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 = option. '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. Regards 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 >paul@cockshott.com >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT