U.N. official says biofuels raise food supply risk

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070704/sc_nm/energy_cuba_un_dc


HAVANA (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. Environment Program said on Wednesday Cuban leader Fidel Castro and others are justified in raising concern about the potential for ethanol production to threaten food supplies for the poor.

But UNEP director Achim Steiner said the jury is still out on whether risks outweigh the benefits when using food crops to produce ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Steiner said it is too early to do a cost-benefit analysis on the use of ethanol, which environmentalists say will help slow global warming.

While current technology simply turns crops, such as sugar or corn, into ethanol, new biofuels products on the horizon use enzymes to turn crop residue or agricultural waste into fuel, he said.

The UNEP is studying the efficiency of biofuels while focusing on the development of international standards that would minimize social and environmental risks.

But Steiner added: "As long as the world is not able to agree on the norms and standards that should guide the development of a global biofuels market, the risks are going to be much higher."

Steiner, however, didn't look into the bigger picture.

Yes, I know corn is grossly inefficient compared to sugarcane in regards to ethanol production, but I also realize the bigger picture - deemed "bureaucratic" by some posters here ( :( ) - and that bigger picture is the need industrialize food production (again, I'm thinking a multinational system of sovkhozy). Wasn't the whole point of the capitalist Industrial Revolution to industrialize the economy following the improved farming techniques of the Agricultural Revolution?

There's way too much peasant bias in today's world (just look at the current fad known as organic food production). :(

[Vargha Poralli]

Well the failure of Biofuels to be replaced as an substitute to Oil is an old news and already been discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65113&hl=Failure+of+Biofuels)



Yes, I know corn is grossly inefficient compared to sugarcane in regards to ethanol production, but I also realize the bigger picture - deemed "bureaucratic" by some posters here ( sad.gif ) - and that bigger picture is the need industrialize food production (again, I'm thinking a multinational system of sovkhozy). Wasn't the whole point of the capitalist Industrial Revolution to industrialize the economy following the improved farming techniques of the Agricultural Revolution?

Except that you don't get enough profits from agriculture. It is a very risky field and there are a lot of factors that complicate this occupation which makes it unattractive to capitalists today.They would rather let the peasants commit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3769981.stm) suicide (http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/jun/psa-farmdie.htm)over these things rather than them.

Your views are critcised as bureaucratic in the sense that you don't speak much with the perspective of common people. Maybe industrial farming is the only option but it cannot achieved in the capitalist system - for the reasons I have mentioned above. To get rid of capitalist system working class needs allies - one among them is rural peasantry who is also exploited as much as the workers. And peasantry has to speak for itself no one can substitute for them.

[socialistfuture]

from http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/


Biofuelwatch campaigns against the use of bioenergy from unsustainable sources, i.e. biofuels linked to accelerated climate change, deforestation, bio-diversity losses, human rights abuses, including the impoverishment and dispossession of local populations, water and soil degradation, loss of food sovereignty and food security.

Read more about us, find out why biofuels can be a problem, look at our resources, or join the discussion on our blog.
tierra bajas soy project


Soy plantations are the main cause for the destruction of the seasonally-dry Chaco, South America's second largest old growth forest. Here, in Bolivia, populations resettled for soy cultivation are clearing the forest in a star-shaped spread from their new towns. The rate of deforestation is correlated with soy prices, which are likely to be inflated by growing demand from D1, Greenergy and Biofuelscorp (amongst others) for soy biofuel feedstock. As a result, deforestation rates are likely to accelerate. Soy is also the prime cause of deforestation in the Amazon. Plans to certify expanding soy plantations as being sustainable are opposed by many regional NGOs. Image from Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory

[socialistfuture]

Biofuel Demand Driving Up Prices
Friday, 6 July 2007, 9:50 am
Press Release: United Nations
Soaring Biofuel Demand Driving Up Agricultural Prices, Says UN-Backed Report

New York, Jul 5 2007 4:00PM

Increased demand for biofuels is leading to changes in agricultural markets that could drive up global prices for many farm products, according to a new United Nations-backed report.

The Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016, published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), blames the recent hikes in farm commodity prices on factors such as droughts in wheat-growing regions and low stocks.
SEARCH NZ JOBS
Scoop VIDEO & AUDIO
MORTGAGE Calculators
Scoop MEDIA TRACKING
Scoop NEWS by TOPIC
Looking at EXPORTING?

Biofuels are currently made from such materials as sugar cane, palm oil and maize and, given they can substitute for fossil fuels, hold the potential to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The growing use of these materials is underpinning crop prices and, indirectly through higher animal feed costs, the prices for livestock products, stated FAO.

The report notes that “most biofuel policies are new and it is not clear which measures are most effective in achieving the mix of objectives such as lower fossil fuel dependence or less greenhouse gas emissions.”

According to the report, annual maize-based ethanol output is expected to double between 2006 and 2016 in the United States, and in Brazil, annual ethanol production is projected to reach some 44 billion litres by 2016 from around 21 billion today.

In the European Union the amount of oilseeds used for biofuels is set to grow from just over 10 million tons to 21 million tons over the same period.

The report pointed out that higher commodity prices are a particular concern for States classified as net food importing countries, as well as the urban poor.

Trade patterns are also changing, the report noted. Production and consumption of agricultural products will generally grow faster in the developing countries than in the developed economies - especially for beef, pork, butter, skim milk powder and sugar.

Trade in beef, pork and whole milk powder is expected to grow by more than 50 per cent over the next 10 years, coarse grains trade by 13 per cent and wheat by 17 per cent. Trade in vegetable oils is projected to increase by nearly 70 per cent.

ENDS

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was trying to make a completely different point, one barely related to biofuels. ;)


Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:47 am

Yes, I know corn is grossly inefficient compared to sugarcane in regards to ethanol production, but I also realize the bigger picture - deemed "bureaucratic" by some posters here ( sad.gif ) - and that bigger picture is the need industrialize food production (again, I'm thinking a multinational system of sovkhozy). Wasn't the whole point of the capitalist Industrial Revolution to industrialize the economy following the improved farming techniques of the Agricultural Revolution?

Except that you don't get enough profits from agriculture. It is a very risky field and there are a lot of factors that complicate this occupation which makes it unattractive to capitalists today.They would rather let the peasants commit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3769981.stm) suicide (http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/jun/psa-farmdie.htm)over these things rather than them.
On the contrary, there are stats out there that show average operating losses for the small farmers in the US (before subsidies, of course), while the "kulaks" (large family-owned farms with potentially some proper workers) and the multinationals are the only ones actually profiting on average.

I think I gave the US government data link in the Kautsky thread.


Your views are critcised as bureaucratic in the sense that you don't speak much with the perspective of common people. Maybe industrial farming is the only option but it cannot achieved in the capitalist system - for the reasons I have mentioned above. To get rid of capitalist system working class needs allies - one among them is rural peasantry who is also exploited as much as the workers. And peasantry has to speak for itself no one can substitute for them.

But the continuous decline of the rural peasantry is still a fact. :huh:

I do suppose that, in regards to achievement in the capitalist system, we've got to go back to the Soviet state-capitalist case (which I know for sure was the case after Stalin's death, no more "degenerated workers' state" nonsense with the continued existence of the peasantry) and Khrushchev's drive.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+July 07, 2007 07:13 am--> (Hammer @ July 07, 2007 07:13 am)^^^ I was trying to make a completely different point, one barely related to biofuels. ;)


Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:47 am

Yes, I know corn is grossly inefficient compared to sugarcane in regards to ethanol production, but I also realize the bigger picture - deemed "bureaucratic" by some posters here ( sad.gif ) - and that bigger picture is the need industrialize food production (again, I'm thinking a multinational system of sovkhozy). Wasn't the whole point of the capitalist Industrial Revolution to industrialize the economy following the improved farming techniques of the Agricultural Revolution?

Except that you don't get enough profits from agriculture. It is a very risky field and there are a lot of factors that complicate this occupation which makes it unattractive to capitalists today.They would rather let the peasants commit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3769981.stm) suicide (http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/jun/psa-farmdie.htm)over these things rather than them.
On the contrary, there are stats out there that show average operating losses for the small farmers in the US, while the "kulaks" (large family-owned farms with potentially some proper workers) and the multinationals are the only ones actually profiting on average.

I think I gave the US government data link in the Kautsky thread.[/b]
Well I was just responding to your question
Hammer

I do suppose that, in regards to achievement in the capitalist system, we've got to go back to the Soviet state-capitalist case (which I know for sure was the case after Stalin's death, no more "degenerated workers' state" nonsense with the continued existence of the peasantry) and Khrushchev's drive.

Well I am not a big fan of Stalin or Khrushchev and do not take the Soviet System as a model for any revolutionary government. Also I don't have any blue prints for the future Indian state after a revolution. IMO all we can do ATM is to build class consciousness among workers and peasants - yes peasants are needed to allied with in this struggle - and let them decide what to do with the situation in India afterwards.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by g.ram+July 07, 2007 06:23 am--> (g.ram @ July 07, 2007 06:23 am) I did not deny that. And that decline is not only an first world phenomenon but also a feature of third world as shown by the farmer's suicide in India - they were not just merely farm workers but owners of the plot of land.

The real case in this matter is not the right of peasantry to land or organic farming but the lack of alternative to them. The cities of India lack very much in Industrial Infrastructure and existing Indian Industries cannot provide employment to everybody. The unemployment rate in cities is higher compared to unemployment rate in villages. And majority of the employment is offered by the small and medium scale industries and tertiary sector - these jobs are not known to be stable for example I have worked atleast for 5 different companies 3 of them closed because of loss. The limited number of people who have stable employments are employed by the Government and corporate sectors which contributes to less than 20 percent of the employment primarily in primary and secondary sectors.The reasons for these are the contradiction of Capitalist system. And also the lesser employment opportunities create a state of fear in the common people driving low wages and lower union activities. [/b]
After reading those two articles, I didn't get the gist of the lack of industrial employment until you pointed it out. My bad. :(

Your second bolded point ties in a little bit with outsourcing, although I am surprised at the extent of industrial retardation in Third World countries that aren't resource-rich. Normally I'd expect more mining and agriculture out of these countries, but skipping right into services? :o




A statiscal representation of Rural-Urban unemployment ratio. (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/publ/etp36.htm) The statistics is somewhat old and I will provide any latest study when I find or come across one.

Any successfull socialist revolution will have to address this issue - but unfortunately here there is no strong workers movement at present - very handful of people are working on to build something of that sort which is very difficult given the situation I have mentioned reinforced by the contradictions within the Indian society itself.


[email protected] 07, 2007 07:13 am

I do suppose that, in regards to achievement in the capitalist system, we've got to go back to the Soviet state-capitalist case (which I know for sure was the case after Stalin's death, no more "degenerated workers' state" nonsense with the continued existence of the peasantry) and Khrushchev's drive.

Well I am not a big fan of Stalin or Khrushchev and do not take the Soviet System as a model for any revolutionary government. Also I don't have any blue prints for the future Indian state after a revolution. IMO all we can do ATM is to build class consciousness among workers and peasants - yes peasants are needed to allied with in this struggle - and let them decide what to do with the situation in India afterwards.

I wasn't referring to the Soviet system as a revolutionary model. I was referring to a specific capitalist "achievement" (countering your argument that the unstoppable growth of industrial food production at the expense of small farmers cannot be achieved under capitalism), while still keeping in mind the hampering of industrial food production development under Western capitalism (through subsidies). :huh:

In no way am I the Stalinist I once was.

[bcbm]

while the "kulaks" (large family-owned farms with potentially some proper workers) and the multinationals are the only ones actually profiting on average.

If you compared the subsidies to the amount of money made, I would be surprised if they would be making a profit without those subsidies. Of course, the large industrial farms in the first world have also had a rather disastrous effect on peasant farmers in the third world, which I don't think is something you'd want to get behind?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 07, 2007 10:30 am

while the "kulaks" (large family-owned farms with potentially some proper workers) and the multinationals are the only ones actually profiting on average.

If you compared the subsidies to the amount of money made, I would be surprised if they would be making a profit without those subsidies. Of course, the large industrial farms in the first world have also had a rather disastrous effect on peasant farmers in the third world, which I don't think is something you'd want to get behind?
I agree with you on your first point (or, rather, you are in agreement with me :D ).

However, on your second point, industrial food production hasn't had the devastating effect on the Third World as First World subsidies to its "small farmers" (I'm thinking of the US and especially the EU).

I do know one thing: after the revolution, the economy has to be completely re-organized, such that at least 90% of the world's food supply needs are met by a multinational network of sovkhozy (greenhouses, industrial meat farms, aquacultures, etc.). The freed-up peasants should then participate in furthering the industrial advance in other sectors of the economy (so much for certain brainy orthodox Marxists' limitation of industrial development to capitalism on this board ;) ), like pre-fab houses. :D

[Speaking of which, I am thinking of starting another thread on real estate and the historical development of pre-fab house parts production. ;) ]

g.ram, perhaps what biofuel production needs is industrialisation? :D

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+July 07, 2007 09:51 pm--> (Hammer @ July 07, 2007 09:51 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 06:23 am
I did not deny that. And that decline is not only an first world phenomenon but also a feature of third world as shown by the farmer's suicide in India - they were not just merely farm workers but owners of the plot of land.

The real case in this matter is not the right of peasantry to land or organic farming but the lack of alternative to them. The cities of India lack very much in Industrial Infrastructure and existing Indian Industries cannot provide employment to everybody. The unemployment rate in cities is higher compared to unemployment rate in villages. And majority of the employment is offered by the small and medium scale industries and tertiary sector - these jobs are not known to be stable for example I have worked atleast for 5 different companies 3 of them closed because of loss. The limited number of people who have stable employments are employed by the Government and corporate sectors which contributes to less than 20 percent of the employment primarily in primary and secondary sectors.The reasons for these are the contradiction of Capitalist system. And also the lesser employment opportunities create a state of fear in the common people driving low wages and lower union activities.
After reading those two articles, I didn't get the gist of the lack of industrial employment until you pointed it out. My bad. :([/b]
No offense. Rather i would have detailed it in my first post itself. Not everybody can understand situations when they have no connection to it.



Your second bolded point ties in a little bit with outsourcing, although I am surprised at the extent of industrial retardation in Third World countries that aren't resource-rich. Normally I'd expect more mining and agriculture out of these countries, but skipping right into services? :o


Well primary sector - agriculture is the biggest employer in India. Followed by service Industry and then by Secondary sector - manufacturing and then by mining etc. And some Third World countries are resource rich for eg India has rich deposits of Iron,Coal, Bauxite etc. The problem is with lack of Infrastructure and Technological advancement. And the constraint here is not only lack of Capital but the misuse of it. Considerable part of the capital accumulated from the government enterprises is lost to Corrupt bureaucracy and the Political system which supports it. And the Indian capitalists don't hesitate to hoard their income eating the part which has rightly go to the workers.

And outsourcing does not even contribute siginificant employment. The entire IT industry provides less than 15% of the Jobs and even that to some 10% of the population who could have afford to some high level of education.



I wasn't referring to the Soviet system as a revolutionary model. I was referring to a specific capitalist "achievement" (countering your argument that the unstoppable growth of industrial food production at the expense of small farmers cannot be achieved under capitalism), while still keeping in mind the hampering of industrial food production development under Western capitalism (through subsidies). :huh:

In no way am I the Stalinist I once was.

Nor did I said you were one. If you were one you would have said that Stalin's age was golden age of Socialism which had gone sour because of Khrushchev.

And I don't think achivement of Stalinist model was worth the cost it had taken - eventually it fell down aftr some 80 years. And it didn't achieve anything in quality rather than in Quantity.


g.ram, perhaps what biofuel production needs is industrialisation?

I don't understand your point.

And your proposal of what should be done after the revolution sounds too utopic :P

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:25 am
Well primary sector - agriculture is the biggest employer in India. Followed by service Industry and then by Secondary sector - manufacturing and then by mining etc. And some Third World countries are resource rich for eg India has rich deposits of Iron,Coal, Bauxite etc. The problem is with lack of Infrastructure and Technological advancement. And the constraint here is not only lack of Capital but the misuse of it. Considerable part of the capital accumulated from the government enterprises is lost to Corrupt bureaucracy and the Political system which supports it. And the Indian capitalists don't hesitate to hoard their income eating the part which has rightly go to the workers.
First off, why do you call yourself a "Sverdlovist"?

Second, you do know that mining and forestry are "primary sector," no?


And outsourcing does not even contribute siginificant employment. The entire IT industry provides less than 15% of the Jobs and even that to some 10% of the population who could have afford to some high level of education.

Talk about inefficiency.


And I don't think achivement of Stalinist model was worth the cost it had taken - eventually it fell down aftr some 80 years. And it didn't achieve anything in quality rather than in Quantity.

80 years? :huh:

Stalin came to power in the late 20s.



g.ram, perhaps what biofuel production needs is industrialisation?

I don't understand your point.

And your proposal of what should be done after the revolution sounds too utopic :P

On the contrary, that is one aspect, and that isn't utopian at all. I differentiate between the global DOTP (refer back to "revolutionary stamocap") and socialism as separate historical stages.

Besides, industrialisation is usually seen in popular culture as dystopian, not utopian (hence LOTR, for instance).

As for the subject at hand, at present biofuel production is inefficient (even sugarcane) because the production processes have not been industrialised (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications)) like factory farms.

Even if biofuel production were industrialised, the food supply problem wouldn't go away until that too were industrialised.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+July 08, 2007 01:35 am--> (Hammer @ July 08, 2007 01:35 am)
Originally posted by g.ram+July 07, 2007 11:25 am--> (g.ram @ July 07, 2007 11:25 am) Well primary sector - agriculture is the biggest employer in India. Followed by service Industry and then by Secondary sector - manufacturing and then by mining etc. And some Third World countries are resource rich for eg India has rich deposits of Iron,Coal, Bauxite etc. The problem is with lack of Infrastructure and Technological advancement. And the constraint here is not only lack of Capital but the misuse of it. Considerable part of the capital accumulated from the government enterprises is lost to Corrupt bureaucracy and the Political system which supports it. And the Indian capitalists don't hesitate to hoard their income eating the part which has rightly go to the workers. [/b]
First off, why do you call yourself a "Sverdlovist"?
[/b]

Because I think Sverdlov is both hot and cool at the same time :cool: :blush:.



Second, you do know that mining and forestry are "primary sector," no?

What I meant was

The biggest employment is offred from

1) Agriculture - Primary.

2) Services - Tertiary.

3) Manufacturing - Secondary.

5) Mining and related works - Tertiary.

this is a crude order. Agriculture exactly provides some 60 % of employment in overall India and contributes roughly 20 % of the GDP. Despite being carried out primarily by what you call subsistence/ backwards farming techniques.





And outsourcing does not even contribute significant employment. The entire IT industry provides less than 15% of the Jobs and even that to some 10% of the population who could have afford to some high level of education.

Talk about inefficiency.

It is not inefficiency. IMO that is the extent up to which the IT can grow in India. Even for that limited oppurtunities the competition is enormous. It professionals here are the morst exploited. To my knowledge many of those people work at least some 12-14 hrs a day and still are underpaid for the services they sell.



And I don't think achivement of Stalinist model was worth the cost it had taken - eventually it fell down aftr some 80 years. And it didn't achieve anything in quality rather than in Quantity.

80 years? :huh:

Stalin came to power in the late 20s.

Ok some roughly 60- 64 years :P


Originally posted by Hammer



g.ram, perhaps what biofuel production needs is industrialisation?

I don't understand your point.

And your proposal of what should be done after the revolution sounds too utopic :P

On the contrary, that is one aspect, and that isn't utopian at all. I differentiate between the global DOTP (refer back to "revolutionary stamocap") and socialism as separate historical stages.

This is what I meant by utopic. You talk a lot about future that is a stage after a revolution - what you call global DOTP etc. You talk like the revolution is going to happen some time and it will take exactly as we plan and propose.

But any revolution cannot happen exactly how we want it. The Social dynamics are too complex that many times we could be forced to do what we need to do and what we can do rather than what we want to do.


[email protected]
Besides, industrialisation is usually seen in popular culture as dystopian, not utopian (hence LOTR, for instance).

I don't care much about pop culture.


Hammer
As for the subject at hand, at present biofuel production is inefficient (even sugarcane) because the production processes have not been industrialised (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications)) like factory farms.


What do you mean by factory farms ? Factory farming is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farms)(In India we call them broiler house) that is raising animals in a grand scale. Not all crops can be raised in this way. Plants need space sunlight and constant water. They cannot be grown in factories like chicken/cattle etc. And especially sugarcane is insane resoucre eating crop. It requires heavy fertiliser feed and lot of care should be taken to ensure maximum yield.


Even if biofuel production were industrialised, the food supply problem wouldn't go away until that too were industrialised.


Well factory farms still exist everywhere.Even in future we cannot grow crops in factories unless science can find a way to cultivate them without sunlight,soil and water.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well Industrial agriculture as practiced today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_agriculture_%28crops%29) What difference and improvements do you propose in the Revolutionary Stamocap ?

[socialistfuture]

sustainability would be an improvement, and energy efficiency.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:56 am
What I meant was

The biggest employment is offred from

1) Agriculture - Primary.

2) Services - Tertiary.

3) Manufacturing - Secondary.

5) Mining and related works - Tertiary.
I still don't get how you consider mining and related works as being "tertiary":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sector_of_industry


This is what I meant by utopic. You talk a lot about future that is a stage after a revolution - what you call global DOTP etc. You talk like the revolution is going to happen some time and it will take exactly as we plan and propose.

By that logic, what is said in State and Revolution is utopic, as well. :P


What do you mean by factory farms ? Factory farming is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farms)(In India we call them broiler house) that is raising animals in a grand scale. Not all crops can be raised in this way. Plants need space sunlight and constant water. They cannot be grown in factories like chicken/cattle etc.

Well factory farms still exist everywhere.Even in future we cannot grow crops in factories unless science can find a way to cultivate them without sunlight,soil and water.

Ever heard of greenhouses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse#Uses) (as well as hydroponics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#Advantages) and aeroponics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics))? :huh:

While not exactly factories, they are heavily industrial (hence my term "industrial food production").

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Hammer+July 09, 2007 12:59 am--> (Hammer @ July 09, 2007 12:59 am)I still don't get how you consider mining and related works as being "tertiary":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sector_of_industry


[/b]
Well that was a mistake on my part. I was typing at some 11:30 in the night so totally didn't follow what I was typing. :blink:



Originally posted by [email protected]

This is what I meant by utopic. You talk a lot about future that is a stage after a revolution - what you call global DOTP etc. You talk like the revolution is going to happen some time and it will take exactly as we plan and propose.

By that logic, what is said in State and Revolution is utopic, as well. :P

Well. I agree. The Bolsheviks couldn't exactly what they wanted. That was the point I was trying to make.


Hammer


What do you mean by factory farms ? Factory farming is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farms)(In India we call them broiler house) that is raising animals in a grand scale. Not all crops can be raised in this way. Plants need space sunlight and constant water. They cannot be grown in factories like chicken/cattle etc.

Well factory farms still exist everywhere.Even in future we cannot grow crops in factories unless science can find a way to cultivate them without sunlight,soil and water.

Ever heard of greenhouses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse#Uses) (as well as hydroponics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#Advantages) and aeroponics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics))? :huh:

While not exactly factories, they are heavily industrial (hence my term "industrial food production").

Except the greenhouses the others things were news to me.

Anyway those things as per the wiki are still in their research stages and could replace the Soil agriculture any time soon. Geoponics will remain the main supplier of food for some times.

Especially the hydroponics in my understanding require fresh water - a resource which already in crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis). This crisis is already started causing some serious troubles. Especially (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveri_River_Water_Dispute)this dispute has some 5 violent clashes between two states in India. These things should be sorted out first IMO before we ever think of those things.

[socialistfuture]

you neglect to consider resource scarcity and limitations such as resource boundaries and finite resources such as oil and coal, andin the long term unarium and iron ore.

you can industrialize all you want - when key resources such as land gets degraded and the atmosphere is seriously polluted (like parts of LA and areas in China you are in serious trouble. when oil runs out you have nothing to power your cities and machines with, when coal runs out you cant make steel. When uranium runs out there goes you nuclear, when clean water runs out the land goes dry and the people and animals become thirsty. when wood is scarce there is nothing for the fire or to build with. you need fertile land for food or enough resources to grow wood otherwise like fertilizer and so on (which requires petroluem) for transport as well.



this is all in the long term, but deforestation and species extinction is now. fish stocks in many areas are shrinking, species are dying daily and rainforests are on the retreat.
if you fail to factor in climate change and resource limitations you will join every large empire in history.. in collapse. that is not only way for a society can go.

it is not the i belive we need limitations to development (which i do) it is that i know what happens when a society or empire is stretched beyond its means.

factory farming is unsustainable and immoral. it will likely be banned in this country in the future - and this country is dependent economically on meat and dairy for export.
i dont belive you have done much reading into long term societal needs and reseach into basic environmental management, i get the impression you are short sighted in that aspect. even Engel's was aware of the environmental effects of certain factories.

i'll put up some links to marxist environmentalism soon. till then i suggest you read some of George Monbiot's website and aticles: www.monbiot.com (http://www.monbiot.com)

[socialistfuture]

i know this isnt quite relevent - maybe it could be argues this is where industrialization is taking us (monbiot isnt anti industrialism). will debate more later.


i guess the link is energy - biofuels are only worth while if there are not decreasing peoples access to food. and not raising food prices. i belive biofuel only has a place for verhicles at this point and maybe back up generators. for energy we need renwable and on a big scale at times. read the blow article. be good to here more from people who know a bit about biofuel. it is quite big in brasil. anywhere else?

organic food isnt a fad to the marxist who said that. most marxists support it here :P
GE FREE is a pride thing where i live - way too overpriced still tho.


A Sudden Change of State
Posted July 3, 2007

A new paper suggests we have been greatly underestimating the impacts of climate change – and the size of the necessary response.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 3rd July 2007

Reading a scientific paper on the train this weekend, I found, to my amazement, that my hands were shaking. This has never happened to me before, but nor have I ever read anything like it. Published by a team led by James Hansen at Nasa, it suggests that the grim reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be absurdly optimistic(1).

The IPCC predicts that sea levels could rise by as much as 59cm this century(2). Hansen’s paper argues that the slow melting of ice sheets the panel expects doesn’t fit the data. The geological record suggests that ice at the poles does not melt in a gradual and linear fashion, but flips suddenly from one state to another. When temperatures increased to 2-3 degrees above today’s level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59 centimetres but by 25 metres. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature(3).

We now have a pretty good idea of why ice sheets collapse. The buttresses that prevent them from sliding into the sea break up; meltwater trickles down to their base, causing them suddenly to slip; and pools of water form on the surface, making the ice darker so that it absorbs more heat. These processes are already taking place in Greenland and West Antarctica.

Rather than taking thousands of years to melt, as the IPCC predicts, Hansen and his team find it “implausible” that the expected warming before 2100 “would permit a West Antarctic ice sheet of present size to survive even for a century.” As well as drowning most of the world’s centres of population, a sudden disintegration could lead to much higher rises in global temperature, because less ice means less heat reflected back into space. The new paper suggests that the temperature could therefore be twice as sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than the IPCC assumes. “Civilization developed,” Hansen writes, “during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end.”(4)

I looked up from the paper, almost expecting to see crowds stampeding through the streets. I saw people chatting outside a riverside pub. The other passengers on the train snoozed over their newspapers or played on their mobile phones. Unaware of the causes of our good fortune, blissfully detached from their likely termination, we drift into catastrophe.

Or we are led there. A good source tells me that the British government is well aware that its target for cutting carbon emissions – 60% by 2050 – is too little, too late, but that it will go no further for one reason: it fears losing the support of the Confederation of British Industry. Why this body is allowed to keep holding a gun to our heads has never been explained, but Gordon Brown has just appointed Digby Jones, its former director-general, as a minister in the department responsible for energy policy. I don’t remember voting for him. There could be no clearer signal that the public interest is being drowned by corporate power.

The government’s energy programme, partly as a result, is characterised by a complete absence of vision. You can see this most clearly when you examine its plans for renewables. The EU has set a target for 20% of all energy in the member states to come from renewable sources by 2020. This in itself is pathetic. But the government refuses to adopt it(5): instead it proposes that 20% of our electricity (just part of our total energy use) should come from renewable power by that date. Even this is not a target, just an “aspiration”, and it is on course to miss it. Worse still, it has no idea what happens after that. Last week I asked whether it has commissioned any research to discover how much more electricity we could generate from renewable sources. It has not(6).

It’s a critical question, whose answer – if its results were applied globally – could determine whether or not the planetary “albedo flip” that Hansen predicts takes place. There has been remarkably little investigation of this issue. Until recently I guessed that the maximum contribution from renewables would be something like 50%: beyond that point the difficulties of storing electricity and balancing the grid could become overwhelming. But three papers now suggest that we could go much further.

Last year, the German government published a study of the effects of linking the electricity networks of all the countries in Europe and connecting them to North Africa and Iceland with high voltage direct current cables(7). This would open up a much greater variety of renewable power sources. Every country in the network would then be able to rely on stable and predictable supplies from elsewhere: hydroelectricity in Scandanavia and the Alps, geothermal energy in Iceland and vast solar thermal farms in the Sahara. By spreading the demand across a much wider network, it suggests that 80% of Europe’s electricity could be produced from renewable power without any greater risk of blackouts or flickers.

At about the same time, Mark Barrett at University College London published a preliminary study looking mainly at ways of altering the pattern of demand for electricity to match the variable supply from wind and waves and tidal power(8). At about twice the current price, he found that we might be able to produce as much as 95% of our electricity from renewable sources without causing interruptions in the power supply.

Now a new study by the Centre for Alternative Technology takes this even further(9). It is due to be published next week, but I have been allowed a preview. It is remarkable in two respects: it suggests that by 2027 we could produce 100% of our electricity without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, and that we could do so while almost tripling its supply: our heating systems (using electricity to drive heat pumps) and our transport systems could be mostly powered by it. It relies on a great expansion of electricity storage: building new hydroelectric reservoirs into which water can be pumped when electricity is abundant, constructing giant vanadium flow batteries and linking electric cars up to the grid when they are parked, using their batteries to meet fluctuations in demand. It contains some optimistic technical assumptions, but also a very pessimistic one: that the UK relies entirely on its own energy supplies. If the German proposal were to be combined with these ideas, we could begin to see how we might reliably move towards a world without fossil fuels.

If Hansen is correct, to avert the meltdown that brings the Holocene to an end we require a response on this scale: a sort of political “albedo flip”. The government must immediately commission studies to discover how much of our energy could be produced without fossil fuels, set that as its target then turn the economy round to meet it. But a power shift like this cannot take place without a power shift of another kind: we need a government which fears planetary meltdown more than it fears the CBI.

George Monbiot’s book Heat: how to stop the planet burning is now published in paperback.

www.monbiot.com



References:

1. James Hansen et al, 2007. Climate Change and Trace Gases. Philiosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – A. Vol 365, pp 1925-1954. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2007.2052. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis – Summary for Policymakers. Table SPM-3. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

3. I am grateful to Marc Hudson for drawing my attention to this paper and giving me a copy.

4. James Hansen et al, ibid.

5. In the Energy White Paper it says the following: “The 20% renewables target is an ambitious goal representing a large increase in Member States’ renewables capacity. It will need to be taken forward in the context of the overall EU greenhouse gas target. Latest data shows that the current share of renewables in the UK’s total energy mix is around 2% and for the EU as a whole around 6%. Projections indicate that by 2020, on the basis of existing policies, renewables would contribute around 5% of the UK’s consumption and are unlikely to exceed 10% of the EU’s.” Department of Trade and Industry, May 2007. Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy, page 23. http://www.dtistats.net/ewp/ewp_full.pdf

6. Emails from David Meechan, press officer, Renewables, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

7. German Aerospace Center (DLR) Institute of Technical Thermodynamics Section Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment, June 2006. Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany. http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resourc...eport_Final.pdf (http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/TRANS-CSP_Full_Report_Final.pdf)

8. Mark Barrett, April 2006. A Renewable Electricity System for the UK: A Response to the 2006 Energy Review. UCL Bartlett School Of Graduate Studies – Complex Built Environment Systems Group. http://www.cbes.ucl.ac.uk/projects/energyr...electricity.pdf (http://www.cbes.ucl.ac.uk/projects/energyreview/Bartlett%20Response%20to%20Energy%20Review%20-%20electricity.pdf)

9. Centre for Alternative Technology, 10th July 2007. ZeroCarbonBritain: an alternative energy strategy. This will be made available at www.zerocarbonbritain.com.

[Vargha Poralli]

socialistfurure

I don't thing organic food is right solution for food crisis.

The main argument on Industrial Agriculture and the Green revolutions which made it possible is how much it had benefitted/benefits the peasants and farmers who toil in the field as opposed to the capitalists who sells them loans,fertilisers,pesticides etc.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Didnt Fidel Castro already write about this problem some time ago?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The only reason biofuelsb are even being taken seriously is because of this stupid love affair with the private car.

Private transport is a luxury - the only reason it seems to be considered a right instead is because of post-industrial society's high level of general prosperity over the past century.

A lot of our problems would be solved if we ditched private transport. Maybe sometime in the future when we have a plentiful source of fuel we can bring it back, but at the moment it is an incredible liability considering the limited amount of oil available.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

If only they made public transportation better instead of making it crappier and more expensive...

[Vargha Poralli]

Well this argument does not focus on Bio Fuels I assumed. Hammer's argument is mainly todays agricultue is not modernised a task capitalism has failed. I was arguing that it was modernised at the cost of peasants. Also why agriculture was not transferred to the hands of Corporate style companies and remained in the hands of individual peasants.

I don't mean i was against modernisation. I am just saying to solve the peasant problems we have to eliminate the class which exploits peasants and workers - the Capitalists.

[socialistfuture]

i agree with g ram on that, remove the capitalists (opps that means vanguard would be gone...) and also with noxion for once - public transport over private cars. we are campaigning on that in my city. the council is so backwards.

[socialistfuture]

socialistfurure

I don't thing organic food is right solution for food crisis.

The main argument on Industrial Agriculture and the Green revolutions which made it possible is how much it had benefitted/benefits the peasants and farmers who toil in the field as opposed to the capitalists who sells them loans,fertilisers,pesticides etc.

vandana shiva demolished that arguement.

one more modern example against GE is - buying terminator seeds isnt helping any peasant. read 'biopiracy'

hell cheat and read this: Biopiracy and bioprospecting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopiracy

[socialistfuture]

The main argument on Industrial Agriculture and the Green revolutions which made it possible is how much it had benefitted/benefits the peasants and farmers who toil in the field as opposed to the capitalists who sells them loans,fertilisers,pesticides etc.

heres an article on the water side of that debate.



Turning Scarcity Into Abundance
by Vandana Shiva
Water has grown scarcer in India, as Green Revolution water-guzzling agriculture replaces traditional practices attuned to local water conditions and local needs. Now indigenous water conservation know-how is bringing back sufficiency--and even abundance

I have witnessed the conversion of my land from a water-abundant country to a water-stressed country. I saw the last perennial stream in my valley run dry in 1982 because of the mining of aquifers in catchments. I have seen tanks and streams dry up on the Deccan plateau as eucalyptus monocultures spread. I have struggled with communities in water-rich regions as pollution poisoned their water sources. In case after case, the story of water scarcity has been a story of greed, careless technologies, and taking more than nature can replenish and clean. Over the past two decades, I have witnessed conflicts over development and natural resources mutate into communal conflicts, culminating in extremism and terrorism. ...........
http://www.yesmagazine.com/article.asp?ID=698

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:12 am

socialistfurure

I don't thing organic food is right solution for food crisis.

