Business as usual?| A Discussion on Globalisation (critique) after September 11th

Lena Bröckl, Friederike Habermann, Felix Kurz & Ernst Lohoff

Informationszentrum 3. Welt (iz3w): What do the attacks on September 11 mean for the debate within the globalisation critical movement a year later? Did they merely result in an intensification of the existing global power relations? Or are the attacks a radical rupture with the existing circumstances which means that they cannot be explained by the usual patterns of the globalisation critical movement, such as US dominance, unjust world economic order or patriarchy?

Friederike Habermann (FH): I can’t think why explanation patterns like capitalism or patriarchy should not be able to grasp the world situation after 9-11. Of course there are such things as shortcomings in critiques of capitalism, patriarchy or anti-racism within the global resistance as well. The fact that a relatively new actor appeared and that a nation was attacked, which felt quite secure within its own boundaries up until then, does not change anything within existing structures of oppression. This new actor, however, must be taken seriously, and I cannot see a serious discussion on this topic within the framework of global resistance. The use of these attacks as a pretext for an aggravation of the repressive conditions under which we live and work politically, and for waging wars, is very concrete and acute at the moment.

After the fall of so-called socialism the economically and militarily dominant powers – especially the US but also the Western European countries – have been trying to expand their hegemony in the sense of Gramsci: as a consensus, armoured by constraint. It was no coincidence that concessions were made to the governments of Pakistan and Russia before the war in Afghanistan. The objective of the West’s current efforts is a new world order which leads politically by claiming the right to define what is good or bad and secures this leadership with military force internally and externally.

Felix Kurz (FK): Some parts of the movement voiced malicious comments after 9-11. Bin Laden was allegedly seen as an avenger of the Third World – and sometimes CIA or Mossad were seen behind the attacks – and the US was sometimes given a comment ‘it’s their own fault’ because of their pro-Israeli government policy. On the whole, there is frighteningly little distance with regard to the Palestinian Intifada and the suicide bombings. A simple North-South worldview with the US and Israel being the top rogues exists within the reformist parts but also some of the radical parts of the movement. Accordingly, Attac used stereotype Uncle Sam posters to mobilise protests against Bush’s visit to Berlin. I know this is being criticised within the scattered movement itself, and I do not want to make the demagogic equalisation of criticising the US with anti-Americanism. But reformist parts of the movement are acting as an ideological state apparatus for a social, ecological, and pacifist Europe in competition with the US.
On the other hand, fears that the air could become dangerously thin after 9-11 for protest and movement were not confirmed. This was visible in the mobilisations in Spring 2002 in Barcelona or the situation in Italy. A huge problem, however, is that left social movements which we could link up with in the Arab and Islamic world, are more or less nonexistent.

Lena Brockl (LB): Nothing substantial has changed in the global structures of oppression and exploitation since 9-11. What has changed is that hegemony is militarily more secured towards the exterior and the repression towards the interior is more clearly being enforced. A lot of things are possible under the disguise of fighting terrorism, which may not have been justified under different circumstances. The fact that protest in Europe has not been silenced yet is no proof of the contrary. And as far as striving for hegemony is concerned, the US is a leading force and is anything but reticent. This statement does not mean descending into anti-Americanism nor does it minimise similar tendencies by the European states.

Our criticism is definitely directed against neoliberal or, more precisely, against corporate globalisation. We are not against exchange and networking on a global level. We see ourselves most definitely within an internationalist tradition. For the moment, our task consists of mobilising ‘civil society’ against the military and repressive tendencies and building up pressure from below.

Ernst Lohoff (EL): I cannot subscribe to the view of describing the developments after September 11 as imperialist business as usual. First, the US reactions to the attacks disclosed more clearly that the core of imperialist politics had already changed fundamentally quite some time ago. Instead of striving for entire political territorial conquests with an equivalent economic exploitation, an imperialism of security and exclusion is enforced. Its main aim is the externalisation of the social, ecological, ethical and economic costs of global capitalism. Apart from pacifying the Third World, the only concern is securing access to a few key raw materials. The dream of grafting some kinds of capitalist development models on to the peripheral countries has long since been given up.
On the other hand, 9-11 has at a stroke shown that this new kind of imperialism has already reached its limits. The increasing madness of global capitalism will sooner or later produce repercussions at its centre, whether it be in the form of Islamic Kamikaze pilots or in a different form. The US has entered a conflict in which military superiority does not mean all that much. The planned war on Iraq is not likely to break the neck of terrorism nor is it a case of classical interest politics. Most likely, this war could be classified as a compensation reaction or a knee-jerk reaction; an activity which the US will not be able to repeat very often, if only for financial reasons. The anti-globalisation movement has difficulties in finding the right answer to the ‘war on terror.’ While adhering to traditional concepts of imperialism, the movement already had some trouble identifying to which framework it was referring when speaking of global capitalism, even before 9-11.

FK: The US is certainly acting from a position of weakness. The only difference which seems to interest Ernst and the Krisis group is the difference between ‘functioning’ and ‘crisis-ridden’ capitalism. Everything else is just one brew – and sure enough, one Krisis author wrote that building skyscrapers and destroying them with people inside resulted from the same nihilist value logic. That’s your form of business as usual. And one always has the impression that you find capitalism quite reasonable, and therefore not ‘gone mad,’ if only industrial production would expand a little to the peripheries.

EL: Felix’s arguments sound as if it were forbidden to link an event like 9-11 to the general characteristics of an era. Does not this rule out any kind of analysis? The specific quality of the attacks can be found primarily among the fact that the suicide attack denies any classic purpose-and-means ratio with which the left usually views political violence. (Self) destruction in the case of al-Qaeda is not an instrument but message and content. The reactions of the US Administration also have this connotation and cannot be traced back to any kind of rational imperial policy of interest. This is precisely what I meant in classifying the war against Iraq as an activity of compensation. This move towards the irrational, especially, is omitted in the usual leftist interpretations.

iz3w: A large part of the movement has only perceived the 9-11 attacks through the reaction of the US. Is this not due to the fact that the mainstream of the globalisation critical movement has always linked its critique of capitalism to the US and large corporations? And are the US really the only centre of ‘imperialism of security and exclusion’?

FK: Vulgar anti-capitalism is often linked to anti-American and nationalist patterns. An example: the call to the World Social Forum 2002 featured the contrast of ‘neoliberal globalisation’ and ‘peoples’ living space.’ ‘The financial markets are depriving communities and nations of their natural riches and subjugating national economies to the arbitrariness of speculators.’ The so-called civil society, which Attac would like to represent, therefore comes dangerously near to new Social Democracy and fascist sentiments.

FH: Many movements, especially in Latin America, know exactly why they oppose US politics – currently in relation to Plan Colombia or Plan Puebla-Panama. In fact it is movements like the Zapatistas, which mark the origin and the strength of the international movement. This movement is characterised by including all forms of oppression – this is new on an international level and has little in common with ‘traditional concepts of imperialism.’ I have practically only encountered the concept of ‘enemy US’ among US-Americans.

However, the fact that there are virtually no left currents in Arabic countries is a real problem. We need to seek and establish a dialogue. This is completely necessary at the moment! This is the only way to escape the logic of the likes of Laura Bush: before the war in Afghanistan, she claimed the bombings were necessary to liberate the women – simultaneously, the Afghan women’s organisation RAWA desperately tried to get its voice against war heard.
The most dominant hegemonic aspirations come from the US at the moment, but this does not make the others any better. We have to focus on all of these countries, even our own, if we do not want to end up ‘turning the tired old wheel of history’ as the Zapatistas would say. To externalise these by defining globalisation as corporate and describing ourselves as ‘civil society’ outside these hegemonies implies a logic according to Laura Bush: ‘We know what the world should look like and we are going to enforce that now!’

EL: Friederike says it is unfair to accuse anti-globalisation activists of anti-Americanism. I do not want to make a judgment on the topic but would like to add two remarks. First, there is a different subtext if a Mexican or if a German takes up a position against the US. There is an inclination within the ‘anti-German’ community, to denounce anti-globalisation protests as anti-Americanism. That has a lot to do with the inability of seeing this from anything but a German viewpoint and to take account of this obvious difference.
Second, the question whether activists subjectively feel anti-American, is probably not the decisive point. It is more problematic that interpretation patterns of the left are inclined to reduce capitalist destructive logic to the ‘criminal politics’ of the imperial powers. The problem is that the irrational moment of security imperialism is not addressed as such but there is always an assumption of calculated interest. In view of the US’ existing military superiority and its key role in global capitalism, such interpretation patterns more or less inevitably end up with a negative fixation on the remaining superpower.

LB: You assume that Attac and the globalisation critical movement has a unified position on imperialism and the US role. However, things are not that simple: amongst us you can surely find people who locate the bad guys in the US Administration. Others, however, can very well see, for instance, that EU efforts within the WTO can be even more devastating for countries of the global South. As Friederike rightly points out, there are people from very different backgrounds within the globalisation critical movement, holding various world views and political approaches – that is new and the movement’s strength, and of which Attac is only a small part. Our aim is to work together despite political differences instead of engaging in paralysing dogmatic discussions that would only benefit the opposing side.
Despite the fact that positions of the globalisation critical movement are still incomplete in many aspects, we have achieved more in the public political debate in the last years than the discourse of small left groups. One position, however, is clearly defined: the rejection of right-wing discourse and groups. If anybody wants to accuse us of fascist sentiments, they have to have better arguments than an anti-American cartoon on a mobilisation poster.
This is not supposed to mean that we do not want to have leftist analysis of the global capitalist system among us on the contrary. But my concerns are for the many others who face the global developments with incomprehension and helplessness. What will be changed in our political agenda if I call capitalism ‘rational’ or ‘gone crazy’? We need scientific expertise in our search for alternatives; we need extensive educational efforts and an ‘economic alphabetisation,’ as well as joint actions that make our protests noticeable. People soon understand that the mistake lies within the system, as soon as they start critically examining globalisation. I would like to start developing ‘the other world’ together with these people in the North and the global South and I do not want to confront them with a complete programme from a political avantgarde where the North knows what is good for the South. The World Social Forum in Porto Alegre and the Social Forums forming worldwide provide the steps in this process.

FK: In other words, Lena says: Stop thinking, follow my flag! It is not a question of confronting anybody with a complete programme but a question of opposing the programme proposed by Attac and others. I did not claim that hundreds of thousands of grassroots activists of the ‘globalisation critical movement’ were thoroughly anti-American and fascists. I only positioned the reformist part of the movement at the borderline between Social Democracy and reactionary tendencies. Lip service rejection of right-wing tendencies are worthless if at the same time there are calls to oppose financial capital in the name of the peoples.
Attac wants to be taken serious in the political sphere and offers realistic alternatives. Therefore, the economic alphabetisation Lena mentioned means an uncritical repetition of the expertise from left-Keynesian economists. Global exploitation is to run smoothly again and financial speculation is to be obstructed in favour of real production. With this programme Attac is the capitalist left. I would like to know how Friederike determines the relation between cooperation and rejection of such positions for the more radical parts of the movement.

FH: Of course we want something different from Attac when we specify what we mean by ‘Another world is possible.’ The Tobin Tax, the rejection of the new German pension system ‘Riester-Rente’ as well as a secured health service does not yet make up a New World but are the old dream of a welfare state. This welfare state was obviously based on a specific phase of capitalism – Fordism – including very specific gender relations and the exploitation of the global South.
Nevertheless, demands for a dignified life for people who are old or ill are completely justified and it is mainly a question of discussing the means to get there. The protests in Seattle 1999 were a success last but not least because the different groups and organisations acted hand in hand without attempting to compromise their positions in any kind of watered-down joint resolutions. All I heard from Germany during this time were discussions on the alleged participation of some right wing or protectionist persons and that one should avoid these things. I really got fed up with those discussions. I never met any right-wing people in Seattle, but only people who changed their protectionist attitude in joint political actions together with people from the global South.

EL: I do not find Lena’s comparison very useful - the elaborate but ineffective analyses on one side and the globalisation critical movement, which actually has an effect on the other side. Firstly, the prolonged silence of the opposition is mirrored by the level of the social-critical theories. There is no complete coherent criticism of capitalism, which only needs to be adopted by the movement! Hopefully the globalisation critical movement will contribute to a social climate, which enables a more widespread reflection in this direction. Secondly, the question is not only whether the anti-globalisation critical movement has an effect but also what kind of an effect. Due to the narrow focus on criticising neo-liberalism, it is also a bit ambiguous at the moment. It finally visualises the urge to oppose the ‘terror of economy.’
As an extra-parliamentary prompter and legitimacy provider, the anti-globalisation protest is also adopting to the state-centred turnabout, which official politics are making, anyway, following the end of the casino-capitalist boom. The neoliberal programme is still being carried out in social policy, in the metropolis, but otherwise it has mostly become history. Attac speaker Cassen realised this when he remarked: ‘Bush was never so close to Attac as today.’ However, he and other left Keynesians do not seem to have understood what this means. When the state comes back on stage to support the tumbling stock markets and companies, this has absolutely nothing to do with a possible return to the constellation of the 70s.
This is where practical and theoretical-analytical shortcomings meet. The state-focused part of the anti-globalisation protest thinks we could only fight for better living conditions and the defence of social standards by selling these aims as a means to improve the functioning of capitalism. By orienting towards this logic, the movement has tied up its legs before even starting out. You can criticise reformist positions as being open to right-wing ideologies, like Felix does. It is probably more important that reformism actually fails with regard to its own objectives of really improving living standards. In this light, it is easier to discuss with the fans of reformist concepts. The fact that people have become very quiet about the Tobin Tax is a good sign to me. It seems that even the members of Attac are not as naive as their leadership.

LB: Attac and the globalisation critical movement cannot be reduced to their reformist wing. Unlike Felix, I consider the extension of the movement to ‘moderate’ people a success which could help the left to escape their current meaninglessness. I would like to know what Felix wants to achieve, and especially with which social forces he wants to achieve this goal, for he has said precious little on this topic. It is not enough to interpret the world if you want to change it. Political consciousness is gained through political action and not in theoretical clubs. To call Attac ‘the left of capital’ is absolute nonsense.
(To Ernst) I do not know which scenario scares me most – a hegemonic power which, knowing its strength, only pursues its own interests, or a power which bites everything in sight like a wounded wolf. If the US eagle is really making a nosedive we have to focus our work on the interests of the EU. And it is clear that the Tobin Tax is no magic cure but it is a marvellous mobilisation instrument, as the history of Attac proves. I agree with Friederike and Ernst, though, when they say that Attac and Co. have not clarified their position towards the state. The return to the welfare state of the 70s is not an acceptable solution for us at least because of the exploitation of the global South, women and nature it was based upon.

iz3w: Apparently you all agree that traditional categories of the left like imperialism cannot really encompass today’s power structures. Are frequently used terms like globalisation, neoliberalism, empire or world masculinity more adequate for current left and feminist debates?

LB: At the moment we do not have any terms, which adequately describe the global situation. The classical definition of imperialism cannot be applied to the internal conquest by the economisation of all areas of life, which is executed today instead of territorial expansion. Neoliberalism and globalisation are far too vague as terms. And the discussion on ‘Empire’ reveals interesting new aspects, but also a number of contradictions. We have a lot to discuss on this point.

EL: I would not advocate disposing of the term imperialism. Unlike the babble of ‘democratic world community’ it maintains that global capitalism is an extremely hierarchical setting, an association of murderers with their accomplices and victims. Why should radical critique not express this anymore? What should be criticised are the anachronistic concepts of imperialism which are regularly projected onto the actual processes. Imperialism no longer stands for capital’s voracious craving for the Third World labour force. There is a hardly any military action – not even the planned war on Iraq – which can be explained by the usual pattern of securing strategic raw materials.
The term globalisation poses more basic problems for me. Although it has generally been adopted as a comprehensive term for all the fundamental changes in the capitalist system, its origin carries traits of neoliberal propaganda. Globalisation sparks positive connotations, which pretty well fit the advertisements for the cigarette called West: directly affected by the world market, all humans become brothers and sisters. Should and can the term be redefined? It certainly does not stand up analytically. What is really happening can only be fully described in a negative way: the interminable marriage of the nation-state and capital is being dissolved.
The expression ‘empire’ seen from this point of view actually refers to existing phenomena. On the one hand, supra-state elements are advancing; on the other hand, there is the common border regime of the metropolis, which resembles the declining Roman empire. However, the expectation that a worldwide system of political regulation is going to be set up to replace the function of the nation-state is pure nonsense.
But this is not the only reason I cannot gain much from the Empire book by Negri/Hardt. The book’s success is not so much based on its analytical qualities but on its ability to fulfil a mythological need. Especially the left version of the postmodern subject is fed up with its own helplessness. Therefore one likes to imagine a world, which is determined by anti-capitalist creativity. The weak and weary workers movement of Marxism is celebrating a comeback in a postmodern guise.
‘World masculinity’ actually refers to a main feature of capitalist socialisation (Vergesellschaftung) – also and especially at today’s level of development. The old question remains, however, of how to go beyond an additive treatment of a critique of patriarchy.

