Globofobia e globofilia: interpretazioni a confronto. Slide del seminario di Elia Zaru

GLOBOFOBIA E GLOBOFILIAINTERPRETAZIONI A CONFRONTO

“

”

GLOBOPHILIA CAN BE DEFINED GENERALLY AS AN IDEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVEAFFIRMING THAT GLOBALISM IN EITHER ITS ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, OR

CULTURAL ASPECTS IS A BENEFICIAL AND NECESSARY SOCIAL FORCE IN THE WORLD. CONCEIVED BROADLY, IN THIS WAY, THOSE WHO SUPPORT

GLOBOPHILIC IDEAS MAY VARIOUSLY HAIL FROM DIFFERING ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, BE IN FAVOR OF CULTURAL COSMOPOLITANISM OR

NOT, AND BELIEVE EITHER IN CAPITALIST OR ALTERNATIVE ECONOMICFRAMEWORKS

R. KAHN, (2012), GLOBOPHILIA, IN G. RITZER (ED.), THE WILEY-BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GLOBALIZATION (OXFORD: BLACKWELL).

GLOBOFILIACI• MAGGIORE DEMOCRAZIA

• MAGGIORE RICCHEZZA

• DIVERSIFICAZIONE CULTURALE

• SOCIETÀ CIVILE GLOBALE

GLOBOFOBICI• MINORE DEMOCRAZIA

• DISEGUAGLIANZE E IMPOVERIMENTO

• OMOGENEIZZAZIONE CULTURALE

• ATOMIZZAZIONE

“

”

GLOBOPHILIA IS MOST TYPICALLY A MONIKER USED TO DESCRIBE THE PARTICULAR POSITIONS OF GLOBALIZATION IDEOLOGUES WHO LOBBY FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE ‘WASHINGTON CONSENSUS’, NEOLIBERAL-

STYLED POLICIES OF CAPITALIST MODERNIZATION THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, THEREBY ARGUING THAT SUCH GLOBALIZATION IS INEVITABLE

AS WELL AS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE CONTINUED REVELATION OF DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS, CULTURAL DIVERSITY, CONSUMER CHOICE,

AND INCREASING SOCIAL EQUITY

R. KAHN, (2012), GLOBOPHILIA, IN G. RITZER (ED.), THE WILEY-BLACKWELL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GLOBALIZATION (OXFORD: BLACKWELL).

THOMAS FRIEDMAN(1953)

• T. FRIEDMAN (1999), THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE: UNDERSTANDING GLOBALIZATION (NEW YORK: FARRAR,

STRAUS GIROUX); TRAD. IT. (2000), LE RADICI DEL FUTURO. LA SFIDA TRA LEXUS E L’ULIVO: CHE COS’È LA GLOBALIZZAZIONE E QUANTO CONTA LA TRADIZIONE (MILANO: MONDADORI).

• T. FRIEDMAN (2005), THE WORLD IS FLAT: A BRIEF HISTORYOF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (NEW YORK: FARRAR, STRAUS

GIROUX); TRAD. IT. (2007), IL MONDO È PIATTO – BREVE STORIA DEL VENTUNESIMO SECOLO (MILANO: MONDADORI).

“

”

IN THE COLD WAR, THE MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION WAS: ‘WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?’ IN GLOBALIZATION, THE MOST

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION IS: ‘TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOUCONNECTED TO EVERYONE?’. IN THE COLD WAR, THE SECOND MOSTFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION WAS: ‘HOW BIG IS YOUR MISSILE?’.

IN GLOBALIZATION, THE SECOND MOST FREQUENTLY ASKEDQUESTION IS: ‘HOW FAST IS YOUR MODEM?’

(FRIEDMAN 1999: 29)

“

”

YOU CAN'T ESCAPE THE SYSTEM. SOONER OR LATERTHE LEXUS ALWAYS CATCHES UP WITH YOU

(FRIEDMAN 1999: 59)

GLOBALIZZAZIONE:

• NUOVO SISTEMA GLOBALE

• SI FONDA SU TRE TIPOLOGIE DI EQUILIBRIO (TRA STATI, TRA STATI E MERCATI, TRA STATI E INDIVIDUI)

• INTERAGISCE CON ASPETTI TRADIZIONALI

• SI ORIGINA IN UN MONDO SENZA MURI GRAZIE ALLE DEMOCRATIZZAZIONI DELLA TECNOLOGIA, DELLA FINANZA E DELL’INFORMAZIONE

“

”

THE GOLDEN STRAITJACKET IS THE DEFINING POLITICAL-ECONOMIC GARMENT OF THIS GLOBALIZATION ERA. THE COLD WAR HAD THE MAO SUIT, THE NEHRU JACKET, THE RUSSIAN FUR. GLOBALIZATION HAS ONLY THE GOLDEN STRAITJACKET. IF YOUR COUNTRY HAS NOT BEEN FITTED

FOR ONE, IT WILL BE SOON

(FRIEDMAN 1999: 129)

“

”

TO FIT INTO THE GOLDEN STRAITJACKET A COUNTRY MUST EITHER ADOPT, OR BE SEEN AS MOVING TOWARD, THE FOLLOWING GOLDEN RULES: MAKING THE PRIVATE SECTOR THE PRIMARY ENGINE OF ITS ECONOMIC GROWTH, MAINTAINING A LOW RATE OF INFLATION AND PRICE STABILITY, SHRINKING THE SIZE OF ITS STATE BUREAUCRACY, MAINTAINING AS CLOSE TO A BALANCED BUDGET AS POSSIBLE, IF NOT A SURPLUS, ELIMINATING AND LOWERING TARIFFS ON IMPORTED GOODS, REMOVING RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT, GETTING RID OF QUOTAS

AND DOMESTIC MONOPOLIES, INCREASING EXPORTS, PRIVATIZING STATE-OWNED INDUSTRIES AND UTILITIES, DEREGULATING CAPITAL MARKETS, MAKING ITS CURRENCY CONVERTIBLE, OPENING ITS INDUSTRIES, STOCK AND

BOND MARKETS TO DIRECT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AND INVESTMENT, DEREGULATING ITS ECONOMY TO PROMOTE AS MUCH DOMESTIC COMPETITION AS POSSIBLE, ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, SUBSIDIES AND

KICKBACKS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, OPENING ITS BANKING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND COMPETITION AND ALLOWING ITS CITIZENS TO CHOOSE FROM AN ARRAY OF COMPETING

PENSION OPTIONS AND FOREIGN-RUN PENSION AND MUTUAL FUNDS. WHEN YOU STITCH ALL OF THESE PIECES TOGETHER YOU HAVE THE GOLDEN STRAITJACKET

(FRIEDMAN 1999: 130)

“

”

NO TWO COUNTRIES THAT BOTH HAD MCDONALD'S HAD FOUGHT A WAR AGAINST EACH OTHER SINCE EACH GOT ITS MCDONALD'S. […]

WHEN A COUNTRY REACHED THE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTWHERE IT HAD A MIDDLE CLASS BIG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A

MCDONALD'S NETWORK, IT BECAME A MCDONALD'S COUNTRY. AND PEOPLE IN MCDONALD'S COUNTRIES DIDN'T LIKE TO FIGHT WARS

ANYMORE, THEY PREFERRED TO WAIT IN LINE FOR BURGERS

(FRIEDMAN 1999: 277-278)

“

”

THE SPREAD OF CAPITALISM HAS RAISED LIVING STANDARDS HIGHER, FASTER AND FOR MORE PEOPLE THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY. IT HAS ALSO BROUGHT MORE POOR PEOPLE INTO THE MIDDLE CLASSES MORE QUICKLY THAN AT ANY TIME IN

HUMAN HISTORY. SO WHILE THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IS GETTING WIDER –AS THE WINNERS IN TODAY'S GLOBALIZATION SYSTEM REALLY TAKE OFF AND

SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM EVERYONE ELSE - THE FLOOR UNDER THE POOR HASBEEN RISING STEADILY IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD. IN OTHER WORDS, WHILE

RELATIVE POVERTY MAY BE GROWING IN MANY COUNTRIES, ABSOLUTE POVERTY ISACTUALLY FALLING IN MANY COUNTRIES

(FRIEDMAN 1999: 384)

“

”

A HEALTHY GLOBAL SOCIETY IS ONE THAT CAN BALANCE THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE ALL THE TIME, AND THERE IS NO BETTER MODEL

FOR THIS ON EARTH TODAY THAN AMERICA. AND THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE SO STRONGLY THAT FOR GLOBALIZATION TO BE

SUSTAINABLE AMERICA MUST BE AT ITS BEST - TODAY, TOMORROW, ALL THE TIME. IT NOT ONLY CAN BE, IT MUST BE, A BEACON FOR THE

WHOLE WORLD. LET US NOT SQUANDER THIS PRECIOUS LEGACY

(FRIEDMAN 1999: 513)

• CROLLO DEL MURO DI BERLINO

• NETSCAPE

• “WORK-FLOW PHASE”

• OPEN-SOURCING

• OUTSOURCING

• OFFSHORING

• SUPPLY CHAIN ING.

• INSOURCING

• INFORMING

• DISPOSITIVI

“

”

THAT TIPPING POINT ARRIVED SOMETIME AROUND THE YEAR 2000. THE NET RESULT OF THIS CONVERGENCE WAS THE CREATION OF A GLOBAL, WEB-ENABLED PLAYING FIELD

THAT ALLOWS FOR MULTIPLE FORMS OF COLLABORATION-THE SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE AND WORK-IN REAL TIME, WITHOUT REGARD TO GEOGRAPHY,

DISTANCE, OR, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, EVEN LANGUAGE. NO, NOT EVERYONE HASACCESS YET TO THIS PLATFORM, THIS PLAYING FIELD, BUT IT IS OPEN TODAY TO MORE

PEOPLE IN MORE PLACES ON MORE DAYS IN MORE WAYS THAN ANYTHING LIKE ITEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THE

WORLD HAS BEEN FLATTENED

(FRIEDMAN 2005: 119)

“

”

NO TWO COUNTRIES THAT ARE BOTH PART OF A MAJOR GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN, LIKE DELL'S, WILL

EVER FIGHT A WAR AGAINST EACH OTHER AS LONG AS THEY ARE BOTH PART OF THE SAME GLOBAL

SUPPLY CHAIN

(FRIEDMAN 2005: 277)

PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

(1938)

• P. BUCHANAN (2001), THE DEATH OF THE WEST (NEW YORK: ST. MARTIN’S PRESS).

• P. BUCHANAN (2006), STATE OF EMERGENCY(NEW YORK: ST. MARTIN’S PRESS).

• P. BUCHANAN (2012), SUICIDE OF A SUPERPOWER (NEW YORK: ST. MARTIN’S PRESS).

QUATTRO MINACCE PER L’OCCIDENTE:

• INVASIONI (MIGRAZIONI)

• CROLLO DEMOGRAFICO

• MULTICULTURALISMO

• PERDITA DELLE SOVRANITÀ NAZIONALI

“

”

AN ECONOMIC UNION LIKE THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT A NATION. AN ECONOMY IS NOT A COUNTRY. AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM SHOULD STRENGTHEN THE BONDS OF NATIONAL UNION, BUT THE NATION IS OF A HIGHER ORDER THAN THE CONSTRUCTOF ANY ECONOMIST. A NATION IS ORGANIC; A NATION IS ALIVE; A N~TION HAS A

BEATING HEART. A CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CREATE A NATION. A NATION WRITES A CONSTITUTION THAT IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE NATION ALREADY BORN IN THE HEARTS OF ITS PEOPLE. SO IT WAS WITH THE AMERICAN NATION. FOR A NATION TO ENDURE, ITS PEOPLE MUST FORM A MORAL AND A SOCIAL COMMUNITY AND SHARE

HIGHER VALUES THAN ECONOMIC INTERESTS

(BUCHANAN 2006: 141)

“

”

NATIONS EVERYWHERE ARE PUTTING THEIR OWN INTERESTS FIRST, WHICH SOME OF US PREDICTED DECADES AGO. FOR

GLOBALIZATION’S FATAL DEFICIENCY IS THAT IT DOES NOT ENGAGETHE HEART. IT HAS NEVER WON OVER PEOPLES FOR WHOM LOVE

AND LOYALTY GO NO HIGHER THAN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. ITNEVER WILL. NO ONE WILL FIGHT AND DIE FOR SOME VAGUE NEW

WORLD ORDER

(BUCHANAN 2012: 900)

“

”

ONE CANNOT BE A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD. IDENTITY IS LOCAL. […] IN THE NEW POST-POST COLD WAR WORLD, WITH NATIONALISM

RETURNING AND ETHNONATIONALISM SURGING, AMERICA NEEDS TO LOOK BEYOND THE IDEAS AND INSTITUTIONS OF GLOBALIST IDEOLOGYAND START LOOKING OUT AGAIN, AS WE SHOULD HAVE DONE, TWO

DECADES AGO, FOR OUR OWN COUNTRY AND OUR OWN PEOPLEFIRST

(BUCHANAN 2012: 902)

TAKIS FOTOPOULOS(1940)

• T. FOTOPOULOS (1997), TOWARD AN INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY (LONDON: CASSELL); TRAD. IT. (1999), PER UNADEMOCRAZIA GLOBALE (MILANO:

ELEUTHERA)

• T. FOTOPOULOS (2005), THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL CRISIS

AND INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY (ATHENS: GORDIOS)

“

”

LA DEMOCRAZIA POLITICA COMPORTA LA CREAZIONE DI ISTITUZIONI POLITICHE DI DEMOCRAZIA DIRETTA, DI MODO CHE TUTTE LE DECISIONI SIANO PRESE DA ASSEMBLEE LOCALI DI CITTADINI; LA DEMOCRAZIA

ECONOMICA COMPORTA LA CREAZIONE DI ISTITUZIONI CHE GARANTISCANO LA PROPRIETÀ COMUNE DELLE RISORSE PRODUTTIVE (LE FONTI DELLA RICCHEZZA SOCIALE) E IL LORO CONTROLLO COLLETTIVO DA PARTE

DELLE ASSEMBLEE LOCALI; LA DEMOCRAZIA SOCIALE COMPORTA LA CREAZIONE DI ISTITUTI DI AUTOGESTIONE DELLE FABBRICHE, DEGLI UFFICI E PIÙ GENERALMENTE DEI LUOGHI DI PRODUZIONE DI BENI

O DI SERVIZI, COMPRESI QUELLI CULTURALI, ARTISTICI E SCOLASTICI; LA DEMOCRAZIA ECOLOGICA COMPORTA LA CREAZIONE DI ISTITUZIONI E DI UNA CULTURA CHE ASSICURINO LA REINTEGRAZIONE DELLA

SOCIETÀ NELLA NATURA

HTTP://WWW.INCLUSIVEDEMOCRACY.ORG/ID_ITALIAN.HTM)

“

”

THE BASIC UNIT OF DECISION MAKING IN AN INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY IS THE DEMOTIC ASSEMBLY, I.E. THE ASSEMBLY OF DEMOS, THE CITIZEN BODY IN A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAT DELEGATES POWER TO DEMOTIC COURTS, DEMOTIC MILITIAS ETCETERA. HOWEVER, APART

FROM THE DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, THERE ARE A LOT OF IMPORTANT DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE REGIONAL OR CONFEDERAL LEVEL, AS WELL AS AT THE WORKPLACE. SO, AN INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY TODAY CAN ONLY TAKE THE FORM OF A

CONFEDERAL DEMOCRACY THAT IS BASED ON A NETWORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCILS WHOSE MEMBERS OR DELEGATES ARE ELECTED FROM POPULAR FACE-TO-FACE DEMOCRATIC ASSEMBLIES IN THE VARIOUS DEMOI, WHICH, GEOGRAPHICALLY, MAY ENCOMPASS A TOWN

AND THE SURROUNDING VILLAGES, OR EVEN NEIGHBOURHOODS OF LARGE CITIES

(FOTOPOULOS 2005: 205)

“

”

POLITICAL GLOBALISATION REFERS TO THE WITHERING AWAY OF THE NATION-STATE (AT LEAST AS FAR AS ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY IS CONCERNED). CULTURAL

GLOBALISATION, REFERS TO THE PRESENT HOMOGENISATION OF CULTURE, AS EXPRESSED FOR INSTANCE BY THE FACT THAT ALMOST EVERYBODY IN TODAY’S’ ‘GLOBAL VILLAGE’ WATCHES MORE OR LESS THE SAME TV SERIALS AND VIDEOS, CONSUMES – OR ASPIRES TO CONSUME – THE SAME PRODUCTS AND SO ON.

FINALLY, SOCIAL GLOBALISATION REFERS TO THE HOMOGENISATION OF TODAY’S’ MODE OF LIFE WHICH IS BASED ON INDIVIDUALIST AND CONSUMERIST CULTURE

T. FOTOPOULOS (2001), GLOBALISATION, THE REFORMIST LEFT AND THE ANTI-GLOBALISATION “MOVEMENT”, IN “DEMOCRACY & NATURE: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY”, 7(2), P. 234)

• T. FOTOPOULOS (2016), BREXIT, GLOBALIZATION AND THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE GLOBALIST “LEFT, IN “THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY”, 12(1/2), PP. 26-58

• T. FOTOPOULOS (2016), AUSTRIAN ELECTIONS, GLOBALIZATION, THE MASSIVE RISE OF NEO-NATIONALISM AND THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE LEFT, IN “THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY”, 12(1/2), PP. 63-75

• T. FOTOPOULOS (2016), THE REVOLUTION OF THE VICTIMS OF GLOBALIZATION IN THE USA AND THE MASSIVE COUNTER-ATTACK, “THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY”, 12(1/2), PP. 116-133

• T. FOTOPOULOS (2016), DIEM25: A MANIFESTO FOR DEMOCRATIZING EUROPE OR FOR PERPETUATING THE EU ELITES’ DOMINATION OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLES? – TOWARDS A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS, IN

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY”, 12(1/2), PP. 5-25

Globale

Locale

Globale

Locale

Globofilia Globofobia

“

”

I SKETCH ASPECTS OF A CRITICAL THEORY OF GLOBALIZATION THAT WILL DISCUSS THE FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE WORLD ECONOMY, POLITICS, AND CULTURE IN A DIALECTICAL FRAMEWORK

THAT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE AND EMANCIPATORY FEATURES AND OPPRESSIVE AND NEGATIVE ATTRIBUTES. […] I ARGUE THAT THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING GLOBALIZATION IS THEORIZING IT

AS AT ONCE A PRODUCT OF TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND THE GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING OF CAPITALISM IN WHICH ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL FEATURES ARE

INTERTWINED. FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, ONE SHOULD AVOID BOTH TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC DETERMINISM AND ALL ONE-SIDED OPTICS OF GLOBALIZATION IN FAVOR OF A VIEW THAT THEORIZES

GLOBALIZATION AS A HIGHLY COMPLEX, CONTRADICTORY, AND THUS AMBIGUOUS SET OF INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIAL RELATIONS, AS WELL AS ONE INVOLVING FLOWS OF GOODS, SERVICES, IDEAS,

TECHNOLOGIES, CULTURAL FORMS, AND PEOPLE

D. KELLNER (2002), THEORIZING GLOBALIZATION, IN “SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY”, 20, 3, P. 286

“

”

MY INTENTION IS TO PRESENT GLOBALIZATION AS CONFLICTUAL, CONTRADICTORY, AND OPEN TO RESISTANCE AND DEMOCRATIC

INTERVENTION AND TRANSFORMATION, NOT JUST AS A MONOLITHIC JUGGERNAUT OF PROGRESS OR DOMINATION, AS IN MANY DISCOURSES. THIS GOAL IS ADVANCED BY DISTINGUISHING

BETWEEN ‘GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW’ AND THE ‘GLOBALIZATION FROM ABOVE

D. KELLNER (2002), THEORIZING GLOBALIZATION, IN “SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY”, 20, 3, P. 293

ANTONIO NEGRI (1933)MICHAEL HARDT (1960)

• A. NEGRI, M. HARDT (2000), EMPIRE (CAMBRIDGE: HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS); TRAD. IT. (2002), IMPERO. IL NUOVO ORDINE

DELLA GLOBALIZZAZIONE (MILANO: RIZZOLI).

• A. NEGRI, M. HARDT (2004), MULTITUDE. WAR AND DEMOCRACY IN THE AGE OF EMPIRE (NEW YORK: PENGUIN BOOKS); TRAD. IT. (2004),

MOLTITUDINE. GUERRA E DEMOCRAZIA NEL NUOVO ORDINE IMPERIALE(MILANO: RIZZOLI).

• A. NEGRI AND M. HARDT (2009), COMMONWEALTH (CAMBRIDGE: THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS); TRAD. IT. (2010),

COMUNE. OLTRE IL PRIVATO E IL PUBBLICO (MILANO: RIZZOLI).

“

”

EMPIRE IS MATERIALIZING BEFORE OUR VERY EYES. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, AS COLONIAL REGIMES WERE OVERTHROWN AND THEN PRECIPITOUSLY AFTER THE SOVIET

BARRIERS TO THE CAPITALIST WORLD MARKET FINALLY COLLAPSED, WE HAVE WITNESSED AN IRRESISTIBLE AND IRREVERSIBLE GLOBALISATION OF ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL EXCHANGES.

