Debating Empire

by Gopal Balakrishnan (Editor), Giovanni Arrighi (Contribution by)

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s book Empire has been hailed as a latter day Communist Manifesto . Its ability to develop a theoretical framework relevant to the current period of global neo-liberalism and international capitalism captured the imagination of the growing anti-capitalist movement and has been claimed as a turning point for the left.

As much as it has seduced and delighted some, however, it has enraged and frustrated others. In this collection, a series of some of the most acute international theorists and commentators of our times subject the book to trenchant and probing analysis from political, economic and philosophical perspectives, and Hardt and Negri respond to their questions and criticisms.

Genres: Philosophy

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

A prolific writer and independent scholar, Gopal Balakrishnan has authored numerous books, essays, chapters, and articles covering a broad range of intellectual interests. His published books include The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt and Antagonistics: Capitalism and Power in an Age of War. His edited volumes include Mapping the Nation and Debating Empire. He is the author of numerous essays and book chapters, and his work has been translated into multiple languages. In recent years, Balakrishnan has developed a distinctive interpretation of Karl Marx’s later economic thought and is working to refine his findings into a cohesive and politically resonating form. He has also begun collaborating with the editors of SS African Mercury. This journal delivers bold theoretical analyses and critiques of the political and cultural landscape across the ideological spectrum. He will be publishing most of his future work with SS African Mercury.

Reviews

[Kyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

So it's been a long time since I read Empire. That being said, I remember enough of it for this collection of essays to be interesting. A lot of the criticism focused on the fact that the authors wrote in a very abstract, deconstructionist sort of way, but about a topic that really needs to be addressed in a more concrete way. That touches on a dilemma I often feel about things I read - if your book/essay is just a forest of statistics and footnotes, you've got a solid foundation for whatever point you're trying to make, but you will lose your reader as they nod off. Or you can write with gripping rhetorical flourish and get your readers really excited, but your critics will have plenty of ammunition to say you are not backing up your assertions. Empire aimed to do the latter and indeed left itself open to that criticism. So it's a hard needle to thread and probably the authors weren't particularly trying to thread it.