>1) In so far as Negri-Hardt have >described something new (however >badly
or well does not matter) then it >is important.
>2) In describing something new they >necessarily had to use theory
>differently - some parts which we can >scorn perhaps, but not to the extent
>of throwing out those other parts >which had to be modified in order to at
>least sketch-out the present >condition (ie the logical pre-requistes >of
comprehending a changed >situation).
Most of what is changed is simply Negri rejecting his earlier doctrinaire communism.
If you've been following post-modern Marxism at all--like Negri without co-author, Deleuze and Guattari or Baudrilllard--you'll find little of anything new or important in Empire. That Empire has been successfully marketed to the book of the month club crowd, however, IS SIGNIFICANT.
Next,
Peter K." <peterk at enteract.com> writes:
>Subject: reviews of Empire
>I realize that half the fun of e-mail lists >is the chance to pontificate
on >subjects you know little about, but >even so here are some reviews
>of Negri & Hardt's Empire to help >people pontificate more effectively:
>Doug's review:
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Empire.html
>Gopal Balakrishnan in New Left Review:
http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR23909.shtml
>Alan Wolfe in the New Republic:
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/100101/wolfe100101.html
If I might pontificate, I think the best review of those three would have to be Gopal Balakrishnan's. Another context in which the book comes up in relation to current events is in the Counterpunch article starting at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/robin1.html
I read this late last night and found it echoing much of what I've been saying and thinking, so be careful everyone.
Charles Jannuzi