From: "Lowe Laclau" <lowelaclau-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Difference of Concept: Empire & Imperialism
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:40:20 -0400
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Scott, </P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV><EM>It seems to me that the </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>(Hobson-Bukharin-Lenin) theory of imperialism and the </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>theory of Empire are incompatible. According to the </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>theory of Empire, the era of inter-imperialist wars is </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>over; according to the theory of imperialism, we are </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>living in an epoch where such wars are just possible </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>but inevitable. </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><EM>According to the theory of Empire, national liberation </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>struggles are obsolete; according to the theory of </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>imperialism they are inevitable and indispensable. </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>According to the theory of imperialism but not the </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>theory of Empire, there is an important difference </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>between the consciousness and objective conditions of </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>a slice of Western workers and the mass of non-Western </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>workers. There are many other differences, but you get </EM><EM>the idea. </EM>
<P>With regards to national liberation struggles, I am not quite sure what you mean in your contrast. National liberation struggles, I think, are concidered obsolete by Empire's standards, but I don't think that it would consider them in any way less <STRONG>inevitable</STRONG>. The obsolescence is with regards to what it engenders, what it supports, which Empire considers perhaps regressive. As for their "indispensability" I think you are right, there is a irreconsilable difference of perspective there. </P>
<P>But OK... we're also considering two different issues here. One is a difference of <EM>concept </EM>between the two "theories" perhaps contained in these various people's thoughts, and the other is the differences of the <EM>theories </EM>themselves. What I was previously speaking about was the former, in which issues of compatability are irrelevant. With the latter though, if one is concerned with the theories propounded in a book like Empire <EM>vis a vis </EM>those of Lenin and Hobson, issues of compatability is an issue. I personally warn against holding onto or looking to "theories" in a way that differences of congruence and compatability advise my evaluation of their merits, so I did not consider this last issue. </P>
<DIV></DIV>><EM>The political practices that these two theories </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>sponsor </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>are also very different. One of the things which </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>infuriates many non-white readers of Empire is the way </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>that it dismisses national liberation struggles as a </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>route to a post-capitalist world. One of the things </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>that irks many unionists is the way that the book </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>seems to dismiss the importance of putting concrete </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>>demands on national governments. </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Well, you know, when people read or experience something and react to it, their reactions are always dictated by what they expected coming into that event or reading. Negative reactions such as these are inevitably always predicated on a difference of what one wants or expects and what one is given. It also says that they've not really tried to see just why what was stated was said. If one is less dogmatic in ones beliefs and expectations I would say that one could spend the same energy used to justify a reaction in trying to see where that difference in perspective or difference in belíef comes from. Maybe, just maybe, there is insight in that perspective that they could not previously see. </P>
<P>>I had an open mind about the imperialism - Empire </P>
<DIV></DIV>>debate up until the end of last year, when I began to
<DIV></DIV>>believe that the ideas in Empire had been discredited
<DIV></DIV>>by post-S 11 events. How much credibility did the view
<DIV></DIV>>that the nation state was fading away have, when
<DIV></DIV>>America was excercising such power? How much
<DIV></DIV>>credibility did the argument for the irrelevance of
<DIV></DIV>>national liberation struggles have, when a national
<DIV></DIV>>liberation struggle was creating a revolutionary
<DIV></DIV>>situtation in Palestine?
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Well, one could state in response that where one persons sees America, America... (by which one is considering a very homogenized type of governmental and financial figures and institutions), another person could be seeing the US State in complicity with the States of every other G8 nation and an entire global oligarchy in which not even the smallest states are excluded from what is happening in this post S11 world. </P>
<P>Palestine is another interesting situation. I don't think that you have to believe national liberation struggles are extremely relevant to our contemporary situation to agree that the Palestinian national struggle has a revolutionary significance nonetheless. Combating power is always of interest. Its just what happens from then on, that the national issue becomes a problem again. </P>
<P>Well, these are just my opinions, but hopefully you can get something from my input. </P>
<P>Lowe</P>
<P> </P></div><br clear=all><hr>Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMDEN/2015">Click Here</a> </html>
--- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005