TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURAL ENTREPRENEUR
Once the social structure of capitalist landlords, tenants and employees, the first secured for himself a juicy tenure. The second or "new" agricultural capitalists (who are then joined the first) was commissioned to introduce technological innovations to make more productive his "business", thus following the pattern that marked the inauguration of modernity [3]. The past, employees have been held since then in the same position, although increasingly exacerbate their plight, irrespective of economic cycles of boom and depression. In this scenario, found the interests of new agricultural capitalists, as happened in the industrial field, made them addicted to a constant technological development that would give them advantages over the rest of their competitors. At first, the technology was appropriated such capitalists or those who could emerge as such, but then, and more consolidated with the farm business and the opening of international markets, agricultural capitalists began to pay for a particular development of it, translating it in their interests, contradictions and correlations of power. Hence, the history of development of agricultural technology is intimately intertwined with that of the capitalist class. While it is true that technological development is not particularly agricultural capitalism (as can be invaluable in identifying practices "pre" still exist in peasant and indigenous communities of Latin America and other parts of the world), it is the logic that drives , Its form and rhythm. As can be read in the text of Fussell, The Agricultural Revolution of 1600 to 1850, the concept of a technological revolution in agricultural practice, "... it has become accepted as a description of a prolonged period of modern history" [4] This period, as part of the history of the capitalist system of production, opens with a slow process of reconfiguring the traditional agricultural production techniques. Then passes rapidly to both functional and increasingly aggregated. In fact, says Fussell, the pace of improvements from 1600 to 1850 was at least five times slower than that achieved during the first half of the twentieth century [5]. Initially, it went from production in the open field fences, were improved tools, and introduced new crops to return the land more productive (case of alfalfa, clover, turnips, etc.). The new production scheme formally subsumed focused on forage and roots. These, Fussell writes, "... were the pivot around which revolved the Agrarian Revolution. The larger and more secure supply of them, also increased the number of cattle to be maintained, and these animals in turn produced a more abundant fertilizer and better enabling fertilize successfully arable land ... In addition, cultivation of roots and herbs alternately with cereal, in a rotation of four stages or any amendment thereto, increased the total cultivable area and a work of plowing and cultivation deeper (hoes and escarbado) between rows of roots was combined with the chemical reactions of leguminous plants to confer greater productivity to the ground. "[6] Such a scheme productively successful, as Fussell points out, only consolidated until the new boosted the agricultural capitalists, "... reaching its peak in the period of high farming, between 1840 and 1880" [7]. Once established formal notice that it established a peculiar logic to the production, the agricultural environment in a position to be reconfigured in its essence: from technological innovation. The goal then was the productivity by high productivity, or in other words, the real subsumption beginning of agricultural production. Thus, it appears the plow with landfills and iron fence (in 1785 and 1803 were awarded to the respective patents Robert Ransome, founder of the Company Ransom [8], now merged with a part-Sweden-Electrolux, and other party Textron Inc. USA). It also appears the sower of Jethro Tull (a lawyer trained at Oxford and prosperous farmer who promoted the Norfolk system [9]), the harvester Bell (1820-1830) and McCormick (1834), the first basic concepts for a traction Based on the steam engine that would lead to widespread use of tractors and their use in later (1889) would be converted with the introduction of the internal combustion engine (case of the first tractor gasoline LF Burger, who was operating a thresher), etc. . The formal and real modernization of agriculture in Britain, as can be read in Fussell, was: "... continuous, and perhaps intensified, under the encouragement of wars and slowed to some extent by postwar depression, but the revolution knew the expansion until the appearance of over-competencies in the areas of food ... in the decades of 1870 and 1880. "[10] The main elements of the Agricultural Revolution in that country, Fusell summarizes," ... were the introduction of new fodder crops in arable land and a rotation Quad-fenced fields that have replaced the large expanses of open fields ... were prepared irrigated lawns, new machines were built-planter, thresher, winnow, Brush cutter, as well as improved plows, and rotating wheels, for one or two grooves and dual-gate and were projected different types of hoe, of harrow, cultivator and Scaler. "[11] However, in social terms, what was the outcome of such a technological feat? Fusell says, "... in the late eighteenth century, the triple organization of the population in rural landowners, tenants and workers had become, in general, in the normal condition of rural society." [12] Note that this is configuration of the land that Marx reports on its discussion on the original constitution of the land on which modern states that are the real farmers who are occupied by a tenant-capitalist, which pays the landlord (owner of that the land theft [13] and which operates on certain days) a sum of money fixed by contract. The rent of land, said Marx, assumes ownership of certain individuals on certain portions of the planet, where the income is the way in which it is economically the private ownership of land, the manner in which the values [14 ]. Corroborating this line of analysis, Fusell agrees that, "... the Agricultural Revolution led to a much larger quantity of food, but it was also the largest number of those who consume a large amount people working in industries. But for the vast Most of the people the new processes and new supplies did nothing, because the poor remained mired in poverty increased despite the comforting belief in a general rise in living standards. For large landowners and ranchers who adopted the modern system had Instead, substantial benefits. [15]; Thus, to guarantee private property on those benefits, it was necessary to consolidate a parallel patent system effective and functional. Cardwell writes regard to the theme that "... in the seventeenth century the most active centers of technological innovation were in Western Europe ... The patents in England of the sixteenth century were mostly monopolies, [but] ... the Law of Monopolies 1964 ended with many of the most flagrant abuses of the system, while preserving the practice of granting the inventor of letters ... to safeguard the patent monopoly by initially twenty-one years .... The law did not eliminate all abuses ... but the laws were weighed and improving gradually over the following centuries. After the Act of Union was extended to Scotland in 1707 and in 1790, the nascent republic of the United States of America instituted its own patent laws inspired by the English-Monopoly Law "[ 16]. The innovations of the Agricultural Revolution, with its respective patents, the author adds, "... the way he had to drive to the great development of food production on land, such as America and Australia, they would not be entirely up to explored nineteenth century "[17]. BIRTH OF THE DOME OF AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE ESTADOUNIDENSE Toward the productivity of the twentieth century Considering the picture above, and moving across the Atlantic, one can understand the logic of substance stimulated technological development in agriculture in the second half of the nineteenth century in the USA. The case is interesting, especially since born to be a capitalist country, and recent conformation with strong business interests of the dome rooted in national power (Washington was the richest man, John Hancock was a wealthy merchant, Benjamin Franklin brought a printer, etc. [18]). According to Howard Zinn, before the business need to go possession of the west, you will be opened step by the growing white population, exterminating the native population and intensifying the construction of roads, canals, railroads, and also the telegraph. In parallel, "... the farms were being mecanizando ... had steel plows, lawn mowers, mowers, harvesters, better tire to separate the fiber from the seed, and at the end of the century, harvesters and threshers giant cutting the grain, as trite and got into sacks. "[19] In 1850, only the John Deere company produced 10 thousand plows a year. Cyrus McCormick built a thousand mechanical harvesters annually in its plant in Chicago. A man equipped with sickle could mow half acre of wheat in a day. With a mechanical reel could reap ten acres. "[20] As a result, Zinn data indicate that between 1860 to 1900 (when full territorial expansion to the west), the number of farms increased from 2 to 6 million [21] . Apparently, and in terms of productivity, all painted very well, but if anything has characterized capitalism is that "not everything looks pretty good for everyone." Zinn explains this situation strikingly: "... the land and machinery costing money, so I had to ask the farmers on loan, hoping that the price of their crops to remain high ... Farmers who could not pay them saw their houses and seized their land. They became tenants. In 1880, 25% of the farms were rented by tenants and the number was increasing. Many do not even have the money to hire and became pawns. In 1900, there were already in country 4 billion handymen [the 5.5% of the total population] [22]. Thus, while proletarianized to farmers and land was concentrated in a few landowners, farmers (on top landowners or linked to them), is deeply committed to technological innovation that enabled them to accumulate more wealth, an effort that would deepen in the twentieth century (see below). The purpose little altruistic and other-focused private profit of U.S. agricultural capitalist class, was fruitful. The