Ontario CP gives alternative
_to Farm Stabilization Bill

Recently, we are told, Ontario ~
was within a whisker of an elec-
tion over the Davis government’s
Farm Stabilization Program.

In the end the Liberals pulled in
their hors leaving the New
Democratic Party to vote alone
against the Bill, again saving the
Tory hide. -

To most Ontarions, except the
farmer, the issues and the plan
itself remain a mystery.

What is not a mystery to con-
sumers and farmers alike is that
food prices continue to mount and
farmers continue to get it in the
neck. How much would the farm
stabalization program have af-
fected this reality?

Not very much!

Its weakness is that it ap
proaches the farmer as an undif-
ferentiated category. In fact there
is the rich farmer and big agro-
businesses, who account for
four-fifths of all agricultural pro-
duction in Ontario, and the poor
farmer, who while Operating on
approximately two-fifths of the
land, accounts for less. than
one-fifth of the farm production.

The farm stabilization program
would mainly benifit the ‘‘have’”
farmers, not the “‘have-n@t’’ far-
mers. :

Farm prices are dictated by
state monopoly policies‘outside of
farmer control. Similarly, the
costs of farm inputs, or every-
thing a farmer has to buy, the
prices of machinery, fertilizer, et-
cetera, are dictated by monopoly
price fixing. ~

Farm price or income stabiliza-
tion programs, where they exist,
are indexed to_past historic in-
come averages. They are de-
signed to compensate on an an-
nual basis the sum total rather
than individual levels of income
loss. Such programs as the federal
farm income support plan, and
the Ontario Government’s new
farm income stabilization bill, are
not designed to guarantee mar-

kets, adequate prices for farm
products, or stabilized or guaran-
teed farm incomes.

No one in our society is more
exposed to the vagaries of aboom
and bust and highly inflationary
market economy than ‘is the
farmer. Land prices dictated by
considerations other than its real
productive value have driven
farm costs sharply upward and
deprived many farmers of pro-
ductive land, while denying these
assets to others to whom they are
essential.

Land speculation is a by-
product of the private profit sys-
tem and of its inflationary pres-
sures. Consequently nothing is
being done to control this racket
unless, and until, ‘completely

new and anti-monopolv policies

are forced upon the governments
of the day.

The provinces are beginning to
assume a role in farm policy in
areas previously conceded to be
the concern of national policy —
areas such as income assurance,
price stabilization, farm credit
and grants, and land use policies.
Marketing boards and commis-
sions of similar kind often com-
pete with each other in the sale of
like products, thereby creating
difficulties in developing a unified
farm policy approach at the fed-
eral level.

Having recognized the multip-

“lier effect’ 6f' basic food produc-

tion on the total economy, and the
failure of the archaic market sys-
tem to provide stability of produc-
tion and farm income both pro-
vincial and federal governments
have intervened to maintain and
expand food production. Such

programs, however, are tailored:

to ‘‘supply management”’, that is,
a system of checks and balances
designed to limit production if a
glut threatens, to fill existing mar-
kets, or create artificial shortages,
and to phase out production of
some commodities entirely. Such

E farm’ workers;

programs always aim to stimulate
productivity and profitability of
the food monopolies and multi-
nationals. Their purpose is not to
serve the income needs of farmers.

As the National Farmers Union
told the federal government last
July: ‘“‘Food and its production,
marketing -and pricing has been
made a political football and a
major pawn in the government’s
war on inflation.”’

While food prices at the farm
gate are said to be exempt from
Anti-Inflation Board interven-
tion, they are most vulnerable to
control through intervention pro-
cedures and policies at govern-
ments’ disposal. Provinces striv-
ing for self-sufficiency or ‘‘ex-
port’’ markets withing the coun-
try, cause further regional dis-
parities and disunity within the
country and between large corpo-
rate, middle, and lower income
farmers.

As the Communist Party sees
it, what is needed today in On-
tario is:

1. Price stability for all farm
products, taking into account real

cost of production; guaranteed ‘

markets; price control over all
farm inputs.

2. Increased government fund-
ing for rural development, to
overcome rural decay, to improve

" living conditions ‘and services to

the rural population.
3. Compulsory marketing boards
at both provincial and federal
levels, subject to democratic con-
trol and participation by. the far-
mers themselves.

-4. A guaranteed annual income
for farmers.

.5. A minimum wage for all
their protection
under all legislative enactments
and codes covering labor protec-
tion.

6. Federal-provincial coopera-
tion to establish a land use policy:

a) Government purchase and
permanent ownership of all farm

The general strike and socialism

A reader writes: “‘Is it correct to take

\

‘Marxism-Leninism in Today’s World

‘land sold, leasing it back to the

farmer now farming it, or to his
family if they remain as farmers;
b) Confiscation of all lands
held for speculative purposes;
c) Democratic expropriation

’ procedures, by expropriation ap-

peals boards, with strong farmer
representation;

d) Active: promotion of farm
cooperatives by amalgamation of

small holdings’ and the adequate -

‘provision of loan capital at low
interest rates;

e) Prohibit private outside cap-
ital from buying and owning farm
land, and expropriation of land
now in the hands of such outside
capital whether or not. they are

presently engaged in farming of |

such land;:

f) Develop overall land use:

plans and zoning according to
such land use plans, designating

the direction of future develop- ~
ment. Determine what farm lands |

may not be used for other than
argricultural production, and de-

signate such land for farm use

only.

7. Protect the farmer from the

cost-price squeeze by:

a) Nationalization of industries
which supply farmers, such as:
farm machinery monopolies; fer-
tilizer industry, and; manufac-
tured feed industry;

b) Establish government con-

i

By ALFRED DEWHURST

The “Farm Stablization Program” proposed by the Davis govern
would benifit the “have” rather than the ‘“have-not” farmers.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba

trol, preferably through natio
zation, over industries proces
and .distributing- agricultural pr
ducts. Farmers in cooperatit
processing and marketing shoulé —
be helped by the federal and pro
vincial governments to finan
and coordinate such activities
meet the needs of both the do
tic and export markets;

c) Establish a modern in
rated transportation system un
public ownership and democ
control by nationalizing all
sent facilities; _ :

.d) Nationalize termi
elevators, extend port facili
and provide adequate and p
nent grain drying facilities. —

Farm Input Price Indexes

(1961= 100): +...
oa G0)

“<" “ Eastern’Ca

Canada

UL’ Western Canada

Jol tal ett ella

1972 1973 4974-1975

130

Source: Farm Input Price Indexes (62-004)

the position that if the trade union
movement can organize. general strike
like it did on October 14, then it is capa-
ble to bring in socialism as claimed in
the Manifesto published by the Ontario
Federation of Labor?”’

First, it should be noted that the OFL
manifesto points out that to establish

the socialism it speaks about, i.e.,-

“democratic socialism’’, the trade
unions will have to build the New
Democratic Party, and make a much

greater input in shaping NDP policies ©

and in taking those policies to the
people via more trade unionists running
3s NDP candidates:

* * *

’ Actually there are three major ques-
tions involved here. First, a definition
of socialism, secondly, the relationship
of the general strike to socialism, third-
ly, is the NDP a party that stands for
_real socialism.

The OFL manifesto is correct when
it hails the October 14 general strike as a
powerful class demonstration which
proved what the trade union movement
is capable of doing. However, without
deprecating by one whit the historic
significance of that one-day general
strike, it must be said that the authors of
the manifesto are drawing a very long
bow indeed in advancing the conclu-
sion they do. For, the national day of
protest, directed against the federal
government's wage controls on the one

Ss MORCRER SE SSNs sme Pare .

hand and for tHe restoration of free col-
lective bargaining on the other, was not
directed against the capitalist system as
such.

Herein lies a very important differ-
ence. It is the difference between re-
form and socialism. There is a world of
difference between these two concepts,
though they are certainly inter-
connected. And, it would be nothing
short of folly to ignore, or play down,

this inter-connection. However, it isa -

political error of the first magnitude to
consider reform and socialism as being
synonymous with each other.

* * *

The conversion of the social system
from capitalism to socialism constitutes
a revolutionary transformation of soci-
ety. And the struggle for such a trans-
formation is a revolutionary struggle.

On the other hand, the struggle to
modify, change, improve, revoke or
scrap laws of an oppressive and reac-
tionary nature, such as Bill C-73, is to
struggle in defence of the standards of
the working people under capitalism,
while leaving the system of capitalism

" intact.

In short, socials puts an end to
exploitation of man by man and oppres-

~ sion of class by class based on the pri-

vate ownership (capitalist) of the main
means of production. Reforms have the
aim of making capitalism more palata-

. ne”

ble for the working people; they do not
challenge capitalist exploitation of the

working people.
5 * * *

What the OFL manifesto advocates _

is reform, no matter what label the au-

thors use. Make no mistake, the fight ©

for reform is vitally important. For, if

working people did not fight for reforms .

they would not only be incapable of
fighting for socialism, they would in-

evitably sink to one low level of abject.

subservience to capital. But, to label
the struggle for reform as socialism,
softened by the word ‘‘democratic’’, is
nothing short of misleading advertising.

For example, Sweden had a reform
government for nigh on 50 years, Its.
banner was ‘‘democratic socialism’.
But, Swéden never got socialism. Not
even a poor imitation of it. When it was

‘ voted out of: office this year and re-
placed by a right-wing coalition, mono-
poly capitalism was still firmly en-
trenched in that country.

Britain has had more than one aor
government over that. past 50 years
with the catchwords: ‘‘democratic
socialism’’ nailed firmly to its mast. In
fact they have one at this moment. But
monopoly still owns and controls that

" country, while the working people con-
tinue, as they would under a Tory gov-
ermment, to bear the heavy costs of the
present economic crisis on their backs.

aeage 3 ee eee Rta ee, Pk i Sete ay ors
Poe Sh tn a ger Wis Sees shee

-have NDP governments that procla

In this way the class struggle ag

_ capitalism — for real socialism.

Boal — socialism.

themselves as ‘‘democratic socialis
But these two provincial governme
in company with Liberal, Conservat'
and Social Credit provincial gove
ments, uphold and are party
Trudeau’s anti-inflation program.
* OK OK

Finally, on the general strike..
general strike in itself is not a princi
of the socialist revolution. It is, thou,
a most important measure of the m
tancy of the working class. And, in
cordance, with the demands it
vances, is a measure of the class c
sciousness of the working class.

As the revolutionary core of
working class grows, so do the politi
demands of that class come to the fo

capital passes over from its militant
form stage to its revolutionary (soc
ist) stage. The struggle for genuine
forms under capitalism is transforme
into a struggle for the abolition %

To wage the struggle for the abolitio”
of capitalism, the working class needs?
party dedicated to that aim. A party o
reformist nature cannot perform thi
revolutionary task. Only a party arme
with the theory and practice of scie
fic socialism: (Marxism-Leninism)
lead the working class to its nist