Forwarded from Jurriaan (on Amin)

Macdonald Stainsby mstainsby at
Mon Jun 4 16:35:59 MDT 2001

 > Marx himself would never have sponsored any "movement against
 > globalisation". He would have said globalisation (in the sense of bringing
 > together nations in global communication, information and financial
 > networks) is progressive, in unifying the world, fostering internationalist
 > consciousness and breaking down barriers between ethnic groups.

Just because you are completely out of touch does not mean that Marx would not
be there. Depending on the facts that his writings tended to see him go towards
the worker's movements like a man with an internal compass for the matters, he
would be writng very nasty letters to the union bureaucrats. I can picture him
walking along at the head of the union marches into parking lots and decrying
them for their direction.

The sad part about the "thesis" which attaches progressive outcomes ("the
internet is a result of capitalism and the needs of globalisation!") to the
neo-colonial stage of Imperialism, is the implict assumption that we who oppose
it at every step are backward looking and not forward thinking. The opponents of
globalisation, as a generally non-homogenous mass, are just now beginning to
think "beyond the struggle" (as a young anti-globalisation woman recently put it
here in Vancouver, we can not simply `Summit Hop' any longer) towards what kind
of new society without this kind of retrograde nonsense. The people involved are
(slowly) getting less pigeon holed and more internationalist in scope. These
things are small and a result of reality, but that are also becoming the new

Ultimately, I have all the faith in the world in these people. I have no choice,
what with people ostensibly standing in the tradition of Karl Marx assuming he
would have any likelihood of abandoning the mass movements of the day for some
spurious notions of crass material advancement. Marx was many things, but most
importantly he had a revolutionary soul. That soul swung with the people and was
committed to the absolute totaldestruction of capitalism and it's inhuman
results. His spirituality (and this is a good word for it) was a total love of
the nobility of work and hatred of those who denigrate human potential through
the pursuit of their class aims.

Now, what would Marx be doing today? Hmm... Well, I'll venture that wehat is
important is actually what *we* are doing, in any case. I personally want to
continue to embrace the movements here to stay that challenge the greatest
killing machine the world has ever known.

Perhaps you might consider why it was that you were brought into revolutionary
politics in the first place. It is one thing to criticise gross inconsistencies,
bad anarchists planning, stupid Marxist platforms, etc- debunk all this nonsense
as it emerges to your hearts content! However, I ask you to look inside to what
brought you to political revolutionary concepts in the first place. The only
valid reason remains to change the world. This emergence of a global competition
against Imperialism in its deaththroes- there is something far too obviously
"left" in all of this as to be up for debate on "theoretical" grounds. It is
simply a matter of using that internal revolutionary compass and deciding for
yourself how you can contribute to this emergence. It is your best hope- in
spite of yourself.


More information about the Marxism mailing list