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

[David McInerney <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I tried downloading the mp3 of the Hardt interview but it says 'file
doesn't exist'
maybe i'm doing something wrong.  I tried both hi-fi and lo-fi versions
using control+mouse on MacOS X and 'download linked file as'
DM


On 01/12/2004, at 8:02 AM, Nate Holdren wrote:

> 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 ---
>



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