Philosophy > Political > Download, free read

Marx and Foucault by Antonio Negri download in ePub, pdf, iPad

While examining the relations of production in capitalism might tell us why disciplinary power operates, it does not tell us how. Although Marx was brought up in a rich setting, he was able to transcend his sphere of life and understand the problems that the poor went through. Moreover, his life experiences would not have made much impact if it were not for his critical mind and unique approach to issues.

Foucault recognized that by remaining fixed on the economic landscape of power, Marx risked overlooking its specificities. Before delving into an analysis of power a la Marx and Foucault, I will first lay out the basic assumptions each makes about the fundamental nature of power.

At the risk of sounding too simplistic, we might characterize this difference as the relative uniformity of the former and specificity of the latter. It calls for an appropriate architecture, one that would come to be common to workshops, hospitals, barracks and prisons.

But he maintains quite some distance from the properly Marxian concepts of class and state. Human interaction has led to intensive theorization of social, economic and political issues affecting humanity. Therefore, Marx, it can be said was concerned with the common good.

Since human beings are naturally

That is, a new order of reason, which is also a new order of domination. The minute disciplines, the panopticisms of every day may well be below the level of emergence of the great apparatuses and the great political struggles. It will also be stateless in a sense that there will be no governed and governors. And this has occurred to such an extent that the Marxist tradition has, for some time already, been striving to appropriate him for itself.

Moreover this would not be given

Since human beings are naturally selfish, in most cases, they would use power to their own benefit or advantage. Moreover, this would not be given in silver platter. This Frenchman only differed with Marx in that he was also a literary critic but not an economist as Marx was. It was therefore easy for anybody with a keen eye on details to observe that the laborers, proletariats, were being exploited.