No subject

/a>&gt;<br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
Frances Moore Lapp=C3=A9=E2=80=99s essay captures numerous facets necessary=
 to understand the current state of farming as well as the possibilities fo=
r the future. Along the way she dispels many false notions (dare I say myth=
s?) about industrial agriculture and the potential for small farms and pres=
ents a compelling case for the importance of agroecological approaches to f=
arming and living. And you can never explain too many times that the persis=
tence of hunger and malnutrition amidst plenty is not an issue of productio=
n=E2=80=94there is sufficient food produced to feed everyone in the world=
=E2=80=94but of disparities of economic and political power.<br>
<br>
Let me turn to a few of Lapp=C3=A9=E2=80=99s central points, ones that I co=
mpletely agree with. We know how to produce food in ecologically sound ways=
 and that true empowerment of small farmers in the poor countries of the wo=
rld, along with ecologically sound growing techniques can have profound ben=
eficial effects. In addition, small farm production using agroecological pr=
inciples and practices can produce high yields per acre (hectare) and encou=
rage community members to work together. Assistance is needed to make rural=
 areas more attractive with amenities provided for a good life. This will h=
elp reduce the mass migration to slums of the South=E2=80=99s cities that h=
ave few job opportunities, help the countryside to flourish, and assist in =
achieving food security for a region, and perhaps, a country.<br>
<br>
A few bulleted (well, =E2=80=9Clettered=E2=80=9D) statements will help me t=
o clarify a number of issues:<br>
<br>
a) I would suggest that the heart of the matter is *not* =E2=80=9Can econom=
ic model and thought system,=E2=80=9D but rather natural outcomes of the wa=
y the economic system of capitalism functions. The model and thought system=
 are ways people try to describe this particular economic system, they are =
derived from living in its midst.<br>
<br>
b) Concentration of production in agriculture (input industries, processing=
 industries, and in farming itself) or manufacturing is a natural outcome o=
f a competitive system in which production is for the purpose of making pro=
fits. Smaller firms and farms are not able to compete with the market power=
 or economies of scale=E2=80=94which include both physical economies of sca=
le along with strictly financial ones=E2=80=94of larger units and go out of=
 business. (In the wealthy countries, some small farms are able to survive =
by fitting into limited niche markets.)<br>
<br>
c) Decisions made by capitalist firms=E2=80=94be they in the service sector=
, manufacturing, or in farming=E2=80=94are made for the purpose of producin=
g profits. Greatest income minus input costs.<br>
<br>
d) This means that ecological or social effects are at best secondary or te=
rtiary concerns during the decision making process, although in most cases =
they aren=E2=80=99t considered at all. (Regulations, if they are enforced, =
may alter this, of course.)<br>
<br>
e) This is the origin of the social and ecological problems that arise from=
 the way the capitalist economic system works. Economists call them =E2=80=
=9Cexternalities,=E2=80=9D even though they are very much internal to how c=
apitalism operates. They are best viewed as costs that businesses, instead =
of paying for, force onto people and the environment. Decisions that are co=
mpletely rational within the logic of capital are at the same time ecologic=
ally and/or socially irrational. For example, Carrier recently announced th=
at it is moving manufacturing of furnaces and heating equipment to Mexico, =
putting some 1,400 employees in Indiana out of work. A Carrier manager expl=
ained it clearly: =E2=80=9CThis is strictly a business decision.=E2=80=9D T=
hat is precisely the logic of capital. It is the same logic that makes sens=
e of the factory system for raising animals. The whole purpose is to produc=
e animals to marketable weights and have them processed as quickly and chea=
ply as possible so as to maximize profits. But<br>
there is nothing socially or ecologically rational about the inhumane raisi=
ng of animals with routine use of antibiotics, separating the animals from =
the fields that produce their feed (necessitating large amounts of fertiliz=
er application on the cropland while piles of manure accumulate on the fact=
ory animal farms), the poor treatment of farm labor and workers in the proc=
essing plants, etc.<br>
<br>
f) There are many examples of successful agroecological projects, and Lapp=
=C3=A9 cites one in Ethiopia. But Ethiopia is also one of the prime targets=
 for the 21st century land grabs which are displacing the inhabitants and p=
roviding few (if any) jobs. A successful agroecology project shows what is =
possible, but the existence of the self-interest of powerful economic and p=
olitical forces indicate the enormity of what must be dealt with in order t=
o create a better life for all inhabitants.<br>
<br>
This brings me to the last paragraph of the essay. To me the issue is to ch=
ange the economic-political-social system to one that depends upon (modifie=
d, by deletion, from Lapp=C3=A9): =E2=80=9CDemocratic governance=E2=80=94ac=
countable to citizens, not to private wealth=E2=80=94makes possible the nec=
essary public debate and rule-making=E2=80=A6 within democratic values and =
sound science.=E2=80=9D<br>
<br>
But the only way truly democratic governance and ecologically rational deci=
sion making about what goods to produce and how to produce them can meaning=
fully occur is outside the logic of capital and the =E2=80=9Clogic=E2=80=9D=
 of the market. Markets might serve a minor purpose in a post-capitalist so=
ciety, but only if there is true equity and social justice. However, extrem=
e care is needed because as market mechanisms =E2=80=9Cnaturally=E2=80=9D f=
unction, they reproduce power (wealth) relations. They cannot do otherwise =
as long as significant differences in =E2=80=9Cprivate wealth=E2=80=9D exis=
t.<br>
<br>
I would suggest that that food, clean water, sanitation, health care, educa=
tion, and other basic human needs should *not* be commodities=E2=80=94produ=
ced in order to sell in the marketplace with the objective of making profit=
s. Rather, such goods should be produced for the purpose of people using th=
em. While distribution might entail the use of markets (though other mechan=
isms are possible), these goods should be considered to be among those that=
 are the right of every human being. For this to happen, we need a profound=
ly democratic and equitable economic-political-social system that, by the v=
ery way it functions, supplies the basic needs of everyone using approaches=
 and techniques that ensure the world ecosystem in which we are embedded=E2=
=80=94with all its complexities, essential cycles, and biological interrela=
tionships=E2=80=94remains healthy over the long term.<br>
<br>
Fred Magdoff<br>
<br>
**************************************************<br>
<br>
February 29, 2016<br>
<br>