Sunday, October 19, 2008
Don't you know I'm local?
I'm writing my thesis on localism: the idea that the best kind of economy is a local one. Localism is hugely popular right now - witness the social movement that's sprung up around the 100 mile diet, for example. If we restrict our consumption to what's grown or made nearby, localism says we can
Yes, it's a Cypress Hill reference
The horrible effects of industrialization that localists see are real. The environment is being degraded quickly; poor people are already suffering from global warming. Localism also taps into our alienation: since we live in a society where the highest goal is profit, the cheapest goods, produced in the largest quantities, are what people get to consume. Fast food, fruits and vegetables are stripped of their nutrients.
There's something admirably democratic in localism. We're used to hearing how globalization makes democratic control over our economies irrelevant: if we object to what industries do, they'll leave, taking their capital and jobs with them. According to localism, that no longer matters. We cut them out of the economy by creating our own economy, for our own needs.
What about the workers?
However, this is impossible under capitalism. The localists never mention this, because they're not socialists. Firstly, they have a nostalgia for pre-capitalist forms of society, as if prior to the industrial revolution, we all lived in rural idylls. Secondly, localists truly believe they have the power to single-handedly change a mode of production from within, without any of the boring, tedious middle steps like expropriating the wealth from the capitalists, overthrowing the capitalist state, or - most importantly - building a mass movement of the working class to do both.
If you want to stop the ecological crisis, you have to identify who's causing it. Corporations create large-scale damage; government legislates it. How can individuals, creating local change, impact a problem that works at the national and global level?
When the practicality of large-scale change comes up, the localists usually say their detractors are being pessimistic, in thrall to the power of capital. And this is largely true, because the critics have come exclusively from the Right. But what localists fail to recognize is that, whether you like capitalism or not, you can't ignore it. Capitalism centralizes and concentrates power, with precious little regard for the people being centralized and concentrated.
But this is the fault of capitalism, not industrialism
Capitalism's innovation is the global market, which has existed for 150 years. The market compels costs to sink to the lowest necessary to produce something. And economies of scale are cheaper. Any attempt to correct this, through the actions of individual consumers or gardeners, can only be partial. Small economies cost a lot - ethical ones even more. The only people who can choose to buy more expensive, local goods are the wealthy.
Ethical consumers
Localism relies on informed consumers, one of the markers of being middle class: those who have free time, education and, most importantly, healthy and well-paid jobs. They can worry about what they eat, not where dinner will come from. For the working class, the acute danger from toxins in the workplace, or injuries in the workplace, are far more pressing than the chronic dangers from our food. This is most obvious from the obesity crisis: no amount of tut-tutting from the chattering classes stops the workers from eating those unhealthy, great-tasting fatty foods. When you're working 2 jobs, or living in a tent city, who cares? The vast majority of us don't have the cash for local food - equally importantly, we don't have the time or energy to garden. Most people are too busy working. And why should they be forced to spend their free time gardening?
The obesity scare is anti-working class
The fetish of the small businessperson is also middle class - or, to be Marxist about it, petty bourgeois. The entire localist literature lionizes ethical entrepreneurs. It's true, small business-owners can fill niche markets for ethical consumers - but this only reinforces localism's class bias. The idea that a movement can grow, business by business, to outperform vast capitalist enterprises, is pure fantasy. The market disciplines localist businesses whether they like it or not. To mass distribute healthy food, the localists would have to cut costs to compete with the agribusinesses, and this would force them to adopt the practices they decry.
It's still neoliberalism
The context of localism, which rarely gets mentioned, is neoliberalism. Post-USSR, the far left has fragmented, and except for a few brief moments 1999-2001, there's been no pole of attraction for anti-capitalism. Absent mass working class movements, the intermediate classes have stepped in to fill the void. The petty bourgeois, and the well-off strata of the professional classes, have enough spare income to consume ethically. Their position in the division of labour still subjects them to alienation, but it doesn't create mass social organization. Fair Trade, localism and ethical consumption are the result.
Capitalism is increasingly unfeasible
I honestly don't care if someone wants to pay $5 for a cabbage. But the insiduous part of localism is how it pushes out socialist alternatives. The localists are busy being 'realistic', getting on with changing society for themselves and their customers. The slow, patient work of organizing mass movements is simply irrelevant to them. There's an underlying streak of misanthropy, too: many localists see mass consumption as the root of all evils. Who consumes? The 'mass' i.e. the workers. So unions defending their members' standard of living becomes part of the problem. Since the organized left has been so disorganized, the ideas of another class take over.
Now more than ever
The sense of dislocation localists feel is a symptom: the cause is the market, which forces us to sell our labour power, alienating us from our work. The challenge is to take the real alienation that localism identifies, and re-orient it towards building a working class, anti-capitalist movement.
There is a way to organize the economy to meet social needs, including healthy food for all and a sense of job satisfaction. It's called socialism, and it requires destroying the market. To do that, workers have to take over the firms that exploit them, and replace the political rule of the capitalist class with their own, direct democratic rule. Only then could we reorganize the economy to be environmentally sustainable, and reorganize work so we control the fruits of our labour.
And make sure everyone has access to cool things
The problem is not industrialism vs. smallness, but profit vs. need. 150 years after Marx wrote, capital still expropriates labour power. Do we quibble about the shape that takes, or do we end it once and for all?
- avoid the carbon footprint of food transportation.
