>Yes, but then Luxemburg and so many others taught us about a)
>uneven development and articulations of modes of production (by which
>K-ism survives by KEEPING ALIVE the worst traditionalism, racism,
>patriarchy and eco-destruction of the old mode)
Only in the most contradictory fashion (with the exception of the eco-destruction, which is another story). 19th century colonialism certainly thrived on not merely keeping alive these things, but recovering them or even inventing them - but actual capitalist practice undermines them at the same time.
Racism has changed enormously since the 19th century, too - Hardt & Negri follow Balibar in their analysis of a new racism, which relies on culture instead of biology, and separateness rather than hierarchy.
As for patriarchy, hasn't it too changed massively under capitalism? Hasn't the entry of women into the paid workforce changed "traditional" gender relations beyond recognition?
> and b) we have also
>come to appreciate some of the collectivist values and eco-social
>arrangements of more virtuous `pre-capitalist' societies a bit more
>than such simplistic argumentation would suggest is actually
>`marxist.'
How can those "collectives values and eco-social relationships" be preserved, or held up as a model, apart from the social structures of production they were embedded in?
>This celebrated book, which, albeit, I'm only halfway through now,
>strikes me as fundamentally unsound from a strategic point of view
>(which I guess is reasonable, if you're in prison, or Durham).
Negri spends only part of his time in prison.
Could you elaborate?
Doug