Communism has nothing to do with the collectivist barbarism that has come into existence. Communism is the most intense experience of subjectivity, the maximization of the processes of singularization – individuation which represent the capability potential of our collective stock. No universality of man can be extracted from the naked abstraction of social value.
Communism no longer has anything to do with any of this [blind, reductionist collectivism]. It is a matter rather of manifesting the singular as multiplicity, mobility, spatio-temporal variability and creativity. Continue reading “A New Communism (Of Singularization) Pt II”
The historical communist parties, prisoners of antiquated paradigms of production, did not even succeed in imagining the revolutionary force of the social mode of production which was in the process of emerging. Incapable of separating themselves from centralist organizational models deriving from a paradigmatic split between the avant-garde and the masses, they found themselves disoriented and frightened in the face of the unexpected self-organization of a social movement. Continue reading “Politics today is nothing more than the expression of the domination of dead structures over the entire range of living production”
Yes, communism is possible. It is true, more now than ever, that it haunts the old world. 1968 revealed the fragility of the social contracts installed successively to contain the revolutionary movements of the beginning of the century, those which followed the big crisis of 1929 and the movements which accompanied and followed the second great imperialist war. However one views the events of 1968, it is undeniable that they revealed the failure of this social compromise to eliminate or supersede the antagonistic contradictions of the capitalist systems. […skip two paragraphs…]
…work and life are no longer separate; society is collapsed into the logic and processes of capitalist development. Continue reading “A Social Without Solidarity”
From this perspective, communism is the establishment of a communal life style in which individuality is recognized and truly liberated, not merely opposed to the collective. That’s the most important lesson: that the construction of healthy communities begins and ends with unique personalities, that the collective potential is realized only when the singular is free. This insight is fundamental to the liberation of work. Continue reading “A New Communism (Of Singularization)”
We now come to a central aspect of the question of the organisation for liberation, of the form of militant social practice of liberation. This entire discussion revolves around the name, Lenin.
It is clear – more or less explicitly – that when Guattari warns against ‘authoritarian disciplines, formal hierarchies, orders of priorities decreed from above, and compulsory ideological references…’ (p. 124) he is warning against what we might call the Leninist temptation. Continue reading “Lenin: Coming Between Guattari and Negri”
So, while Žižek is arguing – quite correctly – that Lenin refuses the revisionist tendency to await for the ‘objective conditions’ to develop to a sufficient degree, that the ‘stages’ of social development unfold, that it is only with the say-so of these conditions, stages, laws that the process of revolution is justified; nevertheless, his challenge to opportunism (to use of good Leninist epithet) that revolution cannot rest upon the big Other, does not amount – as Žižek suggests – to the statement that the revolution must rest on nothing other than itself, the ‘abyss of the act’, to legitimate itself. Is this not effectively to substitute an ethics of the revolutionary event for a politics? By this move Žižek takes one step forward and two steps back.
Let us return in conclusion to Negri then Continue reading “Repeating Lenin is not Returning to Lenin”
Dean, Governmentality 2nd edition, 190-1
Neo-liberalism, in this form at least, is a response to a kind of ‘political reproduction’ problem that is posed by neo-conseratives in the United States and is embodied in the Republican Contract with America (Cruikshank, 1998). This is the problem of how to govern through the autonomy of the governed when they are no longer virtuous. Continue reading “Neo-liberalism is the problem of how to govern through the autonomy of the governed when they are no longer virtuous”