Negri's visit and other disappointments

Negri’s trip to Iran, though generally disappointing, wasn’t theoretically fruitless. It did help to clear some points, which can be pointed out by considering the case of an imaginary Iranian version of his political position. The fact that his political philosophy as a whole did sound irrelevant to the Iranian audience doesn’t prove anything, because he could, and in fact did, react by calling my view of radical politics as “ the introduction of a void or negative exception into the state of the situation” a kind of “political mysticism”. I don’t think he actually got my point ( indeed, how could anyone who is badly informed about the situation understand a complex political discourse just by listening to a short question!) and simply reacted to a familiar, disliked, terminology and the name “Carl Schmitt”. But misrecognition is a first step towards truth.So starting with the undeniable existing misunderstandings, we can go on to the assumption that, at least for the time being, an Iranian version of Negri’s politics can become a reality only in the form of a number of militants( intellectuals, students, etc.) believing and propagating a number of ideas. Given Negri’s innovative ideas, it is obvious that the very form of this “ intellectualized” politics contradicts its content; and its agents are the furthest thing possible from a “multitude”( this is pretty evident even to someone like me who still doesn’t understand what a “multitude” really is.) And I think, for a Spinozist who believes in the immanent direct causality of the substance (potentia), the presence of this distorted, negative mode of power ( potestas) at the heart of the substance, must be a scandal. A possible consequence of these actually existing misunderstandings is the impossibility of formulating a ‘global’ radicalism. Interestingly, although this result can be acceptable to many types of ‘local’ radicalism, yet most probably it’ll be a stumbling block to Negri or anyone whose radical hopes are pinned on the global phase of capitalism and its socio-cultural effects. For the rest of us it points beyond another criticism of orthodox Marxism or the refusal to participate in the building of a new International. It implies openness to theoretical sources , post, pre, and anti-Marxist; from the far left to the far right, including “fascist” figures such as Carl Schmitt. I hope Badiou’s Saint Paul has taught us all that truth can be found in unlikely places. Which brings me to the last point: in opposition to any ‘post-modern’ passion for diversity, all knowledge gained from these sources must be submitted to the harsh criticism of consistent thought. Unlike misunderstandings that are given by external fate, truths can only be gained through personal and collective labour/love.
Morad Farhadpour