#hardt and negri

[anarchotolkienist]

The core insight of Marxism - that capitalism creates the industrial worker, and concentrates them in specific places, thus creating the necessities for an organised working class movement that eventually overcome it - proved to be false, at least in those places he identified (France, Germany, Britain). The workers movement failed to overcome capitalism. Successful marxist revolutions almost universally had a lot more in coming with the Jacobin revolutions of a century before them than they were produced by the organised mass of industrial workers. In the meantime, Marxist progressivism and belief in the inherent progress of industry as a path to socialism was socially, ecologically, and politically massively destructive. Let's not revive that teleology now.

#obviously maybe there is something to the sort of Maoist salvaging of this which identifies the industrial working class here as exploiters #and the industrual working class of the global south will cause socialism #but I don't think so - I don't believe much in the industrial worker tm #the peasant maybe but that class is being slowly hollowed out #I think that maybe Hardt and Negri are onto something with The Mass as a revolutionary subject but I need to read more there #yes obv this is in response to txlletale

[weil-weil-lautre]

#marx #karl marx #august nimtz #michael hardt #antonio negri #empire #capital #archivist

[power-chords]

Creating a golem is dangerous business, as versions of the legend increasingly emphasize in the medieval and modern periods. One danger expressed particularly in medieval versions is idolatry. Like Prometheus, the one who creates a golem has in effect claimed the position of God, creator of life. Such hubris must be punished. In its modern versions the focus of the golem legend shifts from parables of creation to fables of destruction. The two modern legends from which most of the others derive date from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In one, Rabbi Elijah Baal Shem of Chem, Poland, brings a golem to life to be his servant and perform household chores. The golem grows bigger each day, so to prevent it from getting too big, once a week the rabbi must return it to clay and start again. One time the Rabbi forgets his routine and lets the golem get too big. When he transforms it back he is engulfed in the mass of lifeless clay and suffocates. One of the morals of this tale has to do with the danger of setting oneself up as master and imposing servitude upon others.

The second and more influential modern version derives from the legend of Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague. Rabbi Loew makes a golem to defend the Jewish community of Prague and attack its persecutors. The golem’s destructive violence, however, proves uncontrollable. It does attack the enemies of the Jews but also begins to kill Jews themselves indiscriminately before the rabbi can finally turn it back to clay. This tale bears certain similarities to common warnings about the dangers of instrumentalization in modern society and of technology run amok, but the golem is more than a parable of how humans are losing control of the world and machines are taking over. It is also about the inevitable blindness of war and violence. In H. Leivick’s Yiddish play, The Golem, for instance, first published in Warsaw in 1921, Rabbi Loew is so intent on revenge against the persecutors of the Jews that even when the Messiah comes with Elijah the Prophet the rabbi turns them away. Now is not their time, he says, now is the time for the golem to bathe our enemies in blood. The violence of revenge and war, however, leads to indiscriminate death. The golem, the monster of war, does not know the friend-enemy distinction. War brings death to all equally. That is the monstrosity of war.

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, 2004

[dailyanarchistposts]

Joy and the Spinozan current

To reduce these problems to a complete and final analysis would be to miss the point. The best thing would be an informal discussion capable of bringing about the subtle magic of wordplay.

It is a real contradiction to talk of joy seriously.

—Alfredo Bonanno[5]

Pursuing these questions took us on a long detour through a minor current of Western philosophy associated with Baruch Spinoza. Against the grain of European thought that sought to subdue life through rigid dualisms and classifications, Spinoza conceptualized a world in which everything is interconnected and in process.

This worldview meant that Spinoza was despised by most of his contemporaries, but his ideas have influenced numerous currents of radical theory and practice, including anarchism, autonomous Marxism, affect theory, deep ecology, psychoanalysis, post-structuralism, queer theory, and even neuroscience. We are drawing on a current that runs from Spinoza through Friedrich Nietzsche, Gustav Landauer, Michel Foucault, and Gilles Deleuze to contemporary radicals like the Invisible Committee, Colectivo Situaciones, Lauren Berlant, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri. What we have found exciting about this current is the focus on processes through which people become more alive, more capable, and more powerful together. For Spinoza, the whole point of life is to become capable of new things, with others. His name for this process is joy.

Joy? What? Doesn’t joy just mean happiness, with some vaguely Christian undertones? Later we’ll be more precise about joy, but for now we want to be clear that it is not the same thing as happiness. A joyful process of transformation might involve happiness, but it tends to entail a whole range of feelings at once: it might feel overwhelming, painful, dramatic and world-shaking, or subtle and uncanny. Joy rarely feels comfortable or easy, because it transforms and reorients people and relationships. Rather than the desire to exploit, control, and direct others, it is resonant with emergent and collective capacities to do things, make things, undo painful habits, and nurture enabling ways of being together.[6]

Moreover, Spinoza’s concept of joy is not an emotion at all, but an increase in one’s power to affect and be affected. It is the capacity to do and feel more. As such, it is connected to creativity and the embrace of uncertainty. Within the Spinozan current, there is no way to determine what is right and good for everyone. It is not a moral philosophy, with a fixed idea of good and evil. There is no recipe for life or struggle. There is no framework that works in all places, at all times. What is transformative in one context might be useless or stifling in another. What worked once might become stale, or, on the other hand, the recovery of old memories and traditions might be enlivening. So does this mean anything goes? People just do what they want? Rejecting universal arbiters like morality and the state doesn’t mean falling into “chaos” or “total relativity.” The space beyond fixed and established orders, structures, and morals is not one of disorder: it is the space of emergent orders, values, and forms of life.

#joy #anarchism #joyful militancy #resistance #community building #practical anarchy #practical anarchism #anarchist society #practical #revolution #daily posts #communism #anti capitalist #anti capitalism #late stage capitalism #organization #grassroots #grass roots #anarchists #libraries #leftism #social issues #economy #economics #climate change #climate crisis #climate #ecology #anarchy works #environmentalism

[anarchistin]

Why do you accept being treated like an inmate?

— Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Declaration

[transmutationisms]

mb if you've already answered this but do you have any book recs that guided your understanding / political stance on communism? or any other works of literature you'd recommend in the leftist field

i do NOT consider myself any kind of authority on Leftist Theory lol. i can tell you my general intellectual trajectory in this area has basically been from the heavyhitters (marx, engels, mao, lenin, luxemburg) -> more recent marx commentators (althusser, david harvey, balibar, negri/hardt) -> 18thc political economy / 19thc socialism (smith, ricardo, say, st simon, fourier) -> graeber & fisher -> postcolonialism basics (spivak, said, chakrabarty, fanon) -> post-structuralism (deleuze/guattari, baudrillard, derrida, foucault) -> usually more historically applied texts, sociological theory, etc

i don't feel like i have come anywhere close to synthesising these into a coherent single lefist theory of the world lmao, which is why these days i typically just describe myself as a communist and then have whatever more specific discussion. i will say i think it's extremely fruitful to historicise any leftist theory and to use historical cases to examine its applicability and value, but that's maybe a different post lol

#book recs #i guess

[protoslacker]

Empire‘s release pushed Negri and Hardt to the forefront of social theory, coinciding with the influential ‘Battle in Seattle’ in November 1999. The book introduced the concept of ‘Empire,’ a global form of sovereignty surpassing nation-states. Amid concerns about neo-conservatism, Negri and Hardt’s perspective, emphasising a new class called the multitude emerging from globalisation, gained popularity. According to Slavoj Žižek, Empire is a modern reinterpretation of The Communist Manifesto, exposing conflicts inherent in global capitalism. Negri described a decentralised global power structure, termed Empire, challenging the ‘end of history’ narrative and urging a comprehensive engagement with contemporary capitalism. The model advanced a totalising system of capitalist domination where capital and sovereignty converge, perpetuating global exploitation and wealth concentration.

K. M. Seethi in The Wire. Antonio Negri: A Philosopher Of ‘Autonomism’

Antonio Negri, the distinguished Italian political philosopher and Marxist sociologist who died at the age of 90 in Paris, leaves behind a legacy marked by profound intellectual contributions.

 The Empire trilogy: Empire (2000), Multitude (2004), and Commonwealth (2009)

#antonio negri #RIP #book #political philosophy

[omnipol]

the truth will not make us free but taking control over the production of truth will

Hardt&Negri

[driftwork]

names, mostly surnames (1)

let me apologise for this partial list of names in the library,  titles available on request...

, Adorno, horkheimer, anderson, aristotle, greta adorno, marcuse, agamben, acampora and acampora, althussar, lajac kovacic, eric alliez, marc auge,  attali, francis bacon (16th c), aries, aries and bejin, alain badiou, beckett, hallward, barnes, bachelard, bahktin, volshinov, baudrillard, barthes, john beattie, medvedev, henri bergson, Jacques Bidet, berkman, zybmunt bauman, burgin, baugh, sam  butler, ulrich beck, andrew benjamin and peter osbourne, walter benjamin, ernest bloch, blanchot,  bruzins,  bonnet,  karin bojs,  bourdieu,  j.d. bernal, goldsmith,  benveniste, braidotti,  brecht,  burch, victor serge, andre breton, judith butler, malcolm bull, stanley cohen, john berger, etienne balibar, david bohm, gans blumenberg, martin buber, christopher caudwell, micel callon, albert camus, agnes callard,  castoridis, claudio celis bueno, carchedi and roberts, Marisol de la cadena,  mario blaser, nancy cartwright, manual castells, mark  currie, collingwood, canguilhem, mario corti, stuart hall, andrew lowe, paul willis, coyne, stefan collini, varbara cassin, helene cixous, coward and ellis, clastres, carr, cioren,  irving copi, cassirer, carter and willians, margeret cohen,  Francoise dastur, guy debord, agnes martin,  michele bernstein, alice, lorraine dastun, debaise, Gilles Deleuze, deleuze and gattari, guattari, parnet, iain mackenzie, bignall, stivale, holland, smith, james williams, zourabichvili, paul patton, kerslake,  schuster, bogue, bryant,  anne sauvagnargues, hanjo berresen, frida beckman, johnson, gulliarme and hughes, valentine moulard-leonard, desai,  dosse, duttman, d’amico,  benoit peters, derrida, hinca zarifopol-johnston, sean gaston,  discourse, mark poster, foucault,  steve fuller, markus gabrial, rosenbergm  milchamn, colin jones,  van fraasen,  fekete,  vilem flusser, flahault, heri focillon, rudi visker, ernst fischer,  fink, faye, fuller, fiho, marco bollo, hans magnus enxensberger, leen de bolle, canetti, ilya enrenberg,  thuan, sebastion peake, mervyn peake, robert henderson, reimann, roth,  bae suah,  yabouza, marco bellatin, cartarescu, nick harkaway, chris norris, deLanda, regis debray, pattern and doniger,  soame jynens, bernard williams, descartes, anne dufourmanteille, michelle le doeuff, de certaeu , deligny, Georges Dumezil, dumenil and levy,  bernard edelman, victorverlich, berio, arendt, amy allen, de beauvior,hiroka azumi,  bedau and humphreys,  beuad,  georges bataille, caspar  henderson,  chris innes,  yevgeny zamyatin,  louis aragon, italo calvino, pierre guirard,  trustan garcia, rene girard, paul gilroy, michal gardner,  andre gorz, jurgan gabermas, martin gagglund, beatrice hannssen, jean hyppolyte, axel honneth, zizek and crickett, stephen heath,  calentin groebner, j.b.s. haldane,  ian hacking,  david hakken,  hallward and oekken,  haug, harman, latour, arnold hauser, hegel, pippin, pinksrd, michel henry, louis hjelmslev,  gilbert hardin, alice jardine, karl jaspers, suzzane kirkbright, david hume,  thomas hobbes, barry hindus, paul hirst, hindess and hirst, wrrner hamacher,  bertrand gille,  julien huxley, halavais, irigaray, ted honderich, julia kristeva, leibnitz, d lecourt,  lazzaroto, kluge and negt, alexander kluge, sarah kofman, alexandre kojeve,  kolozoya, keynes,  richard kangston, ben lehman, kant,  francous jullien, fred hameson, sntonio rabucchi, jaeggi, steve lanierjones, tim jackson,  jakobson,   joeseph needham, arne de boever,  marx and engels, karl marx, frederick engels, heinrich,  McLellen , maturana and varuna,  lem, lordon, jean jacques-lecercle,  malabou,  marazzi,  heiner muller,  mary midgley, armand matterlart, ariel dorfman, matakovsky, nacneice, lucid,  victor margolis, narco lippi,  glen mazis, nair,  william morris,  nabis,  jean luc nancy,  geoffrey nash,  antonio negri,  negri and hardt, hardt, keith ansell pearson, pettman, william ruddiman, rheinberger, andre orlean, v.i. vernadsky,  rodchenko,  john willet, tarkovsky, william empson,  michel serres,  virillio, semiotexte, helmut heiseenbuttel,  plessner, pechaux, raunig, retort,  saito,  serres, dolphin, maria assad, spinoza,  bernard sharratt, isabelle stengers,  viktor shklovsky,  t. todorov,  enzo traverso, mario tronti,  todes, ivan pavlov,  whitehead, frank trentmann, trubetzkoy, rodowink, widderman, karl wittfogel, peter handke, olivier rolin, pavese,  robert walser, petr kral, von arnim,  sir john mennis,  ladies cabinet,  samuel johnson, edmund spenser,  efy poppy, yoko ogawa, machado,  kaurence durrell,  brigid brophy,  a. betram chandler, maria gabriella llansol, fowler,  ransmayr,  novick, llewellyn,  brennan, sean carroll,  julien rios, pintor, wraxall,  jaccottet, tabucchi,  iain banks, glasstone,  clarice lispector,  murakami, ludmilla petrushevskaya,  motoya, bachmann, lindqvist,  uwe johnson, einear macbride,  szentkuthy,  vladislavic, nanguel,  mathias enard,  chris tomas, jonathan meades,  armo schmidt, charles yu, micheal sorkin, vilas- matas, varesi, peter weiss,  stephenson, paul legrande,  virginie despentes, pessoa,  brin,  furst, gunter trass, umberto eco, reid, paul,klee, mario levero, hearn, judith schalansky, moorhead,  margert walters, rodchenko and popova, david king, alisdair gray, burroughs, ben fine, paul hirst, hindess,  kapuscinski, tchaikovsky,  brooke-rose, david hoon kim, helms,  mahfouz, ardret,  felipe fernandez-armesto,  young and tagomon,  aronson,  bonneuil and  fressoz, h.s. bennett, amy allen, bruckner brown, honegger, bernhard,  warren miller, albert thelen,  margoy bennett, rose macauley,  nenjamin peret, sax rohmer, angeliki, bostrom, phillip ball, the invisible commitee, bataille and leiris,  gregory bateson, michelle barrett and mary mcintosh, bardini, bugin, mcdonald, kaplan, buck-moores,  chesterman and lipman,  berman,  cicero, chanan,  chatelet,  helene cixous, iain cha,bers,  smirgel, norman clark, caird, camus,  clayre, chomsky, critchley,  curry,  swingewood,  luigi luca cavelli-sforza,  clark, esposito, doerner,  de duve, alexander dovzhenko, donzelot,  dennet, doyle, burkheim, de camp,  darwin,  dawkins,  didi-huberman, dundar, george dyson, berard deleuze, evo, barbara ehrenrich,  edwards,  e isenstein, ebeking, economy and society, esposito,  frederick gross,  david edgeerton,  douglas,  paul,feyerband,  jerry fodor,  gorrdiener,  tom forester, korsgaard,  fink,  floridi, elizabeth groscz, pierre francastel,  jane jacobs,  francois laplantinee,  gould,  galloway, goux,  godel, grouys, genette,  gil, kahloo, giddens,  martin gardner,  gilbert and dubar, hobbes,  herve, golinski, grotowski, glieck,  hayles, heidegger, huxley, eric hobsbawn, jean-louis hippolyte,  phillip hoare, tim jordan,  david harvey, hawking, hoggart,  rosemary jackson,  myerson,  mary jacobus, fox keller, illich,  sarah fofman, sylvia harvey, john holloway, han,  jaspers, yuk hui,  pierre hadot, carl gardner,  william james, bell hooks,  edmond jabes,  kierkegaard, alexander keen, kropotkin, tracy kidder,  mithen, kothari and mehta, lind,  c. joad,  bart kosko, kathy myers,  kaplan,  luce irigaraay, patrick ke iller, kittler,  catherine belsey,  kmar,  klossowski, holmes, kant, stanton,  ernesto laclau, jenkins, la mouffe,  walter john williams, adam greenfield, susan greenfield, paul auster, viet nguyen, jeremy nicholson,  andy weir, fred jameson,  lacoue-labarthe,  bede,  jane gallop, lacan,  wilden,  willy ley,  henri lefebvre, rob sheilds,  sandra laugier, micheal lowy, barry levinson, sylvain lazurus, lousardo, leopardo, jean-francois lyotard, jones,  lewontin,  steve levy,  alice in genderland,  laing, lanier, lakatos, laurelle, luxemburg,  lukacs, jarsh,  james lovelock, ideologu and consciousness, economy and society, screen, deleuze studies, deleuze and guattari studies,  bruno latour, david lapoujade,  stephen law, primo levi,  levi-strauss,  emmanuel levinas,  viktor schonberger, pierre levy, gustav landaur,  robin le poidevin,  les levidow, lautman, david cooper,  serge leclaire, catherine malabou, karl kautsky, alice meynall,  j.s. mill, montainge,  elaine miller, rosa levine-meyer, jean luc marion, henri lefebrve,  lipovetsky, terry lovell,  niklas luhmann,  richard may, machiavelli, richard mabey, john mullzrkey,  meyerhold, edward braun,  magri,  murray, nathanial lichfield, noelle mcafee,  hans meyer,  ouspensky, lucretius, asa briggs, william morris, christian metz, laura mulvey, len masterman,  karl mannheim, louis marin, alaister reynolds,  antonio  munoz molina,  FRAZER,  arno schmidt,  dinae waldman,  mark rothko, cornwall, micheal snow, sophie henaff, scarlett thomas,  matuszewski, lillya brik,  rosamond lehman , morris and o’conner,  nina bawden, cora sandel, delafield, storm jameson,  lovi , rachel ferguson,  stevie smith, pat barker, miles franklin, fay weldon,  crista wolff, grace paley, v. woolf, naomi mitchinson, sheila rowbotham,  e, somerville and v ross, sander marai,  jose  saramago,  strugatsky, jean echenoz, mark robso,  vladimir Vernadsky,  chris marker, Kim Stanley Robinson,  mario leverdo,  r.a. lafferty, martin bax, mcaulay, tatyana tolstaya,  colinn kapp,  jonathan meades,  franco fortini,  sam delany, philip e high, h.g. adler, feng menglong,  adam thorpe,  peeter nadas,  sam butler, narnold silver,  deren,  joanna moorhead, leonara carrington,  de waal,  hartt, botticelli,  charbonneau, casco pratolini,  murakami, aldiss,  guidomorselli, ludmilla petrushevskaya, ,schulz,  de andrade, yasushi. inoue, renoir,  amelie  nothomb,  ken liu,  prynne,  ANTIONE VOLODINE, luc brasso,  angela greene,  dorothea tanning,  eric chevillard,  margot bennett w.e. johns, conan doyle,  samuel johnson,  herge,  coutine-denamy, sterling, roubaud,  sloan, meiville,  delarivier manley, andre norton, perec, edward upward, tom mcCarthy,  magrinya,  stross,  eco, godden,  malcolm lowry,  derekmiller,  ismail kadare,  scott lynch, chris fowler, perter newman,  suzzana clarke,  paretky, juliscz balicki,  stanislaw maykowski, rajaniemi, william morris, c.k. crow,  ueys,  oldenburg,  mssrc chwmot,  will pryce,  munroe,  brnabas and kindersley, tromans,   lem, zelazny,  mitchinson, harry Harrison,  konstantin tsiolkovsky,  flammerion,  harrison, arthur c clarke, carpenter, john brunner,  anhony powell,  ted white, sheckley,  kristof, kempowski, shingo,  angelica groodischer,  rolin,  galeanom  dobin,  richard holloway,  pohl and kornbulth,  e.r. eddison,  ken macleodm  aldiss,  dave hutchinson,  alfred bester, budrys,  pynchon,  kurkov,  wisniewski_snerg, , kenji miyazawa,  dante,  laidlaw,  paek nam_nyong, maspero, colohouquon, hernandez,      christina hesselholdt, claude simon, bulgaakov,  simak,  verissimo,  sorokin,  sarraute,  prevert,  celan, bachmann,  mervin peake,  olaf stapledon,  sa rohmer,  robert musil,  le clezio,  jeremy cooper,  zambra,  giorgio de chirico,  mjax frisch,  gawron,  daumal,  tomzza,  canetti,  framcois maspero,  de quincy, defoe, green,, greene, marani,  bellatin,  khury, tapinar,, richmal crompton,  durrenmat,  fritz,  quintane,  volponi,  nanni balestrini,  herrera,  robert walser,  duras,  peter stamm,  m foster,  lan wright,  their theotokism  agustn de rojas, paul eluard,  sturgeon,  hiromi kawakomi,  sayaka murata,  wolfgang hilbig,  hmilton,  z  zivkovic,  gersson,  mallo,  bird,  chaudrey, Toussaint, Can Xue, Lewis Mumford, neitzsche, popper, zizek, scott westerfield, rousseau, lewis munford, tod may,  penelope maddy, elaine marks,  isabelle courtivron, leroi, massumi,  david sterritt, godard, millican and clark, macabe, negri,  mauss, maiimon, patrica maccormack, moretti, courtney humphries,  monad, moyn, malina, picasso, goldman, dambisa moyo,  merleau-ponty, Nicholson, knobe and nichols, poinciore, morris, ovid, ming, nail, thomas more, richard mabey,  macfarlane,  piscator,  louis-stempal,  negrastini, moore,  jacquline rose,  rose and rose, ryle, roszick, rosenburg, ravisson, paul ricoer,  rossler,  chantl mouffe,  david reiff, plato, slater, rowlands, rosa, john roberts,  rhan, dubios and rousseau, ronell,  jacques ranciere, mallarme,  quinodoz, peterpelbert, mary poovey, mackenzie, andrew price, opopper,  roger penrose, lu cino parisi,  gavin rae, parker and pollack,  mirowoski, perniola, postman, panofsky, propp, paschke and rodel, andre pickering, massabuau, lars svenddsen,  rosenberg and whyte, t.l.s. sprigger,  nancy armstrong,  sallis,  dale spender,  stanislavski,  vanessa schwartz,  shapin and shaeffer, sally sedgewick,  signs,  gabriel tarde,  charles singer, adam smith,  simondon,  pascal chablt,  combes, jon roffee, edward said,  sen,  nik farrell fox, sartre,  fred emery,  scholes, herbert spencer, ruth saw, spinoza,  raphael sassower, henry sidgewick, peter singer,  katarznya de lazari-radek,  piaget,  podach,  van der post, on fire, one press,  melossi and  pavarini,  pearl and mackenzie,  theirry paquot, tanizaki, RHS,  stone,  richard sennett,  graham priest,  osborn and pagnell, substance, pedrag cicovacki, schilthuizen,  susan sontag, gillian rose,  nikolas rose,  g rattery taylor, rose,  rajan,  stuart sim,  max raphael,  media culture and society,  heller- roazen,  rid, root, rossi, gramsci, showstack sasson, david roden,  adrew ross, rosenvallion, pauliina remes, pkato, peter sloterdijk, tamsin shaw, george simmel, bullock and trombley, mark francis,  alain supiot, suvin, mullen and suvin, stroma,  maimonides,  van vogt,  the clouds on unknowing, enclotic, thesis 11,  spivack,  kate raworth,  h.w. richardson,  hillial schwartz, stern, rebecca solnit, rowland parker,  pickering,  lukacs,  epicriud, epicetus, lucrtious,  aurelies,  w.j.oates,  thor Hanson,  thompson, mabey,  sheldrake,  eatherley,  plato, jeffries,  dorothy richardson,  arno schmidt,   earl derr biggersm  mary borden, birrel, arno schmidt,  o.a. henty,  berhard steigler,  victor serge,  smith,  joyce salisbury, pauer-studer,  timpanaro,  s helling, schlor, norman and welchman,  searle, emanuele severarimo,  tomasello, sklar, judith singer, walmisley,  thomas malthus,  quentin meilassoux,  alberto meelucchi,  mingione, rurnbull,  said, spufford and  uglow,  zone,  j.j.c. smartt, sandel, skater, songe-moller,  strawson,  strawson, strawson, raymond tallis,  toscano,  turkle,  tiqquin, diggins,  j.s. ogilivy, w.w. hutchings,  rackgam,  deiter roth,  dowell,  red notes,  campbell and pryce,osip brik, lilya brik, mayakovsky, zone, alvin toffker, st exupery, freya stark, warson, walsh, wooley, tiles and oberdick, timofeeva, richardson, marcuse,  marder,  wright,  ushenko, tolson, albebers and moholy- nagy, alyce mahon, gablik, burnett, barry, hill, fontaine, sanuel johnson,justin, block, taylor, peter handke, jacques rivette,  william sansom, bunuel and dali, tom bullough, aldius huxley, philip robinson, spendor, tzara,  wajcman, peter wohlleben,  prigogini,  paolo virno,  jeremy tunstall, theweliet,  taussig,  tricker,  vince,  thomss, williams,  vogl, new german critique,  e.p. thompson,  jean wahl, paul virilio, lotringer, christy wampole, verhaeghe, janet wolff, anna kavan, vergara,  uexkull,  couze venn, barry smart, vico,  vatimo, vernant, raoul vaneigem,  ibn warraq, vertov,  williams,  meiksins wood, norbert weiner, peter wollen,  h.g. wells,  michelle walker, , jeanne waelit  walters,  shaw and darlen, whorf,  ward and dubois,  john wright,  weinart, wolff, willis, wark, cosima wagner, j. weeks,  judith williamson,  welzbacher, erik olin wright, wittgenstein, kenny,  zeldin, wenders,  henry miller, wenkler, arrighi,  banks, innes, ushereood, kristeva, john cage, quignard,  t.f. powys, siri hustveldt, lem,  zelazny, mitchonson,  tsilolkovsky, toussaint, heppenstall, garrigasait, de kerangal, haine fenn, jean bloch,  geoff ryman, reve, corey, asemkulov, ernaux,  gareth powell, cory,  deleuze and guattari studies, cse, allain and souvestre, apolinaire, jane austen, john arden, aitmatov,  elizabth von arnim, paul auster, abish,  ackroyd, tom gunn, lorca, akhmatov, artuad,  simon armatige, albahari, felipe alfau, audem auden and soendor, varicco, barrico, bainbridge, asturias, ronan bennett, beckett, paul bowles, jane bowles, celine, bukowski,  wu ming, blissert,  kay boyle,  andrei  bely,  hugo barnacle,  BOLL,  isak dineson, karen blikson,  brodsky,  richmel crompton,  berry, barthleme,  mary butts, leonora carrington, cage,  chevhillard,  canetti,  cendres,  butor,  cortazar, danielewski,  bertha damon,  dyer, havier cercas, micheal dibden, marguerite duras, john donne, duras, durrell,  dorrie,  Fredric durrenmatt,  heppenstahl, eco, enzensberger, evanovich, fruentes,  farrell,  alison fell,  alisdair gray,  hollinhurst,  andre gide,  jean giono, gadda, henry green,  grass,  andre gorz,  william gibson,  joyce,  gombrowitz,  alex laishley, murakami,  herve guibert,  franz kafka,  juenger, junker, kapuscinski, laurie king,  kundera,  mcewan, ken macleod,  ian macdonald,  moers,  meades,  vonda macintyre,  nalmstom, maillert,  havier marias,  jeff noon,  anaus nin,  david nobbs,  peter nadas,  nabokov,  iakley, oates,  raymond queneau,  cesare pavese, paterson, ponge,  perte, perec, chinery, ovid,  genette,  kandinsky, robert pinget, richard piwers,  rouvaud, sloan, surrralist poetry, ilya troyanov, paul,raabe,  julien rios, arne dahl, pierre sollers, rodrigruez,  chris ross, renate rasp, ruiz, rulfo, tove jannsson, cabre,  vladislavic, tokarczuk, pessoa, jane bowles, calvino, lispector, lydia davis, can xue,  sebald, peter tripp,  hertzberg,  virginia woolf,  zozola, sorrentino, higgins,  v.w. straka, cogman, freud, jung, klein, winnecot, lacan,  fordham, samuels,  jung, freud, appignesai,  bjp, pullman, magnam, sybil marshall, mccarten,  galbraith, jewell,  lehmann,  levy,  levin, jung,  spinoza,  fairburn,  jung, sandler,  lacan,  laplanche,  pontalis, can, xue,  klein, cavelli, hawkins, stevens,  hanna segal, bollas,  welldon,  williams,  sutherland, buon,  symington,  morrison,  brittain,  sidoli, sidoli,  holmes, bowlby, winnecott,   bollas,  kalschiid,  malan, patrick casement,  anna frued, wittenburg,  liz wright,  fordham, fairburn, symington, sandler,  jung, balint,  coltart,  west, steiner,  van der post,  stern,  green,  roustang,  adrew samuels,  d.l. sayers,  salom, krassner,  swain,  rame and fo,  storr,  cogman,  hessen,  penelope fitzgerald,  cummings, richard holloway,  juhea kim,  glenville, heyer, cartland,  kim, cho,  atkinson,  james,  king, audten,  hartley,  du maurier,  bronte,  thomas, plath, leon,  camillairi, kaussar, fred fargas, boyd,  sjowall and wahloo,  pheby,  morenno-garcia, perrsson,  herron, nicola barker, arronovitch,  karen lord, stephen frosh, ernest jones, flamm o’brien, shin, mishra, chin jin-young and so on to the warm horizon

#names #ideology and discourse #everyday practices

[suburbandogsclub]

Secondo Michael Hardt e Antonio Negri, la globalizzazione sviluppa due forze contrapposte: da un lato, istituisce una gerarchia di potere capitalistica decentrata, deterrritorializzata, ossia l'"Impero"; dall'altro, crea la cosiddetta "moltitudine", una combinazione di singolarità che comunicano tra loro attraverso la rete e agiscono insieme. Da dentro l'Impero, la moltitudine si oppone all'Impero [...].

Hardt e Negri costruiscono il loro modello teorico sulla base di categorie storicamente superate, come la classe o la lotta di classe [..]. Il discorso sulla classe ha senso soltanto all'interno di una pluralità di classi: la moltitudine, invece, è l'unica classe. [...]. L'impero non è una classe dominante che sfrutta la moltitudine, perchè oggi ciascuno sfrutta se stesso pur credendosi libero. [...] Nell'Impero di fatto nessuno domina: esso rappresenta lo stesso sistema capitalistico che sovrasta tutti. Di conseguenza, oggi è possibile uno sfruttamento senza dominio.

I soggetti economici neoliberisti non costituiscono un Noi capace di un'azione comune. Il crescente egotismo e l'atomizzazione della società restringono radicalmente gli spazi dell'agire comune e impediscono, con ciò, che si costituisca un contropotere, che sarebbe sul serio in grado di mettere in questione l'ordinamento capitalistico. Il socius cede il passo al solus; non la moltitudine, quanto piuttosto la solitudine contraddistingue la forma sociale odierna, sopraffatta dalla generale disgregazione del comune e del collettivo. La solidarietà scompare: la privatizzazione si estende fino all'anima.

Nello Sciame - Byung-Chul Han

[girl-debord]

hey what's your take on empire (hardt/negri)

haven't read it! it seems super interesting tho, definitely would like to

#to read

[cultml]

[dykepuppet]

Do you think hardt and negri ever explored each others bodies?

[noisynutcrusade]

Student Michael Hardt: “Toni Negri was a militant philosopher. He made me feel like a companion"

The thinker: “The charges against him were part of a project aimed at criminalizing a way of doing politics that took hold in the 1970s” Source link

View On WordPress

[jgmail]

El Imperio como sinónimo de civilización

Por Alexander Dugin

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

La llegada el Imperio

La conceptualización del Imperio ha pasado a ser un tema muy relevante, especialmente si tenemos en cuenta conceptos como el de “Estado-civilización” que fue introducido por mi amigo el pensador chino Zhang Weiwei [1], siendo este un sinónimo de Imperio. En su último discurso en el Club de Valdai, pero también en otros lugares anteriores, Putin dijo que Rusia es un “Estado-civilización”, con lo que declaró abiertamente que hemos emprendido el camino hacia el Imperio, aunque no se trata de una reivindicación histórica, sino técnica. Por Imperio debe entenderse una organización política supranacional que tiene un único centro de toma de decisiones estratégicas (el Emperador) y dentro del cual existe una amplia gama de entidades locales – desde comunidades étnicas hasta pueblos diferenciados con alto nivel de desarrollo – unidos por un “Gran Espacio” con fuertes connotaciones civilizaciones, sean estas religiosas, culturales o ideológicas. Uno se puede integrar al imperio de forma pacifica o violenta, aunque los Estados que existen en las fronteras del Imperio pueden conservar cierta autonomía o formar parte de él. De cualquier forma, pertenecen al “Gran Espacio” imperial y esto es lo que realmente importa. En la medida en que estos Estados limítrofes sigan ciertas directrices, pueden mantenerse como Estados-nación independientes, en caso de que se rebelen en contra del Imperio y comiencen a trabajar para agentes exteriores, su destino estará sellado. Este último caso se aplica a Ucrania, los Estados postsoviéticos, Taiwán y muchos otros.

El Imperio unipolar

La unipolaridad concibe el mundo como parte de un único Imperio dominado por los Estados Unidos, sus satélites, la OTAN y el resto de organizaciones a su servicio. Niall Ferguson, un politólogo estadounidense contemporáneo que es financiado por la familia Rothschild [2], introdujo de contrabando en el discurso político de su país la palabra Imperio [3]. Anteriormente, los Estados Unidos solía concebirse como una República, mientras que el Imperio era identificado con Gran Bretaña [4] como una realidad extremadamente negativa y contra la que los estadounidenses, como amantes de la libertad y mártires de la Guerra de Independencia, lucharon. No obstante, la idea de crear un Imperio Mundial fue calando poco a poco al interior de las élites estadounidenses hasta que los neoconservadores hablaron abiertamente de él. Estados Unidos se declaró de ahora en adelante como un “Imperio” que gobierna a toda la humanidad y las élites globalistas liberales terminaron por estar de acuerdo con tal idea. Pero este imperialismo abierto provocó el rechazo de otra parte de la élite estadounidense que comenzó a atacar la idea hegemónica de Imperio global y más bien declararse a favor del “Estado-civilización”, algo en consonancia con la multipolaridad. Existen varias interpretaciones de la idea de Imperio desde la izquierda en Occidente, como, por ejemplo, la de transhumanistas en la onda de Negri y Hardt [5], sociólogos como Emmanuel Todd [6] o la del inclasificable Alain Soral [7].

La heptarquía imperial o la multipolaridad real

La multipolaridad implica la existencia de varios imperios soberanos al mismo tiempo, no solo frente a las pretensiones universalistas y univocas de los Estados Unidos, sino también entre sí. Actualmente se puede hablar de siete imperios distintos que están tomando forma frente a nuestros ojos:

El Imperio de Occidente (EE.UU. + UE + sus vasallos).

El Imperio Euroasiático (Rusia + espacio postsoviético, junto a sus respectivos territorios). Este sería el intento de nuestra sociedad de reconstruir nuestro propio Estado-civilización del que Putin se ha hecho eco en Valdai.

El Imperio Chino (China continental + Taiwán y una serie de Estados que se extiende por toda la “Franja y la Ruta”).

El Imperio Indio (Bharat + Nepal + Bangladesh + los estados del sudeste asiático en su órbita).

El Imperio Islámico (un bloque potencial de Estados islámicos cuyos polos más importantes son Arabia Saudí, los países árabes suníes, el Irán chiíta, Pakistán, Turquía, Indonesia, los países del Magreb y muchos otros).

EL Imperio Latinoamericano (que tiene su centro en la alianza entre Brasil y Argentina con la adhesión del resto de países, como los estados del Caribe y México).

El Imperio Africano (que gravita alrededor de la Meseta de Manden en torno a Mali, junto con la ecúmene bantú de África central y meridional, además de Etiopía y el mundo cusita).

El primer Imperio, el occidental, sigue pretendiendo ser el único que existe, ya que el colapso de la URSS permitió su ascenso y, aunque su hegemonía se debilita cada vez más, sigue siendo muy fuerte. El solo tiene mucho más poder que cada uno de sus otros rivales por separado, pero es inferior a la alianza de todos los otros imperios no occidentales en términos económicos, demográficos, recursos naturales e incluso ideológicos. Los otros tres Imperios, el ruso, el chino y el indio, tienen una historia de siglos e incluso milenios y actualmente están activamente construyendo sus mecanismos de poder. De hecho, ya son polos soberanos e independientes de facto, por lo que es muy probable que aumente su influencia en los próximos años. Por su parte, el Imperio Islámico, cuyo centro lógico sería Bagdad – sede del califato abasí – se encuentra unido por una religión y una ideología basada en ella, pero esta políticamente fragmentado. Los Imperios africano y latinoamericano todavía no existe, aunque están dando pasos concretos en esa dirección. Todos estos Imperios, tanto reales como potenciales, con la excepción del Imperio de Occidente, hacen parte de los BRICS después de la cumbre de Johannesburgo. Rusia presidirá el próximo año los BRICS con tal de promover la multipolaridad y reforzar su posición ideológica, económica, energética, financiera, político-militar y estratégica. Para que la multipolaridad nazca es necesario que todos trabajen juntos para ponerle fin a la unipolaridad Occidental. Esto no significa la destrucción de Occidente, sino sus pretensiones de universalidad, algo que Rusia ya esta haciendo hoy en Ucrania. La Operación Militar Especial es un enfrentamiento abierto entre la unipolaridad y la multipolaridad.

Otros tres posibles polos imperiales

Completaremos nuestro análisis planteando la existencia teórica de otros tres “Grandes Espacios”. Occidente puede dividirse en dos polos: uno americano y otro europeo, en tal caso la UE, una vez se expulse a los globalistas atlantistas del poder y se impongan los continentalistas de la línea del general De Gaulle, podría convertirse en un polo independiente. Tal polo europeo todavía no existe. Otro posible polo que puede aparecer sería una civilización budista autónoma bajo la tutela de Japón, pero el Japón actual, al igual que Europa, no tiene independencia política y sigue al pie de la letra a Occidente. Finalmente, podemos hablar de un hipotético “Gran Espacio” de Oceanía que se esta convirtiendo en una zona de enfrentamiento político-militar entre los Imperios chino y estadounidense. Esta situación puede cambiar, pero resulta improbable que los valientes pueblos melanesios, papúes, aborígenes australianos y maoríes puedan por sí solos levantarse al unísono y expulsar a los anglosajones por medio de una serie de guerras anticoloniales, al menos de que los ayuden como ha sucedido con África. Es muy improbable que esto suceda, pero no deja de valer la pena intentarlo con tal de que se forme otro polo.

Hola al Imperio

Si los Imperios están volviendo entonces es hora de comprender sus orígenes históricos e ideológicos. Es un tema sumamente fascinante que ayudaría a los rusos a comprender quienes son. Nosotros somos un pueblo imperial: lo hemos sido en el pasado, lo somos ahora y lo seremos en un futuro llamémonos como nos llamemos o pensemos como pensemos. Llegará el momento en que nos demos cuenta de eso, al fin y al cabo, la URSS fue un “Imperio” en el sentido técnico de la palabra como lo hemos subrayado muchas veces. Justa ahora nos estamos convirtiendo en un “Estado-civilización” y comprendiendo nuestro destino. Para comenzar a profundizar en este tema invito a los lectores a abordar los tres volúmenes del libro Imperio [8] de Konstantin Malofeev y mi obra filosófica Génesis e Imperio [9]. Se pueden agregar libremente muchas otras obras exhaustivas y detalladas para seguir trabajando esta cuestión, tanto de Occidente como de Oriente, del pasado o del porvenir.

Notas:

[1] Zhang Weiwei. The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State. Beijing: World Century Publishing Corporation, 2012.

[2] Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: The World's Banker, 1849–1999. Nueva York: Viking.

[3] Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. NY.: Penguin Press, 2004.

[4] Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. Londres: Allen Lane.

[5] Hardt, Michael y Negri, Antonio, Imperio, Buenos Aires: Paidós, 2002

[6] Todd, E., Après l’empire - Essai sur la décomposition du système américain est un essai. P.: Gallimard, 2002.

[7] Alain Soral, Comprendre l'Empire. Demain la gouvernance globale ou la révolte des Nations, Éditions Blanche, 2011.

