Page 6 RAIN February/March 1981 Agrarian Access cont. Parity: An Americ~n Farm Program That Works, by Merle Hansen and Fred Stover, 1979, 21 pp., $1.00; U.S. Farm News, publication of the U.S. Farmer's Association, $5/yr. (monthly), U.S. Farmers Association, membership $10/ yr.; from: U.S. Farmers Association Box496 Hampton, IA 50441 Parity, even after.reading this monograph, still remains a confusing question. It is one thing to know that the dictionary calls it"An equivalence between farmers' current purchasing power and their purchasing power at a.selected base period, maintained by government support of agricultural commodity prices·at a level fixed by law . . . the price calculated to give the farmer a fair return in relation to things he must buy." It is another thing altogether to understand how parity as a federal loan program operates, and why 98% to 100% parity ends up costing taxpayers less than 60% parity, while effectively supporting small farms. Those numbers and others like them appear to make good arguments for the farmers' demand of 100% parity, and I must admit to supporting their demand ev~n though I still don't fully understand the program. I do understand the o.ther implications of our ''cheap food policy'' however. The most critical is its profitability to the giant food corporations at great cost to farmer and consumer alike. Merle Hansen offers some fine debate on this note for Reagan's "get big government off our backs" rhetoric. "It would be one thing to djsmantle and decentralize the Federal Government for the common good, but it is a totally different thing to give up in apathy, walk off, and leave it to , the tender mercy of corporate America.... We should be skeptical of those who carry on about the evils of 'big business.' Those who are afraid of government control but not corporate control. Those who can see government waste, but not corporate and Pentagon waste, and those who are afraid of government power but not corporate power." Merle and Fred write regularly for the U.S. Farm News.-CC The Los$ of Our Family Farms, by Mark Ritchie, 1979, 32 pp., $2.00 (bulk prices available) from: Loss of Farms 824 Shotwell San Francisco, CA 94110 Mark Ritchie has uncovered an ugly hornet's. nest. In 1962 a non-profit corporation, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), supported by "voluntary contributions from business and industry" and composed of "Pres.idents or Board Chairmen of corporations and Pr~sidents of universities," released a report titled "An Adaptive Program for Agriculture." (All quotes in this review except where noted are from this report.) This "business-academic partnership" has decided that the American Food Industry . was "using too many resources" and that "the movement of people from agriculture has not been fast enough." "If the farm labor force were to be . . . no more than two thirds as large as its present size ... the program would involve moving off the farm about two million·of the present farm labor force. . . ." Their suggestion for facilitating this transition?-"price supports for wheat, cotton, rice, feedgraii;is and related crop's ... be reduced immediately." I don't have to understand the whole program to know that that's below parity pricing they're talkin? Part One: Reversal of the corporation.'s primary strategy, the brea1dng of farmers' power through the enforc_ement of below-parity prices, through both national legislation and local efforts such as collective. bargaining, direct marketing, etc. Part Two: Establishment of policies and programs to reverse the trends created by almost 30 years of this corporate strategy, and to repair the damage that has been done, This would include • Anti-trust legislation and enforce- . ment • Soil conservation and re-building programs • Encouragement of less non-renewable energy dependent ecologically sound agriculturai practices • Programs to encourage new farmers to get back on the land • New taxation policies designed to about. Well, by 1974 the "farm labor force" had indeed been reduced by one third. It seems there was some crossover between CED people and the government when the policies were being developed. All of this makes a connection back to my review of Goodwyn's The Populist Moment. At the end of the CED report Ritchie notes, "They make a strong point that the possibility of 'a recurrence of agricultural instability' must be kept in mind so as to maintain 'an atmospheFe relatively free of th~ political pressures from farmers experienced in the past'. '' How to confront such power? Ritchie outlines a three-part political program (see box). -CC stop and reverse the preference given to Capital; and to encourage agricultural development consistent with the longterm needs of farmers, workers, and consumers. • Strong production control measures • Participation in international grai~ agreements. Part Three: Political programs which would anticipate the reaction of corporations to these new policies in ways that wo~ld attempt to discredit c;>r destroy them. For example: • Strict controls on food and land price increases to prevent corporations from forcing these up, and blaming it on parity policies • Anti-trust legislation in all sections of the food economy to prevent control of agriculture, through inputs and marketing. • From The Loss of Our Family Farms
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz