Volume II Chapter One:
Critique of the Utopia of Capitalist Organic Farming
Hassan Abbasi
In the book “Capitalism and the Catastrophe of Environmental Pollution,” Volume 1, I discussed in detail the industrial agriculture of capitalism and its role in environmental destruction, especially the production of pesticides, the depletion of soil of necessary materials in order to increase profits and supply low-value agricultural goods to workers, the increase in food additives and supplements in an attempt to fill the gap in these materials, and finally, technical additives to ready-made foods in order to increase their shelf life and decorate goods to increase their sales as much as possible. In this article, I will address an area of capitalist agricultural production that has attracted significant capital over the past four decades under the titles of biological agriculture, natural cultivation, organic farming, or organic farming. The owners of these capitals, as is the nature and purpose of capitalist production, have all named their search for greater and more golden profits in “serving” humanity, and in this case, “serving human health”! And they talk about the challenge of the destructive effects of industrial agriculture and replacing them with healthy food products! Considering that 90% of the world’s food is produced by agricultural capitalism and the rest is from marine products, there are huge profits in this field of production that no capital can ignore. When the conversion of land, mines, seas, lakes, oil and gas resources 4000 meters deep into capital, by exploiting the quasi-free labour of sex billion workers in the world, is the daily business of capitalism and the need of the moment, the moment of survival of this system, the discussion of ignoring the added values of the agricultural sector of capitalism is pure demagogy, like all the words and claims of other capitalists. The production and supply of agricultural goods under the fancy titles of “natural” and “organic” cultivation and the challenge of conventional capitalist cultivation is an attempt by these producers and government agencies to pretend that the capitalists in this field of production care about the quality of the goods and the health of consumers! Is this really the case? Is there a goal outside the scope of advertising and deception other than making as much profit as possible? Commodity production and its most advanced form, capitalist production, is the origin, driver, and full-spectrum mirror of the fetishist role of the product of human labour. The very replacement of the relationship between humans with the relationship between objects and goods implies that the commodity or capital becomes everything and the human becomes nothing. The focus of our current discussion is that under the rule of capital, the worker, his nutrition, and the land, as far as the needs of human life are concerned, are undergoing a process of becoming nothing, and instead it is capital that accelerates its divine role to infinity. Commodity fetishism is the inevitable result of the separation of man from work and the product of work. Does production in capitalist organic farming have a purpose other than the production and sale of goods in order to obtain the added value inherent in organic goods? What tools does capitalist organic farming, which is engaged in food production alongside traditional capitalist farming, use to preserve goods and increase their lifespan against plant pests, and how is the depletion of essential soil nutrients compensated for? What processes and procedures do the products of this field go through when they are converted into ready-to-eat foods? These and more questions are the subject of discussion and criticism in this article. It is important to remember that since the very beginning of capitalist organic farming, comparisons of these two areas of capital advance have been made and are being made in various ways by institutes, universities and websites. Countless researchers around the world have conducted research with arguments in Favor of or against this method of production, and as their research sources have been used in this article, some have considered this method of food production as a way to save humanity from the pollution of plants, vegetables, fruits and other agricultural products, the natural environment and human life, while others have not seen much difference between the two in the aforementioned areas and, considering the advances in traditional capitalist farming, encourage governments to continue to help and assist traditional dominant farming. The latest achievement in this field is a book by four Swedish researchers entitled “Den ekologiska drömmen”. The authors’ entire effort is to show that what farm capitalists do outside of what is called “their” is out of a sense of responsibility to provide food and essential nutrients for the billions of people on Earth! Nowhere in these studies, subsequent discussions, and colourful websites is the main motive and driving force of capitalism mentioned, namely, to obtain as much profit as possible and increase the accumulation of capital at the cost of threatening the health and lives of the productive workers and the vast majority of consumers. When international capital with a high organic composition invades all the fields of cultivation in the world to achieve the desired and ideal rate of profit, the more massive and unbridled production of capital changes the normal conditions of its evolution and this time uses more harmful and dangerous substances with greater unbridled Ness and recklessness. If not so long ago we were browsing the pages of these websites, institutes, and researchers and among their lines we would encounter some criticism and complaints about the use of chemicals in food, the depletion of soil essential for plants, and the unbridled corruption of nature, today this is no longer the case, and what exists is a response to this or that capitalist method of agriculture. Many of these researchers recommend this or that crop, this or that natural or synthetic toxic substance to capitalists, unaware that the conditions for capital reproduction are becoming increasingly difficult, and that the recommendations are worthless if they do not have a place in the cycle of further accumulation and higher profits for capital.
During the 19th century, agricultural production made progress in increasing labour productivity per hectare of land (barley production rose from 1 ton to 1.3 tons per year by the end of the century, Figure 1). Despite this, agriculture was still associated with a lack of harvest (labour productivity). One reason was that, despite the addition of nitrogenous fertilizers, the lack of phosphate in the soil caused it to become acidic. The breakdown and separation of soil salts (due to climate change), because the source of plant nutrients is very slow, and the amount of material separated cannot prevent the depletion of the soil of minerals. For this reason, the cultivation of legumes (legumes such as beans, lentils, peas, etc.) and clover, which convert atmospheric nitrogen into a source of protein and thereby increase soil nitrogen, was one of the most important sources of soil nitrogen conservation until 1950 and was very similar to today’s organic agriculture. Of course, it should be noted that here (Figure 1) we have only dealt with a part of the labour productivity in relation to arable land, while the total labour productivity, which includes the reduction of labour and the simultaneous reduction of the cultivated area, will be a figure higher than these, as we will discuss later in this text.
If we were to divide the agricultural periods of Sweden and Europe into different periods in terms of land productivity techniques (in this entire text I deliberately avoid mentioning other factors such as the use of machinery and other parameters that have helped increase labour productivity in the field of agriculture and focus all my efforts on specific aspects that differentiate between traditional and organic farming), it would look like this:
1. The technique of burning forests and agricultural lands to increase soil fertility (agriculture along the great rivers of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Ganges, and Yellow Rivers was based on another) from 1000 BC to 1800 AD.
2. Animal manure technique 1700-1800: A harvesting system that feeds animals with its surplus and forest additions and returns their waste to agricultural land.
3. Technique of periodic use of planting legumes, clover and alfalfa to produce protein and increase soil nitrogen 1800-1950.
4. Techniques for producing fertilizers containing mineral salts (chemical fertilizers) from 1900 to the present.
Through animal manure, some of the necessary and lost soil nutrients are returned to agricultural land, but without investment in adding nutrients to the soil in the capitalist mass production system, this deficiency is irreparable. The production of mineral fertilizers has increased significantly since 1950.
This fertilizer was discovered in 1840 by a German chemist (his theory was that plant growth could be achieved without soil, simply by adding a small amount of mineral matter to the water). Plants and good agricultural soil need two types of mineral matter:
Macronutrients include phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), sodium (Na). Micronutrients include fluorine (Fluor), copper (Cu), selenium (Se), manganese (Mn), iodine (I), molybdenum (Mo), and chromium (Cr). Of course, chemical fertilizers do not necessarily always include all of these materials because most of them are very expensive to produce and add. Therefore, traditional capitalist agriculture only focuses on the needs and productivity of the plant and not the quality of the soil and the compensation of its lost materials. In this way, with the production of chemical fertilizers, the need for animal manure was reduced, so that keeping animals in the fields and gardens became unnecessary and the need for both disappeared. Land productivity increased simultaneously with fertilizer production and consumption (Figure 1)1,2 so that from 1950 to 2012, total agricultural productivity increased from 2,200 kg of barley per hectare in 1950 to 4,400 kg in 2012.
After the Second Imperialist War, agricultural production underwent major changes, and the increase in labour productivity led to the expansion of large-scale agriculture. Huge fields were ploughed, planted, and harvested by giant machines. The irrigation system was developed, and water supply obstacles were eliminated. With the expansion of agricultural land, the distance between cultivated lands and running waters and lakes became shorter, and conditions for environmental destruction became more favourable than ever. Mass production of agricultural products made it necessary to preserve, store, and extend the life of goods to preserve their inherent value-added, and thus agricultural pesticides entered the field of production, packaging, and distribution. At the same time, environmental problems in agriculture increased. The depletion of essential nutrients in the soil, the unilateral compensation of these nutrients by chemical fertilizers, which causes an imbalance in the soil content, the spread of toxic substances in the agricultural and biological environment, the toxic contamination of agricultural products, along with the reduction in the quality of their contents, led to the growth of protests by the masses of workers, producers and consumers. This fear fell on the capitalists that perhaps the economic circulation would be disrupted or even the speed of capital accumulation would be slightly reduced, a period of bankruptcy would occur, and the public credibility of capitalism would decrease. It was here that all capitalists became lovers of the environment, the health of workers and the production of healthy goods! Such reconciliation of conflicting class interests with each other can only happen when the ruling class understands its own disadvantage. In order to dispel any suspicion that capitalism produces toxins, pollutes society and nature, something must be done to gain confidence in capitalist production in the agricultural sector. The two weaknesses (strengths) of traditional capitalist agriculture, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, became the platform for organic agriculture, the seeds of which were planted early in the last century. Avoiding these two became the fundamental principle of this field of agro capitalism.
One of the important results of the transformation of traditional agriculture based on chemical fertilizers, which eliminated the need for animal fertilizers, was the expansion of the division of labour in agriculture. In this way, farmland became specialized for certain crops (specific chemical fertilizers for specific crops) and animal husbandry was separated from plant agriculture, or in fact, the capital invested in agriculture did not require the maintenance of animals and their fertilizers, and on the other hand, the production of chemical fertilizers itself opened up a new area for capital. So that this area began to mass produce this commodity without the direct intervention of industrial agriculture. These major developments led to an ever-increasing increase in labour productivity in the production of plant, livestock, and fruit products. However, the destructive effects of traditional agricultural production that led to the growth of organic agriculture created a foundation for the use of animal manure, limited and controlled use of antibiotics, the use of natural toxic substances (I will address this), limited and controlled use of chemical poisons, limited use of chemical fertilizers, and the creation of plant dams to prevent the fallout and spread of toxins and organic agricultural surpluses into watersheds and lakes. In this way, organic farming entered the field with the claim of preserving the natural environment, diversity in nature and reducing toxins in the environment, and for this reason, organizations were created in Europe and America to control and organize this area of agricultural production. Later, these ideas were supplemented with other goals such as controlling the use of land reserves, increasing the capacity of energy use, reducing the destructive effects of climate change, preserving the diversity of nature and regulating the rules for keeping and raising animals based on the ecosystem. At the global level, the organization (IFOAM: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) and in Sweden, the private organization (KRAV) were established, which is also the body that controls the rules and agreements of membership and the production of organic agricultural products. Now let’s see what these beautiful promises and dreams became in practice and what they did in the realm of capitalist organic farming. A look at the goals and functions of organic agriculture easily takes us back to the early nineteenth century, a period when agriculture and animal husbandry were still in an organic relationship, the dimensions of agricultural land were limited, and the use of machinery was still in its infancy. These are not negative factors in themselves, as they are accompanied by healthier crops, a better environment, and many other valuable positive outcomes. But capitalist production relations, as in traditional agricultural production, counteract the decline in the rate of profit by expanding the social division of labour, increasing labour productivity, increasing the area under cultivation, and reducing the need for labour. Such a trend is inevitable in organic agriculture because this field, like all capital-advancing fields, follows the laws of capitalist commodity production. For this reason, this field is also forced to follow a trend that works against these ideas, not based on beautiful, humanitarian, and nature-friendly ideas, but on the basis of hard reality.
Until 1989, Sweden was almost food-independent, but since then it has become increasingly dependent on imports of food such as red meat, pork and vegetables, a result of the division of labour in agriculture, in which no country is independent of other markets. The increase in global agricultural production is 1% per year (Sweden is slightly less, Table 1) 1, while the world’s annual demand is increasing by 2% per year. The increase in the area under organic farming has increased by nearly 2.5 times in ten years, covering about 15.1% of the total cultivated land in 2012 (Figure 2).1 However, this does not mean that the labour productivity of this sector of agro-capitalism has increased, as Figure 14 shows, this sector has experienced a decrease in labour productivity compared to conventional agriculture. Organic farming production at best (including all products) is only 50% of conventional farming per hectare per year. According to the figures from Statistics Sweden (SCB) shown in Figure 3 1, only 40% of this total is conventionally cultivated, and the high figures for clover and legumes (which show themselves to be close to conventionally cultivated figures) are only the result of planting these crops to produce nitrogen-rich soil in more consecutive periods than in conventional agriculture. Whereas the production of these same crops in conventional agriculture does not arise from the need to add nitrogen-rich soil to the soil and is simply produced for sale, like other commodities in this sector.
| 1982-1990 | 2000- 2010 | Growth per year % | |
| Winter wheat | 5500 | 6200 | 0.55 |
| Barley | 3600 | 4200 | 0.70 |
| Wheat | 3600 | 3900 | 0.35 |
Figure 1 Growth in agricultural productivity in Sweden over two centuries 1,2
Figure 2 Organic farming area in 2013 was 15.1% of total Swedish agricultural land1
Figure 3. Production of some agricultural products in 2008 (kilograms of dry matter per hectare)1
Figure 4. Winter wheat production over ten years in kilograms per hectare1
After this introduction I will enter into the subject of the contents of agricultural products in these two areas of production and we will look at these products not as they should be but only in comparison with each other. But capitalist agricultural production has never been able and cannot provide a suitable formulation to prevent the reduction of the necessary soil materials for food products with the right content, the realization of this goal is not possible without giving up large investments in this area, which is the red line of the wage slavery system. Although it is the first option to avoid the destruction of human health. It is clear that the development of labour productivity in the agricultural unit with the aim of increasing profits as much as possible or preventing a decrease in the rate of profit does not lead to a solution to this problem and as a result the health of the workers will always and continuously be at the greatest risk. If mineral substances in the soil are reduced, their deficiency should also be evident in plants, but the owners of capital prevent this by sacrificing human health and resorting to the use of harmful substances. For capitalist agriculture is only compatible with the mass production of goods and greater profits, with a quantity of profit-making and not with a content of health-giving. In order to arrive at the reasons for this, which is an undeniable fact today, let us go back to the distant past, to the time when agriculture was carried out along the great rivers of the Nile, the Ganges, the Yellow River of China, and the Tigris and Euphrates. When mineral substances were washed from the mountains and, together with the flow of the great rivers, left new and compensatory substances on the delta bed and banks. At that time, agricultural products maintained their quality in terms of content, and from time to time, man enriched the land through natural fertilizers such as human and animal waste. Now, even if capitalist agriculture, assuming it is impossible, wants to return about 60 different minerals to agricultural land, the long process of these materials being incorporated into the soil chemicals and the process of plant absorption takes about 5 to 10 years, and in this case, no capital will tolerate such a long circulation process in a world where the speed of capital turnover is a vital condition for the survival of the system. Buying organically grown products is sometimes done with the idea that these materials have a better nutritional content, a higher percentage of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, and that the production of products is done in a natural environment that is better for animals and more suitable for humans. The reality is that the only difference between traditional farming and organic farming is the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the former and animal manure and generally natural pesticides in the latter. The main question is whether these differences lead to differences in product quality and whether capitalist industrial agriculture, regardless of form, is anything other than a profit-driven pursuit of capital accumulation. What has been learned from research on these two commodity sectors is that more protein and nitrate are found in conventionally grown products than in organically grown products, and this is a result of the nitrogenous chemical fertilizers in conventionally grown products, while organic products contain more phosphate and less water. The higher phosphate is due to the lower plant density per unit area in this area, which in turn allows the plant to absorb more sunlight than in conventional farming, and this is one of the main reasons for the difference in agricultural productivity between the two areas, with the former only able to produce less than half the crop per unit area compared to the latter. The reason for the lower water requirement in organic farming is the smaller cells of the crops in this farming. The density of plants in conventional farming is a direct result of the use of chemical fertilizers. In addition, the greater absorption of sunlight in organic crops is the reason for the higher vitamin C content in these crops, while conventional crops, due to their high nitrate content, cause the formation of fats, vitamin A and carotenes. Carotenes, which number about 600 types, play an important role in the defence system of plants and humans. These substances, which are antioxidants, play an important defensive role in both plants and the human body. In addition, they are the main basis for the formation of vitamin A, and for this reason, traditionally cultivated products contain much higher amounts of these two substances per unit of product. Research also shows a direct relationship between high nitrate and higher percentage of vitamin B 3,4,5,6. I will not discuss secondary metabolites such as phenols, terpenes, alkaloids, and flavonoids here because, apart from the fact that these substances are increased or decreased in plants, their role in foods is very complex and unknown so far. As can be seen from the above study, there is not much difference between these two areas of agricultural commodity production in terms of nutrient content, and what was revealed in this study is within the scope of comparing the two areas of capital investment in agricultural product production. However, extensive research into the overall content of agricultural products after the Second Imperialist War clearly shows a gradual and prolonged decline in the nutritional content of these products (Figure 5)8.
Figure 5 percent decrease in contents (protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, vitamin A, vitamin B2, and vitamin C) in 43 crops harvested in the United States from 1950 to 1999. 8
Examining issues such as the content of agricultural soil and its impact on food, its relationship with the use of chemical fertilizers, spraying of agricultural products, the impact of acid rain, replacing destructive heavy metals with minerals needed by the body, and genetic modification of seeds (under the name of high-quality seeds) is an important and appropriate basis for discussing the destructive role of the capitalist system in the field of agriculture. The union of agriculture and industry has long been an obstacle to the natural function of the permanent fertility of the land, because until the development of the commodity economy, the main task of work was to meet the needs of life, and not to produce goods or accumulate capital. It is clear that increasing the productivity of labour in the agricultural unit with the aim of increasing profits and preventing a decrease in the rate of profit is also no way to solve the problem of the shortage of essential nutrients in agricultural products, and as a result, the health of workers will always and continuously be at the greatest risk. If the minerals in the soil are depleted, their deficiency should also be evident in the plants. Capitalist agriculture is only compatible with the mass production of goods and higher profits, the quantity of profit-making and not the content of health. Meanwhile, the emergence of capitalist organic farming has not only not helped to eliminate this disaster but has itself become a factor in the imbalance of soil and plant contents. Leaving aside factors such as the increase in weeds, the increase in animal feed production (because organic farming is in dire need of animal manure), the breeding and increase in plants with a higher defence system against insects, fungi and microorganisms, and finally the quantitative and qualitative expansion of agricultural pesticides in general (because not all conventional pesticides of traditional cultivation can be used in organic farming and new generations of pesticides must be created), which are inevitable prerequisites for obtaining maximum surplus value and increasing the rate of profit, overproduction in this agricultural sector, like in all other sectors, inevitably leads to capital accumulation. This is an inevitable consequence of the depletion of soil reserves of nutrients. The direct result of this practice is the reduction of minerals, vitamins and other essential substances in agricultural products (for more information on the role of various nutrients, including vitamins, minerals, proteins, hormones and other plant products and their reduction in plants and their products, see the book “Capitalism and Environmental Disasters, Volume 1, Chapter 2”). Traditional agricultural capitalists restore a small portion of the lost soil materials by annually adding chemical fertilizers, which mainly consist of nitrogen and phosphorus. The capitalist does not care about preserving all the soil resources because for him only the increased productivity of plants, which is evidence of increased labour productivity and the rise in the rate of surplus value, is important. In addition, compensating for all the lost soil contents requires huge costs, time and long waiting, which reduces the amount of profit and its rate falls. More importantly, the division of labour in the advanced field of traditional agriculture by regulating the amount, type and ratio of chemical fertilizers, which are determined based on the type of plant being cultivated, causes these fertilizers, which have high metabolic capabilities in the soil, to quickly enter the plant’s absorption system and provide the desired result for the capitalist. Meanwhile, organic farming, claiming to compensate for the essential soil materials, is limited to adding animal fertilizers, but these fertilizers are not capable of direct returns, and the long process of their incorporation into the chemical structure of the soil and their absorption by the plant requires time and huge capital that no capital can afford. This long process does not only include the absorption of essential soil materials but also includes returning them to the plant. So that it takes several decades for the process of absorption of materials into the soil chemical system and then decomposition and their absorption by the plant to be complete 9 and 10. For this reason, capitalism also becomes an impossible equation for organic farming, and therefore, in order to avoid the huge costs and long processes of adding animal manure and immediately planting and harvesting, this field is practically suffering the same fate as traditional farming, which results in a shortage of essential nutrients in agricultural products. In the meantime, there are limited periods when, after a long period of fertilization and harvesting, the absorption of the necessary substances into the soil and their subsequent decomposition and absorption into the plant are balanced, and some products accidentally contain a balanced combination of essential substances during a period. Leaving aside all the above points, the animal manure used in organic farming is generally purchased from traditional farming, and if the organic farmer does not simultaneously raise livestock on his farmland, soil depletion will occur more rapidly. 11, 12. Those capitalists in organic farming who use chemical fertilizers, traditional composts, and traditional animal feed (due to the shortage of these materials in organic farming), and their number is constantly increasing, are not in a better position in terms of soil content and plant products. 11, 13. The result of these processes is not only the depletion of the soil of the necessary nutrients for plants, but also the reduction of the productivity of organically cultivated land and, ultimately, the negative growth of the crop in this area. Even the cultivation of legumes (peas, beans, lentils and legumes in general) and clover (including 18,000 different species), which have a system of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in their roots and convert free nitrogen from the air (the Earth’s atmosphere contains more than 75% nitrogen) into valuable nitrogen-containing substances, does not help to solve the problem. Because part of the absorbed nitrogenous substances that are dispersed on the surface of agricultural soils through threshing, residues, and compost of these plants decompose quickly, are sometimes washed away by rainwater and irrigation, and sometimes evaporate. What remains is neither sufficient nor predictable in terms of quantity and therefore is not reliable in calculations for evaluating and increasing the fertility of land for capitalist cultivation 15,16,17. Thus, after 40 years in the field of agricultural production, organic capitalist agriculture has still not been able to create a production process that, like other areas of capitalist production, reliably converts the necessary materials into products. The traditional cultivation production process not only provides the necessary confidence to investors but has also succeeded in increasing labour productivity in its field step by step. For this reason, many organic producers turn to traditional fertilizers (chemical fertilizers) and use this fertilizer to create a more reliable production process for themselves. Because with the removal of organic livestock and agricultural products from the circulation, some of the essential soil materials are also removed from it forever, and animal manure is not enough for capitalist mass production to compensate for what has been removed from organic gardens and fields. Another issue that is said to separate these two areas of capital investment from each other and is one of the reasons for the establishment of organic farming is the use of chemical pesticides, which has been widely used in traditional farming since 1950. The residues of these substances in agricultural products are a direct result of this, and organic farming products are considered free from pesticides, especially chemical pesticides. But even organic products contain pesticides. In Europe, there are about 1800 registered natural pesticides. For example, pyrethrum, copper sulphate (Cu SO4) and mineral oils. The rules for using these substances vary from country to country. Pyrethrum is the sap of a flower and is used as an insecticide. This poison is as dangerous to fish and aquatic animals, birds and mammals as chemical pesticides. Copper sulphate, which is widely used against fungi in organic farming, causes a gradual increase in copper in the soil and disrupts its natural balance. Its increase in European vineyards has also caused soil poisoning and reduced the activity of living organisms and plants. Since these types of substances are less toxic than toxic chemical products, they are used in larger amounts (higher doses) to achieve the same result, and as a result, their destructive power is greater. The destructive effect of toxic substances, both natural and chemical, on living organisms depends entirely on the amount consumed and the toxicity of these substances. For this reason, if the toxicity of a substance is lower, a larger amount (higher dose) of it must be used to achieve the same level of effect. This is a natural law of pharmacology that is true for all drugs. One of the common methods of organic farming capitalism to avoid bearing the costs of reproducing a product attacked by pests is the use of pesticides, and this time the use of phytoncides, which are a natural phenomenon of the plants defines system against insects, fungi and other microorganisms. Man’s long acquaintance with these materials has opened the way for capitalists in this field of agricultural production to develop and select products that contain more of these materials. In the commodity economy and its highest phase of development, namely capitalist production, the products of human labour are traded on the basis of the socially necessary labour inherent in them. Here, exchange value is everything, but for commodities to be exchanged, they must also have use value. In capitalist agriculture, both traditional and organic, maintaining the same consumer value of the product in the production, storage and transportation processes is subject to many risks. Plant pests constitute the most important and influential part of these risks. In order to avoid bearing the costs of reproducing a product attacked by pests, the capitalist farmer takes the path of using pesticides. By doing so, he not only avoids the costs of reproducing but also minimizes the amount of waste and damage. In short, the unbridled use of the aforementioned pesticides is an integral part of the process of capital appreciation in the agricultural sector and a necessary condition for achieving the highest desired surplus values or profits. The foundation of capital’s work is based on the production of maximum goods with the minimum labour force, the extreme reduction of the cost of the various components of the fixed capital sector, the highest possible quality of goods, and the maximum competitiveness in the capitalist market. Ensuring all of this in capitalist industrial agricultural accumulation is tied to the widespread use of pesticides, and this general rule is true in both traditional and organic agricultural production. Solanine in potatoes and in tomatoes are examples of phytotoxicants (Table 2)19.
| Naturaltoxins | Type of poison | Foodstuff |
| Dopamine | Biogen amine | Vicia faba Beans |
| Tyramine | Biogen amine | Banana |
| Amygdalin | Cyanogen glukoside | Almond, stone fruit |
| Linamarin | Cyanogen glukoside | Beans, flax seeds |
| Solanine | Glykoalkaloids | Potato |
| Tomatine | Glykoalkaloids | Tomato |
| Safrole | Methylenedioxybenzene | Sassafras, black pepper |
| Myristicin | Methylenedioxybenzene | Jojoba, black pepper |
| Coffeine | methylated oxypurines | Coffee, tea |
| Theobromine | methylated oxypurines | Cocoa |
| Glycyrrhizin | Triterpenglykoside | Licorice |
Consuming organically grown potatoes, which contain much higher levels of plant pests, causes headaches, diarrhoea, and vomiting. Celery, which contains the toxic substance Psoralen (also found in parsley) to fight insects, causes skin sensitivity to ultraviolet rays, and a person who consumes celery and parsley containing this substance in excess develops skin allergy. After millions of years, the human body still has no mechanism to combat these toxins, so plant pests, whether they are produced artificially and chemically from a natural recipe or those that are naturally selected and strengthened to combat pests, are harmful to the human body and nature. In general, it should be said that resorting to the use of natural pesticides to combat pests is an integral part of the process of adding value to capital in the field of organic farming for the same reason that chemical pesticides work in traditional farming. Otherwise, the products in this field will not be sustainable and will not be able to compete with similar products. The natural defence of the plant is limited to a small amount of natural toxic substance that is proportional to the insects and the weight of the product. Selecting the type of product, improving and increasing the level of their natural poison, which is one of the techniques of organic agriculture, just like traditional cultivation, aims to increase the life of the product in the process of production, transportation and storage while maintaining the consumption value and thus the exchange value of the product. Meanwhile, the fact that the products of this field of cultivation are free from toxins is part of the advertising device for more sales. In 1990, three American researchers, by selecting 52 natural plant toxins and comparing them with chemical toxins on 54 mice, concluded that when the amount of these toxins is proportional to the weight of the animal, there is practically no difference between the two groups of toxins. As a result of the experiment, 27 mice (50%) developed cancer.
