P OL I T ICS: 2004 VO L 24(2), 143153

State of the Art Resistance to Neoliberal Globalisation: A Case of Militant Particularism?

Sam Ashman1
University of Birmingham

This article seeks to help redress the relative lack of discussion of the movement against neoliberal globalisation and the relative lack of empirical work about this movement. Firstly it argues that this movement is not opposed to globalisation per se but instead is developing a new internationalism in the course of challenging the neoliberal nature of contemporary globalisation. Secondly it argues that this challenge is producing a universalising dynamic which is moving the movement beyond being a series of isolated militant particularist struggles. The article uses interviews with leading participants within the movement to help clarify these arguments.

Introduction
There is a growing literature attempting to understand recent resistance to neoliberal globalisation (for example, Gills, 2000; Rupert, 2000; Morton, 2002).2 There is also a wide body of literature analysing social movement activity and global civil society actors (Della Porta and Diani, 1999; Della Porta and Kriesi, 1999; Cohen and Rai, 2000; Pieterse, 2001; Scholte, 2002) who are altering earlier agendas for social change and political engagement (Cohen and Rai, 2000, p. 1). These social movements are composed of overlapping networks and coalitions of activists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs): churches, human rights groups, indigenous peoples movements, environmentalists, womens organisations, labour movements, old left forces and parties, anti-racist groups, pro-democracy campaigners, peace groups, HIV activists, socialists, anarchists, small farmers and others (see, for example, Scholte, 2002). There is less analysis, however, of the alliance between social movements which has created what the media calls the anti-globalisation movement but which many participants refer to as the movement of many movements (Klein, 2001a) or simply the movement (Klein, 2001b). This movement, as seen since the protests in Seattle, has simultaneously mounted a generalised attack and advances specic causes (Cohen and Rai, 2000, p. 16). David Graeber (2002, p. 61) argues that it has in a mere two or three years managed to transform completely the sense of historical possibilities for millions across the planet. Munck (2002), in his consideration of this movement, contends that to be against globalisation is not, I would argue, a fruitful position. He suggests We need to move beyond the simple binary oppositions of globalisation from above
Political Studies Association, 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

144

SAM ASHMAN

versus globalisation from below or even the simpler global = bad, local = good. Munck also points to a new universalism embedded in the notion of a global social movement and expresses scepticism about this as the concept of universality lying behind such cosmopolitan politics is neither simple nor innocent. I argue that issues about the nature of this movement merit clarication. In an article of this nature and length it is not possible to provide a full treatment of the movement. Instead I seek to inject greater clarity into proceedings by taking up the challenge posed in the above two questions from a theoretical perspective informed by David Harvey and Stephen Gill. In the rst section I address the question of whether the movement is against globalisation. Then in the second section I address whether it is universalist or particularist. I use interviews with prominent gures in the movement mainly but not exclusively from Europe in order to help clarify the answers.3 I argue that the movement is not simplistically opposed to globalisation per se but, through its insistence on the necessity of global resistance, is producing a new internationalism. I then use Harveys development of Raymond Williamss concept of militant particularism (Harvey, 2001a and 2001b) to explore the question of universalism and particularism and to argue that a universalising dynamic is a welcome characteristic of the movement of movements before nally reaching some conclusions.

Is the movement against globalisation?

The movement is considerably more complex than the label anti-globalisation suggests. Both those writing about the movement and participants within the movement have pointed to how one of the dening features of this movement is its diversity (e.g. Bello, 2002). Some strands within the movement explicitly want to return to the local (see, for example, Hines, 2000) who Desai and Said (2001, p. 65) have called isolationists. Yet this is, arguably, a minority position. Many others in the movement are in fact rather more in favour of globalisation of people, ideas, resources and wealth than governments and institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (Graeber, 2002). As Desai and Said acknowledge (2001, p. 51), protesters rarely attack globalisation as such, targeting instead corporate globalisation, global capitalism, the neoliberal order, multinational companies, international nancial institutions, and trade agreements. The parochial connotations of the term anti-globalisation have led many in the movement to distance themselves from it. Vittorio Agnoletto (interview, 2002) says, we are not no-global. We are for a different globalisation of human rights. Nicola Bullard (interview, 2002) says, I have no problem with the term anticapitalist. Anti-globalisation is more problematic because the movement is obviously internationalist. Susan George (interview, 2002) prefers neoliberal globalisation, although it is the latest incarnation of capitalism, there is no doubt about that. Walden Bello (interview, 2002) says he would describe the movement as against corporate-driven globalisation and for people-centred development. Christophe Aguiton (interview, 2002) prefers the term corporate globalisation and Chris Nineham (interview, 2002) argues, we need terms that are inclusive. Corporate globalisation and neoliberalism are the most inclusive.
Political Studies Association, 2004.

STATE OF THE ART

145

There are now numerous overlapping and competing labels for the movement which include the global justice movement, citizens movement, Seattle movement, post-Seattle movement, movement against corporate capitalism, anticapitalism, movement for social justice, global democracy movement and more (Caygill, 2002). This does not mean that the term anti-globalisation is not used within the movement. Graeber (2002, p. 63) writes of how it is common in meetings to hear speakers using globalisation movement and anti-globalisation movement pretty much interchangeably. Instead of characterising the movement as against globalisation, I argue that there is the emergence of a new internationalism (see De Angelis, 2000 for a similar argument) as seen through the movements campaigns, its points of reference and its mobilisations. A few examples perhaps sufce: 1 Globalisation of resources: ATTAC the Association pour la Taxation des Transactions Financiers pour lAide aux Citoyens campaigns for a Tobin tax on international nancial speculation, the proceeds from which could be redirected to international organisations for activities aimed at ghting inequality, promoting education and public health in poor countries and food security and sustainable development (quoted in Desai and Said, 2001, p. 69). Campaigns to end thirdworld debt are similarly about the redistribution of global resources. 2 Defence of migrants and refugees: the three central themes of the European Social Forum in Florence in November 2002 were opposition to neoliberalism, racism and war (author present). The series of demonstrations against the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001 began with a march in defence of refugees (author present) and many prominent gures attack the double standards of free movement of capital whilst there are restrictions on the movement of human beings (for example Bourdieu, 1998). 3 Solidarity with resistance in both north and south: this remains an important source of motivation and inspiration for activists, including the EZLN rebellion in Chiapas, the resistance of the Ogoni people to Shell or Enrons Narmada Valley dam project in the Indian state of Maharashtra; the struggles of the landless in Brazil; support for the Palestinians; solidarity with and between small farmers facing multinational corporations attempts to patent seeds, or with those campaigning against the patenting of AIDS drugs in South Africa. 4 Opposition to war and imperialism: the assembly of the social movements which ended the European Social Forum called for a co-ordinated day of action across Europe on 15 February 2003 to protest against war on Iraq (author present). Bullard (interview, 2002) says, it is very important to be against war, but it is also a very important point of mobilisation for the movement. Post-September 11th we saw that great expression: the steel st in the invisible hand of the market and this has enabled us to make very important links between the different sectors of the movement and at the same time it shows the real necessity of war for this kind of capitalism. Walden Bello (interview, 2002) says, unless you also target the structures of military and political power that are responsible for US domination you wont get far in your anti-corporate struggles. I think over the last year this has been a very positive development: the linking of the movement for peace with the movement against corporate-driven globalisation.
Political Studies Association, 2004.

146

SAM ASHMAN

Taken together, these themes show that it is inappropriate to consider the movement as against globalisation and that the idea of a new internationalism captures its direction far better.

