Off Topic Political Debate

I have only just caught up with this debate. It is interesting. Ideologically and emotionally I think my views are close to Cologne's. I read Kropotkin and William Godwin in my youth. I always found the Marxists too totalitarian. Having said that I do have to agree with Lenin's prediction that capitalism will lead to monopoly. He didn't get it quite right but the current system has resulted in some very powerful corporation using patent law to create monopolistic positions. This point is important regarding land ownership, particularly in relation to farming.

During the Napolionic Wars. Ricardo showed how the value of land is totally dependent on what can be done with it. This was a change from the pre-capitalist tradition where land developed a cultural and emotional attachment to the people who lived on it. I could go on about this but it is not the main point I am trying to make. As Frenchie has pointed out, the redistribution of land results in small holdings that have a smaller value per hectare than if they are combined. Additionally, the small-holders can make more money working in urban areas. Economies of scale are in operation and we get industrialised farming.

Industrialised farming destroys the connexion to the land and place that traditional farmers had. This destroys much of the sense of environmental protection that many farmers used to carry out. Canterbury, the province in which I live, sheep and arable farming has been swept away for dairying. The climate is not wet enough for dairying so a lot of irrigation is used. This is slowly but surely emptying the aquifers that supply all of us with water. The effluent from the cows is poisoning the rivers. This is of no concern to the farming corporations. As soon as dairying is no longer profitable they will move on, my guess is South America.

In areas of arable and horticultural farming, in other parts of the world, GM crops are being introduced by large corporations. I am not going to argue about the dangers of GM food from a biological basis as I have no expertise in that area. My fear about them is economic. Large corporations, like Monsanto, will hold the patent on GM crops. Legally, no-one is allowed to grow those crops without permission. However, in farming it is not uncommon for some plants in one field to appear in another field. Normally farmers would remove these if it became a problem. What the large farming corporations do is sue the neighbouring farmer for growing their patented crops without permission, unless they are prepared to sell the land or come under the sway of the corporation. The crops that are/will be produced are marketed as having some beneficial attribute and sold to Western consumers at a premium. That is the nature of a monopolistic supplier. Meanwhile, where the crops are grown, it becomes too financially dangerous to farm independently, so all the farmers are dependent on one buyer of their produce. This is monopsony, and results in the forcing down of prices. The farmers get even less, and certainly cannot afford to buy the produce they grow. I have heard many scientists argue that GM food will increase output, reduce prices, and thereby feed the world. This is mercantile economic theory that was overthrown by the members of the Scottish Enlightenment at the end of the eighteenth century.

To cut a long story short, current land ownership will tend to monopolistic pricing of farm goods. It is dangerous. We need land reform.

The discussion on Zimbabwe is also interesting. The only British newspaper that did not support Mugabe, during the latter stages of the civil war, was the Mirror. I have been told, on very good authority from exiled white Zimbabweans, that there are some rich and powerful white Zimbabweans financially supporting the current regime, including making suggestions as to who should lose their land next. The failure of land redistribution in Zimbabwe, should not be seen as a failure of the redistribution of land. In Zimbabwe, as far as those who have made the decisions are concerned, land redistribution has not failed. It has achieved the goals that were set.

 

A great text NZ. I will reply more fully to it when I have time. What disturbs me is the heavy use of agricultural subventions from the EU which lead to monoculture and to the use of large fields without a hedge in sight. Gone is the mixed farming and the crop rotation of the past. Where we live we are often on a lonely island with slurry covering all the fields around us - some of it imported from the Netherlands ! The end result is large fields with no surviving insect life whatsoever - and when the last Bumble Bee has gone and there is no more pollination taking place - will they then realize their mistake ? Unfortunately the role which agriculture has taken over within capitalism is that of keeping prices so low as to not eat into customer spending power - if the worker was still spending a third of his money on food as in 1900 then the consumer revolution would have been stillborn. Unfortunately the Green revolution is still firmly focused upon 'alternative energy' because it creates jobs - still focused on a technofix solution rather than the emphasis that what is needed is not more growth but rather fairer distribution. I read recently that the total freight in the World (measured in ships tonnage) is the same now for one day as for the whole year of my birth - in other words World trade has increased nearly 400 times over but do we ever ask the question whether our standards of living have grown at a proportionate rate ? Without wishing to be cast as a kind of stone age man dressed in sacks and sandals we need to rediscover 'local' production, self sufficiency and the idea that the worth of a person has nothing to do with their spending power - and that sharing can be fun.

