The Picklock That Opens All Doors

The Picklock That Opens All Doors Of all intellectuals within the anti-capitalist movement, the ideas of Italian autonomist Antonio Negri have the widest influence. But are they the theoretical weapons needed to overthrow capitalism? Karen O'Toole takes a look. 3 Antonio Negri, 'The Order of War'. This article first appeared in the Italian magazine Global in November 2002. Available at: www.16beavergroup.org/ Politics issue_002 winter, 2004 Socialist_Outlook When Toni Negri's book Empirel was published in collaboration with Michael Hardt, it was touted by some on the left as the modern equivalent of the Communist Manifesto. It has helped to shape the ideas of thinkers in the anti-globalisation movement such as Naomi Klein and John Holloway. The theories that Negri deals with are as complicated as his writing style, described by his translator as notoriously difficult, even in Italian. But they fundamentally challenge Marxist ideas about imperialism, the state, the working class and the role of the revolutionary organisation. Below is a brief summation of their ideas, including more recent material since the war on Iraq, together with the outlines of a Marxist response to these ideas. Pages more could and should be written on the questions raised by these arguments. Suffice to say, this is to open a debate for the year that sees the European Social Forum coming to London. Negri and now by association Hardt's general theme is the post-Cold War restructuring of capitalism. This has bed one comes is pricklock that 1) Globalisation has changed capitalist organisation to such an extent that one of Marxism's central components - imperialism - is out of date. Empire defines the modern world more accurately because power is decentred or heterogeneous. The nation state is one of many spheres of influence affecting global politics, but no longer the most important. 2) The traditional agency of change which the left has looked to, the working class, has been superseded 1 Antonio Negri & Michael Hardi, (2000) Empire, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press 2 Sergio Bologna, 'Otto tesi per la storia militante', Primo Maggio 11, 1977, p 61. mtarchive/archives/000026.php by the 'multitude Often ambiguous (something that Negri and Hardt seem to revel in) and contradictory in its description of a new class composition, the theory of the 'multitude' is seen by some as a welcome break from leftist dogma, and by others as the creation of a mythical class. For the movement as a whole and revolutionaries within it, Negri poses a real dilemma. If capitalism has restruc- tured as fundamentally as is claimed, the need for the revolutionary transformation of society as defined by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky is as obsolete as the society they sought to overthrow. Moreover, there is lit- tle possibility of doing so, given the lack of a coherent revolutionary agent in the shape of the working class. Empire and the nation state If state-based imperialism were obsolete, it would be difficult to explain the US-led assault on and colonial occupation of Iraq. Empire was written in 2000, before billions of dollars of contracts were awarded to US corporations, and before the development of the resistance movement within Iraq, yet Negri has a response. He claims that the resistance is a throwback to the dark, pre-Empire days of nationalism. Nationalisms, even and especially those advocated by the Left (found frequently amongst ex-colonial countries or ones that are extremely dependent as in Latin America) represent a great danger, giving rise to the illusion that imperial rule based on capitalist exploitation can be influenced or even beaten at the e

5 Toni Negri & Michael Hardt, Online discussion 3 May 2000. Available at: www.milkbar.com.au/globalhistory/negri.htm 6 Michael Hardt, 'Global Elites Must Realise that US Imperialism Isn't in Their Interest', The Guardian, December 18, 2002. http:// " Antonio Negri, 'The Order of War'. This article first appeared in the Italian magazine Glohal in November 2002. Available at: www.16beavergroup.org/ According to Negri and Hardt's Empire, globalisation has enabled a more transient and heterogeneous structure of power to develop. The world order emerging out of the Cold War is not based on that of nation states, but on a form of empire such as Rome, mixing three constitutional elements in order to ensure regeneration; monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Hardt and Negri's modern day world of empire includes the nuclear supremacy of the US, representing the monarchical, the economic dominance of the G7 and the multinationals, representing the aristocratic and intellect, representing the democratic principle. All these elements are encapsulated in Empire as a constitutional system. Some critics pointed out, well before 9/11, that the attempt to define Empire as a constitutional system poses problems. 'What constituent power brought it into being, or decides how international law is to be interpreted, and when it can be suspended? If the New World Order can be defined as Empire, it is because of the overwhelming concentration of power in the US? 4 Yet Negri and Hardt think this is not the case, When we understand empire as a global constitution that does not exclude the fact that there remains today national and international entities that control cur- rency, economic flow and production. Our concept of empire is based on the notion of a mixed constitu tion that incorporates national, local and international organisms within a super-national and in fact global order. It is still of extreme importance to struggle with and against powers of the nation state and the interna- tional entities, such as the European union. But also we have to recognise the ultimate sovereignty of the new order on a global scale. S In December 2002, facing the prospect of the assault on Iraq, Hardt wrote; 'These military adventures are one sign that the US is fast becoming an imperialist power along the old European model, but on a global scale.' The alternative Hardt looks to as a counter to US dominance is not 'the multitude' we expect, but the bourgeoisie itself: "The common interests of the global elites are most visible in the economic sphere. Business leaders around the globe recognise that imperialism is bad for business because it sets up 4 Gopal Balakrishnan, 'Hardt and Negri's Empire', New Left Review 5, September-October 2000 slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/18/1535212 mtarchive/archives/000026.php 6 Ibid. Politics issue_002 winter, 2004 Socialist_Outlook barriers that hinder global flows...Even for the US industrialists drunk on oil, their real interests lie in the potential profits of capitalist globalisation.? So for Hardt, imperialism is not connected to oil companies because the war in Iraq does not serve their interests. For all his faults, Hardt at least admits his notion of Empire is more of an idea than a reality. Not so for Negri, who continues to insist that the war on Iraq does not disprove the theory of Empire, but confirms it. It is well known that in Empire the sole exercise of military power...is far from Page_17 sufficient to secure centrality and stability for the exercise of global power. Moreover, S11 has shown that the United States is in no respects an island. The ensuing economic crisis...has demonstrated that in Empire monarchy [the US] cannot survive unless it is in agreement with the global aristocracy [he means China, Russia and Europe]. Therefore, the war that's brewing contains within its core a discussion on the imperial constitution... ' Here, the structure of Empire would ensure that the US policy of going it alone with Blair would be held in check by the need for consensus between the US and other strong and powerful nation states, even though they have competing imperial interests. This presupposes a core within Empire that is fundamentally peace-loving and rational. Negri goes on to argue that any attempt to fight imperialism at the level of the nation state is bound to fail. On the eve of war he published his alternative model, 'Now resistance to imperial war is possible only by going beyond the narrow confines of nation and region; it is possible only on the level of global networks of resistance? 8 This of course contains a kernel of truth. However, Marxists would disagree with Negri's strategy for fighting imperialism, which is threefold: 1) Don't fight against national governments engaged e t

9 For a comprehensive history and analysis of Italian autonomism see Steve Wright, (2002) Storming Heaven, Class Composition and Struggle in Italian 12 Antonio Negri, 'Time For Revolution', Continuum 2003, p. 269. Buried away in the translator's notes is an acknowledgement from Negri that the Politics issue_002 winter, 2004 Socialist_Outlook in imperialist war, it sows illusions in nationalism, a throwback to the days before empire 2) Exodus: do not participate in the imperial constitution. Use intellectual and ethical production to oppose 3) the constitution of empire This ignores the interrelationship between national and international struggles - the way that the Euro- pean anti-war mobilisations gave heart to dissenters in the Arab Middle East, for example, or, currently, the cross-fertilisation between radical mass movements based in different Latin American countries. The 'exodus' being advocated at least avoids the danger of collaboration with imperial power, but at the price of abstaining from struggle. All that is left is the work of intellectuals, and how their ideas could have any reso- nance, in the absence of a militant mass movement, is not explained. From working class to 'multitude' Negri's rejection of the working class as an agent for ridding the world of capitalism goes back to his earlier involvement in the Italian autonomist movement of the 1970s. 9 In its early stages, autonomism represented a positive refusal to separate political and economic spheres of struggle, which had been the norm within the traditional left of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and Italian Socialist Party (PSI). Yet by the end of the 70s Negri had replaced the idea of the industrial worker with that of the 'social worker', a term which meant all who suffered oppression or exploitation; the unemployed, students, women in the home. The basis of Negri's claim was that the composition of the working class had altered, so that it was no longer primarily the mass industrial workforce of northern Italy. By revising central themes of Marxism, Negri and others before him 10 fundamentally broke from the tradition of Marxism which placed the working class at the centre of revolutionary change. Negri argued that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the law of value itself had disappeared. Hence the working class, which according to Marx produces surplus value, is no longer defined by this type of exploitation. As an alternative to the industrial F Autonomist Marxism, Pluto Press. 