From: "Larochelle, Gilbert" <gilar-AT-videotron.ca>
Subject: RE: gas
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:22:14 -0400




-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]De la part de hbone
Envoyé : 25 octobre, 2001 20:49
À : lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Objet : Re: gas


Steve/Eric/All,

Steve's post (paragraphs excerpted below) put the nation-state vs. global
"empire" argument in focus.

If we collect evidence and highlight the differends that distinguish our
personal points of view we can, hopefully, increase our areas of agreement.

Who are the G-20, and what unites them?

regards,

Hugh

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

> The centre of the world is not Washington - the economic centre of the
> world lies along the G20 axis - as the economic wealth of this group
> expands and additional states enter into this group - the economic
> center of the planet will become diffuse and increasingly challenged by
> the 'mulititude', by the savages within and without. When the old
> Eastern block countries start joining the EC scheduled to start within
> the next 5 years, including Russia the diffusion of economic resource
> from the USA will become more obvious.
>
> It is worth noting that the US economy because of its energy use is less
> efficient than the smaller and more efficient trade centric members of
> the G20 grouping (figures are available from OECD and Hirst and Thompson).
>
> 'Terroism" is being used to extend the oppression of groups struggling
> against the injustices of the present socio-economic systems all over
> the world from the UK to Mexico and beyond. It is also being used to
> draw together the G20 states into the loose coalition which superfically
> is being used to maintain USA dominance, the behavior of the USA in
> Kosovo relating to NATo involvement, which was carried out to maintain
> USA domination of the military sapces. However this has not stopped
> European movements towards military independence. Under the banner of
> supporting the USA closer moves towards European 'defence' forces are
> speeding up!
>
> Globalisation is not the nation states dream, it is what is happening,
> whether they like it or not! This is one of the lessons of Negri and
> Hardt's 'Empire'.
>
> Go nomadic Eric! think the unthinkable, remember 'they' always get it
> wrong!
>
>
>
> regards
> sdv
>
> Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >Over the past two months I have read Negri and Hardt's Empire twice,
> >feverishly underlining the text with yellow highlighter until my fingers
> >looked liked they had nicotine stains.  I realize this doesn't make me
> >an expert on globalization, but it does make me sympathetic.
> >
> >I think we were differ is not so much on the politics of this, but in
> >our analysis of what exactly is occurring.  My hope is that my
> >discussing this further we can clarify the issues a bit more.  For
> >myself, I am not exactly sure what constitutes the distinction you are
> >making between a Pax America and Globalism.
> >
> >You say the 'G1 country in alliance with the other G19 countries is
> >engaging in a globalization adventure...' but certainly you recognize
> >that the G8 or G20 are not all equal powers.  Far from it. Some are more
> >equal than others - the US in particular.
> >
> >The US has the greatest military might of all these countries, it
> >dominates the international economy, it oversees the IMF and third world
> >debt, it has greater control of the oil fields, it sees itself
> >ideologically as the winner of the Cold War and as the heir apparent to
> >world domination.
> >
> >The basic question remains.  Are we witnessing the emergence today of a
> >supranational global empire or are we witnessing the attempt of the US
> >to utilize supranational organizations such as NATO and the UN in order
> >to further it own hegemonic interests by dividing the other powers,
> >pressuring them in various ways and, when all else fails, using its
> >military might as a show of force to establish its own stategic
> >dominance?
> >
> >Here is what Peter Gowan says on this topic.
> >
> >"With resources like these, the collapse of the Soviet Bloc opened up
> >the possibility of a new global Empire of a new type.  An empire made up
> >of the patchwork of the states of the entire planet.  The legal
> >sovereignty of all these would be preserved, but the political
> >significance of that legal sovereignty would be turned on its head.  It
> >would mean that the state concerned would bear entire juridical and
> >political responsibility for all the problems on its territory but would
> >lose effective control over the central actual economic and political
> >processes flowing in and out of its territories.  The empire would be
> >centered in Washington with Western Europe and Japan as brigaded client
> >powers and the extend across the rest of the world, beating against the
> >borders of an enfeebled Russia and a potentially beleaguered China."
> >
> >"And it would be an Empire in which the capitalist classes of every
> >state within it would be guaranteed security against social challenge,
> >through the protection of the new Behemoth, provided only that they
> >respected the will and authority of the Behemoth on all questions which
> >it considered important.  If the US played its new strategy for empire
> >building effectively, it could thus earn the support and even adulation
> >of all the capitalist classes of the world."
> >
> >This describes effectively what I think the US is attempting to
> >accomplish right now.  If you want to call this Pax America, so be it.
> >However, the 911 attack was not on Globalism.  It was on America.  The
> >war is not being waged by Global powers. (Whatever lip service they
> >provide.) It is being waged by America.  The question remains who is
> >using who.  I believe the Bush Administration clearly believe it has the
> >divine right of kings to rule the world and God help whoever gets in its
> >way.
> >
> >I agree with you, however, that this war is not merely about narrow
> >economic interests, but about extending the scope of capitalism "into
> >the last corners of the world where a pre-capitalist regime and
> >associated resistors threatened it" as well as attempting to control the
> >so-called anti-globalist forces.  Terrorism is being used to extend the
> >Cold War by other means with the US as the sole hegemonic force acting
> >through various supranational global agencies.  The US will not
> >willingly submit to globalism unless it actively detained.
> >
> >I do not personally think the US will be successful at this effort
> >ultimately, but I do think this is what they are attempting.  What I am
> >arguing for is not merely Pax America, but Globalism with an American
> >twang and a Colt 45 backing it up.
> >
> >Actually, I would like to be wrong about this, but when I look around at
> >the world right now, this seems to be what is clearly happening.  Why do
> >you see it differently?  Do you really think the US is weaker or more
> >innocent that I do?  Do you really think Europe or Russia or China or
> >Japan can tell Uncle Sam what to do and He will listen?
> >
> >eric
> >
> >
>
>