24). How could the modern human being see history being made while being part of it? I am sure that Baudrillard is simply too close to events today to see that they indeed form part of our future history books. Surely these books will be more interesting and inclusive of all nations and their concerns than those of the past, but this makes them no less tangible. In "Multitude," Hardt and Negri consider the nature of war in chilling tones. I find their argumentation deadly and convincing, particularly in comparing previous forms of war with that found today. Whereas previous wars could be delineated in terms of their location or at least their participants (p. 3), this is not the case today. Indeed, according to the authors, it has become as intangible as the air we breathe - omnipresent and impossible to pin down and therefore also impossible to terminate. A further chilling factor the authors mention is the fact that democracy is more likely than not to be destroyed by today's...

Indeed, the United States appears to be a case in point. Citizens are enjoying fewer and fewer freedoms in the very name of democracy.
In "Empire," Hardt and Negri appear to suggest the opposite of "Multitude." Whereas the latter seems to suggest that chaos and dictatorship is most likely the future of human life on earth as a result of the pervading war, "Empire" appears to suggest continuing and increasing human cooperation and a resultant type of global city. Convincing about the writing is however that the authors do not appear to directly refute any argumentation regarding the Empire concept to date. Instead, each is examined for its strengths and weaknesses, after which the authors offer their own view. As a concept however, I do not find the argument for a global Empire convincing. While there appears to be the desire for a well functioning world power, the reality is still that far too much conflict exists for such a power to function properly.