Why should Marxists be interested in the philosophy of Spinoza? In a word: he is our Plato. As Deleuze, Althusser, and Negri have insisted, Spinoza offers an unprecedented conception of the onto-political commons.
Posted by Ted Stolze on January 7, 2006 11:58 AM
Comments
Questions, posed in backwards order? Why refer to the commons? Why not use the more active designation of the multitude, which I take to mean, the masses in action. Explain
the interface between the ontological and the politcal? I assume
it goes something like this, we live in our bodies only politically
(in relation to other bodies) and therefore we have to think 'things' politcally. Or, in a slightly different frame, the body stands in for the multitude, the lower classes, and the fusion
of the mind and body, is another way of describing the absolute
democracy that we call socialism. Plato is suggestive, but is
there something in Plato you are getting at?
Trouble-Tickets needs a volunteer Director of Marketing
who can help us get the word out. Have progressive politics?
Check out our jobs page for details.
Comments
Questions, posed in backwards order? Why refer to the commons? Why not use the more active designation of the multitude, which I take to mean, the masses in action. Explain
the interface between the ontological and the politcal? I assume
it goes something like this, we live in our bodies only politically
(in relation to other bodies) and therefore we have to think 'things' politcally. Or, in a slightly different frame, the body stands in for the multitude, the lower classes, and the fusion
of the mind and body, is another way of describing the absolute
democracy that we call socialism. Plato is suggestive, but is
there something in Plato you are getting at?
Posted by: Wayne Rothschild | January 13, 2006 12:47 PM