Re: ruling class subjectivity, was: Re: AUT: a rejuvenated communist

[Sean Fenley <satellitecrash@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think one fundamental point about multitude is that
hardt and negri are getting this term from spinoza
(Spinoza didn't invent the term, but I think they are
taking it from him). In Spinoza's political treatise
the multitude is the subjectivity that dictates the
boundaries of what a monarch can do in a monarchy,
aristocrats in an aristocracy, or the supreme council
in a democracy. So multitude is not only an effort to
establish labor or the working class as a diverse
subjectivity, but it is an effort, in good autonomist
fashion, to place workers as constitutive, as the
force that pushes capital to reconfigure itself; and
therefore the multitude leaves open the possibility
for revolution at any time.
that's my take on multitude.

as for multitude being part of the whole which is
capital, i'm not sure about that... although i would
say that the multitude is always part of the sovereign
because it is the condition upon which the sovereign
is able to rule.
-Sean

p.s. on Negri's interpretation of Spinoza's democracy,
with much discussion of multitude there is an essay
called "Relinqua Desiderantur" in the New Spinoza ed.
Warren Montag

--- commie zero zero <commie00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > For example, I
> > don't think capital exists as subject, but as
> > object.  Labor is the subject
> > because capital is nothing other than labor
> > alienated from itself
> > (objectified), or labor in and against itself.
> > Capital has no existence
> > outside labor power.  Negri tends to pose labor
> and
> > capital as separate
> > subjects, as labor against capital, but labor is
> > also the source of capital.
> > Labor, in the process of becoming alienated,
> creates
> > capital.  That is what
> > makes it possible to destroy capital.
>
> this has bothered me a bit too (as have their
> regression from hegal and marx)... but i think it's
> a
> common mistake. because, the fact is, the *ruling
> class* is a subject (i.e. it is made up of people
> who
> often make subjective decisions in relation to
> capital
> and class struggle [as organizations such as the
> tabd
> show] -- they exist in a crazy dialectic with
> capital... that is: they partially control it, and
> are
> partially controled by it). and often it seems
> people
> say "capital" when they mean "ruling class", which
> is
> an easy enough mistake to make, since it is, in some
> senses, true... the ruling class is the human
> embodiment of capital, and capital is (in part) the
> movement of their decisions.
>
> hmmm... not being very articulate today... hope this
> makes sense...
>
>
> =====
> commie00
> ---------------------------------
> http://www.geocities.com/commie00
> ---------------------------------
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of
> Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
>
>      --- from list
> aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


=====


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/


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