Truck Reviews Beauty Best Books of the Month Men's slip on sneakers nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Grocery Handmade Personalized Jewelry Shop by look Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon $0.99 rentals for Prime members $0.99 rentals for Prime members $0.99 rentals for Prime members  Kids Edition Echo Dot Fire tablets: Designed for entertainment Kindle Paperwhite GNO Shop now SWMTVT18_gno



on October 2, 2004
"Multitude" by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri is a follow-up to the author's widely-acclaimed "Empire". In "Multitude", Hardt and Negri discuss change and the possibility of global democracy, which they define as "the rule of everyone by everyone". The book offers a unique vision of how such a future might be developing around us and futher rewards its readers with numerous insights and top-notch analysis in a highly readable text.

"Multitude" appears to have been written in part as a response to the criticisms of "Empire" as presented in the excellent book, "Empire's New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri" edited by Passavant and Dean. For example, "Multitude" takes a slightly different approach to the themes of U.S. exceptionalism, network power structures, violence and the politics of identity; all of these topics were critiqued at length in "Empire's New Clothes". Consequently, it appears that Hardt and Negri may have profited from this dialogue and it may also explain why "Multitude" is a more substantive and less theoretical book than "Empire".

Section One of "Multitude" is entitled "War". Hardt and Negri discuss the perpetual state of war as a means to maintain the capitalist world order and social hierarchy. Interestingly, the authors show how insurgencies and counterinsurgencies have both taken on the characteristics of flexible, postmodern production networks. Importantly, the anti-globalization movement is lauded as an example of how such decentralized and distributed networks can support an "absolutely democratic organization" whose emerging strength might yet constitute the "most powerful weapon against the ruling power structure."

Section Two is about "Multitude". The multitude is both plural and multiple, wherein people maintain their individualities but act based on common interests. Hardt and Negri posit that global production is made possible by "the commons" of language and communications and information networks. Patents, licenses and other tools to control the commons and appropriate wealth for private investors has hampered the productivity of the multitude, the authors believe, thereby creating a tension that might lead to revolution. To that end, recent events in Argentina are held out as examples of how new forms of collaborative democracy might emerge.

Section Three is entitled "Democracy". Hardt and Negri explain how the ecological and economic grievances of the multitude are routinely suppressed in favor of corporate interests. The authors endorse a number of reforms that might alleviate some of the worst excesses -- such as the Tobin Tax on currency trades, the easing of copyright laws and the forgiveness of third world debt -- but they go much further, suggesting that the time may be ripe for a "new Magna Carta", or a fundamental restructuring of relations between capital and labor. To that end, the authors envision an "open-source society" of collaboration characterized by the self-rule of the multitude and using the commons as the basis of social and economic production.

In my view, one of the key attributes of "Multitude" is its convincing analysis and description of today's post-democracy world. Hardt and Negri describe how the three major tenets of U.S. democracy -- the media, the separation of powers, and representation -- have been irreparably coopted by corporate power. This, of course, is an observation that has been made elsewhere but rarely with the penetrating analysis and skill that these intelligent authors bring to bear on the subject. If "Multitude" does nothing else than to serve to widen the discussion on this critically important topic, it will have made an important and lasting contribution.

However, I am less convinced that the open-source community envisioned by Hardt and Negri will spontaneously emerge as they have suggested. The disconnect between the aspirations of the multitude for shared peace and prosperity on the one hand and the brutal realities of hierarchical power structures on the other has existed for centuries. While one is certainly hopeful that the historic moment has changed and has made a revolution in human relations possible, the authors provide little in the way of guidance as to how the multitude might cross the divide. Still, "Multitude" serves as a thought-provoking and inspirational work that helps us understand the reasons why we need to move forward to a more peaceful and humane world, if not how to get there, and easily deserves a five-star rating. I highly recommend it to all.
74 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on November 7, 2011
I loved the book and I found it very interesting. Although, as usual there are some critisim but overal it has my vote as an interesting book.
If you want to have a better perspective on what has been going on in the world, especially the events that have started in middle east to the one in Wall Street then you need to read this book.
|0Comment|Report abuse
on August 4, 2014
Thank you for your prompt service and well represented product
|0Comment|Report abuse
on July 11, 2013
The pages are marked with pen or pencil, but the book it is about political philosophy so as long as you can read it is OK
|0Comment|Report abuse
Negri and Hardt fail to deliver a new strategy for the Left in MULTITUDE, the follow-up to EMPIRE, their improbable sensation of 2000 on Harvard University Press. The idea of a decentered, heterogeneous "actor" replacing the old idea of a unified working class continues in the same vein Negri has been developing for some time, from the "social worker" or "immaterial worker" of previous writings.

I can't be too harsh when the authors are so clearly filled with desire and optimism about changing the world in the direction of our hopes and dreams. I must say, though, that I preferred Negri's writing before he teamed up with Hardt. His earlier works, including MARX BEYOND MARX and THE POLITICS OF SUBVERSION, were more exciting to read than the EMPIRE/MULTITUDE/COMMONWEALTH trilogy with Michael Hardt.

A philosophical footnote -- Negri is not part of the German idealist tradition, he is not "thinking in German neoplatonism" (as another reviewer asserted) and he is most emphatically not a Hegelian dialectician. His influences include Spinoza (see his THE SAVAGE ANOMALY: The Power of Spinoza's Metaphysics and Politics), Machiavelli, of course Marx, and more recently, Foucault. The Foucault influence began in his joint writing with the late Felix Guattari, and continues in the project with Michael Hardt.

Another recommendation, not so much for strategy as an "imagination pump" (Daniel Dennett's phrase) for activists, is Deleuze & Guattari's A THOUSAND PLATEAUS.

See my reviews of Empire and COMMONWEALTH (2009) as well.
One person found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
Negri and Hardt fail to deliver a new strategy for the Left in MULTITUDE, the follow-up to EMPIRE, their improbable sensation of 2000 on Harvard University Press. The idea of a decentered, heterogeneous "actor" replacing the old idea of a unified working class continues in the same vein Negri has been developing for some time, from the "social worker" or "immaterial worker" of previous writings.

I can't be too harsh when the authors are so clearly filled with desire and optimism about changing the world in the direction of our hopes and dreams. I must say, though, that I preferred Negri's writing before he teamed up with Hardt. His earlier works, including MARX BEYOND MARX and THE POLITICS OF SUBVERSION, were more exciting to read than the EMPIRE/MULTITUDE/COMMONWEALTH trilogy with Michael Hardt.

A philosophical footnote -- Negri is not part of the German idealist tradition, he is not "thinking in German neoplatonism" (as another reviewer asserted) and he is most emphatically not a Hegelian dialectician. His influences include Spinoza (see his THE SAVAGE ANOMALY: The Power of Spinoza's Metaphysics and Politics), Machiavelli, of course Marx, and more recently, Foucault. The Foucault influence began in his joint writing with the late Felix Guattari, and continues in the project with Michael Hardt.

Another recommendation, not so much for strategy as an "imagination pump" (Daniel Dennett's phrase) for activists, is Deleuze & Guattari's A THOUSAND PLATEAUS.

See my reviews of Empire and COMMONWEALTH (2009) as well.
50 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on September 8, 2004
Almost all the reviews that I read of the book "Empire" failed to recognize it as a philosophical text (e.g. they wanted charts and graphs or they wanted an easy read). But this point is important because a philosophical text is there to introduce you to a concept -- a new way of seeing and apprehending the world -- and to a new way of thinking. Fortunately this time around they say so immediately.

Multitude like Empire is a very rich and complex book interweaving different types of narratives in order to present a new way of thinking about our present. What has changed is the coherence and cohesion of the text. It is much more solid. It doesn't try to cover every single thing at the cost of the readers attention. But it is every bit as audacious as the first. It is quite daring and innovative, and for all that still completely analytically solid.

The major protesters are generally those who disagree that the world has changed. This is not necessarily a philosophical matter but an empirical one. Those people who disagree need to take issue with the thousands of economic, sociological and historical analyses that have charted these very changes. From there it is merely a matter of interpreting it all.

The second group of protestors to these books belong to this camp, who disagree with their interpretations of the events and their significance. What does the postmodernisation and globalisation of the global economy (for example) have to do with political struggle, for the labor movement etc.? It is here that this book shines above all its peers (and I do not hesitate in using such strong language). Whereas Empire gave cursory and rather abstract presentations of the present conditions political significance, Multitude is entirely invested with this presentation.

Reading this books to me seems that both Hardt & Negri took careful considerations of all the major trends of criticism and answered them in turn in a deep and very convincing fashion.

It is a shame that so many readers will concentrate and criticize their writings for its difficulty and terminology. I agree that in the first book these posed a lot of problems for those unfamiliar with many of the discourses, but if one understands that both books are books of philosophy and not simply another set of tired political polemics, then one should at least be prepared to make an investment in reading them. What one stands to get in return in terms of knowledge is I think highly worth it.
37 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on January 12, 2005
Multitude is the much-anticipated follow up to Hardt and Negri's international bestseller Empire. In general Empire attempts to establish a firm contemporary understanding of the global order. The political theory of Empire addresses supranational sovereignty and its sources of legitimacy, while simultaneously analyzing the ways in which supranational sources maintain legitimacy through the legal process and how such is inextricably linked to the production of material and immaterial (knowledge, ideas, etc) production. As the previous sentence indicates, Empire is a dense and often times very difficult reading in political philosophy. Those who found Empire confusing or a difficult to understand will certainly find Multitude refreshing as the authors make it one of their clear and primary objectives to clearly define technical terms and philosophical concepts.

Multitude begins with the argument that war is no longer at the disposal of political powers (as it once had been) but rather war increasingly tends to define the very foundation of contemporary political systems. The authors address global warfare as an ontological (the nature of being) concept. Hardt and Negri argue that war "is becoming the primary organizing principal of society, and politics merely one of its means or guises" (p. 13). The authors insist that war has become a form of rule that not only controls the population but rather produces and reproduces all aspects of social life (see Michel Foucault).

The primary task of Multitude however concerns the conceptual rethinking of democracy. First, according to Hardt and Negri we need to understand that our current political order is not a democracy (in the true sense of the word) but rather more closely resembles what Rousseau refers to as an elective aristocracy. Hardt and Negri note that democracy is not unreasonable or an unattainable demand as the concept of the multitude (a class concept that refers to singularities that act in common) brings great hope to the future of democracy.

In order to implement a democracy and permanently rid the rampant corruption and disorder that plagues our current "democracy" the authors argue that the multitude needs to abolish sovereignty at a global level (e.g. the absolute destruction of authority). The authors also call for the abolition of private property by instituting what they refer to as a common. "The common does not refer to traditional notions of either the community or the public; it is based on the communication among singularities and emerges through the collaborative social process of production" (p. 204). The common moreover marks a new form of democracy, one that displaces sovereignty. With the rising of the common, continuity of modern sovereignty will ultimately be severed and in the Marxist sense demystify its core. The "new science of the multitude [is] based on the common" and when "these singularities act in common and thus form a new race, that is, a politically coordinated subjectivity that the multitude produces," a new humanity will result (p. 355-356).

Overall, I did not enjoy this book as much as Empire. I did find Hardt and Negri's careful assessment of criticisms levied against them (see Debating Empire a book edited by Gopal Balakrishnan) very interesting although not compelling. Perhaps the most problematic issue I have with Multitude is that the authors painstakingly denounce legitimate forms of violence for much of the first part of the book, however they come full circle by calling out to the multitude for the implementation of various forms of violence in the name of democracy. I do applaud Hardt and Negri for their faith and hopefulness in the human race, however their utopist vision is overshadowed by reality.
13 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on September 12, 2004
Hardt and Negri are probably the most celebrated political philosophers living today. Their previous book, Empire (2000), was a sometimes convincing, always provocative analysis of the global socio-economic and political system, which had the merit of remaining largely "high level" and theoretical, where the authors are most competent.
Unfortunately Multitude does not share the same merit. Hardt and Negri make a few interesting observations, for example on the current hegemony of immaterial labour (rendering the traditional notion of "proletariat" obsolete), and they provide an elementary yet useful application of Deleuze and Guattari's notion of "body without organs" to the political realm.
However, these modest accomplishments are outweighed considerably by rambling passages in which the authors discuss international finance (derivatives, etc.), lay anachronistic guilt trips on their readers over inequities between the North and South, and warmed-over analyses of the relationship between identity politics and social pluralism. Conspicuously absent is any consideration of ecology, which is looming ever larger as an issue in the 21st century.
Perhaps Hardt and Negri's most blinding oversight is a tendency to take globalization, and the world's evolution (or revolution) towards a "global democracy" for granted. Following September 11, 2001, this is a far from obvious prognosis. In fact, one could more plausibly argue, as John Ralston Saul did in the March 2004 issue of Harper's, that globalization is in the process of collapse, for better and/ or for worse.
It is very possible that certain regions of the world, such as Western Europe, continue to progress toward more "postmaterialistic" values (cf. Jeremy Rifkin's the European Dream), while America and the Muslim world duke it out in a low-level perpetual war (with attendant perpetual fear), which Benjamin Barber presciently labelled "Jihad vs. McWorld".
Readers who were stimulated by the high theory of Hardt and Negri's previous book, Empire, would be well-advised to take a pass on Multitude, perhaps in favour of Hardt's earlier theoretical work Gilles Deleuze: An Apprenticeship in Philosophy. Those who are interested in a more down-to-earth leftist reading of our post-9/11 world might want to check out Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire (Après L'Empire).
25 people found this helpful
|0Comment|Report abuse
on February 18, 2013
A well researched and thoughtful examination of where our nation currently resides. The unvarnished examination is a welcome change. The key to this examination is how it fits into the global scheme and I believe the authors accurately assess that functionally we can be considered a multitude rather than any other sovereign grouping.
|0Comment|Report abuse


Need customer service? Click here