#ENDFURFARMING

Utah Officials Allegedly Failed to Disclose Mink Farm Worker Died of COVID After Outbreak

Amid ongoing debate over the threat posed by COVID-19 outbreaks on mink farms, state authorities in Utah allegedly failed to disclose the COVID-19 death of a mink farm worker linked to a coronavirus outbreak at a mink farm in the state.

© Ole Jensen/Getty Images Mink at the Knud Vest estate in Jyllinge, Denmark, pictured on November 14, 2020. State authorities in Utah allegedly failed to disclose the COVID-19 death of a mink farm worker linked to a mink farm coronavirus outbreak in the state.

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) has also allegedly not been transparent about COVID-19 transmission in the wild and downplayed the threat mink farm COVID-19 outbreaks pose to humans, animal rights groups claim.

Scientists have previously warned the diseased mink could create a new uncontrollable store and vector for the transmission of coronavirus to humans and potentially pose a risk to future COVID-19 vaccines.

The mink farm outbreaks in Utah, which marked the country's first confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection in mink, were announced in statements released by the UDAF as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) on August 17, 2020.

According to an email shared with Newsweek, which was among several documents obtained by an open records request made by the Utah Animal Rights Coalition (UARC) who shared the files with Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an animal rights network based in the San Francisco Bay Area, "one farm manager has died from SARS-CoV-2 infection" following the coronavirus outbreaks at two mink farms in Utah back in August.

Neither of the August statements released by the UDAF and USDA APHIS mentioned the death of the mink farm manager noted in the aforementioned email, which was sent on August 10, 2020, a week before the statements were released by the UDAF and USDA.

Speaking to Newsweek, Wayne Hsiung, an attorney and investigator for DxE, which he co-founded, said: "The document [the email] was obtained through the state of Washington because the lab that did the testing for Utah mink farms was a public university in Washington. The state of Utah itself has refused to make these disclosures, citing the risk of break-ins by animal rights activists (including specifically DxE), and has never disclosed the site of any outbreaks, much less that an employee died."

In a blog post on the DxE website where the documents obtained by the open records request were published on Monday, Hsiung explained: "Given Utah's stonewalling, our partner groups submitted an open records act request to Washington State University [WSU], a public institution that is home to the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Library (WADDL), which carries out laboratory testing for the USDA and other agencies."

WSU released a set of documents including an email from Tom Baldwin, the director of the Utah Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (UVDL) at Utah State University who was the veterinarian investigating the COVID-19 outbreaks on the Utah mink farms at the time, according to Hsiung.

UVDL is "a cooperative effort by Utah State University (USU) and Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF)," according to its website.

Baldwin's email, which was sent to WADDL Executive Director Timothy Baszler and WADDL Director of Operations Kevin Snekvik, stated: "We have a number of mink farms in which adult mink are dying at concerning rates. Moreover, farm personnel are experiencing upper respiratory infections and one farm manager has died from SARS-CoV-2 infection."

As indicated in the email, Utah State Veterinarian Dr. Dean Taylor, who works for the UDAF, was copied in Baldwin's email.

Hsiung told Newsweek: "The state veterinarian of the UDAF is cc'd [copied] in the correspondence. Given his role in protecting public health, one can assume that he knew about this death—and has chosen to not disclose it in the various public communications."
What Utah state health department and CDC say

Asked whether the Utah Department of Health (UDOH) was aware of the death of the Utah mink farm manager, as well as several other questions relating to that death, a public information officer at the UDOH told Newsweek that the department has been involved in an "on-going, collaborative response and investigation" of the Utah mink farm COVID-19 outbreaks with the UDAF, CDC and USDA APHIS.

"This investigation resulted in the link of an individual who recently passed from COVID-19 and who happened to be employed at the mink farm. At the time the person became ill, community spread had been increasing rapidly in the surrounding area. No additional deaths associated with mink farms have been reported. Currently, there is no evidence of mink-to-human transmission in the United States.

"All human lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are routinely reported to UDOH through normal channels. Confirmed COVID-19 cases are interviewed by a contact tracer and appropriate quarantines are recommended. When a person in Utah dies and has tested positive for COVID-19, the death is investigated and the cause is determined by the Office of the Medical Examiner. All of these normal reporting and response steps occurred in this particular instance.

"In August of 2020, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) notified the UDOH of an unusually high rate of mink mortality on a Utah farm, along with the suspicion that the mink deaths might be related to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 in humans. Our federal partners were immediately notified and Utah invited CDC to deploy a team of One Health experts to assist with on farm investigations of SARS-CoV-2 in people, mink, and other animals on affected Utah mink farms. Our federal partners have continued to support UDAF and UDOH in this on-going investigation and response.

"In response to these outbreaks, UDOH conducted epidemiologic investigations on any mink farm with a confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 among their herds. From these investigations, it is suspected that infected workers introduced SARS-CoV-2 to the farms, and the virus then spread between mink. All epidemiologic evidence and test results indicate human-to-mink transmission with a person with COVID-19 infection introducing the virus onto each farm," the UDOH public information officer said.

Asked the same questions about the farm employee death, as well as why the manager's death was not mentioned in the August 17 USDA statement, a spokesperson for USDA APHIS told Newsweek: "USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has worked closely with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and individual states, including Utah, throughout the COVID-19 outbreak to identify animals that should be tested, develop and recommend guidance for contact with animals, and to determine how to handle cases when they are confirmed in animals.

"APHIS' focus is on the health of animals in the United States, and our primary role is testing samples from animals and reporting confirmed cases to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). While we work closely with these partners on the overall response, it would be inappropriate for APHIS to maintain information about or comment on cases of COVID-19 in people. Your questions would be better directed to CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] or the Utah Department of Health," Cole added.

When the CDC was asked the same questions relating to the mink farm worker death, including whether the UDOH had reported that death in the state's COVID-19 death totals and shared any information about that death with the CDC, a spokesperson for the federal health body told Newsweek: "CDC defers to the Utah Department of Health to provide details on human COVID-19 cases linked with mink farms in their state. CDC has been collaborating with human and animal health officials in Utah and USDA regarding mink farms with SARS-CoV-2 since August 2020.

"Currently, there is no evidence of mink-to-human spread in the United States, however investigations are ongoing. Although, human cases have been identified in connection with all affected U.S. mink farms. It is suspected that infected workers introduced SARS-CoV-2 to mink on the farms, and the virus then began to spread among the mink and from mink to other animals like cats and dogs on the farm. Although for most people in the United States the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from animals is low, there is a higher risk for people working on mink farms," the spokesperson added.

Newsweek has contacted the UDAF, Taylor and Baldwin for comment.

Asked whether there was any further information available about the death of the Utah mink farm manager, including how the employee got infected, Hsiung told Newsweek: "No. And unless public health authorities were conducting prospective genomic surveillance among the mink and the workers, we will likely never be able to definitively answer this question.

Hsiung explained in Monday's DxE blog post: "We cannot be sure the farm manager at issue died from mink transmission, given that the state of Utah has not disclosed any genomic testing at this site or any other site.

"But it appears that those investigating the outbreak were alarmed at the rate of infection among workers on these farms, and this is supported by peer-reviewed research from the Netherlands showing that 68 percent of mink farm workers and their close contacts had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a far higher rate of infection than the general population," he told Newsweek.
COVID-19 transmission in the wild and threat to humans

Last April, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to report COVID-19 cases among mink.

In a statement on May 19, 2020, the Dutch government said: "New research findings in the ongoing investigation into COVID-19 at mink farms suggest there has been a transmission of new coronavirus from mink to human."

Hsiung noted in the Monday DxE blog post: "Even Fur Europe, an umbrella organization representing the European fur industry, circulated an alert acknowledging this new development, writing on May 26 to its members that the coronavirus is 'transmissible from human to mink, and likely transmissible back to humans again.'"

But the UDAF has allegedly downplayed the threat mink farm outbreaks pose to humans and claimed there was no COVID-19 transmission in the wild, according to the UARC and DxE.

Speaking to Newsweek, UARC Executive Director Jeremy Beckham, who made the aforementioned open records request to WSU, said: "Last month [December], I had a hearing in front of the Utah State Records Committee trying to pry more records from the Utah Department of Agriculture. During that hearing, they made the claim that no serious threat existed to workers or wild animals.

"In fact, at the time they made these claims to the committee, the agency already had evidence that wild mink had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and that farm workers had been infected, including a manager on a Utah County mink farm had died of COVID," Beckham said.

During the aforementioned hearing, held on December 8, 2020, the UDAF claimed "that wild transmission has not occurred (and repeated this at a hearing on Dec. 10) to justify the lack of disclosure about mink farm outbreaks," Hsiung told Newsweek.

"Their [UDAF] argument is: We don't need to tell anyone about this because we have it contained. Subsequently, on Dec. 11, it was revealed [in an international public health mailing list published on ProMED] that wild transmission [in wild mink] has occurred—and from testing done sometime from August through October. This shows the state's brief was false. Whether that falsehood was intentional, I cannot say.

"The state of Utah apparently knew about this positive test, yet continued to falsely state that no wild animal transmission had occurred," he said.

Hsiung noted in the Monday DxE blog post: "The release of COVID-19 to the wild was apparently important enough for USDA scientists to warn international disease experts about—making global headlines—but not important enough for Utah to tell its own citizens."

Hsiung also told Newsweek: "Utah also strangely argues in the same filing on Dec. 8 that, while the risk from mink farms is low, the risk from animal rights activists is very high—citing a number of articles about DxE.

"They're on a razor's edge here because, on the one hand, they want to say daily operations at mink farms are not dangerous enough for people to know about but, on the other, dangerous enough that we can't let animal rights advocates know where they are. This is a contradiction. Either mink farms are dangerous or they're not. They can't only be dangerous for animal rights activists, but not for employees or surrounding community members," Hsiung argued.

Speaking to Newsweek, the former chief veterinarian at the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, noted: "If someone is looking for the exact locations of the affected mink farms to be identified, this is rather complicated as this would be under the State jurisdiction and not USDA/APHIS.

"That is because the regulations governing the actions APHIS can take as the federal branch of the government is limited by several factors, including whether or not the disease in causing illness in animals (as APHIS has no authority to address zoonotic infections), whether or not disease has spread outside the state boundaries and if the disease is located within the state borders, have they requested APHIS assistance; etc.

"With no mandatory animal ID laws, APHIS is quite often unable to confirm or share the exact farm location. APHIS has limited staff and relies on the local (state) 'certified' veterinarians to do their trace-backs. That also creates a problem when there is industry pressure on the state not to cooperate," Basu added.
COVID-19 outbreaks at Utah mink farms 'greatly worsened'

Beckham told Newsweek "the problem [COVID-19 outbreaks on Utah mink farms] has greatly worsened since August. We are up to at least 12 mink farms in Utah that have experienced COVID-19 outbreaks, as of early Dec 2020, which is the latest information I have. That's out of 36 farms total in the state. So one-third of Utah mink farms have been hit with COVID outbreaks.

"The latest statement that the Utah Department of Agriculture released is a press statement boasting that COVID-19 cases have been declining on Utah mink farms based on data collected in October and then December," Beckham added.

In a statement released on December 28, 2020, the UDAF stated: "UDOH and CDC began testing mink and other domestic animals on the farms, including dogs, cats and mice. Sampling also included farm workers and a small number of their household contacts. Initial testing showed positive results in mink, dogs, and feral cats on the farms.

"While the results and analysis are still underway for the third round of testing, there is encouraging evidence suggesting that the levels of virus are going down in the mink, cats and dogs living on the farm.

"Additional community sequencing is needed to fully understand the potential for transmission between people and different animal species in this area; however, at this time, based on extensive epidemiologic investigations, there has been no evidence to date of spread from mink to people in Utah," the statement said at the time.

However, Beckham told Newsweek: "This statement neglects to mention why it's impossible to draw any conclusions based on these data points: mink farms begin their 'pelting season' in November, where the overwhelming majority of their animals are killed and skinned, leaving only the breeding stock behind.

"Of course there are fewer COVID cases in mink—there are fewer mink. And the mink that do remain can be spaced in the sheds, making it more difficult for a respiratory virus to be transmitted. Breeding season starts in March and I fully expect to see these numbers rapidly climb again because the underlying problem has not been addressed," he added.

Related Articles

Hundreds of COVID-Infected Mink Could Have Escaped Danish Fur Farms, Spreading New Coronavirus Strain

How Dead Mink Are Rising From the Grave, Explained by Science

COVID Could Be Transmissible From Animals to Humans and Vice Versa

This Giant Ice Cube Represents How Much Ice We're Losing Every Year

We talk about ice a lot here on Earther—or more specifically, the growing absence of it. A new study puts what’s happening to the planet in striking perspective. While I can tell you the results show 1.2 trillion tons of ice disappeared every year since 1994, it’s a lot easier to grasp as a visual.

© Graphic: Planetary Visions That’s one big cube.

That cube of ice up there towers 6.2 miles (10 kilometers) into the sky like a sunshade over Manhattan and stretches over a huge swath of New Jersey, from Newark Airport to Jersey City. That’s how much we’ve lost to burning fossil fuels on average per year over the past two decades. The skyscrapers of the Financial District and Midtown are toothpicks. More ominously, the cube is getting bigger as ice loss accelerates.

The ice cube illustration is tied to a study published in the Cryosphere on Monday that looks at, uh, the state of the cryosphere. A team of scientists from across the UK used satellite measurements and climate models to explore what’s happening to every nook and cranny of ice around the globe. While most studies focus on either sea ice or ice on land, the new paper looks at both to give us a better understanding of how much ice has melted due to climate change.

A Third of American Rivers Have Changed Color Since 1984

“There has been a huge international effort to study individual regions, such as glaciers spread around the planet, the polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, the ice shelves floating around Antarctica, and sea ice drifting in the Arctic and Southern oceans,” Tom Slater, the study’s lead author and ice researcher at the University of Leeds, said in an email. “We felt that there was now enough data to be able to combine these efforts and examine all the ice being lost from the planet.”

The results show Arctic sea ice is the fastest-disappearing ice on the planet. A staggering 7.6 trillion tons have turned to liquid from 1994 to 2017, the period for which the study had data. That was followed by Antarctic ice shelves, which have seen 6.5 trillion tons of ice vanish, sometimes in catastrophic fashion. The most recent example is Iceberg A68, a Delaware-size piece of ice that ripped off the Larsen C ice shelf in 2017 and has since wandered the Southern and Atlantic oceans. It most recently had a near run-in with an ecologically sensitive island.

But other, more insidious forms of ice shelf drama are afoot. The study doesn’t just look at ice area; it also looks at ice volume. And the most shocking impacts on ice shelves are happening beneath the surface. Ice shelves jut out over the ocean, holding back glaciers on ice sheets on land. But in West Antarctica, satellite and direct observations show warm water has been eating away at ice shelves and could eventually cause them to collapse. If that happens, sea level rise will accelerate and won’t stop for centuries; the ice in West Antarctica could raise seas by more than 10 feet (3 meters).

Glaciers on land in Alaska, the Himalayas, and elsewhere are also major drivers of sea level rise, as are the glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland. They’re all disappearing at an alarming rate. The threat of water loss in regions that rely on glacier and snowmelt is certainly an acute concern. So, too, is the disappearance of sea ice and its impact on traditional ways of life in the Arctic. And incremental but quickening sea level rise can play out in dramatic fashion when hurricanes roar ashore, pushing storm surge farther inland thanks to the climate change-driven boost. Perhaps most ominously, the melt is just a tiny aspect of the changes happening.

“We found that it took only about 3% of the excess heat created by greenhouse gas emissions to melt all this ice, a surprisingly small amount of energy to melt such a large amount of ice, which has a disproportionately large effect on our environment,” Slater said.

In that light, the giant ice cube from hell is showing just a tiny portion of the impact of human activities on the planet.

Shell buys European electric car charging firm ubitricity


BERLIN — Oil and gas giant Shell is buying ubitricity, a major provider of electric vehicle charging points in Europe.

Shell said Monday that it would buy a 100% stake in the Berlin-based startup, without disclosing the price.

“The move represents a further step in Shell’s efforts to support drivers as they switch to lower-carbon transport,” the company said.

The deal, which is subject to regulatory approval, will give Shell ownership of the biggest public EV charging network in Britain with more than 2,700 charge points.

Ubitricity also has smaller public networks in Germany and France, and has installed over 1,500 charge points for fleet customers across Europe.

The company's focus has been to integrate charge points into existing street infrastructure such as lamp posts, to reduce the cost of laying new power lines down streets.

Experts say easier access to charging facilities is key to the successful rollout of electric vehicles.

Shell has said it wants to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.

BIG OIL SEE'S SILVER LININGS
How Joe Biden's anti-oil policies may be good for Canada's energy sector after all

© Provided by Financial Post While the Keystone XL cancellation was certainly a blow, U.S. President Joe Biden's decision to go full nuclear on his own oil industry may actually end up being a net positive for Canada, writes Martin Pelletier. 


Last week’s inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden and his immediate decision to revoke the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and temporarily ban drilling on all federal lands sends a clear message of what’s to come from his administration when it comes to energy policy.

In our opinion, the response from Justin Trudeau — which included the “build back better” slogan that Biden used prominently in his campaign — was a sign that the PMO agrees with making climate change the number one priority when it comes to rebuilding the economy.

There is no denying the tremendous momentum behind the movement seeking to make the global economy cleaner and greener. Simple evidence of it can be found in the shares of Tesla Inc., a company that despite having less than one per cent of total auto sales is now worth more than the top seven auto manufacturers combined.

For those trying to fight this step change head-on, consider the estimated $40 billion in losses last year incurred by those who shorted Tesla shares, in the belief that the EV market and the stock had gotten ahead of itself. We think a much better strategy is to adapt to the tsunami of climate-change policy that is about to hit shore instead of standing in front of it.

That can mean looking beyond the headlines for unexpected outcomes.

While the Keystone cancellation was certainly a blow, Biden’s decision to go full nuclear on his own oil industry may actually end up being a net positive for Canada, freeing up market share for the million barrels a day of expected growth from our sector over the next two decades. Fortunately, this growth is currently fully supported by existing pipelines including TransMountain and Line 3. The key looking forward is how to add value in this environment.

The process of adaptation had already started following the oil price crash of 2014, which incentivized our industry to become more efficient. This has led to a focus on consolidation and cost control resulting in an impressive improvement not only in operating efficiencies but also carbon emissions. As a result, we see the energy sector being well on its way to developing the dividend-focused oligopoly model currently in place in other Canadian sectors, including banking and telecommunications.

Another positive is we expect a more stable oil price environment going forward. We believe the ongoing transition to renewables and clean technology will take a lot longer than many expect and as a result demand growth for oil will continue for some time with developing regions such as China and India leading the charge.

More so, we see a significant impact on the supply side, especially within the U.S. shale industry, which is important given this region’s explosive seven-million-barrels per day of growth over the past decade that contributed to an over-supplied global oil market.

We believe that Canada’s biggest competitor could soon be facing significant regulatory constraints paired with an exodus of the capital required even to sustain production. This would result in not only an increase in market share for our producers but also a more balanced supply situation and therefore more stable oil prices.

We think this is the level of certainty investors have been waiting for which would fit very well within a dividend-based model especially one offering high yields in a low-interest-rate environment. For those wondering the kind of upside there could be, simply look at oil producer share prices, as represented by the Capped Energy index, which is down 35 per cent over the past five years compared to oil prices that are up 65 per cent.

Finally, governments will also have to adapt by looking at ways to better harvest this more stable cash flow from oil and gas royalties and then identify how to redeploy it into those areas of the economy offering higher levels of growth. This sure sounds like a great way of building back better not only for oil companies and their investors, but also all Canadians.

Martin Pelletier, CFA, is a portfolio manager at Wellington-Altus Private Counsel Inc. (formerly TriVest Wealth Counsel Ltd.), a private client and institutional investment firm specializing in discretionary risk-managed portfolios, investment audit/oversight and advanced tax and estate planning.

Canada’s balance sheet is deteriorating and the consequences could be significant for investors
Trans Mountain pipeline sees fortunes shine after Keystone XL's demise
Don’t write off Canadian pipeline companies just yet — there is plenty of growth left post-KXL
Even without Keystone XL, Canada set to send record amount of oil to the U.S.

Yukon premier upset at federal decision stalling mine development in the territory


WHITEHORSE — Yukon Premier Sandy Silver says a federal government decision to refer a proposed mining development back to a territorial assessment board sends a "troubling signal."

  

© Provided by The Canadian Press

A statement from Silver's office says the referral creates "unreasonable and unnecessary uncertainty" for developer BMC Minerals.

The Kudz Ze Kayah project is a proposed open pit and underground zinc, silver, copper, gold and lead mine east of Whitehorse, and Silver says the territory's assessment board had already issued recommendations about it.

He says Yukon was prepared to accept the recommendations and proceed, but the federal referral derails any action.

The project has undergone four years of review since BMC Minerals took it over in January 2015.

Natural Resources Canada did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Silver says his government opposes the referral and believes the territory's assessment board was reasonable to allow work to proceed with added improvements and monitoring.

"The Government of Canada absolutely needs to take steps to streamline these processes going forward to ensure greater clarity and certainty for the mining industry," Silver says in the release issued Monday.

A statement on the Kudz Ze Kayah website says the project should have annual production of just under 107,000 tonnes of zinc and smaller amounts of lead and copper over its nine-year life span, with all the ore shipped overseas through the port of Stewart in northwestern B.C.

BMC Minerals, an offshoot of United Kingdom-based BMC Ltd., says the project will provide jobs and business opportunities for Kaska First Nation citizens and local communities, supporting the territory and the rest of Canada.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 25, 2021.

The Canadian Press

Contaminant from coal mines already high in some Alberta rivers: unreported data

EDMONTON — Some Alberta rivers and streams have already been heavily contaminated by coal mining, unreported government data suggests.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The province's plan for large-scale expansion of the industry is fuelling widespread criticism that includes concerns over selenium pollution. The data shows that same contaminant has been found for years at high levels downstream of three mines and never publicly reported.

The findings raise questions about Alberta Environment, said a former senior official who has seen the data.

"There were lots of (selenium) numbers and it was consistently above the water quality guidelines and in many cases way higher," said Bill Donahue, the department's one-time executive director of science. "Why did Alberta Environment sit on these data for easily the last 10 to 15 years?"

Donahue left the department in 2018 after the NDP government of the day dissolved the Alberta Environmental Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting Agency, an independent body intended to fill information gaps.

Before resigning, he had become concerned about selenium in the Gregg and McLeod rivers and in Luscar Creek, all in the Rocky Mountain foothills east of Jasper, Alta. He took the data with him when he left and recently analyzed it for The Canadian Press.

"The results are stark," he said.

Since at least the late 1990s, Alberta Environment has monitored water upstream and downstream from the Luscar, Gregg River and Cheviot mines.

Cheviot, owned by Teck Resources, still operates. The Gregg River and Luscar operations closed in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Gregg River, now managed by Coal Valley Resources, is considered reclaimed. Luscar, managed by Teck, is about 50 per cent reclaimed.

Donahue looked at water samples from 1998 through 2016, taken upstream and downstream on the same day.

He found that selenium levels averaged almost six times higher in the McLeod River downstream from the Cheviot mine. They were nearly nine times higher in the Gregg River and 11 times higher in Luscar Creek, despite years of reclamation.

Selenium levels in all the samples from the Gregg River and Luscar Creek exceeded those considered safe for aquatic life: by nearly four times in the Gregg River and nearly nine times in Luscar Creek.

The level was exceeded in about one-quarter of the McLeod River samples.

"This is not a subtle story," said Donahue. "This is shocking."

Video: Study: Fossil fuel production set to exceed Paris agreement limit (Global News)

Alberta Environment and Parks spokesman John Muir said the department routinely monitors selenium at 89 waterways across Alberta.

"We have key experts working on our own water quality studies to better understand the conditions of watersheds and aquatic life downstream of coal mining operations," he said. "(We) will make those findings publicly available."

Muir pointed out that all raw monitoring data is available on a searchable database.

He said the mines in question pre-date modern regulations and technology.

An Alberta government document on reclaiming the mine sites states: "Current assessments indicate there is no risk to humans who drink water or eat fish containing excessive amounts of selenium."

Selenium is a naturally occurring element vital in small amounts but toxic in excess.

In fish, it can damage the liver, kidney and heart. It can reduce the number of viable eggs a fish can produce and lead to deformed spine, head, mouth, and fins.

In humans, it can cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss and fatigue.

The last time Alberta Environment reported on selenium in the three waterways was 2006. Using data collected in 2000 and 2001, it concluded "selenium concentrations in rainbow and brook trout were usually greater than toxicity effects thresholds."

Why the subsequent silence? asks Donahue.

"They knew when a report was published that selenium was a problem in these systems related to coal mining. It draws a lot of questions."

Last May, the United Conservative government revoked a policy that protected much of the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains from open-pit coal mining. The area is home to endangered species, the water source for much of the southern prairies, and one of the province's best-loved landscapes.

Hundreds of exploratory drill sites and kilometres of access roads have now been scribed into its wilderness, documents from Alberta's energy regulator show. One open-pit coal mine proposal is before a joint federal-provincial review panel.

More than 100,000 Albertans have signed petitions opposing the plans. Opponents range from small-town mayors to ranchers to popular entertainment figures, including Corb Lund and Jann Arden.

Mining opponents point across the boundary into British Columbia, where selenium from coal mines in the Elk Valley has created serious contamination problems.

The lingering contamination from the three Alberta mines shows the stakes are high, said Donahue.

"These pollution problems have persisted long after the closure of coal mines."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 25, 2021

— Follow @row1960 on Twitter

Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

 

Letter from Russia: On the Protests of January 23

A report from anarchists in Russia, describing the situation there during the protests of January 23, in which tens of thousands across the country rallied in response to the arrest of opposition leader Aleksei Navalny—expressing anger that runs much deeper. This article was first published by Crimethinc.

We have received the following report secondhand from anarchists in Russia, describing the situation there during the protests of January 23, in which tens of thousands across the country rallied in response to the arrest of opposition leader Aleksei Navalny—expressing anger that runs much deeper. It had been our hope that sooner or later, the unrest from Belarus might spill over into Russia—this is certainly the best hope for rebels in Belarus and elsewhere around the sphere of Russian influence, as well as all who suffer under Putin. We publish this here in the interests of fostering international perspectives among all who endure the consequences of capitalism and state power. May even revolt deepen and spread.

Today, January 23, a spark has been lit in the Russian Federation. From Moscow to Ulan-Ude, tens of thousands have poured into the streets for protests against Putin, corruption, and repression. At first glance, these demonstrations may seem like the same opposition protests that kick off every time a prominent opposition candidate is acutely repressed. But to us on the ground, we feel that something has shifted.

The usual passive attitude that is typical for these kinds of protests has been abandoned. People are fighting back against the police. Likewise, these rallies aren’t just in the typical places, nor are they comprised of just the same politically active upper-class people. From the city of Chita, we hear stories that the cops have been routed. In Perm, a crowd applauds after anarchists speak about rebellion, self-organized activity, and solidarity against repression. In Irkutsk, people are receiving anarchists and their words warmly as well. In one place, people block police cars, while in another, they de-arrest a protester. On one street, a man knocks out a cop, while on another, people chant “Freedom! Freedom!” as a woman wrestles a baton from a cop’s hand. Beyond the growing interest in anarchist ideas, which is certainly exciting, there is an even more exciting anarchic potential in the revolt that broke out today, however humble.

One exciting emergent tactic that has been snowball attacks on the police that have fostered confidence and maintained tension while also being an escalation people are comfortable with. If the point of an insurgency is to humiliate the authorities and motivate other partisans to take action, this is certainly a way to do so. In one video circulating on Telegram, you can even see a snowball attack escalating to an attack on an a vehicle with a state license plate [reportedly, a vehicle potentially associated with the FSB, the hated Russian Federal Security Service]. We have seen revolt begin to bloom in these tactics, but, on the other hand, repression has come too.

The state has admitted to over 3000 arrests. Videos depicting brutal police beatings have emerged. Para-state vigilantes were out in droves. Metro stations were shut down. No doubt more repression will follow; the Russian state has great repressive resources. However, like all states, they require a certain level of compliance from the people if they are to succeed in repressing crowds in the street and movements more generally. Cops were able to do their usual routine of muscling in and snatching people numerous times, but people also fought back, rescuing their comrades from the police or even driving police from some areas entirely.

Roughly translated, “The people are not sheep.”

Many people here seem to have seen Belarus as an example where repression and police violence didn’t force the rebels to back down. Chants and messages of solidarity with the struggle there can be found in many of the gatherings today. This fills us with hope—not in the sense that two nationalisms are greeting each other, but because these struggles are breaching their national borders. Every beach that the wave of insurrection makes is different, we all have different contexts, but we can also find common cause, resonance, and inspiration. We can find resonance with those in Belarus who rally against an oligarch whose grip may be slipping, with those who defend themselves from the police, and most importantly, with those who, at times, managed to out-pace the politicians whose experience of repression was among the original catalysts of the unrest.

We should perhaps mention that we have no praise to give Navalny, the politician whose arrest seemingly triggered this wave of protests. Navalny is an opportunistic ultra-nationalist bigot of a politician who paints himself as a populist using a narrative of anti-corruption politics that would only prop up a different batch of oligarchs and perpetuate oppressive attitudes in more pernicious ways. He isn’t even the most popular opposition politician, nor is his party the most popular. Funnily enough, the most popular opposition party is the Communist Party of Russia whose rank and file were also in the streets today. But we digress.

Today, we saw tactics and resolve to fight spread almost instantly across terrain and communal differences. Around 100,000 people got a taste of collective action. We hope that the topics of the protest generalize as well as the protests themselves, but this is as good of a stepping stone as any to take the next leap from. These next moments are crucial. How do we act cohesively, effectively, and decisively without military-like command structures, and without relying on the FBK (Anti-Corruption Foundation) for leadership? How can we operate without drawing too much repression down on our own distinct organizations or groups of friends? We still have many questions, but we also see that so much of what we need is already here.

We have sent this missive in hopes it reaches some American friends whose summer of fighting the police has been an inspiration to us, at least. In Russia, we have a saying, “the goats are eating the wolves,” where Americans might say “the pigs are flying.” In Russia, crooked cops are called werewolves and in the US, we understand cops, are pigs. So in the spirit of international solidarity, we say may the goats eat the wolves and let’s put wings on pigs.

Where there is misery, there is resistance.
Courage and cunning!
Not for Navalny, but for the people!

PS—Rebel greetings to those fighting in the streets of Tunisia! Down with the police-state!

 

The struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against Bolshevism - Otto Ruhle

Left communist pamphlet from 1939 that points the finger at Lenin and the Bolsheviks for crippling the international workers' movement with authoritarian tactics and for developing a totalitarian and capitalist system of rule in the USSR.

This article by Otto Rühle appeared in the American Council Communist journal Living Marxism (Vol. 4 No. 8 1939). In 1981 it was reprinted as a pamphlet in the UK by Bratach Dubh editions.

It seems to be based on a much longer text also written in 1939 called Brauner und Roter Faschismus. This was apparantly unpublished during Rühle's lifetime and was first published in Germany in Schriften: Perspektiven einer Revolution in hochindustrialisierten Laendern (Mergner, Gottfried – Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuchverlag, 1971). A translation was published in French as Fascisme Brun, Fascisme Rouge by Spartacus in 1975 (Série B – No 63) and this is now also online.

I.

Russia must be placed first among the new totalitarian states. It was the first to adopt the new state principle. It went furthest in its application. It was the first to establish a constitutional dictatorship, together with the political and administrative terror system which goes with it. Adopting all the features of the total state, it thus became the model for those other countries which were forced to do away with the democratic state system and to change to dictatorial rule. Russia was the example for fascism.

No accident is here involved, nor a bad joke of history. The duplication of systems here is not apparent but real. Everything points to the fact that we have to deal here with expressions and consequences of identical principles applied to different levels of historical and political development. Whether party “communists” like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown “soviet state”, as well as of red, black or brown fascism. Though certain ideological differences exist between these countries, ideology is never of primary importance. Ideologies, furthermore, are changeable and such changes do not necessarily reflect the character and the functions of the state apparatus. Furthermore, the fact that private property still exists in Germany and Italy is only a modification of secondary importance. The abolition of private property alone does not guarantee socialism. Private property within capitalism also can be abolished. What actually determines a socialist society is, besides the doing away with private property in the means of production, the control of the workers over the products of their labour and the end of the wage system. Both of these achievements are unfulfilled in Russia, as well as in Italy and Germany. Though some may assume that Russia is one step nearer to socialism than the other countries, it does not follow that its “soviet state” has helped the international proletariat come in any way nearer to its class struggle goals. On the contrary, because Russia calls itself a socialist state, it misleads and deludes the workers of the world. The thinking worker knows what fascism is and fights it, but as regards Russia, he is only too often inclined to accept the myth of its socialistic nature. This delusion hinders a complete and determined break with fascism, because it hinders the principle struggle against the reasons, preconditions, and circumstances which in Russia, as in Germany and Italy, have led to an identical state and governmental system. Thus the Russian myth turns into an ideological weapon of counter-revolution.

It is not possible for men to serve two masters. Neither can a totalitarian state do such a thing. If fascism serves capitalistic and imperialistic interests, it cannot serve the needs of the workers. If, in spite of this, two apparently opposing classes favour the same state system, it is obvious that something must be wrong. One or the other class must be in error. No one should say here that the problem is one merely of form and therefore of no real significance, that, though the political forms are identical, their content may vary widely. This would be self-delusion. For the Marxist such things do not occur; for him form and content fit to each other and they cannot be divorced. Now, if the Soviet State serves as a model for fascism, it must contain structural and functional elements which are also common to fascism. To determine what they are we must go back to the “soviet system” as established by Leninism, which is the application of the principles of bolshevism to the Russian conditions. And if an identity between bolshevism and fascism can be established, then the proletariat cannot at the same time fight fascism and defend the Russian “soviet system”. Instead, the struggle against fascism must begin with the struggle against bolshevism.

II.

From the beginning bolshevism was for Lenin a purely Russian phenomenon. During the many years of his political activity, he never attempted to elevate the bolshevik system to forms of struggles in other countries. He was a social democrat who saw in Bebel and Kautsky the genial leaders of the working class, and he ignored the left-wing of the German socialist movement struggling against these heroes of Lenin and against all the other opportunists. Ignoring them, he remained in consistent isolation surrounded by a small group of Russian emigrants, and he continued to stand under Kautsky’s sway even when the German “left”, under the leadership of Rosa Luxemburg, was already engaged in open struggle against Kautskyism.

Lenin was concerned only with Russia. His goal was the end of the Czarist feudal system and the conquest of the greatest amount of political influence for his social democratic party within the bourgeois society. However, it realized that it could stay in power and drive on the process of socialization only if it could unleash the world revolution of the workers. But its own activity in this respect was quite an unhappy one. By helping to drive the German workers back into the parties, trade unions, and parliament, and by the simultaneous destruction of the German council (soviet) movement, the Bolsheviks lent a hand, to the defeat of the awakening European revolution.

The Bolshevik Party, consisting of professional revolutionists on the one hand and large backward masses on the other, remained isolated. It could not develop a real soviet system within the years of civil war, intervention, economic decline, failing socialization experiments, and the improvised Red Army. Though the soviets, which were developed by the Mensheviks, did not fit into the bolshevistik scheme, it was with their help that the Bolsheviks came to power. With the stabilisation of power and the economic reconstruction process, the Bolshevik Party did not know how to co-ordinate the strange soviet system to their own decisions and activities. Nevertheless, socialism was also the desire of the Bolsheviks, and it needed the world proletariat for its realization.

Lenin thought it essential to win the workers of the world over to the bolshevik methods. It was disturbing that the workers of other countries, despite the great triumph of Bolshevism, showed little inclination to accept for themselves the bolshevik theory and practice, but tended rather in the direction of the council movement, that arose in a number of countries, and especially in Germany.

This council movement Lenin could use no longer in Russia. In other European countries it showed strong tendencies to oppose the bolshevik type of uprisings. Despite Moscow’s tremendous propaganda in all countries, the so-called “ultra-lefts”, as Lenin himself pointed out, agitated more successfully for revolution on the basis of the council movement, than did all the propagandists sent by the Bolshevik Party. The Communist Party, following Bolshevism, remained a small, hysterical, and noisy group consisting largely of the proletarianized shreds of the bourgeoisie, whereas the council movement gained in real proletarian strength and attracted the best elements of the working class. To cope with this situation, bolshevik propaganda had to be increased; the “ultra-left” had to be attacked; its influence had to be destroyed in favour of Bolshevism.

Since the soviet system had failed in Russia, how could the radical “competition” dare to attempt to prove to the world that what could not be accomplished by Bolshevism in Russia might very well be realized independently of Bolshevism in other places? Against this competition Lenin wrote his pamphlet “Radicalism, an Infantile Disease of Communism”, dictated by fear of losing power and by indignation over the success of the heretics. At first this pamphlet appeared with the subheading, “Attempt at a popular exposition of the Marxian strategy and tactic”, but later this too ambitious and silly declaration was removed. It was a little too much. This aggressive, crude, and hateful papal bull was real material for any counter revolutionary. Of all programmatic declarations of Bolshevism it was the most revealing of its real character. It is Bolshevism unmasked. When in 1933 Hitler suppressed all socialist and communist literature in Germany, Lenin’s pamphlet was allowed publication and distribution.

As regards the content of the pamphlet, we are not here concerned with what it says in relation to the Russian Revolution, the history of Bolshevism, the polemic between Bolshevism and other streams of the labour movement, or the circumstances allowing for the Bolshevik victory, but solely with the main points by which at the time of the discussion between Lenin and “ultra-leftism”, were illustrated the decisive differences between the two opponents.

III.

The Bolshevik Party, originally the Russian social democratic section of the Second International, was built not in Russia but during the emigration. After the London split in 1903, the Bolshevik wing of the Russian social democracy was no more than a small sect. The “masses” behind it existed only in the brain of its leader. However, this small advance guard was a strictly disciplined organization, always ready for militant struggles and continually purged to maintain its integrity. The party was considered the war academy of professional revolutionists. Its outstanding pedagogical requirements were unconditional leader authority, rigid centralism, iron discipline, conformity, militancy, and sacrifice of personality for party interests. What Lenin actually developed was an elite of intellectuals, a centre which, when thrown into the revolution would capture leadership and assume power. There is no use to try to determine logically and abstractly if this kind of preparation for revolution is right or wrong. The problem has to be solved dialectically. Other questions also must be raised: What kind of a revolution was in preparation? What was the goal of the revolution?

Lenin’s party worked within the belated bourgeois revolution in Russia to overthrow the feudal regime of Czarism. The more centralized the will of the leading party in such a revolution and the more single-minded, the more success would accompany the process of the formation of the bourgeois state and the more promising would be the position of the proletarian class within the framework of the new state. What, however, may be regarded as a happy solution of revolutionary problems in a bourgeois revolution cannot at the same time be pronounced as a solution for the proletarian revolution. The decisive structural difference between the bourgeois and the new socialist society excludes such an attitude.

According to Lenin’s revolutionary method, the leaders appear as the head of the masses. Possessing the proper revolutionary schooling, they are able to understand situations and direct and command the fighting forces. They are professional revolutionists, the generals of the great civilian army. This distinction between head and body, intellectuals and masses, officers, and privates corresponds to the duality of class society, to the bourgeois social order. One class is educated to rule; the other to be ruled. Out of this old class formula resulted Lenin’s party concept. His organisation is only a replica of bourgeois reality. His revolution is objectively determined by the forces that create a social order incorporating these class relations, regardless of the subjective goals accompanying this process.

Whoever wants to have a bourgeois order will find in the divorce of leader and masses, the advance guard and working class, the right strategical preparation for revolution. The more intelligent, schooled, and superior is the leadership and the more disciplined and obedient are the masses, the more chances such a revolution will have to succeed. In aspiring to the bourgeois revolution in Russia, Lenin’s party was most appropriate to his goal.

When, however, the Russian revolution changed its character, when its proletarian features came more to the fore, Lenin’s tactical and strategical methods ceased to be of value. If he succeeded anyway it was not because of his advance guard, but because of the soviet movement which had not at all been incorporated in his revolutionary plans. And when Lenin, after the successful revolution which was made by the soviets, dispensed again with this movement, all that had been proletarian in the Russian Revolution was also dispensed with. The bourgeois character of the Revolution came to the fore again, finding its natural completion in Stalinism.

Despite his great concern with Marxian dialectics, Lenin was not able to see the social historical processes in a dialectical manner. His thinking remained mechanistic, following rigid rules. For him there was only one revolutionary party -- his own; only one revolution -- the Russian; only one method -- the bolshevik. And what had worked in Russia would work also in Germany, France, America, China and Australia. What was correct for the bourgeois revolution in Russia would be correct also for the proletarian world revolution. The monotonous application of a once discovered formula moved in an ego-centric circle undisturbed by time and circumstances, developmental degrees, cultural standards, ideas and men. In Lenin came to light with great clarity the rule of the machine age in politics; he was the “technician”, the “inventor”, of the revolution, the representative of the all-powerful will of the leader. All fundamental characteristics of fascism were in his doctrine, his strategy, his social “planning”, and his art with dealing with men. He could not see the deep revolutionary meaning of the rejection of traditional party policies by the left. He could not understand the real importance of the soviet movement for the socialist orientation of society. He never learned to know the prerequisites for the freeing of the workers. Authority, leadership, force, exerted on one side, and organization, cadres, subordination on the other side, -- such was his line of reasoning. Discipline and dictatorship are the words which are most frequent in his writings. It is understandable, then, why he could not comprehend nor appreciate the ideas and actions of the “ultra-left”, which would not accept his strategy and which demanded what was most obvious and most necessary for the revolutionary struggle for socialism, namely that the workers once and for all take their fate in their own hands.

IV.

To take their destiny in their own hands -- this key-word to all questions of socialism -- was the real issue in all polemics between the ultra-lefts and the Bolsheviks. The disagreement on the party question was paralleled by the disagreement on trade unionism. The ultra-left was of the opinion that there was no longer a place for revolutionists in trade unions; that it was rather necessary for them to develop their own organizational forms within the factories, the common working places. However, thanks to their unearned authority, the Bolsheviks had been able even in the first weeks of the German revolution to drive the workers back into the capitalistic reactionary trade unions. To fight the ultra-lefts, to denounce them as stupid and as counter-revolutionary, Lenin in his pamphlet once more makes use of his mechanistic formulas. In his arguments against the position of the left he does not refer to German trade unions but to the trade union experiences of the Bolsheviks in Russia. That in their early beginnings trade unions were of great importance for the proletarian class struggle is a generally accepted fact. The trade unions in Russia were young and they justified Lenin’s enthusiasm. However, the situation was different in other parts of the world. Useful and progressive in their beginnings, the trade unions in the older capitalistic countries had turned into obstacles in the way of the liberation of the workers. They had turned into instruments of counter revolution, and the German left drew its conclusions from this changed situation.

Lenin himself could not help declaring that in the course of time there had developed a layer of a “strictly trade-unionist, imperialistic orientated, arrogant, vain, sterile, egotistical, petty-bourgeois, bribed, and demoralised aristocracy of labour”. This guild of corruption, this gangster leadership, today rules the world trade union movement and lives on the back of the workers. It was of this trade union movement that the ultra-left was speaking when it demanded that the workers should desert it. Lenin, however, demagogically answered by pointing to the young trade union movement in Russia which did not as yet share the character of the long established unions in other countries. Employing a specific experience at a given period and under particular circumstance, he thought it possible to draw from it conclusions of world-wide application. The revolutionist, he argued, must always be where the masses are. But in reality where are the masses? In trade union offices? At membership meetings? At the secret meetings of the leadership with the capitalistic representatives? No, the masses are in the factories, in their working places; and there it is necessary to effect their co-operation and strengthen their solidarity. The factory organization, the council system, is the real organisation of the revolution, which must replace all parties and trade unions.

In factory organizations there is no room for professional leadership, no divorce of leaders from followers, no caste distinction between intellectuals and the rank and file, no ground for egotism, competition, demoralization, corruption, sterility and philistinism. Here the workers must take their lot in their own hands.

But Lenin thought otherwise. He wanted to preserve the unions; to change them from within; to remove the social democratic officials and replace them with bolshevik officials; to replace a bad with a good bureaucracy. The bad one grows in a social democracy; the good one in Bolshevism.

Twenty years of experience meanwhile have demonstrated the idiocy of such a concept. Following Lenin’s advice, the Communists have tried all and sundry methods to reform trade unions. The result was nil. The attempt to form their own trade unions was likewise nil. The competition between social democratic and bolshevik trade union work was a competition in corruption. The revolutionary energies of the workers were exhausted in this very process. Instead of concentrating upon the struggle against fascism, the workers were engaged in a senseless and resultless experimentation in the interest of diverse bureaucracies. The masses lost confidence in themselves and in “their” organizations. They felt themselves cheated and betrayed. The methods of fascism, to dictate each step of the workers, to hinder the awakening of self-initiative, to sabotage all beginnings of class-consciousness, to demoralise the masses through innumerable defeats and to make them impotent-all these methods had already been developed in the twenty years of work in the trade unions in accordance with bolshevik principles. The victory of fascism was such an easy one because the labour leaders in trade unions and parties had prepared for them the human material capable of being fitted into the fascistic scheme of things.

V.

On the question of parliamentarianism, too, Lenin appears in the role of the defender of a decayed political institution which had become a hindrance for further political development and a danger to the proletarian emancipation. The ultra-lefts fought parliamentarianism in all its forms. They refused to participate in elections and did not respect parliamentary decisions. Lenin, however, put much effort into parliamentary activities and attached much importance to them. The ultra-left declared parliamentarianism historically passé even as a tribune for agitation, and saw in it no more than a continuous source of political corruption for both parliamentarian and workers. It dulled the revolutionary awareness and consistency of the masses by creating illusions of legalistic reforms, and on critical occasions the parliament turned into a weapon of counter revolution. It had to be destroyed, or, where nothing else was possible, sabotaged. The parliamentary tradition, still playing a part in proletarian consciousness, was to be fought.

To achieve the opposite effect, Lenin operated with the trick of making a distinction between the historically and politically passé institutions. Certainly, he argued, parliamentarianism was historically obsolete, but this was not the case politically, and one would have to reckon with it. One would have to participate because it still played a part politically.

What an argument! Capitalism, too, is only historically and not politically obsolete. According to Lenin’s logic, it is then not possible to fight capitalism in a revolutionary manner. Rather a compromise would have to be found. Opportunism, bargaining, political horse-trading, -- that would be the consequence of Lenin’s tactic. The monarchy, too, is only historically but not politically surpassed. According to Lenin, the workers would have no right to do away with it but would be obliged to find a compromise solution. The same story would be true as regards the church, also only historically but not politically antedated. Furthermore, the people belong in great masses to the church. As a revolutionist, Lenin pointed out, that one had to be where the masses are. Consistency would force him to say “Enter the Church; it is your revolutionary duty!” Finally, there is fascism. One day, too, fascism will be historically antedated but politically still in existence. What is then to be done? To accept the fact and to make a compromise with fascism. According to Lenin’s reasoning, a pact between Stalin and Hitler would only illustrate that Stalin actually is the best disciple of Lenin. And it will not at all be surprising if in the near future the bolshevist agents will hail the pact between Moscow and Berlin as the only real revolutionary tactic.

Lenin’s position on the question of parliamentarianism is only an additional illustration of his incapacity to understand the essential needs and characteristics of the proletarian revolution. His revolution is entirely bourgeois; it is a struggle for the majority, for governmental positions, for a hold upon the law machine. He actually thought it of importance to gain as many votes as possible at election campaigns, to have a strong bolshevik fraction in the parliaments, to help determine form and content of legislation, to take part in political rule. He did not notice at all that today parliamentarianism is a mere bluff, an empty make-believe, and that the real power of bourgeois society rests in entirely different places; that despite all possible parliamentary defeats the bourgeoisie would still have at hand sufficient means to assert its will and interest in non-parliamentary fields. Lenin did not see the demoralising effects parliamentarism had upon the masses, he did not notice the poisoning of public morals through parliamentary corruption. Bribed, bought, and cowed, parliamentary politicians were fearful for their income. There was a time in prefascist Germany when the reactionists in parliament were able to pass any desired law merely by threatening to bring about the dissolution of parliament. There was nothing more terrible to the parliamentary politicians than such a threat which implied the end of their easy incomes. To avoid such an end, they would say yes to anything. And how is it today in Germany, in Russia, in Italy? The parliamentary helots are without opinions, without will, and are nothing more than willing servants of their fascist masters.

There can be no question that parliamentarianism is entirely degenerated and corrupt. But, why didn’t the proletariat stop this deterioration of a political instrument which had once been used for their purposes? To end parliamentarism by one heroic revolutionary act would have been far more useful and educational for the proletarian consciousness than the miserable theatre in which parliamentarism has ended in the fascistic society. But such an attitude was entirely foreign to Lenin, as it is foreign to day to Stalin. Lenin was not concerned with the freedom of the workers from their mental and physical slavery; he was not bothered by the false consciousness of the masses and their human self-alienation. The whole problem to him was nothing more nor less than a problem of power. Like a bourgeois, he thought in terms of gains and losses, more or less, credit and debit; and all his business-like computations deal only with external things: membership figures, number of votes, seats in parliaments, control positions. His materialism is a bourgeois materialism, dealing with mechanisms, not with human beings. He is not really able to think in socio-historical terms. Parliament to him is parliament; an abstract concept in a vacuum, holding equal meaning in all nations, at all times. Certainly he acknowledges that parliament passes through different stages, and he points this out in his discussions, but he does not use his own knowledge in his theory and practice. In his pro-parliamentarian polemics he hides behind the early capitalist parliaments in the ascending stage of capitalism, in order not to run out of arguments. And if he attacks the old parliaments, it is from the vantage point of the young and long outmoded. In short, he decides that politics is the art of the possible. However, politics for the workers is the art of revolution.

VI.

It remains to deal with Lenin’s position on the question of compromises. During the World War the German Social Democracy sold out to the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, much against its will, it inherited the German revolution. This was made possible to a large extent by the help of Russia, which did its share in killing off the German council movement. The power which had fallen into the lap of Social Democracy was used for nothing. The Social Democracy simply renewed its old class collaboration policy, satisfied with sharing power over the workers with the bourgeoisie in the reconstruction period of capitalism. The German radical workers countered this betrayal with this slogan, “No compromise with the counter revolution”. Here was a concrete case, a specific situation, demanding a clear decision. Lenin, unable to recognize the real issues at stake, made from this concrete specific question a general problem. With the air of a general and the infallibility of a cardinal, he tried to persuade the ultra-lefts that compromises with political opponents under all conditions are a revolutionary duty. If today one reads those passages in Lenin’s pamphlet dealing with compromises, one is inclined to compare Lenin’s remarks in 1920 with Stalin’s present policy of compromises. There is not one deadly sin of bolshevik theory which did not become bolshevistic reality under Lenin.

According to Lenin, the ultra-lefts should have been willing to sign the Treaty of Versailles. However, the Communist Party, still in accordance with Lenin, made a compromise and protested against the Versailles Treaty in collaboration with the Hitlerites. The “National Bolshevism” propagandized in 1919 in Germany by the left-winger Lauffenberg was in Lenin’s opinion “an absurdity crying to heaven”. But Radek and the Communist Party—again in accordance with Lenin’s principle—concluded a compromise with German Nationalism, and protested against the occupation of the Ruhr basin and celebrated the national hero Schlageter. The League of Nations was, in Lenin’s own words, “a band of capitalist robbers and bandits”, whom the workers could only fight to the bitter end. However, Stalin—in accordance with Lenin’s tactics—made a compromise with these very same bandits, and the USSR entered the League. The concept “folk” or “People” is in Lenin’s opinion a criminal concession to the counter-revolutionary ideology of the petty bourgeoisie. This did not hinder the Leninists, Stalin and Dimitrov, from making a compromise with the petty bourgeoisie in order to launch the freakish “Peoples Front” movement. For Lenin, imperialism was the greatest enemy of the world proletariat, and against it all forces had to be mobilized. But Stalin, again in true Leninistic fashion, is quite busy with cooking up an alliance with Hitler’s imperialism. Is it necessary to offer more examples? Historical experience teaches that all compromises between revolution and counter-revolution can serve only the latter. They lead only to the bankruptcy of the revolutionary movement. All policy of compromise is a policy of bankruptcy. What began as a mere compromise with the German Social Democracy found its end in Hitler. What Lenin justified as a necessary compromise found its end in Stalin. In diagnosing revolutionary non-compromise as “An Infantile Disease of Communism”, Lenin was suffering from the old age disease of opportunism, of pseudo-communism.

