The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 283)
غرض
- عنوان
- The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 283)
- المحتوى
-
267
At the same time, it was here that intensive methods of production, to the extent
employed, were primarily used. Setting aside the issue of the size of these
undertakings and the level of intensity of production, this group clearly
corresponds to Patnaik’s first category of capitalists.
Second, there were the big landowners, both resident and absentee. Some of
the big landowners used wage labor to cultivate their lands.?! These landowners
had their lands predominantly worked by tenants on a share basis or by
sharecroppers who did not necessarily live on the land. These arrangements took
several forms, and how the crop was divided varied according to the contribution
of each party.” By the late 1920s, money rents emerge,” but rent appropriation
in kind was the predominant form of exploitation. Those landlords performed no
labor at all, obviously so for the absentee landowners but also for the resident
ones. The big landlords also correspond to Patnaik’s first category, which included
capitalists and together formed the large-scale appropriators of surplus. The extent
of big landownership was already discussed in the landholding section. Tenancy,
although somewhat significant, and a source of substantial extraction of surplus for
big landowners, was not the predominant form of cultivation for the majority of
Arab peasants.
*1Granott, Land System, 40.
“Ya’akov Firestone, “Crop Sharing Economics in Mandatory Palestine,” Part
1, Middle East Studies 11, no. 1 (January 1975): 3-23; and Part 2, Middle East
Studies 11, no. 2 (May 1975): 175-94.
3Hope-Simpson Report, 70; Simpson comments further that money rents
“were to be expected as a consequence of the commutation of the title.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - هو جزء من
- The Dispossession of the Peasantry
- تاريخ
- ٢٠٠٦
- المنشئ
- Riyad Mousa
Contribute
Not viewed