Pity you have little to say about the remainder of the post.
But the obssesive-compulsive "Lenin-hating" is perhaps of concern...I'm sure the authors of 'Empire' would find it an embarrassment.
Meanwhile, I'm back to reading "real theory", Nitzan & Bichler, who at least have something to say about the "premodern", that is, colonialism. What do N & H have to say about this retrogression? Not much, they (notoriously for me) didn't get the legacy of American constitutionalism right. But their very source for this, Pocock, got it right in his Preface to "The Machievellian Moment", where he described this tradition as to some degree _anticapitalist_, that is to say, a tradition firmly lodged in the pre- or proto-modern epoch. That's a partial clue that could help to explain the terrible result we now have in the form of the Bush gang.
The "stupid" was not meant personally. It was perhaps a tiresome reference to the famous early Ninties Clintonism.
-Brad Mayer
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:31:52 -0800 From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at attbi.com> Subject: Re: It's Colonialism, Stupid
- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Mayer" <bradley.mayer at sun.com>
> Was: Re: Put an End to "Anti-Americanism" Re: Michael Hardt
>
> Holy cow, are we really supposed to talk and think like this? The
poststructrualist disease, right? Which boils down to, 'It's all too
complex!', LOL. In any case,
> it doesn't matter what N & H, Murray et al, say anyway, because
'univocality' is clearly manifest!
>
> Never has a theoretical work been so quickly consigned to the dustbin as
has 'Empire'