farming – Ecological Era

Nationalization of the Land 9 29 2025

“The property in the soil is the original source of all wealth, and has become the great problem upon the solution of which depends the future of the working class.”

“I do not intend discussing here all the arguments put forward by the advocates of private property in land, by jurists, philosophers and political economists, but shall confine myself firstly to state that they have tried hard to disguise the primitive fact of conquest under the cloak of “Natural Right”. If conquest constituted a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them.”

Karl Marx Nationalization of the Land

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/04/nationalisation-land.htm

It is a sorry fact that the small farmer is rarely in control of most of the farming that is occurring on the land. Large corporations have replaced the family farm, just as they did the grocery store, gas station, etc.

It is beyond returning control to small farmers; rather the struggle becomes one of unions, cooperatives, and nationalization. Returning to small scale farming, where the small farmer was his own capitalist, would only revert again to large scale farming, after a few generations as farmers would sell their lands, and ownership would become concentrated in the hands of a few large farmers again.

This does not mean cultivating the land on one’s own, purely for use value, would stop. It just means labour on the farm would be more like working in a factory, with a union, and the right to strike. Land will be owned by farmers, but they will be free to cultivate ecology or gardens for themselves on their own land, as a family unit. The man or woman will work for a collective farm, or both, and if they want to own some land it will be available to them, just not for capitalist purposes.

Labor on the large farms is already industrial. Unloading the trucks, sorting the vegetables for defects, etc. is all industrial labor. Even tilling the soil becomes an industrial activity of driving the tractor.

The current model of capitalist farming is destroying our ecology, with pesticides, genetically modified crops, patented seeds from Monsanto,etc. becoming a perfect example of the plunder of land exacted by the bourgeoisie.

There may have been a golden time when farming was not done by large farmers, when they were a petty bourgeoisie, but now they are heavily weighted towards the big bourgeoisie, Donald Trump’s supporters.

The latter is connected with removal of the farms from the small farmer, through patented seeds and subsidies to large farms based on the number of acres farmed.

“If cultivation on a large scale proves (even under its present capitalist form, that degrades the cultivator himself to a mere beast of burden) so superior, from an economical point of view, to small and piecemeal husbandry, would it not give an increased impulse to production if applied on national dimensions?”

“The ever-growing wants of the people on the one side, the ever-increasing price of agricultural produce on the other, afford the irrefutable evidence that the nationalisation of land has become a social necessity.”

Kar Marx ibid.

The farm worker harvesting today is overworked, using machinery from dawn to dusk, for a few months out of the year. Often this labor is done by migrants from Mexico, sometimes the only workers who can work long hours with little pay. Sometimes they are illegally working, constantly in fear of deportation.

Capitalists obviously have concluded large scale farming is the answer. As Marx points out, would it not be superior for the nation if the benefits of large scale farming was for all?

The plunder of the soil for capitalist agriculture, and the exploitation of the laborer, could be better addressed with employee ownership of large farms, and nationalization of the land.

“France was frequently alluded to, but with its peasant proprietorship it is farther off the nationalisation of land than England with its landlordism. In France, it is true, the soil is accessible to all who can buy it, but this very facility has brought about a division into small plots cultivated by men with small means and mainly relying upon the land by exertions of themselves and their families. This form of landed property and the piecemeal cultivation it necessitates, while excluding all appliances of modern agricultural improvements, converts the tiller himself into the most decided enemy to social progress and, above all, the nationalisation of land. Enchained to the soil upon which he has to spend all his vital energies in order to get a relatively small return, having to give away the greater part of his produce to the state, in the form of taxes, to the law tribe in the form of judiciary costs, and to the usurer in the form of interest, utterly ignorant of the social movements outside his petty field of employment; still he clings with fanatic fondness to his bit of land and his merely nominal proprietorship in the same. In this way the French peasant has been thrown into a most fatal antagonism to the industrial working class. “

Karl Marx iibid.

A similar phenomenon is the support from the petty bourgeois farmers of the reactionary bourgeoisie of Donald Trump. It’s gotten to the point if you are rural and farming, you are expected to support Trump. The residents of the small towns also like Trump, even though they own little land, and work for large scale agriculture.

It has destroyed the very thing we put our hopes in, the ability of the worker own land. Instead he is landless, or trying to be a small businessman with his land, attempting to obtain as much land as possible, and remain competitive.

“Peasant proprietorship being then the greatest obstacle to the nationalisation of land, France, in its present state, is certainly not the place where we must look to for a solution of this great problem.”

“To nationalise the land, in order to let it out in small plots to individuals or working men’s societies, would, under a middle-class government, only engender a reckless competition among themselves and thus result in a progressive increase of “Rent” which, in its turn, would afford new facilities to the appropriators of feeding upon the producers.”

“At the International Congress of Brussels, in 1868, one of our friends [César De Paepe, in his report on land property: meeting of the Brussels Congress of the International Working Men’s Association of Sept. 11 1868] said:”

“”Small private property in land is doomed by the verdict of science, large land property by that of justice. There remains then but one alternative. The soil must become the property of rural associations or the property of the whole nation. The future will decide that question.””

“I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers.”

Karl Marx

Iibid

Nationalization of the land would give the cities a larger say over what and how land is farmed. The large scale agricultural producers now have a lock on the city with Trump. It has become a matter of guaranteeing the supply of food to the city for affordable prices, which could be an issue if the farmers boycotted the cities their leader keeps calling shitholes to live in. Then the nation would be forced to exert a say over the land.

