Globalization, the prequel

[Keaney Michael <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect wrote:

Back then, as today, neither "globalization" perspectives a la Thomas
Friedman or Wendell Wilkie nor the "globaloney" complaints of a nationalist
like Clare Boothe Luce or Pat Buchanan address a class perspective. Part of
the problem is that both positions embrace divergent class interests of the
bourgeoisie, while Marxism should take an entirely different angle. We are
internationalists when it comes to working-class solidarity, and
nationalists when it comes to defending the material interests of weak,
peripheral nations trying to advance along independent social and economic
routes, from socialist Cuba to Chavez's Venezuela.

======

The latter point was the substance of one of Nestor's mailings at around the
time we were discussing Argentina's economic history and current prospects.
Recently on the Marxism list there was an involved discussion of Scottish
nationalism, which is not a clear cut case if the divisions among leftists
on the subject are anything to go by. In fact the discussion on the Marxism
list echoed that being conducted in the pages of New Left Review between Tom
Nairn and J.G.A. Pocock. Apart from the difficulty of conceiving of
"Scotland" as a weak, peripheral nation (especially difficult given some of
the more fanciful claims of romantic nationalists who possess eternal
victimhood vis a vis "the English") there is the effect of greater Scottish
autonomy upon the rest of the UK. The Pocock line, echoed by many on the
left (especially the English left), is that Scottish nationalism/separatism
will breed only reactionary English nationalism and should thus be avoided.
This ignores the fact that reactionary English nationalism was the hallmark
of Thatcherism and led to the rebirth of Scottish nationalism as a
progressive movement. The current state of the British Conservative Party
highlights the sorry legacy of Mrs T. Wiped out in Scotland as an electoral
force, it is now dominated by an agenda set largely by Conrad Black/Robert
Conquest, which means very little to people outside of the home counties of
England. It also ignores the positive spillovers that might accrue to an
English left able to point to the gains achieved by progressive-led Scottish
autonomy (at the moment, better representation of local interests, the
scrapping of fees for undergraduate higher education, and now the promise of
free long term care for the elderly).

Part of the problem of conceiving of "Scotland", as a part of Britain, as
weak and peripheral is the legacy of the British empire. As with events in
the South Atlantic in 1982, this still plays an important role (Thatcher
certainly made Britain grate again). But Blair's craven apologism for the
NATO Yugoslavia adventure and the recent Baghdad bombing ought to highlight
just how absolutely dependent upon US support the British regime really is.
Weak and peripheral is exactly how a grand strategist and foreign policy
sage like Zbigniew Brzezinski sees Britain (in The Grand Chessboard), and
he's not wrong (for once). Blair/Cook/Robertson's energetic support for US
imperialism, together with Gordon Brown's constant lauding of US economic
success, serves to demonstrate the utterly abject position of Britain in any
assessment of world power. British delusions are served by reference to the
history of empire and its institutional hangover (the Commonwealth, itself
wrecked by Thatcher and her attitude towards sanctions against South
Africa), together with the permanent seat on the UN Security Council (an
anachronism if ever there was). In order to retain that seat Britain must
ask how high whenever the US says "jump!" What a blow to misplaced pride it
would be were that seat to become the property of the European Union (and
occupied in rotation by EU member countries) or, even worse, Germany alone.
It's bad enough having the French there, for gawd's sake. This dependency
culture has existed for long enough, as when LBJ threatened to pull the plug
on Harold Wilson when the latter wanted to pursue a policy of scaling back
British military commitments in the 1960s. The UK could simply not afford
these. But withdrawal from East of Suez (as the policy was called) would
send a negative signal regarding Britain's position on the Vietnam war. Just
to make sure it didn't happen, LBJ agreed to continue supporting Britain's
balance of payments deficit (see Clive Ponting, "Breach of Promise"). So
it's not just certain British folks who need to get their heads screwed on
straight when assessing the true extent of UK power and influence.

As no less a "realist" than Samuel Huntington argues, globalisation is going
to unsettle a lot of vested interests. He argues that the most likely
response of this latest phase of capitalist development is a reversion to
older certainties based on ethnic and religious grounds. Without an active,
grounded left to offer a viable pathway, there will be no shortage of Pat
Buchanans, Pat Robertsons and tough-lovin' compassionate conservatives to
provide plausible diagnoses of our collective plight and present nasty,
reactionary prescriptions in quick succession (see the resurrection of
Pauline Hanson in Australia, the BJP in India, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, ad
nauseam). Nationalistic defence of material interests is a given. It's up to
the left to provide the internationalist perspective that's sorely needed.

Michael K.