> Zachary Levenson wrote:
>
> > They would likely maintain that D&G's argument only applies to
> > modern capital, whereas postmodern (i.e., restructured in response
> > to rhizomatic proletarian social movements) capital is itself
> > rhizomatic, or at least becoming-rhizomatic.
>
> It does seem like it's harder to point to centers of power than it
> used to be. In the run-up to the Iraq war, there was a lot of smug
> talk about how the US was really on top and H&N were all wet. It
> doesn't look that way now. Is the US gov really controlled by a cabal,
> as Hersh & WIlkerson say? If that's true, where is - what is -
> the US ruling class? Have they contracted out the work?
The US ruling class is in disarray, it seems to me. An indication of this are the various tergiversations, the Stiglitzes and Krugmans and Sachses -- and even Colin Powell, a loyal servant of Empire if there ever was one, spoke a very clear and resounding "don't" in the runup to the Iraq war.
May the term _blowback_, so often heard after 9/11, can be used to diagnose the situation. It means that from now on every new challenge to the US will and must be a consequence of US actions in the past. This is a critical moment for a polity that likes to think of itself as living under the wide open sky, and on the Open Frontier.
I entertain the notion that the collapse of the Frontier, and its consequent internalization into people's inner lives, is the recurring theme in David Lynch's work. (Curiously, as I just realize, he is currently completing a film with the title "Inland Empire" ... it turns out to be the name of a slipshod trailer park, of course.)
cheers AN