[…] IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT, IN STEP WITH THE PROCESSES OF GLOBALISATION, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATION-STATES, WHILE STILL EFFECTIVE, HAS PROGRESSIVELY DECLINED. […] OUR BASIC HYPOTHESIS IS THAT SOVEREIGNTY HAS TAKEN A NEW FORM, COMPOSED OF A SERIES OF NATIONAL AND SUPRANATIONAL ORGANISMS UNITED UNDER A SINGLE LOGIC OF

RULE. THIS NEW GLOBAL FORM OF SOVEREIGNTY IS WHAT WE CALL EMPIRE

(NEGRI AND HARDT 2000: XI-XII)

“

”

THE REVOLTING MASSES, THEIR DESIRE FOR LIBERATION, THEIR EXPERIMENTS TO CONSTRUCT ALTERNATIVES, AND THEIR

INSTANCES OF CONSTITUENT POWER HAVE ALL AT THEIR BEST MOMENTS POINTED TOWARD THE INTERNATIONALIZATION

AND GLOBALISATION OF RELATIONSHIPS

(NEGRI AND HARDT 2000: 42-43)

“

”

GLOBALISATION, OF COURSE, IS NOT ONE THING, AND THE MULTIPLE PROCESSES THAT WE RECOGNIZE AS GLOBALISATION ARE NOT UNIFIED OR UNIVOCAL

(NEGRI AND HARDT 2000: XV)

“

”

THERE ARE TWO FACES TO GLOBALISATION. ON ONE FACE, EMPIRE SPREADS GLOBALLY ITS NETWORK OF HIERARCHIES AND DIVISIONS THAT MAINTAIN ORDER THROUGH NEW

MECHANISMS OF CONTROL AND CONSTANT CONFLICT. GLOBALISATION, HOWEVER, IS ALSO THE CREATION OF NEW CIRCUITS OF COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION THAT STRETCH

ACROSS NATIONS AND CONTINENTS AND ALLOW AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS. THIS SECOND FACE OF GLOBALISATION IS NOT A MATTER OF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD BECOMING THE SAME; RATHER, IT PROVIDES THE POSSIBILITY THAT, WHILE REMAINING

DIFFERENT, WE DISCOVER THE COMMONALITY THAT ENABLES US TO COMMUNICATE AND ACT TOGETHER

(NEGRI AND HARDT 2004: XIII)

“

”

ONE PRIMARY EFFECT OF GLOBALISATION […] IS THE CREATION OF A COMMON WORLD, A WORLD THAT,

FOR BETTER OR WORSE, WE ALL SHARE

(NEGRI AND HARDT 2009: VII)

“

”

IN MANY CHARACTERISATIONS THE PROBLEM RESTS ON A FALSE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THE GLOBAL AND THE LOCAL, ASSUMING THAT THE GLOBAL ENTAILS HOMOGENISATION AND UNDIFFERENTIATED IDENTITY WHEREAS THE

LOCAL PRESERVES HETEROGENEITY AND DIFFERENCE. […] THIS VIEW CAN EASILY DEVOLVE INTO A KIND OF PRIMORDIALISM THAT FIXES AND ROMANTICIZES SOCIAL RELATIONS AND IDENTITIES. WHAT NEEDS TO BE

ADDRESSED, INSTEAD, IS PRECISELY THE PRODUCTION OF LOCALITY, THAT IS, THE SOCIAL MACHINES THAT CREATE AND RECREATE THE IDENTITIES AND DIFFERENCES THAT ARE UNDERSTOOD AS THE LOCAL. […] GLOBALITY SIMILARLY

SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF CULTURAL, POLITICAL, OR ECONOMIC HOMOGENISATION. GLOBALISATION, LIKE LOCALISATION, SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD INSTEAD AS A REGIME OF THE PRODUCTION OF

IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE, OR REALLY HOMOGENISATION AND HETEROGENISATION. […] THE LEFTIST STRATEGY OF RESISTANCE TO GLOBALISATION AND DEFENCE OF LOCALITY IS ALSO DAMAGING BECAUSE IN MANY CASES WHAT

APPEAR AS LOCAL IDENTITIES ARE NOT AUTONOMOUS OR SELF-DETERMINING BUT ACTUALLY FEED INTO AND SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPITALIST IMPERIAL MACHINE

(NEGRI AND HARDT 2000: 44-45)