RE: AUT: An interesting critique of Negri

["Cesar Altamira" <caltamira@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Folks,

Here is the Rowan's mail repaired. I think its a very good one and it
clarifies a lot of in the discussion.

Cheers

Cesar Altamira
caltamira@xxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Rowan Wilson <wilson_rowan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: An interesting critique of Negri


> Sorry everyone, this is as good as i can get this thing - I started
deleting
> the control codes that appeared instead of spaces but realised that a
lunch
> break is only so long...
> Again, if anyone knows a simple way of resolving this i'd be v.grateful
> Cheers
> Rowan
>
> Hi John and all
> Your post on Negri raised some of the vital questions about Negri's work
> that has still been insufficiently grappled with. Here are a few of my
> thoughts on where he's coming from, in relation  to  the points that you
> bring up. (Apologies for not doing the useful thing of putting paragraph
> interventions to your piece, but i'm not using the latest technology
here!)
>
> DIALECTICS
> I will try and clarify what Negri's take on dialectics is first. As I
> understand it,   there are two versions of the dialectic:
> 1.'Positive dialectics', that of the2nd International, where there is a
> teleological and deterministic progression thru history, where each stage
is
> a supersession of the last until arriving at the unity of communism.
> 2.'Negativedialectics', that of the German Critical Theory tradition,
> where dialectics is strictly the process of negation, an account of which
> you provided in your posting. Negri's critique of 'Positive dialectics' is
> something that most of us probably share  it denies the self-activity of
> the working class, its ability to change history. However, his critique of
> 'negative dialectics' is a little more fiddly.
>
> NEGATIVE DIALECTICS
> Negri is not just concerned with the constitutive power of the multitude
> he is very much concerned with the negation, the destruction, of capital.
> His critique is similar to Deleuze's in that he is concerned that the
> dialectic can not entirely reject capital  Michael Hardt quotes Hegel
> saying that the dialectic is a negation 'which supersedes in such a way as
> to preserve and maintain what is superseded, and consequently survives its
> own supersession'. For the nondialectical tradition that Negri situates
> himself within, the negation that is required is that that can totally
> destroy what is before it and then build on the ground that has been
> cleared. This is why he separates out labour and capital, potentia and
> potenza, multitude and empire  what we will be will owe nothing to capital
>  we will not retain our experience of capital and carry it through to the
> new society - this, I think, means that for Negri if there are any
> tendencies of capitalism that seem good, then they aren't capitalist
> tendencies, they come from the multitude.
>
> POSITIVE DIALECTICS
>
> Negri suggests that the very nature of capitalis dialectical (in its
positive sense), that it seeks to mediate between the multiplicities of the
world and thus deny their differences,'seeing them from only one side', as
Marx said,as exchange value theme diating force is totally selfserving,
forcing labour to maintain this mediation, to maintain the power of capital
this mediation tends towards stasis but the explosive power of the multitude
negates it.
> The proletariat is still formed dialectically, but this represents the
victory of capitals o for Negri each stage of there composition of the
working class through out the twentieth century began with the non
dialectical efforts of the multitude, with the force of productive labour
attempting, once and for all,to throw off the weight of capital however,
when capital recuperated this force( such as through  Fordism or through
Post Fordism)Negri sees it as a dialectical recuperation that is,what was
being negated has been preserved and maintained. So the multitude acts
autonomously but is reigned in by capital.This then leads us to the problem
of pure subjects.(This, I has ten to add, is only my understanding of
Negri's take on dialecticsi don't know enough to say if this is a fair
critique.Certainly it may be acrude caricature of the Frankfurt School one
never gets the impression that Negri has read the likes of Adorno,but I
could be wrong.)
>
> SUBJECTS (LEADING TO NEGATIVE DIALECTICS AGAIN)Addressing your poin
tnumber 4, I get the impression that there can be a confusion with the
notions of subject as human individual and subject as historical
force(forgive me if I'm wrong).If the multitude were to be seen as a group
of individuals then this would indeed succumb to your accusation that Negri
posits the multitude as a pure subject. However, I believe that we must see
the notion of the multitude in relation to Negri as a student of Althusser,
Foucault and Deleuze&Guattari.That is,he rejects the notion of the whole
human individualas being the agent of history. This is the humanism that
Althusser rejected and duplicates the errors of' positive dialectics' in
that history'becomes the organic unfolding of humannature' as such, there is
no history for all is contained with in the human essence. But unlike (at
least the early ) Althusser Negri doesn't believe that we should dump the
notion of the subject. Rather, the subject,the multitude,is a force,a
current that runs through human individuals,a set of dynamic,creative and
multiple social relations that are intertwined with the contradictory social
relation of capitalism that also runs through human individuals.The
capitalist social relation is not autonomous to the multitude its existence
depends on the multitude,as you say'capital is nothing other than the
metamorphosis of doing which denies its own basis in doing'.So we can that
Negri's formulation (at least as Iunderstand it)is not simply that of boss
vs worker it can take into account how capitalis with in us as human beings,
how we let it entwine, entangle and constrain our productivity how we let
ourselves become the boss, the boss of
> ourselves.
> But I think that Negri raises the separateness of the se two forces to
high light that the multitude,the creative force doesn't need the parasitic
force of capitalism.Perhaps we need not see the two forces as being separate
but we must
> see the POTENTIAL for the multitude to separate from capital(and in doing
so,destroy it).Certainly as individuals,as groups of individuals,we struggle
against ourselves,but within ourselves is our ontological' essence'(but a
plastic essence)of productive and multiple labour fighting against theme
diating, exploitative and oppressive force of capital this seems to be an
ontology that you share when you say that'our doing is the sole constitutive
power'but you say that this is denied well yes it is,but also as your work
on the Zapatistas showed, it is also affirming. Negri is very careful to
declare that this ontology is plastic, multiple,not fixed in a sense it is
mere ly life that he talks about,the continuing process of creationit is not
an ontology stuck in time,are if ied notion of being rather,Negri reworks
being AS doing.(Sometimes I think that this maybe as leight of hand of
Negri's part?)
>
> NEGATIVE DIALECTICS This is where we arrive at  another factor in Negri's
dislike of negative dialectics in that he understands it as refusing to give
a ground to the development of new values the negation is fine for the
destruction of capitalism but what are we to put in its place(a question
that was raised many times at last May'sAnti Capitalist conference in
London)?By suggesting an ontology that is dynamic and creative,he wants to
focus on what will be going after what values do we seek to develop,what
practices do we choose to valorise as practices that liberate us?I think
that this approach can be useful as it provides a frame work to identify
what in the class struggle isbeing generated that can create the new
society, not just the negation of the ol done.Interestingly,this is what i
perceived you to be doingin your essay on' Dignity',outlining one part of
the values that we should be developing in this sensei saw this essay as
delineating not just the processes of negation but in the positive sense in
which I see Negri operating, i.e.there is something going on in this
particular moment of the class struggle, the Zapatistas, where people are
developing communities,creating a community,not simply negating capital.This
makes me think that you and Negri are perhaps not so far a part from each
other,in that your'no'is already a'yes'in some respects that is,in that
the'no'is a scream,as you describe it,it is life,it is creative.
>
> EMPIRICISM & KNOWLEDGE The danger with Negri's approach is that it does
point to a certain empiricism.He understands the ontology of living labour
to constitute particular subjects at particular moments in the history of
the class struggle,eg the socialised
> worker.This is where Negri differs from Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari,
in that he doesn't necessarily see every struggle as having equal value.He
says 'i think that this particular are a of struggle is the most important,
both in terms of the attack on capitalism and its ability to develop a new
society'. This is contentious of course it brings up all those tricky issues
of strategy versus the autonomy of different sectors of the class.
Furthermore if Negri's empiricism succumbs to the tendency to reify then he
would be just like any other leninist who refuses to acknowledge new sites
of struggle.Negri tries to straddle the two reifying dangers that of what is
and that of wha twill be he tries to see what's moving with out stopping it
in its tracks,if you see what I mean.Whether he does that is a different
kettleoffish,of course.With regards to your rejection of realism don't we
all talk about the real world aren't we all realists in that we attempt to
talk of concrete processes that are happening now?I agree that we must
remain awareof the critique of knowledge,of who certain viewpoints serve,and
the dangerof allowing such knowled get oossify.But I don't necessarily see
how Negri is guilty of fetishism by ascribing a positivity to labour and
suggesting that this takes different formsat different times.Sorry,I had
visions of the above being organised and nuanced but its   rambling as
usual.Anyroad,it' slate.Cheers Rowan
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



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