RE: AUT: they remember nothing and understand nothing

[".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stevphen:

: suspiscion is that they would probably
: just make more of the same style of
: critique, that the multiple as a
: concrete subjected is still incoherent,
: etc . . . that's all.

No doubt. The responses from particular quarters
to _Empire_ has by and large been a formulaic
defense of the party.

But I'm still not quite clear.  First, because I
think there is the assertion, in _Empire_, of the
multitude as a more or less coherent subject --
where there is reflection on that not being the
case, it is the expression of a wish that it will
become so.  Second, because N&H may well have
challenged the Fordist versions of this, but not
the presumption that the dynamics of revolution
require a coherent subject.

I don't see much difference in the 'structural
logic' that inhabits the 'review' and N&H's
work -- even if they give slightly different
answers, the question (the search for a vanguard)
remains intact for both.  Moreover, the 'review'
is wrong to argue that N&H propose exodus rather
than constitution.

Angela
_______________

<end message>




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