notes/highlights – also from re re readings:
preface – life in common
the primary obstacle of democracy is the global state of war…. traditionally, democracy has been suspended during wartime and power entrusted temporarily to a strong central authority to confront the crisis.
yet never has democracy been more necessary.. no other path will provide a way out of the fear, insecurity, and domination that permeates our world at war; not other path will lead us to a peaceful life in common
this book is sequel to empire – focus on new global form of sovereignty
this book will focus on the multitude, the living alternative that grows w/in empire.
while remaining different, we discover the commonality that enables us to communicate and act together..
brown belonging law: the opposite of belonging.. is fitting in.. true belonging doesn’t require you to change who you are.. it requires you to be who you are.. and that’s vulnerable..
people: the people is one/identity.. the multitude in contrast, is many.. multitude: the multitude is a multiplicity of all these singular differences… masses: the masses are also contrasted w/people.. cannot be reduced to a unity/identity. the essence of the masses id indifference, all differences are submerged and drowned in the masses.. all the colors of the population fade to grey.. they move in unison.. uniformity conglomerate. in the multitude.. social differences remain different. multitude like joseph’s magical coat… so .. to manage to communicate/act in common while remaining internally different.. as opposed to working class – multitude is all inclusive
insofar as the multitude is neither an id (like the people) nor uniform (like the masses), the internal differences of the multitude must discover the common that allows them to communicate and act together..
need a means to undo our hierarchical listening
the common we share in fact is not so much *discovered as it is produced.. (we are reluctant to call this the commons because that term refers to pre capitalist shared spaces that were destroyed by the advent of private property.. although more awkward ‘the common’ highlights the philosophical content of the term and emphasizes that this i s not a return to the past but a new development).. our communication, collab, and coop are not only based on the common, but they in turn produce the common in an expanding spiral relationship.. this production of the common tends today to be central to every form of social production.. and **primary characteristic of the new dominant forms of labor today.. labor itself, in other words, tends thru the transformation of the econ to create and be embedded in coop and communicative networks.. we call this newly dominant model ‘biopolitical production’ to highlight beyond material goods.. but all facets of social life, economic, cultural and political..
rather.. *uncovered.. because deeper than the common ness ..is people grokking enough ness..
the common currency is the desire for democracy
this is a philosophical book.. will give numerous *ie’s of how people are working today to put an end to war and make world more demo.. but not proposing program of action.. we believe necessary to rethink most basic political concepts.. : power, resistance, multitude, democracy.. before we embark.. need to ask if we really understand what democracy means ( or could mean) today
yeah.. or let go of it.. because *this won’t happen.. ie: end war if holding onto democratic admin ness
the multitude is working through empire to create an alternative global society.
civil war gone global
not isolated wars.. but a general global state of war that erodes distinction between war and peace such that we can no longer imagine/hope for real peace..
common to realist political thinkers, most notably carl schmitt.. that all political actions/motives are based fundamentally on the friend-enemy distinction.. only real enemy is a public enemy.. that is an enemy of the state..
war as state of exception (when need dictator et al) .. but.. state of exception has become permanent and general.. the rule
(from italicized golem piece): they (the golem) are just asking to be loved and now one seems to understand.. (related this to frankenstein.. and how they become monsters.. via rejection).. perhaps what monsters liek the golem are trying to teach us, whispering to us secretly under the din of our global battelfield, is a lesson about the monstrosity of war and our possible redemption thru love
love is the movement et al
war, that is to say, is becoming the primary organizing principle of society, and politics merely one of its means or guises. what appears as civil peace, then, really only puts an end to one form of war and opens the way for another.
mao zedong – politics is simply war w/o bloodshed
war has become a regime of biopower, that is, a form of rule aimed not only at controlling the population but producing and reproducing all aspects of social life.this does not mean that war has been domesticated or its violence attenuated, but rather that daily life and the normal functioning of power has been permeated with the threat and violence of warfare.
war on poverty
war on drugs.. war on terrorism
a war to create and maintain social order can have no end. it must involve the continuos, uninterrupted exercise of power and violence. in other words, one cannot win such a war, or, rather, it has to be won again every day. war has thus become virtually indistinguishable from police activity.
to criminalize the various forms of social contestation and resistance. in this respect, the conceptual merging of war and policing poses an obstacle to all forces of social transformation.
If there’s a single takeaway from all this, it’s the nature of the system of power the imperial Hegemon enforces. However much the Hegemon differs from ordinary states, like them it monopolizes power on behalf of an economic ruling class. …. the reality is slavery.
on just wars.. where enemy is evil.. so against all humanity… and on .. the one who rules also determines religious faith..
early in 20th cent terrorism referred to anarchist bombings in russia, france, spain.. instances of so call ed propaganda of the deed.. the current meaning is a recent invention.. terrorism has become a political concept (a concept of war or really, civil war) that refers to 3 diff phenom that are sometimes separate sometimes together: 1\ revolt/rebel against a legit govt 2\ political violence by a govt in violation of human rights (including property) 3\ warfare in violation of rules ie: attacks on civilians.. problem w each.. depending on who defined key elements.. ie: what is legit govt.. what are human rights.. what are rules of war..
the domestic face of just war doctrines and the war against terrorism is a regime aimed at near complete social control.. which some authors describe as a passage from welfare state to warfare state and others characterized as a so called zero tolerance society..
social control et al
this is a society whose diminishing civil liberties and increasing rates of incarceration are in certain respects a manifestation of a constant social war.
incarceration et al
like justice, democracy does not belong to war.. war always requires strict hierarchy and obedience and thus the partial/total suspension of demo participation and exchange.. so since war now not temp but permanent.. suspension of democracy tends to become norm rather than exception
weapons of global destruction break the modern dialectic of war.. the capacity of genocide and nuclear destruction *touches directly on the very structure of life.. corrupting/perverting it.. a form of biopower in most neg/horrible sense… a power that rules directly over death
when genocide and atomic weapons put life itself on center stage, then war becomes properly ontological.
orwell – obedience is not enough. make him suffer…. torture is one central point of contact between police action and war; the torture techniques used in the name of police prevention take on all the characteristics of military action. … according to the logic of the state of exception, torture is an essential, unavoidable, and justifiable technique of power.
sovereign power lives only by preserving the life of its subjects, at the very least their capacities of production and consumption…. global power must not only bring death but also produce and regulate life.
one index of the new.. character of war is policy shift from defense to security…. since sept 2001.. modern demo nations uniformly outlawed all form of military aggression.. only gave power to declare defensive wars.. the contemp justification of preemptive strikes and preventive wars in name os security.. explicitly undermines national sovereignty.. security requires rather actively and constantly shaping the environment through military and/or police activity. only an actively shaped world is a secure world.
whereas defense involves a protective barrier against external threats, security justifies a constant martial activity equally in the homeland and abroad.
the constant and coordinated application of violence, in other words, becomes the necessary condition for the functioning of discipline and control.
to define war by biopower and security changes war’s entire legal framework.
war from regulated to regulating
on nations being necessary to global order and security .. divisions/hierarchies/apartheids all depend on national authorities to establish/enforce.. on nation building being regime change and as birth/producing.. but.. resembles more process of colonial powers dividing up globe and drawing maps of subject territories.. ‘productive’ face of biopower and security.. and back to ‘just war’ ness
the violence of the police officer, jailer, and executioner within the national territory or the general and soldier outside are legitimate not because of the characteristics of the particular individuals but on the basis of the offices they occupy.
we should be clear that we are not claiming that the violence wielded by states against their own citizens and against other states had declined.. on the contrary.. what has declined instead is the means of legitimating that state violence
structural violence et al
in a world where no violence can be legitimated, all violence can potentially be called terrorism.. defn of either.. linked to defn of other.. (seem to assume some legit ness to some violence?)
morality can only provide a solid basis to legitimate violence, authority, and domination when it refuses to admit different perspectives and judgments. once one accepts the validity of different values, then such a structure immediately collapses.
29: 1st full para.. 4 lines down.. new imperial?.. then 3 lines from bottom page.. ineq of power
and yet.. the new imperial justice.. although the axes and lines have shifted.. seems similarly to create and maintain global hierarchies.. one has to recognize how selective this application of justice is, how often the crimes of he least powerful are prosecuted and how seldom those of the most powerful are. arguing that the most powerful must also abide by imperial law and sanctions seems to us a noble but increasingly utopian strategy
on the u.s. doing that.. ie: guantánamo bay vs exempting its own from other legal bodies.. the ineq of power seems to make it impossible to establish equality before the law..
so too.. law ness creates/perpetuates ineq.. let go
we need to look beyond these legal structure for other mechs or frameworks that are effective today as the basis for legit violence
whoa.. crazy.. rather.. need mech to undo our hierarchical listening
the reinforcement or reestablishment of current global order is what retroactively legitimates the use of violence..
oi.. carhart-harris entropy law.. et al
a military and/or police power will be granted legitimacy as long and only as long as it is effective in rectifying global disorders … by this logic a power such as the u.s. military can exercise violence that may or many not be legal or moral and as long as that violence results in the reproduction of imperial order it will be legitimated…. *the constant presence of an enemy and the threat of disorder are necessary in order to legitimate imperial violence…. enemy becomes legitimacy..
huge.. let go
the presence of the enemy demonstrates the need for security
again.. let go of enemy ness.. thurman interconnectedness law: when you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying
this is a real form of security (internal thru coop).. two notions of security – one based on cooperation and the other grounded in violence
no real security.. unless you call it.. embracing non security..
all violence fades to gray.. war itself regardless of he distinction one tries to make, is oppressing us.. this is simplicissimus’s cynical perspective
today however the majority of political scientists are merely technicians working to resolve the quantitative problems of maintain order and the ret wander the corridors from their unis to the courts of power, attempting to get to the ear of the sovereign and whisper advice.. secret adviser of the sovereign..
at end of 20th cent when cold war is over and even the sovereignty of nation states is in decline.. it is unclear how global order can be configured and how the violence necessary to maintain that order can be deployed and legitimated
loaded/wrong questions.. carhart-harris entropy law et al
on war as clash of civilizations.. spinoza called this conjuring up of enemies and fear.. will always lead to war/destruction
deeper.. ie: jensen civilization law et al
clash of civs as friend-enemy war.. until sept 11 and u.s. thinking global war/order goes beyond civ’s.. to global civil war
1.2 – counterinsurgencies
war itself had begun to be transformed.. less oriented toward defending against a coherent mega threat and more focused on proliferating mini threats.. less intent on general destruction of enemy and more toward transformation or even production of the enemy.. war became.. rather than all out, large scale combat.. the great superpowers began to engage in high intensity police actions.. ie: us involvement in nam and latin america and soviet engagement in afghanistan.. in short.. may 1972 war began to become an integral element of biopower.. aimed at the construction/reproduction of the global social order
this postmodern warfare of biopower is so clearly linked to the shifts in econ production because wars always been and become increasingly tied to econ production..
today military control and org is exercised primarily thru communications and info techs
1989 – after cold war – a revolution in military affairs – rma… major shift of strategy.. u.s. now overwhelming dominance.. technologie.. taylorism factories… en mass ness
not all in us military convinced by notion of rma.. w less risk to soldiers et al.. war will be conducted in an antiseptic tech manners.. number of dead troops.. at least of us armed forces.. will approach zero.. because us public will not accept a war w mass us casualties after nam.. not that they want soldiers to die.. but think mandate of no soldiers die restricts too severely the range of military activities.. ie: patriotic virtues.. willingness to sacrifice.. which they believe necessary for global superpower to maintain its strength
increasingly, u.s. leaders seem to believe that the vast superiority of its firepower, the sophistication of its tech, and the precision of its weapons allow the u.s. military to attack its enemies from a safe distance in a precise and definitive way, surgically removing them like so many cancerous tumors from the global social body, w/minimal side effects. war thus becomes virtual from the tech pov and bodyless from the military pov; the bodies of u.s. soldiers are kept free of risk, the enemy combatants are killed efficiently and invisibly.
yet.. continuing high level of ‘ collateral damage;.. et al
w/o the horror of war there is less incentive to put an end to it.. and war w/o end and kirk (captain) says is the ultimate barbarity
what incentive does a power have to put an end to war if it never suffers from it
on bricoleurs asymmetrical.. of no nation
guerrilla attacks.. rely on unpredictability.. could come from anywhere/one.. force dominant military power to live in state of perpetual paranoia.. so power seeks to control not only thru military but thru social, political, ideological, psychological weapons..
blur of war and peace.. not an element of military strategy.. this gray zone with it’s ambiguities/vulnerabilities
production of subject by power/colonization/alienation.. produces obedient social subjects it needs.. docile subjects/population.. robot soldiers..
all of us whales.. but way before then.. and ongoing
dominance, no matter how multidimensional, can never be complete and is always contradicted by resistance… a sovereign power is always two-sided: a dominating power always relies on the consent or submission of the dominated.
