From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net> Subject: Re: AUT: Antiterrorism = development of terror against our struggles Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:14:28 -0600 Steve, I have mixed feelings on this. While capital is international, I don;t think, contrary to commie00, that the capitalist class has largely stopped being nationally organized because of their dependence on territorally bound/binding states and the nation state as manager of flows of labor. I think all this overlooks the way in which capital's flight from insubordinate labor means traversing and creating a fragmented globe, a world of enforced and bounded divergence. It means building all kinds of barriers, not because capital would not like to move freely and equally everywhere, but because class struggle forces refragmentation upon capital as a defense. I don't think that the political, the overall production of the separation of social control from social production, etc is national, and yet it gets expressed through national states. In the same way, I think that capital is truly (and really always has been) international, and now increasingly global, but the expression of that has been territorally limited/state-bound capitalist classes. To stand against the bourgeoisie of the country we live in, to which moreover we are socially, linguistically and pschologically acculturated, is to stand against the specific manifestation of total capital. I think that the ICG comrades, even if I disagree with a lot of their politics, still hit on something vital in posing a refusal which on the one hand stands against national chauvinism and recognizes the actually existing asymmetry between nations, while at the same time recognizing that the international institutions of capital no less represent capital, are no more 'internationalist' than the nation states. At the same time, I have to express amazement at the continued denial of imperialism and US hegemony in the face of the war against Afghanistan, this so called 'war against terrorism'. The US shrugged off the UN, NATO and every other international body and has proceeded in the most unilateral terms, gathering support around it via a large measure of bullying and cajoling. This is not Iraq or Somalia. This has been US orchestrated and executed from day one, except that Britain's dependence on the US has become all the more clear in this process. Clearly, the financial center of the world seems to be staking its health on the productive giant, hoping that the US will pull the world out of the slump (increasingly wishful thinking.) To claim this action as an expression of post-imperialism or 'empire' seems ludicrous to me. It may be no mistake to see these 'empire' stories as a re-run of Kautsky's ultra-imperialism. These same illusions popped up the last time we saw a money-capital running rampant over the face of the globe, only to be shattered by massive inter-imperialist war. Are we headed that way? It seems unlikely, and yet I cannot help but feel that 'empire' is premature. I think that the latest Aufheben has some really interesting stuff pertinent to this process. Anyway, scattered tonight so... Cheers, Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antagonism" <antagonism1-AT-yahoo.com> To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: Re: AUT: Antiterrorism = development of terror against our struggles > [tried to send this already and my browser did somthing weird - > so maybe yoou'll get this twice, or maybe not] > > The ICG write: > > > THE ENEMY IS IN OUR OWN COUNTRY THIS IS OUR OWN > > BOURGEOISIE! > > > Let's organize beyond the borders, outside and against > > the summits and antisummits and any other structure of > > the bourgeois State! > > Are you assuming that the capitalist class is national and the > proletariat is international? If so, I think you are mistaken - > the capitalist class has its own internationalism, for example > the summits you mention, the international coalition "against > terror", the international financial regulatory instituions, the > EU and NAFTA, and so on. In the war in Afghanistan, there > dosen't really seem to be a national bourgeoisie in action. > There is the UN, the EU, the US dominated coalition, against Al > Qaida (a non-national organaisation) and the Taliban (a fraction > that never ruled throughout Afghanistan). > > In this situation, is the claim that "the enemy is your own > bourgeousie" leading proletarians into a national perspective > which is increasingly irrelevent? > > steve > > > ====> Antagonism > web: http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1 > email: antagonism1-AT-yahoo.com > mail: Antagonism, BM Makhno, London WC1N 3XX, UK > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com > > > --- 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