Commonwealth

common H A R D T

"Everyone seems to agree that our e c o n o m i c system is bro-

MICHAEL

ken, yet the d e b a t e about alternatives remains oppressively narrow. Hardt and Negri e x p l o d e this c l a u s t r o p h o b i c d e bate, taking readers to the deepest roots of our current crises and p r o p o s i n g radical, and deeply human, solutions.

ANTONIO

There has never been a better time for this book." —Naomi Klein, author of The Shock

'Commonwealth,

Doctrine

NEGRI

last and richest of the Empire trilogy, is a

powerful a n d ambitious reappropriation of the whole tradition of political theory for the Left. Clarifying Foucault's a m b i g u o u s notion of biopower, d e e p e n i n g the authors' o w n proposal for the notion of multitude, it offers an exhilarating s u m m a of the forms and possibilities of resistance today. It is a politically as well as an intellectually invigorating achievement." —Fredric J a m e s o n , Duke University

ISBN 17fl-D-t7M-D3Sll-1

BELKNAP

wealth

and Negri's thought, it also stands alone and is entirely accessible to readers who are not familiar with the previous works. It is certain to appeal to, challenge, and enrich the thinking of anyone interested in questions of politics and globalization.

P h o t o o f A n t o n i o N e g r i (left) a n d Michael Hardt by Nora Parcu

M I C H A E L H A R D T is Professor of Literature and Italian at Duke University. A N T O N I O N E G R I is an independent researcher and writer. They are coauthors of Empire (Harvard) and Multitude.

THE

BELKNAP

HARVARD

PRESS OF

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

Cambridge, Massachusetts Design: Jill Breitbarth

When Empire appeared in 2000, it defined the political and economic challenges of the era of globalization and, thrillingly, found in them possibilities for new and more democratic forms of social organization. Now, with

Commonwealth,

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri conclude the trilogy begun with Empire and continued in Multitude, proposing an ethics of freedom for living in our common world and articulating a possible constitution for our common wealth. Drawing on scenarios from around the globe and elucidating the themes that unite them, Hardt and Negri focus on the logic of institutions and the models of governance adequate to our understanding of a global commonwealth. They argue for the idea of the "common" to replace the opposition of private and public and the politics predicated on that opposition. Ultimately, they articulate the theoretical bases for what they call "governing the revolution." Though this book functions as an extension and a completion of a sustained line of Hardt

COMMONWEALTH

COMMONWEALTH Michael Hardt

Antonio Negri

THE

BELKNAP

HARVARD

PRESS

OF

UNIVERSITY

Cambridge, Massachusetts

PRESS

2009

CONTENTS

Copyright © 2009 by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hardt, Michael, 1960Commonwealth / Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, p. cm. Sequel to "Empire" and "Multitude." Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-674-03511-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. International organization. 2. International cooperation. 3. Globalization. I. Negri, Antonio, 1933- II.Tide. JZ1318.H368 2009 321.02—dc22 2009012652

Preface .The Becoming-Prince of the Multitude PART 1

vii

R e p u b l i c (and the M u l t i t u d e o f the Poor)

1.1 Republic o f Property

3

1.2 Productive Bodies

22

1.3 T h e Multitude o f the Poor

39

De Corf ore 1: Biopolitics as Event

PART 2

56

M o d e r n i t y (and the Landscapes o f A l t e r m o d e r n i t y )

2.1 Antimodernity as Resistance

67

2.2 Ambivalences o f M o d e r n i t y

83

2.3 Altermodernity De Homine 1: Biopolitical Reason

PART 3

101 119

Capital (and the Struggles over C o m m o n Wealth)

3.1 Metamorphoses o f the Composition o f Capital

131

3.2 Class Struggle from Crisis to Exodus

150

3.3 Kairos o f the Multitude

165

De Singularitate 1: O f Love Possessed

I N T E R M E Z Z O : A F O R C E T O C O M B A T EVIL

179

189

CONTENTS

PART 4

E m p i r e Returns

4.1 B r i e f History o f a Failed C o u p d'Etat

203

4.2 After U.S. Hegemony

219

4.3 Genealogy o f R e b e l l i o n

234

De Corpore 2: Metropolis

PREFACE: THE BECOMING-PRINCE

249

OF T H E M U L T I T U D E PART 5

B e y o n d Capital?

5.1 Terms o f the E c o n o m i c Transition

263

5.2 W h a t Remains o f Capitalism

280

5.3 Pre-shocks along the Fault Lines

296

De Homine 2: Cross the Threshold!

PART 6

312

Revolution

People only ever have the degree of freedom that their audacity wins from fear. —Stendhal, Vie de Napoleon

Power to the peaceful. -Michael Franti. "Bomb the World"

6.1 Revolutionary Parallelism

325

6.2 Insurrectional Intersections

345

6.3 Governing the R e v o l u t i o n

361

De Singularitate 2: Instituting Happiness

376

War, suffering, misery, and exploitation increasingly characterize our globalizing w o r l d . There are so many reasons to seek

Notes

387

refuge i n a realm "outside," some place separate from the discipline

Acknowledgments

427

and control o f today's emerging E m p i r e or even some transcendent

Index

428

or transcendental principles and values that can guide our lives and ground our political action. O n e primary effect o f globalization, however, is the creation o f a c o m m o n w o r l d , a w o r l d that, for better or worse, we all share, a w o r l d that has no "outside." A l o n g w i t h n i hilists, we have to recognize that, regardless o f h o w brilliantly and trenchantly we critique it, we are destined to live i n this w o r l d , not only subject to its powers o f domination but also contaminated by its corruptions. A b a n d o n all dreams o f political purity and "higher values" that w o u l d allow us to remain outside! Such a nihilist recognition, however, should be only a tool, a point o f passage toward constructing an alternative project. In this b o o k we articulate an ethical project, an ethics o f democratic political action w i t h i n and against Empire. W e investigate what the movements and practices of the multitude have been and what they can become i n order to

discover the social relations and institutional forms o f a possible

been destroyed. A n d yet so m u c h o f our w o r l d is c o m m o n , open to

global democracy. " B e c o m i n g - P r i n c e " is the process o f the m u l t i -

access o f all and developed through active participation. Language,

tude learning the art o f self-rule and inventing lasting democratic

for example, like affects and gestures, is for the most part c o m m o n ,

forms o f social organization.

and indeed i f language were made either private or public—that is,

A democracy o f the multitude is imaginable and possible only

i f large portions o f our words, phrases, or parts o f speech were sub-

because we all share and participate i n the c o m m o n . B y "the c o m -

ject to private ownership or public authority—then language w o u l d

m o n " we mean, first o f all, the c o m m o n wealth o f the material

lose its powers o f expression, creativity, and c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Such

world—the air, the water, the fruits o f the soil, and all nature's

an example is meant not to calm readers, as i f to say that the crises

b o u n t y — w h i c h i n classic European political texts is often claimed

created by private and public controls are not as bad as they seem,

to be the inheritance o f humanity as a whole, to be shared together.

but rather to help readers begin to retrain their vision, recognizing

W e consider the c o m m o n also and more significantly those results

the c o m m o n that exists and what it can do. That is the first step i n a

o f social production that are necessary for social interaction and fur-

project to w i n back and expand the c o m m o n and its powers.

ther production, such as knowledges, languages, codes, information,

T h e seemingly exclusive alternative between the private and

affects, and so forth. This notion o f the c o m m o n does not position

the public corresponds to an equally pernicious political alternative

humanity separate from nature, as either its exploiter or its custo-

between capitalism and socialism. It is often assumed that the only

dian, but focuses rather o n the practices o f interaction, care, and

cure for the ills o f capitalist society is public regulation and Keynes-

cohabitation i n a c o m m o n w o r l d , promoting the beneficial and l i m -

ian a n d / o r socialist economic management; and, conversely, socialist

iting the detrimental forms o f the c o m m o n . In the era o f globaliza-

maladies are presumed to be treatable only by private property and

tion, issues o f the maintenance, production, and distribution o f the

capitalist control. Socialism and capitalism, however, even though

c o m m o n i n both these senses and i n both ecological and socioeco-

they have at times been mingled together and at others occasioned

n o m i c frameworks become increasingly central.

1

W i t h the blinders o f today's dominant ideologies, however, it is difficult to see the c o m m o n , even though it is all around us. Neoliberal government policies throughout the w o r l d have sought i n recent decades to privatize the c o m m o n , m a k i n g cultural p r o d ucts—for example, information, ideas, and even species o f animals

bitter conflicts, are both regimes o f property that exclude the c o m m o n . T h e political project o f instituting the c o m m o n , w h i c h we develop i n this book, cuts diagonally across these false alternatives— neither private nor public, neither capitalist nor socialist—and opens a new space for politics. C o n t e m p o r a r y forms o f capitalist production and accumula-

and plants—into private property. W e argue, i n chorus w i t h many

tion i n fact, despite their continuing drive to privatize resources and

others, that such privatization should be resisted. T h e standard view,

wealth, paradoxically make possible and even require expansions o f

however, assumes that the only alternative to the private is the p u b -

the c o m m o n . Capital, o f course, is not a pure f o r m o f c o m m a n d but

lic, that is, what is managed and regulated by states and other gov-

a social relation, and it depends for its survival and development

ernmental authorities, as i f the c o m m o n were irrelevant or extinct.

on productive subjectivities that are internal but antagonistic to it.

It is true, o f course, that through a l o n g process o f enclosures the

T h r o u g h processes o f globalization, capital not only brings together

earth's surface has been almost completely divided up between p u b -

all the earth under its c o m m a n d but also creates, invests, and exploits

lic and private property so that c o m m o n land regimes, such as those

social life i n its entirety, ordering life according to the hierarchies o f

o f indigenous civilizations o f the Americas or medieval Europe, have

economic value. In the newly dominant forms o f production that

involve information, codes, knowledge, images, and affects, for ex-

grasping the new conditions and possibilities o f the contemporary

ample, producers increasingly require a high degree o f freedom as

world. Sometimes we invent new terms to face this challenge, but

well as open access to the c o m m o n , especially i n its social forms,

more often we seek to resurrect and reanimate o l d political c o n -

such as communications networks, information banks, and cultural

cepts that have fallen out o f use, both because they carry powerful

circuits. Innovation i n Internet technologies, for example, depends

histories and because they disrupt the conventional understandings

directly o n access to c o m m o n code and information resources as

o f our present w o r l d and pose it i n a new light. T w o such concepts

well as the ability to connect and interact w i t h others i n unrestricted

that play particularly significant roles i n this b o o k are poverty and

networks. A n d more generally, all forms o f production i n decentral-

love.The p o o r was a widespread political concept i n Europe, at least

ized networks, whether or not computer technologies are involved,

from the M i d d l e Ages to the seventeenth century, but although we

demand freedom and access to the c o m m o n . Furthermore the c o n -

w i l l do our best to learn from some o f those histories, we are more

tent o f what is produced—including ideas, images, and affects—is

interested i n what the poor has become today. T h i n k i n g i n terms o f

easily reproduced and thus tends toward being c o m m o n , strongly

poverty has the healthy effect, first o f all, o f questioning traditional

resisting all legal and economic efforts to privatize it or b r i n g it u n -

class designations and forcing us to investigate w i t h fresh eyes h o w

der public control.The transition is already i n process: contemporary

class composition has changed and l o o k at people's w i d e range o f

capitalist production by addressing its o w n needs is opening up the

productive activities inside and outside wage relations. Seen i n this

possibility o f and creating the bases for a social and economic order

way, second, the p o o r is defined by not lack but possibility. T h e poor,

grounded i n the c o m m o n .

migrants, and "precarious" workers (that is, those w i t h o u t stable e m -

T h e ultimate core o f biopolitical production, we can see step-

ployment) are often conceived as excluded, but really, though sub-

ping back to a higher level o f abstraction, is not the production o f

ordinated, they are completely w i t h i n the global rhythms o f b i o -

objects for subjects, as c o m m o d i t y production is often understood,

political production. E c o n o m i c statistics can grasp the c o n d i t i o n o f

but the production o f subjectivity itself. T h i s is the terrain from

poverty i n negative terms but not the forms o f life, languages, move-

w h i c h our ethical and political project must set out. B u t h o w can an

ments, or capacities for innovation they generate. O u r challenge w i l l

ethical production be established o n the shifting ground o f the pro-

be to find ways to translate the productivity and possibility o f the

duction o f subjectivity, w h i c h constantly transforms fixed values and

poor into power.

subjects? Gilles Deleuze, reflecting o n M i c h e l Foucault's n o t i o n o f

Walter Benjamin, w i t h his typical elegance and intelligence,

the dispositif (the material, social, affective, and cognitive mechanisms

grasps the changing concept o f poverty already i n the 1930s. H e l o -

or apparatuses o f the production o f subjectivity), claims, " W e belong

cates the shift, i n a nihilistic key, i n the experience o f those w h o

to the dispositifs and act w i t h i n them." If we are to act w i t h i n them,

have witnessed destruction, specifically the destruction wrought by

however, the ethical h o r i z o n has to be reoriented from identity to

the First W o r l d War, w h i c h casts us i n a c o m m o n condition. Benja-

becoming. A t issue "is not what we are but rather what we are i n

m i n sees, b o r n out o f the ruins o f the past, the potential for a new,

2

positive f o r m o f barbarism. " F o r what does poverty o f experience

the process o f becoming—that is the Other, our becoming-other."

A key scene o f political action today, seen from this vantage point,

do for the barbarian? It forces h i m to start from scratch; to make a

involves the struggle over the control or autonomy o f the produc-

new start; to make a little go a l o n g way; to begin w i t h a little and

tion o f subjectivity. T h e multitude makes itself by composing i n the

build up further." T h e "barbaric" productivity o f the p o o r sets out

c o m m o n the singular subjectivities that result from this process.

to make a c o m m o n w o r l d .

We often find that our political vocabulary is insufficient for

3

Love provides another path for investigating the power and

xii

PREFACE

PREFACE

productivity o f the c o m m o n . Love is a means to escape the solitude

multitude is a set o f singularities that poverty and love compose i n

o f individualism but not, as contemporary ideology tells us, only to

the reproduction o f the c o m m o n , but more is required to describe

be isolated again i n the private life o f the couple or the family To

the dynamics and dispositifs o f the becoming-Prince o f the m u l t i -

arrive at a political concept o f love that recognizes it as centered o n

tude. W e w i l l not pull out o f our hats new transcendentals or new

the production o f the c o m m o n and the production o f social life,

definitions o f the w i l l to power to impose o n the multitude. T h e

we have to break away from most o f the contemporary

meanings

becoming-Prince o f the multitude is a project that relies entirely o n

o f the term by b r i n g i n g back and w o r k i n g w i t h some older n o -

the immanence o f decision m a k i n g w i t h i n the multitude. W e w i l l

tions. Socrates, for example, reports i n the Symposium that, accord-

have to discover the passage from revolt to revolutionary institution

ing to D i o t i m a , his "instructor i n love," love is b o r n o f poverty and

that the multitude can set i n m o t i o n .

invention. As he tries to elaborate what she taught h i m , he claims

W i t h the title o f this book, Commonwealth, we mean to i n d i -

that love tends naturally toward the ideal realm to achieve beauty

cate a return to some o f the themes o f classic treatises o f govern-

and wealth, thus fulfilling desire. French and Italian feminists argue,

ment, exploring the institutional structure and political constitution

however, that Plato has D i o t i m a all wrong. She guides us not toward

o f society. W e also want to emphasize, once we recognize the rela-

the "sublimation" o f poverty and desire i n the "fullness" o f beauty

tion between the two terms that compose this concept, the need

and wealth, but toward the power o f b e c o m i n g defined by differ-

to institute and manage a w o r l d o f c o m m o n wealth, focusing o n

ences. D i o t i m a s notion o f love gives us a new definition o f wealth

and expanding our capacities for collective production and self-gov-

that extends our n o t i o n o f the c o m m o n and points toward a process

ernment. T h e first half o f the b o o k is a philosophical and historical

4

o f liberation.

exploration that focuses successively o n the republic, modernity, and

5

Since poverty and love might appear too weak to overthrow

capital as three frameworks that obstruct and corrupt the develop-

the current r u l i n g powers and develop a project o f the c o m m o n , we

ment o f the c o m m o n . O n each o f these terrains, however, we also

w i l l need to emphasize the element o f force that animates them.

discover alternatives that emerge i n the multitude o f the poor and

This is i n part an intellectual force. Immanuel Kant, for example,

the circuits o f altermodernity.The second half o f the b o o k is a polit-

conceives o f Enlightenment i n terms o f a force that can banish the

ical and economic analysis o f the contemporary terrain o f the c o m -

"fanatical visions" that result i n the death o f philosophy and, more-

mon. W e explore the global governance structures o f Empire and

over, can w i n out over every policing o f thought. Jacques D e r r i d a ,

the apparatuses o f capitalist c o m m a n d to gauge the current state and

following this "enlightened" Kant, brings reason back to the force o f

potential o f the multitude. O u r analysis ends w i t h a reflection o n

doubt and recognizes the revolutionary passion o f reason as emerg-

the contemporary possibilities for revolution and the institutional

ing from the margins o f history. W e too believe that such intellec-

processes it w o u l d require. A t the end o f each part o f the book is a

tual force is required to overcome dogmatism and nihilism, but we

section that takes up from a different and more philosophical per-

insist o n the need to complement it w i t h physical force and political

spective a central issue raised i n the body o f the text. (The function

6

action. Love needs force to conquer the ruling powers and dismantle

o f these sections is similar to that o f the Scholia i n Spinoza's Ethics.)

their corrupt institutions before it can create a new w o r l d o f c o m -

These together w i t h the Intermezzo can also be read consecutively

m o n wealth.

as one continuous investigation.

T h e ethical project we develop i n this book sets out o n the

Jean-Luc Nancy, setting out from premises analogous to ours,

path o f the political construction o f the multitude w i t h Empire. T h e

wonders i f "one can suggest a 'Spinozian' reading, or rewriting, o f

xiii

PREFACE

7

[Heidegger's] Being and Time."

W e hope that our w o r k points i n

that direction, overturning the phenomenology o f nihilism and

PART 1

opening up the multitude's processes o f productivity and creativity that can revolutionize our w o r l d and institute a shared c o m m o n wealth. W e want not only to define an event but also to grasp the spark that w i l l set the prairie ablaze.

REPUBLIC (AND THE MULTITUDE OF T H E P O O R )

I'm tired of the sun staying up in the sky. I can't wait until the syntax of the world comes undone. —Italo Calvino, The Castle of Crossed Destinies

1.1

REPUBLIC OF PROPERTY

The two grand favourites of the subjects, liberty and property (for which most men pretend to strive), are as contrary as fire to water, and cannot stand together. —Robert Filmer, "Observations upon Aristotle's Politiques"

Thus, at its highest point the political constitution is the constitution of private property. —Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

On an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Politics A k i n d o f apocalypticism reigns among the contemporary conceptions o f power, w i t h warnings o f new imperialisms and new fascisms. E v e r y t h i n g is explained by sovereign power and the state o f exception, that is, the general suspension o f rights and the emergence o f a power that stands above the law. Indeed evidence o f such a state o f exception is easy to come by: the predominance o f v i o lence to resolve national and international conflicts not merely as last but as first resort; the widespread use o f torture and even its l e gitimation; the indiscriminate k i l l i n g o f civilians i n combat; the e l i sion o f international law; the suspension o f domestic rights and protections; and the list goes o n and o n . This vision o f the w o r l d resembles those medieval European renditions o f hell: people b u r n ing i n a river o f fire, others being torn limb from limb, and i n the center a great devil engorging their bodies whole. The problem w i t h this picture is that its focus o n transcendent authority and violence

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

REPUBLIC

POOR)

OF

PROPERTY

eclipses and mystifies the really dominant forms o f power that c o n -

sovereignty or fascism, w h i l e the camp, the ultimate site o f control

tinue to rule over us today—power embodied i n property and cap-

both inside and outside the social order, becomes the paradigmatic

ital, power embedded i n and fully supported by the law.

topos o f m o d e r n society.

2

In popular discourse the apocalyptic vision sees everywhere

These apocalyptic visions—both the scholarly analyses o f sov-

the rise o f new fascisms. M a n y refer to the U . S . government as fas-

ereign power and the popular accusations o f fascism—close d o w n

cist, most often citing A b u Ghraib, Guantanamo, Faluja, and the P a -

political engagement w i t h power. There are no forces o f liberation

triot A c t . Others call the Israeli government fascist by referring to

inherent i n such a power that, though n o w frustrated and blocked,

the continuing occupations o f Gaza and the West Bank, the use o f

could be set free. There is no hope o f transforming such a power

assassinations and bulldozers as diplomacy, and the b o m b i n g o f L e b -

along a democratic course. It needs to be opposed, destroyed, and

anon. Still others use "islamofascism" to designate the theocratic

that is all. Indeed one theological aspect implicit i n this conception

governments and movements o f the M u s l i m world. It is true, o f

o f sovereignty is its M a n i c h e a n division between extreme options:

course, that many simply use the term "fascism" i n a general way to

either we submit to this transcendent sovereignty or we oppose it i n

designate a political regime or movement they deplore such that it

its entirety. It is w o r t h remembering that w h e n Left terrorist groups

comes to mean simply "very bad." B u t i n all these cases w h e n the

i n the 1970s claimed that the state was fascist, this implied for them

term "fascist" is employed, the element it highlights is the authori-

that armed struggle was the only political avenue available. Leftists

tarian face o f power, its rule by force; and what is eclipsed or mysti-

today w h o talk o f a new fascism generally follow the claim w i t h

fied, instead, is the daily functioning o f constitutional, legal processes

moral outrage and resignation rather than calls for armed struggle,

and the constant pressure o f profit and property. In effect, the bright

but the core logic is the same: there can be no political engagement

flashes o f a series o f extreme events and cases blind many to the

w i t h a sovereign fascist power; all it knows is violence.

quotidian and enduring structures o f power.

1

T h e primary f o r m o f power that really confronts us today,

T h e scholarly version o f this apocalyptic discourse is charac-

however, is not so dramatic or demonic but rather earthly and m u n -

terized by an excessive focus o n the concept o f sovereignty. T h e

dane. W e need to stop confusing politics w i t h theology. T h e pre-

sovereign is the one w h o rules over the exception, such authors af-

dominant contemporary f o r m o f sovereignty—if we still want to

firm, and thus the sovereign stands both inside and outside the law.

call it that—is completely embedded w i t h i n and supported by legal

M o d e r n power remains fundamentally theological, according to this

systems and institutions o f governance, a republican f o r m character-

view, not so m u c h i n the sense that divine notions o f authority have

ized not only by the rule o f law but also equally by the rule o f prop-

been secularized, but rather i n that sovereign power occupies a tran-

erty. Said differently, the political is not an autonomous domain but

scendent position, above society and outside its structures. In certain

one completely immersed i n economic and legal structures.There is

respects this intellectual trend represents a return to Thomas Hobbes

nothing extraordinary or exceptional about this f o r m o f power. Its

and his great Leviathan that looms over the social terrain, but more

claim to naturalness, i n fact its silent and invisible daily functioning,

fundamentally it replays the European debates o f the 1930s, espe-

makes it extremely difficult to recognize, analyze, and challenge. O u r

cially i n Germany, w i t h C a r l Schmitt standing at its center. Just as i n

first task, then, w i l l be to b r i n g to light the intimate relations be-

the popular discourses, here too economic and legal structures o f

tween sovereignty, law, and capital.

power tend to be pushed back into the shadows, considered only

W e need for contemporary political thought an operation

secondary or, at most, instruments at the disposal o f the sovereign

something like the one Euhemerus conducted for ancient Greek

power. Every modern f o r m o f power thus tends to be collapsed into

mythology i n the fourth century B C . Euhemerus explained that all

6

REPUBLIC

(AND THE MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR)

REPUBLIC

OF

PROPERTY

o f the myths o f gods are really just stories o f historical human ac-

led entire schools o f juridical and constitutional thought, from Hans

tions that through retelling have been expanded, embellished, and

Kelsen to J o h n R a w l s , to develop Kantian formalism i n legal the-

cast up to the heavens. Similarly today the believers imagine a sover-

ory. Property, w h i c h is taken to be intrinsic to human thought and

5

eign power that stands above us o n the mountaintops, w h e n i n fact

action, serves as the regulative idea o f the constitutional state and the

the dominant forms o f power are entirely this-worldly. A new p o -

rule o f law. T h i s is not really a historical foundation but rather an

litical E u h e m e r i s m might help people stop l o o k i n g for sovereignty

ethical obligation, a constitutive f o r m o f the moral order. T h e c o n -

in the heavens and recognize the structures o f power o n earth.

3

cept o f the individual is defined by not being but having; rather than

O n c e we strip away the theological pretenses and apocalyptic

to a "deep" metaphysical and transcendental unity, i n other words, it

visions o f contemporary theories o f sovereignty, once we b r i n g them

refers to a "superficial" entity endowed w i t h property or possessions,

d o w n to the social terrain, we need to look more closely at h o w

defined increasingly today i n "patrimonial" terms as shareholder. In

power functions i n society today. In philosophical terms we can

effect, through the concept o f the individual, the transcendent figure

think o f this shift i n perspective as a move from transcendent analysis

o f the legitimation o f property is integrated into the transcendental

to transcendental critique. Immanuel Kant's " C o p e r n i c a n revolution"

formalism o f legality. T h e exception, we might say, is included w i t h i n

i n philosophy puts an end to all the medieval attempts to anchor

the constitution.

reason and understanding i n transcendent

essences and things i n

Capital too functions as an impersonal f o r m o f domination

themselves. Philosophy must strive instead to reveal the transcen-

that imposes laws o f its o w n , economic laws that structure social life

dental structures immanent to thought and experience. "I call all cognition transcendental that is occupied not so m u c h w i t h objects but rather w i t h o u r mode o f cognition o f objects insofar as this is to 4

be possible a priori."

Kant's transcendental plane thus occupies a

position not w h o l l y i n the immediate, immanent facts o f experience but not w h o l l y outside them either. T h i s transcendental realm, he explains, is where the conditions o f possibility o f knowledge and experience reside.

and make hierarchies and subordinations seem natural and necessary. T h e basic elements o f capitalist society—the power o f property concentrated i n the hands o f the few, the need for the majority to sell their labor-power to maintain themselves, the exclusion o f large portions o f the global population even from these circuits o f e x p l o i tation, and so forth—all function as an a p r i o r i . It is even difficult to recognize this as violence because it is so normalized and its force is applied so impersonally. Capitalist control and exploitation rely p r i -

Whereas Kant's transcendental critique is focused primarily o n

marily not o n an external sovereign power but o n invisible, internal-

reason and knowledge, ours is aimed at power. Just as K a n t sweeps

ized laws. A n d as financial mechanisms become ever more fully de-

away the preoccupations o f medieval philosophy w i t h transcendent essences and divine causes, so too must we get beyond theories o f sovereignty based o n rule over the exception, w h i c h is really a h o l d over from o l d notions o f the royal prerogatives o f the monarch. W e must focus instead o n the transcendental plane o f power, where law and capital are the primary forces. Such transcendental powers c o m pel obedience not through the commandment o f a sovereign or even primarily through force but rather by structuring the c o n d i tions o f possibility o f social life. T h e intuition that law functions as a transcendental structure

veloped, capital's determination o f the conditions o f possibility o f social life become ever more extensive and complete. It is true, o f course, that finance capital, since it is so abstract, seems distant from the lives o f most people; but that very abstraction is what gives it the general power o f an a p r i o r i , w i t h increasingly universal reach, even w h e n people do not recognize their involvement i n finance markets—through personal and national debt, through financial instruments that operate o n all kinds o f production from soybeans to computers and through the manipulation o f currency and interest rates.

7

8

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

REPUBLIC

POOR)

F o l l o w i n g the form o f Kant's argument, then, our transcen-

OF

PROPERTY

9

conflicting political tendencies. Thomas Jefferson, late i n his life, re-

dental critique must show h o w capital and law intertwined to-

flecting

gether—what we call the republic o f property—determine and dic-

" W e imagined everything republican w h i c h was not monarchy."

tate the conditions o f possibility o f social life i n all its facets and

There was certainly an equal i f not greater range o f political posi-

phases. B u t ours is obviously an unfaithful, tendentious appropria-

tions designated by the term i n the English and French revolution-

tion o f Kant, w h i c h cuts diagonally across his work. W e appropriate

ary periods. B u t one specific definition o f m o d e r n republicanism

o n the early years o f the A m e r i c a n R e v o l u t i o n , remarks, 7

his critical perspective by recognizing that the formal structure o f

eventually w o n out over the others: a republicanism based o n the

his epistemological schema corresponds to that o f the power o f

rule o f property and the inviolability o f the rights o f private prop-

property and law, but then, rather than affirming the transcendental

erty, w h i c h excludes or subordinates those without property. T h e

realm, we seek to challenge it. K a n t has n o interest i n overthrowing

propertyless are merely, according to A b b e Sieyes, "an immense

the rule o f capital or its constitutional state. In fact Alfred S o h n -

c r o w d o f bi-ped instruments, possessing only their miserably paid

R e t h e l goes so far as to claim that Kant, particularly i n the Critique

hands and an absorbed soul." There is no necessary or intrinsic link

of Pure Reason, strives "to prove the perfect normalcy o f bourgeois

between the concept o f republic and the rule o f property, and i n -

society," making its structures o f power and property appear natural

deed one could try to restore alternative or create new notions o f

and necessary.

8

6

B u t our quarrel here is not really w i t h Kant. W e merely want

republic that are not based o n property. O u r point is simply that the republic o f property emerged historically as the dominant concept.

9

to use the tools he provides us to confront today s dominant powers.

T h e course o f the three great bourgeois revolutions—the E n -

A n d we should highlight, finally, h o w the practical consequences o f

glish, the A m e r i c a n , and the French—demonstrates the emergence

this transcendental critique o f the republic o f property overcome

and consolidation o f the republic o f property. In each case the estab-

the powerlessness and bitter resignation that characterize the "tran-

lishment o f the constitutional order and the rule o f law served to

scendent" analyses o f sovereignty and fascism. O u r critique o f cap-

defend and legitimate private property. Later i n this chapter we ex-

ital, the republican constitution, and their intersection as transcen-

plore h o w the radically democratic processes o f the English R e v o l u -

dental forms o f power does not imply either absolute rejection or, o f

tion were blocked by the question o f property: a "people o f prop-

course, acceptance and acquiescence. Instead our critique is an ac-

erty" faced off against "a multitude o f the poor." Here, instead, we

tive process o f resistance and transformation, setting free on a new

focus briefly o n the role o f property i n the U . S . and French revolu-

footing the elements that point toward a democratic future, releas-

tions.

ing, most significantly, the living labor that is closed w i t h i n capital

Just a decade after the Declaration o f Independence affirms the

and the multitude that is corralled w i t h i n its republic. S u c h a c r i -

constituent power o f the A m e r i c a n R e v o l u t i o n and projects a m e c h -

tique thus aims at not a return to the past or creation o f a future ex

anism o f self-government expressed through new, dynamic, and

nihilo but rather a process o f metamorphosis, creating a new society

open political forms, the Federalist and the debates surrounding the

w i t h i n the shell o f the o l d .

drafting o f the Constitution limit and contradict many o f these original elements. T h e dominant lines i n the constitutional debates

Republican Rights of Property

aim to reintroduce and consolidate the sovereign structure o f the

T h e term "republicanism" has been used i n the history o f m o d e r n

state and absorb the constituent drive o f the republic w i t h i n the d y -

political thought to name a variety o f different, competing, often

namic among constitutional powers. Whereas i n the Declaration

10

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

REPUBLIC

OF

PROPERTY

11

constituent power is defined as fundamental, i n the Constitution it

constitution o f popular armies or militias rather than

is understood as something like a national patrimony that is the

armies, w h i c h are understood to be necessarily tyrannical. In the

property and responsibility o f the government, an element o f c o n -

U n i t e d States this tradition has been almost entirely obliterated, and

stitutional sovereignty.

standing 13

the Second A m e n d m e n t has been given the opposite meaning: that

Constituent power is not stripped from constituted public law

each is the enemy o f all; that each must be wary o f those w h o want

but, rather, blocked (and expelled from the practices o f citizenship)

to steal her or his property. F r o m the transformation o f the right to

by the relations o f force that the Constitution is built o n , most i m -

bear arms i n the defense o f private property follows a general rever-

portant the right to property. B e h i n d every formal constitution, le-

sal o f all the central constitutional concepts. Freedom itself, w h i c h

gal theorists explain, lies a "material" one, where by material consti-

many cast as characteristic o f U . S . political thought, i n contrast to

tution is understood the relations o f force that ground, w i t h i n a

the principles o f justice, equality, and solidarity o f the revolutionary

particular framework, the written constitution and define the o r i e n -

French experience, is reduced to an apology for capitalist civiliza-

tations and limits that legislation, legal interpretation, and executive

tion. T h e centrality o f the defense o f property also accounts for the

decision must respect.

10

T h e right to property, i n c l u d i n g originally

pessimistic conception o f human nature, w h i c h is present but sec-

the rights o f slaveholders, is the essential index o f this material c o n -

ondary i n the revolutionary period and comes to the fore i n the

stitution, w h i c h bathes i n its light all other constitutional rights and

constitutional debates. " B u t what is government itself," James M a d i -

liberties o f U . S . citizens. " T h e Constitution," writes Charles Beard

son writes, for example, "but the greatest o f all reflections o n human

in his classic analysis, "was essentially an economic document based

nature? If men were angels, no government w o u l d be necessary."

upon the concept that the fundamental private rights o f property

Freedom becomes the negative power o f human existence, w h i c h

are anterior to government and morally beyond the reach o f p o p u -

serves as a bulwark against the descent o f the innate conflicts o f h u -

lar majorities."

11

14

M a n y scholars have contested Beard's claim that

man nature into civil war. B u t at the b o t t o m o f this notion o f natu-

the founders i n drafting the Constitution were protecting their o w n

ral conflict is the struggle over property. T h e armed individual is the

individual economic interests and wealth, but what remains unchal-

only guarantor o f that freedom. Homo politicus becomes nothing

lenged and entirely convincing i n his analysis is that the participants

other than Homo proprietarius.

in the debate saw the Constitution as founded on economic interests and the rights o f property. " T h e moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws o f G o d , " writes J o h n Adams, for example, "and that there is not a force o f law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

12

The

sacred position o f property i n the Constitution is a central obstacle to the practice and development o f constituent power.

In the case o f the French R e v o l u t i o n , the centrality o f property rights develops i n an extraordinarily dynamic and at times v i o lent way. A simple look at the successive revolutionary French C o n stitutions (and, specifically, the Declarations o f the R i g h t s o f M a n and C i t i z e n that serve as their prologues) from 1789 to 1793 and 1795 gives a first indication o f h o w the development o f constitutional thought is constantly governed by the demands o f property.

O n e extreme but significant example o f the effect o f the right

For example, the right to property is affirmed i n almost identical

o f property on the Constitution is the way it transforms the mean-

terms i n all three versions (in Article 2 o f the 1789 and Article 1 o f

ing o f the right to bear arms. This right is affirmed i n the seven-

the 1793 and 1795 Constitutions), but whereas i n 1789 and 1793

teenth- and eighteenth-century A n g l o - A m e r i c a n tradition as the

the right to property is linked w i t h the right o f "resistance to o p -

collective right to achieve and defend freedom, and it calls for the

pression," i n 1795 it is related only to "security." As far as equality is

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

REPUBLIC

POOR)

OF

PROPERTY

concerned, whereas i n A r t i c l e 6 o f 1789 and Article 4 o f 1793 it is

ogy, come back into play. Moreover, w h e n the right to property be-

defined as a basic right o f each subject (and thus also applies to prop-

comes once again central w i t h i n the constellation o f new rights af-

erty), i n Article 6 o f 1795 the mandate o f equality is subordinated to

firmed by the bourgeois revolutions, it no longer stands simply as a

the rule o f the majority o f citizens or their representatives. Equality

real right but becomes the paradigm for all the fundamental rights.

becomes increasingly formal, increasingly defined as a legal structure

A r t i c l e 544 o f the 1804 C o d e C i v i l , for example, gives a definition

that protects wealth and strengthens the appropriative, possessive

o f property that characterizes notions still c o m m o n today: " O w n e r -

power o f the individual (understood as property owner).

ship is the right to enjoy and dispose o f things i n the most absolute

A more substantial and complex v i e w o f the centrality o f prop-

manner, provided they are not used i n a way contrary to law or 16

erty i n the republic emerges w h e n we focus o n h o w the traditional

regulations."

In the dominant line o f European political thought

conception o f "real rights"—jus reale, the right over things—is re-

from L o c k e to H e g e l , the absolute rights o f people to appropriate

discovered i n the course o f the French R e v o l u t i o n . These "real

things becomes the basis and substantive end o f the legally defined

rights," property rights i n particular, are clearly no longer those o f

free individual.

the ancien regime insofar as they no longer establish a static table o f

T h e centrality o f property i n the republican constitution can

values and set o f institutions that determine privilege and exclusion.

be substantiated from a negative standpoint by l o o k i n g at the H a i -

In the French R e v o l u t i o n "real rights" emerge from a new o n t o -

tian R e v o l u t i o n and the extraordinary hostility to it. B y liberating

logical h o r i z o n that is defined by the productivity o f labor. In France,

the slaves, o f course, Haitian revolutionaries should be considered

however, as i n all the bourgeois revolutions, these real rights have a

from the perspective o f freedom more advanced than any o f their

paradoxical relation to emerging capitalist ideology. O n the one

counterparts i n Europe or N o r t h A m e r i c a ; but the vast majority o f

hand, real rights are gradually given greater importance over the

eighteenth- and nineteenth-century

universal, abstract rights that seemed to have prominence i n the he-

embrace the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n but struggled as well to suppress it

roic Jacobin phase. Private property at least points toward the h u -

and contain its effects. F o r the subsequent two centuries i n fact, his-

man capacity to transform and appropriate nature. Article 5 o f the

torians have excluded H a i t i from the great pantheon o f m o d e r n re-

republicans not only did not

1795 Constitution, for example, reads, "Property is the right to e n -

publican revolutions to such an extent that even the m e m o r y o f the

joy and use one's o w n goods, incomes, the fruit o f one's labor and

revolutionary event has been silenced. T h e Haitian R e v o l u t i o n was

industry." As the revolution proceeds, however, there is a shift i n the

an unthinkable event from the perspective o f contemporary Europe

point o f reference from the abstract terrain o f the general w i l l to the

and the U n i t e d States, centrally, no doubt, because o f deeply embed-

concrete one o f the right and order o f property.

15

O n the other

ded ideologies and institutions o f racial superiority, but we should

hand, real rights, w h i c h constitute the foundation o f rents and i n -

also recognize that the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n was unthinkable because

comes, are opposed to "dynamic rights," w h i c h stem directly from

it violated the rule o f property. A simple syllogism is at w o r k here:

labor, and although dynamic rights appear to predominate over real

the republic must protect private property; slaves are private prop-

rights i n the early revolutionary period, gradually real rights become

erty; therefore republicanism must oppose the freeing o f the slaves.

hegemonic over the dynamic ones and end up being central. Landed

W i t h the example o f H a i t i , i n effect, the republican pretense to value

property and slave property, i n other words, w h i c h appear initially to

freedom and equality directly conflicts w i t h the rule o f property—

have been subordinated as archaic conditions o f production, cast

and property wins out. In this sense the exclusion o f the Haitian

aside i n favor o f the dynamic rights associated w i t h capitalist ideol-

R e v o l u t i o n from the canon o f republicanism is powerful evidence

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

REPUBLIC

POOR)

OF P R O P E R T Y

o f the sacred status o f property to the republic. It may be appropri-

this development w i t h extraordinary clarity. "It is most obvious," P a -

ate, i n fact, that H a i t i be excluded from the list o f republican revolu-

shukanis claims,

tions, not because the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n is somehow unworthy o f the republican spirit but, o n the contrary, because republicanism does not live up to the spirit o f freedom and equality contained i n the Haitian rebellion against slavery!

that the logic o f juridical concepts corresponds w i t h the logic o f the social relationship o f c o m m o d i t y production, and that the history o f the system o f private law should be sought i n

17

T h e primacy o f property is revealed i n all m o d e r n colonial histories. Each time a European power brings new practices o f government to its colonies i n the name o f reason, efficiency, and the rule o f law, the primary "republican v i r t u e " they establish is the rule o f property. This is evident, for example, i n the "Permanent Settlement" established i n Bengal by British colonial authorities and ad-

these relationships and not i n the dispensation o f the authorities. O n the contrary, the logical relationships o f domination and subordination are only partially included i n the system o f juridical concepts. Therefore, the juridical concept o f the state may never become a theory but w i l l always appear as an ideological distortion o f the facts.

19

ministrators o f the East India C o m p a n y i n the late eighteenth cen-

For Pashukanis, i n effect, all law is private law, and public law is

tury to guarantee the security o f property, especially landed property,

merely an ideological figure imagined by bourgeois legal theorists.

and bolster the position o f the Zamindar, the existing Bengali prop-

W h a t is central for our purposes here is that the concept o f property

ertied class, thereby solidifying taxation and revenue. Ranajit G u h a ,

and the defense o f property remain the foundation o f every m o d e r n

i n his analysis o f the debates leading to the settlement, puzzles over

political constitution. T h i s is the sense i n w h i c h the republic, from

the fact that such a quasi-feudal land settlement c o u l d have been

the great bourgeois revolutions to today, is a republic o f property.

authored by bourgeois Englishmen, some o f w h o m were great admirers o f the French R e v o l u t i o n . G u h a assumes that European

Sapere Aude!

bourgeoisies compromise their republican ideals w h e n ruling over

Kant is a prophet o f the republic o f property not so m u c h directly i n

conquered lands i n order to find a social base for their powers, but

his political or economic views but indirectly i n the f o r m o f power

i n fact they are just establishing there the core principle o f the bour-

he discovers through his epistemological and philosophical i n q u i r -

geois republics: the rule o f property. T h e security and inviolability o f

ies. W e propose to follow Kant's method o f transcendental critique,

property is so firmly fixed i n the republican mentality that colonial

but i n d o i n g so we are decidedly deviant, unfaithful followers, read-

authorities do not question the g o o d o f its dissemination.

18

Finally, w i t h the construction o f the welfare state i n the first

ing his w o r k against the grain. T h e political project we propose is not only (with Kant) an attack on transcendent sovereignty and

half o f the twentieth century, public property gains a more i m p o r -

(against Kant) a critique aimed to destabilize the

transcendental

tant role i n the republican constitution. This transformation o f the

power o f the republic o f property, but also and ultimately (beyond

right to property, however, follows the capitalist transformation o f

Kant) an affirmation o f the immanent powers o f social life, because

the organization o f labor, reflecting the increasing importance that

this immanent scene is the terrain—the only possible terrain—on

public conditions begin to exert over the relations o f production.

w h i c h democracy can be constructed.

Despite all the changes, the o l d dictum remains valid: I'esprit des lois,

O u r affirmation o f immanence is not based o n any faith i n the

c'est la propriete. Evgeny Pashukanis, w r i t i n g i n the 1920s, anticipates

immediate or spontaneous capacities o f society. T h e social plane o f

15

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

REPUBLIC

POOR)

OF

PROPERTY

immanence has to be organized politically. O u r critical project is

m o r n i n g walk. Indeed the major line o f Kant's w o r k participates i n

thus not simply a matter o f refusing the mechanisms o f power and

that solid European rationalist tradition that considers E n l i g h t e n -

w i e l d i n g violence against them. Refusal, o f course, is an important

ment the process o f the "emendation o f reason" that coincides w i t h

and powerful reaction to the imposition o f domination, but it alone

and supports the preservation o f the current social order.

does not extend beyond the negative gesture.Violence can also be a

O n the other hand, though, Kant opens the possibility o f read-

crucial, necessary response, often as a k i n d o f boomerang effect, re-

ing the Enlightenment injunction against the grain: "dare to k n o w "

directing the violence o f domination that has been deposited i n our

really means at the same time also " k n o w h o w to dare." T h i s simple

bones to strike back at the power that originated it. B u t such v i o -

inversion indicates the audacity and courage required, along w i t h

lence too is merely reactive and creates nothing. We need to educate

the risks involved, i n thinking, speaking, and acting autonomously.

these spontaneous reactions, transforming refusal into resistance and

This is the m i n o r Kant, the bold, daring Kant, w h i c h is often h i d -

violence into the use o f force. T h e former i n each case is an i m m e -

den, subterranean, buried i n his texts, but from time to time breaks

diate response, whereas the latter results from a confrontation w i t h

out w i t h a ferocious, volcanic, disruptive power. Here reason is n o

reality and training o f our political instincts and habits, our imagina-

longer the foundation o f duty that supports established social au-

tions and desires. M o r e important, too, resistance and the c o o r d i -

thority but rather a disobedient, rebellious force that breaks through

nated use o f force extend beyond the negative reaction to power

the fixity o f the present and discovers the new. W h y , after all, should

toward an organizational project to construct an alternative o n the

we dare to think and speak for ourselves i f these capacities are only

immanent plane o f social life.

to be silenced immediately by a muzzle o f obedience? Kant's critical

T h e need for invention and organization paradoxically brings

method is i n fact double: his critiques do determine the system o f

us back to Kant, or, really, to a m i n o r voice that runs throughout

transcendental conditions o f knowledge and phenomena, but they

Kant's writings and presents an alternative to the c o m m a n d and au-

also occasionally step beyond the transcendental plane to take up a

thority o f m o d e r n power. T h i s alternative comes to the surface

humanistic notion o f power and invention, the key to the free, b i o -

clearly, for example, i n his brief and w e l l - k n o w n text " A n Answer to

political construction o f the w o r l d . T h e major K a n t provides the

T h e key to emerging

tools for stabilizing the transcendental ordering o f the republic o f

from the state o f immaturity, the self-sustained state o f dependency

property, whereas the m i n o r K a n t blasts apart its foundations, o p e n -

i n w h i c h we rely o n those i n authority to speak and think for us,

ing the way for mutation and free creation o n the biopolitical plane

and establishing our ability and w i l l to speak and think for ourselves,

o f immanence. '

the Question: ' W h a t is E n l i g h t e n m e n t ? ' "

20

2

Kant begins, recalling Horace's injunction, is sapere aude, "dare to

This alternative w i t h i n Kant helps us differentiate between two

know." T h i s notion o f Enlightenment and its defining injunction,

political paths. T h e lines o f the major Kant are extended i n the field

however, become terribly ambiguous i n the course o f Kant's essay.

o f political thought most faithfully today by theorists o f social de-

O n the one hand, as he explains the k i n d o f reasoning we should

mocracy, w h o speak about reason and Enlightenment but never re-

adopt, it becomes clear that it is not very daring at all: it compels us

ally enter onto the terrain where daring to k n o w and k n o w i n g h o w

dutifully to fulfill our designated roles i n society, to pay taxes, to be a

to dare coincide. Enlightenment for them is a perpetually u n f i n -

soldier, a c i v i l servant, and ultimately to obey the authority o f the

ished project that always requires acceptance o f the established social

sovereign, Frederick II. T h i s is the K a n t whose life is so regularly

structures, consent to a compromised vision o f rights and d e m o c -

ordered, they say, that y o u can set your watch by the time o f his

racy, acquiescence to the lesser evil. Social democrats thus never rad-

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

REPUBLIC

OF

PROPERTY

ically question the republic o f property, either blithely i g n o r i n g its

o f reformist mediation emerging directly from social reality, G i d -

power or naively assuming that it can be reformed to generate a so-

dens takes recourse to a sovereign power that can b r i n g to c o n c l u -

ciety o f democracy and equality.

sion the process o f reform. Paradoxically, Giddens introduces a tran-

T h e social democratic projects o f j i i r g e n Habermas and J o h n

scendental project and then is subsequently forced to violate it w i t h

Rawls, for example, aim to maintain a social order based o n tran-

such an appeal to a transcendent power. U l r i c h B e c k , more than

scendental, formal schema. Early i n their careers Habermas and

Giddens and indeed more than any other social democratic theorist,

Rawls both propose more dynamic concepts oriented toward social

is w i l l i n g to set his feet solidly i n the real social field and deal w i t h

transformation: Habermas works w i t h a Hegelian n o t i o n o f inter-

all the ambiguous struggles, the uncertainty, fear, and passions that

subjectivity that opens the possibility for radical productive subjec-

constitute it. B e c k is able to recognize, for example, the dynamics o f

tive capacity, and R a w l s insists o n a "difference p r i n c i p l e " whereby

workers' struggles against the factory regime and against factory

social decisions and institutions should benefit most the least advan-

closings. A l t h o u g h he can analyze the exhaustion o f one social form,

taged members o f society. These proposals, albeit i n different ways,

however, such as the modernity o f the factory regime o f production,

suggest a dynamic o f social transformation. In the course o f their

he cannot grasp fully the emergence o f new social forces. H i s think-

careers, however, these possibilities o f social transformation and sub-

ing thus runs up against the fixity o f the transcendental structure,

jective capacity are diluted or completely abandoned. Habermas's

w h i c h even for h i m ultimately guides the analysis. M o d e r n i t y gives

notions o f communicative reason and action come to define a pro-

way to hypermodernity i n Beck's view, w h i c h is really, i n the end,

cess that constantly mediates all social reality, thus accepting and

only a continuation o f modernity's primary structures.

23

even reinforcing the given terms o f the existing social order. R a w l s

Analogous social democratic positions are c o m m o n among

constructs a formal, transcendental schema o f judgment that n e u -

contemporary theorists o f globalization as diverse as D a v i d H e l d ,

tralizes subjective capacities and transformative processes, putting

Joseph Stiglitz, and Thomas Friedman. T h e Kantian resonances are

the emphasis instead o n maintaining the e q u i l i b r i u m o f the social

not as strong here, but these theorists do preach reform o f the global

system. T h e version o f social democracy we find i n Habermas and

system w i t h o u t ever calling into question the structures o f capital

R a w l s thus echoes the notion o f Enlightenment o f the major Kant,

and property. T h e essence o f social democracy i n all these various

w h i c h , despite its rhetoric o f emendation, reinforces the existing so-

figures is the proposition o f social reform, sometimes even aimed at

cial order through schemas o f transcendental formalism.

22

24

equality, freedom, and democracy, that fails to draw into question—

A n t h o n y Giddens and U l r i c h B e c k propose a version o f social

and even reinforces—the structures o f the republic o f property. In

democracy whose basis is m u c h more empirical and pragmatic.

this way social democratic reformism dovetails perfectly w i t h the

Whereas Habermas and R a w l s require a point o f departure and m e -

reformism o f capital. Social democrats like to call their m o d e r n proj-

diation that is i n some sense "outside" the social plane, Giddens and

ect unfinished, as i f w i t h more time and greater efforts the desired

B e c k start "inside." Giddens, adopting a skeptical standpoint, at-

reforms w i l l finally come about, but really this claim is completely

tempts to fashion from the empirical and the phenomenal level an

illusory because the process is blocked from the outset by the u n -

adequate representation o f society i n the process o f reform, w o r k i n g ,

questioned transcendental structures o f law and property. Social

one could say, from the social to the transcendental plane. W h e n so-

democrats continue faithfully the transcendental position o f the m a -

ciety refuses to comply, however, w h e n ghettos i n revolt and social

j o r Kant, advocating a process o f Enlightenment i n w h i c h , paradoxi-

conflicts sprouting all around make it impossible to maintain an idea

cally, all elements o f the existing social order stay firmly i n place.

19

20

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

REPUBLIC

POOR)

OF

PROPERTY

R e f o r m i n g or perfecting the republic o f property w i l l never lead to

dares to k n o w and act rather than maintaining the rules o f an E n -

equality and freedom but only perpetuate its structures o f inequality

lightenment that has become mere routine.

reac-

W e w i l l try instead i n the pages that follow to develop the

tionary, recognizes clearly, i n the passage that serves as an epigraph to

m e t h o d o f the m i n o r Kant, for w h o m daring to k n o w requires s i -

this chapter, that liberty and property are as contrary as fire and w a -

multaneously k n o w i n g h o w to dare. This too is an Enlightenment

ter, and cannot stand together.

project, but one based o n an alternative rationality i n w h i c h a m e t h -

and unfreedom. R o b e r t Filmer, a lucid seventeenth-century

Such neo-Kantian positions may appear harmless, even i f i l l u -

odology o f materialism and metamorphosis calls o n powers o f resis-

sory, but at several points i n history they have played damaging roles,

tance, creativity, and invention. Whereas the major Kant provides the

particularly i n the p e r i o d o f the rise o f fascism. N o one, o f course, is

instruments to support and defend the republic o f property even up

blameless w h e n such tragedies occur, but from the late nineteenth

to today, the m i n o r Kant helps us see h o w to overthrow it and c o n -

century to the 1920s and 1930s neo-Kantianism constituted the

struct a democracy o f the multitude.

central ideology o f bourgeois society and European politics, and i n deed the only ideology open to social democratic reformism. P r i marily i n M a r b u r g (with H e r m a n n C o h e n and Paul Natorp) and Heidelberg (with H e i n r i c h R i c k e r t and W i l h e l m Windelband) but also i n O x f o r d , Paris, Boston, and R o m e , all the possible Kantian variations blossomed. Seldom has an ideological concert been as widespread and its influence as profound over an entire system o f Geisteswissenschaften. Corporate bosses and syndicalists, liberals and socialists divided the parts, some playing i n the orchestra, others w i t h the chorus. B u t there was something profoundly out o f tune i n this concert: a dogmatic faith i n the inevitable reform o f society and progress o f spirit, w h i c h meant for them the advance o f bourgeois rationality. This faith was not based o n some political w i l l to b r i n g about transformation or even any risk o f engaging i n struggle. W h e n the fascisms emerged, then, the transcendental consciousness o f m o dernity was immediately swept away. D o we have to m o u r n that fact? It does not seem that contemporary social democratic thinkers w i t h their transcendental illusion have any more effective response than their predecessors to the risks and dangers we face, w h i c h , as we said earlier, are different from those o f the 1930s. Instead the i l lusory faith i n progress masks and obstructs the real means o f p o l i t i cal action and struggle while maintaining the transcendental mechanisms o f power that continue to exercise violence over anyone w h o

21

PRODUCTIVE

BODIES

an activity w h o l l y alien to itself, to man and to nature, and

1.2

hence to consciousness and vital expression, the abstract existence o f man as a mere workman w h o therefore tumbles day after day from his fulfilled nothingness into absolute n o t h i n g -

PRODUCTIVE

BODIES

ness, into his social and hence real non-existence; and o n the other, the production o f the object o f human labour as capital, i n w h i c h all the natural and social individuality o f the object is extinguished and private property has lost its natural and social

In girum imus nocte Et consumimur igni.

quality (i.e. has lost all political and social appearances and is

(We traveled through the night

not even apparently tainted w i t h any human relationships) .

2 5

A n d were consumed / redeemed by fire.) —Guy Debord

Private property i n its capitalist f o r m thus produces a relation o f exploitation i n its fullest sense—the production o f the human as c o m m o d i t y — a n d excludes from view the materiality o f human needs and poverty.

From the Marxist Critique of Property . . .

Marx's critical approach i n these early texts is powerful but not

K a r l M a r x develops i n his early w o r k — f r o m " O n the Jewish Q u e s -

sufficient to grasp the entire set o f effects that property, operating

t i o n " and the " C r i t i q u e o f Hegel's Philosophy o f R i g h t " to his " E c o -

through law, determines over human life. M a n y twentieth-century

n o m i c and Philosophical Manuscripts"—an analysis o f private prop-

Marxist authors extend the critique o f private property beyond the

erty as the basis o f all capitalist legal structures. T h e relationship

legal context to account for the diverse material dynamics that c o n -

between capital and law defines a paradoxical power structure that is

stitute oppression and exploitation i n capitalist society. Louis A l -

at once extraordinarily abstract and entirely concrete. O n the one

thusser, for one, clearly defines this shift i n perspective, configuring

hand, legal structures are abstract representations o f social reality, rel-

it i n philological and scholastic terms as a break w i t h i n Marx's o w n

atively indifferent to social contents, and o n the other, capitalist

thought from his youthful humanism to his mature materialism. A l -

property defines the concrete conditions o f the exploitation o f l a -

thusser recognizes, i n effect, a passage from the analysis o f property

bor. B o t h are totalizing social frameworks, extending across the e n -

as exploitation i n terms o f a transcendental f o r m to the analysis o f it

tire social space, w o r k i n g i n coordination and h o l d i n g together, so

i n terms o f the material organization o f bodies i n the production

to speak, the abstract and concrete planes. M a r x adds to this para-

and reproduction o f capitalist society. In this passage critique is, so to

doxical synthesis o f the abstract and the concrete the recognition

speak, raised to the level o f truth and at the same time superseded, as

that labor is the positive content o f private property. " T h e relation o f

philosophy gives way to politics. In roughly the same p e r i o d M a x

private property contains latent w i t h i n itself," M a r x writes,

H o r k h e i m e r , T h e o d o r A d o r n o , and other authors o f the Frankfurt School, especially w h e n they confront the conditions o f U . S . cap-

the relation o f private property as labour, the relation o f private

italist development, operate a corresponding shift w i t h i n M a r x i s m :

property as capital and the connection o f these two. O n the one

emphasizing the breakdown o f the conceptual boundary between

hand we have the production o f human activity as labour, i.e. as

structure and superstructure, the consequent construction o f mate-

REPUBLIC

(AND THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

PRODUCTIVE

BODIES

rially effective ideological structures o f rule (corresponding to A l -

the break w i t h every transcendental concept o f the revolutionary

thusser's "ideological state apparatuses"), and the accomplishment o f

process such that every theoretical notion o f constitution has to be

the real subsumption o f society w i t h i n capital. T h e result o f these

grounded i n concrete experience.

diverse interventions is a "phenomenologization" o f critique, that is, a shift to consider the relationship between critique and its object as a material dispositif, w i t h i n the collective dimension o f bodies—a shift, i n short, from the transcendental to the immanent.

28

It is interesting i n this context to l o o k back at the 1970 Situationist manifesto titled " C o n t r i b u t i o n a la prise de conscience d'une classe qui sera la derniere."What is fascinating about this avant-garde

26

text is certainly not its ridiculous Dadaist declarations or its sophisti-

T h i s shift moves toward a perspective that had been difficult to

cated "Letterist" paradoxes but rather the fact o f its being an investi-

recognize w i t h i n the Marxist tradition: the standpoint o f bodies.

gation o f the concrete conditions o f labor, one that is able to grasp

W h e n we credit this shift to Althusser and the Frankfurt School, we

i n initial and partial but nonetheless correct terms the separation o f

do so rather maliciously because we are convinced that the real pas-

labor-power from the control o f capital w h e n immaterial produc-

sage, w h i c h is only intuited or suspected o n the scholastic level o f

tion becomes hegemonic over all the other valorization processes.

such authors, is accomplished on the level o f theory developed

This Situationist worker investigation anticipates i n some extraordi-

w i t h i n militancy or activism. T h e journals Socialisme ou barbarie i n

nary ways the social transformations o f the twenty-first century. L i v -

France and Quaderni rossi i n Italy are among the first i n the 1960s to

ing labor oriented toward producing immaterial goods, such as c o g -

pose the theoretical-practical importance o f the standpoint o f b o d -

nitive or intellectual labor, always exceeds the bounds set o n it and

ies i n Marxist analysis. In many respects the investigations o f worker

poses forms o f desire that are not consumed and forms o f life that

and peasant insurgencies i n the South Asian j o u r n a l Subaltern Studies

accumulate. W h e n immaterial production becomes hegemonic, all

develop along parallel lines, and certainly there are other similar ex-

the elements o f the capitalist process have to be viewed i n a new

periences that emerge i n the Marxist analyses o f this period through-

light, sometimes i n terms completely inverted from the traditional

out the w o r l d . K e y is the immersion o f the analysis i n the struggles

analyses o f historical materialism. W h a t was called "the transition

o f the subordinated and exploited, considered as the matrix o f every

from capitalism to c o m m u n i s m " takes the form o f a process o f l i b -

institutional relationship and every figure o f social organization. " U p

eration i n practice, the constitution o f a new world. T h r o u g h the

to this point we have analyzed capital," M a r i o Tronti writes i n the

activity o f conducting a worker investigation, i n other words, the

early 1960s, but "from n o w o n we have to analyze the struggles as the principle o f all historical movement."

27

R a n i e r o Panzieri, w h o

like Tronti is a central figure i n Quaderni rossi, adds that although M a r x i s m is b o r n as sociology, the fundamental task is to translate that sociological perspective into not just political science but really the science o f revolution. In Socialisme ou barbarie, to give another example, Cornelius Castoriadis emphasizes that revolutionary research constantly has to follow and be redefined by the forms o f the social movements. A n d finally Hans-Jiirgen K r a h l , i n the midst o f one o f those extraordinary discussions at the heart o f the G e r m a n socialist youth movements that precede the events o f 1968, insists o n

"phenomenologization" o f critique becomes

revolutionary—and

we find M a r x redivivus. This entry o f the phenomenology o f bodies into Marxist theory, w h i c h begins by opposing any ideology o f rights and law, any transcendental mediation or dialectical relationship, has to be organized politically—and indeed this perspective provides some o f the bases for the events o f 1968.This intellectual development recalls i n some respects the scientific transformations o f the Italian R e n a i s sance three centuries earlier. Renaissance philosophers combined their critique o f the scholastic tradition w i t h experiments to understand the nature o f reality, c o m b i n g the city, for example, for animals

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

PRODUCTIVE

POOR)

BODIES

to dissect, using their bistoury and scalpels to reveal the functioning

o f genocide—forces Marxist theorists o f that generation to recog-

o f individual bodies. So too the theorists i n the 1950s and 1960s,

nize not only the commodification o f laboring bodies but also the

w h e n , one might say, modernity arrives at its conclusion, recognize

torture o f gendered and racialized bodies. It is no coincidence that

the necessity not only to develop a philosophical critique o f the

the series o f classic studies o f the discontent and poverty o f the h u -

Marxist tradition but also to ground it i n militant experience, using

man spirit—from Freud to Marcuse—can be read as an encyclope-

the scalpels that reveal, through readings o f the factory and social

dia o f colonial-capitalist violence. T h e paradox, though, is that even i n the moment o f capital's

struggles, the new anatomy o f collective bodies. M a n y different paths trace this passage i n European Marxist

t r i u m p h i n the 1960s, w h e n bodies are directly invested by the mode

theory. T h e fundamental genealogy no doubt follows the develop-

o f production and the commodification o f life has rendered their

ment o f workers' struggles inside and outside the factories, m o v i n g

relations entirely abstract, that is the point w h e n , immediately w i t h i n

from salary demands to social demands and thus extending the ter-

the processes o f industrial and social production, bodies spring back

rain o f struggle and analysis to reach all corners o f social life. T h e

onto center stage i n the f o r m o f revolt. This returns us to the p r i -

dynamic o f struggles is not only antagonistic but also constructive

mordial necessity o f bourgeois society we analyzed earlier, that is,

or, better, constituent, interpreting a new era o f political economy

the right o f property as the basis o f the republic itself. This is not the

and proposing w i t h i n it new alternatives. (We w i l l return i n detail to

exception but the normal c o n d i t i o n o f the republic that reveals both

this economic transformation and the constituent struggles w i t h i n it

the transcendental c o n d i t i o n and the material foundation o f the so-

i n Part 3.) B u t other important intellectual developments undoubt-

cial order. O n l y the standpoint o f bodies and their power can chal-

edly allow and force European Marxist theorists to move toward a

lenge the discipline and control wielded by the republic o f prop-

standpoint o f bodies. T h e w o r k o f Simone de Beauvoir and the be-

erty.

ginnings o f second wave feminist thought, for example, focus attention powerfully o n the gender differences and hierarchies that are

. . . To the Phenomenology of Bodies

profoundly material and corporeal. Antiracist thought, particularly

Philosophy is not always the o w l o f M i n e r v a , arriving at dusk to i l -

emerging from the anticolonial struggles i n these years, put pressure

luminate retrospectively a waning historical period. Sometimes it

on European Marxist theory to adopt the standpoint o f bodies to

anticipates history—and that is not always a good thing. In Europe

recognize both the structures o f domination and the possibilities for

reactionary philosophies have often anticipated and posed the i d e o -

liberation struggles. W e can recognize another, rather different path

logical bases for historical events, i n c l u d i n g the rise o f fascisms and

toward the theoretical centrality o f the body i n two films by A l a i n

the great totalitarianisms o f the twentieth century.-' Consider, for

Resnais from the 1950s. Night and Fog and Hiroshima mon amour

example, two authors w h o dominate European thought i n the first

(written by Marguerite Duras) mark the imaginary o f a generation

decades o f the century and effectively anticipate the totalitarian

o f European intellectuals w i t h the horrors o f the Jewish Holocaust

events: H e n r i Bergson and G i o v a n n i Gentile. T h e i r w o r k helps us

and the atomic devastation i n Japan. T h e threat and reality o f geno-

trace another important genealogy that brings us back to the phe-

cidal acts thrusts the theme o f life itself onto center stage so that ev-

nomenology o f bodies w i t h a new and powerful perspective.

ery reference to economic production and reproduction cannot for-

T h e essential anticipatory element o f this stream o f early-

get the centrality o f bodies. Each o f these perspectives—feminist

twentieth-century European thought, w h i c h has a profound influ-

thought, antiracist and anticolonial thought, and the consciousness

ence o n reactionary political ideologies, is its invention o f a philoso-

REPUBLIC

(AND THE MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR)

PRODUCTIVE

BODIES

phy o f life that poses at its center an ethics o f radical action.Vitalism,

positions to become hegemonic i n the confused scene o f European

w h i c h unleashes a destructive fury o n the critical tradition, tran-

cultural and political debates.

scendental epistemologies, and Kantian liberal ideology, has such i n -

Phenomenology emerges i n this context to operate an anti-

fluence in part because it corresponds to some o f the dominant p o -

Platonic, anti-idealist, and above all anti-transcendental revolution.

litical and economic developments o f the times. Capitalist c o m m a n d

Phenomenology is posed primarily as an attempt to go beyond the

has been thrown into crisis by the first serious expressions o f the

skeptical and relativist effects o f post-Hegelian historicism, but at

workers' movement as a subversive force, and capital's stable values

the same time it is driven to rediscover i n every concept and every

seem to be threatened by a chaotic relativism. Capitalist ideology

idea modes o f life and material substance. Reflecting o n the c o m -

needs to return to its beginnings, reaffirming its values, verifying its

plex legacy o f Kantianism and the violent consequences o f vitalism,

decision-making powers, and destroying every obstacle posed by

phenomenology pulls critique away from transcendental abstraction

mechanisms o f social mediation. Such a context provides fertile soil

and reformulates it as an engagement w i t h lived experience. T h i s

for a blind and proud voluntarism. Vitalism, w h i c h Bergson config-

immersion i n concrete and determinate being is the great strength

ures as flux and Gentile as a dialectic without negativity, presents a

o f twentieth-century phenomenology, w h i c h corresponds to the

powerful ideology for affirming a hegemonic w i l l . Transcendental

transformation o f M a r x i s m that we traced earlier, from the critique

abstraction pays the price as the conception o f history is forced to

o f property to the critique o f bodies.

m o l d itself to the teleology o f power. Bergson ends his life a C a t h o lic and Gentile a fascist: that is h o w history reenters their thought. W h e n history is believed to be threatened by an absolute relativism, religious values or voluntaristic affirmations seem the only alternative.

M a r t i n Heidegger marks out one influential path o f p h e n o m enology, but one that fails to arrive at the critique and affirmation o f bodies that interests us here. H i s thought is permeated by a brooding reflection over the failure o f modernity and destruction o f its values. H e brings phenomenology back to classical ontology not i n order

T h e great historicist thinkers o f the period are also caught be-

to develop a means to reconstruct being through human productive

tween these two poles: either relativism or a religious/voluntarist

capacities but rather as a meditation on our telluric condition, our

escape.The lines are already clear, for example, i n the late-nineteenth-

powerlessness, and death. A l l that can be constructed, all that resis-

century exchanges between W i l h e l m Dilthey and G r a f Paul Yorck

tances and struggles produce, is here instead disempowered and

von Wartenburg. For Yorck relativism means cynicism and material-

found " t h r o w n " onto the surface o f being. W h a t phenomenology

ism, whereas for Dilthey it opens the possibility o f a vital and singu-

casts o u t — i n c l u d i n g Bergsonian vitalism, Gentile's voluntarism, and

3

lar affirmation w i t h i n and through the historical process. " This de-

historicist relativism—Heidegger brings i n the back door, positing it

bate prefigures, i n epistemological terms and i n the relationship

as the fabric o f the present constitution o f being. Heidegger's n o t i o n

between history and event, the tragedies o f twentieth-century E u -

o f Gelassenheit, letting go, withdrawing from engagement, for ex-

rope i n w h i c h the event and transcendence take horrifying forms i n

ample, not only brings back the earlier vitalism and voluntarism by

the l o n g "European civil war" and historicism comes to mean s i m -

confusing history w i t h destiny but also reconfigures them as an

ply political disorientation, i n the various figures o f fascism and

apology for fascism. " W h o w o u l d have thought reading Being and

populism. T h e destruction o f the critical tradition and the dissolu-

Time," R e i n e r Schiirmann reflects,"that a few years later Heidegger

tion o f neo-Kantianism is one necessary prerequisite for the vitalist

w o u l d have entrusted the Da-sein to someone's will? T h i s institution

30

REPUBLIC

(AND THE MULTITUDE

OF T H E

PRODUCTIVE

POOR)

o f a contingent w i l l that rules over the Da determines the anthro-

BODIES

Tracing the genealogy o f phenomenology through the w o r k

31

o f Merleau-Ponty i n this way also provides us w i t h a particularly i l -

T h e critique and affirmation o f bodies that characterizes phenome-

luminating perspective o n the w o r k o f M i c h e l Foucault. In his anal-

nology's revolution i n philosophy thus gets completely lost i n

yses o f power we can already see h o w Foucault adopts and pushes

Heidegger.

forward the central elements, posing being not i n abstract or tran-

pology, the theology, and the populism o f Heidegger's

thought."

This Heideggerian trajectory, however, should not obscure the

scendental figures but i n the concrete reality o f bodies and their a l -

m u c h more important path o f phenomenology that extends from

terity. W h e n he insists that there is no central, transcendent locus

E d m u n d Husserl to M a u r i c e Merleau-Ponty. Even though closed i n

o f power but only a myriad o f micropowers that are exercised i n

the speculative cage o f the transcendental, imposed by the G e r m a n

capillary forms across the surfaces o f bodies i n their practices and

academy, Husserl spends his life trying to break d o w n the consis-

disciplinary regimes, many commentators object that he is betraying

tency o f the subject as individual and reconstruct subjectivity as a

the Marxist tradition (and Foucault himself contributes to this i m -

relation w i t h the other, projecting knowledge through intentional-

pression). In our view, though, Foucault's analyses o f bodies and

ity. (This project leads h i m i n the 1930s to denounce the develop-

power i n this phase o f his work, following a line initiated by

ment o f the European sciences and the crisis o f their ethical content,

Merleau-Ponty, really make g o o d o n some o f the intuitions that the

w h e n capitalism and national sovereignty, imperialism, and war have

y o u n g M a r x c o u l d not completely grasp about the need to b r i n g

usurped their goals and meaning.) In M e r l e a u - P o n t y being-inside

the critique o f property, along w i t h all the transcendental structures

the concrete reality o f bodies implies an even more

o f capitalist society, back to the phenomenology o f bodies. Foucault

32

fundamental

relation to alterity, being among others, i n the perceptive modalities

adopts many disguises—larvatus prodeo—in

and the linguistic forms o f being. A n d the experience o f alterity is

M a r x i s m , but that relationship is nonetheless extremely profound.

his relationship w i t h

always traversed by a project to construct the c o m m o n . Immanence

T h e phenomenology o f bodies i n Foucault reaches its highest

thus becomes the exclusive h o r i z o n o f philosophy, an immanence

point i n his analysis o f biopolitics, and here, i f y o u focus o n the es-

that is opposed not only to metaphysical transcendence but also to

sential, his research agenda is simple. Its first a x i o m is that bodies are

epistemological transcendentalism. It is no coincidence, then, that

the constitutive components o f the biopolitical fabric o f being. O n

this path o f phenomenology intersects at this point, i n M e r l e a u -

the biopolitical terrain—this is the second a x i o m — w h e r e powers

Ponty and others, w i t h Marxist critiques o f law and the rule o f prop-

are continually made and unmade, bodies resist. T h e y have to resist

erty, o f human rights as a natural or originary structure, and even o f

in order to exist. H i s t o r y cannot therefore be understood merely as

the concept o f identity itself (as individual, nation, state, and so

the h o r i z o n o n w h i c h biopower configures reality through d o m i n a -

forth). Phenomenology, o f course, is not the only philosophical ten-

tion. O n the contrary, history is determined by the biopolitical an-

dency i n this period to cast aside transcendental critique and oper-

tagonisms and resistances to biopower. T h e third a x i o m o f his re-

ate such a construction from below that affirms the resistance and

search agenda is that corporeal resistance produces subjectivity, not

productivity o f bodies; we have elsewhere investigated similar prop-

in an isolated or independent way but i n the complex dynamic w i t h

ositions, for example, i n the materialist traditions that b r i n g together

the resistances o f other bodies. T h i s production o f subjectivity

a constitutive Spinozist ethics w i t h a Nietzschean critique o f fixed

through resistance and struggle w i l l prove central, as our analysis

values. B u t phenomenology highlights perhaps more strongly than

proceeds, not only to the subversion o f the existing forms o f power

others the fundamental relation between corporeality and alterity.

but also to the constitution o f alternative institutions o f liberation.

31

32

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

PRODUCTIVE

BODIES

Here we can say, to return to our earlier discussion, that Foucault

mentalists from other religious practitioners, i n fact, is the extreme

carries forward the banner o f the m i n o r Kant, the Kant w h o not

importance they give to the body: what it does, what parts o f it ap-

only dares to k n o w but also knows h o w to dare.

pear i n public, what goes into and comes out o f it. E v e n w h e n fundamentalist norms require hiding a part o f the body behind a veil,

The Vanishing Bodies of Fundamentalism

headscarf, or other articles o f clothing, they are really signaling its

"Fundamentalism" has become a vague, overused term, w h i c h refers

extraordinary importance. Women's bodies are obviously the object

most often to belief systems that are rigid and unyielding. W h a t

o f the most obsessive scrutiny and regulation i n religious fundamen-

unites the various fundamentalisms to a surprisingly large degree,

talism, but no bodies are completely exempt from examination and

however, is their peculiar relation to the body. A t first glance one

control—men's bodies, adolescents' bodies, infants' bodies, even the

might assume that fundamentalisms provide an extreme example o f

bodies o f the dead. T h e fundamentalist body is powerful, explosive,

the corporeal perspective that is central to biopolitics. T h e y do i n -

precarious, and that is w h y it requires constant inspection and care.

deed focus extraordinary, even obsessive attention o n bodies, mak-

T h e religious fundamentalisms are also united, however, at the

ing all their surfaces along w i t h their intake and output, their habits

same time, i n their ultimate dissolution o f bodies into the transcen-

and practices the object o f intense scrutiny and evaluation. W h e n

dent realm. T h e fundamentalist religious focus o n the body really

we l o o k a bit closer, though, we see that fundamentalist vigilance

looks through it like an x ray to grasp the soul. I f dietary restrictions

about the body does not allow for the productivity o f bodies that is

were merely a matter o f the health o f the body, o f course, they w o u l d

central to biopolitics: the construction o f being from below, through

simply constitute an elaborate nutritionist's guide, and dictates about

bodies i n action. O n the contrary, the preoccupation o f fundamen-

consumption o f pork or beef or fish w o u l d rely o n issues o f calories

talisms is to prevent or contain their productivity. In the final analy-

and food-borne diseases. W h a t goes into the body, however, is really

sis, i n fact, fundamentalisms make bodies vanish insofar as they are

important for what it does and means for the soul—or rather for the

revealed to be not really the objects o f obsessive attention but merely

subject's belonging to the religious community.These two issues are

signs o f transcendent forms or essences that stand above them. ( A n d

i n fact not very distant, because the health o f the soul from this per-

this is one reason w h y fundamentalisms seem so out o f step w i t h

spective is just one index o f gauging identitarian belonging. S i m i -

contemporary power structures: they refer ultimately to the tran-

larly the clothing covering the body is an indication o f inner virtue.

scendent rather than the transcendental plane.) This double relation

T h e ultimate eclipse o f the body, though, is clearest i n fundamental-

to the body—at once focusing o n it and m a k i n g it disappear—is a

ist notions o f martyrdom. T h e body o f the martyr is central i n its

useful definition for fundamentalism, allowing us to b r i n g together

heroic action, but that action really points to a transcendent w o r l d

the various disparate fundamentalisms o n this c o m m o n point and,

beyond. Here is the extreme point o f the fundamentalist relation to

through contrast, cast into sharper relief the characteristics and value

the body, where its affirmation is also its annihilation.

o f the biopolitical perspective.

Nationalist fundamentalisms similarly concentrate o n bodies

T h e major religious fundamentalisms—Jewish, Christian, M u s -

through their attention to and care for the population.The national-

l i m , and H i n d u — c e r t a i n l y all demonstrate intense concern for and

ist policies deploy a w i d e range o f techniques for corporeal health

scrutiny o f bodies, through dietary restrictions, corporeal rituals,

and welfare, analyzing birthrates and sanitation, nutrition and hous-

sexual mandates and prohibitions, and even practices o f corporeal

ing, disease control and reproductive practices. Bodies themselves

mortification and abnegation. W h a t primarily distinguishes funda-

constitute the nation, and thus the nation's highest goal is their pro-

33

34

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

PRODUCTIVE

POOR)

BODIES

m o t i o n and preservation. L i k e religious fundamentalisms, however,

T h i s same double relation to the body indicates, finally, h o w

nationalisms, although their gaze seems to focus intently o n bodies,

economism should be considered a type o f fundamentalism. A t first

really see them merely as an indication or symptom o f the ultimate,

sight economism too is all about bodies i n their stark materiality

transcendent object o f national identity. W i t h its moral face, nation-

insofar as it holds that the material facts o f economic relations and

alism looks past the bodies to see national character, whereas w i t h its

activity are sufficient for their o w n reproduction without the i m p l i -

militarist face, it sees the sacrifice o f bodies i n battle as revealing the

cation o f other, less corporeal factors such as ideology, law, politics,

national spirit. T h e martyr or the patriotic soldier is thus for nation-

culture, and so forth. E c o n o m i s m focuses primarily o n the bodies o f

alism too the paradigmatic figure for h o w the body is made to dis-

commodities, recognizing as commodities both the material goods

appear and leave behind only an index to a higher plane.

produced and the material human bodies that produce and carry

G i v e n this characteristic double relation to the body, it makes

them to market.The human body must itself constantly be produced

sense to consider white supremacy (and racism i n general) a f o r m o f

and reproduced by other commodities and their productive c o n -

fundamentalism. M o d e r n racism i n the nineteenth and twentieth

sumption. E c o n o m i s m i n this sense sees only a w o r l d o f bodies—

centuries is characterized by a process o f "epidermalization," e m -

productive bodies, bodies produced, and bodies consumed. A l t h o u g h

bedding racial hierarchies i n the skin—its color, smells, contours,

it seems to focus exclusively o n bodies i n this way, however, it really

A l t h o u g h white supremacy and colonial power are

looks through them to see the value that transcends them. H e n c e

characterized by a maniacal preoccupation w i t h bodies, the c o r p o -

"the metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties" o f economism

real signs o f race are not entirely stable and reliable. T h e one w h o

in both its capitalist and socialist forms.

passes for white but is not poses the greatest anxiety for the white

tual bodies, o f humans and other commodities, are ultimately not

supremacist, and indeed the cultural and literary history o f the

the object o f economism; what really matters is the quantity o f eco-

U n i t e d States is filled w i t h angst created by "passing" and racial a m -

n o m i c value that stands above or behind them. That is w h y human

biguity. Such anxieties make clear, though, that white supremacy is

bodies can become commodities, that is, indifferent from all other

not really about bodies, at least not i n any simple way, but rather

commodities, i n the first place, because their singularity disappears

looks beyond the body at some essence that transcends it. Discourses

w h e n they are seen only i n terms o f value. A n d thus economism too

o n b l o o d that gesture toward ancestry and lineage, w h i c h constitute

has a typically fundamentalist relation to the body: the material body

the primary c o m m o n link between racisms and nationalisms, are

is all-important and, at the same time, eclipsed by the transcendent

one way this essential difference beyond the body is configured. I n -

plane o f value.

and textures.

33

35

F r o m this perspective ac-

deed recent racial discourse has migrated i n certain respects from

W e need to follow this argument, however, through one final

the skin to the molecular level as biotechnologies and D N A testing

twist. Even though all o f these fundamentalisms—religious, nation-

are m a k i n g possible new characterizations o f racial difference, but

alist, racist, and economistic—ultimately negate the body and its

these molecular corporeal traits too, w h e n seen i n terms o f race, are

power, they do, at least initially, highlight its importance. That is

34

really only indexes o f a transcendent racial essence. There is finally

something to w o r k w i t h . T h e deviation from and subversion o f the

always something spiritual or metaphysical about racism. B u t all this

fundamentalist focus on the body, i n other words, can serve as the

should not lead us to say that white supremacy is not about bodies

point o f departure for a perspective that affirms the needs o f bodies

after all. Instead, like other fundamentalisms it is characterized by a

and their full powers.

double relation to the body. T h e body is all-important and, at the, same time, vanishes.

W i t h regard to religious fundamentalism, one o f the richest and most fascinating (but also most complex and contradictory) ex-

35

36

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

PRODUCTIVE

BODIES

amples is the biopolitical potential that Foucault glimpses i n the Is-

Particularly d u r i n g the course o f national liberation struggles, na-

lamic popular movements against the shah's government i n the year

tionalisms have served as the w o r k b e n c h for the experimentation o f

leading up to the Iranian R e v o l u t i o n . O n commission from the Ital-

numerous political practices. T h i n k , for example, o f the intensely

ian newspaper Corriere della Sera, he makes two w e e k - l o n g visits to

corporeal nature o f oppression and liberation that Frantz Fanon a n -

Iran i n September and N o v e m b e r 1978 and writes a series o f b r i e f

alyzes w h i l e w o r k i n g as a psychiatrist i n the midst o f the Algerian

essays i n w h i c h he recounts i n simple, often m o v i n g prose the devel-

R e v o l u t i o n . T h e violence o f colonialism that runs throughout its

opment o f the uprising against the regime, offering basic political

institutions and daily regimens is deposited i n the bones o f the c o l o -

analyses o f the relations o f force i n the country, the importance o f

nized. D r . Fanon explains that, as i n a thermodynamic system, the

Iran's o i l i n the cold war, the political power o f the shah, the brutal-

violence that goes i n has to come out somewhere: it is most c o m -

ity o f the repression, and so forth. In the essays Foucault, o f course,

m o n l y manifested i n the mental disorders o f the colonized—a v i o -

does not endorse political Islam, and he clearly insists that there is

lence directed inward, self-inflicted—or i n forms o f violence among

nothing revolutionary about the Shiite clergy or Islam as such, but

the colonized, i n c l u d i n g bloody feuds among tribes, clans, and i n d i -

he does recognize that, as it had i n Europe and elsewhere i n other

viduals. T h e national liberation struggle, then, is for Fanon a k i n d o f

historical instances, religion defines the f o r m o f struggle i n Iran that

training o f the body to redirect that violence outward, back whence

37

mobilizes the popular classes. It is easy to imagine, although he does

38

it came, against the colonizer. U n d e r the flag o f revolutionary na-

not use these terms, that Foucault is t h i n k i n g about the biopolitical

tionalism, then, tortured, suffering bodies are able to discover their

powers o f Islamic fundamentalism i n the Iranian resistance. Just two

real power. Fanon is well aware, o f course, that once independence

years earlier he published the first volume o f his History of Sexuality,

has been achieved, the nation and nationalism become again an o b -

and soon afterwards he w o u l d deliver his lectures at the College de

stacle, closing d o w n the dynamics that the revolution had opened.

France o n the birth o f biopolitics. So it comes as no surprise that i n

Nationalism can never fully escape fundamentalism, but that should

these essays he is sensitive to the way that i n the popular movements

not blind us to the fact that, particularly i n the context o f national

religious forces regulate w i t h such care daily life, family ties, and so-

liberation struggles, nationalism's intense focus o n bodies suggests

cial relations. In the context o f the rebellion, he explains, "religion

biopolitical practices that, i f oriented differently, can be extraordi-

for them was like the promise and guarantee o f finding something

narily powerful.

36

that w o u l d radically change their subjectivity." W e have no inten-

W e have to approach the fundamentalism o f white supremacy

tion o f blaming Foucault for the fact that after the overthrow o f the

a bit ironically to see h o w it provides an opening toward a b i o p o l i t i -

shah a repressive theocratic regime took power, a regime against

cal practice through its focus o n the body. T h e Black Power m o v e -

w h i c h he protested. W h a t we find most significant i n his articles i n -

ment i n the U n i t e d States i n the 1960s and 1970s, to give one ex-

stead is h o w he recognizes i n the religious fundamentalism o f the

ample, transforms

rebellion and its focus o n bodies the elements o f a biopolitical power

differences that grounds racist thought. Black Power focuses o n the

that, i f deployed differently, diverted from its closure i n the theo-

surfaces o f the b o d y — s k i n color, hair quality, facial features, and so

cratic regime, could b r i n g about a radical transformation o f subjec-

forth—but not to w h i t e n skin or straighten hair. B e c o m i n g black is

tivity and participate i n a project o f liberation.

the aim, because not only is black beautiful but also the meaning o f

For nationalism we do not need any such complex example to recognize the potentially progressive elements contained w i t h i n it.

and revalues the epidermalization o f human

39

blackness is the struggle for freedom. T h i s is not so m u c h an anti.

racist discourse as a counterracist one, one that uses the focus o n

1

37

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

bodies as a means to affirm blackness. W e should note, though, that this boomerang o f counterracism does not couple the focus o n b o d -

1.3

ies w i t h some transcendent, metaphysical moment i n w h i c h bodies vanish and the dominant element is really some essential, spiritual blackness—or rather, i n the cases w h e n it does, it becomes yet an-

THE M U L T I T U D E OF T H E POOR

other fundamentalism. Counterracism that remains tied to the m a terial, to the beauty and power o f bodies, opens the possibility for a biopolitical practice. Finally, M a r x reveals the possibility o f subverting economism i n his early readings o f classical political economy. H e grasps the i n -

A Common-wealth is . . . the Government of the whole multitude of the base and poorer sort, without respect to the other Orders. —Sir Walter Raleigh, Maxims of State

tense focus o n bodies and their productivity i n the w o r k o f A d a m Smith and others, but he also recognizes h o w that productivity o f

The humor and the wit o f the mariners, renegades, and castaways are

laboring bodies is narrowed and finally eclipsed w h e n bodies be-

beyond the cultivated inter-changes of those who sit around mahog-

come merely producers o f value for capital. This inspires some o f the

any tables.They have to be. Hangman's nooses hang loose around the

most lyrical passages i n Marx's work, i n w h i c h he tries to restore the full productivity o f bodies across all the domains o f life. Labor, freed from private property, simultaneously engages all our senses and ca-

necks of countless millions today, and for them their unfailing humor is an assertion of life and sanity against the ever-present threat of destruction and a world in chaos. — C . L. R. James, Mariners, Renegades, and Castaways

pacities, i n short, all our "human relations to the world—seeing hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, contemplating, sensing, want40

ing, acting, l o v i n g . " W h e n labor and production are conceived i n this expanded form, crossing all the domains o f life, bodies can never be eclipsed and subordinated

to any transcendent

measure or

power.

Multitude: The Name of the Poor Since the dominant f o r m o f the republic is defined by property, the

In each o f these frameworks, then, the intense concentration

multitude, insofar as it is characterized by poverty, stands opposed to

o n the body that characterizes fundamentalism offers an opening for

it. T h i s conflict, however, should be understood i n terms o f not only

a biopolitical perspective. Biopolitics thus is the ultimate antidote to

wealth and poverty but also and more significantly the forms o f sub-

fundamentalism because it refuses the imposition o f a transcendent,

jectivity produced. Private property creates subjectivities that are at

spiritual value or structure, refuses to let the bodies be eclipsed, and

once individual (in their competition w i t h one another) and unified

insists instead o n their power.

as a class to preserve their property (against the poor).The constitutions o f the great m o d e r n bourgeois republics mediate this balance between the individualism and class interests o f property. T h e p o v erty o f the multitude, then, seen from this perspective, does not refer to its misery or deprivation or even its lack, but instead names a production o f social subjectivity that results i n a radically plural and open body politic, opposed to both the individualism and the e x c l u -

40

REPUBLIC

(AND THE MULTITUDE

OF THE

THE

POOR)

MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR

sive, unified social body o f property. T h e poor, i n other words, refers

"has a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's

not to those w h o have nothing but to the w i d e multiplicity o f all

clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first

those w h o are inserted i n the mechanisms o f social production re-

by his o w n consent to put himself under that government; and I do

gardless o f social order or property. A n d this conceptual conflict is

think that the poorest man i n England is not at all b o u n d i n a strict

also a political conflict. Its productivity is what makes the multitude

sense to that government that he has not had a voice to put himself

o f the p o o r a real and effective menace for the republic o f property.

under."

43

R a i n s b o r o u g h is gesturing toward a political body w h e n

T h e essential foundations for understanding the constitutive

he refers to this extreme point, "the poorest he," but this is not a

relation between multitude and poverty i n this way are established

subject that is limited to or even defined by this lack. Rather this

i n the political struggles o f seventeenth-century England. T h e term

multitude o f the p o o r is a political body without distinction o f

"multitude" acquired then an almost technical meaning i n popular

property, a mixed body that is unbounded, w h i c h w o u l d include

political discourse and pamphlets to name all those gathered to-

Tate's list o f tradesmen but not be limited to them. For R a i n s b o r -

It is

ough, furthermore, this conception o f the p o o r as an open and i n -

understandable that multitude, defined i n this way, comes to c o n -

clusive political body directly supports and even necessitates univer-

note the lowest rank o f society and the propertyless, since they are

sal (or at least extended) suffrage and equal representation. A n d

gether to f o r m a political body regardless o f rank and property.

41

the most visibly excluded from the dominant political bodies, but

indeed Commissary Ireton o f the army, Rainsborough s primary i n -

really it is an open, inclusive social body, characterized by its b o u n d -

terlocutor i n the Putney Debates, immediately recognizes the threat

lessness and its originary state o f mixture among social ranks and

to the rule o f property posed by this conception o f the political sub-

groups. N a h u m Tate i n Richard the Second (1681), for example, his

ject. If the vote belongs to everyone, Ireton reasons, w h y should not

rewriting o f Shakespeare, gives an idea o f this m i x e d social body

all property belong to everyone? That is indeed exactly where the

w h e n he describes the multitude w i t h a list o f occupations: " S h o o -

logic leads.

maker, Farrier, Weaver, Tanner, Mercer, Brewer, Butcher, Barber, and infinite others w i t h a Confused N o i s e . "

42

Tracing the history o f the t e r m "multitude" presents a p h i l o -

B u t even Tate's multiplic-

logical c o n u n d r u m because there is little textual record o f the p o -

ity o f trades, w h i c h could serve as a reference to a nascent w o r k i n g

litical speech and w r i t i n g o f the proponents o f the multitude. T h e

class, does not adequately capture the multitude's unbounded na-

vast majority o f references i n the archive o f seventeenth-century

ture—its being without regard to rank or property—or its power as

English texts are negative, written by those w h o want to destroy,

a social and political body.

denigrate, and deny the multitude. T h e t e r m is almost always pre-

W e begin to see more clearly the defining relation to poverty

ceded by a derogatory adjective to double the weight against it: the

o f the multitude i n the 1647 Putney Debates between the Levellers

lawless multitude, the headless multitude, the ignorant multitude,

and factions o f the N e w M o d e l A r m y o n the nature o f a new c o n -

and so forth. R o b e r t F i l m e r and Thomas Hobbes, to cite two p r o m -

stitution for England and particularly o n the right o f suffrage. T h e

inent figures, seek to deny not only the rights o f the multitude but

Levellers argue strongly against the restriction o f the vote to those

also its very existence. Filmer, arguing o n scriptural grounds, cast as

w h o o w n property. C o l o n e l Thomas Rainsborough, speaking for

i f they were historical, contests the claims, made by authors such as

them, does not use the t e r m "multitude," but i n his arguments he

Cardinal Bellarmine, that the multitude because o f c o m m o n natural

does present the poor as an unbounded and m i x e d political body. "I

right has the power to determine the civil order. Power was given

think that the poorest he that is i n England," R a i n s b o r o u g h affirms,-

not equally by natural right to the entire multitude, he contends, but

41

42

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

THE

MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR

to A d a m , the father, whose authority passes rightly to all patriarchs.

To complete this connection between the physical and p o l i t i -

"There never was any such thing as an independent multitude, w h o

cal notions o f the multitude, we have to travel across the English

at first had a natural right to a community," Filmer proclaims. " T h i s

C h a n n e l to H o l l a n d . B a r u c h Spinoza's physics, like Boyle's, opposes

is but a fiction or fancy o f too many i n these days."

44

Hobbes chal-

any atomism o f pure bodies and focuses instead o n processes o f m i x -

lenges the existence o f the multitude o n more directly political

ture and composition.There is n o need here to enter into the details

grounds. T h e multitude is not a political body, he maintains, and for

o f their different epistemologies—between a rationalist-mechanist

it to become political it must become a people, w h i c h is defined by its unity o f w i l l and action. T h e many, i n other words, must be reduced to one, thereby negating the essence o f the multitude itself: " W h e n the multitude is united into a body politic, and thereby are a people . . . and their wills virtually i n the sovereign, there the rights and demands o f the particulars do cease; and he or they that have the sovereign power, doth for them all demand and vindicate under

theory and a corpuscular-experimental conception—since both authors conceive o f nature as composed through encounters among elementary particles.

48

Encounters result either i n decomposition

into smaller bodies or composition into a new, larger body. In S p i noza's politics the multitude is a similarly mixed, complex body that is composed by the same logic o f clinamen and encounter. The m u l titude is thus an inclusive body i n the sense that it is open to en-

45

the name o f his, that w h i c h before they called i n the plural, theirs."

Filmer and Hobbes are representative o f the dominant stream o f seventeenth-century English political thought, w h i c h gives us only a negative reflection o f or reaction to the multitude. B u t certainly the intensity o f that reaction—the fear and hatred inspired i n Filmer and Hobbes—is testimony to the power o f the cause. A n o t h e r strategy for investigating the politics o f the multitude in seventeenth-century English thought is to turn to the field o f physics, since the same set o f basic laws were thought to apply equally to physical and political bodies. R o b e r t Boyle, for example, challenges the dominant view that all existing bodies are compounds o f homogeneous, simple elements by arguing instead that multiplicity and mixture are primary i n nature. "Innumerable swarms o f little bodies," he writes, "are m o v ' d to and fro," and " M u l t i t u d e s " o f corpuscles are "driven to associate themselves, n o w w i t h one Body, and presently w i t h another."

46

A l l bodies are always already mixed m u l t i -

tudes and constantly open to further combination through the logic o f corpuscular association. Since physical and political bodies obey the same laws, Boyle's physics o f unbounded multitudes i m m e d i ately implies an affirmation o f the political multitude and its mixed body. A n d indeed it should be no surprise that Hobbes, understanding this threat, argues vociferously against B o y l e .

counters w i t h all other bodies, and its political life depends o n the qualities o f these encounters, whether they are joyful and compose more powerful bodies or whether they are sad and decompose into less powerful ones. This radical inclusiveness is one element that clearly marks Spinoza's multitude as a multitude o f the poor—the poor conceived, once again, as not limited to the lowest i n society but open to all regardless o f rank and property. Spinoza, finally, makes the essential and decisive step o f defining this multitude as the only possible subject o f democracy.

49

To understand better this connection between the multitude and poverty we should step back a few centuries to see h o w the same spectacle o f the multitude o f the p o o r confronts the tribunals o f civil and church authorities i n Renaissance Italy. T h e mendicant order o f Francis o f Assisi preaches the virtue o f the poor i n order to oppose both the corruption o f church power and the institution o f private property, w h i c h were intimately connected. T h e Franciscans give prescriptive value to the mottos o f Gratian s

Decretum—"iure

naturali sunt omnia omnibus" (by natural law all belongs to everyone) and "iure divino o m n i sunt c o m m u n i a " (by divine law all things are c o m m o n ) — w h i c h themselves refer to basic principles o f the church fathers and the Apostles, "habebant o m n i a c o m m u n i a " (keep

47

all things i n c o m m o n ) (Acts 2:44). A bitter debate, foreshadowing

43

44

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

THE

POOR)

MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR

the events o f Putney three centuries later, emerges between the pa-

tics is the struggle between the p o o r and the r i c h " or, more precisely,

pacy and the Franciscans (and w i t h i n the Franciscan order) pitting

he goes o n to say, the struggle between those w h o have no part i n

those w h o affirm the rule o f property, and thus negate the c o m m u -

the management o f the c o m m o n and those w h o control i t .

n i o n dictated by natural law, against the Franciscan groups w h i c h

exists w h e n those w h o have no right to be counted, as Ranciere

believe that only on the basis o f c o m m o n wealth can a good and just

says, make themselves o f some account. T h e part o f those w h o have

society be created o n earth. O n l y a few years later, i n fact, i n 1324,

no part, the party o f the poor, is an excellent initial definition o f the

Marsilius o f Padua w o u l d pose poverty as the sole basis for not only

multitude, as l o n g as we add immediately that the party o f the p o o r

Christian perfection but also, what primarily interests us, democratic

is by no means homologous to the party o f the r i c h . T h e party o f

society.

53

Politics

the r i c h makes false claim to universality, pretending i n the guise o f

50

T h r o u g h o u t the centuries o f modernity the term "multitude" is not used i n other parts o f the w o r l d w i t h the technical political sense it acquires i n seventeenth-century England, but the specter o f a multitude o f the poor circulates around the globe and threatens the rule o f property everywhere it takes root. It appears, for example, in the great sixteenth-century peasant wars waged by Thomas M i i n 5

zer and the Anabaptists against the G e r m a n princes. ' In the rebellions against European colonial regimes, from the 1781 Tupac Katari attack o n Spanish rule i n L a Paz to the 1857 Indian rebellion against

the republic o f property to represent the entire society, w h e n i n fact it is based only o n an exclusive identity, the unity and homogeneity o f w h i c h is guaranteed by the ownership o f property. T h e party o f the poor, i n contrast, is not an identity o f one exclusive p o r t i o n o f society but rather a formation o f all those inserted i n the mechanisms o f social production w i t h o u t respect to rank or property, i n all their diversity, animated by an open and plural production o f subjectivity. B y its very existence the multitude o f the poor presents an objective menace to the republic o f property.

the rule o f the British East India Company, the multitude o f the p o o r challenges the republic o f property. A n d at sea, o f course, the

Who Hates the Poor?

multitude populates the maritime circuits o f production and trade,

It often seems as i f everyone hates the poor. Certainly the r i c h do,

as well as the pirate networks that prey o n them. T h e negative image

usually casting their loathing i n moral terms—as i f poverty were the

is i n this case, too, the one most strongly conveyed to us: the m u l t i -

sign o f some inner failure—or sometimes masking it i n terms o f

tude is a many-headed hydra that threatens property and order.

52

pity and compassion. Even the not-quite-so-poor hate the poor, i n

Part o f the threat o f this multitude is its multiplicity, composed at

part because they see i n them an image o f what they might soon

times o f combinations o f sailors, maroons, servants, soldiers, trades-

become. W h a t stands behind the hatred o f the poor i n its different

men,

others

forms is fear, since the poor constitute a direct threat to property—

circulating through the great oceans. T h e threat is also, though, that

not only because they lack wealth and might even be justified i n

this multitude w i l l undermine property and its structures o f rule.

stealing it, like the noble Jean Valjean, but also because they have the

W h e n m e n o f power and property warn about the dangerous hydra

power to undermine and overthrow the republic o f property. " T h e

loose i n the seas, they are not telling fairy tales but trying to grasp

vile multitude not the people is what we want to exclude," pro-

and neutralize a real and powerful political threat.

claims A d o l p h e Thiers i n a session o f the French National Assembly

laborers, renegades, castaways, pirates, and numerous

Jacques Ranciere, finally, understands the nature o f politics i t self in terms very close to those we find i n the seventeenth-century debates about the multitude. F o r Ranciere "the w h o l e basis o f p o l i -

in 1850. T h e multitude is dangerous and must be banished by law, Thiers continues, because it is so mobile and impossible to grasp as a unified object o f r u l e .

54

Every such instance o f hatred and fear

45

46

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

THE

MULTITUDE

OF T H E P O O R

should be read i n an inverted way, as an affirmation, or at least an

centrated o n the spiritual, we have become p o o r to become rich."

acknowledgment, o f the power o f the poor.

A n d i n the margins o f the manuscript at the point where he first

Alongside the history o f practical maneuvers—dividing the

cites this sentence, he adds, " W h y , i n the present m o m e n t o f w o r l d

poor, depriving them o f the means o f action and expression, and so

history, I choose to comment o n this sentence for us w i l l be made

forth—is the equally l o n g record o f ideological efforts to tame, u n -

clear by the commentary itself." Heidegger, l o o k i n g into the face o f

dermine, and nullify the power o f the poor. It is interesting that so

a disaster o f historic proportions—the end o f the N a z i project, the

many o f these ideological operations have been conducted w i t h i n

end o f G e r m a n y and the G e r m a n people as he conceives them,

the context o f Christian theology and doctrine, perhaps precisely

and the advance o f communism—responds w i t h an ontological dis-

because the threat posed by the poor to the rule o f property has

course o n poverty.

56

been experienced so intensely w i t h i n Christianity. Pope Benedict

Let us begin by e x p l o r i n g the philosophical content o f the lec-

X V I , i n his 2006 encyclical Deus caritas est, seeks direcdy to chal-

ture, even though Heidegger has already indicated that its full mean-

lenge the scriptural bases o f and mystify ideologically the power o f

ing w i l l only be revealed i n relation to its moment o f w o r l d history.

the poor. H e claims that the apostolic mandate to share all things i n

Heidegger proceeds, following his usual method, by questioning

c o m m o n is impractical i n the m o d e r n w o r l d and moreover that the

each key t e r m i n Holderlin's sentence. W h a t does H o l d e r l i n mean

Christian c o m m u n i t y should not engage such questions o f social

by "us"? T h e answer is easy: we Germans. W h a t does he mean by

justice but leave them for governments to resolve. W h a t he advocates instead is charitable activity o n behalf o f the p o o r and suffering, casting the p o o r as objects o f pity rather than powerful subjects. There is n o t h i n g very original i n Benedict X V I ' s operation. H e is just the newest epigone i n a l o n g line o f Christian ideological c r u saders against the p o o r .

"spiritual"? Readers o f Heidegger w i l l not be surprised by this e i ther: by spiritual he means the essential ontological relation, that is, the fact that human essence is defined by its relation to B e i n g . This concentration o n the spiritual, then, this accent o n B e i n g , prepares Heidegger for an ontological reading o f poverty and wealth i n the

55

second half o f the sentence. Poverty, he begins, does not really have

O n e pinnacle (or nadir) o f the ideological effort to cancel the

to do w i t h possessions, as n o r m a l usage w o u l d suggest, whereby

power o f the poor through mystification is the brief June 1945 lec-

poverty w o u l d be a state o f not having material necessities. Poverty

ture by M a r t i n Heidegger titled simply "Poverty" ("Die A r m u t " ) .

refers not to having but to being. " T h e essence o f poverty resides i n

T h e scene o f the lecture is dramatic and significant. Since M a r c h o f

a being. B e i n g truly poor means: being i n such a way that we lack

that year, w h e n French troops crossed the R h i n e , Heidegger and

nothing, except the non-necessary."

some o f his colleagues from the philosophy department o f the U n i -

c o m i n g to a banal conclusion that poverty is defined by necessity

versity o f Freiburg have taken refuge i n the Wildenstein castle i n the hills o f the Black Forest east o f the city, where they continue to give lectures. B y late June the arrival o f French troops at the castle is i m minent, and Heidegger is undoubtedly well aware that the Soviet army is o n the banks o f the Elba, V i e n n a has fallen, and B e r l i n cannot be far behind. H e chooses for his final lecture to comment o n a sentence from H o l d e r l i n , written i n the final years o f the eighteenth century, d u r i n g the French R e v o l u t i o n : " W i t h us, everything is c o n -

57

A t this point Heidegger risks

and thus constraint, whereas wealth, w h i c h offers the privilege o f engaging the non-necessary, is capable o f freedom. Such a conception, though, i n addition to being banal, cannot explain the causality o f Holderlin's phrase that leads from becoming poor to b e c o m i n g rich. Heidegger solves the riddle, as he often does, w i t h recourse to G e r m a n etymology. T h e o l d G e r m a n word/n", from w h i c h freie or "free" derives, means to preserve or protect, allowing something to

47

REPUBLIC

(AND THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

THE

POOR)

MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR

reside i n its proper essence. Freeing something, he continues, means

emy o n its home turf. Indeed Heidegger's battle against c o m m u n i s m

guarding its essence against any constraints o f necessity. T h e freeing

becomes explicit i n the final pages o f the lecture. T h e poor are not

o f freedom, then, reverses or transforms necessity: " T h u s necessity is

opposed to the rich, as he imagines c o m m u n i s m to claim, but rather

in no way, as all o f Metaphysics understands it, the opposite o f free-

the real meaning o f poverty can be discovered only from the " s p i r i -

d o m , but rather only freedom is i n itself necessity converted." T h i s

tual" perspective that recognizes the relation o f human essence to

allows Heidegger to turn the trick. It is true, o f course, that the poor

Being.

