Farmers Vote To Join Wheat Board

In Nebraska. Farmers vote to join the Wheat Board.

That runs counter to the propaganda of the Harpocrites that farmers want an open market. American farmers who suffer from Agribusiness domination of the market like Canadian farmers recognize that a Marketing Board is the better option. Because as we all know consolidation creates better market access in the capitalist market.

As Marx said; That production rests on the supreme rule of capital. The centralization of capital is essential to the existence of capital as an independent power.

The Nebraska Wheat Growers Association, formed in 1954 and based in Ogallala, plans to move its office to Lincoln, as part of a proposed merger with the Nebraska Wheat Board. "The proposal, under discussion for about a year now, is aimed at improving the efficiency of both groups and making promotion of wheat more effective," says Mike Sullivan, NAWG president and producer from Wallace. "It will also make lobbying efforts on behalf of wheat growers more effective with NAWG being based in Lincoln near the Legislature." The Nebraska Wheat Growers Association is a dues-paying, voluntary membership organization that represents the state's producers, including lobbying for them on state and national policy issues. It sets membership policy on such matters as the farm program, crop insurance, soil and water conservation, transportation, and environmental issues. The Wheat Board, on the other hand, consists of a seven-member board, appointed by the governor, that administers the 1-1/4-cent-per-bushel wheat checkoff fee paid by all Nebraska wheat growers. The checkoff was created under state law and as such the board is prohibited from lobbying on state issues, although it can do so on national issues. The board's responsibilities are allocating checkoff dollars for research, promotion, education and market development, says Royce Schaneman, executive director of the Wheat Board.

See:

Wheat Boom

Death of the Family Farm

Wheat Board

ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, agriculture, wheat, WTO, G8, WheatBoard, farmers, Western-Canada, barley, wheat, Strahl, Government, Conservatives, Harper,

Canada
Politics
Harper
CWB
Wheat Board
farming
Supply Side Management
Conservatives

Fair Trade Is Good Capitalism

Galloping Beaver points out that the vulgar liberaltarian Adam Daifallah is claiming Fair Trade Coffee campaigns are Left Wing.

Mon Dieu, and there I thought Fair Trade was good for farmers, good for the developing world, good for business, good for trade, the good old fashioned authentic market place.

Not the Oligopolistic Capitalism that Daifallah defends.


SEE:

Cooperative Commonwealth=Free Market

Chocolate Worms

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
market, cooperation, free-mmarket, agora, agorist, left-libertarian, Gramsci, libertarian, anarchy, anarchism, coops, cooperatives, Italy, Bologna, counter-economics, capitalism, anti-capitalism,
Aid, development, Africa, cooperatives, coffee, Rawanda, state-capitalism, capitalism, industrialization, Free Trade, Fair Trade,Third-World,neo-liberalism,
coffee, Valdez, bolivia, fair-trade, gourmand

THE BRITISH DISTRIBUTIONISTS

Those who are regular readers will know that I have a passing interest in Distributionism and its impact on Canadian reformist populist politics of the Right and Left.

From the Canadian Anarchist Journal; Any Time Now. ATN #26 - Spring 2007
it includes a critique of Elizabeth May's mentor; Commander Coady.*

THE BRITISH DISTRIBUTIONISTS
review by
Kevin A. Carson
Race Matthews. Jobs of Our Own: Building a
StakeholderSociety--Alternatives to the Market & the State
(Australia and UK, 1999).

Matthews starts with the nineteenth century origins of
distributism: in the Catholic social teaching of Leo XIII's De
Rerum Novarum (heavily influenced by the proto-distributist
cardinal, Henry Manning, who in turn translated it into
English and added his own commentary), and the wider
tradition of Christian socialism; and in what Matthews calls
the "communitarian and associative" strand of the greater
socialist movement.

The distributist vision of a social order based on
widespread, small-scale ownership of property, and of
an economy where the means of production were
mainly owned by workers, dovetailed closely with the
principle of "subsidiarity" in Catholic social teaching:
that social functions should be carried out at the
smallest scale and the most local level of control
possible.

Distributism clearly also had strong roots in the socialist
revival of the 1880s, but was alienated from an increasingly
statist and collectivist socialist movement. In the terminology
of Chesterton and Belloc, distributists saw themselves in
opposition to both capitalism and socialism. But I get the
sense, from reading Matthews, that their position was less a
repudiation of socialism as such than a recognition that the
state socialists had permanently stolen the term for
themselves in the public mind.

