RYAN BRILES

“No, we’re not fair trade certified.” I probably say that every day. I work for a small cocoa importer and the farms we buy from are not fair trade certified. This type of relationship – a US company buying cocoa from small farmers in Ecuador – conjures up images of economic colonialism and with good reason. American companies have a long and storied history of brutalizing Latin American countries. The American government has overthrown democratically elected leaders just to maintain the unequal market relations that made firms like the United Fruit Company the de facto shadow governments of many Latin American and Caribbean nations in the past.

The Fair Trade movement tries to supplant this big, ugly capitalism with a nicer, friendly capitalism. The formula sounds simple enough: consumers should pay more so that the producers can be paid more for what they produce. This all seems well and good on the surface, but as the recent $3 billion dollar loss JP Morgan Chase illustrates, band aids can’t heal a badly hemorrhaging capitalism. And it turns out that the Fair Trade movement is a particularly lousy band aid.

There are two different fair trade certification agencies and neither one of them works pro bono. There is a three-tiered fee system in which every stage of development – farmer, processing plant, and distributor – all pay a fee to the certifying agency. The certification paperwork and inspection process is very complicated and most of the farmers and farm co-ops have to hire brokers to handle it. After the fees and brokers are paid, the extra pittance paid by the free trade agreement often doesn’t cover the costs. This basically amounts to the farmers paying for the right to sell their own produce. The farmers we buy from are well aware of this fact and view any talk of “fair trade” with extreme skepticism.

The existence of fair trade certification illustrates how obsessed neo-liberalism is with self-regulation. The chief architects and benefactors of neo-liberalism obviously have a vested interest in maintaining a veneer of self-policing so they can stave off government control. The problem (as they see it) obviously isn’t the free market – its a few big multinationals that have their boots on the throats of the small producers who would succeed without the interference. This type of rhetoric is very appealing to consumer minded Americans who are constantly told that they can buy their way out of environmental disaster and economic depression. What this line of reasoning is essentially saying is that the market itself can reallocate resources in a more egalitarian way because the market itself depends on a certain level of equality to foster the necessary competition. The problem is of course the fact that capitalism lends itself to uneven distribution and constant consolidation of the resources of the most successful firms.

It can be hard for the Left to argue against this fair trade rhetoric without sounding as though it has turned its back on the farmers. Explanations of the cost of fair trade bureaucracy can sound a lot like equivocation. The description of alternative visions of international trade can sound like starry eyed idealism. In short, how do I explain to curious and well meaning customers that fair trade is just so much impotent consumerist neo-liberalism?

The answer to this question is fairly straight forward: the farmers don’t like it. The fair trade certification movement is designed to assuage the guilt of comfortable people living in developed countries. The certification process doesn’t even need to be a band-aid for capitalism it just has to appear to be one. It’s similar in spirit to attaching the word “green” to something and then telling consumers that they are saving the rain forests. In the past reform has been used to divert radicalism back into the mainstream. Now, just the appearance of reform can accomplish something similar. Every time someone buys a bag of cocoa or coffee with the fair trade certification on it they think that they are striking a blow for a more equitable market; a more compassionate capitalism.

So, what do I tell these well meaning but misinformed customers? I tell them about the farmer co-ops. The Ecuadorian farmers that we deal with know something that the relatively wealthy liberals from the global north don’t: the north won’t save the south, the rich won’t save the poor, and the fair trade movement is little more than a marketing strategy based on (perhaps) well intentioned yet impotent guilt. Should we buy from sources that are exploitation free? Absolutely, but the sources won’t be grown or facilitated by a product label, a costly and bureaucratic certification, or a marketing strategy. In fact, after the inspectors return to their high rise offices in their developed nations, the farmers make fun of them for being comically out of touch with reality as they see it.

Every nation has indigenous movements for social and economic justice. If you feel like you’re in a position to be an ally, ask them how you can help. Buy local when you can and buy straight from the source when you can’t. Most indigenous industries have some kind of distribution system aimed at the outside market. Come on – if you can use the internet to buy handmade weirdness from Etsy you can spend an extra ten minutes of Googling to find a co-op that utilizes e commerce to sell their products. It won’t crush capitalism and defeat the bosses single handedly, but it will help to grow a worker controlled space. Just don’t walk into Whole Foods feeling as though you’re without sin and think you’re casting the first stone at corporate domination. Because you’re not.