Hey Gunnar, good piece - thanks. In relation to our respective positions around household farming & commons, I'd say that I'm not opposed to commons approaches (ultimately all human politic dialogue involves commons of a sort), I just want to make a case for household-based approaches where appropriate in the face of what strikes me as often over-simplistic appeals to the commons alone. Some kinds of economic activity better lend themselves to commoning than others. Some kinds of people are more oriented to commoning than others. So it's worth exploring these nuances - I hope to do so in dialogue with you sometime!
To me it looks like what is happening to farmers now is an attempt to complete the process of enclosure. Farming has already been uprooted from its more or less harmonious relationship with the land, as this piece describes, and now the same forces that pushed this are saying it's the farmers' fault, and trying to back track in the name of saving the planet. It's risible. It's similar to how low traffic neighbourhoods have been introduced into cities, in the name of reducing air pollution, while industry continues unabated and people are encouraged to drive to retail parks to buy stuff they just don't need.
The attempt to control citizens ostensibly in the name of the planet is becoming increasingly incomprehensible.
"The sugar coated bullets of the “free market” are killing our children. The act to kill is instrumented in a detached fashion through computer program trading on the New York and Chicago mercantile exchanges, where the global prices of rice, wheat and corn are decided upon.
Poverty is not solely the result of policy failures at a national level. People in different countries are being impoverished simultaneously as a result of a global market mechanism. A small number of financial institutions and global corporations have the ability to determine, through market manipulation, the standard of living of millions of people around the World."
Gunnar, you mention "non-market distribution" as an "even better" reform to support diversity. Maybe you have elaborated on what you mean by this elsewhere. If not, can you elaborate?
I am associated with a local cooperative food hub that leverages web based technology layered on top of small scale distribution infrastructure (small warehouse, trucks, employees, etc). It is definitely a "market" influenced distribution mechanism but as a co-op it is revenue neutral and it not tied to a shareholder or profit motive. I see it's value as a "system" that could be leveraged outside a market dynamic.
More generally I see these hubs, which are popping up all over the US, as a solid step toward re-localization but they are most definitely at odds with the broader trend of scale you outline in your essay. I already see the same pressure of growth and consolidation creeping in. It's hard for me to see where the "change" will come from to make alternatives like this viable. If it doesn't come from the consumer as you outline it historically has not (the higher prices inherent in this kind of system don't help), then who and how might we nudge them in the right direction.
Here in the US there are currently many grant opportunities (local, state and federal) to support systems like this so there does seem to be some "non-market" support but it feels a bit like a small scale version of the industrial ag subsidy treadmill.
Josh, You do have a point in that also alternatives tend to develop into small scale versions of the treadmill, which is precisely why it is important to reduce competition and transactions and increase relationships in the food system. In some ways also bridgning the gap between production and consumption.
To save farmers and humanity, you have to recognise the the bigger agenda of planed distruction of the so called international law based order into multipolar law as a way for the big players in the world to keep on dominating and making money. It is no hidden agenda, but openly admitted to swiitch the financial base towards China and Russia with world "government" through UN. It is not a government that anyone has ever voted for and is controled by multibillionaires and their technocrats. Nationstates is all in on it but has no part in policy/lawmaking. Parlaments are considderedö "enabling environments" in this fascistic construct Global Public Private Partnership G3P for short. The agenda 2030 and the SDG is since 2019 the responsibilty of World economic Forum in partnership with UN. Food is one of the many ways to implement and steer people into digital, surveiled cities they name 15-minutes cities. Their ideology is transhumanist. Wef is openly declaring that agenda2030 is the 4:th industrial revolution. That is the merging of biology with machine, the internet of things and internet of boddies. The green new deal has got nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with controle, powergrab and money. Eu is a fascistic bureucratic extention of wef and their members. Just take a look at Black Rocks engagement in Ukrain or Palestine. And don't forget to mention how the yoing global leaders from WEF has "penetrated the cabinets" as Klaus Schwab prodly explains. Rutte in neatherland is heavily involved www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/mark-rutte/ as is Macron, Boerbeck,.. And many many more of "our" leaders. They are aiming all efforts to reach net 0 at the individual level and the foodsystem. Strangely militarisation/wars and planned obsolescence is not among the many goals of sdg. And niether is distribution of resources. The opposite in fact. "you will own nothing and you will be happy" in the metaverse they are planning for us. Is it a week ago that eu parlament voted to give a gift to the industry of gentechnique crispr/gmo at the same time as they are restricting us to sell/share seeds? I cannot speak for the reasons farmers all over europe are out protesting, but the support from people are very much a protest against the totalitarian take over of our lifes. Intentinally created starvation is an old controlemechanism to create obedience
Hey Gunnar, good piece - thanks. In relation to our respective positions around household farming & commons, I'd say that I'm not opposed to commons approaches (ultimately all human politic dialogue involves commons of a sort), I just want to make a case for household-based approaches where appropriate in the face of what strikes me as often over-simplistic appeals to the commons alone. Some kinds of economic activity better lend themselves to commoning than others. Some kinds of people are more oriented to commoning than others. So it's worth exploring these nuances - I hope to do so in dialogue with you sometime!
