The following review was published in the Spring/Summer 2002 issue of
Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed.
Empire by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt (Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 2000) 478 pp. $18.95 paper.
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1988,
Bush the Elder proclaimed that we had entered into a New World Order. I was
alarmed to hear someone drunk with power-and who knows what else-crowing
over the seemingly unlimited authority the ruling powers had achieved. The
media tried to pretend it never happened, but the concerns of many, many
people-who, like myself, were stunned into disbelief by Bush I’s
proclamation of power forced conservative political pundits to eventually
address the President’s megalomaniacal statement.
Mostly, they stressed the “fact” that the NWO had been in existence for quite a while and was nothing
new after all. Most lefty-liberals fell in line with the conservatives and
even tried to outdo them by claiming that the NWO was just more of the
same old capitalist imperialism. This isn’t so. In Hardt and Negri’s book,
Empire they describe how the emergence of the NWO/Empire represents a new epoch
in human evolution, an event so profound as to put an end to history, not by
negating it, but by bringing historical processes to their conclusion.
This (Empire) is IT: the ultimate fulfillment of human endeavor.
To the authors, this is not necessarily a bad turn of events. To me,
however, Empire/NWO represents the triumph of the darkest aspects of human
capability and must be resisted with every bit of energy by everyone who
When Empire hits the fan
“Our basic hypothesis is that sovereignty has taken a new form, composed
of a series of national and international organisms united under a single
logic of rule. This new global form of sovereignty is what we call Empire….”
-Hardt and Negri, from the prologue to Empire
The most important aspect of this book is its rebuke of all those who have
tried-unconvincingly, yet doggedly-to claim that the neo-liberal era of
global capitalism is merely more of the same old capitalism. This is not
the case. The era of Empire is as different from the era of European imperialism
as that time was different from the ages of the ancient empires of Rome or
The concept of sovereignty was developed by the ancient empires. The ruling
emperor was not only a mighty king, but a god incarnate. His word was thus
more than law, but divine writ. His authority not just unchallenged, but
unchallengeable. Sovereignty is absolute authority embodied in a single
person. This concept is crucial to the processes of historical Progress.
As Europe entered the modern era the idea of sovereignty was introduced
there. Modern sovereignty was invested in a ruler whose authority was
ordained by a single deity, who handed out royal titles as if his very
existence depended on them. With a single divinely anointed, authoritative
power established, most of what we recognize as basic tenets of modern
societies began to take shape: nationalism, capitalism and urbanization
Having been born and grown up together, capital and the state are
co-joined twins, each dependent on the other. The state created the social crises
capital required in order to move into the Industrial Age. Capital
rewarded the state with wealth. For instance, capitalists needed desperately
impoverished people to destroy in their mines and factories. The state
provided them when it confiscated the common lands and thereby reduced the lives
of subsistence farmers and prosperous herdsfolk to destitution.
Even before these implementations of sovereign authority, the ruling
powers had turned their coercive forces outward to plunder the fabulously exotic
lands being discovered around the world.
Whereas the various peoples of the European states had been welded into
national identities-for example, Catalans, Castilians, Galicians and Basques
turned into Spaniards-during the era of European imperialistic conquest,
there was no real effort made to bring the conquered people into the
imperial realm as citizens. Once the discovered people had been relieved
of the riches it had accumulated over generations, it was relieved of its
lands and forced to produce trade goods and otherwise increase the wealth of the
ruling powers. Imperial power was represented in the foreign colonies by
administrators who were citizens of the realm. Those they ruled over were
not citizens, and thus were at the mercy of the administrator’s whims.
At the beginning of the modern era, almost everyone on Earth was a
subsistence farmer, hunter, herder, fisher or forager. By the end of the
modern era, the Industrial Revolution had become the greatest force of the
historic process. Industry turned agricultural people into proletarian
masses, accelerated the urbanization of society and enabled European
empires to force their cultures upon the rest of the world.
With the concept of the nation firmly established, a sense of historic
continuity was manufactured. Instead of remembering their ancestral
heritage, the various peoples of each nation were only taught about events
and places within their national boundaries. This gave an illusion of
permanence to the state, which in reality was only a recent innovation.
The war to end history
Rebellions against European imperialism in the Americas started historical
processes which eventually led the world beyond Modernism into a new,
post-modern social order.
The new American-style state was not based upon the divine right of kings,
but on the popular will of the citizenry. By the turn of the 20th Century,
the few nations which had not exchanged the rule of nobility for that of
elected legislatures were suffering political turmoil. When revolutionary
forces of the masses finally succeeded in crushing the regimes of local
aristocracies, a schism formed which was to prevent the development of
Empire for as long as the conflict remained unresolved. This was the Cold
War era, which began with the Bolshevik coup in October of 1917.
The historic conditions for the emergence of Empire were created during the
modern era. People no longer identified themselves as different ethnic or
racial groups, but as nationalities. WWI was an attempt to divide the
world into permanent national entities and spheres of Euro-American influence.
The Russian Revolution upset the effort, not only by challenging the dominant
form of capitalism (liberalism) with a socialistic one, but also by serving
as an example of how even the most backward, underdeveloped nation could
rapidly industrialize and grow into a powerful, modern state. This was not
appropriate for Empire, which requires a single world with every country
appointed its specific imperial role.
It was tragically naive of the non-Europeans to fall for the ideals
promoted by the ruling powers. The lie was that each nation could develop
its own economy along the industrial and economic paths forged by European
and American states in order to gradually develop into societies identical
to those of the First World. The reality is that the power and wealth
enjoyed by the First World is dependent upon the exploitation of the
resources and people of lesser developed places. In order to keep those
resources available to the ruling powers, lesser developed nations must
This was one of the reasons WWI was fought-to divide the world’s resources
among the already industrialized nations. Though U.S. President Woodrow
Wilson lied that this war was fought to make the world “safe for
democracy,” its true result was to ensure that democratic rule be reserved for those
who could be trusted to look out for the interests of the ruling powers.
The lie of progressive development is a lovely one to believe, which is why
so many people continue to believe it to this day. During the late modern
era (the 19th Century), the ideologies of Progress (Manifest Destiny,
historical determinism, dialectical materialism, et al) evolved, one from
the other, in order to rationalize the horrific “sacrifices” made to further
Progress. Genocide, ecological ruin, slavery-no crime against Earth or its
inhabitants was so great as to be unabsolvable through the anointment of
wealth upon its perpetrators. As long as enough wealth was generated through
plunder, slaughter and exploitation so that the ruling powers could
benefit, all sins were forgivable.
Such corruption isn’t a symptom of modernism, but is the cornerstone of its
very existence. Indeed, it would not have been possible for the imperial
powers to stifle development, or exploit the people and resources of distant
lands were it not for massive political and economic corruption. Its economy
would collapse without periodic infusions of corrupt profits-dirty money.
In contrast to this corruption, the Russian Revolution was an
abomination-an attempt to create a counter-Empire. The Soviet Union had all
the attributes of the fledgling Empire, including a nationalistic doctrine
that could lead people in any country that desired to achieve modernity
through economic development, into the Industrial Age. Unfortunately for
the communists, their development was achieved through brute force, rather
than economic persuasion or liberal Progress. Communism’s corruption was
based upon coercive power more than creation of wealth. Unable to generate
vast amounts of reserve wealth via racketeering and shadow economies, the
Soviet economy was unable to keep pace with America’s rampant
militarization, which itself was fueled by economic and political
The Soviet economy collapsed spectacularly. Suddenly, there were no more
obstacles to the final implementation of Empire-the groundwork was complete.
The project of reducing people to workers, forcing them off their land and
into ghettoes, had been a monumental success. The urbanized masses were
transformed into proletarians, powerless people dependent upon industrial
production for their survival. Even agriculture became industrialized.
Most farmers in industrial states now work for corporations, rather than
farming land they own. They would be called peasants or campesinos in other
countries, but that would be rude to point out in an industrialized,
wealthy nation like the US.
When its rival imploded, the path was cleared for the coming of the one,
true Empire. People’s lives have been reduced to monotony, their
allegiance to the ruling powers unquestioned by minds too dull to conceive of any
alternative. Loyalty to schools, corporations and states is instilled in
their minds. This is the time of the Pepsi Generation, the culmination of
the historic march of Progress.
Empire: You will be assimilated
So far, the retelling of history has been fairly predictable, a classic
Marxist rendition of the development of contemporary industrial societies.
Marx and Engels proposed faith in the proletarian masses to one day seize
control of the state and therefore the means of production. Then we’d all
live in a workers’ paradise according to their fairy tale.
It is Hardt and Negri’s description of Empire that makes this book worth
reading, despite the Marxist fundamentalism that skews their perspectives.
In their discussions of the composition, function and goals of Empire, the
authors truly bring it into focus for all those who are concerned with the
various aspects of globalization, yet fail to grasp its totality. The
failure to see the big picture is what makes the many critics of Empire/NWO
sound naive and hopelessly foolish in their shallow attempts at reform.
An ex-lover of mine, a Leninist, once related a story about a cab driver
she’d encountered who’d been involved with the Industrial Workers of the
World prior to the Palmer Raids. They talked at length about class struggle,
the suppression of the IWW and current events. He summed up by saying,
“You think it was bad back then, wait ’til they have the whole world.”
Empire’s definitive quality is its omnipotence. It is everywhere and
manifest in all our daily activities. Empire represents the triumph of
Western Civilization as embodied in capitalism. All cultures, ethnicities
and other categorizations of human beings have been commercialized, turned
into different varieties of consumers. Our differences have been turned
into marketing devices, our cultures into demographics.
The nationalism that dominated the Cold War era has been forsaken for a
borderless land of opportunity for economic endeavor. Regional differences
are merely justifications for the hyper-exploitation of workers and
resources. Whereas in the postmodern era there were three worlds, now
there is one that has absorbed all three and scrambled them in the process.
Shopping centers, sports stadia, financial districts and industrial parks
are indistinguishable in any country-Canada, Vietnam, Mexico or Nigeria.
The same is true for shantytowns, homeless people’s camps, landfills and
Human existence has become banalized to the point of meaninglessness, the
alternative being horrific irrelevance. The former, present and future
proletariat are offered the incentive of the shopping mall while menaced
with the specter of homeless beggars. The Third World has migrated to the
First, the First exported to the Third, while the Second is being
The mega-wealth being generated by these processes is being reserved for
the elite, who will invest it to further increase its own wealth, while less
and less is left for the multitude to compete over.
As factories disappear from what was once the First World, the former
members of the proletariat take their places among the multitude-unskilled,
landless workers whose financial stability is always in doubt. The multitude
has taken the place of the proletarian masses, who still retained some
distinguishing characteristics as people. The multitude has one identity,
In former times people could find fulfillment through spiritual service to
their communities, or through helping their communities become
self-sustaining. The forces of Empire will not tolerate such alternatives.
All activities by all people must serve the needs of Empire-to increase the
wealth of the wealthy. Governments, non-governmental organizations, even
religious organizations all enforce the same omnipotence of Empire by
solidifying areas where imperial presence is weak and by sanctifying
The historic union of twin power shared by capital and state is a thing of
the past. International capital needs no state support, unless such
support better suits its needs. Corporations are wealthier, face fewer social or
legal restrictions and are not usually held accountable for their actions
by the multitude. Their institutions-the World Trade Organization,
International Monetary Fund, etc.-shape laws and regulate economic
The state must sustain itself through terroristic wars against its own
citizens. The state is the muscle backing up Empire’s demands. In addition,
the United Nations must maintain the illusion that lines on maps have
relevance, or it loses its own relevance. Current political boundaries
must be maintained, no matter how many Rwandas, Kosovos, Kashmirs, Kurdistans.
UN peacekeeping forces enforce the lies of maps in order to keep Empire
functioning smoothly. National identities must remain intact, not because
they are just, fair or even functional, but because we have reached the
post-historic era. Nation-states that exist now have always existed and
will always exist, thus says Empire.
If it weren’t for its function of protecting Empire’s interests from the
retaliatory outrage of the multitude, government would have little
justification for its continued existence.
Empire and Its Discontents
In the preface to their book, Hardt and Negri admit they were working on
their analysis in the very earliest stages of Empire’s emergence, between
the end of the Gulf War and before the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. Events
since then have shown that they “misunderestimated” (in the word of Bush the
Lesser) Empire’s insidious nature. Or perhaps they chose to understate the
corruption and violence inherent within the New World Order. This is
understandable, given the authors’ progressivist love of the state. To
apologists for the state, atrocities like genocide and widespread political
repression are minor inconveniences that must be tolerated in the interest
of historical development.
No matter the reason, Empire falls well short of a condemnation of its
namesake. Because Hardt and Negri believe so strongly in the progressive
nature of history, they welcome Empire’s arrival with the enthusiasm of
any fundamentalist who sees the master’s hand in every turn of events.
