Why is it that so many revolutions and other social movements have seemingly failed to bring their emancipatory ideals into being? In response to this enduring question, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri offer Assembly, which inverts the traditional division of revolutionary labour to give strategic force to the assembly of the multitude. While the book aims to offer a blueprint for forms of collective organisation that can bring about a more democratic and just society, Joshua Smeltzer is unconvinced that the authors’ hollowing out of the traditional sphere of the political can deliver this social alternative

Smeltzer, Joshua

LSE Research Online

Book	Review:	Assembly	by	Michael	Hardt	andAntonio	NegriWhy	is	it	that	so	many	revolutions	and	other	social	movements	have	seemingly	failed	to	bring	their	emancipatoryideals	into	being?	In	response	to	this	enduring	question,	Michael	Hardt	and	Antonio	Negri	offer	Assembly,	whichinverts	the	traditional	division	of	revolutionary	labour	to	give	strategic	force	to	the	assembly	of	the	multitude.	Whilethe	book	aims	to	offer	a	blueprint	for	forms	of	collective	organisation	that	can	bring	about	a	more	democratic	and	justsociety,	Joshua	Smeltzer	is	unconvinced	that	the	authors’	hollowing	out	of	the	traditional	sphere	of	the	political	candeliver	this	social	alternative.	Assembly.	Michael	Hardt	and	Antonio	Negri.	Oxford	University	Press.	2017.Find	this	book:	Writing	in	the	aftermath	of	the	Revolutions	of	1848,	Karl	Marx	famously	posited	that‘revolutions	are	the	locomotives	of	history’,	its	driving	force.	And	yet,	looking	back	fromthe	present	day,	revolutions	and	other	social	movements	have	largely	failed	to	enact	theiremancipatory	ideals.	Hardt	and	Negri’s	newest	work	of	political	theory,	Assembly,	beginsby	asking	why	that	should	be	the	case:	‘why	have	the	movements,	which	address	theneeds	and	desires	of	so	many,	not	been	able	to	achieve	lasting	change	and	create	anew,	more	democratic	and	just	society?’	(xiii).Hardt	and	Negri’s	answer	to	this	perennial	question	for	the	left	involves	an	ambitiouscritique	of	previous	theories	of	revolutionary	leadership,	represented	by	the	mythicalfigure	of	the	centaur:	the	‘upper,	human	half’,	symbolising	the	leader,	‘designates	thestrategic	capacities’,	while	the	lower,	beast	half,	representing	the	multitude,	managestactics	(15).	Hardt	and	Negri’s	model	is	instead	the	inversion	of	this	revolutionary	divisionof	labour:	leaders	will	take	on	a	tactical	role	while	the	multitude	forms	strategy	‘from	below’	(78).		From	this	newvantage	point,	the	multitude	will	be	free	to	form	an	assembly:	‘a	constitutive	right,	that	is,	a	mechanism	for	composinga	social	alternative,	for	taking	power	differently,	through	cooperation	in	social	production’	(295).	Once	the	assemblyis	formed,	the	promised	‘democratic	and	just	society’	will	duly	follow.In	issuing	a	call	to	the	multitude,	Assembly	follows	in	the	footsteps	of	Hardt	and	Negri’s	preceding	Empire	trilogy	–Empire	(2000),	Multitude	(2004)	and	Commonwealth		(2009)	–	and	maintains	the	same	structure	of	their	previouscollaborations:	brief	intermezzos,	always	printed	in	cursive,	punctuate	the	text	and	offer	musings	on	‘The	End	ofMitteleuropa’	(134-38)	and	‘Extremism	of	the	Center’	(245-51).	This	time,	however,	the	authors	use	a	call	andresponse	structure	inspired	by	‘songs	sung	by	slaves	in	the	plantation	fields’	(xxi-xxii).	While	this	is	a	novel	way	tostructure	a	work	of	political	theory,	it	does	fragment	the	narrative	cohesion	of	the	text:	calls	are	issued	and	thenforgotten	for	70	pages	before	suddenly	receiving	their	belated	and	often	disjointed	response.LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Assembly by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-01-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/01/31/book-review-assembly-by-michael-hardt-and-antonio-negri/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/Image	Credit:	(Monika	Fischer	CC	BY	2.0)Ultimately,	Assembly	is	a	blueprint	for	empowering	the	multitude	as	the	means	of	establishing	a	more	just	society	–much	of	the	book	is	devoted	to	describing	ideal	forms	of	collective	organisation	and	decision-making	that	coulddemocratise	social	movements.	Hardt	and	Negri	stress	that	once	social	movements	have	been	sufficientlydemocratised,	they	will	not	only	be	more	effective	in	obtaining	their	demands,	but	they	will	also	produce	new	forms	ofdemocratic	subjectivities	(231).	Furthermore,	the	authors	reject	the	binary	choice	between	reform	and	revolution	forsocial	movements,	instead	opting	for	‘active	counterpowers’:	‘antagonistic	formations	within	and	against	the	state’(254).	The	Polish	Solidarity	movement,	the	Zapatistas	and	the	Cocaleros	are	held	up	as	examples	of	socialmovements	which	‘make	a	nonsovereign	claim	on	power’:	a	claim	in	which	sovereignty	will	be	‘rendered	inoperativeor	destroyed’	(256).		At	stake	is	nothing	less	than	‘a	revolutionary	process	that	makes	existing	social	subjectivities,	inall	their	differences,	into	a	new	Prince’	(257).However,	Chapter	Seven,	‘We,	Machinic	Subjects’,	provides	a	glimpse	of	the	resignation	and	complacency	veiled	inthe	paroles	of	revolutionary	activism.	The	chapter	begins	with	a	call	to	reconceptualise	the	relationship	betweenhumans	and	machines:	‘Instead	of	rejecting	technology	[…]	we	must	start	from	within	the	technological	andbiopolitical	fabric	of	our	lives	and	chart	from	there	a	path	of	liberation’	(107).	The	authors	bring	together	MartinHeidegger,	Theodor	Adorno	and	Max	Horkheimer	and	criticise	them	for	‘positing	an	ontological	division	and	evenopposition	between	human	life	and	machines’	(109)	in	the	wake	of	the	Second	World	War.	Instead,	Hardt	and	Negrifollow	Gilles	Deleuze	and	Félix	Guattari	in	arguing	that	humans	and	machines	belong	on	the	same	‘ontological	plane’(122)	and	form	‘machinic	assemblages’	(121).	This	is	intended	to	provide	the	principles	of	a	‘humanism	after	thecritical	adoption	of	the	Nietzschean	declaration	of	the	‘‘death	of	man’”	(121).	The	future	of	revolutionary	politics	thusresides	in	properly	acknowledging	the	inseparability	of	humankind	and	machine,	of	accepting	our	ontological	positionas	‘machinic	subjects’.For	a	brief	moment	during	their	discussion	of	new	forms	of	resistance	open	to	‘machinic	subjects’,	Hardt	and	Negriappear	not	as	hardened	Marxist	intellectuals	but	rather	as	members	of	the	Silicon	Valley	elite,	writing:when	we	look	at	young	people	today	who	are	absorbed	in	machinic	assemblages,	we	should	recognizethat	their	very	existence	is	resistance.	Whether	they	are	aware	or	not,	they	produce	in	resistance	(123).That	technology	can	allow	for	an	even	more	pervasive	form	of	capitalism,	that	mechanisation	facilitates	disciplinarycontrol	or	that	resistance	itself	can	by	stymied	by	technological	tools	–	all	of	this	is	washed	away	by	a	naïve	beliefthat	technology	will	ultimately	provide	an	effective	site	of	political	resistance	and	form	a	‘path	to	liberation’	(107).	ThatHardt	and	Negri	are	willing	to	accept	the	intrusion	of	technology	into	all	aspects	of	human	life,	to	the	point	of	rejectingany	ontological	distinction	between	humans	and	machines	in	favour	of	‘machinic	subjects’,	only	serves	to	undercutpotential	revolutionary	forces	by	subverting	the	uniquely	human	nature	of	political	activity.LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Assembly by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-01-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/01/31/book-review-assembly-by-michael-hardt-and-antonio-negri/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/Yet,	subverting	the	primacy	of	the	political	sphere	forms	an	integral	part	of	the	agenda	laid	out	in	Assembly	–	Hardtand	Negri	devote	an	entire	subchapter	to	arguing	‘against	the	autonomy	of	the	political’.	The	underlying	justificationis	that	‘political	rationality	and	political	action	can	no	longer	be	considered	autonomous	but	always	completelyembedded	in	the	circuits	of	social	and	economic	life’	(45).	Indeed,	the	authors	suggest	that	politics	is	just	a	‘noisysphere’	(xv),	a	distraction	from	social	and	economic	spheres.	Hardt	and	Negri’s	notion	of	politics	as	epiphenomenalis	both	unsatisfactory	and	counterproductive	as	it	undercuts	political	life,	the	very	domain	where	the	struggle	over	thetype	and	form	of	communal	existence	takes	place.Aversion	to	the	political	sphere	ultimately	muddies	the	conceptual	analysis	in	Assembly.	For	example,	Hardt	andNegri’s	critique	of	constituent	power	involves	distorting	the	concept	to	the	point	of	reducing	it	to	an	empty	signifier,devoid	of	any	meaning.	The	pair	posits	that	the	concept	underwent	an	‘immersion	in	biopolitics’	and	that	‘the	contentof	constituent	power	tends	to	become	life	itself’	(36).		However,	the	reader	neither	learns	when	this	immersionsupposedly	happened	nor	how	it	is	conceptually	possible.	Hardt	and	Negri	have	severed	the	concept	from	its	literaland	historical	meaning	–	the	act	of	giving	a	legal	constitution	–	and	instead	appropriate	it	for	discussing	‘socialbehaviors	and	new	technologies	of	subsistence,	resistance,	and	transformation	of	life’	(41).	Two	chapters	later,	theauthors	turn	again	to	give	the	concept	an	ontological	meaning,	defining	it	as	‘constituting	new	common	being’	(68).Both	of	these	appropriations	divorce	constituent	power	from	its	specific	legal	and	political	meaning	and	history	withinEuropean	public	law,	ultimately	stripping	the	concept	of	any	theoretical	import	in	discussing	political	life.Hardt	and	Negri’s	newest	intellectual	contribution	might	prove	of	interest	to	those	who	enjoy	paragraph-lengthsentences	and	the	periodic	intrusion	of	auditory	hallucinations:	‘and	yet	–	whispers	some	evil	genius	in	our	ears	–	theconditions	of	the	world	today	are	not	propitious’	(xvi).	However,	as	a	work	of	political	theory	for	the	present,Assembly,	with	its	hollowing	out	of	the	political	sphere,	only	manages	to	derail	the	locomotive	of	history.Joshua	Smeltzer	is	a	doctoral	student	at	the	University	of	Cambridge	pursuing	a	PhD	in	Politics	and	InternationalStudies,	with	a	focus	on	twentieth-century	German	political	thought.	Read	more	by	Joshua	Smeltzer.Note:	This	review	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Review	of	Books	blog,	or	of	theLondon	School	of	Economics.	LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Assembly by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-01-31Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/01/31/book-review-assembly-by-michael-hardt-and-antonio-negri/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/

Book review: assembly by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri

Book	Review	|	Assembly	by	Michael	Hardt	andAntonio	NegriWhy	is	it	that	so	many	revolutions	and	other	social	movements	have	seemingly	failed	to	bring	their	emancipatoryideals	into	being?	In	response	to	this	enduring	question,	Michael	Hardt	and	Antonio	Negri	offer	Assembly,	whichinverts	the	traditional	division	of	revolutionary	labour	to	give	strategic	force	to	the	assembly	of	the	multitude.	Whilethe	book	aims	to	offer	a	blueprint	for	forms	of	collective	organisation	that	can	bring	about	a	more	democratic	andjust	society,	Joshua	Smeltzer	is	unconvinced	that	the	authors’	hollowing	out	of	the	traditional	sphere	of	the	politicalcan	deliver	this	social	alternative.	Solidarity	demonstration,	Warsaw,	1984.	Picture	Thomas	Hedden	(Own	work)[Public	domain],	via	Wikimedia	CommonsAssembly.	Michael	Hardt	and	Antonio	Negri.	Oxford	University	Press.	2017.Find	this	book:	Writing	in	the	aftermath	of	the	Revolutions	of	1848,	Karl	Marx	famously	posited	that‘revolutions	are	the	locomotives	of	history’,	its	driving	force.	And	yet,	looking	back	fromthe	present	day,	revolutions	and	other	social	movements	have	largely	failed	to	enacttheir	emancipatory	ideals.	Hardt	and	Negri’s	newest	work	of	political	theory,	Assembly,begins	by	asking	why	that	should	be	the	case:	‘why	have	the	movements,	whichaddress	the	needs	and	desires	of	so	many,	not	been	able	to	achieve	lasting	change	andcreate	a	new,	more	democratic	and	just	society?’	(xiii).Hardt	and	Negri’s	answer	to	this	perennial	question	for	the	left	involves	an	ambitiouscritique	of	previous	theories	of	revolutionary	leadership,	represented	by	the	mythicalfigure	of	the	centaur:	the	‘upper,	human	half’,	symbolising	the	leader,	‘designates	thestrategic	capacities’,	while	the	lower,	beast	half,	representing	the	multitude,	managestactics	(15).	Hardt	and	Negri’s	model	is	instead	the	inversion	of	this	revolutionarydivision	of	labour:	leaders	will	take	on	a	tactical	role	while	the	multitude	forms	strategy	‘from	below’	(78).		From	thisnew	vantage	point,	the	multitude	will	be	free	to	form	an	assembly:	‘a	constitutive	right,	that	is,	a	mechanism	forcomposing	a	social	alternative,	for	taking	power	differently,	through	cooperation	in	social	production’	(295).	Oncethe	assembly	is	formed,	the	promised	‘democratic	and	just	society’	will	duly	follow.Democratic Audit: Book Review | Assembly by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-02-10Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/02/10/book-review-assembly-by-michael-hardt-and-antonio-negri/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/In	issuing	a	call	to	the	multitude,	Assembly	follows	in	the	footsteps	of	Hardt	and	Negri’s	preceding	Empire	trilogy–	Empire	(2000),	Multitude	(2004)	and	Commonwealth		(2009)	–	and	maintains	the	same	structure	of	their	previouscollaborations:	brief	intermezzos,	always	printed	in	cursive,	punctuate	the	text	and	offer	musings	on	‘The	End	ofMitteleuropa’	(134-38)	and	‘Extremism	of	the	Center’	(245-51).	This	time,	however,	the	authors	use	a	call	andresponse	structure	inspired	by	‘songs	sung	by	slaves	in	the	plantation	fields’	(xxi-xxii).	While	this	is	a	novel	way	tostructure	a	work	of	political	theory,	it	does	fragment	the	narrative	cohesion	of	the	text:	calls	are	issued	and	thenforgotten	for	70	pages	before	suddenly	receiving	their	belated	and	often	disjointed	response.Ultimately,	Assembly	is	a	blueprint	for	empowering	the	multitude	as	the	means	of	establishing	a	more	just	society	–much	of	the	book	is	devoted	to	describing	ideal	forms	of	collective	organisation	and	decision-making	that	coulddemocratise	social	movements.	Hardt	and	Negri	stress	that	once	social	movements	have	been	sufficientlydemocratised,	they	will	not	only	be	more	effective	in	obtaining	their	demands,	but	they	will	also	produce	new	formsof	democratic	subjectivities	(231).	Furthermore,	the	authors	reject	the	binary	choice	between	reform	and	revolutionfor	social	movements,	instead	opting	for	‘active	counterpowers’:	‘antagonistic	formations	within	and	against	thestate’	(254).	The	Polish	Solidarity	movement,	the	Zapatistas	and	the	Cocaleros	are	held	up	as	examples	of	socialmovements	which	‘make	a	nonsovereign	claim	on	power’:	a	claim	in	which	sovereignty	will	be	‘rendered	inoperativeor	destroyed’	(256).		At	stake	is	nothing	less	than	‘a	revolutionary	process	that	makes	existing	social	subjectivities,in	all	their	differences,	into	a	new	Prince’	(257).However,	Chapter	Seven,	‘We,	Machinic	Subjects’,	provides	a	glimpse	of	the	resignation	and	complacency	veiled	inthe	paroles	of	revolutionary	activism.	The	chapter	begins	with	a	call	to	reconceptualise	the	relationship	betweenhumans	and	machines:	‘Instead	of	rejecting	technology	[…]	we	must	start	from	within	the	technological	andbiopolitical	fabric	of	our	lives	and	chart	from	there	a	path	of	liberation’	(107).	The	authors	bring	together	MartinHeidegger,	Theodor	Adorno	and	Max	Horkheimer	and	criticise	them	for	‘positing	an	ontological	division	and	evenopposition	between	human	life	and	machines’	(109)	in	the	wake	of	the	Second	World	War.	Instead,	Hardt	and	Negrifollow	Gilles	Deleuze	and	Félix	Guattari	in	arguing	that	humans	and	machines	belong	on	the	same	‘ontologicalplane’	(122)	and	form	‘machinic	assemblages’	(121).	This	is	intended	to	provide	the	principles	of	a	‘humanism	afterthe	critical	adoption	of	the	Nietzschean	declaration	of	the	‘‘death	of	man’”	(121).	The	future	of	revolutionary	politicsthus	resides	in	properly	acknowledging	the	inseparability	of	humankind	and	machine,	of	accepting	our	ontologicalposition	as	‘machinic	subjects’.For	a	brief	moment	during	their	discussion	of	new	forms	of	resistance	open	to	‘machinic	subjects’,	Hardt	and	Negriappear	not	as	hardened	Marxist	intellectuals	but	rather	as	members	of	the	Silicon	Valley	elite,	writing:when	we	look	at	young	people	today	who	are	absorbed	in	machinic	assemblages,	we	should	recognizethat	their	very	existence	is	resistance.	Whether	they	are	aware	or	not,	they	produce	in	resistance	(123).That	technology	can	allow	for	an	even	more	pervasive	form	of	capitalism,	that	mechanisation	facilitates	disciplinarycontrol	or	that	resistance	itself	can	by	stymied	by	technological	tools	–	all	of	this	is	washed	away	by	a	naïve	beliefthat	technology	will	ultimately	provide	an	effective	site	of	political	resistance	and	form	a	‘path	to	liberation’	(107).That	Hardt	and	Negri	are	willing	to	accept	the	intrusion	of	technology	into	all	aspects	of	human	life,	to	the	point	ofrejecting	any	ontological	distinction	between	humans	and	machines	in	favour	of	‘machinic	subjects’,	only	serves	toundercut	potential	revolutionary	forces	by	subverting	the	uniquely	human	nature	of	political	activity.Yet,	subverting	the	primacy	of	the	political	sphere	forms	an	integral	part	of	the	agenda	laid	out	in	Assembly	–	Hardtand	Negri	devote	an	entire	subchapter	to	arguing	‘against	the	autonomy	of	the	political’.	The	underlying	justificationis	that	‘political	rationality	and	political	action	can	no	longer	be	considered	autonomous	but	always	completelyembedded	in	the	circuits	of	social	and	economic	life’	(45).	Indeed,	the	authors	suggest	that	politics	is	just	a	‘noisysphere’	(xv),	a	distraction	from	social	and	economic	spheres.	Hardt	and	Negri’s	notion	of	politics	as	epiphenomenalis	both	unsatisfactory	and	counterproductive	as	it	undercuts	political	life,	the	very	domain	where	the	struggle	overthe	type	and	form	of	communal	existence	takes	place.Democratic Audit: Book Review | Assembly by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-02-10Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/02/10/book-review-assembly-by-michael-hardt-and-antonio-negri/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/Aversion	to	the	political	sphere	ultimately	muddies	the	conceptual	analysis	in	Assembly.	For	example,	Hardt	andNegri’s	critique	of	constituent	power	involves	distorting	the	concept	to	the	point	of	reducing	it	to	an	empty	signifier,devoid	of	any	meaning.	The	pair	posits	that	the	concept	underwent	an	‘immersion	in	biopolitics’	and	that	‘thecontent	of	constituent	power	tends	to	become	life	itself’	(36).		However,	the	reader	neither	learns	when	thisimmersion	supposedly	happened	nor	how	it	is	conceptually	possible.	Hardt	and	Negri	have	severed	the	conceptfrom	its	literal	and	historical	meaning	–	the	act	of	giving	a	legal	constitution	–	and	instead	appropriate	it	fordiscussing	‘social	behaviors	and	new	technologies	of	subsistence,	resistance,	and	transformation	of	life’	(41).	Twochapters	later,	the	authors	turn	again	to	give	the	concept	an	ontological	meaning,	defining	it	as	‘constituting	newcommon	being’	(68).	Both	of	these	appropriations	divorce	constituent	power	from	its	specific	legal	and	politicalmeaning	and	history	within	European	public	law,	ultimately	stripping	the	concept	of	any	theoretical	import	indiscussing	political	life.Hardt	and	Negri’s	newest	intellectual	contribution	might	prove	of	interest	to	those	who	enjoy	paragraph-lengthsentences	and	the	periodic	intrusion	of	auditory	hallucinations:	‘and	yet	–	whispers	some	evil	genius	in	our	ears	–the	conditions	of	the	world	today	are	not	propitious’	(xvi).	However,	as	a	work	of	political	theory	for	thepresent,	Assembly,	with	its	hollowing	out	of	the	political	sphere,	only	manages	to	derail	the	locomotive	of	history.	This	post	represents	the	views	of	the	author	and	not	those	of	Democratic	Audit.	It	first	appeared	at	the	LSE	Reviewof	Books.Joshua	Smeltzer	is	a	doctoral	student	at	the	University	of	Cambridge	pursuing	a	PhD	in	Politics	and	InternationalStudies,	with	a	focus	on	twentieth-century	German	political	thought.	Read	more	by	Joshua	Smeltzer.	Similar	PostsDemocratic Audit: Book Review | Assembly by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-02-10Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/02/10/book-review-assembly-by-michael-hardt-and-antonio-negri/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/

English