Re: discussing neo-liberalism & utopia

["FRANCO BARCHIESI" <029FRB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 April Harald Beyer Andersen wrote:

>
> Franco Barchiesi's uses a strike that hit General Motors to exemplify tha=
> t
> the just-in-time strategy of capital has rendered it very vulnerable. The
> strike at General Motors: "emphasized the impressive potential to cripple
> the whole process contained in the strategic location of small groups of
> workers in particular phases." What he fails to mention is that this very
> vulnerability could become ours if we succeed. However much Negri talks o=
> f a
> "mass intellectuality" and in reference to computers that "in communicati=
> on
> the immateriality is total" - which is very hard to believe - we are livi=
> ng
> in a material world, and are likely to do so also in the future.

Hi Harald and sorry for the delay of my answer,

Well, what you write is not entirely clear to me. I am quite
suspicious too of the notion of "mass intellectuality", particularly
because it is often used in quite an unspecified way. From one side,
it seems to indicate the development of a new anthropology of work,
where the worker is required a new, holistic and synthetic vision of
the labour process. This should enable him to exercise functions of
delegated control in correction of defects and changes in product
outline which are required in the age of Just-in-Time. Fine. What the
mass intellectual theory fails usually omits, instead, is the
explanation of the ways in which such new attitudes in relation to
the labour process translate into the sphere of the political
composition of the class, how they define intellectual and political
*antagonistic* practices on the shopfloor. That is to say: how the
potentiality implicit in the mass intellectual gives shape to new
subjectivities. However, for what weight we can recognize to the mass
intellectual argument, I don't think we can confuse this theory wuth
that according to which "everything is immaterial". I don't even
think Negri states that: it would be really a fairy tale deprived of
any foundation. What usefulness can be in the theory of the mass
intellectual resides in my view in its renewed emphasis on the
communicational side of the labour process, with the associated shift
away from a purely Fordist notion of labour as execution of
prescribed tasks. The fact that labour is now assuming the meaning of
the activation of social communication in the workplace *and outside*
(through decentralization, outsourcing, new forms of household based
work) does not mean that it is becoming immaterial. The various
phases and various subjects which are put in communication, with
their complex of needs and expectations, maintain quite a strong
materiality. This is what I tried to show with my example about the
strike at GM. It was an episode of struggle based more on the
disarticulation of the communications with suppliers over the
territory than on disruption of the line. By disarticulating the
communication network on the territory, a relatively small group pf
workers could force other GM plants to suspend their operations,
immediately overcoming the limitations of traditional fordist strike
strategies. These were usually fatally confined to single plants or
areas, unless solidarity could have been spread through the
traditional vehicles of parties or unions, and a shared class
language. In my case, instead, the disruption of the capital lines of
communication proved to be the most effective way to circulate the
struggle, giving it a broad perspective, capable to couple defense of
living standards with contestation of investment strategies and
outsourcing. Only a new framework of work organization based on the
re-configuration of the social factory outside the workplace, with
the associated requirement for a new kind of intellectual labour
force could provide the opportunity to set in motion this dynamics

>
> The globalization of the economy opens up to enormous opportunities. But =
> at
> the same moment it presents us with obstacles that makes it more difficul=
> t
> both to imagine communism as a real opportunity, and to realize it. This
> difficulty of imagining communism in other than in an abstract form, make=
> s
> it less of an possibilty. Most workers are practical people in search of
> practical ways to actualize their dreams.

I agree on that. But why should we "imagine" communism, where
imagining could be an activity separate from everyday social
practices, when the practical ways to actualize dreams and satisfying
needs are short-circuiting with new forms of work organization and
new forms of struggles, relativizing old referents for that
staisfaction and actualization (ie. welfare state) and valorizing new
ones (social communication and solidarity, new forms of labour
community activism, etc.)? What can be make explicit as *elements of
communism* from those dynamics of struggle?

Franco

Franco Barchiesi
Sociology of Work Programme
Dept of Sociology
Private Bag 3
University of the Witwatersrand
PO Wits 2050
Johannesburg
South Africa
Tel. (++27 11) 716.2908
Fax  (++27 11) 716.3781
E-Mail 029frb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~mshalev/direct.htm

Home:
9 Barossa Street
Kensington 2094
Johannesburg
South Africa
Tel. (++27 11) 614.3497







     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---