>What made Marxist ideologies so successful in the end of the 19th and
>the beginning of the 20th centuries was their embracing the promise of
>industrialization while denouncing its then existing institutional form
>(property relations). The winning socialist story was
>"Industrialization has the potential of liberating the humankind from
>poverty and misery. The current social institutions grounded in
>property relations keep industrialization from realizing that potential.
>The point is, therefore, to liberate industrialization from its
>institutional constraints." The utopian socialisms that denounced
>industrialization on behalf of idyllic pre-industrial utopias lost.
>
>As I see, the modern ant-globalization crowd repeats the mistakes of the
>19th century utopian socialists. They do not embrace globalization as
>the Marxists did industrialization, and call for abolishing social
>institutions from the past that constrain its potential. Instead, they
>tend to embrace social institutions from the past (various forms of
>national protectionism) and denounce globalization that threatens them.
>That is reactionary rather than progressive.
>
>There are very few progressive narrative that see new technology and
>globalization as an opportunity rather than a threat (e.g. Paul Hawken
>et al., _Natural Capitalism_). Most of what see on this list is
>globalization bashing in the utopian socialism style.
Yes, that's a very good analogy, I like it.
There is a growing understanding that property relations are what keeps globalisation from realising its potential benefits to humanity. People don't know exactly what it is, but they can sense that there's something wrong with a situation where they must endure ever-increasing insecurity for the benefit of 'the market'. They instinctively rebel against the notion that humanity must serve insatiable 'market forces', instead of the other way around.
Modern society has assimilated the notion of democracy into its culture. Most people in western democracies believe that the macro economy not only ought to be, but for the most part already is, subject to democratic will of the people. The protest against multi-national institutions is a reaction to the almost subconscious realisation that international institutions are not subject to democratic control. Naturally, people don't want economic decisions taken outside national jurisdictions, because that is the limit of democracy.
What the anti-globalisation movement has to do is stick to arguing for the motherhood issue - democracy. But not just political democracy, demand economic democracy at home and abroad. Most people in western democracies mistakenly believe they already have economic democracy at home. (Whereas in reality the economy in a capitalist society is owned and operated privately for private benefit of the owners.)
But that is merely reactionary. The correct strategy is not to reject economic globalisation, but to demand democratic globalisation. International institutions that are subject to democratic control rather than being instruments for protecting international corporations from the impending threat of democratic national government.
Key campaign points for progressives must be economic security and economic democracy. There will be accusations that this is socialism, which it is impossible to deny. Why deny it, if that's socialism, then socialism's what we want.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas