abolition of gmos rev.3.pdf
Post on 04-Apr-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
1/12
2
GENET ICALLY
M O D I F I E D
O R G A N I S M S
WE NEED
ABOLITION
the
of
GENETICALLY
M OD I F I E D
ORGANISMS
-
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
2/12
December 18, 2012
We Need the Abolition of GMOs
1. Did the colonists Ask the British to rescind the Intolerable Acts, lift the
Boston Port closure, take back the Coercive Acts? No, it only took them a few
years from the mid 1760s to early 70s to comprehend that Asking the British
for Better Policy doesnt work, so they stopped doing it. They knew the only
options were servitude, or to get the British OUT.
2. Today weve had far more than a few years to comprehend the same fact,
that Asking the British doesnt work. (Its a sad fact of history that no onelearns lessons from history, but must learn the same lesson from experience,
over and over. So be itour own experiential evidence is conclusive.) Weve
had overa century of experience with the elemental viciousness of the
corporate domination imperative, which is totalitarian in the most basic and
literal sense of the termthe corporations will NEVER stop short of total
enclosure and total domination. This was common sense from the beginning,
and its been proven by the evidence. The evidence of our own lifetimes is themost decisive of all.
3. We know that Asking the British doesnt work. Those who tout modern
versions like writing your congressman, petitioning your president, and of
course voting (I mean those who tout these as the only, or primary, courses
of action1), we must classify as modern versions of loyalists. Corporate
Loyalists. These include all system NGOs, liberals in general, and
conservatives too.
4. GMO labeling, where its seen as the goal rather than a step toward the goal,
toward the total abolition of GMOs, falls into this Begging-for-Better-Policy
category.
5. In response to the lousy campaign and stolen vote in California, and belated
analysis of the inherent flaw of the Labeling idea (as the end goal), some
people have moved on to calling for a ban on GMOs. This is a step forward,but is still mired in system consciousness. Even if a legalistic ban were possible
2
1 The title of an upcoming food book by a leading system liberal: Eat,Drink,Vote. Yes, that sumsup passive consumerism in its most profound form. A real citizen's book, meanwhile, would beentitled: Eat, Drink, Grow, Organize, Fight. But the job of system reformists is to fence in dissent,keep it domesticated and system-coordinated, and fence out the real time-tested ideas of action.
-
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
3/12
(which its not, at the central or at any state level, not right now), it would still
be operating within the same corporatized framework where Monsanto
operates. By making a fetish of the law and considering it magically endowed
with active power, it implicitly concedes the legitimacy of existing law (forexample the very intellectual property regime which props up Monsanto) and
the central government itself. But we must, as an element of our political
education, reject all such alleged legitimacy, in principle.
Herere some typical examples of how the law really works: CAFOs, fracking,
and mountaintop removal mining are exempt from the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. And of course the just-
passed (by a bipartisan consensus, as all these examples of corporatelawlessness are held) Monsanto Rider to a typical corporate welfare law would
exempt GMOs from all regulatory control or judicial review. Thats the way
the law works. Remember that the next time you see anyone blabbering
about the law and petitions and voting.
6. Food Sovereignty rejects the notion that an alien central government can
ever play any legitimate or constructive role in food production and
distribution. The sector is naturally local/regional. The only thing centralized
hierarchy can do is use massive top-down power to force agriculture into the
commodification strait-jacket. This command economy, and the massive
corporate welfare and thug apparatus which props it up, is the basic activity of
the US government. It will never do anything significant which runs counter
to this corporate commodification imperative. Therefore, the peoples only
constructive course of action is to build a grassroots political movement to
meld with the Community Food sector which is already surging as a vibrant
economic movement.
7. Therefore, the basic nature of the anti-GMO movement, as with the entire
liberation movement, has to be direct action, self-management, civil disobedience
in our minds, in our words, and as much as possible in our actions.
8. Thats not to say legalistic actions, where immediately possible, arent worth
doing. Any town council with the votes to ban GMOs, ban fracking, bancorporate personhood, declare local food sovereignty, should do so. But no
such votes exist at the central government level. So those who propose a ban
on GMOs are really proposing that we build a political campaign centered on
this kind of legalistic advocacy (and without even building an underlying
3
-
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
4/12
movement structure and culture first). This is as quixotic and utopian as an
idea gets.
9. History and todays evidence prove that nothing will work but to relocalize
our economies and particularly our food; to build the consciousness of oureconomic need to do this; to build a cultural and intellectual movement
around this new way of life; to build upon this a new democracy consciousness;
throughout all these actions to learn from the enemys assaults upon us, the
true nature of the corporate tyranny we struggle against; and from there to
politically organize to resist, reject and abolish this enemy, through rejecting
its legitimacy, refusing to cooperate with it, refusing to participate in its
systems, and wherever possible to take local direct action against it.Combined, this movement can preserve itself through the trials ahead,
maintain the health and happiness of its people, help bring down the
corporate tyranny, and lead humanity to a new freedom and prosperity.
10. As with every other anti-corporate struggle, the struggle vs. GMOs is an
abolition movement.
February 13, 2013
GMO Action Imperatives;
Lessons of the Wetteren Case
A judge in Belgium has convicted the Wetteren 11 of charges related to a non-
violent action where they dug up a GMO potato field trial and planted real
potatoes. The judge agreed to the prosecutors characterization of the political
demonstrators as having formed an illicit conspiracy. The defendants refused
to attend the proceedings after the judge refused to convene this as an actual
trial, instead letting the prosecutor run it as a purely administrative, technical,
civil matter.
The public prosecutor and the research consortium (Flemish Institutefor Biotechnology, University of Ghent, HoGent and the FlemishAgency for Agriculture and Fishery) chose to have this debate incourt via direct summons and civil proceedings.
4
https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/https://attempter.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/gmo-action-imperatives-lessons-of-the-wetteren-case/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/this-is-an-abolition-movement/ -
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
5/12
The group of activists had prepared a thorough defence. Thiswas based on calling up expert witnesses, video testimoniesfrom scientists, and video footage from the action in order toprove that 1) the action was covered by the principle of
freedom of expression, and 2) that action was necessary inorder to protect the precautionary principle. The action in
Wetteren was carried out to protect the environment, publichealth and small-scale farming.
Without any further discussion, the judges refused to hearthese testimonies or to view the video footage. Thetestimonies, however, were crucial to emphasise the politicalnature of the action. The judges therefore denied the
defendants their legal right to an appropriate defence, aswell as the opportunity to question the use of geneticallymodified organisms in agriculture.2
This, of course, was tantamount to finding the defendants gulity before the
trial began. As the Red Queen put it, Verdict first, trial afterwards!, and if
the accused never commit the crime, That would be better! The judge
refused to hear evidence on the substance or merits of the issue or of the
action, even though its a well-established principle of law that the peoplemustnt obey unjust laws, and have the right to break the law in extreme
circumstances. Thus, in a rare example, an English jury found Greenpeace
demonstrators not guilty on the grounds that their illegal action was a
necessary response to a clear and present danger. Historically, juries have a
good record of acquitting direct actions when the judge informs them of their
options. In the Kingsnorth case the judge said the action could be found
justified if the trespass on a corporations property was necessary to defendthe property of people.
Where it comes to GMOs, this imperative couldnt be more clear-cut: The
USDA itself admits that once GMOs are in the environment, contamination of
related crops, including those of organic farmers, is inevitable. Thats why the
USDA promulgated the doctrine that GMO corporations and tenders have a
presumptive right to trespass upon and destroy the property of others (organic
growers and many others with an interest in not being contaminated), cannotbe sued for this or otherwise sanctioned, and that on the contrary the burden
5
2 https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-
sustainable-agricultural-system/
https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttps://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/21-4http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp -
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
6/12
of the full cost of trying to defend oneself is 100% upon the victim. Indeed,
when this inevitable and intentional contamination occurs, Monsanto is
allowed to sue the victim for patent infringement. In 2012, when a broad
alliance of farmers and Food Freedom groups sued Monsanto and thegovernment to turn this abominable policy right side up, the system judge
rejected the suit, ridiculing the damaged plaintiffs in the process.
What could be more clear, that we shall never achieve justice, reason, safety,
or simple human decency within this system, and shall have to seek it outside?
Getting back to the Belgian case, the prosecutor and judge also refused to
charge a large number of voluntary defendants comprising a list of civilsociety organizations from farmer groups to trade unions to consumer and
environmental groups to some politicians and professors, who called
themselves co-conspirators after the fact and demanded to join the defendants
in the dock. The people recognize that the prosecution here was not just of
this particular democracy action, but intended to set a precedent vs. all direct
expressions of democracy.
The defendants have explained (to the people, not to the court, which hasrefused to listen or to allow any substantive defense) how the secretive and
unaccountable machinations of the regulatory system do not serve public
health or democratic accountability, but only the corporate imperative. We can
add that the mainstream media is in fact a corporate propaganda ministry
which systematically propagates Monsantos lies and suppresses the facts and
truths about GMOs, and about food corporatism and industrial agriculture in
general. It also systematically neglects and, increasingly, slanders organicagriculture, which is the only solution to humanitys artificial food crisis.3
Groups have been calling for a democratic debate about theintroduction of genetically modified crops for years. Environmentaland agricultural organisations including Friends of the Earth,
Landwijzer, Greenpeace and the organic Bioforum have beencampaigning constantly for sustainable agriculture and emphasising
6
3 There is no natural food crisis. Todays agriculture produces far more than enough food for everyone on Earth,
although much of it is toxified and of inferior nutritional quality. Meanwhile even today organic agriculture could
produce more food than Big Ag, of vastly higher quality, under much healthier physical, environmental,
socioeconomic, and political circumstances. This margin shall become infinite with the end of the fossil fuel age, as
industrial ag becomes physically impossible.
http://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.htmlhttp://www.kjonline.com/news/federal-court-to-hear-lawsuit_2012-11-23.html -
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
7/12
that GMOs cannot be a part of this. They objected to the potato fieldtrial which they described as unwanted and useless. Above all, theyhighlighted the environmental risks involved in such an experiment.Three experts from the Biotechnology Safety Council gave negative
advice regarding the potato trial. They emphasised the environmentalrisks linked to the trial and pointed out that it was scientifically
ungrounded. In August 2012 a judge in Ghent ruled that the GM fieldtrial itself was actually illegal because there was no justification forthe fact that the ministers in charge did not allow for objections or forminority positions on the Biotechnology Safety Council to beconsidered.
The action took place after all these other attempts from
people to express their views had been systematically sweptaside. The structural problems in agriculture, and theconsequences of the use of genetically modified organismshave still not been openly discussed in Flanders, and publicdebate about the issue is systematically avoided.4
Nor can reform be accomplished within representative electoral channels.
We know that our elections are frauds. In the US or Canada, one can vote for
Monsanto or Monsanto. (Meanwhile in the Wetteren 11s European Union,theres an elected parliament which is purely advisory with zero actual
legislative power. Its more purely cosmetic and fraudulent than the tsars early
20th century Duma, and has far less power than the kaisers Reichstag.)
Of course, this case is a good demonstration of what we can usually expect
from the system courts, in procedure and outcome. The fact is that the system
comprises organized crime, and that corporate and government agencies are
criminal gangs. They automatically view any kind of democratic combinationas an affront to their sense of entitlement and a threat to their prerogatives.
Their goal will always be to use their illegitimate power to criminalize any
manifestation of democracy, and of any human value.
Conversely, citizens must start by recognizing the elemental illegitimacy and
fraudulence of all system institutions, and the folly of trying to achieve real
change by working through system channels. As todays defendants pointed
out, they and their allies did all they could to get action within the system
where it came to the pointlessness and likely harms of this GMO potato trial.
7
4 https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-
sustainable-agricultural-system/
https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/https://fieldliberation.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/press-release-gmo-trial-verdict-crimilisation-of-struggle-for-a-sustainable-agricultural-system/ -
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
8/12
(We can say the same of the Rothamstead GM wheat trial in Britaintotally
worthless, gratuitously harmful, done only as a corporate welfare handout and
as a political exercise in the alleged ubiquityand irresistability of GM crops.
These field trials often serve the same purpose as the aimless marching of SAformations in Weimar Germany they usually had no particular destination,
but were merely for intimidation and propaganda purposes. So it is with most
GM trials today.) It was only when the system made it clear that there was no
process, but only the fraudulent simulation of one, and that the system viewed
its task as to serve the Monsanto imperative no matter what, that these
activists decided their task was to serve the freedom imperative no matter
what. So they undertook non-violent direct action and pulled up the crops, inthe same way that anti-Nazis in the Weimar time tried directly to challenge the
Brownshirt domination of the streets.
The message: We reject the legitimacy of Big Ag and GMOs, and we dont
believe theres anything necessary, fated, or irresistible about them. Some
criminals chose the pro-GMO policy, the people can make the opposite
choice, whenever we want. This action was a counter-demonstration on the
part of those who value freedom, democracy, and natural economic autonomy,vs. a propaganda event set up by the corporate planned economy and its
political Big Government flunkey regime.
So we have procedural disenfranchisement, political dispossession, media
blackout and slander. Whats left for us to do? What can we do?
The primary task is to organize a coordinated Community Food movement,
with a generally agreed upon set of principles and strategy, while tactics wouldbe decided upon at the local level. (Operational goals and publicity5 might be
partially standardized and partially vary locally.) One advantage such a
movement would have over the 19th century Populist movement would be
that the Farmers Alliance comprised cotton farmers who were necessarily
participants in commodification agriculture (and therefore had no choice but
to seek to revolutionize or reform it), while we not only can but must desire
to dispense with industrial ag (a completely separate and alien sector from
8
5 The reproduction of Field Liberations press release at GMWatch is given a headline regurgitating the prosecutors
slander. Why anyone would want to do this is a mystery. But its a typical example of the current lameness of our
movement. Its a good example of the elements of publicity which will need to be standardized and applied in a
disciplined way. You know, NOT regurgitating system propaganda, terminology, framings?
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14640:gm-crop-protesters-guilty-of-qforming-a-criminal-gangqhttp://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14640:gm-crop-protesters-guilty-of-qforming-a-criminal-gangqhttp://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14640:gm-crop-protesters-guilty-of-qforming-a-criminal-gangq -
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
9/12
Community Food) completely. An aggressive abolition campaign against
GMOs and CAFOs could be part of this movement.
Meanwhile, propagating the more revolutionary ideas of Food Sovereignty (as
defined by Via Campesina and other Southern indigenous farmer movements;the terms already somewhat obfuscated in North America) might be, for the
time being, the province of individual writers or a separate organization. The
idea would be that the experience of fighting for Community Food against the
corporate states increasing repression would make the CF movement an
educational vector of radicalization, in addition to its inherently positive
actions and results.
This will be the only way to systematically propagate a disciplined set of ideas,
truths, and facts about food corporatism and corporatism in general, and about
the need to rebuild our polities and economies on a natural, rational, resilient
local/regional basis.
February 15, 2013
GMO Labeling and Movement
Strategy and Goals
Theres a growing ambivalence among us who oppose GMOs where it comes
to GMO labeling. Most obviously, it implies the continuation of industrial
agriculture and food commodification, and globalization as such. It merely
seeks Better Consumerism within that framework.
If people saw labeling as a temporary measure within the framework of an
ongoing movement to abolish industrial ag and build Food Sovereignty, that
could be good. If people saw the campaign for labeling as primarily a
movement-building action, an occasion for public education, for democratic
participation in a grassroots action, and to help build a permanent grassrootsorganization, that would be good. (POE as I call it Participation, Education,
Organization.)
But many of the advocates seem see it as a panacea. They at least claim to
expect miracles from it: Labeling = the end of Monsanto. This is highly
9
-
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
10/12
doubtful. Just because a labeling initiative or law is passed doesnt mean it will
be enforced with any alacrity. Its still the same old pro-Monsanto government
which would be in charge of enforcement. Thats why I always said getting the
California initiative passed was just the first and easiest step; then the realwork of vigilance, forcing the enforcers to follow through, would begin. That,
too, was a reason why the campaign needs to be, even more than just an
intrinsic campaign, the building ground of a permanent grassroots
organization.
Then theres the fact that most if not all of these initiatives and laws are
riddled with loopholes, categories of food which dont need to be labeled. That
almost always includes GMO-fed meat and dairy. Actually, labeling wouldapply mostly to the same corporate-manufactured processed foods we ought
to be getting out of our diets and economies regardless.
When we combine the picayune content of these labeling proposals with the
fact that their advocates do often call them a self-sufficient panacea, and with
the fact that the California effort was designed like a one-off electoral
campaign rather than as a process of building a permanent grassroots
organization, we gather a sinister picture of whats going on here. Namely,
GMO labeling often looks like another kind of liberal fenceline patrolling,
meant not so much to fence GMOs out as to fence anti-GMO activism in.
States like Vermont and Connecticut have previously been the scenes of a
scam. Facing a groundswell of anti-GMO verve among the citizenry, the state
government hijacked this groundswell by going through the motions of
proposing labeling legislation (which is conceived and drafted in a lame way),then saying, Brer Rabbit fashion, please Monsanto dont sue us! When
Monsanto then made this briar-patch threat, the governor, crying crocodile
tears all the way, rued how we cant pass this law because mean old Monsanto
will sue us. The legislature then quashed the law it had never intended to
pass in the first place. The whole thing was just a pantomime. It was the same
basic briar-patch scam in both cases.
In reality its doubtful that Monsanto, 100% government-dependent, withouteven the slightest iota of a natural base, would actually sue a government that
really intended to make life difficult for it. (Although a lawsuit the government
never really intends to fight could be the occasion for a different form of the
scam.) Regardless, its the duty of a government to fight for the public good (so
10
-
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
11/12
the good-civics textbooks tell me), even if the going gets tough. So no matter
how one looks at it, these state governments have abdicated, and intend to
continue doing so.
So it follows that getting legislation introduced, and getting initiatives on theballot, are just part of the time-dishonored, field-failed, disproven set of
within-the-system tactics, alongside petitions, voting etc. The liberals will
keep saying, that doesnt work, so lets try it again, and again, and again, and
again, forever and ever! The goal is to ensure that nothing is done until were
enslaved once and for all.
The real answer is that we need to build a true Food Sovereignty movement,which is also an abolition movement. No goal short of the total abolition of
GMOs will suffice. We know that GMOs cannot be prevented from
contaminating other crops and the environment at large. We know that GMO
corporations and their government thugs are totalitarian in intent. Its proven
that neither organic agriculture, nor the environment, nor our political and
economic freedom, can co-exist with GMOs. But labeling, in itself, is another
version of the co-existence scam.
Im not saying all this to oppose labeling activism. But I would be suspicious of
anyone whos implying that its a panacea. Id say, If we get this passed, then
whats next? How will we organize the necessary public education and
government pressure work? How do we prevent ourselves from being co-
opted and corrupted like the anti-tobacco groups? If they have no coherent
answer, you know its a scam. In that case the goal is just to go through the
motions. Even if the thing passes its meant just to be cosmetic. In that casethe corporate liberals would then say indefinitely, we got the law passed, now
you have to be patient and give it time to work.
Id be suspicious of anyone viewing, running, organizing things like an election
campaign. Id say, First of all we need to use actions like this toward
movement-building. In what ways are we building permanent organizational
and publicity structures? What underlying principles dictate our support for
labeling, and how are we working to propagate those principles? If they haveno coherent answer, or directly say this isnt movement-building, this is a one-
off campaign, you know its a scam, or at any rate that they have in fact no
coherent principle or strategy, just a vague feeling and a handy tactic.
11
-
7/29/2019 Abolition of GMOS rev.3.pdf
12/12
Needless to say, this mindset will never win the war of attrition it will take to
bring down Monsantos tyranny.
Most of all, Id want clarity on the ultimate goals. Do labeling advocates really
support Community Food and Food Sovereignty? Do they really oppose foodcorporatism? Do they really seek to constitute an abolition movement vs.
GMOs and industrial ag as such? Nothing short of this will work for humanity.
Does labeling have a coherent rationale at all? We mentioned how, in itself, it
still rationalizes industrial ag, food commodification, unhealthy processed
foods, passive consumerism, and the co-existence scam. In the end, it still
rationalizes food corporatism and market solutions. These are allunsustainable evils, politically, morally, and practically. But in itself, the
kind of solution labeling purports to be sees these evils as normative.
Once again we see how corporatist solutions cannot solve problems
generated by corporatism, and are not intended to. If taken as a self-sufficient
panacea (and as I said, the evidence is that most of its advocates and
organizers see it that way), GMO labeling is part of the same instrumental,
non-holistic N-P-K thinking which is destroying humanity.
The organic place of labeling activism, as part of a movement to restore the
primacy of organic agriculture, would be as a movement-building opportunity.
It would provide the occasion and the practice to build a permanent
movement structure. It would also provide the forum for movement and
public education about not just labeling, and not just the evils of GMOs, but
about the evils and unsustainability of the entire corporate food sector.
It would bring home the need to build Community Food as a full-scale
economic and political movement.
http://attempter.wordpress.com
Hh
12
top related