It has yet to come to this, but the decision was already evident in 1872 when this was written. Things are even further along now, and even attempting to buy land for individual farming is something that just no longer happens. Jobs in agriculture almost always come from large scale farm farming; at most there is a distant view of a small capitalist farmer making his way up to be a big farmer.

But once there he remembers not his peasant roots, and supports Trump. His help is wage labour, his motive profit.

“The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people’s labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending.”

Karl Marx conclusion, ibid.

All one can say is society is still moving in this direction, but has yet to remove the large farms, and the urban bourgeoisie, who work in tandem. There has yet to be a firm break from this , indicating it will not be imperceivable when it happens. Rather it will be abrupt, a real change felt by all. At which point “the expropriators will be expropriated” in Marx’s words.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

9 29 2025

The structure of capitalist agriculture is an extension of the relationship of the owner of the company to wage labour. The farms are worked by people who do not own the land; they are not even renting it in most cases. The machinery like the tractors, harvesters, etc. are also not owned by the farming workers.

With the advent of farm machinery, it is now possible for large farms to be worked with a far higher productivity than in the recent past. There is far less labor in producing, for example, a potato, than ever before. The farms are a thousand acres or more, owned by a corporation, the workers basically wage labour, just like their proletarian cousins in the city.

A job in farming has become tending large machinery; driving a tractor, unloading trucks full of potatoes, etc. In many cases it is even beyond manufacture; workers are not using tools in skilled labour positions, rather are unskilled using machinery a child could learn to use.

The fact there are still small farms changes nothing about this. At best we can say it is remarkable that anyone can compete with the large farms that own and work most of the land.

The family farm, like the family grocery store, is becoming a memory. Those people left on the land have to make a hard decision; will they invest in large machinery in hopes competition with the corporations is possible? If they do not it may mean having to work in a town at a factory as well as farming. Or having to get credit to try to compete, knowing most people who attempt to compete with the corporation end up failing, and having to move \to the city.

The people left on the land may own a home and a car, but that is about the extent of the things they own. They do not own shares in the company they work for on the land, or industrial shares in joint stock companies. They are basically propertyless, like all wage labour.

There is a clear racial divide, in the north the farms being white owned. There are migrants though, often Mexican, who work sometimes legally or illegally on the farm. Needless to say they do not own the land they are working. They make the profits for the owners of the farms, they work hard, often for a small check they send much of back home to family as a remittance. It is their wage labour that creates the surplus value, which is the purpose of the operation to capitalists.

In this respect it is strange to hear the same bourgeoisie who control the farms coming out against migrant farmers. In the southwest it is common for farms to be worked by Mexicans, many of whom cross the border daily to work the fields. Without these low paid workers, it is questionable how many farms could even operate.

Yet constantly the republican bourgeoisie tries to remove migrants, and builds ramparts on the border, to stop immigration north. It looks like an Indian reservation, a demilitarized zone, and the army is even deployed there. All this to stop the same people who create the surplus value on the farms.

The landowners are overwhelmingly republican bourgeois, like the owners of urban factories. They supported Donald Trump as president , as he represents the owners of the means of production, as opposed to wage labour. The more concentrated ownership becomes on the land, the stronger corporations who own the land become,

This creates a rural population only one step removed from moving to the city. Those displaced by modern machinery stay out of the city only at the large farm owners’ mercy. They are a sort of unemployed army of workers of the land, like their urban counterparts of the city , who are also living check to check precarious positions as for their employment.

Unions of farm workers are rare, rebellion can lead to removal from the job and a transition to life in the big city. The lack of political organization of the wage labour on the farms is mercilessly taken advantage of by the landowners, who squeeze maximum surplus value out of workers, many of whom are recent arrivals from Mexico.

Production is for commodities; the workers do not work for their own food, at least not on purpose. They may eat potatoes they farmed, but their job is not to feed themselves, it is social labor. It is abstract labour, for society, controlled by the owner of the land.

It may be unfortunate, but large scale farming seems inevitable with the advent of large farm machinery. Competing with the potato harvester looks futile for a small farmer. It’s like returning to small business from monopoly; a futile endeavor. You cannot go back to a simpler time, even though the republican bourgeoisie seems to want a return to a past era, to “Make America Great Again”, when small businesses sold the groceries.

As far as large farms go, cooperative ownership is replacing capitalist ownership. Already there are large cooperative grocery stores, owned by the workers, selling the produce of cooperative production.

This isthe logical answer to the large scale corporations control of the land, employee ownership of large farms. With the ownership of farms no longer a mom and pop operation, unions mean for wage labour its emancipation from work that is sort of a mix of manufacture and large industry, on machines he does not control, to realization it is his own labour that is responsible for the machinery around him, and the state of the land.

The division of town and country has become stark, with the large farm starting immediately adjacent to the suburban worker’s dwelling. He owns no chickens or gardens, yet there is land all around him, often lying vacant. He has no gardens or land to speak of. The division between town and country could not be more evident.

It is this division which is also a product of the corporations owning the farms. They seem to be worried the workers will not be producing commodities, and will instead produce their own food. It’s like a fetish; any labour not subsumed by the social production of commodities is the target.

This barrier must be broken, and with it large scale private property on the land. When the proletariat is unleashed on the land a new stage of material and social development will have been reached. The city and the country will no longer be so divided, The two will merge into a fluid mesh, with city and country division becoming less obvious.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

9 17 2025