The victory of Brexit and the election of Trump drastically affected the New World Order by explicitly questioning globalisation. The reason in both cases is the strong popular resistance lurking in the background working towards economic and national sovereignty as the necessary condition for self-determination and radical social change.
Despite the mass campaign by the elites against the Brexit revolution and the corresponding revolution in the USA, their dreams of reversing both seem to be in serious difficulty, as the electors’ vote in USA showed, and, also, corresponding developments in Britain where the legalistic attempts to reverse Brexit seem to be foundering. The reason in both cases is the strong popular resistance lurking in the background. This is because contrary to the disorienting myths of the globalist “Left”, (i.e. the “Left” which is fully integrated into the New World Order of neoliberal globalisation that emerged following the collapse of “actually existing socialism” and the massive expansion of multinationals) both revolutions represent in fact the victory of the victims of globalisation against the beneficiaries from it. It is in fact the abysmal failure of this “Left” to recognise this radical development, which has led to its political demise, with most of its ex-supporters in the working class presently moving en masse to the rising neo-nationalist movements.
Trump’s victory in the Presidential Election simply confirmed the fact, recognised even by systemic writers, that the movement for Brexit in Britain, as well as the movement for Trump in the United States and similar movements all over Europe, are in fact all parts of a rising new anti-globalisation movement which began in Europe in the last few years and has spread all over the world. It is the same new anti-globalisation movement, which led, a couple of weeks ago, to the defeat of the pro-EU plebiscite in Italy, which in fact aimed to increase the powers of the local executive organs of the Transnational Elites (mainly based in the G7 countries) to impose the dictates of the New World Order. This new movement is a global movement of the victims of globalisation – who constitute the vast majority of the world population – for economic and national sovereignty, as the necessary condition for self-determination and radical social change.
However, most of the Left, which traditionally had fought for the liberation of the victims of the capitalist system, particularly the working class, today, has been fully integrated into the NWO of neoliberal globalisation, which is, the latest version of this system, and cannot even think of questioning globalisation and its institutions — the EU, WTO, IMF, WB, NATO etc. – as well as the multinationals and the elites running it. Instead, this globalist “Left” simply criticises what it considers to be the system’s “excesses” (i.e. systemic symptoms, like “austerity”) and sides fully with the beneficiaries of globalisation – that is, the upper classes and that part of the middle classes which has not been pauperised during globalisation – in expressing their desire to improve the present NWO rather than overthrow it.
At the same time, in the absence of any Left political expression for the rising “from below” strong anti-globalisation movement, the victims of globalisation, including the remnants of the old working class, inevitably, moved to the emerging neo-nationalist parties, which of course, are not anti-capitalist parties but at least fight against globalisation in a consistent way, adopting in the process, particularly in cases like Le Pen’s FN in France, many of the traditional demands of the Left. As it is well known, the old working class in advanced capitalist countries rapidly diminished during the de-industrialisation of the last four decades or so, when a new phenomenon characterising the globalisation era emerged: the multinational corporation.
The neo-nationalist parties that emerged in the globalisation era usually have little relation to the old nationalist parties that usually appeared at the time when nation-states were being created, often with the explicit aim to help the building of such nation-states. As such, the old nationalist movements were aggressive movements against other peoples. In contrast, neo-nationalist movements are in effect defensive movements fighting for the restoration of economic and national sovereignty, which is brutally phased out by the transnational elites in the globalisation era.
In other words, in the NWO, the peoples’ need for self-determination had no other outlet but the nation-state. Particularly so, 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. Therefore, the nation-state became today, yet again, a means for national liberation as it used to be in the early 20th century, a means of self-determination for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The difference is that the struggle for the nation-state today, and generally the struggle for national and therefore economic sovereignty, is seen today not as an end in itself, as in the past, but as the necessary condition (though obviously not the sufficient one as well) for social liberation. This is also why, 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 restore social services, the demand to minimise the power of the elites and even anti-war demands.
At the same time, the politically correct globalist “Left” (i.e. the “Left” which, directly or indirectly, has adopted the ideology of globalisation) supported all wars of the Transnational elites during the globalisation era (from Yugoslavia up to Libya and Syria) and in the USA supported even one of the leading players in these criminal wars – as the “least evil”: Hillary Clinton! No wonder this kind of “Left” is utterly discredited to the eyes of the victims of globalisation and is theoretically and politically bankrupt. Not surprisingly, also, the same globalist “Left” presently attacks those among the victims of globalisation, who used to be its supporters (unemployed ex-workers and so on), as nationalists, if not as racists and fascists. Having said this, it is hardly surprising, given the political origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, that elements of the old nationalist ideology had penetrated them, (e.g. various Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends), which then provide the excuse to the elites and the media to dismiss these movements in toto as “far right”, anti-immigrant, racist etc. However, it can easily be shown that the refugee problem itself is also part and parcel of globalisation and of the “4 freedoms” (capital, labour, goods and services) that its ideology preaches. In other words, the anti-immigrant nature of several neo-nationalist movements arises out of the economic consequences of globalisation rather than out of any racist or anti-immigrant beliefs of their supporters.
All this means that neither Trump, nor his likes in Europe (Farage, Le Pen, Grillo and so on) can be credited for the creation of the mass popular anti-globalisation movement itself, which is flourishing today all over Europe and beyond. In fact, all these politicians simply tried to exploit, for electoral reasons, the rising world-wide movement against globalisation, while at the same time diverting it to a parallel movement they promote: neo-nationalism. It is therefore only to the extent that these politicians express the real demands of the new anti-globalisation movement that the victims of globalisation support them.
Another by-product of the above analysis is that to simply characterise Trump as a protectionist betrays, at best, an ignorance of the fundamental differences between protectionism and old nationalism (which were both phenomena of the nation-states era) and neo-nationalism, which is basically a movement that arose out of the economic and cultural effects of globalisation, particularly the liberalisation of labour markets, so that labour could become more competitive. The victory of Brexit in the UK and the election of Trump in the USA drastically affected the NWO by explicitly questioning globalisation. Both phenomena also constitute major social revolutions from below, against the concerted attack of the transnational elites (political, economic, cultural, academic and media) to complete the globalisation process and lead to the creation of a system of global governance.
Of course, the differences between Hillary and Trump are much deeper than just free trade. In fact, as it was rightly pointed out, the hard difference between Hillary who “has done nothing but advocate or agree to endless US-led war crimes without any life gain but only mass murder, social ruin and terror which she ignores” and Trump – which is also the difference between him and his Republican predecessors – is “Trump’s denunciation of NAFTA and willingness to have peace with other nations not bowing to Uncle Sam”. This difference, plus – I would add – Trump’s determination to neutralise, if not abolish, TPP and TTIP, are defining the main aim of the counter-revolution against Trump. Needless to add that the globalist “Left” simply ignores these crucial differences and sides with his haters who, as Prof. John McMurtry also stressed, “cannot say this [as] they stick to the politically correct repudiations, and call him ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘bigot’ and so on, even if the conclusion does follow from what he says or does. Selected instances are the ruling fallacy here.”
There is no doubt therefore that the election of Trump, as well as the vote for Brexit, represented a kind of popular revolution, as each signaled the peoples’ revolt against globalisation and the elites’ plans for global governance. Below is a first-hand description (in the conservative Times) of how working class people (who, effectively, have given up voting long ago, both in Britain and the USA, having concluded that elections cannot change anything), decided to try the election process and they won against all the odds! That is, against the combined forces of all parties (even the Republican Party turned against its own candidate!), against all media, against most academics (including “Left” Nobel prize winners), against Hollywood and the entire culture industry and, of course, against the middle classes, apart from that part which became a victim of globalisation:
The Trump effect is more than, as the man himself put it, “Brexit plus plus plus”. It is nothing less than a revolution, not just in American and global politics, but in the way we see politics and in the way we do politics. I saw first-hand in Mississippi how Donald Trump had rallied thousands and thousands of people to his banner; a forgotten generation of voters who had given up on elections long ago after being trodden down by the inexorable march of globalisation, but bursting with patriotism and enthusiasm now that they had found a candidate who would speak for them. Mr Trump reached these people by breaking the mould. The legacy media wanted no part of him, and American broadcasting rules allowed them to be even more obviously biased against his campaign than they were against Brexit in the UK.
In fact, this is far from an isolated incident and every honest journalist who attended similar gatherings in both the UK and US reported exactly the same picture of a revolutionary atmosphere prevailing among the victims of globalisation. John Harris, for instance, in the flagship of globalist “Left”, who visited the Brexit areas as well as the areas who voted for Trump had drawn the same conclusion in an article subtitled “Workers I met in Indiana were as much victims of globalisation as those in Stoke or Merthyr Tydfil”.
Of course, this was not a revolution of the kind we saw in the last three centuries or so, as part of the revolutionary era that began in the 17th century and probably ended in the last century. It is clear that, following the collapse of “actually existing socialism”, this kind of revolution is not possible any more, at least in any country fully integrated into the NWO of neoliberal globalisation with a relatively strong middle class. Yet, this does not rule out insurrections, or even electoral “revolutions”, such as Brexit or “Trumpism”, where the electorates turn against the entire establishment, rejecting any kind of elites (political, economic, cultural, media etc.) The fact that both Brexit and Trumpism signal a new era, as every revolution has done in the past, was well summarised by another analyst who is also the founder of Leave.UK:
No more NΑΤΟ massing troops on Russia’s borders to stir up the tensions which justify its existence. No more casual acceptance of mass immigration, persistent low-level terrorism and the erosion of national identity as “the normal” in the West. We’re on the cusp of a new era, and we’ll know soon if the crest of the Trump wave is about to break on Paris and Berlin, too.
Clearly, therefore, this process has nothing to do with what the British government, or the new US Administration, for that matter, will do, or will not do, in the future. Neither Farage nor Trump nor Le Pen are leaders of this global movement. This is obviously a leaderless global movement expressing concrete demands for national and economic sovereignty, which is exactly the form that the struggle for self-determination takes in the globalisation era.
This article is based on the author’s new book under the title The New World Order in Action: Globalization, The Brexit Revolution and the “Left”, (Progressive Press, November 2016) which has just been published in a second edition (December 2016) with a new chapter on the Brexit Revolution in the USA. The book is available on Amazon (UK and US)
About the Author
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher and economist who founded the inclusive democracy movement. He is noted for his synthesis of the classical democracy with the libertarian socialism and the radical currents in the new social movements in Towards An Inclusive Democracy (London & New York: Cassell, 1997). He is the editor of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (which succeeded Democracy & Nature). He was previously (1969 1989) Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London.
1. see ch 3, “The phasing out of national sovereignty in the NWO and the rise of neo-nationalism”
2. Prof. John McMurtry, “President Trump: Big Liar Going to Washington or Tribune of the People?”, Global Research, 10/11/2016 http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-trump-big-liar-going-to-washington-or-tribune-of-the-people/5556141
4. Arron Banks, “We’re on the cusp of a new era”, The Times, 10/11/2016
5. John Harris, “The reasons for Trump are also the reasons for Brexit”, The Guardian, 11/11/2016
6. Arron Banks, “We’re on the cusp of a new era”, op.cit.