Explaining Hardt-Negri???

Gary MacLennan g.maclennan at SPAMqut.edu.au
Wed Jun 27 15:32:41 MDT 2001


Well I have nothing to do but work so let us see if we can decode this
piece of wisdom.



>sorry for such a brief response to your mail, but it seems to me that the
>excision of any outside in N&H

Excision of any outside that must be code is it not for reality.  that
which lies outside the text and according to Derrida does not exist.  So
Have H&N abandoned a notion of reality?  I doubt this because they have
entered the terrain of policy making for the bourgeoisie where one must
know the world in order to manipulate it.  But this is a betrayal of the
fundamental axioms of post-structuralism  for whom reality is socially
constructed and does not exist independent of humans.




>is not to be derived from negri's reading of
>sponoza, but rather from Marx's writings on real subsumption (published in
>a chapter at the back of Capital vol1 - 'results of the immediate process
>of production' - or some such). the relevance of spinoza is rather derived
>from that.



We will leave aside the reference to Spinoza, now Marx enters the fray and
a concept called real subsumption is introduced. I think this is a botched
reference to Part III where Marx discusses the Reproduction and Circulation
of the Aggregate Social capital.  But I am no Capital scholar so I will
leave that  but for the observation that I suspect Matt does not know his
Capital much better than myself.

>real subsumption involves the transformation in the production
>process emerging from co-operation that capitalism subsumes. it does so by
>a folding of the process, installing itself as a causa sui, or what deleuze
>and guattari called, operating differently from how it was produced; or
>what marx called a presenting itself as natural; hegel's the rational is
>the real, or what spinoza called natura naturata as opposed to natura
>naturans (forgive my latin) - and negri called the constituted rather than
>constituting.



The above seems to say that things are not as they appear in the process of
Capital.  Appearances to not correspond to reality. Absolutely correct, but
it seems to stick in Matteo's throat.  He cannot say that there is a
reality and that it is stratified and differentiated and that Marx
investigated this reality with a view to knowing it and understanding it
better.


>what negri goes on to point out, is that there is a subtarranean
>ontologically constituent element of capitalism as real subsumption or
>biopolitics, that is the co-operative the multitude, i.e. subjectivity.


Again this is a reference to ontological depth. This is of course a
scandalous thought for the post-structuralists.  This might explain, how
the formulation of this thought degenerates into gobble gook and
meaningless nonsense as in "co-operative the multitude, i.e. subjectivity".


Did my best.  Now back to my marking.

regards

Gary






>matteo
>
>134E Kinglsand Road,
>Hoxton, London E2 8DY
>020 7613 2993 0776 997 6212
>
>matteomandarini at aol.com
>
>
>Louis Proyect
>Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org






More information about the Marxism mailing list