I would like to draw your attention to an article I’ve just read regarding the social role of law and its relation to the movements in times of Empire. The guy who wrote it comes along with a kind of ‘systems theory of the left’, or rather, as Hardt and Negri put it in ‘Multitude’, a ‘post-systemic’, or maybe a ‘multi-level’, approach, taking on some valuable insights from systems theory in order to better position the movements visions and strategies in the global imperial network. The language may seem a bit strange and abstract at the beginning, but once you’ll get in to it, it really starts to get interesting. The author presents what he calls ‘the paradox role of law’: law is in movement(!), organizing a continuous battle about normative standards where it is not just submitted to political pressure from the powerful, but takes on the movements’ role of permanently deconstructing the imperial restrictions on radical democracy, common welfare and ‘justice’, which is presented as the development of everybody’s potentials. The author’s ‘law in movement ’ (you could probably also say ‘schizo-law’) acts ‘politically’ as it is bound to accelerate the change of imperial standards for political and economic organization and action. He gives examples for this ‘Deleuzian acceleration’ in various legal fields, and shows how critical law pushes for the change of law’s own procedural and substantive parameters which were supposed to immunize the system against uncontrolled transformations. The question is, obviously, if there is not a lot of wishful thinking or if law’s tendency to rather ‘block infinite negotiations’ against the movements continuous de- and re-constructive impetus won’t prevail. The author would probably see the answer on this question as being part of the same battle. Legal education is another crucial part. Last not least, there are some interesting notes regarding the ‘pressure’ on movements to present ‘alternatives’. His acceleration model seems to suggest that there might even be too many alternatives for Empire to support. ‘Defeat’, he says, can in any case only be a transitional ‘episode’ of a movement’s movement for the realization of the unlimited ‘potentia’.