Second, Regarding this discussion, David Graeber has a short and helpful article in The Anthropology of Development and Globalization which makes the point that the ‘antiglobalization’ movement is mislabeled because it truly rejects only the neoliberal vision of globalization. In fact, many movements use globalization to their advantage in the fight against transnational capitalism (e.g. Zapatista Encuentros).

Third,

Hi Zach,
Do you think your characterization of democratic socialism assumes a particular (American?) form of democracy? It seems that most local movements throughout Latin America that could be cited to support your emphasis on “strengthening local economies” (Zapatista in Mexico, Mayans in Guatemala, Peasants in El Salvador, Indians in Bolivia) exhibit the economic characteristics of communal ownership and management that you characterized as a ‘terrible idea’. More importantly, their conception of democracy, especially in the smaller movements, is much different than its American product. It isn’t based on a majority vote and thus it is not ‘subjecting people’s jobs and finances to the vote’. For this reason alone the Mexican government was so frustrated with negotiations with the Zapatistas: they wouldn’t vote, they had to discuss. So the strategies of local communities in this context seem to be a mixture of both ‘extreme democracy’ (defined by access as much by ability to vote) and socialism.

Also, I am wondering what your version of a strengthened local economy would look like with your emphasis on private ownership (i.e. “you would be subjecting people’s jobs and finances to the vote”)? Feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your position.

to which he wanted to reply

“YOU MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT!....you cannot love anything that does not have a name.”

i love how he points out the ridiculous sentimality of being a liberal, buzz-word-follower and replaces it with something much more personal and, i think, beautiful. like loving and wanting to protect the place where you live. for him, kentucky.

i suggested christianity or church as an example only because this is catholicanarchy.org, but we could just as easily use art or music or food as test cases. more and more local cultures are either being (1) over-shadowed & swallowed up by shitty, more mass-produced counterparts or (2) they get too big and then co-opted by that same system.

the most obvious and widely acknowledged answer as of late has been to eat local foods from farmer’s markets, gardens, etc. but i have tried as personal tests to only drink beer or listen to music made in california where i live as short term experiements. it makes me think more about what i am consuming and what it means for me to be from this place called california. it doesnt usually last long: it is hard to do without wilco, the clash, & newcastle.

I’m not sure what you mean that Cavanaugh’s critique is not theological.

Strengthening local communities is the best strategy for fighting the excesses of capitalism.

I think localism is certainly part of the answer. I agree w/ j. above about the dangers of shipping goods all over the world. Part of that concerns the ecological consequences, which is one set of questions. As far as the economic part of that dynamic is concerned, the problem is not so much that capitalism is increasingly globalized, that we ship goods around the world, etc. but how it is done, the rules by which this occurs and who benefits and who loses. “Strengthening local communities” sounds good, but it’s awfully vague. Local people can be, and are, exploited just as much as people across the globe. What good is a “strong local community” if that community is organized according to the same old capitalist class relationships? I don’t even think we can go back to a purely localized economy, or even if there ever was a purely localized economy. The question, I think, is how do we foster an economy that takes into account both the global and the local and how we dismantle a system whose rules are not inevitable or neutral, but rather, by definition, divide the world into winners and losers.