Re: Negri explains the multitude
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/15/02 03:58PM Basically it is about whether you believe the economic system is essentially a social system, although privately owned, and whether you believe in the cooperative powers of human beings eventually to get on top of it, even though there may be no one party line. Chris Burford believe it was g d h cole's theory of 'encroaching control' that posited workers' control of industry to be result of slow extension of power from bottom up until overall balance of power within firm/factory/industry tips in favor of workers within it... michael hoover
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
But didn't Waistline tell us the workers will be robots? Gene Coyle Michael Hoover wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/15/02 03:58PM Basically it is about whether you believe the economic system is essentially a social system, although privately owned, and whether you believe in the cooperative powers of human beings eventually to get on top of it, even though there may be no one party line. Chris Burford believe it was g d h cole's theory of 'encroaching control' that posited workers' control of industry to be result of slow extension of power from bottom up until overall balance of power within firm/factory/industry tips in favor of workers within it... michael hoover
Re: Negri explains the multitude
Then tell Henwood to stop making inane responses just to bait people, or unsubscribe me. Like I really care at this point. You deserve discussions with Henwood. In other words, you deserve inanity. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Charles Jannuzi wrote: Then tell Henwood to stop making inane responses just to bait people, or unsubscribe me. Like I really care at this point. You deserve discussions with Henwood. In other words, you deserve inanity. If anyone cares what I think about Empire, my review is at http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Empire.html. Doug
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Charles Jannuzi wrote: But if all this is unfair, let him come on this list and defend himself like normal human beings have to do. I wonder if the conditions of his work-release from prison would allow him to do so. Why is it that the Italian state is so down on this ill-informed obscurantist hack, anyway? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Jannuzi wrote: But if all this is unfair, let him come on this list and defend himself like normal human beings have to do. I wonder if the conditions of his work-release from prison would allow him to do so. Why is it that the Italian state is so down on this ill-informed obscurantist hack, anyway? Doug Since he won't come on the list, how the f- should I know? My guess is that neither the workers nor the state have any room for ill-informed, obscurantist hack autonomist Marxists. CJannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Please, we don't need antagonism here. On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 07:21:30PM -0800, Charles Jannuzi wrote: Doug Since he won't come on the list, how the f- should I know? My guess is that neither the workers nor the state have any room for ill-informed, obscurantist hack autonomist Marxists. CJannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Negri explains the multitude
Then send Dougiepoo a post in private. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Please calm down. Again. This has no place here. On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 07:34:44PM -0800, Charles Jannuzi wrote: Then send Dougiepoo a post in private. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
--- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please calm down. Again. This has no place here. Calm is having a substantive discussion about Negri practically by oneself. Dumb is responding to Henwood's tripe, some call it his forte'. I apologize. I should have ignored him. C. Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Charles, if you don't stop your fight with Doug immediately -- I mean it -- I will have to unsub you. I don't want to do it. On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 08:08:02PM -0800, Charles Jannuzi wrote: --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please calm down. Again. This has no place here. Calm is having a substantive discussion about Negri practically by oneself. Dumb is responding to Henwood's tripe, some call it his forte'. I apologize. I should have ignored him. C. Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Negri explains the multitude
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/13/02 02:59PM Doug Henwood wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? They aren't -- but this is a maillist, not the political bureau of a mass revolutionary party, or even the steering committee of a mass reform party. Carrol theorizing configurations of global and local requires new multidimensional strategies ranging from macro to micro in order to intervene in wide range of contemporary and future struggles, max weber meet thomas hobbes... michael hoover
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
- Original Message - From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: [PEN-L:32263] Re: Negri explains the multitude [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/13/02 02:59PM Doug Henwood wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? They aren't -- but this is a maillist, not the political bureau of a mass revolutionary party, or even the steering committee of a mass reform party. Carrol theorizing configurations of global and local requires new multidimensional strategies ranging from macro to micro in order to intervene in wide range of contemporary and future struggles, max weber meet thomas hobbes... michael hoover === And Benoit Mandelbrot... Ian
Re: Negri explains the multitude
At 15/11/02 11:55 -0800, you wrote: but this is a maillist, not the political bureau of a mass revolutionary party, or even the steering committee of a mass reform party. Carrol theorizing configurations of global and local requires new multidimensional strategies ranging from macro to micro in order to intervene in wide range of contemporary and future struggles, max weber meet thomas hobbes... michael hoover === And Benoit Mandelbrot... Ian These comments are not as whimsical as they might seem. At the risk of inviting a whole number of people to disagree, including perhaps Ian and Michael H, let me try amplifying them in the way that makes sense to me. Yes there is not a single line or programme, but struggles at both the local level and the global level can enhance democracy for working people, and restrict the power of capital. The struggle for concrete demoncratic rights for working people is a major feature of the struggle for socialism. Making transparent the social nature of productive relations, and removing the mystification of money, prepares the ground for the ownership and control of the means of production for working people. The multitude was a negative term for Spinoza, but Hardt and Negri use it in a positive sense to mean the masses of working people., and to infuse some revolutionary enthusiasm, and lightness of being at the expense of clearly defining the target of the fight and emphasising class struggle. But in the sense that the expropriation of capital will be by the billions of working people whose creative energies, capital represents, that is a relevant fundamental contradiction in the world today. Yes Mandelbrot, and other champions of chaos theory, remind us that the stabilities of the world may conceal the possibility of sudden instabilities, or phase changes. These seem impossible for much of the time, and at other times need only a relatively slight push to flip the whole system into a different phase state. More dully called dynamical systems theory, together with complexity theory, it provides a scientific structure that in consistent with dialectical principles of qualitative change sometimes leading to quantitative changes. Basically it is about whether you believe the economic system is essentially a social system, although privately owned, and whether you believe in the cooperative powers of human beings eventually to get on top of it, even though there may be no one party line. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
- Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] theorizing configurations of global and local requires new multidimensional strategies ranging from macro to micro in order to intervene in wide range of contemporary and future struggles, max weber meet thomas hobbes... michael hoover === And Benoit Mandelbrot... Ian These comments are not as whimsical as they might seem. At the risk of inviting a whole number of people to disagree, including perhaps Ian and Michael H, let me try amplifying them in the way that makes sense to me. Yes there is not a single line or programme, but struggles at both the local level and the global level can enhance democracy for working people, and restrict the power of capital. The struggle for concrete demoncratic rights for working people is a major feature of the struggle for socialism. Making transparent the social nature of productive relations, and removing the mystification of money, prepares the ground for the ownership and control of the means of production for working people. The multitude was a negative term for Spinoza, but Hardt and Negri use it in a positive sense to mean the masses of working people., and to infuse some revolutionary enthusiasm, and lightness of being at the expense of clearly defining the target of the fight and emphasising class struggle. But in the sense that the expropriation of capital will be by the billions of working people whose creative energies, capital represents, that is a relevant fundamental contradiction in the world today. Yes Mandelbrot, and other champions of chaos theory, remind us that the stabilities of the world may conceal the possibility of sudden instabilities, or phase changes. These seem impossible for much of the time, and at other times need only a relatively slight push to flip the whole system into a different phase state. More dully called dynamical systems theory, together with complexity theory, it provides a scientific structure that in consistent with dialectical principles of qualitative change sometimes leading to quantitative changes. Basically it is about whether you believe the economic system is essentially a social system, although privately owned, and whether you believe in the cooperative powers of human beings eventually to get on top of it, even though there may be no one party line. Chris Burford London === For the sake of possibly providing an example of some concreteness, the link is to an essay which conjoins Sartre's and LeFebvre's notions of counterfinality [law of unintended consequences meets the fallacy of composition] with computational complexity theory and fractal geometry to redescribe Bologna, Italy. I think in an indirect way it represents the kind of localized intellectual environment that Negri is working in. That is to say, the vocabularies and idioms of some Italian intellectuals are influencing *him* to a greater or lesser extent than one can get simply from reading his latest work; while Negri may be writing for a [virtually] global audience, his writing participates in a specific environment of ideas communicated with his [possible] colleagues. http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Mandelbrot.html Ian
Re: Negri explains the multitude
For me, it isn't that Negri's post-modern philosophy is not very interesting. I was forced to read far worse at grad school. It isn't that he wrote so much very badly on Spinoza. It's that he knows crap all about the US, like so many European 'intellectuals'. I will concede that the Empire book is a postmodern masterpiece of escapist fiction. But if all this is unfair, let him come on this list and defend himself like normal human beings have to do. C. Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re:Re: Negri explains the multitude
Charles: But if all this is unfair, let him come on this list and defend himself like normal human beings have to do.> Comment: Charles, please do not take this amiss, but why the hell would he? I mean while we gathered here - might get something out of this lark on PEN - what meaning does it have? This actually comes back to the matter of What is the real function of PEN? No scratch that! Commander Michael: I will follow PEN! Hari
Re: Re:Re: Negri explains the multitude
The function of the list is to inform each other and to enjoy each other's virtual company. Of course, the list is a complete failure in the latter respect -- since some of us don't like others. Hari is absolutely correct that nobody needs to defend themselves or to answer charges that are levelled here. On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:20:40PM -0500, Hari Kumar wrote: Charles: But if all this is unfair, let him come on this list and defend himself like normal human beings have to do. Comment: Charles, please do not take this amiss, but why the hell would he? I mean while we gathered here - might get something out of this lark on PEN - what meaning does it have? This actually comes back to the matter of What is the real function of PEN? No scratch that! Commander Michael: I will follow PEN! Hari -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Negri explains the multitude
The point was Negri needs no defenders, he can defend himself--if he even asserted anything worth defending (I have my doubts). Next time I'll try to be more direct. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
At 02:34 PM 11/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Who says they're enemies? I think Carrol and I are saying, in different ways, that Negri is a waste of time. As for the Nation, I stopped reading it a few years ago because it was too depressing. Don't really know what's going on with it now, but I find Harpers more interesting. Joanna
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/13/02 02:17PM I am quite sure that Toni Negri's terminology stands a very good chance of becoming part of everyday academic discourse down the road. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org probably not, but how can one not like a guy who writes that money has only one face, that of the boss, it's so gangster movieish... michael hoover
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Chris Burford wrote: At 13/11/02 14:34 -0500, you wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Because sectarian traditions of marxism cannot engage with the real world, and perhaps prefer not to. By the way, the editor of the Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, is very antiwar. People who hate certain Corn and Cooper pieces should note that most don't appear in the Nation - they're in the LA Weekly and such. And even if you think the Nation is a limp social imperialist rag, you have to concede it's been against every U.S. intervention I can think of and has never been particularly red-baiting. So go find better enemies. Doug
Re: Negri explains the multitude
Doug Henwood wrote: Chris Burford wrote: At 13/11/02 14:34 -0500, you wrote: [clip] Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Because sectarian traditions of marxism cannot engage with the real world, and perhaps prefer not to. By the way, the editor of the Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, is very antiwar. [clip] Doug, I _really_ wish you wouldn't equate all those who dislike the Nation, etc. with merely one obsession of yours. It's undignified. As Joanna said, the main objection to the Nation and Negri is that they're so damn dull for the most part. And being against the war is something that I expect a whole lot of people to be -- it no more wins brownie points than refraining from rape is a plus for someone. Some things we ought to be able to take for granted. It would sound odd to praise Cox on the grounds that he is a good speller; it's equally odd to praise the editor of what pretends to be the leading left periodical for being (forsooth) against the war. Is she still committed to getting Democrats elected? The _Nation_ used to be rather fun to read, and for many years I looked forward to every week (even though I always had real disagreements with many of its positions). But now it has become a pretty complete bore, and had for a couple of years before I finally let my subscription drop in '98. And of course it's not the enemy. Since when have you been so commited to immediate relevance on maillists. How come you didn't interrupt the thread on sex on the left with such a challenge to deal with the lunatics in the white house before we talked about anything else. Does it make a leftist an enemy if he/she doesn't go all out for variety in sex? Carrol
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Just goes to show how jargon is a positional good. Creating different idioms and vocabularies to map class struggle in the 21st century is always going to meet resistance. Hell look at the concepts Kant used in the Critique of Pure Reason; a jargonologist's dream, yet so many of the terms are now part of everyday academic discourse that they're viewed as quaint. Ian I am quite sure that Toni Negri's terminology stands a very good chance of becoming part of everyday academic discourse down the road. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
At 02:17 PM 11/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: I am quite sure that Toni Negri's terminology stands a very good chance of becoming part of everyday academic discourse down the road. God help us all. On the other hand, it may also be a sign that pomo scholasticism is spinning on the tip of its last pin. Joanna
Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
- Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am quite sure that Toni Negri's terminology stands a very good chance of becoming part of everyday academic discourse down the road. = We'll see. What is interesting is the use of metaphors and similes drawn from biology to think about collective action. This seems radical and novel, until one remembers that folks like Alfred Marshall spoke of the need to link economics and other social science disciplines to the biological sciences via a greater sharing of idioms. In that sense N's stuff is no more radical than a monograph in Ecological Economics. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Doug Henwood wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? They aren't -- but this is a maillist, not the political bureau of a mass revolutionary party, or even the steering committee of a mass reform party. Why was Sokal such an urgent enemy on another list? The _Nation_ doesn't bother me -- it simply began to bore me (and I found out that anything interesting or useful in it always shows up on some maillist anyhow). They clearly have hired an incompetent book review editor, however, on the basis of the two book reviews I have seen reproduced on maillists (of Gould of Pinker). I do think it is verging on conspiracy theory to characterize those reviews as representing anything more serious than incompetence, however. Carrol Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Sorry, Doug, but you will have to get used to me taking potshots at people you look up to, whether it is Toni Negri or Marc Cooper. This is the Internet, after all. In any case, I have been throwing spitballs at postmodernism on the Internet since 1994 or so. This precedes by a number of years your cultivation of ties to Michael Hardt and Zizek. I thought the sort of thing they were writing was bullshit long before you began touting it. You wouldn't expect me to keep silent just so you wouldn't get ticked off? After all, Michael Hardt gets to defend his ideas on Charlie Rose and Marc Cooper uses the LA Weekly. You use your connections to get me a guest spot on Charlie Rose or a guest column in the Nation Magazine, and I'll stop poking fun at them on pen-l. Unless Michael Perelman wants to put a ban on making rude jokes at the expense of postmodernism on pen-l. When that day comes, I am out of here. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Negri explains the multitude
- Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:13 AM Subject: [PEN-L:32151] Negri explains the multitude For those who have been somewhat mystified by this term, relief is finally here. Toni Negri lays the whole thing out at: http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/13/100202 Here is a brief excerpt that should lift the scales from your eyes: === Sorry for the previous empty post. Just goes to show how jargon is a positional good. Creating different idioms and vocabularies to map class struggle in the 21st century is always going to meet resistance. Hell look at the concepts Kant used in the Critique of Pure Reason; a jargonologist's dream, yet so many of the terms are now part of everyday academic discourse that they're viewed as quaint. Ian
Re: Negri explains the multitude
...the multiplicity that refuses to represent itself in the dialectical Aufhebung Surely Negri means bong? Rhyzomatic is clearly an allusion to Guattari and Deleuze. I would translate the passage as a whole to mean, roughly, shit happens.Negri has presumably eschewed that more compact formulation for the sake of avoiding its imminent reflexive implications. I hope this helps. As for Doug's worrying about wasting time on Negri and the Nation while the U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world: shit happens, Doug. And time marches on. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Tom Walker wrote: As for Doug's worrying about wasting time on Negri and the Nation while the U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world: shit happens, Doug. And time marches on. Oh, of course. Why didn't I think of that? Doug
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32161] Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Because they go against the Party Line (PL), which is Known to be True and is clearly beyond debate. They are Anathema! The only things we should care about are the tactics and strategy of agit-prop, to disseminate the PL. Perhaps we should care about various facts that we can use to back up the PL -- along with ways to reject or ignore those ideas and facts that don't fit with the PL. But if we keep our focus narrow, the masses will rise up and embrace the PL -- so we can sweep capitalism away! Previous on-line discussion lists have only tried to interpret the world. The point is to change it! Seriously, what can pen-l do about the war on Iraq? It sure seems like nada. So we can spend our time making fun of those who use incomprehensible jargon. That's pretty harmless, at least as gallows humor. Isn't it? It sure seems that we could also spend time on such things as the principles of socialism (i.e., what are we really for, anyway?) but some object to that. I recently received a series of off-list insults from one who didn't want to discuss socialism from below (the socialist philosophy that I adhere to), invoking his or her long and highly effective life as a political activist to justify this rejection. (Because I disagree with this person, I clearly have no experience in political action. Simultaneously, my views are to be rejected because I clearly have no experience with political action. What fun! a circular argument!) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
I don't think that they are THE ENEMY, but I am disappointed that they have taken the path that they did. Negri's early stuff was very impressive, but Italian friends say that the new book did not represent much of a turn for him. Maybe I just did not understand the earlier work. The Nation too used to be a wonderful resource for me. Maybe it was the Pacifica intervention that made me more upset with the magazine. So, if I, for one, feel anger, maybe it is something like someone who just got dumped by a loved one. On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:34:05PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Jim Devine: It sure seems that we could also spend time on such things as the principles of socialism (i.e., what are we really for, anyway?) but some object to that. I recently received a series of off-list insults from one who didn't want to discuss socialism from below (the socialist philosophy that I adhere to), invoking his or her long and highly effective life as a political activist to justify this rejection. In fact, there is a discussion going on over on Marxmail by members of Solidarity, a group that is in the socialism from below tradition. I welcome pen-l'ers to look at our archives to see how useful such a discussion can be when it is rooted in the day-to-day experience of activists. Here's a sample exchange between 2 people in their 20s, who are deeply committed to democratic socialism: --- Alex LoCascio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Plain and simple, there exists a minority but nonetheless hugely influental current within Solidarity, emerging from the Draper wing, for whom trade union work, and only trade union work, is the all-encompassing focus for any socialist organization. I won't deny this, but I think we're beginning to move beyond it. I myself am not in a union, being a professional geek. I'm a political activist. Most comrades in Atlanta are of the same ilk, and there's been no pressure to change our focus. I think what Solidarity is realizing, though maybe not saying as much as we should, is that it's going to take a variety of different work to accomplish what we want. It's going to take trade union work, but it's going to also take political activism, educational work, student work, etc. You can't--and this is the failure of the SWP and other sects--rely on just *one* focus if you want to build a broad movement. The success or failure of the Solidarity regroupment project (and frankly, I'm of the opinion that it's time to cut one's losses, though I'd welcome evidence to the contrary) ultimately hinges upon it's ability to have a rational discussion of these failures, rather than just assuming that anyone lobbing these critiques just wants to shit on the lifelong work of some people (Solidarity's record on welcoming internal dissent, rather than engaging in high-school like pariah politics and ostracism, is not very good). I think regroupment is a success, but it's a long-term project. There's no way to just say hey! wanna regroup! and have everyone jump on board. You have to take it as