Anonymous Comrade writes "translation ; Erik erikempson@wanadoo.fr
Bible lessons: the Empire Debate
Audit after 3 years of discussion on Hardt and Negri's "Empire"
"Empire has arrived" Tocotronic announce on their latest record, the Asian
Dub Foundation brings into place the words "Exodus" against "fortress
Europe", and Johny Cash inadvertently speaks of the 'multitude'. "Empire"
is pop. The book of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri can, like no other left
wing theoretical book before it, and three years after being published, show
substantial sales and bestseller placings as well as numerous citations.
The recognition that Empire receives can also be seen from the reviews that
have by now reached substantial number. It seems that no one can fail to
notice this book. By now almost every somehow politically orientated
magazine has published a discussion, so it seems now is the right time to
make an interim audit of the debate. What are, next to applause and
enthusiasm, the most important points of critique brought against H&N? The
authors have already had their say (see MALOME CLIPBOARD 3/2000 and MALOME
03/2002,) and here now follows, service orientated that we are, an overview
without commentary of the most central objections to Empire that come from
the most diverse of directions.
The multitude of criticism
Empire thesis: Nation states are changing their function, sovereignty goes
increasingly towards a world embracing empire of which nation states are
only a part. Criticism: The loss of importance of the nation state, in
particular the USA, is exaggerated (Henwood, Hirsch), the representation of
Empire is rather lacking in contours (Wissel/Buckel). The imperialist phase
is not over, this is shown especially by the conduct of the USA after 9/11
(Brand, Castronovo, Callinicos, Chingo, Jahnke, Petras, Post, Wark)
Empire thesis: Empire is a new phase of capitalism, this is shown by the
postmodern way of life, postfordist production and control society's methods
of rule.
Criticism: there is no new phase replacing an old one, but rather the old
methods of rule continue to exist alongside new forms. (Bensaid, Hauer,
Lemke) The division of capitalist development into specific phases or
paradigms suggests a stability, order and inner cohesion within these
paradigms, an approach that seriously underestimates their contradictions,
inconsistencies and instability (Bonnet, Hauer, Holloway) With the
announcement of a new phase, criticism of the past left movements is
cleverly evaded - what happened then was according to Empire right for its
time, but today everything is new. With that every lesson from the past can
be navigated around. (Bernhard)
Empire thesis: there are no longer clear divisions between first and third
world, riches and misery can be found everywhere.
Criticism: there are still many drastic geographical differences; capital
gives different areas different significance. The global south is too little
analysed in Empire, and the analysis is generalised from the conditions of
the industrialised countries. (Arrighi, Boron, Callinicos, Chingo,
Diefenbach, Ludmer, Moore, Mutman)
Empire thesis: Empire obeys a principle that follows the US constitution
(openess, the ability to integrate the new)
Criticism: This transfigures the US constitution as well as its use in
practice (Panitch) Here political juridical theory is declared to be the
motor of real phenomena instead of these being driven by political economy
and social power. (Bamyeh, Beasley-Murray, Dyer, Hartmann)
Empire thesis: the development of capitalism is driven in particular by the
resistance of the multitude, and on this basis capital has to react over and
over again with reorganisation of the conditions of production.
Criticism: concentrating on the conflict between capital and labour leaves
aside the fact that the competition between enterprises is also an important
driving force behind innovation and development. (Callinicos, Coates,
Kittsteiner, Chingo, Panitch, Wolf) By focusing only on the struggle they
deny the laws of movement of things within capital (Callinicos, Jahnke). And
also in the book they do not consistently apply their own thesis with regard
to all the historical periods (Panitch). The definition of multitude is
unclear and changes in the book (Rapp) Every detailed analysis of its
composition, its contradictions, its origin, and the potential of
opposition, is thrown together and covered up by the shimmering concept of
'Multitude'. The concept gives only gives a glossy name to existing
movements, no criteria of evaluation or analysis. (Panitch, Bernhard,
Wildcat) The necessity of organisation and leadership of the movement as
well as the potential positive role of the state are being underestimated.
(Proyect, Bischoff)
Empire: multitude and empire stand antagonistically against one another.
Criticism: Capital or rather Empire is not a subject, but a social
relationship, in which everything is interwoven (Hirsch) Therefore the
multitude can not be a pure subject that can go its own way from the ruling
relationships unpolluted. With that the interwoveness of all opposition to
the existing power is under- stated as can be seen in real life, not all
oppositional struggles are emancipatory but are often effected by governing
relationships like power struggles, racism and sexism (Anne, Arrighi, Dyer,
Hauer, Lemke, Ricos). The restructuring of capitalism also produces new
divisions and hierarchies between working people. The power of the affect of
the neo-liberal ideology and the competition between individuals is
underestimated (Coates). Empire also avoids every discussion/debate/argument
with regards to historical fascism as well as the power that actual right
populist movements have (Benl, Bischoff, Olma) The construction of two
opposing blocs actually states that power is something which is external to
man, and this stands in opposition to another Empire thesis which is that we
live in a phase of real-subsumption where all areas of life are permeated by
capitalism. (Balakrishnan, Hauer). The argument in Empire is so far driven
forward by the representation of empire as an external, unproductive
parasite, which takes the profit from the productive cooperation in the
multitude - that it approaches a structural anti-Semitism. (Kurz, Hartmann,
Benl) Generally Empire uses simple dichotomies instead of analysing things
in their ambivalence (Lemke). Therefore the question is whether emancipatory
changing potential inheres in its circumstances and constellations, which
H&N describe today as typical, rather than in the specific properties of the
subject [***trans*** cant quite get the meaning of this] (Diefenbach)
Empire thesis: civil society as an autonomous sphere has broken down, Empire
and Multitude suddenly stand opposed to one another.
Criticism: Intermediaries are as they have always been, extremely important,
(Coates) struggles within existing institution are important, as they
prepare the terrain for more aggressive and further reaching struggles.
(Brand)
Empire thesis: today immaterial labour is central to the production process,
predominantly cooperation offers liberating potential to self-organisation
The concept immaterial labour is overstated and not statistically proven,
the representation relies too much on the unchecked appropriation of the new
economy propaganda, the analysis of the information society in Empire is at
times rather weak. (Galagher, hauer, Henwood, Panitch, Wildcat) The concept
immaterial labour subsumes too much what is heterogeneous. (Deifenbach,
Dyer, Levinson). And that immaterial labour is today central to capitalism
does not automatically mean that in the fight against it, it will have a
decisive role. (Dyer) The thesis has an elitist touch, which undervalues the
role of the broad masses of material working people. (Callini-cock, Olma).
Also the question of the contents of the creativity of the producing
multitude is not being asked, the self-determination potential in the
communicative ability is over-valued and the governing/ruling aspects of
communication are faded out. (Benl, Hauer, Jappe, Kurz, Wassmer)
Empire thesis: "Basic (unconditional) income for everyone is a foundational
demand of the multitude.
Criticism: at one level Empire criticises struggles that defend a national
state against globalisation, but at the same time it defends a universal and
unconditional wage. Who will pay this money other than the state? (Rapp,
Henwood)
Empire thesis: Capital shall recognise the reality of migration and its
dependence on it by establishing a form of world citizenship.
Criticism: the demands for basic income and global rights, are being argued
for with the productivity of the already involved, the multitude. With that
the individual is not put into the centre but his usefulness is, and with
that the reactionary 'who doesn't work shall not eat' saying is not being
fought against, but the concept of work is stretched so far that the
tendency is that all fall into that category. (Wissel,/ Buckel, Kurz, Hauer)
Also they pass by the fact that the illegalisation of migrants becomes a
precondition for their stronger exploitation by capital.
The celebration of the liberating aspect of migration overlooks that the
migration usually occurs unwilling (Anne) and that most people are not
mobile (Mishra) and that the experience of migration does not contribute to
emancipatory thinking. (Jappe)
Empire thesis - Differences between production and reproduction are getting
blurred, at earlier times attributed to women, 'affective labour' is
nowadays for all areas of work a basic claim.
Criticism - domestic labour is being idealised as egalitarian and community
orientated. But analysis of gender relationships and gendered division of
labour is missing (schultz). The spreading out of unpaid reproductive work,
which is mainly done by women, is being ignored. Concrete conditions of life
as basis for or impediments to political activity remain un -analysed.
(Bernhard)
The optimistic and visionary tone in Empire:
Criticism: Instead of criticising government and authority, in Empire they
are reinterpreting it, and thinking into it an optimistic potential.
Optimism is not appropriate here and it only offers an apology for the
existing circumstances (Brand, Castronovo, Callinicusp, Conert, Fulberth.
(***trans***seems to say here that Empire proposes is to refuses to work
with what we have and posits that we have gone beyond it****) (Hartmann)
Too many metaphors, imprecision, exaggerations, religious aura and theory
(in addition these are wrongly misappropriated), too little political
economy and facts. (Arrighi, Balakrishnan, Benl, Brand, Burgio, Conert,
Flood, Panitch, Wissel/Buckel) Theory serves H&N only to justify their way
of handling things, not as a means of political analysis (Maniglier).
The five strands of the criticism
The first phase of the debate around Empire is more or less concluded; the
central critical points are being presented. The inner-left (***trans*** or
interlinking?) critics can therefore be divided into several groups.
The first group in particular has stylistic problems. The manifesto manner
and visionary entrance of Empire as well as the rather particular (as in
idiosyncratic) use of sources contradict a scientific approach, which
involves putting meticulous stocktaking, critique of what exists as well as
the authentic interpretation of the theoretical classics in the forefront.
(***trans*** cant get last of this sentence). Opposed to that, the style H&N
use makes a different demand on the theory, with its exaggeration and
sketchiness with its attempt to create a space for action and to beat a path
through a fought over reality, and to see itself as a part of a political
theory.
A second group raised empirical opposition against the Empire thesis,
sometimes more or less sound.
A third important strain of critique comes from the direction of other
theoretical schools, from where first of all, all that is new is demarcated
off (other Marxist camps, people that are orientated to Party, Trade Union
or state orientated), and this has its expression in that the success of
empire can be seen as suspicious and even more could be seen of proof for
its lack of quality and its opportunism. Here they reproach Empire for those
things that in their own theories play important traditional roles. These
approaches fulfil an important function because they make the differences in
political positions transparent, and it is those that contribute, to pull
out what is new in Empire and offers the un-prejudiced observer
possibilities for comparison. A fourth interesting strand points towards the
internal contradictions within the book. No wonder that with such an
ambitious piece of work, inconsistencies appear, though sometimes it is only
ambivalences. To erase those is at times exaggerated counting of peas, but
also offers an appropriate hint to further thought for the author and the
reader. Up until now there is a rather weakly established fifth strain which
takes from Empire stimulus for further thoughts, and to introduce concepts
into other areas - to add to them and to develop them further.
Where now?
A final evaluation of Empire in the light of the criticism oversteps our
present intellectual possibilities. But does Empire really have to be
defended? In part the authors have responded to the criticisms raised, in
particular in the special edition of the journal Rethinking Marxism and in
the many interviews. The statement that immaterial labour is central, does
not refer to the number of immaterial work places and working persons but of
their qualitative dominant position. Empire does not state that the nation
state loses importance, but only that it changes its function. The theory of
the dissolution of the third world does not imply that the world has become
homogeneous, but that the hierarchies and the dividing lines no longer
follow national boundaries, but also go through states. And yes, after 9/11
there was an imperialistic backlash in the U.S. (the crisis which 11/9
pushed the Empire thesis into, can be read from what Michael Hardt made
himself recently publish a strange article in the British Guardian in which
he more or less asked the world elite to accept that a decentralised Empire/
ruling system would be better as an Imperialistic war would be funny
(***trans*** ????). To a degree the Empire 'thought world' has found
followers in political movements and theoretical circles. And those
followers are now arguing with the critics in the most different contexts
and forum. Also Hardt and Negri are working on a continuation of Empire
(part 2). Which is only proper for a blockbuster.
But why should one expect from these two to put forward a clean sound world
explanation that convinces all? There is much in the building of theory of
those two which is of course wobbly, as it is in all other outlines and
drafts, that is how the theory trade works. Not all arguments from Empire
have to be defended - though the beginning and the central impulse do very
much so. 'A theory is as good as what one can do with it' so says Katja
Diefenbach following Deleuze/ Guattari, "and with Empire you can do a lot'.
The call for disquiet, the undetering surge for breaks, connections and
interminglings, the offensive sounding out of possibilities and putting
forward to discussion political projects in new constellations. These
impulses must be taken further.
Now it will show, whether after the conclusion of the first phase during
which time all have brought forward their criticisms, a second phase will
follow, where there will be a productive discussion, further development of
these theories and the political effects of the Empire impulses. Such a
process will not be limited to books. Because of the most essential
questions only political movements can find an answer. Multitude, move
yourself!
Pinguin
Adolphs, Stephan et al : Der Begriff des politischen Subjekts hat seinen
Gehalt verändert, Subtropen 16, Aug. 2002
Albrecht, Christoph.: Die neue Religion der philosophischen Seminare, FAZ
19.6.2002
Ansaldi, Saverio: The multitude in Empire: Biopolitical alternatives,
Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Anne: Empire: die neue Weltordnung?,
www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/ci/nf/88/15.html
Arrighi, Giovanni: Lineages of Empire, Philosophia Africana 5/2 (2002)
Balakrishnan, Gopal: Hardt and Negris Empire, New Left Review 5/2000
Bamyeh, Mohammed: Life and vision under globalization, Rethinking Marxism
13, 3/4 (2001)
Bard, Alexander: Critique of Empire, Multitudes Mailinglist 31.1.2001
Beasley-Murray, Jon: Lenin in America, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Bedggood, David: Empire and the Multitude: The case of Argentina,
Generation Online Mailinglist 14.12.2002
Bell, Duncan: Empire, www.theglobalsite.ac.uk
Benl, Andreas: Ein Reich komme, Jungle World 4.9.2002
Bensaid, Daniel: Antonio Negri et le pouvoir constituant,
www.espaimarx.org/3_19.htm
Bernhard, Claudia: Das junge, harte Denken, Alaska Mai 2002
Beverly, John: Who are the Christians today?, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4
(2001)
Bischoff, Joachim et al: Von der Masse zur Menge, Sozialismus 5/2002
Bisky, Jens: Das Empire nimmt seinen Lauf, Süddeutsche Zeitung 29.12.2001
Bonnet, Alberto R.: Supiendo a Neptuno. Una lectura critica de Imperio,
Cuadernos del Sur 32, www.iade.org.ar/imperio
Boron, Atilio: Imperio Imperialismo, Vorwort auf www.iade.org.ar/imperio
Brand, Ulrich: Die Revolution der globalisierungsfreundlichen Multitude,
Das Argument 245/2002
Bull, Malcolm: You can`t build a new society with a Stanley knife, London
Review of Books 4.10.2001
Burgio, Alberto: L´impero del capitale communista, La rivista del manifesto
15/2001
Buttinger, Klaus: Daheim im neuen Reich, OÖN 3.8.2002
Callinicos, Alex: Toni Negri in perspective, International Socialism
Journal 92/2001
Castronovo, Davide: Antinegri: n?moltitudine, n?Impero, www.s8suono.com
Celani, Claudio: Toni Negri, profile of a terrorist ideologue, Executive
Intelligence Review 24.8.2001
Chingo, Juan et al: Empire or imperialism, Estrategia Internacional 17/2001
Coates, Andrew: Struggles for freedom, Weekly Worker 21.2.2002
Cohen, Mitchell: An Empire of Cant, Dissent, Summer 2002
Conert, Hansgeorg: Neues Manifest oder Mystifikationen, Z Juni 2002
Cox, Laurence: Barbarian reistance and rebel alliances: Social movements
and Empire, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Diefenbach, Katja: Klassenkampf der Engel, Jungle World 12.6.2002
Diefenbach, Katja: Diskontinuität und Terror, Blätter des iz3w April 2002
Diefenbach, Katja: Ecstasy. Empire. Immanenz, MALMOE 4/2002
Dyer-Witheford, Nick: Empire, immaterial labour, the new combinations and
the global worker, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Eakin, Emily: What is the next big idea?, NY Times 7.7.2001
Ehrke, Michael: Empire, Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 4/2002
Engelmann, Jan: Die Geister, die sie riefen, taz 23.3.2002
Fang: Graswurzelrevolution oder Empire?, Graswurzelrevolution 270/2002
Fanizadeh, Andreas: Kommunistisches Manifest, Cyberpunk, Bluff?, Subtropen
Juli 2002
Fischbach, Rainer: Tausend Splitter tief, Freitag 5.4.2002
Flood, Andrew: Is the emperor wearing clothes?, www.struggle.ws,
2002
Foltin, Robert: Immaterielle Arbeit, Empire, Multitude - neue
Begrifflichkeiten in der linken Diskussion, Grundrisse 2/2002
Foster, John Bellamy: Imperialism and "Empire", Monthly Review December 2001
Fülberth, Georg: Bluff, Kitsch und Affirmation, Konkret 6/2002
Galagher, Tom: Empire, www.zmag.org
Galloway, Alex: Protocol or, how control exists after decentralization,
Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Grundrisse-Redaktion: "Empire" in Wien. Bericht vom Grundrisse Seminar,
Grundrisse 2/2002
Hartman, Detlef: Empire: Einladung der Linken in eine neue konservative
Revolution, Alaska Mai 2002 (Langfassung als Buch soeben erschienen: Empire
-Linkes Ticket für die Reise nach rechts, Assoziation A)
Hartmann, Martin: Die Ruhe vor dem Sturm, Frankfurter Rundschau 18.10.2001
Hauer, Dirk: Auch große Würfe gehen mal daneben, analyse und kritik
28.9.2000
Hauer, Dirk: Alle Unklarheiten beseitigt, Fantomas 2/2002
Heinrich, Michael: Radikale Kurzschlüsse, Jungle World 10.4.2002
Hengstler, Willi: Total, global, kapital, Die Presse 20.4.2002
Henwood, Doug: Blows against Empire, Left Business Observer 96/2001
Hirsch, Joachim: Tote Hunde wecken (Interview), Arranca! 24/2002
Holert, Tom: Mehr von der Welt, Jungle World, 30.4.2002
Holloway, John: Going in the wrong direction, Historical Materialism
10/1(2002)
Holloway, John: Die Welt verändern ohne die Macht zu übernehmen, Verlag
Westfälisches Dampfboot 2002
Holmes, Amy: The Empire strikes back, Sozialismus 12/2000
Hutnyk, John: Tales from the Raj, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Ichida, Yoshihiko: Questions d`Empire, Multitudes 7/2001
Jahnke, Eli: Toni Negris "Empire", "Multitude" und Marxismus, Marxismus
21/2002
Jappe, Anselm: Des Proletariats neue Kleider, Krisis 25/2002
Kittsteiner, H.D.: Das "Empire" und die "Wobblies", NZZ 6.4.2002
Klas, Gerhard: "Empire" - statt Elend der Macht Freude am Sein, Volksstimme
10.5.2002
Kraniauskas, John: Empire, or multitude, Radical Philosophy 103/2000
Kurz, Felix: Multitude aller Länder, Jungle World 24.4.2002
Lau, Jörg: Biomacht und Kommunismus, Die Zeit 23.5.2002
Lemke, Thomas: Biopolitik im Empire, Prokla 4/2002
Levinson, Brett: Empire, or the limit of our political choices, Rethinking
Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Ludmer, Josefina: An agenda for the multitudes, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4
(2001)
Maniglier, Patrice et al: Quelle politique?, Magazine literaire Feb.2002
Mezzadra, Sandro: L´impero ?sovrano, Il Manifesto 26.1.2002
Mishra, Pramod K.: The fall of the Empire or the rise of the global south?
Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Mokre, Monika: Die neuen Leiden des CW, Transversal Konferenzband (im
Erscheinen)
Moore, David: Africa: The black hole at the middle of Empire?, Rethinking
Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Moreiras, Alberto: A line of shadow: Metaphysics in Counter-Empire,
Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Mudede, Charles et al: Empire: A user`s guide, thestranger.com, 10/48,
16.8.2001
Müller, Elfriede: Die Revolution neu denken, Jungle World 30.4.2002
Munck, Ronaldo: Empire, Cultural logic 3/2 (2000)
Munro, Ian: Empire: The coming of control society, ephemera 2/2 (2002)
Murphy, Timothy: Ontology, deconstruction and Empire, Rethinking Marxism
13, 3/4 (2001)
Mutman, Mahmut: On Empire, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
N.N.: Review of Empire, web.mit.edu/ar25801/www/empreac.htm
No Spoon: Interdependence Day, www.copyriot.com/unefarce/no5/
No Spoon: Die Empire-Anomalie, Arranca! 24/2002
Olma, Sebastian: Globalization, the pudding and the question of power;
Theory, Culture and Society 18/4 (2001)
Otte, Carsten: Nervöse Stellungnahmen, junge Welt 29.4.2002
Panitch, Leo et al: Gems and baubles in Empire, Historical Materialism 10/2
(2002)
Petras, James: Empire with imperialism, www.rebellion.org
Post, Charlie: Review: Empire and Revolution, Marxism Mailinglist 12.6.2002
Proyect, Louis: Hard-Negri`s "Empire": a critique, Marxism Mailinglist Juni
2001
Rabasa, Jose: For Empire, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Rapp, Tobias: Hier kommt der Masterplan, Jungle World 20.3.2002
Read, Jason: The hidden abode of biopolitical production, Rethinking
Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Resnick, Stephen and Richard Wolff: Empire and class analysis, Rethinking
Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Ricos, Rob los: Empire for beginners, Multitudes Mailinglist 20.8.2002
Rohmann, Gabriele: Schöne neue Welt, ATTAC Berlin Rundbriefe 3/2002
Röllecke, Gerd: Das Empire schlägt nicht zurück, FAZ 16.8.2001
Schultz, Susanne: Aufgelöste Grenzen und "affektive Arbeit", Fantomas 2/2002
Sengupta, Shuddhabrata: Das Rädchen überprüft, ob das Rad sich noch dreht,
Subtropen April 2002
Siepen, Nicolas: Multitude, rüste dich!, Jungle World 7.8.2002
Surin, Kenneth: Dossier on Empire, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Szeman, Imre: Plundering the Empire: Globalization, mediation and cultural
studies, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Varsave. Jerry: Empire, Canadian Review of American Studies 31/1(2001)
Villalobos-Ruminott, Sergio: Empire, a picture of the world, Rethinking
Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
Vulliamy, Ed: Empire hits back, The Observer 15.7.2001
Wassmer, Simone: Empire - ein Buch für alle, Risse 2/2002
Wissel, Jens und Buckel, Sonja: Age of Empire, www.links-netz.de
Walker: La longue Mache, Umanita nova Juillet 2002
Walther, Rudolf: Gut gemeint und voll daneben, www.links-netz.de
Wark, McKenzie: on Empire, Multitudes Mailinglist 29.5.2002
Wildcat Editorial Nr. 64, Juli 2002
Wolf, Frieder Otto: Empire und die Linke, Widerspruch 43/2002
Zizek, Slavoj: Have Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri rewritten the Communist
Manifesto for the 21st century?, Rethinking Marxism 13, 3/4 (2001)
http://www.malmoe.org/artikel/verdienen/461"
