Читаем Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism полностью

If such figures confirm the verdict that the Battle of Wheat benefited primarily the more modern sectors of Italian agriculture, such as the areas of capitalist agriculture of the Po Valley, the effects were no less dramatic in the south, where the legendarily backward large estates dominated.[49] In 1938 the newspaper Agricoltura Fascista claimed that no less than 65 percent of the wheat fields of the south were cultivated with the new hybrids.[50] In Apulia, Senatore Cappelli was the strain of hard wheat responsible for the diffusion of Strampelli’s name through the fields. Between 1937 and 1938 there was a fierce debate among Italian wheat experts on where in the southern regions it was advisable to use the new high-yield soft wheats, and which areas should stick to the more reliable but less productive hard wheats, which were better adapted to the arid conditions.[51] But if the main results in northern regions were due to intensify grain production, in the south the “Battle of Wheat” was fought by greatly expanding wheat acreage into previously uncultivated areas occupied by grasslands and woods. While in northern and central Italy the area dedicated to wheat cultivation increased by only 5 percent between the beginning of the 1920s and the end of the 1930s, corresponding to an extra 116,000 hectares (290,000 acres), in the south the wheat fields were enlarged by about 265,000 hectares (662,500 acres), or 13 percent.[52] The immediate result of such expansion was not only an increment in wheat production but also a true disaster for animal husbandry, a major activity in the economy of southern Italy: between 1926 and 1929 the number of sheep and goats declined by between 4 million and 5 million.[53]

Such major effects on the Italian landscape were, of course, results of the gigantic act of propaganda of the Battle of Wheat. This was not just empty fascist rhetoric, for we are dealing here with a concrete increased infrastructural presence of the state in the territory. In fact, one of the initiatives promoted by the campaign was the formation of associations and consortia of farmers financed by the state with the aim of producing and distributing new high-yield seeds.[54] By 1930, seven seed centers (in Sardinia, Sicily, Calabria, Puglia, Basilicata, Lazio, and Tuscany) had been set up by farmers’ syndicates. The connection with Strampelli’s Institute of Genetics couldn’t be more intimate: its local experiment stations, such as those in Foggia and on the island of Sardinia, were responsible for forming the local consortia. Selected farmers in each region were trusted with the task of reproducing the elite seeds under controlled conditions by the experiment station, after which the consortia would sell the certified seeds to farmers at controlled prices. Small landholders were given, gratis, a small quantity of selected seed under the obligation of cultivating it and getting rid of an equivalent amount of traditional landraces or, as an alternative, were paid back the difference between the price of new strains and traditional ones. From 1926 to 1930 about 100,000 quintals of selected seed were handed to small farmers through this scheme of “seed exchange,” which aimed at a large-scale replacement of traditional varieties in Italian fields by the breeders’ technoscientific artifacts.[55]

The targeting of small landholders didn’t change the fact that large farmers were the main beneficiaries of the system: they controlled the consortia, got extra income from reproducing selected seeds because they had been selected as model farmers, and had more capital with which to buy the fertilizers that revealed the good qualities of the new strains. Only if small farmers were given Strampelli’s varieties at no cost could they be persuaded to use the new seeds. To convince them, the campaign funded, in addition, no less than 30,000 demonstration fields scattered through every wheat-producing village in the country.[56] These were small properties of no more than a hectare (2½ acres), always close to public roads, for which small farmers received free seed and fertilizers for a couple of years. At key moments—seeding, fertilization, and harvest—the consortia invited the rest of the local farmers to observe the results, which were also publicized in the local press and by local priests.

Перейти на страницу:

Все книги серии Inside Technology

Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism
Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism

In the fascist regimes of Mussolini's Italy, Salazar's Portugal, and Hitler's Germany, the first mass mobilizations involved wheat engineered to take advantage of chemical fertilizers, potatoes resistant to late blight, and pigs that thrived on national produce. Food independence was an early goal of fascism; indeed, as Tiago Saraiva writes in Fascist Pigs, fascists were obsessed with projects to feed the national body from the national soil. Saraiva shows how such technoscientific organisms as specially bred wheat and pigs became important elements in the institutionalization and expansion of fascist regimes. The pigs, the potatoes, and the wheat embodied fascism. In Nazi Germany, only plants and animals conforming to the new national standards would be allowed to reproduce. Pigs that didn't efficiently convert German-grown potatoes into pork and lard were eliminated.Saraiva describes national campaigns that intertwined the work of geneticists with new state bureaucracies; discusses fascist empires, considering forced labor on coffee, rubber, and cotton in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Eastern Europe; and explores fascist genocides, following Karakul sheep from a laboratory in Germany to Eastern Europe, Libya, Ethiopia, and Angola.Saraiva's highly original account — the first systematic study of the relation between science and fascism — argues that the "back to the land" aspect of fascism should be understood as a modernist experiment involving geneticists and their organisms, mass propaganda, overgrown bureaucracy, and violent colonialism.Inside Technologyedited by Wiebe E. Bijker, W. Bernard Carlson, and Trevor J. PinchA list of the series appears at the back of the book.

Tiago Saraiva

История

Похожие книги

100 великих интриг
100 великих интриг

Нередко политические интриги становятся главными двигателями истории. Заговоры, покушения, провокации, аресты, казни, бунты и военные перевороты – все эти события могут составлять только часть одной, хитро спланированной, интриги, начинавшейся с короткой записки, вовремя произнесенной фразы или многозначительного молчания во время важной беседы царствующих особ и закончившейся грандиозным сломом целой эпохи.Суд над Сократом, заговор Катилины, Цезарь и Клеопатра, интриги Мессалины, мрачная слава Старца Горы, заговор Пацци, Варфоломеевская ночь, убийство Валленштейна, таинственная смерть Людвига Баварского, загадки Нюрнбергского процесса… Об этом и многом другом рассказывает очередная книга серии.

Виктор Николаевич Еремин

Биографии и Мемуары / История / Энциклопедии / Образование и наука / Словари и Энциклопедии
1917 год. Распад
1917 год. Распад

Фундаментальный труд российского историка О. Р. Айрапетова об участии Российской империи в Первой мировой войне является попыткой объединить анализ внешней, военной, внутренней и экономической политики Российской империи в 1914–1917 годов (до Февральской революции 1917 г.) с учетом предвоенного периода, особенности которого предопределили развитие и формы внешне– и внутриполитических конфликтов в погибшей в 1917 году стране.В четвертом, заключительном томе "1917. Распад" повествуется о взаимосвязи военных и революционных событий в России начала XX века, анализируются результаты свержения монархии и прихода к власти большевиков, повлиявшие на исход и последствия войны.

Олег Рудольфович Айрапетов

Военная документалистика и аналитика / История / Военная документалистика / Образование и наука / Документальное