 

I'm afraid that Greens and others who hark back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to Marx, Lenin and so forth may win the argument on what is nice but lose on what is real in the 21st Century. In a world with a population of over seven billion running society on local cooperatives is really not a viable solution. I would like to see the Greens come to power in a modern society - perhaps Germany for you Cologne - and then to see exactly how they manage

 

What is 'real' in the 21st Century is global warming and the commitment of all government to reduce carbon emissions - this is the 'challenge' of the century or are you going to deny this ? If the whole World consumed the same as the Germans, English and Americans we would need 4 planets and not the one we have. I would like to hear a viable solution from you, and not just criticism. Is it viable in a World of limited resources to believe in the endless growth and consumption which is part and parcel of unrestrained capitalism ? Also - just to put you right on a few facts. The Green party have already formed part of a ruling coalition in Germany (the same applies to New Zealand), they have also formed part of the ruling government in 5 different European states - we also currently have a Green/SPD coalition ruling over Germany's most industrialized State (NRW) these people are not Marxists or Leninists, any more than they are either tree huggers or historicists - they are people who want to be able to hand the World over to the next generation is some kind of acceptable condition.

 

I am surrounded by sheep. Every other field is full of ewes with lambs by the hundred. You would think therefore that lamb would be reasonably priced, but it isn't unless you are friends with a farmer who has one for sale. Last weekend we did have lamb, but it wasn't French. A leg of a local one was €45, but a leg that had come from New Zealand was €17. Totally crazy that something sent from the otherside of the world could be that much cheaper considering the transport and fuel involved.
That had me do a little bit of research into how this could come about. It seems that production costs in this country are much higher than elsewhere. That seems odd. Stick your sheep in a field anywhere and let them get on with it until they are ready for market. The problem seemingly is that social costs are so steep here that effectively the government is making the cost prohibitive. Social costs for the farmer, the transporter, the abattoir etc etc.
The UK is a net exporter of lamb, with it's biggest market being France, although you don't see any in these parts. It would seem that the French farmers have been priced out of their own market by government policy, one that talks big about natural resources being used wisely, but does not set in place the ingredients to make it happen.
.

 

Actually 'peasant' agriculture is very efficient in terms of land use and can feed many people because all the land is used. Stupid lawns do not exist because they are unproductive. I know it has now become a cliche, but it is one that needs repeating, people in the UK were healthier during the war and they grew a lot of their own food.

In any case the world can grow enough food to feed everyone. It does that at the moment. It is the distribution of that food that is at fault. The amount of good food that is thrown away in the West is phenomenal. I can't remember the exact figures but it is something like 5% of all food purchased. Add to that the amount of food supermarkets throw away and you begin to see the problem. We can feed the world now, but we choose not to. We would rather have a system where some people die of an excess intake of food and others due of a lack of food. I have yet to hear a convincing argument to justify that.

 

You can add a 0 to that 5%, it's nearly half...

Most of our resources go towards feeding cows too

please log in to view this image

If you want to help fight global warming, just become a vegetarian

 

No one is forcing them to breed lambs...

That's meant to be the point of capitalism, no?

