[Reader-list] I liked this posting about Empire

[geert lovink]

> From: "Andrew Neeson"
>
> I saw this review about "Empire" Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri.
>
> I haven't read the book, although was
> considering it, but am wondering what
> people think of it and whether the
> criticisms below are unfair?
>
> Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I think the book should be read very closely before a judgement is rendered.

There's been a curious trend on the (US) left to dismiss "Empire" out of
hand  because it has received some favorable attention in the popular press.
That  leaves us in the curious position of having to reclaim a Marxist text
as our
own! I am still wading through it but so far I find it amazing how the mass
media have managed to portray the book as pro-neoliberal globalization. On
the contrary "Empire" is pro-globalization in the same sense that Jeremy
Brecher et al are "pro" globalization in their book "Globalization From
Below" (South End Press). If you are interested in seeing some of the pomo
trends in Marxism brought to bear on the globalization debate you will enjoy
the book. If thinkers like Deleuze are not your cup of tea then I'd avoid
it.

joe

>
> Is this today's Communist Manifesto?
>
> By Sam Ashman
>
> (snip)
>
> > This reworking involves
two central and mistaken ideas.

>
> New global order
>
> The first is the whole idea of "Empire" itself, both the title and the
> heart of the book. Hardt and Negri accept the widespread view that we are
> living in a new era of economic globalisation which has rendered the
> nation-state powerless.
>
> There are lots of problems with this view. But Hardt and Negri don't leave
> it there. They go even further and argue that the new era of "Empire"
> has also transcended imperialism and any conflict between nation-states.
> The world is now ruled by an impersonal structure of economic and
> political power that has no centre and cannot be identified with any
> particular state-not even the US.
>
> We have entered into an era of the "universal rule of capital without a
> centre". "Along with the global market and global circuits of production
> has emerged a global order, a new logic and structure of rule. Empire is
> the political subject that effectively regulates these global exchanges,
> the sovereign power that governs the world."
>
> The authors paint a very dramatic and dark image-a bit like something out
> of a science fiction novel. They are clearly describing a world that is
> oppressive and destructive. But the book is also frustrating because there
> is virtually no concrete analysis of the world today.
>
> There is no analysis of the workings of the world economy, of
multinational
> corporations and organisations like the WTO, or of nation-states.
> Empire ignores completely the very serious conflicts and rivalries that
> exist between nation-states, such as that between the US and China.
> There is no discussion of how George Bush's "Son of Star Wars" plan has
> "transcended imperialism".
>
> Every argument is put at a very abstract and general level. There is no
> discussion of who rules, or how.


One of the interesting points Hardt and Negri make is that much of the
debate  on globalization over-emphasizes the negative and de-emphasizes the
positive side of globalization. They argue that the positive side of
globalization is precisely that it is constructing a world order and leaving
behind the divisions of nation-states. The enemy is no longer German or
British or Belgian or French imperialism, the enemy is a relatively small
number of multilateral supranational institutions. I think Ashman is wrong
to criticize the authors for not rehearsing the existing case against these
institutions (WTO, IMF, etc) because Hardt & Negri are providing a framework
into which such criticisms can be placed. It is the legitimate work of
others to extend the analysis.

Furthermore the authors argue, the project of building "Empire" is laying
the  foundations for its undoing. Globalization, or empire building, has
called  forth a remarkable international opposition movement (still in
formation). The idea that globalization is spawning its own gravediggers --
its own spectre of communism -- may be an optimistic assessment but it seems
like fairly straight forward Marxism to me.

> Multitude
>
> The second central idea of Empire is that of the "multitude" or the people

> at the bottom of society. It is the multitude, a vast and amorphous
> mass, which resists Empire at every point. The multitude is something
> different from the working class.

Ashman may prefer a class-based politics but he ignores the fact that the
emerging movement is exactly what Hardt & Negri suggest: it is a loose
coalition of groups from many parts of society, in other words, a multitude
(or mass movement). Again I think the argument can be favorably compared to
Brecher et al's argument mentioned preiviously or to Karl Polanyi's notion
of  the "self-defense" of society against market forces. The reaction is
cross-class.

> In Empire Hardt and Negri accept that "the composition of the proletariat
> has transformed". Today the industrial working class "has all but
> disappeared from view. It has not ceased to exist but it has been
displaced
> from its privileged position in the capitalist economy."

It's an interesting argument. The decline of the traditional working class
is an old argument. It is certainly the case that the greatest labor
militancy can be found in what Immanuel Wallerstein calls "semiperipheral"
zones of the world economy -- countries like South Korea. It may very well
be that the locus of revolutionary change has shifted to this zone as well
(which is not an argument made in "Empire").

> But this is not so. The working class is not only a growing force. It is
the
> one force with the power to disable the system Today there are 20,000
> more auto workers' jobs in the US than there were in 1979.

Is he serious? Organized labor in the US is moving from strength to
strength? What happens when they export those beloved auto industry jobs?
After all, the bulk of Volkswagon workers are not German but Brazilian.
Ashman is hanging his counter-argument on a pretty flimsy hook.

> Globalisation has created a million new garment workers in Bangladesh,
> mainly women, who are fighting and building union organisation. Many
> workers battling against neo-liberalism and privatisation know that they
> are not alone.
>
> But Hardt and Negri argue that events like the Palestinian intifada, the
> 1992 revolt in Los Angeles, the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, and
> strikes by workers in France and South Korea cannot be linked together.
>
> "None of these events inspired a cycle of struggles, because the desires
> and needs they expressed could not be translated into different
> contexts." This is ludicrous. The Zapatistas may not have provoked similar
> risings, but they have certainly provoked international inspiration and
> solidarity.

Hardt & Negri celebrate what they call "nomadism" & "miscegenation." They
are very wary of a localism which appeals to some fundamental notion of
difference as potentially fascistic. The concept of the local, they argue,
"need not be defined by isolation & purity." Instead they focus on the
circulation of struggle that occurs when populations are forced to move.
They see in this movement a counter-flow which disrupts the attempt of the
forces behind globalization to impose (capitalist) homgeneity & order.
Regarding the Palestinian struggle perhaps it is best to see how the notion
of locality has changed among Palestinians, many of whom have lived much of
their lives in the diaspora, and how currents of cosmopolitanism run against
other more "pure" notions of identity. I am thinking of the difference
between Edward Said & Islamic Jihad. Perhaps someone who understands the
terrain of Palestinian struggle can state what I'm trying to get at more
exactly.


> Who's the enemy?
>
> Hardt and Negri, having defined Empire as the "universal rule of capital
> without a centre", argue there is no longer one clear enemy. So the
> capitalist class, the employers and the armed might of the state are no
> longer the enemy. As such, they also give up on any notion of political
> strategy. They do outline three general demands:
>
> The right to global citizenship (free movement of all peoples across
> the globe).
>
> The right to a social wage (and a guaranteed income for all,
> including the unemployed).
>
> The right to reappropriation (control over language, communication
> and production).
>
> There are also vague calls to be a "radical republican", and at other
times
> for "revolutionary political militancy" and the need to be "communist".
> But what does this mean?
>
> Their only guidance is to suggest "posing against the misery of power the
> joy of being". Empire's final paragraph even gives St Francis of
> Assisi as a possible role model for those who want to fight for a better
> world! Revolutionaries need to do a lot more.

One note: the right to global citizenship includes not only the right to
move but the power to make the decision about whether to stay or go. That
means empowerment over "push" forces in the market that force people into
international labor circuits. Think also here Pierre Bordieu's excellent
essay "Neoliberalism: Utopia of endless exploitation." Make no doubt about
it, globalization is also an attack on citizen entitlements everywhere.
Universalizing rights (new rights & not just existing ones!) is certainly a
worthy goal of struggle.

I found the closing passage of the book which is titled "Militant" quite
moving. The appropriation of the figure of St Francis has puzzled many,
myself included. Would he prefer Zizek's reappropriation of Lenin as a more
apt figure?

> We need to build the day to day struggles of workers against privatisation

> and job losses and link them with battles against neo-liberalism
> around the world, as well as the big demonstrations outside institutions
> like the G8 and the International Monetary Fund.
>
> There is no doubt Hardt and Negri want a better world. But they do not
> understand the world we live in today, nor do they provide a guide for
> action to win a new one tomorrow.

Once again I think accusing someone of not providing all the answers is a
bit weak, but that's just my opinion.

Thanks for posting the review.

joe