carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/25/85)
In article <> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > Starvation in today's world occurs not quite > but almost exclusively because of "democratic" collectivist intervention. I'd like to see the arguments in support of this (to me) astonishing claim. For an alternative point of view to that presented in the Rydenfelt book, you might want to read *Food First*, by F.M. Lappe and J. Collins. The authors argue that the cause of world hunger is inequality in control over food-producing resources, because it leads to the underuse and misuse of those resources. Among the book's main points: I. The cause of hunger is neither scarcity nor overpopulation. II. Rather, it is inequality in control over food-producing resources. The colonial inheritance: 1. The colonizing powers viewed the agricultural systems of the subjugated lands as backward and primitive precisely because they did not produce a marketable surplus that would meet the need of the colonizers to extract wealth (e.g., the Sahel, India, West Africa). 2. In many cases the colonizers directly took over production, usurping the best lands (e.g., Kenya, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Latin America). 3. In other cases the colonizers forced peasant producers to grow cash and export crops (e.g., the Sahel, Indonesia). 4. The colonizers needed an abundant supply of food- desperate laborers to work on their plantations. Colonial administrations therefore devised a variety of tactics to undercut self-provisioning peasant agriculture and thus to make rural populations dependent on plantation wages. Good lands were sometimes even usurped and held idle so that peasants could not use them. (E.g., British Guiana, Indonesia.) 5. Colonialism destroyed the cultural patterns of production and exchange by which traditional societies previously met their needs. Many precolonial social structures, while dominated by exploitative elites, had evolved a system of mutual obligations among the classes that helped to ensure at least a minimal diet for all (e.g., India, Bengal, Africa, Indonesia). Inequalities between nations today: 1. Corporations and financial institutions based in the industrial countries control the profits of Third World commodity exports (e.g., bananas, cocoa, palm oil). 2. These corporations control profits from subsidiaries in the underdeveloped nations. 3. The terms of trade favor the industrial nations. 4. Lack of control of external capital and the debt burden hurt the economies of underdeveloped countries. Inequalities within nations: 1. Inequality in control over land is extreme and increasing (as in the US (California)). 2. In addition to the best land, other resources needed to produce -- water, irrigation equipment, fertilizer, pesticides -- and the credit to secure these resources are increasingly controlled by the few. 3. Because of the inequalities in control over productive assets, income is also increasingly unequal, often masked by per capita measures of growth which hide inequalities (e.g., Philippines, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brazil). Inequalities based in sexism: 1. There is a direct impact of sexism on the nutrition of women. 2. There is an impact of discrimination against women on the entire family's diet, particularly as economies change, i.e., the commercialization of agriculture undercuts the traditional roles of women. -- Men are increasingly drawn into wage labor and women are forced to supplement the male's wages by unpaid labor. -- Women are generally paid less for their labor. -- Plantation work requires that women travel long distances: the frequent result is that their children's nutrition suffers. -- As machinery gets more complex its use is monopolized by men, because the Western technical experts import their notions of sex roles along with their machinery. Inequalities based on racism: 1. Slavery is the most extreme form of racism and has caused hunger directly and indirectly. 2. The next most extreme form is apartheid. 3. In the US and other countries racism serves to keep nonwhites in low-paying jobs such as migrant field work. How inequality of control over productive resources results in the underuse and misuse of resources: 1. Underuse of resources Large landholders, in control of most of the land, are less productive than the smallholders. When a few land holders control most of the productive assets, much wealth is drained out of agriculture into their private consumption or into urban or foreign investments. Smallholders are unable to produce to their potential. Competition for survival makes cooperation impossible (for improvements such as terracing, dams, and irrigation networks). 2. Misuse of resources (see next section) III. The solution is neither technology, agribusiness, nor official development assistance. Agribusiness exacerbates the conditions that cause hunger. 1. Agribusiness does not and cannot "grow food for the hungry" (e.g., US, Mexico, Philippines, Central America, Colombia, Senegal, Brazil, Iran). 2. Attempts by multinational food processing companies to expand their markets in Third World countries have not benefitted the hungry, and, in many cases, have actually caused nutritional damage. 3. Agribusiness operations tend to perpetuate miserable working and living conditions for their workers. 4. They maintain and tend to exacerbate inequalities in control over resources. 5. They tend to be unconcerned about preserving the agricultural resources they exploit. Food aid, A.I.D., and the World Bank: 1. While food aid in certain emergencies and on a short-term basis can relieve suffering, the overriding impact of US food aid is to exacerbate the conditions that create hunger. 2. The US Agency for International Development stands in the way of real development. 