アントニオ・ネグリ - 自由の新たな空間について

わたしは門外漢なんで、おずおずとこのスレを立てたしだいであります。
ゆえあってネグリに興味をもつにいたって、ただいま、むかし買って積ん読の
まま放置していた「自由の新たな空間」を酒井隆史の「自由論」と併読中。
そういえば酒井隆史の盟友？に高円寺ネグリ系な銭湯利用者協議会の連中
もいる。
まあ、ともかく、どうか語っていただけないでしょうか？
いかにしてわれわれは資本主義の一次元的秩序の彼方へと特異/固有性を
解放する手段を得るか？

それではよろしくお願いいたします。レスぷり〜ず！

資本主義が一次元的というのは
どういう意味ですか？

上記書からの引用です。一次元的秩序です。資本主義的主観化/従属化に
よる特異/固有性のプロセスを無力化し、資本主義的な社会階層に隷属した
ままにせしめる特質といったところでしょうか？　う〜ん…
てか語って下さい。わたしめにご教示して下さい、と。

いわでもがなのわたくし事ですが、現在わたしは失業中です。もうじき１周年記念!

>>4 なんか文章が変かな？
>資本主義的主観化/従属化による特異/固有性のプロセスを無力化し
を、「資本主義的主観化/従属化によって特異/固有的プロセスを無力化し」
に訂正してみる。

ネグリといえば、
スピノザ論の「野生のアノマリー」の邦訳いつになったら出るんだ？＞水声社

>>4,6
というより、「一次元的」というのがちょっと通常的使用と異なるんじゃ。
文意からみて「一元的」のほうが馴染むような。

どっちにしろ東欧の紛争には効いても失業には効かない。
組合員はリストラされにくいらしいし…
失業して急に左翼になるってのはどうだろう？

>>7

訳者がぼんくらだからじゃない？

ネグリは語るに値しない？

>>1
固有性の無化は労働力の商品化と
それを可能ならしめた労働者からの
生産手段の剥奪と機械的生産体制の
確立の帰結だろう。
マルクスは貨幣を「急進的な平等派」と
いっているが、それは貨幣の前ではすべての
生産物の個々の特質(固有性)が捨象され交換価値に
還元され、価格として統一的に数量化されるためだが、
労働力も商品化されてしまえば、その数量化的還元
の洗礼を受け、その労働力の所有者の固有性は
関係ないものとして捨象される。
だから、固有性の解放のためには、商品化を廃止し、
悪平等を巻き散らす貨幣制度を廃止しなければならないと、
マルクスは考えた。
ネグリはそのマルクスの立場を継承していると思われる。

>>12概ね当たってるけど、なんか素朴すぎる。

銭湯協の柏木って生きてる？？？

「自由の新たな空間」はガタリとの共著じゃなかったか？
ガタリもエライ。
ドゥルーズの訳者のマイケル・ハートとの共著「帝国」はいつ出るんだ？

>>15
ガタリ＝ネグり路線か･･･
かび臭いが、「情況」周辺若者とか喜びそうだな･･･

おお、スレの浮沈がほとんどない板だW

>>8 なるほど。訳語は「一次元的」になってました(丹生谷訳)
わたしはこの種の言説に馴れてないんで難儀やわ。

>>9 >急に左翼になる
ってなわけではないけれども。>>1にかいたような事はこれまで漠然と
思っていた(だけ)けれども、んで、なんとなく酒井の「自由論」を購入して
読み始めてみたものの、どうも解説書みたいなテクストなんだわ、これが。
# しかも案外な悪文で読みにくい。
んで、そういえばガタリ=ネグリの上掲書があった筈と捜し出して読み始めた
んですよ。で、おお、これだ、とふと思った。
学生時代は○経が主だったんで、○Xの主要著作はレポートをかくため(！)に
ひととおり目を通したけれども、いまじゃなあんにも覚えてなかったりする(汗

>>10 丹生谷さんも訳者のひとりですな。

>>11 >語るに値しない？
ってのは「値しねーんじゃねーの？」？「値するんじゃない？」？ ？
まあ、確かに訳者があとがきにかいているように浪漫的なプロパガンダか？
ちなみに勤め人だった7年あまりのあいだは、どうも小説にせよ漫画にせよ、
タルくて最後まで読み通したことはほとんどない。とはいえ習慣で毎月数冊
購入してしまうのだけれども。

ブレイクスルーを試みるのが望ましいのかもしれないけれども、べつに「運動」したい
わけではない。せめてフリークアウトしたいものだと、さしあたり。
# ワケワカですみません。

あらら、トロトロ愚にもつかぬ事をかいているうちに5つもレスが書き込まれていた(汗
どうぞそのまま語ってちょ。>ALL without me

ネグリはこれからがわが国では旬になるかも知れぬ。

>>19
トニ･ネグリか･･･
旬になる可能性はあるな。
わが国の＜一部＞では。

ネグリは資本論よりも経済学批判要綱のほうに現代的な意義を見い出した。
「マルクスを越えるマルクス」は翻訳作業されているのかな。

マルクスを超えるマルクスを語る革命家なら、わが国にも尊敬すべき/トンデモの
境界線上を行く偉大なるセンダチがイパーイいるじゃあないか。
まずそこから何かを抽出しなくてドスール？！

ところでかれら、ネグリにせよガタリにせよ況んやドゥルーズも
弁証法を批判しているけど、具体的にどのような観点からの
批判なんでしょうが。
現代思想のユーロ・ラディカルズム特集で小倉利丸が簡単な説明
をしてはいるが？ なぜに弁証法は現代ではもはや無効なのだろうか？

>>22
センダチってダーレ？　結局、ナンニモしなかったんじゃないの？

>>23
もともと弁証法は、さらに解体可能・より細かい構成をとることが
可能な方法論だったのでは･･･？
反論が見られなかったという歴史的事情があったので、
通用していただけなんじゃないですかね？

ガタリ+ハートといえば「ディオニソスの労働」も人文書院から今年出版される
予定にはなってはいるが…

>>26>ガタリ+ハート
訂正→ネグリ+ハート

>>24
君より何かはしたと思われ。
しない方がマシだったことも含めて。

>>28
いや、だから誰なのよ？　誰だからわからないから、ナンニモないように思えるのよ。

自信はないが、
小野田襄二、津村喬、太田竜(もいれといていいのかな？)、黒田寛一、
エトセトラ、エトセトラ……

ところで柄谷は、ダメだって言っている・・・

”『経済学批判要綱』は面白い仕事です。
でも、いま『経済学批判要綱』に帰ろうという
ネグリのような人たちがいるわけですが、
それでは根本的にだめだと思います”

http://bunshun.topica.ne.jp/karatani/karatani04.htm

つうかネグリの思想、そして/ひいてはわれわれになにが出来るのか？
今日のこの国において。
未曾有の失業率(なおも労働者はリストラ予備軍であり続ける/資本はリストラ予備
軍を、失業者をも生産している？)、小泉構造改革にともなう「痛み」はしょせんわれわ
れ無産者が……って、またポカしでかしそうなんでこれ以上かくのやめた。# 哲学徒でもなく哲板住人でもないのでこのての言説を弄するにわれよく能わざり。

>>31
しかし、それはたんに帰ろうというだけのものでもないんじゃないか？

マルクスを超えてどっかに飛んでいった人（個人的には大好き）
西部萬
塩見孝也

>>33
とりあえずの現状認識を示したうえでの「帰っている」ような
主張は「帰ろうとした」ものではないのは、当たり前だよね。
状況が違う中で、ある議論（の主要部分）をとる・参考にするべきだと
いう主張は、必ずしも「ある議論それ自体」に従ったことにはならない。

塩見好き！！！

哲板にスレを立てるにはわたしはいささか能力不足だった……
議論したい事の焦点を明確に示し、かつおのれの思うところを論述することも
ままならぬとは情けなし。
そんじゃ、落ちま〜す。あとはよろしくお取り計らいのほどを。
>>34 >>36 個人的な、人物の好き嫌いなんてしるか!!!

とかいってまた来てしまった……ためしにあげてみる。

あまりに完璧な自爆テロ。尤もテロをもちろん肯定するわけでない。
どうせならデ○ズ○ー○ン○ヘ突込んでほしかった。
いや不謹慎でした。慎しんで犠牲者の御冥福をお祈りいたします。
# AMERIKAの苛酷容赦極まりない報復は行なわれるのでしょうか…
# 悲惨なパレスチナ…

帝国あげ

塩見って塩爺みたい

>１
資本主義の一次元的秩序の彼方＝アメリカ適資本主義のことかと
門外漢ですが見当はずれのレスしかねえな、と思いました。

いよいよ帝国の逆襲が始まりますな。意見求ム。

資本制の限界は近いね。
もう新しい産業のネタがないからね。
第二次大戦後は自動車産業や家電産業や
コンピューター産業とかで繁栄したが、
もう飽和状態だね。投資しても大して利子がとれない。
そこで、新しい投資先としての新産業が資本の回転のために
必要なんだけど、もう新産業のネタがないでしょう。
人類はもはや産業化の極点に到達しつつあるんだよね。
それはまさに資本制の歴史的使命の終わりを告げる時でもある。

アントニオ・イノキ？

>>40
ﾜﾗﾀ
左派塩爺はパレスチナ支持かな？
この質問はスレ違いかな？
だが塩見のスレなんて探したけど無かったぞｺﾞﾙｧ
ﾅﾆｲｯﾃﾝﾀﾞｵﾚ､ﾈﾖｳ

To be minor, not to be major

>>43
新聞ぐらい読むにゃ。
アメリカで人気の投資先は、バイオだにゃ。
「オオカミがくるぞう」はもういいにゃ。

帝国帝国！！はよこい。

以文社に手紙を出そう

長原豊の文章はさっぱりわからん

ネグリは今回のテロについて何か言ってないの？

アメリカのネット書店バーンズ＆ノーブル（だっけ？）のチャットで
『帝国』の共著者、ネグリとハートが会話してたらしいのですが
bn.comのコンテンツを探しても見当たりません。どなたか知ってる方が
いらしたらリンクしていただけませんか？
『帝国』ちらっと読みましたが、メルヴィルの「書記バートルビー」の話が。
確か、バートルビー論は、ドゥルーズとアガンベンも書いてたと思うのですが
「I prefer not to」(私はそうしたくない)とボスに言うバートルビーが
サボタージュのモデルとなるってことなのかしら。

ルモンド・ディプロマティークの『帝国』書評
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/01/NEGRI/14678
『マルクスを超えるマルクス』英訳者ハリー・クレーヴァーによるインタヴー
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3843/cleaver.html
アムネスティー・フォー・トニ・ネグリ
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~forks/TNmain.htm
春永氏によるネグリ著『時間機械』解説

あっ、貼り忘れた
http://www.t3.rim.or.jp/~harunaga/macchina_tempo.html

>52
そのHPはもう見れないと思う。
一応↓に貼っておくけど。

As part of our Academic chat series, we are pleased to present a
very special event: a chat with Antonio Negri, a political prisoner
in Rome, and Michael Hardt, assistant professor of literature at Duke
, about their new book, EMPIRE. Imperialism as we know it may be
no more, but Empire is alive and well -- and, according to Hardt and
Negri, Empire is the new political order of globalization. We
commemorate May 1st, International Workers' Day, by joining Hardt
and Negri to discuss their global perspective.

Peter from bn.com: Hello, Michael and Antonio, welcome to bn.com.
We are very pleased that we could do this on May 1st! First question:
Where are you?

Antonio Negri: I am speaking from my apartment in Rome.

Michael Hardt: I am in North Carolina.

Peter from bn.com: I am interested in the process of collaboration
between the two of you, especially in light of the transcontinental
connection. Is there any reason you chose to have the book come
out in American English?

MH: We worked together on all of the texts in the sense that we
didn't divide up chapters. What we did was exchange drafts, so that
all of the material in the end was written equally by both of us.
Because of Toni's legal situation, this required my going to Europe
several times a year -- first France, and then Italy -- in order to
collaborate face to face.

AN: I think that the problem with collaboration is defined by the way
we had already worked together, for and from the beginning,
principally on American questions. Simply the fact of working on
American material for a European intellectual is enriching from both
perspectives. As to why the book came out in English, the response
is very banal: American English is the most simple and direct way
to have one's ideas circulate around the world.

Peter from bn.com: I am struck by how eclectic, in a positive sense,
the conceptual field of Empire is in terms of the multiple sources it
draws on, from Spinoza to Marx and A THOUSAND PLATEAUS. At
the same time, it is so positive, wasting so little time on the direct
critique of liberal ideology. How would you like to see others use
your concepts?

AN: First, the question of how the concepts would be used: We have
nothing to say or dictate as to how readers respond. This should be
left up to them. Regarding eclecticism: Eclecticism today has taken
on a new critical value. It is something like what Kant described as
the conflict among the faculties. And thus this conflict translates
today as a struggle among the academic disciplines to destroy any
communication. It develops in such a way that the various disciplines
-- mathematics, economics, etc. -- have developed boundaries so
that it is impossible for them to communicate. I mean that today one
has to intervene to destroy and confound the differences and
distinctions among them. One example is the mathematical structure
of contemporary economics and how it has become completely
detached from the ability to understand the economy -- and thus
our entire insistence on "bio-politics" -- our concept of bio-power
follows strictly Foucault's conception of Kant's conflict among the
faculties. I think we need to open a new discussion about the
faculties, even the academic faculties or disciplines, and that all
problems of bio-politics lead us toward overcoming the old academic
divisions.

MH: Regarding positivity: It is certainly our intention to present
a positive critical account, because we think that what contemporary
discussion needs to do is not only critique the present state of
affairs but to outline an emerging alternative.

Cynthia P. Kelly from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: How can socialism
(and Marxism in particular) help us to reach a praxis of absolute
democracy?

AN: We first have to make a distinction. Socialism means, simply,
"from each according to his capacity." And communism, in contrast,
"to each according to his needs."

MH: In this sense, absolute democracy is the foundation of
communism. This is the sense in which we understand a non-representative
form of communism, or rather a communism that is outside of
representation.

Franca Giordano from Milano: Non ho letto il libro (sar tradotto in
italiano?) una domanda a entrambi: Sono una mamma di 45 anni e
molti anni fa sono stata comunista. Ha ancora senso oggi credere in
una idea che ha mosso milioni di uomini e donne in tutto il mondo?
(I have been a communist for many years. Does it still make sense
to believe in an idea that has moved millions of men and women
across the world?)

AN: I can't answer a question of faith or belief, but I think it is reasonable
to be communist today -- today more than ever, when our society
lives off of a common sense; that is, a common constitution. Today,
relationships of labor and social relationships are more common than
they were before. And that's why the commonality that lives within
both intellectual labor and other labor becomes ever important.

B. Weber from Austria: You define Empire as the universal rule of
capital, without a center. But the European Union and the U.S. still
seem to be engaged in a struggle for dominance against each other,
as one can tell from the introduction of the euro as a rival
international currency and the European attempts to create their
own European defense body. How do you interpret this battle?
(I must admit that up to now I just got to the middle of your book,
so excuse me if you tackled that question in your work.)

MH: When we understand Empire as a global constitution, that does
not exclude the fact that there remain today national and internationa
entities that control currency, economic flow, and production.
Our concept of Empire is based on the notion of mixed constitution
that incorporates national, local, and international organisms within
a supranational and in fact global order. It is still of extreme
importance to struggle with and against powers of nation-state and
the international entities, such as the European Union. But also,
we have to recognize the ultimate sovereignty of the new order on
a global scale.

Michele Genchi from Roma: Caro Professore, essersi arresi al
mercato, mi fa pensare che molte delle lotte dei nostri anni hanno
avuto il sapore amaro di un annuncio triste lasciato perdere, e che
molte delle cose che abbiamo gridato per strada hanno avuto un
senso. L'eredita positiva e' quella di avere educato i nostri figli alla
solidarieta e a un'atteggiamento distaccato verso la poverta
intellettuale di questi tempi. Non crede, Professore, che avremmo,
forse, potuto fare di piu? Osare di piu? (Dear Professor, many
of the struggles of our years had the bitter taste of a sad
announcement, and that many of the things that we yelled in the
streets had a sense. The positive heritage is that we educated our
children in solidarity and an attachment toward the intellectual poverty
of our times. Don't you think, professor, that we could have perhaps
done more? Dared to do more?)

AN: It doesn't seem to me that the question deals with Empire
specifically, but one can respond. If the question is simply "could
one do more?" then the answer is yes, one could, and one could
push Empire further. Pushing Empire further first meant making the
Soviet Union fall; it means making international struggles stronger
from the beginning; and it means attacking the nation-state and its
abilities to block the movement of people; it means opening borders,
etc. We have only been able to do this partially. But at least in
Europe we were able to bring about the collapse of the factory
regime, and this was a fundamental factor driving toward globalization.

Thomas Atzert from Frankfurt, Germany: A great hello to both of you!
Slavoj Zizek, in an essay that was published also here in Germany,
wrote about your book that it is nothing less than THE COMMUNIST
MANIFESTO for the 21st century. So do you think that the immaterial
workers of today are a universal class as well as the proletarians
Marx had before his eyes back in 1848?

MH: If the immaterial workers are to be conceived as a universal
subject of labor today, one has to work hard to expand the notion
of what it means to be immaterial labor. It refers only to the fact
that many products or many elements of products remain immaterial,
not of course that labor itself has become completely immaterial.
Today, production takes place equally across our body, our brains,
our effects, and indeed all the forces of life. .

Ron Day from University of Oklahoma: In the section of EMPIRE
published recently in Multitudes, you write of communication guiding
and channeling the imagination and modernity as a whole. I'm
wondering if you can elaborate on this. Does "communication" here
mean communicational devices? An ideology of communication/
information? A rhetorical/aesthetic form that may be understood
today as "communication" or "information"? Thanks for your work.

MH: Indeed, we understand communication in a very broad sense to
include not only technological apparatuses, but also human
exchanges. One concept that is fundamental to us in considering
this problematic is Marx's concept of general intellect. By general
intellect we understand the social cooperation of knowledge that
extends well beyond the level of the individual that is directly
productive in many of today's production practices. We need to
understand the productivity of communication in collective and
social terms.

Margo from Rockville: What steps would you like to see the IMF and
World Bank take?

MH: There are two elements that seem most interesting to me about
the demonstrations in Washington against the IMF and the World
Bank. The first is the new intelligence of the protesters: the fact of
choosing these supranational organisms as the object of protest is
something fundamentally new. While many of those who were
unsympathetic were critical of the protesters' lack of knowledge of
the inner workings of the IMF and World Bank, I find it impressive
and hopeful that such a large group of young people has identified
these agencies as the object of protest. The second thing I find
interesting: The protests, though not united, are by and large not
about globalization, despite news reports; the protesters instead are
asking for an alternative globalization, a democratic globalization.
And that, in fact, is the primary goal of our project, too. So in this
sense we watch the protesters with great interest.

AN: What seems to me fundamental is to make an exodus away from
these institutions and to lessen their power by moving away from
them in order to struggle for a different kind of relationship. The
problem is not to try to make these institutions democratic, but to
construct democracy otherwise.

Ken from New York: EMPIRE is an impressive book that challenges
much of what we have understood as important in postcolonial theory
and a variety of critical Marxisms from the Third World. In your book
there is little discussion of accumulation, a topic that postcolonial
and Third World intellectuals have insisted is important. Can you tell
us about what the new dimensions of the process will become?

AN: We didn't write a treatise on political economy, but tried to grasp
the general outlines of our postcolonial and postnational realities.
Therefore, the concept of accumulation was not at the center of our
analysis. Certainly one can and should imagine a concept of
accumulation within our framework that would be defined as the entire
ensemble of social labor, both material labor and immaterial labor
that is organized today. To me it seems that at this point we can only
understand accumulation as a preamble to a communist constitution
of society. To be frank and clear: Empire exploits the maximum
cooperation of society for accumulation; it exploits the foundation
of communism.

Peter from bn.com: We tend to associate empire, historically, with
rise, decline, stability, breakup. But you seem to suggest that a true
return to the local is no longer possible or desirable. Do you think
that there are forms of social organizations that can be
nonexploitative and yet function globally?

AN: I'm not sure I understood the question, but it seems to me that
the defense or return of the local on one hand, and the proposition of
a global alternative on the other, are not really contradictory.
They could perhaps become contradictory, but for the moment the
struggles against the centralization of imperial power have kept this
dynamic open, as Seattle and Washington, D.C. demonstrated, and as
is also demonstrated by the struggles in Italy in recent days.

MH: The demonstrations in Seattle and Washington, D.C. were
remarkable for the way they brought together what seemed
previously to be unrelated or antagonistic perspectives:
environmentalist groups, organized labor groups, anarchists. In
these demonstrations we saw, and perhaps haven't yet understood,
how the local and the global today manage to coincide.

Moderator from bn.com: I'd like to know what's on the horizon for both
of you. What can we expect next from Michael Hardt and Antonio
Negri -- either as a collaborative effort or solo?

AN: I just published a book entitled ALMA VENUS, which was written
in prison. It is a reflection on some of the concepts that emerged in
EMPIRE. Together, however, our present problematic has to do with
bio-politics, and how within the bio-political order we can understand
the concept of organization; that is, in what way we can understand
the new social struggle or revolution. The question then is a matter
of recognizing the emergence of powerful organizations, and really a
question in our terms of how to organize exodus.

これで最後。

MH: In addition to that, I'm working on my own study of the work
of Pier Paolo Pasolini.

Peter from bn.com: Can you please explain for us the concept of
"exodus" as it has been discussed this afternoon and in your work?

MH: By "exodus" we want to indicate the form of struggle that is
based not in direct opposition but in a kind of struggle by subtraction
-- a refusal of power, a refusal of obedience.

AN: Not only a refusal of work and a refusal of authority, but also
emigrations and movements of all sorts that refuse the obstacles
that block movement and desire. And thus the fact of recognizing
ourselves as citizens of the world. And not only that, but also to
recognize ourselves as poor. [laughs]

Moderator from bn.com: Poor in the sense that the slave leaving
Egypt must leave with nothing.

MH: Exactly.

AN: There is not only weakness in such poverty, but a great strength.

Peter from bn.com: Thank you both for joining us this afternoon.
Before we sign off, do you have any final thoughts for the online
audience?

AN: The concept of Empire and all the other hypotheses that we
make are meant to reveal the present state of order, but this isn't
what's really important. What's really important is the Augustinian
idea of two cities; that is, Exodus on one hand (fleeing the corrupt
city of power), but also constructing a New City. Now we're in the
stage where we can't yet see its outline. We are crossing borders
and haven't yet arrived.

おおお？！
54さん、ありがとうございます。
あきらめ半分の問いかけだったんですが
こんなに早くご親切にレスをいただけるとは。
まだちゃんと読んでいませんが、複数の人をまじえて
フランクな質疑（？）がやりとりされてるみたいデスネ。
そっか、ジジェクは二十一世紀の『共産党宣言』とまで
『帝国』を評してるのか。。。
中山元さんの試訳というかコメンタリー、
頑張って欲しいな

>>60
なんで中山元なの？

だから、
じきに以文社から出るみたいだから
刮目して待て！

英語訳なら
たしか全文が pdf になってなかったか

『帝国』を読む
http://www.nakayama.org/polylogos/empire.html

あげ

帝国万歳

帝国の邦訳は酒井隆史とか長原豊とかがやるんじゃなかった

I prefer not to

長原豊は入ってないんじゃん？　入ってたら狂うぞ、おれ。

いや責任者みたいな感じなんじゃないの

age

ニューヨークについては、
ネグリは何か言ってる？

かつて
赤い旅団との関係で
テロリストとされたことのある
哲学者だけに
テロリズムとされたものに対する
配慮のある発言が
期待される
と思う