On 8 May Corporate Watch held a symposium on green capitalism, bringing together activists, academics and anyone who was interested, to discuss trends within green capitalism, how to oppose them and possible alternative approaches.

The symposium was organised following the publication of our A-Z of green capitalism in which we explored the idea and related themes, including genuinely ecological alternatives.

Green capitalism is often presented as a way of addressing environmental problems without having to change underlying economic systems. However, put simply, it is a contradiction in terms as capitalism is fundamentally reliant on the exploitation of nature and natural resources (as well as people!). But the idea of green capitalism is also used as an effective way of undermining ecological resistance and efforts towards systemic change.

The symposium provided a space to go into more detail on some specific themes within green capitalism, with expert speakers providing introductions to spark discussion among participants. Individual sessions were held on food, co-ops, accountability, technology and design. Below we provide a very short summary of what was discussed and point readers towards some resources for further exploration.

To read more about Green Capitalism, see our A-Z, downloadable from the Corporate Watch website here.

Opposition to corporate control of the food system

Tomaso Ferrado from Warwick Law School started the symposium with a presentation on the corporate control of food systems. He explained how the food market is controlled by a small number of multinationals, and how consumer aspirations in the global north for healthier more environmentally friendly food had been turned into just another profit making opportunity by corporations. Although most of the food around the world is produced by small scale farmers, the increase in demand for healthy, organic and greener food without considering the ecological, economic and social impact create new bottlenecks and unjust distribution of resources. Items for discussion included: agroecology, developments in organic and non-certifification in the UK, and the People’s Food Policy.

Here are some links for further related reading:

• Tomaso’s paper on ‘The Financialization of Land and Agriculture: Mechanisms, Implications and Responses’
• The Cornucopia Institute does research and investigations on agricultural and food issues. They support economic justice for family-scale farming and back ecologically produced local, organic and authentic food.
• La Via Campesina is the international movement which brings together millions of peasants, small and medium-size farmers, landless people, women farmers, indigenous people, migrants and agricultural workers from around the world. It defends small-scale sustainable agriculture as a way to promote social justice and dignity. It strongly opposes corporate driven agriculture and transnational companies that are destroying people and nature.
• The Landworkers Alliance is a member of La Via Campesina. They are a producer-led organisation of small-scale producers and family farmers who work to overcome the obstacles facing that land-based workers face.
• UK Food sovereignty movement
• Also, for an introduction to food related politics, see Corporate Watch’s Food Revolution poster.

Co-ops as alternatives to green capitalism

Sofa Gradin, of Queen Mary’s University, talked about the nature of non-for profit co-ops and how they provide alternatives to capitalist organising forms. The presentation included a simple way of defining non-capitalist co-ops and examples of existing co-ops, how they organised and the challenges they face, such as how to avoid destructive competition and informal power concentration. The discussions were based on how to replace capitalism with co-ops and included contributions on the Lucas Plan,energy co-ops, local currencies and economies, and how instead of expanding and ‘upscaling’ it is often better to ‘outscale’ and create replicable, small scale models.

Some links for further related reading:

• Cafe libertad (supplier of Zapatista Coffee)
• Radical Routes is a network of radical co-ops whose members are committed to working for positive social change. The network is made up mainly of housing co-ops of various sizes, a few workers co-ops and a couple of social centres.
• The are various collectives in the UK that can help co-ops and other groups with training on things such as consensus decision making and internal power dynamics. There is a list of them on the Rhizome website.

The fallacy of corporate accountability

Grietje Baars of City University began with an introduction on how corporations are the cause of most ecological destruction in the world, and that the simple answer to questions such as: should we sue them? Should we prosecute them? Should we demand laws that control them? is, No! Because essentially the legal system is designed to support capitalist agendas, and simply put, law loves capital and isn’t the same as justice. Discussions covered areas such as the form and nature of the corporation, corporate personhood (including the corporate death penalty in California), affordable non-corporate alternatives for consumers and the NGO industrial complex.

• For some further reading in this area see Grietje’s articles here
• Corporate Watch’s publication on corporate law and structures.
• Grietje also recommended checking out the May Project gardens, a non-corporate alternative combining gardening, training, food and music.

Technocracy and green capitalism

Dave King introduced the session by talking about the concept of technocracy, and how our current ecological problems can be traced back to the development of industrial capitalism. He described how technology is shaped by power relations and more so, how technocracy also shapes society, as things inbuilt into technologies direct societal development. He also described some problems with the environmental movement and how it can tend to treat ecological issues as de-politicised, scientific or technical problems. Discussions included how green capitalism (especially the ‘natural capital’ element) is a technocratic approach to conservation of nature, and the importance of identifying both capitalism and technocracy as being the causes of global ecological crises.

Corporate Watch will shortly publish an essay by Dave on Technocracy and green capitalism.

For some further reading, have a look at:

• 40th anniversary of Lucas plan
• Corporate Watch’s technofixes report

Within and beyond green capitalism

Joanna Boehnert of University of Westminster first discussed some competing terms suggested to define new geological epochs: Anthropocence (due to the human effects on geological processes); Capitalocene (where the effects on the global environmental are recognised as being due to capitalism rather than humans as a whole) and Ecocene (which, based on new ecologically informed relationships between humans and nature, is yet to emerge). Joanna described the important role that design plays in creating new, ecologically literate ways of thinking, but also how design is involved in maintaining current power relationships. For example, participatory design has been around for about 15 years, but is now being co-opted by capitalists.

To find out more, have a look at:

• Joanna’s new book, Design, Ecology, Politics. Towards the Ecocene
• Decolonising design
• Ecolabs:a not for profit graphic design research lab and studio engaged in the visual communication of complex problems. Creates resources, projects and programs that nurture ecological literacy, critical whole systems thinking and  agency in response to environmental challenges.

The post Exploring and opposing green capitalism appeared first on Corporate Watch.

As part of our Green Capitalism project, one contributor, Benjamin, gives their take on the idea of ‘steady state economics’ – an ecological approach to economics where economies remain at a stable size instead of growing over time, and resource consumption is kept within ecological limits. Please note the views are the authors and do not represent Corporate Watch’s position.

In the foreword to a new report by the prominent economist Jeffrey Sachs, senator Bernie Sanders writes: ‘What I heard and what I continue to hear is that Americans have had enough of establishment politicians and establishment economists who have claimed for far too long that we must choose between economic growth, economic fairness, and environmental sustainability. They have sold us a bill of goods that says we can’t have all three. Well, they are wrong.’ [1] Whilst Sanders’ rhetoric is appealing, should we demand all three? Do we need to revisit the presumption that economic growth is always necessary and desirable?

“The increase of wealth is not boundless, at the end of what they term the progressive state lies the stationary state.” – J. S. Mill [2]

The idea of steady-state or zero-growth economics is far from new. Nineteenth century economists such as John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith, embraced the concept of growing towards a desirable end, then maintaining that end with no need to grow further. During the twentieth century this focus was lost with conventional economists arguing for infinite growth, whilst rarely addressing the question of how this could be achieved with finite natural resources. In 1990 a group of economists sought to highlight this contradiction when they established the International Society of Ecological Economics.

Economies are measured by adding up all of the transactions which take place, usually over the course of a year. In the case of a country this figure is called GDP or Gross Domestic Product. The total value of transactions can go up from one year to the next, either because there are more people or because each average person has bought more this year than last. We call that rise economic growth. Any change due to fluctuating population can mask per capita (per person) changes. If we want to consider human welfare, per capita figures can be more useful.

Let us remember that there is nothing natural or inevitable about economic growth. Growth is a modern obsession, which did not pertain in the classical world. Civilisations rose and fell without ever experiencing per capita rises in income or consumption. In Europe, all this changed two hundred years ago with the industrial revolution. New sources of energy allowed growth beyond the ecological limits imposed on previous societies, borrowing from the past in the use of fossil fuels and from the future in the use and abuse of ecosystem services. As such, growth only began when civilisation stepped outside the sustainability inherent in living within ecological limits.

In 1990 when the first Ecological Economists advocated a new respect for these ecological limits, their ideas were well outside the mainstream. However, in the intervening two and half decades, many ecological themes have moved from speculative theorising to current affairs. The thaw of Siberian permafrost. Melting of alpine glaciers. Armed conflict over water resources. The idea of an economy in which growth is neither necessary nor desirable also has more currency than it did.

According to the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, a system without growth ‘aims for stable population and stable consumption of energy and materials at sustainable levels.’ [3] Let us consider each of these points individually:

Zero growth in itself is not a panacea. The steady-state we are aiming for must be within ecological limits (sustainable levels), for example the atmosphere’s ability to cycle carbon dioxide.

Stable consumption means that we can all expect to live comfortably, but that consumption patterns must not balloon over time.

Stable population means that population cannot continue to grow. If it does, each individual must consume less year on year for consumption as a whole to remain steady. Reproductive rights are one of the most fundamental expressions of personal liberty, so how we stabilise population without recourse to authoritarianism or unjust market mechanisms remains a huge challenge. Addressing inequality in relation to both gender and income distribution remains key.

Achieving a society which respected all three points would have huge advantages for ordinary citizens. In a steady-state economy it would be more realistic to achieve stability, which could provide a comfortable life for all whilst eliminating boom/bust cycles. Since continuous growth and sustainable scale are mutually exclusive, any steady-state economy must abandon the flawed expectation that growth will be the engine to alleviate poverty. Some mechanisms of redistribution would equally help achieve true sustainability, because poor people who have trouble meeting basic needs tend not to consider their ecological impact, and the super rich tend to consume unsustainably.

In a mutation of language which has largely passed unremarked, our society’s obsession with growth has led the word to be used interchangeably with prosperity. President Trump has promised to bring growth back to the American rust-belt and George Osborne’s “Northern powerhouse” purported to bring growth to Britain’s northern cities. In Cornwall, the Cornish word “sowena” (prosperity) is used as a toast, it wishes drinking companions good fortune in the same way that the French “santé” wishes them health. I have yet to find a language which wishes growth upon anyone other than small children.

To make the transition to a steady-state economy, we must reform the language we use to talk about consumption, wealth and work. There is a degree of truth in the Orwellian notion that vocabulary shapes our thinking. Our terminology must focus on ends not means: welfare, not growth or money. Once we recognise ends, we will be freer to search for means which are both more effective, as well as more sustainable than our current model. Consumption must not be used as an analogue for contentment. We must begin to consider livelihoods instead of merely jobs.