Rather than a breach with socialism, it would perhaps be
more accurate to say they abandoned the term to their
enemies and adopted the name "distributism" for what
"socialism" used to mean. One contributor to the Distributist
Weekly, W.R. Titterton, commented that distributism would
have fit nicely with the kind of socialism that prevailed in
England back when William Morris was alive (and, I suspect,
would have fit in better yet with the earlier socialism of
Proudhon and the Owenites). "It was a fine time that, and
the vision which possessed us might at last have captured
England, too. If we had not met Sidney Webb!"
The Fabians, like other collectivists who have tried to
marginalize cooperativism within the socialist movement,
dismissed distributism as a "petty bourgeois" or "preindustrial"
movement relevant only to "artisan labor," and
inapplicable to large-scale industrial organization. Cecil
Chesterton, whose premature death dealt distributism a
serious blow, treated such arguments with the contempt
they deserved. "If Mr Shaw means... that it cannot distribute
the ownership of the works, it might be as well to inquire first
whether the ownership is distributed already.... I must
confess that I shall be surprised to learn that Armstrong's
works are today the property of a single man named
Armstrong.... I do not see why it should be harder to
distribute it among Armstrong's men than among a motley
crowd of country clergymen, retired Generals, Cabinet
ministers and maiden ladies such as provide the bulk of the
share-list in most industrial concerns."

Of the major intellectual figures of British distributism, Cecil was the most
aware of the central importance of producer organization.
The distributist movement of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire
Belloc, unfortunately, was long on theory and short on
action. It made little or no attempt at common cause, for
example, with the Rochedale cooperative movement.
Although distributist intellectuals were strongly in favor of
cooperatives in principle, they seemed to have little
awareness that the wheel had already been invented!
Despite impulses toward practical organization in the
provincial chapters of the Distributist League, and Fr.
Vincent McNabb's support of agrarian colonies on vacant
land, such efforts were inhibited by the leadership vacuum
in London (whose main concern, apparently, was apparently
intellectual debate, soapbox oratory, drinking songs, and
public house bonhomie).

Antigonish

The first large-scale attempt to put distributism into practice
was the Antigonish movement of Frs. Jimmy Tompkins and
Moses Coady, among the Acadian French population of
Nova Scotia. Tompkins and Coady acted through adult
study circles, strongly geared toward spurring practical
action. One of the first outgrowths of their educational work
was a decision by lobstermen to build their own cooperative
canning factory. This quickly led to cooperative marketing
ventures, buying clubs for fishing supplies, and cooperative
outlets for household woven goods. The movement
continued to spread like wildfire throughout the Maritimes,
with over two thousand study clubs by the late '30s with
almost 20,000 members, and 342 credit unions and 162
other cooperatives. By keeping for themselves what formerly
went to middlemen, the working people of the Antagonish
movement achieved significant increases in their standard of
living.

Through it all, Coady and Tompkins were motivated by
the "Big Picture" of a cooperative counter-economy on a
comprehensive scale: cooperative retailers, buying from
cooperative wholesalers, supplied by cooperative factories
owned by the movement, and financed by cooperative
credit.

In practice, though, the main emphasis was on
consumption and credit rather than production. The
fundamental weakness of Antigonish, Matthew argues, was
that it relied mainly on consumer cooperation, on the
Rochedale model. Consumer cooperation, by itself, is
vulnerable to what Matthews calls the "Rochedale cul-desac,"
in which cooperatives have "gravitated from the hands
of their members to those of bureaucracies," and adopted a
business culture almost indistinguishable from that of
capitalist firms. Worse yet, cooperatives are sometimes
subject to hostile takeovers and demutualization.

The problem with the cooperative movement, idealized by Distributionists, Social Credit and even the CCF was it was limited as a producer's movement in opposition to existing capitalism. It was unable to produce a strong enough alternative economy and political force, whether from the right or left as the legacy of the UFA, Socreds and CCF show, to defeat existing capitalist relations.

When these producer based movements became political parties within a parliamentary system they literally sold their souls to the company store.
In building a broad based alliance between farmers, workers, and urban professionals, these movements pushed for real parliamentary reform calling for direct democracy; referendum, recall.

In becoming a political party especially one in power, whether in Alberta or Saskatchewan, or indeed in some American states, the ability to reform the parliamentary system was limited, and in fact a straight jacket around the realpolitik of the movements.

Ultimately such movements during the last century in Europe and in North America ended up as consumer cooperatives, rather than independent artisan or producer alternatives to the banks and ultimately the capitalist system of production and distribution.

As such they became cogs in the existing capitalist system, as they are today. One really cannot tell the difference between the CO-OP stores and Safeways, or the Credit Unions and the big Banks.

Since once you transform producers to wage slaves they ultimately become 'consumers' in capitalist culture. As such they are subjects of history, rather than class conscious objects; makers of history.

The advent of transforming producers into wage slaves and ultimately declasse consumers, was the ultimate key to the survival of post Depression, post WWII capitalism.

The secret to becoming a revolutionary class for and of itself, the object of history, is the proletariats realization of the need to once again become producers,and land owners, thus self-valorizing individuals.



* a cheeky reference to a ground breaking rockabilly group from the sixties; Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen.


SEE:

Corporatism

Shameless

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
social credit, Major Douglas, Prairie, agrarian, farmers, populism, populist, producer, producerism, distributionism, Hilare Belocq, Green Party, Conservatives, Wheat Board, Alberta, William Irvine,Henry Wise Wood,UFA,CCF,Manitoba, Canada, US, Grange,

Edward Gibbon Wakefield

In searching for a pithy definition of Fete Accompli I came across this in Wikipedia.

Like Stephen Harper here is another Tory politician Quebecers liked; Edward Gibbon Wakefield.

But unlike Harper his motto was; if elected I will not serve. Which meant they liked him a lot.

While active with the New Zealand Company, Edward Gibbon had maintained his interest in Canadian affairs. He was involved with the North American Colonial Association of Ireland, NACAI. At his instigation, the NACAI were trying to purchase a large estate just outside Montreal where they wanted to establish another Colonial settlement. Edward Gibbon pushed the scheme with his usual energy; apparently, the government did not object in principle but they strenuously objected to Edward Gibbon having any part of it.

But trusted or not by the politicians, Edward Gibbon was involved in the scheme. The NACAI sent him back to Canada as their representative; he arrived in Montreal in January of 1842 and stayed in Canada for about a year. At this stage , Canada was still coming to terms with the union of Upper and Lower Canada. There were serious differences between the French and English Canadians with the English Canadians holding the political clout. Edward Gibbon skillfully manipulated these differences; it was fairly easy for him to get the support of the French Canadians. By the end of that year he had got himself elected to the Canadian Parliament. It is perhaps typical of Edward Gibbon that, having been elected, he immediately returned to Britain and never took up his seat.

He went back to Canada in 1843 and spent some months there. However when he heard of his brother Arthur's death at the Wairau Affray, he immediately quit Canada and never returned. This appears to be the end of his involvement with Canadian affairs except that he was paid about twenty thousand pounds by the NACAI for his work in Canada. As always with Edward Gibbon, principles and profit seemed to go neatly together.

Edward Gibbon Wakefield was a scoundrel and a cad, a free land advocate, a realitor , opposed to the British Mercantile State Monopoly, and thus he was not trusted by them. Despite being in business with them in forming colonies as their real estate agent.

Competing schemes of colonial emigration with different implications for equality were promoted to create more consumers of British manufactured goods and producers of food. Edward Gibbon Wakefield’s plans were designed to recreate in British North America the inequalities associated with labour’s divorce from capital as necessary for social and economic development, but others sought the same end by means of the greater social equality that came from reuniting labour with capital. The poor and dispossessed in Britain who produced and consumed little could be transformed into agrarian property-holders in colonial societies dominated by such petty producers. A degree of inequality would persist, but the resulting colonial societies were far more egalitarian and therefore socially and politically democratic than Britain itself. In such a social context, nineteenth-century liberalism—its celebration of independence and equation of individual economic success with virtue—seemed especially plausible to contemporaries.

Herr Doctor Professor Karl Marx outlines the origin of American Libertarianism, that shocked Wakefield; its exceptionalism as a free soil political economy, not a capitalist one. America was a truly free market economy as long as land was held as a public trust for private use.

As a commercial colonizer Wakefield was shocked his experiment had failed. It had not created a capitalist colony bound to the Mother Country, rather it had given free men, free land. But then again he was an idle speculator, a salesman of colonies for his masters.

And so in desperation as Marx points out Wakefield offers his masters a solution to end the free labour republic, taxation, expropriation of the land by the State and then selling it back to free men at such a high cost they have to become wage slaves instead of independent landowning producers.

This then is the secret of the political economy of Capitalism. That it must destroy the real free market by imposition of Statist taxation for capital accumulation. America as a colonial experiment had evolved into a Republic of Free Labour and Free Soil, something that most American Libertarians acknowledge as their exceptionalism. But this was too much for Old World capitalism and it needed a State that would tax property and then sell it off to the highest bidder. That as Marx says and they would concur;

that the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private property; in other words, the expropriation of the laborer.

While vulgar liberaltarians leave out the capitalist and simply decry the State and Taxation as the villains genuine American descendants of the libertarian independent producers would embrace instead the ideal of the cooperative commonwealth as a way of challenging the State and its taxation of their 'public property'.

It is ironic that Marx who is assaulted as a statist by the right would embrace the libertarian ideal that the truly independent producer is also the owner of his own property, that is land. But as Marx says the secret to this form of private property is its communal ownership as public property of the producers.

• A View of the Art of Colonization by Edward Gibbon Wakefield, 1849.

• The Modern Theory of Colonisation last chapter in Karl Marx's Capital, Vol I focused on Wakefield's theory.

It is the great merit of E.G. Wakefield to have discovered, not anything new about the Colonies, but to have discovered in the Colonies the truth as to the conditions of capitalist production in the mother country. As the system of protection at its origin attempted to manufacture capitalists artificially in the mother-country, so Wakefield’s colonization theory, which England tried for a time to enforce by Acts of Parliament, attempted to effect the manufacture of wage-workers in the Colonies. This he calls “systematic colonization.” First of all, Wakefield discovered that in the Colonies, property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if there be wanting the correlative — the wage-worker, the other man who is compelled to sell himself of his own free-will. He discovered that capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things.

“If,” says Wakefield, “all members of the society are supposed to possess equal portions of capital... no man would have a motive for accumulating more capital than he could use with his own hands. This is to some extent the case in new American settlements, where a passion for owning land prevents the existence of a class of laborers for hire.” So long, therefore, as the laborer can accumulate for himself — and this he can do so long as he remains possessor of his means of production — capitalist accumulation and the capitalistic mode of production are impossible. The class of wage-laborers, essential to these, is wanting.

We have seen that the expropriation of the mass of the people from the soil forms the basis of the capitalist mode of production. The essence of a free colony, on the contrary, consists in this — that the bulk of the soil is still public property, and every settler on it therefore can turn part of it into his private property and individual means of production, without hindering the later settlers in the same operation. This is the secret both of the prosperity of the colonies and of their inveterate vice — opposition to the establishment of capital. “Where land is very cheap and all men are free, where every one who so pleases can easily obtain a piece of land for himself, not only is labor very dear, as respects the laborer’s share of the produce, but the difficulty is to obtain combined labor at any price.”

As in the colonies the separation of the laborer from the conditions of labor and their root, the soil, does not exist, or only sporadically, or on too limited a scale, so neither does the separation of agriculture from industry exist, not the destruction of the household industry of the peasantry. Whence then is to come the internal market for capital? “No part of the population of America is exclusively agricultural, excepting slaves and their employers who combine capital and labor in particular works. Free Americans, who cultivate the soil, follow many other occupations. Some portion of the furniture and tools which they use is commonly made by themselves. They frequently build their own houses, and carry to market, at whatever distance, the produce of their own industry. They are spinners and weavers; they make soap and candles, as well as, in many cases, shoes and clothes for their own use. In America the cultivation of land is often the secondary pursuit of a blacksmith, a miller or a shopkeeper.” With such queer people as these, where is the “field of abstinence” for the capitalists?

But in the colonies, this pretty fancy is torn asunder. The absolute population here increases much more quickly than in the mother-country, because many laborers enter this world as ready-made adults, and yet the labor-market is always understocked. The law of supply and demand of labor falls to pieces. On the one hand, the old world constantly throws in capital, thirsting after exploitation and “abstinence”; on the other, the regular reproduction of the wage-laborer as wage-laborer comes into collision with impediments the most impertinent and in part invincible. What becomes of the production of wage-laborers into independent producers, who work for themselves instead of for capital, and enrich themselves instead of the capitalist gentry, reacts in its turn very perversely on the conditions of the labor-market. Not only does the degree of exploitation of the wage-laborer remain indecently low. The wage-laborer loses into the bargain, along with the relation of dependence, also the sentiment of dependence on the abstemious capitalist. Hence all the inconveniences that our E. G. Wakefield pictures so doughtily, so eloquently, so pathetically. The supply of wage-labor, he complains, is neither constant, nor regular, nor sufficient. “The supply of labor is always not only small but uncertain.” “Though the produce divided between the capitalist and the laborer be large, the laborer takes so great a share that he soon becomes a capitalist.... Few, even those whose lives are unusually long, can accumulate great masses of wealth.” The laborers most distinctly decline to allow the capitalist to abstain from the payment of the greater part of their labor. It avails him nothing, is he is so cunning as to import from Europe, with his own capital, his own wage-workers. They soon “cease... to be laborers for hire; they... become independent landowners, if not competitors with their former masters in the labor-market.” Think of the horror! The excellent capitalist has imported bodily from Europe, with his own good money, his own competitors! The end of the world has come! No wonder Wakefield laments the absence of all dependence and of all sentiment of dependence on the part of the wage-workers in the colonies. On account of the high wages, says his disciple, Merivale, there is in the colonies “the urgent desire for cheaper and more subservient laborers — for a class to whom the capitalist might dictate terms, instead of being dictated to by them.... In ancient civilized countries the laborer, though free, is by a law of Nature dependent on capitalists; in colonies this dependence must be created by artificial means.”

What is now, according to Wakefield, the consequence of this unfortunate state of things in the colonies? A “barbarising tendency of dispersion” of producers and national wealth. The parcelling-out of the means of production among innumerable owners, working on their own account, annihilates, along with the centralization of capital, all the foundation of combined labor. Every long-winded undertaking, extending over several years and demanding outlay of fixed capital, is prevented from being carried out. In Europe, capital invests without hesitating a moment, for the working-class constitutes its living appurtennce, always in excess, always at disposal. But in the colonies! Wakefield tells and extremely doleful anecdote. He was talking with some capitalists of Canada and the state of New York, where the immigrant wave often becomes stagnant and deposits a sediment of “supernumerary” laborers. “Our capital,” says one of the characters in the melodrama, "was ready for many operations which require a considerable period of time for their completion; but we could not begin such operations with labor which, we knew, would soon leave us. If we had been sure of retraining the labor of such emigrants, we should have been glad to have engaged it at once, and for a high price: and we should have engaged it, even though we had been sure it would leave us, provided we had been sure of a fresh supply whenever we might need it.”

After Wakefield has constructed the English capitalist agriculture and its “combined” labor with the scattered cultivation of American peasants, he unwittingly gives us a glimpse at the reverse of the medal. He depicts the mass of the American people as well-to-do, independent, enterprising, and comparatively cultured, whilst “the English agricultural laborer is miserable wretch, a pauper.... In what country, except North America and some new colonies, do the wages of free labor employed in agriculture much exceed a bare subsistence for the laborer? ... Undoubtedly , farm-horses in England, being a valuable property, are better fed than English peasants.” But, never mind, national wealth is, once again, by its very nature, identical with misery of the people.

How, then, to heal the anti-capitalistic cancer of the colonies? If men were willing, at a blow, to turn all the soil from public into private property, they would destroy certainly the root of the evil, but also — the colonies. The trick is how to kill two birds with one stone. Let the Government put upon the virgin soil an artificial price, independent of the law of supply and demand, a price that compels the immigrant to work a long time for wages before he can earn enough money to buy land, and turn himself into an independent peasant. The fund resulting from the sale of land at a price relatively prohibitory for the wage-workers, this fund of money extorted from the wages of labor by violation of the sacred law of supply and demand, the Government is to employ, on the other hand, in proportion as it grows; to import have-nothings from Europe into the colonies, and thus keep the wage-labor market full for the capitalists. Under these circumstances, tout sera pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles. This is the great secret of “systematic colonization.” By this plan, Wakefield cries in triumph, “the supply of labor must be constant and regular, because, first, as no laborer would be able to procure land until he had worked for money, all immigrant laborers, working for a time for wages and in combination, would produce capital for the employment of more laborers; secondly, because every laborer who left off working for wages and became a landowner would, by purchasing land, provide a fund for bringing fresh labor to the colony.” The price of the soil imposed by the State must, of course, be a “sufficient price” — i.e., so high “as to prevent the laborers from becoming independent landowners until others had followed to take their place.” This “sufficient price for the land” is nothing but a euphemistic circumlocution for the ransom which the laborer pays to the capitalist for leave to retire from the wage-labor market to the land. First, he must create for the capitalist “capital,” with which the latter may be able to exploit more laborers; then he must place, at his own expense, a locum tenens [placeholder] on the labor-market, whom the Government forwards across the sea for the benefit of his old master, the capitalist.

However, we are not concerned here with the conditions of the colonies. The only thing that interests us is the secret discovered in the new world by the Political Economy of the old world, and proclaimed on the housetops: that the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private property; in other words, the expropriation of the laborer.

See:

Jamestown; The Birth of Capitalism

The Era Of The Common Man

1666 The Creation Of The World

The Many Headed Hydra

Libertarian Anti-Imperialism

William Appleman Williams

Libertarian Dialectics

War and the Market State




ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
social credit, Edward Gibbon Wakefield, Marx, agrarian, farmers, populism, populist, producer, producerism, distributionism, Hilare Belocq, Quebec, Conservatives, colonization Canada, US, Grange, left-libertarian, libertarian-left, agorist, free-market, Von-Mises, Hyaek, Austrian-School, migrant workers, Canada, Britain, immigrants, temporary workers, nannies, farm workers, Chinese, labour, labor, employment, slavery, migration, immigration, USA, Europe, free-labour, labor, mutitude, Negri, Hardt, Empire, illegal, aliens, sans, papier,
capitalism,, history,, slavery,, primitive, accumulation, of, capital,, Atlantic, History,, Britain,, workers,, proletariat,, socialism,, labour, history,, labor, history,, pirates,, piracy,, colonialism,, American, colonies,,

Global Farmers Fight Back

My comrades who are Free Market Libertarians and mutualists who oppose capitalism in favour of a cooperative marketplace, will find much to praise in this new farmers movement. It poses a real alternative to capitalist globalization and corporatist free trade. None other than creation of a new movement for a cooperative commonwealth.

