orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/04/85)
> I have read some pretty ridiculous things on the net in the last year > or so ... but this one takes the rag off the bush. > There is one fact that can not be argued away - Socialism can`t feed > itself. Before 1917 Russia was a net EXPORTER of wheat, (sevener will tell us > there has been 50 years of bad weather, and things will be better under the new > five year plan). > The inescapable fact IS that free enterprise farmers in the west have > been feeding the world, socialists included. It we have any problems with > farming it is that the government has been `trying to fix what aint broke`. > Farmers have been working miracles in spite of the government. > And along comes the net's leading Socialist to explain to us that the > farm success is the RESULT of government controls ! My God! > danw It seems that many free enterprise defenders on the net do not understand my position with regard to the market. I do not agree with totally centralized planning or a totally collectivized economy. Believe it or not I actually agree with Libertarians and others who argue that there are major advantages to letting prices fluctuate in the market. But this is not a *new* position for Socialists: in fact Oskar Lange advocated "market socialism" in the 40's. In fact a system such as that of American agriculture in which many independent producers have control of their own productive capital is a reasonably good system. I do not believe there are the vast inequities among farmers that there are between workers and owners in most oligopoly industries. (this is not based upon hard evidence so this opinion is subject to change) The problem in most cases is that, unlike farmers who *do* control their own capital, most workers do not. This is what I would like to see changed. I would like to see more workers own and control the organizations in which they work. If they did they would not oppose automation: why should they? If they get a share of the increased profits from automation then they would favor it. At the same time, however if all the workers in industries that are automating have an influence on that process they are also likely to eschew layoffs of no longer needed workers in favor of shorter working hours for all workers. I think that advocating democratic control of economic organizations is in step with the American tradition of democracy and individual autonomy. On the other hand, it is also unrealistic to believe that the "invisible hand" of the market is a panacea for all problems. Before the Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed farmers were losing their farms by the thousands. This was hardly the first time government helped farmers to help themselves. Way back in 1862 the Morrill Act was passed which provided government aid to establish the land grant colleges to aid research in agriculture. The results of this research has been one of the things which has made our American agricultural system the most innovative and productive in the world. Nor are we the only country that has a very productive agricultural sector aided by the government. In fact a causal study of the factors aiding development in a sample of countries throughout the world found that those countries (including the US, Japan, Korea and Taiwan) which insured a dispersed distribution of land along with government aid via price supports and Agricultural Extension Services to agriculture were the most self-sufficient in agriculture and consequently experienced the most long-term economic growth. Unfortunately many Third World countries have imposed the opposite policies of penalizing agriculture for the benefit of urban dwellers lower food costs. Their reasoning has been that building industry was more important for economic development than agriculture. This has probably been a great mistake. The Dust Bowl showed the results of a totally lasseiz faire approach to agriculture. Since the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other programs for the government to help *stabilize* the market for agriculture we have had an unending string of agricultural surpluses. It is up to attackers of this success to prove that government intervention has been bad for agriculture. I think they will have a VERY difficult time making that argument. Awaiting facts to back up such a claim, the *market* socialist, tim sevener whuxl!orb