Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:08:52 +0100
Subject: Re: terrorism




Thanks for the odyssey link. About to try it.

I'll let you know what Hardt says after friday night.

I suggest that we all re-read pages 137-138 of empire - we know how to 
struggle against modernist versions of colonialism, the model is quite 
well understood, the current version is, after all, not understood...

In the previous paradigm you supported the colonised - pace Sartre 
(guess i should read that text) - and that was basically it. Now it is 
more complex and more interestingly painful...

We should reject the early post-modern theorisations which suggest that 
it represents a break with notions of soveriegnty and think, dare to 
think differently.

regards

sdv

hbone wrote:

>Steve/Eric/All,
>
>I'm closer to Eric on this one.  The U.S."is" Empire, not a Negri-Hardt
>confabulation,  bbut the real one, and Blair knows it.
>
>IMHO, being an Empire, or "the" Empire,  the U.S. will, like Greels. Romans,
>Mongols, Ottoman Turks, and more recently, the Victorians, take as much as
>possible, yield as little as possible for as long as possible.
>
>The newest and oldest of metanarratives is globalization.
>
>regards,
>
>Hugh
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>>Eric...
>>
>>no no no - what it shows is the opposite, it confirms the meaning of
>>globalisation as being precisely for 'development'.  Nation state
>>globalisation is the current operational form of globalisation, with a
>>few extra-national organisations. The purpose of globalisation is 1)
>>development and  2) continuing dominance of G20 countries... why did you
>>think it was different?
>>
>>The rest of the world is being quiet... the G club is growing...
>>
>>regards
>>
>>sdv
>>
>>>What 911 has shown is the extent to which the US is the true
>>>anti-globalist.  What it really wants is nationstateglobalism, to have
>>>the best of both worlds, 19th century imperialism (ie. the oil fields of
>>>Saudia Arabia) and 21st century space-time compression (what used to be
>>>called fast track.)
>>>
>>>This might be possible if the rest of the world would simply remain
>>>asleep and keep silent, but it won't and there's the inherent
>>>difficulty. The clock is striking midnight and Minerva's cyberetic owl
>>>takes flight at fright.
>>>
>>>eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve/Eric/All,

I'm closer to Eric on this one.  The U.S."is" Empire, not a Negri-Hardt
confabulation,  bbut the real one, and Blair knows it.

IMHO, being an Empire, or "the" Empire,  the U.S. will, like Greels. Romans,
Mongols, Ottoman Turks, and more recently, the Victorians, take as much as
possible, yield as little as possible for as long as possible.

The newest and oldest of metanarratives is globalization.

regards,

Hugh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eric...

no no no - what it shows is the opposite, it confirms the meaning of
globalisation as being precisely for 'development'.  Nation state
globalisation is the current operational form of globalisation, with a
few extra-national organisations. The purpose of globalisation is 1)
development and  2) continuing dominance of G20 countries... why did you
think it was different?

The rest of the world is being quiet... the G club is growing...

regards

sdv

What 911 has shown is the extent to which the US is the true
anti-globalist.  What it really wants is nationstateglobalism, to have
the best of both worlds, 19th century imperialism (ie. the oil fields of
Saudia Arabia) and 21st century space-time compression (what used to be
called fast track.)

This might be possible if the rest of the world would simply remain
asleep and keep silent, but it won't and there's the inherent
difficulty. The clock is striking midnight and Minerva's cyberetic owl
takes flight at fright.

eric