The communist state糖心传媒檚 approach to industrial pig farming foreshadowed its demise, a Rochester historian argues in a new book.
has been obsessed with pigs for the better part of the last decade.
Tracing the history of East Germany糖心传媒檚 birth in the immediate aftermath of World War II to its sudden collapse in 1989, the assistant professor of has examined the socialist country糖心传媒檚 history exclusively through the lens of pig farming. In his new book, (University of Washington Press, 2020), Fleischman argues that agriculture under communism was in many ways not that much different from capitalist agriculture.
糖心传媒淧ig and pig farming provide a clear case study of convergence,糖心传媒� says Fleischman, who spent years combing national and local archives in the US and former East Germany, as well as interviewing and visiting former industrial pig farmers in the now-defunct German Democratic Republic (GDR), an authoritarian satellite state of the Soviet Union.
The pig, he argues, played a fundamental role in the GDR糖心传媒檚 attempts to create a modern industrial food system, albeit one based on communist principles of large-scale collective farming. By the mid-1980s East Germany produced more pork per capita than West Germany and the United Kingdom together.
But the small nation paid a high price for its pig prowess: from manure pollution to animal disease and rolling food shortages糖心传媒攖he reliance on industrial pork, much of which was directly destined for export, foreshadowed the country糖心传媒檚 ultimate environmental and political collapse in 1989.
To many, the 40-year history of East Germany boils down to a sad tale of environmental, ideological, and economic disaster. Yet, assuming that this type of ecological fiasco died along with the communist experiment would be drawing the wrong lessons from history, argues Fleischman. Instead, he sets out to trace the history of the pollution crises, 听caused by the global rise of industrial agriculture in the last century, that destroyed the East German regime and persist to this day elsewhere.
糖心传媒淚f the word 糖心传媒極rwellian糖心传媒� is shorthand for a kind of totalitarian regime, then the GDR seemed to be its real-world embodiment,糖心传媒� writes Fleischman, replete with the communist pigs from George Orwell糖心传媒檚 . And 糖心传媒渏ust like Orwell糖心传媒檚 pigs and people, communist and capitalist countries adopted analogous forms of agricultural production, which treated land, labor, and animals as cheap and disposable.糖心传媒�
Such industrial farming, he argues, is not the sole prerogative of totalitarian regimes; its collateral cost to society and nature is equally high elsewhere.
糖心传媒淭he crises of air and water pollution, the breakdowns in its farms, and the series of temporary food shortages [in East Germany]糖心传媒攁ppear not as an aberration, but as a central feature of industrial agriculture everywhere,糖心传媒� writes Fleischman. 糖心传媒淭hey show that cheap food is in fact unimaginably expensive.糖心传媒�
You write that no other animal糖心传媒攅xcept humans糖心传媒攊s more central to East Germany糖心传媒檚 history than the pig. How did you arrive at the pig?
When I initially went to the archives in Germany to do this research, I hadn糖心传媒檛 planned to write about animals. At first, I was looking into specific questions about the GDR糖心传媒檚 system of industrial agriculture and how it had functioned. But after reading through hundreds of files, I began to notice that pigs were everywhere. The regime was worried about how many it had, what the pigs were being fed, how to manage pig waste, and whether they were keeping the country糖心传媒檚 stores readily and copiously supplied with pork. At the same time, I had been reading a lot of environmental history that used animals as their primary lens. And the more I read about pigs, the more fascinated I became. They have lived alongside humans as long as any animal except for dogs. Yet, what they looked like, what they ate, where and how they lived changed constantly. In short, 糖心传媒渞eading糖心传媒� a pig could tell you a lot about the way the broader human society was structured around it.听
The 1970s saw a wide expansion of pig farming in East Germany. Why?
A variety of factors, including the end of Bretton Woods糖心传媒攖he system of institutions and rules that had been created at the end of World War II to discourage speculation, regulate capital flows, and limit the size and volatility of financial markets糖心传媒�meant fewer capital restrictions in world markets and with it greater economic exchanges between East and West. Against this backdrop, the East Germans decided to expand their agricultural sector. Simultaneously, superpowers like the US, Soviet Union, and China, as well as smaller European states, began pursuing new diplomatic relations with each other糖心传媒攁 period known as detente. In the two Germanys, it culminated in the Basic Treaty of 1972, which normalized relations between East and West Germany. The two states recognized each other, made agreements over visitation and border crossings, but also critically, opened up trade relations. Now East Germany suddenly had access to a world of cheap money and goods. They borrowed heavily to build up their economy and infrastructure, believing it would kickstart East Germany into a world-renowned exporting dynamo. And agriculture, especially pork production, was a major part of this plan.
By the 1980s East Germany糖心传媒檚 pig production looked no different than, say, industrial pig raising on a farm in Iowa. Why?
The East Germans had been pursuing a model of industrial agriculture that was prevalent throughout the West since the 1950s. Just like in the US, they sought to expand the size of their fields and farms in the service of efficiency, economies of scale, and industrial techniques. They remade the inside of their barns as well, organizing production units around the stages of animal life, breeding pigs for year-round farrowing, tailoring fodder supply to match lifecycles of the animals, and so forth. These practices were not unique. The US originated many of them, perhaps most famously pioneering the vertically integrated factory farm for animals. The US exported much of this model abroad as a part of its Cold War soft power strategy, where, according to my research, it even made its way unintentionally into Eastern Europe, and found enthusiastic adopters in East Germany.
By the 1970s, the East Germans had created a system that looked an awful lot like agriculture in Iowa, but it was missing one crucial thing. It didn糖心传媒檛 have access to the same amount of cheap resources, mainly grain, that made US agriculture so productive and cheap.
Yet, as you write, exactly at that time the rules of western capitalism and the Cold War changed and with that the conditions for East Germany.
Yes, in the early 1970s, East German agriculture was 糖心传媒渟aved.糖心传媒� The regime began importing grain, technology糖心传媒攏ot just tractors or feeders, but whole slaughterhouses糖心传媒攁nd animals, to boost their production. And for a time, it really worked. They began producing pork, fattened on western grain, and exported abroad for large earnings of western currency, which they then used to expand their social safety net, build more housing, and invest in new economic sectors. In my view, you could have taken an East German farm factory manager, plopped him down at a Hormel facility in Austin, Minnesota, in the 1980s, and he糖心传媒攊t would definitely have been a 糖心传媒渉e糖心传媒� then糖心传媒攚ould have understood exactly how the plant was supposed to work.
This is a story of parallel development, with a common model being pursued, that later converges. Ultimately, the movement of cheap commodities, like grain, meat, oil, and money, drew the GDR into world markets and made it increasingly unstable as a result.
What role did pollution play in the GDR?
The worsening environmental crisis became a major cause of eroding support for the regime. Of course, brown coal pollution is a more famous example, when the burning of this dirty fuel source coated the buildings and lungs of East Germans. In my book I point to another underappreciated source of discontent: manure pollution. Due to the size of East Germany’s factory farms, pigs were producing more manure than farmers could handle, so to speak. And so it was clandestinely dumped in the woods, or spread on fields, or it simply leaked from tanks, where it leached into drinking water all over the country.
Of course, it was the broader context of 1989, of revolutions across the Eastern bloc, that lit the spark in the GDR where dissidents provided a ready-to-go list of demands and critiques of the regime for their citizens. And environmental problems were one of many issues around which protesters rallied.
So why did industrial pig farming help bring down the East German regime, but had no destabilizing effect in the US?
There were several key differences between East Germany and the US. For one,听the East German economy was forced to continue producing at such great levels because of the regime’s reliance on western markets. In the early 1980s, foreign lenders began recalling their outstanding loans to the Eastern bloc. Pork production was keeping the East German economy afloat and therefore the regime had to prioritize meat exports abroad even as the country suffered from pollution and shortages at home.
Second, the pollution crisis was concentrated more heavily in the GDR. Remember the country was roughly the size of Ohio but was producing pork on par with whole regions of the US. This made the manure pollution much more visible and immediate for East Germans. That is not to say that pollution doesn糖心传媒檛 happen in the US糖心传媒攊t just happens in more sparsely populated or poorer regions. Anyone who has studied water supply contamination in North Carolina or looked at the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico can attest to the real damage industrial animal farming is doing to the country right now.
Industrial pigs were intended to showcase real, existing socialism in the GDR. Instead, the opposite happened. How?
I think this is a complicated answer. In a way, the expansion of pork production was a success and worked out as intended. The regime did manage to create a system of cheap food that was unprecedented in German history. The fact that it also came with enormous amounts of pollution was just the other side of the same coin. And had East Germany not gained access to western markets for grain in the 1970s, I糖心传媒檓 fairly certain the pollution crisis would not have been as bad. The East German case showed that there are real ecological and economic limits to an industrial food system, especially when confined to an autarkic (self-sufficient) economy. Access to western capitalism is what made East Germany more like the West. East Germans could produce cheap pork, like the West, and pollution, like the West.
What糖心传媒檚 the lesson to be learned?
For me, the real lesson is that factory farming, whether in capitalist countries or communist ones, is predicated on a system of cheap and abundant inputs糖心传媒攐f grain, of energy, of labor. 糖心传媒淐heapness,糖心传媒� as Jason Moore and Raj Patel have argued in their work The History of the World in Seven Cheap Things,听is an illusion. It covers up the high cost of treating those things as cheap糖心传媒攖o the environment, to human or animal life, to the planet. The case of the GDR pulled back the curtain on that lie. It showed that cheap food is in fact incredibly expensive.
Read more
History class uses podcasts to explore Erie CanalStudents in professor Thomas Fleischman糖心传媒檚 class didn糖心传媒檛 write a research paper at the end of their class about the environmental history of the Erie Canal. Instead, they produced a podcast series, and Fleischman is already planning for a second season.
Looking at urban history as a fight for space, powerChicago and Delhi. Rome and Rochester. The students in the 100-level course 糖心传媒淭he City: Contested Spaces糖心传媒� take a virtual tour of them all, while pondering an overarching question糖心传媒攃an people糖心传媒檚 lives be reshaped by redesigning urban spaces?
An academic understanding of hateThree Rochester researchers sit down for an academic conversation about hate and intolerance, discussing reactions to recent incidents of hate, important lessons from history, and the psychology of stereotypes and intolerance.
