From: "FRANCO BARCHIESI" <029FRB-AT-cosmos.wits.ac.za> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:34:34 GMT + 2:00 Subject: Re: discussing neo-liberalism & utopia On 8 April Harald Beyer Andersen wrote: > > Franco Barchiesi's uses a strike that hit General Motors to exemplify tha> t > the just-in-time strategy of capital has rendered it very vulnerable. The > strike at General Motors: "emphasized the impressive potential to cripple > the whole process contained in the strategic location of small groups of > workers in particular phases." What he fails to mention is that this very > vulnerability could become ours if we succeed. However much Negri talks o> f a > "mass intellectuality" and in reference to computers that "in communicati> on > the immateriality is total" - which is very hard to believe - we are livi> ng > in a material world, and are likely to do so also in the future. Hi Harald and sorry for the delay of my answer, Well, what you write is not entirely clear to me. I am quite suspicious too of the notion of "mass intellectuality", particularly because it is often used in quite an unspecified way. From one side, it seems to indicate the development of a new anthropology of work, where the worker is required a new, holistic and synthetic vision of the labour process. This should enable him to exercise functions of delegated control in correction of defects and changes in product outline which are required in the age of Just-in-Time. Fine. What the mass intellectual theory fails usually omits, instead, is the explanation of the ways in which such new attitudes in relation to the labour process translate into the sphere of the political composition of the class, how they define intellectual and political *antagonistic* practices on the shopfloor. That is to say: how the potentiality implicit in the mass intellectual gives shape to new subjectivities. However, for what weight we can recognize to the mass intellectual argument, I don't think we can confuse this theory wuth that according to which "everything is immaterial". I don't even think Negri states that: it would be really a fairy tale deprived of any foundation. What usefulness can be in the theory of the mass intellectual resides in my view in its renewed emphasis on the communicational side of the labour process, with the associated shift away from a purely Fordist notion of labour as execution of prescribed tasks. The fact that labour is now assuming the meaning of the activation of social communication in the workplace *and outside* (through decentralization, outsourcing, new forms of household based work) does not mean that it is becoming immaterial. The various phases and various subjects which are put in communication, with their complex of needs and expectations, maintain quite a strong materiality. This is what I tried to show with my example about the strike at GM. It was an episode of struggle based more on the disarticulation of the communications with suppliers over the territory than on disruption of the line. By disarticulating the communication network on the territory, a relatively small group pf workers could force other GM plants to suspend their operations, immediately overcoming the limitations of traditional fordist strike strategies. These were usually fatally confined to single plants or areas, unless solidarity could have been spread through the traditional vehicles of parties or unions, and a shared class language. In my case, instead, the disruption of the capital lines of communication proved to be the most effective way to circulate the struggle, giving it a broad perspective, capable to couple defense of living standards with contestation of investment strategies and outsourcing. Only a new framework of work organization based on the re-configuration of the social factory outside the workplace, with the associated requirement for a new kind of intellectual labour force could provide the opportunity to set in motion this dynamics > > The globalization of the economy opens up to enormous opportunities. But > at > the same moment it presents us with obstacles that makes it more difficul> t > both to imagine communism as a real opportunity, and to realize it. This > difficulty of imagining communism in other than in an abstract form, make> s > it less of an possibilty. Most workers are practical people in search of > practical ways to actualize their dreams. I agree on that. But why should we "imagine" communism, where imagining could be an activity separate from everyday social practices, when the practical ways to actualize dreams and satisfying needs are short-circuiting with new forms of work organization and new forms of struggles, relativizing old referents for that staisfaction and actualization (ie. welfare state) and valorizing new ones (social communication and solidarity, new forms of labour community activism, etc.)? What can be make explicit as *elements of communism* from those dynamics of struggle? Franco Franco Barchiesi Sociology of Work Programme Dept of Sociology Private Bag 3 University of the Witwatersrand PO Wits 2050 Johannesburg South Africa Tel. (++27 11) 716.2908 Fax (++27 11) 716.3781 E-Mail 029frb-AT-cosmos.wits.ac.za http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~mshalev/direct.htm Home: 9 Barossa Street Kensington 2094 Johannesburg South Africa Tel. (++27 11) 614.3497 --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005