Why Hardt And Negri's Understanding Of Labour Is Impractical In The Field Studies On The Social Class Phenomenon?

Abstract

This article examines Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt’s ideas on class
 and labour relations. Negri and Hardt sufficiently explain the change of
 capitalist production process in trilogy (Empire, Multitude and Commonwealth)
 in which how the relation between the
 material and immaterial labour evolves is formulated. They assert that the
 immaterial labour is the hegemonic labour today and the Multitude is a kind of
 answer which will be the main political actor against the capitalist system. Of
 course their discourse is charming and supported by many people. Their ideas
 are important to see the big picture but unadoptable to understand the details
 of that big picture. Eventually, the article’s main argument is that Negri and
 Hardt’s understanding of labour is impractical and feeble in the field studies,
 provided that some useful aspects in the structure of their ideas to be
 demonstrated for researchers interested in the field. The article suggests that post-weberian Luc
 Boltanski’s analysis is more useful to understand class details than Negri ans
 Hardt’s theory.