The Green Revolution:
Notes on Christian Parenti's, "Tropic of Chaos." First though, a few thoughts on definitions. Parenti refers frequently to what is known as economic neoliberalism. What is it? Well, try this:
Neoliberalism is an extreme form of economic liberalism whose advocates support for economic liberalizations, free trade, open markets, privatization, deregulation, and shrinking the size of the public sector to allow the private sector to take on a more active role in the economy.
Okay, two things here. First off is the unsavory habit in this country of hijacking certain words as all-encompassing descriptors. Liberal, or for that matter, conservative are prime examples. Bad news. They are not always nouns. Both words act as quantifier or relevator [sic] to some other 'thing.' As in: "I enjoy a liberal amount of Whiskey in my Irish Coffee, yet I am conservative about how many I consume." Or, "In America, we live in a liberal democracy."
The second issue is how neoliberalist policy is executed in the agricultural sector, particularly in the developing world where existing systems are often based on sustenance farming, NOT as an extension of the corporate sector. And it is here, in this arena, that The Green Revolution was born. And no, in this case, Green was NOT about sustainability, though it did have roots in the the philosophy of a kind of nationalized self-sufficiency in food stocks. But it quickly morphed into an entirely different sort of animal.
The theory has most often been attributed to Walt W. Rostow's 1960 theorem: "The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto." Aha! What a title indeed. Still, it was in line with American foreign policy of the day, in 'containing' communism, rather than going to war over it, though that took a turn for the worse in October of 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But of course, that was a different sort of 'global warming' altogether.
Theory turned to action when William Gand, head of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) first embraced the 'industrialization' of agriculture through the use of high-yield variety seeds, synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides and extensive groundwater-dependent irrigation systems. And of course the World Bank jumped on board since this was seen as another avenue of debt-mitigation for borrower countries, as well as a cash crop to accelerate growth in the industrial sector. Feeding locals wasn't really the idea, but creating an export market certainly was. Which is how in many areas of the Global South, King Cotton replaced indigenous food crops. However, this high-intensity approach to agriculture created one more nasty little bug: increased output yielded increased debt. And do remember, global climate change was just an amusing thought in 1970.
And too, as in Part I, increased yields were immediately followed by rather drastic downturns in production, requiring more scarce capital to even approach status quo production levels. And as liberalization approached neoliberalization -- and climate issues showed up in real time -- these new economic policies were shifting capital resources (investment in logistics and infrastructure like irrigation) away from public-sector venues to private, for-profit corporate structures. Added to this was deregulation throughout these agrarian systems as agriculture evolved into agri-bizz. American farmers have had plenty of experience with this phenomena, but have also managed to stay afloat, in many cases by generous government subsidies, increased demand by overseas markets and plain old political clout. All three missing in the Global South. [Parenti}: "This shift....removed from agriculture many legal protections and government subsidies -- including public credit and public investment in irrigation. In response to the relative withdrawal of the state, farmer's took on more expenses themselves and, in turn, had to raise capital wherever they could -- that meant from moneylenders. The more farmers turned to private moneylenders, the more they were under pressure to grow more cotton. And the more cotton they grew, the lower the prices sank." And as Parenti alluded to earlier in his book, cotton wasn't edible and the moneylenders controlled the seed crop in order to insure collateral.
But let's back up a minute. Enter Rachel Carson, circa 1960.
The theory has most often been attributed to Walt W. Rostow's 1960 theorem: "The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto." Aha! What a title indeed. Still, it was in line with American foreign policy of the day, in 'containing' communism, rather than going to war over it, though that took a turn for the worse in October of 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But of course, that was a different sort of 'global warming' altogether.
Theory turned to action when William Gand, head of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) first embraced the 'industrialization' of agriculture through the use of high-yield variety seeds, synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides and extensive groundwater-dependent irrigation systems. And of course the World Bank jumped on board since this was seen as another avenue of debt-mitigation for borrower countries, as well as a cash crop to accelerate growth in the industrial sector. Feeding locals wasn't really the idea, but creating an export market certainly was. Which is how in many areas of the Global South, King Cotton replaced indigenous food crops. However, this high-intensity approach to agriculture created one more nasty little bug: increased output yielded increased debt. And do remember, global climate change was just an amusing thought in 1970.
And too, as in Part I, increased yields were immediately followed by rather drastic downturns in production, requiring more scarce capital to even approach status quo production levels. And as liberalization approached neoliberalization -- and climate issues showed up in real time -- these new economic policies were shifting capital resources (investment in logistics and infrastructure like irrigation) away from public-sector venues to private, for-profit corporate structures. Added to this was deregulation throughout these agrarian systems as agriculture evolved into agri-bizz. American farmers have had plenty of experience with this phenomena, but have also managed to stay afloat, in many cases by generous government subsidies, increased demand by overseas markets and plain old political clout. All three missing in the Global South. [Parenti}: "This shift....removed from agriculture many legal protections and government subsidies -- including public credit and public investment in irrigation. In response to the relative withdrawal of the state, farmer's took on more expenses themselves and, in turn, had to raise capital wherever they could -- that meant from moneylenders. The more farmers turned to private moneylenders, the more they were under pressure to grow more cotton. And the more cotton they grew, the lower the prices sank." And as Parenti alluded to earlier in his book, cotton wasn't edible and the moneylenders controlled the seed crop in order to insure collateral.
But let's back up a minute. Enter Rachel Carson, circa 1960.
 |
| Rachel Carson |
"Silent Spring."
In the late 1950s, Carson turned her attention to conservation, especially environmental problems that she believed were caused by synthetic pesticides. The result was Silent Spring (1962), which brought environmental concerns to the American public. Silent Spring was met with fierce opposition by chemical companies, but it spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy, led to a nationwide ban on DDT for agricultural uses, and inspired an environmental movement that led to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Course, DDT didn't disappear. It just moved out of sight -- into the developing world. Carson's book was the opening salvo in the environmental wars that have been waged over the ensuing decades -- some battles won, many others lost. Perhaps overlooked in this assessment is that most victories took place in the developed world: the US and western Europe up until the 1991 dissolution of the USSR, which among other things, showcased the horrific environmental damage wrought by unregulated state-driven industry. In fact, East Germany was so degraded and polluted that Bonn didn't want it back. They rightly assumed that detoxifying East Germany would likely bankrupt the West German government.
But of course, Carson's premonitions found no voice in the Global South, which quickly became a dumping ground for anything outlawed, banned or considered dangerous to human health or water resources here. And now, some fifty years later...many of these issues have simply escalated in their level of urgency, to the point where water itself is on the endangered list.
One theme resounds throughout this book: what Parenti refers to as "mitigation and adaptation." Which means first cutting carbon-dioxide emissions, then adapting agriculture to the new realities. And while I remain pessimistic about the first, I readily embrace the second, for the Earth itself is subject to the strict rules of evolution -- meaning the wheel always rolls forward -- action and reaction. Mitigating now will not return us to any previous level. That is wishful thinking at its most ludicrous extreme. However, serious action now (mitigation) will reduce the level of adaptation needed later. A bad compromise perhaps, but the only one available.
But of course, Carson's premonitions found no voice in the Global South, which quickly became a dumping ground for anything outlawed, banned or considered dangerous to human health or water resources here. And now, some fifty years later...many of these issues have simply escalated in their level of urgency, to the point where water itself is on the endangered list.
One theme resounds throughout this book: what Parenti refers to as "mitigation and adaptation." Which means first cutting carbon-dioxide emissions, then adapting agriculture to the new realities. And while I remain pessimistic about the first, I readily embrace the second, for the Earth itself is subject to the strict rules of evolution -- meaning the wheel always rolls forward -- action and reaction. Mitigating now will not return us to any previous level. That is wishful thinking at its most ludicrous extreme. However, serious action now (mitigation) will reduce the level of adaptation needed later. A bad compromise perhaps, but the only one available.
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding beside you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
___T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland
Part III:
Migration, Violence and the Armed Lifeboat
Didn't work for the Han Chinese, so why do we think it will work here....?
Didn't work for the Han Chinese, so why do we think it will work here....?
Really glad to have a definition for neoliberalism. I hear the word bandied about and take it to be a subtle variation on neoconservative, which by this account, I would say that it is except that it is about going after public resources for private gain, while neoconservatism is about emptying the public treasury for the purpose of protecting and expanding a global economy under the guise of national interest by wars and investment in armaments.
ReplyDelete