#Europe Positioning Systems Market

[reportmru]

Positioning Systems Market was valued at US$ 1.22 Bn in 2023, and is projected to reach US$ 1.76 Bn by 2031, growing at a CAGR of 4.2% from 2024 to 2031.

[odinsblog]

UnitedHealth Group is charging patients a markup for key life-saving drugs that could easily exceed their cost by a factor of ten or more, according to findings from the Federal Trade Commission.

The report, which levels the same allegations at CVS and Cigna, is the latest indictment of America’s broken healthcare system and comes on the heels of last month’s shocking murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

The U.S. is notorious for incurring the highest costs per capita of any wealthy nation, yet failing to achieve an even remotely equivalent improvement in patient outcomes versus Europe’s social market-based economies.

Critics argue that is due largely to the highly opaque manner in which needless markups are hidden to conceal inefficiencies that serve various vested interests. These include, but are not limited to, the big three drug middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).

According to the FTC report, UnitedHealth’s OptumRx, along with Cigna’s Express Scripts and CVS Caremark Rx, were able to collectively pocket $7.3 billion in added revenue above cost during the five year period of the study through 2022.

“The Big 3 PBMs marked up numerous specialty generic drugs dispensed at their affiliated pharmacies by thousands of percent, and many others by hundreds of percent,” it concluded.

A thousand percent increase in the price of a drug that costs $10 wholesale would result in a retail price of $110.

This markup rate applied to 22% of the specialty therapies examined, including Imatinib, a generic used to treat leukemia, or non-oncological Tadalafil for pulmonary hypertension. Others such as Lamivudine needed by HIV-positive patients were nearly quadruple the price of their acquisition cost.

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been conducting Congressional hearings in an attempt to shed light on the problems posed by these drug middlemen as well as drugmakers themselves.

(continue reading)

[transmutationisms]

in addition to being prone to an obvious naturalistic fallacy, the oft-repeated claim that various supplements / herbs / botanicals are being somehow suppressed by pharmaceutical interests seeking to protect their own profits ('they would rather sell you a pill') belies a clear misunderstanding of the relationship between 'industrial' pharmacology and plant matter. bioprospecting, the search for plants and molecular components of plants that can be developed into commercial products, has been one of the economic motivations and rationalisations for european colonialism and imperialism since the so-called 'age of exploration'. state-funded bioprospectors specifically sought 'exotic' plants that could be imported to europe and sold as food or materia medica—often both, as in the cases of coffee or chocolate—or, even better, cultivated in 'economic' botanical gardens attached to universities, medical schools, or royal palaces and scientific institutions.

this fundamental attitude toward the knowledge systems and medical practices of colonised people—the position, characterising eg much 'ethnobotany', that such knowledge is a resource for imperialist powers and pharmaceutical manufacturers to mine and profit from—is not some kind of bygone historical relic. for example, since the 1880s companies including pfizer, bristol-myers squibb, and unilever have sought to create pharmaceuticals from african medicinal plants, such as strophanthus, cryptolepis, and grains of paradise. in india, state-created databases of valuable 'traditional' medicines have appeared partly in response to a revival of bioprospecting since the 1980s, in an increasingly bureaucratised form characterised by profit-sharing agreements between scientists and local communities that has nonetheless been referred to as "biocapitalism". a 1990 paper published in the proceedings of the novartis foundation symposium (then the ciba foundation symposium) spelled out this form of epistemic colonialism quite bluntly:

Ethnobotany, ethnomedicine, folk medicine and traditional medicine can provide information that is useful as a 'pre-screen' to select plants for experimental pharmacological studies.

there is no inherent oppositional relationship between pharmaceutical industry and 'natural' or plant-based cures. there are of course plenty of examples of bioprospecting that failed to translate into consumer markets: ginseng, introduced to europe in the 17th century through the mercantile system and the east india company, found only limited success in european pharmacology. and there are cases in which knowledge with potential market value has actually been suppressed for other reasons: the peacock flower, used as an abortifacient in the west indies, was 'discovered' by colonial bioprospectors in the 18th century; the plant itself moved easily to europe, but knowledge of its use in reproductive medicine became the subject of a "culturally cultivated ignorance," resulting from a combination of funding priorities, national policies, colonial trade patterns, gender politics, and the functioning of scientific institutions. this form of knowledge suppression was never the result of a conflict wherein bioprospectors or pharmacists viewed the peacock flower as a threat to their own profits; on the contrary, they essentially sacrificed potential financial benefits as a result of the political and social factors that made abortifacient knowledge 'unknowable' in certain state and commercial contexts.

exploitation of plant matter in pharmacology is not a frictionless or infallible process. but the sort of conspiratorial thinking that attempts to position plant therapeutics and 'big pharma' as oppositional or competitive forces is an ahistorical and opportunistic example of appealing to nominally anti-capitalist rhetoric without any deeper understanding of the actual mechanisms of capitalism and colonialism at play. this is of course true whether or not the person making such claims has any personal financial stake in them, though it is of course also true that, often, they do hold such stakes.

[opencommunion]

"The sight of hungry people scavenging through dumpsters and panhandling was once more common in cities in the United States and Europe than in Havana. But a series of quiet moves, first by Trump, and now by Biden, have produced a humanitarian crisis throughout Cuba.

... Joy Gordon, an expert on sanctions at Loyola University Chicago and author of Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions, told Drop Site News that there has been a shift towards minimizing visible harm to civilian populations since the sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, which resulted in widespread malnutrition and epidemics. 'There’s a strategy of trying to offload the enforcement to the private sector,' she said. 'U.S. policy has created conditions that make it commercially compelling for the private sector to withdraw from whole markets, resulting in severe and widespread economic harm, but in a form that is not directly attributable to US policymakers.'

... Perhaps the best example of an almost invisible but insidious sanction is designating Cuba as a 'state sponsor of terrorism.' Presented as a benign policy tool to make the world a safer place rather than an arm of economic warfare, it has contaminated the word 'Cuba' more than ever in the global economy. Almost overnight the label provoked both global banks and vital exporters to pull out of the Cuban market, according to diplomats and businesspeople on the island. ... The island had been on the State Department’s terror list before, up until 2015. But since the relisting in 2021 the effects have been fiercer.

... Most Cubans fleeing this misery head to America. ... By keeping the terror designation and other sanctions in place, the Biden administration has fueled this record-breaking wave of Cuban migration. Over the last three years, more than a half-million Cubans have arrived in the U.S., according to figures from the Customs and Border Patrol Agency. The whole dynamic has a whiff of madness: record Cuban migration stoked by the Biden administration plays into the broader 'border crisis' that is helping Trump as the election approaches.

... The list of state sponsors of terrorism has always stood on the frontier between analysis and propaganda. No matter how bad their records, U.S. allies never make the list; adversaries do. ... According to former intelligence and State Department officials, for the last three decades the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment has been that the island has not sponsored what even the U.S. would define as terrorism since the 1990s. ... From its first months in office, Biden’s team has repeatedly said—both publicly and privately to members of Congress—that it was carrying out a broad review of policy towards Cuba, including the terror designation. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in 2022 that the administration 'will continue as necessary to revisit those to see if Cuba continues to merit that designation.' But last year, that claim was revealed as bogus. In a private meeting, a State Department official privately told members of Congress that no review process had even begun, according to sources present.

... Analysts agreed that with political will, Cuba could have been taken off the list within weeks of Biden’s inauguration in 2021. Some 80 House Democrats sent Biden a letter urging him to do just that within weeks of his inauguration. Even if the administration carried out a six-month review as some argue the law requires, the designation could have been lifted by the middle of Biden’s first year in office. Had the White House done so, hundreds of thousands of Cubans might well  have been living at home with their loved ones today, living with better access to food and medicine, rather than fighting their way to the border and battling the byzantine U.S. immigration system.

The Biden administration’s position became even more tangled in May when it removed Cuba from the list of countries that are not 'fully cooperating' with the U.S. on counterterrorism. According to official designations, Cuba now 'fully cooperates' with counter-terrorism efforts while at the same time  'sponsoring' terrorism. How the same country could do both things remains unexplained. Asked why the State Department had not even begun a review, spokesperson Matt Miller told Drop Site at a press briefing that the U.S. policy was aimed at furthering 'the democratic aspirations of the Cuban people,' a reference to the U.S. goal of overthrowing the regime."

[methed-up-marxist]

‘Imperialism’, in Marxist terms, has a specific definition. It is an economic definition that explains how capitalism came to dominate the world and how it continues to survive. It’s an explanation that implicates the ruling-classes of every nation great and small. Frustratingly for us, the term ‘imperialism’ has been tampered with and obscured until it means something else entirely to most of society. When Lenin wrote Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism in 1916,(1) he was responding to the misuse of the term by the so-called socialists of the Second International. In this case, socialists, of whom Kautsky is the most famous example, had lost their Marxist minds and instead put their trust in the state and reformism. When the First World War was on the horizon, they performed various opportunist backflips to invent a definition of imperialism that justified supporting their own nation’s war efforts. In fact, throughout Lenin’s critique, we see that the capitalist defenders of imperialism, those who cherished the destruction of the world, put forward better understandings of imperialism than the misguided socialists.

Today, we have even more problems, not least since Stalin’s distortion of numerous terms.(2) In fact, perhaps the only word that’s been distorted more than imperialism is communism itself. Now, the word ‘imperialism’ is found on every ‘communist’ poster. Where the second-internationalists redefined imperialism to defend their own Western countries, leftists influenced by Stalinist and Trotskyist distortions redefine imperialism to defend any enemy of the West. Gaddafi, Hussein, Chavez, and most recently Sinwar, all become noble anti-imperialist fighters. Then again, Ukraine reminded us that plenty of ordinary liberals are happy to use the term too, now applied to Russia – again, to support one warmonger against another.

In short, imperialism is not simply a policy that one country takes against another.

We cannot talk of imperialism without talking of capitalism. Capitalism, in theory, we are taught, is defined by its free market, free competition between the individual owners of manufacturing businesses. In Europe in the 1860s, this form of capitalism was at its peak, with industrialisation having been completed. The crash that followed in 1873 saw the growing emergence of cartels – businesses joining together to take out the competition. During a short boom in 1889, more and more businesses were taking to joining cartels, and throughout the 1890s the cartel system became an established and durable business form – mostly in the trade of raw materials. By the next economic crash of 1900-1903, cartels seemed like the solution for the capitalists, and free competition, the problem. Ownership of the means of production was now well on the way to being concentrated in the hands of a shrinking minority. In another word, monopoly. Monopolies, formed by the initial alliances of a few businesses, were in the position to bully, blackmail and eradicate smaller businesses. The owners of these conglomerates have no particular knowledge of industry but know how to accumulate and invest wealth. We call these financial speculators.

While the means of production were being concentrated, so the banks were too, and their purpose changed in the process. Originally, the bank was an intermediary through which capitalists made payments. As with the cartels, the small banks became absorbed or eliminated by growing banking alliances, alliances which eventually could take total control over the capitalist business owners, and essentially run capitalism. Then finally, the biggest banks and the biggest businesses came to operate together, and this monopolist system was completed by the union of the banks, the businesses, and the state. In Lenin’s words, “a sort of division of labour amongst some hundreds of kings of finance who reign over modern capitalist society”. Total control of the economy was no longer in the hands of the owners of industry, but in the hands of speculators and bankers; the vast separation between money capital and productive capital, this is finance capital at its most powerful. The country that produces the most is no longer the most powerful – but the country that owns the most. There we have what we would call superpowers, a tiny minority of countries running capitalism through financial domination.

At a certain point, the capitalist drive for expansion leads capitalists beyond their own homelands in search of greater profit. They start to export capital to less economically developed countries, investing in industry abroad, handing out loans, and ultimately forcing a monopolist model of capitalism onto the entire world. The entire world then is divided among a minority of highly developed capitalist countries. No stone is left unturned – where a profit can be made, it is made – without any regard to human life or ecological health. And once again, alliances are formed between the capitalists of different countries, among the state and among the owners of capital, to eliminate the competition from other countries. It is easy to see, without much explanation at all, how such a system arrives at international rivalries, and at times of crisis, war. This has not changed today. The political independence of countries is never 'true' independence as their economies and militaries rely on backing from a superpower, or indeed are caught between rival superpowers. We might call these states proxy or client states. In this situation, no economic rivalry, no war, no coup, exists outside of capitalist world domination – outside of imperialism.

Imperialism then is a phase of capitalism, not just the foreign policy of individual states. Lenin provides five essential features:

1) The concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life. 2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital’ of a ‘financial oligarchy’. 3) The export of capital, which has become extremely important, as distinguished from the export of commodities. 4) The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves. 5) The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist powers is completed.

[cognitivejustice]

Key messages

With a circularity rate of 11.8% in 2023, Europe consumes a higher proportion of recycled materials than other world regions, although improvements have been limited in recent years. Accelerating the transition to a circular economy has become a policy priority.

Monitoring the circular economy involves tracking not only material flows but also environmental degradation, as it is associated with resource extraction, processing, and use.

A strong enabling framework of policies, knowledge, and financing has been developed at the EU level to foster and support the circular economy. Companies and consumers are showing early signs of adopting new business models and consumption patterns. However, linear systems continue to prevail, and the effectiveness of ongoing efforts remains unclear, partly due to limited monitoring data.

Each European uses about 14 tonnes of material and generates 5 tonnes of waste annually—among the highest levels globally and beyond sustainable limits, posing barriers to narrowing material cycles in Europe. On the positive side, the EU has managed to grow its economy while using a stable amount of resources and generating a stable amount of waste, achieving a modest level of decoupling.

Europe is highly efficient in extracting value from resources, with resource productivity exceeding €2/kg since 2015, more than 2.5 times the world average. Similarly, Europe recycles almost half of the waste it generates, and would benefit from promoting high-quality recycling and supporting the effective functioning of secondary material markets.

Material circularity in Europe has been low and relatively stable in recent years, as both recycling volumes and material use have stagnated since 2014. Furthermore, global environmental impacts from Europe’s consumption are increasing, and the environmental benefits of circularity have not yet become apparent.

[tanadrin]

This edition also includes some really useful historical notes to augment Book I of Utopia; the early 16th century was a time when the population was growing, adding slack to a labor market that had been tight since the Black Death (to the improvement of the position of the peasantry that survived it), there was gradual inflation that was also eroding at the position of anybody without much capital to invest, patterns of trade were changing, and of course the process of enclosure was spreading.

The problem wasn't just a lack of, like, theoretical underpinnings for dealing with these economic and social issues. Of course Henry VIII didn't have a court economist or anything to help him out with his fiscal policy. But it was also just that the conception of what the law and what government was for was different: in the much more leisurely pace of the premodern world, there was a strong feeling that the law and government were supposed to basically be a steady-state system. You would figure out the ideal set of laws, implement them, and be done; you might have to work to enforce those laws, but the laws were not supposed to be constantly changing, and you definitely weren't supposed to have to be continually updating and expanding them as an instrument of policy, because the world in general was supposed to be much like it always was, from one decade to the next.

And that's not a crazy way to view the world in the Middle Ages! Premodern inflation rates were low. People's intuitions around value and price were based on that experience. Population growth was low. Patterns of international trade didn't change quickly. When things did change suddenly, it was either because of a catastrophe like the Black Death or upheavals like war or famine; and communities and individuals that had won legal privileges from their feudal lords were jealous of those privileges, leading (along with the inherently fragile nature of subsistence agriculture) to a certain conservatism in the culture.

In this worldview, the job of a king or a minister isn't to be the careful manager of a dynamic system. It's to be a wise and thoughtful dispenser of justice and guardian of the inherited legal system. This is also the vision of Utopia itself: a society which has settled into an ideal steady-state, whose political economy is thus fixed, and which has no real room for "development," because the kind of development you or I think of as inherent to history is, at best, a synonym for "something went horribly wrong, and we have to repair it," if it exists at all. The irony there, of course, is that Utopia is not a medieval book: it's being written just as the Renaissance is bursting over Europe ushering in the beginning of modernity. Things are changing in England, and while they are changing slowly right now, the pace of change is about to pick up drastically, especially when that little German monk publishes his 95 theses.

Really, I wonder what it must have felt like to be a humanist at the beginning of the 16th century. There is much to be excited about--news from the new world (not yet the battleground of large European empires), the rediscovery of classical learning, the flourishing of art and literature. But so much is about to change--and much of it in a bad way! the European Wars of Religion are just around the corner!--and you have no idea.

[thoughtportal]

COVID-19 makes a worrying comeback, WHO warns amid summertime surge

COVID-19 infections are surging globally, including at the Paris Olympics, and are unlikely to decline anytime soon, the World Health Organization (WHO) says. The UN health agency is also warning that more severe variants of the coronavirus may soon be on the horizon.

“COVID-19 is still very much with us,” and circulating in all countries, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove of WHO told journalists in Geneva.

“Data from our sentinel-based surveillance system across 84 countries reports that the percent of positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 has been rising over several weeks,” she said. “Overall, test positivity is above 10 per cent, but this fluctuates per region. In Europe, percent positivity is above 20 per cent,” Dr. Van Kerkhove added.

New waves of infection have been registered in the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific. Wastewater surveillance suggests that the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 is two to 20 times higher than what is currently being reported. Such high infection circulation rates in the northern hemisphere’s summer months are atypical for respiratory viruses, which tend to spread mostly in cold temperatures.

“In recent months, regardless of the season, many countries have experienced surges of COVID-19, including at the Olympics where at least 40 athletes have tested positive,” Dr. Van Kerkhove said.

As the virus continues to evolve and spread, there is a growing risk of a more severe strain of the virus that could potentially evade detection systems and be unresponsive to medical intervention. While COVID-19 hospital admissions, including for Intensive Care Units (ICUs), are still much lower than they were during the peak of the pandemic, WHO is urging governments to strengthen their vaccination campaigns, making sure that the highest risk groups get vaccinated once every 12 months.

“As individuals it is important to take measures to reduce risk of infection and severe disease, including ensuring that you have had a COVID-19 vaccination dose in the last 12 months, especially, if you are in an at-risk group,” stressed Dr. Van Kerkhove.

Vaccines availability has declined substantially over the last 12-18 months, WHO admits, because the number of producers of COVID-19 vaccines has recently decreased.“It is very difficult for them to maintain the pace,” Dr. Van Kerkhove explained. “And certainly, they don't need to maintain the pace that they had in 2021 and 2022. But let's be very clear, there is a market for COVID-19 vaccines that are out there.”

Nasal vaccines are still under development but could potentially address transmission, thereby reducing the risk of further variants, infection and severe disease.

“I am concerned, “ Dr. Van Kerkhove said. “With such low coverage and with such large circulation, if we were to have a variant that would be more severe, then the susceptibility of the at-risk populations to develop severe disease is huge,” Dr. Van Kerkhove warned.

[thehopefuljournalist]

weird question, but do you know if regenerative agriculture is growing, and by what rate? it's important to me but looking for articles on my own can trigger a panic attack :[ no worries if not !

Hey! Thank you so much for asking. Honestly, agriculture and sustainable agriculture specifically are very close to my heart as well, so I was glad for the excuse to do some research :) 

Also, thank you for your patience, I know you sent this Ask a bit ago. It’s good that you’re listening to yourself and not going around searching for things that might cause you harm, so thanks again for reaching out!

So, what is regenerative agriculture? 

Regenerative agriculture is a way of farming that focuses on soil health. When soil is healthy, it produces more food and nutrition, stores more carbon and increases biodiversity – the variety of species. Healthy soil supports other water, land and air environments and ecosystems through natural processes including water drainage and pollination – the fertilization of plants.

Regenerative agriculture is a defining term for sustainability in our food system - while there is no one true definition of regenerative agriculture, the concept has been around for centuries, taking root in Indigenous growing practices. Regenerative approaches can bolster soil health and watershed health. They can also add to climate mitigation and potentially tie into regulatory or commercial incentives for a more sustainable diet. 

Regenerative farming methods include minimizing the ploughing of land. This keeps CO2 in the soil, improves its water absorbency and leaves vital fungal communities in the earth undisturbed.

Rotating crops to vary the types of crop planted improves biodiversity, while using animal manure and compost helps to return nutrients to the soil. 

Continuously grazing animals on the same piece of land can also degrade soil, explains the Regenerative agriculture in Europe report from the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council. So regenerative agriculture methods include moving grazing animals to different pastures.

How can it help?

Regenerative farming can improve crop yields – the volume of crops produced – by improving the health of soil and its ability to retain water, as well as reducing soil erosion. If regenerative farming was implemented in Africa, crop yields could rise 13% by 2040 and up to 40% in the future, according to a Regenerative Farming in Africa report by conservation organization the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the UN.

Regenerative farming can also reduce emissions from agriculture and turn the croplands and pastures, which cover up to 40% of Earth’s ice-free land area, into carbon sinks. These are environments that naturally absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, according to climate solutions organization Project Drawdown.

