rilE DKMAXD FOU c/lhWI' FnOD 



615 



soil robbery; this lupaiis an impoverished 

 people. Pinching the farmer is jtinching the 

 land. For a time, perhaps, we could main- 

 tain ourselves by imjiorting the produce of 

 new lands in other i)arts of tiie world; but 

 the day could not be far distant when we 

 should find oui-selves faced with disaster. 

 To iiuiiiitniii the producing power of its land 

 is the first responsibility of any people in 

 this century. No longer can we expect to 

 live by foraging, by chance, and by skinning 

 the earth. 



The RtxoxsTiuTTiox 



In all the plans and prophecies for the 

 reconstruction of society, I see nothing that 

 places the agricultural situation in its proper 

 jiroportion. Agricultural affairs must play 

 a pniiniufut part in international relations. 

 We are sending abroad commissions and 

 agencies to review situations, but little to 

 study agriculture in its international aspects. 

 It will be inexcusable if, when we try to 

 bring the peoples together again, we shall 

 not consult the opinion of those who till the 

 earth and produce the supplies for the sup- 

 port of all of us. 



Certainly, also, we shall need a body of 

 experts, raised for the purpose and acting 

 under national authority, to study agricul- 

 ture in terms of reconstruction. 



In spite of all our education in agricul- 

 ture and our fondness for quoting the crop 

 figures in the world's finance and the de- 

 partures we have fostered here and there, 

 we are apparently not yet in sight of com- 

 prehensive cohesive agricultural policies. 

 We are yet in the epoch of doing pieces of 

 work, not having arrived at the visualizing 

 of a society conditioned on the earth. 



In the meantime, capital and labor are 

 vocal. Many interests are planning definitely 

 for reconstruction. The boldest pronounce- 

 ment yet made on the reconstruction of so- 

 ciety is the report of the Subcommittee of 

 the British Labor Party, proposed for con- 

 sideration by the party. It is a clear, defi- 

 nite program. It is ambitious, striking at 

 fundamental considerations, and holding no 

 reverence for traditions. Because of its 

 ilefiniteness it will make headway. 



Yet this great program, although men- 

 tioning the land and the farmer incidentally, 

 virtually ignores the agricultural range as a 

 concept in the social order. Even though it 

 proposes to broaden the Labor Party in Eng- 



land to include "all workers by hand or 

 brain," yet it practically excludes many of 

 them by holding to the panacea of labor 

 organization and control. This self-suffi- 

 ciency seems to be characteristic of the atti- 

 tude of the group we know as "labor." It 

 assumes that it speaks for society, and that 

 it holds the magic for democracy. It is pro- 

 posed to "liuild society anew," and "what 

 the Labor Party intends to satisfy itself 

 about is that each brick that it helps to lay, 

 shall go to erect the structure that it in- 

 tends, and no other." This sounds like in- 

 tolerance and dominion, and is anti-demo- 

 cratic in its expression. The tenor of the 

 report is to assume the right of way for 

 trade-unionism, even as against government. 



What we speak of as "labor" is a minor 

 clcMicnt in society as compared with the 

 farm element. Probably even in Europe it 

 does not represent more than 20 per cent of 

 the population as against perhaps 50 or 

 more per cent of the agriculturally rural 

 population. Probably 75 per cent of the 

 world's population is yet pastoral and agri- 

 cultural. The major part of the ijopulation 

 can never be industrialized. These rural 

 people are neither industrial workers nor 

 capitalists; or, rather, they are a combination 

 of the two. They constitute a great bufl:er 

 range of the people that are not yet set over 

 as antagonists against other ranges. They 

 lie outside the usual classifications of 

 "workingmen" and "brain workers" and do 

 not come within the vision of the Subcom- 

 mittee's report when it declares that "the 

 policy of the Labor Party in this matter is 

 to make the utmost use of the trade-unions, 

 and, equally for the brain workers, of the 

 various professional associations." 



It is not my purpose now to analyze this 

 great program. I am in sympathy with 

 much of it and with the evident needs of 

 the workingman. I admire its statement of 

 the case. We must largely accept its under- 

 lying philosophy that social and economic 

 values belong to society; we foresee a vast 

 enlargement of its desire for a share rather 

 than for wages. I wish only to use the pro- 

 nouncement as illustration of the ease with 

 which we overlook the rural side of society 

 in our great plans of social reconstruction. 

 This reconstruction must not rest alone on 

 the demands of the workshop, nor on "em- 

 ployment," nor on wage scales, nor on profit- 

 sharing. The attitude of "laltor" towaril the 



