I found Fukuyama's review of the new Hardt and Negri book to be interesting. He was right to raise the issue that a good part of the American multitudes vote "Republican". He and Negri seem to gloss over the "reactionary" segment of the Multitudes. Very often they speak of the Multitudes in romantic tones, overlooking this factor. This is not uniquely an American phenomenon. The exit polls taken during the last Presidential election in France found a lot of working class voters were voting for Le Pen; not to mention the reactionary Islamic element prevalent in the Middle East.
I would like to hear Hardt speak on the "dark side" of the Multitudes and hear his thoughts on it. Why dont he and Negri treat this subject? One suspects they have their heads buried in the sand.
-Thomas --- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> I'm interviwing Michael Hardt next week - recording
> on Tuesday for
> broadcast on Thursday - mainly about Multitude. Any
> questions you'd
> like me to ask?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
===== The real world gives the subset of what is; the product space represents the uncertainty of the observer. The product space may therefore change if the observer changes; and two observers may legitimately use different product spaces within which to record the same subset of actual events in some actual thing. The "constraint" is thus a relation between observer and thing; the properties of any particular constraint will depend on both the real thing and on the observer. It follows that a substantial part of the theory of organization will be concerned with properties that are not intrinsice to the thing but are relational between observer and thing.
W. Ross Ashby
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com