[8] Малофеев К.В. Империя. В 3 т. М.: АСТ, 2020-2021.

[9] Дугин А.Г. Бытие и Империя. М.: АСТ, 2022.

#historia #imperio #civilización #alexander dugin #Estados Unidos #Rusia #mundo islámico #china #india #europa #oceanía #latinoamérica #áfrica

[domascaini]

Blog 2 -Abu Ghraib

Nicholas Mirzoeff – Invisible Empire: Visual Culture, Embodied Spectacle, and Abu Ghraib

Reading the piece written by Nicholas Mirzoeff from the Invisible Empire as visual culture, embodied spectacle, and Abu Ghraib, this issue was invisible to many people, and many seemed not to want to see what happened in that prison. Since in today’s study of digital media and communication, scholars study through visuality and learn from sight, there is a clear understanding that the leaked photographs from Abu Ghraib, seen by the whole world, had no justice for those people's horrible tortures. This ties back to the theory of visual culture that states, visual culture is everywhere and nowhere. Visual culture, which is the battle against visualized that reclaims the right to look and refused to see the truth. The US congress preferred to keep it invisible to people by ignoring the leaked images.

Mirzoeff also describes the surveillance in the state of war, they enter a state where they stand between being and non-being. In the sense that those people that are supposed to make sure nothing goes wrong, when there is an extreme atrocity, they prefer not seeing it. Once again it’s another example of Abu Ghraib's leaked photographs of prisoners in the position doing sodomy or being tortured (image 1).

The second image I am presenting is an event that occurred on May 25, 2020. A police force arrested this man, George Floyd, and forcefully held him with a knee to his throat that he was struggling to breathe. I gave this example because I would like to explain that even in this matter, the United States failed to give punishment to the man who killed Floyd, thus the same thing happened to the guards surveilling the Abu Ghraib prisoners. This is a double-vision conflict as Mirzoeff talks about in his visual culture texts, the evidence used to incriminate the victim instead of who does the action. The sodomy, theory by Mirzoef is connected to everything the proper civilized person is not. The justice system saw once again the white paranoia and not the right to self-defense, applied to all forms of humans. Floyd's event was not so different from Abu Ghraib's tying back to the sodomy. The Abu Ghraib released pictures were proof of what had happened, but many preferred not to see and same form the video of Floyd. And that's where when Mirzoeff talks about the surveillance they are and they are not, because when they want to be heroes, they want to show themselves that they are the force while when something goes wrong, they are nothing and they become invisible.

Hardt and Negri describe the word "empire" as a form of control of global capital that American militaries desired, a desire for dominion over everything. However, Mirzoeff thinks of empire as a completely different imperialism from traditional territorial imperialism. The kind of imperialism they desired was a decentralized and deterritorializing governing instrument that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open and expanding frontiers. 

 And in fact, this was achieved by the U.S. military that maintained the Abu Ghraib prison. The military achieved this domination by torturing and treating these prisoners like animals, I am not exaggerating by saying animals (image 3) carrying a person around by the collar is not something human. And going back to the fact of surveillance at the time of war they become invincible. Usually, war is between two nations, and there is always a side that everybody supports and a side that everybody hates.  So in the case of Abu Ghraib and the revealed photographs, the opponents believed that it was an act of torture and barbarism, while the supporters believed and thought that it was a representation of the new imperial masculinity. Pero this masculinity was done with evil and was represented with sodomizing and as the guy says a spectral visualization embodied.

In Mirzoeff's point of view, Abu Ghraib released photographs, and even some videos/photos gave the impression that a surveillance camera was recording everything that was happening within the prison. Yet, this event remained invisible to America and many others. Well, going back to being and non-being, there is something to see but we are not allowed, because if the upper power(government) says so then everyone has to believe. This is because the visuality of war remains profoundly undemocratic.

Regarding The Torture of Others – Susan Sontag

Susan Sontag describes photographs as a mark of how conflicts are judged and how they are remembered. The photograph was adopted as a war's "trophy" symbol. Suntag gives additional proof that photography was used also during World War II, German soldiers are known to have taken dreadful photos of Poles and Russians people. Well, I would say trophy material, because these soldiers were posing in front of painful and unwatchable bodies proudly doing what they did. The woman in the picture below exemplifies what I mean when I say that she has no remorse while smiling in front of this dead body that was tortured.

The more I was reading about “regarding the torture of others” the more I was coming across similar situations, that happened in other situations. For example, Suntag brought up that in the 30s-90s Americans would do the same things with black community bodies photographed and make them visible to the public eye as a masterpiece. By reading that, I was not surprised by the example I gave above in Abu Ghraib's texts, about George Floyd’s case. Floyd's issue was the same as what Americans did back then and are still doing today in the 21st century. Taking pictures of dead bodies, in a pornographic position, or brutal war pictures were once classified as pornography, a form of extreme sadomasochism.

I was unaware of Abu Ghraib or all the atrocities soldiers would do during the war. I was aware of the typical conflict—the bloody one in which the bad people and the good fight for control of other lands. But from the reading of Abu Ghraib and the “regarding the torture of others”, so many generations do not know about these events. Honestly, it's not clear anymore if it's better to teach these things or better if they never get out, because so many events and history have repeated them. However, since today's technology is so advanced, today’s criminal activities run in the news very quickly because the internet travels fast and the news does too. Another example Suntag uses is that the soldiers would record or capture these moments, perhaps for the sexual aspect of torture made them more interesting to document.

Soldiers utilized the recording to express their desire for sensual thoughts, but today's users use it to communicate and document their daily activities. Many influencers record their daily activities or it is also used for television. The recording documentation today is also used for teaching purposes. Here is an example of how today's videos are used: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36jpmfuC1fc&ab_channel=HistoryonMaps. All these show how much so many people are not aware of the technology development or why they were created in the first place. Today people use it as if it was born for vlogging, documenting their lives, or telling their own stories when in reality all these were the creation of horrible stories.