Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book Essay

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

In Multitude, Hardt and Negri argue that multitude constitutes a new proletariat, or those people, who are either directly or indirectly exploited by capital owners and subjected to the capitalist mode of production (Hardt and Negri, p.330). Although wage workers were replaced by intellectual workers, the very nature of the labor relations, as described by Marx, did not change, as employees still dedicate part of their time to making their salary and the other part – to producing the capitalist’s profit, or surplus, so they remain underpaid (Marx, Engels and Tucker, p. 218). In terms of labor relations, Hardt and Negri also state that in the present day, as opposed to the last century, the multitude is engaged with “immaterial” production, which refers to the generation of new ideas (computer programming, invention) and social relations (communication, public relations, customer service). In this sense, Marx and Engels predicted the growing significance of the so-called “scientific labor”, which would dominate living labor. The use of machinery, according to Marx, would decrease capital owners’ dependency on the amount of labor force owned and labor time. As Hardt and Negri explain, the existing immaterial production creates social life, which contributes positively to the socialization of production.

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Essay on Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book
808 writers online

It is important to look at the influence of the multitude in detail. As production becomes increasingly more sophisticated, it begins to demand more and more from paid workers or office employees. Capitalists, or large companies, are trying to make work and life similar: they create comfortable conditions at the workplace, introduce free qualification training and use a number of other incentives to encourage workers to stay longer at the workplace. Due to the hegemony of consumption, companies become oriented precisely to the customer’s needs, so work requirements are growing. At the same time, companies become dependent on the staff they have grown and trained from entry-level, so “the ruled increasingly tend to hold a position of priority over the rulers” (Hardt and Negri, p.336). Whereas the power of capital still reaches each person’s life, people’s lives also begin to reach the power of capital. The multitude of a society’s self-organization, based heavily on close communication, became possible towards the end of the 20th century. The multitude is also referred to as a network of singularities, due to the fact that it is greatly stratified by class and race; however, the similarity of work they do and the common interests make them cooperate. Whereas Marx positions the working class as a chief driving force of social development and revolution, Hardt and Negri argue that multitude is much more effective owing to its diversity and numerousness. As people tend to join various associations, labor unions, and other interest groups, they tend to show greater cooperativeness in defending their interests.

However, it needs to be noted that capitalists are adjusting to the socialization of production in terms of keeping capital preserved in the hands of relatively few entrepreneurs. First of all this “biopolitical power” has a reverse side, which is commercial communication, resulting in the greater motivation for consumption and people’s higher dependency on the capital they own. This commercial communication also determines the competition between businesses, as nowadays the popularity of the product is based upon its positioning and familiarity of the brand to people, rather than on the pure quality and functional characteristics of the commodity. The second challenge, created by the society, led by the multitude, is the competition in the labor market, associated with the increased requirements, set by the employer. Thus, the Marxist criticism of this part of the book reveals even greater exploitation of paid workers, which, however, is to a certain degree balanced by the “humanization” of production.

According to Hardt and Negri, the multitude is different from the traditional concepts of “mass” or “people”, it is rather an active network of peoples, led by common interests and ideas. The creation of multitude is enabled, as has been mentioned above, by the development of immaterial and “sophisticated” labor. In terms of globalization, the multitude is to great extent responsible for managing this process. As Marx stated in the 19th century, capital has a tendency expansion, so with the course of time state economies and capital owners would become increasingly more interdependent. The constant innovation and productive expansion, as he held, was to make state borders more visible. The problem Hardt and Negri raise is who or what will be the agents of global rule. Whereas the multitude’s awareness of the global problems (economic, ecological, social, and political) is growing, corporate and state practices show the lack of involvement people have in the decisions that directly or indirectly influence their lives. Therefore, the multitude is aware of the need for redistributing political power as well as the power of capital. People begin to struggle for greater representation of their interests and participation in the decision-making processes of global organizations. Hardt and Negro argue in this sense that multitude cannot be represented, due to the fact that it is diverse and barely measurable. Modern globalization, at the same time, is characterized by the emergence of centralized power like WTO and the United Nations. Moreover, the global influence of specific state leaders and nation-states has intensified. This model of global development is not actually favorable for multitude, given the above-specified interest in full representation. Thus, the advent of participatory democracy is associated with the outburst of anti-globalization movements, which begin to rely on people’s self-organization. Those who joined social movements decades ago are nowadays able to draw conclusions from their past victories and failures and innovate in the right direction in order to enable the multitude’s self-organization. The participants of contemporary anti-capitalist and anti-globalization movements emphasize the importance of mitigating centralization and strict hierarchy of nation-states in the global structure, i.e. inverting the contemporary course of global development. Hardt and Negri believe the multitude is able to introduce direct democracy and support each individual’s autonomy, associated with collective action, based on affinities as well as self-initiative. This vision is not clear, whereas Marx in fact dedicates his work to describe a means of achieving the ideal regime of governance and this mode itself.

According to Marx and Engels, globalization should disrupt capitalism, since it will become a global force, in which all classes are involved. He also notes that the development of relations between nations will also increase the unity of the global working class, which will, in turn, result in the proletarian revolution. This revolution will bring about the full socialization of property, capital, and political power and establish a regime, which Marx and Engels believe to be ideal, socialism. Socialism implies proletarian governance and the absence of paid work, in which the employer capitalizes on the employee’s labor (Marx, Engels, and Tucker, p.475). The scholars also suggest less centralized governance “from the bottom”, which would prevent the usurpation of power. However, in the contemporary realities, the multitude is not likely to accept this model, due to the fact that the opposition between the rulers (economic, political) and the ruled has weakened; instead, people seek greater autonomy in state and global decision-making.

It needs to be remembered that in Marx’s writings, the proletariat is depicted as the most disadvantaged group, which is barely capable of managing its condition in a peaceful way. The working class, for instance, is composed of people, who do not own the tools of production and, given the high unemployment rate, are confined to a single employer or several employers. Given that economic power is described by Marx as equal to the political, these people also have no opportunity to participate in the state’s development. At the same time, the working class constitutes the majority of the population and therefore is really capable of bringing a positive change. Thus, proletarians are a revolutionary class for several reasons: primarily, they have a set of common interests, the realization of which requires overthrowing the existing rule; secondly, they literally have nothing to lose, as they own nothing except their own body and mind; thirdly, proletarians are heavily oppressed and de-humanized by capital managers, and a revolution is a natural form of responding to these relations.

At the same time, Hardt and Negri’s multitude is a less homogenous network of groups, which belong to diverse social classes and races. The scholars assume that multitude is composed not merely of manual workers, so the “links” of the network might pursue their own interests in addition to those they share with the network at large. Therefore, they are less inclined to such radical measures as revolution; instead, they are more likely to execute a constructive collective action, beneficial for the whole network. In general, Hardt and Negro position multitude as a creative and innovative force, as opposed to the revolutionary, and state that self-regulation is to be a superstructure rather than the result of destroying the existing polity and system of governance.

1 hour!
The minimum time our certified writers need to deliver a 100% original paper

Works cited

  1. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. Penguin, 2005.
  2. Marx, K., Engels, F. and Tucker, R. The Marx-Engels Reader. W.W. Norton, 1978.
Print
Need an custom research paper on Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, October 18). Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-hardt-and-negris-multitude-book/

Work Cited

"Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book." IvyPanda, 18 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-hardt-and-negris-multitude-book/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book'. 18 October.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book." October 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-hardt-and-negris-multitude-book/.

1. IvyPanda. "Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book." October 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-hardt-and-negris-multitude-book/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Sociology. Hardt and Negri’s “Multitude” Book." October 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sociology-hardt-and-negris-multitude-book/.

Powered by CiteTotal, free referencing generator
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1