Jump to content
katoman

the multitude and the new topic

Recommended Posts

hey all i havn't been on for a long time but with debate camps nearing i have begun working on new prospective arguments for next year. Currently i am working on an empire/ multitude k and was wondering if any one else has been working on something simmiler. I am gladly willing ot share what i have come up with if any one else is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its applic able they discuss privacy rights, specificaly sighting the patriot act and other search and seziure polices, so far it only applies to cases that are doing the search and seziure part of the topic though. But i don't care as long as i get to debate empire again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does apply read the books they wrote. all i am asking is if any one else has been looking into this argument. I am not asking for opinions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus, we're just kidding kid. although i doubt oyu're going to ge much repsponse, try something a l;ittle closer to the heart of the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey i am just doing this b/c it could be fun to debate in a round. Suggestions on other authors i should look into would be great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does seem like it would be difficult to secure a link on this topic. immediate gut reaction... "decreasing authority" would probably be a good thing, however any kind of identity politics affirmative or affirmatives that attempt to recognize the other or stand in solidarity with the opressed or whatever (which have a potential to be rather popular) would probably link to the stuff in section 2.4 of _empire_ as well as pages 198-199 of the same book. i might get bored and think about this more later.

 

x.logs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive looked at writing this K, and found a generic link which basically talks about how affirmative claims to retract or refine state power increases opression through racist police tactics, turns case etc. also the generic id poltx. and working through state fails, all that shit. once my partner and i get together, we will be looking and conceptualizing it more, until then, i donno how strong it looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ive looked at writing this K, and found a generic link which basically talks about how affirmative claims to retract or refine state power increases opression through racist police tactics, turns case etc. also the generic id poltx. and working through state fails, all that shit. once my partner and i get together, we will be looking and conceptualizing it more, until then, i donno how strong it looks.

 

OH YEAH. good call. chew on this for awhile, whoever.

 

paolo virno, _a grammar of the multitude_ quoted text follows.

 

"Civil disobedience" represents, perhaps, the fundamental form of political action of the multitude, provided that the multitude is emancipated from the liberal tradition within which it is encapsulated. It is not a matter of ignoring a specific law because it appears incoherent or contradictory to other fundamental norms, for example to the constitutional charter. In such case, in fact, reluctance would signal only a deeper loyalty to state control. Conversely, the radical disobedience which concerns us here casts doubt on the State's actual ability to control. Let us digress for a moment in order to understand this better.

 

According to Hobbes, with the institution of the "body politic," we force ourselves to obey before we even know what we will be ordered to do: "our obligation to civil obedience, by vertue whereof the civill Lawes are valid, is before all civill Lawe" (De Cive, Chap. XIV Section XXI). For this reason we shall not find a particular law which explicitly dictates that people should not revolt. If the unconditional acceptance of the controlling power were not already presupposed, the concrete legislative presuppositions (including, obviously, that which states "thou shalt not rebell") would have no validity whatsoever. Hobbes maintains that the initial bond of obedience derives from "Lawes of nature," that is from a common interest in self-preservation and security. Still, he quickly adds that this "natural law," the Super-law which compels people to observe all of the orders of the sovereign, effectively becomes law only when we have left the state of nature, thus when the State has already been instituted. Thus, a real paradox takes shape: the duty to obey is both the cause and the effect of the existence of the State; this duty is supported by the very State which depends upon it for the constitution of its own foundation; it precedes and follows, at the same time, the development of a "supreme empire."

 

So then, the multitude aims precisely at this preliminary form of obedience without content, which is the foundation solely of the gloomy dialectic between acquiescence and "transgression." By breaking a particular law meant for dismantling socialized medicine or for stopping immigration, the multitude goes back to the covert presupposition hidden behind every act of mandating law and taints its ability to remain in force. Radical disobedience also "precedes civil laws," since it is not limited to the breaking of these laws but also calls into question the very foundation of their validity. <69-70>

 

[eoq]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a linkage between the creative commons kritik (http://ossdebate.org/index.php?title=Kritiks_%28Topic-independant%29) and hardt and negri's book, multitude (p301-3) :

 

The second general strategy includes proposals that seek to eliminate destructive forms of political and economic control. In the realm of cybernetics and the Internet, for example, as we saw earlier, the control of access, information, and ideas through copyright increasingly thwarts creativity and innovation. We have also cited repeatedly numerous grievances that arise from patents that control pharmaceutical drugs, knowledges, genetic material, and even life-forms. There are many proposals to solve or ameliorate these problems. Some modest porposals, for example, seek to address the expanding controls of copyrights simply by limiting their duration. Copyright was originally conceived as a means to encourage innovation by allowing the author to enjoy a monopoly on the work for a limited time. Copyrighted material can now be controlled, however, for more than 150 years with very little action on the part of the owner, thereby restricting its use in the common public domain. One could improve the system simply by reducing the possible duraction of copyright to a much shorter period and require more efforts of the owner to renew the copyright periodically. [103] And more generally, one could limit copyright protection to only the commericial use of material, such that copying texts or music without commericial gain would no longer be restricted. [104] Similarly, one could reduce the kinds of products that are eligible for patents, excluding, for example, life-forms and traditional knowledges. These are very modest proposals that easily fit within the existing legal framework. The open-source movement, which strives to make software free and accessible for modification without copyright, offers a more radical example. [105] Since proprietary software owned by corporations does not expose its source code, the proponents of open source maintain that not only can users not see how the software works but they also cannot identify its problems of modify it to work better. Software code is always a collaborative project, and the more people who can see and modify it, the better it can become. One can certainly imagine doing away entirely with the legal protection of patents and copyright, making ideas, music, and texts free and accessible to everyone. One would have to find, of course, other social mechanisms to compensate the creativity of authors, artists, and scientists, but there is no reason to assume that creativity depends on the promise of great riches. Authors, artists, and scientists are indeed often outrageed when corporations get rich off of their creativity, but they are no themselves generally driven to create by the propsect of extraordinary wealth. It should be clear, in any case, that each of these proposals aims to reduce political and economic control, through mechanisms such as patents and copyright, not only because it is unjust to limit access to these goods but also because such controls thwart innovation and restrict economic development.

 

Some of the most innovative and powerful reform projects, in fact, involve the creation of alternatives to the current system of copyright. The most developed of these is the Creative Commons project, which allows artists and writers a means to share their work freely with others and still maintain some control over the use of the work. When a person registers a work with Creative Commons, including texts, images, audio, and video productions, he or she forgoes the legal protections of copyright that prevent reproduction but is able instead to choose minimal restrictions that apply to its use. Specifically, the author or artist can choose whether reproductions have to include attribution of authorship, whether the work can be used commercially, whether it can be transformed to make derivative works, and whether any use made of it has to be equally open to reproduction. [106] One might say that this alternative system is just a supplement to existing copyright laws that serves those who not want its restrictions, but really such an alternative is a powerful agent of reform. Its example highlights the inadequacy of the patent system and cries out for change.

 

Economic reform in general has to be based on a recuperation or creation of the common. There was been a long process of privatization that in the dominant countries corresponded to the dismantling of the welfare state and that in the subordinated countries has often been imposed by global economic institutions such as the IMF. The programs of democratic transition and nation-building, from Russia to Iraq, are also based primarily on privatization. As the catastrophes for social welfare of these processes of privatizations accumulate - the British rail system and the U.S. electrical system can serve as two emblematic examples - the need for change will become ever more clear. In our view this will have to be not a return to the public, with state control of industries, servies, and goods, but a creation of the common. This conceptual and political distinction between the public and the common will be one of the elements we will address in the context of democracy in the final section of the book. This notion of the common is the basis for the postliberal and postsocialist political project.

 

_

 

[103] Lawrence Lessig makes a similar recommendation in The Future of Ideas, 249-61.

 

[104] See Jessica Litman, "War Stories," Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 20 (2002): 337-59.

 

[105] See Richard Stallman, Free Software, Free Society (Cambridge, MA: Free Software Society, 2002).

 

[106] "Copyleft" is a similar alternative in which the choices are fixed: works can be reproduced for noncommercial use on the condition that the author is credited. On the Creative Commons, see Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (New York: Penguin, 2004). See also the organization's Web site, www. creativecommons.org.

 

__________

 

one error - the open source movement doesn't 'strive to make software free and accessible for modification *without copyright*', since it operates upon a copyright, the General Public License.

 

for further linkages, see this post for page numbers : http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1076963&postcount=145 ... for example : "the multitude needs a political projet to bring it into existence" (page 212).

 

let me reinterate that you don't need to run the full court press shell to claim this argument - you only need to cover your blocks under a (cc) public license and make them freely accessible on the internet. you can read the above card as one voting issue among many others, combining line-by-line counter-argumentation (of your opponent's reasoning), in-round discursive kritiking (of your opponent's rhetoric), and this metalevel-type attacks (of your opponent's practices - namely, covering their blocks under traditional copyright by default and perhaps unwittingly promoting a lack of openness).

 

sorry again i've been derelict in adding to the oss site - i'll probably have some more time this week to contribute. .k (kevin.sanchez@gmail.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calm down man, i wasn't trying to call anyone out. And from what i've heard you'd be able to beat me with any 'bad' argument. I was commenting on how i don't think that empire works in a debate setting. WHile I enjoyed reading both Empire and Multitude, i don't think they work as kritiks.

 

My main problem is the paradox shown: either 1: we're already in Empire, or shifting inevitably towards it, as Hardt and Negri describe and the plan isn't a unique cause of Empire, or 2: the plan is a unique link to Empire, but that is good, cuz we need to use Empire as a hinge to Counter-Empire.

 

And the fact that in the end of Multitude they argue that they are not the harbingers of Counter-Empire and admit they have no idea on how to get there.

 

I personally find Hardt and Negri's theories interesting, but fail to see how they would function in a debate setting.

 

[now's your cue to completely shut me down on Empire, but whatever]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey all i havn't been on for a long time but with debate camps nearing i have begun working on new prospective arguments for next year. Currently i am working on an empire/ multitude k and was wondering if any one else has been working on something simmiler. I am gladly willing ot share what i have come up with if any one else is.

i kinda hate typing, but if you want to talk multitude, hit me up on aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally find Hardt and Negri's theories interesting, but fail to see how they would function in a debate setting.

 

empire is more topic specific than 90% of affirmatives, and negative arguments out there. I mean, seeing as within the first couple of chapters, mebbe pages, they discuss the juridical and ethical foundations of the united nations, and the underlying ideologies of the founders ( Hans Kelsen for one) behind the UN. Not only was it great for last years resolution, due to their observations of the assumptions behind the way in which international relations is conducted, but their writings (esp in labor of dionsys (sp?)) can serve as great parallels to contemporary debate itself. Communication as a form of labor, empire harnessing that communication, etc. Not to mention their elaboration of Foucaults conceptualizations of power, and Marx's writings on capitalism. I mean, yeah, Negri did kill a dude, call his wife, and mock her, but hey, as a K, his shit works, not only on the Impact level, but the theoretical aspects as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

h&n write in 'multitude' (p.xvi-ii) : "we will give numerous examples of how people are working today to put an end to war and make the world more democratic, but do not expect our book to answer the question, what is to be done? ... our primary aim is to work out the conceptual bases on which a new project of democracy can stand."

 

in short, their work propagates a lot of conceptual tools, and it's up to you to come up with 'concrete programs of action' to put their tools to work. that's what debaters do when they run this argument - they turn their philosophical work into a political project.

 

as for cypherson's paradox, we may already live under this new global form of sovereignty called empire, but we can still resist, that is, push and pull empire towards democracy, in however small a way. to say that any imperial control is good because it creates its own resistance is a bit like saying that murder is good because it unites families at funerals. taking an ethical stand against domination is important, regardless of whether it spurs global revolution over-night, because it creates intrinsically-valuable subjectivities (page 83 of 'multitude'). 'the will to be against' must become an end in itself, or as h&n put it in 'empire' (page 211) : "if there is no longer a place that can be recognized as outside, we must be against in every place. this being-against becomes the essential key to every active political position..., every desire that is effective - perhaps of democracy itself."

 

of course, this can express itself in terms of state reforms (which h&n explain on page 289 of 'multitude'), and that's why the links to any affirmative case must be specific. this can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, but as for the general legitimacy and value of running this kritik, please consider summerz's comment on communication juxtaposed with the quotation below ('empire', p404):

 

"the passage to postmodernity and empire prohibits any such compartmentalization of the life world and immediately presents communication, production, and life as one complex whole, an open site of conflict. the theorists and practitioners of science have long engaged these sites of controversy, but today all of labor power (be it material or immaterial, intellectual or manual) is engaged in struggles over the senses of language and against capital's coloniztion of communicative sociality. all the elements of corruption and exploitation are imposed on us by the linguistic and communicative regimes of production: destroying them in words is as urgent as doing so in deeds." (emphasis added.)

 

isn't the debate setting just such an 'open site of conflict'? isn't it as decent a forum as any for critical linguistic action? when do the stakes become high enough so that what we say matters? and how can we raise the stakes? .k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calm down man, i wasn't trying to call anyone out. And from what i've heard you'd be able to beat me with any 'bad' argument. I was commenting on how i don't think that empire works in a debate setting. WHile I enjoyed reading both Empire and Multitude, i don't think they work as kritiks.

from what you've heard? weird.

 

My main problem is the paradox shown: either 1: we're already in Empire, or shifting inevitably towards it, as Hardt and Negri describe and the plan isn't a unique cause of Empire, or 2: the plan is a unique link to Empire, but that is good, cuz we need to use Empire as a hinge to Counter-Empire.

 

And the fact that in the end of Multitude they argue that they are not the harbingers of Counter-Empire and admit they have no idea on how to get there.

 

I personally find Hardt and Negri's theories interesting, but fail to see how they would function in a debate setting.

 

[now's your cue to completely shut me down on Empire, but whatever]

 

sanchez pretty much said what i would've said, only much prettier and while thinking about human females under the age of 18, i'm sure.

 

i've answered these arguments in many a debate round and elsewhere on this site. h+n don't formulate any strategies because they'd immediately be coopt by empire.

 

the "we increase empire so that's good" argument is just fucking useless. read all the fyi's that say h+n think empire is good. i don't care. you ignore that they say empire is good only insofar as capitalism was good for marx. it's better than what was before it. working for empire gets you http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=915865&postcount=5

 

to be reductionist, there's no doubt (and its just silly to assume otherwise) that h+n say "empire bad." sanchez is right on with his murder analogy (again prettier than what i would've come up with)

 

these "paradoxes" are good arguments against the less read of empire debaters, but in my opinion they're just non starters. i wish people would just quit reading the h+n "no outside to resist from" cards as answers to the K, because it just hurts them in the long run. the fact that the imperial ether of empire is everywhere means our communicative actions are all the more important, which is why the critic should vote against the Aff's 9 minute commercial for imperial control (simply put, i guess).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 'murder unites families at funerals' analogy is copyrighted by me - so you're not allowed to use it. sorry.

 

"...while thinking about human females under the age of 18..."

 

please, please, i was thinking of human males too.... under and over the age of 18... unless you're accusing me of ageism?!?

 

:smack:

 

but seriously, a good term for the whole 'supporting empire is good because it promotes resistance to it' (or other such arguments like 'nuclear war good') is "cainism". there's actually a skool of thought (sparsely populated, i'm sure) which believes by inventing murder/evil, cain (of cain & abel fame) also created the possibility for freely-chosen goodness; after all, if there weren't murder, then there wouldn't be laws against murder, would there? nor would there be those who chose not to murder out of a moral commitment to love one's neighbor. you can follow this to its logical conclusion: without rape, there wouldn't be consensual sex, so rape is good; without poverty and hunger, there wouldn't be affluence, so letting poor folks starve is good, and so on. so let corruption and exploitation continue unresisted!, the argument contends, in the interests of justice and freedom for all.

 

if your opponents make this argument, you might ask them to blow their brains out, you know, to demonstrate the infinite worth of one human life.

.k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UT put out a H&N critique/da think called "Kill all the Brutes." basic story is that the war on terror is unwinnable, and it's failing now. the plan gives the US the international credibility/soft power to take the war on terror multilateral and get Europe back on its side, leading to the destruction of anyone who we deem a terorrist and global war. It's very, very good, especially against guantanamo bay or other war on terror bad affirmatives (extraordinary rendition, enemy combatants, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey all i havn't been on for a long time but with debate camps nearing i have begun working on new prospective arguments for next year. Currently i am working on an empire/ multitude k and was wondering if any one else has been working on something simmiler. I am gladly willing ot share what i have come up with if any one else is.

Im starting to work on it too, i havent read multitude yet, but i read empire in most neg rounds, and some aff rounds last year too, so hit me up on aim if you wanna work w/ me.

bobsushi1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...