Paul C wrote in [5801]: > 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. To begin with, a tactical suggestion: answer with a question. More specifically: you can reply by asking the small farmers what _they_ believe is the cause for the inequality and what _they_ think should be done. This would then lead to a dialogue rather than just a candidate answering questions. Additionally, it would help make some important political points including that you support their right of self- determination and you are not like the other politicians. (I think the ability of radicals to *listen*, rather than just 'tell' workers and farmers what should be done is very important as a matter of organizing effectively). Thus, perhaps your response could be: "That's a very important question. Let's have another meeting where you can tell me more about what you think the problems are and what should be done. And let's invite all of the other small farmers in the district so that we can hear from them as well". However, the small farmers will want and expect some answers from you. A Marxist response might be to begin by explaining this as a long term process (trend). This would include an explanation of the centralization and concentration of capital and how this leads to a decrease in the size of the 'middle class' and further proletarianization. You should also explain not only the past under capitalism (e.g. the enclosure movement) but also how a very large percentage of working-class families are descended from families who were small family farmers but who were eventually forced to leave the land because of landowners, agricultural capitalists, real estate developers, banks, etc. This makes a very important political point: workers' families and farmers' families have an intimate historical connection to each other and the workers of today for the most part had ancestors who were in a similar position to the small farmers of today. Their future under capitalism -- proletarianization or joining the IRA -- should be bluntly explained. Moreover, you should also note the unemployment situation and that if they lose their farms their outlook for getting a waged job (especially for the older farmers) may not be very good. The blame should be placed squarely on agro-business, the large landowners (in the case of crofting), and the banks and real estate companies. In connection with the latter, it should be understood that they _want_ the small farmers to go out of business so that they can build golf courses, condominiums, etc. In terms of concrete proposals about what to do, I generally agree with Charlie [5813] and Paul B [5814]: there aren't any proposals that can be advanced shy of socialism which can really satisfy the needs of the farmers. And, as Paul B pointed out, one has to be aware and ready for the possible consequences of reforms in terms of capital and large landowners fighting back. Nonetheless, let me at least suggest some relatively uncontroversial (at least for socialists) demands: * Eliminate the crofting system (a remnant of feudalism) and redistribute the land to the former crofters so that it is now 'their' land and they don't have to pay rent. * Seize the lands that belong to the monarchy and redistribute the land to the poor farmers and estate workers who live on those estates. * Break-up (through new anti-trust legislation) the monopolies in the supplier and buyer industries. Encourage the farmers to form their own cooperatives so that they are not gouged (sp?) by these businesses. * Here's one that will make the banks happy!: Cancel all debts by small farmers to banks. * Pass legislation to the effect that government employees can not be used to evict farmers. Then, outlaw private (i.e. 'for sale') armies (like the Pinkertons in the U.S.). Of course, as Paul B suggested, (this type of) reform is not possible under capitalism. So, the answer must be, prepare for a fight and align yourself with the working class for we are 'all in the same boat together' in the sense that they same groups that screw one also screw the other: 'Unite and fight!' In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT