BREAK THE CHAINS OF OPPRESION AND THE YOKE OF ...

DiaLo g
(4) It is a pervasive spirit of destructive self-interest, even greed – the worship of
money, goods and possessions; the gospel of consumerism, proclaimed through
powerful propaganda and religiously justified, believed and followed. It is the
colonization of consciousness, values and notions of human life by the imperial
logic; a spirit lacking compassionate justice and showing contemptuous disregard
for the gifts of creation and the household of life.”
(1) The Empire – a Socio-Political Reality
The first sentence emphasises that the concept of Empire characterises a sociopolitical
reality. This is described as a concentration of economic, cultural, political
and military power. It is obvious that such a concentration exists. That it is described
by means of one complex concept should make it clear that the cause of
the injustice currently being suffered cannot be reduced to one factor, but can
only be properly understood as the product of just such an interaction of many
factors. That also means: the totality of the power here manifested is more than
the sum of its parts and we would miss its complex reality if we thought that to
analyse (or change) it, it would be enough to select only one of its components.
The financial crisis with its catastrophic effects has confirmed for us yet again
how meaningful such a total view of interconnexions is: To call only for stronger
state intervention underestimates the finance markets’ own special dynamics,
just as in reverse a one-sided ascription of blame to the markets overlooks the
complicity of politics; and both of these could and can lead to catastrophic consequences
because they are embedded in a general anti-culture of greed, etc.
This first part of the definition is in substance not new; it takes up what was said
about Empire in § �11 of �the Declaration � of Accra. �Here �already,
admittedly, a decisive
marker is set. In Accra, Empire is introduced as an active subject: the world
(dis-)order, it is said there, is defended by (an) Empire; and: the imperial system
stands under the control of powerful nations. This led in subsequent reactions to
the question whether the Empire could be identified without remainder with a
particular region – such as Europe and North America: does that not lead to an
all too simple distinction between victims and perpetrators? Beyond that: can
these regions be reduced to such a characterisation? What about the counterforces
which, thank God, are also to be found there? This is still to say nothing
of the fact that every individual political or economic system has its own ambivalent
character. Here the issue is not so much whether such critical queries are fair
to the intention of the Accra Declaration or not. They were at any rate provoked
by the formulations chosen there and led to persistent dissent.
By comparison the new definition is not in any way less clear or less profiled, but
it helps to avoid a reductionist misunderstanding of Empire. By characterising
the mechanism as such, it compels everyone to ask whether and how far the place
in which they live is infected by the Empire. And how individuals themselves
��������������������������������������������
� � �������������������
�
– The Joint Globalisation – Dialog on Basic Issues – 123