we should recognize that even in asymmetrical conflicts victory in terms of complete domination is not possible.. all that can be achieved is a provisional and limited maintenance of control and order that must constantly be policed and preserved.. counterinsurgency is a full time job
counterinsurgency is fundamentally a question of organizational form.. enemy has new form.. (realized about 9 11) .. network.. has no center
these changes have important consequences for military strategy.. no center.. unpredictable.. no boundaries.. constantly undermined stable boundaries between inside/outside
can’t attack center.. so deprive environment
hari rat park law et al
strategy of negative techniques ie: assassination of leaders..mass arrests.. no longer work.. so also create positive techniques.. must not destroy environ but rather create/control the environ
in our terms.. process is part of passage from imperialism (centralized nation states) to network form of empire (dominant state powers/admins/fin/govts)..
it takes a network to fight a network.. u.s. military must become a network
why fight..? why not just make military irrelevant..? (whew.. see 63.. finding on re re read.. no whew.. still dang.. let go)
work imperialistically rather than nationally.. like banks..
graeber f & b same law et al
this entire power structure must constantly confront the productive global multitude, which is the real basis of the network.
what does that mean.. what does – productive – mean..?
on need to deal w/war from distributive network.. the traditional military power structure is no longer capable of defeating or containing its enemies..
i so hope you’re going here.. a nother way.. w/o enemies.. (yeah.. as re re read.. seeing no such luck)
thurman interconnectedness law: when you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying –
one might get the impression from such a narrative that counterinsurgency strategies dictate the evolving forms of insurgency. actually… as terms themselves indicate, it is just the opposite. …..this logic/trajectory will help us recognize what are today and will be in future the most powerful and most desirable organization forms of rebellion and revolution.
ultimately this will help us see how to address the most important task for resistance today, that is, resisting war.
insurgency – organized movement aimed at the overthrow or destruction of a constituted government through the use of subversion, espionage, terrorism and armed conflict… terrorism is not an end in itself
counterinsurgency – military or political action taken against the activities of guerrillas or revolutionaries.
we began w/ counterinsurgency for much same reason marx gives, in .. capital, for discussing wealth/capital/commodities before discussing labor, its source….. in reality labor is primary. the same is true of resistance. … resistance is a response or reaction – resistance is primary with respect to power.
this .. affords us a different perspective… allowing us to see history from below.. illuminates the alternatives that are possible today.
actually.. blinds us to them.. ie: history ness.. keeping us from us.. from legit alts..
again on Marx in capital… starting w commodities… then research labor to find new reality.
we must now begin to understand our global state of war.. and its development thru research into the genealogy of social/political movements of resistance.. this will lead toward a new vision of our world and also an understanding of the subjectivities capable of creating a new world.
Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
all response/reform of same song.. let go
the contemporary scene of labor and production, we will explain, is being transformed under the hegemony of immaterial labor, that is, labor that produces immaterial products, such as information, knowledges, ideas, images, relationships, and affects. … doesn’t mean industrial/agricultural labor ends.. in fact, workers involved primarily in immaterial production are a small minority of the global whole. what it means, rather, is that the qualities and characteristics of immaterial production are tending to transform the other forms of labor and indeed society as a whole.
on immaterial labor – (flexible, precarious, no contracts, mobile, ..)
first – moving out of limited realm of strictly economic domain and engage in the general production and reproduction for society as a whole….social, cultural, and political force..ultimately, in philosophical terms, the production involved here is the production of subjectivity, the creation and reproduction of new subjectivities in society ..who we are, how we view the world, how we interact w/each other.. all created through this social, biopolitical production..
second – tends to take the social form of networks based on communication/collaboration/affective relationships. immaterial labor can only be conducted in common
its ability to engage and transform all aspects of society and its collaborative network form are two enormously powerful characteristics that immaterial labor is spreading to other forms of labor. these characteristics can serve as a prelim sketch of the social composition of the multitude that today animates the movements of resistance against the permanent, global state of war
on primary forces … driven not only by *struggles against misery and poverty but also by a profound **desire for democracy – a real democracy of the ***rule of all by all based on relationships of ****equality and freedom.
*struggles – thinking here of refocus from needs to desires.. as more sustainable.. ie: a&a as innate desires rather than needs – or along w/being needs
**desire – as above
***rule – thinking rule ness is getting in the way. perhaps replace with – choice – along with the idea of having the bravery/freedom to change your mind everyday.. everyone’s choice. we haven’t seemed able to think in those terms before.. because.. perhaps we didn’t yet have a tool to ground/facilitate that chaos.. of everyone making choices everyday.. rather than ruling order into us..
choice is huge. choice. everyday. 24/7. otherwise we die.. we’re bots. following whimsy .. listening to heart.. keeps us alive/awake. and if we change things up, ie: do over… keeps us in love/kindness/commons.. et al. be\cause: one. one multitude. multitudinously one.
****equality – thinking more – equity – everyone getting a go everyday..
this democracy is a dream created in the great revolutions of modernity but never yet realized.
perhaps because we’re holding onto rule et al – thinking of nancy’s take on demo schools.. about meetings to – decide/argue together – rather than just doing/being.. like perpetuating the meetings .. so today – we can have billions^x of those encounters/meetings/decisions/choices.. facilitating 24/7..
the need for democracy coincides immediately, in the present conditions, w the need for peace
won’t have peace w democratic admin ness
throughout modernity.. having to confront war/violence w and w/o violent means. perhaps we should say rather that the great wars of liberation are (or should be) oriented ultimately toward a *’war against war’ that is, an active effort to destroy the regime of violence that perpetuates our state of war and supports the system s of inequality and oppression. this is a condition necessary for realizing the democracy of the multitude.
*war against war – perhaps rather than war it away.. we just live – a nother way – making it irrelevant. two loops.. yes. but exponentiated.. leapfrogged… time warped.. do-over.. rather than fighting what we don’t like.. doing/being what we do like.
recognizing characteristics of the multitude will allow us to invert our perspective on the world.
our forshung, or research.. in to the nature/conditions of the multitude, will allow us to reach a new standpoint where we can recognize the real, creative forces that are emerging w the potential to create a new world.
in following sections… follow genealogy of liberation struggles… we’ll see 3 guiding principles: 1\ form of resistance that is most effective in combating a specific form of power 2\ pose correspondence between changing forms of resistance and transform of econ/social production 3\ democracy/freedom – ie: addressing the undemocratic
the current global recomposition of social classes, the hegemony of immaterial labor, and the forms of decision-making based o network structures all radically change the conditions of any revolutionary process.
as we will argue in the course of this book, resistance, exodus, the emptying out of the enemy’s power, and the multitude’s construction of a new society are one and the same process.
zapatista’s as first people’s army (?).. via linking smaller armies – via communications.. the peasants do not become proletarians in this process of military modernization.. but they do manage when they become a modern army to leave behind the isolation that had previously characterized peasant guerrilla rebellion
it is no coincidence that counterinsurgency strategies often focus on these internal contradictions, trying to keep the different subjects separate and exacerbate their ideological differences in order to prevent a political recomposition
using class/binary ness to keep from people’s army/unity.. to.. only way to reform is thru people’s army.. but then problem w people’s army.. of course.. ie: partial unity.. still has enemy.. still wasting energies on fighting the other ness
the centralized formation of a people’s army looks like a victorious strategy up until the point when the victory is won.. when the weakness of its unified and hierarchical structure become painfully clear.. democracy is far from guaranteed by the people’s army..
the undemocratic character of the modern people’s army may be tolerated during the phase of battle when ti is deemed necessary for victory ut no twhen t defines the nature of the postwar political structure..
on referencing cuban guerrilla foco strategy (esp in 60s globally)
thinking about cancer.. and learning from it.. how to counter it. kind of.
on the cultural revolution in china via mao – being radical and antiauthoritarian.. and black panthers selling copies of mao’s little red book on streets of berkeley.. the democratic character of the cultural revolution is complicated and qualified, furthermore, by the position of mao himself, since it appears from the outside at least that his calls to attack all forms of authority *paradoxically reinforce his own central position and control..
*this is true as well for democracy’s demo admin.. oi..
the people often serves as a middle term between the consent given by the population and the command exerted by the sovereign power but generally the phrase serves merely as a pretense to validate a ruling authority
*is it possible today to imagine a new process of legitimation that does not rely on the sovereignty of the people but is base instead in the biopolitical productivity of the multitude?….. **is there an immanent mechanism that does not appeal to any transcendent authority that is capable of legitimating the use of force in the multitude’s struggle to create new society based on democracy, equality, and freedom? ***does it even make sense to talk about a war of the multitude?
*loaded/wrong.. need to let go of focus on legitimizing violence et al.. this is why revolutions are not enough
**yes – to a mechanism.. yes to immanent.. but not need for force/legit-vio.. in the way we know it.. more like directed attention… toward curiosities/desires/others/self… legit freedom and democratic admin can’t coincide.. need equity not equality
***no.. not as a war (wrong/energy-sucking focus).. a dance of the multitude.. perhaps
they never forgot that the laws that legitimate state violence are transcendental norms that maintain the privileges of the dominant class (in particular the rights of property owners) and subordination of the rest of the population. they knew that whereas the violence of capital and the state rests on transcendent authority, the legitimation of their class struggle was based solely on their own interests and desires. class struggle was thus a modern model of the immanent basis of legitimation in the sense that it appealed to no sovereign authority for its justification.
spaces of permission w nothing to prove
68 ish – guerilla warfare changes.. ie: from countryside to city, from open spaces to closed ones….spread throughout entire fabric of society.. biopolitical.. goal the production of subjectivity.. both econ/cultural material/immaterial…..it was not just a matter of ‘winning hearts and minds’ in other words, but rather of *creating new hearts and minds through the construction of new circuits of communication, new forms of social collab, and new modes of interaction… toward more **demo network forms of org
city is a jungle. … urban guerrillas know its terrain … the focus, however, was increasingly not on attacking the ruling powers but rather on transforming the city itself.
network organization, by contrast is based on the continuing plurality of its elements and its networks of communication in such a way that reduction to a centralized and unified command structure is impossible. the polycentric form of the guerrilla model thus evolves into a network form in which there is not center only an irreducible plurality of nodes in communication with each other.
on production of subjectivity.. modern army produced solder to follow orders.. fordist factory… workers.. modern guerrilla similar. network struggle, again, like post fordist production, does not rely on discipline in same way: creativity, communication and self0organized cooperation are its primary values. this new kind of force of course resists and attacks the enemy as military forces always have, but increasingly its focus is internal – producing new subjectivities and new expansive forms of life w/in the organization itself. no longer is the people assumed as basis and no longer is taking power of the sovereign state structure the goal.
zapatista goal has never been to defeat the state and claim sovereign authority but rather to change the world w/o taking power.
cool.. on change world w/o taking power.. but still talks of ‘military/traditions forms and transform them’ – same song ness
how related to earlier z guy? – zapatista
on need for freedom and democratic org
again.. freedom and democracy can’t coincide.. democratic admin keeps us from legit freedom
final decades of twentieth century .. emerged movements… – identity politics… feminsit, gay/lesbian, race… most characteristic – their insistence on atonoy and their refusal of any centralize hierarchy , leaer,s or spokespeople..
anarchists, affinity groups, … finally the globalization movements.. from seattle to genoa….. esp seattle 1999 – coming together of different/contradictory interests.. yet managed to act in common.. the groups are not unified under any single authority but rather relate to each other in a network structure.
also called movement of movements… as long as remaining merely protest movements… *incapable of becoming a foundational struggle and of articulating an alternative social org…. this may be temporary.. what is most important is the form of movements .. **these movements constitute the most developed example to date of the network model of org…
*need to let go of struggle/resistance/legitimizing-violence.. et al..
**until now.. ie: as infra ness
on legalities becoming more and more irrelevant.. as well as too much… ie: undecidable..
from an external perspective, the network attack is described as a swarm because it appears formless. since the network has no center that dictates order, those who can only think in terms of traditional models may assume it has no organization whatsoever – they see mere spontaneity and anarchy. …appears something like… mindless assailants, unknown, uncertain, unseen, and unexpected. if one looks inside a network however, one can see that it is indeed organized, rational and creative….. intelligence fundamentally social.
the intelligence of the swarm is based fundamentally on communication.
what we need is a means to undo our hierarchical listening
ie: 2 conversations
..understanding swarm behavior helps in writing algorithms to optimize problem-solving computations. computers … process.. faster.. using swarm architecture rather than conventional centralized processing model.
swarms… emerging in the new network political org’s… are composed of a multitude of diff creative agents. this ads several more layers of complexity to the model.
but not to the individual.. waking up making choices everyday.. their job is to just be themselves..
the members of the multitude do not have to become the same or renounce their creativity in order to communicate and cooperate with each other. they remain different ….what we need to understand.. is the collective intelligence that can emerge from the communication and cooperation of such a varied multiplicity.
brown belonging law et al
.. Arthur Rimbaud – hymns to the *paris commune in 1871 continually imagined the revolutionary communards as insects. it is not uncommon.. to imagine enemy troops as insects…Rimbaud, however, takes this wartime cliche and inverts it, singing praises of the swarm….. music of the swarm. the reawakening and reinvention of the senses in the youthful body– the centerpiece of Rimbaud’s poetic world – takes place in the buzzing and swarming of the flesh. .. a new kind of **intelligence, a collective/swarm intelligence, that Rimbaud and the communards anticipated.
*m of care – mar 18 – on paris commune anniv
on biopower (current war regime not only threatens us w death but also rules over life, producing and reproducing all aspects of society) to biopolitical (producing not just material goods but actual social relationships and forms of life) production
biopower stands above society… imposes its order.
biopolitical productions..creates social relationships..collabs of labor… will make clear the social basis on which it is possible today to begin a project of the multitude.
to understand multitude .. let us contrast it first w that of the people.. the people is one.. the population .. is composed of numerous diff individuals and classes, but the people synthesizes/reduces these social differences into one identity. the multitude by contrast… is not unified but remains plural and multiple. this is why, according to the dominant tradition of political philosophy, the people can rule as a sovereign power and the multitude cannot.. the multitude is composes of a set of singularities.. and by singularity here we mean a social subject whose diff cannot be reduced to sameness.. a difference that remains different.. the plural singularities of the multitude thus stand in contrast to the undifferentiated unity of the people..
thinking brown belonging law.. and how we need each part to be itself
the multitude however although it remains multiple, is not fragmented, anarchical or incoherent..
thinking undisturbed ecosystem.. and how we dance
comparing mult to crowd masses mob…ie: later three.. must be led.. can’t act of own accord.. so susceptible to external manip..
the multitude, designates an active social subject, which acts on the basis of what the singularities share in common.. the multitude is an internally diff, multiple social subject whose constitution and action is based not on id or unity (or much less indifference( but on what it has in common
… one recurring truth of political philosophy – only the one can rule, be it the monarch/party/people/individual.. social subjects that are not unified .. cannot rule.. instead must be ruled. every sovereign power.. necessarily forms a political body of which there is a head that commands, limbs that obey, and organs that function together to support the ruler.
so – not how i see one ness.. (i see it as they are describing multitude.. where it’s both individual and whole)
concept of multitude challenges this accepted truth of sovereignty. the mult although remains multiple and internally diff, is able to act in common and thus rule itself.
rather than a political body with one that commands and others that obey, the mult is living flesh that *rules itself.
*rules – perhaps rather.. perpetuates/regenerates… itself..
the multitude is the only social subject capable of realizing democracy, that is, the *rule of everyone by everyone. the stakes, in other words, are extremely high.
again – thinking *that word seems toxic… also remembering people telling me words that i should’t use..
and too.. (to me) not about democracy
when we say we do not want a world w/o racial or gender diff but instead a world in which race/gender do not matter, .. a world in which they do not determine hierarchies of power, a world in which differences express themselves freely, this is a desire for the mult. and.. for singularities that compose mult, in order to take away the limiting/negative/destructive character of differences and make differences our strength.. we must radically transform the world..
from the socioeconomic perspective, the multitude is the common subject of labor, that is, the real flesh of postmodern production and at the same time the object form which collective capital tries to make the body of its global development.. capital wants to make the multitude into an organic unity, just like the state wants to make it into a people..
2.1 dangerous classes
stalin’s basic error is mistrust of the peasants.. mao zedong
neither ethnicity nor skin color determine race; race is determined politically by collective struggle… this logic should be taken one step further: race arises through collective resistance to racial oppression.. an investigation of econ class or race, should not begin w/mere catalog of empirical differences but rather with the lines of collective resistance to power. ie: class=struggles in common
why even say/use word class?
when we say biopoltical.. also means that our understanding of labor cannot be limited to wage labor but must refer to human creative capacities in all their generality.. the poor, as we will argue, are thus not excluded fro this conception of class but central ti it..
again.. why even say/keep/use class?
the key to this defn is the fact that there is no conceptual or actual contradiction between singularity and commonality..
multitude from this perspective is based not so much on current empirical existence of the class but rather on its conditions of possibility.. question is not what is the multitude.. but what can the multitude become.. such a political project must clearly be grounded in an empirical anal that demos the common conditions of those who can become the multitude.. common conditions does not mean sameness of unity.. but it does require that no differences of nature or kind divide the multitude
means in other words.. that the innumerable, specific *types of labor, forms of life, and geographical location, which will always necessarily remain, do not prohibit communication and collab in a common political project..
always remain.. ? perhaps.. perhaps not.. depends on if it existed enough to define it in first place.. because always changing.. organism as fractal et al.. not even an individual stays same.. nothing living stays same enough to declare ie: *types of labor et al.. also thinking marsh label law
from the struggle against the limits, scarcity and cruelty of nature toward the surplus and abundance of human productivity: this is the material basis of a real common *project that these poet philosophers prophetically invoked..
multitude as potentially class who refuse rule of capital.. so diff from working class.. working class fundamentally restricted concept based on exclusions.. refers to industrial labor.. excluding all others.. ie: waged labor.. vs unwaged labor.. .. the working class is thought to be the primary productive class and directly under the rule of capital, and thus the only subject that can act effectively against capital.. but to now all seen as labor under capital..
not a legit humane perspective
think of it (now all labor socially productive) as the equal opp of resistance..
oi.. and rest of page loaded/wrong.. human being not about production from labor.. about art and the dance.. so flapping.. let go
main focus.. immaterial labor (multitude ness) .. for intellect.. info .. communication..
biopolitics presents numerous additional conceptual complexities and thus in our view the notion of immateriality, despite its ambiguities, seems easier to grasp initially and better at indicating the general tendency of econ transformation
? leg to
our claim is that immaterial labor has become hegemonic in qualitative terms.. just as in that phase all forms of labor and society itself had to industrialize, today labor and society have to informationalize.. become intelligent, become communicative, become affective..
our notion of immaterial labor should not be confused w/the utopian dreams in eh 1990s of a ‘new economy’ that, largely through tech innovations, globalization, and rising stock markets, was thought by some to have made all work interesting and satisfying, democratized wealth, and banished recessions to the past. the hegemony of immaterial labor does though, tend to change the conditions of work.
? whoa. then talks on time during day working.. then later on stats of rising work/jobs..
showing how intellect ness a part of all (caring and working class).. missing it – pt of human being
this new post fordism: flexible (workers do diff tasks); mobile (move between jobs); precarious (no contracts/guarantees)
oi.. and.. production production production
this is indeed the key characteristic of immaterial labor: to produce communication, social relations, and coop
not about work/labor.. but rather art.. so not about production of anything.. ie: w multitude and caring labor.. now trying to measure its productive value et al.. art isn’t about valuing some result/production.. just about being part of the dance
the difference of immaterial labor, however, is that it its products are themselves, in many respects, immediately social and common..
deeper.. no products to share.. that kills the dance..
reality check: what evidence to substantiate our claim of a hegemony of immaterial labor?
then on all ie’s back to whalespeak.. opposite of reality
3rd (pt of reality check) centrality of immaterial labor is reflected in growing importance of immaterial forms of property that it produces.. ie: private property..
intellect property copyright et al.. oi
defn of peasantry.. primarily an econ concept that denotes a specific position w/in relation of production and exchange.. those who labor on the land.. produce for own consumption.. either own or have access to necessary land/equip.. rich, mid, and poor peasants.. et al
land reform, which was a liberal and revolutionary battle cry in latin america through the 20th cent, from z’s ragged troops to guerrilla revolutionaries in nicaragua and el salvador, held something like the figure of the middle peasant as its goal..
the figure of the peasant has thus throughout the world faded into the background of the econ landscape of agri.. which tends to be populated now by huge corps, agri workers, and increasingly desperate rural poor.. sin 70s.. some emphasized similarities between agri and industrial working class.. ie: proletarianization of agri labor and creation of ‘factories in the fields’.. one should be careful however not to conceive of this asa process of homogenization of productive practices and forms of life.. agris have not become same as industrial working class.. agri life has a unique relationship to earth and develops symbiotic relationship w life of .. soil, water, sunshine, air.. (and here we can recognize clearly the potential for agri to become biopolitical).. agri is and will always remain a singular form of production and life, and yet.. this has been our primary point.. the processes of modernization have created common relations of production and exchange that agri and other forms of production share
holmgren indigenous law et al
this peasant world was linked to the innocence and naturalness of traditional social arrangements – class divisions, relations of property and production and so forth – that were really, of course, neither innocent nor natural..
it means that the peasantry is fundamentally conservative, isolated, and capable only of reaction, not of any autonomous political action of its own.. as we saw in par 1, peasant war, according to this view, at least since the 16th cent. have been primarily telluric (of the earth), tied to the defense of the soil and aimed at preserving tradition.. marx claimed that the political passivity of the peasantry is due to its lack of both communication and large scale circuits of social coop..
their inability to communicate is why marx believed that the peasants cannot rep selves (and must therefore be rep’d).. in marx’s view, political subjectivity requires of a class not only self rep but first and most fundamentally internal communication..
begs a means to undo our hierarchical listening
communication in this sense is the key to the political significance of the tradition division between city/country and the political prejudice for urban political actors that followed form 19th-20th cent.. not so much idiocy but incommunicability define rural life..
begs idiosyncratic jargon ness
the circuits of communication that gave the urban working class a great political advantage over rural peasantry were also due to the conditions of work.. the industrial labor force, working in teams around a common machine, is defined by cooperation and communication, which allows it to become active and emerge as a political subject
rather.. a political whale
this tragic history has taught us, once again the injustice and dire consequences of one subject speaking for a subordinated other, even when that other is unable to speak for itself.
as the peasantry becomes communicative and active it ceases to exist as a separate political category, causing a decline in the political significance of the division between town/country.. paradoxically, the final victory of the peasant revolution is the end of the peasantry (as a separate political category).. in other words, the ultimate political goal of the peasantry it its own destruction as a class
to nika‘s question
figure of peasant.. discovers itself to be part of the multitude.. one of numerous singular figures of labor/life.. that despite difference share common conditions of existence..
the tendency of peasant to become a less separate and distinct category today is indicative of more general trend of socialization of all the figures of labor.. ..struggle of each sector becomes struggle of all..
task of global anthro is to abandon traditional structure of otherness altogether and discover instead a concept of cultural difference based on a notion of singularity.. in other words.. the ‘others’ of classical/modern anthro.. the primitive and the peasant, were conceived in their difference form the modern european self..
like whales as standard/natural/normal ness
the anthro of the multitude is an anthro of singularity and commonality..
it is not easy for any of us to stop measuring the world against the standard of europe, but the concept of the multitude requires it of us.. it is a challenge.. embrace it
even deeper.. got to get us all our of sea world..
it has never been true, of course, that the poor and the unemployed do nothing.. the strategies of survival themselves often require extraordinary resourcefulness and creativity..
in many respects the poor are actually extraordinarily wealthy and productive.. biodiversity.. indigenous .. et al
today production increasingly depends on linguistic competencies and community.. language maintains hierarchical relations in at least 3 respects: 1\ signs of superiority/inferiority; 2\ dominance of one language over others; 3\ relation between power/language
we need to let go of language as control/enclosure et al
we find that despite these hierarchies the subordinated are often the most creative agents of linguistic community, developing new linguistic forms and mixtures and communicating them to the community as a whole.
again.. huge on idiosyncratic jargon ness
migrants may often travel empty-handed in conditions of extreme poverty, but even then they are full of knowledges, languages, skills, and creative capacities: each migrant brings with him or her an entire world.
part of the wealth of migrants is their desire for something more, their refusal to accept the way things are.
this combined act of refusal and expression of desire is enormously powerful…
the experience of flight is something like a training of the desire for freedom..
migrants recognize the geographical hierarchies of the system and yet treat the globe as one common space, serving as living testimony to the irreversible fact of globalization..
thurman interconnectedness law: when you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying
migrants demo (and help construct) the general commonality of hte multitude by crossing and thus partially undermining every geographical barrier..
the struggles of the poor against their conditions of poverty are not only powerful protests but also affirmation of biopolitical power.. the revelation of a common ‘being’ that is more powerful that their miserable ‘having’..
erich fromm to be or to have ness
ubi aimed against poverty.. if extended beyond national to global.. could become element of democratic management of globalization.. could correspond to common productivity of the poor
if imagining extended ubi.. that’s just part of not letting go.. of control.. of democratic admin ness
our claims of wealth, productivity, and commonality of poor have immediate implications for trade union organizing.. but w immaterial labor.. what is necessary/possible today is form of labor organizing.. that overcomes all division s of old unions and manages to rep the becoming common of labor in all its generality.. need to create labor orgs that can rep entire network of singularities that produce social wealth.. et al..
