In mid-June the number of foot and mouth cases in Britain reached 1,782, affecting 8,354 premises. Further cases have been found since. The latest estimate is that some four million animals will be slaughtered before the epidemic is eradicated, amounting to 7 to 8% of the national herd.
The foot and mouth crisis is only the latest example of the problems facing agriculture in Britain. Over a year ago the government wrote "�there is a crisis in British farming� Exchange rates and the legacy of BSE, and a fall in international commodity prices in recent years combined to drive down prices and support and drive costs up" ('Strategy for Agriculture' MAFF). Farm incomes are reported to have declined by 69% between 1995 and 2000, from £5.3bn per annum to £1.9bn. Between 1998 and 2000 the number working in agriculture fell by about 10%, from 608,000 to 556,000. The report continues, "But the crisis also reflects underlying structural problems in British farming. These result from a tradition of subsidy and protection under the Common Agricultural Policy�" This is only very partially true, since the CAP is not actually the cause of the problems of farming, whether in Britain or anywhere else in Europe, but rather an attempt to deal with problems that stem, not from the agricultural sector, but from the overall crisis of capitalism. The government's solution is the familiar insistence that the industry "must be competitive, diverse and flexible" and "must respond better to consumer demands". This is nothing but a demand to bow down before the laws of capitalism, whose rule across the world spreads hunger, poverty and disease.
Agriculture and capitalism in Britain
The present condition of agriculture in Britain can only be understood in its historical context. Since Britain occupied a central place in the development of capitalism this understanding will also contribute to understanding the general questions about agriculture, poverty and starvation.
It was the industrial revolution above all that determined the subsequent development of agriculture. 'The Agrarian Question', written by Karl Kautsky in 1898 shows how the impact of the industrial revolution subordinated all production to the market, changed the pattern of land ownership, wiped out the peasantry in its traditional form, and systematised production.
In 1800, agriculture still seemed to dominate the British economy, employing about a third of the workforce and accounting for the same proportion of the national income. It had been able to respond to a doubling of the population, largely through the application of better methods of cultivation (crop rotation, changes in patterns of animal husbandry to allow more to be kept over the winter etc). In 1830 90% of the food consumed was still produced in Britain. This had been achieved by a complete transformation of agriculture.
The driving force for this change was the development of capitalism, which destroyed traditional peasant industry. This led to fundamental changes in land ownership as peasants and small producers were forced off the land and farms increased in size in order to produce the surplus necessary to make a return. The growth of capitalist production created a demand for 'free' labourers: its impact on the previous feudal society created them and, in so doing, ended feudalism.
In Britain, one of the most important expressions of this was the gradual enclosure of the traditional open field system from about 1760 on. By the start of the 19th century the peasantry as a class had virtually ceased to exist in Britain.
The economic strength of industry was soon reinforced with political power. In 1815 the landed interest was able to pass the Corn Laws which protected the high profits they had enjoyed during the Napoleonic Wars by imposing tariffs on imports of wheat. Their repeal in 1846 reflected the dominance of the industrial interests that sought lower food costs in order to reduce the cost of labour.
Agriculture now became subservient and secondary to industry. Initially this led to a boom as the development of industry and urban areas increased demand, while the cost of transport and the difficulty of storage meant there were few imports to threaten the national monopoly. The application of industrial and scientific techniques brought substantial increase in production along with sharp reductions in manpower. In 1840 the number had already dropped to 25% of the working population and continued to decline, although it did not lose its position as the single largest employer until the start of the twentieth century. Its significance in the national economy rapidly declined: in 1851 it still accounted for 20% of national income, by 1891 it was less than 8%.
In the last quarter of the 19th century cheap imports began to come in, particularly from the Americas and this time demands for protection were swept aside. In the first years of the 20th century British agriculture entered a period of decline in which profits were largely maintained at the expense of investment.
Farming in decadence
At the time of the First World War agriculture only accounted for about 6 or 7% of national income, the amount of land cultivated had declined and British agriculture had become relatively less productive than Germany's. Imports had become increasingly important, exceeding home production in terms of monetary value and calorific content. The outbreak of war did not lead to an immediate change, although the government did encourage people to take on allotments. Subsequently the state took steps to guarantee prices to farmers and to ration food.
After the war state intervention was forced to continue in the face of the growing crisis. Domestic production was protected, prices to farmers were guaranteed and various Marketing Boards were established to boost sales. In 1936 £40m was paid in subsidies. However, imports now accounted for about 70% of food consumed and the contribution of agriculture to the national income continued to fall.
The Second World War saw an immediate and much more substantive response by the state resulting in a 50% increase in arable acreage and a consequent decline in meat production. The use of fertilisers increased two to three times and the number of tractors and combine harvesters quadrupled. The state dictated what was to be grown and allocated labour and machinery. Output almost doubled.
The impetus this gave to agriculture carried on after the war leading to a significant increase in productivity. State intervention was maintained, the Agriculture Act of 1947 continuing the protectionist policy and instituting an annual price review. Initial resistance to joining the European Economic Community turned to a recognition of the necessity of doing so after attempts to establish a rival trading bloc were dashed, although Britain was not accepted until 1973. This period saw a substantial industrialisation of farming, with increased use of fertilisers and chemicals accompanying the consolidation of large farms, with hedges being ripped out to turn small fields into big ones. In the 70s and 80s serious problems of overproduction developed in Europe, leading first to the stockpiling and destruction of food and then to paying farmers not to cultivate part of their land. The CAP now dominates the European Union's budget.
The importance of agriculture to the British economy has continued to decline. In the 1990s it averaged 1.4% of GDP. Last year it was just 0.8% and exports amounted to only £630m. Yet it continues to be heavily subsidised: the 'Strategy for Agriculture' details the subsidies the government plans to provide, including a £1.6bn seven-year programme. The main reason why agriculture, which is such a small part of GDP, gets so much state support is strategic: to abandon domestic production would leave Britain at the mercy of its imperialist rivals if a war broke out. It also plays the role of managing the countryside. This is implicitly acknowledged in the current policy of diversification, whether into niche production or non-agricultural activity.
How farming faces the crisis of capitalism
The crisis of British agriculture is only a particular expression of the general crisis of capitalism, in which immense productive capacity struggles to find profitable outlets. This may seem an absurd and obscene contradiction in a world where millions starve each year but in capitalism starvation and the overproduction of food go hand in hand.
"For revolutionaries, the real issue here is capitalism's own productionist logic, as Marx analysed in Capital: 'Accumulation for accumulation's sake, production for production's sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth�'. Here lies the logical and the unlimited cynicism of capitalism: the accumulation of capital and not the satisfaction of human needs is the real goal of capitalist production, and therefore the fate of the working class or of the environment, is of little import". (International Review 104, 'Only the proletarian revolution will save the human species').
In this respect, agriculture is just another capitalist industry. In response to the crisis of overproduction it has to cut costs, sell more cheaply. One capitalist gains the advantage, but once others catch up they are back to square one. Humans, animals, fish, trees, plants, mineral resources, water, air: none of it can count. Everything is secondary to the accumulation of capital. If animal feed is expensive, then give them the remains of their own kind. The use of this strategy for cattle feed, chiefly in Britain, led to the horrors of BSE. If vaccinating sheep and cattle against foot and mouth is not cost effective, run the risk and slaughter millions if things go wrong (which might give a temporary respite to the problem of overproduction anyway). If keeping animals in fields is too labour intensive, herd them into vast factory farming buildings so only a handful of workers need be employed.
Such is the nature of agriculture and food production in capitalism. As the crisis deepens the only perspective is for farming to become more harmful to farmworkers' health, more destructive to the environment, for more food scares and crises, and for greater hunger. The only way out is the destruction of capitalism. North, 24/6/01.
At the end of the 19th century Frederick Engels called anti-semitism "the socialism of fools".
You're poor, you're exploited, your life is miserable - so blame it on another group, the vast majority of whom are also poor, miserable and exploited, in the case Engels was talking about, the Jews. Who can benefit from this except the exploiters? It's exactly the same in Britain today with all the hatred being stirred up against 'asylum seekers', or Asians, or blacks - a hatred that has burst out into 'race riots' in a number of northern towns.
Those who stir up racial divisions most openly, like the British National Party, use the same old arguments: you're poor because of them. They get all the jobs, the housing, the welfare hand-outs. In 99 cases out of a 100 this is simply a lie: official statistics invariably confirm that poverty, unemployment and lack of housing are worse among 'immigrant' sectors of the working class. But even if it were true that immigrant workers got a better deal from the state, it would not alter the deeply anti-working class nature of such arguments. Aren't all workers, to one degree or another, faced with attacks on wages, jobs, benefits and housing? Do we have any other weapon to defend ourselves with except getting together as workers against our exploiters? Any ideology which sets worker against worker serves the capitalist class. The ruling class and its state don't give a damn about the colour of your skin as long as it can sweat surplus value out of you. But it is very interested in promoting racial divisions because they weaken the capacity of the working class to unite and fight back.
