General Intellect

An Open Access anthology edited by Matteo Pasquinelli forthcoming (Fall 2015) for Meson Press, Leuphana University Lüneburg. With texts by Benjamin Bratton, Orit Halpern, Adrian Lahoud, Jon Lindblom, Catherine Malabou, Reza Negarestani, Luciana Parisi, Ana Teixeira Pinto, Michael Wheeler, Charles Wolfe and Ben Woodard. Dutch edition forthcoming for Leesmagaziijn, Amsterdam.

This article attempts to provide a Stieglerian organological and pharmacological critique of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s thesis, mainly developed in their Empire trilogy, that today’s cognitive capitalism is a prefiguration of communism, that is, that the current ‘knowledge economy’ based on immaterial production intrinsically generates the conditions or prerequisites for a transformation towards communism. Cognitive capitalism, according to Hardt and Negri, in fact represents a perverse ‘communism of capital’ that will eventually evolve, due to its inherent contradictions, into a genuine ‘communism of the multitude’. Basing myself primarily on the work of Bernard Stiegler but also on Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi’s recent analyses of semiocapitalism and the cognitariat, I criticise the three basic (and deeply interrelated) arguments that Hardt and Negri provide to back up this thesis: the growing autonomy of the multitude, the withering away of the process of proletarianisation in immaterial labour and the (bio)politicisation of immaterial labour. I focus on the first two arguments, showing them to be unconvincing in the light of recent developments in cognitive capitalism. The presentation of contemporary cognitive capitalism as a proto-communist configuration, I suggest, is not realistic. Principally, Hardt and Negri’s diagnosis fails to adequately address the technological and libidinal conditions for the creation of a communist society; it fails to acknowledge, and even explicitly denies, the deeply proletarianising nature of cognitive capitalism, because it remains blind to the organological and pharmacological impact – in Stiegler’s terminology – of the digital networks on immaterial labour. In conclusion, I argue that a communism of the multitude first of all presupposes a struggle against the processes of cognitive and affective proletarianisation that are the prime characteristic of cognitive capitalism’s subsumption of the mind under capital.

‘The art of living with ICTs (information and communication technologies)’ today not only means finding new ways to cope, interact and create new lifestyles on the basis of the new digital (network) technologies individually, as ‘consumer-citizens’. It also means inventing new modes of living, producing and, not in the least place, struggling collectively, as workers and producers. As the so-called digital revolution unfolds in the context of a neoliberal cognitive and consumerist capitalism, its ‘innovations’ are predominantly employed to modulate and control both production processes and consumer behavior in view of the overall goal of extracting surplus value. Today, the digital networks overwhelmingly destroy social autonomy, instead engendering increasing social heteronomy and proletarianization. Yet it is these very networks themselves, as technical pharmaka in the sense of French ‘technophilosopher’ Bernard Stiegler, that can be employed as no other to struggle against this tendency. This paper briefly explores this possibility by reflecting upon current diagnoses of our ‘technological situation’ by some examplary post-operaist Marxists from a Stieglerian, pharmacological perspective.

Il cosiddetto movimento del "77, già negli anni della sua emersione ricondotto alle esperienze delle avanguardie artistiche del primo Novecento, riconfigurò i dispositivi di produzionefruizione della cultura producendo un capovolgimento -orientato verso l"autorappresentazione politica dell"emergente proletariato giovanile -delle tradizionali categorie e mediazioni sociali ancora agenti nella società fordista.

El proyecto transform ha sido financiado con el apoyo de la Comisión Europea. Esta publicación es responsabilidad exclusiva de sus autores. La Comisión no es responsable del uso que pueda hacerse de la información aquí difundida. "7()%"7@)8;%,7$#H8#)(%,E, ($H#)(7,)"8#)#'()%"7@+,I&"1,K(12"&) -XJ --+,!":98#)<7()%"98,9Z#$7&)8()F@)"7$98+ [7()7,'"7,"'9:7,($H#)(7,&9,@78,)"8#)#'()%"98+,<)$(",J+*L&1 5MB -5+,[7()7,"'9:78,($97()%"98,F%@H#)(78+,1%:);)9"#%8Y )"8#)#'()%"98Y,"'9:7,;)@)#7"()7+,4(

This part of the “Grundrisse” has been object of many different interpretations of what Marx really wanted to say with “general intellect”. Most of these interpretations understand it like a synonym of swarm intelligence or stigmergy. In other word, types of distributed intelligence that emerges from interaction of parts of the system which operate independently, non-systemic, only on the basis of some very elementary instructions that can be executed at the individual level.
I immediately say what I think: intelligence is always “swarm” and does not exist a non-diffused intelligence. Nevertheless, the Marxian general intellect it is another thing and it is not “swarm” because it is the science of the system, not the intelligence of the system.
--------------------
NOTE: I originally wrote this article in Italian and then I tried to translate it into English as best I could, in order to give a chance to read also to those who do not speak Italian. Unfortunately my English is far from being correct, then it is very likely that there are errors. I apologize for this in advance.