from trade to labor? need deeper org/infra.. otherwise sill walls/id’s/poors
on need for trade unions to transform, ie: old ones are 1\ not able to represent unemployment 2\ divided by product
? – couldn’t we make unions irrelevant.. and. un\employment irrelevant..
in any case, a union worthy of the name today.. must be org’d expression of the multitude, capable of engaging the entire global realm of social labor.. the poor have no need of poor laws, in fact, the old poor laws only kept them poor..
on migrants mobility and commonality as threat to destabilize global hierarchies on which global capitalist power depends.. they slide across the barriers and burro connecting tunnels that undermine the walls
constant line law et al
moreover, these dangerous classes continually disrupt the ontological constitution of empire: at each intersection of lines of creativity or lines of flight the social subjective becomes more hybrid.. mixed.. misceginated.. further escaping the fusion al powers of control.. they cease to be id’s
marsh label law et al
why empire fears migrants.. won’t work if our focus/infra is based on us/them ness 1/99% ness.. even if just initially.. otherwise ie: empire starfish oppression arms keep growing back et al.. gershenfeld sel et al
boulder shootings and upstairs noise .. both enemies – same song
languages mix and interact to form not a single unified language but rather a common power of communication and coop among a multitude of singularities
perhaps the real threat of this demonic multitude is more metaphysical: since it its at once singular and plural, it destroys numerical distinction itself.. the threat to political order is perhaps even more clear.. the demonic multitude violates all such numerical distinctions.. both one and many.. the indefinite number of the multitude threatens all these principles of order.. such trickery is the devils work (quoted from demonic multitudes: dostoyevsky reads the bible)
the multitude however is legion.. it is composed of innumerable elements that remain different, one from the other, and yet communicate, collab, ad act in common. now that’s really demonic” (sill from dostoyevsky)
again.. image if same but for good
it is no coincidence, he (foucault on architectures of disciplinary institutions) argues, that the prison resembles the factory, which resembles the school, which resembles the barracks, which resembles the hospital, and so forth. they all share a common form that foucault links to the disciplinary paradigm
his (descartes) discovery corresponds in form to the emerging tendency of his social reality.. (and earlier.. writing of the social reality of our period being networks.. as form of org.. saying .. not that they weren’t around before.. just now.. network has become common)
our innovative and creative capacities are always greater than our productive labor – productive, that is , of capital. at this point we can recognize that this biopolitical production is on the one hand immeasurable, because it cannot be quantified in fixed units of time, and, on the other hand, always excessive with respect to the value that capital can extract from it because capital can never capture all of life. *this is why we have to revise marx’s notion of the relation between labor and value in capitalist production..
? so many questions here.. (prior was on our thinking – in order to be marx thinking – needs to go beyond marx thinking… and then on the discoveries matching the period you are in).. biggest question is on measuring things.. it sounds like they are saying we have to *change marx’s notion.. so that we can again measure things.. rather.. we need to let go of any form of m\a\p
*affective labor always directly constructs a relationship. just after marx on workers to factory to collab/produce (relationship affects labor) vs immaterial (labor affects relationship)
not about ‘labor’ switching the material to immaterial.. any focus on ie: knowledge/coop/collab/production/produce.. does’t get us back/to natural ness.. doesn’t get us out of sea world.. intellect/collab ness still killing us if focus on it
the production of ideas, images, and knowledges is not only conducted in common – no one really thinks alone, all thought is produced in collab w the past/present thought of others – but also each new idea and image invites and opens new collabs. the production of languages, finally, both natural/artificial, such as computer languages and various kinds of code, is always collab..a and always creates new means of collab. in immaterial production the creation of coop has become internal to labor and thus external to capital..
a theory of the relation between labor and value today must be based on the common.
today we need a new tableau economique that goes beyond the traditional measures and is able to describe more accurately where value is created and where it goes in the national and the global econ.
rather.. oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space
this would require a revolution of the methods of accounting, something akin to the way einstein’s theory of relativity transformed our understanding of the regular, metrical spaces of euclidean geometry.
maybe that’s the beyond marx/einstein our period can do..
we need to let go.. of any form of m\a\p
on marx – already grokking – in fact, he writes in his notebooks, ..
..when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces, etc., created through universal exchange?.. the absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, ie: the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yard stick? … strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of his becoming? (grundrisse, 488)
..real wealth.. resides in the common; it is the sum of the pleasures, desires, capacities, and needs we all share. the common wealth is the real proper object of production.
we do not mean to suggest that the paradigm of immaterial production is some paradise in which we produce freely in common and share equally the common social wealth.. immaterial labor is still exploited under the rule of capital as material labor is..
yeah.. since ‘immaterial labor’ et al.. not yet deep enough .. to get to that which already resonates in 8b souls.. so why spin our wheels in tragedy/sea world.. get out.. let go.. instigate utopia everyday
marx defn of exploitation – working beyond work day/pay… and that we must change that.. ie: just as we must understand the production of value in terms of the common, so too must we try to conceive exploitation as the expropriation of the common
the common .. in other words.. has become the locus of surplus value..
oi.. huge oi..
money, of course, is not only a general equivalent that facilitates exchange but also the ultimate representation of the common.
what..? holy cow.
financial instruments, such as derivatives, as we will see further in part 3, cast this representation of the common into the future.
the profits of finance capital are probably in its purest form the expropriation of the common
expropriation: ‘the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit‘
via marx.. production not only creates an object for the subject but also a subject for the object.. in age of hegemony of immaterial production.. the poor designate the paradigmatic figure of production
subject creates object and vice versa.. aka: whales
let go of production ness
labor as absolute poverty, poverty not as shortage, but as total exclusion of objective wealth. – marx – (gurnrisse 295-6)… labor not as an object, but as activity, not as itself value, but as the living source of value. – marx…. marx recognizes poverty as the ground zero of human activity, as the figure of general possibility and thus the source of all wealth.
now sounds like highest poverty..
what we humans are at bse is general possibility or general productive capacity
(death of dismal science): nothing annoys our econ friends more than reminding them that economics is a deeply reactionary discipline.. it was inevitable that statisticians and mathematicians would take over economics because they are the only ones w the techniques to manage it..
(still in death of the dismal science)
the reproduction of society is analyzed with the goal of keeping it exactly as is and formulating it in terms of quantitative measures that can make the relations of exploitation inevitable and natural, an ontological necessity. .
..economics is more disciplinary than any other discipline,
killing us softly
again.. oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space
..and it has been ever since its origins... in short, all that catastrophic phenomena that can be grouped under the title of crisis – demonstrate that the theory of equilibrium cannot serve as the general schema of economics, but rather it is a matter of ruling over disequilibria.
revolutionaries have proclaimed this fact. in the academic context, throstein veblen suspected it. the doubt, which became a certainty, was that..
..measure and equilibrium does not exist in nature at all.
in the twentieth century, along with tragic wars and other cataclysms, came the era of reconstruction, the glory years of political economy. with the recognition of the collapse of natural measures, reconstruction involved political tactics of adjustment aimed at restoring the traditional equilibria of economics. the tactics sometimes led to a new strategy, as when after the stock market crash of 1929 for ie, john maynard keynes tried to reconstruct scientifically the knowledge of (and rule over) the social figures of the production, reproduction, and destruction of wealth.
if natural measures of value no longer hold ( or at least no longer function under the pressures of class struggle), then one has to construct a function of measuring that brings equilibrium to development, even in the crises, in relation to the political ideologies, the relations of producers, and productive sectors.
? i like so much of this.. not sure how measuring came back in.. and not following reasoning to figure out a new way to measure..
..political economy had to become a new deal
was never.. has never been.. a legit diff/new ness..
with expansion of cold war… milton friedman and chicago school arrived to undermine… proposing to establish certain measure of equilibrium by confiding every power of regulation to money, that is, to the market. we were thus taken back, one might say, to the science of economics – but ..
..what a strange science. it is now based on a kind of monetary essentialism..
strange sea world..
in which the standards of measure no longer have any relationship with the real world of production and exchange, except according to the norms that the central bank or the federal reserve dictate.
2.2 de corpore
de corpore as the political/actual body.. where head rules parts of body
this is a political production of subjectivity in which the entire population is formed into an identity
no wonder identity ness makes my skin crawl.. even w/ just me.. suffocating vs whimsy/breathing
the multitude is something like singular flesh that refuses the organic unity (earlier said this w/hierarchies) of the body.
i don’t know. what about right brain doing left brain stuff when left brain dies… and such..
in effect, when scholars use the term anarchy to characterize such periods they usually refer not to an absence of power but merely to institutional chaos, excesses or defects of the production of norms, or conflicts among powers.. and all this present in 17th cent interregnum as is in today’s era of globalization
saskia sassen calls this a process of ‘denationalization’.. nation states remain important.. but changed radically in global context
capitalist globalization however has managed to solve this problem in the worst possible way.. not by making labor relationships equal in countries throughout the world but rather by generalizing the perverse mechs of unevenness and ineq everywhere..
there have always been hierarchies of power that coord and maintain there international divisions of labor, from colonial admin to postcolonial power relations.. the division of labor and the hierarchies of power in the global system are so intimately related that they must be grasped together..
the topography of global divisions of labor, poverty, and exploitation, in short, is a shifting matrix of politically constructed hierarchies..
poverty and disease become indirect tools of population control.. we are living in a system of global apartheid
in the global empire today.. apartheid is a productive system of hierarchical inclusion that perpetuates the wealth of the few thru the labor and poverty of the many
davos as a nerve center of the global body politic… *the most important lesson to lean from davos is simply that such a meeting is necessary: the economic, political, and bureaucratic elites of the world need to work together in constant relation. in more general terms, it demonstrates the old lesson that no economic market can exist w/o political order and regulation.
*? – fuller too much law et al
later in this chapter we will investigate how political and legal intervention is necessary today to protect and expand the realm of private property.
? – hardt/negri property law et al
this is really a kind of capitalist utopia..
u of rules ness..
one should never forget however that the private authority that emerges in this realm of business contracts can exist only w the backing of political authorities: behind every utopia of capitalist self govt there is a strong, supporting political authority..
basic project of imf has become forcing states to abandon keynesian social programs and adopt monetarist policies
and yet, despite the criticism and the economic failures, the imf continues to dictate neoliberal monetarist policies that are largely unchanged
one of greatest restrictions from perspective of those working in these institutions is that they are forced to work with and funnel money thru state govts..
their legitimacy resides ultimately in the ends of their political design, that is, at a most basic level, the project to establish a liberal order for the global capitalist market..
they must all, for ie, strive to create a maintain the market condition necessary to guarantee contracts between corporations.
?sounds like they are assuming money/measured transaction/corps/orgs like imf…? is this what Kevin was referring to.. about going vertical?
what they (institutions) together must preserve .. are global divisions of labor and power, the hierarchies that define the global political body.. that is why the image of cozy personal encounters in snow covered davos is such a useful standpoint form which to understand the system.. crop leaders cannot do it on their own, neither can national official or supranational Bs.. they need to work together
reforming the supranational institutions, furthermore, is possible only w/in certain limits because, as we said, they are constrained to reproduce the current global order.. more important ultimately, then, are the systemic limitations that will block any substantial reform.. the supranational econ institutions must work along w national officials and business leaders to reproduce the global econ order along w its internal hierarchies and the margin of flexibility on this point is small. this is the hard rock that will crush any serious effort of reform.
graeber min\max law et al
the crisis (sept 11 2001) gave a quick reminder of just how much capital needs a sovereign authority standing behind it, a truth that rises up into view every tie there ware serous cracks in the market order and hierarchy..
military force must guarantee the conditions for the functioning of the world market.. guaranteeing that is, the division of labor and power of the global political body.. .. the u.s. and other military powers must discover a way to make the interest of security and economic profits compatible and complementary
supporting military as well..? kevin?
anytime there is a passage from one regime to another, where the old rules no longer hold and the new have not solidly taken effect, corruption triumphs
as tacitus says, when the republic is at its most corrupt, the laws are most numerous, but, we should add, these laws, numerous as they are, cannot prevent the corruption because it is essential to the system
one of fundamental tasks of big govt is protection of private property.. ever since there was property there was theft, counterfeiting, corruption, sabotage, and other like transgressions.. all private property .. in ohter words.. has always required police protection…. immaterial property requiring expanded protection..
graeber’s spiritual violence – hardt/negri property law
a more significant security problem than the destruction or corruption of immaterial property thru connectivity is reproducibility.. which does not threaten the property itself but simply destroys its private character..
police activity and force, however, are really secondary in the establishment and preservation of private property; the primary forced of big govt to protect private property must be not might but right, that is, a legal structure that legitimates private ownership.. new forms of property, esp immaterial forms, require new and expanded legal mechs for legitimation and protection.. many forms of immaterial property appear immediately to be unjust w respect to the accepted norms and thus require dramatic legal innovations..
ie: supreme court reasoned in this case that the bacteria do not belong to nature because they are the result of human labor..
the legal innovation to protect such immaterial private property rests on a recognition of immateriallabor, in other words, what we previously considered part of nature and thsu common prop;erty, the argumetn goes, is really the product of human labor and invention.. and thsu eliggible for private ownership
top para.. first of last para
on patents.. and seed wars.. and genetic properties..
best safeguard is that experimentation be conducted democratically and openly, under common control, something that private ownership prevents.. what we need most today in this regard are mobilizations that give us the power to intervene democratically in the scientific process..
let go.. democratic admin killing us just as well
the primary issue, is not that humans are changing nature but that nature is ceasing to be common, that it is becoming private property and exclusively controlled by its new owners.
in both cases, the info and knowledge is produced by human labor, experience and ingenuity, but in neither case can that labor be isolated to an individual..
the legal justification of private ownership is undermined by the common, social nature of production. when the traditional capitalist right or title to property declines, then there tends to be nothing left to protect private property except violence.
private property has made us so stupid and one-sided.. that we denigrate all forms of being for the simple sense of having – marx
all human senses, including knowing, thinking, feeling, loving – in short, all of life – is corrupted by private property..
marx makes clear however that he does not want to go back to any kind of primitive communal ownership.. he focuses rather on the contradiction in the logic of capital that points toward a new future resolution
private property makes us stupid in part by making us think that everything valuable must be owned privately by someone.. economists never tire of telling us that a good cannot be preserved and utilized efficiently unless it is owned privately.. the truth is, however that the *vast majority of our world is not private property, and our social life functions only thanks to that fact..
as we have seen.. in addition to traditional forms of property (land, railroads).. new goods (genetic info, knowledges, plants, animals) are becoming private property.. this is an ie of what we called earlier the expropriation of the common..
was already expropriation of common.. calling anything property in first place
still we could not interact and communicate in our daily lives if languages, forms of speech, gestures, methods of conflict resolution, ways of loving, and the vast majority of the practices of living were not common.. science would come to standstill if our great accumulations of knowledge, info, and methods of study were not common.. *social life depends on the common..
yeah.. wow.. loaded.. because.. all this is currently about sea world.. (non legit.. non alive.. ie:language as control/enclosure, most/all data non legit, most/all people not alive/themselves.. et al)
perhaps some day in future we ill look back and see how stupid we were in this period to let private property monopolize so many forms of wealth, posing obstacles to innovation and corrupting life.. before we discovered how to entrust social life *entirely to the common
*that last part is huge and key.. i don’t think we grok the necessity of entirely ness.. in order for the common to be common\ing
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b free people
2.3 traces of the multitude
our task now is to investigate the possibility that the productive flesh of the multitude can org itself otherwise and discover an alt to the global political body of capital..
spinoza – on human body composed of many individuals of diff natures.. yet this multitude of multitudes is able to act in common as one body.. never a unitary whole divided by hierarchical organs..
bowling alone ness
for these authors.. love of country is another (and perhaps the highest) form of community that will.. in addition to guaranteeing the defeat of enemies abroad.. hold at bay the anomies and individualistic fragmentation that threatens our society at home
enemies abroad?.. oi.. what happened to one ness
thurman interconnectedness law: when you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying
more on bowling community corrupting to rabid soccer fan club violence et al
it is true that w modern instruments and models today’s social forms and even econ developments can only appear chaotic and incoherent.. events/facts seem to flash in discrete, disconnected images rather than unfold in a coherent narrative.. w modern eyes perhaps postmodernity is indeed characterized by the end of grand narratives
the flesh of the multitude is pure potential, an unformed life force, and in this sense an element of social being, aimed constantly at the fullness of life.. from ontological perspective.. continuously expands social being.. producing in excess of traditional political econ measure of value.. you can try to harness wind, sea, earth, but each will alway exceed your grasp.. from the perspective of political order/control then.. the elemental flesh of the multitude is maddeningly elusive.. since it cannot be entirely corralled into the hierarchical organs of ta political body.. can appear monstrous.. the unformed and unordered are horrifying..
every reference to life today, however, has to point to an artificial life.. a social life..
the vampire, its monstrous life, and its insatiable desire has become symptomatic not only of the dissolution of an old society but also the formation of a new.. we need to realize this monstrous power of the flesh of the multitude to form a new society..
monstrous .. sounds more like natural/wild.. is it our fear calling it and expecting it to be.. monstrous
spinoza shows us how today, in postmodernity, we can recognize these monstrous metamorphoses of the flesh as not only a danger but also a possibility, the possibility to create an alt society..
it is no coincidence that eugenics and finalism would in the course of ‘western civ’ be united: fixed origins and ends maintain the order of the world
before this point.. the dice were loaded and the orderly results we saw in the development of nature were fake; now the game is finally n o longer rigged.. that is what we owe to monsters..
we have seen that flesh of multitude produces in common in a way that is monstrous and always exceeds the measure of any traditional social bodies, but this productive flesh does not create chaos and social disorder.. what it produces in fact is common, and that common we share serves as the basis for future production , in a spiral, expansive relationship.. perhaps most easily understood in terms of ie of communication as production: we can communicate only on basis of languages, symbols, ideas, and relationships we share in common, and in turn the results of our communication are new common languages, symbols, ideas, and relationships.. common is produced and it is also productive.. is key to understanding all social/econ activity..
not sure about communication piece.. and to me .. focus on production is a killer
habit is the common in practice: the common that we continually *produce and the common that serves as the basis for our actions.. habit is thus halfway between a fixed law of nature and the freedom of subjective action.. or better.. it provides an alt to that traditional philosophical binary.. habits create a nature that serves as the basis of life.. .. the inertia necessary for social reproduction and living day to day.. marcel proust’s great novel in diff register.. meditates on necessity of habits for life and the significance they give the small deviations from them: goodnight kiss from mother.. dinner 1 hr earlier on sunday et al.. habits are like physiologic functions such as breathing, digesting and circulating blood.. we take them for granted and cannot live w/o them.. habits constitute our social nature
maybe my unsettling w habit ness is in focus on a result/*product/label.. and away from freedom/spontaneity.. i don’t know
198: dewey’s planning demo rather than planned econ.. known for ed..
on the conceptual shift from habit to performance as the core notion of the production of the common
queer politics is an excellent ie of such performative collective project of rebellion and creation. it is not really an affirmation of homosexual id’s but a subversion of he logics of id in general.. there are no queer bodies, only queer flesh that resides in the communication/collab of social contract
every form of labor that produces an immaterial good, such as a relationship or an affect, solving problems or providing info, from sales work to fin services, is fundamentally a performance: the product is the act itself.. the econ context that makes clear that all of these discussions of habit and performance have to be given the sense of doing or making, linking them to the creative capacities of the laboring subject
? so much emphasis on production
(on paolo birno’s using linguistic performance as ie for new aspects of contemp production… 1\ language i always produced in common: language is never the product of an individual..
2\ linguistic performance relies on ability to innovate in changing environs based on past practices and habits..
not changing enough.. ie: find the bravery to change your mind
most we can say at this point is that the wide social diffusion and econ centrality of these practices of the common in our world provide conditions that make possible a project for the creation of a democracy based on free expression and life in common.. realizing that possibility will be the project of the multitude..
oi.. democratic admin et al.. not free
beyond private and public – whole thing..
law has always been a privileged domain for recognizing and establishing control over the common.
on legal developments increase powers of social control by eroding privacy rights….. the attacks on the private, furthermore, have grown exponentially with the war on terrorism.. ie: right of govt to conduct surveillance et al..
in the logic of antiterrorism and counterinsurgency, in fact, since security must in the final instance come before all else, there really is no ‘private.’
security is an absolute logic of the common or, really, a perversion that conceives the entire common as the object of control.
the public that is privatized by neoliberalism are generally property and business enterprises previously controlled by the state, fro railroads and prisons to parklands. we have also discussed… the great expansion of private property into realms of life that were previously held i common , through patents, copyright, and other legal instruments. at the extreme – economists go so far as to claim that every good should be privately owned in order to max its productive use. in the social.. tendency is to make everything public and thus open to govt surveillance/control; and in the economic – to make everything private and subject to property rights.
on clarifying confusions created by terminology – private: rights and freedoms of social subjects together w/rights of private property, blurring distinction between the two….. the concept of the private can thus lump together all our ‘possessions’ both subjective and material
what if there are no possessions.. imagine that
the public too blurs an important distinction between state control and what is held and managed in common.
we need to being to imagine an alternative legal strategy and framework:
indeed.. but not legal.. not strategy.. just frame/infra
a conception of privacy that expresses the singularity of social subjectivities (not private property) and a conception of the public based on the common (not state control) – one might say a postliberal and postsocialist *legal theory. the traditional legal conceptions of private and public are clearly insufficient for this task.
perhaps legal theory… legal ness.. aren’t sufficient.. for a nother way..
the best example of contemporary legal theory based on singularity and commonality that we know of is the ‘postsystems theory’ school, which articulates the legal system, in highly technical terminology, as a transparent and democratic self-organizing network of plural subsystems, each of which organizes the norms of numerous private (or, really, singular) regimes.
sounds like recent ted talk on architecture.. using same verbiage to describe a building..
this is a molecular conception of the law ad the production of norms that is based in our terms, on a constant, free, and open interaction among singularities, which through their communication produces common norms.
always changing norms.. so .. norms..? perhaps normal is (should be) antifragile..
this notion of singularity *rights might be understood better as an expression of the ethical notion of performativity we discussed earlier: they are produced by the common, in social communication, and in turn they produce the common.
*rights – ugh
the fact that this notion of rights is based on the common.. does not mean that it is a ‘communitarian’ conception of rights or in any way dictated by the community. the term community is often used to refer to a moral unity that stands above the population and its interactions like a sovereign power. the common does not refer to traditional notions of either the community or the public; it is based on the communication among singularities and emerges through the collaborative social processes of production.
we need to recognize how the common can be constructed politically in our contemporary world. how can the singularities that cooperate express their control over the common, and how can this expression be represent in legal terms..
bigger/deeper question.. why? why control/law/struggle?.. this are killing/unaliving us
here we need to confront the legal frameworks that the neoliberal regimes have established and against which the movements of the multitude struggle.
confront? struggle?.. why? why not just live a nother way..? for (blank)’s sake
these legal frameworks support the project of privatization of public goods (such as water, air, land, and all the systems for the management of life, including health care and pensions that were previously made state functions during the period of welfare) ….
including healthcare and pensions..
thinking of Greg’s share on ssn…
the longer you follow the rules.. the greater you fear in jumping ship..
ie: 5 yrs away from this raise, from that degree, from re/tirement.. that actually came from you said pay..and now fears the bank holding that has been burned down… the imaginary money’s scarcity.. said to be squandered away.. because had to use it to take care of you ie: fight wars, build/run prisons
what is necessary here, and this is the second task of a legal theory of the common, is to displace the concept of ‘general interest’ or ‘public interest’ with a framework that allows for a common participation in the management of these goods/services..
indeed.. but rather.. listening/trusting/facilitating.. et al.. rather than managing..
in short, the common marks a new form of sovereignty, a d democratic sovereignty (or more precisely, a form of social org that displaces sovereignty)
when the concept of the common arises not as a preconstituted entity and not as an organic substance that is a byproduct of the national community, or gemeinschaft, but rather as the productive activity of singularities in the multitude – it breaks the continuity of modern state sovereignty and attacks biopower at its heart, demystifying its sacred core. all that is general or public must be reappropriated and *managed by the multitude and thus become common. this concept of the common not only marks a **definite rupture w the republican tradition of the jacobin and or socialist state but also signals a metamorphosis in the law, its nature and structure, its matter and from
? not sure what they’re saying here.. not as an organic substance..? – but rather as the productive activity… the word productive… i think.. leads to the next sentence… saying… must be .. *managed…(in other words.. again.. productive ness as killer).. ostrom 8.. democratic admin.. et al
**i wish.. but not so much.. let go.. of any form of m\a\p
this path of course is not linear.. but it does seem to us the only way forward.. just as the concepts of singularity and the common in domestic law contribute to renewing the legal framework of social relations beyond private/public.. providing for coop of multiple singularities in freedom and equality, so too singularity and the common in international law furnish the only possible basis for our peaceful and democratic cohabitation of the planet.. these are some of the conditions for the creation of a democracy of the multitude
not ie’s of peaceful/free.. let go.. of productivity/sovereignty/law/democratic admin et al..
when we look back at bakhtin’s notion of the carnevalesque .. we find he rally uses it to describe the power of human passions.. the carnevalesque is the prose that opposes the monologue and thus refuses to claim an already completed truth, producing instead contrast and conflict in the form of narrative movement itself.. the carnevalesque thus sets in motion an enormous capacity for innovation.. innovation that can transform reality itself.. the carnevlaesque, dialogue, and polyphonic narration of course can easily take the form of a crude naturalism that merely mirrors daily life, but it can also become a form of experimentation that links the imagination to desire and utopia
not unless we let go.. enough.. ie: cure ios city
it is easy to recognize the performative, carnevalesque nature of the various protest movements that have arisen around questions of globalization.. even when they are ferociously combative, the demos are still highly theatrical, w giant puppets, costumes, dances, humorous songs, chants, and so forth.. the protests, in other words, are also street festivals in which the anger of the protesters coexists w their joy in the carnival..
giant puppets et al
interpretive labor – and protest/rage/anger: ‘his wife ‘who would not exchange her solitude for anything’ .. experiences the need for peace and quiet as a kind of rage’
this is the logic of the multitude that bakhtin helps us understand: a theory of org based on the freedom of singularities that converge in the *production of the common.. long live movement/carnival/common..
*let go.. let’s just uncover what’s already there.. ie: non hierarchical listening
the commonality and singularity defines what we called the flesh of the multitude.. these in other words are the *conditions of possibility for the formation of the multitude.. one fact that should be obvious in all this is that the multitude does not arise as a political figure spontaneously and that the flesh of the multitude consists of a series of conditions that are ambivalent: they **could lead toward lib or be caught in new regime of exploitation and control
alive living needs/begs deeper *conditions.. ie: hari rat park law.. et al..
last bit.. on needing **choice.. otherwise robots..
the multitude needs a political project to bring it into existence.
this common surplus is the first pillar on which are built struggles against the global political body and for the multitude
oh my.. so loaded.. ie: surplus/struggles.. as pillars?.. cancer as pillars..
revolts mobilize the common in tow respects, increasing the intensity of each struggle and extending to other struggles.. intensively, internal to each local struggle, the common antagonism and common wealth of the exploited and expropriated are translated into *common conduct, habits, and performativity.. any time you enter a region where there is a strong revolt forming you are immediately struck by the common manners of dress, gestures, and modes of relating and communicating..
oi.. *common whale conduct, habits, performativity
these elements of style, however, are really only symptoms of the common dreams/desires, common ways of life, and common potential that are mobilized in a movement.. this new common mode of life always forms in dialogue w local traditions/habits..
the intensification of the common, finally, brings about an anthropological transformation such that out of the struggles come a new humanity..
they carried their revolutionary desire w them from mtns of morazan to skyscrapers of la and infected others with it.. transposing the struggle from guerrilla warfare to union organizing.. this is a real and powerful extension of the common
guerrilla to union to common.. huge oi
new cycle of struggles.. were protests in seattle et al.. and consolidated at annual mtgs of world social forum.. where .. intellectuals/activists/ngos meet to exchange views on problems of present forms of globalization and possibilities for an alt form
the war represented the ultimate instance of he global power against which the cycle of struggles had formed.. the organization structures and communication that the struggles had established made possible a massive, coordinated mobilization of common expressions *against the war.. we should emphasize.. what forces mobilized in this new global cycle have in common is not just a common enemy.. neolib, us hegemony, global empire.. but also **common practices, languages, conduct, habits, forms of life, and desires for a better future.. the cycle in other words is not only reactive but also ***active and creative
***because reactive.. won’t/can’t/hasn’t ever gotten to legit active/creative/alive ness.. let go
*the response of argentine population was immediate and creative: workers refused to let factories close, neighborhood assemblies formed to manage political debates/decisions, new forms of money invented,.. experiments w new forms of protest in conflict w police/authorities.. all of this is clearly specific to national situation.. but also .. **common to all those who suffer /struggle against exploitation and hierarchy of global system..
*ie’s of whales (as cancerous ness of response ness).. not legit free people.. not creative.. just repetitive.. same song.. ie: decision making is unmooring us.. any form of m\a\p.. any form of democratic admin et al
perhaps **common to suffer/struggle.. but not a way/means out of the cycle
the two dominant models posed a clear choice: either united struggle under the central id or separate struggles that form our differences.. the new network model of the multitude displaces both of these options.. or rather, it does not so much negate the old models as give them new life in a diff form..
doesn’t matter if you multitudenize them together (commons and diffs).. if still responding/fighting.. not free/whole.. let go
this new global cycle of struggles.. is based on a condition of surplus, mobilizes the common, threatens conventional social/political bodies, and *creates alts..
yeah.. *not so much – surplus ness.. a red flag
the new global cycle of struggles is a mobilization of the common that takes the form of an open, distributed network, in which no *center exerts control and all nodes express themselves freely
i’d say you’re using/assuming ‘global cycle of struggles’ as *center of control.. not a mobilization/free.. still in sea world .. let go.. so we can all get out..
we believe creation of democracy is only way to consolidate power of multitude and conversely that multitude provides us w social subject and a logic of *social org that make possible today.. for very first time.. realization of democracy.. this project for a democracy of the multitude is focus of next/final part of book
democratic admin won’t/can’t ever set us legit free..
we do have *this.. ie: as infra.. but not for realization of democracy.. actually for a letting go of it.. so that 100% of us can be and keep on being.. legit free..
org: multitude on the left.. if left is to be resurrected/reformed.. only on new forms of org/concept.. the multitude is one concept in our view that can contribute to task of resurrecting/reforming/reinventing the left
one must consider the activity of the singular agents as the matrix of the freedom and multiplicity of everyone.. perhaps some day.. will look back at irony.. that in order to be free had to keep slaves.. or to be equal constrained to inhuman sacrifices of freedom.. in our view.. freedom and equality can be the motors of a revolutionary reinvention of democracy
on spinoza’s absolute freedom: humans refused authority/command, expressed irreducible difference of singularity and sough freedom in innumerable revolts/revolutions.. this freedom is not given by nature of course, it comes about only by constantly overcoming obstacles and limits.. just as humans are born w no eternal faculties *written in their flesh.. so too no **final ends/goals ***written in history.. human faculties/histories exist only because result of human passions/reason and struggle..
yeah.. i don’t know.. i think we do have *this.. ie: gabor on addiction/trauma/needs; on each heart; et al.. but not **this.. (otherwise not about choice.. so dead/robots).. and i think that we keep ***writing history ness.. is what’s keeping us from hearing/seeing/being that first *this
faculty for freedom and propensity to *refuse authority.. most healthy noble human instincts..
yeah.. *too reactive.. not alive.. not legit human being ness.. not legit healthy
2nd.. on the not yet multitude.. never yet existed.. it will require a political project to bring it into being on basis of these emerging conditions..
if want legit free people.. ie: cure ios city
*if the multitude were not already latent and implicit in our social being, we could not even imagine it as apolitical project and similarly we can only hope to realize it today because it already exists as a real potential. the multitude, then, when we put these two together, has a strange, double temporality: always-already and not-yet.
*huge.. have to org around what is already in 100% of us.. ie: maté basic needs
so many good words/resonations.. just not letting go enough to see
like the formation of habits, or performativity or the development of languages… this production of the common is neither directed by some central point of command and intelligence nor is it the result of a spontaneous harmony among individuals, but rather it emerges in the space between, in the social space of communication. the multitude is created in *collaborative social interactions.
great wording.. but am afraid *these words mean these words
on multitude/s ness.. saying singular because multitude must be able to make decisions and act in common
our argument rather.. is that industrial labor has been displaced from its hegemonic position over other forms of labor by immaterial labor, which not tends to transform all sectors of production.. w/in context of new paradigm
our argument about the hegemony of immaterial labor and the becoming common of all forms of labor is aimed at .. tending to form *general communication/collab of labor that can be basis of the multitude..
we need to legit let go of any form of *democratic admin
ie: when feminists pose goal as not a world w/o gender diff but one in which gender does not matter.. (in sense that it does not form basis of hierarchies); when antiracists activists similarly struggle not for world w/o race but on e in which race does not matter.. in short.. *a process of liberation based on the free expression of difference.. this is the notion of singularity and commonality at the heart of the multitude..
on the expansive nature of the multitude and challenging claim that the multitude is all inclusive.. ie: between ehe multitude and those excluded from it.. every id, such critics say, even the multitude, must be defined by its remainder.. those outside it.. we return to philosophical point here .. that the multitude transposes the exclusive and limiting logic of id-difference.. into the open/expansive logic of singularity-commonality.. but it may be more useful to point as illustration to the unlimited and indefinite nature of distributed networks.. there can certainly be points or nodes outside a network but none are necessarily outside.. boundaries are indefinite/open.. no one is necessarily excluded.. *but there inclusion is not guaranteed: the expansion of the common is a practical, political matter..
oi.. huge red flag
our claim is that a common political project is possible.. we refuse to accept any vision that poses linear stages of development for political org.. pretending that those in the dominant regions may be ready for demo forms of org such as the multitude whereas those in the sub regions are condemned to older forms until they mature.. we are all capable of democracy.. *the challenge is to org it politically
3 – democracy
whole intro to ch laced w loaded assumptions (war/econ/hegemony/demo admin).. like prior section on feminists and antiracists.. need to let go and let all that be/become irrelevant.. need to let go of any form of m\a\p
rather, like the revolutionaries of the early modern period, we will once again have to reinvent the concept of democracy and create new institutional forms and practices appropriate to our global age. that project of conceptual/practical invention is the primary object of rest of this book
rather.. need to let go of reinventing concept of democracy
civilizations will make global conflict coherent and divide nation-states into stable groups of friend and enemy… the war on terrorism too seeks along somewhat diff lines, to organize global violence.. making violence coherent.. putting an end to civil war does not mean putting end to violence/fear.. but rather organizing them into coherent order and gathering them in to the hand of the sovereign..
in mod europe and n america between 17-18th centuries this inherited notion of the democracy of the many was transformed into demo of everyone.. ancient notion of democracy is a limited concept just as are monarchy/aristocracy: the many that rule is still only a portion of the entire social whole.. modern demo, in contrast, has no limits and this is why spinoza calls it ‘absolute’.. this move from the many to everyone is a small semantic shift but one w extraordinarily radical consequences..
nice words.. but nothing ha ever yet been for all
just prior .. once again repeating – rule – rule of everyone — as first great innovation of modern democracy – in fact this universal notion of democracy has never yet been instituted.. but served as goal
the second great innovation of the modern concept of democracy is its notion of representation.
oy – which leads us right back to the crazy elections et al.. representation
rep serves as a kind of vaccine to protect against dangers of absolute democracy
the people.. is constructed by maintaining or creating unitary habits, customs, and views such that the population speaks w one voice and acts w one will
demo multitude itself.. in madison’s view, has no mech of intelligence, prudence, or virtue that could org differences: differences are immediately and inevitably expressed as conflict and oppression..
moxie on democracy et al
the question of scale becomes primary.. demo feasible in limited spaces.. but demands of size of modern nation states require demo be tempered w mechs of rep..
need mech for sure.. but not for intelligence/prudence et al
once again in these discussions.. we can recognize the essence of rep: it connects the citizens to govt and at same time separates them from it.. the new science is based on this disjucntive synthesis
one element that is refreshingly lucid about these eighteenth century deliberations is that they recognize so clearly that democracy and representation stand at odds with one another. when our power is transferred to a group of rulers, then we all no longer rule, we are separated from power and govt.. already in 19th cent.. rep came to define modern demo.. to.. impossible to think demo w/o thinking some form of rep
agree with not matching up.. but not w/need for power and govt and ruling.. so maybe i quit using word democracy..?
by the 1830s tocqueville could call democracy in america the same representative schema that the founders, fifty years before, had conceived as a bulwark against the dangers of democracy. today the dominant notion of democracy is even more distant.
3 types of representation: appropriated (weakest link between rep and rep’d – appointed), free (direct connection but control is limited), and instructed (constantly controlled by rep’d – how could that be..?) ..
1871 paris commune – elected had to pay like others and could be voted out anytime – was primary example of a new democratic experiment of govt..
the project of self management thus gave way to notion of planning, which was a mech to correct (but not displace) the capitalist org of labor and the market
planning.. oi.. detoxing curriculum intoxication in be you house et al
even in most radical expressions, socialism and communism did not develop fundamentally diff conceptions of rep and demo, and as a result they repeated founding nucleus of bourgeois concept of sovereignty, trapped paradoxically in the need for the unity of the state..
political consciousness is entirely grounded in and nourished by tradition, and mass participation is invoked on the basis of a defensive and redemptive id.. legits form of rep on basis of tradition.. id and tradition
there is no longer any possibility of going back to modern models of representation to create a democratic order. we need to invent different forms of representation or perhaps…
new forms of democracy that go beyond representation..
yeah.. and new forms of everyday life that go beyond democracy
public opinion has in many respects become the primary form of representation in contemporary societies… we will find that public opinion is in fact neither representative nor democratic
public consensus always oppresses someone(s).. so too.. democratic isn’t really (what people seem to mean by) democratic (free et al)
hegel – and mediation – and civil society – leading plurality of individual expression in public opinion to a rational unity compatible with sovereignty
oi.. so many red flags..
since mid 10th cent.. however.. public opinion has been transformed by enorm expansion of media.. seem to undermining notions of public opinion both as multiple individual and as unified rational voice..
this is where habermas’s (renewing hegel) conception of ethical communication in a democratic public sphere appears completely utopian and unrealizable, however, because it is impossible to isolate ourselves, our relationships, and our communication outside the instrumentality of capital and the mass media. we are all already inside, contaminated. if there is going to be any ethical redemption it will have to be constructed inside the system.
whoa. whoa. whoa.
not impossible (as long as we let go of democratic admin ness.. et al).. has to be outside.. w detox embed
then gave habermas’s counter… then.. none of these theories of mediation, however, grasp the new role of the media and polling, which are the essential factors in the construction and expression of contemporary public opinion.
what if public opinion/polling matters little (actually cancerous).. ie: if everyone is doing something else. – that would shrink us back down to ginormously small.. so that convos would suffice.. polling/public opinion .. irrelevant..
there is of course something strangely circular in notion that opinion polls tell us what we think.. at very least opinion polls have a centripetal psychological effect, encouraging all to conform to the view of the majority..
on public opinion and another way – we can only understand these forms of social expression as networks of the multitude that resists the dominant power and manage room within it to produce alternative expressions.
need to let go of democratic admin – or won’t be/see legit alt
white overalls – born in the social centers (1990s in europe – rome) – social centers .. taking over abandoned buildings.. called selves invisibles.. no fixed contracts, no security, no basis for id.. white ness of overalls to represent that.. and this invisibility that characterized their work would also prove to be the strength of their movement…. masters at organizing raves in the big cities… thousands of young people seemed to appear from nowhere to dance all night.. rage/carnival…. demanded guaranteed income… began to organize demonstrations w/ illegal immigrants.. political refugees…
when police action started.. white overalls mimicked with knee pads and football helmets… joined with zaptatistas in mexico.. then from mexico city white overalls return to europe with a coherent project.. orienting their actions against neoliberal globalization. that is when seattle exploded at the 1999 wto protests.. so they went to seattle and learned from the u.s. activist techniques of civil disobedience and nonviolent protest … final stop 2001 genoa g-8 – brought together 300 000 activists
3.2 global demands for democracy
on what the protests have amounted to – comparing to 18th cent france – list of grievances.. today’s list of grievances .. a chaotic, bizarre, unending collection of volumes on everything in the world. if there is a coherence today, in fact, it will only come afterward from the subjective standpoint of the protesters themselves. …
eventually … be able to recognize three common points that return repeatedly as conditions for any project of a new, democratic world: the critique of existing forms of representation, the protest against poverty, and the opposition of war
perhaps grievances are a distraction.. ie: live as if free (adding in 2021.. as if already free ness distraction as well.. until it’s all of us)
even us.. the nation that claims to guarantee democracy for entire world.. makes mockery of rep.. no other nations have electoral systems that are much more rep, and most significantly less
such claims to rep are finally as insulting as the old notion that the feudal lord reps the peasants of his estate or the slaveholder his slaves
all of these grievances about the failures of rep at local/national levels increase geometrically in process of globalization..
the primary frustration for many of those who advocate human rights, however is that no adequate institutional structure exists to enforce them
huge red flag – if need to enforce
*the universal applicability of human rights clearly cannot be realized as long as it has no legal institutional structure and relies instead on dominant nation states
*full stop (before as long as).. not humane.. only for whales
let go of rights ness
the lack of resources does, of course, bring w it a lack of access to heal care and ed.. thwarting all kinds of opps for political/social participation..
non profit and religious charity orgs provide enorm assistance for those in need. but they cannot change he system that produces/reproduces poverty.. it is impressive.. how so many people who being in volunteer charity work pass to activism/protest against the econ system..
need new/no econ system ie: oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space
on fin as abstract..
when knowledge becomes so id’d w production, it should come as no surprise that econ powers would put their brand on knowledges and submit the production of knowledge to the rules of profit
so too w life.. norton productivity law et al
peace is the common demand and the necessary condition for all projects to address global problems
great sentence but so much deeper than peace from war
(between last and these.. listed several grievances…)
convergence in seattle – write up of it
seattle was the first global protest.. after seattle, summit meetings of major international or global institutions.. word bank, imf, g8, et al.. would routinely be met w dramatic protests
then on violence.. protests mostly peaceful only violence destruction of property.. broken windows of global corps ie: mcdonald’s/starbucks.. no serious injuries.. but police.. after initial criticism for being too gentle.. began attacking indiscriminately w rubber bullets and teargas..
the police were out of control.. w/o the violence they (media) have no story..
for protesters, violence and sympathetic murmurings of some leaders were all beside the point.. the real importance of seattle was to provide a ‘convergence center’ for al the grievances agains the global system. via normally opposing groups .. supporting each other..
the magic of seattle was to show that these many grievances were not just a random, haphazard collection, a cacophony of different voices, but a chorus that spoke in common against the global system.
this model is already suggested by the organizing techniques of the protesters: the various affinity groups come together or converge not to unit into on large centralized group; they’re main different and independent but link together in a network structure. the network defines both their singularity and their commonality.
so imagine instead of going after grievances.. we facilitate ie: affinity groups to play/create/be together.
whenever a massive protest movement explodes onto the social scene or whenever there is an organized critique of the global system, the first question asked by the media and sympathetic observers is always, what do you want… are you just malcontents, or do you have concrete proposals to improve the system? there is, of course, no shortage of specific concrete reform proposals to… constructing such lists of demands, however, can sometimes be a trap. sometimes focus on a few limited changes obscures the fact that what is necessary is a much more general transformation of society and the structures of power.
a nother way.. just to give it a try
we have to construct a method or a set of general criteria for generating institutional reforms, and, more important, we have to construct on the basis of them constituent proposals for a new organization of global society.
ie: as infra as new org of global
there is no conflict here between reform and revolution. we say this not because we think that reform and revolution are same thing, but that in today’s conditions they cannot be separated.
indeed.. but let’s do them in reverse.. otherwise.. reform become a distraction and/or way more difficult than they need to be..
today the historical processes of transformation are so radical that even reformist proposals can lead to revolutionary change.
perhaps.. or just feeling like it’s revolutionary.. ie: getting to vote. when what we really need is something that makes voting irrelevant.. again – rev in reverse.. reforms are fine.. we need to iterate on them everyday.. but let’s take the leap first. get back into sync first. be free first.
it is useless to rack our brains over whether a proposal is reformist or revolutionary; what matters is that it enters into the constituent process.
? – it does matter if we have the potential to focus.. on the revolution (in rev) first. which we do. we can.
what does constituent process mean..? but chains..? ie: democratic admin.. killing us
begin list of reform proposals: transparency of big banks, readjusting powers, better representation
(since many other languages have no equiv of accountability and are forced to translate it as responsibility, one might get the impression that the term is specific to world of anglo american business)..
the notions of accountability and governance in these reform proposals seem to be directed most clearly at assuring econ efficiency and stability, not at construction any rep form of demo controal..
which wouldn’t be any better.. ie: democratic admin
supranational institutions like imf and world bank designed to be able to make tech econ decisions based on own expertise, free from the instruction or control of the public, which is presumed less knowledgeable and informed..
the major stumbling block for all of the various proposals we have considered to create a new global representative body, such as an assembly or parliament – whether based on the principle of one person, one vote or on existing communities – is the concept of representation itself.
we should point out.. large proportion of reform proposals… replicate the structure of the u.s. constitution…ironically, the u.s. presents the greatest obstacle to such reforms…. how long can such contradictions continue..
then gives ie of european 0 multilevel federal system…. this european constitutional model does indeed provide mechanism that could contribute to a stable global system but it does not really address the issue of representation. the multilevel federal model, in fact, seems only to undermine traditional forms of representation w/o creating new ones.
oi.. let go of creating new ones
if .. rights to e enacted at a global level, they will have to be grounded in powerful and autonomous institutions. one logical proposal, then, would be to extend the project of the international criminal court we described earlier, giving it global jurisdiction and enforcement powers, perhaps tied to the un.
a closely related proposal – creation of a permanent international or global truth commission. such an institution could build on the various national truth and reconciliation commission to consider not only national allegations but also large-scale international claims of injustice and determine penalties and compensation.
(we should add, at least parenthetically, however, a note of skepticism about the giantism of such proposals.. global commissions/institutions/agencies are not necessarily adequate solutions to global problems)
another enormous question has to do with economic corruption…
unless we make ie: moneys, measuring human transactions, …irrelevant
w/ubi as temp placebo.. needs met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring
we need a new institutional mech not only to prevent corruption but restitute the common that has been stolen.. that would require a great institutional innovation
one must recognize limitations of all such efforts (ngo’s, un, ..) that leave the system unchanged.. in addition to ministering to the pains of the sick we also have to attacks the disease that is, the system that reproduces global poverty
there are indeed numerous reasonable proposals to alleviate poverty and suffering of the most subordinated w/o making systematic changes to the global system.
debt relief is clearly needed to break cycle of mister for most subordinated in global econ.. but such remedies do not address the systemic problems of the global econ that continually produce and reproduce ineq and poverty
begs we address a problem deep enough
econ reform in general has to be based on a recuperation or creation of the econ..
in our view this will have to be not a return to the public, w state control of industries, services, and goods, but a creation of the common… this conceptual/political distinction between pubic and common will be one of elements of democracy we will address in final section of book..
it is certainly difficult to imagine a reform proposal that could address the most central biopolitcal grievance: our current state of global war. instead of a reform proposal we might point to an experiment that simply expresses the need for an alternative to the war system… ie: antiwar activists.. sending delegates to intervene in war zones.. diplomacy from below
indymedia and the numerous independent media projects like it do not provide a model tor reform global communications systems. rather.. they are important experiments that demo once gain the powerful desire for global democracy
we have a much deeper desire we need to tap into.. org around.. ie: maté basic needs et al
as these examples indicate, in the realm of biopolitics it may be more productive not to generate reform proposals but to develop experiment for addressing our global situation.
indeed. let’s do that. perhaps one big fat leap frogging experiment.
furthermore, the biiopolitical perspective can help us, recognize the ontological character of all the movements and identify the constituent motor that drives each of them.. we can never arrive at this essential element by enumerating or adding together all the grievances and reform proposals.. this constituent motor is a biopolitical fact.. it is what will be able to call the multitude into being and thereby develop the more general power to create an alt society
simply by considering a proposal one gains a new, critical perspective on the existing structure, something like a cognitive map of the global system. each proposal, in this sense, is a pedagogical tool.
oh my.. let go
most of these are unrealizable.. and some won’t get to democracy.. after they learn from our free markets and our legal system to gain a respect for private property and a sense of liberty, then maybe they will be capable of democracy….. they did it back then (18th cent).. we can too.
back in 18th cent.. concept of democracy not corrupted as it is now
but still had democratic admin ness.. so still killer.. need to go deeper..
useful to recognize that if 18th cent revolutionaries were utopian.. it is simply in sense that they believed another world was possible.. what was indeed utopian and completely illusory in 18th cent was to repropose the ancient form of democracy designed for the city state as a model for the modern state.. that is not of course what the 18th cent revolutionaries did.. challenge was to reinvent concept of democracy and create new institutions adequate to modern society and the national space.. good to .. appreciate what a radical innovation they accomplished.. if they did it.. then we can too
our point is that such reforms will not be sufficient for the creation of a global democracy.. what is necessary is an audacious act of political imagination to break with the past, like the one accomplished in the eighteenth century.
we have to find a way to free ourselves of the tenacious ghosts of the past… that haunt the present and cripple our imagination..
please mean this..
rather than an archaeology that unearths the models of the past, then, we need something like foucault’s notion of genealogy, in which the subject creates new institutional and social models based on its own productive capacities.
yes. a nother way.. to live. .that by design.. will ongoingly perpetuate us..
thinking citizen science ness. as the day.
will have to invent new models and methods..
ie: a means/mech to undo our hierarchical listening
as the federalists said in the 18th century, the new times require a ‘new science’ of society and politics in order to stop repeating the old myths of good govt and block the attempts to resurrect the old forms of order.. today we too need a new science or maybe following foucault .. an anti science
ie: curiosity over decision making et al
this will have to be a science of plurality and hybridity, a science of multiplicities, that can define how all the various singularities express themselves full in the multitude.
the task is to discover a way in common, involving men, women, workers, migrants, the poor, (ie: all of us), and all the elements of the multitude, to administer the legacy of humanity and direct the future production of food, material goods, knowledge, information, and all other forms of wealth.
a nother way.. ie: cure ios city
the only democracy that makes sense today is one that posses peace as its highest value
what we propose today, then is not repeating old rituals and tired slogans but on the contrary going back to the drawing board, taking up *research again, launching a new investigation in order to formulate a new science of society and politics… calling on ourselves to grasp the present biopolitical needs and **imagine the possible conditions for a new life..
that.. would be the new model. iterating on that. everyday. as the day.
so.. let’s do this first: free people. about a parameter/problem/desire deep enough for 8 billion people to resonate with, via a mechanism simple enough for all to use/practice/be today, within a system open enough to set/keep us all free.
3.3 democracy of the multitude
that conceptual rethinking (of democracy) is the primary task of our book. we do not pretend to propose a concrete action program form the multitude but instead try to work out the conceptual bases on which a new project for democracy can stand
what we need is that action program.. not conditions confined by democratic admin
ie: imagine if we
democracy, along w aristocracy in this respect, is merely a facade because power is de facto monarchical
the power of love et al
the concept of sovereignty dominates the tradition of political philosophy and serves as the foundation of all that is political precisely because it require that one must always rule/decide.. the choice is absolute: either sovereignty or anarchy.. someone must rule/decide.. it is constantly presented to us as a truism.. to rule/decide.. to take responsibility and control, there must be one, otherwise disaster
the body of the sovereign is literally the social body as a whole.. (in hobbes liviathan.. below king’s head the body is composed of hundreds of tiny bodies of he citizens making up his arms/torso).. the analogy serves not only to emphasize organic unity but also to reinforce and naturalize the division of social functions.. there is only one head.. and the various limbs/organs must obey its decision and commands physiology and pyshology thus add force to the obvious truth of the theory of sovereignty..
yeah.. i think we have that all wrong.. it’s not static.. not a dictatorish.. rather a dance..
we insisted multitude is not a social body for precisely this reason: the multitude can’t be reduce to a unity and does not submit to the rule of one.. the multitude cannot be sovereign.. from practical.. functional pov.. the tradition tells us, multiplicities cannot make *decisions for society and are thus not relevant for **politics proper
the two sided nature of sovereignty makes clear.. the limited utility of violence and force in political rule.. military force can be useful for conquest and short term control, but force alone cannot achieve stale rule/sovereignty.. military force is in face.. because it is so one sided.. the weakest form of power;it is hard but brittle.. sovereignty also requires the consent of the ruled.. in addition to force, the sovereign power must exert hegemony over its subjects, generating in the not only fear but also reverence, dedication, and obedience thru a form of power that is soft and supple.. the sovereign power must constantly be able to negotiate the relationship w the ruled..
the concept of exploitation itself might serve to summarize the contradiction at the heart of the capitalist relationship of rule: workers are subordinated under the command of the capitalist, and a portion of the wealth they produce is stolen from them. and yet they are not powerless victims.. they are in fact, extremely powerful, because they are the source of wealth..
since sovereignty is a relationship, then such acts for refusal are indeed a real threat..w/o the active participation of the subordinated, sovereignty crumbles
but that participation is always ie: voluntary compliance et al..
culture is thus directly both an element of political *order and economic **production. together, in a sort of concert or convergence of the various forms of power, war, politics, economics, and culture in empire become finally a mode of producing social life in its entirety and hence a form of biopower
the circuits of social producers are the lifeblood of empire, and if they were to refuse the relationship of power, to subtract themselves from the relationship, it would imply collapse in a lifeless heap
huge opp to leap if we grok this.. not about fighting.. about finding an alt for all of us.. even the inspectors of inspectors, Bs, et al
the film trilogy the matrix interprets this dependence of power.. the matrix survives not only by sucking the energy from millions of incubated humans but also by responding to ehe creative attacks of neo, morpheus and the partisans of zion.. the matrix needs us to survive..
no group is ‘disposable’.. (in empire – saying before that could cast on group aside and still go one.. but as empire creates/rules over truly global society.. empire relied on it ever more heavily)
those over whom empire rules can be exploited.. in fact, their social productivity must be exploited.. and for this very reason they cannot be excluded.. empire must constantly confront the relationship of rule/production w the global multitude as a whole and face the threat it poses..
we are thus no longer bound by the old blackmail; the choice is not between sovereignty or anarchy. the power of the multitude to create social relationships in common stands between sovereignty and anarchy, and it thus presents a new possibility for politics
new possibility for alive living.. only if we let go enough
on how the ruled increasingly tend to hold a positions of priority over the rules allows us to question truisms that support the theory of sovereignty.. w new perspective.. it appears that not only is it not necessary for the one to rule, but in fact that the one never rules.. instead of external authority imposing order on society from above, the various element present in society are able collaboratively to org society themselves
and org not so much about order.. at least an order we’re used to ie: an orderly order.. or even one that we can see
for yrs neurobiologists have argued against traditional cartesian model of the mind autonomous from and capable of ruling over the body.. their research shows instead that mind and body are attributes of the same substance and that they interact equally and constantly in the production of reason, imagination, desire, emotions, feelings and affects. the brain itself, moreover, does not function according to a centralized model of intelligence with a unitary agent. … rather .. as a chemical event or the coordination of billions of neurons in a coherent pattern. there is no one that makes a decision in the brain, but rather a swarm, a multitude that acts in concert. from the perspective of neurobiologists, the one never decides..
ah.. there’s the oneness
and.. i don’t think alive living is about decision making.. rather.. i think decision making is unmooring us
perhaps we were wrong in 2.3… to say that the multitude betrays the tradition analogy between the human body and the social body.. but if so, we were wrong for the right reason. if the analogy holds,.. is is because the human body is itself a multitude organized on the plane of immanence.
indeed. at least that..
such instances of innovation in networks (in common) might be thought of as an orchestra w no conductor.. *an orchestra that thru constant communication determines its own beat and would be thrown off and silenced only by the impositions of a conductor’s central authority.. we have to rid ourselves of the notion that innovation relies on the genius of an individual.. we produce and innovate together only in networks.. if there is an act of genius .. it is the genius of the multitude
undisturbed ecosystem.. huge on *this
we have to let go too.. of the idea of genius ness and production and innovation.. all the red flags.. that silence the orchestra
what needs to be understood, and this is indeed the central point, is how the multitude can arrive at a decision
what needs to be understood.. to me.. is that alive living isn’t about arriving at a decision.. we just think it is because we’re all so intoxicated from living in sea world.. aka: the tragedy of the non common
ie: the brain does not decide thru the dictation of some center of command.. *its decision is the common disposition or configuration of the entire neural network in communication w the body as a whole and its environ.. a single decision is produced by a multitude in the brain and body..
should we even call *that a decision? is there a single decision? can there be if we’re talking about the dance in its entirety?.. it seems like it would stop the dance.. silence the orchestra.. et al
the fact of econ innovation in networks gives perhaps a clearer model for the multitude’s political dm
perhaps we can understand the dm of he multitude as a form of expression.. indeed the multitude is org’d something like a language.. a language is a flexible web of meanings that combine according to accepted rules in an infinite number of possible ways.. a specific expression, then, is not only the combo of linguistic elements but the production of real meanings: expression gives a name to and event.. just as expression emerges from language, then , a decision emerges from the multitude in such a way as to give meaning to the whole and name an event.. for linguistic expression however.. must be a separate subject that employs the language.. *this is the limit of our analogy because unlike language the multitude is itself an active subject.. something like a language that can express itself
need to let go before *that.. language as control/enclosure
ie of computer software.. open source movement takes opposite approach (to individual geniuses).. when anyone can see it, more of its *bugs are fixed and better programs are produced;:
if legit alive living.. not about fixing/producing..
the important point here is that open source collab programming does not lead to confusion and wasted energy.. it actually works.. on approach to understanding the democracy of the multitude, then is an open source society that is a society whose source code is revealed so that we all can work collaborative to solve its bugs and create new, better social programs..
this is huge.. because it doesn’t work.. and it is a huge energy suck.. doesn’t matter how good a program runs if any/all data is non legit.. which today.. all is non legit.. ie: from whales
life is not about solving bugs or creating programs
the dm ability of the multitude, we should note, inverts the traditional relationship of obligation.. ie: hobbes – obligation to obey is basis for all civil laws and must proceed the laws. there is never in the multitude.. any obligation in principle to power. on the contrary, in the multitude the *right to disobedience and the right to difference are fundamental. the constitution of the mult is based on the constant legitimate possibility of disobedience.
and to disobedience.. i’d say who decides that… disobeying who’s rules..? does *this (from what i see) is too engulfed in democratic admin.. can’t focus on defense/disobedience/rights.. let go
love the no obligation ness
everyone getting a go everyday. free to change mind everyday. that’s how we sustain/thrive. because that’s how we act/be alive.
obligation arises for the multitude only in the process of decision making, as the result of its active political will, and the obligation lasts as long as the political will continues
any form of m\a\p is still cancer to alive living.. still killing us
the creation of the multitude, its innovation in networks, and its dm ability in common makes democracy possible for the first time today..
left off 341/179
notes from ipad
341: mid .. violence tends to no longer.. to bottomof page 342: reread all.. unsettling.. huge mistake.. won’t work 343: top sentence.. won’t work.. all defense is energy suck 344: 1st full.. last 2 sentences.. loaded and very wrong 345: top.. last sentence.. 1st full 1st sentence.. 2nd does what 1st says not to do.. oi 346: full.. last 2 sentences.. gershenfeld sel 347: last 2 .. sans weapons/violence/destrucion.. has to be soemthing everyon alreayd craves 348: top.. last sentence.. need new society every soulalredy craves.. so sans resistance.. violence.. defense..
violence tends no longer to be legitimated on the basis of legal structures or even moral principles
moral principles? was it ever.. how could it be
rather legitimation of violence tends only to come after the fact, based on the effect of the violence, its capacities to create and maintain order..the emergence of the possibilities of democracy has forced sovereignty to adopt ever purer forms of domination and violence
oi.. carhart-harris entropy law et al
the forces of democracy must counter this violence of sovereignty but not as its polar opposite in symmetrical fashion.. ie: not as absolutely peaceful force vs war.. the emerging forces of democracy today find themselves in a context of violence that they cannot simply ignore or wish away.
are we sure of that..?
democracy today takes form of a subtraction, a flight, an exodus from sovereignty.. but as we know well form bible.. pharaoh does not let jews flea in peace..
so let’s not flea.. let’s create/offer/be something all of us crave.. has to be absolute peace – soul/world – ie: story
deleuze: ‘flee but while fleeing grab a weapon’
the exodus and emergence of democracy is thus a war against war.
in the past .. maybe.. no need today.
a democratic use of force and violence is neither the same as nor the opposite of the war of sovereignty; it is diff..
the second principle of the demo use of violence, which is much more substantial but also much more complex, is that such violence is only used in defense..
won’t work.. all defense is an energy suck.. a soul killer
demo violence does not initiate the revolutionary process but rather comes only at the end, when the political and social transformation has already taken place, to *defend its accomplishment.. in this sense the demo use of violence in a revolutionary context is not really diff than an act of resistance
whoa.. loaded and very wrong.. *huge red flag
the principle of the defensive use of violence can only make sense once we separate it form all these mystifications that dress the wolf in sheep’s clothing.. (next para).. the third principle of the demo use of violence has to do w demo org itself
2nd does what 1st says not to do.. oi
the fact is that a weapon adequate to the project of the multitude cannot bear either a symmetrical or an asymmetrical relation to eh weapons of power.. to do so is both counterproductive and suicidal..
all suicidal.. unless we try something legit diff.. ie: gershenfeld sel
in any case, we can imagine the day when the multitude will invent a weapon that will not only allow it ot defend itself but will also e constructive, expansive, and constituent.. it s not a matter of taking power and commanding the armies but destroying their very possibility..
oi.. has to be sans weapons/violence/destruction.. has to be something everyone already craves
not only must the multitude configure its exodus as resistance, it must also transform that resistance into a form of constituent power, creating the social relations and institutions of a new society
need new society every soul already craves.. so sans resistance.. violence.. defense..
new weapons are clearly needed to defend the multitude….. we need to invent new weapons of democracy today
love .. is just what we need to grasp the constituent power of the multitude
the power of love overcomes the love of power
but what you’re describing isn’t legit love..
part\ial ness.. is killing us.. has to be something for everyone one of us from the get go
without this love we are nothing
w/o legit love ..
the multiplicity of the multitude is not just a matter of being different but also of becoming different. become different than you are.
problem is we keep spinning our wheels in same song ness in sheep’s clothing as you say.. not legit diff..