dr.woooo writes:

Empire For the Multitude?

The day that I finished Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri was also the day that I read Rob los Ricos' review, "Empire for Beginners" (Anarchy #53). Ricos' overall criticism of globalization is very relevant, but he does not see that he and the authors of Empire are often in agreement. He recounts the history contained in the book without working with the concepts, which are a very important part. Ricos claims to point out the precepts of Hardt and Negri: progressivism, Marxism, Euro-centrism, and an "enthusiasm for the arrival of this horribly dehumanizing Empire under which we live." However, none of these precepts are Hardt or Negri's.

First, Hardt and Negri do not valorize Empire. Theoretical acknowledgement of a situation is not the same as singing its praise. Empire is here whether we like it or not. Instead, Hardt and Negri propose a history of the construction of Empire, from the crises of modernity and the state. The modern state arose with as a monarchy, but through struggles and crises, the state came to be defined by nationalism, and then as a People, a homogeneous group that can be politically represented by the state. This is a crucial point for Hardt and Negri, for in opposition to a People they place the multitude, a creative, desiring community of individuals that is not exclusive, but a multiplicity and an open possibility of relations. Ricos equates a people with the multitude, stating that the multitude has replaced "the proletarian masses, who still retained some distinguishing characteristics as people." However, the proletariat is much closer to the multitude than a People. This difference is extremely important.

Ricos talks about an alliance of state and capitalism, saying the state creates crises in order for capitalism to move forward, but Hardt and Negri underline the fact that both the state and capitalism are only reactive. In fact, in the transition to Empire, capitalism had to deterritorialize all the boundaries of the nation-state. Ricos claims that nation-states "will always exist" in empire, but as Hardt and Negri show, they are constantly traversed, and decline in importance in the imperial pyramid. Later, Ricos changes his story stating, "States are becoming increasingly unnecessary to Empire." Either way, capital was not the productive factor of the transition to Empire; the productive forces are the struggles against capital.

In fact, it is crucial to read Empire from the perspective of production, or it might seem that the state, or the nation, or later Empire is the motor of change. Ricos reads production as assimilation. It is not, for several reasons. First, Empire renders the difference between inside and outside as pivotal points for struggle irrelevant: all struggles take place on the global grounds of Empire, involving direct confrontation between the multitude and Empire. This is not assimilation; it is oppressive action responding to the resistance of the multitude.

Second, production in Empire has brought together the political, the social and the economic. This production includes an important communicative aspect, called immaterial production. This does not mean that Hardt and Negri overlook industrial production, but they point out that it is transformed by the new production of information and communication just as the industrial revolution transformed agriculture. This new mode of production has created a decentralized and mobile productive order depending on the multitude for constant innovation and reproduction; enabling both the production of new subjectivities and new possible forms of resistance. This is the imperial paradox: while Empire relies on this creative production, it must ensure that this production does not exceed imperial command.

Along with production, the concept of the multitude reveals Hardt and Negri's ultimate aim. Ricos makes several incorrect claims about the multitude: it is "a disgusting attempt to create a sort of multicultural racism;" synonymous with consumers, as "all cultural and social differences are now irrelevant, since Empire has reduced all possible identities to one-that of the consumer;" and the "fact that some people are successfully waging war against Empire is inconceivable to Hardt and Negri."

The first two accusations come from reading the multitude as a People. A People is inseparable from the nation-state, a representative group "having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed," (Empire, 103) with an identity based on exclusion. In contrast, the multitude is manifest in a multiplicity of subjectivities that are not defined by exclusion, but include differences, and allow for mobility and communication. The multitude is not some helpless consumer, but the producer. The multitude is the productive factor, in which Empire can only maintain command. The multitude does not only produce economic goods, but also produce the capacity for life and value. Meaning and value have not abandoned humanity, as there are now new possibilities:

Production fills the surfaces of Empire; it is a machine that is full of life, and intelligent life that by expressing itself in production and reproduction as well as in circulation (of labor, affects, and languages) stamps society with a new collective meaning and recognizes virtue and civilization in cooperation (Empire, 365).

In contrast, "imperial government appears as an empty shell or a parasite." (Empire, 359) The multitude is difference, mobility, and cooperation, not racist homogenization or assimilation; it is productive power, the very production of life, to which empire can only coerce at its own peril; and it is a new possibility for creation and resistance, not passive consumerism.

Ricos' accusations of Euro-centrism and progressivism don't stand up. Hardt and Negri are not progressives: they do not ignore the bloodshed and suffering of modernity, nor do they valorize Empire. It is no surprise to Hardt and Negri that resistances to Empire emerge everywhere, against its imperial global order. These resistances are inside and immanent to imperial power, disturbing the very function of imperial global order, whether its Chiapas, Seattle or Genoa.

There is one more point to address: the label of Marxism. If the authors utilize Marxism, it has often been transformed. Ricos accuses them of a "progressivist love of the state." Compare this to Hardt and Negri:

"Some might object that the productive biopolitical universe still requires some form of command over it, and that realistically we should aim not at destroying big government but at putting our hands on its controls. We have to put an end to such illusions that have plagued the socialist and communist traditions for so long!" (Empire, 349)

The authors' Marxist investments are also transformed by the work of the post-structuralists, such as Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari. Their influence shows when Hardt and Negri emphasize the role of creative production. However, Hardt and Negri do not propose a program, as only the experimentation and self-organization of the multitude can create resistances. In other words, they trade the vanguard party for cooperation.

The real issue with Hardt and Negri for anarchists should be their insistence on waving the flag of communism. The fact that there is no state-form in the organization of the multitude shows some alliance with anarchism. If communication and production is as important as they claim, and I think it is, the difference between communism and anarchism is more than convenient literary usage, but the production of possibilities of resistance. The close proximity of this communism and anarchism indicates that anarchism is itself a viable form of resistance. Further, one should not merely dismiss the book on the basis of its brief treatment of 19th century anarchism, nor in a larger sense, should one reject works solely because they aren't prefaced by a confession of anarchist credentials (as some anarchists seem to implicitly require).

This book is far more innovative than Ricos indicates, merging postmodern philosophy, Marxism, politics and anti-globalization into a work that, despite the fact that it may not be "for beginners," poses many challenges to the global order of things. If anything, this book should introduce a variety of authors to a larger audience through the challenge of Empire. While I myself am more than familiar with the works of Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, etc., this book introduced me to several other important authors, especially Giorgio Agamben. This book is not an end of the resistance to empire, but the beginning of the challenge.

Devin Zayne Shaw

University of Toledo