story is corroborated. U.S. is now regarded as the breadbasket of the world thanks to its agricultural industry, only possible by the "efforts" of the business group said. To give an example with the actors mentioned above, today John Deere is a multinational of all types of agricultural machinery, forestry and garden. It operates in 160 countries and sales in 2002 amounted to 13,900 million dollars (million dollars). The Cyrus McCormick (then known as International Harvester Company to merge, under the tutelage of JP Morgan, with its biggest competitors, the Deering Harvester Company, Plano Harvester Co., Warder, Bushnell Glessner & Co, and Milwaukee Harvester Company) became a company of significant size. In 1924 partnered with Ford to manufacture the Farmall, a tractor with visibility near the crop. Purchased by J. I. Case Company in 1985, today is a subsidiary of the multinational CNH (the world's first manufacturer of agricultural tractors and harvesters and the third producer of equipment for construction). Its 2000 sales were 9.700 million USD. And all this, what brought the agricultural technology development in the twentieth century? Fitzgerald [23], makes an interesting account of this process in the U.S.. The author suggests that agricultural research was tied to the Federal Government since 1862. The locks were the Hatch Act (for the creation and dissemination of agricultural knowledge) and the Adams Act (to provide more funding for scientific research) that eventually leave to the Department of Agriculture of the United States (USDA-by Franklin English) or state experimental stations, almost all of the research and / or its funding [24]. In itself, what was done was the collection of genetic material (raw material) and information as a starting point and sustenance for the improvement of seeds (hybrid) and the development of agrochemicals. However, the peculiar path that took to the USDA's research can only be explained on the basis that, "... particularly in rural states, prosperous farmers had great influence with legislators, [so] the research projects were often focused towards their interests, rather than those of small farmers, or, to the advancement of general scientific theories ... [The result was that] ... under the twentieth century progressed, the scientists were shores to seek financing beyond accepting funding from the State ... the world of business. "[25] The transfer of knowledge, technologies and scientists from the public to the private sector, were not expected. In fact, the ties that so far maintained the USDA with the business sector in this country are so strong that plays the role of spokesman on agricultural business interests in the political arena in the country. It is so obvious that symbiosis State / company, as "natural" in U.S. history, the government of Ronald Reagan, put the executive of its multinational seed, Cargill, as chief negotiator in the Uruguay Round of GATT (now the World Trade) with regard to issues of agriculture. Considering the above, Fitzgerald's words are appropriate: "... In 1900 the actors in agricultural science were the farmers that provided genetic material, and what it was, in fact, laboratory space (the field crops and greenhouses) ... The businessmen had become major players in the agricultural business. In general, most of these transitions occurred between 1920 and 1960 ... [Because] ... the expansive role of corporate players has led to a growing mentality in the industrial agriculture, the most notable demonstrated in efforts to convert the simple practices of the farmers in production systems, ie systems that are similar to the dynamic industrial factory where the materials and processes are specialized, automated and integrated. In some This case was consolidated in a vertical integration; think here in a seed corporations like Pillsbury, who hired cereal in the U.S. Midwest, or in the western producers of fruit and vegetables that controlled the process, from planting to its canning. In other cases were linked to companies like Pioneer Hybrids ... or Funk Brothers Seed Company. "[26] It is therefore of an entire logic that has led to increasingly placing agricultural business elite, the head of the business. It is no coincidence that the examples of corporate Fitzgerald are now part of corporate giants that are placed in the top position globally. While Pioneer was taken over by DuPont-USA-(first seed, second and fifth agrochemical chemistry of the planet); Funk Brothers became part of Ciba-Geigy, which later in 1996, would be merged with Sandoz, and this in turn with Novartis (recently integrated with Zeneca under the name of Syngenta, is the third seed and agrochemical first in the world based in Switzerland) [27]. NSA began to experiment with business beholden to the USDA or intimate link in the "improvement" of seeds and development of agricultural chemicals (a result of the conversion of the chemical industry that, during the Second World War had focused almost exclusively for the production of chemical weapons-spectacular case of Monsanto, inventor of Agent Orange, among many others) [28]. The result was the selection, hybridization, and next thing (since the end of the decade from 1970 to date), the genetic