Green Book and Medieval Conditions

Citing the Green book of Muammar al-Qaddafi (p. 59):

EXAMPLES OF WAGE-LABOUR: FOR THE SOCIETY, FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND SELF-EMPLOYMENT:

• First example:
  • (a) A worker produces ten apples for society. The society gives him one apple for his production and it fully satisfies his needs.
  • (b) A worker produces ten apples for society. The society gives him one apple for his production which does not satisfy his needs.
  
  
  
• Second example:
  • A worker produces ten apples for another person and gets wages less than the price of one apple.
  
  
  
• Third example:
  • A worker produces ten apples for himself.
  
  
  
• The conclusion:
  • In the first example (a), because the worker’s wages are limited to one unit which satisfies his needs, he has no incentive to increase his production. Thus, all the labour force that works for society is psychologically apathetic.
  • (b) The worker has no incentive even to produce because he cannot satisfy his needs from the wages. However, he continues working without any incentives because generally, like all members, he is forced to acquiesce to the working conditions of the society.
    
    
  • In the second example, the worker works basically to get wages and not to produce. Since his wages cannot satisfy his needs, the choices are either to look for another master to get a better price for his work, or be forced, as a matter of survival, to remain where he is.
    
    
  • In the third example, the self-employed alone is the one who produces eagerly and voluntarily.

If a Medieval peasant produced ten apples, how many did he keep? I'd say, nine.

OK, perhaps not always apples - but ten sheaves of wheat, he arguably kept eight to nine.

Why?

Because peasants were 9 tenths of society, and because expert was low.

This means, he arguably kept most of what he produced.

Producing for others is limited to:

• needs of others in society
• needs of exporters

Now, as to export, arguably the price of sales abroad went to a high extent to his lord.

As to needs of others (non-peasants, not even related as family), this included the lord, and this went through the lord, he arguably kept rather much of this part, if not as needing it himself, at least as selling it for others.

It seems I recall - but you had better verify with Régine Pernoud - that the peasant even if he was a serf, kept all he produced on one piece of land, the glebe, while the lord kept all his serfs produced on the demesne. This means, if the peasant had a surplus, he could at least sell it locally and thereby improve his conditions as to assets he was not growing on his glebe.

Yes, I think this means, conditions were rather benign for the Medieval peasant.

Today, farmers have lots more machinery, but, they are much more of a minority in each country and also much less selfsupporting in diversity of needs, and therefore much more individually dependent on markets. This means, today the example of a farmer producing ten apples and keeping one is in fact realistic.

This also means, they need much more fuel to transport what they produce and to buy what they don't produce.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Nicasius and Eutropia of Rheims
14.XII.2018