DOCSLIB.ORG

Debunking the Myth of the Socialism-Capitalism Polemic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Debunking the Myth of the Socialism-Capitalism Polemic The Interdependence of Public and Private Sector: Debunking the Myth of the Socialism-Capitalism Polemic In the recent election cycle, it appears that some candidates picked up quite a few extra votes simply by calling the other candidate a socialist. In all cases, the accusation was spurious; or better: moot. For in fact, we are every single one of us socialist, although perhaps not about all the same things. Similarly, we are all capitalist, although perhaps not about all the same things. There is no contradiction in saying this, simply because socialism and capitalism are two ways of managing the economy that are to be used in complementary fashion. For there is no prosperous and stable economy without both a healthy public and private sector. The public sector corresponds roughly with what we call “socialist”, while the private sector corresponds roughly with what we call “capitalist”, the interrelating dynamics of which are explained below. Most of us are so confused about the matter that ‘socialism’, on those occasions when we rail against it, means nothing more than all the things we don’t like about government, i.e. the public sector. Similarly, ‘capitalism’, on those occasions we rail against it, means nothing other than whatever it is that we don’t like about “business”, or the private sector. Examples of “socialist” things we typically complain about should be carefully compared to things just as socialist that we typically don’t complain about – at least not for being socialist – in order to see the confusion and hypocrisy in full relief. Here are the things “anti-socialists” typically complain about: social security, universal health care, income taxes, public schools, the postal service, international accords, regulations, etc. Now here are some actually socialist things one almost never hears anti-socialists complain about: municipal and state police departments, public libraries and parks, the U.S. military, town zoning laws, town planning boards, full employment initiatives, etc. These two lists may swap members from time to time through history according to the prodding of demagogues and according to geographic region, but the blindness of not admitting that the socialism we like is socialist remains a steady feature of those who rail against socialism. Similarly, examples of “capitalist” things we typically complain about should be carefully compared to things just as capitalist that we typically don’t complain about – at least not for being capitalist – in order to see the confusion and hypocrisy in full relief. Here are the things “anti-capitalists” typically complain about: big companies, transnational corporations, the stock market, unemployment, etc. Now here are some actually capitalist things one almost never hears anti-capitalists complain about: small businesses, the liberty to choose one’s own career path, affordability and availability of most goods and services, the constant influx of technological and artistic innovation to improve and add meaning to our lives, etc. These two lists may swap members from time to time through history according to the prodding of demagogues and according to geographic region, but the blindness of not admitting that the capitalism we like is capitalist remains a steady feature of those who rail against capitalism. Socialism is economy insofar as it is executed, managed, or regulated by the public sector, while capitalism is economy insofar as it is executed or managed entrepreneurially, i.e. in the private sector. Just as humans cannot invent the life of an individual tree, planning out all the details of its trunk, branches, twigs, and leaves, along with the entirety of its growth and seasonal cycles, neither can we invent the economy at large. Yet just as we with careful study and timely interventions can prune a tree so as to maximize its health and productivity, so, too, can we successfully manage the economy. Moreover, just as there is no such thing as economy at large entirely invented by and in the public sector – which is the impossible extreme of socialism; neither could there exist economy at large entirely unmanaged and unregulated by us – which is the impossible extreme of capitalism: a universal and unmitigated black market. To be sure, the black market exists at the fringes and between the gaps of the economy and is not all bad. Some of it is just new growth destined to be incorporated into the economy at large. But its existence at large outside the reach of lawful monitoring and intervention makes it prone to causing chaos and ruin, as we all know, such that we could not wish it to be the form of the economy at large even if it were possible. Neither what I have depicted here as extreme socialism nor extreme capitalism can exist in the world because it is anthropologically impossible for them to do so. It’s just not the way human culture works. As human economy developed through the hunter-gatherer stage to, in some places, the horticultural stage, and, in others, the pastoral stage, according to the opportunism of which natural kinds useful to human survival were available for domestication, there was yet no accrual of wealth, since these were all subsistence economies. But as horticulturalism and pastoralism became more efficient and began to produce more and more surplus food, humans began to trade away some of that surplus for imperishable goods, which could be amassed as accrued wealth. Eventually, first here and there and finally altogether, horticulture and pastoralism merged; the confluence of this with routine overproduction to produce accrued wealth marks the advent of the agricultural economy. The agricultural economy constitutes an improvement of human life in some ways and a liability in others but was a necessity due to increasing human population density, which required ever more efficiency to procure our prosperous survival. Increasing economic efficiency needs an infrastructure to maintain it, things in the class of what Adam Smith called “public goods”; a gameboard, as it were, with a set of rules to be constantly monitored and enforced. Creation and management of the economic infrastructure requires a duly guarded and maintained concentration of wealth. This constitutes the public sector. As long as agricultural society was at a scale small enough to avoid the emergence of mass mutual anonymity, much of the infrastructure was provided by motivation of the natural moral sentiments of entrepreneurs. But as society grows to become more anonymous, the laws and institutions of the public sector must become more formalized. The likelihood of alienation in anonymous society is high, and alienation spoils higher moral sentiment, which in earlier times had sustained us. In the meantime and also to respond to the need for growing economic efficiency to adapt to the pressures of increasing human population, concentration of entrepreneurial wealth became vital to our continued progress. This of course necessitated growth in the public sector to monitor and regulate it. Without a robust public sector to balance it, a wealthy private sector alone could not sustain society and it would collapse by its own top-heavy weight. Plutocracy is an ugly thing, eventually even for plutocrats. A healthy private sector owes its orderly and sustainable existence to an equally healthy public sector, which in turn is dependent on the private sector to prosper. Though dangerous, concentration of wealth in both sectors is necessary for continued human happiness and prosperity in a densely populated world. The private sector has no honest interest in minimizing or eroding the public sector, nor does the public sector benefit from the cannibalization of the private sector. Both tendencies are suicidal to human interests. The public sector is not a necessary evil to be minimized, but a public good to be optimized. It is not just socialist extremes we should be worried about, but libertarian extremes as well. Whereas the socialist-leaning focus their suspicion on private-sector excesses at the expense of monitoring the excesses of the public sector, libertarians do the opposite, at times verging on the denial of the legitimate roll the public sector has to play. The most extreme consider the self- interest logic of laissez-faire capitalism to apply to government itself, eschewing therefore the propriety of any moral oversight of the economy or government, relying on an invisible hand to somehow create a just balance between the competing self-interests among all individuals. They speak disparagingly of any form of group moral deliberation as a form of “collectivism”, and associate collectivism with leading us toward authoritarian government and the loss of liberties. In this country, they seek to dissolve federal action into state action, state action into municipal action, and municipal action into neighborhood action, all under the banner of anti-collectivism. To the extent they succeed in these efforts, each step of the way infrastructure in the form of human collaboration, the concentration of human effort, is lost, ultimately weakening our economy, since healthy economies do not fritter away their own productive structures. Ultimately, the only action they seriously countenance is individual action; group action does not exist, properly speaking, except as the atomistic result of individual action. Moreover, the only motive they expect of the individual as rational is self-interest; in short, a brutal exaggeration and mis-characterization of Adam Smith’s vision of capitalism – a vision which included moral motivation and real social action irreducible to individual action. This philosophy is a remnant of 19th century psychological egoism, which itself is based on a poor study of nature and organismic life. Without carefully observing organismic life, one might come to accept the sloppy assumption that since all organismic awareness is survival-oriented, therefore every individual organism ultimately seeks its own individual survival; and that all of its motivations are reducible to this impulse; and that therefore humans should do the same.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marxist Economics: How Capitalism Works, and How It Doesn't
    MARXIST ECONOMICS: HOW CAPITALISM WORKS, ANO HOW IT DOESN'T 49 Another reason, however, was that he wanted to show how the appear- ance of "equal exchange" of commodities in the market camouflaged ~ , inequality and exploitation. At its most superficial level, capitalism can ' V be described as a system in which production of commodities for the market becomes the dominant form. The problem for most economic analyses is that they don't get beyond th?s level. C~apter Four Commodities, Marx argued, have a dual character, having both "use value" and "exchange value." Like all products of human labor, they have Marxist Economics: use values, that is, they possess some useful quality for the individual or society in question. The commodity could be something that could be directly consumed, like food, or it could be a tool, like a spear or a ham­ How Capitalism Works, mer. A commodity must be useful to some potential buyer-it must have use value-or it cannot be sold. Yet it also has an exchange value, that is, and How It Doesn't it can exchange for other commodities in particular proportions. Com­ modities, however, are clearly not exchanged according to their degree of usefulness. On a scale of survival, food is more important than cars, but or most people, economics is a mystery better left unsolved. Econo­ that's not how their relative prices are set. Nor is weight a measure. I can't mists are viewed alternatively as geniuses or snake oil salesmen. exchange a pound of wheat for a pound of silver.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of State Owned Enterprises in India's Economic Development
    Workshop on State-Owned Enterprises in the Development Process Paris, 4 April 2014 OECD Conference Centre, Room 4 ROLE OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES IN INDIA’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT by Professor Ram Kumar Mishra This paper serves as background material for the Workshop on SOEs in the Development Process taking place in Paris on 4 April 2014. It was prepared by Professor Ram Mishra from the Institute of Public Enterprise in India, working as a consultant for the OECD Secretariat. The opinions and views expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official views of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries. Role of State Owned Enterprises in India’s Economic Development R K Mishra . Economic Development has been the prime concern of the Indian state since the inception of India’s independence in 1947. India was born independent with mass poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and disease. It faced the challenge of growth and change to catch up with the developed countries. It had to decide on vital issues such as its development strategy for the future, the industrial policy it had to adopt to achieve the goals of the development strategy, the corporate action that had to follow as a consequence of such industrial policy, the need for setting up the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as an instrument of implementing the public policy and to provide a fillip to the private sector to make India a mixed economy. The purpose of this paper is to narrate, in brief, a historic overview of evolving development strategies and industrial policies in India, discuss at length the experience over recent decades with assigning SOEs with public policy objectives in pursuit of developmental goals, focus on state-controlled alternatives to SOEs in detail and, finally based on the Indian experience outline lessons for other countries that have embarked on the path of economic development.
    [Show full text]
  • The Socialization of Investment, from Keynes to Minsky and Beyond
    Working Paper No. 822 The Socialization of Investment, from Keynes to Minsky and Beyond by Riccardo Bellofiore* University of Bergamo December 2014 * [email protected] This paper was prepared for the project “Financing Innovation: An Application of a Keynes-Schumpeter- Minsky Synthesis,” funded in part by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, INET grant no. IN012-00036, administered through the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Co-principal investigators: Mariana Mazzucato (Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex) and L. Randall Wray (Levy Institute). The author thanks INET and the Levy Institute for support of this research. The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants. The purpose of the series is to disseminate ideas to and elicit comments from academics and professionals. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, founded in 1986, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independently funded research organization devoted to public service. Through scholarship and economic research it generates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad. Levy Economics Institute P.O. Box 5000 Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504-5000 http://www.levyinstitute.org Copyright © Levy Economics Institute 2014 All rights reserved ISSN 1547-366X Abstract An understanding of, and an intervention into, the present capitalist reality requires that we put together the insights of Karl Marx on labor, as well as those of Hyman Minsky on finance. The best way to do this is within a longer-term perspective, looking at the different stages through which capitalism evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • IIF Database Glossary
    The Institute of International Finance Glossary for IIF Economic Databases Definitions for Downloadable Codes January 2019 3 Table of Contents I. NATIONAL ACCOUNTS AND EMPLOYMENT .................................................... 3 A. GDP AT CONSTANT PRICES .......................................................................................... 3 1. Expenditure Basis .................................................................................................... 3 2. Output Basis ............................................................................................................. 4 3. Hydrocarbon Sector ................................................................................................. 5 B. GDP AT CURRENT PRICES ............................................................................................ 6 C. GDP DEFLATORS.......................................................................................................... 8 D. INVESTMENT AND SAVING ............................................................................................ 9 E. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS ...................................................................................... 9 II. TRADE AND CURRENT ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 11 A. CURRENT ACCOUNT ................................................................................................... 11 B. TERMS OF TRADE ....................................................................................................... 14 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Change in Market-Liberal State Capitalism
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics ten Brink, Tobias Working Paper Institutional change in market-liberal state capitalism. An integrative perspective on the development of the private business sector in China MPIfG Discussion Paper, No. 11/2 Provided in Cooperation with: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), Cologne Suggested Citation: ten Brink, Tobias (2011) : Institutional change in market-liberal state capitalism. An integrative perspective on the development of the private business sector in China, MPIfG Discussion Paper, No. 11/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/45622 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Sector Structure of the National Economy of Russia
    Asian Social Science; Vol. 10, No. 20; 2014 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Three-Sector Structure of the National Economy of Russia I. Sh. Khasanov1 1 Kazan Federal University, Russian Federation Correspondence: I. Sh. Khasanov, Kremliovskaya str. 18, Kazan, 420008, Russian Federation. E-mail: [email protected] Received: June 30, 2014 Accepted: July 29, 2014 Online Published: September 28, 2014 doi:10.5539/ass.v10n20p217 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n20p217 Abstract The main objective of the article is to determine the changes in the income and expenditure of the national economy of Russia from 1961 to 2009. To solve this problem, the author applied research methodology of the economic system-a three-sector static equilibrium income and expenses using a statistical system of national accounts. As a result, on the basis of the methodology found an association between income and expenditure of the three sectors (economic activities) of the national economy: the production of products and services for production purposes, the production of consumer goods and production of financial and credit services. Keywords: static equilibrium in the economy, the structure of the national economy, sectors of economy, gross domestic product, income and expenses 1. Introduction When dividing the economy into three sectors, all business entities engaged in production of goods and services on the territory of Russia are taken into account. The state sector refers to the set of entities that are controlled by the state through federal government bodies and regional government bodies of the Federation, the municipal sector-to the set of entities that are controlled by local governments.
