some comment on globalization

joelw at joelw at
Thu Sep 6 08:24:25 MDT 2001

A Response to David Walters:

Actually it was I (Joel) who posted the article, but I appreciate your

I disagree with some key points you have made in your response,

First, the the main architects of globalization/imperialism (in late
capitalism) are not members of political parties, right? If they were it
might be quite easy to link Nixon and the currency business of
1969-1973, Reagan and the theory and practice of domestic structural
adjustment programs (the primary focus of the neo-conservative
movement), and Bush same thing with the addition of the specific
contributions of the conservative elements of the DLC thrown in.

Secondly, it must not be regarded as an accident that two of these
political figures were prominent in the right-wing "fascist" danger of
the 1940s and 1950s. Further, and you can check out Gerald Horne's
well-argued book "Class Struggle in Hollywood" for a good analysis of
this, it was the post-WW2 reactionary period, arising as a response to
the class struggle period of 1930-1945, in which monopoly capital used
the "fascist"/anti-communist reaction to bust progressive labor,
reorganize social structures of accumulation to benefit themselves and
help develop transnational capital protected by US military might
(imperialism), and de-linked social struggle and the struggle for rights
or for bread and butter from the struggle for socialism (in 1942 a poll
showed that some 60% of Americans were a least open minded toward or in
favor of socialism, Michael Denning, "The cultural front").

Third, the argument that the working class must be convinced to break
away from some electoral formation seems quite academic and "old." The
question is how? There never really seems to be an answer to that. And
putting up candidates from alternative parties doesn't seem to do the
trick either. Elections don't seem to have the same permanence as
issue-based, coalition-driven organizational efforts. It is quite an
"old" alternative. Additionally, marxists know, or ought to, that no
political formation is monolithic, right? I think Scott is arguing that
the current struggle is against the ultra-right program of SAP's
(privatization, cutting social services, attacks on the trade union
movement), that the struggle for democracy (the most visible form of
which arose after the Bush selection--oh wait once again I'm talking
about a political party...or maybe about civil rights...)is linked to
this, that the struggle against the right and SAP's is at a local level
the struggle against globalization, and the struggle for social control
over the movement of capital, but requires working-class unity, and it
is up to Marxists (Communists, Trotskyists, independents,
anarcho-libertarian socialists, etc.) to help paddle that boat.
Dialectically, this seems to me to be linked to the struggle to build

Joel W.

More information about the Marxism mailing list