VII.

If one looks with critical eyes at the picture of bolshevism provided by Lenin’s pamphlet, the following main points may be recognized as characteristics of bolshevism:

1. Bolshevism is a nationalistic doctrine. Originally and essentially conceived to solve a national problem, it was later elevated to a theory and practice of international scope and to a general doctrine. Its nationalistic character comes to light also in its position on the struggle for national independence of suppressed nations.

2. Bolshevism is an authoritarian system. The peak of the social pyramid is the most important and determining point. Authority is realized in the all-powerful person. In the leader myth the bourgeois personality ideal celebrates its highest triumphs.

3. Organizationally, Bolshevism is highly centralistic. The central committee has responsibility for all initiative, leadership, instruction, commands. As in the bourgeois state, the leading members of the organization play the role of the bourgeoisie; the sole role of the workers is to obey orders.

4. Bolshevism represents a militant power policy. Exclusively interested in political power, it is no different from the forms of rule in the traditional bourgeois sense. Even in the organization proper there is no self-determination by the members. The army serves the party as the great example of organization.

5. Bolshevism is dictatorship. Working with brute force and terroristic measures, it directs all its functions toward the suppression of all non-bolshevik institutions and opinions. Its “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the dictatorship of a bureaucracy or a single person.

6. Bolshevism is a mechanistic method. It aspires to the automatic co-ordination, the technically secured conformity, and the most efficient totalitarianism as a goal of social order. The centralistically “planned” economy consciously confuses technical-organizational problems with socio-economic questions.

7. The social structure of Bolshevism is of a bourgeois nature. It does not abolish the wage system and refuses proletarian self-determination over the products of labour. It remains therewith fundamentally within the class frame of the bourgeois social order. Capitalism is perpetuated.

8. Bolshevism is a revolutionary element only in the frame of the bourgeois revolution. Unable to realize the soviet system, it is thereby unable to transform essentially the structure of bourgeois society and its economy. It establishes not socialism but state capitalism.

9. Bolshevism is not a bridge leading eventually into the socialist society. Without the soviet system, without the total radical revolution of men and things, it cannot fulfil the most essential of all socialistic demands, which is to end the capitalist human-self-alienation. It represents the last stage of bourgeois society and not the first step towards a new society.

These nine points represent an unbridgeable opposition between bolshevism and socialism. They demonstrate with all necessary clarity the bourgeois character of the bolshevist movement and its close relationship to fascism. Nationalism, authoritarianism, centralism, leader dictatorship, power policies, terror-rule, mechanistic dynamics, inability to socialize-all these essential characteristics of fascism were and are existing in bolshevism. Fascism is merely a copy of bolshevism. For this reason the struggle against the one must begin with the struggle against the other.

Putin Thrusts Global Food Markets Into Russian Politics

(Bloomberg) -- Dmitry Bravkov is the kind of farmer that makes Vladimir Putin proud. The Russian president regularly touts his country’s rise to the top of the world’s agricultural exporters as another sign of its global power.

But after 14 years of running a dairy and grain farm 300 miles southwest of Moscow, Bravkov has suddenly found himself on the wrong end of Kremlin policy. In three weeks, he’ll get less for his wheat because of new tariffs and quotas designed to curb exports and drive domestic prices lower.

With Putin’s popularity barely back from record lows, the policy is an attempt to mollify a public battered by falling incomes and rising food costs. Protests at the weekend demanding the release of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny now give Putin another reason to try to shore up support.

Russia’s position as the world’s biggest wheat exporter means the move is already reverberating through global markets, and a short-term domestic advantage could lead to longer-term damage to faith in the country as a reliable supplier.

“The introduction of the duty is an attempt to cash in on the farmers,” said Bravkov, 47, who employs 60 people in a village in the Bryansk region. “There’s plenty of wheat in the world. If Russia doesn’t supply it, someone else will.”

© Bloomberg Russian Wheat Harvest as Record Prices Halt Export Boom

World grain prices have soared to the highest level in six years after poor weather hampered harvests in some key producers and China embarked on an agricultural buying spree. The knock-on effect is particularly acute for developing nations because food is a bigger share of household spending.

Uncertainty over Russia’s restrictions has already hurt some buyers, with top wheat importer Egypt canceling a tender on Jan. 12—a rare occurrence—after supply offers dried up.

“Russia wants to have it both ways,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist at the UN’s Food & Agriculture Organization in Rome. “It wants to have a big chunk of the export market, and at the same time, not be exposed to problems within the global food sector. Usually such plans aren’t successful in the long-run.”

© Bloomberg Wheat Powerhouse

While Putin was boasting of a record harvest last year, ordinary Russians had to shell out 20% more for bread and 65% more for sugar than in 2019. Memories of food shortages in the Soviet Union and soaring inflation after its collapse have made prices a politically sensitive issue in Russia.

Russia’s history wasn’t lost on Putin as he scolded ministers on national television last month for not doing enough to stop rising prices, even as he boasted about huge grain exports. Russia’s wheat output has nearly doubled in the past two decades.

“Back then, they said that everything is available in the Soviet Union, just not enough for everyone, but there wasn’t enough because there were shortages,” he said. “Now there might not be enough because people don’t have enough money to buy certain products at the prices we see on the market.”

One day after the comments were aired—and three days before Putin was due to address the nation in his annual televised press conference—the government proposed a levy on wheat from mid-February though the end of June. The duty will start at 25 euros ($30.40) a ton before doubling from March 1. Wheat-export prices in Russia have climbed 43% in the past six months to $297 as of Jan. 20, data from consultancy IKAR show.

VOT ME VORRY

© Bloomberg Russia's President Vladimir Putin Delivers Annual News Conference

The government is also pressing ahead with a previously announced grain-export quota for the same period. Price curbs were looked at for other food products such as pasta, eggs and potatoes, though Russia’s Agriculture Ministry said on Monday it sees no need for further limits.

Russia has a history of disrupting the wheat market with restrictions and duties. The country imposed an export tax in 2007 to combat rising food costs, helping push global wheat prices to a record, and some researchers see an export ban in 2010 as an indirect contributor to the Arab Spring uprisings.

Indeed, few other exporters have dared to go down the protectionist route because the results can be counterproductive. The strategy is particularly risky because the Kremlin has worked so hard to overtake the U.S. and European Union and become the dominant global supplier of wheat.

© Bloomberg Retail Economy Inside An X5 Retail Group NV Supermarket As Russia Nears End Of Recession

The measures will cost wheat farmers as much as 135 billion rubles ($1.8 billion) in potential revenue losses, and more if export duties are extended to other foodstuffs, according to Andrey Sizov Jr., managing director at consultant SovEcon in Moscow.

Importers are already turning toward other suppliers such as Australia and even India, according to Evgeniya Dudinova, a member of the International Association of Operative Millers Eurasia leadership council. In the United Arab Emirates, where she’s based, purchases from Russia have totaled about 330,000 tons so far this season, a third of last year’s volume.

Key importers will try to avoid Russian wheat when the taxes kick in, said Muzzammil R. Chappal, chairman of the Cereal Association of Pakistan. The country is the fifth-largest importer of Russian wheat this season.

At his farm, Bravkov said he hasn’t received any help from the government in the past. He’s in the process of switching from dairy to grain farming after milk prices stagnated, which will force him to lay off workers to stay profitable. “With such measures our government just helps protect our European competitors,” Bravkov said.

©2021 Bloomberg L.P.