The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 2. Distributism

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with t...:

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 2. Distributism

Much of this, indeed the lion's share, could be fixed by reordering the economy to be Distributist.

That may seem extreme, but then, in the modern world, this is extreme, and frankly, we're in an extreme situation that we need to find a way out of or events of one kind or another will take us out of them for us.  

To be more extreme, we'd note what Cardinal Sarah has above, once again, the barbarians are alrady inside the city.

I've started off with agrarianism, and I mean it, but I'd also note that an aspect of agrarianism is distributism. All agraraians are distributists, not all distributist are agrarians.  We'll start with distributism.  

What the hecks is it, anyway.  We'll, we'll turn to an old Lex Anteinternet post, where we discussed that (we just bumped that post up here).

What the heck is Distributism anyway?

 The prolific writer G. K. Chesterton, who wrote novels, poetry, and philosophy in stunningly large quantities.  An intellectual giant, he was enormously influential on British writing in his era and was part of the collection of personalities that included C. K. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien and Hellaire Belloc.  Together with Belloc he was a major proponent of Distributism.

I'm fairly convinced that part of the problem with Distributism is the name.  At least up until recently, the concept that a politician would act to "distribute" wealth has been a hugely negative on in American political speech.  I suppose with Saunders running, a person could ask if this was still true, but for purposes of our discussion here we should note that Distributism doesn't mean that sort of distributing.  Quite the contrary.

Rather, Distributism is based on the concept of Subsidiarity, which of course doesn't help much to most people as most people don't know what that means.  That too is problematic as the term is really confusing to most people. The term comes out of Catholic social thinking, and it holds that the best and most just means of doing things is to push it down to the lowest practical level.  Ironically, that's a highly American concept and the polar opposite of the large-scale statist approach to things that many conservative Americans fear.  Subsidiarity stands for local control, or control below that level if possible.

In economic terms, or rather through Distributist terms, what this amounts to is an economic system based upon a free economy that favors economic power being concentrated at the family or individual level.  It's a highly capitalist system, and one that is actually more capitalist than the Corporate Capitalism that most westerners believe to be capitalism, which is really Corporate Capitalism.

A Distributist economy, therefore, would discourage, or perhaps even prohibit, the concentration of the means of retail distribution in the hands of corporations in favor of family or individual enterprises.  So, rather than have a Walmart, you'd have a family owned appliance store, a family owned clothing store, a family owned grocery store, etc.  That's a pretty simple illustration the retail end of the economy, but that's a major aspect of Distributism. Distributism also has an agricultural aspect to it that's frankly agrarian, although agrarianism predates Distributism.  What that means is that farms would be owned and operated by the actual farmer.  That sounds simplistic but it stands contrary to much of what we see today, with agricultural land held by absentee owners, or by the wealthy who do not work it, or by agricultural corporations.

Modern Distributist sometimes get wrapped up in romantic notions of local production as well, and that's clearly an aspect of a Distributist economy.  Nonetheless any rational economist, no matter what stripe they may be, will acknowledge that in the modern world large-scale industrial production is the province of corporations.  That may be good or bad, but it's been known and discussed as an aspect of this since the mid 19th Century at least.  Rational Distributist, to include, on this topic, Theodore Roosevelt, have discussed how to handle this in the context of a Distributist economy, but that it would be one is quite clear.

In short, Distributism favors the smallest economic unit possible.  And it does this on a philosophical basis, that being that small freeholders, or small businessmen, or small artisans, should hold the reins of the economy, as that concentrates wealth in their hands, those being middle class hands.  By doing that, that makes much of the middle class more or less economically independent, but not wealthy, stabilizes wealthy in the hands of the largest number of people, and strengthens the ability of the people to decide things locally.  In other words, that sort of economy "distributes" economic wealth and production to the largest number of people, and accordingly "distributes" political power to the largest number of people, on the theory that this is best for the largest number of people.

Interestingly, almost any stripe of Capitalist will actually use most of the same words, as well Socialist, even though there's reasons to question their respective impacts.  Socialism actually concentrates power in the hands of bureaucracy and dissipates wealth.  At least to some extent, Corporate Capitalism in recent years, and perhaps in all years, tends to concentrate wealth in remote corporations and a few who lead them.

So why is that important here?

Because what people don't have, is well. . . anything.  People are consumers, and servants.  They lack something of their own, and they accordingly lack stability.  Increasingly, on certain things, including economics and science, they lack education.

And, like the ignorant and have-nots tend to be, they're unhappy and made.

The unhappy and mad masses always make for ignorant revolutions, whether it be the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, or the revolutionary period of the Weimar Republic that concluded with the Nazis coming to power.  Not having anything, they're willing to try something, whether that something be Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, or Donald Trump.

It was Jefferson who noted that republics were grounded in yeomen farmers, for the reason that they were independent men.  Through Corporate Capitalism, we've been working on destroying the yeomanry for quite some time now.

The failure of people to have their own has been significant in creating the crisis that we face today.  People who worked for other entities, and that's most people, find themselves either adrift without them or slaves to them.  People live where they don't want to at jobs and careers they don't want to, in conditions they don't want to, even if they do not fully realize it, as their corporate masters compel them to.  It gets worse, all the time, and people are powerless against it.

Indeed, not only are they powerless, but they can be compelled to act against their own best interests, and often do.  People who love one thing as their true selves, will work to destroy the ability to do it for their corporate masters.  You don't have to look much beyond the Wyoming legislature to see this, where some advocate policies that would deprive average Wyomingites to access to public lands, for example, something that only serves the interest of the wealthy.

 What does a Distributist Economy look like?

Generally, what Distributist would do is to strip away, as noted, the ability of large entities to own and operate businesses and "distribute" that down to the smallest practical element.  So, where you have big box stores you'd now have lots of small retail stores.  Where you have chain stores you no longer would. Where you have have chain services shops, a relatively new and fast developing economic entity, you would have individually owned shops.  Where you had chain service industries, such as reality brokerages, you would once again have small locally owned ones.  Where you have H & R Block, you'd have your local accountant. 

 

 Drug store in Southington Connecticut, 1940s.  This family had a shop on this corner for about 200 years at the time this photograph was taken. Do they still?  Photo from an earlier, and now linked in, thread.  This sort of sore had disappeared from many localties in favor of a consolidating the goods sold by a sotre like this in some bigger, chain, store.

Proprietor of family butcher shop, 1940s.  This industry still exists, but the butcher shop has yielded at least partially to the chain grocery store.  For people who like little clues from movies, the film "Marty" involves the story of a simple butcher who has bought such a shop from an owner who has no family.  The intrusion of the super market is actually mentioned in the film,

 

 Paint store.  It's not Home Depot.

 Colorado Bakery and Grocery, a local store of the past in Ft. Collins Colorado.  It's now a brew pub.  Local grocery stores have fallen way off, from once dominating the field to now being a boutique exception.  Brew pubs, however, are a Distributist triumph in the true sense.

This raises the natural question of what about production?  All that addresses is retail.  What about service industries, what about production, and what about agriculture.

Service is one of the easier aspect of this to address, actually, as it started remote national concentration late in the game, and its far from complete.  When we look at doctors, lawyer, and accountants, and the like, we still a lot of the old economy around, while we see the encroachment of national corporate consolidation coming in at the same time.  Something about many of these industries, however, is resistant to too much consolidation, even as we see big efforts to cause it to come about.

In a Distributist economy, quite simply, this would stop.  Law Firms, Accountancy Firms, Doctors offices, would be local.   Hospitals and the likes would be as well.

A couple of old building in Rock Spring's historic district, across from the class Union Pacific depot.  The building on the left is the National Bank building, and was built in 1892.  The one on the right has much of its "ghost signs" painted out, so I'm not sure of its identity, but it's number 18 on the historic district tour. From Painted Bricks.

Well, what about banks? They're a service industry.

Banks, under classic Distributist thought, were really taken on as a negative aspect of the economy and frankly this is one of the areas where old school Distributist, prior to World War Two, sounded a lot like Socialist.  If you look back at Distributist commentary of that period you will find a lot of references to preventing banks from charging interest, and things of this ilk.  All that was extremely unrealistic, to say the least, and it also reflects an earlier era which has really passed.  Taking  on banks is a favorite topic for all politicians now days, but the biggest problems we've had with banks are founded on banking consolidation and inadequate regulation.

Banks, as concentrations of economic maladies, usually only develop real problems when they are largely unregulated. When the old school Distributist formed their thoughts on the matter, that was the case. And the recent banking problems the United States has had largely flowed from the concept that regulation of banks was passe, followed by an actual effort on the part of the government to encourage banks in areas that they shouldn't go.  An overarching aspect of all of this is that an old policy of encouraging home ownership via home loans is a remaining nonsensical central American governmental goal that creates problems in and of itself.  Finally, the consolidation of banking into larger and larger remotely owned banks contributes to the problem. There still are locally owned or regionally owned banks, but not nearly as many as there once was.

Realistically, as banks are so heavily regulated, in a modern Distributist economy the goal would be to keep the banks local or at least no more than regional.  That keeps them focused on their locality and the local economy. The Federal government's sponsorship of home loans probably ought to cease, although that is probably a Distributist concept, or maybe even a Socialist one, in and of itself.  Encouraging any one kind of loan is something that should be really carefully thought out before its done.

Or maybe the ship has sailed with banks, like industrial production (which we'll address below), and today Distributist would have to have a mixed approach, encouraging local but tolerating national.  It's hard to see how industry in particular could exist without large banks.

Large banking has given us credit cards, an aspect of the economy wholly unknown to the original Distributist.  Of course ,they were unknown to earlier Capitalist as well, and have just sort of occurred. This too may be an area where the ship has sailed, but on the other hand, it would be one that I'd have a hard time imagining modern Distributist avoiding.  But how that would be handled in the new economy, which only saw the introduction of widespread use of credit cards starting in the 1970s, is an open question.  Credit cards now make up a huge percentage of the "money" in our economy, and they are interesting an huge unregulated sector, to a significant degree.  That is ,the percentage of interest they charge are regulated, but the creation of them is not.  It's been an amazing change in the economy.

Comedian Marty Allen making a joke of having a large number of credit cards, something that was looked down upon in the 1960s when this photograph was taken.  Now, nearly everyone in the American economy has at least one credit card.

It's an interesting topic, but one that I won't be able to address fully, which is one of the problems when discussing a modern Distributist economy (we'll get to problems in a minute). As there's been no real development of the theory in decades, and as it's never been fully implemented anywhere, some of these topics need to be completely re-thought by Distributists.

Among those topics are topics like insurance.  Americans like to complain about insurance, but by and large the insurance industry is amazingly capable and it really can't be done efficiently on a local level.  This is true of all types of insurance, to include most particularly liability insurance, which people don't think about much but which is particularly important to the economy.  Indeed, topics like banking and insurance do indeed suggest that a Distributist economy might be a bad idea.

Blacksmiths working on the iron rim of a wheel.

That leaves production.

In production, this can also be done, but only to a certain extent in a realistic modern economy.  Indeed, a surprising amount of production of various types is done this way, as nearly every major economic field features local fabrication of some sort, which is local production.  But it's quite clear that in a modern industrial economy, you can't have local production of everything.  Cars, for example, aren't going to be made in a local shop by skilled craftsmen.

How Distributist would handle this aspect of their economic theory is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer.  Some would borrow from Socialist examples, all of which are problematic.  Some might borrow from Theodore Roosevelt's progressive era suggestion and require public ownership of a certain percentage of large corporations, to give a voice in their affairs.  Some might restrict organizing in the corporate forum until a business reached a certain size.  All in all, I don't know how this topic would be approached.  It might be approached in the same way that modern Socialism tends to approach it, which is basically not to except by regulation and taxation, which really takes a person outside of the context of the theory in general and into something else.  What is clear is that in this area the example of Corporate Capitalism would have to largely suffice for Distributist as well.

Union Pacific Depo in Rock Springs Wyoming.  This surviving business from the 19th Century would never have come about except through extensive government support, something that often tends to be forgotten when the stories of large business in the United States are considered.  Indeed, nearly every very large railroad in North American had some government assistance of some sort when it came into existence.

Distribution of goods, on the other hand, is really mixed, but will probably cease to be in the future for environmental reasons.  Right now, distribution of goods in the North American economy is an interesting mixed system, using locally owned and often leased semi tractor combined with large corporate railways.  By and large, the system, if it involves distance, is corporate owned one way or another, and that probably cannot be avoided.  Transcontinental distribution, therefore, may be something like large scale manufacturing and have to be basically left as is, in a Distributist economic model.  Or perhaps it would be handled in one of the several fashions described above as theoretical possibilities for manufacturing.

Okay, I suppose that's all well and good, but so what?  Once again, lots of people note these things and then think they're bold Distributist as they buy free range Cornish Game Hens at the local market.

A person can believe that they can bring an economy about through self actuation, but that's baloney and its really only a comfortable delusion for the really well off. It's the same sort of delusion that comforted wealthy western Communists in the 1920s and 1930s who lived in countries that were never going to be Communist, as there was never any real threat of a real Communist economy to them.  A real economic system, no matter what it is, never comes about without state intervention or support of some kind.

This is most evident, of course, in real classical Socialism, in which the state owns the means of production.  Taking that one step further, as the Communist tried to, the state can end up owning everything.  Those are the most blunt examples, and by the way they're examples of massively unworkable economic failures. That's why there are no real Communist economies outside of North Korea, and that's why most Socialist don't really advocate real Socialism anymore.

But even Capitalism, of the type that we have, requires state intervention to exist. We're just so used to it, we don't notice it.

That's because our Capitalism is Corporate Capitalism.  It's based on the existence of corporations and related business forms. These entities have the status of "persons" at law.  They can sue, be sued, and are taxed, like people as we've seen.

The biggest economic advantage that they convey is the sue and be sued part, as that's where they are distinctly different from their natural fellow, the partnership.  In a conventional partnership, a person can be sued as an individual. That puts their individual assets at risk.  That's not true, however for shareholders in a corporation.  Only the corporate assets are ever at risk.

So, by way of an example, if Walmart does something bad, they don't look to the individual shareholders to make it good. They only look to Walmart.

Additionally, corporations allow for easy remote control.  Generally they're directed by boards rather than by everyone in the entity.  That's less true of normal common partnerships, where everyone gets a say.

All of this is noted as corporations, and related business forms, very obviously have a huge economic advantage over other types of business entities.  They're not natural, but legal fictions, but that legal fiction gives them enormous economic advantage. And that legal fiction is a creature of the state.  Corporations only exist as the statutory law allows people to create them. They would otherwise not exist at all.

Which leads us back to Distributism.  Rather obviously the way to bring about a modern Distributist economy is simply to limit where corporations can be formed, as we've seen. That would largely do it.  And that's a mere modification of the existing law.

If you prohibited, for example, corporations on the retail end, it would wipe out overnight entities like Walmart. There's no question about it. And in its place you'd soon find multiple locally owned stores where once the big box store had been.  And if you provided that land had to be held by the person working it, absentee landlords in agriculture and owning land as an exotic hobby would likewise be over.

There would obviously be limits to how far a person could go in this direction, however, in a modern economy.  Corporations would have to exist for large scale manufacturing.There's no earthly way that products of the type made by General Motors, or Boeing, of Apple, can be made by local entrepreneurs operating without the corporate form.  Therefore any rational system of Distributism, as opposed to a purely theoretical one, would have to accommodate itself to that just as modern Socialism also has.

Should it be tried?

So, it's pretty clear that a country could have a Distributist Economy.  It is realistic.  But that doesn't answer whether Distributism should be tried, which is quite another questions.

In other words, just because you can do something, sure doesn't mean that you should.

In order to answer that question, you have to determine what the goal of Distributism is, and whether that's something we want to effect.  You also have to determine what the negatives of it are, and whether they are worth enduring.  To even look at that, you have to first ask what the point of any economic system is.

It's pretty easy to determine the point, or thesis, of Capitalism, even in the modified Corporate Capitalist system that we have, or that anyone else has.  The general idea is that a free market is the most efficient and natural of economies and that as it is efficient, it leads to the efficient production of goods, and that creates wealth for everyone.  Corporate Capitalism's thesis is that the allowance of a legal fiction, the corporation, allows the combination of capital and management in such a fashion as to facilitate business in a capitalist model, thereby boosting productivity and hence wealth.

Before going on to Distributism, which is actually a species of capitalism, I'll note the same for Socialism. Socialism in its classic form is pretty easy to grasp, thesis wise.  Socialist argue that capitalism creates an unequal distribution of wealth favoring the owners of the means of production over the actual producers, and the solution to this is to have the state be the owner and distribute back to the worker.  As Socialism fails pretty badly in the execution, modern Socialist by and large don't actually advocate that, however, and instead focus on social activism and engineering, thereby taking themselves quite some distance from their economic theorist origins.  Indeed, many Socialist now appear to actually be some sort of capitalist, but of the state intervention variety.  The interesting thing about that is that it takes them in the direction of the "managed economy", which is basically what most western nations had, including the United States, from about 1932 through about 1980, when corporate capitalism reasserted itself.

Socialism was a reaction to early laissez faire capitalism, which was really early Corporate Capitalism.  It's undoubtedly the case that early industrialization lead to a very unequal distribution of wealth, but taking the long view, any early Capitalist economic enterprise does that.  Sure, factory owners of the 19th Century were vastly wealthy and their workers on the edge of poverty, but then the creators of electronic and internet based enterprises have become vastly wealthy in our modern age as well.  This is not to say that things were not unfair on the factory floor, but often missed in that story is that those jobs attracted a steady stream of applicants in any event, indicating that they were better than whatever they were fleeing from, which was probably rural poverty for those who did not own their own land.  At any rate, Socialism was an attempt, and a radical one, to address the ills of Corporate Capitalism of its day.  Ironically, Socialism in its real forms turned out to be worse, and the antidote to that nearly everywhere was Corporate Capitalism to at least some degree, often with a fair amount of state management in the old Communist countries.  

Put another way, where you don't have rich people, you tend to have all poor people.

Corporate Capitalism, however, was itself sort of a reaction to mercantilism.  Capitalism is a natural form of economics, but Corporate Capitalism clearly is not.  It came about in order to attempt to efficiently handle the scale of modern business, with the only prior way to do that being the unwieldy system of mercantilism, which  granted state sponsored monopolies to big business enterprises, such as the East India Company.  Mercantilism at least allowed for big business endeavors, but at the expense of discouraging competition, and hence it was inefficient and more than a little unfair.

Distributism came about as a reaction to both Corporate Capitalism and Socialism, back in the first half of the 20th Century when Socialism in its extreme form, Communism was strong (as was its socialist/autarkic competitor, fascism).   Coming up out of Catholic social thought, as it did, it was focused on the plight of the common man, but with a distinctly different viewpoint of Socialism.  It did not oppose the private ownership of property at all, but rather sought to vest it under the principals of subsidiarity, as previously noted.  This, it was thought, would address the unequal distribution of wealth (hence "Distributism") in a natural way, for the benefit of common people.

It's easy, of course, to find examples of Corporate Capitalism (just go downtown anywhere) and Socialism, but as Distributism is a younger theory in modern terms, and as Distributist shelved their ideas during World War Two in order to work for the common good, it's much harder to find examples of it.  You actually can, but you have to be able to recognize bits and pieces when you see it, and quite frankly it's often the case that the drafters of anyone proposal that went into law didn't conceive of themselves as Distributist, although sometimes they did.

A good example of it is provided by various European farming laws which disallow corporate or absentee ownership of farmland.  France is a good example, which is how the rural sector of France has remained fairly strong. Post war Germany also had a farm sector that was intentionally designed to be Distributist, by a Distributist.  At least one US state, however, also has a variant of such a law, and would probably be pretty surprised to find itself described as Distributist.  Various state and city ordinances restricting big box stores in some localities are also clearly Distributist, although the backers of those laws are no doubt largely ignorant of that.

Okay, so that's what it is, but that still doesn't answer the "so what" question.  Should Distributism be tried, or advanced as an economic theory?

Well, that probably depends upon how you view an economy in general. The Corporate Capitalist model, which has existed since the 17th Century, has certainly had its ups and downs, but over a very long course of time, and when braced by some state management, but not too much, it clearly is highly efficient.  It drives prices down and floods the market with  nearly endless options.  It's brought wealth to the nations that employ it. All of this is good, so the question could be, why tinker with that?

An answer to that might be to note that Distributism really is tinkering with that.  Not wholly replacing it. That's because Distributism is also a form of capitalism, just a more natural one.  Or potentially a more natural one. As Distributism is much poorer formed than Capitalism as a theory, some Distributist flirt with Socialism and high degrees of social activism, while others do not.

If we take the simply notion of Distributism, however, it's merely another type of Capitalism, and an older one, as by implication it would have to rely less on the corporation.  No modern capitalist economy can avoid corporations, but as previously noted they could rely on them less. But why would that matter?

It would matter, if it does, because the net effect would be to push down the economy to a much more local and personal level.  To be blunt, is it better to have really cheap prices, but remote ownership, and lower wages (Corporate Capitalism) vs. higher prices and locally owned self sustaining middle class business (Distributism)?  That's pretty much what it boils down to.  Under a Distributism model, assuming that it would actually work, there'd be fewer very rich people and more middle class business owners. But even being in the middle class would be probably at least somewhat more expensive than it current is, and it'd be more the middle class of fifty years ago, which most people in the middle class were in the middle, or bottom, of the middle class back, with few in the upper areas of it.  Now, quite a few in the middle class are upper middle class, and of course we have more super wealthy than every before.  So, by getting more in the middle, on both ends, we take some out of the bottom and some out of the top.

Some would argue that the depression of economic classes from the upper end down, while taking the bottom and bringing it up, was a good collateral byproduct from a social point of view, although that really takes us out of economics, and Distributist economics, into something else.  Certainly bringing the bottom up undoubtedly has it merits, and is the point of any economic theory really.  Depressing the top down is another matter when it extends into the middle class, and very few in our economy would openly admit that. Even modern Socialist always claim to be acting on behalf of the Middle Class, when formerly they would have condemned as being bourgeois.  The arguments on that would vary, but basically it would be that there's something bad about having too much wealth in an economy, which again really gets beyond economics and into social theory. That's a problematic theory, but it is interesting to note that wealthy societies do tend to become effete. 

Of course, everything would also be much more locally focused, with is an additional point advanced by Distributist as an advantage.

The answer to our question, therefore, I suppose, might depend on how you view your role in the economy, but there are some serious things to consider here.  Corporate Capitalism has brought vast wealth to the world, and we no doubt live in the wealthiest period of time the world has ever seen.  Indeed, by world standards, the United States has virtually nobody who would qualify as truly poor, although by our standards we clearly do and that is not to be made light of.  Anyhow, why would anyone want to mess with that?

Well, one reason may be in that in the long history of Corporate Capitalism it seemingly goes through stages over time where it truly does concentrate vast wealth into the hands of very few, with bad results for almost everyone else.  The mid 19th Century history of Corporate Capitalism heavily featured that, which as we know gave rise to Communism and hardcore radical Socialism.  In the US, it gave rise to Progressiveness, a movement that flirted with Socialist ideas (and which flirted with some Distributist ones).  The ills of the mid 19th Century ended up being addressed, one way or another, and in most localities that ended up with labor coming out pretty well. But in our new highly global economy that does seem to be not so much the case anymore, at least if the arguments of individuals like Thomas Piketty are to be believed.  Indeed, individuals like Piketty argue that the economy is yielding to a new type of oligarchy, at the expense of everyone except the oligarchs.

Added to that, a prior feature of Corporate Capitalism was to alter the nature of a locality fairly heavily, and sometimes an entire society, but often not so much.  Now, however, Corporate Capitalism in its current form, in the US, seems to be driving everyone to the cities in a fashion not seen since the early British Industrial Revolution.  There's no good evidence that this really suits everyone, it merely suits the economy itself.  So, it has to be seriously asked if the economy is serving the people, or are the people serving the economy.  Looking at contemporary choices that people have, or don't have, it seems more and more that people are serving the economy.  Put another way, is a life of cubicles and clerking really all that nifty?

As part of that, the high state of development of Corporate Capitalism like we know have has very much worked to divest people from business. That is, localism has really suffered as a result of it.  People have little connection to the stores that provide much of their goods, and for that matter the people providing them have little connection with the people they're providing them to.  In some agricultural sectors the people owning land have next to no connection with the states where they own them.  Indeed, one of hte more amusing, and at the same time sad, aspects of modern Western ranching is that sooner or later everyone doing it is going to run across a photo in some journal of a smiling wealthy man whom the journalist writes up as a "rancher", when what he really is a hobbyist with clothing that makes him look a bit absurd to locals. But that same individual keeps those locals from actually being ranchers, as they cannot compete with him economically. All of that hurts the local, and over time people become divorced form their own localities, with negative results.

For these reasons, I suspect, we're starting to see some really serious flirting with Socialism for the first time in about thirty years, which is interesting, and scary to anyone who has any passing familiarity with the history of Socialism in actual practice.  By and large, people are doing well economically but there is something they don't like about what their seeing, maybe.  Bernie Saunders now stands a real chance of being the nominee of the Democratic Party even though he's an avowed Socialist, the first time that a Socialist has advanced in Democratic politics since the late 1940s.  While none of this may have anything to do with economic thought, as earlier noted Australia and Canada have taken slight left turns in recent parliamentary elections, and Greece took a huge left turn.  Of course, some nations, like Denmark and Hungary, have taken sharp right turns.  We can assume that all of these voters don't know what they are doing, but that's not a safe assumption.  Some state of general discontent on something seems to be lurking out there, with some pretty radical solutions in the mix here and there.

And for that reason, it's to be lamented that there aren't any Distributist candidates in any party, anywhere.  Distributism is a subtle economic theory, but it's clearly more of a realistic one than Socialism is, and yet it seems to address many of the aspects of discontent that drive people into leftist economic theories.  As with our national politics, in which everyone has to be a Republican or a Democrat, no matter what they actually think, in our economy it seems you have to be a (Corporate) Capitalist or a Social Democrat, which makes very little sense.  There's no reason to believe that these two camps are the only natural ones, and taking a look at some Distributist ideas seems to be well overdue.  It's clear that no purely Distributist economy is going to come about in our day and age, but that doesn't mean that some of the ideas do not indeed have merit.  Some should be looked at.  Indeed, that's where the disappointment in a lack of such ideas being floated, except by some theorist and seemingly the Pope, is a shame.  It isn't as if any modern country is going to wholesale adopt Distributism.  But maybe some Distributist ideas are worth seriously considering, and right now they aren't getting any air.  It would be nice if they could, particularly when we see the failed theory of Socialism getting some, amazingly.

So, what about agriculture, and this agrarian thing?

The Agrarian's Lament: Lex Anteinternet: Contrary to our natures

The Agrarian's Lament: Lex Anteinternet: Contrary to our natures: 

Lex Anteinternet: Contrary to our natures

Lex Anteinternet: Contrary to our natures: 

Contrary to our natures

When this blog was started several years ago, the purpose of it was to explore historical topics, often the routine day to day type stuff, from the period of roughly a century ago.  It started off as a means of researching things, for a guy too busy to really research, for a historical novel.

It didn't start off as a general commentary on the world type of deal, nor did it start off as a "self help" type of blog either.  Over time, however, the switch to this blog for commentary, away from the blog that generally hosts photographs, has caused a huge expansion here of commentary of all types, including in this category and, frankly, in every other.

 

The pondering professor of our Laws of History thread.

Readers of this blog (of which there are extraordinarily few) know that I've made a series of comments in the "career" category recently that touch on lawyers and mental health. They also know that I was working on a case (actually, two cases) in which an opposing lawyer, without warning or indication, killed himself.  That's bothered me a great deal thereafter.  It isn't as if we could have done anything, but that it occurred bothers me.  And, as noted in the synchronicity threads, I've been reading a lot of comments in lawyer related journals and blogs on this topic as well.  Perhaps they were always there and I hadn't bothered taking note of them, or perhaps that's synchronicity again.

In that category, I stumbled upon a piece written by a fellow who runs a very well liked blog, and who is a lawyer, but whom has never practiced.  I very rarely check that blog, The Art of Manliness, but it's entertaining to read (or probably aggravating to read for some) and I was spending some early morning time in a hotel room waiting for a deposition to start and stopped in there for the first time in eons.  Sure enough, there's an article by a lawyer on the topic of mental health.  Specifically, there was an article on depression, which is the same thing that a lot of these lawyer journals are writing on.  Having somewhat read some of the others, and being surprised to find this one, I read it. Turns out there's an entire series of them and I didn't read them all, but in the one I did read, I was struck by this quote:

If depression is partly caused by a mismatch between how our bodies and minds got used to living for thousands of years, and how we now live in the modern world, then a fundamental step in closing this gap isn’t just moving our bodies, but getting those bodies outside.

I think there's a whole lot to that.
 

The "office" your DNA views as suitable. . . and suitable alone.

Indeed, I think a drove of current social and psychological ills, not just depression by any means, stem from the fact that we've built a massively artificial world that most of us don't really like living in.  It's a true paradox, as I think that same effort lies at a simple root, the human desire to be free from true want.  I.e., starvation.  Fear of starvation lead us to farming to hedge against it, and that lead to civilization.  Paradoxically, the more we strive for "an easy life", the further we take ourselves away from our origins, which is really where we still dwell, deep in our minds.

Okay, at this point I'm trailing into true esoteric philosophy and into psychology, but I think I may be more qualified than many to do just that.  Indeed, I was an adherent of the field of evolutionary biology long before that field came to be called that, and my background may explain why.  So just a tad on that.

Some background

 

With my father, at the fish hatchery, as a little boy.

When I was growing up, I was basically outdoors all the time, and I came from a very "outdoorsy" group of people. And in the Western sense.  People who hunted and fished, garden and who were close to agriculture by heritage.    They were also all well educated.  There was no real separation in any one aspect of our lives.  Life, play, church, were all one thing, much as I wrote about conceptually the other day.

When I went to go to college, post high school, I really didn't know what I wanted to do and decided on being a game warden, which reflects my views at the time, and shows my mindset in some ways now, set on rural topics as it is.  However, my father worried about that and gently suggested that career openings in that field were pretty limited.  He rarely gave any advice of that type, so I heeded his suggestion (showing I guess how much I respected his advice), and majored in geology, and outdoor field.

As a geology student, we studied the natural world, but the whole natural world back into vast antiquity.  Part of that was studying the fossil record and the adaptive nature of species over vast time.  It was fascinating. But having a polymath personality, I also took a lot of classes in everything else, and when I completed my degree at the University of Wyoming, I was only a few credits away from a degree in history as well.

Trilobites on display in a store window in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Now extinct, trilobites occurred in a large number of species and, a this fossil bed demonstrates, there were a lot of them.

That start on an accidental history degree lead me ultimately to a law degree, as it was one of my Casper College professors, Jon Brady, who first suggested it to me.  I later learned that another lawyer colleague of mine ended up a lawyer via a suggestion from the same professor.  Brady was a lawyer, but he was teaching as a history professor.  I know he'd practiced as a Navy JAG officer, but I don't know if he otherwise did.  If lawyer/history professor seems odd, one of the principal history professors at the University of Wyoming today is a lawyer as well, and the archivist at Casper College is a lawyer.  I totally disagree with the law school suggestion that "you can do a lot with a law degree" other than practice law, but these gentlemen's careers would suggest otherwise.

Anyhow, at the time the suggestion was made I had little actual thought of entering law school and actually was somewhat bewildered by the suggestion.  I was a geology student and I was having the time of my life.  I was always done with school by late afternoon, and had plenty of time to hunt during the hunting season nearly every day, which is exactly what I did.  By 1983, however, the bloom was coming off the petroleum industry's rose and it was becoming increasingly obvious that finding employment was going to be difficult.  Given that, the suggestion of a career in the law began to be something I took somewhat more seriously. By the time I graduated from UW in 1986, a full blown oilfield depression was going on and the law appeared to be a more promising option than going on to an advance degree in geology.  I did ponder trying to switch to wildlife management at that point, but it appeared to be a bad bet at that stage.

Casper College Geomorphology Class, 1983.  Odd to think of, but in those days, in the summer, I wore t-shirts.  I hardly ever do that now when out in the sticks. This photos was taken in the badlands of South Dakota.

So what does that have to do with anything?

Well, like more than one lawyer I actually know, what that means is that I started out with an outdoor career with outdoor interests combined with an academic study of the same, and then switched to a career which, at least according to Jon Brady, favored "analytical thinking" (which he thought I had, and which is the reason he mentioned the possibility to me).  And then there's the interest in nature and history to add to it.

Our artificial environment

So, as part of all of that, I've watched people and animals in the natural and the unnatural environment. And I don't really think that most people do the unnatural environment all that well.  In other words, I know why the caged tiger paces.

People who live with and around nature are flat out different than those who do not. There's no real getting around it.  People who live outdoors and around nature, and by that I mean real nature, not the kind of nature that some guy who gets out once a year with a full supply of the latest products from REI thinks he experiences, are different. They are happier and healthier.  Generally they seem to have a much more balanced approach to big topics, including the Divine, life and death.  They don't spend a lot of time with the latest pseudo philosophical quackery.  You won't find vegans out there. You also won't find men who are as thin as pipe rails sporting haircuts that suggest they want to be little girls.  Nor will you find, for that matter, real thugs.

You won't find a lot of people who are down, either.  

Indeed the blog author noted above noted that, and quotes from Jack London, the famous author, to the effect  and then goes on to conclude:

If depression is partly caused by a mismatch between how our bodies and minds got used to living for thousands of years, and how we now live in the modern world, then a fundamental step in closing this gap isn’t just moving our bodies, but getting those bodies outside.

I think he's correct there. And to take it one step further, I think the degree to which people retain a desire to be closer to nature reflects itself back in so many ways we can barely appreciate it.

Truth be known, we've lived in the world we've crated for only a very brief time.  All peoples, even "civilized people", lived very close to a nature for a very long time. We can take, as people often do, the example of hunter gatherers, which all of us were at one time, but even as that evolved in to agricultural communities, for a very long time, people were very "outdoors" even when indoors.

Ruin at Bandalier National Monument.  The culture that built these dwellings still lives nearby, in one of the various pueblos of New Mexico. These people were living in stone buildings and growing corn, but they were pretty clearly close to nature, unlike the many urbanites today who live in brick buildings in a society that depends on corn, but where few actually grow it.  The modern pueblos continue to live in their own communities, sometimes baffling European Americans.  I've heard it declared more than once that "some have university educations but they still go back to the reservation."

Even in our own culture, those who lived rural lives were very much part of the life of the greater nation as a whole, than they are now.  Now most people probably don't know a farmer or a rancher, and have no real idea of what rural life consists of.  Only a few decades back this was not the case.  Indeed, if a person reads obituaries, which are of course miniature biographies of a person, you'll find that for people in their 80s or so, many, many, had rural origins, and it's common to read something like "Bob was born on his families' farm in Haystack County and graduated from Haystack High School in 1945.  He went to college and after graduating from high school worked on the farm for a time before . . . ."

 Louisiana farmer, 1940s.  Part of the community, not apart from it.

Now, however this is rarely the case.  Indeed, we can only imagine how unimaginably dull future obits will be, for the generation entering the work force now.  "Bob's parents met at their employer Giant Dull Corp where they worked in the cubicle farm. Bob graduated from Public School No 117 and went to college majoring in Obsolete Computers, where upon he obtained a job at Even Bigger Dull Corp. . . "

No wonder things seem to be somewhat messed up with many people.

Indeed, people instinctively know that, and they often try to compensate for it one way or another.  Some, no matter how urban they are, resist the trend and continue to participate in the things people are evolved to do. They'll hunt, they fish, and they garden. They get out on the trails and in the woods and they participate in nature in spite of it all.

Others try to create little imaginary natures in their urban walls.  I can't recount how many steel and glass buildings I've been in that have framed paintings or photographs of highly rural scenes.  Many offices seem to be screaming out for the 19th Century farm scape in their office decor.  It's bizarre. A building may be located on 16th Street in Denver, but inside, it's 1845 in New Hampshire.   That says a lot about what people actually value.

Others, however, sink into illness, including depression.  Unable to really fully adjust to an environment that equates with the zoo for the tiger, they become despondent.  Indeed, they're sort of like the gorilla at the zoo, that spends all day pushing a car tire while looking bored and upset.  No wonder.  People just aren't meant to live that way.

Others yet will do what people have always done when confronted with a personal inability to live according to the dictates of nature, they rebel against it.  From time immemorial people have done this, and created philosophies and ideas that hate the idea of people itself and try to create a new world from their despair.  Vegans, radical vegetarians, animal rights, etc., or any other variety of Neo Pagans fit this mold.  Men who starve themselves and adopt girly haircuts and and wear tight tight jeans so as to look as feminine as possible, and thereby react against their own impulses. The list goes on and on.  And it will get worse as we continue to hurl towards more and more of this.

But we really need not do so.  So why are we?

"It's inevitable".  No it isn't.  Nothing is, except our own ends.  We are going this way as it suits some, and the ones it principally suits are those who hold the highest economic cards in this system, and don't therefore live in the cubicle farm themselves.  We don't have to do anything of this sort, we just are, as we believe that we have to, or that we haven't thought it out.

So, what can we do

First of all, we ought to acknowledge our natures and quit attempting to suppress them .  Suppressing them just makes us miserable and or somewhat odd.  To heck with that.

The ills of careerism.

Careerism, the concept that the end all be all of a person's existence is their career, has been around for a long time, but as the majority demographic has moved from farming and labor to white collar and service jobs, it's become much worse. At some point, and I'd say some point post 1945, the concept of "career" became incredibly dominant.  In the 1970s, when feminism was in high swing, it received an additional massive boost as women were sold on careerism.

How people view their work is a somewhat difficult topic to address in part because everyone views their work as they view it.  And not all demographics in a society view work the same way. But there is sort of a majority society wide view that predominates.

In our society, and for a very long time, there's been a very strong societal model which holds that the key to self worth is a career.  Students, starting at the junior high level, are taught that in order to be happy in the future they need to go to a "good university" so they can obtain an education which leads to "a high paying career".  For decades the classic careers were "doctor and lawyer", and you still hear some of that, but the bloom may be off the rose a bit with the career of lawyer, frankly, in which case it's really retuning to its American historical norm.

Anyhow, this had driven a section of the American demographic towards a view that economics and careers matter more than anything else.  More than family, more than location, more than anything.  People leave their homes upon graduating from high school to pursue that brass ring in education. They go on to graduate schools from there, and then they engage in a lifetime of slow nomadic behavior, dumping town after town for their career, and in the process certainly dumping their friends in those towns, and quite often their family at home or even their immediate families.

The payoff for that is money, but that's it.  Nothing else.

The downside is that these careerist nomads abandon a close connection with anything else. They aren't close to the localities of their birth, they aren't close to a state they call "home" and they grow distant from the people they were once closest too.

What's that have to do with this topic?

Well, quite a lot.

People who do not know, in the strongest sense of that word know, anyone or anyplace come to be internal exiles, and that's not good.  Having no close connection to anyone place they become only concerned with the economic advantage that place holds for them. When they move into a place they can often be downright destructive at that, seeking the newest and the biggest in keeping with their career status, which often times was agricultural or wild land just recently.  And not being in anyone place long enough to know it, they never get out into it.

That's not all of course.  Vagabonds without attachment, they severe themselves from the human connection that forms part of our instinctual sense of place.  We were meant to be part of a community, and those who have lived a long time in a place know that they'll be incorporated into that community even against their expressed desires.  In a stable society, money matters, but so does community and relationship.  For those with no real community, only money ends up mattering.

There's something really sad about this entire situation, and its easy to observe.  There are now at least two entire generations of careerist who have gone through their lives this way, retiring in the end in a "retirement community" that's also new to them.  At that stage, they often seek to rebuild lives connected to the community they are then in, but what sort of community is that?  One probably made up of people their own age and much like themselves.  Not really a good situation.

Now, am I saying don't have a career?  No, I'm not. But I am saying that the argument that you need to base your career decisions on what society deems to be a "good job" with a "good income" is basing it on a pretty thin argument. At the end of the day, you remain that Cro Magnon really, whose sense of place and well being weren't based on money, but on nature and a place in the tribe.  Deep down, that's really still who you are.  If you sense a unique calling, or even sort of a calling, the more power to you.  But if you view your place in the world as a series of ladders in place and income, it's sad.

As long as we have a philosophy that career="personal fulfillment" and that equates with Career Uber Alles, we're going to be in trouble in every imaginable way.  This doesn't mean that what a person does for a living doesn't matter, but other things matter more, and if a person puts their career above everything else, in the end, they're likely to be unhappy and they're additionally likely to make everyone else unhappy. This may seem to cut against what I noted in the post on life work balance the other day, but it really doesn't, it's part of the same thing.

Indeed, just he other day my very senior partner came in my office and was asking about members of my family who live around here.  Quite a few live right here in the town, more live here in the state, and those who have left have often stayed in the region. The few that have moved a long ways away have retained close connection, but formed new stable ones, long term, in their new communities.  He noted that; "this is our home".  That says a lot.

Get out there.

 Public (Federal) fishing landing in Natrona County, Wyoming. When we hear of our local politicians wanting to "take back" the Federal lands, those of us who get out imagine things like this decreasing considerably in number. We shouldn't let that happen, and beyond that, we should avail ourselves of these sites.

And our nature is to get out there in the dirt.

Go hunting, go fishing, go hiking or go mountain bike riding.  Whatever you excuse is for staying in your artificial walls, get over it and get out.

 

That means, fwiw, that we also have to quit taking snark shots at others in the dirt, if we do it.  That's part of human nature as well, and humans are very bad about it.  I've seen flyfishermen be snots to bait fisherman (you guys are all just fisherman, angler dudes and dudessses, and knock off the goofy crap about catching and releasing everything.. . you catch fish as we like to catch fish because nature endowed us with the concept that fish are tasty).   Some fisherman will take shots at hunters; "I don't hunt, . . . but I fish (i.e., fishing hunting.  Some "non consumptive (i.e., consumptive in another manner) outdoors types take shots at hunters and fisherman; "I don't hunt, but I ride a mountain bike (that's made of mined stuffed and shipped in a means that killed wildlife just the same)".

If you haven't tried something, try it, and the more elemental the better.  If you like hiking in the sticks, keep in mind that the reason people like to do that has to do with their elemental natures.  Try an armed hike with a shotgun some time and see if bird hunting might be your thing, or not.  Give it a try.  And so on.

Get elemental

At the end of they day, you are still a hunter-gatherer, you just are being imprisoned in an artificial environment. So get back to it. Try hunting.  Try fishing. Raise a garden.

Unless economics dictate it, there's no good, even justifiable, reason that you aren't providing some of your own food directly. Go kill it or raise it in your dirt.

Indeed, a huge percentage of Americans have a small plot, sometimes as big as those used by subsistence farmers in the third world, which is used for nothing other than growing a completely worthless crop of grass.  Fertilizer and water are wasted on ground that could at least in part be used to grow an eatable crop.  I'm not saying your entire lawn needs to be a truck farm, but you could grow something.  And if you are just going to hang around in the city, you probably should.

The Land Ethic

 

Aldo Leopold and Olaus Murie.  The Muries lived in Wyoming and have a very close connection with Teton County, although probably the majority of Wyomingites do not realize that. This photo was taken at a meeting of The Wilderness Society in 1946. While probably not widely known now, this era saw the beginnings of a lot of conservation organizations.  At this point in time, Leopold was a professor at the University of Wisconsin.

Decades ago writer Aldo Leopold wrote in his classic A Sand Country Almanac about the land ethic.  Leopold is seemingly remembered today by some as sort of a Proto Granola, but he wasn't.  He was a hunter and a wildlife agent who was struck by what he saw and wrote accordingly. Beyond that, he lived what he wrote.

A person can Google (or Yahoo, or whatever) Leopold and the the "land ethic" and get his original writings on the topic.  I"m not going to try to post them there, as the book was published posthumously in 1949, quite some years back. Because it wasn't published until 49, it had obviously been written some time prior to that.  Because of the content of the book, and everything that has happened since, it's too easy therefore to get a sort of Granola or Hippy like view of the text, when in fact all of that sort of thing came after Leopold's untimely death at age 61.  It'd be easy to boil Leopold's writings down to one proposition, that being what's good for the land is good for everything and everyone, and perhaps that wouldn't be taking it too far.

If I've summarized it correctly, and I don't think I'm too far off, we have to take into consideration further that at the time Leopold was writing the country wasn't nearly as densely populated as it is now, but balanced against that is that the country, in no small part due to World War Two, was urbanizing rapidly and there was a legacy of bad farming practices that got rolling, really, in about 1914 and which came home to roost during the Dust Bowl.  In some ways things have improved a lot since Leopold's day, but one thing that hasn't is that in his time the majority of Americans weren't really all that far removed from an agricultural past.  Now, that's very much not the case.  I suspect, further, in Leopold's day depression, and other social ills due to remoteness from nature weren't nearly as big of problem.  Indeed, if I had to guess, I'd guess that the single biggest problem of that type was the result of World War Two, followed by the Great Depression, followed by World War One.

Anyhow, what Leopold warned us about is even a bigger problem now, however.  Not that the wildness of land is not appreciated.  Indeed, it is likely appreciated more now than it was then. But rather we need to be careful about preserving all sorts of rural land, which we are seemingly not doing a terrible good job at.  The more urbanized we make our world, the less we have a world that's a natural habitat for ourselves, and city parks don't change that.  Some thought about what we're doing is likely in order.  As part of that, quite frankly, some acceptance on restrictions on where and how much you can build comes in with it. That will make some people unhappy, no doubt, but the long term is more important than the short term.

It's not inevitable.

The only reason that our current pattern of living has to continue this way is solely because most people will it to do so.  And if that's bad for us, we shouldn't.

There's nothing inevitable about a Walmart parking lot replacing a pasture. Shoot, there's nothing that says a Walmart can't be torn down and turned into a farm. We don't do these things, or allow them to happen, as we're completely sold on the concept that the shareholders in Walmart matter more than our local concerns, or we have so adopted the chamber of commerce type attitude that's what's good for business is good for everyone, that we don't.  Baloney.  We don't exist for business, it exists for us. 

Some thought beyond the acceptance of platitudes is necessary in the realm of economics, which is in some ways what we're discussing with this topic.  Americans of our current age are so accepting of our current economic model that we excuse deficiencies in it as inevitable, and we tend to shout down any suggestion that anything be done, no matter how mild, as "socialism".

The irony of that is that our economic model is corporatist, not really capitalist, in nature.  And a corporatist model requires governmental action to exist.  The confusion that exists which suggests that any government action is "socialism" would mean that our current economic system is socialist, which of course would be absurd.  Real socialism is when the government owns the means of production.  Social Democracy, another thing that people sometimes mean when they discuss "socialism" also features government interaction and intervention in people's affairs, and that's not what we're suggesting here either.

Rather, I guess what we're discussing here is small scale distributism, the name of which scares people fright from the onset as "distribute", in our social discourse, really refers to something that's a feature of "social democracy" and which is an offshoot of socialism.  That's not what we're referencing here at all, but rather the system that is aimed at capitalism with a subsidiarity angle. I.e., a capitalist system that's actually more capitalistic than our corporatist model, as it discourages government participation through the weighting of the economy towards corporations.

It's not impossible

Now, I know that some will read this and think that it's all impossible for where they are, but truth be known it's more possible in some ways now than it has been for city dwellers, save for those with means, for many years.  Certainly in the densely packed tenements of the early 19th  Century getting out to look at anything at all was pretty darned difficult.

Most cities now at least incorporate some green space. A river walk, etc.  And most have some opportunities for things that at least replicate real outdoor sports, and I mean the real outdoor activities, not things like sitting around in a big stadium watching a big team. That's not an outdoor activity but a different type of activity (that I'm not criticizing).  We owe it to ourselves.

Now, clearly, some of what is suggested here is short term, and some long. And this is undoubtedly the most radical post I've ever posted here.  It won't apply equally to everyone.  The more means a person has, if they're a city dweller, the easier for it is for them to get out.  And the more destructive they can be when doing so, as an irony of the active person with means is that the mere presence of their wealth in an activity starts to make it less possible for everyone else.  But for most of us we can get out some at least, and should.

I'm not suggesting here that people should abandon their jobs in the cities and move into a commune.  Indeed, I wouldn't suggest that as that doesn't square with what I"m actually addressing here at all.  But I am suggesting that we ought to think about what we're going, and it doesn't appear we are. We just charge on as if everything must work out this way, which is choosing to let events choose for us, or perhaps letting the few choose for the many. Part of that may be rethinkiing the way we think about careers.  We all know it, but at the end of the day having made yourself rich by way of that nomadic career won't add significantly, if at all, to your lifespan and you'll go on to your eternal reward the same as everyone else, and sooner or later will be part of the collective forgotten mass.  Having been a "success" at business will not buy you a second life to enjoy.

None of this is to say that if you have chosen that high dollar career and love it, that you are wrong.  Nor is this to say that you must become a Granola.  But, given the degree to which we seem to have a modern society we don't quite fit, perhaps we ought to start trying to fit a bit more into who we are, if we have the get up and go to do it, and perhaps we ought to consider that a bit more in our overall societal plans, assuming that there even are any.