>Though I haven't read his book, I've thinking about Hernan de Soto
>(or whatever his name is exactly). His proposal, as I understand it,
>is to create property rights for the poor (using publicly-owned
>lands?), which he sees as a way to promote the development of
>capitalism (which he presumes is a good thing). (Dave S., please
>correct me if my interpretation is wrong.)
>
>Anyway, my thought is this: it sounds like a way to fight poverty
>(and I believe it's been done before, perhaps in Puerto Rico), but
>not a way to promote capitalism. The problem from the point of view
>of capitalism is that it gives workers direct access to the means of
>production and subsistence and thus undermines their status as
>proletarians. In simple terms, they don't have to work for the
>capitalists beyond the time necessary to produce their subsistence,
>so that the latter can't appropriate any surplus-value, accumulate
>capital, etc. That is, it's the opposite of "primitive accumulation"
>(the topic of Michael Perelman's recent -- and excellent -- book,
>also reviewed in the current issue of CHALLENGE). At best, the de
>Soto plan would create a class of petty landed producers who would
>work for capital only to supplement their production (for luxuries,
>etc.) and would pursue a "safety first" strategy of avoiding (as
>much as possible) being entangled in markets, except for product
>markets. Where possible, they'd avoid borrowing money, selling
>labor-time, buying inputs, etc. In labor markets, they'd likely have
>a "backward bending" supply curve of labor-power, where a rise in
>wages after a point would cause decreases in the quantity supplied
>(though not for the simple income-effect reason of textbooks). Even
>in product markets, they'd diversify production in order to avoid
>dependency. They might be more progressive technologically, but it
>wouldn't fit with the goals of the IMF, the World Bank, the US
>Treasury Department, the local ruling classes, etc. So this plan is
>unlikely to be put into action, except in ways that are specifically
>designed to help capitalism while avoiding the creation of an
>independent yeomanry (with de Soto-type rhetoric attached, of
>course).
>
>When it comes to property rights in this situation, to promote
>capitalism it's necessary to screw the poor -- though it's not
>sufficient.
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il
>tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.)
>-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Isn't the creation of petty producers an important moment of
primitive accumulation? Petty producers are created, _only to be
ruined by competition_, thus expanding the labor force in the
non-agricultural sectors at the same time as giving an impetus to
agricultural productivity through the economy of scale (= bankrupt
family farms bought up by agri-businesses) & technological
innovations (the latter of which does not take place except in a few
nations, however, in that in the real world already existing
large-scale producers well supported by a powerful state -- e.g., the
USA -- can out-compete & dominate the world market in agricultural
products).
It is said that Japan's land reforms were a "success." It has been a
political "success" for the USA & the LDP; however, "Five out of
every six households are part-time farmers who also earn income from
other jobs....Japan's agriculture contributed approximately 2.1
percent of GDP in 1995, and provided employment for just over 5
percent of all employed persons in 1996" (at
<http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/aglw/aquastat/japan/japn-rfr.htm>).
Hardly anyone can make a living by farming alone, and much of food
has to be imported -- this in a nation with a powerful, capable, &
efficient bureaucracy which has sought to protect the market in
staples & support farmers through extension services. So, the main
effect of even a "successful" land reform under capitalism is the
destruction of petty producers (created through the very land
reforms) & the ruination of agriculture.
At 6:21 AM +0000 2/5/01, Patrick Bond wrote:
>The basis for this in at least one setting, "Soutern Rhodesia"
>(Zimbabwe), was the attempt by a liberal manufacturing-based ruling
>elite of white settlers to ensure a steady supply of labour in the
>cities, and by the post-war era the standard mechanisms of coersion
>(e.g., hut taxes, outright pillage and other acts of colonial
>civilisation) had been exhausted or were frowned upon; getting people
>off their lands had to be accomplished by other means. Giovanni
>Arrighi's work on this topic, by the way, has been seminal.
Capitalist land reforms in nations other than Japan, Taiwan, & South
Korea have & will work even less well, in that in poor nations there
exist few industrial & service jobs in the regular economy, so the
poor get absorbed in the so-called informal economy (pathetic
peddling, smuggling, counterfeiting, etc. mentioned by Sam Pawlett).
Yoshie
