Chapter 1: Subjective Figures of the Crisis ... - Negri in English

Horizontal, democratic assemblies do not expect or seek
unanimity but instead are constituted by a plural process that is
open to conflicts and contradictions. The decisions of the
majority move forward through a process of differential inclusion
or, rather, through the agglutination of differences. The work of
the assembly, in other words, is to find ways to link different
views and different desires such that they can fit together in
contingent ways. The majority, then, becomes not a
homogeneous unit or even a body of agreement but a
concatenation of differences. Minorities are protected, therefore,
not by being separated but by being empowered to participate in
the process. Such a configuration allows us to leave behind
notions of the general will, which rely on the wisdom of
representatives, and instead to fashion politics democratically,
according to the will of all.
The functioning of such dynamic and internally multiple
majorities also transforms the conventional conception of
tolerance. Tolerance has often been understood to imply the
social separation of minorities and blindness to their difference.
You are tolerant of his homosexuality by pretending he is not
gay. Or you are tolerant by allowing him to live with others like
him, separate from the dominant society. The rule of the
majority, however, does not require that minorities be protected
either through indifference or by making them an exception and
socially separating them. Tolerance must instead give everyone
the power to participate as different and to work actively with
others. This tolerance is an essential feature of the internal
multiplicity of the ruling majority.
A plural ontology of politics. The struggles of 2011 we
address here took place in sites far apart, and their protagonists
have very different forms of life. Some overthrew 7 tyrants and
demanded the right to vote in free and fair elections, w T hereas
others criticized and refused political systems of representation;
some denounced social and economic inequality and injustice,
w T hereas others destroyed and looted property- some supported
and were supported by established labor unions, w T hereas others
concentrated on the precarious workers and the immaterial
forms of production that are often not represented by traditional
unions; and so forth. Why, then, should we consider these