Re: AUT: de- and re-territorialization

["cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey,

I know that it may be perilous, since Negri and Hardt are not trying to
discuss specific institutions, but it seems that if we do not do so we risk
a kind of metatheoretical approach that seems to me less than useful
politically.

In practice, are we discussing the various networks of non-nation state
power such as the various organs of the UN which have semi-independent
capacities, such as the WTO?  It is, after all, the only UN agency which has
binding means of enforcing its rulings, whereas the UN otherwise depends on
the accomodation of nation states and the enforcement of its powers by the
big capitalist powers, most notably the US, which can, for example, veto
Security Council rulings, along with four other countries, and it is US and
West European military power which upholds the other decisions requiring
forcible reinforcement.

Negri also poses 'multi-nationals/transnationals' and international NGOs as
part of the web.  How exactly the corps have taken over state functions is
simply not clear to me.  And NGOs are even weaker, really depending on the
willingness of nation states to allow them to do their work.

Maybe someone more in agreement with Negri could take up what concretely
this means.  After all, while I find Lowe's answer somewhat helpful, in so
far as I see it as meaning that some aspects of capitalist sovereignty are
understood to now reflect the transnationalization of capital, I do not find
it sufficiently concrete or clear.  It seems like a way to not grapple with
the manifestations in institutions of this new power.  Maybe we have to
grasp the movement first, but I am not for ignoring the structures through
which this power expresses itself.  If we are talking about
deterritorialization beyond the abscence of a hegemon, to what are we really
pointing?

I genuinely agree that some aspects of state power have been transferred to
an international level, all the better to escape working class power, but if
this remains disconnected from the means of actually expressing and
enforcing such aspects of sovereignty, then we have an empty theory.

Thomas, thanks, that was a helpful point.  I think that there is a certain
cultural barrier in place which has a history with continental theory, and
which people from more pragmatist places often find awkward and inflated and
therefore reject toute court.  Whether or not that barrier is justified is
another question, but I admit to a distrust of what you call baroque
language.

Has anyone seen David Graeber's interesting discussion of the MAUSS group in
France and his discussion of the abscence of post-1995 French intellectuals
of the po-mo sort?  It is at
http://slash.autonomedia.org/analysis/02/10/11/1246214.shtml on the
Interactivist Exchange Network.  Graeber is an anarchist who hails from the
same Univ. of Chicago anthropology program as my closest comrade, which is
what initially attracted me to this piece.  But it provides an alternative
way to think through some issues in this discussion.

Cheers,
Chris

ps Marx Beyond Marx, which I am re-reading in light of these discussions and
some others and Steve Wright's book, is hard, but it does have a different
feel to me.  It is more 'recognizable', you might say.  I also think that
there is an increasingly apparent barrier of difference between say Negri's
autonomism and Midnight Notes.  Compare the work on pages 71-3 in MBM to the
arguments about capitalism as a dead end in Monty Neill's piece in Auroras
of the Zapatistas and you will see a radical difference in the appreciation
of capitalism which seems incompatible theoretically, but also politically.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Seay" <entheogens@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: de- and re-territorialization


> --- Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Personally I am convinced
> > that the
> > territorializing, reterritorializing, and
> > deterritorializing language
> > of Deleuze makes sense some times but that it also
> > often
> > functions just the same way as the word "fuck" does
> > for others
>
> To be honest, where as I know what decentralizing
> means, I would have to guess at what is meant by
> "deterritorializing".
>
> My first reaction when I see a bunch of polysyllabic
> language is to think that it is "bullshit".  Indeed,
> sometimes that is the case.  Sometimes it isn't.
>
> I was speaking to an Italian friend the other day
> about
> this.  She claims (and I am just repeating her, so
> dont get angry with me) that in Italy, intellectuals
> are encouraged to use a more baroque language.  That
> is in contrast with America at least.  I can remember
> as a freshman, taking an English composition course, I
> tried to impress the professor by including lots of
> obscure words in my first essay.  He wrote "WOW!" in
> red on the top of my paper and took marks off of my
> paper.  I got the message.
>
> Despite Scott's accusation that I offend the english
> language in my translations, I can tell you that I
> actually tried to elucidate Negri's language as much
> as possible.  It's not easy to do, especially when you
> are trying to stick to the text as much as possible.
> My understanding is that we have Hardt to thank for
> Empire not being more difficult than it is.  If you
> read earlier texts (with less post-structuralist
> stuff) like "Marx Beyond Marx", you discover that
> even there Negri does not make it easy for the reader.
>
> My point is that perhaps the problem is not uniquely
> due to the hazy post-structuralist language (although
> that plays a big part)
> but also has something to do with a different
> intellectual culture, personal writing style and,
> well, laziness on the part of the writer.
>
>
> -Thomas
>
>
> =====
> "A question is always the desire to know, and to preserve simple human
truths, we need secrets.  The secrets of happiness, death, love."
>
> From the movie "Solaris" by Andrei Tarkovsky
>
> __________________________________________________
> Yahoo! - We Remember
> 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
> http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>




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