Globalisation or Disinformation ?

Orion Noir | 27.07.2001 13:22

Not wishing to bother IMC with polemics at a difficult time, I never the less feel the whole question of 'Globalisation theory' needs more scrutiny

Particularly when, post-Gothenburg and Genoa, protesting against it is so very dangerous and some groupings are still hiding behind the cloak of 'peace'. When you start to challenge the state successfully, it may count for nothing.

Looking at 'Globalize Resistance' and its shadow sponsor, the SWP, my immediate thought was "What on earth has this got to do with Marx, still less, Trotsky's theory of "Permanent Revolution ?" Globalization is one thing, but Marxist texts are absolutely insistent that no such thing exists...
For example, take your copy of Marx's Manifesto of 1848, go right to the end, and check the slogan. It should read "Workers of ALL COUNTRIES unite!', NOT, despite a common misperception, 'Workers of THE WORLD unite' . Pedantic it may seem, but this was deliberate. Even in Marx's day, the original communists were very wary about "Universalism", considering it to be a utopia; the capitalists and other rulers had divided up the world according to empires and nations, and that would have be the stage on which the workers would fight it. "Any man may make history but never according to circumstances of his own choosing" was how he put it.
Has anything changed since ? Not as much as we might think. Marx wrote at some length about the way capitalist companies were inflicting all kinds of indignities on the less developed world (East India Co, Kowloon Co, &C) but, he noted that they could do very little to impose themselves on China, India &c without the support of the Empire's gunboats. Look at NATO today, compare to see which countires are about to join the EU and you may see a similarity. We must recognise that the collapse of the unpleasant USSR has released capitalism off the leash, but it remains at the call of the USA, UK and EU. We should be opposing any call for a collapse of the equally unpleasant regime in China, lest the world situation deterioate still further. The SWP vehemently condemns China, something Trotsky would never have done...
It is not 'disinformation' to challenge the notion of globalization; far from it, we must clarify precsiely what we are opposing, (partly for our own safety), and start to sketch out what we want to see in place. The term 'neo- capitalism' does at least encapsulate the sense that while the current world situation has some unique features, it remains capitalism all the same.

Just some thoughts.
Wishing Marcus a speedy recovery

Orion Noir

Orion Noir

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

What the SWP are trying to achieve

27.07.2001 13:55

is anyones guess, but I note that their presence in the Socialist Alliance is having the same stultifying, disorientating, pro-Labour party effect as on the anti-capitalist movement.
Possibly, they're trying to spin as many webs as possible for when Labour finally topple Blair (the most right of center member in the entire party, i should think), after which it will lose power (perhaps to a Ken Clarke Conservative regime) and has to do a bit more soul searching. The SWP may be calculating it will be in a position of "Hegemon" (holder of overall influence) in both the anti-capitalist and Marxist constituencies.

Orion Noir

globalisation

27.07.2001 14:26

It all depends on what you mean by "Globalisation". Some "Marxists" such as the intellectuals around what has become known as the Amherst Schools suggest that major decisions have been taken out of the hands of the nation state, and that international financial institutions make the decisions now. The new book Empire by Negri and Hardt seems to follow this idea as they suggest that British, US, (etc.) imperialism does not provide an accurate description. This is clearly bollocks! The US exibits its imperialist powers through all the global institutions, through NATO as well as the financial institutions. The idea that the states of the world are one homogenous unit is a mistaken idea. National capitals have always made concessions with eachother, and they have created these institutions to do so effectively. They are still in competition with eachother, as Bush's isolationist policies has recently shown.

The idea that there has been some radical change in economic constraints places of national governments is also mistaken. The excuse people give for Labour's rightward drift is that their hands are tied - due to Globalisation they cannot implement leftwing policies or there will occur "capital flight". This has always been the case! Wilson had the same problem when he was Prime Minister!
If Labour were to introduce radical left wing polices, pressure would be placed on them by British Capital - not anon Multinationals.

Economically, we can say we have experienced Globalisation in the sence that markets have become more integrated with production an distribition taking place across national borders. This is as a direct result of the actions of the governments of nation-states rather than due to new forms of technology (or whatever else people are suggesting)

j.p

the Socialist Alliance is OK

27.07.2001 17:00

just OK mind.
just a minor point in this debate. surely it is better that people like the SA get somewhere in local elections than not, then they can at least start implementing stuf that can improve the lot of people in their constituencies. it also suggests a move to the left generally.
I also believe that the SA and their ilk will have to move in an increasingly libertarian direction or they will be eclipsed by a left-green-libertarian that will have a stab at Bookchin's idea of libertarian municipalism.
better that we attempt to use all channels to bring about change rather than taking the revolution-or-nothing approach.

Tom

I'm not sure I want to get into these dry,

28.07.2001 05:25

sterile discussions but, it strikes me, and not having lived in the UK for over 7 years, I must be out of touch, inchallah, these debates are mildly interesting but completely symptomatic of sterile, useles analysis which has always lead to "the left" expending much of it's energy on inter faction infighting rather than focusing on "the objectives".
From where I sit, (in France) this movement is different, it works and it is so powerful because many groups and especially individuals are prepared to come together, based on common principles, and activate in the same direction using an incredible variety of tools and strategies. No one, and that especially means us, no one knows what is going to happen next, we don't have to wait for some clumbsy (sic) central commitee to compromise and decide on the next steps whilst probably shooting itself in the foot, before new directions and actions are taken.
Of course this also means that the "enemy" can't plan ahead its reaction, witness post Genoa, it's completely out of their hands, the propaganda struggle and counter struggle is in full flow, and "they" are reeling from our dynamically "uncoordinated" actions. Our force is as much in our differences as in our similarities.
(If anybody can put this stream of conciousness mumbo jumbo into some sort of semblance of political theory I'd be extremely grateful, (if it's worth it that is!)
On a similar but related point, I'm preparing a longish radio piece, (as one of my next contributions in the "propaganda" struggle) working title "Where next". I'm looking for youngish, or young in the sense of new to "political activism" people who contribute to this movement and could, would, talk about their feelings for their own next steps...
Seasoned Political activists need not re apply ;-)

a.zerty@wanadoo.fr

uh?

28.07.2001 14:06

Why did you deliberately mis-spell clumsy as "clumbsy" and then put (sic) after it? That's pretty weird.

Dave