Chayanov Part II--D. Wilson

I came away from chapter four with some similar thoughts to Hana--that one of the key points in making distinctions between economies is valuation. Within the nonmonetary farm, outputs are evaluated completely differently than with the monetary farm, the latter driven by the need to produce profit as the end result as opposed to producing [literally] strictly foodstuff. Note the dynamics at play:

"In the nonmonetary farm the question of whether it is more advantageous to sow rye or mow hay, for example, could not arise, since they could not replace each other and thus had no common scale for comparison. The value of the hay obtained was measured in terms of the need for fodder, and the value of the rye in terms of feeding the family. You could even assert that meadows increased in value the poorer they were and the more labor they required to obtain each pud of hay" (124).

We measure the product by its purpose on the farm for the people who directly benefit. The comparison scale no longer applies, at least in terms of monetary cost of production. I don't think we can separate internal farm production from such measures as opportunity cost, however--no farm makes everything and there are different indicators of success or the moment at which a farm should specialise. Inputs to measure opportunity cost would include need for a product (if you need rye, you'll make it--no relying on a specialised outside labour force) and the length of the working day for producing a particular output (148). But at which point is the farm affected by outside interventions or actors? When are the managerial decisions in running the farm affected by a market economy? Is resistance possible and sustainable?

There's something unique about a farm "producing" a non-agrarian product like profit, a product not from the land directly. How would farmers react to producing something that they'll never touch?