Subject: AUT: Empire, inter- imperialist conflict and Rogue States Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:22:39 +1100 From: "Project / Advocate Officer " <project-AT-guild.unsw.edu.au> Hi Everyone, I would like to make a few methodological points about Empire. I do not agree with all of Negri and Hardt's claims, but I have the feeling that some comrades tend to foreclose the significance of the book's argument by taking the approach that globalisation continue to be fundamntally the same type of capitalist and imperialist system. I do not think most people in this list disagree that capitalism continue to be fundamentally the same system as it was 100 years ago. However, I think Zizek has made a really good point when he argues that Marxist dialectics is not about to find the points of communality between one moment of capitalism and another. Marxist dialectics is about conceptualising the "split", the point of difference and antagonism that separates the past from the present. What revolutinary dialectics seeks the conceptualise is the exception that confirms the general rule, not the general rule itself. Only by doing this we can really adapt our political practice to the present circumstances. If we say that capitalism has always been the same the statement as no political significance, and would mean to say that our political practice should remain static The second point Zizek made is that conceptualsing this "split" is crucial because it is around this rupture that the fundamentals of capitalism as a mode of production are structured in th enew period. For instance, none could deny that the industrial working class has grown drastically over the last twenty years, confirming the historical trend since the industrial revolution. This is a constant factor within the system that, while important, it has only a relative political value. The central dialectical point is to talk about class composition, and class composition is not simply about the quantity of workers but quality of workers. In that respect, today's point of split between the old and new working class is that capitalist production and profitability is sustained by highly immaterial, casualised and communicational forms of labour, from the street vendor selling japanese watches in the street of lime to the computer techniciam in Silicon valley. This does not deny the existence of the industrial working class, of its political importance, but we need to reconise that industrial production is overdermined and structured by circuits of production and communication that are outside the factory. The same is true for the issues of imperialism and Empire. Empire does not deny inter-capitalist riveries, but what the point of writing a book if your are going to keep making the same point that was made about the system 20 or 30 years ago. Empire attempts to conceptualise the "split", it might have done badly, maybe, but it is necessary focus on the "split" as a term of reference for the debate. At least as I understood Empire, is that world capitalism function in networks, therefore, there are different power relations at play all the time. Empire is not to say that the ruling class is an homogeneous class. In fact, Empire argues completely the opposite, that ruling class power at global level is based on dispersion of powers from below, including NGOs. Empire is not a structure, it is an open field of antagonism, it is a dynamic of power relations where there is not central emperors. The attempt by the US to hegemonise this process is simply a single aspect of all the game. The central issue in Empire is the question of the nation state and the transference of sovereignity to a global space. There is an inter-capitalist conflict and competition, but this is extremly unlike to take the form ( and this is my claim not Negri's)of an inter-imperialist conflict like WW1 or WW2s. I think that is major point of difference between Imperialism and Empire if we want to undertand the current war. The terrain of this inter-capitalist conflict need to been seen from the point of view of capital's own class composition. In recent, interview Negri analysed this conflict not as a conflict between nation states but a conflict between the "dollar taliban" and the "oil taliban". He does not say it but it seems to me that this conflict is truly global one; meaning that the trenches do not take the form necessarily of nation state battling each other, but it is battle between two imperial network of capital. alQaeda is simply a massive financial network, with an armed wing, a mass ideological appeal and whose development perhaps was facilitated by the deregulation of capital markets over the last twenty years. The fact that alQaeda has been always really based in Saudi Arabia but extended its tentacles all over the world shows the complexity of capital movements and how these shape the map of the conflict beyond the national terrain. I do not think Negri and Hardt describe Rogue networks (alQaeda) or States (Irak, Taliban) as outside the Empire. Rogue State are precisely part of the make up of Empire as pirates where part of the make up of the colonial world. (Please keep in mind that when I use the word pirates I do not mean it in a pejorative sense. I quite like some pirates myself).There is not Empire without Rogue elements, the important thing is not to confine the existence of Rogue elements to the "Third World", the US military is already full of them. Think about Timothy Macvain for instance. Cheers Sergio -----Original Message----- From: owner-aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Bailey Sent: jueves, 01 de noviembre de 2001 12:26 To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Empire and oil > the problem is that i don't see any rivalries. > everyone keeps talking about > them, but no one (that i have seen) has given any > evidence of them. I thought the article that was posted by the ex-military guy pointed out all sorts of rivalries associated with the myriad of different pipeline routes. Russia wants a route that goes through its territory so it can charge fees etc, the US wants one through Turkey etc. Another example is the formation of the GUAAM group of Eurasian countries refered to in the article. > from my perspective, the overwhelming global support > for this action from > the ruling class(es) lends a lot of credence to the > theory of empire. > > but that's just me... Not necessarily. Countries that are looking after the their own interests are still likely to back the US in a matter like this because they don't want to be on the global bullies bad side. I have another question, What about India/Pakistan China/Taiwan, the Balkans? Do Negri and Hardt describe these as "Rogue states" outside of Empire? Richard ____________________________________________________________ Nokia Game is on again. Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new all media adventure before November 3rd. --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005