Bothered by anti-globalization

[turquino]

I cringe a little every time i see or hear a leftist rail against 'globalization', neoliberalism, or transnational corporations. What ever happened to plain old anti-capitalism? Sometimes i feel like these leftist polemics are trying to redeem the ‘good’ old white man’s capitalism from the ‘bad’ faceless bankers and corporate CEOs. Principled anti-capitalist and anti-statist discourses mutate into finance capital cabals and corporate-controlled shadow governments. The rhetoric almost has fascist undertones.

Is it wrong to oppose corporations? No, but let’s not romanticize local business, the nation state, and the way things use to be. This breeds the wrong kind of resentment.

I don’t know, maybe i’m totally off-base but some this stuff irks me.

[RedHal]

I think Sizek calls them Fukuyamaists, with previous imperfect socialists countries and their collapse, they don't believe in an alternative to capitalism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialists should be careful when they proclaim opposition to "globalisation" because it sometimes suggests that socialists aim to return to a world in which nations are cut off from each other and there is no trade or cultural exchange. Socialists need to make clear that they are opposed to a certain form of globalisation which gives allows a small group of individuals to gain wealth at the expense of the working masses of the world. It is telling that the far right has adopted anti-globalisation rhetoric and identify the increased movement of humans across the international borders and greater cultural interaction as negative impacts of globalisation.

[Mather]

I cringe a little every time i see or hear a leftist rail against 'globalization', neoliberalism, or transnational corporations. What ever happened to plain old anti-capitalism? Sometimes i feel like these leftist polemics are trying to redeem the ‘good’ old white man’s capitalism from the ‘bad’ faceless bankers and corporate CEOs. Principled anti-capitalist and anti-statist discourses mutate into finance capital cabals and corporate-controlled shadow governments. The rhetoric almost has fascist undertones.

Is it wrong to oppose corporations? No, but let’s not romanticize local business, the nation state, and the way things use to be. This breeds the wrong kind of resentment.

I don’t know, maybe i’m totally off-base but some this stuff irks me.

I both agree and disagree with this.

My disagreement is how your post implies that the anti-globalisation movement and all it's key events (Seattle, Genoa, Geneva, Gothenburg etc) are somehow a monolithic entity with a singular ideology and set of demands.

The anti-globalisation movement is a very diverse movement, with a huge spectrum in terms of it's membership, ideology, tactics and it's objectives.

Anarchists, socialists, communists, trotskyists, ecologists/greens, anti-war activists, debt relief activists, charities, NGOs, trade unions and many other groups besides all made up and still make up the anti-globalisation movement. Some advocated social revolution and outright anti-capitalism (anarchists and some socialists), some advocated reform (some socialists, greens and social democrats) and some campaigned on single issue causes (trade unions, debt relief groups and NGOs).

The events in Seattle in 1999 looked promising, as did the events of the years 2000 and 2001, but sadly the more political, revolutionary and anti-capitalist element of the anti-globalisation movement was pushed aside to the margins in the years after that. The 2005 G8 summit in Scotland more or less saw the end of the anti-globalisation movement as a political force that held prominence in contemporary politics and society.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, just that you should have made a distinction between the reformist and single issue element of the anti-globalisation movement and the revolutionary and political element, they were poles apart.

I hope that the activists who took part in the anti-globalisation movement in it's better years can do it again in years to come.

[Mather]

Socialists should be careful when they opposition to "globalisation" because it sometimes suggests that socialists aim to return to a world in which nations are cut off from each other and there is no trade or cultural exchange. Socialists need to make clear that they are opposed to a certain form of globalisation which gives allows a small group of individuals to gain wealth at the expense of the working masses of the world.


However globalisation more or less means "which gives allows a small group of individuals to gain wealth at the expense of the working masses of the world" in terms of political discourse and in the minds of most people, including the ruling classes and our exploiters.

The myth of a 'global village' of free, happy and economically secure communities is just that, a myth.

As an anarchist, I oppose all forms of nationalism and sectarianism along ethnic, national and religious lines and there was no past 'golden age' before globalisation came along. However, when capitalism is overthrown and no more, a new global community will emerge and real freedom, both economic, social and political will become a living reality, what ever we may call that, globalisation will not be a good term to use, given what globalisation is and stands for today.



It is telling that the far right has adopted anti-globalisation rhetoric and identify the increased movement of humans across the international borders and greater cultural interaction as negative impacts of globalisation.


A lot of fascist parties in Europe (the BNP, the Spanish Falange etc) opposed the Iraq war, yet that does not mean we should then support the Iraq war.

Our response should be to offer a real alternative to people's opposition to things like globalisation and imperialist wars instead of cynically using these issues for votes or new party members, as the fascists do.

I would also like to remind you that many activists who were part of the anti-globalisation movement now work to abolish borders and racist immigration controls, such as groups like the No Borders network, to use one example here in Britain.

[BobKKKindle$]

However globalisation more or less means "which gives allows a small group of individuals to gain wealth at the expense of the working masses of the world" in terms of political discourse and in the minds of most people, including the ruling classes and our exploiters.Globalisation is a complex process, and to see globalisation as solely negative is too simplistic. Globalisation is not limited to the elimination of barriers to trade and the movement of capital (which is how globalisation is generally understood in economic terms) but also encompasses the spread of ideas and the formation of global networks. The emergence of global protest movements and global concern for key issues (such as the state of the environment) can thus also be seen as a positive form of globalisation, and a response to the adverse impacts of economic globalisation. Therefore, to describe socialists as opposed to globalisation is not an accurate description of how socialists approach the changes which have taken place in recent years, or the type of world we envisage, as it infers that socialists look backward and aim to return to a system of isolation.

A more accurate term (instead of "anti-globalisation") is mundialism (or possibly alter-globalisaton) which indicates that Socialists support the integration of the world, but not in the way it is currently occurring, especially in the economic sphere.

Welcome to the board btw.


A lot of fascist parties in Europe (the BNP, the Spanish Falange etc) opposed the Iraq war, yet that does not mean we should then support the Iraq war.
Precisely - if both socialists and fascists adopt the term "anti-globalisation" as a description of what they stand for, then it suggests that socialists and fascists are opposed to globalisation for the same reasons and envisage the same alternative, which is obviously not true.

[turquino]

I understand anti-globalisation can only be a plank of left discourse, but it’s hard to tell sometimes. So-called progressives seem to focus on how the middle classes feel like they’re being ‘squeezed’. There’s talk about how supposedly hard-working people were laid off and are now struggling to make ends meet, the implication being that they’re undeserved victims of globalisation and neoliberalism, whereas the people who were ALREADY impoverished have only themselves to blame for their misery. What the hell does a poor migrant labourer care about how many tech support jobs have moved to India or how much medical benefits are being cut by?

Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and rightwing white trash movements are in an overall better position to capitalize on discontent with what they dub ‘globalism’. It’s more likely the type of people who are drawn to anti-globalisation, but not traditional anti-capitalism, will think their world is imperilled by banker cabals, immigrants, and cosmopolitanism; and we all know where that road leads. From a North American perspective, there’s nothing progressive about stirring up this sort of economic nationalism or isolationism at the present time.

[Zurdito]

you're correct, obsession with "neo-liberalism" is a way of not talking about capitalism itself, i.e., reformism.

it's especially dangerous right now when the neo-liberal model is in decline and the capitalist classes are already preparing to fall back on a more centrally planned model, in order to socialise the cost of this crisis, and because increasing competition between imperialist blocs is putting an end to a global consensus on liebralisation, with different imperialist states now looking backing various "protectionist" third-world bourgeoisie - which they wouldn't have done 10 years ago - in the hope of gaining a garuanteed foothold there at the expense of other blocs - for example, see China backing various "centre-left" regimes in Latin America.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You think China is an imperialist country?

[Zurdito]

You think China is an imperialist country?


I think it's on the road to becoming one.

[bcbm]

The 2005 G8 summit in Scotland more or less saw the end of the anti-globalisation movement as a political force that held prominence in contemporary politics and society.

Rostock?


white trash

This is a classist term, please don't use it.

[Mather]

Globalisation is a complex process, and to see globalisation as solely negative is too simplistic.


Yes, there can be many different forms of globalisation, both progressive and regressive in their character.

Socialists, anarchists and workers in struggle have at times applied their own version of global solidarity and co-operation, known to many as working class internationalism.

But the model of globalisation that has been the target of the anti-globalisation movement is the model that is regressive and has in many ways reversed many of the gains that have been won in struggle by the working class and people, from decent wages, public and free healthcare and education, social security, environmental protection laws, job security and trade union rights, especially, but not exclusively, in the global south (the 'third world').

To oppose this model from a progressive and internationalist standpoint is not only the right course to follow, but the only viable one as globalisation (the present worldwide imperialistic incarnation of capitalism) can only be defeated globally speaking. Any attempts at 'socialism in one country' will result in either that society eventually returning to the capitalist system (eg: China) or becoming a totalitarian society cut off from the rest of the world (eg: North Korea).

What I am saying is that the process of class struggle and social revolution, whilst being global and world wide, may be known as something other than the term globalisation, as it has in the past.



Globalisation is not limited to the elimination of barriers to trade and the movement of capital (which is how globalisation is generally understood in economic terms) but also encompasses the spread of ideas and the formation of global networks.


The global reach and movement of ideas has been around a lot longer than the current globalised and imperialistic variant of capitalism and even pre-dates capitalism itself.

The spread of major religions such as Christianity and Islam as well as ideas of organising human societies along numerous social, political and economic models, pre-dates the era of the internet, television, newspapers, flying, railways and other modern modes of travel and communication.

I am saying this because the propagandists of capitalism will often make claims and myths about how the world and humankind only developed the concept of a world community with the advent of modern globalised capitalism. A good propaganda stunt on the part of the ruling capitalist classes, as capitalism has now ceased to be progressive in any meaningful way and now global capitalism is in fact engaged in a process of dismantling it's progressive features (the welfare state, industrialisation, greater political and social freedoms etc) as the process of competition for resources, power and profits becomes more intense between rival imperialist and capitalist camps.



A more accurate term (instead of "anti-globalisation") is mundialism (or possibly alter-globalisaton) which indicates that Socialists support the integration of the world, but not in the way it is currently occurring, especially in the economic sphere.


I agree with this.

Our task is to offer a new global alternative.


Precisely - if both socialists and fascists adopt the term "anti-globalisation" as a description of what they stand for, then it suggests that socialists and fascists are opposed to globalisation for the same reasons and envisage the same alternative, which is obviously not true.

Again, I agree.

I will also add that without being opposed to capitalism and the concept of class society, no group or individual can ever really be opposed to globalisation, as it is merely the latest stage in the development of capitalism, not a system in it's own right that developed in isolation to other past systems.

Hence anti-capitalists are the only genuine opponents of globalisation as opposed to the populists, protectionists, nationalists and fascists, all of whom merely oppose globalisation, not out of principle, but simply out of a cynical and opportunistic attempt to boost their own political position.



Welcome to the board btw.


Thanks.:)

[chimx]

I cringe a little every time i see or hear a leftist rail against 'globalization'

My major beef with it is outsourcing used as a tactic to dismantle trade unions.

[Vanguard1917]

I will also add that without being opposed to capitalism and the concept of class society, no group or individual can ever really be opposed to globalisation, as it is merely the latest stage in the development of capitalism, not a system in it's own right that developed in isolation to other past systems.

