The argument I'm making is that theorists of post-Fordism radically overstated the case and that I think Hardt and Negri - some caveats aside - do as well. Yes, technology and informatics have changed industrial and market structures, and even some/many aspects of politics, but the idea that there's been the kind of qualitative change that would suggest we redefine politics away from class, etc., towards a multitude radically overstates contemporary conditions.
There's nothing a priori at all about my hostility to Hardt and Negri, I did a very close reading of the book with four of my best grad students at the time and it didn't hold enough water for me to see its utility in my work, or politics. Anyway, I like Mike a lot, he's really really personable, helped me learn to play Ultimate in the year we overlapped at Swarthmore and was a total mensch as part of a conference at MSU soon after Sept. 11.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Asad Haider <noswine at gmail.com> wrote:
> I find this line of response somewhat puzzling. Yes, there is always
> continuity, but this is Fukuyama style Marxism--history ended with a
> revolution that didn't happen to the industrial societies of the 19th
> century.
>
> Does pointing to new social phenomena mean that one is automatically an
> irresponsible theorist? I am still amazed by the a priori hostility towards
> Hardt and Negri because they try to describe historical changes.
>
>
>