Does the Green Party have any socialist tendencies?

[Ready4Revolution]

Listening to some Green leaders sounds like listening to a socialist.. Thoughts? Although they are a "reactionary" party, I'd like to know if they have a socialist wing or something similar.

[Revy]

They're not a "reactionary" party, they're a progressive party. More like social democrats. But they are effectively "petit-bourgeois" (which is to describe the party's ideology, not its supporters who are probably mostly working class). They represent "small" capitalism, in opposition to "big business" and "the corporations". So they have an idealized version of capitalism that involves small, local businesses.

I'm sure there are many self-described socialists involved in the Green Party, but they do not control it.

[twenty percent tip]

the green in the partyis fer the moneyh they want. its a p\arty for smallbusiness mainstreet asswholes. theyre got pissed becoz theycant be as succesful in business as bill gates so they want to tax hium. they give yousome crumbs in their progrum to bring you along. sweet potato

[El Oso Rojo]

Green Party is pan-leftist, I know in Missouri that have leaders that are socialist leaning and are active in cavaran for Cuba

[HEAD ICE]

They're not a "reactionary" party, they're a progressive party. More like social democrats. But they are effectively "petit-bourgeois" (which is to describe the party's ideology, not its supporters who are probably mostly working class). They represent "small" capitalism, in opposition to "big business" and "the corporations". So they have an idealized version of capitalism that involves small, local businesses.

I'm sure there are many self-described socialists involved in the Green Party, but they do not control it.

Does "progressive" really mean anything? Oh they support sending UN "peacekeepers" to Sudan and Iraq. They are humanitarian. :rolleyes:. Their program is fully pro-capitalist. How cna there be a progressive capitalism in the most developed capitalist country in the world? For their party membership, I highly doubt there is a strong working class contingent within it.

oh and they ran an anti-Semite for president in 2008.

Green Party is reactionary and has nothing in common with revolutionary socialism.

[Obs]

Does the Green Party have any socialist tendencies?
nuh

[MarxSchmarx]

To their credit, I don't think most greens have ever overtly embraced capitalism and remain skeptical of the capitalist economic order.

It's important to note, tho, that this makes them "anti-capitalist", not "socialist". Their
"solutions" to the question of how to organize social production like having small organic farmers own a tiny plot of land are frankly almost medieval.

[Obs]

It's important to note, tho, that this makes them "anti-capitalist", not "socialist". Their
"solutions" to the question of how to organize social production like having small organic farmers own a tiny plot of land are frankly almost medieval.
so the green party is reactionary? i dont think thats it

[Coach Trotsky]

Does "progressive" really mean anything? Oh they support sending UN "peacekeepers" to Sudan and Iraq. They are humanitarian. :rolleyes:. Their program is fully pro-capitalist. How cna there be a progressive capitalism in the most developed capitalist country in the world? For their party membership, I highly doubt there is a strong working class contingent within it.

oh and they ran an anti-Semite for president in 2008.

Green Party is reactionary and has nothing in common with revolutionary socialism.
I echo these sentiments, although I imagine there are some rank-and-file Green Party supporters who could swayed over to revolutionary socialism.
I don't think most of those folks will get swayed to revolutionary socialism by us entering them during political campaigns and playing 'nice Greens'. I think we'll sway those who can be swayed by seriously intervening and engaging in independent proletarian politics in the class and social struggles of the workers and oppressed and youth, almost entirely OUTSIDE of the bourgeois state electoral processes, as exemplary revolutionary socialists.
The way we can win the forces we need is by not acting like typical politicians, not pretending to be bourgeois liberals, and not acting like fringe doormat 'nice guys' who are desperate for a date in the bourgeois political marketplace.

Revolutionary socialism is the key to a resolution of the serious ecological issues facing us today and into the future. Anyone who is serious about environmental and ecological concerns needs to get serious about revolutionary socialism.

[twenty percent tip]

it depends. whas august bubul a revolutionary sorcialisgt or a jam toating ass?

[MarxSchmarx]

so the green party is reactionary? i dont think thats it

I can't speak for "the green party" in general, but in my experience scratch a staunchly environmentalist activist and you won't take long to find an undercurrent of luddite primitivism.

[Lucretia]

They are a typical middle-class social democrat party. They have a few socialist sympathies but are not revolutionary at all.

[Comrade Crow]

so the green party is reactionary? i dont think thats it

I would say so, I think nuclear power is where it's at.

[Revy]

I would say so, I think nuclear power is where it's at.

Green Party is reactionary because they oppose nuclear power?

Oh my. :rolleyes:

[Revy]

I can't speak for "the green party" in general, but in my experience scratch a staunchly environmentalist activist and you won't take long to find an undercurrent of luddite primitivism.

Actually, most environmentalist proposals involve heavy use of technology. Solar panels, wind turbines, underwater wave turbines...these aren't "primitivist". I think you will find most environmentalists have a deep appreciation for technology, so long as that technology does not pollute and help destroy our environment and our health.

[Comrade Crow]

Green Party is reactionary because they oppose nuclear power?

No but it's blatantly reformist, at best, and it's class make up is petty bourgeois, I would say that's atleast fairly reactionary. What green party out there can this not be said of?


Oh my. :rolleyes:

Lions and tigers and bears.

[Tommy4ever]

Green Parties tend to attract the same sort of ''I love the earth'' hippie liberal type who in the past might have decided to attatch themselves to some sort of socialist organisation. So, in most countries they are filled with people with socialist style views. But the leadership's position can vary - sometimes Green Parties essentially function as left of social democract parties, at other times they are very pro-capitalist.

[scarletghoul]

Greenism is a right wing ideology in progressive clothing.

[robbo203]

To their credit, I don't think most greens have ever overtly embraced capitalism and remain skeptical of the capitalist economic order.

It's important to note, tho, that this makes them "anti-capitalist", not "socialist". Their
"solutions" to the question of how to organize social production like having small organic farmers own a tiny plot of land are frankly almost medieval.

There are prominent Greens like Derek Wall in the UK who I know have actively promoted the idea of a marketless stateless communist alternative to capitalism so it is difficult to generalise about the Greens as such. There are different tendencies within the green movement, not all of which are reactionary

I m not sure about your comments about small scale organic farming. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that on a per hectare basis it is more productive than large scale commercial agriculture - and of course more environment friendly . In fact, in the third world, this productivity gap is particularly pronounced and there was massive study carried out a few years ago by a UK university which decisively proved this point.

The problem is not so much small farming per se but the fact that small farmers are under attack from an array of forces, the net effect of which is to further promote the concentratration of agricultural land in fewer hands with all the attendant problems this entails. Anyone who believes that the answer lies in the further development of this trend and in enabling agribusiness to impose its own so called technical fixes to address the problem of global hunger - like the dissemnination of so called "terminator" seed technology (an obscene innovation if there every was one and purely for commercial gain) - is living in a fools paradise in my opinion

[Shropshire Socialist]

The Green Party definitely has socialist tendencies and in many ways is like the Labour Party used to be in the 1980s (prior to the rise of Blair).

Some party activists refer to themselves as "Green Socialists".

[Vanguard1917]

They're not a "reactionary" party, they're a progressive party. More like social democrats. But they are effectively "petit-bourgeois" (which is to describe the party's ideology, not its supporters who are probably mostly working class). They represent "small" capitalism, in opposition to "big business" and "the corporations". So they have an idealized version of capitalism that involves small, local businesses.

Then how are they progressive?

1. Supporting small business over big business is in no way progressive, at least from a Marxist perspective.

2. Green support for small-scaled production is a result of their petty-bourgeois disdain for the working class, a class which they essentially see as being responsible for environmental destruction due to it being resposible for increases in mass consumption. If, after all, rises in mass consumption are seen as a problem, the logical solution is to oppose their cause: mass production along with any increases in workers' living standards.



I m not sure about your comments about small scale organic farming. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that on a per hectare basis it is more productive than large scale commercial agriculture


Really? Where is it?

[piet11111]

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that on a per hectare basis it is more productive than large scale commercial agriculture - and of course more environment friendly .

But not in manhours its not and i doubt this 3rd world farming method takes into account ways to avoid soil depletion.
I rather prefer the western farming method over burning down rainforests for new lands after the old ones are depleted and especially the backbreaking work our technology allows us to avoid.

[robbo203]

Then how are they progressive?

1. Supporting small business over big business is in no way progressive, at least from a Marxist perspective.

2. Green support for small-scaled production is a result of their petty-bourgeois disdain for the working class, a class which they essentially see as being responsible for environmental destruction due to it being resposible for increases in mass consumption. If, after all, rises in mass consumption is seen as a problem, the logical solution is to oppose its cause: mass production.



Really? Where is it?


Here


Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. One report - published last year by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - found that 114 projects, covering nearly two million African farmers, more than doubled their yields by introducing organic or near-organic practices. Another study - led by the University of Essex - looked at similar projects in 57 developing countries, covering three per cent of the entire cultivated area in the Third World, and revealed an average increase of 79 per cent. And research at the University of Michigan concluded that organic farming could increase yields on developing countries' farms three-fold.("Organic is more than small potatoes", Geoffrey Lean, Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug 2009).


and here

Although the conventional wisdom is that small family farms are backward and unproductive, research shows that small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop. Maize yields in traditional Mexican and Guatemalan cropping systems are about 2 tons per hectare or about 4,320,692 calories, sufficient to cover the annual food needs of a typical family of 5-7 people. In the 1950s the chinampas of Mexico (raised growing beds in shallow lakes or swamps) had maize yields of 3.5-6.3 tons per hectare. At that time, these were the highest long-term yields achieved anywhere in Mexico. In comparison, average maize yields in the United States in 1955 were 2.6 tons per hectare, and did not pass the 4 tons per hectare mark until 1965.10 (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty#en10) Each hectare of remaining chinampa can still produce enough food for 15-20 persons per year at a modern subsistence level.
Traditional multiple cropping systems provide as much as 20 percent of the world food supply. Polycultures constitute at least 80 percent of the cultivated area of West Africa, while much of the production of staple crops in the Latin American tropics also occurs in polycultures. These diversified farming systems in which the small-scale farmer produces grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products in the same field or garden out-produce the yield per unit of single crops such as corn grown alone on large-scale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a small farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also includes beans, squash, potatoes, and fodder. But, productivity in terms of harvestable products per unit area of polycultures developed by smallholders is higher than under a single crop with the same level of management. Yield advantages can range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures reduce losses due to weeds (by occupying space that weeds might otherwise occupy), insects, and diseases (because of the presence of multiple species), and make more efficient use of the available resources of water, light, and nutrients.11 (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty#en11)
By managing fewer resources more intensively, small farmers are able to make more profit per unit of output, and thus, make more total profits—even if production of each commodity is less.12 (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty#en12) In overall output, the diversified farm produces much more food. In the United States the smallest two-hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare and netted about $2,902 per hectare. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare. Not only do small- to medium-sized farms exhibit higher yields than conventional larger-scale farms, but they do this with much lower negative impacts on the environment, as research shows that small farmers take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil erosion and conserving biodiversity. However, an important part of the higher per hectare income of small farms in the United States is that they tend to by-pass middlemen and sell directly to the public, restaurants, or markets. They also tend to receive a premium for their local, and frequently organic, products.
The inverse relationship between farm size and output can be attributed to the more efficient use of land, water, biodiversity, and other agricultural resources by small farmers. So in terms of converting inputs into outputs, society would be better off with small-scale farmers. Building strong rural economies in the Global South based on productive small-scale farming will allow the people of the South to remain with their families in the countryside. This will help to stem the tide of out-migration into the slums of cities that do not have sufficient employment opportunities. As the world’s population continues to grow, redistributing farmland may become central to feeding the planet, especially when large-scale agriculture devotes itself to feeding cars through growing agrofuel feedstocks.
(http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty)

If you need more evidence Ive got tonnes of the stuff

[Nuvem]

While the majority of the party is liberal and petty bourgeois in values, there are exceptions. For example, the Chairman of the Michigan Green Party is also a member of of the Workers World Party and a dedicated Marxist. He's a good friend and is at many of the WWP Detroit's functions, I've worked with him a fair bit. He does laudable work moving the politics of the Michigan Green Party to the left and directing their attention to the WWP's mass organization and to the party itself. It's good to have revolutionaries involved in parties like the Green Party, it's a great way to bring over people on the fringe who aren't aware of socialist alternatives.

[Vanguard1917]

Here


Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. One report - published last year by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - found that 114 projects, covering nearly two million African farmers, more than doubled their yields by introducing organic or near-organic practices. Another study - led by the University of Essex - looked at similar projects in 57 developing countries, covering three per cent of the entire cultivated area in the Third World, and revealed an average increase of 79 per cent. And research at the University of Michigan concluded that organic farming could increase yields on developing countries' farms three-fold.("Organic is more than small potatoes", Geoffrey Lean, Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug 2009).

That article in the Daily Telegraph (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/5990854/Organic-is-more-than-small-potatoes.html)) argues that small-scaled farmers in poor countries would be better off with organic farming because they can't afford to buy the fertilisers and pesticides needed for large-scale agriculture. Therefore, it argues, "going organic almost always boosts the incomes of small Third World farmers".

But the article also points out that, in countries which can afford advanced agriculture, going organic would be a disasterous and retrograde step: "The immediate drop in Western harvests alone would be catastrophic, and cause hundreds of millions more to go hungry as food prices increased."

Therefore, what the man from the Telegraph is saying is that while backward, labour-intensive agricultural methods are not good enough for us in the West, they might be the best the "third world" can hope for. Basically: third-world farmers should simply try to adapt to their poverty and resign themselves to the fact that advanced agriculture is out of their reach. Backbreaking small-scaled agriculture is the best that is on offer for them.

That's not at all an argument for the efficiency of organic farming; it's an argument against radical agricultural development in the developing world. In other words, it's reactionary BS.

[robbo203]

But not in manhours its not and i doubt this 3rd world farming method takes into account ways to avoid soil depletion.
I rather prefer the western farming method over burning down rainforests for new lands after the old ones are depleted and especially the backbreaking work our technology allows us to avoid.


It is quite true that in terms of output per worker, productivity is greater in the case of modern commercial farming. However we should not exaggarate the extent to which it is greater. Most of the labour involved in commercial farming is indirect and embodied in the capital intensive technologies such as heavy machinery , fertiliser inputs and so on. This should be taken into account is assessing overall comparative labour productivity

I am certainly not recommending a return to some mythical bucolic agricultural past of contented peasantry swigging ale in between working the fields on hot lazy summer days. Peasant work was back breaking toil and as someone who works on the land myself I know this all too well. But there is an intermediate position that one could adopt best summed up by the expression "appropriate technology" e.f. rotavators, strimmers, solar pumps for water wells and so on

Some further comments.

You say you prefer the "western farming method over burning down rainforests for new lands" but, of course, much of the burning down of rainforests is done at the behest of the western farming methods you prefer e.g. the establishment of large scale cattle ranching in Brazil. This is to say nothing of the destruction of ranforests for commercial timber. Traditional "Slash and burn" agriculture has had an exceedingly bad press and this is a case of mainstream media bias rubbishing what it sees fit to call backward peasant farmers who are far from that. For a more balanced view I suggest you read Paul Richards seminal work Indigenous Agricultural Revolution which makes a very strong case for the rationality and innovativeness of peasant farmer vis-a-vis the so called experts wheeled in to advise them. Very often these experts find themselves simply reinventing the wheel - discovering what the peasants had long ago sussed out themselves

One other point - while we talk about the greater labour productivy of modern commercial farming how does it make much sense to save on labour in a third world context where there is a much higher proportion of the workforce that is unemployed or underemployed? If you want to economise on any factor of production it is surely land that you want to concentrate on - and particularly good quality arable land which is getting scarcer by the year. It is here that the significantly greater productivity of small farmers per hectare really counts and also their use of more ecologically benign technologies - to arrest the damage so often caused by insensitive modern methods of capitalist agriculture

[Revy]

Then how are they progressive?

1. Supporting small business over big business is in no way progressive, at least from a Marxist perspective.

2. Green support for small-scaled production is a result of their petty-bourgeois disdain for the working class, a class which they essentially see as being responsible for environmental destruction due to it being resposible for increases in mass consumption. If, after all, rises in mass consumption are seen as a problem, the logical solution is to oppose their cause: mass production along with any increases in workers' living standards.



Really? Where is it?

I did not mean that it was progressive to support small business over big business. But I still would say their platform is very "progressive" compared to the two main parties. That's what I meant.

Anyway, to say they support small (private) business (as I said) is not the full picture. They support worker cooperatives too. Their model is "community based economics" allowing small businesses and worker cooperatives to exist side by side. I should have mentioned that.

I don't support the Green Party. In fact my post was criticizing the Green Party. Their support of small business is obviously something I don't approve of. If I'm defending them I'm defending against the idea that they could somehow in this universe be described as "reactionary".

[robbo203]

That article in the Daily Telegraph (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/5990854/Organic-is-more-than-small-potatoes.html)) argues that small-scaled farmers in poor countries would be better off with organic farming because they can't afford to buy the fertilisers and pesticides needed for large-scale agriculture. Therefore, it argues, "going organic almost always boosts the incomes of small Third World farmers".

But the article also points out that, in countries which can afford advanced agriculture, going organic would be a disasterous and retrograde step: "The immediate drop in Western harvests alone would be catastrophic, and cause hundreds of millions more to go hungry as food prices increased."

Therefore, what the man from the Telegraph is saying is that while backward, labour-intensive agricultural methods are not good enough for us in the West, they might be the best the "third world" can hope for. Basically: third-world farmers should simply try to adapt to their poverty and resign themselves to the fact that advanced agriculture is out of their reach. Backbreaking small-scaled agriculture is the best that is on offer for them.

That's not really an argument for organic farming; it's an argument against radical agricultural development in the developing world. In other words, it's reactionary BS.

I think what is reactionary and extremely short-sighted is to believe that the solution lies in the hands of modern capitalist agribusiness and that what peasants need to do is to adopt the technical fixes peddled by agribusiness. Well I have news for you - that is precisely what increasing numbers of peasants are doing and with what results? Increasing landlessness. Increasing debt. Increasing environmental deterioration. Is this what you advocate as the way forward?

Converting to organic methods in the short term in a western context will of course, as the article points out, result in a short term decline in output. Inevitably there will be a period of adjustment which will cause problems. But in a third world context we are talking about the decline in output per hectare resulting from converting to modern capitalist agriculture technques. Here, the boot is on the other foot so to speak. It is the imposition of modern technques that is causing a decline in per hectare output. The evidence clearly points to traditional small farming being more productive per hectare than large scale commercial farming which poses an increasing threat to the very existence of small farmers. Look at the other article I posted.


Incidentally I dont think the man from the Telegraph is saying that "backward, labour-intensive agricultural methods are not good enough for us in the West" ; he is just erring on the side of caution by pointing that in the short term it will lead to fall off in output. Whether it will be a "catastropic" fall depends on how radical is the changevoer you make, I would imagine.

There is a case for a more cautious gradual attempt to put farming on a more sustainable organic basis in the first world just as there is case for adopting appropriate technology in the third world rather than rejecting modern technology as such. But of course, capitalist agribusiness stands in the way of all this and it is somewhat futile to talk of modifying our forms of technology as if these were separate from the social relations of production of global capitalism

[Vanguard1917]

The evidence clearly points to traditional small farming being more productive per hectare than large scale commercial farming which poses an increasing threat to the very existence of small farmers.

Not at all. The fact that "small farmers" dominate food production in poor countries at all in this day and age should be cause for outrage, not celebrated. I'm sure you can see that such a state of affairs is a product of poverty and underdevelopment, a situation which keeps poor countries locked in a cycle of impoverishment. The developing world needs rapid and large-scale industrial development in order to free itself from the daily life-and-death struggle to produce enough food to merely subsist. The fact that environmentalists (the overwhelming majority of whom are privileged middle-class Westerners often with access to the best that modern societies have to offer) oppose this shows their politics has nothing to do with anything progressive.



It is the imposition of modern technques that is causing a decline in per hectare output.


No. It's the lack of modern technology -- technology which, where it is properly applied, has been responsible for virtually abolishing food scarcity in absolute terms -- which is keeping third-world agriculture in a poverty-stricken state.



Incidentally I dont think the man from the Telegraph is saying that "backward, labour-intensive agricultural methods are not good enough for us in the West"


His argument is that organic production might be a good idea for those countries, i.e. extremely poor countries, that can't afford the costs of pesticides and fertilisers, but not a good idea for those countries that can.

[robbo203]

Not at all. The fact that "small farmers" dominate food production in poor countries at all in this day and age should be cause for outrage, not celebrated. I'm sure you can see that such a state of affairs is a product of poverty and underdevelopment, a situation which keeps poor countries locked in a cycle of impoverishment. The developing world needs rapid and large-scale industrial development in order to free itself from the daily life-and-death struggle to produce enough food to merely subsist. The fact that environmentalists (the overwhelming majority of whom are privileged middle-class Westerners often with access to the best that modern societies have to offer) oppose this shows their politics has nothing to do with anything progressive.


You are not taking in the point that has been made. You say the developing world needs industrialisation to free itself from the "daily life-and-death struggle to produce enough food to merely subsist". But actually if it is food output that you want to increase then the best way of doing that is precisely to opt for more a more organic approach. Ive already given you the evidence to support this claim. Check it out. The article I cited says this: Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. Do you dispute this?




No. It's the lack of modern technology -- technology which, where it is properly applied, has been responsible for virtually abolishing food scarcity in absolute terms -- which is keeping third-world agriculture in a poverty-stricken state.



This claim could have easily come straight out of an advertisement brochure for some giant agribusiness corporation. Its baloney. Hunger is not the result of a "lack of modern technology". Actually it not modern technology per se that the issue here - organic approaches to farming are no less "modern" in that sense. Global hunger is essentially an economic problem or what Sen calls an "entitlement" problem. Many experts believe that the world already produces enough food. The problem is that food under capitalism - like nearly everything else - is a commodity. So accessing food is a matter of being able to buy it or possessing enough land to produce it . And as I have said, the very capital intensive techniques you set so much store by have helped the process of land consolidation and privatisation at the expense of the small farmers many of whom find themselves havinf to eke out a living on their shrinking plots or have been maginalised and pushed out onto ecologically vulnerable land




His argument is that organic production might be a good idea for those countries, i.e. extremely poor countries, that can't afford the costs of pesticides and fertilisers, but not a good idea for those countries that can.

Yes in the short term there would be a drop in output were farmers in the rich countries to alter their farming technqiues and become more organic but I dont think he was suggesting this would be a permanent state of affairs. The other article that I posted points out that small farms practicising a more diversified form of farming in a rich country like the united states are actually much more productive per hectare than big farms.

There is of course a certain "fit" between farming technology and farm size. Small farms tend to be more conducive to more labour intensive or appropriate technologies; big farms to capital-intensification. Direct labour produuctivity is obviously higher in the latter but in terms of productivity per hectare the former score significantly better. Given the huge (and growing) scale of unemployment and underemployment in the developing world it would certainly seem to make more sense yo focus on raising output per hectare than labour productivity as such. Labour saving technologies may be OK if alternative jobs in the cities were to be available but that is hardly the case for hundreds of millions of people in the third world today

[Vanguard1917]

You are not taking in the point that has been made. You say the developing world needs industrialisation to free itself from the "daily life-and-death struggle to produce enough food to merely subsist". But actually if it is food output that you want to increase then the best way of doing that is precisely to opt for more a more organic approach. Ive already given you the evidence to support this claim. Check it out. The article I cited says this: Study after study show that organic techniques can provide much more food per acre in developing countries than conventional chemical-based agriculture. Do you dispute this?

Yes, of course. It is undisputable fact that modern agriculture is vastly superior to backward small-scaled farming in terms of productivity and efficiency. That's why it is the dominant form of agricultural production. You have not presented "studies after studies" backing up your view. You presented an article with the argument that impoverished small-scale farmers would be better off with organic farming for the reason that pesticides and fertilisers are too expensive for them and that they would therefore save money. Then you presented an article from the malthusian Monthly Review which questions the green revolution and, like the previous article, makes the argument that "poor farmers cannot afford" modern agricultural methods and the third-world is best off with small, localised agriculture.



Many experts believe that the world already produces enough food.

They are right. And the reason that the world produces enough food to feed 6.5 billion people is modern agricultural technology, something that small-scaled farming could never compete with in such terms.



There is of course a certain "fit" between farming technology and farm size. Small farms tend to be more conducive to more labour intensive or appropriate technologies; big farms to capital-intensification. Direct labour produuctivity is obviously higher in the latter but in terms of productivity per hectare the former score significantly better.

Yes, small-scale farming is more labour-intensive. In other words, it involves a greater amount of backbreaking work. More labour time, more of your and your family's day spent out in the fields as a matter of survival. I'm glad you admit this. But whereas you see that as being somehow a good thing, it's in fact a characteristic feature of countries with some of the highest levels of poverty.

"The less time the society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc., the more time it wins for other production, material or mental. Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of its development, its enjoyment and its activity depends on economization of time. Economy of time, to this all economy ultimately reduces itself." - Marx


Labour saving technologies may be OK if alternative jobs in the cities were to be available but that is hardly the case for hundreds of millions of people in the third world today

Then that exposes the need for radical change in those countries; it doesn't demand a celebration of poverty and backwardness.

[jake williams]

I did not mean that it was progressive to support small business over big business. But I still would say their platform is very "progressive" compared to the two main parties. That's what I meant.
I think the difference is fairly semantic. The things that make left Democrats and Greens "progressive" are pretty limited. It is, in some sense, "progressive" to oppose the Iraq War rather than supporting it, support gay rights rather than opposing them, and so on. To do so is to less violently struggle against the working class than other parts of the bourgeoisie might be wont to do. But they're not historically progressive, except unintentionally - they do support policies which help the working class overthrow capitalism, but they do so unknowingly. Capitalist economies do produce more and more advanced technologies, they do create better and better educated working classes, they do concentrate the means of and socialize the process of production (against the will of many environmentalists and other petty bourgeois elements). But fundamentally, human progress in capitalist societies (so basically all societies today, whatever semi-feudal elements might exist in rural India or Africa) is about the elimination of capitalism and its replacement with socialism. There aren't, as far as I know, any left Democrats or Greens who actually advocate this, even in a limited sense.

[MarxSchmarx]

I can't speak for "the green party" in general, but in my experience scratch a staunchly environmentalist activist and you won't take long to find an undercurrent of luddite primitivism. Actually, most environmentalist proposals involve heavy use of technology. Solar panels, wind turbines, underwater wave turbines...these aren't "primitivist". I think you will find most environmentalists have a deep appreciation for technology, so long as that technology does not pollute and help destroy our environment and our health.

Yes the socialists and even some left-leaning cappies embrace environmentalist technology with open arms, rightfully I say, with a vision towards a true vision of emancipating humanity.


As someone who sees the environmental problems the world faces as paramount and perhaps the most compelling reason for socialism in several decades, I am deeply disturbed by the basic indifference to economics and questions of class that the greens consider.

For we have to understand that such a vision of a sustainable yet economically vibrant and human centered future is not what most environmentalists, in the sense of activists who prioritise the "environment" uber alles, imply.

To them, such developments are humbug.

This has been my experience: when one points out to environmentalists (as opposed to merely left leaning cappies, liberals, or even 99% of socialists from Trots to Anarchists to Maoists) that even their beloved electric cars will just solve the problem of petroleum but can have the potential to retain the suburban lifestyle and geography associated with an automobile centric society, which is the only group that balks at this idea? The greens, that's who.

[robbo203]

Yes, of course. It is undisputable fact that modern agriculture is vastly superior to backward small-scaled farming in terms of productivity and efficiency. That's why it is the dominant form of agricultural production. You have not presented "studies after studies" backing up your view. You presented an article with the argument that impoverished small-scale farmers would be better off with organic farming for the reason that pesticides and fertilisers are too expensive for them and that they would therefore save money. Then you presented an article from the malthusian Monthly Review which questions the green revolution and, like the previous article, makes the argument that "poor farmers cannot afford" modern agricultural methods and the third-world is best off with small, localised agriculture..

OK lets try to get to grips with what you are saying here. It is an indisputable fact you say " that modern agriculture is vastly superior to backward small-scaled farming in terms of productivity and efficiency". Now there are two very diffrent indicators of agricultural productiivity

1) output per agricultural worker
2) output per hectare

I entirely agree with you that as far as 1) is concerned modern agriculture is superior to small scale farming - although if you take into account the indirect labour involved in modern agriculture - all those support industries involved in the production of machinery pesticides fetilisers and what not - the productivity difference narrows considerably. I do not accept your claim that traditional smallscale farming is "backward". This is precisely the attitude of the colonial authorities when they adminstered the "natives". Paul Richards systematically debunks the whole myth of peasant backwardness in his book Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. You should read it.

I disagree with you if you are making the claim that as far 2) is concerned modern agriculture is superior. This is not so. Small scale farming IS more productive per hectare than large scale capitalist agriculture . This is a fact and is borne out by the evidence I have presented and much more besides. Where is your counter evidence? The confusion arises because comparisons are sometimes made in respect of single crops. But what tends to differentiate small scale farming from large scale capitalist monoculture farming is the fact it practices multicropping which also incidentally makes a lot of ecological sense. That is why small farms produce a lot more food hectare for hectare than big farms - they prpduce different kionds of food as opposed to just one




They are right. And the reason that the world produces enough food to feed 6.5 billion people is modern agricultural technology, something that small-scaled farming could never compete with in such terms. .

If you admit that ther world already produces enough food then why the need to extend capitalist capital-intensive agriculture which hectare for hectare fares poorly compared to traditional farming. Why inflict on small farmers a growing burden of debt to pay for all those expensive inputs which will ultimately mean their eviction from farming altogher? This is irrational. Are you saying here that you support the big wealthy capitalist farmers in their bid to oust the small farmers from their midst




Yes, small-scale farming is more labour-intensive. In other words, it involves a greater amount of backbreaking work. More labour time, more of your and your family's day spent out in the fields as a matter of survival. I'm glad you admit this. But whereas you see that as being somehow a good thing, it's in fact a characteristic feature of countries with some of the highest levels of poverty..

I dont see backbreaking toil as a good thing. Ive made my position clear. I approve of "appropriate" technology. It will considerably lighten the burden of toil and that is a good thing . I do not however see modern capital intensive faming as a useful approach to the plight of the small farmer. To the contrary I think it is in some ways a recipe for disaster - like the agricultural disaster unfolding in Bengal today precisely becuase the small farmer bought into the promise of a capital intensive approach. They are now facing ruination - economic and ecological



"The less time the society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc., the more time it wins for other production, material or mental. Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of its development, its enjoyment and its activity depends on economization of time. Economy of time, to this all economy ultimately reduces itself." - Marx.

Jesus christ. Marx was writing 150 years ago. The world has move on since then, you know. What precisely are the opportunities to engage in "other production" for the tens of millions of rural people forced out of farming by , amongst other things, the spread of large scale capital intensive farming. The result has not been an "economisation of time" in this case but rather a waste of mtime. Read up the literature on the "involution" thesis. The kind of work - if they can find it - which many ex riural people engage in in the cities is immensely inefficient like street hawkers flogging individual cigarrttes to passers by

Talking of Marx, though, it should be said he was also critical of modern capitalist agriculture and the way in which it destroyed the fertility of the soil and impoverished the agricultural worker




Then that exposes the need for radical change in those countries; it doesn't demand a celebration of poverty and backwardness.

No one is celebrating poverty here and of course there is a need for radical change. But we are talking about farming technology in the abstract and it is on technical grounds that I am trying to make a case for small scale organic farming. Come the revolution I believe that it is precisely this form of farming that will gain ground as the opposition between town and country is transcendced and more people chose to have access to the land.

If anything ensures the existence of poverty and indebtedness it is the very capital intensive technologies you celebrate

[Vanguard1917]

OK lets try to get to grips with what you are saying here. It is an indisputable fact you say " that modern agriculture is vastly superior to backward small-scaled farming in terms of productivity and efficiency". Now there are two very diffrent indicators of agricultural productiivity

1) output per agricultural worker
2) output per hectare

I entirely agree with you that as far as 1) is concerned modern agriculture is superior to small scale farming

Well, labor time is key here. If you have two farms the same size in terms of land, with one using modern technology and the second one not, and second one produces slightly more than the other but with the involvement of a substantially greater amount of labour power, we cannot call that a more productive farm. If we want societies to be freed from rural toil to as much a degree as possible, we can't go around opposing modernisation of agriculture.



If you admit that ther world already produces enough food then why the need to extend capitalist capital-intensive agriculture which hectare for hectare fares poorly compared to traditional farming. Why inflict on small farmers a growing burden of debt to pay for all those expensive inputs which will ultimately mean their eviction from farming altogher?


Why is the choice merely between impoverished subsistance-level farming and greater debt for small farmers? I support agriculture in the third-world having access to modern technology -- something which you seem to oppose in principle, and something which small-scale farmers in poor countries certainly do not oppose.



The result has not been an "economisation of time" in this case but rather a waste of mtime. Read up the literature on the "involution" thesis. The kind of work - if they can find it - which many ex riural people engage in in the cities is immensely inefficient like street hawkers flogging individual cigarrttes to passers by



No matter how bad life is in third-world cities, it is on the whole usually much worse in the countrysides, as empirical evidence shows. You're portraying the situation as though there was once some golden age for rural life in the third world prior to fertilisers, pesticides and tractors. That is not the reality.


Talking of Marx, though, it should be said he was also critical of modern capitalist agriculture and the way in which it destroyed the fertility of the soil and impoverished the agricultural worker


Yet Marx was absolutely categorical in his overall position:

"There is no question, of course, that modern sciences...with modern industry, have revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude to nature... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which priests and Daumers likewise grow, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines."

[Sam_b]

The Green Party definitely has socialist tendencies and in many ways is like the Labour Party used to be in the 1980s (prior to the rise of Blair).

I wish people would stop comparing X, Y and Z to Labour, especially what is termed as 'Old Labour' which is somehow this wonderful concept. Does nobody recall Atlee sending troops to Korea, or the 'social contract', or when Labour opposed the General Strike, or when workers throughout the 1970s found Labour on the other side of the picket lines?

[CynicalIdealist]

They are a typical middle-class social democrat party. They have a few socialist sympathies but are not revolutionary at all.

This. I prefer Peace and Freedom even if they sympathize more with pacifism than revolution.

[wunderbar]

Yeah, the Greens are a social democratic party, although some individual Greens might be anti-capitalist (I know of a couple IWW members who are in the Green Party). That said, at least the Greens run candidates against the Democrats, unlike, say, CPUSA.

[RichardAWilson]

The Green Party is a left-of-center political party that embraces humanitarianism, pacifism, social justice and environmental preservation. Here in America, the GP embraces such demands as establishing a universal single-payer medical system, implementing a living wage that's tied to inflation and abolishing college tuitions.

With that said, the Greens aren't Revolutionary Socialists. They adhere more to Bernstein's and Fabian Social-Democracy. There are, of course, Socialists within European Green Parties, just as there are socialists in Britain's Labor Party. Here in America, there are Eco-Socialists within the Green Party. Eco-Socialism is based on Marxian ideals and can be revolutionary.

[RichardAWilson]

http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/social-justice.php#1001034

Green Party's Platform on Social Justice



All people have a right to food, housing, medical care, jobs that pay a living wage, education, and support in times of hardship.




We call for a graduated supplemental income, or negative income tax, that would maintain all individual adult incomes above the poverty level, regardless of employment or marital status.



A publicly funded health care insurance program, administered at the state and local levels, with comprehensive lifetime benefits, including dental, vision, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, medication coverage, and hospice and long-term care;



We stand for repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. The right to organize has also been diminished by an aggressive anti-union offensive by employers who have undermined the law, and in many cases, brazenly violated it. To restore these legal rights, we call for the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act.

However, like I said, this is a Social-Democratic Reformist Agenda. I happen to be a member of the Green Party because, at this time, they offer the most viable alternative to the Democrats and also because we have a local branch that's not too far from home.

The main issues I have with the GP Platform is that it doesn't include a National Energy Policy and a National Industrial Policy, which are two things I believe we need here in the United States.

[robbo203]

Well, labor time is key here. If you have two farms the same size in terms of land, with one using modern technology and the second one not, and second one produces slightly more than the other but with the involvement of a substantially greater amount of labour power, we cannot call that a more productive farm. If we want societies to be freed from rural toil to as much a degree as possible, we can't go around opposing modernisation of agriculture.


