[OPE-L:5814] Re: socialism and the small farmer

From: paul bullock (paulbullock@ebms-ltd.in2home.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2001 - 17:39:21 EDT

It is essential to show the farmer that he is like any other worker, and =
not somehow  potentialy 'better off' because has some temporary land =
right.  To save his skin he must agree to a general working class =
programme, since no one else can realyy help him.

Nationalise all the large estates so that the small farmer can be =
protected from extortionate rents, then promote cooperative farming with =
sales to State 'Marketing' Boards. This would guarantee 'prices' that =
allowed decent rights of purchase. This however requires compelling the =
large retail corporations to accept these cost prices without altering =
retail prices . This would reduce their accounting rates of profit.  The =
investors would rebel, this would precipitate a political crisis. If =
investors refused to invest in such chains you could nationalise them... =
this would deepen the political crisis, and so on . Reform is not an =

'Protecting' the small farmer, is like 'protecting'  any worker that  =
not only produces surplus labour as surplus value (here rent) and also =
receives less than the value of their own labour.... (which also =
'produces' confused indignation on the part of the liberal, political =
consternation on the part of the social democrat and  contempt from the =
large capitalist).. it can only be done either by directly attacking =
capitalism's chain of interelated activities, or 'stealing from various =
other employees 'Peters'  to pay farmer 'Paul' in order not to attack =
capital. The latter of course is a 'satisfactory' State  farm subsidy =
system paid from other workers taxes, evening out exploitation amongst =
the workers, managing their 'discomfort'. The old 'happy' days of pre =
Common Market Britain!! In fact of course this 'evening out' is more =
likely to be done by more intensely exploiting labour in the oppressed =
states. In this case the 'domestic Peters'  would be much happier !! So =
actually, in the end,  it means a consistent anti imperialist position.


Paul Bullock

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cockshott <paul@cockshott.com>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Date: 06 June 2001 13:29
Subject: [OPE-L:5801] socialism and the small farmer

>At an election meeting in Lanark yesterday, after speaking on
>the labour theory of value, exploitation of the worker and
>the economic advantages of socialism I was questioned by
>a small farmer, who claimed that they were the most exploited
>class in the country, and that they got on average about
>1.85 pounds an hour for their labour. He wanted to know
>what was the socialist response to the problems faced by
>the small farmer today.
>I must admit it was not a question that I had anticipated
>having to answer, and if he is right in his figures, then
>farmer's labour is only being valued at about 1/9 th of the
>social norm in the UK, (the MELT  is between 15 and 16
>pounds per hour).
>What would participants response to this be?
>What do you think is the cause of this unequal exchange
>and what is the remedy for their condition.
>Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
>0141 330 3125  mobile:07946 476966

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT