Posts Tagged ‘history’

‘Historical Materialism’

September 26, 2024

This is a (hopefully) fairly simple explanation, rather than the full deal, and like most simplifications probably has major failings

Historical materialism

Historical materialism is the theory that history is primarily driven by material forces rather than by ideas or ‘great men.’ The theory that history is the working out of ideas alone can often be called something like ‘historical idealism’

Marxism asserts Ideas arise out of the human conditions of life and are generally spread by ‘class representatives’. “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas”. The ideas of the ruling classes get promoted and distributed, whereas other ideas tend to be persecuted or ignored. However, in conditions in which the ruling class is destroying itself, or a new class is rising, alternative ideas can arise out of existing class conflict. Hence Marxism itself was supposed to be able to challenge capitalist ideology, through the rise of the working class and through expressing their understandings and experience of life.

It seems to have failed dismally as, nowadays, most people have no idea what Marxism stands for or argues, they simply know what their rulers and the rulers’ representatives tell them about it 🙂

Important factors in history

Important factors in material history include the ways that people gain survival through the “organization of the means of production.” So the fundamental questions for a Marxist are:

  • How do societies produce food and other products?
  • How do they distribute or trade food and other products?
  • What groups of people does this organization allocate control over the distribution?
  • Who does the system allow to accumulate more than other people?
  • How is this inequality preserved?
  • How does this organization protect itself and enforce itself?
  • How does this organization undermine or destroy itself? These ways of self-destruction are usually called “contradictions.” Marxism implies that contradictions are binary (the “dialectic” because of Hegel :), but there is no reason to assume this is correct. Contradictions could involve multiple forces acting at the same time.

In capitalism, capitalists (deliberately?) confuse capitalism with exchange and trade, which are universal. For Marxists capitalism is a particular set of forms of organization of production, technology, labor, trade, distribution, allocation of prosperity, power and so on. Capitalism is not trade in itself. Otherwise bureaucratic state communism would have to be classified as capitalism, which is not useful, even if both are oppressive in often different ways.

Example: the history of capitalism

The capitalist idea of history is that people become rich because they, or their ancestors, worked hard, were virtuous or brilliant having great ideas. This set of ‘ideologies’ (ideas justifying a particular social organization) feels right to capitalists and makes capitalism ‘good’ which is pleasing to them. It is well known and well distributed. Every American, Britisher, European, Australian has probably heard this ideology repeated over and over until it sounds like common-sense.

Marxists would tend to argue that capitalism arose through violent theft of land by those in power (aristocrats), and through expansion of the aristocracy in the UK to include people who owed their wealth directly to the crown through services they performed. Many of these people used that land to accumulate capital, and start investments in newly invented operations like corporations. These people had the military power and technologies to continue their plunder throughout the world, moving on when they had destroyed land, stealing valuables like labor (slavery), gold. silver and other resources, often with the co-operation of other powers (such as local rulers).

This process of dispossession and investment, created a working class in the UK and elsewhere, who could no longer support themselves through their own food production and farms, craft or traditional labor. The self-reliance of the people was destroyed by capitalism and turned into reliance on transactional capitalist bosses. Eventually traditional aristocrats had to move into business or marry into business, because their lands no longer brought in enough income to live at the level required by their culture and forms of social power.

The State acted to support the rising capitalists and enforce this dispossession and impoverishment. This allowed the workers to be exploited in factories often with working and living conditions so bad, that capitalists were also stealing the health and lives of the workers as they were with slavery.

Eventually this similar experience lead to the working class unifying and struggling against bosses who extracted riches from them, and forming unions, fighting for political rights, political participation and decent working and living conditions

Marx expected these processes to lead to revolution and the abolition of capitalism and its State. There is no capitalism without a capitalist State. Marx rather naively seems to have thought that Communism without the State, would have few contradictions.

