http://www.iht.com/articles/27136.htm
>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.
My biggest misgiving about Hardt and Negri's position is that it does not
direct fire against US imperialism. However it is absolutely clear that any
movement against US imperialism should not be anti-American.
Hardt and Negri seem to me broadly to identify the main features of a
global confrontation that in part exists in the realm of theatre.
>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.
Perhaps they are right. That the new movement has to be seen in these broad
brush terms. Paradoxically perhaps, that is the best way US imperialism can
be put to the test, can be challenged as to whether it can continue to
lead, when the agenda has changed, and can find itself instructively
isolated, as it was a few days after Genoa, in Bonn. Perhaps this provides
the best framework in which progressive people in the USA can oppose their
own imperialism, by focussing on what the new global agenda must be, and
finding a government backed by oil money, against their interests as well
as the interests of the people of the world.
Although it is important to analyse Hardt and Negri from a critical Marxist
point of view, it seems to me to be dogmatic and sectarian to rubbish them.
It is more progressive than not if their ideas gain currency, and give some
overall direction to an emerging global movement. Unless or until marxists
can come up with a specific program of revolutionary reforms, I suggest
Hardt and Negri are progressive. They are at least to be welcomed as
contributing to the dialogue of global civil society.
A dialogue, that Carlo Giuliani's father supported in his moving statement
on his son's death. They argued politically, but fundamentally they are on
the same side.
Chris Burford
