i think the concept of love is really important. if you want a society of equality that values quality (not excessive quantity of stuff) of life over constant search of profits. Love encompasses a very opposite logic to profit, greed, and self-seeking interest. I think its bold to try to discuss love in a political context, love can be a very subversive concept.
So according to professor Hardt and his reliance of Spinoza the political use of love can be defined as--love is some kind of a training ground for the creation of subjectivity of 'joy' that is capable of recognizing an external cause which can increase our capacity to think and act so that we can live a free and singular life!?
I think you're taking his reference to Lenin earlier in the lecture WAAAY to far. The proletariat, if suddenly enshrined with autonomy would not be able to handle it. I think that is a "fair enough" (I'm Australian) comment.
Also, the "trancendental" force of capital, through globalization obscures class relations H&N stress this, thats why there are shopping malls in Bali, with genuine Ralph Lauren shirts, from China, while tailors make knock offs in the boutiques for example. The force of capital itself creates exploitation; not the relations between classes... it USED to, but with the "postmodern" era, those "class forces" are not as prevalent - but exploitation is. I think that is his point.
Another thing, he admitted earlier on that he wasn't putting forward an argument just yet, it was more comparative literature, annotated bibliography. I think you need to give him a little latitude. see Aiwah Ong (anthro) :"Neoliberalism as exception" and "Flexible Citizenship" brilliant insights how certain individuals are awarded "flexible" governmentality because of their economic ability, while others are excluded...Takes H&N's lead, and blends it with ethnography
I've read both; i think they make some brilliant insights, breaking down the first world/third world dichotomy, and thinking of globalization as a process and not an event.
There's "the first world in the third world, and third world in the first world"
again, they're only political philosophers and admit themselves that they don't have all the answers, but rather can reshape our thinking - and a change of thinking brings a change of situation???? i suppose? one can only hope.
"one talks about love when people starve" are you upset that Hardt is not putting forward a political project? Religion still categorises individuals, like the nation. Until we reach homo-homo; human as human love, then we will still have a long way to go.
solidarity now: I disagree, Hardt states clearly at the beginning that the dictatorship would be needed because the proletariat would not be able to organize their freedom if it was suddenly THRUST upon them. This is not a bourgeois statement; I find it incredibly practical actually.
Like Empire, I kept asking myself "what is he talking about?", "why is he talking about this?" All style and little content. When you finally try to sum up what it took him pages and pages of convoluted, stylized speculation to say you realize that he has said very little, and mostly stated the obvious. Let's talk about how to create movements, what the goal of those movements should be and how to structure those movements.
Empire is not a political project, rather it is a way in which to RETHINK philosophy and academic tradition. Hardt and Negri "put it out there" and it is up to the universities and the next generation to make it happen.
@maxinetom: Politics/Democracy in the way it is practiced today, unfortunately. But politics would be taking care of the Polis in the full sense; and democracy about the real self-determination of the people and not the joke of democracy that we have in our political system.
@HebaruSan: No it would not. Hardt is not speaking of the "political use of love" (as an instrumental use) rather he tries to free the concept of love from its narrow confines in the todays society, where the concept is distorted in the five ways Hardt is clearly ennumerating.
i think the concept of love is really important. if you want a society of equality that values quality (not excessive quantity of stuff) of life over constant search of profits. Love encompasses a very opposite logic to profit, greed, and self-seeking interest. I think its bold to try to discuss love in a political context, love can be a very subversive concept.
sasiwanmuspratt 9 months ago
So according to professor Hardt and his reliance of Spinoza the political use of love can be defined as--love is some kind of a training ground for the creation of subjectivity of 'joy' that is capable of recognizing an external cause which can increase our capacity to think and act so that we can live a free and singular life!?
suvoomrini 2 years ago
I think you're taking his reference to Lenin earlier in the lecture WAAAY to far. The proletariat, if suddenly enshrined with autonomy would not be able to handle it. I think that is a "fair enough" (I'm Australian) comment.
soulwhiteman 4 years ago
Also, the "trancendental" force of capital, through globalization obscures class relations H&N stress this, thats why there are shopping malls in Bali, with genuine Ralph Lauren shirts, from China, while tailors make knock offs in the boutiques for example. The force of capital itself creates exploitation; not the relations between classes... it USED to, but with the "postmodern" era, those "class forces" are not as prevalent - but exploitation is. I think that is his point.
soulwhiteman 4 years ago
Another thing, he admitted earlier on that he wasn't putting forward an argument just yet, it was more comparative literature, annotated bibliography. I think you need to give him a little latitude. see Aiwah Ong (anthro) :"Neoliberalism as exception" and "Flexible Citizenship" brilliant insights how certain individuals are awarded "flexible" governmentality because of their economic ability, while others are excluded...Takes H&N's lead, and blends it with ethnography
soulwhiteman 4 years ago
I've read both; i think they make some brilliant insights, breaking down the first world/third world dichotomy, and thinking of globalization as a process and not an event.
There's "the first world in the third world, and third world in the first world"
again, they're only political philosophers and admit themselves that they don't have all the answers, but rather can reshape our thinking - and a change of thinking brings a change of situation???? i suppose? one can only hope.
soulwhiteman 4 years ago
"one talks about love when people starve" are you upset that Hardt is not putting forward a political project? Religion still categorises individuals, like the nation. Until we reach homo-homo; human as human love, then we will still have a long way to go.
soulwhiteman 4 years ago
solidarity now: I disagree, Hardt states clearly at the beginning that the dictatorship would be needed because the proletariat would not be able to organize their freedom if it was suddenly THRUST upon them. This is not a bourgeois statement; I find it incredibly practical actually.
soulwhiteman 4 years ago
Like Empire, I kept asking myself "what is he talking about?", "why is he talking about this?" All style and little content. When you finally try to sum up what it took him pages and pages of convoluted, stylized speculation to say you realize that he has said very little, and mostly stated the obvious. Let's talk about how to create movements, what the goal of those movements should be and how to structure those movements.
brendanmcooney 4 years ago
Empire is not a political project, rather it is a way in which to RETHINK philosophy and academic tradition. Hardt and Negri "put it out there" and it is up to the universities and the next generation to make it happen.
soulwhiteman 4 years ago
@maxinetom: Politics/Democracy in the way it is practiced today, unfortunately. But politics would be taking care of the Polis in the full sense; and democracy about the real self-determination of the people and not the joke of democracy that we have in our political system.
dialektik 4 years ago
Very good lecture. Thanks for posting.
@HebaruSan: No it would not. Hardt is not speaking of the "political use of love" (as an instrumental use) rather he tries to free the concept of love from its narrow confines in the todays society, where the concept is distorted in the five ways Hardt is clearly ennumerating.
dialektik 4 years ago
Yes, it would. Hardt is a naif. Politics (as Zizek might point out) operates on the logic of power. Love at its most radical - is totally enigmatic.
maxinetom 4 years ago
"political use of love" -- would this not *debase* love?
HebaruSan 4 years ago