design of the same [29]. The promotion of hybrid seeds or improved (but not genetically designed or transgenic), presumably more productive, it became not only from the world of business that developed, but also from the U.S. government and its many agencies, which obviously highlights USDA. Breaking with the tradition of saving the seeds of a production cycle to another, spread the use of such seeds, now purchased by farmers each production cycle. The "achievement": "... for 1940, the majority of farmers or peasants in the U.S. had changed to hybrid seeds of maize." [30] In such a chain of events prompted the U.S., particularly marked in partnership with the World Bank (WB), which is known as the Green Revolution (RV). Although the fund was to give impetus to his nursery business and agrochemical already heavily consolidated, the RV was sold under the idea of "assisting the South in their agricultural problems"; casually through the dissemination of improved seeds or high-yielding HYVs varieties, which required them, "for a better result", the use of agrochemicals which developed its own subsidiaries or multinationals. The outcome of VR has been the degradation and pollution of the soil (because of the massive use of agrochemicals), the loss of genetic diversity of cultivated species (as a result of the homogenization of the genetic variety of seeds to the standardized use of HYV), among other consequences of ecological character, not to mention the social order. It is noteworthy that since the sixties of last century, Carson corroborate that "... we have said that the massive use of pesticides is necessary to sustain agricultural production. But our real problem of overproduction is not it? Our farms have surrendered ... so amazing over-harvesting, that the American taxpayer paid in 1962 over a thousand million dollars to sustain the cost of the program storage of surplus food. "[31] Not surprisingly, so far the U.S. has an ongoing program Funding to increase the storage capacity of food (the Farm Storage Facility Loan Program), that by the end of 2001 reached a capacity of 8.42 billion bushels (229, 153, 668 tonnes) [32]. Technology development driven by corporate agricultural dome does not stop there. The fact that in practice there is nothing to stop the farmers to use improved seeds and then save some of the second generation to the next cycle, forced to develop hybrid varieties that quickly lose their qualities "positive" from one generation to another. Under the direction of technology, the fantasy of biologically controlling the agri-business brought him the progress of biotechnology. The development of genetically modified seeds (GMOs) opened the doors to design sterile seeds; adjustable processes (such as germination, Florea, etc.) by agricultural chemicals or "additives" that the multinational produces, among other features with great commercial potential as are the delay of the maturation period of the "product", higher or lower water, oil, fiber, etc. [33]. GMOs, although controversial because of the uncertainty and risks arising from their use (both in terms of socio-economic, environmental and health), until 2002, his breakthrough came at 16% of the total global area planted with four basic species (58% of soybeans, corn 12%, 12% cotton and 7% of canola). The 1370 patents registered until the end of 1998, according to data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, fell to 30 applicants. Of these, 74% corresponded to 6 multinationals: Monsanto / Pharmacia (287), Dupont (279), Syngenta (173), Cargill-Dow (157), Aventis (77) and Grupo Pulsar (38). According to Wood Mackenzie, the industry analyst, estimates that in 1999 Monsanto / Pharmacia (USA) captured 80% of all profits from the market of agro-biotechnology, while Aventis (France) gained 7%, Syngenta (Switzerland) 5%, BASF (Germany) 5% and Dupont (USA) 3%. Those gains would have to add those generated by the sale of improved seeds (hybrid), which would be placed in the first line followed by DuPont, Monsanto / Pharmacia and Syngenta [34]. As can be seen, the business of the multinationals is all on one side of the Atlantic, as in the other, suggesting that in the twentieth century, Europe experienced processes of consolidation and concentration of agricultural business leaders, relatively similar to the Americans. It is clear that the roots of landowners and annexed in its then nascent capitalist farming, his crossing of interest, camaraderie, competition and contradictions, are much more intricate in the old continent, which gives him unique characteristics that in general such a review as this is lost sight of. The evolution of the capitalist system of agricultural production, their related social structures and the necessary competition and constant intercapitalista between the "old" and some "new" players (quickly absorbed by the first), has forced the development of more effective technologies for monitor and ensure the private business of agriculture. This redefines and rearrange the position of the players involved, while reinforcing and / or establishing new relations of power. Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, the farmer has been dramatically losing constantly functions. The countryside becomes a space of agribusiness, now based not only on mechanization, but also in agrochemicals, information technology, irrigation systems last generation, the vertical integration of agro-food chains and the latest biotechnological innovations. It is a scenario in which striking finding by Richard Oliver, CEO of DuPont when, with historical amnesia informs us that biotechnology innovations (GMOs and others) are emerging as the second green revolution, a revolution in technology, adds Oliver, in that, "... the race between multinationals bioagrícolas a race is not just economic but rather a race for life." [35] FINAL Based on this reflection on the technological development, we can say without fear of being wrong, that the thread of that process has been primarily the interest of the private agricultural business leaders. In that sense, it could hastily assumed that any such technology plundering of natural and social environment of agriculture is bad. Therefore, it is central to clarify, as Kranzberg says, that "technology is not good, nor bad, rather it is neutral." But this must be understood, to repeat the words of a saint, such as the fact that, "... objects resulting from technological development or use values do not contain a telos, a goal or an inherent sense, so that their organic forms are objectively teleological (right to life ends), so that the purpose of social productive forces is the inherent human and useless for the universal development of mankind while serving for the satisfaction of needs [36]. " Kranzberg says, among other of its laws [37], that "technology is a human activity, and therefore so is the history of technology." It can lead to the essence of this process in human-active transformation of nature, is imbued with the logic of the production system involved, the purpose for which it is developed. This explains for example, why has opted for the development of GMOs with features that favor first to the seed industry and food processing, and not by the research and spread of agro-ecological complex technologies, or other environmentally and socially harmonic [38]. From the social perspective, it is clear that what is private in front of a collective, and thus the capitalist market mechanism as "socializing" of production, is widening the gap between rich and poor, and worsened the extermination by starvation of those classified in the "extreme poverty". Faced with such impressive and particular technological development, with food rotting in the warehouses, if the market indicates the agricultural entrepreneurial class that is the best choice, modern social structures, are nothing other than the configuration of a real war classes, where what is at stake is the food and hence the existence of a large part of the social subject in the world, let alone that of the environment. If the "whole story is relevant, but the history of technology is even more," says Kranzberg; that is prominent, to the extent that, although not all versions of the technology developed and controlled by the capital are suitable for being used by the social revolution (which should include conservation of the environment), nor are all unacceptable. As presented here, I believe therefore that identify and dig into the history of business leaders on the role they play in developing the means of production, is essential to seriously consider any alternative economic, social and environmentally better. Notes [1] Stine and Tarr. "At the intersection of histories." Technology and Culture. The Society for the History of Technology. Vol. 39. No. 4. USA, 1998: 610. [2] Dumas agrees that, "... the modern manufacturing output is determined by the emergence of social structures." Since then, increasingly exploited by the classes that have monopolized the means of production and, therefore, hold power. (See Dumas, Maurice. Générale Histoire des Techniques. Presses Universitaires de France, 1968) [3] Although Rousseau is the first to use the word modernist in the sense that it will be used in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it was not until the beginning of that era, when Marx said that the modern world context in which we live and that comes with capitalism, arises from the expropriation of the means of production, separating them from the worker. [4] Fusell, G.E. "The Agricultural Revolution, 1600-1850" in Kranzberg and Pursell. History of Technology: the art in the West of prehistory to 1900. Vol. Primero.Gustavo Gili. Spain. Pp. 147. [5] Ibid. 147. [6] Ibid. 149. [7] Ibid: 152. [8] The Ransom Company (England) was devoted to the production of iron plows and other tools for agriculture. A rapid expansion of the company, thanks to the patent monopoly, was followed by the depression of the early nineteenth century that led to diversify into construction of bridges (in the years of 1820), blinding (1839), mills, parts trains such as chairs, belts, etc. (1840 to 1869 when that division was separated from the company under the name of Ransome and Rapier), and even, in the first domestic gas installations. For 1849 the company already had over 1000 registered employees. In the same period experiment the production of steam, showing off a portable steam engine at the Royal Agricultural Society