Abstract

An unexpected confrontation involving Ernesto Laclau, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, and Herbert Marcuse serves as a testing ground for one of political theory's most basic tasks: to determine the concepts that are used to theorize politics. Laclau claims that by relying on a concept of immanence, Hardt and Negri cannot account for the relational nature of politics. Defending Hardt and Negri by turning their work against itself reveals unacknowledged and unintended affinities with Marcuse's critical theory. Disclosing these affinities rescues a productive understanding of immanence from Laclau's critique. Moreover, the dialectical logic employed by Marcuse is notable for its ability to make sense of and articulate the politics of Empire and multitude. Following from Marcuse, the significant dialectical roots of Hardt and Negri's work display how a dialectical approach to contemporary politics can give an account of far more than just the labor movement