hacktivismo

[bob scheetz]

Wouter,
     no question the am-brit oil/white-mans'-burden  imperialism component
is nothing new,  nor the fascist zionist race state component; but what of
the hntington clash of civ's where EU/US (ie, we're all gessellschaft now)
side signifying post subjectivist "states", compulsively crusading to
destroy (militarily as well as economically) all states founded in
traditional cultures in order to integrate the new world order ie, Empire?
Maybe not so enlightened, but throrughly rationalized along same structural
axes, no?
bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wouter Kusters" <w.kusters@let.leidenuniv.nl>
To: <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: hacktivismo


> Hi Felipe,
>
> >Here at Brazil, we can say that even the
> >big broadcast tvs are against this war. The government is against it. It
is
> >posible that almost 100% of the brazilian population are against it.
>
> In Belgium,  France and Germany the TV broadcasts are also critical and
sober instead of hysterical as on CNN and the BBC, let alone the outrageous
Fox-channel. But so what?
>
> >Well, I think that it can be all of those things
> >and a lot of others as well, but from my naive point of view, the Negri
and
> >Hardt perspective, about the Empire nature of the world order today, and
the
> >multitudes actions all around the world (like the World Social Forum),
are
> >ideas that are helping people from different perspectives and ideologies
to
> >join in the streets and scream globaly against the speculative and
> >consumerist mentality that government and corporations are trying to turn
> >congenial with a social justice marketing. And not only scream, but
change
> >experiences with actual social movement practice. So, I put this question
> >here, because I know little about Negri and Hardt, I'm interested in it,
and
> >I guess someone may have something to say about it, related or not with
> >Critical Theory.
>
> When applying Negri and Hardt's concepts to the actual situation it is a
bit different than you suggest. Actually, what we witness right now,
according to Empire, and some recent interviews Hardt gave, is the downfall,
and the last imperialistic gestures of old-style (American) imperialism.
This has however nothing to do with Empire (Note the difference between
imperial and imperialistic, as Negri and Hardt use these terms). "Empire" is
also against the Iraq-war. The interests of Empire concur with 1) the
interests of universal justice as present in UN institutions, 2) the
financial international markets, 3) military power that is shaped as
'police' power, and not as a national force, and 4) the affirmation and
construction of social reality as it is performed in global media, led by
pictorial, competitive media. The Iraq-war is not a war led by Empire.
According to Negri and Hardt, Empire will rule after this old-style
imperialism has faded away, and the down-fall of Empire is yet even farther
away. So, when the IMF is against the Iraq-war, or when most media are
against the war, they are only representing Empire. The multitude is still
two more steps away....
>
> Wouter Kusters
>