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

[commie zero zero <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

> > so, basically: imperialism has ended as such. and,
> > like in empire, perhaps all seemingly imperialist
> > struggles are now imperial struggles. with no
> center,
> > no national ruling class on top.
> >
>
> I'd appreciate clarification of the distinction
> between imperialist and
> imperial struggles.

as far as i can tell, the difference would be this:
imperialist struggles occur between different would-be
empires, as competition between empires. while
imperial struggles occur from the perspective of one
imperial group.

does that make sense?

> But doesn't the current
> controversy over bombing of
> Iran suggest that:
> (a) There is national ruling class on top- the US,
> and

not necessarily. it can just suggest that the us
military is the hired thugs of the international
ruling class. the main section of the global police
force... which is what it seems to me.

> (b) The bourgeoisie in other countries do have and
> do prusue their own,
> sometimes divergent, interests - albeit within a
> global framework they are
> careful not to upset

within every empire there are divergent interests in
the ruling elite. the point is, methinks, that they
compete with one another WITHIN the imperial
framework, as part of one empire, not as competing
would-be empires.

there is also the fact that the competing groups
within empire have, in many cases, created
international blocs, such as the european union, etc.

and i'm certainly not suggesting that it's a stable
empire. there are dissenters in the ruling class (look
at milosovich before he was given the boot)... but
this dissent is still aimed from withIN, or at an
attempt to break OUT. this is suggestive to me of
empire.

> 3) Last Point: as it's put the point of Commie00's
> below is very misleading:

i don't think it's misleading... you took it exactly
where i wanted it to be taken... =)

> > we do have an activity called globalization...
> > but it's the globalization of the ruling class.
>
>
> Surely if the bourgeoisie are globalising they
> cannot help but develop a
> global working class?  How far that has reached is
> debatable but it seems to
> me there's plenty of evidence of it happening.
> (Even the stuff on this list
> the other day about putting 'sweatshop' on Nike
> trainers!)   One question
> which might follow is does (bourgeois) globalisation
> lead to/give rise to
> proletarian internationalism?

i think it has reached further than many previous
periods of overt class struggle. that is: for the
first time that i know of, you have folks travling
outside of their nation-states to participate in
actions... meaning: that there is a perceived common
problem on a global level.

of late there has also seemed to be a great deal more
enthusiasm for doing solidarity work with folks
struggling outside of one's nation-state, etc.

where this will go, who knows. but it is exciting,
methinks.

a friend of mine the other day refered to "top-down
globalization", and the need for us to counter it with
"bottom-up globalization"... there are problems with
this formulation, but i think it's getting to the
heart of things better than much of what i have seen.


=====
commie00
---------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/commie00
---------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/


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