SYSTEMS OF PRODUCTION

official source: Prout in a Nutshell Part 14

cross-references: none

this version: is the printed Prout in a Nutshell Part 14, 1st edition, version 	(spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most 	up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition.

	When something is produced collectively it is called Ganan' Utpa'dana or the system of collective production. In an agrarian society as well as in society at large, there are some commodities which are produced collectively. For example, sugar cane farmers collectively produced molasses from sugar cane grown in their individual fields. They collectively purchase a large vat in which they boil the juice of the sugar cane for the preparation of molasses. This kind of collective production is called Gana'--Utpa'dana.

      The so-called commune system is also a kind of collective production in that people produce something in a collective manner. Co-operative industrial and agricultural production also belong to the same category. Agricultural production by private enterprise is not collective production, neither is agricultural production by the share cropping system.

      Of the different systems of production--the co-operative system, the individualistic or private enterprise system, the share cropping system and the commune system--the last one is the worst. The share cropping system is slightly better than the commune system, and better still is the individualistic or private enterprise agro-industrial system. The best system is the co-operative system of production.

      In the commune system individual ownership is denied. While some countries accept the right of individual ownership in principle, in practice they do not accept any individual rights to ownership at all. Thus, there is no scope for workers to get either the inspiration or the incentive to fully utilize their skills in either agriculture or industry. There is no opportunity for them to enhance their working capacity. They are like oxen moving around an oil grinding mill with their eyes covered by blinkers. The oxen may move one hundred miles a day but they make no forward progress in their movement. Similarly, the workers in the commune system are confined within the four walls of intellectual staticity. There is no opportunity for people to develop subtle thoughts and their lives can never be elevated to higher strata. People living in the commune system are like other animals trapped within the vortex of staticity till the last breath of their lives. They have no psychological or human relation with their work. This is the nature of the commune system. The whole system runs counter to human psychology, and consequently production never increases.

      Those countries which have directly or indirectly adopted the commune system have utterly failed in agricultural production. This is a most unfortunate fact. Capitalist countries, where agricultural production takes place on the basis of individual ownership, are supplying food grains to communist countries. Thus, communist countries are compelled to purchase essential requirements from countries under private enterprise. The poor masses live a miserable existence of hunger and deprivation, and their lives are nothing but a bad dream. Though the capitalist system is bad, ever then the commune system surrenders to it. What a pitiful situation this is. Until communist countries reject the commune system they will not be able to solve their food problems, and they will continue to move from country to country with their begging bowls outstretched.

      The share cropping system is better than the commune system because people get more incentive and freedom. In this system the psychology of `If I can produce more I can earn more' dominates. But this system also suffers from some major defects. Suppose a share cropper manages to get 7 acres of land from three different landowners and thus arranges 21 acres of land. He may not cultivate the total acreage due to idleness, want of sufficient labourers or financial constraints. He may think that limited cultivation will provide enough food to meet the demands of his family for a whole year, so he does not bother cultivating the remainder of the land. As a result the owner of the land which the share cropper did not cultivate will be deprived of his share.

      The second negative aspect of the share cropping system is that share croppers often hold more land than an individual landowner. As a result a share cropper maintains a better economic standard than the land owner. This kind of share cropper cannot claim that he works in the fields with his own physical labour. In a round about way such a system encourages capitalism in agriculture.

      The third defect of this system lies in the fact that share croppers employ hired cultivators to work the land and indulge in idleness in their personal lives. The fourth defect is that land owners holding very small amounts of land cannot cultivate their land independently with modern methods, as their capacity is limited. Only a share cropper can cultivate such a small plot. Thus the share cropping system eventually results in primitive methods of agriculture.

Individual agricultural production and the share cropping system both suffer from another major problem. If farmers in these two systems do not have enough capital but have a large area of land, they cannot adopt modern agricultural methods for production. Tractors, power tillers, etc. remain beyond their means. By using age-old ploughing techniques these farmers can only cultivate the surface of the land and this will not help increase its productivity. Better quality fertilisers, high yielding seeds, proper irrigation systems, etc. cannot be utilised by them.

      There are more incentives for farmers in individual agricultural production than in share cropping, but in the private enterprise system there are still drawbacks which prevent the adoption of a modern and progressive system of agriculture. Even in this system there is not much possibility of increasing agricultural production because upto 100 % of infertile land lies unutilised. In this system farmers often do not have the capacity to utilise the benefits of tractors, power tillers, high yielding seeds, proper irrigation systems, etc. due to their lack of finance. Although the system is better than the share cropping and commune systems, ultimately the state and society cannot be benefited by it. If an individual cultivator has a large amount of land in his possession, ( in capitalist countries farmers can hold unlimited amounts of land) it may be possible for him to use high yielding seeds and proper irrigation systems, etc., but the government will have to avoid introducing a land ceiling. However, this is not desirable because it will lead to over accumulation.

      In the modern world the co-operative system is the best system of agricultural and industrial production. In the cooperative system members can pressurise the government and gain financial help and various facilities to increase their production because of their collective strength. They can pressurise the government to provide better irrigation facilities, high yielding seeds, etc., and in this way they can even bring infertile land under cultivation. Land which has little fertility can be transformed into fertile farm land with proper care. This will help to increase total production in agriculture. It will also help a country to become self sufficient in food production and other commercial crops, and free from shortages in the supply of food.

      In addition, plots of land on the same level and of the same fertility can be turned into larger single plots by removing all dividing boundaries. However, if the land is undulating and varies in fertility, the division of land should be maintained, otherwise land cannot be properly irrigated.

      I have already said that in the share cropping system one gets a better output than in the commune system. But in such a system it is not possible to adopt progressive methods of agricultural production. Eventually the level of production will come down to the level of the commune system.

      Among all the attachments human beings suffer from, attachment to the land is one of the strongest. Out of sympathy a farmer can donate large amounts of produce without hesitation, but he will feel tremendous pain if he is asked to donate a few square inches of land. If he has to donate land to somebody, a farmer feels that his ribs will break because of the pain in his heart. Those who donate land do so for three reasons--to save the major part of their land, from spiritual inspiration, or for a high humanitarian cause.

15 May 1988, Calcutta
Shabda Cayanika' Part 16

* * * * *

Share croppers do not own land, but cultivate other peoples' land for a share of the produce. Land is given to share croppers because it is too small for the land owner to make sufficient income from it. A share cropper may arrange several hundred acres of land from different landowners. This system was first introduced 700 years ago. Share croppers are called Bargadar or Bhagca's'i in Bengali.

      There are four main drawbacks to with the share cropping system. First, if a share cropper has to cultivate a large amount of land, usually he will only cultivate the fertile land. If he is lazy he will only cultivate sufficient land to support his family leaving the rest of the land uncultivated, even if it is fertile. Secondly, share croppers often accumulate more land than landowners, encouraging capitalism in agriculture. Thirdly, share croppers often employ hired cultivators to work the land, which causes idleness in their personal lives. Fourthly, landowners with small amounts of land cannot cultivate their land independently with modern methods.

      These drawbacks can be overcome in the following ways in the co-operative system. Less fertile land should be utilised for producing suitable crops. For example, nafier grass, papaya and kheshari pulses etc, can be grown in less fertile land. In the co-operative system no land need be left uncultivated: every effort will be made to bring all agricultural land under production. In the co-operative system share croppers will be employed as permanent labourers and paid a wage and a bonus according to their outturn. While lazy workers may not earn a good wage in the co-operative system, overall productivity of the co-operative will not suffer because other hard working labourers will have the incentive to produce more due to the bonuses they can earn in addition to their normal wages. Co-operatives, because of their collective strength, will be able to use more scientific production techniques, like power tillers, tractors, high-yielding seeds, proper irrigation facilities, etc. The members of the co-operative can even pressurise the government for assistance, something which cannot be done by a single farmer. For example, due to pressure the government may either grant a loan at favourable rates to a co-operative so that tillers or tractors may be purchased, or the government may take the responsibility itself to construct irrigation facilities etc. Arranging such facilities is beyond the means of the individual cultivator.

      The co-operative system is far better than the present share cropping system. It can readily overcome the defects of the share cropping system by properly utilising agricultural land, increasing agricultural production, and utilising modern technology.

      Co-operative members should elect a board of directors which will be able to supervise every aspect of production, thus increasing the outturn. The motto of agricultural co-operatives should be: "More production, more dividends and more bonuses". Labourers will earn wages, bonuses and dividends, and wages will be earned according to the amount of labour done by the labourer. Bonuses and dividends should be paid on the basis of the net per annum profit of the co-operative according to the amount of a labourers net wage.

      The share cropping system may be replaced by different systems-- at one pole is the commune system and at the other pole is the co-operative system. In the commune system, there are no incentives at all, (and this system is worse than the sharecropping system). Lack of incentives is the reason why the state run communes have failed in China and the USSR. Even today these countries have to import food grains from capitalistic countries like Canada, the USA and Australia. But in the co-operative system there are incentives and a feeling of oneness with the job. Through their own initiative, co-operatives can take large loans from a bank or the government to purchase modern equipment, construct dams, barrages and shift or lift irrigation facilities to increase production. This never happens in the commune system. Thus, the co-operative system is the best system while the commune system is the worst system. The commune system is detrimental to anything and everything that is human.

      Economic planning should be done on a block basis. The present boundaries of blocks should be re-organised or readjusted according to the fertility of the land and other factors such as topography and the similarities of the region. For example, if most of the agricultural land in one block is fertile and the land in the adjacent block is mostly infertile, then the boundaries of these two blocks should be adjusted so that all the infertile land comes within one block. Planning can then be done for that block on the basis of the infertility of the land. A block-wise programme can be easily taken to increase the productivity of the land, or to establish suitable agro- or agrico-industries for economic development.

      In certain parts of India farmers do not cultivate fodder or keep land for growing cattle. This adversely affects the health of the cattle and decreases the production of milk. In the co-operative system a portion of the land may be kept for this purpose on which fast growing grass (nafier grass), millet, jawar and non-poisonous khesari pulse can be grown for the cattle.

      The present varieties of khesari pulse that are cultivated in India are very nutritious but they contain poisonous alkaloids. These alkaloids cause paralysis in the lower limbs of both cattle and human beings. These poisonous alkaloids can be removed if the pulse is soaked in water overnight and the following morning the outer skin is removed be rubbing the pulses together. This simple process can easily remove the poison which resides between the skin and the inner portion of the pulse. Once the poison is removed, the inner portion of the pulse can be safely eaten by both cattle and human beings.

14 May 1988, Calcutta