From: "jamie morgan" <zen34405-AT-zen.co.uk>
Subject: BHA: Re: RE: Re: ontology of war
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:41:22 +0100


More fundamentaly I was never quite able to get at what they meant by
ontological - if they mean basic to social being - which in someplaces they
imply - it is no more basic than many other aspects - if they mean radically
new - there is the problem that much of the historical argument for
bioproduction of war is general to mnodernity over th elast 100 years
(though the strategy section is about networks and technology)- in places I
was also reminded of Sparta

Jamie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Radha D'Souza" <rdsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:38 AM
Subject: BHA: RE: Re: ontology of war




Jamie:
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I agree with you re the line of their
argument - however, they do argue that as a result of the intertwined
bioproduction etc -  war today has acquired an ontological status.
That's what I wondered about. I don't have the book with me at the
moment for the page numbers, but it is repeated in several places in the
first section on War.
Marx in Grundrisse describes typologies of societies based on land
relations - the Asiatic/Roman/Germanic - and speaks of the 'war-like
organisation' of society under Romanic form which was essential for
production and extended reproduction of society - which later on becomes
an integral feature of society under Euro-American capitalism. If it
goes back as far as that then it may not something new to globalisation
and the new mode of production (which is another debate altogether). But
it makes the question of ontology of war even more important.
Radha


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On Behalf Of jamie
morgan
Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2004 9:10 p.m.
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: BHA: Re: RE: IACR Conference 2004

I interviewed Hardt recently and strictly speaking the argument is that
politics and war have become mroe intertwined such that a bioproduction
of
war has become internal to all social life and that simultaneously
mdoern
warfare strategy has tarnsformed to soemthing like the network used as
the
bassis for their argument for a new mode of production
(informationalization). In many respects I thought this was a much
better
book than Empire.

Jamie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Radha D'Souza" <rdsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 3:33 AM
Subject: BHA: RE: IACR Conference 2004



Hello all,

In Hardt & Negri's new book *Multitude* they speak of an "ontology of
war"; the argument being war is no longer contingent on other factors
e.g. politics etc but has acquired an ontological status.

I wondered if people on this list have a view on this, and the ontology
of war generally.

Radha





     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---