From: Peter van Heusden <pvh-AT-wfeet.za.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:53:03 +0200
Subject: Re: AUT: Is A New Magna Carta Kautskyist?  (was  Negri goes mad}


Thomas writes:
> Is "Empire" more progressive than unilateralism?
> Is this Magna Carta an admission on Negri's part that
> the situation is currently such that the best we can
> do is to avoid war and the upheavals caused by
> unilateralism through such a Magna Carta?  Is that
> mad, 
> reformist, or tactically correct?
> 

My approach to this is as follows:

1) We need to recognise the place that our intellectual labours occupy. 
As autonomists, we're not the Council for Foreign Relations, or some 
similar thinktank. If N & H are genuinely advocating a Magna Carta from a 
tactical perspective, they're going to have to put a hell of a lot of 
energy into getting heard by the bourgeoisie, and I really doubt whether 
that energy would be appropriately deployed.

2) On the contrary, I'd argue that our intellectual labour should be 
deployed within the movement that we are part of . After all, if we are 
all part of this vast 'multitude', there's a shitload of work to do in 
terms of the class composition of this very varied 'working class'. If 
you manage to get your work published in the WEF's journal, I think the 
first question you've got to ask yourself is: why is my voice being heard 
here? Is this where I want my voice to be heard?

So for me the question of whether hoping for a Magna Carta is correct or 
not is not the point. Its the wrong terrain of analysis entirely...

Peter
very sleepy after a night clubbing. apologies for incoherence.
--
Peter van Heusden                     pvh-AT-wfeet.za.net
Tel: +27 (0)83 256 0457



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