Debating Empire [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

While most of the essayists credit "Empire" for pushing the debate about globalization to the fore, the critics often challenge Hardt and Negri's theories. In the Introduction, Gopal Balakrishnan writes that probably the most contentious issue is the role of the U.S. in international affairs. Hardt and Negri (who, it should be noted, wrote their book in the mid-1990s) contend that U.S. influence acts as a stablizing global force. While nearly every critic in "Debating Empire" refutes this claim -- citing as evidence the U.S. government's response to the September 11 attacks and subsequent Iraq war -- Mr. Balakrishnan suggests that Hardt and Negri are to be commended for posing the crucial question of U.S. hegemony for scrutiny.

Many contributors commend "Empire" for its historical analysis but take issue with the book's conclusions. For example, the first essay by Michael Rustin generally agrees with Hardt and Negri's "depiction...of the capitalist economy" but questions that a "universal proletariat" may have emerged. Mr. Rustin believes that Hardt and Negri's anarchist vision of a harmonious future that can exist without the need for government is premature and "unrealistically optimistic". To the contrary, Mr. Rustin thinks that Hardt and Negri may have overlooked the "darker possibilities" of unchecked U.S. economic, political and military power, including the effect that propaganda may have on mobilizing citizens to support violent state action.

On the other hand, Malcolm Bull posits that the U.S. could indeed offer a model for "a different type of totalitarianism" where the social contract might allow individuals to live freely and in a mutually supportive manner. But unlike Hardt and Negri, Mr. Bull believes that significant change must occur in the U.S. for this positive outcome to be achieved. The key, Mr. Bull suggests, is whether the U.S. might respond to the terrorist threat in the long run by offering a program of inclusiveness that eradicates global inequities and instills harmony among citizens -- which unfortunately appears not to be the case at the moment.

Hardt and Negri's somewhat abstract assertion that capitalist power is ubiquituous and therefore exists as a 'non-place' is challenged by Ellen Meiskins Wood, who asserts that the nation state remains an essential building block of globalization. Tom Mertes' essay about the many recent struggles waged against capital in Central and South America similarly stresses the importance of place, writing that "messy, mass-scale face-to-face encounters are the life-blood of any movement". Other contributors who generally concur with this critique include Stanley Aronowitz and Sanjay Seth.

Alex Callinicos discusses Negri's career in the Italian Autonomous movement in order to deconstruct Negri's thought. Mr. Callinicos concludes that "Empire" is the result of Negri's fascinating relationship with "applied postructuralist philosophy" but little more, in that it offers "no strategic guidance" for those who seek to effect change in the real world. After suggesting that the uneveness of capitalist development might define where worker struggles can be focused, Mr. Callinicos declares that Negri's abstract ideas are "an obstacle to the development of a successful movement against the global capitalism whose structures he seeks to plot in 'Empire'". In a similar vein, Charles Tilly, Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin in their essays find fault with Hardt and Negri's idealism and lack of pragmatism.

Perhaps the most fundamental critique, however, is delivered by Timothy Brennan who takes issue with Hardt and Negri's research methodology. Mr. Brennan accuses the authors of "assemblage", or the technique of ripping conceptual ideas away from their historical contexts, which has resulted in a corruption of Hardt and Negri's "entire apparatus of seeing and presenting" history. Mr. Brennan challenges the "millenarian" rhetoric used by Hardt and Negri to claim that 'the multitude called Empire into being', countering that globalization is "a vast enterprise set up to encourage capital mobility while domesticating labor".

Giovanni Arrighi's essay is unique in that his own writing was cited extensively in "Empire". Mr. Arrighi compliments Hardt and Negri's work in general but corrects what he contends are misrepresentations of his thought in the book. Taking a long-term view at the rise of capitalism, Mr. Arrighi believes that Hardt and Negri may simply be premature in announcing that globalization has created a seamless world. Mr. Arrighi argues that the divide between rich and poor nations proves that boundaries still matter, and that it might take a century or longer to create a situation where all the world's people feel a sense of shared solidarity and feel compelled to rise up against capitalism.

Personally, I found Mr. Arrighi's comments to be particularly insightful, for the following reasons. It appears to me that Hardt and Negri's analysis could prove valuable to so-called "Red/Green" thinkers who theorize that the multitude's collective experience with environmental scarcity could lead to solidarity and an eventual overthrow of capitalism. Hardt and Negri's declaration that an 'outside' to capital no longer exists appears to be a prerequisite for such a shared experience to occur -- but it also makes sense, as Mr. Arrighi suggests, that this process will likely take many years to unfold.

Of course, helping to form your own conclusions about the meaning of the book "Empire" is what makes "Debating Empire" so rewarding. The high level discourse provided by the essayists helps flesh out "Empire's" arguments and provides added critical perspective for the reader. To that end, I highly recommend "Debating Empire" to anyone who has read "Empire" and wants to further explore the book's provocative, contentious and illuminating themes and ideas in greater detail.