The main argument on Industrial Agriculture and the Green revolutions which made it possible is how much it had benefitted/benefits the peasants and farmers who toil in the field as opposed to the capitalists who sells them loans,fertilisers,pesticides etc.

vandana shiva demolished that arguement.

one more modern example against GE is - buying terminator seeds isnt helping any peasant. read 'biopiracy'

hell cheat and read this: Biopiracy and bioprospecting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopiracy
I read about "terminator seeds" before. I wonder how they will factor into the dynamic between the small farmers, the middle farmers (large estates, but not run by MNCs), and the heavily industrial multinationals.

[socialistfuture]

i dont - monsanto et al owns them - so companies like CARGIL own the seeds, and the fertilizer and so on. big buisness, big money... food becomes real expensive. and we all know how neo liberal capitalism works with food distribution. in mexico the corn grains are being brought up by biotech companies - so the seeds become sterile (terminator seeds) and expensive. in india small farmers commit suicide all the time - they are being destroyed by the agriculture firms and IMF, World Bank and free trade policies.

i'll pop sum articles up soon. vanguard can argue the corporate position as usual.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:31 pm
i dont - monsanto et al owns them - so companies like CARGIL own the seeds, and the fertilizer and so on. big buisness, big money... food becomes real expensive. and we all know how neo liberal capitalism works with food distribution. in mexico the corn grains are being brought up by biotech companies - so the seeds become sterile (terminator seeds) and expensive. in india small farmers commit suicide all the time - they are being destroyed by the agriculture firms and IMF, World Bank and free trade policies.

i'll pop sum articles up soon. vanguard can argue the corporate position as usual.
But I'm not really arguing the corporate position, per se (and REALLY sorry for the long delay).

I know of the suicides and of the ineptitude of the IMF and World Bank. I also know that the so-called "free-trade" policies of which you speak aren't free. You seem to ignore the big largesse given to the in-substance peasants in the Deep South and in the European continent as a whole.

I want to see corporate industrial farming turn "inwards," leave the export markets alone for a short while, and drive the domestic peasants (ie, American and European) out of business. :)

[Vargha Poralli]

I want to see corporate industrial farming turn "inwards," leave the export markets alone for a short while, and drive the domestic peasants (ie, American and European) out of business.

There is your anti-peasants bigotry. I showed you why Agriculture is not undertook by corporates as any other fields. But you still show some what an elitist mentality against rural toilers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, that isn&#39;t a proper socialist demand, per se. That is a "democratic" demand like progressive taxation. Like you said, industrial farming cannot be FULLY achieved in a capitalist system, but its capitalist potential hasn&#39;t been reached yet due to some severely retarded state policies - the notorious First World subsidies that are crushing the peasants of the Third World. If I were "elitist," I wouldn&#39;t give a damn about the Third World peasantry. <_<

The Third World economies haven&#39;t yet reached that point where peasants are unnecessary, but in the First World and in Eastern Europe they are an albatross.

[peaccenicked]

Castro:
In a meeting convened in Buenos Aires by the Oil Industry Chamber and the Exporters Center on the production of ethanol, Dutchman Loek Boonekamp, director of Markets and Agricultural Trade for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, informed the press:

“Governments got very enthusiastic; but they should take a good look as to whether there should be such robust support for ethanol.

“Ethanol production is only viable in the United States; not in any other country, except when subsidies are applied.

“This is not manna from heaven and we don’t have to blindly commit ourselves,” the cable continues.

“These days, developed countries are pushing for fossil fuels to be mixed with bio-fuels at close to 5% and that is already putting pressure on agricultural prices. If that mixture is raised to 10%, it would need 30% of the sown surface of the United States and 50% of Europe’s. That is why I am asking if this is sustainable. An increase in the demand for crops for ethanol would produce higher and more unstable prices.”

Protectionist measures have risen today to 54 cents per gallon and real subsidies are much higher.

By applying the simple math that we learn in high school, as I stated in my previous reflections, it can be confirmed that the simple replacement of incandescent light bulbs by fluorescent ones would contribute a saving of investment and energy recourses equivalent to trillions of dollars without using a single hectare of agricultural land.

Meanwhile, news coming from Washington is affirmed textually by the AP:

“The mysterious disappearance of millions of bees across the whole of the United States has beekeepers on the verge of a nervous breakdown and is even worrying Congress, which this Thursday is to debate the critical situation of a key insect for the agricultural sector.

“The first serious signs of this enigma emerged shortly after Christmas in the state of Florida, when beekeepers discovered that the bees had vanished.

“Since then, the syndrome that experts have christened Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has reduced the country’s swarms by 25%.

“’We have lost more than half a million colonies, with a population of around 50,000 bees each,’ said Daniel Weaver, president of the American Beekeeping Federation, noting that the disease is affecting 30 of the country’s 50 states. The curious part of the phenomenon is that in many cases no mortal remains have been found.

“The hardworking insects pollinate crops valued at &#036;12-14 billion, according to a study from Cornell University.

“Scientists are considering all sorts of hypotheses, including one that a certain pesticide has provoked neurological damage in the bees and altered their sense of direction. Others blame the drought, and even cell-phone waves, but what is certain is that nobody knows for sure what the real trigger is.”

The worst could be still to come: a new war to ensure supplies of gas and oil, which would place the human species on the brink of a total holocaust.

There are Russian news agencies that, citing intelligence sources, have reported that the war on Iran has been prepared in all its details for more than three years, from the day that the United States decided to totally occupy Iraq, thus unleashing an interminable and odious civil war.

Meanwhile, the United States government is directing hundreds of billions to the development of highly sophisticated technological weapons, such as those utilizing microelectronic systems, or new nuclear weapons that could be over their targets one hour after receiving the order.

