Austrian Elections, Globalization, the Massive Rise
of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left*
TAKIS FOTOPOULOS
(27.05.2016)
Abstract:
The article examines the all important issue of the
rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe and beyond
in the last few years and attributes its flourishing,
particularly in Europe, to the theoretical and political
bankruptcy of the globalist “Left”, as a result of its
theoretical and political failure.
On the morning following the
Austrian presidential election, when it became
certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not
won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few
thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the
middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from
the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of
economic and political elites running the New World
Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly
based in the G7 countries. The huge expansion of the
anti-globalization movement over the past few years
was under control, for the time being, and the EU
elites would not have to resort to sanctions against
a country at the core of the Union
—such
as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.[1]
In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been
imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as
soon as the British people finally submit to the
huge campaign of intimidation (“Project Fear”)
launched against them by the entire transnational
elite, Poland’s
—and
later Hungary’s—
turn will come in earnest.
The elites are not used to
“no” votes, and whenever the European peoples did
not vote the ‘correct’ way in their plebiscites they
were forced to vote again until they did so, or they
were simply smashed
—as
was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago.
The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek
case it was the so-called “Left” represented by
SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of
measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other
country) ever,[2]
but which is also currently busy conducting a huge
propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it
absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to
deceive the exhausted Greek people that the
government has even achieved some sort of victory in
the negotiations!
At the same
time, the working class
—the
traditional supporters of the Left—
are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards
the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France
to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly
inexplicable phenomena?
Nationalism
vs. neo-nationalism
As I tried to show in the
past,[3] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th
centuries played an important role in the
development of the system of the market economy and
vice versa.
However, whereas the ‘nationalization’ of the market
was necessary for the development of the ‘market
system’ out of the markets of the past, once capital
was internationalized and therefore the market
system itself was internationalized, the nation
state became an impediment to further ‘progress’ of
the market system. This is how the NWO emerged,
which involved a radical restructuring not only of
the economy,
with the rise of Transnational Corporations,
but also of polity, with the present phasing out of
nation-states and national sovereignty.
Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and
national sovereignty led to the flourishing of
neo-nationalism, as a movement for
self-determination. Yet, this development became
inevitable only because the alternative form of
social organization, confederalism, which was alive
even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the
meantime disappeared.
In other words, the peoples’
need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no
other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few
years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states,
within which communities with a common culture,
language, customs etc. could express themselves. The
nation-state became again a means of
self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th
century for peoples under colonial rule struggling
for their national liberation. The national culture
is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist
culture like the one imposed now ‘from above’ by the
Transnational and national elites. This globalist
culture is based on the globalization ideology of
multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc.,
which in fact is an extension of the classical
liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the
Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars
in the last thirty years or so to “protect” human
rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and
indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and
dislocations of populations. It is not therefore
accidental that globalist ideologists characterize
the present flourishing of what I called
neo-nationalism, as the rise of ‘illiberalism’.[4]
It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish
between old (or classical) nationalism and the new
phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main
differences between them are as follows:
a)
Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as
a movement for uniting communities with a common
history, culture and usually language under the
common roof of nation-states that were emerging at
the time but also even in the 20th
century when national liberation movements against
colonialist empires were fighting for their own
nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism
developed in the era of globalization with the aim
of protecting the national sovereignty of nations
which was under extinction because of the
integration of their states into the NWO;
b)
Nationalism’s emphasis was on the nation-state (or
the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism’s
emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on
sovereignty at the economic but also at the
political and cultural levels, which has been phased
out in the globalization process;
c)
Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also
demands that in the past were an essential part of
the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater
equality (within the nation-state and between
nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of
the elites, even anti-war demands.
Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist
parties and their supporters, elements of the old
nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the
Islamophobic and anti-immigration
trends,
which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss
all these movements as ‘far right’. However, such
demands are by no means the main reasons why such
movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily
be shown that the refugee problem is also part and
parcel of globalization and the ‘4 freedoms’
(capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology
preaches.
The rise of the neo-nationalist movement
Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement
that arose out of the
effects of globalization, particularly as far as the
continuous squeezing of employees’ real incomes is
concerned
—as
a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that
labor could become more competitive. The present
‘job miracle’, for instance, in Britain (which is
characterized as “the job creation capital of the
western economies”), hides the fact that, as an
analyst pointed out, “unemployment is low, largely
because British workers have been willing to stomach
the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian
era”.[5]
The neo-nationalist movement had already created
strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part
(France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary,
Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself
Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist
“the false song of globalism”, expresses to a
significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be
tomorrow the next President of the “Free World”. Of
course, given the political and economic power that
the elites have concentrated against these
neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that
neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take
over, but this will not stop of course social
dissent against the phasing out of national
sovereignty.
The same process is repeated almost everywhere in
Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and
particularly working class people) to turn to the
rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course
because they suddenly became “nationalists” let
alone “fascists”, as the globalist “Left” (that is
the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the
NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the
EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is
simply because the present globalist “Left” does not
wish to lead the struggle against globalization,
while, at the same time, the popular strata have
realized that national and economic sovereignty is
incompatible with globalization. This is a fact
fully realized, for example, by the strong informal
patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all
those opposing the integration of the country into
the NWO
—from
neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox
Christians to secularists, while the leadership
under Putin is trying to accommodate the very
powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs,
mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic
movement.
But, it is mainly Le Pen’s National Front party,
more than any other neo-nationalist party in the
West, that realized that globalization and
membership in the NWΟ’s
institutions are incompatible with national
sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the
“Left” has abandoned long ago!):
“Globalization is a
barbarity, it is the country which should limit its
abuses and regulate it [globalization].” (…) Today the
world is in the hands of multinational corporations
and large international finance” (…) Immigration
“weighs down on wages,” while the minimum wage is
now becoming the maximum wage”.[6]
In fact, the French National Front is the most
important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may
well be in power following the next Presidential
elections in 2017, unless of course a united front
of all globalist parties (including the “Left” and
the Greens), supported by the entire TE and
particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media
controlled by them, prevents it from doing so
(exactly as it happens at present in Britain with
respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot
the FN’s vice-president and chief strategist aptly
put its case in a FT interview:
“The people who always voted
for the left, who believed in the left and who
thought that it represented an improvement in
salaries and pensions, social and economic progress,
industrial policies (...) these people have realized
that they were misled.”[7]
As the same FT report points
out, to some observers of French politics, the FN’s
economic policies, which include exiting the euro
and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry,
read like something copied from a 1930s political
manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an
economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this
vision as “Peronist Marxism”.[8] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le
Pen, the FN president went a step further in the
same direction and she called, apart from exiting
from the Euro —that she expects to lead to the
collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself,
(which she —rightly—
welcomes)— for
the nationalization of banks. At the same time she
championed public services and presented herself as
the protector of workers and farmers in the face of
“wild and anarchic globalization (…) which has brought
more pain than happiness”.[9]
For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA
(and Varoufakis who now wears his “radical” hat) to
use such slogans before the elections (let alone
after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy
is also very different from that of the French
establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of
French foreign policy in which relations with the
regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be
restored and those with the likes of Qatar and
Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism,
reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a
purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more
suitable friend.
Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT
report, “the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing
European populist party seeking to draw support from
disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the
leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a
similar approach and has been discussing plans “to
ring-fence the National Health Service budget and
lower taxes for low earners, among a host of
measures geared to economically vulnerable voters
who would typically support Labor”.[10]
Similar trends are noticed in other European
countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and
pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively
won the last elections,[11]
as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces
are continuously rising,[12]
and Orban’s government has done more than any other
EU leader in protecting his country’s sovereignty,
being as a result, in constant conflict with the
Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist
party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the
loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European
Parliament, who accused the new government as
attempting a
"dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics.”[13]
However, what Eurocrats like
Martin Schulz “forget” is that since Poland joined
the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have
emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of
the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc,
PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash
by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of
their values by the ideology of globalization but
also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out,
that “the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist,
xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed
people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family
allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded
through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage;
and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65
for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[14]
In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party
when they were in power between 2005 and 2007,
following faithfully the neoliberal program, and
since then they have become increasingly populist
and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections
they won the parliamentary elections in both the
lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the
vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for
the populist Kukiz while the “progressive” camp
failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8%
for coalitions) and have no parliamentary
representation at all!
The
bankruptcy of the Left
It is therefore obvious that the globalization
process has already had devastating economic and
social consequences on the majority of the world
population. At the same time, the same process has
also resulted in tremendous changes at the political
and the cultural levels, in the past three decades
or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series
of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its
attempt to integrate any country resisting
integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined
by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).
Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it
was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp
the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon
(i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that
has led to the emergence of the globalization era),
and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were
the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist
movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by
most of the victims of globalization all over
Europe, particularly the working class that used to
support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively
embraced not just economic globalization but also
political, ideological and cultural globalization
and has therefore been fully integrated into the New
World Order. In fact, today, following the
successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement
against globalization, thanks mainly to the
activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the
neo-nationalist movement to fight against
globalization in general and against the EU in
particular.
