Re: AUT: they remember nothing and understand nothing

["stevphen shukaitis" <stevphen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

that's what was striking about the comment hardt made about tht consonance
of the means of production and the organization of resistance that i
mentioned it before. he says it even more clearly on doug's radio show -
where he says that to a degree people working in factories needed to have
a leader/boss in the organization of social resistance because they had
one in their work life - so it was a format and form of relation they were
used (not exact quote obviously, something along those lines). that's what
I find odd about the consonance of production/form of resistance argument
is that is simultaneously serves to justify or excuse vanguardism back
then (because it was consonant with factory work) and explains why it is
wrong now (because of the hegemony of immaterial labor). the "why lenin
would favor networks" now argument is because of that - because the
argument thet lenin was trying to create consonance between the
organization of work/resistance, and therefore if alive today would be
arguing for networks because of the changes in the forms of production.

stevphen


> In Il potere constituente you see in what senses Negri agreed with
> Lenin's approach and just where he sees his failures. Negri no where
> to my memory condones his vanguardism. In fact that was the starting
> point of his critique (contrasting I believe with Luxembourg). I'm not
> exactly sure though what HN want to say about "if Lenin were here". My
> sense from reading his reading of Lenin is not so much that he thinks
> "Lenin was right back in the day" but rather he approaches him as one
> would approach an old man or ones father who one appreciates but one
> has as well learned from his mistakes. Its the type of appreciation
> that is produced by learning and not a desire for repetition.
>
>> I'm not sure what comes of this, aside from the
>> uglyness of siding with those who said earlier "wait till after the
>> revolution, darling".
>
> What revolution? [see irony here]
>
>> I do wonder, though, as it seems to imply a certain species of
>> necessity in their thought, as if there's one political composition
>> that corresponds adequately to the technical composition (the vanguard
>> party in 1917 russia, networks in Europe today), rather than seeing
>> the technical as a basis from which many political forms (lines of
>> flight?) are possible and potentially effective.
>
> I think that would be a misreading. There is an excellent little essay
> by N in the May 2000 edition of Multitudes (I have it here someplace
> but am feeling a bit too lazy at the moment to find it) called
> Necesity and Liberty chez Spinoza: quelques alternatives. Gives you a
> good way of understanding his perspective of what is necessary and
> what not. In no case however do I think he would say that only on
> poltiical form was adeuate to technical conditions.
>
>> My hunch is that this is tied in with the more state/institution
>> directed moment of Negri - new New Deal demands, the need for a new
>> Magna Charta, etc - though substantiating this hunch is beyond me just
>> now.
>>
>> As part of backing away from all of the above that I'm concerned over
>> w/ Negri, I definitely share Harald's view that 'the commons' is a
>> preferable term (maybe this kind of terminological quibbling is silly,
>> but it something that sticks in my throat a bit). It points out a
>> contiguity of struggles and emphasizes the need for more detailed
>> investigation into the composition of the commons.
>>
>> all the best,
>> Nate
>
> Well no, we;re not quibbling over terminology. The terms refer to two
> different things entirely. The commons is a completely separate idea
> from the common as H&N have used it. They are too drastically
> different IMO to be collapsed into one.
>
> The commons refers to a significationally preconcieved enclosure. The
> common to a type of political field based upon living labor.
>
> Question though... what is your concern exactly with respect to their
> writing on the possibility of communism?
>
> 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 ---