Who Will Lead the Way?

The following program originated at Fairchild hall in the Michigan State University campus and comes to you through the cooperation of the National Association of educational broadcasters. You will hear three distinguished speakers as they contribute their thoughts on the problem of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. This program was the public policy part of Farmer's week at Michigan State University during 1960. The subject of the three speakers are introduced by Dr. Philip Foster of the Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University. This afternoon we will be considering the vital issue who will lead the way. The United States or the Soviet Union. As everyone here realizes the Soviet Union and the United States are engaged in a contest to influence the course of history. They fields in which this contest will take place are many diplomacy economic development propaganda perhaps even war.

More and more we are coming to recognize the tremendous importance of this contest. The whole world in fact seems to be watching us. Many who are watching the contest are frankly worried. Listen to what an Asian diplomat had to say a quiet meeting held in Washington last fall. I'll quote. America must consider its acts from the standpoint of its leadership from the standpoint of its leadership of the free world. Are you thinking of resigning that leadership. That's a serious question. What caused this diplomat to ask such a question. Some of the things he said later on during the speech I think will give us a clue. He spoke hurriedly for a while about our reluctance in the area of foreign aid and about traces of

isolationism which still linger in American thought. And then he said this. Perhaps you need to shift somewhat your basic ideology your priorities. Your goals. You are behind the Russians in the space race and I understand you are not catching up. You have hundreds of engineers and thousands of workers spend a vast treasure of time and money in redesigning your new motor cars every year. In building what you call planned obsolescence into your new products. Is this truly sound economics. He went on to say now that you face intensifying Soviet competition. Can't the American economy be mobilized so as to aim at more essential goals with its vast productive capacities.

That's the way one spectator views the challenge. Who will lead the way in the contest yet to come. Our three speakers today are eminently well qualified to discuss this challenge of who will lead the way in agriculture. And industry in technology and in the underdeveloped countries. The first of our speakers this afternoon is eminently well qualified to talk on his subject who will lead the way in agriculture. The United States. Or the Soviet Union or unself. Thank you very much. Fail.

When Tara was in this country he talked constantly about peaceful confrontation peaceful coexistence. Between what they call the two camps of communism and democratic capitalism peaceful coexistence. He said one speech means continuation of the struggle between the two social systems. But by peaceful means without war. We consider it to be an economic political and ideological struggle but not military. Bush. May be trying to pull the wool over our eyes with these remarks and disarm us. That's a possibility and it's a danger. On the other hand. Maybe Syria yes. The communists always

held that. Eventually there would be a violent clash between communist system and our own. And that communism of course would triumph. But lately there are signs that another Russian leaders. Maybe their views on this. They talk as though they realize a nuclear war is a futile operation. And that they now believe. That both communism and capitalism might collapse and be destroyed in such a conflict. And anyway they're so confident of the superiority of their system. They think they can win the peaceful competition. So why risk destroying the whole world. When they play their cards right. The world will fall when they're damaged.

And my friend Bob Garst farm in Iowa last fall. I sat across table from Khrushchev for about 40 minutes. And listened to I had Les Stevenson and. Some other people asking him questions I managed to get in a few Oh. Yes man bring confidence and assurance. He was most charming and engaging. He gave the impression of a man who sincerely wanted nothing but peace for mankind. Now if I try to tell you people. On the basis of this brief visit with Khrushchev that he was really a decent fellow. And sincerely wanted peaceful coexistence you probably. Wouldn't believe me. Americans aren't going to be taken in by talk of peace or talk of disarmament. They all insist

on remaining militarily strong until and unless the Russians agree to a reasonably dependable world disarmament program with international controls. But let's not permit the skeptical attitude which I think is a proper attitude to take. Let's not permit this attitude toward the Russians talk of peace to blind us to the very real nonmilitary contest for a world power. We do face we are facing intense competition from the Communists for economic and political influence in the world. And whatever the Soviet leaders really think about disarmament they do know better than us about economic competition. They're trying to demonstrate that their system is better. And that it can produce faster economic growth and a richer life for the people. We ignore this at our

peril. This is not a question of switching from military confrontation to peaceful economic competition. We must make this economic challenge regardless of what happens on the military side. The burden of my remarks today is that the United States has great practically unused resources for this kind of competition. The principal reason I still argue this is on the basis of the strength and vitality of American agriculture. That is this Does this sound fantastic to you. I'm sure it would sound fantastic to many Americans. Most people think of agriculture as a. Problem industry with low income. And industry badly out of gear and needing government help. Now how can such an industry be an asset. So

