Comments on: … is class composition? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/ A working notebook Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:20:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-2873 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:31:48 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-2873 Kolinko's piece on class composition - http://nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/kolinko/engl/e_klazu.htm Kolinko’s piece on class composition - http://nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/kolinko/engl/e_klazu.htm

]]> by: Jon http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-112 Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:58:05 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-112 OK, Nate, I see what you mean about class composition. That Leninist notion of hegemony isn't usually what I mean by the term. (I do try to stick close to Laclau, who takes Lenin only as an originary point of departure.) As we've said, of course I agree with what you have to say about the multitude and its more complex relation to history than Negri (and Hardt) at least sometimes allow. And once you see the multitude as fully historical, then that changes the whole perspective on class composition. That indeed is the next project... OK, Nate, I see what you mean about class composition. That Leninist notion of hegemony isn’t usually what I mean by the term. (I do try to stick close to Laclau, who takes Lenin only as an originary point of departure.)

As we’ve said, of course I agree with what you have to say about the multitude and its more complex relation to history than Negri (and Hardt) at least sometimes allow. And once you see the multitude as fully historical, then that changes the whole perspective on class composition.

That indeed is the next project…

]]> by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-111 Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:12:06 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-111 hi Jon, You're quite welcome. Like I said, I'm excited about and look forward to reading more of your project. As for class composition, it does seem to me that hegemony is closely bound up with that line of thought, both analytically and politically - the progression from professional to mass to socialized worker to multitude is a story of changing hegemonic forms of labor that became socially/organizationally hegemonic within the working class. (Technical and political hegemony?) My impression is also that at least up through the 70s the point of the analysis was aimed at the fairly old fashioned goal of building something like a party to do something like seize state power. It strikes me that Negri in some ways is articulating something like an end to hegemony, but takes up no critique of hegemony as such, a sort of post-leninism. I think this where a lot of the tension resides that we've talked about before regarding the ontological primacy of the multitude, whether it's achieved in postfordism or whether it's something that becomes increasingly obvious in postfordism (and which therefore requires a rethinking/criticism of received categories and histories). Negri seems decidedly invested in the former, and I can't at all understand why. My hunch is that a post-hegemonic understanding of class composition would help free up the useful bits in Negri's work and avoid the aporias. take care, Nate hi Jon,
You’re quite welcome. Like I said, I’m excited about and look forward to reading more of your project.
As for class composition, it does seem to me that hegemony is closely bound up with that line of thought, both analytically and politically - the progression from professional to mass to socialized worker to multitude is a story of changing hegemonic forms of labor that became socially/organizationally hegemonic within the working class. (Technical and political hegemony?) My impression is also that at least up through the 70s the point of the analysis was aimed at the fairly old fashioned goal of building something like a party to do something like seize state power. It strikes me that Negri in some ways is articulating something like an end to hegemony, but takes up no critique of hegemony as such, a sort of post-leninism. I think this where a lot of the tension resides that we’ve talked about before regarding the ontological primacy of the multitude, whether it’s achieved in postfordism or whether it’s something that becomes increasingly obvious in postfordism (and which therefore requires a rethinking/criticism of received categories and histories). Negri seems decidedly invested in the former, and I can’t at all understand why. My hunch is that a post-hegemonic understanding of class composition would help free up the useful bits in Negri’s work and avoid the aporias.
take care,
Nate

]]> by: Jon http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-110 Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:33:31 +0000 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/11/21/is-class-composition/#comment-110 Nate, thanks for this. I haven't thought about a posthegemonic theory of class composition. But I can answer this... <i>Is post-hegemony a condition in which hegemony has lost a prior efficacy and advisability? [. . .] Or is it post-hegemony in the sense that we now see our way clearly past hegemony, in a sense that entails a criticism of prior organizational form and theories predicated on hegemony?</i> Both. Absolutely. Nate, thanks for this. I haven’t thought about a posthegemonic theory of class composition. But I can answer this…

Is post-hegemony a condition in which hegemony has lost a prior efficacy and advisability? [. . .] Or is it post-hegemony in the sense that we now see our way clearly past hegemony, in a sense that entails a criticism of prior organizational form and theories predicated on hegemony?

Both. Absolutely.

]]>