Re: Hardt & Negri on Genoa

Boris Stremlin wrote (on wsn mail list):
>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.

It is presumptuous for Hardt and Negri to speak of the demonstrators as
"knowing" that "it" can no longer be understood in terms of 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.

To the contrary. It is the United States and its junior partners that
control the present global order. The fact that Time Magazine, and now the
NY Times op-ed pages, lend credence to this postmodernist obfuscation
should indicate whose class interests Hardt and Negri serve.

>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.


This is not Marxism. It is the most banal form of "globaloney" that people
like Roger Burbach, David Korten and Naomi Klein have presented in a less
obscure fashion.

>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.

Why not propose that the world adopt the US constititution, Professor
Hardt's ready replacement for the dictatorship of the proletariat?

>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.

What other "globalizing currents" are there besides MTV, Macdonalds,
Coca-Cola and the Chase Manhattan Bank? What planet are these guys living
on? I'd like to visit it some day.

>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.

The "democratization of globalizing processes" means one and one thing only
if you take "Empire" seriously. It means standing by with your arms folded
as western imperialist hegemony deepens. In exchange for this kind of
"philosophical" posture, you pray that the capitalists can provide a
"social wage". How pathetic.

>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.

No, what is futile is presenting demands such as a "social wage" to nobody
in particular, rather than to a government as "Empire" does. You might as
well press for happiness and a good night's sleep.

>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.

Right. The 1960's. This was the glorious era of "refusal to work" when
hippies took LSD and "shiftless" black people got up at noon. You can read
all about it in Abby Hoffman, the American Negri.

>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.

How noble of you.
 
>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.'


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org