Re: empire & globalization, was... Re: AUT: Re: autonomist crisis theory

["Chris Wright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C09C5A.1C876980
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There is a lot I would like to reply to, but I am going to stick to a =
few points.

I think everyone has raised some good stuff, but also some problematic =
approaches.  I think Peter is right to point out that a lot of the =
discussion has been focussed on capital, which is the wrong focus.  But =
starting from Negri, how can you do otherwise when the working class (or =
multitude) does not appear as an active force in Negri until the last =
part of the book.  In other words, something like two thirds of the book =
focusses on capital, as if it has its own dynamic.  This is a problem, =
especially in relation to autonomist theory.

Second, I think some confusion between capital and the capitalist class =
exists.  Capital has no nation or national boundaries.  It never really =
has, in so far as it has always lead a more or less global existence, in =
slavery, colonialism, international wars of conquest (Opium wars in =
China, the conquest of all of Asia, the division of Africa in the 1870's =
and 80's, the conquest of Latin America, etc.)  Capital has always =
roamed the globe in search of profit, but it has also had to overcome =
pre-capitalist societies and the process of integration and the =
development of the capital-labor relation in those places has proceeded =
unevenly.  Maybe we can say that as the capital-labor relation has =
penetrated and come to dominate almost the entire planet, capital has =
more means of moving about the globe.

But, I think globalization signals a crisis, not a new opening (at least =
no yet).  Globalization really involves the flight of capital from =
labor.  We can think of the movement of capital around the world as both =
the flight to new, unexploited labor, but also as the flight from =
insubordinate labor, much as we can think of the development of =
technology as a flight from labor, an attempt to escape from dependence =
on labor.  That will fail, however.  Capital is nothing but alienated =
labor, labor in and against itself.  So how does that relate to the =
current process?

I think globalization really signals the flight of capital from =
production into the form of money.  Capital has been trying to find a =
new regime of accumulation, but that requires a confrontation with =
labor, with the destruction of dead labor (capital) and the massive =
restructuring of the relationship to living labor.  With 1929 and the =
1930's in the backs of their heads, I think we are seeing a flight from =
production, from a direct confrontation with labor in the form of money. =
 Money is the one form of capital that moves freely and instantly all =
over the world.  At the same time, money does not make money without =
labor (capital would love to live in M...M', without ever having to go =
through M...C (Labor + raw materials)...P(production)...C'(saleable =
commodity)...M'.  They can't.  Labor sits there daring capital to do so. =
 So money has flead around the globe for the last 25 years precipitating =
crisis after crisis (Mexico in 1982, which put an end to Monetarist =
attempts to discipline labor and led to a renewed Keynesianism; Black =
monday 1987, where the whole world pitched in to stop a major crash and =
bail out the banks; 1991 and the recession;  1994 in Mexico again; 1998 =
in SE Asia, 1999 in Russia and Brazil; and now the recession in our =
faces in the United States.) =20

Globalization is really about capital's flight from labor in the money =
form, from the confrontation, the consummation of crisis.  That is why =
the debt crisis is worse today than in the early 1980's.  In the G7 =
countries, overall household debt has risen to 104% of yearly household =
income, which is really staggering.  The debtor countries have not =
improved.  They still borrow from Paul to pay Peter.  We have a =
financial system of enormous instability.  Will a reckoning come?  Who =
can say?

The other side of globalization is the re-privatization of as much as =
possible; of the end of the Keynesian Welfare State and Social =
Democratic policies.  Maybe capital can pull it off.  But maybe not.  =
Maybe the recent expansion of struggles will meet the recession and the =
shit will hit the fans.  we will see.

On the other side, I think the discussion of the end of the power of the =
nation state is a false argument.  First, the nation state never was =
independent of capital to begin with.  Keynesianism, the Fordist state, =
if you want, was a product of the insubordination of labor on a massive =
scale from 1917 to 1947.  With the end of the post-war boom and the =
increasing problem of overaccumulation (overexploitation), and the =
resistance to that exploitation, capital could not go on anymore.  They =
have yet to find a new mode.  All the people who rush to see Empire =
already here, even appearing before the crisis even began (now we have =
gone back to the League of Nations), have already written crisis out of =
the picture.  If capital has already attained a new mode of =
exploitation, then we have some big problems ahead of us, but no =
openings.  Negri, like many others of late, has written a book about =
capital that assumes it will succeed, no, has succeeded already, in =
reorganizing a new regime of accumulation (I don't like that term, =
regime, but i am too tired to be more precise.)

Empire is not here yet.  nor might it ever come.  There is a tendency to =
confuse capital and capitalist classes, as I said earlier.  Nation =
states compete to draw capital to them.  National competition in a =
certain sense is nothing other than national states fighting to be the =
best place to exploit labor.  Also, we loose sight of the degree to =
which capital cannot allow itself to become one unit, one state.  =
capital fragments everything because it needs differential levels of =
exploitation so it can move from one to another, seeking the best.  One =
state, one ruling class, would not only have to overcome the struggle of =
each to attract capital, it would have to give up differential =
conditions of labor under unified laws. =20

At the same time, it has always been true that the capitalist class is =
an international class, that borders have as much to do with the =
maintenance of certain protected markets for certain groups of =
capitalists.  we cannot just theorize this, however, since this process =
has taken place in relation to a pre-existing history of who could =
exploit where under what terms and with what political alliances.  We =
have to get concrete about these issues to really give them depth.  To =
say that the UN was an attempt to create an international capitalist =
class or an international state is a bit like saying that the U.S., =
walking out of WWII unscathed and producing for the whole world, with =
over half the world's wealth and 4% of the population, decided it wanted =
to give everyone a share of the pie.  Hell, the U.S. just had to =
recognize that it could not play world cop without aquiescence.  The UN =
became a political mechanism representing U.S. domination in an era of =
the collapse of colonialism.  Without the United States, the UN did not =
really exist.  That's why the League of Nations was still-born: lack of =
U.S. participation.

Anyway, the capital is international, but it has to settle somewhere.  =
That somewhere is in part determined by the conditions it finds in =
different places, conditions created by capitalism's uneven, necessarily =
uneven, development.  Unless uneven development ceases to be a feature =
of capitalism, national states will not go away.  At the same time, =
capital has no patriotism unless it needs protection of arms.  Capital =
will go anywhere it finds a profit.  And so-called national capitalist =
classes will go where they can, not as the lords of capital, but as its =
servants and caretakers (after all, the individual capitalist has no =
real control over capital as a whole, just a small portion of it, and =
that only as long as insubordinate labor can be subordinated =
adequately.)  They will, however, settle in the safest places (and that =
is not just a military issue, either.) =20

The talk of an international capitalist class does not really include =
the poor countries, so much as it assumes a kind of ultra-Imperialism, a =
unity of the biggest exploiters.  Could it happen?  Sure.  I suppose.  =
However, it;s current maturity is highly overrated.  look carefully.  =
The nationa state is more important than ever militarily, in terms of =
policing, and the general task of the subordination of labor to the =
dictates of capital.

Anyway, that's my take.

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Peter van Heusden" <pvh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: empire & globalization, was... Re: AUT: Re: autonomist =
crisis theory


> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Tahir Wood wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> > >>> commie00@xxxxxxxxx 02/21 6:20 AM >>>
> > >thoughts?
> >=20
> > Well I think that the "globalisation of the ruling class" as you put =
it=20
> > (not sure that this is a very good formulation), or rather the =
further=20
> > globalisation of the means of exploitation, needs to be met with a =
further=20
> > globalisation of the means of struggle. For a long time though I've =
felt=20
> > that the struggle AGAINST globalisation per se is somewhat =
misconceived.=20
> > It smacks too much of nationalism or Amin's delinking or the =
national=20
> > democratic revolution or something. However, one can't be FOR =
globalisation!
>=20
> I've been giving this lots of thought, and its a topic that provokes
> constant running battles (e.g. against Patrick Bond) on the Debate and =

> LBO-talk mailing lists. My current thinking is that one can indeed be
> for globalisation, if you turn conventional left analysis on its head
> a bit. My major problem with anti-globalisation rhetoric is that it
> maintain a perspective which sees capital as the active element in the
> world, and sees people as (largely) passive. Strategies like =
de-linking,
> strengthening the social-democratic state, etc. tend to take this
> perspective in their stride, and follow through with policies which
> would definitely lock the working class in place (in the framework
> of a 'strong state' class compromise).=20
>=20
> If, instead, communism flows from the activity of the working class, =
and=20
> the organisation of capital (including the state form) is a reaction =
to=20
> this activity (this is a brief summary of the autonomist perspective
> as I see it), you get a different perspective, one where the goal is =
not
> to stop and block capital, but is rather to unleash and develop the=20
> energies of capital's negation - the working class. Then =
internationalism
> can be embraced not simply as the 'globalisation of the means of =
struggle'
> (a perspective which could still mean many local struggles across=20
> the globe - ala. the taking to task of one's national bourgeoisie =
which
> Marx talks about in the Manifesto) but as a process of 'class =
composition'
> across and against national borders. Something of this comes
> across in Massimo de Angelis's 'Global Capital and Global Struggles'
> http://www.acephale.org/encuentro/globintr.html. Might the =
supercession
> (aufhebung) of capitalism be possible alongside the linkages that
> globalisation creates?=20
>=20
> Is 'globalisation', which is not only the globalisation of the ruling =
class,=20
> but also entails numerous processes of standardization (e.g. the =
TCP/IP=20
> infrastructure which makes the Internet possible, global telephonic=20
> communication standards, the deployment of similar 'base technologies' =
on a
> global scale to ensure that 'innovation' (in other words extraction of =

> surplus value) can be moved rapidly from place to place) and =
development=20
> of 'cultural trans-nationalism' (in the sense that 'cultural =
understanding'=20
> is vital for the development of trans-national capitalism - this means =

> everything from a common 'trade language' to a desire for 'multi-
> culturalism') not a resource which makes the emergence of a truly
> global 'self-conscious social humanity' easier?
>=20
> This is not to say that the various processes of 'globalisation' need
> to accepted or rejected as one, of course.
>=20
> BTW. Doug Henwood has a positive review of Negri & Hardt's 'Empire' in
> the latest issue of LBO (LBO #96). He addresses some of the meaning of
> being 'for globalisation' from a progressive perspective there. I've
> got a copy on campus if you want a look.
>=20
> Peter
> --
> Peter van Heusden <pvh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> NOTE: I do not speak for my employer, Electric Genetics
> "Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so =
that man=20
> shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off =
the chain=20
> and pluck the living flower." - Karl Marx, 1844
> OpenPGP: 1024D/0517502B : DE5B 6EAA 28AC 57F7 58EF  9295 6A26 6A92 =
0517 502B
>=20
>=20
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C09C5A.1C876980
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>There is a lot I would like to reply to, but I am =
going to=20
stick to a few points.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I think everyone has raised some good stuff, but =
also some=20
problematic approaches.&nbsp; I think Peter is right to point out that a =
lot of=20
the discussion has been focussed on capital, which is the wrong =
focus.&nbsp; But=20
starting from Negri, how can you do otherwise when the working class (or =

multitude) does not appear as an active force in Negri until the last =
part of=20
the book.&nbsp; In other words, something like two thirds of the book =
focusses=20
on capital, as if it has its own dynamic.&nbsp; This is a problem, =
especially in=20
relation to autonomist theory.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Second, I think some confusion between capital and =
the=20
capitalist class exists.&nbsp; Capital has no nation or national=20
boundaries.&nbsp; It never really has, in so far as it has always lead a =
more or=20
less global existence, in slavery, colonialism, international wars of =
conquest=20
(Opium wars in China, the conquest of all of Asia, the division of =
Africa in the=20
1870's and 80's, the conquest of Latin America, etc.)&nbsp; Capital has =
always=20
roamed the globe in search of profit, but it has also had to overcome=20
pre-capitalist societies and the process of integration and the =
development of=20
the capital-labor relation in those places has proceeded unevenly.&nbsp; =
Maybe=20
we can say that as the capital-labor relation has penetrated and come to =

dominate almost the entire planet, capital has more means of moving =
about the=20
globe.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But, I think globalization signals a crisis, not a =
new opening=20
(at least no yet).&nbsp; Globalization really involves the flight of =
capital=20
from labor.&nbsp; We can think of the movement of capital around the =
world as=20
both the flight to new, unexploited labor, but also as the flight from=20
insubordinate labor, much as we can think of the development of =
technology as a=20
flight from labor, an attempt to escape from dependence on labor.&nbsp; =
That=20
will fail, however.&nbsp; Capital is nothing but alienated labor, labor =
in and=20
against itself.&nbsp; So how does that relate to the current=20
process?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I think globalization really signals the flight of =
capital=20
from production into the form of money.&nbsp; Capital has been trying to =
find a=20
new regime of accumulation, but that requires a confrontation with =
labor, with=20
the destruction of&nbsp;dead labor (capital) and the massive =
restructuring of=20
the relationship to living labor.&nbsp; With 1929 and the 1930's in the =
backs of=20
their heads, I think we are seeing a flight from production, from a =
direct=20
confrontation with labor in the form of money.&nbsp; Money is the one =
form of=20
capital that moves freely and instantly all over the world.&nbsp; At the =
same=20
time, money does not make money without labor (capital would love to =
live in=20
M...M', without ever having to go through M...C (Labor&nbsp;+ raw=20
materials)...P(production)...C'(saleable commodity)...M'.&nbsp; They=20
can't.&nbsp; Labor sits there daring capital to do so.&nbsp; So money =
has flead=20
around the globe for the last 25 years precipitating crisis after crisis =
(Mexico=20
in 1982, which put an end to Monetarist attempts to discipline labor and =
led to=20
a renewed Keynesianism; Black monday 1987, where the whole world pitched =
in to=20
stop a major crash and bail out the banks; 1991 and the recession;&nbsp; =
1994 in=20
Mexico again;&nbsp;1998 in SE Asia, 1999 in Russia and Brazil; and now =
the=20
recession in our faces in the United States.)&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Globalization is really about capital's flight from =
labor in=20
the money form, from the confrontation, the consummation of =
crisis.&nbsp; That=20
is why the debt crisis is worse today than in the early 1980's.&nbsp; In =
the G7=20
countries, overall household debt has risen to 104% of =
yearly&nbsp;household=20
income, which is really staggering.&nbsp; The debtor countries have not=20
improved.&nbsp; They still borrow from Paul to pay Peter.&nbsp; We have =
a=20
financial system of enormous instability.&nbsp; Will a reckoning =
come?&nbsp; Who=20
can say?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The other side of globalization is the =
re-privatization of as=20
much as possible; of the end of the Keynesian Welfare State and Social=20
Democratic policies.&nbsp; Maybe capital can pull it off.&nbsp; But =
maybe=20
not.&nbsp; Maybe the recent expansion of struggles will meet the =
recession and=20
the shit will hit the fans.&nbsp; we will see.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>On the other side, I think the discussion of the end =
of the=20
power of the nation state is a false argument.&nbsp; First, the nation =
state=20
never was independent of capital to begin with.&nbsp; Keynesianism, the =
Fordist=20
state, if you want, was a product of the insubordination of labor on a =
massive=20
scale from 1917 to 1947.&nbsp; With the end of the post-war boom and the =

increasing problem of overaccumulation (overexploitation), and the =
resistance to=20
that exploitation, capital could not go on anymore.&nbsp; They have yet =
to find=20
a new mode.&nbsp; All the people who&nbsp;rush to&nbsp;see Empire =
already here,=20
even appearing before the crisis even began (now we have gone back to =
the League=20
of Nations), have already written crisis out of the picture.&nbsp; If =
capital=20
has already attained a new mode of exploitation, then we have some big =
problems=20
ahead of us, but no openings.&nbsp; Negri, like many others of late, has =
written=20
a book about capital that assumes it will succeed, no, <EM>has succeeded =

already</EM>,&nbsp;in reorganizing a new regime of accumulation (I don't =
like=20
that term, regime, but i am too tired to be more precise.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Empire is not here yet.&nbsp; nor might it ever =
come.&nbsp;=20
There is a tendency to confuse capital and capitalist classes, as I said =

earlier.&nbsp; Nation states compete to draw capital to them.&nbsp; =
National=20
competition in a certain sense is nothing other than national states =
fighting to=20
be the best place to exploit labor.&nbsp; Also, we loose sight of the =
degree to=20
which capital cannot allow itself to become one unit, one state.&nbsp; =
capital=20
fragments everything because it needs differential levels of =
exploitation so it=20
can move from one to another, seeking the best.&nbsp; One state, one =
ruling=20
class, would not only have to overcome the struggle of each to attract =
capital,=20
it would have to give up differential conditions of labor under unified=20
laws.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>At the same time, it has <EM>always</EM> been true =
that the=20
capitalist class is an international class, that borders have as much to =
do with=20
the maintenance of certain protected markets for certain groups of=20
capitalists.&nbsp; we cannot just theorize this, however, since this =
process has=20
taken place in relation to a pre-existing history of who could exploit =
where=20
under what terms and with what political alliances.&nbsp; We have to get =

concrete about these issues to really give them depth.&nbsp; To say that =
the UN=20
was an attempt to create an international capitalist class or an =
international=20
state is a bit like saying that the U.S., walking out of WWII unscathed =
and=20
producing for the whole world, with over half the world's wealth and 4% =
of the=20
population, decided it wanted to give everyone a share of the pie.&nbsp; =
Hell,=20
the U.S. just had to recognize that it could not play world cop without=20
aquiescence.&nbsp; The UN became a political mechanism representing U.S. =

domination in an era of the collapse of colonialism.&nbsp; Without the =
United=20
States, the UN did not really exist.&nbsp; That's why the League of =
Nations was=20
still-born: lack of U.S. participation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Anyway, the capital is international, but it has to =
settle=20
somewhere.&nbsp; That somewhere is in part determined by the conditions =
it finds=20
in different places, conditions created by capitalism's uneven, =
necessarily=20
uneven, development.&nbsp; Unless uneven development ceases to be a =
feature of=20
capitalism, national states will not go away.&nbsp; At the same time, =
capital=20
has no patriotism unless it needs protection of arms.&nbsp; Capital will =
go=20
anywhere it finds a profit.&nbsp; And so-called national capitalist =
classes will=20
go where they can, not as the lords of capital, but as its servants and=20
caretakers (after all, the individual capitalist has no real control =
over=20
capital as a whole, just a small portion of it, and that only as long as =

insubordinate labor can be subordinated adequately.)&nbsp; They will, =
however,=20
settle in the safest places (and that is not just a military issue,=20
either.)&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The talk of an international capitalist class does =
not really=20
include the poor countries, so much as it assumes a kind of =
ultra-Imperialism, a=20
unity of the biggest exploiters.&nbsp; Could it happen?&nbsp; =
Sure.&nbsp; I=20
suppose.&nbsp; However, it;s current maturity is highly overrated.&nbsp; =
look=20
carefully.&nbsp; The nationa state is more important than ever =
militarily, in=20
terms of policing, and the general task of the subordination of labor to =
the=20
dictates of capital.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Anyway, that's my take.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Chris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>From: "Peter van Heusden" &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:pvh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";><FONT =
size=3D2>pvh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>To: &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><FONT=20
size=3D2>aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 7:27 =
AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Subject: Re: empire &amp; globalization, was... Re: =
AUT: Re:=20
autonomist crisis theory</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=3D2>&gt; On Wed, Feb 21, =
2001 at=20
11:44:50AM +0200, Tahir Wood wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; =
&gt;=20
&gt;&gt;&gt; </FONT><A href=3D"mailto:commie00@xxxxxxxxx";><FONT=20
size=3D2>commie00@xxxxxxxxx</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2> 02/21 6:20 AM=20
&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt;thoughts?<BR>&gt; &gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; Well =
I think=20
that the "globalisation of the ruling class" as you put it <BR>&gt; &gt; =
(not=20
sure that this is a very good formulation), or rather the further =
<BR>&gt; &gt;=20
globalisation of the means of exploitation, needs to be met with a =
further=20
<BR>&gt; &gt; globalisation of the means of struggle. For a long time =
though=20
I've felt <BR>&gt; &gt; that the struggle AGAINST globalisation per se =
is=20
somewhat misconceived. <BR>&gt; &gt; It smacks too much of nationalism =
or Amin's=20
delinking or the national <BR>&gt; &gt; democratic revolution or =
something.=20
However, one can't be FOR globalisation!<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I've been =
giving this=20
lots of thought, and its a topic that provokes<BR>&gt; constant running =
battles=20
(e.g. against Patrick Bond) on the Debate and <BR>&gt; LBO-talk mailing =
lists.=20
My current thinking is that one can indeed be<BR>&gt; for globalisation, =
if you=20
turn conventional left analysis on its head<BR>&gt; a bit. My major =
problem with=20
anti-globalisation rhetoric is that it<BR>&gt; maintain a perspective =
which sees=20
capital as the active element in the<BR>&gt; world, and sees people as =
(largely)=20
passive. Strategies like de-linking,<BR>&gt; strengthening the =
social-democratic=20
state, etc. tend to take this<BR>&gt; perspective in their stride, and =
follow=20
through with policies which<BR>&gt; would definitely lock the working =
class in=20
place (in the framework<BR>&gt; of a 'strong state' class compromise). =
<BR>&gt;=20
<BR>&gt; If, instead, communism flows from the activity of the working =
class,=20
and <BR>&gt; the organisation of capital (including the state form) is a =

reaction to <BR>&gt; this activity (this is a brief summary of the =
autonomist=20
perspective<BR>&gt; as I see it), you get a different perspective, one =
where the=20
goal is not<BR>&gt; to stop and block capital, but is rather to unleash =
and=20
develop the <BR>&gt; energies of capital's negation - the working class. =
Then=20
internationalism<BR>&gt; can be embraced not simply as the =
'globalisation of the=20
means of struggle'<BR>&gt; (a perspective which could still mean many =
local=20
struggles across <BR>&gt; the globe - ala. the taking to task of one's =
national=20
bourgeoisie which<BR>&gt; Marx talks about in the Manifesto) but as a =
process of=20
'class composition'<BR>&gt; across and against national borders. =
Something of=20
this comes<BR>&gt; across in Massimo de Angelis's 'Global Capital and =
Global=20
Struggles'<BR>&gt; </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.acephale.org/encuentro/globintr.html";><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://www.acephale.org/encuentro/globintr.html</FONT></A><FONT =
size=3D2>.=20
Might the supercession<BR>&gt; (aufhebung) of capitalism be possible =
alongside=20
the linkages that<BR>&gt; globalisation creates? <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Is=20
'globalisation', which is not only the globalisation of the ruling =
class,=20
<BR>&gt; but also entails numerous processes of standardization (e.g. =
the TCP/IP=20
<BR>&gt; infrastructure which makes the Internet possible, global =
telephonic=20
<BR>&gt; communication standards, the deployment of similar 'base =
technologies'=20
on a<BR>&gt; global scale to ensure that 'innovation' (in other words =
extraction=20
of <BR>&gt; surplus value) can be moved rapidly from place to place) and =

development <BR>&gt; of 'cultural trans-nationalism' (in the sense that=20
'cultural understanding' <BR>&gt; is vital for the development of =
trans-national=20
capitalism - this means <BR>&gt; everything from a common 'trade =
language' to a=20
desire for 'multi-<BR>&gt; culturalism') not a resource which makes the=20
emergence of a truly<BR>&gt; global 'self-conscious social humanity'=20
easier?<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; This is not to say that the various processes =
of=20
'globalisation' need<BR>&gt; to accepted or rejected as one, of =
course.<BR>&gt;=20
<BR>&gt; BTW. Doug Henwood has a positive review of Negri &amp; Hardt's =
'Empire'=20
in<BR>&gt; the latest issue of LBO (LBO #96). He addresses some of the =
meaning=20
of<BR>&gt; being 'for globalisation' from a progressive perspective =
there.=20
I've<BR>&gt; got a copy on campus if you want a look.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;=20
Peter<BR>&gt; --<BR>&gt; Peter van Heusden &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:pvh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";><FONT =
size=3D2>pvh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>&gt;<BR>&gt; NOTE: I do not speak for my employer, Electric=20
Genetics<BR>&gt; "Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the =
chain not=20
so that man <BR>&gt; shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that =
he will=20
shake off the chain <BR>&gt; and pluck the living flower." - Karl Marx,=20
1844<BR>&gt; OpenPGP: 1024D/0517502B : DE5B 6EAA 28AC 57F7 58EF&nbsp; =
9295 6A26=20
6A92 0517 502B<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; --- =
from list=20
</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><FONT=20
size=3D2>aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>=20
---</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00BD_01C09C5A.1C876980--



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---