Re: new immanence in danger

In a message dated 2/27/2003 1:29:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
bstremli@binghamton.edu writes:

> This anti-Americanism, however, although certainly justifiable, is a trap. 
>The problem is, not only does it tend to create an overly unified and 
>homogeneous view of the United States, obscuring the wide margins of dissent 
>in the nation, but also that, mirroring the new US anti-Europeanism, it tends 
>to reinforce the notion that our political alternatives rest on the major 
>nations and power blocs. It contributes to the impression, for instance, that 
>the leaders of Europe represent our primary political path - the moral, 
>multilateralist alternative to the bellicose, unilateralist Americans. This 
>anti-Americanism of the anti-war movements tends to close down the horizons of 
>our political imagination and limit us to a bi-polar (or worse, nationalist) 
>view of the world.>>


I'm flabbergasted.  It's as if Hardt wants to take out his resentment about the 
errors in his vision of the world on anti-war protesters.  In doing so, he 
stoops to the right-wing cliche that anti-war protesters were simply 
'anti-American', homogenizing the nation.  In fact, the those who attended the 
largest protests--in Italy and in Britain--are well aware of the distinction 
between a government and a people, since their own governments support the war.

Several things are worth noting in relating current anti-war protests to global 
justice protests.  First--the former are involving much larger numbers of 
people--none of the global justice protests have mobilized close to the numbers 
mobilized on February 15.  Secondly, global justice protests have not avoided 
singling out particular governments for derision--consider the way protests 
last spring against the World Bank in Washington turned into a Palestinian 
solidarity march (and part and parcel of that was undisguised hatred for 
Sharon).  Third, challenging the US government is not showing uncritical 
support for Franco-German hegemony.  Recognizing the significance of dissent 
among France and Germany, however, is merely a part of serious politics, which 
always involves searching for cracks in ruling coalitions.

Right now a global movement to isolate the US is urgently needed, parallel to 
the project of isolating the apartheid government of South Africa in the 
eighties.  US restaurant and retail chains should be boycotted.  Businesses 
should be discouraged from accepting dollars.  Academic and cultural products, 
inevitably, are a more mixed bag (recall debates about whether to include them 
in South Africa boycotts).  Such a campaign would not be 'anti-American' but 
would put the squeeze on the US government and elites until it stopped acting 
like a rogue state.

Finally, for a marxist, Hardt seems remarkably queasy about identifying the 
capitalist class, rather than 'major corporations, the International Monetary 
Fund' etc. as a major obstacle to change.  There is a difference, as 
non-capitalists with a stake in Enron discovered.


Steven Sherman


> The globalisation protest movements were far superior to the anti-war 
>movements in this regard. They not only recognised the complex and plural 
>nature of the forces that dominate capitalist globalisation today - the 
>dominant nation states, certainly, but also the International Monetary Fund, 
>the World Trade Organisation, the major corporations, and so forth - but they 
>imagined an alternative, democratic globalisation consisting of plural 
>exchanges across national and regional 
> borders based on equality and freedom.