I'm aware of Deleuze's and Negri's books on Spinoza. I found The Savage Anomaly unreadable. But folks can judge for themselves:
<http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpnegri17.htm>http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpnegri17.htm I'm not aware of these authors' takes on Leibniz. Please point me to the appropriate writings. Any comments on Negri's book on Descartes? Antonio Negri Political Descartes: Reason, Ideology and the Bourgeois Project Translated and introduced by Matteo Mandarini and Alberto Toscano Verso, January 2007. Radical Thinkers 2 344 pages http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/nopq-titles/negri_a_political_decartes_RT2.shtml See also this review: Reasonable ideology? Negri's Descartes Issue: 114 International Socialism Posted: 10 April 07 Dan Swain Antonio Negri, Political Descartes: Reason, Ideology and the Bourgeois Project (Verso 2007), £6.99 http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=319&issue=114 At 10:42 AM 2/7/2010, CeJ wrote: >Leibniz & Ideology (3): Bibliography > > >I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion is here, but if you are >interested in modern philosophers who work with Leibniz's and >Spinoza's philosophy, Deleuze and Negri make much of Spinoza and >Leibniz. Deleuze's work had quite an impact on Negri apparently >(notable because Negri is usually dismissive of most 'post-mo' stuff). >A few years back I was delving into Machiavelli and Hobbes as a 'side >project' and that led to taking another look at Leibniz and Spinoza, >among others. I doubt if most Americans are used to thinking of >Deleuze as an academic philosopher--nor Negri for that matter. > > > >Leibniz & Ideology (3): Bibliography > >Deleuze > >(1968) Spinoza et le problème de l'expression (Paris: Minuit); tr. as >Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, by Martin Joughin (New York: >Zone Books, 1990). > > >(1981 [1970]) Spinoza: Philosophie pratique; (Paris: PUF); tr. as >Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, by Robert Hurley (San Francisco: City >Lights Books, 1988). > >(1988) Le Pli: Leibniz et le Baroque (Paris: Minuit); tr. as The Fold: >Leibniz and the Baroque, by Tom Conley (Minneapolis: University of >Minnesota Press, 1993) > >Negri > >Antonio Negri, Subversive Spinoza: (Un)Contemporary Variations, edited >by Timothy S. Murphy, translated by Timothy S. Murphy, Michael Hardt, >Ted Stolze, and Charles T. Wolfe, Manchester: Manchester University >Press, 2004. > > >Online stuff of Deleuze > >http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/liste_texte.php?groupe=Leibniz > >http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/liste_texte.php?groupe=Spinoza > > >A wiki piece about that one term that often comes up in modern/post-mo >discourse about discourse--'multitude'. The wiki piece doesn't seem >too well written, but.... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude > >Multitude is a political term first used by Machiavelli and reiterated >by Spinoza. Recently the term has returned to prominence because of >its conceptualization as a new model for organization of resistance >against the global capitalist system as described by political >theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their international >best-seller Empire (2000) and expanded upon in their recent Multitude: >War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (2004). Other theorists which >have recently used the term include political thinkers associated with >Autonomist Marxism and its sequelae, including Sylvère Lotringer, >Paolo Virno, and thinkers connected with the eponymous review >Multitudes. >Contents >[hide] > > * 1 History > * 2 Reiteration by Negri and Hardt > * 3 See also > * 4 External links > >[edit] History > >The concept originates in Machiavellis Discorsi. It is, however, with >Hobbes's recasting of the concept as the war-disposed, disolute pole >of the opposition between a Multitude and a People in De Cive, that >Spinozas conceptualization seems, according to Negri, contrasted >(See: The Savage Anomaly pp. 109, 140). > >The multitude is used as a term and implied as a concept throughout >Spinoza's work. In the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, for instance, >he acknowledges that the (fear of the) power (potentia) of the >multitude is the limit of sovereign power (potestas): Every ruler has >more to fear from his own citizens [ ] than from any foreign enemy, >and it is this fear of the masses [ that is] the principal brake on >the power of the sovereign or state. The explication of this tacit >concept, however, only comes in Spinoza's last and unfinished work >known as the Political Treatise: > > It must next be observed, that in laying foundations it is very >necessary to study the human passions: and it is not enough to have >shown, what ought to be done, but it ought, above all, to be shown how >it can be effected, that men, whether led by passion or reason, should >yet keep the laws firm and unbroken. For if the constitution of the >dominion, or the public liberty depends only on the weak assistance of >the laws, not only will the citizens have no security for its >maintenance [ ], but it will even turn to their ruin. [ ] And, >therefore, it would be far better for the subjects to transfer their >rights absolutely to one man, than to bargain for unascertained and >empty, that is unmeaning, terms of liberty, and so prepare for their >posterity a way to the most cruel servitude. But if I succeed in >showing that the foundation of monarchical dominion [ ], are firm and >cannot be plucked up, without the indignation of the larger part of an >armed multitude, and that from them follow peace and security for king >and multitude, and if I deduce this from general human nature, no one >will be able to doubt, that these foundations are the best and the >true ones. > >The concept of the multitude resolves the tension that scholars have >observed in Spinozas political project between the insistence on the >benign function of sovereignty (as witnessed in the quotation above) >and the insistence on individual freedom. It is, we see here, a truly >revolutionary concept, and it is not difficult to see why Spinozas >contemporaries (and, as for instance Étienne Balibar has implied, even >Spinoza himself) saw it as a dangerous political idea. ..... >[edit] Reiteration by Negri and Hardt > >Negri describes the multitude in his The Savage Anomaly as an >unmediated, revolutionary, immanent, and positive collective social >subject which can found a nonmystified form of democracy ( p. 194). >In his more recent writings with Michael Hardt, however, he does not >so much offer a direct definition, but presents the concept through a >series of mediations. In Empire it is mediated by the concept of >Empire (the new global constitution that Negri and Hardt describe as a >copy of Polybius's description of Roman government): > > New figures of struggle and new subjectivities are produced in the >conjecture of events, in the universal nomadism [ ] They are not posed >merely against the imperial systemthey are not simply negative >forces. They also express, nourish, and develop positively their own >constituent projects. [ ] This constituent aspect of the movement of >the multitude, in its myriad faces, is really the positive terrain of >the historical construction of Empire, [ ] an antagonistic and >creative positivity. The deterritorializing power of the multitude is >the productive force that sustains Empire and at the same time the >force that calls for and makes necessary its destruction. (Empire, p. >61) > >They remain however vague as to this 'positive' or 'constituent' >aspect of the Multitude: > > Certainly, there must be a moment when reappropriation [of wealth >from capital] and selforganization [of the multitude] reach a >threshold and configure a real event. This is when the political is >really affirmedwhen the genesis is complete and self-valorization, >the cooperative convergence of subjects, and the proletarian >management of production become a constituent power. [ ] We do not >have any models to offer for this event. Only the multitude through >its practical experimentation will offer the models and determine when >and how the possible becomes real. (Empire, p. 411) > >In their sequel Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire they >still refrain from a clear definition of the concept but approach the >concept through mediation of a host of contemporary phenomena, most >importantly the new type of postmodern war they postulate and the >history of post-WWII resistance movements. It remains a rather vague >concept which is assigned a revolutionary potential without much >theoretical substantiation. > >Sylvère Lotringer has criticized Negri and Hardt's use of the concept >for its ostensible return to the dialectical dualism in the >introduction to Paulo Virno's A Grammar of the Multitude (see external >links). > >____ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
