Implicating Empire: Globalization & Resistance in the 21st Century World Order

Implicating Empire is the outcome of the "Globalisation and Resistance Conference," held in New York City in November of 2001 and sponsored by The Center For The Study Of Culture, Technology And Work. The Center founded in 1988, focuses on fostering connections between intellectuals and activists, through workshops, conferences, and research projects. A timely addition to the debate as the gulf between activists and academics has seldom been wider.

The book is essentially a debate on the globalisation thesis of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Its three sections, Terrorism and War; Globalisation the State, and the political economy; and finally the Culture of Globalisation and Resistance, are discussed in twenty-one chapters by various authors, all of whom are prominent U. S. and international commentators in their field.

For me the most interesting section is the Globalisation, the State, and Political Economy, here we are forced to confront the Hardt-Negri thesis head on. Globalisation has brought into being an Empire of supra-national organisations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the UN (and to a lesser extent the NGO's) standing over and above the nation state as the final authority, hence, the nation state can no longer claim the sole sovereignty or ultimate authority as they once could in the modem era. This new form of sovereignty requires new forms of resistance.

Globalisation brings together the G8, as self-imposed would be overlords of the world economy. Its meetings held behind razor wire in isolated distant places where capitalism puts on a happy face, smiles and says nice things for the cameras about funding anti AIDS campaigns in Africa then do little or nothing about it when it comes to putting the money on the table. The recent G8 meeting as held at the same time as Live-Aid was bringing the message of hungry millions who live on a dollar a day. The contrast could not have been greater.

Some argue that the west is in a race to the bottom, where few are winners. This is not to say that globalisation has not raised the living standards of some, and offered opportunities for rapid social change and if not the destruction of traditional habits it has certainly damaged them. We need only look at call centres in India to see women challenging the old repressive conditions, enjoying life styles and a level of 'affluence' undreamed of by their parents. Other examples can be sighted, but so too can the de-industrialisation and downside in developed countries, as well as 3d world countries forced to import toxic materials, where women are recruited for prostitution and drugs an unwelcome fringe benefit. Then there are the problems of affluence, ‘affluenza', a western phenomenon effecting many a waist line, where less than happy people indulge in dangerous consumption of alcohol, drugs and prescription medicines, where houses are never big enough and rising petrol prices that turns ordinary decent people into greedy consumers. Much like the curate's egg, good in parts.

I like many in the movement have struggled long and hard over globalisation, questioning its origin, its seemingly unbridled power and authority, only to conclude that while I have been soul searching the globalises have been busy spinning new yarns, of ever more varied designs. A new language has been woven into the yarn, each day new words are spewed from the corporate mouthpieces, all designed to confuse and bamboozle the unwary, where ‘we' are right, just and honourable, greed is good and stuff all others.

The word has got around that the giant corporations are unbeatable, all powerful so much as that the nation state is powerless to do anything when confronted by the supremacy. One must admit that at time they do seem overwhelming. Then we read of Enron we find there have feet of clay, the question for us is to seek out, discover the weakness, and there are many. Society is held together by an infinite number of illusions, the G8 exists only as long as corporations believe they best exemplify their interests; governments exist only as long as voters remain satisfied they provide the stability required to earn a living. The factory boss can only turn a profit as long as the workers are prepared to work. All are dependent, and by implication, culpable to varying degrees for the system. Simple yes, over simple possibly, but there is truth in it.

The old notions of Empire must have seemed overwhelming to the poor Indian. To the uneducated factory worker spending 12 to 16 hours a day at the cotton mill the boss surely seemed unbeatable. To the six year old in the coalmines of South Wales the world was a dark place indeed, yet from out of the dingy hovels these people emerged, slowly organising, learning and gaining strength through struggle

Clearly we face a different adversary, an opponent that is more educated, more sophisticated yet as vulnerable as the mill owner and the British Raja, Peter Brats makes a convincing case in "Over, Under, Sideways, Down: Globalisation, Spatial Metaphors, and the Question of State Power," he argues that theories that are overly legalistic interpretations of national, territorial boundaries and nationality confuse, cloud and divert theorists of globalisation, and the use of 'imprecise spatial metaphors" such as "above" that erroneously dichotomise political space into an "inside" or "outside" national boundaries, only confuse and impede resistance.

Implicating Empire is a worthy addition to an activists bookshelf, however it seems remarkable that a conference of scholars could fail to examine the roll of agriculture, and factory farming in such a discussion. Agriculture represents a sizable proportion of global activities; its roll in capital formation and exploitation of 3rd world peoples is enormous. Factory farms are a vital part of global capitalism. One wonders why the United States places so much emphasis on protecting its farm products when negotiating free trade agreements if they were unworthy of consideration.

One has to be honest here; much of the fault lay's on the animal movements side, the animal rights/liberation movement has volumes of well argued theories, yet many of the movements hard working and dedicated activists remain politically naïve, unable or unwilling to do other than turn a deaf ear to the political stage.

.