 

That is one of the best charts I have seen - love it - but I feel a bit sorry for chickens as there are billions but because the blighters are only little they don't get a look in by weight

 

Why would I deny that global warming is a major problem? It does not mean that plunging the world back into African /Asian style poverty through policies that would destroy the world economy is the solution. Surely you can see that a very small blip on the economic seismometer - which in truth the bankers-led crisis was- has caused years of austerity and poverty and decline in large parts of the developed world. These are the countries that also help fund aid elsewhere. How much worse if we were to overthrow the entire system. Do you deny that for the immediate future at least such aid is necessary?
I have no viable solution - does that make me a bad person and does it deny me the right to express criticism of what I see as an unworkable solution?
You have not put me right on a few facts. I did not ask what countries the Greens played a part in a coalition - where their extreme ideas do not get put into play. I am well aware that the Greens have been in many coalitions and do not need arrogant "putting me right" statements. I repeat my words " I would like to see the Greens come to power" that is to RULE not to be a coalition helper. It would show whether their policies pursued to their extremes were viable. Now in case you do not understand that is itself not a criticism but a desire to see if the Greens can put their policies where their mouths are.

 

please log in to view this image

 

No, no one is forcing them to, but a great deal of the land in these parts is not suitable for other types of agriculture. Rather like the hill farmers in parts of the UK. They could just stop and receive set aside money from the government in some cases, but as lamb exports, about 90% of production, earn money for the country, the rules would change very quickly to keep revenue flowing into the pot that the powers that be choose how to spend.

 

My post above reads more negatively than I meant it. To be clear I actually LIKE the Greens and find myself agreeing with many of their policies - the trouble is though that they make far better coalition partners, lobby groups etc to exert pressure on other parties to bear those matters in mind. What I doubt is that they could run an economy which is why I would like to see a non coalition Green government to prove me wrong. Same with Labour really - a much nicer party than the Tories but they are just economically and fiscally incompetent over the long run. Who would ever vote Tory because they liked them? Unfortunately from time to time we need them to sort out messes left by others.

 

I am not talking about plunging the World back to either 18th Century conditions or to African/Asian style poverty - the accepted goal of reduction in Co2 emissions being only a return to pre 1980 levels. This goal is not achievable through alternative energy, or energy saving, alone - simply through the techno fix solution of continuing to produce and consume the same as before but using different technology. More fundamental changes are needed. With reference to the Green Parties in power - we are living in democracies in which coalitions are the 'normal' form of government everywhere outside of either dictatorships or the USA or the UK. I would also like to know which Green policies you find particularly offensive or extreme in order to debate further on this - because simply dismissing someone as extremist, without any explanation, is not enough.

 

OK. our mails crossed here. We are arguing from two different perspectives here. It is really only in Britain or the USA that it is possible to hypothesize over one party ruling alone - everywhere else (apart from China) you know you will need coalitions. In a sense all European parties go into elections with manifestoes which are negotiable - just like market traders with their starting prices, because they know prior to elections that coalition is looming, they just don't know in which combination.

 

I do not want this to be personal and would not dismiss someone as extremist. It is some policies I see as extreme. I am sure that as a Geen Party member you know without me telling you the policies that the man on the street would regard as extreme - not sure I want to get sucked further into this debate though.

 

Wembley - I am a member of the German Green Party (Bundnis 90 die Grünen). Whilst the Green parties of Europe have certain common guidelines there are also differences - so it is not unreasonable of me to ask which policies you are refering to. If I were to refer to the Tories as eg. extremist neo liberalists I would explain why I thought so otherwise my argument would have no weight.

 

Just tried the UK Green Party website to get policies I could quote rather than be accused of making things up or being light weight but unbelievably under their Manifest they are showing the Manifesto for the 2010 election and not a current one. If a party cannot even put its manifesto on its own websiite it does not suggest they can run a P*ss Up in the proverbial brewery. First line of their schoolchildren style version of the Summary Manifesto- "Easy Read Manifesto" (also out of date) states that Caroline Lucas is the Leader of the Green Party. I am sorry Cologne but how can anyone try to argue against the policies of a party that cannot even give it's leader's name correctly nor supply an up to date manifesto.

Like some Green policies but their politicians are amateurs in the real world - at least in the UK which is where I will vote.

 

What website were you looking at? It clearly states on their site that they are releasing their 2015 manifesto in the next few weeks.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/

 

I can only reiterate what Toby has said already ref. policy.greenparty.org.uk. However I was giving you the credit of presuming that you already had something in mind when referring to extremist policies, without having to look for them.