I think we are largely in agreement Chris!
To me it looks like what is happening to farmers now is an attempt to complete the process of enclosure. Farming has already been uprooted from its more or less harmonious relationship with the land, as this piece describes, and now the same forces that pushed this are saying it's the farmers' fault, and trying to back track in the name of saving the planet. It's risible. It's similar to how low traffic neighbourhoods have been introduced into cities, in the name of reducing air pollution, while industry continues unabated and people are encouraged to drive to retail parks to buy stuff they just don't need.
The attempt to control citizens ostensibly in the name of the planet is becoming increasingly incomprehensible.
"The sugar coated bullets of the “free market” are killing our children. The act to kill is instrumented in a detached fashion through computer program trading on the New York and Chicago mercantile exchanges, where the global prices of rice, wheat and corn are decided upon.
Poverty is not solely the result of policy failures at a national level. People in different countries are being impoverished simultaneously as a result of a global market mechanism. A small number of financial institutions and global corporations have the ability to determine, through market manipulation, the standard of living of millions of people around the World."
Från 2008
www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-crisis-food-water-and-fuel-three-fundamental-necessities-of-life-in-jeopardy-2/5446025
Gunnar, you mention "non-market distribution" as an "even better" reform to support diversity. Maybe you have elaborated on what you mean by this elsewhere. If not, can you elaborate?
I am associated with a local cooperative food hub that leverages web based technology layered on top of small scale distribution infrastructure (small warehouse, trucks, employees, etc). It is definitely a "market" influenced distribution mechanism but as a co-op it is revenue neutral and it not tied to a shareholder or profit motive. I see it's value as a "system" that could be leveraged outside a market dynamic.
More generally I see these hubs, which are popping up all over the US, as a solid step toward re-localization but they are most definitely at odds with the broader trend of scale you outline in your essay. I already see the same pressure of growth and consolidation creeping in. It's hard for me to see where the "change" will come from to make alternatives like this viable. If it doesn't come from the consumer as you outline it historically has not (the higher prices inherent in this kind of system don't help), then who and how might we nudge them in the right direction.
Here in the US there are currently many grant opportunities (local, state and federal) to support systems like this so there does seem to be some "non-market" support but it feels a bit like a small scale version of the industrial ag subsidy treadmill.
Thanks for another great essay.
Josh, I have elaborated quite a lot on this e.g. in my book Global Eating Disorder and in some articles here, e.g. https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/towards-landscape-diet-and-communal ,
https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/food-from-commodity-to-commons and https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/searching-for-alternatives-part-i?
Josh, You do have a point in that also alternatives tend to develop into small scale versions of the treadmill, which is precisely why it is important to reduce competition and transactions and increase relationships in the food system. In some ways also bridgning the gap between production and consumption.
To save farmers and humanity, you have to recognise the the bigger agenda of planed distruction of the so called international law based order into multipolar law as a way for the big players in the world to keep on dominating and making money. It is no hidden agenda, but openly admitted to swiitch the financial base towards China and Russia with world "government" through UN. It is not a government that anyone has ever voted for and is controled by multibillionaires and their technocrats. Nationstates is all in on it but has no part in policy/lawmaking. Parlaments are considderedö "enabling environments" in this fascistic construct Global Public Private Partnership G3P for short. The agenda 2030 and the SDG is since 2019 the responsibilty of World economic Forum in partnership with UN. Food is one of the many ways to implement and steer people into digital, surveiled cities they name 15-minutes cities. Their ideology is transhumanist. Wef is openly declaring that agenda2030 is the 4:th industrial revolution. That is the merging of biology with machine, the internet of things and internet of boddies. The green new deal has got nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with controle, powergrab and money. Eu is a fascistic bureucratic extention of wef and their members. Just take a look at Black Rocks engagement in Ukrain or Palestine. And don't forget to mention how the yoing global leaders from WEF has "penetrated the cabinets" as Klaus Schwab prodly explains. Rutte in neatherland is heavily involved www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/mark-rutte/ as is Macron, Boerbeck,.. And many many more of "our" leaders. They are aiming all efforts to reach net 0 at the individual level and the foodsystem. Strangely militarisation/wars and planned obsolescence is not among the many goals of sdg. And niether is distribution of resources. The opposite in fact. "you will own nothing and you will be happy" in the metaverse they are planning for us. Is it a week ago that eu parlament voted to give a gift to the industry of gentechnique crispr/gmo at the same time as they are restricting us to sell/share seeds? I cannot speak for the reasons farmers all over europe are out protesting, but the support from people are very much a protest against the totalitarian take over of our lifes. Intentinally created starvation is an old controlemechanism to create obedience