A Marxist Critique of Anti-Globalization Activism

After at least twenty years of steady decline of the "radical movement", of "leftist activism", during which those people in society who were attempting to "change the world" -- in a "progressive" or "leftist" sense -- were reduced to a miniscule "fringe group", a complete marginalization within society, within even the "left", broadly speaking; Seattle N30 came along to change all that, to reverse the trend, to turn it all around. Now, in the wake of N30.99, people who are out there trying to "change the world" are no longer nearly so marginalized, their existence as a distinct force or tendency within society is known by (more or less) everyone. Their existence and activity is now appreciated and welcomed by a significant and growing part of this society -- those who have come to question the direction the dominant social forces in our society are pushing to take it, and us, in.

So if it is now "respectable" or even "fashionable" to work (voluntarily, without remuneration, on oneÕs own free time) to "change the world" -- if such people are no longer universally considered to be "kooks", "utopian dreamers", or "relics of the past" -- then why is it that so few of this new wave of radical social activists have made their way to a position of revolutionary anti-capitalist critique? Of course, at this still early stage in the development of this new movement of resistance to capitalist globalization, the movement itself is in no way "revolutionary". Revolutionary potential may exist within the movement, in the most radical current within it, but it is presently entirely a matter of potential; it is a tendency that might arise within the movement in the upcoming period.

Presently, the movement is dominated by an agenda and ideology of "democratization", i.e., of radically reforming the dominant institutions and operations of existing capitalist society. Any thoroughgoing critique of capitalist social relations is presently thoroughly marginalized within the movement. The predominant critiques of globalization and "neo-liberalism" within the movement do not in any way at all question capital and its social relations. Rather, they merely critique the most socially and environmentally destructive aspects or consequences of the operation of global capital today. And this is just as true of the "radical", direct action faction of the movement as it is of the "moderate", "fair trade" faction. There is an almost total lack of understanding and critique of the underlying reality and forces of capital, its social relations, its historical development, its imperatives and tendencies, and its conditions of permanent or historic crisis in the present period. The anti-globalization (a-g) movement opposes itself to globalization, that is, of course, to capitalist globalization. But just why is capital globalizing itself so intensively these days? What are the reasons and what are the (global) economic forces driving the process of globalization? These are fairly basic, yet vital questions confronting any anti-globalization resistance movement. But it is coherent answers to just such questions that are lacking in today's a-g movement. And what about the general social conditions of contemporary capitalist society within which the a-g struggle is taking place? Again we find a serious lack of understanding of the underlying reality within the movement. If a real forward development of the a-g movement is to occur, comprehension within the movement on these questions must increase significantly.

Such an understanding and critique do exist, but presently they do not have any real existence or basis within the movement. In no small part, this results from the fact that, even within the radical current of the movement, all of the emphasis is on actions, on doings things here and now to change the world "before it's too late". There is a real sense of desperation, resulting from an apocalyptic vision of rapidly increasing corporate tyranny, and resulting in an extreme "immediatism" -- i.e., exclusive focus on immediate results -- permeating the whole of the movement. The movement's participants are primarily "activists", people who organize and prepare group actions and events that are meant to challenge or resist specific policies, institutions, or projects of contemporary globalizing capital.

Of course, these activists do have an understanding and critique of that which they oppose, but that critique and understanding is only partial because that which they are currently directly resisting is just a part of the overall totality of global capital. Thus, they oppose and are actively resisting: the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and similar transnational institutions, as well as those processes they see these institutions directing, such as ecological devastation, displacement of traditional communities and means of livelihood, child labour, sweatshops, privatization of education, healthcare, water, energy production, homogenization of culture, etc. All of these aspects and many more, even taken as a whole, are still just a small part of the reality of global capital today.

Should we expect the a-g movement, such as it is, to move on from these extreme symptoms and "superstructural" (not a term I like) institutions of present day global capital, to a more comprehensive and in-depth focus of confrontation? Not likely. That's because the present movement is held together -- as an international mass movement -- only by those political views held in common by of all its participants. And as we all know, the movement is characterized by an extraordinary diversity of people, groups, and their political views. As soon as an attempt is made to move beyond reforming symptoms and institutions of capital, towards the real enemy itself, a large part of the present-day movement (probably a majority in terms of absolute numbers of movement participants) will drop out, or, alternatively, the radical faction will split away from the moderate faction (transforming it from a mass movement to a 'minoritarian' movement); that is, more or less all of the "moderate", "fair trade" faction, including the trade unions, the "moderate" environmentalists, religious groups, and third-worldist groups, will not participate in or support any attempt to push the movement towards a direct confrontation with the ruling class as a whole, and all the presumptions and imperatives of the power of capital and the state themselves. Such a confrontation, I assume, is what the radical, "anti-capitalist" faction of the movement looks forward to. Of course, some people will be radicalized within the course of the movement. But how many moderate reformists can be expected to become radical revolutionaries within the movement? As long as existing social conditions don't deteriorate drastically, surely not too many.

ACTIVISM/PASSIVITY

Part of this critique is part of a larger critique of activism more generally, or rather, of leftist activism, in particular. Such activism always holds or implies that some "action" or activity by even a small group of people is always more important, is always more politically valuable, than any political discussion or debate of political positions, orientations, or strategies between fellow militants. This attitude exemplifies a hidden, or not so hidden, elitism and vanguardism, in that it implies that a small group of people can effect significant social change, as opposed to the reality that only mass actions can do so. Under conditions of social passivity of most of the masses, the activism of a small minority tend to merely become part of the capitalist political spectacle; thus, if anything, reinforcing the passivity of most of the masses.

Of course, many activists would reject these views. Some would argue that relatively small scale actions, while they can't actually effect significant social change, can have a significant effect on the consciousness of a significant number of members of the public (or, alternatively, the working class). Others would argue that while small scale activism is insignificant, a "critical mass" of activists and of actions (such as we saw in Seattle) can affect significant change. Certainly that is true, but such mass actions are relatively rare, except in extreme social crises (under the conditions of the real domination of capital, which we are subject to) And then, it must be asked what kind of actions are being conceived of, and, what kind of actions are possible for a mass a-g movement. This latter is important because although mass, "in the streets", actions are capable of stopping certain policies of a government or institution from being put into practice, even of forcing the adoption of opposing policies (temporarily), or shutting down an institution (for a while) -- and although the results of such actions may consist in significant social change -- they are essentially "defensive" actions that can never force a government, institution, or corporation to put into practice policies which are contrary to the capitalinterests of the organization in question represents. Before such a thing were ever to happen in this era, the state whose jurisdiction the actions were within would unleash military repression of whatever magnitude necessary to crush the threat.

Anti-capitalist anti-globalization activists have to be clear why this is so. The capitalist state's fundamental mission is to safeguard capitalist order, capitalist social relations, and to defend the interests of the capital of the whole nation. In conjunction with a precarious global economy in a state of deep historic crisis, the result is that each national state will undertake whatever it deems necessary to defend the interests of the nation's capital; and in this era of globalization, more or less all the world's states will undertake whatever they deem necessary to defend the interests of the global economy, and thus of global capital. Not least among those measures states will utilize in the course of such a "defence" against the actions of a-g activists is brutal military repression, even against "its own civilians". This represents a "wall", a limit beyondwhich the a-g movement, operating on the terrain and with the methods currently deployed, will not be able to step. And it is at this limit that genuine anti-capitalists among a-g activists must focus their theoretical attention. How to go further towards total confrontation with capital, with the aim of eliminating capitalism itself? In other words, civil war. In fact, all out CLASS war, if total confrontation with capital is indeed the aim.

THE NEED FOR REVOLUTIONARY THEORY

As noted above, a revolutionary critique and understanding of total global capital, of its relations and underlying forces, of its immanent tendencies, of its imperatives, and of the conditions of its historic crisis, do exist, but not within the movement. That's because such a critique is a concern of revolutionary theory. And the development of such theory does not take place by way of activism, it does not occur within the milieu of activist organizations. It occurs, rather, by way of, and within, revolutionary political groupings, groups which recognize from the beginning and at all moments, the necessity for the abolition or overthrow of capitalism as an entire social system, as a set of social relations which regulate all of social activity in the world; groups which recognize, moreover, that such a monumental project is a historical process, one which has been around for a long time and will be going on for a long time to come if it is to reach fruition.

As capitalist society has historically developed and transformed itself throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, so too has revolutionary (anti-capitalist) theory had to develop, to transform itself, to update itself, so as to reflect the changes in the reality of the development of capital and of those conditions which permit its overthrow. These changes have been especially profound in the last 20 to 30 years of the 20th century. As a result, revolutionary theory has been forced to renew itself, to critique itself, to discard old schemas and partial understandings, and to develop new means of critical comprehension that go beyond the old, discarded ones. This has not been easy, and consequently there has been much disagreement, and fragmentation, within the international milieu of revolutionary political groupings. However, there have also been real developments, real advances and breakthroughs, and the critique some are in the process of developing has shown real promise to lay bare the reality of globalizing capital in deep historic crisis in the 21st century. Their understanding of the underlying forces and immanent tendencies of global capital as a historically evolving process -- of the ongoing reproduction of the material means of life of society, which at the same time involves the accumulation of wealth by those who control the means of production -- is based on a number of central concepts and a method of analysis first developed as a coherent system by Karl Marx; concepts such as mode of production, means of production, forces of production, relations of production, commodity structure, use-value, exchange-value, commodity fetishism, surplus-value, labour-power, as a commodity, generalized commodity production, concentration of capital, centralization of capital, absolute surplus-value, relative surplus-value, rate of surplus-value, constant capital, variable capital, organic and technical composition of capital, realization of surplus-value on the market, productive consumption, formal domination of capital, real domination of capital, historic growth vs. historic decay, or ascendance vs. decline, of capital as a mode of production, and of course total or global capital, and of course, capitalist class or bourgeoisie and working class or proletariat, among others.

The marxist method of utilization of these concepts is known as the dialectical method, a method which permits a dynamic understanding of social reality, because it explicitly sees this reality as an overall developing, historical process, a totality of component manifold processes which are concretely related to each other within the whole, which condition and interact with each other. This marxist dialectical method attempts to grasp the overall movement of social reality by investigating various immanent tendencies which underlie the surface phenomena of capitalist society, and by examining the relations between these tendencies, especially the relation of contradiction or opposition, in order to achieve a comprehensive, balanced, overall understanding of social reality as a totality. There is nothing 'orthodox' or 'dogmatic' about such a marxism; it is not a 'doctrine' or set of 'absolute truths', for it involves an ever-closer approximation to the underlying reality, and it is essentially critical; and this involves the capacity to critique itself, its own results.

Those forms of 'Marxism' which in contrast are orthodox and dogmatic, a body of 'doctrine', an ideology, are vulgarized, static, imitations of the real thing, which don't employ all (or even close to all) of the key conceptual tools, don't employ the dialectical method, and are incapable of marxist self-critique. Such are the 'Marxisms' of the 'Marxist-Leninists' (i.e., Stalinists and Maoists), the various 'Bolshevik-Leninists' and other Trotskyists, and the academic 'Marxists' (or Marxologists). Whereas genuine revolutionary marxism is to be found primarily within the milieu of groupings which has evolved out of the "left-wing" of the international communist movement, breaking with the Communist International (C.I.) well before Stalin rose to power, while both Lenin and Trotsky still held dominant positions within both the Bolshevik Party and the C.I.. This left-communist or "ultra-leftist" marxist current arose primarily in Germany, Holland, Italy, and Russia (existing as a minority within the Bolshevik Party itself until Lenin, Trotsky, et. al. banned factions within the party in 1921), with the German and Dutch variants never accepting the Leninist theory of complete domination of the revolutionary struggle by the Communist Party.

