>Maybe I misread, but more than anything else, this is what irks me
>most about Hardt/Negri. They've introduced Empire as distinct from
>imperialism. It's hard enough getting one's head around contemporary
>imperialism; don't need all this additional confusion of terms.
Well, I think part of their point was that it looked like imperialism was getting more collegial and polycentric, with Davos man as its embodiment. But we're back to naked American dominance, or the attempt at dominance.
Doug