5 ways to scale regenerative agriculture:

1. Agree on common metrics for environmental outcomes. Today, there are many disparate efforts to define and measure environmental outcomes. We must move to a set of metrics adopted by the whole food industry, making it easier for farmers to adjust their practices and for positive changes to be rewarded. 2. Build farmers’ income from environmental outcomes such as carbon reduction and removal. We need a well-functioning market with a credible system of payments for environmental outcomes, trusted by buyers and sellers, that creates a new, durable, income stream for farmers. 3. Create mechanisms to share the cost of transition with farmers. Today, all the risk and cost sits with the farmers. 4. Ensure government policy enables and rewards farmers for transition. Too many government policies are in fact supporting the status quo of farming. The food sector must come together and work jointly with regulators to address this. 5. Develop new sourcing models to spread the cost of transition. We must move from sourcing models that take crops from anywhere to models that involve collaboration between off-takers from different sectors to take crops from areas converting to regenerative farming.

The rise of regenerative agriculture

In 2019, General Mills, the manufacturer of Cheerios, Yoplait and Annie’s Mac and Cheese (among other products), announced it would begin sourcing a portion of its corn, wheat, dairy and sugar from farmers who were engaged in regenerative agriculture practices and committed to advancing the practice of regenerative agriculture on one million acres of land by 2030. In early 2020, Whole Foods announced regenerative agriculture would be the No. 1 food trend and, in spite of the pandemic and the rapid growth of online shopping overshadowing the trend, business interest in the field still spiked by 138%. 

More recently, PepsiCo announced it was adopting regenerative agriculture practices among 7 million acres of its farmland. Cargill declared it intends to do the same on 10 million acres by 2030, and Walmart has committed to advancing the practice on 50 million acres. Other companies pursuing regenerative agriculture include Danone, Unilever, Hormel, Target and Land O’ Lakes.

According to Nielsen, 75% of millennials are altering their buying habits with the environment in mind. This sentiment, of course, does not always materialize into tangible actions on behalf of every consumer. However, it is clear from the actions of PepsiCo, General Mills, Walmart, Unilever and others that they believe consumers’ expectations of what is environmentally friendly are shifting and that they will soon be looking to purchase regeneratively-produced foods because of the many benefits they produce.

The next step in the transition to regenerative agriculture is certification. The goal is to create labeling that will allow the consumer to connect to the full suite of their values. Some companies are partnering with nonprofit conveners and certifiers. The Savory Institute is one such partner, convening producers and brands around regenerative agriculture and more holistic land management practices.

In 2020, the Savory Institute granted its first “Ecological OutCome Verification (EOV) seal to Epic’s latest high protein bars by certifying that its featured beef was raised with regenerative agriculture practices. 

The program was developed to let the land speak for itself by showing improvement through both leading and lagging functions such as plant diversity and water holding capacity. There are now thousands of products that have been Land to Market verified, with over 80 brand partnerships with companies such as Epic Provisions, Eileen Fisher and Applegate.  Daily Harvest is giving growers in that space three-year contracts as well as markets and price premiums for the transitional crop. It's focusing on that transitional organic process as a stepping stone toward a regenerative organic food system.

Daily Harvest’s Almond Project creates an alliance with the Savory Institute and a group of stakeholders - including Simple Mills and Cappello’s - to bring regenerative practices to almonds in the Central Valley of California.

These companies are working with Treehouse California Almonds, their shared almond supplier, to lead soil health research on 160 acres of farmland. Over five years, the Project will focus on measuring outcomes around the ecosystem and soil health of regenerative practices – comparing those side by side with neighboring conventional baselines.

“We need industry partnership; we need pre-competitive collaboration,” says Rebecca Gildiner, Director of Sustainability at Daily Harvest, of the Almond Project. “Sustainability cannot be competitive. We are all sharing suppliers, we are all sharing supply – rising tides truly lift all boats. The industry has to understand our responsibility in investing, where historically investments have disproportionately focused on yields with a sole focus of feeding the world. We know this has been critical in the past but it has overlooked other forms of capital, other than financial. We need to look towards experimenting in holistic systems that have other outcomes than yield and profit - instead of saying organic can’t feed the world, we have to invest in figuring out how organic can feed the world because it’s critical.”

////

In short!!!

Many articles are stating regenerative agriculture as a defining, and rising “buzz word” in the industry. It seems that consumers are becoming more and more aware and are demanding more sustainable approaches to agriculture. 

We, of course, have a way to go, but it seems from the data that I’ve gathered, that regenerative agriculture is, in fact, on the rise. Demand is rising, and many are working on ways to globalize those methods.

Source Source Source Source

[whencyclopedia]

Chesapeake-Leopard Affair

The Chesapeake-Leopard affair was an incident that took place off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia, on 22 June 1807 when the British warship HMS Leopard fired on and boarded an American frigate USS Chesapeake while searching for deserters from the Royal Navy. The incident was one of the events that led to the War of 1812.

Background

In 1807, as the United States was still struggling to find its footing as an independent nation, the Napoleonic Wars were raging in Europe. Napoleon Bonaparte, having crowned himself Emperor of the French three years before, found himself opposed by a series of ever-shifting coalitions of European nations bankrolled by Great Britain. On land, Napoleon's armies had proved dominant; with such great victories as the Battle of Austerlitz (2 December 1805) and the Battle of Friedland (14 June 1807), he had conquered Central Europe and was now exerting influence throughout most of the continent. Britain, meanwhile, had smashed French naval power at the Battle of Trafalgar (21 October 1805) and was afterwards the undisputed master of the waves. This dichotomy left the neutral United States in a precarious position: to deal with one empire meant to upset the other. President Thomas Jefferson, nervously keeping tabs on the developments in Europe, voiced the concerns of many of his countrymen when he wrote: "What an awful spectacle does the world exhibit in this instant, one man bestriding the continent of Europe like a Colossus, and another roaming unbridled on the ocean" (Wood, 622).

But even as the war created anxiety in America, so, too, did it open the door of opportunity. American merchants were quick to capitalize on the gap in international trade caused by the fighting; with France and Spain no longer able to send merchant ships to their colonies in the West Indies, these colonies reluctantly opened their ports to American ships instead. The Americans would then re-export these Caribbean goods to European markets, making a fortune in the process. In 1807, the combined value of American imports and exports reached $243 million, turning the United States into the largest neutral carrier of goods in the world. When Britain complained that the United States' middleman trade strategy violated their so-called Rule of 1756 – which prevented nations from trading in times of war with ports that had been closed to them in times of peace – the Americans circumvented the rule by importing the Caribbean goods to the United States before re-exporting them to Europe, technically turning them into neutral cargo in the process.

American shipping would become threatened, however, as the Franco-British rivalry reached its stalemate. Unable to directly attack the British Isles due to the power of the Royal Navy, Napoleon decided to instead force Britain's submission by paralyzing its economy. In November 1806, he issued the Berlin Decree, the first block in his Continental System, in which he issued a continent-wide embargo on British trade. Any ship carrying British goods was liable for seizure, including those belonging to neutral countries. Britain retaliated with several orders-in-council, which placed a blockade on all ports that complied with Napoleon's embargo, stipulating that all nations who wished to trade at these ports had to first stop in England to pay transit duties. This, of course, left the American merchants in a difficult situation, as they could no longer trade at any European port without running afoul of either the French or the British. Before long, the warring empires were each seizing neutral American ships; between 1803 and 1812, France seized 558 American vessels, while the British captured 917.

Continue reading...

[meret118]

Once the narratives have taken hold, the autocratic leader can change the hardware that runs the country. Most of these steps are incremental and might even be defensible on their own. But together, they build a formidable institutional power base that can keep the leader and his party in power permanently.

Here are some of those steps:

Strengthen Executive Power. After serving one term as prime minister, Orbán lost office in 2002. He resolved that next time, he is going to be much more aggressive in strengthening his hold on power. Trump and his team have prepared for their second term in a similar way. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation behind the infamous Project 2025, portrayed Hungary as “the model for conservative statecraft.” Project 2025 echoes Orbán’s playbook, pushing to dismantle liberal influence in the “administrative state” and strengthen executive power. As Trump’s initial nominees also show, we can expect systematic efforts to sweep out officials deemed disloyal to the president. Trump also plans to centralize control over institutions, ranging from the Federal Reserve Board to the Federal Communications Commission.

Discipline the judiciary. Efforts at reining in the Justice Department and exerting more influence over the judiciary will be crucial. With Republicans already controlling the Supreme Court, any new appointments during Trump’s term would cement a conservative majority for decades. Trump was also open about his plan to fire attorneys who refuse to follow his orders. Vance even mentioned the option of simply disobeying judicial authorities.

Change Election Processes. Manipulating electoral rules and district boundaries to benefit the ruling party is a strategy that Orbán imported from the U.S. The state of Georgia is a case in point, where Republicans have increased their power to change electoral results they deem fraudulent. In Congress, Republicans have proposed far-reaching legislation that could allow Republicans to twist the electoral process to their advantage in future election cycles.

Control the media. Orbán consolidated media control through centralized propaganda, market pressure and loyal billionaires. In the U.S., in addition to the already powerful empire of Rupert Murdoch, several recent examples show the power of friendly tycoons over the media. Elon Musk is a good case study; he used Twitter-turned-X to bolster right-wing populists and now stands to gain much from his relationship with Trump. This mirrors Orbán’s strategy to forge a strong alliance with the country’s billionaires for mutual protection and support. Trump also plans to move fast on a business-friendly agenda of tax cuts, deregulation and expanded energy production.

Secure Control over Party. A final critical step is securing full control over the party. Just as Orbán replaced mainstream leaders with loyal outsiders, Trump co-opted much of the Tea Party in his takeover of the Republican Party. Trump’s team has positioned key allies as candidates and RNC leaders, placing his daughter-in-law as co-chair and pushing out numerous establishment staffers. And his current moves to name uber-loyalists to administration jobs regardless of their qualifications is also an effort to make Republicans in Congress bend to his will.

The Antidote

. . .

The courts. If there are any brazen attacks on constitutional principles, the justice system should be the first line of defense. However, illiberal regimes often operate within legal boundaries, making them harder to challenge. Courts in Europe have so far had little power against Orbán. Litigation or legal restrictions on populists also tend to backfire, boosting their image as outsiders fighting against an unjust, technocratic system, as Trump has already demonstrated in his efforts to discredit the legal cases against him. What this means is that the fight against right-wing populism is primarily political.

The media. Fighting for media pluralism and independence is vital. Investigative journalism helps, but it tends to preach to the converted. There need to be news channels and media outlets for getting messages across to non-metropolitan areas dominated by far-right news sources. Liberal-minded billionaires should not sit idly by as they did in Hungary, watching the right take over the media. The New Right is also significantly more embedded in social media than liberals are. Those of us who favor democracy cannot let Elon Musks and Andrew Tates control the public discourse. Progressive influencers: Time to log in and post away — there’s a narrative battle to win.

States and cities. Democrats cannot win without a powerful social base embedded throughout the country. Fighting for every seat and institution in states and cities is one of the most important things opponents of autocracy need to do. Even in hard illiberal regimes like Turkey or Hungary, free cities are channels for interaction with citizens, provide organizational resources and can be used to present alternative visions of governance.

Countering populist power structures requires first defeating populist narratives — a battle the anti-populist center is losing. The demise of Hungary’s once-strong left-liberal elites, now completely overpowered by the right, should serve as a stark warning, which leads us to the most important battleground: the Democratic Party.To win the fight against autocracy, above all, the Democratic Party must reconnect with the working class to preserve liberal institutions. There are simply not enough educated moderate suburbanites for an electoral majority.

First, this means creating new and strengthening existing local organizational structures, especially labor unions. Popular mobilization is crucial to energize the base. Yet, such mobilization sometimes focuses on issues important to the active base only — a tactical error that should be avoided. For example, the most mobilized segments of Hungarian society tend to focus on media freedom or democracy, but these are not the primary concerns of ordinary citizens, leading to repeated failures of mass mobilizations. To create the groundwork so ordinary people will mobilize during elections, it’s important to engage with them outside elections, focusing on issues that matter to them.

Second, party financing should shift from the corporate elite to small and micro-donations. Fortunately, Democrats already have a strong base of small donors, but it needs to grow. This is the only guarantee against elites capturing the Democratic Party and provides a solid foundation to push through popular reforms that elites oppose. Freeing the party from elite capture will allow it to talk about things that matter, from the decline of middle America to inequality.

Third, commit to left-populist economic policies. Republicans have stolen key populist messages; Democrats need to reclaim them. If done smartly, populist economic policies work and are popular in swing states, even among right-leaning voters. Championing issues like breaking the chokehold of pharmaceuticals over the health system, fighting inflation or increasing the minimum wage are key to overcoming the chasm separating low- and high-income Americans and would allow Democrats to regain their pro-worker bona fides.

More at the link.

------

Excellent article! Paste the link here to read it.

[misfitwashere]

The Strongman Fantasy (text and audio)

And Dictatorship in Real Life

Timothy Snyder

Nov 01, 2024

I wrote this in March, with the text as below, and am posting this recording now, in the hopes that it can be useful. Please share it. TS 1/11/2024

Quite a few Americans like the idea of strongman rule.  Why not a dictator who will get things done? 

I lived in eastern Europe when memories of communism were fresh.  I have visited regions in Ukraine where Russia imposed its occupation regime.  I have spent decades reading testimonies of people who lived under Nazi or Stalinist rule.  I have seen death pits, some old, some freshly dug. And I have friends who have lived under authoritarian regimes, including political prisoners and survivors of torture. Some of the people I trusted most have been assassinated.

So I think that there is an answer to this question. 

Strongman rule is a fantasy.  Essential to it is the idea that a strongman will be your strongman.  He won't.  In a democracy, elected representatives listen to constituents.  We take this for granted, and imagine that a dictator would owe us something. But the vote you cast for him affirms your irrelevance.  The whole point is that the strongman owes us nothing.  We get abused and we get used to it. 

Another pleasant illusion is that the strongman will unite the nation.  But an aspiring dictator will always claim that some belong and others don't.  He will define one group after another as the enemy.  This might feel good, so long as you feel that you are on the right side of the line.  But now fear is the essence of life.  The politics of us-and-them, once begun, never ends. 

We dream that a strongman will let us focus on America.  But dictatorship opens our country to the worst the world has to offer.  An American strongman will measure himself by the wealth and power of other dictators.  He will befriend them and compete with them.  From them he will learn new ways to oppress and to exploit his own people.

