We wrote not so much to advocate all of Vandana Shiva's ideas as to protest
the edge of sneering disrespect that sometimes emerges when someone like
Shiva is discussed. There is an unfortunate tendency among some to try and
silence through ridicule and caricature.
Peter Burns grasps the point, and makes an interesting argument about
the development of labor power, that takes Shiva's critique seriously and
creates a basis for discussion. We still find in his discussion what we
read as a certain essentializing of urban versus rural life, and an
undefended assumption that capitalist development follows a single coherent
path. We think at this point specific examples are needed to advance
discussion. In particular were curious about the idea that people, once
they've seen Paree, dont go back to the farm even if granted the opportunity.
What opportunities are we talking about? We can think of one recent
opportunity, the program for providing land to excombatants in El Salvador
as part of the peace accords, which people avoided in droves because it was
no opportunity at all, starting them off deeply in debt and facing a
structure of prices and marketing that guaranteed penury.
Henwood's reply ("Vandana Shiva Again"), which simply repeated his prior
assertions at a heightened level of rudeness, is a good example of the kind
of arrogant insularity that our last post took exception to.
In Solidarity, S. Charusheela and Colin Danby
