On Jun 30, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Angelus Novus wrote:
> It seems that four years ago, Argentina was in all the
> discussions, and the books by Hardt & Negri and John
> Holloway were part of the general intellectual fashion
> on the left. I think the globalization movement and
> the dynamics of that movement inspired a belief that
> we were entering a period of self-activity and
> emancipatory social movements.
>
> Some of the worst accusations made against the
> movement by its opponents, that it was
> anti-cosmopolitan and sought a return to the
> protections of the nation-state, have now actually
> turned out to be true.
Yeah, it did seem for a time that we were entering a period of self- activity and emancipatory movements, but it was never clear by what mechanisms those dreams would be realized. The movement - or movement of movements, as Hardt prefers - was always anti-party and anti- state, and it was hard to see what institutions would propel things forward. After a time, it devolved into what Naomi Klein called serial protest - the size and spirit of which began to ebb. The major institution of the movement was the social forum, which, as even its name suggests, is mainly a vehicle for talk, not transformation. As sympathetic as I am to the anti-statist and anti-nationalist impulses of 1999, I'm impressed by the fact that Chavez is actually accomplishing something for Venezuelans and making Washington very nervous. He's also a good internationalist, making alliances and spreading the wealth around.
Doug