by Bob Seery

Created on: February 11, 2010

Within Marx’s historical dialectic there is a predicted process of 'homogenization' driven by a bourgeoise revolutionary force whose deployment of capital in its internationalist aspect erases archaic barriers predicated on class, religion, tribal affinities and so forth. This movement of capital is conceived and best facilitated through a free trade environment; one that naturally eschews the various forms of protectionism which only, in the end, forestall the emergence of 'the necessary conditions' from whence a true communist society can prevail.

It is paradoxical therefore that the internationalist movements that have arisen; "Via Campesino" (peasant's movement), the anti-globalization campaigners, the various NGO's and worker's alliances that comprise the gathering of the World Social Forums - and many of these groups align themselves with some form of Marxism - that these movements by and large tend to share an antagonism towards the encroachment of corporate interests into their domains. Here, "Capital" is being resisted; whether it is resource extraction whose benefits rarely accrue to indigenous (mining interests of Rio Tinto etc, landscape despoliation, pollution of freshwater, Shell in Nigeria), or the privitisation and monopolisation of freshwater resources (Bechtel in Bolivia). In 'development studies' all of these issues come under the rubric; "whither forward" - which is the best way to proceed?

Many campaigners within these countries see the free market ideology espoused by the dominant economies as merely a lever used to exploit their natural resources; Chavez's nationalisation of the oil industry and his subsequent demonisation by the corporate media being a good example. The truth is, is that the resistance to free trade globalization is occurring on both fronts; by the developing country blocks seeking to protect and nurture domestic industry whilst securing preferential trading agreements and by the developed nations such as the EU, Japan and the US who continue to provide trade distorting subsides for it's agricultural producers (ie corporate agribusiness).

It has been said also that Marx has under theorised those dimensions of nationalist politics which continue to mitigate against the development of pan-internationalist alliances based upon class distinctions. Within his view of history the predominant form - the capitalist mode of production - has been announced, and it has a corresponding class dimension composed of the bourgeoise

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>