Rural areas & agriculture

[Lamanov]

How do we organise a socialist system, democratic electoral system and socialist planned economy in the rural areas ? What prospects are for the life in agriculture in the times of socialist transformation ?

[The Grapes of Wrath]

That's a good question. I'm from the midwest in United States, breadbasket of the US and a good portion of the world, so my opinion of farming and farmland is positive, but also influenced by how a lot of people feel about it in this portion of the country. Obviously our countries will differ, and it is up to the socialists/communists/anarchists in every country (if not every state or province of that country) to decide for themselves the best policy given their culture and their traditions.

In my opinion I believe that the family farm should remain just that, the family farm. Free and independent property. However, since most farms are either factory farms, or else family farmland that has been rented out, this answer covers only a few areas. The factory farms, should of course, be taken over or restricted by some sort of authority in every state or province, or else a collective, or a cooperative. We have many cooperatives here that work effectively and with great zeal, they are good ways to maintain property but at the same time consolidate efforts into some semblance of planning (not that capitalism isn't necessarily planned). The farmers should have the ability to organize themselves, with government assitance (departmental but also socialist law), for the best yields from their lands.

In the United States, the state (if not federal, I forget which) government, mostly in order to maintain prices and the like, force all farmers to produce only a certain product. This influences how much of a certain type of cereal, vegetable or other that is produced. This in its own right is a form of central planning, however, not for consumption but instead for price. Should this continue? I have no idea, it has its good points and its bad.

In regards to rural life during a time of change ... well, it is best not to harm relations between farmers/peasants or what have you by forcing their land to state (or federal) enterprises. It is best to allow them the utmost freedom of choice, the whole point is to not overdrastically change tradition or custom for the people (not just the rural people but for everyone), the same goes for the urban and suburban workers (both blue and white collars). The first love of the farmer/peasant is the love of the land, and the love of seeing things grow. Profits need to reflect this and be enough to live well, and with the same luxuries that will be afforded the urban-suburbanized workers.

[enigma2517]

Family farms in the US could probably remain...at least for some time (I'd say at least a generation) before they are done away with. The US is one of the few places in the world where farmers are actually wealthy enough that they can buy all sorts of mechanized tools that help them and their farms remain profitable.

However, throughout most of the rest of world, particularly in the poorer regions, people would benefit more from collectivization. There simply aren't enough tractors and such to go around to everybody. Consolidating means of producing food would lead to a great increase in production itself. However, we must be careful not to take the Stalinist policy on this and force farmers to collectivize. As an anarchist I believe in free association. Collectivization will be helpful, but only when people recognize it being as such. In the mean time, let them keep their farms.

For more info, I highly suggest reading up on the Spanish Civil War. They had a high degree of sucess when it came to organizing rural economics. Somebody find a link I'm too lazy ;)

[Lamanov]

Land reform is going to be a problem, no doubt about that.

[novemba]

I've read a lot of Guevara's writings that clearly state that the revolution should start in agrarian(sp?) areas and spread into the city, even though you need popular support and contacts everywhere soooooooooooooooooooooooooo yeah i dunno if that helps or not...

[shadows]

The question of consciousness is central to revolution, and it is likely that for many reasons farmers in a developed economy are less revolutionary than are workers in a city. Certainly in the US most agriculture is dominated by corporations. The farm workers are more of a rural proletariat than traditional farmers. Relationship to the means of production is key.

[STI]

I've read a lot of Guevara's writings that clearly state that the revolution should start in agrarian(sp?) areas and spread into the city, even though you need popular support and contacts everywhere soooooooooooooooooooooooooo yeah i dunno if that helps or not...

Che's words aren't really relevant or applicable to our situation. You have to remember that he was talking in the context of small, usually imperially-dominated, largely unindustrialized, third world countries. Entirely different than here.

[ComradeRed]

How do we organise a socialist system, democratic electoral system and socialist planned economy in the rural areas ? What prospects are for the life in agriculture in the times of socialist transformation ? This is my "utopian" take based on what humanity has technologically created.

Hydroponic farming (http://www.schundler.com/hydrofarm.htm) can be theoretically be created within existing buildings(e.g. sky-scrapers) and essentially be self-automated to water from fire sprinklers, and lights made to mimic UV rays, with the help of computers. This could, abstractly speaking, create food without the need of "old fashioned" farming in the country side. The only time humans would be needed would be to check the plants for any signs of disease, reaping the plants, etc.

The "economy in the rural areas" would be history.

[redstar2000]

I like ComradeRed's suggestion.

We could also have "green belts" and "ranch belts" that would surround each city (in place of the suburbs)...people working in agriculture would commute from the city just like people commute now.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

I would argue that cities would not really be needed. Scratch the whole city idea. destroy parts of the city and use that area for farming.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mari3L
I would argue that cities would not really be needed.

You would have few listeners.

By 2050 or thereabouts, the world's urban population is expected to become a majority.

Most people seem to "like cities" or at least prefer urban life, however precarious, to "the muck of rural idiocy".

Are you also a primitivist?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ele'ill]

I tend to lean that way every now and then. :)

[Lamanov]

My ideas are similar. I agree with comradeRed, rural life should be history in socialist society... but still, we'd need land exploatation [like RedStar's suggestion]. It wouldn't be economicly wise to move out of fields and build huge expencive buildings. World population is growing, and i think there should be enough of colective land which serves only for crop production. I always imagine that huge computerised machines would do all the work [huge mobile machinery], and that people from small urban areas would deal with controll and management. Rest of the land [outside urban, farming and mining areas] should be totally free... no people, no machines, no polution. Just nature left to itself.

[Ele'ill]

Who would stop people from moving to those areas out in nature?

[Lamanov]

No one would stop them, but... why would they ? Their jobs, residence, culture and all are in urban areas.
Planned expanding of those areas - OK; but i don't see any other reason for moving away from places where they can work, educate and socialise themselves.

;) You wanna build a cottage in the neck uv da woods as a getaway ? Go ahead [i guess] :P

[Ele'ill]

I would want to move away. So i'd imagine others would as well.

[Colombia]

I don't see how you guys think that rural areas are "bad". Why not just set up collective farms? What harm will that do?

[Iepilei]

I always thought our primary goal was the blur the line between rural and metro through means of technological advancement. I mean, isn't that what Marx said?

Not saying Marx is infallable. Most of his writing was contextual for his particular time-period; but the overall idea is there. Personally, I think we're advancing to that point through capitalism; which will make the transition to socialism (as well as the merge of "hillbillies" and "cityfolk") much less tense.

[ComradeRed]

It wouldn't be economicly wise to move out of fields and build huge expencive buildings But that's not what anyone is suggesting. In LA there are about a dozen or so large complexes which could be converted into hydroponic farm stations, no construction of any new buildings. Just new use for old things.


Personally, I think we're advancing to that point through capitalism; which will make the transition to socialism (as well as the merge of "hillbillies" and "cityfolk") much less tense. I don't know. The purpose of a transitional worker's state seems to be fulfilled with the work done by corporations. Albeit not a great job, but there is advancements. Arguably, the transition phase is no longer needed, workers "own" "shares" of their company which is runned in a "democratic" way...isn't that what the transitionary phase sought to do? Don't get me wrong, corporations are not the ideal apparatus, but they are doing something.

At any rate, the American farmer historically has been the reactionary force in America. They wouldn't give up slaves, they wouldn't recognize equality between "races", etc. They're not exactly the revolutionary force that anyone could ever take them to be.

[Iepilei]

I don't know. The purpose of a transitional worker's state seems to be fulfilled with the work done by corporations.
You know how it goes. For a society to be successful, they must take good care of their farmers.


At any rate, the American farmer historically has been the reactionary force in America. They wouldn't give up slaves, they wouldn't recognize equality between "races", etc. They're not exactly the revolutionary force that anyone could ever take them to be.
I think in time the 'current' farmer will be replaced with more technologically advanced equipment. Making food production less of an rural industry and more of a "mixed." Hell, even now farmers are utilizing technology which is making their output far greater than we can consume. It won't be much longer before the bulk of our food can be produced in the urbanised areas.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

At any rate, the American farmer historically has been the reactionary force in America. They wouldn't give up slaves, they wouldn't recognize equality between "races", etc. They're not exactly the revolutionary force that anyone could ever take them to be.

I disagree. While farmers may not be the catalysts of social change, historically, they have not sat by quietly. Ever hear of the Granger movement? The Progressive Party of the late 1890s and the early 1900s? Slaves, weren't most slaves owned by large plantation owners in the South, a sort of landed aristocracy, and not the yeomen farmers? Afterall, 75% of the South's soldiers in the Civil War didn't own a single slave, had never owned one, and was never going to own one. Of the percentage that did, very few owned more than 2. As for wanting to own slaves, and whatnot, I suggest exploring the whole situation in "Bloody Kansas," look up the term "Jayhawk." Explore the feelings on both sides. Next, look up the IWW movement to organize agricultural workers and their attempt to organize the farmers as well.

They may not be the most progressive group today, but at least give them historical dues. Besides, what is the "proletariat" of today in the post-industrialized West? Is there really one? Well, I guess that is due for another thread, sorry I brought that up.


It wouldn't be economicly wise to move out of fields and build huge expencive buildings.

Here, Here! I agree. Someone please explain to me how a building is going to make up for thousands upon thousands of acres of farmland? Are we gonna have thousands upon thousands of large buildings every ten feet? Are we going to be like the Borg in Star Trek and have no countryside? Where cities don't end, they just keep going? Are our farmlands to become miles upon miles of parking space?

I don't object to using large buildings to grow food, especially in certain climates, but those buildings are not going to produce all the food we and the world will need. It takes fields, hundreds of them. It takes people, hundreds of them (not as much as before though) to produce food. Machines will not replace people, someone has got to drive that tractor, someone has to use the combine, the crops won't harvest themselves. Computers alone can't harvest a crop.


You know how it goes. For a society to be successful, they must take good care of their farmers.

That's about the best thing I've heard all day. Farmers aren't bumpkins with 3 teeth and mullets, no matter what country music wants you to think.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:59 PM
I don't see how you guys think that rural areas are "bad". Why not just set up collective farms? What harm will that do?
Nothing wrong with that as a start...but do we really want to condemn even a small part of the population to "permanent backwardness"?

Because that's what it would turn out to be in practice.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif