[lbo-talk] Michael Hardt, superstar

[wrobert at uci.edu]

>From what I have heard from folks, Hardt refuses to get into strong
polemical debate.  I think it comes from Deleuze's comments in dialogues,
but it really comes off as a bit dodgy in debate format (and although it
would take a bit too long for the format, I also think he is misreading
Deleuze).  I think this quality of avoidance tends to annoy Marxists.  I
discussed this with Tariq Ali once, and Ali clearly thought that Hardt was
a bit of an imbecile.  (I don't regularly chat with Ali, but I drove him
around for a U of M event several years back... we didn't keep up.)  I
also think that it indicates that he hasn't had much meaningful engagement
in activism, although I might be wrong about that.  My suspicion is that
Hardt's best quality is as a popularizer.  It isn't a terribly appreciated
quality, but he certainly transformed Negri's gnarled text into something
a much larger audience could get it head around.  robert wood
>
> I have heard from friends in London  that they closed their eyes during
> Hardt's debate with Callinicos a few years back.  He did really poorly.
> Such stories have led me to wonder if he isn't just a scribe for Negri.
> However, what I think is that some people are really good, clear writers
> (Hardt is) and very poor speakers/debaters.  I think Hardt must be the
> latter.
>
> -Thomas
>
>
> -Thomas
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>