Globalisation and the American Religion


In a recent series on Operation Werewolf, Jack Donovan, and the Wolves of Vinland, I noted how much of the ideological and mythic territory from which they operate once belonged to leftist and post-colonial movements. Anti-globalisation, for instance, is now no longer to be found within American antifascist and leftist politics except in some fringes (which are constantly under suspicion for being crypto-fascists). Instead, in the last few years we have seen the New Right, Alt-Right, Republicans and Fascists include anti-globalisation in their political analysis.

Trump, for instance, promised to end many of the international trade agreements against which the WTO protesters fought 17 years ago. These trade agreements have done just as much damage (if not much more) to poorer nations as they have wrought upon American workers, yet the 2016 election pitted a right-wing demagogue against a liberal candidate who advocated for even more of these agreements.

Trump hasn’t actually done what he promised to do (of course), but that should not surprise us. The globalisation of capital is always good for the American capitalist, and both he and Hillary Clinton made their commitment to capital relentlessly clear even before the election.

What should interest us more, however, is why anti-globalisation is no longer a political critique on the American “Left,” despite the fact that elsewhere (especially in the global south), rage against the damage caused by globalisation still fuels massive protests and mass movements.

There Is No “Us” in “America”

There are a few aspects of this question that are not precisely easy to unravel for an American audience, especially for readers who have not spent any significant time outside the United States. Whether by poverty, preference, or provincialism, there’s a good chance that many reading this have not lived in another country for several months, or have not had exposure to communities and thinkers outside of America. Thus, many have not had to undergo the (rather painful but enlightening) process of understanding how exceptionalist, isolated, and Nationalist the politics, morals, and people of the United States are.

Merely going to a grocery store in another country can begin that uncomfortable initiation. What is available, and the prices for which they are available, and how many competing brands of each are available usually cause quite a shock. In America you can buy fifty types of fake coffee creamer, seven brands of the same cereal, or forty types of sliced bread, but if you don’t have much money you won’t be buying local vegetables or meat (if local food is even available).

In much of Europe it is quite the opposite: usually only one or two brands of the same item, much of the bread made locally (often in-store) and seasonal vegetables all grown relatively close, and everything priced at shockingly low prices.

Such a confrontation challenges a deeply-held (and invisible) myth under which Americans–even many anti-capitalist Americans–unconsciously operate: that whatever else it is, America is a land of abundance. Encountering more abundance, and more readily-affordable abundance, in a tiny store outside the US begins a process which eventually leads you to see the shape of American exceptionalism. The traveler or expatriate soon begins to see that the ideological framework of Americanism has been invisible to them their entire life, and that what makes you “American” is much more complex than what you suspected.

A case in point. I have always been an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-American. As such, I’d arrogantly believed I’d done a lot of work to dismantle my American-ness, until a German friend asked me why, as an anarchist, I still insisted on saying “we” when referring to America.

I had been speaking about American history and the way that the US government had arrested anarchists during World War I, and I said something like, “We still arrest anarchists in America.”

“Why do you keep saying we?” she asked. “You don’t do that. The US government does.”

That is, I had been unconsciously identifying myself with the US government, taking collective responsibility for their actions, and never noticed.

Such identification with America, disciplined and trained into Americans from birth, is quite invisible until you encounter someone from a different culture, in a different land, who notes how odd such a thing is. Saying “we” when speaking about America is not just a mere quirk, howeverit is a re-enforced allegiance to a mythic national construction in which each American is expected to hold both responsibility and benefit from the collective nightmare of America.

Such allegiance and identification informs American politics on both the left and the right. On the left, it leads to notions of collective responsibility and guilt (for foreign wars or for slavery) as well as a compulsion to ‘fix’ what’s wrong with the United States, rather than destroy it. On the right, the collective responsibility and guilt exists as well (particularly in questions of moral character), but it more obviously functions as a bludgeon of social cohesion during times of war or crisis (the nationalism after 9/11, or the “Make America Great Again” slogan of Donald Trump). In all cases, it creates an exceptionalism born of an ‘us’ in contrast to a nebulous ‘them’ (or many ‘thems’), be they victims of US policy or enemies of the US.

Nationalist Citizens of A Global Empire

Our collective us-ness is of course false. I can have just as much in common with a Dubliner or a Parisian as I do with a New Yorker, except that a New Yorker was probably just as indoctrinated into American-ness as I was, while neither the Dubliner nor Berliner experienced that American social programming.What do I actually have in common with a highly-paid tech worker in San Francisco? Or a farmer in Iowa? We aren’t even neighbors anymore; I live in Europe.

While one might be tempted to say that a Dubliner or Berliner experienced similar programming to what we do in America, just the German or Irish version of it, this is not precisely true. Both Ireland and Germany are new nations, neither of which occupy conquered land where previously lived indigenous peoples slaughtered to found a nation. And while both countries have colonial pasts (Ireland as colonized, Germany as imperialist and then later Nazi colonizer), neither are currently colonizing the rest of the world with their culture or with massive militaries.

Because this is what one begins to understand most about the United States when you have left it for any period of time. American culture is terrifyingly dominant and dominating, drowning out cultural differences anywhere it goes, demanding conformity to its forms and its preferences.

Anti-AirBnB posters, Berlin

The moment you’ve heard an American couple complaining how a French server didn’t speak English or how the Coca-Cola ‘tastes funny’ elsewhere in the world, and particularly when you start to note how Americans demand that the world around them conforms to what they believe to be the right and natural way to do things, you immediately understand that American-ness is more than a mere nationalityit is a colonialist ethic.

Within America, the conceit seems to be that some are more guilty of such behaviors than others, and you can somehow determine who is more ‘American’ by race, gender, political, or sexuality markers. This becomes patently untrue outside of America, though: I have witnessed the same imperialist behavior from a Black lesbian traveler as I have from white straight menthey both act just as ‘American.’ What determines whether someone is going to act like an imperialist ass has nothing to do with their oppressed status within America, but how much work they’ve done to actually interrogate their American-ness.

So too in politics: while Trump declared America needed to be made great again and Clinton retorted that America was great because it is good, both essentially argued that American greatness (with its global imperialism and indigenous slaughter) is a sacred, unassailable thing.

American Exceptionalism

This is American exceptionalism, which is rooted in the founding horror of the United States itself. America is a colonial ritual, initiated through slaughter of indigenous people, alchemically transformed by stripping displaced Europeans and enslaved Africans of their identities in a great alembic of nationalist horror. From that transformation was born a new kind of global capital, a new sort of cultural imperialism, and a new sort of Empire which follows an American everywhere they might go.

Worse, it is utterly invisible to the American, especially the American who has never tried to live anywhere else. And the American cannot help but continue to colonize and slaughter, unless they finally choose to fight America itself.

The invisibility of American exceptionalism to the American helps explain at least to some degree why American leftists abandoned anti-globalisation politics faster than leftists elsewhere. Within the protests against the expansion of global capital throughout the world was an internal contradiction, one which struck directly at the heart of American identity. Because the expansion of global capitalism meant that what came to define the American ‘way of life’ (its products and services, its urban uniformity, its hyper-consumerism) would be made available to the rest of the world.  Since many Americans–even leftists–believed that what they had was the way the world ought to be, the expansion of global capitalism seemed like an expansion of freedom, democracy, and progress.

That is, globalisation made the world look American, brought American-style ‘democracy’ and products to the primitive, uncivilized, unenlightened peoples of Paris, Berlin, and São Paulo. This was the ‘interconnectedness’ which urban American elites touted as the primary benefit of globalisation, but that interconnectedness can just be easily named ‘assimilation.’

Two decades of the expansion of global capital through ‘neo’-liberal policies has created a new global class of interconnected assimilated people who now share the same values, purchase the same products, and vote as a global bloc. Connected through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, they “like” unique photos of travel and local cuisine that look remarkably like every other travel and dinner photo in every other gentrified hip neighborhood of the world.

The 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of an urban class against which the Communists and Anarchists waged war–and failed. Another such class has risen, transforming everything it touches, marching to the orders of global capital, crushing local resistance under its vintage-shod feet.

The grand conceit of the globalist was that such ‘interconnection’ would lead to more peace. If people in Barcelona, Toronto, Chicago, and Tokyo all use the same iPhones and drink the same Starbucks coffee, they would be less likely to want to go to war with each other. Through that commonality, ideas like Democracy and Equality would also spread from the “free world” to the rest of the world.

There is another word for this, though, and one that describes what has actually happened a lot better than globalisation or interconnection. That word is colonization.

Each Starbucks I see in a foreign city feels like an embassy or a military outpost of America, much like what it must have felt like to see Catholic churches in South America after Spanish and Portuguese conquest.

The point we must remember is that the colonization of global capital is mostly invisible to those who were long ago colonized by it. Where an American might see a McDonald’s in Europe or Africa and be relieved, they cannot see the violence and cultural erasure that led to the creation of that McDonald’s. It is even more true with cultural forms, ideas, language, and politics.

Far-right and fascist groups in the United States are some of the few who still offer a criticism of global capitalism, but they are very, very wrong in what they want to do about it, as well as whom they blame for the destruction of cultural difference. It is not the immigrant Muslim fleeing wars, nor the immigrant Mexican fleeing poverty, who has changed the shape of society and destroyed what makes peoples and communities unique.

It’s capitalism, and the United States is its largest supporter. So, too, are the American corporations who spread its gospel throughout the world, and unfortunately the Americans who have not yet understood that they will always be a colonizing, imperialist force until they fight America itself. Taking up that fight will require Americans not only to question their own colonial indoctrination, but also their complicity in support for the global capitalists within the United States who spread the American religion to the rest of the world.

I hope they take up that fight.

Rhyd Wildermuth

Rhyd is the managing editor and a co-founder of Gods&Radicals. He is a poet, a writer, a theorist, and a pretty decent chef. He can be supported on Patreon, and his other work can be found at Paganarch.

He is currently in Dublin, Ireland.

Have you seen our new online bookstore yet? It’s here.

5 thoughts on “Globalisation and the American Religion

  1. I generally agree with much of this article, but I think that 9/11 is really what killed the anti-globalization movement on the left. Prior to 9/11, the anti-globalization movement was the major social movement around the world, and afterwards any kind of dissent from the “patriotically correct” line was shouted down as treasonous. The Green Scare that occurred during the 2000s also had a chilling effect on left-wing radicalism. Then there is also the fact that right-wing movements are simply not subject to the same level of monitoring tabs repression that left wing groups are. The Trump administration had already said that they won’t be paying attention to white supremacist groups and there is a lot of evidence that local police departments are willing to look the other way at alt-right violence. The Oklahoma City bombing appeared to have come out of nowhere precisely because no one was paying attention to the far right, and of course, Muslims were initially blamed for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. As a European, I entirely agree with you. I think Americans must still be surprised at how quickly European leaders were willing to ignore Trump or start working around him, when not outright criticizing him. The reason, of course, is that most Europeans have some resentment towards America for being culturally colonized (and I can assure you that this includes the Brits, in spite of being the country that has most in common with America). So people are literally jumping at the chance of abandoning America behind.

    One of the things that most astounds me is how many people in America buy the logic that NATO countries aren’t paying their dues, and they are extremely ungrateful for not paying for the protection of the USA. NATO countries are, of course, being protected by America in the same sense that a protection racket protects. They have the choice of “being protected” and paying extortionate fees for it, or suffering the consequences of no protection, and nobody with any knowledge of realpolitik doubts those consequences would be brought on by the USA. The USA makes damned sure that governments of countries that don’t do their bidding get into serious trouble. Being in NATO, in fact, is worse than your average protection racket because it forces countries to get into fights that they wouldn’t ever have considered. But so many Americans truly believe that NATO is some sort of great favor to European countries. If that is so, then why did the French president, after the Paris attacks, choose to call on help from the EU rather than NATO? If that wasn’t a clear sign that he wanted American generals out of the defense of France, I don’t know what is.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Protection racket is very, very true.

      I have a deep recollection o two experiences with US soldiers in Germany that still haunt me.

      The first was a guy drinking at a bar, running up a €30 tab, and then throwing down a $20 and telling the bartender “you’re welcome.”

      The other was of a young Black man about to get re-deployed to Afghanistan. He was in a gay bar in Mainz, Germany, crying, begging men in the bar to help him not have to go.

      The notion that US soldiers (NATO or otherwise) are welcome heroes is not exactly what I have seen…


  3. I feel somewhat compelled to point out that if you’re comparing the U.S. Colonial Imperialism to anyone, you’ve got to remember one important thing:
    Europeans invented modern colonial imperialism.
    Portugal started the African slave trade by enslaving the children of their sailors and the Africans they bullied.
    Spain, and in Brazil, Portugal, exploited and colonized the “New World.” Of course, France, Germany and England (alias Britain) joined in the action, as did much of Western and Central Europe. Though to be fair Central European Empires were mostly of Europe. Oh, and let’s not forget Russia that managed to colonize much of Asia and the Eastern Bloc nations.

    Okay, background done, my main point here is don’t you DARE let Europe off the hook. The same Europe that is experiencing a resurgence of fascist and other far-right ideas. The same Europe that still has colonies, though often under different names (France and Algiers, for instance). The same Europe that was content to have human zoos and stood by doing nothing when King Leopold II ravaged the Congo. The same Europe that is blocking immigrants and refugees who are fleeing to their former colonial masters today.

    Yes, the U.S. has done its own share of horrible colonialism, internal, external and cultural. You could even argue that the U.S. perfected colonialism. The white supremacy and white savior doctrines come rather quickly to mind. They weren’t created by the U.S. just made more pernicious. Now if you want something U.S. made that’s an easy one-two punch. First, there’s applied eugenics. While the pseudoscience that is Eugenics was founded on Charles Darwin’s ideas as twisted by Social Darwinism, and Charles’ cousin, Francis Galton, it was the U.S. gave it a right go, and sterilized who-knows how many “lesser” folk under the guise of medical help. Mostly Native Americans and African Americans, but also the mental ill or intellectually challenged. And two, Edward Bernays created modern Propaganda and Advertising which must be credited with American-Style cultural imperialism.

    Note that the U.S. building on the structure of European Colonialism does not excuse or exonerate the U.S. or its citizens. But you must give credit where it’s due. Colonialism is an ongoing reality that is not just a U.S. project.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.