The first half of the twentieth century saw peasant and workers’ uprisings in different parts of the world. The imperialist powers were determined to counter all obstructions in their path. Discussions on land redistribution were gaining great traction and people were starting to see the flaws of the “democracy of capitalist society”. With the guise of saving the third world nations from poverty and hunger, which was caused by the imperialist wars in the first place, the Green Revolution became a project to institutionalise agriculture and integrate it into the capitalist market.
The Green Revolution changed the way agriculture was practised in many countries, mostly the third
world, the “developing” countries. The introduction of new technologies, high yielding crop varieties, irrigation technology, and fertilisers became a significant drivers of the program initiated bythe US based Rockefeller foundation. The intentions with which the Green Revolution was introduced are far from innocent, it mimics the imperialist agenda of the capitalist production of food grains during the company raj. It is important to look at the different knowledge cultures used by the west to legitimise the green revolution program. Implementation of such programs have left lasting impacts in the agricultural landscape in places where it was implemented, wrecking havoc to the traditional agricultural cycle that the locals were used to. The technological advancements that the program brought to possibly increase agricultural productivity were only fit for the rich farmers to adopt and rendered unfeasible for the peasants and small farmers. Having access to land and capital the elite/rich farmers readily absorbed the technology that the Green Revolution brought with it and by yielding large produce, became the loyal subjects of the imperialist agenda of the corporate food regime. The Green Revolution is a process controlled by experts leading to the reproduction of social, economic, and political institutions. The seed- fertiliser packet is a key element in perpetuating political institutions. The consequences of this global “development” program has forever disturbed the ecological and environmental, but more importantly, political orientation of some regions in the world where it was implemented; places like Mexico, India, Philippines, parts of Africa, etc.
It becomes important now to go back to Mexico and revisit the agricultural program that was started by the Rockefeller Foundation and examine the political shifts it influenced and completely overturned traditional food production cycles. Mexico saw a great number of political uprisings from 1910 to 1940, beginning as a battle against the dictatorship under Porfirio Diaz, to wide-spread demands of land reforms and establishment of democratic institutions. The revolution led to the abolition of the Hacienda system, a feudal agrarian system, establishment of public schools, labour unions, distribution of land to peasants and indigenous communities. After the presidential power shifted from Lazaro Cardenaz, in 1940, to a much more conservative candidate, Avila Camacho, the agricultural program began as a joint venture between the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican government (although the Mexican government didn’t have a say, it was the Foundation that drove the decisions throughout). The cooperation envisioned by the Foundation met with resistance. Many scholars detested the US agronomists’ approach to the local- social systems of food production that were already well established in Mexico.
It must be duly noted that the advisory council that gave shape to the policies were financiers and councillors with a history of advancing capitalist interests. Agricultural theorists and economists who applauded the peasant revolutions in China and Vietnam were actively kept away from the discussions.It was expressed that the commercialization of Mexican agriculture that the Americans envisioned cannot be achieved without upsetting the native economy and culture. Interventions, if any at all, should be approached from an appreciation of the already established economy (that is the local culture and mode of production of Mexico). The Mexican Agricultural program (MAP) strode away from subsistence (village level agriculture) to a more commercial agriculture (city and factory based agriculture), which would require heavy standardisation on yield and the use of advanced technological instruments that are going to make the factory type production of agriculture possible. These new methods can only be absorbed by the privileged group of the population. It was also perceived that the success of the program would come at the disappearance of the native corns and other crops, completely destroying the indigenous agricultural industry of Mexico. The program never intended to deal with the social reforms. The focus on increasing agricultural productivity over addressing social relations of production that were deeply unequal in nature resulted in the concentration of land ownership in the hands of large landowners and agribusinesses, which further marginalised small farmers and indigenous communities. Adding on to these, the use of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilisers led to the displacement of traditional farming practices and the loss of traditional knowledge and biodiversity.
The MAP (Mexican Agricultural Program) was met with a lot of resistance by the peasants who were the majority of the population, not equipped, rather, not privileged enough to absorb the technological methods for a higher production.
These communities completely rejected the Green Revolution. Peasants resisting the program were labelled as “counter- Green Revolutionaries” and considered as “peasant conservatives”, disregarding the actual consequences of the program, represented by the majority of the population. Any upheaval against the infiltration of such imperialist forces, the elite ensured the subjugation of these by the intervention of military, CIA, and its associates. Wealthier farmers who were more equipped to absorb the methods of MAP, produced results favourable to the US government. The Green revolution significantly altered the relationship between social classes in the third world countries; it made the class divisions stronger.
This program’s operation in Mexico is important to note because the foundation has used the results of MAP’s implementation in the Mexican agricultural landscape to legitimise the mission of Green Revolution and expand it to Columbia and other Asian countries.
It must be duly noted that the advisory council that gave shape to the policies were financiers and councillors with a history of advancing capitalist interests. Agricultural theorists and economists who applauded the peasant revolutions in China and Vietnam were actively kept away from the discussions.
