Alex (and Adam), I am astonished by the fact that I, despite >40 years in the organic movement and deep into its debates and organizations internationally, never heard about Agrarian Dreams. Will have to read it, even if I probably have little to learn as the blurb speaks about "an alternative analysis that underscores the limits of an organic label as a pathway to transforming agriculture." something I have been aware of all through my (organic) life. However, I have some difficulty to understand the link between this and the rest of the article as an "organic label" clearly is a tool for selling organic products in mainstream markets and has little bearing on a discussion on "romanticized agrarian localism". Perhaps I am missing something?
I must say that I hardly have experienced any wide spread "romanticised idealised rural experiences". On the contrary, I believe it is a bigger problem that the prevailing narratives very much demonise small scale farming. And those that are actively engaged in it (apart from those selling courses and books on how to become a millionaire on 1 hectare) will mostly tell you have hard work it is for little money.....
In my view, the merit of agrarian localism (loosely defined) is its emphasis on scale and relationships, relationships between humans and with the rest of the living. Because scale matters. The weakness of agrarian localism, especially in the anglo-saxon world is a rather wide-spread blindness towards the effects of markets and capitalism. Many proponents seem to believe that if the market was just fair the small farms would prevail. But that is based on a very romanticized view of markets.
I support most of your analysis, especially the emphasis on politics, even though i find it overloaded with "radical" jargon as in the paragraph about fascism. I am also not sure what the "imperial core" means in an American context, when the settler colony and empire is the same? Why racial capitalism as opposed to just capitalism, do you mean that capitalism is good as long as it isn't racist? In my view, you risk undermining your efforts with too much of that kind of rhetoric. Please also note that there are some considerable chunks of the Global North, in particular farmers, that will not feel much part or guilt of any colonial past.
A lot of great feedback Gunnar. I think the challenge is going through the critique of localism without abandoning it! A deep subject that demands humble scrutiny in my opinion. Guilty on the jargon front. the language is useful only depending on the audience. At this point, such an academic reframing effort is .. academic and to have value beyond this it must at some point translate elsewhere.
The is so needed. Thank you! I challenge you all (and the rest of us) to communicate these crucial concepts and approaches in ways that are resonant with our broader societies. For example translating concepts like “Malthusian” in ways that move non-academic circles to join the effort will be critical to pushing widespread reform. For those of us in highly industrialized food systems, it is important that we are inclusive in our rhetoric without dumbing down the core tenets of the movement. The goal, as you articulate so well here, is to push against our entrenched economic systems - the challenge is to figure out how to shift from being a niche worldview to one that drives broad change.
Another thing I think is missed in the artisanal-industrial binary is how political forces shape the development of technology itself. If all the energy that has gone into developing mechanization for large farms went instead into technology usable by smallholders, the Monbiots of the world might be singing a pretty different tune.
Looking forward to following this project. My own work is based in North and Central America but shares similar commitments. If there's ever opportunities to collaborate, would love to chat.
MAGNIFICENT. I am far outside your orbit (in Australia), and growing food under an entirly different model (not-for-profit, community barter and workshare in the face of rapid climate change escalation in our region) but am super keen to read and learn as you progress.
I think it's worth being clear that Chris Smaje has always iterated a realistic practice of local agrarianism based in material factors rather than any bucolic idealism. In some ways his position is precursor to the Root and Branch Collective and can act in concert. Also, I am interested in your thoughts around Commons practice and how that fits into your ongoing commitments.
Speaking as myself here and not on behalf of the "collective." I think the comment is fair. On the whole, I agree that the broader writings of Smaje has attempted to ground the "small farm future" in terms of a politics of the necessary and sometimes a politics of the possible. The hook at the start of the post was mostly to warn against the (dominant) binary framing offered by many commentators, where the debate is compressed into reductionist variables (most often yields, land area, and carbo emissions). Yet, I do think there is a broader blindspot amongst those who associate with a revitalized localism that relates to the ideology of the "good farmer" and its related structures of the land owning family. I think this is important terrain to struggle with. Regarding the commons, there is Summer School devoted to this theme https://www.wur.nl/en/activity/summer-school-for-the-food-commons-3-ects.htm One of the key framings we are developing is to consider the commons as predating the land as commodity form. Such that commoning may mean rolling back primitive accumulation just as much as it may mean rolling out some new form of collective governance. For more practical directions, I link to a project of another R and B member: https://www.in-abundance.org/
The is a timely call to gather, thank you. I cannot agree more the commitments and appreciate the clear language with which you have articulated them. I look forward to know more, and how to get involved.
Best wishes for your project. I started drafting a post about where I think it overlaps with a broadly civic republican and distributist politics of agrarian localism and where the tensions lie, but alas I don't have the time right now. I hope to do that in due course.
Alex (and Adam), I am astonished by the fact that I, despite >40 years in the organic movement and deep into its debates and organizations internationally, never heard about Agrarian Dreams. Will have to read it, even if I probably have little to learn as the blurb speaks about "an alternative analysis that underscores the limits of an organic label as a pathway to transforming agriculture." something I have been aware of all through my (organic) life. However, I have some difficulty to understand the link between this and the rest of the article as an "organic label" clearly is a tool for selling organic products in mainstream markets and has little bearing on a discussion on "romanticized agrarian localism". Perhaps I am missing something?
I must say that I hardly have experienced any wide spread "romanticised idealised rural experiences". On the contrary, I believe it is a bigger problem that the prevailing narratives very much demonise small scale farming. And those that are actively engaged in it (apart from those selling courses and books on how to become a millionaire on 1 hectare) will mostly tell you have hard work it is for little money.....
In my view, the merit of agrarian localism (loosely defined) is its emphasis on scale and relationships, relationships between humans and with the rest of the living. Because scale matters. The weakness of agrarian localism, especially in the anglo-saxon world is a rather wide-spread blindness towards the effects of markets and capitalism. Many proponents seem to believe that if the market was just fair the small farms would prevail. But that is based on a very romanticized view of markets.
I support most of your analysis, especially the emphasis on politics, even though i find it overloaded with "radical" jargon as in the paragraph about fascism. I am also not sure what the "imperial core" means in an American context, when the settler colony and empire is the same? Why racial capitalism as opposed to just capitalism, do you mean that capitalism is good as long as it isn't racist? In my view, you risk undermining your efforts with too much of that kind of rhetoric. Please also note that there are some considerable chunks of the Global North, in particular farmers, that will not feel much part or guilt of any colonial past.
I totally agree with your rejection of the ecomodernist version something I have written extensively about. e.g, here: https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/do-we-need-farmfree-food
A lot of great feedback Gunnar. I think the challenge is going through the critique of localism without abandoning it! A deep subject that demands humble scrutiny in my opinion. Guilty on the jargon front. the language is useful only depending on the audience. At this point, such an academic reframing effort is .. academic and to have value beyond this it must at some point translate elsewhere.
The is so needed. Thank you! I challenge you all (and the rest of us) to communicate these crucial concepts and approaches in ways that are resonant with our broader societies. For example translating concepts like “Malthusian” in ways that move non-academic circles to join the effort will be critical to pushing widespread reform. For those of us in highly industrialized food systems, it is important that we are inclusive in our rhetoric without dumbing down the core tenets of the movement. The goal, as you articulate so well here, is to push against our entrenched economic systems - the challenge is to figure out how to shift from being a niche worldview to one that drives broad change.
Another thing I think is missed in the artisanal-industrial binary is how political forces shape the development of technology itself. If all the energy that has gone into developing mechanization for large farms went instead into technology usable by smallholders, the Monbiots of the world might be singing a pretty different tune.
Looking forward to following this project. My own work is based in North and Central America but shares similar commitments. If there's ever opportunities to collaborate, would love to chat.
MAGNIFICENT. I am far outside your orbit (in Australia), and growing food under an entirly different model (not-for-profit, community barter and workshare in the face of rapid climate change escalation in our region) but am super keen to read and learn as you progress.
I think it's worth being clear that Chris Smaje has always iterated a realistic practice of local agrarianism based in material factors rather than any bucolic idealism. In some ways his position is precursor to the Root and Branch Collective and can act in concert. Also, I am interested in your thoughts around Commons practice and how that fits into your ongoing commitments.
Speaking as myself here and not on behalf of the "collective." I think the comment is fair. On the whole, I agree that the broader writings of Smaje has attempted to ground the "small farm future" in terms of a politics of the necessary and sometimes a politics of the possible. The hook at the start of the post was mostly to warn against the (dominant) binary framing offered by many commentators, where the debate is compressed into reductionist variables (most often yields, land area, and carbo emissions). Yet, I do think there is a broader blindspot amongst those who associate with a revitalized localism that relates to the ideology of the "good farmer" and its related structures of the land owning family. I think this is important terrain to struggle with. Regarding the commons, there is Summer School devoted to this theme https://www.wur.nl/en/activity/summer-school-for-the-food-commons-3-ects.htm One of the key framings we are developing is to consider the commons as predating the land as commodity form. Such that commoning may mean rolling back primitive accumulation just as much as it may mean rolling out some new form of collective governance. For more practical directions, I link to a project of another R and B member: https://www.in-abundance.org/
This gives hope. Thank you.
The is a timely call to gather, thank you. I cannot agree more the commitments and appreciate the clear language with which you have articulated them. I look forward to know more, and how to get involved.
This is incredible.
✊
Best wishes for your project. I started drafting a post about where I think it overlaps with a broadly civic republican and distributist politics of agrarian localism and where the tensions lie, but alas I don't have the time right now. I hope to do that in due course.
FYI Chris Smaje’s book is not called "saying no to a small farm future", it’s "saying no to a farm free future"!
Freudian slip? Thanks.