Re: Beef and revolution in Central America

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Mr. Proyect,




        I would never deny that cattle production was part of the
expropriation of the central American people.  However, this kind of
statement:


"The growth of McDonald's, Burger King and other fast food outlets
had created an insatiable demand for beef."


- is not in the best tradition of economic thought.  The market for cheap
beef existed, and fast-food was the way to capitalize.  You ignore the
central dilemma which is that there was an inadequate domestic market for
internal agricultural production.  There is no industrial proletariat to
buy the beef, beans or corn that the land occupied by the local war-lords
can produce.



        There, as here, the land is best used to produce what the industrial
proletariat wants.  Socialism cannot, and should not sustain an inadequate
and anachronistic peasant way of life.   The question is how best to
expropriate the landholders, and build an industrial economy.  The only
problem with exporting beef is that there is too little profit in it.  Cotton
and corn are losers unless they are sold as finished clothing and processed
foodstuffs.


        You wrote:


        "If cattle-ranching had created jobs for the displaced peasantry,
this land-grab might not have had the explosive political consequences
that it did. As it turns out, however, few jobs were created in comparison
to other export agriculture sectors. Cotton cultivation offers 6 times
more employment per acre than cattle ranching, sugar 7 times more and
coffee 13 times more. Under a more equitable world economy, of course, all
of this land would be used to produce food for the local population
instead of resources for foreign or local oligarchic companies."



        Stipulating that oligarchies, foreign or domestic, are to be
thwarted, putting more people to work in the fields is economic disaster.
Crops have to be produced with the absolute minimum of work for the
economies of these countries to advance - that is axiomatic.  That is the
very reason that ranching, from its ancient beginning, has always been so
tempting, despite its environmental drawbacks.  Ranching (or shepherding,
flock-tending, etc.) requires little labor to bring goods to market or
table.  It is a more efficient use of human capital.  However, it is not
nearly as efficient a use of labor as industrial production.  That's the
problem.





        peace






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---