The
International Journal of INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY, vol. 2, no.4 (November 2006)
An Interview with Takis Fotopoulos on the
London bombings and the tasks of the antisystemic movement
today*
What caused the London bombings?
Muslim
blind
hatred,
the clash of
civilizations or
the wars in the Middle East?
I classify the views which talk about a clash of
civilizations, blind hatred and the rest
as
the system’s ideology, which is repeated by the reformist
Left.
The bombings, to my mind, constitute an integral part of the
cycle of political violence. This cycle always begins with
systemic violence, which may be political, military or
economic and is directed by the economic and political
elites. This violence leads to political counter-violence,
which has spread to many parts of the world today, as a
result of the huge dimensions that systemic violence has
taken. Any movement or regime which is not integrated
swiftly into the New World Order of capitalist globalisation
faces brutal military intervention, irrespective of
international law niceties. ‘Terrorism’ has developed from
within this cycle of systemic violence and counter-violence,
and may take the form either of ‘popular’ terrorism or
‘individual’ terrorism. Too often nowadays ‘terrorism’ takes
the form of blind violence, something that is hardly
surprising given the huge asymmetry of power
between
the political elites and those resisting them.
The young Arab activist has no qualms about killing Western
civilians when s/he sees women and children being maimed
everyday by the transnational elite in Iraq or Afghanistan
and by the Zionists in Palestine. However, the bombings in
London were aimed not only at revenge but also at exerting
pressure on the British public to demand the withdrawal of
British troops from Iraq.
How do you think the British will react?
They will react differently to the Spaniards, in my view.
The
Mediterranean peoples are not as easily amenable to the
hegemonic ideology propagated by the mass media as the
British are.
Don’t forget that the British were not only colonialists but
world-rulers as well. The average Briton has always been an
oppressor, not a victim of oppression, at the international
level. It is, therefore, easier for Britons to identify
themselves with the elites as far as world affairs are
concerned. I am afraid, therefore, that although the British
people were split over the war in Iraq,
there
is now the danger that a very large proportion of
them
may
identify themselves
with the elite’s ideology and propaganda and
may
give
the
elite
the opportunity to create a regime
with
even greater control
over
the population than before.
We have already seen the introduction
of even
harsher so called ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation in Britain,
with a view to
its being
extended
it
throughout
Europe
via
the European Union.
But London was considered to be the best-policed
city in the world.
Don’t
these events
express the failure of this logic?
The average British citizen is trapped in a cul-de-sac.
S/he
sees
that the
‘war’
against terrorism is not effective but,
within
the framework of his/her
logic,
which takes the present system for granted,
s/he
cannot
see any alternative solution.
I am afraid that many Britons will develop a ‘New
Yorker’s’
kind of
mentality,
i.e. “let’s
unite against the common enemy”
―the
British elites and the mass media controlled by them do
everything they can to create this kind of mentality, even
with references to second world war experiences!—
instead of turning against the real culprits of the
bombings, i.e. the elites and the Labour and Tory parties
which represent their interests. All this is occurring in
addition to the anti-Islamism, to which the propaganda about
the ‘evil ideology’ cultivated by the elites inevitably
leads,
―a
propaganda which has already led to attacks against the
Muslim communities and is bound to enhance the vicious cycle
of violence further, if it gains momentum.
The European Union has responded as if
it already had the new, harsher anti-terror measures
up its
sleeve
…
I am not surprised at all by this.
There is a lot of evidence already to suggest that the ‘war’
against Iraq
had in
fact been planned from the first day of the Bush
administration, well in advance of 9/11.
It is obvious that there is a cycle. The transnational
elite, as I call it, through its US membership which is
militarily dominant within it, had pre-planned the ‘war’
against Iraq and the more general restructuring in the
Middle East, as well as the ‘war’ against terrorism. 9/11
was simply the pretext for launching these so called ‘wars’.
And the causes of all this?
The real causes of the intensification of systemic violence
should be sought in the rise of neoliberal modernity which
succeeded the statist modernity of the social democratic
consensus.
When
post-war
statism,
as developed in the period 1945-1975, came into conflict
with the rapidly expanding internationalization of the
market economy,
this inevitably led to the collapse of social democracy and
the institutionalization of neoliberalism by Thatcherism and
Reaganism.
This is how neoliberal globalisation developed, which
implies a direct attack against the peoples’ conquests of
the past decades and which consequently led to the
intensification of political violence so that the inevitable
popular reaction could be checked. The transnational elite’s
attempt
to
spread neoliberal globalization all over the world and in
particular the attempt to integrate into it the so-called
‘rogue’ regimes and movements in the Middle East which were
not keen to be integrated was, therefore, doomed to lead to
conflict.
What we see today is the spreading
(through economic, political and, in the last resort,
military means)
of
capitalist neoliberal globalisation all over the world. The
transnational elite is completely on the loose nowadays
since a strong antisystemic movement at the international
level has yet to be developed, while the Soviet bloc, which
in the past was able to constrain this elite’s ambitions,
has collapsed.
Those seeking a strategic response (including you) to this
attack are accused of sectarianism, isolation and the
negation of the need for unity by the reformist Left.
I think it is utterly silly to talk about unity in general,
as the reformist Left does. Unity against what and whom?
If the target is neoliberal policies, as reformists maintain,
then this target is meaningless since neoliberal
globalization is neither a conjectural phenomenon nor a
matter of policy.
It is a systemic phenomenon which therefore cannot be
reversed through just a change in government or in the model
of administration of power.
In the present
international
framework of open and liberalised markets, even if, say,
Lafontaine and the radical Left were to be elected in the
forthcoming German elections, they would have to follow more
or less the same policies implemented today by neoliberals
and social-liberals alike. The kind of reformist policies
proposed by these radical trends within social democracy
have no chance at all. Equally utopian are the dreams of
some social democrats which suggest similar policies at a
pan-European level. Today, even at the economic bloc level,
there is no viable possibility for the European, say,
capital,
and the
multinationals controlled by it, to be isolated from the
rest of the world market.
It is only, therefore, within the framework of an organised
attempt to overthrow the internationalised capitalist market
economy that one could talk about a really alternative
policy to the present policies. In other words, the sort of
policies suggested by the reformist Left are utterly utopian
(in the negative sense of the word,
much
more so than the antisystemic strategies which it
condemns as ‘utopian’!
It is, therefore, the reformist Left which mainly torpedoes
the unity of the Left, either ‘objectively’ or deliberately,
as when for instance it adopts the crucial choices of the
system (like the European Union), and in essence is
supporting the system and playing the role of the ‘good’
opposition, in exchange for the massive promotion it
receives by the systemic mass media —in effect, its
lifeline.
Do you see the need for unity of the antisystemic forces
against capitalism and reformism?
Yes,
very much so,
provided that this takes the form of a global movement.
The only way out of the present multidimensional crisis is
the creation of a ‘frontal’
international
movement
consisting of antisystemic forces united against the present
system.
These
forces should agree on a platform that will include at least
the following: first, an analysis of the present reality
which sees neoliberal globalisation as a systemic phenomenon
and not as the result of ‘bad’ policies which are reversible
within the system
―as
the reformist Left maintains―
and second, an emphasis on the need to overthrow neoliberal
globalisation, something that presupposes directly
challenging the present system. Within such an antisystemic
front,
each movement and group would retain its own autonomy as
regards its views regarding the form a future society should
take.
And this is very important because
it is not enough merely to criticize
―you
also have to propose an alternative social system in order
to persuade people to join you in a fight against the
system. This has always been the big problem of the
anti-globalization ‘movement’
―something
which led the reformist Left, which is hegemonic within it
through the World Social Forum which it controls, to resort
to the equivocal rhetoric of «Another world is possible»,
which could mean everything and nothing.
Yes, we see today that a process of institutionalization and
compromise has already taken roots in the antiglobalisation
movement. Do you see any alternative?
This institutionalization is a process which began when the
antiglobalisation movement was still in its early stages,
and today it is intensified.
The reformist Left, through the Social Forums which it
controls,
has
proceeded to the formulation of some concrete proposals
which, however, constitute in essence another version of the
present world, a ‘capitalism with a human face’.
The very composition of the institutionalised
World
Social
Forum
movement, which consists mainly of Non-Government
Organisations (i.e. organisations usually adopting the
crucial choices of the elites),
as well
as bureaucratic trade union leaderships,
guarantees this kind of development. Given, however, that
systemic economic violence (and consequently
political-military violence) will inevitably intensify in
the future within the process of neoliberal globalization,
it is highly likely that this process will lead to serious
conflicts with the elites.
Working people and citizens in general, seeing that party
politics is a cul-de-sac, could well be led to potentially
antisystemic stands. This is why
the
creation of an antisystemic movement,
i.e. an international front
which
would unite all antisystemic forces and would give a real
outlet to the current growing dissatisfaction and
indignation,
is
imperative today. If this does not happen, then the outcome
will
either
be
a massive passivity, or easily-oppressed insurrections
―both
common phenomena in today’s world scene.
* This interview was published in the Greek Leftist
newspaper PRIN on 17/7/05