Soluri's Neglected Theme

In the discussion of themes and emphasis in his book, Banana Cultures, John Soluri admits that, "Political leaders, customarily assigned leading roles in historical drama, are here upstaged by banana plants, pathogens, and working people.  My decision to move politics off center stage is not to deny its importance to the story of banana production."  [p.12] 

Yet, it was "politics" (monopolies) which was crucial in what shaped banana production in the North Coast of Honduras: ". . . the profits made by the U.S. Fruit companies operating in Honduras resulted largely from their ability to secure generous concessions that provided them monopoly privileges over regional transportation networks, access to subsidized soil and water resources, and the ability to import workers."  [Ibid.]

Had this monopolistic practice not been granted, the history of the North Coast would have been considerably different.  Economic theory has demonstrated that once monopolies are granted, negative, and often nasty externalities result – "overpriced" and shoddy products, inefficiencies, bloated, bureaucratic management, etc.  Moreover, without competing firms bidding for workers, wage rates tend to stagnate.  It was not the unions that the banana laborers needed to increase wages, but competition.  Soluri accurately points out that union policies caused United Fruit to switch to labor - reducing technologies and production methods.        

Soluri's critique of United Fruit's practices (who acted as any monopolist would) should also be directed at the authorities which granted them in the first place – the Honduran ruling elite and their U.S. overlord who often enforced them by bayonet.

Soluri's narrative of the North Coast banana trade shows that "exploitation" does not, as the Marxists and their fellow travelers contend, derive from labor not receiving its just reward in the production process, but exploitation comes from the state in its grants of monopoly privileges and largesse to its favorites.