the last 3 paragraphs of Hardt and Negri's response to all comments in the end of the Rethinking Marxism dossier.

"Three fundamental elements constitute the actions of the multitude: resistance, insurrection, and constituent power, or really, if one does not want to be so theoretical, micropolitical practices of insubordination and sabotage, collective instances of revolt, and finally utopian and alternative projects. These are the capacities of the multitude that are real and constantly present. Our hypothesis, then, is that in order for the multitude to act as a subject these three elements must coincide in a coherent project of counterpower. We need to discover a way that every micropolitical expression of resistance pushes on all stages of the revolutionary process; we need to create a situation in which every act of insubordination is intimately linked to a project of collective revolt and the creation of a real political alternative. How can this be created, however, and who will organize it?

The obvious temptation here is to repeat, with regard to the multitude, the operation that (in his time) Rousseau operated on bourgeois society to make it into a political body. This is just the temptation, however, that we need to recognize and avoid, because for us the path leads in the opposite direction. It is not true that there can be no multiple agent without being unified. We have to overturn that line of reasoning: the multitude is not and will never be a singe social body. On the contrary, every body is a multitude of forces, subjects, and other multitudes. These multitudes assume power (and thus are capable of exercising counterpower) to the exten that they are enriched through this common productivity, that they are transformed through the force of invention they express, that they reveal and radically remake, through practices of commonality and mixture, their own multiple bodies. Self-valorization, revolution, and constitution: these become here the components of the capacity of decision of the multitude - a multitude of bodies that decides.

How can all this be organized? Or better, how can it adopt an organization figure? How can we give to these movements of the multitudes of bodies, which we recognize as real, a power of expression that can be shared? We still do not know how to respond to these questions. In the future, perhaps, we will have accumulated enough new experiences of struggle, movement, and reflection to allow us to address and surpass these difficulties - constituting not a new body but a multiplicity of bodies that come together, commonly, in action. We would like that the critiques of our book, _Empire_, be directed toward this incapacity of ours to give a complete response to these (and other) questions. We hoped that in writing _Empire_ we would provide an argument that would stimulate debate. Risking being wrong is better than remaining silent. Ours is, after all, part of a collective project of all those who really think that the revolution of this world and the transformation of human nature are both necessary and possible."