Re: AUT: Difference of Concept: Empire & Imperialism

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

30 September this year Michael Hardt was interviewed by Rune
Lykkeberg (RL) in the Danish paper "Information".
I have made a rough translation of an extract relevant to the
discussion on the list. Of course the interview was conducted
in English, and Hardt surely have not used the exact same
words as in this hastily carried out retranslation back to English
from Danish. But I doubt if that in this case has seriously
affected anything of substance, though his English would have
been better than mine. (I have cut out a small bits of in between
journalistic small talk.) There was also an interview
with Michael Hardt in a Norwegian paper that contained
some other relevant points. But I cannot find the paper now.

Harald


RL: "The Pakistani author, Tariq Ali, is of the opinion that
the new military based world order reveals the illusion of
the notion of that new form of sovereignty [postulated by
Hardt & Negri in "Empire"]. It is USA that makes the
decisions"

MH: "It is correct that there since September 11, 2001 has
been a transition to a new situation where military interests
become more important than economical ones. But
military power is weak power. Politcal, ideological,
cultural and economical power are in the long term a stronger
and more stable foundation for power. I believe the military
dominance to be short termed, and that we in a longer
perspective will see economical interests dominate once
more.
          "But Tarq Ali is right in that the Bush
administration are trying to launch a new imperialism
based on the USA as a national state. That kind of
imperialism was viable from the 18th  century to some
time into the 20th century, but it is not adequate to the
world of today. My analyis is that it will not  succeed."

RL:  "But is a rational judgement of whether something
is adequate to today's world a sufficient reason to cede
dominance ?"

MH:  "In this case, yes. First, this imperialism is not
favourable for the prospects of global capital to produce
profit. It creates barriers and impedements for global
investments.
          "It is difficult to talk about motives behind
movements  in international economy, since there
is an irrational element that makes it appear as astrology.
But when the dollar within the last half year has dropped
in relation to the euro, it is perhaps a symptom of the
financial sectors unhappiness with the Bush administration.
There is of  course the Enron scandal, and the other
scandals that have created a lack of confidence in the
American style of business. But the drop is perhaps a
sign of uncertainity and insecurity towards the
military plans of the USA. Wars that continue and
conflicts that are left openare neithe rin the interst of
American or global capitalism. This is not a moral
or leftwing oriented analysis. I am convinced that the
new imperialism does not even function on American
capitalism's own premises."




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