Hardt & Negri on Genoa

This is from today's NYT Op/Ed page (when it rains, it pours).  I should
add that while I have some reservations about _Empire_ (especially the 2nd
half of it, as I said the first time this topic came up back in January),
I think people who are given to repeating another's opinions are doing
themselves a great disservice - read the book, it doesn't bite.  And those
who have convinced themselves that N&H are really heralds of globalization
(hence lionized by the media) would do well to compare this piece to the
one by Tom Friedman on the same topic in the same issue.

--

What the Protesters in Genoa Want


By MICHAEL HARDT and ANTONIO NEGRI


Genoa, that Renaissance city known for both openness and shrewd political
sophistication, is in crisis this weekend. It should have thrown its gates
wide for the celebration of this summit of the world's most powerful
leaders. But instead Genoa has been transformed into a medieval fortress of
barricades with high-tech controls. The ruling ideology about the present
form of globalization is that there is no alternative. And strangely, this
restricts both the rulers and the ruled.

Leaders of the Group of Eight have no choice but to attempt a show of
political sophistication. They try to appear charitable and transparent in
their goals. They promise to aid the world's poor and they genuflect to Pope
John Paul II and his interests. But the real agenda is to renegotiate
relations among the powerful, on issues such as the construction of missile
defense systems.

The leaders, however, seem detached somehow from the transformations around
them, as though they are following the stage directions from a dated play.
We can see the photo already, though it has not yet been taken: President
George W. Bush as an unlikely king, bolstered by lesser monarchs. This is
not quite an image of the future. It resembles more an archival photo,
pre-1914, of superannuated royal potentates.

Those demonstrating against the summit in Genoa, however, are not distracted
by these old-fashioned symbols of power. They know that a fundamentally new
global system is being formed. It can no longer be understood in terms of
British, French, Russian or even American imperialism.

The many protests that have led up to Genoa were based on the recognition
that no national power is in control of the present global order.
Consequently protests must be directed at international and supranational
organizations, such as the G-8, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund. The movements are not anti-American, as
they often appear, but aimed at a different, larger power structure.

If it is not national but supranational powers that rule today's
globalization, however, we must recognize that this new order has no
democratic institutional mechanisms for representation, as nation-states do:
no elections, no public forum for debate.
The rulers are effectively blind and deaf to the ruled. The protesters take
to the streets because this is the form of expression available to them. The
lack of other venues and social mechanisms is not their creation.

Antiglobalization is not an adequate characterization of the protesters in
Genoa (or Göteborg, Quebec, Prague, or Seattle). The globalization debate
will remain hopelessly confused, in fact, unless we insist on qualifying the
term globalization. The protesters are indeed united against the present
form of capitalist globalization, but the vast majority of them are not
against globalizing currents and forces as such; they are not isolationist,
separatist or even nationalist.

The protests themselves have become global movements and one of their
clearest objectives is for the democratization of globalizing processes. It
should not be called an antiglobalization movement. It is pro-globalization,
or rather an alternative globalization movement — one that seeks to
eliminate inequalities between rich and poor and between the powerful and
the powerless, and to expand the possibilities of self-determination.

If we understand one thing from the multitude of voices in Genoa this
weekend, it should be that a different and better future is possible. When
one recognizes the tremendous power of the international and supranational
forces that support our present form of globalization, one could conclude
that resistance is futile.

But those in the streets today are foolish enough to believe that
alternatives are possible — that "inevitability" should not be the last word
in politics. A new species of political activist has been born with a spirit
that is reminiscent of the paradoxical idealism of the 1960's — the
realistic course of action today is to demand what is seemingly impossible,
that is, something new.

Protest movements are an integral part of a democratic society and, for this
reason alone, we should all thank those in the streets in Genoa, whether we
agree with them or not. Protest movements, however, do not provide a
practical blueprint for how to solve problems, and we should not expect that
of them. They seek rather to transform the public agenda by creating
political desires for a better future.
 
We see seeds of that future already in the sea of faces that stretches from
the streets of Seattle to those of Genoa. One of the most remarkable
characteristics of these movements is their diversity: trade unionists
together with ecologists together with priests and communists. We are
beginning to see emerge a multitude that is not defined by any single
identity, but can discover commonality in its multiplicity.

These movements are what link Genoa this weekend most clearly to the
openness — toward new kinds of exchange and new ideas — of its Renaissance
past.

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri are the authors of "Empire.'





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/