The results of many studies in Europe and America show that organic farmers are not satisfied with natural pesticides and, where necessary, they also use chemical pesticides. A large study in America between 1993 and 2002, testing more than 100,000 agricultural and livestock products in the field of traditional and organic farming, yielded results of pesticides remaining in the products of such varieties (Pesticide Data Program PDP). These tests used products such as apples, peaches, tomatoes, green peppers, fruits, vegetables, vegetable oils, dairy products, meat and poultry (Tables 3, 4 and 5). The same tests in the UK also showed similar results (Table 6). The most toxic substances found were chlorine compounds 21. In addition, the interaction of a set of pesticides and biocides used simultaneously in a product (Cocktail effect) and the side effects caused by the combination of these substances for living organisms, including humans, is another story that should be given the most attention. This issue is always kept hidden from the public, and most reports only talk about the harmful effects of the substances separately. The fact is that these substances increase the harmful effects of each other exponentially, and sometimes the toxicity resulting from their combination is hundreds of times greater than the harmful effects of all these substances individually. The issue is not only the presence of residues of several pesticides simultaneously in a product, but also the effect of the (Cocktail effect) of daily and even long-term consumption of different foods containing different pesticides and their accumulation in the body. So far, no one has mentioned the cumulative destructive effects (cocktail effect) of combining chemical pesticides with natural plant toxins (which are intentionally enhanced in organic farming to increase plant resistance), while it is entirely possible that this factor, just as it works with chemicals, will also increase the destructiveness of the combination of chemical pesticides and natural pesticides. Another issue is the use of toxins, even small amounts of which can cause hormonal changes and fetal complications. Their proliferation in nature, especially those with relatively long lifespans (ecological stability), causes numerous disorders affecting all living organisms. Although their presence in the human body is insignificant and their frequent circulation is due to their relatively long survival (they have a stable molecular structure and are mostly soluble in fats), they accumulate in nature and the body and continue to have their destructive effects over a long period of time, and at the same time, they can be increased in the human body in various ways (Biomagnification).
| Percent of organically grown goods | Percent of traditional cultivated goods | |
| Fruits | 18 | 51 |
| Vegetables | 18 | 44 |
| Meat and dairy | 18 | 46 |
The results of 2002 tests also show that 15% of organic products and 43% of conventionally grown products contained pesticide chemicals.
| Percent of organically grown goods | Percent of traditional cultivated goods | |
| Fruits | 25 | 53 |
| Vegetables | 15 | 51 |
| Meat and dairy | 15 | 43 |
Also, chemical pesticide residues in the relative comparison of these two areas of agricultural products in 2002 (in general, 23.6% of conventionally grown goods and 7.1% of organically grown goods contained multiple chemical pesticides).
| Product group | Type of poison | Ratio of toxin content in conventional to organic produce |
| Carrot | Iprodione | 1.22 |
| Carrot | Linuron | 0.33 |
| Carrot | Trifluralin | 0.84 |
| Celery | Chlorpyrifos | 1.84 |
| Celery | Chlorthalonil | 79.6 |
| Celery | Piperonyl butoxide | 0.63 |
| Peach | Dicofol | 0.35 |
| Peach | Fludioxonil | 1.08 |
| Peach | Phosmet | 7.45 |
| Pineapple | Carbaryl | 3.15 |
| Potato | Chlorpropham | 8.2 |
| Wheat | Chlormequat | 1.3 |
| Citrus fruits | Imazalil | 19.1 |
| Citrus fruits | 2-Phenylphenol | 2.7 |
| Dried fruit | Procymidone | 21.8 |
| Baby food | Hydrogenphosphide | 0.2 |
| Soybean | Chlomequat | 1.3 |
| Potato | Oxadixyl | 1.3 |
| Cucumber | Dithiocarbamate | 1.7 |
| Percent of organically grown goods | Percent of traditional cultivated goods | |
| Fruits | 7 | 50 |
| Baby food | 1 | 7 |
| Meat and dairy | 2 | 10 |
| Restaurant food | 5 | 32 |
| Vegetable food | 5 | 28 |
Research by two Polish researchers on fruits, vegetables, and ready-to-eat foods in European countries (including 27 countries plus Norway and Iceland) yielded similar results to those of American researchers, and even more disastrous results in some countries that consider themselves the flagships of capitalist organic farming (Germany) (Figure 6) 22.
Figure 6: Percent of fruits and vegetables contaminated with chemical toxins between 2002 and 2006 in Germany 22
Also, the growth in the use of chemical pesticides in both areas of agricultural capitalism exposes the lies and deception of capitalism (Figure 7). 22 The high figures of chemical pesticide content in organic farming reveal the secret of the deceit of this field of farming, in that these capitalists are not satisfied with chemical pesticides but also expose nature and humans to natural toxins.
Figure 7 percent growth in contamination of fruits and vegetables, both conventionally and organically grown, with chemical pesticides from 2002 to 2006 in Germany
In 2000, the US government (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) conducted a study on the level of organophosphate insecticide metabolites (OPMs) in the urine of preschool children. 26 The study examined products from both farming sectors. The researchers welcomed the results of the experiment, noting the lower levels of these metabolites in organically grown products, and expressed their satisfaction with these products in their conclusions (Figure 8). But a little attention to the important function of this group of pesticides (organophosphate insecticides), which account for about 70% of the total pesticide sales and use in the United States, clearly shows the callousness and criminal ruthlessness of capitalism, which even the presence of these deadly pests in the bodies of children does not create any mercy in their hearts. These pesticides are responsible for blocking the hormone acetylcholinesterase in the nervous system and destroying the nervous system of insects and of course humans. Even the very small presence of these hormonal substances in the bodies of children and their frequent circulation in their small organs has long-term destructive effects in the form of the emergence of various genetic and unknown diseases in their future. The whole purpose of capitalism in opening up the market and the field of organic farming is not to lose the added value produced by workers in general and in the agricultural sector in particular. Since the working masses who produce and consume these goods are fed up with the daily and constant assaults of capitalism on the natural environment, agricultural products, air, water, sea, food and living beings, the octopus of capital has been armed on a large scale and has pulled organic farming out of its sleeve to very demagoguery suggest that it has all the solutions and the means to save itself.
Figure 8 shows the amount (micrograms per Liter g/Lµ) of organophosphate pesticide metabolites in the urine of children 26.
DMP = dimethylphosphate, DMTP = dimethylthiophosphate, DMDTP = dimethyldithiophosphate
DEP = diethylphosphate, DETP = diethylthiophophate
To learn about the destructive effects of these substances, refer to the explanations in Appendix 1.