3. Because is it a multilateral lending agency, the World Bank is often thought to be more impartial than an individual government. But operating as a lending agency whose dominant voting members are the major Western powers, especially the US, the Bank's policies reflect the financial and political orientation of its major contributors. IV. The solution lies in the transformation in control over the resources that produce food. Lessons from societies eliminating hunger. The only countries effectively overcoming hunger, according to Lappe and Collins, are those incorporating aspects of "socialism," where people are trying to create an economic system in which all have the opportunity to participate in decisions about the use of resources and in which all are assured of food security. 1. The redistribution of control over food-producing resources can result in greater food production since (a) a more rational use of the land and resources is possible, and (b) human energies are released when people know their labor will benefit them. 2. Where the land is controlled by a few, the profit from production is drained out of agriculture. Democratic participation in deciding how production will be used is the only insurance that it will benefit the producers. The "structures" for democratic participation can be created, however, yet still be controlled by the old elite who remain able to drain wealth out of the peasant sector. 3. Land redistribution alone is not adequate. Peasants must be a motive force behind the land reform, and must organize to protect their ongoing interests. 4. Cooperative work can maximize use of resources. 5. Cooperative work cannot be forced but must move forward as more and more people come to realize its advantages. 6. Building a society where everyone has access to adequate food requires coordinated social planning. 7. Technology can further human only after the control over productive assets has been redistributed and when conscious, participatory planning directs its use. In the view of Lappe and Collins, then, the chief cause of world hunger lies in what I would term the class divisions between the propertied and the nonpropertied. A companion book, *Food First Resource Guide*, by the staff of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, provides extensive annotated documentation for the arguments made in *Food First*. If you would like to do something constructive about hunger (domestic and international), I suggest that you write for information and publications to: Oxfam America P.O. Box 288 Boston MA 02116 You read all the way down to here? Golly. Enjoy your dinner tonight. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/29/85)
Before anyone talks further about whether socialism is a good basis for agriculture, I suggest you read some case histories. I suggest two books: "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt (which JoSH has suggested before) and "Endless Enemies, The Making of an Unfriendly World" by Jonathan Kwitny I haven't finished "Endless Enemies" yet, but so far it's a hell of a read. The author was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. I AM curious about carnes' outline -- what evidence do Lappe and Collins give for the following? > Lessons from societies eliminating hunger. The only countries > effectively overcoming hunger, according to Lappe and Collins, are > those incorporating aspects of "socialism," where people are trying > to create an economic system in which all have the opportunity to > participate in decisions about the use of resources and in which all > are assured of food security. Which countries did they use as examples for THIS little gem of wisdom? Over what time span?
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/01/85)
> > Before anyone talks further about whether socialism is a good > basis for agriculture, I suggest you read some case histories. > > I suggest two books: > > "A Pattern for Failure" by Sven Rydenfelt (which JoSH has > suggested before) and > "Endless Enemies, The Making of an Unfriendly World" by Jonathan Kwitny > > I haven't finished "Endless Enemies" yet, but so far it's a hell of a > read. The author was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. > > I AM curious about carnes' outline -- what evidence do Lappe and > Collins give for the following? > > > Lessons from societies eliminating hunger. The only countries > > effectively overcoming hunger, according to Lappe and Collins, are > > those incorporating aspects of "socialism," where people are trying > > to create an economic system in which all have the opportunity to > > participate in decisions about the use of resources and in which all > > are assured of food security. > > Which countries did they use as examples for THIS little gem of > wisdom? Over what time span? Peples Republic of China. The only overpopulated country which tackled food production, food disribution and population growth. What are the countries in which hunger was widespread, now is mostly eliminated and which had (relatively) free market? P. Berman
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/05/85)
nrh@inmet suggests > "Endless Enemies, The Making of an Unfriendly World" by Jonathan Kwitny I second Nat's recommendation. Kwitny, BTW, points out that Cuba has less poverty, illiteracy, bloodshed, and disease than almost anywhere else in Latin America, and a standard of living roughly on a par with Mexico's and Argentina's. Now Nicaragua faces the same terrible fate, from which the contras are endeavoring to save it. A word about world hunger: The world production of foodstuffs is, right now, sufficient to provide every human being (as well as pets) not merely with an adequate but even an abundant diet. The *potential* food production of the earth, with existing technologies alone, is far greater. Yet some 800 million people (most of whom grow food for a living) are chronically hungry if not actually starving. This is nothing new. Throughout the Irish potato blights (which were due to the lack of genetic diversity of the potatoes) of the 1840's, Ireland produced enough food to keep its population stuffed and still be a net food exporter, yet millions of Irish were hungry. The British govt. said laissez-faire, the magic of the marketplace will provide the solution. It did: over a million Irish starved to death, and the famine was over. The Brits were not lacking in compassion, however: they sent troops to "preserve order." (See Cecil Woodham-Smith, *The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-49*.) > I AM curious about carnes' outline -- what evidence do Lappe and > Collins give for the following? > >> Lessons from societies eliminating hunger. The only countries >> effectively overcoming hunger, according to Lappe and Collins, are >> those incorporating aspects of "socialism," where people are trying >> to create an economic system in which all have the opportunity to >> participate in decisions about the use of resources and in which all >> are assured of food security. > > Which countries did they use as examples for THIS little gem of > wisdom? Over what time span? The most important examples they discuss are China and Cuba. China suffered almost annual famines before the revolution; its population has approximately doubled since then, yet hunger has been essentially eliminated. *Food First* also discusses Vietnam, Tanzania, Mozambique, East Germany, and other countries. I would add Nicaragua, whose revolution has occurred since L&C wrote. None of these countries is held up as an ideal, and no one is claiming that socialism (whatever that is) is some simple formula that automatically reduces hunger wherever applied. Rather, if one is led to agree with the authors that the chief cause of world hunger is the gross inequalities that exist in control over food-producing resources, then the cure for world hunger is to redistribute that control so that it is more equalized, and that is (part of) the program of the "socialist" countries -- not that they are equally successful in doing so. As examples of the other kind, one might list the US, the Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh, South Africa, Zaire, Mexico, El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, and many others. Most Americans think of Venezuela, if they think of it at all, as an oil-rich nation located just off the coast of Aruba. Yet despite one of the highest per capita GNP's in the Third World, the majority of Venezuelans are malnourished. R. Carnes
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/07/85)
>/* Written 8:25 pm Aug 4, 1985 by gargoyle!carnes in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: Hunger and the Free Market (soc" ---------- */ >nrh@inmet suggests > >> "Endless Enemies, The Making of an Unfriendly World" by Jonathan Kwitny > >I second Nat's recommendation. Kwitny, BTW, points out that Cuba has >less poverty, illiteracy, bloodshed, and disease than almost anywhere >else in Latin America, and a standard of living roughly on a par with >Mexico's and Argentina's. Now Nicaragua faces the same terrible >fate, from which the contras are endeavoring to save it. > >> I AM curious about carnes' outline -- what evidence do Lappe and >> Collins give for the following? >> >>> Lessons from societies eliminating hunger. The only countries >>> effectively overcoming hunger, according to Lappe and Collins, are >>> those incorporating aspects of "socialism," where people are trying >>> to create an economic system in which all have the opportunity to >>> participate in decisions about the use of resources and in which all >>> are assured of food security. >> >> Which countries did they use as examples for THIS little gem of >> wisdom? Over what time span? > >The most important examples they discuss are China and Cuba. China >suffered almost annual famines before the revolution; its population >has approximately doubled since then, yet hunger has been essentially >eliminated. Hmmm... The Kwitney book does indeed say that peasants say there'd been no shortages of food since the 1960's. In an earlier article, I excerpted Rydenfelt's discussion of Chinese agriculture: in brief, Rydenfelt points out that the worst of the shortages occurred during the period of greatest "socialism" in the farming, and abated when the farms were once again allowed to lapse into smaller units that (after producing quotas and selling them at fixed prices) were allowed to sell privately on essentially free markets). As for the Irish Potato Famine (in which, you assert that over a million Irish starved in a roughly five-year period), I'll match that against the collectivization of Soviet Agriculture under Stalin over a similar period, 1929-1933 during which FIVE million Russians starved [Rydenfelt, "A Pattern for Failure"]. There's something to be said for the notion that NO system we know of can completely avoid famine, but certainly some systems can CAUSE famine.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/09/85)
Oded Feingold writes: >This message does not explain why > >the majority of Venezuelans are ... > >malnourished. True enough, nor did my article contain an explanation, but it is explained in considerable detail in *Hunger in a Land of Plenty* by George W. Schuyler, who is (or was) director of Ibero/American Studies at SUNY/Stony Brook. The principal reason for the widespread hunger in Venezuela seems to be that our wonderful American system of food production and distribution has taken hold there. Schuyler suggests that political democracy may be a luxury that developing nations cannot afford. He writes: The interplay between Venezuela's democracy and its economic system thus illustrates one of Prof. [Charles] Lindblom's conclusions -- that market systems have dual structures of authority. One is the Venezuelan goverment, subjected to passive control by a media-manipulated electorate every five years. The other is the business system whose influence and authority rivals that of the government and whose values permeate Venezuela's political leadership. In all existing democracies, large private corporations more or less severely limit the exercise of democracy. As Lindblom puts it, "The large private corporation fits oddly into democratic theory. Indeed, it does not fit." Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes