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

[Nate Holdren <nateholdren@xxxxxxxxx>]

To jump in again,
Lowe-

The Hardt interview is at the URL below, Doug Henwood's radio show,
september 23rd's show. In it, Hardt defines the multitude as
"collaboration plus autonomy". Doug  asks him basically 'then what
about right-wing people in the US?' and Hardt  responds basically that
'if they don't want to cooperate then they are not part of multitude'.
It's very straightforward, and I found it rather shocking.

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#041007

Also, you write:
"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."

As I read Negri, Virno, etc, they are precisely using the world
'multitude' to mean 'working class'.

Chapter 2.1 of _Multitude_ covers this -

"Multitude is a class concept." (p103).

"the multitude [is] all those who work under the rule of capital" (106).

"The multitude gives the concept of the proletariat its fullest
definition as all those who labor and produce under the rule of
capital (107).

And in Empire " 'proletariat' is the general concept that defines all
those whose labor is exploited by capital, the entire cooperating
multitude." (Empire p402, there's also a lot on this on pgs52-66)

There's also Negri's talk from his debate against Callinicos at the
ESF - http://www.generation-online.org/t/negriESF.htm , which is all
about this matter.

I think the theoretical move being made by using the term 'multitude'
is precisely to say that the working class is multitude, and in doing
so to make a dual argument about both the composition of the class
today and directions for political action/strategy.

best,
Nate


On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:44:44 +0100, Lowe Laclau <lowe.laclau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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 ---
>


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