The Dialectics of Globalization (page 2 of 5)
By Jerry Harris

Nationalist and Globalist Politics

Because a period of transition is marked by dialectical disequilibrium there can be any number of permutations, one of which is the war in Iraq. It’s logical that the greatest challenge to the transnational capitalist class would take form in the state of the world’s most powerful nation. Since the demise of the Soviet Union a sector of the US ruling class has been advocating a winner take all policy. Coming together under the Project for the New American Century neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and influential neo-realists like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney developed a strategy for preeminent US domination based on military power. This wing of the US ruling class is based primarily in the military/industrial complex, the state sector and industry most closely tied to the culture and structure of nation-centric accumulation. In George W. Bush they found a president ideologically tied to religious fundamentalism with its nationalist rejection of cultural diversity and belief in Christian society as a superior form of civilization. This bonded with the culture of patriotism and nationalism already prevalent throughout the military/industrial complex. (Harris, S&S)

This nationalist strategy was in sharp contrast to the global economic expansion experience by the majority of large US corporations. For this section of the US bourgeoisie a new era of capitalism was unfolding. The defeat of the Soviet Union opened up vast regions for capitalist penetration. This opportunity coincided with the revolution in the means of production brought about by information technologies allowing for a deeper integration of markets and production. These new outlets for expansion were not dominated by US transnationals but open to all world spanning corporations that co-invested, built new alliances and competed for global markets. This new structure of accumulation took shape through a multilateral regime of regulation and competition overseen by supranational organizations such as the International Monterey Fund and World Trade Organization.

As cross borders mergers and financial investments increased national economies were reduced to just one aspect of competitive strategies that spanned the world. Transnationals produce, invest, employ and sell everywhere seeking to become one of the top three or four monopolies in their fields of business. Competition is no longer about American or German corporations winning the battle over markets as representatives of a national economy. European, American and Asian transnationals are part of each other’s economies and have deeply vested interests in the stability and health of the entire global capitalist system. What does nation-centric competition really mean in today’s world? If, for example, Europe gained a significant competitive advantage over the US resulting in a weaker consumer and asset base in America it certainly would not benefit European transnationals that depend on the US markets for a good part of their profits. The Asian, US and European markets are dependent on each other and tied by thousands of complex relationships at every level of business. This new structure of accumulation and competition has produced a transnational capitalist class that is no longer limited to nation-centric markets and nationalist driven political agendas.

This brings us back to the war in Iraq. The political divisions over the war do not correspond to the old patterns of national politics that split the world between social democrats and conservatives. The Bush administration clearly upset the development of globalization in demanding the world follow its unilateral march to war. But nearly every neo-liberal conservative government in the world actively opposed US plans. What united France, Russia, Canada, China, Mexico and Turkey (as well as social democratic Germany) is that they are all deeply committed globalists regimes. Even Tony Blair joined the US effort through an exercise in tortured logic that argued British participation would tie Bush to the international system. The fact that conservative politicians refused to follow the lead of the most important conservative party in the world exposes this new split between hegemonic nationalism and multilateral globalism that now overrides the conservative and social-democratic divisions of the past. In fact, the old definitions of left and right have largely disappeared replaced by a choice between free market neo-liberalism and third way neo-liberalism, the only economic alternatives offered by the transnational capitalist bloc.

Even right-wing nationalists have changed their politics making globalization their main target rather than competitive nation states. As NPD leader Johannes Muller stated; “We cannot bow before globalization… German corporate investment must go to Germany first, and we must repatriate German industrial production.” (Benoit)

This split between globalists and nationalists is apparent within the US itself. Many Americans view the presidential contest between Bush and John Kerry as the most important election of their lives. This may overestimate the real differences between the candidates, but it does reflect the deep divisions within US society over the overt nationalist and hegemonic policies of the Bush White House. One of Kerry’s most constant criticisms is that Bush has alienated US allies and friends in Europe. In turn, Bush accuses Kerry of pandering to European concerns and proudly proclaims he will defend “US interests” in spite of their universal unpopularity. (Harding)
As national security director Condoleezza Rice has said, “Foreign policy in a Republican administration will proceed from the firm ground of the national interest, not from the interests of an illusory international community.” (Lenord, p.w20)

A clear indication of the division within the capitalist class is the ability of Kerry to match Republican fund raising efforts. This near parity has even appeared in contributions from Wall Street financial institutions that traditionally have gone overwhelmingly to Republicans. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s former Treasury secretary and Citibank executive has noted the concerns of Wall Street bankers over the alienation of allies and damage to US prestige. As the Financial Times observed, “finance is a global business and the captains of US firms are internationalists.” (Financial Times) The point is that globalist’s economic, political and social forces remain strong inside U.S. society and are allied politically and economically to globalists in Europe. A one-sided nation-centric analysis ignores these relationships.

Such realities are pointed out by Douglass Daft, former chairman and chief executive of Coca-Cola, and Niall Fitzgerald, co-chairman of Unilever, who note: “Thanks to continuing levels of transatlantic foreign direct investment, most large companies can no longer be categorized as ‘US’ or ‘European’ companies but rather as ‘transatlantic companies.” (Daft and Fitzgerald)

This globalist/nationalist split is also present within the military/industrial complex. The presidential campaign of General Wesley Clark clearly reflected this conflict as he emerged as a representative of the globalist military sector and their alliance with broader political and economic forces inside and outside the US. This sector argues that a balance between political, cultural, economic and military power builds a more secure environment for global capitalism and necessitates peacekeeping and nation building. These policies are best carried out through multilateral coordination and structures, and they specifically criticize a unilateral hegemonic policy as dangerous, costly and arrogant. (Harris, 2) Clark, as well as other military globalists, has consistently called for a common international effort based in multilateral institutions. In fact, Clark lays much of the failure in the Middle East on the political and economic influence of the military-industrial complex that by its very nature sees peacekeeping as unprofitable. (Clark) Further splits can be seen in the constantly warring factions inside the CIA and Pentagon over Iraq, the very public outrage of dozens of security and foreign service officials directed at the White House and the appearance of 12 retired generals and admirals speaking from the podium of the Democratic National Convention. More >>