In short, if you accept Hardt & Negri's analysis, why resist the expansion of Empire? Is it not reactionary to resist it tout court? Why not welcome the civilizing influence of capital and then struggle from within Empire? Even if expanding Empire necessarily takes deaths and injuries of thousands ... Shouldn't universal human rights of individuals trump dubious rights of national sovereignty?
Yoshie
-----------------
Haven't read Hardt and Negri yet, but let's assume we are talking about the same Empire.
Why not welcome the civilizing influence of capital? Right. Capital is responsible for the promulgation of universal human rights? Sure thing.
Yoshie, have you lost your mind? You're starting to sound like Brad. You remember Brad western-civilization-owes-it-all-to-capitalism de Long. What's wrong with that picture?
In the case of Afghanistan, the only aspect of this war that has any promise is the possible fact that US-EU multinationals will have nothing to exploit beyond some vague pipeline plans, once the dust clears. Because there is no capital interest there, it just might turn out that this war helped re-establish something like a government. If that turns out to be even a moderately democratic system, with some semblance of fairness to all the people, then sure, great, good for Afghanistan. But let's not credit Capital or Empire any more than either deserve. After all, all the US did was bomb the hell out of their religious fanatics and break the grip of a nightmare---and then (hopefully) the US will leave them on their own. Any good that comes out of this, will be a credit to Afghanistan and what's left of its people and culture.
In any event, the main point,
``...What I would like to know is whether left business observers (as opposed to liberals and right-wingers) have any objection to peace-keeping and nation-building missions in response to failed and failing states on the periphery (of the sort discussed in Modest Proposals for The Empire) _in principle_, rather than criticizing only _how_ they are carried out...''
The answer is yes. I have about forty years of living experience, and as much reading and intellect as I can muster against peace-keeping and nation-building missions carried out by Empire and Capital.
Let's be clear. Neither activity is carried for any purpose other than exploitation and control by empire and capital. The exact reason there is a peripheral collection of failing, devastated, and collapsed regions and nations in the world, is precisely because of former historical engagements with empire and capital. The reason these regions continue in their barren and barely functional states, is because there is either little or nothing to exploit. Who was it that said the only thing worse than being exploited, was not being exploited?
What is the principle involved? The totally destructive impact of US-EU western cultural hegemony. This isn't just a question of promulgating something abstract like universal human rights. That can be had by many other means. The issue is life itself---the way of life, the languages, customs, modes of living---all of it. A few legal changes, and some semblance of representative government that supports a modest standard of living for all, is not the issue. It's not the issue, because Empire and Capital could give a shit about any of that.
The issue (turning hegelian) is that there is no universal world spirit, but a whole community of such spirits, a pantheon of different gods and histories with differing fates, roles, themes, identities, directions in time. These are metaphors of course for different peoples, places, histories. They all have an absolute right to exist, to be self-determining, to be safe to fulfill their own destinies. And we Empire and Capital have absolutely no right to command, control, exploit, abuse, crush and erase them.
It is a matter of absolutely erasing whole histories, cultures, and people off the face of the earth. That's what Empire and Capital is all about.
While the reasons and scale are different, the erasure of the World Trade Center towers gives us some idea of what that impact is like.
Empire and Capital have been very busy erasing the world and its people for a very long time. They have been performing WTC scale destructions on a vast and routine basis and calling it development and progress. That's why bin Laden and others decided to do something like crash into the WTC towers. That's the whole reason in a nutshell---do unto Empire as Empire has done unto you. It is very simple. Just because this was carried out by evil religious fanatics, doesn't change the basic logic of it. And I would bet (whatever stake you want to name) that most of the earth understands exactly what that attack was about, and silently nods, about time.
In the meantime, the only response I can make to the absolute destructive character of the so-called new world order of Empire and Capital is to re-create and resuscitate in my own mind, a world of the best that my culture has managed to produce in its arts, sciences, philosophies, and technology---and keep this imaginary world clearly separated from the absurdly evil and destructive processes of Empire that surround me in my own absolute isolation--in something like the alternate underground community in the tech-noir film, Fahrenheit 491--as corny and trivial an image as that might be. My hope for the future is that other people in other places are doing the same thing---saving the best of their cultural heritage and identity, re-learning their languages in depth, resuscitating their arts and forms of being in the world and passing those on to their children. It is only through some collective effort like that, that can form the basic foundation for more concrete alternatives to the absolute death that Empire and Capital promise for all.
I am almost certain these efforts carried out over great quantities of time through many different peoples, will prevail. They always have in the past, which is why we even have a past to contemplate. So, yes, I suppose you could call this reactionary and conservative in the deepest sense of those words.
Chuck Grimes