Antonio Negri與Michael Hardt合著的《帝國》已於近年引發討論熱潮。論者在侧重《帝國》的某些主題（最有名者如「民族國家」 的主權形式已轉化為「帝國」的主權形式）時，往往忽略了《帝國》 其他的討論面向，如資本主義危機理論、勞動的非物質化、經濟的資 訊化、「諸眾」做為新的反抗主體等。本文認為，若要適切地理解這 些面向，必須把《帝國》乃至晚近的相關作品都擺置在義大利「自主 馬克思主義」的脈絡之下，方能見樹亦見林。因此，本文追溯了義大 利自主馬克思主義的發展軌跡，討論了 Negri等人對馬克思部分重要 作品的獨到見解，並試圖將自主馬克思主義定位為一種「政治馬克思 主義」。透過批判政治馬克思主義的不足之處，本文也一併檢討了自 主馬克思主義以及《帝國》之中若干啟人疑竇的論點。

Empire，co-authored by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt，has aroused considerable interest and controversy. While discussions center around important themes (the best-known of which is the emergence of a new global imperial form of sovereignty)， critical attention paid to other aspects， such as the capitalist crisis theory， the immaterialization of labor， the informatization of economy，and the genealogy of “multitude” as an ontological category of subjectivity， is relatively insufficient. In this essay I argue that only when these aspects are located in the context of Italian “autonomist Marxism” can they be properly understood. Therefore I briefly sketch the trajectory of Italian autonomism， discuss thereupon Negri and others’ idiosyncratic exposition and elaboration of Marx’s theory， and finally I attempt to interpret autonomist Marxism as a variant of “political Marxism.” In offering a critique of political Marxism，this essay also reconsiders some of the problematic arguments found in autonomist Marxism and Empire.