[p2p-research] Berardi essay

[Andy Robinson]

The choice to refer to affinity-networks as "communism" is certainly rather
motivated, but has a certain historical continuity with what "communism"
meant in autonomism in its earlier incarnations, and in things like "council
communism".  Personally I'd be more inclined to call the model anarchism,
because of the importance of absence of hierarchy to its definition.

On the other hand, Ryan, I think you're very wrong that he's talking about
something that's already happened, or could already happen, *in the
capitalist system*.  A part of Berardi's perspective, assuming he's still in
the same mould as people like Hardt, Negri, Virno etc, is that capitalism
contains aspects which are as such reductive - "command" over social life
(by the boss and the state), reduction of difference/singularity to sameness
(as universal equivalent for example), the state as command hierarchy, etc.
Hence, the "us and them" of class struggle is not an arbitrary addition but
is fundamental to the systemic perspective which is taken.  On the other
hand, Berardi (and Negri, etc) gives more credence than I do to the idea
that affective labour is pioneering the transformation to a different
society.  But the political forms being considered as instances of the new
society in formation - summit protests, squatting, hackers, etc - are always
antisystemic.  So the network model is counterposed to a dominant system
which is in the last instance, necessarily hierarchical and
representational.  This is a transformational theory, not a displacement of
present into future.

As to "how much Marx can be taken out of Marxism, etc" and "looking for the
seven headed dragon", I think you're totally misunderstanding what this
strain of post-autonomism is trying to do with Marxism.  First off, they
wouldn't necessarily call themselves Marxists, they simply use certain
concepts from the Marxist canon.  Secondly, they aren't historical
determinists, they don't treat Marx as a prophet or as a scientific
predictive theorist, they have an interpretation of Marxism as an
agency-based approach.  The key concept they carry over from Marxism is
exploitation - the dominant system exploits the creativity of a collective
life-force on which it is parasitic.

I also use certain Marxist concepts in my work, without claiming to be a
Marxist - I think Marx's understanding of alienation is particularly
relevant, and maps onto the issue of abundance and scarcity.  Capitalism is
based on scarcity as a mindset and existential condition, and can only
reproduce itself as the reproduction of scarcity; one of its problems is
that it reproduces abundance at each stage and then implodes.  It is also
transcendentalist; life only has recognised value to the extent that it is
represented.  On the other hand, affinity-networks are based on an
existential orientation to immanence and abundance.

bw
Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090522/70f03d3d/attachment.html>