Continuing my mini-series on what happened to the anti-globalisation movement: if some of them became the Yes Men, some of them remain very firmly as the No Men. Here’s one Ben Trott on Comment is Free this morning:
The movement has generally defined itself negatively, in terms of what it is against. In itself, this is not a problem. In fact, it has been one of its greatest strengths: allowing it to recognise what it has in common – a shared opposition to neoliberalism – despite its internal heterogeneity. If from the beginning, the focus had been on formulating more precisely what it was fighting for, it would likely have long collapsed under the weight of sectarian, ideological debate.
However, with the hegemony of neoliberalism now on the wane, the challenge – and opportunity – with which the movement is presented is to redefine what it is opposed to. Of course, one option would be to maintain the focus on neoliberalism, the most fundamentalist form of free market ideology. Hegemonic it may no longer be, but the doctrine is certainly not dead.
Alternatively, it could choose to locate itself more explicitly in the longer, broader, tradition of anti-capitalism. Obviously, this too would involve active opposition to the neoliberal project. But it would also call for a deeper negation of the present, exposing – and developing forms of political organisation capable of taking on – the capitalist organisation of society more generally.
That’s it? That’s the full set of options? Er – thank you, World Social Forum. Don’t call us…