it comes. Alex, I don't think I disagree with you. I think any disagreement we may have comes out of our viewpoint of Solidarity's potential. I think, given the nature of the organization, we have room to do great things. In Atlanta, we *are* doing great things. In the few short months since three of us got together and formed a twig, we've become a major force on the Left here. I think your criticisms are perfectly legit, but it's something that is capable of being repaired. I don't think Solidarity's work in Labor Notes and TDU is something to be dismissed, but you're absolutely right, it's not something that can be the *basis* of all Solidarity activity. Adam (Because I disagree with this person, I clearly have no experience in political action. No, you have no experience because that's obvious--not because you disagree with me. If you had such experience, you'd be framing your remarks to pen-l in terms of the above exchange rather than abstract discussions about what kind of socialism we need. Adam and Alex could be less interested in a discussion about whose vision was closer to Karl Marx's. They want to figure out how to unite Marxist activists. That is what is driving Marxmail forward nowadays. Virtually the entire leadership of the Australian left is debating perspectives there. We have also had important exchanges with the Workers World Party, the bogeymen of David Corn and company. We don't think they are bogeymen. We think they are comrades who can improve their anti-war work. Simultaneously, my views are to be rejected because I clearly have no experience with political action. What fun! a circular argument!) When you can discuss questions of how to build an effective anti-war movement or how to build a united front in Australia, I'd be happy to join you. As I have told you a million times, I am not interested in bull sessions about the contours of a future society. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
I am trying to wade through a load of e-mail today and just came upon this. This is absolutely uncalled far. Please stop immediately. On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:47:10PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Sorry, Doug, but you will have to get used to me taking potshots at people you look up to, whether it is Toni Negri or Marc Cooper. This is the Internet, after all. In any case, I have been throwing spitballs at postmodernism on the Internet since 1994 or so. This precedes by a number of years your cultivation of ties to Michael Hardt and Zizek. I thought the sort of thing they were writing was bullshit long before you began touting it. You wouldn't expect me to keep silent just so you wouldn't get ticked off? After all, Michael Hardt gets to defend his ideas on Charlie Rose and Marc Cooper uses the LA Weekly. You use your connections to get me a guest spot on Charlie Rose or a guest column in the Nation Magazine, and I'll stop poking fun at them on pen-l. Unless Michael Perelman wants to put a ban on making rude jokes at the expense of postmodernism on pen-l. When that day comes, I am out of here. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
At 13/11/02 14:34 -0500, you wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug Because sectarian traditions of marxism cannot engage with the real world, and perhaps prefer not to. Chris Burford
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Because sectarian traditions of marxism cannot engage with the real world, and perhaps prefer not to. Chris Burford Then I am opposed to engaging with the real world, if this means taking the side of NATO against Yugoslavia. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Negri explains the multitude
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The U.S. is under the control of a frightening gang of lunatics hellbent on war with a good bit of the world. Why are Toni Negri and The Nation magazine such urgent enemies? Doug They are not my enemy, but Negri just isn't very original or interesting, and the Nation just isn't very interesting. 'Multitude'? Got this from Spinoza by way of Deleuze and Guattari most likely. C. Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Negri explains the multitude
I wrote, ...shit happens, Doug. And time marches on. Doug Henwood replied, Oh, of course. Why didn't I think of that? Presumably because you have other fish to fry and a hard row to hoe. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
- Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles Jannuzi wrote: These are interesting philosophical questions but none of this is a remarkable addition. One could probably turn it in as a written assignment for a Philosophy 201 class and get a B+. This is one of the things I love about PEN-L. Everyone's so smart! Doug == Yet our ignorance is still infinite... Ian
Re: Negri explains the multitude
Here is a brief excerpt that should lift the scales from your eyes: Coffee or tea work far better. What interests us at this point is to underline the global power of this process: in fact, it lays between globality and singularity according to a first rhythm (synchronic) of more or less intense connections (rhyzomatic, as they have been called) and another rhythm (diachronic), of systoles and diastoles, of evolution and crisis, of concentration and dissipation of the flux. Structuralist and poststructuralist terminology, none of it coined by Negri as far as I can tell. In other words, the production of subjectivity, i.e. the production that the subject makes of itself, is simultaneously production of the density of the multitude because the multitude is a whole of singularities. Of course, someone insinuates that the multitude is (substantially) an improposable concept, even a metaphor, because one can give unity to the multiple only through a more or less dialectical transcendental gesture (just as philosophy has done from Plato to Hobbes and Hegel): even more so if the multitude (i.e. the multiplicity that refuses to represent itself in the dialectical Aufhebung) also claims to be singular and subjective. But the objection is weak: here the dialectical Aufhebung is ineffective because the unity of the multiple is for the multitude the same as that of living, and living can hardly be subsumed by the dialectics. Moreover, the dispositif of the production of subjectivity that finds in the multitude a common figure, presents itself as collective praxis, as always renewed activity and constitutive of being. The name multitude is, at once, subject and product of collective praxis. These are interesting philosophical questions but none of this is a remarkable addition. One could probably turn it in as a written assignment for a Philosophy 201 class and get a B+. C. Jannuzi PS: At least I don't have to help pay for Spinoza, since he is long dead and not trying to sell me anything: But be it remarked that, by the dominion which I have said is established for this end, I intend that which has been established by a free multitude, not that which is acquired over a multitude by right of war. For a free multitude is guided more by hope than fear; a conquered one, more by fear than hope: inasmuch as the former aims at making use of life, the latter but at escaping death. The former, I say, aims at living for its own ends, the latter is forced to belong to the conqueror; and so we say that this is enslaved, but that free. And, therefore, the end of a dominion, which one gets by right of war, is to be master, and have rather slaves than subjects. And although between the dominion created by a free multitude, and that gained by right of war, if we regard generally the right of each, we can make no essential distinction; yet their ends, as we have already shown, and further the means to the preservation of each are very different. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
Charles Jannuzi wrote: These are interesting philosophical questions but none of this is a remarkable addition. One could probably turn it in as a written assignment for a Philosophy 201 class and get a B+. This is one of the things I love about PEN-L. Everyone's so smart! Doug
Re: Negri explains the multitude
This reminds of a surrealist joke: what do you get if you mix a poor lgician to a literary critic: answer see below. it is indeed a sad day for social science Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those who have been somewhat mystified by this term, relief is finally here. Toni Negri lays the whole thing out at: http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/13/100202Here is a brief excerpt that should lift the scales from your eyes:What interests us at this point is to underline the global power of this process: in fact, it lays between globality and singularity according to a first rhythm (synchronic) of more or less intense connections (rhyzomatic, as they have been called) and another rhythm (diachronic), of systoles and diastoles, of evolution and crisis, of concentration and dissipation of the flux. In other words, the production of subjectivity, i.e. the production that the subject makes of itself, is simultaneously production of the density of the multitude because the multitude is a whole of singularities. Of c! ourse, someone insinuates that the multitude is (substantially) an improposable concept, even a metaphor, because one can give unity to the multiple only through a more or less dialectical transcendental gesture (just as philosophy has done from Plato to Hobbes and Hegel): even more so if the multitude (i.e. the multiplicity that refuses to represent itself in the dialectical Aufhebung) also claims to be singular and subjective. But the objection is weak: here the dialectical Aufhebung is ineffective because the unity of the multiple is for the multitude the same as that of living, and living can hardly be subsumed by the dialectics. Moreover, the dispositif of the production of subjectivity that finds in the multitude a common figure, presents itself as collective praxis, as always renewed activity and constitutive of being. The name "multitude" is, at once, subject and product of collective praxis.Louis Proyect, M! arxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.orgDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
Re: Re: Re: Negri explains the multitude
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Jannuzi wrote: These are interesting philosophical questions but none of this is a remarkable addition. One could probably turn it in as a written assignment for a Philosophy 201 class and get a B+. This is one of the things I love about PEN-L. Everyone's so smart! Doug I don't think so! CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
