|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Society without property? | |||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Why do you need to compete? Seeing as we have guaranteed you enough to eat, a place to stay, social services, for as long as you are willing to be productive, why do you need to compete with anyone? Just produce for yourself. Then go fishing, whatever. Remember, nobody can prevent your access to the means of production, whatever they may be. Nobody can ever prevent you from working to support yourself. You do not need to compete with others to win a job by amusing a capitalist Lord. You do not need to compete with young bucks in order to stay employed. I mean you could if you wanted to. You could make it your business to be the best in the world in some field, for the glory and the groupies or whatever floats your boat. As I have pointed out repeatedly, nobody is expecting altruism or asking you to necessarily sacrifice anything. I'm not a commie out of charity - I am a commie out of greed. I want the money that capitalists steal from me, which I produce but they own. I want to earn my full worth for fucking once, NOT my market-derived replacement cost. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-13-2005 08:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No of course not. The citizens work for their own interests, according to the demand for their services, and rewarded according to their prpoprtional efficiency. Where in this is there any requirement for any one caring for any one else particularly?
quote: Yes of course. So what? I mean, one suitable solution to the alleged problem is simply to provide the good to whoever was willing to pay the most for it, i.e., whoever was willing to carry out the most socially necessary labour for the rest of us. Thats suitably fair and equitable. Now, a common resposne to that sort of suggestion is "thats capitalism". But its not, becuase there are no owners of capital involved. The idea that communism depends on some special degree of care, or a special mindset, is completely false. Marx specifically denounces any and all such propositions as Utopian.
quote: No it will not. Capitalism is neither characterised nor defined by inequality. It is defined by the existance of nodes of capital accumulation, and the exploitation of human labour power which is not correctly remunerated. As is and always has been absolutely explicit in Capital, there WILL be inequalities in communism, because not all human beings are equal. That is a given. What is not a given is the system of theft that capitalism employs. Communism rewards all producers for their production directly and honestly.
quote: But it does take that into account. It merely asserts that this is not a good enough excuse to operate a system like capitalism that creates scarcity artificialy in order to keep prices up. And Communism will certainly do a much better job at dealing with unforseen circumstances, becuase communism does not exhibit the blind short-termist profit-maximising behaviour of capitalism.
quote: But they do not need to. I have pointed out already: Communism does not depend on altruism, or caring, or mutual respect, or anything at all of that nature. And in point of fact, this altruism stuff is not even relevant to primitive communism, as anyone who ahas experienced the bickbiting, gossip and parochialism of small village communities can attest.
quote: Complete nonsense I'm afraid. There is no need, nor is it desirable, to remove emotions from the system. The whole aim is to build a system that DOES respond to human needs and desires, and does not treat humans as a resource. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 05:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: In what way does it not take into account human nature? I always guffaw when advopcates of capitalism, of all people, make this sort of argument. Firstly, its based on an essentially religious claim about what "human nature" is and the nature oif the Fallen world. Its not surprising becuase capitalism rests on many illogical theist assumptions. But even worse, it is a conclusion that depends on a systematic and purposeful misrepresentation of communism as requiring "altruism" or similar, a claim I have pointed out to your directly, on a number of occassions now, appears neither explicitly or implicitly in communist work anywhere. Kjsimons, I have given you direct statements to that effect multiple times. Are you calling me a liar? If so, support your claim from a communist text. If not, withdraw this slander.
quote: Mostly supply and demand, for the bulk of economic transactions, and with some level of planning analogous to governemtn or city councils. We know what form this takes when workers are liberated from capitalist oppression, as they briefly were during the Russian Revolution: the Soviet, or workers council. Under the Soviets, the USSR exhibuted an 8% rate of GDP growth, seldom equalled anywhere (although some of this is due to the low level starting point).
quote: Roughly in the same way it operates today - the increased demand for labour will attract workers to the region. Except of course, having disposed of border controls and so forth, people can move much more freely and live where they wish. But I can imagibne few circumstances in which labour would be required in this way - its usually simpler to ship products.
quote: If there is no demand for your engineering skills, then you will need to find some other niche to fill. Remember, nobody has ever claimed that communism makes for a perfect world in which no problems ever arise. If we really had a shortage of janitors, ther solution is obvious: we have a shortage of the socially necessary labour we require. Therefore, we reward those who provide that socially necessary labour. In other words: we pay more. None of this is as complicated as you appear to want it to be. You say that you just can;t see how it would work, bu you seem to be looking for some answer that is arcane and mysterious. I can pose the same question in capitalism: if there was a shortage of janitors, and too many engineers, what would happen? Why, well the market will elevate the value of janitors (in principle - never actually happens in practice though) and discount the value of engineers. If you stopped ASSUMING that Marxism was weird, out-there, and nonsensical, and started treating it as it is, an economic model as methodically sound as any proposed by Smith or Ricardo, I think you would pick it up faster.
quote: Now this is where it gets interesting. WHY would they be high status jobs? That is not a given. Seeing as we reward people according to their contribution to the socially necessary labour required to maintain our society, why should the person doing the physical labour, and the person doing the organisational labour, be rewarded differently? In capitalism, the organisational role is higher paid in the form of a bribe to ensure loyalty to the capitalists heirarchical chain of command. We don't need such a bribe, becuase ALL individuals are working for themselves, not a corporation or a boss. Organizational work is merely one type of work. And in fact we know this happens experimentally, because it was what DID happen during the Russian Revolution. Let me remind you that before the RR, communism did not have a theory of the soviet, nor did it (and does not) have a full and comprehensive social model. Its thesis is, liberate the workers and the workers will figure it out. And the way the workers in Russia figured it our was the soviet I mentioned above. The soviet is organised from the bottom up. The person nominated or elected to "lead" is really a functionary of the base membership. They cannot sack anyone; they cannot stop or start work without the workers consent; they have no real power beyond that granted to them voluntarily by the workers themselves. Furthermore, they often rotate frequently, usually annually, meaning that most members will fill the role sooner rather than later. This produces some interesting effects unusual to our capitalist-trained minds. One feature is the promotion of noobs to highly responsible positions - mostly becuase the much more experienced rank-and-file are able to watch them, and veto any gross fuckups. And in so doing, the noobs get their errors corrected and a lot of understanding of the business as a whole. Another example is the personal authority of Lenin - it is common, although completely untrue and slanderous, to accuse Lennin of having been a dictator. I mean, thats what we would expect from the equivelent of the president, the head of the highets forum, right? Except wrong - Lennin lost more votes in the Supreme Soviet than he won, nobody defferred to him, and he was repeatedly overuled by his own subordinates. He didn't have as much power as the modern office manager DESPITE BEING THE NOMINAL HEAD OF STATE. And even so, under certain circumstances, becuase it was an operational requirement, certain industries were run on the "one-man-management" model akin to capitalism, becuase the workers had freely agreed that this was the right way for this function to be carried out. There IS another way. From the bottom up, not the top down. In other words, true Democracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: It is not incorrect - it is substantially more logical than the default capitalist value theory.
quote: Why?
quote: Umm, no it does not: not least becuase the vast majority of people in capitalism are totally disempowered as economic actors. As a result, the economy necessarily reflects only the demans of the elite. It is a political system to maintain class rule. On to the labour theory thoughy; precisely what sort of proof are you after? I'm not going to reproduce Capital for you, and if you really were interested in a proof, its been in print for more than a hundred years so whats the problem? I can of course give you a pretty good outline of the basis of the LTV, but before I do I want you to answer the "why" question above. The simplest available demonstration of the LTV in action is the well known phrase "its the thought that counts" regarding gifts. Actually its not the thought, its the effort, but what we refer to is an expression of that personal investment. An elaborate and expensive gift with the pricetag attached and clearly bought at the last minute is not a great gift. A bad crayon scrawl by your own child, however, is a pricelsess gift. What we recognise is the HUMAN interaction between people; their willingness to expend effort on our behalf. And we have a good way to judge this value, as we know something about how long it must have taken, and how much effort was required. This is how humans assess value in transactions, and is clearly visible in barter-based, non-currency transactions as they still exist today in certain places. Anyway, if you are willing to do research but don;t want to read Marx, you can always try Ronald L. Meek, The Labour Theory Of Value. Edit: Of course, if capitalism ever HAD been able to deliver a compelling critique of the LTV, it would never have need to lie about communist claims, the very claims that I and others have spent this whole thread debunking, would it? It doesn't look good for capitalist theologians. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 08:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Of course I am. Thats the central point.
quote: Excuse me, but I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no recognition of altruism involved. It is never mentioned. If, as you say, you respect the thought that has gone into Marxism, why do you persistently misrerepresent Marx' argument? Altruism is not going to feed the world. Machines are.
quote: It is true. This is a point I wanted to raise at a later point in this discussion, but I will raise it now. Thos of us who have taken the time and trouble to ACTUALLY investigate Marxism (and I was hardly born a MArxist, btw) have been able to show that a num,ber of persistent allegations against Marxism - such as the appeal to altruism - are totally, completely, utterly false. So, my question is this: who told you those lies, and why do you think they lied to you? I will refrain from speculating why, if you will answer the question.
quote: No that is mistaken - becuase you have resorted to several of those lies. Such as the completely false allegation that that Marxism would pay everyone the same, and therefore remove the incentive to work. Thats a flat out lie, isn't it? Why do YOU think you were lied to?
quote: Why don't you just get on with explaining the Capitalist value theory and its operational principles so that we can carry on a constructive discussion? I will reciprocate. By the way, Friedman is not taken very seriously by Marxist scholars. IIRC Meek deals with him quite well. Edit: Ah silly, me, I had forgotton that Friedman was the charlatan who brought down Chile's economy. To say that Friedman is not taken seriously is a bit of an understatement; it would be more accurate to say he is thought of as a laughing stock, and a primary example of the Cult of Heroism that prevents Capitalist economics achieving sufficient rigour to be useful. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 09:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Rather than an edit...
Alexander, you say you read the first two books of Capital, right? Why not the third? Unfortunately this sort of poor, lazy reserach seems to be common. Lets have a look at the TOC of the third book and see what you missed, shall we:
quote: So, let me see if undertsnad this correctly: You claim to have read Marx, and indeed read the discussion of the LTV in vol 2, but did NOT read the book - the thickest of the three IIRC - in which the full discussion is given? I mean, you missed the ENTIRETY of the discussion of the tendency for the rate of profit to decline!!!! Thats not adequate research. No wonder your perceptions are so distorted. But let me guess - your teacher told you you didn't need to read Volume 3, right? This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 09:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: But if I am to make Marx palatable, I must deal with what Marx actually wrote - not claims that he never made, and which are not componments of Marxism. The question of why thhese urban legends are in such common circulation is an interesting one.
quote: Ah, so now not accepting responsibility for positions we have never held is "tiresome drivel"? I mean, has it never occurred to you, seeing how consistent and reliable the response is, that it might actually be true? Or do you just presume that you understand our argument better then we do? Don't you think maybe that those of us who DID read Capital in its entirety, and probably other works by Marx, are in a reasonable position to confidently comment on Marx actual argument? It seems to me that in this statement you have essentially conceded your own bias. You refuse to deal with the real Marx, and instead prefer attacking a straw Marx. Just like, say, Friedman.
