Fwd: Hardt on Charlie Rose

---

In a message dated 7/25/01 11:35:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lnp3@panix.com 
writes:

<< Subj:     Re: Hardt on Charlie Rose
 Date:  7/25/01 11:35:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
 From:  lnp3@panix.com (Louis Proyect)
 To:    Threehegemons@aol.com, wsn@csf.colorado.edu
 
 ><< (Hardt is an english prof, so
 > what do you expect -- "it's all just a text.") >>
 > 
 >
 >Has Hardt ever said anything like this?  His buddy at Duke, Fredric 
Jameson, 
 >certainly would not.  Incidentally, Hardt is a professor of literature and 
 >romance studies, in the Italian department, not an English professor.
 >
 >Steven Sherman
 
 Hardt is friendly to poststructuralism, which any sensible person would
 regard as utter garbage, especially after the Paul DeMan affair at Yale.
 Here's what Hardt says:
 
 "The dogmatic division that I find most prevalent and troublesome today is
 the one that separates Marxism from poststructuralism. First of all, the
 division is simply historically inaccurate. Poststructuralism is a vague
 term, but the majority of the French philosophers who are generally grouped
 under that rubric developed their thought within one vein or another of the
 Marxist tradition."
 
 (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v004/4.3hardt.html)
 
 


Thank you.  My question is answered.  Apparently Hardt never said anything 
remotely resembling "its all just a text."  I think from previous posts my 
position is clear enough.  Although I have not yet had the opportunity to 
read Empire front to back, nothing I've read so far on this list or elsewhere 
about it has convinced me it is making a terrifically original contribution, 
or that Hardt/Negri do not fall in the ahistorical trap of most globalization 
theorists of extrapolating one trend in the present indefinitely into the 
future.

But I don't see any reason to slander the guy, or more disturbingly, act as 
if English professors and philosophers are uniformly idiots, fake marxists, 
etc.  In general, this list regularly suffers from the  non-sensical 
formulation that what goes on in the world can be divided into real 
'material' conflicts and interests and 'reflective' ideas, culture, etc.  

Steven Sherman
 
 ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
 Return-Path: <lnp3@panix.com>
 Received: from  rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) 
by air-za02.mail.aol.com (v79.27) with ESMTP id MAILINZA26-0725143523; Wed, 
25 Jul 2001 14:35:23 -0400
 Received: from  kachifo.cc.columbia.edu (kachifo.cc.columbia.edu 
[128.59.59.172]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v79.20) with ESMTP id 
MAILRELAYINZA45-0725143500; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:35:00 -0400
 Received: from esprit (esprit.ais.columbia.edu [128.59.223.51])
    by kachifo.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA19252;
    Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:35:30 -0400 (EDT)
 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20010725143419.0069271c@popserver.panix.com>
 X-Sender: lnp3@popserver.panix.com
 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:34:19 -0400
 To: Threehegemons@aol.com, wsn@csf.colorado.edu
 From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com>
 Subject: Re: Hardt on Charlie Rose
 In-Reply-To: <c8.180f0ebd.289068ff@aol.com>
 Mime-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 
  >>

---