73w 2;}

, ‘xvm

,Wmm~

/

The Cadre, November 278, 1975, page-6

Reprinted from the Chevron friday, october 3, 1975,

In"1798, regarding with'horror the tide of republican sentiment sweeping out of ‘re- volutionary France, the English aristocracy spawned a champion for their anti-democratic cause. . A r

In reply to the revolutionary code of liberty, equality and fraternity, the Reverend Thomas . Malthus advocated enforcement of wage slav- ery, unequal distribution of wealth and strengthened rule by, those who owned prop- erty. . .

In An»Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus masked, behind dubious arithmetic calculation and unfounded generalization,_’a fierce_resistance to the legacy of the French Revolution—faith in the perfectability of soci- ety and belief that the human condition can be changed for the better. ,

Today, similarly aghast at the advance of anti-imperialist movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the reactionary forces have produced their own defenders. _

Barry Commoner’s essay on population and

poverty, reprinted from Ramparts magazine in ‘

the chevron (September l9),‘is a true successor to Malthus’ scandalous attack on the people of the world. r Commoner makes a great show of piercing the arguments of the most blatant racists and defenders of imperialism. This has becomea popular position, especially in view of the re- markable record established by China over the

past quarter century in drastically improving "

the living standard of its people, and with the rise of popular liberation movements in col- onized countries. To use a phrase of the ’60’s, it’s radical-chic. '

But pious sermons about ending “the exploi- tation of poor nations by rich nations” aside, Commoner propagates fundamentally errone- ous views about the nature of and solution to the pressing problems of the'world’s people.

Commoner, then, is a latter-day Thomas

Malthus“

At heart, Commoner accepts and repeats the outrageous lie that people are a burden on the world, rather than its most valuable resource and greatest hope for its own perpetuation in peace and prosperity. .

Says Commoner: “There is a way to control the rapid growth of population in developing countries. It is to help them develop—and more rapidly achieve the level of welfare that. everywhere in the world is the real motivation for balanced population." '

Despite his assertions that widespread hunger in the world is not evidence that the world’s population has outrun its capacity to produce sufficient food, Commoner continues to regard limiting the number of people on the earth as a solution to hunger.

Salvation, claims Commoner, lies in doling out just enough wealth for the undeveloped world to realize the economic incentive to re- stricted reproduction that comes with luxury. (This fallacy will be dealt with later.) He has not transcended Malthus’ argument that “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, in:

creases in a geometric ratio: Subsistence in- .

creases Only in an arithmetic ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the im- mensity of the first power in comparison of the second.” .

It is instructive to recall Frederick Engels’ reply to Malthus: “Where has it been proved that the productivity of ‘the land increases in arithmetic progression? The area of land is limited—that is perfectly true. But the labour power to be employed on this area increases together with the population; and even if "we assume that the increase of output associated with this increase of labour is not always prop-

ortionate to the latter, there still remains a third _

element—which the economists, however, never consider as important—namely, science, the progress of which is just as limitless and at least as rapid as that of population.” Commoner is only one of many who refuse to recognize the immense capacity of the earth and its people to produce wealth and tocd

I

,/

These latter—day doom-mongers insist that both extensive (that ,is, increasing acreage under cultiVation) and intensive (that is, apply- ing more labor and technology to the same land) cultivatiOn of the earth has already pro- ceeded to its limits. Yet there is still mass star‘- vation. ' ' ~ ,‘ V

And science, too, has become the god that failed. The “green revolution” was a short-

term,‘Phyrric success, these population‘pes?

sirnists contend. This increased food produc- tion is a phenomenon which can only be dupli- cated at prohibitive expense. Skeptics cite the huge demand for fertilizer and fuel; which can-

not now be supplied because of energy “shor- '

.tage” and high cost.

Moreover, this new-found productivity only .

‘spawned greater population, which now pres- ses against dwindling food stocks.

The slightest familiarity With China’s ex-‘ perience of the'past 26 years disproves these 7

arguments. It is significant that throughout Commoner’s lengthy article no mention is made of China. This is no oversight. He who is so blind as to overlook the lesson taught by 800 million people engaged in a day-to-day refuta- tion of Malthus is blinded by ideology, not by physiology. -

On the eve of _the establishment Of the

People’s Republic, China was incapable of sus- .

taining more people, according to. a doom theorist of the day (Road to Survival,.William Vogt, 1949). ‘ I

Yet since then China’s population has risen by nearly 60 per cent, from about 500 million to about 800 million. And, in the same period’, annual grain output has more ‘than doubled, rising from 110milliori tons to 250 million tons. " China has,.conducted a “green revolution” of its own—including the development of “miracle” rice strains—without the attendant problems of fertilizer scarcity,iinappropriate mechanization, land monopolization and ex-

, travagant profit accumulation by irnperialist

corporations ostensibly sponsoring the food drive. " ' r

'Themyt‘hof‘ overpopulation

‘ tum leap with the pitting of massive amounts of '

and parasitism of monopoly capital. Such a

/ technology to stimulate greater production.

‘ .

‘ But the facts of justify any such / The “green; ‘

attempt to prod instead an effOn ‘ sporations spec- nanceLmachinery ,And even ye, relatively poml’

mechanized. “ expropriation of

thy landowners : This relative-

. if _ 7 result of worlds ’ The conclusion is undeniable. Immense re- ials or. industrial . servoirs of. stifled human’ energy and largely artificial ‘ wastefully-applied labOr power are unleashed number of idle" with the physical'eradication of capitalist rela- Canada and the . ‘ tions of production. Food output took a quan- .autoworkers

because of “ov No, India’s s , .The masses of . erally‘ unable to . wasted in .. -- warehouses. Son British colonized Ipdefid, BaITy 1 “in the colonial ., duced improved communications, . V medical services), Certainly, as . British colonizat' of the human and rich land. But th replicating in Ind‘ the kind then occ . fects of British indigenous indus ‘ British land reve , The aim was economy to that .=

labour-power and human initiative against the problem of food production, even in the absence of sophistiCated technology. Elimination ' of small plots by socializing the land, and end- ing the anarchy of capitalist production—Pseen in the inefficiency and inequality of profit de- termining what food is produced, where, when and hOW—all contributed. ' The masses, regarded by most WeStem au- thorities as China’s greatest hindrance, have played a triumphant ‘role in this economic breakthrough. - ‘_ ' The Chinese Communist Party’s guideline is a death-blow to Malthusian cynicism: “Of all things in the world, people are the most preci- ? ous. Once the, people take their destiny ‘irito their own hands, they will be able to perform miracles.” .

' In developing agricultural lands more exten- sively and more intensively, the Chinese have put the lie to the Malthusian belief that food sources may only grow in arithmetic progres-

sion. Even in Canada, where land is daily taken of thatundertakin out of production‘ because of the perverted vulnerable sectio logic of monopoly capitalists,.agriculture be- , +poor agricultu .‘

plots, village arti received very few tion of “improved .end of- the '. starving—even in surpluS—because And the same is These are the would lift from sq

, tions of “some of ’ countries whose - borne so mucho

39

comes yeary more efficient, and usually re: cords improved yields. '

The main threats to this surplus are land speculation, destruction and monopolization“ all of them stark witnesses to the stagnation

system cannot rationally evaluate the long- -term costs of despoiling land—or, indeed, any resource, people included. The rallying cry'of monopoly capitaliSm is “Profit now-and damn the-children!” . C By citing the failure of the “green revolu- tion” in undeveloped countries, reactionaries it . . . . would cast doubt onthe capacity of science and ,The whole app ance, racism and - ‘

Z4 I/UELL." Hio‘Pf’m Hz ' , 2 a . _ - - . .1le Screen, Bur 3’4;an