Message 00340 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT00331 Message: 17/37 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

RE: [ox-en] word social forum/stallman/patents

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Kermit Snelson wrote:

ambitious claims.  But now that you mention it, I do in fact believe that it
is impossible to base truly radical theory and practice on metaphysical
premises.  I think many (but certainly not most) of today's progressive
movements have lost effectiveness by adopting them.  But that's a topic for
another list, oder?
I think the contents of the list is what we make of it (especially the
english one, which doesn't yet have the traditions or community of the 
german one to disrupt). As long as we don't erupt into flame wars I think
we're safe ;-) Anyway, I'd like to know what you think 'truly radical' is 
- those words always make me a bit nervous...

Since everyone keeps mentioning him, guess I'll have to
read some Negri (I know nothing about him). Can you
recommend any particular work to give me some idea?

The most accessible work is: Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio, Empire,
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 2000 (ISBN:0674006712).  In my
none-too-popular opinion, that book represents the state of the art in how
to cloak reactionary metaphysics in a progressive disguise.
I've started looking at some of his interviews and history on the web -
autonomia operaia crossed with the readability (not) of deleuse and 
guattari, and Stalin justifications thrown in ... I'm not sure I can face 
reading it, I may take your anti-recommendation as good enough reason
to stay away from it.





Thread: oxenT00331 Message: 17/37 L4 [In index]
Message 00340 [Homepage] [Navigation]