Re: Right/Left Polarization: the ballot box and the street

Date: 7th Aug '02

Name: LLETSA

Largely dream world stuff. Doesn't seem able to grasp the difference between the neo - liberal right and the far - right.
That neo - liberal right regimes can be, when they choose, authoritarian at home and murderous abroad
seems have come as something of a surprise to the author, despite the evidence of decades. The author blurs the understanding of the difference between the far - right and the neo - liberal right, and seems puzzled that the 'centre - left' echoes the approach of the neo - liberal right. This, despite the fact that the electoral left - as well as, if truth be told, the far left - threw in the towel with regard to building a genuine challenge to the capitalist system years ago. This capitulation was accelerated by the collapse of the USSR and so on, which dragged down all left - wing currents with it, but pre -dates it. The electoral left never aimed for anything but concessions from the existing system, whereas the far - left, confronted by the dilemmas thrown up by the creation of mass consumerism, long ago began to substitute 'social movements' and persuading the state to homogenize society for the much more onerous task of genuinely addressing themselves to the ungrateful working class. In this context it is no surprise that governments of whatever title implement neo -liberal policies; they do so becuase they can - there is no widespread belief that any realistic alternative exists. Again, this is partly the psychological effect of the collapse of 'Communism', the only attempt seen so far that seemed to point towards a wholesale rejection of capitalism (whatever the reality.) Where members of 'centre - left' governments are uneasy about such policies they are whipped into line by leaders who are only too well aware that the super - rich who really run the show can easily use their media and so on to sweep them from office.

The article also minimizes the extent to which the far - right parties are filling the gap created by the abdication of the left as a whole, and the numbers of working class people who are voting for them. The author seems stuck in the time warp where fascist movements are widely misunderstood to be merely another wing of the conservative right, waiting in the wing for their cue from the bosses to crush the workers movement. This is not 1932, but 2002. This approach not only underestimates the differences between conservatism and fascism but also ignores the above - mentioned possibility of the far - right gradually coming to replace the left as the militant opposition to neo - liberalism. Far from the police state nightmare that the author depicts the neo - liberal governments as creating, the reality is different. Sure enough, to be an immigrant muslim or any type of illegal immigrant and so on is difficult enough, particularly in the post - Sept 11th US, but the homogenizing effect of consumerism and globalizing capitalism has created the kind of society where a majority of people are materially better off than ever before and have been either bought off or cajoled into thinking they have a stake in this 'capitalist democracy.' In societies where an ineffective left is in any case invisible to the vast majority, the rest can be ignored or fobbed off. In this kind of society, to be racist and what the politically correct consider 'offensive' is the new rebellion. There lies its appeal to so many new adherents of fascism in the new century. That is why the neo - liberal governments in whatever guise - centre - left or mainstream right speak out against the far - right, or try to bring them to heel by offering them government posts (but only where they see no alternative.) Of course, in situations where they have co - opted Euronationalists, mainstream right governments might adopt aspects of their policies, while those Euronationalists might suddenly find themselves in agreement with things they had hitherto condemned; that is the nature of politics. However, as the author points out, the neo - liberal governments are quite adept at dishing out the repression without the aid of the fascists. That is why US/ Western policy in the Third World is more ambiguous than it was twenty years ago - the revolutionary forces don't have their 'Leninist' inspiration, nor their sponsors in Moscow,and are less resolute because of it; so although they will still do it when necessary, the US doesn't need to rely on as many of the 'fascist' military dictators of old. Ths ambiguity also explains why we see so many justifications for foreign intervention couched in liberal language - in the worldwide absence of belief in alternatives to capitalism, it can be presented as bringing backward countries on board the gravy train of the 'freedom and prosperity' that we enjoy in the west.

The main aim of neo - liberals is to fight off the far - right because their ideas blur the issues in the drive to creation of a thoroughly globalized capitalist market. By campaigning among the working class they are a disruptive influence to the shiny happy family of obedient multicultural consumers. The protectionism that the author points to on the part of the US is tactical; on the road towards the neo - liberal heaven the US must lead - including in pressing home the 'right' of the US to defend its own interests, and if reality gets in the way they will veer away from the theory. It is not, though, a sign of some kind of convergence between the fascists and the mainstream right.

As for the opposition - I am not qualified to comment on every sector of the world covered in the article. However, I see no mass left - wing oppostion 'located in the streets.' Are these the streets ringed by steel surrounding the various summits of worldwide leaders? While the aims of many of these demonstrators might be laudable, the forces they represent are far too disparate to be considered a fully worked - out oppostion capable of challenging the system, and outside of the constituencies the demonstrators represent, they have almost no audience whatsoever; try raising the same issues that they do next time you go to the pub or to work. The anti - globalization movement consists of well - meaning lobbyists, who when it comes down to it have no wish to see the essence of the system they are supposed to be opposing fundamentally altered, right through to the toytown anarchist fringe, as well as all shades in between. Aside from official representatives of the labour movement the working class are almost wholly absent.

The world changed drastically in the 1980s and continues to change. The ideological justifications for the capitalist system have altered to accommadate the new reality in which the ideology that dominated the most militant opposition to it has completely collapsed. Now new one as yet shows any signs of arising - hence the appeal to many of the far - right. Regurgitating old arguments and scenarios will not provide the answers. Trouble is - who does have them?

Back to discussion page                    RA home page