The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 288)
غرض
- عنوان
- The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 288)
- المحتوى
-
272
Most of those households, especially the ones in the lower end of this category,
could not have benefited from the increase in the price of agricultural products for
lack of any marketable surplus beyond their subsistence needs. It was peasants
from this category who provided a major proportion of the substantial labor supply
during WWII. There was no other main source of labor except from these peasants
who underwent increased pauperization under the intertwined impact of debt,
taxation, and intensified market relations during the Mandate.
Whether peasants became solely dependent on labor, agricultural or
otherwise, was determined by their ability to hold on to their land by paying off
their debts, to the extent it existed. This, in turn, was determined by: first, the
extent to which a household benefited from the increase in agricultural prices (i.e.,
the extent of a marketable surplus); second, and inversely, the detrimental impact
of the increase in agricultural and other prices to the extent of how much of their
subsistence goods had to be purchased; and, third, the amount of income derived
from wage labor.
Finally, there were the agricultural laborers who, more or less, correspond
to Patnaik’s “full-time laborers.” In our case, this is qualified by the fact that most
of the agricultural wage labor was casual and seasonal, although with time the
number of full-time laborers increased. The crucial point here was the dependence
on wage labor regardless if it was casual, seasonal, or permanent. It is important to
reiterate that some full-time laborers “may [have] owned a small strip of land
which they lease[d] out; however, the labour [sic] equivalent of the rent received
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