orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/13/85)
Jan argued against one of my critiques of his articles: > > > > (2) You might also try *reading* Richard's statement you quoted. He > > made *no* "claim about distribution of food". Richard's claim was > > that a more equal distribution of "power over food-producing > > resourses" greatly reduced hunger. And this makes much more > > sense than what you attribute to him. > > I have already conceded that I did not read Richard's original article when I pointed out that food *distribution* is usually far more important than deceptive overall averages. However I would also agree with the statement that socialist countries and those which enact land reform *do* result in a more equal distribution of power over food-producing resources. Nicaragua is an excellent example of this: before the Sandinistas came to power the Somoza family owned 70% of the land in Nicaragua. The peasants working on Somoza family estates had no control or power over the land they worked whatsoever. That was all decided by the Somozas. Now that the Somoza family holdings have been redistributed into collectives, cooperatives and private plots peasants *do* have some say in how the land will be worked. Cooperatives are owned and managed by the peasants themselves. Decisions are made democratically by the cooperatives- not by an autocratic landlord. It is one of the great fallacies of rationales for the "free market" and private property to say that they necessarily lead to more control by individuals. They can *only* lead to more control by individuals if the ownership of private property is dispersed. In the U.S. this has been true largely due to the foresight of such champions of democracy as Jefferson and Lincoln who supported the programs by which the government would give land to those who would till it productively. In most Third World countries where traditional landed elites own and control most of the land the situation is totally different. When the Somoza family owns 70% of the land they can do with it as they will. The same thing will happen in this country if we allow family-owned farms to go bankrupt and taken over by large corporations. At first food prices will undoubtedly decline. But they will then rise drastically as agribusinesses achieve market power that enables them to restrict supply. Family farmers have been very unsuccessful in restricting output even with the government's help because they individually have no market power. If agribusiness comes to control a large portion of farm output they will be able to restrict output to raise prices as other oligopolistic industries have done. tim sevener whuxn!orb