quote: Yes to Smith, Keynes and Friedman. Atlas Shrugged is a joke. You say I have not shown you a goddamned thing, and yet I have given you:- outline of marxist distribution - brief discussion of spontaneous soviet formation - debunked several common myths. And what have you given us? Nothing but incredulity and bombast, from a position that is clearly based on ignorance of Marx, not analysis. You're not even willing to engage in the discussion of value theory you yourself asked for! As is so often the case, Capitalist theorists simply, and demonstrably, do not have a cogent criticism of Marx. It doesn't have to be malicious, or even stupid. But the FACT of the matter is that Marx' criticisms of capitalism have never been rebutted. Significant features of the modern economy fall exactly as Marx predicted they would - for example, the flight of manufacturing to the third world, a prediction made well before Capitalism even sniffed the idea. And inexplicably, nobody can explain this. Everyone knows Marx is "discredited", its just that nobody can explain how or why. Everyone knows that Marxism cannot work, bu in order to construct this argument they have to attribute to Marxism things it never claimed. See, capitalist dogma is just not threatening. It has lots of bark and no bite. Thats precisely why we are so confident. For enyone else reading, now that Alexander has defaulted, I'm still prepared to engage in a discussion of the LTV or whatever else. It's only science after all, nothing anyone should be afraid of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No job is inherently worth more than any other - why should they be? What matters is whether you are average, better than average, or less than average, by comparison to other produces in your field. Thats a purely technical comparison that can easily be carried out in the accounting systems we use today. A part of the cost of all components and productive steps is assessed to the final unit sale price in capitalism - all the necessary accounting mechanisms are already in place.
quote: How can they do so? They cannot prevent anyone else from doing the same job.
quote: No, not only is that not the case, but I am unabloe to understand how you come to this conclusion. If your argument were remotely true, then Capitalism would only work on the basis of altruism too. Thats manifestly nonsense - your emotional state has no relevance to a formal accounting practice.
quote: Well OK Stormworlf but thatb is just dogma speaking. The only reason altruism has ever been introdyuced into the argument is as a dishoneste capitalist claim. No communist would ever agree that their system relied on altruism. We deny that there is any such requirement whatsoever, and frankly I have a hard time understanding what role you think it has to play. None of the processes I have outlined has ever mmade any appeal to anyones state of mind. Why don't you tell me what part of the process requires altruism? I see a process that responds to and meets humanities wuite natural drive for aquisition and wealth; no altruism is required anywhere.
quote: The model I am proposing is more or less one in which the union is the basic unity of organisation for the entire economy.
quote: I'm sorry I don't follow - where does this capital materialise from? I think you are confusing capital with mere money.
quote: No, its the human emotional input THAT MAKES IT WORK; the desire to work, to acquire, to achieve. And IMO the technical limitations were surpassed wqhen we invented the telegraph. I'm afraid your objection appears to me to continue to impose on this proposal a notion of altruism whaich has no place in the theory at all, and then proceeds to knock down that straw man. Once again, we are getting to a point in which yuou are not asking me to explain - you are telling me what my own position is. Why?
quote: No, not at all. If for example the boss is skimming off our production for his private interest, then you and I as workers have the power to remove him. Your greed and my greed counteract the bosses greed - and we have more power than the boss. So once again I ask - where is altruism and selflessness involved? Nowhere. They are not required. They are specifically forbidden in the construction of the system. No communist has ever made such an argument. Why do you impose this interpretation on my argument? We WANT people to make selfish decisions. I want the 90% of people who produce in our econonomy to selfishly demand all the wealth they create, instead of giving it to an entrepreneur for nothing. Whats wrong with that in terms of "human nature"?
quote: I sort of accept your point. Your description of the way this exchange works in a primitive communism is quite correct - as you say, there is no point in trying to accumulate capital in the form of meat in a low tech society; you are far better off giving it away and accepting the accolades and gratitude. And as you say, this is becuase this is a mutually dependant society. But our society is also a mutually dependant society. The model that capitalism applies to all transactions is one derived from the example of a small farmer - an independant producer with a certain degree of capital, trading with others but largely self sufficient. Unfortunately, real technical life does not work like that - in order for me to produce, the trains must roll, the supermarkets must stock if I am to eat, the power stations must be operational. My existance is utterly dependant on not a few, but thousands of people doing what they do, and doing it effectively. that is why there is no point for me, any more than the for the primitive hunter, in trying to hold resources back from the system. If I do so, the most likely outcome is a weakening of the system as a whole. That is exactly how we come to the concept of "socially necessary labour" - determining those things which are the minimum requirements for the maintenance of our technical life support apparatus. I'm far better off trading my products and labour with other people, freely, and thus contributing to greasing the whells of the very industries I rely upon to live. Once again, no altruism is evident. Only enlightened self interest. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-15-2005 05:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Part 2
However, kjn order to further assuage your concerns regarding the accoutning process, let me offer you a concept that employs both your ideas and mine - that is, after all, how we are going to build these systems. Lets say, whay the hell not use machines to do as much of the accounting as possible? Saves on labour if nothing else. A little while ago the US treasury proposed adding an RFID (radio frequency ID) tag to, and I quote, "every product that ships in the USA". We hav the technology to do this, although whether it is cost effective in my mind is an open question. But lets take the proposition and run with it. If we tag absolutely every product, then we also know everything we need to know about the productive apparatus. Because, every washer and screw which builds a machine is the product of another machine. So in short order, we will have a comprehensive and universal built-in automated system for accounting all the relevant inputs to any given product produced anywhere whatsoever. And with this accumulated data, we will be in an excellent position to do all the necessary calculations to determine whose inputs are worth more than other, or whatever. What I want to reinforce, though, is that this is not a grand Matrix style abdication of control from humans to machines. It is merely using machines intelligently - like the educated technical workers we are - to solve our problems. It would not render humans mere drones in a hive. Technology can and will be used to facilitate the particular needs of the communist mode of production. We have the technology. We have the intelligence. And in the present, we work for a reward that is tiny compared to our contributions. In short, we have nothing to lose but our chains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Troys answers are good, but I was specifically addressing the communicaiton problems. You see Athenian democracy worked because Atghens wasa quite small, and the whole voting populace could certainly be inside its walls and probably in the main forum. Thus, they could all be involved in the debate, weigh up options etc. Rome too had an open forum (although it was not democratic like Athens) in which anyone could participate (even foreigners and non-citizens, interestingly), but Rome reache a million citizens and the forum model simply could not bear the strain. The advent of the internet allows direct communication between any group in large numbers. Look at this board - like the agora, anyone can attend. Anyone across the whole world. Anyone can contribute their argument. And the contributions can still be organised, streamed, reviewed, and remain on record automatically as if we had a room full of stenographers capturing our every word. The mechanism by which primitive mass democracy operated in Athens can now be implemented on a global scale. We have the technology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
KJsimons, what you omitted is that at present the West is subsidizing farmers to NOT grow food. We also destroy large quantities of food each year for "sound" economic reasons (to whit, if we gave it to the hungry the price will fall, then we won't be able to sell anything for real profit, then we will go out of business, then there will be no food production).
