Shapes of the Wolf:

On the Various Incarnations of Globalization

by Darksphere

IN recent years something has grown out of the original Socialist and Anarchist Left. This being has been termed the anti-globalization movement. But is this really the correct term? When we look at the "anti-globalization movement" we find that it only stands in opposition to certain forms of globalization. In the words of many of its own members it opposes only globalization from above while it supports globalization from below. It is necessary to understand that while the anti-globalization movement opposes the free movement of money and companies across borders, it also allows businesses to exploit people in poor countries without consequence and supports the voluntary movement of people across the world.

Thus in reality we see that the anti-globalization movement does not rightfully deserve its name, because it opposes only some forms of globalization and supports others.

The thing is, globalization is a many-headed beast that takes on a number of forms. Globalization springs from the idea of empire that arose with the Roman Empire. Since the days of Julius Caesar the idea of a large-flung empire has haunted Europe. During the middle-ages it was passed on to the Catholic Church and then onto the bureaucracy of the great nation-states and finally to the new nobility carried to power on the wave of industrialization. As one can thus see, many different institutions have heralded this idea of empire during history and many of them still remain living side by side today, even battling each other over which incarnations of the idea shall reign. Be not fooled: In the core essence each these incarnations are the same and carry the death of cultural, religious and political diversity. The dream in the end bases itself upon the formation of humanity into a grey mass without a cultural, religious or political identity. Indeed, many of these versions of the 'empire-idea' try to sell themselves as a decentralized imperium; although in reality they are just a defensive frame for a flowery garden of diversity. On paper, at least, some of these imperial dreams do actually allow for a great deal of diversity in some areas. Even the most tolerant of them, however, do demand conformity and obedience in at least one area. The religious empires proposed by the Christian Church and globalist Islam may grant political and national freedom but they do not allow for religious diversity.

The industrialist corporations and their pet supra-national institutions may allow religious and social diversity (and this definitely creates economic diversity in that it allows a little elite to become rich off the backs of the ordinary populace) but they still demand that one adhere to the holy scriptures of Capitalist economy.

They all have one or two little arenas where they demand conformity. And in the end this little demand for conformity is actually very important, for the arena in which they demand conformity is always exactly the same as where the power will be vested in that particular version of the empire, i.e. in the industrial empire proposed by the multi-national corporations the demand for people to conform is in the area of economics: Exactly the area in which the power will be in that same industrial empire.

Thus there will be political or religious or social or whatever freedom on the surface, but never in reality because there will be no power for those areas where diversity is tolerated. You will be allowed to hold - for instance - whatever political views you like but you will not be able to carry them out in real life. So the bottom line remains that these imperial ideas and the efforts done to further them (globalization) will spell doom for all cultures and religions. This is a fact rarely realized by the so-called anti-globalists. The problem, presumably, is that they mix-up old dividing lines relating to the 19th Century (the Left-Right continuum most notably) with their growing but yet dim understanding of the many-headed monster that globalization really is. Thus they end up really just fighting one form of globalization in service of the other. The typical example is the one that has already been touched upon in the beginning of this essay: The radical Left fights financial empires only to support "globalization from below"; the large-scale immigration of people from the medium-wealthy countries of this earth to the most wealthy.

Seemingly, these Leftist "anti-globalists" cannot see that the end-result will be the same. Whether it be McDonalds or Shawarma bars that crowd the street corners, the result will be that all the cities of the industrialized world will become the same. Everywhere you go you will find the same food: That is the core of the McDonaldizione as well as the "globalization from below" that the Left argues for. So alongside the multinational companies the Left argues for the destruction of cultural diversity. Then what of the Nationalist or racial Nationalist insurgents that so boldly aspire to the name of the Radical Right? Are they the true anti-globalists? They surely aspire to be, it seems, with the recent National Alliance launch of a so-called anti-globalist site.

The fact, however, remains that the Nationalism (racial or cultural) pushed by these people is merely a form of micro-globalization. It calls for the abandoning of local peculiarities in favour of a grand nation-state or racial empire.

This is just another form of oppression. No! The answer to the greyish globalization cannot be micro-globalization. So what can be done to secure the rich heritage of the culture, religious teachings and social ideas that humanity enjoys? The answer lies in organic identities: In the ethnic group (which is something far different to the nation), in the regional communities, in the village-fellowship and in decentralized brotherhoods detached from the State and authoritarian organizations. These can be launchpads for the necessary counter-offensive that may fend off the tides of globalization.

This does not mean the abolishment of all international ties or a return to a medieval stage of history. One can well uphold values of ethnic pride and be part of organic communities and still uphold most of the values of civilization.