philosophy as not philosophy: para-ontology, hauntology, schizoanalysis

"Articulating the past historically does not mean recognizing it ‘the way it really was’. It means appropriating a memory as it flashes up in a moment of danger. Historical materialism wishes to hold fast that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to the historical subject in a moment of danger. The danger threatens both the content of the tradition and those who inherit it. For both, it is one and the same thing: the danger of becoming a tool of the ruling classes. Every age must strive anew to wrest tradition away from the conformism that is working to overpower it. The Messiah comes not only as the redeemer; he comes as the victor over the Antichrist. The only historian capable of fanning the spark of hope in the past is the one who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he is victorious. And this enemy has never ceased to be victorious."
- Walter Benjamin, Thesis VI

"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice."
- Karl Marx, Thesis III

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Bartleby on Main Street (Schizoanalysis 2)

How does this economic crisis, and crises more generally, relate to emancipatory change? There is a small contention concerning whether crisis can lead to a 'lack of faith' in capitalism, up to the point of breeding antipathy and discontent great enough to motivate opposition to it. The argument is that, following Marx, crisis is a structural function of capitalism, and in no way undermines it, rather constituting a crucial moment of its reproduction. Moreover, because crisis plunges the masses into despair and fear, they are less likely to question established values than to seek protection and stability from those in power. Following from this, we would be more likely to see oppositional sentiments grow in times of abundance and growth than times of crisis. Mark at k-punk summarizes this contention nicely here.

I think both positions are right, but for the wrong reasons. Periods of affluence certainly do breed oppositional sentiments - with the catch being that these sentiments are ultimately nothing more than that, impotent gestures of rejection without a concrete program. Even where we do see real, positive action taken on their behalf, and I refer here to the countless activist groups and movements that have been booming since, well, at least the mid-90's or so, culminating in events like Seattle or the anti-war protests that lead up to the invasion of Iraq, this action does not lead to a significant disruption of the operations of capital or the state. No governments fell (except, of course, Iraq), no significant restrictions or regulations were placed on capital, no new liberated territories were formed. What you get is Bush looking at the protesters and saying 'Someday, because of our invasion, the Iraqi people will be able to protest like that also!'

And as for the other position, periods of crisis do announce a significant threat to capital, but this threat is not the external one of a revolution or rejection of capitalism. The threat is the one capital itself poses to its own economic structure. This is not to say that the crisis itself threatens capitalism, but that it reveals the manner in which capital threatens itself. We can ask a very simple, empirical question: if the state did not intervene in this crisis, what would have happened? The total implosion of financial capital, and with it, a shockwave undermining capital invested in production and service as well. So if we did demand a pure capitalism, one in which the market was allowed to work out these problems itself, it would amount to a near-total devastation of existing capital, with defaults on debt leading to a massive implosion of existing wealth. But we cannot imagine a capitalism that did not require a minimal level of state intervention in the economy - property law, corporate law, bankruptcy law, state-backed currency... If we did demand a market with pure conditions, lacking any interference from the state, capital would collapse on itself (and so would the state, lacking some alternative economic program).

In these situations, when we are posed the alternative of 'le pere or le pire', the father or worse, the state or an uncontainable meltdown, we should chose the latter. The conditions in which capital can exist run counter to 'pure' capitalism, and hence the existence of capital is the ultimate limit to capitalism, as the famous formula goes. What the real 'anti-capitalist' should do is not demand some alternative socialist system, or create a space outside of capital, or otherwise reject capitalism outright: she should demand pure capitalism to be implemented directly, as this would deprive it of the existence of capital, and hence lead it to undermine itself, to pull the carpet from under its own feet, in a strange inversion of Baron Munchausen.

I want to distinguish this position from that of the Chinese government's version of Marxism, which claims that the complete development of the capitalist mode of production must precede any utopian dreams of post-capitalist reality. This position takes Menshevik gradualism to an absurd extreme, claiming that in order to be a Marxist, we must advocate for capitalism's development. First of all, Chinese capitalism relies on an extreme level of state intervention, whereas I am claiming we should argue for total deregulation, a total lack of intervention, that we should deprive capital of every state support. Moreover, whereas the Chinese government says we need to gradually develop the capitalist mode of production, I am making the 'Leninist' demand that we must have pure capitalism now, whether the conditions are ripe or not. We must implement pure, 'abstract' capitalism regardless of the 'stage of development' at which we are.

Finally, I want to again discuss what a 'Bartleby politics' might look like, as regards this case of crisis. 'Doing nothing' here cannot mean simply not responding to the crisis, acting as if nothing was happening. Rather, for the state to do nothing, it must abandon every form of support and regulation, it must refuse to intervene to any extent, and this includes ceasing to provide any structural support to the capitalist economy: property law, bankruptcy protection, subsidies and tax-breaks, everything must go. Now, this is clearly a dream, there are basically no conditions under which the State would adopt such a program, not only because of the influence of capital on policy, but moreover because this would like lead to a catastrophe for the population in the form of unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and so on. But we can draw an insight from this self-destructive character of capitalism, and the preventative role played by the state. Ultimately, Marx was not naive to claim that the force capable of overcoming capitalism would develop directly out of capitalism: this force is capitalism itself, which seems to strive for the liquidation of its own support, that is, accumulated capital.

Okay, but this is a dream. What would Bartleby politics look like for us, here on the ground level of the economy? Nicole at Rough Theory weighs in on the debate concerning crisis and change, and her response is quite instructive for our problem. She reminds us that the crisis and contradictions generated by capitalism are, for Marx, not necessarily elements of its collapse or overcoming, but rather, only part of the reproduction of capital. The question of emancipatory change, which for her is bound to the standpoint of critique, the genesis of a position capable of really breaking with the logic of capital, cannot be posed abstractly; it is not a question of 'is this the right time?' or 'what kind of conditions does it require?'. It is a practical question of bringing about such positions through the reconfiguration of the 'materials' of social being - the 'social but non-intersubjective element' that she has previously discussed, which I would not hesitate to identify with the Symbolic order itself, or rather, the way subjects are bound up in it through organizations of jouissance. By intervening directly in the organization of collective praxis, which is to say, arrangements of enunciation and production, we can engender such a critical standpoint.

Or maybe I can put this another way. It is not that we must figure out some more radical form of organization, so as to bring about a break with capitalism. The question is how to organize collectively in line with a break that is already structurally presupposed in capitalism (the proletariat position), but that is at the same time rejected from assumption or possession, that is dis-inherited or foreclosed. It is not a question of bringing about a critical standpoint, but of enacting the necessary exclusion of its possibility, through the circulation of praxicals (indices of collective praxes, constellations of discursive and productive arrangements) that do not point toward capital as a pure possession of productivity, as the fullness of the yield of production. This latter notion is probably quite enigmatic at the moment, but it is what I am attempting to develop in my thesis (which is complete and will be posted here soon), and in my preliminary formulations of a practical model of schizoanalysis, which is, for me, a collective reorganization of the social/non-intersubjective materials of symbolic structures and relations of production. I will begin laying out a basic methodological elaboration of this model in following posts.

A top-down version of Bartleby politics, in which the state would abandon capital to capitalism, is clearly not only dramatically unlikely, but also probably not preferable for most workers. Even if such a politics did lead to a massive investment in the reorganization of economic life, it is expecting too much of the state. We will likely end up with some version of neo-Keynesianism, aimed at developing a set of regulations adequate to the contemporary excesses of financial capital. Yet as I said, we can learn something from such a thought experiment. What kind of investment would be required of the state to reorganize economic life in such a manner that avoided the reemergence or perseverance of capital? It would have to take the form of a radically different organization of production, productive relations and forces, that, in the absence of accumulated capital, would have to rely on the collective organization of workers themselves. It is this kind 'radical reorganization of production', such that the surplus is reinvested in and by a new social bond amongst (non-)workers, that would be necessary.

In a state-centered version of this story, we could quite easily imagine state funds, on the level of the recent bailout plan, being directed toward agricultural-, production-, and service-sector corporations that would inevitably crumble under the weight of a failed financial sector. This could either aim to rebuild and stabilize failing corporations, which would likely be next to impossible, or could invest in the appropriation of the business by employees now abandoned by investment and credit, with an eye toward a new kind of collective organization. Once such collective appropriations of businesses became profitable, they could buyout the state investment and begin from there. Although this version is only a dream, we can nonetheless imagine such a collective model emerging from the bottom up (and indeed, there are a great number of collective business models, in theory and practice, throughout the economy). Richard Wolff, with whom I had the pleasure of taking a course last year, presents a variation on such a model of reorganization on the basis of collective ownership by workers.

[I'm focusing here on the last ten minutes or so of Wolff's lecture.] Now I take issue with Wolff's proposal on many accounts, but here I want to focus on his claim that collectivization of enterprises amounts to their 'democratization', and that economic democracy must serve as the real substrate of any legitimate political democracy. The simplest way to explain this problem is that democracy, as a social bond, essentially maintains the very elements that make workers susceptible to exploitation. Here is a provisional list of such elements:

1) The gap between articulated positions and actualized policies, which always maintains the primacy of a majority or consensus over deviations, oppressed or dissenting positions. This gap is moreover a symptom of the necessary distance between all actually articulated positions, actual or potential, and the necessarily rejected or foreclosed position that is 'undemocratic' and hence incompatible, namely, the position of those who do not exist (yet, or anymore, or even those who do actually exist, but that are not accounted for, that do not 'belong' to the set).

2) The basic formal function of democracy is to reduce all members to abstract equivalents, 'votes'. This is true of everything from parliamentary democracy to 'authentic' direct democracy - we must be seen as equal in the eyes of the group (demos). Now besides the obvious technical problems with every form of voting, and the question of merit or weight of particular votes, both of which can to some degree be addressed, this nonetheless misses the crucial dimension of subjectivity, what I've been calling the ancestral dimension: the subject is not (only) a unified element that can be counted and equivocated in a set, but is moreover the symptomal expression of that which can not, and must not, be counted, registered, or legitimated in a set or group, in other words, that which had to not be so that the group could constitute itself.

3) Democracy, even in its most radical form (Laclau and Mouffe), relies upon the hegemonic articulation of a Master-signifier that stands for the inadequacy or incompletion of the existing bond, whether this consists in a fantasmatic assumption of some lost or possible fullness or completeness of the socius, or post-fantasmatic cyncism. It cannot break with the Master-signifier, with the masculine logic of exception, and it cannot reach the level of drive, in which the signifier that acts as social bond would directly enact the loss of such a completion, indeed, in which the social bond would directly be the loss of such a completion.

I could go on, I could clarify these points in less obscure terms, go into greater specificity, et cetera, but this account should be sufficient at the moment. What I am proposing is that the possibility of a new collective praxis, a new organization of productive and enuniciative relations, cannot rely on the existing symbolic configurations, the existing economy of asubjective-social materials. It must generate a new social bond through a reorgnization of this economy, or rather, of the relation between collective jouissance and its symbolic support/impediment.

This is more than a matter of figuring out a new way of socializing - it is a matter of rescuing from obscurity that necessarily missed potential of a different bond with others, and making this foreclosure itself the realization of the foreclosed. I understand this to be the objective of schizoanalysis. So such a practice should endeavor to develop a new collective organization of praxis, discursive and material production, that enacts this break that is simultaneously a bond, a pact or promise. Schizoanalysis is a method and science of reorganizing society, abandoned by capital (but aren't the workers always already abandoned by capital?), on the basis of a radical collective praxis, a collectivized production of existence.

So Bartleby politics, in 'doing nothing', forcing into the symbolic texture the intolerable void of the situation, cannot rely on the social bond of democracy. It must make this void, this nothingness, into the social bond itself, and this is precisely what schizoanalysis does, as I conceive it. It is not a matter of inaction, but of acting in a manner that capital cannot register, a manner that enacts a dimension foreclosed to capital from the outset. Any collective organization that seeks to overcome capital, in the wake of this startling crisis, must begin by thinking carefully about the nature of its social bond. To 'do nothing' for capital, we must become nothing to capital.


N. said...

This is really great Reid. I think it offers a lot of interesting potentials for thinking about future action. My one problem with it, and this is a problem you sort of mention, and it's a problem with a lot of theorists, is simply - how? How would we bring about these sorts of non-capitalist social relations? The state could help, like you mention, but how can we leverage the state to implement such a solution? Not that you or I have the answer to that, but I think Nicole is precisely right in avoiding the overly abstract theorizing about action, and looking to the immediate moment with its immanent materials.

As I see it, there are two main aspects to this problem - the means and the subject. How is change carried out, and by whom? I'm still sorting out my thoughts on these issues.

My second question would be, what's your take on the debate between those who see the crisis as an opportunity, and those who are resigned to capitalism's dominance? You bring it up, and your work here suggests you see an opportunity, but is it anything more than abstract theorizing? Is there any hope for some radical plan to be implemented? I'm unsure myself, but I also believe that nothing will change if we believe we're already resigned to capitalism. A sort of forced hope, then, since without it we're already lost.

Lastly, I look forward to your thesis. If your work here is any indication, it'll be an interesting read.

Reid Kotlas said...

Thanks Nick, I appreciate it. Sorry it took so long getting back to you.

