Antiglobalization and Anti-antiglobalization

Globalization from Below: Eliminating the Nationalist Agenda from the Struggle Against Neoliberalism

Laure Akai

The internationalists, extranationalists, anarchists and anti-nation-statists of the antiglobalization movement have a mean task ahead of them: tackling the radical and reformist nationalist agendas of a growing number of anti-globalists.

It’s long been my contention that the vague character and the “opposition syndrome” of a good part of the left anti-globalists has exacerbated this problem by espousing an LCD view of economic, political and cultural imperialism which neither explicitly rejects the concept of the nation-state or even the nation. (It in fact often supports the idea, even when simultaneously denouncing racism, xenophobia and national discrimination. Typical of this phenomenom is Subcomdante Marcos who laments the decline of the nation-state while criticising fascism and right-wing ideologies, even mentioning their appearance in the left. See box below.)

If technology and information have united the world, then the financial powers which use them have turned them around, using them as weapons, as weapons in a war. We have stated before (in "7 Loose Pieces of the World Puzzle", EZLN, 1997) that a world war, the fourth, is being conducted, and that a process of destruction/depopulation and reconstruction/reordering is developing (I am trying to give a hurried summary, be indulgent) throughout the planet. For the construction of the "new world order" (Planetary, Permanent, Immediate and Immaterial, according to Ignacio Ramonet), financial power is conquering lands and breaking down borders, and it is achieving this by waging war, a new war. One of the casualties of this war is the national market, a fundamental basis of the Nation-State. The Nation-State is on the path to extinction, or, at least, the traditional or classic Nation-State is. In its place are emerging integrated markets, or, more accurately, department stores of the great world "mall", the globalized market. *Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos* Oxymoron! (The Intellectual Right and Liberal Fascism)La Jornada Ojarasca May 2000

Activists affected by the opposition syndrome devoutly believe in the power of numbers to affect a political situation; they aim to create a political agenda attractive to a greater number of people and in doing so accept the presence of populist and reformist agendas. While there are considerable arguments in favour of such strategies, it is highly questionable whether remaining in an opposition alliance brings any benefits to anyone besides the reformers who will eventually co-opt its efforts. Let’s put this question aside for now. (Although it is a key question. There needs to be a historical analysis of recent social movements which examines precisely what has become of their more radical elements and how various movements have been co-opted to serve the interests of capital and the state.) The fact is that antiglobalists are united by a common name, if not a common ideology. By basking in the (media generated) mythology of “the antiglobalization movement” and by refusing to admit that the very idea of antiglobalization may encompass nationalist, fundamentalists and other undesirable elements, non-nationalist antiglobalists remain in a defacto alliance with them.

Indeed, in some respects the Islamic fundamentalist critique of globalization (including Osama bin Laden's and Al Queda's), may well share some broad ideological characteristics with these other religious fundamentalist and right-wing nationalist critics of globalization.

For instance, Islamic fundamentalists seem to want nothing to do with western culture, corporations or values. Meanwhile, in India, nationalist Hindu fundamentalists have opposed corporate-globalization for the same reasons. In France, neo-fascist Jean Marie Le Pen's racist nationalism has included a critique of globalization. Russia has experienced a similar phenomenon in the form of Vladimir Zhirinovsky's racist, anti-semitic, anti-globalization nationalism. And here in the United States Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson's nationalist xenophobia has also been anti-NAFTA, and anti-free trade.

To be clear, I am not saying that any of these fundamentalists are in any way politically aligned with each other. In fact, most of them would never speak to one another. Nor am I saying that people like Pat Buchanan or India's BJP party, espouse terrorism. Rather, I am suggesting that these diverse political forces share a certain fundamentalist (as opposed to a post-colonial or post-modern) reaction to globalization.

The divergences between these constituencies and our movement are clear. We are for a different kind of globalization; the fundamentalists are against globalization altogether. We are internationalists; they are most often nationalists. We are for openness, transparency, democracy, diversity and tolerance; they are almost always characterized by secrecy, xenophobia, homogeneity, and intolerance of the "other." Joshua Karliner, Where Do We Go From Here?
Pondering the Future of Our Movement, CorpWatch October 11, 2001

This problem was clear from the beginning. (See the text from De Fabel van de illegaal later in this issue.) Despite the fact that the presence of right-wing forces was clear in Seattle, antiglobalists forged ahead with antiglobalist politics. I am not implying that groups did not make an effort to clarify their politics and to show the world something more than a negative program; many anarchist groups indeed have a clear vision of what they would like to create, a vision that necessitates the subversion of all nationalism, reformism and statism. However, the presentation of the anti-globalist movement as something deeper than a rebellion against big business and neoliberal institutions was far from universal. A cursory look through antiglobalist literature and websites reveals something quite different.

