Re: Hardt-Negri's "Empire": a Marxist critique, part 4 (conclusion)

Louis-

Two comments on "Empire":

1) It sounds much like a rehash of Bill Warren (who attacked dependency
theory back in 1980 in a book on Verso), who claimed to uphold "orthodox
Marxism" in taking the position that imperialism is progressive, but with
fancy new pomo clothes.

2) It seems that Hardt&Negri want to have it both ways -- the Empire is
progressive, and so is the "multitude's" fight against it.  This isn't so
different from a standard progressive view anywhere on the liberal to
socialist spectrum (ie, capitalism and modernity are progressive
vis a vis feudalism), but they end up on the liberal end of the spectrum
if they argue that capitalism is *still* progressive today.  

I can see the appeal of any rhetorical strategy, though, that tries to
reclaim the "cutting edge of progress" position from the neoliberals.  It
has been a demoralizing feature of the past decade that the Left has been
increasingly on the defensive, cast as a reaction against the march of
progressive democratic capitalism.

RH