With the buildings dev diary explaining how subsitence farms and other related buildings work, I have been wondering something.
So far, it seems we have only two levels of farming: subsistence, which produces a marginal surplus, and larger scale farms which work in a more capitalist manner. Or, if you're communist, probably a collectivized farm that even though owned by the State or by the workers, still functions based on large scale agriculture. And only two types of farmers: poor proletarian peasants who either work for subsistence or for someone else; or those who own the farms.
But there is a third system which was very much present in the 1800`s and was essential to the development of some countries (According to some scholars - see Joe Studwell's "How Asia Works") - small landowners and "profitable gardening"
These were small farms that produced mostly vegetables and fruits (Rice as well). They are very labor intensive and can produce significant surpluses even on very small properties. They were usually owned by some sort of lower middle class of farmers (Instead of aristocrats or large landowners) and were essential to the development of Asian economies (Some say of every european nation and USA as well). Japan, for instance, both after the Meiji Restoration and after WWII, imposed severe restrictions on how much land you could own. Anyone with more than ~3 hectares had their land expropriated and distributed at low prices to those who worked there (Known as the Land to the Tiller policy). Some argue that this system was also essential for Europe`s and North America's development, since instead of producing commodity crops for exporting or industrial consumption, they produced food for local demand which made living in cities cheaper as well as generated rural income (And thus larger demand for urban goods and services), two factors that boosted industrial growth in cities.
TL;DR: So my question is: will there be some sort of "Small landowner" class, which is not as poor as subsistence farmers (Who generate little surplus) or proletarian peasants (Who work in the farms of aristocrats or large landowners, to the profit of these landowners) but not as rich as the aristocrats and landowners (Who do not work in their own farms), but rather form some sort of "middle class farmer" that works on their own farms and reap the profits of their own work?
Why this would be significant enough to be represented in the game?
- Small landowners vs collectivized farming was a frequent debate among communists and social democrats
- Small landowners tended to have different ideologies from peasants (Who later tended to be socialist) as well as aristocrats/large landowners (Who always tended to be more conservative). They tended to be more liberal-ish.
- US immigration was greatly encouraged through the Homestead Acts, which game small plots of land to individual farmers. Here there was a policy debate between northerners and southerners. The former wanted small farms owned by individual farmers rather than the southerner's preference for large plantations.
- Land reform in general was a huge debate through the 1800`s
- Small landowners would consume different degrees of demand than others. They wouldn't demand as much luxury goods as aristocrats, but would be able to consume more than peasants.
- Ottomans suffered from some crises when large scale plantations focused on cash crops instead of producing food for local consumption. When the prices of cash crops dropped, regions with more presence of small landowners suffered less.
- If the game is going to represent anarchist worker cooperatives, which were rare or never existed, it ought to represent this very common class and means of production.
So far, it seems we have only two levels of farming: subsistence, which produces a marginal surplus, and larger scale farms which work in a more capitalist manner. Or, if you're communist, probably a collectivized farm that even though owned by the State or by the workers, still functions based on large scale agriculture. And only two types of farmers: poor proletarian peasants who either work for subsistence or for someone else; or those who own the farms.
But there is a third system which was very much present in the 1800`s and was essential to the development of some countries (According to some scholars - see Joe Studwell's "How Asia Works") - small landowners and "profitable gardening"
These were small farms that produced mostly vegetables and fruits (Rice as well). They are very labor intensive and can produce significant surpluses even on very small properties. They were usually owned by some sort of lower middle class of farmers (Instead of aristocrats or large landowners) and were essential to the development of Asian economies (Some say of every european nation and USA as well). Japan, for instance, both after the Meiji Restoration and after WWII, imposed severe restrictions on how much land you could own. Anyone with more than ~3 hectares had their land expropriated and distributed at low prices to those who worked there (Known as the Land to the Tiller policy). Some argue that this system was also essential for Europe`s and North America's development, since instead of producing commodity crops for exporting or industrial consumption, they produced food for local demand which made living in cities cheaper as well as generated rural income (And thus larger demand for urban goods and services), two factors that boosted industrial growth in cities.
TL;DR: So my question is: will there be some sort of "Small landowner" class, which is not as poor as subsistence farmers (Who generate little surplus) or proletarian peasants (Who work in the farms of aristocrats or large landowners, to the profit of these landowners) but not as rich as the aristocrats and landowners (Who do not work in their own farms), but rather form some sort of "middle class farmer" that works on their own farms and reap the profits of their own work?
Why this would be significant enough to be represented in the game?
- Small landowners vs collectivized farming was a frequent debate among communists and social democrats
- Small landowners tended to have different ideologies from peasants (Who later tended to be socialist) as well as aristocrats/large landowners (Who always tended to be more conservative). They tended to be more liberal-ish.
- US immigration was greatly encouraged through the Homestead Acts, which game small plots of land to individual farmers. Here there was a policy debate between northerners and southerners. The former wanted small farms owned by individual farmers rather than the southerner's preference for large plantations.
- Land reform in general was a huge debate through the 1800`s
- Small landowners would consume different degrees of demand than others. They wouldn't demand as much luxury goods as aristocrats, but would be able to consume more than peasants.
- Ottomans suffered from some crises when large scale plantations focused on cash crops instead of producing food for local consumption. When the prices of cash crops dropped, regions with more presence of small landowners suffered less.
- If the game is going to represent anarchist worker cooperatives, which were rare or never existed, it ought to represent this very common class and means of production.
Last edited:
- 11
- 9
- 1
- 1
