Of Marx and Makers: an Historical Perspective on Generative Justice

In Marxist frameworks “distributive justice” depends on extracting value through a centralized state. Many new social movements—peer to peer economy, maker activism, community agriculture, queer ecology, etc.—take the opposite approach, keeping value in its unalienated form and allowing it to freely circulate from the bottom up. Unlike Marxism, there is no general theory for bottom-up, unalienated value circulation. This paper examines the concept of “generative justice” through an historical contrast between Marx’s writings and the indigenous cultures that he drew upon. Marx erroneously concluded that while indigenous cultures had unalienated forms of production, only centralized value extraction could allow the productivity needed for a high quality of life. To the contrary, indigenous cultures now provide a robust model for the “gift economy” that underpins open source technological production, agroecology, and restorative approaches to civil rights. Expanding Marx’s concept of unalienated labor value to include unalienated ecological (nonhuman) value, as well as the domain of freedom in speech, sexual orientation, spirituality and other forms of “expressive” value, we arrive at an historically informed perspective for generative justice. 

Nomenclature and syntaxonomic notes on some high-rank syntaxa of the European grassland vegetation

We present descriptions of a new order (Ranunculo cortusifolii-Geranietalia reuteri and of a new alliance (Stachyo lusitanicae-Cheirolophion sempervirentis) for the herbaceous fringe communities of Macaronesia and of the southwestern Iberian Peninsula, respectively. A new alliance, the Polygalo mediterraneae-Bromion erecti (mesophilous post-cultural grasslands), was introduced for the Peninsular Italy. We further validate and typify the Armerietalia rumelicae (perennial grasslands supported by nutrient-poor on siliceous bedrocks at altitudes characterized by the submediterranean climate of central-southern Balkan Peninsula), the Securigero-Dasypyrion villosae (lawn and fallow-land tall-grass annual vegetation of Italy), and the Cirsio vallis-demoni-Nardion (acidophilous grasslands on siliceous substrates of the Southern Italy). Nomenclatural issues (validity, legitimacy, synonymy, formal corrections) have been discussed and clarified for the following names: Brachypodio-Brometalia, Bromo pannonici-Festucion csikhegyensis, Corynephoro-Plantaginion radicatae, Heleochloion, Hieracio-Plantaginion radicatae, Nardetea strictae, Nardetalia strictae, Nardo-Callunetea, Nardo-Galion saxatilis, Oligo-Bromion, Paspalo-Heleochloetalia, Plantagini-Corynephorion and Scorzoneret alia villosae. 

Rethinking Care Through Social Reproduction: Articulating Circuits of Migration

Care has come to dominate much feminist research on globalized migrations and the transfer of labor from the South to the North, while the older concept of reproduction had been pushed into the background but is now becoming the subject of debates on the commodification of care in the household and changes in welfare state policies. This article argues that we could achieve a better understanding of the different modalities and trajectories of care in the reproduction of individuals, families, and communities, both of migrant and nonmigrant populations by articulating the diverse circuits of migration, in particular that of labor and the family. In doing this, I go back to the earlier North American writing on racialized minorities and migrants and stratified social reproduction. I also explore insights from current Asian studies of gendered circuits of migration connecting labor and marriage migrations as well as the notion of global householding that highlights the gender politics of social reproduction operating within and beyond households in institutional and welfare architectures. In contrast to Asia, there has relatively been little exploration in European studies of the articulation of labor and family migrations through the lens of social reproduction. However, connecting the different types of migration enables us to achieve a more complex understanding of care trajectories and their contribution to social reproduction.

Discovery and settlement of Alaska coaster

Tsar Peter the Great ruled Russia between 1689 and 1725. Its domains, stretching from the Baltic Sea in the west to the Pacific Ocean in the east. From north to south, its empire stretching from the Arctic Ocean to the borders with China and India. Tsar Peter I tried to extend the geographical knowledge of his government and the rest of the world. He was also interested in the expansion of trade in Russia and in the control of trade routes. Feodor Luzhin and Ivan Yeverinov explored the eastern border of the Russian Empire, the trip between 1719 and 1721 and reported to the Tsar. They had crossed the peninsula of Kamchatka, from west to east and had traveled from the west coast of Kamchatka to the Kuril Islands. The information collected led to the first map of Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands. Tsar Peter ordered Bering surf the Russian Pacific coast, build ships and sail the seas north along the coast to regions of America. The second expedition found equal to those of the previous explorers difficulties. Two ships were eventually thrown away in Okhotsk in 1740. The explorers spent the winter of 1740-1741 stockpiling supplies and then navigate to Petropavlovsk. The two ships sailed eastward and did together until June 20, then separated by fog. After searching Chirikov and his boat for several days, Bering ordered the San Pedro continue to the northeast. There the Russian sailors first sighted Alaska. According to the log, "At 12:30 (pm July 17) in sight of snow-capped mountains and between them a high volcano." This finding came the day of St. Elijah and so named the mountain.