----- Original Message ----- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 10:17 AM Subject: Re: more Negri
>
>
> Anthony Tothe wrote:
> >
> > We/I didn't read it because it is indecipherable...not because we hate
> > negri. At least get the position correct..The amount of substance to
dense
> > rhetoric is silly and not worth the effort. -Tony
> >
>
> I guess there's a huge element of subjectivity (whatever that means) in
> responses to _Empire_. I never found it dense -- I found it _lacking_ in
> density.
Well to each his own, but I can just pull paragraphs which make no sense to me at all. I literally have no idea what they are saying.
(I follow their use of Spinoza, but I don't think it holds
> water.) It's fluff. It is difficult to grasp cotton candy. This kind of
> difficulty can create the illusion that the text is actualy difficult.
> It isn't. Relax. Read the whole thing. Then forget about it.
No thanks!
>
> I find _Capital_ I and _Grundrisse_ gloriously and properly dense.
Not a big fan of Marx either as I said somewhere else before. I am much more in tune with Bakunin or Rudolf Rocker's "Anarcho-Syndicalism." That book in particular had a profound impact on my political thinking. Certainly more so than anything Marx ever wrote. -Tony
> _Empire_ pretends to that kind of density but fails to come across.
>
> Carrol
>
>