From: "commie00" <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: AUT: Re: Re: empire... response to chris
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:22:32 -0400


> Hey commie00

hi =)

should be sleeping, but its hard to ignore a chance for a good debate with
you =P

anywho...

> I am not sure this analogy holds up.  From 1787 on, the Federal government
> was very much a central power managing subordinate states.

i'm not so sure about this... i think from 1787 until the end of the civil
war was a period of many states (esp those in the south) pushing for a more
decentralized confederal model, and the federal government pushing for more
control (with the support of the northern states). the control of the
federal government was resolved by the north (aka the federals) winning the
civil war (aka the war between the states).

((i think this entirely has to do with the composition of labor (on many
levels), in a general sense, between these two regions.))

and so i think the analogy fits: what we're seeing now in empire is
something kinda similar: a struggle between empire and "rogue states" and
"rogue elements" (aka terrorists), for much the same reasons -- the tendency
of empire to want to "federate" everyone state together under imperial
control, and the tendency of "rogue states" to resist this control in the
interests of their sovreinty... what this translates to, methinks, is the
composition of labor, and of course the multiplicities of working class
struggles.

if empire wins, they will be united. if empire doesn't win i suspect that a
new and different empire will come into existence until we overthrow all of
this.

> Admittedly,
> states' rights flares up whenever something really reactionary has to
> happen, but this is always within the context of political struggle that
> assumes the Federal body.

just as the bulk of debates of sovrienty within the international bodies
always happens within the context of empire.

>  The UN and other such institutions have no such
> power.  The US has violated the UN constantly.  The UN is largely only
able
> to impose itself by military threat, which makes the US the final arbiter
in
> many cases.  Look at how hard the EU has been to impose.  The
qualifications
> set by Germany (reduction of deficit to 3% of GNP and debt to 60% will
cause
> either massive crisis in Europe or a reorganization of the EU or the terms
> of joining) are the source of major conflict and NOT finished.

i guess a lot of this comes down to notions of "finished". i don't image
empire will ever be "finished" forming in the way you mean, just as the u.s.
federal system is not "finished" in this way. everything is in constant flux
and can change, as you point out later, at basically any time...

and i don't think "finished" is the same as "existance". i think empire
exists. i think it could fall apart for a variety of reasons, but that
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

i think this is a very important point.

> This is only
> in the context of Europe.  At the same time, each of the three regional
> powers are trying to set up regional economic/political units that they
> control (FTAA for US and Western hemisphere; Japan and attempts to set up
an
> Asian area, which is not going so well; and the EU.)

see, i see this too, except i don't assume "control". you have to accept as
a presupposition that certain powers are in control for this to be true. i
think these blocs are coming into existance, but i disagree that there is
any one power in them that is necessarily in control. there is no doubt
power struggles, but there is also the attempts to mute these struggles thru
common ground.

i think you drastically (and from a tactical standpoint, dangerously)
underestimate the ruling classes potential for unity.

> Why should we suppose
> that the decomposition of the working class in one way will benefit all of
> them?  They have will benefit differentially.  In the end, that may be
> decisive,

i agree. but the question is not: are there differences?, but: how are these
differences dealt with? are they dealt with in the context of empire, or
what?

from what i can see, they are, thus far, dealt with thru the imperial
system. i agree that this could fall apart, and that it is very fragile at
this point (just as the u.s. federal system was fragile until after the
civil war), but that does not mean it doesn't exist. in fact, since at this
point most conflicts are resolved thru an international system is proof of
empire.

> > i think this is a key disagreement. in my reading of history national
> > capital proceeded global capital by a long shot, and the expansion of
> nation
> > capitals was the cause of imperialist wars (imperialism, intially, was
> > understood as the expansion of a specific national capitals).
>
> Where was capital not already stretched out across the world by the 16th
> century?

i should be more careful about this. what i meant is: national-capitalism
(the capital-labour relation) existed before global-capitalism.

and here we enter a more-or-less complex, but important, language game: yes,
capital moved internationally even prior to the existance of capitalism. and
this global movement of capital is the bases of capitalism.

so the question is: when did capitalism become global? it entered the global
phase in the late 19th / early 20th century, as best as i can tell. i think
you are correct that this process didn't really complete itself until the
national liberation struggles of the 60s and 70s moved the bulk of the
colonialized world from the formal to real subsumption.

i think one of our disagreements is that i veiw dialectical movement as a
process, while you seem to be looking for finalities. the fact that there is
conflict and movement and change within empire does not negate it, but shows
that its rooted in the dialectical movement of capitalism (i.e. class war).

> GATT, WTO, etc IMO are still strategic responses to the failure to
decompose
> the working class globally after all these years.  But they are still
> strategic moves which may fail.  They have no logical necessity that would
> make us say "Well, that's a done deal."  And the resistance of the working
> class to that strategy can explode the coalitions currently formed.  That
> could lead to the collapse of this whole attempt and then Empire might be
> for naught.

i completely agree with all of this. but that does not mean that empire does
not exist. in fact, gatt, et al. as stratigic responses is, in my
understanding, empire.

i think where we disagree is in who is in control. i see an increasing
tendcy for relative equality within the ruling class on a global level based
on their need to confront a common enemy (namely: us, the working class),
while (it seems to me) you overemphasize the remnants of imperialism and
exaggerate their effects. =D

> No doubt capital is trying to find organizational forms that meet the
scale
> of development.  Certainly, global regulatory bodies are necessary.

and what i'm arguing is that, historically, these bodies, as they developed
in certain areas (generally into nation-states) had to mean a unification of
the ruling class against a common enemy (due to class war)... and that the
most successful forms of these unifications have been ones in which the
ruling class acheived a sembalance of equality... thus: 1) to deal with
capitalism (the capital-labour relation) on an international scale, the
ruling class must unite internationally, and 2) the federal model has been
the most successful, thus far, and so it is being employed.

> Also, why should capital want to expose itself to international attack.
> Already, the WTO has been a source of resistance, a focus point.  Capital
> can manage the world in a decentralized manner if that is what is required
> to save itself (it still may not be enough, at least, let's hope it
isn't.)

and i don't think it could because of class war. it may not want to expose
itself to international attack, but since capital must expand or die, and a
state-form (read: unification of the ruling class) is needed to manage
capitalism (class war), empire is the way they have to go.

i suppose there is a bit of "inevitability" in this, but only in the sense
of seeing the current and historical tendencies, understanding how
capitalism operates, trying to undertand what is happening and extrapolate
what will happen unless there is global inssurection.

> Meaningless for who???  Nobody dies going from Tennessee to Illinois but
> thousands die every year going from Mexico to Texas.

not meaningless now, but only because they need borders to maintain
different labor pools, until the process of racing to the bottom is
complete. but one of the main aspects of the ftaa is open borders at some
point soon, which would mean the end of this.

> And look at the
> current state of things, with the borders becoming vastly more militarized
> as the recomposition of labor in the US depends in part on increasing
> nationalism.  Borders have become MORE important and more policed and that
> is why Prop 187 in Cali was such a huge deal and goes hand-in-hand with
> globalization.

depends on borders with who: until this recent mess, the u.s. and canada
have had relatively open, unmilitarized borders... thousands of people from
canada work just over the border in the u.s., and vise-versa. this will
become true, eventually, with mexico as well... once the the economic
situations are more-or-less equalized.

yes, militarized borders with mexico is part of globalization, but only so
long as it is necessary to keep cheap labor pools in mexico.


> See above.  Certainly, the US media and politicians NEED the US public to
> believe that the US is loved all over except by crazy fanatics (and what
is
> up with the Taliban dude with the eye patch?  Talk about the exact media
> image the US wants!)  The US is not pushing internationalism, but trying
to
> douse the idea that the US (the state and corporations, at least) is hated
> internationally by a great many people.  Otherwise, they might ask WHY.
And
> WHY is bad.  I don't think it is much more than that.

this is true on one level, but i've seem more than this.... references to
the "brotherhood of humanity", even "global human community", etc. etc. etc.

and some of what you say here can easily be explained by thinking of the
u.s. as the scapegoat for global capitalism... that is: the "u.s." is the
snapping finger which distracts people all over the world while they are
punched by the global ruling class.

> Well that's a question, isn't it?  Why should the G8 give up this
advantage?
> I DON'T see it happening.

but it is happening. again, i think you underestimate the ability of the
ruling class to unify, and even give up privledges, in order to more
effectively fight us. they're not stupid at the g8 meetings, they know that
they have to give over power for globalization to operate effectively...
they might not like it on some power-hungry level, but at another level (a
tactical level) they know its necessary... and ultimately means more money
for all of this if they pull it off.

> It would mean recreating the WTO from scratch.

how do you figure? the wto was created to settle international economic
disputes without war, to equalize the ruling class, etc.

to think that the wto would have to be re-created from scratch would require
accepting the presupposition that the g8, or whomever, is on top / desires
to be on top. and i don't accept it.

> The problem is that every state exists
> only to pull the most capital within its borders (managing the working
class
> is part and parcel of this process, among other things), which is to say,
> within its jurisdiction.  This means that states do compete, representing
> capitalists who want to accumulate the largest amount of global capital
and
> insure their ability to reproduce at the highest level.

this is true, and has always been true... yet there have been strong
alliances between nation-states. if they can put aside their differences to
be in the g8 or nato together, they can put aside their differences to be in
empire.

>Why should the G8
> give up that advantage in the WTO?

because it is tactically necessary to fight us. i mean: why did certain
countries give up advantages to form alliances?

> It is not like those regimes in the
> Majority World will turn anti-capitalist!!

no, but they do demand equality, and in the interest of preserving
capitalism, they will get it.

> Being based in those places is not meaningless at all.  You underestimate
> the benefits you list.

i meant meaningless in regards to national composition. just because X
company is based in germany, does not mean it is a "german company".

> Just because only 60% of the
> board is from the US (a rather rare situation at that),

actually, people from the us represent a minority of bord members if the
fortune 500 is taken as a whole. the u.s. ruling class might have the
highest percenage of any single nation, but it is still only like 30% of all
bord members.

> that is more than
> sufficient.

sure. but most corporations are not "u.s. corporations", at least not
anymore.

> Just as 30% stock ownership is sufficient to dominate a
> company.

hell, 10% is enough if the other 90% is distributed amoung 90 different
people.

> I think you do not take the power imbalances in
> the international bodies seriously enough.

i take them quite seriously, but i also take the desire of the ruling class
to resolve these issues within the context of the international bodies
seriously.

> This does not mean that they
> would not like the level of integration you are talking about, but I don't
> think they can achieve it.

but it has been achieve at different levels all along. i see no reason why
it can't be achieved, barring global insurrection.

>  Interestingly, I think that class struggle has
> entered your discussion nowhere.  You assume the seamless achievement of
the
> process as if it were a kind of capital-logic.

the fact that i didn't say "class struggle" over and over again in that
email doesn't mean it didn't enter in... i understand capitalism to be class
struggle, and thus every time i said capitalism (or all the time i said
capital when i meant capitalism) i was talking about class struggle. so i
was actually assuming class struggle, but not saying it... and you criticism
here is why i've been more careful to make it explicit this time =P


> Well, it sure seems to me that if Empire is basically here, then the
> reomposition of labor by capital has succeeded, even if it is now going to
> be processing this change for a while.

i don't think that the formation of empire means a completed ("succeeded")
recomposition of labor. in fact, i don't think there has ever, in the
history of capitalism, been a completed recomposition of labor... because of
class struggle. we push them, they push back, we push back, etc. our
advantage is that they need us (and thus they can't let us fall... they can
only scare us into thinking we will), but we don't need them.

anyway... more to the point: the formation of empire is an attempt to
recompose labor, but does not mean that labor is recomposed... we fight
back. in fact, the anti-globalization movement has been us fighting back.
the question is: will they be able to push back and maintain empire in some
form... i think it is likely, since empire falling apart would have to stem
from successful struggles on our part. and just as the class struggles of
the 60s and 70s, broke keyesneanism, we could break empire as it stands,
without destroying capitalism... and instead forcing them into a different
management form within empire.

>  This all has the ring of
> inevitability.  There is nothing we can do to stop it and capital can do
> nothing else.

i think this is so, but not because of some inevitable movement in capital,
but because of our struggles forcing it to take this form if it is to expand
and thus survive. capitalism is forced this direction because of its
dialectic (capital-labor... class war).

> I think the crisis is
> still going on and that capital has yet to find an adequate form because
it
> has not yet adequately subordinated labor in a new mode.

i agree that the crisis is still going on, in fact i don't think the crisis
has stopped in the history of capitalism (since the crisis is ultimately
us), only taken different forms. and thus capital has to keep re-inventing
itself, find new forms. in this sense: we are never "adequately
subordinated", and there is always the chance for the insurrection rupture
of capitalism. and thus:

> Therefore, Empire
> is NOT here.

empire is not undermined by crisis, but is the current response the ruling
class has been forced into due to the continuous crisis. they might take the
advantage for a while, but the crisis will always continue and take on new
forms until capitalism ruptures for good (either thru insurrection, or thru
self-destruction via environmental catastrophy).

> Exactly.  And in so far as separation is the acme of capital, capital
always
> fractures reality into smaller and smaller pieces.  Even states fracture
and
> recompose (war, revolution, civil war, etc) constantly.  However, where
the
> capital-labor relation is most stable and secure, so is the political
form,
> since it has no pressure to force it to change itself radically.  The US
has
> been much more stable than even Continental Europe, much less the rest of
> the world.  The stability of the state has been a part of the cohesion of
> national ruling classes and where the national state collapses, so does
the
> capitalist class.

all of this is precisely why empire signals incredible possibilities for
insurrection... how can capital maintain control over such a multiplicity of
struggles by the working class against it? i agree that empire is not
stable, and that it may never be stable due to class war...

but much of this discussion is more geared toward: will it become stable
within the ruling class itself. and i think the answer is yes. esp since the
harder we push them, the more likley they are to unite.

and tho you talk about the u.s. being relatively "secure"... this only seems
so because the government as not changed, but the management forms have
changed likley crazy. there is a great deal of insecurity, but the
democratic illusion has thus far been able to keep pressure off of the state
as a unit.

> That does not do away with the capital-labor relation
> though.  Castro did not get rid of capital, but the bulk of the capitalist
> class did flee to Miami.

and castro and his bunch became the new ruling class.

> Yes, this is a major disagreement.  The global nature of the relation does
> not imply the global unity of classes.

depends on how you understand "unity". if by unity you mean class conscious
solidarity on the part of the working class, you are right. however, if by
"unity" you mean increasing similarity of exploitation, you are wrong.

and when i say that the globalization of the class relation (of capitalism)
means increased unity of the working class, i mean the later.

this is a question of composition vs. consciousness. the working class is
unified compositionally, but not consciously. however, since composition is
the prime factor, incredible possibilities are open for the first time in
history.

however, since the ruling class is incredibly class conscious, unity on
their part means unifying to fight the class war.
> This or
> that capitalist class can come into existence or cease to be without
> fndamentally undermining the capital-labor relation (look at Russia, Cuba,
> China, Vietnam, etc.)

yes, but only because there is another ruling class ready to take its
place... as in russia, cuba, china, vietnam, etc.

contrary to what camatte may think, capitalism can not operate without class
distinctions because someone has to be driving (and being driven).
capitalism does not exist outside of human ideas and actions.

ultimately, this comes down to understanding both the ruling class and
working class as existing inside of capitalism. the ruling class for, the
working class against.

> Indeed, without class struggle, no need for the state.  On that we agree.
> Its all the details and implications that we are not in agreement on :)

hee hee =)

as always... its a pleasure...  time to sleep.



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