“Only by restoring the broken connections can we be healed.”
— Wendell Berry
Donald Trump’s candidacy – with its simplistic policy positions and its undercurrent of racism and sexism – left most of us believing he couldn’t possibly win. Now his victory is a visceral shock from which many have still not recovered.
To better understand what happened – and why – we need to broaden our horizons. If we zoom out a bit, it becomes clear that Trump is not an isolated phenomenon; the forces that put him in the White House have been growing throughout the Western world for some time. Earlier this year, the Brexit vote in the UK was also based on fear and narrow-minded nationalism, not on a sophisticated critique of EU economic policy. Right-wing extremism is on the rise in many other parts of the world – even in my native country of Sweden, where racism was all but absent during my younger years.
If we zoom out even further, a broader pattern emerges. Almost everywhere in the world, unemployment is increasing, the gap between rich and poor is widening, environmental devastation is worsening, and a spiritual crisis – revealed in substance abuse, domestic assaults, and teenage suicide – is deepening.
By looking from a global perspective it becomes apparent that these many crises – including the rise of right-wing sentiments – share a common root cause: an increasingly corporatized and globalized economic system that is devastating not only planetary ecosystems, but the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Over the last three decades, governments have unquestioningly embraced “free trade” treaties that have enriched global corporations while impoverishing their own citizens. By allowing corporations to move unfettered around the globe in search of the lowest wages, these treaties have put workers throughout the industrialized world in competition with workers in the global South who will accept a fraction of a dollar per hour. This is not a contest that workers in the North can win. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in a net loss of 680,000 American jobs, and the Permanent Normal Trade Relations deal with China led to a net loss of another 2.7 million jobs. These job losses are a direct result of increasing global competition through corporate deregulation.
At the same time, the infiltration of big business throughout the global South – most often with the support of national governments and backed by international financial institutions – has eliminated many of the livelihoods that local economies in those countries once provided. With locally-adapted ways of life systematically undermined by economic policies geared towards the big and the global, millions of desperate people in the South find themselves with just two options: to accept minimal wages and appalling working conditions in industrial metropolises, or to migrate. It is estimated that, as a direct result of heavily subsidized corn flooding the Mexican market under NAFTA, 2.4 million small farmers were displaced, and subsequently funneled into crowded urban centers or across the border to the US.
So the loss of jobs in the US and the migrant crisis in the South are two sides of the same coin. But instead of looking at the flawed rules of the global economy that are behind both problems, people have been encouraged to point the finger at the cultural “other”. As worldwide competition for increasingly scarce jobs has increased, so have divisiveness, fundamentalism and racism.
Until recently, corporate-funded media and think tanks have steered both grassroots activism and high-level policy-making away from consideration of the economic root cause of our social and ecological problems. The global economy was treated as “evolutionary” or inevitable, and the policies promoting it went unquestioned; the crises escalated, and the only ‘solution’ offered was to double down on more of the same: more economic growth, more development, more deregulation. As people’s lives and the natural world deteriorated, it’s no surprise that disenchantment with the political process became widespread.
Nonetheless, the trade treaties – notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – were a hot topic during the recent American elections. First and foremost, this represents an important victory for the people – for the grassroots – whose voice is finally being heard. While the mainstream media has propped up Donald Trump as the figurehead of opposition to the trade treaties, we need to keep in mind that the first cross-sector demonstration against the TPP in the United States was in June 2010 — five years before Trump announced his candidacy. Resistance to the trade treaties has come from diverse people’s movements from around the world, and is growing stronger day by day.
Corporate rule is not only impoverishing people worldwide, it is fuelling climate change, destroying diverse ecosystems and cultures, undermining community and accelerating the spread of consumerism. These are undoubtedly scary times. Yet the very fact that the seemingly distinct crises we face are linked can be the source of genuine empowerment. Once we understand the systemic nature of our problems, the path towards solving them – together, rather than one by one – becomes clear. And that’s why the anti- trade treaty movement has been dubbed “the movement of movements”. By targeting the trade treaties and campaigning for the reregulation of global businesses and banks, we not only resist the increasing corporatization of our planet, we can actively begin to reverse the negative effects of economic globalization in our own communities. We can start to bring the economy home – to localize – by reweaving the social and economic fabric at the local level.
In many areas of the world, from the USA to India, from China to Australia, people are beginning to do just that: they are forming local business alliances, starting local finance initiatives, exploring locally-based education and energy schemes, and, most centrally, building a local food movement. All of these efforts are based on the principle of connection and the celebration of diversity.
In communities around the world, the profound environmental, economic, social and even spiritual benefits of reconnecting locally are becoming clear for all to see. As the scale and pace of economic activity are reduced, anonymity gives way to face-to-face relationships, and to a closer connection to Nature. The bonds of local interdependence are strengthened, and a more secure sense of personal and cultural identity begins to flourish. People feel connected to others, rather than in competition with them.
At the same time, localized economies are good for the environment: they increase the number of jobs not by increasing consumption, but by relying more on human labor and creativity and less on energy-intensive technological systems – thereby reducing resource use and pollution. And shifting from global to local promotes “re-wilding” and the restoration of biodiversity.
By spreading economic and political power among millions of individuals and small businesses – rather than in a handful of corporate monopolies – localization also has the potential to revitalize the democratic process. Political power is no longer some distant impersonal force, but is instead rooted in community.
Localization is sometimes painted as élitist – another plum for the already privileged peoples of the global North, but offering little for the less prosperous South. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is only by weaning themselves from dependence on an exploitative global market while increasing national and regional self-reliance that countries in the global South will be able to find lasting prosperity.
Moving towards the local requires more than simply working on the ground within our own communities: we also need to do the hard work of pushing for change at the national and global levels. Treaties need to be re-written, regulations amended, taxes and subsidies reassigned, environmental and human rights strengthened. Unlike the narrow isolationism sought by Donald Trump, opposition to globalization requires cross-border cooperation, while revitalizing local economies demands collaboration and a willingness to learn from others.
The American people have made it perfectly clear that they want fundamental change. Trump may offer the illusion of such change, but little more. Our task now is to show that there is a genuinely different way: a path towards wholeness and sanity. The rapidly-growing localization movement is an unstoppable force. It is still in its early days, but it is already providing hope and sustenance to millions of people around the world.
NOTE: For some figures and analysis on the concentration of corporate wealth and power under globalization, see https://economicfront.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/the-trump-victory/.
Locals are crowing about Trump’s victory. He won the most electoral votes but not the popular vote (lost by at least 1.5 million so far). People in our communities need to keep those who voted to have Bernie Sanders and others be their candidate must not sit back too long complaining about the results, but need to focus on local elections and the next election of state representatives. A powerful movement has begun. Those who have similar goals need to continue networking to elect candidates who are like minded. So long as labor in various continents and nations is divide against one another there will be little or no progress. The maxim “think globally, act locally” is at the very heart of local community economics and social progress.
I agree with your analysis, but disagree with the resolution strategy. Problems cannot be fixed by relying on the same authoritarian institutions that created them. To illustrate my point, let me rephrase one sentence towards the end of the article: “Treaties and regulations need to be ignored, taxes witheld, morality observed.”
As per the last part of the sentence, regarding environmental and human rights, who is going to strengthen them? How can one improve upon something that is inherent in all Creation? You see, rights are not created by people — they are not bestowed by governments, courts, politicians or society at large — but are natural property of Life itself. No individual or group of people can grant, strengthen, revoke, or in any other way regulate, the rights of anyone/anything by putting alphanumeric characters on pieces of paper.
When people understand this and act accordingly, not waiting for a so-called “president” to act on their behalf, THEN the illusion will be dispelled and real change will happen.
Thanks for this. Brilliant summary of all that is so badly wrong in the world and how it is all related. It makes perfect sense and I fail to see why people cannot grasp it. I can see, though, that, big business will try all in its power to maintain the status quo.
Quite obviously localisation has limits. According to the logic of the author, all required ecological (including human) resources are already present within localised eco-systems so all that is required is a reorganisation of technology and labour towards local economic activity. Localism in this sense is surely no different to nationalism since both rely on the illusion that local or national bioregions contain all that is required for survival and development and so there is no need for economic globalisation or international trade.
This is patently untrue and a good example of a post-truth liberal authoritarianism that seeks to manipulate, through vague definitions, the idea that the other is non-existant when in truth even the author is demonising the other (Trump and Brexit supporters).
The other is all too present since ecologically defined territories all carry limits to human expansion and development. This author seems to think the opposite and instead thinks it is corporate activity that creates scarcity. Well actually it is the transformation of Nature from one energy state into another that creates scarcity. So for example when productive land is turned into housing estates and industrial estates to accommodate immigration then a precious resource (fertile land) is turned into yet another grey human centre for expansion. However this author seems to think that immigrants do not have duties or responsibilities, only a right to take what they believe is their right (with of course the support of liberal authoritarian regimes).
This is why this doctrine of localised authoritarian liberalism is not gaining popularity because essentially it is an authoritarian political force that attempts to impose its will over the will of the people whereas in contrast populism is a people power movement that lets people decide the balance of competing and cooperative forces. Democratic populism is essentially about balance whereas liberal authoritarianism is not and is about castigating, demonising, discriminating and criticizing competing forces. Obviously to judge the latter as more tolerant than the former is ludicrous.
I’m afraid that you either misunderstood what’s written here, or else you are simply setting up straw men to knock down. First, our vision of localization is not based on the idea that “local or national bioregions contain all that is required for survival and development,” thereby making trade unnecessary. Almost all of our materials on localization explicitly say that we don’t advocate the elimination of all trade; we do, however, believe a better balance is needed between trade and local production. When countries are both importing and exporting huge quantities of identical products, it’s clear that trade is no longer about obtaining goods that can’t be obtained locally.
Second, I’m surprised to hear you claim that we’re “demonising” Trump and Brexit supporters. One of the main points we’re trying to make, in fact, is that there are good reasons why people have voted this way: governments from both the left and right have supported a system that has marginalized them – robbing them of jobs, opportunity, and dignity – and it is only reasonable for them to seek change. As the title points out, however, we don’t believe that Trump is the kind of change that people or the planet need.
Your third point, about scarcity, is closer to the mark: we believe that corporate activity – and the government policies that support it – do create scarcity. Through advertising, marketing and planned obsolescence, for example, corporations create a steady stream of artificial needs that require scarce resources to fill. At the same time, the creation of a global monoculture is forcing everyone on the planet to compete for the same narrow range of resources, while foregoing ample local resources. We saw this clearly in Ladakh, where traditional homes were built of mud brick (a virtually limitless local resource there), while ‘modern’ homes are built energy-intensive concrete (a scarce resource.)
As for your passage on immigrants, perhaps it was copied and pasted from comments you’ve made elsewhere: how else to explain how you come away from this blog believing that “this author seems to think that immigrants do not have duties or responsibilities, only a right to take what they believe is their right.” The fact is, this piece doesn’t mention immigrants at all.
“Earlier this year, the Brexit vote in the UK was also based on fear and narrow-minded nationalism, not on a sophisticated critique of EU economic policy.”
This oversimplistic generalisation quite patently refers to immigration, an aversion to inward looking economic activity and the strawman argument that a majority of votors had no understanding of the need for a better balance between local, national and international scales of resource flow management including human resource flows. Populists arent fear-driven dimwits as you imply but having a deep regard for the livlihood and health of their local culture, values and environment.
You then go on to create further dtrawmen by implying that globalised trade is creating solely evonomic and environmental bads which is hardly the case at all when whilst lots of perceived bads are occuring, simultaneously the extent of absolute and relative poverty is decreasing. In this respect corporate activity is simply creating connections between different supply chains some of which are effeciency gains and others are not. However what drives this activity is human demand and an increasing human population that demands technological progress. As a result certain sections of the human population are being displaced and forced into urbanisation to make way for industrialised farming. So how else are globalised supply chains to be managed if not by transnational corporations.
Scarcity exists as a result of depletion anf degenerative economic activity foremost, not the strawmen you imply. Ladakh which is the only example you use which is perhaps one of the most isolationist countries in the world is not exactly an example that can easily br transposed on to other industrialised countries. Id like you to show me where in the West Midlands there is an abundance of naturally sourced building supplies that meets existing building regulations. Similarly considering that the UK needs to import around 30% of its food then local/national produce is neither in abundance. Again due to human demand and overpopulation.
To say this piece does not refer to immigration and scapegoating is plainly ridiculous and obviously you need to reread the article. It is in this context I mention duties and responsibilities. Why are not potential immigrants being more politically active in their own countries instead of choosing to exercise their right to pursue better wages across borders and as a result put themselves in direct competition with the indigenous population. What push/pull factors are evident beyond globalised economic activity – human demand and growing human population.
Lastly to first condemn Trump as some kind of straw man figure to appease your liberal cosmopolitan readership – most of whom support neoliberalism by proxy via their support of the EU or via their support of Democrats ‘liberal’ free trade agreements when it was only Trump that was prepared to voice the cultural, political, economic concerns of the left behinds. Bernie Sanders had his chance but he like Jeremy Corbyn failed to address the cultural concerns of citizens which you antagonistically label right-wing which is liberal code for bad. Obviously you believe localism sjould not include cultural choices and decisions including in Sweden. In other words you notion of localism is for everyone to share your cultural values. Obviously in the teal world this isnt localism but egoism.
Trump has mandated change towards more localised economic activity. He is at least going in the right direction even if you do not like him personally.