Capitalist definition of farm

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, COM: Vipramukhya Swami wrote:

 

> [Text 2785216 from COM]

>

> > The point is this: For a landholding to be accepted as a farm and

> > therefore receive farm status and a reduction in taxes it must show facts

> > of some agriculture production.>

 

> No. That's not correct. Your information is erroneous. You can grow

> thousands of acres of crops and still not be classified as a farm in Canada.

>

> I will send you a report when I go there. I am presently in Vancouver.

>

> Your servant,

> Vipramukhya Swami

 

 

In an advanced capitalist country such as the US, there is a similar

attitude by the government. It is not sufficient just to grow thousands

of acres of crops to be considered a farm. You are only considered a farm

if you *sell* so many thousand dollars of agricultural products.

 

Maharaja, does that mean that Canada has a definition of "farm" which is

similar to that of the US government -- that it is based on sales and not

directly on quantity of production?

 

If devotees will read Prabhupada's 1975 Mauritius conversations in the

Prabhupada Varnasrama book, they will see that Srila Prabhupada preached

against the development of such market-oriented agriculture as is

encouraged by, for example, the US government.

 

This creates a dilemma: Do we go for the market or do we go for

subsistence-oriented production?

 

As I mentioned earlier, in the transitional stage of varnasrama in many

cases I do not believe it is practical to immediately attempt Srila

Prabhupada's ideal of subsistence-oriented production. Nevertheless, to

the extent that we do embrace market-oriented production (as encouraged by

the governments of advanced capitalist countries) we must remain aware of

its pitfalls and how it can divert us from our goal of varnasrama.

 

 

---------

 

By the way, Madhava Gosh prabhu, I've taken four economics courses, but

they were not for business administration, per se. You keep mentioning a

distinction between "capitalism" and "finance capitalism." But I am not

familiar with those terms. Could you elaborate?

 

In my Economics 101 text, Baumol and Blinder define "capitalism" simply as

"a method of economic organization in which private individuals own the

means of production, either directly or indirectly through corporations."

 

Interestingly, they do not give a definition for communism -- perhaps

because Marx also did not specifically define it. Baumol and Blinder

comment, "Among the many thousands of pages Marx wrote and published, and

among those published by others after his death, there are scarcely a

dozen dealing with the nature of the economy under socialism (which Marx

never distinguished from communism)...It seems clear that Marx did not

intend to provide detailed guidance to the leaders of communist societies.

Rather, his work was devoted to a painstaking analysis and critique of

capitalism."

 

But, anyway, I think we could define communism as "a method of economic

organization in which the state owns the means of production."

 

That is why communism is sometimes called "state capitalism." Both have

an emphasis on large-scale production, which inevitably involves

large-scale industrial development, and incidentally means that major

social values revolve around the production and consumption of

manufactured goods. Both systems operate on the premise that the best way

to increase the happiness of a people is to increase their access to

material goods (and services).

 

Probably the most concise example of Srila Prabhupada's description of the

ideal varnasrama economic system is in an April (1975?) letter to

Balavanta prabhu in which he states that under varnasrama, the government

distributes land to the farmers and the farmer can use the land, "for

production, not for ownership."

 

Under Prabhupada's definition of varnasrama, the farmer controls the means

of production -- thus he has incentive -- (as under capitalism), but he

does not exactly own the means of production. This avoids the common

capitalistic problem of concentration of land ownership in the hands of

just a few people over the period of years.

 

Do I need to say this? -- Obviously, we cannot adopt Srila Prabhupada's

varnasrama system until we can produced *well trained* ksatriyas who are

well trusted by the people.

 

Prabhupada has indicated that good training for ksatriyas includes

training in economics and social order.

 

Back to the point of capitalism. The spiritually problematic problem of

capitalism with its emphasis on private ownership and competition is that

it is a fairly ruthless social system -- especially when untempered by an

array of legal restraints on businesses. Our Godbrothers and Godsisters

in former communist countries are currently experiencing the severe and

heartless nature of capitalism -- which fuels materialism and undermines

the growth of higher, spiritual values.

 

I could say more, but that's enough for now. Anyway, Gosh prabhu, I'm

still interested in your distinction between capitalism and finance

capitalism -- aren't both oriented towards producing commodities for the

market rather than to direct consumption?

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi