In 1649…

by Colin Todhunter / November 21st, 2024

This is an extract from the author’s new book Power Play: The Future of Food.

In the annals of agrarian history, one particular movement has left a profound impact on the collective imagination of food sovereignty advocates. The Diggers in 17th century England were led by the visionary Gerrard Winstanley. This radical group emerged during a period of intense social and political upheaval, offering a revolutionary perspective on land ownership and food production that continues to resonate with modern struggles for (food) justice.

The Diggers, also known as the True Levellers, arose in 1649, a time when England was reeling from the aftermath of civil war. Winstanley and his followers dared to imagine a different world. The group challenged the very foundations of the emerging capitalist system and the enclosure movement that was rapidly privatising previously common lands. But Winstanley’s vision was not merely theoretical.

On 1 April 1649, the Diggers began their most famous action, occupying St. George’s Hill in Surrey, where they established a commune, cultivating the land collectively and distributing food freely to all who needed it. This act of direct action was a powerful demonstration of their philosophy in practice.

As Winstanley declared:

“The earth was made to be a common treasury for all, not a private treasury for some.”

The Diggers, true to their name, began their movement by literally digging up unused common lands and planting crops. According to Professor Justin Champion, they planted “peas and carrots and pulses” and let their cows graze on the fields.

While the Diggers saw their actions as relatively harmless (Champion compares it to having an allotment), local property owners viewed it as a serious threat, likening it to “village terrorism”, according to Champion.

The local landowners called in troops to suppress these actions. Despite their relatively small numbers and short-lived experiments, which spread across parts of England, Champion suggests that the Diggers posed a significant ideological threat to the existing social order, challenging notions of private property and social hierarchy.

Winstanley declared:

“Those that Buy and Sell Land, and are landlords, have got it either by Oppression, or Murther, or Theft”.

He added:

The Work we are going about is this, To dig up Georges-Hill and the waste Ground thereabouts, and to Sow Corn, and to eat our bread together by the sweat of our brows. And the First Reason is this, That we may work in righteousness, and lay the Foundation of making the Earth a Common Treasury for All, both Rich and Poor, That every one that is born in the land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the Reason that rules in the Creation.

The backlash from local landlords was systematic. The Diggers faced beatings and arson, forcing them to move from St George’s Hill to a second site in Cobham, until they were finally driven off the land entirely.

Writing in 1972 in his book The World Turned Upside Down, Christopher Hill, a prominent historian of the English Civil War period, suggested that the Diggers’ influence was more widespread than just their most famous colony at St. George’s Hill. He argued that from Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire to Gloucestershire and Kent, Digger influence spread all over southern and central England.

While the actual number of people involved in Digger experiments was relatively small (estimated at 100-200 people across England) and ended in 1651, their ideas spread more widely through pamphlets and word of mouth.

This widespread influence, as described by Hill, suggests that the Diggers’ ideas resonated with people across a significant portion of England, even if actual Digger colonies were few in number.

The Diggers were a radical, biblically inspired movement that practically implemented their beliefs about common ownership of land, provoking strong opposition from the established landowners despite their generally peaceful methods.

The St. George’s Hill experiment represented a radical alternative to the prevailing economic and social order. It was an early example of what we might today call a food sovereignty project, emphasising local control over food production and distribution.

In today’s era of industrial agriculture and corporate food systems, the Diggers’ ideas remain highly significant. Their resistance to the enclosure of common lands in the 17th century mirrors today’s struggles against corporate land grabs — and the colonising actions that underpin the likes of Bayer’s corporate jargon about the unlocking of ‘business growth’, ‘driving change management’, ‘driving market share’ and ‘creating business value’ — as well as the privatisation of seeds and genetic resources.

The consolidation of the global agri-food chain in the hands of a few powerful corporations represents a modern form of enclosure, concentrating control over food production and distribution in ways that would have been all too familiar to Winstanley and his followers.

The Diggers’ emphasis on local, community-controlled food production offers a stark alternative to the industrial agriculture model promoted by agribusiness giants and their allies in institutions like the World Bank and the WTO. Where the dominant paradigm prioritises large-scale monocultures, global supply chains and market-driven food security, the Diggers’ vision aligns more closely with concepts of food sovereignty and agroecology.

Food sovereignty, a concept developed by the international peasant movement La Via Campesina, shares much with the Diggers’ philosophy. Both emphasise the right of communities to define their own food and agriculture systems.

The Diggers’ legacy can be seen in various contemporary movements challenging the corporate food regime. From La Via Campesina’s global struggle for peasant rights to local community garden initiatives and the work of the Agrarian Trust in the US (which provides good insight into the Diggers and their continued relevance in The Diggers Today: Enclosure, Manure and Resistance), we see echoes of the Diggers’ vision.

Modern projects to create community-owned farms, seed banks and food cooperatives can be seen as spiritual descendants of the Diggers’ movement, aiming to reclaim food production from corporate control and put it back in the hands of communities.

However, realising the Diggers’ vision in the current context faces significant obstacles.

The influence of agribusiness conglomerates over key institutions and policymaking bodies presents a formidable challenge. From the World Bank to national agriculture ministries, corporate interests often shape policies that prioritise industrial agriculture and global markets over local food systems. International trade agreements and memoranda of understanding, often negotiated with minimal public scrutiny, frequently benefit large agribusiness at the expense of small farmers and local food sovereignty.

Moreover, proponents of industrial agriculture often argue that it is the only way to feed the world. This narrative, however, ignores the environmental and social costs of this model, as well as the proven productivity of small-scale, agroecological farming methods.

The Diggers didn’t just theorise about an alternative society; they attempted to build it by taking direct action, occupying land and implementing their vision of communal agriculture.

The Diggers also understood that changing the food system required challenging broader power structures. Today’s food sovereignty movements similarly recognise the need for systemic change, addressing issues of land rights, trade policies and economic justice alongside agricultural practices.

In this era of corporate-dominated agriculture, the Diggers’ vision of a “common treasury for all” remains as radical and necessary as ever.

By reclaiming the commons, promoting agroecological practices and building food sovereignty, ordinary people can work towards a world where food is truly a common treasury for all.

The Diggers recognised that true freedom and equality could not be achieved without addressing the fundamental question of who controls the land and the means of production. This understanding is crucial in the current context, where corporate control over the food system extends from land, seeds and inputs to distribution and retail.

This vision also challenges us to rethink our relationship with the land and with each other. In a world increasingly dominated by individualism and market relations, the emphasis on communal ownership and collective labour offers a radical alternative.

The Diggers’ legacy challenges us to think beyond the confines of the prevailing food regime, to envision and create a world where food and land are not commodities to be bought and sold but common resources to be shared and stewarded for the benefit of all.

Their vision of a world where “the earth becomes a common treasury again” is not a quaint historical curiosity, but a vital and necessary alternative to the destructive practices of those who dominate the current food system.

Email

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer. Power Play: The Future of Food is the third book in a series of open-access ebooks on the global food system by the author (Global Research, 2024). Read it on Global Research (or here). Read other articles by Colin.

 

Expanding the Possible, from Below

by Alexandria Shaner / November 16th, 2024

The Green New Deal has been largely blocked at the national level, but it is thriving in communities, cities, and states. Jeremy Brecher’s new book is both an urgent call to action and proof of concept.

Starting where we’re at

Less than one week after Trump was re-elected to the single most powerful political office in the world, it seems like a horrible time to release a book about the Green New Deal.

Thinking back to 2018, not so long ago in time but perhaps much longer in space, to when the Green New Deal was launched into public attention as a bold proposal for transformative national legislation, is frankly, beyond depressing. Loss, grief and rage compete with numbness and shock, easily overwhelming any effort to fathom where we were then, and where we find ourselves now.

But this is not a depressing story. We have no time for that now.

This is a story, a true story, about expanding the sense of what is possible and thereby expanding the actual limits of the possible. It is about shifting the balance of power and expanding democracy – what could be more right, right now? This story weaves once strange and wary bedfellows into a surprising sort of magical fabric, capable of keeping us safe as we pull the rug from under kings. This is the view from below.

What makes a Green New Dealer?

Jeremy Brecher’s new book, The Green New Deal from Below: How Ordinary People Are Building a Just and Climate-Safe Economy, is a timely and important contribution for organizers and anyone thinking about rebuilding the world from the bottom up.

Drawing on decades of hands-on experience at the intersections of environmental, labor, and justice movements, Brecher offers an overview of Green New Deal from Below initiatives across various sectors and locations, highlighting a diverse array of programs already in progress or under development. The initiatives shared by Green New Dealers are intended to inspire countless more projects, which can serve as the foundation for local, national, and even global mobilization and reconstruction – even, and perhaps especially in times when national legislation cannot be relied upon.

Brecher begins with questions, “Is [the Green New Deal from Below] a brilliant flame that may simply burn out? Will it continue as a force, but not a decisive element in a society and world hurtling toward midnight? Or will it prove to be the start of a turn away from catastrophe and toward security and justice? The answer will largely depend on what people decide to do with the possibilities [it] opens up” (10).

The Green New Deal is a visionary program designed to protect the earth’s climate while creating good jobs, reducing injustice, and eliminating poverty. Like The New Deal of the 1930s, the Green New Deal is not a single program or piece of legislation – rather, according to Brecher, it exhibits many of the traits of a social movement. “[The New Deal] was a whole era of turmoil in which contesting forces tried to address a devastating crisis and shape the future of American society. In addition to its famous “alphabet soup” of federal agencies, the New Deal was part of a broader process of social change that included experimentation at the state, regional, and local levels; organization among labor, the unemployed, urban residents, the elderly, and other grassroots constituencies; and lively debate on future possibilities that went far beyond the policies actually adopted” (12). While the New Deal certainly had its limitations in terms of racial and gender justice, it was this unifying and expansive vision that set it apart as a cohesive and immensely transformative program.

From its outset, the core principle of the Green New Deal has been and remains, “to unite the necessity for climate protection with the goals of full employment and social justice” (11). In other words, not only does the GND provide a unifying vision that aligns environmental, labor, and justice movements together in the pursuit of mutual aims, it weaves constituencies and communities into transformative power blocs, greater than the sum of their parts.

Though the GND has so far been consistently blocked and largely coopted at the national level by the fossil fuel lobby, and by corporate interests antagonistic to its inherent socialist implications, a lesser-known wave of initiatives has also emerged. Driven by community groups, unions, city and state governments, tribes, students, and other nonfederal actors, all aimed at advancing the climate protection, economic and social justice objectives of the Green New Deal, this grassroots movement can be recognized as “a Green New Deal from Below.”

“So far, these forces have managed to block the Green New Deal at a national level. The strategy of the Green New Deal from Below is to outflank them” (174). Brecher warns against mistaking the Green New Deal from Below movement for an unrelated collection of isolated or even of loosely related interventions – that would be to miss the forest for the trees, or as Brecher describes it, that would be like describing a collection of lecture halls, library, stadium, cafeteria, and dorms but failing to recognize the university.

The type of vision fueled and integrative coalition building exemplified by diverse Green New Dealers has major potential for mass member organizing, shifting power, expanding democracy, and could provide the way forward from our current predicament, shoved between a neoliberal heat-rock and a cold, hard fascist place.

How to Green New Deal from Below

Los Angeles City Council President Nury Martinez, who has introduced a motion to create a new city office to support workers transitioning out of jobs affected by new technology, including those in the oil and gas industry, summed it up well: the city cannot “correct the sins of environmental racism” by “taking away jobs from working-class communities” (108).

The core idea behind Green New Deal from Below initiatives is to address the urgent need for climate protection while also meeting the needs of working people and marginalized communities, an approach that moves beyond fragmented policies to a comprehensive set of strategies for social change. It integrates climate protection with the creation of good jobs and tackles the disproportionate concentration of carbon pollution, such as from fossil fuel plants, in low-income communities of color. This policy integration is reflected in the collaboration of previously separate or opposing constituencies. “When once-divided groups reach out to each other, explore common needs and interests, and start cooperating for common objectives they thereby create new forms of social action. That is the process that [Brecher has] called the emergence of “common preservation”” (180).

The initiatives described by Brecher are largely driven by such coalitions of diverse groups working toward shared goals, often including neighborhood organizations, unions, racial and ethnic justice groups, political leaders, government officials, youth and senior organizations, religious congregations, and climate justice advocates. Chapters 1-4 provide detailed but highly accessible examples of such initiatives, including candid debriefs that don’t shy away from exploring lessons learned from mistakes, at the community, municipal, and state levels.

One particularly potent lesson, gleaned through numerous campaigns, relates to tensions that can arise between environmental and labor protections. Historically and now, climate protection policies have often been viewed as a threat to workers and communities reliant on the fossil fuel economy. This perception generates opposition to climate action, with certain communities and worker groups highlighted as “poster children” for the negative impacts of such policies, leading to the widely framed “environment vs. jobs” debate, fueling conflict between environmentalists and organized labor, often amplified by fossil fuel interests.

Brecher lays out three key shifts in mindset that are beginning to offer an alternative to this polarization (147). First, many trade unionists have come to recognize that the transition to cleaner energy is inevitable, and that their members will be vulnerable unless policies are put in place to protect them. Second, climate advocates are realizing that their policies will face significant resistance unless they also address the needs of workers and communities that could be negatively impacted by these changes. Third, the core idea of the Green New Deal, that climate protection can be an opportunity to address inequality and injustice, opens up a broader vision for social change that transcends narrow interest group politics.

This “new thinking” often begins with specific interests but is increasingly fostering a broader awareness. Unions are recognizing the necessity of climate protection; environmentalists are acknowledging the importance of community well-being; and justice advocates see the potential for new coalitions to tackle long-standing inequities. “The result has been the development of coalitions among groups that had previously been at odds, lobbing virtual projectiles at each other from separate silos” (148).

Green New Deal from Below initiatives contrast sharply with dominant neoliberal public policies that prioritize private enterprise as the primary vehicle for achieving social goals and restrict government action to facilitating private wealth accumulation – or more simply, they intentionally break from the profit over people and planet model of business as usual. Green New Deal from Below programs emphasize public planning, investment, and strict criteria for achieving public objectives. Their implementation involves not just private corporations but also government-run programs, public banks, cooperatives, and other alternatives to profit-driven enterprises. Resources are often raised through strategies like pollution fees, taxes on large corporations, and uber-wealthy individual incomes.

The climate policies of Green New Deals from Below aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the pace required by climate science with a focus on proven strategies: expanding renewable energy, phasing out fossil fuels, decreasing energy demand by increasing energy efficiency and doing more with less through programs focused on public abundance, while rejecting more costly, risky and green-washed approaches like carbon capture, hydrogen blends with fossil fuels, and nuclear energy.

Brecher gets into detail via diverse examples of campaigns, direct actions, community and public projects, as well as overarching and particular strategies in chapters 5-11: Climate-Safe Energy Production, Negawatts (Efficiency and Managed Contractions), Fossil Fuel Phaseout, Transforming Transportation, Protecting Workers and Communities on the Ground, Just Transition in the States, and New Deal Jobs for the Future. This is a wealth of information in a highly accessible and actionable presentation – from the nitty gritty of organizing meetings and local bicycle lanes to very large-scale campaigns like public jobs guarantees.

Strategy from below

The Green New Deal from Below does not provide a strategy for total social transformation. “That would require transformation of the basic structures of the national and world order, including capitalism and the nation-state system. The Green New Deal from Below can be part of that more extensive process of change, but it cannot subsume it” (174).

The Green New Deal from Below is a hybrid movement that operates both inside and outside the dominant political system, including elected officials, party leaders, government bureaucrats, and electoral activists, as well as communities, ethnic groups, labor organizations, and other civil society groups. It pursues its goals through a mix of conventional political tactics, such as supporting candidates, lobbying for legislation, and public education, alongside direct-action methods, including occupying political offices, blocking fossil fuel pipelines, and supporting strikes aimed at a just transition to a climate-safe economy.

These initiatives strategically function both within, alongside, and in opposition to existing political institutions. Actions focus on tangible changes that directly improve people’s lives. Whether it’s shutting down a polluting coal plant in an asthma-ridden community or providing free transit or bicycles to young people, these initiatives aim to make a real difference. They also educate and inspire: free transit and bicycles not only reduce vehicle pollution but also allow young people to explore alternatives to car-dependent lifestyles.

Additionally, participation and justice are centered in practice. Actions are also almost always led by coalitions of diverse groups. For example, the Green New Deal for Education brings together teachers, school staff, students, parents, unions, and racial justice advocates to fight for investment in healthy schools free from fossil fuel pollution. Sate coalitions have united unions, climate-impacted communities, racial and ethnic justice groups, and climate advocates to push for legislation that phases out fossil fuels in ways that create good jobs, support community development, reduce environmental injustices, and build climate-friendly housing and transit.

Historical sociologist Michael Mann argues that new solutions to societal problems often arise from the overlooked spaces within existing power structures – what he calls the “interstices.” These gaps, often hidden from the mainstream, provide fertile ground for marginalized or seemingly powerless groups to propose alternatives to the status quo. This process is sometimes called the “Lilliput strategy,” where small, isolated efforts are linked to create larger systemic change. However, Brecher points out that this strategy is not without tension (169). It requires balancing the need for identity and independence within each group with the necessity of broader cooperation. The resulting tension can either lead to fragmentation or domination, but it can also spark a process of collaboration where the distinct needs and concerns of each group are incorporated into a larger, unified vision.

This dynamic is key to the development of the Green New Deal from Below. While recognizing the unique needs of different constituencies, advocates of the Green New Deal have worked to forge connections between diverse groups that have historically been at odds. A notable example mentioned previously is the collaboration between organized labor and environmentalists – two groups that have often been in conflict. Rather than forcing these groups to give up their individual identities, the Green New Deal offers a shared identity centered on common goals. The success of these coalitions depends on ensuring that all participants benefit from cooperation through policies that combine labor protections, environmental justice, and greenhouse gas reductions. However, Brecher warns that these coalitions are fragile and can falter if the priorities of key constituencies are not given adequate attention.

Ultimately, Green New Deal from Below actions seek to shift the balance of power away from fossil fuel polluters, exploitative corporations, and the wealthy elite, toward exploited workers, marginalized communities, and non-elite groups. At their heart, they aim to expand democracy, challenge the rise of autocracy and plutocracy, and ensure power is more equally distributed and accessible to all.

By helping to build organized constituencies and coalitions that serve as political foundations for broader Green New Deal campaigns, these projects also create institutional building blocks, from energy systems to transportation networks, that can become integral parts of the economic and social infrastructure of a larger Green New Deal. By engaging people in projects that reflect common interests and a shared vision, these initiatives help overcome divisions and contradictions that weaken popular movements. They also reduce the influence of anti–Green New Deal forces by dividing them, disorienting them, undermining their support base, and, at times, even winning them over.

Brecher’s presentation reveals that the fight for the Green New Deal is closely tied to the fight for democracy. These initiatives offer models for, and demonstrate the benefits of, popular democracy. Green New Deal from Below projects show that people can achieve tangible gains that improve their lives, building a base for the protection and expansion of democratic governance at every level, embodying local participatory democracy while also reinforcing representative democracy against the threat of fascism at the national level.

Local and state-level Green New Deal initiatives are therefore crucial for achieving both climate and justice goals. They help build momentum and power for a national Green New Deal and serve as testing grounds, offering a “proof of concept.” These building blocks, when linked, form a more effective Green New Deal with deep local roots. Programs “from below” can then connect with each other and align with national planning and investment. Some national proposals even outline policies to facilitate this coordination. While federal and global action are needed to fully realize Green New Deal goals, the movement is already taking shape at the local level.

Going further

Brecher cautions, that while the Green New Deal program is crucial and beneficial, it is not sufficient on its own to address the deeper structural issues of an unjust and self-destructive global order. There are also critiques outside the scope of this book which assert that even if the Green New Deal was adopted at the national level today, on its own, it doesn’t go far enough, fast enough on climate protection to avert devasting outcomes.

One of its strategic objectives must therefore be to pave the way for more radical and far-reaching forms of change. Indeed, an internationalist Global Green New Deal has begun to materialize – both “from below” and championed to various degrees by a few government and multinational formations. The key will be to continue to build and connect participatory, justice centered activity around the world in ever widening and deepening solidarity.

Today, we are living with a profound sense of urgency – the urgency of the climate crisis, as well as the urgency of those suffering and dying due to injustice. The original Green New Deal proposal responded to this by calling for a ten-year mobilization aimed at transforming American society and economy as dramatically as the New Deal and the wartime mobilization during World War II. “The Green New Deal arose in a sea of hopelessness and despair. It pointed the way toward viable alternatives to the realities that evoked that hopelessness and despair. The Green New Deal from Below provides people with a way to start building those alternatives day by day, where they live and work” (180).

Seven years later, a recent headline from New Scientist reads: “The 1.5°C target is dead, but climate action needn’t be”. For the first time, climate scientists have explicitly said it will be impossible to limit peak warming to 1.5°C. Our focus must be on taking real action, like the initiatives Brecher has laid out and like many others around the world, not on meaningless platitudes and slogans like “Keep 1.5°C alive” or vague promises of “net-zero”.

At the outset of the book, Brecher cites the world historian Arnold Toynbee on how great civilizational changes occur. The existing leadership of existing institutions face new challenges and fail to change to meet them. But a “creative minority” may arise that proposes and begins to implement new solutions. “Those building the Green New Deal are creating such new solutions, from below” (180).

Therefore, perhaps the greatest success, as well as the greatest potential, of the Green New Deal from Below is its ability to expand the boundaries of what is possible, bringing together and empowering people to fight for the things they need but have long considered out of reach.

Workin’ on a world

We may never know if these solutions will be sufficient or come in time. But Brecher offers us the chance to resonate with the feelings expressed by songwriter Iris Dement in her song “Workin’ on a World.” She recalls waking each day “filled with sadness, fear, and dread,” as the world she once knew seemed to be “crashing to the ground.”

Looking around where we find ourselves this November of 2024, in the shadow of so much loss but with so much yet to lose, it wouldn’t be crazy to admit to feeling the same. Yet, as Iris “reflected on the struggles of those who came before her, the sacrifices they made, she realized those sacrifices had opened doors for her that they never lived to see” (180).

“Now I’m working on a world I may never see,
I’m joining forces with the warriors of love
Who came before and will follow you and me.
I get up in the morning knowing I’m privileged just to be
Working on a world I may never see.”

Brecher concludes, “whether we will see the world of the Green New Deal fully realized, in the Green New Deal from Below, we can see that right now we are making a part of that world” (180).

I’d only add that in so doing, we are also each reaffirming our own and one another’s right to be here, to reclaim our world here and now with a place for us all in it, to choose to live and to help live, to occupy our lives. We’re not just doing it for the future, we’re doing it for the now. In the words of a different movement ancestor, Salaria Kea, an American nurse, desegregation activist, and the only black nurse who worked in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War, fighting against fascism on the frontlines:

“I’m not just goin’ to sit down and let this happen. I’m going out and help, even if it is my life. But I’m helping. This is my world too.”

Through action, especially through our collective action, we are our vision come to life. We are the embodiment of that world we’re busy working on. Through us, it already does exist.

The Labor Network for Sustainability is taking the opportunity to launch the book, as well as the organizing models it provides, in a live webinar event scheduled for Wednesday, November 20th at 7:30 pm ET.

Alexandria Shaner (she/her) is a sailor, writer, & organizer. She is a staff member of ZNetwork.org and active with Extinction Rebellion, Caracol DSA, & the Women’s Rights & Empowerment Network. Read other articles by Alexandria.

 

Stalling a disease that could annihilate banana production is a high-return investment in Colombia

The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture

 

image: 

In Colombia, the government is working with researchers and scientists to stop the spread of the banana fungal disease.

view more 

Credit: Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT

There’s no cure for a fungal disease that could potentially wipe out much of global banana production. Widespread adoption of cement paths, disinfection stations, and production strategies could net 3-4 USD of benefits for each dollar invested in Colombia. 

Hundreds of millions of dollars in banana exports from Colombia are at risk due to a fungal disease best known as Tropical Race 4 (TR4). First detected in Asia in the 1990s, the Fusarium fungus that causes the disease arrived in Colombia in 2019, completing its inevitable global spread to South America, the last major banana production continent that remained TR4-free. Researchers are confident a solution will be found but until then, slowing the spread is the only effective strategy.  

The good news is that simple, effective measures are already happening in Colombia. These include building cement paths between banana plots, fencing them, and installing disinfectant stations at farm entry points. Measures like this are worth the investment. Researchers at the Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT found banana producers can expect a 3-4 USD return per dollar invested. 

“The solutions are not extremely technical, they just require money and awareness,” said Thea Ritter, an Alliance researcher. “We found the potential benefits are very large. We urge industry and the government to continue making the needed investments and accelerate ongoing efforts to educate producers and communities about TR4. If it spreads more, it will devastate local and national economies.” 

The research was published Oct. 30 in PLOS ONE, in likely the first socioeconomic study of its kind in the Americas. Ritter and colleagues researched TR4 in the Colombian departments of Antioquia and Magdalena, two large export-oriented banana production areas because they found no farm-level research on TR4 in the country. Results found considerable, little-understood local and cultural impacts of the TR4 threat. These intangible details of the study paint a broader picture of what banana crop decimation could mean for the thousands of livelihoods that depend on the industry. 

Unstoppable race 

When TR4 infects soils, for all practical purposes, it is there to stay. At least 4 decades are needed for it to go away. Almost all bananas planted in infected soils will die. This includes the Cavendish, the world’s most popular fruit, and many plantains that are staples of tropical diets. Some 80% of all bananas planted globally are susceptible to TR4. The disease also affects tomatoes, sweet potatoes, legumes and curcubits (the gourd family), limiting alternatives for farmers who may have to switch cultivars to keep producing food. 

“Even if you plant crops like rice that are not susceptible to TR4, the risk of transmission remains because the soils remain infected,” said Diego Álvarez, a co-author and Alliance researcher.  

TR4 spreads in several controllable ways. One primary driver is simply dirty boots – stepping on TR4-infected soils and then walking to TR4-free soils is one easy way to spread the disease. Disinfectant stations, fences and cement paths effectively reduce this risk.  

Other transmission methods require a bit more effort, including changes in production practices. These include disposing of infected bananas in waterways, as TR4 can spread through water. Soil erosion, containable by cement paths and effective drainage systems, is also a TR4 superspreader. Additionally, trucks that transport bananas are not routinely disinfected, suggesting that TR4 awareness and investment necessary beyond producers. 

Ritter points to a common propagation practice as one of the biggest threats – the use of corms (the “baby” banana plants that grow at the base of banana trees) to sow new plots. Farmers need to either effectively screen corms for TR4 before transplanting them, or rely on the more costly, certified disease-free plants. 

“Awareness of the disease is high; we found that 99% percent of the farmers we interviewed knew about it and the associated threats,” Ritter said. “But there is much lower awareness of the threat posed by using corms. Farmer training – and investment strategies – need a greater focus on this issue for more effective containment.” 

Socioeconomic study shows how banana crop decimation impacts farming households. 

Credit

Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT

Colombia in the race 

Colombia is fortunate because its government, banana industry and grower cooperatives are organized, aware of the TR4 threat, and taking action, researchers said. 

“We have a good environment in Colombia’s banana sector to slow the transmission of TR4,” said Leslie Estefany Mosquera, a co-author and Alliance researcher. “But we need more awareness and commitment from policymakers to increase the required biosecurity measures. More policymakers need to be made aware of the urgency of the issue and to dedicate the resources needed.” 

Challenges to providing them enough information, however, remain. Because TR4 could literally alter Colombia’s agricultural landscape, not enough people close to the problem are willing to openly speak about it. 

How TR4 impacts household livelihoods 

Fusarium represents considerable losses for producers in Magdalena, where producers must group in cooperatives to sell their bananas abroad and production areas are not as large as in Antioquia. Banana grower families in Magdalena would be directly affected by the presence of Fusarium through the loss of large portions of land that now cannot produce bananas for marketing, which reduces their income, affects their livelihoods and harms their food security. In Colombia, finding a banana plant infected with Fusarium means losing 2.56 hectares of production, on average, due to the quarantine regulatory area established in this country. This, in a region where at least half of the producers have a production area of less than 3 hectares, leaves the average producer fearful of what could happen if the situation gets out of control and the plantations of several producers are affected.  

Beyond Magdalena producers, other actors in the banana value chain in Colombia anticipate wide-ranging impacts from TR4. The disease is expected to cause a decline in banana production, reducing the availability of one of the country's staple foods. This reduction in production could increase prices and limit access to bananas, particularly affecting low-income households that rely on bananas as an affordable food source. The economic ripple effect extends to labor as well; with plantations potentially being abandoned or destroyed, job losses loom. Many families that depend on plantation work for their livelihoods may experience a significant reduction in income, further straining their ability to secure food and meet basic needs. 

Touching the intangibles 

It’s hard to understate the importance of on-the-ground research of any major threat affecting farmers. National and regional studies effectively capture the big picture – such as modeling the spread of TR4 and the potentially massive hit that agricultural GDP will take if the disease spreads unchecked. But what of the people on the ground whose livelihoods, culture and communities are at existential risk? 

