Trump's victory - what it says to us

Trump's rejection of economic globalization is of a more fundamental kind than what I have heard from the anti-CETA and anti-TTIP movements of Europeans. Most of the better-known points of the latter's criticism of these proposed agreements are so insignificant that they could easily be invalidated by small concessions. That also happened in the case of CETA, when the German and Canadian Economy Ministers made some concessions in the face of strong opposition to it. In contrast, the main argument of the US-American victims of globalization (the unemployed and now unemployable) has been that they have lost the very source of their livelihood, without any chance of getting an equivalent alternative one. That is why they and their leader Trump are explicitly for protectionism,which leftist and environmentalist critics of globalization, however, also oppose.

I have found very little sensitivity among leftist activists to some real and more serious issues associated with economic globalization. They are as follows:

(1) It divides the working class of the world more effectively than anything that the bourgeoisie could think up before. When a manufacturing unit is shut down in Pennsylvania and relocated in Mexico, several hundred American workers lose their livelihood, but in Mexico several hundred hitherto unemployed workers get these jobs, albeit with less wages.
(2) As we have seen, it even generates animosity between ethnic groups who become competitors for jobs in one and the same proposed factories and other economic opportunities.
(3) Competition between states to attract investments leads inter alia to downward pressure on wages, social benefits, and other conditions of work, in short, to a race to the bottom. Mr. Lafontaine, a leading German politician once said (roughly): "In the matter of wages, we simply cannot win the race to the bottom against China"
(4) Globalization facilitates technological development, the secret of increase in labor productivity, and that leads, through concomitant growth in automation, to further unemployment.
(5) Since most technological developments are resource-intensive, they ipso facto cause more environmental degradation.

Contradictions of Trump's anti-globalization program

Actually, all critics and opponents of globalization should now be rejoicing. After all, Trump has announced he would withdraw the US signature from the TPP and renegotiate the NAFTA. And the TTIP is now dead. I too rejoiced at this prospect, but for reasons different from those that motivated Trump and his supporters to oppose these. Trump wants to "make America great again". Not I.

But far from making America economically great again, Trump's policies are likely to lead to a strong shrinking of the American economy and its national income as well as that of the whole world. This could be a blessing in disguise. Of course, for those leading the push for globalization it is a disaster.

They argue that (1) today, economic growth is not only good but also absolutely essential for the health of the economy and society, globally as well as for each particular nation (it generates profits and also jobs and income), and (2) the more we liberalize international trade and remove the various barriers to it, the more growth can be achieved. But if we reject the growth imperative from the calculation, their arguments lose all value.

So far, the leaders of the merely globalization-critical movements have refused to do that. Those, however, who have understood the general global environmental crisis, and the climate crisis in particular, should (1) oppose any- and everything that promotes global economic growth; they should demand that the growth imperative be replaced by a stop growth imperative; they should (2) oppose any further labor-saving technological development, and (3) for the middle term, they should advocate a policy of plannedcontraction (de-growth) of all overdeveloped economies, and, simultaneously, a planned reduction ofthe global human population.

Economic contraction is not, of course, the conscious purpose of Trump's anti-globalization program. But if we have a little good luck, it might, by a roundabout route, serve our purposes. Trump would then, after eight years, be remembered (and lauded) for having brought about a much neededworldwide economic contraction that would do good to our environment. At first he would of course be cursed by all but a few radical environmentalists, but he might later be remembered as the leader who unwittingly did much to save the planet.

Conclusion: social entropy

I would like to conclude by submitting an impossibility theorem:

It is impossible to fulfill the continuously growing demands, wishes, aspirations and ambitions of a continuously growing world population while our resource base is continuously dwindling and the ability of nature to absorb man-made pollution is continuously diminishing. It is a lunatic idea that in a finite world infinite growth is possible.

Mass discontent is therefore bound to continuously rise as we continue to press up against the limits to growth. In this situation, large masses of relatively deprived and highly frustrated citizens of the rich countries are not looking forward to a better future in a democratic-leftist or eco-technological utopia; they are looking backward to a nationalist-rightist solution to their problems. In the EU, after Brexit, the centrifugal forcehas become stronger. It now appears possible that "populist" figures like Marine Le Pen will soon get elected.

I have expounded my analysis of the final crisis of capitalism in my theoretical writings, in which I have also dealt with the question what we should and could do in the present world situation. Here only two advices: we must prepare ourselves for the worst and try to do our best. And do not get distracted by unimportant issues like identity politics and rights of minorities etc. Concentrate on saving the planet