Hardt & Negri on lbo-talk

[GGordonLippy at aol.com]

On previous postings: I've been through the various discussions (at least Dec 
or Jan to Feb) and for the most part I've found them rather disappointing; 
like their predecessors Deleuze and Guitari, Hardt and Negri seem to provoke 
a lot of knee-jerk responses, especially of the sort where one takes a 
questionable fragment from the text and uses it to dismiss the work out of 
hand without ever really engaging with it. That's an easy thing to do (so 
much to read, anyway), as I well know from my own experience. But I think it 
would be a shame if the lbo discussion of *Empire* were, as someone on the 
list sort of said, already played out. I think there's a lot to be gained 
from seriously considering the argument. On the other hand, I'm rather 
biased. I'd read some of D&G and found some exciting ideas, but ultimately 
you have to be put off by their eradication of the subject. So it's been 
exciting to see Empire attempt to assert (restore? eh...) a political subject 
to the social field. Contrary to many of the arguments (assertions?) on the 
list, Hardt and Negri seem to me to have brought some sober judgements to 
subject-eradicating "post-structuralist" thinking (I'm thinking of where they 
say they want to take Foucault), plus a real clarity in assessing the 
post-post-post obsessions of academia. I would surely enjoy, and learn a lot 
from, further discussions with anyone, for or against or simply curious.

Now I have to go read Bartcop or Suck.com; I'm way over my brainpower limit 
for the day.

GGordonLippy (pk grunden)