Alan Spector wrote:
> Those who too casually dismiss Marxism have sometimes not read enough
> Marxism. Over 100 years ago, Engels (Marx' collaborator) wrote of the
> slash and burn policies of capitalist agriculture in the Carribean and
> how the profit system leads to short sighted polices of environmental
> destruction.
>
> Alan Spector
>
> --
Still true today.
Point A.
Given the following:
Gain from an agricultural product is based on yield,
but unregulated capitalism has to maximize profit.
It follows that:
1. If insurance pays higher than the market will, then burn
the crop. True for sugar cane.
2. Maximize profit by keeping all costs down. A Cartel,
Coffee is an example, can do it better by forcing the
producers to sell to a single buyer at their fixed price.
If that price is barely subsistence level, farmers will
not consider the benefit of conservation when
struggling to survive. Also coffee plantations do not burn
well. Neither do bananas. Too humid.
3. Maximize profit by adulterating the product. There will
not be enough coffee on the market so add garbanzo
or whatever is available. You will be surprised to find
what comes out of a ground coffee can nowadays.
If milk is your product then add water or calf feed stock.
Horror show. No problem.
4. Maximize profit by making more farming land available.
To the non farmer capitalist soil is soil. Forest keeps
the producer from that soil. So burn the forest and get
this unwashed poor farmer trash from our cities. Too
bad that soil can't produce dick (Brazil).
5. Exploitation harms people and destroys the environment
but, hey, it maximizes the profit and works for me.
(with apologies to Hunter Thompson)
Point B
The free market idea is based loosely on the Darwinian
concept of evolution. Survival of the fittest. Although this
mechanism works well in explaining biological species
phenomena it is the utmost stupidity to consider cultural
or other events to be explained the same way. Again this
goes back to an earlier European brain storm that everything
can be explained by "scientific" (not science the method, but
scientific the opinion) law. And if a watch works well
with gears then everything that works must have gears. Ergo
everything must be a watch.
The problem is WRONG* thinking. It is usually called an
"ideology". Be it "conservative ideology", "religious
ideology" or "free market / capitalist ideology". There is such
a thing as "scientific ideology" too.
=The same goes for Marxism.=
* Note: WRONG means what the word says. Thinking that lacks
vision, wisdom, perception, correct information, etc.
Based on a myopic view of events or things. Where recycling
old incorrect analogies is easier than creating new ones.
Where rabid emotional commitment to the concept is more
important than validity, accuracy and practicality of the
information. See ideology.
In other words what makes us what we are now.
Caveat: All previous statements are opinion. Not validated by
research. And constitute my "private ideology".
Regards;
Judge