Re: AUT: Putting Negri to the Test

[commie zero zero <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

of course the problem here is assuming that any of us
necessarily give two-shits about "testing negri's
theories". i'm not interested in what negri has said
as some kind of new dogma, in fact i think the bulk of
what he has said in the last 20 years is basically
wrong on many levels. however, i'm intrigued by the
notion of empire for a few reasons:

1) it is similar (tho not identical) to theories i was
working out of my own prior to my reading empire.

2) notions of "imperialism" seem to be practically
lacking given the level of co-operation between
obstinsively "state-based ruling classes" at an
international level.

3) notions of "us hegemony" within these organizations
are a little thin (if they have any validity) given
the amount of democratization which has already
occured, and the amount being demanded by non-first
world bourgeoisies.

now to the comments:

> 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).

its good that he states this assumption. and since i
disagree with it, much of the rest of this is
weakened.

> The US is unquestionably the dominant global player,
> like Lou noted.

another assumption, not backed up with a shred of
"proof".

> 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.

this is essentially meaningless speculation. i'm not a
university professor... hell, i don't even have a
degree... but people seem to take me seriously
(more-or-less).

> 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.

interesting that in all of my studying of the history
of ww2 and post-ww2 issues i've yet to find any
instance of this "screwing".

its also interesting since the u.s. ruling class, if i
am not mistaken, gave a great deal of material aid to
the "brits" and french ruling classes in an effort to
undermine anti-colonial struggles. (see pretty much
any specific history book you can find on this
issue...)

> 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 bits about the french and german ruling class not
"marching in step with the u.s." is interesting since
it contradicts the notion that the u.s. carries some
kind of hegemony over the international organizations
(which france and germany have long been membersof).

if these interests are so divergent, then how do they
coexist in the imf, wto, un, et al.?

> 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.

why would this be necessary given that the bulk of the
"third world" ruling classes are involved in the
international organizations and support the war on
terror? if they are either 1) already under the yoke
of us hegemony in the international organiations; or
2) a part of empire, this theory holds no water.

so what then?

> 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.

the first assumption here is that the state is somehow
distinct from the ruling class in any meaningful way
(which clearly obliterates marx's notion that the
state is the general council of the ruling class).
another problem is that this assumes a seperation
between economics and politcs.

tho i will grant a grain of truth in this: a necessary
aspect of decomposition is to ingrain nationalism. and
of course, the dialectic of imperialism /
anti-imperialism aids this since it often makes the
working class in the imperialist AND anti-imperialist
countries more ready to accept nationalism (i.e.
joining with their ruling class).

in this instance, the u.s. ruling class was able to
use the "anti-imperialism" of bin ladan (or whomever)
to "rally the troops". (interestingly, tho, the bulk
of the afghani working class seems to have rejected
"anti-imperialism"... i wonder why?)

> 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).

but if they exist in seperate blocs, with different
imperialist interests, how and why do they co-operate?

> 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.

like i said, i'm not very interested in defending
negri... but the concept of "multitude" (sans negri)
is an interesting one... if it is understood to mean:
the working class is a multitude with a multitude of
interests and desires.

i agree that negri's use of it seems to border on the
leninist / social democratic / liberal side of things,
but this does not mean that the word itself cannot be
useful in understanding class composition.

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com


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