Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe: Der Briefwechsel zwischen Marx und Engels 1868-1883 / [hrsg. von D. Rjazanov]

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1818395479

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Marx, Karl http://d-nb.info/gnd/118578537; Engels, Friedrich http://d-nb.info/gnd/118530380

Title:: Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe

Place of publication:: Frankfurt a.M.

Publisher:: Marx-Engels-Archiv

Year of publication:: 1927-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 184104282X

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-239451

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Marx, Karl http://d-nb.info/gnd/118578537; Engels, Friedrich http://d-nb.info/gnd/118530380

Title:: Der Briefwechsel zwischen Marx und Engels 1868-1883 / [hrsg. von D. Rjazanov]

Volume count:: Abt. 3, Briefwechsel, Bd. 4

Place of publication:: [Frankfurt a.M.]

Publisher:: [Marx-Engels-Archiv]

Year of publication:: 1931

Scope:: XVI, 759 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Der Briefwechsel zwischen Marx und Engels. 1868-1883

Collection:: Economics Books

AGRICULTURAL RELIEF C. NEW ZEALAND, 1922 503 The self-same year that the Queensland progressive government made its big start in industrial democracy, 1922, in neighboring New Zealand its progressive government installed the system as to meat—the meat control act, for unified cooperative marketing of meat, at cost. (Statutes of New Zealand, 1922.) There was put to a mail vote of the producers the question as to whether the system should be placed in operation, with decision by a majority of the votes cast. The next year, 1923, there was added the dairy produce export control act. Again a mail vote by the producers decided whether or not they would come into the system. In 1924 in New Zealand for the second time the system was extended, this time as to honey and fruit (apples and pears), and again by referendum vote. This for New Zealand. D. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, 1924 In the State of Queensland almost immediately after the founding of the agricultural council it called an interstate conference of the farmers of Australia to consider the founding of nation-wide industrial democracy. Soon after the adjournment of that conference the National Government of Australia installed the Dairy-Produce Control Board for the nation, the Dried Fruit Board for the nation; and the Australian Meat Council. (Commonwealth Acts, 1924.) Each is a unified system—a monopoly. The dairy-products system was installed as a result of a referendum vote by the producers, by mail. The dried- fruit system was installed with power in the Governor General (the Government) to discontinue it after the first year. The meat-products system was not put to a vote. The packers were placed in the system, under the joint control of a majority vote in the Australian meat council, said majority consisting of primary producers, in connection with a veto power and power of initiative in the Govern- ment’s representative on the council. Each system is self-supporting from levies made by the organization. This principle applies in all lands. E. UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1925 The next year after Australia had made the start in industrial democracy, the Union of South Africa did likewise. By the fruit-export control act of 1925 there was established the fruit-export control board, with provision that— “From and after the commencement of this act no person shall export or ship fruit from the Union save under contract or other arrangement made by, through, or with the consent of the Fruit Growers’ Cooperative Exchange of South Africa, Limited (hereinafter called the exchange), and approved and authorized bv the board.” (See. 5.) A decision by the exchange can be appealed to the board, all the members of which are appointed by the Government—the equivalent of a commission in the United States, except that the minister is responsible to the two houses of Parliament. An added feature in South Africa is that— “The board may, with the approval of the minister, take such steps as it may deem expedient and practicable to equalize the rates of freight payable by ex- porters of fruit from any port of the Union during a particular period and to make all necessary arrangements for the payment of-such rates by exporters.” (Sec. 2.) At each port other than where the board is located it may appoint a committee of not more than three persons. : Enforcement is provided for by establishing a penalty for breach of any regu- ation. Another act.—Also, by the agricultural industries advancement act, 1925, 50 per cent of certain kinds of producers may petition the minister, who is authorized to levy on all producers of the product a percentage on the sales, for one or more of the following purposes: ““(a) Experiment, investigation, research, or instruction; ““(b) The construction or acquisition of buildings or other structures or works and the acquisition of land, livestock, machinery, implements, and equipment necessary to any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a); “(c) The advertisement and the more advantageous sales of the products: [23 oo o Oo x0 < w © £ [oa TK od B © oO } ~~ <C ~ m ~ oO -— [= oN o ™ o DN o o -— [ 2b 3 fh as La | C53 - -— ¥ © pom ~ 5 3 r «J » 0) L E £0 a 3 N a " oN O I <5 5 =

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Agricultural relief (Pt. 6)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation