Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 22:29:17 +0000
Subject: Re: gas




  Eric and All

A couple of philosophical points:
One of the things that is most interesting in Negri&Hardts adoption of 
the Deleuzo/Guattarian-Marxist approach, which makes Empire read like a 
continuation of Mille Plateaux is the almost viral affect of 
Deleuze/Guattari's work - the virus I am thinking of is the almost 
joyous belief in the value of resistence, not that this is explicity 
stated, but it is built into the very project. 'an affirmative nomad 
thought' as Massumi calls it in the paperback version of MP I have 
here... Empire is the latest issue of this 'bastard line of thought' 
that Deleuze extended and reworked...

The major foci of the 'Empire' text is the reworking of the concept of 
sovriegnty and the attempt of reconstructing/reinventing the 
revolutionary subject through the use of Spinoza (multitudo). Spinoza 
recognised that he overestimated the value of rational argument on the 
opinions of the multitudo in matters of theology and politics... Post 
Deleuze/Guattari's Anti-Oedipus and Lyotard's Differend - it is not 
possible to believe rational argument will be recognised... part of the 
strength of Empire is the refusal to commit to the means required, 
through specifying the actions of militants and to leave that to the 
specialised militancy that is required. This is actually one of the 
inevitable outcomes of the 1968 event(s) because we no longer know how 
to function, (hesitantly i say) as a pure mass, to believe that a mass 
socio/political revolutionary movement is technically feasible. Post '68 
a mass movement is realised to be an arbitrary coalition, mostly you 
would not want them to take power (memories of the Jacobins and the 
founding Fathers of the USA spring to mind). Do I need to refer to 
Nancy's 'inoperative community' to say why this is impossible?

Let me restate that what I find interesting and fascinating is the 
'positive' texture to the approach - victory may not be assured but 
neither is loss - as a consequence the utopian nature of the text, with 
the pre-'Empire' recognition, that probably derives from the 
proto-neitschean marx that was so popular in France in the early 70s, 
that struggle and resistance will always be required.

The State:
To reply to the USA state issue - I hesitate to follow this line of 
thought because I feel that we digging ourselves into one of those 
differends that mark out our social/philosophical differences but let me 
attempt a slightly different approach. According to Ferdinand Braudal 
the nation state can be said to have come into existence in its modern 
form in the 15th C this is confirmed indirectly in Jardine's Worldly 
Goods. So why should we not see that the nation state's form of 
soverignty is mutating into a new globalised form of soveriegnty, 
defined as 'Empire' where the nation state (the USA for example) does 
not realise its full socio/economic/militray power because the 
compromise is more valuable than the nation state soveriegnty that 
preceded it. This in turn is a mere part of the problemtic that Lyotard 
defined in his last writings as 'Development'.

The social/economic/political structures of the next few decades will 
obviously be formed by the dominant economies of which the USA is the 
largest. The countries that form the G20 economies, are a group of 
competitive economies all of which 'desire' to be dominant. They are all 
specific and unique economies - the USA will obviously do anything it 
can to remain at the pinnacle - probably resulting in more than one 
nasty war. This does not mean that the underlying thesis of Empire and 
globalisation is incorrect. It simply explains why the USA consistently 
behaves badly - from Kyoto, third world debt, to its refusal to sign the 
Biological Warfare treaty.

Will the USA go to war with China in the next 20 years - probably, will 
it go to war with the EC in the next 20 years possibily, will it bomb 
some other third world country in a colonial action with the help of the 
G20 coalition definitely....

The dream of the corporations is that they can remain 'multinationals' 
and not have to become 'Transnationals' and consequently remain 
protected by the nation states that they developed in, living in the 
inoperative communities that are their homes, but operating in a 
globalised world economy.

regards as always

sdv


Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

>hbone wrote:
>
>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.
>
>Hugh, Steve, anyone else?
>
>The problem I have with Steve's observation is that he makes it sound as
>if Globalism were a fait accompli! He says:
>
>- 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.
>
>To me, this sounds like saying that since workers outnumber management,
>they w
>ill soon unite and create the glorious socialist revolution. One
>of the reasons this never happened was because the powers that be have
>always found ways to keep various workers divided. Politics has been
>used time and time again to defer the class war.
>
>My question to Steve is this.  If what you are saying is true, why
>didn't Europe unite ten years ago, with the fall of the Communist bloc?
>  
>One answer I would give is that the US has not merely been passively
>sitting on the sidelines watching events unfold.  Instead it has been
>playing a very activist role in Europe and will continue to do so. In
>the nineties, it did not hold back from even waging war within European
>borders against the will of many leading European states. 
>
>Even though the other countries have potential power if they unite, this
>will never occur if the US can use its military might and financial,
>economic and political influence to keep them divided and esta
>blish its
>own hegemony first. 
>
>Just as class struggle can be redirected, so can global struggle. It is
>all a matter of politics.
>
>Such a American led hegemony would wear a global face, of course. I have
>not been arguing against Globalism in that sense at all.  Nor have I
>been arguing that the current conditions are much like those of the
>pre-Vietnam American glory days and the old nationalist cultural
>imperialism of guns and Coca Cola.
>
>What I am trying to suggest is that the ultimate form that globalism
>takes will be shaped by a struggle over how this is defined. The US has
>not and will not simply practice lassez faire with regard to politics.
>It will not give up its current power (and it is considerable in many
>ways) without a fight.  
>
>To believe that some form of participatory and democratic globalism will
>simply emerge out of some dialectical version of historical materialism
>because the potential power exists 
>for it to do so seems as naive as the
>view in the early twentieth century that nothing could stop the eventual
>triumph of socialism.
>
>My thinking may not be as nomadic as yours, but it is much more Kynical.
>I am a global as you are, but I don't think it will merely happen. I am
>simply arguing here that we need to pay attention right now as events
>occur to the US political role in attempting to determine the vectors
>globalism will take.
>
>The Faustian bargain of military and political protection to wealthy
>elites in exchange for open economic and financial flows will be a
>tempting one to many. Even if these elites are not the multitudes, it is
>not the multitudes alone who have power. 
>
>The dream of the corporations is that they alone are the true nomads and
>everyone else must stay put, preferably with a cyber-chip identity card.
>
>Can we agree on this?
>
>eric
>
>

HTML VERSION:

hbone wrote:

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.

Hugh, Steve, anyone else?

The problem I have with Steve's observation is that he makes it sound as
if Globalism were a fait accompli! He says:

- 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.

To me, this sounds like saying that since workers outnumber management,
they w

ill soon unite and create the glorious socialist revolution. One
of the reasons this never happened was because the powers that be have
always found ways to keep various workers divided. Politics has been
used time and time again to defer the class war.

My question to Steve is this.  If what you are saying is true, why
didn't Europe unite ten years ago, with the fall of the Communist bloc?
  
One answer I would give is that the US has not merely been passively
sitting on the sidelines watching events unfold.  Instead it has been
playing a very activist role in Europe and will continue to do so. In
the nineties, it did not hold back from even waging war within European
borders against the will of many leading European states. 

Even though the other countries have potential power if they unite, this
will never occur if the US can use its military might and financial,
economic and political influence to keep them divided and est
a
blish its
own hegemony first. 

Just as class struggle can be redirected, so can global struggle. It is
all a matter of politics.

Such a American led hegemony would wear a global face, of course. I have
not been arguing against Globalism in that sense at all.  Nor have I
been arguing that the current conditions are much like those of the
pre-Vietnam American glory days and the old nationalist cultural
imperialism of guns and Coca Cola.

What I am trying to suggest is that the ultimate form that globalism
takes will be shaped by a struggle over how this is defined. The US has
not and will not simply practice lassez faire with regard to politics.
It will not give up its current power (and it is considerable in many
ways) without a fight.  

To believe that some form of participatory and democratic globalism will
simply emerge out of some dialectical version of historical materialism
because the potential power exist
s 
for it to do so seems as naive as the
view in the early twentieth century that nothing could stop the eventual
triumph of socialism.

My thinking may not be as nomadic as yours, but it is much more Kynical.
I am a global as you are, but I don't think it will merely happen. I am
simply arguing here that we need to pay attention right now as events
occur to the US political role in attempting to determine the vectors
globalism will take.

The Faustian bargain of military and political protection to wealthy
elites in exchange for open economic and financial flows will be a
tempting one to many. Even if these elites are not the multitudes, it is
not the multitudes alone who have power. 

The dream of the corporations is that they alone are the true nomads and
everyone else must stay put, preferably with a cyber-chip identity card.

Can we agree on this?

eric