From: "Stephen D'Arcy" <darcy-AT-chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: parasites
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 12:01:18 -0400 (EDT)


> > "The form of association...which, if mankind continues to improve,
> > must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can
> > exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice in
> > the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on
> > terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they
> > carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and
> > removable by themselves."
> > 
> > (John Stuart Mill, "Principles of Political Economy")

Nicholas wrote:
> 	In order for a voluntary labor cooperative (assuming you're talking
> about them and not a top-down enforcement of a cooperative arrangement on
> all firms)

To be exact:  I'm talking about bottom-up enforcement of a
co-operative arrangement on all erstwhile bosses. 

> to be as productive as a "capitalist" firm, it would need very
> dedicated members.  Free-riders abound in the world.  They're out there,
> waiting to sap you and me of valuable resources.  Be careful.

Exactly.  Free riding parasites abound.  THe only question is: when
will we get the chance to string the rich bastards up and feast on
their expropriated wealth?

******

Returning to Foucault:

I have a question addressed to anyone with an opinion on the topic:

If a term like "biopower" is part of an "analytics of power," then how
clearly ought it to be "conceptually" clarified and defined
independently of a historical account of one or more of its instances?

Relevant quotations:
"The aim of the inquiries that follow [by way of introducing the
project of a history of sexuality] is to move less toward a 'theory'
of power than toward an 'analytics' of power: that is, toward a
definition of the specific domain formed by relations of power and
toward a determination of the instruments that will make possible its
analysis." (Hist. of Sex., p. 82).

"Do we need a theory of power?  Since a theory assummes a prior
objectification, it cannot be asserted as a basis for analytical work.
But this analytical work cannot proceed without an ongoing
conceptualization.  And this conceptualization immplies critical
thought -- a constant checking.
The first thing to check is what I should call the 'conceptual needs.'
I mean that the conceptualization should not be founded on a theory of
the object -- the conceptualized object is not the single criterion of
a good conceptualization.  We have to iknow the historical conditions
which motivate our conceptualization.  We need a historical awareness
of our present circumstance.
The second thing to check is the type of reality with which we are
dealing."  (M.F., "The Subject and Power", in Drey. & Rab., p. 209).

Steve