> One of the key points in autonomist thinking is that
> capital has to take on new strategies in reaction to
> the forces of liberation. This is in contrast to
> many
> schools of thought which see the relation as
> vice-versa (workers always reacting to capital).
This is where _Empire_ seems vague to me, on the first read. If empire is characterised by a conceptual shift from a transcendent sovereign to the plane of immanence (axiomatic), what will keep capital from constant innovation? Does _Empire_ really hold the theoretical coordinates for how the multitude gets the upper hand on capital? It is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but there is the tacit question of what to do.
Alec
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com