Re: Reply to: Re: "Second contradiction" of

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Mr. Flanders,



        You are confusing the issues.  Of course Armour and ADM are
rapacious, they have to get profit from their PROPERTY - with which they are
free to do what they want.  So is the "family farmer".  He has no
community to answer to, except by government edict.  Were he
collectivized, then his business practices would have to stand up to
community scrutiny.


        The problem is that the family farmer cannot compete and draws
sympathy that ends up benefiting ADM and Armour. The small farmer may be a
fine steward of the land, unfortunately, this is not 1887.  He has to run a
business and compete in the commodities markets with the big boys.  If he is
so small that he has only his spread to support him, he tends to go broke.
The margins are too thin.  The farmer needs to diversify and collectivize.
He can't do that living in the past.



        There may not be a huge proletarian environmental movement, but
it certainly exists, and it recognizes the competing interests of
environmentalism better (if unsophisticatedly) than the hippies, Luddites,
and hauts bourgeois that dominate the rest of the movement.





        peace



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---