Re: AUT: they remember nothing and understand nothing

["stevphen shukaitis" <stevphen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

it's ahistorical in that one could also talk about the common being
produced through language, communication, and a whole range of things that
have been around a lot longer before the emergence of (or the coming
emergence) of the multitude. it's ahistorical because they seem to want to
act like these things are coming out of nowhere or are new - when in fact
they have been around for quite some time.

similarly one could argue that "the commons" in the sense of commonly held
land, the sort of pre-capitalist thing H&N want to get away from was not
some sort of static object, or something that naturally pre-existed
outside of such people. what was the commons, how the commons were
distinguished and demarcated, and so forth - these were continually
re-newed, reprduced, and more than likely varied over periods of time
(although it's a little hard to tell because there don't seem to be any
medieval french peasants around to interview about the matter). that is,
what was the commons and was something that had to be socially constructed
(produced in common?) - which in a way blurs the boundary between the
commons and the common the H&N want to make.

i agree that H&N's discussion around the common in useful - I just think
their distinctions are sometimes a little weird and not all that useful in
themselves, regardless of whether or not their ideas are useful (which I
think they are very useful personally).

cheers
stevphen




> But if the common is produced and is continually developed through its
> production by the multitude, then it is not and can't be considered
> ahistorical (because its history is what we've done with it). And it
> is not floating out of "nowhere" because again, if it is produced, it
> is produced by real people and real interactions such as one finds on
> a listserv like this, or in a discussion at a cafe or whatever. The
> distinction they have made is one in which one simply inherits or is
> simply excluded from the preexistence of a "commons" and one in which
> 'what is common' is produced as the product (potentially) of everyone.
> I think it is a useful concept... as long as one recognizes it as such
> (or rather as long as one recognizes what a concept is and how they
> function in life).
>
> Lowe
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


stevphen shukaitis
Guest Editor, "Life Beyond the Market" issue
www.greenpeppermagazine.org

Greenpepper Magazine
CIA Office
Overtoom 301
1054 HW
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
UK Phone: +44 (0)870 0156097
Phone: +31 (0)20 779 4912
AIM: foucaultisdead



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