But what about the anarchists or libertarian socialists? Don't they have a radical critique of capitalism? As a historically evolving phenomenon, the answer must be: no. Their critique -- insofar as it isn't borrowed from marxism, although all too often that has meant vulgarized 'orthodox' Marxism -- is fundamentally static and moralistic, in terms of categories such as authority, hierarchy, and centralism. However, some anarchists do possess a more robust, more dynamic critique and understanding. But this is primarily because they have incorporated key marxist conceptual tools or employed a(n atleast partially) dialectical method in developing their critique, that is, by appropriating elements of a marxist analysis. This appropriation has occurred over the years, first with the early syndicalists (such as the IWW in the U.S., the early CGT in France, the CNT in Spain, etc.); then, in the '30s, '40s and '50s through the movement of some of the council communists (a tendency which came out of the communist left in Germany and Holland) joining or working with anarchist, syndicalist, or libertarian socialist groupings; and more recently by way of the appropriation of (aspects of) situationist theory by certain anarchist tendencies.

Anarchism, of or on its own, is utterly incapable of producing a comprehensive critique of capital as a totality and as a historical process. Revolutionary marxism alone has provided the basis of such a critique.1 And especially in North America, as distinct from western Europe, the present day 'radical movement' is almost entirely unaware of the theory of revolutionary marxism, of its analysis/critique of capital and capitalist society. This in part helps to explain why (as queried above) so few of the new 'radicals' (in North America, atleast) have yet made their way to a revolutionary critical comprehension of capitalism. It also partly explains why such a large proportion of today's new wave of radical a-g activists have rejected what they think Marxism to be in favour of anarchism or some form of libertarian socialism.

As time goes on, however, some of them atleast are bound to realize the utter inadequacy of their theoretical understanding of capitalism and the direction it is moving in. If they really are anti-capitalists, they are going to reach a point where their activism comes up against a wall, incapable of going further ahead, because of their lack of comprehension of the underlying reality of capital. Then, if they are to move forward in their active antagonism to capitalism, they will realize the need to develop their theoretical comprehension of capital as a historically developing process. They will realize then the need for revolutionary theory, for what Marx called 'the critique of political economy'. They will thus need to become aware of the already developed revolutionary theory of the currents of the internationalist communist milieu (i.e., of the 'communist left' or 'marxist ultra-left'). Otherwise, they will be forced to try to retrace the steps taken by that development, a development which has taken decades of collective work to realize.

Wage Slave X

2000.

[NOTE: The author of this text realizes well its incompleteness. It is to be hoped that an expanded, revised version will be produced sometime. Comments and criticisms are welcomed.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 This assertion will of course strike many a-g activists as sectarian and divisive. That is the risk one runs as the movement develops, and the contradiction deepens between the tendency to unity and massiveness, on the one hand, and the tendency to push forward the confrontation with capital, to radicalize it, to sharpen it and clarify its means and its ends, on the other hand. For those a-g activists who see the need for both of these tendencies to mature, but for the second one to be primary, if the a-g movement is to be a factor in a genuine (but still only potential) global revolutionary anti-capitalist movement, I recommend reading some of the texts at this site (and at others accessible via my links page) which address the issue of globalization from a revolutionary marxist perspective, such as "Globalization and the Historic Course", and "Deeper into Deadend Street", both by Internationalist Perspective. Beyond that, back issues of IP magazine contain further analysis. I also hope to provide new texts of my own here soon which aim to clarify a revolutionary theoretical understanding of both capitalist globalization and the movement to destroy it.