3 ms·

It’s important to distinguish between the farmers pushed out of agriculture and those pulled towards the industrial/service sector. Some of the farmers pushed

It’s important to distinguish between the farmers pushed out of agriculture and those pulled towards the industrial/service sector. Some of the farmers pushed out of agriculture were in a truly terrible position. Some effectively exiled into other countries (e.g highland clearances in Scotland) or left with no choice beyond military service in poor conditions. Other ex-farmers were pulled into the high wage new economy sectors. I imagine this was a comparatively happier experience, although not without its difficulties. For example, the shipbuilding or railway workers. In a more modern example, the Chinese factory worker.

jazzyjackson 3y ago
Yeah, I've been trying to figure out how to feel about china "lifting a billion people out of poverty" for a long while, because if I squint it kinda looks like land owners getting displaced by a government that would rather work then to death in cities than allow them a meek existence in the countryside. For young people, having a wage and the agency to spend it how they choose is worth a lot, but I still wonder how much choice they really have. I suppose it's a matter of whether you see a future for yourself down on the farm vs where all the economic growth and excitement lies. But even given that the kids will be alright, my point was that the breadwinners displaced by progress do not find an alternate income - they rely on the next generation to adapt.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Outside of North America, it was relatively rare for farmers to own their land. Tenant farming and serfdom were more common in Europe/Japan. In China, as a general principle, the government itself owned all land during the Mao era. Farmer-landowners are much more financially resilient to technological change because (generally) the same technologies which reduced the value of their labour increased the value of their property. I suspect this difference in historic land ownership had a big impact on subsequent politics and it's something I'm looking to read more about.
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    now that I think of it, if farmers had already owned their farms, Mao & co wouldn't have gone through the trouble of redistributing it via Land Reform. I might suggest that drawing boundaries around a plot of land and calling it "owned" was the beginning of politics, as it represents collective agreements and mechanisms to arrive at them. Have you dug into Elinor Ostrom's work around the tragedy of the commons being an unrealistic model given that people don't just let other people's cows overgraze? We create rules and sanctions before the resource collapses (or rather, we try to; and that attempt to prevent collapse could be called government).
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      I’ve not but I’ll take a look into it. Sounds interesting.

jazzyjackson 3y ago

Yeah, I've been trying to figure out how to feel about china "lifting a billion people out of poverty" for a long while, because if I squint it kinda looks like land owners getting displaced by a government that would rather work then to death in cities than allow them a meek existence in the countryside. For young people, having a wage and the agency to spend it how they choose is worth a lot, but I still wonder how much choice they really have. I suppose it's a matter of whether you see a future for yourself down on the farm vs where all the economic growth and excitement lies. But even given that the kids will be alright, my point was that the breadwinners displaced by progress do not find an alternate income - they rely on the next generation to adapt.

spacebanana7 3y ago
Outside of North America, it was relatively rare for farmers to own their land. Tenant farming and serfdom were more common in Europe/Japan. In China, as a general principle, the government itself owned all land during the Mao era. Farmer-landowners are much more financially resilient to technological change because (generally) the same technologies which reduced the value of their labour increased the value of their property. I suspect this difference in historic land ownership had a big impact on subsequent politics and it's something I'm looking to read more about.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  now that I think of it, if farmers had already owned their farms, Mao & co wouldn't have gone through the trouble of redistributing it via Land Reform. I might suggest that drawing boundaries around a plot of land and calling it "owned" was the beginning of politics, as it represents collective agreements and mechanisms to arrive at them. Have you dug into Elinor Ostrom's work around the tragedy of the commons being an unrealistic model given that people don't just let other people's cows overgraze? We create rules and sanctions before the resource collapses (or rather, we try to; and that attempt to prevent collapse could be called government).
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    I’ve not but I’ll take a look into it. Sounds interesting.