59

lack the non-necessary, w h i c h is at the center o f freedom. " W h a t we

This is certainly a bizarre and ineffective challenge to c o m m u -

lack we do not have, but it is what we lack that has us."We recognize

nist ideology, but what concerns us more here is the way Heidegger

this to the extent that "everything is concentrated o n the spiritual,"

mystifies the power o f the poor and h o w i n the guise o f saving the

that is, o n the relation to B e i n g at the essence o f humanity. Even i n

concept o f poverty he really condemns it. E v e n though the p o o r are

our lacking we belong, i n some sense, through our relation to B e i n g ,

dignified i n Heidegger's eyes by their relation to B e i n g , they remain

to the freedom o f the non-necessary: " O n c e the essence o f h u m a n -

completely passive i n this relation, like powerless creatures i n the

ity holds properly to the relation between freeing B e i n g and h u -

face o f an all-powerful god. In this respect Heidegger's approach to

manity, that is, once human essence lacks the non-necessary, then

the poor is really only a more sophisticated version o f Pope B e n e -

58

humanity becomes p o o r i n the true sense." B e c o m i n g p o o r leads

dict X V I ' s charity. T h e poor can be an object o f pity and generosity

to b e c o m i n g r i c h because poverty itself marks a relation to B e i n g ,

w h e n , and only w h e n , their power has been completely neutralized

and i n that relation, necessity is converted into freedom, that is, the

and their passivity is assured. A n d the fear o f the poor that is thinly

preservation and protection o f its proper essence. B e i n g - p o o r is thus

veiled behind this benevolent facade is immediately linked to a fear

i n itself, Heidegger concludes, being-rich.

o f c o m m u n i s m (embodied for the pope i n liberation theology).

Those not initiated into the intricacies o f Heideggerian p h i -

Heidegger makes the explicit link between poverty and c o m -

losophy might well ask at this point, W h y go through such gymnas-

munism, but one should also remember h o w often hatred o f the

tics just to confuse the distinction between poverty and wealth? T h e

poor serves as a mask for racism. In Heidegger's case one can i m a g -

answer, as Heidegger himself tells us i n his marginal note at the be-

ine a speculative argument, following A d o r n o , about the link i n N a z i

ginning, has to be found i n the "world-historical" situation he is

Germany between the authoritarian personality and anti-Semitism.

facing, specifically the impending N a z i defeat and the approaching

A n d i f we switch to the context o f the Americas, it is almost always

Soviet troops. R e m e m b e r that Heidegger elsewhere i n his w o r k ex-

the case that hatred o f the p o o r expresses a thinly veiled or displaced

60

presses his anticommunism i n ontological terms. A decade earlier,

racism. Poverty and race are so intimately linked throughout

for example, i n his Introduction to Metaphysics, he claims that from the

Americas that this hatred is inevitably intermingled w i t h disgust for

metaphysical standpoint, the U n i t e d States and the Soviet U n i o n are

black bodies and a revulsion toward darker-skinned people. " R a c e

really united i n projects o f unleashed technique. These are clearly

differences and class differentials have been ground together i n this

peoples, i n his view, for w h o m everything is not concentrated on

country i n a crucible o f misery and squalor," H e n r y Louis Gates Jr.

the spiritual. B u t w h y i n June 1945 should Heidegger decide to i n -

and C o r n e l l West write about the U n i t e d States, " i n such a way that

vestigate the ontological position o f poverty? T h e answer seems to

few o f us k n o w where one stops and the other begins."

be that he considers a certain notion o f poverty to be the essence o f

where there is hatred o f the poor there is likely to be racial fear and

c o m m u n i s m and its primary appeal, so he wants to combat the e n -

hatred l u r k i n g somewhere nearby.

61

the

Every-

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF THE

POOR)

THE

MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR

A n o t h e r connection, w h i c h is not so obvious, links Heidegger's

guard property. Property is the key that defines not only the republic

ontological subordination o f the poor to C a r l Schmitt's political

but also the people, both o f w h i c h are posed as universal concepts

theology and his affirmation o f transcendent sovereign power. Such

but i n reality exclude the multitude o f the poor.

a connection might seem counterintuitive since Heidegger is so i n -

T h i s exclusion is the essential content o f Hobbes's conceptual

sistent about the end o f metaphysics and refuses to locate B e i n g as a

division between the multitude and the people. T h e k i n g is the peo-

transcendent essence, w h i c h w o u l d , i n the realm o f ontology, o c -

ple, Hobbes declares, because the people, i n contrast to the m u l t i -

cupy an analogous position to Schmitt's political sovereign.The link

tude, is a unified subject and can thus be represented by a single

appears clearly, however, at the other end o f the spectrum, i n their

person. O n the surface his distinction is simply geometrical: the

denigration and fear o f the power o f immanence. Schmitt's n o t i o n

people is one (and thus capable o f sovereignty), whereas the m u l t i -

o f sovereign power and his theory o f the Fiihrer seek to contain p o -

tude is plural (and thus incoherent, unable to rule itself).This is just a

liticallyjust as Heidegger's analysis denigrates ontologically, the m u l -

translation o f the debate about the physics o f bodies, w h i c h we saw

titude o f the poor and its power. This is one moment w h e n it is not

in relation to Boyle and Spinoza, w i t h a small extension to i n d i -

insignificant or anecdotal fact that both Schmitt and Heidegger sup-

cate the political consequences. W e need to ask at this point, h o w -

port the N a z i regime. There should by n o means be a prohibition

ever, what stands behind the unity o f the people for Hobbes? In

on learning from reactionary thinkers, and indeed many leftist schol-

seventeenth-century English political discourse it is not unusual to

ars have relied heavily o n the w o r k o f Schmitt and Heidegger i n

conceive o f "the people" as "freeholders," that is, those w i t h suffi-

recent years, but one should never forget that they are reactionaries,

cient independent property to qualify to vote for members o f par-

a fact that unfailingly comes out i n their w o r k .

62

liament. T h e glue that holds this people together, i n other words,

W h a t Heidegger and Schmitt do not challenge but simply

and whose lack dictates the plurality o f the multitude, is property.

mystify and try to contain is an ontological relation o f the poor that

Hobbes makes even clearer i n Behemoth the function o f property to

points i n the opposite direction, based o n the innovation, the sub-

expel the poor from the people. T h e only glory o f merchants, he

jectivity, and the power o f the poor to intervene i n the established

writes, "whose profession is their private gain," is "to grow exces-

reality and create being. T h i s may be spiritual i n the sense that it

sively r i c h by the w i s d o m o f b u y i n g and selling" and "by m a k i n g

poses a relation between humanity and being, but it is also equally

poor people sell their labour to them at their o w n prices; so that

material i n its corporeal, material constructive practices. This is the

poor people, for the most part, might get a better living by w o r k i n g

ontological power o f the poor that we want to investigate—one that

i n B r i d e w e l l [prison], than by spinning, weaving, and other such l a -

is at the center o f a n o t i o n o f c o m m u n i s m that Heidegger and

bour as they can d o . "

Schmitt w o u l d have no idea h o w to confront.

poor from the people, is not a contingent fact for Hobbes but a nec-

Poverty and Power

property to maintain and increase it. T h e multitude o f the poor is

In the course o f the great bourgeois revolutions o f the seventeenth

the essential pillar that supports the people and its republic o f prop-

and eighteenth centuries, the concept o f the multitude is w i p e d out

erty.

63

T h e lack o f property, w h i c h excludes the

essary and constantly reproduced condition that allows those w i t h

from the political and legal vocabulary, and by means o f this era-

Machiavelli shows us this relationship from the other side and

sure the conception o f republic (res publica rather than res communis)

illuminates the resistance that animates the poor. "Strip all o f us na-

comes to be narrowly defined as an instrument to affirm and safe-

ked, y o u w i l l see that we are alike," he writes i n a speech invented

REPUBLIC

(AND THE MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR)

THE

MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR

for an anonymous rebel i n the revolt o f the ciompi, the fourteenth-

and wealth, i n the first place, but also between subordination and

century w o o l carders, against the popolo grasso, the wealthy F l o r e n -

production, and hierarchy and the c o m m o n . W h a t is most important

tines. "Dress us i n their clothes and them i n ours," Machiavelli's agi-

about the alternative Machiavelli reveals, however, is that these social

tator continues, referring to the r i c h owners o f the w o o l factory,

contradictions are dynamic, animated by antagonism and resistance.

"and without a doubt we shall appear noble and they ignoble, for

Key to his histories and political analyses is the progression that leads

only poverty and riches make us unequal." There is no need for the

from indignation to the creation o f social disorders or riots (tumulti),

p o o r to feel remorse for the violence o f their rebellions because

and i n t u r n poses the conditions for the rebellion o f the multitude,

"where there is, as w i t h us, fear o f hunger and prison, there cannot

w h i c h is excluded from wealth but included i n its production. H u -

and should not be fear o f hell." Faithful servants, the orator explains,

manity is never naked, never characterized by bare life, but rather

are still just servants, and good people are always poor. N o w is the

always dressed, endowed w i t h not only histories o f suffering but also

time, then, "not only to free ourselves from them but to become so

capacities to produce and the power to rebel.

m u c h their superiors that they w i l l have more to lament and fear from you than y o u from them."

64

Spinoza carries forward this Machiavellian alternative and,

Central to this passage is the fact

among many other conceptual advances, highlights the corporeal

that poverty is not a characteristic o f human nature itself. In other

aspects o f this power. H e not only recognizes that the body is a site

texts Machiavelli falls into a naturalistic version o f human poverty

where poverty and needs are expressed, but also emphasizes that i n

and frailty, lamenting the fate o f humanity i n a cruel, unfeeling u n i -

the body resides a power the limits o f w h i c h are still u n k n o w n : " N o

verse, as Lucretius d i d before h i m and Leopardi after. " E v e r y animal

one has yet determined what a B o d y can do."

among us is b o r n fully clad," he proclaims, for example, i n The

two conditions, poverty and power, i n a dynamic that strives toward

Golden Ass. " O n l y man is b o r n naked [ignudo] o f all protection; he

the production o f community. W h e n Spinoza remarks on the i g n o -

has neither hide nor spine nor feather nor fleece nor bristles nor

rance o f children, for instance, or the weakness o f our bodies or the

65

66

H e connects these

scales to make h i m a shield." B u t this traditional realist line, w h i c h

brutality o f the human social condition, he always poses such states

derives from the static character o f older materialist analyses, does

o f poverty as the point o f departure for a logic o f transformation

not satisfy Machiavelli. H i s materialist method needs, o n the c o n -

that moves out o f solitude and weakness by means o f the construc-

trary, to become joyful—not only realist but also dynamic and rebel-

tion o f sociality and love. T h e power Spinoza identifies i n these var-

lious, as i n the case o f the ciompi, against property and its institu-

ious forms can be summarized as a quest for the c o m m o n : just as i n

tions.

epistemology he focuses o n " c o m m o n notions" that constitute ra-

Machiavelli reveals here a fundamental alternative path w i t h i n

tionality and give us greater power to think, and i n ethics he o r i -

m o d e r n political thought, w h i c h poses the p o o r as not only the re-

ents action toward c o m m o n goods, so too i n politics Spinoza seeks

mainder left by the violent appropriation conducted by nascent

mechanisms whereby singular bodies can together compose a c o m -

powers o f capital, not only prisoners o f the new conditions o f the

m o n power. This c o m m o n power by w h i c h the multitude battles

production and reproduction, but also a force o f resistance that rec-

poverty and creates c o m m o n wealth is for Spinoza the primary force

ognizes itself as exploited w i t h i n a regime that still bears the marks

that supports the possibility o f democracy.

o f the c o m m o n : a c o m m o n social life, c o m m o n social wealth. T h e

M a r x adds one more step to this alternative trajectory, c o n -

poor occupies a paradoxical position, at once excluded and included,

firming Machiavelli's intuition that the power o f the poor stands at

w h i c h highlights a series o f social contradictions—between poverty

the center o f social rebellion and Spinoza's hypothesis that the power

REPUBLIC

(AND THE MULTITUDE

OF T H E

THE

POOR)

MULTITUDE

OF T H E

POOR

o f the multitude is essential to the possibility o f democracy. Like the

ies conventionally drawn around the w o r k i n g class. O n e important

others, M a r x begins his reasoning w i t h poverty, identifying the o r i -

change is that exploitation today tends to be no longer a productive

gin o f the properly capitalist form o f poverty i n the l o n g and varied

function but rather a mere instrument o f domination. T h i s corre-

processes o f so-called primitive accumulation. W h e n they are sepa-

sponds to the fact that, i n different ways i n various contexts around

rated from the soil and from all other means o f production, workers

the w o r l d , as modes o f life and w o r k characterized by mobility, flex-

are doubly free: free i n the sense that they are not b o u n d i n servi-

ibility, and precarity are ever more severely imposed by capitalist re-

tude and also free i n that they have no encumbrances, that is, no

gimes o f production and exploitation, wage laborers and the p o o r

property or even any right to access the land. T h e proletariat is cre-

are no longer subjected to qualitatively different conditions but are

ated as a multitude o f the poor. " L a b o r capacity," M a r x writes, "de-

both absorbed equally into the multitude o f producers. T h e poor,

nuded o f the means o f labour and the means o f life is . . . absolute

whether they receive wages or not, are located no longer only at the

poverty as such and the worker [is] the mere personification o f the

historic o r i g i n or the geographical borders o f capitalist production

labour capacity. . . . As such, conceptually speaking, he is a pauper."

but increasingly at its heart—and thus the multitude o f the poor

T h e pauper M a r x is talking about here refers not just to those w h o

emerges also at the center o f the project for revolutionary transfor-

live i n misery o n the limits o f starvation but to all workers insofar as

mation.

their living labor is separated from the objectified labor accumulated i n capital. B u t nakedness and poverty is only one side o f the matter. Like Machiavelli and Spinoza, M a r x links the proletariat's poverty directly to its power i n the sense that living labor is "the general possibility o f material wealth" i n capitalist society. L i v i n g labor is thus at once "absolute poverty" as object and "general possibility" as subject. M a r x conceives this explosive combination o f poverty and power as the ultimate threat to private property, one w h i c h resides at its very heart.

67

Some readers are likely to object at this point that our reliance o n concepts such as poverty and the multitude hopelessly confuses Marxist categories, obscuring the difference, for example, between the "precapitalist" misery that results from violent expropriation and the properly capitalist misery o f wage labor and exploitation. In this way we betray Marx's materialist method and muddle the class character o f his analysis. N o t even the Utopian socialists, our critics can exclaim, so thoroughly mystify the analysis o f exploitation i n M a r x and scientific socialism! W e maintain, though, that our approach is just as materialist as traditional Marxist analyses, but i n part because o f the changing nature o f labor and exploitation, w h i c h we engage i n detail i n later chapters, we break d o w n some o f the boundar-

68

DE C O R P O R E

1: B I O P O L I T I C S

AS

EVENT

Here too Foucault's attention is focused primarily o n the power over life—or, really, the power to administer and produce life—that functions through the government o f populations, managing their

DE C O R P O R E

1: BIOPOLITICS A S EVENT

health, reproductive capacities, and so forth. B u t there is always a m i n o r current that insists o n life as resistance, an other power o f life that strives toward an alternative existence. T h e perspective o f resistance makes clear the difference between these two powers: the biopower against w h i c h we struggle is not comparable i n its nature

I am painting, I am Nature, I am truth. —Gustave Courbet

or f o r m to the power o f life by w h i c h we defend and seek our freed o m . To mark this difference between the two "powers o f life," we adopt a terminological distinction, suggested by Foucault s writings but not used consistently by h i m , between biopower and b i o p o l i -

To grasp h o w M i c h e l Foucault understands biopower,

tics, whereby the former could be defined (rather crudely) as the

we have to situate it i n the context o f the broader theory o f power

power over life and the latter as the power o f life to resist and de-

he develops i n the p e r i o d w h e n he begins w o r k i n g w i t h the c o n -

termine an alternative production o f subjectivity.

cept, the second half o f the 1970s, i n Discipline and Punish (1975) and the first volume o f The History of Sexuality (1976). In these books Foucault s notion o f power is always double. H e devotes most o f his attention to disciplinary regimes, architectures o f power, and the applications o f power through distributed and capillary networks, a power that does not so m u c h repress as produce subjects. T h r o u g h o u t these books, however, sometimes i n what seem like asides or marginal notes, Foucault also constantly theorizes an other to power (or even an other power), for w h i c h he seems u n able to find an adequate name. Resistance is the term he most often uses, but it does not really capture what he has i n m i n d , since resistance, as it is generally understood, is too dependent o n and subordinate to the power it opposes. O n e might suggest to Foucault the Marxist n o t i o n o f "counterpower," but that term implies a second power that is homologous to the one it opposes. In our view, the

T h e major streams o f Foucault interpretation, however, do not adequately grasp the dual nature o f biopolitics. O n e stream, w h i c h is presented first by Francois E w a l d and later by R o b e r t o Esposito, analyzes the terrain o f biopolitics primarily from the standpoint o f the normative management o f populations. This amounts to an actuarial administration o f life that generally requires v i e w i n g i n d i v i d uals from a statistical perspective, classifying them into large n o r m a tive sets, w h i c h become more coherent the more the microsystems that compose them are de-subjectivized and made homogeneous. A l t h o u g h this interpretation has the merit o f philological fidelity (albeit w i t h a rather narrow perspective o n Foucault's opus), it leaves us w i t h merely a "liberal" image o f Foucault and biopolitics insofar as it poses against this threatening, all-encompassing power over life no alternative power or effective resistance but only a vague sense o f critique and moral indignation.

69

other to power that runs through these books is best defined as an alternative production o f subjectivity, w h i c h not only resists power but also seeks autonomy from it.

A second major stream, w h i c h centers o n the interpretation o f G i o r g i o A g a m b e n (and emerges to some extent from the w o r k o f Jacques D e r r i d a and Jean-Luc N a n c y ) , accepts that biopolitics is an

This understanding o f the doubleness o f power helps us approach Foucault s attempts to develop the concept o f biopower.

ambiguous and conflictive terrain but sees resistance acting only at its most extreme limit, o n the margins o f a totalitarian f o r m o f

57

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

DE C O R P O R E

POOR)

power, o n the b r i n k o f impossibility. Here such authors could easily be interpreting the famous lines from Holderlin's p o e m "Patmos": " W o aber Gefahr ist, wachst / Das Rettende auch" (Where there is danger, / T h e rescue grows as well). This stream o f interpretation thus does to a certain extent distinguish biopolitics from biopower but leaves biopolitics powerless and w i t h o u t subjectivity.These authors seek i n Foucault a definition o f biopolitics that strips it o f every possibility o f autonomous, creative action, but really they fall back o n Heidegger i n these points o f the analysis to negate any constructive capacity o f biopolitical resistance. Agamben transposes biopolitics i n a theological-political key, claiming that the only possibility o f rupture w i t h biopower resides i n "inoperative" activity (inoperosita), a blank refusal that recalls Heidegger's n o t i o n o f Gelassenheit, completely incapable o f constructing an alternative.

70

Finally, we can construct something like a third stream o f i n terpretation o f biopolitics, even i f it is generally not posed i n reference to Foucault and his terminology, that includes authors w h o understand life w i t h reference to naturalistic and/or transcendental invariables o f existence. F r o m this perspective there is a certain autonomy conceded to biopolitical subjectivity, for example, i n the invariable logical-linguistic structures proposed by N o a m C h o m s k y or the ontological duration o f preindividual and interindividual l i n guistic and productive relations i n authors such as Gilbert S i m o n don, Bernard Stiegler, and Peter Sloterdijk. B u t this subjectivity, though posed as resistance to the existing power structures, lacks a dynamic character because it is closed w i t h i n its invariable, naturalistic framework. T h e biopolitical resistance o f these invariables can never create alternative forms o f life.

71

N o n e o f these interpretations captures what for us is most i m portant i n Foucault's notion o f biopolitics. O u r reading not only identifies biopolitics w i t h the localized productive powers o f life— that is, the production o f affects and languages through social c o o p eration and the interaction o f bodies and desires, the invention o f new forms o f the relation to the self and others, and so forth—but also affirms biopolitics as the creation o f new subjectivities that are

1: B I O P O L I T I C S

AS

EVENT

presented at once as resistance and de-subjectification. If we remain too closely tied to a philological analysis o f Foucault s texts, we might miss this central point: his analyses o f biopower are aimed not merely at an empirical description o f h o w power works for and through subjects but also at the potential for the production o f alternative subjectivities, thus designating a distinction between qualitatively different forms o f power. This point is implicit i n Foucault's claim that freedom and resistance are necessary preconditions for the exercise o f power. " W h e n one defines the exercise o f power as a mode o f action u p o n the actions o f others, w h e n one characterizes these actions by the government o f men by other m e n — i n the broadest sense o f the term—one includes an important element: freedom. Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free.... A t the very heart o f the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance o f the w i l l and the i n transigence o f freedom."

72

Biopolitics appears i n this light as an

event or, really, as a tightly woven fabric o f events o f freedom. Biopolitics, i n contrast to biopower, has the character o f an event first o f all i n the sense that the "intransigence o f freedom" disrupts the normative system.The biopolitical event comes from the outside insofar as it ruptures the continuity o f history and the existing order, but it should be understood not only negatively, as r u p ture, but also as innovation, w h i c h emerges, so to speak, from the inside. Foucault grasps the creative character o f the event i n his earlier w o r k o n linguistics: la parole intervenes i n and disrupts la langue as an event that also extends beyond it as a moment o f linguistic i n vention.

73

For the biopolitical context, though, we need to under-

stand the event o n not only the linguistic and epistemological but also the anthropological and ontological terrain, as an act o f freed o m . In this context the event marked by the innovative disruption o f la parole beyond la langue translates to an intervention i n the field o f subjectivity, w i t h its accumulation o f norms and modes o f life, by a force o f subjectification, a new production o f subjectivity. This i r ruption o f the biopolitical event is the source o f innovation and also the criterion o f truth. A materialist teleology, that is, a concep-

60

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

POOR)

DE

CORPORE

1: B I O P O L I T I C S

AS

EVENT

61

tion o f history that emerges from below guided by the desires o f

events and break from the dominant political subjectivities. W i t h o u t

those w h o make it and their search for freedom, connects here, par-

the internal logic o f making events, one can only affirm them from

adoxically, w i t h a Nietzschean idea o f eternal return. T h e singular-

the outside as a matter o f faith, repeating the paradox c o m m o n l y

ity o f the event, driven by the w i l l to power, demonstrates the truth

attributed to Tertullian, credo quia absurdum, "I believe because it is

o f the eternal; the event, and the subjectivity that animates it, c o n -

absurd."

structs and gives meaning to history, displacing any notion o f history as a linear progression defined by determinate causes. Grasping this relation between the event and truth allows us to cast aside the accusation o f relativism that is too often lodged against Foucault's biopolitics. A n d recognizing biopolitics as an event allows us both to understand life as a fabric woven by constitutive actions and to comprehend time i n terms o f strategy. Foucault's n o t i o n o f the event is at this point easily distin-

74

T h e biopolitical event that poses the production o f life as an act o f resistance, innovation, and freedom leads us back to the figure o f the multitude as political strategy. Consider, to take an example from a very different domain, h o w Luciano Bolis, an Italian antifascist partisan, poses i n his m e m o i r the relation between grains o f sand and the resistance o f the multitude (in terms reminiscent o f Walt Whitman's democratic leaves o f grass). Bolis is fully aware that his sacrifice is only a grain o f sand i n the desert among the suffer-

guishable from the one proposed by A l a i n B a d i o u . B a d i o u has done

ings o f the multitude engaged i n struggle. "I believe, though," he

a great service by posing the event as the central question o f c o n -

explains, "that it is the duty o f the survivors to write the story o f

temporary philosophy, proposing it as the locus o f truth. T h e event,

those'grains o f sand'because even those w h o , because o f particular

w i t h its irreducible multiplicity, that is, its "equivocal" nature, sub-

circumstances or different sensibilities, were not part o f that ' m u l t i -

tracts, according to B a d i o u , the examination o f truths from the

tude' understand that our Liberation and the set o f values o n w h i c h

mere form o f judgment. T h e difference between B a d i o u and F o u -

it stands was paid for i n the f o r m o f blood, terror, and expectations,

cault i n this respect is most clearly revealed by l o o k i n g at where,

and all that stands behind the w o r d 'partisan,' w h i c h is still today

temporally, each author focuses attention w i t h respect to the event.

misunderstood, scorned, and rejected w i t h vacuous complacency."

In B a d i o u an event—such as Christ's crucifixion and resurrection,

Biopolitics is a partisan relationship between subjectivity and his-

the French R e v o l u t i o n , or the Chinese Cultural R e v o l u t i o n , to cite

tory that is crafted by a multitudinous strategy, formed by events

his most frequent examples—acquires value and meaning primarily

and resistances, and articulated by a discourse that links political de-

75

after it takes place. H e thus concentrates o n the intervention that

cision m a k i n g to the construction o f bodies i n struggle. Gilles

retrospectively gives meaning to the event and the fidelity and ge-

Deleuze casts the biopolitical production o f life, i n a similarly parti-

neric procedures that continually refer to it. Foucault, i n contrast,

san way, as "believing i n the w o r l d " w h e n he laments that we have

emphasizes the production and productivity o f the event, w h i c h re-

lost the w o r l d or it has been taken from us. " I f y o u believe i n the

quires a forward- rather than backward-looking gaze. T h e event is,

world y o u precipitate events, however inconspicuous, that elude

so to speak, inside existence and the strategies that traverse it. W h a t

control, you engender new space-times, however small their surface

Badiou's approach to the event fails to grasp, i n other words, is the link between freedom and power that Foucault emphasizes from w i t h i n the event. A retrospective approach to the event i n fact does not give us access to the rationality o f insurrectional activity, w h i c h must strive w i t h i n the historical processes to create revolutionary

or volume

O u r ability to resist control, or our submission to it, 76

has to be assessed at the level o f our every move." Events o f resistance have the power not only to escape control but also to create a new w o r l d . As one final example o f the biopolitical power o f bodies, from

DE 62

REPUBLIC

( A N D THE M U L T I T U D E

OF T H E

CORPORE

1: BIOPOLITICS

AS

EVENT

POOR)

still another domain, consider a passage from Meister Eckhart's ser-

tivization that, shattering ruling identities and norms, reveals the link between power and freedom, and thereby inaugurates an alter-

m o n "Jesus Entered":

native production o f subjectivity. N o w pay attention and look! If a human were to remain a

T h e biopolitical event thus breaks w i t h all forms o f metaphys-

virgin forever, he w o u l d never bear fruit. If he is to become

ical substantialism or conceptualism. B e i n g is made i n the event. It

fruitful, he must necessarily be a wife. " W i f e , " here, is the n o -

is interesting to note the strong resonance o f this n o t i o n o f the b i o -

blest name that can be given to the m i n d , and it is indeed

political event w i t h A m e r i c a n Pragmatism. " I f nature seems highly

more noble than "virgin."That man should receive G o d i n

uniform to us," writes Charles Peirce,"it is only because our p o w -

himself is good, and by this reception he is a virgin. B u t that

ers are adapted to our desires."

G o d should become fruitful i n h i m is better; for the fruitful-

performative analysis o f the biopolitical event and demonstrate that

ness o f a gift is the only gratitude for the gift. T h e spirit is wife

the movement o f biopolitical powers functions equally i n the o p -

w h e n i n gratitude it gives birth i n return and bears Jesus back

posite direction: our desires, i n other words, are also adapted to na-

into God's fatherly heart.

77

Eckhart is trying to focus our attention o n the productivity o f the biopolitical event, but what baggage comes w i t h it! To read a passage like this, one has to pass it through decades o f feminist theory, like so many baths o f photographic solvents: starting w i t h Simone de Beauvoir's analysis o f h o w W o m a n is a patriarchal construct that subordinates w o m e n , i n large part by tethering them to biological reproductive capacities; then feminist religious scholars w h o reveal the particularly Christian modes o f patriarchy and the persistence o f the v i r g i n / w h o r e dichotomy; and finally feminist political theorists w h o demonstrate h o w figures o f w o m e n function i n the canon o f European political philosophy as markers o f chaos and dangerous fecundity that must be excluded from the public realm. As these masculinist and heterosexist layers are stripped away, the image from Eckhart's passage that rises to the surface is a decidedly queer one! Productivity bursts forth as man becomes female, and here E c k hart's mystical visions recall the deliriums o f President Schreber, w h o , as Freud reports, believes he is b e c o m i n g w o m a n i n order to be impregnated by G o d and bear a new race o f humanity. Interestingly, productivity i n Eckhart coincides w i t h the moment o f gender crossing. ( C o u l d Eckhart recognize the same productivity i n female masculinity that he finds i n male femininity?) T h e biopolitical event, i n fact, is always a queer event, a subversive process o f subjec-

78

Pragmatists propose, i n effect, a

ture. W e w i l l return to this point i n De Homine 1 at the end o f Part 2 (and readers should keep i n m i n d that these concluding discussions can also be read separately as one continuous argument).

63

PART 2

MODERNITY (AND THE LANDSCAPES OF A L T E R M O D E R N I T Y )

We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything... . A n d yet, if we examine it more closely, our enthusiasm turns out to be all sham. We don't want to conquer the cosmos, we simply want to extend the boundaries of Earth to the frontiers of the cosmos... .We have no need of other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to do with other worlds. —Stanislaw Lem, Solaris

2.1

ANTIMODERNITY AS RESISTANCE

As the Indian experience shows, the formal termination of colonial rule, taken by itself, does little to end the government of colonialist knowledge. —Ranajit Guha, A Rule of Property for Bengal

Power and Resistance within Modernity M o d e r n i t y is always two. Before we cast it i n terms o f reason, E n lightenment, the break w i t h tradition, secularism, and so forth, m o dernity must be understood as a power relation: domination and 1

resistance, sovereignty and struggles for liberation. T h i s v i e w runs counter to the standard narrative that modernity emerged from E u rope to confront i n the colonies the premodern, whether that be conceived as barbaric, religious, or primitive. "There is no modernity without coloniality," claims Walter M i g n o l o , "because colonial2

ity is constitutive o f modernity." It is constitutive insofar as it marks the hierarchy at modernity's heart. M o d e r n i t y , then, resides not solely i n Europe or i n the colonies but i n the power relation that 3

straddles the two. A n d therefore forces o f antimodernity, such as resistances to colonial domination, are not outside modernity but rather entirely internal to it, that is, w i t h i n the power relation. T h e fact that antimodernity is w i t h i n modernity is at least part o f what historians have i n m i n d w h e n they insist that European expansion i n the Americas, Asia, and Africa be conceived not as so many conquests but rather as colonial encounters. T h e n o t i o n o f c o n quest does have the advantage o f emphasizing the violence and b r u -

68

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF A LT E R M 0 D E R N I T Y )

ANTIMODERNITY

AS

RESISTANCE

tality o f European expansion, but it tends to cast the colonized as

unchanged, then, but neither does the Spanish. Instead, along w i t h

passive. Moreover, it implies that either the previously existing c i v i l i -

urban structures and administrative practices, music, language, and

zation was w i p e d out and replaced by that o f the colonizer, or that it

other cultural forms are progressively mixed, flowing through i n n u -

was preserved intact as an outside to the colonial world. T h i s tradi-

merable paths across the Atlantic i n both directions, transforming

tional v i e w portrays colonial Indian society, for example, as Ranajit

both sides.

6

G u h a writes, "either as a replication o f the liberal-bourgeois culture

W e l l before the formation o f the U n i t e d States, to give an-

o f nineteenth-century B r i t a i n or as the mere survival o f an anteced-

other, more directly political example, the Iroquois developed a fed-

4

ent pre-capitalist culture." M o d e r n i t y lies between these two, i n a

eralist system to manage the relations among six nations—Mohawks,

manner o f speaking—that is, i n the hierarchy that links the d o m i -

Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas,Tuscaroras, and Senecas—with checks

nant and the subordinated—and both sides are changed i n the rela-

and balances, separation between military and civil authorities, and

tion. T h e n o t i o n o f encounter highlights the two-ness o f the power

other features later included i n the U . S . Constitution. Iroquois fed-

relation and the processes o f mixture and transformation that result

eralism was widely discussed and admired i n the

from the struggle o f domination and resistance.

U n i t e d States a m o n g figures such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas

eighteenth-century

W o r k i n g from the standpoint o f colonial encounters, histori-

Jefferson. T h e material aid o f Native Americans to European set-

ans document two important facts: precolonial civilizations are i n

tlers—how to plant crops, survive harsh winters, and so forth—has

many cases very advanced, rich, complex, and sophisticated; and the

been incorporated into national mythology, but U.S. political forms

contributions o f the colonized to so-called m o d e r n civilization are

are usually presented as being o f purely European o r i g i n . T h e point

substantial and largely unacknowledged. T h i s perspective effectively

o f such examples is simply to demonstrate the mixture and mutual

breaks d o w n the c o m m o n dichotomies between the traditional and

transformation that characterize the encounters o f modernity.

7

the modern, the savage and the civilized. M o r e important for our

T h e problem w i t h these examples, however, is that they do not

argument, the encounters o f modernity reveal constant processes o f

emphasize the violence and unequal power relation o f modernity.

mutual transformation.

T h e dominant forces o f modernity encounter not mere differences

L o n g before the Spanish arrive i n central M e x i c o , for example,

but resistances. W h a t colonial historiography primarily accomplished

the N a h u a (that is, the inhabitants o f the Aztec realm w h o speak

and what needs to be countered, as Ranajit G u h a explains, "is a c o n -

Nahuatl) constructed highly developed cities, called altepetl, roughly

j u r i n g trick to make resistance disappear from the political history

the size o f Mediterranean city-states. A n altepetl is organized accord-

o f India under British rule." There is something psychotic about

ing to a cellular or modular logic i n w h i c h the various parts o f the

the idea that modernity is a purely European invention, since it c o n -

metropolis correspond to an orderly cyclical rotation o f labor duties

stantly has to deny the role i n the construction and functioning o f

and payments to the sovereign. After Cuauhtemoc surrenders to

modernity o f the rest o f the world, especially those parts o f it subor-

Cortes i n 1521, the altepetl is not simply replaced by European ur-

dinated to European domination. R a t h e r than a k i n d o f psychic re-

ban forms through the l o n g process o f Hispanization, but neither

pression, we might better think o f this denial as an instance o f foreclo-

8

does it survive intact. A l l the early Spanish settlements and adminis-

sure i n the psychoanalytic sense. Whereas the repressed element or

trative forms—the encomienda, the rural parishes, Indian m u n i c i p a l i -

idea, psychoanalysts explain, is buried deep inside, the foreclosed is

ties, and the administrative jurisdictions—are built o n existing alte-

expelled outside, so that the ego can act as i f the idea never occurred

5

petl and adapted to their f o r m . N a h u a civilization does not survive

to it at all. Therefore, whereas w h e n the repressed returns to the

69

70

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

ANTIMODERNITY

AS

RESISTANCE

neurotic subject it rises up from the inside, the foreclosed is experi-

O n e final consequence o f defining modernity as a power rela-

enced by the psychotic as a threat from the outside. T h e foreclosed

tion is to undermine any n o t i o n o f modernity as an unfinished proj-

element i n this case is not only the history o f contributions to m o d -

ect. I f modernity were thought to be a force purely against barba-

ern culture and society by non-European peoples and civilizations,

rism and irrationality, then striving to complete modernity could be

making it seem that Europe is the source o f all m o d e r n innovation,

seen as a necessarily progressive process, a n o t i o n shared by Jiirgen

but also and more important the innumerable resistances w i t h i n and

Habermas and the other social democratic theorists we discussed

against modernity, w h i c h constitute the primary element o f dan-

earlier. W h e n we understand modernity as a power relation, h o w -

ger for its dominant self-conception. Despite all the furious energy

ever, completing modernity is merely continuing the same, repro-

expended to cast out the "antimodern" other, resistance remains within.

13

ducing domination. M o r e modernity or a more complete moder-

9

nity is not an answer to our problems. O n the contrary! For the first

To insist that forces o f antimodernity are w i t h i n modernity, o n

indications o f an alternative, we should instead investigate the forces

the c o m m o n terrain o f encounter, is not to say, o f course, that the

o f antimodernity, that is, resistances internal to m o d e r n domination.

m o d e r n w o r l d is homogeneous. Geographers rightly complain that, despite constant talk about space, contemporary theoretical discus-

Slave Property in the Modern Republic

sions o f postcoloniality and globalization generally present spaces

T h e history o f modernity and the history o f republicanism are w o -

that are anemic, devoid o f real differences.

10

T h e center-periphery

ven together to the point where at times they become indistinguish-

model is one framework that does capture well i n spatial terms the

able. Several different conceptions o f republic, as we saw earlier,

two-ness o f modernity's power relation, since the dominant center

compete i n the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and some

and subordinated peripheries exist only i n relation to each other,

o f these indeed refer to something very similar to the rule o f the

and the periphery is systematically "underdeveloped" to fit the needs

multitude, but only one conception—the republic o f property—

o f the center's development.

11

Such geographies o f modernity go

emerges as dominant. This republic matches so well w i t h modernity

awry, however, w h e n they conceive resistance as external to d o m i -

because property relations are one f o r m — a privileged f o r m — o f the

nation. A l l too often Europe or "the West" is cast as homogeneous

power relation that constitutes it. A particularly revealing terrain o n

and unified, as the pole o f domination i n this relationship, rendering

w h i c h to investigate this intimate relation among republic, property,

invisible the l o n g history o f European liberation struggles and class

and modernity is, perhaps paradoxically, the history o f m o d e r n slav-

12

struggles. A n d correspondingly many analyses neglect the forms o f

ery. Slavery is a scandal for the republic, even though, throughout

domination and control located outside Europe, conceiving them

the eighteenth century and well into the nineteenth, black slavery

merely as echoes o f European domination. This error cannot be cor-

and the slave trade are prominent, even central features o f republican

rected simply by multiplying the centers and peripheries—finding

governments throughout Europe and the Americas. In the U n i t e d

centers and peripheries w i t h i n Europe, for instance, as well as w i t h i n

States slave relations and slave production are explicit cornerstones

each subordinated country. To understand modernity, we have to

o f the republic and its economy. In France and England, although

stop assuming that domination and resistance are external to each

there is no comparable number o f slaves w i t h i n national boundaries,

other, casting antimodernity to the outside, and recognize that resis-

slavery and the slave trade are integral elements o f the national

tances mark differences that are w i t h i n . T h e resulting geographies

economies, political debates, and colonial administrations. O n e does

are more complex than simply the city versus the country or E u -

not have to l o o k far below the surface to see h o w firmly slavery is

rope versus its outside or the global N o r t h versus the global South.

rooted i n the republic. T h e question to ask, then, is why, w h e n slav-

71

72

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

ANTIMODERNITY

AS

RESISTANCE

ery is so inimical to standard notions o f republicanism and moder-

the course o f this history. I f we limit our focus to the countries o f

nity, does slavery function for so l o n g w i t h i n modern republics, not

western Europe, as do many o f the histories, the development o f

as a peripheral remnant o f the past but as a central sustaining ped-

capitalist production can be made to appear relatively separate from

estal?

slave production, or, at the limit, the slave trade and slave production

73

Slavery is a scandal for the republic, first o f all, because it v i o -

are seen as providing a major external source o f the wealth that

lates the republic's core ideological principles: equality and freedom.

makes possible the emergence o f industrial capital i n Europe. F u r -

O t h e r sectors o f the population, such as w o m e n and those without

thermore, as many historians have noted, the slave plantation system

property, are deprived o f political rights and equality by republican

experiments w i t h and perfects the production scheme, division o f

constitutions, but the inequality and unfreedom o f slaves pose the

labor, and disciplinary regimes that the industrial factory w i l l even-

most extreme ideological contradiction. A l t h o u g h many eighteenth-

tually implement. F r o m this perspective, though, slavery and cap-

and nineteenth-century republican texts pose slavery as the primary

italism seem to form a temporal sequence, as i f capital and moder-

foil against w h i c h republican freedom and equality are defined, they

nity were inimical to slavery and slowly but surely put an end to it.

generally invoke ancient slavery and ignore the slavery o f their o w n

O n c e we extend our view, however, and recognize that the

times, the black slavery o f the Americas, w h i c h supports their o w n

context essential for the birth and growth o f capital resides i n the

societies. T h i s ideological blindness is part o f an operation that at-

w i d e circuits o f the passage o f humans, wealth, and commodities

tempts to make slaves disappear or, w h e n their existence cannot be

extending well beyond Europe, then we can see that slavery is c o m -

denied, cast them outside as remnants o f the premodern w o r l d and

pletely integrated into capitalist production d u r i n g at least the eigh-

thus foreign to the republic and modernity.

teenth century and m u c h o f the nineteenth. " T h e slavery o f the

14

T h e second way i n w h i c h slavery is a scandal for the republic is

Blacks i n Surinam, i n Brazil, i n the southern regions o f N o r t h

that it violates the capitalist ideology o f free labor. Capitalist i d e o l -

A m e r i c a . . . is as m u c h the pivot u p o n w h i c h our present-day i n -

ogy too uses slavery as the primary negative backdrop: freedom is

dustrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc.," M a r x writes. " W i t h -

defined by the fact that the wage laborer owns his or her labor-

out slavery there w o u l d be no cotton, without cotton there w o u l d

power and is thus free to exchange it for a wage. A s owners o f their

be no m o d e r n industry. It is slavery w h i c h has given value to the

labor-power, workers, unlike slaves, can be absorbed ideologically

colonies, it is the colonies w h i c h have created w o r l d trade, and w o r l d

w i t h i n the republic o f property. Moreover, since chattel slavery c o n -

trade is the necessary condition o f large-scale machine industry."

founds the essential division between labor and property, slaves c o n -

Slaves and proletarians play complementary roles i n the w o r l d w i d e

stitute the point o f m a x i m u m ideological contradiction w i t h i n the

capitalist division o f labor, but the slaves o f Jamaica, Recife, and A l a -

republic o f property, the point at w h i c h either freedom or property

bama are really no less internal to the capitalist economies o f E n -

can be preserved, but not both. Here again, republican and capitalist

gland and France than the workers i n B i r m i n g h a m , Boston, and

ideological operations seek to make slaves disappear, or cast them as

Paris. Rather than assuming that capitalist relations necessarily cor-

mere remnants o f premodern economic relations, w h i c h capital w i l l

rode and destroy slavery, then, we have to recognize that throughout

eventually banish from history.

15

M a k i n g slaves disappear is not so simple, though, w h e n the question is not only ideological but also material and e c o n o m i c . T h e relation between slavery and wage labor is difficult to disentangle i n

16

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the two support each other through a massive segregation schema, w i t h one generally located on the east side o f the Atlantic and the other o n the west.

17

N o n e o f this, however, grasps the racial hierarchy that is the es-

74

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF A LT E R M O D E R N I T Y )

sence o f m o d e r n slavery. Just as slavery is viewed as an aberration i n the republic o f property, so too is racism conceived, from a similarly ideological perspective, as an external element and a distortion o f modernity, w h i c h , once again, leads to the incompleteness hypothesis, as i f modernity, perfecting itself, w i l l eventually banish racism. R e c o g n i z i n g the internal relation o f black slavery i n the republic o f property, though, helps us see racism i n modernity as not o n l y an ideology but also a system o f material, institutional practices: a structure o f power that extends well beyond the institution o f slavery. T h e persistence o f racial hierarchies i n modernity, then, not only i n slavery but also i n the myriad other forms they take, is not a sign that modernity is "unfinished" but instead indicates the intimate relationship between race and modernity.

18

Earlier we said that w i t h -

out coloniality there is no modernity, and here we can see that race plays a similarly constitutive role. T h e three together function as a complex—modernity, coloniality, racism—with each serving as a necessary support for the others.

ANTIMODERNITY

AS

RESISTANCE

erty, and legislating against racial division (as does the 1805 Haitian Constitution, Article 14 o f w h i c h declares all Haitians black regardless o f skin color) undermines institutionalized racial hierarchy. Perhaps it should not be surprising that the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n c o n stitutes for the vast majority o f European and N o r t h A m e r i c a n republicans o f its time (and our own) an unthinkable event. It has to be silenced or cast outside because it reveals the profound contradiction between the ideology and substance o f republicanism and modernity.

19

O n e advantage o f recognizing the intimate relation between slavery and the m o d e r n republic—and more generally the doubleness o f modernity—is that it highlights the power o f slaves and their resistance. W h e n the slave is conceived as an abstract category, it is often posed as a figure o f absolute subjugation, a subject that has been entirely stripped o f freedom. Slaves thus present a useful limit case for Foucault's claim, cited earlier, that power is exercised only over free subjects. If slaves were indeed under absolute domination,

Slavery might thus serve as the emblem o f the psychosis o f the republic o f property, w h i c h preserves its ideological coherence through disavowal or foreclosure, either refusing to recognize the existence o f the traumatic reality o f slavery or casting it outside. This is undoubtedly part o f the reason w h y the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n has been so neglected i n m o d e r n history. T h e Haitian R e v o l u t i o n , after all, as we said earlier, is m u c h more faithful to republican ideology than the English, U.S., or French revolutions, i n at least one central respect: i f all men are equal and free, then certainly none can be slaves. A n d yet H a i t i seldom appears i n historical accounts o f the Age o f R e v o l u t i o n . T h e course o f the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n is filled w i t h contradictory forces, tragic turns, and disastrous outcomes, but it remains, despite all this, the first m o d e r n revolution against slavery, and thus one might call it the first properly m o d e r n revolution. Saying that, however, w o u l d take the republic and modernity according to o n l y their ideological self-definitions, not their material and insti-

there w o u l d be n o power exercised over them, according to F o u cault. It sounds contradictory, o f course, to claim that slaves are free. Foucault's point is that all subjects have access to a margin o f freedom, no matter h o w narrow that may be, w h i c h grounds their capacity to resist. To say that power is exercised only over "free subjects," then, really means that power is exercised only over subjects that resist, subjects that even p r i o r to the application o f power exercise their freedom. Slaves are most free, from this perspective, not from sundown to sunup, w h e n out o f reach o f the master's whip, but w h e n they resist the exercise o f power over t h e m .

20

B a r u c h Spinoza

makes a similar claim and anchors it to an ontological foundation: " N o b o d y can so completely transfer to another all his right, and consequently his power, as to cease to be a human being, nor w i l l there ever be a sovereign power that can do all it pleases."

21

Slave

resistance pushes to the l i m i t the relation between poverty and power exercised as freedom.

tutional substance, and whereas the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n extends the former, it betrays the latter. Freeing slaves violates the rule o f prop-

In historical terms this reflection illuminates the decisive role played by slave revolts, rebellions, and exoduses. Slavery is over-

75

76

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ANTIMODERNITY

ALTERMODERNITY)

AS

RESISTANCE

turned not by the g o o d conscience o f republican values, as i f it were

sistance and antagonism that capital cannot tolerate. In fact these

just a premodern remainder; n o r by the progressive forces o f capital,

forms o f servitude are eventually destroyed, i n part, by the flight o f

as i f it were a precapitalist f o r m that took time for capital to e l i m i -

peasants toward the metropolises o f western Europe. T h r o u g h e x o -

nate entirely. Instead slavery is destroyed by the resistances o f slaves

dus, the antagonism o f the servant w i t h respect to the lord is trans-

themselves, w h o make it untenable as a f o r m o f government and

formed into the "abstract," objective antagonism o f the w o r k i n g 25

unprofitable as a f o r m o f p r o d u c t i o n . W. E . B . D u Bois provides an

class i n the face o f the capitalist class. T h e point once again is that

extreme example o f this hypothesis by arguing that slaves are p r o -

even i n circumstances o f servitude, "free subjects" have the power to

tagonists o f their o w n emancipation i n the U n i t e d States and deter-

resist, and that resistance, a force o f antimodernity, is key to under-

mine the outcome o f the C i v i l War. In order to sabotage the e c o n -

standing the movements o f m o d e r n history.

22

o m y o f the plantation system and stop the flow o f food and other

O n e thing this reflection o n slave resistance makes clear is that,

provisions to the Confederate Army, he explains, slaves set i n m o t i o n

although slaves may undergo what Orlando Patterson calls a "social

an exodus, "a general strike that involved directly i n the end perhaps

death," they remain alive i n their resistance. Humans cannot be re-

a half m i l l i o n people," w h i c h contributes to u n d e r m i n i n g the C o n -

duced to "bare life," i f by that term we understand those stripped o f

federate fighters.

23

D u Bois proposes this general strike as an e m -

any margin o f freedom and power to resist.

26

Humans are "naked"

blem to condense the l o n g history o f slave resistance and, more i m -

only i n the Machiavellian sense we discussed earlier: full o f rage and

portant, to demonstrate h o w black slaves are free subjects w h o play a

power and hope. A n d this brings us back to the definition o f m o -

determining role not just i n their o w n emancipation but i n the

dernity itself by highlighting the fact that its double nature is marked

course o f humanity as a whole. "It was the N e g r o himself," D u Bois

by not only hierarchy but also antagonism. Slave resistance is a force

claims, " w h o forced the consideration o f this incongruity [between

o f antimodernity not because it goes against the ideological values

democracy and slavery], w h o made emancipation inevitable and

o f freedom and equality—on the contrary, as D u Bois makes clear,

made the modern w o r l d at least consider i f not w h o l l y accept the

slave rebellions are a m o n g the highest instances o f those values i n

The

modernity—but because it challenges the hierarchical relationship

resistances and revolts o f slaves thus elucidate the contradiction at

at the core o f modernity's power relation. Antimodernity, conceived

the heart o f the republic o f property and modernity as a whole.

i n this way, is internal to and inseparable from modernity itself.

idea o f a democracy i n c l u d i n g men o f all races and colors."

24

Similar phenomena can be found i n the second wave o f servitude and slavery i n eastern Europe that stretches from

the

The Coloniality of Biopower

restoration o f feudal relations, following the

A n t i m o d e r n i t y is held under control i n the power relation o f m o -

wars o f religion, to the birth o f the nation-state. B o t h M a r x and

dernity not only through external forms o f subjugation—from the

M a x Weber focus o n this history, not only because it breaks w i t h the

slave master's lash and the conquistador's sword to capitalist society's

deterministic theory o f stages o f development o f the mode o f pro-

police and prison—but also and more important through internal

duction—workers i n eastern Europe, after a phase o f relative liberal-

mechanisms o f subjectification. T h e techniques and instruments o f

ization o f their movements, are reduced again to servitude within the

the triumvirate modernity-coloniality-racism permeate and invest

processes o f the formation o f the capitalist mode o f p r o d u c t i o n —

subordinated populations. This is not to imply, o f course, that m o -

but also because it shows how, already i n the preindustrial period,

dernity consists o f total and absolute control, but rather to refocus

the mobility and freedom o f labor-power constitutes a power o f re-

our attention once again o n the resistances that are b o r n w i t h i n m o -

seventeenth-century

77

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF A LT E R M 0 D E R N I T Y )

ANTIMODERNITY

AS

RESISTANCE

dernity. T h e pervasiveness o f m o d e r n power, i n other words, corre-

relation to European conquest and colonization. It is a c o m m o n -

sponds to the internal provenance o f antimodernity.

place by n o w that throughout the Spanish conquest and coloniza-

Some o f the most influential w o r k i n postcolonial studies e m -

tion o f the Americas, the friars and priests o f the Catholic C h u r c h

phasizes the effectiveness o f modes o f representation and ideological

function as ideological and moral complements to the soldiers and

constructions to demonstrate the pervasive or even all-encompassing

generals o f the Spanish crown. T h e church not only pursues the task

nature o f colonial power. E d w a r d Said's study o f Orientalism, for

o f converting the heathens to Christianity but also devises elaborate

example, demonstrates h o w representations o f colonized and d o m i -

ideological structures about the nature and capacities o f the native

nated populations—in novels, histories, administrative documents,

populations, questioning their capacity for reason, their ability to

and myriad other texts—not only legitimate the colonial hierarchy

become Christian, and even their humanity. W h a t is perhaps most

i n the minds o f the colonizers but also shape the consciousness

remarkable about these racist and colonialist ideological constructs

o f the c o l o n i z e d .

27

Gayatri Spivak's famous and provocative claim

i n the Catholic C h u r c h is their durability: even Pope Benedict X V I

that the subaltern cannot speak similarly focuses o n the ideological

o n a visit to Brazil i n 2007 could repeat them. " C h r i s t is the Savior

power o f representations. In the conflict over the practice o f sati, or

for w h o m they were silently longing," he claims, referring to the

w i d o w burning, between British colonial ideology and traditional

populations o f the Americas. " T h e y received the H o l y Spirit w h o

patriarchal ideology, widows i n colonial India, Spivak argues, occupy

came to make their cultures fruitful, purifying them and developing

an abject position, doubly silenced: confronted o n the one side by

the numerous seeds that the incarnate W o r d had planted i n them,

the discourse o f "white m e n saving b r o w n w o m e n from b r o w n

thereby guiding them along the paths o f the Gospel. In effect, the

m e n " and o n the other by the traditional affirmation that "the

proclamation o f Jesus and o f his Gospel d i d not at any point involve

w o m e n want to die." Such ideological constructs completely satu-

an alienation o f the p r e - C o l u m b i a n cultures, nor was it the i m p o s i -

rate the colonial scene, completely eclipsing, i n Spivak's example,

tion o f a foreign culture." T h e ideological construct, as the pope's

any position from w h i c h the female subaltern can speak.

28

29

Such

claims make clear, is and must be internal to the subjugated, such

analyses o f ideological and representational constructions are so

that it is experienced as something that was already present, waiting

powerful i n part because they demonstrate h o w coloniality is

to be actualized, rather than arriving as an imposition from the out-

achieved and maintained not just through violence and force, w h i c h ,

side.

however generalized, always remain isolable and limited, but through

It is certainly very important to critique these kinds o f repre-

at least tacit consent to the colonial modes o f consciousness and

sentations and ideological constructs, as do many colonial and post-

forms o f knowledge that spread without boundaries throughout so-

colonial scholars, but there is a limitation to such projects. Ideology

ciety.

critique always assumes that i n the final analysis, even though it R e l i g i o u s institutions w i e l d some o f the most powerful instru-

is pervasive, ideology is somehow external to, or at least separable

ments o f m o d e r n colonial ideological control. A l l o f the major reli-

from, the subjugated subjects (or their interests). N o t i o n s o f ideol-

gions have a hand i n this—Islam, H i n d u i s m , and Confucianism

ogy and representation, i n other words, do not go far enough to

i n different ways, and today Christian evangelical and Pentecos-

grasp the depth o f the modernity-coloniality-racism complex. G e n -

tal churches, w h i c h are expanding enormously i n Africa and Latin

erally w h e n racism or "race t h i n k i n g " is considered an ideology, for

A m e r i c a , play a predominant role—but the Catholic C h u r c h has to

example, it is posed as an aberration or failure o f modernity and

be accorded a special place, given its l o n g history o f and intimate

thus, even though widespread, relatively separate from m o d e r n soci-

80

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

ANTIMODERNITY

O F A LT E R M 0 D E R N I T Y )

AS

RESISTANCE

ety as a whole. R a c i s m , like coloniality, however, is not only internal

together race thinking, coloniality, and administrative structures,

to but also constitutive o f modernity. It is "institutional," as Stokely

producing i n a paradigmatic way the hierarchies and power relations

C a r m i c h a e l and Charles H a m i l t o n argue, i n the sense that racism is

that define modernity. T h e Inquisition may be an extreme example,

not just an individual question o f bias or prejudice but goes well

but it poses i n very clear terms h o w subjects are produced through

beyond the level o f ideology, that racism is embodied and expressed

the confession o f truths, the observance o f correct behavior, and

throughout the administrative, economic, and social arrangements

myriad other practices and procedures. T h e powers o f m o d e r n i t y -

o f power.

30

" S u c h a conception," writes B a r n o r Hesse, "moves the

coloniality-racism have never been merely superstructural p h e n o m -

emphasis away from the apparently autonomous ideological u n i -

ena but are rather material apparatuses that r u n throughout the c o l -

verse o f codified ideas o f discrete physiognomies and metaphors o f

lective existence o f dominated populations and invest their bodies,

autochthonous b l o o d to 'regimes o f practices.'"

31

Hesse suggests, i n

producing internally the forms o f life.

32

other words, that racism is better understood as not ideology but

If coloniality is a f o r m o f biopower, w h i c h functions internally,

governmentality. This is an important shift: the power relation that

producing forms o f life, does this mean that resistances have no place

defines the modernity-coloniality-racism complex is primarily a

to stand and w i l l necessarily be defeated? Nathan Wachtel, posing

matter not o f k n o w i n g but o f doing; and thus our critique should

this question i n m u c h more specific historical terms, asks whether

focus o n not the ideological and epistemological but the political

the anticolonial revolts i n sixteenth-century Peru were all really

and ontological. R e c o g n i z i n g modernity's racism and coloniality as

vanquished. " W e l l , yes," he responds, " i f one thinks o f the fortunes o f

biopower helps accomplish the shift o f perspective by emphasizing

war and the colonial situation. B u t we k n o w that native revolts, ac-

that power regulates not just forms o f consciousness but forms o f

cording to the context i n w h i c h they developed, could take differ-

life, w h i c h entirely invest the subordinated subjects, and by focusing

ent forms." T h e Araucanians i n C h i l e adopted certain European i n -

attention o n the fact that this power is productive—not only a force

struments o f war, whereas the Peruvian Indians relied more o n

o f prohibition and repression external to subjectivities but also and

traditional methods, and there were widespread small-scale passive

more important one that internally generates them.

forms o f resistance. Wachtel concludes, however, that we should re-

To return to the Catholic C h u r c h , then, we might consider as

main open to a reversal o f the results we expect to find. Sometimes

a prototype o f its exercise o f biopower the notorious Spanish I n q u i -

what looks like a defeat turns out to be a victory and vice versa—

sition, w h i c h by the seventeenth century is firmly established i n

and indeed measuring victory and defeat i n this way may not be the

Peru and elsewhere i n the Americas as a primary pillar o f the c o l o -

most useful yardstick. This returns us to our more general theo-

nial regime. T h e Inquisition is o f course an ideological structure,

retical question: Does the fact o f biopower's all-encompassing reach

w h i c h develops and enforces extremely refined definitions o f what

and capillary exercise, thoroughly investing subjects, mean that there

it means to be a Spaniard and a Christian, discovering and exposing

is no place for resistance? This question echoes the many objections

infidels, heretics, and enemies o f the church and the c r o w n , but it is

raised against Foucault's studies o f power w h i c h presume all that

also a highly developed bureaucracy w h i c h invents the systems o f

is internal to power is functional to it. To understand this point,

protocols, procedures, regulations, and record keeping that w i l l later

though, we need the k i n d o f reversal o f perspective that Watchel i n -

constitute m o d e r n state bureaucracies. T h e L i m a Inquisition, rather

dicates. W e should not think o f power as primary and resistance a

than being a remnant o f premodern irrationality, is as good a place

reaction to it; instead, paradoxical as it may sound, resistance is prior

as any to identify the birthplace o f modernity insofar as it brings

to power. Here we can appreciate the full importance o f Foucault's

33

81

82

MODERNITY

(AND THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

claim that power is exercised only over free subjects. T h e i r

freedom

is p r i o r to the exercise o f power, and their resistance is simply the

2.2

effort to further, expand, and strengthen that freedom. A n d i n this context the dream o f an outside, an external standpoint or support for resistance, is both futile and disempowering.

A M B I V A L E N C E S OF M O D E R N I T Y

O u r conceptual project might thus be configured as a chiasmus. O n e movement shifts the study o f the modernity-colonialityracism complex from the external position o f ideology to the internal position o f biopower. A n d the second travels i n the opposite direction, opening up from the inside o f antimodern resistances to the biopolitical struggles that are capable o f rupture and the c o n -

Alegria imagined a map of the world suspended in darkness until suddenly a tiny flame blazed up, followed by others, to form a burning necklace of revolution across the two Americas.

struction o f an alternative.

—Leslie Marmon Silko, Almanac of the Dead

Marxism and Modernity W i t h regard to modernity the Marxist tradition is ambivalent, at times even contradictory. It contains a strong current that celebrates modernity as progress and denigrates all forces o f antimodernity as superstition and backwardness, but it also includes an antimodernity line, w h i c h is revealed most clearly i n the theoretical and political positions closely tied to class struggle. Resistances to capital by workers, peasants, and all others w h o come under capitalist control constitute a central instance o f antimodernity w i t h i n modernity. K a r l Marx's w o r k provides a solid basis for the v i e w that i d e n tifies modernity w i t h progress. In the sections o f the Grundrisse dedicated to the analysis o f "forms w h i c h precede capitalist production," for example, he insists o n the deterministic connections that link the Asiatic and ancient (slave) modes o f production to the formation o f the capitalist mode. This teleological reading o f economic history poses divisions among economic forms and practices, w h i c h were at times present i n the same historical period, and leads everything u n erringly, i n Marx's time, to the centrality o f the capitalist mode o f production, using the same crude evolutionary logic as w h e n he maintains, i n a somewhat different context, that "human anatomy

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

AMBIVALENCES

OF

MODERNITY

contains the key to the anatomy o f the ape." M a r x , along w i t h E n -

w i t h i n itself the entire world. A n d this certainly has come to pass,

gels, tends i n many o f his works to view those outside Europe as

but not i n such a simple or linear fashion. It is true that the w o r l d -

"people without history," separate from the development o f capital

systems perspective does not present an absolutely linear progression

and locked i n an immutable present w i t h o u t the capacity for his-

i n its analysis o f global expansion: the spatial progression (which is

34

torical i n n o v a t i o n . This accounts for Marx's underestimation i n

linear i n the sense that the capitalist integration processes are pre-

this period, the 1850s, o f anticolonial resistances, peasant struggles,

sented as irreversible) is accompanied by a temporal ascesis that de-

and i n general the movements o f all those workers not directly en-

scribes the cyclical contradictions o f capitalist expansion. W i t h i n

gaged i n capitalist production. This perspective also leads M a r x to

these cycles and their rhythms (from primitive accumulation to i n -

view colonization (British rule i n India, for instance) as necessary

dustrial centralization up to financial accumulation and then back

for progress since it introduces to the colony capitalist relations o f

again, after the crisis that financial accumulation creates) the hege-

production.

35

W e should add, i n this regard, that the major n i n e -

m o n i c centers o f development

shift geographically—previously

teenth- and early-twentieth-century European critiques o f this ele-

from the coasts o f the Mediterranean to those o f the Atlantic and

ment o f Marx's w o r k raised by historians and social scientists does

today to the Pacific region—and consequently define the spatial

not challenge the teleological, evolutionary aspect o f the analysis.

hierarchies and/or zones o f exclusion. E v e n w h e n these theories

M a x Weber, for example, enlarges the gamut o f criteria for evaluat-

take into account cyclical variations, however, the systematic nature

i n g development to include religious, political, cultural, and other

o f capitalist development and expansion is maintained. W h a t the

phenomena but does not weaken the deterministic logic o f prog-

schema cannot account for adequately, even w h e n it refers to "anti-

ress.

systemic" movements, are the forces o f antimodernity: it cannot recT h e m o d e r n i z i n g and progressivist line o f Marx's thought is

ognize class struggle as fundamental i n the determination o f histori-

reproduced i n a w i d e variety o f Marxist discourses. T h e social d e m -

cal, social, and economic development; it cannot understand capital

ocratic notion o f "incomplete" modernity, w h i c h we mentioned

as a relation that pulls together (and cuts apart) the powers o f labor

earlier, is based o n similar assumptions, although the relation o f those

and the rule o f capital; and finally, it cannot adequately take into ac-

thinkers to M a r x is tenuous at best. T h e l o n g tradition o f scientific

count the resistances o f subjects other than those directly involved

socialism, along w i t h the socialist policies o f industrial development,

i n capitalist production. T h e less sophisticated versions o f w o r l d -

also derives from this aspect o f Marx's thought. A n d the denigration

systems theory rely o n a conception o f development through suc-

o f figures o f labor and rebellion outside the industrial w o r k i n g class

cessive stages, i n w h i c h each stage determines a higher degree o f

as precapitalist or primitive has a significant presence i n the Marxist

progress o f social and economic relations. B u t even i n the hands o f

tradition.

37

World-systems theories present an ambiguous but nonetheless important case o f the inheritance o f this line o f Marx's thought. A l -

its most sophisticated practitioners, world-systems theory, w i t h o u t access to the dark forces o f antimodernity, reproduces the link between M a r x i s m and modernity.

38

ready i n Ferdinand Braudel's work, from w h i c h world-systems theo-

It w o u l d be a mistake, however, to identify M a r x i s m as a w h o l e

ries take inspiration, and even earlier i n the morphological theories

w i t h a progressivist notion o f modernity. W h e n we l o o k at the theo-

o f capitalist development, the w o r l d market is seen to be constituted

ries i n the Marxist tradition closest to class struggle and revolution-

through a relatively linear process o f expansion o f the capitalist ca-

ary action, i n fact, those dedicated to overthrowing the power o f

pacity to export goods. Gradually, the theory goes, capital absorbs

capitalist modernity and breaking w i t h its ideology, we get an en-

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

AMBIVALENCES

OF A LT E R M 0 D E R N I T Y )

OF M O D E R N I T Y

tirely different picture. T h e anti-imperialist theories and political

the ideological barriers that have divided them. L e n i n rails against

projects that emerge i n the early twentieth century provide one i m -

the "labor aristocracy" i n European countries that, w i t h its chau-

portant example o f antimodernity i n M a r x i s m and revolutionary

vinism and reformism, effectively supports imperialism and posits

communism. In R o s a Luxemburg's w o r k the terrain o f the realiza-

the potential o f a c o m m o n anti-imperialist struggle that brings the

tion and valorization o f the capitalist corporation depends o n the

"thousand m i l l i o n people (in the colonies and semi-colonies)" to-

expanding limits o f the capitalist market and, primarily, o n the c o l o -

gether w i t h the "wage slaves o f capitalism i n the lands o f ' c i v i l i z a -

nial boundaries. O n these limits—and o n capital's capacity to ex-

tion.'"

pand through a continual process o f primitive accumulation—is ac-

dernity that animates the communist movement breaks completely

complished, w i t h

w i t h the determinism and teleology o f progressivist discourses.

the

consolidation

o f collective profit,

the

40

T h e power o f this c o m m o n struggle against capitalist m o -

progressive subsumption o f the globe w i t h i n capitalist command.

M a o Z e d o n g continues this line o f revolutionary communist

B u t this development creates, i n Luxemburg's perspective, enormous

theory and emphasizes i n it the power o f antimodernity. M a o rec-

contradictions, and her notions o f contradiction and crises highlight

ognizes that the economic and social development o f C h i n a cannot

the subjective forces that arise against capitalist modernity:

be accomplished only by following the models o f modernity. R e forming the structures o f government and transforming the living

T h e more ruthlessly capital sets about the destruction o f n o n capitalist strata at home and i n the outside w o r l d , the more it lowers the standard o f living for the workers as a whole, the greater also is the change i n the day-to-day history o f capital. It becomes a string o f political and social disasters and c o n v u l sions, and under these conditions, punctuated by periodical economic catastrophes or crises, accumulation can go o n no longer. B u t even before this natural economic impasse o f capital's o w n creating is properly reached it becomes necessary for the international w o r k i n g class to revolt against the rule o f capital.

conditions o f workers to liberate them from capitalist rule requires an alternative path. Mao's elevation o f the political role o f the peasantry, o f course, is one extremely important departure from o r t h o dox positions, as is more generally his powerful critique o f Stalinist economic thought.

41

E v e n i n Mao's most extreme modernization

projects, Wang H u i suggests, there is a strong element o f antimodernity. This "antimodern theory o f modernization," he explains, brings together characteristics o f Chinese thought from the late Q i n g o n wards w i t h the antimodernity o f the revolutionary communist tradition.

42

39

O n c e we have recognized this antimodern stream i n revoluO n these boundaries o f development capitalist crises are constantly

tionary communist t h o u g h t — w h i c h , we must admit, even i n the

generated by the forces o f antimodernity, that is, proletarian revolts.

authors we cite, is always ambivalent, m i x e d w i t h notions o f moder-

In L e n i n the subjective face o f capitalist crisis is even more

nity and progress—we should take another l o o k at Marx's w o r k ,

dramatic. W h i l e the great capitalist powers are battling one another

because it does not undividedly support the modernity line as we

over conflicting imperialist projects i n the First W o r l d War, the

suggested earlier. In the last years o f his life, the second half o f the

struggles against the war and against the capitalist logic that drives it

1870s, after having w o r k e d for decades o n Capital and throwing

provide a c o m m o n ground for anticapitalist and anticolonial strug-

himself headlong into the project to create a communist Interna-

gles. Lenin's "popular outline," Imperialism, i n addition to offering

tional, M a r x becomes interested i n pre- or noncapitalist forms o f

analyses o f finance capital, banks, and the like, also proposes that the

property and starts reading some o f the founders o f m o d e r n anthro-

interimperialist war has generated not only misery and death for the

pology and sociology, such as Lewis M o r g a n , M a k s i m Kovalevsky,

workers o f the w o r l d but also the opportunity to break through

J o h n Phear, H e n r y M a i n e , J o h n L u b b o c k , and G e o r g L u d w i g M a u -

87

88

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF A LT E R M 0 D E R N I T Y )

AMBIVALENCES

OF

MODERNITY

rer. H e develops a hypothesis that bourgeois private property is only

the countries enslaved by the capitalist system." Does this affirma-

one form o f property among many others that exist i n parallel, and

tion o f the forces o f antimodernity and what Etienne Balibar calls

that the rules o f capitalist property are acquired only through a b r u -

his "anti-evolutionist" hypothesis reveal a contradiction i n Marx?

tal and complex disciplinary training. H e thus completely overturns

If so, it seems to us a healthy contradiction, one that enriches his

the r i g i d theory o f "precapitalist forms" that he developed i n the

thought.

44

45

1850s: he draws into question the claim that economic laws act i n -

O n e important element that M a r x seems to intuit i n this ex-

dependently o f historical and social circumstances and extends his

change but cannot articulate is that the revolutionary forms o f anti-

perspective somewhat beyond the Eurocentric limits o f his earlier

modernity are planted firmly o n the common.Jose Carlos Mariategui

views, subordinating the history o f Europe to the standpoint o f the

is i n a privileged position to recognize this aspect o f antimodern

entire globe, w h i c h contains w i t h i n it radical differences.

resistance both w i t h i n and outside Europe. After traveling to Europe

Marx's break w i t h his earlier assumptions o f m o d e r n "prog-

i n the 1920s and studying socialist and communist movements there,

ress" seems to be consolidated w h e n he receives a request i n the late

he returns to his native Peru and discovers that A n d e a n indigenous

1870s to adjudicate between two groups o f Russian revolutionaries:

communities, the ayllus, rest o n a parallel basis.The indigenous c o m -

one side, citing Marx's o w n w o r k , insists that capitalism has to be

munities defend and preserve c o m m o n access to the land, c o m m o n

developed i n Russia before the struggle for c o m m u n i s m can begin;

forms o f labor, and c o m m u n a l social organization—something like,

and the other side sees i n the mir, the Russian peasant commune, an

i n Mariategui's m i n d , the prerevolutionary Russian peasant c o m -

already existing basis for c o m m u n i s m . M a r x finds himself i n an awk-

munities that interested M a r x , the mir. " T h e Indian," he writes, " i n

ward position here because, whereas his major writings support the

spite o f one hundred years o f republican legislation, has not become

former position, his current t h i n k i n g agrees w i t h the latter. M a r x

an individualist" but instead resists i n communities, o n the basis o f

tries to reconcile his views, claiming, for instance, i n the draft o f a

the c o m m o n .

letter to Vera Zasulich, that i n order to consider the question, "we

despotic elements o f traditional Inca society, but he also finds i n it a

must descend from pure theory to Russian reality." T h e historical

solid rooting i n the c o m m o n that serves as a basis for resistance.

necessity o f the destruction o f c o m m u n a l property i n western E u -

T h r o u g h his contact w i t h European c o m m u n i s m he comes to u n -

rope that M a r x describes i n Capital is not, he explains i n another

derstand the importance and potential o f the indigenous popula-

letter o f this period, a universal history that immediately applies to

tions and social forms o f "Inca c o m m u n i s m " — n o t , o f course, as a

Russia or anywhere else. It is a mistake to "metamorphose m y his-

remainder preserved intact from p r e - C o l u m b i a n times or as a de-

torical sketch o f the genesis o f capitalism i n Western Europe into a

rivative o f European political movements, but as a dynamic expres-

historical-philosophical theory o f general development, imposed by

sion o f resistance w i t h i n m o d e r n society. Antimodernity, w i t h i n E u -

fate o n all peoples, whatever the historical circumstances i n w h i c h

rope and outside, should be understood first i n the social expression

they are placed."

43

In Russia, i n fact, the task o f the revolution is to

4 6

Mariategui certainly recognizes the theocratic and

o f the c o m m o n .

halt the "progressive" developments o f capital that threaten the R u s sian commune. " I f revolution comes at the opportune moment," M a r x writes, " i f it concentrates all its forces so as to allow the rural c o m m u n e full scope, the latter w i l l soon develop as an element o f regeneration i n Russian society and an element o f superiority over

Socialist Development Whereas the tradition o f Marxist theory has an ambivalent relation to modernity, the practice o f socialist states is tied to it more u n equivocally. T h e three great socialist revolutions—in Russia, C h i n a ,

89

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

AMBIVALENCES

OF

MODERNITY

and Cuba—although the revolutionary struggles that lead to them

resolve the contradiction by deferring it: economic progress is nec-

are traversed by powerful forces o f antimodernity, all come to pur-

essary n o w to allow the subaltern classes to mature to the point

sue resolutely m o d e r n i z i n g projects. T h e dominant capitalist c o u n -

where they can effectively challenge capitalist rule. B u t note that

tries, as numerous

whenever L e n i n tries to solve a contradiction by deferring it into

authors have argued, promote

and

impose

throughout the twentieth century ideologies and economic policies

the future—most

o f development that, although cast as a benefit to all, reproduce the

state—he is merely covering over a real problem. T h e maturation

notably i n his theory o f the w i t h e r i n g o f the

global hierarchies o f modernity-coloniality.The programs o f the so-

process or transition never comes to an end, and the contradiction

cialist states, however, are equally dedicated to this same notion o f

remains intact. L e n i n i n this instance lacks not the spirit o f the revo-

development, perversely repeating the figure and structures o f power

lutionary struggle but a sufficient analysis o f the mystifying function

in the capitalist countries they oppose. T h e critique o f imperialism,

o f capitalist ideology and its notion o f progress.

48

In similar fashion,

w h i c h remains a central ideological pillar for the postrevolutionary

the developmentalist ideologies and economic policies o f the social-

socialist states, is forced to go hand i n hand w i t h the p r o m o t i o n o f

ist states do not betray the revolutionary forces and theories that led

developmentalist political economy.

to them but rather flatten their ambivalence by highlighting the face

W e l l before the Bolshevik victory, as we said earlier, strong the-

o f m o d e r n progress and eliminating the elements o f antimodernity.

oretical veins o f revolutionary thought envision the goal o f socialism

It is no coincidence that i n the last decades o f the twentieth

as not so m u c h liberation but higher development, w h i c h is thought

century, w h e n the "great hope" o f really existing socialism falls into

to repeat or even improve on the modernization o f the dominant

disenchantment, the three great socialist experiments are all envel-

countries. T h e construction o f a national people and a socialist state

oped i n a c o m m o n crisis. In the case o f the Soviet U n i o n , what was

are both functional to developmentalist ideology, w h i c h eclipses any

its m o d e l o f development i f not a mirage o f liberation translated

autonomous development o f alternative needs and indigenous tra-

into the language o f capitalist development? It envisioned an exit

ditions. A t times national economic development is posed as a pur-

from economic dependency through stages o f development, through

gatory that has to be traversed i n order to catch up w i t h the cap-

the awkward absorption and transfiguration o f capitalist modernity

italist countries, but more often it is seen as paradise itself.To critique

into the rhetoric o f socialism. M a r x i s m was simplified into an evo-

development, o f course, does not i m p l y rejecting prosperity (on the

lutionary theory o f progress from w h i c h all elements o f antimoder-

contrary!), just as the critique o f modernity does not mean opposing

nity are excluded as backward, underdeveloped. T h e Soviet crisis

rationality or enlightenment. It requires rather, as we said earlier, that

involved all aspects o f social development, along w i t h the d e m o -

we take a different standpoint and recognize h o w the continuation

cratic status o f the political structures, the ruling mechanisms o f the

o f modernity and development programs only reproduces the hier-

bureaucratic elite, and the geopolitical situation o f Soviet quasi-

archies that define t h e m .

47

colonial expansion.

T h e ambivalence o f the modernity and developmentalism o f

In C h i n a the crisis led not to collapse but to an evolution o f

the economic programs o f the socialist states can already be recog-

the system that refined the strongly centralized political manage-

nized i n Lenin's 1898 study The Development of Capitalism in Russia.

ment o f development along the lines o f the capitalist organization o f

T h e modern m o d e l o f economic development he affirms directly

labor. T h i s can be directed through socialist, bureaucratic, and cen-

conflicts i n this b o o k w i t h his appreciation o f the "premodern"—or,

tralized means or i n a more socially decentralized way, giving space

really, antimodern—antagonism o f the subaltern classes. H e tries to

and support to market forces i n the framework o f a unified global

92

MODERNITY

( A N D THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

AMBIVALENCES

OF

MODERNITY

market that offers profits and competitive advantage from wage i n -

rather i n the mad rush o f Left and R i g h t elected political forces to-

equalities and p o o r labor conditions. T h e Chinese road to neoliber-

ward parliamentary and populist "centrism," to create what Etienne

alism is different from that o f the capitalist countries—with limited

Balibar calls "extremism o f the center."

50

privatization, continuing state control, the creation o f new class d i -

T h e "mistaken standpoint" o f the three great socialist e x p e r i -

visions w i t h new hierarchies between urban and rural areas, and so

ences, to take up ironically an o l d term o f Soviet bureaucrats, is due

forth—but n o less effective. In retrospect, the current neoliberal re-

not so m u c h to the fact that the progressivist norms o f capitalist

gime i n C h i n a helps us identify more clearly h o w powerful the de-

development were internalized i n the consciousness o f the ruling

velopmentalist ideology was all along w i t h i n the socialist regime.

classes o f "really existing socialism," but rather to the fact that, para-

C u b a , finally, has managed so far to h o l d at bay the ultimate

doxically, these norms were too weakly internalized. A l t h o u g h these

consequences o f the crisis but o n l y by freezing itself i n time, b e c o m -

experiments i n socialism failed, capitalist development i n Russia and

ing a k i n d o f preserve o f socialist ideology that has lost its original

C h i n a d i d not. After relatively b r i e f crises those countries returned

components. T h e enormous pressure o f the crisis, though, continues

to capitalism m u c h richer and more powerful than they were w h e n

to have profound effects. A n d C u b a constantly has to ward off the

they supposedly broke w i t h capitalist development. " R e a l l y existing

two threatening alternatives that seem to prefigure its future: the

socialism" proved to be a powerful machine o f primitive accumula-

catastrophic end o f the Soviet experience or the neoliberal evolu-

tion and economic development. A m o n g other innovations, i n c o n -

tion o f the Chinese.

ditions o f underdevelopment it invented instruments (like those o f

This same socialist ideology also traveled for several decades

Keynesianism, for instance) that capitalist states adopted o n l y i n

through the so-called underdeveloped or developing countries, from

phases o f cyclical crisis; and it anticipated and normalized the tools

India and East Asia to Africa and Latin A m e r i c a . Here too there was

o f governance to rule over the exception that (as we w i l l see i n Part

a strong continuity between the capitalist theories o f development

4) continue to be used i n the current global order. C o n s i d e r i n g the

T h e project o f modernity

exhaustion o f global capitalist development today, the crises o f "re-

and modernization became key to the control and repression o f the

ally existing socialism" take o n an acute contemporary relevance. De

forces o f antimodernity that emerged i n the revolutionary struggles.

te fabula narratur: the story is really about y o u .

and the socialist theories o f dependency.

49

T h e notions o f "national development" and the "state o f the entire

It w o u l d be w r o n g to forget or minimize, however, h o w m u c h

people," w h i c h constantly held out an illusory promise for the f u -

the victorious socialist revolutions i n Russia, C h i n a , and C u b a aided

ture but merely served to legitimate the existing global hierarchies,

and inspired anticapitalist and anti-imperialist liberation movements

was one o f the most damaging regurgitations o f socialist ideology. In

around the w o r l d . W e should be careful that our critique o f them

the name o f the "unity o f the entire people," i n fact, were organized

does not simply reinforce the vulgar attempts o f the dominant ide-

political operations that pretended to overcome class conflict (while

ology to cancel them from memory. E a c h o f these revolutions i n i t i -

merely suppressing it) and thus confused the political meanings o f

ated cycles o f struggles that spread throughout the w o r l d i n a k i n d

R i g h t and Left, along w i t h fascist and communist. T h i s reactionary

o f viral contamination, communicating their hopes and dreams to

project o f modernity (behind the mask o f socialism) emerges most

other movements. It w o u l d be useful, i n fact, at this point i n history,

strongly i n moments o f economic crisis: it was part o f the horrible

to be able to measure realistically the extent to w h i c h the definitive

experience o f the Soviet 1930s, and i n certain respects it is repeated

crisis o f the socialist states hindered or actually aided the course o f

again today, not i n the name o f the "unity o f the entire people" but

liberation movements. If we say, i n other words, that the " b r i e f twen-

93

94

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

AMBIVALENCES

ALTERMODERNITY)

OF

MODERNITY

tieth century," w h i c h began i n 1917, came to an end between B e i -

tivities at the base o f the productive and political processes have the

j i n g and B e r l i n i n 1989, that does not mean i n any way that the

capacity to construct a consciousness o f renewal and transformation.

hope and movement for c o m m u n i s m ended then but only that an-

This consciousness no longer descends from the intellectual sec-

other century has begun. W e w i l l explore some o f the ways that the

tors that are organic to what was once called socialist science but

forces o f antimodernity today act w i t h i n and against the processes o f

rather emerges from the w o r k i n g classes and multitudes that auton-

capitalist globalization and discover an escape route from the cage o f

omously and creatively propose antimodern and anticapitalist hopes

developmentalist ideology i n w h i c h the socialist states were trapped.

and dreams.

In any case, one fact that emerges clearly from this history is that liberation struggles can no longer be cast i n terms o f m o d e r n -

Caliban Breaks Free of the Dialectic

ization and stages o f development. T h e power o f antimodernity,

T h r o u g h o u t modernity, often alongside the most radical projects o f

w h i c h was unrealized i n the socialist revolutions and the struggles

rationalism and enlightenment, monsters continually spring up. In

for national independence, comes to the fore again, intact, i n our

Europe, from Rabelais to Diderot and from Shakespeare to M a r y

times. C h e Guevara seems to intuit this fact d u r i n g the final years o f

Shelley, monsters present figures o f sublime disproportion and ter-

his life w h e n he tries to break away from the structural determinism

rifying excess, as i f the confines o f m o d e r n rationality were too nar-

and the historical linearity o f socialist doctrine, w h i c h , he recog-

row to contain their extraordinary creative powers. Outside Europe,

nizes, merely reproduces the basic features o f capitalist modernity.

too, forces o f antimodernity are cast as monsters i n order to rein i n

"Pursuing the chimera o f realizing socialism w i t h the help o f the

their power and legitimate domination over them. Stories o f human

blunt weapons left to us by capitalism," he writes, leads to a dead

sacrifice among Amerindians serve as evidence for sixteenth-century

end. " T o construct c o m m u n i s m it is necessary to make, simultane-

Spaniards o f their cruelty, violence, and madness, just as the n o t i o n

ous w i t h the new material foundation, a new humanity [el hombre

o f the cannibal functions for African colonizers i n a later period.

nuevo]." C h e certainly knows firsthand the constraints o f socialist

T h e witch-hunts, w i t c h burning, and w i t c h trials that spread widely

developmentalism. H e serves as president o f the national bank and

throughout Europe and the Americas i n the sixteenth and seven-

minister o f industries i n the years after the revolution. B u t i n 1965

teenth centuries are further examples o f the forces o f antimodernity

he mysteriously disappears from public v i e w and leaves to j o i n revo-

cast out as irrationality and superstition, betraying reason and reli-

lutionary struggles first i n the C o n g o and then i n B o l i v i a , where he

gion. W i t c h - h u n t s often spring up, i n fact, i n regions that have re-

is killed. Some see this decision to leave C u b a and his government

cently been the site o f intense peasant rebellion, often led by w o m e n ,

posts as a sign o f a romantic's restlessness for adventure or an u n w i l l -

resisting coloniality, capitalist rule, and patriarchal d o m i n a t i o n . B u t

ingness to roll up his sleeves and face the hard w o r k o f building a

modernity has difficulty dealing w i t h its monsters and tries to dis-

national economy. W e interpret it instead as a refusal o f the bureau-

miss them as illusions, figments o f an overheated imagination. "Per-

cratic and economic straitjacket o f the socialist state, a refusal to obey

seus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted d o w n might

the dictates o f development ideology. T h e new humanity he seeks to

not see h i m , " M a r x writes. " W e draw the magic cap d o w n over our

build c o m m u n i s m w i l l never be found there. H i s flight to the jungle

eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters." T h e m o n -

is really a desperate attempt to rediscover the forces o f antimoder-

sters are real, though, and we should open our eyes and ears to u n -

nity he k n e w i n the liberation struggle. Today it is even more clear

derstand what they have to tell us about modernity.

51

than i n Che's time that only movements from below, only subjec-

52

53

M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d T h e o d o r A d o r n o try to grasp the m o n -

95

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

AMBIVALENCES

ALTERMODERNITY)

OF

MODERNITY

sters o f antimodernity—irrationalism, myth, domination, and barba-

A d o r n o can see no way out, leaving humanity d o o m e d to the eter-

rism—by b r i n g i n g them into dialectical relation w i t h enlighten-

nal play o f opposites. Part o f the problem, then, is the failure to rec-

ment. " W e have no doubt," they write, "that freedom i n society is

ognize differences among figures o f antimodernity, because the most

inseparable from enlightenment thinking. W e believe we have per-

powerful o f them, and the ones that w i l l interest us most, do not

ceived w i t h equal clarity, however, that the very concept o f that

stand i n a specular, negative relation to modernity but rather adopt a

thinking, no less than the concrete historical forms, the institutions

diagonal stance, not simply opposing all that is m o d e r n and rational

o f society w i t h w h i c h it is intertwined, already contains the g e r m o f

but inventing new rationalities and new forms o f liberation. W e need

the regression [its reversal] w h i c h is taking place everywhere to-

to get out o f the vicious cycle that H o r k h e i m e r and Adorno's dia-

54

day." T h e y see modernity caught inextricably i n an intimate rela-

lectic sets up by recognizing h o w the positive, productive m o n -

tionship w i t h its opposite, leading inevitably to its self-destruction.

sters o f antimodernity, the monsters o f liberation, always exceed the

H o r k h e i m e r and A d o r n o , w r i t i n g from exile i n the U n i t e d States i n

domination o f modernity and point toward an alternative.

the early 1940s, are struggling to understand the N a z i rise i n G e r -

O n e way to break free from this dialectic is to l o o k at the rela-

many and the mixture o f rationality and barbarism i n the regime.

tionship from the standpoint o f modernity's monsters. T h e savage,

T h e Nazis are not anomalous i n their view, however, but a symptom

deformed Caliban i n Shakespeare's Tempest, for example, is a power-

o f the nature o f modernity itself. Proletarians too, they maintain, are

ful symbol o f the colonized native as a terrible, threatening monster.

subject to this same dialectic, such that their projects o f freedom and

(The name Caliban itself could be an approximate anagram for can-

rational social organization are inevitably functional to the creation

nibal at the same time that it suggests the Caribs, the native popula-

o f a total, administered society. H o r k h e i m e r and A d o r n o see no m o -

tion o f Caribbean islands exterminated during the colonial period.)

ment o f subsumption or resolution o f this dialectic but only a c o n -

Prospero the magician recounts that he tried to befriend and edu-

stant frustration o f modernity's ideals and even a progressive degra-

cate the monster, but once it threatened his daughter, M i r a n d a , he

dation into their opposite, so that instead o f finally realizing a truly

had no choice but to restrain the brute by i m p r i s o n i n g h i m w i t h i n a

human condition, we are sinking into a new k i n d o f barbarism.

tree. T h e monstrousness and savagery o f the native, following the

H o r k h e i m e r and A d o r n o s argument is extraordinarily i m p o r -

classic script, legitimates the rule o f the European i n the name o f

tant for its decisive departure from the teleological m o d e r n i z i n g line

modernity. Caliban, however, cannot simply be killed or cast out.

o f Marxist thought, but i n our view, by constructing the relation

" W e cannot miss h i m , " Prospero explains to M i r a n d a . " H e does

between modernity and antimodernity as a dialectic, they make two

make our fire / fetch i n our w o o d , and serves i n office / That profit

mistakes. First, the formulation tends to homogenize the forces o f

us." T h e monster's labor is needed, and thus he must be kept inside

antimodernity. Some antimodernities, like the Nazis, do indeed c o n -

the island society.

55

stitute horrible fiends that enslave the population, but others chal-

T h e figure o f Caliban has also been redeployed as a symbol o f

lenge the structures o f hierarchy and sovereignty w i t h figures o f u n -

resistance i n twentieth-century anticolonial struggles i n the C a r i b -

containable freedom. Second, by closing this relationship i n a

bean. T h e monstrous image created by the colonizers is revalued

dialectic, H o r k h e i m e r and A d o r n o limit antimodernities to standing

from the other side to tell the story o f the suffering o f the colonized

i n opposition and even contradiction to modernity. R a t h e r than be-

and their liberation struggles against the colonizers. "Prospero i n -

i n g a principle o f movement, then, the dialectic brings the relation-

vaded the islands," writes R o b e r t o Fernandez Retamar, " k i l l e d our

ship to a standstill. T h i s accounts for the fact that H o r k h e i m e r and

ancestors, enslaved Caliban, and taught h i m his language to make

MODERNITY

( A N D T H E LA.N.O. S C A.P E S O F

AMBIVALENCES

ALTERWlODtRNSTO

OF

MODERNITY

himself understood. W h a t else can Cahban do but use that same

m y dream remained before my eyes as vividly as i f the things had

language—today he has no other—to curse h i m , to wish that the

been true—especially [the image] o f a certain black, scabby B r a z i l -

'red plague' w o u l d fall o n h i m . I k n o w no other metaphor more

ian w h o m I had never seen before." T h e first thing to remark about

expressive o f our cultural situation, o f our reality. . . . [W]hat is our

this letter is its racist construction o f the black, scabby Brazilian as a

history, what is o u r culture, i f not the history and culture o f C a l i -

sort o f Caliban, w h i c h most likely derives from Spinoza's second-

56

58

ban?" T h e culture o f Caliban is the culture o f resistance that turns

hand knowledge o f the experiences o f D u t c h merchants and entre-

the weapons o f colonial domination back against it. T h e victory o f

preneurs, especially D u t c h Jews, w h o established businesses i n Brazil

the C u b a n R e v o l u t i o n , then, for Retamar, is the victory o f Caliban

i n the seventeenth century. Spinoza, o f course, is by no means alone

over Prospero. A i m e Cesaire similarly rewrites Shakespeare's play so

a m o n g European philosophers i n employing such racist images.

that n o w Caliban, w h o has for so l o n g been lorded over by Prospero,

M a n y o f the most prominent authors i n the c a n o n — H e g e l and

finally wins his freedom, not only breaking the chains o f his physical

Kant first among them—not only invoke non-Europeans i n general

imprisonment but also freeing himself ideologically from the m o n -

and the darker races specifically as figures o f unreason but also

strous image—underdeveloped, incompetent, and inferior—that he

mount arguments to substantiate their lower mental capacities.

had internalized from the colonizers. "Caliban's reason" thus be-

we stop our reading o f the letter at that point, however, we miss

comes a figure for A f r o - C a r i b b e a n thought i n its distinct and au-

what is most interesting i n Spinoza's monster, because he goes o n to

tonomous development from the European c a n o n .

57

59

If

explain h o w it configures for h i m the power o f the imagination.

This anticolonial Caliban offers a way out o f the dialectic i n

T h e imagination for Spinoza does not create illusion but is a real

w h i c h H o r k h e i m e r and A d o r n o leave us trapped. F r o m the perspec-

material force. It is an open field o f possibility o n w h i c h we recog-

tive o f the European colonizers the monster is contained i n the dia-

nize what is c o m m o n between one body and another, one idea and

lectical struggle between reason and madness, progress and barba-

another, and the resulting c o m m o n notions are the building blocks

rism, modernity and antimodernity. F r o m the perspective o f the

o f reason and tools for the constant project o f increasing our powers

colonized, though, i n their struggle for liberation, Caliban, w h o is

to think and to act. B u t the imagination for Spinoza is always exces-

endowed w i t h as m u c h or more reason and civilization than the

sive, going beyond the bounds o f existing knowledge and thought,

colonizers, is monstrous only to the extent that his desire for free-

presenting the possibility for transformation and liberation. H i s B r a -

d o m exceeds the bounds o f the colonial relationship o f biopower,

zilian monster, then, i n addition to being a sign o f his colonial m e n -

b l o w i n g apart the chains o f the dialectic.

tality, is a figure that expresses the excessive, savage powers o f the

To recognize this savage power o f monsters, let us go back to

imagination. W h e n we reduce all figures o f antimodernity to a tame

another m o m e n t i n European philosophy that, i n addition to ex-

dialectical play o f opposite identities, we miss the liberatory possi-

pressing the typical racism and fear o f otherness, highlights the m o n -

bilities o f their monstrous imaginings.

60

ster's power o f transformation. Spinoza receives a letter from his

It is true, o f course, that there have l o n g existed and continue

friend Pieter Balling w h i c h relates that after the recent death o f his

to exist today forces o f antimodernity that are not liberatory at all.

son he continues disturbingly at times to hear his son's voice. S p i -

H o r k h e i m e r and A d o r n o are right to see a reactionary antimoder-

noza responds w i t h a puzzling example o f his o w n hallucinations:

nity i n the N a z i project, and we can recognize it too i n the various

" O n e m o r n i n g as the sky was already g r o w i n g light, I woke from a

m o d e r n projects o f ethnic cleansing, the white supremacist fantasies

very deep dream to find that the images w h i c h had come to me i n

o f the K u K l u x K l a n , and the deliriums o f w o r l d domination o f U . S .

100

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

neoconservatives. T h e antimodern element o f all these projects is their effort to break the relationship at the heart o f modernity and

2.3

free the dominator from dealing w i t h the subordinated. T h e theories o f sovereignty from Juan D o n o s o Cortes to C a r l Schmitt are antimodern insofar as they too seek to break the relationship o f m o -

ALTERMODERNITY

dernity and put an end to the struggle at its core by liberating the sovereign. T h e so-called autonomy o f the political proposed by these theories is really the autonomy o f rulers from the ruled, freedom from the challenges and resistance o f the subjugated. T h i s dream is an illusion, o f course, because rulers can never survive w i t h o u t the subordinated, just as Prospero cannot do w i t h o u t his Caliban and, ultimately, as the capitalist can never be free o f those pesky workers.

Mesrin: Where are you from? Azor: The world. Mesrin: D o you mean my world? Azor: O h , I don't know about that, there are so many worlds! —Marivaux, La dispute

T h e fact that it is an illusion, though, does nothing to stop it c o n tinuing today to create untold tragedies.These monsters are the real

A world in which many worlds are possible. —Zapatista slogan

stuff o f nightmares. This gives us two positive tasks for an analysis o f the forces o f antimodernity. T h e first is to pose a clear distinction between reactionary antimodern notions o f power that seek to break the relationship by freeing the sovereign and liberatory antimodernities that

How Not to Get Stuck in Antimodernity

challenge and subvert hierarchies by affirming the resistance and ex-

U p to this point we have explored antimodernity as a f o r m o f resis-

panding the freedom o f the subordinated. T h e second task, then, is

tance internal to modernity i n at least three senses. First, it is not an

to recognize h o w this resistance and freedom always exceed the re-

effort to preserve the premodern or u n m o d e r n from the expanding

lationship o f domination and thus cannot be recuperated i n any dia-

forces o f modernity but rather a struggle for freedom w i t h i n the

lectic w i t h m o d e r n power. These monsters possess the key to release

power relation o f modernity. Second, antimodernity is not geo-

new creative powers that move beyond the opposition between m o -

graphically external to but rather coextensive w i t h modernity. E u -

dernity and antimodernity.

ropean territory cannot be identified w i t h modernity and the c o l o nial w o r l d w i t h antimodernity. A n d just as the subordinated parts o f the w o r l d are equally m o d e r n , so too antimodernity runs throughout the history o f the dominant w o r l d , i n slave rebellions, peasant revolts, proletarian resistances, and all liberation movements. Finally, antimodernity is not temporally external to modernity i n the sense that it does not simply come after the exertion o f m o d e r n power, as a reaction. In fact antimodernity is p r i o r i n the sense that the power relation o f modernity can be exercised only over free subjects w h o express that freedom through resistance to hierarchy and d o m i n a tion. M o d e r n i t y has to react to contain those forces o f liberation.

102

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF A LT E R M 0 D E R N I T Y )

ALTERMODERNITY

A t this point, however, especially after having recognized the

while preserving its primary characteristics. For others it might sug-

savage, excessive, monstrous character o f liberation struggles, we r u n

gest alternative forms o f modernity, especially as they are defined

into the limits o f the concept and practices o f antimodernity. In ef-

geographically and culturally, that is, a Chinese modernity, a E u r o -

fectjust as modernity can never extricate itself from the relationship

pean modernity, an Iranian modernity, and so forth. W e intend for

w i t h antimodernity, so too antimodernity is finally b o u n d up w i t h

the term "altermodernity" instead to indicate a decisive break w i t h

modernity. This is also a general limitation o f the concept and prac-

modernity and the power relation that defines it since altermoder-

tices o f resistance: they risk getting stuck i n an oppositional stance.

nity i n our conception emerges from the traditions o f antimoder-

We need to be able to move from resistance to alternative and rec-

nity—but it also departs from antimodernity since it extends beyond

ognize h o w liberation movements can achieve autonomy and break

opposition and resistance.

free o f the power relation o f modernity.

Frantz Fanon's proposition o f the stages o f evolution o f "the

A terminological cue from the globalization protest m o v e -

colonized intellectual" provides an initial guide for h o w to move

ments shows us a way out o f this dilemma. W h e n large demonstra-

from modernity and antimodernity to altermodernity. In Fanon's

tions began to appear regularly at the meetings o f leaders o f the

first stage the colonized intellectual assimilates as m u c h as possible

global system across N o r t h A m e r i c a and Europe i n the late 1990s

to European culture and thought, believing that everything m o d e r n

and the first years o f the new m i l l e n n i u m , the media were quick to

and good and right originates i n Europe, thus devaluing the colonial

label them "antiglobalization." Participants i n these movements were

past and its present culture. Such an assimilated intellectual becomes

uncomfortable w i t h the term because, although they challenge the

more m o d e r n and more European than the Europeans, save for the

current f o r m o f globalization, the vast majority o f them do not o p -

dark skin color. A few courageous colonized intellectuals, however,

pose globalization as such. In fact their proposals focus o n alterna-

achieve a second stage and rebel against the Eurocentrism o f thought

tive but equally global relationships o f trade, cultural exchange, and

and the coloniality o f power. " I n order to secure his salvation," Fanon

political process—and the movements themselves constructed global

explains, " i n order to escape the supremacy o f white culture the c o l -

networks.The name they proposed for themselves, then, rather than

onized intellectual feels the need to return to his u n k n o w n roots

"antiglobalization," was "alterglobalization" (or altermondialiste, as is

and lose himself, come what may, among his barbaric people."

c o m m o n i n France). T h e terminological shift suggests a diagonal

easy to recognize too a w h o l e series o f parallel forms that antimod-

line that escapes the confining play o f opposites—globalization and

ern intellectuals take i n the dominant countries, seeking to escape

61

It is

antiglobalization—and shifts the emphasis from resistance to alter-

and challenge the institutionalized hierarchies o f modernity along

native.

lines o f race, gender, class, or sexuality and affirm the tradition and

A similar terminological move allows us to displace the terrain

identity o f the subordinated as foundation and compass. Fanon rec-

o f discussions about modernity and antimodernity. Altermodernity

ognizes the nobility o f this antimodern intellectual position but also

has a diagonal relationship w i t h modernity. It marks conflict w i t h

warns o f its pitfalls, i n m u c h the same way that he cautions against

modernity's hierarchies as m u c h as does antimodernity but orients

the dangers o f national consciousness, negritude, and pan-Africanism.

the forces o f resistance more clearly toward an autonomous terrain.

T h e risk is that affirming identity and tradition, whether dedicated

We should note right away, though, that the term altermodernity

to past suffering or past glories, creates a static position, even i n its

can create misunderstandings. F o r some the term might imply a re-

opposition to modernity's domination. T h e intellectual has to avoid

formist process o f adapting modernity to the new global condition

getting stuck i n antimodernity and pass through it to a third stage.

103

104

MODERNITY

( A N D THE.

LAN.OS.CAIHtS,

I f

M7l

ALTERMODERNITY

MtW&'PEWN'rrT)

"Seeking to stick to tradition or reviving neglected traditions is not

over the last five hundred years. N e i t h e r does he mean by it a p r o -

only g o i n g against history, but against one's people," Fanon c o n t i n -

cess i n line w i t h the " m o d e r n i z i n g " policies o f liberal oligarchies

ues. " W h e n a people support an armed or even political struggle

throughout Latin A m e r i c a to Hispanicize and assimilate the indige-

against a merciless colonialism, tradition changes meaning." A n d

nous populations, m a k i n g "the Indian" disappear through intermar-

neither does identity remain fixed, but rather it must be transformed

riage, migration, and education, such that indigenous civilizations

into a revolutionary b e c o m i n g . T h e ultimate result o f the revolu-

w o u l d be relegated to museums.The project to abolish the Indian is

tionary process for F a n o n must be the creation o f a n e w humanity,

instead the destruction o f an identity created by the colonizers and

w h i c h moves beyond the static opposition between modernity and

is thus solidly based i n antimodernity. T h e crucial point for us,

antimodernity and emerges as a dynamic, creative process. T h e pas-

though, comes at the next m o m e n t o f the argument. O n e option,

sage from antimodernity to altermodernity is defined not by o p p o -

once the colonial identity is abolished, is to restore the "authentic"

sition but by rupture and transformation.

identities—the Q u i c h e , the M a y a , the Q u e c h u a , the Aymara, and so

62

O n e particularly c o m p l e x field for investigating the border be-

forth—as they existed before the encounter w i t h European civiliza-

tween antimodernity and altermodernity is the movements and dis-

tion, w i t h their traditional modes o f social organization and author-

courses o f indigeneity that have developed i n recent decades, p r i -

ity. S u c h a n o t i o n remains squarely w i t h i n the tradition o f antimo-

marily i n the Americas and the Pacific. This is, o f course, a classic

dernity and the second stage o f Fanon's sequence. B o n f i l Batalla's

terrain o f antimodernity: ever since the European invasions the af-

discourse i n this and his other works generally remains closed i n the

firmation o f indigenous traditions and identities has served as a

identity formations o f antimodernity, but he does nonetheless sug-

powerful weapon o f defense. Paradoxically, too, claims to indigenous

gest an opening toward another option. " E t h n i c identity is not an

rights i n some societies, particularly those i n w h i c h rights are based

abstract, ahistorical entelechy," he writes; " i t is not a dimension that

on historic treaties such as i n Australia, N e w Zealand, and Canada,

is foreign to social b e c o m i n g nor an eternal and immutable p r i n c i -

are linked to the preservation o f m e m o r y and tradition, and thus ef-

ple."

fectively punish deviation from identity. A c c o r d i n g to the ideology

m o v i n g out o f the antimodernity o f indigenism i n the direction o f

o f liberal multiculturalism c o m m o n to settler societies, indigenous

an indigenous altermodernity.

subjects are called o n o r even obliged to perform an authentic i d e n 63

64

T h i s n o t i o n o f social b e c o m i n g suggests the possibility o f

T h e novelist Leslie M a r m o n Silko is one o f the most interest-

tity. A n d yet many contemporary indigenous movements and dis-

i n g theorists o f altermodernity. H e r novels demonstrate h o w the

courses manage to escape antimodernity and open toward altermo-

theft o f land, the rule o f private property, the militarism, and other

dernity.

aspects o f m o d e r n domination continue to r u i n the lives o f so many

T h e ambiguities between anti- and altermodern positions are

Native Americans. M o s t distinctive about Silko's novels, however,

evident, for example, i n an anthology o f the writings by Latin A m e r -

are the processes o f mixture, movement, and transformation that

ican indigenous theorists brought together by G u i l l e r m o B o n f i l

disrupt any antimodern formations o f identity and tradition. T h e y

Batalla i n the early 1980s. T h e project o f indianidad (Indian-ness)

are filled w i t h mestizas/mestizos, Black Indians, "half-breeds," I n d i -

that is c o m m o n to all the authors, he explains i n his introduction, is

ans excluded from their tribes, and other hybrid figures, constantly

really aimed at the annihilation o f "the Indian." B y annihilation he

m o v i n g across borders through the desert. H e r protagonists never

does not mean, o f course, the physical destruction o f Indians, w h i c h

forget the past, the w i s d o m o f the elders, and the sacred books o f

has indeed been a byproduct w h e n not a direct object o f modernity

their ancestors, but i n order to keep tradition alive and heed the an-

105

106

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

ALTERMODERNITY

ALTERMODERNITY)

cient prophecies, they constantly have to make the w o r l d anew

the passage from antimodernity to altermodernity, just as tradition

and i n the process transform themselves. Native A m e r i c a n practices,

and identity are transformed, so too resistance takes o n a new mean-

knowledges, and ceremonies constantly need to be transformed to

ing, dedicated n o w to the constitution o f alternatives. T h e freedom

maintain their power. R e v o l u t i o n is thus, i n Silko's world, the only

that forms the base o f resistance, as we explained earlier, comes to

way not simply to rebel against the destroyers and guarantee our

the fore and constitutes an event to announce a new political proj-

survival but paradoxically to preserve our most precious inheritance

ect. This conception o f altermodernity gives us a preliminary way to

from the past.

65

pose the distinction between socialism and c o m m u n i s m : whereas

T h e Zapatista campaigns for indigenous rights i n M e x i c o pro-

socialism ambivalently straddles modernity and antimodernity, c o m -

vide a clear political example o f this altermodernity. T h e Zapatistas

munism must break w i t h both o f these by presenting a direct rela-

do not pursue either o f the conventional strategies that link rights to

tion to the c o m m o n to develop the paths o f altermodernity.

identity: they neither demand the legal recognition o f indigenous identities equal to other identities (in line w i t h a positive law tradi-

The Multitude in Cochabamba

tion) nor do they claim the sovereignty o f traditional indigenous

A l t e r m o d e r n i t y is a matter o f not only culture and civilization but

power structures and authorities w i t h respect to the state (according

also equally labor and production. T h r o u g h o u t the m o d e r n period,

to natural law). F o r most Zapatistas, i n fact, the process o f b e c o m i n g

however, these fields o f struggle have often been thought to be sepa-

politicized already involves b o t h a conflict w i t h the M e x i c a n state

rate from and even antagonistic to each other. T h e stereotype i n

and a refusal o f the traditional authority structures o f indigenous

many parts o f the world, w h i c h is not entirely false, is that labor

communities. A u t o n o m y and self-determination are thus the p r i n -

struggles are led by industrial w o r k i n g classes engaged i n m o d e r n -

ciples that guided the Zapatista strategy i n negotiating the constitu-

izing projects, whereas civilizational struggles are populated by peo-

tional reforms i n the 1996 San Andres Accords o n Indigenous R i g h t s

ple o f color and indigenous groups w i t h antimodern agendas. F r o m

and Culture w i t h the government o f Ernesto Zedillo. W h e n the

the perspective o f civilizational struggles, then, the goals and policies

government failed to honor the agreement, however, the Zapatistas

o f labor movements can be as detrimental as those o f the ruling

began a series o f projects to put its principles into action by institut-

classes, repeating their racist practices and p r o m o t i n g their E u r o c e n -

i n g autonomous regional administrative seats (caracoles) and " g o o d

tric cultural visions; and from the perspective o f labor movements,

government councils" (juntas de buen gobierno). E v e n though the

civilizational struggles are frequently seen as backward, premodern,

members o f Zapatista communities are predominantly indigenous,

even primitive. M a n y other subjectivities have also been drawn into

then, and even though they struggle consistently and powerfully

this conflict. Peasant movements at times have been closer to the

against racism, their politics does not rest o n a fixed identity. T h e y

one or the other side o f this divide, and gender struggles have some-

demand the right not "to be w h o we are" but rather "to become

times found alliance w i t h one or both o f these sides but often have

what we want." Such principles o f movement and self-transformation

been subordinated by both. S u c h ideological and practical conflicts

allow the Zapatistas to avoid getting stuck i n antimodernity and

have strained and even broken apart alliances w i t h i n communist, na-

move o n to the terrain o f altermodernity.

66

tional liberation, and anti-imperialist movements. T h e passage from

Altermodernity thus involves not only insertion i n the l o n g

antimodernity to altermodernity, however, brings w i t h it a signifi-

history o f antimodern struggles but also rupture w i t h any fixed dia-

cant shift whereby these fields o f struggle are, at least potentially,

lectic between m o d e r n sovereignty and antimodern resistance. In

newly aligned, not i n the sense that they are unified or that one

107

108

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY

ALTERMODERNITY)

holds hegemony over others, but i n that they autonomously march

the 1970s as a socieded abigarrada, w h i c h i n English could be ren-

forward o n parallel paths.

dered awkwardly as a many-colored, variegated, or even motley so-

T h e social movements i n B o l i v i a that paved the way for the

ciety.

67

Zavaleta views this social diversity i n a negative light, as a

election o f E v o Morales to the presidency i n 2005 are a powerful

marker o f Bolivia's "premodern" character, as i f modernity were de-

example o f this parallelism o f altermodernity, w h i c h highlights p o -

fined by homogeneous classes, identities, and social institutions. B y

litical forms that express the autonomy and the connection o f d i -

our conception, however, B o l i v i a is not only just as m o d e r n as

verse sets o f demands and social subjectivities. T w o peaks o f this

France or India or Canada but also just as open to altermodernity.

cycle o f struggles were the 2000 fight over the control o f water re-

T h e diversity Zavaleta recognizes is, i n the context o f altermoder-

sources i n Cochabamba and the surrounding valley; and the 2003

nity, a potential key to social transformation. T h e question here is

battle over the right to control natural gas resources i n E l A l t o and

h o w the social multiplicities i n question interact and, specifically,

the highlands. In their general outlines these are classic examples o f

h o w they cooperate i n c o m m o n struggle. To understand this d y -

the resistance to neoliberalism that has arisen throughout the w o r l d

namic we have to l o o k more closely at the nature o f this sociedad ab-

i n recent years. In the case o f Cochabamba, a mid-sized city i n the

igarrada and recognize the relations among the various social singu-

interior o f Bolivia, the W o r l d B a n k advised the national government

larities that compose the social movements.

to eliminate subsidies required for public water service by selling the

T h e w i d e diversity o f racial groups engaged i n the struggles is

water system to foreign investors w h o w o u l d establish a "proper sys-

obvious: i n addition to those o f European descent there are officially

tem o f charging." After the government followed the advice and

thirty-six different indigenous ethnicities or peoples i n B o l i v i a , the

sold the water supply system, the foreign consortium immediately

most numerous o f w h i c h are Aymara and Q u e c h u a , along w i t h v a r i -

raised local water rates 35 percent, at w h i c h time the protests began.

ous populations o f mixed-race heritage.This is one axis along w h i c h

T h e war over gas i n 2003 follows the same script. These are not iso-

the movements are plural or many-colored. T h e forms and sectors

lated incidents, moreover, but merely the most visible points o f a

o f labor are equally diverse, but this axis cannot be understood w i t h -

continuous high level o f mobilization throughout the country from

out some knowledge o f B o l i v i a n economic history. After the revo-

at least 2000 to 2005.What is most remarkable about these struggles

lution o f 1952 worker and peasant movements organized i n power-

is h o w they manage to coordinate a w i d e variety o f economic and

ful unions, and the B o l i v i a n miners along w i t h a relatively small

social demands i n horizontal networks, demonstrating perhaps more

industrial labor force played a central role i n national politics. T h e

clearly than any other experience the shift from antimodernity to

hegemony o f the o l d w o r k i n g class came to an end by the late 1980s,

altermodernity.

however, o w i n g to political and military repression and, more i m -

To appreciate the complexity o f this situation we have to rec-

portant, economic restructuring that transformed the B o l i v i a n labor

ognize h o w B o l i v i a n society and the movements present m u l t i p l i c i -

force. Some o f the largest mines were closed, and many o f the peas-

ties at every turn. First o f all, what is at stake i n these struggles is not

ants w h o had been recruited as mine workers a generation earlier

merely an economic problem (of land, labor, and natural resources),

had to migrate again i n search o f w o r k . As workers were increasingly

and neither is it only a racial, cultural, or civilizational problem. It is

forced to move from one place and one occupation to another, and

all o f these at once. Second, i n each o f these domains there is a m u l -

as an ever larger p o r t i o n o f the labor force had to w o r k w i t h o u t

tiplicity o f subjectivities engaged i n struggle. T h e sociologist R e n e

fixed contracts, the w o r k i n g class became more complex i n c o m p o -

Zavaleta captures this multiplicity w h e n he characterizes B o l i v i a i n

sition and, like other w o r k i n g classes throughout the w o r l d , had

109

110

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

ALTERMODERNITY

to become more flexible and mobile. T h e resulting multiplicity o f

means o f articulation o f the social, not as a hierarchical fusion but

workers and w o r k i n g conditions makes it no longer possible to or-

rather as provisional horizontal networks." T h e multitude-form is

69

ganize the class vertically i n centralized structures. M i n e r s can no

not a magic key that opens all doors, but it does pose adequately a

longer represent hegemonically the interests o f the entire B o l i v i a n

real political problem and posit as the m o d e l for addressing it an

w o r k i n g class, just as i n other countries autoworkers or steelworkers

open set o f social singularities that are autonomous and equal, capa-

can no longer play such a role. A l l relations o f hegemony and repre-

ble together, by articulating their actions o n parallel paths i n a h o r i -

sentation w i t h i n the w o r k i n g class are thus thrown into question. It

zontal network, o f transforming society.

70

is not even possible for the traditional unions to represent adequately

M u l t i t u d e is thus a concept o f applied parallelism, able to grasp

the complex multiplicity o f class subjects and experiences. This shift,

the specificity o f altermodern struggles, w h i c h are characterized by

however, signals no farewell to the w o r k i n g class or even a decline o f

relations o f autonomy, equality, and interdependence

worker struggle but rather an increasing multiplicity o f the pro-

multiplicities o f singularities. In the B o l i v i a n struggles, as i n so many

letariat and a new physiognomy o f struggles. T h e B o l i v i a n social

others like them throughout the w o r l d , there is no single figure o f

movements are "many-colored," then, along at least two intersecting

labor, such as the miners, that can guide or claim to represent all the

axes: the racial, ethnic, and cultural axis; and the axis o f the various

workers. Instead miners, industrial workers, peasants, unemployed

sectors o f labor engaged i n c o m m o n struggle.

68

among vast

people, students, domestic workers, and numerous other sectors o f

A group o f contemporary B o l i v i a n scholars following Zavaleta

labor participate equally i n the struggle. Similarly the B o l i v i a n strug-

use the term "multitude-form," i n contrast to the o l d class-form, to

gles are not led by non-indigenous groups or really by indigenous

name the internally differentiated struggles o f altermodernity. T h e

groups either. A multiplicity o f social singularities defined more or

multitude-form is what characterizes struggles i n a sociedad abigar-

less by their culture or ethnicity or labor position coordinate their

rada. Whereas Zavaleta saw the multitude as passive or merely spon-

struggles together i n the multitude. T h e guiding principle here is the

taneous because o f its multiplicity, i n contrast to the active unity o f

same one we saw earlier i n the context o f the Zapatistas: aimed at

the class, these contemporary scholars understand it as the protago-

not the recognition, preservation, or affirmation o f identities but the

nist o f a coherent political project. M u l t i t u d e is a f o r m o f political

power o f self-determination o f the multitude. In altermodernity the

organization that, o n the one hand, emphasizes the multiplicity o f

obstacles and the divisions o f antimodernity—particularly those be-

the social singularities i n struggle and, o n the other, seeks to c o o r d i -

tween civilizational and labor struggles—have been displaced by a

nate their c o m m o n actions and maintain their equality i n horizontal

new physiognomy o f struggles that poses multiplicity as a primary

organizational structures.The " C o o r d i n a t i o n for the Defense o f W a -

element o f the political project.

ter," for instance, w h i c h organizes the struggles i n Cochabamba i n

T h e struggles o f the B o l i v i a n multitude also demonstrate an-

2000 , is one such horizontal structure. W h a t the recent B o l i v i a n ex-

other essential feature o f altermodernity: its basis i n the c o m m o n . In

periences make clear, i n fact, is h o w the multitude-form manages to

the first place, the central demands o f these struggles are explicitly

construct political organization not only among the diverse c o m p o -

aimed at ensuring that resources, such as water and gas, w i l l not be

nents o f the w o r k i n g class, and not only among the multiplicity i n

privatized. T h e multitude o f altermodernity, i n this sense, runs c o u n -

the racial and ethnic domain, but also between these axes. " T h i s

ter to the republic o f property. Second, and more important, the

fragmentation o f the movements," Alvaro Garcia Linera explains,

struggles o f the multitude are based i n c o m m o n organizational

"expresses the structurally segmented ethnic, cultural, political, class,

structures, where the c o m m o n is seen as not a natural resource but

and regional reality o f society itself, w h i c h obliges us to reinvent the

a social product, and this c o m m o n is an inexhaustible source o f

111

112

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY

ALTERMODERNITY)

innovation and creativity. In the city o f E l A l t o , for instance, the

gles and move beyond them. T h e task o f altermodernity, w h i c h is

Committees for the Defense o f N a t i o n a l Gas, w h i c h animated the

illustrated by some social movements experimenting w i t h the m u l -

struggles i n 2003, functioned on the basis o f already existing local

titude form, is not only to resist and challenge the hierarchical rela-

practices and structures o f self-rule. E l A l t o is a sprawling suburb o f

tionships established by modernity and the identities o f antimo-

L a Paz, w h i c h is inhabited primarily by Aymara populations that

dernity but also to create alternative social relations based o n the

migrated to the capital from the rural highlands over the last twenty

c o m m o n . A l t e r m o d e r n i t y thus shares some attributes w i t h but is

years. O n the one hand, then, the struggles grew out o f and were

fundamentally different from the discourses o f hypermodernity and

conditioned by the organizational patterns and the practices o f self-

postmodernity.

government o f rural Aymara communities, w h i c h are based o n the

W e could say, i n a playful k i n d o f nationalist shorthand, that

c o m m o n : c o m m o n access to resources and property, c o m m o n re-

Germans are primarily responsible for the concept o f hypermoder-

sponsibilities for c o m m u n i t y affairs, and so forth. O n the other hand,

nity, U . S . intellectuals for postmodernity, and the French for alter-

the neighborhood councils i n E l A l t o , organized i n a citywide fed-

modernity—although our preference for the position o f altermo-

eration, f o r m another basis o f self-government. T h e neighborhood

dernity is not due to any sort o f Francophilia. A l l o f these concepts

councils supply a w i d e range o f services not provided by the gov-

pose some k i n d o f historical rupture i n or w i t h modernity, but the

ernment, from education to health care and other social services,

nature o f that break and the possibilities it opens are different i n i m -

making decisions about shared resources and citizen responsibilities.

portant ways. B y "hypermodernity" we mean to group together all

W h e n the mass mobilization broke out i n 2003, then, it was not, as

those concepts, such as second modernity and reflexive modernity

some assumed, a spontaneous rebellion but a mature organizational

articulated by authors such as U l r i c h B e c k and Jiirgen Habermas,

structure that grew directly out o f already existing networks and

that propose i n the contemporary w o r l d no break w i t h the p r i n c i -

7

well-established practices o f self-government. '

ples o f modernity but rather a transformation o f some o f m o d e r n i -

This vision o f a multitude composed o f a set o f singularities

ty's major institutions.These perspectives do recognize well many o f

and based o n practices o f self-determination and the c o m m o n is still

the structural changes o f the nation-state, the deployments and reg-

missing one essential element o f altermodernity: its constant meta-

ulations o f labor and capitalist production, the biopolitical organiza-

morphosis, its mixture and movement. Every singularity is a social

tion o f society, the nuclear family, and so forth, but none o f this i m -

becoming. W h a t the multitude presents, then, is not only a sociedad

plies for them a break w i t h modernity, and indeed they do not see

abigarrada engaged i n c o m m o n struggle but also a society constantly

that as a desirable outcome. Rather they envision m o d e r n i z i n g m o -

i n the process o f metamorphosis. Resistance and the collaboration

dernity and perfecting it by applying its principles i n a reflexive way

w i t h others, after all, is always a transformative experience. R a t h e r

to its o w n institutions. T h i s hypermodernity, however, i n our view,

than a static mosaic o f many-colored parts, this society is more like a

simply continues the hierarchies that are central to modernity, put-

kaleidoscope i n w h i c h the colors are constantly shifting to f o r m

ting its faith i n reform, not resistance, and thus does not challenge

new and more beautiful patterns, even m e l d i n g together to make

capitalist rule, even w h e n recognizing the new forms o f the "real

new colors.

subsumption" o f society w i t h i n capital.

72

Postmodernity marks a m u c h more substantial rupture than

Rupture and Constitution

hypermodernity, posing the end o f the core elements o f modernity,

In this chapter we have traveled some o f the landscapes o f altermo-

w h i c h is cause for celebration for some authors and for others l a -

dernity, emphasizing h o w they both grow out o f antimodern strug-

ment. In our previous w o r k we too have employed the concept o f

113

MODERNITY

( A N D THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY

ALTERMODERNITY)

postmodernity to emphasize the importance o f the historical break

l o n g ago washed away any residue o f those illusions. A n d i n contrast

that presents new conditions and new possibilities i n a w i d e variety

to most propositions o f postmodernity, altermodernity provides a

o f social fields: o n the economic terrain, for example, w i t h the reor-

strong n o t i o n o f n e w values, new knowledges, and new practices; i n

ganization o f relations o f production i n the emergence o f the hege-

short, altermodernity constitutes a dispositif for the production o f

m o n y o f immaterial production; and o n the political terrain w i t h

subjectivity.

the decline o f structures o f national sovereignty and the emergence

To construct a definition o f altermodernity o n its o w n terms

o f global mechanisms o f control. T h e term "postmodernity," h o w -

n o w and not simply i n contrast to other concepts, we propose three

ever, is conceptually ambiguous since it is primarily a negative des-

general lines o f investigation, each o f w h i c h designates histories o f

ignation, focusing o n what has ended. In fact many authors w h o af-

struggle that come together i n altermodernity. T h e first is a line o f

f i r m the concept o f postmodernity can be linked to the traditions o f 73

"negative thought" a n d / o r philosophies o f Krisis.

T h e y focus o n

the destructive destiny o f Enlightenment and the powerlessness o f reason i n the face o f the new figures o f power; but despite their strong protest and denunciation o f the incapacity o f reason to react to the crisis, they have no recognition o f the capacities o f existing subjectivities to resist this power and strive for liberation. T h e p h i losophers o f Krisis thus correctly grasp, perhaps i n some cases w i t h out k n o w i n g it, the definitive decline o f the dominant line o f E n lightenment thought and its Eurocentrism, but they can only offer weak thought and aestheticism w h i l e presiding over the tomb o f Enlightenment critique—and, naturally, around the tomb they start 74

talking o f theology. T h e various theories o f postmodernity, w h i c h are extraordinarily diverse, generally allude to the

contemporary

volatility o f social norms and conventions, but the term itself does not capture a strong notion o f resistance or articulate what constitutes " b e y o n d " modernity.

European Enlightenment or, better, an alternative line w i t h i n E u r o pean Enlightenment. W e gave an example o f this earlier by tracing the connections among Machiavelli, Spinoza, and M a r x . Ever since the beginnings o f bourgeois society and m o d e r n European p h i losophy, this line has designated the search for absolute democracy against sovereign absolutism however it is organized, even i n republican guise.

75

M a n y o f the central figures i n the canon o f European

philosophy, such as Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, o c cupy ambiguous positions w i t h respect to this line; but the need to critique them and European thought as a w h o l e should never make us forget that the tradition and its major philosophers also contain extraordinarily powerful conceptions o f liberation.The desire to free humanity from the weight o f poverty and exploitation, superstition, and domination may at times be submerged and made unrecognizable by the dominant transcendental formation that legitimates and consolidates the power relations o f modernity, but it c o n t i n ues nonetheless i n European thought as an alternative, subterranean

Altermodernity, i n contrast, marks a more profound rupture

line.

w i t h modernity than either hyper- or postmodernity. In fact it is

Workers' movements throughout the w o r l d constitute a sec-

two removes from modernity since it is first grounded i n the strug-

o n d line that, i n often dramatic and sometimes tragic fashion, has

gles o f antimodernity and their resistance to the hierarchies at the

run along the borders among modernity, antimodernity, and alter-

core o f modernity; and second it breaks w i t h antimodernity, refus-

modernity. Here too, i n both Marxist theory and socialist practice,

ing the dialectical opposition and m o v i n g from resistance to the

the alternative line has often been submerged and made unrecog-

proposition o f alternatives. There is no faith here that the core p r i n -

nizable. In the dominant theories o f the workers' movements the

ciples o f modernity can be reformed and perfected as there is for the

ideology o f the linearity o f progress and capitalist development has

proponents o f hypermodernity.The struggles o f antimodernity have

often been coupled w i t h the c o n v i c t i o n that European thought and

115

116

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

ALTERMODERNITY

society are the source o f innovation and thus prefigure the future

to define the organization o f labor actually permeates the entire so-

course o f the rest o f the world. T h e socialist states and "really exist-

ciety. W i t h i n the experiences o f really existing socialism, i n other

i n g socialism" always h i d i n their closets the certainty that the p r o -

words, the passage to the rule o f biopower took its complete form,

ductive relations o f capitalist modernity have to be maintained and

and thus the forces o f biopolitics emerge here too, configuring the

that progress has to proceed through "stages o f development." A n

lines o f altermodernity.

unrelenting critique o f this, however, should not blind us to the al-

A third line links together the forces o f antimodernity that re-

ternative line that exists throughout the tradition. W e have to keep

sist coloniality, imperialism, and the innumerable permutations o f

i n m i n d the moments o f powerful ambivalence that, as we saw ear-

racialized rule. W e described earlier the danger that such movements

lier, characterize the central thinkers i n the tradition: i n the early

get stuck i n a reactive, oppositional position and never get out o f the

and late M a r x , i n his attempts to recognize c o m m u n i s m i n the c r i -

dialectic w i t h modernity. B u t an even graver danger is that success-

tique o f private property and i n his critiques o f the Eurocentric,

ful revolts end up reproducing the hierarchical power relations o f

progressivist nature o f his o w n theories; i n the reappearing tendency

modernity. H o w many victorious national liberation struggles have

i n Lenin's thought to reopen the terrain o f anti-imperialist struggle

led to the construction o f postcolonial states that merely perpetuate

and pull communist action away from the structural block o f cap-

capitalist relations o f property and c o m m a n d o n the basis o f a small

italist development; and i n the contradiction i n M a o between the

group o f elites, conforming to the position o f the nation at the bot-

drive to further a radical anticapitalist revolution w i t h the construc-

t o m o f the global hierarchy and accepting the fact that large por-

tion o f a new civilization based o n the c o m m o n and the bureau-

tions o f their population are condemned to misery! A n d yet w i t h i n

cratic construction o f a market economy and authoritarian state, a

the traditions o f antimodernity there always lives the possible emer-

tension that runs from the guerrilla war against the Japanese and the

gence o f altermodern forces and forms, especially, as we have seen,

L o n g M a r c h to the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural R e v o l u -

whenever the c o m m o n appears as the basis and goal o f struggles—

tion. (Perhaps, i n fact, the best approach to understanding the 1989

not only the c o m m o n as a given element such as land or natural re-

Tiananmen revolt is to read the demands o f the Beijing students and

sources but also and more important the c o m m o n as a result such as

workers as an attempt to renew the radical hope o f this democratic

networks o f social relations or forms o f life.

line against the sirens and violence o f the new structures o f capitalist discipline and management that the party hierarchy was i n the process o f imposing.) Despite the defeats and catastrophes o f this tradition, though, i n the reality o f revolutionary experience i n the l i b eration struggles against exploitation and hierarchy, and i n all the moments o f antimodern resistance there has also been present an alternative path that poses the possibility o f breaking definitively w i t h the relation o f c o m m a n d that modernity invented. Years from n o w we may be able to l o o k back and see that the result o f really existing socialism and its collapse was to demonstrate h o w the social relationship between exploitation and domination that seemed only

N o n e o f these three lines, however, is alone sufficient to c o n struct an adequate definition o f altermodernity. O u r hypothesis is that the forces o f antimodernity i n each o f these three domains, continually defeated and contained i n the past, can be reproposed today as altermodernity w h e n they link w i t h the lines o f resistance in the other domains. T h e capitalist totality is not, as it seemed to many, the point o f arrival or end o f history where all antagonisms can be absorbed, but rather the limit o n w h i c h resistances proliferate throughout the sphere o f production and all the realms o f social life. T h e three lines have to be woven together i n such a way as to recognize the metamorphosis, the anthropological transformation

117

118

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

that altermodernity requires. As Frantz Fanon and C h e Guevara affirmed, i n different contexts, i n order to defeat modernity and go beyond antimodernity, a new humanity must be created. This passage from a n d - to altermodernity illuminates some aspects o f the contemporary role o f the intellectual. First, although

DE HOMINE

1: BIOPOLITICAL

REASON

c r i t i q u e — o f normative structures, social hierarchies, exploitation, and so forth—remains necessary, it is not a sufficient basis for intellectual activity. T h e intellectual must be able also to create new theoretical and social arrangements, translating the practices and desires

Imagine people who could only think aloud. (As there are people

o f the struggles into norms and institutions, proposing new modes

who can only read aloud.)

o f social organization. T h e critical vocation, i n other words, must be

—Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, no. 331*

pushed forward to move continually from rupture w i t h the past toward charting a new future. Second, there is no place for vanguards here or even intellectuals organic to the forces o f progress i n the

In his History of Madness, Foucault not only details h o w

Gramscian sense. T h e intellectual is and can only be a militant, en-

madness is invented through a series o f enclosures and exclusions o f

gaged as a singularity among others, embarked o n the project o f c o -

mentalities and populations, and not only, by revealing this history,

research aimed at m a k i n g the multitude. T h e intellectual is thus not

seeks to undermine the sovereign rule o f reason, but also points to-

"out i n front" to determine the movements o f history or " o n the

ward another truth that lies beyond madness. "Is it possible," F o u -

sidelines" to critique them but rather completely "inside."The func-

cault speculates, "that the production o f the truth o f madness is

tion o f the intellectual today, though i n many ways radically differ-

manifest i n forms that are not those o f relations o f k n o w l e d g e ? "

ent, shares some aspects w i t h the one developed i n the context o f

T h e perspective o f altermodernity lies i n that other rationality,

the patristics i n the first centuries o f Christianity. That was i n many

w h i c h extends beyond the reason/madness couple. B u t what is the

respects a revolutionary movement w i t h i n an E m p i r e that organized

truth beyond madness? O r more simply, h o w is this other possible

the p o o r against power and required not only a radical break w i t h

and where can it be found?

traditional knowledge and customs but also an invention o f new

76

O n e logical response to these questions is to l o o k for a truth

systems o f thought and practicejust as today we must find a way out

and a rationality outside. As soon as one cites Foucault's study o f

o f capitalist modernity to invent a new culture and new modes o f

madness, i n fact, one should extend it beyond the European limits

life. Let's call this, then, only half facetiously, a new patristic, i n w h i c h

o f his thought to analyze the effects o f colonial reason o n and the

the intellectual is charged w i t h the task not only to denounce error

attribution o f madness to the c o l o n i z e d .

and unmask illusions, and not only to incarnate the mechanisms o f

erful critiques o f epistemology i n the latter half o f the twentieth

new practices o f knowledge, but also, together w i t h others i n a pro-

century do establish standpoints outside or elsewhere, grounded i n

cess o f co-research, to produce a new truth.

identity and the position o f the subordinated. "Caliban's reason"

77

Some o f the most p o w -

and decolonial epistemologies are examples that confront E u r o c e n trism; and feminist epistemologies have challenged the force o f gender domination i n the production o f thought and k n o w l e d g e .

78

120

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

DE

HOMINE

1: B I O P O L I T I C A L

REASON

O n e o f the great contributions o f these frameworks has been to

following Spinoza's conception o f " c o m m o n notions," o n the pro-

unmask the false universality and objectivity o f traditional episte-

duction and productivity o f the c o m m o n through collective social

mologies, demonstrating that those systems o f knowledge are e m -

practices. L i k e the universal, the c o m m o n lays claim to truth, but

bedded w i t h i n the hierarchies and power relations that characterize

rather than descending from above, this truth is constructed from

modernity.

below.

T h e external standpoint and the foundation i n identity that

80

This leads directly to our second guiding intuition: that epis-

give such epistemological critiques their power can also, as many o f

temology has to be grounded o n the terrain o f struggle—struggle

the practitioners are keenly aware, prove to be a limitation. D o n n a

that not only drives the critique o f the present reality o f d o m i n a -

Haraway, for example, warns that any search for a standpoint out-

tion but also animates the constitution o f another reality. Saying

side, based i n identity, is tinged w i t h the dream o f returning to a

that truth is constructed from below means that it is forged through

79

Garden o f E d e n , a site o f absolute purity. A n o t h e r way o f posing

resistance and practices o f the c o m m o n . O u r conception o f the

this danger, to use the slogan we derived from Fanon earlier, is that

biopolitical and its development, then, is not just analogous to the

such projects risk getting stuck i n antimodernity. In epistemology

political passage from antimodernity to altermodernity, as we sug-

as i n politics, we need to focus o n the forces o f critique and resis-

gested earlier. It is i n some sense the same process o f struggle seen

tance that are inside modernity and from this internal position dis-

n o w through a different attribute—a biopolitical struggle that pro-

cover the means to create an alternative. T h e passage from anti- to

duces at once a new reality and a new truth.

altermodernity, i n the epistemological context, must lead to a b i o political conception o f rationality. Two intuitions serve us as initial guides for e x p l o r i n g the ter-

Discovering a basis for knowledge i n the c o m m o n involves, first o f all, a critique o f the pretense o f objectivity o f the scientific tradition, but one that, o f course, does not search for an outside to

rain o f biopolitical reason. First, the experience of the common provides

that tradition. This critique instead arises from the inside, through

a framework for breaking the epistemological impasse created by

what Foucault calls "the insurrection o f knowledges . . . against the

the opposition o f the universal and the particular. O n c e we have

centralizing power-effects that are b o u n d up w i t h the institutional-

critiqued the false universals that characterize dominant m o d e r n

ization and workings o f any scientific discourse organized i n a soci-

rationality, any new attempt to promote universal truths is rightly

ety such as ours." T h e critique o f the objectivity o f science, w h i c h

viewed w i t h suspicion, because the critique has unmasked not only

is allied w i t h the politics o f truth that has supported and developed

those specific claims to universality but also the transcendent or

colonial, capitalist, masculinist, and imperial practices o f d o m i n a -

transcendental basis o n w h i c h universal truths are proclaimed. It is

tion, has n o w become conventional and widely accepted, at least

not sufficient, though, i n reaction to this, simply to limit ourselves

w i t h i n progressive scholarly circles. W h a t interests us specifically,

to particular knowledges w i t h no claim to truth. T h e c o m m o n cuts

though, and is revealed especially from the internal, insurrectionary

diagonally across the opposition between the universal and the par-

perspective, is that a c o m m o n subject is formed here that has n o t h -

ticular. N o r m a l usage o f the terms " c o m m o n sense" and " c o m m o n

ing to do w i t h the transcendental.

knowledge" captures some o f what we have i n m i n d insofar as they

81

T h e emergence o f the c o m m o n , i n fact, is what has attracted

extend beyond the limitations o f the particular and grasp a certain

so many authors to the epistemological and political possibilities

social generality, but these terms generally v i e w the c o m m o n as

opened by L u d w i g Wittgenstein's notions o f language games and

something passive, already given i n society. W e concentrate instead,

forms o f life. " S o y o u are saying that human agreement decides

121

122

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

DE

ALTERMODERNITY)

HOMINE

1: B I O P O L I T I C A L

REASON

what is true and what is false?"Wittgenstein asks himself rhetori-

tity" or natural totality, so too every use o f the n o t i o n o f the c o m -

cally. A n d he responds: "It is what human beings say that is true and

m o n must begin w i t h its critique. T h e c o m m o n is thus i n the

false; and they agree i n the language they use.That is not agreement

paradoxical position as being a ground or presupposition that is also

86

i n opinions but i n f o r m o f life [Lebensform] . " W e should highlight

the result o f the process. O u r analysis, then, from this point o n i n

two aspects ofWittgenstein's operation. First, by grounding truth i n

our research, should be aimed at not "being c o m m o n " but " m a k i n g

language and language games, he removes truth from any fixity i n

the c o m m o n . "

82

the transcendental and locates it o n the fluid, changeable terrain o f

Some contemporary anthropologists, pursuing a path parallel

practice, shifting the terms o f discussion from k n o w i n g to doing.

to ours, arrive at a similar conclusion about the role o f the c o m -

Second, after destabilizing truth he restores to it a consistency. L i n -

m o n i n an alternative, biopolitical rationality, w h i c h goes beyond

guistic practice is constituent o f a truth that is organized i n forms

the division between nature and culture, between Naturwissen-

o f life: "to imagine a language means to imagine a f o r m o f life."

83

schaften and Geisteswissenschaften. EduardoViveiros de Castro, for ex-

Wittgenstein's concepts manage to evade o n one side individual,

ample, uses the u n m o d e r n ontology o f Amerindians o f the B r a z i l -

haphazard experience and, o n the other, transcendental identities

ian A m a z o n as a standpoint to critique the tradition o f m o d e r n

and truths, revealing instead, between or beyond them, the c o m -

epistemology. H e provocatively poses the A m e r i n d i a n perspective as

m o n . Language and language games, after all, are organizations and

an inversion o f a series o f conventional m o d e r n philosophical posi-

expressions o f the c o m m o n , as is the n o t i o n o f a f o r m o f l i f e . W i t -

tions to explain the consequences o f the fact that Amerindians c o n -

tgensteinian biopolitics moves from knowledge through collective

ceive animals and other nonhumans as "persons," as kinds o f h u -

practice to life, all o n the terrain o f the c o m m o n .

84

N u m e r o u s other instances i n the philosophical tradition o f

mans, such that human interactions w i t h what w o u l d normally be called "nature" take a f o r m something like "social relations." As a

the critique o f epistemology are similarly linked to the c o m m o n .

result, whereas m o d e r n philosophy (from K a n t to Heisenberg) pos-

Earlier, for example, we explored briefly that path i n p h e n o m e n o l -

its that the point o f view creates the object, here the point o f view

ogy that leads from M e r l e a u - P o n t y to Levinas and D e r r i d a , i n

creates the subject; and whereas m o d e r n philosophy conceives o f

w h i c h the critique o f knowledge is c o m b i n e d w i t h an analytics o f

one nature and many cultures, here there is one culture (all are i n

Mitsein (being-with), w h i c h is, o f course, another powerful concep-

some sense human) but many natures (occupying different worlds).

tion o f the c o m m o n . T h e question, however, is not simply reference

Viveiros de Castro thus discovers, i n contrast to the "multicultural-

to the c o m m o n but where the c o m m o n is posed—whether the

i s m " o f m o d e r n philosophy, an A m e r i n d i a n "multinaturalism":

c o m m o n is, o n the one hand, naturalized or i n some other way hy-

" O n e culture, multiple natures—one epistemology, multiple o n t o l -

postatized or, on the other, grounded i n collective practice. C o n -

ogies. Perspectivism implies multinaturalism, for a perspective is not

sider, for example, the k i n d o f hypostasis that is familiar to func-

a representation. A perspective is not a representation because rep-

tionalist anthropology and sociology. Philippe Descola characterizes

resentations are a property o f the m i n d or spirit, whereas the point

such functionalism as a perspective i n w h i c h all o f the constitutive

o f v i e w is located i n the body," and "what I call 'body' is not a syn-

elements o f a natural set agree—based o n a definite place—serving

o n y m for distinctive substance or fixed shape; body is i n this sense 87

to perpetuate a stable totality. Just as Claude Levi-Strauss asserts

an assemblage o f affects or ways o f being that constitute a habitus."

that "every use o f the concept o f identity must begin w i t h the c r i -

M u l t i p l e ontologies do not imply fixed divisions between beings.

tique o f this notion," that is, the critique o f every "substantial i d e n -

Rather Viveiros de Castro describes, i n his study o f Arawete cos-

85

123

MODERNITY

(AND THE LANDSCAPES

O F A.LTER.W. QQE.P, N,i.T V \

DE

HOMINE

1: B I O P O L I T I C A L

REASON

mology, a universe where B e c o m i n g is p r i o r to B e i n g and where

i n opposition, the c o m m o n and singularity are not just compatible

the relation to alterity is not just a means o f establishing identity

but mutually constitutive.

but a constant process: becoming-jaguar, b e c o m i n g other.

88

Our

W e are n o w i n the position to offer provisionally three char-

aim here—andViveiros de Castro's too—is not to advocate an u n -

acteristics that a biopolitical reason w o u l d have to fulfill: it w o u l d

m o d e r n A m e r i n d i a n ontology but rather to use that perspective to

have to put rationality at the service o f life; technique at the service

critique m o d e r n epistemology and push it toward an altermodern

o f ecological needs, where by ecological we mean not simply the

rationality. As we saw i n the route we took through Wittgenstein,

preservation o f nature but the development and reproduction o f

here too what is required is a shift o f emphasis from k n o w i n g to

"social" relations, as Viveiros de Castro says, between humans and

doing, generating a multiplicity o f beings constantly open to alter-

nonhumans; and the accumulation o f wealth at the service o f the

ity that are revealed through the perspective o f the body, w h i c h is

c o m m o n . That makes it clear (to move n o w through the same three

an assemblage o f affects or ways o f being, w h i c h is to say, forms o f life—all o f w h i c h rests o n a process o f m a k i n g the c o m m o n . B r u n o Latour arrives by different means at a similar affirma-

items i n inverse order) that economic valorization is no longer possible except o n the basis o f the social appropriation o f c o m m o n goods; that the reproduction o f the lifeworld and its physical envi-

tion that the c o m m o n must be constructed, but he is satisfied at

ronment is no longer possible except w h e n technologies are d i -

that point simply to conclude: we must organize the tatonnement,

rectly controlled by the project o f the c o m m o n ; and that rationality

that is, the groping trial and error o f experience. W e agree w i t h L a -

can no longer function except as an instrument o f the c o m m o n

tour that, between nature and culture, we always experience the

freedom o f the multitude, as a mechanism for the institution o f the

w o r l d i n fragments, but we insist o n a m u c h stronger power, not to

common.

recompose some lost totalities but to translate them into the fabric o f a c o m m o n experience and through practice to constitute from them a new f o r m o f life.

A l l o f this remains lifeless and inert, however, unless b i o p o l i t i cal reason is grounded o n the terrain o f collective practice, where

89

W h e n we place so m u c h weight o n the c o m m o n , as we do

the state o f b e i n g - i n - c o m m o n is transformed into a process o f making the c o m m o n . T h e collective practice o f biopolitical reason

here, some are likely to object that this amounts to an assumption

has to take the f o r m o f strategic investigation, a f o r m o f militancy.

o f sameness or identity that denies or negates difference. W e should

This is necessary, first o f all, because, as we argued i n De Corpore 1,

emphasize, on the contrary, that w h e n the c o m m o n appears i n the

i n the biopolitical context truth is b o r n and dies as an event o f be-

thought ofWittgenstein orViveiros de Castro, it brings w i t h it an

ing, produced by a c o m m o n experience. Spinoza jokes at one point

affirmation o f singularities. Wittgenstein's conceptions o f language

that i n order to speak the truth o f the sestertius or the imperial

games and forms o f life present the c o m m o n only insofar as they

(two different coins) that I have i n my hand and grasp their value, I

engage alterity: the c o m m o n is composed o f interactions among

have to refer to the c o m m o n voice that gives them monetary value.

singularities, such as singularities o f linguistic expression. T h e same

T r u t h can only be proclaimed out l o u d . In De Homine 1, however,

is true for the A m e r i n d i a n multiple ontologies and the processes o f

we see that truth must be not only proclaimed but also acted,

b e c o m i n g thatViveiros de Castro describes. Differences i n perspec-

w h i c h Spinoza identifies w i t h the formula experientia sive praxis, the

tive mark differences over not only opinions or principles but also

principle o f a truth formed by the activism o f subjects w h o want to

what w o r l d we inhabit—or really they indicate that we inhabit dif-

live a c o m m o n life. N o transcendent or transcendental force can

ferent worlds. A n d yet every w o r l d is defined by becomings, c o n -

stand between subjects and truth, citizens and their p o w e r . " W i t h

stantly engaged w i t h alterity. Whereas identity and difference stand

regard to political theory," Spinoza writes, "the difference between

126

DE

MQDE.R.N.I.T.Y l,«.M.fl T,M,(L i . M W ^ W f i " W - W l T I W f l H I C B W I T I T T T )

HOMINE

1: B I O P O L I T I C A L

REASON

Hobbes and m y s e l f . . . consists i n this, that I always preserve the

rent relations offeree aimed at subverting the dominant powers

natural right i n its entirety, and I h o l d that the sovereign power i n a

and reorienting forces i n a determinate direction. T h e strategic p r o -

State has right over a subject only i n proportion to the excess o f its

duction o f knowledge i n this sense implies immediately an alterna-

power over that o f a subject. This is always the case i n a state o f na-

tive production o f subjectivity. T h e dynamic o f the dispositif not

ture." Said out l o u d , the truth is produced i n action made i n c o m -

only extends from a knowledge process to the prescription o f sub-

m o n , without intermediaries.

jectivity but also is always open to the constitution o f the c o m m o n ,

90

T h e k i n d o f strategic investigation we have i n m i n d resembles,

internal, one might say, to history and life, and engages i n the pro-

o n the one hand, the traditional Marxist "factory investigation" that

cess o f revolutionizing them. Biopolitical reason is thus defined by

inquired into the conditions and relations o f workers w i t h a c o m -

a k i n d o f ontological resonance between the dispositifs and the

bination o f sociological detachment and political goals, but re-

common.

mained fundamentally external to the situation, i n the hands o f the party intellectual elite.

91

It also resembles, o n the other, the k i n d o f

A l l we have just said via Foucault, however, has also been reached via a series o f different routes through the discussions i n -

interactive production o f knowledge c o m m o n to the "teach-ins" o f

ternal to the movements o f the multitude i n the last few decades.

the 1960s, w h i c h was indeed conceived as a k i n d o f ethical practice

O n e o f these routes took off from the crisis o f the industrial w o r k -

entirely invested i n the c o m m o n fabric o f the social situation, but

ers' movements and their scientific knowledges i n the 1960s. Intel-

one w h i c h was not effectively m o b i l i z e d as political action.

92

Closer

lectuals w i t h i n and outside the factories struggled to appropriate

to the strategic investigation we have i n m i n d is a third conception,

the process o f knowledge production from the party hierarchy, de-

w h i c h incorporates elements o f these two but goes beyond them:

veloping a method o f "co-research" to construct together w i t h

Foucault's use o f the n o t i o n o f dispositifs, that is, the material, social,

workers alternative knowledges from below that are completely i n -

affective, and cognitive mechanisms active i n the production o f sub-

ternal to the situation and intervene i n the current power rela-

jectivity. Foucault defines the dispositifas a network o f heteroge-

tions. A n o t h e r route has been forged by professors and students

neous elements oriented by a strategic purpose:

w h o take their w o r k outside the universities both to put their ex-

94

pertise at the service o f social movements and to enrich their reB y dispositif I understand a sort o f formation, let's say, whose

search by learning from the movements and participating i n the

primary function, at a given historical moment, is to respond

production o f knowledge developed there. Such militant research is

to a demand [urgence].The dispositif thus has an eminently stra-

conceived not as c o m m u n i t y service—as a sacrifice o f scholarly

tegic function [which means that] it involves a certain m a n i p -

value to meet a moral obligation—but as superior i n scholarly

ulation o f relations o f force, a rational and concerted interven-

terms because it opens a greater power o f knowledge p r o d u c t i o n .

95

tion i n those relations o f force, either to develop them i n

A third route, w h i c h has developed primarily among the globaliza-

some direction or to block them or to stabilize and utilize

tion movements i n recent years, adopts the methods o f " c o -

them. T h e dispositif is thus always inscribed i n a power relation

research" developed experimentally i n the factories and applies

[unjeu de pouvoir], but always also tied to one or several limits

them to the entire terrain o f biopolitical production. In social cen-

o f knowledge, w h i c h derive from it and, at the same time,

ters and n o m a d universities, o n W e b sites and i n movement j o u r -

condition i t .

93

Foucault's notion o f strategic knowledge allows us to conceive the collective production o f the c o m m o n as an intervention i n the cur-

nals, extraordinarily advanced forms o f militant knowledge production have developed that are completely embedded i n the circuits o f social practice.

96

B y all these routes, strategic investigation is al-

127

128

MODERNITY

( A N D THE L A N D S C A P E S

OF

ALTERMODERNITY)

ways the production o f knowledge through dispositifs. It is active engagement w i t h the production o f subjectivity i n order to trans-

PART 3

form reality, w h i c h ultimately involves the production o f new truths. " R e v o l u t i o n a r y dreams erupt out o f political engagement," writes R o b i n Kelley; "collective social movements are incubators o f new knowledge."

97

Strategic investigation is really something y o u

cannot talk about without doing it.

CAPITAL (AND THE S T R U G G L E S OVER C O M M O N

WEALTH)

We keep l o o k i n g for confirmations and verifications o f our practice i n reality, h o p i n g they w i l l be revolutionary, E n z o M e l a n d r i says, but really there is no shortage o f confirmations. W h a t are lacking are revolutions. W e have to stop focusing o n the haystack and find the needle. This w i l l succeed or fail w i t h the fluctuating fortunes o f revolution.

98

Therefore we require, and we resolve to take both C o m m o n land, and C o m m o n woods to be a livelihood for us, and look upon you as equal with us, not above us, knowing very well that England, the land of our Nativity, is to be a common Treasury of livelihood to all, without respect to persons. —Gerrard Winstanley et al., " A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England"

3.1

METAMORPHOSES

OF THE

C O M P O S I T I O N OF C A P I T A L

The effect of writing in a foreign language on our mind is like the effect of repeated perspectives in a camera obscura, in which the camera obscura is able to render with precision distinct images that correspond to real objects and perspectives in such a way that the effect depends on the camera obscura rather than on the real object. —Giacomo Leopardi, Zibaldone

The Technical Composition of Biopolitical Labor E c o n o m i c production is going through a period o f transition i n w h i c h increasingly the results o f capitalist production are social relations and forms o f life. Capitalist production, i n other words, is bec o m i n g biopolitical. Before we start inventing new tools for this new situation, we should return to Marx's method for grasping the current state o f economic life: to investigate the composition o f capital, w h i c h involves distinguishing the proportion and role o f laborpower and constant capital i n the contemporary production p r o cesses. A n d , specifically, we need to investigate first the "technical composition" o f capital or, really, the technical composition o f labor to ascertain w h o produces, what they produce, and h o w they produce i n today's global economy. D e t e r m i n i n g the general outlines o f the technical composition o f labor w i l l give us a basis for not only recognizing the contemporary forms o f capitalist exploitation and control but also gauging the means at our disposal for a project o f liberation from capital.

134

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

ME

TAMORPHOSES

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

CAPITAL

sion o f labor. O n the contrary! Affective labor is required o f w o m e n

strained to specific routes, often entailing extreme dangers. A t the

disproportionately o n and off the job. In fact any w o m a n w h o is not

same time, labor markets are also qualitatively transformed. O n the

w i l l i n g to do affective labor o n call—smile appropriately, tend to

one hand, the gender o f labor migration is shifting such that w o m e n

hurt feelings, knit social relationships, and generally perform care

are constituting an increasing portion o f the flows, both to take jobs

and nurturing—is viewed as a k i n d o f monster. Despite their mas-

traditionally designated for w o m e n — s u c h as domestic w o r k , sex

sive entry into the wage labor force, furthermore, w o m e n are still

w o r k , elder care, and nursing—and also to occupy l o w - s k i l l , labor-

primarily responsible i n countries throughout the w o r l d for unpaid

intensive positions i n manufacturing sectors, such as electronics, tex-

domestic and reproductive labor, such as housework and child care,

tiles, footwear, and toys, where y o u n g female workers are n o w pre-

as well as bearing a greater burden o f informal-sector jobs i n both

dominant. T h i s shift goes hand i n hand w i t h the "feminization" o f

rural and urban areas. Women's double workday is a powerful o b -

work, often c o m b i n e d w i t h the racial stereotype o f the "nimble f i n -

stacle to greater education and access to better and better-paid work.

gers" o f w o m e n i n the global South. "Ideas o f flexibility, temporal-

T h e transformations o f labor along the lines o f some qualities tradi-

ity, invisibility, and domesticity i n the naturalization o f categories o f

tionally associated w i t h women's w o r k and the increasing entry o f

work," writes Chandra Mohanty, "are crucial i n the construction o f

w o m e n into the wage labor force have i n most cases resulted i n

T h i r d - W o r l d w o m e n as an appropriate cheap labor force." O n the

worsening conditions for w o m e n (as well as men). T h e misleading

other hand, labor migration is (and has always been) characterized

aspects o f the term "feminization" are one reason we find it more

by racial division and conflict. Migrations sometimes highlight the

useful, as l o n g as we keep i n m i n d the gendered nature o f these p r o -

global racial divisions o f labor by crossing their boundaries, and at

cesses, to understand these shifts as labor becoming biopolitical, w h i c h

other times, especially i n the dominant countries, racial hierarchies

emphasizes the increasingly blurred boundaries between labor and

become flashpoints for conflict. M i g r a t i o n , however, even w h e n it

life, and between production and reproduction.

5

T h e third major trend o f the technical composition o f labor is the result o f new patterns o f migration and processes o f social and

6

creates conditions o f extraordinary hardship and suffering, always holds the potential to subvert and transform racial division, i n both economic and social terms, through exodus and confrontation.

racial mixture. A l l levels o f capitalist enterprises i n the dominant

These three major trends pose significant challenges to tradi-

countries, from huge corporations to small businesses, from agri-

tional concepts and methods o f political economy i n large part be-

business to manufacturing, from domestic labor to construction,

cause biopolitical production shifts the economic center o f gravity

need constant flows o f both legal and illegal migrants to supplement

from the production o f material commodities to that o f social rela-

the local labor force—and this continually generates ideological

tions, confusing, as we said, the division between production and

conflicts w i t h i n the capitalist classes, as we w i l l see later, constrained

reproduction. Intangible values and intangible assets, as economists

as they are by their pocketbooks to favor migrant flows but opposed

call them, pose a problem because the methods o f economic analysis

to them i n their moral, nationalist, and often racist consciousnesses.

generally rely o n quantitative measures and calculate the value o f

There are also enormous south-to-south international flows o f l a -

objects that can be counted, such as cars, computers, and tons o f

bor and massive migrations w i t h i n single countries, often i n very

wheat. T h e critique o f political economy, too, i n c l u d i n g the Marxist

specific sectors o f production. These migrations transform labor

tradition, has generally focused o n measurement and quantitative

markets i n quantitative terms, m a k i n g them properly global, even

methods to understand surplus value and exploitation. Biopolitical

though, o f course, movements o f labor are not free but highly c o n -

products, however, tend to exceed all quantitative measurement and

135

136

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

METAMORPHOSES

WEALTH)

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

137

CAPITAL

take common forms, w h i c h are easily shared and difficult to corral as

these i n more detail next, but we should keep an eye out from the

private property. If we return to M a r x i n this new light, we find that

beginning, following Foucault's intuition, for h o w biopolitical pro-

the progression o f definitions o f capital i n his w o r k actually gives us

duction, particularly i n the ways it exceeds the bounds o f capitalist

an important clue for analyzing this biopolitical context. A l t h o u g h

relations and constantly refers to the c o m m o n , grants labor increas-

wealth i n capitalist society first appears as an immense collective o f

ing autonomy and provides the tools or weapons that c o u l d be

commodities, M a r x reveals that capital is really a process o f the cre-

wielded i n a project o f liberation.

ation o f surplus value via the production o f commodities. B u t M a r x develops this insight one step further to discover that i n its essence

Biopolitical Exploitation

capital is a social relation or, really, the constant reproduction o f a so-

B y revealing the general outlines o f the technical composition o f

cial relation via the creation o f surplus value via the production o f

l a b o r — w h o produces, what they produce, and h o w — w e have ad-

commodities. R e c o g n i z i n g capital as a social relation gives us a first

dressed the first half o f Marx's method for investigating the c o m p o -

key to analyzing biopolitical production.

sition o f capital w i t h respect to the emerging f o r m o f biopolitical

M i c h e l Foucault appreciates all the strangeness and richness

production. N o w we turn to the "organic c o m p o s i t i o n " o f capital,

o f the line o f Marx's t h i n k i n g w h i c h leads to the conclusion that

w h i c h consists o f the relation between variable capital and constant

" l ' h o m m e produit 1'homme." H e cautions that we should not u n -

capital or, to put it i n terms that suggest the "organic" metaphor for

derstand Marx's phrase as an expression o f humanism. " F o r me, what

M a r x , between living labor and dead labor (in the f o r m o f machines,

must be produced is not man as nature designed it, or as its essence

money, raw materials, and commodities). Investigating

prescribes; we must produce something that does not yet exist and

rary capital's organic composition w i l l have to address the n e w c o n -

we cannot k n o w what it w i l l be." H e also warns not to understand

ditions o f the production o f surplus value i n the biopolitical context

this merely as a continuation o f economic production as conven-

as well as the new forms o f exploitation. T h e organic composition,

tionally conceived: "I do not agree w i t h those w h o w o u l d under-

in other words, refers not only to the "objective" conditions o f cap-

stand this production o f man by man as being accomplished like the

italist production but also and more significantly to the "subjective"

production o f value, the production o f wealth, or o f an object o f

conditions contained i n the antagonistic relationship between cap-

economic use; it is, o n the contrary, destruction o f what we are and

italists and workers, w h i c h are expressed i n exploitation and revolt.

7

contempo-

the creation o f something completely other, a total innovation." W e

Capitalist accumulation today is increasingly external to the

cannot understand this production, i n other words, i n terms o f the

production process, such that exploitation takes the form o f expro-

producing subject and the produced object. Instead producer and

priation of the common. This shift can be recognized i n two primary

product are both subjects: humans produce and humans are pro-

guises. Scholars w h o critique neoliberalism often emphasize that

duced. Foucault clearly senses (without seeming to understand fully)

increasingly today capitalist accumulation is a predatory

operation

the explosiveness o f this situation: the biopolitical process is not l i m -

that functions through dispossession, by transforming into private

ited to the reproduction o f capital as a social relation but also pres-

property both public wealth and wealth held socially i n c o m m o n .

ents the potential for an autonomous process that c o u l d destroy cap-

N a o m i K l e i n uses the n o t i o n o f "disaster capitalism," for example, to

8

ital and create something entirely new. Biopolitical production and

analyze the m o d e l o f neoliberal economic policy applied i n many

the three major trends we have outlined obviously i m p l y n e w m e c h -

countries throughout the w o r l d that takes advantage o f a moment

anisms o f exploitation and capitalist control, and we w i l l explore

o f shock, whether consciously generated militarily and politically or

138

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

METAMORPHOSES

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

CAPITAL

arrived at due to environmental disaster, to facilitate the massive

economists (and the critics o f political economy) should not be sat-

privatization o f public industries, public welfare structures, public

isfied w i t h accounts o f neoliberalism that pose capitalist accumula-

9

transportation networks, and so forth. Scholars studying subordi-

tion as merely or primarily the expropriation o f existing wealth.

nated regions and especially those countries where state structures

Capital is and has to be i n its essence a productive system that gener-

are particularly weak, including many parts o f Africa, highlight cases

ates wealth through the labor-power it employs and exploits.

i n w h i c h neoliberal accumulation involves expropriation o f the

A second guise o f the expropriation o f the c o m m o n , w h i c h

c o m m o n primarily i n the form o f natural resources. Extraction pro-

centers on the exploitation o f biopolitical labor, allows us to pursue

cesses—of o i l , diamonds, gold, and other materials—thrive i n war-

m u c h better a M a r x i a n investigation o f the organic composition o f

torn regions without sovereign states and strong legal structures.

capital. T h e three major trends o f the transformation o f the techni-

Foreign capitalist firms, often employing few local workers, extract

cal composition o f labor that we outlined earlier all are engaged i n

wealth and transport it out o f the country i n ways reminiscent o f

the production o f c o m m o n forms o f wealth, such as knowledges,

10

the l o o t i n g conducted under colonial regimes i n the past. It is not

information, images, affects, and social relationships, w h i c h are sub-

surprising, then, that Marxist scholars have focused new attention i n

sequently expropriated by capital to generate surplus value. N o t e

recent years o n the concept o f primitive accumulation, since that

right away that this second guise refers primarily to a different n o -

concept allowed M a r x to understand the accumulation o f wealth

tion o f the c o m m o n than does the first. T h e first is a relatively inert,

outside the capitalist production process, through the direct expro-

traditional notion that generally involves natural resources. Early

priation o f human, social, and natural wealth—selling African slaves

m o d e r n European social theorists conceive o f the c o m m o n as the

to plantation holders, for example, or looting gold from the A m e r i -

bounty o f nature available to humanity, including the fertile land to

cas. Contemporary Marxist scholars generally deviate from M a r x ,

w o r k and the fruits o f the earth, often posing it i n religious terms

however, as we saw i n Part 2, by showing that there is no linear his-

w i t h scriptural evidence. J o h n Locke, for example, proclaims that

torical relation between such mechanisms o f primitive accumula-

" G o d , as K i n g D a v i d says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the

tion and capitalist production processes, no progressive history o f

children o f men; given it to m a n k i n d i n c o m m o n . "

development i n w h i c h the former gives way to the latter, but rather

n o t i o n o f the c o m m o n is dynamic, involving both the product o f

a constant back-and-forth movement i n w h i c h primitive accumula-

labor and the means o f future production. This c o m m o n is not o n l y

tion continually reappears and coexists w i t h capitalist production.

the earth we share but also the languages we create, the social prac-

A n d insofar as today's neoliberal economy increasingly favors ac-

tices we establish, the modes o f sociality that define our relation-

cumulation through expropriation o f the c o m m o n , the

concept

ships, and so forth. T h i s f o r m o f the c o m m o n does not lend itself to

o f primitive accumulation becomes an even more central analyti-

a logic o f scarcity as does the first. " H e w h o receives an idea from

cal t o o l .

11

This first guise o f the expropriation o f the c o m m o n , w h i c h

12

T h e second

me,"Thomas Jefferson famously remarks, "receives instruction h i m self without lessening mine; as he w h o lights his taper at mine, 13

focuses o n neoliberal policies i n terms o f dispossession and expro-

receives light without darkening me."

priation, however, does not provide us sufficient means to analyze

second f o r m o f the common—-the artificial c o m m o n or, really, the

the organic composition o f capital. A l t h o u g h it articulates fully the

c o m m o n that blurs the division between nature and culture—is the

state policies and fortunes o f dead labor, it says little about the other

key to understanding the new forms o f exploitation o f biopolitical

element necessary for an investigation o f the organic composition o f

labor.

capital: the productivity o f living labor. To put it differently, political

T h e expropriation o f this

W h e n analyzing biopolitical production we find ourselves be-

139

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

IETAMORPHOSES

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

CAPITAL

ing pulled back from exploitation to alienation, reversing the trajec-

exploitation involves the expropriation o f the c o m m o n , i n this way,

tory o f Marx's thought—without, however, returning us to the h u -

at the level o f social production and social practice.

manism o f his youth. Biopolitical production does present i n newly

Capital thus captures and expropriates value through b i o p o l i t i -

prominent ways the characteristics o f alienation. W i t h regard to c o g -

cal exploitation that is produced, i n some sense, externally to it. It is

nitive and affective labor, for example, capital alienates from the

no coincidence that as biopolitical production is b e c o m i n g hege-

worker not just the product o f labor but the laboring process itself,

monic, economists more frequently use the n o t i o n o f "externalities"

such that workers do not feel their o w n their capacities for thinking,

to understand the increase and decrease o f value. A well-educated

B u t this pull to the

population, they say, for example, is a positive externality for a cor-

category o f alienation is also due to the fact that some characteristics

poration operating i n a specific country, just as a poorly educated

closely tied to exploitation, particularly those designating capital's

one is a negative externality: the productivity o f the corporation is

productive role, have faded. Capital—although it may constrict b i o -

raised or lowered due to factors completely external to i t . W e w i l l

political labor, expropriate its products, even i n some cases provide

return i n greater detail later to the question o f externalities, but we

loving, and caring w h e n they are o n the j o b .

14

16

necessary instruments o f production—does not organize productive

can hypothesize here that economists are recognizing the increasing

cooperation. W i t h reference to large-scale industry, M a r x recognizes

importance o f factors external to capital because i n fact, to reverse

that the essential role o f the capitalist i n the production process,

the conventional economic formulation, capital is increasingly ex-

w h i c h is clearly linked to the mechanisms o f exploitation, is to pro-

ternal to the productive process and the generation o f wealth. In

vide cooperation, that is, b r i n g workers together i n the factory, give

other words, biopolitical labor is increasingly autonomous. Capital is

them the tools to w o r k together, furnish a plan to cooperate, and

predatory, as the analysts o f neoliberalism say, insofar as it seeks to

enforce their cooperation. T h e capitalist ensures cooperation, M a r x

capture and expropriate autonomously produced c o m m o n wealth.

imagines, like the general on the battlefield or the conductor o f the orchestra.

15

To pose this same point i n different economic terminology

In biopolitical production, however, capital does not de-

and from a slightly different perspective, the exploitation o f labor-

termine the cooperative arrangement, or at least not to the same

power and the accumulation o f surplus value should be understood

extent. Cognitive labor and affective labor generally produce c o o p -

i n terms o f not profit but capitalist rent. Whereas profit is generated

eration autonomously from capitalist command, even i n some o f the

primarily through internal engagement i n the production process,

most constrained and exploited circumstances, such as call centers

rent is generally conceived as an external mode o f extraction. In the

17

or food services. Intellectual, communicative, and affective means

1930s J o h n M a y n a r d Keynes predicted and w e l c o m e d the prospect

o f cooperation are generally created i n the productive encounters

o f the "euthanasia o f the rentier" and thus the disappearance o f the

themselves and cannot be directed from the outside. In fact, rather

"functionless investor" as a primary figure o f capital. H e understood

than providing cooperation, we c o u l d even say that capital expropri-

"the rentier aspect o f capitalism as a transitional phase w h i c h w i l l

ates cooperation as a central element o f exploiting biopolitical labor-

disappear w h e n it has done its w o r k . " T h e future o f capital belonged

power. T h i s expropriation takes place not so m u c h from the i n d i -

to the capitalist investor actively engaged i n organizing and oversee-

vidual worker (because cooperation already implies a collectivity)

ing production.

but more clearly from the field o f social labor, operating on the level

political production, the extraction o f value from the c o m m o n is

o f information flows, communication networks, social codes, l i n -

increasingly accomplished without the capitalist intervening i n its

guistic innovations, and practices o f affects and passions. Biopolitical

production. This renewed primacy o f rent provides us an essential

18

Instead, i n the contemporary networks o f b i o -

CAPITAL

( A N D THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

METAMORPHOSES

WEALTH)

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

CAPITAL

insight into w h y finance capital, along w i t h the vast stratum that

lead to collapse. Instead, as the most astute analysts o f capital have

Keynes denigrates as functionless investors, occupies today a central

l o n g told us, capital works by breaking d o w n or, rather, through cre-

position i n the management o f capitalist accumulation, capturing

ative destruction achieved by crises. In contemporary neoliberal

and expropriating the value created at a level far abstracted from the

economic regimes, i n fact, crisis and disaster have become ever more

labor process.

important as levers to privatize public goods and put i n place new

O n e final remark o n Marx's concepts: we have found useful at

mechanisms for capitalist accumulation.

several points i n our w o r k Marx's notion o f the real subsumption o f

are the same.

20

19

B u t not all capitalist crises

Whereas objective economic crises can be functional

labor w i t h i n capital, by w h i c h he means a moment w h e n capital no

to capitalist accumulation, crises that are subjective and political (or,

longer simply absorbs w i t h i n its disciplinary apparatus and produc-

really, equally economic and political) pose a real threat to capital.

tion processes preexisting labor activities created outside capital (this

Such a crisis is emerging today i n the context o f biopolitical p r o -

is merely a formal subsumption), but actually creates new, properly

duction, i n w h i c h the powers o f the n e w technical composition o f

capitalist forms o f labor, integrating labor fully, so to speak, into the

labor-power cannot be contained by the capitalist modes o f control;

capitalist body. In the biopolitical context capital might be said to

in fact the exercise o f capitalist control is increasingly b e c o m i n g a

subsume not just labor but society as a w h o l e or, really, social life i t -

fetter to the productivity o f biopolitical labor.

self, since life is both what is put to w o r k i n biopolitical production

Before sketching the outlines o f the current crisis, we should

and what is produced. This relationship between capital and produc-

recall the basic terms o f a similar crisis o f capitalist control that

tive social life, however, is no longer organic i n the sense that M a r x

emerged i n the 1970s after the labor struggles and social struggles o f

understood that term because capital is increasingly external and has

the 1960s had undermined the bases o f the welfare state m o d e l i n

an ever less functional role i n the productive process. R a t h e r than

the dominant countries. T h e crisis o f the state and capitalist produc-

an organ functioning w i t h i n the capitalist body, biopolitical labor-

tion at that time was caused not only by workers' struggles that c o n -

power is b e c o m i n g more and more autonomous, w i t h capital simply

stantly demanded higher wages, a greater redistribution o f wealth,

hovering over it parasitically w i t h its disciplinary regimes, appara-

and improvements o f the quality o f life o f the w o r k i n g classes, but

tuses o f capture, mechanisms o f expropriation, financial networks,

also by a generalized insubordination o f workers together w i t h a

and the like. T h e rupture o f the organic relationship and the g r o w -

series o f other social movements, more or less coordinated, m a k i n g

ing autonomy o f labor are at the heart o f the new forms o f crisis

ever-increasing social and political demands. Samuel H u n t i n g -

o f capitalist production and control, to w h i c h we n o w turn our

ton had at least some i n k l i n g o f the danger w h e n he lamented

attention.

that "blacks, Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students, and w o m e n " m a k i n g demands o n the state were creating not only a fis-

Crises of Biopolitical Production and Control

cal and economic crisis but also and more important a crisis o f c o n -

Capital is i n crisis. So what? W e read about crises i n the newspaper

trol.

every day: stock market crises, credit crises, mortgage crises—all

other crises and to the resulting transformations o f capital and the

kinds o f crises. Some people w i l l lose money and others w i l l get

state. T h e welfare state itself served for several decades as an effective

rich.There once was a time w h e n people believed that the objective

response to crises generated primarily by workers' struggles i n the

disequilibria o f the capitalist economy, its cycles, and its endemic

early twentieth century, but i n the 1970s its mechanisms c o u l d no

crises o f production, circulation, and realization w o u l d eventually

longer control the new social and economic forces that had emerged.

21

It is important to situate such crises, however, i n relation to

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

METAMORPHOSES

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

CAPITAL

In response to the crisis o f the 1970s there was a shift from the w e l -

typified by the workings o f finance, since it does not directly inter-

fare state to the neoliberal state and biopolitical forms o f production

vene i n the productive networks but spreads over, expropriating

and control.

and privatizing the c o m m o n wealth embedded i n the accumulated

We read these historical developments i n terms o f a constant,

knowledges, codes, images, affective practices, and biopolitical rela-

mutually determining relation between capitalist structures o f rule

tionships that they produce. Capital's appropriative processes thus

and the struggles for liberation. (We hesitate to call this relation dia-

stand opposed to the c o m m o n that biopolitical labor creates socially.

lectical because there is n o synthetic resolution but only a back-

In this respect the financial w o r l d , i n its relative separation, mimics

and-forth movement.) O n the one hand, workers' and social strug-

(or really mirrors and inverts) the movements o f social labor-power.

gles determine the restructuring o f capital, and o n the other, that

W h e n we recognize the c o m m o n as not object but subject o f devel-

restructuring conditions the terms o f future struggles. In each era o f

opment, however, it is clear that the multitude striving to maintain

capitalist development, i n other words, w i t h each transformation o f

and reproduce its "forms o f life" cannot be treated w i t h the tradi-

the technical composition o f labor, workers use the means at their

tional regimes o f discipline and control. As the U . S . subprime m o r t -

disposal to invent new forms o f revolt and autonomy from capital;

gage crisis and the subsequent global economic crises demonstrate,

and i n response to this, capital is forced to restructure the bases o f

w h e n the state is forced to bail out banks i n order to correct the

production, exploitation, and control, transforming once again the

excesses o f private initiative and guarantee social welfare, the c o n -

technical composition; at w h i c h point once again workers discover

flict between capital and living labor begins to take place o n the ter-

new weapons for new revolts; and so forth. O u r hypothesis, then, is

rain o f finance.

that today we are arriving at another such m o m e n t o f crisis.

H e r e we r u n into the first contradiction, because the intensive

For a first approximation o f the current biopolitical crisis we

and extensive strategies o f control both destroy the c o m m o n , the

can return to the three general trends i n the transformation o f labor

former segmenting or draining the c o m m o n bases o f production

we spoke o f earlier. Each trend indicates strategies o f the capitalist

and the latter privatizing the c o m m o n results. T h e productivity o f

control o f labor-power, but i n each case we find that the mecha-

biopolitical labor is reduced every time the c o m m o n is destroyed.

nisms o f control contradict the productivity o f biopolitical labor and

Consider, for example, the production o f scientific knowledge, a

obstruct the creation o f value, thereby exacerbating the crisis. W i t h

very specialized field but one that shares the basic characteristics o f

regard to the first trend, the development o f cognitive, affective, and

biopolitical production as a whole. For scientific knowledge to be

biopolitical forms o f labor, strategies o f capitalist c o m m a n d develop

produced, the relevant information, methods, and ideas, w h i c h result

intensively and extensively. Intensive strategies primarily divide and

from past scientific activity, must be open and accessible to a broad

segment the c o m m o n field o f productive cooperation, establishing

scientific community, and there must be highly developed mecha-

something like c o m m a n d outposts by w h i c h private a n d / o r state

nisms o f cooperation and circulation among different laboratories

agencies m o n i t o r and regulate social production processes through

and researchers through journals, conferences, and the like. W h e n

various techniques o f discipline, surveillance, and m o n i t o r i n g . O t h e r

new knowledge is produced, it too must be made c o m m o n so that

intensive strategies drain the c o m m o n that serves as the basis for

future scientific production can use it as a basis. Biopolitical produc-

biopolitical production, for example, by dismantling institutions o f

tion must i n this way establish a virtuous cycle that leads from the

public education through the privatization o f primary education

existing c o m m o n to a new c o m m o n , w h i c h i n turn serves i n the

and the defunding o f secondary education. Extensive strategies are

next moment o f expanding production. T h e segmentation and ex-

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

METAMORPHOSES

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

CAPITAL

propriation o f the c o m m o n , however, inevitably destroy this v i r t u -

operations. These m e n constitute an extreme case o f precarious l a -

ous cycle such that capital becomes increasingly a fetter o n b i o p o -

bor: a population fiottante that is infinitely flexible and mobile, per-

litical production.

petually available for any w o r k .

23

It is no longer helpful to think o f

A second strategy o f capitalist control, w h i c h corresponds to

this as an industrial reserve army or a reserve army o f any sort since

the "feminization" o f work, is the imposition o f precarity, organizing

there is no "standing army" to w h i c h it refers, that is, no guaranteed,

all forms o f labor according to the infinite modalities o f market flex-

stable labor force. O r rather, under control regimes o f precarity, the

ibility. In Europe and Japan, where i n the latter half o f the twentieth

entire labor force becomes a reserve army, w i t h workers constantly

century large portions o f the labor force experienced relatively sta-

o n call, at the disposal o f the boss. Precarity might thus be conceived

ble, guaranteed employment w i t h a strictly regulated w o r k i n g day,

as a special k i n d o f poverty, a temporal poverty, i n w h i c h workers are

the process o f labor b e c o m i n g precarious over the past few decades

deprived o f control over their time.

has been particularly visible. Workers are increasingly forced to move

Labor precarity poses the second contradiction since it inverts

among multiple jobs, both over the course o f a w o r k i n g career and

the control o f time required for biopolitical production. T h e pro-

i n the course o f a w o r k i n g day. A central aspect o f precarity, then, is

duction o f ideas, images, or affects is not easily limited to specific

that it imposes a new regime o f time, w i t h respect to both the w o r k -

times o f the day, and thus biopolitical production tends to erode the

ing day and the w o r k i n g career—or, to put it another way, precarity

conventional divisions o f the w o r k i n g day between w o r k time and

is a mechanism o f control that determines the temporality o f w o r k -

n o n w o r k time. T h e productivity o f biopolitical labor, and specifi-

ers, destroying the division between w o r k time and n o n w o r k time,

cally the creativity involved i n biopolitical production, requires the

requiring workers not to w o r k all the time but to be constantly

freedom o f the producers to organize their o w n time; but the c o n -

22

available for w o r k . T h e precarity o f labor, o f course, is not new for

trol imposed by precarity takes time away, such that w h e n y o u are

w o m e n and racial minorities i n the dominant countries or the vast

w o r k i n g i n a precarious situation none o f your time is your o w n .

majority o f workers, male and female, i n the subordinate countries,

Y o u can, o f course, think and produce affects o n demand, but only

where nonguaranteed, informal labor arrangements have l o n g been

i n a rote, mechanical way, l i m i t i n g creativity and potential produc-

the n o r m . N o w precarity is b e c o m i n g generalized at all levels o f the

tivity. T h e contradiction, then, lies between the productivity o f b i o -

labor force throughout the world, and indeed taking some new, ex-

political labor w h e n allowed to organize time autonomously and

treme forms. A n anecdotal anthropological example illustrates this

the fetters imposed o n it by precarity, w h i c h strips it o f control.

extreme precarity. In a neighborhood o n the outskirts o f M o n r o v i a ,

A third strategy o f capitalist control, w h i c h corresponds

to

Liberia, Danny Hoffman reports, a man named M o h a m m e d orga-

the increasing migrations and mixtures o f labor-power, involves the

nizes and deploys thousands o f y o u n g men at a time, many o f them

construction o f barriers, physical and social, to channel and halt

former combatants i n Liberia or Sierra Leone, for a variety o f infor-

flows o f labor. T h e reenforcing o f existing borders and the creation

mal occupations. O n e day he sends men to w o r k temporarily at an

o f new ones is often accompanied by a k i n d o f moral, even civiliza-

illegal diamond mine i n southeastern Liberia; another day he de-

tional panic. Fears o f the U n i t e d States being overrun by Mexicans

ploys m e n to w o r k o n a rubber plantation i n another part o f the

or Europe by Muslims are m i x e d w i t h and support strategies to

country; he can even send two thousand m e n to a specific site to

block labor mobility. T h e o l d tools o f racism and racial segregation

pose as ex-combatants for a disarmament program to receive funds

are sharpened as weapons o f control i n both dominant and subordi-

from a U N agency; and his m e n are constantly available for military

nated countries throughout the w o r l d . Erecting barriers takes place

148

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

METAMORPHOSES

OF T H E C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

CAPITAL

not only at national borders but also and perhaps more important

has experimented w i t h and pioneered both strategies, c o m b i n i n g

w i t h i n each country, across metropolitan spaces and rural landscapes,

them i n different measures.) These models are i n crisis because, de-

segmenting the population and preventing cultural and social m i x -

spite claims to the contrary, their shared goal is to create and m a i n -

ture. In addition to the walls erected against migrations at the bor-

tain social hierarchies and close social space, w h i c h impedes b i o p o -

der, we should also focus o n the effects o f illegal status o n popula-

litical production.

tions w i t h i n the country. B e i n g clandestine not only deprives people

A l l three o f these contradictions point to the fact that capital's

o f social services and the rights o f citizenship but also discourages

strategies and techniques o f exploitation and control tend to be fet-

them from circulating i n and m i x i n g freely w i t h other segments o f

ters o n the productivity o f biopolitical labor. Capital fails to generate

the society. Just as precarity creates a poverty o f time, so too geo-

a virtuous cycle o f accumulation, w h i c h w o u l d lead from the exist-

graphical and social barriers intensify a poverty o f space.

ing c o m m o n through biopolitical production to a new expanded

T h e contradiction for production posed by blocking m i g r a -

c o m m o n that serves i n turn as the basis o f a new productive process.

tions and creating divisions is obvious, at least i n one o f its aspects.

Instead, each time capital intervenes to control biopolitical labor and

W h e n governments i n the dominant countries "succeed" i n keep-

expropriate the c o m m o n , it hampers the process, forcing it to limp

ing illegal migrants out, businesses immediately decry the shortage

along, handicapped. This is not, o f course, an entirely new p h e n o m -

o f labor: w h o w i l l pick the tomatoes and apples, w h o w i l l care for

enon. Since Marx's time the critique o f political economy has fo-

the elderly and do the domestic work, w h o w i l l w o r k i n the sweat-

cused o n the contradiction between the social nature o f capitalist

shops w h e n there are no illegal workers? "It w o u l d be easier, where

production and the private nature o f capitalist accumulation; but i n

property is well secured," Bernard Mandeville remarked over two

the context o f biopolitical production the contradiction is dramati-

hundred years ago, "to live w i t h o u t money than without poor; for

cally intensified, as i f raised to a higher power.

24

w h o w o u l d do the w o r k ? " T h e contradiction regarding movement and m i x i n g is repeated even more intensely at a deeper level.To raise productivity, biopolitical production needs not only control over its movements but also constant interactions w i t h others, w i t h those who

are culturally and socially different, i n a situation o f equality.

Contemporary economists talk a lot about creativity, i n sectors such as design, branding, specialized industries, fashion, and the culture industries, but generally neglect the fact that the creativity o f b i o p o litical labor requires an open and dynamic egalitarian culture w i t h constant cultural flows and mixtures.

25

C o n t r o l through the closure

o f space and the imposition o f social hierarchies is a fetter to p r o ductivity. T h e contradiction from this perspective is really a conflict between inclusion and exclusion and is manifest at the governmental level by the crisis o f both dominant models o f integration: the republican-assimilationist strategy most often associated w i t h France and the multicultural strategy typical o f Britain. (The U n i t e d States

CLASS

STRUGGLE

FROM

CRISIS

TO

EXODUS

Should we thus declare capital doomed, finished? Has the rev-

3.2

olution already begun? O r i n more technical terms, has variable capital definitively liberated itself from the clutches o f constant capital? N o ; crisis, as we said earlier, does not mean collapse, and the

CLASS STRUGGLE FROM

CRISIS

contradictions o f capital, however severe, never i n themselves imply its demise or, moreover, create an alternative to capitalist rule. I n -

TO

EXODUS

stead the rupture w i t h i n capital and the emerging autonomy o f b i o political labor present a political opening. We can bet o n the rupture o f the relation o f capital and build politically o n the emerging autonomy o f biopolitical labor. T h e open social relation presented by

I've had enough of a sober tone, It's time to play the real devil again. —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust

capital provides an opportunity, but political organization is required to push it across the threshold. W h e n A b b e Sieyes o n the eve o f the French R e v o l u t i o n asks what is the value o f the T h i r d Estate—everything! but politically it is w o r t h nothing!—he launches a political and philosophical polemic based o n a similar threshold presented by the economic situation. T h e T h i r d Estate, w h i c h was emerging as

The Open Social Relation between Labor and Capital

the center o f social production, was no longer w i l l i n g to accept its

In the context o f biopolitical production we have found that capital

gime. W h a t we have to develop after having sketched the broad out-

should be understood not simply as a social relation but as an open

lines o f biopolitical production, exploitation, and control are the

social relation. Capital previously has held together w i t h i n itself

terms o f class struggle today: o n what resources is it based, what are

labor-power and the c o m m a n d over labor, or i n M a r x i a n language,

the primary social lines o f conflict, and what are the political forms

it has been able to construct an organic composition o f variable cap-

available for its organization?

subordination and pay taxes to the r u l i n g powers o f the ancien re-

ital (the wage labor force) and constant capital. B u t today there is a

Let us start w i t h some basics. T h e emerging autonomy o f b i o -

growing rupture w i t h i n the organic composition o f capital, a p r o -

political labor w i t h respect to capital, w h i c h pries open the social

gressive decomposition o f capital i n w h i c h variable capital (and par-

relation o f capital, rests primarily o n two facts. First is the newly

ticularly biopolitical labor-power) is separating from constant capital

central or intensified role o f the common i n economic production, as

along w i t h its political forces o f c o m m a n d and control. Biopolitical

both basis and product, w h i c h we have already explored i n part. Sec-

labor tends to generate its o w n forms o f social cooperation and p r o -

ond is the fact that the productivity o f labor-power increasingly ex-

duce value autonomously. In fact the more autonomous the social

ceeds the bounds set i n its employment by capital. Labor-power has

organization o f biopolitical production, the more productive it is.

always exceeded its relation to capital i n terms o f its potential, i n the

Capital thus has ever more difficulty creating a coherent cycle o f

sense that people have the capacity to do m u c h more and produce

production and synthesizing or subsuming labor-power i n a process

m u c h more than what they do at w o r k . In the past, however, the

o f value creation. Perhaps we should no longer even use the term

productive process, especially the industrial process, has severely re-

"variable capital" to refer to this labor-power since its productive

stricted the actualization o f the potential that exceeds

relation to constant capital is ever more tenuous.

bounds.The auto worker, for example, has extraordinary mechanical

capital's

151

152

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

CLASS

STRUGGLE

FROM

CRISIS

TO

EXODUS

and technological skills and knowledges, but they are primarily site

tions o f production and mode o f social organization under w h i c h

specific: they can be actualized only i n the factory and thus i n the

we live.

relation w i t h capital, aside from some tinkering w i t h the car i n the garage at home. T h e affective and intellectual talents, the capacities to generate cooperation and organizational networks, the c o m m u nication skills, and the other competences that characterize b i o p o litical labor, i n contrast, are generally not site specific.You can think and f o r m relationships not only on the j o b but also i n the street, at home, w i t h your neighbors and friends. T h e capacities o f b i o p o l i t i cal labor-power exceed w o r k and spill over into life. W e hesitate to use the w o r d "excess" for this capacity because from the perspective o f labor-power or from the standpoint o f society as a w h o l e it is never too m u c h . It is excess only from the perspective o f capital because it does not produce economic value that can be captured by the individual capitalist—even though, as we w i l l see shortly, such production does produce economic value that can be captured by capital at a broader social level, generally as externalities. A t this point we can hazard a first hypothesis: class struggle i n

Class struggle does still, o f course, involve resisting capitalist c o m m a n d and attacking the bases o f capitalist power, w h i c h we w i l l address i n more detail later, but it also requires an exodus from the relationship w i t h capital and from capitalist relations o f production. A n d although the requirements for resistance are immediately given to workers i n the labor relation itself-—workers always have the power to say no, to stop providing their labor to capital, and their ability to subvert the production process is constantly present i n their very capacity to produce—the requirements for exodus are not so evident. Exodus is possible o n l y o n the basis o f the c o m m o n — both access to the c o m m o n and the ability to make use o f it—and capitalist society seems driven to eliminate or mask the c o m m o n by privatizing the means o f production and indeed all aspects o f social life. Before turning to questions o f political organization, then, we need to investigate more fully the existing forms o f the c o m m o n available i n society today.

the biopolitical context takes the form o f exodus. B y exodus here we mean, at least initially, a process o f subtraction from the relation-

Specters of the Common

ship w i t h capital by means o f actualizing the potential autonomy o f

Specters o f the c o m m o n appear throughout capitalist society, even i f

labor-power. Exodus is thus not a refusal o f the productivity o f b i o -

in veiled and mystified forms. Despite its ideological aversion, cap-

political labor-power but rather a refusal o f the increasingly restric-

ital cannot do without the c o m m o n , and today i n increasingly ex-

tive fetters placed o n its productive capacities by capital. It is an ex-

plicit ways. To track d o w n these specters o f the c o m m o n , we w i l l

pression o f the productive capacities that exceed the relationship

need to follow the path o f productive social cooperation and the

w i t h capital achieved by stepping through the opening i n the social

various modes o f abstraction that represent it i n capitalist society.

relation o f capital and across the threshold. As a first approximation,

Revealing some o f these really existing forms o f the c o m m o n is a

then, think o f this form o f class struggle as a k i n d o f maroonage.

first step toward establishing the bases for an exodus o f the m u l t i -

L i k e the slaves w h o collectively escape the chains o f slavery to

tude from its relation w i t h capital.

construct self-governing communities and quilombos, biopolitical

O n e vast reservoir o f c o m m o n wealth is the metropolis itself.

labor-power subtracting from its relation to capital must discover

T h e formation o f m o d e r n cities, as urban and architectural histori-

and construct new social relationships, new forms o f life that allow

ans explain, was closely linked to the development o f industrial cap-

it to actualize its productive powers. B u t unlike that o f the maroons,

ital. T h e geographical concentration o f workers, the proximity o f

this exodus does not necessarily mean going elsewhere.We can pur-

resources and other industries, communication and transportation

sue a line o f flight w h i l e staying right here, by transforming the rela-

systems, and the other characteristics o f urban life are necessary ele-

153

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

CLASS

STRUGGLE

FROM

CRISIS

TO E X O D U S

merits for industrial production. T h r o u g h o u t the nineteenth and

high levels o f criminality, and the discotheque downstairs that makes

twentieth centuries the growth o f cities and the qualities o f urban

it impossible to sleep o n Saturday nights; and positive externalities,

space were determined by the industrial factory, its needs, rhythms,

such as proximity to playgrounds, dynamic local cultural relations,

and forms o f social organization. Today we are witnessing a shift,

intellectual circuits o f exchange, and peaceful, stimulating social i n -

however, from the industrial to the biopolitical metropolis. A n d i n the

teractions. In these externalities we encounter a specter o f the c o m -

biopolitical economy there is an increasingly intense and direct rela-

mon. T h e main preoccupation o f these economists is that externali-

tion between the production process and the c o m m o n that consti-

ties fall outside the realm o f property relations and are thus resistant

tutes the city. T h e city, o f course, is not just a built environment

to market logic and exchange. In efficient free markets, they claim,

consisting o f buildings and streets and subways and parks and waste

people make rational decisions, but w h e n there are "market distor-

systems and communications cables but also a living dynamic o f c u l -

tions," w h e n externalities come into play and social costs do not

tural practices, intellectual circuits, affective networks, and social i n -

equal private costs, market rationality is lost and "market failure" re-

stitutions. These elements o f the c o m m o n contained i n the city are

sults. T h e crazy thing is that especially i n urban environments the

not only the prerequisite for biopolitical production but also its re-

value o f real estate is determined primarily by externalities. Market

sult; the city is the source o f the c o m m o n and the receptacle into

failure is the n o r m . T h e most orthodox neoliberal economists thus

w h i c h it flows. (We w i l l explore more fully the dynamics o f the b i o -

spend their time inventing schemes to "rationalize" the situation and

political metropolis i n De Corpore 2, following Part 4.)

privatize the c o m m o n so it can be traded and w i l l obey market rules,

O n e lens for recognizing the c o m m o n wealth o f the metropo-

seeking ways to monetize p o l l u t i o n or traffic, for instance, i n order

lis and the efforts to privatize it is provided by urban real estate eco-

to make the social costs equal to the private costs and thus restore

nomics, a field i n desperate need o f demystification. It is useful to

logic to market exchanges.

27

remember that ground rent and the value o f land presented great

Parenthetically we should note that the important and g r o w -

difficulties for classical political economists. If labor is the source o f

ing role o f externalities allows us to rethink some o f the standard

all wealth, according to A d a m Smith's a x i o m , then what accounts for

assumptions o f political economy. Just as there is today an inversion

the value o f land or real estate more generally? Labor is i n c o r p o -

o f the progression traditionally assumed by political economists from

rated into the land, o f course, by w o r k i n g the soil and constructing

rent to profit, as we said earlier, so too is there an inversion o f the

on it, but that clearly does not account adequately for the value o f

presumed tendency from "absolute rent" (based o n mere appropria-

real estate, especially i n an urban environment. To say that land rent

tion) to "relative rent" (based o n the value o f labor added to the

is a m o n o p o l y price does not address the central problem either.

property).To the extent that w o r k done to the property has increas-

R e a l estate value cannot be explained internally but can be under-

ingly less significant effect i n relation to the " c o m m o n w o r k " exter-

stood only w i t h reference to external factors.

26

Contemporary real estate economists are fully aware, o f course, that the value o f an apartment or a building or land i n a city is not

nal to i t — i n the general social circuits o f biopolitical production and reproduction o f the city—the tendency is today m o v i n g back from relative toward absolute rent.

28

represented exclusively by the intrinsic characteristics o f the prop-

R e a l estate agents, the everyday practitioners o f trading urban

erty, such as the quality and size o f its construction, but is also and

value, w i t h their feet solidly o n the ground and their hands greedily

even primarily determined by externalities—both negative exter-

clutching their pocketbooks, do not need any complicated theories

nalities, such as air pollution, traffic congestion, noisy neighbors,

to understand the dominant role o f the c o m m o n . T h e i r mantra—

155

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

CLASS

STRUGGLE

FROM

CRISIS

TO

EXODUS

"location, location, location"—is their way o f expressing the strat-

specters o f the c o m m o n . G e o r g S i m m e l remarks that the qualities o f

egy to m i n i m i z e the negative externalities and maximize the posi-

the metropolis are the very same qualities that money demands: a

tive. L o c a t i o n is merely a name for proximity and access to c o m m o n

detailed division o f labor, impersonal encounters, time synchronic-

wealth—not only w i t h respect to the park but also the quality o f

ity, and so forth. W h a t really underlies these various characteristics

neighborhood relations, the pathways o f communication, the intel-

to a large extent is the power o f abstraction. Finance capital is an

lectual and cultural dynamics, and so forth. R e a l estate agents do not

enormous engine o f abstraction that simultaneously represents and

need to privatize externalities and "rationalize" the markets. W i t h an

mystifies the c o m m o n as i f reflecting it i n a distorted m i r r o r .

eye to the c o m m o n , they are very capable o f making money from the metropolis and its "irrationality."

30

31

Finance capital has l o n g been criticized for amplifying econ o m i c risks and for not producing anything—and after the global

O u r aim, though, is not to give advice o n h o w to get r i c h w i t h

crisis o f 2008 vilification o f finance has become extremely w i d e -

real estate, but to track d o w n the specters o f the c o m m o n . T h e theo-

spread. Finance is casino capitalism, its critics charge, little more than

ries o f real estate economics, along w i t h the practices o f real estate

a legal f o r m o f gambling w i t h no social utility. T h e dignity o f indus-

agents, demonstrate h o w the metropolis itself is an enormous reser-

trial capital, they claim, is that it directly engages productive forces

voir o f the c o m m o n , o f not only material but also and moreover

and produces value i n material products, whereas the products o f f i -

immaterial factors, both good and bad. W h a t the economists do not

nance are fictional, m a k i n g money from money, remaining abstract

understand, though, is where c o m m o n wealth comes from. T h e

from and thus parasitical o n the production o f real value. Such c r i t i -

c o m m o n may be external from the perspective o f the market and

cisms are partly true—even though financial instruments are used

the mechanisms o f capitalist organization, but it is completely inter-

for risk management as well as speculation and the biopolitical

nal to the processes o f biopolitical production. T h e wealth produced

economy is increasingly oriented toward immaterial products. B u t

i n c o m m o n is abstracted, captured, and privatized, i n part, by real

they do not grasp the essential nature o f finance. If financial specula-

estate speculators and financiers, w h i c h , as we saw earlier, is a fetter

tion is to be conceived as gambling, it is an intelligent, informed

to further production o f the c o m m o n . T h i s dilemma is illustrated by

type o f gambling i n w h i c h the investor, like someone w h o bets o n

the classic dialectic o f urban artist neighborhoods and gentrification:

horse races w h o gauges the animal's physical condition and that o f

poor artists move into a neighborhood w i t h l o w property values

the racetrack, has to judge the future performance o f a sector o f

because they cannot afford anything else, and i n addition to produc-

production through a variety o f indicators, some o f them very ab-

i n g their art they also produce a new cityscape. Property values rise

stract. Finance capital is i n essence an elaborate machine for repre-

as their activity makes the neighborhood more intellectually stimu-

senting the c o m m o n , that is, the c o m m o n relationships and networks

lating, culturally dynamic, and fashionable, w i t h the result that, even-

that are necessary for the production o f a specific commodity, a field

tually, artists can no longer afford to live there and have to move out.

o f commodities, or some other type o f asset or phenomenon. T h i s

R i c h people move i n , and slowly the neighborhood loses its intel-

representation involves an extraordinary process o f abstraction from

lectual and cultural character, becoming b o r i n g and sterile. Despite

the c o m m o n itself, and indeed financial products take o n ever more

the fact that the c o m m o n wealth o f the city is constantly being ex-

abstract, esoteric forms such that they may refer not to production

propriated and privatized i n real estate markets and speculation, the

directly but to representations o f future production or representa-

c o m m o n still lives o n there as a specter.

29

Finance is another vast realm i n w h i c h we can track d o w n

tions o f representations. Finance's powers o f abstraction are dizzying, and that is w h y mathematical models become so central. Abstraction

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

CLASS

WEALTH)

STRUGGLE

FROM

CRISIS

TO

EXODUS

itself, though, is possible only because o f the social nature o f the

nate this ambivalence by l o o k i n g briefly at Marx's approach to cap-

wealth being represented. W i t h each level o f abstraction financial

ital's powers o f abstraction. Abstraction is essential to both the func-

instruments grasp a wider social level o f networks that directly or

tioning o f capital and the critique o f it. Marx's point o f departure i n

indirectly cooperate i n the production process. T h i s power o f ab-

Capital, i n fact, is his analysis o f abstract labor as the determining

straction, i n other words, rests on and simultaneously mystifies the

foundation o f the exchange-value o f commodities. L a b o r i n cap-

common.

italist society, M a r x explains, must be abstracted from the concrete

32

T h e role o f finance w i t h respect to other forms o f capital has

labors o f the tailor, the plumber, the machinist to be considered as

expanded exponentially i n recent decades. G i o v a n n i A r r i g h i inter-

labor i n general, without respect to its specific application. T h i s ab-

prets this as a cyclical phenomenon parallel to the rise o f finance

stract labor once congealed i n commodities is the c o m m o n sub-

centered i n B r i t a i n i n the late nineteenth century and earlier m o -

stance they all share, w h i c h allows for their values to be universally

It is more important i n our view, however, to link finance's

commensurable, and w h i c h ultimately allows money to function as

rise w i t h the concurrent emerging centrality o f biopolitical produc-

a general equivalent. T o o many readers o f M a r x , eager to discern

tion. Insofar as biopolitical labor is autonomous, finance is the ade-

political coordinates from the opening pages o f the text, correlate

quate capitalist instrument to expropriate the c o m m o n wealth pro-

these distinctions to political positions: for concrete labor and against

duced, external to it and abstract from the production process. A n d

abstract labor, for use-value and against exchange-value. M a r x views

finance cannot expropriate without i n some way representing the

abstraction, however, w i t h ambivalence. Yes, abstract labor and the

product and productivity o f c o m m o n social life. In this respect fi-

system o f exchange are mechanisms for extracting surplus value and

nance is n o t h i n g but the power o f money itself. " M o n e y represents

maintaining capitalist control, but the concept o f abstract labor—

pure interaction i n its purest form," G e o r g S i m m e l writes. "It makes

representing what is c o m m o n to labor i n different occupations—is

comprehensible the most abstract concept; it is an individual thing

what makes it possible to think the w o r k i n g class. W i t h o u t abstract

whose essential significance is to reach beyond individualities. Thus,

labor there is no w o r k i n g class! T h i s is yet another example o f the

money is the adequate expression o f the relationship o f man to

ways i n w h i c h capital, by pursuing its o w n interests and guarantee-

the world, w h i c h can only be grasped i n single and concrete i n -

i n g its essential functions, creates the tools to resist and eventually

stances, yet only really conceived w h e n the singular becomes the

overcome the capitalist m o d e o f production. Capitalist abstraction

embodiment o f the living mental process w h i c h interweaves all sin-

always rests o n the c o m m o n and cannot survive without it, but can

ments.

33

gularities and, i n this fashion, creates reality."

34

Finance grasps the

c o m m o n i n its broadest social f o r m and, through abstraction, ex-

only instead constantly try to mystify it. H e n c e the ambivalence o f abstraction.

presses it as value that can be exchanged, mystifying and privatizing the c o m m o n i n order to generate profits. W e have no intention o f

Corruption and Exodus

celebrating or condemning finance capital. W e propose instead to

Every social institution rests o n the c o m m o n and is defined, i n fact,

treat it as a field o f investigation for tracking d o w n the specters o f

by the c o m m o n it draws o n , marshals, and creates. Social institutions

the c o m m o n l u r k i n g there.

are thus essential resources for the project o f exodus. B u t we should

B o t h our examples, the real estate market and finance, reveal a

remember that not all forms o f the c o m m o n are beneficial. Just as, i n

tense and ambivalent relation between abstraction and the c o m m o n .

the language o f economists, some externalities are positive and o t h -

Before b r i n g i n g this discussion to a close, though, we might i l l u m i -

ers negative, some forms o f the c o m m o n increase our powers to

160

CAPITAL

(AND THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

CQttWOH

CLASS

WfckLTW)

STRUGGLE

FROM

CRISIS

TO

EXODUS

think and act together, as Spinoza might say, and others decrease

paradigm for relationships o f intimacy and solidarity, eclipsing and

them. Beneficial forms are motors o f generation, whereas detrimen-

usurping all other possible forms. Intergenerational relationships are

tal forms spread corruption, blocking the networks o f social interac-

inevitably cast i n the parent-child m o d e l (such that teachers w h o

tions and reducing the powers o f social production. Exodus thus re-

care, for example, should be like parents to their students), and same-

quires a process o f selection, m a x i m i z i n g the beneficial forms o f

generation friendships are posed as sibling relationships (with a band

the c o m m o n and m i n i m i z i n g the detrimental, struggling, i n other

o f brothers and sorority sisters). A l l alternative kinship structures,

words, against corruption. Certainly capital constitutes one f o r m o f

whether based o n sexual relationships or not, are either prohibited

the corruption o f the c o m m o n , as we have seen, through its mecha-

or corralled back under the rule o f the family. T h e exclusive nature

nisms o f control and expropriation, segmenting and privatizing the

o f the family model, w h i c h carries w i t h it inevitably all o f its inter-

c o m m o n , but relatively independent forms o f the corruption o f the

nal hierarchies, gender norms, and heteronormativity, is evidence o f

c o m m o n are found too i n the ruling social institutions.

not only a pathetic lack o f social imagination to grasp other forms

T h e three most significant social institutions o f capitalist soci-

o f intimacy and solidarity but also a lack o f freedom to create and

ety i n w h i c h the c o m m o n appears i n corrupt f o r m are the family,

experiment w i t h alternative social relationships and nonfamily k i n -

the corporation, and the nation. A l l three mobilize and provide ac-

ship structures.

35

cess to the c o m m o n , but at the same time restrict, distort, and de-

T h i r d , although the family pretends to extend desires and i n -

form it. These are social terrains o n w h i c h the multitude has to

terests beyond the individual toward the community, it unleashes

employ a process o f selection, separating the beneficial, generative

some o f the most extreme forms o f narcissism and individualism. It

forms o f c o m m o n from the detrimental and corrupt.

is remarkable, i n fact, h o w strongly people believe that acting i n the

T h e family is perhaps the primary institution i n contemporary

interests o f their family is a k i n d o f altruism w h e n it is really the

society for m o b i l i z i n g the c o m m o n . F o r many people, i n fact, the

blindest egotism.When school decisions pose the g o o d o f their child

family is the principal i f not exclusive site o f collective social e x p e r i -

against that o f others or the c o m m u n i t y as a whole, for example,

ence, cooperative labor arrangements, caring, and intimacy. It stands

many parents launch the most ferociously antisocial arguments u n -

o n the foundation o f the c o m m o n but at the same time corrupts it

der a halo o f virtue, doing all that is necessary i n the name o f their

by imposing a series o f hierarchies, restrictions, exclusions, and dis-

child, often w i t h the strange narcissism o f seeing the child as an ex-

tortions. First, the family is a machine o f gender normativity that

tension or reproduction o f themselves. Political discourse that justi-

constantly grinds d o w n and crushes the c o m m o n . T h e patriarchal

fies interest i n the future through a logic o f family c o n t i n u i t y — h o w

structure o f family authority varies i n different cultures but m a i n -

many times have y o u heard that some public policy is necessary for

tains its general form; the gender division o f labor w i t h i n the family,

the g o o d o f your children?—reduces the c o m m o n to a k i n d o f pro-

though often critiqued, is extraordinarily persistent; and the heter-

jected individualism via one's progeny and betrays an extraordinary

onormative m o d e l dictated by the family varies remarkably little

incapacity to conceive the future i n broader social terms.

36

throughout the w o r l d . T h e family corrupts the c o m m o n by impos-

Finally, the family corrupts the c o m m o n by serving as a core

i n g gender hierarchies and enforcing gender norms, such that any

institution for the accumulation and transfer o f private property.The

attempt at alternative gender practices or expressions o f alternative

accumulation o f private property w o u l d be interrupted each gener-

sexual desires are unfailingly closed d o w n and punished.

ation i f not for the legal f o r m o f inheritance based o n the family.

