todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/01/85)
I am posting to express my concern regarding the spread of communism in third world countries. I find the suppression of freedoms under communist rule to be intolerable. However, It is clear that many citizens of these third world countries are turning to communism to address the problems that were created by multinational American "agribusiness" corporations acting with the cooperation of the leaders of these countries. The push to modernize has resulted in many of these nations experiencing excruciating poverty, while over half of their foodcrops are being exported to the modernized countries. Surely this scenario must give third world citizens a dim view of capitalism and democracy. We must present democracy as the champion of personal liberties and the guardian of freedom that it is. We cannot convey this image by continuing our tacit support of the draining of nations' resources by American "agribusiness." If we do not address this problem soon, I believe all these nations will look to com- munism, the Soviet Union in particular, as a means to feed their people. I propose that all American "agribusiness" corporations be required by law to relinquish their foreign holdings. This will allow these poverty-stricken nations to support themselves without succumbing to the false lures of communism. If we cannot take this drastic step, revolutions will occur that forcibly overtake croplands owned by American corporations. Let's give the third world a chance at true democracy. Forgive the opinionated nature of this. Support will follow as flames demand it. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/02/85)
Todd Jones again (sigh) writes:> > However, It is clear that many citizens of these third > world countries are turning to communism to address the > problems that were created by multinational American > "agribusiness" corporations acting with the cooperation > of the leaders of these countries. > > The push to modernize has resulted in many of these nations > experiencing excruciating poverty, while over half of their > foodcrops are being exported to the modernized countries. > Surely this scenario must give third world citizens a dim > view of capitalism and democracy. > OK, great, now we the bread basket are removing over half the food crop from already impoverished nations. What are we doing with this food? Storing it with our already over abundant crop? Our farmers must appreciate that. If you are talking about a particular crop, sugar or coconuts for example, you might be right, but items such as these can hardly be considered as staples. You're veritable verbiage is growing tiresome, if you've anything concrete to conclude, do so with facts and figures. Above you mention the reason for poverty is modernization. What do you mean by such a statement? Can you plow more acres with an ox than a tractor? Does the use of fertilizers and crop rotation produce less harvest per acre? If I'm reading it properly, you conclude that: American agribusiness is modernizing 3rd world countries which results in reduced crop output, it then removes half this lesser crop, and cause further poverty. Agribusiness then further modernizes and .a...a...and..a..zzzzz snore.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/07/85)
>Todd Jones again (sigh) writes:> >> The push to modernize has resulted in many of these nations >> experiencing excruciating poverty, while over half of their >> foodcrops are being exported to the modernized countries. >> Surely this scenario must give third world citizens a dim >> view of capitalism and democracy. >> >OK, great, now we the bread basket are removing over half the food crop from >already impoverished nations. What are we doing with this food? Storing it >with our already over abundant crop? Our farmers must appreciate that. >If you are talking about a particular crop, sugar or coconuts for example, >you might be right, but items such as these can hardly be considered as staples. That's precisely the point Jones was presumably trying to make. The agribusinesses ensure that plenty of export crops are grown where otherwise staples might be grown. To provide us with luxuries (and themselves with a little foreign currency) these countries deny themselves adequate locally grown food supplies. Paying back debts at usurious interest rates doesn't help them, either. (Or the lenders, when they default.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/13/85)
In article <1653@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >That's precisely the point Jones was presumably trying to make. The >agribusinesses ensure that plenty of export crops are grown where otherwise >staples might be grown. To provide us with luxuries (and themselves with >a little foreign currency) these countries deny themselves adequate >locally grown food supplies. Paying back debts at usurious interest >rates doesn't help them, either. (Or the lenders, when they default.) Actually, field work has shown that a important factor is the lack of lateral flow between the lowest level markets. Crops are generally not exchanged outside of the most local markets, flowing instead into the upper class market structure, where they remain. The farmers therefore have to raise what they need, rather than what is most profitable. The export crops would not pose a problem if this exploitative structure did not exist. These crops would still be in demand, but they would be accompanied by an internal flow of food crops, and even by competing export crops. I have a reference for this, but it will take a little while to dig it up. C Wingate
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/15/85)
> Actually, field work has shown that a important factor is the lack of lateral > flow between the lowest level markets. Crops are generally not exchanged > outside of the most local markets, flowing instead into the upper class > market structure, where they remain. The farmers therefore have to raise > what they need, rather than what is most profitable. The export crops would > not pose a problem if this exploitative structure did not exist. These crops > would still be in demand, but they would be accompanied by an internal flow > of food crops, and even by competing export crops. > > I have a reference for this, but it will take a little while to dig it up. > > C Wingate This seems to be addressing a different cause of poverty and hunger in third world countries than the original posting. The original posting dealt with land owned and controlled by agribusinesses, while this article deals with land owned by "locals." But getting back to your posting, what is responsible for this exploitative structure in the first place? I'd like to hear more. -todd jones
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/18/85)
In article <317@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: [article concerning how market structure in Guatemala is used to exploit the indians has been excised] >This seems to be addressing a different cause of poverty and hunger in >third world countries than the original posting. The original posting >dealt with land owned and controlled by agribusinesses, while this >article deals with land owned by "locals." But getting back to your >posting, what is responsible for this exploitative structure in the >first place? I'd like to hear more. Oh, it's quite clear that there is a rigid class structure drawn up on racial grounds (at least in Guatamala). I think people should consider broader possibilities in trying to determine what we should do. One thing that we in this country tend to forget is that a boycott isn't necessarily anything more than pressure to do something about the boycott. Nor must it be assumed that the reaction will be rational. In the face of the entire western world backing away from the conflagration which seems almost inevitable in South Africa, the government there seems determined to protect their system at any cost to themselves. One cannot fight against such folly. The other point of my article was that people should remember that oppression is generally systematic. Acting on one form of opression often may simply result in increased pressure from another form. Charley Wingate