Debating Empire

• Book: Debating Empire. NLR Books.

URL =

A series of critical essays on Negri's landmark book, i.e. Empire.

Summary

From the reading notes of Michel Bauwens, 2004:

Antinomies in Negri. Michael Rustin

- Transcendental Sovereignty vs Immanent Sovereignty

   - Negri distinguishes a radical modernity, incarnated by Spinoza,  but which was defeated, and so sovereignty was transferred from one transcendent order (divine order) to 
another (the Hobbesian state). But revolutionary humanism can be reclaimed.

- The Westphalian order of nation states vs the Kantian cosmopolitanism of global rules (the Perpetual Peace essay)

   - Negri supports the latter and takes a constructive view of human nature, based on unrepressed desire (as expressed by Deleuze in his critiques of Freud and Lacan) vs. 
taking into account the destructive side of human nature.

   - Author Michael Rustin claims that in order to do this, political theory must take into account the findings of Melanie Klein, and her discovery of dual drives, i.e. love 
and hate: "It is necessary to take into account both the negative and destructive potential of human nature, as well as its positive and creative potentials, in considering the 
systems of social organization that could bring about a better human existence."

- The dichotomy between 'bad, oppressive' external authorities and 'the good multitude'

   - Negri fails to recognize the difference between 'positive barbarians' and 'negative barbarians' such as Al Qaeda

Leo Panich makes an interesting distinction between seeing imperial developments as reflecting a reaction towards the autonomous actions of the multitude (Tronti and Negri), and by contrast Robert Brenner, who sees these same developments as resulting from inter-capitalist rivalry.