If all the land were nationalised, would the farmers become public servants with inflation-proofed pensions? I had been led to believe that Eire already had more than enough overpaid, pensioned public parasites.

Indeed he was before his time. It was a few decades before Stalin implimented a collectivisation policy which caused massive civil unrest and a famine that killed at least a few hundred thousand people.

It took 5 Land Acts and 50 years before the English landlords were reduced to a tiny proportion of landholders. Does that sound like they were willing sellers?

The conditions of Irish farmers improved immeasurably subsequently. They were very connected to all aspects of the Land question and would not have surrendered their property to the State. If Davitts proposal had any support, he wouldn't have been so easily sidelined.

I have my issues with farmers at the moment but collectivisation is hardly the solution to any problems that do exist. It has simply never worked and you haven't suggested any reason why it could work now.

__________________
“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen” - Albert Einstein

I've pointed out several times in this thread that Russia of the 1920s has nothing to do with Ireland of the 21st century, to compare a nation of tens of millions of peasants, totally dependant on the land, with a state that has only 40,000 full time farmers is ridiculous (but Im sure someone else will do it within two or three posts).

I could go into the historic question about the breakup of the estates, but, interesting as it is, that question is superfluous to the topic of this thread, which is the cost of leaving the land in private hands today. Im not saying that collectivisation would produce more food or produce it more cheaply. Even if state farms produced a good bit less food and more expensively, the saving to the whole nation of not having to pay extra money for development land would utterly transform life in Ireland. Farming is not really the issue at all. Yes, agriculture is totally uneconomical in Ireland, yes the grants and subsidies are a big drain on the taxpayer, but that is not the real cost at all. The real cost is that in Ireland increased productivity is converted immediately into land price inflation, while investment in industry is frozen out, thus Ireland remains in its current backward, semi feudal state, totally dependant on foreign multi-nationals for any injection of economic modernity.

Surely the 90 billion in toxic debt, based on land, that the workers of Ireland are being shafted with, must tell people its time to wake up. This is the real cost of pandering to a tiny minority. The state will take on this debt and do everything in its power to push up the price of land, so it gets its money back. But pushing up the price of land makes sure Ireland remains a backward unindustrialised country, dependant on multi-nationals.

__________________
If voting could change anything - it would be banned.

"The transition from Capitalism to Communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." V.I. Lenin. The State and Revolution.

Uh, no, that would be Khrushchev. Learn to distinguish between the collective farming pursued in the 30s and state industrial farming pursued in the 50s. Also consider something called "vertical farming" and the applicability of public ownership over such.

Ah, but if you go down the khrushev road we would without doubt be spending more on agriculture than we are now. Khrushevs approach was slightly more capitalist than Stalins approach. It allowed the peasant farmers to make profit.
As for "vertical farming" I dont think it could take off in Ireland

"Spending more on agriculture" was a result of introducing a minimum wage in the mid-50s. Your mention of Khrushchev's approach to collective farming is offset by his emphasis on state farming, which by and large was far more productive, all without private plots to supplement state farming production.

Oh, and I apologize re. Ireland. Vertical farming's applicability in my head is in the US, Japan, and continental Europe.

I strongly believe that all this development land were about to nationalize around every village, town and city, should be be turned into allotments and given to the people of Ireland to produce top quality organic food. There are so many benefits

1) Cut down on all the imported, over priced, poor quality, moldy muck thats flogged in most supermarkets

2) Obvious health benefits of fresh food produced locally without the use of pesticides etc. Not to mention the benefits of getting adults and kids outside into the fresh air and away from mind numbing TV and computer games, alcohol,drugs, boredom etc.

3) The community spirit endeared by people working together and sharing in the bounty and pleasures of nature.

4) Make a huge differenece to peoples carbon footprint in terms of foodmiles saved and the non-use of mass produced fossil fuel based
artificial fertilizers

5)Tourism spin-off from the beatification of our town-country edge, purchase of surplus product by visitors and a real as opposed to phoney manifestation of our clean, green unspoilt image

6) Big savings on peoples food bills in these recessionary times


7) Obvious benefits to the wider environment and wildlife etc.


These are just a few of the benefits I've thought of at short notice!


PS - I strongly believe Tom Parlons(ex-IFA and now CIF muppet) farm should be the first to be nationlized for reasons that should be obvious to everyone

90 billion well spent I say

Ireland is one of the few countries that does nothing about preserving top grades of agricultural land and allows them to be built over wholesale. A lot of the best land is close to the historic cores of settlements, for obvious reasons.

Zoned land should be taxed heavily, with an option for the owners to sell to the local authority at agricultural price plus a small allowance for disruption.

Land, in whatever ownership, has to be cared for. Now, I don't know whether I'd trust this state to do that properly.

Forests in Germany are owned privately, by state, and by "Laender" and other regional and local communities.
It's a big task to look after them well.

Look what state "forests" you have here: plantations scattered all over, at the wrong places, of alien species, with no widespread biodiversity or recreational function for people to enjoy.

I see a catastrophe if the state was in charge of agricultural land...