Most farmers are willing to talk about TR4 – anonymously and individually with researchers. But they are highly reluctant to report the detection of TR4 on their lands or communities. This is because TR4 scares away investors and farmers would see access to credit and other financial or technical support dry up. The TR4 stigma may lead to under-reporting of the disease’s spread if systematic monitoring is not in place. It is also of little help that farmer cooperative leaders, who likely have deeper understanding of TR4 at wider scales, did not talk to researchers for this study. 

“Policymakers should also address the disincentives around discussing TR4,” said Ritter. “We all need as much information as possible about where the disease is spreading and how it is impacting farmers to first, deploy mitigation strategies for effective containment and second, to support farmers whose incomes could be destroyed by TR4.” 

Researchers also identified major concerns that aren’t easily capture by cost-benefit-analysis or GDP projections. Bananas are deeply embedded in Colombia culture, as a staple food, a backbone of farmer income, and national identities. TR4 has the potential to disrupt traditional farming practices and community structures, which could lead to social upheaval, including the strong social ties and traditions built around banana-based livelihoods. Ultimately, traditional knowledge in communities related to banana harvesting and associated agricultural practices are at risk. 

Ritter said, “We need to understand that many thousands of people’s lives, communities and cultures are threatened by TR4 and to take this seriously.” 

---

Journal

PLOS ONE

DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0311243 

Article Title

A socioeconomic and cost benefit analysis of Tropical Race 4 (TR4) prevention methods among banana producers in Colombia

Capitalist Democracy Is a Sham! 

For Socialist Democracy!

Murray Smith - Tim Hayslip

 November 8, 2024
Facebook

TwitterEmail

Image by Mike Erskine.

[Adapted from Chapter 10 of Thinking Systematics: Critical-Dialectical Reasoning for a Perilous Age and A Case for Socialism (Fernwood Publishing, 2024) by Murray E.G. Smith and Tim Hayslip, https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/thinking-systematics]

“Vote for the candidate of your choice, but vote!” is a frequently invoked platitude at election time in Western liberal democracies, one often accompanied by the (non-sequitur) admonition: “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain.” Arguably, the most important reason that the overlords of public opinion in Western societies care so ritualistically about “getting out the vote” is that low voter turnout may call into question the popular mandate of a government. It’s common knowledge, after all, that a party can form a government (either on its own or in coalition with others) with much less than 50 percent of the total vote if the latter is split among several parties.

In the US presidential elections of 2000 and 2016 and the Canadian federal elections of 2019 and 2021, the winners actually attracted fewer votes than their main electoral rivals (due respectively to the peculiarities of the US Electoral College process and the Canadian first-past-the-post parliamentary system). Low voter turnout compounds this problem by making it possible for a government to be formed by candidates/parties enjoying as little support as 20 percent (or less) of the electorate. In the wake of the British election of July 2024, for instance, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party was able to claim a huge majority of seats in the UK Parliament by winning just one fifth of the votes cast. The low voter turnout in that election has hardly gone unnoticed by the British people, who promptly decided Starmer’s new government is no less odious than the incumbent Conservative one and lacks any actual popular mandate. Opinion polls suggest that Starmer is now the most unpopular prime minister in living memory.

What’s at stake with voter turnout is nothing other than the perceived legitimacy of a government and its policies. Can it be said, with any degree of plausibility, that a particular government policy (for example, Starmer’s full-throttled support of Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza) reflects “the will of the people” if that government came to power with the backing of a relatively small segment of voting-age citizens? If a government pushing through a widely unpopular policy has received the support of just one-fifth of the electorate, doesn’t real democracy require that the policy in question be vigorously questioned and even actively opposed?

The perceived illegitimacy of a government, especially one that won an election with low voter turnout, would seem to create an important opportunity for large numbers of working people and youth to mobilize against its policies and to engage in acts of resistance. In other words, it presents an opportunity to politically engage a population that might otherwise remain passive, apathetic and paralyzed by the fiction that the government has a right to implement oppressive and harmful policies on the grounds that it has a “mandate from the people.” The active participation of large numbers of citizens in politics — in questioning, challenging and resisting contentious policies — is, however, the last thing that the guardians of the status quo want to encourage. Far better to get out the vote so that the electoral victor can claim a credible mandate to impose policies that will almost certainly conflict with the interests and views of the great majority of the population.

Radical critics of capitalist democracy sometimes counter the mainstream mantras with the slogan: “If elections could change anything they’d be illegal.” Of course, this is an overstatement in certain respects. Elections can result in new policies with significant impacts and alter the political climate markedly. All the same, elections alone can never pose a fundamental challenge to the existing social, economic and political arrangements. Early twentieth-century fears of elitist critics of democracy (like Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca), as well as the hopes of some radical opponents of capitalism that a universal franchise would lead to the election of socialist governments and the eradication of class inequality, proved to be misplaced. Arguably, the universal franchise, over the long term, may even have had a conservatizing and stabilizing effect by creating illusions in a “parliamentary road” to social progress.

Over a century ago, the German sociologist Max Weber recognized that the formal participation of all adult citizens in the selection of a government confers legitimacy on the forms of domination imposed by it. From the standpoint of the ruling class, the most appealing thing about representative liberal democracy is that it allows real decision making to remain in the hands of a few privileged elites. Meanwhile, mass actions on behalf of majority interests can be portrayed as defying the mandate of “the duly elected government.”

In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter described democracy as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” In this commendably candid and quite realistic definition of capitalist liberal democracy, the ancient democratic ideal of “rule by the people” all but disappears, even as the principle of majority rule is vitiated by the reality of rule by a small circle of individuals who lay claim to the “consent of the majority.”

All in all, substantial grounds exist for viewing the various forms of representative democracy existing in capitalist societies as little more than a shell game: a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. In good part, this is because the policy choices available to any party that comes to power through a conventional electoral process are necessarily severely constrained. Even if a government is formed by a political party rooted in the working class, and even if such a party is elected on the basis of a platform calling for a socialist planned economy under workers’ control (a platform that no mass-based party anywhere has advanced for decades), a gradual parliamentary transition to socialism is a highly unlikely prospect. The reasons are clear enough. First, if such a government remains faithful to playing by the rules of existing constitutions (which everywhere permit only exceedingly gradual change), the measures taken to bring about socialism would inevitably lead to capital flight, massive resistance from the “business community,” and a general disarray and even paralysis of the (still-capitalist) economy. Not only would the active agents of capital do everything in their power to block any incremental moves toward socialism, but the structural imperatives and dynamics of the economy would force any nominally socialist government committed to gradual reform to water down its program and adopt the role of “responsible” administrator of the capitalist order. This has been the fate of leftist parties whenever they’ve been able to form governments following a parliamentary electoral victory. Not surprisingly, then, the actual maximum goal of such parties, whether social-democratic or ostensibly communist, has been reduced to creating “a more humane and democratized capitalism.”

Yet even this seemingly modest goal has proven to be beyond the reach of governments formed by labour-based reformist parties or coalitions of the left. And the reason should be obvious: twenty-first-century global capitalism is irredeemably characterized by growing wealth and income inequalities, the accumulation of massive debt, lackluster profitability of productive capital, an explosive proliferation of what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital,” an inability to deal with the climate emergency, intensified suppression of basic democratic rights, and stepped-up preparations for a new world war. Given these objective circumstances, the prospects for any significant measure of progressive reform in even the richest capitalist nation-states have diminished drastically, as the putative “left wings” of various political establishments succumb to the ”logic” of austerity, militarism and “national security.”

The second reason any ostensibly left-progressive or socialist government committed to abiding by existing constitutional arrangements must fail in bringing about radical change is that it would necessarily preside over a pre-existing state apparatus — including an administrative bureaucracy, a judiciary, a standing army and a police force — that has been assiduously shaped to serve the interests of capital against labour. To the extent that any such government might make serious inroads into the power and prerogatives of the propertied classes it would almost certainly invite resistance and sabotage from entrenched branches of the state apparatus, above all from what Frederick Engels called its “armed body of men.”

When the Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende sought to nationalize foreign-owned multinational corporate holdings in Chile in the early 1970s (while leaving more than 90 percent of all other firms in private hands), the top officers of the Chilean military staged a brutal coup, murdering thousands of Chilean leftists and crushing the organized labour movement for a generation. Sadly, the lesson drawn by most electorally oriented “socialist” parties from this experience was not the need to abandon the chimera of a “peaceful, parliamentary road to socialism” and adopt a revolutionary program and strategy, but rather the need to further “moderate” their programs, to reassure the capitalist class of their willingness to act as responsible stewards of the existing order, and to discourage their supporters from pursuing any truly radical goals.

Liberal-democratic state forms are tolerated and even preferred by the ruling classes of capitalist societies — but only if they pose no serious threat to capitalism. Whenever capitalist interests become seriously imperiled, the “democratic” capitalists, whether of conservative or liberal hue, are fully prepared to resort to authoritarian methods to defend their property, power and dominance. They will back a Hitler (as in Germany), a Mussolini (Italy), a Salazar (Portugal), a Franco (Spain), a Suharto (Indonesia), a Marcos (Philippines) or a military junta (as in so many countries of the Global South) as the last line of defense of their class interests.

To be sure, for many decades after World War II, representative democracy was the preferred political form of governance in the wealthier and more stable capitalist countries. This was because such countries were able to afford the kinds of material concessions to their working populations that often flowed from a multi-party competition for the “people’s vote.” Historically, those concessions typically involved government social-welfare programs, such as improved public health care and education, unemployment relief and other forms of “social assistance.” The intended purpose of these policies was to politically stabilize societies exhibiting extreme forms of material inequality and attenuate class conflict. What’s more, it was understood by more far-sighted capitalists that, absent a multi-party system and some form of representative government, capitalist societies can veer toward extreme forms of plutocracy: undisguised rule by the wealthy. So, in a sense, representative government and the universal franchise serve to discipline the capitalist class to subordinate its short-term appetite for profit maximization to its longer-term interest in safeguarding social cohesion and perpetuating the existing social order.

Although these considerations still hold true to some extent today, the global conjuncture that opened with the Great Recession and financial crisis of 2007–09 marked a major turning point. The global economic malaise of the last fifteen years and the deepening instability of global capitalism have significantly eroded confidence in capitalist democracy amongst broad masses of working people in numerous countries, causing capitalist elites to view the curtailment of democratic liberties, repression of worker militancy, and militaristic adventurism as essential to the defense of their system going forward.

In the past, representative democracy was the preferred form of governance of capitalist elites for another important reason: it encourages the masses of people to identify with the state and to view the existing social order as just. Those lacking significant property or wealth in a capitalist society understand quite viscerally that “he who pays the piper calls the tune” and that economic clout is easily convertible into political influence and power. In the absence of representative democracy, it’s all too easy for the poor, the working class and even privileged middle-class groups to conclude that the state is essentially corrupt and serves only the wealthy. Historically, the presence of liberal-democratic institutions modified this perception to a significant extent. Working people were persuaded to believe that the state was funded by their tax dollars and that, as taxpayers with the right to vote, they could exercise at least some influence over government officials, even if those officials also remained beholden to various “special interests.” Representative democracy thus encouraged people to believe that political influence and power is plural and diffuse, not concentrated and class based. And this allowed the state to represent itself, with some plausibility, as a neutral mediator of competing interests in society — as an institutional power that stands above class divisions while promoting an overarching national interest.

