|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 "He had a quick academic career"
- 2 Removed Reference
- 3 Spinoza?!
- 4 Bibliographic entries
- 5 References for quotations
- 6 Removal of link to London Independent interview
- 7 horribly written
- 8 Time served in Prison
- 9 How did he plead?
- 10 Critiques of Empire
- 11 Unbalanced
- 12 Some Modifications
- 13 Additional
- 14 Negri and postmodernism
- 15 Is this page apologetic ?
- 16 Inline citations/references
- 17 No one has time
- 18 Source issues
- 19 Conspiration Theory
- 20 Unused refs here for reference
"He had a quick academic career"
I removed the reference to Negri organizing the Red Brigades because the footnote was unscholarly and biased
The article begins by saying that "Negri is perhaps best-known for his co-authorship of Empire and his work on Spinoza.". However, further on in the article, only one line mentions a possible (weak) tie between a (late) work by Negri (Time for Revolution) and Spinoza... To the best of my knowledge, professor Negri is famous for a) his political activities and b) a book on globalization. I see no evidence whatsoever in this article (or anywhere else) that Negri's work on Spinoza is significant. Even his work as a philosopher in general may be questionable -although I really can't elaborate on this. Any philosophers listening here? (In lack of competent contribution, I will modify the article incipit to make it sound realistic instead of merely hagiographic) Dpianelli 07:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think his work on Spinoza is reasonably significant (I would say it is his most significant work for an academic, rather than political, audience). His The Savage Anomoly and Subversive Spinoza are often cited as examples of (post-)Marxist interest in Spinoza (along with Etienne Balibar and Warren Montag). It might be good to add a section on his philosophy, including the Spinoza books, Insurgencies and a discussion of the philosophical background to Empire and Multitude. VoluntarySlave 06:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I completely concur with VoluntarySlave—Negri's work on Spinoza is indeed very significant among contemporary engagements with Spinoza. In response to Dpianelli's comments: Negri might be noteworthy for his activism and for his works (in the plural—he and Michael Hardt have written three books on globalization as of February 2007, when I write this), but he also is indeed one of the important Continental philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century. Job L 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you think Negri's work on Spinoza is important, and can substantiate such belief via references and documentation, please go ahead. Just stating that he is "one of the important Continental philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century" will take us nowhere near to a credible encyclopedia entry, I am afraid. Thanks Dpianelli 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try and put together more references in order to start a section on Negri's philosophy, but, for the moment, here is Julie R Klein in Philosophy Today):
- Thinkers as central to contemporary continental conversations as Louis Althusser, Gilles Deleuze, Etienne Balibar, Pierre Macherey, and Antonio Negri, have all taken Spinoza as an important interlocutor.
- VoluntarySlave 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try and put together more references in order to start a section on Negri's philosophy, but, for the moment, here is Julie R Klein in Philosophy Today):
I recently tagged the final sections of the article—those providing bibliographic information on books and articles by and about Negri—as needing cleanup. I don't have the time myself to take this on right now, although I'll try to get to it soon if nobody else has time either. Specifically, these sections need, in my opinion, to be revised in the following ways:
- Style and content of entries should be consistent throughout all entries, in all the bibliographic sections. In other words, we should agree whether to separate bibliographic items (author, title, publisher, etc.) by commas or periods, whether to list the place of publication as well as the publisher, etc.
- ISBNs should be added wherever appropriate in order to honor the Wikipedia convention of providing library-style links to resources. (There's probably an official name for this convention, but I can't recall it right now—sorry.)
As I said, I'll try to get started on this soon, but as I'm a graduate student and the end of the semester is rapidly approaching, time is at a premium for me right now. Job L 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
References for quotations
References needed for the quotes:
--from Michel Foucault, "isn't he in jail simply for being an intellectual?"
--from John Reilly, "a postmodern plot to overthrow the City of God."
Steven McCrary 16:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Toni Negri is operating on too high an intellectual level for labels like "postmodernism" to be relevant (certainly the influence of Foucault on his work is far too complicated for it to be a question of 'being postmodern,' whatever that means, or not. Does anyone have a source for his 'dismissal of postmodernism'? Mgasner 06:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
How is Negri's "intellectual level" "too high" for postmodernism to be a relevant category of analysis? On the contrary, Empire (co-authored with Michael Hardt) makes it clear that contemporary Empire (the authors' term for global sovereignty) is a postmodern phenomenon not to be confused with the nation-state sovereignty of modernity. Negri is not a "postmodernist" in the same sense that, say, Jean Baudrillard is, but he is a sort of postmodernist in that he analyzes globalization as occuring during the postmodern period.
The "dismissal of postmodernism" can be found in Empire, section 2.4 (pp. 137-56). Job L 22:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I notice that someone (unfortunately, an unregistered user who gave no explanation for his or her editorial decision) has recently deleted the link to the "critical interview" with Negri published in the London Independent. Although I for one consider that interview to be in no way a fair assessment of Negri's work, I'm not sure that it deserves to be cut from the article. Any thoughts? Job L 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone has yet again removed the link to the Independent interview—and there is still no justification given for this editorial decision. If a consensus is reached regarding this interview, then and only then should it finally be removed. I have two questions for anyone interested in helping maintain the quality of this page:
1. What do other people think about including or omitting the link to the interview under question?
2. Why is this link continually removed? Would whoever keeps removing it please provide a rationale so that the rest of us can actually evaluate the decision to remove it? Job L 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Needs to be rewritten and cleaned up. Will see what I can do. --Valve 07:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- update: Should be a bit better now that I have cleaned it up, albeit slightly. Still needs a ton of work.
I don't like the tone of this article. It is so laudatory that it could have been written By Mr Negri himself.
The article fails to give a clear idea about the charges held against Negri, about the climate of violence instigated by "Autonomia" in Italian society, and at Padova University in particular, and Negri's responsibilities in this regard.
The article does not explain why Negri was condemned to 17 years' imprisonment, and tries to give the impression that he was simply persecuted for being "an intellectual".giordaano220.127.116.11 15:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"Potere Operaio disbanded in 1973 and gave rise to the Autonomia group."
Autonomia wasn't a group, so much as a network of groups. Potere Operaio didn't 'give rise' to Autonomia - that is to vastly overemphasise their importance at the time. It would be more accurate to say that "Potere Operaio dissolved into Autonomia in 1973."
"Antonio Negri was arrested along with the others leaders of Autonomia"
Autonomia was a deeply heterogenous network of organisations, and didn't have leaders.
As for the comments on his trial/violence, It would also be far too broad and historically innacurate to also tag 'autonomia' as a whole as 'instigating a climate of violence.'
I think the article gives 'the impression that Negri was persecuted' because this is what happened in his case. But some more details on this couldn't hurt.
Time served in Prison
- Moved from article
Wait, this [the 17 years he is said to have spent in jail] doesn't add up. I only get 6 years plus 3 or so previously served. How did he pack in 17 years into so short a timespan? (Author unknown)
How did he plead?
I see no note in the entry about how Negri pleaded in the charges against him. Did he admit any culpability? --Dialecticas 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Critiques of Empire
I have just tagged a statement that alludes rather vaguely to some critiques of Empire. The sentence needs to cite sources and, even better, to provide examples of the "activists and scholars" who critique the work. As the sentence stands right now, it implies that most or even all of the activists and scholars under question unanimously criticize Hardt and Negri. I can't speak for the activists that the sentence names, but as a scholar working in globalization studies I can attest that academics are by no stretch of the imagination universally dismissive of Hardt and Negri. On the contrary, although they are also not universally lauded, Hardt and Negri's Empire stands as a watershed event for critical globalization studies, at least within English departments and related fields. Job L 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Antonio Negri is considered, by a good part of the Italian political establishment and culture, as the prototype of the "cattivi maestri" (evil schoolmasters), i.e. those who, while not personally indulging in violent acts, encouraged and helped organizing the extreme left wing's recourse to political violence in the 60ies-70ies in Italy.
On a smaller scale,Padova University, and his University Institute in particular, became notorious for the rampages of "Autonomia", the beatings (including of Professors) and a general climate of violence and insecurity.
There is little or no trace of this in this article, which gives simply the impression that Negri was wrongly persecuted, for reasons difficult to explain (for being an intellectual - as Foucault apparently said ?)Giordaano 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed some details. Once again, the article is still so laudatory that it seems written by Mr Negri himself, or by a close friendGiordaano 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, be serious. No one exiled Toni Negri. He fled to France in order to avoid having to sit his prison sentence.Giordaano 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Tazmaniacs is convinced that Negri was persecuted. That he went into "exile", then wrote while "in captivity", that his friends are "famous autonomists".
This is all extremely partial, and aims at glorifying Negri's figure. While Tazmaniacs is clearly an admirer of Negri, he should realize that his figure is controversial (to say the least), and that a more objective portrayal should be worked out.Giordaano 11:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please abstain yourself from claiming you know what I think, that would be so nice. I have reverted your edits, because you mixed them with removal of text which is unacceptable. Tazmaniacs
This Mr Giordaano seems to be just soaked with all the propaganda that was broadcast by the Italian media in the late 1970s and early 1980s and then re-used by the Italian right after Tangentopoli (1993)... Actually Negri never killed anyone nor was a member of any of the most famous leftist terrorist organizations, such as the Brigate Rosse. Negri was chosen as a scapegoat in 1979 in a moment when the Italian government seemed unable to meaningfully strike the Red Brigades after the assassination of Aldo Moro. I don't want to deny that there was a big problem of terrorism in Italy (both red and black, let's add), but targeting Negri and other Autonomia Operaia leaders can be now seen as no more than setting an example. But Mr Giordaano probably believes the old and new disinformation. All this blabbering about Evil Teachers (cattivi maestri) is absolutely ludicrous, and smell of the old Catholic frame of mind, which can't come to terms with the idea of freedom of speech and opinion... the Inquisition is still there, in the mind of those people. One might also add that many Brigate Rosse members, who actually killed people, are out of jail now, having acted as stool pigeons, and nobody talks about them, while Negri is still presented as the political bugbear by the Italian right (Forza Italia, Lega, Alleanza Nazionale).--18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
1) I've changed the title of Autonomia to it's full name and translation - Autonomia Operaia Organizzata (Organised Workers' Autonomy), although there are a number of variations of this name, including Workers' Autonomy and Working-class Autonomy, and I've swapped the word 'group' for 'movement' (see below).
2) I strongly agree with the comment suggesting that the reference to Negri et al as "leaders" of the Aut.Op movement is misleading. This isn't simply a matter of opinion, but was an important point raised during the trial. The assertion of the prosecution was indeed that Negri and others arrested at the time constituted a form of leadership for the Aut.Op movement, whilst the response of the defence was that this was contradictory to its diffuse, composite nature (a view supported by Padova Committals Judge Palombarini). Therefore, to refer to Negri and others as "leaders" is to treat the original prosecution assertions as established fact. On this basis I've changed the article to read "along with other prominent figures associated with the Autonomy movement".
3) I've changed the names of those arrested to their full names, and added a few that were not included. The article wrongly states that Franco Piperno was arrested during these initial arrests, thus his name has been removed. (My source for this information is a publication prepared during the earlier portion of the trials by the Italy '79 Committee and The Committee Against Repression in Italy.)
4) As the article says, the first judge assigned to the case was Pietro Calogero. I've altered this to his full title, Padova Public Prosecutor Dr. Pietro Calogero. The article also states that Calogero was "close to the PCI" - I've altered this to "who was close to the Affairs of State office of the PCI, which was involved in power-sharing in government at the time in an arrangement known as "The Historic Compromise")." I think this makes better sense of the reference to the PCI.
5) I've altered the phrase regarding Calogero's accustations to read "accused those involved in the Autonomia movement of being the political wing of the Red Brigades and thus behind left-wing "terrorism" in Italy," because I think this is a more accurate description of the charges brought against Negri and others, (according to the above cited document).
6) I've capitalised the title "Anni di Piombo" and changed the translation to 'Years of Lead', since this is the translation most commonly used in all the documentation I've seen (as well as the fact that this is a more literal translation). This needs to link to the pertinent Wikipedia entry, but I don't know how to do this.
7) With regard to the above comments suggesting that the article is unfairly favourable to Negri, and the attendant criticisms, some sources need to be cited to support this view and any related assertions. (It is true that Negri was widely attacked by the Italian press and media, a point in fact raised by some material, with the counter-criticism that the press, as well as being predisposed to negative views of figures proclaiming revolutionary objectives, was influenced by either the PCI or the P2 lodge.) On this basis it might then be possible to include a section of criticisms. In short, if you believe the article omits pertinent facts, provide them along with direct citations of sources.
8) With regard to the query concerning Negri's plea, the obvious question is "To which charges?" The nature of the trials surrounding Negri and others arrested at the time was long-winded and protracted, with charges often being dropped, reinstated, and replaced with alternatives over the entire period from 1979 until the late 1980s, with this, along with the sheer period of time for which suspects could and were being held without trial, being one of the 'irregularities' to which Amnesty's attention had been drawn. During this entire period the range of charges against Negri included: constituting strategic leadership of the Red Brigades, direct participation in the killing of Aldo Moro, (at one point it was claimed that the voice in a phone call from kidnappers during the Moro crisis was that of Negri), that Potere Operaio constituted an 'armed band', formal leadership of Autonomia Operaia Organizzata, which it was claimed functioned as the 'political wing' of the Red Brigades, and 'armed insurrection against the powers of the state'. In addition, the defendants arrested in April 1979 were accused of the theft of one painting, the theft of a pistol, embezzlement of a 50,000 lire note, theft of a collection of stamps, theft of cars and receiving stolen goods, and involvement in four bombings in Rome in 1972, and a fire at a warehouse in Milan in 1974. As far as I can gather from documents I obtained a few years ago from a site dedicated to gaining amnesty for Negri, Negri was ultimately convicted in absentia of one charge, and he appealed against the charges. Negri and co-defendants were ultimately acquitted (in the case of Negri, in absentia) of the charges of 'armed insurrection against the powers of the state', (this article refers to this charge as 'association and insurrection against the state'), whilst Negri's final sentence, the one which he returned to Italy to serve the remainder of, was, apparently, 13 years for 'membership in an armed band' (although this article says 17 years and doesn't state the final charge).
9) Finally, I added a reference to an extract from Empire at Marxists.org to the links to articles by Negri.
As a footnote, I am in possession of the digitised text of a document prepared and circulated by The Italy '79 Committee (London) and the Committee Against Repression in Italy (New York) with the aim of generating awareness of and support for those arrested and awaiting trial at the time. If a more experienced user (since I don't know how) could take reciept of the text and submit it to Wikisource, it would make a valuable addition in this context, because it essentially details the complex affair from the defense point of view, at least during the earlier portion of the trials. If anyone is interested in doing this, please e-mail me LSmok3@gmail.com. LSmok3 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded the reference to Amnesty International's interest in the case so that it specifies some of their concerns, and added a reference to the relevent Amnesty Reports.
Also added a couple of pertinent quotes, although I got them from extracts from the book in question and therefore lack the relevant page numbers.
With regard to the above suggestion regarding the bibliography, I've cleared up the section covering books on Negri and the external links, italicising the titles and moving the years of publication to the end. Personally I've never seen a bibliography that lists years of publication first, but if anyone seriously disgrees they're welcome to move them back to the start. This also matches the Books in English and Articles sections. With regard to providing an ISBN library ref. for the titles, I don't know how to do this, but if the titles in question are still in print it should be easy to accomplish using Google or Amazon. On the same subject, I was wondering why the bibliography only lists titles by Negri in English? The majority of Negri's published output is in Italian or French. Again, looking at the Wikipedia entry for Autonomism, it might be fairer to expand this to include non-Enlgish texts, with the language of the text listed before the title. I have a full definitive list of publications by Negri up until about 1999 if that helps.LSmok3 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Negri and postmodernism
I took out the "although" that preceded this:
"He acknowledges the influence of Michel Foucault, David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity (1989), Fredric Jameson's Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991) and Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari's Capitalism and Schizophrenia."
The implication was that "even though" he was influenced by Foucault, Harvey, Jameson, and Deleuze, he was a fierce critic of postmodernism nonetheless.
But none of these authors are "postmodernists" either.
Rholifi 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this page apologetic ?
This page, as it is, seems written by a Negri enthusiast. The tonality is apologetic. It's not an encyclopedia article. It should be rewritten by someone who has the knowledge, the time and the will to do it.Giordaano (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Such a comment is highly remarkable. There has been a defamation campaign against Negri since his arrest in 1979. There has also been a campaign to defend Negri and his image. As usual in Italy, there are those in favor of Negri and those who still believe he is the Grande Vecchio behind the Brigate Rosse or something like that, a sort of sophisticated arch-villain who is responsible for all the horrible things that took place in Italy in the 1970s. Obviously both sides are prone to oversimplification and demonization of those who have a different opinion. Hence the deletion of all the things that are in the Wikipedia entry that they don't like, regardless of their truthfulness. Probably these people have swallowed all the Italian media have repeatedly said on Negri (most of which is no more than deliberate character-killing), and aren't really interested in knowing who is Negri and what he really said. Maybe this entry should be protected, so that such actions may be prevented.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The comment by our friend 126.96.36.199 is very typical. It should probably be protected.
- It treats the criticism of Negri's political and moral role by Italian media and political forces as completely negligible (including internationally respected media such as Corriere della Sera, Repubblica, La Stampa etc.
- In this view, critics are but gullible people who have swallowed the 'deliberate character-killing" operated against Negri.
if you want to prove your accusations to Negri--and maybe include them in the entry--you should substantiate them by quoting reliable sources. In a previous message you said that this entry "should be rewritten by someone who has the knowledge, the time and the will to do it." Do you have the knowledge, the time and the will? Well, why don't you do it? You're simply saying that it's all wrong, but so far you haven't clearly said what is wrong and what should be the correct information. What's wrong with Negri? You keep saying that Italian newspapers have said there is something wrong with him, but you do not say what. Your comments are rather vague, and I don't think they will persuade anyone if you keep them so. In another comment you wrote:
"Antonio Negri is considered, by a good part of the Italian political establishment and culture, as the prototype of the "cattivi maestri"".
Well, this is what I find vague. A good part of the Italian political establishment and culture? Who? Can you quote someone? He's considered the prototype of the "bad teachers" (cativi maestri); but by who? And what does that mean? Maybe the phrase you used is clear to an Italian, but you have to understand that the readers of the Wikipedia can be people who anre not knowledgeable with Italian politics and history. All in all, it is clear you disapprove of Negri, but so far you have not stated why; no wonder nobody's going to change the entry.--James.kerans (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's going to change the entry simply because nobody cares.
Sorry, I don't have the time and the will to do it myself, or I would quote the relevant media (newspapers and books): to almost completely ignore the debate in Italy around the political and moral figure of Negri is absurd.
More than one year after, the article is still in its sorry state. So, must I really drink this bitter chalice ? do I really have to do this ? do I have to get involved in editing it ?
Having to read Negri's works to any serious extent is worse than being sentenced to a serious flogging. And yet, it seems I will have to do it...
It's been some time since I last looked at this page. All seems in order with comparatively little in the way of major changes. However, there is clearly an issue with regard to the proper use of inline citations; most of the major body of the text lacks any citations at all, and for some bizarre reason refs 7 to 22 are all gathered together near the end of the Political Thought and Writings section, although it is not remotely clear why. I took a look at the history of the page edits but was unable to discern who was responsble for the refs ending up collected together like this, or when. Clearly something needs to be done about this, all the more so since the article is in the Bio. of Living Persons cat. This would entail citing the general content properly (ie. revising the content with proper citations), as well as providing meaningful content to reflect the refs that have been jammed on to the end of one section (a reading of the sentence in question fails to provide real clues as to the relevance of the references). I don't have time to do it myself right now, but perhaps a regular contributor wouldn't mind taking a look at the problem? LSmok3 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- What precisely needs to be done to clean that up. I noticed it, too. That cluster of references is highly conspicuous.--Zujine (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No one has time
Yes, we all criticize, but no one has time to amend this sorry article. In Italian, we say "armiamoci e partite" (let's take up arms, so you can go to war)
- Actually, one thing occurs to me is the difference in how Negri's actions and trial are discussed in the article and how they are discussed here: http://188.8.131.52/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9048. It takes Keith Windschuttle far less words to give a much clearer narrative of what happened. I will update the article to more closely reflect this explanation. —Zujine|talk 03:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
We need sources for the claim that he was cleared of any links with the Red Brigades. I'm going to restore the sourced material that stated this connection and await something saying that he had no connection - preferably from a good source. And I am going to delete, in the body of the article, the numerous unsourced claims about this, which have had fact tags on them for a while now. —Zujine|talk 12:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please pardon me, I had not seen the update with source. Allow me to check that source. If there are contradictions among sources, the different views should be noted. —Zujine|talk 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the Portelli source, I think it is not a complete characterisation to merely say that Negri was cleared of all links with the BR. The relevant part appears to be on p. 6:
An American specialist in voice identification, appointed by the court, testified that the voice on the Red Brigades' phone call was indeed Negri's. However, a few months later an actual leader of the Red Brigades, Patrizio Peci, was arrested and decided to cooperate with the prosecution. Negri, he said, had nothing to do with the Red Brigades; the voice on that famous phone call belonged to somebody else.
- Here we have the testimony of a voice specialist against one of Negri's putative co-conspirators. The controversy should be briefly mentioned in the lead, and the bones of the dispute clearly stated in the body, IMO. —Zujine|talk 13:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Sources to refer to
Here are some articles that may be referred to. If people have others, that would be great too. —Zujine|talk 14:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pacepa, Ion Mihai. "Bolton’s Bravery", National Review, June 16, 2005
- The Independent, "Antonio Negri: The nostalgic revolutionary", Tuesday, 17 August 2004
- Pryce-Jones, David. "Evil Empire", National Review, September 17, 2001 issue
- Anderson, Brian C. "Brothers in Marx", The Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2009
- Kimball, Roger. "The new anti-Americanism", The New Criterion, October 2001
Philip Willan's book Puppetmasters (google books), an interesting conspiration theory, has some twenty pages mentioning Negri , from pages 183ff./This really is fascinating stuff and surely not to be dismissed out of hand. And there really were close connections between Potere Operaio and the Red Brigades: it:Valerio Morucci and Primavalle Fire.--Radh (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great, I will look into this text. Appreciate the notice. —Zujine|talk 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know of any other good texts like this? —Zujine|talk 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, sorry, not yet, but will have a look. the German WP entries for de:Potere operaio and de:Rote Brigaden have tons of references, but mostly in German and Italian.
- The Semiotext(e) number on Autonomista (Semiotext(e), Vol. 3, No. 3, 1980, it seems) might be interesting; but I have not seen it myself.
- Interesting essay by Richard Drake (and his book on the BR - also on googel books - looks good) in a collection by Leonard Weinberg: Political Parties....
- The New York Review of Books published a very good review of Empire by Alexander Stille (NYRB archive linked to in his WP article/restricted/but Stille's available letter to Negri alone is interesting).--Radh (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know of any other good texts like this? —Zujine|talk 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Appreciated. I will look through them in time. —Zujine|talk 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused refs here for reference
I removed all these from the article. They're here for whoever cares to make use of them. —Zujine|talk 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Toni Negri in perspective by Alex Callinicos, 2001.
- Statement by Antonio Negri - broken link 2006-10-15 in refutation of the allegations made against him by Keith Windschuttle in The Australian, 16th March 2005.
- Italy: Behind the Ski Mask, in New York Review of Books, Volume 26, Number 13 ? August 16, 1979.
- The Empire Does Not Exist: A critique of Toni Negri's ideas by Pietro Di Nardo, 2003.
- Negri resources at generation-online
- "Autonomist Marxism and the Information Society" by Nick Dyer-Witheford in Multitudes, June 3, 2004.
- Persian Empire: Antonio Negri in Iran by Nina Power, in Radical Philosophy, 2005.
- Recycling Marx: Autonomism and The Rejection of Orthodoxy, 2005.
- BARBARIANS: the disordered insurgence by Crisso and Odoteo.
- Force, Relation, Resistance, Constituent Power and the Potential For Another World, 2005.
- Empire built on shifting sand Critical review of recent English language works by and about Antonio Negri, by Joseph Choonara, 2006.
- Naked Punch Review Interview with Antonio Negri discussing its recent take on his theory of Empire.
- Picture of Negri
- "N" de Negri (in Spanish)
- Antonio Negri, A Revolt That Never Ends
it is great that some serious work on this article is finally being done.Congratulations. I will try to give some contributions
- Hi. Because they were just in a big long line. They were not used for their information, but just sitting there. If someone wants to incorporate some of the information found on those links, they can go right ahead. I will do that too, in time. I just didn't think it looked good having a long string of references for no reason. —Zujine|talk 06:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)