Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:21:57 +0100
From: Lowe Laclau <lowe.laclau-AT-gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Backward workers, was: Negri and Charleton Heston?


> The Hardt interview is at the URL below, Doug Henwood's radio show,
> september 23rd's show. In it, Hardt defines the multitude as
> "collaboration plus autonomy". Doug  asks him basically 'then what
> about right-wing people in the US?' and Hardt  responds basically that
> 'if they don't want to cooperate then they are not part of multitude'.
> It's very straightforward, and I found it rather shocking.

I think I see what he's saying, but he's not nearly as careful as N in
couching this concept.

> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#041007
> 
> Also, you write:
> "What does a working class have to do with the construction and
> productions of the multitude? No where I've ever seen are these two
> terms used synonymously."
> 
> As I read Negri, Virno, etc, they are precisely using the world
> 'multitude' to mean 'working class'.

Well yes and no. Negri explicitly says that they are not synonymous in
his paper "Approximations". You can say that in denying the "old"
concept of working class that he's not taking this new concept of
multitude to replace it, but thats not what I was talking about. The
old "identity" of the working class is something that Negri has always
opposed conceptually. In essence, if one were to make this new
equation, it would presuppose however a transformation in ones
definition of work.

> Chapter 2.1 of _Multitude_ covers this -
> 
> "Multitude is a class concept." (p103).
> 
> "the multitude [is] all those who work under the rule of capital" (106).
> 
> "The multitude gives the concept of the proletariat its fullest
> definition as all those who labor and produce under the rule of
> capital (107).
> 
> And in Empire " 'proletariat' is the general concept that defines all
> those whose labor is exploited by capital, the entire cooperating
> multitude." (Empire p402, there's also a lot on this on pgs52-66)
> 
> There's also Negri's talk from his debate against Callinicos at the
> ESF - http://www.generation-online.org/t/negriESF.htm , which is all
> about this matter.
> 
> I think the theoretical move being made by using the term 'multitude'
> is precisely to say that the working class is multitude, and in doing
> so to make a dual argument about both the composition of the class
> today and directions for political action/strategy.

Right. But you'd have to understand that the reason that N rejects the
concept of "proletariat" is equally why "the working class" is too
limited for what the multitude is or does. Already the "working" in
"working class" is too limited. Because if you look more closely
exploitation is never specifically in reference to labor itself, but
to its cooperation, and its cooperation as between productive
singularities. In every instance its focus is the move away from the
capitalist work assemblage.

> best,
> Nate


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