INVESTMENT ON POOR 35 strengthened national bourgeoisie. They had hoped that better chances for marketing would come about from the consolidation of small and middle-sized farms3. This, however, did not take place to the extent desired. Nevertheless, it brought about an increase in the commodity exchanges between the industrial and agricultural sectors. Mexico even achieved self-sufficiency in agricultural products. With this, the second goal of the bourgeois agricultural reform, namely the cheapening of food items for the industrial working class, was achieved. It complemented the first goal already mentioned. However, the consolidation of the internal markets, with the corresponding growth rates, did not come about.4 The agrarian reforms, moreover, brought about a certain redistribution of land. It brought about a rise in agricultural commodity production because of the intensification of the land-labour relationship as against the previously extensive agriculture of the large landowners; but did not lead to the formation of a broader strata of middle farming enterprises. The reason for this can be found in the simultaneous existence of bigger agricultural enterprises (Neolatifundio). This is in no way to be attributed only to the opposition of the agricultural oligarchy against expropriation. The divided land pieces were from the beginning too small to make an accumulation possible, which would be sufficient for capitalization and become middle farmers. Rather, it can be attributed to profitable investment of capital. (Here the contradiction between the agricultural oligarchy and the industrial bourgeoisie is resolved). The big enterprises are able to accumulate and therefore make up for and rapidly surpass the original head-start which the peasants have achieved through labour intensification. The consequence of this development for the peasant is unbearably low prices, forcing him out of competition. This leads to a retreat of the peasants to subsistence production. This phenomenon is in no way typical of Mexico. It occurs wherever peasant producers and big agricultural enterprises exist alongside each other. It is not the lack of market integration, rather its increase, that leads to the impoverishment of the peasants and to a retreat to (not persistence in) self-consumption. This effect is unavoidable in capitalism, which runs against the interest of capital. Hence, it has to be overcome by means of a credit programme for the peasant and handicraft producers. The goal is "to draw farmers from subsistence to commercial agriculture.'^However, no qualitatively new process of market integration