[p2p-research] debate on open agriculture

[Patrick Anderson]

Kevin Carson wrote:
> from the consumer's perspective it will likely be
> cheaper in labor terms to "make" rather than "buy."

Yes, as you say, if the *consumer* is the owner, this is true (or can
be true for experienced gardeners) even for a single-owner plot, and
almost always will be true for a multi-owner (owned by multiple
consumers) plot since their price for the product will then be exactly
cost without the needless drain of profit.

When *consumers* are the owners, production is for "use value"
(product) instead of "exchange value" (profit).

But the article seems to focus on "exchange value" (profit), with no
regard for "use value" (product) at all.  Typical wrong-headed,
business-oriented, scarcity-seeking mentality.


> Putting him back on his own land, land that was
> stolen from him or his parents so it could be used to grow cash crops

The concept of "cash crops" is as vile and destructive as any and all
"for profit" business since the only purpose of that production is to
keep price above cost (to collect profit from the consumer).  This is,
unfortunately, also the case for all "worker owned" business.


> for those who can afford them, where he can produce directly for his
> own consumption, is the ideal solution.

Even if he cannot do the work himself (let's say an accident has left
him paralyzed), he will benefit tremendously by owning the plot of
land and the tools needed for that work, since he will then only pay
for the costs of production (wages are also a cost) and never for
profit.