The latest attempt to destroy the Wheat Board in Canada is an example of the attack by the State on small farmers in favour of the Agribusiness cartels in the developed world. The Green Revolution, the push for GMO crops and patents on crops as well as using arable land for production for export; palm oil, are examples of non sustainable agribusiness versus the sustainable production of local farmers.

The recent Fraser Institute report by Preston Manning and Mike Harris calling for the end of supply management, the Wheat Board , and subsidies in the market place for farmers, does nothing but open up the farm marketplace to the agribusiness oligopolies. Ironic since Manning's daddy ran a party; Social Credit, made up of farmers that saw these same oligopolies as enemies of a producer run economy.


The fact is that the majority of farmers in the world are family farmers, not far removed from their peasant roots. It is the peasantry that provides the basis for the survival of the food economy. But with the advent of capitalist globalization the peasantry has become a new force in the world economy as Warren Bellow points out.

It is agricultural reform, the privatization of the inherent collectivism of peasant farming, the enclosure of common lands that led to the creation of capitalism in Britain. Forced off the land the peasants move to the cities to look for work becoming the proletariat.

But not all have done so, since it is the farmers who support the cities with their food production. And forced by globalization to collectivize farmers are reforming cooperatives to deal with the new demands of the marketplace.

Thai pig farmers protest at CPF headquarters

S. Korea may allow farmers to export locally grown rice: gov't source

Farmers Cooperative Extends Rollout Of SOA Tool

Connecting Coffee Growers and Drinkers

Cameroon: Coffee - Reasons Behind Poor Performance

Phoenixville Farmer's Market returns to town for sixth season

Innovations in rural financial system inPunjab

What began in England over 400 hundred years ago is now writ wide across the globe. It is not Free Trade nor Free Markets but the concentration of capital and its power to monopolize the market. It is the transformation of agriculture from sustainable economics to the economics of unrestrained growth. Thus the land, people and environment suffer as we see in Indonesia as the islands there burn for the sake of the agribusiness palm oil industry.

Whereas export crops like organic and fair trade coffee have become a basis for sustainable export farming, which can support sustainable agriculture as well as meet the farmers need to be part of a global market place.


Free Trade vs. Small Farmers

Walden Bello is Executive Director of Focus on the Global South, a Bangkok-based research and advocacy institute, and a Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines at Diliman.

The main battle cry of Via Campesina, whose coordinating center is located in Indonesia, is “WTO Out of Agriculture” and its alternative program is food sovereignty. Food sovereignty means first and foremost the immediate adoption of policies that favor small producers. This would include, according to Indonesian farmer Henry Saragih, Via's coordinator, and Ahmad Ya'kub, Deputy for Policy Studies of the Indonesian Peasant Union Federation (FSPI), “the protection of the domestic market from low-priced imports, remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers, abolition of all direct and indirect export subsidies, and the phasing out of domestic subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture.”

Via's program, however, goes beyond the adoption of pro-smallholder trade policies. It also calls for an end to the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights regime, which allows corporations to patent plant seeds, thus appropriating for private profit what has evolved through the creative interaction of the natural world with human communities over eons. Seeds and all other plant genetic resources should be considered part of the common heritage of humanity, the group believes, and not be subject to privatization.

Agrarian reform, long avoided by landed elites in countries like the Philippines, is a central element in Via's platform, as is sustainable, ecologically sensitive organic or biodynamic farming by small peasant producers. The organization has set itself apart from both the First Green Revolution based on chemical-intensive agriculture and the Second Green Revolution driven by genetic engineering (GE). The disastrous environmental side effects of the first are well known, says Via, which means all the more that the precautionary principle must be rigorously applied to the second, to avoid negative health and environmental outcomes.

The opposition to GE-based agriculture has created a powerful link between farmers and consumers who are angry at corporations for marketing genetically modified commodities without proper labeling, thus denying consumers a choice. In the European Union, a solid alliance of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists prevented the import of GE-modified products from the United States for several years. Although the EU has cautiously allowed in a few GE imports since 2004, 54% of European consumers continue to think GE food is ”dangerous.” Opposition to other harmful processes such as food irradiation has also contributed to the tightening of ties between farmers and consumers, large numbers of whom now think that public health and environmental impact should be more important determinants of consumer behavior than price.