I have not yet seen a report on the effect of chemical pesticides mixed with natural substances such as what is discussed in relation to the cumulative effects of chemical pesticides under the name of Cocktail effect, but there is no reason to deny such a phenomenon when chemical pesticides are combined with natural anti-pest substances present in plants and organic cultivation techniques increase their role in protecting plants by consciously selecting these plants. The results of research that focuses solely on the destructive effect of individual chemical pesticides and the mutual and cumulative effect of their mixtures (Cocktail effect makes chemicals more toxic) in the detailed report of the European Commission (State of the art report on mixture toxicity executive summary 22 December 2009) commissioned by the Faculty of Pharmacy of the University of London and the practical and scientific cooperation of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, and other reports in this field clearly show that the increase in each of these substances does not mean the mathematical result of 1 + 1 = 2.
On the contrary, here we are faced with the coordinates of the exponential process of the Cocktail effect, meaning 1+1=4 (Figure 9 shows the destructive effects of individual substances on the left side of the table and the mutual and increased effects of their sum on the right side of the figure as long columns). When these substances enter the body and the natural environment through various means such as food, contaminated water, medicines, cosmetics, clothing, shoes and polluted air and increase the destruction of each other exponentially (Figure 9), we are dealing with a scientific fact. It is a completely scientific fact that the same effects can be expected when chemical pests are mixed with natural pests 27,28.
Figure 9
Despite the use of natural and chemical pesticides in organic farming, this field is increasingly struggling with the destructive effects of weed growth in fields and their margins. A landscape that is increasingly becoming intertwined with organic farms and itself is reducing the productivity of labour in this field of cultivation. The extent of weed growth in these fields sometimes reaches the size of the cultivated area itself, a problem that demonstrates the inadequacy of mechanical control (weeding by hand or machine). Weeds compete with the crop for a wide range of resources, such as water, sunlight, soil material and the cultivated area, thereby reducing productivity. Weed roots compete with crop roots underground, and the increase in weed growth above ground leads to increased moisture. These events lead to the growth of fungi that target agricultural products. Figure 10 shows the growth of weeds in organic Swedish fields over a period of 16 years17.
Figure 10 The amount of weeds per hectare per year has averaged 1 ton in organic farming over 16 years, while it has remained constant at a negligible amount in conventional farming17.
Since the 1980s, the capitalists in the field of organic farming, along with all the colourful environmental parties and organizations that defend them, have been engaged in this demagoguery, as if they are paving the way for the survival of capitalism along with saving the environment and healthy agriculture!! They are supposedly paying attention to all environmental issues, from air, water, and land to human living conditions, and for this reason, they are constantly celebrating their honours. They dream of capturing the capitalist parliament and encroaching on all the organizations and departments of the capitalist state. However, the more they strengthen their bases of influence in the bureaucratic apparatus of the capitalist state, the less influence they have among the masses and the more their demagogic “environmentalist” facade crumbles, and the reason for this is clear. The main theme of organic farming is to defend the interests of the capitalists, to defend the material conditions necessary to ensure class domination and the further exploitation of the workers by this class, and to prevent any stoppage in the process of intensifying the exploitation of labour in agriculture. They entered European parliaments throughout Europe without lifting a finger or raising their voices in protest or fiery speeches, completely within the framework of the constitutions of these countries and maintaining the iron order of capital and also enjoyed the influence of government power. However, the main feature of the dynamic period of organic farming is not the parliamentary victories of the European green movements and groups, but the practical and fully economic development of organic farming based on market principles as a new field of capitalist production of industrial agriculture. Moving away from the aid and subsidies of the European capitalist states to this new field, the investors in this field operate according to the conventional principles of capitalism, namely, earning as much profit as possible and turning the parliamentary gimmicks of the greens into a lever of capital power. While the green utopians are spreading their erudite theories in the European parliamentary trumpets that their efforts have led to the discovery of the field of organic farming! And while they have nothing to do but weave empty reactionary ideals, they present a completely false image of this field of production and try to install this image in people’s minds instead of the reality. The capitalists and farmers of this field of cultivation are doing their best to increase the efficiency of their work somewhat by using all possible tricks and tricks, such as the stealthy use of chemical fertilizers and the open and secret use of chemical pesticides. So it is right that capitalists in the field of organic farming attribute the preservation of their meagre 10 percent position in agricultural and livestock production, after nearly four decades, not to the lack of use of chemical pesticides, nor to the refusal to introduce new destructive substances called natural pesticides into the fields, the natural environment, and the food of workers, but to economic aid and government subsidies. Aids that have been received under the pretext of the impact of organic farming on improving living conditions and better water quality. Now we have to see if organic farming is as good for the environment as its advertising speakers claim? 29. As mentioned earlier, a plant needs at least 19 different types of minerals in order to grow and, in particular, to produce a product with enough minerals and nutrients. Capitalist agriculture, which operates only by producing mass goods and making more profits in order to accumulate more capital, has caused the depletion of these substances in agricultural soil, and no capital can compensate for all of them due to the high cost it requires. For this reason, traditional farmers restore some of the lost substances to agricultural soil by annually adding chemical fertilizers, which generally include nitrogen minerals (nitrates and ammonia) and a little phosphorus. This means that capitalists use agricultural soil as a place to transfer chemical fertilizers and not a reservoir for healthy plant growth. Since chemical fertilizers contain minerals, they are easily dissolved in water and absorbed by plants. In addition, the concentration of these substances is well known and determined, and for this reason, the owner of a traditional farm knows relatively accurately how much fertilizer is needed for the plant, depending on the type of plant. While he always chooses an amount in order to increase the productivity of the work, after the plant absorbs it, there is a residue left in the agricultural soil, and as a result, irrigation and rainwater, as well as acid rain (caused by fossil fuels), go to water bodies, deep waters and seas. This phenomenon (nitrogen leakage) is one of the most important factors in the destruction and destruction of seas and lakes and their depletion of living organisms. The reason for this is algal bloom and the reduction of oxygen in the water due to the increase in nitrogen and phosphate. Thus, the thirst of capital for more accumulation, which is only possible through mass production, is accompanied by the injection of more and more chemical fertilizers, which naturally increases the nitrogen in the soil. Capital’s environmental spokesmen have repeatedly stated with bourgeois arrogance that the organic farming method, in terms of the use of animal manure, manure from slaughterhouses and composts, has solved the problem of nitrogen leakage into the water. Many studies in Sweden and other countries prove the opposite. As can be seen from Table 7, nitrogen leaching from organic farms is 1.36 times higher than from conventional farms (34 versus 25 kg/ha per year, I will explain why later). In addition, as already mentioned, labour productivity in organic farms is much lower than in conventional farms (2.0 versus 6.1 tons per hectare per year, Table 7). As a result, nitrogen leaching from organic farms is four times higher per ton of crop than from conventional farms (17 versus 4.1 kg of nitrogen leached per ton of crop) and if we were to produce the same amount of crop per hectare as conventional farming, more than four times as much nitrogen would be leached into the environment from organic farming per hectare of organic farming (103.7 versus 25 kg of nitrogen). And this means that the natural environment and waters that have become dead and lifeless from traditional farming will be subjected to a more brutal attack, and organic farming will add pain to human suffering. The reason for this is that animal manure (stable manure), manure from slaughterhouses and composts used in organic farming act completely opposite to chemical fertilizers for two reasons. First, they contain organic matter, and their common property is that they are soluble in fats and therefore are slowly absorbed by the soil through water, and as a result, are absorbed by the plant in long processes, which is contrary to the solubility of chemical fertilizers in water. Secondly, unlike chemical fertilizers, which are factory-made products with a certain standard and concentration, animal manure and compost cannot have a standard, so the organic farmer injects them into the soil based on guesswork. In all cases, these fertilizers remain in the soil in large quantities after harvest and are washed away by rainwater and irrigation systems long after harvest, ending up in the seas and waterways.
In other words, these fertilizers do not have a chance to metabolize with the agricultural soil because before the metabolism is complete, the plant has grown and become a crop. Therefore, all the advertising of this field of cultivation and its parliamentary supporters is nothing more than a big lie because on the one hand, this field of cultivation also delivers a product similar to the same traditional crops to the mass of workers and consumers (this issue was explained at the beginning of this article) and on the other hand, the injection of animal manure and composts is just a demagoguery of the environmental community and in practice these have very little effect on increasing the crop per hectare and actually cause an increase in nitrogen in streams and seas. 33,31,32.
| Product and nitrogen leaked per year | Organic farming | Traditional cultivation |
| Tons of crop per hectare | 2.0 | 6.1 |
| Nitrogen leached per hectare (kg) | 34 | 25 |
| Leaked nitrogen (kg per ton of product) | 17 | 4.1 |
| Nitrogen leakage if crop production is at the traditional cultivation rate (kilograms) | 103.7 | 25 |
| Nitrogen leaked into waters (mg/Liter of water) | 12 | 7 |
Table 7 Nitrogen leakage from organic and conventional crops in Sweden (figures given as annual averages over the six years between 2000 and 2006) 33,31,32.
Now it is not out of place to discuss the destructive effects of climate change and global warming on these two areas of agriculture. I have explained capitalist agriculture in general and its destructive effects on the increase in greenhouse gases in the book “Capitalism and Environmental Catastrophe, Volume 1, Chapter 1”. There, the figure of between 10 and 14 percent of greenhouse gases originating from agriculture is discussed, and this is not a small figure in relation to the effects of global warming, so it will be more important to go into detail and compare the destructive role of the two areas of traditional and organic capitalist farming (especially if this farming can exceed its current quota of about 10% of agricultural and livestock production). (Figure 10 shows the details of each of the gases in agriculture). First, I find it necessary to explain some more important points. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide (abbreviated as nitrous oxide N2O), and methane account for 98% of greenhouse gases. In terms of their effect on global warming (greenhouse effect), these gases differ greatly, with one kilogram of methane equal to 23 kilograms of carbon dioxide and one kilogram of nitrous oxide equal to 310 kilograms of carbon dioxide (these numbers are calculated based on the warming potential of these gases over a hundred years)34.
Figure 11 Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture35. Nitrous and methane gases from crop and livestock production account for 72%, carbon dioxide from agricultural land use for 11%, and gases from energy consumption of machinery, fertilizer production, animal feed, and heating of buildings for 17%.
As previously mentioned, the field of organic farming proudly took up as a banner of environmentalism all that traditional farming had abandoned as auxiliary materials in plant cultivation, especially after the Second World War, namely the use of animal manure, the cultivation of legumes to increase soil nitrogen, and the use of compost and harvest residues and their compensation with chemical fertilizers. Animal manures and composts, which are a source of energy for animals and soil microbes, and as a result of their activity, the nitrogen in them is converted into nitric acid and nitrates, producing nitrous gas as a by-product. This entire process requires oxygen, and therefore, due to the activity of these organisms, a decrease in oxygen in the soil is one of its side effects, and the creation of nitric acid and nitrates causes the soil and water to become acidic. When the soil suffers from a lack of oxygen, the nitrate production process decreases and the amount of nitrous gas increases. It should be noted that soil without agricultural intervention also carries processes of nitrous gas production, but agricultural and livestock production significantly increase its amount. This is relatively more the case in cultivation based on animal manure, composts and the like than in fertilizers based on nitrogenous mineral substances (chemical fertilizers). Furthermore, as mentioned in relation to the lower productivity of organic cultivation, plants absorb less nitrogen from these types of fertilizers (because these fertilizers do not have a chance to absorb the soil and then be absorbed by the roots in the short life of the plant), as a result, the remaining animal manure, compost and the like in the soil after harvesting, as a result of the continued activity of soil microorganisms, leads to an increase in nitrous gas and nitrates. Thus, a significant portion of the 72% of nitrous oxide and methane in Figure 11 is relatively organic farming. Methane is another greenhouse gas that is produced in connection with plant cultivation and livestock farming through the decay of organic matter, animal and plant waste in conditions of oxygen deficiency. Livestock produce large amounts of methane gas when feeding, ruminating and digesting food. In this case, the lower the animal’s productivity, the higher the methane gas production. In addition, a significant portion of animal manure and slaughterhouse waste comes from traditional farming and animal husbandry, which complicates the comparison of these two areas of investment in agriculture and how both areas contribute to environmental degradation. However, agricultural production also helps absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through plant growth, and this process ultimately enables the conversion of carbon into humus, which plays an important role in the fertility system, the activity of living organisms, and the absorption and excretion of soil nutrients. All of this process, which maintains agricultural soil, leads to a reduction in the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The role of nitrogen and its compounds in the human body is not hidden from anyone. In addition to participating in the construction of proteins, hormones and other vital molecules of the body, this element plays an important role in the growth of plants and the activity of soil microorganisms. However, this element, when it enters the atmosphere in the form of nitrous gas, is a destructive factor like other greenhouse gases. When producing chemical fertilizers (nitrates and ammonia), some carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides such as nitrous are formed as by-products. According to laboratory calculations, 1.7 kilograms of carbon dioxide are emitted for every kilogram of chemical fertilizer. It is said that organic farming, using cereals and clover to increase soil nitrogen, on the one hand increases leaf soil (humus) and on the other hand, by capturing nitrogen from the air and converting it into nitrogen-containing materials for the soil, it acts exactly the opposite of traditional farming, meaning that in contrast to the production of these plants, which must be harvested as fertilizer and compost and added to the agricultural soil for organic farming the following year, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, they provide nitrogen to the soil. (2.5 kilograms of atmospheric carbon dioxide are absorbed for every kilogram of nitrogenous fertilizer.) But this is just the surface of the problem. In fact, organic farming, in addition to being much less productive than traditional farming, also has to pay for a year of no cultivation and loss of crop out of pocket, and these two together reduce the productivity of this production area so much that it makes it necessary to bring more land under cultivation. While traditional capitalist farming has long been associated with increasing labour productivity per hectare of land, reducing the amount of land under cultivation, and reducing the need for labour, organic farming requires more labour by bringing more land under cultivation, which means reducing its labour productivity, as a comparison of Table 2 and Table 4 clearly shows. Government agencies report every year or every so often on the increase in the area under organic farming, and we know that in agriculture, the amount of land under cultivation cannot be increased without more seed and fertilizer, and this only means increasing the costs of producing the same amount of goods. The use of modern machinery in agriculture certainly expands the area of land under cultivation, while making workers redundant, in other words, machinery replaces the living labour of the working masses as the embodied labour of their labourer’s. New techniques of cultivation, management, and harvesting, such as the planning of chemical fertilizers, the increase in labour