Re: AUT: Backward workers, was: Negri and Charleton Heston?

[Lowe Laclau <lowe.laclau@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Why is it, then, that the multitude excludes 'backwards' workers - who are
> not defined in terms of the economic position, but due to X. What do you
> think X is? It's obviously values. It's not even very well thought out,
> because they have prevented themselves from thinking in these terms in an
> honest way.

I'm not sure what the heck Hardt was talking about. As for Negri, the
multitude only excludes that which is not in cooperation (since it is
defined as a class concept in terms of the exploitation of this
cooperation).  But it is specifically the fact that the multitude is
not defined in terms of individuals (which correspond to identities, a
public that represents them etc) but as singularities that the
characterization of shared values is wrong. Of course values can be
shared amongst cooperating singularities but it is in no means
presupposed. Virno's article of Simondon and singularities explains
this well.

http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1563


> I fail to see how you can think that forces such as Wal Mart do not
> recompose the capitalist organization. They reorganize capitalist
> distribution in important ways; they affect the fabric of little towns all
> over the place, displacing smaller capitalists, fomenting a whole cycle of
> ressentiment that I can't be bothered explaining again. They don't come up
> with new gadgets, it's true, but capitalism isn't about being clever, it's
> about being ruthless, and they are well fucking ruthless.

Well... I wasn't denying that walmartization has a tremendous effect
on the world. I was objecting to calling it the cutting edge of
capitalism. It simply isn't.

> >> When they speak of multitudes, they repeat the venerable
> >> marxist trick of speaking of the true, self-realised, conscious working
> >> class, the real workers who are the agents of history.
> >
> > Are you still talking about H&N?
>
> So Hardt was misrepresenting his own position in Doug's radio show?
>
I've not heard that show, you'd have to say for me what he
represented. What I was responding to was these words youre using to
characterize how the multitude develops. What does a working class
have to do with the construction and productions of the multitude? No
where I've ever seen are these two terms used synonymously.


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