Page added on July 20, 2012
Ted Trainer is one of the wisest, boldest, and most dedicated advocates of The Simpler Way. In 2010 he published a book called, The Transition to a Sustainable and Just World, and I have to say that it is one of the best books I have ever read in my life. If you only have time to read one more book in your life, consider reading this one. It speaks directly to our global situation and condition, and it does so with passion, humility, and penetrating insight. From cover to cover, its pages are positively alive with wisdom. I highly recommend that everyone gets a copy of this book, reads it, and then passes it on. Our world desperately needs this book.
Trainer does not shy away from the implications of his analysis (summarized below), which at times can be quite confronting. But although his critique is radical, it is very hard to fault his analysis. Trainer, however, is not satisfied with critique, merely. The book speaks of “the transition,” and many details are provided on what this transition might entail and where it might lead. Especially good is his chapter entitled The New Economy, in which he gives a uniquely inspiring account of what life according to The Simpler Way might look like (based on decades of lived experience). Perhaps the most important and original chapters of the book, however, are the final two, where Trainer rigorously engages the two vexed issues of ‘strategy’ (i.e. where to direct our energies) and “practice” (i.e. what to do).
Trainer is an anarchist. He feels that we are going to have to build the new economy ourselves, at the community level, without help from governments and probably with considerable resistance. Some will consider this anarchism to be a fault in Trainer’s analysis, and argue that it relies on a view of human nature that is too optimistic. That is a criticism all anarchists must deal with, and one that Trainer should probably give more attention. Others may argue that the state will need to play a larger role in “the transition” than Trainer allows, if only because a great deal needs to be done in a short time, and current structures are locking individuals and communities into unsustainable consumption patterns. The state certainly has the power to unlock those individuals and communities from those structures, and it could do so much more quickly than if we rely on grassroots resistance alone.
At the same time, Trainer’s insistence that we cannot wait for others (especially politicians) to solve our problems is a very healthy reminder of the importance of participatory, direct, grassroots democracy. At the end of the day, Trainer is quite right to insist that if there is to be a any transition away from consumer capitalism, it will be up to us – ordinary people – to make it happen. It remains to be seen whether such grassroots movements, as well as mobilising communities, are also able to mobilize the state. But after the debacle of Rio+20, I wouldn’t advise relying on our governments for anything at all. It seems we’re on our own now, and there is much work to do.
The basic points this book argues are:
Most current discussions of global problems, solutions and strategies are mistaken. The problems (environment destruction, resource depletion, Third World poverty and underdevelopment, armed conflict, social breakdown and a falling quality of life) are far bigger than most people realize, and they cannot be solved by technical advance within a society whose basic structures and values creates them.
We are entering an era of intense and insoluble resource scarcity. We must develop ways of living well on much lower rates of resource use.
The basic cause of the predicament is far too much producing and consuming going on. We are far beyond sustainable levels of resource consumption, “living standards” and of GDP. Rich world rates can’t be kept up for long and could never be extended to all the world’s people.
Yet our supreme goal is economic growth, i.e., increasing production and consumption without limit!
The global economy is massively unjust. It delivers most of the world’s resources to the few in rich countries, and gears Third World productive capacity to rich world super-markets, not to meeting the needs of the world’s poor billions. Rich countries must move down to living on their fair share of global wealth.
These faults cannot be fixed within or by a society driven by growth, market forces, production for profit, or affluence. These are the causes of the global sustainability and justice problems. Consumer society cannot be reformed to make it sustainable or just; it must be largely replaced by a society with fundamentally different structures.
The alternative has to be THE SIMPLER WAY, a society based on non-affluent lifestyles within mostly small and highly self-sufficient local economies under local participatory control and not driven by market forces or the profit motive, and with no economic growth. There must be an enormous cultural change, away from competitive, individualistic acquisitiveness. The book details the reasons why this Simpler Way vision is workable and attractive, promising a higher quality of life than most people in rich countries have at present.
What then is the most effective transition strategy? Chapter 13 argues that most strategies, including green and red-left as well as conventional strategies, are mistaken. The essential aim is not to fight against consumer-capitalist society, but to build the alternative to it. This revolution cannot be achieved from the top, either by governments, green parties or proletarian revolutions. This can only be a grassroots transition led by ordinary people working out how they can cooperatively make their local communities viable as the global economy increasingly fails to provide. The Eco-village and Transition Towns movements have begun the general shift, but…
Local self-sufficiency initiatives such as community gardens and Permaculture must be informed by the awareness that reforms to consumer-capitalist society cannot achieve a sustainable and just society. Nothing of lasting significance will be achieved unless it is clearly understood that our efforts in these local initiatives are the first steps to the eventual replacement of the present society by one which is not driven by market forces, profit, competition, growth or affluence. This awareness is far from sufficiently evident in present green initiatives. The most important contribution activists can make is to join community gardens, Transition Towns movements etc. in order to help to develop this wider and radical global vision within participants.
The last chapter offers a practical strategy that can be implemented in existing suburbs, towns and neighbourhoods.
The Transition to a Sustainable and Just World is intended as a fundamental challenge to people concerned about the fate of the planet, arguing that most current analysis and action is tragically misguided and wasted. It seeks to show an irrefutable logic – i.e., when the magnitude and causes of our predicament are grasped it is obvious that the problems cannot be solved within consumer-capitalist society, and that the solution then has to be some kind of Simpler Way, and that working for the transition then has to center on the development of largely self-governing communities.
The book is addressed mainly to activists, hoping that it will help “green” people to apply their scarce energies to the most effective purposes. It should also be of interest to a wide range of students of social theory as it deals at length with crucial issues to do with social cohesion and change, sustainability, Marxism, Anarchism, economics, government, education, Third World development, globalisation, settlement design, limits to growth, values, global peace and justice, and the nature of the good society.
I have written a substantial Simplicity Institute Report on Trainer’s work, which is freely available here.
Re-posted from The Simplicity Collective, where you can find links to websites and academic articles on Trainer’s work.
– Samuel Alexander, Transition Voice
6 Comments on "Beyond capitalism with a human face: a radically simple way"
Rick on Sat, 21st Jul 2012 12:44 am
I agree with this, though all of this existed long ago, before oil started the industrial age, that has now destroyed most of this planet, and most who live on this planet are a product of oil, so to speak.
They live in a bubble, sick from oil, since most don’t eat good food, but industrial farm food. Most are fat, and have no clue how to be self-sufficient, and don’t care. Many have forgotten, the US killed most of the native Americans, and those that survived, are now in concentration camps, aka reservations. That really says it all.
I have a hard time with that.
Imagine a planet of a billion or less. The world will get there again, one way or another. Mother nature and reality will see to that.
The sad thing is, this never had to happen.
DMyers on Sat, 21st Jul 2012 1:40 am
Taking it at face value, how can anyone argue with the general proposition? I support the movement. I’ve lived in simpler times and enjoyed it more.
Some thoughts on the subject.
Under the present Zeitgeist, I can’t see a transition like this as a slow descent or soft landing. There would have to be some crash element to it. Our system runs wide open. The whole thing is sustained by its wide openness.
It’s simple as this. My local grocery is a Food Lion. (I speak from my thoughts and observations on the subject, not as a grocery store expert). This place is full of perishables and its electric meter is running like an Indy 500 tire. Scan, ham, thank you ma’am. Merchandise has to move at high velocity. The operation runs full bore, and that’s the only way it can survive.
Everything in our system is running like that. The universities open an ever-widening array of courses. There are more and better medicines. The games are more complex with better graphics. The screens are wider, the pixels denser.
The trucks have been contracted. The goods must flow.
Full bore is the only way it works. Back off, and it coughs and sputters. Can’t back off hard. Can’t back off easy. Either way, there’s a crash, because there’s no middle ground in this scenario.
There must be a crash of some magnitude, and the after-crash circumstances will be far different and unprecedented, as compared to the way things are now. The sustainable and just world will be one of many solutions competing for order out of chaos. May it rise or fall on its own merits.
BillT on Sat, 21st Jul 2012 3:36 am
“Transition”, soon to become the new buzz word in polite circles? Nope! Why? Denial! A small percent are/will move to transition their lives from fantasy to fact. The rest will party-on until the lights go out permanently. Then they will want to blame ‘someone’ and expect ‘someone’ to fix it, NOW!
Well, those will be horrific times won’t they? Best be 50+ miles away from any place that has concentrated bodies and a scarcity of brains.
Fifty miles is probably safe because none of the city dwellers will have the stamina, resources, or survival instincts to get that far on foot. Gridlock will stop all cars and turn the highways into parking lots. They will hang out in their flats until they start to run out of food and water…and then it will be too late.
My farm area is about 80 miles from any major concentration (10,000+) of people. It is in the mountains with no series of places along the highway that can be robbed for supplies as most of the people that live along it are also poor, but self-sufficient. Where is this place? Not in the States. In the Philippines.
Norm on Sat, 21st Jul 2012 9:58 am
I dunno, seems like the city might stay more civilized, in event of serious shortages. out on your ‘home home on the range’ maybe marauding motorcycle gangs will come down your 300′ driveway attracted to the lights on your solar-powered house and bust in to take whats in the fridge and anything else suits their fancy. Best is to avoid armageddon in the first place.
Kenz300 on Sat, 21st Jul 2012 2:08 pm
Over population is the elephant in the room. Too many people and too few resources. Endless population growth is not sustainable. Access to family planning services needs to be available to all that want it. Every country needs to develop a plan to balance its population with its resources, food, water, energy, and jobs. Those that do not will be exporting their populations and their problems.
Laci on Sat, 21st Jul 2012 4:40 pm
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that people convince themselves tha change can happen by simply convincing the masses to give up the current way of life.
There are some cold harsh realities that those advocating for it like to ignore.
Some individuals may choose to adopt a simpler way of life, that is more sustainable, but they will never amount to anything more than a few hippy colonies on the fringe of the mainstream.
Some countries may choose a more ethical path to development, but they will simply be crushed by those who will not. Europe is a good example.
If we want sustainability, we need a more pragmatic aproach. Standardized trade tariffs, as suggested in “Sustainable Trade”, by Zoltan Ban, designed to encourage efficiency and durability, and discourage a large ecological footprint is something more realistic. The best part is that unlike the past miserable failures to try to get unanimous goodwill, this proposal actually banks on countries adopting this based on self interest, in order to avoid ebing outcompeted by more ruthless environmental exploiters.