From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: Explications of The Savage Anomaly
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:35:51 -0500


Tahir,

Hey, I hope you don't mean me :)  I am quite convinced that imperialism is a
dead dog, and I have come to grasp, only recently, that imperialism always
was, in a sense, a dead dog theoretically.  I did argue in favor of it for a
long time, but mostly because I found Negri's idea of empire lacking and the
notion that the nationa state is somehow facing an critical, if not
absolute, loss of sovereignty unsustainable.  It was more of a "I don't have
a reasonable other way to think through the problem so I am sticking with
this ugly, warty gimp who barely hobbles as a theory."  However, the idea
that sovereignty exists on a level of international expression which it
never had before, indeed I agree.  I just am not sure exactly what it all
means at the moment, and that is why I value Empire, because Negri raises
all the important questions.

I think you might find folks in Edinburgh who feel roughly the same.

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: Explications of The Savage Anomaly




>>> nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com 10/15/02 07:01PM >>>
 Now, perhaps the believers in the 'theory of imperialism'
in Chicago, Edinburgh, and Cambridge (the three places I've had the most
contact with folks like that) are particularly thick headed, undemocratic
and boring. I doubt it, but none the less my experiences w/ these folks has
definitely turned me off to the folks they like to quote


Which theory of imperialism is this exactly? Any theory of imperialism?
Tahir




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---