FK: The term ‘globalisation’ suggests something completely new even though capitalism has been a world system since its trade capitalist origins. The talk of ‘globalisation’ and ‘neoliberalism’ usually goes hand in hand with a demand for expanding the state. Of course, ‘neoliberalism’ makes sense when it describes a certain economic doctrine. But usually it is suggested that societies or governments could choose freely between more market or state, ‘supply-side’ or ‘demand-side,’ free trade or protectionism. Political consulting can only be done from this point of view, which idealises the state.
Nobody speaks as much about neoliberalism as the Keynesians. In doing this they usually like to forget that the – broader – Keynesianism of the 50s and 60s developed from a former solution to a crisis to become a brake in accumulation: wages and productivity did not correlate anymore, the welfare state was reducing the profits. Even the state and its violence during the subsequent neoliberal turn is usually forgotten: it was a military coup which let the ‘Chicago Boys’ get to work in Chile, and Thatcherism also had its authoritarian state, as the repression of the miners’ strike in 1984-85 showed.
As far as ‘Empire’ is concerned I agree with Lohoff that the success of the book is due to ideological needs. But his criticism that Negri/Hardt were reviving the workers movement of Marxism with Operaiism is completely off track because Operaiism was precisely a radical reaction to the old workers movement. The problem with ‘Empire’ is much more that the operaist negativity of a productivist and life philosophical affirmation of ‘immaterial labour’ of the ‘multitude.’ This has a lot to do with our discussion’s topic: Only when adequate practical answers to the changed working conditions are found we can really speak of a social movement and reformists like Attac could be confronted with more than just criticism of ideology.

FH: Terms are not only the problem, the problem is also that we define them differently. Neoliberalism, for instance, is not a revived liberalism to me, but also means the fencing off of the North against the South. When I use this term, I do not say that non-neoliberal capitalism is acceptable.
How can we escape a merely additive critical treatment of patriarchy? Firstly, it is important not to reduce globalisation to economic aspects. Oddly enough, Marxist discussions and feminist or postcolonial theories exist parallel to each other in a disconnected way. This need not be so, as a more exact consideration of the terms easily shows. When Marxists speak of ‘practice,’ for example, they do not notice how close they are to poststructuralists when they speak of ‘performance’: for this does not mean ‘anything goes’ but the difficult struggle for change in everyday life which describes our existence.
We must change from successfully integrated positions to resisting positions. The success of such a resistance in history is usually not obvious, because it works from below. Sometimes something does not change until after the movement has collapsed, and something has nevertheless changed in the people’s everyday consciousness. Then something becomes matter-of-course which previously was beyond the imagination of most people. Gramsci’s concept, according to which it is not enough to take over governmental power, remains central. Unfortunately, he called this ‘trench warfare’ versus ‘flexible warfare.’ The Zapatistas have a much nicer way of putting it: ‘We do not need to conquer the world. It is enough to create it new.’

Lena Bröckl is active with Attac Berlin. Friederike Habermann is active within the framework of Peoples’ Global Action (PGA) and the German federal co-ordination of internationalism (Bundeskoordination Internationalismus, BUKO). Felix Kurz discusses in a small materialist group in Freiburg. Ernst Lohoff is a member of the Krisis group. The discussion was led by e-mail and facilitated by Simon Ramirez Voltaire and Christian Stock.

Original article title in German: Business as Usual? Eine Diskussion über Globalisierung(skritik) nach dem 11. September, published in: iz3w no. 265, Wo steht die Bewegung, Eine Zwischenbilanz der Globalisierungskritik, (Where does the movement stand? – An interim balance of globalisation criticism) Nov. 2002, p. 65-69; translated by Ann Stafford.