NOT FOR QUOTATION OR CITATION WITHOUT THE AUTHOR’S WRITTEN
PERMISSION
Michael R. Krätke
Towards another International?
Transnational Social Movements Against Global
Capitalism
University of Amsterdam
Department of Political Science
Oude Zijds Achterburgwal 237
1012 DL Amsterdam
1
First draft, please do not quote.
“Get rid of capitalism and replace it with something nicer! “
Slogan at the mayday demonstration in London 2001
1.
Social movements - new and old
Today’s anti-globalist movements look very much
like the “new social movements”of recent decades, as opposed
against the “old”, that is the socialist and working-class
based movements of earlier times. However, there are more
similarities than clear cut differences between “old” and
“new” social movements. The picture of the “traditional” and
“class-based” social movements of the 19th century as depicted
by the votaries of “new”social movements is historically ill
informed, to say the least. We should know better than to
believe in the now conventional and highly misleading picture
of a homogenous, tightly organized, unified working class
movement. As a matter of well established historical fact,
those move-ments were anything but univocal, nor homogenous,
and they did not constitute just one single collective actor
in a single social drama with one clear cut “big issue”, the
issue of socialist liberation (cf. Katznelson / Zolberg 1987;
Calhoun 1993). There were different movements with varying
degrees of mobilization at different times, there were
different organizations and different collective actors, more
often than not compound actors. Working-class collective
identity used to be highly contested; notions of
“class” and
“class struggle” were as much analytical concepts as they were
symbols of political and social identities. And highly con-
2
tested ones, as heated debates raged on over who should be
included in the working class and who should be excluded,
whether manual workers or industrial workers or “workers of
all kinds” should belong to the one class, whether divisions
between skilled and unskilled, male and female, industrial
workers and artisans should be taken into account or not.
Working-class based movements brought forth and tried various
forms of organization and collective action - from clubs to
parties, from friendly societies and multi-functional trade
unions to co-operatives in various guises. Women and nonindustrial workers, small artisans and casual workers were
everything but absent from the “old” movements. Religious,
national and ethnic divides were not subdued by an alleged
predominance of an ideal “average” industrial worker
dominating all and every labour movements.
Another myth transported by the fashionable grand “metanarratives” of postmo-dernism refers to the clear cut sequence
of “materialist” or “economic” values or goal orientations
first and “non-materialist” values and orientations much
later, that is only in recent decades. A myth that lies at the
heart of the fancy “post-materialism” thesis, but is
historically as flawed as any other of the fairy tales of
which the bulk of so called theories about “New Social
Movements” is made of. The early labour movements of the
nineteenth century were as defensive of “life-worlds”, as
moralizing, as bent upon politicizing various aspects of
everyday life, as eager to wage moral crusades for a better
world, as prepared to challenge the extant division between
public and private spheres as the New Social Movements are
according to the now standardized tales. From the chartist
movement onwards, they were more often than not going far
beyond the scope of purely class movements engaging in battles
3
for citizenship and citizen’s rights as well as they were
battling for working men’s rights proper (cf. Calhoun 1993).
In a specific sense, and due to the actually much higher level
of labour mobility and labour migration until 1914 (even in
comparison with the present stage of “globalization”), they
were much less confined to national borders or ethnic
communities than they are today. Journeymen artisans, migrant
workers, even migrant working class communities played a
considerable role in an ongoing exchange of ideas, practices,
people between those move-ments, establishing links and even
“networks” of relations between members of movements from
different countries, spurred by several waves of forced,
political emigration in the 1840ties and after. Some kind of
grass - roots internationalism “from below” already existed
long before the first, short-lived international organization
of the labour movements was created in the 1860ties. And it
provided a base for “internationalism” at least among certain
groups of workers throughout the European continent until
1914.
2.
Anti-globalism as social and political movement
According to influential papers like the Economist or
the Financial Times the recent surge of mass movements
“against globalization” embody some kind of “anti-“ or even
“counter-capitalism”. However, the “new” movements are rarely
denounced as being socialist or communist. Anarchists may be
part of it, even social-democrats and trade unionists of
different brands, but socialists they are not. The very fact
that they doe not flock together in a struggle for some kind
of economics and politics different from capitalism, some sort
4
of “socialism” or “communism” makes them a moving target
difficult to hit for the veterans of many ideological battles
on the right as on the left. Marxists of different strands are
to be found in its ranks and files, even among the few
“leaders”, but they are a tiny minority. Clearly on the fore
are spokesmen and -women supporting moral and political
criticisms of global capitalism, arguing against the big
multinational corporations, against the power of financial
markets and / or pleading the cause of the losers of
globalization. If there is anti-capitalism or antiimperialism, it is of a special breed, lacking the
determination and comprehensiveness of earlier socialist
movements. Globalization is the catch and buzz word that
dominates the political debates in today’s anti-globalist
movements. What is more, the intellectual debates and much of
the books and pamphlets circulating within the movements are
not very far from the world views as exposed in the writings
of many of the more enthusiastic votaries of the
“globalization” proper, the “hyper-globalizers” as they are
called in academic parlance. Globalization myths and,
accordingly, many hardy, even foolhardy statements of highly
contested and disputable “facts” are disseminated by the
alleged critics and adversaries of globalization. In the
writings of authors like Noreena Hertz or Naomi Klein you will
easily find statements that could be regarded as summaries of
the neoliberal cause, praising capitalism for its unrivalled
achievement in generating wealth and bringing forth
unprecedented economic growth in most of the world (cf. Hertz
2001, p. 10). For many, at least for the dominant spokesmen /
-women of the movement, the problem is not capitalism, not
even capitalism as a world system, but a specific set of false
policies, and /or some false developments or developments
going just too far -
like the de-regulation and
5
liberalization of financial markets in recent years that have
led towards what is perceived as a dominance of financial
markets and financial capital in the present world economy
(cf. f.i. Bello e.a. 2000; Patomäki 2001). For some, it is the
uncontrolled power of multinational corporations that is to be
blamed for all the discontents of the present era of world
capitalism and that has to be checked accordingly (cf. f.i.
Klein 2000). So, it is not capitalism as such, not even
capitalism as a world-system, but rather certain aspects of it
or certain sorts of capital together with certain practices of
capitalist enterprise that is to be blamed.
Today’s movements do not lack an element of utopianism
either, a view of a better, brighter world of justice and
peace in the future. However, this is not as clear cut as the
utopia’s of the older labour movements used to be. Labour
movements worldwide even had their real utopia’s to refer to some of them hailed by virtually all of them like the Paris
Commune, some of them ardently contested like the great
examples of Soviet Union or Red Vienna, just to mention a few.
Today’s anti-globalists might find similar examples in some
area’s of the world: Examples of local self-government defying
the apparently overwhelming logic of neoliberal recipes of
economic policy and especially intriguing as they occur in
coun-tries and regions belonging to what used to be called the
3rd world until recently. Neverthe-less, these examples are
hailed and cherished, but not presented as models for the rest
of the world to follow. If there is a common denominator for
the variety of anti-globalist move-ments, it is not to be
found in some kind of alternative model or concept. The
movement as it presents itself today to the eye of the
sympathetic beholder is imbued with traditional liberal
concepts like the idea of self-determination - against the
6
dictatorship of foreign or global capital - and the
overarching ideal of “justice” in economic relations. Justice
for all, especially the weak, the losers and the victims of
globalization so far, that is what they share as a com-mon
value. Hence, the popularity of the label “global justice
movement” that some use to denominate the peculiar stance of
the new movements.
Recently, these movements have gained a lot of
attention and sympathy in the mass media. Of course, they
created big media events like the mass demonstrations in the
streets of Genoa and other sites of international summits and
the media-professionals were grateful for that. It is a mass
movement of young people mostly, so it is attractive again for
that reason for the media. But journalists are not stupid, at
least not all of them. So they quickly realized that these
movements are not all that radical that they are cracked up to
be. Regarding the proposal of a Tobin-tax which is certainly
the most wide spread
idea bringing together larger parts of
the anti-globalist movements in different parts of the world,
this is by origin and by impact a highly conventional, even
liberal reform perfectly fitting into a world of softly
regula-ted (financial) markets. Only die hard market
fundamentalists might find it hard to digest. Objections to it
are of a purely pragmatic nature.1
Whatever its difficulties
and its merits, it can hardly be regarded as a “revolutionary”
measure that would turn the world of financial markets upside
down.
1
As a professional economist and, what is worse, a specialist on tax matters, I
carefully avoid any longer comments on the Tobin tax. Although it has some side-effects, it is
technically feasible and can be made rather effective - even on a smaller scale.
7
3.
Internationalism and the varieties of anti-
capitalism
In comparison with the Internationals of the labour
movement, the new anti-globalist movement has a much broader
scope, but not any larger impact. In terms of actors involved,
it displays a larger diversity as it is not made up of
political parties and / or trade unions, although both
political parties and trade unions, at least factions of both,
are taking part, their representatives “unofficially” showing
up in ever larger numbers at the larger mass events like the
World Social Forum (Porto Alegre I , II and III). Dominant are
movements like Attac which are certainly not political parties
but rather loose networks of local clubs without a clear cut
centralized nor hierarchical authority structure and only a
minimum of common articles or constitutional documents. Attac
is peculiar as it is a mix of an organization of individuals
and of collectivities (legal persons or already existing
organizations) joining a larger compound. In this respect, it
is highly comparable to the traditional Labour Party as it
existed before recent reform efforts by so called modernizers
came into sway. Trade unions, but also co-operatives and other
firms - like some of the leading left wing periodicals in
France -, local and regional groups and farmer’s associations,
tenant’s associations, citizen’s initiatives have all joined
and they are participating in a structure of local committees
( more than 200 in the case of France) all over the country
that act as the movement’s constituencies. Within two years,
it has spread all over the EU member states and some of the
future member countries where very similar groups have sprang
up under the same name. It exists now in more than 40
different countries. They have not replaced already existing
8
and well established NGO’s but rather build informal alliances
with them, using already existing informal networks and
expanding them. Cooperation is widespread, especially in the
field that these new movements characteristically share with
the “old” labour movements - that is popular education. All of
them are first and foremost learning organizations, educating
themselves and each other, whether in the garb of summer or
winter schools or universities, evening and / or weekend
seminars or else. Where possible, they make use of the still
existing infrastructure for educational activities as they
have been built up by the trade unions, the co-operatives and
other organizations in many European countries. Which is, of
course, an element that makes them rather attractive for young
intellectuals and students.
The World Social Forums in Porto Allegre
as well as the
European and the Latin American Social Forums have made it
quite clear that these movements are no longer dominated by
Europeans and / or North Americans. Attac has spread out and
sprung up in North America, in most Latin American countries,
in Japan as well as in some African countries. Movements and
NGO’s
from 3rd world countries as well as trade unions and
farmers’ associations or other varieties of “poor people’s
movements” are now clearly in the majority. And similar groups
from the former “socialist” countries have recently joined in
increasing numbers. Still, and the apparent regularity of
highly popular mass meetings like the World Social Forum
notwithstanding, there is no international organization
binding together what is a de facto international movement of
movements from an ever increasing number of countries in the
world. But these world or continental fora, what one might
call the internatio-nal conferences of the anti-globalist
movement, have already much more participants, demand a much
9
larger organizational effort, have a much wider impact than
the conferences of the former and still existing
internationals ever had.
Until this very day, their success
depends upon unpaid voluntary work of thousands of people in
several hundreds of local and regional and national committees
charging themselves with the difficult task of preparing the
next world wide meeting for the movements’ activists.
Clearly, the first three internationals have been
dominated by white, male and mostly European working class
people, representing only parts of the actually existing
labour movements of their day. The first international (IWA,
International Working Men’s Association), founded in 1864 on
the initiative of French and British trade unionists, remained
a clearly Western European affair, its impact upon North
America restricted to the circles of mostly German speaking
immigrants. As far as it took any action and interfered in
world politics, it was in a classical symbolical and highly
intellectual way - by issuing pamphlets and declarations, the
declarations issued by its London based General Council
concerning the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune being
the most prominent examples. In 1870/ 71 it was at the height
of its fame and public response, mostly due to its alleged
role as the clandestine organizing force behind the Paris
Commune. As a body for mutual information and exchange it
hardly started to work, although initiatives for the
organization of systematic surveys on the life and working
conditions of working class people in several countries were
announced - and in one, exceptional case, the enquête ouvrière
as prepared by Marx himself, actually launched - with a rather
modest success. First and foremost, the international acted as
a body for propaganda and as such, propagating the idea of
independent, working class based political parties, labour
10
parties with a clear socialist orientation, it succeeded although an actual split over the issue of the political
organization of the working class was only avoided by what
amounted to disbanding the international. But its real and
increasing influence among the emerging industrial working
class in Europe depended upon its actual and repeated
assistance in industrial conflicts: The IWA was for quite some
time, between 1864 and 1872, able to manage and coordinate
activities to support industrial strikes in various European
countries, trying to prevent the importation of blacklegs,
collecting money, organizing public support for the workers
actually engaged in industrial action. Hence, it was more than
a mere propaganda society and did its share in organizing
solidarity actions across borders, however small in size and
scope (cf. Knudsen 1988).
Like its predecessor, the Second International rose and
flourished in an age of nationalism. It was based upon working
class communities within the borders of already established
“nation” states, its members being well established socialist
parties regarded as representative for at least a larger
proportion of the working class in their respective home
countries. As some smaller strands of working class movements,
especially anarchism, were excluded, it achieved more of an
“ideological” unity than the first international. Its
“internatio-nalism” was clearly opposed to the prevailing mood
of nationalist, even chauvinist confron-tation between
rivalling industrial and imperialist powers that the
conservative, liberal, even christian political parties of the
bourgeois right and centre adhered too and propagated. The
dominant form of internationalism in the high times of
classical “imperialism” was to be found in the international
conferences of the national socialist parties that had joined
11
the Second International. As an organization, it looked much
more impressive than its predecessor, em-bracing more parties,
much more members and being more thoroughly rooted in the
industrial proletariat of the leading industrial nations of
the capitalist world.
It also fared somehow better as an
organization, at least as far as its impact upon some pieces
of national legislation was concerned. With regard to labour
legislation it had some influence, although limited, both on
the national and international level. As an alliance of
socialist political parties, many of whom were already
represented in national parliaments, it provided some
symbolical joint action - declaring its intention to resist
any European war by more or less all means. In fact, it was
the only forum available for socialist parties for a long time
where they could debate their views on foreign and
international politics proper and take something like
diplomatic action. When the real test for joint, international
action according to its many declarations came in July and
August 1914 it failed - some courageous exceptions
notwithstanding - and perished within days as an international
organization.
The Third International, the Comintern, founded in 1919,
was meant to be much more than just an international
association of
proletarian parties of the radical left. It
was conceived of as a supranational organization, in fact a
super-party of world-wide reach, a highly centrali-zed body
that should be in control over its various national member
parties. Communist parties were not to be regarded as
independent organizations, acting within the framework of
national politics, but just as the national sections or
branches of a world-organization, a bolchevik world party with
its centre firmly rooted in the Soviet Union. The Union of
12
Soviet Socialist Republics was, as a state and at least
officially, a remarkably internationalist enter-prise, not
referring to any particular territory or people or nation as
its “natural base” but aspiring to embrace the whole socialist
world to come (cf. Anderson 2002, 14).
From its very
beginnings onwards, the Comintern did whatever it could starting with the famous “Twenty -one conditions” of
membership, dating from July-August 1920, to impose as strict
a discipline on its member parties with respects to the
central and highest authorities of the Comintern as possible
and transforming them into “bolshevik” parties in the process.
In fact, the Comintern did everything it could to destroy the
independence of national communist parties and to put them
under strict control from above, launching purges and
reorganizations again and again and summoning party officials
from all over the world to report back to the Moscow head
office. From its very beginnings, it was an instrument of the
foreign policy of the Soviet Union and its member parties
agreed sooner or later that their main function and duty was
or should be to serve the SU and to defend it at all costs.
The Comintern was meant to support revolutionary movements in
all parts of the world, but first and foremost it did so by
building, more or less from scratch and overnight, communist
parties in all parts of the world where they did not yet
exist, providing money, weapons, expertise and refuge as well
as training and education for the leaders and higher officials
of those parties. It did so with considerable success
especially in Asia, India and China being the main targets of
this type of international politics.
As an instrument of
Soviet foreign policy, the Comintern was sacrificed without
hesitation in 1941 when it seemed convenient as a gesture
towards the Allies. Although it changed into something
different after WWII, the communist world movement without an
13
official organizing centre was still hinging upon the crucial
support of the Soviet government and its allies or vassals in
the 2nd world.
The older three internationals had one crucial hallmark
in common: They were not only ridden by ideological conflicts
about the right way towards and the right kind of socialism.
They were organizing life-worlds or milieu’s of their own,
veritable “pillars” of a counter-society, confronting the
bourgeois word and each other. Not one, but in fact several
kinds of
international organisations existed beside each
other. This multitude of internationals comprised the
internationals of socialist or communist parties, the
internationals of trade unions, the international associations
of co-operatives, and even more, beyond the familiar figure of
the three pillars of the labour movement, internationals: the
international associations of the socialist youth
organizations, of the women’s organizations, and, last not
least, of the so called cultural organizations, like the
proletarian and clearly socialist sports associations (hikers,
cyclists, motorcyclists, gymnasts), the free thinkers
associations, the associations of musicians and singers, of
nudists, of artists, of environmentalists (the famous
Naturfreunde in the countries of continental Europe), of first
aid activists (the proletarian samaritans, Arbeitersamariter)
and so on. For more or less a century they co-existed, all of
them having their world conferences, their secretaries, their
bureaucratic apparatuses, although tiny as a rule, their
international boards with more or less regular meetings, their
own funds, normally quite modest, their own publications.
World conferences and meetings were organized, even several
proletarian, socialist counter - Olympics. But apart from all
ideological strife, these various internationals never came
14
together and very seldom acted together. Their coexistence
without much cooperation mirrored the pillarized,
bureaucratized world of formal organizations that the labour
movement of the nineteenth century had turned into as it grew
ever larger and stronger and came within arms’ length of
political power at least in some countries.
The Socialist International, though, is a little bit of a
different matter. When it was revived or refounded in 1951, it
became an organizing centre that tried to promote, even to
create similar socialist parties in other parts of the worlds,
especially outside of Europe. It did not try to establish
closer links with the other internationals, as far as they
still existed. In fact, and according to the general attitude
of socialist parties in Europe, it severed its links with the
other organizations that were once vital elements of the
labour movement at large and still existed in the 1950ties.
Curiously enough, the socialist parties in Europe lost much of
their “embeddedness” in a larger movement and most of its
links with a then still vivid proletarian milieu ( or lifeworld) from the 1950ties onwards, whereas some of the larger
Communist parties in the West, especially the PCF and the PCI,
preserved them. The SI, although until 1989 still officially
an international association of socialist parties and engaged
in a battle for democratic socialism and a classless society,
became an international club of parties sharing some ideas and
concepts, but hardly bent upon joint international action, not
even in terms of symbolical politics. As some of its most
important members came into power and became used to the
status of governing parties from 1945 onwards, it became a
forum for discussing both domestic and foreign politics where
member parties were involved. It provided channels for
clandestine diplomatic action whenever governments and even
15
parties were not on speaking terms (as, f.i., during the
Algerian war, or in the case of the Isrealo-Palestinian
conflict).
As the Comintern did before, the SI started to support
and promote the building of socialist parties in those parts
of the world where they did not exist before, especially and
with increasing success in the countries of the 3rd world. It
is now an organization with a bias towards the socialist
parties in 3rd world countries and not anything like the older
internatio-nals, dominated by European parties. Still, a lot
of the influence exerted by the Socialist International still
depends upon the assets coming from the member parties in the
rich countries of the “North”. Take, for example, the
Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, supported by and closely linked to
the German Social Democratic Party: Its worldwide impact is
due to the fact that it a public body, financed by state
subsidies coming from the central state level, and acting on
behalf of a still large and well organized political party,
closely associated with some of the largest and richest trade
unions of the world. As the events in Greece, Spain and
Portugal in the 1970ties clearly showed, the Socialist
International was able and willing to interfere with the
internal affairs of other countries, at least unofficially,
and support the reconstruction of socialist parties in several
countries with the clear intention to help them to come into
power. In some cases it succeeded.
The old argument in favour of internationalism was
twofold: Industrial capitalism, the one driving force behind
the making of a world market, was a rising world economic
order and it was changing societal structures and political
regimes everywhere in more or less the same way. As all
countries were supposedly bound to become capitalist and parts
16
of a capitalist world economy, and as the majority of the
people of all countries were bound to become proletarians
sooner or later, anti-capitalism was inevitably to become a
world wide movement. As workers in all countries and regions
of the world were supposed to meet the same hardships in their
everyday struggles with the same foe, capital, it was quite
logical to urge them to unite their forces in one common,
world wide battle waged against capital everywhere. And the
new society to come, socialism,
was conceived of as a new
world economic order and a world society, in fact, the
brotherhood of men come true. “Socialism in one country”,
national socialism appeared to be just a wild idea, the
extreme form of utopia, as ridiculous as the small socialist
colonizing projects in the outskirts of the New World in the
early decades of the 19th century and as likely to fail.
Nonetheless, internationalism of the old, socialist type,
as embodied in the various
internationals, hardly ever came
close to anything like joint action across borders. Practices
of or institutions fit for transnational politics did not
exist. Still, during the long 19th and the short 20th century,
two complementary forms of macro-politics and macro-economics
prevailed, that were both at odds with
internationalism
proper: What has been proclaimed as “socialism in one country”
on the one side, was already practised as “capitalism in one
country” or “national capitalism” on the other. Both practices
prevailed not only throughout the period of “de-globalization”
that the interbellum actually was, but even for a long time
after.
Whatever there existed of a larger regional or, with
more than slight exaggeration, world order, was an order
imposed by some hegemonic power and largely, although never
thoroughly, aligned with the type of economic and societal
order of the homeland of the respective hegemon. Dominant as
17
they were in their times and spheres, neither the British nor
the US-American variant of capitalism were ever meticulously
copied or cherished as the one and only superior model of
capitalism by other capitalist nations. Neither was the model
of socialism Soviet style in the other countries of the 2nd
world. Decolonization did not radically change this.
Apart from the hierarchical and centralized Comintern and
its counterparts in the international association of communist
trade unions,
internationalism was for most of the time a
formula for political interactions between national players,
including those that did not play much of a role in the
context of the domestic politics of their homeland.
Once in
while, the internationals acted as a forum of an international
socialist public opinion and made judge-ments on the actions
of member parties (especially in matters of foreign policy).
It may be enough to mention the socialist international’s
attitude in the case of the Suez crisis, when two member
parties were actually involved in a
neo-colonial war, openly
defying the authority of the United Nations. Again and again,
the internationals acted as a makeshift channel for what one
might nearly describe as “diplomatic” activities between
political parties that were in government in some countries
and belonged to the opposition or were even suppressed and
forced into some kind of more or less clandestine existence in
other countries.
The socialist international, however, has been strongly
affected by two interlinked changes in the postwar world: By
the “anti-imperialism” of the 1950ties and after and by the
shift away from nationalism as it occurred during the era of
the Cold War - and most remarkably there, where nationalism
has always been cherished without reservation, on the right
and by the new formation of Christian-democratic parties
18
occupying the place of the former bourgeois conservative and
liberal parties. Conflicts between capitalist states - in the
guise of and inspired by antagonist “nationalism” - were
subdued and superseded by a new strand of “internationalism”,
uniting all the votaries of a “free world”, a “free market
econo-my” and “democracy” in the face of the common enemy second world communism. Taking sides with anti-imperialism and
with anti-communism at the same time brought forth a rather
peculiar blend of syncretistic, hybrid ideological expressions
as many of the new liberation movements in the colonial and
post-colonial countries were either clearly nationalist or
prone to embrace some kind of rather authoritarian state
socialism (in one country, of course, and to be run by new,
national elites rising from the ranks of the liberation
movement) (cf. Anderson 2002). By its very alliance with a
large array of movements that were quite different from the
European or American labour movements, and bent upon their own
“national” breeds of (African, Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese
etc.) “socialism”, the internationalism cum anti-imperialism
became a highly syncretistic hybrid of ideological diverse
elements. For the socialist parties in Europe, it became a
largely accepted moral obligation to support nationalist
parties and movements with a rather narrow perspective of
“independence” and a “national” state of their own. Before,
the call for solidarity was accepted with respect to “brother”
or “sister” parties, or, more often than not, to brother
unions in other countries opposing the same sort of foes in
different national settings (cf. Landauer 1959; Sassoon 1997).
But internationalism, apart from the public support for
industrial action by working men in other countries, as
political action did not amount to much more than similar
symbolical action directed at governments, parliaments and
constituencies in different countries. As an organizing centre
19
for joint actions across bor-ders, it did not so much fail but
never live up to this expectation. Solidarity actions in case
of industrial conflicts, a core activity for the first and,
although to a lesser degree, to the second international,
became the domain of the trade unions proper.
4.
The logic of representation and beyond
Regarding the recent wave of anti-globalist
movements, some spectators have taken their hopes for already
granted and proclaimed something like a new internationalism,
a revival or a renewal of internationalism (cf. Bensaid 2002).
If so, it is certainly to be an internationalism of a peculiar
kind because unlike its predecessors it has never been
formally inaugurated, it has no formal organization, no
membership, no general secretaries and whatever you need to
operate in the field of international politics. If anything,
it is an informal international of movements, some of them
grassroots movements, some of them very well established, even
old fashioned associations.
Apparently, it has broken with
the age old logic of “national” representation as embodied in
the internationalism of the labour movement.
.
Besides representation, there is direct democracy:
Every man and woman, every voluntary association speaking for
him- or her- or themselves. Representation in modern terms is
inevitably linked to stateness. That is why, in principle,
only groups and organizations aspiring to run the state or to
become part of it can obey the principle of representation
proper. The logic of representation, as institutionalized in
various forms of representative government, allows some
20
divergence between representatives and their constituencies.
In the history of modern representative governments, the
balance has been tipped in favour of the representatives,
bestowing on them a large degree of discretion or the power
not only to speak for, but also to think and decide for their
constituencies, even to make up their minds for them.
As movements and parties and other formal organizations
have become separated, the logics of representation have been
blurred even on the level of domestic politics in national
states.
With the rise of catch-all parties, pretending to be
un-ideological and striving to become the true and one and
only representative of the “people”, the very idea of
collective political actors with similar social backgrounds
and aspirations has been thoroughly com-promised. As all
political parties are acting as if they were in fact
representing everybody, they are looking for an ideal, average
body of the “good people”, more often than not situated in the
fictitious “middle” of society.
A middle, that is either
crammed full, comprising the large majority of society, or
void, inhabited by the latest fads of mass media and
fashionable social science only.
.
Social movements, acting deliberately as non-parties,
sometimes as counter-parties in extra-parliamentary actions,
have rejected the logic of representation. Following the logic
of voice, they insist upon mobilizing different categories of
people to stand up and
speak for themselves. Accordingly,
they are wide open, loose and potentially highly inclusive,
but always clearly oriented towards an issue or a cause.
Depending upon voluntary actions of their members, whose
competence and available “disposable time” are their most
21
important assets, they act like citizen’s initiatives or
citizen’s committees. They are, at their very core, no civil
rights movements but movements of citizens who already know
their rights and know how to use them. But they are open to
all good citizens with a heart and a mind for the cause or the
issue at hand and do not wield any hard criteria for entrance
or membership.
Typically enough, at regional and even nation-
wide meetings of these movements, people who are not regular
members of one the participating groups can easily join the
public debate. Strangers, outsiders are welcome, as the
movements until now do not try to establish any clear dividing
line between “them” and “us”. Which, of course, makes them
attractive as opportunities to rally for those groups and
movements of people perceiving themselves as marginalized,
suppressed, excluded and silenced in the world of official
politics.
Hence, the anti-globalist movement is
comprising non-parties of all sorts, some of them locally
based, some of the organized nation-wide, some, quite a lot
indeed, already operating across state borders on a larger
scope. As non-parties, they do not strive for a share in or
access to the spoils of offices and political power. They
reject the role of representative and assume the role of the
advocate, acting on behalf of those who cannot or dare not
speak for themselves, although nobody has formally
commissioned them to do so (the classical liberal reproach:
who the hell is your client?). Most of these advocates have a
mission and are, indeed, self-appointed advocates of a good
cause. But beside them, and at least as prominent, are old
fashioned representative organizations, unions and
associations that represent their members and act by elected
presidents, leaders and paid functionaries - very much like
22
political parties or trade unions. Those organizations, among
them the very largest participants in the movements, and
especially those thoroughly rooted in 3rd world countries, are
clearly defining themselves and easily identifiable as
specific social movements of specific groups in the populace the movements of the peasants (both in India and in Europe),
and the movements of the landless (Latin-America based) being
the best examples. Trade unions and even parties,
or party and union factions, including several European social
democratic or socialist parties, are involved, some of them,
as for instance the Brazilian PT, offering a lot of
unofficial support. But they are not participating as
political parties - the representatives and spokesmen of
political parties being even excluded and only accepted as
private persons.
So, we have at least three highly different types of
political organization flocking together and mingling in this
new movement: citizen’s initiatives, advocate organizations
and representative organizations. All of them have, to
different degrees, their own practices of internationalism,
the advocate groups challenging the traditional pre-eminence
of working class based representative organizations in this
field quite successfully. As a matter of
fact, and without
much trumpeting, the NGO’s new style, blending the citizen’s
initiatives and the advocacy organizations, have developed an
internationalism of their own, claiming “neutrality” with
respect to all “national” interests in international affairs.
But unlike the noble Red Cross
the new supranational NGO’s or
umbrella organizations of many local and regional NGO’s are
not pretending to be politically neutral or just taking care
of a humanitarian cause. As morally loaded and respectable
their causes may be, they still are political organizations
23
with a cause. Their impact depends upon their access to the
world of official politics, both on the national and
international level.
Propaganda, pleading for their cause in public,
constantly claiming and reclaiming the public domain including the “streets” - is crucial for these movements. They
share and they develop some common, basic ideas about the
world as it is, its evils and defects, they share and develop
a common language of criticism and protest and a common
culture of collective mass action in the public domain.
Perhaps the best illustration - and partly explanation as well
- for the state of affairs in today’s anti-globalist movements
can be found in the case of the monthly journal Le Monde
diplomatique, best known under its short name diplo. It used
to be a remarkable feature of the left in France, persisting
until this very day, that its different groups and movements,
before the rise of modern political parties, but afterwards as
well, were brought together, held together by newspapers.
Journals with a distinct view of the world, adorned with
several outstanding journalist - intellectuals and a distinct
outlook of their own at most of the relevant political matters
of the day. In France, as in 19th century Europe, before
political parties, there were clubs and journals. Now, in the
era of general disillusion-ment with party politics, they are
back again and very well alive. The diplo has a staff of
professional journalists, it has shareholders - 49 % of its
shares belonging to the staff and its readers - and it is a
highly successful enterprise, its success being due to its
newly acquired rol of intermediary and organizing network - of
local and regional nods - of the new anti-globalist movements.
Its moral and intellectual influence is completely due to its
unceasing critique of “neoliberal” globalization, propagating
24
the view that there is resistance to the dominant strand of
“neoliberal” politics all over the world. With more than 1,5
million copies, including the 20 or more internet-versions,
sold or circulated every month, in no less than 23 different
paper and internet versions in most of the larger languages of
the world, including Russian, Chinese and Japanese,
it
certainly has, what no left oriented journal has ever achieved
before, a global impact upon a global readership (cf. Cassen
2003). Which is, in the end, a late and rather unexpected
triumph of a peculiar style of political mobilization, giving
the new movement a touch of gauchisme à la francaise.
5.
Do the anti-globalists know what they are fighting for?
Today’s anti-globalization movements are directly facing
those supranational institutions that are so typical for and
central to the present wave of “globalization”. Their primary
objectives are on the level of international or even world
politics, their most important targets are the top meetings of
the representatives of the member states of these
transnational organizations and, first and foremost, they
focus upon the very core institutions of the so-called “global
governance: Their protests are targeted at the WTO, the IMF,
the Worldbank as well as at officially non-political, nongovernance organizations like the World Economic Forum,
formally a private, non-state agency. Still, some of the most
remarkable institutions or transnational bodies characterizing
the current wave of globalization like the International
Standards Organization (ISO) hardly draw any attention.
Others, like the ILO, are either ignored or regarded, although
with some reservations, as a potential ally in the field of
trans-national economic and social politics. The most
25
remarkable fact with regard to the background and history of
the large variety of NGO’s and citizen’s initiatives and
action groups that have recently joined in sustained efforts
for common, joint action on the level of world politics,
remains that they have left the many separate single issues
behind that were once their raison d’être. Instead, they have
in fact now turned a small group of easily identifiable,
common enemies. Although the IMF and the Worldbank have been
most frequently and most bitterly critized, the WTO and the G
- 8 have been targeted as not less responsible for the evils
of “globalization”.
In all these confrontations, anti-globalists criticize
the lack of democratic legitimation of these international
bodies. In fact, they are more often than not attacking the
role and in-fluence of big multi- or transnational
corporations and / or international networks of busi-nessmen
lobbying “their” representatives, corrupting these bodies,
using them to lobby trea-ties and agreements through that are
designed to serve their interests. They argue either in the
name of the weaker and poorer political actors, the
representatives of the 3rd world countries, or in the name of
another concept of the global common good, different from the
common good of the large corporations. Although there are
groups that deny the legitimacy of international bodies like
the IMF or the WTO outrightly, the large majority of the antiglobalist movements try just to influence the agenda’s and
policies and those bodies for the better. Until now, there
have been two clearly discernable conditions for success for
such pressure politics from without. First, some, in fact
rather few, of the NGOs have become self-consciously global in
their concerns and strategies and claimed an active role in
transnational politics by setting up transnational advocacy
26
networks (TANs) (cf. Keck / Sikkink, 1998). Such networks,
complete with interlocking directorates as in the world of
national and transnational corporate governance, think-tanks,
elite networks including a considerably large group of
movement intellectuals globe-trotting from one event to
another,
do exist for a quite a long time in increasing
numbers and they are getting larger. Some of them are
independent, supranational organizations with branches in
several countries, some of them are in fact alliances or
umbrella organizations, backed up by hundreds of trade unions,
foundations, church organizations based in dozens of different
countries, such as Transparency Internatio-nal and Social
Watch International. Second, they had and they have to strike
alliances with government representatives that do have direct
and undisputed access to those international bodies.
Prospective political allies, officially established global
players, can be found in diffe-rent parts of the world.
Activists and protagonists of the anti-globalist movement
would be more inclined to look for such allies in the
countries of the 3rd world, as most evils and most victims of
globalization are to be found in the global “South” as they
perceive it. Incidentally, such alliances with government
representatives from 3rd world countries have been made - more
often than not in a purely negative sense, in order to stop or
fend off joint actions and / or plans launched by the richer
(OECD) countries’ governments. Although there is a develo-ped
practice of “transnational” policy making by TANS supported by
a widespread commit-ment to solidarity with the global South,
yet nothing like a long term strategy to support the G - 77
against the G - 8 and to take sides with one kind of
“globalizing” politics against another has emerged.
Hence, although the “internationalism” and “third-
27
worldism” of the 1970ties is still very much present among the
European and North American participants in the movement, it
does not prevail above other concerns. Which is, of course,
due to the widespread scepticism about the present economic
world order, a scepticism which does not leave out the
activities of the successful “developmental states” in South
East Asia and elsewhere. Although outspo-ken advocates of
third world “developmentalism” are present in the movement,
there is no general shift towards a sustained policy of
national protectionism, at least for the 3rd world countries.
Nor could there be, as a large part of the movement is based
in organizations and movements in 3rd world countries which are
bitterly opposed to the developmental policies of their own
governments, at least some of them, while they are, by the
same token, turning to them as agencies that should and could
provide them access to world markets and help them to get fair
terms of trade.
Participants in the anti-globalist movement share all
kinds of anti-capitalism, most of them quite restricted,
directed at certain aspects and partial phenomena of the
present capitalist world economy. But there is nothing like
the apparent programmatic coherence of former social
movements. More than anything else, the anti-globalist
movement is lacking a common idea of the alternative economic
and social order it is fighting for. The international
organizations of the working class movements found their
rallying point in some concept of an alternative to capitalism
- socialism at large. Feminists and environmentalists shared
similar, although much more vague, notions of the better world
of gender equality or sustainable development they were and
are striving for. The anti-globalists do not. They cannot deny
or combat the very phenomenon of globalization in the sense of
28
interconnections and intercon-nectedness across borders nor
can they reject the enlightenment idea of humanity and the
world wide community of mankind as they are thriving by both.
Hence, everything depends upon the varieties of anticapitalism as well as the element of utopianism they embrace.
Due to its recent successes in the media and in a series
of mass meetings, assembling several tens of thousands of
people and even more than one hundred thousand as in the case
of Porto Alegre January 2003, the anti-globalist movement is
urged by its own unsuspected dynamics as by its newly acquired
status of a big political force to reckon with, to make up its
mind. Its success as an ever growing mass movement, its
attraction for a rapidly increasing variety of movements in
many parts of the world hinged upon the very fact that it was
kept open and in potential all - inclusive, hence did not or
only vaguely define conditions of ad-mission to the movement
at large. People, individuals and organizations, are free to
join the ever larger movement, the only effort to keep away
dangerous or undesirable or strange bed-fellows being directed
against overtly nationalist, racist and even fascist antiglobalists from the old and the new “right” in Europe and
America. The problem seems to be to identify the common enemy,
an enemy who comes in many guises - whether as global
corporations, as global capital, as US imperialism or Empire,
as finance capital or the financial markets, as industrialism,
consumerism, as world trade or world market, as neoliberalism
or neo-conservatism - and to sort out “who is who” in the real
worlds of capitalism. Who is who and who is responsible for
all that is wrong with the new world order and for all the
evil conse-quences of the ongoing “globalization” process,
unintended and undesired as they may be.
As an educational and debating movement, the anti-globalists
are still looking for some kind of common denominator for the
29
various kinds of criticisms referring to “globalization” and
to “capitalism” or the present world order. They do share a
belief that they are parts of and contributing to something
much larger - a historical movement that might eventually
change the world as we used to know it. In this respect, they
have an outlook very similar to the one present in the working
class movements of earlier times - although they lack the
clear cut perspective of some millenium to come. Despite of
their confusion about the alternative as well as about the
diagnostics of what is wrong with the present world - and the
tremendous success of a world view as propounded in Empire by
Hardt and Negri (Hardt / Negri 2000) could only be read as an
indication of that utter confusions - they seem to agree that
politics, even government politics still matters a lot,
notwithstanding the grassroots style and appearance of the
movement.
6.
The perspectives of the anti-globalist
movements
Anti-globalism is certainly not all that it is
cracked up to be by many of its protagonists. In relation to
its opponents - the global power of capital and, more
specifically, the power of “global capital” as far as it does
exist - it lacks a clear cut strategy. It lacks a clear
conception of the kind of powers it is up against. It has no
“programme”, just several rallying points loosely knitted
together by some vague overarching concepts - or better catch
all phrases - like “globalization”, “neoliberalism”,
“corporate power” and so on.
It does share and even embrace a
lot of the standard propaganda formula’s about
“globalization”. In fact, its amount of shared criticism of
30
what is “bad” about capitalism and the new world order based
upon the “Washington consensus” is rather large, but lacks
coherence in all respects. Myths prevail, as they actually do
in the official ideologies defending and propagating the
revival and rise of world wide capitalism.
Hence, in its theoretical outlook it is as diverse as the
“old” world of European and North-American anti-capitalism
used to be. A variety that has been enlarged by the kind of
world views that so many and so large movements and
organizations from 3rd world countries have brought into the
anti-globalist movement. It does not lack the variety of
socialist, com-munist, anarchist outlooks of the older
movements either: As in the working class movements of the 19th
century, we find all strands and brands of anti-capitalism
mixed together in these new movements: The romantics, the
reactionaries, the utopians, the various votaries of a turning
back to either nature or allegedly former and better ways of
life, and, last not least, even social democratic, rather
reformist attitudes and proposals.
Anti-globalists agree upon the claim and the shared
world-view that “another world is possible”. In negative
terms, they agree upon the proposition that the “world is not
for sale”. Meaning, of course, just “not all of it”. A
proposition that could be easily interpreted in the sense of a
call to revival and rebuilding of the public domain in
advanced capitalist societies; important but not world shaking. No general farewell to the world of markets is
proclaimed but protection of some “home” markets for the
“indigenous” producers and consumers is demanded - more often
than not in the name of a peculiar strand of local or regional
culture that should be respected (cf. f.i. Hines 2000; Bové /
31
Dufour 2001) . On the contrary, and very much in traditional
reformist style, the salience of a revival and reappraisal of
the public domain in today’s capitalist market economy’s is
broadly advocated, although not always clearly stated. If
there is a uniting formula, Susan George’s TATA - there are
thousands of alternatives - , coined against Margaret
Thatchers’ TINA - there is no alternative -, would certainly
be a good candidate. If anything, this is a blast of trumpets,
much more than three cheers, for reformism. Political action on the national level and above that - is still possible and
necessary. It is indispensable where the movement is in fact
advocating a purely defensive stance on a local or regional or
national level against the forces of the world market, global
capital and, more specific, the hegemony of US capitalism.
Accordingly, the movement has quickly turned to old fashioned
lobbying on all levels, talking in private to politicians and
high government officials, meeting with party and trade union
functionaries, not only writing but also talking to various
kinds of congressmen and - women on all levels. Their biggest
impact until now has been on the political parties and party
politicians of the old, traditional as well as the “new” left
who sense a potential and a lot of opportunities here.
Government and corporate representatives, including high
representatives of the institutions under attack, like the IMF
or the WTO, have been impressed and attracted as well,
publicly recognizing the seriousness and the importance of the
complaints as expressed by the anti-globalist movements.
One perspective is plain: The movement will have an
impact and it will succeed. The reason is simple. Social
scientists had and have been long aware of the “depleting
moral legacy of capitalism” (cf. Hirsch 1977), which does
occur for various reasons in the long run and, in the end,
32
severs the links between capitalism proper and the bourgeois
civil society. Pillorying all sorts of scandals and abuses,
the whole world of the new corruption in international finance, branding the practices of MNCs worldwide and crying out in
condemnation against the “injustices” of the world economic
system, the anti-globalist movement might contribute to revive
something like a moral basis for capitalism, at least to
revitalize the old bourgeois vir-tues of fairness, of selfcontrol and moderation. Quite a lot of anti-capitalist
rhetoric can be easily swallowed and integrated into the
dominant strands of political and economic discour-ses,
especially those with a clear moralizing undertone.
Environmentalism has been integrated and has become part and
parcel of the public rhetoric of private enterprises in recent
times.
But neoliberalism is more than a rhetorical fad. As a
worldwide phenomenon, in fact an easy shorthand depicting an
overall shift in macroeconomic politics since the early
1980ties , it is closely linked to the third Great Depression
in the history of modern capitalism. The way out and what kind
of world economy will emerge beyond this Great Crisis is still
unclear and all historical analogies have been deceptive until
now - the last one being the so-called “new economy” of the
late 1990ties. In this respect, the perspectives of the antiglobalist movement are rather bleak. In terms of the
comparative history of internationalism, there has never been
a transnational movement of similar diversity, scope and
scale, and fragmentation. As impres-sive and attractive as it
might look to the eyes of the sympathetic beholder, its
limitations are all to obvious:
First, it already has fallen victim to its own success. Until
now, the anti-globa-list movement succeeded because it kept
33
growing, attracting ever larger masses of people and numbers
of organizations from all over the world. In fact, it has
grown into some kind of an catch-all movement, with an ever
higher degree of fragmentation. The extreme heterogenity of
such a loose alliance has for some time been kept in check by
increased networking and by sticking to the broadest possible
consensus. But the summit-hopping style of political action,
the jumping from one big even to another, the focus upon ever
larger, amorphous, confused mass meetings has now become a
fetter to any further development of the movement - as far as
joint political action, not social events and politically
motivated tourism, is concerned. As Porto Alegre III made it
very clear, at least for those who still needed some
enlightenment in this respect, mass meetings of several
thousand people are unfit for anything like a public debate
and joint decision-making. Large crowds acclaiming
indiscriminately the most wild and the most opposing views are
not very fit for strategic thinking. Hence, on the level of
the international council of the WSF the idea to stop the mass
meetings and change the style of political action is no longer
unthinkable. Whether a switch towards more conventional forms
of political action will be feasible, is to be doubted.
Second, if such a shift does occur it will render the
weaknesses of the movement even more conspicuous.
The way in
which the movement acted until now, relying upon moral and
symbolical action, its “politics by appeal”, was and is
nothing but attentism - as it was called in the old labour
movement. Waiting for the next summit of world political
leaders and / or world political institutions and reacting to
it, following the tracks and the “big events” of “high
politics”. In between, there is nothing but preparing for the
next rush to the next event to repeat the rituals of street
protest. The movement has no practice of solidarity actions
34
across borders - although it has at least some of the
necessary means for such action. It has no concept how to
influence the supra-national policy-making processes and it
has no practice nor any kind of a concept for collective
resistance to “globalization” processes. Instead, it comes up
with highly technical proposals like the Tobin tax that would
not change much if implemented, and it does not seem to
understand why “simple” solutions for several world problems
(like the international debt crisis or the tax havens and
offshore centra) are not so simple after all.
Third, its impact depends upon the world media. The public
opinion of the “world” - that is the big media concerns in the
global “North” - can be impressed and even manipulated, but
only if the game is played according to their rules. That is
why the problem of symbolical violence turning into something
rather close to real rioting - much more familiar in the
capitals of 3rd world countries than in old Europe or the old
USA - will continue to haunt a movement that has no control
whatsoever of the actions of its supporters.
Fourth, an all-inclusive movement of all sorts of movements
can hardly bring about anything of a collective identity for
its participants - apart from the self perception as belonging
to the “good people”. In democratic societies, such movements
can not do much more than oppose “we - the people” with “us the other people”. Any serious resistance will probably blow
apart such an Owenite “association of all classes of all
nations” and produce even more frag-mentation, as will the
soft tactics of embrace and even hug the movement as it is
practised once in a while.
Fifth, and due to the lack of a clear concept about who the
opponent and who the addressee of the action are, the movement
lives by a flurry of all kinds of anti-capitalism. An anticapitalism that is first and foremost built upon and lives by
35
anti-capitalist rhetoric. That makes it attracti-ve to all
kinds of groups and movements of the old and the new left. By
the same token, the movement becomes vulnerable to all kinds
of anti-communist and anti-socialist counterargu-ments.
Superficial and ill-informed as they are, the general and
widely used allusions to the complete “failures” of all sorts
of non-capitalist economies and societies still work. As the
prospects for a socialist world revolution are not very
encouraging at this moment, the rising tide of anti-capitalist
rhetoric will hardly gain credibility. Inevitably, the
movement will have to take up the challenge and to come up
with some answers as to the kind of non-capitalist world order
it is actually advocating. Notwithstanding the large numbers
of participants from the old and the new left, it is not well
prepared to do that. And it certainly does not have any clear
view as to the prospects of those parts of the world that are
still nominally non-capitalist like Cuba or the People’s
Republics of China or Vietnam. By all means, the movement will
again have to learn the basics of (international) political
economy as the labour movements of the 19th century had to
learn them.
Literature
Perry Anderson, 2002, Internationalism: A Breviary, in: New
Left Review, 14 , March - April, pp. 5 - 25
Daniel Bensaid, 2002, Le nouvel internationalisme, in:
Encyclopedia Universalis, Vol.
36
Julius Braunthal, 1971, Geschichte der Internationale, 3 Bde,
Berlin - Bonn
José Bové / François Dufour, 2001, The world is not for sale.
Farmers against junk food, London: Verso
Craig Calhoun, 1993, “New Social Movements” of the Early
Nineteenth Century, in: Social Science History, Vol. 17, pp.
385 - 427
Bernard Cassen, 2003, On the Attack, in: New Left Review, Nr.
19, Jan.- February 2003, pp.
41 - 60
K. Danaher / R. Burbach, 2000, (eds), Globalize This!, Monroe
ME
Barbara Epstein, 2001, Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization
Movement, in: Monthly Review, Vol. 53, No.
,
pp.
Michael Hardt / Toni Negri, 2000 , Empire, Cambridge Mass.:
Harvard University Press
Georges Haupt, 1970, Programm und Wirklichkeit, Neuwied
David Held et al, 1999, Global Transformations. Politics,
economics and culture, Cambridge: Polity
Noreena Hertz, 2001, The Silent Takeover. Global Capitalism
and the death of democracy, London: Heinemann
C. Hines, 2000, Localization: A Global Manifesto, London
37
Fred Hirsch, 1977, Social Limits to Growth, London: Routlegde
Albert Hirschman, 1992, Rival Views of Market Society,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Margaret E. Keck / Kathryn Sikkink, 1998, Activists beyond
Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca:
Cornell University Press
Naomi Klein, 2000, No Logo: no space, no jobs, no choice.
Taking aim at the brand bullies, London: Flamingo
Knud Knudsen, 1988, The Strike History of the First
International, in: Frits van Holthoon / Marcel van der Linden
(eds), Internationalism in the Labour Movement 1830 - 1940,
pp. 304 - 322
Michael R. Krätke, 2002, Globalisierung der Wirtschaft - Ein
skeptischer Blick, in: Loccumer Protokolle, Bd. 192, pp.
Michael R. Krätke, 2003, Der 18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte.
Ein Kapitel der Marxschen Kritik der Politik, Hamburg - Berlin
Carl Landauer, 1959, European Socialism. A History of Ideas
and Movements, 2 vols., Berkeley - Los Angeles: University of
California Press
H. Patomäki, 2001, Democratizing Globalization, London
Donald Sassoon, 1997, One Hundred Years of Socialism. The West
European Left in the Twentieth Century, London: Fontana Press
38