What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:32 pm

Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:37 am wrote:
The "working definition" I see cited describes it as a subset of the elite, so there is a big contradiction unresolved there.


Could you please identify the contradiction?


I may be a little slow on the updraw today, but it's still unclear to me whether there is a commonly agreed upon definition regarding whether "globalist" is only a label for members of the power elite which promote specific agenda. . If they are, what are the specific agenda? How high on the social ladder does one have to be qualify for that term? What about rank and file proponents of neoliberal agenda?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:12 pm wrote:So where is your sympathy for the rest of the nation-states that are not running quite so strong? Is it a-OK for them to be crushed all for the greater good of your boundary hating pretenses?


Quite the opposite- the exploitation of the so-called "Third World" by the richer and more powerful is one of the most important world powers. I just don't buy "The Anti-Imperialism of Fools" which loves any tin pot dictator or wannabe imperial power as long as they compete for power with Uncle Sam.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:10 pm

[quote="American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:26 am"Left theorists Hardt & Negri (who I have mixed feelings about) have proposed somewhat similar ideas about the ascension of a post-national regime that supersedes the Nation-State. "Bifo" Berardi did too. I'm not totally into any of those folks, as I find them to be overly complicated and theoretical. .[/quote]

I'm going to back pedal a bit on the shade I dropped on Bifo. I find this to be really fuckin' smart::


http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1894-ba ... sive-taste

Baroque with Expensive Taste

Image

To celebrate the launch of Franco (Bifo) Berardi's new book Heroes, here is an extract in which he writes about the baroque ethos of post-bourgeois semiocapitalism:


Semiocapital and the Ethics of Baroque

Franco Berardi

Crime used to be a secret act. In the age of repression and industriousness, when the morality of the bourgeoisie was reigning, crime wanted to be secret. Law aimed at preventing crime, and it encouraged investigations of criminals in order to punish them.

This order of things has irrevocably changed in the last turn of time, especially since the advent of the semiocapitalist regime.

Semiocapitalim occupies the sphere of randomness of value, as well as the sphere of randomness of law and of moral judgement.

The entire strategy of the system lies in this hyper-reality of floating values. It is the same for money and theory as for the unconscious. Value rules according to an ungraspable order: the generation of models, the indefinite chaining of simulation. Cybernetic operationality, the genetic code, the random order of mutations, the principle of uncertainty, and so on: all of these replace a determinist and objectivist science, a dialectical vision of history and consciousness.” (Baudrillard)

Baudrillard is talking of value in economic terms. In the post-Fordist transition, the relation between work-time and value is jeopardized, as immaterial production and cognitive work are difficult to properly gauge. But the random effect is not limited to the sphere of the economy, as it spreads both to the sphere of social relations and to that of ethics.

The current, generalized perception of widespread corruption is neither a superficial impression, nor the effect of a deterioration of the moral character of people. It is a systemic effect of the randomization of value. When value can no longer be determined by the precise relation to work-time, its determinant factors become deception, swindle, violence. Mafia ceases to be a marginal phenomenon of lawlessness, instead becoming the prevailing force of emerging capitalist economies like Russia and Mexico. At the same time, fraud is legalized and organized in the global financial market as a systemic feature.

As it becomes increasingly institutionalized, crime loses its secrecy and demands access to the spectacle. The visibility of crime becomes part of the effectiveness and persuasiveness of power. Competition is all about subduing, cheating, predating. Blaming the victims is part of the game: you are guilty of your inability to subdue, to cheat and to plunder, therefore you will be submitted to the blackmail of debt and to the tyranny of austerity.

Nazism already enacted spectacular crime as a means to secure absolute power, but the criminal acts conducted in the name of the ‘Final Solution’ were secretly organized and performed away from the public eye. Evil was proclaimed and simultaneously denied in the name of the superior values of family, homeland and God. On the contrary, reclaiming evil has become commonplace in today’s financial markets, as the old ethics of bourgeois Protestantism is progressively cancelled by the neobaroque, post-bourgeois ethics of the deterritorialized financial class.

The bourgeoisie was a strongly territorialized class, whose power was based on the property of physical assets, and on the fact of belonging to a stable community. Protestant ethics was based on the long-lasting relationship between the religious community and the labourers and consumers who shared the same place and the same destiny.

Nowadays, the bourgeoisie has disappeared. The financial deterritorialization is generating a post-bourgeois class, which has no relation to the territory and to community. It is a class that is not concerned with the future of any specific territorial community, because tomorrow it will move its business to a different part of the world. We might call it the ‘elsewhere class’, as it continuously displaces the stakes of its investment. But we may also call it a ‘virtual class’, for two reasons: because it is the class that gains profits from virtual activities, like net trading, and high tech immaterial production; and because it is the class that does not actually exist. Identifying those who are investing in the financial market is difficult, impossible, as everybody is obliged to depend on it.

In a sense, everybody is part of the class that is investing in the financial market. Including myself. As a teacher I am bound to wait for a pension, and I know that my pension will be paid if some investment funds will be profitable, therefore I am obliged to depend for my future revenue on the profitability of the financial market. The ‘elsewhere class’ has re-established the economic rationale of the rentier, as profit is no longer linked to the expansion of the existing wealth, but is linked to the mere possession of an invisible asset: money, or, more accurately, credit.

According to Thomas Stewart:

Money has dematerialized. Once upon a time officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were loading gold bars onto trolleys and rolled them from one country’s basement to another. Today some 1.3 trillion in currency is traded every day, and never takes a tangible form.

Money has turned ethereal, volatile and electronic. Nothing more than an assemblage of ones and zeros that are piped through miles of wire, pumped over fiberoptic highways, bounced off satellites, and beamed from one microwave relay station to another. This new money is like a shadow. It has no tactile dimension, no heft or weight. Money is an image.

The post-bourgeois class of virtual finance has no homeland, no community, no belonging, and also no money. Just faith. Faith in signs, in figures. The post-bourgeois class announces the return of the baroque.

Although defeated and marginalized during the age of bourgeois progress and the rational organization of social life, the baroque has never disappeared.

Its spirit is based on the primacy of the spectacle, on the multiplication of possible interpretations, on randomness of value and of meaning, or the potency of arbitrary and violent will. Not surprisingly, Curzio Malaparte, a writer who took part in Italian Fascism before changing his position during the Second World War, in Europa vivente, published in 1925, speaks of Italian Fascism as a return of the baroque. Northern Europeans are wrong to think that modernity is only a Protestant business, says Malaparte. Fascism is the reclaiming of the modern soul of Southern Europeans, and the political spectacle of Mussolini is the resurgence of the baroque cult of inessentiality, decoration, excess: arbitrary power.

But arbitrariness is not only a defining feature of Fascism, it is also the quintessential character of the semiocapitalist form of accumulation. The power of the resurgent baroque is fully exposed by the transformation of the economy into semioproduction. When language, imagination, information and immaterial flows become the force of production and the general space of exchange, when property is deterritorialized and becomes immaterial, the baroque spirit becomes the all-encompassing form, both of the economy and of ethical discourse.


More in #FutureLater
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:39 pm

First off, thank-you for at least informally loosening up on the no-platform stance.

By-the-by, I have no problem with no-platforming actual fascists, my problem is when people call others fascists just so they may no-platform them.

Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:37 am wrote:
AD wrote...
The "working definition" I see cited describes it as a subset of the elite, so there is a big contradiction unresolved there.




Could you please identify the contradiction?



I may be a little slow on the updraw today, but it's still unclear to me whether there is a commonly agreed upon definition regarding whether "globalist" is only a label for members of the power elite which promote specific agenda.


So far, yes it appears to be a label that does not apply to all factions of the power-elite. The power-elite are notorious for stealing from each other as well as the more numerous pigeons. Some crazy people with overactive imaginations even think that the Titanic was sunk to kill a few of the power-elite that were against the establishment of the Fed.



. If they are, what are the specific agenda?


To subvert the sovereignty of nation states.

How high on the social ladder does one have to be qualify for that term?


If one wishes for or facilitates the destruction of nation states then one is a globalist, (as distinguished from the victims of globalist propaganda that merely fall for the lies of globalism and do not actively advocate for the destruction of nation states.) It is sad to see this happen among those lower on the social ladder as anarchy only can work well for very rich and well insulated people.

What about rank and file proponents of neoliberal agenda?


Do those folk advocate for the destruction of nation states?
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:04 pm

Aren't you just blurring lines between internationalists- those who believe in human solidarity across borders, workers' struggle and the like with "globalists" in order to pump up reactionary nationalism?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:13 pm

Quite the opposite- the exploitation of the so-called "Third World" by the richer and more powerful is one of the most important world powers.


Can this sentence be edited so that we might get a better sense as to what you are alluding to.

I just don't buy "The Anti-Imperialism of Fools" which loves any tin pot dictator or wannabe imperial power as long as they compete for power with Uncle Sam.


Here you seem to be imposing something on your audience that is not called for. While I may not feel love for Putin, you can bet your bippies that a fairly large proportion of the population of Syria do love Putin.

You know, because his forces are killing terrorists that the actual imperial powers are supplying.

The equation is not that difficult, surely you can figure it out.

Also, just curious, is there an 'Anti-Imperialism that is not of fools'? Can you tell us of this kind of Anti-Imperialism, in your own words and not through some cut-n-paste expert please.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby slimmouse » Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:40 pm

Surely the globalist is anyone who insists on how, within reason, its gonna be?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:27 pm

Quite the opposite- the exploitation of the so-called "Third World" by the richer and more powerful is one of the most important world powers.

should be more like:

Quite the opposite- the exploitation of the so-called "Third World" by the richer and more powerful is one of the most important world problems.


Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:13 pm wrote:
I just don't buy "The Anti-Imperialism of Fools" which loves any tin pot dictator or wannabe imperial power as long as they compete for power with Uncle Sam.

Here you seem to be imposing something on your audience that is not called for. While I may not feel love for Putin, you can bet your bippies that a fairly large proportion of the population of Syria do love Putin.

You know, because his forces are killing terrorists that the actual imperial powers are supplying.

The equation is not that difficult, surely you can figure it out.

Also, just curious, is there an 'Anti-Imperialism that is not of fools'? Can you tell us of this kind of Anti-Imperialism, in your own words and not through some cut-n-paste expert please.


It's all about critical thinking. I think of Putin as a reactionary populist, he is not that great in my book. It is rather a bad practice to impose on me that therefore I must love Unc Sam, just as it is also to suggest that because I don't like reactionary anti-Semitism (or really, racism, bigotry and scapegoating generally), then therefore I must be in the "zionist" camp. This kind of shoddy thinking/argument is every day life at RI.

An anti-Imperilism not of fools, assumes that we can be internationalists, that we can welcome refugees fleeing war and poverty as fellow human beings, that we can support the struggles of the colonized to free themselves (we also should be aware of co-optation of course), but that we should be thoughtful, nuanced thinkers as we engage with thorny issues. Cartoonish narratives, as offered by reactionary militias, the John Birch Society, crypto-fascists, white nationalists and all their fellow travelers stink.

That is my view.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:54 pm

Maybe Sounder can help sketch the shared institutional DNA of AD's internationalism - not the only internationalism - and globalism.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:04 pm

Such dumb, lazy stuff as we often see from tapitsbo- and a few of their equals- makes me think of this:

Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

By] Umberto Eco

Writing in New York Review of Books, 22 June 1995, pp.12-15. Excerpted in Utne Reader, November-December 1995, pp. 57-59.


In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

* * *

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.


Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;" such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.


Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

* * *

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.



(emphases in original)
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:08 pm

Aren't you just blurring lines between internationalists- those who believe in human solidarity across borders, workers' struggle and the like with "globalists" in order to pump up reactionary nationalism?


No, but given your conditioning and now that you mention it, I see why you may take it that way.

I believe in human solidarity across borders, workers' struggles and the like, by my light quite a bit more than you do. And you believe the same about yourself.

The question then becomes; which criteria are more likely able to fulfill our common stated ideals?

I caught this post in between the others and did not to respond because I would prefer to hear from others, but it did bring up a (favorite?) childhood memory. My dad was screaming (and hitting, all caps like) at me; 'so you think you are such a great defenceman do you!!!?' To which I replied meekly; 'no, I just don't want to get hit'.

The experience may have shaped me more than I care to admit but ATM my heart goes out to the Syrian people, united in their resistance toward those trying to kill them.
Last edited by Sounder on Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:22 pm

Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:08 pm wrote:I believe in human solidarity across borders, workers' struggles and the like, by my light quite a bit more than you do. And you believe the same about yourself.

The experience may have shaped me more than I care to admit but ATM my heart goes out to the Syrian people, united in their resistance toward those trying to kill them.


I'm all for distinguishing the People from [b the State[/b] but that requires even more nuanced and critical thinking, not less. In what way does any of that stop Putin from being a reactionary populist who stokes the fires of nationalism, homophobia and the like (whilst jumping in bed with ultranationalists even farther to the right) in order to help restore the reach of a crumbled empire?

Just because the governments of the U.S. and Israel do horrible things, does that mean that the governments of Russia, Syria, Iran somehow don't do many horrible things also?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby Sounder » Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:32 pm

Just because the governments of the U.S. and Israel do horrible things, does that mean that the governments of Russia, Syria, Iran somehow don't do many horrible things also?


There is so much unintentional beauty and flavor in this sentence that I think it will blend better if it's left to simmer for awhile before I address it.

But don't let me inhibit any conversation.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:44 am

This is more thoughtful and nuanced than any form of "NWO" type invective that I have ever seen:


Empire-as-Western Imperialist Continuum by Antonio Negri


Our central hypothesis is that a new form of sovereignty is emerging today, at the global level, a decentered form, in a web of sovereignty that we call Empire. In our analysis, this new imperial sovereignty is fundamentally different from the imperialisms which in modernity initially developed in Europe, the United States and Japan. Modern imperialism was founded on the sovereignty of the dominant nation-state and it implied the extension of that national sovereignty over foreign subject territories. Many imperial nations had global aspirations, but each of them was able to dominate only a part of the world. These imperialist powers of modernity ended up in conflict with each other, and the outcome was horrific world wars and numerous other atrocities.

We are in a position to identify three central characteristics of the modern age of imperialism which have now changed. First, the structure of imperial sovereignty, which was substantially based on the nation-state. Secondly, when a sovereign national power was extended to foreign territories, a clear division was created between the dominant subject and the dominated subject – be it a territory or a nation – and between inside and outside. Finally, in modernity there was not one single imperialist nation, but several, and, moreover, imperialism always implied competition between imperialist nations and an ever-present potential for conflict.

The Empire which is emerging today, in contrast with the imperialism of modernity, is not based on national sovereignty; it is truly global in the sense that it obscures all distinction between the inner and the outside. However, to say that Empire is not founded on national sovereignty does not mean arguing that nation-states are no longer important. The nation-state certainly remains important – some, obviously, more important than others. The power of Empire implies nation-states, but it extends far beyond their prerogatives. Imperial sovereignty is founded on a mixed constitution. As a first approximation we could say that imperial sovereignty is defined by a constant collaboration in the world between monarchic forces and aristocratic forces. One could think, for example, of the Pentagon as a monarchic power within the global military dimension: the Pentagon often acts on the basis of unilateral decisions. Or think of the United States government, which assumes a monarchic role globally when it governs de facto international political and economic transactions. Secondly, among the global aristocratic forces we would include, beyond the US, the other dominant nation-states, and also the forces which are not states, such as the principal capitalist multinationals, international institutions such as the United Nations, supranational economic institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and a series of other powers. The monarchic forces cannot even govern this Empire on their own, but must constantly work with the various global aristocracies. That means, in other words, that no nation-state can govern this Empire unilaterally, not even the most powerful nation-state, not even the United States.

The notion of a mixed constitution, which involves collaboration between monarchic and aristocratic global forces, is a good introduction to the concept of imperial sovereignty. A more articulate and innovative conceptual approach, which in some ways defines the concept better, is to consider Empire as a network of power and imperial sovereignty as a form of distributed network. A distributed network does not have a centre; rather, it presents a number of nodes which can connect each other in various ways. In this conception, the dominant nation-states, the bigger capitalist multinationals, the supranational institutions and the other global powers would be simply many nodes in the network of imperial sovereignty, and these nodes would work together in different combinations and at different moments.

The network model clarifies our previous statement, namely that the distinction between inside and outside tends to become obfuscated in Empire; there are, obviously, external elements in every distributed network, but every node of the network can potentially be included, so that the border between inside and outside becomes undefined.

We shall dwell on this point in order to avoid certain misunderstandings which can easily occur. First, we should note that, when we say that national sovereignty is not at the base of the Empire, as it was for imperialism of modernity, this – again – does not mean that the nation-state is no longer important. In the debate about globalization, too, often this fact is seen as an alternative, an equation: on the one hand people say that, since the nation-state is still effective, there is no globalization. We say that this is a false alternative. The dominant nation-states are still powerful, but they are not the ultimate power. The network structure of the global Empire includes the dominant nation-states, as we have said, together with numerous other powers. In the second place, when we say that Empire is not characterized by conflicts and intra-imperialist wars, this does not mean that there are no longer conflicts between the principal nations. It means, rather, that the conflicts and contradictions between the various nodes of the imperial network are internal to the imperial structure itself. At the same time, when we say that there is no longer an outside of Empire or, more precisely, that the distinction between the inside and the outside is constantly obfuscated, we do not mean that there is no longer hierarchy and subordination in the world, that there is no longer a division between those who have power and those who do not. On the contrary, Empire functions by means of a proliferation of hierarchies and through the divisions internal to its structure. However, these lines of division cannot be understood in terms of national borders or global lines which divide the North from the South, the East from the West, the First World from the Third World, and so on. The lines of hierarchy and exploitation are much more complex and interlacing, and they run through every national and local space. If we want to describe imperial sovereignty as a network, then we must remember that the net is in no sense homogeneous but what is developing is a dramatic conflict and a hierarchy between various nodes.

We hope it is clear that this network structure of Empire is perfectly in accord with the needs of the global market and with the productive circuits of global capital. Capital always needs this kind of inclusion between its spheres of production and consumption; this inclusion must always work through the existing hierarchies and in fact it generates new divisions of power and well-being. In this sense Empire could appear as the political form best suited to the neo-liberal global regime.

Now we would like to move on to the more serious objection to our notion of Empire: that the unilateral actions of the United States, in its ‘war on terror’ and in particular its invasion of Iraq, refute our hypothesis. According to this argument, the United States shows that imperialism is very much alive and kicking! The war in Iraq, however, in our view, demonstrates exactly the opposite. It is true that the rulers of the White House nurture imperialist ambitions and have constructed a plan for the US to govern the global system unilaterally. The American doctrine of security and preventive attack, the exemption of the United States from international law and international agreements and, finally, the arrogance of American leaders in dealing with all other nations are all part of this imperialist project. Indeed, American unilateralism wants to break the ongoing collaboration between monarchic and aristocratic forces which, as we have said, characterizes Empire, and seeks to assert the autonomy of the global monarch.

Today, however, more than a year since the invasion of Iraq and the ‘taking of Baghdad’, the projects of these would-be imperialists are not working. It is increasing clear that, despite the huge asymmetry in military armaments, the United States is not in a position to maintain global order unilaterally. (Clearly military force on its own is not sufficient to maintain order.)

In Iraq, on the contrary, the imperialist projects of the US have generated only chaos and had increased the areas of so-called ‘disorder’. In other words, with this negative experience, the aspiring imperialists of the White House are substantiating our hypotheses on Empire: their failures demonstrate that, today, an imperialist regime cannot exist. Only Empire – which is a decentered form of power network, characterized by an ongoing collaboration between the monarchic and aristocratic elements of global power – is capable of maintaining the hierarchies of global order.

Finally, before leaving the question of Empire, we want to clarify another specificity of our thinking. Today, we see Empire not as an accomplished fact but as a tendency. This method, of the tendency, is also a characteristic of the writings of Marx. Halfway through the nineteenth century, when capitalist production extended to only part of the British economy, to a still smaller slice of the European economy, and to a tiny fraction of the global economy, Marx recognized capital as a tendency projected towards the future, and thus he analyzed a society which was entirely capitalist. Our reasoning on Empire is similar. Empire is the only form through which global capital and its neo-liberal regime can maintain and guarantee their global order, and this fact makes the imperial tendency a necessity. It is interesting to ask what was the date that inaugurated this transition from imperialism to Empire – perhaps it was the social movements in China in 1989, perhaps it the collapse of the Soviet system, perhaps the defeat of the United States in Vietnam, perhaps the global chain of revolts in 1968. In any case, Empire is not fully realized today, but we say that it is the emergent form of the power we shall have to confront tomorrow. It would be a good idea to analyze it today, so as to be in a position to fight it tomorrow.

Excerpted from Antonio Negri, Empire and Beyond, (Polity Press, 2008) pp.123-7.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What is a globalist? The working definition thread

Postby Harvey » Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:25 pm

AD, you've held your corner admirably in this thread with wit intelligence and dare I say verve. Tip of the hat.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4172
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests