./english/62.txt:90:2. In fact, researchers are employees, employers and/or something in between. Most of those researchers dealing with social movements also are activists and/or activist researchers. Therefore the boundaries make no sense if to construct some kind of teacher-pupil relationship regarding research and social movements. Social movements, protest and other kinds of demanding a better world from below are crossing the academic/public education sector since ever. This means that we all must remind that the political struggle also takes place in the academic area. Researchers can not exclude themselfes from their "objects" social movements believing that they are not part of the problem. Spoken for the german case this means too, that doing social movement research in times of privatization and neoliberal restructuring of the academic sector somehow should mean too that we must struggle that social movements and their causes remain on the academic agenda. I think young researchers should be aware about their own precarity, we should be more critical towards our place. Universities and the academic institutions get more and more places for the production of elites, they get more and more a mixture of bureaucratic nightmares, neoliberal thinking and precarious working conditions.
./english/150.txt:5:The context for the development of organisations such as Euromarch is one in which global capitalist crisis has been met by attempts to restructure social relations and consequently economic, political and social institutions. Such restructuring has had regionalising and globalising dynamics of which the development of the European Union and recently of the European single currency are concrete manifestations.
./english/150.txt:16:With such a new movement and one so broad and diverse as Euromarch, encompassing people, campaigns and movements from across a continent, it is not surprising that the demands formulated to date, have been general ones. Euromarch has reasserted the right to work and has declared its opposition to the intoduction of »Workfare« style programmes. It argues for a drastic reduction in working hours without loss of pay and for the immediate introduction of a 35 hour working week. The idea of a guaranteed minimum income underpins the demand of a unified European social welfare system which would provide basic social rights to health, housing, education and welfare regardless of gender or nationality. Euromarch is campaigning for the imposition of a Tobin Tax on capital and speculation and for a uniform property tax. It declares itself in favour of equal rights for all and against any form of racism and social exclusion, including controls on immigration which restrict the right to the free movement of people. Such demands clearly have the potential to attract the support of the people of Europe but their translation into concrete policies is no easy matter as conditions in different countries vary so greatly and the debate around specifics may lead to divisions in the unity achieved around the general demands. There have also been claims that the outlook is too defensive and that minimalist demands have been shaped in order to maintain maximum unity but that the demands and resulting policies will not challenge the capitalist system which is at the root of neo-liberal restructuring.
./english/150.txt:23:With the election of social democratic governments in several key countries a situation has arisen in which social democratic parties are in office in the majority of EU countries, but these parties are generally carrying out neo-liberal policies. Euromarch could be seen as a way of exerting pressure on these parties to alter the course of their policies at the national and EU level. Alternatively, Euromarch could be viewed as a way of linking and coordinating struggles with a view to developing an anti-capitalist strategy to challenge not just government policies but also the whole dynamic of capitalist restructuring. In this sense the debates which are occuring are debates about the orientation of the labour movement and what Christophe Aguiton (Euromarch Secretary) calls a redefinition and reconstruction of the working class and its relationship to social movements.
./english/275.txt:160:We attempt to do some of this in analyzing the crisis and restructuring of capital in the current phase of neo-liberal globalization as a social movement from above – and looking for ways of naming the system, its associated offensives of economic fundamentalism and ‘war on terror’ – in ways that help us to understand and counter it effectively. But this perspective also needs to be brought to bear on the movement of movements, understood as a response from below to this crisis – and in turn raising the question of the practical ‘way forward’ for the movement, and what theory can bring back to activism.
./english/275.txt:165:Abramsky, Kolya 2001 Restructuring and resistance: diverse voices of struggle in western Europe. No place of publication: self-published.
./english/281.txt:61:Plows, A. J. (1998) ‘Colective identity through Collective Action-Enviromental Direct Action in Britain’. Paper given in M.A. University of Wales Bangor: UK, photocopies. Sardella, P. (2001) ‘Donna e bello’ in Brilli F.(eds) Gli anni della rivolta. 1960-1980: prima, durante e dopo il '68. Milano: Punto Rosso. Schumann, G. (1998) Mujeres en kurdistan. Hondarribia: HIRU. Subbuswamy K., Patel R. (2001) Cultures of domination: Race and gender in radical movements. En Abramsky K. (Eds.) Restructuring and Resistance. Diverse voices of struggle in Western Europe Self-published. Pp 541-543 Telefono Viola Manicomio. La chiusura dei manicomi prevista per la fine del '96 e' un bluff. En http://www.ecn.org/telviola/MANICOMI.HTM Traful M. (2002) Por una politica nocturna, Madrid: Debate Ussher J. (2000) Critical psychology in the mainstream: a struggle for survival, in Sloan T. (Eds.) Critical psychology. voices for change, London: Macmillan, p: 6-20 Valcárcel A. (1994) Sexo y filosofía. Sobre ‘mujer’ y ‘poder’, Barcelona: Anthropos Vázquez, N. and Ibáñez, C. and Murguialday, C. (1996) Mujeres montaña, vivencia de guerrilleras y collaboradoras del FMLN. Madrid: Horas y Horas. Wall, D. (1999) Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement Radical Environmentalism & Comparative Social Movements. London: Routledge.
./english/293.txt:69:Second, the studies done on immaterial work, whose homogenization we resist, look at other modes of organizing work which feed upon the very characteristics of the activities which they lump together in the category of the ‘immaterial’; specifically the strategies of neoliberal restructuring, which consist basically in cutting costs in rights and salaries and increasing the strength of command over an ever more fragmented and mobile labor force which presently works under conditions all too well known to women: by commission, with flexible and unpredictable hours, with long days then periods of inactivity without income, by hour, without contract, without rights, freelance, at home, etc. Thus the development of this category has to do with key questions to which we will return later, such as the reordering of time, space, contracts, income and conditions. The consequences of these modalities are known to all (women): isolation and incapacity to organize life “as it should be”, stress, exhaustion, social control, impossibility of developing a self-determined social life, of protesting, of “coming out” and of expressing oneself freely in all sorts of questions.
./english/293.txt:73:Third, all of this must be linked to other aspects of social life which permit that certain subjects occupy certain positions of disadvantage due to their limited mobility. This is what occurs when one does not have residency papers, or decides to get pregnant, or is a mother or just a woman, or has an “inappropriate/ble” presence, being, for example, transsexual, or non-white, or visibly queer, or physically different, etc… The articulation of all these elements is a constant source of differentiation and hierarchization which causes certain groups to be systematically poorer or to have lesser access to opportunity and choice. The so-called feminization of work thus consists in a ever more wide-spread servility or a generalization of precariousness, produced upon a tremendously irregular topography, reinforcing, reproducing and modifying the social hierarchies already existent within the patriarchy and the racial order inherited from colonialism. It is upon just this background that the changes in family and home structures, the global restructuring of cities and the performances and rhetorics of gender are imprinted.
./english/320.txt:13:This essay engages with the collective political agency of dominant and subaltern groups in the era of global neoliberal capitalism from three different angles. The first part of the essay outlines the basic framework of a Marxist theory of social movements, which proposes that the collective political agency of dominant and subaltern groups be conceptualized in terms of social movements from above and below. Moreover, the argument is made that the making and unmaking of historically specific social organizations of human practice are fundamentally animated by the dialectical relationship of conflictual process between the two. The second part of the essay applies this framework in a prolegomenon to an analysis of, on the one hand, the implementation, consolidation and globalization of neoliberal restructuring since the 1970s, and, on the other hand, the transition from defensive to offensive struggles against neoliberalism and the emergent crystallization of a new political subject in the form of the movement of movements. The third part discusses the role and relevance of normative ideals of rights and justice for the movement of movements, and argues for the development of an ethics of praxis through which new universalisms can be articulated. The essay concludes with some reflections on the role of activist research vis-à-vis these processes.
./english/320.txt:50:propagate neoliberal restructuring as the way out of the crisis, and replaced earlier consensual conservatism or social democracy. Another historical example would be the emergence of Italian fascism and the German Freikorps in opposition to the “revolutionary wave” of 1916 – 1919.
./english/320.txt:105:The current conjuncture, I submit, is one of a nascent organic crisis and contention between emergent world historical movements from above and below. From above, there is the project of neoliberal restructuring. From below a ‘movement of movements’ for global social justice is in the process of crystallizing. In what follows, I offer a brief and broad-brushed sketch of this scenario. The Crisis of Organized Capitalism and the Emergence of Neoliberal Restructuring The late 1960s and early 1970s marked the onset of a profound crisis in the social structure of accumulation commonly referred to as ‘organized capitalism’ (see, e.g., Lash and Urry 1987). The golden age of capitalism that had lasted since the end of WWII crumbled: By the end of the 1960s [organized capitalism] experienced cracks in its foundations and began to fall apart under conditions of stagnant production, declining productivity, and intensified class conflict over higher wages, greater social benefits and better working conditions. These conditions created a profit-crunch on invested capital’ (Petras and Veltmeyer 2001: 14; see also Armstrong, Glyn and Harrison 1984 and Harvey 1990). Simultaneously, the advanced capitalist state and the social compact that underpinned it faced a loss of legitimacy. From below, this was evident in the global uprisings of 1968 (Katsiaficas 1987; Arrighi, Hopkins and Wallerstein 1989; Wainwright 1994).
./english/320.txt:108:In the face of economic stagnation and loss of legitimacy, social democracy generally resorted to its conventional strategy of stimulating demand through such measures as increased public spending and credit expansion. This strategy staved off the crisis temporarily, but by the mid- and late 1970s, it was clear that the crisis was of a structural rather than conjunctural character and that the tried-and-tested crisis management of social democracy were insufficient to address this structural crisis (Bonefeld 1995, Fagerberg et. al. 1990). By this time, the uprisings of 1968 had waned and assumed the character of a ‘war of position’ as opposed to a ‘war of manoeuvre’ (Cox 2002). From the space of contention that opened up in the 1960s, the New Right emerged as a social movement from above capable of implementing and giving direction to a process of change in the social organization of human practice that centred on a project of global neoliberal restructuring.
./english/320.txt:112:During the nineties, reformed social democratic parties – “New Labour” – appeared at the helm of the project of restructuring (see, e.g., Jessop n.d., Hay 1999, and Watkins 2004). Neoliberalism assumed a global character through the imposition of structural adjustment programmes by the World Bank and the IMF in the post-colonial world; firstly on African and Latin American countries in the 1980s, and then on crucial Asian economies such as India (early 1990s) and South Korea and Thailand (late 1990s) (see, e.g., Cheru 1989, Green 1995,
./english/320.txt:115:The collapse of Stalinism opened up the economies of Eastern Europe to restructuring by “shock therapy” (Gowan 1995).
./english/320.txt:116:At the dawn of the twentieth century, the process of neoliberal restructuringhad given rise to an epochal shift towards ‘global capitalism’ characterized by ‘therise of transnational capital and the supersession of the nation-state as the axis ofworld development’ (Robinson 2003: 12; see also Robinson 2001 and 2004). The poch of global capitalism emerged through a process of ‘intensive expansion’ in which ‘those ultural and political institutions that fettered capitalism are swept aside, paving the way for the total commodification … of social life worldwide’ (Robinson 2001: 159). This process has been designated by David Harvey (2003: ch. 4) as ‘accumulation by dispossession’ – a contemporary form of ‘primitive accumulation’ where social, ecological, cultural, and intellectual “commons” are commodified ‘and brought within the capitalist logic of accumulation’ (ibid.: 146). This unfettering has altered the power relations between capital and labour:
./english/320.txt:130:Whereas the transnational capitalist class was able to implement and consolidate neoliberal restructuring as a hegemonic project of global reach from the late 1970s to the 1990s, this does not mean that subaltern social groups merely acquiesced to this process. Throughout much of the postcolonial world, structural adjustment programmes were met by protests since their very inception in the mid-1970s: During the decade or so from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, a veritable wave of more-or- less spontaneous popular protests engulfed those countries, mainly in the Second and Third Worlds, in which austerity measures had been adopted as part of structural adjustment and economic reform programmes – often under pressure from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – which forced rapid economic liberalisation and the dismantling of many forms of state control, state intervention and state subsidy. The characteristic form of protest was the ‘bread riot’, although this combined in many instances with other forms of protest and struggle (Seddon and Dwyer 2002: 1).
./english/379.txt:24:Yet even as I argue that there are novelties and discontinuities in the current configuration of economic, political, social and cultural constellations that constitute the contemporary moment, there are also continuities with the previous forms of åmodernπ society to be noted. In particular, the ånewπ economy exhibits crucial features of the åoldπ capitalism such as the driving forces of capital accumulation, competition, commodification, exploitation and the business cycle. From this perspective, globalization and technological revolution are best theorized as forms of the global restructuring of capitalism in which technological development and a turbulent socio-economic transformation are intrinsically interconnected.
./english/379.txt:32:Consequently, in this paper, I focus on the ways that an oppositional politics can use new technologies to intervene within the global restructuring of capitalism to promote democratic and anti-capitalist social movements aiming at radical structural transformation. I would argue that globalization and technological revolution are in some ways inevitable -- barring an apocalyptic collapse of the global economy -- but the forms that they take are not. That is, I think that the trends toward a more global economy and culture, a networked society, and the continued flow of commodities, images, cultural forms, technology and people across the globe will continue apace, as will intense technological revolution. Both take the form of what Schumpeter called åcreative destructionπ and guarantee that the next decades will be highly turbulent, contested and full of struggle and conflict. But the forms that globalization and technological revolution will take are neither fixed nor determined. Hence, I would argue that it is perfectly reasonable to oppose corporate capitalist globalization and its market model of society, its neoliberal laissez-faire ideology and its putting profit, competition and market logic before all other aspects of life. I will accordingly focus on the ways that technopolitics can and are being used for anti-capitalist contestation, while noting the limitations of this conception.
./english/379.txt:46:Given the extent to which capital and its logic of commodification have colonized ever more areas of everyday life in recent years, it is somewhat astonishing that cyberspace is by and large decommodified for large numbers of people -- at least in the overdeveloped countries like the United States. On the other hand, using computers, transforming information into data-packets that can be sent through networks, and hooking oneself up to computer networks oneself, involves a form of commodified activity, inserting the user in networks and technology that are at the forefront of the information revolution and global restructuring of capital. Thus the internet is highly ambiguous from the perspective of commodification, as from other perspectives.
./english/379.txt:116:The movement against capitalist globalization used the internet to organize mass demonstrations and to disseminate information to the world concerning the policies of the institutions of capitalist globalization. The events made clear that the protestors were not against globalization per se, but were against neoliberal globalization, opposing specific policies and institutions that produce intensified exploitation of labour, environmental devastation, growing divisions among social classes and the undermining of democracy. The emerging anti-globalization from above movements are locating these problems in the context of opposition to a restructuring of a neoliberal market capitalism on a worldwide basis for maximum profit with zero accountability. The anti-capitalist movements, by contrast, have made clear the need for democratization, regulation, rules and globalization in the interests of people and not profit.
./english/380.txt:21: I wish to sketch aspects of a critical theory of globalization that will discuss the fundamental transformations in the world economy, politics, and culture in a dialectical framework that distinguishes between progressive and emancipatory features and oppressive and negative attributes. This requires articulations of the contradictions and ambiguities of globalization and the ways that globalization is both imposed from above and yet can be contested and reconfigured from below. I argue that the key to understanding globalization critically is theorizing it at once as a product of technological revolution and the global restructuring of capitalism in which economic, technological, political, and cultural features are intertwined. From this perspective, one should avoid both technological and economic determinism and all one-sided optics of globalization in favor of a view that theorizes globalization as a highly complex, contradictory, and thus ambiguous set of institutions and social relations, as well as involving flows of goods, services, ideas, technologies, cultural forms, and people (see Appadurai 1996).
./english/380.txt:25: Finally, I will raise the question of whether debates centered around the "post" (i.e. postmodernism, postindustrialism, postFordism, and so on) do or do not elucidate the phenomenon of globalization. I argue in the affirmative, claiming that discourses of the post dramatize what is new, original, and different in our current situation, but that such discourse can be and is easily misused. For the discourse of postmodernity, for example, to have any force, it must be grounded in analysis of scientific and technological revolution and the global restructuring of capital or it is just an empty buzzword (see Best and Kellner 1997 and 2001). Thus, I would suggest that to properly theorize postmodernity, one must articulate globalization and the roles of technoscience and new technologies in its construction. In turn, understanding how scientific and technological revolution and the global restructuring of capitalism are creating unique historical configurations of globalization helps one perceive the urgency and force of the discourse of the “post.”
./english/380.txt:29:Globalization, Technological Revolution, and the Restructuring of Capitalism
./english/380.txt:37: From this perspective, globalization cannot be understood without comprehending the scientific and technological revolutions and global restructuring of capital that are the motor and matrix of globalization. Many theorists of globalization, however, either fail to observe the fundamental importance of scientific and technological revolution and the new technologies that help spawn globalization, or interpret the process in a technological determinist framework that occludes the economic dimensions of the imperatives and institutions of capitalism. Such one-sided optics fail to grasp the coevolution of science, technology, and capitalism, and the complex and highly ambiguous system of globalization that combines capitalism and democracy, technological mutations, and a turbulent mixture of costs and benefits, gains and losses.
./english/380.txt:61: In addition to technologically determinist and reductive postindustrial accounts of globalization, there are economic determinist discourses that view it primarily as the continuation of capitalism rather than its restructuring through technological revolution. A large number of theorists conceive globalization simply as a process of the imposition of the logic of capital and neo-liberalism on various parts of the world rather than seeing the restructuring process and the enormous changes and transformations that scientific and technological revolution are producing in the networked economy and society. Capital logic theorists, for instance, portray globalization primarily as the imposition of the logic of capital on the world economy, polity, and culture, often engaging in economic determinism, rather than seeing the complex new configurations of economy, technology, polity, and culture, and attendant forces of domination and resistance. In the same vein, some critical theorists depict globalization as the triumph of a globalized hegemony of market capitalism, where capital creates a homogeneous world culture of commercialization, commodification, administration, surveillance, and domination (Robins and Webster 1999).
./english/380.txt:65: From these economistic perspectives, globalization is merely a continuation of previous social tendencies; i.e. the logic of capital and domination by corporate and commercial interests of the world economy and culture. Defenders of capitalism, by contrast, present globalization as the triumph of free markets, democracy, and individual freedom (Fukuyama 1998 and Friedman 1999). Hence, there are both positive and negative versions of economic and technological determinism. Most theories of globalization, therefore, are reductive, undialectical, and one-sided, either failing to see the interaction between technological features of globalization and the global restructuring of capitalism, or the complex relations between capitalism and democracy. Dominant discourses of globalization are thus one-sidedly for or against globalization, failing to articulate the contradictions and the conflicting costs and benefits, upsides and downsides, of the process. Hence, many current theories of globalization do not capture the novelty and ambiguity of the present moment that involves both innovative forms of technology and economy -- and emergent conflicts and problems generated by the contradictions of globalization.
./english/380.txt:69: In particular, an economic determinism and reductionism that merely depicts globalization as the continuation of market capitalism fails to comprehend the new forms and modes of capitalism itself which are based on novel developments in science, technology, culture, and everyday life. Likewise, technological determinism fails to note how the new technologies and new economy are part of a global restructuring of capitalism and are not autonomous forces that themselves are engendering a new society and economy which breaks with the previous mode of social organization. The postindustrial society is sometimes referred to as the "knowledge society," or "information society," in which knowledge and information are given roles more predominant than earlier days (see the survey and critique in Webster 1995). It is now obvious that the knowledge and information sectors are increasingly important domains of our contemporary moment and that therefore the theories of Daniel Bell and other postindustrial theorists are not as ideological and far off the mark as many of his critics on the left once argued. But in order to avoid the technological determinism and idealism of many forms of this theory, one should theorize the information or knowledge "revolution" as part and parcel of a new form of technocapitalism marked by a synthesis of capital and technology.
./english/380.txt:73: Some poststructuralist theories that stress the complexity of globalization exaggerate the disjunctions and autonomous flows of capital, technology, culture, people, and goods, thus a critical theory of globalization grounds globalization in a theory of capitalist restructuring and technological revolution. To paraphrase Max Horkheimer, whoever wants to talk about capitalism, must talk about globalization, and it is impossible to theorize globalization without talking about the restructuring of capitalism. The term "technocapitalism" is useful to describe the synthesis of capital and technology in the present organization of society (Kellner 1989a). Unlike theories of postmodernity (i.e. Baudrillard), or the knowledge and information society, which often argue that technology is the new organizing principle of society, the concept of technocapitalism points to both the increasingly important role of technology and the enduring primacy of capitalist relations of production. In an era of unrestrained capitalism, it would be difficult to deny that contemporary societies are still organized around production and capital accumulation, and that capitalist imperatives continue to dominate production, distribution, and consumption, as well as other cultural, social and political domains.[3] Workers remain exploited by capitalists and capital persists as the hegemonic force -- more so than ever after the collapse of communism.
./english/380.txt:85: Today, critical theorists confront the challenge of theorizing the new forms of technocapitalism and novelties of the present era constructed by syntheses of technology and capital in the emergence of a new stage of global capitalism. The notion of technocapitalism attempts to avoid technological or economic determinism by guiding theorists to perceive the interaction of capital and technology in the present moment. Capital is generating innovative forms of technology just as its restructuring is producing novel configurations of a networked global economy, culture, and polity. In terms of political economy, the emergent postindustrial form of technocapitalism is characterized by a decline of the state and increased power of the market, accompanied by the growing power of globalized transnational corporations and governmental bodies and declining power of the nation-state and its institutions -- which remain, however, extremely important players in the global economy, as the responses to the terror attacks of September 11 document.
./english/380.txt:117: Consequently, I want to argue that in order to properly theorize globalization one needs to conceptualize several sets of contradictions generated by globalization's combination of technological revolution and restructuring of capital, which in turn generate tensions between capitalism and democracy, and “haves” and “have nots.” Within the world economy, globalization involves the proliferation of the logic of capital, but also the spread of democracy in information, finance, investing, and the diffusion of technology (see Friedman 1999 and Hardt and Negri 2000). Globalization is thus a contradictory amalgam of capitalism and democracy, in which the logic of capital and the market system enter ever more arenas of global life, even as democracy spreads and more political regions and spaces of everyday life are being contested by democratic demands and forces. But the overall process is contradictory. Sometimes globalizing forces promote democracy and sometimes inhibit it, thus either equating capitalism and democracy, or simply opposing them, are problematical. These tensions are especially evident, as I will argue, in the domain of the Internet and the expansion of new realms of technologically-mediated communication, information, and politics.
./english/380.txt:137: In their magisterial book Empire, Hardt and Negri (2000) present contradictions within globalization in terms of an imperializing logic of “Empire” and an assortment of struggles by the multitude, creating a contradictory and tension-full situation. As in my conception, Hardt and Negri present globalization as a complex process that involves a multidimensional mixture of expansions of the global economy and capitalist market system, new technologies and media, expanded judicial and legal modes of governance, and emergent modes of power, sovereignty, and resistance.[6] Combining poststructuralism with “autonomous Marxism,” Hardt and Negri stress political openings and possibilities of struggle within Empire in an optimistic and buoyant text that envisages progressive democratization and self-valorization in the turbulent process of the restructuring of capital.
./english/380.txt:141:Many theorists, by contrast, have argued that one of the trends of globalization is depoliticization of publics, the decline of the nation-state, and end of traditional politics (Boggs 2000). While I would agree that globalization is promoted by tremendously powerful economic forces and that it often undermines democratic movements and decision-making, I would also argue that there are openings and possibilities for both a globalization from below that inflects globalization for positive and progressive ends, and that globalization can thus help promote as well as undermine democracy.[7] Globalization involves both a disorganization and reorganization of capitalism, a tremendous restructuring process, which creates openings for progressive social change and intervention. In a more fluid and open economic and political system, oppositional forces can gain concessions, win victories, and effect progressive changes. During the 1970s, new social movements, new non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and new forms of struggle and solidarity emerged that have been expanding to the present day (Hardt and Negri 2000; Burbach 2001; and Foran, forthcoming).
./english/380.txt:197: In particular, the movement against capitalist globalization used the Internet to organize mass demonstrations and to disseminate information to the world concerning the policies of the institutions of capitalist globalization. The events made clear that protestors were not against globalization per se, but were against neo-liberal and capitalist globalization, opposing specific policies and institutions that produce intensified exploitation of labor, environmental devastation, growing divisions among the social classes, and the undermining of democracy. The emerging anti-globalization-from-above movements are contextualizing these problems in the framework of a restructuring of capitalism on a worldwide basis for maximum profit with zero accountability and have made clear the need for democratization, regulation, rules, and globalization in the interests of people and not profit.
./english/380.txt:244: On a global terrain, Hardt and Negri (2000) have stressed the openings and possibilities for democratic transformative struggle within globalization, or what they call Empire. I am arguing that similar arguments can be made in which globalization is not conceived merely as the triumph of capitalism and democracy working together as it was in the classical theories of Milton Friedman or more recently in Francis Fukuyama. Nor should globalization be depicted solely as the triumph of capital as in many despairing anti-globalization theories. Rather, one should see that globalization unleashes conflicts between capitalism and democracy and in its restructuring processes creates new openings for struggle, resistance, and democratic transformation.
./english/380.txt:260: Consequently, although there is admittedly a lot of mystification in the discourse of the postmodern, it signals emphatically the shifts and ruptures in our era, the novelties and originalities, and dramatizes the mutations in culture, subjectivities, and theory which Castells and other theorists of globalization or the information society gloss over. The discourse of the postmodern in relation to analysis of contemporary culture and society is just jargon, however, unless it is rooted in analysis of the global restructuring of capitalism and analysis of the scientific-technological revolution that is part and parcel of it.[14]
./english/386.txt:119:These struggles by and large have been reactive and defensive in nature against unemployment, job security and rapidly worsening social conditions around public sector undertaking facing disinvestment and the insurance and banking sectors. Defensive struggles while necessary in sustaining elementary living conditions against the onslaught of globalisation provide short term victories. The defence of these interests in the long run requires radical restructuring of the structures of world capitalism by uniting the toiling people with an internationalist program and united struggle. This calls for not only the re-orientation of strategies but more fundamentally the ideological and cultural education of toiling people in values of solidarity, co-operation and egalitarianism.
./english/392.txt:24:most significant of the past hundred years, and capable of contributing to the restructuring of