AUT: Re: [Fwd: <nettime> Toni Negri: Social Struggles in Italy - Creating a new Left in Italy]

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Wright" <pmargin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 10. august 2002 06.38
Subject: AUT: [Fwd: <nettime> Toni Negri: Social Struggles in Italy -
Creating a new Left in Italy]


> Lifted from the list Multitudes-info
> Translated by Ed Emery
>
>
> SOCIAL STRUGGLES IN ITALY
>
> Creating a new Left in Italy
>
> by ANTONIO NEGRI*

[....]

> For a concept of "absolute democracy"?
>
> This second scenario finds some favour on the Left. It would have the
> advantage of marginalising the post-communists who since the 1970s have
> been actively involved in repressing social movements, muzzling the trade
> unions, bureaucratising parliamentary representation and contributing to
> the present reactionary shift, thereby betraying the communist tradition.
> However in my opinion we need to be very careful here. The worrying part
> of this scenario is not the probity or coherence of the CGIL leadership
> but its cultural deficit - a culture best described as workerist. It still
> fantasises a governing project based on the old idea that the working
> class can still be the bearer of "hegemonic" values, in the Gramscian
> sense.
>
> Unfortunately the world is no longer made that way. Most of the new
> movements consider that any attempt to rebuild a Left has to be based on
> entirely new sectors: The working class, of course - but also precarious
> workers and the poor. Industrial workers but also intellectual workers.
> White men but also women and immigrants. And this brings us to the third
> and final scenario, the one being advanced by the anti-globalisation
> movement, now the strongest component of the Left. This would involve
> rebuilding the Left around a Welfare State programme, with a guaranteed
> income, universal citizenship, freedom of migration, and a new definition
> of common goods which would then be defended and promoted in terms of
> ecology, production and what we call the "biopolitical".
>
> This new programme - for a next and more advanced stage of the communist
> revolution - is now firmly lodged in the political awareness of
> substantial numbers of citizens and militants of the new Left. It is a
> programme for "absolute democracy" as Spinoza would have said and as Marx
> would have wished: a republic based on the broadest possible cooperation
> between citizens, and on the development of common goods. These are the
> terms in which we can really talk about freedom for all. The alternative
> would be an abandonment of the ballot box and a negative and frustrated
> exodus by the citizenry.

etc

Maybe there is something I am missing but "rebuilding the Left
around a Welfare State programme" to me seem far to the right
of the old  social democracy. "Guaranteed income" is fine for
me as far as capitalism goes, but again seem to be just another
word for a coordination of present "welfare" (less bureaucracy
but also most likely on a lower compensation level) and is included
in the program of the old liberal party here presently part of the
government.
        "Universal citizenship, freedom of migration" really would be a
great step ahead, as the idea should always be promoted and
kept alive, but as I cannot see anything pointing towards a break
with capitalism and the state in the above, what is it beyond fine
words? Apart from this, the "guaranteed income" that de facto
largely has existed in many European countries since after World
War II, is precisly used as perhaps the main argument for controlling
immigration, in particular from the "third world," and now also from
the old Warzawa pact countries.

A "new definition of common goods". A new, waterd out, social
democratic agenda, or anything else? This "next and more advanced
stage of the communist revolution" brings my mind to the social
conscious progressive bourgeoisie in the late 18th early early
19th century.

What does "a republic based on the broadest possible cooperation
between citizens," precisly mean in more concrete terms? From the
above it does not seem to mean an "abandonment of the ballot box"
and the "Welfare State". And there is nothing in the text pointing
towards that with "ballot box" is meant anything but the already
existing parliamentaty system.

Then the strange terminology, "The working class, of course - but also
precarious workers and the poor." Why does being poor or a
precarious workers, or a woman, "white" or immigrant for that, make
one less a part of the working class? Or  why does being an immigrant
or a woman (or both) exclude youi from being precarious workers
and/or poor, or an "intellectual worker" for that.
        This all seems very muddled to me,as does the politics, and there
seem to bee clear connection between the two levels of unclearity.
It is tempting to suggest that the underlying unclearity arises from trying
to promote liberal, reformist project as revolutionary, and that from this
also arises the need to in general speak through an over-abstract and
mystifying language.

And then (not included in the quote a the beginning) "I should stress
here the importance of administrative participation". Now I will read
this unkindly as "I  should stress here the [revolutionary] importance"
of all my old leftist friends who has turned into state bureaucrats.  More
in general, it always seem to  be his own kind, whether its "the militant,"
the "intellectual" or "immaterial" worker, or here, the "administrative
worker" that becomes the vanguard. Who are the next, the CEOs?

This is not important in itself. But according to my limited knowledge
(correct if am wrong) Spinoza's "absolute democracy"  of "of all
men without exception that who follows the laws of the country,
and who are independent and lead a respectable life..."  seem
to be less "absolute" than even the present representative
bourgeois system. Among the excluded, " because not
"independent" were to¨ be slaves, women and children, apart from
those not leading a "respectable life.

Are the above comments unfair?

Harald













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