Home >> United States & Canada >> Elections & Politics

     Email   Print 

War, Capitalism and the New Left's New Realist Imperative

Angelique van Engelen - 10/31/2005

A long time ago the notion took hold over the peoples occupying this earth that safeguarding your territory meant attacking your enemies and making sure you held some kind of dominion over your immediate environment. It appeared to be a notion that has held considerable sway over mankind ever since. Until today, war is engrained in our stories, our consciousness and living day culture. "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?", wrote a jubilant Thomas Mann at the onset of the first World War. The words had an expiry date that certainly had been reached by the time 1918 had come round; everyone realized that the enormous loss of human life simply was not justified by far. Even before the war against Iraq broke out our belief that war is in any way good had almost disappeared. Although it's unthinkable that the phenomenon will have disappeared in another decade, it fits into modern thinking less than ever.

Recent academic research shows that there has been a drastic reduction in the number of wars fought in the last decennium. Over the same period, the world has largely decided that the struggle between capitalism and socialism has resulted in an astounding victory for capitalists. Humankind's diminished appetite for war and the rise of neoliberalism as an unquestioned system indicates that the world's historic sharp edges have been drastically flattened. But will reality become any less savage? Former US president Bill Clinton worded it quite well at a speech for law students when he remarked: `"[A]ll of us know that the problem with the new global economy is that it is both more rewarding and more destructive. . . . So the question is, How can we create a global economy with a human face?"

This statement was significant for two reasons - it indicates a widely-held belief that a world ruled by a capitalist system is still not a recipe for a less savage planet. Secondly, it also indicates an insecurity as we evolve into a less tangible structure - we are incredibly suspicious of over-complacency. It doesn't fit in this fast-paced world, yet we are doubtful we've got a grip. The capitalist pardigm greed and fear, is very unconsoling to say the least. When we say that ideologies, psychological theories, history are by now 'ended' we simply mean we are busy spending these years on getting our stuff right and to calibrate our reality according to what are considered improved thought processes. With one important factor believed to have disappeared from the horizon altogether - a caring Left - every thinker under the sun starts to call out for a new equivalent. This is one prime example of how the class struggle is rendered redundant.

Giving economics a human face however will prove arduous beyond believe. Even in the past era, theories have yielded hardly a decisive picture on the stuff human beings are made of, theories which for the largest part we are nevertheless ready to bin. What's more or less going on today is that we are trying to take the struggle for existence to levels that are more or less adjacent, rather than at the old extremes. War and peace, or interrupted economic prosperity versus uninterrupted economic prosperity, have traditionally been seen as opposing realities, but nevertheless it is difficult to believe that today's concept of peace even in the absence of war is peace in any truer sense of the word. In this context, it makes sense to consider ideological differences by no means a relic of the past. Ideologies are being redefined and can be expected to show up in new areas, forms or media, worded in a totally altered terminology perhaps but no less geared toward effecting change than the old versions.

To start with how mankind has come to view war today, the recently published report by researchers at the Human Security Report; the last years have shown that people much rather live a life of relative prosperity than that they go to war and suffer huge human loss. What´s more, any notion that war will make it to the number one phenomenon of the first decade of this millennium is a blatant error of judgement. Even with the war against Iraq taken into consideration. The conclusions of the researchers have shown that never before has the number of interstate wars fallen so drastically as during the last decade; a 40 percent reduction has been achieved. The figure does not include terrorism, but the research does offer some interesting comparisons which show that terrorism hasn't killed nearly as many as wars have during this period. This is not to say that terrorism is on the wane at all. It's just not such a big factor over the longer run.

The lapse of time is important in other respects too, because it opens the concept war to different scenarios than alone the cold war context, making it more relevant for future contexts. To pinpoint the end of the Cold War as the instant when a marked decrease in war and violence overall started is not advisable. War has been on a downward trend for much longer. It can be argued that interstate wars have been on the decline since the Middle Ages. As of the 1500s, governments started to recede to their own territories and take the option to go to war for granted more and more, according to one scholar who has studied the issue. Paul Schroeder, professor emeritus of history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's speciality is the long peace from 1763- 1914. He says that this era was by no means void of conflicts but that several wars were on the brink of breaking out and were prevented. Leaders and nations tied their own fates with those of other countries, a situation often cited by historians as the secret ingredient of a recipe for peace. At the great, predictable favorable situation of economic prosperity instead of any debilitating after effects of a war.

Yet the belief that ideological wars are now definitely a thing of the past --which took on real proportions after the end of the cold War-- is not necessarily going to hold sway indefinitely. Ideology is simply not dead. We are awaiting new forms of doctrine to manifest themselves as the world is experiencing a build up in multi-polar zones which undoubtedly will lead to similar rivalries as those during the Cold War. The way in which new rivalries will develop over the next decades is likely totally different but no less void of ideological content than the communist - capitalist debate. As the world is in the process of regrouping, countries will feel more of a need to bring their beliefs into the game. The term 'nation branding' is becoming an established concept in international circles. A number of countries that we have never seen on the global stage will rise to prominence and will begin to challenge the role of the US. There will be plenty of opportunities for new contention points to arise that might spur new conflict. The official US stance on China could easily be the harbinger of another Cold War type power struggle. Economics and energy considerations drives the struggle likely, but it is likely that any hostilities will be guised as ideological triggering devices.


Another reason for believing that ideological strife is unlikely to be a thing of the past is of course how the struggle against terrorism is going to evolve over the next years. Already terrorism and the so called War Against Terrorism have left a lasting imprint on the US as a superpower for the way events are evolving. Terrorism has lifted international political and philosophic thinking to a new plane. Keith Spencer, a follower of Ulrich Beck, a German professor in political science, says that the day the Twin Towers went down, he saw something confirmed in his own theories that had been there latently but which even he himself had failed to translate into a coherent theory. He is by far not alone. In the wake of the awful 9/11 event, many academics went back to the drawing board to include the security concept into their theories. Security and invisible threat assessments from every conceivable angle lent themselves perfectly for many vague theories to finally start dotting the i´s. Now that an actual event had provided a map of a dimension we hitherto had only inklings about, a certain incompleteness has been dealt with and a forward looking spin is beginning to resound throughout academia.

Jeff Vale, author of the book A Theory of Power, who has spent the past nine years in the intelligence and counter-terrorism community, is a prime example of this. His theory shows how terrorism has shaken up contemporary thinking to an extent that even a revolution would hardly be able to effect. He believes that the current international paradigm of the Nation-State system is up for renewal and cites a concept of a new paradigm that has been dreamt up by the French thinker Gilles Deleuze, who died in 1995, six years prior to 9/11.

Vale proposes that we do away with the Cartesian hierarchal Nation State and that instead we create a New Map of the world. Now that globalization and multiculturalism have made their entry into the world, future conflict is most likely to result from the paradigm hierarchy versus rhizome, he argues.

Spencer and Beck have similar believes, proposing that the principles underlying something referred to as a 'world risk society' are plausibly suggesting a general ethos which would befit a cosmopolitan form of global governance.

Vale fills this in by looking at the nation state mainly in terms of its organizational structure, which is a hierarchy. He says that terrorism has likely been the strongest attack on the hierarchy so far. You might say that the terrorists in many ways finished off theories laying bare and put their elements into a convincing perspective by only adjusting fractions in their reasoning often. Had prior to 9/11 a number of forces been undermining the hierarchist state organization model by introducing concepts as co-spatialism, the forceful introduction by terrorists of the new paradigm rhizome versus hierarchy made the puzzle fall into place in an instant.

High profile departures from the Left to the Neoliberalism side have been rife for a number of years, but in reality the damage for the old Left wing is worse, because many of the thinkers that stayed altered their discourse considerably often gladly replacing old, unsolved leftwing dilemmas with the terrorist debate. Although there's a lot of insecurity, the comparison who's doing best in getting their message across in as convincing a manner has become a natural determinant in the process. To be popular and accepted is mostly considered part of the battle.

Deleuze´s thinking is highly valuable also to get a good idea of what the outlook on the chances for a more or less meaningful existence is. Both Deleuze and Vale derive the idea that the modern world is not necessarily done with an utter unquestionable belief that capitalism as a system is all that acceptable. Deleuze characterizes capitalism as an essentially 'bad' (his word) system and provides some sound philosophic thinking for this which is especially fashionable in the engaged arts circles, based in part on Hegelian thought. Much of his theory is also present in the widely held belief by biologists that nature is made up of a rhizome of intelligent, interlinking systems.


Recent developments in Europe underpin however that ordinary folk have stuck to their old fashioned expectations of the Left. The movement wouln't at all be ridiculous to think they could make a fist. It was mainly due to the socialist drive among the French and Dutch populations that the European constitution was botched. Workers in France -who also showed what they were worth in the winter of 1995- were especially unhappy with the interpretation that their UK brethren give to principles such as worker protection and employment security. The French Non to Europe showed especially just how schismatic politics and real life had become. Something the former premier Lionel Jospin, who left politics in 2002, is seeking to redress. His soon to be released book Le Monde Comme Je Le Vois (The world as I see it) clearly outlines how the scenario in French domestic politics is likely to evolve. At the moment, there's mostly a struggle ongoing showing a jostle for influence and popular support.

The socialists in France are divided mostly at the moment over the recent referendum on Europe and to bridge the gap is a number one priority for mr Jospin. From excerpts of the book published in the French press it appears that Mr Jospin wants to curb the influence of neo liberals. He terms them the new 'would-be aristocracy' which has captured income, influence and power, but which nevertheless fail to come up with satisfying ideas for the fair distribution of income and the control of productive resources. He is very concerned about this. The socialists in France, according to a report in the French newspaper Le Monde are bitterly divided over just how to go forward. Some want to go the reform route by making sure decisions of liberals are overruled and another camp says that its more imperative to focus on just distribution of the economic and social benefits by means of new measures. The French are a prime showcase that a continent like Europe, the first to experiment with advanced forms of socialism, still holds its history dear. Somehow the opinion that Europeans are back to square one both in terms of their state organization and how they are going to restructure socialist ideals has become current during the past months.

"It remains to be seen whether and how the new political situation and possibilities will be realized. An emergent New Left would need to design a systematic alternative to neo-liberal European unification and communicate it effectively to the voters. To do this, it will have no option but to return to the basic class issues that capitalist development itself has returned to the forefront of European politics," according to one expert on the issue Rick Wolff, a professor of economics at the university of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Americans often sound as if they wished they were so lucky. But it remains to be seen how the European continent will turn out any different in years ahead. Focus issues include justice and fairness. To see these as inseparable from either a capitalist or socialist context is to make a mistake, say politicians on both sides of the divide. The capitalist context is not especially encouraging such lofty ideals, but nevertheless, the structures are pretty much in place in Europe and the notion is more alive than ever that if people simply give up trying to fight for their rights, they will land in a dreadful situation in which wage loss, job insecurities, deepening debts are rife, supporting the strength of a system that will be fuelled by this success and relentlessly continue across borders. "The only other option for a new European left is to rediscover the socialist alternative and adjust it to the new conditions. This will require confronting capitalists with a counter-threat: either maintain our hard-won working conditions, job protections, and social benefits or else we remove capitalists from their ownership and control of European productive enterprises. Since European capitalists will likely reject the threat, European socialists will need to draw and implement the hard lessons from the successes and failures of the last century's socialist experiments," says Wolff.


Central to many New Left movements' proposals for the way forward is that what's most imperative is the need to involve the public sector in new ways. The Russian way of doing things the capitalist way has been very much like this. It has allowed for capitalism to take hold of its economy by means of government controlled entities rather than independent corporations. Someone who understands this from the inside out is Boris Kagarlitsky, a well known Russian socialist who has written a number of books on the subject, including, New Realism, New Barbarism, and who argues that the direction that the New Left is heading for is vague mainly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, when the model that many socialists still had in mind as a kind of archetype for the worldwide revolution crumbled.

Kagarlitsky doesn't necessarily hold the failure of capitalism in Russia as a meaningful example of the limits of the system, but he does however find that the state plays a crucial role in the new era. The question is not do we want more or less of the state, but what type of state do we want? Kagarlitsky argues for a new type of state that is accountable to the community, that is based on participation and citizenship, selforganization and representation, and that best fits a new `network society'. On an international level however, the situation becomes more tricky as globalization is rapidly suggesting new moulds that are intrinsically capitalist. Kagarlitsky says this means that the social democratic compromise is pointless on the global scale.

He argues for actively finding a new alternative to the situation that has emerged and is among the few that says a revolution is still desirable. Kagarlitsky believes that the standard reforms that most New Left scholars propose, are part of a bigger agenda. One that comprises revolution. An alternative to parliamentarianism is not to dissolve parliaments but to combine them with organs of popular power from below, he argues. `Leftist politicians who do not dare to choose socialism and fight for it, will bear full responsibility for the possible outcome: the triumph of barbarism'.

In the face of an overwhelming idea that a system which is bad is on its way to rapidly take over the entire world, Marx and early century thinkers are more relevant again because the early socialists had the same feeling as neo-liberalism's triumph makes many feel now. They were looking for weaknesses in the system and even though they approached it from a different background, the impending feeling of doom was rather the same. Subjecting the capitalist system to rigorous analysis, they picked out a number of key points and intervals on which they focused. It is enticing to think that what's going on today in world economics is demonstrating a shift into new realities on a more frequent basis than ever before and that therefore the opportunities for change are simply bigger.

Issues are shifting all the time and the world is a lot more open these days. In this sense, to maintain a solid theory based on firm principles might provide a workable perspective. The New Left Review (NLR), the academic journal covering all areas of left wing debate, calls for realism and this is wise. To take on capitalism on the Left's terms, socialists for the time being ought to simply choose to compete the old fashioned way and maintain a grip. Rather than a proposal to be static, this provides balance - which is a scarce commodity. And who knows whether the capitalist principles themselves might prove more static in due course. Their reneging around the circulation of money might in the future be overtaken by something vastly differing.

When capitalist countries began to exhaust the benefits that the imperialist stage brought them they simply moved on to continue this era in new guises that lead to rather similar results. The flows of capital over this globe tell the story in rather identical terminology compared to the pre-WWII situation. Today, the process is evolving further, as jobs are outsourced to Third World countries, and productivity is shifted.

A large part of the game will be to capitalize on any mood swings that are part and parcel of the capitalist system and work change from the inside on as many levels as possible. The NLR words it this way: "For the Left [....] its first task is to attend to the actual development of capitalism as a complex machinery of production and profit, in constant motion. [...] No collective agency able to match the power of capital is yet on the horizon. We are in a time, as genetic engineering looms, when the only revolutionary force at present capable of disturbing its equilibrium appears to be scientific progress itself—the forces of production, so unpopular with Marxists convinced of the primacy of relations of production when a socialist movement was still alive. But if the human energies for a change of system are ever released again, it will be from within the metabolism of capital itself. We cannot turn away from it. Only in the evolution of this order could lie the secrets of another one." When a comprehensive counter movement will kickstart into action, it will likely not be all that recognisable as one block, given the structure and diversity of issues of today's political landscape.