The empire thesis and defeat of imperialism

[Monty Cantsin]

"Dialogue with the Philosopher Toni Negri:
The Defeat of the United States is a Political Defeat”
Veronica Gago, for Argentina’s Pagina/12


The Italian philosopher Toni Negri analyzes the United States’ invasion of Iraq as a “defeat.” He spoke to Pagina/12 from the recuperated Hotel Bauen, expounding an auspicious perspective for Latin America and criticizing the “traditional” European left.

The Italian philosopher and militant Toni Negri is in Argentina for a second time. He is arriving from a trip to Chile and is now headed to Brazil. After having launched a worldwide polemic with his book Empire, about the end of the age of classical imperialism, he is now convinced that we find ourselves in an anomalous period for Latin America because it has finally ceased to be “the back porch” of the United States. From the Argentine crisis in 2001 to the current crisis in Brazil, passing through the failed coup in Venezuela and the Andean revolts, Negri reads a profound continental change capable of giving way to a multilateralism that will dispute North American pretensions toward an imperialist sovereignty. In his dialogue with Pagina/12, he insists that Latin America is further along than Europe with regard to its ability to think the relation between social movements and governments through the experimentation of a democratic radicalism.

P/12: What actual relevance does the thesis of Empire have after the military of the United States in Iraq?

T.N.: After the release of Empire, the polemic was centered around the role of the United States in the war, around those who insisted that North American policy was a manifestation of imperialist policy, a position which tended to see the thesis of Empire about the redistribution of power at the global level as false. In the face of such a position, the first thing that one has to say is that the war on Iraq did not show a rebirth of an imperialist function; more likely it showed the opposite — the definitive defeat of North American imperialist unilateralism.

And this has been due not only to the difficulty that the North Americans have faced in the war itself, but also because it has now been demonstrated that it is absolutely impossible to conduct the processes of international police action outside of the global framework that includes other actors and countries.

The defeat of the United States is not only a defeat on the ground, it is above all a political defeat due to its incapacity to install order in the region. The war in Iraq does not imply a defeat like that in Vietnam, due to the resistance of the Viet-Cong, in the context of the cold war. The current defeat is due to the incapacity to create unanimity around an operation of war. On another level, the old international legal order, which was a classical order of right for the Nation-State, has been totally displaced, and, furthermore, one has to consider the absolute incapacity of the United States to finance this war — the crisis of the North American budget deficit is grave.

P/12: On other occasions you have spoken about a “coup d’etat” within Empire. Could you explain that image? How would you currently explain the formation of a structure of power in Empire?

T.N.: In the current situation the North American project shows itself to be in a profound crisis. Bush is a little Louis Bonaparte that attempts a coup d’etat within Empire in order to impose a unilateral command over globalization. This is not only not possible, but it is also extremely dangerous from every perspective. In addition, the United States’ capacity to take ideological initiative in the formation of political economies has also entered into a crisis. Neoliberalism, which seemed completely “viable” only a few years ago is now rejected by a broad cycle of struggles which now opens an extremely complicated and variable situation. The war has confirmed that the biggest problem is that the Empire doesn’t know in what direction it is headed. What we will see then is a new battle to see who will command in Empire, which is the sovereign regime that will be determinative. Today it seems to me that the most plausible hypothesis is the emergence of a grand aristocratic conglomeration made up of the major continental powers like China or India and part of Europe which find themselves on the front lines of globalization/worldization (mundializacion).

P/12: And how do you view the persistence of an anti-imperialist sermon on a good part of the left?

T.N.: What I am certain of is that the anti-imperialist ideologies of the traditional left, ideologies that are profoundly conservative, are mistaken. They function like a deformed mirror reflecting the positions of the likes of Fukuyama and his end of history that thinks more in terms of large nations rather than in these new syntheses of sovereignty. Or like Huntington, only he is a real enemy because he organizes a discourse for the elites of the United States. I think, in contrast, to return to what we were previously discussing, that we must pay very close attention to the ways in which movements permanently condition these political syntheses, the new sovereign modes. You’re always dealing with very complex variables.

P/12: How do you think that Latin America participates in the new redefinition of imperial sovereignty?

T.N.: I begin with a very basic idea and that is that this is the first time that Latin America does not act like the back porch of the United States. In this sense the fall of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (ALCA) is very significant. This change is important even if you keep in mind the limitations of this process due to the global presence of neoliberalism. In addition, this new situation moves into the political terrain precisely at the moment in which the great neighbor to the North is in difficulty and has no capacity to immediately intervene. In this way, the situation in Brazil, represented by the victory of Lula, has produced a consolidation of leftist forces and a positive intercontinental equilibrium from the point of view of the movements. From Uruguay to Venezuela, through to the intense struggles in the Andes, the least one can say is that we are living a moment of profound mobility. On the international plane, these processes present Latin America with a tremendous continental capacity to participate, on a transnational terrain, in directing initiatives in the global market. This, obviously, implies a true novelty. It is in this sense that we can interpret the importance of the development of South–South relations. It is from this perspective that I think that we must evaluate the role played by the governing Latin American left, due to its impact on the global terrain. What does it mean then that a Latin American government considers leaving the IMF? The end of dependency is one possibility, a potentiality. And that possibility is the one we should think about. The key problem that now faces us is the relation between movements and governments, to the extent that the latter are faced with the possibility of deepening this creative potential of the new forms of sovereignty.

P/12: What could the relation be between leftist governments and social movements?

T.N.: Before we use to say that governments lived with a dual power. Today we’re dealing with, in contrast, a true moment of the transformation of sovereignty itself, and of the relation between these terms. And this is cast directly at an international level. Which takes on great significance if one recalls that at the base of Empire is war and in Latin America one can see how these things happen or don’t happen. What is happening today in Brazil? It is likely that the movement will pay a very high price for the ongoing stabilization of Lula’s government, at the same time that the organized movement feels a deep sense of disillusionment. The situation in Argentina seems to maintain itself in a certain equilibrium following the crisis, and there is the Venezuelan situation that probably presents this problem in caricatured form, because the initiative has come from on high and it has unchained an enormous energy. The truth is that we are dealing with the most radical situation within these countries because it can be the doorway for war as a variable on the part of the United States.

P/12: What are you referring to when you speak of a “new deal?”

T.N.: The issue of a new deal is the redefinition of a strategic alliance. But the key point is the multitudinous content of this new deal. For example, the defense of small property in Brazil, in a way that is compatible with the development of agriculture, which is in fact one of the programmatic demands of the MST (Movimento Sem Terra/Landless Movement). Contextualizing this for Latin America, this would imply the discussion of how one can think a deal that would not insist on the reproduction of a Keynesian perspective which is no longer possible. Today one cannot discuss a pact taking as a premise the productive dynamic given by large industry; rather, the new deal should refer to relation between social organizations and productive organization in terms of social cooperation. The great error of the traditional and opportunist left is that if one does not speak of institutional and political forms from which a great reform will arise, then one is not talking about anything. Only by taking these forms as a starting point does the true dimension of a democratic radicalism from below truly appear. The question today is what does it mean today to have force and how is it consolidated. Obviously, it is not through a military. This problem is very present today in Argentina, which is like an open body, primed for an analysis.

P/12: You supported the “Yes” vote to the European Constitution in the French Referendum. How do you explain this position that was in opposition to the majority of the European left?

T.N.: In Europe we are faced with the reconstruction of the left. Take for example the Linkspartei in Germany. The European corporatist left has achieved its first victory in the “no” vote to the European Constitution in France. For me, this was about starting a debate about the relation between three things: the appearance of Europe as a necessary alternative to the United States; the construction of an European space open to entirely new dynamic; and finally, the construction of a constitution which would not give positive definitions but rather as a negativity open to very interesting contradictions. This hasn’t been possible because the social movements have been absorbed by this traditional left, with the exception of a wing of the movement that works on the issue of migration. When I declared support for the yes vote many friends were bothered (he laughs). But the unity formed around the no vote, especially in France, was a unity of the inane: rightwing socialists, Stalinists, Trotskyite intellectuals and others that teamed up with the right and ultraright wing in the name of resentment caused by the end of the social state and a supposed defense of rights to the detriment of migrants.

P/12: How do you see the global movement?

T.N.: It is in a profound crisis. That which started in Seattle, moved through Genoa and continued into the anti-war movement has fallen off brutally. It is from this situation that the traditional left has fed its own reconstruction. But the interesting thing is that within this falling curve another is beginning to rise, enacted by social struggles of a new kind, that appear fundamentally around precarious work and migration.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

comments?

[chebol]

And so Negri remains a bleating inneffectual fool.

[Bannockburn]

I'm not sure how he is a fool. In fact, if one reads Empire, and Multitude, then everything he is saying in accords with the US and Iraq is pretty much accurate. He states in Multitude that defeat or winning on legal, moral etc grounds has no legit claim simply because of the global state of war. Thus, imperial violence of Empire, and not imperialist countries ,are legit on the effects, insofar to remain the global order.

The US is not Empire, nor does it control Empire. Rather the US has a privilege position within Empire. However, the top aristocrat cannot go in alone. It will need other aristocrats, ie, look at Iraq.

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:54 AM
And so Negri remains a bleating inneffectual fool.
Out of interest, have you actually taken the time and effort to read his (at times incredibly dense) works? Or are you just claiming that it's a fool because he's not particularly quotable.

And Negri is not ineffectual, he was and is heavily involved in the Italian communist movement during its height in th 60s and 70s. However being exiled and later imprisoned does put a crimp in ones style.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:54 AM
And so Negri remains a bleating ineffectual fool.
Chebol is one of my sharpest critics on this board...and there are doubtless many issues that divide us.

Nevertheless, it appears to me that Negri has lost himself in the clouds of his own rhetoric.

Try and make what you will out of the exchange posted above...or indeed out of his "dense" (meaning unintelligible) texts. His practice in supporting the reactionary EU Constitution tells me "all I need to know".

He does have a once-impressive reputation as a supporter of workers' autonomy movements in Italy. Had I run into his writings in 1975, I would have been pretty impressed.

Now, he sounds like a fool. U.S. imperialism is not "defeated" in some "Platonic sense" -- it will be defeated when it is driven out of Iraq and all the other lands which it presently dominates. Nor has the hegemonic trade zone in Latin America proposed by the U.S. become a "dead issue"...there are plenty of quislings in Latin America eager to cooperate in the "more efficient" exploitation of that unhappy continent.

To be fair, I suppose an admirer of Negri might say that Negri is trying to "predict" the future shape of inter-imperialist conflict. Nothing wrong with that, of course, particularly if he could learn to speak plainly and clearly.

But I am suspicious. How does it help "the wretched of the Earth" for an all-powerful EU to usurp the hegemony of the U.S.? That may well happen...but it's no reason for revolutionaries to "break out the champaign".

What we want to see is imperialism defeated by popular insurrections throughout the "third world".

Just substituting a "different" imperialism is, well, foolishness.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

Here is an excerpt from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines' contribution to the International Conference On Socialism In The 21st Century held in Nepal in November, 2000. I think this would help in this discussion.

"III. The Struggle for Socialism

The struggle for socialism is carried out in various types of countries according to their concrete conditions. In every case, the modern proletariat is necessarily the leading class. It is the most progressive and productive political force, capable of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and ruling society in lieu of the bourgeoisie. The communist party is the advanced detachment of the working class.

The most favorable objective conditions for making revolution towards the goal of socialism are still in the underdeveloped and retrogressive countries, which are the most oppressed and exploited by imperialism and local reaction. The chronic crisis of the ruling system in these countries provides excellent conditions for armed revolution, especially protracted people's war in many of them.

There are communist parties and national liberation movements in a number of countries. These are still in various stages of development. They are faced with the problem of confronting imperialism, modern revisionism and local reaction. They have to decide for themselves how they can advance the struggle for socialism against imperialism.

As a matter of fact, there is grossly uneven development of the subjective forces of the revolution, even in the countries where objective conditions are similarly excellent for waging revolution. To say the least, there are variations in the preparation of the armed revolution as well as in carrying it out.

We can speak most competently about the Communist Party of the Philippines as a revolutionary party of the proletariat leading and waging a protracted people's war. In this connection, we are contributing an additional paper on the Philippine example.

The Filipino people and revolutionary forces have persevered in revolutionary war, despite the liquidation of other people's wars in Southeast Asia, which was once in the eye of the global revolutionary storm in the fifties, sixties and seventies. They have proven that they can advance in armed revolution in a country, which US imperialism regards as a strategic base historically and currently, and they are determined to carry forward the armed revolution in the 21st century.

In countries which are semicolonial and semifeudal, where the peasants remain the majority of the people and the land question has to be solved, the revolution has to be carried out in two stages: the new-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution.

The new-democratic revolution has to be carried out in order to do away with the political and economic power of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism. In the course of the new-democratic revolution, the prerequisites for the subsequent stage of socialism are developed.

Upon the basic completion of the new-democratic revolution through the nationwide seizure of political power, the socialist revolution can start on the basis of the following: revolutionary leadership of the proletariat through the communist party, the full development of the worker-peasant alliance and the leadership of proletarian party over the people's army as the main component of state power, all organs of the state and the entire economy, especially the commanding heights. At the core of the people's democratic republic is the class dictatorship of the proletariat.

In taking the socialist road after seizing political power, we must be ready for the probable developments, as we have seen in previous socialist revolutions: the transitional measures, the basic socialist transformation, the great leap in socialist revolution and construction and the cultural revolution.

In the very few so-called dependent countries, where previously there were some heavy and basic industries but where there is still a significant proportion of peasants and farm workers, there is also the need for the new-democratic revolution prior to the socialist revolution.

In socio-economic terms, the need for the democratic revolution is increasing in the face of the closure of heavy and basic industries, the general deterioration of the economy and the conversion of the industrial workers into peasants and farm hands. But always in political terms, in the face of a class enemy that never surrenders voluntarily, all must win the battle for democracy in legal and armed struggles.

Under extreme conditions of oppression and exploitation and benefiting from the legacy of socialism in theory and practice, the proletariat and oppressed peoples in the former socialist countries or what we call retrogressive countries, will eventually be among the first where the class struggle between the proletariat and the big bourgeoisie will intensify to the point of armed revolution.

In some of these retrogressive countries, it is possible that the proletariat and oppressed peoples shall run ahead in waging armed revolution for socialism earlier than the proletariat in industrial capitalist countries or even many of the oppressed peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America. But we must not have the illusion that in a country where socialism has been replaced by capitalism there will be a straight return to socialism as a result of the struggle of the proletariat and the rest of the people.

The proletarian revolutionaries have to confront the fact that the revisionists who toppled the proletariat discredited socialism by misrepresenting as socialism the gradual evolution of capitalism for several decades. The blatant anti-communist full restorers of capitalism continue to heap calumny on socialism and the new big bourgeoisie and the imperialists would use all anti-democratic and violent means to combat the return of socialism.

So, in the retrogressive countries, the proletarian revolutionaries and the people have to undertake once more a democratic struggle towards socialism and seize the initiative from the anti-communists and anti-socialists who misappropriate the slogan of democracy and misinterpret it as bourgeois liberalism for the purpose of sugar-coating big bourgeois rule.

Even in the industrial capitalist countries, advanced or lesser ones, there is no straight line from the material conditions of capitalism to socialist revolution. Between the two, there is necessarily a period of some significant duration for a broad democratic struggle, because the monopoly bourgeoisie does not give up its power and wealth voluntarily but unleashes fascism to preempt the seizure of political power by the proletariat.

It is understandable that in the imperialist countries, the communist parties and the revolutionary mass movements are currently small and weak. That is because the imperialists are strongest in their own homegrounds to resist the proletarian struggle for socialism. They can bribe a section of the working class to become labor aristocrats and use an array of big bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties, organizations and institutions to mislead the masses. They are ever ready to use the coercive apparatuses of the state whenever they deem necessary.

The Left parties and the progressive mass movements in the lesser industrial capitalist countries are currently bigger in size than in the advanced ones. However, they are under the heavy influence of modern revisionism and social democracy. At present, there are communist and workers' parties striving to lead the workers and the semiproletarian masses as the crisis of monopoly capitalism is worsening and the labor aristocrats are becoming discredited.

There have been significant outbursts of sector-wide strikes of workers and broad protests against the bourgeois states and their multilateral agencies. The proletariat and the rest of the people decry the oppressiveness and exploitativeness of capitalism and call for socialism.

In industrial capitalist countries, the proletarian revolutionaries wage legal struggle as the main form of struggle for a long period of time in order to build a powerful mass movement. At the same time, it must build a strong underground in preparation for the workers' uprisings in the future. They cannot play with insurrection when the crisis of the ruling system does not yet render the bourgeoisie incapable of ruling in the old way, when the people are not yet desirous of overthrowing the state and when the party of the proletariat is not yet strong enough to lead a successful revolution.

The conditions are becoming ever more favorable for genuine Marxist-Leninist parties to emerge and gain strength. They have to work hard to develop the subjective forces of the revolution. They have to overcome the stupor from previous relatively better times, the widespread petty bourgeois mentality subservient to the big bourgeoisie and the reformist, social democratic and revisionist ideological and political currents among the workers. They must consciously develop and intensify the militant political actions directed against the reactionary state and the monopoly bourgeoisie."

[Bannockburn]

Try and make what you will out of the exchange posted above...or indeed out of his "dense" (meaning unintelligible) texts. His practice in supporting the reactionary EU Constitution tells me "all I need to know".

Well not really, and I think by reading this one article, without knowing Negri will give you a really bad perspective. First and foremost he's said in countless other places most notably in the book, “Negri on Negri” that such acts such as these leads to a global citizenry. That's one of his main goals, if we can call it that of the multitude working within Empire. Also, as a Marxist, Negri certainly knows this is reactionary, and his comments concerning an alternative to the US will eventually lead to antagonisms. Obviously because of dialectics, one cannot stop, or overstep, or leap past Capitalism, one must push through it. That's classical Marxism. If the EU then is a mechanism to speed up this, then I think Negri is for it.


Now, he sounds like a fool. U.S. imperialism is not "defeated" in some "Platonic sense" -- it will be defeated when it is driven out of Iraq and all the other lands which it presently dominates. Nor has the hegemonic trade zone in Latin America proposed by the U.S. become a "dead issue"...there are plenty of quislings in Latin America eager to cooperate in the "more efficient" exploitation of that unhappy continent.

What do you mean by Platonic sense? No idea. Anyway. Imperialism is over. Without a doubt, and Iraq shows this. Empire is imperial, but its not imperialism. Obviously, the reason why the US will be driven out of Iraq is because within Empire, no one aristocratic country can “go in alone”. This is why its need a coalition of different segments of Empire to succeed. If the United States was an imperialist nation, then it could easily do it themselves without the help of other nation-states. Think of it as a global monarchy. The United States has a privileged position within Empire, but it needs other aristocrats in order to finance, keep global world order, etc. Without them, then any nation-state will fail without the backdrop of member states.

Concerning Latin America. Empire will work with other modes of production. Empire is not absolute. Ration, capital as its motor will essentially work with, rather than take over other forms of mode of production. The resistance to Empire, or what I just said is what you see. Resistance is the second face of globalization which takes on the form of the multitude. Eventually, as Hardt and Negri see it, the dominant hierarchical forms of power will collapse in the constituent power of the multitude.


To be fair, I suppose an admirer of Negri might say that Negri is trying to "predict" the future shape of inter-imperialist conflict. Nothing wrong with that, of course, particularly if he could learn to speak plainly and clearly.

No, I disagree. Hardt and Negri are not trying to predict what will happen globally. Rather because each situation is different in accords with history, material conditions, social conditions, economic situations, class history, ethnic, race, language history etc, each revolution will look radically different to one another. No one revolution will look the same. Rather, what they are trying to do is conceptualize and formalize what they think is currently happening. They also believe (rightfully or wrongfully) that the periodization of industrial labor has shifted and we are pushing towards another dialectical process.



But I am suspicious. How does it help "the wretched of the Earth" for an all-powerful EU to usurp the hegemony of the U.S.? That may well happen...but it's no reason for revolutionaries to "break out the champaign".

Because it creates antagonisms, and like I said will create a global citizenry which both forms of dominant control of the US and EU will collapse within the multitude. Moreover, nobody is saying this is ideal. Its what Marx said. Industrial capital, why not perfect, and indeed horrible, is better than feudalism. Likewise, this is maybe better, but we don't know since it hasn't materialized in concrete form.



Just substituting a "different" imperialism is, well, foolishness.

Well he's not. He's saying imperialism is over.

Also, forgot what thing. He's books such as labor of Dionysus, Time for Revolution, Insurgencies, etc are dense. Yes they are. It takes work to understand, but they can obviously be understood if one is willing to take the time. Books like Empire/Multitude are the “popular” form of the other books. Moreover, if you do not know Spinoza or Foucault then you won't understand it. To understand Negri, you need background knowledge in philosophy.

also, sorry for the spelling/grammar mistakes. fast reply.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bannockburn
First and foremost he's said in countless other places, most notably in the book, Negri on Negri, that acts such as these lead to a global citizenry. That's one of his main goals, if we can call it that of the multitude working within Empire.

"Global citizenry" sounds very much like a "Platonic" concept...that is, one which only "exists" in someone's mind. To be sure, there might be such a thing in five or ten centuries...but now?


Anyway. Imperialism is over.

This will certainly come as an astonishing revelation to the "wretched of the earth".

I missed that headline myself. :lol:


Empire is imperial, but it's not imperialism.

Curiouser and curiouser.


Obviously, the reason why the US will be driven out of Iraq is because within Empire, no one aristocratic country can “go in alone”.

Perhaps. It seems to be a "great stretch" to assert that at this time.


This is why it needs a coalition of different segments of Empire to succeed. If the United States was an imperialist nation, then it could easily do it themselves without the help of other nation-states. Think of it as a global monarchy. The United States has a privileged position within Empire, but it needs other aristocrats in order to finance, keep global world order, etc. Without them, then any nation-state will fail without the backdrop of member states.

Speculative. It is certainly useful for the United States to acquire "coalitions of the willing" in order primarily to cloak their imperial ambitions in "multi-national" costuming.

I fail to grasp the subtle "distinction" between an imperialist nation that "goes it alone" and one that employs "useful dupes" ("allied nations") as available.


Likewise, this is maybe better, but we don't know since it hasn't materialized in concrete form.

I think this is the problem with Negri's analysis. "Global citizenry"? "EU hegemony?" "Collapse within the multitude"?

What planet is this guy talking about?


Moreover, if you do not know Spinoza or Foucault, then you won't understand it. To understand Negri, you need background knowledge in philosophy.

Why? Where is it written that a coherent understanding of modern capitalist reality requires a background in two rather esoteric philosophers?

Why would one want to "communicate" in such a fashion?

To be sure, intellectuals gain prestige among their peers by using language that "the vulgar mob" cannot understand. And "intellectual prestige" can sometimes be converted into lucrative academic appointments.

Any other reasons?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:12 PM
Imperialism is over. Without a doubt, and Iraq shows this. Empire is imperial, but its not imperialism. Obviously, the reason why the US will be driven out of Iraq is because within Empire, no one aristocratic country can “go in alone”. This is why its need a coalition of different segments of Empire to succeed. If the United States was an imperialist nation, then it could easily do it themselves without the help of other nation-states. Think of it as a global monarchy. The United States has a privileged position within Empire, but it needs other aristocrats in order to finance, keep global world order, etc. Without them, then any nation-state will fail without the backdrop of member states.
By this kind of reasoning, we could say the German invasion of the USSR wasn't imperialist. It was a coalition of several nations including Finland, France and Romania. I know that's not what you're saying, but that's just a weak analysis. Coalitions aren't a new development in imperialist war and occupation.


Moreover, if you do not know Spinoza or Foucault then you won't understand it. To understand Negri, you need background knowledge in philosophy.


:lol:

[Guest1]

Uggh, this is the "new left" crap that's choked leftism since the collapse of the USSR.

I really, really, really hate pseudo-intellectual crap like this.

Let's "create examples of living otherwise", and "inject new dialogues of swarm-think into the public discourse".

Or maybe we should just have a wank, that would be more productive.

[Bannockburn]

"Global citizenry" sounds very much like a "Platonic" concept...that is, one which only "exists" in someone's mind. To be sure, there might be such a thing in five or ten centuries...but now?

Well actually, I tend to think if you think Plato thinks that, then you have misread Plato. The forms are real for Plato, but transcendent. He's actually an ultra-realist-idealist. Anyway, that is besides the point. I don't think five or ten centuries whatsoever. I think we are at the beginning of the very materialization of a global citizenry. We already feel a kind of global responsibility when natural disasters happen. Likewise, we know what is going on across the globe and we all have an opinion about it. The nation-state system is completely destroyed, and it plays no real function. Negri has argued this in Empire. The ability for the nation-state system to regulate and control conditions under a single rule of authority is gone. Capital, people, goods, news, information, technology, culture, language, food, weapons, ideas, all spread throughout the globe with complete freedom with very little molestation of the State system. The only role the State-system now plays is a global police force.

What we are currently seeing however, is a reaction against this. Empire reacts against the constituent power of the multitude. Take an example of people. People move and migrate and go beyond borders with relative ease. Look at the United States. You can't stop the Mexicans coming in, and the neo-minute men, and Lou-Dobbs talking about the “broken borders', and our “immigration policy” is all reactionary against this eventual process. Stand not by your country, but fight through the walls and fences. No border, free movement for all. This will further materialize, until the nation-state system accepts, and creates a global citizenry. Now that's basically Negri argument, more or less. I would further argue with Negri to suggest that the EU is an example of this, and Che's idea of a single South America falls in line as well. EU members, as I understand can work, live anyway in the EU, regardless. There is no border between an Englishmen men going to Germany to live, and visa versa. No borders. Likewise, it will happen with North America with Mexico and Canada, Central, and South America.


This will certainly come as an astonishing revelation to the "wretched of the earth".

Well the thing about the wretched of the earth needs to realize that they are very strong insofar as global resources. Nevertheless, there is a global order, and most likely they are on the lower order. However, that doesn't mean Empire discriminates, and once your in a position, you can't get out of it. Capital will always need room to expand. Like a vampire that must suck blood. It can't reproduce itself, and must feed on something other than itself. Likewise, capital will eventually go into these places, and depending on the economic conditions of Empire, the segment of the population will benefit, or not. Hard to say. That is speculation.





Perhaps. It seems to be a "great stretch" to assert that at this time.

Not really. I don't see how you figure. Granted all the traditional modes of “winning” a war is happening. Puppet government, mass slaughter of the people, resources are generally secure. Nevertheless, currently the resistance is being fueled by the middle class. It is because of absurd Neo-liberal policies pushed by the free market. Basically, like other neo-liberal policies its going to create a massive gap between rich and poor. Naomi Klein has written about this. Anyway, anytime, anytime you use mercenary forces, such as the United States is using, you will lose. That's an old Machiavellian truth. Look what is going on in Iraq. Its not a war, its a riot of the police force trying to oppress the neighborhood. They go in, call it secure, then leave. The Iraq's then take it back. Sounds like this has happened before in American history. America lost. Plain and simply. However, it doesn't really matter. Negri in Multitude that winning and losing has nothing to do with war or peace anymore. Rather, it has to do with keep global order. Its junkie mentality. Think of it this way. A junkie needs to have his fixed. In this case the junkie is Empire, and the fix is capital. Well the junkie knows that if he gets his fix legit, or illegitimate, it doesn't really matter, provided he gets the fix. Nevertheless, the junkie knows its not working. The drug is finite and you'll always need more to sustain your way of life. So you get more and more, and when you run out, well you simply try to get more from another place. Okay, so you're a junkie, and your dealer says, “sorry, I'm dried up”. Well the junkie, instead of saying, “hey this isn't working”, says to himself, “I'll just get my drugs from another source”. So he goes to the Iraq drug dealer. Once that dries up, he'll go to the Canadian drug dealer, ie, the oil fields. Again. The junkie doesn't care how he gets it, provides he does get it.


Speculative. It is certainly useful for the United States to acquire "coalitions of the willing" in order primarily to cloak their imperial ambitions in "multi-national" costuming.

How is it speculative? Look at the concrete reality. America can't do anything alone. Iraq, lost. The Summit of America's. Lost, Just look at the evidence. The United States has not accomplished one thing when it tries to do something by itself.


I think this is the problem with Negri's analysis. "Global citizenry"? "EU hegemony?" "Collapse within the multitude"?

What planet is this guy talking about?

Well this one obviously. Negri is a revolutionary, and he's looking for an alternative society. Obviously its going to look different, with different ideas. This again is a critique Negri has will traditional Marxist. Yeah, we know the story. Revolution of the proletarians, change the form of social-structure. Blah blah. Marx wrote during industrial capitalism. Negri argues however, that things change, and likewise we need new ideas. The proletarian revolution failed. It lost all its potential. Representative “democracy” has failed. It lost all its potential. Negri is more interested in revolution which never been actualized, and still filled with potential.



Why? Where is it written that a coherent understanding of modern capitalist reality requires a background in two rather esoteric philosophers?

Well that is me talking, rather than trying to argue for Negri. Its not capitalist reality. He's completely Marxist in that perspective. However, the project of the multitude is clearly Spinozist. When Spinoza wrote, he was writing with Hobbes. Well what happened. Hobbes won. Well Negri is going back to revive modern social theory, and trying to bring out its potential. Foucault on the other hand, he uses for conceptual purposes. For example, using bio-power and bio-politics. Also, even though Foucault doesn't say this, the social-factory. You don't need to know these people to understand books like Empire, or Multitude. Rather, they simply give you a clearer picture. They are helpful, but not necessary. In his other works, ti understand it, I think you need to know some philosophy. I think everyone should know philosophy, and Foucault. That is my personal feeling, not Negri. Moreover, the “vulgar” mob, is what Negri argues against actually. The language he uses is clear, and everyone can understand insofar they are willing to put the time into it. This is where Negri differs. Negri thinks the “mob” isn't vulgar whatsoever. Rather, they are intelligent creative individuals.


Uggh, this is the "new left" crap that's choked leftism since the collapse of the USSR.

I really, really, really hate pseudo-intellectual crap like this.

Let's "create examples of living otherwise", and "inject new dialogues of swarm-think into the public discourse".

Or maybe we should just have a wank, that would be more productive.

Well its not “new-left” its a fraction of post-Marxism. If you want to call that new-left, then I guess you and I have a different understanding of it.

Also, what is wrong with examples of potentials? Not that I know of, but he doesn't give any examples of how to live otherwise. Its not like its directional and can be controlled. rather, he is showing what may happen, and what he sees are currently happening Moreover, things like swarm intelligence is something that is an idea. It reflects such examples of WTO meetings, and Summit of the America meetings, Block bloc, and other events that take on a kind of intelligence without hierarchical forms of dominant control. An intelligence more or say. So, really I fail to see your critique.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bannockburn
A junkie needs to have his fix. In this case the junkie is Empire, and the fix is capital...Well the junkie, instead of saying, “hey this isn't working”, says to himself, “I'll just get my drugs from another source”. So he goes to the Iraq drug dealer. Once that dries up, he'll go to the Canadian drug dealer, i.e., the oil fields. Again. The junkie doesn't care how he gets it, provides he does get it.

This seems to be a rather confused paragraph.

It's certainly fashionable to refer to western capitalist societies as "energy junkies" or, more specifically, "oil junkies".

This in spite of the fact that as countries like China, India, and Brazil modernize at an accelerating pace, their energy consumption has increased enormously and will certainly continue to do so.

Perhaps you (or Negri?) feel there is something "wrong" about that...that a "high-tech, energy intensive societies" are "unsustainable".

If so, I have some bad news for both of you. I lived through two hurricanes in southern Louisiana and can tell you what "low-tech, low energy" life is really like.

It reduces people to something not much above barbarism!

Indeed, some of the "atrocities" attributed to the Iraqi resistance might well have nothing to do with the resistance at all. Instead, those atrocities may simply reflect what people "turn into" when deprived of the material foundations of civilized life.

It ain't pretty.


Negri argues however, that things change, and likewise we need new ideas. The proletarian revolution failed.

Ok...that's his opinion. He thinks, as many do, that "Marxism = Leninism" and from the 20th century failures of Leninism concludes that "Marxism is obsolete".

I have a different opinion...that Marxism as conceived by Marx himself is going to be revived in this century on such a scale that people are going to be astonished at the relevance and usefulness of his ideas.


[Negri] is completely Marxist in that perspective.

You could have fooled me. :lol:


Well it's not “new-left”; it's a fraction of post-Marxism.

I quite agree. For all it's shortcomings, I think it would be difficult to find anyone like Negri in the North American "new left". At least, I can't remember anyone from those days suggesting that "imperialism is over".

Yes, his ideas seems very "post-Marxist" to me...so much so that I can't see any sense in what he says -- at least from your summary of his ideas and the excerpt posted in this thread.

Of course it may be argued that I am "blinded" by "Marxist dogmatism" and thus fail to recognize the merits of a visionary "new thinker".

But put yourself in my shoes. I've lived long enough to see a whole bunch of "visionary new thinkers"...there's a new one every year featured in The New York Times and similar publications.

They make their "splash", have their "fifteen minutes of fame", blah, blah, blah...and then it's time to roll out this year's new model of bourgeois ideology.

And all of them come with the necessary label carefully attached: Guaranteed post-Marxist.

Wouldn't want to "scare off" the consumer, would they? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Morpheus]

I think imperialism is in decline but it's not gone yet. The American empire co-exists with what Negri calls Empire, although I think "transnational ruling class" is probably a better term. As part of its empire the US created a number of international institutions to help manage it. Many of those institutions are becoming independant of the empire that spawned them, which is leading to conflicts between the transnational elite that runs the transnational institutions and the American empire. So both Empire and imperialism exist right now. Wer'e in a transitional phase, with elements of both present. I wrote an article about this a while ago, The American Empire and the Emergence of a Global Ruling Class (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/ampire.html). Once you decode what Negri is saying in the above interview he appears to be moving closer to this position and away from the "Empire exists now & imperialism doesn't" view he & Hardt were advocating in Empire. It's too bad his writings are so difficult to read, once you figure out what he's actually saying not all of his ideas are without merit.

[Bannockburn]

It's certainly fashionable to refer to western capitalist societies as "energy junkies" or, more specifically, "oil junkies".

When I wrote that I thought it was going to be confusing. Nevertheless, its not any one country, or nation state. Its not simply energy, or oil. Its capital always needing more and an outside in order to market it. That's the thing. Capital always needs a new market and new commodities. It needs to expand into new realms. Like a junkie, it needs more. It gets a tolerance, and needs more and more. Or like a vampire.


Perhaps you (or Negri?) feel there is something "wrong" about that...that a "high-tech, energy intensive societies" are "unsustainable".

If so, I have some bad news for both of you. I lived through two hurricanes in southern Louisiana and can tell you what "low-tech, low energy" life is really like.

I don't know what Negri would say about that. Personally, I find the current system wrong, and I want an alternative. However, that doesn't mean we need to go to the dark ages or anything. I don't want to talk about your experience about barbarism. Interesting you say that though. Negri talks about a new barbarism in Empire. That's all I'm going to say.



Ok...that's his opinion. He thinks, as many do, that "Marxism = Leninism" and from the 20th century failures of Leninism concludes that "Marxism is obsolete".

No, no. He's a Marxist. He doesn't say it obsolete. Rather, since we live as a part of history, and we make history, history of course changes, and Marxism needs to as well in some fractions. Take for example his thinking that we have entered a new paradigm of immaterial labor and affect labor which will now be the hegemonic tendency above industrial labor.


But put yourself in my shoes. I've lived long enough to see a whole bunch of "visionary new thinkers"...there's a new one every year featured in The New York Times and similar publications.

They make their "splash", have their "fifteen minutes of fame", blah, blah, blah...and then it's time to roll out this year's new model of bourgeois ideology.

I agree with you. But Negri? Negri has been around for sometime.


The American empire co-exists with what Negri calls Empire, although I think "transnational ruling class" is probably a better term

No. Empire is not America for Negri. Empire is a concept rather. Empire, for Negri is decentralized and deterritorized. No one country dominates Empire, but there are dominate states within Empire. Empire also is poly-dynamical with many bodies. Multi-national corporations is certainly one fraction of Empire. In fact, I think Negri claims its



'web' of Empire. Don't quote him on that though. Also, America is not an Empire, simply because as you said since multi-national bodies are independent of any nation-state, the US could easily fall with any change within Empire. Likewise, I would say multi-national corporations are not independent insofar as they need a material basis to organize. Thus, its a network of interconnected entities. That network is Empire.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:34 PM
No. Empire is not America for Negri. Empire is a concept rather. Empire, for Negri is decentralized and deterritorized. No one country dominates Empire, but there are dominate states within Empire. Empire also is poly-dynamical with many bodies. Multi-national corporations is certainly one fraction of Empire. In fact, I think Negri claims its



'web' of Empire. Don't quote him on that though. Also, America is not an Empire, simply because as you said since multi-national bodies are independent of any nation-state, the US could easily fall with any change within Empire. Likewise, I would say multi-national corporations are not independent insofar as they need a material basis to organize. Thus, its a network of interconnected entities. That network is Empire.
I know what Negri means by Empire. If I thought Empire and the American empire were the same I wouldn't be claiming they coexist. I don't think "empire" is the best term for that, because Empire implies something centralized; that's why I think "transnational ruling class" is a better term. Empire in Negri's sense doesn't truly exist yet, wer'e in a transition stage between imperialism & Negri's Empire. See my article I linked to previously.


Also, America is not an Empire, simply because as you said since multi-national bodies are independent of any nation-state, the US could easily fall with any change within Empire.

Multi-national bodies are only semi-independant. They are becoming independant of the empire that spawned them, but they aren't completely independant yet and still have not overthrown the empire that created them. The US can veto any action of the UN and subvert most other multinational institutions when necessary. They may not obey the US to the same degree they used to, but they aren't stopping the US either and the US still retains far, far more influence that any other state. An empire is a state that engages in imperialism on a large scale, and the US clearly does that in Iraq, Afghanistan & elsewhere. The US *could* fall due to a revolt by the international institutions, but that hasn't happened yet and the American empire will continue to exist until that happens (or some other force overthrows it). They've engaged in minor rebellion by refusing to support the US, but have not moved to overthrow the US. Until they do, Empire will not fully exist.

[redstar2000]

I would like to add my own support and recommendation to the article by Morpheus.

The American Empire and the Emergence of a Global Ruling Class (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/ampire.html)

I think his analysis makes a lot more sense than that of Negri.

Nor does it lend itself to any foolishness like supporting the neo-conservative EU Constitution as in any sense "progressive".

It's interesting to think about what revolutionaries might do over the balance of this century should the dominant conflict in the world become that between the "old" American Empire and an emerging "new" trans-national bourgeoisie.

It would be a "second stage" of the bourgeois revolution...with possible opportunities for re-building a "new International" of genuine revolutionaries (both anarchist and "left communist").

But any kind of collaboration with either of the contending bourgeois elites would be, for us, out of the question.

Whatever "good things" that Negri did or was associated with back in the 1970s are now irrelevant. Past accomplishments, no matter how impressive, are not "a license to sell out" in the present.

And that's what really "sticks in my throat" about Negri...and makes any serious consideration of his ideas very difficult for me. We've seen a long and dismal history of people advocating class collaboration for "progressive reasons".

Why isn't Negri, say, Kautsky v.2.0?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Bannockburn]

I know what Negri means by Empire. If I thought Empire and the American empire were the same I wouldn't be claiming they coexist. I don't think "empire" is the best term for that, because Empire implies something centralized; that's why I think "transnational ruling class" is a better term. Empire in Negri's sense doesn't truly exist yet, wer'e in a transition stage between imperialism & Negri's Empire. See my article I linked to previously.

Well I don't think you do know. I'm not trying to say you are wrong, and I'm completely right. However, I have meet Antonio Negri, and actually he's coming to Canada (Brock University) this April which I will be attending. Hardt was at York University in September. I've ask them these questions, and I'm trying to give you the answers. Also, don't take this like, "oh I know everything" or whatever. That is not what I'm saying. Rather I've taken courses, and spoken with the authors. Its like saying who would you rather listen to concerning how to make a house? A carpenter, or the general public? Well obviously the former because they have direct knowledge, rather than indrect.

Lets begin with Empire p.xii


In contrast to imperialism, Empire established no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is decentered and detrritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open expanding frontiers

Certainly I agree with you that Capital is becoming independent and multidimensional. However the embodied corporations can not. They need a material basis. Furthermore, Capital does need some kind of state system. We can see this in the year meetings at Davos Switzerland. In Multitude, p.167


Many of the proponents and detractors of the present world order conceive of globalization as if it were determined by an unregulated capitalism – with free markets and free trade- which often goes by the name of neoliberalism. A brief trip to snow-covered Davos, however, can help dispel this notion of an unregulated capitalism because there we can see clearly the need for leaders of major corporations to negotiate and cooperate with the political leaders of dominant nation-states and bureaucrats of the suprenation economic institutions.

Furthermore


The most important lesson to learn from Davos is simply that such a meeting is necessary: economic, political, and bureaucratic elites of the world need to work together in constant relation. In more general terms, it demonstrates the old lesson that no economic market can exist without political order and regulation If by mean free markets one means a market that is autonomous and spontaneous, free from political control, then there is no such thing as a free market at all. It is simply a myth

I don't think I have to go into details. But most nation-states a protectionist, and give large tax-cuts and subsidies to corporations. Okay, so anyway. We've established that Capital does need a material basis. It can't float in the air to reproduce itself, despite its wishes.
Also, Of course the United States “co-exist” within Empire. Each nation co-exist within Empire. The United States is simply within a dominant position, but its still relative to the overall framework of Empire. If nations stopped investing in the United States, or China stopped buying US Bonds, then the United States would sink. Likewise, its just not capital. Look at the recent natural disasters. Despite the US claim that it doesn't need help, it obviously does, and did. Tons of international aid came to the United States, and likewise other countries are in the same position. We are all connected in a network of relations via economic, legal, cultural, linguistic relations. Anyway. Yeah, sure we are in a transitional state. Empire is materializing, but its not fully materialized. That's obvious, and he claims that.



Multi-national bodies are only semi-independant. They are becoming independant of the empire that spawned them, but they aren't completely independant yet and still have not overthrown the empire that created them.

Multi-nationals can't be completely autonomous. I've think I've shown that. Granted, I agree with you that they are less centralized, but they will always need political intervention, and a material basis in order to function. What I mean by this is they need the state as an instrument in order to function. Also, Empire in Negri terms just isn't capital. Its legal norms, moral norms and military action. You restrict it simply to Multi-nationals, but its more than that. Globalization isn't simply economic, its globalization of many different aspects.


An empire is a state that engages in imperialism on a large scale, and the US clearly does that in Iraq, Afghanistan & elsewhere.

Empire does function with imperial tendencies, but again one nation-state isn't in complete control. If necessary, military action will be used to open markets, or to force open markets, but military intervention is secondary. Primarily it is to keep global order. Nation-states, with the “right of intervention” essentially is a police action. Certain regions are suppressed because if they are not they will disrupt the global order. Moreover, the United States is not alone in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. This further shows my point that no nation can “go in alone” without the support of other members within Empire.



Nor does it lend itself to any foolishness like supporting the neo-conservative EU Constitution as in any sense "progressive".

Well that is the thing. Its the lesser of two evils. Push through it, you can't step over it. That's Marxism through and through. Its like Chomsky when he claims that right now what we need is a stronger state, but what isn't he an anarchist sympathizer?


Whatever "good things" that Negri did or was associated with back in the 1970s are now irrelevant. Past accomplishments, no matter how impressive, are not "a license to sell out" in the present.

How did he sell out?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bannockburn
It's the lesser of two evils. Push through it, you can't step over it. That's Marxism through and through. It's like Chomsky when he claims that right now what we need is a stronger state, but what, isn't he an anarchist sympathizer?

What a strange notion of "Marxism" you have. Where did you get the idea that choosing "the lesser of two evils" has anything to do with Marxism?

If anything, that's a conception that comes straight from the bourgeoisie.

As to Chomsky, I think most of the anarchists on this board would reject him. His support for the imperialist John Kerry has completely destroyed his credibility.

As an academic researcher, Chomsky still enjoys considerable prestige -- people might well want to read his works on Vietnam, Central America, etc. just to see "how imperialism works in practice".

But as to a source of "political guidance", I think serious anarchists have already turned away from Chomsky in disgust.


How did he [Negri] sell out?

By his public statements in support of the reactionary EU constitution.

Once you do something like that, you're finished in the view of serious revolutionaries. On the other hand, you've also sent a message to the ruling class: Will Lie For Food!

I hope he chokes on that damn caviar.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chebol]

For fuck's sake.
Those with any illusions in Negri, please, for the love of reason, read this.

Lenin- "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:40 AM
For fuck's sake.
Those with any illusions in Negri, please, for the love of reason, read this.

Lenin- "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
I have and I don't agree with Negri regarding Imperialism being 'dead'. Imperialism is very much alive, however it is has adapted to the new conditions that have arisen. I:HSC was written 89 years ago, thinks have changed just slightly and because of this it is necessary to move beyond concepts and ideas that DID apply in 1916, but do not apply now.

We live in the dawn of the 21st century, not the dawn of the 20th. You can't simply hail whatever Lenin said as right and applicable for thsi day and age. Structures change, natures don't. Capitalism still oppresses and exploits people- the structures and methods that they use have changed some what in the last, what, 300 years?

[chebol]

I don't regard *everything* Lenin has ever written as right.
However, do you think that capitalism has progressed into a qualitatively new stage in the past 100 years? Where? Show me the eveidence.
What key parts of Lenin's analysis- that Imperialism is the HIGHEST stage of Capitalism- are wrong?
Figures, numbers, analysis, fact.
Much of "Imperialism" DID NOT, in fact, apply in 1917. It has only come about in the intervening period. Yes, things have changed, but they changed largely in accordance with Lenin's predictions and analysis.
That Lenin was able to write in this way shows that he used the correct method, the MARXIST method, of analysing capitalism, based on facts.

I'm more than willing to accept that Imperialism is *not* the highest stage of capitalism, if you can show me an argument BASED ON FACT AND SCIENTIFIC REASON.

Problem is, Negri can't, and I doubt anyone else can. We still live beneath the yoke of Imperialism- an increasingly dangerous one, too, as the entire planet is now endangered (and has been for some decades).

[Scars]

<<I don&#39;t regard *everything* Lenin has ever written as right.>>

Good. Much of it is incorrect and much of the stuff that is correct was not invented by Lenin- for instance his conception of Imperialism is heavily based on earlier works by other people.

<<However, do you think that capitalism has progressed into a qualitatively new stage in the past 100 years? Where? Show me the eveidence.>>

A new stage? No, probably not. However the stage HAS changed. Things are not static. Yes we are still in the Capitalist period, but &#39;Capitalism&#39; is not a monolithic entity- as we see from the roaring arguements between different Capitalist &#39;sects&#39;. The tactics and methods used by the Capitalist have changed, and thus our tactics and methods must move with them. Just because it worked 80 years ago does not mean that it will work now and because of this we need to break away from the tendency to unquestioningly follow people that were operating over half a century ago.

I&#39;m more interesting in Negri&#39;s earlier works regarding to the Autonomist Marxist movement, as opposed to his more recent stuff (&#39;Empire&#39; and the like). You cannot make blanket statements about people who have been writing for decades based on the fact that you disagree with one of his ideas. However, you&#39;ll probably not agree with his other works anyway, so it&#39;s a bit of a moot point.

<<What key parts of Lenin&#39;s analysis- that Imperialism is the HIGHEST stage of Capitalism- are wrong?>>

That we cannot see the future. There could be another higher than height stage to come as capitalism moves, changes and adapts to the conditions that it finds itself in. I expect that there WILL be another &#39;stage of capitalism&#39; in the future, as competetition for resources heats up in the next few decades, which will most likely lead to capitalism becoming more blatantly dictatorial and violent as they struggle with one another to control various resources. It may sound very sci-fi, however this is the logical conclusion one comes to from studying basic economics ("resources are limited, demand for resources are unlimited. In the long run- we&#39;re fucked")

You cannot speak of inevitabilities with much certainty, because there are too many variables that must be taken into account and many of these variables one would not even think of, or may not exist, in order for you to factor into your theories. Which is why Marxism must evolve and adapt itself constantly, in the same way that capitalism does. Chances are I&#39;ll get called a revisionist for saying this, most of the things that need to be changed relate to tactics rather than theroy and the absolutist bullshit needs to be got rid of as it only enforces a rigidity that impedes us.

[chebol]

"Imperialism" was based on the work of other people? Of course it was. Do you think Lenin just made it all up?
Not least in the list should go Bukharin.

That still doesn&#39;t make it *wrong*, and your twin arguments of "capitalism &#39;might&#39; go into a different stage" and that it&#39;s in the same "stage" but the "stage has changed" are contradictory, and make no sense.

How has the stage changed (beyond Imperialism)?
What changes might take place within Imperialism that would create a qualitatively different stage?

I&#39;m not calling you a revisionist- just confused.

[Scars]

<<"Imperialism" was based on the work of other people? Of course it was. Do you think Lenin just made it all up?
Not least in the list should go Bukharin.>>

It&#39;s nice to see a Leninist admit that. Lenin was a politician, not a ideologue.

<<That still doesn&#39;t make it *wrong*, and your twin arguments of "capitalism &#39;might&#39; go into a different stage" and that it&#39;s in the same "stage" but the "stage has changed" are contradictory, and make no sense.>>

No, I am making two points that have been confused:

1) The nature of imperialism has changed and thus we must change with it, or face extinction due to clinging onto practices and methods simply because they worked 100 years ago. I don&#39;t support Negri when he says that Imperialism is dead.

2) There is no clear and definitive proof that Imperialism is the last stage that capitalism will exist in before the establishment of communism. Such absolutism is historically simplistic.

<<How has the stage changed (beyond Imperialism)?>>

It hasn&#39;t, we still live under Imperialism. However Imperialism in teh 21st century is somewhat different to Imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th century.

<<What changes might take place within Imperialism that would create a qualitatively different stage?>>

That I don&#39;t know. However:

1) I cannot see the future. Neither could Lenin. Most of it is guess work. Informed guesses- yes, but guesses and predictions never the less. Science is not perfect and requires just as much faith as your average religion. Most science is unproven theories.

2) Just because Lenin said it, doesn&#39;t mean that it&#39;s 100%. Plus, as far as I know, he couldn&#39;t see the future either. He could not have predicted many of the things that have happened since his death.

3) Absolutism when it comes to politics, philosophy and economics is generally a stupid and naive thing to engage in.

[Bannockburn]

What a strange notion of "Marxism" you have. Where did you get the idea that choosing "the lesser of two evils" has anything to do with Marxism?

Well I think you and I know that is something I said, and I wasn&#39;t trying to place it in the words of anybody else. However, in my defense Marx never said that, but obviously despite the brutal conditions of industrial capitalism, its better than the feudal system. That is Marx however. Marx insists that capitalism is better than the forms of society and modes of production that came before it. Its a dialectical process which must occur. With that being said, I was drawing the push through globalization by Deleuze. That was my mistake. Nevertheless, lesser of two evils is generally the practical implications. Its like having a drug dealer on your street. Granted you don&#39;t want either one, but you would rather have the one who isn&#39;t breaking into your house and killing your kids, than the one who is. Same situation.


If anything, that&#39;s a conception that comes straight from the bourgeoisie.

How?


As to Chomsky, I think most of the anarchists on this board would reject him. His support for the imperialist John Kerry has completely destroyed his credibility.

Its the samething as before. He didn&#39;t want to vote for Kerry, he actually specifically says that. Of course Kerry is simply the other side of the same coin. That is completely beside the point however. I would argue actually it completely misses the point. Its not that he was voting for Kerry, he was voting out Bush. Many, many individuals do that.


But as to a source of "political guidance", I think serious anarchists have already turned away from Chomsky in disgust.

But that is the thing, Chomsky has never ever ever said he was trying to be a “source” for “political guidance”. (or if he does, I haven&#39;t seen it) Chomsky really doesn&#39;t have a strong political program. Chomsky have said in many interviews and books, and talks and articles that he&#39;s not a source, rather he&#39;s an instrument to be used for, and to quote necessary illusions, “intellectual self-defense”.


By his public statements in support of the reactionary EU constitution.

This is by drawing on Deleuze. You can&#39;t go back to somekind of social political body, or move in isolation. Instead of resisting the globalization project, we must accelerate the process. Local struggle is over, completely over. We must act and think globally. Globalization must be meet with counter-globalization. Empire with counter-Empire. So, if “supporting” insofar to accelerate the process of the historical tendency of Empire is to vote for the EU, well then perhaps that is the revolution path.




Once you do something like that, you&#39;re finished in the view of serious revolutionaries.

How?

[chebol]

A new "stage" in capitalism, transcending Imperialism, would need to arise out of existing capitalism, currently in its imperialist stage. As such, indications of such a change would become noticeable BEFORE such a change- alerting us to the phenomenon&#39;s existence. Following this, quantifiable arguments would need to be made to prove (or at least justifiably suggest) that such a change was taking place. Lenin identified the stage known as &#39;imperialism&#39; (as others had done before him, true), but his analysis of the evolution of capitalism into this stage, his understanding of how it would onfold, make his work superior to others&#39;.

I would like to emphasise "would unfold". Imperialism didn&#39;t just appear in the world, fully formed. It evolved, and changed, and has spread, due to its nature, to fill the world. Imperialism, if you like, hasn&#39;t "changed"- it has "matured", much as Lenin predicted it would. However, the challenge is still there. Where are the indicators of a new stage beginning to stir in the bowels of the old? They aren&#39;t there, as far as I can see.

Your analysis still rests on un-scientific premises- that Imperialism "might not" be the last stage, and that it has "changed". Either Imperialism has changed (into something else), or it has not. If it has not, do these changes indicate a new stage of capitalism is incipient (ie, are there quantitative and qualitative changes in how capitalism functions that contradict the nature of imperialism?), or not?

You haven&#39;t answered these questions. If you were to do so, I might be convinced (I do not blindly accept everything Lenin ever wrote as gospel. I, like Lenin, regard myself as a scientific socialist, and accept that not all things are writ in stone). I accept that absolutism is stupid, but making "guesses" that are ill- or un-informed is equaly as stupid.