Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 16:00:39 +1000
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Negri


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_Erg4VrdeO66d9MKT/eqe5g)

Steve/All,

In your opinion.  

I have a blizzard of emails from other lists, but will get back to this one 
soon, I hope.

best,
Hugh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: steve.devos 
  To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:15 AM
  Subject: Re: Negri


  Hugh,

  No social political advance in the history of the world has been made without struggle, resistence and violence.  

  Absolutely none of examples below are relevant to the issue regarding the status of anti-colonialist violence in Sartre's era of colonialism and neo-colonialism and the current era of Globalisation.


  regards 
  steve

  hbone wrote:

All,Legitimate violence!!!My God is better than your God. He gives me the Holy right to kill for HisGlory.  Your God is the Devil in disguise.As Bill Maher said, Jesus was a mid-eastern young man with a beard who wouldhave difficulty boarding and airplane in the US..So was Mohammed.Only a few centuries after the Crucifixion, the philosophy of Jesustriumphed over the Romans, who had lost their convictions, no longer trustedtheir pagan Gods who had served them well for centuries.The Inquisition was truly a milestone in Christian violence.  Take a walk inthe courtyard in Madrid where burning humans alive was a public celebration.Maher also said there are beheadings in Saudi Arabia every Friday.  Why arereligions so in love with Death?Mohammed's followers were conquerors, globalizers who, between and duringconquests of  Spain, the Middle East and Southeastern Europe maintai
nedmosques, hospitals libraries, international trade, trips to Mecca, preservedthe learning  of  the ancients while medieval knights in northern Europeindulged in a violence mutual destruction.Nation-states with  standing armies and guns brought in a new era ofviolence in Western Europe, and now there are almost 200 nation-statesworldwide.Each one legitimates its own violence, which is about the only thing the UNcan unanimously agree on.regards,Hugh
All,I sent the Negri interview/statements yesterday to try and take usbeyond the nihilism of the Baudriallard position and to try and open upthe discussion into new areas... Rather than discuss the Negri piecedirectly...A number of things concern me regarding the discussion(s) around theseissues that I've seen and heard in relation to the USA and theglobalization issues following on from Septembers terrorist activity.We can respond to the current crisis of the global as either: thedomination of the US nation state or the globalization perspectivereferred to in the Negri interview yesterday.If the former position is accepted as being an accurate representationof the current crisis then we are inexorably return to the conflictualposition of attacking the USA as an imperialist nation state - to thepossibilityt of having to support the anti-conlonial murders andassociated violence that t
his legitimizes. In this sense Sartres book oncolonialism and neo-colonialism becomes essential reading, Sartresargument (which is very convincing) is that against colonialism thecolonized can and most probably must engage in legitimate anti-colonialviolence. From India, China, Algiers, Southern and Northern Ireland toIsrael, Palestine and beyond this violence has been directed not justagainst the nation state but also the people-state nexus, but thisviolence must in some sense be considered legitimate... However the sideeffect of this, assuming that you accept that people have the right tofight against the colonizers, is that it seems to justify and explainthe WTC attacks as anti-colonial violence - in the same way as therandom bombing of London during the past 30 years by the IRA - wereconsidered legitimate - certainly by the USA citizens who financed thebombing campaigns...However within the N&H's variant of t
he theory of globalization we havesomething very different because of the implicit separation of peoplefrom capitalism - as a consequence the legitimate responses to thepost-colonialist activity of postmodern capital is functionallydifferent and attacks on 'people' become harder to justify -perhaps inpart because of the strange notion of the 'multitude', which is relatedboth to theorisations of the proletariat but relates to Spinosa andDeleuze. The strict capital and anti-capitalist construction and theidentification of globalisation structures as targets for social andpolitical elements, perhaps in this sense only the 'multitude' candefine what would be legitimate violence...Finally then if the former position is being maintained may this not bebecause of a desire founded in the imaginary for the maintenance of theUSA as nation-state ruler of the/an 'empire' ? Living in the UK it iseasy to understand the desire for 
the false memories of our histories tobe true...regardssteve




--Boundary_(ID_Erg4VrdeO66d9MKT/eqe5g)

HTML VERSION:

----- Original Message -----

From: steve.devos

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:15 AM

Subject: Re: Negri

Hugh,

No social political advance in the history of the world has been made without struggle, resistence and violence.  

Absolutely none of examples below are relevant to the issue regarding the status of anti-colonialist violence in Sartre's era of colonialism and neo-colonialism and the current era of Globalisation.


regards
steve

hbone wrote:

All,

Legitimate violence!!!

My God is better than your God. He gives me the Holy right to kill for His
Glory.  Your God is the Devil in disguise.

As Bill Maher said, Jesus was a mid-eastern young man with a beard who would
have difficulty boarding and airplane in the US..

So was Mohammed.

Only a few centuries after the Crucifixion, the philosophy of Jesus
triumphed over the Romans, who had lost their convictions, no longer trusted
their pagan Gods who had served them well for centuries.

The Inquisition was truly a milestone in Christian violence.  Take a walk in
the courtyard in Madrid where burning humans alive was a public celebration.

Maher also said there are beheadings in Saudi Arabia every Friday.  Why are
religions so in love with Death?

Mohammed's followers were conquerors, globalizers who, between and during
conquests of  Spain, the Middle East and Southeastern Europe maintai
ned
mosques, hospitals libraries, international trade, trips to Mecca, preserved
the learning  of  the ancients while medieval knights in northern Europe
indulged in a violence mutual destruction.

Nation-states with  standing armies and guns brought in a new era of
violence in Western Europe, and now there are almost 200 nation-states
worldwide.

Each one legitimates its own violence, which is about the only thing the UN
can unanimously agree on.

regards,
Hugh

All,

I sent the Negri interview/statements yesterday to try and take us
beyond the nihilism of the Baudriallard position and to try and open up
the discussion into new areas... Rather than discuss the Negri piece
directly...

A number of things concern me regarding the discussion(s) around these
issues that I've seen and heard in relation to the USA and the
globalization issues following on from Septembers terrorist activity.

We can respond to the current crisis of the global as either: the
domination of the US nation state or the globalization perspective
referred to in the Negri interview yesterday.

If the former position is accepted as being an accurate representation
of the current crisis then we are inexorably return to the conflictual
position of attacking the USA as an imperialist nation state - to the
possibilityt of having to support the anti-conlonial murders and
associated violence that t
his legitimizes. In this sense Sartres book on
colonialism and neo-colonialism becomes essential reading, Sartres
argument (which is very convincing) is that against colonialism the
colonized can and most probably must engage in legitimate anti-colonial
violence. From India, China, Algiers, Southern and Northern Ireland to
Israel, Palestine and beyond this violence has been directed not just
against the nation state but also the people-state nexus, but this
violence must in some sense be considered legitimate... However the side
effect of this, assuming that you accept that people have the right to
fight against the colonizers, is that it seems to justify and explain
the WTC attacks as anti-colonial violence - in the same way as the
random bombing of London during the past 30 years by the IRA - were
considered legitimate - certainly by the USA citizens who financed the
bombing campaigns...

However within the N&H's variant of t
he theory of globalization we have
something very different because of the implicit separation of people
from capitalism - as a consequence the legitimate responses to the
post-colonialist activity of postmodern capital is functionally
different and attacks on 'people' become harder to justify -perhaps in
part because of the strange notion of the 'multitude', which is related
both to theorisations of the proletariat but relates to Spinosa and
Deleuze. The strict capital and anti-capitalist construction and the
identification of globalisation structures as targets for social and
political elements, perhaps in this sense only the 'multitude' can
define what would be legitimate violence...

Finally then if the former position is being maintained may this not be
because of a desire founded in the imaginary for the maintenance of the
USA as nation-state ruler of the/an 'empire' ? Living in the UK it is
easy to understand the desire for
the false memories of our histories to
be true...

regards
steve