AHC: agricultural collectivisation a mainstream social democrat policy

[Alexander the Average]

Generally agricultural collectivisation as a political goal, as opposed to a voluntary social movement, is generally regarded as an extreme left goal. Pretty much no social democratic party, to my knowledge, has ever endorsed or pursued it as a goal, and it has only really been pursued by the ostensibly Communist countries, and even then not universally. The few non-Communist countries that have implemented it in some form tend to have done so due to exceptional circumstances such as the Ejido system in Mexico which was implemented in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution, and the kibbutzim and moshavim in Israel, which were implemented as part of the Zionist projects' model of colonisation during the pre-independence Aliyahs and ultimately became entrenched into Israeli identity.

What would need to happen to have full or widespread agricultural collectivisation taken up as a policy goal by mainstream social democratic parties, on par with nationalisation and the welfare state, i.e. something to aim towards and implement, even if not always put into practice and ultimately abandoned if neoliberalism still arises.

 

[greenbay2014]

Collective farming was implemented by the Pilgrims at the Plymouth Plantation, so perhaps if collective farming is implemented earlier on a society due to religious or cultural norms. Or maybe high food prices in an highly urbanized society? Welfare is more common in urban populated states anyways..

 

[David T]

Voluntary formation of cooperatives is perfectly compatible with social democratic policy. As for forced collectivization, nobody even in the Soviet Union *openly* advocated it--not the Left Opposition and not Stalin! As Leszek Kolakowski points out in *Main Currents of Marxism,* "Trotsky, it is true, never spoke of forced collectivization, but then neither did Stalin. Anyone who knew the history of those years only from Stalin's speeches and articles would unquestionably suppose that the peasants flocked into the collective farms for the sake of a better life, that the 'revolution from above' was greeted with unbridled joy, and that the only sufferers from stern measures were a handful of incorrigible saboteurs, enemies of the working people..." https://books.google.com/books?id=qUCxpznbkaoC&pg=PA820

 

[Alexander the Average]

Well obviously they wouldn't advocate forced collectivisation, but there are still plenty of ways that a social democratic government could support agricultural collectivisation through less authoritarian means, such as nationalising or buying up large tracts of land and converting them into farmer-run collectives or encouraging farmers to collectivise through a mixture of economic incentives (preferential tax rates, subsidies, etc.) and public awareness campaigns.

What I'm aiming at is getting social democrats to accept and actively pursue agricultural collectivisation as a policy goal.

 

[overoceans]

Well obviously they wouldn't advocate forced collectivisation, but there are still plenty of ways that a social democratic government could support agricultural collectivisation through less authoritarian means, such as nationalising or buying up large tracts of land and converting them into farmer-run collectives or encouraging farmers to collectivise through a mixture of economic incentives (preferential tax rates, subsidies, etc.) and public awareness campaigns.

What I'm aiming at is getting social democrats to accept and actively pursue agricultural collectivisation as a policy goal.

Well, in Canada, starting in the western provinces and then extending federally, you had wheat pools, which were usually set up by quasi-left agrarian governments(eg. the United Farmers Of Alberta), or at least, in response to activism by farmers'
groups sporting a similar ideological tendency. The farms remained private, of course, though as the name implies, at least some of the selling took place on a collective basis.

I think most of the provincial wheat pools were eventually privated, and Harper killed the federal one a few years back.

 

[JorgeGG]

Generally agricultural collectivisation as a political goal, as opposed to a voluntary social movement, is generally regarded as an extreme left goal. Pretty much no social democratic party, to my knowledge, has ever endorsed or pursued it as a goal, and it has only really been pursued by the ostensibly Communist countries, and even then not universally. The few non-Communist countries that have implemented it in some form tend to have done so due to exceptional circumstances such as the Ejido system in Mexico which was implemented in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution, and the kibbutzim and moshavim in Israel, which were implemented as part of the Zionist projects' model of colonisation during the pre-independence Aliyahs and ultimately became entrenched into Israeli identity.

What would need to happen to have full or widespread agricultural collectivisation taken up as a policy goal by mainstream social democratic parties, on par with nationalisation and the welfare state, i.e. something to aim towards and implement, even if not always put into practice and ultimately abandoned if neoliberalism still arises.

I sort of disagree. Not so sure but I think the old orthodoxy of German Socialdemocracy (Karl Kautsky, ''On The Agrarian Question'' 1899) thought that land collectivization would ''automatically'' follow once the industrial workers had established a socialist state. Therefore large scale industrial production of agriculture would follow.

Kautsky and others had a very poor opinion of the revolutionary consciousness of farmers and land workers, and thought they would became allies of reaction.

The Erfurt Program of 1891 treats land in same way as other means of production ''Only the transformation of the capitalist private ownership of the means of production – land and soil, pits and mines, raw materials, tools, machines, means of transportation – into social property and the transformation of the production of goods into socialist production carried on by and for society can cause the large enterprise and the constantly growing productivity of social labor to change for the hitherto exploited classes from a source of misery and oppression into a source of the greatest welfare and universal, harmonious perfection'' (https://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm)

See this https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/mar/kautsky.htm

 

[GeographyDude]

Manufacturing is collectivized through corporations (which might be effectively regulated through labor unions, journalism, minimum government standards, etc., or perhaps not well-regulated)

And you don't see many people lobbying and advocating for a return to family-based handicrafts, right?

 

[Analytical Engine]

Maybe establish them as "community farms" or something. Maybe as part of a counter-cultural movement turned mainstream.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

In the US, farmers use cooperatives (co-ops) in lieu of collectives. They give farmers the benefit of scale for buying seed and fertilizer and for selling their crops while still giving farmers the benefit of entrepeneurship.

Why would they want to pursue such a policy? Is there any evidence that it provides superior outcomes for consumers or farmers?

 

[GeographyDude]

Maybe . . . early Mormon pioneers use collectively owned farms for religious reasons, which they may have. I'm not an expert on this period.

And then the general dislike of Mormonism leads to a desire to do it right, with a corporation, shares, elected board, open accounting, etc.

The POD might be more skepticism toward this whole business of "rain follows the plow," which apparently was used to promote American prairie land and seemed to be believed to some extent. Maybe if there had been an ironic rejoinder "yeah, for an generation" and the feeling that there's more protection in a corporation done right.

 

[Pesterfield]

Why would they want to pursue such a policy?

Farm equipment is the main one I can think of, go in together on a tractor or other big purchase.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Farm equipment is the main one I can think of, go in together on a tractor or other big purchase.

Coops can do the same. No need for collectivization.

 

[Farmer12]

A truly collectivized farm system tends to lead to inefficiencies in the system. Look at the Collectivized systems in the Soviet Union. The most productive section of the farm economy was the small private plots. The people working the private plots had real incentives to have the land produce foods in quantity. Another note as for collectively owning farm equipment, the way farming works is that everyone would need the tractor or the combine at the same time and the failure to have that tractor or the combine at the right time could impair the production of the land.