At least, the fantasy goes, the strongman will get things done.  But dictatorial power today is not about achieving anything positive.  It is about preventing anyone else from achieving anything.  The strongman is really the weak man: his secret is that he makes everyone else weaker. 

Unaccountable to the law and to voters, the dictator has no reason to consider anything beyond his own personal interests.  In the twenty-first century, those are simple: dying in bed as a billionaire.  To enrich himself and to stay out of prison, the strongman dismantles the justice system and replaces civil servants with loyalists. 

The new bureaucrats will have no sense of accountability.  Basic government functions will break down. Citizens who want access will learn to pay bribes.  Bureaucrats in office thanks to patronage will be corrupt, and citizens will be desperate.  Quickly the corruption becomes normal, even unquestioned. 

As the fantasy of strongman rule fades into everyday dictatorship, people realize that they need things like water or schools or Social Security checks.  Insofar as such goods are available under a dictatorship, they come with a moral as well as a financial price.  When you go to a government office, you will be expected to declare your personal loyalty to the strongman.   

If you have a complaint about these practices, too bad.  Americans are litigious people, and many of us assume that we can go to the police or sue.  But when you vote a strong man in, you vote out the rule of law.  In court, only loyalism and wealth will matter.  Americans who do not fear the police will learn to do so.  Those who wear the uniform must either resign or become the enforcers of the whims of one man.

Everybody (except the dictator and his family and friends) gets poorer.  The market system depends upon competition.  Under a strongman, there will be no such thing.  The strongman's clan will be favored by government.  Our wealth inequality, bad enough already, will get worse.  Anyone hoping for prosperity will have to seek the patronage of the official oligarchs. Running a small business will become impossible.  As soon as you achieve any sort of success, someone who wants your business denounces you. 

In the fantasy of the strongman, politics vanishes and all is clear and bright.  In fact, a dreary politics penetrates everything.  You can't run a business without the threat of denunciation.  You can't get basic services without humiliation.  You feel bad about yourself.  You think about what you say, since it can be used against you later.  What you do on the internet is recorded forever, and can land you in prison.

Public space closes down around you.  You cannot escape to the bar or the bowling alley, since everything you say is monitored.  The person on the next stool or in the next lane might not turn you in, but you have to assume they will.  If you have a t-shirt or a bumper sticker with a message, someone will report you.  Even if you just repeat the dictator's words, someone can lie about you and denounce you.  And then, if you voted for the strongman, you will be confused.  But you should not be.  This is what you voted for.

Denunciation becomes normal behavior.  Without law and voting, denouncing others helps people to feel safe.  Under strongman rule, you cannot trust your colleagues or your friends or even your family.  Political fear not only takes away all public space; it also corrupts all private relationships.  And soon it consumes your thoughts.  If you cannot say what you think, you lose track of what you believe.  You cease to be yourself.

If you have a heart attack and go to the hospital, you have to worry that your name is on a list.  Care of elderly parents is suddenly in jeopardy.  That hospital bed or place in a retirement home is no longer assured.  If you draw attention to yourself, aged relatives will be dumped in the street.  This is not how America works now, but it is how authoritarian regimes always work. 

In the strongman fantasy, no one thinks about children.  But fear around children is the essence of dictatorial power.  Even courageous people restrain themselves to protect their children.  Parents know that children can be singled out and beaten up.  If parents step out of line, children lose any chance of going to university, or lose their jobs.

Schools collapse anyway, since a dictator only wants myths that justify his power.  Children learn in school to denounce one another.  Each coming generation must be more tame and ignorant than the prior one.  Time with young children stresses parents.  Either your children repeat propaganda and tell you things you know are wrong, or you worry that they will find out what is right and get in trouble. 

In a dictatorship, parents no longer say what they think to their children, because they fear that their children will repeat it in public.  And once parents no longer speak their minds at home, they can no longer create a trusting family.  Even parents who give up on honesty have to fear that their children will one day learn the truth, take action, and get imprisoned. 

Once this process begins, it is hard to stop.  At the present stage of the strongman fantasy, people imagine an exciting experiment.  If they don't like strongman rule, they think, they can just elect someone else the next time.  This misses the point.  If you help a strongman come to power, you are eliminating democracy.  You burn that bridge behind you.  The strongman fantasy dissolves, and real dictatorship remains.

Most likely you won’t be killed or be required to kill. But amid the dreariness of life under dictatorship is dark responsibility for others’ death. By the time the killing starts, you will know that it is not about unity, or the nation, or getting things done. The best Americans, betrayed by you when you cast your vote, will be murdered at the whim and for the wealth of a dictator. Your tragedy will be living long enough to understand this.

[darkmaga-returns]

The European Union has authorized Big Pharma to sell ‘self-replicating’ RNA jabs that are able to spread to unvaccinated people without their consent.

On Thursday the European Union’s medicine committee recommended marketing authorization of a dangerous new technology referred to as ‘self-amplifying RNA vaccines’ or ‘replicon vaccines’. Called Kostaive, it is reportedly for ‘protection’ against Covid.

Infowars.com reports: “On 12 December 2024, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Kostaive, a vaccine intended for the prevention of COVID-19 in adults,” the European Medicines Agency said Thursday.

Unlike the notorious mRNA gene therapy injections used to ‘combat’ Covid, which make the vaccinated individual’s body produce an antigen (the spike protein in the case of the Covid shots) the new saRNA vaccines go a step further, making the body replicate the replication mechanism itself. Traditional (real) vaccines contain the antigen, which is intended to illicit an immune response in the body, unlike mRNA vaccines which make the body itself produce the antigen, which is then intended to illicit an immune response. Traditional vaccines also contain neurotoxins such as aluminum as an adjuvant (to agitate the immune system into action) and mercury as a preservative.

“Kostaive will be available as a powder for dispersion for injection. Kostaive is a RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine (ATC code: J07BN01). It contains a self-amplifying mRNA that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Self-amplifying means that the mRNA also carries instructions to make a protein called replicase. Once administered into a muscle, the replicase protein makes more copies of the mRNA, which the cell can use to make more spike protein. Vaccination with Kostaive induces the production of neutralising antibodies and a cellular immune response targeting the spike protein, which helps protect people against COVID-19,” the European Medicines Agency said Thursday.

The new shot triggers side effects 90 percent of the time.

[mariacallous]

Recently, former president and convicted felon Donald Trump posted a series of photos that appeared to show fans of pop star Taylor Swift supporting his bid for the US presidency. The pictures looked AI-generated, and WIRED was able to confirm they probably were by running them through the nonprofit True Media’s detection tool to confirm that they showed “substantial evidence of manipulation.”

Things aren’t always that easy. The use of generative AI, including for political purposes, has become increasingly common, and WIRED has been tracking its use in elections around the world. But in much of the world outside the US and parts of Europe, detecting AI-generated content is difficult because of biases in the training of systems, leaving journalists and researchers with few resources to address the deluge of disinformation headed their way.

Detecting media generated or manipulated using AI is still a burgeoning field, a response to the sudden explosion of generative AI companies. (AI startups pulled in over $21 billion in investment in 2023 alone.) “There's a lot more easily accessible tools and tech available that actually allows someone to create synthetic media than the ones that are available to actually detect it,” says Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, founder of the Tech Global Institute, a think tank focused on tech policy in the Global South.

Most tools currently on the market can only offer between an 85 and 90 percent confidence rate when it comes to determining whether something was made with AI, according to Sam Gregory, program director of the nonprofit Witness, which helps people use technology to support human rights. But when dealing with content from someplace like Bangladesh or Senegal, where subjects aren’t white or they aren’t speaking English, that confidence level plummets. “As tools were developed, they were prioritized for particular markets,” says Gregory. In the data used to train the models, “they prioritized English language—US-accented English—or faces predominant in the Western world.”

This means that AI models were mostly trained on data from and for Western markets, and therefore can’t really recognize anything that falls outside of those parameters. In some cases that’s because companies were training models using the data that was most easily available on the internet, where English is by far the dominant language. “Most of our data, actually, from [Africa] is in hard copy,” says Richard Ngamita, founder of Thraets, a nonprofit civic tech organization focused on digital threats in Africa and other parts of the Global South. This means that unless that data is digitized, AI models can’t be trained on it.

Without the vast amounts of data needed to train AI models well enough to accurately detect AI-generated or AI-manipulated content, models will often return false positives, flagging real content as AI generated, or false negatives, identifying AI-generated content as real. “If you use any of the off the shelf tools that are for detecting AI-generated text, they tend to detect English that's written by non-native English speakers, and assume that non-native English speaker writing is actually AI,” says Diya. “There’s a lot of false positives because they weren’t trained on certain data.”

But it’s not just that models can’t recognize accents, languages, syntax, or faces less common in Western countries. “A lot of the initial deepfake detection tools were trained on high quality media,” says Gregory. But in much of the world, including Africa, cheap Chinese smartphone brands that offer stripped-down features dominate the market. The photos and videos that these phones are able to produce are much lower quality, further confusing detection models, says Ngamita.

Gregory says that some models are so sensitive that even background noise in a piece of audio, or compressing a video for social media, can result in a false positive or negative. “But those are exactly the circumstances you encounter in the real world, rough and tumble detection,” he says. The free, public-facing tools that most journalists, fact checkers, and civil society members are likely to have access to are also “the ones that are extremely inaccurate, in terms of dealing both with the inequity of who is represented in the training data and of the challenges of dealing with this lower quality material.”

Generative AI is not the only way to create manipulated media. So-called cheapfakes, or media manipulated by adding misleading labels or simply slowing down or editing audio and video, are also very common in the Global South, but can be mistakenly flagged as AI-manipulated by faulty models or untrained researchers.

Diya worries that groups using tools that are more likely to flag content from outside the US and Europe as AI generated could have serious repercussions on a policy level, encouraging legislators to crack down on imaginary problems. “There's a huge risk in terms of inflating those kinds of numbers,” she says. And developing new tools is hardly a matter of pressing a button.

Just like every other form of AI, building, testing, and running a detection model requires access to energy and data centers that are simply not available in much of the world. “If you talk about AI and local solutions here, it's almost impossible without the compute side of things for us to even run any of our models that we are thinking about coming up with,” says Ngamita, who is based in Ghana. Without local alternatives, researchers like Ngamita are left with few options: pay for access to an off the shelf tool like the one offered by Reality Defender, the costs of which can be prohibitive; use inaccurate free tools; or try to get access through an academic institution.

For now, Ngamita says that his team has had to partner with a European university where they can send pieces of content for verification. Ngamita’s team has been compiling a dataset of possible deepfake instances from across the continent, which he says is valuable for academics and researchers who are trying to diversify their models’ datasets.

But sending data to someone else also has its drawbacks. “The lag time is quite significant,” says Diya. “It takes at least a few weeks by the time someone can confidently say that this is AI generated, and by that time, that content, the damage has already been done.”

Gregory says that Witness, which runs its own rapid response detection program, receives a “huge number” of cases. “It’s already challenging to handle those in the time frame that frontline journalists need, and at the volume they’re starting to encounter,” he says.

But Diya says that focusing so much on detection might divert funding and support away from organizations and institutions that make for a more resilient information ecosystem overall. Instead, she says, funding needs to go towards news outlets and civil society organizations that can engender a sense of public trust. “I don't think that's where the money is going,” she says. “I think it is going more into detection.”

[maximumphilosopheranchor]

The basic facts of mass hunger and death, although sometimes reported in the European and American press, never took on the clarity of an undisputed event. Almost no one claimed that Stalin meant to starve Ukrainians to death; even Adolf Hitler preferred to blame the Marxist system. It was controversial to note that starvation was taking place at all. Gareth Jones did so in a handful of newspaper articles; it seems that he was the only one to do so in English under his own name. When Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna tried to appeal for food aid for the starving in summer and autumn 1933, Soviet authorities rebuffed him nastily, saying that the Soviet Union had neither cardinals nor cannibals – a statement that was only half true. Though the journalists knew less than the diplomats, most of them understood that millions were dying from hunger. The influential Moscow correspondent of the New York Times, Walter Duranty, did his best to undermine Jones’s accurate reporting. Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932, called Jones’s account of the famine a “big scare story”. Duranty’s claim that there was “no actual starvation” but “only widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition” echoed Soviet usages and pushed euphemism into mendacity. This was an Orwellian distinction; and indeed George Orwell himself regarded the Ukrainian famine of 1933 as a central example of a black truth that artists of language had covered with bright colors. Duranty knew that millions of people had starved to death. Yet he maintained in his journalism that the hunger served a higher purpose. Duranty thought that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.” Aside from Jones, the only journalist to file serious reports in English was Malcolm Muggeridge, writing anonymously for the Manchester Guardian. He wrote that the famine was “one of the most monstrous crimes in history, so terrible that people in the future will scarcely be able to believe that it happened.” In fairness, even the people with the most obvious interest in events in Soviet Ukraine, the Ukrainians living beyond the border of the Soviet Union, needed months to understand the extent of the famine. Some five million Ukrainians lived in neighboring Poland, and their political leaders worked hard to draw international attention to the mass starvation in the Soviet Union. And yet even they grasped the extent of the tragedy only in May 1933, by which time most of the victims were already dead. Throughout the following summer and autumn, Ukrainian newspapers in Poland covered the famine, and Ukrainian politicians in Poland organized marches and protests. The leader of the Ukrainian feminist organization tried to organize an international boycott of Soviet goods by appealing to the women of the world. Several attempts were made to reach Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president of the United States. None of this made any difference. The laws of the international market ensured that the grain taken from Soviet Ukraine would feed others. Roosevelt, preoccupied above all by the position of the American worker during the Great Depression, wished to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. The telegrams from Ukrainian activists reached him in autumn 1933, just as his personal initiative in US-Soviet relations was bearing fruit. The United States extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union in November 1933.

Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of capitalism?

Capitalist society is a relatively recent development. For Marx, while markets have existed for millennium “the capitalist era dates from the sixteenth century.” [Capital, vol. 1, p. 876] As Murray Bookchin pointed out, for a “long era, perhaps spanning more than five centuries,” capitalism “coexisted with feudal and simple commodity relationships” in Europe. He argues that this period “simply cannot be treated as ‘transitional’ without reading back the present into the past.” [From Urbanisation to Cities, p. 179] In other words, capitalism was not a inevitable outcome of “history” or social evolution.

