Anyway not a very revolutionary message, but a simple one that we thought they could understand and one that could aid the movements and the other anti-capitalist struggles. Something like a Machiavellian moment, advising the powerful that their only alternative is really to do what makes us much more powerful.
============
What interests me most about this essay is how closely it mirrors what I've heard from knowledgeble Eurozone, Japanese and S. Korean folks I've spoken with about the future of relations with the U.S.
Specifically, the chief question being debated (quietly, but in plain sight for those who care to see) is how to create new networks of interlocked 'aristocracies' that bypass America as much as possible. As one S. Korean friend described it, the problem for the US is adjusting to a world in which its dominant only in destructive ability and is no longer the gold standard for modernity since you can purchase cars, computers, washing machines and all the rest of the stuff of modern life elsewhere.
American thinking (even among the left) hasn't caught up to the fact that all roads no longer really lead to Washington or Manhattan, despite the obvious continued power and influence of these centers.
The Bush administration's dangerous power plays, designed it seems, to halt decline, have only accelerated a trend which is unfolding but might have taken longer to mature: the developing global project to create a non-American centered world.
I believe the other factor in-play is the contradiction between unilateralist militarism abroad and efforts to create a maximum security state at home with the open flow requirements of international capital.
Hardt and Negri --
Moreover, the global state of war and conflict created by the unilateralist military policies has had strongly detrimental effects on the global circuits of production and trade. One might say, in summary fashion, that the unilateralist armed globalization pursued by the United States has raised new boundaries and obstacles, blocking the kinds of global economic networks that had been created in the previous decades.
....
Already, within the US, we're beginning to see pushback from business interests (such as agri-biz) that are heavily dependent on the labor of the undocumented against the strictest and most intrusive measures of the Homeland Security effort. In the months following 9/11, nearly everyone signed on to the idea that a tightening of controls was necessary for 'security' but as it's become clear these state maximizing actions interfere with capital's need for cheap labor resistance has grown.
Other measures dictated by Washington to governments across the globe such as multiple flight cancelations and demands for expensive new passport technologies are also beginning to create resentment and pushback.
It's not possible for the US to sustain a dual program of aggression at home (the war against immigrants, dressed up under the banner of 'Homeland Security') and unilateral aggression abroad for very long -- certainly not for the generations Bush admin officials claim the 'war on terrorism' will last. So I think Hardt and Negri's "Magna Carta" essay is really just a description of how things might evolve in any event and reflects the thinking of a large number of people outside of the US.
As I see it, their one innovation here is the recommendation that international activists push the process along by openly advocating for elites in each country to move in this direction which, if successful, could create a more stable world -- a solid foundation upon which to build the next stage of development.
This is the "Machiavellian" nature of the recommendation.
.d.