Re: AUT: Negri and Charleton Heston?

[Lowe Laclau <lowe.laclau@xxxxxxxxx>]

> hey Lowe-
> quick questions-
>
> first, given that practically speaking the guaranteed wage can only
> come from the state, how does the global citizenship demand play out
> in connection with this?

I thought about my use of words there after I wrote that, thinking
that I could have been a little more specific. I actually think that
"practically speaking" it couldn't just come from one State based upon
the nature of the problem. After I thought about it some more and
specifically about arguments for it from other authors, it could very
well be something effectuated with the initiative of the G8. The
Duncan guy's proposal made me think about this insofar as he targeted
a specific class (I think it was industrial workers or something like
that) to be the first to receive such a social wage because of the
centrality of their labor to the functioning of societies.

The global citizenship demand relates to the guaranteed wage issue
because guaranteed wages in one country or state alone (which is
already what we have in infant stages today) offsets labor advances in
the guaranteed areas by motivating capital to take over areas where
they can find cheaper production costs (because the states have to pay
for these somehow). By making these transState transnational demands,
you actually work to limit the mobility (or desire to be
geographically mobile) of capital. Capitals has to look to other ways
to compete amongst themselves. I'm not sure if this is what you were
asking or more specifically what Negri has said on this issue. I don't
actually recall that clearly his own statements about this connection
too well. Just remember from what I've browsed through Multitudes
actually.

>It seems to me it can either be just
> agitational (ie, not a real demand that one expects to be met but
> rather a recompositional tactic, something to stir up 'the masses') or
> it has to an implicit call for global government. Setting aside the
> politics of either position for the moment, does this seem like a fair
> assessment?
>
> second,
> you quote Chris:
>
> > Since Negri scraps negation and dialectic, he can only be trapped in a
> > dualism of "multitude as whole class' and 'multitude as subject'.
>
> Then you write:
>
> "Where is the "trap"? Or rather what is the significance of this idea
> of "multitude as a whole"? It is simply constant capital. There is no
> trap there, it doesn't end with what it accomplished at some point in
> the past, with dead labor. I don't see why one would need to "negate"
> anything to make use of constant capital... for the multitude to be
> defined as "subject"."
>
> WHat does the 'it' in 'it is simply constant capital' refer to? In
> other words, what are you saying is constant capital? The multitude?
> If so, how is the multitude constant capital? As I understand it the
> way the terms get used, the multitude is variable capital/labor power.

No. You're right. Multitude is associated with variable capital (and
living labor). Chris however was framing the discussion in the idea of
Multitude as "whole class" and I'm not sure if I completely understood
him, but what I understood from that was that he was saying, in these
two senses of Multitude was some kind of discord that couldn't be
resolved because there was nothing to negate of the "class as a
whole". What I was arguing in return was that there is no need to
frame the opposition in those terms, in terms of a "trap". In an
organization where there is no official hierarchies for example you
always have these potential events of hierarchization based upon the
existence inequalities of each participant. And by hierarchization I
mean not only in terms of chains of authority but as well in the
formation of a group signifier and a group signification (a dominant
sign under which each pledges allegiance). Never are any participant
bound to a "negation" as a response to the reproduction of this group
as non-hierarchy. This is specifically so because significational
semiotics never rule absolutely over group formations. There are
always asignifying processes involved, there are always (in mass
groups at least) singularities that won't reflect significational
hegemonies (such as crazy people, excessively neurotic, anal,
psychotic, maybe people with some type of excess or deficiency in
cerebral or nervous activity... everyone is biologically singular,
despite our often molar appearances of identity, I dont mean to
suggest that you have to be retarded or crazy to no bend over to
despotic signifiers).... ehhh.. my point was one needs representation
to negate and that representation is a tricky thing that humans
coexist with and that we often times let get the best of us, but it is
equally a political issue that it not arbitrary and that in real life
is the object of continual contestation. Sorry this is so long, I
think i'm tired. N frames the creation of the multitude in terms of
the Marxian constant/variable capital, because when coupled with his
discussion of the time of production, there is no need for
representation to mediate the ever present potential for biopolitical
acts in its reproduction.  There is never a reason in his metaphysics
for constant capital to close in upon itself and there is no need for
negation for variable capital to determine the constant.

Lowe


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