Pokrewne
- Strona Główna
- Famous Flyers Rachel A. Koestler Grack Eddie Rickenbacker (2003)
- Harvard Business School Press Working Identity 2003
- (App Tutorial) Microsoft Office Excel 2003 Inside Out
- Mark W. Harris Historical Dictionary of Unitarian Universalism (2003)
- Science Fiction (28) lipiec 2003
- Science Fiction (25) kwiecien 2003
- Microsoft Office Excel 2003 Bible
- Science Fiction (31) pazdziernik 2003
- Francois Voltaire Prostaczek
- bliziński józef komedie (2)
- zanotowane.pl
- doc.pisz.pl
- pdf.pisz.pl
- dmn.xlx.pl
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In some cases, the object o f military force is indeed exemplaryterror, pour encourager les autres, or what has been called the demonstration effect.This was, according to right-wing US commentators like Charles Krauthammer, the main purpose of the warin Afghanistan, designed to spread fear throughout the region andbeyond.In other cases, there may be direct intervention to bringabout regime change.In the Middle East, we are already seeingsomething like a return to an earlier imperialism, with the fairlyexplicit intention o f restructuring the region even more directly inthe interests o f US capital.The new imperialism may here be comingfull circle.Like the British in India, when commercial imperialismgave way to direct imperial rule, the US may be finding that empirecreates its own territorial imperative.In yet other cases, especially in the advanced capitalist states, thepolitical environment is shaped indirectly.Just as the state o f war isintended to create the right political climate at home in the US, alliesare drawn into its hegemonic orbit by their implication in pacts andalliances and by means o f a military supremacy so daunting andexpensive that other major economic powers will see no point inseeking to match it.16 In all cases, the overriding objective is todemonstrate and consolidate US domination over the system ofmultiples states.Such purposes help to explain why the US wields such disproportionate military power, why there has developed a pattern of resortto military action by the US in situations ill-suited to militarysolutions, why massive military action is anything but a last resort,and why the connection between means and ends in these militaryventures is typically so tenuous.This war without end in purpose or time belongs to an endless i 6 8 Empi re of Capi talempire without boundaries or even territory.Yet this is an empirethat must be administered by institutions and powers which doindeed have territorial boundaries.The consequence o f a globalizedeconomy has been that capital depends more, not less, on a systemo f local states to manage the economy, and states have become more,not less, involved in organizing economic circuits.This means thatthe old capitalist division o f labour between capital and state,between economic and political power, has been disrupted.At thesame time, there is a growing gulf between the global economic reacho f capital and the local powers it needs to sustain it, and the militarydoctrine o f the Bush regime is an attempt to fill the gap.In its efforts to resolve these contradictions, the Bush Doctrinecertainly represents a danger to the whole world, but it also testifiesto the risks and instabilities of a global empire that relies on manylocal states, a global economy managed by local administrations andnational states which are vulnerable to challenge by truly democraticstruggles.In the disparity between global economic power and itslocal political supports, there is surely an expanding space foropposition. NOTESPREFACE TO THE PAPERBACK EDITIONOne reference, right at the beginning o f the book, appeared in a footnotewhich, I regret to say, went missing in the Verso publication process,although it had appeared in the earlier, Indian edition published byLeftWord, as the first footnote in the Introduction.The correction hasbeen made for this paperback edition.For a critique o f Empire, see m y essay A Manifesto for Global Capitalism? in the collection Debating Empire, edited by Gopal Balakrishnan(London and New York: Verso, 2003).INTRODUCTIONNot long after these words were written newspapers reported plans bythe US to occupy Iraq after going to war.To put it briefly, M arx explains that workers are paid for their labourpower, not for the fruits o f their labour.The capitalist pays a wage to buythat labour power, typically for a fixed period o f time, and thereby gains 1 7 0 Not es to p a g e s 9 - 4 0control o f everything the worker produces during that time, which canthen be sold on the market.The object, then, is to maximize thedifference between what capital pays for labour power and what it canderive from the products o f labour.3.Philip Bobbitt, The Shield o f Achilles (London: Allen Lane Penguin, 2002);Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 2000).Given Empire's central premise and its implications for resistance, it is perhaps not surprising that this book receivedsuch respectful attention in unexpected quarters in the mainstream, farfrom anti-capitalist or anti-globalization, press.This argument is developed at length in m y 'A Manifesto for Global Capital? in G.Balakrishnan,ed Debating Empire (London and New York: Verso, 2003).1 THE DETACHMENT OF ECONOMIC POWER1.This chapter is based on m y article, Where is the Power of Capital:Globalization and the Nation State , in Alfredo Saad-Filho, ed., Anti-Capitalism: A Marxist Introduction (London: Pluto Press, 2002).2.Gerard Greenfield, Devastating, with a Difference: From Anti-CorporatePopulism to Anti-Capitalist Alternatives , Against the Current 93, July/August 2001, pp.12-14.The quotations are from pp.13 and 14.2 THE EMPIRE OF PROPERTY1 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl agnieszka90.opx.pl
.In some cases, the object o f military force is indeed exemplaryterror, pour encourager les autres, or what has been called the demonstration effect.This was, according to right-wing US commentators like Charles Krauthammer, the main purpose of the warin Afghanistan, designed to spread fear throughout the region andbeyond.In other cases, there may be direct intervention to bringabout regime change.In the Middle East, we are already seeingsomething like a return to an earlier imperialism, with the fairlyexplicit intention o f restructuring the region even more directly inthe interests o f US capital.The new imperialism may here be comingfull circle.Like the British in India, when commercial imperialismgave way to direct imperial rule, the US may be finding that empirecreates its own territorial imperative.In yet other cases, especially in the advanced capitalist states, thepolitical environment is shaped indirectly.Just as the state o f war isintended to create the right political climate at home in the US, alliesare drawn into its hegemonic orbit by their implication in pacts andalliances and by means o f a military supremacy so daunting andexpensive that other major economic powers will see no point inseeking to match it.16 In all cases, the overriding objective is todemonstrate and consolidate US domination over the system ofmultiples states.Such purposes help to explain why the US wields such disproportionate military power, why there has developed a pattern of resortto military action by the US in situations ill-suited to militarysolutions, why massive military action is anything but a last resort,and why the connection between means and ends in these militaryventures is typically so tenuous.This war without end in purpose or time belongs to an endless i 6 8 Empi re of Capi talempire without boundaries or even territory.Yet this is an empirethat must be administered by institutions and powers which doindeed have territorial boundaries.The consequence o f a globalizedeconomy has been that capital depends more, not less, on a systemo f local states to manage the economy, and states have become more,not less, involved in organizing economic circuits.This means thatthe old capitalist division o f labour between capital and state,between economic and political power, has been disrupted.At thesame time, there is a growing gulf between the global economic reacho f capital and the local powers it needs to sustain it, and the militarydoctrine o f the Bush regime is an attempt to fill the gap.In its efforts to resolve these contradictions, the Bush Doctrinecertainly represents a danger to the whole world, but it also testifiesto the risks and instabilities of a global empire that relies on manylocal states, a global economy managed by local administrations andnational states which are vulnerable to challenge by truly democraticstruggles.In the disparity between global economic power and itslocal political supports, there is surely an expanding space foropposition. NOTESPREFACE TO THE PAPERBACK EDITIONOne reference, right at the beginning o f the book, appeared in a footnotewhich, I regret to say, went missing in the Verso publication process,although it had appeared in the earlier, Indian edition published byLeftWord, as the first footnote in the Introduction.The correction hasbeen made for this paperback edition.For a critique o f Empire, see m y essay A Manifesto for Global Capitalism? in the collection Debating Empire, edited by Gopal Balakrishnan(London and New York: Verso, 2003).INTRODUCTIONNot long after these words were written newspapers reported plans bythe US to occupy Iraq after going to war.To put it briefly, M arx explains that workers are paid for their labourpower, not for the fruits o f their labour.The capitalist pays a wage to buythat labour power, typically for a fixed period o f time, and thereby gains 1 7 0 Not es to p a g e s 9 - 4 0control o f everything the worker produces during that time, which canthen be sold on the market.The object, then, is to maximize thedifference between what capital pays for labour power and what it canderive from the products o f labour.3.Philip Bobbitt, The Shield o f Achilles (London: Allen Lane Penguin, 2002);Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 2000).Given Empire's central premise and its implications for resistance, it is perhaps not surprising that this book receivedsuch respectful attention in unexpected quarters in the mainstream, farfrom anti-capitalist or anti-globalization, press.This argument is developed at length in m y 'A Manifesto for Global Capital? in G.Balakrishnan,ed Debating Empire (London and New York: Verso, 2003).1 THE DETACHMENT OF ECONOMIC POWER1.This chapter is based on m y article, Where is the Power of Capital:Globalization and the Nation State , in Alfredo Saad-Filho, ed., Anti-Capitalism: A Marxist Introduction (London: Pluto Press, 2002).2.Gerard Greenfield, Devastating, with a Difference: From Anti-CorporatePopulism to Anti-Capitalist Alternatives , Against the Current 93, July/August 2001, pp.12-14.The quotations are from pp.13 and 14.2 THE EMPIRE OF PROPERTY1 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]