Political ecologists tend to consider the size of an economy as approximately proportional to the load that it exerts upon ecosystems. Exceptionally few sectors of any economy have yet been able to break this link. With this as our starting point, it is logical that many radical environmental campaigns seek to disrupt through-puts of natural resources, thereby impacting on the overall size of the economy.

In a subtle contrast, proponents of steady-state economics argue that escaping from the presumption of economic growth is more urgent than constraining the economy within ecological limits. As Herman Daly put it in his ground-breaking book Steady-state Economics, ‘We cannot go into reverse without first coming to a stop.’ [4] Since those words were published, the term Degrowth has entered the lexicon to describe an economic reverse gear, but Daly’s simple assertion remains true. Once society has built effective measures to constrain and manage the size of the economy, only then can we hold a meaningful debate about what size the economy should be constrained to. Daly’s writings are not Utopian, rather he proposes a transition from our current, unsustainable rates of consumption and resource depletion: ‘Pragmatically, quotas would probably at first be set near existing extraction rates. The first task would be to stabilise to get off the growth path. ‘Though governments must retain ‘the ability to tighten constraints gradually.’ His is a radical but not a revolutionary discourse.

In his essay ‘Institutions for a Steady State Economy’, Daly draws a distinction between two questions: ‘Could a steady-state economy function if people accepted it?’ and ‘How likely are people to accept it?’. [5] Political history is littered with failed schemes which met only one of these criteria, so it is important that we have confidence in steady-state economics on both counts.

Let us first consider how a steady-state economy might work and the mechanisms necessary to maintain it. We must begin by adopting new measures of success. Many choose annual salary as a measure of individual success. Similarly, GDP is regularly quoted as a measure of national well-being. GDP is flawed not least because it entrenches a disturbing form of double counting. Production which drives pollution is nonetheless positive – from the perspective of GDP. When further money changes hands in any clean-up this again boosts GDP. Such an approach provides little incentive to avoid pollution in the first place. Any transaction where money changes hands adds to the figure, regardless of the social or ecological good of that transaction. Any work which is done without money changing hands, such as childcare and other work within the home, is excluded. In setting out a unique model for his country’s development the king of Bhutan argued that Gross National Happiness (GNH) is more important than Gross National Product.[6] Quite how GNH should be measured remains a question.

There are quantitative approaches which seek to supplant GDP as a go-to measure of national economic well-being. The most developed is the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW). Under this measure, economic transactions are balanced against such factors as income distribution and costs associated with pollution. The calculation endeavours to reflect the environmental sustainability and social acceptability of transactions. ISEW has its critics, particularly those who seek a move away from placing a price on nature. Empirically, whatever the price, someone will be prepared to pay to pollute or deplete. With these criticisms acknowledged it is nevertheless believable that we might devise a measure of success better suited to a steady-state economy than current formulations.

In a world where one of governments’ main objectives is to maintain a growing economy, there is a clear incentive for government – through licensing and tax incentives – to keep down the prices of the raw materials which form inputs to industrial processes. Most notably, this applies to fossil fuels, since this primary energy ultimately powers almost all economic activity.

A form of rationing based upon quotas has been proposed as the key mechanism for slowing and arresting economic growth. Governments would auction quotas for production of raw materials and the revenue generated could replace many forms of taxation. Current approaches, such as mechanisms within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), are excessively complicated because they seek to regulate emissions. If we accept that any hydrocarbons mined from the ground will ultimately add to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it would be administratively easier to apply quotas at the coal-face or the well-head since there are many fewer sites of extraction than there are sites of combustion and emission.

In ecological economics, quotas are seen as more effective than taxes since their effect is direct. Taxation invites industries to pay to pollute; whereas a quota forces a constraint on pollution, through constraining inputs. Importantly, it is quantity which determines ecological impact, not price. As such, it makes sense for government to decide upon a quantity (through a quota) and subsequently allow the market to set a price, rather than set a price – through taxes, and hope that the market will respond by choosing a sustainable quantity.

Bearing in mind the constraints imposed by quotas, there will necessarily be a role for regulation in ensuring a just transition to this newly constrained world. This has been as discussed by the North Sea oil-workers union OILC. Workers in energy production and intensive industries will inevitably be impacted by the imposition of quotas and must be adequately compensated.

Having briefly explored the mechanisms necessary to make it work, let us reflect upon whether such mechanisms could ever gain public acceptance. For those who are fearful of a planned economy as an assault on individual liberty, Daly suggests that ‘The micro [the behaviour of the individual] is the domain of indeterminacy, novelty and freedom. The Macro, or aggregate, is the domain of determinacy, predictability and control. We should strive for macro control and avoid micro meddling.'[7] Ecological economics also argues that – following an initial transition – the sustainable level of any steady-state economy must sit well inside ecological limits, to allow for some variability and avoid the need for market interference.

Current economic norms have lead to huge inequality. Our existing approach is failing vast numbers of citizens. In this fact there is an opportunity, since a new model which seeks to limit inequality is likely to benefit the vast majority and negatively impact only a tiny plutocracy, the one percent highlighted by the Occupy movement. Daly’s argument for limiting inequality is pragmatic, because ‘Exchange between the powerful and the powerless is often only nominally voluntary and can easily be a mask for exploitation.'[9] By his own admission, the market based mechanisms he advocates – to use Daly’s term ‘price-system parameters'[10] – can only be just if inequalities of wealth and power can be moderated. Overall levels of quotas must also take into account future generations, who will lose the ability to benefit from those resources, but who cannot bid in any auction.

Twenty-first century communication can allow ordinary citizens to participate both in a new kind of democratic politics (the Arab spring) and a new sphere of economic activity (peer to peer transactions). Despite this potential, the early ideals of many internet pioneers have been progressively lost. Under present day ‘algorithmic capitalism’ [8] multinational middle-men such as Uber and Airbnb have huge power over both consumers and producers. In defiance of a present dominated by monopolistic corporations, the same technologies – which disrupt industries – could be harnessed to disrupt the operating system of our economy.

“Future progress simply must be made in terms of things that really count rather than the things that are merely countable” HermanDaly.[11]

Politicians and global corporations are often accused of short-termism, yet both government and business are planning and instituting projects which will take years to build and which will operate for decades to come. What kind of economy are they planning for us? If we are to live within ecological limits, a zero-growth economy is ultimately inevitable, so let us begin building a new economic model now, rather than waiting for radical changes to be imposed upon us.

Until those of us engaged in the politics of social change begin to build steady-state and degrowth arguments into existing campaigns for justice and sustainability, we are in danger of arguing for a future which would be impossible, even were it to gain public acceptance. This is a trap, which many who have joined calls for Green Growth are in danger of falling in to. Today, there are so many acute confrontations, we can lose sight of the chronic problems caused by our economic system. The anti roads movement lost battles at Twyford and Newbury but won a broader victory when dozens of road schemes where shelved. We may lose some of our current fights, yet if we do so intelligently we will remodel economics as well as politics.

Steady-state economics offers a model for a future within ecological limits and crucially, proposes mechanisms to reach that destination. Questions remain around how market mechanisms could ever be implemented justly – given existing inequalities. Alternatively, what non-market systems might be devised to limit (non-renewable) resource through-puts? We must remain vigilant: elites often capture moments of disruption and direct them to entrench existing power. Finally, we need to address the question of population, whilst avoiding blame and xenophobia. The economic and ecological challenges of the present and of the future are questions for humanity as a whole. Building walls will not help to solve them.

References:

[1] Sanders, B. (2017) Foreword. In: Sachs, J. Building the New American Economy. Columbia University Press, px http://www.cupblog.org/?p=20674 (21/02/2017)

[2] Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy. Appleton, p514

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30107/30107-h/30107-h.html (21/02/2017)

[3] O’Niel D. et al. (2010) What Is a Steady State Economy? Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, p1

http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/CASSE_Brief_SSE.pdf

[4] Daly, H. E. (1992) Steady-state economics (Second edition). Earthscan, p52

[5] Daly, H. E. (1992) Steady-state economics (Second edition). Earthscan, p50

[6] HM Wangchuck, J. S. (1972) Speech. Thimphu.

http://www.gnhcentrebhutan.org/what-is-gnh/the-story-of-gnh/ (21/02/2017)

[7] Daly, H. E. (1992) Steady-state economics (Second edition). Earthscan, p51

[8] Spehr, C. (2016) Spongebob, why don’t you work harder. In: Scholz, T. and Schneider, N. Ours to hack and to own. OR Books, p54

[9] Daly, H. E. (1992) Steady-state economics (Second edition). Earthscan, p54

[10] Daly, H. E. (1992) Steady-state economics (Second edition). Earthscan, p74

[11] Daly, H. E. (1992) Steady-state economics (Second edition). Earthscan, p75

The post Economics for a finite planet appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Kurdistan is currently divided between four countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. In each of the parts of Kurdistan, Kurdish identities and cultures have been repressed for generations. This book, by Eliza Egret and Tom Anderson, gathers together first-hand accounts of the struggles for a new society taking place in Bakur and Rojava – the parts of Kurdistan within the borders of Turkey and Syria.

The setting up of local assemblies and co-operatives, as well as radical women’s and ecological movements, are rapidly gathering momentum in Kurdistan. The book gives a simple introduction to democratic confederalism, the idea that has inspired many of those involved in these movements.

The book also compiles accounts from Kurdish people who are oppressed by the state of Turkey and profiles some of the companies that are complicit in their repression. The interviews give suggestions of how people outside of Kurdistan can act in solidarity.

Buy the book or click here to download this book for free.

The post Struggles for autonomy in Kurdistan appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Building autonomy in Turkey and Kurdistan: an interview with Revolutionary Anarchist Action

In May this year, Corporate Watch researchers travelled to Turkey and Kurdistan to investigate the companies supplying military equipment to the Turkish police and army. We talked to a range of groups from a variety of different movements and campaigns

Below is the transcript of our interview with three members of the anarchist group Devrimci Anarşist Faaliyet (DAF, or Revolutionary Anarchist Action) in Istanbul during May 2015. DAF are involved in solidarity with the Kurdish struggle, the Rojava revolution and against ISIS’ attack on Kobane, and have taken action against Turkish state repression and corporate abuse. They are attempting to establish alternatives to the current system through self-organisation, mutual aid and co-operatives.

The interview was carried out in the run-up to the Turkish elections, and touches on the election campaign by the HDP, the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party. Soon after the interview took place, the HDP passed the threshold of 10% of the total vote needed to enter the Turkish parliament.

The DAF members – who all preferred to remain anonymous – began the interview by talking about the history of anarchism in the region:

DAF: We want to underline the relationship between the freedom struggle at the end of Ottoman times and the freedom struggles of Kurdistan.

In Ottoman times anarchists organised workers’ struggle in the main cities: Saloniki, Izmir, Istanbul and Cairo. For example [the Italian anarchist, Errico] Malatesta was involved in organizing industrial workers in Cairo. The freedom struggles of Armenia, Bulgaria and Greece had connections with anarchist groups. Alexander Atabekian, an important person in the Armenian freedom struggle, was an anarchist, translating leaflets into Armenian and distributing them. He was a friend of [the Russian anarchist, Peter] Kropotkin and distributed Kropotkin’s anarchist leaflets.

We are talking about this as we want to underline the importance of freedom struggles and to compare this to the importance of support for the Kurdish struggle.

Corporate Watch: What happened to anarchists after the Ottoman period?

DAF: Towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, at the end of the 19^th century, Sultan Abdul Hamid II repressed the actions of anarchists in Turkey. He knew what anarchists were and took a special interest in them. He killed or deported anarchists and set up a special intelligence agency for this purpose.

Anarchists responded by carrying out attacks on the Yildiz Sarayi palace and with explosions at the Ottoman bank in Saloniki.

The government of the Ottoman Empire didn’t end at the Turkish republic. The fez has gone since but the system is still the same.

At the beginning of the [Kemalist] Turkish state [in 1923] many anarchists and other radicals were forced to emigrate or were killed. The CHP, Mustafa Kemal’s party, didn’t allow any opposition and there were massacres of Kurds.

From 1923 to 1980 there was not a big anarchist movement in Turkey due to the popularity of the socialist movements and the repression of the state.

The wave of revolutions from the 1960s to the ’80s affected these lands too. These were the active years of the social movements. During this period, there were revolutionary anti-imperialist movements caused by the Vietnam war, youth organizations, occupations of universities and increasing struggle of workers. These movements were Marxist-Leninist or Maoist, there were no anarchist movements.

In 1970 there was a long workers’ struggle. Millions of workers walked over a hundred kilometres from Kocaeli to Istanbul. Factories were closed and all the workers were on the streets.

CW: Was there any awareness of anarchism in Turkey at all at this time?

DAF: During these years many books were translated into Turkish from European radicalism but only five books about anarchism were translated, three of which were talking about anarchism in order to criticize it.

But in Ottoman times there had been many articles on anarchism in the newspapers. For example, one of the three editors of the İştirak newspaper was an anarchist. The paper published [Russian anarchist, Mikhail] Bakunin’s essays as well as articles on anarcho-syndicalism.

The first anarchist magazine was published in 1989. After this many magazines were published focusing on anarchism from different perspectives; for example, post structuralism, ecology, etc.

The common theme was that they were written for a small intellectual audience. The language of these magazines was too far away from the people. Most of those involved were connected with the universities or academia. Or they were ex-socialists affected by the fall of the Soviet Union, which was a big disappointment for many socialists. That’s why they began to call themselves anarchists, but we don’t think that this is a good way to approach anarchism, as a critique of socialism.

Between 2000 to 2005 people came together to talk about anarchism in Istanbul and began to ask: “how can we fight?”. At this time we guess that there were 50-100 anarchists living in Turkey and outside.

CW: Can you explain how DAF organises now?

DAF: Now we get 500 anarchists turning up for Mayday in Istanbul. We are in touch with anarchists in Antalya, Eskişehir, Amed, Ankara and İzmir. Meydan [DAF’s newspaper] goes to between 15 and 20 cities. We have a newspaper bureau in Amed, distributing newspapers all over Kurdistan. Until now, it is in Turkish but maybe one day, if we can afford it, we will publish it in Kurdish. We send Meydan to prisons too. We have a comrade in İzmir in prison and we send copies to over 15 prisoners.

A few months ago there was a ban on radical publications in prisons. We participated in demos outside prisons and we managed to make pressure about this and now newspapers are allowed to go into prisons again.

The main issue for DAF is to organise anarchism within society. We try to socialize anarchism with struggle on the streets. This is what we give importance to. For nearly nine years we have been doing this.

On an ideological level we have a holistic perspective. We don’t have a hierarchical perspective on struggles. We think workers’ struggle is important but not more important than the Kurdish struggle or women’s struggles or ecological struggles.

Capitalism tries to divide these struggles. If the enemy is attacking us in a holistic way we have to approach it in a holistic way.

Anarchy has a bad meaning for most people in society. It has a link with terrorism and bombs. We want to legitimize anarchism by linking it to making arguments for struggles against companies and for ecology. Sometimes we try to focus on the links between the state, companies and ecological damages, like the thing that Corporate Watch does.

We like to present anarchy as an organised struggle. We have shown people on the streets the organised approach to anarchism.

From 1989 to 2000 anarchism was about image. About wearing black, piercings and Mohicans. This is what people saw. After 2000, people started to see anarchists who were part of women’s struggles and workers’ struggles.

We are not taking anarchism from Europe as an imitation. Other anarchists have approached anarchism as an imitation of US or European anarchism or as an underground culture. If we want to make anarchist a social movement, it must change.

DAF’s collectives are Anarchist Youth, Anarchist Women, 26A cafe, Patika ecological collective and high school anarchist action (LAF). These self-organisations work together but have their own decision-making processes.

Anarchist Youth makes connections between young workers and university students and their struggles. Anarchist Women focuses on patriarchy and violence to women. For example, a woman was murdered by a man and set on fire last February. On 25 November there were big protests against violence against women.

LAF criticises education and schooling in itself and tries to socialize this way of thinking in high schools. LAF also looks at ecological and feminist issues, including when young women are murdered by their husbands.

PATIKA ecological collective protests against hydro electric dams in the Black Sea region or Hasankey [where the Ilisu dam is being built]. Sometimes there is fighting to prevent these plants from being built.

26A Café is a self organization focusing on anti-capitalist economy. Cafes were opened in 2009 in Taksim and 2011 in Kadıköy [both in Istanbul]. The cafes are run by volunteers. They are aimed at creating an economic model in the place where oppressed people are living. It’s important to show people concrete examples of an anarchist economy, without bosses or capitalist aims. We talk to people about why we don’t sell the big capitalist brands like Coca Cola. Of course the products we sell have a relation to capitalism but things like Coke are symbols of capitalism. We want to progress away from not-consuming and move towards alternative economies and ways of producing.

Another self organisation, PAY-DA – ‘Sharing and solidarity’ – has a building in Kadıköy, which is used for meetings and producing the Meydan newspaper. PAY-DA gives meals to people three times a day. It’s open to anarchists and comrades. The aim of PAY-DA is to become a cooperative, open to everybody. We try to create a bond which also involves the producers in the villages. We aim to have links with these producers and show them another economic model. We try to evolve these economic relations away from money relations. The producers are suffering from the capitalist economy. We are in the first steps of this cooperative and we are looking for producers to work with.

All of these projects are related to DAF’s ideology. This model has a connection with Malatesta’s binary model of organization.

These are anarchist organizations but sometimes people who aren’t anarchists join these struggles because they know ecological or women’s struggles, and then at the end they will learn about anarchism. It’s an evolving process.

As DAF we are trying to organise our lives. This is the only way that we can touch the people who are oppressed by capitalism.

There is also the Conscientious Objectors’ Association, which is organised with other groups, not just anarchists. Our involvement in this has a relation with our perspective on Kurdistan. We organize anti-militarist action in Turkey outside of military bases on 15 May, conscientious objector’s day. In Turkey the military is related to state culture. If you don’t do your military duty, you won’t find a job and it’s difficult to find someone to marry because they ask if you’ve been to the army. If you have been to the army, you’re a ‘man’. People see the state as the ‘Fatherland’. On your CV they ask whether you did military service. ‘Every Turk is born a soldier’ is a popular slogan in Turkey.

CW: Is Kemalism [the ideology associated with Mustafa Kemal] as strong a force as it used to be?

DAF: Kemalism is still a force in schools but the AKP has changed this somewhat. The AKP has a new approach to nationalism focused on the Ottoman Empire. It emphasises Turkey’s ‘Ottoman roots’. But Erdoğan still says that we are ‘one nation, one state, one flag and one religion.’. There is still talk about Mustafa Kemal but not as much as before. Now you cannot criticize Erdoğan or Atatürk [the name used for Kemal by Turkish nationalists]. It’s the law not to criticize Atatürk and the unwritten rule not to criticize Erdoğan. The media follows these rules.

CW: Can you talk about your perspective on the Kurdish freedom struggle?

Kurdish freedom struggles didn’t start with Rojava. Kurdish people have had struggles for hundreds of years against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish state.

Since the start of DAF we have seen Kurdistan as important for propaganda and education.

Our perspective relates to people’s freedom struggles. The idea that people can create federations without nations, states and empires. The Turkish state says the issue is a Kurdish problem, but for us it is not a Kurdish problem, it’s an issue of Turkish policies of assimilation. It’s obvious that since the first years of the Turkish republic the assimilation of Kurdish people has not stopped. We can see this from the last Roboski massacre [of 34 Kurdish cross-border traders by Turkish F16s on 28 December 2011] by the state during the ‘peace process’. We can see this in the denial of Kurdish identity or the repeated massacres. Making people assimilate to be a Turk and making the propaganda of nationalism.

The AKP [the ruling Justice and Development Party] say they have opened Kurdish TV channels, allowed Kurdish language and that we are all brothers and sisters, but on the other hand we had the Roboski massacre which occurred during their government. In 2006 there was government pressure on Erdoğan at a high level. Erdoğan said that women and children would be punished who go against Turkish policies. Over 30 children were murdered by police and army.

The words change but the political agenda continues, just under a new government. We do not call ourselves Turkish. We come from many ethnic origins and Kurdish is one of them. Our involvement in conscientious objection is part of this perspective. We want to talk to people to prevent people from going to the army to kill their brothers and sisters.

After the 2000s there has been an ideological change in the Kurdish freedom struggle. The Kurdish organizations no longer call themselves Marxist-Leninist and Öcalan has written a lot about democratic confederalism. This is important, but our relation to Kurdish people is on the streets.

CW: Can you talk about DAF’s work in solidarity with people in Rojava?

In July 2012 at the start of the Rojava revolution, people began saying that it was a stateless movement. We have been in solidarity from the first day of the revolution. Three cantons have declared their revolution in a stateless way. We try to observe and get more information. This is not an anarchist revolution but it is a social revolution declared by the people themselves.

Rojava is a third front for Syria against Assad, ISIS and other Islamic groups. But these are not the only groups that the revolution is faced with. The Turkish republic is giving support for ISIS from its borders. The national intelligence agency of the Turkish republic appears to be giving weapons to ISIS and other Islamic groups. Kurdish people declared the revolution under these circumstances.

After the ISIS attack on Kobane began [in 2014] we went to Suruç. We waited at the border as Turkish forces were attacking people crossing. When people wanted to cross the border to or from Kobane they were shot. We stayed there to provide protection.

In October, people gathered near Suruç, and broke through the border. Turkish tanks shot gas over the border at them.

From 6 to 8 October there were Kobane solidarity demonstrations across Turkey. Kader Ortakya, a Turkish socialist supporter of Kobane, was shot dead trying to cross the border.

We helped people. Some people crossed the border from Kobane and had no shelter. We prepared tents, food and clothes for them. Sometimes soldiers came to the villages with tear gas and water cannons and we had to move. Some people came through the border searching for their families and we helped them. Other people came, wanting to cross the border and fight and we helped them. We wore clothing that said we were from DAF on it.

The YPG and YPJ [‘People’s Protection Units’ of Rojava, the YPJ is a women’s militia] pushed ISIS back day by day. Mıştenur hill was very important for Kobane. After the hill was taken by the YPG and YPJ some people wanted to return to Kobane. When they went back their houses had been destroyed by ISIS. Some houses were mined and some people have been killed by the mines. The mines need to be cleared, but by who and how? People need new houses and help. We have had conferences and talked about how to help Kobane. There was a conference two weeks ago in Amed.

CW: What is your position on the elections?

DAF: We do not believe in parliamentary democracy. We believe in direct democracy. We do not support the HDP in the election, but we have links in solidarity with them on the streets.

Emma Goldman said that if elections changed anything they would be illegal. There are good people in the HDP who say good things, but we think that the government can’t be good because the election system isn’t equal.

In Rojava they do not call it an anarchist revolution, but theres no government, no state and no hierarchy, so we believe in it and have solidarity with it.

Can you tell us about the bombing in Suruç [we asked this final question by email weeks after the original interview

Over 30 young people who wanted to take part in reconstruction of Kobane were killed by an ISIS attack. This attack was clearly organised by the Turkish State. They did not even do anything to stop it although they got the information of the attack one mounth before. Moreover, after the explosion the Turkish State has attacked Rojava and made operations against political organisations in Turkey. Now there are many operations and political pressures on anarchists and socialists and Kurdish organisations. They are using the explosion as a reason to make this political repression on both the domestic and international levels.

We have lost our 33 comrades, friends who struggled for the Rojava Revolution against the state’s repression, denial and politics of massacre. There are people who are killed by state, ISIS and other powers. But our resistance won’t stop, our struggle will continue, as always in history.

Title picture taken from the Crimethinc website

The post Building autonomy in Turkey and Kurdistan appeared first on Corporate Watch.

From seed supply, farming machinery, to wholesale and retail distribution, food production has become largely dominated by large corporations, which are happy to sacrifice biodiversity and environmental and social sustainability for the sake of increasing profits. Indeed, the widespread use of the terms agribusiness and corporate farming, both by critics and academics and by corporates themselves, is a testimony to this domination. And that is not just about the the ownership of land, as evidenced by the practice of contract farming, which is essentially a tool in the hand of big corporations to control and ‘vertical integrate’ traditional family farms.

Most of the meat, eggs, dairy products, fruits and vegetables available in supermarkets today are produced using methods of industrial agriculture.[1] Four huge companies now control over 75% of beef production and fewer than ten agrochemical companies control 91% of the global pesticide market.[2] This is often justified by the increased urbanisation, globalisation, population and economic growth and so on. We are told that small family farms are not economically sustainable any more, and are made to believe that there is no way other than that of Cargill, Monsanto and a a handful of large multinationals that dominate the food industry. But there are alternatives to industrial agriculture, a ‘revolution’ that may have increased productivity and living standards (for some) but has had very hight environmental and social costs.

The resurgence of interest in organic, fair-trade, free-range and locally grown agricultural products is an expression of how so many people feel that the current food system is inherently flawed. The numerous local food projects, health food shops, food co-ops and farmers’ markets that have been set up in recent years are not only better for health and the local economy, but are also working alternatives to socially and environmentally destructive industrial food chains.

The Soil Association defines local food as “food arising from a system of producing, processing and trading primarily organic and sustainable forms of food production, where the physical and economic activity is largely contained and controlled within the locality or the region where it was produced, which delivers health, economic, environmental and social benefits to the people in those areas.”[3] ‘Veg box’ schemes are a good example of organic produce delivered to consumers directly from local producers.[4] A list of local food initiatives and organisations in the UK can be found here and here. For farmers’ markets, see the Farmers’ Markets website. For local health food shops, see the National Association of Health Stores.

On the consumption side, vegetarianism and veganism are becoming more and more popular in the West.[5] As well as animal abuse, the meat industry also contributes to environmental destruction due to the unsustainable intensive animal and agricultural production methods used. It is important, however, to emphasise that a vegetarian or vegan diet is not enough in itself – without adopting greener agricultural practices, such as the use of renewable energy in farming – to make the corporate food system more sustainable.

In fact, the corporate giants of the food industry, particularly supermarkets, are realising the increased popularity of the above-mentioned initiatives and projects and have been trying to turn these new ‘lifestyles’ into mere marketing tools. They are ‘eating up the alternatives,’ so to speak.[6] Most western governments now also have departments for ‘alternative’ and ‘sustainable’ farming, fairtrade and so on.[7] Yet, at the same time, they continue to push and support environmentally destructive policies and businesses. It is important to emphasise that ‘alternatives’ that do not address the root causes of what’s wrong with our food system (industrialisation, capitalism, consumerism) exacerbate rather than solve the problem.

Indeed, permaculture, an approach to designing self-sufficient human settlements and agricultural systems that are modelled on the relationships found in natural ecologies, was originally aimed at reducing society’s reliance on industrial systems of production and distribution, which were identified by the original founders of the movement in the 1960s 1970s as “fundamentally and systematically destroying Earth’s ecosystems.”[8] At the heart of the permaculture designs and practice is a set of ‘core values’ or ethics: earth care, people care and fair share.[9] Permaculture communities continue to grow around the world and expand on these original ideas, integrating a range of alternative and aboriginal cultures.[10]

One of the offshoots of permaculture is the Transition Towns movement, which aims to raise awareness of sustainable living and build “local ecological resilience.”[11] One of the most inspiring projects in the UK is probably Grow Heathrow. For a list of initiatives around the world, see the Transition Network website. For a critical analysis of the Transition Towns movement, see this booklet by Trapese.

These initiatives are not confined to country farms or cliquey communities of activists. Urban agriculture, or urban gardening, is becoming increasing popular in many big cities around the globe, with families and communities growing their own food on rooftops, allotments and urban ‘waste’ land.[12] Urban gardening has been described as direct action to save the planet.[13] In the words of Oaxacan community organiser Kiado Cruz, “Twenty families with rooftop gardens may not sound like a lot, but when they are part of a rising social movement they can shake Mexico and the global corporate food system.”[14] Examples in the UK include Organic Lea, the Common Ground Garden, the Islamic Community Food Project in London and many others. For a list of ‘city farms’ in the UK, see here. For practical advice and information, see here. For more about allotments, see here and here.

Of course, multinational corporations have more political and economic power than local initiatives and individual farmers. Without self-organisation and cooperation between farmers and food cooperatives, corporations will inevitably use their bargaining clout to their financial advantage. More and more people are therefore realising the need for more radical, structural change, with more emphasis on food sovereignty and supply-side resistance. Indeed, growers and farmers networks have mushrooming over the past two decades, particularly among those who do not feel that the existing organisations and unions represent their real interests.[15] One of the most inspiring has been La Via Campesina, an international movement that was born in 1993 to bring together peasants, small and medium-size farmers, landless and indigenous people, migrants and agricultural workers from around the world. It now comprises about 150 local and national organisations in 70 countries, representing about 200 million peasants and farmers. The idea of food sovereignty, which was introduced by Via Campesina at the World Food Summit in 1996, ensures that “the rights to use and manage lands, territories, water, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those who produce food and not of the corporate sector.”[16]

Notes:

[1] https://corporatewatch.org/?lid=2601.

[2] http://www.familyfarmer.org/sections/corpcontrol.html.

[3] www.sustainweb.org/pdf/briefing1.pdf.

[4] See http://www.freerangereview.com and http://www.growingcommunities.org/organic-box-scheme/this-weeks-veg/.

[5] For different arguments, see http://www.animalsuffering.com/vegetarianism.php and http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/default.aspx.

[6] https://corporatewatch.org/?lid=3718.

[7] For example, http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/publicsectorfood/; http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/agnic/susag.shtml.

[8] http://www.bettertimesinfo.org/pdc_all.pdf.

[9] http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/perma.html.

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_permaculture_projects. For projects in the UK, see http://www.permaculture.org.uk.

[11] http://www.transitionnetwork.org/support/12-ingredients. See also http://transitionculture.org.

[12] http://www.sustainweb.org/cityharvest/about/.

[13] http://www.schnews.org.uk/diyguide/directactiongardening.htm.

[14] http://afsc.org/story/urban-gardens-alternatives-corporate-agriculture.

[15] https://corporatewatch.org/?lid=1096.

[16] http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&la….

The post Alternatives to Corporate Rule: Food and Agriculture appeared first on Corporate Watch.