10 Wright, Storming Heaven, p.94 I1 Wright, Storming Heaven, chapter 4, 'New Subjects', pp. 89-106. concept of 'multitude' is a work in progress 13 V I Lenin, (1986) The State, Progress Publishers. working class, Negri, who was formulating his ideas in the context of rising movements such as that of university students, began to look specifically at the role of intellectual labour. " Negri's revision of Marxism has taken decades, culminating in the complete transformation of the working class into 'the multitude', a term which even Negri acknowledges is vague and undeveloped.!2 With this formulation it is easy to see how the Marxist and Leninist definition of the state doesn't fit: 'History shows that the state as a special apparatus for coercing people arose wherever and whenever there appeared a division of society into classes...into groups of people, some of which were permanently in a position to appropriate the labour of others 13 If surplus value is not the key to defining the working class, then it makes sense to conclude that the role of the state, as the coercive framework for the extraction of surplus value, is diminished. Empire is the product of this reduction. In the context of Seattle and Genoa, Negri and Hardt's ideas appeared to many to explain reality. Here was a diverse international movement, in effect a 'multitude', fighting global rather than national capitalism. Yet for all the debate about decentred spheres and new global structures, the new world order looks remarkably similar to the old one; an unstable system of competition which seeks to maximise profit by any means necessary - political, economic and military. Of course international institutions have great power over peoples lives, but whose interests do they serve? Those of capitalist nation states and the corporations based in those states. Negri and Hardt's definition of the state is essentially neutral because the material basis for its existence, ex- ploitation, has been removed from the equation, and they come dangerously close to letting the state appa- ratus, police, judiciary, armed forces and governments off the hook. Worse still, they give the movement no tools to fight with, unless being in the 'multitude' with big capital is the alternative. The rejection of parties If you reject the Marxist theory of the state and the working class, then of course Leninist conceptions of the revolutionary organisation also go out of the window. Once again, this anti-party stance has n

its roots in Italian autonomism of the early 1970s. Rightly rejecting top-down Stalinist models of 'the leading role of the party' as an alien imposition upon the workers' movement, autonomists then unfortunately proceeded to throw out the Leninist baby with the Stalinist bathwater. This suspicion of Leninism has since been extended by Negri's acolytes, such as John Holloway, 14 and Katherine Ainger, the editor of New Internationalist, to all parties that wish to lead the working class and its allies in a struggle for socialism. Arguing against a party-led capture of power at state level, they point to the way that local communities in countries such as Argentina and Venezuela have organised to take control of the conditions of their daily life, based on the principles of co-operation and mutual aid. However, as Phil Hearse pointed out in a recent 14 See his book Change the World Without Taking Power. 15 Phil Hearse, 'New Internationalist goes off the rails', Socialist Resistance, January 2004. Politics issue_002 winter, 2004 Socialist_Outlook aide 1 take lad bed entral pese dent seriner weakened by mass national mobilisations, as in Argentina, or if the government is actively in favour of such developments, as in Venezuela. In the latter case, Chavez and his supporters have politically organised among the masses and helped to strengthen their self- activity, rather than merely substituting for them. In reality, the lasting success of any local initiatives is dependent on winning the battle for power first at a national level and then internationally. Moreover, a task of this scale requires the creation of a politically coherent force that can give direction to the struggle: in other words, a party. Refusal of this option will ultimately lead straight to the old anarchist trap of de- claring that one's understanding of the masses allows one to speak for them - which is just another form of substitutionism. e )