However, the processes in the West first led to the post war semi-socialist welfare State, as a defense against the possibilities of revolution, but capitalists fought back, and restored their dominance, as their control of wealth production enabled them to support ‘free market’ ideas through sponsored think tanks, fund politicians, persuade the State to make union life much harder and to repeal the taxes which allowed the welfare state to exist.

This set of pro-corporate political and economic actions is often known as ‘Neoliberalism.’ Some say this counter-revolution happened because capitalists were still afraid of workers’ revolution or the political influence coming from the new freedoms of people to participate politically, or because capitalism had become less profitable. I don’t know what is the case.

Liberty for ordinary people, collapsed and we are now living in a capitalist in plutocracy which is slowly destroying itself by impoverishing the people, destroying the competitive market, and destroying functional ecology. The only ‘solution’ being proposed for current capitalist contradictions seems to be authoritarianism, suppression of dissent and keeping people exhausted at work. Similar solutions were previously tried in the 1930s and did not work that well. There is no reason to assume they will work now.

However, information has been shown to be important. In my experience, many people still believe that the Mueller Report cleared Trump, did not find anything wrong with his behaviour or was a fraud. That Trump is being conspired against by the establishment and the FBI. That Putin is scared of Trump and campaigns for Democrats. That Harris slept her way to the top and is a communist who organised the assassination attempts on Trump, and that a vote for Trump is a far safer and more sensible than a vote for her. This may well give the US election to Trump and have massive effects on world history and the rush to collapse. The relationship of ideas and social forces, may ultimately depend on material forces, but ideas can give victory, although a pure materialist could point out these pro-Trump ideas are driven by corporations. However other corporations oppose them.

Conclusion

Historical materialism claims the main driving factors of history are material ones: material conditions, material and social organization, the possibilities of technology, and the allocation of violence. Ideas are largely secondary to these processes. History is not the expression of Spirit, great men, or God’s will.

“Cuddly History”

September 19, 2023

Cuddly history is a history that is comforting and unreal.

It aims to tell its readers or hearers, that they and their ancestors and their nation never did anything terribly wrong, disreputable, cruel or which had long-term or unintended conequences.

It often invokes moral relativism: “Oh in those days it didn’t count” or “it couldn’t have happened anyway” or “It dosn’t matter what happened then, because we are all equal now.” “‘left wing’ history is just stirring up trouble”,

The cuddly version reeassures people that they can’t be being bad when they continue to treat people badly.

Its a way of removing all discomfort. Especially the discomfort of awareness….

Examples

“Colonialism had no ill effects on indigenous people, and indeed improved life for all them in the long term.” This is usually stated if any one mentions the death rate of colonisation. Because of this, no one needs to talk about the present day in which indigenous people generally live in poverty, and have their lands (should they still have them), stripped away and given to miners, or get imprisoned regularly.

“They would have been worse off if it wasn’t for us” A variation on the first point, they should really be thanking us for massacring them, taking their land and often their children.

“If people died out, then it was because they were inferior, and could not accept our superior culture. They were weak. We tried, but sadly could not keep them alive.”

In Australia: “We never had slavery, they worked because they liked being in chains and it was good for them. It gave them discipline, and strutured time, all essential for civilisation. It was a minor issue anyway, and they heard the Gospel, and its over now.”

In the USA: “Slaves were treated as members of the family, and learnt a lot from us that they would never have learnt otherwise, like agriculture…..”

“Slavery was not our fault, it was the fault of those Africans and Muslims who sold their country men and women”.

“We are all equal now, and blacks just whinge and won’t get off their arses. There’s no racism any more. It’s the best of all possible worlds”

“People should become happy workers like we are, its the best system and never did anyone any harm”

“The Market is a beautiful scheme which produces balance and prosperity. Allegations that it also brought murder and dispossession, are communist fantasies. Capitalists have no interest in harming anyone. All the conditions and prosperity that workers have, was given to them freely by their masters. They certainly never needed to fight for it. Capitalism was brought by God.”

“Nazis were left wing” This is often said by the same people welcoming Nazis to Trump rallies

“Women enjoyed being raped and threatened at the time….. Its just a bit of fun…”

“‘All men’ are not responsible for women’s experience of oppression, so leave all men alone. Any bad situatuation was brought on themselves by women who crave strong men, or as part of the necessary protection of women from ???? men..,.” “It was a bit rough in them days, but women were respected and protected – if they were good and obedient.” “Rape in marriage is impossible by definition.”

During the recent debates on abortion in the US, some (and I emphasise some) Republicans where arguing that there did not need to be an exception allowing abortion in cases of rape, because women could only get pregnant if they enjoyed it – otherwise their reproductive mechanisms would just shut down. Unwanted pregnancy is always the sinful woman’s fault.”

“We were invaded too. Never harmed us. Should we demand recompense from the Vikings and the Romans? There are far worse people than us, and we got over it.”

Conclusion

Our group is always good and virtuous. We did the right thing, and if anyone suffered it was their own fault, and inability to change, due to adherence to savage traditions.

We decalre that everything is ok now (no racism or sexism), so every thing was ok then.

I feel so good knowing this, and don’t have to listen to anything else…..

Its sooo cuddly warm and comfy

Bane Shapiro: How to Destroy America

November 25, 2021

Shapiro has written a book which is supposedly diagnosing the problems with US, while actually promoting those problems.

Having read this book, I feel inspired to write another one – perhaps with the same title. It would be about the struggle between “unionists” and “woke” and would be just as unbiased and scholarly.

It would make points like:

Unionists believe that all real Americans are like them and agree with them; the rest are scum, not to be listened to, and possibly to be locked up, or shot in self-defense.

Woke believe there are lots of different groups in the US, that diversity is part of what makes people Americans.

Unionists believe that there is only one American history and everyone has experienced it the same way. There are no contemporary problems which arise from that history. History is a harmonious narrative of triumph over obstacles and in which slave owners cooperated with slaves and enobled them, and in which Native Americans knowingly surrendered to a superior culture.

Woke believe that history has been a different experience for different groups. Bosses and workers have not experienced history in the same way, white people not experienced it in the same way as black people, as Latino people, as native Americans and so on. This is normal. Histories of oppression still have effects on people, on where they live, on their general opportunities, on the way social institutions behave towards them and so on. Disharmonious history still has effects.

Unionists believe that talking about oppression, either recent or historic, just encourages fragmentation, and it should not be done. “I’m not racist therefore there is no racism”.

Woke people believe that not talking about oppression, either recent or historic, encourages and naturalises that oppression, and leads to fragmentation.

Unionists believe that the US “founding fathers” were men of extreme religious virtue, who followed a modern day protestant truth.

Woke people believe the US “founding fathers” had faults; many of them were slave owners, for example. These people were not modern day protestants, a lot of them were theists, deists and freemasons. They saw religions as potential sources of oppression of other religions, and were not keen on religious ‘irrationality’.

Unionists believe their religion is good and true and everyone should follow it. If they don’t they are probably satanic or communist.

Woke believe there are lots of different religions. Religions change and respond to similar and different challenges. Religions which encourage their followers to think they have the right to impose their virtues on others are dangerous to everyone.

Unionists believe religions should be able to discriminate against anyone they like, as long as it is not a fellow unionist.

Woke people are wary of giving people special permission to discriminate because those people say that is what God wants.

Unionists believe that the market always delivers the best results and governments always deliver the worst results – especially when governments try to curtail corporate power. In general, power based on wealth is not something they get concerned about at all – particularly if those wealthy people support or sponsor them.

Woke people believe the market does not always deliver the best result, and that people who are successful in the market tend to buy political power, so the country is ruled by the wealth elites for their own interest. On the other hand, the only thing which is remotely as powerful as the corporate sector is the government, so people should work to take back the government, and try to balance things out.

Unionists believe wealthy people deserve to pay less proportionate tax than poorer people.

Woke tend to believe that wealthy people can afford to pay more to benefit the society they use and benefit from.

Unionists believe that the only corporations and wealth elites who can be bad are recent: IT for example.

Woke people believe all corporations and wealth elites can be bad, some can be ok, and some can be mixed, but none of them should hold vast amounts more of power than anyone else.

Unionists claim the crimes of business leading to wealth stratification never happened or happened too long ago to matter.

Woke claim that crime matters whenever it happened, even if it did lead to current hierarchies.

Unionists seem to believe that any science which suggests some established corporate behaviour is harmful – such as the science of pollution, ecological destruction, climate change etc – must always be wrong.

Woke think the science is more likely to be right than assertions it can’t be correct because it would hurt the economy.

Unionists claim that any criticism of capitalism as it is, leads to tyrrany.

Woke believe that not criticising capitalism as it is, leads to tyrrany.

Unionists believe that America is a rights based society and that wealthy people on their side have more rights, because they are more talented and virtuous, and can afford to do things.

Woke people believe that America is a rights based society, but many people do not have equal rights, and we should aim to produce equal rights as best we can, even if that means that our own rights to discriminate against the currently less powerful are impaired.

Unionists say they want everyone to be able to succeed through hard work, while trying to make this impossible through reinforcing the wealth hierarchy.

Woke people want everyone to be able to suceed through hard work, and try to make this possible for everyone.

Unionists like authority. They want everyone to agree. They will lie to attain this. These are noble lies that keep everyone together. They don’t critisise the obvious lies on their own side, because those lies are useful to their power.

Woke people think diversity is normal and creative. Different views are likely to help problem solving. Getting as close to the truth as possible is the best aim, as policy is more likely to work.

Unionists will try to steal elections as a matter of course, because they are right and it is impossible that anyone could disagree with them without some kind of conspiratorial, or traitorous, bent. They claim the US is a republic (ie an ‘oligarchy’) and aim to use people to make this even more the case.

Woke people believe elections should be open and free, and that losing is part of democracy. They claim the US is an imperfect democracy and could be improved.

Unionists believe that union comes through everyone being the same, or having the same opinions.

Woke believe that union comes through learning to live with real diversity.

We are faced with the fact Unionists have an obligation to understand American history, rather than impose idology on it. They have an obligation to understand economics and social theory without imposing ideology on it. They have an obligation to understand American cultures. Finally, they have an obligation to learn to live with Americans who are not the same as them.

Given Shapiro’s book, this is not going to happen soon.

Nazis and Socialists

June 30, 2021

Introduction

I often encounter people who say the Nazis were socialists. It seems a standard part of current day rightist theory. supporters of the proposition don’t generally present much evidence beyond the name Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist, German Workers Party), this implies that they will then tell me that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shows how bad democracy is.

Historically, the party did grow out of Anton Drexler’s Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which seems to have been both authoritarian and anti-capitalist, blaming Jewish people for the problems of capitalism, but after Hitler essentially took over (the original party lasted just over a year) any focus on the rights of German workers declined considerably, although Otto and Gregor Strasser did tie the nationalism to socialist rhetoric, perhaps to drag workers away from communism. In 1926 at the Bamberg Conference Hitler denounced the remaining socialist-inclined members as “communists” and ruled out land expropriations and popular decision-making or consultation. Otto Strasser either broke away from the Nazis in 1930 after Hitler allied with the German aristocratic and corporate elite, or he was pushed, or both. After Hitler was appointed Chancellor, through Conservative support, he soon had Gregor Strasser murdered during the Night of the Long Knives. In the 1930s the Nazis openly told business that democracy and business were incompatible, and received about two million Reichsmarks in funding from big industrialists as a result. Hitler was also financed and supported by American Corporations and the British Aristocracy because of his anti-communism and the fact he was not socialist.

Hitler was a fan of Henry Ford, and vice versa, probably because of their shared anti-Semitism. In July 1938, Hitler awarded Ford the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. Henry Ford helped lead the America First Committee, which sought to keep the United States out of World War II. Ford had a car company in Germany, helped provide war material for the Nazis, and may have used Nazi provided slave labour.

As far as I know, Hitler never seems to have been interested in supporting worker power, or redistribution of wealth to the general populace. The Nazi critique of capitalism seems to have been largely confined to criticism of international bankers (ie a code term for Jews). Inequalities in property ownership were supported and sanctified.

So we can say that even if the Nazis once had been socialists they were not before or after they got into power.  

What did the Nazis promote?

Lets look at what the Nazis were. They were:

Nationalists

Making Germany great again. Germany first. Germans are the master race etc…

Racists

Comes with the Nationalism and the master race stuff. Everyone who they defined as non-German or non-Aryan, was inferior no matter how long they had been living in Germany.

Inferior races, at best, deserved to be slaves under the control of the white Christian German people. Inferior races had no rights, they could be shot and detained at whim.

The “jewish threat” gave them internal people to hate and blame for anything that went wrong, gave them a scapegoat to produce unity, and provided an excuse for theoretical inaccuracy.

Authoritarian and Hierarchical

The Fuehrer was top of the heap. Everyone should honour and obey him. His immediate circle came next. All of life was a chain of competitive authority. Zealous obedience was a key to success. Of course non-Germans and inferior races where at the bottom of the chain, and of little value except as labour. If they could not labour then death was the reward.

Hierarchy was officially, about race, ability and heroism.

Having a hierarchy means people need to have an easy way to identify those inferior to them, so they don’t get mistaken for those inferiors and can attack them.

Nazis abolished Trade Unions as these were incompatible with Party Authority, and likely to be socialist and disrupt corporate power.

Statist

The Reich/State was the Nation, and the Nation the State – and the State was a hierarchy of obedience. The Fuehrer and the State should master everything. People should serve the State, not the State the people. State is unified by race. Self-governance by those lower down, was not acceptable. Autonomous non-government zones where not acceptable.

It is true that Hitler did not believe in rule by corporations, but he did protect them.

Ideological

Education exists to promote “Aryan values” whatever they are. The values were said to be under threat by degenerates, and foreigners, and such people must be silenced as much as possible. Education was to aim at producing people for the workforce, the military and the party. Any university person who disagreed with these values, or this position, was to be removed as a marxist or as non-Aryan. Obviously Jews should not teach – Heidegger, for example, got rid of Jewish lecturers. Aryan students should spy on their teachers and report those who deviated. Only Aryan research which supported the official ideology was to be allowed. No research which openly checked on the accuracy of party policy, economics, authority, hierarchy, racism etc. was acceptable – it was to be denounced.

Heroes

Heroism was important. This involved self-sacrifice for the Fuehrer. It involved perpetual struggle against those who would undermine the Fuehrer. It involved leaping into combat with degenerates without thinking. It meant fighting for the Reich and one’s fellow fighters without question. It meant group loyalty. You should never be disloyal to the party. Disloyal people should be punished. Heroism was also about the survival of the fittest, most talented etc. Strangely it often involved official denials that they had engaged in the violence they promoted.

Cultivation of heroism, in this case, leads to the unheroic being despised and open for slaughter.

Militarist

Another consequence of Nationalism, and the implied inferiority of others. The Germans where the supreme fighting force in the world. They were only defeated by betrayal. All Aryan men should contribute to the military effort. All other Nations where inferior and deserved to be conquered, to provide land and resources for German heroes. Military combat was the supreme expression of heroism.

There is no evidence that Hitler espoused anti-colonial policies, other than in an attempt to conquer the colonies of his enemies. He certainly did not support self-determination and independence for people Germans conquered.

Sexist

This was reinforced by the militarism. Women exist to please men, to be obedient to men, and to produce more soldiers and breeders for the Reich. That’s it.

Corporate

German corporations where the backbone of the German State. They should produce the resources and equipment needed by the State, when the State commanded. As long as corporations realised their place they were given authority, and slave labour. No workers rights or unions were to disrupt production or wealth extraction, so corporations were relatively happy.

Mystical

The Fuehrer was close to God or Spirit, mysterious and inspired with an understanding beyond that of mortal men. If you could not understand him that was to be expected, but you should should still obey. Germany was dominant because of its spirit and its fate. Many Germans seemed to find Hitler a source of religious and mystical comfort. They had a special relationship with him, even if they had never met.

Aryan Christianity was the official religion (with as much relationship to real Christianity as evangelical prosperity preachers), although the elites may have had their own rituals. They found it easy to accommodate with most Churches, who helped support them as they represented authority, and the choice of God.

“The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”

Mein Kampf p.562.

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. 

Speech delivered at Munich 12 April 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1942). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922 – August 1939. Vol. 1

Propagandists

They lied about the forces against them, to build support. They did not like people checking their ‘truths’. They repeated slogans endlessly to give them the certainty of truth. They made ‘agreements’ for as long as it was convenient. This may have been a mistake as it gave Russia and the UK time to prepare for the inevitable war. Deniability was high. You may have had to divine what the Fuehrer wanted and give it to him, especially if it could be disreputable.

The truth of any statement was a matter of how much it supported the Party, Reich and triumph etc….

For what it is worth the U.S. Office of Strategic Services claimed:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler: His Life and Legend

Of course Nazis are unlikely to claim that they lie.

Support

Nazis were supported by many conservatives in Germany, and by many Republicans and US corporations (even after it was made illegal to trade with them), because they were not communist or socialist, and recognised property hierarchy. This helped keep the US out of the war and gave the Nazis freedom to strike.

Conclusion

Non of these features of Nazism has any necessary connection to socialism, unless you define socialism in a very odd way so as to try and make the connection ‘true’.

.

Appendix Some extra remarks

The ideologies and theories of communism and fascism are completely different as a little research in reading the original materials should show you.

Communism aspires to the withering away of the state, the birth of people power, and relative economic equality under the control of the workers. It begins by attacking the power of bosses, plutocrats, aristocracies, established churches, and bureaucrats. Its contradictory failing, is that after the revolution it needs a strong State to demolish the previous social arrangements and to defend the revolution against attack. This has always been the point of fracture between communitarian anarchists and communists.

Previously powerful and wealthy people, often have their money offshore and keep trying to undermine progress, while other states which fear revolution attack it, just as the US, Australia and the UK fought against the Soviets after the revolution, or just like Cuba has been attacked and isolated ever since the revolution, even though they initially tried to ally with the US.

Given this, the people who come to control the State then have no real inclination to give up their power and make the new state vulnerable, so the revolution never comes to fruition, even if it could.

Without fail, given this kind of situation, dictators have always arisen, even though the fundamental aim of communism was to remove authoritarian aristocrats, monarchs or plutocrats.

On the other hand, fascists aim to establish an authoritarian nationalism. Dictatorship is part of the scheme from the beginning. Usually the would-be dictator is the focus of the party, the policies of the party are whatever the leader says, the leader is proclaimed to be a genius with an indissolvable tie to the people. The only issues are how to apply the leader’s wishes, and how to purge the party of those who still cling to ideas of democracy, worker’s revolution, or fairness.

The Dictator and the party are usually supported by some of the existing power elites, such as the aristocracy or the corporate wealth elites – often, ironically, as a bulwark against communism. As they are nationalists, usually aiming to restore the nation’s greatness in the eyes of the world, and to restore discipline and obedience amongst the people, they are often supported by conservatives. Eventually the aristocracy, corporate sector and conservatives find they have supported an effective, as opposed to bumbling, dictatorship and have to go along with it to keep their positions. However, capitalists almost never find collaborating with a force that helps them make money a problem.

