Globalization: The Politics of Resistance1

New Political Science, Volume 26, Number 1, March 2004
From Globalism to Globalization: The Politics of
Benjamin Arditi
National University of Mexico (UNAM)
Abstract The assumption of this article is that the “second great transformation”
proposed by global actors parallels the one advanced by those who resisted laissez-faire
capitalism in the 19th century. Both dispute the unilateral imposition of a new planetary
order and endeavor to modify the rhythm and direction of economic processes presented
as either fact or fate. In doing so, they effectively place the question of the political
institution of this order on the agenda. I look briefly at the familiar underside of
globalism and then move on to develop a tentative typology of initiatives that set the tone
for a politics of globalization. These include radical and viral direct action, the
improvement of the terms of exchange between industrialized and developing countries,
the expansion of the public sphere outside national borders through global networks, the
accountability of multilateral organizations, and the advancement of democracy at a
supranational level. Participants in these initiatives take politics beyond the liberaldemocratic format of elections and partisan competition within the nation-state. They
exercise an informal supranational citizenship that reclaims—and at the same time
reformulates—the banners of social justice, solidarity, and internationalism as part of the
public agenda.
Ever since the market ceased to be a taboo and globalization became a dominant
cognitive framework, the Left seems to have confined itself to a principled
commitment toward the dispossessed and a continual call for measures to
ameliorate inequality. Outside the mainstream, globaliphobic groups—an expression I use as shorthand to designate the naysayer as well as Beck’s “black,”
“green,” and “red” protectionists2
—offer more militant, yet scarcely innovative
responses. They conceive globalization as a purely negative phenomenon, little
more than old capitalism dressed in new clothes. For them, especially the red
and black globaliphobes, the assault on sovereignty spearheaded by governments and multilateral agencies in the name of international trade strengthens
the hand of the business and financial community, compromises the autonomy
of domestic political decisions, and reinforces the submissive status of less
1 I would like to thank Toshi Knell, Eric Mamer and two anonymous reviewers for
New Political Science for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. 2 Ulrich Beck, What is Globalization? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000). For Beck, “black”
protectionists mourn the loss of national values, the “green” variety upholds the state as
the last line of defense against the international market’s assault on environmental values,
while the “red” ones maintain their faith in Marxism and see globalization as yet another
example of the class struggle.
ISSN 0739-3148 print/ISSN 1469-9931 online/04/010005–18  2004 Caucus for a New Political Science
DOI: 10.1080/0739314042000185102
6 Benjamin Arditi
developed countries to the dictates of the major industrial nations. Globaliphobes are quite right about this, but they also think about the phenomenon
from a reductionist perspective that confuses globalization with what Beck calls
“globalism,” that is, “the ideology of rule by the world market, the ideology of
neoliberalism.”3 In doing so, they neglect the range of contending forces set into
motion by the process of globalization itself. The paradoxical effect of this
confusion is that their diagnostic converges with that of the neoliberal right: both
conceive globalization as a victory of liberalism, except that each assigns
opposite values to it.
Yet the hegemony of the market and free trade is not quite the same as the
victory of liberalism tout court. When one looks at the efforts to recast the rules
and the institutional design of the international order that has been emerging
from the ruins of the Berlin wall, the thesis of a liberal end of history proves to
be somewhat premature. Globalism undermines Westphalian sovereignty and
deepens inequality, but also has at least a potential for political innovation as the
resistance to globalism opens the doors for an expansion of collective action
beyond its conventional enclosure within national borders. Notwithstanding the
unipolarity of the international order, the wide array of new global warriors that
rally around the banner of the World Social Forum—“another world is possible”—are assembling a politics that seeks to move the current setting beyond
mere globalism. This intervention examines some of the symptoms of this move.
The Underside of Globalism
Every age of great changes brings along an underside. Nineteenth-century
industrialization unleashed a productive power on a scale unknown before
while it simultaneously destroyed traditional communities, virtually wiped out
the cottage industry of artisan production, and created a new urban underclass.
Industrial society also saw the emergence of efforts to resist and modify the
capitalist reorganization of the world. Globalization, with its remarkable time–
space compression and its impact on our perception of distance,4 presents us
with an underside too. It has three salient aspects: the deepening gap between
rich and poor countries, the creation of a mobile elite and an increasingly
confined mass, and the resurrection of more rigid and less liberal models of
identity as a defensive reaction to the dislocations brought upon by globalization
under the guise of globalism.
The first point has been discussed profusely.5 For the purpose of our
3 Ibid., p. 9. 4 Zygmunt Bauman, Globalization: The Human Consequences (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1998), pp. 16ff. 5 The figures of inequality are staggering. At the end of the 19th century, the difference
in the average income of the richest and the poorest country was 9:1. Things got much
worse since then. According to the UN, the income gap between the richest 20% and the
poorest 20% of the planet in 1960 was 30:1, while in 1997 it jumped to 74:1. The case of
Africa is even more daunting, as the average GNP of around US$360 per person is below
the annual service of the foreign debt. In countries like Angola and the Ivory Coast, it is
simply not payable, for it stands at 298% and 146% of their GNP correspondingly.
Moreover, despite our extraordinary capacity to produce food, every 3.6 seconds somewhere on the planet someone dies of hunger or for reasons directly derived from it. That
makes 24,000 deaths per day. In the meantime, average international aid from develop-
From Globalism to Globalization 7
argument, it suffices to point out that one does not need to be an orthodox
communist or a Rousseau-style egalitarian to understand that a minimum
threshold of equality is required to shore up governance and level the field for
participants in the public sphere. The second aspect addresses a sociological
issue. While moral indignation in the face of human suffering is not enough to
reorient the global patterns of development towards greater social justice and
solidarity, the persistence of exclusion confirms the coexistence of two worlds or
life-experiences concerning globalization. These typically show themselves, and
converge, in one place, border crossings, and around one issue, mobility.
Advocates of globalism extol the virtues of the free transit of capitals, goods,
services, and people. Without it, globalization faces a real and perhaps unsurpassable limit. That is why the World Trade Organization (WTO) insists on this
free passage. However, migratory controls to stop the entry of those fleeing from
poverty or persecution multiply. The freedom of the market, say Zincone and
Agnew, entails a schizophrenic logic—positive for capital and negative for
labor.6 The UN reports something similar: “The collapse of space, time and
borders may be creating a global village, but not everyone can be a citizen. The
global professional elite now face low borders, but billions of others find borders
as high as ever.”7 Bauman builds on this to identify a novel socio-political
division developing in the global order. If distance has ceased to be an obstacle
only for the rich—since for the poor it never was more than a shackle—this
creates a new type of division between the haves and the haves not. The former
are tourists who travel because they can and want to do so, while the latter are
vagabonds, people who move because the world around them is unbearable,
more of a prison than a home.8 While the vagabond is the nightmare of the
tourist, he says, they share something in that they are both “radicalized”
consumers—they are embarked in a continual pursuit of satisfaction fueled by
desire rather than by the object of desire—only that the former is a “defective”
one. Thus, they are not mutually exclusive categories, both because tourists
might become vagabonds and because one might occupy the position of the
tourist in some domains and of the vagabond in others.
The third salient aspect of globalization arises from the exponential increase
in the pace of political, technological, economic, or cultural change. Its impact is
(Footnote continued)
ment countries has dropped from 0.33% of their GNI in 1990 to 0.23% in 2001, with
Denmark topping the list at 1.08% and the US positioning itself at the bottom with just
0.11%. See United Nations, Human Development Report 1999 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999); UN, Human Development Report 2003,;
Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (London: Penguin Books, 2002); Jan
Nederveen Pieterse, “Global Inequality: Bringing Politics Back In,” Third World Quarterly
23:6 (2002), pp. 1023–1046; Nancy Birdsall, “Life is Unfair: Inequality in the World,”
Foreign Policy 111 (1998), pp. 76–93; Adam Zagorin, “Seattle Sequel,” TIME, April 17, 2000,
p. 36;; Giovanna Zincone and John Agnew, “The Second
Great Transformation: The Politics of Globalization in the Global North,” Space and Polity
4:2 (2000), pp. 5–21; W. Bowman Cutter, Joan Spero and Laura D’Andrea Tyson, “New
World, New Deal: A Democratic Approach to Globalization,” Foreign Affairs 79:2 (2000),
pp. 80–98; Barry K. Gills (ed.), Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2000). 6 Zincone and Agnew, op. cit., p. 12. 7 Human Development Report 1999, p. 31. 8 Bauman, op. cit., pp. 20–24, 92–97.
8 Benjamin Arditi
undecidable. It can be lived as an opening up of possibilities for emancipatory
projects or as a threat to identity and to the certainties of a more familiar world.
When the latter gains the upper hand, people might turn to aggressive forms of
nationalism, religious orthodoxy, tribalism, or messianic leaders—none of which
are likely to enhance toleration—with the expectation of restoring certainty. This
is not entirely new. The industrial revolution also undermined the referents of
everyday life without offering cultural responses, at least not at the beginning.
Marx and Engels describe the distinctive traits of the dislocations brought upon
by capitalism in a well-known passage of the Manifesto. They say:
Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social
conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch
from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and
venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become
antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy
is profaned.
Nationalism helped to counteract this “uninterrupted disturbance” that undermined identities and governmentality. Kahler argues that in the 19th century,
especially after the expansion of the franchise, the emergence of mass nationalism had a political function, for it enabled states to forge strong links with the
citizenry and to ensure their loyalty in an age of democracy. Later, anticommunism and the promise of economic prosperity replaced nationalism as a political
programmed.9 Globalism has nothing comparable to offer, or rather, as Debray
remarks, it seems to offer no other mystique than the prospect of economic
growth.10 The latter is certainly desirable, at least if one expects some form of
income distribution as its side effect, but it is probably not enough to sway those
whose livelihood and identity are threatened by the rapid reorganization of
labor markets and trade patterns. As suggested, the danger here is the possible
appeal of projects that offer certainty at the expense of toleration. The strong and
often violent revival of nationalism and the aggressive affirmation of ethnic
identities illustrate an uncanny hardening of territorial and cultural frontiers in
a global setting where the role of borders is supposed to have waned. This is
complicated further by the rise of religious radicalism and by the religious
coding of the global terrorism that became notorious after the events of 9/11.
Since then, those hitherto known as freedom fighters became the security
nightmare of the West. Much to the chagrin of those advocating the end of
history in the aftermath of the Cold War, the enduring presence of such
radicalism shows that the liberal world-view is not without rivals. Interestingly,
Debray describes religious radicalism—but not religious terrorism—as a defensive response to the loss of a sense of belonging, or better still, to the dislocation
of cultural referents in the wake of globalism. He argues that when people feel
lost the list of “believers” usually grows. That is why he says that sometimes
9 Miles Kahler, “The Survival of the State in European International Relations,” in
Charles S. Maier (ed.), The Changing Boundaries of the Political (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987), pp. 288, 290; also Richard Falk, “The Decline of Citizenship in the
Era of Globalization,” Meeting Point (1998),
falk_citizen.html. 10 Regis Debray, “God and the Political Planet,” New Perspectives Quarterly 4:2 (1994),
p. 15.
From Globalism to Globalization 9
religion (but we could also say “nationalism” or “ethnic intolerance,” which are
similar in this respect) turns out to be not the opium of the people but the
vitamin of the weak.11
Globalism therefore revolutionizes the certainties of the past and inserts
entire populations into a more open, changing and diverse world, often enhancing the array of options of how and where to live their lives. Bauman’s tourists
embody this freedom of choice and movement, so dear to liberal thought. Yet it
also reminds us of a possible trade off between these new possibilities and the
relative security that accompanied identities in a more parochial world. Bauman
captures this disorientation when he speaks of globalization as the perception of
“things getting out of hand.”12 The question here is not simply the fear of
turning into vagabonds or remaining trapped forever in that position; it refers
instead to the demand for certainty, a desire for more rigid codes that function
as navigational maps for living in a world in constant flux. This is what Debray
had in mind when he described religion as a vitamin of the weak. This vitamin,
however, is not sought by the casualties of globalism alone, but also by the
champions of globalism who must now face the flip side of cheap airfares, cheap
weapons, and cheap digital communications being available to its opponents
too. In an international scene dominated by a neo-Hobbesian concern for
security—terrorism, AIDS, drugs or immigration—the trade off between a
rapidly changing world and the demand for certainty—both in the center and in
the periphery of global capitalism—reinforces our suspicion about a facile
endorsement of a liberal telos of history. It does so if only because it reveals that
not everyone sees capitalism—which Milton Friedman famously characterized
as a general freedom to choose—and political liberalism as universally valid
goods, and because sometimes the very advocates of those values easily override
them by imposing illegal tariffs on imports or by engaging in wars of aggression
in the name of prosperity and security.
Resistances to Globalism
Yet to accept this underside as a necessary consequence of globalization is to
submit to the naturalist fallacy of globalism, which presents the unilateral
imposition of a world order modeled around the Washington Consensus as our
destiny instead of as an act of political institution. Arguably, one could say that
the war on terrorism unleashed after 9/11 reactivates its political origin. It is the
true index of globalization, or if one prefers, an implicit acknowledgement that
globalism seeks to hegemonize globalization but can neither control nor exhaust
it. However, it is the disagreement with and resistance to the current state of
things that reactivates it explicitly.
What type of resistance? Another parallel with the 19th century can help to
clarify this. Simplifying things a bit, the range of responses of those excluded
from the benefits of the industrial revolution oscillated between two perspectives. One was the destruction of machines advocated by the Luddites in the
revolts of the 1810s and 1820s in the North of England—mainly the Midlands,
Yorkshire, and Lancashire. Theirs was a mode of direct action motivated by near
11 Ibid. 12 Bauman, Globalization: Human Consequences, p. 59.
10 Benjamin Arditi
starvation and the desperation stemming from it, but also by a desire to restore
the working conditions of earlier times, which presupposed that a return to the
pre-industrial economy of small-scale producers and artisans was a viable
alternative. Marx and the International Working Men’s Association or First
International exemplified the other position. For them there was little or no room
for nostalgia since capitalism was here to stay, so the political task of the day
was not to destroy machines but to organize the resistance of the dispossessed
through trade unions and other movements. Their aim was to transform capitalism from within in order to build a more just and fraternal society. In the
celebrated opening lines of the Manifesto, their socialist and internationalist
project was the specter haunting Europe—or rather, the European ruling classes.
Polanyi sees the alternative in similar, yet less revolutionary terms, as he claims
that by the 1830s “[E]ither machines had to be demolished, as the Luddites had
tried to do, or a regular labor market had to be created. Thus was mankind
forced into the paths of a utopian experiment.”13
Today we face a similar challenge and a new specter, one haunting the
neoliberal efforts to reduce globalization to globalism. While globaliphobes—in
many ways the latter-day Luddites—see globalization as the ruse of capitalism
and call for a return to the state-centered and protectionist policies of the past,
others have chosen to become global warriors to transform the current state of
affairs. Like their socialist predecessors in the industrial age, the more lucid
critics of the global condition are not against globalization or trade per se. Just
like those who opposed Gulf War II were not always pacifists, in the sense that
many did not pose a moral injunction to war as such but only to a war that
lacked the moral and political legitimacy of a UN resolution, these critics are not
necessarily opposed to globalization but rather to globalism.14 They do not stand
in awe for the momentum it has gathered nor delude themselves about the
eventual disappearance of its negative effects either. They partake in the global
fray to modify the course of globalization from within. Global warriors aim to
bring about what Zincone and Agnew, in a felicitous play of words with the title
of Polanyi’s celebrated study of industrialization, call the political phase of the
“second great transformation.”15
We can read the latter as a move from globalism to globalization, which
amounts to an effort to politicize economic processes currently mystified as
either fact or fate. I propose a tentative typology of the initiatives undertaken by
global-minded actors. It functions as a provisional guideline to differentiate
forms of collective action that seek to modify the course of globalization. Their
common trait is the resistance to the Washington Consensus of the 1990s—captured in ATTAC’s slogan “The World is not for Sale”—in order to transform
13 Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time
(1944), foreword by Joseph E. Stiglitz and introduction by Fred Block (Boston: Beacon
Press, 2001), p. 85. 14 A similar point is made by Fabio de Nardis, “From Local to Global: Values and
Political Identity of the Young Participants in the European Social Forum,” paper
presented at the Sixth Conference of the European Sociological Association, Murcia,
Spain, September 23–26, 2003. 15 Zincone and Agnew, op. cit., pp. 7–8. Also Mary Kaldor, “‘Civilizing’ Globalization?
The Implications of the ‘Battle in Seattle’,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29:1
(2000), pp. 105–114.
From Globalism to Globalization 11
globalism from within and below. Their actions extend the political field—and
by implication, the scope of citizenship—beyond the enclosure of the nationstate. As in any classification, the boundaries between the various groupings are
somewhat porous, as initiatives tend to overlap and to appear conjointly. I will
distinguish six types, the first two being common to political activism more
Radical Direct Action
The lingering perception of the anti-globalization (i.e. anti- globalism) movement
consists of a string of cities—Seattle, Prague, Gothenburg, Genoa—accompanied
by images of sit-ins, smashed windows, street violence, police barricades, and
people being arrested. It also includes iconic referents like the destruction of a
McDonald’s restaurant in France led by Jose´ Bove´ and the Confe´de´ration
Paysanne to protest against the use of genetically modified foods. This imagery
is prevalent partly because street-based politics tends to be more salient and thus
the media picks on it as newsworthy. They are also the ones that instill most fear
in the hearts of governments, business leaders, and multilateral agencies more
accustomed to the logic of expert committees than to mass mobilizations,
although at times they embarrass and even undermine the strategic planning of
other global protesters too. That is why some might argue that many activist
groups lack a strategic political compass. This is correct, but it is not the full
story, as they range from strict globaliphobes to those with a clearer agenda for
transforming globalism. Examples of those who do have such an agenda are
those who participate in the World Social Forum of Porto Alegre, in the more
recent European Social Forum, which gathered nearly 60,000 people when
launched in Florence in November 2002, as well in other initiatives I will
mention shortly.16 Leading organizations associated with direct action include
the Ruckus Society, Global Exchange, and an array of anarchist groups like the
Black Bloc.17 One could also mention the “glocal” dimension of resistance, like
the international support for local struggles against privatized utility companies
in Third World countries. Here one can think of solidarity campaigns for the
Bolivian Water Wars of 2000 against a subsidiary of Bechtel Corporation in
Cochabamba, or for the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee set up to resist rate
increases of privatized state utilities in South Africa.18
16 See Fabio de Nardis, “Note Marginale del Forum Sociale Europeo,” Il Dubbio: Rivista
di Critica Sociale 3:3 (2002), 17 Jeffrey St. Clair, “Seattle Diary: It’s a Gas, Gas, Gas,” New Left Review 238 (1999),
p. 88; also “Hans Bennett Interviews Bobo,” Alternative Press Review 7:1 (2002), http:// The Ruckus Society (
index.html) has a training camp for direct action where “Participants split their time
between theoretical/strategic workshops focusing on a wide array of advanced campaign
skills and hands-on technical training in tactics for non-violent demonstrations. The
objective of each Action camp is to provide participants with the opportunity to share
strategies, facilitate leadership development, and build relationships that will help to
spawn more collaboration in the form of alliance, networks, and coalitions.” 18 For the Bechtel case, see For the
Soweto and other resistances to the privatization programs induced by the IMF and the
WB, see Paul Kingsnorth, “One No, Many Yesses: The Rise of the New Resistance
Movement,” June 2003,
12 Benjamin Arditi
Advocates of direct action—who can be violent or non-violent in their
expression of discontent with the order of things—are the generic equivalent of
the “dangerous classes” of 19th-century conservative discourse. Yet most movements and protests have a radical wing or radical strands among their ranks.
Luddites shunned negotiation or accommodation within the system, and promoted the destruction of machines instead of proposing an alternative to the
brutal exploitation of early capitalism. They ultimately failed, but theirs proved
to be a productive failure, for cotton merchants and politicians got the message
about the perils of excessive greed. New social movements have been perhaps
less destructive of private property, although the cathartic dimension of destruction should not be overlooked in mass protests. Yet they also appealed to radical
direct action to advance their cause—the antinuclear protests in Germany during
the 1970s and the guerrilla tactics of Greenpeace are typical examples. One can
agree or not with these “hot” actions, which are often accompanied by more
protests and slogans than by strategic proposals, but they play an important
role. They provide an initial momentum for resistances to globalism and for the
globalization of resistances, and therefore contribute to give visibility to the
political phase of the “second great transformation.” As Wallach says, sometimes direct action helps to cut through the arrogance of the international
bureaucracy.19 Experts of multilateral agencies often refuse to give any serious
thought to proposals of advocacy groups or stall them in the paper chase of
countless committees. As theorists of realpolitik have shown, a capacity for
disruption—which is a de facto veto power—serves as a bargaining tool, in this
case helping global warriors to get their case heard.
Viral Direct Action
The analogical model of these initiatives is the propagation of digital viruses
over the Web: once they start to circulate, whoever created them loses track of
how they propagate and cannot control who will get infected or when they will
be contained. Chain letters are a less damaging example of such dissemination.
Terrorist cells are a more threatening illustration. Viral action coincides with
what Deleuze and Guattari designate as a “rhizome,” a mode of organization
that lacks an “arborescent” or tree-like central structure connecting and directing
its parts.20 A rhizome links people and individuals, and facilitates further
links—independent initiatives generated by other groups and individuals—
without the usual hierarchies or infrastructure of more conventional social and
political organizations. The range of viral actions is quite broad. While it is not
confined to the “cool” medium of cyberspace, the latter provides interesting
examples. Some consist of gathering funds for relief operations or clicking on
websites like The Hunger Site ( to donate a cup of food,
a percentage of a mammogram, or to save a square foot of rainforest—all of this
free of cost for those who do so. Others include organizing independent boycotts
of firms employing child labor or sharing information and other resources for
19 Lori Wallach, “Lori’s War,” interview with Moise´s Naı´m, Foreign Policy 118 (2000),
p. 32. 20 Gilles Deleuze and Fe´lix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (London: Athlone Press,
1988), pp. 3–25.
From Globalism to Globalization 13
sponsoring initiatives or organizing protests. Among the latter, one could
mention the efforts of MoveOn (, which has an e-mail list with
1.8 million members) to organize an internet protest against the war on Iraq, or
to disseminate information linking the war with the “Project for a New American Century” and its goal of positioning the US as the unconditioned pole of the
new world order.21
The strategic matrix for this mode of action in cyberspace is electronic civil
disobedience (ECD). It was posed in the mid-1990s by the Critical Art Ensemble
as a way to match the de-centralized and de-territorialized nature of contemporary capitalism, particularly financial capital. Like all forms of radical direct
action, it eschews electoral and/or party politics. If the streets were the privileged sites of traditional civil disobedience, the non-physical cyberspace is the
milieu where ECD takes place. The rhizomatic structure of viral direct action is
clearly at work here, for instead of aiming for a mass movement of public
objectors, it favors a de-centralized flow of particularized micro-organizations.
“Hacktivism,” the recombinant encounter of technology-savvy hackers and
traditional political activists, is one of its modalities. In December 1997, the
Anonymous Digital Coalition called people to block access to websites of
Mexican financial institutions by repeatedly reloading them to protest the
massacre of indigenous people in Acteal, Chiapas, by pro-government paramilitary groups. The Electronic Disturbance Theatre, a pro-Zapatista group, developed the FloodNet software to engage in acts of ECD: in 1998, they flooded the
then President Ernesto Zedillo’s webpage with the list of people killed in Acteal.
In December 2000, the Electrohippies group organized a virtual “sit-in” of some
450,000 people to overload the WTO servers, and more recently, Our World Our
Say staged a 30,000 person virtual march on the US Embassy in London to
protest George W. Bush’s visit to the United Kingdom in November 2003.22
In addition to the obvious difficulty to measure their degree of success,
whether in the “cool” medium of cyberspace or as “hot” spaces of street actions,
a possible disadvantage of this type of initiatives is their inbuilt difficulty to
generate consensus or to develop and pursue what Gramsci would call a
“counter-hegemonic project.” However, this might not be such a bad thing. Viral
direct action can function both as an obstacle for large-scale institutional transformations and as an alternative to resource-heavy projects. Instead of aiming to
articulate a wide array of forces to reinstitute the political order or communal
21 This is available at For an analysis of this document,
see Benjamin Arditi, “Resisting an Unconditioned Pole: Global Politics in the Aftermath
of the Iraq War,” Signs of the Times, May 2003,
arditi.html. 22 Critical Art Ensemble, Electronic Civil Disobedience (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia,
1996), pp. 7–32, 57–69, and Digital Resistance (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1999), pp. 13–
27; Stefan Wray, “On Electronic Civil Disobedience,” 1998,
Wray_Essay.html, and “Electronic Civil Disobedience and the WWW of Hacktivism: A
Mapping of Extraparliamentarian Direct Action Net Politics,” Switch 4:2 (1998), http://; Electrohippies,
ehippies; David Cassel, “Hacktivism in the Cyberstreets,” May 30, 2000,
http://www.alternet,org/story.html?StoryID 9223, “Hacktivism and Technopolitics,”; Erika Pearson, The Digital is Political,
2000,; Barry Cox, “Hacktivism,” 2001,
14 Benjamin Arditi
space as a whole, the rhizome setup of viral action connects a myriad of local
and global initiatives—in cyber or physical space—without a master plan or a
central command structure. Groups and individuals can participate and share
resources on their own terms quickly, visibly, and cost-effectively by setting up
transient virtual communities of action that provide ad-hoc modes of participation for people who are neither militants nor committed activists. It is a
post-hegemony mode of political action, or at least a mode of intervention that
does not fit strictly within the logic of hegemony.
This is precisely what makes viral initiatives so useful. Despite appearances
to the contrary, those who stay away from politics are not necessarily apolitical.
Many still want to change the world, but not all the time, for they do not
conform to Rousseau’s idealized image of virtuous citizens who rush to assemblies when called. They might be unhappy with the available political options
yet lack the time, the resources, or the inclination to build institutional alternatives. This is not so much a proof of depoliticization as it is an indication that
dispersed people or loosely organized groups rarely count as political stakeholders. In a way, they live citizenship as functional denizens. The rhizome-structure
of viral direct action can contribute to counteract this experience of disenfranchisement. Signing a petition over the web, refusing to buy tuna cans that lack
the dolphin-friendly label, participating in boycotts of products imported from
countries with repressive regimes, joining a virtual sit-in, or taking to the streets
to join forces with those who oppose wars of aggression, enables people to
support a cause and intervene in the public sphere without the usual risks and
the costs—not to mention the complex logistics—associated with collective
action. Here “the public sphere” might be a misnomer, for viral action is often
a crossover between the public and the private. It engenders fleeting, ad-hoc
publics that appear whenever and wherever private individuals decide to act,
even if they only connect with others in the virtual communities resulting from
the circulation of a pamphlet or forwarded e-mails for a particular action.
Initiatives to Modify North–South Inequality
More institutional-oriented interventions include the campaigns to condone the
debt of poor countries or to allocate 0.7% of the GDP of developed countries to
international aid. One of the more ambitious initiative to foster equality is the
Tobin Tax Initiative ( supported by a wide array of networks
and organizations such as ATTAC, Global Exchange, the AFL-CIO, or The Tobin tax, named after the Nobel laureate economist who
first suggested it, aims to discourage the ubiquitous cross-border financial flows
carried out by currency speculators—estimated at 1.8 trillion US dollars daily—
by imposing a sales tax of 0.1 to 0.3% on each trade. Such a tax would generate
estimated revenues ranging from $100 to $300 billion yearly. As the main
financial markets are located in industrialized countries, this would amount to
a net transfer of resources to the developing world. These funds could be
earmarked for poverty eradication, disease prevention, and environmental programs. This is a far-reaching initiative and its advocates are aware of the
obstacles that stand in the way of its implementation. It requires extensive
lobbying and political mobilization, both to persuade legislatures and multilateral agencies to support it and to overcome the strong opposition of currency
From Globalism to Globalization 15
traders and the US-led efforts to peg bilateral trade agreements to the elimination of capital controls. It also has to sort out operational issues concerning the
collection and enforcement of the taxes.
TransFair USA, a non-profit organization that certifies products that comply
with the Fair Trade criterion, launched a more modest but currently more
successful initiative. It aims to improve the income of direct producers of coffee,
tea and bananas by lobbying mayor buyers to purchase them directly from small
agricultural cooperatives in Latin American, African and Asian countries instead
of ordering them through intermediaries. Coffee is the first item licensed
through this program. There are currently some 500,000 producers organized in
small and medium-sized democratically run cooperatives over an estimated four
million coffee growers worldwide. The average price they obtained in 2000 was
under $1.10 dollars per pound FOB, whereas by eliminating intermediaries, the
amount went up to $2.77.23 With the subsequent collapse of coffee prices in the
international markets, the Fair Trade price guarantees that direct producers will
receive $1.26 per pound FOB.24 In exchange, Starbucks, Safeways and other
participating companies are licensed to use the “Fair Trade Certified” label on
the coffee bags they sell to consumers worldwide.
One of the problems faced by TransFair is checking compliance, although it
is less daunting than in the case of, say, campaigns to eradicate child labor,
which require a continuous (and costly) monitoring of small shops and enterprises scattered across the globe. Moreover, the volume of trade handled by
TransFair is a relatively low at $400 million per year, yet its effects are broader
than the figures involved, if only because it has a visible impact on direct
producers living on or below the poverty line. Like all campaigns around social
labels, it serves to exert moral pressure on business conglomerates to adjust their
commercial practices to ethical codes of conduct, and to foster a semblance of
moral conscience among consumers whose overriding preoccupation with maximizing benefits is a strong disincentive for spontaneous altruistic behavior.
Initiatives to Expand the Public Sphere
There are many indicators of the growth of supranational initiatives and arenas.
Keohane and Nye speak of complex interdependence in the global age, in the
sense that we are witnessing the multiplication of the channels between societies, and of the number and the diversity of issues and participants in global
networks. They point out that the number of international NGOs increased from
6000 at the beginning of the 1990s to 26,000 by the end of the decade.25 Other
indicators are multilateral financial institutions, transnational professional associations, drug cartels, scientific and religious communities, loose coalitions of
those sharing lifestyles or cultural consumption, and so on.26 In a setting of
23 Margot Hornblower, “Wake up and Smell the Protest,” TIME, April 17, 2000, p. 37. 24 See 25 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not?
(And So What?),” Foreign Policy 118 (2000), pp. 115–116. Numbers alone should not blind
us to the fact that NGOs often compete among themselves for the end-users of their
services—the oppressed, the persecuted, the sick, and the hungry—and intervene with
their own agenda in the recipient country. 26 Beck, What is Globalization?, op. cit., pp. 12–13, 36.
16 Benjamin Arditi
complex interdependence, the initiatives of NGOs, social movements, and international advocacy networks also contribute to transform global politics from the
standpoint of civil society.27 They organize campaigns to stop torture and other
human rights abuses, lobby governments to introduce stricter environmental
regulations and ratify the Kyoto protocol on gas emissions or to suspend
military aid to repressive regimes, and struggle to open up the projects of
multilateral lending institutions to public scrutiny. Organizations like Me´decins
sans Frontie`rs, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, ATTAC, the Bretton Woods
Project, and Public Citizen are good examples. All this runs counter to the idea
that politics is enclosed within the nation-state or that whatever takes place
abroad must fall under the heading of foreign affairs.
In a way, these networks of non-traditional players bear a family relation
with viral direct action, at least in the sense that they have low levels of
formalization, membership is based on normative and strategic trust, exchange
information, have fairly open mechanisms of entry and exit, and set up joint
initiatives. They are, then, imaginary communities of people who want to
change the world. On the one hand, they seek to modify the public agenda and
influence political outcomes, but more importantly, they contribute to change
the terms and the nature of the debate and to shape the political arenas in which
they intervene.28 On the other hand, they presuppose a global public and aim to
expand its role. Their initiatives spread through the printed or electronic media
of countries where they act, but also through global information networks like
CNN, and now the Internet, used so effectively by the Zapatista guerrillas in
Mexico at least since 1996 to build international support for their cause and
disseminate information about human rights abuses in indigenous communities.
We have already seen some examples. Networks also take advantage of the new
technologies of communications and the aforementioned fall in the cost of air
travel to get together, organize protests, engage in lobbying, or set up other
domestic or international networks. This facilitates the tasks of activists like
those who coordinated the 1999 campaign against the WTO in Seattle, but also
of militants from a host of international terrorist organizations.
The combination of a physical presence as pressure groups (acting on their
governments, on other governments, or on multilateral agencies) and a virtual
presence in the media contributes to create a global public opinion. Like any
public opinion, it gives visibility to issues that are overlooked or ignored by
decision-makers. It serves as a moral counterweight for the actions of governments and multilateral organizations, and as an informational input to foster
deliberation among citizens and modify their cognitive maps. Its “moral” status
does not make it extra-political. As Manin says in relation to representative
government, public opinion seeks to counteract the partial autonomy of elected
representatives, for once in office they might not be compelled to follow that
27 See Craig Warkentin and Karen Mingst, “International Institutions, the State, and
Global Civil Society in the Age of the World Wide Web,” Global Governance 6 (2000),
pp. 237–257. 28 Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Without Borders: Advocacy Networks
in International Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998), pp. 2–5, 14–15,
34, 36–37.
From Globalism to Globalization 17
opinion, but they cannot ignore it either—or ignore it at their own risk.29 Global
public opinion is no different. Perhaps its distinctiveness is that it operates as a
de-territorialized moral force, or rather, as one that is largely unconcerned by
national borders.
Initiatives Seeking Accountability and Public Scrutiny of Multilateral Organizations
Critics of globalization insist on the democratic deficit of the international order,
particularly in the case of technical agencies like the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the WTO. They point out that policy
recommendations of these agencies affect the lives of millions of people, shape
the behavior of governments, and put an effective limit to the autonomy of
political leaders in the elaboration and implementation of domestic policies.
Their decisions, however, are not subjected to public scrutiny, and there are few
mechanisms to make them accountable for their consequences. Full transparency
is, of course, unlikely, as many of the negotiations into which they enter are by
definition opaque. Yet the question of scrutiny refers more specifically to the fact
that gross errors of estimation of a country’s reliability and risk—as happened
in the 1996–1998 Asian crisis—have little or no consequence for these agencies
or their resident experts.30 They need to be submitted to public scrutiny to
counteract policy recommendations that often amount to a thinly disguised
unilateral imposition on governments. Indeed, coalitions like those pieced together for the Seattle protests coalesce around the conviction that the democratic
deficit of the world order is neither necessary nor acceptable, and that we must
create rules capable of regulating international actors so that those who must
live with their decisions can hold them accountable.31
There are many proposals. Those by Jeffrey Sachs focus on the IMF.32 He
claims that it is too powerful and that no single agency should have responsibility for economic policy in half of the developing world. That is why he asks
that its executive board do its job of overseeing rather than rubber-stamping
staff proposals, consult with outside experts and canvas international opinion
and that its operations should be made public to guarantee professional debate
and review. “Global Trade Watch,” a division of Public Citizen, advocates a
series of changes to modify the WTO dispute settlement system. Wallach, its
director, cites two reasons for these changes. First, because the consultation
period involves a costly process of litigation in Geneva, something that poor
countries are in no condition to afford. And second, because if the consultation
is unsuccessful, the affected country must ask for the formation of a special
panel of people ill-suited for judging on issues concerning the social costs of
29 Bernard Manin, The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997). 30 Zincone and Agnew, op. cit., pp. 15–16; Stiglitz, op. cit., pp. 89ff. 31 Wallach, op. cit., pp. 35, 47, 54; also Richard Falk, “Meeting the Political Challenge
to Globalization,” Meeting Point, 2000,
2000/globalisation.html; Fred Halliday, “Getting Real about Seattle,” Millennium: Journal
of International Studies 29:1 (2000), pp. 123–129; and the Bretton Woods Project
(, the watchdog organization set up for monitoring and
influencing the projects, policy reforms and overall management of the IMF and the WB. 32 Jeffrey Sachs, “IMF is a Power unto Itself,” Financial Times, December 11, 1997.
18 Benjamin Arditi
trade policy or legislation. Its three members are selected from a roster made up
of previous employees and national delegates to the GATT, people who have
worked in ministries of finance or economics, or private attorneys specializing in
international trade.33 Wallach adds that their discussions, proceedings, and
documents are confidential, they are not obliged to seek outside expertise to deal
with issues of public health or genetically modified foods, and their decisions
enter into effect immediately. Contrary to what many would think, Public
Citizen does not propose a return to protectionism or the elimination of the
WTO, but rather to reform the latter so that social indicators are also taken into
account when they make decisions and more favorable terms of exchange for
developing countries can be secured.
Somewhat paradoxically, the defense of developing countries might also
prompt these critics to side with the WTO, if only to counteract the negative
effects of US-sponsored bilateral trade deals. Bhagwati and Panagariya point out
that by the end of 2002, the WTO had been notified of agreements to create 250
Free Trade Areas, which are exempted from the most favored nation rule that
ensures equal treatment within the WTO. By reaching one-on-one agreements,
they say, the US undermines the bargaining power of Third World countries in
multilateral negotiations, and by linking these bilateral agreements to the agenda
of domestic groups in the US, trade liberalization becomes an alibi for “the
capture, reshaping and distortion of the WTO in the image of American
lobbying interests.”34 One can see this at work in the negotiations for a Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); the US pressured Colombia and Peru to
leave the alliance led by Brazil, effectively weakening its bargaining power.35 In
the face of an unconditioned pole that wishes to impose the rules of the global
trade system, activists who do not oppose trade per se might find themselves in
the position of defending the WTO as a multilateral arena for scrutinizing and
contesting the policies of the sole remaining superpower.
Initiatives to Advance Democracy at a Supranational Level
Despite the lack of accountability of supranational actors, or precisely because of
it, democracy is a recurrent yet contested issue. Advocates of radical and viral
33 Lori Wallach, “The WTO’s Slow Motion Coup against Democracy,” Multinational
Monitor 20:10–11 (1999), pp. 27–29. 34 Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, “Bilateral Trade Treaties are a Sham,”
Financial Times, July 13, 2003, StoryFT&cid 1057562355896. They illustrate this with
two examples. One is that Mexico was forced to accept provisions for intellectual
property protection to close the deal on NAFTA, which placed the US in a position to
demand the same from other countries or face retaliatory tariffs. Eventually, it enabled
the US “to insert the trade-related intellectual property regime (TRIPs) into the WTO,
even though no intellectual case had ever been made that TRIPs, which is about royalty
collection and not trade, should be included.” The other is that while even the IMF does
not reject capital controls per se, the US conditioned trade agreements with Chile and
Singapore to the ban on capital controls. Both countries gave in to this demand, making
it more difficult for others to uphold capital controls in future multilateral trade
negotiations. 35 Tim Padgett and Andrew Downie, “Lula’s Next Big Fight,” TIME, November 24,
2003, pp. 46–47.
From Globalism to Globalization 19
direct action, together with those who aim to make international agencies more
transparent and accountable, demand more democracy in the global order.
Looking at the literature, one can see that mainstream thinkers tend to emphasize the liberal-democratic components of governance and representation,
whereas global activists are less troubled about the link between elections and
political participation. While Schmitter talks of the need to develop an institutional setting to strengthen citizen participation in the European Union (EU),
Held and others who speak of “cosmopolitan democracy” advance one of the
more cited projects of reform.36 They claim that the idea of autonomous
communities with their own endogenous agendas can no longer be reduced to
the territorial space of national states. In the past, the history and the practice of
democracy was based on the idea of locality, whereas the future of democracy
depends on its reorganization on a global scale because the site of effective
power no longer lies only in national governments. It is now shared by a series
of economic forces and regulative agencies outside the nation, as well as NGOs,
new regional blocs like the EU and MERCOSUR in South America, and a host
of other actors that must be taken into account in political calculation. Held is
aware of the deficit of supranational democratic institutions and insists in the
need to rethink the charter of the UN and other institutions to boost the
prospects of democracy on a global scale.37 That is why he invites us to rethink
the national criteria of democracy by adding to it regional parliaments, the
scrutiny of international organizations, and a greater influence of international
courts. His cosmopolitan democracy does not seek to create a Kantian league of
states but to secure greater public accountability, and thus to enhance the
democratic component of that order.38
One possible shortfall of this cosmopolitanism is that with the exception of
the experience of the EU after Maastricht, which allows citizens of member states
to vote and to be candidates in local elections of the country where they have
settled, the institutionalization of a genuinely supranational mode of citizenship
is incipient. Moreover, Schmitter and others argue that we still lack real
mechanisms of democratic representation outside the national state. The list of
institutions of cosmopolitan democracy, he says, is rather limited and the
evidence supporting the tendency toward it is based largely on functional
equivalents of both governance and democracy.39 With the notable, yet limited
exception of UN-sanctioned human rights and of some political rights in the EU,
we lack institutional arrangements outside the state capable of enforcing rights
36 Philippe Schmitter, “The Future of Democracy: Could it be a Matter of Scale?” Social
Research 66:3 (1999), pp. 933–958; David Held, “Democracy, the Nation state and the
Global System,” Economy and Society 20:2 (1991), pp. 130–172, and “Democracy: From
City-States to a Cosmopolitan Order?” in Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1993), pp. 13–52; Daniele Archibugi, David Held and Martin
Ko¨hler (eds), Re-imaging Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1998); David Held, “Regulating Globalization?” in D. Held and
Anthony McGreen (eds), The Global Transformations Reader (Cambridge: Polity Press,
2000), pp. 420–430. 37 David Held, “Democracy and Globalization,” in Archibugi et al., op. cit., pp. 25–26. 38 Held, “Democracy: From City-States to a Cosmopolitan Order?” op. cit., p. 41;
Archibugi et al., op. cit., p. 4. 39 Schmitter, “The Future of Democracy: Could it be a Matter of Scale?” op. cit.,
pp. 939–940.
20 Benjamin Arditi
and obligations associated with citizenship. To be fair, though, Held speaks of
cosmopolitan democracy as a political project to reform the international order
and not as an actually existing reality, so it is perhaps premature to expect the
institutional framework demanded by critics. Having said this, we should add
a note of caution about the prospects of such democratization given the obstacles
it faces, especially when considering the refusal of the US to endorse the
International Criminal Court or its willingness to go to war in Iraq without the
endorsement of the UN Security Council.40
Supranational Arenas, Informal Global Citizenship and a Progressive Agenda
The range of these initiatives tells us something about the current state of a
politics of resistance. As they reactivate the question of globalization, the new
internationalists spearhead a “second great transformation”—less as a model
than as a horizon—that puts into play the ground rules of globalism championed by neoliberal rhetoric. I will draw from the preceding discussion to suggest
a set of coordinates that map the political contours of this horizon, and also fuel
the return of a progressive agenda to counteract conservative complacency. The
first and more obvious one refers to the expansion of the political frontier
through the creation of supplementary supranational arenas. The literature usually cites the case of the EU or agreements concerning international tribunals,
but the initiatives developing from below the intergovernmental level seek to
both modify the current forms and rhythms of globalization and to expand the
idea of citizenship beyond the framework of the nation-state. Global actors often
disregard the assumption that ties politics to a state-centered political cartography and therefore dispute the liberal enclosure of politics within the physical
setting of the nation-state. That is why Virilio suggests that we are now more
exposed to the end of geography than to the end of history.41 They are carving
up supranational spaces of political exchange, new sites for the enactment of
collective forms of resistance, confrontation, negotiation, and innovation that
may (or may not) become formalized as legally sanctioned institutional domains.
Yet even if they do not, the challenge to globalism effectively destabilizes the
frontiers between the public and the private, and between the political and the
Second, let us concede these initiatives and organizations can be political
without always being democratic, either because they fail to represent any actual
constituency, lack participatory decision-making mechanisms, or are run by
self-perpetuating cliques that are not subjected to public scrutiny by the membership. They would merely reinforce Roberto Michels’ iron rule of oligarchy.
However—and this is an important qualification—those that are democratic and
seek to expand democracy do so without always invoking the electoral format
of liberal democracy. This is not because elections are outdated or have been
superseded by other forms of political participation. Elections at a supranational
level are very much at the center of the debate on democratic participation and
40 For more on this point, see Arditi, “Resisting an Unconditioned Pole: Global Politics
in the Aftermath of the Iraq War,” op. cit. 41 Paul Virilio, “Fin de l’histoire ou fin de la ge´ographie?”
From Globalism to Globalization 21
accountability, notably in the case of the European Union, but they do not exhaust
the multiple forms of participation and accountability in the global setting. This is
because involvement in public affairs at a supranational level deepens the gap
between the concept of democracy and the position of citizen-voter. Bobbio once
observed that from the late 19th to the mid-20th century the thrust of the
democratic demand was reflected in the phrase “who votes,” whereas today
democracy has undergone a transformation whereby the key question is “on what
issues one can vote.”42 While voting seems to remain as the independent variable
in this shift from “who” to “what,” it is no longer restricted to the election of
representatives as it now refers to the issues that are open to discussion and
participation. This might be Bobbio’s way of telling us that “representation” does
not exhaust the semantic field of “democracy,” or rather, of reminding us of the
excess of participation over elections without endorsing a model of direct democracy. Activists want to have a say in political decisions, scrutinize the practices of
major global players like multilateral organizations or business conglomerates,
and hold them accountable for their policy recommendations. Yet they want to do
so primarily by instituting mechanisms to control and regulate their field of action
rather than by subjecting them to electoral scrutiny. That is why participation in
supranational arenas can be democratic and post-liberal.
Third, a model of citizenship restricted to the nation-state is being challenged
daily even if it is premature to claim that we are already on the threshold of
global citizenship. The idea of citizenship was born in the struggle against
monarchical absolutism to set up the rules defining the relations between the
individual and public authorities in the secularized territory of the nation-state.
It empowered city dwellers by gradually legitimizing what Arendt calls “the
right to have rights” or, in Balibar’s more politically charged language, by giving
birth to the idea of subjects who resist their subjection and therefore perform
their own emancipation.43 This has lost none of its political or intellectual
purchase among global warriors. The point of contention is whether the absence
of non-state mechanisms to validate rights and redress wrongs prevents us from
talking about supranational citizenship. My view is that it does not, or rather
that this absence does not stop people from exercising it in an informal or de facto
manner with a real impact on outcomes. Even within nation-states, we find
subjects who are not always authorized yet are often acknowledged as actors in
the public sphere even though they fall outside the legal framework of citizenship—undocumented migrants, Roma people, and so on. Moreover, the nominal, state-sanctioned idea of citizenship itself is no guarantee for the respects of
the rights associated with it. Outside pressure often contributes to validate them
or at least curbs blatant forms of repression. This is precisely what prompted
human rights activists to create Amnesty International. Campaigns set up by
activists in different countries have been decisive to get governments to modify
their treatment of dissidents or respect women’s rights. Thus, one should not
confuse the informal status of supranational citizenship with its ineffectiveness.
42 Norberto Bobbio, Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), pp. 156–157. 43 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harvester, 1973); Etienne
Balibar, “Subjection and Subjectivation,” in Joan Copjec (ed.), Supposing the Subject
(London: Verso, 1994), pp. 8–9.
22 Benjamin Arditi
Fourth, in addition to their efforts to expand the scope of publicness and
participation, the new global warriors reintroduce the socialist preoccupation
with social justice and solidarity into the political agenda. They do so by
drawing from the Marxist heritage, yet without following a Marxist political
script. By and large, the identity of cross-border coalitions and protest movements is not posed in terms of working-class resistance, their logic of collective
action is not framed in terms of class warfare, and their effort to counteract the
unequal exchange between North and South does not aim to suppress free trade
or private enterprise. The specter of socialism, or of the imaginary fostered by
the socialist tradition, is re-entering the public scene in the shape of a new,
loosely assembled internationalism that seeks to counteract the weight of its
conservative counterpart in order to address questions of equality and solidarity
on a global scale. The new internationalists are concerned with North–South
inequality, with the standing of borders with regard to immigrants from the
capitalist periphery, and with AIDS, gender mutilation, child slavery, and so on.
As Derrida put it, this new internationalism calls for a solidarity “of which no
state, no party, no syndicate, no civic organization really takes charge,” for it is
made up of all those “who suffer and all those who are not insensitive to the
dimension of these urgent issues.”44 The new internationalists, then, are firing
the opening salvos of the political phase of the second “great transformation” by
moving things beyond the ideology and the practice of globalism.
Finally, the emerging supranational arenas and initiatives are neither the
destiny of politics nor the replacement of liberal democracy. Instead, they are the
more recent symptoms of the migratory arc exhibited by politics since the dawn
of modernity. This migratory arc manifests itself through a continual colonization of new territories, and its itinerary is marked by three salient moments.45 It
begins with Leviathan, the metaphor of the sovereign state coined by Hobbes to
describe a model in which the state seeks to become the sole subject of politics,
that is, to hegemonize the political. The second moment is the offspring of
democratic liberalism in its drive to displace politics into the field of elections
and partisan competition. Here the political is no longer hegemonized by the
state but by territorial representation. The third, ongoing moment, consists of a
double migration, first into the supposedly apolitical space of civil society
through the endeavors of new social movements, and then toward arenas
outside the nation-state through the initiatives of the new internationalists. The
corollary of this continual displacement of politics is that instead of a liberal end
of history, contemporary politics is starting to look more like a post-liberal
archipelago of interlocking tiers. In this archipelago, the liberal format of
electoral politics and partisan competition within the nation-state coexists with
a second tier of social movements (and organizations) and with the supranational arenas that are being opened up by the new internationalists as they claim
and exercise an informal global citizenship.
44 Jacques Derrida, “Intellectual Courage: An Interview,” Culture Machine, 2000, http:/
/ Also J. Derrida, Specters of Marx (Routledge: London and New York, 1994), pp. 85–86. 45 This migratory arc and its three moments is developed in Benjamin Arditi, “The
Becoming-Other of Politics: A Post-Liberal Archipelago,” Contemporary Political Theory 2:3
(2003), pp. 307–326.

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Buy Custom Essay

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Globalization: The Politics of Resistance1
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects


Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.


Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!


While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.


Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.


In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.


Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.


We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!


We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.


Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

  • When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
  • We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

  • The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
  • We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
  • Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment  Help Service Works

1.      Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2.      Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3.      Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4.      Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

smile and order essaysmile and order essay PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

order custom essay paper