The Global Right and Left and Immanuel Wallerstein

By Johan Galtung

Immanuel Wallerstein is unique. Nobody else has presented such a coherent theory of what he calls the modern world-system, from “the long 16th century” up till today; essentially capitalist. There are ups and downs during those four centuries. He is very much at home in the economic Kondratiev cycles–A for up, B for down, but not that much down–and in the political-military hegemonic cycles of the would-be hegemons in the same period.

Read Immanuel Wallerstein and become wiser.

He warns against the Global Right “Lampedusa tactic” of “changing things so that they remain the same”. And insists on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for the Global Left–but sees the French Revolution more as normalizing change than as people’s sovereignty. Like faith in the middle classes: they are actually helping the Global Right, when in minority they are enlarged by the majority working classes, when in majority they neglect the working class minority left behind.

Right now Wallerstein sees capitalism in crisis with no remedy – of which I am not so sure – and the US hegemony also in a crisis with no remedy – a view I share – as the fall of an empire with local elites killing for them; now they have to do most of the killing themselves.

The Global Right, in power for a long time, is now faltering. Time for the Global Left?

Or, does Zizek’s brilliant formula “the left never misses a chance to miss a chance” apply?

Wallerstein offers six Global Left proposals:

1) Use, promote, the Spirit of Porto Alegre, the World Social Forum;

2) Use electoral tactics at least to defend what has been achieved;

3) Demand ever more welfare state–free education, health, life income;

4) Make liberals liberal: open borders, have companies pay for failure;

5) Fight racism (and we might add: sexism, middleagism, centrism, homophobia, etc.)

6) Decommodify, education-health as human rights, not buying-selling.

No problem agreeing with these general principles. But concrete cases of the Left progressing may be more problematic: the Zapatista revolt in Chiapas 1 Jan 1994 (the day NAFTA came into force), and the first Porto Alegre meeting in 2001. This author was present at both.

Chiapas: The “Zapatista Revolt” was marketed by a clever outside professor; the “revolt” imported high culture from central Mexico. No Maya revolt in Chiapas-Yucatan-Guatemala-Belice-Honduras for equality.

Porto Alegre: an impressive parade of the diversity in “another world is possible” message; many worlds in search of unifying themes and action. Like the theme of inequality. And the action of boycotting companies with unacceptable CEO/worker income ratios.

However, more basic: Wallerstein’s breathtaking overview is limited and limiting; to the West, and to one period, “modernity”.

It is not Global; and Right vs Left–pro-contra capitalism–is modern. Modernity fostered State, Capital and People: Capital produced more capital and met material demands from people who could pay; State cooperated with Capital, was bought, but also protected People; People fight, for their basic needs survival, wellness, freedom, identity.

I see Western history as expansion/contraction cycles – before, Greco-Roman expansion – now contracting, in a world with Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Chinese, Japanese civilizations to mention some–neglected by Western universalist arrogance and ignorance.

Next door is Islam, suffering from the same universalism, “the only true faith for all at all times”, and counter-cyclical to the West: when one contracts the other expands.

Right now Islam expands and the West contracts.

“Right” stands for Capital growth for material, body, demands; “Left” for State-People cooperation against Capital, for distribution. But! – for distribution of what? Of the same? Of more things that lead to more empty lives marred by more egocentric loneliness? With Islam expanding, offering We-centric togetherness, sharing for basic needs?

Crisis, indeed. But the way out could be a new discourse, less material, more spiritual; something to live for, not only from. Could be for causes beyond egocentric satisfaction; religions offer answers, so do causes like peace, development, environment, the UN Three.

Could be driven by the incredible creativity of the human spirit, beyond God’s Creation, consuming arts and sciences produced by others, and by becoming creative producers.

Or, simply searching, wandering and wondering monks, not letting material things stand in the way.

Could it be New Middle Ages?

Look, all ages are “middle”, between past and future. “A new contraction phase, into inner, more spiritual lives, into smaller units”, is more indicative. Maybe in Europe and USA with 500 rather than 50 autonomous units? Woven together, cooperating for more mutual and equal benefit; wanting less, hence struggling less?

And the economy?

In “land, labor, capital” or “Nature, Humans, Capital”, nature and humans are indispensable. Not only as means, inputs in an economy for growth, distribution or both, but as absolute ends in themselves. The economy must balance naturism, humanism and capitalism, so must economics.

Today’s “economics” focuses on capital and growth. Throw it out, produce a human-nature focused economics.

Modernity with its dominant State-Capital-People discourse and reality is now fading. What comes next? “Post-modernity” is an empty expression, meaning “after modernity”.

The hypothesis offered here is contraction, in an oscillating history; stimulated in both phases in the West by less sense of balance than found in other civilizations.

The bigger the expansion, the power, the bigger the contraction, the fall. Look at Germany, Russia, Turkey, Spain, France, England, USA.

What happens happens, but add to Wallerstein’s Six Western Left Six humanist-naturist dimensions for more balance in the coming contraction:

1. Lift up suffering humanity at the bottom, for full participation;

2. Lift up suffering nature at the bottom, for full participation;

3. Promote a Western We-culture of togetherness and sharing;

4. Promote a materially simpler, spiritually richer, creative life;

5. Promote equivalents of monasteries, with freedom to join, to leave;

6. Promote an exit from the rhythm in favor of more balanced, both-and.

And global? Maybe reaching other civilizations? Except Islam they are much older than the West, and have survived.

Perhaps through more diversity, symbiosis, more balance. Maybe the West can learn from that.

Originally published at Transcend Media Service, TMS, here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Subscribe to
TFF PressInfo
and Newsletter