Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:35:25 +0200
From: Peter van Heusden <pvh-AT-wfeet.za.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: RE: The "Multitude" and Rights


Lowe Laclau wrote:

>And perhaps we should explore further this idea of a global state? If one superposes the idea of the nation-state over the entire globe I think one has made a drastic error in logic. Integral to the idea of the nation-state is its capture vis-a-vis isomorphic but heterogeneous rivals. Its also crucial to understand privat capital and monetary flows --their command over labor-- and how this relates to State division. A global state would not make sense from this perspective. While I'm not saying that H&N's vision of Empire is anywhere in line with a vision of a "global state" in any sense (speaking from what I remember of Empire), perhaps it is also necessary to address this idea, insofar as it is this type of phantom haunting many people concerning our global future. I personally do not think that even their concept of Empire can be read as synonymous with any understanding of State in any preceding or traditional senses. 
>
>  
>
Hm... but when I hear 'global state' I think of something like a global 
'order' (in the sense of the WTO, even UN) wherein nation states act 
almost like provinces and passports are equivalent to the 'internal 
passports' of the old Soviet Union. In other words, there is a sense of 
'global unity' but at the same time a sense that 'stability' requires 
the imposition of hierarchy.

Maybe in this sense a call for 'global citizenship' can be seen as 
radical - calling into question the hierarchies - and I can even see how 
a Europe that is expanding its borders can be seen as vaguely 
'progressive'. Its just that that kind of 'progressive' gets me about as 
excited as Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution... in other words, not very 
excited at all. ;)

As to the Bologna Angela mentioned... what writings are those? Is 
anything available in English?

Peter



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