On Wednesday 19th November UEA’s Socialist Society hosted a joint meeting
with the UEA Green Party. The meeting took the form of a debate between Norwich
City Councillor Rupert Read (Green Party) and Fred Weston on the important
issue of the food crisis. The question of whether the crisis is one of
production or distribution was the starting point of the debate, enabling the
speakers to explain their perspective on the cause of the crisis and
ultimately, their proposed solutions.
 |
| Green Party Councillor Rupert Read |
Inspired by a successful joint meeting with the Green Party during the previous year, the UEA Socialists invited Rupert Read once again to debate a member of Socialist Appeal. The Green Party have had a lot of success in Norwich. Together with Brighton, the city has been targeted by the Greens for electoral success. Rupert Read, a former lecturer at the university and candidate for the European Parliament, routinely enjoys a strong platform and had recently held a meeting on ‘Green Philosophy and Green Politics’ which attracted a turnout of over 100 people.
Anticipation for this meeting was understandably high. Fortunately, turn out for was impressive despite short notice, with over 40 students in attendance. Each speaker had 20 minutes to outline their position, followed by questions from the audience and a final opportunity for each speaker to sum up their positions.
Fred began by explaining that the food crisis was, in fact, a crisis of distribution, or more accurately of capitalism. Imperialism has played an active, predatory role in crippling and impoverishing former colonial countries. He used Haiti as an example of the role that Imperialism plays through the IMF. Here, an undeveloped ‘third world’ country, shackled by debt is approached by the IMF with a guarantee of alleviating debt on the condition that import taxes are cut. As a result, Haiti cut its import tax from 33% to 3%, allowing American imported rice to be sold at a cheaper price than their Haitian grown equivalent. The result of course was a collapse of the Haitian farming industry, and an increased dependence on imported foods.
Fred went on to show that there is enough food to feed the entire world. The equivalent of 2700 calories are produced for every man, woman and child on the planet. Ethiopia, with the most up to date equipment and technology could feasibly support a population of 100 million. Instead, under capitalism it has a population of 30 million that is routinely subject to famine and civil war. Rupert Read followed on from Fred, highlighting the similarities between socialism and the Green movement. He agreed that we currently live under a system that does not distribute food on the basis of need, and that as Fred described, ‘those that cannot afford do not exist’ under capitalism. However, Rupert went on to describe the problem as one of production as well as distribution. The earth has limited resources, or ‘buffers’, that we are beginning to hit. Underlying ecological problems exist at the heart of the food crisis, and Rupert pointed to Darfur as an example of the first ‘climate change war’, as the whole region is turning into desert.
Fred’s solution was simple: we cannot control what we do not own. Food cannot be distributed fairly if it is owned by private individuals whose interests are confined to profit. Rupert agreed on this point, and advocated that nationalisation needed to take place.
The question period was heated, with many contributions from the 40-strong audience. In particular, Rupert Read came under a lot of attack for having a reactionary stance on production. One audience member asked how far the reduction of consumption and production would go. Throughout, Rupert Read maintained that production ‘per se’ was bad and that we fundamentally have enough stuff.
Ultimately, the question of production is a theoretical one. The Green Party, for all its electoral ambitions, is not in a position to dictate to the multinationals. Capitalism is already forcing workers to cut consumption, and a global recession will mean a downturn in production across the planet. If global resources are running out, then a planned economy will be needed to distribute these resources on the basis of need.
One important contribution was made by someone that quoted Rosa Luxembourg: ‘We must look at history the way it is, not how we would like it to be’. Throughout history, people have become more productive and has satisfied their needs through ever more sophisticated technologies. ‘Reduce consumption!’ will never be a winning slogan for a party that wants to win the support of the masses!
The meeting ended on good terms, with future debates with the Green Party on the cards. Many students from the meeting went down to union bar afterwards to continue discussion. This was the first real opportunity for many students to hear a Marxist perspective and it was very well received. The task for the Norwich comrades is to continue to build on this new interest in our ideas and make sure that this interest turns into something more concrete; the building of the ideas of revolutionary Marxism!