Almost inevitably, in view of
the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries
(Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying
Islamophobic trends have developed within several of
these neo-nationalist movements, some of them
turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia,
supported on this by Zionists themselves![15]
Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to
lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing
that “there is no Islamophobia in France (…) but there
is a rise in anti-Semitism”. Yet, she is well aware
of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France
well before Charlie Hebdo,[16]
with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants
(most of whom live under squalid conditions in
virtual ghettos), being very frequent. At the same
time, it is well known that the Jewish community is
mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate
part of political and economic power in the country
to its actual size, as it happens of course also —and
to an even larger extent—
in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular
Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be
built in every country of the world to fight not
only Eurofascism and the NWO —which is of course the
main enemy— but
also any racist trends developing within these new
anti-globalization movements, which today take the
form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the
elites from using the historically well-tested
‘divide and rule’ practice to divide the victims of
globalization.
Similarly, the point
implicitly raised by the stand of the British “left”
in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be
discussed in terms of the free trade vs.
protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist)
“Left” does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[17]
and Larry Elliott[18]
of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is
globalization itself, which has led to the present
mass economic violence against the vast majority of
the world population and the accompanying it
military violence. In other words, what all these
“Left” trends hide is that globalization is a class
issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the “Left”,
which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is
the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the
Left in its role of representing the victims of the
system in its globalized form, while the
Left mainly represents those in the middle class or
the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from
globalization. Needless to add that today’s bankrupt
“Left” promptly characterized the rising
neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist
and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU’s black
propaganda campaign against the rising movement for
national sovereignty. This is obviously another nail
in the coffin of this kind of “Left”, as the
millions of European voters who turn their back
towards this degraded “Left” are far from racists or
fascists but simply want to control their way of
life rather than letting it to be determined by the
free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as
the various Soroses of this world demand!
The neo-nationalist movement
is embraced by most of the victims of globalization
all over Europe, particularly the working class that
used to support the Left,[19]
whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just
economic globalization but also political,
ideological and cultural globalization and has
therefore been fully integrated into the New World
Order —a defining moment in its present intellectual
and political bankruptcy.
In the Austrian elections, it
became once more clear that the Left expresses now
the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the
working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented
the results:
“Support
for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual
workers - nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen
was much stronger among people with a university
degree or other higher education qualifications. In
nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der
Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the
rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in
German).”[20]
The process of the Left’s
bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact
that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014
Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with
the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties
as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following
the successful emasculation of the antisystemic
movement against globalization (mainly through the
World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the
globalist “Left”),[21]
it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight
globalization in general and the EU in particular.
It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist
parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the
TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply
filled the huge gap created by the globalist “Left”.
Thus, this “Left”, Instead of placing itself in the
front line among all those peoples fighting
globalization and the phasing out of their economic
and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted
globalization, using arguments based on an
anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded
on Marxism.
On the other side, as one might
expect, most members of the Globalist “Left” have
joined the new ‘movement’ by Varoufakis to
democratize Europe, “forgetting” in the process that
‘Democracy’ was also the West’s propaganda excuse
for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it
seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly
the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of
securing the perpetuation of the EU elites’
domination of the European peoples and therefore the
continuation of the consequent economic violence
involved. The most prominent members of the
globalist “Left” who have already joined this new
DIEM ‘movement’ range from Noam Chomsky and Julian
Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from
Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch
and other globalist “Left”
newspapers and journals all over the world. In this
context, it is particularly interesting to refer to
Slavoj Žižek’s commentary on the ‘Manifesto’ that
was presented at the inaugural meeting of
Varoufakis’s new movement in Berlin on February
2016.[22]
Neo-nationalism and immigration
So, the unifying element of
neo-nationalists is their struggle for national
sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as
disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when
their main immediate motive is the fight against
immigration, indirectly their fight is against
globalization, as they realize that it is the
opening of all markets, including the labor markets,
particularly within economic unions like the EU,
which is the direct cause of their own unemployment
or low-wage employment, as well as of the
deterioration of the welfare state, given that the
elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure
to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this
is not a racist movement but a purely economic
movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites,
with the help of the globalist “Left”, try hard to
convert it into an Islamophobic movement —as the
Charlie Hebdo
case clearly showed[23]— so
that they could use it in any way they see fit in
the support of the NWO.
But, what is the relationship
of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to
historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show
elsewhere,[24]
fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a
nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is
impossible to develop in any country fully
integrated into the NWO, which, by definition,
cannot have any significant degree of national
sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available
in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is
transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is
exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other
words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena
of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the
NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still
had a significant degree of national and economic
sovereignty.
However, in the globalization
era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being
phased out for any country fully integrated into the
NWO. Therefore, the only kind of ‘fascism’ still
possible today is the one directly or indirectly
supported by the TE (what we may call
‘Euro-fascism’), which is therefore a kind of
pseudo-fascism —although in terms of the bestial
practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than
the ‘real thing’ of the inter-war period. This is,
for instance, the case of the Ukrainian
Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to
historical Nazism available today, not only in terms
of their practices but also in terms of their
history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence
of the full support they have enjoyed by the
Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the
Zionist elite,[25]
they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.
It is therefore clear that
the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under
attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that
simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist
Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front
line of all those peoples fighting globalization and
the phasing out of their economic and national
sovereignty,[26]
indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments
based on an anachronistic internationalism,
developed a hundred years ago or so.
National and Social Liberation Fronts
everywhere!
So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to
neoliberal globalization and the transnational
elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create
a Popular Front in each country which will include all
the victims of
globalization among
the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.
In
Europe, in
particular, where
the popular
strata are
facing economic disaster,
what is
urgently needed
is not an
"antifascist"
Front within the EU, as proposed
by the
‘parliamentary
juntas’ in
power and
the Euro-elites, also supported
by the
globalist
“Left” (such
as Diem25,
Plan B
in Europe,
Die Linke,
the Socialist
Workers’
Party in
the UK,
SYRIZA in
Greece and
so on),
which would,
in fact,
unite aggressors
and victims. An
‘antifascist’
front would simply
disorient the masses
and make
them incapable
of facing the real fascism
being imposed
on them[27]
by
the political
and economic
elites, which constitute the
transnational
and local
elites.
Instead, what
is needed
is a Popular
Front
for National and Social Liberation, which that could
attract
the vast
majority of the people
who would
fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal
from the EU
—which
is managed
by the
European part of the
transnational elite—
as
well
as
for
economic
self-reliance,
thus breaking with
globalization.
To my
mind, it is
only the creation of broad
Popular
Fronts
that could
effect each
country’s
exit from
the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions,
with the
aim of
achieving economic
self-reliance.
Re-development
based on
self-reliance
is the
only way
in which
peoples
breaking
away from
globalization
and its
institutions (like
the EU)
could rebuild
their productive
structures, which
have been dismantled
by globalization.
This could
also, objectively, lay
the ground
for future systemic change, decided upon
democratically by the peoples themselves.
Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social
struggle today should be a complete break with the
present NWO and the building of a new global
democratic community, in which economic and national
sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples
could then fight for the ideal society, as they see
it.
*
This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be
published next month by Progressive Press,
The New World
Order in Action, vol. 1: Globalization, the Left and Neo-Nationalism.
This is a
major three-volume project aiming to cover all
aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal
globalization
http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action
[1]
Bruno Waterfield, “Juncker vows to use new
powers to block the far-right”,
The Times
(24/5/2016).
[3]
Takis Fotopoulos,
Towards An Inclusive Democracy
(Cassell, 1997). Ch. 1.
[4]
Tony Barber, “Illiberalism takes root in
Europe’s fertile centre”,
Financial Times (13/5/2016).
[5]
Ed Conway, “The UK is paying the price of its
jobs miracle”,
The
Times (14/10/2014).
[7]
Adam Thomson,
“France’s far-right National
Front seeks voters from the left”,
Financial Times
(4/1/2015).
[9]
Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Roula Khalaf, “Marine
Le Pen lays out radical vision to govern
France”,
Financial Times
(5/3/2015).
[10]
Adam Thomson,
“France’s far-right National Front seeks
voters from the left”,
Financial Times
(4/1/2015).
[14]
Cédric Gouverneur, “Poland’s populist
revenge”,
Le Mode Diplomatique
(March 2016)
[15]
Adam Sage, “French Jews turn to Le Pen after
Muslim attacks,”
The
Times (24/2/2015).
[18]
see for instance Larry Elliott, “How free
trade became the hot topic vexing voters and
politicians in Europe and the US” ,
The
Guardian (28/3/2016).
[19]
Francis Elliott et al. ‘Working class
prefers Ukip to Labour”,
The Times
(25/11/2014).
[23]
see Takis Fotopoulos, The NWO in Action,
vol. 3,
Subjugating the Middle East, (under
publication by Progressive Press)
[24]
Takis Fotopoulos, The NWO in Action, vol. 2,
Ukraine: The attack on Russia and the
Eurasian Union (under publication by
Progressive Press)
source:
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol12/vol12_no1_Austrian_Elections_Globalization_Neo_Nationalism_Left.html
The
International Journal of Inclusive Democracy: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/
Print
PDF