Re: Southern Poverty Law Center on U.S. Radical Right and Globalization

[Apologies for multiple postings]

Doug Henwood writes:

>This is pretty demented stuff. Racist antiglobalizers were invisible 
>in Seattle - I was there for 6 days and spent a lot of time walking 
>around & watching & talking to people - as it was in DC for A16/17. 
>The SPLC thrives on scaring liberals with tales of imminent Nazi 
>takeover - it has a fund of something like $100 million, which it 
>hardly spends on anything but more fundraising. (The newsletter 
>Counterpunch <http://www.counterpunch.org> has done a fine job of 
>exposing this over the last few years.) Yes there are rightwing 
>antiglobalizers, but they have no role in the movement I've been 
>watching develop. Discard this as devious, destructive nonsense.
>-- 
>

to which Flavio Bortelho added (on the IPE list):


>>>>

Hi Jeffrey
You said : "I'm sure list members realize my only purpose is to inform "
But this is not a complete information. In the same source you are quoting is found:

"In Seattle, the left and right did not exactly march arm in arm. Militia
members decrying international conspiracies were largely ignored.
Members of the neo-Nazi National Alliance who were there reported
back about "the most utterly disgusting street punks and campus
Jews" they had met -- and battled -- in the streets."

What is the real purpose? Globalization needs this sort of argument?

<<<<


Apparently some list members took my posting the SPLC article as a slur upon the anti-globalization movement.  Let me assure Doug, at least, that this was in no way my intention.  The article itself, as the quotation from Flavio's post indicates, by no means emphasizes political cooperation between the "anti-globalizers" of the left and the neofascist antiglobalizers of the right.  Rather, the emphasis is on _ideological_ convergence on certain issues, and specifically on global economic issues.  

In no way did I intend to suggest that there is no distinction between the sorts of antiglobalizers Doug represents and those described in the SPLC article.  Rather, I intended to draw attention to those among the antiglobalizers who represent extreme right-wing causes.

It is a bit misleading to speak of a single "antiglobalist" movement.  The posts to these CSF lists over the last two days suggest the existence of at least three political tendencies among people critical of existing institutions that "govern" the world economy:  

(1)  The left-wing opposition, based upon non-governmental organizations of a radical or liberal political bent.  These include socialist organizations, environmental organizations, organizations representing indigenous peoples and postcolonial societies, consumer organizations, organizations promoting "local self-reliance", etc.  This is the opposition Doug says he has observed.

(2)  The right-wing opposition, based upon neofascist or protofascist organizations like those described in the SPLC article.  I might observe in passing that this right-wing opposition has existed in one organizational incarnation or another at least since the early 19th century (see Lind 1995a and b; Heilbrunn 1995).  It has a lengthy history in the United States. Remember the anti-internationalism of Barry Goldwater's movement in 1964 ("Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.?")?  Remember the John Birch Society peddling tracts like Gary Allen's _None Dare Call It Conspiracy_ (1971)?  In a real sense, the extreme right was anti-global before anti-global was cool : )(there are, of course, people on the left who can make the same claim).  Pat Buchanan is the most legitimate politician in the U.S. who can be linked to this element (of course, he denies the link).

(3).  The "liberal nationalist" opposition, represented by labor unions and scholars and politicians of a "neomercantilist" bent.  For more on these, see Alan Spector's contribution to WSN today.

All three elements took part in the Battle of Seattle.  The unions, the NGOs, and Pat Buchanan were all present during the events.  The Seattle media documented their participation in the events there (_Seattle Times_, Nov. 29, 1999, A12).  To be sure, NGOs like Global Trade Watch and the Sierra Club, took pains to distance themselves from the likes of Buchanan, calling them "trade patriots", the "trade militia," and "the 'America First' Crowd."  Nevertheless, I am compelled to dispute Doug's claim that "[r]acist antiglobalizers were invisible in Seattle. . .as [they were] in DC for A16/17."

If I understand Flavio's question correctly, he raises the question of why I care about all this.  Actually, I do have reasons.  One reason is the simple belief that scholars ought to understand the social movements around us.  In this sense, as I said, my only purpose was to inform.  As I reflect upon my motivations now, 24 hours after posting the article, I suppose I have a more serious motivation.  The Friberg and Hettne article I cited yesterday, written in 1988, muses theoretically about the possibility of a political coalition against what it calls the "modern project" (basically, the capitalist world economy and the state system).  It held out the possibility that "traditionalists", whom I understand to include religious fundamentalists and other elements concerned about "traditional values", might join a coalition that also included the familiar constellation of left-wing NGOs (BTW, those of you who know this article should forgive me for ignoring much of what is a much more complex argument).  

Let's assume for the purposes of this post that Friberg and Hettne are correct in seeing the possibility of such a left-right coalition aimed at overthrowing the state system and capitalism.  What becomes of the coalition "after the revolution", should such a day ever dawn?  Can its diverse elements agree on what to replace "the modern project" with?  If not, can either leftists or rightists be confident of winning the ensuing ideological Armageddon?

Just a little bit of interrogation of the Marcusean position that those opposing capitalism should simply make a revolution and not worry about what comes to pass thereafter!













Heilbrunn, Jacob. "His Anti-Semitic Sources." _New York Review of Books_, April 20, 1995, 68.

Lind, Michael. "On Pat Robertson: His Defenders." _New York Review of Books_, April 20, 1995, 67-68.

Lind, Michael. "Rev. Robertson Grand International Conspiracy Theory. The New World Order by Pat Robertson." _New York Review of Books_, Feb. 2, 1995,
21-25.

"Right Meets Left in Protest, But for Different Reasons."  _Seattle Times_, Nov. 29, 1999.
--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
______________________________________________________   
'_Sapere aude_'--'have courage to use your own reason'
--this is the motto of Enlightenment--Immanuel Kant,
"What Is Enlightenment?"