Tag: Mary E. Croy

  • Food Sovereignty: More than Just  A Farmer’s Market

    Food Sovereignty: More than Just A Farmer’s Market

    By Mary E. Croy

    Family Farm Defenders, a Madison-based organization, has brought to North America the concept of Food Sovereignty, an idea pioneered in Latin America by Via Campesina, an international peasant farmer movement. They have been organizing for decades as an alternative to neoliberal agricultural policy. While neoliberals emphasize “food security,” their policies do not promote food security, but rather, international trade and exploitation of people, animals and the natural world. Via Campesina developed seven principles that center food sovereignty in local communities and emphasize the rights of our most vulnerable citizens.

    1. Food, a Human Right

    We all need it to survive. With the idea of Food as a Human Right, Via Campesina acknowledges this fact. Yet even in the richest country in the world, we find neighbors who struggle to put nutritious food on the table. It’s important to support efforts such as food pantries, The Beacon, and other social service networks, which serve thousands of people in Dane County every month. 

    Other programs, such as FoodShare Wisconsin, which provides food assistance, are in constant danger of being curtailed. As of this January, FoodShare Wisconsin served over 20,000 low income people in Dane County. And even in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, the Trump Administration is working to cut SNAP (AKA food stamp) benefits for our poorest citizens.

    When we regard food as a human right, we must re-examine our system of agriculture and delivery. Why are there food deserts and how can we eliminate this problem? Are there ways to promote consumption of healthy food? How can we show solidarity with the poor? 

    1. Agrarian Reform

    Farm workers are a vital part of the food system. Yet they are among the most vulnerable laborers in our country, often working in harsh, dangerous conditions for low wages. 

    Farm workers are often exposed to pesticides. They lack information to adequately protect themselves from these toxins. They can be exposed up to three times as much as ordinary workers. In addition, in other countries, peasant farmers are being killed and their land stolen. The most vulnerable include members of indigenous communities and women.

    How can we help in the organization of farm workers? What is our role in advocating for immigrant labor who are held hostage by fear of deportation? 

    1. Protecting Natural Resources

    A key part of building Food Sovereignty is protecting the land. Too often, industrial scale farming involves the use of chemicals which can cause long term harm to the health of workers, consumers and the natural world. By putting the land back in the hands of family farmers, enacting robust regulation, and putting a renewed emphasis on sustainable methods, we can eat healthy and help heal the earth. 

    Already, there are sustainable options in agriculture. For example, CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) grow food organically without the use of industrial pesticides. CSAs bring consumers and farmers together in partnership. Most are small farms, and it’s a great way of going local to support your neighbors while at the same time adopting a healthier diet. For our own gardens, we can learn about how to grow native plants, not use harsh pesticides and fertilize the soil through composting. Community gardens are being piloted in inner cities to allow these neighborhoods to enjoy more healthy food and build local resources and sustainability. By helping neighbors and healing the earth, we can put ourselves on a path to a better future. 

    Yet even as we make choices as individuals, the role of community needs to be strengthened. How can we advocate for sane farm policies, which protect the rights of small farmers while protecting the land? How do we pressure our lawmakers into implementing policies which end CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) and other industrial farm practices which destroy the land and accelerate climate change? Can we institute community gardens where we live and make these accessible to everyone?

    1. Reorganizing Food Trade

    In large-scale industrial farming, food is seen as a commodity. Vital staples are traded on high risk markets with wealthy investors gambling on “futures.” Food Sovereignty seeks to put the priority back on the purpose of food—feeding people. 

    When developing agricultural policy, the emphasis needs to be on self-sufficient farming and local solutions. When so much of our food production is in the hands of a few corporations, producers and consumers suffer. For example, 80% of the beef industry is controlled by four multinationals. Small ranchers, those interested in healthy diets, and advocates for a clean environment and the humane treatment of animals are held hostage by these huge firms. In fact, in some states, it is illegal to film or publicize the ongoing abuse of animals in agriculture.

    We must reorganize our food trade by finding ways to re-establish local networks to make food delivery local and sustainable.

    1. Ending the Globalization of Hunger

    People are becoming more aware of and concerned about high tech fixes to enhance the food supply. Many countries and states require that genetically modified foods be labeled, for example. But, our agricultural system is geared toward approaches that allow food to be produced on an industrial scale. Family farms, local knowledge and even seeds used to plant have been replaced by products created in a faraway laboratory, factory or company boardroom. 

    Food sovereignty stresses the local. While continuing to promote research and better ways to grow healthy food, it recognizes that not every community has the same methods of agriculture. It values knowledge passed down from generation to generation. Governments need to listen to farmers and consumers when planning the fight against hunger and for a healthier world.

    1. Social Peace

    In Wisconsin, small farmers have been forced to sell their family lands and give up farms at a devastating rate. This is part of a trend happening worldwide. In India, farmer suicides are a growing problem as more people go into debt. This problem has been exacerbated by the celebrated “micro loans,” which turned out to be another capitalist scam. In the Amazon, native people are forced off their land by mining companies or big agribusinesses– the pattern continues in every part of the globe. Rural areas, which hold the bounty of nature, are becoming more impoverished while residents flee to cities, which are becoming more polluted and less able to provide affordable housing.

    How can we stop this downward spiral? This is especially important for vulnerable ethnic minorities and for those who have farmed for generations but are financially distressed due to industrial agriculture. Now is the time to come together to support family farmers. How do we best advocate for peasant farmers worldwide and family farmers here in Wisconsin?

    1. Food Sovereignty and Democracy

    Food Sovereignty, means, above all, returning control of agriculture to local farmers and consumers. In our current system of industrial scale farming, decisions are made in corporate headquarters with an eye toward the “bottom line” rather than feeding people. Food Sovereignty empowers small farmers and their communities to take control of production and distribution. It is important to listen to farmers and the people they serve. This must include overlooked contributors such as farm laborers.    

    We can support local agriculture and buy locally as much as our budget allows. But it is also important to advocate on this issue and form alliances with farm laborers, environmentalists and small farmers as we look to change our agricultural systems.

    The current crisis with COVID-19 shows that it is absolutely essential to build up sustainability and resilience on a local level. We as socialists need to work in our communities to create networks which rely on community and support for the vulnerable. The principles of Food Sovereignty are vital to creating a new future which provides for all, rather than enriching a select few.

  • Homelessness: Austerity leads to Blindness

    Homelessness: Austerity leads to Blindness

    By Mary E. Croy

    Eight bills and not even a band aid in sight. As homelessness continues to soar in Wisconsin, the Republican led legislature refuses to take action. There have been eight bills proposed, and only one is even being considered in the current session. In the state budget, $3.7 million was allocated to fight this problem, but nothing has made it to the governor’s desk.

    Last June, the Assembly passed legislation, but it lingered in the Senate. Had it passed, more beds could’ve been provided before winter. However, excuses and dedication to austerity won the day. It is estimated that 20,000 children and adults are without a permanent residence in our state. In Madison an average of 225 people per day, including children, seek relief at the Beacon Shelter near downtown. 

    In Milwaukee, a tent city has begun under the Hoan Bridge. Ironic, since the bridge is named after a great Socialist mayor. 

    Homelessness exposes the racist nature of American society. For example, right here in Dane County, 5.1% of the population is African-American while 53% of the people who receive services for homelessness are African-American.

    Our state spending on the homeless population is approximately $3.3 million annually and it has been at this sum for decades. Neighboring Minnesota meanwhile spends $44.3 million.

    It is indeed a disgrace to our state and country to see people sleeping in the streets next to expensive restaurants, underneath the glaring lights of the capitol dome. 

    While Republicans and other neoliberals scream about cost, the statistics speak for themselves. It costs the public $35,600 every year to care for a homeless person, while that sum can be cut in half with decent, affordable housing.

    There’s a better way. In Vienna, Austria, public housing is considered the foundation for creating a livable and humane city. Socialists after World War I established a “social housing” policy that built not only apartments, but living spaces featuring kindergartens, health centers, playgrounds and workshops. They hired some of the leading architects to design beautiful buildings. Eligibility for public housing includes 80% of the population and this has led to a city where you cannot tell status by neighborhood. 

    How’s it funded? Sources are varied: the income tax, corporate tax and a payroll tax. In exchange, most citizens pay about 20 – 25% of their income on rent—a rate most Madisonians would kill for. 62% of Vienna’s citizens live in social housing. Because both middle class and lower income people can participate and you can keep your apartment even if your income goes up, a wide mix of people live in public housing without stigma. The city has panels that judge new developments, which means that energy efficiency, beauty and convenience for the residents can be emphasized. About one third of new apartment complexes in Vienna are publicly funded. The city owns about 25% of all housing, and indirectly controls another 200,000 units which are owned by limited profit companies that are strictly regulated with the city keeping final control over development. About 5,000 new, subsidized units are made available every year, and these are open to lower and middle income people. 

    It’s true that the problem of homelessness must be solved with a variety of tools, such as good mental health care, social support, innovative education and jobs, but affordable housing is essential in order to make our national disgrace a thing of the past. Red Vienna—the socialist movement that created one of the world’s most livable cities– can be a lesson for us as we build Red Madison.  

    Thanks to Madison Central Library Reference Desk for research assistance.

  • Foxconn: We Want Our Money Back!

    Foxconn: We Want Our Money Back!

    By Mary E. Croy

    Trump trumpeted the technology manufacturing deal with Taiwanese company Foxconn as the “eighth wonder of the world” when company executives visited the White House, according to then Chief of Staff and Wisconsin GOP insider Reince Priebus. In 2017, Foxconn reached an agreement with the Walker administration, promising to invest $10 billion in the Mount Pleasant campus and hire up to 13,000 people. 

    •  2017:  The Walker administration offered up to $3 billion in handouts to entice Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin. It had also recently reneged on a deal in Pennsylvania where it originally promised to spend $30 million and create jobs for up to 500 people. But Wisconsin would be different: Foxconn claimed it would employ 3,000 people, and increase the workforce to 13,000 people as soon as 2022. Additionally, it promised to give $100 million to UW-Madison to create “innovation centers” and a research institute. The Walker administration pursued these initiatives despite Foxconn’s dark history of worker abuse in China: the company became notorious for employee suicides and for responding to the deaths by installing “suicide nets” outside of dorms at its facilities in China. 
    •  2018: Foxconn moved to evict families from land in neighboring Sturtevant. A dozen homes were destroyed in Mount Pleasant. The Department of Natural Resources approved a water diversion permit allowing up to 7 million gallons of water to be diverted from Lake Michigan. Restrictions were lifted and Foxconn was greenlighted to fill in 26 acres of wetlands in Racine County. At the same time the subsidy estimates ballooned to $4.5 billion. Foxconn scaled back plans—instead of a cutting-edge big screen TV plant, it was announced that the factory would build smaller panels, and the investment by the Taiwanese company shrank to $2.5 billion.
    •  2019:  Foxconn began hesitating on building any plant in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, taxpayers have spent at least $137 million on infrastructure, roads, and buying land for the project. The company hired 156 people during the year. The Wisconsin plant started work as an assembly facility that finishes production of TV displays made in Mexico. Starting pay is approximately $14 per hour with little or no benefits, despite Foxconn having promised that average pay would be $23 per hour when the deal was struck. Mount Pleasant’s bond rating has downgraded because of an anticipated increase in debts. The company also applied for and received a fire code variance to omit sprinklers in some areas of the building.
    • 2020: The company has 520 employees in Wisconsin. Foxconn promises to hire 1,500 people by May 2020. It releases figures that it has awarded around $370 million in construction, about 17% of the $2.1 billion laid out in the original application. Donations to UW-Madison are at $700,000 and the research institute has not yet been built.

    So far, Foxconn has refused to renegotiate the agreement. It claims to have fulfilled the goals for 2019, and if the subsidies are approved by the state, it could receive more than $50 million this year. So far the state has not certified the tax credits. As the state and the Taiwanese corporation wrangle, plans for what the factory will make and even if it will begin this May remain uncertain. 

    This whole mess shows the fatal flaws in the neoliberal obsession with “public-private partnerships” as ways of building healthy local economies. Instead of relying on the whims of a billionaire sitting behind a desk in Taipei, why not have direct public investment to build needed infrastructure and create services dictated by the will and interest of citizens? Our tax dollars would be more efficiently spent, critical improvements could be made, and our State and ordinary people would be the beneficiaries.

    Thanks to Madison Public Library Reference Services for research assistance.