[PEN-L:28670] Re: Re: Vandana Shiva

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Pollak wrote:

> Calling it a synecdoche assumes what is to be proven: that it is
> impossible to make small scale farming more productive if capital, science
> and technology were devoted to that end.
>
> There are a million things that need to be built in the countryside:
> homes, road, electricity -- and a million services -- schools, hospitals,
> distribution of goods -- that could employ labor in an advanced division
> of labor that was still flexibly and locally grouped, as we see today in
> say home building (which has yet to be replaced with the factory
> production of homes, although they are getting better).  Do you think it
> is conceptually impossible to say double or triple the productivity of
> subsistence farming?  Which would free up labor to do those other tasks,
> which would be paid for with money which would buy the surplus locally
> produced food?  While the farmers themselves would enjoy more security
> because in a bad year, they'd still eat, while their food would bring
> higher prices.

How can you have electricity or hospitals (presumably with drugs and
equipment) without large-scale production, and how can you improve
the productivity of small-scale agriculture without the kinds of
inputs made in factories? How can a country produce these things on
its own without a complex division of labor, schools, research
institutes, and financing mechanisms - all of which require
coordination across time and space? How can you have any of these
things without enlarging the scope of action beyond the household and
the village? It's just impossible. Artisanal labor can't make steel,
microchips, or solar panels.

Like I said before, if people don't want a society with steel,
microchips, or solar panels, that's their decision, not mine. But
small-scale and local production means a low level of productivity.

Doug