let me explain what I mean. First this competition of ours where the Soviet Union takes place largely in the poor countries of the world a richer industrialized countries are not good prospects for communist penetration. In Asia Africa and South America. Struggling peoples are trying to pull themselves into the 20th century. They see the good things of life the North American and Western European folks have and they're pushing hard to get these things. They're less concerned about individual liberty than we are. They look upon communism as a way to make rapid economic progress. They ignored skirl days in suppression of freedom. They ferment or revolution. Or revolution of rising expectations as it has been called. In

underdeveloped countries. It is the battleground that's the battleground between communism and democratic capitalism. The Soviet leadership wants to guide and direct this revolution in its own way. Mastery over the two thirds of the world's people involved in these countries. Would eventually give communism effective control of the entire globe. So one this competition that we face is largely in these underdeveloped areas. Second. These poor countries are this battleground are heavily agricultural countries with 80 or 90 percent of their people making a better living out of fire me. These are countries made up of farm people Village People. The only way they can

develop manufacturing electric car transportation and so on is by becoming more productive in farming so that capital and labor can be spared from the bare necessities of life for other uses. Agriculture must provide the margin. The savings for economic growth. Simply because there's no place else to get it. That's my second point is that agriculture is a key industry of the Cold War. In the long run it will be more important in my judgment than aircraft missiles or even nuclear industries in deciding the big issue. Which system. The Soviet Communist system or the democratic capitalistic system will produce a Perrier in increasing agricultural productivity in the poorer countries. Or. As your program committee put it who will lead the way. US or US S.

R.. I have asserted that the strength and vitality of America's agricultural industry give us an advantage in peaceful coexistence or competitive coexistence. This calls for some explanation. We thought we had an end Super Bowl advantage also and atomic energy nuclear weapons heavy industry and in science we watched those advantages dwindle. In a few short years the Soviet Union has made nuclear weapons. Has gone beyond us and rockets and missiles. We can't afford to take lightly the solving abilities in any field. Nevertheless. And here is my third point. There is no doubt that we have a tremendous lead in agriculture. Which. In my opinion the American people don't fully realize and

they ought to realize. It takes roughly 10 percent of the workforce of this country to produce all our food needs for the entire population. And lord knows lots of surpluses besides. It takes about 40 percent of the workforce of the Soviet Union to feed the people of that country. And the quality of the Soviet diet is much inferior to our own. Premier Khrushchev concedes our lead. This is one field where they don't brag that their superior. He has said a number of times that he wants to equal the United States in production of meat milk and eggs. And these high protein foods are the best measure of quality. As you people very well know best measure of quality in diet. And more than that they also represent a margin. As we look at

the world as a whole the margin above says subsistence in food supply. Yes crops can always be eaten directly. You don't have to process to process them through livestock. As we do. Then if we look at production in the US and compare it with meat production in the USSR we get a yardstick of. This that I'm talking about in our agricultural industry over the Soviet agricultural industry. Statistics are always to unravel but most of the. People who have studied Soviet agricultural figures think that our meat production per person. In recent years has been running about three times. That of the Soviet Union. We have three times as much per person in this

country as the USSR. It takes time to develop the research and the educational services that can bring about advances in. Farm technology. Yes the Soviet Union holds to a crucial goal. Of equalling us in capita consumption of meat and milk. Then Soviet agriculture will have little margin for helping the underdeveloped countries for a long time to come in the United States over the last 75 years. We've built up a magnificent research and educational machinery for agriculture and you see the evidence of it right here on this campus. American agriculture has what I call an overhead production improvement organization through the Department of Agriculture and the State Land Grant agricultural colleges which is unmatched anywhere. This is made our agriculture the most

productive in the world. It's been a huge public investment over the years. Add it all up and the public the general national public has reaped the large returns returns in the form of absolute security in our food supply. We never need for food shortages. We have the highest quality diet or as high quality a diet as any country. And very cheap food prices in relation to the hours of work are the percentage of our income that has to be spent for food. Our research and educational system has been so effective in fact that it's over done the job. And our big problem right now. Is it agricultural supply keeps racing ahead faster than demand for

agricultural products. This is very tough on farm people. Because Americans are so rich and so well-fed that they take any additional supply even of our expensive food as meat. So on milk only had greatly reduced prices. This is hard on farmers but this situation that we've created largely with public investment puts the United States the public as a whole in a very comfortable position. So far as waging the Cold War and the poor countries is concerned we cannot only spare lots of wheat corn and cotton we can spare many more of our trained research workers and farm crops soils farm machinery livestock and so on. We could spare thousands of our county agents and other extension workers and agricultural teachers to help the people of other countries learn how to

produce more. We've never missed them. Let me make a comparison. I'm talking about waging a war now a cold war for economic influence and political influence. Let me make a comparison with our situation at the start of World War 2. A real shooting war. When President Franklin Roosevelt said that American industry could turn out first 50000 airplanes a year and later 100000 airplanes a year. He was laughed at and with some reason people didn't believe that we could convert the automobile industry and other industries to that extent. We did it however but at considerable cost of production of new automobiles was stopped. Gasoline rationing and tire rationing limited automobile travel.

But we got the job done by making these sacrifices. Now look at agriculture in contrast in this Cold War. We could deliver the equivalent of 100000 airplanes a year in the form of agricultural products and agricultural expert knowledge without making any real sacrifice in economic terms. On the contrary such a contribution would be beneficial to American farmers. It might slow down our rapid rise in food production and increase incomes of farm people here at the same time it was helping other countries. I'm not saying this just to look for an easy soft way that we can fight this Cold War and try to convince you that it's possible to do it without any strain. Matter of fact I think we ought to do this sort of thing even if it was very painful and it cost us in

our own diets and our own food standards. But as the facts look we have so much elasticity in this agricultural plant of ours that we could do it. It's a tough political job of course but we could do it. And do a tremendous job with very little real cost to our people. Our agricultural scientists and technologists could well be leased out. To work on special agricultural problems of Asia Africa and South America and to help countries in those areas develop their own research and extension systems. I don't mean to send them all over there but many of our institutions including Michigan State could. Use a lot of its research facilities for problems of other countries. There are cultural institutions might concern themselves more with basic scientific questions the kinds of

questions that need answers for the whole world as well as the United States. Root fundamental problems of scientific research. And while doing that leave off for a time converting us basic scientific knowledge and a new technology for our own agricultural industry. New technology which we can't absorb right now. In this country without great cost cost in the form of low income Americans farmers. What I'm suggesting is that this overhead production improvement Organization of American agriculture. And remember it's public institutions socialized institutions largely. That this organization be mobilized to conduct a massive agricultural assistance program to the poor countries of the world.

This all sounds very simple the way I have put it. Just to sign part of our staff of foreign researchers and educators to work for the poor countries provide our surpluses to help them get started. But of course you and I know that it's much more complicated and difficult and that takes a lot of doing. And we have to recognize that the Soviet Union has two. Very important advantages despite our superiority which we modestly admit in agriculture. One Soviet advantage. Is that it can more easily import agricultural products from these underdeveloped countries. And this is a real advantage. Also these countries have nothing to sell in world markets. To enable them to buy. Industrial goods and to

get capital for industrial development except agricultural products and raw materials. And the Soviet Union is just by the nature of its political system and by its own needs are better able to provide markets for these countries. We shouldn't have to think about this. Providing markets at home or in some of our own export markets for the raw materials and food products of the poor countries. Because these are the only things they have to sell in exchange. The second big Soviet advantage. It is simply that it is a relatively poor country itself. Its methods its technology are closer to the needs and experience of the underdeveloped countries. Sometimes our own farm experts try to impose our advanced systems all at one jump. On countries like India and Pakistan and

this doesn't work. You have to start with these people with one bottom plows and two roll cultivators. Or maybe not even that much. And begin to get them to use a little protein supplements for Laius in some places you can start with tractors and a biotics and weed chemicals. But we're smart enough to use our agricultural resources and knowledge wisely I think. I never. Believed that the people in our land grant colleges weren't smart enough if they were given a real directive and made a real national program out of it that we couldn't do an awful lot with our agricultural resources for these poor countries. How about ready to wind up here. OK I have couched this. Whole argument in terms of competition between the Soviet Union and the United

States but it need not be competition. There are no reason why it couldn't be cooperation. At this stage of history we happen to have a vast system for producing agricultural knowledge and for putting it into practice. This great resource of ours can easily be converted into other uses quickly here at home. We can't use it full speed here at home without making our own farm adjustment problems more difficult. And really. Without slowing in a measure our own economic progress and without great cost to farm people. It makes sense to me therefore to apply this instrument to the ends of national policy. I repeat it is a public institution or set of institutions largely. Now it's an agreed national policy you take it to help the underdeveloped countries

become developed. To produce a higher level of living. It's consistent with this national policy to help the Russian people achieve higher living standards. We are doing this in a small way now through exchanges of various kinds. Probably we should consider doing more as the Russians gain a better diet and become more productive in agriculture it's a safe bet that they will want more. That's a question placing more pressure on their government for more consumer goods. Is this not in our selfish interest. I think it is. I think we might well invite the Soviet Union to cooperate with us on a program of economic development the world around including Russia itself in this kind of a program we Americans have an asset of enormous value our productive agriculture and its

research and educational institutions. We ought to use this asset wisely. We have to use this asset wisely in support of our national objectives in the world. Thank you very much. Thank you Lauren So this has been stimulating challenging and we appreciate your straightforwardness. Our second eminently well qualified speaker is an associate professor at Michigan State University of economics. The topic who will lead the way. And industry and technology. The United States or the Soviet Union. I.