Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt Research Papers (original) (raw)

"This book took around a decade to write. Three of us, coming from different
locations and contexts, coming from different histories, experiences and lived
lives, coming from different intellectual traditions, shared some initial thoughts. Our sharing showed that we were confronted with a related kind of problem: what do we make of the contemporary, a contemporary marked by a certain incitement to discourse on globalization. What indeed is globalization? What do we mean by ‘global’? What do we make of ‘global capitalism’? What indeed is global capitalism? Where then is the ‘local’?
Given that Marx provided an analysis of nineteenth century European
capitalism, what conceptual handles or windows can Marx offer today? Can he offer anything? Would we at all turn to him for an understanding, interpretation and explanation of contemporary capitalism? Or would he be irrelevant in the Southern situation, given the birth of his theory in a western context? Do concepts travel? Would his concepts be relevant in another culture and another time? How do we conceptualize Marxism in the South, if at all and why at all? Could we at all conceptualize a Marxism that was turned to the South? How would we attend to the scorn of the cultural difference theorist who would say that Marxism’s western moorings impart a certain incommensurability to its invocation in non-Western realities? How would we do away with the near religio-scientific belief of the Universalist who would see the possibility of a ‘core applicability’ of Marxism transcending (non-Western) particularities? Would a rethinking of Marxian questions and concerns in the South mean a radical displacement of much of Marxism; such that Marxism becomes aboriginal —that is, both, ‘other than the original’ as also ‘singed with a certain aboriginality’?
Would it also mean a rethinking of the very description and meaning of the
South that has hitherto hegemonized us? Would it mean a rethinking of the
category of ‘third world’—third world as the representative category for any
description of the South? Taking off from questions as to why and how Marxism could matter in the context of the South, it appeared to us that both western Marxism and third world as is usually deployed in classical and conventional renditions are deeply problematic. Even the bulk of the so-called critique of modernity, whether they be postmodern or postcolonial, falter when faced with the third world. A culturalist critique would tend to forget capital; and an economistic critique is inclined towards putting aside the question of modernity. Resultantly, the specificity as also the burden of the history and the experience of colonial modernity and the evolution of (indigenous) capitalism, all of these in their overdetermined and contradictory imbrications, remain unaccounted for at a more theoretical level. This theoretical problem, by no means peculiar to Marxism, acquires additional urgency in a Marxian space since western Marxism has never really faced up to the category of third world; nor has it come face to face with the experience–language–logic–ethos of the South. Rather, it has often turned away from this encounter; such a turning away is perhaps reflective of an implicit Orientalism. Whether in the North or South, wittingly or unwittingly, irrespective of ideological dispositions, the efforts to rethink Marxism and third world in the Southern space have, with few exceptions, remained forestalled. For us therefore, the more pressing questions are related to how Marxist theory would encounter the specificity of third world. In turn, how would third world encounter Marxism? How do the understandings of Marxism and third world change because of this encounter? This book deals with these questions; it proposes in the process the inauguration of a counter concept ‘world of the third’.

This work thereafter fleshes out a description of world of the third, and of its
encounter with global capitalism, with India as the site of analysis and in the
context of the present phase of globalization. Indeed, globalization has been a recurring sub-theme in the encounter of the ‘rest’ with the West and the current phase represents another passage, with its own unique effects, of this ongoing encounter. By virtue of its unique disposition, Marxian questions tuned to world of the third enunciate a quite different trajectory of explaining and understanding this encounter.

However, one may still ask: why invent a new name world of the third? Does
a change in name solve the problem? Naming has to it a colonizing hue, especially in the South. Nobody has borne the consequences of the cultural imputations involved in naming more than the Southern people. Southern thinkers, to name a few, Franz Fanon, Che Guevara, Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore and Krishnachandra Bhattacharya (author of Swaraj in Ideas) have struggled against the stifling grip of markers coming to their homeland like metonymic meteors from the west. For them, the purpose of social struggles, including the struggle for freedom, was never to just win political independence, but to see to it that the emerging structure–subject is free from the scourge of concepts the West deploys to describe the South (one such concept being ‘third world’). That is also to free oneself from the Orientalist grip, that merged with that of a Capital-centered view to prescribe a fixed path of modernization, progress or development for ancient civilizations. It was to be, for them, a struggle over mindsets-attitudes,
over worldviews; decolonization meant decolonization of minds; swaraj meant ‘swaraj in ideas’. That is why language (whether oral, written, practical or aesthetic) was so important to all these thinkers and resultantly their struggles became a struggle over the structure of symbolic systems as also over subjectivity. These currents of intellectual and social opposition to discourses of colonialism and then modernization including development have subsequently taken various forms and have continued to redefine the intellectual and practical landscape of social resistance and at times social reconstruction in the South. In many ways, these intellectual and social movements talk not simply to their own people, but to the West as well by pointing out that what seemed obvious to the latter was only a particular construction of the ‘rest’ by the West. They argued that the lived
experience of the South could not be reduced to the conceptual frame (explanatory or interpretative) generated in and by the West. The problem is also of reducing (cultural, economic and political) difference to frames of discrimination; it is one of organizing worlds that are different in terms of step–ladder hierarchies, where one is not different from the other, but where one is either superior or inferior to the other (in this case it is all about reducing the difference that world of the third institutes into the global to the hierarchy of first and third worlds). The problem is therefore about being sensitive to a fundamental dissonance that has appeared as a result of the encounter of the West with the ‘rest’. In this context, the deployment of world of the third (as different and as outside) against the given of third world (as the lacking inside of the first world) is crucial.

Our endeavor takes us to a provisional conclusion: the foreclosure of world
of the third is produced through a foregrounding of third world. The hegemonic (here, global capitalism) is then a product of foreclosure (here, world of the third) and foregrounding (here, third world). Critiquing western Marxism and various other strands of ‘post’ thoughts for having missed this crucial mode and node of modernist thinking that motored the conceptualization of and intervention in the so-called third world societies, we offer an interpretation of how this conceptualization of and intervention in the so-called third world societies is a process constitutive of global capitalism.

Further, by defamiliarizing and denaturalizing the given of global capitalism
and third worldism (as also development–globalization), we propose a language of resistance premised on the return of the foreclosed world of the third. Consequently, resistance to the hegemonic cannot but be founded on the return of the foreclosed, on the return not of the third world but of world of the third. A world of the third Marxian approach thus not only provides a distinctly different language/worldview for analyzing the hegemonic, but in the same turn lays down the contours of a possible world of living beyond the hegemonic.

Finally, this work is not just about a dialogue between East and West, between South and North, between the global and the local, between world of the first and world of the third but also between Marx and Freud, between Althusser and Lacan. In the process, in addition, this work brings face to face two near-incommensurable traditions—the rationalist-humanist and the psychoanalytic—and see what productive dialogue or enabling moment can emerge from such an encounter. The dialogue with Amartya Sen (and John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum) is premised on such an encounter. In that sense, this book is also about a dialogue between Sen and Marx-Freud, between need and class, between positional objectivity and overdetermination, between capabilities–functioning–freedom and alienation."