Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
threatening the rest of the private sector, was especially conducive to this solution. None the less, the experience of post-reform agriculture in a number of socialist countries indicates that this is in practice the best way of articulating such disparate forms of production. Third, that the process of capitalist agricultural development does generate a large proletariat, even though it is disguised in the form of impoverished peasantry. This means that the agrarian reform can proceed in socialised production forms in the 'capitalist' sector without direct peasant owner-ship of land. It is true that in the Nicaraguan case, the relatively high land endowment per head reduced this pressure, but it is also important not to overestimate the 'peasant' nature of agriculture in Latin America [Goodman andRedclift, 1981], because this tends to lead to agrarian reform proposals which ignore the inevitable role of agriculture as the base of the national accumulation model in almost all underdeveloped economies in transition. Fourth, that in the case of Nicaragua, this logic has probably been carried too far. In implementing a project to eliminate the exploitative relation-ship between capitalist export agriculture and the peasantry (cheap labour and cheap food) by establishing a stable rural proletariat and secure food supplies, the revolutionary state has effectively undermined the remaining peasant economy without providing a coherent alternative. This has produced a new contradiction in the agrarian development model proposed for the rest of the century, when the revolution not only depends upon the mountain peasantry for defence against external aggression but also for food supplies during the transitional accumulation period. A successful agrarian accumulation model, above all during the tran-sition, must provide for an adequate articulation of distinct forms of pro-duction as part of the process of rural transformation.
DOI link for threatening the rest of the private sector, was especially conducive to this solution. None the less, the experience of post-reform agriculture in a number of socialist countries indicates that this is in practice the best way of articulating such disparate forms of production. Third, that the process of capitalist agricultural development does generate a large proletariat, even though it is disguised in the form of impoverished peasantry. This means that the agrarian reform can proceed in socialised production forms in the 'capitalist' sector without direct peasant owner-ship of land. It is true that in the Nicaraguan case, the relatively high land endowment per head reduced this pressure, but it is also important not to overestimate the 'peasant' nature of agriculture in Latin America [Goodman andRedclift, 1981], because this tends to lead to agrarian reform proposals which ignore the inevitable role of agriculture as the base of the national accumulation model in almost all underdeveloped economies in transition. Fourth, that in the case of Nicaragua, this logic has probably been carried too far. In implementing a project to eliminate the exploitative relation-ship between capitalist export agriculture and the peasantry (cheap labour and cheap food) by establishing a stable rural proletariat and secure food supplies, the revolutionary state has effectively undermined the remaining peasant economy without providing a coherent alternative. This has produced a new contradiction in the agrarian development model proposed for the rest of the century, when the revolution not only depends upon the mountain peasantry for defence against external aggression but also for food supplies during the transitional accumulation period. A successful agrarian accumulation model, above all during the tran-sition, must provide for an adequate articulation of distinct forms of pro-duction as part of the process of rural transformation.
threatening the rest of the private sector, was especially conducive to this solution. None the less, the experience of post-reform agriculture in a number of socialist countries indicates that this is in practice the best way of articulating such disparate forms of production. Third, that the process of capitalist agricultural development does generate a large proletariat, even though it is disguised in the form of impoverished peasantry. This means that the agrarian reform can proceed in socialised production forms in the 'capitalist' sector without direct peasant owner-ship of land. It is true that in the Nicaraguan case, the relatively high land endowment per head reduced this pressure, but it is also important not to overestimate the 'peasant' nature of agriculture in Latin America [Goodman andRedclift, 1981], because this tends to lead to agrarian reform proposals which ignore the inevitable role of agriculture as the base of the national accumulation model in almost all underdeveloped economies in transition. Fourth, that in the case of Nicaragua, this logic has probably been carried too far. In implementing a project to eliminate the exploitative relation-ship between capitalist export agriculture and the peasantry (cheap labour and cheap food) by establishing a stable rural proletariat and secure food supplies, the revolutionary state has effectively undermined the remaining peasant economy without providing a coherent alternative. This has produced a new contradiction in the agrarian development model proposed for the rest of the century, when the revolution not only depends upon the mountain peasantry for defence against external aggression but also for food supplies during the transitional accumulation period. A successful agrarian accumulation model, above all during the tran-sition, must provide for an adequate articulation of distinct forms of pro-duction as part of the process of rural transformation.
ABSTRACT
225