain to me how efficient they were.
It seems to me that if they are so efficient, they shouldn't need the
billions of dollars of aid that flows into the peasant cultures. If they
are so efficient, why can't they feed themselves?
Well, you have excuses for them - even though they don't need them.
You declared in your complex fashion: "The peasant family is one of the
most efficient farming units in the world."
Then, why can't they feed themselves?
I said essentially:
"The way to attack the problem of services) is to make it possible for
people to provide them themselves."
"It must begin with a land reform that provides sufficient land for a
family to live on and expand its production."
' . . . more plans to put hoes into the hands of peasants working their
own land."
" . . . they fail to carry out the important reform - letting people
escape their problems with their own effort."
"Instead of worrying about 3 billion mouths, think of 6 billion hands and
how to put them to work."
And the rest of paragraph, which you quoted:
"Second, change the economic structure so that people can do things for
themselves - instead of passing much of their production to the friendly
neighborhood rack-renting landlords."
Hey, Bill, sounds as if I think the peasants are quite capable of running
their own lives, doesn't it?
I also mentioned the Taiwanese peasants, who were so efficient that, with a
population density exceeding 1,300 to the square mile, managed toproduce a
net export of food.
So, why are so much of the world's peasantry unable to produce efficiently
enough to feed themselves.
We have clues
The peasants in the Mekong delta were highly efficient producers in that
magnificently fertile area. Yet, there living conditions weren't good.
Well, of every ten sacks of rice they produced, nine would go to the
landholder.
When American troops arrived to clear out the View Cong, behind them would
come the cousins of the landlords to collect their 9 sacks.
It was called 'winning the hearts and minds of the people'.
I suggested, and you quoted it - (without apparently addressing it further):
That there should be a change in the "economic structure so that people can
do things for themselves - instead of passing much of their production to
the friendly neighborhood rack-renting landlords."
Yet again, I suggest that peasants can and should support themselves.
But they can't - why?
If you would stop looking for complicated reasons, there is a chance you
could move to change the situation. The reason why the peasants may starve,
thereby requiring aid, isn't difficult, if you take the trouble to think it
through.
Harry
__________________________________________________________________
William B Ward wrote:
>I can't resist another simplistic explanation of a complex problem.
>
>Re the comment:
>
> First, find out why the peasants are inefficient producers.
>Second,
> change the economic structure so that people can do things for
> themselves - instead of passing much of their production to
> the friendly neighborhood rack-renting landlords.
>
>The peasant family is one of the most efficient farming units i the
>world. With the advent of Standard and Mobile Oil Companies as the
>premier food producers in the San Juaquin Valley in California,
>production per acre actually dropped but the sheer size of the farms
>meant that the owners dominated the system for getting produce to market
>and put the small farmer out of business. This process was repeated all
>over the country and is repeated in many developing countries. The Green
>Revolution in the Far East was the same. Although the local folks didn't
>like the type of grain produced, the cost of adding fertilizer meant that
>fields were exhausted much faster than was the case with the small
>producer. I witnessed the same thing happening in Ghana among farmer
>friends of mine who worked the land by hand but were unable to sell their
>produce at a profit when large scale farming led to a surplus [at a
>greater cost per acre]. The myth that small farmers are inefficient is
>that they go out of business first since they don't have venture
>capitalists supporting them.
>
>Bill Ward
