The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 1, 1924, Page 5

“The idea becomes power when it pene- trates the masses.” ' -—Karl Marx. Changes In "TE attempts to explain the pres- ent difficulties of farmers by tem- porary changes in relations of agri- culture to industry—(disproportion in: existing prices in favor of indus- trial products against farm products in comparison with the so-called pre- war prices)—by “cheating” of farm- ers in the sphere of transportation and distribution—(high tariffs and inereased distances between the prices that farmers receive and what consumers pay for farm. products) —and by changes in overseas mar- kets—(decrease of. purchasing power .of the old foreign customers of U. S. agricultural products of other coun- tries)—are based without question on very real facts. Listening to these explanations the farmers can recognize that they are exploited in many ways. If they will consider those means of exploi- tation closer, they may be able to discover that many of them are fing- ers of the one hand—capital—which are snatching the produced values for its greedy stomach. Explanations Insufficient, But these explanations are not sufficient even when carried thru to the very root of the evil. It is very easy to see that they all try to find the causes of farmers’ difficulties outside of the sphere of production— not in agriculture itself. They are very far from the main point: from ‘the most important changes in agri- cultural relations on the fields, from | the place where frée American farm- ers are tra “7 culture, as it was established during the colonization period, is smashed | now in pieces and an entirely differ- ; ent system of agriculture is intro- | duced in its place. These changes are equal in import- ance to the expropriation of peasants’ lands in connection with the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 and in other European countries before that time, or the expropriation of common lands in England from about the last quarter of the fifteenth century to nearly the end of the sixteenth cen- tury. Difference in Substance. But the present changes are here essentially different in substance. The agricultural relations of United States with a dominating » owning system were different not only from the old relations but even from the results of the “glorious” revolutions in agricultural systems in Europe. In Europe the medieval relations in agriculture were changed only so far as to open the way for develo: ment of capitalistic relations in agriculture. In United States, on the contrary, the farmers’ system was a creation of capitalistic colonization. It could not have and did not have any obstacles@n the way for devel- opment of capitalism but was in all the world the clearest expression of capitalistic agricu!ture in the period of colonization with abundant free lands suitable for cultivation and . where the expansion of private land- ownership ahead of expansion of its cultivation found sometimes very strong opposition and was restricted. The farmer system (I have called it this to distinguish it from the ten- ant system of Europe), as establish- ed in colonial times in a period when capitalism was represented by many competing groups of manufacturers and traders, essentially differed from all other agricultural systems the faets that this system did not know any separate class of landowners- pomeshchiks, juhkers, pans, barons, lords—that under this system de- velopment of land rent was limited and the land was practically insepa- rable from farmer’s income or prof- its, and that the actual farmers own- ed the land which they cultivated. i Various Forces at Work. The forces which contributed to the establishment of such a> system were . There was a time when in ae ey of divisional conflicts the colonization of the western free lands and the expansion of the farm- er system was here supported even Hise ummoningeaimmentinim tpt! oes \ rnin tth ent te le se pe etn sn formed into dependent | ; Special Magazine Supplement THE DAILY WORKER.) *:2) by the Southern slave holders who helped the “West” to destroy the plans of the powerful “Kast.” . What kind of agriculture would be here today if about a century age the slave-holding “South” had not joined the “wild West” against the “civilized East”? if. the attempts of “East” to “deliver up the public lands in the new states to the avar- ice of the old. ones, to be coined into gold and. silver for their benefit” had been entirely successful? The “westerner,” Senator Benton, of Missouri, in his speech in the United States senate of Feb, 2, 1830, predicted that “the sales of the lands wilk be held back . ; . every possible inducement will arise to screw up the price of all that is sold ... more favor to the settler . . sales on-fair and equitable terms. - . . Laws will be passed to fix the minimum price at the highest rate; agents will be sent to attend the sales, and bid high against the unrest is a reflection. farm produce. farmer, the settler and the cultiva- tor....” “Speech of Mr. Benton.” Printed by Gales & Seaton, Washing- ton, 1830, p. 72. Danger Was Real. The danger was real. Attempts of the “East” to restrict the coloni- zation and to grab the public lands would have resulted, if successful, in considerable separation of land own- ership from the actual cultivators. Thiu grants of whole territories to single persons, thru sales “for songs” thousands of acres to speculators, thru acquisition of public lands by agents of banks, etc., a system of colonization was attempted where the seizure of free lands in private ownership could go far ahead of ac- tual farming and where even a sep- arate class of landowners could be created. is “The “East” failed to carry out those plans thanks to united opposi- tion of the other sections of —-the country and to divisions in-its own sections on this issue. Some decades later the slaveholding “South” failed to expand its plantation system on account of free farming, and united blows from East and West slavery was abolished; previous me- dieval relations in the South were de- stroyed and her agricuiture opened for capitalistic exploitation. “The owners of the large plantations were transformed into eapitalistic fand owners, Here in the United States came into existence capitalistic agri- culture with masses of tenants on ood side and big land owners on the other. ‘ But outside of the territory of pre- viously slave-holding sections, the col- onization procceded mainly where sufficient quantities of land remained “public” up to the time*when actual farmers settled there to work. Much Land Nevertheless, tracts of unoccupied lands The Causes of Rural Unrest é x HIS is the first of two ; articles dealing with the im- portant changes that are taking place in American agriculture and of which the present widespread rural * * * * mM? writers dealing with this subject stress the dis- crepancy between the price paid to the farmer for his produce and the prices paid for commodities pur- ‘chased by him. Other writers deal with the problem of the middleman and the distributive charge levied on _ OMRADE PREEDIN goes to the root of the matter and shows that the American farmer is rapidly be- coming “peasantized,” i. e., he is losing his ownership of the land very rapidly—is a non-owner working for finance-capitalists and that rent and interests are the burdens that are crushing American farmers.—Ed. Note. seized before the westward movement of the farmers reached them. ‘The new states had very large private land holdings at the time of their admission or annexation. They had many millions of acres of which owners did not cultivate a single acre, Land. holding. corporations, com- panies, agencies, were formed to cen- tralize, to control and to “hold on” to the lands which were appropriat- ed in the past thru seizure, private grants by Spanish rulers, corrupt sales, rainway grants and numerous other methods, ‘ Thanks to them, in the new states | of the West, where still a small part of the total available land is in no | farms but very much land is in hands - no} of land holders (speculators), prices of land are considerably higher than the average in the United States. Against average price of plow land in the United States of $90 per acre, in Catifornia this price was $130 and in Oregon $100 per acre in 1920. The new settlers are compelled to ‘pay exorbitant prices—or high rents —for the reason that the uncultivat- ed land is already appropriated. Figures Unbelievable. The statistics of tenancy and farm mortgages do not give us @ complete picture either of the state or of the Progress of separation of land own- ership ‘from actial farmers. ‘They show us only the current conditions on the “land in farms.” But “census farms” and “census lang in farms” are very fluctuating things in United States. In agricultural statistics of European countries we can find al- ways the land as a stable quantity with more or less accurate and de- tailed information about the changes in ownership of Jand in general, not only in connection with its cultiva- tion, 3 In agricultural statistics of United States, on the contrary, the “land in farms,” many millions of acres with all their buildings and improvements are things which from census to census can appear, disappear and re- appear without making any disturb- ance, B Startling Phenomena. In some states the disaj rance of “land in farms” is startling. In New England in 1920 were over 4 1-2 million acres less of “land in farms” than in 1880. This same kind of “progress” was experienced in the Middle Atlantic states, From 1910 to 1920 only 22 states had an increase of “ in farms” (total 94 million acres), but 27 states had a decrease (total decrease 17 million acres), This shows that during the last census decade in a majority of '; states less land went into the circle of “land in farms” but more went Seized. very corfsideyable | out ‘from there into the mysterious were | “total land : : area,” SECOND SECTION March 1, 1924. This appear every Saturday magazine supplement will J Agricultural Relations In United States oscar PREEDIN ~The United States census: statis- ties, by recording only those farms which at the date of census are “di- rectly farmed” or engaged in “agri- cultural products, and raising ani- mals, fowls, and bees”—may be suf- ficient in respect to production of all these things. But when we speak about the separation of the farmers from the land and want to have full information about the actions of financial capital in this maiter, then Such statistics can disclose to us very little, but instead mislead us if we trust them very far. Widespreacy ruin of farmers by financial capital can be confused without such statis- tics giving any inkling of it. _In its business with farmers, finan- cial capital in case of default can “foreclose” on the farmers with all their land and belongings. The call- ing of farm mortgages seldom is followed by immediate sale to an- other farmer or by a lease to a ten- ant. In many cases some years elapse until a called in farm finds another cultivator. In this manner in districts where farms are called in just before taking the census and. are in search of purchasers or ten- ants during the time of census but not “directly farmed,” only the re- maining farms are recorded. The census will represent this district as without tenancy and without mort- gage debts, therefore, as faring very well, but in reality it may be the scene of the most crue] and wide- spread “executions of farms” by mortgagors. Present Example. Especially during a time like this there should be wider intervals be- tween disruption of cultivation of a farm ruined by bankruptcy and re- vival of its cultivation by a new pur- chaser or tenant; conquests of finan- cial capital in agriculture are going ahead at rapid speed, but necessary agencies for disposition of its ac- quired lands are still in the period of organization; ruining of farmers is an intensive process carried on by all available means for the sake of increasing land holdings, with their = future rents, in hands of | financial capital; temporary preven- tion of cultivation of land is un- avoidable because of the desire of land holders to keep rent at the highest point. Therefore, the present statistics of tenancy and farm mortgages repre- sent only a part of very widespread separation of farmers from their land. But even ihis part, which is represented by census statistics, is very considerable: in 1920 in the total number of 6,448 thousand farms in U. S. were: 2,455 thousand farms (38.1 per cent) operated by tenants; 68 thousand farms (1.1 per cent) operated by managers; 1,611 thousand farms (24.9 per cent) operated by nominal owners (mortgaged) ; 2,313 thousand farms (35.9 per cent) operated by real owners. Here we can see that among all actual farmers in U. S. in 1920 only about 36 per cent were full owners of the land which they cultivated. That is all what is left from the original “farm” system. ( To Be Concluded Next Week) Hurricane Winds Hurricane wigds! if you must bite and blow, : War not upon the hovels of the poor Who suffer so, - Such pain endure. Blow ee And costly castles of the For they have hearths with myriad to burn, Being blessed by boundless, wondrous wealth which : They did not carn. Edward James Irvine. IMPEACH COOLIDGE! « LON EOI, he