Globalism and internationalism

By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

The meeting is expected to be very critical with regard to given tenets of Marxist thinking, in the light of the breakdown of communist regimes after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Socialist camp, although neither Marx nor Engels can be held responsible, a century and a half after their death, for the way ideas attributed to them were implemented. Indeed, Marx made a point of warning, shortly before his death, that Marxism is a mode of thinking, not a dogma, and that is probably what he meant by his well-known utterance: "I am not a Marxist!"

The Communist Manifesto is the statement which was issued by Marx and Engels in 1848 at a time revolution was sweeping all over Europe. The Manifesto was, in condensed form, an expression of the basics of Marxist thinking. Its essential theme was that history is, in the final analysis, the product of class struggle, and that one class in particular, the proletariat, has a historical role to play. From the viewpoint of Marxism, that class carries within its struggle the values of the future, the necessary ingredients for the emancipation of all humankind.

In other words, Marxism makes humankind as a whole its basic frame of reference. If given classes are to be overthrown through the unfolding of class struggle, it is not in terms of a sectarian view, but, on the contrary, in the name of all of humankind, from a stand that is fundamentally internationalist, as a precondition for overcoming class struggle itself.

Today, an entirely different school of thought has emerged that also makes the globe as a whole its basic frame of reference. The idea, which has come to be described as globalism, rapidly gained ground in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the breakdown of the socialist camp and the end of the 'bipolar world order', which was based on the mutually exclusive relationship between two superpowers. Following the implosion of one of these superpowers, it is legitimate to assume that international relations need no longer be built on a system of mutual exclusiveness. A globalist viewpoint can finally emerge, no longer hindered by the relentless character of the major confrontations which marked much of the twentieth century.

It is interesting to note that, though internationalism and globalism both proceed from the same assumption, namely, that the frame of reference in today's world must be the human species taken as a whole, the two outlooks are otherwise at complete antipodes. For Marxism, the basic point of departure is the worker, or the working class. For globalism, it is the multinationals, the webs and networks woven by world finance, which are perceived as the driving force of present-day societies. Marx tried to emancipate man from being transformed into a commodity. Today, we are living the age of all-out 'commodification', of the transformation of every value, ethical, moral, aesthetic, artistic, literary, including human beings themselves, into exchange value, into commodities.

According to Marxist theory, the wage of a worker does not represent his share in the value of the commodity he helps produce, but is the cost, rather, of the ingredients (housing, clothing, shelter, etc) he needs to ensure the renewal and perpetuation of his capacities as a worker. The difference between this cost and the value of the commodity produced is what Marx termed surplus value, which is appropriated by the capitalist and stands at the very root of capitalist exploitation. Under capitalism, the worker is a commodity like any other ingredient purchased by the capitalist to produce a given product. The emancipation of the working class assumes the restoration by the workers of their status as humans after years of being treated as commodities by capitalism.

Globalism tends, on the contrary, to generalise the process of 'commodification', not to suppress or even curtail it. By 'commodification', we mean that value is determined exclusively in terms of its exchange value, of the value fixed by the market in terms of supply and demand. The exchange value of any product becomes the basic criterion for the measurement of value, for the price of things. According to this logic, weapons have value because there is a market for weapons, even if the modern world talks of banning weapons of mass destruction. Drugs have value, because there is always a demand for drugs, if only because there will always be a market of addicts. A great scientific discovery, the proof of a mathematical theorem, any outstanding accomplishment of creative thinking, can remain without value because it is not apparently attractive or meaningful for the wide public.

On the other hand, problems have come up concerning the ability of the working class to act, globally, as one coherent force. While the mechanism of exploitation was exposed by Marx in a very insightful manner, the fact remains that in the modern world a given individual can be both exploiter and exploited at one and the same time, as owner of property on the one hand, and as a worker generating surplus value for a capitalist enterprise on the other. Moreover, discrepancies between the standards of living of the working classes of different countries increase as societies develop at different rates. Indeed, a worker in the US or Japan may enjoy a higher standard of living than a capitalist in many developing societies. How can the working class operate as an internationalist class in such an environment?

These are the types of problems that are likely to be raised at the Paris meeting. But the underlying issue will be whether the downfall of communist regimes marked the end of the Left as an approach to the problems of humankind or only the end of given schools of Leftist thinking, and whether these can be replaced by others which are better equipped to tackle the increasingly complex problems of the modern world -- problems which the Right has also been unable to resolve.