For an antidote to this misperception of yours, comrade Louis, see especially John Saul's work in the SR. Probably the one strategic point that I've found nearly all the SR comrades agree upon, is the importance of the national state as a primary site for contesting power, nationally and globally. That's perhaps the seminal difference with Hardt/Negri. Surely you wouldn't read the SR tradition differently?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I suppose I am expecting too much from SR, which does provide first-rate analysis about various aspects of the global economy. But if I were editor of such a journal, I'd have a different emphasis--one that engaged the South as a subject rather than an object. For example, I am very familiar with the work of Vivek Chibber but I am far more receptive to the writings of somebody like Hamza Alavi or even M. Shahid Alam who is not a Marxist. As Yaffee pointed out, even if hyperbolically so, Chibber and Greenfield find little value in national struggles. If you can't see the value in such struggles, then much of what's going on the South will seem unimportant. I think that's one thing you folks share with Michael Hardt, despite appearing as his adversary on debates--a belief that national liberation struggles are some kind of exercise in futility or worse.
