Radical media, politics and culture.



A great deal of nonsense has been written about the so-called
antiglobalization movement—particularly the more radical, direct action end
of it—and very little has been written by anyone who has spent any time
inside it. As Pierre Bourdieu recently noted, the neglect of the movement
by North American academics is nothing short of scandalous. Academics who
for years have published essays that sound like position papers for large
social movements that do not in fact exist seem seized with confusion or
worse, highminded contempt, now that real ones are everywhere emerging. As
an active participant in the movement as well as an anthropologist, I want
to provide some broad background for those intellectuals who might be
interested in taking up some of their historical responsibilities. This
essay is meant to clear away a few misconceptions.

The phrase "antiglobalization" movement was coined by the corporate media,
and people inside the movement, especially in the non-NGO, direct action
camp, have never felt comfortable with it. Essentially, this is a movement
against neoliberalism, and for creating new forms of global democracy.
Unfortunately, that statement is almost meaningless in the US, since the
media insist on framing such issues only in propagandistic terms ("free
trade," "free market") and the term neoliberalism is not in general use. As
a result, in meetings one often hears people using the expressions
"globalization movement" and "antiglobalization movement" interchangeably.

jim writes:

"Claude Lefort's 1949 essay from Les Temps Modernes examines Trotsky's early attitude towards Stalin.

It is available on-line courtesy of Collective Action Notes at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/Le fort_Trotsky.htm"

Jim writes: "Le Monde has published Jean Baudrillard's essay, "The Spirit of Terrorism" Here are some excerpts, translated courtesy of Brian Holmes:

"...All the discourses and commentaries betray a gigantic suturing of the
event itself, and of the fascination it commands. The moral condemnation,
the holy alliance against terrorism are on the scale of the prodigious
jubilation at seeing this world superpower destroyed, or better, seeing it
somehow destroy itself, in a beautiful suicide. Because with its
unbearable power it has fomented this violence pervading the world, along
with the terrorist imagination that inhabits all of us, without our

That we dreamed of this event, that everyone without exception dreamed of
it, because no one can fail to dream of the destruction of any power
become so hegemonic - that is unacceptable for the Western moral
conscience. And yet it's a fact, which can be measured by the pathetic
violence of all the discourses that want to cover it up.

Anonymous Comrade writes "cryptome.org has posted Al-Qaida's Endgame, a report by Decision Support Systems, a firm supplying consultancy in strategic analysis and planning to US and other business interests.

An excerpt: "The ‘network of networks’ known as Al-Qaida has successfully laid a trap for the United States. Al-Qaida retains the initiative
and the U.S. is operating ‘inside the intentions and plans’ of Al-Qaida

Al-Qaida cannot destroy the U.S. forces inside the U.S., nor can it convince the U.S. to leave the Middle East using terror
attacks. The intention of the terror attacks is a provocation to force the U.S. to engage and deploy forces to the Middle East,
where such forces could be destroyed

The intention and purpose of Al-Qaida’s plans are either to make the Middle East ‘ungovernable,’ or to gain control of the
petroleum production system in the region. Application of the ‘oil weapon’ could be used to attempt to force withdrawal of
U.S. presence in the region; outright destruction of the petroleum production system would leave the U.S. with no or greatly
reduced real interests in the region

Control or destruction of the petroleum production system in the Middle East, and the potential for attacks on global petroleum
production, would transform the political situation in the region, initiate a global depression by degrading or destroying critical
industries of developing and advanced Nation-States, and drastically shift the geopolitical balance""

jim writes: "Writing some twenty years ago on the theme of “simulation of opposition” in too-late capitalism, and the “law of equivalence” in the “advanced democratic” political systems, radical French theorist Jean Baudrillard picked Manhattan’s World Trade Towers to illustrate his point.

An excerpt from Jean Baudrillard, Simulations, translated by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Phil Beitchman (New York: Semiotext[e], 1983):

“Why are there two towers at New York’s World Trade Center? All of Manhattan’s great buildings were always happy enough to confront each other in a competitive verticality, the result of which is an architectural panorama in the image of the capitalist system: as pyramidal jungle, all of the buildings attacking each other. The system profiled itself in a celebrated image that you had of New York when you arrived there by boat. This image has completely changed in the last few years. The effigy of the capitalist system has passed from the pyramid to the perforated card. Buildings are no longer suspicious one of the other, like columns in a statistical graph. This new architecture incarnates a system that is no longer competitive, but compatible, and where competition has disappeared for the benefit of the correlations. (New York is the world’s only city therefore that retraces all along it’s history, and with a prodigious fidelity and in all its scope, the actual form of the capitalistic system—it changes instantly in function of the latter. No European city does so.) This architectural graphism is that of the monopoly; the two W.T.C. towers, perfect parallelepideds a quarter-mile high on a square base, perfectly balanced and blind communicating vessels. The fact that there are two of them signifies the end of all competition, the end of all original reference. Paradoxically, if there were only one, the monopoly would not be incarnated because we have seen how it stabilizes on a dual form. For the sign to be pure, it has to duplicate itself: it is the duplication of the sign that destroys its meaning. This is what Andy Warhol demonstrates also: the multiple replicas of Marilyn’s face are there to show at the same time the death of the original and the end of representation. The two towers of the W.T.C.are the visible sign of the closure of the system in a vertigo of duplication while the other skyscrapers are each of the them the original moment of a system constantly transcending itself in a perpetual crisis and self-challenge.

A new manifesto of sorts from BAAM. It may frame some debates on anarchism(s) in their various relations to strains of libertarianism, some versions of marxism, and urgently-needed discussions involving extremist political and religious ideologies.


Boston Anarchists Against Militarism (BAAM)


Over the years, many people of many different beliefs have adopted
the label anarchists, and most self-identifying anarchists would agree
that there are many schools of anarchist thought. We are anarchists of
the social/communal school of thought, who believe, roughly, in working
towards a society based on the values of community and mutual aid; direct
democracy; non-hierarchical organization; the absense of class division; the
absense of divisions based on race, gender and nation; and the absense of
institutionalized authority figures (because power corrupts, and we know
it). The term "anarchy" comes from the Greek "anarchos" and means "no
ruler", a condition which CEOs, bureaucrats and landlords would like
everyone to believe is synonymous with "chaos". Throughout this document,
the term "anarchist" will be used to refer to social anarchists, although it
is not always used in this context in the media.
read more on infoshop.org

Anonymous Comrade writes: "The source for this article has been verified. The interview was originally published in the French newspaper, Le Monde, dated October 3rd.

Interview with Toni Negri
Le Monde, 03 October 2001

"Do you think that after the attacks of September 11th, it is necessary to make
more clearly the distinction between anti-imperialism and anti-americanism?

- I hope that anti-americanism is finished.

I have never been so. Likewise I have never been anti-russian. I have always
opposed the policy of american capitalism like that of russian socialism. When
we ask someone if they are anti-american or anti-russian, that means to say that
we are asking if they are against a nation. For me, nations are divided between
those who command and those who suffer. I am at the side of the American and
Russian exploited, and against the American policy in Vietnam or the Soviet in
Poland or Czechoslovakia. I would have been a lot more pleased if, on 11th September,
the Pentagon had been razed and they had not missed the White House, instead
of seeing the Twin Towers collapse, filled with thousands of American workers,
amongst whom, it would appear, there were nearly a thousand 'illegals'
(clandestinos). My enemies are the 'imperials' (who were once called
capitalists) whatever their nationality.

Autonomedia writes:

"Human Sacrifice Is a Thoroughly Modern Phenomenon

By Hans Magnus Enzensberger

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 17, 2001

[Born in 1929, the poet and essayist Hans Magnus Enzensberger was a member
of the influential postwar literary Group 47; in 1965 he founded the
journal Kursbuch, which he led until 1975. Since 1979 he has lived in
Munich. Numerous books of his poetry and essays are available in English,
including "Civil Wars: From L.A. to Bosnia" (1995).]

The swifter the comment, the shorter-lived its relevance. Nothing against
timeliness! But moments when no one knows what will happen next are
precisely the times when there is good reason to attempt a distanced view.
For example, on globalization: A German academic by the name of Karl Marx
analyzed this phenomenon in considerable depth as much as 150 years ago.
He certainly would not have dreamed of being "for" or "against" it. In the
conflicts that erupted in places like Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa, he
would have seen no more than a bout of shadow-boxing. Protesting against
such a massive historical fact may be honorable, but the best it can
achieve is worldwide television drama, showing that naive
anti-globalization protesters are in fact themselves part of what they
seek to combat.

jim writes: "bifo, one of the most intelligent and committed of Italian social theorists, has written:

panic war [make world transcript]


i want to talk about attention economy and digital labor, and panic and
the global war. at the end, i want to show that all this has something to
do with the would-be, with the future self-representation of work. i read
in this beautiful paper [the make world paper], global processes are
running out of time and space. running out of time, global processes are
running out of time. i start from this sentence.

hydrarchist writes: "A Crash of Strategic Thought?

Paul Virilio
, an essayist who has written a lot about war, diagnoses a completely novel form of conflict.

The massive destruction of September 11 has taxed the term "war". Is
that self-evident to you?

Absolutely. The great terrorism which is beginning doesn't have anything to do with the small terrorism of the 20th century. On September 11, 2001 we entered in historic fashion a form of war at once worldwide and "accidental ". Clausewitz qualified as
"substantial" war as the continuation of politics by other means. But he also noticed, regarding Napoleon in Spain, that
"substantial" war could decompose, fall apart, stop pursuing
its political objectives and become a sort of frenzy impossible to
put down. That latter form was "accidental" war, and civil wars
constitute a known form. But that which has just begun is without
reference. Up to now "accidental" war was local, not global. We are
involved despite ourselves in a new form of war that we must learn like a foreign language.


Subscribe to Theory