Research On Antonio Negri’s Theory Of Immaterial Labor

Abstract:Antonio Negri is a famous Italian scholar of Marxism. In his series of works, like Empire and Multitude, he puts forward and elaborates the theory of immaterial labor. The theory has its deep historical background and theoretical resources, which combines Marx’s critique of political economy with the thought of biopolitics of post-structuralism in France, and inherits the academic tradition of Italian Marxism. The concept of immaterial labor has three meanings. Firstly, it is communicative labor linked with informational networks. Secondly, it is interactive and cooperative labor. Thirdly, it is the labor that manipulates and produces affects. Meanwhile, Negri calls this new labor form biopolitical labor, which emphasizes different aspects from immaterial labor. We should distinguish immaterial labor from some labor concepts in Marx’s works. Negri focuses on Marx’s concept of living labor and considers immaterial labor as real living labor, but he ignores Marx’s core concept of waged labor, which reflects the difference in their academic logic. Also, immaterial labor is included in Marx’s concept of productive labor. In comparing with the hegemony of industrial labor, Negri brings forward the hegemony of immaterial labor. The so-called hegemony is the quality advantage of the labor form in the whole production and life. Immaterial labor, as a new labor form, has permeates the production sphere and the whole society, which blurs the dividing line of production and life, work and leisure, as well as production and reproduction, and changes the form of exploit. With the emergence of the hegemony of immaterial labor and its inner cooperation and communication, multitude as the new resistance subject and autonomy as the new struggle form have been produced Democracy has become possible today.Negri’s research on immaterial labor has substantial importance. It provides a possible understanding of contemporary labor form, and brings up a new topic of Marx’s critique of political economy. Meanwhile, it has surpassed the dilemma of western Marxism. However, his research has limitations. Firstly, immaterial labor is the empirical generalization of the new labor form, but he does not explore the inner contradiction of capitalist mode of production. Secondly, he explains history from a political perspective and overemphasizes the logic of subject. Thirdly, his theory of immaterial labor is a ethical project, which is not realistic.