Protectionism
What about the question of protectionism? It is certainly true that many in the movement challenge the benets of free trade and the supposed causal link between openness and economic growth, as many academic authors have done (for example, Weeks, 2001; Kiely, 2002). This opposition to free trade has led some to argue that the movement is therefore protectionist or that this stance can lead only to a reactionary localism. Desai, for example, argues that opposition to free trade is opposition to the development of the south, and that capitalism can lead to growth in countries which are willing to trade (Desai, 2000, p. 44). Pieterse (2001, p. 35) claims the political effect of anti-globalisation is likely to remain limited and indirect. It is likely to take the form of localism, for instance in the form of new protectionism. Colin Hines and Tim Lang both associated with the movement to a degree have argued explicitly for a new protectionism (Hines and Lang, 1993) and localisation of production. But, as already noted, this is by no means a universally shared position. Opposition to neoliberal free trade is not inherently protectionist. Rupert (2001), in his analysis of what might be called the prehistory of Seattle, examines how the debate over free trade in North America in the early 1990s produced both a right-wing, xenophobic and protectionist response and also brought together disparate progressive groups. The latter were united by their fear that free trade agreements would institutionalise the power of capital and would result in the degradation of the environment, health and safety regulations, union rights, consumer protection standards and jobs (see also Broad and Cavanagh, 2000; Bond, 2000). Rupert (2001, p. 65) describes these debates as occasions when central tensions of liberal capitalism long dormant within the terms of the post-war hegemonic order were once again represented in public discourse as open questions, terrains of active socio-political struggle. It was during the course of the campaign of opposition to NAFTA and GATTWTO that activists developed an understanding of the need to counter the mainstream vision of globalisation with a vision of globalisation from below (Brecher, Childs and Cutler, 1993). This, of necessity, entailed a vision of unity between peoples of north and south. Others within the movement have argued that neoliberal free trade is not about freedom to trade but is specically about the deregulation of the obstacles in the way of multinationals ability to trade and that the globe needs more rules-based trade instead (see, for example, Monbiot, 2000; 2003). Other positions are just more complex than the label protectionist implies. Walden Bello has been classied as an isolationist (Desai and Said, 2001) and a statist (Green and Grifth, 2002) and he advocates deglobalisation (2002). This, he argues (2002, p. 113) is not about withdrawing from the international economy. It is about reorienting economies from that emphasis on production for export to
Political Studies Association, 2004.

STATE OF THE ART

147

production for the local market. He supports local sources of nance, not foreign investment; income and land redistribution to stimulate the local market; less emphasis on growth per se without regard for the environment; subjection of the market and the state to civil society control; and the exclusion of transnational corporations (Bello, 2002, p. 113; see also Kiely, 2002). Yet protectionist, statist and isolationist seem insufcient terms for someone who argues that global social movements are opposing national policies and suggesting alternatives at the same time as they are hooking up with networks of likeminded activists and groups abroad to challenge transnational structures of power. There is a very good sense that the transnationalisation of the global economy necessitates a transnational response (interview, 2002). Munck (2002) argues that US unions quickly distanced themselves from the movement following Seattle and rediscovered their natural protectionist vocation by lobbying against Chinas entry into the WTO. Others emphasise a move from competitiveness to greater solidarity at the rank and le level of the trade union movement in the US (Rupert, 2001; Rupert and Solomon, 2002) as does Moodys vision of social movement unionism (1997). Rather than understand recent resistance to neoliberal globalisation as stemming from a simplistic opposition to bad globalisation connected to protectionist opposition to free trade, I argue that the movement is better understood in terms of the four contradictions set out by Gill (2000, p. 135) which link together diverse forces in opposition to disciplinary neoliberalism (Gill, 1995). These contradictions can be summarised as: 1 the contradiction between big capital and democracy: this can be seen in the extension of binding trade and investment agreements like GATT, NAFTA and the power of organisations like the WTO to institutionalise rights for big corporations and strengthen particular class interests; 2 growing economic and social inequality whilst stock markets boom: the increasing rate of exploitation, intensication of discipline on labour and falling real incomes which disciplinary neoliberalism produces in part explains the involvement of organised labour in a number of protests and other workers, peasants and small producers worldwide; 3 the increasing burden on women produced by structural adjustment: as health, welfare and educational provision has been reduced the impact has disproportionately fallen on women; 4 diversity versus monoculture: socio-cultural and biological diversity is being replaced by corporate social and biological monoculture which is linked to a loss of food security and increased health risks from genetically modied crops, privatised water supplies and patented seeds (see also Ashman, 2001; Shiva, 2002). The political monoculture of the mainstream media has also been challenged by the new forms of indymedia that have emerged with the movement. I argue that it is these contradictions which underpin the desire amongst activists, NGOs, social movements and trade unionists for united activity. This united activity has produced the movement of movements, has changed the form of the politics of resistance and is creating a new dialectic between the global and the local as sites of that resistance.
Political Studies Association, 2004.

148

SAM ASHMAN

Is the movement universalist or particularist?

This question relates to broader issues within social theory. Universalist claims are particularly associated with what are often termed old social movements, particularly the socialist movement, in contrast to the new social movements which arose in the late 1960s and which are associated more with politics based on identity and difference as in the womens movement and the black movement (Della Porta and Diani, 1999; Cohen and Rai, 2000). The critique of the universalist claims of old social movements mounted by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) was reinforced by postcolonial writers like Spivak (1988). Universalism became identied with a particular drive to dominate and not with emancipatory politics, whilst the particularities of identity and fragmentation were celebrated. I argue that the new form of the politics of resistance is a challenge to this latter perspective (see also Starr, 2000, p. 167). I have already noted how one of the constitutive features of the movement is its diversity and the combination of old and new social movements within it. Bello (interview, 2002) argues that the movement is a mix of the old and the new, but not in any mechanical way. You have the coming together of different streams: the Marxists inuence the stream, there is an ecological environmental stream, the feminist stream, the radical developmentalist stream and what is interesting is the interaction of all these streams both theoretically and politically. There has been a creative cross-fertilisation of the different traditions. He also argues (interview, 2002), I think it is a movement that does not look at opposition in terms of one dimension. It does not look just at how corporate structures oppress workers but how those structures of power are also patriarchal. Bullard (interview, 2002) argues that the movement is new in the sense that its a new conguration of forces ... I think the way of coming together is really new. We are seeing a reconstitution which is bringing all the currents together, maintaining the separation of identity but also building something overarching. Gill (2000, p. 138) argues that the movement represents a shift in the forms of political agency beyond the politics of identity and difference and towards new forms of collective political identity and agency. One way to further explore this movement towards new forms of political agency is to follow Harveys development of Raymond Williamss concept of militant particularism (Harvey, 2001a and 2001b). Williams coined the term militant particularism when writing about socialism to help him explore the manner in which working-class self-organisation ... has tried to connect particular struggles to a general struggle (quoted in Harvey, 2001a, p. 172). This means moving beyond tangible, localised solidarities to more abstract conceptions which reach out across space, so that ideals forged out of the afrmative experiences of solidarities in one place get generalised and universalised (Harvey, 2001a, p. 172). Harvey points to both the limitations and the potentialities embedded within the notion of militant particularism and grass-roots activism (2001b, p. 200). He argues that fragmented and heterogeneous grass-roots movements need a common language, a coherent politicised discourse, if it is to coalesce into a broader movement with more universal impact (2001b, p. 197), and that:
Political Studies Association, 2004.

STATE OF THE ART

149

universality always exists in relation to particularity: neither can be separated from the other even though they are distinctive moments within our conceptual operations and practical engagements. The notion of social justice, for example, acquires universality through a process of abstraction from particular instances and circumstances, but, once established as a generally accepted principal or norm, becomes particular again as it is actualised through particular actions in particular circumstances (Harvey, 2001b, p. 194, emphasis in original). This involves a threefold process: 1 evoking universal principles; 2 giving tangible meaning to these abstractions in particular settings such as environmental or social justice, human rights, liberty, compassion; 3 in so doing, reafrming the signicance and power of such universal principles (Harvey, 2001b, p. 199). I argue that neoliberal globalisation has provided a common language to multiple militant particularisms and has thus produced a universalising dynamic which has both produced the movement of movements and is present within the movement of movements. Agnoletto (interview, 2002) expresses this when he says, historically there were a lot of specic movements. These are important but now the situation is different ... globalisation puts together a lot of different things and we are lost if we are not able to work together. We cannot answer globalisation if we are about only one specic thing. Bello (interview, 2002) says, this is a movement that values diversity and respects the fact that civil society organisations emerge out of key concerns. At the same time I think there is enough unity in values that they can work together: identity is one aspect, co-operation is another aspect ... there are universal themes of solidarity, community, equity, democracy, diversity ... the importance of power coming from below. I think these are universal values and without those common values both substantive and methodological I doubt very much if we would have had Seattle, Genoa or Florence. Susan George (interview, 2002) explicitly rejects politics based on identity: I hate identity politics. If I were running neoliberalism I would fund every identity group in the known universe because it is a very good way to focus people on who they are not on what they can do ... equality before the law, equality for public services, the best education no matter what the origin of the child, health care whether you can pay or not: thats what I am interested in. The new unity between old and new social movements and its accompanying evocation of universalising themes does not mean that there are no tensions between the forces which make up the movement. Nicola Bullard (interview, 2002) argues that the movement is still fairly classic, male, class-based leftist politics ... one of the reasons many of the so-called old social movements have failed is because they have not been able to incorporate identity issues, ecological thinking, feminist thinking ... our construction of alternative futures is becoming slightly more socialist but is not yet sufciently ecological or feminist. The inuence of post-structuralist thought albeit in a form heavily inuenced by Marxism is also evident in the movement. This is particularly so in Italy through
Political Studies Association, 2004.

150

SAM ASHMAN

the inuence of Hardt and Negris Empire (2000) (see also Graeber, 2002, p. 64). An irresistible and irreversible globalisation of economic and cultural exchanges has, for Hardt and Negri, created a new order and a new form of sovereignty which they call empire, and which faces a global multitude. The concept of the multitude is not well developed, but it is highly reminiscent of the conception of the movement as a swarm which Klein has popularised (2000). The strength of the movement organising as a swarm, she argues, is that it is difcult to control: it responds to corporate concentration with a maze of fragmentation, to globalisation with its own kind of localisation, to power consolidation with radical power dispersal (Klein, 2000). The inuence of Empire is evident when Luca Casarini of the disobbedienti in Italy says (interview, 2002), the movement is not made of one big mass, but of multitudes. The concept of identity we need within globalisation is that of the nomad. This could mean an unearthing and an uprooting from your own origins but it can also be a very powerful and creative weapon through which we can defeat the prison of identity and create new ways of having relationships with each other. A fundamental aspect of our research is how to create a nomad identity and how to create an organisation which is not an organisation. There are differences and difculties inherent in such a coalition and debate inside the movement is ongoing and will remain so given the different strands, analyses and strategies for change present within it (Callinicos, 2003). The question is whether these debates and differences can continue without breaking irrevocably the movements momentum and unity.

Conclusion
Wilson described 30 years ago how the participants of social movements reach beyond the customary resources of the old social order and, in so doing, they reach beyond themselves and become new men and women (quoted in Cohen and Rai, 2000, p. 3). This applies to the movement of movements or the movement against corporate globalisation. Lynch argued in 1998 that the concerns of contemporary social movements had resulted in what we might call the discursive demobilisation of movements on questions of economic praxis (p. 149). Things have changed. Both old and new social movements have attempted to respond to neoliberal globalisation and in so doing have created a new coalition and ideological cross-fertilisation. The extent of economic globalisation is questionable (Hirst and Thompson, 1999; Saul and Leys, 1999). I have not been able, for lack of space, to examine weaknesses in the movements assumptions and analyses about economic globalisation. I have argued instead that: the movement is not opposed to globalisation as such but is creating a new internationalism through its campaigns, its points of reference and its mobilisations; the neoliberal nature of contemporary globalisation has provided a common language to multiple militant particularisms and has thus produced a universalising dynamic which has both produced the movement of movements and is present within the movement of movements.
Political Studies Association, 2004.

STATE OF THE ART

151

I have used interviews with a number of leading participants within the movement to help clarify the above two arguments. Whatever its weaknesses may be, this movement has vitality: it rejects the inevitability of neoliberalism, it rejects passivity and it afrms the necessity of resistance. The slogans adopted on the protests of this movement give a sense of its taste and colour: the world is not a commodity and they are all Enron, we are all Argentina!. It also has broader implications for social theory as, I have argued, it is re-establishing the rightful link between the universal and the emancipatory.

Notes
1 I would like to thank Colin Hay, Adam Morton, Magnus Ryner, Rajiv Prabhakar and two anonymous Politics referees for their comments on earlier versions of this article. 2 I do not have space to explore the literature on the concept of neoliberal globalisation. My view is that the current dominant conception of globalisation is essentially neoliberal and that it requires political and economic agreement to drive it. See Gills (2000), Rupert (2001), Rupert and Solomon (2002). 3 Vittorio Agnoletto, former convenor of the Genoa Social Forum, Italy, was interviewed by the author in Florence, 8 November 2002. Christophe Aguitton from ATTAC France was interviewed by the author in Florence, 10 November 2002. Nicola Bullard of Focus on the Global South, Bangkok, Thailand, was interviewed by the author in Florence, 10 November 2002. Luca Casarini of the disobbedienti, Italy, was interviewed in Florence, 9 November 2002, translated by Tom Behan. Susan George from ATTAC France and the Transnational Institute was interviewed by the author in Florence, 8 November 2002. Chris Nineham of Globalise Resistance, GB, was interviewed in London, 23 November 2002. Walden Bello of Focus on the Global South and professor of sociology at the University of the Philippines, was interviewed in London, 22 November 2002.

References
Ashman, S. (2001), India in E. Bircham and J. Charlton (eds.), Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement, London: Bookmarks, pp. 235241. Bello, W. (2002), Deglobalisation: Ideas for a New World Economy, London: Zed. Bond, P. (2000), Their Reforms and Ours: Balance of Forces and Economic Analysis in a New Global Financial Architecture, in W. Bello, N. Bullard and K. Malhotra (eds.), Global Finance: New Thinking on Regulating Speculative Capital Markets, London: Zed, pp. 6182. Bourdieu, P. (1998), Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of Our Time, Cambridge: Polity. Brecher, J., J.B. Childs and J. Cutler (eds.) (1993), Introduction in Global Visions: Beyond the New World Order, Boston: South End Press, pp. ixxxvi. Broad, R. and J. Cavanagh (2000), The Death of the Washington Consensus? in W. Bello, N. Bullard and K. Malhotra (eds.), Global Finance: New Thinking on Regulating Speculative Capital Markets, London: Zed, pp. 8395. Callinicos, A. (2003), The Anti-Capitalist Movement after Genoa and New York in S. Aronowitz and H. Gautney (eds.), Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance in the 21st Century World Order, New York: Basic Books, pp. 133150. Caygill, M. (2002), Do the Labels Matter? Contested Categories and the Movement, paper given to the 8th Alternative Futures and Popular Protest Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University, 24 April. Cohen, R. and S.M. Rai (2000), Global Social Movements: Towards a Cosmopolitan Politics in R. Cohen and S.M. Rai (eds.), Global Social Movements, London: Athlone Press, pp. 117. De Angelis, M. (2000), Globalisation, New Internationalism and the Zapatistas, Capital and Class, no. 70, Spring, pp. 935. Della Porta, D. and M. Diani (1999), Social Movements: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell. Della Porta, D. and H. Kriesi (1999), Social Movements in a Globalising World: An Introduction in D. Della Porta, H. Kriesi and D. Rucht (eds.), Social Movements in a Globalising World, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 322.
Political Studies Association, 2004.

152

SAM ASHMAN

Desai, M. (2000), Seattle: A Tragic-comedy in B. Gunnell and D. Timms (eds.), After Seattle: Globalisation and its Discontents, London: Catalyst, pp. 4145. Desai, M. and Y. Said (2001), The New Anti-Capitalist Movement: Money and Global Civil Society in H. Anheier, M. Glasius and M. Kaldor (eds.), Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 5178. Gill, S. (1995), Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 24(3), pp. 399423. Gill, S. (2000), Towards a Postmodern Prince? The Battle of Seattle as a Moment in the New Politics of Globalisation, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29(1), pp. 131140. Gills, B.K. (2000), Introduction: Globalisation and the Politics of Resistance in B.K. Gills, Globalisation and the Politics of Resistance, London: Macmillan, pp. 312. Graeber, D. (2002), The New Anarchists, New Left Review, II, no. 13, pp. 6173. Green, D. and M. Grifth (2002), Globalisation and its Discontents, International Affairs 78(1), pp. 4968. Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2000), Empire, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Harvey, D. (2001a), Militant Particularism and Global Ambition: The Conceptual Politics of Place, Space, and Environment in the Work of Raymond Williams in D. Harvey, Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 158187. Harvey, D. (2001b), City and Justice: Social Movements in the City in D. Harvey, Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 188207. Hines, C. (2000), Localisation: A Global Manifesto, London: Earthscan. Hines, C. and T. Lang (1993), The New Protectionism: Protecting the Future Against Free Trade, New York: New Press. Hirst, P. and G. Thompson (1999), Globalisation in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance (2nd edn), Cambridge: Polity. Kiely, R. (2002), Actually Existing Globalisation, Deglobalisation, and the Political Economy of Anticapitalist Protest, Historical Materialism 10(1), pp. 93121. Klein, N. (2000), The Vision Thing, The Nation, 10 July (www.thenation.com). Klein, N. (2001a), Reclaiming the Commons, New Left Review, II, no. 9, pp. 8189. Klein, N. (2001b), Sign of the Times, The Nation, 22 October (www.thenation.com). Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, London: Verso. Lynch, C. (1998), Social Movements and the Problem of Globalisation, Alternatives 23(2), pp. 149173. Monbiot, G. (2000), Lies, Trade and Democracy in B. Gunnell and D. Timms (eds.), After Seattle: Globalisation and its Discontents, London: Catalyst, pp. 1318. Monbiot, G. (2003), The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order, London: Flamingo. Moody, K. (1997), Workers in a Lean World: Unions in the International Economy, London: Verso. Morton, A.D. (2002), La Resurreccion del Maiz: Globalisation, Resistance and the Zapatistas, Millennium 31(1), pp. 2754. Munck, R. (2002), Global Social Movements or Sorel in Seattle, paper given at BISA working group on Marxism and International Relations workshop, The Politics of Protest in the Age of Globalisation, University of Sussex, 2627 September. Pieterse, J.N. (2001), Globalisation and Collective Action in P. Hamel, H. Lustiger-Thaler, J.N. Pieterse and S. Roseneil (eds.), Globalisation and Social Movements, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 2140. Rupert, M. (2000), Ideologies of Globalisation: Contending Visions of a New World Order, London: Routledge. Rupert, M. and M.S. Solomon (2002), Historical Materialism, Ideology, and the Politics of Globalising Capitalism in M. Rupert and H. Smith (eds.), Historical Materialism and Globalisation, London: Routledge, pp. 284300. Saul, J.S. and C. Leys (1999), Sub-Saharan Africa in Global Capitalism, Monthly Review 51(3), pp. 1330. Scholte, J.A. (2002), Democratising the Global Economy: The Role of Civil Society, paper presented at 27th annual conference of BISA, London School of Economics, 1618 December. Shiva, V. (2002), Water Wars: Privatisation, Pollution and Prot, London: Pluto.
Political Studies Association, 2004.

STATE OF THE ART

153

Spivak, G.S. (1988), Can the Subaltern Speak? in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Basingstoke, Macmillan, pp. 271313. Starr, A. (2000), Naming the Enemy: Anti-Corporate Movements Confront Globalisation, London: Zed. Weeks, J. (2001), Globalise, Globa-lise, Global Lies: Myths of the World Economy in the 1990s in R. Albritton, M. Itoh, R. Westra and A. Zuege (eds.), Phases of Capitalist Development: Booms, Crises and Globalisations, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 263282.

Political Studies Association, 2004.