What the market does to our food

From the Winter 1987-88 issue of the World Socialist 

British agriculture is notable for being the most mechanised in the world. There are more tractors than farm-workers. A smaller proportion of the working population — about 1 per cent as opposed to 4.5 per cent in the United States — works on the land and is responsible for two thirds of all our food and drink. Yields are among the highest in the world; wheat at more than five tons to the acre, for example. This compares with North America where one ton is the norm, curiously enough not much more than the average yield in Medieval England. But this arises from the extensive agriculture of Canada and the US with their limitless plains. Europeans have to squeeze more out of their plots.

Historically this was effected by good husbandry; manuring, marling, liming. Now it is achieved by spreading ever increasing amounts of chemical fertiliser on the fields. Equally, increasing amounts are washed off into the watercourses creating new problems, causing the Health Ministry to warn mothers in East Anglia, for example, not to make up their babies' feed with tap water on account of the sodium nitrate in it.

In the middle 1980's Britain again became, after a gap of two centuries, a net exporter of grain. British agriculture had, during those two hundred years, been the plaything of governments. The split in the ruling oligarchy between the landed interests and the new industrial magnates, between the old Tory interest (which incorporated the State Church) and the new Whigs, had made agriculture a political football. The most outstanding expressions of this struggle were those Corn Laws which were passed from 1815 onwards and repealed after a bitter struggle in 1846.

Driven off the land

The Tories favoured protection: high tariffs on imported corn, so guaranteeing them as landowners a high price. The Whigs wanted free trade in corn so that bread and beer for their workers were cheap and would result in cheaper labour.

After the repeal of the Corn Laws, imported grain from North America, but also from Russia, Argentina and Australia kept British agriculture in an almost permanent state of depression.

It is interesting to examine the nature of this competition that British farmers faced from overseas:

The very cheapness of our public lands, and the facility of purchase and transfer, tended to a system of bad farming, or strip and waste of the soil, by encouraging short occupancy and a speedy search for new homes, entailing upon the first and older settlements a rapid deterioration of the soil, which would not be likely to be arrested except by more thorough and scientific knowledge of agriculture and by a higher education of those who were dedicated to its pursuit. (Justin Smith Morell, quoted by Wendell Berry in The Unsettling of America, p. 145)

So much for the doctrine of Comparative Advantage of David Ricardo in which each nation is supposed to concentrate on what it does best. The Americans, once the Red Indians were got out of the way, took over a continent stuffed with good things: thousands of square miles of timber, some of it many centuries in the growing; oil in the South West so abundant that a pipe had only to be banged into the ground and oil would gush out; mountain ranges of high grade iron ore in Minnesota; and the loess soil of the great plains, wind blown alluvium which had built up over geological time to the equivalent of a topsoil thirty and forty feet deep in places.

Most of these comparative advantages have lost some of their edge. The soil was the first to go. From the first settlers on, the technique of farming was little different from the crudest slash-and-burn agriculture of primitive peoples. The land was "pumped" as the French say. It was cultivated until exhaustion set in, often no more than four harvests, and cultivators moved on to a fresh patch. It was cheaper to do this than replace the nutrition in the soil as European farmers had been obliged to do for thousands of years. It followed the doctrine of Comparative Advantage as enjoined by the new Market-based economics with highly satisfactory results — in the short term. European — particularly British — agriculture could not compete and the result was the economic destruction of small and medium farmers. The continuing Enclosure Acts scooped up the small farms into the properties of the big landowners and social disaster was added to agricultural chaos.

In our own time the process is being extended to Third World, in this case Brazil:

The big trouble is a steady flow of migrants from the countryside. Squeezed off the land by the rapid advance of mechanised crop farming and by the spread of huge ranches raising beef cattle, millions of families swarm into the cities. Under pressure to survive, they turn to crime and so provide more than their share of the jail population.

The civilian Government that took over in Brazil last year, after 21 years of military rule, is trying to clinch a programme whereby millions of acres of land still sloppily farmed by big landlords are to be split up into family smallholdings. That way, the human tide flowing into the cities would be reduced to a trickle, even reversed, Ministers hope.

But many landlords are digging in their heels against the scheme, some using hired gunmen to keep wandering landless families from settling on estates where they try to build huts, plough and plant.

Landless squatters are being murdered by paid triggermen at the rate of about four a week across Brazil. But you don't see many of the gunmen, or their bosses, in jail.

(Observer, 11 May 1986)

Needless to say the majority of these huge ranches are owned by foreign-based multinationals and the bulk of the meat is intended for junk-food in the West — hamburgers, hot dogs, sausages. Agronomists have predicted ecological catastrophe in the cutting down of tropical rain-forest and replacing it with grazing in the fragile soil of the area.

In the United States this catastrophe has already been visited upon huge areas. The soil was deprived of the organic material which bound it together and the wind and weather just blew it or washed it away again. The dust bowls and dust storms of the United States are part of world history and the process is continuing. Chemical fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides are being rushed up into the battle to get food out of the land, yet every time the solution seems short-lived, the cure worse than the disease.

The chorus of warning from biologists and agronomists fills the reading lists and the newspapers. Massed against them is the power of the multinational agrochemical industry and the stubbornness of farmers who are struggling to avoid foreclosure by the banks. Thousands of farmers in the Mid-West have been turned out by the bailiffs in the present depression, and the big interests have taken over.

The Average British Diet

There was a major crisis in British fanning in the late 1870's and 1880's which was only interrupted by World War I when foreign food imports were almost cut off by German U-boat attacks. The stimulus to cultivation and stock rearing did not last much longer than the end of the war, however. By the middle 1930's there was less land under the plough in England than there had been in the Domesday Book, nearly nine hundred years before, when the population was one-thirtieth of the size!

Those who do not learn from the lesson of the past are doomed to repeat its errors, says George Santayana, and the British government again found itself in World War II with the prospect of starvation for the people. All talk of market forces was forgotten. Backyards, tennis courts, lawns, public parks and golf courses were dug-up and planted. A medieval cottage economy took over great areas of the country with people keeping chickens, ducks, rabbits and pigs in back gardens and in London, even on their roofs.

The tendency to import Britain's food and drink requirements rather than rely on home-produced goods had begun early. Large quantities of wine were imported in the Middle Ages but it was not a staple of diet, despite the quantities involved, three million gallons annually in the fifteenth century, one for every man, women and child in the country.

From the eighteenth century on, however, exotics like cane sugar, tea, and coffee were imported to join potatoes as new and important items of diet, to the chagrin of commentators like Cobbett. He felt that tea and potatoes were no substitute for the bread and ale of old England.

The deleterious effects of sugar in the diet were far greater, especially when cane sugar from the West Indies met competition from the new home grown beet sugar. The greatly reduced cost, together with advertising and the confectionary industry have produced the highest sugar consumption and the worst teeth in the world. The dental profession's efforts to do something about it are stultified by the fact that the government is beholden to the power of pressure groups like the sugar and confectionery interests who dominate all food committees and ultimately Parliament itself. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the sugar interest pays a lot to politicians, particularly Conservative politicians.

The move to the steel-roller milling of flour in the latter half of the nineteenth century reduced still further the quality of the average British diet. The new mills could not deal with the germ and the bran of the wheat as the old stone mills had done and these elements were disposed of as animal feed or sold to the public as cures for the diseases created by the deficient flour.

The resistance which might have been offered to the continuing debasement of British diet by a peasant population was missing; the peasantry had finally been got rid of by the General Enclosure of 1845. The "allotments" offered as a sop might have enabled a worker to survive on a lower wage; they would not enable him to thumb his nose at an insufficiently generous wage offered by a prospective employer. As Professor Thorold Rogers wrote of earlier Enclosures: "Two acts of government had effectually delivered the English labourers into the hands of their employers and left them helpless. These were Henry's crime of base money and the confiscation of glebe lands. "(History of Agriculture and Prices in England, Volume V)

The period between World Wars I and II must be reckoned among the worst years for British diet. True, there was not the picturesque squalor of Victorian England nor the comedy of the Union-Jack-waving freaks who offered themselves for service in the Boer War, two thirds of whom were rejected as unfit even for the army. The scraps and leavings with which Dickens' characters fed themselves had been replaced by a diet of weak tea, turnip jam, and a bread which might have been made from plaster of Paris for all the nutritive value it contained. The consequence was a race of dwarfs with blackened teeth and rickets. When the Second World War broke out a vast industry was called into being to fit up these degenerates with sets of false teeth and spectacles and to sew up their piles and hernias. As Mayhew, Engels and the Hammonds had exposed the terrible diets of the nineteenth century, so another group of reformers, Sir Albert Howard, Lady Eve Balfour, Sir Jack Drummond, were calling attention to the condition of British agriculture and the terrible diets of British citizens in the twentieth century.

The Second World War brought death to 40 million Europeans and privation to the survivors, but to the British working class the war-time rationing of foodstuffs meant, paradoxically, an improvement in diet, so bad had standards been before. Official statistics reported increased height and body weight of children and dental decay was reducing. This was despite a generous ration of confectionery which at the end of the war stood at seven ounces per person per week. The conclusion this suggests is that the body can deal with a certain amount of sugar and other rubbish provided general levels of nutrition are kept up — which had not been the case pre-war.

The end of sweet-rationing was strongly opposed by the trade — another paradox. But they knew what we have always argued: that free access to a good or service, or to all goods and services, does not mean increased consumption, but usually the opposite. The illusion or reality of limited supply creates a false demand. At all events, sweet rationing was ended, average consumption fell from seven ounces per person per week to five ounces and the confectionery trade went into recession. Limitation of demand by price was never an issue; sweets were and still are comparatively cheap in Britain.

Nasty things on the food front

During the 1950s a new group of factors entered the diet of people over the whole world served by the market. Artificial fertilisers were brought in to replace the animal manures which were disappearing with the move to a mechanised agriculture. Chemical herbicides were introduced to eliminate the need for hoeing and good tilth which had always been regarded as the sine-qua-non of good agriculture. Insecticides were being increasingly used to deal with problems created by, among other things, monoculture: the giving over of large areas to a single crop with the consequent build-up of huge concentrations of parasites like potato eel-worm, carrot-fly, codling-moth, aphids. This problem was not entirely new. In the nineteenth century the phylloxera vine-louse from North America had devastated the European vineyards. After desperate attempts to deal with the invader by chemical means had failed, the growers decided to go nature's way. The European vines were grafted onto North American roots. These had evolved along with the phylloxera and were unattractive to the insect, interrupting its life-cycle.

No such wisdom has taken hold of the world's cultivators in the twentieth century. According to the Economist, in November 1984, a study of 3,000 Americans revealed only 30 of them without at least one kind of insecticide in their blood. And that is the good news. In Britain, while Labour governments have been complacent about such matters, the Thatcher administration was active in conspiring to prevent public health action on the subject and even to deny information to those outside government and the agrochemical industry. The final horrors are reserved for the Third World where chemicals are freely used which are banned even in slovenly Britain. The consequences are that up to 10,000 people a year there die from pesticide poisoning (Economist, 12 April 1986).

But where warning voices from the 1930's onwards have not been needed, the disciplines of the balance-sheet are beginning to be felt. To quote the Economist again:

Chemical solutions are expensive. Those that come from fossil fuels cost a small fortune to develop. Third world countries spend huge sums subsidising their use. In Egypt, for instance, agrochemical subsidies work out at an annual $5 a head.

Recently, the pace of agrochemical invention has slowed, while the evolution of resistance has accelerated. In the 1940's the United States lost 7 per cent of its agricultural crops to insects. Today it loses about 13 per cent.

Exeter University has a number of fast selling lines in insects which eat other insects. Name your enemy and they will try to supply you with an enemy of your enemy and therefore your friend. In Essex, an octogenarian, Lawrence D. Hills, who had been sending out warnings for decades about the way farming was going and being ignored or denounced as a fool for his pains, acquired a new intellectual respectability and was being listened to. Apart from his research into nature-based means of combating pests, Hills drew attention to the dangers inherent in concentrating agriculture on too narrow a genetic base, allowing thousands of plant varieties to disappear. On the Cotswolds farmer Joe Henson has set aside a reserve for rare and disappearing animal breeds. They will be needed.

A glance through any of those magnificent Victorian gardening manuals will remind the interested person of the specimens which have been lost, leaving only those varieties which fit the needs of the market fruit and vegetables which travel and store well and look good on the supermarket shelves, never mind that when you get them home they taste awful.

Nasty things happening on the agricultural front have been paralleled by equally nasty things in animal husbandry and poultry keeping.

During the latter part of the last century unwelcome amounts of fat were being urged on the public by the meat trade. The drive to intensive rearing of birds and animals had increased fat by decreasing mobility. At the same time the move from candles and rushlights made of animal fats to lamps fuelled by mineral oil increased the surplus. During the 1930's a sausage-maker Thomas Walls and Company solved the problem of mounting surplus fat by converting it into ice cream. Fifty years later nutrition experts were complaining that British sausages contained as little as 5 per cent meat, the rest being made up of fat and "rusk", a flour based absorber for the fat.

The problem of animal fat surpluses was brought to a crisis point by the development of petroleum-derived synthetic soaps — detergents — after World War II. This virtually ended the career of animal fats which for thousands of years had provided mankind with uses ranging from lighting, soap, and grease for his axles to waterproofing for his clothes and boots.

Another development of the decades following the War was the dosing of poultry and animals with chemicals, first to control disease, later to increase body weight. In the nineteen fifties a number of Swiss men had gone to their doctors complaining of strange symptoms: loss of facial hair, incipient breasts. These were found to derive from canned chicken imported from the US which contained significant residues of female hormone used to promote growth.

The Swiss promptly banned a wide range of American goods and a bitter commercial squabble developed. Since then the use of hormones has been extended to beef cattle and similar symptoms have shown up in places as far apart as Italy and Puerto Rico including mature breasts on baby girls of four years.

A corn and beef farmer of Truro, in Cornwall explained the circumstances to me like this:

If you inject a hormone pellet into the ear of a bullock, you can bring him to market in twenty months. If you don't, it will take twenty-four months to bring the animal to market, you will go bust and the bank will send the bailiffs in. The cost of feed will wipe out what you get for the beast. But I know a man who puts a pellet in each ear and one up the arse. He markets his animals in eighteen months and he is making a fortune!

A significant development for British agriculture at the beginning of the 1970's was the UK entry into the Common Market. This economic union began after the war with the linking up of some of the smaller countries into the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) Agreement and was then joined by Germany, France and Italy. At the beginning it was mainly an agricultural arrangement — the CAP, the Common Agricultural Policy. British governments first ignored it, then tried repeatedly to sabotage it, then finally applied to join it.

The European Economic Community, to give its correct title, set about stimulating its agriculture to ensure European self-sufficiency, but also to protect its smaller farmers and thereby reduce social chaos. This ran counter to the trend of British thinking, which was that the market must decide and if the remaining peasants were driven to the wall, too bad. But the British were outvoted and an endless series of financial squabbles ensued.

Build-up of surpluses

Another consequence was the build-up of huge surpluses of every imaginable foodstuff. In 1986 nearly a million tons of beef, Fifteen million tons of grain, butter mountains, wine lakes, olive oil lakes, the dumping of millions of tons of fruit and vegetables. This was not new. In the thirties wheat was being dumped in the sea and fish was being dumped on the land and the Brazilians were firing their trains on coffee beans, but the surpluses were not on anything like the same scale. What was not new was that these surpluses were building up alongside massive deprivation among the people.

