Comments on a Michael Hardt NLR article
g.maclennan at qut.edu.au
Fri Apr 26 19:43:04 MDT 2002
At 10:58 26/04/02 -0400, you wrote:
>HARDT: Indeed, the centralized structure of state sovereignty itself runs
>counter to the horizontal network-form that the movements have developed.
>Second, the Argentinian movements that have sprung up in response to the
>present financial crisis, organized in neighbourhood and city-wide delegate
>assemblies, are similarly antagonistic to proposals of national
>sovereignty. Their slogans call for getting rid, not just of one
>politician, but all of them- que se vayan todos: the entire political class.
I am enjoying your commentary. But I would point out that class has
actually entered Hardt's analysis here. He deploys the concept "political
class". I do not know if he uses the concomitant "underclass". In any
case I am unsure of the genealogy of these concepts. But their political
function is clear. They leave out any notion of class being defined by a
relationship to the mode of production. And so effectively omit any
reference to class power or the relationship between the classes.
As for political class, I generally took this term to mean those who vote,
but here Hardt seems to mean simply "politicians". All very confusing and
designed to obscure the question of the working class seizing power and
becoming a class for itself. Which is of course the task confronting the
Argentinian working class. They have to emerge now and take the lead and
impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism