AUT: Putting Negri to the Test

[Scott Hamilton <s_h_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx>]

Here is something which a friend of mine, Phil
Ferguson, wrote in response to the Negri interview on
autonomedia. Phil can be a bit abrasive, but it seems
to me that his comments point to the possibility of
testing Negri's ideas on a theoretical/analytical
level, as well as in pratice. Can we explain the
diverse and nuanced phenomena of the world today, and
especially post-S11 events in that world, using the
theory in Empire?

I think that it would be worthwhile making a list of
post-S 11 phenomena and testing Negri's theory as well
as anti-imperialist theories against them. As a
contribution to that, under Phil's post I reproduce
some comments I made on the criticism  from the
mainstream European media and EU politicans of the
treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners (the bit that I
got wrong in this post, written shortly after the
outcry had begun, was the bit conflating the UK and
Blair with the rest of the EU. As Phil notes, the UK
is much more beholden to US imperialism than the rest
of Europe, and Blair's response on the POWs has
reflected that). It seems to me that the imperialist
rivalries Phil talks about explain this outcry in high
places very well and very usefully. Negri, on the
hand, might be stuck for an explanation. Can anyone
help him out?

>NEGRI: They are there to support them, make trouble
for them, or even to take on a new position if there
is a change in centrality; however any such
>change would remain superficial seeing as in the end,
what is still, as always, at work is collective
capital. From the perspective of political
>science, we can see who is succeeding along with the
Americans. It's the Russians. On the other hand, the
Europeans are losing out. Since the early
>70s, every time Europe -- and I'm not talking here
about the big European capitalists who always march in
step with their American peers, but rather
>the European class of leaders-- every time Europe
tries to build up, as it sometimes does, its
institutions (monetary or military), it gets
>systematically dragged down into an international
crisis.


Lou P:
> The Russians are "succeeding"? Okay, sure, why not.
And right behind them the Saudis and any other third
world country that is barely managing to stay afloat,
while oil revenue is used to create a luxurious
>life-style for a pro-Western comparador bourgeoisie.
How this guy gets a reputation for innovative thinking
is beyond me. I have heard the same kind
>of thumb-sucking nonsense on Sunday Morning talk
shows.

And what abut Rwanda?  I heard they were gonna take
over Africa?

Not only is Negri nuts in relation to Russia, which is
more Third World basketcase that First World
imperialist since the restoration of
capitalism, his analysis of Europe is stuffed as well.
 Plus he leaves out Japan.

Tere are three big blocs in the world today in terms
of imperialism - the North Americans (dominated by
US), the Europeans (in which Germany is the
powerhouse) and East Asia (in which Japan is the
powerhouse).

The US is unquestionably the dominant global player,
like Lou noted.  How anyone can say there is just some
amorphous 'empire' not based on a nation-state would
be unbelievable, except for the fact that it comes out
of the mouth of a university professor.  If you're a
university professor you can say anything and some
easily impressed people will believe you.

It is also crap to say that the Europeans always march
in step with Washington.  This has generally been true
*only* of Britain, and only then in relatively recent
times.  The Americans screwed the Brits (and French)
during WW2 and then helped leverage the Brits (and
French) out of their African colonies in the 1950s and
1960s.  The French have never marched in
step with Washington - not under de Gaulle, who was
quite anti-American, nor under Mitterand.  French
imperialism has its own distinct interests and
they are quite frequently counterposed to those of the
US - France's historic attitude to NATO being a
classic example.

The Germans only "marched in step" with the US because
after WW2 they were under occupation and then under US
tutelage for a number of years.  As soon
as the German ruling class got fully back in the
saddle, they took over the horse and have ridden it
ever since.  Indeed the germans took the
initiative in the break-up of Yugoslavia.  Originally
Washington didn't seem all that taken on busting up
the Yugoslav state; it was Germany's
recognition of Croatian independence which
precipitated the US to get in
there and ensure they had some puppets of their own.

So the two most significant European powers, France
and Germany, have quite significantly *not* marched in
step with the US.  They advance their *own
imperialist agendas*, based on their own *national
capital* and *nation-states*.

The same is true in Asia, in relation to Japan.  Japan
has increasinly divergent interests to the US and has
several times sent economic shots across the bow of
the US.  In the early 90s, the Japanese dumped a whole
load of dollars to remind Washington that the power
relations that existed for the 20 years after WW2 had
changed dramatically since the start of the
1980s.  Over the course of the 1980s Japan was vital
in helping to keep the debt-ridden US economy afloat.

Moreover, what are the key elements of the current
'war on terror'.  One is clearly about sending a
message to people in the Third World - buck the
West and we'll bomb you to bits, and then probably
invade you for good measure.  Two, it's about rallying
the domestic population around the government and
state in the absence of any ability of the capitalists
to improve social conditions in the imperialist
heartlands.  But I would say that there is also a
third factor - it's about the US using its military
muscle to ensure its leadership of the imperialist
world in a period in which the US is no longer the
unbridled *economic* hegemon - so the 'war on
terror' forces rival imperialists such as Japan and
Germany to *get in behind* the US on the military
plane, where the US is strongest, rather
than just compete with it on the economic plane (where
the US is in decline in relation to Germany and Japan,
even despite the Japanese economic malaise of recent
years).

Negri, it seems to me, is blind to the *key features*
of the whole world order.

As for his stuff about the multitide, this is just
vulgar bourgeois sociology - vulgar because more
sophisticated bourgeois sociology actually
understands that it is useful to use the category of
class.

Philip Ferguson

It looks like the treatment of POWs in Cuba rather
than an invasion of Iraq could be the issue the 'left'
Euro-imperialists use to 'differentiate' themselves
from the Yanks. They've been unhappy for some time
with their subordinate role in the War Against Terror,
and now they have a 'niche' issue which they can use
to try to assert their moral leadership (moral
leadership comes in handy when you have no chance of
winning military leadership).

The POW issue is much better than an invasion of Iraq,
because it is a minor matter on which dissension will
not threaten the basic consensus that drives the War
on Terror. If anyone thinks that the outcry over the
POWs is motivated by anything but a desire by the good
cop to get one over the bad cop, then they ought to
consider the torture in Cuba in relation to the
thousands of deaths in Afghanistan. Heinous as the
torture is, it simply does not compare to what those
who are now condemning it are still practicing in
Afghanistan.

The liberal and reformist left is way too demoralised
and clueless to see through the Euro-imperialists'
trick here: they will tail the protests and the
demands of Blair, Jospin, rather than try to
radicalise them by bringing the wider picture of an
imperialist war into demands and slogans. The left and
right split which has plagued feeble liberal parties
like the Alliance, British Labour and the German
Greens can even be repaired, if the bureaucrats
running those parties are clever enough to seize the
opportunity to make a 'stand on principle' and condemn
the treatment of the POWs. It costs nothing, and it
may well suck in the dissidents looking for a 'change
of heart'.

If protests over the POW issue follow the line of the
Euro-imperialists - the line of least resistance -
then all that they can achieve is a slight change in
the balance of power in the coalition against terror,
a slight shift from the near-total US hegemony that
infuriates Blair and Schroeder to some very limited,
very symbolic decision-making role for Europe and the
UN. All the Yanks have to do to silence Blair and co
is allow some sort of token UN/EU presence in the
Cuban camp and make some pretty simple improvements to
the POWs' living conditions. Slogans that demand these
things are therefore not good enough -
only a radical, anti-capitalist/imperialist angle can
prevent any mobilisations over this issue being
neutralised and turned to the service of the petit
imperialists.







=====
For "a ruthless criticism of every existing idea":
THR@LL, NZ's class struggle anarchist paper http://www.freespeech.org/thrall/
THIRD EYE, a Kiwi lib left project, at http://www.geocities.com/the_third_eye_website/
and 'REVOLUTION' magazine, a Frankfurt-Christchurch production, http://cantua.canterbury.ac.nz/%7Ejho32/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


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