Good food was being destroyed while people were being driven to consume junk food, because it was cheaper (and because more housewives were being driven out to work because of economic pressures: unemployed husbands, debt, etc.) Canned, frozen or dried soups, dinners, instant mash, ready hash, custard without eggs, ice cream without cream, lemonade without lemons, fruit jelly without fruit, meat loaf without meat. And to make this rubbish palatable, a veritable witch's cauldron of chemical dyes, flavourings, and smells, entered the food industry. The consequences for health are still being discovered.

The consequences for the undeveloped world of the trade in food have been no less disastrous. In the Great Famine in Ireland of the 1840's people starved while wheat was being exported to England. In the great Ethiopian Famine of the 1980's fruit was being exported to Europe, fruit which could have saved lives.

Throughout the Third World fruit and vegetables are being produced by multinationals like United Brands of Boston, Massachusetts, and Unilever of Holland and Britain, on the best land in Central America and Africa for export to North America and Europe, while the local population is forced to survive on poor land, or worse, to become labourers on the latifundia of the big foreign companies. The power of these companies to influence, form, or destroy governments led in the inter-war years to the phenomenon of the Banana Republics, governments which were mere puppets of western multinational fruit companies.

It is difficult to find any aspect of food production in the modern world where the market can be said to exert a good influence. The mere fact of production for sale and not to satisfy needs, promotes an urge to grab the money and run, in all industries and services, but in food the results seem to be more catastrophic than anywhere else. Unfresh vegetables containing toxic chemical residues, meat with dangerous levels of antibiotics and hormones, fruit and vegetables which do not taste like fruit and vegetables used to taste, chocolate where the cocoa content has been reduced to the point where the Common Market Commissioners will not allow it to be called chocolate. The list is endless and depressing.

Another revealing development is a growing tendency for stock farmers to keep a particular animal for their own family which is raised the old way, without chemicals, and for fruit and vegetable growers to raise plants for their own consumption separate from those they send to market.

The good news, what little there is, lies in the discovery of the smarter entrepreneurs that "health" food, "organically" grown fruit and vegetables, chemically-free meat and poultry, is a growth market. White bread is a disaster area, commercially speaking, whereas the market demands more "stone-ground 100 per cent wholewheat" flour and bread than is available.

Ken Smith (Britain)

Capitalist agriculture . . . the profits of doom (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ever since Malthus, population growth has been the subject of heated controversy. By and large, disputants in the debate have tended to polarise into two camps.

For the Neo-Malthusian pessimists there is no prospect of an end to world hunger while population growth continues, indeed it could well increase as the latter begins to exceed — and thereby undermine — the carrying capacity of the land.

Then there are the Technological Optimists. For them, the concept of a “carrying capacity” is problematic; it is not something that is fixed but can be enlarged by human effort and ingenuity. Indeed, Ester Boserup has argued in her book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth that population pressure, far from being a harbinger of doom, is a prime stimulus to technological change. Thus, extensive farming practices, which become subject to diminishing returns, are abandoned and more intensive forms of land use are introduced, resulting in an increased “carrying capacity”. In fact, some of the wealthiest parts of the world — like Western Europe — are also amongst the most densely populated.

Where do Socialists stand in this debate? At first glance, we appear to side with the technological optimists in asserting that the world is not overpopulated. We base this claim on an empirical analysis of the relationship between global food demand and the global capacity to satisfy that demand. This suggests that the world could adequately feed its population. According to the World Bank in its 1986 Report Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries, enough grain is already produced to provide everyone with 3,600 calorics per day, well above the recommended 2,400 calories for an adequate diet — though, much of this, it should be said, is (inefficiently) used to feed livestock.

The prevalence in hunger does not arise from any shortfall in agricultural potential but from the operation of economic factors which impede full realisation of this potential for the benefit of all. The objective of capitalist production is not primarily to meet human needs. Instead, human needs are only met to the extent that these are backed up by purchasing power. That is why vast quantities of food are destroyed and why farmers are paid not to produce, while millions starve because they lack the means to buy or grow food. In short, the much-vaunted productivity of capitalism has now reached the point of open and irreconcilable conflict with its social relations of production, its mode of distribution.

There is a further point on which we part company with many technological optimists. This concerns the nature of technology itself. This is not independent of, but is profoundly conditioned by, the social relations of production. In this regard we share the concern of many environmentalists about the impact of modem capitalist agriculture on the environment. It is conceivable that this, rather then pressure of population, may ultimately precipitate the doomsday scenario. Unless, that is, a socialist transformation of society — and thus of its productive methods — can intervene first.

Not neutral

Technological innovation does not occur in a vacuum; it has socioeconomic consequences in a capitalist economy which benefit some but often at the expense of others. An example is the Green Revolution initiated in the 1950s 

This represented a major incursion of an industrialised mode of fanning into Third World countries. Based on the introduction of new high yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereal crops, it sought to increase the productivity of local agriculture. However, this required the application of a whole package of inputs, around which HYVs were specifically designed having in mind, the interests of multinational conglomerates supplying such inputs. This absence of any one of these inputs meant that the expected gains in productivity would not be realised, and HYVs would tend to perform poorly compared with traditional crops. Thus, without irrigation, nutrient uptake would be much reduced, without pesticides, the very inputs, such as chemical fertilisers, that promote crop growth, will encourage a proliferation of weeds, and so on.

It is this in-built complementarity of inputs, not just the costs of individual inputs, which explains why it is mainly richer farmers, particularly in Asia and Latin America, who have benefited from “Green Revolution” technology, accentuating the process of land concentration in these countries at the expense of poorer farmers. It raises the critical threshold at which farmers are able to afford, and make effective use, of such technology.

