Re: Hardt & Negri on Genoa

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:

> The dualism between world-economy and world-empire has not been one of the 
> most fruitful for world-systems analysis in general.  Empires have always 
> been central to capitalism.  Although the US 'informal' empire is often 
> contrasted to the formal empire of the British, an argument has been made 
> (even before the increased profile of the international institutions) that it 
> is a continuation of the same by other means (see Jan Nederveens Pieterse, " 
> Empire and Emancipation", I don't remember the chapter--its excellent).  Any 
> future order seems likely to also have elements of an empire. The question 
> is, under whose leadership? And with what combination of capitalism and 
> socialism (the dualistic conception of which has also impeded analysis)?  
> Will it only be contested at the highest reaches?

I agree with the basic points about dispensing with dualism and about
being more specific about where empire is to be located.  The anomalous
situation which is developing today (in contrast to the last 400 or so
years) is that the features of empire are strongest in the
("organic") core, and not in the periphery.  What sort of future does this
bode for areas further away from the center?  For the possibility of
hegemony?

> "Empire" is a hard book to find these days.  Based on analysis on this list, 
> and writings about it and by the authors elsewhere, it appears they believe 
> the only two options are some sort of dematerialized US leadership and the 
> 'multitude'.  In this way they repeat the error of the original socialist 
> movement, which was never able to theorize the position of the US until well 
> after its rise to power. East Asia today confounds efforts to understand the 
> world in terms of North vs. South or Capitalism vs. Socialism, or Empire vs. 
> Multitude.  

What are the bases of East Asian strength that would allow it to supercede
the empire that is under construction?  What sorts of institutions look
like they would be serviceable toward those ends?

> Regarding the hypothetical responses to my questions:  Presently the US is 
> able to defer many conflicts through bribery, flattery, propaganda, etc...  
> The question is, can it do so indefinitely, given its own internal political 
> situation, the various tensions that are out there, and, above all, the fact 
> that it actually has the least economic resources (albeit by far the most 
> political ones) of the three centers of accumulation.

I'd like to hear more about why you think this is the case (this is
related to my previous set of questions).  

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bstremli@binghamton.edu