Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: hogs



HOGGING THE ENVIRONMENT

   I had commented on the mega-hog farms which apparently concentrate
the means of production and realize economies of scale. Then Jon Flanders
responded:

>   Jim, I didn't say that economies of scale were bad, I did say that there is
>"nothing inherently progressive" about these huge farms. Possibly they could
>be made to work, if the waste and husbandry questions could be dealt with. But
>I also think it is time for socialists to consider if labor productivity is
>the only criteria for judging economic questions.

   Jon is right in so far as "nothing inherently progressive" means what
he says it means. Let's not quibble over this. I think we agree that these
hog confinement facilities are a blight and should be shut down.
   Under capitalism, labor productivity is not really an important
consideration as far as the class struggle is concerned. We recognize
the hisoric value of what has been achieved under the regime of
capital. We acknowledge this as the essential starting point for
socialist production. But now the challenge facing the working
class is the accession to political power. Whatever serves that
cause is the highest priority. Productivity be damned. We can
worry about productivity after the revolution.

   And then Jon says:

>  It is not "giving in to anti-technology bias of the Greens" to say that the
>environment can't be stretched forever, and that we must take that into
>account. I think it would be "giving in to the bottom line mentality of
>capitalism" to unthinkingly accept the "progress" that creates these huge
>megafarms. We need only look at the former Soviet Union to see where aping of
>early twentieth century capitalist giantism led.

   We can institute programs to reverse environmental degradation
once we have a government that truly represents the needs of
humanity, and these needs coincide with the ecological integrity
of the planet. But we cannot implement or initiate anything really
substantial in this area until we have such a government (or
governments) on a world scale.
   To speak as if the environment can be saved under capitalism
is to flirt with incalculable disaster. At the same time, however,
it should be recognized that the few gains that have been made
in the reduction of auto emissions, disposal of toxic industrial
waste, cancellation of new nuclear power plant construction,
etc., are not due to the normal workings of capitalism, but
rather are due to the public pressure created by the working
people. It is the concerns of the masses that have enforced
what little progress has been made in this area, as in many
others.
   There is nothing wrong with "giantism" per se. When Jon
refers to "early twentieth-century capitalist giantism," he
evokes the image of unrestrained abuse of the earth and the
working population. But that abuse was carried on in small
workshops as well as large factories. And the same is true
today. Pollution and safety violations occur routinely under
capitalism, if the working people are not strong enough to
prevent them. And these abuses take place independently
of the scale of production.

   Referring to the alliance between wage workers and working
farmers, Jon says:

>  More importantly, if workers are serious about forming an alliance with
>small farmers, we have to listen to them and let them decide what they would
>like to do in the rural areas. If they chose to dismantle much of the megafarm
>complex and rebuild the agricultural economy where appropriate along family
>farm lines, I think we should support that. After all there are things like
>pooling expensive equipment and working together during harvest seasons that a
>true farm co-op could do.

   We have to keep in mind that most of the truly big farms
which concentrate large amounts of resources are capitalist
farms which exploit wage labor. This is especially prevalent
in vegetable and fruit production, while small family farms
tend to predominate in grain production.
   Some areas are mixed, such as tobacco, ranching, poultry,
etc. Some branches of husbandry are undergoing transition
>from family farming to capitalist farming.
   Where capitalist farms prevail, the wage workers may decide
to form a state farm or cooperative enterprise. This is up to them.
There may even be cases where the wage workers on a capitalist
farm might want to break the land into plots which can be worked
individually. That might work in many cases. 
   Jon's point is that whatever arrangements are made with respect
to the use of the land, the working farmers and farm workers
themselves should have decisive say, as the foundation for a
voluntary alliance of workers and farmers in the government
of the future. The workers party will advocate rational farming
methods, and will organize to provide financing, technical
assistance, and the overall rational organization of production
and distribution. In the long run the distinctions between workers
and farmers will die out, and this will be a voluntary process,
based on the overcoming of the the predudices of the past by
all working people.
   Most farmers, even the most conservative, recognize what is
rational, what is efficient, and consistently strive to save labor
and produce at the lowest cost. On the whole they are not
averse to various forms of cooperatives which serve the family
farms: credit coops, marketing coops, machinery coops, etc.
These are fundamentally practical questions.

   Then Jon said:

>  I don't think you have a major disagreement with this, but even the SWP,
>which learned much about the farmers in the 1980's still tends to discount the
>sustainability question in favor of labor productivity. This is a weakness
>that almost all marxist groups, who are based in cities after all, share.

   I don't know what the SWP said about "sustainability" as opposed to
labor productivity. This doesn't ring a bell with me.

Jim Miller
Seattle


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---