But what of the long-term productivity of an industrial mode of fanning promoted by capitalism, i.e. its sustainability? To increase output, more land could be cultivated. However, much of this uncultivated land is ecologically marginal and would be highly vulnerable under capitalist industrial farming. Alternatively, cultivated land could be made more productive. Since the 1950s, rapid increases in output — faster than population growth except in Africa — have been based upon increasing applications of four major non-land inputs: artificial fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation and mechanisation. However, there are now growing doubts about the wisdom of such an approach. Since the 1970s, there has been a levelling-off of per capita output.

According to J. Harris in World Agriculture and the Environment, these earlier increases were made possible because they occurred in a world not yet heavily damaged by soil erosion. But today, the current annual rate of topsoil loss — 25 billion tonnes — is such that the world can expect to lose 50 percent of its topsoil by 2050. Since there is a strong correlation between topsoil depth and crop yields, this is an alarming development for the future of fanning.

Soil erosion

Applying yet more fertilisers to compensate for the loss of soil fertility will not solve the problem in long run. Indeed, US agriculture today uses five times more fertiliser than in 1947 to produce the same amount of crop, but it is not clear whether this growing demand for fertilisers — particular phosphates — can be indefinitely met. There are also many minor nutrients and trace elements, lost through harvesting, which are not being replaced by industrial fanning, but which may be essential to long-term maintenance of yields. Furthermore, excessive applications of fertilisers actually exacerbate the problem of erosion by facilitating a breakdown in soil structure — both directly, through its effect on soil chemistry and, indirectly, by allowing farmers to dispense with organic recycling, leading to a decline in humus content which binds the soil together and helps it to hold water and oxygen essential for plant growth.

A similarly worry emerges in the case of other major agricultural inputs. The narrowing down of the genetic basis of farming, typified by HYVs, and the simplification of the agro-ecological landscape associated with market-oriented monocultures, has created ideal conditions for the spread of pests. To counter this threat, chemical pesticides have been applied on an increasing scale. However, it is often the natural predators of pests which are more severely affected by this than the pests themselves which, because of their larger populations, are more easily able to develop mutations giving them resistance to pesticides. This in turn, tempts farmers to apply more frequent, and stronger, doses, but the evidence suggests that, as with artificial fertilisers, this too may be subject to diminishing returns. As a result, farmers find themselves trapped in what is aptly called a “pesticide treadmill” while a significant proportion of output — some 45 percent overall — continues to be lost through pests.

Increased mechanisation and tractorisation too contributed to soil erosion through deep ploughing, a practice that is particularly damaging when applied to the fragile soils of many tropical countries.

Sustainable

Technology, as pointed out, is not neutral; it is conditioned by the economic system in which it is applied. Capitalist agriculture is constrained by the profit system and the need to maximise output in the short-term without regard to wider consequences for the environment and society. The type of technology this entails cans only be modified with extreme difficulty. Farmers must, afterall, seek a financial return on any investment they make.

The trend towards environmental deterioration and social dislocation associated with capitalist agriculture, is likely to gather pace as recent developments in the world economy unfold. An example is the new GATT agreement which covers 90 percent of the world’s agricultural trade which will further strengthen the hand of agribusiness at the expense of many small farmers and undermine much existing environmental legislation. Similarly, structural adjustment programmes imposed by the IMF on many debtor countries to reduce their debts will increase pressure on them to expand cash crop production and to that end employ industrial methods of farming, despite the fact that the cost of these have risen far more steeply in recent years in comparison with the price of agricultural commodities.

In short, agriculture today stands at a critical crossroad; where we go from here will have profound repercussions for both urban consumers of the products of farming as well as farmers themselves who, lest we forget, still constitute a majority of humankind. We can choose to retain the status quo and risk going down the road of possible, if not probable, ruin. Or we can decide to take Earth, and all that is in and on it, into common ownership and democratic control. By fundamentally changing our relationship to one another, we shall fundamentally change our relationship to nature. You cannot do one without the other.

Freed from the constraints of market competition, we could begin to adapt our technology to suit our needs within limits imposed by nature We cannot predict precisely what this entails but we can tentatively sketch the broad outlines of a new agriculture:

• A scaling-down in the overall use of industrial inputs with some redistribution towards those parts of the world where marginal productivity of such inputs is still relatively high.
• The adoption of a more labour-intensive approach to farming, particularly in the more developed areas, where today the proportion of socially unproductive labour is highest, i.e. occupations essential to the functioning of capitalism which will disappear in socialism.
• Greater emphasis to be placed on small-scale mass-produced “appropriate technology” which would rapidly transform the situation that currently exists in the less-developed areas of the world.
• Selective reversion to traditional farming practices, such as intercropping and agro-forestry, combined with a careful "holistically-oriented” application of useful innovations in the field of biotechnology, e.g. self-fertilising crops.
• Blurring of the distinction between town and country; a huge expansion of small-scale horticulture in and around existing conurbations with the aim of ensuring a substantial and diverse supply of locally-grown food, thus incidentally reducing the costs of transportation.
• Related to the above, a massive phased programme to systematically overhaul existing urban infrastructure to facilitate the return of off-farm wastes to the land.
• Finally, to conserve ecologically marginal land by restricting the use of it to rotational/extensive farming.

