From: glevy-AT-acnet.pratt.edu.pratt.edu
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:16:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: autovalorization


For the most part I agree with Harry's recent post. His elaboration of
what Tronti meant in Harry's previous interview with Massimo was
useful in explaining this position, I believe. A few comments, though,
are in order.

> Mike [Lebowitz, JL] is a bit of a johnny come lately on this subject and
> ignores what the rest of us, especially the Italians, have written on the
> subject.

I think this is a bit unfair, Harry. Firstly, "jonny come lately" is
better than jonny come never at all. If Marxists, over time, reevaluate
their perspectives this is to be commended. Secondly, Mike does directly
refer (in a critical way, to be sure) to Negri in _Beyond Capital: Marx's
Political Economy of the Working Class_ (NY, St. Martin's Press, 1992).
Thirdly, much of what other autonomist Marxists have written has not been
accessible until recently to the English-speaking public. It is certainly
possible that Mike can't read Italian. Fourthly, I believe that there are
Marxists from many perspectives internationally who feel that their work
has been ignored or slighted. In many cases, this reflects the less than
desirable level of communication and exchange among Marxists
internationally. Hopefully, cyberspace will in time create certain spaces
whereby this barrier is partially broken down (in a sense, this is one of
the things that is already happening on OPE-L, as Massimo knows).

> He is right, and wrong. He is right that Marx's writing
> generally focuses on capital --he made it the subject and title of his
> book after all-- and there is far too little discussion of either the
> historical struggles of the working class or the elaboration of his
> frequently used metaphor of capital the vampire (who is dead and lives
> off the living). When I teach CAPITAL I point this out and bring in lots
> of stuff form history and contemporary struggles to carry out just such
> elaboration.  He is wrong in arguing that all of this cannot be
> found in CAPITAL --as I argued at length in my book READING CAPITAL
> POLITICALLY. Within the context of Althusser's seminar, Negri did an end
> run. Instead of taking on Althusser's analysis of CAPITAL, he used the
> GRUNDRISSE to bring out this same understanding. (I had used pieces of
> this in my book, but not used it systematically.) All that is in his book
> MARX BEYOND MARX.

I also see a difference in interpretation between Toni's book and your
book (as it relates to understanding _Capital_). I also agree that your
interpretation differs significantly from Mike's, but I think there are
many similarities as well especially as it relates to overcoming what Mike
calls "one-sided Marxism."

> The main emphasis in the analysis of self-valorization (I think the
> Italian prefix  "auto" sounds too wierd in English.) is the notion that
> self activity is not just reactive, not just AGAINST exploitation, but
> also FOR self-determined projects, FOR the realization of desires, FOR
> self-determined processes with at least the potential to elaborate
> themselves into the transcendence of capitalism. This is quite a
> discussion and most of it contains little discussion of "consciousness".

I think this point is also made by Mike Lebowitz using a different
terminology. Perhaps part of the problem with communication is that
different Marxist  "schools of thought" have developed their own unique
vocabulary which may not be understood by others. Note, for instance, that
the writer(s) of the "Editor's Preface" to Negri's book felt it necessary
to define a group of words which are used by Negri (and the Autonomia
Movement) but which were probably unfamiliar to most readers (or those
words were used differently by others).

> Jerry: Here you shift almost entirely into the old problematique of
> "class consciousness".

To use the word "class consciousness" is very different from shifting into
the "old problematique"! We *have* to get beyond knee-jerk reactions to
the use of certain words and concentrate instead on the meaning of
concepts within an overall perspective. Your warning bells, evidently, go
off when you see "class consciousness"; others warning bells go off when
they see "auto-valorization." My warning bells go off when I see the word
"problematique" (which I associate with Althusser and the structuralists).
This, however, doesn't stop me from trying to understand what you (or
others) are really saying.

> I think, quite frankly, that
> the concept of "class consciousness" as the consciousness of workers of
> their common interests has generally been formulated in such a way as to
> privlege the "party" and especially revolutionary intellectuals as the
> only one/ones capable of grasping the transcendent vision --a position
> which justified the subordination of most concrete struggles to whatever
> partly line was decided on.

I *agree completely* (surprised?). What I *said* in a previous post was
that it would be useful to *"contrast"* the perspectives of Lenin and
Trotsky on "class consciousness" to the concept of auto-valorization. You
mistakingly interpreted that to mean that I was broadly sympathetic to the
older "problematique" of class consciousness as interpreted by L & T.

I think that the task of having an open and undogmatic dialogue among
Marxists from different perspectives is a very important one. We need to
develop new ways to talk to and collaborate with one another. Where
possible, we should strive to communicate with each other as clearly and
honestly as possible and vocabulary and language alone (or
personalities, egos, careers, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to separate us.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

In solidarity,

Jerry



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---