This brings us to a third consideration. Democratic forms of rule in capitalist societies encourage the inculcation of nationalist ideology — the idea that what divides the population of a given country in terms of class, race, gender, age or religion is less important than the common “values” uniting it. Not only does nationalism divert working people from pursuing independent forms of political activity (especially of an explicitly anti-capitalist sort) and dissuade them from recognizing that their interests may actually converge with those of workers in far-off lands — it also makes it much easier to mobilize popular support for the foreign policy and military adventures of the ruling class.

Chest thumping about how “our democratic way of life is threatened by totalitarianism” proved to be an effective means to rally mass support for a hard line against Communism both at home and abroad during the Cold War of the last century. And today Western imperialist states are trying hard to convince their populations that their (increasingly farcical) “democracies” are under threat from the putative “autocracies” of China and Russia. With conflicts now intensifying between the Collective West (the US and its major allies) and the Global South, even many self-styled progressives, human-rights activists and “socialists” have lined up behind their own governments against China and Russia’s joint project of achieving a “multipolar world.” In doing so, however, this pro-establishment “left” is unwittingly building popular support for a catastrophic global military conflagration.

Although likely to be waged under the banners of democracy, human rights and “protecting national security,” the US-led Collective West’s true aims in the looming Third World War will be the neocolonial subjugation and fragmentation of China and Russia and the (re)consolidation of US “full-spectrum dominance,” while also settling accounts with Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and Iran. To prevent such a global cataclysm, working people and youth need to mobilize on a program that recognizes that the ruling classes of the liberal democracies are not merely hypocrites when it comes to human rights, freedom and democracy, but also the guardians and chief beneficiaries of a world order that perpetuates the misery, oppression and exploitation of billions of people, including the vast majority of people living in the “democratic West.”

The fourth way that representative democracy has served capitalist interests historically is that it deflects attention away from the operations of a crisis-prone and exploitative economic system to the policies of particular political parties and governments. In capitalist societies, governments routinely take credit for prosperity and are just as routinely blamed for economic downturns. The illusion is created that the performance of a capitalist economy depends primarily on how well it is being administered by a particular governing party — a notion that ignores the simultaneous occurrence of recessions across several countries (regardless of the specific policies being pursued by their respective governing parties) and also exaggerates absurdly the ability of any government to effectively “administer” an economy dominated by the capitalist laws of value and profitability. Working people are urged to blame politicians for bad economic times rather than recognize that the endemic contradictions and irrationalities of the capitalist mode of production are the underlying causes of unemployment, economic insecurity, declining living standards, and chronic poverty.

To reiterate, however, representative forms of liberal governance are currently in deep crisis and losing their ability to pacify the masses and contain social unrest. One need only consider the 2020 social explosion in the US following the murder of George Floyd, the massive protests in 2023 against the Macron government in France, international mobilizations of workers and students against Israel’s genocidal assault on the Palestinian people in 2023-24, and massive strike waves in the US, Britain, Canada and other Western countries in response to rising living costs, above all the unaffordability of decent housing. From the point of view of capital and the governing elites, these developments demand the curtailment of such fundamental democratic liberties as the right to strike, to march in the streets and to freely express dissident views. Concurrently, from the point of view of the poorest 80 to 90 percent of the population in most Western countries, the prevailing forms of governance are increasingly seen as a thin facade for the naked rule of big capital. Given these circumstances, the long-standing “centre” of the political spectrum is plainly no longer holding, and new centrifugal forces are emerging, pointing to an eventual showdown between fascism and socialism.

A genuinely democratic form of governance is simply impossible to envision within the class-antagonistic framework of capitalist society. Conversely, a vibrant system of democratic-socialist self-administration, based on “council democracy” and a socialized, post-capitalist economy, is easy to imagine (if not to achieve). In such a system, citizens would seek political influence through rational persuasion rather than through intimidation or privileged access to the mass media or policy makers. Voting wouldn’t be limited to general elections held every few years with the aim of legitimating the arbitrary decision-making powers of the party sufficiently well-funded, cunning or lucky enough to win election. Instead, citizens would exercise their right to vote through active participation in deliberative bodies (councils/assemblies) charged with addressing a range of issues and problems pertaining to economic and social planning. Active participation in workplace and community councils might even become a condition for casting a vote.

In such circumstances, might the ancient ideal of democracy — of rule by the people — be truly realized? Important historical experiences clearly suggest that working people can take the tasks of administering a socialized economy and a socialist polity into their own hands: the experience of productive cooperatives for over two hundred years; the system of workers’ control of production that existed during the first few years of the Russian Soviet Republic; the involvement of large numbers of workers in self-managing enterprises in the former Yugoslav Federation; the workplace and community councils operating in Cuba and Venezuela today. These and other historical precedents testify to the capacity of working people to exercise power in ways consistent not only with social solidarity and democratic decision making but also with improved productivity and efficiency. What’s more, twenty-first-century science and technology have created conditions and capacities that are objectively much more favourable to the flourishing of a socialist democracy than any that have existed in the past. As we have argued elsewhere: “The bureaucratic organisation of the production process is not at all a necessary by-product of labour-saving technological innovation. To the contrary, the displacement of living labour from production and the spread of automation, robotics, and digital technologies should undermine any purely ‘technicist’ rationale for bureaucratic relations of authority, while liberating the social time required for educating and involving the ‘associated producers’ in the management not only of workplaces but society as a whole.” (Murray Smith, Invisible Leviathan, 2019).

What needs to be emphasized, finally, is the decisive role that the great mass of citizens must play in democratically deciding the most important macroeconomic and social questions confronting a global socialist commonwealth, while also attending to matters of a more local nature. Debate and voting would revolve around the contending policy platforms of competing pro-socialist political parties, operating through a system of workplace, community, regional, national and international councils. Such a vibrant and multilayered socialist democracy would draw the masses of workers, consumers and youth into political life at every level, with a view to giving an increasingly well-informed and properly educated socialist citizenry the power to determine the evolving shape of a truly planetary egalitarian-socialist civilization.

Murray Smith is Professor Emeritus at Brock University, Canada. Some of his other writings are available at www.murraysmith.org. Tim Hayslip is a PhD student in sociology at York University, Canada.