The book didn't so much propose a new theory; it simply took up the challenge posed by globalization and the new political language that became popular in the 90s--both neoliberal economic/political language and postmodern theoretical language. It argued that simply because the nation-state has declined in importance, this does not mean that there is no longer state power (sovereignty); rather, there are new, networked forms of power that are present in the seemingly “free” system of global exchange. And it further argued that this ubiquitous state power was not so total and all-powerful that the possibility of resistance had disappeared—not the even fall of the Soviet Union, the decline of organized labor, or the military strength of the United States proved that—actually, this new form of power, and globalization in general, was only made possible by living labor, or what in political terms was named "constituent power."
Finally, it argued that the shift in emphasis within the economy and in social theory from "concrete" economic and political phenomena to matters of language and communication was not a symptom of the declining importance of the economy, but of an historical change in the mode of production!
>From there, they begin to speculate on the nature of these new forms of
power, and the possibility that the exploitation of those who work can be
overcome; these details are certainly subject to discussion, but it all
seems perfectly in keeping with the traditional missions of communist
politics, as the WSJ certainly recognized.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea of the "multitude" is inconsistent with historical materialism.
> >
> > It ignores the latter's idea of "communism" as requiring and expressing
> the
> > "powers" of "universally developed" - of, in this sense, "enlightened" -
> > "individuals".
> > ...
> > The degree of "superstition" and "prejudice" that remains widespread
> makes
> > the "multitude" incapable of initiating this kind of "revolutionary
> praxis".
> >
> > Ted
>
>
> I must say I gave up on Hardt and Negri after Empire, though I started
> Multitude. The suggestion that the politics of the multitude, which would
> somehow, in a weird sort of simultaneously structural and contingent but
> largely unconscious process, bring down capitalism, included giving up on
> employment, migrating in the hopes of finding employment elsewhere and any
> number of other depressive- or dropping out-like actions was more than I
> could take. Sounded more like a recipe for barbarism than socialism or
> communism... I simply couldn't buy in to the idea that so much of what they
> called politics fell into the realm of resistance.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>