Graham and Rich
the questions I wrote where actually for another place but for oxen this
passsage seems pretty relevant:
ultra snip fo the purpose of focus: "the computer requires the sweat
shop, and the cyborg's existence is premised on the slave."
"Why is capital worried about communal land tenure in Africa, for
example, if the true source of productivity is to be found in the
cyborgs of the planet? One answer is simply that these factories, lands,
and brothels in the Third World are locales of "the counteracting
causes" to the tendency of the falling rate of profit. They increase the
total pool of surplus labor, help depress wages, cheapen the elements of
constant capital, and tremendously expand the labor market and make
possible the development of high-tech industries which directly employ
only a few knowledge workers or cyborgs."
"In order for there to be an average rate of profit throughout the
capitalist system, branches of industry that employ very little labor
but a lot of machinery must be able to have the right to call on the
pool of value that high-labor, low-tech branches create. If there were
no such branches or no such right, then the average rate of profit would
be so low in the high-tech, low-labor industries that all investment
would stop and the system would terminate. Consequently, "new
enclosures" in the
countryside must accompany the rise of "automatic processes" in
industry, the computer requires the sweat shop, and the cyborg's
existence is premised on the slave."
the issue I suppose is "whose new society" does the gpl found .....
Seaman wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Graham Seaman wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Robin Green wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 08:38:41AM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], auskadi tvcabo.co.mz wrote:
But is it as cut and dry as Caffentzis makes out - the Negrian focus is
on the cyborgs?
I don't think so. I haven't read Negri, but from what I have read of
this report:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280632.html
on the famous debate between Negri and Callinicos (representing the
Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyite tendencies), Negri seems to be EXPANDING
the "revolutionary class" into what he calls the Multitudes - rather
than restricting attention to a small subset of the "working class".
In former (national) times this would have been called populism. Negri's
novelty is not in being a populist, but in redefining populism for a world
claimed/projected to be without national boundaries, as multitudinism.
But IMO multitudinism has exactly the same weaknesses and dangers as
populism.
good grief, that sounds pompous. oh, well, it's still what I think.
Graham
Graham
Quote:
"Negri's speech was of course long and somewhat complicated but made
essentially those points that work is no longer confined to the
official working day but extends itself into all of life; going to
and from work, consuming etc. "The factory is no longer the sole
producer of value." He also attacked the traditional Marxist
conceptions of the relation of agricultural workers as being outside
the working class and their analysis of women etc. Essentially the
Trotskyist fetishisation of the factory and the blue collar, full
time worker etc., as being the main agent of social transformation.
The multitude was a "multiplicity of singularities", that realized
that value is produced across society and not just "at work"."
Or is it as has been claimed or stated to me in the past
on GO - that Negri sees the poor as the where the revolutionary
subjectivities will arise.
That's too simplistic as well.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de