A Modest Proposal for The Empire

Greg Schofield g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au
Thu Dec 27 06:00:53 PST 2001


--- Message Received --- From: "Charles Jannuzi" <jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:27:03 +0900 Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal for The Empire Charles Jannuzi wrote:

"Most of what is changed is simply Negri rejecting his earlier doctrinaire communism."

I have no doubt about that, though no knowledge of it either - it sounds reasonable in the light of the book.

"If you've been following post-modern Marxism at all--like Negri without co-author, Deleuze and Guattari or Baudrilllard--you'll find little of anything new or important in Empire. That Empire has been successfully marketed to the book of the month club crowd, however, IS SIGNIFICANT."

Well this has been an area I have been carefully avoiding to tell you the truth. I stated that despite their work they had touched on something important and as I had been arguing on other lists before their book came out - that Imperialism as a period of capitalist development was over and that some time ago the dominant logic was elsewhere and had met with no success (no substantial argument) I was pleased to see that someone else had seen the blindingly obvious as well even if distorted through post-modernist lens.

The importance of the book is that it has gained noteriety by proclaiming waht the Left has stubbornly refused to see - that classic Imperialism is no longer the dominant contradiction of capital's development.

Is "Empire" a satisfactory answer to this hanging question? Not to my mind, but at least it has broached the question and what I find disturbing is the "Left's" inability to squarely face this question (the only strong point in the book as far as I am concerned).

I would love to turn the tables and ask of the never-ending-period-of-imperialism school how they can explain Lenin's imperialism without imperial contest, without division and redivision as state policy, with finance capital well and truly risen above state borders and monopolies very clearly existing as international entities. All of these things are intimated by Lenin as the end result of Imperialism if proletarian revolution had not intervened (as it has not on the scale necessary to derail the bourgeoisie).

Lenin referred to the present period as the end of a transitory period (Imperialism) to a high phase of economic development (socialism). Ironically this has happened when we were all looking the other way. Ironic because the form of socialism we have is that of bourgeois socialism (by and for the bourgeoisie) and the contradictions we face derive from this dominant contradiction - that in a nutshell is the position of Historical Materialism as it has developed but has not yet uttered the phrase.

The way I see it those that know we must make a dramatic theoretical break, side with "Empire" in one way or another as one of the few symbols (confusing as it might be) to rally. However, it another way the very nature of the symbolic work just supplies cheap ammunition to be fired on them. The other side who make no concession to "Empire" effcetively also make no concession to changes in the real world.

I am on the side of "Empire" only because it is the only published work which touches on this vital question - the minute debate matures past the infantile level and focusses on the qualitative changes in reality (between now and classic Imperialism of the past) then we can chuck "Empire" - at the moment it serves, however badly, to clarify some thoughts amongst some worthwhile minds. I wish it could be any other way but we must play the hands that we are dealt, it just so happens that the most important card is a "Joker" - I look forward to discarding it but only in order to pick up some real debate, we cannot afford to let the issue itself be lost.

Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on recieve. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list