In response to the global oil and food crisis

Watching BBC and hearing so many stories related the failure of the free-market to stabilize markets and as the people of the world are standing up against the inflation and high price of foods as their nation-state does little to regulate the markets. I want to offer this excerpt of my thesis for us to start thinking of the alternative. I am sick of people saying how bad everything is. Let's think of the alternative. Let's act. Let's start collective movements. We have consumer power. We have multitude power!

For real democracy to exist, political localization which manifests itself in participatory democracy has to be accompanied by economic localization where citizens have increasingly more power in the outcomes of their economic determinations. John Cavanagh, from the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies has been working to articulate alternatives to economic globalization. He has been instrumental in leading people-oriented organizations in the US, Canada and Mexico develop “Alternatives for the Americas” which addresses the injustices that arise under NAFTA. He has also compiled with the help of other various advocate-experts from the International Forum on Globalization, various ways to change the International Institutional Framework by strengthening certain UN organizations and proposing for a relocalization of markets. This call for localization of economy is not a utopian ideal of romanticizing back to a point of pre-industrialism and globalization, but a plea to limit and control trade. Trade is not undesirable but its role must be limited to “providing those things that cannot be provided locally.” (Mander and Goldsmith, 291) This would entail subsidies to small farmers and diversification of local markets for domestic consumption. When factoring the costs of trade and export, many fail to consider the environmental costs the transportation of commodities entails, or the quantity of petroleum that is required. The proposal for relocalization of markets does not seem nearly as utopian as the global expansionist model that assumes that availability of resources is unbound and endless. In addition, another assumption or value of the global economy model promotes the assimilation of all societies to that of one single homogenized society that consumes the same things and has the same lifestyle. This is problematic because it does not take into account the local cultures that are sustained by the local availability of resources or geographical limitations to that lifestyle. By promoting monoculture single crops, corporations are robbing people of their rights to remain distinct and independent, forcing them to consume things that are culturally irrelevant. The resistance of Karnataka farmers to the expansion of corporations like Mc Donald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken show concern over a shift to animal feed for cattle and other meats which constitute a meat based diet that is alienable to many people’s lifestyles in India. This shows the lack of cultural sensitivity that corporations have in their push for global economic growth. Their principal interest is that of profit. This is why it is important to reconsider and fully assess the need too correlate increased global free market trade to the livelihoods of peoples and ecosystems. This is why solutions like diversification and import substitution by local production can be seen as real viable and sustainable alternatives.

Please email me if you want to read more.