Why is the choice merely between impoverished subsistance-level farming and greater debt for small farmers? I support agriculture in the third-world having access to modern technology -- something which you seem to oppose in principle, and something which small-scale farmers in poor countries certainly do not oppose. .

I wish you would heed what I wrote. I repeat - I am not opposed to modern technology as such. What I am "opposed" to is the particular form of "modern agriculture" characterised by the dominance of a few giant agribusiness corporations, crop monocultures stretching to the horizon and vast amounts of expensive oil-based capital intenisive technologies. I say nothing of the indefensible cruelty and stupidity of the battery production of poultry and other livestock and all the health risks this entails for humans and animals alike.

There is nothing "unmodern" about alternative, more environmentally sensitive polyculture farming - hydroponics, permaculture and so on. I favour "appropriate" modern technology that would certainly reduce human toil significantly. Agribusiness-dominated capitalist agriculture which you seem to favour is less productive per hectare , leads to greater economic inequalities (read the literature on the green revolution), impoverishes and displaces small farmers and is very often bad for the environment, undermines soil fertility and pollutes waterways with nitrates. But is it profitable. So let us all kneel and acknowlege what the great god of Profit has determined is the best way forward

As far as I can determine the only reason why you think this form of farming is the bees knees and should be emulated everywhere is that it involves higher productivity per agricultural worker and even though if you take into account the indirect labour involved in supporting this form of farming, the difference is not that great. You do not address the point of what becomes of the small farmers "freed " from agriculture to join the tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed in the cities. What work they do if they cannot find it is often highly unproductive and inefficient. In terms of productivity per hectare the "organic" approach - I hesitate to use the term - is significantly higher though it involves more labour




No matter how bad life is in third-world cities, it is on the whole usually much worse in the countrysides, as empirical evidence shows. You're portraying the situation as though there was once some golden age for rural life in the third world prior to fertilisers, pesticides and tractors. That is not the reality..

No I am not suggesting anything of the sort and I thought I had made that clear. I was simply looking at systems of farming from a comparative technical point of view. This makes this discussion a little abstract in a sense becuase as I have tried to point out you cannot really talk about technology in the abstract divorced from the economic system and its particular mode of production

Looked at from that point of view I am not some kind of reformist campaigner for changing capitalist farming . The need is to get rid of capitalism first and foremost. Capitalism has long past its sell-by date. We dont need more capitalist style development of farming to raise levels of production as you contend. Thats a long outdated perspective. We already have the capability to feed everyone on this planet adequately. Hunger is not due to the lack of modern technology

Really and truly this debate should be about what kind of agricultual technology and pattern of farming is best suited to a post capitalist society in which there is no longer profit, money or wage labour. It is in this context that I would definitely assert, and for all sorts of reasons, that the kind of farming I favour - diversified, environmentally friendly and involving more direct labour but less human toil while helping to reduce the opposition between town and country - is the way to go.

Would you not agree? And if not , why not?

[Coach Trotsky]

I think the difference is fairly semantic. The things that make left Democrats and Greens "progressive" are pretty limited. It is, in some sense, "progressive" to oppose the Iraq War rather than supporting it, support gay rights rather than opposing them, and so on. To do so is to less violently struggle against the working class than other parts of the bourgeoisie might be wont to do. But they're not historically progressive, except unintentionally - they do support policies which help the working class overthrow capitalism, but they do so unknowingly.
What policies do left-posturing Democrats and Greens support which "help the working class overthrow capitalism"?
You mentioned:
--the Iraq War (lip service opposition, initated zero mass mobilizations against the Iraq War since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, while consistently voting for the war budgets and waving the Scars and Stripes. Oh, and did the "Left" try to fill the vacuum of leadership in the anti-war struggle? No, it was obviously considered a "dead end", so better to put their resources elsewhere by tailing the bourgeois liberals. America's far "Left" has been MIGHTY QUIET since Obama's election campaign---it ain't entryism if you fucking politically liquidate---and barely any peep and certainly no independent mass action has been made about the Democrats and union bureaucrats killing of the Wisconsin struggle by turning it into a hustle for their next elections. There is practically no anti-war mass mobilization going on at all today in the USA. Do you have any fucking idea how shitty it is to be a soldier in Iraq knowing that the war was fucked up, and yet not to see a sliver of mass protest against the war on US soil after 2006? Hell imagine how the Iraqis must have felt!)

-- gay rights (co-opted the gay/lesbian movement like a mutherfucker, made it "trendy", and turned it into an organized Democratic Party voting bloc...yeah, that's really challenging capitalism!:rolleyes: When are Leftists going to figure out that the cappies are very flexible and thus can co-opt, bribe and manipulate minorities using both carrots and sticks to get them to do their bidding too?! I see ZERO proof of any inherently "progressive" trait to homosexuality, unless by "progressive" you mean people who vote for bourgeois liberal parties like the US Democrats. Mythical magical trendy liberal buillshit! The gay revolutionary socialists that I have known weren't mainly revolutionary just because they were gay... otherwise there would be millions of inherently progressive gay revolutionary socialists running around. But no, American gays/ lesbians vote Democrat or Republican mostly, and they don't get to wiggle out of sharp struggle about their present reactionary politics by pulling the gay card and expecting everyone to drop to their knees and kiss their feet. No and hell no. If you're pro-capitalist, if you protect the system, you're gonna get burnt.)