Bookchin went on to note that capitalism existed “with growing significance in the mixed economy of the West from the fourteenth century up to the seventeenth” but that it “literally exploded into being in Europe, particularly England, during the eighteenth and especially nineteenth centuries.” [Op. Cit., p. 181] The question arises, what lay behind this “growing significance”? Did capitalism “explode” due to its inherently more efficient nature or where there other, non-economic, forces at work? As we will show, it was most definitely the second — capitalism was born not from economic forces but from the political actions of the social elites which its usury enriched. Unlike artisan (simple commodity) production, wage labour generates inequalities and wealth for the few and so will be selected, protected and encouraged by those who control the state in their own economic and social interests.

The development of capitalism in Europe was favoured by two social elites, the rising capitalist class within the degenerating medieval cities and the absolutist state. The medieval city was “thoroughly changed by the gradual increase in the power of commercial capital, due primarily to foreign trade … By this the inner unity of the commune was loosened, giving place to a growing caste system and leading necessarily to a progressive inequality of social interests. The privileged minorities pressed ever more definitely towards a centralisation of the political forces of the community… Mercantilism in the perishing city republics led logically to a demand for larger economic units [i.e. to nationalise the market]; and by this the desire for stronger political forms was greatly strengthened … Thus the city gradually became a small state, paving the way for the coming national state.” [Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p. 94] Kropotkin stressed that in this destruction of communal self-organisation the state not only served the interests of the rising capitalist class but also its own. Just as the landlord and capitalist seeks a workforce and labour market made up of atomised and isolated individuals, so does the state seek to eliminate all potential rivals to its power and so opposes “all coalitions and all private societies, whatever their aim.” [The State: It’s Historic role, p. 53]

The rising economic power of the proto-capitalists conflicted with that of the feudal lords, which meant that the former required help to consolidate their position. That aid came in the form of the monarchical state which, in turn, needed support against the feudal lords. With the force of absolutism behind it, capital could start the process of increasing its power and influence by expanding the “market” through state action. This use of state coercion was required because, as Bookchin noted, ”[i]n every pre-capitalist society, countervailing forces … existed to restrict the market economy. No less significantly, many pre-capitalist societies raised what they thought were insuperable obstacles to the penetration of the State into social life.” He noted the “power of village communities to resist the invasion of trade and despotic political forms into society’s abiding communal substrate.” State violence was required to break this resistance and, unsurprisingly the “one class to benefit most from the rising nation-state was the European bourgeoisie … This structure . .. provided the basis for the next great system of labour mobilisation: the factory.” [The Ecology of Freedom, pp. 207–8 and p. 336] The absolutist state, noted Rocker, “was dependent upon the help of these new economic forces, and vice versa and so it “at first furthered the plans of commercial capital” as its coffers were filled by the expansion of commerce. Its armies and fleets “contributed to the expansion of industrial production because they demanded a number of things for whose large-scale production the shops of small tradesmen were no longer adapted. Thus gradually arose the so-called manufactures, the forerunners of the later large industries.” [Op. Cit., pp. 117–8] As such, it is impossible to underestimate the role of state power in creating the preconditions for both agricultural and industrial capitalism.

Some of the most important state actions from the standpoint of early industry were the so-called Enclosure Acts, by which the “commons” — the free farmland shared communally by the peasants in most rural villages — was “enclosed” or incorporated into the estates of various landlords as private property (see section F.8.3). This ensured a pool of landless workers who had no option but to sell their labour to landlords and capitalists. Indeed, the widespread independence caused by the possession of the majority of households of land caused the rising class of capitalists to complain, as one put it, “that men who should work as wage-labourers cling to the soil, and in the naughtiness of their hearts prefer independence as squatters to employment by a master.” [quoted by Allan Engler, The Apostles of Greed, p. 12] Once in service to a master, the state was always on hand to repress any signs of “naughtiness” and “independence” (such as strikes, riots, unions and the like). For example, Seventeenth century France saw a “number of decrees … which forbade workers to change their employment or which prohibited assemblies of workers or strikes on pain of corporal punishment or even death. (Even the Theological Faculty of the University of Paris saw fit to pronounce solemnly against the sin of workers’ organisation).” [Maurice Dobb, Studies in Capitalism Development, p. 160]

In addition, other forms of state aid ensured that capitalist firms got a head start, so ensuring their dominance over other forms of work (such as co-operatives). A major way of creating a pool of resources that could be used for investment was the use of mercantilist policies which used protectionist measures to enrich capitalists and landlords at the expense of consumers and their workers. For example, one of most common complaints of early capitalists was that workers could not turn up to work regularly. Once they had worked a few days, they disappeared as they had earned enough money to live on. With higher prices for food, caused by protectionist measures, workers had to work longer and harder and so became accustomed to factory labour. In addition, mercantilism allowed native industry to develop by barring foreign competition and so allowed industrialists to reap excess profits which they could then use to increase their investments. In the words of Marxist economic historian Maurice Dobb:

“In short, the Mercantile System was a system of State-regulated exploitation through trade which played a highly important rule in the adolescence of capitalist industry: it was essentially the economic policy of an age of primitive accumulation.” [Op. Cit., p. 209]

As Rocker summarises, “when absolutism had victoriously overcome all opposition to national unification, by its furthering of mercantilism and economic monopoly it gave the whole social evolution a direction which could only lead to capitalism.” [Op. Cit., pp. 116–7]

Mercantilist policies took many forms, including the state providing capital to new industries, exempting them from guild rules and taxes, establishing monopolies over local, foreign and colonial markets, and granting titles and pensions to successful capitalists. In terms of foreign trade, the state assisted home-grown capitalists by imposing tariffs, quotas, and prohibitions on imports. They also prohibited the export of tools and technology as well as the emigration of skilled workers to stop competition (this applied to any colonies a specific state may have had). Other policies were applied as required by the needs of specific states. For example, the English state imposed a series of Navigation Acts which forced traders to use English ships to visit its ports and colonies (this destroyed the commerce of Holland, its chief rival). Nor should the impact of war be minimised, with the demand for weapons and transportation (including ships) injecting government spending into the economy. Unsurprisingly, given this favouring of domestic industry at the expense of its rivals and the subject working class population the mercantilist period was one of generally rapid growth, particularly in England.

As we discussed in section C.10, some kind of mercantilism has always been required for a country to industrialise. Over all, as economist Paul Ormerod puts it, the “advice to follow pure free-market polices seems … to be contrary to the lessons of virtually the whole of economic history since the Industrial Revolution … every country which has moved into … strong sustained growth . .. has done so in outright violation of pure, free-market principles.” These interventions include the use of “tariff barriers” to protect infant industries, “government subsidies” and “active state intervention in the economy.” He summarises: “The model of entrepreneurial activity in the product market, with judicious state support plus repression in the labour market, seems to be a good model of economic development.” [The Death of Economics, p. 63]

Thus the social forces at work creating capitalism was a combination of capitalist activity and state action. But without the support of the state, it is doubtful that capitalist activity would have been enough to generate the initial accumulation required to start the economic ball rolling. Hence the necessity of Mercantilism in Europe and its modified cousin of state aid, tariffs and “homestead acts” in America.