Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:34:00 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Scott=20Hamilton?= <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Difference of Concept: Empire & Imperialism



Hi Lowe,

I agree that all theories are approximations of
reality, attempts to get a handle on reality. It
follows that many theories overlap, or are in some way
compatible. It is certainly possible to forget this,
and dogmatically counterpose theories. I think that
the best Marxist theories are syntheses, taking the
best elemets from a variety of viewpoints and weaving
them together. I was making this point a few days back
when I posted on students, and the futility of putting
one class brand on all 'students' in all situations.

It does not follow from this, however, that there are
no incompatible theories. When two theories offer very
different characterisations of an aspect of reality a
choice may have to be made. It seems to me that the
(Hobson-Bukharin-Lenin) theory of imperialism  and the
theory of Empire  are incompatible. According to the
theory of Empire, the era of inter-imperialist wars is
over; according to the theory of imperialism, we are
living in an epoch where such wars are just possible
but inevitable. 

According to the theory of Empire, national liberation
struggles are obsolete; according to the theory of
imperialism they are inevitable and indispensable.
According to the theory of imperialism but not the
theory of Empire, there is an important difference
between the consciousness and objective conditions of
a slice of Western workers and the mass of non-Western
workers. There are many other differences, but you get
the idea.

The political practices that these two theories
sponsor
are also very different. One of the things which
infuriates many non-white readers of Empire is the way
that it dismisses national liberation struggles as a
route to a post-capitalist world. One of the things
that irks many unionists is the way that the book
seems to dismiss the importance of putting concrete
demands on national governments. 

I had an open mind about the imperialism - Empire
debate up until the end of last year, when I began to 
believe that the ideas in Empire had been discredited 
by post-S 11 events. How much credibility did the view
that the nation state was fading away have, when
America was excercising such power? How much 
credibility did the argument for the irrelevance of
national liberation struggles have, when a national
liberation struggle was creating a revolutionary
situtation in Palestine? 

Negri and Hardt have made vague attempts to fit post-
S 11 events into the framework of their theory, but I
find these very unconvincing. For instance, they try
to down play the impression of the US as a rampaging
imperialist power by arguing that Russia is also
improving its position after S 11. I think that
comparing Russia to the US is ridiculous, and an
implicit play to the theory of imperialism Negri has
supposedly left behind. 

Cheers
Scott 

 

===="Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
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 ---