The Political Economy of the Family Farm: The Agrarian Roots of American Capitalism.

1993 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 1609
Author(s):  
Robert A. McGuire ◽  
Sue Headlee
2019 ◽  
pp. 12-22
Author(s):  
Lise Vogel

In the late 1960s, the North American women's liberation movement was reaching a highpoint of activity, its militancy complemented by a flourishing literature. This was the environment into which Margaret Benston's 1969 Monthly Review essay, "The Political Economy of Women's Liberation," struck like a lightning bolt. At the time, many in the movement were describing women's situation in terms of sociological roles, functions, and structures—reproduction, socialization, psychology, sexuality, and the like. In contrast, Benston proposed an analysis in Marxist terms of women's unpaid labor in the family household. In this way, she definitively shifted the framework for discussion of women's oppression onto the terrain of Marxist political economy.


1980 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. C. Pasour

Criticism of current agricultural programs is coming from within and outside agriculture. Secretary Bergland in recent “grassroots hearings” has called for new approaches in agricultural policy in which recipient benefits do not hinge on size of farming operation. Hjort suggests that despite widespread agreement on the objective of encouraging the family farm, “the cumulative effect of our farm programs may well have been to hasten the concentration of the farm sector….” (Hjort, p. 748). Producers of flue-cured tobacco voted overwhelmingly in December 1979 to continue a program but are upset about high quota rental prices. Outside agriculture, consumers are unhappy about the effects of farm programs on prices of milk, sugar, and other products. Students of the political process are concerned about the effects of the use of state power by small, politically powerful groups to secure economic gains.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 578-609
Author(s):  
TIAGO MATA

The 1930s transformed American capitalism. This article interrogates the political economy of two business magazines created at the start of the Great Depression. I argue thatBusiness Week’s andFortune’s signature approaches to reporting articulated an ideal conception of the manager. The early century conception saw the manager as engineer of operational efficiency. The new ideal viewed the manager as a political economist coordinating firms with their external environment, notably an interventionist and scrutinizing state, volatile markets, and a critical public opinion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document