Empire? (Hardt, Negri)

[No War But The Class War]

Hello, comrades! I was wondering what you all thought of Hardt and Negri's trilogy (Empire, Multitude, Commonwealth). We've read a small excerpt from Empire for one of our college courses and found it interesting. I know it's relatively dated, since Empire was published in a pre 9-11 world, and perhaps could be called a bit "idealist" as well. However, I was wondering, is it worth reading the rest of Empire and/or the rest of the trilogy, if I'm interested in its political philosophy? Or is it mostly just junk/inapplicable in the "real world"?

^^'

[Delenda Carthago]

I love it.I use it for selling fishes in the market instead of a newspaper.Priceless.

[Widerstand]

The whole (post-)operaismo line is, next to anarchism, the only one that's really relevant in the politically active German left (yes I don't count Capital reading circles or Stalin discussion groups as politically active). Admittedly, Trotskyists play some minor role, too, but if Muzk was still here I'm sure he could attest to how lonely he is at pretty much every real life action :p

That being said, I haven't read it yet (I just finished the prologue), but supposedly Negri's older works like Marx Beyond Marx and the collection Books For Burning are better.

That you would think it not applicable to the real world surprises me a bit. The whole operaismo tendency was practically born out of real world activity (militant inquiries, flight from the factory, feminism, Italian autonomia, etc.). Just yesterday I've been to a discussion between an Austrian author and a guy that gives Sociology lecture at my University about the multitude concept, and I can assure you none of these is by any means "detached" from the real world, the author, who publishes the Grundrisse newspaper (one of the biggest German language operaist organs) basically comes from a Autonomous/Sponti/Squatter background.

Meh. What can be criticized is that they use lots of western philosophy jargon, yes.

[khad]

In terms of the book's effect of the radical left, the book was all the rage around 2000-2001 or thereabouts, but after the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq it was kicked to the wayside.

I view it largely as a product of a particular post-Cold War historical moment.

[Widerstand]

In terms of the book's effect of the radical left, the book was all the rage around 2000-2001 or thereabouts, but after the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq it was kicked to the wayside.

Yup. Though post-operaismo, on an European scale, has gained some momentum again in recent years with the EuroMayDay project.



I view it largely as a product of a particular post-Cold War historical moment.

I dunno. The conception of the "Empire" as a mix of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy certainly is exactly that, but many of Negri's ideas were developed during the cold war.

[penguinfoot]

I wouldn't bother reading it to be honest. In the first place, it's not exactly an original body of work - the proposition that power need not have a centre or subject is interesting enough as a view, but it is something that is taken straight from Foucault rather than being original to Hardt or Negri, even if they were the first ones to apply Foucault's concepts to an analysis of the international system rather than just the power dynamics of particular societies, and similarly the concept of the multitude, which basically amounts to de-emphasizing the working class as an agent of revolutionary change, has its roots in those New Left thinkers, of whom Marcuse is probably the best example, who also looked towards a disparate range of oppressed groups as the motors of social transformation, including the unemployed and others who have (so the argument goes) traditionally been excluded from theories of revolutionary strategy, because they thought that the working class had been bought off or assimilated into modern consumerist society or that the working class no longer existed in the traditional sense. In the second place, their major arguments concerning the nature of the current phase of capitalist development have been disproven in substantive terms by the imperialist wars of the past ten years - the capitalist world-system does have centers of power and capital has not escaped the confines of nation-states, instead, capital intersects with and is dependent on powerful state-apparatues in the imperialist countries, in that it relies on the continued use of military force and political oppression by those apparatuses for its own accumulation. The dominant trend is towards an intensification of inter-imperialist conflicts rather than their transcendence.


The whole (post-)operaismo line is, next to anarchism, the only one that's really relevant in the politically active German left

According to what definition of relevance?


In terms of the book's effect of the radical left, the book was all the rage around 2000-2001 or thereabouts, but after the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq it was kicked to the wayside.

All the rage amongst academics and trendy leftists, maybe, but not amongst working-class activists in the developed world, let alone the radical workers of the Third World.

[Widerstand]

According to what definition of relevance?


The number of groups/people/works incorporating, referencing or drawing from it. The whole radical activist scene is influenced by autonomous marxism, which is a spin-off of operaismo.

[penguinfoot]

The number of groups/people/works incorporating, referencing or drawing from it.

Within what boundaries, i.e. what groups/people/works are being counted as relevant? Do the members and activists of Die Linke count, for example?


The whole radical activist scene is influenced by autonomous marxism, which is a spin-off of operaismo.

The fact that it's possible to talk of an "activist scene" expresses much of what's deeply problematic about Autonomism.

[Widerstand]

Within what boundaries, i.e. what groups/people/works are being counted as relevant? Do the members and activists of Die Linke count, for example?

Relevant is everyone who does stuff. Operaist terminology and operaist influences are everywhere. No one identifies as operaist I guess, or not many, but you can feel it left it's mark on the left.

Die Linke as a party are largely composed of pro-establishment social democratic fractions. But even then, they provide at least some support for other actions, eg. by mass-organizing buses to the Gorleben protests (in which a lot of Autonomists were involved in). The radical fractions occasionally work together or even intersect with the operaist-inspired left.



The fact that it's possible to talk of an "activist scene" expresses much of what's deeply problematic about Autonomism.

What a load of bullshit. When I talk of an "activist scene" I mean "everyone who engages in some sort of activism" (I don't view on-paper membership and voting for Die LINKE every X years as activism though). Have you ever actually seen what you dismiss here? Not everywhere is it some confined and isolated subculture even though there are efforts to display it as such. Following that polemic is no better than dismissing the militancy in the UK's student protests as "a few troublemakers."

[bretty]

The trilogy is interesting, I've recently finished Multitude, but to be honest I find the conclusions they come to far too vague and optimistic. I'm still not sure how to define the multitude. I'm more impressed with the discussion on the theory of global institutions in the books. In my personal opinion, connections can exist between global movements however I find that often resistance still develops in more autonomous ways rather than forming a holistic entity of something called 'the multitude'.

There's a critical book on 'Empire' called Empire & Imperialism by Atilio A. Boron which I haven't read but it's coming from a more classical Marxist perspective. I have a Pdf if anyone wants a copy of that or the trilogy itself. Shout me a PM.

-B

[Widerstand]

I'm still not sure how to define the multitude.

I find it hard to define too, although I have a very clear idea of what it is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Relevant is everyone who does stuff. Operaist terminology and operaist influences are everywhere. No one identifies as operaist I guess, or not many, but you can feel it left it's mark on the left.

It's a negative mark at that. It's a continuation of the left line of Bakunin, Sorel, Pannekoek, etc. against proper working-class organization.


What a load of bullshit. When I talk of an "activist scene" I mean "everyone who engages in some sort of activism" (I don't view on-paper membership and voting for Die LINKE every X years as activism though). Have you ever actually seen what you dismiss here? Not everywhere is it some confined and isolated subculture even though there are efforts to display it as such. Following that polemic is no better than dismissing the militancy in the UK's student protests as "a few troublemakers."

It depends on the nature of the activism. The recent bank run stunt in France isn't my cup of activism. The alternative culture of the pre-war SPD is.

[Widerstand]

It's a negative mark at that. It's a continuation of the left line of Bakunin, Sorel, Pannekoek, etc. against proper working-class organization.

Proper working class organization? Are you just mad that proper working class groups (Hamburg's RaS network for example) often are critical of or outright opposed to cooperating with organizations like Die LINKE or is there any basis for this claim?

[Widerstand]

The alternative culture of the pre-war SPD is.

Alternative culture sounds terrible like what is often slandered as "sceneism." Not that I'd be opposed per se, but it sounds weird that you would support it. What is this alternative culture then?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Alternative culture isn't individual lifestylism. If you read my recent blog ("Real Parties as Real Movements and Vice Versa"), it implies organization of the working class to the highest degree before any truly revolutionary period comes about.

If Die Linke established an alternative culture for the German working class (and it is the best-positioned left organization to do this), I would be much more critical of left groups organizing outside what would then be a proper party (and basis for a real movement).

The line starting with Bakunin rejected this, preferring "spontaneity" manipulated by invisible sects. From him came the likes of Rosa Luxemburg and the sectarian SDKPiL, "direct action," NIMBY fetishes, etc.

[ellipsis]

Never read it. Read their follow up Multitude, really enjoyed their discussion of war post-iraq invasion.

[bricolage]

Except DNZ completely fails to understand that 'alternative culture' develops as a result of struggle not prior to. Sure you and two mates can set up a food bank tomorrow if you want, just don't expect it to have any relevance to workers fighting for their jobs.

[Widerstand]

Except DNZ completely fails to understand that 'alternative culture' develops as a result of struggle not prior to. Sure you and two mates can set up a food bank tomorrow if you want, just don't expect it to have any relevance to workers fighting for their jobs.

Except that this assumes that only the employed can struggle. It totally negates the reality in many post-fordist societies were large parts of work and surplus creation happen in everyday life and the line between private and political fields blurs more and more.