tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31783628.post302805350882063227..comments2024-02-21T06:57:22.256-05:00Comments on Unemployed Negativity: Revolution in Theory/Theorizing Revolution: On Hardt and Negri's Declarationunemployed negativityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01251742512967070290noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31783628.post-44529034376153910232012-11-19T05:31:11.818-05:002012-11-19T05:31:11.818-05:00Hi- I am writing a paper on Tiqqun’s This Is Not A...Hi- I am writing a paper on Tiqqun’s This Is Not A Program… I have to address the following topics and I was hope someone could help out…<br /><br />Is the Tiqqun critique of Hardt and Negri and/ or of Operaism valid?<br /><br />How is Tiqqun similar to Hardt and Negri?<br /><br />What is an ‘apparatus’ and how does it work?<br /><br />What is the relationship between Bloom and apparatuses?<br /><br />Are there things that Hardt and Negri describe in Empire that we might consider to be an apparatus?<br /><br />any help would be appreciated…<br />college girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04462968780123036787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31783628.post-10620961684080134642012-07-22T18:34:48.031-04:002012-07-22T18:34:48.031-04:00Yes, I see your point, and it is well taken. Like ...Yes, I see your point, and it is well taken. Like I said, m point was a thinly veiled critique of Zizek (and others). You are right to point out the direction of radical grandstanding generally moves in a different direction, a more abstract one.unemployed negativityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01251742512967070290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31783628.post-1778132983411265672012-07-20T12:20:31.129-04:002012-07-20T12:20:31.129-04:00Obviously, some of these critiques are very valuab...Obviously, some of these critiques are very valuable for the future of radical politics. The direction of my critique is really at what "radical grandstanding" means in the academic context.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11383967031009266214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31783628.post-15997683627319626002012-07-20T12:15:19.247-04:002012-07-20T12:15:19.247-04:00I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post, thanks! H...I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post, thanks! However, one passage stuck out to me as odd:<br /><br />"One could even argue that this condition made possible a kind of radical grandstanding, where one tried to be more radical than one's audience: if they read Marx, you cited Lenin, if they cited Lenin, you cited Mao, and so on. (Yes, this is a thinly veiled critique of Zizek). All of this has changed slowly, now academics (myself included) find themselves suddenly talking to different audiences. "<br />Maybe I'm surrounded by a different academic culture than you are, but it seems to me that the problem of "radical grandstanding" in academia actually devolves not from quoting Marx to Lenin to Mao (as maybe is the tendency is for communist intellectuals opposing the blatant anti-intellectualism and anti-historicism of anarchist activist milieus... but I've never seen this in a seminar room) but rather from devolves from critiques of race, gender, class as identities to critiques of the enlightenment, humanism, and rationality and further to a sort of post-humanist fucking with all the categories. It seems to me that this is more rampant and a much bigger problem in academia, and also functions the same way as "radical grandstanding." It seems that some academics actually use Leninist as a boogeyman category of sorts to shut down any Marxism that tries to break outside the confines of academia and that many of these "marxists" would benefit from actually reading Leninist thinkers of the 20th century.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11383967031009266214noreply@blogger.com