Hardt and Negri see within Empire the seeds of its own destruction, though
they fail to disclose upon what they base this vision.
To people who believe in destiny, fate, or historical materialism,
determinism, divine will, or other such dogma, when events of significance
occur it is proof of some sort of Grand Design.
So, the development of civilization is seen by many people as the crowning
achievement of human endeavor. However, it can also be viewed as an
abomination against life on Earth. As far as I’m concerned, civilization
represents the triumph of the worst characteristics of human capabilities.
Hardt and Negri agree that capitalism and the state were born and grew up
together as a result of corruption and crisis. Crises helped to establish
the dominance of capitalism and were often created by the state. From the
beginning of this alliance, the state and capital have depended on one
another. If capital falters the state intervenes on its behalf. When the
state grows weak capital recreates it in a manner more beneficial for
itself and in a way that pulls the state through its political crisis.
Capital funded the voyages of discovery and conquest that brought about
the modern world. This benefitted capital, but nowhere near the extent it
benefitted the aristocracies of Europe and their military agents. Whereas
the capitalists reinvested their earnings into colonial plantations and
domestic industries, the feuding aristocracies squandered vast fortunes on
senseless continental squabbles over territory. The states used these wars
to solidify their claim to legitimacy and, of course, capitalists profited
from these conflicts.
It’s very easy to see how the deliberate creation of social crises in
order to justify increased state intrusion into peoples’ lives leads to the
development of a corrupt civilization. However, Hardt and Negri don’t look
into corruption at the heart of the ancient empires. Brute force was
deployed to bring “law and order” to places destabilized by the actions of
the very same forces which later assumed power. This strategy worked as well
for Akkadian warrior-kings as it did for Persian god-emperors, and as well
for Roman caesars as it did for fascist dictators. It’s no surprise that
Hardt and Negri don’t seem to appreciate the extent corruption infests
Empire, since they don’t acknowledge the extent it has shaped civilization
from its beginnings.
Land and Liberty
Tracing the corrupt roots of civilization could have led to an
anti-civilization tendency within Marxist doctrine. That would be heresy,
though. The thought that civilization was a wrong turn in the evolution of
Homo sapiens is a blasphemy against everything progressive-minded people
believe. Western civilization is the logical, only possible course for
human development. Never mind the rivers of blood and the spreading
desertification, deforestation and homogenization of ecosystems civilization
has brought to the world. Civilization is not only good and proper, but
absolutely essential to the lives of human beings-the ultimate achievement
of life on Earth.
According to progressives, industrial society is the epitome of human
endeavor. Once the world has been properly industrialized, say the Marxists,
the proletariat shall be empowered to rise up and seize control of
industry and the state. It shall then lead the world into a new era of material
plenitude and establish an egalitarian utopia, wherein everyone will share
the fruits of industrial society, no doubt portioned out by the tooth
fairy, riding on her flying pig.
The failure of Marxist revolutionary movements is the main indication for
Hardt and Negri’s alleged end of history. The workers did not seize control
of anything and in the Imperial Age the proletariat has become irrelevant.
If workers become uppity in one place, industry packs up and goes elsewhere.
Because of the immiseration of the vast majority of people around the world,
there will always be people willing to accept low wages, unhealthy working
conditions, atrocities against human dignity-anything-in order to earn the
right to live with a minimum of economic security.
The only reason this arrangement is acceptable to people is because the
ability to provide for themselves has been taken away from them. The point
of contention between the masses and the state has always been over control
of and access to land. In the Russian, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese-even
the American-revolutions, it was the desire of people to have land to grow
crops and otherwise provide for their families that inspired people to fight
against the old imperial powers, not the desire to control industry.
Industrialism itself would never have been possible if the imperial states
had not forced people off their communal lands and into destitution. This
made them dependent on wages in order to buy their food at markets, rather
than grow it themselves. Until the postmodern era, it was still possible
for landowning people to live with very little utilization of money if they
wished to do so. What their land could not provide for them, they could obtain through barter.
This independent lifestyle is what people have fought for repeatedly,
throughout the modern and postmodern eras.
In the few instances where the proletariat has fought during a revolution,
it has, more often than not, sided with the reactionary forces of the
state against the genuinely revolutionary forces of the rural masses and
indigenous peoples. Even when the proletariat has joined with the
revolutionary masses, once the battle has been won the workers and their
communist overlords have usually suppressed the redistribution of land and
instead imposed industrialized, unsustainable agriculture upon them, just
as the capitalist states have done elsewhere.
An attempt to reconcile human existence with Earth’s biosystems would put
an end to the ideologies of human supremacy, whether of the secular humanist
or divinely ordained variety. To claim that people are but a part of Earth’s
biosystems and that we need to live accordingly is to spit in god’s face,
to turn one’s back on thousands of years of historical progress, to forfeit
mankind’s triumph over Nature, to admit that sometimes things happen for
no reason, that there is no divine plan guiding our collective existence, and
that we are responsible for the choices we make in life.
The subjects of Empire seem to be reluctant to take responsibility for
their own lives and instead surrender them to abstract social forces. This
might be due to the hopeless impotence imperial life presents us, with no
alternatives possible, or even imaginable. Add to this the overbearing
pressure of history and it is little wonder that suicide is rampant and
loss of life so routine as to be trivial under Empire.
With no place left to expand capital is forced to return to the same
consumers time and again. New cars, new houses, new computers are sold to
the same consumers who have the old ones. With wages falling across the
globe, there will be no expanding markets created through the spread of
industry to previously undeveloped lands. Each abandonment of one country
for another brings another downward movement in the global economy. More
prosperous consumers-better consumers-will be forsaken to create lesser
consumers somewhere else.
With this redundant economic system, we have not only entered a
post-historic era, but a post-capitalist one as well. Capitalism is based
on increase. Investing money to generate profits, thereby creating more money
for more investments to increase production and generate still more
you’re gonna get what you deserve
Where the post-capitalist economy fails this equation is in the increase
of production. Production now remains stagnant, if it doesn’t actually
decrease. Capitalism has discarded its historical imperative to increase
material abundance. The new goal of the imperial economy is to boost stock
Traditionally, stock values increased when a company increased
profits through increased production and expanding markets. However, the
dizzying heights reached by stock markets at the end of the 20th Century
were created by downsizing rather than expansion. Instead of building
additional factories and manufacturing new products, corporations nowadays
add to their bottom lines by firing their employees, closing old, outdated
factories and building new, updated ones in Asia. Health benefits for the
work force are cut, as are their wages. Retirement funds are robbed. The
increase in profits generated this way gives stocks a false value. In
order to keep inflating their stock values, corporations must continue to
downsize. This is not sustainable.
The movement of industry between countries may generate profits for the
ruling powers, but they leave economic ruin in the abandoned states. The
sudden loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in exports can
devastate most nations’ economies.
The effects of Empire upon societies take various forms according to the
level of development each society has achieved in the postmodern era.
Hardt and Negri claim that all cultural and social differences are now
irrelevant, since Empire has reduced all possible identities to one-that of the
This is simply not true.
But to the believers in Progress, anyone
who does not fit Empire’s single mold will shortly become an imperial
subject or perish. For the authors, it is unbelievable that there are
people who are resisting the encroachment of civilization. The fact that some
people are successfully waging war against Empire is inconceivable to
Hardt and Negri.
Rebellions in New Guinea, Chiapas and Ogoniland, by the U’wa of Colombia
as well as First Nation peoples throughout Canada: all these peoples are
struggling to maintain cultural identities outside of Empire’s domain.
These are primarily conflicts in the way people relate to land.
People dependent upon intact ecosystems for their sustenance have no interest in
“developing” the resources of their homelands, which are fully developed already, and
provide for all their needs. The idea is not to fuck it up and to live
within the limits of one’s bioregion.
Resistance to Empire is not always so noble, however. Both Somalia and
Afghanistan exemplify the horrors inherent in xenophobic hatred of all
that Empire promises.
Rather than upholding strong connections to the land,
many warlords and tribal strongmen are more interested in asserting their own
authority over that of Empire’s. This distrust of foreigners and their
schemes would be a mere nuisance to Empire, except that in the cases of
both these nations, and increasingly in Indonesia, political turmoil is
preventing imperial access to natural resources. Such xenophobic civil
strife has led to tribal and nationalist warfare in Kosovo, Rwanda,
Chechnya-all across Asia and Africa.
There is no silver lining to be found
in these conflicts, but one thing they display is that ethnic and
nationalist identities have not yet been supplanted by teaming multitudes
of consumers. It seems as though Empire is not quite as omnipotent as Hardt
and Negri think.
The notion that 500 years of genocidal carnage was necessary and desirable
to bring humanity into one all-encompassing social order, shaped by and in
the interests of Euro-American economic interests is nothing short of
racist. Hardt and Negri would understand that if they themselves were not
Euro-Americans. To them, the bloody ascendance of European civilization to
global domination is only proper. To many people-those of us of mixed
heritage, indigenous peoples and non-believers in Progress- it is obvious
that there are serious problems with the direction civilization is moving. We
choose to create different identities for ourselves, Empire be damned.
Empire’s “multitude” is a disgusting attempt to create a sort of
multicultural racism. Anyone of any race or culture is permitted to
participate in the annihilation of social and cultural differences and
share in the plunder gained. Empire buys out cultures and discards what is
unmarketable. Where it finds rich, varied cultures with lovely folklore,
obscure languages and customs, it develops plastic trinkets, pornography
and brothels for the tourists. The local languages die out, the old stories
are forgotten and everyone becomes an American.
Hardt and Negri alike underestimate the strength, resilience and
intelligence of many peoples. They also do not take into consideration the
unexpected consequences of Empire’s actions. Worldwide climate changes are
beyond its control. This will play havoc with agribusiness, whose
frankencrops are also having in unforeseen consequences.
And there are people within Empire who have come to the realization that
they have nothing in common with Empire’s schemes and machinations. So, we
are witness to uprisings against imperial decrees, like the Zapatistas’
insurrection against NAFTA and the international days of action against
Empire’s administrative bodies-the WTO, G-8, IMF, WEF, etc. Just as
worldwide Empire seemed to be imminent, widespread opposition has arisen.
The Relevance of Nations-or Not
Imperial sovereignty does not reside within the nation-state, but is
wielded by transnational entities-treaty organizations and financial
institutions of regional and global scope. In many instances Empire relies
upon the state to enforce its dicta over the objections of its citizens
and in contradiction to its own laws. States are becoming increasingly
unnecessary to Empire, however.
The Democratic Republic of Congo exists only on paper. In the actual land
delineated on maps as constituting the DRC the federal government controls
only a segment of the country around the capital. The rest of this vast
nation has been overrun by bandits from Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and even
as far away as Angola. In this region, a strong, centralized government does
not suit Empire’s needs. The corruption at the heart of capitalism has
always prevented the development of DRC’s abundant mineral resources and
potential agricultural production.
Until recently, most of the people in the DRC enjoyed an
easy life of gardening, fishing, foraging and hunting. They were too
preoccupied by dancing and festivals to work for wages. In short, they
led lives that were rewarding and satisfying, with little or no need for
consumer goods. Any government which tried to change these circumstances has
met with resolute indifference or determined resistance, and failed.
Unable to access the DRC’s incredible bounty of natural resources through economic
development, Empire fell back upon tried-and-true methods to get at them:
conquest and plunder. Since the invaders are not connected to the land and
people of DRC, they have no hesitancy to clearcut the rainforests in order
to plant coffee and cocoa, or to strip-mine the mountains and thereby
poison the local water supplies. How many Congolese have died during these past
fifteen years of carnage? Six million? Twelve million? It doesn’t matter,
because these people were not producing anything of value for Empire and
were therefore as expendable as they were irrelevant.
And where did those tiny, impoverished nations acquire the military
capability needed to invade and occupy a country five times their combined
size and at least that much more populous? There are many billions of
dollars being made through this holocaust. What Empire wants, Empire gets.
This sort of regressive behavior doesn’t fit into the progressivists’ neat
little worldview of purposeful, linear development leading toward utopia.
Unless one drops the pretension that this is not racism, that the utopia
to be achieved will be enjoyed by the Euro-Americans and their lackeys, and
created by the sweat and blood of the rest of the world. The example of
the DRC may be the most extreme but it is hardly unrepresentative of how
Congoization of South America
Plan Colombia, a strategy developed by oil corporations and the US
military-industrial complex, will bring about extraordinary political and
economic chaos in Peru, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador.
This plan is based on two goals: the flow of oil through pipelines, and the flow of funds
through banks. Political and economic conflict, like that in the
DRC, will likely never affect the flow of either cash or oil from this
region, but will prevent the overwhelming majority of the people there
from benefitting from either pipeline, or from having any say in the matter.
