> 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.
>
Do we not think this is the end result of the whole trajectory from Gramsci (and maybe Luxemberg? others here will know better than i) through Laclau and Mouffe?
Now, don't misunderstand me -- i'm a great fan of Gramsci and i actually found value in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (i know i knowi'm always so trendy, so now I'm on Badiou, too. don't hate me.), and my point is not that Gramsci naturally winds up at H&N. We can argue that they have gone further than necessary or even further than the Gramscian idea sustains. But this is the trajectory, isn't it? And if so, doesn't it matter to how we understand their argument at least as much as "Post-Fordism" does?
Just throwing it out there.