"Empire" by Antonio Negri

[L.A.P.]

This seems like a really interesting book and Antonio Negri seems to have a really interesting philosophy and perspective on Marxism. Or maybe I'm just high:unsure:, but what do other users think of it?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Not all is agreeable but I do find it an interesting read.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's dense as hell. I wouldn't recommend reading it without a good knowledge of sociological/philosophical concepts, because you probably won't "get" a lot of it otherwise.

The follow-up ("Multitude") is a lot more accessible.

[L.A.P.]

It's dense as hell. I wouldn't recommend reading it without a good knowledge of sociological/philosophical concepts, because you probably won't "get" a lot of it otherwise.

The follow-up ("Multitude") is a lot more accessible.

I'm assuming you've read it or familiar with it? Could you somewhat give a break down what its about?

[svenne]

As i have understood, Negri is from an operaist bakground in the 60's and 70's, but has since then pretty much sunk deep into post-structuralist (strange shit for hipsters) thinking. Empire has some parts that are somewhat "easy" to read (about the transformation of which type of labour which has hegemony), and parts about the state; which are kinda harder.

I agree with Explosive situation: The multitude is a lot easier; and is about the multitude (his version of the revolutionary working class, or whatever), while Empire is about - the Empire! - and studies how it seems to come into formation.

Also: read three books about political philosophy, two books about french philosophy, and one book about operaism (i can recommend Storming Heaven)

A good start could be Wikipedia and the entry on Negri.

(sorry for the somewhat strange language; i'm swedish and it's 03.30 am...)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It was a long while since I read it, but Empire is a term for global capitalist government. It basically postulates that in the post-war era the structure of global politics and labour has changed, and that globalism and austerity programs guided by the supranational governmental bodies (World Bank, IMF, UN and so on, as well as the supra-national regional bodies such as the EU and similar projects) are streamlining the political structure of the world in a specific direction and the nation state and national governments are no longer important players whatsoever. Empire is decentralised. The U.S. has an important position but is not all dominant and no one state has control over the new management structure; the new post-modernist structure is reforming society into a disconnected mess of gated communities, shopping malls and motorways and something. Long ago since I read and whatnot.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm assuming you've read it or familiar with it? Could you somewhat give a break down what its about?

I've read it. It was hard, but I did it. It was like slogging through a bowl of disgusting brussel sprouts with a few pieces of tasty candy here and there.

Anyway, their thesis is that control in the world is being increasingly diffused, into a broad coalition of states, international institutions and NGO's they collectively dub "Empire". Those who are subjugated by/toil for "Empire", they call "Multitude" (which is far broader than the proletariat). They say that the producers of information represent the most significant section of the historical economic engine today; they argue that, while these people are a minority compared to the classical working class, and indeed the classical working class has not decreased in numbers over the years, Marx recognized the significance of the proles back in his day, even though the proles were a minority compared to, say, peasants.

They argue that states are less significant than they were in the past. They argue that the USA is significant in the way that the Roman emperor was significant in the past: the Roman senate (in this example, the equivalent would be the international community, perhaps best personified by the United Nations) would go to the emperor and ask him to resolve some kind of dispute or crisis. The authors argue that the old notions of imperialism are essentially finished, and that Vietnam (taken over from the French by the Americans) was the last real imperialist war. They argue instead that "police actions" are what most military engagements are today, which are organized and executed in order to keep the macro-system of Empire intact and running smoothly, rather than plunder the resources or labor power of some foreign nation, or expand capital's frontier in order to solve problems related to over-production.

There were many other points, but those were the essential ones I gleaned from the text.

[jake williams]

From what I've heard, it's a bunch of silly horseshit that has nothing to do with reality, and is only hip because our supposed "left intellectuals" get off (or get paid) on coming up with ideas which sound really radical but don't threaten real political action grounded in real people's political lives.

[human strike]

From what I've heard, it's a bunch of silly horseshit that has nothing to do with reality, and is only hip because our supposed "left intellectuals" get off (or get paid) on coming up with ideas which sound really radical but don't threaten real political action grounded in real people's political lives.

Coming from a self described "Zizekist" who hasn't read the book, that means a lot. :P

It's one of my favourites. Brilliant stuff.

[jake williams]

Coming from a self described "Zizekist" who hasn't read the book, that means a lot. :P

It's one of my favourites. Brilliant stuff.
Sarcasm doesn't exist on the internet.

Is there one thing from the book that is useful to everyday politics?

[Gorilla]

Sarcasm doesn't exist on the internet.

Is there one thing from the book that is useful to everyday politics?

I kind of half-agree with you but I didn't think it was entirely useless. I thought the analysis of how humanitarian NGO's effectively function as advance agents of imperialist (or Empire-ialist? I don't speak Negri fluently) intervention was kind of good. I'm sure it's been done elsewhere but it was good anyway.

Basically the juridical analysis of how Imperial intervention functions is quite good, tightly theorized and well argued. The stuff about information production being hegemonic is kind of okay but it gets bogged down in buzz words and fuzzy thinking. And the suggestions for left strategy based on The Multitude are abstract/impractical and pretty much useless.

[Thirsty Crow]

I thought the analysis of how humanitarian NGO's effectively function as advance agents of imperialist (or Empire-ialist? I don't speak Negri fluently) intervention was kind of good.
It's quite easy: the adjective would be "imperial", opposed to the old "imperialist".
I skimmed through "Empire" and what I remember among the jargon-filled pages is the rehashing of the old narrative of "globalization equals decentralization (deispersal etc.) of power".
I'm currently going through "Multitude" (not systematically though) and I think there's more "meat" to it compared to "Empire".

[Ravachol]

Both Empire & Multitude contain some interesting observations but personally I believe they're a one-way road to reformism. The movements surrounding much of the thought espoused by Empire, like the Tute Bianche,Disobbedienti,Ya Basta!,etc. are typical of the activist, 'alter-globalist' reformism that is the logical conclusion of much of the theses in Empire/Multitude. The original Operaist thesis that the struggle of labour is prior to Capital's reactive nature and thus can force Capital's restructuring to take certain shapes is taken to a whole new, silly, level where 'social movements' can somehow influence the shape 'Empire' takes through 'putting on the pressure' in the form of grass-roots activism, summit-hopping and placard-waving and other liberal fantasies. There are even some positive appraisals in follow-up works to Empire/Multitude of the European Union and the United Nations as presenting us somehow with a framework for an 'international community' or whatever. It's social democracy for the 21st century.

A good critique is 'Barbarians: the disordered insurgency' by Chrissus & Odotheus (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/pdfs/a4/Crisso_and_Odoteo__Barbarians__the_disordered_insu rgence_a4.pdf)

[Thirsty Crow]

Both Empire & Multitude contain some interesting observations but personally I believe they're a one-way road to reformism.
Agreed, definitely.
For instance, Negri rejects the labour theory of value in "Multitude" (ok, if I were to be totally fair, I'd have to conclude that he rejects a specific facet of it, namely, the labour time framework for renumeration) and demands a new, "revolutionary" way of settling issues of renumeration for work done. And that can easily lead to a kind of rejection of the proposal to abolish markets (effective rejection of the abolition of capitalism).

But I think that revolutionary groups may benefit from the debate centered around on some of the issues raised in "Multitude", resulting in criticism and self-criticism. Needless to say, shouting "omg REFORMIST LIBERAL CAPITALIST REVISIONIST SCUM" is quite the opposite approach.

[praxis1966]

Both Empire & Multitude contain some interesting observations but personally I believe they're a one-way road to reformism. The movements surrounding much of the thought espoused by Empire, like the Tute Bianche,Disobbedienti,Ya Basta!,etc. are typical of the activist, 'alter-globalist' reformism that is the logical conclusion of much of the theses in Empire/Multitude. The original Operaist thesis that the struggle of labour is prior to Capital's reactive nature and thus can force Capital's restructuring to take certain shapes is taken to a whole new, silly, level where 'social movements' can somehow influence the shape 'Empire' takes through 'putting on the pressure' in the form of grass-roots activism, summit-hopping and placard-waving and other liberal fantasies. There are even some positive appraisals in follow-up works to Empire/Multitude of the European Union and the United Nations as presenting us somehow with a framework for an 'international community' or whatever. It's social democracy for the 21st century.

A good critique is 'Barbarians: the disordered insurgency' by Chrissus & Odotheus (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/pdfs/a4/Crisso_and_Odoteo__Barbarians__the_disordered_insu rgence_a4.pdf)

I don't know a whole helluva lot about Operaism, but if what you say is true (and I've no reason to doubt it) that comes as nearly laughably ironic considering Negri's involvement with Autonomia Operaia and their staunchly anti-reformist position.

[Comrade J]

http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/negri/

Free pdf download of Empire. Personally I think it is an excellent book in terms of content (with a few exceptions) but it is terribly translated into English. Not that it doesn't make sense, its just that parts of it are far more complex than was necessary.

I have been championing this book for years on revleft, as knowledge of international politics, the decline of the nation-state etc. are essential in understanding Marxism in the 21st Century, and not just domestic economics.

[jake williams]

I think that revolutionary groups may benefit from the debate centered around on some of the issues raised in "Multitude"
Like what?