What on earth is this Multitude the supposed agent of blah blah blah? Is this the Proletariat replacement for these guys?
Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: [PEN-L:34990] Re: Comments on a Michael Hardt article in the Guardian > At 21/02/03 09:38 -0500, you wrote: > >A trap set for protesters Michael Hardt > >Friday February 21, 2003 > >The Guardian > > > >full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899852,00.html > > > >REPLY: It is unfortunate but inevitable that much of the energies that had > >been active in the globalisation protests have now at least temporarily > >been redirected against the war? Get used to it professor, we are living > >in an epoch of wars, civil wars and revolution. Time to put the Spinoza > >back on the shelf and reread Lenin--and for some first people, including > >Hardt based on the evidence, to read him for the first time. > > > I have printed off various criticisms of this article and re-read them. > This article seemed to me less irritating than some of Hardt's > contributions. I did not read him to imply that it was the anti-war > movement that is mainly responsible for redirecting the energies of the > globalisations protests. 9-11 punctured those. > > On the point that Louis Proyect makes (above), I think Hardt would accept > the line of demarcation:- > > The last section of Empire ends "... the militant is the one who best > expresses the life of the multitude: the agent of biopolitical production > and resistance against Empire. When we speak of the militant, we are not > thinking of anything like the sad, ascetic agent of the Third International > whose soul was deeply permeated by Soviet state reason, the same way the > will of the pope was embedded in the hearts of the knights of the Society > of Jesus. We are thinking of nothing like that and of no one who acts on > the basis of duty and discpline, who pretends his or her actions are > deduced from an ideal plan. We are referring, on the contrary, to something > more like the communist and liberatory combatants of the twentieth-century > revolutions, the intellectuals who were persecuted and exiled in the course > of anti-fascist struggles, the republicans of the Spanish civil war and the > European resistance movements, and the freedom fighters of all the > anticolonial and anti-imperialist wars. A prototypical example of this > revolutionary figure is the militant agitator of the Industrial Workers of > the World. The Wobbly constructed associations among working people from > below, through continuous agitation, and while organizing them gave rise to > utopian thought and revolutionary knowledge." > > So in a nutshell the Wobblies rather than the Communists of the Third > International. Even allowing for the fact that some admirers of Lenin would > not blame him for all the problems of the Third International, there is a > line of demarcation here. > > Whether you agree with him or not however, Hardt highlights the undermining > of the "westphalian" system of states. This is relevant for the political > and ideological struggle over the legitimacy of any attack by Bush and > Blair on Iraq. > > >The universalist ideas and institutions of the feudal era were dealt a > >stunning blow. Sovereign control over a well-defined territory, akin to > >individual ownership of property, emerged as the norm. Populations were to > >look to their sovereigns as the highest legitimate authority. The roots of > >a broad nationalism were secured. Sovereigns legitimated their right to > >make treaties and conduct independent foreign relations. Diplomacy was > >regularized. War became a method by which to pursue interests, and not > >necessarily a method by which to scour the world of evil. > > [from a call for papers on the Westphalian system for a conference in > Minnesota in 1998 > > http://csf.colorado.edu/isa/newsletter/may97.html > > Hardt and Negri appear to be arguing for a new global civil society or a > "new transitional democracy" rather than emphasising the sovereignty of > individual states. > > This is certainly contested global juridical territory. > > The global anti-war movement will have to take these issues on board in > practice if it is not to lose momentum after the coalition of the willing > and uniquely powerful have conquered Iraq probably rather speedily but > without a mandate from the United Nations. > > Chris Burford > > London > >
