Capitalist collectivization. (fwd)

Louis N Proyect lnp3 at columbia.edu
Thu Apr 25 06:59:49 MDT 1996


On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, boddhisatva wrote:

> 	Ranchers are not the people who are going to do it for us, comrade.
> That's my point.  Defending the interests of small ranchers is inevitably
> going to fuel the interests of capitalists and/or economically disastrous
> policies.

Louis: Small ranchers can definitely be won to the revolution. Some of
the staunchest supporters of the Sandinista revolution were small
ranchers who had been fucked over by the Somocista land-grab which had
transformed Nicaragua in the 1970s.

This land-grab was economically disastrous for Nicaragua. It brought
nothing but grief to the small proprietor in the countryside and vast
fortunes for the Somoza kleptocracy.

In the rest of Central America, it was not the local bourgeoisie which
grabbed the land. It was, as I pointed out, North American corporations.
They exploited Central American land at the expense of the people of
Central America. This was economically disastrous.

When small farmers rise up against this oppression and join the workers
in struggle, they are acting in a progressive fashion. A socialist
government should protect the small farmer. Even if large-scale farming
is more productive--and this is not something that is self-evident-- the
transformation of small ownership to vast state farms must be done with
the full collaboration of the people. This is what socialists have always
been for since it makes sense. Where you get your ideas from is anybody's
guess. It has nothing to do with Marxist politics. That is for sure.


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list