Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:03:12 -0700
From: Judy <jaw-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: powerlessness


steve:


>Judy/all
>
>There are a number of  related 'Empire models' around at the moment 
>trying to define and understand the present most especially the 
>resurgence of imperialism and the 'new capitalist empire' -


When was imperialism "un-surgent?"


>the most interesting (for me) is the Negri and Hardt construction 
>'Empire' which is proposed as being a successor to the dying 
>nation-state system. There are  alternative models which maintain a 
>notional nation-state but in these cases the global economy is 
>managed/administered not by a singular empire but by a system of 
>many local states and typically policied by the biggest militarised 
>state the world has ever known.


Well, that sounds right to me.  I'm not sure how new this is.


>
>As I said earlier a European liberal has become a distinctly 
>reactionary creature who believes that liberalism has the right to 
>dominate, bomb and maim on  the basis of  an ideological position. I 
>do not believe that an American Liberal would necessicarily think in 
>the same terms - at least apart from liberals like Rorty. (On recent 
>trips to the US I was normally 'accused' of being a 'liberal' and 
>have to explain that I am not a liberal; but essentially a Marxist 
>and probably that if Negri, Deleuze and Guattari can call themselves 
>communists then why can't I?) Consequently then I recognise that the 
>term 'liberal' is much less specific in the USA than it is in 
>Europe. But this is probably because the social and political scene 
>in Europe is more diverse, so that the range of neo-fascist 
>conservative, liberal, socialist, communist - with the new subsets 
>of 'green' who tend to be left of centre - tend to be actual parties 
>within the parlimentary systems.  Hence the identification of 
>'liberals' with the more reactionary part of the political spectrum, 
>for example the current dictator of Bosnia is the ex-head of the 
>british liberal party, whilst the neo-liberal Blair willingly 
>engages in neo-colonial wars... Does this clarify ?


Yes, thanks.  In the US, there is virtually no Marxist- or far left 
influence of any political impact.  In the common political discourse 
that constructs peoples' thinking, 'liberal' is the left, and 
conservative is the right, and moderate is an increasingly important 
construction, everyone wants to claim to be a moderate.  To claim to 
be a marxist is like claiming to be a leper.  even taking pride in 
Union membership is suspect in the US.  Part of the reason is the two 
party design of the system with the winner take all elections, which 
homogenizes the spectrum toward the "center" (qua positionlessness). 
Also, I think there is a long vicious anti leftist tradition in the 
US that has no counterpart in Europe of comparable magnitude.  The 
McCarthy era was very traumatic, very effectively repressive, and its 
aftermath continues today, it's never abated in the sense of 
normalizing the far left as a member of the family, the society--that 
hasn't happened.  A multi party system with proportionate 
representation would make that possible in a way that it's not here.

In the US, 'liberal' is a very broad category, and somewhat tainted 
by loose association to "the specter of communism".  I hadn't thought 
of myself as a liberal exactly, so I'm curious what sort of ideas I 
express that would suggest that characterization.  Although I'm not a 
marxist, i'm generally enamored with much of marx's thought. I expect 
that appreciation for Marx maybe rather common among liberals in 
Europe.  In the US, it's rare to find anyone who knows anything about 
the ideas of Marx. Talking about them is a kind of taboo, especially 
outside of academia, but inside too to some extent.  There's still 
persecution and harrassment of marxists here.

Judy