[Commie77]

I have a task for you socialists comrades out there. I want to see your thoughts on how socialism would works in a farming country where basically everything is based on farming. I want to know how distribution, government, military, trade, foreign relations..... ect would work in your opinion. I have my own idea for this and will post it later when i have more time please help me comrades.

[CreamDream]

I want to see your thoughts on how socialism would works in a farming country where basically everything is based on farming.

In my opinion, based off of historical trends in communist countries such as China and the USSR, two nations with a very large and lucrative agricultural sectors, the standard of living would be quite poor, and in fact, agricultural production would actually decrease. Historically, the relationship between incentive and agricultural production is quite evident.

[Commie77]

ok so your saying socialism + farms is less productive. I can see that. What about if the collectivization was not used but there was a fixed price on the different foodstuff ? People would have there own land. So the more you produced the more money you had.

[Khalq]

So... agrarian economy and individual private property. How is that socialism, again?
By the way, capitalist economies set prices (or at least ceiling/floor prices) all the time.

And yes, this type of economy is not productive, it is primitive and belongs to a past age. We do not need it and it is not desirable once a population has experienced the benefits of mechanized agriculture and modern industry.

[Commie77]

you are right, i am just want to know what agrarian socialism would look like :P
i do not believe in it or anything.

[Le Rouge]

Depends on what you mean by 'farming country'. Kenya, Malaysia, and Mexcio are all farming countries but have developed differently. Likewise, the 'farming country' of Britain in 1750 was different from the 'farming country' of Britain in 1150.

I don't think socialism could replace feudalism--the development of productive forces isn't enough to construct what in any meaningful what could be considered socialist. If by farming countries, you mean Third World countries then I believe it may be possible to build 'a non-capitalist path to socialism'. Primarily, I think this means placing the locus of political power at the local level and involve community participation in decision-making. Secondly, clearly define what the central government should do for the people.

The biggest obstacle to non-capitalist development in the Third World has been corruption and Western intervention. (The former more frequent, the latter more dramatic). Persons in pursuit of a non-capitalist road to development would have to regularly find means against corruption. (Personally, I think mass campaigns and strident punishment for corruption handle this).

[Commie77]

le rouge do you think socialism could happen without industrialization or just small industrialization?

here are my thoughts for such a system

What if farmers had there own plot of land each according to his need and they worked on it to make food. Surplus food would be given be distributed or saved depending on the need. People could acquire more land if they wished. All the land would be owned by the government but the peasants could by and sell it themselves, kind of like buying and selling a loan but there is no economic downfall. Factories would be create in a certain area's ( depending on the geography.) Were many people living in communities could go to and work. Products in the factories would be made for the people. It could be things like furniture, technology... the surplus products would be sold to other country's. Another thing about this sort of agrarian socialism would be that if you can work and do not take the opportunity to work then you will not receive anything. People could work in the factory full time if they wanted.

[Le Rouge]

le rouge do you think socialism could happen without industrialization or just small industrialization?

Err... possibly the former if by socialism a society where the means of production are owned by the working class and employees are remunerated according to their level of education, experience, quantifiable effort, and family needs (i.e. they are paid according to their contribution and cost of their reproduction). However, I do not think a society could progress from 'feudalism - capitalism - agriarian socialism' such conditions could only successfully arise were the dominant form of economic activity is pre-industrial or only partially-industrialized.

[Commie77]

ok so basically industrialization or no socialism?

[CreamDream]

ok so basically industrialization or no socialism

Marxism 101 my friend.

[Commie77]

aha dam man there goes my experiment o well. So wait what happens to food production ? does it still occur ?

[Khalq]

All the land would be owned by the government but the peasants could by and sell it themselves, kind of like buying and selling a loan but there is no economic downfall.

You have the seeds of capitalism right there. And small owner becomes landlord...

Why not just call it "socialism" with <insert agrarian backward country name here> characteristics, legalize private property rights, let JPMorgan Chase and Monsanto in and be done with it?