in 1841 and the following year a prototype of Automobile. Manufactured the first machine traction in the 1860s. Since then became one of the largest producers of portable steam engines, stationary and traction; exporting the bulk of its production to countries such as Russia, Australia and South America. Between 1920 and 1930 the company was dedicated to the production of electric trucks and a tractor innovative small ones, which had a strong success until 1965. During the Second World War, Ransom manufactured weapons and aircraft. In 1954 began to produce harvesters. In 1989 the agricultural division full of accessories was sold to Electrolux (Sweden), merged with its subsidiary Overum (the Electrolux Group's current sales are higher than the 14 thousand million dollars). Ransom was then focused on the production of blinding. For 1998, Textron Inc., A U.S. multinational with sales of more than 11 thousand million dollars, absorbed what was left of Ransom. [9] refers to the system of rotation of four stages. Turnip Townshend was popularized by Thomas Coke and who introduced it on farms in Norfolk, hence the name. [10] Ibid: 157. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid: 161. [13] To quote Marx in his manuscripts of'44: "The right of a landowner is derived, in its origins, the theft (Say, t. I. Pg. 136 ).... and require an income even for the product natural land (Smith, t. I, pp. 100). " (Marx, Karl. "Income from Earth." Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. In Marx and Engels, MARX, letters of Youth. FCE. Pg. 583. First edition. México, 1982.) [14] Marx, Karl. The Capital. Volume III. Vol. 8. Book Three. Capítulo XXXVII, "La transformación de la Plusganancia en renta de la tierra" . Pág. 815. Siglo XXI. Tercera edición en español. México, 1984. [15] Fusell, Op cit: 161. [16] Cardwell, Donald. Historia de la Tecnología. Alianza Editorial: 113-114. [17] Ibidem. [18] Zinn, Howard. La otra historia de los Estados Unidos. Las otras Voces. 1999: 78. [19] Ibid: 252. [20] Ibid: 192. [21] Ibid. 252. [22] Ibid. 253. [23] Fitzgerald, Deborah. "Mastering Nature and Yeoman: agricultural science in the twentieth century". En Krige y Pestre. Science in the Twentieth Century. Capítulo 36. Harwood Academic Publishers. Francia. [24] Ibid: 702. [25] Ibid: 703. [26] Ibid: 703-704. [27] Para el ranking de multinacionales de los "bionegocios" véase: www.etcgropu.org [28] Véase: Sánchez Ron, José Manuel. El poder de la ciencia. Alianza Editorial. España, 1992. Pp. 219-232. Delgado, Gian Carlo. La Amenaza Biológica. Plaza y Janés. México, 2002. Pp. 317-347. [29] Conocidas como semillas genéticamente modificadas o transgénicos, son "innovaciones" biotecnológicas que parten de la aplicación comercial de técnicas de ingeniería genética. En términos generales, se diseñan las cualidades biológicas de plantas o animales, desde su estructura molecular, celular y genética. [30] Fitzgerald, Op cit: 706. [31] Carson L., Ráchale. Primavera Silenciosa. Crítica-Drakontos. Barcelona 2001: 20-21. [32] http://www.nass.usda.gov/ky/B2002/p41.pdf [33] Consúltese Delgado, 2002. Op cit. Pp. 263. [34] RAFI, "Semillas Transgénicas: ¿Sólo un frenazo o ya cayeron al vacio?", Geno-Types / RAFI. 21/01/2001 [35] Oliver, Richard W. The Coming Biotech Age. Mc Graw-Hill. Nueva York, 2000. Pp. 177. [36] Veraza Urtusiastegüi, Jorge. Para la Crítica de las Teorías del Imperialismo. Itaca. México, 1987: 53-54. [37] Melvin Kranzberg identifica seis leyes respecto a la historia tecnología: 1) La tecnología no es buena ni mala; más bien es neutral. 2) La invención es la madre de la necesidad. 3) La tecnología viene en paquetes grandes o pequeños, niveles en los que puede conservar íntegramente el mismo grado de complejidad. 4) A pesar de que la tecnología puede ser un elemento primario en muchos asuntos públicos, los factores no-técnicos tienden a preceder en las decisiones de política sobre desarrollo tecnológico. 5) Toda la historia es relevante, pero la historia de la tecnología es la más relevante. 6)La tecnología es una actividad humana, y por lo tanto también lo es la historia de la tecnología. (Véase Kranzberg, Melvin. Technology and Culture. No. 27. EUA, 1986: 544-560). [38] Consúltese Delgado, 2002. Pp. 257-283. [*] Economista mexicano egresado de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Autor de La Amenaza Biológica: mitos y falsas promesas de la biotecnología. Plaza y Janes. México, 2002. Actualmente realiza sus estudios de postgrado en la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona con el auspicio de la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional. Gian Carlo Delgado[*] Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
SUMMARY
In reviewing the history of technological development in agriculture "modern", draws attention, but not surprised, that the major players involved in that process are placed today at the forefront of business leaders from the farm business (seedling, agrochemical, food, etc.). Such historical inquiry, gives account of how they were forming and strengthening the social structures that would impose the logic of capitalist production, from which it is increasingly boost productivity and greater exploitation of the working class and farming environment.
