It took a revolutoin in hay-making before American agriculture could
keep enough horses and mules to make them provide the motive power to
farm the huge wheat fields west and south of Chicago. Once this
happened, then farming in the MidAtlantic and MW took on a much larger
scale, while at the same
What broke up the share cropping system in America was the tractor as that,
which was fundamental. Not by itself. Nor is this to say the sharecropping
system was preordained. The property form could have attained another
shape as a land of independent farmers in the South.
I agree
Here we have an academic argument dated 1950 that cotton production in
the US (which in terms of acreage had halved--because of the collapse
of the 1920s and the reduced acreage plans under FDR in the 1930s) had
to mechanize in order to compete with rayon, nylon and overseas
cotton.
CJ
the link is
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3740648
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:43 PM, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote:
Here we have an academic argument dated 1950 that cotton production in
the US (which in terms of acreage had halved--because of the collapse
of the 1920s and the reduced acreage plans
Wide spread chemical fertilizers came after the tractor.
Actually, completely wrong. It came into widespread use after newly
opened farmlands were quickly depleted by monocropping and lack of
crop rotation. For cotton farming it became absolutely essential and
even then didn't prevent the lands
In a message dated 4/18/2010 12:56:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jann...@gmail.com writes:
Actually, completely wrong. It came into widespread use after newly
opened farmlands were quickly depleted by monocropping and lack of
crop rotation. For cotton farming it became absolutely essential
In 1950 in the US a farm family was more likely to own an automobile
than a tractor.
Farmers with the literal mule and 40 acres couldn't afford or borrow
enough money to buy much of the farm equipment. I may be wrong, but it
seems to me that entities like Agway and Central Tractor (I grew up in
In a message dated 4/16/2010 6:38:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com) writes:
CIs and the UAW. Careful guys, this thread has a huge potential for
self-humiliation built into it.
Horses enabled the first stages of mechanization of agriculture.
WL: Then how come horses did not change the social organization of labor in
agriculture in the time frame indicated? It was the tractor that was the
impetus behind the destruction of the sharecropping system in America rather
than the horse.
I wasn't arguing this point exactly. I was pointing
1921
was after the advent of Fordism, and well after the invention of the
gasoline power engine, but the impact of the industrial revolution would not
reconfigure the social organization of agricultural labor until roughly 1939
or what is called the mechanization of agricultural. The shift
Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring
new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing
their mode of production, in changing their way of earning a living, they
change all their social relations. The hand mill gives you
The dialectic of qualitative change is a new qualitative
ingredient is injected into the existing process of production incrementally or
quantitatively. This injection of a new quality into an existing process
begins its initial qualitative reorganization.
^
CB: What is the new qualitative
End game
The political battles waged by Marx and Engels to give the First
International an outlook and program independent of all ideology of the
propertied
classes has been outlined and preserved as part of the Soviet Legacy in
Marx and the Trade Unions. Marx and the Trade Unions, by
13 matches
Mail list logo
