>Large-scale industry and
>industrially pursued large-scale agriculture have the same effect. If they
>are originally distinguished by the fact that the former lays waste and
>ruins labour-power and thus the natural power of man, whereas the latter
>does the same to the natural power of the soil, they link up in the later
>course of development, since the industrial system applied to agriculture
>also enervates the workers there, while industry and trade for their part
>provide agriculture with the means of exhausting the soil.
Well, on this score Marx was plainly wrong. Yields in capitalist agriculture have not declined in the 160 or so years since Marx wrote this. On the contrary, they have increased exponentially. More shame on Marx since he understood why this should be so (see his letter to Annenkov on Prudhon's Philosophy of Poverty). There Marx explains that the application of scientific methods to agriculture will increase yields - which is what happened.
The barrier to agricultural output imposed by the capitalist system was that of undercapitalisation of farms in the developing world. That is why the famines tend to occur in the Third World rather than the First. -- James Heartfield The 'Death of the Subject' Explained is available at GBP11.00, plus GBP1.00 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'