Agriculture is the last economy being transformed by industrialization and commercialization, and Rosset argues that this should not happen. Food production differs from other forms of production because it is so closely linked to human health and survival. In addition to providing nourishment, a stable food economy sustains social and political stability in rural areas and preserves cultural traditions and the environment. Rosset argues that food is more than a commodity; it is the foundation fo a complex web of social and ecological relationships that are simplified and ultimately destroyed when big businesses (and big government) reduce agriculture to mere production for the market.
Rosset's goal is food sovereignty, which would be based on creating government programs and markets that support small producers and rural communities over the interests of big corporations. With the right policies, small producers can provide stable food supplies at reasonable prices and higher quality than large producers can.
I'd like to know what those policies are, and I definitely plan to get the book to evaluate for myself how sensible they are. Here's more from review, which criticizes the author for not discussing the role consumers play in driving the industrialization of agriculture by their demand for cheap food at all costs. He also dings Rosset for not recognizing "the spiritual nature of food and agriculture." Here's Lanz (who is a political scientist at the University of South Carolina):
In all healthy societies, food, like sex, is respected because it is essential to life. As such, food production and consumption are enshrined in rituals and customs that celebrate human participation in the life cycle. When food, or sex, is removed from the protection of the community and given over to the domain of government and the market, it loses its spiritual value and becomes a purely material good.
Lanz notes that agrarians recognize the vital importance of farming to a "good and orderly society," and says that when agriculture declines, so does culture. In "Crunchy Cons," farmer Joel Salatin suggests that this is because farmers maintain a natural humility and piety because they understand how contingent life is, and cannot afford the luxury of believing (falsely) that man can refute nature with his own power. Lanz asserts that consumers can fight the war for the redemption of a healthy culture by supporting their local food producers in their personal purchases over distant agribusiness interests.
Here's an important crunchy con point, from Lanz:
Unfortunately, conservatives, like most Americans, do not view food and agriculture as important political issues. What is more distubring is that the political left does. Leftists are the ones taking up the fight for small farmers and communities throughout the world. The left-leaning publisher of this tract, Zed Books, has published an entire series on agricultural issues. ...The worst long-term consequence of the current agricultural revolution is that, if a counterrevolution every materializes, it will probably be a leftist operation, allowing the left to monopolize the debate over how to protect agriculture and community life. In accomplishing this, the left will penetrate the last bastion of traditional life and transform it into a radical one. That would be the greatest revolution of all.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"And yeah, like Rob & Maclin said, the extremes lose the basic point; that's why normal logical conservatives don't care about this stuff." Pauli, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, unless you don't consider the conservatives at 'Chronicles' and 'Modern Age' normal and logical.
Aron, As I said, neither Mexico nor the U.S. like this situation. In Mexico it is seen as evidence of the failure of the Mexican government to solve the economic disparity. It is disparity because Mexico actually does make a lot of money. The problem is that its millionaires don't like to share it.
Down there it is a free-market paradise. So they don't have to share it. The side effect of their selfishness is that poor people migrate to the U.S.
We can let the market solve it, which is, do nothing and live with the situation, or we can find a solution through our governments. I rather find a government solution. Bubba, I don't know what you are talking about. :) I was talking about the U.S. subsidies program the entire time. And historically, it has guaranteed food security for the U.S. since WW2. We make enough food that we export grains and meat to other countries. So even if we are short of some staple, our system makes sure that we have a substitute. Without subsidies, I don't know if we would have this same security. Look at Mexico. They don't have farm subsidies. So it doesn't produce enough staple food for its own economy. So a decision made in a foreign country has a huge impact in their economy. Not a pretty sight, and not one that I want for the U.S. either :)
One more point for you to ponder: if government protection is so horrible, why does every corporation and business in the U.S. seeks it?
We can live a lot longer without some nonsensical ideas of virtue than we can without food.
And we negate the power of nature every day. Every time someone walks out of a hospital the power of nature has been negated. Every time we turn on a light, we negate the power of nature.
And then every once in a while we get a reminder from that negated nature, you know, like a tornado that knocks out the power or a hurricane that takes the roof of a hospital.
Hugo said: Look at Mexico. They don't have farm subsidies. So it doesn't produce enough staple food for its own economy. Well, not exactly. Mexico was one of the first countries to undergo the green revolution. The reason Mexico no longer produces enough food for itself is not because it doesn't have crop subsidies. It's (at least partly) because of American subsidies. Corn is the biggest Mexican staple. Corn is heavily subsidized in the U.S., mostly to spur ethanol production. That means producers in the U.S. can export corn to Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can produce it, because the U.S. taxpayer pays the difference. That also means a lot of corn farmers in Mexico have been wiped out and have come north looking for work. And NAFTA means that Mexico has to accept U.S. corn exports. Corn-based ethanol is a grossly inefficient fuel. Corn subsidies encourage farmers to grow corn even when market forces suggest a glut exists. But they mostly benefit a handful of big ag companies. (Chiefly ADM, who gets almost half its profits from subsidized crops). It's not just corn either. Go out to the Texas panhandle in the fall. You can see hundreds of square miles of some of the best grazing land in the world waist deep in subsidized cotton. Or look at the world price of sugar and ask yourself why you pay 3 times as much.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.