The United States is totally ignoring the fact that world opinion is against any type of nuclear weapons.

Demolishing every single Iranian factory is a relatively easy technical task for a power like that of the United States. The difficult part could come afterwards, if another war is launched against another Muslim belief, which merits all our respect, as well as the other religions of the peoples of the Near, Middle and Far East, before or after Christianity.

The arrest of British troops in Iran’s jurisdictional waters would seem to be a provocation exactly like that of the so-called Brothers to the Rescue when, in violation of President Clinton’s orders, they advanced over waters in our jurisdiction, and the defensive action of Cuba, absolutely legitimate, served as a pretext for the government of the United States to promulgate the infamous Helms-Burton Act, which violates the sovereignty of other countries. The powerful mass media have buried that episode in oblivion. More than a few people are attributing the price of oil, reaching close to &#036;70 per barrel on Monday, to fears of an attack on Iran.

Where are the poor nations of the Third World going to find the minimal resources for survival?

I am not exaggerating or using untempered words; I am going by facts.

As can be seen, the polyhedron has many dark sides.


Castro is not talking about the failure of Capitalism for the peasantry.

He is talking about the internationalisation of genocide.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:05 am
^^^ Um, that isn&#39;t a proper socialist demand, per se. That is a "democratic" demand like progressive taxation. Like you said, industrial farming cannot be FULLY achieved in a capitalist system, but its capitalist potential hasn&#39;t been reached yet due to some severely retarded state policies - the notorious First World subsidies that are crushing the peasants of the Third World. If I were "elitist," I wouldn&#39;t give a damn about the Third World peasantry. <_<

The Third World economies haven&#39;t yet reached that point where peasants are unnecessary, but in the First World and in Eastern Europe they are an albatross.
Well may be I have misunderstood you. But those capitalist potentials are available to third world peasants too. Green Revolution in 60s to 70s was a biggest success in India it almost helped India to achieve self sufficiency in food production.

But it also brought disaster to farmers.Even after very high yields the food prices are so high that poor people,lower-middle working class cannot afford those prices. So the subsidy that are given to farmers in West cannot be given to Indian peasants - they are diverted to reduce food prices which are distributed to working class in rural and urban India through PDS.So loans replaced subsidies for farmers - which multiplied with intrests become huge for the farmers to repay in time- Coupled with long periods of drought on one corner and floods on other corner in late 80&#39;s,90&#39;s and early 2000 ther was a magnitude of suicides of farmers - which could be stooped by none of the different state and central governments.

My point is exactly this - first world farmers are not the cause of conditions of third world peasants - to blame them is blaming the wrong section. The full blame lies with capitalists - of both the first and third world.

[peaccenicked]

The full blame lies with capitalists - of both the first and third world.
This is an astounding conclusion. I would never have believed it, on a socialist website. :P

The problem is certainly capitalism or more exactly imperialism, the highest stage, as Lenin contended.
Yet the problems of capitalism oops, imperialism are growing deeper every day.

Look here http://www.endofempire.org/news_eoe.php?page=774. We are relying on the market to fix our evironmental disasters.
Socialism is a great idea and Marx proved its historical necessity, but we might all die if we do not prevent our destruction.
If our movement by-passes the covering up of what is needed to save us from extinction by pointing continuously to the tasks of revolution, it will be consigned to the margins of history indefinitely.
We need immediate regulation of the market and investigation into CCD and the effect of Masts on human beings. An international monitorium on fuel and energy wastage in the third world.

If you like we need a transitional programme that has the survival of the world&#39;s population at the top of its agenda.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:08 pm

The full blame lies with capitalists - of both the first and third world.
This is an astounding conclusion. I would never have believed it, on a socialist website. :P



Well I was responding to Hammer&#39;s post he has made out that some how peasants of the first world are responsible for lack of Industrialisation and more over for the misery of the farmers of the third world. Which is not correct and pointed out where exactly the blame lies.



The problem is certainly capitalism or more exactly imperialism, the highest stage, as Lenin contended.
Yet the problems of capitalism oops, imperialism are growing deeper every day.

Look here http://www.endofempire.org/news_eoe.php?page=774. We are relying on the market to fix our evironmental disasters.


Yes Market can&#39;t solve environmental problems. It has been proved by history.Nor does any bureaucratic government which does not give any representation to its people also not capable of solving anything.


Socialism is a great idea and Marx proved its historical necessity, but we might all die if we do not prevent our destruction.
If our movement by-passes the covering up of what is needed to save us from extinction by pointing continuously to the tasks of revolution, it will be consigned to the margins of history indefinitely.
We need immediate regulation of the market and investigation into CCD and the effect of Masts on human beings. An international monitorium on fuel and energy wastage in the third world.

If you like we need a transitional programme that has the survival of the world&#39;s population at the top of its agenda.

I agrre with you :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:09 am
My point is exactly this - first world farmers are not the cause of conditions of third world peasants - to blame them is blaming the wrong section. The full blame lies with capitalists - of both the first and third world.
I&#39;m not saying that First World and Eastern European "small family farmers" are exclusively the cause of conditions of Third World peasants (obviously the capitalists are the FIRST to blame for being "the fools who follow" by OK&#39;ing the subsidies <_< ). To say so would be hovering close to making an economically fascist statement (because of nationalism). Remember that the "small family farmers" as a class are petit-bourgeois.

However, by blaming only the haute bourgeoisie globally, you are limiting your structural analysis. The "small family farmers" of the First World and Eastern Europe have structurally become quite reactionary.

They band together and lobby to the bourgeois governments, alright - lobby for those subsidies. Then there&#39;s the recent crap regarding organic food (which is only good as a niche product because of yield concerns).

Now, in terms of your blame on capitalists, it really depends on the actions of the capitalists running the big industrial farms/aquacultures/etc (MNCs). I haven&#39;t followed up on those US government stats I gave in the Kautsky thread, but my guess is that they&#39;re actively trying to expand their "market share" (granted that this is more likely to be at the expense of the THIRD World peasant than the First World "small family farmer").