Hence anti-capitalists are the only genuine opponents of globalisation as opposed to the populists, protectionists, nationalists and fascists, all of whom merely oppose globalisation, not out of principle, but simply out of a cynical and opportunistic attempt to boost their own political position.



Actually, opposing economic globalisation has always been associated with the right rather than the left. It's only in the last couple of decades, with the collapse of the old left and the defeat of the working class movement, that those associated with 'leftism' began to fully adopt a stance of opposing 'globalisation'.

The politics of parochialism and localism, the celebration of regional differences, the ideal of national self-sufficiency, hostility towards urbanisation and industrialisation, the idealisation and romanticisation of backward rural life - historically speaking, these are the principles of the reactionary right, not the left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about union globalization? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-unite-union-t79728/index.html)

[Mather]

I understand anti-globalisation can only be a plank of left discourse, but it’s hard to tell sometimes. So-called progressives seem to focus on how the middle classes feel like they’re being ‘squeezed’. There’s talk about how supposedly hard-working people were laid off and are now struggling to make ends meet, the implication being that they’re undeserved victims of globalisation and neoliberalism, whereas the people who were ALREADY impoverished have only themselves to blame for their misery. What the hell does a poor migrant labourer care about how many tech support jobs have moved to India or how much medical benefits are being cut by?


Given that the anti-globalisation movement was both diverse and held a range of views from revolutionary to reformist, anti-capitalist to social democratic, such statements, as you have posted above, may apply in some instances and in relation to some groups and individuals, but it cannot apply to the whole anti-globalisation movement.

Living in Britain, I do understand that in Canada and the USA, things may be different to Britain and Europe in relation to the anti-globalisation movement.

In most countries where the anti-globalisation movement had a presence, the diverse range of movements, ideologies and people can be divided into three different categories:

- Protectionists and economic nationalists, who wanted to reverse globalisation and revert to some other past point in the history of economic and social organisation. Some elements of the green movement can be included in this category.

- Reformists, mainly made up of NGOs, charities, debt relief campaigners and some elements in the trade union movement. Their central aim was not to overthrow capitalism and the existing order, merely to reform it, 'fix' the more brutal and savage aspects of global capitalism and to make enough changes to give the global capitalist system a 'human' face.

- Revolutionaries, made up of anarchists, some socialists, some labour activists and social movements based around land rights, farming, housing and other issues.

As you can see, yes there were some elements that did hold a position of more or less first world chauvinism, but not all in the anti-globalisation movement held this viewpoint.

But even the whole debate on the history of the anti-globalisation movement has in the main reflected first world chauvinistic viewpoint.

Why? Because the anti-globalisation movement had it's initial origins not in Seattle in 1999, but around five or so years earlier in the developing world, especially in countries where there had been a fast pace in industrialisation, such as Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, India and other countries. The raft of free trade agreements (FTAs), the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and increasing poverty levels led to a massive upsurge in the growth of social movements, strikes, the use of direct action in relation to issues such as land reform and the development of co-ordination and networking between activists and groups across many countries.

Whilst the anti-globalisation movement opposed the global power of capital and the global centralisation of economic, social and political power that went with it, it was a global movement with a global reach, a reach that may even have been more global than the economic system it was against.



Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and rightwing white trash movements are in an overall better position to capitalize on discontent with what they dub ‘globalism’. It’s more likely the type of people who are drawn to anti-globalisation, but not traditional anti-capitalism, will think their world is imperilled by banker cabals, immigrants, and cosmopolitanism; and we all know where that road leads.


With hindsight, maybe the anti-globalisation movement should have excluded the non-revolutionary elements, the protectionist and reformist categories, especially given that in a lot of countries, the anti-capitalist element was in a rather strong and large position at the time, especially during the years 1999-2002.



From a North American perspective, there’s nothing progressive about stirring up this sort of economic nationalism or isolationism at the present time.


I totally agree.

[Mather]

you're correct, obsession with "neo-liberalism" is a way of not talking about capitalism itself, i.e., reformism.

"Neo-liberalism" is a much used and much loved term used in Britain by some political groups, such as the trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

If you are against capitalism, then be honest about it and say so, but it seems some would prefer to use this term to try and appeal to liberals and reformists.



it's especially dangerous right now when the neo-liberal model is in decline and the capitalist classes are already preparing to fall back on a more centrally planned model, in order to socialise the cost of this crisis, and because increasing competition between imperialist blocs is putting an end to a global consensus on liebralisation, with different imperialist states now looking backing various "protectionist" third-world bourgeoisie - which they wouldn't have done 10 years ago - in the hope of gaining a garuanteed foothold there at the expense of other blocs - for example, see China backing various "centre-left" regimes in Latin America.



Interesting point.

I have noticed this too, especially with the global financial crisis and the rising cost of energy (oil and gas) as well as commodities and food.

The first half of this century may well be a time of great changes, conflict and tension.

[Mather]

Rostock?


Yes, but Rostock took place about five years after the last series of protests and actions that made up the anti-globalisation movement.

Since Rostock, nothing of substance has happened either, thus making Rostock a more or less isolated event rather than one that followed on from another.

Whilst the anti-globalisation movement, especially the anti-capitalist element, seems to have died out somewhat, I am not ruling out that it could come about again at some point in the near future, especially with the current global financial/economic downturn and possible recession and the rising cost of energy, food and living expenses.

And given the dead end politics of reformism and the dead end of having NGOs, charities, lobbyists and other groups leading the anti-globalisation movement to impotence, maybe this time instead of being a anti-globalisation movement or just opposed to one form of capitalism (such as neo-liberalism), we oppose capitalism and work not to reform or patch up the system, but to destroy it.

[Justin CF]

So-called progressives seem to focus on how the middle classes feel like they’re being ‘squeezed’. There’s talk about how supposedly hard-working people were laid off and are now struggling to make ends meet, the implication being that they’re undeserved victims of globalisation and neoliberalism, whereas the people who were ALREADY impoverished have only themselves to blame for their misery. What the hell does a poor migrant labourer care about how many tech support jobs have moved to India or how much medical benefits are being cut by? You've hit the nail on the head. I honestly have a hard time feeling sorry for people who get laid off and have to live off of food stamps when there are people out there who can't afford to feed their children every day.

That being said, globalization hurts people in third world nations too. Unsafe waste disposal (read: dumping toxic materials in the local water supply) has terrible consequences for generations to come, while the relatively minuscule wages which workers in third world nations receive are lost pretty quickly.

All-in-all, I have no problem with jobs going over seas... I just want the workers over seas to get good wages/benefits.

[Dimentio]

I must say that what the only thing I could see with the globalisation movement is that the strategy needs to be seriously reevaluated. Firstly, media is (generally) depicting the whole debacle as "angry young people" who put demands on politicians and then riot. Then they hold some interview with some generic activist which looks good as an interview subject and get to talk for all protesters.

During a such cacophony, it is unclear for the spectators what the movement really wants, and that is a problem. Nothing is more dangerous than alienating the public, to appear as shouting extremists.

Ideally, it is the capitalists who should appear as extremists. What we need to do is to snatch the problem formulation initiative.

[Zurdito]

Actually, opposing economic globalisation has always been associated with the right rather than the left. It's only in the last couple of decades, with the collapse of the old left and the defeat of the working class movement, that those associated with 'leftism' began to fully adopt a stance of opposing 'globalisation'.


So the Bolsheviks supported the continued globalisation of capitalism?

Now I agree that "anti-globalisation" is not the left's term, and I certainly don't support using it. This is because "globalisation" doesn't exist, imperialism exists, and we oppose that. The danger of taking a knee-jerk anti-anti-globalisation stance is that you might end up covering for "free trade" and the expansion of imperialism.

When measures are taken by a third-world country to protect its economy from imperialist domination, we communists must support that.