<nettime> Re: Zagreb interview with Michael Hardt

[Ognjen Strpic <ognjen@mi2.hr>]

Soenke Zehle wrote:
 > I don't know if you had seen this discussion in the London Review of 
Books, you'll find similar concern about the ambivalence at the heart of 
the concept of the multitude in Hardt/Negri's work. Also see the reply to 
Bull that appeared on an _Empire_ discussion list  >


i wasn't aware of Matteo Mandarini's elaborate reply, though i have read
Bull's review (what's more, i find it one of the most interesting -- in
sharp competition).  with Mandarini i share disagreement about Bull's
reference to Jefferson's republicanism, which struck me as somewhat
bizarre, too.

but, it seems to me that Hardt has, in the Zagreb interview, already
answered to some of Bull's observations _and_ to Mandarini's "defense".

Hardt should be taken seriously when he says that democracy v. justice is
"not an either/or alternative". i'm not sure that Rawls' original Theory
of justice "can be translated in something that resembles our project" (as
Bull has suggested), but important point is that "they're not in different
universes". i believe that to criticize Empire from a liberal standpoint
doesn't by itself constitute a misreading.

in other words, although the question of primacy of democracy or justice
is difficult (and perhaps ill-posed), and H&N approach it differently than
liberals, the interesting theorists (H&N and Rawls included) want _both_.  
my concern was that notion of multitude, as it stands, refers to movements
which not only challenge orthodox liberal democracy, but also the
requirements of justice which we don't want to give up on. this shouldn't
be confused with ambivalences, even contradictions in Empire, which the
authors are apparently aware of.

to be honest, i feel a bit over-saturated with Marxist-against-liberal and
vice versa discussions and doubt that they can be very fruitful any more.  
my sense is that Empire's virtue isn't in unequivocal left-right
positioning. apart from this problem with multitude, i found several other
aspects of Empire more inspiring.

one of them is their treatment of Deleuze-Guattari's Mille plateaux. for
example, if you read Empire along with Hardt's reading notes for Mille
plateaux and compare them to Manuel De Landa's Thousand years of nonlinear
history, you'll find that they managed to extrapolate very different
things from the same D&G text. in a way, one could look at Empire and
Thousand years two branches sharing the same roots. there are many
interesting points of convergence between the two, and still more
interesting points of divergence.

this spirit of Empire was well caught by Brian Holmes when he wrote:

 >The promise of the multitude is that of an operative intelligence of 
individuals and small groups, able to generate agency through the networked 
extension of an almost personal trust, which is based both on continuous 
critical debate and on cooperative action.

This new extension of agency is a potential, which at moments is realized
to some degree. It promises much more permeable organizational structures,
where you do not immediately delegate your intelligence and will to some
representative, where you engage in extensive debate and gain some agency
and productive responsability. The experiment is to see how far these new
organizational processes can go. >

to conclude, it remains to be seen which paths are open for this
experiment to proceed, but also which of the open paths are desirable and
which are not. with respect to multitude, one of the paths it seems to
open is utterly undesirable, no matter what your particular view of the
primacy of democracy or justice might be. in case you care for both, of
course.

Ognjen 




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net