June 10, 2012

We’re All Lumpenproles Now – GMO Death Camps


The Green Revolution is still fraudulently touted as having helped to “feed the world”. This Big Lie is necessary to justify the sequel, that a second GMO revolution is necessary to continue this feeding.
In reality, agriculture doesn’t strive to feed a population which spontaneously increases. Cause and effect go in the opposite direction – industrial agriculture is a supply-driven process, and to the extent this extra food is available to the populace, population will increase in response.
What the Green Revolution really did was drive up the population while accelerating the arc of enclosure, driving ever more people off the land and into the cities. Shantytowns were the direct, intended result of this agricultural policy. The goal (as proven by the fact that it’s been the clear result, and that elites have continued the policy in light of this result; that proves that they intend the result) was to further separate humanity from the land, further assault subsistence food economies and replace them with food commodification, forcibly turn subsistence farmers into “job”-seekers, drive up the population, drive up the proportion of the population which is food insecure, drive up the number of unemployed, in both of the latter ways increase the desperation and infighting among the destitute masses, and in all these ways aggravate and accelerate the processes of colonialism and corporatism in general. Today’s GMO onslaught is an escalated version of all this. That’s why neoliberalism calls GMOs a “second green revolution”.
It doesn’t increase yield (temporarily cheap, plentiful fossil fuels, along with age-old traditional breeding, did that), and it’s not intended to. It’s not more efficient, and it’s not intended to be. It’s more “efficient” only from the point of view of purging human labor from the corporate economy and purging human beings from the land.
I defy anyone to explain how the logic isn’t that human beings (except for a rump slave class) must be physically purged from the Earth itself.
A real Nazi like Hitler at least had intellectual and moral clarity regarding his policy, unlike corporate liberals or conservatives. They follow the exact same logic, but out of cowardice or stupidity remain willfully ignorant of the fact.
But what could it mean to want to purge all people from the land, but not want their physical deaths? A shantytown makes zero sense from ANY point of view – moral, rational, practical. Even from the point of view of the most predatory, exploitative corporation, a shantytown is nothing but a waste dump, filled with potentially dangerous toxic waste. (It’s rare, but the inhabitants do sometimes rise up against the system.) The only way to make any sense whatsoever of the phenomenon is to view shantytowns as putative death camps.



  1. I am not sure that Adolf Hitler had intellectual or moral clarity on his policies. Any more than any of us has intellectual or moral clarity on our acts and beliefs. Lucidity is perhaps.. the greatest illusion ?
    All of us manage to find reasons.. to justify our actions and reactions. Why not ? Are those reasons less real ? Maybe not…
    I believe that Hitler was another chapter in the seething tensions that oppose our organized religious traditions and the secular ideological traditions that derive from them, and are propped against them. The, uh… French… “revolution” established a new, secular republican ideology in France. A religion and an ideology, while both convocating belief, are not identical, and do not have the same structure. I believe…
    Lots of blood was lost in France, and elsewhere. As much as during WW2 ? Difficult to say, and I don’t like counting.
    What is interesting is the continuity that we establish THROUGH the word “revolution”.
    If it suggests something new… it also suggests a continuity with our previous.. revolutions.
    I like to say.. follow the trail of the words to try to understand what is going on.
    What you stick under the name of the “green revolution” was already at work under the… “industrial revolution”. And further back, when was the Land Enclosure Act enacted in England ? You know the dates better than I.
    What does it mean that we are going from the “industrial revolution” to the “green revolution” ? Why the substitution, right now ?
    Is it a means of trying to reinject a relationship with nature in our overindustrialized world ? (It is unfortunate that for the past 500 years or so, we seem to believe that we can dominate and control nature, that we are creators, and NOT creatures, exclusively.)
    People scoff at the idea of Marie Antoinette playing at being a shepherdess at Versailles before she rather unjustly got her head chopped off… (Incidentally, poor little Marie got her head chopped off, in my opinion, because Louis XVI could not manage to believe that he was the King, and couldn’t fill those shoes with authority. The French Revolution doesn’t have a lot to do with… corruption. It has a lot to do with the wrong people being in the wrong place/shoes at the wrong time.)
    Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it ? (I like to think wistfully that Marie felt lost in her foreign environment, and desperately needed to be surrounded by a little greenery, rather than.. all those mirrors, and all that intriguing…sentimental, huh ?)
    Now think about the many city folk today who are… growing gardens in their backyards, or taking off into the mountains to learn how to collect berries, or whatever…. could their reasons have anything to do with Marie’s ?
    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like GMO’s at all. And I don’t buy food that has them. Hell, I barely buy food in supermarkets these days.
    But… look at the food which is produced “hors sol”, in French, outside of the ground. And the calibrated fruit and vegetables. Even on the markets. Because people want to buy.. enormous apricots, strawberries, etc, that are all the same size, BIG, and look all alike. And the sellers are afraid of selling fruit and vegetables that are.. “hors normes” as we say. Outside of the norm.
    Hard to imagine that what we do unto our veggies we do not do unto ourselves, right ?
    We are doing it unto ourselves, too…
    With the best intentions, too, for the most part.
    By the way, “industrial” has lots to do with another word that is in my sights… “work”…
    It might be helpful to do some etymological digging into the word “industry”…

    Comment by Debra — June 10, 2012 @ 6:00 am

    • I generally won’t use the word “industry” to describe corporate rackets. But where it comes to the adjectival term for agriculture, there’s no good alternative.

      Comment by Russ — June 11, 2012 @ 6:03 am

  2. Don’t agree at all that more food means more population, unless you are taking into account mortality by starvation ?
    More food right now means… more obesity, in Western countries, at least.
    And more waste of food.
    No.. population is linked with other ideological tendencies, including the ideal of mass education for all.
    For the past over fifty years or so, women have been increasingly brainwashed to believe in the equation… work outside the home for money= independance, and autonomy, and that in order to be good Christians, oops..feminists, they MUST work outside the home for money, just like their male.. clones ?
    They have been increasingly led to desert motherhood as a place of… fulfillment, and to substitute the workplace for the home.
    Is this “good” or “bad” ?
    That’s not the point… the point is that these idea(l)s… contribute to reducing the birth rate, (and increase the number of people looking for work…)
    Some people might think that this is a good thing. Not I…
    I think that our current problems do not stem primarily from the natality question but from… the MORTALITY one…(at all ages, morever).
    Your dates for the Green Revolution, please ? So I know what you’re talking about…and can stop mouthing off… 😉

    Comment by Debra — June 10, 2012 @ 6:16 am

    • “Green Revolution” is the term for the globally coordinated, government-supported, fossil fuel-based agriculture campaign which was launched under that name in the Sixties, under the “spiritual leadership” of Norman Borlaug, who until he died a few years ago never let the evidence get in the way of his faith in the excellence of his policy.

      Comment by Russ — June 11, 2012 @ 6:03 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: