Mouffe talks about how the idea of "exodus" is wrong-headed because you can't escape from discursive politics. That is, Hardt/Negri endorse sort of "dropping out" of capitalist institutions in various ways, and not engaging in traditional politics and so on. But for Mouffe that is an abdication of strategy not actually a good strategy in itself, since you can't ever get "outside" of existing relations in a profound way, you are always situated in a context.
Another critique is based on this tendency to try to resurrect Marx and make him work for a new time. As in, one of the main issues that autonomists developed was the social factory, which allowed them to help explain women's work and so on. So this was used as a way to explain feminism within a marxist framework rather than suggesting there was something deficient in Marx. This is common in a lot of contemporary theory that gets popular, probably because there are a lot of people out there that buy books that are interested in marxism, and want to remain true to those sorts of basic ideas, and are uncomfortable with the idea that new social movements require breaking with economic determinism. So the multitude is a class concept, making the entire thing a sort of deterministic project, in a sense, because everything is reduced to class struggle within the framework of moving to communism. They have a model of identity which is rooted in Deleuze and Guattari's work, but I haven't read much about all that yet.
One issue that has been taken up from Hardt/Negri that is very useful is the rejuvenation of the idea of the "commons" as opposed to state socialism. The commons is a collectively produced, collectively managed resource that is (presently) constantly under threat of capture/enclosure. This is an important part of the idea of immaterial labour, which is a concept that seems worthwhile. I'm skeptical at the scope of immaterial labour, but I agree with some of their policy prescriptions surrounding this (basic income).
In a recent TV discussion, Hossam el-Hamalawy, the prominent Egyptian leftist blogger, was asked: "So you're the president of Egypt. You wake up, what's the first thing you're going to do to reorient the economy?" Hamalawy's answer was admirably concrete: raise the minimum wage to 1,200 Egyptian pounds ($198) per month, set a wage ceiling of 15,000 pounds ($2,480), renationalise the corruptly privatised factories, cut military spending and redirect those funds to health and education.
As for the book itself, it's pretty good. Zizek is right that it was written at a very specific time and Iraq and Afghanistan follow a pretty traditional imperialist model, and the arab spring is a pretty traditional nationalist, democratic revolution, but Negri and Hardt admit it is a trend. The failure of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the cooption of the arab spring to serve global capitalism, in my view shows that Empire is winning the struggle over modernism and old school imperialism. My only main complaint with the book is they seem to have a very poor understanding of the dialectic and really hate Hegel for some reason.
discipline posted:getfiscal posted:
One issue that has been taken up from Hardt/Negri that is very useful is the rejuvenation of the idea of the "commons" as opposed to state socialism. The commons is a collectively produced, collectively managed resource that is (presently) constantly under threat of capture/enclosure. This is an important part of the idea of immaterial labour, which is a concept that seems worthwhile. I'm skeptical at the scope of immaterial labour, but I agree with some of their policy prescriptions surrounding this (basic income).yeah I agree with this, especially since more people are able to sort of agree on "reclaiming the commons" or demanding a living wage rather than state socialism, especially since it's easier and more within reach of direct immediate action. and we don't get bogged down in discussions on theory (though those are important!) and instead can do something more constructive with our time. time is of the essence, after all, because this system moves closer to the speed of light than anything else in the known world. I think it's a good way to raise consciousness and also to empower people. so far I'm reading through the diagnosis, not the prescription, though as to what has been hinted at thus far I certainly have criticisms. I have to read more though. thank u for your words.
I think a rejuvination of the commons may actually be a necessary direction to look into; at the rate things are going, there soon much considered "common" for a state to socialize.
The ongoing capitlization of our commons is a pretty weird phenomena to me. I mean, ok, if you're gonna sell our city park to some skeezebag who wants to hydrofrack it into oblivion - OK, we understand each other just fine there. Allowing the park to be run by a for-profit corporation, with the knowledge that that the "profit" in this case is derived from cutting corners that a public institution would never be allowed to circumvent - that's a little weirder still, but I can still follow the twisted logic here. But privitizing the park simply so its intrinsic capital can be leveraged into the system? THAT'S STARTING TO FREAK ME OUT.
Its like, lol, c'mon here fellas, ain't there enough to go around already?
This doesn't really happen with parks, of course, at least that I'm aware of. If it is, well, that's just One More Thing, although you can see this quite clearly behind that awful Cap N' Trade business from a couple years ago. Maybe this has always been part of privisation, and its just becoming a little bit more straight-forward now.
But really, it's our, uh, "virtual" resources that I'm more worried about - cultural, intellectual, and historical. After all, when you're sellin' away the streets of a city, or a highway where men laboured for years to tunnel through mountains, yer losing more than just your physical commodity - even if that's all they're paying for. You lose a self of common dominion and partnership... "Look around in pride son," you might say as you bring him to the top of the mountain. "We built this city, and it is yours now too." Not such is so when its an offical Dynacorp asset!
And patents are one thing, even if a patent necessarily also collaterally protects some "intellectual property" considered commons but antecedent to the "novel" idea covered by the patent. But public funds used for research at public institutions for the specific end-goal of creating a "commercializable deliverable" is another. Children's stories being bound and repackaged to characters designed by a marketing team is something else entirely. The neferious thing about privitization of our more abstract world is that, due to the intangibility of these aetherial resources and thus the inherent difficulty in atomizing them for re-consumption, capitalisation comes rent control. We are living in an era of re-feudalization, where fiefdoms cannot so much be mapped out geographically but are pieced together in funds held on the New York Stock Exchange.
And where does it end? After all, how much of our identities is ours alone to own, and how much is broadly held in common? Would we dare to privitize our souls as well? Or has this already started?
jools posted:
yeah i had khamseks reaction when i started Empire, then when i encountered their suggestions i laughed and threw it aside and lit a joint of weed.
Which is ironic because casting aside knowledge and participation in political discourse for hedonistic pleasures actually seems to be an example of the “dropping-out” that they advocate….you got bizzaro-owned by your rejection of their thesis….just….owned
Great writing and criticism about Britain.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Pretty much. Big industrial projects like bridges, railways and freeways can still have some monumental power in them but as for the shit we're building in our cities....urgh.......for an example that new Shard building in London is way too big and monolithic, a testament to fuck-off financial capitalism but in no way stirs the heart.
im still kinda ambivalent about the shard..... i used to be a lil skyscraper nerd, i waited a fuckin decade for it to actually start construction so part of me feels like i have to like it on principle.... theres nothing intrinsically wrong with big and monolithic, architecturally i think its actually quite graceful, but yeah theres nothing particularly stirring about it and really its main defect is its utter lack of integration with the surrounding community.... offices, an ultra-luxury hotel, and a bunch of two-storey penthouses selling for millions in a pretty deprived borough, great urban renewal you got there
while the defeat of the revolutions in the soviet union and china were painful setbacks, the goals of revolution and communism remain necessary and viable. for communists and communism to move forward from these defeats it is necessary to scientifically and critically evaluate this first historical stage of communist revolution, and on this basis further develop the theoretical framework upon which to continue the struggle for revolution and communism.
such an approach necessarily involves recasting and recombining of the positive aspects of the experience of the communist movement so far, and of socialist society, whilst learning from the negative aspects of this experience, in the philosophical and ideological as well as the political dimensions
deadken posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Pretty much. Big industrial projects like bridges, railways and freeways can still have some monumental power in them but as for the shit we're building in our cities....urgh.......for an example that new Shard building in London is way too big and monolithic, a testament to fuck-off financial capitalism but in no way stirs the heart.im still kinda ambivalent about the shard..... i used to be a lil skyscraper nerd, i waited a fuckin decade for it to actually start construction so part of me feels like i have to like it on principle.... theres nothing intrinsically wrong with big and monolithic, architecturally i think its actually quite graceful, but yeah theres nothing particularly stirring about it and really its main defect is its utter lack of integration with the surrounding community.... offices, an ultra-luxury hotel, and a bunch of two-storey penthouses selling for millions in a pretty deprived borough, great urban renewal you got there
I hear you about being a skyscraper nerd, but it’s just too shiny and optimistic and glossy for the brown-brick misery of London….to be honest I sometimes prefer pomo silliness to arrogant, entitled techno-slickness…
That was back when they made monumental shit out of iron and concrete and not just glass though.
To be honest I think that the iconic building of the 21st century is probably going to be the cinderblock slum ala rio or gaza
jools posted:
the gherkin is far superior imo
I was always intrigued by the gherkin and went to see it while I was in London last year. I like the shape and the design but it’s way smaller and dinkier than the impression I got from the pictures. Like people say it is a dildo but it was more like a pink tickler than a black mamba in the flesh (so to speak).
Lloyds is pretty badass and the stations on the Jubilee line like Westminster and Canary Wharf own hard.
and yeah tbh the best architecture in london of recent years is the jubilee line extension stuff. i love the DLR ride into canary wharf from bow and stratford, its this glass cathedral in the middle of all these skyscrapers
jools posted:
its a tampon.
and yeah tbh the best architecture in london of recent years is the jubilee line extension stuff. i love the DLR ride into canary wharf from bow and stratford, its this glass cathedral in the middle of all these skyscrapers
I got the DLR to Canary Wharf from Bank and it was cool going through those depressed east London neighbourhoods that I used to see on the Bill.
“you’re nicked lad!”
hahahahaha
The station and some of the design at Canary Wharf is cool but as a whole it’s a piece of shit with it’s windswept quays and “stunning luxury” apartments, as if a view over the Thames is actually nice. It just depressed me that even the literal Masters of the Universe couldn’t make their fortress of shititude into anything resembling beauty. Versailles was better than Canada Square y’know.
the gherkin is awful, fuckin awful, everything foster has built is a glossy turd
also ken my ex's dad was some kind of london planning bigwig (and a trot) and he said they wanted to put a massive fountain on the top of the gherkin. if only
jools posted:
yeah i like the stuff built next to the docks because its just so fucking horrible
also ken my ex's dad was some kind of london planning bigwig (and a trot) and he said they wanted to put a massive fountain on the top of the gherkin. if only
hahahahha