(i've trying to send this for 24 hours) I had written: > >The key sentence above [in Wood's article] is "A tenant could, for > instance, remain in > >possession of land, but his survival and his tenure could nonetheless be > >subject to market imperatives, whether he employed wage labor or was > >himself the direct producer." The problem with this statement is that _if > >the tenant has possession of the land_, what keeps him or her from using > >some of this land to grow the crops needed to produce subsistence, "the > >means of self-reproduction"? > > > >A lot of farmers -- especially small ones -- have followed the path of > >risk-avoiding survival-oriented self-subsistence. They may eventually > >decide that they don't like the kind of poverty life-style this implies in > >the long run (as farms that do specialize and accumulate become richer), > >but they do have the option of opting out in the short to medium run. Yoshie writes: >So, maybe your disagreement with Wood is not so much about her basic >narrative as whether you focus on the long or short run? What are >necessary inputs for self-reproduction are historically created (both >objectively and subjectively), right? So, as long as the market shapes our >environment and expectations, aren't we "subject to market imperatives"? I agree with Wood that market imperatives are quite important, but I think she goes too far. Part of my disagreement is that I don't think these market-created constraints are as "binding" as Wood suggests, since there markets are seldom perfect (or seldom fit the standard model). (To use the example I used before, a farmer or company that enjoys a technological advantage can garner a rent, which means that they can deviate from the market norm, perhaps even getting involved in genuine charity, though this is quite rare.) My other disagreement was with the way she assumes the existence of class relations (since she talks about tenant farmers) and then forgets about it, blaming competition in product and input markets alone. It's true that the nature of the "necessary inputs for self-reproduction [is] historically created." But the way in which such needs are created is complex and affects farmers and others pursuing self-sufficiency differently than it does proletarians. A self-sufficient peasant at least has the satisfaction of being independent, of having some insulation from market imperatives, of not having to submit to some boss. So I think that this means that rather than simply a matter of the rise of the market driving peasants into the proletariat, self-sufficient peasants have more ability to choose, so that it's a matter of choosing to give up independence for the potentially greater living standards that come from being someone else's employee. (Getting into debt in order to raise one's living standards while being independent eventually leads to having this choice taken away.) For a lot, they choose to combine independent farming with urban proletarian labor. (Even though this example fits with recent experience, strictly speaking almost all farmers in the US today are far from being self-sufficient.) Note also that independent farmers have the advantage (in competition with capitalist ones) in that they don't have to sell their product at a price high enough to earn a "normal" profit (the average profit rate for society). If we bring in the issue of the long-term, it's also crucial to remember that independent businesses do not simply suffer from the slings and arrows of competition from the market (low prices from capitalist competitors, etc.) Competition also works through political means, as the capitalists use their influence over infrastructural investment, zoning laws, and the like to drive out their less influential competitors. (Big capitalist firms are also able to get better credit ratings and lower interest rates from banks and special deals from merchants.) Independent peasants have often been driven to the worst land by such political means. My point was we shouldn't simply look at the external imperatives imposed by markets but also at the internal solidity of the organizations subjected to the acid of market competition. In the long run, the capitalists use the power they accumulate to undermine the solidity of their smaller competitors in a large number of ways, not just via low prices of outputs. If Wood includes the political and similar dimensions as part of her conception of the market and competition (rather than sticking to the neoclassical vision of price competition alone), then we don't differ that much, except for the issue of class relations being important to pushing tenant farmers to emulate capitalist logic. BTW, can someone point me to the exact place that Marx talks about self-exploitation by worker co-ops in THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY? I can't find it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