Second, the family functions i n the social imaginary as the sole

D o w n w i t h the family!—not, o f course, i n order for us to become

161

162

CAPITAL

( A N D THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

CLASS

STRUGGLE

FROM

CRISIS

TO

EXODUS

isolated individuals but instead to realize the equal and free participation i n the c o m m o n that the family promises and constantly denies and corrupts.

ties these are the o n l y social spaces that provide access, however dis-

T h e corporation is another f o r m i n w h i c h the c o m m o n is

m o n is both deployed and corrupted. M a n y certainly do experience

both generated and corrupted. Capitalist production i n general is an

belonging to the nation as a terrain o f the c o m m o n , w h i c h engages

enormous apparatus for developing the c o m m o n networks o f social

the collective cultural, social, and political expressions o f the popula-

cooperation and capturing their results as private accumulation. F o r

tion. T h e nation's claim as the central terrain o f social life is height-

many workers, o f course, the workplace is the o n l y site outside the

ened i n times o f crisis and war, w h e n the population is called to set

family where they experience cooperation w i t h others and collective projects, the o n l y place where they escape the individualism and isolation o f contemporary society. P r o d u c i n g together i n a planned way stimulates the "animal spirits," as M a r x says, and thus generates i n the workplace the rewards and pleasures o f sociality and productive exchange. Predictably, corporations encourage workers to attribute the stimulation and satisfaction they experience at w o r k to the corporation itself, w i t h consequent feelings o f dedication and l o y alty. W h a t is g o o d for the corporation, the ideological refrains goes, is g o o d for all o f us. It is true, and one should not deny the fact, that w o r k i n capitalist society does engage the c o m m o n and provide a site for social and productive cooperation—in varying degrees, o f course, and often m u c h less at the lower levels o f the workforce. A s we have already explained at length, however, the c o m m o n engaged and generated i n production is not only expropriated but also fettered and corrupted through capital's imposition o f hierarchy and control. W h a t we should add here instead is that the corporation is remarkably similar to the family i n some o f the ways it generates and corrupts the c o m m o n . T h e two institutions can easily appear as oases o f the c o m m o n i n the desert o f contemporary society. A t w o r k as i n the family, though, cooperative relationships are subject to strict internal hierarchies and external limitations. A s a result, many w h o try to flee the horrors o f the family r u n into the w e l c o m i n g e m brace o f the corporation, and vice versa, others flee the corporation, seeking refuge i n the family. T h e much-discussed "balance" between w o r k and family is really an alternative between lesser evils, between

torted, to the c o m m o n .

37

Finally, the nation too is a social institution i n w h i c h the c o m -

aside differences i n the interest o f national unity. M o r e than a shared history or a set o f linguistic and cultural traditions, the nation is, according to Benedict Anderson's influential formulation, an imagined community, w h i c h is another way o f saying a deployment o f the c o m m o n . W h a t a sad indication o f the wretched state o f our p o l i t i cal alternatives, though, that the nation becomes the only c o m m u nity imaginable, the o n l y f o r m for expressing social solidarity and escaping from individualism! H o w pathetic it is w h e n politics can be conducted only i n the name o f the nation! In the nation too, o f course, just as i n the family and the corporation, the c o m m o n is submitted to severely restrictive operations: the nation is defined i n ternally and externally by hierarchies and exclusion. T h e nation i n evitably functions through the construction and enforcement o f "a people," a national identity, w h i c h excludes or subordinates all those w h o are different. It is true that the nation and its people, along w i t h their centripetal mechanisms that unify the social field, have i n some cases, particularly i n anticolonial and anti-imperialist struggles, functioned as part o f liberation projects; but even then the nation and national consciousness present "pitfalls," as Frantz F a n o n says, that may be recognized fully o n l y after the furors o f battle die d o w n . Calls to sacrifice for the glory and unity o f the nation and the p e o ple always have a fascist r i n g i n our ears, since we have so often heard them, i n dominant and subordinate countries alike, as the repeated refrain o f authoritarian, totalitarian, and militaristic adventures. These are just some o f the corruptions the c o m m o n suffers at 38

t w o corrupt forms o f the c o m m o n , but for too many i n our socie-

the hands o f the n a t i o n . In spite o f the revulsion they inspire i n us, we should r e m e m -

163

164

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

ber that the family, the corporation, and the nation do engage and mobilize the c o m m o n , even i f i n corrupted form, and thereby pro-

3.3

vide important resources for the exodus o f the multitude. A l l these institutions present networks o f productive cooperation, resources o f wealth that are openly accessible, and circuits o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n

KAIROS

OF THE M U L T I T U D E

that simultaneously whet the desire for the c o m m o n and frustrate it. T h e multitude must flee the family, the corporation, and the nation but at the same time b u i l d o n the promises o f the c o m m o n they mobilize. Keep i n m i n d that opening and expanding access to the

The gradual crumbling that left unaltered the face of the whole is cut

c o m m o n i n the context o f biopolitical production means seizing

short by a sunburst which, in one flash, illuminates the features of the

control o f the means o f production and reproduction; that it is the

new world. — G . W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit

basis for a process o f subtraction from capital and the construction o f autonomy o f the multitude; and that this project o f exodus is the primary f o r m class struggle takes today. O u r readers w i t h a taste for combat may be reluctant to accept a n o t i o n o f class struggle as exodus because it does not have enough

What a Multitude Can Do

fight i n it. N o t to worry. Moses learned l o n g ago that those i n power

A l l the objective conditions are i n place: biopolitical labor constantly

do not just let y o u go w i t h o u t a fight. A n d , more important, exodus

exceeds the limits o f capitalist c o m m a n d ; there is a breach i n the

does not mean getting out as naked life, barefoot and penniless. N o ;

social relation o f capital opening the possibility for biopolitical labor

we need to take what is ours, w h i c h means reappropriating the

to claim its autonomy; the foundations o f its exodus are given i n the

c o m m o n — t h e results o f our past labors and means o f autonomous

existence and constant creation o f the c o m m o n ; and capital's m e c h -

production and reproduction for our future. That is the field o f

anisms o f exploitation and control increasingly contradict and fetter

battle.

biopolitical productivity. B u t there are also countervailing objective conditions: n e w capitalist mechanisms find novel ways to e x p r o p r i ate and privatize the c o m m o n , and the o l d social institutions ceaselessly corrupt it. W h e r e does all this leave us? Analysis o f objective conditions take us this far but no further. Capitalist crisis does not proceed automatically to collapse. T h e multiplicity o f singularities that produce and are produced i n the biopolitical field o f the c o m m o n do not spontaneously accomplish exodus and construct their autonomy. Political organization is needed to cross the threshold and generate political events. T h e kairos—the opportune m o m e n t that ruptures the m o n o t o n y and repetitiveness o f chronological t i m e — has to be grasped by a political subject. W e propose the multitude as an adequate concept for organiz-

166

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

KAIROS

OF T H E

MULTITUDE

i n g politically the project o f exodus and liberation because we are

that today there exists the initial condition o f the multitude: the so-

convinced that, i n the current biopolitical context even more than

cial field is radically heterogeneous. H e explains, then, still along the

before, traditional organizational forms based o n unity, central lead-

lines o f the multitude, that political action requires that the singu-

39

ership, and hierarchy are neither desirable nor effective. T h e m u l t i -

larities o n the plane o f immanence engage i n a process o f articula-

tude proposition has n o w been debated i n intellectual and political

tion to define and structure political relations among them. Laclau

circles for several years, and we can take advantage o f these discus-

diverges, though, w h e n he insists that i n order for articulation to

sions to evaluate and refine the concept. T h e critiques and chal-

take place, a guiding hegemonic force must emerge above the plane

lenges we have found most productive center generally o n two fun-

o f immanence that is able to direct the process and serve as a point

damental questions: one regarding the multitude's capability to take

o f identification for all the singularities. H e g e m o n y represents the

coherent political action and a second about the progressive or l i b eratory character o f its actions. T h e best critics o f the concept o f multitude regarding the first

plurality o f singularities as a unity and thus transforms the multitude into a people, w h i c h because o f its unity is deemed capable o f p o litical action and decision making: " T h e political operation par excel-

line o f questions accept our assessment that, especially i n the b i o p o -

lence is always going to be the construction o f a 'people."

litical context, society is composed o f a radical plurality, or rather a

cherey, Laclau sees the multitude as a figure o n the road to politics

multiplicity o f irreducible singularities. T h e question is whether and

but not yet a political figure.

41

Like M a -

h o w these singularities can act together politically. A t play funda-

A second line o f questioning concerns p r i m a r i l y not whether

mentally is the concept o f the political itself. Pierre Macherey, for

the multitude can act politically but the direction o f its political ac-

instance, explains quite rightly that politics requires the ability to

tions—not the f o r m , so to speak, but the content o f the multitude's

make decisions o n not an individual but a social level. " H o w can the

politics. Specifically, these authors see no reason to assume that the

flesh o f the multitude become a b o d y ? " he asks. " T h e intervention

political decisions and action o f the multitude w i l l be oriented to-

o f a political entity is necessary, an entity i n this case that, w h i l e

ward liberation. Paolo V i r n o , for example, one o f those w h o has

maintaining the rhizomatic structure o f the multitude, must itself be

most fruitfully advanced the concept o f the multitude, considers its

collective and refuse any vertical form o f ordering, and i n that way

politics profoundly ambivalent since the multitude is endowed i n his

remain faithful to its immanent destiny that requires it to unfold o n

view w i t h roughly equal measures o f social solidarity and aggres-

a plane o f horizontality. H o w then can the multitude organize itself,

siveness. Just as a l o n g tradition o f political philosophy warns it is

without sacrificing the autonomy o f the singularities that compose

naive or irresponsible to assume that humans i n the state o f nature

it?"

40

Macherey sees the multiplicity o f the multitude as posing a

are unfailingly g o o d , V i r n o emphasizes the ambivalence o f the "state

political obstacle or challenge because he assumes that acting as a

o f nature" characterized by biopolitical production. T h e powerful

political body and m a k i n g decisions requires unity. H e thus sees any

new tools i n the possession o f the multitude—linguistic tools, along

political project for the multitude caught i n a contradiction: either

w i t h tools o f communication, affect, knowledge, and so forth—have

sacrifice its horizontal multiplicity and adopt a unified vertical orga-

no necessary predisposition to the good but can just as easily be used

nization, thereby ceasing to be a multitude; or maintain its structure

for i l l . V i r n o thus advocates a "realist" position, insisting that any dis-

and be incapable o f political decision and action.

cussion o f the positive political capacities o f the multitude be ac-

Ernesto Laclau similarly considers the immanence and plurality o f the multitude a barrier to its capacity for politics. H e agrees

companied by a sober l o o k at the negative.

42

Etienne Balibar similarly insists that the concept o f the m u l t i -

167

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

KAIROS

WEALTH)

OF T H E

MULTITUDE

tude lacks internal political criteria that w o u l d guarantee its actions

never recognizes the necessity for the event to break w i t h power.

a progressive orientation or antisystemic character. It may just as

A n y conception o f a creative, antisystemic multitude, he claims, is

likely contribute to the systems o f global exploitation as resist and

only a dreamy hallucination (un reverie hallucinee). " T h a t w h i c h goes

contest them. Like V i r n o , Balibar emphasizes the ambivalent stand-

by the name 'resistance,' i n this instance, is only a component o f the

point o f the multitude, w h i c h he explains, for example, i n terms o f

progress o f power itself." T h e existing movements o f the multitude

the double meaning o f fear o f the multitude. B o t h the fear the m u l -

thus amount to little i n Badiou's estimation. " A l l we've seen are

titude feels and the fear it inspires can lead, i n his view, i n varying

very ordinary performances from the w e l l - w o r n repertoire o f petit-

political directions. T h e multitude may be a sound sailing vessel, to

bourgeois mass movements, noisily laying claim to the right to en-

lend Balibar a metaphor, but w i t h o u t a rudder there is no way to

joy w i t h o u t d o i n g anything, while taking special care to avoid any

predict where it w i l l end u p .

form o f discipline. Whereas we k n o w that discipline, i n all fields, is

43

Slavoj Zizek and A l a i n B a d i o u take this questioning o f the

the key to truths."

45

Badiou's critique o f the multitude is i n effect an

multitudes political orientation one step further, posing it as not

extension and generalization o f Zizek's: whereas Zizek, indicating

ambivalent but aligned w i t h the forces o f domination. Z i z e k charges

Marx's error, charges that the multitude i n the guise o f contesting

that the multitude, even i n the guise o f anticapitalist struggles, really

capital merely mimics and supports its rule, B a d i o u , referring to

mimics and supports capitalist power, and he traces the flaw o f m u l -

Foucault, maintains that the multitude and other projects o f resis-

titude t h i n k i n g back to M a r x . Marx's error, he suggests, is to be-

tance are really only components o f the progress o f power itself.

lieve that capital creates its o w n gravediggers, that the developments o f capitalist society and production create w i t h i n capital itself an

The Common Nature of the Multitude

antagonistic political subject, the proletariat, capable o f revolution.

These questions and critiques regarding the political capacities and

Z i z e k maintains, however, that the apparent antagonisms and alter-

orientation o f the multitude are useful because they help us focus

natives that capital produces internally really end up supporting the

on and clarify the extent to w h i c h the concept is adequate to orga-

system. H e focuses, for example, o n h o w capital creates proliferating

nizational projects o f liberation i n o u r biopolitical reality. In order to

multiplicities i n the realm o f the market and consumption, through

respond to these questions we have to show h o w the multitude is

the infinite variety o f its commodities and the desires they elicit.

not a spontaneous political subject but a project o f political organi-

F r o m this perspective, then, the multiplicities o f the multitude and

zation, thus shifting the discussion from being the multitude to mak-

its horizontal network structures m i r r o r capital's o w n decentered

ing the multitude. Before addressing them directly, though, we need

and deterritorializing deployment, and thus, even w h e n thought to

to explore some o f the philosophical and political bases o f the c o n -

be resisting it, the multitude's actions inevitably repeat and repro-

cept o f multitude, investigating i n particular the way the multitude

duce capitalist rule. R a d i c a l transformation and, specifically, revolu-

interacts w i t h and transforms nature.

tionary opposition to capitalist rule, Z i z e k insists, w i l l never emerge, as the multitude does, from w i t h i n capital i t s e l f

44

L i k e "the people," the multitude is the result o f a process o f political constitution, although, whereas the people is formed as a

Whereas Zizek credits the mistakes o f multitude t h i n k i n g to

unity by a hegemonic power standing above the plural social field,

an error i n M a r x , B a d i o u traces them to the w o r k o f Foucault and

the multitude is formed through articulations o n the plane o f i m -

his conception o f resistance. Since resistance is constantly engaged

manence w i t h o u t hegemony. W e can see this difference from an-

w i t h power, B a d i o u reasons, it never escapes power, and moreover

other perspective by recognizing that these two processes pose dif-

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

KAIROS

WEALTH)

OF T H E M U L T I T U D E

ferent relations between politics and the state o f nature. A l o n g

is no such thing as nature, but rather nature is constantly transformed

tradition o f political theory tells us that the construction o f hege-

by social and cultural interactions.The claim that nature is subject to

m o n y or sovereignty requires a passage from the anarchy o f the state

mutation is closely related to the philosophical proposition o f a c o n -

o f nature to the political life o f the civil state. The constitution o f the

stituent ontology—the notion, that is, that being is subject to a pro-

multitude, however, confounds this division between the state o f na-

cess o f b e c o m i n g dictated by social action and practices. G o d or be-

ture and the civil or political state: it is thoroughly political while

ing or nature, i n Spinoza's vocabulary, is not separate from and p r i o r

never leaving behind the state o f nature. This is not as paradoxical as

to the interaction o f modes i n the w o r l d but rather entirely consti-

it seems once we see the metamorphosis o f nature at w o r k i n the

tuted by t h e m .

48

These investigations o f the plasticity and mutability o f nature

constitution o f the multitude. Feminist scholars, appreciating the political obstacle posed by a

really refer to the c o m m o n — a n d indeed nature is just another w o r d

notion o f nature as fixed and immutable, separate from and prior to

for the c o m m o n . B u t it is important to keep i n m i n d the distinction

cultural and social interaction, have demonstrated h o w nature is

between the two notions o f the c o m m o n we cited earlier. Whereas

constantly constructed and transformed. Judith Butler, for example,

the traditional n o t i o n poses the c o m m o n as a natural w o r l d outside

challenges the traditional sex-gender distinction by questioning the

o f society, the biopolitical conception o f the c o m m o n permeates

fixity o f nature. T h e major stream o f feminist theory throughout its

equally all spheres o f life, referring not only to the earth, the air, the

second wave investigates h o w gender is malleable and socially c o n -

elements, or even plant and animal life but also to the constitutive

structed, Butler explains, but assumes that sex differences are natural,

elements o f human society, such as c o m m o n languages, habits, ges-

biological, and hence immutable. She argues instead that, i n addition

tures, affects, codes, and so forth. A n d whereas according to the tra-

to gender, sex too is socially constructed, that sex and sexual differ-

ditional notion, for thinkers like L o c k e and Rousseau, the formation

ences are, following Foucault, discursive formations. T h i s is not to

o f society and the progress o f history inevitably destroy the c o m -

deny that sex is directly linked to biology and bodies, but rather to

mon, fencing it off as private property, the biopolitical conception

suggest that what we k n o w and think about sex, our mode o f ap-

emphasizes not only preserving the c o m m o n but also struggling

prehension o f it, is inextricably embedded i n determinate social dis-

over the conditions o f producing it, as well as selecting among its

O t h e r feminist scholars pursue this argument i n scientific

qualities, p r o m o t i n g its beneficial forms, and fleeing its detrimental,

and biological terms to demonstrate that nature modulates accord-

corrupt forms. W e might call this an ecology o f the c o m m o n — a n

ing to social constructs and practices. A n n e Fausto-Sterling, for i n -

ecology focused equally o n nature and society, o n humans and the

stance, explores h o w nature and bodies are constantly transformed

nonhuman w o r l d i n a dynamic o f interdependence, care, and m u -

through social interactions and, specifically, h o w what we under-

tual transformation. N o w we are better positioned to understand

stand as sex and sexual difference are entirely embedded i n social

how the b e c o m i n g political o f the multitude does not require leav-

and cultural practices and consciousness. Even human bone struc-

ing behind the state o f nature, as the tradition o f sovereignty insists,

ture, she argues, w h i c h we think o f as one o f the elements o f the

but rather calls for a metamorphosis o f the c o m m o n that operates

body most fixed i n nature, requires specific triggers for development

simultaneously on nature, culture, and society.

courses.

46

and modifies differently depending on complex relations to bodily

T h e metamorphosis o f the c o m m o n leads us directly to the

practices d u r i n g growth, many o f w h i c h are defined by specific gen-

problem o f the production o f subjectivity. It is useful to remember

47

der practices. Culture shapes bones. This does not mean that there

how

heated the so-called postmodernism debates became i n the

171

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

KAIROS

WEALTH)

OF T H E M U L T I T U D E

1980s and 1990s around this question. O n one side were postmod-

relation between economic production and subjectivity thus cuts

ernists w h o focused generally o n the production o f consciousness.

out the ground from under traditional notions o f the labor process

In some respects their position repeated the classic Frankfurt School

and creates a potentially vertiginous loop. W e can cut through some

thesis that alienated consciousness is produced i n capitalist society,

o f these seeming paradoxes, though, by approaching the production

its culture industries, its mandate to consumption, and its c o m m o d -

process i n terms o f metamorphoses o f the c o m m o n . A n d it should

ity culture, but replaced the g l o o m o f the Frankfurt School w i t h a

be obvious that this k i n d o f economic process, central to biopolitical

more cheerful disposition.The claim that subjectivity is produced i n

production, is also an ontological process through w h i c h nature and

the circuits o f commodified capitalist culture seemed to some to

subjectivity are transformed and constituted.

herald a weak n o t i o n o f freedom based o n play and contingency. O n

M u l t i t u d e should be understood, then, as not a being but a

the other side were modernist defenders o f the subject i n the name

m a k i n g — o r rather a being that is not fixed or static but constantly

o f not only reason, reality, and truth but also the possibilities o f a

transformed, enriched, constituted by a process o f making. T h i s is a

politics o f liberation. A stable subject residing outside the function-

peculiar k i n d o f making, though, insofar as there is no maker that

ing o f power was thought to be necessary as a ground for politics i n

stands behind the process. T h r o u g h the production o f subjectivity,

class politics, race politics, feminism, and other identity domains.

the multitude is itself author o f its perpetual b e c o m i n g other, an u n -

These two sides, w h i c h we have painted i n admittedly reductive

interrupted process o f collective self-transformation.

terms, m o n o p o l i z e d the most visible debates, but a third approach, m u c h closer to our o w n , was developed i n the same p e r i o d by

From Being to Making the Multitude

Foucault, Deleuze, and Guattari. These authors focus o n the social

O n c e we shift our perspective from being the multitude to m a k i n g

mechanisms o f the production o f subjectivity i n institutional archi-

the multitude, and once we recognize the multitude as a constant

tectures, psychoanalytic discourse, state apparatuses, and so forth,

process o f metamorphosis grounded i n the c o m m o n , we are i n a

but they do not greet the recognition that subjectivity is produced

better position to respond to the questions and critiques o f the c o n -

through apparatuses o f power w i t h either celebration or despair.

cept we outlined earlier. T h e first set o f questions deems the m u l t i -

T h e y regard the production o f subjectivity rather as the primary

tude incapable o f politics because it is not unified by hegemony. A t

terrain o n w h i c h political struggle takes place. W e need to inter-

issue here is whether only hegemonic, unified subjects or also h o r i -

vene i n the circuits o f the production o f subjectivity, flee from the

zontally organized multiplicities are capable o f political action. W e

apparatuses o f control, and construct the bases for an autonomous

can answer these questions by referring to our earlier economic i n -

production.

49

vestigations. Biopolitical production takes place and can only take

T h e politics o f the production o f subjectivity helps us under-

place o n the terrain o f the c o m m o n . Ideas, images, and codes are

o f the

produced not by a lone genius or even by a master w i t h supporting

c o m m o n , w h i c h we analyzed earlier. T h e biopolitical production o f

apprentices but by a w i d e network o f cooperating producers. Labor

ideas, codes, images, affects, and social relationships directly treats the

tends to be increasingly autonomous from capitalist command, and

constituent elements o f human subjectivity: this terrain is precisely

thus capital's mechanisms o f expropriation and control become fet-

where subjectivity is b o r n and resides. O n e might still conceive o f

ters that obstruct productivity. Biopolitical production is an orches-

economic production as an engagement o f the subject w i t h nature,

tra keeping the beat w i t h o u t a conductor, and it w o u l d fall silent i f

a transformation o f the object through labor, but increasingly the

anyone were to step onto the p o d i u m .

stand better the economic process o f the metamorphoses

"nature" that biopolitical labor transforms is subjectivity itself. This

T h e m o d e l o f biopolitical economic production serves us here

173

174

CAPITAL

(AND THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

KAIROS

OF T H E

MULTITUDE

as an analogy for political action: just as a w i d e social multiplicity

also distinguishes a third fundamental human activity, w h i c h she calls

produces immaterial products and economic value, so too is such a

labor. T h e labor she has i n m i n d corresponds to the biological func-

multitude able to produce political decisions. It is m u c h more than

tioning o f the body and thus the production o f vital necessities. B o t h

an analogy, though, because the same capacities that are set i n play,

the condition and goal o f this labor, she explains, is thus life itself.

w h i c h are necessary for the one, are also sufficient for the other. T h e

Arendt primarily uses this concept o f labor, o f course, as a foil to

ability o f producers autonomously to organize cooperation and pro-

distinguish the political realm, separating it from the w o r l d o f needs,

duce collectively i n a planned way, i n other words, has immediate

but here again we can see that her distinctions are progressively

implications for the political realm, providing the tools and habits

breaking d o w n . Politics has probably never really been separable

for collective decision making. In this respect the division between

from the realm o f needs and life, but increasingly today biopolitical

economic production and political action posed by authors such as

production is aimed constantly at producing forms o f life. H e n c e

H a n n a h Arendt completely breaks d o w n . Arendt's conception o f

the utility o f the term "biopolitical." Focusing on the m a k i n g o f the

politics focuses o n plurality and freedom, characterizing political ac-

multitude, then, allows us to recognize h o w its productive activity is

tion as a realm o f singularities that communicate and cooperate i n a

also a political act o f self-making.

c o m m o n w o r l d . She distinguishes this from the economic realm o f

W e are n o w finally i n a position to respond easily to the first

Homo faber, w h i c h is separated off i n the workplace and driven i n -

set o f questions about the political capacities o f the multitude. It is

strumentally toward m a k i n g a product.The economic producer, she

true that the organization o f singularities required for political ac-

reasons, is inclined to denounce the action and speech that define

tion and decision making is not immediate or spontaneous, but that

politics as idleness and useless chatter. W o r k is driven narrowly to-

does not mean that hegemony and unification, the formation o f a

ward a telos, such that "the strength o f the production process is e n -

sovereign and unified power—whether

tirely absorbed i n and exhausted by the end product," whereas the

people—is the necessary condition for politics. Spontaneity and he-

strength o f the political process is never exhausted i n a product but

gemony are not the only alter natives. T h e multitude can develop the

it be a state, a party, or a

rather grows " w h i l e its consequences multiply; what endures i n the

power to organize itself through the conflictual and cooperative i n -

realm o f human affairs are these processes, and their endurance is as

teractions o f singularities i n the c o m m o n . E v e n i f one recognizes

unlimited, as independent o f the perishability o f material and the

this tendency, it is reasonable to question whether the multitude is

50

mortality o f men as the endurance o f humanity itself." Arendt is

ready for such responsibilities, whether it has become sufficiently

clearly referring to an economic paradigm o f material production,

endowed w i t h the capacities to organize, act, and decide politically.

w i t h the factory as her primary model, but once we shift our gaze to

R e m e m b e r Lenin's warning o n the eve o f O c t o b e r 1917: never

biopolitical production, we clearly see that all o f the qualities she at-

make revolution o n the basis o f some ideal or imagined population.

tributes to the political apply equally to the economic: the coopera-

T h e Russian people are not ready to rule themselves, he claims, but

tion o f a w i d e plurality o f singularities i n a c o m m o n w o r l d , the fo-

need a hegemonic force to guide them through the transition pe-

cus o n speech and communication, and the interminable continuity

riod. T h e y have been trained at work to need subordination, super-

o f the process both based i n the c o m m o n and resulting i n the c o m -

vision, and managers: they have a boss o n the j o b , and thus they

m o n . T h i s is one reason for using the term"bio/w/iH'ai/" to name this

need a boss i n politics. T h e logic o f Lenin's warning puts all the

f o r m o f production, because the economic capacities and acts are

more pressure on our demonstration earlier o f both the tendential

themselves immediately political. W e should note here that Arendt

hegemony o f biopolitical production i n the contemporary economy

51

175

176

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

KAIROS

WEALTH)

OF T H E

MULTITUDE

and the qualities and capacities that come w i t h it. If one can realisti-

O n e facet o f the political direction o f the multitude lies i n its

cally establish the capacities for self-organization and cooperation i n

exodus from all corrupt derivations o f the c o m m o n accumulated i n

people's daily lives, i n their work, or more generally i n social pro-

social institutions, i n c l u d i n g the family, the corporation, and the na-

duction, then the political capacity o f the multitude ceases to be a

tion. T h e multitude must select the beneficial and flee the detri-

question.

mental forms o f the c o m m o n . W h a t is corrupt about the c o m m o n

T h e second set o f questions, w h i c h regard the political o r i e n -

in these institutions, we can see now, is that through hierarchies, d i -

tation o f the multitude, progressive or regressive, resisting the cur-

visions, and limits, they block the production o f subjectivity and,

rent system o f power or supporting it, is not so easily addressed. In

moreover, the production o f the c o m m o n . T h r o u g h its selection and

earlier chapters we proposed a conception o f resistance that is p r i o r

exodus the multitude must set the c o m m o n i n m o t i o n , opening up

to power since power is exercised only over free subjects, and thus,

again its processes o f production.

although situated " w i t h i n and against," resistance is not condemned

T h e political orientation also should be defined i n the making

to reinforce or repeat the structures o f power. W e also presented a

o f the multitude, conceived not only as its political constitution but

biopolitical n o t i o n o f the event, different from the conception that

also as its economic production. In the context o f biopolitical pro-

events come only "from the outside," and thus our sole political duty

duction, by w o r k i n g o n the c o m m o n and producing the c o m m o n ,

is to be faithful to them and their truth, to maintain discipline after

the multitude constantly transforms itself.This brings to m i n d Marx's

the event arrives. Those w h o follow this notion o f the event can

admiration for Charles Fourier's Utopian insight that the proletariat

only wait w i t h a k i n d o f messianic fervor for another event to come.

is a subject i n transformation, transformed through labor but also

Biopolitical events instead reside i n the creative acts o f the produc-

and moreover through social, cooperative, inventive activity i n the

tion o f the c o m m o n . There is indeed something mysterious about

time left free from the constraints o f work. " T h e process," M a r x ex-

the act o f creation, but it is a miracle that wells up from w i t h i n the

plains, extending Fourier's insight, "is then both discipline, as regards

multitude every day.

the human being i n the process o f becoming; and, at the same

Resistance and the creation o f events, however, do not yet es-

time, practice, experimental science, materially creative and objec-

tablish the political orientation o f the multitude. T h e characteristics

tifying science, as regards the human being w h o has become, i n

o f the c o m m o n and the multitude's relation to it give us some i n d i -

whose head exists the accumulated knowledge o f society."

cations o f h o w to proceed. Pierre Macherey identifies the rebellious

self-transformation o f the multitude i n production, grounded i n the

character o f the c o m m o n , w h i c h always exceeds the limits o f power.

expansion o f the c o m m o n , gives an initial indication o f the direc-

" B y c o m m o n life," he writes, "one must thus understand all the fig-

tion o f the self-rule o f the multitude i n the political realm.

53

The

ures o f collective creation that put to w o r k cooperation and collab-

A l l o f these elements, however, animated by biopolitical events,

oration, the network that, once set i n m o t i o n , can extend infinitely.

fleeing corrupt forms o f the c o m m o n , and dedicated to furthering

That is w h y c o m m o n life exceeds every system and every fixed o r -

the production o f the c o m m o n i n its beneficial forms, do not yet

der, to w h i c h it is necessarily rebellious." T h e fact that the m u l t i -

specify adequately the political orientation o f the multitude. W e

tude, based i n the c o m m o n , always exceeds the limits o f power i n d i -

need at this point to engage directly w i t h the question o f organiza-

cates its incompatibility w i t h the ruling system—and its antisystemic

tion because that is the terrain o n w h i c h the progressive, liberatory,

nature i n that sense—but does not yet establish its liberatory p o l i t i -

antisystemic character o f the multitude w i l l have to be verified and

cal orientation.

consolidated i n its o w n durable institutions. T h i s w i l l be one o f the

52

177

178

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

primary tasks for us to address, first i n De Singularitate 1 and the I n termezzo that follow this section and then throughout the second half o f the book: a theory o f political organization adequate to the multitude. T h e terrain o f organization is where we must establish that the multitude can be a revolutionary figure and indeed that it is the only figure today capable o f revolution.

DE

SINGULARITATE 1

OF L O V E

POSSESSED

Let your loves be like the wasp and the orchid. —Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari

A l l the theoretical elements we have accumulated thus far—from the multitude o f the p o o r to the project o f altermodernity and from the social productivity o f biopolitical labor to the exodus from capitalist command—despite all their power, risk l y i n g inert beside one another without one more element that pulls them together and animates them i n a coherent project. W h a t is missing is love.Yes, we k n o w that term makes many readers u n comfortable. Some squirm i n their seats w i t h embarrassment and 54

others smirk w i t h superiority. Love has been so charged w i t h sentimentality that it seems hardly fit for philosophical and m u c h less political discourse. Leave it to the poets to speak o f love, many w i l l say, and wrap themselves i n its w a r m embrace. We think instead that love is an essential concept for philosophy and politics, and the failure to interrogate and develop it is one central cause o f the weakness o f contemporary thought. It is unwise to leave love to the priests, poets, and psychoanalysts. It is necessary for us, then, to do some conceptual housecleaning, clearing away some o f the m i s c o n ceptions that disqualify love for philosophical and political discourse and redefining the concept i n such a way as to demonstrate its utility. W e w i l l find i n the process that philosophers, political scientists, and even economists, despite the imagined cold precision o f

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

DE S I N G U L A R I T A T E

1 : OF L O V E

POSSESSED

their thinking, are really often speaking about love. A n d i f they were

love, we are not merely creating new objects or even new subjects

not so shy they w o u l d tell us as m u c h . This w i l l help us d e m o n -

i n the w o r l d . Instead we are producing a new w o r l d , a new social

strate h o w love is really the living heart o f the project we have been

life. B e i n g , i n other words, is not some immutable background

developing, w i t h o u t w h i c h the rest w o u l d remain a lifeless heap.

against w h i c h life takes place but is rather a living relation i n w h i c h

To understand love as a philosophical and political concept, it

we constantly have the power to intervene. Love is an ontological

is useful to begin from the perspective o f the poor and the i n n u -

event i n that it marks a rupture w i t h what exists and the creation o f

merable forms o f social solidarity and social production that one

the new. B e i n g is constituted by love. This ontologically constitutive

recognizes everywhere among those w h o live i n poverty. Solidarity,

capacity has been a battlefield for numerous conflicts among p h i -

care for others, creating community, and cooperating i n c o m m o n

losophers. Heidegger, for instance, strenuously counters this n o t i o n

projects is for them an essential survival mechanism.That brings us

o f ontological constitution i n his lecture o n poverty that we read

back to the elements o f poverty we emphasized earlier. A l t h o u g h

earlier. H u m a n i t y becomes poor to become rich, he argues, w h e n it

the p o o r are defined by material lack, people are never reduced to

lacks the nonnecessary, revealing what is necessary, that is, its rela-

bare life but are always endowed w i t h powers o f invention and pro-

tion to B e i n g . T h e poor as Heidegger imagines them i n this rela-

duction. T h e real essence o f the poor, i n fact, is not their lack but

tion, however, have no constitutive capacity, and humanity as a

their power. W h e n we band together, w h e n we f o r m a social body

whole, i n fact, is powerless i n the face o f B e i n g . O n this point S p i -

that is more powerful than any o f our individual bodies alone, we

noza stands at the opposite end from Heidegger. L i k e Heidegger, he

are constructing a new and c o m m o n subjectivity. O u r point o f de-

might say that humanity becomes r i c h w h e n it recognizes its rela-

parture, then, w h i c h the perspective o f the p o o r helps reveal, is that

tion to being, but that relation for Spinoza is entirely different. E s -

love is a process o f the production o f the c o m m o n and the produc-

pecially i n the mysterious fifth b o o k o f Spinoza's Ethics, we consti-

tion o f subjectivity. This process is not merely a means to producing

tute being actively through love. Love, Spinoza explains w i t h his

material goods and other necessities but also i n itself an end.

usual geometrical precision, is joy, that is, the increase o f our power

If such a statement sounds too sentimental, one can arrive at

to act and think, together w i t h the recognition o f an external cause.

the same point through the analysis o f political economy. In the

T h r o u g h love we f o r m a relation to that cause and seek to repeat

context o f biopolitical production, as we have demonstrated i n the

and expand our joy, f o r m i n g new, more powerful bodies and minds.

course o f Part 3, the production o f the c o m m o n is not separate

For Spinoza, i n other words, love is a production o f the c o m m o n

from or external to economic production, sequestered neither i n

that constantly aims upward, seeking to create more w i t h ever more

the private realm nor i n the sphere o f reproduction, but is instead

power, up to the point o f engaging i n the love o f G o d , that is, the

integral to and inseparable from the production o f capital. L o v e — i n

love o f nature as a whole, the c o m m o n i n its most expansive figure.

the production o f affective networks, schemes o f cooperation, and

Every act o f love, one might say, is an ontological event i n that it

social subjectivities—is an economic power. C o n c e i v e d i n this way

marks a rupture w i t h existing being and creates new being, from

love is not, as it is often characterized, spontaneous or passive. It

poverty through love to being. B e i n g , after all, is just another way o f

does not simply happen to us, as i f it were an event that mystically

saying what is ineluctably c o m m o n , what refuses to be privatized or

arrives from elsewhere. Instead it is an action, a biopolitical event,

enclosed and remains constantly open to all. (There is no such

planned and realized i n c o m m o n .

thing as a private ontology.) To say love is ontologically constitutive,

Love is productive i n a philosophical sense too—productive o f being. W h e n we engage i n the production o f subjectivity that is

then, simply means that it produces the c o m m o n . As soon as we identify love w i t h the production o f the c o m -

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

DE

WEALTH)

SINGULARITATE

1 : OF L O V E

POSSESSED

m o n , we need to recognize that, just like the c o m m o n itself, love

poetry, i n w h i c h the love o f the stranger continually reappears as an

is deeply ambivalent and susceptible to corruption. In fact what

encounter characterized by wonder, growth, and discovery. N i e t z -

passes for love today i n ordinary discourse and popular culture is

sche's Zarathustra echoes W h i t m a n w h e n he preaches that higher

predominantly its corrupt forms. T h e primary locus o f this c o r r u p -

than love o f neighbor is "love o f the farthest." Love o f the

56

tion is the shift i n love from the c o m m o n to the same, that is, from

stranger, love o f the farthest, and love o f alterity can function as an

the production o f the c o m m o n to a repetition o f the same or a

antidote against the poison o f identitarian love, w h i c h hinders and

process o f unification. W h a t distinguishes the beneficial forms o f

distorts love's productivity by forcing it constantly to repeat the

love instead is the constant interplay between the c o m m o n and sin-

same. Here then is another meaning o f love as a biopolitical event:

gularities.

not only does it mark rupture w i t h the existent and creation o f the new, but also it is the production o f singularities and the composi-

O n e corrupt f o r m o f love is identitarian love, that is, love o f

tion o f singularities i n a c o m m o n relationship.

the same, w h i c h can be based, for example, o n a narrow interpreta-

A second f o r m o f corrupt love poses love as a process o f u n i f i -

tion o f the mandate to love thy neighbor, understanding it as a call to love those most proximate, those most like y o u . Family l o v e —

cation, o f b e c o m i n g the same. T h e contemporary dominant notion

the pressure to love first and most those w i t h i n the family to the

o f romantic love i n our cultures, w h i c h H o l l y w o o d sells every day,

exclusion or subordination o f those outside—is one f o r m o f identi-

its stock i n trade, requires that the couple merge i n unity. T h e m a n -

tarian love. R a c e love and nation love, or patriotism, are similar ex-

datory sequence o f this corrupted romantic love—couple-

amples o f the pressure to love most those most like y o u and hence

marriage-family—imagines people finding their match, like lost

less those w h o are different. Family, race, and nation, then, w h i c h

puzzle pieces, that n o w together make (or restore) a whole. M a r -

are corrupt forms o f the c o m m o n , are unsurprisingly the bases o f

riage and family close the couple i n a unit that subsequently, as we

corrupt forms o f love. F r o m this perspective we might say that p o p -

said earlier, corrupts the c o m m o n . T h i s same process o f love as u n i -

ulisms, nationalisms, fascisms, and various religious fundamentalisms

fication is also expressed i n many different religious traditions, espe-

are based not so m u c h o n hatred as o n love—but a horribly cor-

cially i n their mystical registers: love o f G o d means merging i n the

rupted form o f identitarian love.

divine unity. A n d it is not so surprising that such notions o f mystical u n i o n often use the conventional language o f romantic love, i n -

A n initial strategy to combat this corruption is to employ a more expansive, more generous interpretation o f the mandate to

v o k i n g the betrothed, divine marriage, and so forth, because they

love thy neighbor, reading the neighbor not as the one nearest and

are aimed at the same goal: m a k i n g the many into one, m a k i n g the

most like y o u but, to the contrary, as the other. " T h e neighbor is

different into the same. Similarly, various forms o f patriotism share

therefore . . . only a place-keeper," says Franz R o s e n z w e i g . "Love is

this n o t i o n o f setting (or pushing) aside differences and alterity i n

really oriented toward the embodiment o f all those—men and

order to form a united national people, a national identity. T h i s sec-

things—that could at any moment take this place o f its neighbor, i n

o n d corruption o f love as unification is intimately related, i n fact, to

the last resort it applies to everything, it applies to the w o r l d . "

55

the first identitarian corruption o f love: love o f the same, love mak-

The

ing the same.

mandate to love thy neighbor, then, the embodiment o f each and

O n e philosophical key to our argument here, w h i c h should be

every commandment for the monotheistic religions, requires us to love the other or, really, to love alterity. A n d i f you are not comfort-

clear already, is that the dynamic o f multiple singularities i n the

able w i t h scriptural exegesis as explanation, think ofWalt Whitman's

c o m m o n has nothing to do w i t h the o l d dialectic between the

I

183

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH)

DE

SINGULARITATE

1 : OF L O V E

POSSESSED

many and the one. Whereas the one stands opposed to the many,

o f the hive, weary o f the constant harping, makes all the bees v i r t u -

the c o m m o n is compatible w i t h and even internally composed o f

ous and eliminates vice, but as soon as he does so, the w o r k o f the

multiplicities. This compatibility between the c o m m o n and m u l t i -

hive comes to a halt a n d the society o f the hive falls apart. T h e fable

plicity can be understood i n simple terms (perhaps too simple)

is

w h e n posed i n the field o f political action: i f we d i d not share a

Mandeville, like Machiavelli and Spinoza before h i m , insists that,

c o m m o n w o r l d , then we w o u l d not be able to communicate w i t h one another or engage one another's needs and desires; and i f we were not multiple singularities, then we w o u l d have no need to communicate and interact. We agree i n this regard w i t h H a n n a h Arendt's conception o f politics as the interaction and composition o f singularities i n a c o m m o n w o r l d .

aimed,

obviously,

at s o c i a l m o r a l i s t s a n d r a t i o n a l i s t

Utopians.

instead o f preaching h o w people should be, social theorists must study h o w people are and analyze the passions that actually animate them. Mandeville's fable scandalized eighteenth-century English society, as it was meant to, but some, including A d a m Smith, read it as

57

P r o m o t i n g the encounters o f singularities i n the c o m m o n ,

a confirmation o f capitalist ideology. Smith takes Mandeville's p o lemic that vice, not virtue, is the source o f public benefit—people

then, is the primary strategy to combat love corrupted through

w o r k out o f greed, obey the law out o f cowardice, and so forth—to

identity and unification, w h i c h brings the production o f subjectiv-

support the n o t i o n that self-interest is the basis o f market exchanges

ity to a halt and abrogates the c o m m o n . Sameness and unity involve

and the capitalist economy. I f each acts out o f self-interest, then the

no creation but mere repetition w i t h o u t difference. Love should

public good w i l l result from market activity as i f guided by an invis-

be defined, instead, by the encounters and experimentation o f sin-

ible hand. Smith, o f course, a stalwart advocate o f sympathy and

gularities i n the c o m m o n , w h i c h i n turn produce a new c o m m o n

other moral sentiments, is not advocating vice but simply wants to

and new singularities. Whereas i n the ontological context we char-

keep misplaced moral imperatives and well-intentioned public c o n -

acterized the process o f love as constitution, here i n a political c o n -

trol out o f the economy. W h a t Smith bans most adamantly from the

text we should emphasize its power o f composition. Love composes

marketplace is the c o m m o n : only from private interests w i l l the

singularities, like themes i n a musical score, not i n unity but as a

public good result. "It is not from the benevolence o f the butcher,

network o f social relations. B r i n g i n g together these two faces o f

the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner," Smith fa-

love—the constitution o f the c o m m o n and the composition o f sin-

mously writes, "but from their regard to their o w n interest.We ad-

gularities—is a central challenge for understanding love as a mate-

dress ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and

rial, political act.

never talk to them o f our o w n necessities but o f their advantages."

We began this discussion by claiming that economic production is really a matter o f love, but we are perfectly aware that e c o n -

58

O u r love for one another has no place i n the realm o f economic exchanges.

omists do not see it that way Economists, i n fact, have l o n g cele-

W e get a rather different, updated fable o f economic life w h e n

brated Bernard Mandeville's early-eighteenth-century satire The

we focus o n not the society w i t h i n the hive but bee pollination ac-

Fable of the Bees as an anti-love anthem, p r o o f that there is no pos-

tivity outside it. For honeybees, flowers located w i t h i n flying dis-

sible connection between economics and love. Mandeville tells o f a

tance o f the hive constitute a positive externality. Bees fly from one

beehive that is wealthy and powerful but ridden w i t h all order o f

apple blossom to another, one cherry blossom to another, gathering

private vices, including deceit, greed, laziness, and cowardice.The

nectar to transport back to the hive. As a bee collects nectar, its legs

hive moralists constantly rail against vice to no avail. Finally the god

rub pollen off the anther o f the flower, and w h e n it proceeds to an-

CAPITAL

( A N D THE S T R U G G L E S

OVER

COMMON

DE

WEALTH)

SINGULARITATE

1 : OF L O V E

POSSESSED

other, some o f the pollen from its legs rubs off o n the stigma o f the

bees; they aren't driven to produce anything. T h e y just want to have

next flower. For the flowers, then, bee activity is a positive external-

fun. A second point o f interest for Guattari is undoubtedly the way

ity, completing the cross-pollination necessary to produce fruit. T h e

this pollination story reinforces his lifelong diatribe against the cor-

economic fable o f these bees and flowers suggests a society o f m u -

ruptions o f love i n the couple and the family. Wasps and orchids do

tual aid based o n positive externalities and virtuous exchanges i n

not suggest any morality tale o f marriage and stable u n i o n , as bees

w h i c h the bee provides for the needs o f the flower and, i n turn, the flower fulfills the bee's needs.

59

W e can imagine Mandeville and S m i t h frowning at this fable

and flowers do, but rather evoke scenarios o f cruising and serial sex c o m m o n to some gay male communities, especially before the onslaught o f the A I D S pandemic, like passages from the writings

because o f its suggestion o f virtue and purposeful mutual aid as the

o f Jean Genet, D a v i d Wojnarowicz, and Samuel Delany.This is not

basis o f social production. W e are hesitant about the bee pollination

to say that cruising and anonymous sex serve as a m o d e l o f love

fable too, but for a different reason: the k i n d o f love it promotes.

to emulate for Guattari (or Genet, Wojnarowicz, or Delany), but

Bees and flowers do indeed suggest a k i n d o f love, but a static, cor-

rather that they provide an antidote to the corruptions o f love i n

rupt form. (We know, we're anthropomorphizing the bees and

the couple and the family, opening love up to the encounter o f sin-

flowers, projecting human traits and desires onto them, but isn't that

gularities.

what all fables do?) T h e marriage between bee and flower is a

W h e n the wasp and orchid story appears i n print i n Deleuze

match made i n heaven; they are the two halves that "complete"

and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, several years after Guattari's i n i -

each other and f o r m a whole, closing the c o m m o n d o w n i n same-

tial letter, the fable has been refined and cast i n the context o f evo-

ness and unity. B u t isn't this u n i o n a m o d e l o f the productivity o f

lutionary discourse. Deleuze and Guattari insist, first o f all, that the

the c o m m o n , y o u might ask? Doesn't it produce honey and fruit?

orchid is not imitating the wasp or trying to deceive it, as botanists

Yes, y o u might call this a k i n d o f production, but it is really just the

often say.The orchid is a becoming-wasp (becoming the wasp's sex-

repetition o f the same. W h a t we are l o o k i n g for—and what counts

ual organ) and the wasp is a b e c o m i n g - o r c h i d (becoming part o f

in love—is the production o f subjectivity and the encounter o f sin-

the orchid's system o f reproduction). W h a t is central is the encoun-

gularities, w h i c h compose new assemblages and constitute new

ter and interaction between these two becomings, w h i c h together

forms o f the c o m m o n .

form a new assemblage, a wasp-orchid machine. T h e fable is devoid

Let's switch species, then, to write a new fable. C e r t a i n orchids

o f intentions and interests: the wasps and orchids are not paragons

give off the odor o f the sex pheromone o f female wasps, and their

o f virtue i n their mutual aid, nor are they models o f egotistic self-

flowers are shaped like the female wasp sex organs. Pollination is

love. Deleuze and Guattari's machinic language allows them to

thus achieved by "pseudocopulation" as male wasps move from one

avoid asking " W h a t does it mean?" and focus instead on " H o w does

orchid to the next, sinking their genital members into each flower

it w o r k ? " T h e fable thus tells the story o f wasp-orchid love, a love

and rubbing off pollen on their bodies i n the process. "So wasps

based o n the encounter o f alterity but also o n a process o f b e c o m -

fuck flowers!" Felix Guattari exclaims w i t h rather juvenile glee i n a

ing different.

letter to Gilles Deleuze. "Wasps do this w o r k just like that, for n o t h ing, just for f u n ! "

60

Guattari's delight at this example is due i n part

61

Mandeville's bees (at least according to Smith's reading) are the m o d e l for a capitalist dream o f individual free agents trading l a -

to the fact that it undercuts the industriousness and "productivism"

bor and goods i n the marketplace, intent o n their o w n self-interest

usually attributed to nature.These wasps aren't your dutiful worker

and deaf to the c o m m o n good. T h e dutiful worker bees, i n contrast,

187

188

CAPITAL

(AND THE STRUGGLES

OVER

COMMON

WEALTH

j o i n e d w i t h their flowers i n a virtuous u n i o n o f mutual aid, are the stuff o f socialist Utopia. A l l o f these bees, however, belong to the b y -

INTERMEZZO

gone era o f the hegemony o f industrial production. Wasps w h o love orchids, instead, point toward the conditions o f the biopolitical economy. H o w c o u l d these wasps be a m o d e l for economic pro-

A FORCE TO COMBAT

EVIL

duction, y o u might ask, w h e n they don't produce anything? T h e bees and flowers produce honey and fruit, but the wasps and o r chids are just hedonists and aesthetes, merely creating pleasure and beauty! It is true that the interaction o f wasps and orchids does not result primarily i n material goods, but one should not discount their immaterial production. In the encounter o f singularities o f

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. —William Shakespeare, Hamlet

their love, a new assemblage is created, marked by the continual metamorphosis o f each singularity i n the c o m m o n . Wasp-orchid love, i n other words, is a m o d e l o f the production o f subjectivity that animates the biopolitical economy. Let's have done w i t h worker bees, then, and focus o n the singularities and becomings o f wasp-orchid love!

As a motor o f association, love is the power o f the c o m m o n i n a double sense: both the power that the c o m m o n exerts and the power to constitute the c o m m o n . It is thus also the movement toward freedom i n w h i c h the composition o f singularities leads toward not unity or identity but the increasing autonomy o f each participating equally i n the web o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n and cooperation. Love is the power o f the poor to exit a life o f misery and solitude, and engage the project to make the multitude. As we continue our study, we w i l l have to identify h o w this march o f freedom and equality can be made lasting, strengthened, and consolidated i n the formation o f social and political institutions. A l l o f this sounds good, y o u might say, for a political theory designed for angels, not humans, but people do not always act o n the basis o f love, and they often destroy the c o m m o n . Is it not more realistic, then, rather than assuming that humans are fundamentally good, to conceive o f them as fundamentally evil? Indeed such a "realist" or, really, pessimistic position is the dominant v i e w i n E u r o Atlantic political philosophy, from Thomas Hobbes's n o t i o n o f a "war o f all against all" to H e l m u t h Plessner's proposition o f a p o l i t i cal anthropology i n w h i c h humans are characterized by "potentially unlimited intraspecies aggressiveness."

1

F r o m this perspective, a p o -

litical anthropology based o n love, w h i c h does not take into account

A

INTERMEZZO

FORCE TO C O M B A T

EVIL

the evil that lurks i n human hearts, is naive at best. Believing that

to do every day—the wars, the cruelty, the suffering! This amounts

people are what we want them to be and that human nature is fun-

to something like a secular theodicy: H o w can humans be g o o d

damentally g o o d is dangerous, i n fact, because it undermines the

w h e n there is so m u c h evil i n the w o r l d and w h e n they so often act

political and conceptual tools necessary to confront and restrain evil.

in evil ways? W h e t h e r o n religious, philosophical, and/or empirical

B y focusing instead o n h o w dangerous humans are, such authors

bases, then, pessimistic political anthropologies treat evil as an invari-

maintain, and specifically o n h o w human nature is characterized by

ant feature o f human nature, w h i c h must be constantly restrained

discord, violence, and conflict, such a theory can treat this evil, c o n -

and contained i n society.

tain it, and thereby construct a society that holds evil i n check.

W h a t we are confronting here, though, is a poorly posed ques-

We agree that a realist perspective, w i t h its mandate for p o l i t i -

tion. It is a mistake to ask whether human nature is g o o d or evil, first

cal thought to understand humanity as it is, not as we want it to be,

o f all, because good and evil are contingent evaluations, not invari-

is extremely important. Humans are not naturally good. In the terms

ants.They are judgments that arise after the exercise o f the w i l l . S p i -

we developed i n the last chapter, this corresponds to the ambiva-

noza, for example, like Nietzsche after h i m , explains that humans do

lence o f the c o m m o n and love, that is, the fact that they can take

not strive for something because they deem it g o o d but instead

negative as well as positive forms. A n d furthermore the spontaneous

deem it good because they strive for it. Foucault poses Spinoza's

actions o f a multitude o f people, as we said, are not necessarily anti-

point i n more clearly political terms w h e n he claims, i n a debate

systemic or oriented toward liberation. In fact people often struggle

w i t h N o a m C h o m s k y , that the question o f justice—just war i n this

for their servitude, as Spinoza says, as i f it were their salvation.

2

T h e problem w i t h the pessimistic conceptions o f political anthropology, however, is that after justly dismissing any fundamental

case—arises only after political action: the proletariat does not make war o n the ruling class because it considers that war just but rather considers class war just because it wants to overthrow the ruling 4

goodness, they pose evil as an equally fundamental, invariable element o f human nature. E v i l is posed by some i n religious terms as transcendent (sin, for example) and by others as a transcendental e l -

class. To say that g o o d and evil, like just and unjust, are relative terms that depend o n relations o f force is not to say that they do not exist, but rather simply that they are not fixed, invariable foundations.

ement (a radical evil that marks a limit o f human society). Saint Paul

W h e t h e r human nature is g o o d or evil is a poorly posed ques-

manages to grasp these two formulations i n a single verse: "I w o u l d

tion also because basing the analysis o f political anthropology o n

not have k n o w n sin except through l a w " (Romans 7:7). I f evil is

invariants o f any sort leads to a dead end. T h e question is not what

radical, then one must try to neutralize and contain it; even i f evil

invariant defines human nature, i n other words, but what human na-

and sin are recognized as "necessary illusions" that result from the

ture can become. T h e most important fact about human nature (if we

"sleep o f reason," as K a n t says, they must be regulated. T h e f o r m o f

still want to call it that) is that it can be and is constantly being trans-

law (and thus the practices and theoretical mechanisms that grant

formed. A realist political anthropology must focus o n this process o f

law the function o f controlling the entire set o f social behaviors ac-

metamorphosis. This brings us back to the issue o f making the m u l -

cording to a p r i o r i norms) has always i n this metaphysical frame

titude, through organization and self-transformation. Questions o f

constituted the transcendental complement o f an ontology o f radi-

good and evil can only be posed after the m a k i n g o f the multitude is

3

cal e v i l . In most political discussions, though, metaphysical founda-

initiated, i n the context o f its project.

tions are not required. The evil i n human nature is simply confirmed

B y arguing against the fixity o f evil i n h u m a n nature, we do

empirically: l o o k at all the evil that humans have done and continue

not intend to make it impossible to use the term. E v i l does exist.We

192

INTERMEZZO

A

FORCE TO C O M B A T

EVIL

5

see it all around us. B u t the problem o f evil has to be posed i n such

solve it." T h i s passage resembles those o f other seventeenth- and

as way that its genealogy can be understood, thereby giving us a key

eighteenth-century authors w h o theorize the negation o f the state

to combating it. T h e pessimistic v i e w o f political anthropology reg-

o f nature i n the formation o f society, but the key difference is that

isters the existence o f evil but by treating it as an invariant blocks

Spinoza poses this as a positive, cumulative progression: the striving

any attempt to understand its genesis: evil just is.

toward freedom and the c o m m o n resides at the most basic level o f

proposition for political anthropology is to conceive o f

life; then desire sets i n m o t i o n the construction o f the c o m m o n ; and

evil as a derivative and distortion o f love and the c o m m o n . E v i l is

finally love consolidates the c o m m o n institutions that f o r m society.

the corruption o f love that creates an obstacle to love, or to say the

H u m a n nature is not negated but transformed i n this sequence.

Our

same thing w i t h a different focus, evil is the corruption o f the c o m -

Spinoza, however, is the ultimate realist. H e recognizes that the

that blocks its production and productivity. E v i l thus has no

social construction o f the c o m m o n through love does not function

originary or p r i m a r y existence but stands o n l y i n a secondary posi-

unimpeded and that humans are the authors o f the obstacles. O n the

tion to love. W e spoke earlier o f corruptions o f love i n racisms, na-

surface his explanation is that humans create these impediments and

mon

tionalisms, populisms, and fascisms; and we similarly analyzed not

evil i n general out o f ignorance, fear, and superstition. Since to c o m -

only the destruction o f the c o m m o n through capitalist expropria-

bat evil, then, one must overcome ignorance and fear and destroy

tion and privatization but also institutionalized corruptions o f the

superstition, education i n the truth o f the intellect and the correct

c o m m o n i n the family, the corporation, and the nation. T h i s double

exercise o f the w i l l are the antidotes to evil. B u t any Stoic could tell

position o f evil as corruption and obstacle presents us w i t h some

us that! Spinoza's difference resides at a deeper level where the edu-

initial criteria for our investigation.

cation or training o f the m i n d and body are grounded i n the m o v e -

H a v i n g posed the problem o f evil i n this way allows us to re-

ment o f love. H e does not conceive evil, as does Augustine, for i n -

turn to Spinoza's conception, w h i c h served us as the m o d e l for a

stance, as a privation o f being; nor does he pose it as a lack o f love.

politics o f love. W e should start w i t h this typically Spinozian geo-

E v i l instead is love gone bad, love corrupted i n such a way that it

metrical sequence: at the level o f sensations he identifies a striving

obstructs the functioning o f love. Consider ignorance, fear, and su-

(conatus) o f and for life; this striving is built u p o n and directed i n de-

perstition, then, not just as the lack o f intelligence but as the power

sire (cupiditas), w h i c h functions through the affects: and desire i n

o f intelligence turned against itself, and equally the power o f the

turn is strengthened and affirmed i n love (amor), w h i c h operates i n

body distorted and blocked. A n d since love is ultimately the power

reason. T h e movement o f this sequence involves not negation—

o f the creation o f the c o m m o n , evil is the dissolution o f the c o m -

striving is not negated by desire, or desire by love—but rather a pro-

m o n or, really, its corruption.

gressive accumulation, such that desire and love are increasingly

T h i s gives us a Spinozian explanation for w h y at times people

powerful strivings for life. A n d this process is immediately political

fight for their servitude as i f it were their salvation, w h y the poor

since the object o f all the terms o f this sequence is the formation o f

sometimes support dictators, the w o r k i n g classes vote for r i g h t - w i n g

collective social life and, more generally, the constitution o f the

parties, and abused spouses and children protect their abusers. Such

c o m m o n . "Since fear o f solitude exists i n all men," Spinoza writes,

situations are obviously the result o f ignorance, fear, and superstition,

"because no one i n solitude is strong enough to defend himself, and

but calling it false consciousness provides meager tools for transfor-

procure the necessaries o f life, it follows that m e n naturally aspire to

mation. Providing the oppressed w i t h the truth and instructing them

the civil state; nor can it happen that m e n should ever utterly dis-

in their interests does little to change things. People fighting for their

193

194

INTERMEZZO

A FORCE

TO C O M B A T

EVIL

servitude is understood better as the result o f love and c o m m u n i t y

lack o f being, push us toward the c o m m o n . Force and love construct

gone bad, failed, and distorted. T h e first question to ask w h e n c o n -

together weapons against the corruption o f being and the misery it

fronting evil, then, is, What specific love went bad here? What instance of

brings.

the common has been corrupted? People are powerfully addicted to love

7

Love is thus not only an ontological motor, w h i c h produces

gone bad and corrupt forms o f the c o m m o n . Often, sadly, these are

the c o m m o n and consolidates it i n society, but also an open field o f

the only instances o f love and the c o m m o n they k n o w ! In this c o n -

battle. W h e n we think o f the power o f love, we need constantly to

text it makes sense that Spinoza thinks o f ethics i n a medical frame-

keep i n m i n d that there are no guarantees; there is nothing auto-

w o r k — c u r i n g the ills o f the body and m i n d , but more important,

matic about its functioning and results. Love can go bad, b l o c k i n g

identifying h o w our intellectual and corporeal powers have been

and destroying the process.The struggle to combat evil thus involves

corrupted,

a training or education i n love.

turned

against

themselves,

become

self-destructive.

M a y b e this ethical and political therapeutic model explains w h y Freud was so fascinated by Spinoza.

To clarify, then, we should individuate and b r i n g together three operations or fields o f activity for the power o f love. First, and p r i -

B u t this is not only a therapeutic model. Ethics and politics

marily, the power o f love is the constitution o f the c o m m o n and u l -

come together i n an "ontology o f force," w h i c h eliminates the sepa-

timately the formation o f society. This does not mean negating the

ration between love and force that so many metaphysical, transcen-

differences o f social singularities to f o r m a u n i f o r m society, as i f love

dental, and religious perspectives try to enforce. F r o m a materialist

were to mean merging i n unity, but instead composing them i n so-

perspective instead, love is the propositional and constituent key to

cial relation and i n that way constituting the c o m m o n . B u t since the

the relationship between being and force, just as force substantiates

process o f love can be diverted toward the production o f corrupt

love's powers. M a r x , for example, speaks o f the " w i n n i n g smiles" o f

forms o f the c o m m o n , since love gone bad creates obstacles that

matter and its "sensuous, poetic glamour," w r i t i n g , " I n B a c o n [and

block and destroy the c o m m o n — i n some cases reducing the m u l t i -

in the Renaissance i n general] materialism still holds back w i t h i n

plicity o f the c o m m o n to identity and unity, i n others imposing h i -

itself i n a naive way the germs o f a many-sided development."These

erarchies w i t h i n c o m m o n relations—the power o f love must also be,

forms o f matter are "forces o f being," endowed w i t h "an impulse, a

second, a force to combat evil. Love n o w takes the form o f indigna-

6

vital spirit, a tension," even a "torment o f matter." There is some-

tion, disobedience, and antagonism. Exodus is one means we identi-

thing monstrous i n the relationship between love and force! B u t

fied earlier o f combating the corrupt institutions o f the c o m m o n ,

that monstruum, the overflowing force that embodies the relation-

subtracting from claims o f identity, fleeing from subordination and

ship between self and others, is the basis o f every social institution.

servitude. These two first guises o f the power o f love—its powers o f

W e have already seen h o w Spinoza poses the development o f insti-

association and rebellion, its constitution o f the c o m m o n and its

tutions i n the movement from the materiality o f conatus or striving

combat against corruption—function together i n the third: m a k i n g

all the way to rational, divine love, composing isolated singularities

the multitude. T h i s project must b r i n g the process o f exodus t o -

i n the multitude.We find something similar, albeit from a completely

gether w i t h an organizational project aimed at creating institutions

different perspective, i n Wittgenstein's meditations o n pain, w h i c h is

o f c o m m o n . A n d all three o f these guises are animated by the train-

incommunicable except though constructing a c o m m o n linguistic

ing or Bildung o f the multitude. There is nothing innate or sponta-

experience and, ultimately, instituting c o m m o n forms o f life. S p i n o -

neous about love going well and realizing the c o m m o n i n lasting

zian solitude and Wittgensteinian pain, w h i c h are both signs o f a

social forms. T h e deployment o f love has to be learned and new

195

196

INTERMEZZO

A FORCE

TO C O M B A T

EVIL

habits have to be formed through the collective organization o f our

tionship o f reciprocity and collective self-rule. Fifth, this force is a l -

desires, a process o f sentimental and political education. Habits and

ways directed toward consolidating this process i n institutions that

practices consolidated i n new social institutions w i l l constitute our

can allow it to continue ever more powerfully. A n d the list could

n o w transformed human nature.

go o n .

It should be clear at this point that love always involves the use

T h e real difficulties are not at the conceptual level o f distin-

o f force or, more precisely, that the actions o f love are themselves

guishing criteria but i n the political field where we must conduct

deployments o f force. Love may be an angel, but i f so it is an angel

the battle. E v e n w h e n we understand clearly the powers o f love and

armed. W e saw earlier that the constitutive power o f love and its cre-

its corruptions, even w h e n we face w i t h open eyes the evil i n our

ation o f the c o m m o n i m p l y what we might call an ontological force

societies, the love gone bad and the corrupt forms o f the c o m m o n

involved i n the production o f being, the production o f reality. T h e

to w h i c h we and others are addicted, there is no guarantee o f suc-

combative figure o f love's force becomes clearer, though, w h e n we

cess. G i a c o m o Leopardi, i n his famous p o e m Lenta ginestra, captures

focus o n the revolt against and exodus from hierarchical institutions and the corruptions o f the c o m m o n . A n d furthermore m a k i n g the multitude and f o r m i n g its institutions o f the c o m m o n entail what might be called a constituent political force. B u t really these three forces o f love are not separate. T h e y are merely different guises o f love's power.

the fragility o f love and the singularities struggling i n c o m m o n against the seemingly ineluctable destiny o f death and destruction. T h e l o o m i n g volcano Vesuvius towers above threateningly, but the delicate flowers o f the Scotch b r o o m continue indefatigably to push up its slopes. It w o u l d be easy to enter the struggle i f we were guaranteed v i c t o r y beforehand. Leopardi celebrates the fact that love

T h e l i n k between love and force, we should be clear, does not

constantly battles, regardless o f the enormity o f the forces stacked

come w i t h any guarantees either. W e k n o w that the racial, patriar-

against us. V i c t o r y is possible and fear o f the volcano defeated only

chal, identitarian, and other corruptions o f love are not lacking i n

w h e n hope is organized to construct human community.

8

force. In fact they often w i e l d a surplus o f force as i f to cover over

Finally, let us return to the pessimistic political anthropologies

their deviation from love's dedication to the c o m m o n . Is the force o f

we set out from i n order to emphasize the political difference marked

love, then, indistinguishable from the force o f its corruptions? N o ;

by our conception o f evil and the means to combat it. Even among

w o r r y i n g about the use o f force i n this way is a false scrupulousness.

authors whose w o r k is very close to ours, we recognize a recent ten-

W e can easily enumerate several criteria available for distinguishing

dency to link a n o t i o n o f evil as an invariant o f human nature to a

love's force. First, the content o f the link between love and force is

politics aimed at restraining evil. O n e fascinating occasion for devel-

the c o m m o n , w h i c h composes the interaction o f singularities i n

oping this line o f reasoning is a passage i n Paul's epistles that p r o -

processes o f social solidarity and political equality. Second, the direc-

poses the figure o f the katechon (the one that restrains). T h e katechon,

tion o f love's force is oriented toward the freedom o f those singu-

Paul explains, restrains "the lawless one," a satanic figure, and thus

larities. T h i r d , the organizational forms o f this exercise o f force are

holds off the apocalypse until its proper time (2 Thessalonians 2:1—

always open, constitutive, and horizontal, such that every time it is

12). T h i s mysterious "restrainer" has generally been interpreted i n

solidified i n fixed vertical relations o f power, love exceeds it and

Christian theology as a sovereign power: i n the early Christian era

overflows its limits, reopening organization again to the participa-

Tertullian identifies the katechon as the R o m a n Empire, and i n the

tion o f all. Fourth, the relation between love and force is legitimated

twentieth century C a r l Schmitt proposes that it is a Christian E m -

i n the consensus o f singularities and the autonomy o f each, i n a rela-

pire. Regardless o f the specific referent, these authors concur that

197

A FORCE 198

TO C O M B A T

EVIL

INTERMEZZO

the katechon is a lesser evil that protects us against a greater one. This notion corresponds perfectly to the implications o f a pessimistic p o litical anthropology. I f we accept that evil or intraspecies aggressiveness or some such element is an invariant o f human nature, then restraining evil w i l l be one i f not the central task o f politics, l i m i t i n g us to a politics o f the "lesser evil."

9

O u r conception o f evil as a corruption o f and obstacle to love in the creation o f the c o m m o n leads instead to a politics o f not restraining but combating evil. Since evil is secondary to love, we are not limited to external containment but have access to its inner mechanisms. Love is the battlefield for the struggle against evil. Moreover, the primacy o f love indicates the power we have i n this fight. If evil were primary, we w o u l d be helpless against it. W e w o u l d need to trust i n an E m p i r e to restrain it and h o l d death at bay. B u t since evil derives from love, the power o f evil is necessarily less. Love is stronger than death. A n d thus acting through love we have the power to combat evil. Such a politics o f love has no need to accept the rule o f a lesser evil. This is not to say we should imagine we can defeat evil once and for all—no, the corruptions o f love and the c o m m o n w i l l continue. W h a t it means, though, is that the battle is ours to fight and w i n . In the second half o f this book, from this point on, we seek to discover w i t h i n the movements o f the multitude the mechanisms o f the c o m m o n that produce new subjectivity and f o r m institutions. B u t before leaving this discussion we should consider one terrible historical experience o f the relation between love and force i n the socialist and Bolshevik conceptions o f the party. T h e premise is rational and understandable: nothing is possible w h e n we are isolated and only unity makes effective and multiplies the value o f indignation and individual revolt. Militants thus go forward hand i n hand to create a compact group, armed w i t h knowledge and passion. That w o u l d be the spark to transform society. T h e conclusion, though, is false: surreptitiously but implacably the party's determinations o f norms and measures, its decisions (even the right to life and death) become separated from the experience o f the movements and ab-

sorbed by the logic o f capitalist alienation, turning bureaucratic and tyrannical.What should give force to multiplicity is transformed into the violence o f identity. U n i t y is projected as a transcendent value, and the slogan o f revolution serves to corrupt the c o m m o n . N o , the party w i l l not defeat evil.Today the m e m o r y o f that corruption only pushes us further to discover a force to combat evil.

199

PART 4

EMPIRE

RETURNS

And perhaps the great day will come when a people, distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free w i l l , " We break the sword," and will smash its entire military establishment down to its lowest foundations. —Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human

4.1

BRIEF H I S T O R Y OF A FAILED C O U P

D'ETAT

We shall run the world's business whether the world likes it or not. The world can't help it—and neither can we, I guess. —Joseph Conrad, Nostromo

Let the Dead Bury the Dead T h e most significant event o f the first decade o f the new m i l l e n n i u m for geopolitics may be the definitive failure o f unilateralism. A t the end o f the last m i l l e n n i u m a genuinely new global situation had emerged, w h i c h set i n m o t i o n new processes o f governance and began to establish new structures o f global order. A new E m p i r e was being formed that was qualitatively different from the previously existing imperialisms, w h i c h had been based primarily o n the power o f nation-states. Instead o f engaging directly the formation o f E m pire, however, the dominant forces o n the global scene, the U . S . government i n particular, denied and repressed the novelty, conjuring up specters from the past, forcing dead figures o f political rule to stumble across the stage and replay outdated dreams o f grandeur. A m b i t i o n s o f imperialist conquest, nationalist glory, unilateral d e c i sion making, and global leadership were all revived, w i t h horrifyingly real violence. W i t h i n the U n i t e d States, where these fantasies were most powerful, what had seemed i n the past to be alternatives—isolationism, imperialism, and internationalism—were resuscitated and woven together, turning out merely to be different faces o f the same project, all stitched together w i t h the thread o f U . S . exceptionalism. It took only a few years, though, for these ghostly fig-

204

EMPIRE

BRIEF

RETURNS

HISTORY

OF A F A I L E D

COUP

D'ETAT

ures to collapse i n a lifeless heap. T h e financial and economic crisis

one o f the cardinal features o f the contemporary international

o f the early twenty-first century delivered the final b l o w to U . S . i m -

system is that nation-states have lost their m o n o p o l y o n power

perialist glory. B y the end o f the decade there was general recogni-

and i n some domains their preeminence as well. States are be-

tion o f the military, political, and economic failures o f unilateralism.'

i n g challenged from above, by regional and global organiza-

There is no choice n o w but to confront head-on the formation o f

tions; from below, by militias; and from the side, by a variety o f

Empire.

nongovernmental

T h e decade put an end to dreams o f a unipolar w o r l d . T h e

organizations

(NGOs)

and

corporations.

Power is n o w found i n many hands and i n many places.

conventional narrative o f international relations scholars is that the twentieth century witnessed a major transformation from a m u l t i -

A c c o r d i n g to Haass, therefore, none o f the conventional geome-

polar w o r l d ruled by a set o f dominant nation-states—which traces

tries—unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar—adequately describes

its roots back to the Peace ofWestphalia but emerged i n truly global

emerging global order. " T h e principal characteristic o f twenty-first-

form through the European, U . S . , and Japanese imperialist proj-

century international relations," he continues, "is turning out to be

ects—to the bipolar w o r l d defined by the two cold war superpow-

nonpolarity: a w o r l d dominated not by one or two or even several

ers. T h e collapse o f the Soviet U n i o n and the end o f the cold war

states but rather by dozens o f actors possessing and exercising v a r i -

opened an alternative, i n the minds o f many scholars and p o l i c y -

ous kinds o f power. This represents a tectonic shift from the past." It

makers, between a return to some f o r m o f multipolarity or the cre-

has n o w become uncontroversial, even commonplace, to pose the

ation o f a unipolar system centered o n the U n i t e d States, the sole

contemporary global order, w h i c h has i n fact been f o r m i n g since

superpower, a single imperialist w i t h no competitors or peers. T h e

the end o f the cold war, as characterized by a distribution o f powers,

attempt and failure to establish U . S . hegemony and unilateral rule i n

or more precisely a f o r m o f network power, w h i c h requires the w i d e

the course o f the decade, however, proved the vision o f a unipolar

collaboration o f dominant nation-states, major corporations, supra-

w o r l d to be an illusion. A t this point even the strategists o f U . S .

national economic and political institutions, various N G O s , media

power are beginning to recognize that what the collapse o f u n i p o -

conglomerates, and a series o f other powers. It is quickly b e c o m i n g

larity signals is not a return to any previous bipolar or multipolar

c o m m o n sense, i n other words, that the problem o f the twenty-first

arrangement but the emergence o f a new order. " A t first glance,"

century is the problem o f E m p i r e .

explains R i c h a r d Haass, former director o f policy planning at the U . S . State Department,

the

2

3

Was it a lost decade, then? After this detour through resurrected imperialist adventures and unilateral pretenses, w h i c h "perfected" the imperialist machine only to demonstrate its definitive obsoles-

the w o r l d today may appear to be multipolar. T h e major p o w -

cence, are we right back where we were before? W e need to l o o k a

ers—China, the European U n i o n ( E U ) , India, Japan, Russia,

bit more closely at the failures o f unilateralism and the impossibility

and the U n i t e d States—contain just over half the world's peo-

o f multilateralism to see h o w the formation o f E m p i r e has pro-

ple and account for 75 percent o f global G D P and 80 percent

ceeded through this process—both h o w its shape has clarified and

o f global defense spending. Appearances, however, can be de-

h o w it has moved i n new directions.

ceiving. Today's w o r l d differs i n a fundamental way from one

T h e attempt to create a unipolar order centered o n the U n i t e d

o f classic multipolarity: there are many more power centers,

States was really a coup d'etat w i t h i n the global system, that is, a dra-

and quite a few o f these poles are not nation-states. Indeed,

matic subordination o f all the "aristocratic" powers o f the emerging

205

206

EMPIRE

RETURNS

BRIEF

HISTORY

OF A F A I L E D

COUP

D'ETAT

imperial order, such as the other dominant nation-states and the su-

to the accusation o f "fascist," suddenly a small but significant group

pranational institutions, i n order to elevate the "monarchical" power

o f pundits and politicians publicly embraced imperialism! Others,

o f the U n i t e d States. T h e coup d'etat was an effort to transform the

even w h e n shying away from using the term, resurrected all the c o n -

emerging f o r m o f E m p i r e back into an o l d imperialism, but this

ventional apologies for imperialism: its ability to remake the global

time w i t h only one imperialist power. T h e primary events and u l t i -

environment, its civilizing influence, its moral superiority, and so

mate failure o f the coup have by n o w been thoroughly chronicled

forth. M o r e prudent scholars and policymakers accepted as given

by journalists and scholars. Plans for a " N e w A m e r i c a n C e n t u r y "

the coup d'etat and its success but warned against its excesses and

were i n place well before the attacks o n the W o r l d Trade Center and

sought to make its reign more humane and long-lasting. Typical o f

the Pentagon o n September 11, 2001, but every coup needs a t r i g -

this effort were the various discussions o f hegemony that cautioned

ger, a catastrophic event that legitimates taking the reins o f power.

against the dangers o f relying too heavily o n "hard power" and rec-

T h e rhetoric o f a "war o n terror" justified a state o f emergency i n

ommended strong doses o f "soft power."

the imperial system, and the coup was set i n m o t i o n i n the attempt

these various positions, however, despite their differences, was an

to concentrate the powers o f the global order i n the hands o f the

imperialist conception o f political order.

5

R u n n i n g throughout

U n i t e d States, establishing unilateral control, raising or l o w e r i n g the

T h e visionaries most dedicated to the coup and most c o n -

status o f nation-states according to their alignment w i t h the w i l l o f

vinced o f its success were the so-called neoconservatives, a m u c h -

Washington, u n d e r m i n i n g the capacities and autonomy o f the inter-

publicized group o f journalists, pseudo-academics, and government

national and supranational institutions, and so forth. O n the emerg-

officials w h o have a strong presence i n the mainstream and conser-

ing imperial system was imposed a central authority through w h i c h

vative sectors o f the U . S . media. These ideologues are "idealists" i n

all global decisions were to pass. T h e invasions and occupations o f

the sense that they share a vision o f a global political order i n w h i c h

Afghanistan and Iraq were the centerpiece, but the coup also i n -

the U n i t e d States holds overwhelming power, unilaterally decides

volved a series o f economic and political operations at various levels

political issues for other nations, and thereby guarantees global peace.

i n the global system. T h e military failures were thus the most visible

A n d they are equally apocalyptic, warning about the dire conse-

but by no means the only measure o f the collapse o f the coup. F r o m

quences o f not following their dictates. " T h e r e is no middle way for

this perspective, then, it is not true, as so many tirelessly repeat, that

Americans" i n the war o n terror, write D a v i d F r u m and R i c h a r d

everything changed o n September 11. T h e rhetoric o f a historic

Perle ominously. "It is victory or holocaust." These ideologues are

break facilitated the forces o f the coup, but we can see clearly now,

fundamentally against Empire—against, that is, collaboration w i t h

after the coup has failed and the dust cleared, that the attacks and the

the w i d e network o f powers i n the emerging imperial f o r m a t i o n —

subsequent unilateralist adventures, however horrifying and tragic,

and for imperialism. T h e i r war cry, i n effect, is "Imperialism or

were not i n fact moments o f radical change but steps i n the forma-

death!"

tion o f E m p i r e .

6

4

T h o u g h l o n g o n vision, neoconservatives are remarkably short

It is n o coincidence that i n the heady early days o f the coup

o n substance. In their hubris they pay little attention to the neces-

some o f the planners and supporters began to sing the praises o f past

sary bases for exercising imperialist power and maintaining unilat-

imperialist formations, especially those o f the U n i t e d States and

eral hegemony. T h e i r plans rely heavily o n military power, but they

Britain. Whereas for several decades the term "imperialist" had func-

fail to invent or develop new military capacities, putting their faith

tioned as an insult across the political spectrum almost comparable

simply i n a strategic transformation, as we w i l l see i n the next sec-

207

208

EMPIRE

BRIEF

RETURNS

HISTORY

OF A F A I L E D

COUP

D'ETAT

tion. T h e y show astonishingly little concern, furthermore, for eco-

theories. G l o b a l order and domination continue to be defined, as

n o m i c planning. A t times they ally themselves w i t h proponents o f

they were throughout the twentieth century, by U . S . imperialism.

neoliberal economics, but that remains peripheral to their vision.

These arguments are correct o n the surface, o f course, since the

T h e essence o f their agenda is political: establishing and exercising

coup was indeed an attempt to resurrect imperialism, but profoundly

the unilateral capacity o f the U n i t e d States to "shape the global e n -

mistaken i n substance. T h e tradition o f dead generations still weighs

vironment," to organize and dictate global political affairs. E v e n i n

like a nightmare on the brain o f the living. In effect these scholars

the political realm, though, neoconservatives disregard the need to

were duped by the boasting o f the instigators o f the coup, accepting

gain moral and political authority. T h e y seem to take for granted

at face value their resurrected figures and pretenses to imperialist

that nation-states and other significant powers w i l l unquestioningly

power. Such theories o f a new (or not so new) U . S . imperialism are

consent to the wishes ofWashington.The neoconservatives, i n short,

really an inverted repetition o f U . S . exceptionalism, such that the

strike the pose o f the great British imperialists o f a bygone era, but

U n i t e d States is an exception here not, as the U . S . celebrants and

w i t h o u t the substance to support their dreams—without the force

apologists w o u l d have it, because o f its virtue and vocation for free-

to maintain domination or the consent to sustain hegemony—they

d o m and democracy but rather because o f its w i l l to dominate, and

strike only a farcical figure. T h e y embarked o n a very strange proj-

moreover, since many nation-states share that w i l l , its power to do

ect: to assert hegemony w i t h o u t concern for, and even scorning the

so. T h e time has come, though, to let the dead bury the dead.

7

9

necessary prerequisites for, that hegemony itself. After the failure o f the coup d'etat became apparent, the neo-

The Exhaustion of U.S. Hegemony

conservatives scattered into separate camps.The most intelligent and

N o w that the coup d'etat has failed and the attempt to establish the

most opportunistic try to save their careers by shifting their posi-

unilateral control o f the U n i t e d States over global affairs has been all

tions—for example, reasserting the power o f nation-states for global

but aborted, we need to detail the breakdown i n military, economic,

order—and claiming they never really agreed w i t h the coup i n the

political, and moral affairs i n order to analyze the current state i n

first place. T h e hardliners instead remain convinced o f the vision

w h i c h this leaves the imperial system. T h e military failure is most

and simply blame the B u s h administration or others for carrying it

visible and dramatic. T h e invasion o f Afghanistan and the quick c o l -

8

lapse o f the Taliban government were really only a prelude. Iraq

T h e coup d i d not, o f course, fail only because o f incompetence. U . S .

w o u l d be the proving ground where the U n i t e d States demonstrates

unilateralism and its imperialist projects were already dead before

it can "go it alone," i n defiance o f the U n i t e d Nations and some o f

the coup forced them to their feet to thrash about for a few bloody

its primary traditional allies. Baghdad is conquered quickly w i t h lit-

years. Perhaps the neoconservative ideologues are the adequate

tle resistance, forces o f the U n i t e d States and its allies spread through-

gravediggers for an ideology that was already defunct.

out the national territory, and a U . S . occupying administration is

out poorly, focusing most often o n military errors made i n Iraq.

O n e other oddly symmetrical historical anomaly o f this period

established. B y the summer o f 2003 the mission has been a c c o m -

is the explosion o f scholarly and popular books o n the Left that ana-

plished: unilateral military power has proved its effectiveness, and the

lyzed the coup as a return to imperialism. F o r a couple o f years,

coup d'etat seems to stand o n f i r m ground.The victor starts l o o k i n g

roughly from 2003 to 2005, such books dominated the shelves o f

around for new arenas (Syria? Iran?) i n w h i c h to exert its power.

bookstores.There is no new w o r l d order, they explain, no new f o r m

O v e r the course o f the next few years, however, the presumed

o f Empire, and thus (what a relief!) no need for new concepts and

military victory is swept away: at first w i t h drips and drops o f resis-

210

EMPIRE

BRIEF

RETURNS

HISTORY

OF A F A I L E D

COUP

D'ETAT

tance to the occupation forces, then periodic showers, and finally

c o m m o n sense. B y early 2007, w i t h Rumsfeld ousted as secretary o f

massive downpours. Afghanistan, w h i c h was once reported to be

defense, the U . S . government effectively abandons the core strate-

successfully under the control o f the occupying forces and the ap-

gies o f the "revolutionary i n military affairs" and begins instead a

pointed government, is soon revealed to be rocked by serious c o n -

dramatic escalation o f troops i n Iraq.

10

flicts. In Iraq the occupying military forces and their counterparts i n

A second traditional military v i e w reconfirmed by the defeat

the newly created Iraqi government are forced into the position o f

in Iraq highlights the vast difference i n subjectivity o n the two sides

the boy w i t h his finger i n the dike. As death tolls rise, so do the pos-

o f conflict. A r m e d resistance, particularly armed resistance against an

sibilities o f a flood and unrestricted civil war. T h e eventual "surge"

occupying army, is a terrific engine o f the production o f subjectivity.

o f U . S . forces and decline o f violence i n Iraq cannot change the fact

The

that has been revealed. O n the proving ground o f Iraq, unilateral

to risk h a r m and death, sometimes taking horrible, barbaric forms. It

military power has not demonstrated its ability to create and guaran-

teaches us, once again, that the presence o f the occupier is sufficient

tee global order but has, o n the contrary, shown its complete inabil-

to produce resistance. For the occupying army, however, there is no

ity to do so. Even i f the U n i t e d States eventually declares victory,

such production o f subjectivity, regardless o f all the ideological c a m -

unilateralism was defeated i n Iraq.

paigns to link the war to the September 11 attacks and, more gener-

occupation creates an extraordinary willingness among Iraqis

In retrospect the failure i n Iraq highlights two well-established

ally, to create "terrorism" or radical Islam as a unified global enemy.

truths o f military thought. T h e first demonstrates the necessary size

A t certain points i n the past, patriotism enabled a production o f

and composition o f a conquering and occupying army. A primary

subjectivity that could support a foreign war effort, but today the ef-

element o f the unilateral project i n Iraq was the military strategy

fectiveness o f that mechanism is limited. O c c u p y i n g armies n o w

often referred to as the "revolutionary i n military affairs" ( R M A ) or

tend, i n one way or another, to be populated by mercenaries. M a -

"defense transformation." This strategy, w h i c h was most publicly

chiavelli recognized l o n g ago the superiority o f a "people i n arms"

supported at the time by U.S. Secretary o f Defense D o n a l d R u m s -

to any mercenary army because o f the production o f subjectivity

feld, often against the objections o f generals and the military estab-

that drives it. A n d no technological advantage w i l l ever address that

lishment, is based o n two primary strategic innovations: reducing

subjective imbalance.

troop levels through the coordinated use o f information and weap-

These two obstacles for U . S . unilateralist military strategy—the

ons technologies i n combat; and reorganizing military formations to

limitations o f technological transformations and the imbalance i n

make them lighter, more mobile, and more flexible. T h e 2003 " v i c -

subjectivity—coincide powerfully i n urban warfare. M i l i t a r y strate-

tory o f Baghdad" and the seeming success o f this strategy briefly

gists are well aware that insurgencies and resistances w i l l increasingly

inspired dreams o f cyborg and robot armies that could vanquish en-

be located i n metropolises and that the technological apparatus m o -

emies w i t h no soldiers lost (no U . S . soldiers, that is). A s Iraqi resis-

bilized by the R M A is i l l equipped for this environment.

tance grew, however, the effectiveness o f the strategy was quickly

labyrinthine passageways o f the urban landscape it is difficult to fight

undermined. It became obvious that the relatively small army orga-

and k i l l at a distance. T h e metropolis is also a factory for the produc-

nized i n technologically equipped mobile units is a powerful offen-

tion o f subjectivity, as we argue i n De Corpore 2 at the end o f this

sive weapon but unable to defend established positions, or rather, i n

section o f the b o o k . The well-established spaces o f the c o m m o n , the

journalistic jargon, it can w i n the war but not the peace. T h e tra-

circuits o f communication, and the social habits that f o r m the m e -

ditional v i e w that occupations require large numbers returned as

tropolis serve as powerful multipliers o f the production o f subjectiv-

11

In the

211

212

EMPIRE

RETURNS

BRIEF

HISTORY

OF A F A I L E D

COUP

D'ETAT

ity i n resistance. A metropolis can ignite overnight, and the blazes

moreover, other nation-states to be grateful to the U n i t e d States for

stubbornly refuse to be extinguished.

taking leadership i n the war. It w i l l soon be hard to remember that

Defeat i n one campaign, o f course, does not disprove a military

during significant periods o f the twentieth century, especially dur-

strategy. Some are b o u n d to say that the fiasco was due merely to

ing the most intense years o f the cold war, the U n i t e d States enjoyed

tactical errors, such as dismissing former Baath Party officials, dis-

a hegemonic position i n many parts o f the w o r l d . T h e i d e o l o g i -

banding the Iraqi military, or failing to counter the resistance quickly

cal explanation o f U . S . hegemony has been predicated o n the n o -

enough. W e can rest assured, too, that the strategists i n the U.S. m i l i -

tion that the U n i t e d States acts consistently, both domestically and

tary and its allied think tanks are busy w o r k i n g — w i t h the aid o f

abroad, to promote and defend freedom and democracy. W e k n o w

abstract theories and video game simulations—to reformulate the

well, however, the l o n g history o f the U . S . government u n d e r m i n -

R M A for urban environments and achieve goals like "persistent area

ing democratically elected governments and supporting dictator-

dominance" through technological and strategic innovations.

12

Is-

ships, through overt and covert operations, from Guatemala and

raeli military theorists also are hard at w o r k developing effective

C h i l e to the Philippines and Indonesia. T h e real cause for consent

strategies to control urban environments w i t h o u t exposing troops to

to U . S . hegemony rested o n the fact that other nation-states believed

risk.

13

14

It is already clear, though, that regardless o f future innovations

the actions o f the U n i t e d States consistently advanced their o w n

and refinements, this strategy cannot support a unilateral military

national interests, or rather the interests o f those i n power. T h i s is a

project o f the U n i t e d States.

delicate balance, though, because material interests are necessarily

T h e primary architects o f the U.S. war i n Iraq may be naive or

coupled w i t h the "idealistic" ideological rationale and cannot sur15

inexpert military strategists, but they are undoubtedly lucid political

vive w i t h o u t i t .

As C i c e r o said o f R o m e , U . S . global leadership

thinkers. T h e y are conscious that large numbers o f U S . casualties

often sounded to its allies more like patrocinium than imperium.

are certain to undermine domestic support. T h e y are also thinking

T h e photos o f A b u Ghraib prison can serve as a symbol for the

ahead, beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, to the future requirements o f a

erosion o f the moral and political authority o f the U n i t e d States and

unilateral global order. There is no way that the U . S . military can

the inversion o f its image from defender o f freedom and democracy

match up to other major powers, such as Russia and C h i n a , i n the

to violator o f basic rights and international law. F o r decades, o f

logic o f the o l d military strategy. It simply does not have the n u m -

course, critical voices have protested the way the U . S . military has

bers. T h e promise o f the new strategy is that it can overcome the

trained death squads and encouraged the use o f torture. T h e photos

numerical imbalance and turn asymmetry to its advantage. Such

o f U . S . soldiers torturing and m o c k i n g prisoners i n Iraq, however,

a technological-strategic advantage, its authors believe, is the only

completely shattered what remained o f its virtuous image, shifting

hope for creating long-lasting unilateral military control. A l t h o u g h

focus to the widespread use o f terror and torture as a political and

they answer the needs o f the political logic, however, these strategies

military tool by the U n i t e d States, i n Guantanamo and other irregu-

have proved unable to h o l d up militarily, even against relatively small,

lar prisons, and underlining the fact that the U . S . government ap-

poorly equipped militias like those i n Afghanistan and Iraq.

proves and promotes the use o f torture i n violation o f international

T h e international political hegemony o f the U n i t e d States has

law. " W e are i n danger o f losing something m u c h more i m p o r -

also rapidly declined during the period o f the coup and its failure.

tant than just the war i n Iraq," Thomas Friedman warns after the

Some o f the architects o f the 2003 Iraq invasion probably d i d expect

publication o f the A b u Ghraib photos. " W e are i n danger o f losing

U . S . tanks to be greeted i n Baghdad w i t h flowers and kisses and,

A m e r i c a as an instrument o f moral authority and inspiration i n the

213

214

EMPIRE

RETURNS

BRIEF

HISTORY

OF A F A I L E D

COUP

D'ETAT

w o r l d . " T h e U n i t e d States is certainly not the greatest violator o f

provides a powerful illustration o f the impossibility o f the unilateral-

rights or proponent o f torture, but its image can no longer function

ist project. C o n t r o l o f Iraqi o i l reserves is undoubtedly important,

as a paradigm for the p r o m o t i o n o f rights and law, freedom and de-

but the primary economic objective o f the occupation was to c o n -

mocracy.

duct a radical experiment i n neoliberal transformation. T h e o c c u -

16

17

T h e ideological cover o f U . S . hegemony probably wore thin,

pation administration i n Iraq led by Paul Bremer was given the

we suspect, because its substance had already emptied out. O t h e r

charge to destroy the existing social structures o f the Iraqi economy,

powers had determined, i n other words, that the international ac-

including labor rights, state-owned industries, and welfare systems—

tion o f the U n i t e d States—its wars, its unilateral adventures, its eco-

raze the economic terrain, so to speak, create a clean slate, and from

n o m i c models, and so forth—no longer consistently advanced their

there, from point zero, invent a pure neoliberal economy. Bremer's

o w n interests. W e w i l l have to analyze this shift more closely i n the

regime, however, was thwarted by a variety o f stiff economic resis-

next section i n terms o f economic interests, but for the moment it is

tances (in addition to its o w n incompetence). It quickly learned the

sufficient to recognize h o w the failure o f the coup d'etat coincides

difficulty o f privatizing the economic goods o f the country and sell-

w i t h the decline o f the hard and soft power o f the U n i t e d States,

ing them to foreign corporations. Foreign corporations are reluctant

that is, the defeat o f its military strategy and the collapse o f its moral

to buy, o n the one hand, because the continuing violence i n the

and political authority.

country makes business all but impossible and, o n the other, because they fear that international law w i l l not recognize as legitimate their

What Is a Dollar Worth?

ownership o f national industries and resources sold by an occupying

T h e breakdown o f U.S. unilateralism and the failure o f the U n i t e d

regime. Creation o f a pure neoliberal economy also proved impos-

States' attempted coup d'etat w i t h i n the imperial system is not

sible because Iraqi workers resist privatization. N a o m i K l e i n reports,

merely a function o f military might or strategy. Together w i t h p o l i t i -

in fact, that some workers fired from state industries immediately

cal and moral authority, economic strength is part o f the "soft power"

enlisted i n the military resistance. In addition to failing militarily i n

necessary for hegemony. T h e economic, military, and political/moral

Iraq, then, the U . S . unilateral project failed economically—failed,

aspects o f the unilateralist project operate according to independent

that is, to create a new economic regime that could generate and

logics but mutually reinforce one another, bolstering one another

guarantee profits. Iraq is an example o f the general strategy o f radical

d u r i n g the ascent o f power and dragging one another d o w n i n de-

neoliberal transformation coupled w i t h U . S . military control and

cline. In the broadest terms, the success o f hegemonic power i n the

political hegemony i n the unilateralist project.

18

economic sphere, at least i n contemporary capitalist conditions, rests

T h e essential question, although it is impossible to answer d i -

o n its ability to guarantee profits o n a general level among capitalists,

rectly i n a satisfactory way, is whether U . S . unilateralism—with its

not only for its o w n national interests but also for those o f its allied

"war o n terror," its political hegemony, and its economic policies—

powers. G a u g i n g economic hegemony is certainly an inexact sci-

is g o o d for business and favors the profits o f global capital. That is

ence, but we can read symptoms from a variety o f arenas i n a g r o w -

not to ask, obviously, whether it favors a handful o f specific corpora-

ing chorus o f "no confidence" votes for unilateral U . S . economic

tions, such as H a l l i b u r t o n or Bechtel, but whether it benefits collec-

control.

tive capital as a whole. O n e useful way to approach this question is

A l t h o u g h the military defeat o f the U n i t e d States i n Iraq is

to focus o n the abilities o f the U n i t e d States to impose its wishes o n

most visible, its economic failure is perhaps more significant and

the other nation-states i n international economic agreements. T h e

215

216

EMPIRE

RETURNS

BRIEF

HISTORY

OF A F A I L E D

COUP

D'ETAT

U n i t e d States, i n fact, is experiencing increasing difficulty gaining

posed to sheer domination," writes G i o v a n n i A r r i g h i , " i n all l i k e l i -

consent to its economic hegemony. There has been m o u n t i n g resis-

h o o d has already ended; but, just as the p o u n d sterling continued to

tance, for example, to U.S. proposals at the so-called D o h a round o f

be used as an international currency three to four decades after the

W o r l d Trade Organization meetings, beginning i n D o h a i n 2001

end o f B r i t i s h hegemony, so may the dollar." M a y b e someday i n

and C a n c u n i n 2003, and continuing for several years. Each annual

the future the euro or the yuan or some combination o f currencies

meeting is pronounced a failure w h e n a deadlock develops, most often over farm subsidies i n the dominant nations and access to i n dustrial and agricultural markets. T h e most noteworthy symbolic defeat for the U n i t e d States i n this regard was perhaps its failure to gain Latin A m e r i c a n support o f the Free Trade Area o f the Americas ( F T A A ) agreement. F o r so m u c h o f the last century Washington could rely o n "its backyard" and count o n the support o f the Latin A m e r i c a n nations for its economic projects. A t M a r del Plata i n 2005, however, Latin A m e r i c a n governments were able, at least i n part, to declare their independence from U.S. economic hegemony. This is not just a political affirmation o f national sovereignty but also and more significantly an indication that the ruling elites o f these countries no longer v i e w U . S . hegemony as beneficial to their economic interests. A l l o f these discrete failures, then, these resistances to the w i l l o f Washington, from Baghdad and D o h a to M a r del Plata, can be read as a series o f votes o f "no confidence" i n the soft power o f the U n i t e d States—symptoms o f the failure o f its u n i lateral economic project.

19

w i l l ascend to the dominant position, but by that time the dollar's hegemony w i l l already be l o n g past. T h e U . S . mortgage crisis beginning i n 2007 and the subsequent global financial and economic crises demonstrate some i m portant facets o f the current global position o f the U . S . economy. O n the one hand, it reveals the extent to w h i c h the achievements o f the N e w D e a l and the welfare structures i n the U.S. economy have been dismantled largely by drawing o n global finance markets. G l o balization has served to stabilize and underwrite U . S . economic p o l icies o f privatization. W h e n U.S. homeowners find it impossible to pay their mortgages, o n the other hand, it becomes clear h o w m u c h capitalists throughout the w o r l d are affected by the U . S . crisis. T h e hegemony o f the U . S . market, w h i l e still attracting global investment, has been dramatically weakened. T h e value o f the dollar depends increasingly on not the productivity o f the country o f w h i c h it is the monetary symbol but the ability to blackmail global finance markets.

20

T h e various strands o f the failure o f the U n i t e d States' unilatT h e most fundamental indicator o f international economic hegemony may be the position and function o f the national currency. T h e dominance o f the dollar has been demonstrated, for several decades, by its role as the primary currency o f exchange and reserve i n the global economy, w h i c h represented international c o n fidence i n the U . S . economy and consent to U . S . economic leadership. This does not mean that the dollar has constantly maintained a high value w i t h respect to other currencies. In fact the manipulation o f exchange rates often serves the dominant power as a mechanism to resolve internal economic problems on the international scene. T h e dollar today does still function as the global currency, but this may be merely an aftereffect o f its past glory. " U . S . hegemony, as o p -

eral project came together as a perfect storm i n the aftermath o f H u r r i c a n e Katrina i n 2005. T h e corruption and incompetence o f the government agencies charged w i t h responding to the emergency were really just the surface effects o f a social structure deprived systematically for years. T h e effects o f failed neoliberal econ o m i c projects, w h i c h had been felt around the w o r l d , n o w appeared dramatically o n domestic soil.The furor caused w h e n some j o u r n a l ists and politicians called the displaced populations "refugees" is i n dicative o f the anxiety aroused by the confusion between inside and outside w h e n U . S . viewers are confronted by images they are accustomed to associating w i t h the subordinate regions o f the w o r l d . T h e aftermath o f H u r r i c a n e Katrina also exposed the continuing racial

217

218

EMPIRE

RETURNS

divisions o f the U n i t e d States and the strong correspondence between race and poverty. T h e catastrophe served as a reminder o f not

4.2

only the high percentage o f African Americans living without adequate resources i n areas such as Louisiana and Mississippi, but also how government agencies and the media react differently to differ-

AFTER

U.S. HEGEMONY

ent racial populations. In the weeks after the hurricane the racism o f the U n i t e d States at every level o f society, from governmental structures to c o m m o n prejudices, was vividly on display. Finally, the K a trina disaster marked a turning point i n the U S . population's sup-

The provinces generally go, in the changes they make, from order to

port for the Iraq war. Some commentators pointed out the direct

disorder and then pass again from disorder to order, for worldly things

connections—money spent o n war had deprived the national infra-

are not allowed by nature to stand still. —Machiavelli, Florentine Histories

structure, the Mississippi and Louisiana National Guard deployed i n war zones was unavailable for disaster relief, and so forth—but we suspect that the connection i n public o p i n i o n functioned more powerfully at a more abstract and profound level. B y the summer o f 2005, just two years after the celebrations o f imperialist glory i n the

Interregnum

"victory o f Baghdad," cracks i n the unilateral projects were showing

The

everywhere, and the disaster following Katrina was confirmation.

search about for successor candidates to global hegemony. W i l l a

Events w o u l d drag o n for years, but it was already obvious that the

new caliphate emerge that can order large parts o f the globe o n the

coup d'etat had failed.

basis o f M u s l i m unity under theocratic control? W i l l Europe n o w

failure o f the U . S . unilateral project leads many analysts to

united reclaim its dominant position and dictate global affairs? O r is the rest o f the w o r l d just waiting for the moment w h e n C h i n a is ready to exert its unilateral hegemony? W e find all these notions o f " n e w pretenders to the throne" implausible, however, because they are based o n the assumption that the form o f global order remains imperialist and that, although the U n i t e d States is incapable o f achieving unilateral hegemony, some other nation-state or sovereign power is. T h e breakdown o f U.S. unilateralism demonstrates, i n our view, the failure not only o f a U.S. project but also and more i m p o r tant o f unilateralism itself. T h e form o f global order has irreversibly shifted. W e are living today i n a p e r i o d o f transition, an interregnum in w h i c h the o l d imperialism is dead and the new E m p i r e is still emerging. Giovanni A r r i g h i offers one o f the most trenchant and astute analyses o f the waning o f U.S. hegemony T h e rising p e r i o d o f a he-

220

EMPIRE

RETURNS

AFTER

U.S.

HEGEMONY

gemonic power i n the global economic system, according to A r r i -

litical system. T h e global order that emerges n o w must take a funda-

ghi's reading o f cycles o f accumulation, is characterized by steady

mentally novel f o r m .

21

investment i n new productive processes, whereas the shift from pro-

T h e theorists and policymakers previously dedicated to U . S .

duction to finance is a symptom o f decline. T h e financialization o f

hegemony w h o are intelligent enough to recognize this shift are

the U . S . economy since the 1970s thus signals an "autumnal" phase,

n o w forced to find another paradigm o f global order and c o n -

parallel i n his v i e w to the p e r i o d o f diminishing British economic

front the threat o f global disorder. T h e i r imaginations are so limited,

hegemony almost a century earlier. T h e military failures o f the

though, that w i t h the collapse o f unilateralism to solve the problem

U n i t e d States, coordinated w i t h its retreating economic hegemony,

o f global order, they r u n quickly back to multilateralism, that is, an

are further evidence o f decline for A r r i g h i , such that the V i e t n a m

international order directed by a limited group o f dominant nation-

War, not l o n g after the decoupling o f the dollar from the gold stan-

states i n collaboration. H e n r y Kissinger declares it openly:"the w o r l d

dard and the first o i l crisis, marked its signal crisis and the occupation

resembles Europe o f the seventeenth century; it needs to become

o f Iraq its terminal crisis. A r r i g h i thus hypothesizes that the U . S . - l e d

Europe o f the nineteenth century."

cycle o f global accumulation w i l l be succeeded by a new cycle cen-

rope, before the T h i r t y Years' War, the w o r l d was chaotic. O n l y the

tered i n East Asia (with Japan seen at the h e l m i n his earlier w o r k

Peace ofWestphalia, w h i c h brought the war to an end, created a E u -

and C h i n a i n his more recent). It is a mistake, however, to read A r -

ropean order, the organizing principle o f w h i c h was religion and

righi's argument, even though some elements i n his w o r k do point

absolute sovereignty. There was thus no international order outside

in this direction, as projecting that C h i n a or any other nation-state

o f the agreements among sovereign powers and no structure that

w i l l repeat the form o f U . S . hegemony, w h i c h itself repeated the

exercised power outside o f the nation-states. B y the nineteenth cen-

British, and further back the D u t c h , the Genoese, and the Venetian.

tury, the Westphalian political w o r l d had reached its perfection, i n

Instead the new cycle o f accumulation requires a new global p o l i t i -

Kissinger's view. T h e only difference desirable today, he adds, w o u l d

cal order and a reorganization o f the geography and mode o f opera-

be the disappearance o f religion i n favor o f ideology, and thus the

tion o f w o r l d capital. C h i n a w i l l not be the new imperialist power,

renovation o f the plural concert o f sovereign states. E v e n Kissinger

i n other words, and neither w i l l there emerge a global mega-state

recognizes that the sixteenth-century European principle cuius regio,

that repeats the features o f nation-state hegemony o n a larger scale.

eius religio, w h i c h links political rule to religious authority, cannot

T h e most innovative aspect o f Arrighi's analysis, i n fact, is his pro-

today serve as the foundation o f planetary order. H e focuses not o n

posal o f an emerging "world-market society based o n greater.equal-

any clash o f civilizations but o n the multilateral concert

ity among the world's civilizations," w h i c h he articulates through a

nation-states. Francis Fukuyama, having renounced neoconservative,

creative and attentive reading o f A d a m Smith. H e views the ascent

unilateralist dreams, echoes Kissinger i n his call for a multilateral

o f C h i n a most significantly as one piece o f the general rise o f the

order based o n the collaboration o f strong states. Fukuyama and

subordinated nations as a w h o l e w i t h respect to the dominant, inau-

Kissinger both, however, imagine a multilateral arrangement o f states

gurating a fundamentally new f o r m o f accumulation not based o n

that does not rely o n international institutions for support.

the hegemony o f a single nation-state. A n important consequence o f

perhaps w h y Kissinger's imagination goes back to the

Arrighi's argument, then, is that the decline o f U.S. hegemony marks

century to describe such an order.

the end o f hegemony based o n a single nation-state—in imperialist, unilateralist, and all other forms—over the global economic and p o -

22

In seventeenth-century E u -

23

among

That is

nineteenth

T h e international system that could sustain a multilateral order has, i n fact, completely fallen apart. A l l the international and supra-

221

EMPIRE

AFTER

RETURNS

U.S.

HEGEMONY

national institutions constructed after 1945 to support the postwar

spond—on the military, economic, ideological, or legal terrain—to

order are i n crisis. W i t h the creation o f the U n i t e d Nations, to take

the contemporary challenges. In this context it is thus not even pos-

just one o f those, it was thought that an "ought," a j u r i d i c a l sollen,

sible to heed Kissinger's call for a return to Westphalia.

could be constructed internationally and imposed by a concert o f nation-states.Today, however, multilateralist moral obligation has lost

Imperial Governance

its power. This is not to say that at the foundation o f the U n i t e d N a -

For those whose political imagination is populated only by previ-

tions the effort to constitutionalize fundamental aspects o f the inter-

ously existing forms o f global order, once unilateralism has failed

national order was i n vain. Despite the injustices that it covered over

and multilateralism has been revealed as impossible, all that is left is

and its frequent manipulation by the dominant powers, the U n i t e d

disorder, a war o f all against all w i t h a k i n d o f law o f the jungle pre-

Nations did succeed at times i n imposing a m i n i m a l standard o f

vailing i n global markets. It should be clear, however, that even i n a

peace. Consider simply some o f the many disasters that the juridical

situation o f weakened unilateral and multilateral controls, globaliza-

order o f the U n i t e d Nations dealt w i t h d u r i n g the cold war: i n the

tion continues. W e need to recognize the new forms o f manage-

two great crises o f 1956, for instance, at Suez and i n Hungary, the

ment, regulation, and control that are emerging to order the global

U n i t e d Nations' realistic political orientation helped avoid m u c h

system. O n c e we adopt a new perspective, i n fact, we can begin to

more destructive w o r l d explosions.The U . N . order was not a " H o l y

see that there already exists a complex network o f global norms,

A l l i a n c e " or an imperial dictatorship but rather an international sys-

structures, and authorities, w h i c h is partial, incomplete, and i n some

tem o f law, contradictory and always open to breakdowns but solid,

respects fragile but nonetheless real and effective.

i n the end, and realistically active. Its beginnings are rooted not re-

Saskia Sassen's precise analyses o f the emerging institutional

ally i n the nineteenth century but rather i n the twentieth-century

forms o f economic and political control give us a f i r m basis for i n -

defeat o f fascism, w h i c h unleashed so many democratic aspirations.

vestigating this n e w global order. She definitively puts to rest all o f

B u t its conditions o f effectiveness have been exhausted. T h e letter

those useless debates that pit the continuing importance o f nation-

and the spirit o f the U n i t e d Nations Charter are n o w undone. In

states against the processes o f globalization as i f the two were m u t u -

short, a multilateral order, a new Westphalia capable o f orchestrating

ally exclusive. T h e emerging global order, she argues, is f o r m i n g not

international agreement and collaboration, is impossible today i n

only outside o f nation-states but also, and more important, w i t h i n

large part because the institutional order o n w h i c h it w o u l d rest—

them, initiating a process o f the "denationalization" o f certain c o m -

from the U n i t e d Nations to the Bretton Woods institutions—is no

ponents o f the nation-state that makes them increasingly oriented

longer effective.

toward global agendas and systems.The global is w i t h i n the national,

T h e failure o f unilateralism, then, cannot lead to the resurgence

i n other words, just as m u c h as the national is w i t h i n the global. Sas-

o f what seemed for a p e r i o d its primary competitor: multilateralism.

sen thus proposes reading the emergent global political and institu-

In effect the international system could not survive the U n i t e d

tional order i n terms o f assemblages i n w h i c h "the nation-state and

States' attempted coup d'etat. In defeat, Samson pulled his enemies

interstate system remain critical building blocks but they are not

d o w n w i t h h i m . B u t really the international institutions necessary to

alone, and are profoundly altered from the inside out."

support a multilateral order were already tottering before unilateral-

onstrates h o w the conditions o f global order have changed such that,

ism dealt the decisive blow. In any case, w i t h unilateralism defeated,

o n the one hand, neither the U n i t e d States nor any other pretender

multilateralism and its international structures are not able to re-

to the throne can exercise unilateral control and successfully c o n -

24

She d e m -

224

EMPIRE

AFTER

RETURNS

U.S. HEGEMONY

duct imperialist projects, and o n the other, no multilateral interstate

These two primary genealogies o f the concept o f governance,

institutional structure can o n its o w n manage and regulate the global

the corporate and the philosophical, both help to open a new per-

system. T h e assemblages that she sees determining global order are

spective from w h i c h to analyze the contemporary situation. G l o b a l

constituted by a mixture o f supranational, national, and nonnational

governance is not a management m o d e l based o n the unity o f c o m -

institutions and authorities.

mand and legitimation, deriving from a single center o f power. It is

A w i d e variety o f authors employ "governance," i n contrast to

rather a process o f continual negotiation, an arrangement o f instru-

"government," to explore the novelty o f these authorities and as-

ments for consensual planning and coordination i n w h i c h a m u l t i -

semblages f o r m i n g w i t h i n and outside the nation-state. T h e term

plicity o f state and non-state actors w i t h vastly unequal powers w o r k

"global governance" is generally used to refer to regulatory struc-

together. A n d only the collaboration among these actors can deter-

tures that function and produce norms, often i n an ad hoc and v a r i -

mine the processes o f policymaking o n the global terrain.The global

able fashion, i n the absence o f an overarching political authority,

order today is defined by a varied set o f norms, customs, statutes, and

25

such as a hegemonic power or the international system. T h e two

laws that constitute a heterogeneous ensemble o f demands and p o w -

most significant genealogies o f the term coincide i n some respects

ers o n the global h o r i z o n .

but inflect discussions very differently. First, "governance" derives

Different scholars develop the n o t i o n o f governance to c o n -

from corporate discourse, where it highlights the structures o f au-

struct significantly different models o f global order. O n e model,

thority and the mechanisms o f management

and accountability

w h i c h derives primarily from economics and finance, focuses o n

typical o f capitalist corporations i n contrast to state structures. T h e

"market values" as the measure o f effectiveness i n governance. T h e

allusion to corporate management serves, at the m i n i m u m , as a

concrete institutional figures o f this continuous activity are those

means to conceive o f global order i n a way not limited to state ac-

that construct and manage the rules o f international economic and

tors, as a h y b r i d system containing state, corporate, and other r u l -

social relations. This m o d e l conceives o f governance as a polycentric

ing bodies.

26

Second, the n o t i o n o f governance also derives from a

and distributed mechanism o f regulation enacted by state and n o n -

philosophical discourse, i n particular the w o r k o f M i c h e l Foucault

state institutions but, since it derives primarily from the corporate

and Niklas L u h m a n n , w h o , i n very different ways, investigate the

notion, it generally understands the functions and structures o f au-

genealogy o f a new concept o f government, focusing attention o n

thority and rule only insofar as they facilitate and support c o m -

the creativity determined by the relationship between actors, regulation, and normativity i n administrative processes. L u h m a n n and Foucault both attempt to transcribe traditional concepts o f sovereignty and its power o f dictation into more flexible structures o f decision m a k i n g and more open processes o f negotiation. G o v e r nance marks, i n this context, an inversion o f the direction o f p o l i t i cal communication: a bottom-up process is substituted for a topd o w n one, and an inductive procedure replaces the deductive one, as the system's center o f gravity shifts toward greater collaboration between state and non-state actors w i t h i n the decision-making networks at multiple levels.

merce and profits.

28

A second model, w h i c h derives from the neoinstitutional l i b eral tradition, conceives governance as a machine that can construct, w i t h i n the relations o f interests and jurisdictions, post-sovereign forms o f global government. T h i s m o d e l should be understood as a departure from, but still closely related to, the realist tradition i n i n ternational relations, w h i c h focuses o n states as the primary actors, thus highlighting the ways i n w h i c h state and interstate institutions continue to function, sometimes transformed, i n the new global context. T h i s m o d e l proves useful, for example, i n the innumerable

27

fields o f confrontation and negotiation that are opened domestically

225

226

EMPIRE

AFTER

RETURNS

U.S.

HEGEM

and internationally to resolve and regulate local conflicts. N e o i n s t i -

geometry. Certainly states (some more than others) continue 0

tutional governance is not limited, though, to such activity but also

strategic sites where the connections among the diverse infrast

has recourse to preventive police forces and ad hoc tribunals, and i n

tures o f global policymaking are achieved,just as the major corp

this way creates a network o f effective mechanisms for integrating

tions and multinational firms at times offer (and impose) m i n i r

and deploying governmental structures.

29

governance standards o f redistribution and social parity, w h i c h s

A third model o f governance draws o n the neocorporative i n -

have to enact. T h e various notions o f governance thus share an

struments o f labor u n i o n institutions to manage directly collective

o f the deconstitutionalization and the governmentalization oi

interests, w h i c h cannot be treated effectively by procedures based at

positifs o f the production o f law that takes c o m m a n d away from

the individual level. Governance here is defined as a process o f the

ereignty, makes it adequate to the market, and distributes it amc

self-regulation o f exchanges among interests, driven by actors w h o

variety o f actors.

32

consent to a plural and polyarchic jurisdiction, constraining states

N o one should confuse this governance, however, with

and governmental institutions to recede from the terrain o f n o r m a -

mocracy.Yes, it is composed o f plural actors, it is relatively fle

tive production to that o f the production o f shared rules, trying to

and open, and it is formed "from below," at least w i t h respect t<

30

structures o f state sovereignty. B u t its multiplicity is highly restr

This m o d e l gives us a m u c h more relevant v i e w than the others for

to only a privileged set, an oligarchy o f powers hierarchically re

understanding the governance o f Empire, w h i c h brings together an

to one another, and its openness is severely limited by the effei

construct, progressively, a single f o r u m for a stable j u r i d i c a l order.

oligarchy o f diverse political and economic bodies, i n c l u d i n g inter-

power and property. Its plurality and openness, i n fact, might b(

national institutions, the dominant nation-states, multinational cor-

understood i n relation to the structures and practices o f marke

porations, continental and regional alliances, and so forth, w h i c h

changes. G l o b a l governance is i n this sense thoroughly p e r m

collaborate to create an open, constituent process. In effect, i n light

by "postdemocratic" practices o f c o m m a n d .

o f this model, global capital seems to m i x eclecticaUy the A n g l o -

These analyses o f global governance should make clear,;

Saxon "gothic regime" and the G e r m a n i c "Puffendorf m o d e l " to

very least, that the ineffectiveness o f unilateralist and multilati

construct a regulatory structure that articulates capitalist interests

structures does not necessarily leave a power vacuum and cha

and the forces o f organized labor w i t h instruments o f general m e -

certain respects, after the failure o f the U . S . coup d'etat, colli

diation. "Trutina Statuum" is what the D u k e o f R o h a n called it i n

capital has taken the reins o f managing the economic, social, f

the seventeenth century—a "balance" o f states or, really, a mecha-

cal, and military crisis. It is easy to understand at this point ho

nism that composes and decomposes the regulatory

E m p i r e emerging today might appear to some as a nonpolar >

o f state and non-state actors.

31

assemblages

T h i s is a far cry from the H e g e -

to use the term we cited earlier. B u t once we put o n a new

lian state, w h i c h , i n the philosophy o f absolute spirit, dictates the

glasses, we can see there is, i n fact, a plurality o f poles and a flu

unified march o f history. T h e contemporary practices and structures

activity constructing assemblages o f state and non-state actors,

o f global governance provide instead an extraordinarily plural and

lishing n e w forms o f authority, and determining new norm

flexible

practices o f regulation and management. In this sense we mig

process.

A l l these models propose the idea o f governance as a f o r m o f

that Davos, site o f the annual W o r l d E c o n o m i c F o r u m , is bec(

pluralistic regulation, w h i c h builds from below and is established i n

more important than Washington. T h e global system is ind(

a network configured by a variable, multilevel, a n d / o r polycentric

crisis i n that its structures o f authority and mechanisms o f regi

228

EMPIRE

RETURNS

AFTER

U.S.

HEGEMONY

are partial, often ineffective, and unevenly applied, but this crisis s i m -

rialists." There are no longer, o f course, colonial administrations

ply marks the interregnum i n w h i c h the processes o f global gover-

and colonial territories to maintain these geographical divisions, but

nance are constituting the infrastructure o f the new Empire i n for-

the divisions are nonetheless still necessary for capital and its mecha-

mation.

nisms o f global governance as means to maintain hierarchy and dis-

34

place social conflict. Sometimes today the unevenness is fit into

The New Scramble for Africa

m u c h more compact areas, traversing the terrain o f a single city.

R e c o g n i z i n g that imperialism is over and a new imperial order is

Geographical divisions, for example, particularly i n Europe, between

materializing does not i n any way i m p l y the end or even a lessening

wealthy white urban centers and poor dark peripheries have devel-

o f division and hierarchy between and w i t h i n societies. T h e claim

oped into one m o d e l for creating and maintaining unevenness. T h e

by some proponents o f capitalist globalization that the w o r l d is be-

large cities o f the Americas, from Los Angeles to R i o , present a dif-

c o m i n g "flat," that the global economy is b e c o m i n g one smooth

ferent model, w i t h a geographical pattern o f divisions less c o n c e n -

space and the conditions o f economic opportunity and production

trically defined. A n d the sprawling megalopolises o f Lagos and Ja-

are becoming more equal across the globe, is pure ideological mysti-

karta pose still other patterns o f distribution and division. Divisions

fication. T h e continuing and the new global divisions o f labor and

o f labor and power also function at other scales, up to tracing trans-

power may at times not be located along national boundaries—di-

national and intercontinental lines r u n n i n g north-south, east-west,

v i d i n g C h i n a from V i e t n a m , for instance, France from Algeria, or

and diagonally too. W e do not intend to explore here the cartogra-

B r i t a i n from N i g e r i a — b u t i n fact the state-centered v i e w o f differ-

phies o f these uneven developments, although that is an extremely

ence and hierarchy proved faulty too i n many cases i n the past. T h e

important task. O u r point is simply that these divisions remain i n

important point is that divisions do not decline i n the emerging i m -

the formation o f Empire, at times radically reorganized o n different

perial formation but i n many cases become more severe. N u m e r o u s

scales and often intensified, and that they are still necessary to m a i n -

scholars, anthropologists and geographers foremost among them,

tain control, as R h o d e s understood, by preserving hierarchy and dis-

demonstrate h o w the globalizing w o r l d is not flat but dramatically

placing social conflict.

uneven, striated by o l d and new lines o f difference and hierarchy.

33

R e c o g n i z i n g h o w the present situation differs from Marx's

M o s t significant w i t h regard to our analysis are the ways that

analysis o f the gradual historical shift from the formal subsumption

divisions o f labor and power serve as mechanisms o f social control.

o f labor under capital to its real subsumption, corresponding to the

Geographical unevenness and divisions still function, as they did i n

processes o f capitalist globalization, might clarify this point. For

the imperialist era, to preserve hierarchies and displace (and thereby

M a r x subsumption remains/orma/ w h e n labor practices and relations

control) social antagonisms. T h e great imperialist C e c i l R h o d e s u n -

created outside o f capitalist production are imported intact under its

derstood these functions well: " M y cherished idea is a solution for

rule. Consider, for instance, h o w methods o f craft production are

the social problem, i.e., i n order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants

preserved and brought into manufacturing establishments or h o w

o f the U n i t e d K i n g d o m from a bloody civil war, we colonial states-

noncapitalist agricultural practices are preserved i n forms o f cap-

m e n must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to p r o -

italist agriculture. T h e formal subsumption, then, designates phe-

vide new markets for the goods produced by them i n the factories

nomena that are b o t h inside and outside o f capital. T h i s subsump-

and the mines. T h e Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and but-

tion becomes real, however, w h e n capital creates new labor processes

ter question. If you want to avoid civil war, y o u must become i m p e -

no longer tied to the noncapitalist forms and thus properly capitalist.

229

230

EMPIRE

RETURNS

AFTER

U.S. HEGEMONY

T h e forms o f industrial labor produced i n the factory are, for M a r x ,

o f a similar k i n d o f extraction from areas all over the w o r l d , w h i c h

the p r i m e example o f real subsumption. R e a l l y subsumed labor is

D a v i d Harvey calls accumulation by dispossession, a f o r m o f appro-

no longer at the border between outside and inside capital but

priation that involves not primarily the generation o f wealth but

w h o l l y inside. Some o f the great twentieth-century theorists o f i m -

rather taking possession o f existing wealth, usually from the poor or

perialism, such as R o s a Luxemburg, extend Marx's analysis beyond a

the public sector, through legal or illegal means, and most often i n

single society to analyze imperialism as a process o f the formal sub-

situations where the limits o f legality are unclear.

sumption o f noncapitalist economies under the dominant, capitalist

the formal subsumption clearly reappear i n this general competition

economies. Formal subsumption, i n this view, marks the borderline

among the powerful to accumulate by dispossessing others.

36

O l d elements o f

between capital and its outside, a division that imperialists use to

T h i s scramble to appropriate is constantly supported and facil-

maintain hierarchies and displace social conflicts. T h e process o f

itated, o f course, by extraeconomic violence. N a o m i K l e i n names

globalization thus involves a general passage from formal to real sub-

"disaster capitalism" the paradigm i n w h i c h accumulation by dispos-

sumption, according to this view, pulling all societies w i t h i n the cir-

session and the imposition o f neoliberal economic policies are i n i t i -

cuits o f capitalist production. Capital compels all nations, as M a r x

ated by some f o r m o f shock, w h i c h can range from a military coup

and Engels famously declare, to adopt o n pain o f extinction the cap-

or invasion to an ecological disaster. Capital, o f course, has always

italist mode o f production, creating a w o r l d i n its o w n image. Imag-

found ways to profit from catastrophes, using them most often as a

i n i n g the entire w o r l d i n the stage o f the real subsumption, a single

lever for the concentration o f wealth and production. K l e i n m a i n -

capitalist whole, however, might lead easily to those visions o f a flat

tains, though, that since the 1970s, and increasingly d u r i n g the cur-

or smooth w o r l d without geographical divisions o f labor and power.

rent period o f interregnum and its disorders, economic transforma-

W e need, i n fact, to recognize a reciprocal movement also under

tion via disaster and appropriation by dispossession have come to

way i n the process o f globalization, from the real subsumption to the

constitute the dominant m o d e l .

formal, creating not new "outsides" to capital but severe divisions and hierarchies w i t h i n the capitalist globe. T h i s does not, however, mark a return to the past: movements toward formal and real subsumption coexist i n the globalizing capitalist w o r l d whose geography is striated by o l d and new boundaries and cleavages.

37

W h a t we are calling here a new scramble for Africa is occurring, obviously, all over the w o r l d , but it does take particularly i n tense, brutal forms i n Africa. F r o m the diamond mines o f Sierra Leone to the o i l fields o f Uganda, forms o f mineral-extraction cap-

35

italism, often i n the hands o f foreign corporations and under the

T h e return movement from real to formal subsumption c o r -

protection o f informal militias, has come to dominate local econo-

responds, i n certain respects, to the recent reappearance o f many

mies.James Ferguson points out that, contrary to the standard narra-

antiquated, parasitical forms o f capitalist appropriation. If there is

tive, stability, peace, and the rule o f law do not correspond to eco-

any return to the nineteenth-century international arrangement, as

n o m i c growth i n this context. Rather, he observes, "the countries

Kissinger imagines, it is i n that we are witnessing today a new

that (in the terms o f W o r l d B a n k and I M F reformers) are the biggest

"scramble for Africa," i n w h i c h European nation-states i n the final

'failures' have been among the most successful at attracting foreign

decades o f that century v i e d for imperialist control over territory,

investment capital." Whereas European states led the scramble a

carving the continent into colonies. Nineteenth-century Europeans

century ago, today it is primarily corporations dividing up the spoils

were primarily dreaming o f forms o f wealth they c o u l d extract from

under the cover o f complex forms o f global governance.

Africa, such as ivory and gold. Today there is a renewed prominence

38

It should perhaps come as no surprise i n this context that some

231

AFTER 232

EMPIRE

U.S.

HEGEMONY

RETURNS

40

old, seemingly outdated terms make a comeback to describe the unevenness and differences o f the processes o f capitalist globalization. O n e striking example is h o w some prominent Chinese historians return to Marx's n o t i o n o f an "Asiatic M o d e o f P r o d u c t i o n "

figuration."

O n c e we focus o n the assemblages and authorities be-

ing formed i n the context o f global governance, we can see that a new imperial formation is emerging that can function only through the collaboration o f a variety o f national, supranational, and nonna-

beginning i n the 1980s. M a r x uses the term, b o r r o w i n g heavily from

tional powers. O u r future politics w i l l have to be cast i n relation to

Hegel's theory o f history, to designate an i m m o b i l e and thus ahis-

this Empire.

torical apparatus o f social production centered o n a despotic state that appropriates surplus from self-sufficient village communities, w h i c h he contrasts to the dynamism o f capitalist development i n Europe. T h e notion o f an Asiatic M o d e o f Production, as we noted i n Part 2, has been thoroughly criticized by Marxists and n o n Marxists alike for both historical inaccuracy and Eurocentrism. T h e Chinese historians w h o resurrected the term i n the p o s t - M a o era, however, R e b e c c a K a r l explains, do so not to subordinate Asia i n any new notion o f general w o r l d history but rather to identify C h i na's exceptional position i n the global capitalist system. T h e y c o n ceive the "eternal standstill" o f the Asian M o d e o f Production as a strength: the stability o f Chinese rule over thousands o f years affirms its model o f state-centered capitalist development.

39

Leaving aside

the utility o f the concept o f an Asiatic M o d e o f Production, w h i c h seems very questionable to us, the differences these historians point to are very real. W e locate them, however, as marking not an outside but rather lines o f division and hierarchy within the emerging global imperial formation. T h e disorder and complexity o f the current global situation— w i t h the reappearance o f a w i d e variety o f outdated forms o f v i o lence, economic appropriation, political domination, and so f o r t h — lead many to l o o k to o l d models, such as unilateralist hegemony and multilateralist collaboration, to understand the terms o f global order. Even though ghosts o f the past continually spring up i n this p e r i o d o f interregnum, however, we insist that the emerging w o r l d order has to be read i n terms that are fundamentally new. " T h e hegemonic baton w i l l likely be passed," maintains W i l l i a m R o b i n s o n , w i t h an eye to this novelty,"from the U n i t e d States, not to a new hegemonic nation-state or even to a regional bloc, but to a transnational c o n -

233

GENEALOGY

OF

REBELLION

w i l l take i n reaction. If we are to understand better the nature o f the

4.3

emerging Empire, then, we need to investigate the antagonisms, revolts, and rebellions that press against it.These struggles for freedom determine the entire development o f the structures o f power.

G E N E A L O G Y OF R E B E L L I O N

41

F r o m this principle it follows too that an empire also falls p r i marily from internal developments.The R o m a n E m p i r e fell, for example, not really from the barbarian invasions but from the internal decline o f its legitimacy and the rise o f class struggle and forces

Me, I hate the crowd, the herd. It always seems to me stupid or guilty of vile atrocities I have never liked the crowd except on days of riot, i f even then! . . . O n those days there is a great breath in the air— one feels intoxicated by a human poetry as large as that of nature, but more ardent.

counter to imperial command. Similarly the collapse o f the Soviet

—Gustave Flaubert to Louise Colet, 31 March 1853

scale industry w i t h extreme forms o f discipline and the autonomy

U n i o n resulted primarily not from cold war military and political pressures but from the internal revolt against unfreedom and, i n particular, the contradiction between the socialist management o f largerequired by emerging forms o f biopolitical p r o d u c t i o n .

42

O u r task, then, is to investigate the organizational framework o f antagonistic subjectivities that arise from below, based o n the indignation expressed by subjects i n the face o f the unfreedoms and

Revolt Breathes Life into History

injustices o f power, the severe forms o f control and hierarchy, and

In the course o f this chapter we have outlined the major features o f

the cruel forms o f exploitation and expropriation i n the disordered

the emerging Empire, its composition o f state and non-state powers,

w o r l d o f global governance. Indignation, as Spinoza notes, is the

its assemblages o f governance, its internal contradictions, its geo-

ground zero, the basic material from w h i c h movements o f revolt

graphical hierarchies, and its divisions o f power and labor. We should

and rebellion develop. W h y , y o u might ask, should we go all the

begin to suspect, though, w h e n we keep hearing about the instabil-

way back to the beginning? There are well-established oppositional

ity and uncertainly o f the present global order, that maybe these are

parties and even some leftist governments that combat militarism,

not just objective conditions but rather the result o f conflicts and

capitalist globalization, and various other injustices i n countries

antagonisms that are not readily visible, at least not from the stand-

throughout the world; there are trade unions that have negotiated i n

point o f the powerful. In fact, i f we are to make any further headway

the name o f workers for over a century; and there are nongovern-

in understanding the global order we w i l l have to approach it from

mental organizations o f every stripe that strive to serve and protect

the other side, from the standpoint o f resistance and revolt. This

those i n need o f the basic necessities. W h y should we try to reinvent

brings us back to the methodological principle we explored i n Part

the wheel? W h y not, at this point i n our analysis, simply investigate

2, the a x i o m o f freedom, w h i c h can be summarized i n the following

the established institutional forms o f resistance? This certainly is an

way. Power can be exercised only over free subjects, and thus the

important task, and i n our previous w o r k we dedicated considerable

resistance o f those subjects is not really posterior to power but an

energy to developing an extensive catalogue o f the existing move-

expression o f their freedom, w h i c h is prior. R e v o l t as an exercise o f

ments o f the multitude against contemporary imperial command,

freedom not only precedes but also prefigures the forms that power

highlighting h o w traditional models o f contestation and rebellion

235

236

EMPIRE

GENEALOGY

RETURNS

OF

REBELLION

have to be changed and are being changed i n the current situation—

tainly, the standard version goes, these people are suffering and have

how, for example, trade unions i n the context o f biopolitical p r o -

just cause, but the spontaneity o f their actions leads d o w n the w r o n g

duction have to develop new strategies to include the poor and

path. T h e violence o f the jacquerie, o n the one hand, overflows rea-

those w i t h precarious employment; h o w social movements have to

sonable measure and destroys the objects o f its wrath seemingly i n -

In

discriminately: think o f the tales o f white colonists killed by revolt-

earlier chapters o f this book, too, we examined movements o f the

ing slaves i n H a i t i or the images o f Detroit i n flames during the riots

multitude i n altermodernity, for example, b r i n g i n g together race

o f summer 1967. T h e spontaneity o f the jacquerie, o n the other

and labor struggles. Here instead we want to approach the question

hand, according to the standard narrative, leaves behind no organiza-

from a more philosophical standpoint, starting from the most basic,

tional structure, no legitimate institution that can serve as an alter-

abstract point and building logically to arrive back w i t h a fresh per-

native to the power overthrown. T h e jacquerie burns out i n a flash

spective at the formation o f the multitude. Consider this more p h i l -

and is gone. T h e great poetry o f Francois V i l l o n is full o f the brief

osophical approach a complement to empirical investigations.

adventures and tragic destinies o f the jacqueries. A n d yet we have to

construct networks across national boundaries; and so f o r t h .

43

Let us begin w i t h indignation, then, as the raw material o f revolt and rebellion. In indignation, as Spinoza reminds us, we discover our power to act against oppression and challenge the causes o f our collective suffering. In the expression o f indignation our very existence rebels.

44

Indignation thus includes a certain amount o f v i o -

lence. This relates closely to the fact, w h i c h we touched on earlier,

recognize what some call the epidemic spread and constant presence o f such uprisings punctuating m o d e r n history, from Europe and Russian to India and C h i n a , from Africa to the Americas and beyond.

46

Despite their brevity and discontinuity, the constant reap-

pearance o f these jacqueries profoundly determines not only the mechanisms o f repression but also the structures o f power itself.

that the resistance to power, the expression o f freedom against the

Before addressing the political problem that jacqueries raise,

violence o f power, always involves a dimension o f force—when the

we should observe that they are strongly characterized by the rela-

worker confronts the boss, the colonized faces off against the c o l o -

tions o f production against w h i c h they strike. R i o t s are, from this

nizer, the citizen the state, and so forth.

perspective, m u c h less generic and more intelligent than is often as-

T h e force and resistance that arise from indignation against the

sumed: a jacquerie can be zweckadequat, i n M a x Weber's terms, that

abuses and dictates o f power, however, can appear immediate or

is, adequate to its goal and thus somewhat "organized" i n its sponta-

spontaneous and thus naive (though not for that reason any less

neity. Peasant revolts throughout modernity rise up against the insti-

powerful). Indignation is b o r n always as a singular phenomenon, i n

tutions o f rent, recognizing and destroying the symbolic sites o f aris-

response to a specific obstacle or violation. Is it possible, then, for

tocratic and colonial power. Industrial worker rebellions instead

there to be a strategy o f indignation? C a n indignation lead to a p r o -

develop essentially through the sabotage o f fixed capital and m a -

In the history o f m o d e r n p o -

chinery. A n d most interestingly for us, struggles against the b i o p o -

litical movements the great examples o f self-organized rebellion

litical regime o f social production, such as the N o v e m b e r 2005

cess o f political self-determination?

45

based o n indignation have often been called jacqueries: from the fe-

events centered i n the Paris suburbs, demonstrate a new intelligence

rocious sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European peasant u p -

by focusing o n schools and public and private means o f transpor-

risings to the spontaneous worker revolts o f the nineteenth and

tation, that is, the conditions o f social mobility and division that

twentieth centuries, from anticolonial insurgencies to race riots, var-

are essential for the metropolitan exploitation o f the social labor

ious forms o f urban rebellion, food riots, and so forth. N o r m a l l y

force.

such events are portrayed negatively i n political histories. Yes, cer-

47

R e v o l t , the destruction o f wealth, and social sabotage o f the

237

238

EMPIRE

RETURNS

GENEALOGY

OF

REBELLION

structures o f power have i n fact always been schools o f organization.

Often i n our analyses, i n this b o o k and others, we focus o n the

T h e terror o f the jacqueries corresponds to the drive for liberation

rupture o f the constituted order enacted by the refusal o f relations

contained w i t h i n them—against feudal lords, colonial powers, racist

o f production by the producers and their organization o f the mate-

regimes, and so forth. A l t h o u g h i n jacqueries organization arises as a

rial conditions o f overturning them. Indeed the Marxist and c o m -

set o f singular demands, there is always a pressure to make c o m m o n

munist revolutionary traditions, w h i c h constitute one o f the primary

the action o f the multitude, and this organizational initiative most

points o f departure for our w o r k , understand the revolutionary pro-

often takes the form o f the construction and reproduction o f infor-

cess as taking place primarily w i t h i n the field o f economic produc-

mal networks. In the past the organizations that arise from jacque-

tion. Today, even for those w h o want to remain part o f these tradi-

ries were generally seen as insurrectional i n the cities and nomadic

tions, the perspective o f revolutionary action has to be conceived

i n the countryside, i n European history, for example, from the revolt

m u c h more broadly, o n the biopolitical h o r i z o n . As we insisted

o f the ciompi i n fourteenth-century

Florence to the Masaniello re-

at length i n Part 3, the sites o f economic production have spread

volt i n seventeenth-century Naples, and from the sixteenth-century

throughout the social terrain, and the production o f economic value

G e r m a n peasant rebellions to all o f those that arose against the an-

is increasingly indistinguishable from the production o f social rela-

cien regime i n France. T h e Russian R e v o l u t i o n might be consid-

tions and forms o f life. A worker revolution is no longer sufficient; a

ered i n this respect a m o d e l o f urban jacquerie (with coordinated

revolution i n life, o f life, is needed. Georges Sorel seems to intuit

activities also i n the countryside) and the Chinese R e v o l u t i o n a

this shift but cannot conceive the material connection

m o d e l o f nomadic, rural jacquerie all the way through the L o n g

the struggle against exploitation and the expressions o f indignation

M a r c h . W e w i l l find as we go forward i n our analysis, however, that

against the corruption o f the social order. Sorel formulates le grand

today jacqueries, particularly w i t h respect to metropolitan terrain,

soir as a myth—a necessary myth, he believes. W h a t is really neces-

combine these two characteristics i n a new organizational figure.

sary instead, as L e n i n rightly insists, is the l i n k between ethico-

W e should note at this point that reactionary theorists, particu-

political indignation and the

unstoppable

between

sequence o f acts o f

larly those i n the great Spanish and G e r m a n counterrevolutionary

violence, expropriation, and sabotage against the symbols and insti-

traditions, such as C a r l Schmitt, also focus o n jacqueries but attri-

tutional realities o f power that the jacqueries express.

49

bute to them an opposite meaning, reading them as conservative

T h e central problem, though, adds L e n i n , and we fundamen-

events that legitimate and defend established powers against the

tally agree, is h o w to translate every moment o f insurgency into a

transformations promoted by revolutionary movements.

48

O n e limit

m o m e n t o f government, h o w to make insurrection lasting and sta-

o f these analyses, though, w h i c h i n our v i e w proves essential, is that

ble, that is, h o w to make the jacquerie effective. F o r factory workers

they see only h o w jacqueries give "popular" legitimacy to a tradi-

i n many periods and i n many parts o f the w o r l d , the stabilization o f

tional r u l i n g structure but are b l i n d to the more profound legiti-

the antagonistic relationship was achieved by translating it, through

macy they give to a creative and nomadic power. Jacqueries, i n their

class struggle, into a wage issue (at both the individual and social

way, always express a double power: new power opposed to the r u l -

levels, including welfare, social services, and the like). In the context

ing power, a f o r m o f life against a structure o f exploitation, a project

o f biopolitical production, however, it is increasingly impossible to

o f liberation against a figure o f command. T h e more the urban and

translate the struggle over exploitation, welfare, and survival into

rural models o f jacqueries m i x and overlap i n the

monetary and wage issues. H o w can insurrectional action o n the

world, the more this double power emerges.

contemporary

biopolitical h o r i z o n , then, be stabilized? T h e o l d socialist and c o m -

239

240

EMPIRE

GENEALOGY

RETURNS

OF

REBELLION

munist responses have no place here. To explore new responses to

Spinoza's definition, "is hatred toward someone w h o has injured an-

this question we turn n o w to a political anthropology o f resistance.

other." This is h o w revolt is grounded i n the c o m m o n .

52

We remain convinced that the expression o f indignation and revolt

Indignation, disobedience, revolt, and rebellion constitute fig-

in jacqueries is essential for a process o f transformation but that

ures o f rupture i n the anthropological fabric o f society but, para-

without organization they cannot achieve it. Jacqueries are not suf-

doxically, also continuity. T h e y constantly reappear as we saw i n the

ficient, i n other words, but they are necessary.

contexts o f jacqueries, and moreover they pose the conditions for lasting social organization. M i c h e l Foucault insists o n both the sin-

Anthropology of Resistance

gular, local nature o f revolt and the continuity o f its lasting effects:

A t this point we need to develop a theory o f "revolutionary b i o -

" N o one has the right to say,'Revolt for me, it w i l l contribute to the

politics," or rather revolution i n the biopolitical context, and to ex-

liberation o f all humanity.' B u t I don't agree w i t h those w h o say,'It is

plore its bases we must begin by e x p l o r i n g the anthropological

useless to revolt, it w i l l always be the same.' O n e shouldn't moralize

structures o f politics today, that is, the conditions o f obedience and

w i t h those w h o risk their lives against power. It is right or not to

resistance. In the Intermezzo we criticized the pessimistic tradition

revolt? Let's leave the question open. People rise up, it's a fact. A n d

o f political anthropology from Hobbes to Schmitt. N o w to c o m -

that is h o w subjectivity (not that o f great m e n but o f whoever) is

plete the scene we should add a critique o f the liberal tradition from

introduced into history and gives it its breath."

L o c k e to Kant, w h i c h constitutes an effective apology for the cap-

rupture o f revolt anthropologically continuous—"people rise up, it's

italist social order by planting its feet i n an assumption o f possessive

a fact"—but moreover revolt is h o w the multitude makes history,

individualism while its head seeks legitimacy i n transcendental

h o w it breathes life into what w o u l d otherwise be dead.

schema—but really the young M a r x and C . B . Macpherson already critiqued this effectively

50

53

N o t only is the

In the revolutionary industrial workers' movement, " w i t h i n

It is perhaps more useful for us here to

and against" constituted the imaginary o f worker action: w i t h i n the

point out h o w the political anthropology implicit i n contemporary

factory and against capital. F r o m the era o f the professional indus-

neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies combine these two tradi-

trial worker to that o f the mass worker, this relation o f "variable cap-

tions.This amounts to an u n l i m i t e d possessive individualism situated

ital" w i t h i n and against "constant capital" took various forms i n

i n a lifeworld o f generalized insecurity and fear: an extraordinary

relation to the technical composition o f labor and the political c o m -

mystification o f a thoroughly capitalist society under the absolute rule o f biopower.

51

position o f the organized proletariat. Today, i n the context o f b i o p o -

Against these mystifications we have to recog-

litical production, w h e n the factory is no longer the primary site o f

nize that exploitation remains the foundation o f this society, that

the production o f capital, this imaginary continues, but transformed:

therefore living labor is required to sustain it, and that the multitude

the proletariat is w i t h i n society as a whole and produces there; and it

has to consent to capitalist authority. This is the sovereign against

is against this same social totality. This marks another anthropologi-

w h i c h indignation arises and revolt must be directed. If an entirely

cal condition o f politics and revolt. T h e refusal o f exploitation and

capitalist form o f biopower constitutes the fundamental basis o f all

alienation n o w more clearly is directed against the society o f capital

the anthropological conditions i n contemporary society, then it is

i n its entirety and thus designates a process o f exodus, a k i n d o f an-

not hard to deduce that the forms o f disobedience, revolt, and insur-

thropological (and ontological) separation from the domination o f

rection w i l l similarly be biopolitical, that is, as singular expressions

capital.

immersed i n the reality o f the c o m m o n . "Indignation," according to

T h e political anthropology o f resistance today is also charac-

•

241

242

EMPIRE

RETURNS

GENEALOGY

OF

REBELLION

terized by a new temporality that reorganizes the relation o f past,

sides o n the same h o r i z o n o f temporality w i t h capitalist control, and

present, and future. We get a first approximation o f this shift by l o o k -

its position o f being w i t h i n and against is manifest through a move-

i n g at h o w the temporalities o f labor and capitalist exploitation have

ment o f exodus, w h i c h poses the exceeding productivity o f the

changed. M a r x and the Marxist tradition focus o n two primary t e m -

multitude against the exceptionality o f capitalist command.

poral divisions: the division between necessary labor-time (in w h i c h

T h e struggles o f 1968 probably revealed for the first time this

the value necessary to reproduce the worker is produced) and sur-

coincidence o f planes and temporalities o n w h i c h capitalist devel-

plus labor-time (in w h i c h the value expropriated by the capitalist is

opment and social revolution conflict. In 1968, i n fact, the socialist

produced); and the division between w o r k time and life time. As we

workers' movement entered the final stage o f its history, since it is

argued i n Part 3, i n biopolitical production both o f these temporal

situated and moves according to a dialectical relation o f exploitation

divisions are breaking d o w n . Necessary labor-time and

surplus

and the contractual labor institutions.This dialectical duality was de-

labor-time must today increasingly be conceived not i n sequence

stroyed: a labor u n i o n "separated" from the labor process no longer

but simultaneously; and similarly w o r k time tends to spread through-

makes sense, and neither does a boss "separated" from the c o m m o n

out life time, investing it w i t h its logics o f exploitation and c o m -

social intelligence that characterizes production. H e n c e the b o u r -

mand. T h e capitalist temporality o f valorization and expropriation,

geois hatred for the events o f 1968. W h e n the dialectical conditions

then, has to be understood no longer i n terms o f the succession o f

o f the labor movement were taken away, so too were removed the

measured units o f time but rather i n a k i n d o f simultaneity that c o n -

institutional mechanisms o f mediation o n w h i c h capital relies.

stantly appears as an exception to linear temporality. O u r earlier

This is the situation to w h i c h capitalist governance has to b r i n g

analyses o f biopolitical production repeatedly returned to the figure

order—a difficult and perhaps impossible task. A n d the structures o f

o f the p o o r to understand this progressive breakdown o f the tradi-

rule, as we argued earlier, can no longer stand above the social field

tional capitalist divisions o f time, this overlapping o f production and

to dictate the processes o f exploitation but must reside, so to speak,

exploitation, w o r k and life. A n d from the standpoint o f the poor we

w i t h i n it. T h i s is w h y the global order o f governance is necessarily

recognize a different character o f this new temporality. T h e b i o p o -

characterized by instability and insecurity.

litical productivity o f the p o o r always exceeds all measure that is

T h i s is also the situation i n w h i c h we have to rethink the jac-

imposed o n it, always overflows the mechanisms o f capitalist e x p l o i -

querie. W h a t can the jacquerie express w h e n situated i n this new

tation. W h a t we really confront here, then, are two temporalities,

anthropological condition, i n light o f its c o m m o n ontological basis

w h i c h both move beyond the o l d measures o f time: the capitalist

and its tendency toward exodus? H o w can the furor o f indignation

temporality o f exception and the multitudinous temporality o f ex-

i n revolt, its urgency and aggressiveness, be organized? W h a t is the

ceeding. Previously capital and labor conflicted w i t h

asymmet-

path from spontaneity to organization i n this context? T h e anthro-

ric, nonsynchronic temporalities—with capitalist temporality well

pological conditions o f resistance are i n fact completely changed

planted i n the present, as Ernst B l o c h says, and proletarian temporal-

here. It is interesting that whereas i n our other works we have often

ity oriented toward the future—but n o w they pose two alternatives

taken great pains to distinguish the multitude from the crowd, the

o n the same temporal h o r i z o n .

54

Today, i n fact, revolution is no

mob, and the masses, here we see the possibility o f recuperating these

longer imaginable as an event separated from us i n the future but has

social formations w h e n their indignation and revolt are directed and

to live i n the present, an "exceeding" present that i n some sense a l -

organized. T h i s recomposition o f all the subordinated classes, i n fact,

ready contains the future w i t h i n it. Revolutionary movement re-

the enslaved, the oppressed, the exploited, has always been the w o r k

243

244

EMPIRE

RETURNS

GENEALOGY

OF

REBELLION

o f class struggle. W e might say, then, along w i t h Flaubert i n the epi-

This creation o f n e w lines o f division and hierarchy is an

graph to this section, that we hate the crowd except i n its days o f

example o f the general process we described earlier that inverts

rebellion, w h e n it achieves a k i n d o f human poetry. T h i s poetry o f

the movement M a r x indicated from formal to real subsumption. It

the future is what has to be composed to make the multitude.

should be clear, though, that the construction o f borders and the movement to formal subsumption do not simply mark a return to

Geographies of Rebellion

old hierarchies, as i f the division between peasant or craft labor and

After having analyzed some o f the temporal dimensions o f the b i o -

industrial labor or that between capitalist societies and colonial ter-

political transformations o f labor, we need n o w to examine their

ritories had reappeared. It is not a regression o f an evolutionary pro-

spatial dimensions. W e can begin from the claim we arrived at i n

cess but rather a historical i n n o v a t i o n . T h i s holds true also for fig-

Part 3 that the metropolis has become the primary locus o f b i o p o -

ures o f political authority and domination: even w h e n it seems that

litical production. B y this we mean that the production o f capital is

outdated figures are reappearing, they are really new. B u t the differ-

56

no longer limited to the factory or any other separated site but

ence here is that the figures o f political rule are results, not causes, o f

rather spreads throughout the entire social territory. T h e qualities

the process o f transformation. T h e political structures, w h i c h we

traditionally associated w i t h the metropolis such as communication,

used to call superstructural, maintain a relative independence w i t h

unexpected encounters w i t h social difference, access to the c o m -

respect to the rhythms and the qualities o f the social transforma-

m o n , and the production o f collective forms o f life today increas-

tions.We w i l l return to examine these new political structures i n the

ingly characterize both urban and rural environments, and moreover

remaining parts o f the b o o k .

these qualities are the central factors i n biopolitical production. In this metropolitan territory, social life produces and is produced. The

flexibility

T h e central characteristic o f labor that results from the

flexibil-

ity and mobility imposed o n it i n biopolitical production is its pre-

and mobility imposed o n biopolitical labor

carious nature, that is, its lack o f guaranteed contracts, stable sched-

power along w i t h migration pressures create an extraordinary d y -

ules, and secure employment, i n w h i c h w o r k time and life time

namic o f deterritorialization.When we talk about the breakdown o f

blend together i n the tasks and challenges o f informal and changing

borders and nomadism, we should be clear that the breakdown o f

jobs. T h e emblematic space o f the precarious worker i n the E u r o -

borders does not determine nomadism but instead nomadism itself

pean context is the p o o r metropolitan periphery, the banlieu. T h e

breaks d o w n borders and threatens the territorial stability o f cap-

banlieusards traverse all the frontiers o f the city just to make a l i v i n g

55

italist c o n t r o l . T h e o l d development plan typical o f industrial cap-

every day, and a large number o f them participate during their life-

ital managed to l i n k together urbanization, industrialization, and

time i n massive continental and intercontinental migrations—and

state formations, but biopolitical production breaks up this process.

yet their movement is subject constantly to a complex set o f obsta-

Collective capital is increasingly faced w i t h a mobile and

flexible

cles, stopped by police and the hierarchies o f property o n the sub-

multitude. F r o m the perspective o f c o m m a n d and exploitation, this

way, i n the streets and the shopping centers, and throughout the city.

can only appear chaotic and disordered. T h e task facing capital is

T h e banlieusards are socially excluded at the same time that they are

thus constantly to rebuild borders, reterritorialize the laboring p o p -

completely w i t h i n the processes o f economic and social production,

ulations, and reconstruct the fixed dimensions o f social space. C a p i -

and thus they serve as an adequate emblem for the modes o f e x p l o i -

tal must pursue, i n other words, ever new definitions o f localized

tation and control o f precarious labor.

social hierarchies to rebuild the borders necessary for its order and command.

57

In this w o r l d o f precarious labor that continually breaks d o w n the boundaries between inside and outside, there is clearly no longer

245

246

EMPIRE

GENEALOGY

RETURNS

OF

REBELLION

any place for a political vanguard that w o u l d seek to lead or repre-

positive determination, an index o f power. W h e n economic-political

sent the masses. There is only the network o f the laboring subjec-

demands are woven tightly together w i t h the exercise o f force by

tivities that cooperate and communicate. T h i s network often c o n -

the multitude and successfully determine an event, that is w h e n the

tains contradictory elements, o f course, especially w h e n the political

force o f rebellion engages w i t h history and the rebirth o f a revolu-

centrality o f the banlieu or the ghetto reappears not simply as a phe-

tionary program begins to appear.

nomenological element but as a political dispositif. * W e said earlier

Against this development and even against its potential is de-

that the structures o f exploitation today require a reformulation o f

ployed terror—terror against every f o r m o f resistance, w h i c h , para-

space and a continuous reconstruction o f borders, maintaining the

doxically, is labeled "terrorist." Jacqueries, struggles o f reappropria-

poverty and precariousness o f social labor power. A n d yet i n the pas-

tion, and metropolitan uprisings become the essential enemy o f

sage through these diverse hierarchies there is a moment w h e n i n -

capitalist biopower. A n d yet these are only the social revolts b o r n o n

dignation and its expression i n jacqueries become essential. T h e p o -

the terrain o f biopolitical production, w h i c h stand i n relation to the

litical problem arises here w h e n the poor, the precarious, and the

metropolis just as the struggles o f the industrial w o r k i n g class stood

exploited want to reappropriate the time and space o f the metropo-

i n relation to the factory. A n d as i n the factory, here too there is a

5

lis. T h e central program must move from resistance to proposition

double relation: the banlieusards, standing w i t h i n and against, want

and from jacquerie to organization—but that is an extremely diffi-

both to reappropriate and to destroy the metropolis, reappropriate

cult task, whose obstacles we must face head-on.

its wealth, its networks o f communication and cooperation, and de-

B o t h the temporality and the spatiality o f biopolitical production and its networks are thus contradictory, but that contradictory

stroy its hierarchies, division, and structures o f command. This is a stubborn, fundamental contradiction.

nature at least indicates an opening, a potential. H o w is it possible

T h e proposition o f any solution and the definition o f any p r o -

that, through these networks, we pass from resistance to the de-

gram i n this situation must be given w i t h i n a global social space. T h e

fense o f propositions allowing productive subjectivities to accumu-

national sovereignties o n their o w n , as we saw, are not able to orga-

late force? T h e question is not so m u c h h o w to facilitate and extend

nize global social space, and neither are the international institutions

the moments o f revolt but rather h o w to identify the bases o f the

or the corporations or the N G O s . E v e n the h y b r i d assemblages o f

accumulation o f power and the maturation o f struggles. A n d yet the

these different powers i n regimes o f global governance cannot suc-

diverse temporalities explode i n the event and the diverse spatial

ceed i n determining global spatial arrangements. T h e only possible

figures link up i n the jacquerie. L i k e capitalist governance, the j a c -

basis resides i n the global movements o f populations and their re-

querie reformulates social space, but it does so from the other side,

fusal o f the global norms and rules o f exploitation. C a r r y i n g rebel-

destroying hierarchies, opening new paths o f movement, and creat-

l i o n onto the terrain o f global social space o n a cosmopolitical level

i n g new territorial relations. H o w can this event o f recomposition

means passing through the deepening o f local resistances i n the p r o -

come about? H o w can such force become the soul o f a social proj-

ductive social networks, i n the banlieux, the metropolises, and all the

ect, articulating the love that nourishes indignation? W e should note

networks that connect the proletariat i n its process o f m a k i n g the

that struggles over social reproduction, income, welfare, and the ex-

multitude. Constructing global public space requires that the m u l t i -

ercise o f the rights o f citizenship often take the f o r m o f reappropri-

tude, i n its exodus, create the institutions that can consolidate and

ating the life time and life space o f the multitude. That is not suffi-

fortify the anthropological conditions o f the resistance o f the poor.

cient to define an organizational program, but it is nonetheless a

In Parts 5 and 6 we w i l l have to investigate political organiza-

247

248

EMPIRE

RETURNS

tion and revolution i n terms m u c h more concrete than we have used thus far. Before arriving at that point, however, we must w o r k through the critique o f political economy i n the current situation and then develop a theory o f political institutions. B u t we should remember here, before leaving this theme, that w i t h o u t the rebell i o n o f the exploited and the jacqueries o f the poor, there is no pos-

DE C O R P O R E 2 : M E T R O P O L I S

sibility o f critical thought or a project for organization.

I will make inseparable cities with their arms about each other's necks. By the love of comrades, By the manly love of comrades. —Walt Whitman, "For You 0 Democracy"

T h e metropolis might be considered first the skeleton and spinal cord o f the multitude, that is, the built environment that supports its activity, and the social environment that constitutes a repository and skill set o f affects, social relations, habits, desires, knowledges, and cultural circuits.The metropolis not only inscribes and reactivates the multitude's past—its subordinations, suffering, and struggles—-but also poses the conditions, positive and negative, for its future. Such organic metaphors, however, can be misleading since they are so often understood to imply functionalist and hierarchical relations: the head commands, the hand obeys, and so forth. W e understand the metropolis instead as the inorganic body, that is, the body without organs o f the multitude. "Nature," M a r x writes, i n a passage that inspired Deleuze and Guattari, "is man's inorganic body—that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body."

59

Nature constitutes the wealth o f the c o m m o n that is the basis o f creative human activity, M a r x explains, and i n turn, past human activity is inscribed, registered i n nature. In the era o f biopolitical production the metropolis increasingly fulfills this role as the i n o r ganic body o f the multitude. W h e n we focus o n production, i n fact, we arrive at a more

DE C O R P O R E

2: M E T R O P O L I S

precise and suggestive analogy: the metropolis is to the multitude what

rent, w h i c h is the only means by w h i c h capital can capture the

the factory was to the industrial working class. T h e factory constituted i n

wealth created autonomously. U r b a n real estate values are thus i n

the previous era the primary site and posed the conditions for three

large part expressions o f the c o m m o n or what economists call the

central activities o f the industrial w o r k i n g class: its production; its

"externalities" embedded i n the surrounding metropolitan terrain.

internal encounters and organization; and its expressions o f antago-

W e explored these aspects o f biopolitical production i n Part 3, but

nism and rebellion. T h e contemporary productive activities o f the

n o w we can understand better h o w they are situated i n the m e -

multitude, however, overflow the factory walls to permeate the e n tire metropolis, and i n the process the qualities and potential o f those activities are transformed fundamentally. W e begin tracking d o w n these changes by considering i n turn the activities o f the multitude i n each o f these domains: production, encounter, and antagonism. T h e metropolis is the site o f biopolitical production because it

tropolis. Biopolitical production is transforming the city, creating a new metropolitan form. O n e standard periodization o f the city among architects and urban historians marks its changes i n line w i t h the shifts o f its economic function. In societies dominated by agricultural production, and i n precapitalist societies generally, cities provide a site for exchange. T h e commercial city is separate from pro-

is the space o f the c o m m o n , o f people living together, sharing re-

duction, since goods are primarily produced elsewhere, m i n e d i n

sources, communicating, exchanging goods and ideas. C o n t e m p o -

the hills or grown i n the fields. T h e formation o f the great indus-

rary Italian, i n fact, preserves the medieval Latin usage whereby the

trial cities from the eighteenth century o n concentrates workers i n

common—il comune i n Italian—is the w o r d for city. T h e c o m m o n

the urban territory and brings into proximity a variety o f indus-

that serves as basis for biopolitical production, as we discovered i n

tries—coke smelters w i t h steel mills w i t h auto plants.The industrial

Part 3, is not so m u c h the "natural c o m m o n " embedded i n the m a -

city is one o f the primary levers that make possible the rise o f cap-

terial elements o f land, minerals, water, and gas, but the "artificial

italist production.There has always been some production w i t h i n

c o m m o n " that resides i n languages, images, knowledges, affects,

the city, o f course, such as craft labor and manufacture, but the fac-

codes, habits, and practices.This artificial c o m m o n runs throughout

tory transfers there the economy's hegemonic instance o f produc-

metropolitan territory and constitutes the metropolis.The metrop-

tion. A l t h o u g h the space o f the factory is w i t h i n the city, it is still,

olis, then, is entirely inserted i n and integral to the cycle o f b i o p o -

however, separated. T h e industrial w o r k i n g class produces i n the

litical production: access to the reserve o f the c o m m o n embedded

factory and then passes out through its wall into the city for its

in it is the basis o f production, and the results o f production are i n

other life activities.Today, finally, the biopolitical city is emerging.

turn newly inscribed i n the metropolis, reconstituting and trans-

W i t h the passage to the hegemony o f biopolitical production, the

forming it. T h e metropolis is a factory for the production o f the

space o f economic production and the space o f the city tend to

c o m m o n . In contrast to large-scale industry, however, this cycle o f

overlap. There is no longer a factory wall that divides the one from

biopolitical production is increasingly autonomous from capital,

the other, and "externalities" are no longer external to the site o f

since its schemas o f cooperation are generated i n the productive

production that valorizes them. Workers produce throughout the

process itself and any imposition o f c o m m a n d poses an obstacle to

metropolis, i n its every crack and crevice. In fact, production o f the

productivity. Whereas the industrial factory generates profit, then,

c o m m o n is b e c o m i n g nothing but the life o f the city itself.

since its productivity depends o n the schema o f cooperation and the c o m m a n d o f the capitalist, the metropolis p r i m a r i l y generates

60

In addition to the immersion i n the c o m m o n produced by and productive o f social life, another quality defines the metropolis:

251

252

EMPIRE

DE C O R P O R E

RETURNS

2:

METROPOLIS

the unpredictable, aleatory encounter or, rather, the encounter w i t h

his reasoning turns o n communication and cooperation.The prole-

alterity. T h e great European modernist literary representations o f

tariat not only has access to news and information but also has the

the metropolis, from Charles Baudelaire to V i r g i n i a W o o l f and from

ability to communicate internally, creating circuits o f exchange and

James Joyce to R o b e r t M u s i l and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, emphasize

debate among proletarians.The urban proletariat has ready-made

this relation between the c o m m o n and the encounter.Village life is

practices o f cooperation i n the factory, w o r k i n g side by side. T h e

portrayed as a monotonous repetition o f the same. Y o u k n o w every-

nineteenth-century French peasantry, however, at least i n Marx's es-

one i n your village, and the arrival o f a stranger is a startling event.

timation, was incommunicative i n the sense that peasants were iso-

T h e metropolis, i n contrast, is a place o f unpredictable encounters

lated i n family or small c o m m u n i t y units scattered across the c o u n -

among singularities, w i t h not o n l y those y o u do not k n o w but also

tryside, without a fabric o f c o m m o n relation and society. O r , to put

those w h o come from elsewhere, w i t h different cultures, languages,

it differently, M a r x sees peasants embedded i n the "natural c o m -

knowledges, mentalities. Baudelaire, for example, conceives o f e n -

m o n " and proletarians i n the "artificial c o m m o n , " w h i c h he deems

tering the metropolis as "bathing i n the multitude" (prendre un bain

necessary for political action. Today, however, the circuits o f c o m -

de multitude), w h i c h elicits the drunkenness o f "universal c o m m u -

munication and social cooperation are b e c o m i n g generalized across

n i o n " w h e n one gives oneself completely to encounters, "to the

the planet. R u r a l life is no longer characterized by isolation and i n -

unforeseen that arises, the u n k n o w n person w h o passes" (a I'imprevu

communicability. There are, o f course, different intensities o f the

61

qui se montre, a I'inconnu qui passe). A l t h o u g h at first sight the c o m -

c o m m o n , but the lines o f division have increasingly less relation to

m o n might seem to conflict or even contradict w i t h multiplicity

urban or rural environments.

and encounters o f singularities, actually, as we saw earlier i n the

62

W h e n we note the metropolitanization o f the w o r l d , we i n no

context o f biopolitical production, the c o m m o n , i n contrast to

way mean to i m p l y that all places are b e c o m i n g the same but rather

sameness, is entirely compatible. As Baudelaire demonstrates i n the

that they should be distinguished by different qualities o f the c o m -

context o f the metropolis, the c o m m o n and unforeseen encounters

m o n and the encounters they present. As we saw earlier i n the c o n -

are mutually necessary.

text o f economic externalities, the c o m m o n can be positive or neg-

O n c e we define the metropolis by these qualities—embedded

ative: dynamic local cultural circuits i n a metropolis are a positive

i n the c o m m o n and open to aleatory encounters—it becomes ap-

f o r m o f the c o m m o n , whereas pollution, traffic, social conflicts, and

parent that metropolitan life is b e c o m i n g a general planetary c o n d i -

the like are negative forms. A n d similarly encounters can be benefi-

tion. In quantitative terms this corresponds to the fact that w o r l d

cial or detrimental. W h e n architects and architectural historians l a -

history has recently crossed a threshold: for the first time the m a -

ment the rise o f the "megalopolis" i n the U n i t e d States, the unreg-

j o r i t y o f the planet's population lives i n urban areas. B u t this quan-

ulated, formless sprawl that is replacing the classic, concentrated

titative v i e w o f urban space and w o r l d population does not grasp

metropolitan forms typical o f 1930s B e r l i n , N e w York, and Shang-

very well the transformation we want to highlight. O u r qualitative

hai, they are protesting the dilution o f the c o m m o n and the i n -

standpoint gives a different v i e w o n h o w the traditional divisions

creasing obstruction o f the encounters among singularities. W h a t

between city and country, urban and rural have broken d o w n and

the megalopolis most significantly lacks, they explain, is dense dif-

been reorganized. W h e n M a r x analyzes the political landscape o f

ferentiation o f culture.

nineteenth-century France, for example, and distinguishes the p o -

" s l u m " to define the increasingly general planetary condition, he

litical capacities o f the urban proletariat from those o f the peasantry,

does so to emphasize not so m u c h the poverty o f those w h o reside

63

Similarly w h e n M i k e Davis uses the term

253

254

EMPIRE

DE C O R P O R E

RETURNS

there but the negative forms o f the c o m m o n that surround them

2: M E T R O P O L I S

produces a new social body that is more capable than either o f the

and the detrimental encounters to w h i c h they are subject. A l l o f

single bodies was alone. N o t every encounter, o f course, is a joyful

these formations are metropolises, i n our view, differentiated by de-

one. T h e majority o f spontaneous encounters w i t h others i n the

grees o f intensity and qualities o f the c o m m o n and the encounters

metropolis are conflictive and destructive, producing noxious forms

they present.

o f the c o m m o n , w h e n your neighbors' noise keeps y o u up at night

64

A series o f recent studies investigate the specificity o f African

or you smell their garbage or, more generally, w h e n the traffic c o n -

urban forms, the Afropolis, from Lagos and Kinshasa to Johannes-

gestion and air pollution o f the metropolis degrade the life o f all

burg. It is not sufficient, these scholars insist, simply to see them as

the residents. It is not easy to form w i t h others a new relationship

slums or failed cities, although many are characterized by extreme

that promotes communication and cooperation, that creates a new,

deprivation and poverty. F r o m an external standpoint it is clear that

stronger social body and generates a more joyful c o m m o n life. Infe-

urban planning has been largely absent or ineffective i n most A f r i -

licitous, conflictive encounters instead decompose the social body

can metropolises. B u t these scholars focus o n the fact that, despite

and corrupt the c o m m o n life o f the multitude. Often, i n fact, since

crumbling infrastructure and destitute populations, the metropolises

so many chance encounters are harmful, residents o f the metropolis

actually w o r k — m o s t often through informal networks o f c o m m u -

close themselves off to avoid encounters w i t h others, walk silently

nication, mobility, employment, exchange, and cooperation that are

past w i t h o u t seeing one another, erecting invisible walls i n a c o m -

largely invisible to outsiders. T h e multitude o f the poor, i n other

m o n space, hardened to contact as i f the skin had become callous,

words, invents strategies for survival, finding shelter and producing

numb, mortified. A n d the privileged close themselves off i n e n -

forms o f social life, constantly discovering and creating resources o f

claves so that, even though they live near people radically different

the c o m m o n through expansive circuits o f encounter. That is not to

from them, they manage to interact only w i t h those w h o are the

say, o f course: D o n ' t w o r r y about the poor, their life is lovely! A l l

same. This is w h e n the defining characteristics o f the metropolis

cities should be like these! T h e importance o f these studies is to

degenerate, w h e n it becomes no longer a space o f the c o m m o n and

demonstrate, even i n conditions o f extreme adversity, what the poor

the encounter w i t h the other, no longer the site o f communication

can do, h o w they can produce the c o m m o n and organize e n c o u n -

and cooperation.

ters.

65

66

T h e politics o f the metropolis is the organization o f e n c o u n T h e concept o f encounter we have used thus far as character-

ters. Its task is to promote joyful encounters, make them repeat, and

istic o f the metropolis, however, is merely passive and spontaneous.

m i n i m i z e infelicitous encounters.This requires, first, an openness to

In order for the metropolis to be for the multitude what the factory

alterity and the capacity to form relationships w i t h others, to gen-

was for the industrial w o r k i n g class, it must be a site not only o f e n -

erate joyful encounters and thus create social bodies w i t h ever

counter but also o f organization and politics. This could be a defi-

greater capacities. Second, and perhaps more important, it requires

nition o f the Greek concept o f polis: the place where encounters

learning h o w to withdraw from conflictive, destructive relationships

among singularities are organized politically. T h e great wealth o f

and to decompose the pernicious social bodies that result from

the metropolis is revealed w h e n the felicitous encounter results i n a

them. Finally, since so many o f the spontaneous encounters are not

new production o f the c o m m o n — w h e n , for instance, people c o m -

immediately joyful, this politics o f the metropolis requires discover-

municate their different knowledges, different capacities to form

i n g h o w to transform conflictive encounters, as m u c h as possible,

cooperatively something new. T h e felicitous encounter, i n effect,

into joyful and productive ones.

67

255

256

EMPIRE

RETURNS

DE C O R P O R E

It should be clear at this point that the organization o f e n -

2:

METROPOLIS

mology highlights this face: i n ancient Greek, metropolis is the

counters i n the metropolis is not only a political matter but also

"mother city" that dominates and controls the colonies.This too is

immediately an economic one. Joyful encounters are economically

h o w the French term was used d u r i n g the imperialist era: metro-

significant acts and, i n fact, are i n many respects the pinnacle o f the

politan France distinguished the European territory from the

biopolitical economy. In them the c o m m o n is discovered and the

French colonies i n Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the C a r i b b e a n . T o -

c o m m o n is produced. This gives us a new v i e w o f the slogan we

day "metropolis" still marks hierarchy, but its geography has shifted

proposed earlier: the metropolis is to the multitude what the fac-

and become more complex. It is true, o f course, that i n general

tory was to the industrial w o r k i n g class. T h e organization o f the

terms there remain significant inequalities among contemporary

joyful encounters o f the multitude corresponds to the productive

metropolises that echo colonial relations, between N e w York and

deployment o f workers o n the factory floor, i n cooperative teams,

M e x i c o City, for example, L o n d o n and M u m b a i , Paris and Dakar,

clustered around specific machines, or coordinated i n the sequences

Shanghai and C h e n g d u . In addition to these hierarchies, however,

o f the assembly line; but the biopolitical production o f wealth—and

we need also to see those that exist w i t h i n every metropolis, some-

here is the central point—must be grasped from the other side, not

times i n extremely close proximity, among different neighborhoods

from the perspective o f capital but rather from that o f the m u l t i -

and w i t h i n each. This is a geography o f intensities and thresholds,

tude. Capital, i n fact, is not able to organize joyful encounters i n the

like those maps o f the heat o f the earth's surface as seen from space.

metropolis but can only capture or expropriate the c o m m o n wealth

A l l contemporary metropolises are pathological i n the sense

produced.The multitude must organize these encounters autono-

that their hierarchies and divisions corrupt the c o m m o n and block

mously and put into play the k i n d o f training required for a politics

beneficial encounters through institutionalized racisms, segregations

o f the metropolis. In the mid-1960s i n the context o f the Black

o f r i c h and poor, and various other structures o f exclusion and sub-

Power movement, w h e n the major U . S . cities were b e c o m i n g pre-

ordination. To say that Sao Paulo is a city o f walls, for example, is to

dominantly black, Grace and James Boggs proposed a similar p o l i -

diagnose its illness. A n d the pathology is that it not only prevents

tics o f autonomous organization o f the metropolis w i t h the slogan

positive encounters but also bombards you w i t h negative ones. In

68

69

" T h e city is the black man's l a n d . " U r b a n revolts under the ban-

many dominant parts o f the world, i f you are poor and dark-

ner o f autonomy, i n fact, were a p r i m e motor leading to the crisis

skinned y o u cannot ride the subway or drive your car w i t h o u t be-

o f the industrial city along w i t h , eventually, the crisis o f U . S . hege-

i n g stopped by the police. In subordinated parts o f the w o r l d your

mony. B u t today urban revolts, though still strongly defined by race,

neighborhood is likely to be plagued by crime and diseases from

are no longer led by those industrial figures. W h e n metropolitan

lack o f clean water and adequate sewage. T h e metropolis is a jungle,

production is embedded i n capitalist valorization, urban uprisings

and the forms o f the c o m m o n and encounter it presents are ones

present original elements that herald new forms o f organization,

y o u should r u n from!

just like the first industrial worker strikes, w h i c h set off epidemics o f sabotage against factories and their machines. T h e multitude, however, is never allowed freely and peacefully

T h e divisions o f the metropolis are constantly produced and enforced economically by rent and real estate values. Gentrification is one weapon that creates and maintains social divisions, reproduc-

to manage the organization o f the metropolis. In addition to the

ing i n every metropolis o n a smaller scale the global hierarchies and

c o m m o n and encounters, the metropolis is defined also and per-

inequalities. As we argued i n Part 3, rent and real estate values de-

haps most significantly by antagonism and violence. O n e last ety-

rive directly from the c o m m o n , what economists call the positive

257

258

EMPIRE

DE

RETURNS

CORPORE

2:

METROPOLIS

and negative externalities o f the surrounding metropolis. T h e rela-

multitude is thus directed not o n l y against the violence o f hierarchy

tion o f rent to the c o m m o n , however, is not purely passive, parasiti-

and control but also i n defense o f the productivity o f the c o m m o n

cal. Certainly, i n contrast to forms o f industrial capital that generate

and the freedom o f encounters. B u t where exactly can this produc-

profit, rent does not have a direct relation to the organization o f

tive multitude rebel? For the industrial workers the factory provides

production; but the capture and redistribution o f wealth, preserving

the obvious site: the boss is i n your face, the machines can be sabo-

and extending class divisions, nonetheless involves social production

taged, the plant occupied, production interrupted, and so forth.

and, specifically, the organization o f the productivity o f immaterial

It seems that the multitude i n the metropolis has no compa-

labor-power. This helps explain w h y rent has become the paradig-

rable site for its rebellion and thus risks venting its rage i n a void,

matic economic instrument o f neoliberalism and its regimes o f f i -

but i n recent years we have witnessed a series o f metropolitan j a c -

nancialization, w h i c h , as we w i l l see i n Part 5, are dedicated to the

queries that experiment w i t h solutions to this problem. T h e piquet-

production o f services and immaterial goods, as well as redistribut-

eros i n Argentina beginning i n 2001, for example, develop i n literal

i n g wealth along class lines. R e n t operates through a deserialization

terms our analogy between the factory and the metropolis: u n e m -

of the common, privatizing i n the hands o f the r i c h the c o m m o n

ployed workers, w h o have no factory gates to block, decide instead

wealth produced and consolidated i n the metropolis.The clear v i -

to "picket" the city, b l o c k i n g streets, obstructing traffic, b r i n g i n g the

sual lines o f Haussmann's Parisian avenues are not necessary for this

metropolis to a halt.The piqueteros tested, i n other words, a k i n d o f

deployment o f power. R e n t and real estate are omnipresent appara-

wildcat strike against the metropolis.The B o l i v i a n battles over w a -

tuses o f segmentation and control that extend fluidly throughout

ter and gas i n 2000 and 2003, w h i c h we analyzed i n Part 2, devel-

the urban landscape and configure the dispositifs o f social exploita-

oped similar tactics, frequently b l o c k i n g the highway that links the

tion. T h e very fabric o f the contemporary metropolis wields a silent

major cities. A t the peak o f the struggle i n 2003, the rebellious m u l -

economic control that is as vicious and brutal as any other form o f

titude descended from E l A l t o , the poor, predominantly indigenous

violence.

70

This gives a third and final sense i n w h i c h the metropolis is to

suburb that encircles L a Paz, and occupied the city center and its exclusive white neighborhoods, overflowing the barriers o f racial

the multitude what the factory was to the industrial w o r k i n g class:

segregation and wealth, creating panic among the elites.The 2005

the metropolis, like the factory, is the site o f hierarchy and exploita-

rebellion b o r n i n the Paris suburbs similarly attacked racial and

tion, violence and suffering, fear and pain. F o r generations o f w o r k -

wealth hierarchies by b l o c k i n g the m o b i l i t y o f the metropolis,

ers the factory is where their bodies are broken, where they are

b u r n i n g cars and educational structures, both o f w h i c h the banlie-

poisoned by industrial chemicals and killed by dangerous m a c h i n -

usards recognize as instruments o f social mobility denied them. A n d

ery. T h e metropolis is a dangerous and noxious place, especially for

like B o l i v i a , too, the French revolt c o m b i n e d race and labor antago-

the poor. B u t precisely because o f this, the metropolis is also, like

nisms i n a protest against the expropriation o f the c o m m o n and the

the factory, the site o f antagonism and rebellion. Since biopolitical

impediments to encounters. These rebellions are not just in the m e -

production requires autonomy, as we saw earlier, capital becomes

tropolis but also against it, that is, against the f o r m o f the metropolis,

increasingly external to the productive process, and thus all o f its

its pathologies and corruptions.

means to expropriate value pose obstacles and destroy or corrupt

71

Jacquerie and spontaneous rebellions, however, as we argued

the c o m m o n . Capital becomes, perhaps paradoxically, a barrier to

earlier, are not necessarily beneficial and can often be self-

the production o f wealth. T h e indignation and antagonism o f the

destructive. T h e third task for the politics o f the multitude i n the

259

260

EMPIRE

RETURNS

metropolis, then, w h i c h must i n most cases, i n fact, come before promoting the production o f the c o m m o n and joyful encounter, is

PART 5

to organize antagonisms against the hierarchies and divisions o f the metropolis, funnel the hatred and rage against its violence. There is j o y also i n destruction—attacking what y o u hate, the source o f

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

your suffering! T h e metropolitanization o f the w o r l d does not necessarily just mean a generalization o f structures o f hierarchy and exploitation. It can also mean a generalization o f rebellion and then, possibly, the growth o f networks o f cooperation and c o m m u n i c a tion, the increased intensity o f the c o m m o n and encounters among singularities.This is where the multitude is finding its home.

The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, i n the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous—and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed. —John Maynard Keynes, "National Self-Sufficiency"

5.1

T E R M S OF THE E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

When the house is on fire one forgets even the dinner—Yes, but one recovers it from among the ashes. —Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Neoliberal Zombies T h e marriage between U . S . unilateralism and economic neoliberalism is a relatively recent u n i o n . T h e courtship may have begun w i t h the 1973 C h i l e a n coup d'etat led by Augusto Pinochet, w h i c h was supported by the C I A and put into practice an economic plan authored by M i l t o n Friedman and the " C h i c a g o boys." Things got serious w i t h Margaret Thatcher's election as U . K . prime minister i n 1979. B u t the u n i o n was only consummated w i t h R o n a l d Reagan in the W h i t e House i n the 1980s. A t that point it began to seem natural and inevitable that an economic policy o f radical privatization o f public goods and industries, unrelenting attack o n labor o r ganizations, and an ideology o f free trade should go hand i n hand w i t h U . S . dominance o f global political and military affairs. Reagan tore d o w n the B e r l i n Wall, the m y t h goes, and vanquished not only the Soviet U n i o n but also socialism itself such that n o w there is no alternative throughout the w o r l d to neoliberal economic policy supported by U . S . power.

1

There were alternatives, o f course, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. In particular, as we saw i n Part 4, various multilateralist arrangements o f global power, most often involving a concert among the dominant European nation-states, competed w i t h U . S . unilater-

264

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

TERMS

OF T H E E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

alism throughout this period. T h e multilateralist options were not

struggles. Recourse to U S unilateralism, w i t h its imperialist i m a g i -

anticapitalist, o f course, but they presented different mixtures o f state

nary, to manage this transition was really an attempt to treat a new

control and privatization, welfare structures and free markets. In fact

disease w i t h o l d remedies. In the final analysis, the primary responsi-

this competition was based, one might say, o n w h i c h political ar-

bility for this decision to link capitalist economic strategy to unilat-

2

rangement can better guarantee the profits and continuity o f the

eralism resides not so m u c h i n the U . S . government but i n the

global capitalist system. T h e political decision for the u n i o n between

world's jittery stock markets and the panicky souls o f the wealthy.

neoliberalism and U . S . unilateralism—a decision, o f course, that was

Beware bourgeois insecurity! It is not the first time, o f course, that

not made i n one boardroom or government office but across a wide

capital has l o o k e d to a strong central political authority to calm the

spectrum o f actors—elevated and centralized capitalist c o m m a n d i n

markets and provide stability for profits. B u t it turns out that the

order to control the global economic transition, from Fordism to

nature o f this transition and the conditions necessary for biopolitical

post-Fordism, as some economists say, or from a paradigm centered

production are inimical to those outdated forms o f discipline and

o n industrial production to one centered on biopolitical produc-

control.

tion. This was an extreme decision, especially viewed i n retrospect,

W h e n the failures o f unilateralism become apparent, as we saw

but that extremity is an indication o f the immensity o f the task it

i n political and military terms i n Part 4, the major commentators

was meant to fulfill and the difficulty o f managing the transition.

and politicians unerringly run to multilateralism as the political sup-

W i t h the collapse o f U . S . unilateralism, the marriage fell apart.

port for neoliberalism.This has always been the official ideology, for

T h e political and military armory o f unilateralism proved incapable

example, o f the W o r l d E c o n o m i c F o r u m meetings, w h i c h b r i n g to-

o f managing the capitalist transition and lately, through a decade or

gether i n Davos, Switzerland, government and corporate leaders

more o f seemingly endless global war, economic disorder has only

from around the w o r l d . A n ever more global w o r l d , the logic goes,

increased. T h e inadequacies came into plain v i e w w i t h the U . S . fi-

needs increasingly to rely o n a multilateral system o f power—but

nancial meltdown and the subsequent global economic crisis. It is

such multilateral support is nowhere to be found. Unilateralism de-

obvious, i n fact, w h e n we l o o k at the nature o f the crisis and the

feated multilateralism: the U n i t e d States may have been too weak to

transition o f capital, that the weapons o f unilateralism are completely

rule o n its o w n , but it was strong enough to block multilateral ar-

unsuited to address the challenges facing neoliberalism.

rangements. That does not mean, though, that once unilateralism

T h e crisis is caused, to put it i n the most synthetic terms, by

fails, multilateralism can take over. N o , the foundations o f multilater-

the new ontology o f biopolitical labor. T h e forms o f intellectual, af-

alism were already rotting before unilateralism gave it the coup de

fective, and cognitive labor that are emerging i n the central role i n

grace. N e i t h e r unilateralism nor multilateralism is capable o f sup-

the contemporary economy cannot be controlled by the forms o f

porting a neoliberal economic project. It may be useless, i n fact, to

discipline and c o m m a n d developed i n the era o f the factory society.

search for a political form capable o f supporting neoliberalism. U n -

W e have argued elsewhere, i n fact, that this transition toward the

like those partisans o f the "autonomy o f the political," we do not

hegemony o f biopolitical production was set i n m o t i o n by the ac-

believe that a political power can independently

cumulation o f struggles across the globe i n the 1960s and 1970s

maintain an economic system. T h e problem here is not only the lack

against that imperialist and industrial disciplinary m o d e l o f capitalist

o f political support but also and more important the incapacities o f

control. T h e transition was a response to the defeat o f a f o r m o f capitalist production and c o m m a n d by workers' movements and social

configure

and

neoliberalism itself. To understand h o w neoliberalism has failed and, i n fact, h o w it

265

266

BEYOND

TERMS

CAPITAL?

OF T H E E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

was never capable o f being a program for capitalist production, we

To appreciate the novelty o f this situation, consider, for exam-

need to shift perspective and focus o n the biopolitical terrain. A l l

ple, a thumbnail sketch o f the productive role o f knowledge i n cap-

o f the primary characteristics o f neoliberal policy—strong private

italist economic history. E c o n o m i c historians have insisted at length

property rights and weak labor rights, privatization o f c o m m o n and

o n the fact that knowledge, developed through practice and labor,

public goods, free markets, and free trade—are focused o n c o m -

was already a productive force i n the mercantilist era. In industrial

merce and the redistribution o f wealth. " T h e main

substantive

capitalism knowledge remained a fundamental force o f develop-

achievement o f neoliberalization," D a v i d Harvey rightly claims, "has

ment, but increasingly, as the industrial paradigm took shape, its i m -

been to redistribute, rather than generate, wealth and income," p r i -

portance was not so m u c h as an internal element, incarnated i n the

marily thanks to strategies o f accumulation for the wealthy through

practice o f workers and consolidated i n their skills and k n o w - h o w ,

dispossession o f the public and the poor. In this sense, Harvey c o n -

but rather as an external one, independent o f the workers and thus

3

4

tinues, neoliberalism is at base a project to restore class power. U n -

capable o f controlling them. As industrial capitalism matured, k n o w l -

der neoliberal policies the wealthy have indeed grown m u c h more

edge became fundamental but completely absorbed w i t h i n the sys-

wealthy and the p o o r correspondingly poorer w i t h i n each nation

tem o f command. In today's economy, i n contrast, knowledge that is

and globally. Extraction processes—oil, gas, and minerals—are the

widespread across society—mass intellectuality—is b e c o m i n g a cen-

paradigmatic industries o f neoliberalism. B u t a large p o r t i o n o f the

tral productive force, out o f reach o f the system o f control, and this

"generation" o f wealth under neoliberalism has been

shift undermines the industrial paradigm. " T h e crisis o f industrial

achieved

merely by feeding off the corpse o f socialism, i n the former second

capitalism," writes C a r l o Vercellone,

w o r l d as well as the first and third, transferring to private hands the wealth that had been consolidated i n public property, industries, and institutions. Keep i n m i n d that the essence o f the capitalist m o d e o f production is and must be to produce wealth; but this is exactly n e o liberalism's weakness. T h e crisis o f neoliberalism, then, is due not so m u c h to the failure o f unilateralism or multilateralism to provide an effective supporting political arrangement and guarantee its redistri-

is i n large measure the result o f a social transformation that had already configured a m o d e l o f alternative development structured o n two principal axes: the reappropriation and socialization o f knowledges that went well beyond the so-called scientific organization o f labor, creating alternative forms o f labor that reject productivism; and the expansion o f the collective

butions o f property, but rather to the incapacity o f neoliberalism to

services o f the welfare state (health, education, research, and

present a schema for stimulating and organizing production. N o

so forth) as sectors and motors o f a nonproductivist mode

capitalist strategy can survive l o n g without that.

o f development, based not o n commodities but o n intensive

T h e illusion that neoliberalism c o u l d be a sustainable econ o m i c program is testament to h o w difficult it is for many to recognize the nature o f production i n a postindustrial economy. It is

productions o f knowledge aimed at the "production o f man by m a n " and the reproduction o f widespread intellectual capacities.

5

easy, o f course, to see and count the automobiles, steel beams, and

Production, i n other words, is b e c o m i n g "anthropogenetic," gener-

refrigerators that roll out the factory gates or the tons o f grain from

ating forms o f life. F r o m this trajectory o f knowledge w i t h i n eco-

the farm, but h o w can you put your finger o n the immaterial prod-

n o m i c production, two important facts follow. First, knowledge is

ucts that become predominant i n the biopolitical economy—the

no longer merely a means to the creation o f value (in the c o m m o d -

images, codes, knowledges, affects, and even social relations and

ity form), but rather the production o f knowledge is itself value

forms o f life?

creation. Second, not only is this knowledge no longer a weapon

6

267

268

BEYOND

TERMS

CAPITAL?

OF T H E E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

o f capitalist control, but also capital is i n fact confronted w i t h a

countries. A n d the various forms o f developmentalism that d o m i -

paradoxical situation: the more it is forced to pursue valorization

nated the economic ideology o f the subordinated countries i n the

through knowledge production, the more that knowledge escapes

latter half o f the century, equally i n countries aligned w i t h the

its control.

U n i t e d States or the Soviet U n i o n , were focused similarly o n the

Here we are touching o n a dilemma that, i n the era o f b i o p o -

increase o f productive capacities through state intervention and b u -

litical production, faces capital as such, not just its neoliberal forms.

reaucratic planning. Programs o f i m p o r t substitution industrializa-

W e w i l l explore its consequences i n more detail, but for the m o -

tion, closely linked to dependency theories, were likewise centrally

ment it is sufficient to recognize that neoliberalism has not gone

reliant o n state control o f markets and tariffs and intervention i n the

into crisis only because it was tethered to unilateralism and is sink-

formation and regulation o f national industries. Socialism, i n the

ing along w i t h it. Neoliberalism was already dead, i n effect, because

final analysis, is a regime for the promotion and regulation o f indus-

it fails to grasp and engage the biopolitical productive forces; it can-

trial capital, a regime o f w o r k discipline imposed through govern-

not provide a schema to foster production and increase the genera-

ment and bureaucratic institutions.With the passage from the indus-

tion o f wealth. Biopolitical production poses a problem for capital,

trial to the biopolitical economy, however, socialist management and

i n other words, and neoliberalism has no answer.

regulation lose all their effectiveness.

7

T h e incapacity o f socialist ideology and rule to move beyond

Socialist Illusions

the industrial paradigm is one important element, for example, that

Just as w h e n the failure o f unilateralism becomes evident the major

led to the collapse o f the Soviet U n i o n . Standard narratives about

commentators and politicians r u n back to multilateralism (without

the costs o f the arms race, the military defeat i n Afghanistan, and

recognizing that it is already dead), so too w h e n the failure o f n e o -

even the popular desire for commodities all have some explanatory

liberalism becomes clear the same figures turn to socialism or some

power, but it is m u c h more important, i n our view, to l o o k at the

form o f government management and control o f the

economy

internal social dynamic and the obstacles to social production i n the

(without understanding that its powers have already been c o m -

last decades o f the Soviet U n i o n . Alexei Yurchak demonstrates i n a

pletely exhausted). These two ideologies, neoliberalism and social-

wonderful ethnographic study o f "late socialism," the p e r i o d from

ism, seem to be the only poles o f the contemporary

economic

the 1960s to the 1980s, that Soviet society was far from the desert

imaginary. A n d yet neither is able to control and stimulate produc-

that cold war theorists o f totalitarianism claimed, but rather an ex-

tion i n the biopolitical economy.

traordinarily dynamic cultural and ideological environment. This

Socialism d i d present a powerful m o d e l o f economic produc-

dynamism, o f course, was not promoted or fostered by the socialist

tion throughout the twentieth century o n both sides o f the c o l d war

regime; o n the contrary, the regime presented unending obstacles

divide. It is important to understand that socialism and capitalism

to social and cultural creativity, resulting i n a profound stagnation.

never were opposites, but rather, as many critical analysts o f the S o -

Those w h o lived through the collapse, therefore, according to Y u r -

viet U n i o n claimed, socialism is a regime for the state management

chak's suggestive formulation, found it both utterly unexpected and

o f capitalist production. Strong socialist

elements—bureaucratic

completely unsurprising: the power o f the socialist regime seemed

planning and regulation o f the economy, state-run industries and

to them as i f it w o u l d go o n forever, but at the same time they k n e w

public services, coordinated state regulation o f capital and organized

it c o u l d no longer survive. T h e socialist regime efficiently imposed

labor, and so forth—were also c o m m o n throughout the capitalist

discipline over an industrial society, but once the transition to b i o -

8

I

269

270

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

TERMS

OF T H E E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

political production began to emerge, socialist discipline became

ernment control, the result is the same: the cycle o f biopolitical p r o -

only a fetter to the social autonomy and cultural creativity that it

duction is stunted and corrupted.

required.

In order to investigate what political regime can both foster

T h e incompatibility o f socialism and biopolitical production

and control production today, we have to explore further i n eco-

goes for all forms o f socialism, bureaucratic planning, state regula-

n o m i c terms what social production and social wealth means. M a n y

tion, and so forth—not just the Soviet model. A t the most funda-

economists use the concept "social capital" to delve into this ques-

mental and thus most abstract level, the two primary aspects o f so-

tion and get beyond crude economistic notions o f production. W e

cialism, as we conceive it, public management o f economic activity

are not societies o f atomized individuals, they explain, but rather are

and a disciplinary w o r k regime, directly conflict w i t h biopolitical

connected by a social fabric consisting o f networks o f understand-

production. Earlier we argued that biopolitical labor is increasingly

ing and trust, shared knowledges and norms o f behavior, languages

autonomous from capitalist control since its schema o f cooperation

and habits, and so forth. W i t h o u t trust and sympathy, market ex-

is no longer provided externally, by capital, as it is i n the factory, but

changes w o u l d not take place.Without social knowledges and norms,

generated w i t h i n the productive process. A u t o n o m y is equally re-

workers w o u l d not be able to cooperate and produce together. S o -

quired from state control and government forms o f discipline. Per-

cial capital is thus a supplementary concept: the various forms o f

haps you can "think o n c o m m a n d " or "create affective relations to

c o m m u n i t y constitute a stock o f wealth that makes possible the

order," but the results w i l l pale compared to what is accomplished

functioning o f industrial capital, finance capital, merchant capital,

through autonomous social activity. Furthermore, the results o f b i o -

and all others. T h i s conception o f social capital does successfully

political production, i n c l u d i n g social subjectivities and relations,

focus attention o n the economic role o f immaterial, social relations,

forms o f life, have an immediately ontological dimension. Value is

but it conceives them as only peripheral to the productive process

9

generated i n this process, but it is immeasurable, or rather it c o n -

proper. Social capital, i n other words, is not itself productive capital.

stantly exceeds the units o f any accounting scheme; it overflows the

A n d since it is conceived as subsidiary to the primary forms o f cap-

corporation's double-entry ledgers and confounds the public bal-

ital, economists are constantly trying to make it conform to their

ance sheets o f the nation-state. H o w can you measure the value o f

schemes, devising formulas to measure social capital and close it

an idea, an image, or a relationship? T h e autonomy o f the b i o p o l i t i -

w i t h i n the lines o f industrial accounting schedules. Such notions o f

cal labor process and the immeasurable, overflowing nature o f the

social capital, however, since they are really aimed at complementing

value produced are two key elements o f the current contradiction o f

and completing the industrial paradigm o f capitalist production, re-

capitalist command. To capture surplus value, capital must alienate

maining w i t h i n its conceptual order o f quantities and equilibriums,

the productive singularities, seize control o f productive cooperation,

do not solve any o f the paradoxes o f regulation and control raised by

neutralize the immaterial, exceeding character o f the value, and ex-

the transition to biopolitical production, its autonomous productiv-

propriate the c o m m o n that is produced—all o f w h i c h pose obsta-

ity, and its exceeding measure.

cles to and undermine the production process itself. Government management and control produces the exact same contradiction. W h e t h e r the c o m m o n is expropriated and its value corralled i n p r i vate hands or by public means, under capitalist c o m m a n d or gov-

Traditional versions o f social democracy continue today to be proposed as a just, humane, and sustainable politics to manage capitalist production and capitalist society; but these theories have no means to confront the challenges posed by biopolitical production

271

272

BEYOND

TERMS

CAPITAL?

OF T H E E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

273

and end up completely disoriented i n this n e w situation. T h e social

both its physical and social forms at alarming rates. C l i m a t e change,

democratic doctrine o f establishing agreement and trust between

resource depletion, and other ecological disasters are ever-increasing

b i g business and the institutional labor unions, mediating any possi-

threats. Extreme social inequality, barriers and hierarchies o f wealth,

ble conflicts, and achieving modest gains for workers, not only has

race, and nationality, crushing poverty, and a host o f other menaces

become completely blocked i n the dead end o f corporatism but also

too are shattering social forms o f the c o m m o n . In the background

is increasingly estranged from g r o w i n g categories o f workers. L i k e

o f many accounts o f the apocalyptic scenarios that face us, however,

the theories o f social capital, social democracy can at best grasp the

government management and regulation is the presumed solution.

new figures o f biopolitical production as supplements or appendages

State regulation might at least avoid the worst scenarios o f financial

to Fordist industry and its mode o f accumulation. Therefore the only

collapse! Surely some state control can save the planet, or at least

figures o f biopolitical labor that become politically relevant, from

slow d o w n its ruin! A t a m i n i m u m it can redistribute back to the

this perspective, are the ones that can be forced to fit into the tradi-

p o o r some o f the wealth that global elites have accumulated by dis-

tional labor u n i o n structures. In effect, social democracy can see

possession! Socialism often functions as the default cure for the

only the forms and relations o f production that have continued from

havoc wrought by unregulated capitalism. W e agree wholeheartedly,

the past, and all the rest, from its perspective, simply do not exist.

o f course, that governments have to stop the destruction o f the

T h e "third way" social democracy theorized by A n t h o n y G i d -

planet and that it w o u l d be just and beneficial to redistribute wealth

dens and practiced by Tony Blair does represent an analytical ad-

equitably across the globe. B u t the v i e w o f socialism that functions

vance over doctrinaire socialisms to the extent that it recognizes that

i n these visions, m u c h like that o f neoliberalism that we critiqued

the corporatist trade u n i o n politics o f the Fordist era has been (at

earlier, sees it solely as a mechanism for the distribution o f wealth,

least ideologically) surpassed. This revised social democracy essen-

not its generation. O u r primary point about the illusions o f social-

tially accepts some o f the key elements o f neoliberal policy—dereg-

ism, instead, is that, like neoliberalism, it cannot fulfill i n the era o f

ulation, privatization, and so forth—and combines them w i t h a

biopolitical production the task o f promoting, managing, and regu-

greater understanding o f the economic value created through the

lating production.

social and cooperative development o f biopolitical labor-power.

Before closing this brief reflection o n socialism, we should re-

W h a t results is perhaps greater consciousness o f biopolitical produc-

member the difference between socialism and c o m m u n i s m , a differ-

tion and greater attempts to capture its results, m a k i n g them avail-

ence that has been thoroughly obscured through the last century. In

able for capitalist profit and development, but still no means to solve

standard journalistic usage today c o m m u n i s m is likely to be used to

the challenges it poses. N o form o f socialist regulation, even c o m -

mean centralized state control o f the economy and society, a totali-

bined w i t h elements o f neoliberalism, can "rationalize" biopolitical

tarian f o r m o f government parallel to fascism. Sometimes w h e n a

production w i t h i n its structures or promote its growth. Biopolitical

concept has been so corrupted, it seems one ought to abandon it

production belongs to the c o m m o n . N e i t h e r public nor private

and find another way to name what we desire. B u t instead, i n this

mechanisms can manage and contain it.

case at least, we find it better to struggle over the concept and insist

O n e also hears today urgent, desperate appeals for socialism or

o n its proper meaning. A t a purely conceptual level we c o u l d begin

some form o f government control o f the economy as a result o f the

to define c o m m u n i s m this way: what the private is to capitalism and

crises and the devastation that neoliberalism and unregulated cap-

what the public is to socialism, the c o m m o n is to c o m m u n i s m .

italism have wrought. Capital is indeed destroying the c o m m o n i n

B u t what does that mean? W h a t w o u l d be an institution and a gov-

10

274

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

TERMS

OF T H E E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

ernment o f the common? That is one o f the questions we w i l l have

w h i c h it heavily relies, most o f w h i c h were developed i n the previ-

to investigate i n the remainder o f this book.

ous multilateralist global framework, are themselves weak and u n stable. Increasingly today we see h o w these institutions, one after

The Global Aristocracy and Imperial Governance

another, prove unable to address the crises for w h i c h they were de-

A l l o f the options o n offer for political and economic global rule

signed: the International M o n e t a r y F u n d cannot solve a currency

seem to have been disqualified. W h e n unilateralism demonstrates its

crisis; the W o r l d B a n k cannot solve a crisis o f poverty; the F o o d

definitive failure, multilateralism has already collapsed o n its rotting

and Agriculture Organization o f the U n i t e d Nations ( F A O ) cannot

foundations; and w h e n neoliberalism proves incapable o f managing

solve a food crisis; the W o r l d Trade Organization cannot solve a trade

capitalist production, all versions o f socialism and state management

crisis; and so o n . These institutions are not entirely useless, o f course,

have already displayed their incapacity to engage and develop b i o -

but they do not constitute a sufficient basis for a lasting, stable global

political productive forces. A n d yet the global capitalist economy

economic order. Capitalist globalization—the w o r l d market, the dis-

continues to function. H o w is production regulated and managed?

tribution networks, the linked productive structures, and so forth—

H o w are profits maintained and guaranteed? There is n o fully real-

has advanced far ahead o f the structures o f capitalist power.

ized economic system i n place to fill these needs. Just as the c o m -

This is not to say that no one is m i n d i n g the store—that is, that

plex multilevel forms o f imperial governance establish a f o r m o f

global capital is functioning without political, legal, and institutional

rule during the current interregnum i n terms o f global power struc-

regulation and support. T h e global structures o f capitalist power are

tures, so too an intricate patchwork o f national and transnational

functioning, but they are provisional and ad hoc, stitched together

legal and political structures together supports the functioning o f

across the different levels o f the system. Elsewhere we explored some

the global economy during the current p e r i o d o f transition by regu-

o f the specific mechanisms being developed o n the terrain o f global

lating production, trade, finance, and property relations.

economic management and regulation, such as new legal conven-

T h e characteristics o f imperial governance that we discussed

tions that reinterpret the o l d lex mercatoria i n order to govern c o n -

earlier apply equally o n this economic terrain. H e r e too the tired

tracts not addressed adequately by national legal systems.

11

Here we

debates that pit the role o f the nation-state against globalization are

want instead to consider the problem o f a global capitalist power

o f no help. W h e n confronting the increasing globalization o f capital,

structure and its legal framework from a broader perspective and i n

or more precisely the intensification and taking root o f global cap-

relation to the structures o f imperial governance.

ital, it is clear, o n the one hand, that national structures alone are not

W h a t becomes immediately apparent from the perspective o f

adequate to the task o f regulation and, o n the other, that there is

imperial governance is the "aristocratic" nature o f these global eco-

no global state to regulate global capital the way the nation-states

n o m i c power structures. We describe the emerging Empire, drawing

regulated national capital. Instead political interdependence defines the

somewhat ironically on Polybius' eulogy to ancient R o m e , as hav-

mechanisms o f economic management, regulation, and control. This

i n g a mixed constitution defined by a pyramidal structure, c o m b i n -

is o f course an extraordinarily m i x e d terrain, composed of, among

i n g a single monarch, a limited aristocracy, and a broader (pseudo-)

other things, coordinated national mechanisms, bilateral and m u l t i -

democratic base. Joseph N y e presents the same pyramidal image

lateral agreements, international and supranational institutions. T h e

o f m i x e d E m p i r e w i t h a more m o d e r n analogy. " T h e agenda o f

mixture is fragile not only because o f the eclecticism o f elements

w o r l d politics has become like a three-dimensional chess game,"

but also because the major international economic institutions o n

N y e explains,

12

275

276

BEYOND

CAPITAL? TERMS

i n w h i c h one can w i n only by playing vertically as w e l l as h o r izontally. O n the top board o f classical interstate military issues, the U n i t e d States is likely to remain the only superpower for years to come, and it makes sense to speak i n traditional terms o f unipolarity or hegemony. However, o n the middle board o f interstate economic issues, the distribution o f power is already multipolar. T h e U n i t e d States cannot obtain the outcomes it wants o n trade, antitrust, or financial regulation issues without the agreement o f the European U n i o n ( E U ) , Japan, and others. It makes little sense to call this distribution " A m e r i c a n hegemony." A n d o n the b o t t o m board o f transnational issues, power is widely distributed and chaotically organized among state and nonstate actors. It makes no sense at all to call this a " u n i polar w o r l d " or an " A m e r i c a n empire."

13

OF THE E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

up to counter them, and various other strategies and power plays regarding trade, antitrust actions, financial regulation, property law, and the like. A n d the dynamics between government regulatory structures

and corporations, both nationally and internationally,

is another field o f contest w i t h i n the aristocracy, w h i c h takes place inside and outside the courtroom. R e p o r t i n g i n the financial papers thus sometimes reads like the sports pages (when not the crime report). T h e aristocracy is organized, o f course, according to very different models i n different countries.The "postsocialist" aristocracies are perhaps the newest models. In Russia an aristocracy has emerged composed o f industrial and financial oligarchs together w i t h mafia thugs and an array o f government officials. In C h i n a instead the postsocialist m o d e l o f aristocracy is anchored more closely to the state and party w i t h tightly controlled participation o f entrepreneurs

T h e middle board o f Nye's power game is where the aristocracy rules, primarily concerned, as he says, w i t h global economic m a n agement and regulation—the realm o f multilateral state relations, m u l t i - and transnational corporations, and global economic institutions. M a n y scholars have recently documented the formation o f a transnational or global capitalist class, closely associated w i t h the corporations and the various state and institutional figures w h o regulate them, w h i c h functions as a n e w global aristocracy.

14

Our pri-

mary concern here, though, is not the sociological definition o f this aristocracy but a structural v i e w o f the aristocratic functions o f global economic management and regulation w i t h i n the pyramidal arrangement o f the imperial system.

and business elites. W h a t remains o f socialism i n these postsocialist aristocracies is mainly the mechanisms o f bureaucratic and party privilege along w i t h the centralized circuits o f power. Equally significant or more so than the composition and internal dynamics o f the aristocracy, however, are the complex relations o f the global aristocracy considered as a w h o l e w i t h the other levels o f the imperial structure. O n one side we see constant conflict between the aristocracy and the monarch. Unilateralism, by w h i c h the monarch refused to listen to the pleading o f the aristocrats, failed o w i n g to not only the exhaustion o f its military and political forces but also thousands o f little aristocratic rebellions. T h e aristocratic complaints are l o u d and many: the other dominant nation-states as

O n e aspect to note first about this aristocratic level is that it is not composed o f homogeneous, equal powers that collaborate peacefully. Aristocrats have always been a contentious bunch. W h e n y o u l o o k at the internal workings o f the global aristocracy—at the W o r l d E c o n o m i c F o r u m meetings, for example, or i n W o r l d Trade Organization negotiations—the hierarchies among powers are o b v i ous, as well as the devious maneuverings, w i t h dominant states i m posing their w i l l and excluding others, subordinated states ganging

well as the subordinated ones want to participate i n and reap the rewards o f the global capitalist system; the corporations are aware that unilateralism w i t h its endless wars is bad for business; and m y r iad others. As N y e says, it makes little sense to v i e w the multipolar arrangement o f this middle, aristocratic level o f E m p i r e as defined by " A m e r i c a n hegemony." B u t these continual conflicts w i t h the monarch should not fool us into t h i n k i n g that the aristocracy is i n tent o n putting an end to monarchy or siding w i t h the multitude.

277

TERMS 278

BEYOND

OF T H E E C O N O M I C

TRANSITION

CAPITAL?

(Nineteenth-century French history is full o f these ruses i n w h i c h the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie trick the proletariat and the poor into fighting o n the front lines, only to cut them off w h e n the battle has been w o n and reestablish a new monarchical or imperial order.) T h e global aristocracy needs the monarch: it needs a central military power i n Washington (or Beijing); a central cultural power i n Los Angeles (or M u m b a i ) ; a central financial power i n N e w Y o r k (or Frankfurt); and so forth.The aristocracy simply struggles constantly to negotiate a more advantageous relationship, forcing the monarch to collaborate and ensuring for itself a large share o f the profits. T h e global aristocracy must also negotiate and collaborate, o n the other side, w i t h those organisms and institutions that claim to represent "the people" o n the third, lowest level o f the imperial pyramid. In some instances the political elites o f the subordinated nation-states masquerade as representatives o f the global people, as do the various popes and imams o f the major religions, but most often they are just poor cousins o f the aristocracy trying to get their share o f the loot; i n others the various humanitarian N G O s and aid organizations are cast as representing the people (or at least their interests); and the dominant media, o f course, are always happy to d o n the cloak o f the voice o f the people. T h i s level o f the imperial system is all smoke and mirrors, because i n the end there is no adequate means o f representation and no global people to represent. B u t the claims o f representation nonetheless play an essential role. Specifically, w i t h respect to the aristocracy, this third level affords mechanisms o f mediation to contain the seething multitude. T h e one thing that unites all aristocrats and monarchs, after all, despite their c o n stant bickering and competition, is fear o f the plebs. A l t h o u g h the aristocracy is unable to engage and manage the multitude, its c o n stant negotiations w i t h the third level o f the imperial system, even though they are conflictive, afford it some mechanisms o f control and means to calm its fears. There is no question, then, o f any aristocratic secession from the imperial system. T h e global aristocracy w i l l continually conflict w i t h both the monarchical level above it and the "popular" level

below, i n addition to being plagued constantly by internal battles, but this w i l l never amount to more than j o c k e y i n g for position, claiming a greater p o r t i o n o f power, and negotiating the distribution o f profits. T h e three levels o f the imperial constitution need one another and cannot function o n their o w n . T h e real threat to the imperial system resides not i n its internal conflicts and contradictions but i n the resistances o f the multitude. "So the reason w h y i n practice [aristocratic] government is not absolute," Spinoza writes, "can only be this, that the multitude is an object o f fear to the rulers, thereby maintaining some degree o f freed o m for itself, w h i c h it asserts and preserves, i f not by express law, by tacit understanding."

15

T h e multitude o f the poor, the forces o f a l -

termodernity, and the biopolitical productive forces, as we analyzed i n the first half o f this b o o k , are all increasingly autonomous and exceed the forms o f measure and control that have previously c o n tained them. W e need to descend once again to the terrain o f the c o m m o n to continue our analysis and explore what alternatives are emerging to challenge and eventually replace imperial rule.

WHAT

5.2

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

term "external e c o n o m y " to refer to economic activity and development that takes place outside the individual f i r m or industry, i n cluding knowledge and expertise that develop socially i n industrial 17

districts. T h e term is used increasingly frequently i n subsequent

W H A T R E M A I N S OF C A P I T A L I S M

twentieth-century economics literature, but the meanings o f the term are varied and often ambiguous. This should be no surprise, o f course, since "external e c o n o m y " is essentially a negative term, designating all that is outside the economy proper, outside the realm o f

But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. It does not re-establish private property, but it does indeed establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: namely co-operation and the possession in common o f the land and the means o f production produced by labour itself.

exchanges o f private property. For most economists, then, external

—Karl Marx, Capital

to pollinate fruit trees; and "atmosphere," i n c l u d i n g the rainfall o n

economy simply names all that remains out there i n the dark. In the 1950s J. E . Meade illuminates some o f what the term designates by distinguishing between two types o f external economy or "diseco n o m y " : "unpaid factors," i n w h i c h he includes the activity o f bees the orchard.

18

It is easy to recognize, however, that each o f these fac-

tors also has human, social components: unpaid human activities,

The Biopolitical Cycle of the Common T h e key to understanding economic production today is the c o m m o n , both as productive force and as the f o r m i n w h i c h wealth is produced. B u t private property has made us stupid, as M a r x says, so stupid that we are b l i n d to the c o m m o n ! It seems that economists and politicians can only see the w o r l d as divided between private and public, either o w n e d by capitalists or controlled by the state, as i f the c o m m o n d i d not exist. Economists do recognize the c o m m o n , i n fact, but cast it generally outside o f properly economic relations, as "external economies" or simply "externalities." In order to understand biopolitical production, however, we need to invert this perspective and internalize the productive externalities, b r i n g i n g the c o m -

such as domestic labor; and social atmospheres, i n c l u d i n g all those that affect the natural environment—the way, for instance, excessive logging affects rainfall. E v e n for the production o f apples we can easily see h o w these "external" factors, w h i c h point toward the c o m m o n , are centrally important. T h e question gets all the more interesting w h e n economists, realizing they can no longer just ignore all that is external to the market, go o n the offensive against it. External economies, according to some economists, are "missing markets" or even indications o f "market failures." N o t h i n g should be outside the market, and no productive goods should be "unowned," these e c o n omists maintain, because such externalities w o u l d escape the m e c h anisms o f efficiency imposed by the market.

19

m o n to the center o f economic life. T h e standpoint o f the c o m m o n

T h e c o m m o n has come into clearer v i e w i n recent years i n

reveals how, increasingly i n the course o f the present transition, the

large part thanks to the w o r k not o f economists but o f lawyers and

process o f economic valorization becomes ever more internal to the

legal theorists. Debates about intellectual property make it impossi-

structures o f social life.

16

ble, i n fact, not to focus o n the c o m m o n and its interaction w i t h the public. " T h e most important resource we govern as an open c o m -

T h e concept o f externality has a l o n g history i n economic thought. In the early twentieth century Alfred Marshall uses the

mons," writes Yochai Benkler, " w i t h o u t w h i c h humanity could not be conceived, is all o f pre-twentieth century knowledge and culture,

281

282

BEYOND

WHAT

CAPITAL?

most scientific knowledge o f the first half o f the twentieth century,

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

In the age o f biopolitical production, the c o m m o n , w h i c h pre-

and m u c h o f contemporary science and academic learning." T h i s

viously was cast as external, is b e c o m i n g completely "internalized."

c o m m o n knowledge and culture we have inherited diverges and of-

T h e c o m m o n , i n other words, i n both its natural and artificial forms,

ten conflicts w i t h both the private and the public. T h e conflict o f

is b e c o m i n g the central and essential element i n all sectors o f eco-

the c o m m o n w i t h private property is most often the focus o f atten-

n o m i c production. R a t h e r than seeing the c o m m o n i n the f o r m

tion: patents and copyrights are the t w o mechanisms for m a k i n g

o f externalities as "missing markets" or "market failures," then, we

knowledge into private property that have played the most p r o m i -

should instead see private property i n terms o f the "missing c o m -

nent roles i n recent years. T h e relationship o f the c o m m o n to the

m o n " and " c o m m o n failures."

20

public is equally significant but often obscured. It is important to

O n c e one adopts the standpoint o f the c o m m o n , many o f the

keep conceptually separate the c o m m o n — s u c h as c o m m o n k n o w l -

central concepts o f political economy have to be rethought. In this

edge and culture—and the public, institutional arrangements that

context, for instance, valorization and accumulation necessarily take

attempt to regulate access to it. It is thus tempting to think o f the

o n a social rather than an individual character. T h e c o m m o n exists

relationships among the private, the public, and the c o m m o n as t r i -

i n and is put to w o r k by broad, open social networks. T h e creation

angular, but that too easily gives the impression that the three could

o f value and the accumulation o f the c o m m o n , then, both refer to

constitute a closed system w i t h the c o m m o n between the other two.

an expansion o f social productive powers. E c o n o m i c growth, i n this

Instead the c o m m o n exists o n a different plane from the private and

sense, has to be understood as the growth o f society. "Social growth,"

the public, and is fundamentally autonomous from both.

however, may seem to be a concept too vague and abstract to be

In the realm o f the information economy and knowledge pro-

useful here. W e can give this n o t i o n o f accumulation more p h i l o -

duction it is quite clear that freedom o f the c o m m o n is essential for

sophical precision—recognizing, o f course, that this w i l l do little to

production. As Internet and software practitioners and scholars often

satisfy the more economically minded—by conceiving it i n terms o f

point out, access to the c o m m o n i n the network environment—

the social sensorium. A c c u m u l a t i o n o f the c o m m o n means not so

c o m m o n knowledges, c o m m o n codes, c o m m o n communications

m u c h that we have more ideas, more images, more affects, and so

circuits—is essential for creativity and growth. T h e privatization o f

forth but, more important, that our powers and senses increase: our

knowledge and code through intellectual property rights, they ar-

powers to think, to feel, to see, to relate to one another, to love. In

gue, thwarts production and innovation by destroying the freedom

terms closer to those o f economics, then, this growth involves both

o f the c o m m o n .

21

It is important to see that from the standpoint o f

the c o m m o n , the standard narrative o f economic freedom is c o m -

an increasing stock o f the c o m m o n accessible i n society and also an increased productive capacity based o n the c o m m o n .

pletely inverted. A c c o r d i n g to that narrative, private property is the

O n e o f the facts that make us rethink such concepts o f p o l i t i -

locus o f freedom (as well as efficiency, discipline, and innovation)

cal economy i n social terms is that biopolitical production is not

that stands against public control. N o w instead the c o m m o n is the

constrained by the logic o f scarcity. It has the unique characteristic

locus o f freedom and innovation—free access, free use, free ex-

that it does not destroy or diminish the raw materials from w h i c h it

pression, free interaction—that stands against private control, that is,

produces wealth. Biopolitical production puts bios to work without con-

the control exerted by private property, its legal structures, and its

suming it. Furthermore its product is not exclusive. W h e n I share an

market forces. Freedom i n this context can only be freedom o f the

idea or image w i t h y o u , m y capacity to think w i t h it is not lessened;

common.

o n the contrary, o u r exchange o f ideas and images increases m y ca-

283

284

BEYOND

WHAT

CAPITAL?

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

pacifies. A n d the production o f affects, circuits o f communication,

the sense that certain poisons decompose a body. N o x i o u s forms o f

and modes o f cooperation are immediately social and shared.

the c o m m o n and institutions that corrupt it destroy social wealth

T h e characteristics o f biopolitical production also force us to

and pose obstacles to social productivity. Since one o f the central

rethink the concept o f economic cycle. Understanding business c y -

factors necessary for biopolitical productivity is the autonomy o f the

cles is the essence o f any course i n macroeconomics. Capitalist

productive networks from capitalist c o m m a n d and from the corrupt

economies under the hegemony o f industrial production move pe-

social institutions, class struggle often takes the f o r m o f exodus, sub-

riodically through a repeated sequence: expansion, peak, downturn,

tracting from control and establishing autonomy. T h e quantitative

recession, expansion, and so forth. Economists generally focus o n

indicators o f professional economists offer little insight o n this b i o -

the "objective" causes o f the cycle, such as inflation, unemployment

political terrain, i n particular since production o f the c o m m o n c o n -

rates, and disequilibria between supply and demand, and thus pre-

stantly exceeds not only relationships o f control but also frameworks

scribe fiscal and monetary solutions to moderate the b o o m and bust

o f measure. Useful economic indicators instead w o u l d have to be

periods, seeking to maintain rates o f growth and employment w h i l e

qualitative. W h a t are the qualities o f the c o m m o n that constitute

curbing inflation. W h e n analyzing industrial business cycles i n our

society? H o w accessible is the c o m m o n to productive social forces?

previous work, we found it more illuminating to highlight the "sub-

H o w autonomous are productive networks from forms o f control?

jective" causes, specifically the organized refusal and resistance o f

To what extent do social institutions promote or obstruct access to

workers against capitalist command. Worker insurgency, o f course, is

and productivity o f beneficial forms o f the c o m m o n ? If such indica-

often " b e h i n d " many o f the objective economic indicators, such as

tors existed, they w o u l d trace a biopolitical cycle that is fundamen-

inflation, imbalances o f supply and demand, and disruptions o f p r o -

tally arrhythmic, defined by thresholds o f social composition and

duction and distribution. T h i s perspective, for example, views the

decomposition. B u t an adequate economic science o f biopolitical

fiscal and economic crises o f the 1970s i n light o f the proliferation

production has yet to be invented.

and intensity o f worker struggles i n the 1960s.

22

Indeed, at least since

the 1930s governments have sought to manage fluctuations o f the

The Tableau economique of the Common

business cycle w i t h social policies that address the "subjective" causes

In 1758 Francois Quesnay published the first version o f his Tableau

through programs o n wages, employment, and welfare. W h e t h e r

economique, w h i c h presents the equilibria o f investment and c o n -

viewed objectively or subjectively, however, the periodicity o f the

sumption i n the agricultural economy. H i s table traces the monetary

industrial business cycle through b o o m and bust remains, sometimes

exchanges throughout society i n a zigzag fashion: artisans buy grain,

moderated but not negated by fiscal, monetary, and social policies.

agriculturalists buy craft goods, landlords exchange w i t h foreign

T h e biopolitical cycle is very different. T h e economy is still

merchants, and so forth. T h e zigzag movements o f money d e m o n -

subject to growth and recession, but these have to be understood

strate the coherence o f the economic system since each social class

n o w i n relation to the qualities o f the c o m m o n . There are detrimen-

depends o n the others for b u y i n g and selling. Quesnay's table is

tal as well as beneficial forms o f the c o m m o n , as we have insisted

meant to demonstrate two claims that are central to Physiocratic

repeatedly, and whereas some social institutions promote the c o m -

doctrine: the wealth o f a nation is defined not by the gold and silver

m o n , others corrupt it. If biopolitical economic growth is conceived

i n its coffers but by its net product; and agriculture is the only pro-

as a process o f social composition, increasing our general social p o w -

ductive sector o f the economy, since handicrafts and manufacture

ers, then recession must be understood as social decomposition, i n

are seen as generating no more value than is invested i n them. F o r

285

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

Quesnay, then, surplus value is primarily extracted by landlords i n the f o r m o f rent.

WHAT

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

contrast to industrial labor, w h i c h is dependent o n capitalist c o m m a n d or some other f o r m o f management to provide materials and

K a r l M a r x was fascinated by the Tableau economique, and i n

enforce the cooperative relations necessary for production, b i o p o -

many ways his analyses o f the simple and expanded reproduction o f

litical labor tends to have direct access to the c o m m o n and the ca-

capital strive to formulate for the industrial economy what Quesnay

pacity to generate cooperation internally. Second, although eco-

mapped for the agricultural, tracing the paths o f value through the

n o m i c tables are usually filled w i t h quantities, social life, the c o m m o n ,

circuits o f capitalist production, circulation, exchange, and consump-

and all the products o f biopolitical production defy and exceed mea-

tion. Two o f the important differences that define Marx's w o r k w i t h

sure. H o w can one create an economic table filled w i t h qualities?

respect to Quesnay are that labor, not land, is the source o f wealth i n

H o w can one balance the input and output o f qualitative elements

the capitalist economy, and the capitalist system is not a stable equi-

to determine the e q u i l i b r i u m o f the system? Consider, for example,

l i b r i u m but i n constant need o f expansion, continually searching for

the fact that the production o f subjectivity is increasingly central to

new markets, new materials, new productive forces, and so o n . In

the biopolitical generation o f value. Subjectivity is a use-value, but

this system surplus value is primarily extracted by capitalists i n the

one that has the capacity to produce autonomously; and subjectivity

form o f profit.

is an exchange-value, but one that is impossible to quantify. E v i -

We need to create today a new Tableau economique that traces

dently this w i l l have to be a different k i n d o f table.

23

the production, circulation, and expropriation o f value i n the b i o p o -

T h e terms that M a r x develops for industrial production are

litical e c o n o m y T h i s is not to say, o f course, that industrial produc-

still useful i n the context o f biopolitical production but have to be

tion is no longer an important sector o f the economy, just as Marx's

reformulated. H e divides the w o r k i n g day, for example, between

focus o n industrial capital did not imply that agriculture had ceased

necessary labor-time, during w h i c h the value necessary to repro-

to be significant. O u r claim instead is that biopolitical production is

duce the society o f workers is created, and surplus labor-time, w h e n

b e c o m i n g hegemonic i n the contemporary economy, filling the role

the surplus value appropriated by the capitalist is generated. In the

that industry played for well over one hundred years. In the same

biopolitical context necessary labor has to be considered what produces the

way

that i n the previous period agriculture had to industrialize,

common, because i n the c o m m o n is embedded the value necessary

adopting industry's mechanical methods, wage relations, property

for social reproduction. In the context o f industrial capital, wage re-

regimes, and w o r k i n g day, industry n o w w i l l have to become b i o p o -

lations were a primary field o f class conflict over necessary labor,

litical and integrate ever more centrally communicative networks,

w i t h workers struggling to raise what was considered socially neces-

intellectual and cultural circuits, the production o f images and af-

sary and capitalists trying to diminish it. In the biopolitical economy

fects, and so forth. Industry and all other sectors o f production,

this conflict continues, but wage relations no longer contain it. T h i s

i n other words, w i l l gradually be constrained to obey the Tableau

becomes increasingly a struggle over the c o m m o n . Social reproduc-

economique o f the c o m m o n .

tion based o n the c o m m o n might sound similar to positions pro-

Creating a n e w Tableau economique, however, runs into two i m mediate difficulties. First, the autonomy o f biopolitical labor threatens the coherence o f the table, taking away one side o f Quesnay s zigzags. Capital still depends o n biopolitical labor, but the dependence o f biopolitical labor o n capital becomes increasingly weak. In

moted by theorists o f "social capital," w h o , as we saw earlier, point toward the needs and mechanisms o f social reproduction, insisting that they cannot be satisfied solely through wages. Generally the proponents o f "social capital," however, fall back o n social d e m o cratic proposals for government activity to guarantee social repro-

288

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

WHAT

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

duction. Social reproduction based i n the c o m m o n , i n contrast, has

matically i n the biopolitical economy, where freedom, c o m m u n i -

to be conceived outside o f private or public management or c o m -

cation, and social interaction are essential. T h e global aristocracy

mand.

helped put an end to unilateralism and its military regime, as we saw

If necessary labor and the value it generates are conceived i n

earlier, i n part because it was bad for business. T h e finance option is

terms o f the networks o f social reproduction i n the c o m m o n , then

m u c h more effective. In many respects financialization has been the

we have to understand surplus labor and surplus value as the forms

capitalist response to the crisis o f the Fordist social relationship and

o f social cooperation and elements o f the c o m m o n that are appro-

the other social bases o n w h i c h industrial capital relied. O n l y f i -

priated by capital. W h a t capital expropriates is not individual wealth

nance is able to follow the rapidly changing and increasingly global

but the result o f a social power. T h e rate o f surplus value, then, to

social production circuits o f the biopolitical economy, extracting

rewrite Marx's definition, is the expression o f the level o f exploita-

wealth and imposing command. O n l y finance is able to oversee and

tion by capital o n not only the labor-power o f the worker but also

compel the flexibility, mobility, and precariousness o f biopolitical

the c o m m o n powers o f production that constitute social labor-

labor-power w h i l e also reducing spending o n social welfare! T h e

power.

24

As a result, the contradiction that M a r x often invokes be-

key for finance is that it remains external to the productive process.

tween the social nature o f capitalist production and the private char-

It does not attempt to organize social labor-power or dictate h o w it

acter o f capitalist accumulation becomes ever more extreme i n the

is to cooperate. It grants biopolitical production its autonomy and

biopolitical era. A n d keep i n m i n d that w h e n capital accumulates

manages nonetheless to extract wealth from it at a distance.

the c o m m o n and makes it private, its productivity is blocked or less-

26

A Tableau economique o f the c o m m o n cannot be created i n the

ened. T h i s is thus an extraordinarily violent and explosive situation

f o r m used by Quesnay and M a r x for the agricultural and industrial

i n w h i c h the social productive forces, w h i c h are antagonistic and

economies respectively. Those tables trace the lines o f not only the

autonomous, inside and outside the market, are necessary for cap-

exchanges but also the relations o f interdependence among the v a r i -

italist accumulation but threaten its command. Capital, so to speak,

ous economic actors and, ultimately, the social classes. W i t h the i n -

has the w o l f by the ears: h o l d o n and it w i l l be bitten; let go and it

creasing autonomy o f biopolitical labor embedded i n the c o m m o n ,

w i l l not survive.

25

the reciprocity o f those relations is broken. Capital, o f course, still

Capital is defined by crisis. Almost a century ago R o s a L u x e m -

needs labor to produce the wealth it can appropriate, but it meets

burg came to this conclusion w h e n she recognized that the expand-

increasing antagonism and resistance from biopolitical labor. Instead

ing cycles o f capitalist reproduction led inevitably to interimperialist

o f an economic table o f exchanges, then, what we find here is a table

wars. Here we see the crisis also w i t h i n the capital relation itself,

o f struggles, w h i c h we c o u l d organize, perhaps, i n three columns.

w i t h capital facing increasingly autonomous, antagonistic, and u n -

T h e first c o l u m n is defined by the defense o f the freedom o f b i o p o -

manageable forms o f social labor-power. T w o options seem available

litical labor. T h e composition o f postindustrial labor-power is char-

to maintain capitalist control: war or finance. T h e war option was

acterized by a forced mobility and flexibility, deprived o f fixed c o n -

attempted and i n large measure exhausted w i t h the unilateralist m i l -

tracts and guaranteed employment, having to migrate from one j o b

itary adventures o f recent years. Security measures, imprisonment,

to another i n the course o f a career and, at times, i n the course o f a

social m o n i t o r i n g , eroding the basic set o f civil and human rights,

w o r k i n g day, and i n many cases having to migrate great distances

and all the rest that comes w i t h the war society might i n the short

across the city and across continents for w o r k . Biopolitical labor

r u n augment control, but it also undermines productivity, most dra-

does not reject mobility and flexibility per se (as i f dreaming for a

289

290

BEYOND

WHAT

CAPITAL?

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

return to the fixity o f the Fordist factory), but rejects only external

the crisis o f capital that we have been analyzing i n this part o f the

control over them. T h e productivity o f biopolitical labor requires

book. A s biopolitical labor becomes ever more autonomous from

autonomy to determine its o w n movements and transformation; it

and antagonistic to capitalist management and command, capital has

requires the freedom to construct productive encounters, form net-

increasing difficulty integrating labor w i t h i n its ruling structures.

works o f cooperation, subtract itself from detrimental relationships,

In the context o f industrial production the capacity o f capital

and so forth.The struggles i n this first c o l u m n , then, are struggles o f

to integrate labor is taken for granted. Conceptually this is most

the common against work—refusing

the c o m m a n d o f work, that is, i n

clearly expressed w h e n M a r x , analyzing the production process, d i -

defense o f free powers o f creativity. T h e second c o l u m n is defined

vides capital into constant capital—all the productive elements that

by the defense o f social life. In the Fordist system the wage, supple-

merely transfer their value to the value o f the product, such as raw

mented by state welfare services, was meant to guarantee the repro-

materials and machines—and variable capital, that is, labor-power,

duction o f the proletariat, although it often failed to fulfill that. T h e

the value o f w h i c h varies i n the sense that it contributes more value

class o f precarious workers today, the precariat, has an entirely differ-

to the product than its o w n value, the wage. T h e concept o f variable

ent relation to the wage. It still depends o n wages for its reproduc-

capital itself places labor-power, and hence the w o r k i n g class as a

tion but is increasingly external to that relation w i t h capital, relying

whole, w i t h i n capital. T h i s integration o f labor w i t h i n capital does

ever more o n income and means o f reproduction that it can glean

not mean, o f course, that labor is always peaceful and functional to

from other sources o f social wealth. T h e struggles i n this second c o l -

capitalist development. O n the contrary, the l o n g history o f radical

u m n might thus be conceived i n terms o f the common against the

industrial workers' movements reveals labor as w i t h i n and against

wage—that is, i n defense o f an income to reproduce social life but

capital, blocking, sabotaging, and subverting its development. O n e

against the increasingly violent and unreliable dependence dictated

o f the great contributions o f M a r i o Tronti's analyses i n the 1960s

by wage relations. A third c o l u m n o f our table w o u l d have to be de-

was to demonstrate the p r i o r i t y o f worker struggles w i t h respect to

fined by the defense o f democracy. These struggles are still i n their

capitalist development. " W e have to invert the problem," he writes,

infancy, but they w i l l have to invent social institutions to achieve the

"change direction, and start from the beginning—and the b e g i n -

democratic organization o f social productive forces, providing a sta-

n i n g is working-class struggle. A t the level o f socially developed

ble foundation for the autonomy o f biopolitical production. T h e

capital, capitalist development is subordinated to worker struggles,

struggles i n this third c o l u m n w i l l thus be struggles o f the common

comes after them, and has to make the political mechanism o f its

against capital. Filling out the columns o f this table is b e c o m i n g the

o w n reproduction correspond to them."

order o f the day.

working-class revolt that Tronti analyzes as an instance o f the one

28

O n e c o u l d think o f the

dividing into two since i n revolt the workers demonstrate their au-

The One Divides in Two

tonomy from and antagonism to the capitalist owners, but i n subse-

In the mid-1960s, i n the midst o f the fervor o f the C u l t u r a l R e v o l u tion, Chinese intellectuals following M a o Z e d o n g proclaimed the slogan " T h e one divides into t w o " as a call to continuing class struggle and an affirmation o f the proletarian perspective. T h e i r o p p o nents, they claimed, take the bourgeois perspective and are guided 27

by the slogan " T h e two fuse into one." This Maoist slogan captures

quent moments, w h e n the strike comes to an end, the two fuse back into one. O r better,Tronti's dialectic is a two-part movement: w o r k ers' struggles force capital to restructure; capitalist restructuring destroys the o l d conditions for worker organization and poses new ones; new worker revolts force capital to restructure again; and so forth. T h i s two-part dialectic, however, as l o n g as it does not pass

291

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

WHAT

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

over into revolutionary activity, never breaks apart the internal rela-

the economy alike, that division between w o r k time and n o n w o r k

tion to capital.

time is breaking d o w n . A n d more important, the temporalities o f

T h e passage from the industrial to the biopolitical economy

factory life—its methods o f managing time, its time precision, and

changes this situation, realizing and extending i n certain respects the

time discipline, w h i c h had been generalized outside the factory to

arrangement that Tronti foresaw i n the factory. T h e industrial f i r m

society as a w h o l e — n o longer apply. Workers are i n many respects

is no longer able, as it previously was, at least i n the

dominant

left to organize their o w n time, w h i c h is often an impossible task.

countries, to centralize productive forces and integrate labor-power

G e r m a n sociologists refer to an Entgrenzung der Arbeit (a delimita-

w i t h i n capital. As we have seen, however, the exhaustion o f the he-

tion or removal o f boundaries o f work) to name the spilling over

gemonic and integrating powers o f firm-based capital does not i m -

o f w o r k into society (in spatial terms) and into life (in temporal

ply the end o f capitalist development. In the place o f firm-based

terms).

capital has emerged a society-based capital i n w h i c h society as a

carity o f labor i n biopolitical production. Guaranteed, stable e m -

whole is the chief site o f productive activity and, correspondingly,

ployment was i n many ways the epitome o f the internal nature o f

29

31

A second and closely related example is the increasing pre-

the p r i m e site o f labor conflict and revolt against capital. O n this

industrial labor w i t h i n capital. A t the extreme was the image o f loyal

social terrain o f biopolitical production, i n the context o f society-

workers and their families cared for by the firm throughout their

based capital, the integrating mechanisms that functioned i n f i r m -

w o r k i n g lives and beyond. B y m a k i n g labor increasingly precarious

based capital no longer work. Here the one really divides into two:

for an ever larger p o r t i o n o f the workforce, however, capital is cast-

an increasingly autonomous labor-power and, consequently, a cap-

ing labor out, expelling it, cutting ties o f stability, welfare, and sup-

ital that becomes increasingly pure command. Labor-power is thus

port. T h e dissolution o f the w o r k i n g day and the increasing precar-

no longer variable capital, integrated w i t h i n the body o f capital, but

ity o f labor do not mean, o f course, that workers are free from

a separate and increasingly oppositional force.

30

capitalist domination—far from it! Workers still have to arrange their

This division i n two results from a double movement. F r o m

lives i n the w o r l d o f commodities according to the commodified

one side, biopolitical labor increasingly asserts its autonomy. N o t

temporalities o f capitalist social life. Precarious workers have to think

only is it progressively more capable o f organizing productive c o o p -

o f themselves still, even more so, as commodities. A l l workers remain

eration and self-managing social production, but also all mecha-

i n very important respects subject to capitalist domination.

nisms o f capitalist c o m m a n d imposed on it diminish its productivity

W h e n we declare that "the one divides i n two," then, we are

and generate antagonism. F r o m the other side, capital is ever more

not proclaiming the demise o f capital but rather identifying the

obliged to exclude labor from its relations, even w h i l e having to ex-

growing incapacity o f capital to integrate labor-power w i t h i n itself

tract wealth from it. T h e characteristics o f the technical composition

and thus marking the rupture o f the concept o f capital into two an-

o f labor that we analyzed i n Part 3 demonstrate this double m o v e -

tagonistic subjectivities. T h e resulting situation is characterized by a

ment. In biopolitical production, for example, there is a progressive

double production o f subjectivity, or rather the production o f two

dissolution o f the w o r k i n g day. T h e Fordist industrial promise o f

opposed, conflicting subjectivities that cohabit i n the same social

eight hours' work, eight hours' leisure, and eight hours' sleep, w h i c h

w o r l d . A capitalist power w h i c h is progressively losing its productive

actually applied to relatively few workers globally, no longer serves

role, its ability to organize productive cooperation, and its capacity

as a regulative ideal. In the privileged and subordinated sectors o f

to control the social mechanisms o f the reproduction o f labor-power

294

BEYOND

WHAT

CAPITAL?

REMAINS

OF

CAPITALISM

cohabits, often uneasily, w i t h a multitude o f productive subjectivi-

strategy to confront the domination o f money is to destroy b o t h o f

ties, w h i c h are increasingly acquiring the constituent capacities nec-

its representational functions—eliminating not only capitalist c o m -

essary to sustain themselves autonomously and create a new w o r l d .

mand but also the role o f money as general equivalent—by c o n -

Is it possible at this point to reintegrate the w o r k i n g class

structing a system o f exchanges based o n barter and/or ad hoc

w i t h i n capital? This is the illusion promoted by social democracy,

representations o f value, w h i l e dreaming o f the return to an antedi-

w h i c h we analyzed earlier. It w o u l d mean, o n the one hand, re-cre-

luvian w o r l d o f use-values. A second strategy is to defend the one

ating the mechanisms by w h i c h capital can engage, manage, and o r -

face o f money and attack the other: preserve money as the represen-

ganize productive forces and, o n the other, resurrecting the welfare

tation o f value but destroy its power to represent the general social

structures and social mechanisms necessary for capital to guarantee

field o f production, w h i c h is instrumental i n command, w i t h the

the social reproduction o f the w o r k i n g class. W e do not believe,

ideal o f fair trade and equal exchanges. Is a third strategy possible

however, even i f there were the political w i l l among the elites, that

that w o u l d conserve both representational functions o f money but

this is possible. T h e cat is out o f the bag, and, for better or worse,

wrest control o f them away from capital? M i g h t the power o f money

there is no way to get it back i n . O r to put it i n other terms, the o l d

(and the finance w o r l d i n general) to represent the social field o f

three-part dialectic, w h i c h w o u l d make a unity o f the two c o n -

production be, i n the hands o f the multitude, an instrument o f free-

flicting subjectivities, w i l l no longer work. Its claims o f unity and

dom, w i t h the capacity to overthrow misery and poverty? Just as the

integration at this point are just false promises.

concept o f abstract labor was necessary for understanding the indus-

T h e primary capitalist strategy for maintaining power i n this divided situation, as we said earlier, is financial control. M a r x anticipated this situation, i n many respects, i n his analyses o f the dual nature o f money. O n its politically neutral face, money is the universal equivalent and m e d i u m o f exchange that, i n capitalist society, represents the value o f commodities based o n the quantity o f labor c o n solidated w i t h i n them. O n its other face, though, money, as the exclusive terrain o f the representation o f value, wields the power to c o m m a n d labor. It is a representation o f the wealth o f social production, accumulated privately, that i n turn has the power to rule over 32

social p r o d u c t i o n . T h e w o r l d o f finance, w i t h its complex instruments o f representation, extends and amplifies these two faces o f money, w h i c h together are essential for expropriating the value o f and exerting control over biopolitical production. After identifying the two faces o f money, M a r x highlights the fact that they conflict w i t h each other and thus register a social antagonism between the representation o f the value o f labor as the general equivalent o f c o m m o d i t y exchange and the conditions o f social production dominated by capital. O n e traditional anticapitalist

trial w o r k i n g class as a coherent, active subject, including workers i n a w i d e variety o f different sectors, do the abstractions o f money and finance similarly provide the instruments for m a k i n g the multitude from the diverse forms o f flexible, mobile, and precarious labor? W e cannot answer these questions satisfactorily yet, but it seems to us that efforts to reappropriate money i n this way point in the direction o f revolutionary activity today. A n d this w o u l d mark a definitive break o f the one divided i n two.

295

PRE-SHOCKS

ALONG

THE FAULT

LINES

like all other modes o f production. O u r task is to discern the rele-

5.3

vant symptoms, evaluate h o w they can be treated, and arrive at a prognosis for capital. One

PRE-SHOCKS A L O N G THE FAULT

LINES

symptom, w h i c h Schumpeter diagnosed over a half cen-

tury ago, is the decline o f capital's entrepreneurial capacities. Early i n the twentieth century, w o r k i n g i n Austria and surrounded by its nineteenth-century models o f capitalist development, Schumpeter celebrated entrepreneurship as the vital force o f capital. M a n y m i s -

Capitalist performance is not even relevant for prognosis [of capital's future development]. Most civilizations have disappeared before they had time to fill to the full the measure o f their promise. Hence I am not going to argue, on the strength of that performance, that the capitalist intermezzo is likely to be prolonged. In fact, I am now going to draw the exactly opposite inference.

understand the essence o f the entrepreneurial function as risk-tak-

—Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

movement. B y the mid-twentieth century, however, n o w i n the

ing, he explains, but risk-taking is merely speculation. Schumpeter's entrepreneur is the one w h o introduces the new, the innovator driven by the j o y o f creation—a figure w i t h strong overtones o f a Nietzschean individual hero, giving capital its constant forward U n i t e d States and analyzing its increasingly bureaucratic corporate culture, Schumpeter foresees the obsolescence o f capital's entrepreneurial function and its replacement by a mechanized, routine f o r m

Capital's Prognosis

o f economic progress dictated by management rationality and the

A l l is not well w i t h capital—and the traditional treatments are u n -

faceless gray suits that populate boardrooms. O n c e it loses its power

able to cure its maladies. N e i t h e r private, neoliberal medicine (under

o f innovation and entrepreneurship, Schumpeter believes, capital

unilateral or multilateral guidance) nor public, state-centered reme-

cannot l o n g survive.

34

dies (Keynesian or socialist) have any positive effect, and i n fact only

M a n y w o u l d claim, though, that today, i n the computer age,

make things worse. W e should do our best to search for a new cure,

the entrepreneurial function o f capital has been reinvented and r e i n -

even though we are well aware that treating the disease seriously and

vigorated by figures like Microsoft chairman B i l l Gates and A p p l e

aggressively could risk the demise o f the patient. Euthanasia may i n

Computers' Steve Jobs. T h e y do indeed play the part for the media,

the end be the most humane course; but before being resigned to

but they are not really entrepreneurs i n Schumpeter's sense. T h e y are

that fact, a conscientious doctor has to make every effort to discover

just salesmen and speculators: they present the face o f the corpora-

the correct diagnosis and invent a successful treatment.

tion to sell the latest version o f i P o d or W i n d o w s , and they bet a

Capital is just fine, some might respond, despite its crises. L o o k

portion o f their fortune o n its success, but they are not the locus o f

at all those people getting rich! L o o k at h o w the stock markets re-

innovation. Corporations such as A p p l e and Microsoft survive by

bound! L o o k at all those goods being produced! W e l l , as Joseph

feeding off the innovative energies that emerge from the vast net-

Schumpeter says i n the epigraph to this section, these conventional

works o f computer and Internet-based producers that extend well

measures o f performance, as well as others such as the rate o f profit,

beyond the boundaries o f the corporation and its employees. B i o -

may

not be the most relevant ones for j u d g i n g health.

33

Capital is

political production, i n fact, is driven from below by a multitudinous

not immortal, o f course, but came into being and w i l l pass away just

entrepreneurship. Schumpeter was right, then, about the obsoles-

297

298

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

PRE-SHOCKS

ALONG

THE FAULT

LINES

cence o f the capitalist entrepreneur as the fount o f economic i n n o -

capitalist relations o f production fetter the abilities o f ever greater

vation, but he could not recognize that a hydra-headed multitude

portions o f the population. In the dominant regions one often hears

w o u l d emerge i n its stead as biopolitical entrepreneur.

o f "growth w i t h o u t jobs," while i n the subordinate regions an i n -

This points us to a second symptom o f capital's illness: its fail-

creasing number o f people are b e c o m i n g "disposable," useless from

ure to engage and develop productive forces. W h e n M a r x and E n -

the perspective o f capital. A n d i n a more general sense, it is clear

gels describe the centuries-long passage from feudal to capitalist re-

h o w little the majority o f those w h o are employed by capital are a l -

lations o f production i n Europe, they focus o n the expansion o f

lowed to develop their full productive capacities but are limited i n -

productive forces: as feudal relations increasingly obstruct the devel-

stead to routine tasks, far from their potential. In the context o f b i o -

opment o f productive forces, capitalist relations o f property and ex-

political production this has nothing to do w i t h full employment or

change emerge to foster them and spur them forward. " A t a certain

giving everyone a j o b ; rather it has to do w i t h fostering the expan-

stage i n the development o f these means o f production and o f ex-

sion o f our powers to think and create, to generate images and social

change," M a r x and Engels w r i t e i n the Manifesto, "the conditions

relationships, to communicate and cooperate. There is no need to

under w h i c h feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal o r -

pose this as a moral accusation, as i f capital were duty b o u n d to pro-

ganisation o f agriculture and manufacturing industry, i n one w o r d ,

vide for the population. W e mean to v i e w the situation not as m o r -

the feudal relations o f property became no longer compatible w i t h

alists but as doctors, evaluating the health o f the patient. A n d it is a

the already developed productive forces; they became so many fet-

significant symptom o f illness i n an economic system that it cannot

ters.They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder."

35

Every

take advantage o f existing productive forces and foster their growth,

mode o f production, capital included, at first powerfully expands

that it wastes the talents and abilities o f the population.

productive forces but eventually holds them back, thereby generat-

These symptoms o f capital's illness result i n repeating crises o f

ing the foundation o f the next mode o f production. This is not an

capitalist accumulation.The great financial and economic crises be-

immiseration thesis. T h e question is not, A r e people worse off than

g i n n i n g i n 2008 have refocused widespread attention o n this fact.

before? It is rather, C o u l d their abilities and potential be developed

Traditionally capitalist crisis is conceived i n objective terms, as we

more fully?

said, w h i c h from one perspective highlights blockages i n the circuit

Capitalist relations o f property are b e c o m i n g increasingly such

from production to circulation to realization and back to produc-

fetters today. O n e might object that capitalist development c o n t i n -

tion. W h e n value, i n either its money f o r m or its c o m m o d i t y form,

ues at a high level: the speed and capacity o f digital electronic de-

stands idle at any point i n the circuit—because o f labor shortages or

vices, for instance, continue to double every two years. Such mea-

strikes that halt production, for example, or transportation impasses

sures o f performance, however, are not reflective o f the development

that stop circulation, or insufficient demand to sell the goods and

o f productive forces, w h i c h have to be gauged primarily i n terms o f

realize their value and profit—crisis results. Today crisis has to be

human, social, and subjective powers, for w h i c h there is, i n fact, no

viewed, instead, i n subjective terms. Biopolitical goods—such as

scientific measurement. W e have to judge whether people's capaci-

ideas, affects, codes, knowledges, information, and images—still have

ties and creativity are fostered and developed to their fullest and, al-

to circulate to realize their value, but that circulation is n o w internal

ternatively, h o w many lives are wasted. That is, at the most basic

to the production process. T h e biopolitical circuit is really all c o n -

level, h o w the health o f a mode o f production has to be evaluated.

tained i n the production o f the c o m m o n , w h i c h is also simultane-

W e see increasing signs throughout the w o r l d today, i n fact, that

ously the production o f subjectivity and social life. T h e process can

•

299

300

BEYOND

PRE-SHOCKS

CAPITAL?

ALONG

THE FAULT

LINES

be understood as both, depending o n one's perspective, the pro-

B y giving this g l o o m y prognosis for the future o f capital we

duction o f subjectivity through the c o m m o n and the production

are not suggesting that it w i l l collapse overnight. A n d we are not

o f c o m m o n through subjectivity. Crises o f the biopolitical circuit

flirting w i t h those o l d notions o f capitalist apocalypse called Zusam-

should be understood, then, as a blockage i n the production o f sub-

menbriickstheorien, or collapse theories, w h i c h were meant to scare

jectivity or an obstacle to the productivity o f the c o m m o n .

the bourgeoisie and incite revolutionary fervor a m o n g the proletar36

O n e day M o n s i e u r le Capital, feeling i l l , visits D o c t o r Subtilis

iat. Today, i n fact, even i n the face o f dramatic crises, it seems that

and confesses that he is disturbed each night by a recurring dream.

anyone w h o dares to speak o f the eventual demise o f capital is i m -

(We know. It is misleading shorthand to treat capital as i f it were a

mediately dismissed as a catastrophe theorist. (It is remarkable h o w

subject w i t h human attributes and desires, just as it is to ascribe to

few contemporary economists confront the question, as Keynes and

stock markets an emotional life: jittery, depressed, or buoyant. I n -

Schumpeter d i d i n a previous era, o f h o w and w h e n the capitalist

stead o f avoiding the trope, though, let's take it one step further!) In

mode o f production w i l l come to an end.) W e are not preaching

the dream, M o n s i e u r le Capital explains, he is standing before a tree

apocalypse but simply reading the symptoms o f capital's illness w i t h

full o f ripe fruit, glistening i n the sun, but his arms are arthritic and

two basic assumptions: capital w i l l not continue to rule forever, and

he is unable to raise them high enough even to harvest the lower

it w i l l create, i n pursuing its o w n rule, the conditions o f the mode o f

branches. H e suffers hunger pangs but can only watch the delicious

production and the society that w i l l eventually succeed it. T h i s is a

fruit i n front o f h i m . Finally, w i t h great effort he somehow manages

l o n g process, just as was the transition from the feudal to the cap-

to grasp one o f the fruits, but w h e n he looks d o w n at his hands, he

italist mode o f production, and there is no telling w h e n it w i l l cross

sees, to his horror, that he is h o l d i n g a withered human head! D o c -

the crucial threshold, but we can already recognize—in the auton-

tor, please, what does it mean? Y o u r problem, D o c t o r Subtilis re-

omy o f biopolitical production, the centrality o f the c o m m o n , and

sponds, is not merely a disturbed consciousness but also a troubled

their g r o w i n g separation from capitalist exploitation and c o m m a n d

body. In the era o f biopolitical production, the traditional division

—the makings o f a new society w i t h i n the shell o f the o l d .

37

between subjects and objects breaks d o w n . N o longer do subjects produce objects that subsequently reproduce subjects. There is a

Exodus from the Republic

k i n d o f short circuit whereby subjects simultaneously produce and

T h e republican f o r m that emerged historically as dominant, w i t h its

reproduce subjects through the c o m m o n . W h a t you are trying to

central aim o f protecting and serving property, has l o n g functioned

take i n your hands, then, M o n s i e u r le Capital, is subjectivity itself.

as an adequate support for capital, fostering its development, regu-

B u t paradoxically, tragically, by laying your hands o n the production

lating its excesses, and guaranteeing its interests. T h e republic o f

o f subjectivity, you destroy the c o m m o n and corrupt the process,

property, however, no longer serves capital well, and has instead be-

making productive forces wither. M o n s i e u r le Capital, o f course, is

come a fetter o n production. Earlier we examined the difference

completely perplexed by this diagnosis but nonetheless presses the

between republic and multitude, along w i t h the multitude's exodus

doctor for a cure. W e l l , D o c t o r Subtilis considers, the o l d medicines

from the republic, primarily from a political perspective. N o w we

o f private and public control, neoliberalism and social democratic

have to approach this same question from the perspective o f eco-

strategies, w i l l only make things worse. Finally, after m u c h consider-

n o m i c production, keeping i n m i n d , o f course, that i n the b i o p o l i t i -

ation, he responds enigmatically, A l l I can tell y o u , M o n s i e u r le C a p -

cal era economic and political processes are woven ever closer t o -

ital, is this: don't touch the fruit!

gether, to the point at times o f b e c o m i n g indistinguishable. W h a t

301

t 302

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

PRE-SHOCKS

ALONG

THE FAULT

LINES

aspects o f the republic block the development o f productive forces

quires an exodus from the republic o f property as an apparatus o f

and the production o f the common? W h a t political and social ar-

control i n both its private and public guises.

rangements can remove these obstacles, foster these developments,

T h e freedom necessary here is clearly not an individualist free-

and treat capital's ills? W e w i l l see i n this section that for a new ex-

d o m because the c o m m o n can only be produced socially, through

pansion o f productive forces and an unfettered production o f the

communication and cooperation, by a multitude o f singularities.

c o m m o n — i n order, i n other words, to save capital—a politics o f

A n d neither is this freedom collectivist, as i f all those producing sub-

freedom, equality, and democracy o f the multitude is necessary

jectivities were unified i n a homogeneous whole. This is the sense i n

W e have already seen i n the previous section one sense i n

w h i c h we said earlier that the metropolis is the space o f freedom,

w h i c h freedom is required for the production o f the c o m m o n . T h e

the space o f the organization o f encounters among singular subjec-

multitude o f producing subjectivities must today be

autonomous

tivities. T h e requirement o f freedom shows h o w the o l d formulas o f

from either private/capitalist or public/state authority i n order to

the contract—both the contract between citizens and the state and

produce and develop the c o m m o n . Previously production c o u l d

that between workers and capital—are increasingly fetters o n pro-

be—and even i n many cases had to be—organized by the capitalist.

duction. W h e t h e r security is exchanged for obedience or a wage for

T h e capitalist provided the means o f cooperation, b r i n g i n g proletar-

labor-time, the result o f the contract is always the establishment and

ians together i n the factory, for instance, deploying them around the

legitimation o f authority, w h i c h always and inevitably dampens or

machines, assigning them specific tasks, and imposing w o r k disci-

even blocks the production o f the c o m m o n through subjectivity.

pline. T h e state also c o u l d organize production i n the same way at

T h e individualism o f the parties w h o enter into the contract also

times, providing the means o f cooperation and communication nec-

blocks the production o f the c o m m o n — w h e t h e r we v i e w these i n -

essary for the productive process. T h e relation o f the republic to

dividuals as preexisting or as results o f historical-political processes.

between

In the contract, individuals are drawn into a vertical relation w i t h

private and public, sustaining the authority o f each over the m u l t i -

the figure o f authority and not horizontal relations w i t h others like

tude. Sometimes the republic focused more o n the private and at

them. A n individual can never produce the c o m m o n , no more than

others more o n the public, but these two poles, each o f w h i c h served

an individual can generate a new idea without relying o n the foun-

as an authority to organize production, were the exclusive limits. In

dation o f c o m m o n ideas and intellectual communication w i t h o t h -

biopolitical production, however, the cooperation and c o m m u n i c a -

ers. O n l y a multitude can produce the c o m m o n .

capital was characterized by this balance and alternative

tion necessary for the organization o f the multitude o f productive

Just as political freedom is necessary for the interests o f eco-

subjectivities is generated internally. It is no longer necessary for

n o m i c production, so too is political equality. Hierarchies segment

the capitalist or the state to organize production from the outside.

the c o m m o n and exclude populations from it, disrupting the neces-

O n the contrary, any attempt at external organization only disrupts

sary forms o f cooperation and communication. T h e metaphor o f a

and corrupts the processes o f self-organization already functioning

great conversation has become a conventional means to grasp the

w i t h i n the multitude. T h e multitude produces efficiently, and more-

social circuits o f biopolitical production. W h e n the production o f

over develops new productive forces, only w h e n it is granted the

knowledge or affects is configured as a conversation, for example, it

freedom to do so on its o w n terms, i n its o w n way, w i t h its o w n

w o u l d be absurd and counterproductive to assume, o n the one hand,

mechanisms o f cooperation and communication. This freedom re-

that everyone already has the same knowledges, talents, and capaci-

303

ties and thus that everyone is saying the same thing. T h e conversa-

ral or spontaneous formation but rather is formed by mechanisms o f

tion is productive precisely because o f these differences. Equality, it

representation that translate the diversity and plurality o f existing

is w o r t h repeating, does not imply sameness, homogeneity, or unity;

subjectivities into a unity through identification w i t h a leader, a gov-

on the contrary. Production is also restricted w h e n differences c o n -

erning group, or i n some cases a central idea. "There is no hege-

figure hierarchies and, for instance, only "experts" speak and others

mony," Laclau makes clear, " w i t h o u t constructing a popular identity

listen. In the biopolitical domain the production o f the c o m m o n is

out o f a plurality o f democratic demands." T h e second instance o f

more efficient the more people participate freely, w i t h their differ-

representation, w h i c h is most clearly seen at the constitutional level,

ent talents and abilities, i n the productive network. Participation,

operates a disjunctive synthesis between the representatives and the

furthermore, is a k i n d o f pedagogy that expands productive forces

represented.The U.S. Constitution, for instance, is designed simulta-

since all those included become through their participation more

neously to link the represented to the government and at the same

capable.

time separate them from it. T h i s separation o f the representatives

38

39

T h e metaphor o f a great conversation, however, paints a p i c -

from the represented is likewise a basis for hegemony. T h e logic o f

ture o f these productive relationships that is too harmonious and

representation and hegemony i n both these instances dictates that a

pacific, indifferent to the quality o f encounters that constitute them.

people exists only w i t h respect to its leadership and vice versa, and

M a n y people are silenced even w h e n included i n a conversation.

thus this arrangement determines an aristocratic, not a democratic,

A n d simply adding more voices w i t h o u t adequate means o f c o o p -

f o r m o f government, even i f the people elect that aristocracy.

eration can quickly result i n cacophony, m a k i n g it impossible for

The

needs o f biopolitical production, however, directly c o n -

anyone to understand anything. As we saw w i t h regard to the m e -

flict w i t h political representation and hegemony. T h e act o f repre-

tropolis i n De Corpore 2, given the current state o f society, most

sentation, insofar as it eclipses or homogenizes singularities i n the

spontaneous encounters are infelicitous and result i n a corruption o f

construction o f identity, restricts the production o f the c o m m o n by

the c o m m o n or the production o f a negative, noxious f o r m o f it.

u n d e r m i n i n g the necessary freedom and plurality we spoke o f ear-

A l t h o u g h the equality required to advance production and foster

lier. A people might be able to conserve the existing c o m m o n , but

the expansion o f productive forces is one that is characterized by

to produce new instances o f the c o m m o n requires a multitude, w i t h

participation i n an open, expansive network o f encounters that are

its encounters, cooperation, and communication among singulari-

as free as possible from hierarchies, then, our first course o f action to

ties. T h e hegemony created by the division between the representa-

achieve this w i l l often require breaking off the conversation, sub-

tives and the represented, furthermore, is also an obstacle to the

tracting ourselves from detrimental relationships and corrupt forms

production o f the c o m m o n . N o t only do all such hierarchies under-

o f the c o m m o n . Such practices o f rupture are, i n many instances, the

mine biopolitical production, but also any instance o f hegemony or

first step toward equality.

control exerted from outside the multitude over the productive pro-

Freedom and equality also i m p l y an affirmation o f democracy

cess corrupts and restricts it.

in opposition to the political representation that forms the basis o f

D e m o c r a c y — n o t the aristocracy configured by representation

hegemony. T w o instances o f representation are most relevant here,

and hegemony—is required to foster the production o f the c o m -

w h i c h , u p o n analysis, turn out to be very closely related. First is the

m o n and the expansion o f productive forces, i n other words, to avoid

representation required to construct a people out o f a multitude. A

capital's biopolitical crises and treat its ills. T h i s democracy o f pro-

people, o f course, as Ernesto Laclau explains brilliantly, is not a natu-

ducers entails, i n addition to freedom and equality, one more essen-

306

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

PRE-SHOCKS

ALONG

THE FAULT

LINES

tial element: the power o f decision, w h i c h w o u l d organize produc-

acting significant reforms today or deviating i n any substantial way

tion, create forms o f cooperation and communication, and push

from its path o f destruction. A n d second, i f such reforms were ac-

forward innovation. T h e mythology o f the capitalist entrepreneur

tually instituted, they w o u l d , w h i l e treating capital's ills, also i m m e -

persists, although any attempt o f an individual capitalist or even the

diately point beyond capital toward a new mode o f production. This

class o f capitalists to innovate by intervening i n and organizing pro-

situation reminds us o f an o l d Y i d d i s h j o k e . Question: W h a t is the

ductive cooperation only corrupts the c o m m o n and obstructs its

difference between a crow? Answer: Its two wings are the same

production. W h a t must arise instead (and is already emerging) is an

length, except the left. Let us proceed i n this same paradoxical spirit:

entrepreneurship o f the c o m m o n , an entrepreneurship o f the multi-

working through the logic as far as we can, assuming it w i l l eventu-

tude, w h i c h functions w i t h i n a democracy o f producing subjectivi-

ally make sense, but k n o w i n g all the w h i l e it w i l l eventually collapse

ties endowed together w i t h the power o f decision.

in nonsense.

Finally, the exodus o f the multitude from the republic o f prop-

Capitalist crises today, as we have seen, have to be understood

erty, from the hierarchies o f c o m m a n d over production, and from all

in not only their objective guise—credit crunch, inflation, recession,

other social hierarchies is perhaps the most significant example o f a

soaring energy prices, falling housing prices, currency crises, eco-

c o m m o n decision. H o w is that decision to be made? Is there a vote?

logical devastation, and so forth—but also and more important their

We are not yet i n a position to describe the structures and function

subjective guise. Innumerable obstacles are stacked against produc-

o f such a democracy, but we can see clearly now, at least, that c o n -

tive subjectivities: barriers preventing access to the c o m m o n and

structing it is necessary to treat the ills o f capital and foster the ex-

corrupting it, lack o f the necessities to create together and orga-

pansion o f biopolitical production.

nize productive encounters, and so forth. T h e most urgent reforms needed are those to provide the necessities for developing the entre-

Seismic Retrofit: A Reformist Program for Capital

preneurship o f the c o m m o n and the innovation o f cooperative so-

O u r analysis has led to the conclusion that capital is o n a path o f

cial networks. W e do not expect the global aristocracy to come

destruction, the destruction o f not only others—the global environ-

asking us for advice anytime soon, but here nonetheless are some

ment and the poorest populations first o f all—but also itself. C a n

possible reforms that could constitute a program for capital.

capital be saved from its death drive? T h e last great economic thinker

T h e first set o f reforms is aimed at providing the infrastructure

to propose a successful treatment for the ills o f capital was John

necessary for biopolitical production. M o s t obvious is the need for

M a y n a r d Keynes. O n the basis o f his w o r k were developed regimes

adequate physical infrastructure, w h i c h is lacking for the majority o f

for the state regulation o f production, welfare structures for produc-

the w o r l d . In the major metropolises o f the subordinated parts o f the

ers, the stimulation o f effective demand, and numerous other reme-

world, vast populations are condemned to endure i n misery o n the

dies. W e have already seen, however, that today, i n the biopolitical

brink o f death i n poisonous environments lacking clean d r i n k i n g

era, those o l d medicines no longer w o r k and sometimes actually

water, basic sanitary conditions, electricity, access to affordable food,

contribute to the disease. B u t that does not mean that reforms are

and other physical necessities to support life. R a t h e r than b i o p o l i -

no longer possible. It is not that difficult, o n the basis o f our argu-

tics, as A c h i l l e M b e m b e suggests, this should be called a necropoli-

ment, to come up w i t h a list o f beneficial reforms, but there is clearly

ses, ruling over social death and physical death. Providing basic i n -

something paradoxical about proposing such a program. It is u n -

frastructure needs is also immediately an environmental question

likely, first o f all, that the global aristocracy w o u l d be capable o f en-

since the devastation o f the environment is a central obstacle to ac-

307

308

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

PRE-SHOCKS

ALONG

THE FAULT

LINES

cess to adequate food, clean air and water, and other needs for sur-

O n e o f the arguments for maintaining patents, for example, even

vival. Capital cannot just write off certain populations as disposable;

though they restrict access to the c o m m o n and thereby diminish

it needs everyone to be productive i n the biopolitical economy.

40

productive capacities, is that corporations need profits to support

Bare life, however, is not sufficient for biopolitical production.

research and development. It is indeed true that many types o f re-

A social and intellectual infrastructure is also required to support

search—such as i n medicine, pharmaceuticals, computer science,

productive subjectivities. In the age o f biopolitical production the

and materials science—require large investments. If the enormous

central tools are no longer the spinning l o o m or cotton g i n or metal

profits generated by patents and copyrights are taken away, some

press, but rather linguistic tools, affective tools for constructing rela-

other source o f funds must be provided, through either private or

tionships, tools for thinking, and so forth. Humans already have

public institutions, to support such research.

brains, o f course, linguistic abilities, and relationship capacities, but

In addition to reforms o f the physical, social, and immaterial

these have to be developed. That is w h y basic and advanced educa-

infrastructure, another set o f reforms must provide the freedom re-

tion is even more important i n the biopolitical economy than it was

quired for biopolitical production. A first freedom necessary is the

previously. Everyone needs to learn h o w to w o r k w i t h language,

freedom o f movement, by w h i c h we mean the freedom to migrate

codes, ideas, and affects—and moreover to w o r k w i t h others, none

w i t h i n and across national borders and also the freedom to stay i n

o f w h i c h comes naturally. Something like a global education initia-

one place. As we saw at several points i n our analysis earlier, b i o p o -

tive w o u l d have to be instituted, w h i c h provides mandatory educa-

litical productivity depends o n the ability to organize beneficial e n -

tion for all, starting w i t h literacy and w o r k i n g up to advanced edu-

counters and subtract from detrimental relationships and noxious

cation i n the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities.

41

forms o f the c o m m o n . Freedom o f movement w o u l d thus configure

As a corollary to education as a social and intellectual infra-

a freedom o f space, allowing the multitude to flow to where it can

structure, an open infrastructure o f information and culture w o u l d

be the most creative, organize the most joyful encounters, and estab-

have to be constructed to develop fully and put into practice the

lish the most productive relationships. Establishing some f o r m o f

multitude's abilities to think and cooperate w i t h others. Such an i n -

open citizenship is the only means we see to support this freedom

frastructure must include an open physical layer (including access to

and thereby expand biopolitical production.

w i r e d and wireless communications networks), an open logical layer

A second reform o f freedom regards time, and the most signifi-

(for instance, open code and protocols), and an open content layer

cant p o r t i o n o f unfree time i n our lives is spent at work. As we

(such as cultural, intellectual, and scientific works). Such a c o m m o n

found earlier, all infringement o n the autonomy o f biopolitical l a -

infrastructure w o u l d counter the mechanisms o f privatization, i n -

bor, including the c o m m a n d o f the boss, is an obstacle to productiv-

cluding patents, copyrights, and other forms o f immaterial property,

ity. (In fact i n the biopolitical era, gauging h o w m u c h time y o u are

w h i c h prevent people from engaging the reserves o f existing ideas,

forced to waste—working i n the call center, at the office desk, i n the

images, and codes to use them to produce new ones. S u c h open ac-

fields, or at the factory—is one g o o d measure o f exploitation.) A

cess to the c o m m o n also has the advantage o f ensuring that all nec-

reform that w o u l d grant freedom o f time is the establishment o f a

essary goods, such as medicine and other fruits o f scientific research,

m i n i m u m guaranteed income o n a national or global scale paid to

are available to all at affordable costs.

42

everyone regardless o f w o r k . Separating income from w o r k w o u l d

A n o t h e r necessary infrastructure reform is to provide sufficient

allow everyone more control over time. M a n y authors, including

funds to meet the technological requirements o f advanced research.

ourselves, have argued for a guaranteed i n c o m e o n the basis o f eco-

309

PRE-SHOCKS 310

BEYOND

ALONG

THE FAULT

LINES

CAPITAL?

n o m i c justice (wealth is produced across a widely dispersed social network, and therefore the wage that compensates it should be equally social) and social welfare (since nothing close to full e m ployment can be achieved i n the current economy, income must be provided also for those left w i t h o u t work). Here, however, we need to recognize h o w ensuring that the entire population has the basic m i n i m u m for life is i n the interests o f capital. Granting the m u l t i tude autonomy and control over time is essential to foster productivity i n the biopolitical economy.

43

T h e freedom required for biopolitical production also includes the power to construct social relationships and create autonomous social institutions. O n e possible reform to develop such capacities is the establishment o f mechanisms o f participatory democracy at all levels o f government to allow the multitude to learn social cooperation and self-rule. As Thomas Jefferson argues, participating i n government is a pedagogy i n self-rule, developing peoples capacities and whetting their appetites for more. Democracy is something y o u can learn only by d o i n g .

44

These are just a few o f the reforms necessary to save capitalist production, and as we said earlier, we have no reason to believe that the global aristocracy that rules over economic relations is w i l l i n g or able to institute them, even w h e n facing enormous financial and economic crises. R e f o r m s w i l l come about only through struggle, only w h e n capital is forced to accept them. Innumerable struggles demanding the physical and immaterial infrastructure for social life are already under way, as is too a struggle for the freedom and autonomy o f the multitude. These w i l l have to develop and intensify to achieve reforms. Some readers might at this point begin to doubt our revolutionary intentions. W h y are we suggesting reforms to save capital? Does that not just delay the revolution? W e are w o r k i n g here w i t h a different n o t i o n o f transition. O u r s is different, obviously, from the collapse theories that, promoting the slogan " T h e worse things are, the better things are," envision the end o f capitalist rule resulting from catastrophic crises, followed by a new economic order that

somehow rises w h o l e out o f its ashes. It is also different from the notion o f socialist transition that foresees a transfer o f wealth and control from the private to the public, increasing state regulation, control, and management o f social production. T h e k i n d o f transition we are w o r k i n g w i t h instead requires the g r o w i n g autonomy o f the multitude from both private and public control; the metamorphosis o f social subjects through education and training i n cooperation, communication, and organizing social encounters; and thus a progressive accumulation o f the c o m m o n . This is h o w capital creates its o w n gravediggers: pursuing its o w n interests and trying to preserve its o w n survival, it must foster the increasing power and aut o n o m y o f the productive multitude. A n d w h e n that accumulation o f powers crosses a certain threshold, the multitude w i l l emerge w i t h the ability autonomously to rule c o m m o n wealth.

311

DE

HOMINE

2: C R O S S

THE

THRESHOLD!

talent, relations w i t h government officials, and other immaterial assets. Quantifying g o o d w i l l and measuring other intangible assets is thus an extremely difficult operation that torments accountants. In fact the value o f a company i n c l u d i n g its intangible assets is deter-

DE H O M I N E 2 : C R O S S T H E T H R E S H O L D !

m i n e d most often by the evaluations that stock exchanges, banks, sellers and buyers, various entrepreneurs i n the same sector, rating agencies, and the industrialists and brokers o f the immaterial agree upon. T h e value o f a company and its intangible assets appears to be

If a man could write a book on Ethics which really was a book on Ethics, this book would, with an explosion, destroy all the other books in the world. —Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Lecture on Ethics"

a monetary materialization o f the functions o f the market.

46

So is it

a question o f value as g o o d w i l l versus value as labor? T h i s alternative w o u l d be laughable had the financial markets not already made it their o w n and contemporary capitalism adapted to it. It could a l most make one question whether there still is any labor-power i n production today. Does wealth really flow from the brain o f the

W h a t is the value o f a company i n the postindustrial era?

masters? N o , o f course it doesn't. W h y , then, instead o f m o c k i n g

Traditionally the value o f an enterprise was established by calculat-

notions o f g o o d w i l l and demystifying intangible values, do we take

i n g the cost o f its initial outlay and adding it to labor costs, the

them so seriously?

amount paid for materials, plant maintenance, transportation o f

In order to address the question o f intangible value we need

goods, and so forth. These might be complex calculations, but ev-

to take a b r i e f detour through traditional conceptions o f the labor

erything could fit i n the columns o f double-entry bookkeeping.

theory o f value. In the Marxist tradition, o f w h i c h we see ourselves

Thomas Gradgrind, the soulless factory owner o f Charles Dickens's

part, the theory o f value takes two forms. First, it is a theory o f ab-

Hard Times, can i n this way confidently quantify all facets o f life:

stract labor, w h i c h is present i n all commodities i n so far as labor is

" w i t h a rule and a pair o f scales, and the multiplication tables always

the c o m m o n substance o f all productive activity. Marxists analyze

i n his picket . . . ready to weigh and measure any parcel o f human

h o w this qualitative conception is transformed into a quantitative

45

nature, and tell y o u exactly what it comes to." A l l value could be

n o t i o n o f the law o f value centered o n the problem o f the measure

assessed w i t h precision and, as the classics o f political economy tell

o f the value o f labor. T h e magnitude o f value expresses the link be-

us, all value traced back to labor as its source.Value thus depended

tween a certain c o m m o d i t y and the labor time necessary to pro-

o n the ability to discipline labor and measure its efforts, the very

duce it, w h i c h can be expressed i n units o f "simple labor."The fun-

material efforts o f thousands o f workers and the harshness o f orga-

damental problem posed by this quantitative theory o f value,

nized c o m m a n d i n manufacture.

according to Paul Sweezy, is to seek the laws that regulate the allo-

Today the value o f a company depends to an increasing de-

cation o f the labor force to the various branches o f production i n a

gree o n immaterial assets such as " g o o d w i l l " and other intangibles,

society o f c o m m o d i t y producers. " T o use a m o d e r n expression,"

w h i c h can at times be created and destroyed extraordinarily quickly.

Sweezy explains, "the law o f value is essentially a theory o f general

Economists define g o o d w i l l as the value derived from a company's

equilibrium, developed i n the first instance w i t h reference to s i m -

reputation, position i n the market, employee relations, managerial

ple c o m m o d i t y production and later o n adapted to capitalism."

47

313

314

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

DE

HOMINE

2: C R O S S

THE

THRESHOLD!

B e h i n d every particular form assumed by labor i n determinate i n -

capitalist development as capital produces new forms o f organiza-

stances lies a global social labor-power capable o f being transferred

tion i n the postindustrial era.

from one use to another i n accordance w i t h social needs, the i m -

48

This process o f going beyond the law o f value, however,

portance and development o f w h i c h are dependent—in the last i n -

brings back again and deepens all the contradictions it originally

stance^—on society's ability to produce wealth.

raised. T h e first o f these is the opposition o f "simple labor" to

T h e law o f value also takes a second form, w h i c h regards the

"skilled and complex labor."The latter cannot be reduced to a m u l -

value o f labor as a figure o f antagonism, as the subject o f an open

tiplier o f the former, w h i c h is regarded as a unit o f measure. Here

and ever present rupture i n the system rather than an element o f

lies the o r i g i n o f the nonsensical claim that the greatest use-value

equilibrium. T h r o u g h o u t Marx's oeuvre, the concept o f labor-

o f skilled labor (that is to say, its highest productivity level) can be

power is regarded as an element o f production that valorizes rela-

deduced from the value o f its product rather than explained by the

tively independently o f the functioning o f the e q u i l i b r i u m sought

"difference" inherent to the labor employed i n production.The

by the first version o f the law o f value. T h i s means that, instead o f

second contradiction is the opposition between "productive" and

being idealized as measure, the " u n i t y " is found i n a relation to

"unproductive" labor. U n l i k e unproductive labor, the classic defini-

"necessary labor," w h i c h , rather than a fixed quantity, is a dynamic

tion tells us, productive labor directly produces capital. T h i s defini-

element o f the system. Historically, necessary labor is determined

tion, however, is terribly reductive o f the n o t i o n o f productivity

by struggle and built o n the ever-growing needs o f the proletariat:

and, more generally, productive force. Productive labor, i f such a

it is the product o f the struggle against w o r k and the effort to trans-

term is to be used, must be defined by its inscription i n social c o -

form productive activity. A second point o f v i e w thus emerges

operation rather than i n relation to the quantity o f units o f simple

w h i c h considers the law o f value as a m o t o r o f constitutional dis-

labor that it assembles, and the more labor is subsumed under cap-

e q u i l i b r i u m rather than e q u i l i b r i u m o f the capitalist system. T h e

ital, the more this is the case. C o o p e r a t i o n and the c o m m o n make

law o f value, from this perspective, is really part o f the law o f sur-

labor productive, and cooperation grows as the productive forces

plus value insofar as it helps generate a constitutional crisis o f e q u i -

develop and increasingly become c o m m o n assets. Finally, the third

l i b r i u m . W h e n the law o f value is applied to capitalist development

contradiction is that biopolitical labor-power, i n c l u d i n g intellectual,

as a whole, it generates crisis—not only crises o f circulation and

scientific, communicative, and affective activity, is reducible neither

disproportion (that is, phenomena that are reducible to the m o d e l

to the sum o f simple labor nor to cooperation (however complex it

o f systemic equilibrium), but also crises caused by struggles and the

might be). Biopolitical labor is characterized by creativity—creativ-

subjective disequilibrium o f the cycle, w h i c h result from the impos-

ity as an expression o f the c o m m o n .

sibility o f containing the growth o f demand, i n other words, the

These contradictions have today become real, present, and sig-

needs and desires o f productive subjects. In this framework the law

nificant, w h i c h is to say they no longer merely represent contradic-

o f value/surplus value appears as both the law o f the continual de-

tory tendencies i n the system. As capitalism developed, these c o n -

structuring and restructuring o f the cycle o f capitalist development

tradictions have become concrete aporiae.The distinction between

and the law o f composition and recomposition o f the multitude as

simple and complex labor may have been valid for the historical

power o f transformation. T h e labor theory o f value defined by clas-

phase o f capitalist development that M a r x defined as simple c o o p -

sical political economy is thus being extinguished i n the process o f

eration, but already i n the phase o f manufacture it becomes an apo-

315

316

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

DE

HOMINE

2: C R O S S

THE

THRESHOLD!

ria. Similarly, the distinction between productive and unproductive

tive relevance o f this w o r l d o f historical and ontological over-

labor w h i c h had some validity for manufacture becomes an aporia

flowing.

in the p e r i o d o f large-scale industry. A n d now, i n the postindustrial

To determine what it means for biopolitics to exceed, we

era, the productive value o f biopolitical labor has become hege-

need to establish the difference between this figure of non-measure

m o n i c through the inclusion rather than exclusion o f every other

and the traditional models proposed to measure value. In the b i o -

element o f production. Because o f this evolution it is clearly impos-

political context, value overflows any threshold o f political and eco-

sible to regard the law o f value (in its classical formulation) as a law

n o m i c control. Its measure cannot be derived either from the quan-

of measure o f the global productivity o f the economic system and as

tity o f time dedicated to the necessary reproduction o f labor-power

the rule o f its equilibrium. Contemporary attempts to reinvent

as a w h o l e or from the ensuing social order. Biopolitical value is

measure i n terms o f market values, g o o d w i l l , intangible assets, and

grounded o n the c o m m o n o f cooperation. T h e needs interpreted

the like demonstrate the inadequacy o f the law o f value for mea-

by valorization arise out o f subjects and i n turn continually trans-

suring productivity, but they do indicate a real change i n the nature

f o r m them: the terrain o f the c o m m o n is animated by the produc-

49

o f productive power, w h i c h is still based o n labor. E v e n though

tion o f subjectivity. " I f two come together and unite their strength,"

measure remains indispensable for capital, all o f the dispositifs i n -

Spinoza asserts, "they have more power, and consequently more

tended to measure labor and value—such as productive and unpro-

right over nature than either one alone: and the greater the number

ductive labor, labor-time and the organization o f the w o r k i n g day,

so j o i n e d i n alliance, the more right they w i l l together possess."

the hegemony o f labor composition a n d / o r industry over production as a whole, and w o r k i n g wages and social income—are n o w i n crisis and cannot be applied i n biopolitical society. A t this point we need a new theory o f value. B u t w i l l it really be a theory o f value? In the sequence o f discussions at the end o f

50

Value i n the current situation must refer to life activity as a whole, and therefore the immeasurability and overflowing o f productive labor is a process that traverses the entire biopolitical fabric o f society.

51

Crossing the threshold gives us a first definition o f the process

each part o f this book, we have tracked figures i n w h i c h labor-

o f biopolitical exceeding, w h i c h overflows the barriers that the tra-

value exceeds the flows o f the economy and power. In the first we

dition o f m o d e r n political economy built to control labor-power

insisted o n h o w the biopolitical event exceeds the continuity o f de-

and the production o f value. In epistemological terms, exceeding is

velopment, temporal routine, and the linear unfolding o f history. In

a linguistic act o f rupture and innovation, w h i c h is not satisfied

the second we emphasized that biopolitical reason and the produc-

w i t h recomposing the continuity o f language but instead reveals an

tion o f knowledge exceed the instrumental norms o f knowledge

accumulated and still unexpressed power o f meanings, o n the one

and power construed i n modernity. In the third we discussed h o w

hand, and an innovative expression o f signs, o n the other.

love as a constituent social drive exceeds all constituted powers. In

ical terms, or rather what we w o u l d call the biophysics o f bodies,

the Intermezzo, w h i c h functions i n line w i t h these discussions, we

exceeding is the continual metamorphosis o f modes o f living and

insisted o n the fact that love, w i t h its overflowing powers, also re-

the ever more accelerated invention o f new forms o f social life i n

quires a training to guard against love gone bad and needs a force to

c o m m o n . In the history o f materialist philosophy, the physical i n -

52

In phys-

combat evil. Finally, i n the fourth we began to give concrete figure

novation o f bodies was always presented as a clinamen, the element

to the exceeding o f the multitude i n its production o f the c o m m o n

that intervenes i n the fall o f atoms to make them deviate from their

i n the metropolis. N o w we are i n a position to present the subjec-

singular course and thus determine the event. E x c e e d i n g should be

317

318

BEYOND

DE

CAPITAL?

HOMINE

2: C R O S S

THE T H R E S H O L D !

understood as a dispositif, a dynamic o f desire that not only recog-

is already regarded as a historically determined innovation, that is,

nizes its o w n formation but also experiments w i t h it and intervenes

constituent activity. W i l h e l m Dilthey aptly sums it up w h e n he

in the process. Finally, i n ethics, w h e n viewed as an experience o f

writes, "Everything man does i n this socio-historical reality is pro-

training i n love, this exceeding explodes i n all its clarity—as W i t t -

duced by putting w i l l into play; i n w i l l , the end becomes the agent

genstein says i n the epigraph to this chapter—no longer as the

under the guise o f the motive." M i c h e l de Certeau similarly

product o f the biopolitical process but as its performative m a -

shows us h o w the dispositifs at w o r k i n Foucault's historical research

chine.

53

56

provoke an explosion o f life events, w h i c h build for the future, "like

In the history o f philosophy there is a continuing legacy that,

laughter."

57

B u t we need to go further. W e are at the stage o f the

although continually repressed, defends the affirmation o f value as

explosion, as Wittgenstein defines it: a singular, ethical, new, and i r -

an expression o f life and interprets it as a power o f creation. T h e

reducible determination.

principle o f an exceeding o f w i l l over instrumental knowledge has,

A l l this means that a theory o f value can and should be c o n -

from ancient Greece onwards, faced strong opposition, confronted

strued as a dispositif that, breaking away from determinism, redefines

w i t h the intellectual hierarchies imposed o n life by dogmatic p h i -

the temporality and spaces o f life i n creative terms. To exceed is a

losophy. B u t this alternative stream i n the history o f philosophy, o f

creative activity. A new theory o f value has to be based o n the p o w -

resistances and lines o f flight, lives on. We can recognize it, for ex-

ers o f economic, political, and social innovation that today are ex-

ample, i n Augustine's affirmation o f a free w i l l that elevates man to

pressions o f the multitude's desire. Value is created w h e n resistance

the threshold o f transforming being itself. Against the intellectual-

becomes overflowing, creative, and boundless and thus w h e n h u -

ism that identifies truth w i t h instrumental rationality, Augustine af-

man activity exceeds and determines a rupture i n the balance o f

firms that free w i l l permeates everything: "Voluntas est quippe i n

power.Value is created, consequendy, w h e n the relations between

omnibus; i m o omnes nihil aliud quam voluntates sunt." W e can

the constituent elements o f the biopolitical process and the struc-

also recognize it, as Ernst B l o c h reminds us, i n the "Aristotelian

ture o f biopower are thrown out o f balance. W h e n control over de-

54

Left" o f Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn R u s h d (Averroes), w h o i n -

velopment, w h i c h the state and the collective organisms o f capital

sist o n the creativity o f matter and discover, w i t h the eductio for-

assume to define their o w n legitimacy, is no longer able to h o l d

marum, the human powers to interpret and develop the forces o f

back the resistance o f the multitude, labor-power, and the whole set

life.

55

F r o m Duns Scotus to Nicholas o f Cusa, from Spinoza to N i -

etzsche and Deleuze, we could chart the development o f these dis-

o f social singularities, only then w i l l there be value. This hypothesis leads to a series o f political positions. First and

positifs o f exceeding and ethical performativity.This alternative

foremost is labor-power against exploitation. T h e elements that deter-

genealogy culminates, perhaps, w i t h an understanding o f love

m i n e the disequilibrium o f capitalist c o m m a n d are insubordination,

as w i l l to power, that is, the ontological production o f c o m m o n

sabotage, industrial jacquerie, demands for basic income, the libera-

subjectivities.

tion and organization o f the intellectual labor o f the multitude, and

We still, however, need a new theory o f value that is grounded

so forth. Capitalist power can track and govern this disequilibrium

in exceeding, crossing the threshold. We should note, first o f all, that

i n either a static or a dynamic manner. T h e choice between differ-

we are not expecting such a theory to reveal value as something

ent techniques o f containment and/or governance is dictated by

other than the perception o f a historical event. In the most power-

the intensity o f resistances. W h e n the exceeding forces o f the m u l t i -

ful theoretical experience that runs from M a r x to Nietzsche, value

tude w i n , the system enters a state o f crisis, and repression can be

319

320

BEYOND

DE

CAPITAL?

HOMINE

2: C R O S S

THE

THRESHOLDI

imposed only at the most advanced and sophisticated levels o f cap-

ocratic exercise o f the production o f the c o m m o n . It w o u l d be use-

italist organization, or rather, starting from processes o f reform i n

ful to reclaim an o l d adage for ourselves as communists: freedom is

the structures o f power.

58

T h e second articulation o f dispute, w h i c h poses the concept

not just a political value but above all an economic or, better, a b i o political value. Starting from these political considerations, we can

o f exceeding activity from the perspective o f resisting subjectivities,

begin to account for the exceeding movement o f social activity and

positions singularity against identity. W e mentioned earlier and w i l l

c o m m o n labor. T h e ontology o f the present indicated by the b i o -

return i n Part 6 to analyze h o w identity represents a fundamental

politics o f production needs to be complemented, as we w i l l see i n

instrument o f capitalist mystification and repression. In this context

Part 6, by a radically democratic structure.

it acts to neutralize or crush the developments produced by singu-

We are proposing a steep path, but one that is already being

larities i n the construction o f the multitude and the c o m m o n

traveled. W h e n studying the development o f worker resistance to

through a dialectics o f identity. Singularities, however, can never be

industrial capitalism, M a r x traces a similar process o f training: "It

reduced to identity, just as the multitude can never be made a unity.

took time and experience before workers learnt to distinguish be-

T h i r d , the hypothesis poses the common against the republic of

tween machinery and its employment by capital, and transfer their

property. W h e n labor and life exceed, they always point toward the

attacks from the material instruments o f production to the f o r m o f

construction o f the c o m m o n , w h i c h is the only sign o f productivity

society w h i c h utilises these instruments."

today. T h e republic o f property, however, tries to subjugate, exploit,

ian subjects o f biopolitical production also have to learn where to

and privatize the c o m m o n i n order to reallocate it i n accordance

direct their attacks, and this is made easier only by the fact that the

w i t h the laws o f individual ownership and liberal political represen-

multitude is n o w established i n the c o m m o n , and capital is increas-

tation. This project asphyxiates singularities and neutralizes the

ingly recognizable as merely an obstacle.

power o f the c o m m o n . T h e bourgeois identity politics o f capitalist exploitation and republican transcendence is really a necropolitics or thanatopolitics. B i o p o w e r reacts everywhere and always against the exceeding activity o f biopolitical production. W h a t , then, is the definition o f value i n economic terms? T h i s is a meaningless question unless we can make economics into b i o economics w i t h reference also to biopolitics and bio-society, as well as, obviously, bio-resistance, bio-revolution, and even bio-happiness! Whereas capitalists have destroyed economics by turning it into mathematics, it is up to us to b r i n g it back to the terrain o f life and the ancient meaning o f oikonomia. E c o n o m i c value is defined by the overflowing, exceeding process accomplished by cooperative activity (intellectual, manual, affective, or communicative) against and beyond the capitalist regulation o f society exercised through the financial conventions o f the market. If the measure o f value is still to have any meaning, it must be determined through the d e m -

59

Contemporary proletar-

321

PART 6

REVOLUTION

We have frequently printed the word Democracy.Yet I cannot too often repeat this is a word the real gist of which still sleeps, still unawaken'd, notwithstanding the resonance and the many angry tempests out of which its syllables have come, from pen or tongue. It is a great word, whose history, I suppose, remains unwritten, because that history remains to be enacted. —Walt Whitman, "Democratic Vistas"

6.1

REVOLUTIONARY

PARALLELISM

I have no race except that which is forced upon me. I have no country except that to which I'm obliged to belong. I have no traditions. I'm free. I have only the future. —Richard Wright, Pagan Spain

As a mestizo I have no country, my homeland cast me o u t . . . . (As a lesbian I have no race, my own people disclaim me; but I am all races because there is the queer in me in all races.) —Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands

I am of an inferior race for all eternity. —Arthur Rimbaud, " A Season in Hell"

Identity Politics in Purgatory Identity politics has had a lot o f bad press lately. O n the one hand, the dominant reflex o f the R i g h t (as well as significant portions o f the Left) is to maintain and police an ideological "identity-blind" standpoint by accusing anyone w h o speaks o f the social hierarchies, segregations, and injuries o f identity o f having created them. T h e election o f Barack O b a m a as U . S . president has only reinforced claims that we have entered a "postracial" era. M a n y o n the radical Left, o n the other hand, and more significantly for our purposes, critique identity politics for creating obstacles to revolution. T h e recognition and affirmation o f identities—class, race, gender, sexuality, even at times religious identities—-can reveal social wounds, the argument goes, demand redress o f social ills, and create weapons for revolt and emancipation, but cannot operate the social metamor-

326

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTIONARY

PARALLELISM

327

phosis, especially the self-transformation, necessary for revolution.

In our reading o f the revolutionary projects i n each o f the

A n d yet all revolutionary movements are grounded i n identity. Here

identity domains we find three c o m m o n tasks. T h e first is to reveal

is the c o n u n d r u m we face: revolutionary politics has to start from

the violence o f identity as property and thereby i n some sense reap-

identity but cannot end there. T h e point is not to pose a division

propriate that identity. T h e "primal scene" o f African A m e r i c a n

between identity politics and revolutionary politics but, o n the c o n -

identity i n this respect, for example, might be considered A u n t

trary, to follow the parallel revolutionary streams o f thought and

Hester's scream: Frederick Douglass recounts i n his autobiography

practice w i t h i n identity politics, w h i c h all, perhaps paradoxically, a i m

h o w slave identity and blackness i n general are rooted for h i m i n the

toward an abolition o f identity. R e v o l u t i o n a r y thought, i n other

terror o f hearing his aunt's cries as she is w h i p p e d by the master.

words, should not shun identity politics but instead must w o r k

R e c o g n i z i n g the fact o f blackness, as W . E . B . D u Bois and Frantz

through it and learn from it.

3

Fanon also testify i n autobiographical accounts, is a discovery not

It is inevitable that identity should become a primary vehicle

just o f difference but also and primarily o f collective subordination

for struggle w i t h i n and against the republic o f property since i d e n -

and violence. A n d yet the violence o f identity is largely invisible, es-

tity itself is based o n property and sovereignty. O n a first level, the

pecially to those not subject to it, m a k i n g it all the more difficult to

rule o f property is a means o f creating identity and maintaining h i -

contest. This is one meaning o f D u Bois's famous claim that a veil

erarchy. Property is so profoundly entangled w i t h race, for example,

cordons off the subordinated from the v i e w o f dominant society.

not only because i n many parts o f the w o r l d the history o f property

T h e y are mysteriously hidden from sight, invisible, even w h e n they

rights is deeply embedded i n the sagas o f slave property but also be-

are the ones w h o i n broad daylight clean the houses, care for the

cause the rights to o w n and dispose o f property are racialized, both

children, produce the goods, and i n general sustain the lives o f the

w i t h and w i t h o u t the aid o f legalized schemes o f segregation. S i m i -

dominant. A n initial task o f insubordination, then, w h i c h is the most

larly, throughout the w o r l d male property privileges define female

widespread f o r m o f identity politics today, requires attacking this

subordination, from notions o f wife as property and the traffic i n

invisibility, tearing d o w n or rising above the veil, and revealing the

w o m e n to inheritance laws and more subtle forms o f gendered

structures o f hierarchy that run throughout society.

property. O n a second and more profound level, however, identity

T h e struggle to make visible the violences o f identity may be

is property. N o t i o n s o f the sovereign individual and possessive i n -

even more urgent today, i n an era w h e n the dominant discourse, es-

dividualism, w h i c h constitute the seventeenth-

eighteenth-

pecially i n N o r t h A m e r i c a and Europe, proclaims race, gender, and

century origins o f bourgeois ideology, pose identity as property i n a

class hierarchies to have been overcome. Yes, there were regrettable

philosophical sense: " E v e r y m a n has a property" writes J o h n Locke,

social hierarchies, the story goes, there was slavery and J i m C r o w

" o f his o w n person."' Identity also functions as property i n material

laws, there was a generalized subordination o f w o m e n under patri-

terms. Whiteness is property, for instance, C h e r y l Harris explains,

archy, repression and genocide o f native populations, the oppression

inasmuch as "the law has accorded 'holders' o f whiteness the same

o f workers i n factories and sweatshops—but since all that is n o w

and

privileges and benefits accorded holders o f other types o f property."

2

past, society must be "identity blind." A black man i n the W h i t e

T h o u g h not alienable, like most forms o f property identity is title

House is posed as the ultimate confirmation o f this discourse. T h e

and possession that wields the powers o f exclusion and hierarchy.

mandate o f feminism, antiracist activism, worker struggles, and other

Identity is a weapon o f the republic o f property, but one that can be

identity politics are over, according to this view, and the social d i v i -

turned against it.

sions o f identity are only perpetuated by those w h o continue to

328

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTIONARY

PARALLELISM

speak o f them. That is h o w those w h o promote consciousness o f

T h e violence and hierarchy o f identity are not, o f course,

social inequalities along identity lines are cast as creating class, race,

merely a matter o f consciousness (or bigotry and prejudice); rather,

gender, and other identity divisions. A n d as a result we are increas-

like other forms o f property, identity maintains hierarchy primarily

ingly facing paradoxical forms o f " c o l o r - b l i n d " racism, "gender-

through social structures and institutions. T h e initial positive task o f

b l i n d " sexism, "class-blind" class oppression, and so forth.

4

identity politics i n the various domains is thus to combat blindness

C r i t i c a l race scholars i n the U n i t e d States, for example, explain

and make visible the brutally real but too often hidden mechanisms

that by an ironic turn, a version o f the civil rights legal paradigm has

and regimes o f social subordination, segmentation, and exclusion

been victorious i n the sense that, i n the name o f antiracism, today's

that operate along identity lines. M a k i n g visible the subordinations

prevailing dominant legal discourse mandates "race-blind" perspec-

o f identity as property implies, i n a certain sense, reappropriating

tives i n legal thought and practice. T h i s legal blindness to race, they

identity. T h i s first task o f identity politics might thus be placed i n

argue, simply hides continuing racial hierarchies and makes them

the position that the expropriation of the expropriators fills i n traditional

more difficult to confront w i t h legal instruments.

5

Liberal oligar-

communist discourse.

chies throughout Latin A m e r i c a have since independence mobilized

Too often, however, identity politics begins and ends w i t h this

a similarly "race-blind" ideology, attempting to Hispanicize the i n -

first task, sometimes c o m b i n i n g it w i t h pallid declarations o f pride

digenous populations w i t h the goal o f eradicating the " I n d i a n " —

and affirmation. Identity projects for revealing social violence and

through education, intermarriage, and migration (when not through

hierarchy r u n aground w h e n they become wedded to injury, creat-

physical annihilation)—such that the vestiges o f indigenous civiliza-

ing, W e n d y B r o w n claims, a group investment i n maintaining the

tions w o u l d be relegated to the museums and remain only as tourist

injured status w i t h an attitude o f ressentiment. Identity is regarded as

curiosities. Such discourses o f national integration have not, o f

a possession, we might say, and is defended as property. W h a t is most

course, eliminated or i n most cases even lessened racial subordina-

significantly missing from such identity politics, as B r o w n insists, is

tion but rather have only made the continuing colonization less vis-

the drive for freedom that should be their basis. Some o f the most

6

7

ible and thus more difficult to combat. M a r k e t ideology, to give

exciting recent scholarship i n feminist theory and black studies, i n

one more example, is "class b l i n d " i n the sense that it views each

fact, argues for a return to the discourse o f freedom, w h i c h used to

individual as a free and equal c o m m o d i t y owner w h o comes to mar-

animate the center o f feminism and black radicalism. Fred M o t e n ,

ket w i t h goods to sell: proletarians w i t h their labor-power and cap-

for instance, conceives blackness as not (or not only) the mark o f

italists bearing money and property. B u t this market ideology masks

subjection and subordination but a position o f power and agency.

the hierarchy and c o m m a n d involved i n the labor process itself,

T h e "performative essence o f blackness" is the resistance to enslave-

along w i t h the " e c o n o m i c " violence o f property and poverty and

ment or, more generally, the quest for freedom." M o t e n is to a cer-

the "extraeconomic" violence o f conquest, imperialism, exclusion,

tain extent echoing D u Bois's frequent reference to the powers o f

and the social control that creates and maintains class divisions. W e

emancipation as one o f the special gifts o f black folk and C e d r i c

are confident that readers are already quite familiar w i t h these and

Robinson's claims that freedom and power are central to the entire

parallel arguments

i n other identity domains, i n c l u d i n g hidden

tradition o f black radicalism. Linda Z e r i l l i , i n parallel fashion, at-

forms o f sexual violence that w o m e n suffer, sometimes under the

tempts to reclaim feminism as a practice o f freedom, thus return-

cover o f marriage and the family, and the violence o f h o m o p h o b i a

i n g to some powerful currents o f early second wave feminism. A

and heteronormativity.

freedom-centered feminism, i n Zerilli's view, is concerned not so

9

329

330

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTIONARY

PARALLELISM

m u c h w i t h k n o w i n g (and revealing, for example, the ways i n w h i c h

halt i n this way is characterized by nationalism, understood i n a

w o m e n are socially subordinated) but rather w i t h d o i n g — " w i t h

rather broad way as the effort to render identity sovereign. Black

transforming, w o r l d - b u i l d i n g , beginning anew."

10

T h e tradition o f

nationalism i n the U n i t e d States, for example, w h i c h takes inspira-

revolutionary M a r x i s m , to consider one more parallel example, pres-

tion from the anticolonial struggles and their goals o f national l i b -

ents proletarian identity as a weapon against capital and a motor o f

eration, is seldom configured i n territorial terms but is aimed rather

class struggle, not only by revealing the violence and suffering o f the

at the sovereignty o f the racial identity, w h i c h implies separation and

w o r k i n g class but also by constructing a figure o f workers' power

self-determination, controlling the economy o f the community, p o -

capable o f striking back at capital and gaining freedom from it. T h e

l i c i n g the community, and so forth. It is easy to think o f certain

second task o f identity politics, then, is to proceed from indignation

streams o f feminist politics that are characterized similarly by gender

to rebellion against the structures o f domination using the subordi-

nationalism, or gay and lesbian politics by gay and lesbian national-

nated identity as a weapon i n the quest for freedom—thus filling the

isms, and there is a l o n g and complex history o f worker politics that

traditional role o f the conquest of state power.

takes the f o r m o f worker nationalism. T h e metaphor o f nation, i n

This second task o f identity politics, the struggle for freedom,

each o f the cases, refers to the relative separation o f the c o m m u n i t y

works against the risk o f attachment to injury and focus o n v i c t i m -

from the society as a w h o l e and suggests the construction o f a sover-

ization but does not guarantee that the process w i l l not become

eign people. A l l these nationalisms, i n contrast to the multiculturalist

fixed o n identity and g r i n d to a halt. W h e n freedom is configured as

struggles for recognition, are combative formations that constantly

the emancipation o f an existing subject, identity ceases to be a war

rebel against structures o f subordination. Such nationalisms do, h o w -

machine and becomes a form o f sovereignty. Identity as property,

ever, end up reinforcing the fixity o f identity. Every nationalism is a

however rebellious, can always be accommodated w i t h i n the r u l i n g

disciplinary formation that enforces obedience to the rules o f i d e n -

structures o f the republic o f property.

tity, p o l i c i n g the behavior o f members o f the c o m m u n i t y and their

O n e version o f identity politics that brings the process to a halt

separation from others. F o r reasons like these, some o f the most rev-

in this way, w h i c h was particularly widespread i n the 1990s, poses it

olutionary advocates o f Black Nationalism, such as M a l c o l m X and

as a project o f recognition, often guided by the logic o f Hegelian

H u e y N e w t o n , eventually move away from nationalist positions, as

dialectics. T h e struggle for recognition i n the w o r k o f some o f its

we w i l l see shortly. T h e key to carrying through the first two tasks o f

most prominent proponents, such as Charles Taylor and A x e l H o n -

identity toward a revolutionary politics is to make sure that render-

neth, aims at the expression o f existing identities, the affirmation o f

ing violence and subordination visible, rebelling against them, and

their authenticity, and ultimately the construction o f a multicultural

struggling for freedom do not merely come back to identity and

framework o f mutual respect and tolerance for all identity expres-

stop there. To become revolutionary, the politics o f identity has to

sions. B y substituting morality for politics i n this way, recognition

find a means to keep m o v i n g forward.

reduces the quest for freedom to a project o f expression and toler-

T h e terminological distinction between emancipation and libera-

ance. Here Marx's critique o f Hegel's dialectic is once again useful: it

tion is crucial here: whereas emancipation strives for the freedom o f

merely affirms what exists rather than creating the new. Identity thus

identity, the freedom to be who you really are, liberation aims at the

ceases to be a means and becomes an e n d .

11

A n o t h e r version o f identity politics that brings the process to a

freedom o f self-determination and self-transformation, the freedom to determine what you can become. Politics fixed o n identity i m m o b i -

331

332

REVOLUTIONARY

REVOLUTION

PARALLELISM

lizes the production o f subjectivity; liberation instead requires e n -

mately the abolition o f the worker does not mean the end o f p r o -

gaging and taking control o f the production o f subjectivity, keeping

duction and innovation but rather the invention, beyond capital, o f

it m o v i n g forward.

as yet unimagined relations o f production that allow and facilitate an 13

expansion o f our creative p o w e r s . T h i s movement beyond workers'

Revolution Is Monstrous

identity summarizes and carries forward the first two tasks, m a k i n g

A third political task is necessary i n order to support the first two

visible the structural and institutional forms o f violence and hierar-

tasks, keep the rebellious function o f identity m o v i n g forward, and

chy that determine their subordination as workers and struggling for

carry identity politics toward a revolutionary project: to strive for its

freedom from them. There is no r o o m here, o f course, for recogni-

o w n abolition. T h e self-abolition o f identity is the key to under-

tion or affirmation o f worker identity and the possession o f identity

standing h o w revolutionary politics can begin w i t h identity but not

as property except as a weapon toward its abolition. T h e project for

end up there. T h i s paradoxical process might sound like a dialectical

the abolition o f identity thus fills the traditional role o f the abolition

negation, but really, as we w i l l see, it is a strictly positive movement

of property and the abolition of the state. In order for revolutionary

o f self-transformation and metamorphosis. This is the criterion, fur-

c o m m u n i s m to be a project o f not emancipation but liberation—

thermore, that distinguishes the revolutionary streams o f feminism,

not emancipation of w o r k but liberation from w o r k — i t must launch

race politics, class politics, and other identity politics from all the

a process o f self-transformation beyond worker identity.

nonrevolutionary versions.

T h i s formulation helps clarify the distinction between revolu-

T h e revolutionary communist tradition gives us perhaps the

tionary and nonrevolutionary forms o f class politics. R e v o l u t i o n a r y

clearest example for understanding this paradoxical proposition. T h e

politics are not aimed only at the amelioration o f worker conditions

proletariat is the first truly revolutionary class i n human history, ac-

w i t h i n capitalist social structures. B y attaining better w o r k c o n d i -

cording to this tradition, insofar as it is bent o n its o w n abolition as a

tions, higher wages, enhanced social services, greater representation

class. T h e bourgeoisie seeks continually to preserve itself, as d i d the

i n government, and other reforms, workers can achieve recognition

aristocracy and all previous r u l i n g classes. " I n order to struggle

and perhaps even emancipation but o n l y by preserving their i d e n -

against capital," M a r i o Tronti writes, "the w o r k i n g class must strug-

tity as workers. R e v o l u t i o n a r y class politics must destroy the struc-

gle against itself inasmuch as it is capital... .Workers' struggle against

tures and institutions o f worker subordination and thus abolish the

work, struggle o f the worker against himself"—identity politics, i n

identity o f worker itself, setting i n m o t i o n the production o f subjec-

other words, aimed at the abolition o f one's o w n identity.' T h i s

tivity and a process o f social and institutional innovation. A revolu-

communist proposition is not as paradoxical as it first appears, since

tionary class politics also does not aim at workers taking power as

revolutionary workers aim to destroy not themselves but the i d e n -

the new r u l i n g class, and thereby continuing the l o n g history o f one

tity that defines them as workers. T h e primary object o f class strug-

social class replacing another i n the seat o f power. N o r can it aim at

gle, i n other words, is not to k i l l capitalists but to demolish the social

creating social equality by universalizing one o f the existing class

structures and institutions that maintain their privilege and author-

identities, m a k i n g either everyone bourgeois or everyone proletar-

ity, abolishing too, thereby, the conditions o f proletarian subordina-

ian. E a c h o f these nonrevolutionary projects leaves worker identity

tion. T h e refusal of work is a central slogan o f this project, w h i c h we

intact, whereas a revolutionary process must abolish it. B u t what

have explored at length elsewhere. T h e refusal o f w o r k and u l t i -

w o u l d society be and h o w w o u l d it produce without capitalists and

2

333

334

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTIONARY

PARALLELISM

workers? That is exactly what w e explored i n Part 5 and throughout

we currendy recognize as gender. R e v o l u t i o n a r y feminism is thus

the course o f this b o o k i n terms o f the autonomous production o f

monstrous i n the sense o f Rabelais, overflowing w i t h powers o f cre-

c o m m o n wealth.

ativity and invention.

Please suspend any fears y o u have that such a revolutionary

Q u e e r politics may be, from this perspective, the most clearly

abolition o f identity w o u l d undermine the first two tasks o f identity

revolutionary form o f identity politics since, i n the w o r k o f its most

politics or lead to chaos and a social abyss o f indifferentiation. W e

significant proponents, such as M i c h a e l Warner, Judith Butler, and

w i l l return to consider these questions soon. First we want to ex-

Eve Sedgwick, it links identity politics inextricably to a critique o f

tend this analysis to other identity domains and recognize h o w i n

identity. Q u e e r politics, i n other words, reveals the violences and

each o f them what is revolutionary is also defined, i n parallel fash-

subordinations o f heteronormativity and homophobia along w i t h

ion, by the self-abolition o f identity.

other gender hierarchies, proposes projects to struggle against them,

R e v o l u t i o n a r y feminism is distinguished from other feminist

but at the same time seeks, often through processes o f what Jose

perspectives by its a i m at the abolition o f gender. In addition to

M u h o z calls "disidentification," to abolish (or at least destabilize and

demonstrating that one is not b o r n a w o m a n but made one, reveal-

problematize) "the homosexual" as identity, as well as w o m a n , man,

ing the violences o f patriarchy, rebelling against its social institutions,

and other gender identities. " Q u e e r . . . is an identity category," A n -

demanding the equality and emancipation o f w o m e n , revolutionary

namarie Jagose argues, "that has n o interest i n consolidating o r even

feminism seeks the abolition o f w o m a n as an identity. " R e v o l u t i o n -

stabilizing i t s e l f . . . . [QJueer is less an identity than a critique o f i d e n -

ary feminism promised,"Wendy B r o w n explains, "that we c o u l d be-

tity." W e should note, however, that i n the w o r k o f many other

come new w o m e n and men, that we could literally take i n hand the

authors and increasingly i n public discourse today, "queer" is used

conditions that produce gender and then produce it differently, that

not as a critique o f identity but simply as another identity category,

not simply laws and other institutions could be purged o f gender

often as shorthand for L G B T (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgen-

bias but that humans themselves c o u l d be produced beyond gender

der/transsexual). Just as we have noted conceptual (and political)

as history has k n o w n i t . "

14

17

Gayle R u b i n earlier articulated the goal

splits i n other identity domains between nonrevolutionary and rev-

15

olutionary streams, so too the fields o f queer theory and queer

Perhaps the contemporary streams o f "freedom-centered" feminism,

politics are divided between advocacy projects that affirm queer as

such as the w o r k o f Linda Z e r i l l i we mentioned earlier, should be

identity and propositions that w i e l d queer as an anti-identity to u n -

considered i n line w i t h this conception o f revolutionary feminism,

dermine and abolish all gender identities and set i n m o t i o n a series

as l o n g as the quest for freedom is conceived as a process o f not

o f becomings.

as the "elimination o f the social system w h i c h creates . . . gender."

18

emancipation but liberation, not preserving and affirming gender

Black radicalism, especially i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , the Caribbean,

identity but abolishing identity and transforming gender relations.

B r i t a i n , and other diasporic locations, also has a strong tradition

D o n n a Haraway calls this revolutionary proposition simply "the

grounded i n a revolutionary proposition parallel to those i n other

16

Utopian dream o f . . . a monstrous w o r l d without gender." T h e

identity domains, w h i c h complements the rebellion against white

revolutionary project goes beyond the reformist vision o f emancipa-

supremacy w i t h a process o f the abolition o f blackness. "I propose,"

tion—a w o r l d not without gender difference but w i t h o u t gender

Fanon writes early i n his career, "nothing short o f the liberation o f

hierarchy—and seeks an abolition o f identity itself. There w i l l be

the man o f color from himself." T h i s liberation from himself is the

differences, indeed a proliferation o f singularities, but n o t h i n g that

self-abolition o f identity—marking not only the destruction o f ra-

19

335

336

REVOLUTIONARY

REVOLUTION

PARALLELISM

cial hierarchy but also the abolition o f race as we k n o w it, and thus,

politics to reveal and fight against social oppression—that our third

i n Fanon's terms, the creation o f a new humanity. T h e quest for free-

task, i n other words, contradicts the first two, depriving them o f the

d o m we cited earlier i n the w o r k o f Fred M o t e n and central to the

necessary analytical and political tools. Striving to abolish identity,

tradition o f black radicalism implies such a revolutionary proposi-

from this perspective, merely feeds into the dominant, reactionary

tion w h e n freedom is conceived not as emancipation but as libera-

strategy to make identity and its hierarchies invisible. M a n y feminist

tion and thus the transformation o f humanity beyond racial identity.

scholars, for example, criticize Judith Butler's work, particularly Gen-

It is interesting to note, i n this regard, that M a l c o l m X and H u e y

der Trouble and Bodies That Matter, for drawing into question and de-

N e w t o n eventually question and move away from Black Nationalist

stabilizing the category o f w o m a n . W i t h o u t gendered identity as

positions they earlier championed w h e n they recognize a conflict

foundation, it w o u l d be impossible to highlight and analyze gen-

between the nationalist affirmation o f identity and revolutionary

der hierarchies and struggle against t h e m .

projects. N e w t o n , i n particular, progressively shifts the revolutionary

against race consciousness that suggest the goal o f abolishing racial

framework from nationalism to internationalism and finally "inter-

identity are met w i t h parallel objections: without race t h i n k i n g there

c o m m u n a l i s m " i n an effort to designate a political framework for

is no way to make visible the violence o f racism, and w i t h o u t black

liberation that implies the abolition o f racial identity and its struc-

identity there is no figure o f rebellion for the struggle against white 24

23

Paul Gilroy's arguments

tures o f subordination. W e also read this revolutionary proposition,

supremacy.

finally, as the basis o f Paul Gilroy's efforts to shift the discourse o f

inseparable. W i t h o u t the first two, pursuing the third task—abolish-

black politics toward an abolition o f race. Whereas racial identity

i n g identity—is naive and risks m a k i n g existing hierarchies more

today, according to Gilroy, has become seemingly fixed and insur-

difficult to challenge. B u t without the third task, the first two re-

mountable, at best an object o f recognition, he proposes instead

main tethered to identity formations, unable to embark o n a process

to "demand liberation not from white supremacy alone, however

o f liberation. A n d furthermore, even though we have for clarity o f

urgently that is required, but from all racializing and raciological

explanation presented them i n sequence—first, second, and t h i r d —

thought, from racialized seeing, racialized thinking, and racialized

these tasks must all be pursued simultaneously, without, for instance,

20

t h i n k i n g about t h i n k i n g . "

21

R a c e has to be destroyed, o f course, i f

Such critiques highlight the fact that the three tasks are

deferring the revolutionary moment to some indefinite future.

we are to follow through Gilroy's proposition, not just as an object

A second critique o f the revolutionary proposition i n the v a r i -

o f thought but also and more important as social structures and i n -

ous identity domains is made i n the name o f difference, w i t h the

stitutions o f hierarchy, segregation, and domination. T h e abolition o f

w a r n i n g that the abolition o f identity w i l l result i n the destruction

identity implies, once again, the abolition o f property and sover-

o f difference as such, leaving us w i t h an indifferent social field. Some

eignty. O n l y a project o f liberation that destroys not just blackness as

fear, for instance, that queer and feminist Utopias o f a w o r l d beyond

an identity o f subordination but blackness as such along w i t h w h i t e -

gender w o u l d be populated by androgynous beings, devoid o f dif-

ness and all other racial identities makes possible the creation o f a

ference and desire. It is important to recognize that the abolition o f

new humanity.

22

identity—gender identity i n this instance—does not i m p l y the de-

These parallel revolutionary propositions that emerge from

struction o f difference as such, thus m a k i n g everyone the same. O n

identity politics are met by two important critiques that emphasize

the contrary, it initiates the release and proliferation o f differences—

essential aspects o f the revolutionary project.The first claims that the

differences that do not mark social hierarchies. Eve Sedgwick, for

proposition to abolish identity undermines the ability o f identity

example, observes—or, really, complains—that all the myriad differ-

337

338

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTIONARY

PARALLELISM

ences o f our sexual desires are corralled into two categories, h o m o -

actually constitute its definition. T h i r d , singularity is always engaged

sexual and heterosexual, defined solely by the gender o f the object

in a process o f b e c o m i n g different—a temporal multiplicity. T h i s

o f our desires. I f we c o u l d take off these blinkers, we w o u l d see that

characteristic really follows from the first two insofar as the relations

the universe o f sexual desires is filled w i t h innumerable differences

w i t h other singularities that constitute the social multiplicity and

that are often more significant than this one.

25

O n c e the heterosex-

ual and the homosexual are abolished, along w i t h the two gender

the internal composition o f the multiplicity w i t h i n each singularity are constantly i n

28

flux.

identities, a multitude o f sexual differences can surge forward—not

Shifting our perspective from identity to singularity clarifies

two sexes or zero sexes, as Deleuze and Guattari like to say, but n

especially the revolutionary m o m e n t o f the process. Whereas i n

sexes.

26

Paul Gilroy similarly uses the concept o f diaspora to c o n -

terms o f identity this process can be understood only i n the nega-

ceive o f a nonracial society characterized by a proliferation o f differ-

tive, paradoxical terms o f self-abolition, i n terms o f singularity it is

ences. T h e condition and perspective o f diaspora, he explains, does

rather a m o m e n t o f metamorphosis. A n d i n this context it is no

not i m p l y any nostalgia for an unchanging o r i g i n and its pure, fixed

mystery w h y the revolutionary process results i n a proliferation o f

identity but o n the contrary illuminates the richness and social cre-

differences, since the nature o f singularities is to become different.

ativity that mixture and movement make possible. Gilroy thus e n v i -

T h e concept o f singularity, w i t h its multiplicities and metamorpho-

sions a society defined by "conviviality," that is, the cohabitation and

ses, thus also has the merit o f dissolving all the dialectical illusions

free interaction o f social differences, a situation that he sees emerg-

that too often plague discourses o n identity. Singularity indicates the

ing i n the multicultural social life o f Britain's metropolises.

27

And a

c o m m o n as a field o f multiplicities and thus destroys the logic o f

revolutionary project has to create, beyond the multicultural recog-

property. W h a t identity is to property, singularity is to the c o m m o n .

nition o f racial identities, a conviviality among proliferating differences we no longer recognize as racial. A t this point, having followed identity thus far, through its three primary political tasks, we need to reconsider the concept be-

T h e distinction between identity and singularity corresponds, therefore, to that between the two notions o f achieving freedom we cited earlier: identities can be emancipated, but only singularities can l i b erate themselves.

cause, i n fact, more adequate than identity for the process we are

This revolutionary process o f the abolition o f identity, we

analyzing here is singularity, a concept w i t h a l o n g history i n E u r o -

should keep i n m i n d , is monstrous, violent, and traumatic. D o n ' t try

pean thought, from D u n s Scotus and Spinoza to Nietzsche and

to save yourself—in fact, your self has, to be sacrificed! T h i s does not

Deleuze. (See De Homine 2 at the end o f Part 5 o n this alternative

mean that liberation casts us into an indifferent sea w i t h no objects

line o f European thought.) W i t h respect to identity, the concept o f

o f identification, but rather the existing identities w i l l no longer

singularity is defined by three primary characteristics, all o f w h i c h

serve as anchors. M a n y w i l l pull back from the b r i n k and try to stay

link it intrinsically w i t h multiplicity. First o f all, every singularity

w h o they are rather than dive into the u n k n o w n waters o f a w o r l d

points toward and is defined by a multiplicity outside o f itself. N o

without race, gender, or other identity formations. A b o l i t i o n also

singularity can exist or be conceived o n its o w n , but instead both its

requires the destruction o f all the institutions o f the corruption o f

existence and definition necessarily derive from its relations w i t h

the c o m m o n we spoke o f earlier, such as the family, the corporation,

the other singularities that constitute society. Second, every singu-

and the nation. T h i s involves an often violent battle against the r u l -

larity points toward a multiplicity w i t h i n itself. T h e innumerable d i -

ing powers and also, since these institutions i n part define w h o we

visions that cut throughout each singularity do not undermine but

n o w are, an operation surely more painful than bloodshed. R e v o l u -

339

340

REVOLUTION

tion is not for the faint o f heart. It is for monsters. Y o u have to lose w h o you are to discover what you can become.

REVOLUTIONARY

PARALLELISM

gles along w i t h worker struggles have most often ignored and even contributed to gender subordination. Intersectional analysis h i g h lights the fact, i n other words, that although the intersecting forms

Revolutionary Assemblages

o f violence and subordination that identities suffer are i n some ways

After having outlined the three primary tasks o f identity politics

parallel, the political projects to address them can—and, according

—or, really, singularity politics—we need to analyze the relations

to some, necessarily do—conflict. In the context o f our analysis,

among singularities. To what extent do race, class, gender, and sexu-

however, whereas struggles for the recognition, affirmation, and even

ality struggles agree or conflict w i t h one another? B y highlighting

emancipation o f identities may i n fact necessarily conflict, liberation

the tasks c o m m o n to the different identity domains, we have thus

movements o f singularities have the potential to articulate w i t h

far emphasized the parallel nature o f both the forms o f subordina-

one another i n parallel developments. Intersectional analysis d e m -

tion and the processes o f rebellion and liberation. N o w we need to

onstrates, nonetheless, that articulation and parallelism are not auto-

focus o n the conflicts and the means to address them.

matic but have to be achieved.

29

Identity politics, by its very concept, assumes a certain parallel-

W h e n we think parallelism according to the m o d e l provided

ism—the structures o f racial subordination share some c o m m o n e l -

by Spinoza, i n fact, it becomes a means for grasping and developing

ements w i t h those o f gender subordination, class subordination, and

the lessons o f intersectionality. Spinoza's so-called parallelism is de-

so f o r t h — w h i c h makes possible processes o f translation among the

fined by his proposition that "the order and connection o f ideas is

analytical and political traditions. These translations, w h i c h have

the same as the order and connection o f things."

been extraordinarily productive for scholars and activists, do not i m -

that the two attributes, thought and extension, are relatively autono-

ply sameness—the analytics and strategies through w h i c h race, class,

mous—the m i n d cannot cause the body to act or the body cause

gender, and sexuality hierarchies function and can be combated are

the m i n d to think—and yet the developments i n the domains o f

qualitatively different—but translation does rely o n the c o m m o n .

thought and extension proceed i n the same order and connection

30

Spinoza insists

This basis i n the c o m m o n does not deny that identities are d i -

because they both participate i n and express a c o m m o n substance.

vided and conflict. T h e concept o f intersectionality usefully highlights

C o n c e i v i n g the identity domains i n the position o f attributes, then,

division i n two primary respects. First o f all, multiple identities i n -

emphasizes the relative autonomy o f each. Just as the m i n d cannot

tersect, w h i c h is to say that structures o f violence and hierarchy c o -

cause the body to act, class struggle does not necessarily address gen-

incide i n determinate subjects, such as black lesbians or Aymara

der oppression, race struggle does not necessarily attack h o m o p h o -

peasants. This means that each identity is divided internally by o t h -

bia and heteronormativity, and so forth. A n d yet the paths o f rebel-

ers: racial hierarchies divide genders and classes, gender hierarchies

l i o n and liberation, the metamorphoses

o f singularities i n each

divide races and classes, and so forth. (This internal multiplicity is

domain can (and must, i n our view) proceed i n the same order and

one reason that makes singularity, as we said, a more adequate c o n -

connection. In contrast to Spinoza's model, though, parallelism here

cept than identity.) Second, the political agendas o f the various i d e n -

is not given but must be achieved politically. A translation process is

tities do not necessarily agree but rather are often divided, divergent,

required to reveal and understand these potential correspondences, a

or even conflicting. R e v e a l i n g and struggling against racial violence,

process that both acknowledges the autonomy o f the language o f

for example, does not necessarily contribute to the struggle against

each domain and facilitates c o m m u n i c a t i o n among them. A n d a p o -

gender subordination; historically, o n the contrary, antiracist strug-

litical process o f articulation is required to address their conflicts and

341

342

REVOLUTIONARY

REVOLUTION

PARALLELISM

l i n k them together. W h a t results is something like a swarm o f p o l i t i -

important, are widely divergent and frequently conflicting. In their

cal activity, w i t h instances o f rebellion and metamorphosis swirling

revolutionary versions, however, abolishing identity, property, and

around at once. W e w i l l have to investigate this swarm, its intelli-

sovereignty, thus opening a field o f multiplicities, they are parallel.

gence, and its internal organization i n the next sections.

A Spinozian n o t i o n o f parallelism has the added advantage o f

To claim this parallelism means, obviously, that no one domain

dispelling the frequent embarrassment that accompanies reproduc-

or social antagonism is p r i o r to the others. Slavoj Z i z e k , countering

i n g the catalogue race, class, gender, sexuality, and so forth. (The

what he sees to be the reigning doctrine o f multiculturalism p r o -

"and so forth" is especially embarrassing.) Spinoza maintains that

moted by identity politics, argues that class struggle is qualitatively

there exist infinite attributes through w h i c h substance is expressed

different from (and superior to) race and gender struggles. " W h a t

in parallel, but humans can recognize only two o f them: thought and

the series race-gender-class obfuscates is the different logic o f the

extension, m i n d and body. Perhaps i n the same way we should say

political space i n the case o f class: while the antiracist and antisexist

that, although i n o u r society we can recognize only a limited n u m -

struggles are guided by a striving for the full recognition o f the other,

ber, there are infinite paths o f struggle and liberation. T h e plurality

the class struggle aims at overcoming and subduing, even annihilat-

and even the indefinite number is not the problem. M o s t important

ing, the other—even i f this [does] not mean direct physical annihila-

instead is h o w we articulate them along parallel lines i n a c o m m o n

tion, class struggle aims at the annihilation o f the other's sociopoliti-

project.

31

cal role and function." W e agree w i t h Zizek's primary critique to

One

o f the most significant challenges o f revolution today,

the extent that it poses the danger we cited earlier that identity

then, w h i c h this parallelism o f singularities suggests, is that revolu-

struggles become attached to identity as property and fail to engage

tionary action cannot be successfully conducted or even thought i n

a process o f liberation. Z i z e k is w r o n g , however, to assume that class

one domain alone. W i t h o u t its parallel developments any revolu-

struggles are necessarily different from antiracist and antisexist strug-

tionary struggle w i l l r u n aground or even fall back o n itself. A revo-

gles i n this way. W e have seen all too many forms o f class politics

lutionary race proposition that ignores or even exacerbates gender

that get stuck o n identity, affirming worker identity and celebrating

hierarchies w i l l inevitably be blocked, as w i l l a class proposition that

work. M o r e important, though, Z i z e k fails to recognize the revolu-

fails to keep up w i t h its parallels i n the racial domain. M u l t i p l i c i t y

tionary forms o f gender and race politics: just as revolutionary class

and parallelism set the standard for evaluating revolutionary p o l i -

struggle aims at the annihilation not o f all bourgeois people but o f

tics today: the multiple parallel paths o f liberation either proceed

their "sociopolitical role and function" (along w i t h , we w o u l d add,

through correspondences or do not proceed at all. T h e revolution-

the sociopolitical role and function o f the worker), so too revolu-

ary process, i n other words, is like w a l k i n g o n two legs i n that after

tionary feminist and antiracist politics attack not only sexists and

each pass forward, the one leg requires the other to take another step

racists, or even patriarchy and white supremacy, but the bases o f gen-

before being able to move again. It might hop alone for a few feet,

der and race identities as well. Z i z e k thus makes a false comparison

but one is sure to fall o n one's face soon. Except that there are many

by contrasting revolutionary class struggle w i t h nonrevolutionary

more than two legs i n play here. R e v o l u t i o n can only move forward

versions o f race and gender struggles. In their nonrevolutionary ver-

like a centipede or, really, as a multitude. O n l y o n the field o f b i o p o -

sions—such as wage demands for workers, for example, legal protec-

litical struggles, composed by parallelism and multiplicity, can a rev-

tion from sexual violence, and social rights or affirmative action for

olutionary struggle for the c o m m o n be successfully pursued.

subordinated groups—the various struggles, though often extremely

We hope to have demonstrated through our argument thus far

343

344

REVOLUTION

that the parallel coordination among the revolutionary struggles o f singularities is possible, but it is by n o means immediate or spontaneous. In the sections that follow, we must develop a logic o f en-

6.2

counter and articulation among singularities, that is, a logic o f d e m ocratic organization and decision m a k i n g that governs the revolution.

INSURRECTIONAL

INTERSECTIONS

T h e parallel revolutionary struggles must discover h o w to intersect i n insurrectional events and sustain their revolutionary processes i n institutional forms, by w h i c h we mean not fixing them i n bureaucratic procedures but m a k i n g repeatable their constituent e n c o u n -

They were nothing more than people, by themselves. Even paired,

ters and durable the process o f transformation, creating lasting p o -

any pairing, they would have been nothing more than people by

litical bodies.

themselves. But all together, they have become the heart and muscles

Before m o v i n g o n we should note that, although it has become conventional today for scholars to identify revolution w i t h m o d e r nity and, w i t h expressions o f m o u r n i n g or celebration, proclaim it

and mind of something perilous and new, something strange and growing and great. Together, all together, they are the instruments of change. —Keri Hulme, The Bone People

dead i n the contemporary era, o u r argument suggests exactly the opposite. Since modernity, as we argued i n Part 2, is always double, defined by hierarchy, coloniality, and property, m o d e r n revolution is finally impossible. Even the antimodern struggles that resist m o d e r n

Reactionary Intersections: Crises and Thermidors

discipline and control are unable to arrive at a process o f liberation

Parallel struggles are not i n themselves sufficient for revolutionary

that moves beyond resistance to create the w o r l d anew. A l l the revo-

movement. Insurrection against the existing order requires events i n

lutionary dreams and projects that emerged i n the struggles between

w h i c h the parallel streams intersect, not only toppling the social

modernity and antimodernity—and there were so many!—pointed

structures o f hierarchy but also transforming the singularities i n

i n the end beyond modernity. O n l y altermodernity, w h i c h we see

struggle and multiplying their powers. Shortly we w i l l analyze the

emerging today, w i t h its basis i n the interplay between the c o m m o n

form such insurrectionary events have taken i n the past and what

and the multitude o f singularities, is the terrain proper to revolution.

new potential they have today, i n particular the potential for d e m o -

In the most schematic fashion, the triad identity-property-sover-

cratic decision m a k i n g i n the revolutionary process. Intersections,

eignty that defines modernity is replaced i n altermodernity by sin-

however, are by no means necessarily revolutionary. W e have already

gularity-the c o m m o n - r e v o l u t i o n . R e v o l u t i o n is now, finally, be-

seen h o w "intersectional analysis" explores the multiple axes o f sub-

c o m i n g the order o f the day.

ordination that intersect i n determinate social subjects—we are all raced, gendered, defined by class position, and so forth—posing o p portunities and limitations for identity politics. In this section we investigate instead some o f the ways that intersection is used as a mechanism o f control to maintain the existing political order, corralling and taming movements o f rebellion and liberation. T h e dominant m o d e r n political mode o f control functions

346

INSURRECTIONAL

REVOLUTION

347

INTERSECTIONS

through the mediation o f identities, based most clearly i n the N o r t h

lian state requires Aborigines, i n order to obtain rights and p u b -

Atlantic w o r l d o n elements o f Kantian philosophy. (We have a l -

lic resources, to repeat faithfully the traditional indigenous identity,

ready emphasized, at different points i n this book, that transcenden-

conserving its m e m o r y and culture—in effect, to remain the same

tal mediation is supported by an explicit metaphysics i n w h i c h spiri-

or, really, to c o n f o r m to a representation.

tual forms and ontological structures organize a p r i o r i the content

idealism. T h e link between rights and identity is a weapon that the

o f experience.) Just as i n classical metaphysics the categories o f

representational schema wields to trap all identities i n logics o f rec-

substance and cause or modality and relation, w h i c h are posed as

ognition and police the becomings o f singularities. T h e seeming

generic, are thought sufficient to define ontological processes, so

paradox o f political mediation is thus resolved o n two separate

too i n transcendental philosophy the categories o f mediation, w h i c h

planes: abstract unity o n the transcendental plane is maintained only

are posed as productive, configure transcendental schematism as

so l o n g as on the social plane identities faithfully perform their sepa-

something like a machine. In Kant's thought and Kantianism, tran-

ration and unchanging character.

34

S u c h is the tyranny o f

scendental schematism gains increasing autonomy i n the construc-

M o d e r n political representation, however, along w i t h its m e c h -

tion o f the structures o f knowledge and power. Identities are thus at

anisms o f mediation, have l o n g been i n crisis. A w i d e range o f

once mediated and confirmed i n the formal unity o f the transcen-

twentieth-century political scientists, such as M a x Weber, R o b e r t

dental.

M i c h e l s , Gaetano M o s c a , andVilfredo Pareto, denounce h o w repre-

32

M o d e r n political thought interprets these schemas o f episte-

sentation becomes bureaucratic through the actions o f political par-

mological and ontological mediation i n terms o f representation. T h e

ties, and thus the claims o f representation to social universality be-

traditional claim, i n authors such as Rousseau and Hegel, is that rep-

come completely illusory, leaving political rule i n the hands o f

resentation is able to weave all social, cultural, and economic par-

elites. N u m e r o u s authors similarly analyze the crisis o f representa-

ticularities into the generality o f the state. O n the contrary, C a r l

tion—and hence the "democratic deficit"—in the global context,

Schmitt recognizes rightly the antidemocratic nature o f representa-

where mechanisms o f mediation and institutions o f representation

tion: " T h e representative character introduces precisely a n o n d e m o -

are largely lacking, and those that do exist have proved ineffective.

35

36

cratic element i n this 'democracy.'" W e find it more accurate to

Such analyses o f the crisis o f representation generally fit w i t h i n the

understand the representative mechanisms typical o f the m o d e r n re-

project o f "the liberal critique o f liberalism," that is, critiques aimed

public as carrying out a double operation, a disjunctive synthesis,

at repairing and restoring liberalism.

33

both l i n k i n g the represented to political power and h o l d i n g them

T h e primary response o f systems o f power to the crisis o f rep-

separate from it. T h e mediation o f identities i n the transcendental

resentation, however, has been the construction o f new mechanisms

sphere o f representation achieves a similarly double result. O n the

o f social mediation i n the f o r m o f governance. Governance, as we

one hand, concrete identities are transformed into abstract represen-

saw i n Part 4, does not rely o n any transcendental schematism and

tations from w h i c h the structures o f political mediation can produce

does not i n general function through fixed structures. It is instead an

(schematically) a formal unity. (The concept o f the people is one

aleatory f o r m o f government that rules over contingency through

such formal unity.) O n the other hand, the logic o f representation

legal processes w h i c h G u n t h e r Teubner describes as "constitutional-

requires that identities remain static and separate: we are forced c o n -

ization w i t h o u t the state." Governance does not restore the schema

tinually to perform our identities and punished for any deviation

for the representation o f identities central to republican regimes o f

from them. Elizabeth Povinelli notes, for example, that the Austra-

tolerance (in both their multicultural and universalist forms) but i n -

37

348

REVOLUTION

INSURRECTIONAL

INTERSECTIONS

stead attempts to create social order w i t h o u t representation; it does

storing any transcendental schematism but by grounding the theory

not resolve the crisis but seeks to manage it. W h a t is lacking, as we

o f measure solidly o n the immutable terrain o f natural law. Certainly

suggested i n De Homine 2 at the end o f Part 5, are the mechanisms

conservatism, from B u r k e and H e g e l to L e o Strauss and M i c h a e l

o f measure that identity and representation require. Just as capital is

Oakeshott, always has an element o f relativism, since it constantly

no longer able to c o m m a n d productive processes through disciplin-

refers to custom and tradition, but this is really only the background

ary regimes based o n the measure o f value but rather must rely o n

for an ontological foundation o f constant measure. Neoconservative

abstract and flexible financial apparatuses o f capture, so too repre-

strategies thus r u n counter to governance, opposing its contingency

sentative mediation cannot order society w i t h o u t the measure o f

and fluidity w i t h the concrete fixity o f values and identities, and

identities and must instead rely o n the abstract and flexible control

even conflict at times w i t h the emerging forms o f capitalist control,

o f governance. T h e abstraction and flexibility o f these mechanisms

insofar as they tolerate or even encourage the flux o f economic and

highlight the contingent nature o f the structures o f order and the

social values. Neoconservatives aim instead for a new T h e r m i d o r ,

thin line separating them from chaos. Governance i n this sense is a

w h i c h attempts to fix absolutely the criteria o f value regarding prop-

system for the management o f the exception. W i t h o u t the represen-

erty and social hierarchies i n order to restore the ancien regime or,

tational mechanisms o f mediation, the governance o f identities and

really, make social reality c o n f o r m to the representation o f an i m a g -

the management o f social hierarchies alternate between two poles:

ined past. Neoconservatives are thus actually theocrats even w h e n

enforced "identity-blind" perspectives, as i f the hierarchies d i d not

they express secular beliefs: their gods are the Central B a n k and the

exist, and "identity panic" w h e n those hierarchies become u n d e n i -

Supreme C o u r t as the ultimate guarantors o f the stability o f value.

able factors o f social life. Governance, o f course, serves to maintain the ruling powers

Democratic Decision Making?

and support the interests o f capital, but it never succeeds i n solving

Democratic decision m a k i n g transforms the parallel struggles o f

the crisis and b r i n g i n g it to an end. In fact processes o f negotiation

identities into an insurrectional intersection, a revolutionary event

and struggle are constantly reopened o n the terrain o f governance.

that composes the singularities into a multitude. That definition is

In some respects, then, governance is analogous to the o l d terrain o f

correct but embarrassingly naive. Such conceptual abstractions never

trade u n i o n struggles, and indeed, some authors propose confront-

really account for the complexity and richness o f the passions be-

ing the current forms o f governance w i t h the models o f negotiation

h i n d the construction o f democratic decision making. Some o f these

38

and agreement o f labor law. W h e n the o l d labor leaders used to say,

passions line up perfectly i n the direction o f revolution—the ratio-

"There is no end to negotiations," they never questioned the u l t i -

nality and j o y o f the multitude stand against fear and sadness, and

mate hegemony o f capital but still appreciated the importance o f

indignation against tyranny and the resistance against oppression

the struggle. W e should not underestimate the fact that governance

arm disobedience and revolt—but liberation movements are also a l -

is an open space o f conflict and struggle between (sovereign) powers

ways plagued by internal conflicts and misunderstandings among

and (social) counterpowers.

the oppressed. T h e translation process that communicates among the

In contrast, given the abstract and flexible mechanisms o f g o v -

parallel paths, w h i c h we mentioned earlier, pushing each o f them

ernance, w h i c h run constantly o n the border o f instability, it is easy

forward, m a k i n g them stronger, often breaks d o w n i n a cacophony

to see w h y neoconservatism and other contemporary r i g h t - w i n g

o f misinterpretations. Disagreement is the daily, n o r m a l condition o f

ideologies attempt to resolve the crisis o f representation not by re-

revolutionary movements. T h e task o f democratic decision making

349

352

REVOLUTION

INSURRECTIONAL

INTERSECTIONS

over the sectors o f production, then a new political composition is

First, whereas i n the era o f the hegemony o f industrial production

possible, corresponding to the capacities specific to biopolitical l a -

capitalists generally provided workers w i t h the means and schemas

bor.The transformation o f the technical composition does not spon-

o f cooperation that organized production, i n biopolitical produc-

taneously create a new political figure o f struggle and revolution—

tion labor is increasingly responsible for generating

cooperation.

that requires organization and political action—but it does indicate

Second, and consequently, biopolitical labor becomes ever more au-

a new possibility that can be grasped. Today, we argue, the nature and

tonomous from capitalist command, w h i c h tends to block produc-

qualities o f biopolitical production make possible a process o f p o l i t i -

tion and reduce productivity whenever it intervenes. T h i r d , i n c o n -

cal composition defined by democratic decision making.

trast to the vertical, hierarchical forms o f cooperation dictated by

Posing this relation between technical and political composi-

capitalist command, biopolitical labor tends to create horizontal net-

tion, we should note, historicizes the question o f vanguard organiza-

w o r k forms. These three characteristics o f biopolitical l a b o r — c o o p -

tions, casting it i n a very different light. T h i s can be clarified by

eration, autonomy, and network organization—provide solid b u i l d -

sketching a rough periodization. In the early twentieth

century,

i n g blocks for democratic political organization. R e m e m b e r Lenin's

w h e n industrial production is characterized by hierarchical ranks o f

claim that since people are trained to need bosses at work, they also

professional workers, the Bolshevik Party, the G e r m a n Rate, and the

need bosses i n politics: " H u m a n nature as it is n o w . . . cannot do

various c o u n c i l movements propose political figures to

interpret

without subordination, control, and 'managers.'" Today's b i o p o l i t i -

that technical composition: the vanguard party corresponds to the

cal production shows h o w m u c h human nature has changed. People

vanguard o f professional workers i n the factory. In the mid-twentieth

don't need bosses at w o r k . T h e y need an expanding web o f others

century, w h e n industrial production is characterized by great masses

w i t h w h o m to communicate and collaborate; the boss is increas-

o f relatively deskilled workers, mass parties—the Italian C o m m u n i s t

ingly merely an obstacle to getting w o r k done. T h e focus o n the

Party at times plays this role—attempt to create a political figure

technical composition o f labor thus gives us one v i e w o f the d e m o -

adequate to this new situation, treating the trade u n i o n simply as a

cratic capacities that people exercise i n everyday life. These d e m o -

"transmission belt" for the party and employing strategies that alter-

cratic capacities o f labor do not immediately translate into the cre-

nate between b l o c k i n g industrial production and demanding a c o n -

ation o f democratic political organizations, but they do pose solid

tinuous rise i n salaries and social welfare. Insisting o n the relation

ground o n w h i c h to imagine and create them.

44

between technical and political composition i n this way does vali-

W e should note the important strategic advances that c o n t e m -

date (or at least explain) such political organizations insofar as it rec-

porary democratic organizational forms present w i t h respect to van-

ognizes h o w they are rooted i n the reality o f their situations, at-

guard organizations. Historically the vanguard carried the responsi-

tempting to interpret politically the organization and capacities o f

bility for destabilizing the capitalist system to set i n m o t i o n the

workers i n production. In d o i n g so, however, it relegates them irre-

revolutionary process. In the 1970s communist and

vocably to the past. Today, w h e n the technical composition o f labor

movements i n western Europe, w h i c h were both anti-Stalinist and

has changed so profoundly, to repropose any such vanguard political

opposed to the national communist parliamentary parties, reformu-

formation is anachronistic at best.

43

autonomist

lated and extended this proposition: the tactics o f destabilizing cap-

T h e emerging hegemony o f biopolitical production today

italism must be complemented by the strategy o f a deep and pro-

brings w i t h it new democratic capacities. Three overlapping devel-

found destructuring o f capitalist society, dismantling its configurations

opments, w h i c h we emphasized i n Parts 3 and 5, are crucial here.

o f hierarchy and c o m m a n d .

45

T h e democratic organizational forms

353

354

INSURRECTIONAL

REVOLUTION

INTERSECTIONS

suggested by biopolitical labor add another element to the defini-

such terms too sentimental) "power and the c o m m o n " : the libera-

tion o f revolutionary activity: to the fire o f destabilizing tactics and

tion o f the p o o r and the institutional development o f the powers

destructuring strategy they add the project o f constructing a new

o f social cooperation. In any case, recognizing the intersection o f

power, a new type o f power, by w h i c h the multitude is capable o f

the political and the economic is not only essential for the descrip-

managing the c o m m o n . R e v o l u t i o n is thus aimed at the generation

tion o f contemporary social life but also fundamental for the c o n -

o f new forms o f social life. This implies a new f o r m o f political deci-

struction o f the mechanisms and practices o f democratic decision

sion making. O n the biopolitical terrain, the knowledge and w i l l

making.

required for decision are embedded, so to speak, i n historical being such that decision m a k i n g is always performative and results i n the

Insurrection and Institution

real, anthropological transformation o f the subject involved or, as

Insurrection, i n order to open a path for revolution, must be sus-

Jean-Luc N a n c y puts it, an ontological transformation o f the c o n d i -

tained and consolidated i n an institutional process. Such an institu-

tions o f decision m a k i n g itself.

46

tional conception o f insurrection should not be confused, o f course,

Some readers might be made uneasy by h o w our method here

w i t h the coup d'etat, w h i c h merely replaces the existing state insti-

brings together the economic and the political, even perhaps sus-

tutions w i t h comparable, homologous ones. T h e multitude, as we

pecting us to be guilty o f economism, as i f we believed that eco-

have said, has no interest i n taking control o f the state apparatuses,

n o m i c forces determine all other realms o f social life. N o ; w h e n we

not even i n order to direct them to other ends—or, better, it wants

insist that investigating the aptitudes, competencies, and skills ex-

to lay its hands o n state apparatuses only to dismantle them. It re-

pressed at w o r k are a means to understand the generalized capacities

gards the state as not the realm o f freedom but the seat o f d o m i n a -

o f the multitude i n everyday life, it is only one among many—but it

tion, w h i c h not only guarantees capitalist exploitation and defends

is an important one! H a n n a h Arendt, as we have said before, dis-

the rule o f property but also maintains and polices all identity hier-

counts the relevance o f the economic for political life because she

archies. Political engagement w i t h state institutions is no doubt use-

believes the capacities o f labor (the rote repetition o f tasks, following

ful and necessary for struggles against subordination, but liberation

commands, and so forth) have no bearing o n political life, w h i c h

can only be aimed at their destruction. T h i s might seem to i m p l y

requires autonomy, communication, cooperation, and creativity.

that insurrection is inimical to institutions, but i n fact insurrection,

Biopolitical labor, however, is increasingly defined by these properly

as we said, needs institutions—just institutions o f a different sort.

political capacities, and thus these emerging capacities i n the eco-

A long-standing division i n the history o f social theory poses a

n o m i c sphere make possible i n the political sphere the development

major line that conceives the social contract as the basis o f institutions

o f democratic organizations, demonstrating i n fact the increasingly

against a m i n o r line that considers social conflict their basis. Whereas

broad overlap between the two spheres. In this regard our argument

the major line seeks to maintain social unity by casting conflict out

can be situated i n a l o n g line o f revolutionary appeals that combine

o f society—your consent to the contract forfeits your right to rebel

economic and political demands. T h e seventeenth-century

and conflict—the m i n o r line accepts conflict as internal to and the

English

partisans o f the multitude we spoke o f i n Part 1 posed freedom

constant foundation o f society. Thomas Jefferson contributes to this

against property. T h e rallying cry o f the Soviet R e v o l u t i o n was

m i n o r line o f thought, for example, w h e n he asserts that periodically

"peace, land, and bread." O u r slogan to combine the economic and

(at least once a generation, w h i c h he considers to be every twenty

the political might be "poverty and love" or (for those w h o consider

years) the multitude should rebel against the government and f o r m

355

356

REVOLUTION

INSURRECTIONAL

47

INTERSECTIONS

a new constitution. Machiavelli and Spinoza, two other prominent

African struggle against apartheid revolts like the 1976 Soweto u p -

proponents o f the m i n o r line, conceive o f the conflict that grounds

rising became part o f the fabric o f an institutional process; h o w Ital-

institutions along not only the clearly defined paths o f resistance and

ian worker revolts i n the 1970s i n the factories o f Porto Marghera,

rebellions against authority and oppression but also, and more i m -

Pirelli, and F I A T among others were prolonged and developed

portant, the fractured and changing paths o f conflict w i t h i n the

through the construction o f new forms o f worker committees and

multitude.

48

T h e development o f social institutions can be d e m o -

other political institutions; or h o w the 1994 Zapatista uprising i n

cratic, authors o f the m i n o r line insist, only i f it remains open to and

M e x i c o developed through the creation o f autonomous assemblies,

constituted by conflict.

caracoles or base c o m m u n i t y structures, and juntas o f g o o d govern-

As l o n g as we can conceive institutions only along the major

ment. T h e key is to discover i n each case h o w (and the extent to

line, insurrection seems to be blocked at an impasse. O n the one

which) the institutional process does not negate the social rupture

hand, revolts and rebellions that fail to develop institutional c o n t i -

created by revolt but extends and develops it.

nuity are quickly covered over and absorbed w i t h i n the dominant

W e n o w have several elements at hand for a new definition o f

order, like stones that fall into a p o o l only to see the tranquil surface

institution. Institutions are based o n conflict, i n the sense that they

immediately restored. O n the other hand, entering into the d o m i -

both extend the social rupture operated by revolt against the r u l i n g

nant f o r m o f institution, w h i c h is based i n identity, functions through

powers and are open to internal discord. Institutions also consolidate

representation, and demands unity and concord, serves to neutralize

collective habits, practices, and capacities that designate a f o r m o f

the social rupture opened by revolt. H o w many times have we heard

life. Institutions, finally, are open-ended i n that they are continually

leaders o f rebellions w h o enter into government declare: " Y o u must

transformed by the singularities that compose them. T h i s n o t i o n o f

go home n o w and lay d o w n your weapons. W e w i l l represent you"?

institution corresponds closely to what we called earlier "training i n

A n institutional process based i n conflict, however, according to the

love" i n that it does not reduce the multiplicity o f singularities but

m i n o r line, can consolidate insurrection w i t h o u t negating its force

creates a context for them to manage their encounters: to avoid the

o f rupture and power. As we saw i n our discussion o f jacqueries ear-

negative encounters, w h i c h diminish their strength, and prolong and

lier, revolt becomes powerful and long-lasting only w h e n it invents

repeat the joyful ones, w h i c h increase it. Institutions thus conceived

and institutionalizes a new set o f collective habits and practices, that

are a necessary component i n the process o f insurrection and revo-

is, a new f o r m o f life. Jean Genet, for example, i n his journeys among

lution.

the Palestinian refugees and fedayeen i n Jordan and the Black Pan-

O n e can arrive at a similar definition o f institution based o n

thers i n the U n i t e d States, was captivated by the "style" o f these

the c o m m o n experiences o f productive activity i n cybernetic net-

groups, by w h i c h he meant their invention o f new forms o f life,

works. W e should keep i n m i n d , o f course, a series o f myths that

their c o m m o n practices and behaviors as well as their original set o f

characterized the enthusiasm o f some o f the early writings about

gestures and affects.

49

It w o u l d certainly be useful, i f we had the tal-

the political implications o f networks: that networks cannot be c o n -

ents and tools o f historians, to investigate h o w a range o f contempo-

trolled, for example, that the transparency o f networks is always

rary revolts has been consolidated i n alternative institutional forms—

good, and that the cybernetic swarm is always intelligent.

how, for example, the disruptive force o f the

1969 Stonewall

ence w i t h network technologies has nonetheless led to the develop-

rebellion i n N e w Y o r k C i t y was continued through the formation o f

ment o f novel decision-making processes characterized by m u l t i -

a variety o f gay and lesbian organizations; h o w d u r i n g the South

plicity and interaction. Whereas the o l d socialist elites used to dream

50

Experi-

357

358

REVOLUTION

INSURRECTIONAL

o f a "decision-making machine," the experiences o f networkers and

INTERSECTIONS

W e imagine an objection from political scientists and legal the-

net users have configured an institutional decision making composed o f

orists that our n o t i o n o f institution cannot form the basis o f sover-

a myriad o f micropolitical paths. " B e c o m e the m e d i a " is a line o f

eignty. T h i s perspective assumes that the life o f individuals i n the

institutional construction o f communication i n w h i c h the collective

economic and social worlds, as i n the state o f nature, is characterized

control o f expression i n networks becomes a political weapon. Here

by risk, danger, and scarcity. O n l y w h e n individuals enter into insti-

too we find a definition o f institution defined by conflict and m u l t i plicity, composed o f collective habits and practices, and open to transformation by singularities.

tutions, and thereby transfer at least a portion o f their rights and powers to a sovereign authority, can their protection be guaranteed.

51

Legal theorists make a similar point w h e n they emphasize that the

T w o basic objections to our definition o f institution i m m e d i -

relationship between legal claim and obligation i n institutions must

ately come to m i n d , w h i c h really serve to mark its distance from the

be invariable to establish and maintain social order. Institutions must

standard assumptions o f sociologists and political scientists. We i m a g -

serve as the foundation for the constituted power, that is, the consti-

ine a sociological objection that our conception does not adequately

tutional order o f sovereignty. A c c o r d i n g to our conception, i n c o n -

account for the individuality and identity o f those w h o interact w i t h

trast, institutions f o r m a constituent rather than a constituted power.

institutions. A c c o r d i n g to the conventional sociological notion, i n

Institutional norms and obligations are established i n regular inter-

effect, individuals enter institutions and come out as identities. In

actions but are continually open to a process o f evolution. T h e sin-

other words, institutions silently compel individuals to follow established patterns o f behavior, providing them w i t h formulas for living such that, for example, the desire for love is channeled into marriage and the desire for freedom channeled into shopping. These created behavior patterns, however, are by no means u n i f o r m throughout society but instead define identity formations by compelling people to c o n f o r m to race, gender, and class attributes as i f they were natural and necessary. O u r conception o f institution, i n contrast, does not begin w i t h individuals, end w i t h identities, or function through conformity. Singularities, w h i c h are i n revolt against the ruling power and often i n conflict w i t h one another, enter into the institutional process. B y definition, as we said, singularities are always already multiple and are constantly engaged i n a process o f selftransformation. T h i s institutional process allows singularities to achieve some consistency i n their interactions and behaviors, creating i n this way a f o r m o f life, but never are such patterns fixed i n identity. T h e central difference, perhaps, has to do w i t h the locus o f agency: whereas according to the conventional sociological n o t i o n institutions f o r m individuals and identities, i n our conception singularities form institutions, w h i c h are thus perpetually i n flux.

gularities that compose the multitude do not transfer their rights or powers, and thus they prohibit the formation o f a sovereign power, but i n their mutual encounters each becomes more powerful. T h e institutional process therefore provides a mechanism o f protection (but w i t h no guarantees) against the two primary dangers facing the multitude: externally, the repression o f the ruling power, and internally, the destructive conflicts among singularities w i t h i n the m u l titude. T h e extension o f insurrection i n an institutional process that transforms the fabric o f social being is a good first approximation o f revolution. Immanuel K a n t comes close to this definition w h e n he declares that the French R e v o l u t i o n should be understood as not revolution but "the evolution o f a constitution founded o n natural law [Naturrecht]." H e emphasizes, i n particular, the public and u n i versal nature o f the process. " T h i s event consists neither i n m o m e n tous deeds n o r crimes c o m m i t t e d by m e n . . . n o r i n ancient splendid political structures w h i c h vanish as i f by magic w h i l e others come forth i n their place as i f from the depths o f the earth. N o , nothing o f the sort. It is simply the mode o f t h i n k i n g o f the spectators w h i c h reveals itself publicly i n this game o f great revolutions, and manifests

359

360

REVOLUTION

such a universal yet disinterested sympathy for the players o n one side against those o n the other."

52

R e v o l u t i o n is insurrection once it

6.3

has become an institutional process, a form o f government, w h i c h Kant defines as public and we w o u l d call c o m m o n . Kant goes o n to explain that revolution's transformation o f so-

GOVERNING THE REVOLUTION

cial being constitutes an innovation i n history and points toward the future. " O w i n g to its universality, this mode o f thinking d e m o n strates a character o f the human race at large and all at once; o w i n g to its disinterestedness, a moral character o f humanity, at least i n its

A revolutionary law is a law whose object is to maintain the revolu-

predisposition, a character w h i c h not only permits people to hope

tion and to accelerate or regulate its course.

for progress toward the better, but is already itself progress i n so far as its capacity is sufficient for the present."

53

—Condorcet, On the Meaning of the Word Revolutionary

R e v o l u t i o n , as a n e w

form o f government, is i n fact, despite Kant's confidence i n progress, squeezed i n the vise between past and future, leaving it very little r o o m for maneuver. It constantly has to battle the pressures o f the

The Problem of Transition

established constituted power and the accumulated social weight o f

Too m u c h o f revolutionary thought does not even pose the problem

the past. T h i n k , for example, o f the gothic facades o f French and

o f transition, paying attention only to the overture and neglecting

Catalan cathedrals desecrated by revolutionaries w h o have broken

all the acts o f the drama that must follow. Defeating the ruling p o w -

off the heads o f saints and kings. Yes, we too are indignant at their

ers, destroying the ancien regime, smashing the state machine—

destruction o f precious cultural heritage, but we understand their

even overthrowing capital, patriarchy, and white supremacy—is not

attempt to destroy physically the symbols o f a power that continues

enough. That might be sufficient, perhaps, i f one were to believe

to haunt them. Often, even w h e n revolutionaries think their actions

that the formation o f the multitude was already achieved, that we

are sufficient to launch us into the future, the past bursts through to

were all already somehow not o n l y purified o f the hierarchies and

reimpose itself. Tocqueville, for example, describes h o w the past

corruptions o f contemporary society but also capable o f managing

sometimes surreptitiously insinuates itself and reappears i n revolu-

the multiplicity o f the c o m m o n and cooperating w i t h one another

tionary futures, but that is not a law o f history and the inevitable

freely and equally—in short, that democratic society was already

destiny o f revolutions, as reactionaries often claim, but simply one

complete. I f that were the case, then, yes, maybe the insurrectional

possible outcome. W e can share Kant's faith i n progress, then, w h e n

event destroying the structures o f power w o u l d be sufficient and the

it is, first, posed not as a natural law but grounded i n revolutionary

perfect human society already existing beneath the yoke o f oppres-

struggle and, second, consolidated and reinforced i n institutional

sion w o u l d spontaneously flourish. B u t human nature as it is n o w is

form. Revolution's creation o f a new f o r m o f government holds off

far from perfect. W e are all entangled and complicit i n the identities,

the past and opens toward the future.

hierarchies, and corruptions o f the current forms o f power. R e v o l u tion requires not merely emancipation, as we said earlier, but liberation; not just an event o f destruction but also a l o n g and sustained process o f transformation, creating a new humanity. This is the prob-

362

REVOLUTION

GOVERNING

lem o f transition: h o w to extend the event o f insurrection i n a process o f liberation and transformation.

THE REVOLUTION

stubbornly h o l d o n to power, resisting the dialectical inversion i n democracy, but more important because the social structures o f d i c -

C o n d o r c e t proclaims, and H a n n a h Arendt echoes h i m almost two hundred years later, that "the w o r d 'revolutionary' applies only

tatorship do not foster the training i n democracy necessary to make the multitude. O n the contrary! Dictatorship teaches subservience.

54

to revolutions that have freedom as their object." W e w o u l d extend this to say that revolutions must have democracy as their object and thus that the direction and content o f revolutionary transition must be defined by the increase o f the capacities for democracy o f the multitude. People are not spontaneously, by nature, capable o f c o o p erating w i t h one another freely and together governing the c o m m o n . W. E . B . D u Bois, for example, studying the promises, betrayals, and failures o f Reconstruction after the U . S . C i v i l War, is keenly aware that emancipation alone is not sufficient. In addition to all the traps and subterfuges o f the U . S . government and dispossessed Southern slaveholders, i n addition to the color and class hierarchies created by N o r t h e r n carpetbagger capitalists, D u Bois also focuses o n the problem that even after the abolition o f slavery the vast m a j o r i t y o f the population, white and black alike, remains p o o r and ignorant, lacking the capacities for democracy. Emancipation is only the b e g i n n i n g .

Democracy can be learned only by doing. T h e problem o f transition must be given a positive, nondialectical solution, leading toward democracy through democratic means. O u r analysis i n the previous section has already developed some elements for such a democratic transition.The insurrectional event, we explained, must be consolidated i n an institutional process o f transformation that develops the multitude's capacities for democratic decision making. M a k i n g the multitude is thus a project o f d e m o cratic organizing aimed at democracy. R a t h e r than counting o n the boomerang effect o f the dialectic to thrust the process at the final moment to the opposite end o f the spectrum, this n o t i o n o f transition delineates an asymptotic approach such that even i f the m o v e ment never reaches a conclusion, the distance between transition and goal, between means and end becomes so infinitesimal that it ceases to matter. T h i s process should not be confused w i t h o l d re-

55

formist illusions that insist o n gradual change and constantly defer

In the annals o f m o d e r n revolutionary thought L e n i n provides

revolution into the indefinite future. N o ; rupture w i t h contempo-

the locus classicus for understanding the revolutionary transition.

rary society and its ruling powers must be radical: as m u c h as insur-

L e n i n recognizes, as we noted earlier, that human nature as it is n o w

rection is swept up i n the process o f transition, transition must c o n -

is not capable o f democracy. In their habits, routines, mentalities, and

stantly renew the force o f insurrection. Often i n evaluating the state

in the m i l l i o n capillary practices o f everyday life, people are wedded

o f the present society, i n other words, the point is not to haggle over

to hierarchy, identity, segregation, and i n general corrupt forms o f

whether the glass is half empty or half full but to break the glass!

the c o m m o n . T h e y are not yet able to rule themselves democratically w i t h o u t masters, leaders, and representatives. L e n i n thus p r o poses a dialectical transition composed o f two negations. First, a per i o d o f dictatorship must negate democracy i n order to lead society and transform the population. O n c e a new humanity has been created, capable o f ruling itself, then dictatorship w i l l be negated and a new democracy achieved.

56

L e n i n has the great merit o f posing

the problem clearly, but his dialectical solution is today w i d e l y and rightly discredited, not only because "transitional" dictatorships so

T h e process o f transition, however, as we said, is not spontaneous. H o w can the transition be governed? W h a t or w h o draws the political diagonal that guides the transition? T h e political line, after all, is not always straight and immediately obvious but moves diagonally through mysterious curves. These questions, though, throw us back into the dilemmas o f vanguards, leadership, and representation. R e v olutionary movements have repeatedly i n history allowed the h e l m to be taken and the process steered by charismatic figures or leadership groups—the party, the junta, the c o u n c i l , the directorate, and so

363

364

GOVERNING

REVOLUTION

THE

REVOLUTION

forth—who represent (to different degrees) the masses. A n d h o w

partial, since it is still directed and constrained under the c o m m a n d

many times have we heard the need for leadership as an argument to

o f capital; and second, these economic capacities are not i m m e d i -

privilege one social group (with superior knowledge, consciousness,

ately expressed as political capacities. It does mean, though, that i n

or position i n the production process) over others i n the revolution-

the c o m m o n fabric o f the biopolitical diagram rest latent, potential,

ary struggle, breaking the potential parallelism we spoke o f earlier?

chrysalis-like the capacities for the multitude to determine autono-

Industrial workers have claimed to lead peasants, white workers to

mously the political diagonal o f the transition. R e a l i z i n g this poten-

lead black workers, male workers to lead female workers, and so

tial, by means o f political action and organization, w o u l d mean

forth. Often the establishment o f leadership has been accompanied

carrying forward the parallel revolutionary struggles through the i n -

by claims o f the "autcjpomy o f the political" w i t h respect to the so-

surrectional event o f intersection to an institutional process o f m a n -

cial, the economic, the private, or the merely cultural.

57

aging the c o m m o n .

O u r argument seems to have led us into an impasse. O n the

A n t o n i o Gramsci s n o t i o n o f "passive revolution" and its l i m i -

one hand, the process o f transition is not spontaneous but must be

tations helps us understand h o w the relation between political diag-

guided according to a political diagonal. O n the other hand, h o w -

onal and biopolitical diagram addresses the c o n u n d r u m o f the tran-

ever, allowing any social identity or vanguard group or leader to

sition. As he does w i t h many o f his key concepts, Gramsci employs

take control o f the process undermines the democratic function

"passive revolution" i n a variety o f contexts w i t h slightly different

the transition must serve. There seems to be no path for the revolu-

meanings, using multiple standpoints to give the concept greater

tionary process to walk between the danger o f ineffectiveness and

amplitude. H i s first and primary usage is to contrast the passive

disorder on the one side and that o f hierarchy and authority o n the

transformation o f bourgeois society i n nineteenth-century

other.

w i t h the active revolutionary process o f the bourgeoisie i n France.

Italy

T h e way out o f the impasse is to b r i n g the political diagonal

Passive revolution, Gramsci explains, is a revolution without a revo-

back to the biopolitical diagram, that is, to ground it i n an investiga-

lution, that is, a transformation o f the political and institutional

tion o f the capacities people already exercise i n their daily lives and,

structures w i t h o u t there emerging centrally a strong process for the

specifically, i n the processes o f biopolitical production. In the terms

production o f subjectivity. T h e "facts" rather than social actors are

we proposed earlier, this means to explore the technical c o m p o s i -

the real protagonists. Second, Gramsci also applies the term "passive

tion o f the productive multitude to discover its potential political

revolution" to the mutations o f the structures o f capitalist economic

composition. Here we get the political payoff o f all our economic

production that he recognizes primarily i n the development o f the

analyses i n Parts 3 and 5. In the biopolitical context, as we saw, the

U . S . factory system o f the 1920s and 1930s. " A m e r i c a n i s m " and

production o f ideas, images, codes, languages, knowledges, affects,

" F o r d i s m " name what M a r x calls the passage from the " f o r m a l " to

and the like, through horizontal networks o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n and

the "real subsumption" o f labor w i t h i n capital, that is, the construc-

cooperation, tends toward the autonomous production o f the c o m -

tion o f a properly capitalist society. T h i s structural transformation o f

m o n , w h i c h is to say, the production and reproduction o f forms o f

capital is passive i n the sense that it evolves over an extended p e r i o d

life. A n d the production and reproduction o f forms o f life is a very

and is not driven by a strong subject. After using "passive revolution"

precise definition o f political action. T h i s does not mean that the

as a descriptive tool o f historical analysis, regarding both the super-

revolution has already begun and the problem o f transition has been

structural and structural changes o f capitalist society, Gramsci seems

solved because, first, the autonomy o f biopolitical production is only

to employ it, third, to suggest a path for struggle. H o w can we make

365

366

REVOLUTION

GOVERNING

THE

REVOLUTION

revolution i n a society subsumed w i t h i n capital? T h e only answer

he foresee it?—that w i t h the development o f the biopolitical dia-

Gramsci can see is a relatively "passive" one, that is, a l o n g march

gram opens up the possibility o f a new political diagonal. T h e mak-

through the institutions o f civil society.

58

ing o f the multitude and the composition and consolidation o f its

Gramsci's various political proposals coalesce as a Leninist c r i -

capacities for democratic decision m a k i n g i n revolutionary institu-

tique o f Leninism. H e is critical o f Leninism i n that he emphasizes

tions is exactly the k i n d o f production o f subjectivity that Gramsci

not the "war o f movement" but the "war o f position," proposing, i n

sees as necessary for an active rather than passive revolution. Such a

other words, not the insurrectional b l o w against the ruling powers

return to the Leninist Gramsci o n the biopolitical terrain allows us

but an extended series o f battles i n the cultural and political spheres

to b r i n g together the seemingly divergent strands o f his thought. We

in the effort to wrest hegemony away from the bourgeoisie.

59

Gram-

are not faced w i t h an alternative—either insurrection or institu-

sci's critique, however, remains Leninist. Passive revolution, for the

tional struggle, either passive or active revolution. Instead revolution

nineteenth-century

twentieth-century

must simultaneously be both insurrection and institution, struc-

proletariat, is not superior to active revolution but merely an alter-

tural and superstructural transformation. This is the path o f the

native w h e n the primary avenue is not possible, w h e n there is no

" b e c o m i n g - P r i n c e " o f the multitude.

Italian bourgeoisie or the

active subject to lead the revolutionary process. A l l the core ideas o f Gramsci's politics—including war o f position, hegemony, and passive revolution—are aimed at inventing revolutionary activity for nonrevolutionary times, but this is oriented nonetheless toward the h o r i z o n o f active revolution, w h e n sometime i n the future this becomes possible.

Revolutionary Violence T h i s is the point i n the discussion where inevitably someone asks, "Does revolution have to be violent?" Yes, it does, but not always i n the ways y o u think. R e v o l u t i o n does not necessarily require bloodshed, but it does call for the use o f force. T h e better question,

Gramsci is thus i n many ways a prophet o f the biopolitical dia-

then, is not i f violence is necessary but what k i n d o f violence. A n d ,

gram. H e understands that the vanguard o f industrial workers can

according to our analysis o f the link between insurrection and insti-

no longer serve as the subject o f an active proletarian revolution

tution, this question has to be considered separately i n two different

and, at least w i t h respect to their "leadership" o f the peasantry, ques-

arenas: the struggle against the r u l i n g powers and the m a k i n g o f the

tions the desirability o f the worker vanguard. Gramsci also recog-

multitude.

61

nizes i n Fordism that the subsumption o f society under capital leads

Force is required to gain freedom, i n the first arena, because

to a transformation o f the technical composition o f the proletariat,

the r u l i n g powers impose it. T h e Jewish slaves o f Egypt w o u l d have

and he seems to intuit that eventually, w i t h i n the biopolitical dia-

happily left i n peace w i t h Moses, but Pharaoh wouldn't let them go

gram, capitalist production w i l l spill over the factory walls to invest

without a fight; i n general, rulers react violently w h e n their power is

the entire social sphere, breaking d o w n the divisions between struc-

threatened. Liberation requires a defensive struggle against the r u l -

ture and superstructure, b r i n g i n g culture and social relations directly

ing powers and thus civil war, a prolonged battle between camps

into the realm o f economic value and production. H e even grasps

that divide society, but even war does not always call for lethal weap-

that the new technical composition implies a new production o f

ons and bloodshed. Gramsci distinguishes the different types o f force

subjectivity: " I n A m e r i c a rationalization has determined the need to

and weapons appropriate to specific situations w i t h the distinction

elaborate a new type o f man suited to the new type o f w o r k and

we cited earlier between "war o f movement" (typically armed insur-

productive process."

60

B u t Gramsci fails to foresee—and h o w c o u l d

rection, such as storming the W i n t e r Palace i n St. Petersburg or the

367

368

REVOLUTION

GOVERNING

THE

REVOLUTION

M o n c a d a Barracks i n Santiago de Cuba) and "war o f position"

w h e n he overzealously defends the violence o f the French R e v o l u -

(which generally involves protracted, unarmed struggle i n the c u l -

tion i n 1793. " T h e liberty o f the w h o l e earth was depending o n the

tural and political spheres). Gramsci has nothing i n principle against

issue o f the contest," he writes to W i l l i a m Short, "and was ever such

armed struggle—and neither do we. T h e point is simply that arms

a prize w o n w i t h so little innocent blood? M y o w n affections have

are not always the best weapons. W h a t is the best weapon against the

been deeply w o u n d e d by some o f the martyrs to this cause, but

ruling powers—guns, peaceful street demonstrations, exodus, media

rather than it should have failed, I w o u l d have seen half the earth

campaigns, labor strikes, transgressing gender norms, silence, irony,

desolated. Were there but an A d a m & an Eve left i n every country, &

or many others—depends o n the situation.

left free, it w o u l d be better than as it n o w is." W e certainly do not

62

We k n o w that the response "It depends o n the situation" is not

share the acceptance o f mass bloodshed Jefferson expresses here—

very satisfying. A l l we can do, though, is offer criteria for determin-

and Jefferson himself is clearly overstating the position for effect i n

ing the best weapon i n each situation. T h e first and most obvious

this passage—but he also seems to neglect the need for revolution-

criterion is, W h a t weapons and strategy are most likely to be effec-

ary action to bolster the production o f the c o m m o n and aid the

tive and w i n the struggle? Keep i n m i n d that the one w i t h the most

process o f m a k i n g the multitude. (We are not fond o f the slogan

firepower does not always w i n . In fact our estimation is that increas-

"liberty or death," but we have no sympathy for the notion o f " l i b -

ingly today a "disarmed multitude" is m u c h more effective than an

erty and death.") Aside from the issue o f mass bloodshed, then, the

armed band and that exodus is more powerful than frontal assault.

question is, W h a t does Jefferson mean by A d a m and Eve? If he is sat-

Exodus i n this context often takes the f o r m o f sabotage, withdrawal

isfied w i t h a n o t i o n o f bare life, returning humanity to some i m a g -

from collaboration, countercultural practices, and generalized dis-

ined original, natural, or base condition, then we oppose h i m . B u t

obedience. Such practices are effective because biopower is always

perhaps, from a perspective closer to ours, Jefferson imagines A d a m

"subject" to the subjectivities it rules over. W h e n they evacuate the

and Eve to mark the creation o f a new humanity that results from a

terrain, they create vacuums that biopower cannot tolerate. T h e

revolutionary process. In any case, i n evaluating the weapons and

alterglobalization movements that nourished i n the years around

forms o f violence i n revolutionary struggle, the question o f effec-

the turn o f the m i l l e n n i u m functioned largely i n this way: creating

tiveness against the enemy should always be secondary to that o f its

breaks i n the continuity o f control and filling those vacuums w i t h

effects o n the multitude and the process o f building its institutions.

new cultural expressions and forms o f life. Those movements have

This leads us directly to the second arena i n w h i c h revolution

left behind, i n fact, an arsenal o f strategies o f disobedience, new lan-

requires the use o f force: the field for m a k i n g the multitude, engag-

guages o f democracy, and ethical practices (for peace, care for the

ing and resolving conflicts w i t h i n it, leading the singularities that

environment, and so forth) that can eventually be picked up and re-

compose it to ever more beneficial relationships, but also overcom-

deployed by new initiatives o f rebellion.

ing the obstacles to the kinds o f transformation required for libera-

T h e second criterion is even more important: W h a t weapons

tion. T h e force o f institutions fills this role i n part. Louis de Saint-

and what f o r m o f violence have the most beneficial effect on the

Just, w r i t i n g like Jefferson i n 1793, insists o n the revolutionary

multitude itself? M a k i n g war always involves a production o f subjec-

function o f institutions: "Terror can r i d us o f monarchy and aristoc-

tivity, and often the most effective weapons against the enemy are

racy but what w i l l deliver us from corruption? . . . Institutions." W e

the ones that have the most poisonous effects o n those w h o wage

have already cast i n doubt the first part o f Saint-Just's remark, ques-

the struggle. Thomas Jefferson seems to forget this second criterion

tioning the effectiveness and the desirability o f armed struggle—let

63

369

370

REVOLUTION

GOVERNING

THE REVOLUTION

alone terror—for the battle against the current ruling powers and

T h e most terrifying violence confronting revolutionaries may

their social hierarchies; but what interests us more is his affirmation,

be the monstrous self-transformation we find i n the revolutionary

i n the second part, o f the force o f institutions against corruption.

streams o f identity politics. T h e abolition o f identity, leaving behind

Saint-Just admittedly may understand corruption as deviation from

who

the line established by revolutionary leaders and the institution as a

class, sexuality, and the other identity coordinates is an extraordi-

means o f generating conformity, but we are tempted to proclaim the

narily violent process, not only because the ruling powers w i l l fight

same slogan—institutions against c o r r u p t i o n — w i t h a very different

every step o f the way but also because it requires us to abandon

meaning.

some o f our core identifications and become monsters. E v e n Saint-

A t various points i n this b o o k we have analyzed the c o r r u p -

y o u are, and constructing a new w o r l d w i t h o u t race, gender,

Just and his bloody colleagues could not imagine such terror!

tion o f the c o m m o n i n terms o f both its destruction by means o f the imposition o f social hierarchies (through privatization, for ex-

Constituent Governance

ample) and the perpetuation o f negative forms o f the c o m m o n i n

R e v o l u t i o n must be governed not only to guide and regulate its

institutions w h i c h decrease the powers o f the multitude, block its

movements but also to establish the forces o f constituent power as a

production o f subjectivity, and exacerbate its internal conflicts. Part

new f o r m o f life, a new social being. W e have discussed the role o f

o f revolutionary activity, then, is the destruction o f what we called

novel institutional processes to compose and consolidate insurrec-

earlier the institutions o f the corrupt forms o f the c o m m o n , such as

tion i n the revolutionary procedure, both combating the ruling

the family, the corporation, and the nation. T h e struggles against

powers and their corruptions and establishing new collective habits

them w i l l take place o n multiple fronts, many o f w h i c h we probably

and practices. We have also explored h o w i n the biopolitical context

have not yet even imagined, and we can be certain that the battles,

forms o f democratic decision m a k i n g can generate the political d i -

even without bloodshed, w i l l be violent, ugly, and painful, testing us

agonal that marks the path o f transition. B u t that is not yet enough.

i n u n k n o w n ways. T h i n k o f h o w violently those are punished w h o

A l l o f this must be supported i n a governmental, constitutional, and

even i n small ways threaten the corrupt institution o f the family, i n

juridical framework. Here, though, our argument runs into another

terms o f reproductive rights, for example, or sexuality, kinship struc-

impasse because at numerous points i n our analysis we have already

tures, the sexual division o f labor, or patriarchal authority. I h i s and

explained that existing governmental forms and structures are o b -

other institutions that corrupt the c o m m o n w i l l not fall w i t h o u t

stacles to revolution. W e have criticized i n the name o f democracy

intense, extended combat. Saint-Just makes clear, though, that the

numerous propositions o f revolutionary government: the n o t i o n o f

struggle involves not only destroying the corrupt institutions but

taking power i n the sense o f laying h o l d o n the existing, ready-made

also constructing n e w ones. N e w institutions are needed to combat

state machinery o f the bourgeoisie (to use Marx's phrase); the proj-

corruption, as we have said, not by unifying society and creating

ects to create a "counterpower" that is homologous to the existing

conformity to social norms, but by facilitating the production o f the

state structures; the mechanisms that close d o w n the development o f

beneficial forms o f the c o m m o n , keeping access to it open and

constituent power i n the structures o f a constituted power; and the

equal, and aiding the joyful encounters o f singularities that compose

dialectical notions o f revolutionary transition that govern through

the multitude—and at the same time combating all obstacles that

some f o r m o f dictatorship. A n d yet we are fully aware that the revo-

stand i n its way. T h i s is perhaps just a restatement i n more concrete,

lutionary process is not spontaneous and must be governed. H o w

practical terms o f our earlier proposition that the training i n love has

can we invent a democratic f o r m o f rule adequate to the revolution-

to be armed w i t h the means to combat evil.

ary process? T h i s w o u l d have to be democratic not i n the false sense

371

372

REVOLUTION

GOVERNING

THE

REVOLUTION

that we are fed every day by politicians and the media, w i t h their

concept o f governance, subvert its imperial vocation, and reformu-

pretenses o f representation, but i n the active and autonomous self-

late it as a concept o f democracy and revolution.

rule o f the multitude as a whole.

W e find some potential i n the n o t i o n o f federalism by w h i c h

W e find some help for overcoming this impasse i n what may at

some theorists understand functions o f global governance. In c o n -

first seem an unlikely source: the structures o f governance that are

trast to traditional models, such as those o f the U n i t e d States and

emerging as the primary forms o f rule w i t h i n Empire. W e argued i n

Switzerland, for example, this federalism is not oriented toward state

Part 4 that the contemporary global order does not take the f o r m o f

sovereignty but rather serves to articulate a w i d e variety o f powers

a " w o r l d state" or even reproduce the governmental structures cre-

and mediate diverse political institutions w i t h different and separate

ated i n the context o f the nation-state, but instead is increasingly

objectives. In the space between the nation-state and E m p i r e , feder-

characterized by emerging forms o f governance that rule w i t h o u t

alism constructs an array o f diverse territorial mediations. T h e seem-

relying o n an overarching political authority to manage and regulate

i n g multiplicity o f federalism, however, quickly closes d o w n , as its

i n an ad hoc and variable fashion. W e traced the genealogy o f the

mechanisms o f mediation merely seek to create a k i n d o f nomadic

concept o f governance, i n part, to the structures o f regulation, m a n -

state-form, reproducing forms o f sovereignty and c o n t r o l .

64

agement, and accountability o f capitalist corporations, and indeed

M u c h more useful are the analyses o f governance by legal the-

the characteristics o f corporate governance remain strongly present

orists, especially a group o f G e r m a n legal theorists w h o b u i l d o n

i n the various deployments o f governance i n the imperial constitu-

Niklas L u h m a n n s systems theories, w h i c h emphasize two primary

tion. G l o b a l governance is "postdemocratic" i n the sense that it

characteristics o f global governance: one exceeding the limits o f fixed

shuns the representative structures that have i n the past served to l e -

legal systems and their normative structures, and another fragmenting

gitimate state power i n favor o f pluralistic forms o f regulation c o n -

legal systems because o f conflicts i n global society and colliding

trolled, often indirectly, by oligarchic forces, such as those o f p r o p -

norms. T h e passage from government to governance is thus c o n -

erty. As a result, governance structures have the flexibility and

fluidity

ceived i n legal terms as the movement from a unitary and deductive

constantly to adapt to changing circumstances. T h e y do not need

normative structure to a pluralistic and plastic one. Governance gives

stability and regularity to rule, but instead are designed to manage

up any vain attempt to b r i n g unity to global legal systems (based o n

crises and rule over exceptional conditions.

international law or consensus among nation-states) and tries i n -

Those prone to oppositional habits o f thought are likely to re-

stead to establish a network logic that can manage conflicts and

spond to this analysis o f "governance without government" i n E m -

achieve a normative compatibility among the fragments o f global

pire w i t h proposals i n the contrary direction: we need to oppose

society. Governance conceived i n this way does "rule over the ex-

Empire, they might say, w i t h the fixed juridical structures and regu-

ception," but i n a way completely different than C a r l Schmitt i m a g -

larized normative processes o f government. W e tend i n general,

ines w h e n he famously uses that phrase to define sovereignty. T h e

however, toward subversive rather than oppositional responses. T h e

exception here is not a punctual event that demands a decision but

governance mechanisms o f E m p i r e do have the merit, i n fact, o f i n -

is spread over time and throughout society. Since the society they

terpreting the biopolitical context and registering the increasing au-

regulate and manage is full o f exceptions, the structures o f gover-

tonomy o f the networks o f singularities, the overflowing and u n -

nance always remain contingent and aleatory—floating structures,

measurable forms o f value produced by the multitude, and the ever

we could say, o n the clashing waves o f global society.

greater power o f the c o m m o n . O u r inclination is to appropriate this

65

Some o f the elements o f governance, as conceived by these l e -

373

374

GOVERNING

REVOLUTION

THE

REVOLUTION

gal theorists, fit so closely w i t h our analyses o f biopolitical society

tion, i n this way, become constitutional, building, through struggle

that they could be seen as a summary o f a string o f passages i n this

after struggle, o n successive levels that indefatigably overflow every

book. W h e r e they read fragmentation, we see a multiplicity o f sin-

systemic equilibrium, toward a democracy o f the c o m m o n .

gularities; the overflowing they read i n the relation between society

Whereas revolt and insurrection may be episodic and short-

and normative structures we recognize i n the relation between labor

lived, there is r u n n i n g throughout the revolutionary process some-

and value; the network logic they read i n the governance o f excep-

thing like a w i l l to institution and constitution. W e have i n m i n d

tional normative situations we analyze i n the cooperation o f b i o p o -

here as analogy the great Viennese art historian Alois Riegl's n o t i o n

litical production; and the social conflict they read as the basis for

o f Kunstwollen, w h i c h although difficult to translate can be rendered

contingent legal frameworks we propose as the basis for the revolu-

as " w i l l to art." R i e g l analyzes how, i n another p e r i o d o f transition,

tionary n o t i o n o f institution. Does this mean that these legal theo-

late R o m a n art revolts against the ancient forms and establishes not

rists are masked revolutionaries? N o ; i n fact from our perspective

only new techniques and a new "industry" but also n e w ways o f

they maintain a detached, skeptical, even cynical standpoint o n the

seeing and experiencing the w o r l d . H e conceives the late R o m a n

potential for social transformation. T h e proximity o f their analyses

Kunstwollen as the force governing this transformation o f the plastic

o f global governance to our analyses o f the multitude, however, does

arts, the desire that articulates all the singular artistic expressions as

identify the point o n w h i c h the imperial n o t i o n o f governance can

a coherent institutional development, demonstrating not only the

be turned inside out, subverted, and transformed into a revolution-

continuity but also the innovation o f the process. T h e Kunstwollen

ary concept. This is not an ideal operation o f dialectical inversion

accomplishes both the overcoming o f the historical threshold and

but a practical, subversive path.

the organization o f the exceeding, overflowing social forces i n a c o -

It should come as no surprise, i n fact, that the structures o f i m -

herent and lasting project.

66

A revolutionary process today w i l l have

perial governance so strongly correspond to the movements o f the

to be governed by a Rechtswollen, that is, an institutional and consti-

multitude. Governance is forced to register and represent, according

tutional w i l l , w h i c h , i n a parallel way, articulates the singularities o f

to new diagrams, the juridical claims and political forces that the

the multitude, along w i t h its diverse instances o f revolt and rebel-

multitude expresses, like impressions o f footprints i n the sand. T h e

l i o n , i n a powerful and lasting c o m m o n process.

struggles o f the multitude are primary w i t h respect to power, as we have insisted at various points i n our analysis, i n the sense that they are the locus o f social innovation, whereas power can only react by attempting to capture or control their force. A constituent governance that inverts the imperial f o r m w o u l d have to present not simply a normative figure o f rule, and not only a functional structure o f social consensus and cooperation, but also an open and socially generalized schema for social experimentation and democratic innovation.This w o u l d be a constitutional system i n w h i c h the "sources o f l a w " and their means for legitimation are based solely o n constituent power and democratic decision making. Just as insurrection has to become institutional, so too must revolu-

375

DE S I N G U L A R I T A T E

2: I N S T I T U T I N G

HAPPINESS

lasting condition rather than a passing feeling, such as pleasure. Happiness is a pleasure that lasts and repeats. T h e y insist too o n the collective nature o f happiness, emphasizing that it is public, not p r i vate. Already w i t h these first two characteristics it is clear w h y hap-

DE SIIMGULARJTATE 2 : INSTITUTING

piness should be the primary object o f government. It is a collective good, perhaps the ultimate collective good, w h i c h must take o n an

HAPPINESS

institutional character to guarantee its longevity. Happiness, h o w ever, is not something that leaders or representatives simply provide for the population. It is an active not a passive affect. T h e multitude must govern itself i n order to create a durable state o f happiness Through its buildings, pictures, and stories, humanity is preparing, if it must, to survive civilization. And, above all, it does so laughing. —Walter Benjamin, "Experience and Poverty"

(and thus rather than " p u b l i c " we w o u l d call it " c o m m o n happiness"). Happiness is not a state o f satisfaction that quells activity but rather a spur to desire, a mechanism for increasing and amplifying

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. —Thomas Paine, Common Sense

what we want and what we can do. Humans, o f course, are not b o r n w i t h the fully developed capacities to govern ourselves, to resolve conflicts, to f o r m lasting, felicitous relationships, but we do all have the potential for all that. Finally, then, happiness is the process o f developing our capacities o f democratic decision m a k i n g and training ourselves i n self-rule.

W e l c o m e to Year 0! Prehistory ends not w i t h a bang but a sigh o f relief, after centuries o f darkness and b l o o d . T h e beginning o f history does not mean the end o f social strife, but rather that we all have the potential to address conflicts and transform them into peaceful, productive relationships. N o r does the beginning o f history mean that our powers have been fully realized; i f that were the case, history w o u l d be over before it had even begun. It is rather the beginning o f a process o f education and training i n w h i c h we are engaged collectively i n constituting social life, putting into action democratic government.

67

T h e demand for happiness is thus an affirmation and celebration o f the goals o f the Enlightenment. T h e core o f the E n l i g h t e n ment that interests us is not any claim that some or all o f us have already achieved or w i l l ever reach an enlightened state o f absolute mastery, self-control, knowledge, or the like. It is instead the recognition that humans are trainable, that we can improve ourselves i n dividually, collectively, and over the course o f history. A n d i n the realm o f government this must involve learning by doing. " T h e qualifications for self-government i n society," Thomas Jefferson explains, "are not innate. T h e y are the result o f habit and long train-

Enlightenment revolutionaries, from Diderot and Fontanelle to Jefferson, following the ancient Greeks and R o m a n s , pose the ultimate political goal as public happiness. Happiness should b e come once again today a political concept, i n some ways that the eighteenth-century thinkers understood and i n others that they c o u l d not yet imagine. B y happiness they mean, first o f all, a l o n g -

ing."

68

D e m o c r a c y must be not only the goal o f a multitude w i t h

the already developed powers necessary for self-government but also a learning mechanism, a dispositif, that expands those powers, increasing not only the capacity but also the desire to participate i n government. This is where Diderot and Machiavelli come together, because the call for happiness is an entirely realistic political project,

377

378

DE

REVOLUTION

based o n humanity as it is now, as Machiavelli often insists, but w i t h

SINGULARITATE

2: I N S T I T U T I N G

HAPPINESS

Intellectual historians recount one version o f h o w the political

an equally lucid recognition o f h o w humans can become different,

concept o f happiness was lost: eighteenth-century happiness is

how they can learn, improve themselves, and realize goals that were

turned inward i n the nineteenth century and made sentimental.

previously unimaginable. T h e point is to b r i n g about our new and

Bernard de Fontenelle's Traite du bonheur gives way to A d a m Smith's

ever greater capacities, to set out o n a political project for w h i c h

Theory of Moral Sentiments; Saint-Just's proclamations o f public hap-

democracy is b o t h the end and the means.

piness yield to the domestic sentiments o f nineteenth-century n o v -

Enlightenment thinkers have long been ridiculed for their

els; Jefferson's claim o f happiness as a political right cedes to narra-

faith i n progress since the past is full o f examples o f h u m a n -

tives o f individual contentedness. Happiness is separated from

wrought catastrophes and folly and since so many claims to progress

reason, to w h i c h it was so strongly tied i n the eighteenth century,

have led to disaster and ruin. Some point to the way N a z i adminis-

and becomes and remains today merely a passion, something we

trative rationality led to genocide and gas chambers, others to the

feel, not something we do—an individual sentiment stripped o f p o -

way scientific "advances" led to environmental devastation and n u -

litical meaning. Sympathy and pity present mechanisms o f associa-

clear destruction. There is indeed no automatic movement o f prog-

tion and social constitution, but ones that are powerless and even

ress, no guarantee that t o m o r r o w w i l l be better than today; but the

block our power.

recognition o f such contingency should not lead anyone to a c y n i -

It is useful, therefore, to l o o k to earlier authors to understand

cal conclusion, to ignore the fact that we do have the power to i m -

the political and ontological project o f happiness. T h e aim o f S p i -

prove our world, our society, ourselves.This is a materialist teleol-

noza's philosophy and politics, for instance, is j o y (gaudium), an ac-

ogy that has no illusions about invisible hands or final causes

tive affect that marks the increase o f our power to act and to think.

pulling history forward. It is a teleology pushed forward only by

Joy is thus not a static state, as contentment might be, but rather a

our desires and our struggles, w i t h no final end point. Progress w i l l

dynamic process that continues only so l o n g as our powers c o n -

be measured by our g r o w i n g powers to realize c o m m o n happiness

tinue to increase. We still don't know, Spinoza says, what a body can

and f o r m a democratic w o r l d i n w h i c h we are all together permit-

do and a m i n d can think. A n d we w i l l never k n o w the limits o f

ted, able, and w i l l i n g to rule.

their powers. T h e path o f j o y is constantly to open new possibilities,

Instituting happiness, therefore, is not only a political but also

to expand our field o f imagination, our abilities to feel and be af-

an ontological project. W i t h each increase o f our power we become

fected, our capacities for action and passion. In Spinoza's thought,

different, adding to what we are, expanding social being. B e i n g is

in fact, there is a correspondence between our power to affect (our

not fixed once and for all i n some otherworldly realm but c o n -

mind's power to think and our body's power to act) and our power

stantly subject to a process o f becoming. H u m a n nature similarly is

to be affected. T h e greater our mind's ability to think, the greater its

not immutable but rather open to a process o f training and educa-

capacity to be affected by the ideas o f others; the greater our body's

tion. T h i s does not mean that there are n o limits to what we can

ability to act, the greater its capacity to be affected by other bodies.

do or that we can break absolutely from the past to create a clean

A n d we have greater power to think and to act, Spinoza explains,

slate: there are no leaps i n nature, as the evolutionary biologists like

the more we interact and create c o m m o n relations w i t h others. Joy,

to say. W h a t it does mean, though, is that change is possible at the

in other words, is really the result o f joyful encounters w i t h others,

most basic level o f our w o r l d and our selves and that we can inter-

encounters that increase our powers, and the institution o f these

vene i n this process to orient it along the lines o f our desires, to-

encounters such that they last and repeat.

ward happiness.

Before Spinoza, Dante A l i g h i e r i proposed j o y and love as pro-

379

380

REVOLUTION

DE

SINGULARITATE

2: I N S T I T U T I N G

HAPPINESS

ductive o f not only being but also b e i n g - i n - c o m m o n , that is, social

archy, allowing everyone to become capable o f participating i n the

life. F o r Dante love is an accident that transforms the w o r l d and

constitution o f society, collective self-rule, and constructive interac-

creates a "vita nuova," a new life—going beyond the conceptions o f

tion w i t h others. Everyone needs access to a basic education, o f

his predecessors, both the sentimental notions o f love (in G u i d o

course, and a series o f basic social and technical knowledges and

G u i n i z e l l i , for instance, for w h o m love produces emotions) and the

skills. These are some o f the prerequisites necessary for any political

rationalist views (in G u i d o Cavalcanti love produces knowledge).

participation. A r m e d w i t h these basic elements everyone w i l l not

Dante tells us that love is a practice o f the c o m m o n . Love is able,

be the same, o f course, but w i l l be able to participate equally i n the

traversing the city, to generate new forms o f conviviality, o f l i v i n g -

collective management o f society. B u t even w h e n people have the

together, that affirm the autonomy and interaction o f singularities

skills, knowledges, and capacities required for government today,

i n the c o m m o n .

6 9

H o w can we restore or reinvent such political conceptions o f

they are separated from power. We want a government that is not only open to the participation o f all but also trains everyone to par-

happiness, joy, and love for our world? A conventional answer to

ticipate i n democratic decision making, allowing people to move

such a question might offer a political program against misery,

across borders and reside where they like. In the national contexts,

meaning by misery not only the lack o f wealth and resources but

the k i n d o f political equality demanded by this platform has often

also and more generally the lack o f power to create and innovate, to

been called citizenship. W h a t we intend here is something like a

rule oneself. M i s e r y is the condition o f being separated from what

global citizenship, then, w h i c h provides to all both the means and

one can do, from what one can become. A n d indeed we have a l -

the opportunity to participate equally i n the government o f global

ready mentioned the basic outlines o f a program that can and

society.

should be demanded o f existing governments and the various institutions o f global governance. A first platform must demand the support o f life against mis-

A third platform must demand open access to the c o m m o n against the barriers o f private property. It is possible today for everyone to have free and equal use o f resources and wealth, and be

ery, that is, simply, that governments must provide everyone w i t h

able i n turn to produce w i t h them. In the context o f scarcity i n the

the basic means o f life. In many national contexts important p r o -

past, o f course, the demand for such equal access to resources often

posals have been debated about providing a guaranteed income to

created an insolvable puzzle. If you grow crops o n that field, it is

all citizens, a basic income sufficient for the necessities o f a produc-

not available for someone else to farm it; i f you use that machine to

tive, dignified existence. M a n y governments too, particularly i n the

produce, no one else can use it at the same time. Increasingly today,

wealthiest countries, already guarantee basic health care to all their

though, production and wealth cease to obey the logic o f scarcity. If

citizens. B u t the majority o f those living i n misery, those most i n

you use that idea productively, I can use it too, at the very same

danger o f famine and disease, reside elsewhere. W h a t is necessary is

time. In fact the more o f us that w o r k w i t h an idea and c o m m u n i -

a global initiative to provide the basic means o f life for all, through-

cate about it, the more productive it becomes.To favor the increase

out the w o r l d , a global guaranteed i n c o m e and truly universal

o f productive c o m m o n wealth and to allow everyone free access to

health care, whether furnished through global institutions such as

it is i n the c o m m o n interest. Government must support, i n particu-

U N agencies, citizen organizations, or other bodies.

lar, the accumulation o f knowledges: scientific knowledges and

Since the guarantee o f a bare life for all is not enough to escape misery, a second platform must demand equality against hier-

codes, o f course, w h i c h are increasingly central i n production, but also social knowledges and skills, the means o f avoiding social c o n -

381

382

DE

REVOLUTION

SINGULARITATE

2: I N S T I T U T I N G

HAPPINESS

fiicts and facilitating felicitous encounters, the means o f promoting

powers continue to exert their control, but we laugh w i t h the rec-

productive communication and exchange.

ognition o f what their weakness portends for our future.

These three platforms are just and reasonable demands to

O u r s is also a laugh o f creation and joy, anchored solidly i n

make o n today's ruling powers.They are nothing but the conditions

the present. O u r free and equal access to the c o m m o n , through

that most favor the constituent encounters that we said earlier c o n -

w h i c h we together produce new and greater forms o f the c o m m o n ,

stitute the wealth o f the multitude i n the metropolis: ensuring that

our liberation from the subordination o f identities through m o n -

everyone has the basic means to life and g o o d health; creating the

strous processes o f self-transformation, our autonomous control o f

conditions that we meet i n a relation o f equality, w i t h the k n o w l -

the circuits o f the production o f social subjectivity, and i n general

edge and skills to interact socially; and providing all open access to

our construction o f c o m m o n practices through w h i c h singularities

accumulated c o m m o n wealth that serves as the basis for and is also

compose the multitude are all limitless cycles o f our increasing

enriched by our encounters. R e m e m b e r , too, that we have already

power and joy. W h i l e we are instituting happiness, our laughter is as

seen i n o u r analysis that large portions o f the global population a l -

pure as water.

ready possess many o f these capacities, i n the networks o f b i o p o l i t i -

O u r s is finally a laugh o f destruction, the laugh o f armed an-

cal production, i n the life o f the metropolis, and i n the fabric o f ev-

gels w h i c h accompanies the combat against evil. Happiness has a

eryday social life. We can demand o f the ruling powers that they be

dark side. Spinoza describes the j o y o f destroying what does h a r m

guaranteed and made universal.

to a friend. T h i s destruction has nothing to do w i t h hatred, from

But today's ruling powers unfortunately have no intention o f

71

w h i c h , indeed, nothing g o o d can come. A n d this j o y has nothing to

granting even these basic demands. In the face o f this arrogance o f

do w i t h Schadenfreude, enjoyment derived from the misfortune o f

power, the most adequate response, rather than lamenting our poor

others. T h e destruction o f what causes harm is secondary to the i n -

lot and w a l l o w i n g i n melancholy, is laughter. Laughter, m i n d y o u , is

crease o f power and j o y released by its removal. T h e extirpation i n

a very serious matter. It is not consolation for our weakness but an

ourselves o f our attachments to identity and, i n general, the c o n d i -

expression o f joy, a sign o f our power. " D o n ' t think that one has to

tions o f our enslavement w i l l be extraordinarily painful, but still we

be sad to be a militant," M i c h e l Foucault reminds us, "even i f the

laugh. In the l o n g battles against the institutions that corrupt the

combat is abominable. It is the connection o f desire to reality (and

c o m m o n , such as the family, the corporation, and the nation, we

not its retreat into the forms o f representation) that possesses revo-

w i l l spill no end o f tears, but still we laugh. A n d i n the struggles

70

lutionary force." T h e process o f instituting happiness w i l l c o n -

against capitalist exploitation, the rule o f property, and the destroy-

stantly be accompanied by laughter.

ers o f the c o m m o n through public and private control, we w i l l suf-

O u r s is, first o f all, a k n o w i n g laugh, w h i c h accompanies our realistic critique o f the dominant powers. T h e rulers, destroyers, and corrupters are not as strong as they think, and we are more powerful than they w i l l ever know. Increasingly today i n the biopolitical context the one divides i n two, that is, productive forces are bec o m i n g ever more autonomous i n their production o f c o m m o n goods, such as ideas, codes, affects, images, and the like. Capital still manages to expropriate the c o m m o n that is produced, and ruling

fer terribly, but still we laugh w i t h j o y . T h e y w i l l be buried by laughter.

383

NOTES / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /

INDEX

NOTES

PREFACE

1. For some recent arguments for the c o m m o n i n various fields, see N i c k Dyer-Witherford, Cyber-Marx (Urbana: University o f Illinois Press, 1999); Augusto Illuminati, Del comune ( R o m e : Manifestolibri, 2003); Massimo D e Angelis, The Beginning of History (London: Pluto, 2007); Peter Linebaugh, The Magna Carta Manifesto (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 2008); N a o m i K l e i n , " R e c l a i m i n g the C o m m o n s , " New Left Review, no. 9 ( M a y June 2001), 81-89; D o n a l d N o n i n i , ed., The Global Idea of "the Commons" ( N e w York: Berghahn Books, 2007); and M i c h a e l Blecher, " R e c l a i m i n g the C o m m o n or the Beginning o f the E n d o f the (Legal) System," i n Entgrenzungen und Vernetzungen im Recht: Liber Amicorum Gunther Teubner, ed. G.-P. Callies, Andreas Fischer-Lescano, D a n W i e l s c h , and Peer Zumbansen ( N e w Y o r k : DeGruyter, forthcoming). 2. Gilles Deleuze, " W h a t Is a Dispositif?" i n Michel Foucault, Philosopher, ed. T i m o t h y Armstrong ( N e w York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 159-168. 3. Walter Benjamin, "Experience and Poverty," i n Selected Writings, v o l . 2 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005), p. 732. See Patrick Greaneys excellent analysis o f the concept o f poverty i n Benjamin and other modern European poets and philosophers, Untimely Beggars ( M i n neapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2008). 4. See Luce Irigaray, Ethique de la difference sexuelle (Paris: M i n u i t , 1984), pp. 27—39;Diotima, Ilpensiero della differenza sessuale (Milan: LaTartaruga, 1987); and Adriana Cavarero, Nonostante Platone ( R o m e : E d i t o r i R i u n i t i , 1990). 5. R e a d i n g M a r x and Spinoza, Franck Fischbach identifies a very similar n o tion o f j o y and happiness based i n productivity and differences grounded i n the c o m m o n . See La production des hommes (Paris: P U F , 2005), p. 145. 6. See Jacques Derrida, D'un ton apocalyptique adopte naguere en philosophie (Paris: Galilee, 1983). 7. Jean-Luc Nancy, The Birth to Presence, trans. B r i a n Holmes and others (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), p. 407, n. 56.

388

NOTES

1.

TO PAGES

4-10

REPUBLIC (AND THE MULTITUDE OF THE POOR)

1. For an example o f leftist accusations o f fascism centered on the U.S. government, see N a o m i Wolf, "Fascist America, i n 10 Easy Steps," The Guard-

NOTES

TO PAGES

11 -1 7

States," i n The Works offohn Adams, 10 vols., ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, B r o w n & C o . , 1850), 6:9. 13. O n the right to bear arms, see J. G . A . Pocock, "Historical Introduction," i n

ian, 24 A p r i l 2007. For an example o f the right-wing usage o f "islamofas-

The Political Works ofJames Harrington (Cambridge: Cambridge University

cism," see N o r m a n Podhoretz, World War IV: The Long Struggle against

Press, 1977), pp. 138-143; A n t o n i o N e g r i , Insurgencies, trans. M a u r i z i a

Islamofascism ( N e w York: Doubleday, 2007).

Boscagli (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1999), pp. 163—164;

2. A m o n g recent scholarship that focuses on sovereignty, the work o f G i o r gio Agamben is undoubtedly the most sophisticated and significant. See i n particular Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel HellerR o a z e n (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998); and State of Exception,

and Joyce Lee M a l c o l m , To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994). 14. The Federalist, no. 51, ed. Benjamin Fletcher W r i g h t (Cambridge, Mass.:

trans. K e v i n Attell (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 2005). See also

Harvard University Press, 1961). 15. See N e g r i , Insurgencies, pp. 205-212 and 235-236.

Jean-Claude M o n o d , Penser I'ennemi, affronter I'exception: Reflexions critiques

16. H e n r y Cachard, ed., The French Civil Code (London: Stevens and Sons,

sur I'actualite de Carl Schmitt (Paris: La decouverte, 2007). 3. L e o n R o b i n , La pensee grecque et les origines de I'esprit scientifique (Paris: R e naissance du livre, 1923), pp. 209—212. 4. Immanuel Kant, introduction to Critique of Pure Reason, ed. Paul Guyer and A l l e n W o o d (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), A l l , B 2 5 , p . 149. 5. For our previous analyses o f the Kantian forms o f juridical thought, see M i c h a e l Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State-form (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1994), pp. 217— 261; and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Alle origini del formalismo giuridico (Padua: Cedam, 1962), chap. 1. 6. Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Intellectual and Manual Labour (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1978), p. 35. 7. Thomas Jefferson Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816, i n Writings, ed. M e r r i l l Peterson (Washington, D C : Library o f America, 1984), p. 1396. 8. Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes, Ecrits politiques, ed. R o b e r t o Zapperi (Paris: E d i tions des archives contemporaines, 1985), p. 81. 9. For an excellent historical presentation o f republican thought i n England, w h i c h integrates the results o f Q u e n t i n Skinners and J . G . A . Pocock's analyses, see Jonathan Scott, Commonwealth Principles (Cambridge: C a m bridge University Press, 2004). 10. O n the notion o f material constitution, see Costantino Mortati, La costituzione in senso materiale (Milan: Giuffre, 1940); and Ernst Forsthoff, Rechtsstaat im Wandel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1964). 11. Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States ( N e w Y o r k : Macmillan, 1913), p. 324. 12. John Adams, "Defense o f the Constitutions o f Government o f the U n i t e d

1895), p. 134. 17. O n the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n as an unthinkable event, see M i c h e l - R o l p h Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston: B e a con Press, 1995), pp. 70-107. O n the place o f H a i t i i n the pantheon o f modern revolutions, see N i c k Nesbitt, Universal Emancipation: The Haitian Revolution and the Radical Enlightenment (Charlottesville: University o f V i r ginia Press, 2008); Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004); and Sibylle Fischer, Modernity Disavowed: Haiti and the Cultures of Slavery in the Age of Revolution (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2004). 18. See Ranajit G u h a , A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of Permanent Settlement, 2nd ed. (Durham: D u k e University Press, 1983). 19. Evgeny Pashukanis, General Theory of Law and Marxism, i n Selected Writings on Marxism and Law, ed. Piers Bierne and R o b e r t Sharlet (London: A c a demic Press, 1980), p. 69. O n Pashukanis, see Hans Kelsen, The Communist Theory of Law ( N e w York: Praeger, 1955); and A n t o n i o N e g r i , "Rileggendo Pashukanis," i n La forma stato (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1979), pp. 161-195. M o r e generally, on the relation between private and public law, see K a r l Renner, The Institutions of Private Law and Their Social Functions, trans. Agnes Schwarzschild (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949); J o h n R . C o m mons, Legal Foundations of Capitalism ( N e w York: Macmillan, 1924); and, from a historical point o f view, Franz Wieacker, The History of Private Law in Europe, trans. Tony Weir (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). 20. Immanuel Kant, " A n Answer to the Question:'What is Enlightenment?'" i n Political Writings, 2nd ed., ed. H . S. Reiss (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i versity Press, 1991), pp. 54-60. 21. For a reading o f the m i n o r Kant relatively close to our o w n , see M i c h e l

389

390

NOTES

TO PAGES

18-24

Foucault, " W h a t Is Enlightenment?" i n Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, ed.

NOTES

TO PAGES

25-38

28. See Raniero Panzieri, Lotte operate nello sviluppo capitalistico (Turin: Einaudi,

Paul R a b i n o w ( N e w York: N e w Press, 1997), pp. 303-320; and Foucault,

1976), pp. 88—96; Cornelius Castoriadis, " R e c o m m e n c e r la revolution,"

introduction to Immanuel Kant, Anthropologie d'un point de vue pragmatique

Socialisme ou barbarie, no. 35 (January 1964), p. 136; and Hans-Jiirgen Krahl,

(Paris:Vrin, 2008), pp. 11-79. M a n y brilliant and original books have been

Kostitution und Klassenkampf (Frankfurt: N e u e K r i t i k , 1971), chap. 31.

published i n recent years that provide alternative images o f Kant that differ to varying degrees from the m i n o r Kant w h o interests us here. See i n particular Peter Fenves, Late Kant ( N e w York: Routledge, 2003); and K o j i n Karatani, Transcritique: On Kant and Marx, trans. Sabu Kohso (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 2003). 22. For an example o f Habermas's early work o n intersubjectivity, see Jiirgen Habermas, "Labor and Interaction: Remarks on Hegel's Jena Philosophy of Mind," i n Theory and Practice, trans. John Viertel (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), pp. 142—169. For his later work o n the communicative public sphere, see primarily The Theory of Communicative Action, 2 vols., trans. Thomas M c C a r t h y (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984). For Rawls, both elements we identify i n his work can be found i n John Rawls, A Theory of

29. See, for example, G e o r g Lukacs, The Destruction of Reason, trans. Peter Palmer (Atlantic Highlands, N . J . : Humanities Press, 1980). 30. Briefwechsel zwischen Wilhelm Dilthey und dem Grafen PaulYorck von Wartenburg, 1877—97, ed. Sigrid v o n der Schulenburg (Halle: Niemeyer, 1923). 31. R e i n e r Schurmann, Des hegemonies brisees (Toulouse: T. E . R . , 1996), p. 650. 32. O n the relationship between Foucault and Merleau-Ponty, see Daniel L i otta, Qu'est-ce que une reprise? Deux etudes sur Foucault (Marseille:Transbordeurs,2007). 33. See, for example, Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Charles M a r k m a n n ( N e w York: Grove, 1967), p. 116.

Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). O n e can follow

34. O n the way new medical technologies have shifted the boundaries o f ra-

the movement i n his thought away from schemas o f redistribution i n Col-

cial discourse, see Paul Gilroy, Against Race: Imagining Political Culture be-

lected Papers, ed. Samuel Freeman (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

yond the Color Line (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000),

Press, 1999).

pp. 44—48.

23. For some representative works, see A n t h o n y Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990); Giddens, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge: Polity, 1998); U l r i c h Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash, Reflexive Modernization ( C a m -

35. M a r x explains the metaphysical character o f commodities i n the famous passage o n fetishism i n Capital, v o l . 1, trans. B e n Fowkes ( N e w York: V i n tage, 1976), pp. 163-177. 36. M i c h e l Foucault, "L'esprit d'un monde sans esprit" (interview w i t h Pierre

bridge: Polity, 1994); and U l r i c h Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Moder-

Blanchet and Claire B r i e r e ) , i n Dits et ecrits, vol. 3 (Paris: Gallimard, 1994),

nity, trans. M a r k R i t t e r (London: Sage, 1992).

p. 749. See also Foucault, "Teheran: la foi contre le chah," ibid., pp. 683—

24. For a critique o f "global social democracy" i n terms somewhat different

688. English translations o f Foucault's essays and interviews on the Iranian

from ours, see Walden Bello, " T h e Post-Washington Dissensus" (Washing-

R e v o l u t i o n are included as the appendix o f Janet Afary and K e v i n A n d e r -

ton, D . C . : Foreign Policy i n Focus, September 24, 2007).

son, Foucault and the Iranian Revolution (Chicago: University o f Chicago

25. Karl M a r x , Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, i n Early Writings, trans.

Press, 2005), pp. 179-277.

R o d n e y Livingstone and Gregor Benton (London: Penguin, 1975), p. 336.

37. For a sustained argument for the continuing importance o f nationalism

26. O n Althusser s conception o f the break i n Marx's thought, see Louis A l -

and national thought, particularly i n the subordinated countries, see Pheng

thusser, For Marx, trans. B e n Brewster ( N e w York: Pantheon, 1969). For

Cheah, Spectral Nationality ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 2003),

the Frankfurt School, see, for example, M a x H o r k h e i m e r and Theodor

and Inhuman Conditions: On Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights ( C a m -

A d o r n o , The Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. E d m u n d Jephcott (Stanford:

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006).

Stanford University Press, 2002). 27. M a r i o Tronti, Operai e capitale (Turin: Einaudi, 1964), p. 89. See also the anthology Socialisme ou barbarie (Paris: Acratie, 2006); and Ranajit G u h a and Gayatri Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies ( N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i versity Press, 1988).

38. Frantz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth, trans. R i c h a r d Philcox ( N e w York: Grove, 2004). 39. O n blackness and freedom, see C e d r i c R o b i n s o n , Black Marxism (London: Z e d Press, 1983); and Fred M o t e n , In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2003). 40. M a r x , Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, p. 351.

391

392

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

40-44

41. D a v i d Wootten, ed., Divine Right and Democracy ( N e w York: Penguin,

TO PAGES

44-50

Leonardo Boff, Saint Francis: A Model for Human Liberation ( N e w York:

1986), p. 273.We are grateful to Russ Leo for his guidance i n studying the

Crossroad, 1982). O n Marsilius's affirmation o f "supreme poverty," see De-

role o f the multitude i n seventeenth-century English thought.

fender of Peace, trans. A l a n G e w i r t h ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1956), i n particular Discourse Two, chaps. 12-14, pp. 187—233.

42. N a h u m Tate, Richard the Second, 2.1.25, cited i n Wolfram Schmidgen,"The Last R o y a l Bastard and the Multitude,"Jowma/ of British Studies 47 (January 2008), 64.

51. See Franz M e h r i n g , Absolutism and Revolution in Germany, 1525—1848

43. The Putney Debates, ed. Geoffrey Robertson (London:Verso, 2007), p. 69.

52. See Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra (Bos-

44. R o b e r t Filmer, "Observations upon Aristotle's Politiques," i n Patriarchia and Other Writings, ed.Johann Sommerville (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i versity Press, 1991), p. 236. O n Filmer's refusal o f the power o f the m u l t i tude, see also ibid., pp. 1—68. 45. Thomas Hobbes, The Elements of Law Natural and Politic, ed.J. O A . Gaskin, pt. 2 (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1994), chap. 21, p. 125. For the mandate to reduce the multitude to a unity, see also Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C . B . Macpherson (London: Penguin, 1968), chaps. 16 and 17, i n particular pp. 220-221 and 227-228. For the distinction between the multitude and the people, see Hobbes, De Cive ( N e w York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1949), chap. 12, sec. 8, p. 135. 46. C i t e d in Wolfram Schmidgen/'Empiricist Multitudes i n Boyle and Locke," paper delivered at the Conference o f the Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts, Chicago, Fall 2005. We follow Schmidgen's analysis throughout this paragraph. 47. O n the Hobbes-Boyle controversies and the relation between scientific debates and political questions o f social order, see Steven Shapin and S i -

(London: N e w Park Publications, 1975).

ton: Beacon Press, 2000). 53. Jacques Ranciere, Disagreement, trans. Julie R o s e (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1999), p. 11. 54. A d o l p h e Thiers cited i n Jeffrey Schnapp and Matthew Tiews, eds., Crowds (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006), p. 71. 55. Pope Benedict X V I , God Is Love (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006). 56. M a r t i n Heidegger, " D i e Armut," i n Heidegger Studies, vol. 10 (Berlin: Duncker & H u m b l o t , 1994), pp. 5—11. Translations are our o w n . For the account o f the scene o f Heidegger's lecture, we follow Philippe LacoueLabarthe's excellent introduction to the French edition o f the text, M a r t i n Heidegger, La pauvrete (Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 2004), pp. 7 - 6 5 . F.-W. v o n H e r r m a n n explains i n his editorial note (p. 11) to the original publication o f the text i n Heidegger Studies that Heidegger added i n the margin the sentence about world history. 57. Ibid., p. 8. 58. Ibid., pp. 8,9. 59. Slavoj Z i z e k similarly shows h o w Heidegger translates his anticommunism

m o n Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimen-

into an ontological argument i n his 1942 lectures on Holderlin's hymn

tal Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).

" T h e Ister," focusing on Heidegger's explanation o f "the essence o f v i c -

48. T h e differences between Spinoza and Boyle are explored i n detail i n S p i -

tory" w i t h reference to the battle o f Stalingrad. M o r e generally, Z i z e k

noza's correspondence w i t h H e n r y Oldenburg. F o r recent analyses o f this

claims that central elements o f Heidegger's ontology function as an apol-

polemic, see Luisa Simonutti, '"Dalle sensate esperienze' all'ermeneutica

ogy for N a z i militarism. See Slavoj Z i z e k , The Parallax View (Cambridge,

biblica," i n Spinoza: Ricerche e prospettive, ed. Daniela Bostrenghi and C r i s -

Mass.: M I T Press, 2006), pp. 275-285.

tina Santinelli (Naples: Bibliopolis, 2007), pp. 313-326; and ElhananYakira, "Boyle et Spinoza," Archives de philosophie 51, no. 1 (1988), 107-124. 49. See A n t o n i o N e g r i , The Savage Anomaly (Minneapolis: University o f M i n nesota Press, 1991). 50. O n the legal theory o f Franciscanism i n relation to poverty, see Giovanni Tarello, "Profili giuridici della questione della poverta nel francescanesimo prima di O c k h a m , " i n Scritti in memoria di Antonio Falchi (Milan: Giuffre, 1964), pp. 338-448. O n the Franciscan affirmation o f poverty as a c o n temporary political perspective, i n the context o f liberation theology, see

60. See T h e o d o r A d o r n o , Else Frenkel Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and R . Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality ( N e w York: Harper & B r o t h ers, 1950). 61. H e n r y Louis Gates Jr. and C o r n e l l West, The Future of Race ( N e w York: Knopf, 1996), p. x i i i . 62. O n the hypothesis o f a strong theoretical relationship between Heidegger and Schmitt, see Jean-Claude M o n o d , Penser I'ennemi (Paris: La decouverte, 2007); and Carlo Galli, Genealogia della politica: Carl Schmitt e la crisi del pensiero politico moderno (Bologna: II M o l i n o , 1996).

393

394

NOTES

TO PAGES

51-58

NOTES

TO PAGES

58-67

63. Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth, ed. Ferdinand Tonnies ( N e w York: Barnes & Noble, 1969), Dialogue 3, p. 126.

phy, although they take an entirely different approach, arrive at similar re-

64. N i c c o l o Machiavelli, Florentine Histories, trans. Laura Banfield and Harvey Mansfield Jr. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), bk. 3, chap. 13, pp. 122-123.

approach i n "biopolitical" terms. See i n particular Specters of Marx, trans.

65. N i c c o l o Machiavelli, The Golden Ass, i n Machiavelli: The Chief Works, 3 vols., ed. Allan Gilbert (Durham: D u k e University Press, 1965), chap. 8, w . 118-123,2:772 (translation modified). 66. Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, i n Complete Works, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), bk. 3, Proposition 2, Scholium, p. 280. 67. K a r l M a r x , " E c o n o m i c Manuscript o f 1861-63," trans. B e n Fowkes, i n K a r l M a r x and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 30 ( N e w Y o r k : International Publishers, 1982), p. 40. See also Grundrisse, trans. M a r t i n N i c o laus ( N e w York: Vintage, 1973), pp. 295-296. We fundamentally concur w i t h Dussel's readings o f the successive drafts o f Capital on this topic. It is not surprising, given his interest i n and association w i t h liberation theology, that Dussel w o u l d be especially sensitive to Marx's focus on poverty. See Enrique Dussel, Towards an Unknown Marx: A Commentary on the Manuscripts of 1861—63, trans. Yolanda Angulo, ed. Fred Moseley (London: Routledge, 2001), esp. pp. 6-11 and 240-245. 68. Beverly Silver makes a similar point w h e n she highlights that boundaries are drawn around what counts as the w o r k i n g class i n a way that often neglects how gender and race are constitutive o f class identities.To analyze how w o r k i n g classes are made and unmade, she brings together a Polanyi model (emphasizing exploitation as expropriation and violence) and a M a r x m o d e l (focusing o n economic phenomena). See Beverly Silver, Forces of Labor: Workers' Movements and Globalization since 1810 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), esp. pp. 16—25. For an excellent dis-

sults. In some respects Derrida's later work attempts to define a political Peggy K a m u f ( N e w York: Routledge, 1994); and Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins (London:Verso, 1997). 71. See, for example, N o a m C h o m s k y and M i c h e l Foucault, The ChomskyFoucault Debate ( N e w York: N e w Press, 2006). 72. M i c h e l Foucault, " T h e Subject and Power," i n Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 221-222. 73. O n linguistic innovation i n Foucault, see Judith R e v e l , Foucault (Paris: Bordas, 2006); and A r n o l d Davidson, The Emergence of Sexuality: Historical Epistemology and the Formation of Concepts (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001). 74. T h e theory o f the event runs throughout Badiou's work. For a representative treatment, see A l a i n Badiou, Being and Event, trans. Oliver Feltham ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 2005), pts. 4 and 5, pp. 173-261. For Badiou's claim that contemporary political movements cannot break from the "dominant political subjectivities" w i t h the current mechanisms o f d o m i nation, see "Prefazione all'edizione italiana," i n Badiou, Metapolitica ( N a ples: C r o n o p i o , 2001), pp. 9—15, esp. pp. 13—14. 75. Luciano Bolis, 77 miogranello di sabbia (Turin: Einaudi, 1946), p. 4. 76. Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations, trans. M a r t i n Joughin ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1995), p. 176. 77. R e i n e r Schurmann, ed. and commentary, Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978), p. 4. 78. Charles Peirce, Elements of Logic, i n Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peine,

cussion o f these issues i n relation to Marx's notion o f primitive accumula-

ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i -

tion, see Sandro Mezzadra, "Attualita della preistoria: Per una rilettura del

versity Press, 1960), p. 474.

cap. 24 del Capitale, I," i n La condizione postcoloniale (Verona: O m b r e corte, 2008), pp. 127-154.

2.

MODERNITY (AND THE LANDSCAPES OF ALTERMODERNITY)

1. O n the double nature o f modernity and the hierarchical relationship that 69. See Francois Ewald, L'Etat-providence (Paris: Grasset, 1986); and R o b e r t o Esposito, Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy, trans.Timothy Campbell ( M i n n e apolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2008). 70. See Agamben, Homo Sacer; and Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community, trans. Peter C o n n o r , Lisa Garbus, Michael Holland, and Simona Sawhney (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1991). Jacques Derrida's early works, such as Writing and Difference and Margins of Philoso-

defines it, see M i c h a e l Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 69-92. 2. Walter M i g n o l o , The Idea of Latin America (Cambridge: Blackwell, 2005), p. x i i i . O n the definition o f modernity as the management o f the centerperiphery relation i n the world-system, see also Enrique Dussel, Etica de la liberacion (Madrid:Trotta, 1998), pp. 19-86. 3. Dussel invents the term "transmodernity" to name a notion o f modernity

395

396

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

68-72

that is not a European but a planetary phenomenon. See Enrique Dussel, The Invention of the Americas, trans. M i c h a e l Barber ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1995). 4. Ranajit Guha, Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 97-98. 5. James Lockhart, The Nahuas after the Conquest (Palo A l t o : Stanford U n i v e r sity Press, 1992), p. 14. See also Michael Ennis,"Historicizing Nahua U t o pias" (Ph.D. diss., D u k e University, 2005). 6. See, for example, Serge Gruzinski, The Conquest of Mexico:The Incorporation

TO PAGES

72-77

15. O n the contradictions o f slaves and property i n the development o f capitalism, w i t h an accent on the origins o f financial speculation, see Ian B a u c o m , Specters of the Atlantic: Finance Capital, Slavery, and the Philosophy of History (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2005). 16. M a r x to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, 28 December 1846, i n K a r l M a r x and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 38 ( N e w York: International Publishers, 1982), pp. 101-102. 17. O n the historical relationship between slavery and capitalist production, see Sidney M i n t z , Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History

of Indian Societies into the Western World, 16th—18th Centuries, trans. Eileen

( N e w York: Penguin, 1985); Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-

C o r r i g a n (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993).

System: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy,

7. O n Iroquois federalism, see Iris M a r i o n Young, " H y b r i d Democracy: Iroquois Federalism and the Postcolonial Project," i n Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. D u n c a n Ivison, Paul Patton, and W i l l Sanders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 237—258; and D o n a l d Grinde and Bruce Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1991).

1600-1750 ( N e w Y o r k : Academic Press, 1980); and R o b i n Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery (London: Verso, 1998). 18. O n the centrality o f race to modernity, see Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993). 19. O n the significance o f the Haitian R e v o l u t i o n for understanding the nature o f modernity and specifically on the notion o f disavowal, see Sibylle

8. Guha, Dominance without Hegemony, p. 89.

Fischer, Modernity Disavowed: Haiti and the Cultures of Slavery in the Age of

9. We are drawing i n very general terms on Jacques Lacan's notion o f fore-

Revolution (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2004). See also the 1805 H a i -

closure (forclusion). See Dylan Evans, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian

tian Constitution, w h i c h Fischer includes as an appendix, pp. 275—281.

Psychoanalysis ( N e w Y o r k : Routledge, 1996), pp. 64—66.

N o t e that even i n the Haitian Constitution private property is declared

10. See, for example, Matthew Sparke, In the Space of Theory: Postfoundational Geographies of the Nation-State (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2005); and James Ferguson and A k h i l Gupta, "Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography o f Neoliberal Governmentality," American Ethnologist 29, no. 4 (November 2002), 981-1002. 11. World-systems theory presents the best-articulated and most influential center-periphery model. See Immanuel Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2004). 12. See N e i l Lazarus, " T h e Fetish o f ' t h e West' i n Postcolonial Theory," i n Marxism, Modernity, and Postcolonial Studies, ed. Crystal Bartolovich and N e i l Lazarus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 43-64. 13. See Jiirgen Habermas, " M o d e r n i t y : A n Unfinished Project," i n Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, ed. M a u r i z i o Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1997), pp. 38-58; and The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1987). 14. See Susan B u c k - M o r s s , " H e g e l and Haiti," Critical Inquiry 26, no. 4 (Summer 2000), 821-865.

397

sacred and inviolable (Article 6). 20. This Foucaultian perspective resembles i n some ways that o f George R a w i c k , From Sundown to Sunup: The Making of the Black Community (Westport, C o n n . : Greenwood Press, 1972). 21. Baruch Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), chap. 17, p. 185. 22. See R o b i n Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery (London: Verso, 1988); and Yann M o u l i e r Boutang, De I'esclavage au salariat: Economie historique du salariat bride (Paris: P U F , 1998). 23. W . E . B . D u Bois, Black Reconstruction ( N e w Y o r k : Russell & Russell, 1935), p. 67. 24. W . E . B . D u Bois, The Gift of Black Folk ( N e w York: A M S Press, 1971), p. 139. 25. See F u r i o Ferraresi and Sandro Mezzadra, introduction to M a x Weber, Dalla terra alia fabbrica: Scritti sui lavoratori agricoli e lo Stato nazionale (1892— 1897) (Bari: Laterza, 2005), pp. vii—xliv; and M o u l i e r Boutang, De I'esclavage au salariat, pp. 109-130. 26. See Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (Cambridge, Mass.: H a r -

398

NOTES

TO PAGES

78-84

NOTES

vard University Press, 1985). O n "bare life," see G i o r g i o Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel H e l l e r - R o a z e n (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1998).

TO PAGES

85 - 8 9

C h u r c h i l l , ed., Marxism and Native Americans (Boston: South E n d Press, 1983). 38. W e are grouping together here the work o f authors such as Immanuel

27. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon, 1978).

Wallerstein and Giovanni A r r i g h i even though there are significant differ-

28. Gayatri Spivak, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason (Cambridge, Mass.: H a r vard University Press, 1999).

ences among them. A r r i g h i is the only one, i n our view, to articulate suc-

29. Pope Benedict X V I , "Inaugural Address o f the Fifth General Conference o f the Bishops o f Latin A m e r i c a and the Caribbean," 13 M a y 2007, w w w . Vatican.va.

economic development. In particular, he foresees a new cycle character-

30. Stokely Carmichael and Charles H a m i l t o n , Black Power ( N e w York: V i n tage, 1967).

See Adam Smith in Beijing (London: Verso, 2007). O n the importance o f

31. Barnor Hesse, "Im/Plausible Deniability: Racism's Conceptual D o u b l e

cessfully i n the era o f globalization the problem o f discontinuity i n cyclical ized by a relatively peaceful Chinese hegemony over the processes o f globalization that w i l l determine a new phase o f social and political relations. Arrighi's work and world-systems theory more generally i n contemporary political and theoretical debates, see Perry Anderson, "Jottings o n the C o n -

B i n d , " Social Identities 10, no. 1 (2004), 24. See also Hesse, "Discourse on

juncture," New Left Review, no. 48 (November-December 2007), 5-37.

Institutional Racism," i n Institutional Racism in Higher Education, ed. Ian

39. R o s a Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital, trans. Agnes Schwarzschild

Law, Deborah Phillips, and LauraTurney (LondomTrentham Books, 2004), pp. 131-148. M o r e generally, on the centrality o f racial hierarchy to the development o f the modern state, see D a v i d T h e o Goldberg, The Racial State (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002).

tional Publishers, 1939), p. 10 (1920 preface to the French and G e r m a n editions).

32. Throughout this paragraph we follow the illuminating analysis o f Irene Silverblatt, Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civilized World (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2004). 33. Nathan Wachtel, The Vision of the Vanquished: The Spanish Conquest of Peru through Indian Eyes, 1530-1570,

( N e w Y o r k : M o n t h l y Review, 1951), pp. 466-467. 40. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (New York: Interna-

trans. B e n Reynolds and Sian Reynolds

( N e w Y o r k : Barnes & N o b l e , 1977). 34. See R o m a n Rosdolsky's critique o f Engels, Engels and the "Nonhistone" Peoples:The National Question in the Revolution of 1848, trans, and ed.JohnPaul H i m k a (Glasgow: C r i t i q u e Books, 1986); and more generally E r i c Wolf, Europe and the People without History (Los Angeles: University o f C a l ifornia Press, 1982).

41. See M a o Tsetung, A Critique of Soviet Economics, trans. Moss Roberts ( N e w York: M o n t h l y Review, 1977). 42. Wang H u i , China's New Order (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), p. 150. See also Jean-Louis R o c c a , La societe chinoise vue par ses sociologues (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2008). 43. M a r x to N i c o l a i Mikhailovsky [also k n o w n as the "Letter to Otechestvenniye Zapiski"], November 1877, i n K a r l M a r x and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 24 (New York: International Publishers, 1989), p. 200. 44. K a r l M a r x , "First Draft o f Letter to Vera Zasulich," M a r c h 1881, ibid., p. 360.

35. See, for example, K a r l M a r x , " T h e British R u l e i n India" and " T h e Future

45. O n Marx's letters about the Russian commune, see Etienne Balibar, The

Results o f British R u l e i n India," i n Surveys from Exile, vol. 2 of Political

Philosophy of Marx (LondonVerso, 1995), pp. 106—112; and Enrique Dussel,

Writings, ed. D a v i d Fernbach (London: Penguin, 1973), pp. 301-307 and

El ultimo Marx (1863—1882) y la liberation latinoamericana (Ixtapalapa, M e x -

319-325.

ico: Siglo X X I , 1990), pp. 238-293.

36. Weber's famous lectures on science and politics as a calling or vocation la-

46. Jose Carlos Mariategui, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality (Austin:

ment our inability to liberate the historical condition from economism.

University ofTexas Press, 1971), p. 57. O n the relationship between "Inca

See M a x Weber, The Vocation Lectures, trans. R o d n e y Livingstone (India-

c o m m u n i s m " and European communisms i n Mariategui, see esp. pp. 35—

napolis: Hachett, 2004). 37. For critiques o f these aspects o f the Marxist tradition, see C e d r i c R o b i n son, Black Marxism (London: Z e d Books, 1983), pp. 9-63; and Ward

44, 74—76; and "Prologue to Tempest in the Andes," i n The Heroic and Creative Meaning of Socialism: Selected Essays of Jose Carlos Mariategui, ed. M i c h a e l Pearlman (Atlantic Highlands, N . J . : Humanities Press, 1996), pp. 79-84.

399

400

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

90-99

TO PAGES

99-109

47. For a useful history o f developmentalist discourses, see Gilbert Rist, The

also Michael A . Rosenthal, ' " T h e black, scabby Brazilian': Some Thoughts

History of Development (London: Z e d Books, 2002). For critiques o f devel-

on R a c e and Early M o d e r n Philosophy," Philosophy and Social Criticism 31,

opmentalist ideologies and political economy, see Arturo Escobar, Encoun-

no. 2 (2005), 211-221; and Warren M o n t a g , Bodies, Masses, Power: Spinoza

tering Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); and G i u -

and His Contemporaries (London: Verso, 1999), pp. 87-89 and 123. O n

seppe C o c c o and A n t o n i o N e g r i , GlobAL ( R o m e : Manifestolibri, 2006).

Kant's racism, see Emmanuel C h u k w a d i Eze, " T h e C o l o r o f Reason: T h e

48. This is the critique Althusser directed against Lenin i n the midst o f his polemic against the destructive effects o f Soviet ideology. See Louis A l thusser, Lenin and Philosophy, trans. B e n Brewster ( N e w York: M o n t h l y R e v i e w Press, 1971). 49. Wallerstein argues that i n the great ideological confrontation

Idea o f ' R a c e ' i n Kant's Anthropology," i n Postcolonial African Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), pp. 103-140. 60. O n the powers o f the imagination i n Spinoza, see A n t o n i o N e g r i , The Savage Anomaly (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1991), esp.

between

Wilsonianism and Leninism, w h i c h continued i n the latter half o f the century between capitalist modernization theory and socialist dependency theory, both sides shared a c o m m o n ideology o f national development. See Immanuel Wallerstein, " T h e Concept o f National Development, 1917—1989: Elegy and R e q u i e m , " American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 4—5 (March-June 1992), 517-529. 50. O n the concept o f "extremism o f the center," see Etienne Balibar, introduction to C a r l Schmitt, Le leviathan dans la doctrine de I'etat de Thomas Hobbes (Paris: Seuil, 2002), p. 11. 51. Ernesto Guevara, "Socialism and M a n i n Cuba," i n Che Guevara Reader, ed. D a v i d Deutschmann (Melbourne: Ocean Press, 2003), p. 217 (translation modified). O n Che's critique o f the orthodoxy o f Soviet economic policy, see Ernesto C h e Guevara, Apuntes criticos a la economia politica (Havana: Centra de estudios C h e Guevara, 2006). 52. See Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch ( N e w Y o r k : Autonomedia, 2004); and Luisa Muraro, La Signora del Gioco (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1976). 53. K a r l M a r x , Capital, vol. 1, trans. B e n Fowkes ( N e w York: Vintage, 1976), p. 91. 54. M a x H o r k h e i m e r and Theodor A d o r n o , The Dialetic of Enlightenment, trans. E d m u n d Jephcott (Palo A l t o : Stanford University Press, 2002), p. x v i 55. W i l l i a m Shakespeare, TheTempest, 1.2.311—313. 56. R o b e r t o Fernandez Retamar, Caliban and Other Essays, trans. Edward Baker (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesta Press, 1989), p. 14. 57. See A i m e Cesaire, A Tempest, trans. R i c h a r d M i l l e r ( N e w Y o r k : T G C T r a n s -

pp. 86—98. See also Daniela Bostrenghi, Forme e virtii della immaginazaione in Spinoza (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1996). 61. Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, trans. R i c h a r d Philcox ( N e w York: Grove, 2004), p. 155. 62. Ibid., p. 160. O n Fanon's notion o f a new humanity, see Lewis G o r d o n , Fanon and the Crisis of European Man ( N e w York: Routledge, 1995). 63. See, for example, Elizabeth Povinelli, The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism (Durham: D u k e U n i versity Press, 2002); and Manuhuia Barcham,"(De)Constructing the P o l i tics o f Indigeneity," i n Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and W i l l Sanders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 137-151. 64. G u i l l e r m o Bonfil Batalla, " U t o p i a y revolucion," i n Utopia y revolution: El pensamiento politico contemporaneo de los indios en America Latina, ed. Bonfil Batalla (Mexico C i t y : N u e v a Imagen, 1981), p. 24. See also Bonfil Batalla, Mexico prof undo: Una civilization negada (Mexico C i t y : Grijalbo, 1987). 65. See Leslie M a r m o n Silko, Ceremony ( N e w York: Penguin, 1977); Almanac of the Dead ( N e w York: Penguin, 1991); and Gardens in the Dunes ( N e w York: S i m o n and Schuster, 1999). 66. T h e argument i n this paragraph is drawn from Shannon Speed and Alvaro Reyes, "Rights, Resistance, and Radical Alternatives: T h e R e d de Defensores Comunitarios and Zapatismo i n Chiapas," Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 29, no. 1 (2005), 47-82. 67. See R e n e Zavaleta, Las masas en noviembre (La Paz:Juventud, 1983); and Lo

lations, 2002), esp. act 3, scene 5. See also Paget Henry, Caliban's Reason:

national popular en Bolivia (Mexico City: Siglo X X I , 1986). O n Zavaleta's

Introducing Afro-Caribbean Philosophy ( N e w York: Routledge, 2000).

notion o f Bolivia as a sociedad abigarrada, see Walter M i g n o l o , "Subalterns

58. Spinoza to Pieter Balling, 20 July 1664, i n Baruch Spinoza, Complete Works, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), p. 803. 59. For an astute analysis o f and ample bibliography o n Spinoza's letter, see Augusto Illuminati, Spinoza atlantico (Milan: Mimesis, forthcoming). See

and Other Agencies," Postcolonial Studies 8, no. 4 (November 2005), 3 8 1 407; Luis Atezana, La diversidad social en Zavaleta Mercado (La Paz: Centra Boliviano de Estudios Multidisciplinares, 1991), pp. 109-160; and Luis Tapia, La production del conocimiento local (La Paz: M u e l a del Diablo Editores, 2002), pp. 305-325.

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

110-113

68. See Alvaro Garcia Linera, Re-proletarizacion nueva clase obrera y desarrollo del capital industrial en Bolivia (1952-1998)

(La Paz: M u e l a del Diablo E d i -

TO PAGES

114-122

73. Jean-Marie Vincent analyzes the overcoming o f modernity i n terms o f the confluence o f the capitalist "totalization" o f civilization and a process o f

tores, 1999); and " L a muerte de la condicion obrera del siglo X X , " i n A l -

cultural "discouragement." See Jean-Marie Vincent, Max Weber ou la de-

varo Garcia Linera, R a q u e l Gutierrez, R a u l Prada, and Luis Tapia, El re-

mocratic inachevee (Paris: Editions du Felin, 1998), pp. 184—189. See also

torno de la Bolivia plebaya (La Paz: M u e l a del Diablo Editores, 2000),

Massimo Cacciari, Krisis: Saggio sulla crisi del pensiero negativo da Nietzsche a

pp. 13-50. 69. Alvaro Garcia Linera, introduction to Sociologta de los movimientos sociales en Bolivia, ed. Garcia Linera (La Paz: D i a k o n i a / O x f a m , 2004), p. 17. 70. For Zavaletas use o f the term "multitude," see R e n e Zavaleta, " F o r m a classe y forma multitud en el proletariado minero en Bolivia," i n Boliva, hoy, ed. Zavaleta (Mexico C i t y : Siglo X X I , 1983), pp. 219-240. For the use o f the concept by contemporary scholars, see the work o f the " C o m u n a " group, including R a q u e l Gutierrez, Alvaro Garcia Linera, R a u l Prada, O s -

Wittgenstein (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1976). 74. T h e weak versions o f postmodernism, from Jean-Francois Lyotard and R i c h a r d R o r t y to Jean Baudrillard and Gianni Vattimo, offer this k i n d o f aestheticized reaction to the crisis, at times veering into theology. 75. See Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 76. M i c h e l Foucault, " L e pouvoir psychiatrique," i n Dits et ecrits, 4 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1994), 2:686. See also Jacques Derrida's critique o f Foucault,

car Vega, and Luis Tapia. Representative texts include R a q u e l Gutierrez,

" C o g i t o and the History o f Madness," i n Writing and Difference, trans. A l a n

Alvaro Garcia Linera, and Luis Tapia, " L a forma multitud de la politica de

Bass (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 31-63; and F o u -

las necesidades vitales," i n El retorno de la Bolivia plebeya, pp. 133-184; Garcia Linera, "Sindicato, multitud y comunidad: Movimientos sociales y formas de autonomia politica," i n Tiempos de rebelion (La Paz: M u e l a del

cault, "Reponse a D e r r i d a , " i n Dits et ecrits, 2:281—295. 77. See Johannes Fabian, Out of Our Minds: Reason and Madness in the Exploration of Central Africa (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 2000).

Diablo Editores, 2001), pp. 9-79; and R a u l Prada, "Politica de las multi-

78. In addition to Henry, Caliban's Reason, w h i c h we cited earlier, see Walter

tudes," i n Memorias de Octubre (La Paz: M u e l a del Diablo Editores, 2004),

M i g n o l o , " T h e Geopolitics o f Knowledge and the C o l o n i a l Difference,"

pp. 89—135. O n the difference between Zavaleta's use o f the term " m u l t i -

South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 1 (Winter 2002), 57—96. For a good over-

tude" and that o f the group C o m u n a , see Garcia Linera, "Sindicato, m u l t i -

view o f the varieties o f feminist epistemologies, see Linda Alcoff and E l i z -

tud y comunidad," p. 39, n. 30.

abeth Potter, eds., Feminist Epistemologies ( N e w York: Routledge, 1993);

71. Two excellent sources on the basis o f the 2003 rebellion i n the existing structures o f self-government i n E l A l t o highlight different aspects: for an emphasis on the neighborhood councils, see R a u l Zibechi, Dispersar el

and Sandra Harding, ed., The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader ( N e w York: Routledge, 2004). 79. See D o n n a Haraway, " A C y b o r g Manifesto" and "Situated Knowledges:

poder: Los movimiento como poderes antiestatales (Buenos Aires: Tinta L i m o n ,

T h e Science Question i n Feminism and the Privilege o f Partial Perspec-

2006), pp. 33-60; and for an emphasis on the Aymara community struc-

tive," i n Simians, Cyborgs, and Women:The Reinvention of Nature ( N e w York:

tures, see Pablo M a m a n i , El rugir de las multitudes (La Paz: Ediciones Yachaywasi, 2004), pp. 139—159. O n rebellious forms o f youth and student sub-

Routledge, 1991), pp. 149-181 and 183-201. 80. See, for instance, A n t o n i o Gramsci's illuminating discussion o f " c o m m o n

jectivity i n E l Alto, including the role o f hip-hop and other cultural forms,

sense" i n " C r i t i c a l Notes on an Attempt at Popular Sociology," i n Selection

see Jiovanny Samanamud, Cleverth Cardenas, and Patrisia Prieto, Jovenes y

from the Prison Notebooks, trans. Q u i n t i n Hoare and Geoffrey N o w e l l Smith

politica en El Alto (La Paz: P I E B , 2007). Finally, for a philosophical reflection

( N e w York: International Publishers, 1971), pp. 419—472. O n " c o m m o n

on the role o f the multitude i n the 2003 uprising i n E l Alto, see R a u l

notions" i n Spinoza, see Martial Gueroult, Spinoza, v o l . 2, L'dme (Paris:

Prada, Largo octubre (La Paz: Plural, 2004). We are grateful to L i a Haro for sharing w i t h us her research i n Bolivia. 72. See, for example, U l r i c h B e c k and Christoph Lau, "Second M o d e r n i t y as a Research Agenda: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations i n the ' M e t a Change' o f M o d e r n Society," British Journal of Sociology 56, no. 4 (December 2005), 525—557. O n the question o f hypermodernity and postmodernity, see also A n t o n i o N e g r i , Fabrique de porcelaine (Paris: Stock, 2006).

Aubier-Montaigne, 1974), pp. 324-333. 81. M i c h e l Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, trans. David M a c e y (New York: Picador, 2003), p. 9. 82. L u d w i g Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G . E . M . Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953), no. 241, p. 75. 83. Ibid., no. 19, p. 7. 84. For a Wittgensteinian argument for the move from k n o w i n g to doing and

404

NOTES

TO PAGES

122-132

NOTES

from epistemology to political action, see Linda Z e r i l l i , Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 2005). 85. Philippe Descola, Par-dela nature et culture (Paris: Gallimard, 2005), pp. 1 2 9 131.

TO PAGES

1 3 2 - 1 40

3. R o b e r t Boyer, La croissance, debut de siecle (Paris: A l b i n M i c h e l , 2002), p. 192. 4. Christian Marazzi, "Capitalismo digitale e modello antropogenetico d i produzione," i n Reinventare il lavoro, ed. Jean-Louis Laville ( R o m e : Sapere

86. Claude Levi-Strauss, ed., L'identite: Seminaire interdisciplinaire (Paris: P U F , 1983), p. 331. 87. Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, "Exchanging Perspectives: T h e Transformation o f Subjects into Objects i n Amerindian Ontologies," Common Knowledge 10, no. 3 (2004), 474-475.

2000,2005), pp. 107-126. 5. O n the feminization o f work, see G u y Standing, " G l o b a l Feminization through Flexible Labor: A Theme Revisited," World Development 27, no. 3 (March 1999), 583-602; V. Spike Peterson, A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 62-65;Valentine M o g h a -

88. Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, From the Enemy's Point of View: Humanity and Divinity in an Amazonian Society, trans. Catherine H o w a r d (Chicago: U n i versity o f Chicago Press, 1992) [originally Arawete: Os deuses canibais (1986)].

dam, Globalizing Women (Baltimore J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press, 2005), pp. 51—58; and Nazneed Kanji and Kalyani M e n o n - S e n , " W h a t Does the Feminisation o f Labour M e a n for Sustainable Livelihoods," International Institute for Environment and Development, August 2001.

89. See B r u n o Latour, Politics of Nature, trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004).

6. Chandra Mohanty, " W o m e n Workers and Capitalist Scripts," i n Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures, ed. M . Jacqui Alexander

90. Baruch Spinoza, Letter 50 to Jarigjelles, i n Complete Works, pp. 891—892. 91. See Gianfranco Pala, ed., "L'inchiesta operaia d i M a r x " (1880), Quaderni rossi, no. 5 (April 1965), 24-30.

and Chandra Mohanty ( N e w Y o r k : Routledge, 1997), p. 20. See also Peterson, A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy, pp. 6 5 - 6 8 . 7. Michael Foucault, "Entretien" (with D u c c i o T r o m a d o r i ) , i n Dits et ecrits, 4

92. O n the logic o f teach-ins i n the 1960s, see, for instance, Marshall Sahlins,

vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1994), 4:74 [in English, Remarks on Marx ( N e w

" T h e Future o f the National Teach-in: A H i s t o r y " (1965), i n Culture in

York: Semiotext(e), 1991), pp. 121—122]. A t this point i n the interview

Practice ( N e w Y o r k : Z o n e Books, 2000), pp. 209-218.

Foucault is discussing his differences from the Frankfurt School.

93. M i c h e l Foucault,"Le jeu de M i c h e l Foucault,"in Dits et ecrits, 3:299-300. 94. See R o m a n o Alquati, Sulla Fiat ed altri scritti (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1975); and Per fare conricerca (Turin: Velleita alternative, 1993).

8. See, for example, D a v i d Harvey's analyses o f neoliberalism i n The New Imperialism (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 2003); and A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). See also A i h w a

95. See, for example, Charles Hale, "Activist Research v. Cultural Critique," Cultural Anthropology 21, no. 1 (2006), 96-120.

O n g , Neoliberalism as Exception (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2006). 9. N a o m i K l e i n , The Shock Doctrine ( N e w York: Metropolitan Books, 2007).

96. See, for example, M T D Solano and Colectivo Situaciones, La hipotesis 891 (Buenos Aires: D e mano en mano, 2002); Collettivo edu-factory, ed., L'universita globale ( R o m e : Manifestolibri, 2008); and Marta M a l o , ed., Nociones comunes: Experiencias y ensayos entre investigation y militancia (Madrid: Traficantes de Suenos, 2004).

10. O n the economies o f extraction i n southern and central Africa, see James Ferguson, Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2006), pp. 194-210. 11. O n primitive accumulation, see Jason R e a d , The Micro-Politics of Capital (Albany: S U N Y Press, 2003); and Sandro Mezzadra,"Attualita della preis-

97. R o b i n Kelley, Freedom Dreams (Boston: Beacon Press, 2002), p. 8.

toria," i n La condizione postcoloniale (Verona: O m b r e corte, 2008), pp. 127—

98. W e substitute "confirmation" for "analogy" w h e n we paraphrase M e l a n d r i

154.

here, without, we hope, departing too far from his meaning. See E n z o M e l a n d r i , La linea e il circolo (Macerata: Quidlibet, 2004), p. 810.

12. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1980), p. 18. 13. Thomas Jefferson to Isaac M c P h e r s o n , 13 August 1813, i n The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. A n d r e w A . Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, 20 vols.

3. C A P I T A L ( A N D T H E S T R U G G L E S O V E R C O M M O N

WEALTH)

1. O n the emerging hegemony o f immaterial production, see M i c h a e l Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Multitude ( N e w York: Penguin, 2004), pp. 103-115. 2. Andre Gorz, L'immateriel (Paris: Galilee, 2003), p. 35.

(Washington, D C : Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905), 13:333. 14. O n the concept o f alienation w i t h regard to affective labor, see Kathi Weeks, "Life within and against Work: Affective Labor, Feminist Critique, and Post-Fordist Politics," Ephemera 7, no. 1 (2007), 233—249. See also

405

406

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

140-155

Christophe Dejours, ed., Plaisir et souffrance dans le travail, 2 vols. (Paris: A o cip, 1987-88); and Yves C l o t , Lafonction psychologique du travail (Paris: P U F , 1999). 15. O n cooperation, see K a r l M a r x , Capital, vol. 1, trans. B e n Fowkes ( N e w York-.Vintage, 1976), pp. 439-^54. 16. O n externalities i n economics, see Yann M o u l i e r Boutang, Le capitalistne cognitij(Paris: Amsterdam, 2007); and Carlo Vercellone, ed., Capitalismo cognitive/ ( R o m e : Manifestolibri, 2006).

TO PAGES

155-166

28. See A n t o n i o N e g r i and Carlo Vercellone, " L e rapport capital / travail dans le capitalisme cognitif," Multitudes, no. 32 (March 2008), 3 9 - 5 0 . 29. O n the c o m m o n i n urban spaces, see H e n r i Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life, 3 vols., trans.John M o o r e (LondomVerso, 1991). 30. See Georg Simmel, " T h e Metropolis and M e n t a l Life," i n The Sociology of Georg Simmel, ed. K u r t W o l f f (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1950), pp. 4 0 9 424. 31. For excellent analyses o f money as equivalent, money as means o f circula-

17. See Carlo Vercellone, "Finance, rente, et travail dans le capitalisme c o g nitif," Multitudes, no. 32 (March 2008), 32-38.

tion, and money as capital, see M i c h e l Aglietta, Macroeconomie financiere

18. John Maynard Keynes, The GeneralTheory of Employment, Interest and Money

Entre violence et confiance (Paris: O d i l e Jacob, 2002).

(London: Macmillan, 1936), p. 376.

(Paris: La decouverte, 2002); and Aglietta and Andre Orlean, La monnaie: 32. See Christian Marazzi, E il denaro va.Esodo e rivoluzione dei mercatifinanziari

19. See again K l e i n , The Shock Doctrine.

(Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1998); and Capital and Language: From the New

20. O n the forms o f crisis conceived by traditional political economy, see

Economy to the War Economy, trans. Gregory C o n t i (NewYork: Semiotext(e),

Adelino Z a n i n i , Economic Philosophy (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2008). 21. See M i c h e l Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy ( N e w Y o r k : N Y U Press, 1975), p. 61.

2008). 33. See Giovanni A r r i g h i , The LongTwentieth Century (London:Verso, 1994). 34. G e o r g Simmel, The Philosophy of Money, 3rd ed., ed. David Frisby, trans.

22. O n precarity i n Europe, see A n n e Gray, Unsocial Europe: Social Protection or Flexploitation? (London: Pluto Press, 2004); Andrea Fumagalli, Bioeconomia

T o m Bottomore and David Frisby ( N e w Y o r k : Routledge, 2004), p. 129. 35. Judith Butler creatively reads Antigone's claim against C r e o n as a way to

e capitalismo cognitivo ( R o m e : Carocci, 2007); Evelyne Perrin, Chomeurs et

think the freedom to construct alternative kinship structures outside the

precaires, au cceur de la question sociale (Paris: L a dispute, 2004); Pascal Nicolas-

rule o f heteronormative family i n Antigone's Claim: Kinship between Life

Le-Strat, L'experience de I'intermittence (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2005); and A n -

and Death ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 2000). See also Valerie

toniella Corsani and M a u r i z i o Lazzarato, Intermittents et precaires (Paris:

Lehr, Queer Family Values (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999).

Amsterdam, 2008).

36. See Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive (Durham:

23. Danny Hoffman,"The C i t y as Barracks: Freetown, Monrovia, and the O r ganization ofViolence i n Postcolonial African Cities," Cultural Anthropology 22, no. 3 (2007), 400-428.

D u k e University Press, 2004). 37. O n the struggles o f w o r k i n g couples i n the U n i t e d States to balance work and family, see Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Time Bind: When Work Be-

24. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, cited i n M a r x , Capital, 1:764.

comes Home and Home Becomes Work, 2nd ed. ( N e w York: H o l t , 2001); and

25. R i c h a r d Florida claims that the "creative class" thrives i n a society charac-

Kathi Weeks, " H o u r s for W h a t We W i l l : Work, Family, and the Movement

terized by tolerance, openness, and diversity; see The Rise of the Creative Class ( N e w Y o r k : Basic Books, 2002).

for Shorter Hours," Feminist Studies 35, no. 1 (Spring 2009). 38. Pheng C h e a h offers one o f the most sustained arguments i n favor o f the

26. Fredric Jameson provides an excellent analysis o f the problem o f ground

nation as a center o f thought and politics and as the locus o f freedom, es-

rent i n the context o f architecture and finance capital i n " T h e B r i c k and

pecially i n the subordinated parts o f the world. See Spectral Nationality:

the Balloon: Architecture, Idealism, and Land Speculation," i n The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998

(LondomVerso, 1998),

pp. 162-190. 27. See, as just one example o f a vast literature, Edward Glaeser, "Market and Policy Failure i n U r b a n Economics," i n Chile: Political Economy of Urban Development, ed. Glaeser and John R . Meyer (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard School o f Government, 2002), pp. 13—26.

Passages of Freedom from Kant to Postcolonial Literatures of Liberation ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 2003); and Inhuman Conditions: On Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007). 39. See Hardt and N e g r i , Multitude. 40. Pierre Macherey, "Presentation," Citephilo, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille, 19 November 2004.

407

408

NOTES

TO PAGES

167-179

NOTES

TO PAGES

182-194

41. Ernesto Laclau, On Populist Reason (London:Verso, 2005), p. 153.

cept o f love. See Un monde a changer (Paris: Textuel, 2003), pp. 69—89; and

42. See Paolo V i r n o , "II cosidetto 'male' e la critica dello Stato," Forme di vita, no. 4 (2005), 9-36.

" A n t o n i o N e g r i et le pouvoir constituent," i n Resistances (Paris: Fayard,

43. See Etienne Balibar, "Spinoza, the A n t i - O r w e l l : T h e Fear o f the Masses," i n Masses, Classes, Ideas, trans.James Swenson ( N e w Y o r k : Routledge, 1993), pp. 3—38; and "Potentia multitudinis, quae una veluti mente dicitur," i n Ethik, Recht und Politik, ed. Marcel Senn and Manfred Walther (Zurich: Schulthess,2001),pp. 105-137. 44. See Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 2006), pp. 261-267. 45. A l a i n Badiou,"Beyond Formalization: A n Interview," trans. B r u n o Bosteels and Alberto Toscano, Angelaki 8, no. 2 (August 2003), 125. 46. See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity ( N e w York: Routledge, 1990); and Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex" ( N e w York: Routledge, 1993). 47. A n n e Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality ( N e w York: Basic Books, 2000), p. 4. O n the question o f bone development and sex, see Fausto-Sterling, " T h e Bare Bones o f Sex: Part 1—Sex and Gender," Signs 30, no. 2 (2005), 1491-1527. M o r e generally on gender and corporeality i n science studies, see Elizabeth W i l s o n , Psychosomatic: Feminism and the Neurological Body (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2004). 48. O n the ontologically constituent character o f the modes i n Spinoza, see Gilles Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, trans. M a r t i n Joughin (New York: Z o n e Books, 1990); A n t o n i o N e g r i , The Savage Anomaly: The Power of Spinoza's Metaphysics and Politics (Minneapolis: University o f M i n nesota Press, 1991); and, more recently, Laurent Bove, La strategic du conatus (Paris:Vrin, 2001). 49. M a n y feminist theorists come to analogous conclusions negotiating poststructuralism and identity demands. See, for example, R e y C h o w , " T h e Interruption o f Referentiality: or, Poststructuralism's Outside," i n The Age of the World Target (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2006), pp. 45—70. 50. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1958), p. 233. 51. V. I. Lenin, State and Revolution ( N e w Y o r k : International Publishers, 1971), p. 43. 52. Macherey,"Presentation." 53. K a r l M a r x , Grundrisse, trans. M a r t i n Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 712. 54. Daniel Bensai'd seems particularly uncomfortable w i t h our use o f the c o n -

2001), pp. 193-212. 55. See Franz Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, trans. Barbara Galli ( M a d i son: University ofWisconsin Press, 2005), p. 234. 56. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Adrian D e l Caro ( C a m bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 44—45. 57. Arendt, The Human Condition, i n particular pp. 5 0 - 5 7 . 58. A d a m Smith, Hie Wealth of Nations, ed. E d w i n Cannan ( N e w York: M o d ern Library, 1994), p. 15. 59. O n pollination as an example o f a positive externality, see Boutang, Le capitalisme cognitif. 60. Felix Guattari, The Anti-Oedipus Papers, ed. Stephane Nadaud, trans. Kelina G o t m a n ( N e w Y o r k : Semiotext(e), 2006), p. 179. 61. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. B r i a n M a s sumi (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1987), pp. 10. INTERMEZZO

1. See H e l m u t h Plessner, Macht und menschliche Natur (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1981). O n Plessner's notion o f intraspecies aggressiveness, see Paolo V i r n o , "II cosidetto 'male' e la critica dello Stato," Forme di vita, no. 4 (2005), 9-36. 2. B a r u c h Spinoza, Theologico-Political Treatise, i n Complete Works, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), pp. 389-390. 3. See Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and Other Writings, ed. and trans. A l l e n W o o d and George D i Giovanni (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). O n the ambiguities and contradictions o f Kant's theory o f evil, see V i c t o r Delbos, La philosophie pratique de Kant (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1905), p. 621. M o r e generally, see R i c h a r d B e r n stein, Radical Evil (Cambridge: Polity, 2002). O n the figures o f juridical formalism, w h i c h give law a regulative function based on formal, a priori elements, see A n t o n i o N e g r i , Alle origini delformalismo giuridico (Padua: C e dam, 1962). 4. See Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, pt. 3, Proposition 9, Scholium, i n Collected Works, p. 284; and M i c h e l Foucault and N o a m C h o m s k y , " H u m a n Nature: Justice vs. Power," i n The Chomsky-Foucault Debate ( N e w York: N e w Press, 2006), p. 51. 5. Baruch Spinoza, Political Treatise, chap. 6, i n Complete Works, pp. 700-701. 6. Karl M a r x and Frederick Engels, The Holy Family, i n Collected Works, vol. 4 ( N e w Y o r k : International Publishers, 1975), p. 128.

409

410

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

1 95-208

7. For his discussions o f pain, see L u d w i g Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G . E . M . Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984). 8. See A n t o n i o N e g r i , Lenta ginestra (Milan: Sugarco, 1987). 9. Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth, trans. G . L . U l m e n (NewYork:Telos,

TO PAGES

209-2 1 5

examples o f those w h o maintain the faith, see the essays by R i c h a r d Perle, N o r m a n Podhoretz, M a x B o o t , and others organized i n the symposium "Defending and Advancing Freedom," Commentary 120, no. 4 (November 2005).

2003), pp. 59—60. G i o r g i o Agamben displays the erudition and brilliance

9. For two o f the more intelligent examples o f this line o f scholarship, see E l -

typical o f his work i n his reading o f this Pauline passage i n The Time That

len W o o d , Empire of Capital (London: Verso, 2003); and Tariq A l i , Bush in

Remains, trans. Patricia Dailey (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), pp. 108—112. Paolo V i r n o proposes the katechon as key to the institution o f

Babylon:The Recolonisation of Iraq (LondomVerso, 2003). 10. For our analysis o f the "revolution i n military affairs" and its application i n

the multitude i n Multitude: Between Innovation and Negation ( N e w York:

Iraq, see Michael Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Multitude ( N e w York: Pen-

Semiotext(e), 2008), pp. 56-67.

guin, 2004), pp. 41-62. 11. See Jennifer Taw and B r u c e Hoffmann, The Urbanization of Insurgency

4.

EMPIRE

RETURNS

1. See, for example, Philip G o r d o n , " T h e E n d o f the Bush Revolution," Foreign Affairs 85, no. 4 (July-August 2006), 75-86. 2. R i c h a r d Haass, " T h e A g e o f Nonpolarity: W h a t W i l l Follow U . S . D o m i nance," Foreign Affairs 87. no. 3 (May-June 2008), 44—56. See also Haass's analysis o f the end o f U.S. dominance i n the M i d d l e East,"The N e w M i d dle East," Foreign Affairs 85, no. 6 (November-December 2006), 2—11. For a similar view, see Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World ( N e w York: N o r t o n , 2008). 3. See M i c h a e l Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: H a r vard University Press, 2000). 4. Giovanni A r r i g h i situates the failure o f the coup and its imperialist project

(Santa M o n i c a , C a l i f : R a n d Corporation, 1994); and Stephen Graham, " R o b o - W a r Dreams: Global South Urbanization and the U n i t e d States Military's ' R e v o l u t i o n i n Military Affairs,'" L S E Crisis States W o r k i n g Papers, 2007. 12. Stephen Graham, "Imagining U r b a n Warfare," i n War, Citizenship, Territory, ed. Deborah C o h e n and E m i l y Gilbert ( N e w York: Routledge, 2007), pp. 33-56. 13. See Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation (London: Verso, 2007). 14. N o a m C h o m s k y is a tireless chronicler o f U.S. interventions that have u n dermined democratic governments throughout the world. See, among his

in an even longer historical frame: " T h e new imperialism o f the Project

other books, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance

for a N e w American Century probably marks the inglorious end o f the

( N e w York: O w l Books, 2004). Specifically w i t h regard to Latin America,

sixty-year long struggle o f the U n i t e d States to become the organizing

see G r e g Grandin, Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the

center o f a world state. T h e struggle changed the world but even i n its most triumphant moments, the U . S . never succeeded i n its endeavor." Giovanni A r r i g h i , Adam Smith in Beijing (London:Verso, 2007), p. 261. 5. For arguments for the use o f "soft power," see primarily Joseph N y e , Soft Power ( N e w York: Public Affairs, 2004); and The Paradox ofAmerican Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 6. David F r u m and R i c h a r d Perle, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror ( N e w Y o r k : R a n d o m House, 2003), p. 7. 7. N i a l l Ferguson is the most prominent pro-imperialist critic o f the U n i t e d States, chastising it for not doing what it takes to be a proper imperialist power. See Colossus ( N e w Y o r k : Penguin, 2004). 8. For an example o f a neoconservative w h o attempts to break w i t h the ideology, see Francis Fukuyama, After the Neocons (London: Profile, 2006). For

Rise of the New Imperialism ( N e w York: Metropolitan Books, 2006). 15. Emmanuel Todd is a good example o f a European w h o previously believed i n the benefits o f U.S. global hegemony and became disillusioned. See After the Empire:The Breakdown of the American Order, trans. C . J o n D e l ogu ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 2003). 16. Thomas Friedman,"Restoring O u r Honor," NewYork Times, 6 M a y 2004. 17. For a nuanced analysis o f how " b l o o d for o i l " is an insufficient frame for understanding the 2003 invasion o f Iraq, see Retort, Afflicted Powers: Capital and Spectacle in a New Age of War (LondonVerso, 2005), pp. 3 8 - 7 7 . 18. O n the clean slate model o f neoliberal transformation, see N a o m i Klein, The Shock Doctrine:The Rise of Disaster Capitalism ( N e w Y o r k : Metropolitan Books, 2007). O n the economic project o f the U.S. occupation o f Iraq, see K l e i n , "Baghdad Year Zero," Harpers (September 2004), 4 3 - 5 3 , and The Shock Doctrine, pp. 389-460.

411

412

NOTES

TO PAGES

217-227

NOTES

TO PAGES

228-236

19. A r r i g h i , Adam Smith in Beijing, p. 384. See also pp. 198-202.

See also U l r i c h Beck, Politik der Globalisierung (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2003);

20. W e share some aspects o f the analysis o f Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal ( N e w York: N o r t o n , 2007).

and U l r i c h B e c k and Edgard Grande, "Empire Europa," Zeitschriftfiir Poli-

21. A r r i g h i , Adam Smith in Beijing, p. 8. See also Giovanni A r r i g h i , The Long Twentieth Century (London:Verso, 1994).

tik 52, no. 4 (2004), 397-120. 33. See, for instance, w i t h respect to East Asia, A i h w a O n g , Neoliberalism as Exception (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2006); and, w i t h respect to A f -

22. H e n r y Kissinger, Speech at the International Bertelsmann Forum, 23 September 2006, cited i n DanielVernet,"Le monde selon Kissinger," Le monde, 25 October 2006.

rica, James Ferguson, Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order

23. Francis Fukuyama, State-Building (Ithaca: C o r n e l l University Press, 2004).

drome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

24. Saskia Sassen, Territory, Authority, Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006). 25. For useful introductions to the term "global governance," see Gianfranco Borrelli, ed., Governance (Naples: Dante & Descartes, 2004); and D a v i d H e l d and A n t h o n y M c G r e w , eds., Governing Globalization (Oxford: Polity, 2002). 26. See, for example, R o b e r t Cobbaut and Jacques Lenoble, eds., Corporate Governance: An Institutionalist Approach (The Hague: K l u w e r L a w International, 2003). 27. O n Foucault's notion o f governmentality, see Graham Burchell, C o l i n G o r d o n , and Peter Miller, eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1991). For Luhmann and the autopoiesis school, see Niklas Luhmann, Legitimation durch Verfahren (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1969); GuntherTeubner, Law as an Autopoietic System ( O x ford: Blackwell, 1993); and Alessandro Febbraio and GuntherTeubner, eds.,

(Durham: D u k e University Press, 2006). James Mittelman develops the notion o f global divisions o f labor and power i n The Globalization Syn-

34. C e c i l Rhodes, quoted i n V. I. Lenin, Imperialism ( N e w York: International Publishers, 1939), p. 79. 35. O n real and formal subsumption, see K a r l M a r x , Capital, vol. 1, trans. B e n Fowkes ( N e w York: Vintage, 1976), pp. 1019-38. O n R o s a Luxemburg's analysis o f imperialism as capital's internalization o f its outside, see The Accumulation of Capital, trans. Agnes Schwarzchild ( N e w York: M o n t h l y R e view Press, 1968). For our previous analyses o f formal and real subsumption i n the context o f globalization, see Empire, esp. pp. 254-256. 36. See D a v i d Harvey, The New Imperialism (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 2003); and A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 2005). 37. K l e i n , The Shock Doctrine. 38. Ferguson, Global Shadows, p. 196. See also Patrick B o n d , Looting Africa (London: Z e d Books, 2006).

State, Law, and Economy as Autopoietic Systems (Milan: Giuffre, 1992).

39. Rebecca Karl, " T h e Asiatic M o d e o f Production: National and Imperial

28. Sabino Cassese, Lo spazio giuridico globale (Bari: Laterza, 2003); and Oltre lo Stato (Bari: Laterza, 2006).

40. W i l l i a m R o b i n s o n , A Theory of Global Capitalism (Baltimore: Johns H o p -

29. See, for example, R o b e r t Keohane and Joseph Nye, "Between Centraliza-

Formations," Historein 5 (2005), 58—75.

kins University Press, 2004), p. 129.

tion and FragmentatiomThe C l u b M o d e l o f Multilateral Cooperation and

41. T h e axiom o f freedom that we express here i n Foucaultian terms is a c o n -

Problems o f Democratic Legitimacy," Kennedy School o f Government

tinuation o f the methodological principles o f the "workers' standpoint"

W o r k i n g Paper no. 01-004, February 2001; and R o b e r t Keohane, Power

studies conducted i n the 1960s and 1970s by authors such as E . P . T h o m p -

and Governance in a Partially Globalized World ( N e w York: Routledge,

son, M a r i o Tronti, and K a r l - H e i n z R o t h .

2002). 30. See, for example, B o b Jessop,"The Regulation Approach and Governance Theory," Economy and Society 24, no. 3 (1995), 307—333; and M a r y Kaldor, Global Civil Society (Oxford: Polity, 2003). 31. Hans Maier, Die altere deutsche Staats—und Verwaltungslehre, 2nd ed. ( M u nich: C . H . Becksche, 1980), p. 223. M a i e r refers to Friedrich Meinecke, Weltburgertum und Nationalstaat ( M u n i c h : R . Oldenbourg, 1911). 32. See Sandro Chignola, ed., Governare la vita (Verona: O m b r e corte, 2006).

42. We make this argument about the collapse o f the Soviet U n i o n i n Empire, pp. 276-279. 43. This theme runs throughout our Multitude. 44. O n Spinoza's notion o f indignation, see Laurent Bove, La strategie du conatus (Paris:Vrin, 1997); and Filippo D e l Lucchese, Tumulti e indignation: Conflitto, diritto e moltitudine in Machiavelli e Spinoza (Milan: G h i b l i , 2004). 45. For a theory o f social struggles that respond to the experience o f injustice, see E m m a n u e l Renault, L'experience de I'injustice (Paris: L a decouverte, 2004). Renault's investigation relies o n A x e l Honneth's hypothesis that

413

414

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

237-245

TO PAGES

246-255

brings the analyses o f communicative "transcendentals"back to social c o n -

58. See Judith Revel, Qui a peur de la banlieue? (Paris: Bayard, 2008).

tradictions and the exploitation o f labor. See H o n n e t h , Kritik der Macht

59. K a r l M a r x , Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, i n Early Writings, p. 328.

(Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988); and The Struggle for Recognition (Cambridge:

For Deleuze and Guattari's interpretation o f this passage, see

Polity, 1995).

trans. R o b e r t Hurley, M a r k Seem, and H e l e n Lane (Minneapolis: U n i v e r -

46. For an analysis o f the continuously emerging conflicts within the capitalist system, see G u i d o Rossi, II conflitto epidemico (Milan: Adelphi, 2003).

Anti-Oedipus,

sity o f Minnesota Press, 1983), pp. 4—5. 60. Saskia Sassen traces a similar genealogy o f urban forms and paradigms o f

47. See A l a i n Bertho, Nous autres, nous memes (Paris : D u Croquant, 2008).

production to define the contemporary "global city," w h i c h is centered on

48. C a r l Schmitt, Theorie des Partisanen (Berlin: D u n c k e r & H u m b l o t , 1963).

the activities o f finance. As is often the case, our thinking here is very close

49. For Georges Sorel, see primarily his interpretation o f Walter Benjamin i n

to that o f Sassen, but our focus o n biopolitical production rather than f i -

Reflections on Violence, ed. Jerome Jennings (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i -

nance gives a significantly different view o f the life and potential o f the

versity Press, 1999). For Lenin, see primarily What Is to Be Done? and State

contemporary metropolis.

and Revolution, as well as A n t o n i o N e g r i , Thirty-three Lessons on Lenin ( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a University Press, forthcoming). 50. See C . B . Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism ( O x -

61. Charles Baudelaire, " L a foule," i n CEuvres completes, ed. Marcel R u f f (Paris: Seuil, 1968), p. 155. 62. For our argument about the twilight o f the peasant w o r l d as defined by a

ford: Clarendon Press, 1962); and K a r l M a r x , A Contribution to the Critique

lack o f the political capacities o f communication and cooperation, see

of Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, i n

Multitude, pp. 115-127. For Marx's views o n the political capacities o f

Early Writings, trans. R o d n e y Livingstone and Gregor Benton (London:

peasants i n nineteenth-century France, see The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis

Penguin, 1975). 51. T h e philosophical antecedents o f neoconservative thought are found not generally i n the European reactionary tradition but rather i n natural right theories, particularly those o f L e o Strauss and M i c h a e l Oakeshott, w h i c h bring together individualism and a transcendental, Hobbesian definition o f power.

Bonaparte ( N e w Y o r k : International Publishers, 1998), pp. 123-129. 63. O n megalopolis, see Kenneth Frampton, "Towards a Critical R e g i o n a l ism," i n The Anti-Aesthetic, ed. H a l Foster (Port Townsend, Wash.: Bay Press, 1983), pp. 2 6 - 3 0 . 64. See M i k e Davis, Planet of Slums (London: Verso, 2006). 65. See, for example, Achille M b e m b e and Sarah Nuttall, eds., Johannesburg:

52. Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, i n Complete Works, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), pt. 3, Definitions o f the Affects, no. 20, p. 314. 53. M i c h e l Foucault, "Inutile de se soulever?" Le monde, 11-12 M a y 1979, reprinted i n Dits et ecrits, vol. 3 (Paris: Gallimard, 1994), p. 793. 54. Ernst B l o c h , The Principle of Hope, 3 vols., trans. Neville Plaice, Stephen Plaice, and Paul Knight (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1986). 55. See Sandra Mezzadra, Diritto difuga (Verona: O m b r e corte, 2006); and E n rica R i g a , Europa di confine ( R o m e : Meltelmi, 2007). 56. For an argument against evolutionary assumptions w i t h respect to the transformations o f labor power, see Andre G o r z , L'immateriel (Paris: G a l i lee, 2003). 57. See R o b e r t Castel, L'insecurite sociale (Paris: Seuil, 2003). O n precarious l a bor i n France, see Antonella Corsani and M a u r i z i o Lazzarato, Intermittents et precaires (Paris: Amsterdam, 2008). O n the social conditions o f French banlieux, see Stephane Beaud and M i c h e l Pialoux, Violence urbaines, violence sociale (Paris Fayard, 2003); and Loi'c Wacquant, Parias urbains (Paris: La decouverte, 2006).

The Elusive Metropolis (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2008); Filip de Boeck and Marie-Francoise Plissart, Kinshasa: Invisible City (Ghent: L u dion, 2004); A b d o u M a l i q Simone, For the City Yet to Come (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2004); and R e m Koolhaas, ed., Lagos: How It Works (Baden: Lars Miiller, forthcoming). 66. For a philosophical elaboration o f the encounter, see Gilles Deleuze's i n terpretation o f Spinoza's theory o f the affects i n relation to joyful and sad passions i n Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza,

trans. M a r t i n Joughin

( N e w York: Z o n e B o o k s , 1990). For a political elaboration o f different forms o f encounter, see E l K i l o m b o and M i c h a e l Hardt, "Organizing E n counters and Generating Events," Whirlwinds: Journal of Aesthetics and Protest (2008), www.joaap.org. 67. In his investigation o f M u m b a i , Arjun Appadurai presents a similar notion o f the politics o f the metropolis as the organization o f encounters from below, w h i c h he identifies as "deep democracy." See " D e e p Democracy: U r b a n Governmentality and the H o r i z o n o f Politics," Public Culture 14, no. 1 (2002), 2 1 - 4 7 .

415

416

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

256-269

68. Grace and James B o g g s " T h e C i t y Is the Black Man's Land," Monthly Re?

view 17, no. 11 (April 1966), 35-46. 69. Teresa Caldeira, City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in Sao Paulo (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 2000). 70. O n urban rent and finance, see Carlo Vercellone," Finance, rente et travail

TO PAGES

27 1 - 2 8 2

Generation (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2006). For our earlier account o f the collapse o f the Soviet U n i o n , w h i c h develops this point further, see Hardt and N e g r i , Empire, pp. 276—279. 9. For a good overview o f the various uses o f the concept, see D a v i d H a l p ern, Social Capital (Cambridge: Polity, 2005).

dans le capitalisme cognitive," Multitudes, no. 32 (March 2008), 27-38, as

10. N i c k Dyer-Witherford coins the term " c o m m o n i s m " to name the society

well as the other essays i n this issue. See also Agostino Petrillo, " L a rendita

based on the c o m m o n and c o m m o n wealth. See " C o m m o n i s m , " Turbu-

fondiaria urbana e la metropolis," Presentation at Uninomade, Bologna, 8

lence 1 (June 2007), 81-87; and Cyber-Marx (Urbana: University o f Illinois

December 2007. O n gentrification, see N e i l Smith, The New Urban Fron-

Press, 1999).

tier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City ( N e w York: Routledge, 1996); and

11. M i c h a e l Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Multitude ( N e w York: Penguin, 2004),

for an international perspective, R o w l a n d Atkinson and Gary Bridge, eds.,

pp. 169—171. T h e Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies is an excellent re-

Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism ( N e w York: Routledge, 2005). 71. O n the French revolt i n October and November 2005, see R e v e l , Qui ha peur de la banlieue?; Bertho, Nous autres, nous meme; and G u i d o Caldiron, Banlieue ( R o m e : Manifestolibri, 2005). 5.

BEYOND

CAPITAL?

1. Two excellent narratives that recount this link between neoliberalism and U.S. unilateralism, from Pinochet to Reagan and beyond, are David H a r vey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); and N a o m i K l e i n , The Shock Doctrine ( N e w York: Metropolitan Books, 2007). 2. See Michael Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: H a r vard University Press, 2000), pp. 260-303. 3. Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, p. 159. 4. See D a v i d Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations ( N e w York: N o r t o n , 1999); and M i c h a e l Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (London: Routledge, 1967).

source on these issues. 12. Hardt and N e g r i , Empire, pp. 304-324. 13. Joseph N y e , " U . S . Power and Strategy after Iraq," Foreign Affairs 82, no. 4 (July-August 2003), pp. 6 0 - 7 3 . 14. See, for example, W i l l i a m R o b i n s o n , A Theory of Global Capitalism (Baltimore: Johns H o p k i n s University Press, 2004), pp. 33-84. 15. Baruch Spinoza, Political Treatise, i n Complete Works, trans. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), chap. 8, para. 4, p. 725 (translation m o d i fied). 16. O n the internalization o f economic externalities i n the context o f "cognitive" production, see Carlo Vercellone, ed., Sommes-nous sortis du capitalisme industriel? (Paris: La Dispute, 2003); and, w i t h some reservations regarding this view,Yann M o u l i e r Boutang, Le capitalisme cognitif (Paris: Editions A m sterdam, 2007). 17. O n Marshall's notion o f external economies, see Renee

Prendergast,

"Marshallian External Economies," Economic Journal 103, no. 417 (March 1993), 454—458; and M a r c o Bellandi,"Some Remarks on Marshallian E x -

5. Carlo Vercellone, "Sens et enjeux de la transition vers le capitalisme cog-

ternal Economies and Industrial Tendencies," i n Tlie Economics of Alfred

nitif," paper presented at the conference "Transformations du travail et

Marshall, ed. R i c h a r d Arena and M i c h e l Quere ( N e w York: Palgrave M a c -

crise de l'economie politique" at the University o f Paris 1, PantheonSorbonne, 12 October 2004. See also R o b e r t Boyer, The Future of Economic Growth (Cheltenham: E . Elgar, 2004). 6. See, for example, Kenneth Arrow, " T h e E c o n o m i c Implications o f Learning by D o i n g , " Review of Economic Studies 29, no. 3 (June 1962), 155—173. 7. For an analysis o f dependency theories from the perspective o f globalization, see Giuseppe C o c c o and A n t o n i o N e g r i , GlobAL (Buenos Aires: P a i dos,2006). 8. AlexeiYurchak, Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More:The Last Soviet

millan, 2003), pp. 240-253. 18. J . E . Meade, "External Economies and Diseconomies i n a Competitive Situation," EconomicJournal 62, no. 245 (March 1952), 54—67. 19. See Andreas Papandreou, Externality and Institutions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 53-57. We follow Papandreou's excellent history o f the concept o f externality throughout this paragraph. 20. Yochai B e n k l e r , " T h e Political E c o n o m y o f the C o m m o n s , " Upgrade 4, no. 3 (June 2003), 7. 21. See, for example, Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture ( N e w York: Penguin, 2004); and Kembrew M c L e o d , Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in

417

418

NOTES

TO PAGES

284-293

the Age of Intellectual Property (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2007). 22. For an example o f interpreting workers' struggles as the motor o f economic cycles and crises, see A n t o n i o N e g r i , " M a r x o n C y c l e and Crisis," in Revolution Retrieved, trans. E d E m e r y and J o h n M e r r i n g t o n (London: R e d Notes, 1988), pp. 4 3 - 9 0 .

NOTES

TO PAGES

294-3 1 0

32. For an interpretation o f the "Chapter on M o n e y " i n Marx's Grundrisse, see A n t o n i o N e g r i , Marx beyond Marx, trans. H a r r y Cleaver, M i c h a e l R y a n , and M a u r i z i o V i a n o ( N e w Y o r k : Autonomedia, 1991), pp. 21—40. 33. O n the failing rate o f profit and economic crisis, see R o b e r t Brenner, The Boom and the Bubble. The U.S. in the World Economy (London:Verso, 2002). 34. O n the characteristics o f the entrepreneur, see Joseph Schumpeter, The

23. For analyses that highlight i n very different ways the autonomy and cre-

Theory of Economic Development (1911), trans. Redvers O p i e (Cambridge,

ativity o f biopolitical labor, see M c K e n z i e W a r k , A Hacker Manifesto ( C a m -

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934), pp. 128-156. O n the obsolescence

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004); and R i c h a r d Florida, The

o f the entrepreneur, see Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

Rise of the Creative Class ( N e w Y o r k : Basic Books, 2002).

( N e w Y o r k : Harper & Brothers, 1942), pp. 131-134.

24. For Marx's definition o f the rate o f surplus value, w h i c h we rewrite here, see K a r l M a r x , Capital, vol. 1, trans. B e n Fowkes (NewYork:Vintage, 1976), p. 326. 25. Thomas Jefferson uses this phrase—"we have the w o l f by the ears"—to capture why i n his v i e w the U n i t e d States could neither continue the system o f black slavery nor abolish it. See Jefferson to John Holmes, 22 A p r i l 1820, i n Writings, ed. M e r r i l l Peterson ( N e w York: Library o f America, 1984), pp. 1433-35. 26. See Christian Marazzi, Capital and Language, trans. Gregory C o n t i ( C a m bridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 2008). 27. This ideological episode o f the Cultural R e v o l u t i o n has inspired, among others, D e b o r d and Badiou. See G u y Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, trans. D o n a l d N i c h o l s o n - S m i t h ( N e w Y o r k : Z o n e Books, 1994), p. 35; and A l a i n Badiou, The Century, trans. Alberto Toscano (Cambridge: Polity, 2007), pp. 58-67. 28. M a r i o T r o n t i , Operai e capitale, 2 n d ed. (Turin: Einaudi, 1971), p. 89. 29. We call this situation, following M a r x , the real subsumption o f society w i t h i n capital. O n Marx's notion o f the real subsumption, see Capital, 1:1019-38.

35. K a r l M a r x and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Oxford: O x ford University Press, 1992), p. 8. 36. See, for example, H e n r y k Grossmann, The Law ofAccumulation and Breakdown of Capitalist Systems: Being Also a Theory of Crises (1929), trans. Jairus Banaji (London: Pluto Press, 1992). 37. Some contemporary

heterodox

economists sketch the outlines o f a

postcapitalist future. See, for example, J. K . Gibson-Graham, A Postcapitalist Politics (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2006); and M i c h a e l Albert, Parecon: Life after Capitalism (London:Verso, 2003). 38. Ernesto Laclau, On Populist Reason (London:Verso, 2005), p. 95. 39. For our most extended discussion o f the conflict between political representation and democracy, see Hardt and N e g r i , Multitude, pp. 241—247. 40. See Achille M b e m b e , "Necropolitics," Public Culture 15, no. 1 (2003), 1 1 40. O n the disastrous physical conditions o f metropolises i n subordinated parts o f the world, see M i k e Davis, Planet of Slums (London: Verso, 2006). 41. Christopher Newfield emphasizes the need i n the biopolitical economy for a public w i t h higher education i n the humanities and social sciences. See Unmaking the Public University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008).

30. For an analysis that anticipates this situation i n the 1970s, see A n t o n i o N e gri, " M a r x o n C y c l e and Crisis," i n Revolution Retrieved, trans. E d E m e r y and J o h n M e r r i n g t o n (London: R e d Notes, 1988), pp. 43-90. 31. O n industrial time discipline and its progressive generalization throughout society, see E . P . T h o m p s o n , " T i m e , W o r k - D i s c i p l i n e , and Industrial C a p i talism," Past & Present, no. 38 (1967), 56—97. O n the debates among G e r man sociologists about the Entgrenzung der Arbeit, see K a r i n Gottschall and Harald Wolf, "Introduction: W o r k U n b o u n d , " Critical Sociology 33 (2007), 11-18. W e are grateful to Stephan M a n n i n g for drawing our attention to this literature.

42. O n the need for a c o m m o n intellectual, cultural, and communication i n frastructure, see Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks ( N e w Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). 43. M a n y economists have detailed h o w such a guaranteed income is feasible i n the dominant countries—serious proposals have been advanced i n E u rope and the U n i t e d States—but obviously i n the subordinated parts o f the world, where the percentage o f the population whose capacities are thwarted by poverty is much higher, such a system w o u l d be even more important. T h e Brazilian government's experiment w i t h the "family stipend" (bolsa familia), w h i c h distributes money to poor families i n a way

420

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

310-319

TO PAGES

319-330

that approximates a guaranteed income, is an important example because it demonstrates the feasibility of such a program even outside the wealthiest countries.

57. Michel de Certeau,"Le rire de Michel Foucault," Revue de la Bibliotheque

44. O n Jefferson's proposal of a "ward system" as a training in self-rule for the

Schumpeter's work in particular, see Adelino Zanini, Economic Philosophy:

Nationale, no. 14 (Winter 1984), 10-16. 58. For an interpretation of economic innovation as historical rupture, in

multitude, see Michael Hardt, Thomas Jefferson: Ttie Declaration of Indepen-

Economic Foundations and Political Categories, trans. Cosma Orsi (Oxford:

dence (London: Verso, 2007). O n contemporary experiments in participa-

Peter Lang, 2008).

tory democracy, see America Vera-Zavala, Deltagande demokrati (Stockholm:

59. Marx, Capital, 1:554-555.

Agora, 2003). 45. Charles Dickens, Hard Times (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Classics, 1995), p. 4. 46. O n goodwill and intangible assets, see Michel Aglietta,"Le capitalisme de demain" (Paris: Fondation Saint-Simon, 1998); and Baruch Lev, Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting (Washington, D O : Brookings Institute, 2001). 47. Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York: Oxford U n i versity Press, 1942), p. 53. 48. O n the theory of value, see Isaak Rubin, Essays on Marx's Theory of Value, trans. Milos Samardzija and Fredy Perlman (Detroit: Black and Red, 1972); Ronald Meek, Studies in the Labour Theory of Value (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1956); and Claudio Napoleoni, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, trans.J. M . A. Gee (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975). O n the reduction of the law of value to the law of surplus value, see Mario Tronti, Operai e capitate (Turin: Einaudi, 1966); and Negri, Marx beyond Marx. O n the theory of crisis, see Negri, "Marx on Cycle and Crisis." 49. See Andre Orlean, Le pouvoir de lafinance(Paris: Odile Jacob, 1999). 50. Spinoza, Political Treatise, chap. 2, para. 13, p. 686 (translation modified). 51. See Maurice Nussenbaum, "Juste valeur et actifs incorporels," Revue d'economiefinanciere, no. 71 (August 2003), 71-85.

6

REVOLUTION

1. John Locke, Second Treatise on Government (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1980), p. 19. See also C . B. MacPherson, Tlie Political Tlieory of Possessive Individualism (London: Oxford University Press, 1964). 2. Cheryl Harris, "Whiteness as Property," Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (June 1993), 1731. See also George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006). 3. See Saidiya Hartman's invocation of Douglass and his Aunt Hester in Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 4. See, for example, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). 5. See, for example, Gary Peller, "Race Consciousness," in Critical Race Theory, ed. Kimberle Williams Crenshaw et al. (New York: New Press, 1996), pp. 127-158. 6. See, for example, Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui, "Oppressed but not defeated": Peasant Struggles among theAymara and Qhechwa in Bolivia, 1900-1980 (Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1987).

52. O n this double method, see Giorgio Agamben, Signatura rerum (Milan: Bollati Boringhieri, 2008).

7. Wendy Brown, States of Injury (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

53. Here we refer to Deleuze's interpretation of Spinoza's Ethics. See Michael

8. Fred Moten, In the Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition (Min-

Hardt, Gilles Deleuze (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993);

neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). See also Robin Kelley,

and Antonio Negri, "Kairos, Alma Venus, Multitudo," in Time for Revolution, trans. Matteo Mandarini (London: Continuum, 2003). 54. Augustine, De civitate dei, bk. 14, chap. 7, cited in Heinz Heimsoeth, Les six grands themes de la metaphisique (Paris:Vrin, 2003), p. 223. 55. Ernst Bloch, Avicenna und die Aristotelische Linke (Berlin: Riitten & Loening, 1952). 56. Wilhelm Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften, vol. 1 of Gesammelte Schriften (Leipzig:Teubner, 1914), p. 47.

1995).

Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination (Boston: Beacon Press, 2002). 9. O n the tradition of black radicalism, see Cedric Robinson, Black Marxism (London: Zed, 1983). 10. Linda Zerilli, Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 65. 11. See Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Axel Honneth, Tlte Struggle for Recognition (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 1996); and Nancy Fraser's

421

422

NOTES

TO PAGES

332-336

NOTES

useful critique o f the politics o f recognition i n Justice Interruptus ( N e w York: Routledge, 1996).

TO PAGES

337-346

ish the white race by any means necessary, these authors write i n appealingly inflammatory rhetoric, by w h i c h they mean abolish the privileges o f

12. M a r i o T r o n t i , Operai e capitate (Turin: Einaudi, 1966), p. 260.

whiteness. See David Roediger, Towards the Abolition of Whiteness ( N e w

13. For a brief definition o f the refusal o f work, see Paolo V i r n o and Michael

York: Verso, 1994); and N o e l Ignatiev and J o h n Garvey, eds., Race Traitor

Hardt, eds., Radical Thought in Italy (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1994), p. 263. See also A n t o n i o N e g r i , Books for Burning: Between Civil War and Democracy in 1970s Italy, trans.Timothy M u r p h y and Arianna Bove (London: Verso, 2005); and M a r i o Tronti, " T h e Strategy o f Refusal," i n Autonomia:

Post-Political Politics, Semiotext(e), 2 n d ed., ed. Sylvere

Lotringer and Christian Marazzi (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 2008),

( N e w York: Routledge, 1996). 23. T o r i l M o i , for example, drawing primarily o n Simone de Beauvoir, argues that the category o f woman is not as problematic as Butler suggests. See What Is a Woman? and Other Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 3-120. 24. Hortense Spillers, for example, does not contest the goal o f "racelessness"

pp. 28-34. 14. Wendy B r o w n , Edgework (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 108. 15. Gayle R u b i n , " T h e Traffic i n W o m e n , " i n The Second Wave of Feminism, ed.

but questions Gilroy's route to reach that destination. See

"Uber

against

Race," Black Renaissance /Renaissance Noire 3, no. 2 (Spring 2001), 5 9 - 6 8 . 25. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1990), pp. 1-66.

Linda N i c h o l s o n ( N e w Y o r k : Routledge, 1997), p. 54. 16. D o n n a Haraway, " A C y b o r g Manifesto," i n Simians, Cyborgs, and Women ( N e w York: Routledge, 1991), p. 181. 17. Annamarie Jagose, Queer Theory: An Introduction ( N e w York: N Y U Press, 1996),p. 131.

26. See Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, trans. R o b e r t Hurley, M a r k Seem, and H e l e n Lane (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1983), p. 296. 27. O n Gilroy s notion o f diaspora and hybridity, see Paul Gilroy, Against Race

18. For excellent summaries o f this division within queer theory and, more

(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 97—133. O n c o n -

generally, the variations o f what is meant by "queer," see N i k k i Sullivan, A

viviality, see his After Empire (Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2004), p. x i and pas-

Critical Introduction to Queer Theory ( N e w York: N Y U Press, 2003), pp. 37— 56; and Jagose, QueerTheory, pp. 101-132.

sim. 28. Singularity functions as a technical term i n the vocabularies o f Gilles

19. Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks ( N e w Y o r k : Grove, 1967), p. 8. Lewis

Deleuze, Alain Badiou, and several other contemporary French philoso-

G o r d o n emphasizes Fanon's call for a new humanism i n Fanon and the Cri-

phers. O u r definition o f the concept shares w i t h theirs a focus on the rela-

sis of European Man ( N e w York: Routledge, 1995). 20. For M a l c o l m X , see " T h e Y o u n g Socialist Interview," i n By Any

tion between singularity and multiplicity. Means

Necessary ( N e w York: Pathfinder, 1992), pp. 179-188, esp. p. 181; and A n gela Davis, "Meditations on the Legacy o f M a l c o l m X , " i n The Angela Y. Davis Reader, ed. Joy Jones (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), pp. 279-288. For H u e y N e w t o n , see E r i k E r i k s o n and H u e y N e w t o n , In Search of Common Ground ( N e w Y o r k : N o r t o n , 1973), pp. 27—32;Judson Jeffries, Huey P. Newton: The Radical Theorist (Jackson: University o f Mississippi Press, 2002), pp. 62-82; and Alvaro Reyes, " H u e y N e w t o n e la nascita di autonomia," i n Gli autonomi, vol. 2, ed. Sergio Bianchi and Lanfranco C a m i n i t i ( R o m e : Derive/approdi, 2008), pp. 454-476. 21. Paul Gilroy, Against Race (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 40. 22. Parallel to black revolutionary traditions there has emerged i n the U n i t e d States a "new abolitionism" aimed at destroying whiteness. W e must abol-

29. F o r a classic proposition o f intersectional analysis, see Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, " M a p p i n g the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against W o m e n o f Color," Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991), 1241-99. 30. Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, i n Complete Works, ed. Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), pt. 2, Proposition 7, p. 247. 31. Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View (Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 2006), p. 362. 32. See H . J . D e Vleeschauwer, The Development of Kantian Thought ( N e w York: T. Nelson, 1962); and Ernst Cassirer, The Problem of Knowledge ( N e w H a venYale University Press, 1959), w h i c h develops the work o f the Marburg School, particularly the teachings o f H e r m a n n C o h e n . 33. Carl Schmitt, Verfassungslehre, 6th ed. (Berlin: Duncker & H u m b l o t , 1983), p. 218. See also O l i v i e r Beaud, "'Representation' et 'Stellvertretung': Sur une distinction de C a r l Schmitt," Droits, no. 6 (1987), 11-20.

423

424

NOTES

TO PAGES

NOTES

347-354

34. Elizabeth Povinelli, The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism (Durham: D u k e University Press, 2002). 35. See A n t o n i o N e g r i , " L o stato dei partiti," i n La forma stato (Milan: F e l trinelli, 1977), pp. 111-149. 36. See our presentation o f contemporary positions regarding the crisis o f democracy i n the global context i n Michael Hardt and A n t o n i o N e g r i , Multitude ( N e w Y o r k : Penguin, 2004), pp. 231-37. 37. Gunther Teubner, "Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to

State-

Centered Constitutional T h e o r y ? " i n Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism, ed. Christian Joerges, Inger-Johanne Sand, and G u n t h e r T e u b -

TO PAGES

356-369

trans. B r i a n Holmes et al. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), pp. 82-109. 47. See Michael Hardt, "Thomas Jefferson, or, T h e Transition o f Democracy," i n Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence (London: Verso, 2007), pp. vii—xxv. 48. See Filippo D e l Lucchese, Tumulti e indignatio: Conflitto, diritto e moltitudine in Machiavelli e Spinoza (Milan: G h i b l i , 2004). 49. Jean Genet, Prisoner of Love, trans. Barbara Bray (Hanover, N . H . : U n i v e r sity Press o f N e w England, 1992). 50. O n these myths o f network politics, see Carlo Formenti, Cybersoviet ( M i lan: Raffaele Cortina, 2008), pp. 201-264.

ner (Oxford: Hart, 2004), pp. 3-28.

51. O n the political possibilities o f network structures, see Tiziana Terranova,

38. See A l a i n Supiot, Au-dela de I'emploi (Paris: Flammarion, 1999). 39. R o b i n Kelley analyzes from a historical perspective a series o f revolution-

Network Culture (London: Pluto, 2004); Geert Lovink, Uncanny Networks

ary alliances that border on insurrectional intersections i n Freedom Dreams.

(Cambridge, Mass.: M I T Press, 2003); O l i v i e r Blondeau, Devenir media

40. Jacques Ranciere, Disagreement, trans. Julie Rose (Minneapolis: University

The Exploit (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2007).

o f Minnesota Press, 1999), p. 14. 41. Jean-Paul Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason, vol. 1, trans. A l a n SheridanSmith (London:Verso, 2004). 42. For Lenin, see primarily What Is to Be Done? ( N e w York: International Publishers, 1969). O n Lenin, see also A n t o n i o N e g r i , Lafabbrica della strategia: 33 lezioni su Lenin, 2nd ed. ( R o m e : Manifestolibri, 2004); and Slavoj Zizek, ed., Revolution at the Gates: Ziiek on Lenin, the 1917 Writings ( L o n don: Verso, 2004). For Trotsky, see The History of the Russian

(Paris: Amsterdam, 2007); and Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker,

Revolution,

trans. M a x Eastman ( N e w York: Simon & Schuster, 1932), esp. chap. 43, " T h e A r t o f Insurrection." 43. This periodization o f vanguard political figures clarifies our difference from the propositions o f Slavoj Z i z e k and Ernesto Laclau. Zizek's return to L e n i n is not so m u c h a reversion to Lenin's method (designing political composition on the basis o f the current technical composition o f the proletariat) but, o n the contrary, a repetition o f the vanguard political formation without reference to the composition o f labor. Laclau instead remains

52. Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of Faculties, trans. M a r y Gregor (Lincoln: University o f Nebraska Press, 1992), p. 153 (emphasis added). 53. Ibid., p. 153. 54. Condorcet, "Sur le sens du mot revolutionnaire," i n CEuvres de Condorcet, ed. A . Condorcet and F. Arago, 12 vols. (Paris: F i r m i n D i d o t , 1847), 12:615. See also Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (London: Penguin, 1963). 55. W. E . B . D u Bois, Black Reconstruction ( N e w Y o r k : Russell & Russell, 1935), p. 206. 56. See primarily Lenin, State and Revolution. 57. For one version o f the argument for the "autonomy o f the political," see M a r i o Tronti, Sull'autonomia del politico (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1977). 58. See A n t o n i o Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, trans. Q u i n t i n Hoare and Geoffrey N o w e l l Smith ( N e w Y o r k : International Books, 1971), pp. 105-120 (on passive revolution) and pp. 279—318 (on Americanism and Fordism).

faithful to the conception o f hegemony typical o f the next phase, specifi-

59. O n the distinction between war o f movement and war o f position, see

cally the one promoted by the Italian Communist Party i n its populist

ibid., pp. 229-235. 60. Ibid., p. 286.

rather than its workerist face. 44. V. I. Lenin, State and Revolution ( N e w Y o r k : International Publishers, 1971), p. 43. 45. O n the development o f communist movements i n the 1970s, see N e g r i , Books for Burning. 46. Jean-Luc Nancy, " T h e Decision o f Existence," i n The Birth to Presence,

61. W e have addressed the question o f revolutionary violence at various m o ments i n our past work, but our analysis i n this book allows us to offer some new insights. See N e g r i , Books for Burning; and Hardt and N e g r i , Multitude, pp. 341-347. 62. Jefferson to W i l l i a m Short, 3 January 1793, i n Thomas Jefferson, Writings, ed. M e r r i l l Peterson ( N e w York: Library o f America, 1984), p. 1004.

425

426

NOTES

TO PAGES

369-383

63. Saint-Just, "Fragments sur les institutions republicaines," i n CEuvres choisies, ed. Dionys Mascolo (Paris: Gallimard, 1968), p. 310. 64. See O l i v i e r Beaud, Theorie de la federation (Paris: P U F , 2007). 65. See, for example, GuntherTeubner and Andreas Fischer-Lescano/'Regime Collisions:TheVain Search for Legal U n i t y i n the Fragmentation o f Global

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Law," Michigan Journal of International Law 25, no. 4 (2004), 999-1046. 66. See Alois R i e g l , Late Roman Art Industry ( R o m e : G i o r g i o Brentschneider, 1985). Regarding the controversies surrounding the concept o f Kunstwollen, see Jas' Eisner, " F r o m Empirical Evident to the B i g Picture: Some Reflections on Riegl's Concept o f Kunstwollen," Critical Inquiry, no. 32

It w o u l d be impossible to thank all those w h o

(Summer 2006), 741-766. For an illuminating analysis of Walter Benjamin's transformation o f Riegl's concept along lines similar to what we

edge here those w i t h w h o m we discussed elements o f the

suggest here, see Katherine Arens, "Stadtwollen: Benjamin's Arcades Project and the Problem o f M e t h o d , " PMLA

contrib-

uted to the w r i t i n g o f this b o o k . W e w o u l d like simply to a c k n o w l -

script and

122, no. 1 (January 2007), 43-60.

those w h o

manu-

helped us w i t h translations: A l a i n B e r t h o ,

67. SeeVivasvan Soni, "Affecting Happiness: T h e Emergence o f the M o d e r n

A r i a n n a Bove, B e p p e C a c c i a , Cesare Casarino, Giuseppe C o c c o ,

Political Subject i n the Eighteenth C e n t u r y " (Ph.D. diss., D u k e University,

A n t o n i o C o n t i , Patrick Dieuaide, A n d r e a Fumagalli, Stefano H a r -

2000).

ney, Fredric Jameson, N a o m i K l e i n , Wahneema Lubiano, M a t t e o

68. Jefferson to Edward Everett, 27 M a r c h 1824, i n Thomas Jefferson, Writings,

M a n d a r i n i , C h r i s t i a n M a r a z z i , Sandra M e z z a d r a , T i m o t h y M u r p h y ,

vol. 16, ed. A n d r e w Lipscomb (Washington, D C : Thomas Jefferson M e -

Pascal N i c o l a s - L e

morial Association, 1904), p. 22.

Strat, Charles P i o t , J u d i t h R e v e l , Alvaro Reyes,

A m e r i c a Vera-Zavala, C a r l o Vercellone, Lindsay Waters, K a t h i Weeks,

69. O n Dante and love, see G i o r g i o Agamben, Stanzas, trans. R o n a l d M a r t i R o b y n W i e g m a n , a n d T o m i k o Y o d a . W e are grateful to these friends

nez (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1993); and G i o r g i o Passerone, Dante: Cartographie de la vie (Paris: K i m e , 2001).

for all they have taught us.

70. M i c h e l Foucault, preface to Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, pp. x i -

The

quotation from M i c h a e l

Franti i n the

preface is from

xiv. " B o m b the W o r l d , " copyright © 2003 B o o B o o W a x , all rights re-

71. See Spinoza's definition o f "indignation" i n Ethics, pt. 3, Definition 20,

served, and used by permission.

p. 314.

•

INDEX

NDEX

abstraction, 157-159 Abu Ghraib prison, 4, 213 Adams, John, 10 Adorno.Theodor, 49 Adorno.Theodor, and Max Horkheimer, 23-24,95-97,99 affective labor, 132-134,140,144-146 Afghanistan, 206,209,210,212,269 Africa, 231,254 Agamben, Giorgio, 57-58 altepetl, 68-69 alterglobalization movements, 102,127, 368 altermodernity, 102-115; defined, 115118,344 Althusser, Louis, 23 American Revolution, 9-11 antimodernity, 67-82,85-89,94-100; limits of, 101-108,117-118. See also resistance antiracist theory and politics, 26, 37-38, 256,259,327-328,331,336-338. See also Haitian Revolution; indigenous populations and politics; intersectionality; race; resistance: to colonial domination; resistance: to slavery Arendt, Hannah, 174-175,184,354, 362 Argentina, 259 Arnghi, Giovanni, 158,216-217,219221 Asiatic Mode of Production, 84, 232 Augustine of Hippo, 318 Badiou.Alain, 60-61,168-169 Balibar, Etienne, 89,93, 167-168 banlieu, 245-247; November 2005 revolts, 237,259

bare life, 53,77,108,308,368,380 Baudelaire, Charles, 252 Beard, Charles, 10 Beauvoir, Simone de, 26,62 Beck, Ulrich, 18-19 Benedict X V I , Pope, 46,79 Benkler.Yochai, 281-282 Bergson, Henri, 27-28 Benjamin, Walter, xi biopolitical diagram, 364-365 biopolitical production, 132-137, 139— 141,172-173,180; as analogy for political organization, 173—175; crises of, 142-149; reforms necessary for, 307311 biopolitics, 31,38,56-61,117,240,317. See also reason: biopolitical biopower, 31, 56-57,77-82,117,240 Black Power movement, 37-38,256 Blair, Tony, 272 Bloch, Ernst, 242,318 Boggs, Grace and James, 256 Bolis, Luciano, 61 Bolivia, 108-112,259 Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo, 104-105 Boyer, Robert, 132 Boyle, Robert, 42 Braudel, Ferdinand, 84 Bremer, Paul, 215 Brown, Wendy, 329,334 Buder, Judith, 170,337 Caliban, 97-98, 119 capital, 7,291-295,296-301,306-311; as an open social relation, 150-153; organic composition, 137-142; technical composition, 131-137. See also crisis; finance; labor; rent; social capital

democracy, 304-306,310,346,362-363, Carmicheal, Stokely, 80 371-373,377-378 Castoriadis, Cornelius, 24 Derrida, Jacques, xii, 57-58 Catholic Church, 78-79,80-81. See also Descola, Philippe, 122 Benedict X V I , Pope developmentalism, 90-95,269 Certeau, Michel de, 319 dialectic, 183-184,243,291-292,294, Cesaire, Aime, 98 320,330; of antimodernity, 95-100; as China, 87,91-92,93-94,212,219-220, model of revolutionary transition, 232,238,277,290-291 362-363 Chomsky, Noam, 58,191 Dickens, Charles, 312 Cicero, 213 Dilthey, Wilhelm, 28-29,319 city. See metropolis dispositif x, 24,115,126-128,246,318class struggle, 85,151-153,164,285,291, 319,377 330,341-342. See also exodus Donoso Cortes, Juan, 100 colonialism, 14,37,67-70,77-82,84, Douglass, Frederick, 327 97-99,117,119 D u Bois.W. E. B., 76,77,327,329,362 common, 89, 111-112; as basis for knowledge, 120—125; defined, viii; deEckhart, Meister, 62 struction of, 272-273; in economic economism, 35,38 production, 135-137,151-152,176, Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional. 185-188,280-290,299-306; exproSee Zapatistas priation of, 137-142;love as producemancipation, 329, 330; in contrast to tion of, 181-182,189-198,380; in the metropolis, 153-156,249-260; as naliberation, 331-334,336,339,341, ture, 171-173; and singularities, 183— 350,361-362; of slaves, 76 184,320,339,340,344,350; in social Empire, 197-198,203-209,219,226institutions, 159-164, 177, 370. See also 228,234-235,274-279,372-373. See corruption also governance encounter, 43,183,250-260,303-305, commonwealth, xiii 379,382; of singularities, 184,186communism, 47-49,89,94-95,321,333; 188,350,357 in contrast to socialism, 107, 273 Enlightenment, 16-17,21,95-97,114— Condorcet, 362 115,376-378 cooperation, 140-141, 162 entrepreneurship, 297-298, 306 co-research, 118,127-128 equality, 11-14,20, 110-111,302-304, corporations, 162-163,164 333,381-382; gender, 133-134,334; corruption, 159-164,177,284-285,302racial, 72,77 306,361-362,369-370; of love, 182Esposito, Roberto, 57 184,192-199 Euhemerus, 5—6 counterpower, 56,348,351,371 event, 58-63, 176-177, 246; insurrection crisis, 86,217,220,227-228,275,288as, 349-350,361-362,365; love as, 289,307,310; of biopolitical produc180-181,183 tion, 142-149,151,299-301; of socialevil, 189-199 ist states, 91-93 Ewald, Francois, 57 Cuba, 92,93-95 excess. See measure and exceeding exodus, 76-77,152-153,165-166,241, Dante Alighieri, 379-380 243,285,301-306,368; from corrupt Davis, Mike, 253-254 social institutions, 159-160, 164,177, Delany, Samuel, 187 195-196 Deleuze, Gilles, x, 61,172,186-187,249, exploitation, 22-23,54-55,137-142, 338

429

430

INDEX

exploitation (continued) 309; struggles against, 319-320,235247 expropriation, 137-142; of the expropriators, 329 externalities, 141,154-156,185-186, 251,280-283 family, 160-162,164,182-183,187 Fanon, Frantz, 103-104,118,120,335336; on nationalism and national liberation, 37,163 fascism, 4-5,20,27-28 Fausto-Sterling, Anne, 170-171 federalism, 69, 379 feminist theory and politics, 26, 62,119, 170-171,329-330,334-335,337. See also gender; intersectionality; queer theory and politics feminization of work, 133-134,135, 146-147 Ferguson, James, 231 Filmer, Robert, 41-42 finance, 142,145, 156-158,289, 294295 Flaubert, Gustave, 244 force, 16-17,194-199,236,246-247, 267-271. See also violence Fordism and post-Fordism, 264, 272, 289-290,292,365-366 foreclosure (in psychoanalysis), 69-70, 74-75 forms of life, 81,121-124,194,354,356, 358,371; production of, 131-133,175, 267,364 Foucault, Michel, x, 31,75,81-82,136137,172,191,224, 241,382; on biopower and biopolitics, 56—61; on the Iranian Revolution, 35-36; on reason and knowledge, 119-120,121,126128 Fourier, Charles, 177 Francis of Assisi, 43-44 freedom, 10-11,13-14,47-48,96,100, 101, 189, 234-236, 321; Foucault's conception of, 59-61, 81-82; and identity, 37,329-336; required for biopolitical production, 282,289-290,

INDEX

302-305,309-310; and slavery, 72,7577. See also emancipation; liberation Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), 216 French Revolution, 11-13,151,359-360, 369 Freud, Sigmund, 62,194 Friedman, Milton, 263 Friedman,Thomas, 213—214 Frum, David, 207 Fukuyama, Francis, 221 fundamentalism, 32-38 Garcia Linera, Alvaro, 110-111 Gates, Bill, 297 Gates, Henry Louis,Jr., 49 gender, 62,133-135,160-161,170-171, 325-328; abolition of, 334-335,337340. See also feminist theory and politics; intersectionality Genet, Jean, 187,356 Gentile, Giovanni, 27-28 gentrification, 257-258 Giddens, Anthony, 18-19,272 Gilroy, Paul, 336-338 Gorz, Andre, 132 governance, 223-228,274-279,347-348, 372-375 Gramsci, Antonio, 365-368 Guantanamo, 4,213 guaranteed basic income, 309-310 Guattari, Felix, 172,186-187,249,338 Guevara, Ernesto (Che), 94-95,118 Guha, Ranajit, 14,68,69 Haass, Richard, 204-205 Habermas,Jurgen, 18,71 Haitian Revolution, 13-14,74-75 Hamilton, Charles, 80 happiness, 376-383 Haraway, Donna, 120, 334 Harris, Cheryl, 326 Harvey, David, 231,266 hegemony, 167,169,173,175,304-305, 366. See also unilateralism Heidegger, Martin, 29-30,46-50,181 Hesse, Barnor, 80 heteronormativity, 160-161,328,335

Hobbes,Thomas, 4,41-42,51,189 Hoffman, Danny, 146-147 humanity, creation of a new, 94,104,118, 336,361-362,366,369 human nature, 52,196,353,361-362, 378; pessimistic conceptions of, 11, 189-193,197-198 Huntington, Samuel, 143 Hurricane Katrina, 217-218 Husserl, Edmund, 30 hypermodernity, 19,113

kairos, 165 Kant, Immanuel, xii, 6—8,15-17, 115, 190,346,359-360 Karl, Rebecca, 232 katechon, 197-198 Kelley, Robin, 128 Keynesjohn Maynard, 141-142,306 Kissinger, Henry, 221, 223 Klein, Naomi, 137-138,215,231 knowledge as productive force, 145,267268,271, 281-282. See also reason: biopolitical Krahl, Hans-Jiirgen, 24—25

identity, 103-107,119-124,172,195, 320,347,348,358; and revolutionary labor: divisions of, 73,135,160,228-230, politics, 325-344, 371. See also singu245; increasing autonomy of, 150-151, larity 165, 173, 270,286-293; as poverty, 54; identity-blindness, 325,327-329,348 and slavery, 72-73; technical composiimmaterial production, 25, 132-133,258, tion of, 131-135, 352-354. See also ex266. See also biopolitical production; ploitation; industrial workers' moveproperty: intellectual; value: intanments; precarious labor; value: labor gible theory of; working class imperialism, 86-87,203-209,219-220, Laclau, Ernesto, 166-167,304-305, 228,230. See also Empire; unilateralism 424n43 indigenous populations and politics, 68— Latour, Bruno, 124 69,79,89,104-112,123-124,328, laughter, 382-383 346—347. See also colonialism Lenin.Vladimir Ilich, 90-91,175-176, indignation, 235-243 239,350-351,353,362-363; on impeindustrial workers' movements, 19,107— rialism, 86-87,116 111,121,237,241,250-259,291,364, Leopardi, Giacomo, 197 366 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 122-123 Inquisition, Spanish, 80-81 liberation, 93-94,97-98,101-102,331institutions, 159-164,177-178,192-198, 344,349-350. See also emancipation; 284—285; revolutionary notion of, freedom 355-360,369-370,374-375. See also Liberia, 146-147 governance Locke, John, 139,326 insurrection, 238-240,345,355-367 love, xi-xii, 179-198,316,318,379-380; intellectuals, role of, 103-104,118. See gone bad, 193-197; training in, 193also co-research 195 intersectionality, 340-344,345,349-350 Luhmann, Niklas, 224,373 Iranian Revolution, 36 Luxemburg, Rosa, 86,230,288 Iraq War (2003), 206,208,209-215,218, 220 Macherey, Pierre, 166, 176 Machiavelli, Niccolo, 51-52,356 jacqueries, 236—248 Macpherson, C. B., 240 Jagose, Annamarie, 335 Madison, James, 11 Jefferson.Thomas, 9,139,310,355-356, Malcolm X , 331,336 377,379; on violence, 368-369 Mandeville, Bernard, 148,184-186 Jobs, Steve, 297

431

432

INDEX

Mao Zedong, 87,116,290-291 Marazzi, Christian, 132 Mariategui,Jose Carlos, 89 Marshall, Alfred, 280-281 Marsilius of Padua, 44 Marx, Karl, 38,76-77,95,116,136-137, 159,177,194,249,252-253,286-289; critique of property, 22-23, 280; on money, 294—295; on poverty, 53—54; on precapitalist forms, 83-84, 87-89. See also Asiatic Mode of Production; cooperation; subsumption, formal and real; value: labor theory of Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, 230, 298 Mbembe.Achille, 307 Meade,J.E.,281 measure and exceeding, 135—137,151— 152,176,242-243,270-271,312321, 373. See also monsters and monstrosity Melandn, Enzo, 128 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 30 metropolis, 153-156,211-212,244-247, 249-260,382, Mignolo, Walter, 67 migration, 134-135,147-148,244-245 modernity, 19,29; as "incomplete," 71, 84; and Marxism, 83—89; and monsters, 95—100; as a power relation, 67—71; in relation to colonialism, 77-82; and state socialism, 89-95. See also altermodernity; antimodernity; Enlightenment Mohanty, Chandra, 135 monsters and monstrosity, 95-100, 194, 334-335,339-340,371 Morales, Evo, 108 Moses, 164,367 Moten, Fred, 329,336 multiculturalism, 104,123,148-149,330, 338,342 multilateralism, 221-223,263-266 multitude, 243-244,277-279,309-311, 319-320, 354-356; in Bolivian thought, 110-112; democracy of, 361367, 377; as form of political organiza-

INDEX

tion, 61,165-178,195-196,349-351, 359; in the metropolis, 249-260; movements of, 235-236,374; of the poor, 45, 50-55, 254; in 17th-century English thought, 40-44, 354; and violence, 367-370. See also exodus Muiioz,Jose, 335 Nancy, Jean-Luc, xiii—xiv, 57—58,354 nation and nationalism, 33-34,36—37, 163-164,182-183,331,336 neoconservatives, 207-208,349 neoliberalism, viii, 92,137-139,143-144, 155,215-217,231,258; crisis of, 263268, 272—274. See also alterglobalization movements Newton, Huey, 331,336 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 115, 183 Nye, Joseph, 275-276 Obama, Barack, 325 ontology, 29-30,47-50,123-124,171, 173,346,378-379; and love, 181,184, 194-196 Panzieri, Raniero, 24 parallelism, 108,111,326,340-345,349350 Pashukanis, Evgeny, 14—15 Patterson, Orlando, 77 Paul of Tarsus, 190,197-198 peasants, 88-89,107,236-238,252-253, 366 Perle, Richard, 207 phenomenology, 24-25,29-32,122 Pierce, Charles, 63 Pinochet, Augusto, 263 Plessner, Helmuth, 189 poor, the, xi, 39-55,148,180,181,242, 253-254 postmodernity and postmodernism, 113— 114,171-172 Povinelli, Elizabeth, 346-347 precarious labor, 146-147, 245-246, 289-290,293 primitive accumulation, 54, 86,93, 138 production. See biopolitical production;

immaterial production; subjectivity, production of property, viii-ix, 3,9-15,22-23,39-41, 50-51; and identity, 326; intellectual, 281-282,308-309; slaves as, 72-75 Putney Debates, 40-41 queer theory and politics, 62,335,337338 Quesnay, Francois, 285-286 race, 34,49,74,79-80,98-100,134-135, 147-148,182,217-218,327-328; abolition of, 335-340. See also antiracist theory and politics; colonialism; indigenous populations and politics; intersectionality; slavery Rainsborough, Thomas, 40-41 Ranciere, Jacques, 44-45,350 Rawlsjohn, 18 Reagan, Ronald, 263 real estate value, 154-156,257-258 reason, 98-99; biopolitical, 119-128 refusal, 16,58,152,239; of work, 332333 religion, 28,32-33,35-36,78-79,182183,190-191,221. See also Catholic Church rent, 141-142,154-156,251,257-258 representation, 78,123,278,304-305, 356; crisis of, 346-349; of economic value, 157-158,294-295 republic, 8-21,27,45,50-51,148-149, 301-303,320,326,330; and slavery, 71-76 resistance, 16,61,100,106-107,153,176, 234-236,240-244; to colonial domination, 67-71,81-82; Foucault's conception of, 31,56-59,168-169; limits of, 101-103; to military occupation, 211-212; to slavery, 75-77. See also antimodernity Resnais, Alain, 26 Retamar, Roberto Fernandez, 97-98 revolt, 234-243, 356-357; anticolonial, 81; slave, 75-76; urban, 256,259; worker, 86,144,291-292

revolution, theory of, 24-25, 238-243, 325-326,331-344,349-355,359-360, 371-375; passive, 365-367. See also transition, revolutionary; violence: revolutionary revolution in military affairs, 210-212 Rhodes, Cecil, 228-229 Riegl, Alois, 375 Robinson, William, 232-233 Rosenzweig, Franz, 182 Rubin, Gayle, 334 Rumsfeld, Donald, 210-211 Russia, 88-91,175,212,277. See also Soviet Union Said, Edward, 78 Saint-Just, Louis de, 369-370 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 350 Sassen, Saskia, 223-224 Schmitt, Carl, 4,50,100,197,238,346, 373 Schumpeterjoseph, 296-298,301 Schurmann, Reiner, 29-30 Sedgwick, Eve, 337-338 September 11,2001, attacks, 206,211 Shakespeare, William, 97 Sieyes,Abbe,9,151 Silko, Leslie Marmon, 105-106 Simmel, Georg, 157,158 Simondon, Gilbert, 58 singularity, 252-254,305,357-359; and the common, 124-125,174-175,183184,188,194-197,380; in the multitude, 111-112,166-167,350,383; in relation to identity, 320,338-344. See also encounter Situationists, 25 slavery, 71-77,152 Sloterdijk, Peter, 58 Smith, Adam, 38,154,185-186,220,379 social capital, 271,287-288 social democracy, 17-20,71,84,271-272, 287-288,294 socialism, 54,89-95,187-188,263,268274; in contrast to communism, 107, 273 Sohn-Rethel, Alfred, 8

433

434

INDEX

Sorel, Georges, 239 sovereignty, 3-6,42,50,100,106,359, 373; and identity, 326,330,331 Soviet Union, 46,48,93-94,238,351, 354; collapse of, 91-93,204,235,263, 269-270. See also Russia Soweto uprising (1976), 357 Spinoza, Baruch, 75,125-126,190,191, 192-194, 235-236,356; on common notions, 53,121; on indignation, 9899; on joy, 379, 383; on love, 181; on the multitude, 43, 279. See also parallelism Spivak, Gayatri, 78 spontaneity, 15-16,165,169,175,236237,243. See also encounter; jacqueries Stiegler, Bernard, 58 Stonewall rebellion (1969), 356 subjectivity, production of, 31, 56—57, 127-128,171-173,211-212,332; in economic production, 133, 287, 293— 294 subsumption, formal and real, 142, 229231,245,365-366 surplus value, 135-141, 285-288. See also exploitation Sweezy, Paul, 313-314 Tableau economique, 285-290

Tate, Nahum, 40 Tertullian, 197 Teubner, Gunther, 347-348 Thatcher, Margaret, 263 Thiers, Adolphe, 45 Tiananmen Square revolt, 116 transcendental critique, 6-8,15,17—20, 29-31,120-122,346-347 transition, revolutionary, 91,175,310— 311,361-365,371 Tronti, Mario, 24,291-292,332 Trotsky, Leon, 351 unilateralism, 203-209, 221-223, 263268,275-277 United Nations, 222

value, 132-137,150-159,270,294-295, 299; intangible, 135, 312-313, 316; labor theory of, 313-316; new theory of, 316—321. See also expropriation; surplus value; Tableau economique vanguard party, 198-199, 350-352 Vercellone, Carlo, 267-268 Villon, Francois, 237 violence, 16,231,256-260; of colonialism, 37, 67-69; and identity, 327-341; revolutionary, 367—371 Virno, Paolo, 167 Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo, 123-124, 125 Wachtel, Nathan, 81 Wang Hui, 87 Weber, Max, 76-77,237 West, Cornell, 49 Whitman, Walt, 61,182-183 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 121-122, 194195,318 Wojnarowicz, David, 187 working class, 109-110,159,291,294295, 332. See also industrial workers' movements; multitude working day, breakdown of, 133-134, 146-147,242,286-287,292-293 World Economic Forum, 227-228, 265, 276 world-systems theories, 84—85 World Trade Organization, 216, 275 Yorck von Wartenburg, Graf Paul, 28 Yurchak,Alexei, 269-270 Zapatistas, 106, 111,357 Zavaleta, Rene, 108-110 Zerilli, Linda, 329-330,334 Zizek, Slavoj, 168-169,342-343,424n43