- return to small-scale artisanship, ending the exploitation of large numbers of workers on farms and in factories
- feel the environmental impact of our consumption decisions first-hand, rather than on a farm hundreds of miles away
- grow our own food, getting back in touch with nature and the rhythm of the seasons
Yes, it's a Cypress Hill reference
The horrible effects of industrialization that localists see are real. The environment is being degraded quickly; poor people are already suffering from global warming. Localism also taps into our alienation: since we live in a society where the highest goal is profit, the cheapest goods, produced in the largest quantities, are what people get to consume. Fast food, fruits and vegetables are stripped of their nutrients.
There's something admirably democratic in localism. We're used to hearing how globalization makes democratic control over our economies irrelevant: if we object to what industries do, they'll leave, taking their capital and jobs with them. According to localism, that no longer matters. We cut them out of the economy by creating our own economy, for our own needs.
What about the workers?
However, this is impossible under capitalism. The localists never mention this, because they're not socialists. Firstly, they have a nostalgia for pre-capitalist forms of society, as if prior to the industrial revolution, we all lived in rural idylls. Secondly, localists truly believe they have the power to single-handedly change a mode of production from within, without any of the boring, tedious middle steps like expropriating the wealth from the capitalists, overthrowing the capitalist state, or - most importantly - building a mass movement of the working class to do both.
If you want to stop the ecological crisis, you have to identify who's causing it. Corporations create large-scale damage; government legislates it. How can individuals, creating local change, impact a problem that works at the national and global level?
When the practicality of large-scale change comes up, the localists usually say their detractors are being pessimistic, in thrall to the power of capital. And this is largely true, because the critics have come exclusively from the Right. But what localists fail to recognize is that, whether you like capitalism or not, you can't ignore it. Capitalism centralizes and concentrates power, with precious little regard for the people being centralized and concentrated.
But this is the fault of capitalism, not industrialism
Capitalism's innovation is the global market, which has existed for 150 years. The market compels costs to sink to the lowest necessary to produce something. And economies of scale are cheaper. Any attempt to correct this, through the actions of individual consumers or gardeners, can only be partial. Small economies cost a lot - ethical ones even more. The only people who can choose to buy more expensive, local goods are the wealthy.
Ethical consumers
Localism relies on informed consumers, one of the markers of being middle class: those who have free time, education and, most importantly, healthy and well-paid jobs. They can worry about what they eat, not where dinner will come from. For the working class, the acute danger from toxins in the workplace, or injuries in the workplace, are far more pressing than the chronic dangers from our food. This is most obvious from the obesity crisis: no amount of tut-tutting from the chattering classes stops the workers from eating those unhealthy, great-tasting fatty foods. When you're working 2 jobs, or living in a tent city, who cares? The vast majority of us don't have the cash for local food - equally importantly, we don't have the time or energy to garden. Most people are too busy working. And why should they be forced to spend their free time gardening?
The obesity scare is anti-working class
The fetish of the small businessperson is also middle class - or, to be Marxist about it, petty bourgeois. The entire localist literature lionizes ethical entrepreneurs. It's true, small business-owners can fill niche markets for ethical consumers - but this only reinforces localism's class bias. The idea that a movement can grow, business by business, to outperform vast capitalist enterprises, is pure fantasy. The market disciplines localist businesses whether they like it or not. To mass distribute healthy food, the localists would have to cut costs to compete with the agribusinesses, and this would force them to adopt the practices they decry.
It's still neoliberalism
The context of localism, which rarely gets mentioned, is neoliberalism. Post-USSR, the far left has fragmented, and except for a few brief moments 1999-2001, there's been no pole of attraction for anti-capitalism. Absent mass working class movements, the intermediate classes have stepped in to fill the void. The petty bourgeois, and the well-off strata of the professional classes, have enough spare income to consume ethically. Their position in the division of labour still subjects them to alienation, but it doesn't create mass social organization. Fair Trade, localism and ethical consumption are the result.
Capitalism is increasingly unfeasible
I honestly don't care if someone wants to pay $5 for a cabbage. But the insiduous part of localism is how it pushes out socialist alternatives. The localists are busy being 'realistic', getting on with changing society for themselves and their customers. The slow, patient work of organizing mass movements is simply irrelevant to them. There's an underlying streak of misanthropy, too: many localists see mass consumption as the root of all evils. Who consumes? The 'mass' i.e. the workers. So unions defending their members' standard of living becomes part of the problem. Since the organized left has been so disorganized, the ideas of another class take over.
Now more than ever
The sense of dislocation localists feel is a symptom: the cause is the market, which forces us to sell our labour power, alienating us from our work. The challenge is to take the real alienation that localism identifies, and re-orient it towards building a working class, anti-capitalist movement.
There is a way to organize the economy to meet social needs, including healthy food for all and a sense of job satisfaction. It's called socialism, and it requires destroying the market. To do that, workers have to take over the firms that exploit them, and replace the political rule of the capitalist class with their own, direct democratic rule. Only then could we reorganize the economy to be environmentally sustainable, and reorganize work so we control the fruits of our labour.
And make sure everyone has access to cool things
The problem is not industrialism vs. smallness, but profit vs. need. 150 years after Marx wrote, capital still expropriates labour power. Do we quibble about the shape that takes, or do we end it once and for all?
Labels: fair trade, localism, locavores
