Countryside And Class

[Zonk]

Burston Strike School I think you are talking about

http://www.burstonstrikeschool.org/

 

[White Lotus]

If I walked into our local pub and addressed someone as a peasant – or a farmer as a petit bourgeoise – I'd be looking at a knuckle sandwich!

People have made good points about farmers and farmworkers being a decreasing fraction of the rural economy, but I'd add: yes, but quite a few other jobs ride on them eg hedgetrimmers, vets, etc. And two farm shops also closed around here after foot & mouth.

What I mean is, if local jobs disappear rural villages become dormitories, then it knocks out the pub, post office/shop etc. because the commuters do all their shopping & drinking in the towns after work. Not to mention what it does to house prices, and road congestion/fuel use.

On the issue of foreign migrant labour, yes I think we're going to see more of this as few Brits will do seasonal low-paid work. Here's a story about a fruit grower who is trying to build housing and facilities for migrant workers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3734157.stm

So is this a big bad corporation steamrollering over local objections, or a caring employer trying to provide decent living conditions? My own sympathies tend to the employer over the NIMBYs: they are going to employ seasonal workers, I'd rather see them treated well. (Echoes of the 18thC philanthropists, eg Cadbury, here?)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a ton of good research on rural housing, social exclusion and so on.

 

[Funky_monks]

Perhaps I am talking about the farmers whose operation was large enough to employ some workers... it is undeniable that some aspired to be gentlemen, and that some acheived it... (how many of course is a moot point)

AS for 'ideological evidence', quantifying this is difficult but it is definately a process...

Why are you talking in the past tense? Do you think that poachers no longer exist? Take it from me, there's plenty still going on.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I guess it's uneven around the country but contributory factors to the rise in rural house prices include incomers buying country tranquility for retirement or for second/weekend properties and locals converting homes into 'country cottage' holiday rentals. This is townie money buying into an idealised British countryside, with the expectation that it be picture postcard pickled, often accompanied by the sound of the drawbridge to paradise being pulled up.

One response of the farmers to rising input costs- particularly oil- has been diversification. The FMD year revealed how reliant the rural population has become on leisure spending- farming tourists is second only to milking CAP subsidies in rural income generation, maybe overtaken it in popular areas. Another has been away from mass production of food staples towards niche products (organic &/or low volume, high value cheeses or wine or why- luxuries in other words).

There is a global market in food, sustained only by oil and exploitation. We (the population as a whole) eat oil and the fertility and labour of others (cows from Argentina, beans from Kenya) bought from supermarkets who care little for concepts like 'food miles' or sustainability. We want cheap food and lots of it (the obesity issue is pertinent here), that's why we accept the turkey gulag (brilliant!). Yet we decry the industrialisation of the countryside, because we want to go there for our leisure or our retirement, and we want it to remain picture postcard.

What this means for the rural working classes isn't clear (not to me anyway). Most likely continued dispersal away from the countryside into the towns & cities to make way for an older, richer population.

Good post there -also exposes just how contradictory and futile the CA analysis and campaign is.

 

[Smølfine]

Ah well - was a good idea. Maybe we can try again?

Nice one Smølfine.

Sorry all, drunken rants now deleted.


(if it's of any interested got super pissed and excited at the cricket yesterday )

 

[totaladdict]

It's interesting though... rants or not.

You said you're from the countryside... but you displayed what seems a fairly common oversight. Farmers are a tiny part of the rural population - especially rich, land-owning, farmers. I sometimes wonder if people realise that people like me exist.

There are shit loads of people in villages, all over the country, who work a shitty 9-5 type job for fuck all pay, are in debt up to their eyeballs, see their communitites crumbling in front of their eyes, have fuck all job security and don't see much looking like it's going to get better. It's no surprise that people are getting angry.

It'd be easy to see that anger as coming out through the CA - but I think you'd be mostly wrong*. That anger is better seen through the dodgy sickies and stealing from work... or the fighting in market towns on the weekend. Or you can see it turned inside out through depression or drug abuse, which, without seeing figures, seem to be skyrocketing.

* I do accept that there are some w/class people in the CA, or simply expressing anger through the CA, but I think there probably aren't that many.



Away from that, while I do think bernie strayed off course a little, there is an interesting discussion to be had re this paragraph:

"So I would venture to predict that ownership of the means of producing food, and the deployment of the labour required to work it, will become increasingly important issues when oil prices start rising as the demand outstrips supply."

And this from newbie:

"What this means for the rural working classes isn't clear (not to me anyway). Most likely continued dispersal away from the countryside into the towns & cities to make way for an older, richer population."


I have some figures on this, but they're tucked away somewhere and I'm not sure where. From what I remember, population movements from the country to the town slowed to the point where, about 3 years ago, the countryside actually started to re-populate (EDIT: See below, I'm a dumbarse. It's re-populating like fuck and has been for ages!). I can see this, especially where I am and houses estates are popping up everywhere. I had a breakdown of the figures that showed it was a combination of new farmers (wanting to go into farming for moral/lifestyle reasons), middle-class retirees, and young families seeking green lands for their kids to grow up in. I'll try to pull the figures out if anyone's interested (my dissertation was a strategic analysis of a local farm near me so I have a fair bit of stuff on this re: "market analysis" for the farm shop).

And it is interesting to think about working class life in a countryside that has to start producing organic fruits and vegetables instead of industrial rapeseed and barley....

 

[General Ludd]

From what I remember, population movements from the country to the town slowed to the point where, about 3 years ago, the countryside actually started to re-populate.

The primary school I went to in 1988 had 70 pupils, it's got 200 now.

On positive note, the last hopping finished today so my step-dad might actually have some weekends off.

 

[totaladdict]

The primary school I went to in 1988 had 70 pupils, it's got 200 now.

On positive note, the last hopping finished today so my step-dad might actually have some weekends off.

Yeah, I think it's actually been "repopulating" for a while... might be getting confused with me figures.... could be talking about an increase in numbers of people buying farming land/new farmers etc....

 

[totaladdict]

So, yeah... bit of an understatement from me above! There's been a shift from rural de-population to in-migration since the fifties, to the point where rural areas are now growing at 3 times the rate of urban areas (figures from 2 years ago).

(And as an aside: Rural areas also have less young and middle-aged people - the mean age in the countryside is 50 compared to 42 among residents of cities or towns.)

(Another aside: Just 1% of agricultural land changes hands each year, and just 40% of that is new entrants to farming - and the underlying trend is for the number of new entrants to increase by 1% per year.)

 

[General Ludd]

(Another aside: Just 1% of agricultural land changes hands each year, and just 40% of that is new entrants to farming - and the underlying trend is for the number of new entrants to increase by 1% per year.)

And that's not because noone wants to go into farming, if you gave most farm labourers half a change they'd love their own farm. But the guaranteed income that subsidies provide mean that land prices are stupid, and that's before you buy milk quotas and everything else you need.

 

[totaladdict]

Fucking right!

(And so the only "new entrants" are lifestylists who've made their money elsewhere and want a good home for the kids - not such a bad thing in itself, but is another cause of resentment towards the middle class.)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> I have some figures on this, <snip>

I'd be interested to hear more detail on that research.

I know I veered off at a tangent earlier, but the place I was trying to get to with it, was the bit you've quoted above.

Who will own the means of food production and how will labour be deployed, as it replaces cheap oil energy?

 

[totaladdict]

I'd be interested to hear more detail on that research.<snip>

Ye bugger! Means I'll have to get in the attic and grab me research. I will get round to it but I just started a new job and it's knackering me out at the moment. Sometime this weekend hopefully....

Who will own the means of food production and how will labour be deployed, as it replaces cheap oil energy?

A very interesting question... but I want you to answer it not ask it!!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> A very interesting question... but I want you to answer it not ask it!!

Problem for me is that I understand the energy, architecture and sustainability bit rather better than I understand the class composition and production relations bit, which is why I wanted to raise the issue of how that stuff is likely to change over time in this thread.

I can look at the numbers and see that things will change somehow but what the modalities of that change will look like, I think depends as much on the sort of stuff that this thread is getting at, as it does on energy flows. For example, in terms of energy and food production constraints, our future conditions may have a resemblance to Cuba's special period I think it extremely unlikely though that UK political and economic conditions would result in a similar set of solutions.

Oil replaced labour post WW2 in a historical trend that is peaking or about to peak. The question arises going forward as some combination of labour and non-oil energy is used to fill the gap. How that plays out politically is very probably still up for grabs in my view, but IMO the effects will not be trivial.

I hadn't understood until your post that the depopulation trend had already started to turn around, which is potentially extremely interesting. I would be appalled if by introducing this issue I'd killed an excellent thread, because I'd love to know more about all of the stuff that's been discussed here so far.

 

[totaladdict]

Can't imagine you've killed it....

Just need GL to get his arse into gear and we're away again

I had a little hunt for that research... can't actually find bugger all. I remember having loads of figures, which then got boiled down to a couple of stats (basically the ones I posted above) because of word counts etc... I'm sure I must have it tucked away in a folder somewhere, just can't find it right now.

I have had a little google and there's some interesting stuff available here: http://tinyurl.com/57zwm (Defra) that you can play about with to look at things like the distribution of crops, livestock and landuse across England - you can flick about on maps showing where tenanted land is most common, or where most land is 'set aside', or where grows the most barley, or where doesn't grow sugarbeet... pretty cool actually. And there's loads of other stats and stuff on there, though it seems a bit of a hassle with pdf's and excel spreadsheets and stuff.

If I remember rightly there's some good data here too: http://www.countryside.gov.uk/EvidenceAndAnalysis/dataHub/2004_dataarea/index.asp but it's all in excel and I don't have that as I'm borrowing me Mum's computer at the moment.

 

[Funky_monks]

Top thread this!

Keep it up GL!

 

[General Ludd]

Just need GL to get his arse into gear and we're away again

Trying to come with a decent answer to question of changes in production relationships and an well constructed answer to Jezza's questions. The pub has taken over a bit in the last few days though.

 

[totaladdict]

Bernie... this has some good stuff: http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Images/CA 171_tcm2-19432.pdf

* 14.1 million people (28.5% of the population) live in
England’s rural districts.

* Between 1981 and 2002 the rural population grew by 14%
(1.7 million) compared with 3% (1 million) growth in urban
areas.

* In the year to mid 2002, net migration into districts in rural
England was estimated to be 115,000 people.

* Migration from urban to rural areas is now running at four
times the rate from the north of England to the south.

-----

GL -

 

[General Ludd]

Problem for me is that I understand the energy, architecture and sustainability bit rather better than I understand the class composition and production relations bit, which is why I wanted to raise the issue of how that stuff is likely to change over time in this thread.

The first thing I'd say in response to this is that it is all predicate on no new energy sources being found/developed before scarcity of oil starts to cause massive increases in the cost of energy. Thus one plausible outcome is that nothing changes at all.

If the price of energy does substantially increase the obvious initial consequence is an increase in the power of the working class, and not just in farming but everywhere, because the potency of technology (with technology seen as a particular division of working class power produced through class struggle*) as a divisor of working class power would be reduced in power. On a less abstract level there would clearly be an increase in demand for farm labourers and so a commiserate increase in their power as a subset of the working class. This would inevitably force capital to respond, and there are 2 ways in which I can see it doing so. Which one happens (or what ratio of the 2) will be a product of the level of development of, what are currently, the third world countries and also the strength of the British working class.

If there still is a third world with a large supply of very cheap labour then I'd see a shifting of food production there with an even greater running down of agriculture in the UK. The other possibility of course is that in the UK there is an increase in the number of labourers employed per acre, but capital can't tolerate the scale of increase in working class power this would entail so I'd forsee a far greater level of specialisation (which reduces working class power by creating new divisions) being introduced in farm work, instead of the current situation where all farm labourers can just about do all farm labouring.

It should also be noted that we currently have 'unnaturally low' levels of employment of farm labour as a result of subsidies for production. (Subsidies are slowly being shifted away from production but qualitively the reforms have so far changed little and there have been no changes in production relationships as a result of these reforms) By making producing quantities of commodities that would otherwise be uneconomic profitable the average size of farms has been increased, and so the number of farm labourers employed has been reduced since smaller farms employ more workers per acre than very large farms. Production subsidies have also had the affect of increasing use of chemicals, since a chemical that delivers a 10% increase in production for a 20% increase in costs would not normally be used but if a 10% increase in production is rewarded with subsidies equal to a further 15% increase in production then those chemicals will be used. Subsidies have had the further affect of increasing land prices with provides another barrier against small farms and encourages more intensive farming since the return per acre necessary to make farming profitable compared to other locations for capital is much higher than it would be for a low land price. None of this is accidental of course, they were all forseeable consequences that in may opinion were forseen and chosen as a response to the increase in power of the rural working class in WW2 and the surrounding time periods.

*this point is kind of key, and it's not actually one I've completely come to terms with cause I'm currently doing a bit of reading into it. But if you see technology in this way the reduction in technology that an increase in the cost of energy would create suddenly has very clear implications for class relationships.

 

[General Ludd]

As a readable conclusion: increase in energy prices = more power for rural working class.

 

[stevendurrant]

I know its' boring and navel gazing, but I made that post in all sincerity.

maybe BuzzSW9 just thinks I'm stating the obvious, which I suppose I am.

 

[General Ludd]

which, as you know, is a surprise to me. are there specific instances of this you can cite, or something to put flesh on this one?

Right. Time to answer tricky question. Tricky because I have no firm statistical evidence of this, rather anecdotal evidence and whatever impressions I have gathered. The first sign for me is that, like in the cities, absenteeism and workplace theft and sabotage have increased in rural areas, like in the cities. What is significant about this is that whilst in the cities these new forms of resistance have appeared as a result of old modes of struggle (unions etc) becoming outdated and inefficient, whilst in the countryside these old modes of struggle were always much weaker for both cultural and strategic reasons (the lack of mass factories in particular). So in the cities increases in sickies is a sign of a shift in struggle, whilst in the countryside it indicates an increase in the level of struggle. More anecdotally I think in the last 10 years there has been an increase in the political consciosness of the rural working class, so that now there is now a 'mob' (and mob in a non-derogatory sense) that the CA can try and harness to achieve its political goals. I also think the state has become more important, so the working class in the countryside sees itself more in opposition to the state than previously where the played much less of a role in working class ideas which were, imo, much more localised. It's all got very wooly now but effectively I'm attempting to say that there has been a noticable increase in extent to which the rural working class sees itself as a whole, and it's struggles as a whole, rather than as seperate struggles and seperate individuals.

 

[newbie]

If the price of energy does substantially increase the obvious initial consequence is an increase in the power of the working class, and not just in farming but everywhere

There's a bit of a leap of faith here. You might be right but it's not a foregone conclusion. Increasing energy costs won't necessarily imply an increase in the need for human labour- technology (& the capital behind it) can be expected adapt to suit, in ways less than obvious now. For instance after the 1973 crisis Japan (which has no indiginous oil) made strenuous efforts to reduce dependance on imported energy. Part of this was development of low power consumption TV sets, which they subsequently sold round the world, transforming (ha, geddit?) the image of Japanese consumer technology from cheap n cheerful to the worldleader it's been ever since. I've no way of knowing whether that was predictable say 5 years beforehand.

It's possibly worth adding that rural isolation will increase as petrol prices outpace incomes- the poorest already have the least mobility and that trend will gather pace. In those circumstances, how do the atomised rural w/c exercise the power you anticipate they'll aquire?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Did we see anything that looked like adaptation during the time of the fuel protests? I'm not aware of any, but I'd be interested to hear if there was.

 

[totaladdict]

It should also be noted that we currently have 'unnaturally low' levels of employment of farm labour as a result of subsidies for production. (Subsidies are slowly being shifted away from production but qualitively the reforms have so far changed little and there have been no changes in production relationships as a result of these reforms) By making producing quantities of commodities that would otherwise be uneconomic profitable the average size of farms has been increased, and so the number of farm labourers employed has been reduced since smaller farms employ more workers per acre than very large farms. Production subsidies have also had the affect of increasing use of chemicals, since a chemical that delivers a 10% increase in production for a 20% increase in costs would not normally be used but if a 10% increase in production is rewarded with subsidies equal to a further 15% increase in production then those chemicals will be used. Subsidies have had the further affect of increasing land prices with provides another barrier against small farms and encourages more intensive farming since the return per acre necessary to make farming profitable compared to other locations for capital is much higher than it would be for a low land price. None of this is accidental of course, they were all forseeable consequences that in may opinion were forseen and chosen as a response to the increase in power of the rural working class in WW2 and the surrounding time periods.

I'd just add to this:

Technological innovation (along with subsidised energy) means that farmers have been encouraged to invest in costly machinery, which creates a feed-back loop requiring them them further spread costs over higher outputs.... hmmm, I'm having trouble wording it... basically, as farmers have spent on machines, so they've felt the need to become bigger in order to recoup those costs (and pay back their debts).

Farms have also been encouraged to expand up and down the supply chain - larger farms are better able to deal with processing, marketing and distribution. These are probably the same farms that use "agricultural management" companies - where fresh faced business consultants "manage" the farm instead of it being run by country boys who still feel a sense of responsibility towards the land or the community it serves.

This turning from traditional farm work to agricultural factory work is exactly the same as has happened in all other industries. Power is stripped from the workers through reducing their ability to see the job through from start to finish. Technology is used as a tool for disempowering the workforce. It encourages deskilling and allows for 'casualisation of the workforce' so that farm labourers with 20 years experience are replaced by Portuguese or Eastern European workers who aren't so fussed about conditions so long as they can send £50 home to the missus.

Dunno where I'm going with this though....

I've just realised that I'm kinda disagreeing with a point you made earlier about "capital can't tolerate the scale of increase in working class power this would entail so I'd forsee a far greater level of specialisation (which reduces working class power by creating new divisions) being introduced in farm work, instead of the current situation where all farm labourers can just about do all farm labouring." - I'd say that from my experience out here in Suffolk, this has already happened. Greater specialisation could occur, but it's already been happening, and has been for a while.