productivity in this way, and the greater unification of agriculture and industry, do the same. They increase the organic composition of capital, and as we see, much fewer workers are using the capital of the police in agriculture and animal husbandry. While traditional farming constantly reduces its need for land and labour while increasing production, capitalist organic farming implies an increase in the area under cultivation, more workers, and more capital in the form of auxiliary and primary materials. This contradicts the principles of capital’s work, leading to the bankruptcy of the capital in this field, and one must therefore seriously doubt the reality of what investors in this field say about their commitment to ensuring the production of healthy materials. The number of agricultural workers in Sweden fell significantly in the 1950s and 1960s compared to the pre-war period. This trend intensified later, so that by 1981 the number of agricultural workers had fallen to just over a quarter of the 1950 level. By 2010, a third of these workers had disappeared from agricultural production, meaning that the number of agricultural workers in 2010 was only 20% of the number in 1950. There have also been major changes in the area under cultivation. In 1919, the area under cultivation in Sweden was 3.8 million hectares, and this figure had fallen to 2.6 million hectares in 2010, which means that in this year the area under cultivation in Sweden was two-thirds of what it was at the beginning of the last century. At the end of the last century, agriculture saw a three-fold increase in productivity. Now, if we convert all the figures into mathematical factors to calculate this increase, it will be as follows: 5 for the reduction of labour, 3 for land productivity, and 1.5 for the reduction of cultivated land. To calculate the total labour productivity, these factors must be multiplied together because here the collective effect of the factors is more than their sum. The product will be equal to 22.5, which means that labour productivity in agriculture has been approximately 22 times higher than at the beginning of the last century. In this calculation, we have not taken into account factors such as the division of labour in agriculture, which has had a major impact, especially after 1950. The division of labour, for example, has separated livestock from plant cultivation and has also turned the production of animal feed into a separate branch, so that the great country of Argentina has become the largest producer of soybeans. All this, in the light of discoveries and inventions, large and small, and more or less large advances in chemical, plant and animal science, has brought capitalism to this point. The figures given here are from the 36th Yearbook of agricultural statistics 2013 including food statistics, Statistics of Sweden. I have given an example of this growth in Figure 1, which is the evolution of labour productivity in barley production in Sweden over two centuries. These real data lead us to the conclusion that looking at the traditional capitalist agricultural sector is nothing more than a normal capitalist event, except that these events have been occurring for years and even centuries. In this sphere, as in other cases, capitalism compensates for the decline in the rate of profit by increasing the volume of production, making workers unemployed, increasing the surplus value resulting from their exploitation in a shorter time unit, reducing wages, and ruining the millions of workers. Agricultural capitalism does not stop at this, and since, like other spheres of advance, its goal is not to satisfy the needs of the masses but to produce profit, the goal of capital is not the proportion between production and human needs, but rather the proportion of unpaid labour (surplus value) to total capital, that is, the rate of profit under certain conditions. In addition, organic farming is struggling with the problem of small production, and as agricultural land shrinks, its productivity decreases in proportion. The use of agricultural machinery on such land, division of labour, construction of water supply facilities, transportation of goods, etc. become increasingly impossible and costly. The marginal costs of cultivation increase in proportion to the shrinking of land, investment in land decreases, and ultimately reduces labour productivity. Low labour productivity in organic farming leads to reduced profits and annual losses for the owners of capital in this field, but they are not the ones who pay for the losses, but these losses are compensated in several ways. First, capitalist governments compensate for part of the losses through a system of cash grants and subsidies. But these economic grants in question are actually paid first of all from the pockets of the vast majority of the working masses of these countries. They return a significant part of their paid labour to the pockets of the capitalists through increased direct and indirect taxes. The Swedish government annually pays 500 million kronor in cash assistance from the workers’ pockets to this area and at the same time declares that there is no danger to capital. Meanwhile, the state apparatus of capital adds another medal to its honours as a protector of the environment, healthy agricultural products, and the saviour of humanity.30,29. On the other hand, there is no Chinese wall between these two areas of capital advance. For example, in the case of livestock farming and meat and milk production, both areas enjoy almost the same conditions throughout Europe. Here, traditional producers easily enter the competition as organic producers and enjoy state privileges and aid. The reason for this is very simple: some of these meat and milk producers provide their animals with food on their own farms and from the cultivation of clover and legumes, which do not require pesticides. They also use the weeds from their fields as animal feed. By growing these plants, they also compensate for the nitrogen in the soil and do not need fertilizer because the grazing of mammals brings natural fertilizer to the soil. By labelling their products as organic, these capitalists receive a portion of the investment costs from government aid and subsidies, and in this way, they make ever larger investments. The scale of the companies operating in this sector is as large as that of conventional livestock companies, and it is the only growing and profitable segment of organic production. However, despite this channel of interaction between the two fields, the market share of organic products in this sector has not exceeded 20% 36,37. The same is not true for pork and poultry, which require a different type of feed (grain is the most important food for these animals), and there is no growth in this segment of organic livestock production. Another type of transition is the opposite. An organic farmer whose fields are overrun with weeds will switch to conventional farming over time to get rid of the weeds with the help of pesticides. In this way, an organic farmer in Europe will live for a few years with high production without the benefits of government subsidies and then perhaps return to organic farming and generous government subsidies. 38 Another type of return of an organic farmer to conventional farming is to buy conventional seed. European laws prohibit the use of conventional seed in organic farms, and since organic seed is selected based on a specific characteristic (this seed must be able to be somewhat resistant to pests even after planting and harvesting), for this reason, the organic farmer, who faces many difficulties in obtaining organic seed, including the high cost and scarcity of this type of seed or the possibility of it spoiling due to being left in storage, chooses his preferred way. He bypasses the system and uses conventional seed in his field! Another compensation for the profit shortfalls in the organic farming sector is the high price of these products that consumers must pay, and this is also a negative factor in gaining market share in the sale of agricultural products. It hangs like the sword of Damocles over the heads of capitalists in this sector, and it does not seem that its risks will decrease in the near future. I would very much like to have statistics on the number of workers employed in organic farming, as they are in conventional farming, so that these two fields can be compared in a real way. Unfortunately, the figures that exist are very confusing and misleading. In addition, governments, municipalities, and research institutes provide capitalists with a huge army of completely free labour force of high school and university students, so that capitalists can maximize their profits and capital by exploiting this huge force at will in tasks such as levelling the land, weeding, and collecting rocks, or conducting expensive research.