tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7038706923946698710.post6981903304497894407..comments2023-11-05T03:05:16.380-08:00Comments on No Useless Leniency: Lacerate the FabricBenjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18237178500472453910noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7038706923946698710.post-21793390899420251452019-04-16T03:33:54.975-07:002019-04-16T03:33:54.975-07:00thank you for sharing this blog,
top political con...thank you for sharing this blog,<br /><a href="https://www.ipsworkforce.com/" rel="nofollow">top political consulting firms in india</a><br /><a href="https://www.ipsworkforce.com/blogger/post/political-communication-courses/" rel="nofollow">political communication courses</a><br />Sadhick fixfonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08355495994103923945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7038706923946698710.post-1520111346247120872008-08-01T02:40:00.000-07:002008-08-01T02:40:00.000-07:00Eric, thanks for the comment - a very good point.W...Eric, thanks for the comment - a very good point.<BR/>Well, perhaps I'm bending the stick but reading Matteo's article it seems that Tronti's later work inscribes a 'Nothing' as the interruptive to the 'smooth' unfolding of democracy qua counting (as Matteo points out close but not identical to Badiou or Zizek's position). I don't think refusal itself equals negative thought because, as Negri does (see Reflections on Empire) we can regard refusal as a positive strategy, uncovering or making available the ontological plenitude of the multitude as a set of positive strategies (a similar strategy is at work in The Exploit by Galloway and Thacker). I think then it is where refusal emerges from or goes to (to be simplistic, which is probably the level of my understanding...). Does refusal come from an existent positivity - whether the multitude or the exacerbation of capitalist tendencies - and does it go to a new positivity - recovered potentia read as positive (in a sense Agamben is still the uncanny figure here, hence Negri's constant turning of bare life into ontological vital plenitude).<BR/>Tronti, as I said above, seems to inscribe refusal in relation to a decision based on 'Nothing'. As you say it may be through the 'minor' he re-opens this as a new positivity (I actually think it could be possible to read the minor as a strategy of negativity, but that's another business that may tangentially make it into my book (or not)). I'm suggesting that there may be a non-dialectical negativity here, precisely in what Negri considers to be the fault of Tronti - the risk of dialectical symmetry with capital. In my reading this opens negativity as a corrosive effect of intervention.<BR/>I'm sorry this is vague and it may be that I'm simply wrong (its been known). I can't say my book will resolve the problems, but it may at least make them worse...Benjaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18237178500472453910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7038706923946698710.post-69139317430541359332008-07-31T14:26:00.000-07:002008-07-31T14:26:00.000-07:00Does refusal = negative thought? John Holloway see...Does refusal = negative thought? John Holloway seems to <A HREF="http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2006/03/adorno_meets_tr.html" REL="nofollow">think so</A>. Maybe I don't understand "negativity," because I don't read early Tronti -- sadly, I can't read late Tronti -- as negative. The link to the <A HREF="http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2006/03/minor_refusals.html" REL="nofollow">minor </A> would, for me, confirm that it's not. <BR/><BR/>Can you elaborate a bit on how it's negative?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00749190768315704456noreply@blogger.com