The BNP aren't the only racists
Faced with the provocative actions of fascist type groups like the BNP or the NF in Oldham, Burnley and elsewhere, there are all sorts of 'anti-racists' running around telling us that these groups are the number one problem we have to deal with. But the BNP are simply pawns in a bigger game. Wasn't it the major political parties who helped stoke up the current tensions with the whole campaign about 'asylum seekers', with its phony distinction between 'political' (acceptable) and 'economic' (not acceptable) asylum seekers - as if both weren't equally the victims of capitalism's world wide crisis? Wasn't it the major parties, backed by the tabloid press with its scare stories about asylum seekers living in five star hotels at the tax-payer's expense, who have been vying with each other to come up with more and more brutal ways of dealing with illegal immigrants? Isn't it the entire police force which, following the inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder, was charged with "institutional racism"? Racism is far too useful a weapon to be left to the likes of the BNP. It is manipulated and used to the hilt by the state as a whole.
And what's more, the whole ideology of anti-racism and multiculturalism also serves the interest of the state, because it too divides the working class up into racial and religious categories and calls on them to organise on the basis of their separate 'identity' or 'culture'. They - especially the most radical ones, like the Socialist Workers Party - claim that the nationalism of the oppressed is more progressive than the nationalism of the oppressor. This argument is another blow against workers' unity. Look what has just happened in the Balkans. Hundreds of thousands died because the bourgeoisie succeeded in getting people mobilised to fight each other along ethnic, national, or religious lines. In Kosovo one minute Serbian nationalism had the upper hand over Albanian nationalism, making it the 'nationalism of the oppressed'; the next minute, thanks to NATO, the Albanian nationalists had the tables turned and began persecuting the Serbs. Which nationalism was more progressive then? Answer: neither. Both are equally reactionary, because both are used to get workers to slaughter each other for a cause which is not their own - the cause of capitalist and imperialist war, which is plunging whole regions of the planet into barbarism right now.
Capitalism breeds racism because it is based on national divisions and competition. The capitalist class, from right to left, is therefore inherently racist. The capitalist disease of racism infects and affects the working class, weakening it and dividing it. But the working class is a truly international class. It has no nation to defend because it owns nothing but its labour power, and is exploited in the same way all over the globe. The working class struggle is therefore the only practical antidote to racism, both in the short and the long term. In the short term, because in their day to day struggle against the effects of exploitation, workers of different 'colours' either stand together or go down in defeat. And in the long term, because only a worldwide workers' revolution can finally free humanity from the insane national and racial divisions which threaten its very existence. WR, 30/6/01.
Protesters at June's EU summit in Gothenburg were met with the full force of Sweden's liberal democracy. The police attacked with dogs, batons, the cavalry and gunfire. 3 people were shot, 90 injured and 600 arrested. The EU leaders, including Tony Blair and Jack Straw, condemned the "thuggery" of the protesters and backed the police. The Danish Prime Minister thought it a "paradox" that there could be protests at a meeting "where we are working towards a better world". Blair said it was OK for protesters to protest, but, according to him, the way that capitalism was organised was universally beneficial: "The fact is that world trade is good for people's jobs and living standards".
At the same time that capitalist leaders say that they are working for a 'better world' they defend measures that ensure that the conditions of millions are deteriorating. They talk of the benefits of 'globalisation' while the IMF admits these don't extend to the poor. They defend their democracies and the right to protest, while all over the world governments are strengthening their repressive powers. They talk of 'humanitarianism' and the defence of 'civilised' values as they send troops into the Balkans, bomb Belgrade and Baghdad, and tighten the sanctions which continue to kill every day in Iraq.
The weapons of the ruling class
The reasons for the bourgeoisie's hypocrisy can be understood by looking at the way the ruling class dominates society. To maintain social order the capitalist class relies on repression and ideology, state power and propaganda, brute force and lies. Everything they do can be seen as a reflection of both aspects of their class rule.
For example, Blair blamed an "anarchist travelling circus" for being at the root of what happened at Gothenburg (and Seattle etc before it, with Genoa still to come in July). At the ideological level this is the old lie that there would never be any conflicts in society if it wasn't for a minority of 'troublemakers'. At the level of repression governments throughout Europe have swapped intelligence on 'anarchist ring leaders' and propose to treat them like football hooligans and take away their passports. The German and French interior ministers are looking at "a co-ordinated and hard response to this new form of extremist, cross-border criminality" (Guardian 18/6/1). Governments will be prepared to target the movements of anyone who they deem to be a potential cause of difficulty. You don't have to be an 'anarchist ring leader' for the state to keep tabs on you.
With the coming G8 meeting, set for July 20 in Genoa, you can see the bourgeoisie preparing for every eventuality. Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, has said that up to 150,000 protesters are expected, and that exceptional measures will be required. George Bush will stay on an aircraft carrier, and other world leaders attending the meeting will be in a cruise ship moored offshore. The protection of meeting places will be rigorous. Access to Genoa will be difficult.
As for the demonstrators it will be an excellent opportunity for the Italian state to practice crowd control. The tactics of the state in London on May Day this year, where 6000 police held 1500 protesters helpless at Oxford Circus for several hours, show one approach. At Genoa they could try anything from cutting the city off from the outside world to a massive display of force to trying out new weaponry. The bourgeoisie is always keen to try out new tools. Even in Northern Ireland, where there has been direct military rule for more than 30 years, the army has just borrowed some water cannon from the Belgium state which might come in handy during any disturbances this summer.
Democracy goes with repression
The one thing that might have puzzled some people about the police violence in Gothenburg is how it tallies with Sweden's reputation as a progressive democracy. In reality democracy in Scandinavia behaves exactly as democracy anywhere. In Ancient Greece democracy was a form of rule by the slave owners. In the modern capitalist world democracy is a form of rule by the bourgeoisie in its exploitation of the working class. It will talk of 'human rights' and 'democratic freedoms' but its central concern is a social order in which it can pursue the goal of capital accumulation.
Violent state repression has been just as much a characteristic of the bourgeoisie in Britain, the home of 'free speech' and 'fair play' as anywhere in the world. It's hard to choose when there have been so many examples. In 1819 there was the Peterloo massacre, a crowd of 80,000 at a political reform meeting in Manchester were attacked by the forces of the state, 11 people were killed and 400 injured. In November 1887 troops fired on a demonstration in Trafalgar Square. In November 1910 the police and military attacked miners in Tonypandy and one worker was shot dead. In August 1911, in a series of attacks on workers' demonstrations and other actions in Liverpool, two workers were shot dead - two warships had been sent to assist. During the 1913 Dublin strike and lock-out police attacks left five people dead and hundreds injured. In the early 1930s the police attacked demonstrations of the unemployed all over the country. During the Labour government of 1945-51 troops were deployed against workers' actions on 18 occasions. In 1972, on Bloody Sunday, the army shot dead 13 demonstrators in Northern Ireland. Within the living memory of many are the police attacks on the miners and printers strikes in the 1980s.
Internationally, even without considering repression in the colonies of the European powers, or the horrors during times of imperialist war, when millions have died in the cause of capitalist democracy, there are even more dramatic examples of the violence of bourgeois repression. When the bourgeoisie defeated the Paris Commune in 1871 as many as 30,000 were murdered. In the repression against the German Revolution in the early 1920s, workers died in their tens of thousands. Against the Russian Revolution the armed forces of 14 countries were sent to back up the White Terror.
The examples from Britain are not as dramatic. This is because the bourgeoisie has a longer experience of maintaining social order than any other, and has developed many sophisticated means for defending itself. Take the situation in Britain in 1919, where there was widespread unrest and the bourgeoisie was deeply worried by events taking a 'Bolshevik' direction. Against a strike movement in Glasgow in early 1919, involving many sectors, there was uncompromising repression. A demonstration on 31 January was brutally attacked by the police. By the next day Glasgow was under military rule, occupied by troops armed with machine guns, tanks and planes. Against other major strikes in 1919, involving the miners and railwayworkers, the ruling class adopted a different approach, explicitly relying on the trade unions to undermine workers' struggles. The confidence that workers had in the unions brought about their defeat.
In Gothenburg we saw both faces of the bourgeoisie. There were the reassurances that they were really concerned with the welfare of all humanity. There were demonstrators being shot in the back. Workers should be aware that these are two sides of the same exploiting class. Barrow 28/6/1
Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/30/economics
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/general-and-theoretical-questions/economic-crisis
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/16/state-capitalism
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/22/national-question
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/political-currents-and-reference/leftism
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/mobilisations-people
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/18/proletarian-struggle
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/3/29/class-consciousness