[Commie77]

is that a hint of anger in your post. BTW the government would not let people have to much land.

[The Immortal Goon]

In a feudal market, traditionally, a tenant pays rent to the landlord - mostly in a physical way. When this begins to turn to capitalism, he pays the landlord in an economical way. Generally, the tenant sells food at a market and pays rent to the landlord and keeps what is left - in theory.

As things progress in capitalism the farmer is no longer the basis of society. Instead, General Mills (or some other company) contracts the farmer to work for them for a situation which is closer to a salary.

A switch to socialism in the latter situation would be relatively easy.

The middle ground is a little more up to debate, but generally considered possible.

The first example, he worker having to pay the landlord with physical feats, is up to debate.

[Khalq]

is that a hint of anger in your post.

Not at all. Why would you say that?

the government would not let people have to much land.

It does not matter what the government officials say or do. This is a disaster waiting to happen. As I said, you are planting the seeds of capitalism - private property of the means of production, mercantilist exchange and commodification. It is similar to what happened during the Khrushchov era in the USSR. He reintroduced profitability and sold the means of production to individual or group-owned (i.e. private property) farms - in other words, created a market where good ol' supply and demand was the rule.

Your class of small private owners will evolve, and within a few years or decades, you will have a counterrevolution during which capitalism will be reestablished.

[Red Rebel]

Depends on what you mean by 'farming country'. Kenya, Malaysia, and Mexcio are all farming countries but have developed differently.

Going to give you (Commie77) a similar answer to the thread you made on the S-E. Socialist agriculture looks different based on different countries. i.e. the USSR had entirely different agriculture system than what socialist agriculture in the USA would have or what Cuba has. i.e. in the USA it would be a lot easier to nationalize the several agriculutre corporations whereas the USSR had to collectivise peasants.

[Prince Nicolo]

Yugoslavia happens.

[VP Note: Please avoid one-liners. Posts should be substantial and add to the discussion. Future one-liners will be deleted]

[BurrsWogdon]

It does not matter what the government officials say or do. This is a disaster waiting to happen. As I said, you are planting the seeds of capitalism - private property of the means of production, mercantilist exchange and commodification. It is similar to what happened during the Khrushchov era in the USSR. He reintroduced profitability and sold the means of production to individual or group-owned (i.e. private property) farms - in other words, created a market where good ol' supply and demand was the rule.

Your class of small private owners will evolve, and within a few years or decades, you will have a counterrevolution during which capitalism will be reestablished.

I read somewhere (maybe Sidelsky's Road from Serfdom) that Lenin let something like this go on.

[Tally-oh]

Yes, that would be the New Economic Policy instituted after the disaster of War Communism, it would probably have been accelerated had it not been for Stalinism (supposing Trotsky didn't gain power).

Maoism worked in a more logical progression, starting off with limited farming co-operatives and working towards state ownership. If only he had kept it at co-operatives......

[Khalq]

I read somewhere (maybe Sidelsky's Road from Serfdom) that Lenin let something like this go on.

Yes, it was established as a quick solution to a war-ravaged economy. It was limited to small-scale industries and a backward agriculture. Khrushchov's policies were applied to an advanced industry and a mechanized agriculture that were already not doing so bad. The result of this totally foolish strategy was a Gosplan unable to control anything. Capitalism was reborn.

----

Yes, that would be the New Economic Policy instituted after the disaster of War Communism

False. War communism was good for what it was designed for. It was replaced when the conditions changed. The NEP in turn was replaced when the conditions changed again and the needs became different.
The Soviet leadership, starting with Lenin, was very pragmatic. Collectivization, socialization, planing, etc. all these were not done just for heck of it.

it would probably have been accelerated had it not been for Stalinism (supposing Trotsky didn't gain power).

Nonsense. Many in the Party were hostile to the NEP from day one and even considered it a departure from socialist principles. And it had its own problems anyway. Eventually even Lenin would've abandoned it when the time was right.