----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
> I thought that global protests on February 15, 2003 were against US
> imperialism and the regimes that allied with it -- including such
> European regimes as the British government, assorted Eastern European
> governments, etc. -- rather than against "Americans" and
> "Americanism" (whatever it is in Hardt's mind). What I would like to
> know is if the term US imperialism exists in Hardt's political
> vocabulary at all and, if it doesn't, what explains the absence. Can
> we put an end to the empty phrase "Anti-Americanism" and begin to use
> US imperialism instead? If the planned war on Iraq isn't a textbook
> illustration of US imperialism, what is?
> --
> Yoshie
================
I can't write/speak for MH, but the US is not imperialist either; that's reifying networks/classes that contingently capture Gov. institutions to advance their agenda and foist the costs on those who are insufficiently organized to prevent them from carrying through on their strategies. If 'Anti-Americanism' doesn't refer, 'US imperialism' doesn't either; the synecdoche/mereology of the social dynamics are too complex for such habituated idioms, which is precisely what puts people in the streets. Who is the 'Our' in NION etc. ? Monolithicity and univocality ain't happenin' anymore 'within' the Westphalian discourse.......
Ian