The fact is that the vast majority of self-proclaimed antiglobalists allign themselves to a much broader opposition movement in which the lines of demarcation between tradition and traditionalism, anti-multinational capitalism and national (state) capitalism, anti-imperialism (aka national preservation) and nationalism have become largely blurred.

Nowhere is this clearer than in countries deeply affected by globalization processes which have strong nationalistic movements. Russian anti-globalists are more likely to come from the ranks of the red-brown alliance than the libertarian left or anarchist movement. This phenomenom, which was not really considered by some unfortunates looking for antiglobalist partners in that country, led to a number of embarassing incidents. Take for example the formation of a Russian Indymedia by an antiglobalist connected to Duginist activists. When informed, some Indymedia activists displayed incredulity that such a thing was even possible and presumably a few have yet to be convinced, despite the facts presented and the fact that a new collective formed issuing a statement against the running of Indymedia by such an “antiglobalist”. (They now unofficially run the thing. By the way, Ukrainians as well as Russians work together in the collective, which prompted a questions from someone such as whether these Ukrainians were ethnic Russians or not, as if this would be any basis for cooperation. Not to blow that out of proportions; it was a silly remark and an apology made. I feel it’s a good example of how a collective can transcend national boundaries.) For weeks the new-right anti-globalist argued that he was only interested in affording free speech for anti-globalists. (A quick look on most national anarchist or third positionist sites show how much they love to use free speech banners and logos.) This issue of free speech proved very pernicious and, in the end, entirely hypocritical. Despite the editor’s claims that everybody should have the right to publish and, thus so it was inevitable that red-brown material appear in the right (open publishing) column (although it also appeared in the left, published by the editor), the stuff that “disappeared” from the right column was criticism of nationalism in the antiglobalist movement made by myself and a couple of other comrades.

If the incident didn’t teach a lesson to everybody involved, it at least made an impact on some Russian activists who, in face of the overwhelming nationalistic characteristic of the Russian antiglobalist movement, have decided not to fight to claim the title of “the antiglobalization movement”, but have ascribed to the idea of globalization from below.

The recognition that the term “antiglobalist” can be comfortably used by both nationalists and reformists is rather widespread throughout Europe. It has to be for it was here that we found the widespread participation of “national anarchists” and neo-fascists in large anti-globalization campaigns such as the anti-MAI actions, Prague, Goteborg and Genoa. (See De Fabel van de illegal’s text on anti-MAI demonstrations.)

As time went on we became aware that the political character of the campaigns against the MAI and the WTO is not really left wing. The campaigns can easily fit into a conservative and nationalist agenda. - De Fabel van de illegal.

In places like Sweden, quite a lot of discussion has taken place and there seems to be a widespread move for abandoning the term “antiglobalization”, if not rejecting the summit-hopping, protest formula. The more one reads into the politics of the antiglobalization movement and see how it may be exploited by various interests, the more it seems that it may be wise to abandon it.

It is now very much out in the open as to how various international interests funded different ecological groups in Europe in order to achieve other long term goals.

...the involvement of the EU in the environmental arena of the Czech Republic (and elsewhere in CEE) is born of a specific economic agnda based on harmonizing the costs of production to eliminate unfair advantage. - Petr Jehlicka, The Impact of EU Assistance on Czech Environmental Movement Capacity since 1990

It is also known that certain areas of anti-summitry are heavily funded by right-wing interests; the extent of this is probably not yet fully uncovered. Roger Milliken is widely known to have contributed heavily to Public Citizen, one of the groups calling for the Seattle protests. (Lori Wallach of this Naderite group is largely credited as Seattle’s initiator.) Yet the mythology of Seattle and anti-summitry portray all such events as grassroots protests and moments of rebellion.

Many saavy activists will admit to knowing about all this but will argue that in the end, the media exposure they get will more than justify their partipication in such events. Maybe so, but if such events eventually strengthen a national capitalist agenda? Or lead to new lipservice policies on the part of international monetary and trade institutions that do nothing more than obfuscate the nature of their mission?

These questions are quite complex but one thing is clear: a lot of people have caught on to the structural flaws of the antiglobalist movement and are very clearly either trying to purge it and claim it for the grassroots left or finding themselves in a growing anti-antiglobalist camp. For those who have not began the process of critically evaluating the movement, some study may be in order. A couple of critical texts follow. More information on national anarchists, the synthesis between left and right and convergence of left-right interests can be found on the internet on the following sites:

www.savanne.ch/right-left.html www.publiceye.org/Sucker_Punch/Clueless.html