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

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arianna" <above@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 10. august 2002 19.19
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: [Fwd: <nettime> Toni Negri: Social Struggles in
Italy - Creating a new Left in Italy]


Arianna, thank for your reply. I Have only read the extract of the
Carlo Scarfone article  you've transalated. I would need much
more time trying to read through the Italian texts you suggested.
(I  speak some Spanish, so with a dictionary, I can with a lot
of patience read an Italian text. I need to put aside time to do
so however.)


First the pretty irrelevant but to me slightly irritating referring of
"Postfordism" to what "Marx called real subsumption of labour
under capital". Irritating, because as it is not true, and it does
not become truer by being repeated over and over again. The
only reason that Marx's name is evoked seem to be the need of
*authorisation* for a novel idea. Fordism fits much better what
what the old man described as "real subsumption." "Postfordism"
migh just as well, and in some repsects at least better, be seen
as a turn back from "real subsumption" to "formal subsumption"
of labour. Just-in-time was for instance pretty much the principle
handicraft production was based on, though the process today
certainly generally is much more complex, and the number of
people involved far greater. Further if it is true that workers today
generally have become more autonomous in the production
process (which could be questioned) then this again points to
something more like the old putting-out system/cottage industry,
or in other words, what the old man referred to a formal as
oposed to a real subsumption of labour under capital.

But to substance. The article is undoubtly elegantly written,
but how far does it reflect lived reality for the majority of
workers, even within in the most exonomically advanced
captialist countries?

Scarfone writes:

"Whilst under Fordism the quality of labour was linked to 'the
professional formation and training', the curriculum and
specialisations, education and specific work experience,
under Postfordism the quality of labour is directly proportional
to social relations, to the ability to create sociability and
build communities."

Who is he referring to. I have for example very hard to see
how someone working at a supermarket has much time to
"build communities," or that s/he would last very long in the
job if s/he tried. S/he may be required to smile, but  other-
wise foremost to keep the pace at a work that has much in
common with precisely the Fordist assembly line.  In quite
a few places the pace is also actually electronic measured.
It is true that (at least in some parts of the world) there
have come far more service jobs .. and they often involve
far more direct contact with the buyer of the commodity,
and that the workers is thus also in another way than in
a factory often is expected to sell part of their soul  How much
this has to do with "creat[ing] sociability and build[ing]
communities" is however more than questionable. Telephone
sellers that call me at home certainly produce foremost
irritation, and certainly not community. And their work is
again pretty much organized factory style. Even their phrases
seem to be  mass produced.

What if we put the following claim into this context? "The social
fabric is optimally utilised. Social life becomes the fundamental
source and creation of value. Social cooperation constitutes
the web of relations established in the life of the subjects. Each
relation is 'put to work' and, independently of its formal
recognition hence retribution, it is in itself productive."

I would however claim that the phone-seller soon learns to use
as little of her- or himself as at all possible in the job, and much
like an assmebly worker at a factory tries to cut out the job of
their mind as soon as the waged time is over. If not they do not
manage that, they work will soon drive them cracy. Similarily
with for instance moust rountine office work. And whatever they
want to tell us most wage-work is still more or less routine
work, and the way to survive is to as dar as possible have
youir mind elsewhere. Even most work in health institutions
follows that pattern. And still what the last thing the vast majority
of bosses want you do, is to be creative, in particularily not
those who talk the most about it.

"The social fabric is optimally utilised. Social life becomes the
fundamental source and creation of value. Social cooperation
constitutes the web of relations established in the life of the
subjects. Each relation is 'put to work' and, independently of its
formal recognition hence retribution, it is in itself productive."

Is this really generally true, apart from it can be said to  *always*
have been partially true. "Social cooperation" to a large extent
lrearned outside of wage work always was important within a
factory setting, for instance,  and "independently of its formal
recognition hence retribution."  Without this production would
have broken down, that is also why direct actions through "work-
to-rule" could be so effective.

However this is, I would like to see these grand theories concretized
in relation to the kind of jobs most people still do, as well as the life
most people live. I am not saying that there is nothing to them, but a
bit more down-to earth approach would probably do them good.

One thing is for instance certain, that much more of workers non-
waged time (in parts of the world, at least)  is occupied by paper-
work etc., in part in relation to the state bureaucracy, but also in
part and  increasingly having to relate to all kind of commodities
someone wants to sell you, paying bills etc. Before, I for instance
only got one phone bill and one electricity bill, but now true
privatization and semi-privatization everything seem to have
been divided into different companies. You may pay one company
for the access to the net, another one for the actually use, etc. And
then there constantly comes "great offers" to change from this
company to another, as they claim to be a lot cheaper, at least for
a while, and depending on how you count. Etc, etc....

Again, I am not saying that there is nothing at all to what Carlo
Scarfone and other with him write.  But I have often great trouble
recognisizing what they descrive it in the life I know. Or to put it
otherwise, the life of the majority of  wage workers does not necessarily
has that much in common with being an "author". The script is
mostly written for them in advance, and they better follow it or face
the consquences.

Harald




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