Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:51:31 -0800 (PST)
From: commie zero zero <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: empire & globalization, was... Re: AUT: Re: autonomistcrisis theory


> Actually, that is why I said "so-called 'national'
> capitals".  I didn;t
> really feel like fleshing it out, but I did mean to
> indicate that the assume
> that they were national or unified in some easy
> sense made no sense.  And I
> only used that phrase once, so I think it hardly
> constitutes much of a point
> of contention.

but that's why i didn't make the post so much a
response to you (by including chunkcs of text), but a
more general framing of something i was thinking...
which the few remarks ya made on the issue sparked. 

> 
> I don't think national 'capitals' compete, i think
> national states compete

i'll try to flush this out more below, but i don't
think there is any real difference between a national
"capital" a national ruling class and a national
state. they are all one in the same thing essentially.
or: if they are not, then their fates are certainly
tied together to the point where any difference
between the three is moot. 

> for capital and that the capitalist class finds
> itself fragmented along
> national lines to some extent in relation to seeking
> the protection of this
> or that state,

i think the state is, a marx noted, the (and i'm
paraphrasing) executive council of the ruling class.
or some such. it is also the ruling class' military
arm (when the class is acting, more or less, as a
whole). 

> for cultural and linguistic reasons
> (even capitalists have to
> live somewhere), in relation to the fact that while
> money is mobile,
> production is less so and often existing capitalist
> businesses began decades
> (and sometimes a century or more) ago attatched to a
> certain national market
> (in terms of capital goods, consumer goods and
> labor.)  In that sense, the
> formation of capitalist classes (NOT capital) as
> national has to be dealt
> with in relation to historical formation, with some
> understanding that that
> formation created a series of advantages, ties, etc.
> between "national"
> capitalists and territorial states.  So while it is
> true that capital knows
> no boundaries, no country, capitalist classes do. 

i agree. but we also have to take into account how all
of this has been recomposed. that is: we have to
understand recent history, and how everything is now
quite a bit different. and while the theories on
empire may be lacking, i think they are closer to
what's happening than what i feel are very dangerously
dated theories on imperialism. 

> They know their military,
> their state apparatus, their legal system, etc.

i don't see this being so much anymore. as john cusak
put it in the monologue he wrote for grosse point
blank, states and borders and such are basically
"public relations theory at this point". that is:
simply a way to discipline and control a certain group
of workers which can be contained within imaginary
lines. 

also: it is perfectly reasonable to understand the
"their" in your comment as being more than the section
of the ruling class which were born and/or grew up
within those same imaginary lines.  

> In
> turn, it is not so easy
> to just uproot and become a capitalist of equal
> power in a more developed
> capitalist country, but at the same time, why go to
> a country where you
> might be "da' man", but over a place with relatively
> less importance in
> world capital.  In other words, the formation of and
> retention of national
> capitalist classes is governed by complex problems
> (including the
> nationalism of workers who might be more hostile to
> 'foreign' bosses, which
> I have seen frequently enough.)

not sure what yer getting at here... but the
nationalism of workers is certainly something that was
purposefully created / encouraged for some obvious
reasons. and it is also why, from a public relations
standpoint, they must keep of the facade of a nation
state and national bosses.

and, tactically speaking (as far as the left is
concerned), it's good to keep us pissed off about
"imperialism", so that we're shooting a scarecrows and
not the actual target. 

> In other words, the capitalists do have genuine
> "national interests",
> interests ultimately shot through with all the
> divisions created by their
> submission to accumulation. And the process of
> creating a unified capitalist
> class or capitalist state requires so much
> bargaining and bickering,

which, as far as i understand itis exactly what
happens when the imf or world bank or wto or whatnot
meets. 

> would
> require the destruction of so many capitalists, that
> many will fight tooth
> and nail against it, even though it might makes
> sense in terms of
> exploitation of labor overall.

and from what i can gather, this is exactly why the
wto courts were created. to try to undermine such
destruction so that certain capitalists would not
rebel against empire. 

> Capital controls
> them, not the other way
> around. 

is disagree. like in star wars:

"you mean it controls your actions?"
"yes, but it also obeys your commands..."

(i guess i'm on a movie quote kick today =P)

capital is not a conscious entity which moves itself
around. i think this is a dangerous
anthorpomorphization. the ruling class simultaneously
controls and is controled by "capital". hell, i'd
would go even further and say that the ruling class IS
"capital", and vise versa. and the seeming control
over the ruling class that capital has is only the
result of the actions of other members of the ruling
class. the fact that many acts are, necessarily,
annonymous. thus, i don't think there is an "invisible
hand", or any such thing, of capitalism. the closest
would be the laws necessary for capital to function,
but these also do not exist apart from the concrete
activities of the ruling class, but are what is
necessary to keep capitalism going.

> And yet they can also resist.  it is not
> like capitalists go broke
> quietly or just say "Well, that capitalist is a
> better, more efficient
> exploiter than me."  Hence, wars of all sorts.

but note how wars on any large scales have long since
ended. many believers in imperialism have been waiting
world war three for 50+ years, but it's not come (and
i seriously doubt it will). now you have "low
intensity war", and "police actions". pay attention to
the language they use... 

((by this i do not mean to say that the situation
couldn't change, but that, as it stands now, i think
all of that is behind us.))

> Anyway, this may seem very empirical, BUT if we do
> not ascend to the
> concrete, we will be engaged in pure theory, in
> philosophizing.  And that
> was never Marx's approach.

i agree. which is why i have problems with continued
notions of imperialism, they do not jive with what i
see going on. they are theory now. 

it seems to me that a lot of people want to hang on to
the notion of imperialism because its a habit. others
because they want to believe lenin that it was the
last state of capitalism. and still others because
they want to blame "u.s. imperialism" for everything.
they want to try to understand the current changes as
continued imperialism, somehow... but do not engage
with the concrete actions of the new global ruling
bodies, and do not understand the context of current
capitalist competition. 

> The effect of the WTO is not to provide equalization
> between capitalists.

i think you're taking that differently from how i
meant it... see above where i discussed what the wto
is stratigically within the ruling class. 

> for example, the WTO forced India to test
> pharmeceuticals for 20 years
> before being able to bring them to market, but the
> U.S. only has to test for
> 7 years.  Hmmm... pretty nationalistic, pretty much
> US capital using the WTO
> to throttle a competitor. 

fine. but account for the fact that venezuela was able
to discipline the mighty u.s. thru the wto within this
idea. it doesn't hold. something else is afoot. and,
again, while empire theories are certainly wanting in
a lot of ways, they certainly provide a seemingly more
realistic account of how this is possible. 

> Like many other agencies,
> the WTO, GATT, etc.
> becomes a way for the big capitalsts to be more
> predatory in relation to the
> poorer, smaller capitalists, via interntional bodies
> dominated by the
> biggest states.

true. and i think the wto might exist to try to
provide a way to keep those smaller capitalists
operating within the imperial system... and not rebel
against it. 

> That does not weaken the national state in relation
> to the working class,
> however, or lessesn conflict between nation states,
> at least not
> necessarily. 

see, i disagree, i think, with negri on the idea of
the end of the nation state. i think it is necessary
(pr-wise) for them to exist. what i can imagine
happening is the world becoming much like the u.s. is
now: a global confederation of states.

there is no equalization of wealth between different
states in the u.s., and there is competition. hell,
there are sections of the u.s. considered "third
world" by the u.n. (such as appalachia). but there are
also no wars, etc. and there is a sense of unity. 

there are certainly things which stand in the way of
this, as you noted in your bit about history and such,
but i think that is precisely what the international
bodies have been created to resolve. 

anyway... this is one possible explination and
possibility that i see.

also, re: empire (the book). i went back and had a
look after you mentioned being bothered by all the
discussion about capital/the ruling class, etc. and
they discuss working class composition and
subjectivity right in (i think) the second section.
thus, my assumption when i was reading it was what i
assume in reading capital... that everything they talk
about is meant to be seem as imbued with class
struggle. 

having trouble expressing myself today... hope this
all makes sense...


====commie00
---------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/commie00
---------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---