The Daily Worker Newspaper, May 30, 1924, Page 6

Page views left: 0

You have reached the hourly page view limit. Unlock higher limit to our entire archive!

Subscribers enjoy higher page view limit, downloads, and exclusive features.

Text content (automatically generated)

The Defeat of U. S. Agriculture tury agriculture of the United States was in a period of decline on world’s market, except only the years of war when its domination was there secured by temporary violent exclusion’ of some of its important competitors. This decline is expressed in the foreign trade of foodstuffs. P to the year 1900 growth of ex- ports of foodstuffs (crude and manufactured) from the United States was on the increase. exports grew from 266 million dollars in average in 1875-1879 to 519 million dollars in average in 1900-1904. Dur- ing all this time exports of foodstuffs constituted about 44 per cent cent of total “values” of domestic exports. ONTRARY movement was started here from the first year of this century. The exports of foodstuffs started now to decrease absolutely and still more relatively in the total “values” of exports. During the first 15 years of this century they showed the following changes: S vn the beginning of this cen- _m E-| gs m mn # ase oa... ee ase. ‘3a of8e gE- ss s Fa a Sais sas s 3& Fs . ae Poe 423483 Ve] 1900-1904 Sais | ™ H0 28.1 19.7 N the side of foreign trade, in imports, foodstuffs did not show any noticable change during all the time of glorious victories of agricul- ture of the United on world’s market: “Values of these imports were in year- ly averages during 1880-1884 about 232 million dollars and during 1900- 1994 about 234 million dollars. But since that time they show a rapid in- crease to $299,000,000 in average dur- ing 1905-1909 and farther to $397,- 000,060 in 1910-1914. ‘HE excess of exports over imports }) of foodstuffs decreased from $285,- 000,000 in 1905-1909 and farther to about $20,000,000 in average durin; 1905-1914. ‘HE above figures show that from beginning of this century the Unit- ed States were transformed from ex- porters of food to importers of food- stuffs. Agriculture of the United States, which played an immense role on world’s market, was loosing its positions not only on foreign markets but on the domestic market as well. ‘HANKS to exceptional conditions on the world’s market of food- stuffs during the war years excess of exports of foodstuffs increased here again in average to about $780,000,000, a year, during ~ 1915-1919. But as soon as these special conditions were removed, when the sky-high food pric- es came nearer to the earth, the excess of food exports was decreased’ here again. In ,1923, it was only about $120,000,000. That is still consider- ably higher than it was immediately before the war. But it is in further- decrease and the pre-war level (about $20,000,000) is not the natural limit for this downfall. N the light of the pre-war develop- ments on food markets, it is clear that war-time disturbances did not cause the fundamental difficulties of U. S. agriculture on the world mar- ket. What was “disturbed” in this respect is, not the growth, but the frustration. If there must be “adjust- ments” te the “pre-war standing” than this “adjustment” can lead not to im- the present States agriculture on the world’s mar- ket. URCHASING power of masses of post-war market of foodstuffs shrunk. In the case of the people of England, Germany, France and other food-importing countries could have sufficient means to satisfy their needs of food, then there would be instead of surplus, a great shortage of food. Competition on markets of foodstuffs could appear then in present forms “Value” of these) only after many years of increased agricultural production. But we have to deal not with possibilities under unexisting circumstances, but with realities of present society. This reali- ty shows fierce competition on every market of agiicultural products. In this competition food products of U. 8. agriculture are failing to find pur- chasers not only to the extent of de- crease of purchasing power of Masses of people here and in other countries, but from the decreased markets, big- }ger parts than before are taken by agricultural products of other coun- | tries. i"¥"O foreign wheat markets, United | States supplied from July, 1922, to January, 1923, about 162,000,000 mil- lion bushels, but from July, 1923, to January, 1924, only 111,000,000 million bushels. But during this same time when wheat exports from United States decreased by over 50,000,000 bushels, Canada increased wheat ex- ports by Over 20,000,000 bushels, Brit- ish India and Australia more than doubled their exports. Wheat from Russia appesred on many European markets. On the domestic market of United States, disregarding high im- port tariff duties and great surplus of this product, imports of wheat in-: creased during this period by about three million bushels, 'HESE facts show that agriculture of United States appears at pres- ent in a similar position as was agri- With his red hat on his head And his red cape outspread, ~ ons on market, but even in its reflections on mental processes of the “scientists.” In Hurope, some 50 to THE CARDINAL ARRIVES — The Cardinal, the Cardinal comes home. Stars and stripes mingle with the papal white and yellow; The Cardinal rides before and the city fathers follow; Hear the cannon and the bells; hear the bands blare and bellow: “The Cardinal is back, back from Rome.” The banker-kings need, now the crowned kings are falling, Some other hocus-pocus to hold the people awed; For neither they themselves nor their puppet politicians Have even fake credentials of authority from God. They see the red fiag standing firmer And they hear the widening murmur Against their rule over-seas and at home. So a “prince of the church” is escorted by “old glory,” And what the bells and the bands really tell is the story Of a pact between the banker-kings and Rome. “For a red hat and cape—they are very different things From a red, red flag,” say the crafty banker-kings. “ “While the people bow and scrape, we will hide behind that cape, And grind them here and crush them there and bring the bacon home. Boost for the business-men’s red international! Come on now, you Americans,—Three cheers for Rome.” By O. PREEDIN Kapital”. K. Marx. TI vol. I part,,of the size of holdings. The group page 260.) This is true for the present crisis of agriculture of the United States too, but only for the years after the war-time boom. URING the first 15 years of the decline of U. S. agriculture on the world’s market some very essential features of the European crisis were absent here. Instead of depressive prices we had here just the contrary. This was a time of growing prices of agricultural products and of growing costs of living. The best blessings Europe had from her agricultural crisis were the decreased land rents and subsequent absolute and relative decrease of economic power and in- fluence of ‘the most reactionary class of landowners. Here was nothing of that kind: “land values” were rising ‘here at tremendous speed. *7"HE indexes of “land values,” as pub- 4 lished by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (“Yearbook 1920,” page 825),. show that from 1899 to 1914 these ‘“‘valnes” increased 2% times (147 per cent). The start of agricultural crisis in ithe United States had specific forms and expressions. Unusual growth of, “land values” is the most character- istic and fundamental economic factor in the troubles during these years. INAL disappearance of suitable “free lands” about thé end of last century made the rapid rise of “land —RENA DEANE. values“ possible. But this fact alone does not explain anything about dyna- mical forces which brought this rise gregate value of such ing a large relative concentration not jerations of “parasitic speculative cap- of smallest landowners had the “cheapest” lands but the biggest land- owners had the “most expensive” lands; the first (owners of holdings worth $1,000 and less) had 13.6 per cent of acreage but only 4.4 per cent of total “value” of rented farms; the last group (owners of holdings worth $25,000 and over) had 13.1 per cent of acreage but 17.4 per cefit of total “value” of rented farms. § this explainable by differences in soil, situation of farms or other ‘natural’ causes? Here or there these causes may contribute something to thé above differences, but the extent of centralization of holdings, the monopoly of land over whole districts is the main and may be the only cause in this increase of “value” of large holdings over that of small hold- ings. * i By the following census of 1910 and 1920 ifvestigation of ownership of tenant farms was not continued or if it was continued the results were not published, as that is often dene by every United States government burean with information which can disclose too much “business secrets” of ruling exploiters. The enumera- tors of the census of 1910 and of 1920 were instructed to collect all material needed for investigation of ownership of rented farms in thfs same manner as that was done by the enumerators of the census of 1900. Therefore, with- holding of this information for cer- tain reasons is rather susceptable than entire neglect of this too inter- esting question.) Boas proves that to the extent of their power the big landholders contributed to the increase of land ‘yalues.” The creation and growth of land rent means here introduction of new divisions of produced surplus values. C OW long existed here free access to land so long was there was pos- sible such division of created values in agriculture, was described by K. Marx as follows: “Under such circumstances (where ownership of land can not resist appli- ’ cation of capital in agriculture) it is possible for a long time—except the lands in heavy populated districts, where the situation gives them a mo- nopoly,—that surplus-value produced by farmers over acreage profits is not realized in the price of their products but that they (the farmers) must di- vide it with their brethren capital- ists.” (“Theorien liber den Mehr- wert.” II Vol. I part, Page 200.) XISTANCE of “surplus-value over average profits” was and still is in some semi-colonial countries the economic basis for large profitable op-

Other pages from this issue: