Communism declares that land be put into the hands of the whole and worked under a common plan in order to boost the amount of food grown. But which land? Should we appropriate the land of successful farmers who are already maximizing their yields and growing the foods best suited for the climate and demands of the people? Or should we take the barren land? The land left empty so that it may be used to decrease supply and increase prices? The land playing host to decrepit buildings and vagrants? Capitalist fear-mongers would cry out that it is the already successful land and farmers who would suffer and become landless serfs.

Fortunately, their cries of victimization ring hollow when the masses apply common sense and display a sense of dignity. Who could argue that those lands left fallow by the grace of government subsidies should be left as-is so that the corporations who own the land may profit off our increased hunger and decreased purchasing power? Who would fight for the landowners which own tracts of land but yet give them no productive purpose other than to blight our lives? One could hardly believe that people would be so willing to cede their own well-being in the interests of those who benefit from our degradation.

Detroit had the right idea when it unveiled its plan to reclaim unused and blight land in an effort to turn it into fields and farmland. Aside from good economic sense, it makes good moral sense to finally find a use for land which could greatly benefit the fabric of society. Therein lies the main reason communism seeks to introduce this common plan in regards to agriculture; communism seeks to mend and expand the fabric of our society which capitalism has frayed and destroyed over the past two centuries. Hunger and the perception of hunger is a great driving force for social change, especially when the people know their state of living is brought upon them by faceless entities and those who claim to represent them.

So rather than rely on some abstract higher power or authority, communism goes down to the foundation when it wishes to create a common plan. It takes into account the people themselves and their needs, rather than the needs of a few or of some state abstraction, when it aims to take back the land that rightfully belongs to the whole and to let the whole enjoy the fruits of its assets. So in essence, working the land under a common plan is not merely working it with set of guidelines in order to maximize yields and minimize failures; working the land under a common plan is at its heart working the land for the benefit of the common man, the whole, the collective.


10/30/2013 23:09

Was just taking a break and wanted to post here


Leave a Reply.