Michael Hardt

Disclaimer: I'm not the most-informed person to review this - I've only read Empire some years ago (and had mixed feelings on it), but I was able to figure out what 'the multitude' was easily enough. I'm only passingly familiar with some of their theoretical background of Hegel, Kant, Spinoza, Marx. Foucault a little bit, but less so. Habermas and Deleuze are mysteries to me. So skip this ramble if you are more informed than I.

Empire was a very scathing review of modern globalization, show more providing a theoretical basis for multinational entities, abusing and manipulating the awareness of an underclass, etc. The multitude, as theorized, is a class which is so wide-ranging and disparate that it cannot self-rule, nor can be it be managed by a separate ruler. Reminiscent of Marx's description of the masses.

With modern neo-liberal capitalism cracking at the seams, Hardt and Negri argue for the 'social commons'. Subjective discourse, power of the multitude. Intellectual genealogy on ethics reaching back to Spinoza (which I respect immensely). Lots of stuff on biopolitics and the emphasis of 'love' and 'desire' in the new economy. We're moving past the old idea of the worker. Inherent distrust for organization and hierarchy. Separate 'outsider' groups are the focus on social reform. Although they will not all work together, their reforms will take on parallel paths. Abolition of private property (expected, these are Marxists). Focus on social relationships and personal interest as focus of new economy, which would be valueless. Some interpretations and misinterpretations of the Internet.

Some ideas in this book were very intriguing, but some descended into a contradicting mishmash. Empire still seems to be the most relevant, most advanced and most discussed, go there. show less

On Hardt and Negri

EMPIRE and MULTITUDE, by Hardt and Negri, are frustrating and irritating books. But most critics miss their one great innovation. They have replaced capital and commodity as the key concepts of Marxism and postmarxism. Instead, what is most important for studying social change is the production and reproduction of society itself. The technical term they have invented to try to explain this is bioproduction.

But they do not know what to do with this one great innovation. show more Class analysis may be less useful now than it was for classical Marxism, but we could start by imitating Marx. How would we define classes by their relation to the means of production of society? An elementary beginning would be: the state; non-state persons who control the big institutions; workers who have enough resources so that they can start their own businesses, or join worker coops, if they do not like their bosses; lesser workers; and everyone else.

Something missing? Yes. Women as a class, mothers and other child rearers, but also women as the primary transmitters of the local system of morality. More than all the others, they create society. They are the least appreciated source of future social change.

(I have also posted this at my Academia.edu website. See my LT profile.) show less

On Hardt and Negri

EMPIRE and MULTITUDE, by Hardt and Negri, are frustrating and irritating books. But most critics miss their one great innovation. They have replaced capital and commodity as the key concepts of Marxism and postmarxism. Instead, what is most important for studying social change is the production and reproduction of society itself. The technical term they have invented to try to explain this is bioproduction.

But they do not know what to do with this one great innovation. show more Class analysis may be less useful now than it was for classical Marxism, but we could start by imitating Marx. How would we define classes by their relation to the means of production of society? An elementary beginning would be: the state; non-state persons who control the big institutions; workers who have enough resources so that they can start their own businesses, or join worker coops, if they do not like their bosses; lesser workers; and everyone else.

Something missing? Yes. Women as a class, mothers and other child rearers, but also women as the primary transmitters of the local system of morality. More than all the others, they create society. They are the least appreciated source of future social change.

(I have also posted this at my Academia.edu website. See my LT profile.) show less

A lot more readable than Empire but lacks the almost poetic beauty in philosophical composition that brought Empire together. Largely seems to want to explain, sometimes almost apologize for the first work.