On Empire
I've finished part one of
Empire, and my biggest task thus far has been to figure out what Hardt and Negri mean by "Empire" itself. Right from the preface, they spend plenty of time addressing this question. The preface contains all of the following passages, describing Empire.
Empire is:
- “irresistible and irreversible globalization of economic and cultural exchanges”
- “The [singular] sovereign power that governs the world”
- characterized by an equilibrium of sovereignty: although there has been a decline in the sovereignty of nation-states, total sovereignty has not decreased
- “a new global form of sovereignty” with a “single logic of rule” ie, Empire is being articulated systematically
- NOT Imperialism, but a “decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers” — “Imperialism is over.”
- NOT a metaphor, but a concept, “which calls primarily for a theoretical approach,” and is characterized by:
- Lack of Boundaries: “rules over the entire ‘civilized’ world
- Suspends History: “fixes the existing state of affairs for eternity”
- Full Spectrum: “operates on all registers of the social order extending down to the depths of the social world.” “Creates the very world it inhabits.”
- Blood/Peace Conflict: “although the practice of Empire is continually bathed in blood, the concept of Empire is always dedicated to peace—a perpetual and universal peace outside history”
- To resist Empire requires an understanding of Magic and Manipulation of Energy: “Our political task” is “not to resist ... the passage to Empire and its processes of globalization ... but to reorganize them and direct them to new ends.” From a pagan perspective, this is magic, it is becoming adept at manipulating energy.
- Despite its problematic, Empire is actually an improvement over the old form of imperialism of nation-states: "we insist on asserting that the construction of Empire is a step forward in order to do away with any nostalgia for the power structures that preceded it and refuse any political strategy that involves returning to that old arrangement, such as trying to resurrect the nation-state to protect against global capital. We claim that Empire is better in the same way that Marx insists that capitalism is better than the forms of society and modes of production that came before it" (p 43).
So wrapping one's head around Empire the concept requires that one think systematically, and hugely, on the macro, zoomed-out level. Empire is a unified, monolithic structure that has assimilated most forms of power, and is adept at assimilating any new forms of power that arise. And interestingly, Hardt and Negri seem to be arguing that to resist Empire, direct assault on perceived weak spots will be ineffective, since that is precisely the type of assault that Empire is structured to resist. Empire is adept at responding to crises, but their response strategies are littered with terms like "shock and awe" or "overwhelming force" or "full spectrum dominance" or "a new Pearl Harbor." So threats against these perceived "weak spots" or vulnerabilities are responded to with what is perceived as "strength," which is usually a militaristic, horribly violent assertion of power-over, whether one characterizes such outbursts as "war" or "terrorism" or "conflict." Rather,
In the constitution of Empire there is no longer an "outside" to power and thus no longer weak links -- if by weak link we mean an external point where the articulations of global power are vulnerable. To achieve significance, every struggle must attack at the heart of Empire, at its strength.... The construction of Empire, and the globalization of economic and cultural relationships, means that the virtual center of Empire can be attacked from any point. The tactical preoccupations of the old revolutionary school are thus completely irretrievable; the only strategy available to the struggles is that of a constituent counterpower that emerges from within Empire" (58-59).
So border skirmishes within Empire are no longer effective. That plays right into Empire's conception of
low-intensity warfare, its power is consolidated to resist such attacks. Rather, one's opposition to Empire must be first of all to redirect its energies, and secondly must attack the idealogical core of Empire. One must refuse to participate (to the extent possible) in the manifestations of Empire that are objectionable, and rather must assert autonomous power, rising up from within the global community, that resist the ever more abstract (and thus less ontologically based) modes of control wielded by Empire.
The Intermezzo of the book is a 15-page section on "Counter-Empire." I'm looking forward to reading that, as I imagine it will dramatically clarify where Hardt and Negri are going with all of this. Not to mention Multitude, the sequel to Empire....
Now I'm all out of breath.... sorry for the academic bookishness of this post, but sadly it's necessary to make sense of Empire; the book is written very much in the academic/bookish idiom. Part of my task, if I am to move forward with the writing project in my head I will need to internalize theory such as this, so that I can express it in a more accessible manner.
Internet Archive
I've been checking out the vast resource that is the
Internet Archive: Moving Image Archive. These are tons of old films that are now in the public domain, archived at one place.
My daughter and I just watched several of the films, including one about Japanese-American prisoners detained in concentration camps during WWII.
This is all public-domain stuff; a veritable treasure trove for mashup artists.
Freakwitch giggery, and pagan activism
Well, we had fun playing the gig last night. It was a small crowd, but most of the people were into it and dancing around. I thought we played pretty well. I've been experimenting more with playing without a pick, slapping the strings with the fingernails on my right hand, not unlike how a funk bassist plays. But last night, I suppose I hit the strings a bit too vigorously as it ripped off the top layer of skin on 2 fingers. Nietzsche once said about writing "I love most what was written in blood." I wonder if he'd like the music I played last night....
I've also been rethinking the notion of paganism, magic, and activism. More specifically, a companion of mine has started blogging, and she was writing implicitly about this subject, and I left a comment. (As an aside, Starcat is a fabulous writer, and I'm thrilled to see her in the blogosphere. I look forward to reading more of her thoughts as time goes on).
I've always been drawn toward political theory and activism, and as such I have been known to rant, mostly in this very space. But there is also an argument that such activity only breeds depression, frustration, anger, and feeds right in to what the Powers That Be want, ie, a divided and fractured multitude. It tends to breed paranoia, which is unacceptable for one who appreciates pronoia.
I think both sides of this argument have merit. But in the end, balance is the best way; in order to craft reality, one needs to know where one is, and be clear about alternatives so that one can choose among them intelligently.
I think a longer paper on this very topic is due. I haven't written a longer piece in a while, and this is the first time I've been inspired to write in a couple of years, pretty much since my virtual enclosures piece. But then, I've been reading political theory more actively lately, and for me reading and writing have always gone hand-in-hand.
Freakwitch gig blurb
The
organizers of our gig on Friday have put up a
blurb about it that says:
Hurricane Relief Benefit Concert, Friday, Jan 20, 7pm, 10 Mayo St, The Company of Girls Space, $5-15 suggested donation.
Join local Portland musicians Weatherbeaten, Ra, Freakwitch, and others for a night of great music and story telling as we raise money for the Hurricane Autonomous Workers Collective and their relief caravan to the Gulf Coast. HAWC is heading a hurricane relief caravan, destined to leave Portland Jan. 28th, and the money raised will be used for safety equipment, tools, food, and medical supplies for hurricane survivors and travel expenses for the group of volunteers. The Gulf Coast is still devastated four months after hurricanes Katrina and Rita—we need volunteers and we need your support!
So come out for good music, for a good cause!
more bottoming
No, not
that kind of bottoming.
I'm referring to my notion of "bottom" from two posts ago. That is, adding a 2nd dimension, top/bottom, to the traditional left/right political spectrum because after all, politics does not come in one dimension.
I've begun reading Empire, and in doing some preliminary study (read: google-o-matic) I'm finding lots of objections to it, many of which focus on the "fact" that Toni Negri "is" the mastermind behind the Red Brigades kidnapping of Aldo Moro in Italy in the 1970s. Funnily enough, I have very vague memories of the Red Brigades from 6th grade; I am just old enough to remember that I was supposed to have believed that the Red Brigades should have had black hats on.
Anyway, most of these reviews don't bother to point out that Negri was acquitted on these charges, and instead was "convicted" of "crimes of association and insurrection against the state" and for being "morally responsible for acts of violence between activists and the police during the 1960s and 1970s largely due to his writing and association with revolutionary causes and groups."
Il fratello maggiore sta guardandoli. Or something.
Anyway, I noticed in these critiques -- which are available from all across the political spectra -- that the "right" reviews tend to be the ones who most insist upon the Left/Right political spectrum. I'm not sure why, or even if this is completely accurate. But it seems as if that as long as there are only 2 possibilities, Right or Left, that the Right will probably win most or all of the time, in part because those on the "Left" aren't even sure that's what they want to be called. Look at the fragmentation of the "Left" in the US alone; the past couple of elections in the US have seen "Leftists" confused about who to vote for. Many people were idealogically aligned with Nader, but wanted to vote for Gore for strategic purposes, etc etc etc. My own struggle about whether I am a progressive, a Marxist, an anarchist, a radical, or just a freak falls within this category.
But I think the idea of a Top/Bottom parameter to the Left/Right spectrum is a good one. Though to extend the dimensional metaphor, we should also add an In/Out parameter, as well as allow for the 4th dimension of time. I can see it now: "in 1986 I was a kid, and a definite Bottom Right In person. But now in 2006 I am clearly Bottom Left Out."
If this extended metaphor only opens up political debate a little bit, I will be happy.
Freakwitch gig
For those of you
in Portland,
Freakwitch is playing a benefit show next Friday, Jan 20.
The show is for The Hurricane Autonomous Workers Collective who have been taking The Frida Bus down to the Gulf Coast to do volunteer work. And as you may have heard, the sad news is that the bus was involved in an accident in which several people were injured and Meg Perry was killed.
Those of you on myspace can
get details there.
My daughter and I took a walk today, where we stopped by The Peoples Free Space which is located around the corner from my house. It felt good to go, I feel a very strong political resonance with them. Plus the people there were cool.
So, come on Friday if you can. At least 2 other bands will be playing. More details will be forthcoming, I'm sure.
Politically, not Left or Right, but Bottom
The "Left/Right" metaphor, in general, makes me crazy. It's much too simplistic to say that the sum total of political perspectives can be contained in one spectrum.
So from now on, rather than Left(tm) or Right(tm), I say I am Bottom.
And there is growing evidence that Bottom-Up (as opposed to Top-Down hierarchical) power may be gaining momentum.
For example, the Official 9/11 Commission Report(tm) basically blames widespread incompetence, countless individual breakdowns on a systematic level, hundreds or thousands of unnamed underlings "dropping the ball," which had the cumulative result of failing to stop 9/11. This is a bottom-up explanation. According to this theory, these mistakes, these power gaps, these negative assertions of power, flowed from the bottom of the hierarchy up. None of those at the top of the hierarchy is responsible.
I find it very interesting that this is an example of the Top recognizing that the Bottom has the power to shake the very foundations of society. And when framed in this manner, most people accept that the Bottom has enough power to cause something as dramatic and history-changing as 9/11.
Though I appreciate this admission from the 9/11 Commission (et al), I must point out that their example is nonsense. Bottom-up power, while considerable, is almost never directed toward tragic or warlike ends. This is clearly a Top-Down event being blamed on Bottom-Up power.
The New Pearl Harbor
I just finished reading The New Pearl Harbor. It's a fantastic piece of work, a thorough yet somehow concise overview of the myriad of Grassy Knolls and Schoolbook Depositories of 9/11. It's important enough that I think everyone should read it. Yet I can't say I agree with his conclusion, which is basically that there needs to be an honest, official investigation. My prime objective is that this cannot be implemented by the US government, and I don't see the US opening such a massive criminal investigation to an independent body; they don't after all seem to cooperate much with bodies like the International Courts or the United Nations.
Obviously, I think much more than an investigation is needed. A real assertion of Bottom-Up power is more in order.
books
I ordered 5 books recently, and they came today. I've been interested more in political topics again, and ordered books in two categories:
a warning to the unwary
From
This weeks Brezsny:
"There's no delicate way to say this, so please stop reading and come back next week if you're offended by graphic references to pleasure. According to my analysis of the long-term astrological omens, you're on tap to experience more orgasms in 2006 than you have in any previous year. On average, your climaxes are also likely to be longer and more intense. Other varieties of bliss, rapture, and joy will probably occur at record levels, as well. Think you can handle it? "
So, queue up. mwah hah ha.
JWL.Podcast?
I'm thinking of doing a podcast. I have the technology, and the interest; the trick will be to find the time to sustain it. I have several ideas about how to proceed in terms of content, but
my friend Mark asks a good question:
What would be your ideal podcast? What would make you want to download a few minutes of someone else's audio every morning? Assume for a moment that the person making the podcast is confined to legally usable, or self-produced, music and content, and paraphrased/attributed news.
Though I can assure you my podcast won't be daily; it will be weekly at most, probably closer to monthly. But yeah, what do you want to hear? I will probably cover topics also covered on this blog, ie, a reflection of what's on my mind, but I'd also be interested in what my potential listeners would want...
What Is Your Dangerous Idea?
Edge (not the U2 guitarist) asks:
What Is Your Dangerous Idea?
Some very interesting replies. Reading it now...
shortcuts are arguments by authority
...and as we all know, argument by authority essentially means "propositionialStatement(x) is true, only because authorityFigure(y) says so." Which of course isn't very authoritative, especially given the insistence of the scientific method upon repeatability and verification, not "because I said so" arguments.
I'd in the past gotten the drive from Maine to Ohio down to about 16 hours. Usually I take 95 south into Mass, and get over to 84 west through Connecticut, and then head across PA on either I-80, which dumps you in Northeast Ohio, or I-76/70, which dumps you into Columbus. The last leg is I-71 south to Cincinnati.
On our recent vacation, we remembered that the purveyor of our favorite Indian restaurant in Portland, Hi Bombay, also by some fantastic twist of fate had opened a branch in Cincinnati. So we looked it up and went out to dinner.
The guy remembered us! He told us he was planning on moving back to Maine once his children were out of college, and has made the drive in 14 hours, 20-25 times, successfully because he still comes back to Portland frequently to check up on the other restaurant there. He said he went out 70 to 76 to the NJ turnpike, and then north on 95 to Portland. 14 hours, he claimed.
So despite my reservations (it looks like it adds about 200 miles to the trip), we opted for argument by authority in order to check out a different route. The good news is that we got to see the Manhattan skyline.
The bad news is that it rained nearly all of the trip, except at the end when it gradually morphed into snow, spending a lot of time in the freezing rain and sleet category. Surprisingly, the roads were not too treacherous; the worst part by far is poor visibility. You try concentrating on the same thing for 20.75 hours straight. Not an easy task. It was precipitating for probably 20 of the 20.75 hours of the trip.
But I'm home, safe, in one piece, exhausted, and a bit wired. And in surprisingly good mood. In some ways I feel like I'm grounding a huge amount of energy. Like the rain that followed us home ALL FREAKING DAY is washing away an outer layer of dust or something.
So yes, the shortcut wasn't overwhelmingly short by any stretch of the imagination. I think that even with the weather conditions slowing things down, and without the handful of traffic jams we hit in NYC, the drive could be done in probably 18 hours under optimal conditions.
So in this case, the authority was wrong. Too bad for us.
