>There is something odd about thinking of only the most blatantly
>aggressive war and military occupation as "imperialism," though.
>The US empire had mainly been what is called an informal empire even
>before the alleged transition from "imperialism" to "empire" that
>Negri theorizes.
The organization of the world is a lot more complicated than a lot of U.S.-centric models would have it, whether it's the Bush admin's or a traditional left's. I think the Iraq war was an attempt, which is looking rather unsuccessful, at re-asserting U.S. pre-eminence, and the troubles that have afflicted the adventure are evidence that Washington doesn't run the show after all. Empire, both book and construct, is vague on too many details, but they do have a point about the dispersion of power. But we've been over this ground many times before, and I don't see much point in going over it again.
Doug