Empire by Antonio Negri & Michael Hardt

[Magón]

I recently borrowed it from a friend, and haven't really read much of it because of time (I've only really skimmed through some of what I thought was interesting), but she says that it's a pretty good book. Has anyone one here read it, and can give me their opinion on it? I'm not the most familiar with Negri, or his writings, so I'm not really sure Empire is the best place to start with his work, but with what it talks about, I'm currently interested in learning more about, so that's the main reason for my interest in it.

Also, what are people's opinions on Antonio Negri and Autonomist-Marxism?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Found two older threads on the subject if it is what you are looking for.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/empirei-hardt-negri-t145952/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/empire-antonio-negri-t153057/index.html

[Os Cangaceiros]

My opinions on the book:



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'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.

(from one of TGU's links)

If you want a good intro to Negri The Autonomist rather than Negri The Guy Who Wrote "Empire", I'd recommend "Books For Burning", which admittedly sits unread on my bookshelf.