Original Violence and Coercion of Capitalism

Hey folks. In our discussion yesterday regarding coercive measures taken by capital to capture labour power, I mentioned Deleuze and Guattari's thoughts on the violence of capital and the ongoing process of primitive accumulation. Here's the passage I was referring to from A Thousand Plateaus.

"…Marx made the observation in the case of capitalism: there is a violence that necessarily operates through the State, precedes the capitalist mode of production, it is very difficult to say who is the thief and who the victim, or even where the violence resides. That is because the worker is born entirely naked and the capitalist objectively ‘clothed’, an independent owner. …It is a violence that posits itself as preaccomplished, even though it is reactivated everyday. …as a general rule, there is primitive accumulation whenever an apparatus of capture is mounted…” (447).

I think the "apparatus of capture" concept is an interesting lens through which to see capitalist valorization and autovalorization, one that perhaps we can explore in future.

S

from Sebastian... "Where are we going?"

Hi everyone,

I enjoyed the discussion we had yesterday. Thanks Jon for hosting the meeting.

The question "where are we going" appeared at the end of the discussion and then we continued talking about it with Pablo as we walked back home. If we had the blog or wiki this could be the first topic to start building it up. But as we do not have it yet, I take the liberty of filling your mailboxes with some ramblings about the subject of how to keep us focused.

The question “where we are going” probably requires a map. I thought such a “map” can be drawn from Virno’s introduction and first chapter, where he discusses the 'dialectic' of the One and the many.

In my view, this “map” has two elements and two coordinates or dimensions:

1) Forms of the One (the state, general intellect, capital, the spectacle, the Party, etc.).

2) Forms of the many (people, multitude, working class, mob, crowd, etc.). Includes the question about who is counted and how, i.e. the people implies a closed counting, the multitude an open one. Or, the count of who was a citizen of the statei.e. a person with rights--200 years ago did not include women and people from ethnic groups other than the ones that occupied higher positions in the hierarchy of the state (both examples are still valid today in many countries).

3) "Vertical" relations between the many and the One (these could be called 'representation' or ‘constitution’, depending the standpoint we take). The “vertical” relations are always dependent on the form taken by the “horizontal” relations between the many. In other words, the type of bond that connects the many defines one or other form of constitution. For instance, if I relate to others as members of the same people, this type of bond presupposes the state; if I relate to others as spectator, it presupposes we are connected through the spectacle; if I relate to others as workers or as consumers, the bond presupposes capital. It is necessary to note here that “vertical” also means “from the bottom up”: the One and the many is not a relation between the dominant and the dominated (or vice-versa). “Vertical”, in other words, does not mean that the One is “on top” of the many. Rather, “vertical” defines the lines of force that appear in the production of a totalization (i.e. the self-perception of the many as many) that always originates in the type of “horizontal” relations among the many.

4) "Horizontal" relations among the many (what I would call 'composition') In one sense, this dimension refers to the types of bonds between the many. A fundamental question is when those horizontal relations define a bond that does not lead to the formation of a One separate from the many, to which  the many delegate their power. Another aspect to consider is the “structure” of those bonds and the subjectivity  they relate to. For instance, linguistic communication (including Virno’s “common places”), common notions, money, commodities, etc. Which compositions make the many powerful as many and why? Another question arises regarding the universality of what connects between the many and how it relates to the formation of a political subject, i.e. to emancipatory struggles. For instance, does the formation of a political subject originate in the search for communication with other the members of the multitude? Or does it originate in the concrete forms of life a group within the multitude build in their locale (e.g. Zapatistas, autonomous piquetero groups in Argentina, etc.)?

Well, maybe this may be too abstract. But I think some sort of “map” that we could put together collectively can be helpful to keep us focused. It can allow us to more or less “see” how each article or book we read (or plan to read) contributes to the discussion.  I do not mean that we have to expect that each reading fits into something we have already defined. Rather, I think each reading can potentially question the entire map, its elements, dimensions, etc.

As we said, we will meet again on February 26th, at 3:00pm at my place. The reading is the remaining part of Virno’s book.

Cheers,

Sebastian

so far we have read...

We started by reading Paolo Virno's "Virtuosity and Revolution" (from his and Michael Hardt's Radical Thought in Italy).

We're now halfway through Virno's A Grammar of the Multitude.