<nettime> Re: Zagreb interview with Michael Hardt

[Ognjen Strpic <ognjen@mi2.hr>]

dear Brian,

thank you for your kind comments on the interview. i was wondering would a
reader of the interview have the same impression that i had, that is, that
communism Hardt calls for is "communism" in quite a special meaning. but
it is this enchanted dance of the multitude on the edge of fascism that
worries me most.

this totalitarian potential of Empire that Zizek warns about stems not
only from its appeal for global citizenship. this loosely bounded
solidarity, a movements' ability to "recognize their common project" is
exactly the strategy of totalitarian movements.

i guess you might think of many historical examples, but what comes to
mind here in Croatia is so-called "Headquarters for protection of dignity
of Homeland War" lead by a paraplegic veteran Mirko Condic and supported
by virtually every right-wing movement in Croatia and Herzegovina.
(Homeland War is "official" name for the war in Croatia and, tacitly, also
in Bosnia and Herzegovina on behalf of Croatia)

basically, what they oppose is extradition of Croatian Hague-accused war
criminals. in the elaboration, their position might be described as one
that holds that notion of crime is suspended in a just war and that
Croatian soldiers and non-soldiers who did what they did (which becomes
irrelevant) are by definition impunible. the protestors are in part war
veterans (and their families), but there are many other otherwise
politically invisible people, too.

what's that got to do with Hardt-Negrian communism of the multitude? in a
word, everything. what they are effectively doing is while "remain[ing] a
multiplicity" (in terms of economical class, state-nationality -- many
protestors are from B&H and other countries, party-political -- Croatian
right is very fragmented and Condic doesn't represent any party, &c up to
right-wing environmentalists and the "apolitical") they "recognize how
they can become common". and they really do. they "solidarize" with their
fellowmen.

meanwhile, they heartedly resist cultural, political, and economical
aspects of globalization, criticize the government for being neo-liberal
in terms of weakening of social programs, submissive foreign policy,
corporations taking over local business etc.

prime minister called them "undemocratic" and refused to comment on their
proposals drawing on legitimacy of his elected government. he could have
just as well called them revolutionary.

in my mind, it's a hell of a symptom.


ps.
 > Perhaps when the Palestinians are
 > DESPERATE enough, they will adopt Ghandian non-violence, when faced
 > with the ABSOLUTE OPPRESSION of modern military technology.

i have a deja vu reading this line: almost the exact words Ghislaine 
Glasson told me over a glass of wine in Sarajevo. i felt enlightened :-)

Ognjen Strpic




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net