Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: benjamin rosenzweig <lumpnboy-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: RE: teleology in relation to earlier discussions of 'democracy'


Angela, Lowe and everyone else
 
Without wanting to forcibly drag people back to an earlier discussion on this list, the relationship of the discourse of 'rights' to the internalisation of the imperatives of abstract labour - taking new forms as the materiality of an emerging class composition reconstitutes our experiences and the reality of exploitation, the experience of value, and the ways in which 'identities' are posited in relation to capital - is also central, in my opinion anyway, to a critique of 'democracy' adequate to the current moment.
 
The comments on democracy made by a variety of people not that long ago seemed to me a step away from a radical analysis of democracy and its relationship to the forms of abstraction imposed by/as capital but seemingly experienced as the core of the self in the self-management of exploitation under the new forms of subsumption. A step away because of an apparent subordination of critique to a desire to claim 'democracy' for revolutionaries, a self-limitation of theory for programmatic reasons.
 
This last claim may be wrong, and ad hominem, but I think that there are a variety of radical analyses of the concept of 'democracy' that seek to move beyond criticism limited to representative, liberal or capitalist democracy as opposed to real or direct democracy, and I think that these deserve attention.
 
I'm sorry for the all-too-brief nature of these comments compared to what is required to really elaborate on the arguments involved, but unfortunately I can't do more than suggest what might be involved for lack of time just now: I will attempt to do a bit more qork twoard such an elaboration in the near future, but I would be interested if people think that this is just wrong or what.
 
Benjamin Rosenzweig

".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s-AT-optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Lowe,

I'm not sure what you understand by 'eschatology';
but as far as I can tell, saying that the
multitude reveals a telos (their words) is the
announcement of an end, therefore both
eschatological and prophetic. And, sure, the
ontology is novel in relation to marxism. But
dispensing with dialectics for a dose of
neo-platonism isn't exactly novel in relation to
western philosophy. I'm not unfamiliar with
Negri's work, though I haven't read everything
he's written. What I will say is that the bit
which people seem to regard as his weakest
points -- ie., the recourse to rights in
_Empire_ -- isn't a momentary aberration but the
conclusion to a series of assumptions and claims
which have been present for some time. It's the
slippage between 'early' and 'late' Spinoza, if
you will; ie: the internalisation and diffusion of
the subject of rights as the correlate of the
internalisation etc of abstract labour. That's an
interesting analysis; but put to better use by
Lazzarato, Virno and others I think. But this,
Negri and Hardt claim, amounts to freedom, destiny
and a demand, again their words. Yuk.

I'd be interested to know what there is in
_Multitudes_ that sheds any light on this, one way
or another.

Angela


: The teleology is there, but what type
: is it? Its by no means an ordinary one,
: or the old, typical. Its not in any
: sense the old eschatological teleology
: that people made of Marx's
: "prophetism". One has to be careful not
: to let their signifiers precede them
: when reading Negri. He tends to elide
: quite a bit, which means that one has
: to be familiar with the entire network
: of other statements. And what is the
: nature of his ontological project? I
: would say that both of these aspects of
: his thought are novel with respect to
: the Marxist tradition. Though I'm not
: saying they are novel in and of
: themselves, but in their application to
: this tradition and with respect to
: issues like value, to many concepts
: within the western political
: philosophical tradition... they are not
: so well established paths. I think
: (though I could be wrong), that because
: of this, people tend to want him to
: justify himself with respect to his
: difference vis-a-vis the hegemonic
: traditions.. or vis-a-vis things t
: hat are well-established. His
: discussion of Rights for example--I've
: not read Multitudes so I've no idea
: what or if he says more about it
: there--is a consideration outside
: "representation". One could read the
: word "right" and assume he's talking
: about the same thing a Rawls might talk
: about. When you said it presuposses
: recognition, I'm not quite sure what
: you means but if you meant it in a
: sense that presupposes mediation, that
: wouldn't be consistent.




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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


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