From: ".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s-AT-optusnet.com.au>
Subject: RE: AUT: the "multitude" and rights
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:32:55 +1000


All,

Seems to me that this is a good discussion, and
perhaps needs to be deepened a little further.
Little of which I've time for at the moment.

But I did want to say that a) I do think there is
a cheerleading going on, in the specific sense
that the game is constructed as a contest between
reactionary and progressive capital, and N&H
assume the position of boosting the latter.  I do
not think this is the only game in town.

And, b) Lowe, I'm not sure what you're saying, or
maybe I just disagree.  Ot1h, you seem to note
that 'reforms' come about because of the pressures
of crises, of conflict, etc. Otoh, you seem to
argue that we are all responsible for proposing
the content of such 'reforms.'  Seems to me that
the first should indicate that capital itself
proposes 'reforms' in order to both limit and
innovate through the crises; which should
contradict the second argument.

Also, I have to say, Thomas, I'm thankful for your
comments about Negri and Virno re the mutltitudes.
My specific concern is that there are real (and
disastrous) limits to any strategy premised on a
romanticised notion of "the ontological power of a
collective morality based on equality." (From
_Politics of Subversion_)  IOW, there are real
problems with the embrace of abstract labour, and
Virno I agree points to some of those.

PS. I might have been overdoing the
interpretation, but I assumed by 'non-work,'
Andrew meant 'nonwaged work.'

Angela
_______________

<end message>




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