Donald Trump and anti-globalism


The victory of the non-system candidate Donald Trump has directly influenced the transformation of the anti-globalization movement in the United States. The development of this movement is going to be considered in this article, its main faction and a number of retainer structures and groups associated with it in the campaign against Trump.

The anti-globalization movement emerged in the late 90's of the last century as a reaction to the unipolar globalization and the impact of a sharp rise in the social and political life on the part of multinational corporations. The development of communication technologies allowed activists from different countries to coordinate their actions and exchange views on various issues. Initially, anti-globalists were well-known for organizing counter-summits in the various countries, which were held in parallel congresses of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Forum summits of NATO and so forth.

At the same time the attempts of organizing their own events were made. The first World Social Forum was held in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre in January 2001, and the PGA Initiative (People's Global Action) was launched in Europe, which was an umbrella for a variety of movements - environmentalists, human rights advocates and the protection of migrants, anarchists, hackers, and others.

Although initially the organizers and inspirers of the anti-globalization movement stated that their goal was a search for alternatives to neoliberalism, a part of this movement became associated with the neo-liberal ideology of the left. The left wing of the anti-globalization movement in the United States and Western Europe, was initially sympathetic to the ideas of the Trotskyism, same-sex marriage (as the freedom of expression), and they had an extremely negative attitude to traditional values ​​such as family and religion. Moreover, George Soros funded a number of anti-globalization organizations, trying to put them under the direct control of the "Open Society Institute", or using informal leverage through financial support.

Some left-wing anti-globalization organizations successfully adapted to the current EU policies, becoming the holders of quite an official line. Another part preferred "independent" sources of funding its activities, at the same adapting to the interests of the donor, who was George Soros.

Although, considering the anti-globalization in general, the position of right-wing anti-globalization activists should be taken into consideration. They advocate for the preservation of national sovereignty. This wing has also reacted positively to Trump’s victory. Besides, Trump became associated with a mild anti-globalization, which may suspend unipolar globalization with a sufficiently verified isolationist policy.

However, there is always a risk of infiltration into the structures of the right anti-globalization liberal internationalists, covered by the ideas of social justice. For example, in the US and Western Europe (and with their supply in many other regions), the term "Social Justice Warrior" - SJW - has become widespread, which describes a new type of political activists, acting not only on the streets, but penetrating into the universities, youth organizations, trade unions, the media and religious institutions. In fact, it is an aggressive rebranding of Trotskyism with a positive image.

All in all, an interesting change in the behavior of a number of anti-globalization structures and discourse could be seen immediately after the official recognition of Donald Trump as President-elect of the United States. In Russia, almost all left structures have begun to accuse him of fascism and racism (without any evidence).

Western European and the US moderate anti-globalists, the main activity of which was pacifism, ecology and human rights, also lashed out at Trump and his (it is necessary to note) not yet formed agenda about foreign and domestic policy.

The Institute of Political Studies (USA) called for a revitalization of social movements after Trump victory. At the same time, there is an emphasis on creating "links with movements who are providing the first defense for endangered communities, whether those be immigrants, people of color, Muslims, Arabs, women, or LGBTQ communities".

Another author of this organization, who is editor of the website Foreign Policy in Focus, John Feffer, uses the classic approach in the spirit of "Gandhi Soros" - refusal to cooperate. However, his arguments raise serious doubts about his logical reasoning.

He writes"We have strong, democratic alternatives. We can organize to blunt Trump's power two years from now. We can mobilize to defeat Trump four years from now. And, more importantly, we can do whatever we can outside the voting booth to throw sand into the gears of the Trump juggernaut."

"But what if Trump implements policies that I support? He's no fan of free trade agreements. He wants to avoid a war with Russia. On the domestic side, he favors investments in infrastructure and other job-creation efforts."

"Yes, and Hitler built the Autobahn, Mussolini made the trains run on time (actually he did not), and Stalin dragged the Soviet economy kicking and screaming into the 20th century ".

Here the rhetorical device should be paid attention to. Although the author claims that Trump's policies as a whole, meets his position, he immediately sticks his villain label, reminding us of the people who are considered to be bloodthirsty dictators (a general approach of mixing different ideas or people in American society, in order to discredit some of them, is a characteristic feature of American Political Science).

However, previously this NGO opposed to the policy of Obama and sharply criticized Clinton. Such a biased approach to the new White House administration means a clear bias towards Soros technologies, based on the ideology of the Western liberalism.

Various organizations associated with the racial approach in international relations joined this way following this anti-Tramp rhetoric. Thus, the international network of Pambazuka, which deals with issues of Africa (headquartered in London). "Trump’s success means mass deportation, massive military spending, continuation and escalation of global war, a conservative Supreme Court, a justice department and security system dedicated to growing the Bush/Obama-era surveillance state and waging war on activists; fiscal policies that will accelerate income inequality; massive cuts in social spending, and a lot more. Concrete strategies for popular organizing are needed to resist this", as writes Robin D.G. Kelley on the organization's website.

But it is most suitable to the description of Hillary Clinton’s planned policy. Kelly does not explain why all these events should happen during Trump’s administration.

The main efforts to discredit Trump are made in the liberal camp.

The article of Director of East Asia program fund "Open Society" Thomas Kellogg is quite indicative for future actions of the neoliberal lobby. It was published on the website The Diplomat. Of course, Trump's victory was perceived as a serious threat, and not only to certain political cliques, but according to the author, and to the American values ​​that it empowers continue to spread throughout the whole world.

Kellogg writes: "For liberal internationalists of every stripe, and in particular for U.S.-based organizations working on international affairs, I can think of at least four key priorities: explaining, advocating, engaging, and supporting.… We will also want to remind our international partners – both in word and in deed – that Trump’s view of the world represents only one strain of American thinking on international affairs, and that that view will not be ascendant indefinitely. Four years is a long time, but it falls far short of forever..."

"Without doubt, a key part of our job going forward will be to advocate toward, and when necessary even to fight against, the incoming administration. The specific advocacy agenda will only become clear as Trump and his yet-to-be-formed foreign policy team start to put forward their concrete plans, but it seems likely that some large-scale fights are looming on the horizon..."

"Finally, we will need to redouble our efforts to support our overseas partners working for reform in their own countries. The renewed global attack on liberal values began long before November 8, as activists in countries as diverse as Russia, Egypt, and Venezuela can tell you. Activists, lawyers, and intellectuals in China, where I do most of my own work, are trying to soldier on in the face of the most repressive domestic environment in a quarter-century. As yet, international advocates failed to develop enough innovative responses to the global attack on human rights and the rule of law. In the age of Trump, such new thinking on how to respond to the growing global rights crisis takes on a new urgency.Make no mistake: Trump’s election is a major setback for progressive values, both in the United States and overseas".

As it can be seen, Donald Trump will have serious enemies and opponents. If lobbyists close to the Democratic Party have their own vested interests related to the implementation of contracts and the continuation of the work run-Political Technologies, a part of the anti-globalization camp will attack Trump on the basis of ideological motives (and, of course, with the financial support of the little-known sponsors).

Selecting the right team will not solve all the US problems in the short term, and the neo-liberal camp, joined by the left-wing anti-globalization, will use every opportunity to discredit both Trump and his political program. In the current situation he is able by no means to raise taxes, as it will hit the interests of average Americans. But he needs to study the mechanisms of redistribution of resources that will organically fit into his campaign with the slogan "drain the swamp." But in this case, it passes the way of neo-liberal political-oligarchic cliques, who will painfully perceive this decision.

This sounds quite paradoxical, but only a new approach to international relations will help Trump. The adequate management of resources and labor (all the same, globalization strongly affects the internal policies of almost all countries of the world) could shift the balance in favor of the vast majority of American citizens.