From: ".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s-AT-optusnet.com.au>
Subject: RE: AUT: Marazzi's La Place des Chaussettes
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:08:12 +1000


Hi Michael,

I'm honestly not sure at this point about the
dialectic. There are times in _Empire_ and
elsewhere when Negri is perfectly clear about
that.  (I happen to particularly like those
aspects, especially his analysis of Keynsianism,
mediation and so on in earlier works.) But there
are also times when it is not so clear, and not
just in _Empire_ or in what you describe as its
most weakest parts.  Rights, after all, assume
recognition. It's difficult to see how that schema
doesn't deploy some kind of dialectic.  That said,
the teleology is certainly there, as is the
ontology, both explicitly so.  I have to say that
I'm no fan of either.

Anyway, I'm hoping we'll discuss this more fully
in a few weeks' time. :)

Angela



: Angela,
:
: while I agree with these critiques of
: Empire to some extent ( that it ends
: up being an inadvertently Hegelian
: teleology, a dialectics of multitude and
: Empire), from my reading of other works
: by Negri, the sense I have is that
: the multitude is supposed to work in a
: more Spinozian way. In this sense the
: multitude and empire cannot form a
: dialectical opposition as two forces in a
: master vs' slave, proletariat vs.
: bourgeoisie model (to produce a Hegelian
: synthesis), since in a sense the
: multitude is not a sector of society but
: all of society in its productivity or
: even in its being: inasmuch as there
: is productivity, creation, innovation,
: existence there is the multitude: the
: multitude is all of society in its
: constitutive dynamic sense. The question
: then is how this constitutive power
: (potentia) becomes organised not
: according to its own power of
: constitution but by parasitic forces of
: domination (the state, capital in the
: sense of private property,
: accumulation, reterritorialisation
: etc.) of constituted Power. This
: parasitic relation cannot be a
: dialectics since the multitude does not need
: to be anything other than what it
: already is: it only needs to find ways to
: escape the channeling of its power of
: potential into consituted Power, more
: through processes of withdrawl or
: defection than any dialectical
: confrontation with capital or the state
: (what Virno calls exit), while
: finding means of effective
: self-organisation, which H and N were trying to
: indicate through such notions as the
: common (successes and failures of which
: can be seen in everything from
: autonomia to counter-globalisation
: struggles). In this sense the
: revolution is always already here, especially
: now (cf Virno on postfordism as the
: communism of capital) but completely
: diverted, distorted and betrayed. I
: don't think this is made very clear in
: Empire, and certainly the last section
: on the multitude is the weakest one
: (for me especially when they start
: talking about rights, when they should
: really be talking about
: powers.........). I think it's put much
: better in
: Negri's Kairos, Alma Venus, Multitude
: where the whole Spinozian/Lucretian
: underpinning of Negri's thought is made
: a lot more explicit as are many of
: the somewhat confused concepts in
: Empire including the Multitude. I'm
: certainly hoping that Hardt and Negri's
: new book will more fully articulate
: the multitude as power rather in terns
: of vague rights.
:
: Of course, this raises the question as
: to with this Spinozian ontological
: politics might not have its own limitations.....
:
: Michael
:
: >From: ".: s0metim3s :."
: <s0metim3s-AT-optusnet.com.au>
: >Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
: >To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
: >Subject: RE: AUT: Marazzi's La Place
: des Chaussettes
: >Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:18:45 +1000
: >
: >: Steve, what's this what is to be done
: >: article you're talking about?
: >
: >It's this Nate:
: >http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpnegri9.htm
: >
: >In _Empire_, N&H see multitude in terms of its
: >prospects for being the subject of revolution.
: >It's a fairly crude (and unfortunate) hegelian
: >marxism, imo.  Lotringer's
: introduction to Virno's
: >_Grammar_ is pretty astute, also imo.
: >
: >Angela
: >_______________
: >
: ><end message>




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