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