Empire by Antonio Negri, Professor Michael Hardt Page B
Authors: Antonio Negri, Professor Michael Hardt
Ads: Link
grubbed old mole!’’17 Well, we suspect that Marx’s old
mole has finally died. It seems to us, in fact, that in the contemporary
passage to Empire, the structured tunnels ofthe mole have been
replaced by the infinite undulations ofthe snake.18 The depths
ofthe modern world and its subterranean passageways have in
postmodernity all become superficial. Today’s struggles slither si-
58
T H E P O L I T I C A L C O N S T I T U T I O N O F T H E P R E S E N T
lently across these superficial, imperial landscapes. Perhaps the in-
communicability ofstruggles, the lack ofwell-structured, communi-
cating tunnels, is in fact a strength rather than a weakness—a strength
because all ofthe movements are immediately subversive in them-
selves and do not wait on any sort ofexternal aid or extension to
guarantee their effectiveness. Perhaps the more capital extends its
global networks ofproduction and control, the more powerful any
singular point ofrevolt can be. Simply by focusing their own powers,
concentrating their energies in a tense and compact coil, these
serpentine struggles strike directly at the highest articulations of
imperial order. Empire presents a superficial world, the virtual center
ofwhich can be accessed immediately from any point across the
surface. If these points were to constitute something like a new cycle
ofstruggles, it would be a cycle defined not by the communicative
extension ofthe struggles but rather by their singular emergence,
by the intensity that characterizes them one by one. In short, this
new phase is defined by the fact that these struggles do not link
horizontally, but each one leaps vertically, directly to the virtual
center ofEmpire.
From the point ofview ofthe revolutionary tradition, one
might object that the tactical successes ofrevolutionary actions
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were all characterized
precisely by the capacity to blast open the weakest link ofthe imperialist chain, that this is the ABC ofrevolutionary dialectics, and thus
it would seem today that the situation is not very promising. It is
certainly true that the serpentine struggles we are witnessing today
do not provide any clear revolutionary tactics, or maybe they are
completely incomprehensible from the point ofview oftactics.
Faced as we are with a series ofintense subversive social movements
that attack the highest levels ofimperial organization, however, it
may be no longer useful to insist on the old distinction between
strategy and tactics. In the constitution ofEmpire there is no longer
an ‘‘outside’’ to power and thus no longer weak links—ifby weak
link we mean an external point where the articulations ofglobal
power are vulnerable.19 To achieve significance, every struggle must
attack at the heart ofEmpire, at its strength. That fact, however,
A L T E R N A T I V E S W I T H I N E M P I R E
59
does not give priority to any geographical regions, as ifonly social
movements in Washington, Geneva, or Tokyo could attack the
heart ofEmpire. On the contrary, the construction ofEmpire, and
the globalization ofeconomic and cultural relationships, means that
the virtual center ofEmpire can be attacked from any point. The
tactical preoccupations ofthe old revolutionary school are thus
completely irretrievable; the only strategy available to the struggles
is that ofa constituent counterpower that emerges from within
Empire.
Those who have difficulty accepting the novelty and revolu-
tionary potential ofthis situation from the perspective ofthe strug-
gles themselves might recognize it more easily from the perspective
ofimperial power, which is constrained to react to the struggles.
Even when these struggles become sites effectively closed to com-
munication, they are at the same time the maniacal focus of the
critical attention ofEmpire.20 They are educational lessons in the
classroom ofadministration and the chambers
mole has finally died. It seems to us, in fact, that in the contemporary
passage to Empire, the structured tunnels ofthe mole have been
replaced by the infinite undulations ofthe snake.18 The depths
ofthe modern world and its subterranean passageways have in
postmodernity all become superficial. Today’s struggles slither si-
58
T H E P O L I T I C A L C O N S T I T U T I O N O F T H E P R E S E N T
lently across these superficial, imperial landscapes. Perhaps the in-
communicability ofstruggles, the lack ofwell-structured, communi-
cating tunnels, is in fact a strength rather than a weakness—a strength
because all ofthe movements are immediately subversive in them-
selves and do not wait on any sort ofexternal aid or extension to
guarantee their effectiveness. Perhaps the more capital extends its
global networks ofproduction and control, the more powerful any
singular point ofrevolt can be. Simply by focusing their own powers,
concentrating their energies in a tense and compact coil, these
serpentine struggles strike directly at the highest articulations of
imperial order. Empire presents a superficial world, the virtual center
ofwhich can be accessed immediately from any point across the
surface. If these points were to constitute something like a new cycle
ofstruggles, it would be a cycle defined not by the communicative
extension ofthe struggles but rather by their singular emergence,
by the intensity that characterizes them one by one. In short, this
new phase is defined by the fact that these struggles do not link
horizontally, but each one leaps vertically, directly to the virtual
center ofEmpire.
From the point ofview ofthe revolutionary tradition, one
might object that the tactical successes ofrevolutionary actions
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were all characterized
precisely by the capacity to blast open the weakest link ofthe imperialist chain, that this is the ABC ofrevolutionary dialectics, and thus
it would seem today that the situation is not very promising. It is
certainly true that the serpentine struggles we are witnessing today
do not provide any clear revolutionary tactics, or maybe they are
completely incomprehensible from the point ofview oftactics.
Faced as we are with a series ofintense subversive social movements
that attack the highest levels ofimperial organization, however, it
may be no longer useful to insist on the old distinction between
strategy and tactics. In the constitution ofEmpire there is no longer
an ‘‘outside’’ to power and thus no longer weak links—ifby weak
link we mean an external point where the articulations ofglobal
power are vulnerable.19 To achieve significance, every struggle must
attack at the heart ofEmpire, at its strength. That fact, however,
A L T E R N A T I V E S W I T H I N E M P I R E
59
does not give priority to any geographical regions, as ifonly social
movements in Washington, Geneva, or Tokyo could attack the
heart ofEmpire. On the contrary, the construction ofEmpire, and
the globalization ofeconomic and cultural relationships, means that
the virtual center ofEmpire can be attacked from any point. The
tactical preoccupations ofthe old revolutionary school are thus
completely irretrievable; the only strategy available to the struggles
is that ofa constituent counterpower that emerges from within
Empire.
Those who have difficulty accepting the novelty and revolu-
tionary potential ofthis situation from the perspective ofthe strug-
gles themselves might recognize it more easily from the perspective
ofimperial power, which is constrained to react to the struggles.
Even when these struggles become sites effectively closed to com-
munication, they are at the same time the maniacal focus of the
critical attention ofEmpire.20 They are educational lessons in the
classroom ofadministration and the chambers
Similar Books
