Within Marx’s historical
dialectic there is a predicted process of 'homogenization' driven by a
bourgeoise revolutionary force whose deployment of capital in its
internationalist aspect erases archaic barriers predicated on class, religion,
tribal affinities and so forth. This movement of capital is conceived and best
facilitated through a free trade environment; one that naturally eschews the
various forms of protectionism which only, in the end, forestall the emergence
of 'the necessary conditions' from whence a true communist society can prevail.
It is paradoxical therefore that the internationalist movements that have arisen; "Via Campesino" (peasant's movement), the anti-globalization campaigners, the various NGO's and worker's alliances that comprise the gathering of the World Social Forums - and many of these groups align themselves with some form of Marxism - that these movements by and large tend to share an antagonism towards the encroachment of corporate interests into their domains. Here, "Capital" is being resisted; whether it is resource extraction whose benefits rarely accrue to indigenous (mining interests of Rio Tinto etc, landscape despoliation, pollution of freshwater, Shell in Nigeria), or the privitisation and monopolisation of freshwater resources (Bechtel in Bolivia). In 'development studies' all of these issues come under the rubric; "whither forward" - which is the best way to proceed?
Many campaigners within these countries see the free market ideology espoused by the dominant economies as merely a lever used to exploit their natural resources; Chavez's nationalisation of the oil industry and his subsequent demonisation by the corporate media being a good example. The truth is, is that the resistance to free trade globalization is occurring on both fronts; by the developing country blocks seeking to protect and nurture domestic industry whilst securing preferential trading agreements and by the developed nations such as the EU, Japan and the US who continue to provide trade distorting subsides for it's agricultural producers (ie corporate agribusiness).
It has been said also that Marx has under theorised those dimensions of nationalist politics which continue to mitigate against the development of pan-internationalist alliances based upon class distinctions. Within his view of history the predominant form - the capitalist mode of production - has been announced, and it has a corresponding class dimension composed of the bourgeoise and the proletariat. But isn't this an uncomfortably simple dualism?
While it can be argued that capitalist expansion and the competition for new markets between rival imperial states led to the first world war it can also be said that it was the rise of new nationalisms; a cultural chauvinism based on ethnic distinctions, that had sparked and continue to create the greatest cleavages. Perhaps the conditions which he predicted haven't emerged because the ties that bind groups together within their own country; culture, nationalism, language, ethnicity etc.. far outweigh the forces of class-based international solidarity.
Will capital's continual path to consolidation through mergers and acquisitions create it's own mirror-image in grass roots opposition that dissolves the nationalist obstacles to pan-internationalist solidarity or will we all simply aspire to becoming shareholders, richer consumers and pliant targets of advertising strategists? Capitalist processes don't offer the same appeal in terms of constructing identities; even advertisers know that to sell a product internationally they must tailor their pitch to suit domestic norms and values. A coca-cola ad in Saudi Arabia, Asia or America may be selling the same product but it will make appeal to vastly different consumer profiles. Capitalism will use these pre-existing differences to it's advantage but is it capable in and of itself of erasing them sufficiently to lower the barriers that divide us - and do we really want that to happen anyway?
Also, from the Communist Manifesto; "The proletariat of each country must of course first settler matters with it's own bourgeoise". The 'national' question in many developing countries has yet to resolved; resource ownership and control by ethnic elites and oligarchies of every kind are here often stunting true democracy and it is within these conditions that international capital is being allowed to invest - with corresponding perks for bureaucratic elites who ease it's facilitation. Often cases, it depends on what type of "Capital" is being deployed; is it for rural electrification schemes, the setting up of mobile masts, building up infrastructure, roads etc - these are all seemingly positive developments - until you see that oftentimes the workforce are ex-pats doing jobs that the natives themselves are skilled at. Certainly, this was a big issue in Iraq with the Federation of Oil Worker's Union bemoaning their member's exclusion from so many private contracts.
Marx's critique of "bourgeoise socialism" reminds me of the attitude of many activists today towards the "aid industry" - where an entire network of relations has been built up between donor countries, developing countries and Western led, dominated and ideologically orientated NGO's - USAID, Trocaire, Concern etc; whose activities, whilst clearly humanitarian draw focus away from the structural factors that contribute to the lack of economic development. We talk of famine relief in Ethiopia when their coffee farmers are being paid four times less than they were thirty years ago when the commodity price stabilisation scheme was in effect. Likewise, a decade and a half ago the World Bank provided trade distorting grants for the production of Vietnamese green coffee - the resultant plunging coffee prices from primary producers only benefited the half dozen international purchasers who have cartelised it's distribution (not that the consumer would be aware coffee is four times cheaper).
So why haven’t the processes produced by the dialectic of historical materialism - seen today in the homogenising forces of globalised capital - not produced a comparable structuralist critique, worthy of Marx‘s theorising? Of course, along with the various modes of production there is a corresponding ideology and with the capitalist mode where media ownership and control rests predominantly with the bourgeoisie class interests there will be a wilful occlusion of reactionary narratives that work towards it's dismantlement. In addition to which we have had the fateful absorption of Marxist ideas by anti-Western/anti-imperialist, post-colonial and post-monarchical states such as China, Russia, the communist bloc and newly independent African states, which have often led to opportunistic and regionally specific interpretations of Marxist thought thus diluting the potential for prospective alliances.
It is paradoxical therefore that the internationalist movements that have arisen; "Via Campesino" (peasant's movement), the anti-globalization campaigners, the various NGO's and worker's alliances that comprise the gathering of the World Social Forums - and many of these groups align themselves with some form of Marxism - that these movements by and large tend to share an antagonism towards the encroachment of corporate interests into their domains. Here, "Capital" is being resisted; whether it is resource extraction whose benefits rarely accrue to indigenous (mining interests of Rio Tinto etc, landscape despoliation, pollution of freshwater, Shell in Nigeria), or the privitisation and monopolisation of freshwater resources (Bechtel in Bolivia). In 'development studies' all of these issues come under the rubric; "whither forward" - which is the best way to proceed?
Many campaigners within these countries see the free market ideology espoused by the dominant economies as merely a lever used to exploit their natural resources; Chavez's nationalisation of the oil industry and his subsequent demonisation by the corporate media being a good example. The truth is, is that the resistance to free trade globalization is occurring on both fronts; by the developing country blocks seeking to protect and nurture domestic industry whilst securing preferential trading agreements and by the developed nations such as the EU, Japan and the US who continue to provide trade distorting subsides for it's agricultural producers (ie corporate agribusiness).
It has been said also that Marx has under theorised those dimensions of nationalist politics which continue to mitigate against the development of pan-internationalist alliances based upon class distinctions. Within his view of history the predominant form - the capitalist mode of production - has been announced, and it has a corresponding class dimension composed of the bourgeoise and the proletariat. But isn't this an uncomfortably simple dualism?
While it can be argued that capitalist expansion and the competition for new markets between rival imperial states led to the first world war it can also be said that it was the rise of new nationalisms; a cultural chauvinism based on ethnic distinctions, that had sparked and continue to create the greatest cleavages. Perhaps the conditions which he predicted haven't emerged because the ties that bind groups together within their own country; culture, nationalism, language, ethnicity etc.. far outweigh the forces of class-based international solidarity.
Will capital's continual path to consolidation through mergers and acquisitions create it's own mirror-image in grass roots opposition that dissolves the nationalist obstacles to pan-internationalist solidarity or will we all simply aspire to becoming shareholders, richer consumers and pliant targets of advertising strategists? Capitalist processes don't offer the same appeal in terms of constructing identities; even advertisers know that to sell a product internationally they must tailor their pitch to suit domestic norms and values. A coca-cola ad in Saudi Arabia, Asia or America may be selling the same product but it will make appeal to vastly different consumer profiles. Capitalism will use these pre-existing differences to it's advantage but is it capable in and of itself of erasing them sufficiently to lower the barriers that divide us - and do we really want that to happen anyway?
Also, from the Communist Manifesto; "The proletariat of each country must of course first settler matters with it's own bourgeoise". The 'national' question in many developing countries has yet to resolved; resource ownership and control by ethnic elites and oligarchies of every kind are here often stunting true democracy and it is within these conditions that international capital is being allowed to invest - with corresponding perks for bureaucratic elites who ease it's facilitation. Often cases, it depends on what type of "Capital" is being deployed; is it for rural electrification schemes, the setting up of mobile masts, building up infrastructure, roads etc - these are all seemingly positive developments - until you see that oftentimes the workforce are ex-pats doing jobs that the natives themselves are skilled at. Certainly, this was a big issue in Iraq with the Federation of Oil Worker's Union bemoaning their member's exclusion from so many private contracts.
Marx's critique of "bourgeoise socialism" reminds me of the attitude of many activists today towards the "aid industry" - where an entire network of relations has been built up between donor countries, developing countries and Western led, dominated and ideologically orientated NGO's - USAID, Trocaire, Concern etc; whose activities, whilst clearly humanitarian draw focus away from the structural factors that contribute to the lack of economic development. We talk of famine relief in Ethiopia when their coffee farmers are being paid four times less than they were thirty years ago when the commodity price stabilisation scheme was in effect. Likewise, a decade and a half ago the World Bank provided trade distorting grants for the production of Vietnamese green coffee - the resultant plunging coffee prices from primary producers only benefited the half dozen international purchasers who have cartelised it's distribution (not that the consumer would be aware coffee is four times cheaper).
So why haven’t the processes produced by the dialectic of historical materialism - seen today in the homogenising forces of globalised capital - not produced a comparable structuralist critique, worthy of Marx‘s theorising? Of course, along with the various modes of production there is a corresponding ideology and with the capitalist mode where media ownership and control rests predominantly with the bourgeoisie class interests there will be a wilful occlusion of reactionary narratives that work towards it's dismantlement. In addition to which we have had the fateful absorption of Marxist ideas by anti-Western/anti-imperialist, post-colonial and post-monarchical states such as China, Russia, the communist bloc and newly independent African states, which have often led to opportunistic and regionally specific interpretations of Marxist thought thus diluting the potential for prospective alliances.
No comments:
Post a Comment