More and more people are beginning to realize that local production and culinary traditions are intimately related, and that this relationship is threatened by corporate control of food production, processing, marketing, and consumption. This is why Jose Bove's justification for dismantling a MacDonald's resonated widely in Asia: “When we said we would protest by dismantling the half-built McDonald's in our town, everybody understood why -- the symbolism was so strong. It was for proper food against malbouffe [awful standardized food], agricultural workers against multinationals. The extreme right and other nationalists tried to make out it was anti-Americanism, but the vast majority knew it was no such thing. It was a protest against a form of production that wants to dominate the world.”

Many economists, technocrats, policymakers, and urban intellectuals have long viewed small farmers as a doomed class. Once regarded as passive objects to be manipulated by elites, they are now resisting the capitalist, socialist, and developmentalist paradigms that would consign them to ruin. They have become what Karl Marx described as a politically conscious “class-for-itself.” And even as peasants refuse to “go gently into that good night,” to borrow a line from Dylan Thomas, developments in the 21st century are revealing traditional pro-development visions to be deeply flawed. The escalating protests of peasant groups such as Via Campesina, are not a return to the past. As environmental crises multiply and the social dysfunctions of urban-industrial life pile up, the farmers' movement has relevance not only to peasants but to everyone who is threatened by the catastrophic consequences of obsolete modernist paradigms for organizing production, community, and life.

Farmers hungry for change

At this week's intergovernmental meeting in Rome to assess progress towards the pledge to halve hunger by 2015, the mood was sombre. Figures from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) show not a reduction but an increase of more than 25 million chronically undernourished people since 1996. The figure, now at more than 850 million, is testament to how current global policies are consigning the hungry to stay hungry.

So what is going wrong? In 2002, when the UN World Food Summit pledge was last reviewed, the parallel Forum for Food Sovereignty, organised by non-governmental groups representing small farmers and those who feel the sharp end of hunger directly, concluded that the problem was not a lack of political will, as the FAO asserted, but the opposite. Trade liberalisation, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering and military dominance, it said, were now the main causes of hunger.

The farmers, from 30 countries, who participated in the conference were eloquent about how farming for small producers is more than just a food production system. Edgar Gonzales Castro, from Peru, said his vision of the future was "traditional" agriculture aimed at satisfying the needs of farmers, rather than generating profit. "What matters is that, on the family plot of land, farmers and their families have a range of crops to fill the cooking pot," he said.

"When governments decide to hold public consultations to help guide their decisions, policy experts as well as representatives of large farmers and agrifood corporations are usually centre stage, not small-scale producers, consumers and their organisations," says Pimbert.

The message of the report is that small-scale farmers - the majority of growers in the world - want radically different policies from those being promoted by their governments. The call is for policies to start from the perspectives of food producers and consumers rather than the demand for profit.

If "one-planet farming" means that western governments will only support farming practices that provide healthy, local food, maintain livelihoods for local producers and conserve resilient landscapes, then there is common ground with small-scale farmers. But if it means a uniform system for all, this will accelerate the hunt to source food globally and as cheaply as possible.

This will result in a continuing decline in food quality, with ever higher social and environmental costs, and be lorded over by fewer and fewer transnational agribusinesses. It would lead both to greater obesity and greater starvation, and see the eradication of more farmers and further loss of farmland.

Farmers' Views on the Future of Food and Small Scale Producers is at http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14503IIED.pdf

Friends of African Farmers & Fishermen

Friends of African Farmers & Fishermen is a Non Profit local community organisation formed by local women and men who are farmers and fishermen. Due to increasing poverty in the area, the local people formed this organisation of Volunteers to help themselves. Due to lack of money and machinery for farming and fishing, wish to appeal for donations of Farm Machinery ie, tractors, irrigation equipment etc. Donations for our Agricultural and development projects in Volta Region of Ghana. To help women and children to have food to eat.Train the young women and youth to acquire the needed skills. To also help farmers with farming machinery and fishing equipment. This would generate income for the local people.Non Profit Organisation.

SEE:

Free Trade Not Aid

Free Trade and Africa

The War For Chocolate

IWD Economic Freedom for Women

Water War

Development Versus Population Growth

WTO: Privatization of Water

Is There a Silver Lining to the WTO Talks? No




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, family-farm, farming, agriculture, WTO, subsidies, farm-crisis, producers, marketing-boards
primates, organutan, , ADM, ArcherDaniels Midland, , bio-fuels, Canada Wheat Board, , capitalism, Cargill, , ecology, , Environment, , Green, green capitalism, Indonesia, Kyoto, palm oil, , socialism, sustainable, workers control,
migration, immigration, Canada, USA, Europe, free-labour, labor, mutitude, Negri, Hardt, Empire, illegal, aliens, sans, papier,
market, cooperation, free-mmarket, agora, agorist, left-libertarian, libertarian, anarchy, anarchism, coops, cooperatives,, counter-economics, capitalism, anti-capitalism,

Your Breakfast Cup of Coffee

A tip of the hat to the Adam Smith's Lost Legacy blog where I have been debating the author. He pointed out a link to this site where I found this interesting article which shows that the coffee marketplace in Africa is run not by corporate or state capitalism but by village cooperatives. As anarchist mutualists would point out the Cooperative Commonwealth is the Free Market.

And the support of coffee production in Africa based on the cooperative and sustainable farming is Fair Trade ala Adam Smith. As the other articles appended show.

State Power, Entrepreneurship, and Coffee: The Rwandan Experience

In Rwanda, the coffee industry has played a particularly important role in the country's development. For many years, coffee was Rwanda's top export and chief source of foreign exchange income. In the twenty-first century the industry remains important: it provides a livelihood for some 500,000 Rwandan families, many of whom work in cooperatives and grow coffee on small plots on the country's hillsides.

In the past two decades, this important sector of the Rwandan economy has been transformed from a highly controlled, politicized industry to a liberalized sector that is quickly developing a prized niche product: specialty coffee. While the industry is benefiting from increased entrepreneurship and freer trade, the people who work in the coffee industry are also benefiting. They are developing wider trading relations, improving skills, increasing their standard of living and, most importantly, finding a path towards reconciliation--all thanks to increased opportunities to sell their product. Freeing the coffee industry from excessive government regulation and control is directly helping to free the people of this country from poverty and conflict.

The rise of the specialty coffee market in Rwanda presents an exciting research opportunity, for this market developed in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. It is providing the means for individuals, whose lives were devastated by conflict, to improve conditions for themselves, their families, and their communities. Rwandan coffee growers are competing with other coffee producers to improve their product, expand their knowledge of the worldwide coffee market, and increase demand for their goods.

Uganda: Serving 1000 Cups of Coffee

Uganda: Great African Coffee Steams Its Way to Europe, S. Africa

The farmers who transport their coffee to the GAC offices in Kasese on bicycles and pick up trucks before the long process commences get paid Ush3, 500 ($1.94) per kilogramme, translating into 30% to 40% above the market price

Available statistics indicate that a kilogramme of Arabica on the international market costs about $2.70 (Ush4, 860), while GAC fetches $2.88 (Ush5, 184) a kilogramme. One kilogramme of the beans produces 330 grammes of instant coffee and 800 grammes of roast and ground coffee. In 2006, GAC bought over 460 tonnes of washed Arabica coffee, which experts say, is among the best quality in the region.

This quantity, Rugasira told Business Week is anticipated to hit the 1,000 tonne mark worth Ush3.5 billion ($1.94 million) at the end of 2007. 110 tonnes were bought in 2004 with 2005 registering an improvement at 190 tonnes of washed coffee. An acre on average produces about 300 kilogrammes of coffee beans per season.

The optimistic Rugasira anticipates that GAC will attract a higher premium when German based firm, BSC Oko-Garantie GmbH certifies it as organic. He also hopes that his company will list on the Uganda bourse within the next five years with priority for shares going to the farmers.

Before GAC came into the equation, farmers were using the obsolete dry processing method of removing the outer skin of the bean, which while producing a reasonable Arabica cup, does not come close to matching the quality of the wet processed Arabica beans.

The UK's Observer Food Monthly (OFM) in its November 2005 editorial written by respected food and beverage critic Nigel Slater said of Rugasira; "Both a business leader and father figure, he has helped thousands of farmers to give themselves a steady income and provide them with the knowledge that they are at last being given a fair price for their coffee,"

Companies today cannot survive the stiff and dynamic business environment without a pro- active corporate social responsibility programme; GAC is involved in six community projects centred on education, environment, charity and micro finance.

Sipping on the last bits of my rich coffee like a Bohemian, I looked around at the excited farmers, hugging, congratulating and smiling at each other. In all this action, I could see the unlimited opportunities unveiled by the raw beans these farmers at the primary end of the value chain toil with, all year round.

Africa will never be transformed by handouts, we must solve our own problems and that is what we are doing

• Good African Coffee is unique because it is owned and managed by Africans. It is about us helping ourselves through Trade and not charity

• We are committed to our people not only because it is part of our value system but it also makes smart business sense

• We produce excellent quality products and are committed to bringing you the best that Africa has to offer

• Consumers demand greater accountability and transparency from ethically trading companies – Good African Coffee pledges to satisfy that demand

Kenya: Starbucks Finally Wakes Up And Smells the Coffee

Starbucks to double Africa coffee purchases

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Aid, development, Africa, cooperatives, coffee, Rawanda, state-capitalism, capitalism, industrialization, Free Trade, Fair Trade,Third-World,neo-liberalism,