To keep its momentum, fascism depends on finding an internal enemy, which is not that powerful but which can be pretended to be powerful: whether it be people they can call communists, jews, blacks, academics, gays, liberals etc. This enables fascism to justify its policies, excuse its failures, and give its people something to hate and distinguish themselves from. As a result, fascism tends towards racism, incarceration or mass murder as a normal process, although it always pretends not to, as people are generally just not hard enough to want to murder whole classes of other people. Without a created enemy, it withers. The enemy gives it legitimacy when the leader challenges election results, or ignores elections altogether, as the enemy is duplicitous by definition. Constant denunciation of the enemy helps get its supporters angry and motivated – it liberates violence and a sense enemies are being defeated.

Eventually, finding internal enemies leads to finding external enemies and the use of warfare to keep the people together. Fascism tends to be militaristic in orientation: it likes uniforms, parades and mass rallies to build unity amongst the favored, and strike fear into the unfavored. This is part of its building discipline, order and lack of empathy towards victims. Initially, warfare also means more money for large parts of the corporate world, so it helps to keep corporate support.

So they are quite different in approach and hopes, even if the result is similar.

Three Periods of Globalisation??

April 20, 2021

World societies, especially large scale societies, have almost always been global to some extent, with people trading and interacting over most of the globe for a long time. So any kind of modern periodisation is bound to be inaccurate. Think of this post as an experiment, and please offer corrections.

One set of modern periodisations can be described as Colonisation, Post Colonial and Neoliberal:

First Period: Colonisation and Imperialism from about the 16th Century.

In this period, globalisation largely exists in terms of benefit for the coloniser/conqueror, and depends on the relative military strength and fast transport developed in the West, and a ruthless and expansionary politics, brought about by an apparent need to increase access to resources, and a relative peace and stability amongst the dominant groups in European countries (particularly after the mid 17th Century) which helped reduce the internal feudal battles for land.

This form of globalisation involves mass movements of people both forced and relatively voluntary. First there is the collaboration of European merchants and Islamic slavers boosting the African slave trade, at the demand of the Europeans, almost unimaginably and, at a lesser level, Europeans using transported convicts and indentured labour to work ‘new’ conquered lands. Consequently, there is massive dispossession of people from their traditional lands, both in the Europe (particularly the UK with the enclosure movement dispossessing traditional farmers into the cities) and much more harshly in the Americas with the destruction and plunder of South and North American Civilisations. Many of the people dispossessed in Europe moved to the conquered lands, as there seemed only a miserable future at home, and further occupy or steal those lands. Some suggest this era sees the birth of ‘white racism’, as the conquerors needed a justification for the theft, and to prevent conversion of slaves meaning they were now part of Christendom and no longer slaves.

In summary, this period is fueled by violent theft, dispossession, slavery, plunder of gold, silver and land in the Americas, eventually moving on to theft elsewhere such as in Africa, or India, in the latter case, largely through the depredations of the East India Company and the British Government, officially trying to reign in the company. The period ends in the First World War, some suggest because the European powers had run out of planet to despoil, and is largely destroyed by the Second World War.

Second Period: post-Colonialism, post-WWII globalism

This short period is entwined with the ‘Cold War’, ‘developmentalism’, ‘modernisation’, and ‘socialism’ with developmentalism being welcomed on all sides of politics, and begins to come to an end with the oil shock and stagflation in the 1970s. This can also be considered to be the post-colonial period with many places regaining independence, while still being overshadowed by the effects of the previous period.

Basically, throughout the world, the Western US model dominated, even the communist states seemed to think that American life was worthy of emulation. This was the era of ‘scientific management’, which led in some cases to ‘accidental’ disasters such as the ‘green revolution’ or the growing of monocrops with artificial fertilisers, insecticides, and dispossession of small farmers in favour of industrial agriculture. The era consolidates progress towards the contemporary ecological crisis, but at the same raised considerable opposition and popular left wing movements against corporate domination, which had to be stopped before they threatened dominant interests. The new post-colonial states also sought to become a movement independent of the West and the oil shock can be seen as partly about showing the West it did not run everything any more. There were relatively large scale movements of colonised people into the the colonising states, which slowly began to be used to provoke internal tensions, and slow down socialism.

Third Period: The Triumph of Neoliberalism,

During the 1980s, neoliberalism began to become dominant, mostly as a solution to popular radicalism, with a kind of leave-it-to-efficient-markets globalism or the ‘Washington consensus’. However, this consensus was rejected by some successful Asian States such as Singapore. This third stage resulted in the return of financial instability, growing national inequality and increasing power for large scale business. Most places were now trapped in a global market run for business, and held to strict rules of expenditure (especially if they had debt). Sovereignty of small states was precarious because of these rules. Popular socialism was suppressed and effectively died. Mainstream left wing political parties moved to the right, to gain corporate funding. Despite growing knowledge of the ecological and climate crisis and agreements aimed at stopping the destruction, companies and governments continued the practices that boosted destruction and profit.

A left-wing anti-globalist movement developed which was opposed to the corporate and market dominance of the world, and the apparent inability of democratic states to curtail corporate power. This later mutated into the Global Justice Movement, which largely collapsed in the 2000s.

The power of globalism may well have led into a boosting of national social categories as a form of defense mechanism. Fundamentalist Islam became global (partly in response to western warfare in the middle east), as did growing nationalism and purity movements, and right-wing Christian evangelism. Right wing anti-globalisation took off in the 2010s – the popular forms aiming to boost national sovereignty, tighten borders and defend nationalist social categories, in a form of retreat or defense of the home from global pressures. The more elite forms of right wing anti-globalisation take advantage of this movement with the aim of removing any democratic governance of corporations, allocation of responsibility to corporations, remove countries from international agreements and responsibilities (such as preventing US citizens for being tried for war crimes), and to weaken national sovereignty through agreements like the Energy Charter Treaty, except when nationalism acts to get people supporting them.

A significant technological change in this era, building upon colonialism, was speed of transport. At the beginning of the second period, most people still moved across the globe by ship, by the third period, this moved into air transport. Electronic communication began in the second period, but came into popular usage in this period, linking people all over the globe, building new alliances, new conflicts, and furthering both new forms of knowledge and ignorance, while allowing the quick global transfer of money – which fostered new forms of speculative trading, and new forms of financial peril. The speed of transport boosted the likelihood of pandemic explosions, but this was largely held in check until COVID-19.

The era muddied on through completely unnecessary wars such as GW Bush’s war on Iraq – supposedly in response to the 9/11 attacks, and against truly massive popular opposition which was completely ignored. This war did not bring glory as intended, but (as predicted by many) massively destabilised the “Middle East,” as large numbers of people (possibly millions) living in the area were maimed or killed and societies rendered precarious and vulnerable to fundamentalist warfare. The war lost the USA much power and status, as well as costing billions of dollars and distracting from its real challenges. The wars overlapped with the financial crisis, dispossession of US home owners, and the taxpayer rescue of inefficient and corrupt companies, adding further stress and weakness to the USA as well, which helped compound the destabilisation.

We are still in this third phase, but it is changing with the growing dominance of China, and the growing decay of stability and consensus in the US, the apparent running down of the EU with Brexit, and the failure by anyone in the world to deal with Climate Change, Covid or economic instability.

Conclusion

Whatever the violence of the causes, and whatever happens in the future, we are now in a thoroughly global word. Wherever we humans live, we cannot be isolated from what happens in the rest of the world, and so need to pay attention to it, whether we wish to withdraw into our own borders and cultures, as a form of security, or not. The world stands together or falls apart.