Why are farmers not in charge?

Humanities and Social Science
1

I am sure this is a question that has been asked for ages, but I think putting this to public discussion would help me organize my thoughts around it.

I worded my question this way because I am not looking for a critique on any specific economic system. Recently, I learned that among the Aztec people, even before they became an agricultural society, family units were patriarchal and women were the main foraging workforce. This is just one demonstration of the separation between leadership and labor that is necessary for survival. I can accept that good leadership is necessary for survival as well since the Aztecs needed to move from place to place depending on weather and political relationships with surrounding family units. However, why are the woman providers not the ones making the decisions in that case? Would they, having done the majority of the foraging, not have know what biomes or habitats would be the best for foraging and shelter?

My question is about why necessary labor is not valued more highly, labor of those who provide for humanity’s survival (caregivers, cooks, doctors, farmers, etc.), but I’ll use farmers as the main example. To extrapolate to modern times from that example, why aren’t farmers running the world? We all depend vitally on the production of labor performed by farmers. What keeps them from uniting and making demands on the rest of the world? Would it not be within their rights as the sustainers of our survival? Given their expertise and knowledge of environmental engineering, do they not have the best chance of ensuring a sustainable future for everyone?

My first hypothesis is that necessary work left undone forms a vacuum, and that vacuum is filled by those most willing to perform the work; then leadership roles are filled by the surplus individuals (those who were least willing to work). I recognize that division of labor exists for efficiency and specialization and when specialists of production spend their time working, they forfeit time that they could be building social capital, gathering information, and allocating surplus labor to improve future conditions. It’s just I would have thought that experienced farmers would care enough about farming as members of that community to advocate for other farmers and have some social influence to accomplish that goal.

My hypothesis is built on a specific example, again from reading about the Aztecs. The Aztecs tell a story of one leader who tries to convince another family unit to adopt an agricultural lifestyle. The dynamic that I noticed in the story was that this was a leader (who presumably did not forage or farm) who was trying to appeal to the workers of the other family unit by saying that they would not have to walk so much to find their food. He then appealed to the other unit’s leaders by saying that it left so much time to do other things like building nice houses to live in. In essence, their leaders did not recognize the value of the work the workers were doing and the way they were doing it until it became apparent they could get better things out of it than just survival. They would have continued foraging and subsisting despite the fact that they actually had some amount of surplus individuals (leaders and perhaps others) who had the energy to feud and fill leadership roles. Note that in the story it was not enough for the other unit’s leaders to know that their foragers (their wives and daughters presumably) could spend less time foraging. They essentially had to be told that they could get more from their people’s labor. I hypothesize that the other unit’s leaders (and probably the agricultural advocate as well before learning to farm) were not concerned about how food was secured simply because they did not want to be the ones to do the work. In my mind, it would seem they wanted nothing to do with the work.

In short, is it people that view menial labor as beneath them that end up in power? Is it shallow or shortsighted or cynical of me to think that leaders are mostly charismatic freeloaders? Why do hardworking experts not challenge leaders for the role of leadership more often? Why do they not succeed if they do challenge them? Do farmers shy away from that role?

These are the kind of questions I’m grappling with and trying to wrestle into boxes.

1 Like
6

Yes. Any blanket statement about a demographic group is short-sighted. Some people are undoubtedly lazy freeloaders who chance upon a means of leeching off others.

A lot of people tend to expect freedom without taking the burden of responsibility into account. I say ‘a lot’ but maybe I am being short-sighted.

Some people are just plain stupid. More than I would prefer. This has been my general experience in life even though I still believe in humanity as a whole. Stupidity has its upsides.

1 Like
7

The same reason why priests and religious ministers are no longer in charge as heads of state. Because science.

Just because you can plant a seed in the ground and watch it so it doesn’t die, doesn’t mean you understand a single thing about the larger world around you, which includes sociology, political theory, economics, environmental conditions (though admittedly many have their localized expertise, tried and true, absolutely).

No man is an island. We need farmers. But we also need people who understand the larger world and human nature as a whole. Most farmers are very well-cultured, hardworking people who know more than the average man, not just in their particular trade but in many other aspects that encroach on topics as far and wide as the imagination itself. But that doesn’t change the fact there are greater skill sets needed, particularly in a modern age of progressing innovation that the average (and even above average) farmer simply does not possess.

Also—as an aside—I’d be careful about taking “historical facts” about a people that fell victim to war. Most of it tends to be regurgitated propaganda by the conquering force made to make their general public sleep soundly at night not realizing how insane and evil they are. They basically just make up the worst things possible and twist every single truth and half-truth into something that fits an agenda. Anything that tugs on the heartstrings. Child sacrifice rituals, enslavement, rape, the usual subject matter. “History is written by the winners.” Surely you’ve heard that phrase before?

One doesn’t have to view something as “beneath” one’s self to understand it is but a single component of a larger machine, that without other components would cease to function, or at least not function nearly as well as it could be.

People tend to like a hard-working man who came up from nothing as opposed to someone who never worked a day in their life, for example. In a democracy, this relatable nature can go quite far.

Intelligent beings are manipulative by nature. Not automatically vindictive and predatory, no. But we certainly evolved the ability to get what one desires for less work than perhaps most others typically have to perform. This is is precipice of all innovation and invention. Finding a shortcut or greater efficiency that others before did not see, use, or realize, is it not?

Without any sort of documentation or study that seems to align reality with your arbitrary implication, I guess the answer would be something along the lines of “probably because they’re busy.”

I can’t be sure which type of society or “age” you wish this question to be answered in relevance to, but assuming you mean now in a modern democracy, it’s likely for lack of campaign funding. Why waste your nest egg taking a long shot chance at something you know is likely to not succeed. It’s about picking one’s battles, perhaps.

Humility is generally a widely-shared trait by men who work the land. Realizing you’re not the smartest guy in the world and that others who went to college with their “fancy learning” just might know better than you in some (if not many) situations. A person who isn’t trained in CPR doesn’t “shy away” from giving first aid to someone in need if someone who is trained is present. Lot of “loaded” wordage in your OP, in my opinion. Which is fine. I’m guilty of this myself at times. Good topic, OP. May it be fruitful.

8

There’s a compelling theory that widespread agriculture developed because power seekers, warlords or whatever, needed armies, or to put it another way, they needed cheap calories. The evidence suggests that they had to force people into agriculture, because it was backbreaking work and the living conditions were terrible.

Through this lens it looks far worse than freeloading.