To those who dismiss this, our response is quite simple: never has the need for a clear and practical alternative to the chaos of capitalism been more pressing, more vital. Only on this basis can we ensure a fruitful and sustainable future for ourselves and our children’s children. The seeds of that future lie within us; it is up to us to nurture and cultivate them.

Robin Cox

Pathfinders: Regreened and pleasant land (2025)

The Pathfinders Column from the February 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

In what may be an omen of the new Trump incumbency, Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket underwent a ‘rapid unscheduled disassembly’ last month. In a similarly unpromising start to the MAGA 2.0 regime, large areas of Los Angeles also underwent their own version of a rapid disassembly as winter wild fires raged along the beachfronts and through the Hollywood hills. When even millionaire celebs’ houses are burning down, you know the world is in crisis.

The LA fires were particularly devastating because of the ‘weather whiplash’ effect. Global warming is disrupting weather systems and rainfall patterns, making wet events in Southern California wetter, and dry events longer. Heavy rain a year or so back resulted in a profusion of new foliage, which then dried out during the subsequent and prolonged drought, creating a mass of kindling just waiting for the next lightning strike or discarded cigarette butt (tinyurl.com/vp6fd9jv).

This weather whiplash effect is being felt around the world, leading in many places to increasing floods and desertification, aided and abetted by human activity including deforestation, industrial farming and overgrazing, soil degradation, building, mining and pollution. It’s estimated that 25 percent of global land will be under threat by 2050. The Gobi desert in Mongolia and China is expanding by around 6,000 square kilometres a year, causing tens of thousands of migrants to flee to the cities. The Sahara, a desert the size of the United States, is advancing by around 48 km a year, exacerbating land conflicts in already poverty-stricken areas. The Thar desert in north-west India, for centuries held back by the natural barrier of the Aravalli mountains, is now blowing dust storms across croplands and into cities as the government have failed to prevent illegal mining of those same mountains.

Capitalism, which cares nothing for consequences, is the real ‘tragedy of the commons’, in which Earth’s common resources are owned and controlled privately and for private gain, to the impoverishment of all. In socialism, where resources would be commonly owned and managed, this unnecessary tragedy could be shunted into reverse. We don’t even need new technology to do it. We can simply apply ancient techniques used by the Egyptians and the Inca to create artificial water-harvesting structures to regreen the land.

Some of this is already happening. One famous regreening project is in the Sahel, the wide strip of semi-desert that borders the southern edge of the Sahara. Contrary to popular belief, it does rain in the Sahara, but rarely, and the water runs off the dry and impermeable ground in violent flash floods, leaving nothing behind. But since 2007, locals have been digging crescent-shaped depressions in the ground to catch the run-off, with deep sinkholes to permeate the sub-soil. The result has been a return of trees – a natural barrier to Saharan dust storms – and lush vegetation. The ‘Great Green Wall’ project runs right across Africa from coast to coast, involves 22 countries, and aims to restore 100 million hectares of marginal land by 2030 (youtu.be/udaihhReGAA).

Look online for stories about regreening deserts. They’re everywhere. Take Ethiopia, birthplace of coffee and once a ‘garden of Eden’ with at least 66 percent forest and woodland cover, reduced by human activity to 3.1 percent by 1982. It stopped raining and the wells dried up, causing droughts and biblical famines. But local community projects have been building micro-watersheds consisting of terraces, deep trenches, check dams and percolation ponds. Since these started, 13 streams have returned, of which 6 now flow throughout the year. Project lead Tony Renaudo put it plainly: ‘If you give nature a chance it will heal itself’ (youtu.be/RBP2uRQk5pQ).

China’s Kubuqi desert project is one of the world’s most successful, where desertification expanding at a rate of 10,000 km2 per year in 2000 has been reversed, leading to a re-greening of 2,000 km2 annually, using only local rainfall.

Also in China, the Loess Plateau had been stripped bare by overcropping and overgrazing, causing soil erosion, flooding, desertification and dust storms. The 35,000 km2 project was explained to local volunteers this way: you need to ‘dress’ the landscape – the hilltops need to wear hats (trees), the hills need to wear belts (terraces), and the valleys need shoes (dams). They regreened the entire area in a decade.

In India, monsoons come for just 3 months, giving farmers a fleeting window to produce just one annual crop, before 9 months of drought. The Paani Foundation project in India’s Maharashtra region hosts an annual Watercup competition to see which village can install the most water-harvesting structures within 45 days. Thousands of villages have participated since 2016, replenishing the water table in just one season and saving an estimated 145 billion gallons of water in 4 years, enabling 2 or more crops a year, creating food security, and ending migration to cities.

The Arvari river in north-west India had been dry for 60 years, with monsoon water simply running off the dry earth. In 1986 they started building water-harvesting crescents as in the Sahel, and by 1995 had restored the river year-round. They’ve since done the same thing with four more dry river systems (youtu.be/Tpozw1CAxmU).

Saudi Arabia has used subterranean water for crop irrigation but this is not sustainable as low rainfall can’t replenish the water table. The west-coast Al Baydha project, begun in 2010, built dams, channels and ditches to direct the floodwater into long-term storage areas, with the result that local vegetation was able to survive a 30-month drought without artificial irrigation (youtu.be/D6Kz_OcOgvE).

These and many other projects are being done now, not thanks to capitalism but in spite of it. What they mostly require is simply the cooperative labour of vast numbers of local people who understand what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. It’s a tantalising foretaste of what socialism could achieve on a world scale, once the barriers of private ownership and profit-seeking are torn down, and more of us start rolling our sleeves up.

Paddy Shannon

The White Death (2002)

From the January 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Common salt is composed of sodium and chlorine of which, it seems, there was plenty locked up in compounds within the basalt rock that formed most of the Earth’s crust as our world cooled from a chemical soup over 3.5 billion years ago. Years of weathering, erosion and corrosion then produced the salt that readily dissolved into masses of water that flowed over and settled, as oceans, in the low-lying areas.

Tiny salt particles have, ever since, been blown from the sea directly onto coastal and adjacent regions of land or have been lifted into the upper atmosphere where they then fall everywhere with rain. Over aeons of time, in dry areas unflushed by regular rainfall, the soil has become sprinkled with minute salt particles extending to a considerable depth.

Unique vegetation has evolved in Western Australia which created a natural “equilibrium” or balance that maintains the ground-water level (water-table) at a depth beyond the salt zone. Native deep-rooted, perennial plants are highly efficient absorbers of moisture, allowing very little rainfall to seep down into the water-table. Native trees have two root systems which absorb both surface and deep groundwater. These are just part of an undisturbed eco-system that produced stability for millions of years.

The clearing of native vegetation and trees for farming and grazing has produced vast areas of shallow-rooted annual crops and pasture which use far less water. Most rainfall now percolates down into the groundwater which raises the level of the water-table. Similarly, in irrigation areas the applied water mostly filters down and lifts the level. As the water-table climbs it dissolves increasing amounts of salt within the soil profile until maximum salinity is concentrated at, or near, the soil surface. Capitalism’s profit-motivated “economic efficiencies” in the timber industry has introduced the disaster of “clearfelling”. Bulldozers uprooting trees, wrecking the understorey, wildlife habitat, soil structure and complete eco-system of vast areas of forest, simply magnifies the problem still further.

The impact of a rising water-table and dryland salinity has far-reaching effects long before the ultimate “White Death” of a lifeless, shining white desert studded with dead trees, is created. Saline water with four feet of the soil surface reduces plant growth. From this point there is a loss of agriculture production, destruction of bush vegetation and native habitat leading to loss of wildlife and biodiversity. Drainage from the soil causes salinity of waterways which affect streams, rivers and water resources in dams and reservoirs . . . eventually making the water unusable. Water plants, aquatic life (frogs, fish, water birds, turtles etc), algae, microbes and invertebrates are destroyed. Rising concentrations of salt damages the soil structure and will corrode the foundations of all infrastructure causing buildings, roads, footpaths, railways, bridges and sewage pipes etc to crumble. Rising water-table also makes land more prone to waterlogging and flooding. The social impact is enormous.

The worst-affected Australian state is Western Australia with 70 percent of total salinity problems. In 1902 the clearing of native vegetation was suspected of causing salinity. This was proved in 1909 and verified in 1924. Despite this knowledge land-clearing increased. The echoes of past capitalist politicians here are heard today when President Bush states, “I am more concerned with the economy than with ecology”, when referring to global warming . . . itself another major factor in the salinity equation.

Seventy-five percent of natural bush in the south-west has been cleared for agriculture of which 10 percent is now salt-affected, which has reduced crops by 50 percent. Over 80 percent of resource water there is salty to some degree and groundwater rises 20-150 cms annually. If allowed to continue 30 percent of farmland will be wiped out, 30,000 kms of road and railway and 27 towns will be ruined by shallow water-table by the year 2050. Many mammals, reptiles, insects, aquatic life and 450 endemic plant species will be lost from one of the most biodiverse areas of the world.

In 1985 a new State government department, CALM (Conservation And Land Management), was created. Syd Shea was appointed executive director. CALM pursued a simple policy of managing the forests for the benefit of the timber industry. Clearfelling was adopted on a grand scale and still continues today. In November 1999 Syd Shea accepted a new post created in the Premier’s office—”Head of Combating Salinity”. This is tantamount to putting a serial arsonist in charge of the Fire Service. Shea is now involved organising “carbon credits” and uses his “ecological expertise” in cracking deals for big corporations.

High technology is being used to acquire facts and statistics on salinity but the shocking details are not being publicised. The information written here was extracted from various official sources. The remedy to salinity is basically simple, groundwater levels need to be reduced (discharged) and rainfall needs to be used more efficiently to prevent recharge. Large areas of farmland need to be revegetated and forest should be allowed to regenerate. Additional proposed engineering and horticultural remedies should be applied immediately.

Capitalism, based upon cost/profit/jobs, which causes these problems, is not equipped to respond to simple need. Balance-sheet profit has always ignored the cost of environmental destruction, which never appeared on the debit pages of the ledger. Landowners are reluctant to lose portions of their land to non-income-producing native vegetation, despite their chance of losing the lot if their unsustainable farming methods do not change. So billions of dollars will be spent over many years on a strategy of compromise. The hunt is on for salt-tolerant fish and plants to farm, alternative deep-rooted crops and pasture and long-term cash-crops of plantation trees to supply the timber industry. It is hoped many areas can be contained and eventually some areas of salinity reversed, other regions are already doomed. But only a socialist society based upon unrestricted need has any chance of lasting success. Speed the day when such political awareness amongst the vast majority of the population will exist.

Ron Stone,

Australia

Pathfinders: Dust to Dust (2020)

The Pathfinders Column from the August 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Below that thin layer comprising the delicate organism known as the soil is a planet as lifeless as the moon’, wrote Jacks and Whyte in The Rape of the Earth: A World Survey Of Soil Erosion (1939). Soil erosion was big news in the 1930s, when rapacious farming created a dust bowl that blew ‘black blizzards’ across America from the Great Plains to New Mexico. Since then farming techniques have become less rudimentary, yet what has capitalism really learned about managing the environment? Mainly how to double down on exploiting it, and never mind the downstream consequences.

A new documentary about the future of agriculture entitled ‘The Need to Grow’ starts with the shocking report that there is only 60 years’ worth of farmable soil left on Earth, because it is being turned to flyaway dust by pesticides, herbicides, deforestation and mono-cropping. This 60-year figure hangs over the entire documentary like the shadow of the Apocalypse as a succession of hands-on experts tell us that we need to act now by individually growing what we can, even if it’s only a basil plant in a window box.

What does the viewer take away from all this? From a British point of view, all the yes-we-can positive vibes and skyscraping kale plants are being produced by tanned farmers in sun-drenched Californian plots, and one wonders how upbeat they would be if faced with a small damp yard in the back-to-backs of Lancashire. True, they showcase some pretty clever stacking systems to get the best out of a small space, but most workers probably couldn’t afford the upscale garden-centre prices.

And who are they kidding with this window box stuff anyway? The overwhelming requirement for any sustainable crop is space. Botanist James Wong quotes an estate agent survey saying that the average UK garden is around 3.7 square meters (although this is a dubious figure given what estate agents are wont to call a ‘garden’). With 3.7 m2, a top gardening expert growing the best all-round food crop (potatoes) in ideal conditions could only produce enough calories to last five days. To last a year would require 266m2, which is about the size of an allotment (New Scientist, 15 April).

If the solutions look a tad unrealistic to the average plant-challenged suburbanite, what about the premise, that there’s only 60 years’ worth of planetary soil left? Well, this figure has an interesting history. Back in 2010 a Sydney professor suggested a 60-year deadline based on estimated rates of UK soil erosion, but it was an off-the-cuff speculation about the UK only (Telegraph, 3 February 2010). Then in 2014 a small study looking at back gardens and allotments in Sheffield found that, not very surprisingly, allotment soil was significantly healthier than heavily-worked local farmland. Farmers Weekly reported the lead scientist as saying ‘With a growing population to feed, and the nutrients in our soil in sharp decline, we may soon see an agricultural crisis.’ Fair comment perhaps, but FW printed the story under the banner headline ‘Only 100 harvests left in UK farm soils, scientists warn’. Where was the quote mentioning this 100-year calculation in the body of the story? There wasn’t one (Farmers Weekly, 21 October 2014). In fact the study never made this claim, or anything resembling it. FW seems to have invented it

Other journalists with deadlines ran with the story, doubtless without checking or even reading the original, and pretty soon the 100-year figure found itself being extrapolated to the entire world, as if conditions in Sheffield somehow prevailed from the Amazon to Alaska. Less than two months after the FW story a top official of the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation was already trimming the 100-year figure down to a more headline-grabbing 60 years, but without citing a source (Reuters, 5 December 2014). Not to be outdone, and possibly in a bid to grab some personal column inches, UK environment secretary Michael Gove astonished audiences by ratcheting Doomsday down to a mere 30 years, citing the Sheffield study as sole evidence (Guardian, 24 October 2017).

What happened to the axiom ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’? It looks like nobody, including the makers of ‘The Need to Grow’, bothered to put in any spadework on research. Except for James Wong, that is, who spent 8 hours digging through academic publications looking for the 100-year calculation, or indeed any calculation, thereafter consulting a number of soil scientists who told him that no such calculation existed and would be impossible to derive anyway (New Scientist, 8 May 2019).

Why would anyone produce a major documentary narrated by a Hollywood star and not check basic facts? It would surely be too cynical to point to the $20 DVD price or the avalanche of sales spam you get once you’ve signed up to watch the film. More likely they believed the formula: worst threat equals highest motivation. That’s debatable, but it’s also dishonest and counter-productive, because if people think they’ve been misled by bogus facts, they’re quite likely dismiss the problem.

And soil destruction really is a problem regardless of deadline, as Wong and every soil scientist is keen to point out. Few things illustrate the existential stupidity of capitalism like its destruction of the very means to grow food. Ancient societies like the Sumerians wiped themselves out through soil destruction, so it’s not as if we’re unaware of the problem. John Seymour, quoting Jacks and Whyte above, made this clear decades ago: ‘If the soil goes we all go: let there be absolutely no doubt about that. There is no future for our species if we destroy the soil’ (Changing Lifestyles, 1991).

But in capitalism nobody is listening. Individual growers have to decide between protecting their income or protecting the environment, and altruism doesn’t pay the bills. Mono-cropping, pesticides and deforestation do pay the bills, with catastrophic and unsustainable effects on the planet’s soils. The profit system is incapable of altering course or stopping. But the human race can stop it, by taking the planet into common ownership and managing it sustainably. If we don’t, we risk a global tragedy of the commons that could be everybody’s funeral.

Paddy Shannon