(Oh, also, just to back up what you said about subsidies pushing up land prices. Between 1992 and 1995 (the yrs following CAP reform) farmland prices rose by 67%, with the price of prime arable land leaping by 92% !!)

 

[totaladdict]

It's possibly worth adding that rural isolation will increase as petrol prices outpace incomes- the poorest already have the least mobility and that trend will gather pace. In those circumstances, how do the atomised rural w/c exercise the power you anticipate they'll aquire?

While that is probably true, there's also a likelihood that increased petrol costs will leave rural people poorer in other areas instead. People will still use their cars - they'll go without other things instead, like they do now (it'll be a few pints less down the pub, or the kid not getting a new pair of football boots, or no more sky TV...). But that's a minor point worth considering rather than negating your point completely.

The thing is though, I'm not sure increased petty prices would further atomise the rural working class. It could well lead to increased village interdependence - more people buying eggs from the little stall that Bob down the road has set up outside his gate, instead of driving to Tesco. More people using the village Post Office. More people at the bowls club, or watching the village football team. More people walking and cycling around the village, or out in the fields.


Bernie - I assume you mean adaptation in terms of technology (& capital)adapting?

I don't know about that... but I do think people around here are adapting. There's now 3 stalls at the local car boot sale selling "natural" produce (not organic as they can't afford certification, just no pesticide, no oil-based fertilisers etc), where 3 years ago there were none. I see more little 'put the money in the box' type vegetable tables outside houses than 5 years ago. 2 weeks ago my next door neighbour left a huge box of courgettes on the street with a big "Free" sign... and they were all gone by the end of the day. The allotments are all now full and growing whereas when I got mine 3 years ago, 4 plots were empty. Two of my mates who I'd never have imagined it of have now got allotments in town, and mates who have never really been fussed about anything but getting pissed up and having a laugh are talking to me about the green party.

All just anecdotal, but I honestly do think we're seeing rural people start to reclaim responsibility for producing food for their community. Of course there's an increased awareness of the crap that goes into packaged food along with a lot of individualised "well fuck, I just want to eat some decent food that doesn't cost half me fucking wages" to take into account. But I actually do think that rural people are starting to see the harm that is being caused, to their own health and to the health of their communities, and are really starting to do things to reclaim their respect.

 

[White Lotus]

That's what I mean – it doesn't so much matter what class people are, as what group they identify themselves with. And rural communities increasingly see themselves as suffering at the hands of government and big business (notably supermarkets who not only take customers from small shops, but squeeze producers).

Yes there's more people who have moved from towns to countryside. Some of them want to be surrounded by "picture perfect" scenery and get all nimby when farmers spread muck on their fields nearby! Others are initiating things like farm shops and direct sales.

Surely this increases the likelihood of a rural revolt against oppression? Historically it's never the actual peasants who rise up, it's the people who have some education and understanding of political issues, who act as the catalyst.

 

[blamblam]

Hmmm I'm no expert or anything, but generally aren't energy price increases useful for capital to attack working class power? Like in the 73 energy crisis where prices of all commodities shot up but wages remained static (or fell due to things like the 3 day week)?

Or are you talking more long-term, where actual shortage of oil reduced the amount technology can be used rather than just increasing its cost? Or would these factors cancel each other out? Hmmmm I'm confused...


White lotus - not sure i'd agree with your last point...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> I don't know about that... but I do think people around here are adapting. There's now 3 stalls at the local car boot sale selling "natural" produce (not organic as they can't afford certification, just no pesticide, no oil-based fertilisers etc), where 3 years ago there were none. I see more little 'put the money in the box' type vegetable tables outside houses than 5 years ago. 2 weeks ago my next door neighbour left a huge box of courgettes on the street with a big "Free" sign... and they were all gone by the end of the day. <snip>

That's very interesting. I'm finding something similar happening in my urban area. Gardeners in our little neighbourhood have a kind of gift-economy, in which surplus produce is often presented to neighbours free, then reciprocated as seasons turn. We're also right on the peri-urban fringe and have some direct access to farm produce without mediation by lots of corporate entities. I get my manure from a farm.

I'm not 100% sure that this is a response to tougher economic conditions, although (like the thriving local black economy here on Merseyside) it may have orginally been an adaptation to the Thatcherite devastation of the 80's that kept on going because it was a viable form in an area of relatively stable owner-occupation, including lots of retired people who are keen gardeners.

'Invisible' economic exchanges like this obviously work best over a small area.