[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Violent Agreement

[n ik <fragments@va.com.au>]

>Any more than it should
>surprise us that Negri's followers are battling in the streets against a
>doctrine that is nearly indistinguishable from their own, which shares both
>a political muse (Spinoza) and a publisher (Harvard) with fellow political
>mythmakers whom they would supposedly detest.  Have we already forgotten
>Georges Sorel, the "Marxist" who begat Mussolini?

this is a common mistake...theorists tend to belive that practice 
follows from theory, when in fact, more often than not, those 
engaging in practice want nothing to do with theory. They are 
concerned with practicalities.

And no doubt there will be a chorus saying, "oh this theory - 
practice distinction is old hat, and boring, and we don't belive it". 
But no doubt it will come from theorists, and academics, all people 
who have forgotten that it is only *in theory* that there is no 
difference between theory and practice..in practice it is something 
quite different. Organisation is a technical problem, abstractions 
are used as temporary maps and tools...

about the same percentage of the population of the meshwork of 
'anti-globalisation' protestors, networks, and organisations have 
read (and agree with) Negri's work, as have the rest of the 
population. in fact, probably less people in that meshwork have read 
it proportionally speaking than the rest of the population. He is no 
more a leader than any other actor in the game...
The meshwork of 'anti-globalisation' protestors, networks, and 
organisations has no leader, no center, no representatives (so 
consider this a personal missive) -  a movement without follows, 
charging the barricades with doctrine in hand,...

the 'anti-globalisation' movement is the same as the body of people,
governments, corporations, supragovernmental organisations, etc 
pushing globalisation? this would have to be a question of ends, 
means and tactics surely, because there is no one doctrine that binds 
the meshwork of 'anti-globalisation' protestors, networks, and 
organisations together. And on that basis it is at best a confused 
and foolish statement. A meshwork of locally based, 
intercontinentially acting groups and organisations working 
(generally speaking) in an anti-heriachical manner, towards a vision 
of a world without gross inequity and alienation....how could this 
possibly be compared to the push for globalisation - economic 
imperialism writ large accross the globe?

nik


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold