Debating Multitude«: Ten Notes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
rls policy paper 1/2005 Impressum rls – policy paper of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung · Franz-Mehring-Platz 1 · 10243 Berlin/Germany Phone: +49 30 44310-127 · Fax: +49 30 44310-122 · E-Mail: [email protected] · www.rosalux.de RAINER RILLING »Debating Multitude«: Ten Notes The book »Multitude«1 resumes the thinking process review in »Time« August 2004, it is also »at its core unre- about the order of capitalism within »the era of armed constructedly Marxist« and presents us with an »extreme- globalization« (p. 231), perceived by its authors as ly confused theory«. According to John Giuffo, the book post-modern, post-fordist and above all imperial and is, irritatingly, also »excessively theoretical« and »ultimate- thus spatial, temporary and socially derestricted. This ly unreasonable«. In short: »a whole book full of (…) con- discussion was initiated by Michael Hardt and Toni tent-less utterances« says Paul McLeary. Liberation, Negri (H&N) in their book »Empire«, recently been 18.11.2004 chooses to simply regard it as »revolutionary published in Russian and still trading with Ebay for 10 Lyricism«. Others, such as Günter Sandleben, have reacted $. An extensive dialogue with the authors arose on the impetuously and dogmatically. Reviews pointing out diffi- subject of the book »Empire«, which in itself is one cult passages and points worthy of criticism are an excep- aspect of the Altermondialistas movement and the left’s tion (Philipp Zarifian, Daniel Bensaid; Joachim Bischoff efforts to understand the development primarily of the and Christoph Lieber in 12/04 supplement of the german political order of capitalism since 1989 and to develop magazine »Sozialismus«). A series of reactions to the a corresponding theoretical language. book Multitude have been collected on the »Multitude« website (http://multitudes.samizdat.net/rubrique.php3?id_ »Multitude« responds to reviews, it revises, sets new rubrique =497) and the one of the German Rosa Luxem- emphases, attempts definitions and makes suggestions of burg Foundation (www.rosalux.de). how to perceive the new role of violence and the military, and the subjects of emancipation taking shape in the new 1 – The Concept of Multitude empire of global capitalism and why their political project has found wide resonance in the multifarious social and is »absolute« democracy – all facets that hardly played political movements in Europe and Latin-American. Early any role in its predecessor »Empire«. (»Our primary aim on in the book, areas for definition are opened up. Multi- is to work out the conceptual bases on which a new pro- tude is something different from the »people«, the »mas- ject of democracy can stand« [XVII]). These are the three ses«, »crowds«, the »mob« or the »working class«. It is central topics in the book, which with precautionary fore- not united, but rather plural, multiple and active in its sight states on its very first pages that it is a philosophical form. It is a multiplicity, consisting of differences and book and not one operating on sociological terrain or distinctions (99-100) and perpetually produces such diffe- attempting like a political pamphlet an answer to the well- rences (356). »The multitude is a multiplicity of all these known question of the »What is to be done?« At the same singular differences« (XIV) – and, in contrast with the time, however, it aims to contribute to a »postsocialist and masses it does this perpetually. At the same time it is a postliberal program« (220) and in »reinventing the Left« monster, as it lacks a sovereign head. (220) – and thus – and this is the tricky bit, wishes to break We are therefore dealing with difference and singularity. »with the worn-out socialist tradition« (255). The re-evaluation and accentuation of diversity is the cen- The book »Multitude« is perhaps less surprising and more tral political emphasis, which was already introduced by pragmatic than »Empire«. It is quite obviously a text H&N in their book »Empire« – and this, irrespective of all whose cadences aim to have a widespread effect. Fortuna- the puffed up boasting and various problems, is the aut- tely it is called »Multitude« and not »Menge« (Masses) as was the concern following the translation of the first book 1 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri: Multitude: war and democracy in in Germany. If we are to believe Francis Fukuyama’s the Age of Empire. The Penguin Press New York 2004 hors main merit along with the project of understanding big problems. They refer to three factors as contributing global political order through the idea of empire. Although aspects of class formation: one may not be prepared to excuse their ignorance of a) The decisive factor in constructing the concept of mul- feminism and its ideas on difference and diversity, (which titude as a new type of class is not a socio-economic rela- »Multitude«, in fact, penetrated but verbally) the authors tionship, i.e. the existence of relations of exploitation and have nevertheless managed to transfer this tradition the- appropriation of the surplus value production, but rather matically into an entirely different public arena. the relationship between exclusion and inclusion – and Empirically descriptive and fixed internal differences thus an external relationship (see p.106). For H&N, a appertain to the Multitude. That which is so separate from narrow (the industrial working class) as well as a wider one another, is singular: »Multitude is an internally diffe- concept of the working class (the wage-labor relation) is rent, multiple social subject whose constitution and action still exclusive and excluding, which is why they introduce of which is based not on identity or unity (or, much less, the Multitude as a non-exclusive concept. The notion of indifference) but on what it has in common.« (100) »The transgression and debordering central to the analysis of the Multitude is created in collaborative social interactions.« imperial mode of power also forms the foundation of their (222). »This is the definition of the multitude (…): singu- version of the Multitude. larities that act in common« (105). In this way it is also b) The concept of production as well, to which H&N refer »the common subject of labour« (101). In its concept, it is as the second constituent element of class, is so wide-ran- ontological (as the Multitude always has been, being an ging that it makes sense to ask who does not produce, and element of resistance in our social being) and it is politi- therefore does not belong to a working class in this widest cal, and as such not yet, thereby it is a project – »a not-yet sense – »everything is production« wrote Deleuze / Guat- multitude«. (221). This has its advantages. Where it some- tari. This includes male industrial workers, female repro- how fails politically, the political individual is able to ductive workers, industrial as well as agricultural workers, retreat into the utopia of ontology. Once it works in real the employed and the unemployed, laborers and the poor life, the better. – today, all of them (!) are »socially productive, they pro- However no distinction between difference and diversity is duce in common« (106f.). Taking the poor as an example, made and at no point is a more detailed concept of singu- this is then discussed in detail: – nationally or globally larity developed that goes beyond the formal definition on there is no »line of division between workers and the page 99: »and by singularity here we mean a social subject poor…All of the multitude is productive and all of it is whose difference cannot be reduced to sameness, a diffe- poor« (134) – »We are the poor!« (136) – the poor »is the rence that remains different«. Singularity arises »without primary figure of production« (152). »In fact, the old any such foundation in the other« (125f.). One can cer- Marxist distinctions between productive and unproductive tainly assume that this refers to Deleuzes and Guattari`s labor as well as that between productive and reproductive rhizomatic logic of singularity and interrelations. How- labor (…) should now be completely thrown out« (135). ever: What should we imagine singularity to be? India But when comparing material and immaterial labor, this perhaps? (p. 128) Is it all about individualization? If an weariness of making distinctions does not seem to apply! understanding the Multitude is to be rendered more preci- Immaterial or biopolitical production produces a surplus, se, then analyzing a distinct singularity (be it an incident, is excessive and not quantifiable, in so far the value theo- a person, a group) or a process of singularization is abso- ry disappears (s.145). All of this, at one point divided into lutely essential. interaction and labor, (see for example Wulf D. Hund’s short study »Stichwort Arbeit«, Heilbronn 1990,) now, 2 – Multitude and the working class under the sign of a diagnostic hegemony of immaterial The concept Multitude, as it is also used by Paolo Virno, labor and its focus on the material dimension and the bio- opposes the concept of »the people« as an identity and an political version of production merges into the concept of imagined entity (Hobbes, Rousseau), the unforming idea production. The appropriation of nature is insignificant. of the »masses« (as an undifferentiated conglomeration) This may well all be done. Subsumption under wage labor and the imaginary concept of the »nation«. It does not as a vital structural relation causing differentiation hereby imply the disappearance of the industrial working class; obviously and by all means intentionally, considerably the Multitude does not replace the classes – and an attempt loses significance. (Which is of course is viewed as com- is made by H&N to reactivate the political project of the pletely wrong not only by Callinicos or Sandleben) alt- class struggle on a biopolitical basis.