The Washington socialist. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1914-1915, 1915-03-25
THE FARMER AND THE
SOCIALIST MOVEMENT

! Clear answer W tui Suieoiioi ~ 'hs
issue of February 10, which we pub
lish In another column of the present
! number.
While we agree with comrade
Powers on nearly all points, yet we
feel that there are two elements OF
the problem which are not considered
by him in his reply.
First of all, we must remember that
we are not dealing with an ideal farm
err, but real, live, everyday, general
ly capitalst-minded average member
of his class. And this average farm
er, even when he is member of the
Socialist party, is, as a matter of fact,
very much interested in reducing
taxes, and in measures which are be-
lieved by him to tend toward reduc-
ton of the average cost of living-to
lowered cost of farmers supplies.
1t is not what is theoretically true,
but what the average farmer, even
though he votes a Socialist ticket,
thinks is true, that determines his re-
lation to the class struggle and his
views on political measures. The
average Socialist, consciously or I'M
consciously, tries to adapt the plat
form and tactics of the Socialist party
to conform to his own individual eco
nomic needs, whether he be a farmer,
a petty merchant, or wageslave.
The exceptions prove the rule.
Now then, as matter of fact, is
not low average cost of production
to the farmers immediate advantage?
Are not improved farm implements
adopted precisely because they actu-
ally reduce the cost of production?
And is not this reduction in the cost
of production necessary to successful
competition in the world markets?
If the average cost of production in
the United States is greater than in
Argentina, Canada, Russia, or else
where, how can the American farmer
sell his products at all? And We
know that even the cost of production
can be obtained by the average farm
er only when a foreign market can
be found, annually, for nearly a bill
lion dollars worth of American farm
products.
AS applied to domestic sales, it
would not matter, as comrade Powers
affirms, whether the cost of the
farmers living, or the amount of his
taxes, were higher or lower, since he
would, on the average, get but the
cost of his keep anyhow. But with
the foreign market closed to him,
through his inability to meet compe
tition abroad, he could not even sell
his products at their cost price! So
he would have to go out of business,
Just as does the small manufacturer
and petty merchant, when in compe-
tition with the great corporations.
Now the average wage-slave of the
industries does not care whether the
small farmer survives, as such, or not.
What he wants is legislation that will
improve his condition, as an indus
trial wage-slave, dependent upon the
capitalist for chance to work, for
the opportunity to use mis- labor-power
in exchange for what he calls
wages" He imaqines that if he can
buy flour and potatoes and bacon and
eggs cheapIy that he is that much
better off. But the farmer thinks he
will be better off If these products
sell at relatively high price. Also
he believes there will be more profit
for him if he can buy his own supplies
at low figure.
the apparent, or assumed, interests OF
city wage-workers and the self-em
/ ploying farmer.
And insofar as a foreign market is
concerned, it would seem that the
farmer is justified in wishing to see
the price of his supplies at mini
mum, so that he may at least be able
to dispose of his products even al
cost price.
But just because of this narrowing
struggle for existence, or profits, the
farmers need for Socialism is as great
as is that of the average proletariaI
who has nothing but his labor-powel
to sell. Here then, the identity O.
interests between city wage-slave anC
, small farmer is complete. The con
: flicting immediate interests are insig
nificant as compared with the uItim
: ate interests, which are paramount TO
2 both classes of useful workers, rura
) and industrial. Hence all farseein
! selfemploying agriculturists and al
. intelligent and informed city wag
workers are Socialists.