I think LP's submission regarding Jefferson and the "improvement" of
agriculture, particularly slave-based plantation agriculture, is an
important contribution to this discussion.  But not, perhaps, for the
same reason LP might think.

LP (I think) submits this because agricultural "improvement" is so
critical to the theory of  transition based on agricultural capitalism,
that "improvement" distinguishes the practice of agricultural capitalism
from pre-capitalist and non-capitalist agriculture.

Brenner (and Wood after him) certainly finds "improvement" as being the
product, not the producer, of the capitalist social relations in
agriculture-- the separation of producers from the means of subsistence,
the necessity of specialized production for exchange, the dependence
upon the market for realization of value, and the reproduction of the
actual terms of the social relation.

However, (ah yes, the inevitable "but..."), there is another aspect to
this-- and that is the pressure that these changes exert on all other
agriculture through the world market, and the responses of the other
agricultural systems to the "improvement."

This is an area that has not been deeply explored, but (there it is
again) certainly is critical to understanding the development of the
world markets, and the internal/external conflicts of capitalism.

Certainly the technical knowledge of improvements is not segregated,
inaccessible to other systems.  The social relations, however, that make
such improvements a necessary dynamic, a transformative force, are
something else again.

No doubt Jefferson and other plantation owners utilized techniques of
improvement.  "Improvement" is not a restricted, hermetic, practice.

However (again!), the record of plantation production in the US--
"capital" investment,  percent of acreage sequestered vs.cultivated,
etc-- shows  "improvement" had not achieved the status of compulsory
practicce.  The Southern economy as a whole exhibits this same
lassitude.  Compare the expansion, volumes, and technical sophistication
of  Southern railroads vs. Northern railroads in the period up to and
including the US Civil War.

Contradictions of plantation based agriculture attempting to incorporate
improvement as an economic necessity lead to dramatic upheavals in the
20th (and 21st) centuris.  Look at sugar production in the Philippines
up to the OPEC 1, and post-OPEC 1 periods.  Protected first by US import
guarantees, sug ar production in the Philippines was always "labor rich,
capital poor."  The general and dramatic inflation of commodity prices
after OPEC 1, carrot and sticking the sugar producers into attempting
rapid expansion through capital purchases, followed closely by the
removal of US import guarantees and the collapse of sugar prices, leads
to the massive disruption of the plantation structure, migration  from
the rural areas into the cities, and puts the whole society on the road
to the "revolution interrupted" and Corazon Aquino.

Reply via email to