• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >Les nouvelles expériences du monde socialiste ou les raisons d'un colloque sur « Agriculture et développement socialiste »
【2h】

Les nouvelles expériences du monde socialiste ou les raisons d'un colloque sur « Agriculture et développement socialiste »

机译：社会主义世界的新经验或召开“农业与社会主义发展”座谈会的理由

页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The recent experience of the socialist world, or the reasons for a symposium on Socialist agriculture and development - At the invitation of Prof. W. Schmidt of the well-known Humbolt University in East Berlin, a delegation of rural economists from the SFER visited the GDR in October 1974. Thorough visits of the agri-business combinats in the province of Rostock enabled them to understand the the problems and to see the changes under way in farming in the socialist countries. A delegation of colleagues from the GDR later visited France at our invitation and these different socialist experiences (Germany, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Jugoslavia) were compared at a symposium organized by the SFER in Montpellier from 24-26 September, 1975. It is with pleasure that Economie Rurale in nos. 111 and 112 reviews the discussions which took place at the Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen, whose Director is our President, L. Malassis. We would like to thank our foreign colleagues for their active and constructive participation, Profs. Schmidt and Rohde from Berlin, Prof. K. Bajan from Warsaw, Prof. Florea from Bucarest, Prof. Guorguiev and Mrs Koleva from Sofia and Prof. Radovic from Belgrade, and our French colleagues who are specialists in these problems. A few remarks will show that it is time we abandoned our old preconceptions to see what is really at stake in the experiments and realizations being carried out in these countries. The organization models in the agri-business sector as they exist today, seem much more diversified than Western economist usually think. These differences are not explained only by geographical conditions but above all by changes in the ideology behind the models of collectivization. The technical and productivist attitude adopted until today to lay the foundations of industry in the service of the people, required that agriculture should be a source of accumulation for the rest of society. Farming had to be mechanized to release labour for the towns, to drain off the surplus value for industry, to feed citydwellers cheaply and to ensure food supplies for the towns. Since 1960, a great variety of models have been developed, ranging from complexes of unprecedented size, like those in the GDR, Rumania, Bulgaria, Jugoslavia, to ingenious forms of peasant cooperatives (Poland). The processes of vertical and horizontal integration, the high degree of specialization, the extreme concentration of the production units (models of dairy stables of 4000 cows !) which not only are in harmony with new socialist conceptions of society but also modify the fundamental terms of the relationship between farming and the rest of society. These changes pose formidable problems ; the industrialized processes thus set up, considerably increase the vulnerability of these agri-business systems, which are a totally new departure from the old form of semi-autarchic peasant economy, and are becoming dependent on foreign trade and thus suffering the full effects of the recession in capitalist countries. The Soviet choice of a stock-breeding model based on cereals and soja, like the American model, underlines these constraints and becomes a factor of change. The agri-business sector is no longer a source of accumulation. Its growth is increasingly « subsidized » by the rest of the nation. The high capital cost of the industrial-type units, Stade aid for investment, credit based on urban savings, a reduction in the difference between farm purchase price and retail price — all these factors contribute to a complete reversal of the situation. This is probably the price the socialist societies will have to pay to ensure equality of income and living conditions between workers in town and country. The Jugoslavian experience of « self -management » in its vast combinats opens new perspectives for decision techniques in centralized socialist economies. This involves the question of the control and