While reading chapters 4-8 I still felt a bit confused as to what Berardi was trying to argue. I knew he had it out for capitalism and those “ratchet” Marxist, but I had trouble trying to figure out his points. Is he trying to build a connection between autonomy and the role of capitalism in the collapse of democracy or is he attacking autonomy for opening the doors for “easy labor” and the threat of a technological takeover?
On page 76 Berardi states that “autonomy is the self-regulation of the social body in its independence and in its interaction with the disciplinary norm.” What I got from Berardi’s statement is that autonomy provided people with the right to say no to their oppressors (which is this case is the “capitalist system of domination”) and in a sense establish their own sense of self government. However, I did not really see how this would be able to have a positive effect on society because society thrives on capital and if people are saying no and doing as they wish, then capital will be threatened which will ultimately have a negative impact on us—right.
Berardi mentioned the “freedom of the enterprise from the state, destruction of social protections, downsizing and externalization of production, cutback of social spending, de-taxation, and finally flexibilization” (Berardi 77), as examples of the negative impact autonomy had. In addition, he blames autonomy for the flexibility of labor capital globalization brought along (Berardi 78). I must admit I had no idea what the hell he was talking about; he completely lost me at that point because I thought globalization was a good thing, and this ideology of “flexible labor” did not make sense to me. However, I realized Berardi was basically saying autonomy allowed for capitalist enterprises to replace what was viewed as human laziness with technology that can not only do the job without any resistance but within this new subject of time. After reading this my view on globalization started to shift just a little, because I was able to see globalization as the launching pad for a technological takeover. It was basically, if they do not want to work replace them with technology, technology does not bitch. And this frightens me.
This may be your best post yet. You grapple with a very important question in a nuanced way. You do a great job being honest about what you find confusing in the text, trying to make sense of this with educated guesses, and trying to get at the implications.
ReplyDeleteYou end up in exactly the place Bifo wants you to end up: capital responded to the rebellion
of workers by replacing them with technology.
Other issues you raise in the text: flexibilization. This means that workers switch jobs a lot and easily, that they work short jobs and then don't work, that they don't pursue "careers." On the one hand, this can be good, a kind of liberation from work. On the other hand, when capital doesn't need workers and when the state has cut back on social benefits (like unemployment benefits or social security) then flexibilization benefits capital--capitalists don't have to hire workers or they can hire workers on terms that are worse for workers. So, you insist on making 25 dollars an hour? Good luck with that. Joe will work for 10. How are you going to pay your rent now?
Generally, Bifo thinks that bringing down capitalism would be good. Yet he is wary of Marxist-Leninist-communist approaches to the state and revolution. He thinks that it makes more sense to try to withdraw from capitalism and cultivate autonomous spaces and practices of freedom. It's like he thinks that a revolution against capitalism would be a good idea, but that the next people should just go home and do their own thing. Absent a revolution, he thinks we should try to recombine elements of capitalism in different ways.
He isn't attacking autonomy--he's showing how victories can become defeats, how good things can go bad.