This is all a bit abstract for me, but I'll blather on about it, anyway.
>Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked - I think one of the problems of the
>left is its focus on representations - thus evoking 'going to the
>people' as a contrast to the current ethereal spaces that leftists
>occupy. I think Klein is hitting on something useful, but phrasing it
>as talking to your neighbour is a mistake - such talk essentially
>is based in the old idea that the heritage of the left is rooted in
>a set of ideas. It cannot be - it must be rooted in a set of practices,
>which in turn are mediated by left 'counter-institutions'.
Have the autonomists anything to tell us about translating individual practices of resistance into these counter-institutions? Anti-capitalism has its diffuse networks, but they are a long way from most of these individually resisting people, who do not see themselves in Ya Basta, in those mainly youthful faces or in those red flags. We have 'diffuse', but we certainly don't have any 'biopower', do we? (Outside generally cautious and often narrowly focused trades union, anyway.)
I think there's a world of suspicious, alienated but committed democratic liberals out there (not to mention the nascent institutional legitimacy crisis that surely attends it) - and I think the leftie train has to leave from the station marked 'democracy' (and how it is subverted by what 'market' has come to represent and, of course, by those creaking old institutions of ours) rather than 'sweatshops', 'environment', 'against globalisation', 'job-protecting' and general 'anti-all-of-everything' kvetching. Democracy is bred into us (an idea as material force, or the subjective made objective, if you like) and it's how you get on to the other stuff, for mine - it's what all that diversity needs to attain all those diverse aspirations, so it's what unites all those diverse aspirants.
>To illustrate - the whole routine of out of bed, into work, out of work,
>into gridlock, into Survivor II, etc. - is a set of practices (rooted
>in social relations) mediated by various objects and institutions of
>capitalist society. The Ya Basta! people apparently make a big deal
>of Foucault's idea of 'biopower' - i.e. the operation of a diffuse
>network of power upon the body. Similarly, I think the 'left' needs
>to fight back in a way that the phrase 'mass constituency' doesn't
>cover.
So I think we shouldn't forget the notion of the 'mass constituency', then - that's what all those alienated democratic liberals are. But, yeah, I do think we should forget ones like 'the mass line' or 'the party of the masses' - those days are long gone - in 'core' societies, anyway. Lending real substance to formal liberal rights and obligations is precisely about practices. Citizenship ain't nuthin' if it ain't a bunch of practices (indeed it's just the formalised rights and obligations they are now), and that's whence socialism comes, I think.
>The Ya Basta! types talk about 'rhizomatic' forms of power - our
>own distributed network which provides the matrix upon which
>anti- and post-capitalist practices can grow. I think that needs
>to be taken with a bit of salt, but its heading in the right
>direction.
This affection for metaphors only gets you so far, I reckon. Rhizomes are prostrate, active only in the sense that they emit other, but basically identical and similarly inert, prostrate growths here and there. We have, and mostly are, that already. How we get a practice-producing matrix out of that alone, I just can't imagine.
Cheers, Rob.