The pensée unique of neo-liberalism has a serious weakness, in that its routine operation undermines the consent it depends upon: a fact highlighted by the absurdity of Tony Blair having to act as a substitute foreign minister for George Bush. Coercion comes more naturally to it than building hegemony, but without hegemony its ability to exercise coercion is strongly constrained.
This is nowhere clearer than in its response to the movement. On the one hand, there has been a consistent "retreat to Versailles", as summits have hidden behind walls (Quebec, Genova), been withdrawn to isolated locations (Qatar, Rockies), and abandoned (Barcelona, Naples II). On the other hand, there has been an increased militarisation of its response: from Naples I via Göteborg to Genova, geared towards the criminalisation and repression of the movement.
War is of course a godsend in this situation. At least within the US, it revives nationalism as an answer to the shaky legitimacy of the Florida election, the onset of recession and the rise of the movement, as well as detaching much of the labour movement (as at Washington last year). Whether it works remotely as well outside the US is rather more open to doubt.
It is a risky strategy in other ways: Rumsfeld's stated strategy is one of prolonged war geared towards citizen mobilisation, but once people have become mobilised they may set new goals for themselves, not those their leaders identify. It is perhaps no coincidence that the three revolutionary waves of the 20th century were closely associated with major wars.
In the immediate, war provides the scope for a peace movement, which in this case links the left and peace activists with third world solidarity and immigrant groups: it has not been difficult to build this movement, although as usual the timescale is not one of our own choosing. Nor has the peace movement in general been in competition with the anti-globalisation movement: organising continues, around the summits in Brussels and Washington, around the World Social Forum, around local and national issues (Italy is particularly strong here).
In Ireland, the movement is developing, but faces three significant problems, linked to the place of intellectuals and movements in Irish life. One has to do with peripherality: learning to mobilise and network more effectively on the ground, "bringing it all back home". A second has to do with making connections, in particular linking opposition to neo-liberalism to opposition to partnership within the labour and community movements. The third has to do with moving away from simple "pessimism of the intellect" (as in much academic commentary) and equally simple "optimism of the will" (as in many "instant solutions" presented on the alternative lecture circuit) and starting to think concretely in terms of building the kind of movement that will be needed to get from A to B, where the social potential for such a movement might lie, and what activists can effectively contribute to the process.
Back to "Globalisation from below?" talk
Back to "Talkin' 'bout a revolution" index