Regulating farmworkers: The state and the agricultural labor supply in California

Conclusion The state in a society dominated by the capitalist mode of production is compelled to seek resolution of contradictions within the forms of social relationships compatible with the continuity of a dominant capitalist form and to insure capital accumulation. The resolution should also be able to submerge at least temporarily the inherent conflicts within that situation. Thus, the state may attempt to restrict the possible activities of a militant organization while at the same time helping maintain its existence. The ability of the state decisively to limit and restrict organizations like the United Farm Workers is not, however, guaranteed. The struggle for transitional reforms is thus crucial not only in consolidating gains but also in providing a basis for future actions. From all indications the United Farm Workers seem to recognize the situation. The future of the United Farm Workers as a militant, democratically organized, grassroots organization of agricultural workers capable of mobilizing widespread public support may be influenced more by their ability to stay free of constraining state regulation than by a struggle with a particular segment of agricultural growers. This suggests that if the UFW becomes established on a more permanent basis, its most significant struggles in the future may be with elements of the state which ironically are trying to guarantee its existence. It is this aspect of agricultural labor relations within California as well as the United States in general which may be the most significant during the next decade.