That's a great list of stuff (though no de Certeau, alas). I just reread Wright's Storming Heaven. I'm not sure its lessons can be translated today without a whole lot of modification, but there are a couple of points that I think are relevant:
1. The search for a vanguard. Negri, at his core a Leninist, was (and is) the king of this, always looking for *the* revolutionary subject. His social worker thesis was a huge step forward in thinking about how capital was reproduced and a justified decentering of the Marxist industrial proletariat, and his general proclivity to discover new modes of accumulation and new subjectivities is admirable and something we could use more of. But he always reterritorialized the subject, in part by identifying it as a new vanguard instead of complicating the whole idea of representative subjects.
Today, I think the indebted subject is ripe for Negrian overemphasis. Somewhat ironically, the timing and content of Graeber's debt book may help contribute to this new vanguard. No doubt in a financialized economy debt is important, but just as Negri's focus on the social worker left behind other, far-from-obsolete sectors, e.g., industrial workers, the focus on indebted subjects could emphasize the indebted (students, the precariat) and exclude all sorts of subjects who are not indebted and aren't even allowed to become so (migrants, the very poor). This isn't to lapse into tired talk about privilege (which makes me reach for my revolver), and no doubt even the non-indebted are structured in some ways by debt; plus I wholeheartedly support the debt-default stuff just now starting. But it'd be a mistake to create a unitary subject based on debt, which would wreck any sort of class unity by collapsing difference.
2. Relatedly, I think the balance between antagonism and self-activity should be investigated and maintained at a beneficial level. I don't know what that is, and it no doubt it changes frequently, but both the state- and party-fetishizing demand demanders and the Freenetwork beautiful-soulers present direct paths to cooptation. A mistake of Italian workerists was that their sociology of the exemplary mass worker was directly deduced from the stratifications of capital's productive requirements, and since they thought struggles should be carried out along those lines, they tied themselves to capital's structural conflict, which guaranteed either cooptation or violent rejection, the latter of which led to reaction, not militancy. Of course now Negri has gone completely the other way: the immaterial worker creates the common completely on its own. I agree with him that the management of labor today leans toward capture and away from command, but he overstates the autonomy, opening the way for violent reassertion of command.
I think there's something to say about the police as well, but maybe later.