Also, grain is much more efficient than, say, beef production on the same land, but as I redall there is quite a lot of beef production in the US - hence this land could be turned over to subsitance production if necessary. Simply looking at the output figures is not adequate. Consider that the US is actually very under-populated and has a lot of free space for farm expansion, too. And lastly, consider, the developements of technology in their historic scale. In 1000 AD, a hide of land, about 120 acres, sustained at least one family. Britain had at this time a population of about 3 million. Today it only has 60 million; so we only need farming to be 20 times more efficient than it was in the iron age. And our technical production is a hell of a lot more than 20 times as efficient. The history of mechanised farming in both the EU and America is one of purposeful artificial scarcity in order to maintain prices, and is openly discussed in those terms:-- By the end of World War II, the farm economy once again faced the challenge of overproduction. Technological advances, such as the introduction of gasoline- and electric-powered machinery and the widespread use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, meant production per hectare was higher than ever. To help consume surplus crops, which were depressing prices and costing taxpayers money, Congress in 1954 created a Food for Peace program that exported U.S. farm goods to needy countries. Policy-makers reasoned that food shipments could promote the economic growth of developing countries. Humanitarians saw the program as a way for America to share its abundance. In the 1960s, the government decided to use surplus food to feed America's own poor as well. During President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, the government launched the federal Food Stamp program, giving low-income persons coupons that could be accepted as payment for food by grocery stores. Other programs using surplus goods, such as for school meals for needy children, followed. These food programs helped sustain urban support for farm subsidies for many years, and the programs remain an important form of public welfare -- for the poor and, in a sense, for farmers as well. But as farm production climbed higher and higher through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the cost of the government price support system rose dramatically. Politicians from non-farm states questioned the wisdom of encouraging farmers to produce more when there was already enough -- especially when surpluses were depressing prices and thereby requiring greater government assistance. The government tried a new tack. In 1973, U.S. farmers began receiving assistance in the form of federal "deficiency" payments, which were designed to work like the parity price system. To receive these payments, farmers had to remove some of their land from production, thereby helping to keep market prices up. A new Payment-in-Kind program, begun in the early 1980s with the goal of reducing costly government stocks of grains, rice, and cotton, and strengthening market prices, idled about 25 percent of cropland. Price supports and deficiency payments applied only to certain basic commodities such as grains, rice, and cotton. Many other producers were not subsidized. A few crops, such as lemons and oranges, were subject to overt marketing restrictions. Under so-called marketing orders, the amount of a crop that a grower could market as fresh was limited week by week. By restricting sales, such orders were intended to increase the prices that farmers received. In the 1980s and 1990sBy the 1980s, the cost to the government (and therefore taxpayers) of these programs sometimes exceeded $20,000 million annually. Outside of farm areas, many voters complained about the cost and expressed dismay that the federal government was actually paying farmers NOT to farm. Congress felt it had to change course again. In 1985, amid President Ronald Reagan's calls for smaller government generally, Congress enacted a new farm law designed to reduce farmers' dependence on government aid and to improve the international competitiveness of U.S. farm products. The law reduced support prices, and it idled 16 to 18 million hectares of environmentally sensitive cropland for 10 to 15 years. Although the 1985 law only modestly affected the government farm-assistance structure, improving economic times helped keep the subsidy totals down. As federal budget deficits ballooned throughout the late 1980s, however, Congress continued to look for ways to cut federal spending. In 1990, it approved legislation that encouraged farmers to plant crops for which they traditionally had not received deficiency payments, and it reduced the amount of land for which farmers could qualify for deficiency payments. The new law retained high and rigid price supports for certain commodities, and extensive government management of some farm commodity markets continued, however. That changed dramatically in 1996. A new Republican Congress, elected in 1994, sought to wean farmers from their reliance on government assistance. The Freedom-to-Farm Act dismantled the costliest price- and income-support programs and freed farmers to produce for global markets without restraints on how many crops they planted. Under the law, farmers would get fixed subsidy payments unrelated to market prices. The law also ordered that dairy price supports be phased out. These changes, a sharp break from the policies of the New Deal era, did not come easily. Congress sought to ease the transition by providing farmers $36,000 million in payments over seven years even though crop prices at the time were at high levels. Price supports for peanuts and sugar were kept, and those for soybeans, cotton, and rice were actually raised. Marketing orders for oranges and some other crops were little changed. Even with these political concessions to farmers, questions remained whether the less controlled system would endure. Under the new law, government supports would revert to the old system in 2002 unless Congress were to act to keep market prices and support payments decoupled. New dark clouds appeared by 1998, when demand for U.S. farm products slumped in important, financially distressed parts of Asia; farm exports fell sharply, and crop and livestock prices plunged. Farmers continued to try to boost their incomes by producing more, despite lower prices. In 1998 and again in 1999, Congress passed bailout laws that temporarily boosted farm subsidies the 1996 act had tried to phase out. Subsidies of $22,500 million in 1999 actually set a new record. Farm Policies and World TradeThe growing interdependence of world markets prompted world leaders to attempt a more systematic approach to regulating agricultural trade among nations in the 1980s and 1990s. Almost every agriculture-producing country provides some form of government support for farmers. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, as world agricultural market conditions became increasingly variable, most nations with sizable farm sectors instituted programs or strengthened existing ones to shield their own farmers from what was often regarded as foreign disruption. These policies helped shrink international markets for agricultural commodities, reduce international commodity prices, and increase surpluses of agricultural commodities in exporting countries. In a narrow sense, it is understandable why a country might try to solve an agricultural overproduction problem by seeking to export its surplus freely while restricting imports. In practice, however, such a strategy is not possible; other countries are understandably reluctant to allow imports from countries that do not open their markets in turn. By the mid-1980s, governments began working to reduce subsidies and allow freer trade for farm goods. In July 1986, the United States announced a new plan to reform international agricultural trade as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The United States asked more than 90 countries that were members of the world's foremost international trade arrangement, known then as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to negotiate the gradual elimination of all farm subsidies and other policies that distort farm prices, production, and trade. The United States especially wanted a commitment for eventual elimination of European farm subsidies and the end to Japanese bans on rice imports. Other countries or groups of countries made varying proposals of their own, mostly agreeing on the idea of moving away from trade-distorting subsidies and toward freer markets. But as with previous attempts to get international agreements on trimming farm subsidies, it initially proved extremely difficult to reach any accord. Nevertheless, the heads of the major Western industrialized nations recommitted themselves to achieving the subsidy-reduction and freer-market goals in 1991. The Uruguay Round was finally completed in 1995, with participants pledging to curb their farm and export subsidies and making some other changes designed to move toward freer trade (such as converting import quotas to more easily reduceable tariffs). They also revisited the issue in a new round of talks (the World Trade Organization Seattle Ministerial in late 1999). While these talks were designed to eliminate export subsidies entirely, the delegates could not agree on going that far. The European Community, meanwhile, moved to cut export subsidies, and trade tensions ebbed by the late 1990s. Farm trade disputes continued, however. From Americans' point of view, the European Community failed to follow through with its commitment to reduce agricultural subsidies. The United States won favorable decisions from the World Trade Organization, which succeeded GATT in 1995, in several complaints about continuing European subsidies, but the EU refused to accept them. Meanwhile, European countries raised barriers to American foods that were produced with artificial hormones or were genetically altered -- a serious challenge to the American farm sector. In early 1999, U.S. Vice President Al Gore called again for deep cuts in agricultural subsidies and tariffs worldwide. Japan and European nations were likely to resist these proposals, as they had during the Uruguay Round. Meanwhile, efforts to move toward freer world agricultural trade faced an additional obstacle because exports slumped in the late 1990s. Farming As Big BusinessAmerican farmers approached the 21st century with some of the same problems they encountered during the 20th century. The most important of these continued to be overproduction. As has been true since the nation's founding, continuing improvements in farm machinery, better seeds, better fertilizers, more irrigation, and effective pest control have made farmers more and more successful in what they do (except for making money). And while farmers generally have favored holding down overall crop output to shore up prices, they have balked at cutting their own production. ... The advent of agribusiness in the late 20th century has meant fewer but much larger farms. Sometimes owned by absentee stockholders, these corporate farms use more machinery and far fewer farm hands. In 1940, there were 6 million farms averaging 67 hectares each. By the late 1990s, there were only about 2.2 million farms averaging 190 hectares in size. During roughly this same period, farm employment declined dramatically -- from 12.5 million in 1930 to 1.2 million in the 1990s -- even as the total U.S. population more than doubled. In 1900, half of the labor force were farmers, but by the end of the century only 2 percent worked on farms. And nearly 60 percent of the remaining farmers at the end of the century worked only part-time on farms; they held other, non-farm jobs to supplement their farm income. The high cost of capital investment -- in land and equipment -- makes entry into full-time farming extremely difficult for most persons. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap8.htm This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-22-2005 10:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Oh yes, and of course: all these hijinks to create artificial scarcity and shore-up prices against market pressures (indeed, against the tendency for the rate of profit to decline just as Marx predicted) is also what prevents the third world from producing food competitvely and exporting it to the developed world.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024