    [Show full text]
  • 8. General Reflections on Keynesian Economics 3
    LECTURE 8 GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS. THE NUMERICAL VALUE OF THE MULTIPLIER JACOB T. SCHWARTZ EDITED BY KENNETH R. DRIESSEL Abstract. We discuss the significance of the Keynes Theorem and the heuristic model of the Keynesian economics. The multi- pliers are estimated by the statistical data. 1. Over-all Significance of the Keynes Theorem The Keynesian notions which we have approached through the sim- plified cycle-theory model of the last three lectures are so central to all current economic thinking that it is appropriate to dwell upon them, even if this requires us to interrupt our strictly mathematical develop- ment. To write total production − total industrial consumption of elements of(*) production = personal consumption + collective consumption + desired and executed investment + growth of inventories; is to write a tautology that follows from the definitions of the terms involved. But to supplement this tautology with the fact, taken from our cycle-theory model, that definite obstacles can exist to the growth of inventories (as also to the size of other categories of investment), is to make the basic step to the Keynesian theories. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 91B55; Secondary 91B82 . Key words and phrases. Keynesian Economics, Multiplier . 1 2 JACOB T. SCHWARTZ A succinct formulation of classical economics might be Consumption adjusts to the limits imposed by production; Keynesian economics on the contrary insists that Production adjusts to the limits imposed by consumption (and, of course, investment). The classical economics is then the economics of scarcity (no general overproduction of commodities possible), the Keynesian economics is the economics of affluence (general overproduction of commodities a recurrent phenomenon).
    [Show full text]
  • The Strategic Role of the Private Sector in Transforming the Real Economy Towards an Inclusive, Green and Circular Future
    DESA Working Paper No. 169 ST/ESA/2020/DWP/169 JULY 2020 Beyond the Business Case: The Strategic Role of the Private Sector in Transforming the Real Economy Towards an Inclusive, Green and Circular Future Author: Sumi Han, Division for Sustainable Development Goals, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs ABSTRACT Research suggests that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can open up market opportu- nities worth USD 12 trillion in the four largest sectors that represent 60 per cent of real economy – food and agriculture; cities; energy and materials; and health and well-being. While the concept of the SDGs creating a win-win situation for all is growing increasingly trendy, further evidence needs to be accumulated to better chart the important discourse on the private sector’s engagement with the SDGs. To this end, this paper aims to shed light on three questions: (i) How is the private sector currently engaging with the SGDs in these sectors?; (ii) What are the key areas of opportunities in which companies can foster long-term value in sup- port of sustainable development?; and (iii) What transformations are needed to enhance the contributions of the private sector? Noting the shift towards a more inclusive, green and circular future requires policy, institutional, technological and human capabilities and political will, this paper provides concrete policy re- commendations on some of the first steps required to move towards such transformations. JEL Classification: F63, I11, O13, O18 Keywords: private sector; sustainable development; food and agriculture; cities; energy; health; well-being Sustainable Development Goals: 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 17 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.
    [Show full text]
  • THE THREE SECTOR SOLUTION Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-For-Profits and Business
    THE THREE SECTOR SOLUTION Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business THE THREE SECTOR SOLUTION Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business EDITED BY JOHN R. BUTCHER AND DAVID J. GILCHRIST Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: The three sector solution : delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business / David Gilchrist (editor) ; John Butcher (editor). ISBN: 9781760460389 (paperback) 9781760460396 (ebook) Series: ANZSOG series. Subjects: Nonprofit organizations--Political aspects. Nonprofit organizations--Government policy. Public-private sector cooperation--Government policy. Public administration. Other Creators/Contributors: Gilchrist, David, editor. Butcher, John, editor. Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Dewey Number: 361.763 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. This edition © 2016 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Abbreviations . xi Acknowledgements . xv Contributors . xvii Foreword . xxvii Contextualising the Imperative of Cross‑Sector Working 1 . Introduction . 3 David J . Gilchrist and John R . Butcher 2 . Three Sectors, One Public Purpose . 23 Peter Shergold Part 1. Cross‑Sector Working: The rhetoric and the reality Overview . 35 Meredith Edwards 3 . From New Public Management to New Public Governance: The implications for a ‘new public service’ .
    [Show full text]
  • Privatization, Democracy, and the State in India
    Privatization, Democracy, and the State in India Alka Sapat Florida Atlantic University Paper prepared for the Anti-Essentialism Conference, March 2-3, 2007, Hollywood Beach, Ft. Lauderdale. Introduction Several countries underwent major transformations of their economies in the last two decades. The most important shift globally, particularly in developing countries has been to move towards a market-based economy and the phenomenon of globalization. From various treatises on the subject ranging from “Jihads to McWorlds” (Barber 1995) to “Lexuses and Olive Trees” (Friedman 2000) and ‘flat worlds’ (Friedman 2005), globalization has become a household word given the attention from scholars, journalists, and the populace at large. Apart from being the mot du jour, globalization, its causes and its consequences, evokes strong emotions and debate by both its proponents and opponents alike (Naisbitt 1994; Farazmand 1999). Lumped together, sometimes almost synonymously is the phenomenon of privatization. Privatization, like globalization, has also received its fair share of attention, from its supporters and detractors. On the one hand, privatization purports to unleash economic freedoms and allow private initiative and enterprise. On the other hand, however, privatization has been critiqued for its essentialist notions of efficiency and rationality and for undermining democracy and community (Farazmand 1999; Lindblom, 1977; Heilbroner 1990; Korten 1995). In particular, some scholars have argued that market forces in the form of multinational corporations frequently aid repressive regimes (Cottam 1979) and often cause local people to loose control of their communities (Mele 1997, Korten 1995). I add to this debate by examining in particular, the impact of privatization on democracy in India.
    [Show full text]
  • STAAR Review 8 Learning Objective What Were Some of the Major Causes of the Great Depression ?
    STAAR Review 8 Learning Objective What were some of the major causes of the Great Depression ? Things to look for --- 1. Overproduction of crops by farmers. 2. Speculation in the stock market. 3. Buying on margin. 4. Bad banking practices. 5. Tariffs restricted international trade. The Great Depression 1929-1940 • Economies historically pass through good and bad periods that regularly repeat themselves. • These ups and downs are referred to as the business cycle. • The bad times are called a depression – these usually include: – Business failures – High unemployment – Falling prices The Great Depression was the worst in our nation’s history! Causes of the Great Depression Overproduction • The 1920s saw a rapid economic expansion as manufacturers made and sold new products like cars, radios, refrigerators and numerous other consumer items. • By the end of the 1920s many consumers lacked the money to buy all these new products. • Manufacturers were soon producing more goods than they could sell, no matter how low they priced their goods. Causes of the Great Depression Speculation • In the 1920s stocks soared in value as people ‘speculated’ meaning they bought stocks hoping to “get rich quick”. • This speculation caused the price of stocks to rise higher and higher each day as more people invested in Wall Street. • By 1929 the price of stocks had tripled since 1920. Causes of the Great Depression Buying on Margin • In the 1920s, stocks could be purchased for a 10% down payment called buying on margin. • The rest of the price of the stock was financed by a loan from a stock broker or a bank.
    [Show full text]
  • A Century of Overproduction in American Agriculture
    A CENTURY OF OVERPRODUCTION IN AMERICAN AGRICULTURE Jason L. Ruffing Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2014 APPROVED: Michael Wise, Committee Chair Alfred Mierzejewski, Committee Member Jennifer Jensen Wallach, Committee Member Richard McCaslin, Chair of the Department of History Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Ruffing, Jason L. A Century of Overproduction in American Agriculture. Master of Arts (History), August 2014, 107 pp., 5 figures, bibliography, 82 titles. American agriculture in the twentieth century underwent immense transformations. The triumphs in agriculture are emblematic of post-war American progress and expansion but do not accurately depict the evolution of American agriculture throughout an entire century of agricultural depression and economic failure. Some characteristics of this evolution are unprecedented efficiency in terms of output per capita, rapid industrialization and mechanization, the gradual slip of agriculture's portion of GNP, and an exodus of millions of farmers from agriculture leading to fewer and larger farms. The purpose of this thesis is to provide an environmental history and political ecology of overproduction, which has lead to constant surpluses, federal price and subsidy intervention, and environmental concerns about sustainability and food safety. This project explores the political economy of output maximization during these years, roughly from WWI through the present, studying various environmental, economic, and social effects of overproduction and output maximization. The complex eco system of modern agriculture is heavily impacted by the political and economic systems in which it is intrinsically embedded, obfuscating hopes of food and agricultural reforms on many different levels.
    [Show full text]