Cocaine production is the big money item for most rural people in the
region, the only thing that prevents many from complete economic
destitution, which makes the future of the area look frighteningly similar
to conditions in Afghanistan over the past 25 years-rival warlords
fighting over control of coca fields, some controlled by leftist guerrillas, some
controlled by the local state, some by foreign armies, some by organized
Evil, evil, evil, evil, stupid!
The willful naïveté of most of Empire’s dissidents is obscene. Their
emphasis on dialogue and education will do nothing to change Empire, or
challenge its existence. Empire understands what it is doing. All the
death and environmental ruin it causes are not a series of unfortunate accidents
that occur unintentionally. Billions of people’s lives are not necessary
for Empire. If they cannot find some way to serve Empire, or if they somehow
get in Empire’s way, they will be done exterminated.
Under capitalism, the creation of a postmodern, consumer-driven economy
made it seem as if we had entered a post-scarcity era of abundance. In the
post-capitalist, imperial era, economies are built around the concept of
downsizing. Economic progress in lands outside of the Euro-American sphere
of influence will not be tolerated. Industrialization in undeveloped
countries is being carried out by and for Empire. The local people do not
benefit from having their cultures, societies, land, families,
individuality and sense of dignity destroyed.
People who act in the interest of Empire are absorbed into it. However,
when industry flees from one country to a newer, more exploitable one, the
economic contractions in the abandoned country ensure Empire’s downward
spiral. There are limits to Earth’s resources. Knowing this Empire is
placing limits on the availability of privileges, granted to ever fewer
people. These select few, however, will have tremendous wealth at their
Those who still lead cheers for economic democracy have yet to get a clue
about finite natural resources, or about imperial economics. Argentina, a
classic example of a developing state that built itself into a First World
economy during the postmodern era, had its economy crushed by Empire.
Argentinean prosperity doesn’t suit Empire’s needs, just as Korea’s or
Hypno-economists want people to believe that China’s entry into the WTO
will usher the world economy into a new era of expansion. But wages there
are so low, they will not support families. And to paraphrase Free Market
apostle Ross Perot, the giant sucking sound one hears these days is that
of factories being shipped off to China from every corner of Empire.
There will be no economic expansion-there’s no room left for expansion.
Capitalism isn’t dying, it’s dead already. Yet, its rotting, bloated corpse staggers
on. Capitalism is undead, sustaining itself by feeding on the living,
consuming life in all its manifestations.
Empire presents an interesting analysis of the New World Order, one which
is valuable in helping to understand the power dynamics that define it.
However, I’ve pointed out above how I think some of Hardt and Negri’s
basic precepts-progressivism, Marxism, Euro-centrism-lead them to sad,
predictable conclusions, the main one being their enthusiasm for the arrival of this
horribly dehumanizing Empire under which we live. This isn’t the most
serious problem the book presents, though. That would be the wretchedly
obtuse language the authors inflict upon the reader. I understand that
translating philosophical and political theory can create syntactical
difficulties, but some of this is as unforgivable as it is unnecessary.
Hardt and Negri also enjoy redefining words that have recently taken on
new meanings, like “virtual” and “posse.” At least with these the authors made
the effort to explain themselves. I suppose it’s everyone’s right to use
words according to their desires, but it is rather laborious for readers
to have to constantly guess at the meanings of words, or even the same word
used for widely different purposes.
Still, the authors’ tortuous literary stylings shouldn’t deter anyone with
the patience to wade through such muck. It’s very important for us not to
treat Empire as a mere continuation of the same old capitalist society.
Empire is a different monstrosity, one that recognizes its limitations and
seeks to preserve privilege and fabulous wealth for a very few, while
discarding the bulk of humanity.
Hardt and Negri are enthusiastic about Empire containing within itself the
seeds of its own destruction. They don’t know what form this will take and
they also make the classical Marxist mistake of believing that the
multitude will overthrow Empire by subverting its global nature for their own ends.
But resistance to imperial power won’t come from within. Anything which
takes place within Empire can be recuperated for Empire’s own needs.
Anything. Everything. That’s its nature.
Resistance must come from without, which means, primarily, creating human
identities that emphasize our relationships with the biosystems we inhabit
rather than with commodities, economics, the state or nationalities. One
thing Hardt and Negri get right is that opposition to Empire must occur
worldwide, or Empire will crush it as resistance rises in one isolated
spot or another.