In this reply I try to show that, contrary to Milberry’s apparent assertion, the general intellect of the multitude does not have the explanatory robustness she accredits to it (following both Virno and the Hardt and Negri of the Empire trilogy). Digital  network technologies are currently overwhelmingly effective in proletarianizing and disempowering the cognitariat and only an active technopolitics of deproletarianization could reverse this hegemonic situation. In my response to Verbeek, I attempt to correct his misinterpretation (shared by Milberry) of the Stieglerian approach as being dialectical in nature and show that, far from reinstating the humanist dichotomy between human beings and technologies, my analysis assumes their original, albeit fundamentally ambiguous and even ‘uncanny’ [unheimlich] interconnection. I conclude with pointing out some implications of this view for a ‘really realistic’ political theory of technology.

Le capitalisme est un objet de haute abstraction, le commun est une force d'abstraction supérieure. La notion marxienne de « travail abstrait » a identifié le moteur interne du capitalisme, à savoir la transformation du travail, en un équivalent général 1 . Alfred Sohn-Rethel a bien vu la relation stricte qui unit l'abstraction du langage, celle de la marchandise et celle de la monnaie 2 . Dans l'introduction des Grundrisse de 1857, Marx clarifie le statut de l'abstraction au coeur de la méthodologie qui émergera dix ans plus tard dans Das Kapital. Chez lui, le concret est un résultat, le produit du processus de l'abstraction. La réalité capitaliste, et spécifiquement la réalité révolutionnaire, est une invention : « Le concret est concret, parce qu'il est la synthèse de beaucoup de déterminations, donc unité du divers. C'est pourquoi le concret apparaît dans la pensée comme le procès de la synthèse, comme résultat, non comme point de départ, quoiqu'il soit le véritable point de départ et par suite le point de départ aussi de la perception et de la représentation. » 3 L'abstraction est à la fois la tendance du capital et la méthode du marxisme. Le

Quando si parla di Italian Theory ci si riferisce a un canone, a un paradigma, a un contro-canone, a uno stile di pensiero? È legittimo l'accostamento di autori tanto diversi e, talora, in polemica opposizione? Ha un fondamento il sospetto secondo cui l'Italian Theory non sarebbe altro che l'ennesimo (e prevedibilmente effimero) trend filosofico condannato al medesimo destino di altre tendenze un tempo altrettanto à la page? Oppure la riapertura del dossier sul pensiero radicale italiano è operazione che consente feconde letture del presente?
I saggi qui raccolti muovono da tali interrogativi e tentano di esplorare le istanze poste dalla differenza italiana sul piano specifico della (bio)politica e delle corrispondenti forme di rappresentazione, proponendo un rinnovato confronto fra le armi della critica e la crisi, a un tempo determinante e determinata, dei modelli.
Il problema resta quello, annoso e antico, del rapporto fra teoria e pratica. Se il pensiero italiano contemporaneo è estroflesso e conflittuale, allora non dovrebbe esso, se non guidare e orientare, quanto meno intrattenere una stretta relazione con il campo della prassi politica?

Contributi di Sandro Chignola, Roberta Coglitore, Michele Cometa, Roberto De Gaetano, Roberto Esposito, Michele Filippini, Dario Gentili, Pietro Maltese, Danilo Mariscalco, Mauro Pala, Ingo Pohn-Lauggas

(Abstract in English). A new planetary scale of computation demands a new planetary scale of politics. As the current debate on the Anthropocene points too, no political agency is possible without the recognition of a new cognitive perspective on the whole planet. The eye of modern perspective was born trough an equivalent paradigm shift, bringing innovative techniques of optical projection from the mathematicians of Baghdad to Florence. A further dimension of depth was so added to aesthetics, many crooked paintings were straightened and a new political vision of the collective space was inaugurated. Similarly, a further cognitive dimension has to be imported today from computation into political thought, in order to be able to ‘see’ and grasp the oceanic depth of the global datascape and to disclose the novel techno-complexity of the social space. Something similar happened already in cybernetics with the shift from the first order to the second order cybernetics, that is with the recognition of the meta-level of the observer observing a system of observers. Any century produces its own epistemic rift. The making of a global datascape is calling for a new epistemic eye.

Resumo/Abstract/Résumé :       

Ao analisar a evolução do capitalismo contemporâneo (automação, informatização, globalização), André Gorz sublinha suas consequências sociais (desemprego, precariedade, desigualdades, pobreza). Focando sua análise nas transformações do trabalho (valorização da inteligência e da imaginação) que acompanham essas mutações, ele decifra a emergência de uma inteligência coletiva de que o capitalismo tenta se apropriar, mas que se confunde com a “produção de si”, isto é, com atividades nas quais as faculdades pessoais podem se desenvolver fora do trabalho subordinado. Uma riqueza de novo tipo é criada; ela é qualitativa e fundada nos vínculos sociais de cooperação. A renda básica é concebida como uma âncora existencial transitória, que permite esse salto. ---------------------------------------------------   

Abstract :
In analyzing the evolution of contemporary capitalism (automation, informatization, globalization), André Gorz emphasizes the social consequences (unemployment, precarization, inequalities, poverty). Focusing on the transformations of labor (valorization of skills and imagination) that accompany these changes, he deciphers the rise of a general intellect, that capitalism tries to appropriate, but that confuses itself with the “production of the self”, that is, with activities which personal faculties can develop outside subordinated labor. A new, qualitative type of wealth, based on cooperative social links, is created. A basic income is thought of as a transitory existential anchor that makes this flight possible.    ---------------------------------------------------   

Résumé :
En analysant l'évolution contemporaine du capitalisme (automatisation, informatisation, mondialisation), André Gorz en souligne les conséquences sociales (chômage, précarité, inégalités, pauvreté). En analysant les transformations du travail (valorisation de l'intelligence et de l'imagination) qui accompagnent ces mutations, il décrypte l'émergence d'une intelligence collective que le capitalisme essaie de s'approprier, mais qui se confond avec la “production de soi”, c'est-à-dire avec les activités dans lesquelles les facultés personnelles peuvent se développer en dehors du travail subordonné. Une richesse de type nouveau se crée, elle est qualitative et fondée sur des liens sociaux de coopération. L'allocation universelle ou revenu d'existence est conçue comme une sécurité existentielle transitoire permettant cet essor.

Duas perguntas deram origem a esta pesquisa. Inicialmente, indagamos que contribuições nos trazem as teorias da Economia Política da Informação e do Conhecimento e o pensamento de Karl Marx para a discussão do papel da informação e do conhecimento nas dinâmicas socioeconômicas atuais. Adicionalmente, questionamos também que aproximações e distanciamentos podem ser percebidos quando esses construtos teóricos são confrontados com as visões de mundo dos trabalhadores da era da informação. Como objetivo geral da investigação, buscamos o confronto das teorias da Economia Política da Informação e do Conhecimento com as percepções dos trabalhadores  da era da informação, no que diz respeito ao papel da informação e do conhecimento nas dinâmicas socioeconômicas contemporâneas. O Vale do Silício, localizado no estado norte-americano da Califórnia, berço de grandes avanços científicos, tecnológicos e inovativos, foi eleito como locus de uma pesquisa empírica. Entrevistas semiestruturadas foram realizadas com representantes dos trabalhadores da região. A análise do discurso foi empregada como instrumento analítico, e a dialética como guia para o nosso olhar. Para expor os principais aspectos dos discursos registrados, os argumentos dos entrevistados foram separados em quatro temáticas: economia, educação, trabalho e propriedade intelectual. Ao contrário de enunciar conquistas positivas para a sociedade, os entrevistados alegam que o modelo econômico do Vale do Silício expande o desemprego e o subemprego na região, exacerba as desigualdades socioeconômicas locais e fomenta problemas nos países que atraem a produção fabril que abandonou a região. O sistema de educação do Vale do Silício, retratado como desigual e excludente, é considerado um fator decisivo na maneira como cada indivíduo se insere no mercado de trabalho da era da informação. Os discursos sugerem que o trabalho que tem sido chamado de trabalho do conhecimento, trabalho intelectual ou trabalho cognitivo está ao alcance de uma pequena minoria da população local. As promessas emancipatórias do “trabalho virtual”, nascidas com as tecnologias da informação e comunicação, são ofuscadas pelas adversidades e obstáculos do mundo do trabalho real. Ao desvelar as contradições da realidade local, as vozes do Vale do Silício desconstroem o imaginário que o senso comum propala sobre esse arranjo produtivo local. Diante de tamanha divergência entre a imagem idealizada desse cluster e o discurso real daqueles que dele fazem parte, ganha força a tese de que está em curso uma polarização do conhecimento no universo investigado. O intelecto geral (general intellect) distancia-se da sua promessa original de universalidade

Este trabajo tiene como objetivo rastrear críticamente el concepto de superexplotación de la teoría marxista de la dependencia. Se expone la caracterización del capitalismo
periférico de Marini y el rol que juega la superexplotación en su teoría. Luego se revisan las críticas y reactualizaciones de esta categoría, a la luz de los cambios operados en el capitalismo durante las últimas décadas del Siglo XX. Por último, se
analizan algunas características de la fuerza de trabajo en Argentina y se la relaciona con la superexplotación. Se concluye que la venta de la fuerza de trabajo por debajo de su valor es un aporte interesante para explicar las condiciones de explotación de la fuerza de trabajo en la región, mientras que es necesario hacer una revisión crítica de otros elementos que forman parte de la superexplotación.

"This essay examines how the increasing dependence of the academy, specifically
communication studies, on corporate and federal funding is creating a sector of
embedded intellectuals. Using the theoretical lens of what is loosely called ‘‘autonomism,’’
I argue that the concept of General Intellect forces us to reconsider traditional
notions of intellectual work. The significance of communication, as both a growing
academic field and infrastructure for this General Intellect, puts the discipline in the
spotlight. After summarizing Gramscian and Foucauldian conceptions of the engaged
intellectual, I sketch out a figure of the intellectual adequate to these conditions, what I
call the machinic intellectual."

In Pietro Maltese, Danilo Mariscalco, "Vita, politica, rappresentazione. A partire dall'Italian Theory", Ombre Corte, Verona 2016, pp. 179-190.

C’è almeno un segmento della cosiddetta Italian Theory, quello che va dalle prime (con)ricerche sulla informazione valorizzante sino alle più recenti esplorazioni del paradigma bioeconomico o capitalismo cognitivo, che ha alimentato e metabolizzato la prassi politica antagonista. È nota, almeno dopo le genealogie offerte da Roberto Esposito e da Dario Gentili, la specificità conflittuale della differenza italiana, la sua capacità – che ne spiegherebbe, almeno in parte, la fortuna internazionale – di indagare i piani della vita, della storia, della politica e di fornire, contestualmente, una “ontologia dell’attualità”. È altresì riconosciuto, come nel caso di Michael Hardt, o del Negri che ritorna, dopo un ventennio, sul suo Marx oltre Marx, il debito del pensiero radicale italiano nei confronti delle lotte politiche degli anni Sessanta e Settanta. Ciò che si intende focalizzare in questa occasione argomentativa è, in particolare, la collocazione teorico-pratica del movimento del ’77, sul piano specifico delle sue emergenze culturali e comunicative, all’interno del Radical Thought, dunque nel suo rapporto con la lettura già operaista del general intellect marxiano, in quel caso sostanziata dal fecondo incontro con alcune categorie del post-strutturalismo francese e da una rinnovata analisi critica delle esperienze delle avanguardie artistiche del Novecento, e successivamente posta a fondamento delle ipotesi, formulate dal post-operaismo, sui dispositivi di sussunzione biopolitica, e sulle linee di fragilità, del vigente regime di produzione post-fordista.

Dass Kybernetik als Theorie der steuerbaren Kommunikation und Information nun oftmals unter anderen Namen firmiert, sich ausdifferenziert und erweitert hat, und in vermeintlich neuen Disziplinen aufgegangen ist, ändert wenig an ihrer programmatischen Präsenz in Form der fortwährenden Wirk- samkeit von paradigmatischen und präskriptiven Konzepten wie »System«, »Kontrolle«, »Vorhersage«, »Rückkoppelung«, »Programmierbarkeit«, »Information«, »Operator« und »Beobachter« sowie der Perspektive der statistischen Betrachtung, der funktionalen Symbolisierung und der zweckgerich- teten systemischen Steuerung und Organisation. Vielleicht gerade deshalb vermag es die Kybernetik in ihrer unbenannten Existenz (s. etwa von Foerster) als nach-industrielles Modell einer universalen (Manipulations-)Wissenschaft im klassischen Sinne fort zu wirken.

This essay undertakes an immanent critique of Hardt and Negri' theoretical articulation in Empire. Their evasion of postcolonial translation and ethnographic description results in a specific blindness inseparable from their theoretical insight. Empire seeks to establish the case for a direct confrontation with global capital. Is not Hardt and Negri's distrust of local struggles, their inability to conceive how the defence of the local or even of national sovereignty might in specific circumstances itself be a route to "democratic globalization" only a consequence of a retreat into transcendence which surreptitious privileges the conditions of struggle in the United States?

This article discusses the polarization of information and knowledge, a phenomenon that is increasingly relevant in different spheres of the contemporary socioeconomic dynamics. According to this notion, founded mainly on the works of Karl Marx, information and knowledge are central elements in the contradictions between capital and labour, as well as in the internal contradictions of the working class. The idea of polarization of information and knowledge offers a critical point of view against the authors who, while trying to grasp the socioeconomic dynamics of our times, are captured by the enchantment of the techno-scientific progress. The article also adopts the Marxian concepts of universal labour and general intellect to argue that information, knowledge, and science are social constructions built collectively and should be treated as common goods. However, currently, the emancipatory perspective of the general intellect envisioned by Marx has been replaced by an opposite tendency: the private appropriation of the general intellect.

MARXIST TRANSHUMANISM OR TRANSHUMANIST MARXISM?

CALL FOR PAPERS

For a Special Issue of: New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry

Guest editors: James Steinhoff and Atle Mikkola Kjøsen

In this special issue call, New Proposals asks authors to explore how Marxism and Transhumanism might be brought into conjunction. Could there be a transhumanist Marxism or a Marxist transhumanism?

O artigo oferece um olhar crítico sobre a propriedade intelectual, sustentado por argumentos de autores que destacam as contradições e custos sociais que nela residem. Antes de apresentar esse ponto de vista, aborda-se o paradigma utilitarista, que é advogado por aqueles que justificam a lógica da propriedade intelectual. Adicionalmente, por meio da defesa do caráter primordialmente coletivo dos produtos do intelecto humano, contesta-se a legitimidade do direito de propriedade intelectual. Como resultado da análise realizada, propõe-se a adoção do termo 'apropriação privada do intelecto geral' para caracterizar a lógica que rege as dinâmicas da propriedade intelectual na atualidade.

Dans cette deuxième livraison de la rubrique « Gorzienne » dans la revue EcoRev', nous poursuivons la publication de textes inédits d’André Gorz avec cette fois-ci une contribution particulièrement importante. Il s’agit d’une suite donnée à L’immatériel, son dernier ouvrage théorique publié de son vivant, en 2003. Gorz approfondit sa pensée pendant l’année qui suit sa sortie. L’édition en allemand de 2004, qu’il dit avoir réécrite pour « un bon tiers », en porte les marques. Conçue comme une préparation à une éventuelle seconde édition en français, la libre retranscription par Gorz lui-même des pages inédites ou remaniées de l’édition en allemand – manuscrit dont nous extrayons des développements essentiels – offre un aperçu limpide de l’effort que l’auteur entreprend pour asseoir les concepts qui explicitent le fond clair-obscur de l’économie de la connaissance contemporaine. Et c’est à nouveaux frais que Gorz revient sur le principe du revenu d’existence, dont il s’emploie cette fois-ci à tracer les limites.

(visionnable partiellement sur cairn.info)
English/français : This first biography of André Gorz (1923-2007) shows how he became one of the most clear-sighted, innovative contributors to the criticism of contemporary capitalism. Influenced by Marx, Husserl, Sartre and Ivan Illich, he saw the meaning of life and work as essential questions. His philosophy was of a real Utopia, the aim of which was to create a new civilisation based on liberation of time.
/ Alors que nous approchons du 10e anniversaire de la disparition d’André Gorz (1923-2007), sa pensée est plus que jamais d’actualité. Plus que ses poignants récits autobiographiques – Le traître (1958) et Lettre à D. (2006) –, Les métamorphoses du travail (1988) restent, parmi la vingtaine de livres dont il est l’auteur, une boussole précieuse pour les écologistes et les altermondialistes.
En parcourant, sur plus de 50 ans, les étapes de sa vie intellectuelle, cette biographie montre comment Gorz est devenu l’un des penseurs les plus clairvoyants et innovants de la critique du capitalisme contemporain. Marqué par la pensée de Marx, Husserl, Sartre – qu’il a côtoyé aux Temps modernes – et Ivan Illich, Gorz pose comme fondamentale la question du sens de la vie et du travail. Sa philosophie débouche sur une utopie concrète visant à faire naître une nouvelle civilisation fondée sur la libération du temps. Constatant les dégâts humains et écologiques qu’entraîne le capitalisme, son point de départ est une critique d’abord du travail, qui aliène et se raréfie, puis de la logique de croissance qui détruit le milieu de vie. Gorz préconise le divorce entre le travail, qui doit être réduit (il propose à terme 20 heures hebdomadaires), et le revenu, qui doit être garanti (sous la forme d’une allocation pour tous, sans condition et suffisante pour vivre). Et cela pour que chacun puisse se livrer à toutes sortes d’activités choisies – autoproductives, collaboratives, solidaires. Au plein-emploi illusoire, il oppose la pleine activité, que les technologies de l’information peuvent favoriser. Ce qui serait reconnaître que la production de richesses, celle qui concourt au bien-être des humains, ne se recoupe pas avec la production de marchandises.

Публикуван в сп. Философски алтернативи, бр.3/2018 г. Оригиналът е достъпен на http://philosophical-alternatives.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Philosophical-Alternatives_2018_3__29.pdf

The article discusses " general intellect " and reveals the quite high incompatibility between post-operaismo and Marx, but also a certain change in Marx's views after Grundrisse. The article also reveals Marx's inconsistency as a historical materialist, which is probably one of the causes of deterministic readings of his works today.

Abstracts français/english :
Trois entretiens inédits en français d'André Gorz (1990, 2003 et 2005).
Ces entretiens révèlent la persistante actualité de la réflexion existentielle de Gorz sur le sens de la vie contrarié par l’emprise tentaculaire de l’économie qui réduit l’être humain à la fonction de travailler et consommer. Associant une critique de l’aliénation du travail et une vision écologiste de la « bonne vie », son utopie est celle d’une civilisation du temps libéré : elle suppose un divorce historique entre le travail, qui doit être réduit, et le revenu, qui doit être garanti, afin de permettre une multiplicité d’activités autodéterminées – créatives, solidaires, militantes – tout au long de la vie de chacun.
--------------------------------------
The three interviews, from 1990, 2003 and 2005, show the relevance of André Gorz’s ideas ont the meaning of life. The tentacle-like hold of the economy, which reduces human action to production and consumption, inhibits life. By combining criticism of alienating work with an ecological vision of “the good life”, he presents a utopia in which time has been freed. Such a civilisation separates work, which must be reduced, from income, which must be guaranteed, so that, throughout their lives, people can engage in many different self-determined activities involving creation, activism and solidarity.

This book is the first to articulate and challenge the consensus on the right and left that knowledge is the key to any problem, demonstrating how the left’s embrace of knowledge productivity keeps it trapped within capital’s circuits. As the knowledge economy has forced questions of education to the forefront, the book engages pedagogy as an underlying yet neglected motor of capitalism and its forms of oppression. Most importantly, it assembles new pedagogical resources for responding to the range of injustices that permeate our world. Building on yet critiquing the Marxist notion of the general intellect, Derek R. Ford theorizes stupidity as a necessary alternative pedagogical logic, an anti-value that is infinitely mute and unproductive.

This thesis is a critical investigation of the ambivalent relationship between the concept of labour and the concept of value creation in immaterial capitalism. The thesis defines this relationship as the labour-capital relation. The relationship is studied by an examining of the historical developments in the transition from a Fordist to a post-Fordist mode of production and the transition from a passive to an active labour policy. As a result, the thesis finds four breakdowns between: Life- labour, common-private, right-obligation, and work-labour – that all point to a form of discrepancy in the capital-labour relation. The thesis claims that these four breakdowns consequently result in precarious working conditions for workers and a weakened bargaining power for trade unions expressed in failed identity politics. The thesis claims that former attempts to cope with precarity and identity politics fail to understand the flexible and immaterial characteristics of contemporary labour and value production. The aim is to illustrate how attempts that either call for fixed employment and stable income (welfare) or quantify and standardise value (workfare) are insufficient. As a result, the thesis suggests looking at a basic income as a structural stable compromise in-between the four breakdown as respectively a – remuneration, compensation, stratification, and decommodification – that all point to a form of ‘third way’ in the capital-labour relation. The examination of basic income is approached on a macro level and not as a concrete application model. The focus is to propose how contemporary production and a basic income together share a critical potential to understand capital, labour and identity in a new way benefitting trade unions and worker rights. As such, the thesis suggests unions and Danish labour market policy to take in a broader recognition of labour and employment not only perceiving wage as predetermined for value production. One of the thesis’ central insights is to understand how production not only should be understood economically, but socially and politically as well. The thesis has for the same reason methodologically engaged with fiction, i.e. constructing a fictive case, as an alternative methodological approach to cope with the wider socio-political infrastructure not applicable in quantitative and qualitative inquiries. The thesis asserts that working with fiction as a form of paradigmatic case provides a certain particularity and generality that is able to open up and provide a language for discussing, in this case, precarity and identity not only distinctive for categories such as workers or welfare recipients but as immanent within life itself.

This chapter offers an historical analysis of "General Intellect" by examining the evolution of Machinery and Marx's analysis of Machinery. Beyond many ideas, the chapter published in Turkish in 2017, argues that the origin of the term "General Intellect' coined in English in Grundrisse came from Robert Owen.

L'hétérarchie est une multitude de hiérarchies, liées par des réseaux complexes et composant grâce à eux diverses agrégations d'acteurs et de relations. Cette structure est hété-rogène, ce qui signifie que les relations et les acteurs sont extérieurs les uns aux l'autres. Il est important de souligner que la frontière entre l'« interne » et l'« externe » est conventionnelle au sein d'une hétérarchie. Une relation peut apparaitre interne ou externe pour un objet selon le type de recherches menées ou selon les types d'interaction. Pour une telle propriété des relations d'hétérarchie, j'utilise le terme « extériorité » comme Manuel Delanda l'a appliqué à l'analyse de la multiplicité et de la complexité sociale (Delanda, 2006, p. 8). Les relations exté-rieures peuvent être également « internes » ou « externes », dans le cas par exemple où une per-sonne peut apparaître à la fois comme un individu unique suivant son propre chemin d'exis-tence mais aussi comme une entité multiple se composant statistiquement de profils émanant de données très diverses. Selon Delanda (et Latour), les relations extérieures forment les objets au moyen d'assemblages-agencements – au sein de processus de relations par interconnexions – et l'hétérarchie est la forme de structure qui émerge de ce genre d'interconnexions. Les relations extérieures n'ont pas de sens constant et les acteurs sont des sin-gularités qui ne peuvent pas être réifiées ni rigidifiées au sein d'un groupe ou d'une classe sociale stable, ne serait-ce que parce qu'ils appartiennent simultanément à différents types de groupes. L'hétérarchie (lue ici dans le contexte d'une théorie de l'intellect général qui est for-tement inspirée par Spinoza) combine les propriétés du cogito et du conatus (« persévérance dans l'être »). Cette « persévérance » est la reproduction des relations indexées à certains en-La métaphore initiale de l'intellect général était basée sur la comparaison entre l'organisation machinique du travail et le fonctionnement de l'esprit humain, matériellement réalisé par le cerveau. Dans la littérature théorique, l'intellect général apparaît à la fois comme la structure de connexion entre les connaissances et comme ce qui produit les valeurs. Nous le ré-éclairerons ici à la lumière de la notion d'hétérarchie, qui a émergé des premières théories du réseau neuronal ar-tificiel, pour définir à la fois une structure de connexion et un principe de formation des valeurs. L'hétérarchie Malgré sa valeur heuristique, le concept d'hétérarchie n'est que rarement distinctement défi-ni et est utilisé rarement. Le commentaire principal en a été donné par Warren S. McCulloch (1945), qui est l'auteur du premier modèle théorique de réseau neuronal artificiel. McCul-loch a conçu l'hétérarchie comme une topologie d'ensembles nerveux intersectés : certaines chaînes fermées sur elles-mêmes, en un réseau hiérarchique, sont intersectées par une chaîne supplémentaire (appelée « diallèle »), instaurant un croisement ou un lien qui agit comme un réseau d'un ordre supérieur, reliant entre elles de manière imprévisible les chaînes fermées qui peuvent chacune former une hiérarchie (voir les figures 1 et 2). L'une des propriétés singulières des hétérarchies est que la loi logique de la tran-sitivité des choix ne s'y applique pas : A peut être préféré à B, et B peut être préféré à C, sans que A se trouve forcément préféré à C. Cela s'explique par le fait qu'au lieu de composer une arborescence linéaire de choix se contraignant l'un l'autre au sein d'une même structure monoplane, comme c'est le cas des hiérarchies, les hétérarchies sont constituées de plusieurs structures hétérogènes entre elles, qui interviennent l'une au sein de l'autre, et conditionnent partiellement leur développement mutuels, mais selon des articulations pluriplanes, irréduc-tibles à un unique enchaînement de choix linéaires.

White-collar 'office work' is often thought to be more skilled because more abstract.. While skilled labour in classical liberal philosophy was associated with conscious, instrumental technique, in opposition to 'unconscious' caring or affective behaviour, new theoretical currents have revealed the gendered nature and alienation of practice from experience in such models. In this paper I show the ways in which meanings of skill in white-collar occupations are determined by class relationships to middle managers, gendered norms, and a diffuse 'general intellect' by looking at the responses of Jennifer, a secretary at Simon Fraser University's Facilities Services department. Besides manual “blue-collar” labour, Jennifer's workplace requires large amount of paperwork, computing power, and service work, which proves to be a far more experiential, embodied, and material than the term “white collar” would seem to suggest.

This paper explores the problem of General Intellect, which is analysed in the post-Operaismo intellectual movement. Reflecting the thinking of A. Negri, M. Lazzarato, P. Virno, M. Pasquinelli and others, General Intellect is given here as a synonym of society’s cognitive capacity that could either provide liberation from capitalism or be exploited by it. In this paper General Intellect is represented as a property of a social connection structure, called heterarchy. As a connection structure, heterarchy forms different kinds of singularities – finite objects composed of multiple social ties. These aggregations are made by statistical repetitions of relations and individual agents that make values through their goal setting and other intellectual activity. The main argument of the article is that although General Intellect may denote capacity for society’s self-organization, it is difficult to identify it with only one particular institutional organisation or political regime. General Intellect appears in any type of social structuring through self-organising processes.

The  commentary  critically  addresses  Emanuele  Leonardi's  arguments  as  exposed  in Lavoro Natura  Valore – André  Gorz  tra  marxismo  e  decrescita (Orthotes,  2017). In  particular,  it  focuses  on  the  relationship  between  social  and  ecological  crisis,  as  well  as  on the  link  between traditional workers' movements and new forms of ecological activism.
KEYWORDS:
Social justice, post-capitalism, entropic labor, green jobs, general intellect
https://www.openstarts.units.it/handle/10077/24725
https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/24725/3/08-ALLEGRI.pdf

Globalisierung erschien anfänglich noch als Versprechen der Entwicklung hin zu einer prosperierend-mondänen Weltgesellschaft. Heute stellt sie sich, v.a. in ihrer Dimension als wesentlich global organisierte Arbeitswelt, zynischerweise in Form zunehmender und neuer räumlicher Verwerfungen dar. Die Gleichzeitigkeit globaler Arbeitsteilung, einer globalisierten Konkurrenzsituation und der Zerklüftung der Weltgesellschaft entlang von Räumen der Arbeit (sowie Nicht-Arbeit oder entrechteter Arbeit) sind Kennzeichen der neuen Zeit. Es entstehen zahlreiche, neu-codierte Sonderräume der Arbeit, welche gesellschaftliche Verwerfungen begleiten, verursachen oder ausdrücken.
Die »Zukunft der Vergangenheit«, wie sie uns bis vor kurzem noch die Bild- und Vorstellungswelt von Science-Fiction und »Cyberpunk« vorführte – Enklaven verrohter Arbeit, insulare Zwangsgemeinschaften verschiedener Art inmitten von High-Tech-Infrastrukturen, soziales Elend mitten im pyramidalen Reichtum – ist mittlerweile in unserer Gegenwart angekommen: als möglicher Gegenstand verschiedener filmischer, dokumentarischer und politischer Explorationen.

texto apresentado em 2020 no XI SAPPIL - Seminário de Alunos dos Programas de Pós-Graduação do Instituto de Letras da Universidade Federal Fluminense, e publicado no ebook que reúne as apresentações feitas no Seminário: DIAS, André (Org.) Literatura em movimento: pesquisa e investigação, volume 6. Uberlândia, MG: Editora Pangeia, 2021.

Resumo: Escrito ao longo da primeira década do Século XXI e publicado na Argentina em 2010, Aquí América Latina: una especulación foi o último livro de Josefina Ludmer, falecida em 2016. As leituras compartilhadas ao longo destes primeiros dez anos de vida do livro, com poucas exceções, priorizaram a discussão do conceito de pós-autonomia (ou literaturas pós-autônomas). A ele, a revista Landa dedicou um dossiê, e o Indicionário do contemporâneo, um verbete-ensaio. Mas Aquí A. L. também se caracteriza por ter ambientado, no calor da hora, algumas teses sobre transformações biopolíticas no regime de acumulação capitalista, discutidas por filósofos italianos exilados, como Toni Negri e Paolo Virno. No âmbito de um projeto de pesquisa sobre a relação com a terra no discurso latinoamericano, me interessa discutir brevemente tais leituras e apontar para outros dois conceitos propostos por Ludmer e menos comentados, territorio de la lengua e territorioafecto; igualmente vinculados aos debates sobre a economia contemporânea, e também relacionados à crítica do extrativismo: um extrativismo ampliado para as finanças e a logística, como propuseram recentemente Verónica Gago e Sandro Mezzadra.

This paper explores the problem of General Intellect, which is analysed in the post-Operaismo intellectual movement. Reflecting the thinking of A. Negri, M. Lazzarato, P. Virno, M. Pasquinelli and others, General Intellect is given here as a synonym of society’s cognitive capacity that could either provide liberation from capitalism or be exploited by it. In this paper General Intellect is represented as a property of a social connection structure, called heterarchy. As a connection structure, heterarchy forms different kinds of singularities – finite objects composed of multiple social ties. These aggregations are made by statistical repetitions of relations and individual agents that make values through their goal setting and other intellectual activity. The main argument of the article is that although General Intellect may denote capacity for society’s self-organization, it is difficult to identify it with only one particular institutional organisation or political regime. Gener...