The Fourth World War: Localizers V. Globalization. Part I
jpino at SPAMkent.edu
Tue Aug 15 12:47:03 MDT 2000
Scenes from World War IV.INTRODUCTION
1. Chavez meets Gadhafi after controversial Iraq trip
TRIPOLI: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez followed up a controversial
trip to Iraq with a visit to Libya on Sunday, another nation often at
odds with the United States and familiar with the sort of U.N. sanctions
he has condemned.
2.New York Times, August 15, 2000
feature the first big civil clash of the globalization era --
that is, a popular
struggle between localizers, who want to keep Iran isolated from
trends and dominated by religious theology, versus the
increasingly know how the rest of the world lives and want to be
3. Euskal Herria Journal, August 1, 2000
"Navarre is the organization that the Basque people
gave to themselves to protect their autonomy and
independence and to organize internally"
- Mikel Sorauren
4.Tamil Eelam Net
The Tamil Tiger leader Mr.
Pirapaharan emphasised that peace talks cannot be held
conditions of war, military aggression, occupation and
economic strangulation of the
Nine Dead in Bombing of Train in India
LUCKNOW, India, Aug 15 -- Nine people were killed and 37
wounded when a bomb ripped through the last carriage of a night
train in northern India, officials said. Police said they
believed the bomb attack was linked to the Kashmir
6. HEADLINE: MY BODY IS MY OWN BUSINESS By Naheed Mustafa
I OFTEN wonder whether people see me as a radical, fundamentalist Muslim
terrorist packing an AK-47 assault rifle inside my jean jacket. Or may
be they see me as the poster girl for oppressed womanhood everywhere.
I'm not sure which it is.
There is a common thread here. All over the world people are fighting to
maintain an identity in the face of the onslaught of globalization. This is
the Fourth World War, or the Great post-Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
There are today no significant actors on the global political scene
fighting for Marxian socialism.While there are Marxists in thought there
are no Marxists in deeds. The dichotomy of Left and Right makes no longer
makes sense. The global struggle today is not over economics, because no
nation in the world has suceeded in making socialist economics work in a
manner that would inspire others to follow its example. On the contrary;
what's left of socialism in China and Viet Nam is propped up by capitalism,
while Cuba and the DPRK struggle valiantly to weather the storm.CULTURE:
the right to difference in race/ethnicity/religion etc. is what now drives
world politics; it's Jihad versus MacWorld. Should MacWorld win out we
would be faced with the prospect not of "a boot stomping a face over and
over" (Orwell) but the same image repeated over and over again on CDs, the
Net, DVDs. The contest against capitalism today must be waged on the visual
front, if only because no other arena is available.
In order to survive and once again become a fighting movement Marxists
must attach ourselves to every element on the planet striving to preserve a
unique way of life. Hugo Chavez understands this. When he went to China he
said, "Yo soy un Maoista." Visiting El Supremo of Baghdad he railed against
US/UN sanctions. Chez Qadaffi Chavez pronounced national sovereignty the
most pressing issue of the day.Chavez's identity is "Bolivarian." He has no
distinctive economic program to offer. Neither do the Iranian mullahs or
the ETA. But what they do offer, and the reason they have a significant
following, and we don't, is the possibility of resisting
If Marxists make political agreement an a priori condition for forging
alliances with such groups then we are doomed to irrelevancy.Whether a
nation/region or religious or ethnic group is on the Left or Right when it
comes to issue X (what clothing to wear, what industries to nationalize,
what brand of Catholicism or Islam they practice)should be not our main
concern.Instead, we must find as many points in common with them , dialogue
on those isues that are debatable, eg., religion v. atheism is not worth
bringing up, and agree to disagree about the rest.
This note is simply an introduction to a longer piece in which I aim to
1. Why class can no longer be the vehicle Marxists use to gain political
2. Why the future of Marxism lies in identity politics, but not as liberals
and multiculturalists use the term.
3. How a fusion of the two might be possible.
More information about the Marxism