sharing of the surplus value. Real decision-making power is thus obtained by the workers who decide democratically with the bureaucratic technistructure how the « profits » should be shared between investment and immediate consumption. This reconsideration of the division of labour between the sectors leads to the setting-up of complex firms, difficult to manage well. The problem of the quality of the managers is now posed. The days of specialized brigade leaders and «commanders of production», unaware of human problems, are over. These complex firms need the individual's full agreement with group decisions and the group's openness to the creative aspirations and genuis of individuals. As one observes all these developments one cannot help asking whether the socialist world of tomorrow will still be built with « peasants » or not, in other words, with people who over the centuries have been the great country- planners, the creators of our familiar landscapes, the great developers of natural resources, indispensible to maintain life. What has become of the dream of the « garden-city » ? What price must be paid to equip the country-side like the towns and avoid the desertification to be seen in capitalist countries ? What kind of decentralization of power is possible or desirable to encourage individual and collective creativity in future in socialist countries ? These discussions have convinced us that a comparison between capitalist and socialist societies cannot only be made quantitatively. The main question is human happiness and in this struggle for life, judgment will be made with reference to the global aspects of « all » life — the level of consumption but also the degree of participation, ability to create, the quality of justice. There remains the whole problem of relations between industrialized societies and the rest of the world, more or less developing countries. Will the socialist countries agriculture ; like that of capitalist countries, become the predator of the world ecosystem ? Will it also become a consumer of the energy resources of the Southern countries ? These questions are beyond us today, but we, citizens of the dominant countries, can no longer ignore them. Efficient models of biologico-chemical production are still to be invented... that will provide an exciting task for the future.
机译：社会主义世界的最新经验，或召开社会主义农业与发展座谈会的理由-应东柏林著名的洪堡大学W. Schmidt教授的邀请，来自SFER的农村经济学家代表团访问了1974年10月，德国民主共和国（GDR）对罗斯托克省的农业综合企业进行了全面访问，使他们了解了问题所在，并看到了社会主义国家农业的发展变化。 GDR的一个代表团随后应我们的邀请访问了法国，并于1975年9月24日至26日在蒙彼利埃举行的SFER组织的座谈会上比较了这些不同的社会主义经历（德国，波兰，罗马尼亚，保加利亚，南斯拉夫）。很高兴获得Economie Rurale的成绩。 111和112回顾了Méditerranéen农学研究所所进行的讨论，该研究所所长是我们的主席L. Malassis。我们要感谢外国同事的积极和建设性的参与。来自柏林的Schmidt和Rohde，来自华沙的K. Bajan教授，来自布加勒斯特的Florea教授，来自索非亚的Guorguiev教授和Koleva夫人，以及来自贝尔格莱德的Radovic教授，以及我们的法国同事，他们都是这些问题的专家。几句话将表明，是时候我们放弃我们的旧观念了，看看在这些国家进行的实验和实现中真正要害的是什么。如今，该组织在农业综合企业中的模型似乎比西方经济学家通常认为的更为多样化。这些差异不仅可以通过地理条件来解释，而且可以通过集体化模型背后的意识形态变化来解释。直到今天，以技术和生产主义的态度为工业为人民服务奠定了基础，要求农业应该成为社会其他阶层积累的来源。必须机械化耕作，为城镇释放劳动力，消耗工业剩余价值，廉价地为城镇居民提供食物，并确保城镇的粮食供应。自1960年以来，已经开发了各种各样的模型，其规模从空前规模的综合体，如东德，罗马尼亚，保加利亚，南斯拉夫的综合体，到精巧的农民合作社形式（波兰）。纵向和横向整合的过程，高度专业化，生产单位的高度集中（4000头奶牛场的模型！），这不仅与社会主义的新社会观念相一致，而且改变了社会主义的基本术语。农业与社会其他阶层之间的关系。这些变化带来了巨大的问题;这样建立的工业化流程大大增加了这些农业综合企业系统的脆弱性，这些农业经济系统是与旧形式的半专制农民经济形式完全不同的，并且正变得依赖于对外贸易，因此遭受了农业的全部影响。资本主义国家的衰退。苏联选择基于谷物和大豆的畜牧业模式，就像美国的模式一样，突显了这些限制，并成为变化的因素。农业企业部门不再是积累的来源。它的增长越来越受到美国其他地区的“补贴”。工业型单位的高资本成本，施塔德（Stade）的投资援助，基于城市储蓄的信贷，减少了农场购买价格和零售价格之间的差异，所有这些因素都导致了情况的完全逆转。这可能是社会主义社会为确保城乡工人之间的收入和生活条件平等而必须付出的代价。南斯拉夫在其广泛的结合中的“自我管理”经验为集中社会主义经济中的决策技术开辟了新的视野。这涉及控制和分享剩余价值的问题。真正的决策权是由与官僚技术机构民主地决定如何在投资和即时消费之间分享“利润”的工人获得的。对部门之间分工的重新考虑导致建立了复杂的公司，难以管理。现在提出了管理人员素质的问题。不了解人类问题的专门旅领导和“生产指挥官”的时代已经过去。这些复杂的公司需要个人完全同意集体决策，并需要集体对个人的创意和才智开放。正如人们观察到的所有这些事态发展一样，人们不禁要问，明天的社会主义世界是否仍将由“农民”建立，换句话说，就是由几个世纪以来一直是伟大的国家计划者的人们，我们熟悉的创造者景观，自然资源的伟大开发者，维持生活必不可少。 “花园城市”的梦想变成了什么？为了像乡村一样装备乡村，并避免在资本主义国家看到荒漠化，必须付出什么代价？在未来的社会主义国家中，什么样的权力下放是可能的或可取的，以鼓励个人和集体的创造力？这些讨论使我们确信，资本主义社会与社会主义社会之间的比较不能仅是定量的。主要问题是人类的幸福，在这场争取生命的斗争中，将参照“所有”生命的全球方面做出判断，即消费水平，参与程度，创造能力和正义质量。仍然存在着工业化社会与世界其他国家或多或少发展中国家之间的关系的整个问题。社会主义国家愿意农业吗;像资本主义国家一样，成为世界生态系统的捕食者？它也会成为南方国家能源的消耗者吗？这些问题今天已经超出了我们的范围，但是我们这些占主导地位的国家的公民不再能够忽略它们。仍然需要发明有效的生物化学生产模型，这将为未来提供令人振奋的任务。

著录项

  • 作者

    Ph. Mainié;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 1976
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 fre
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号