In response to your first question, I like everyone else have complicated feelings about the state. I don't think recourse to the state should be a primary component, and that ultimately any real effort at political transformation must be ready to 'go it alone' so to speak. Yet it would also be dangerous to avoid any state involvement, because if the state sees you as a threat, it won't let you stay a threat very long.

If this transformation is to involve a genuine break with the social bond that culminates in the state-form, and therefore must pose a threat to the state, then it must either fight the state directly (which amounts to suicide) or infiltrate and overtake the state from the inside. I'm all for the latter to an extent, but I think such endeavors must be supported by the practical development of a new social bond. The Bolsheviks, they expected it was enough to overtake and control the state, so that eventually a new social bond could begin to take root. I think it's got to be the other way around.

Such a praxis must also involve the cultivation of associations (between people) that are invisible from the point of view of the state, so that it cannot register them as a threat, and of capital, so that it cannot appropriate them. To be a little more concrete, I do have a notion of how to bring about such associations, and it is what I am trying to express with schizoanalysis, or the rigorous practicable theorization thereof that I am only beginning to attempt.

The rough idea of this is a kind of psychoanalytic collectivism, where social relations are based upon an ongoing intra-group auto-analysis. Analysis, as a by-product of social life, a secondary reflection upon it, then would become the foundation of that very life, replacing law, the state, capital, whatever.

Why this and not another approach. I have a lot of reasons, which I'm developing and working out on this blog, but aside from these reasons, I think above all you sometimes have to just act, whether or not you know it will work, and hope that you've at least provided yourself with that minimal theoretical/methodological framework capable of learning from its experimental implementation. I think schizoanalysis, in theory, is above all formulated as essentially experimental.

As for your second question, I think I've begun to answer it in my following posts, but the short answer is that yes, I think the crisis is an opportunity, but not an opportunity to overcome or defeat capitalism, or something like that. It is an opportunity, if anything, to realize that capitalism cannot exist purely, that it needs resistance and intervention to keep it from going to far. And I think this point should be carefully considered in any response to the crisis, be it of the state, or of the 'middle class', or of those who see themselves as opponents of capitalism.

N. said...

Thanks Reid, these are great responses. I think my big question for you is what you mean by the new social bond. From what you've said, I get the feeling it's more fully developed in your thesis, so I'll (im)patiently wait for it. :)

The key question for those social bonds will be in what way do they escape capitalist and/or state relations? Your recent stuff on Laruelle also seems to be pointing in that direction - an indifference to these relational structures.

Speaking of which, that stuff has been strikingly similar to a paper I wrote. It's under review right now, so I don't want to say much more and possibly ruin the anonymity of the peer review process - but if you're interested in it, email me at nsrnicek [at] hotmail [dot] com.

evanstonjew said...

I think you got it ass backward and todays news in the UK confirms this. The more the state pours money down these sink holes (RB of Scotland, Lloyds or in America AIG,Citicorp, Bank of America ) the worse it gets. The interventionist view , in American financial circles called the throw money out of helicopters plan, only causes banks to take a more realistic approach to the assets and write them down even more, thus requiring even more capital. Had the bailout plans never been implemented and mark to market accounting allowed, the illusion of solvency would have lasted at least a few more years.

So to repeat, the impotence of govt. intervention is shown precisely in what has transpired, after they have invested two trillion world wide to save the credit markets....default swaps are higher than ever, stock prices are gliding to zero and the system appears kaput all by itself. It went poof, just blew up without any Leninist or social democratic leadership, conceptualization of change etc.

Any theory that is not permanently in la-la land should account for this phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

Hello !.
might , probably curious to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with affiliates around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!

I feel good, I started to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a proper companion who uses your funds in a right way - that`s it!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to start , just click this link
and go! Let`s take our chance together to become rich

Anonymous said...

Hello !.
You may , probably very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no initial capital needed You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with affiliates everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your chance That`s what you desire!

I`m happy and lucky, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct companion utilizes your savings in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link
and go! Let`s take our chance together to become rich

Anonymous said...

Hi there!
I would like to burn a theme at this forum. There is such a nicey, called HYIP, or High Yield Investment Program. It reminds of ponzy-like structure, but in rare cases one may happen to meet a company that really pays up to 2% daily not on invested money, but from real profits.

For quite a long time, I earn money with the help of these programs.
I don't have problems with money now, but there are heights that must be conquered . I make 2G daily, and my first investment was 500 dollars only.
Right now, I managed to catch a guaranteed variant to make a sharp rise . Turn to my blog to get additional info.

Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have been times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in big initial investment.
Now, I feel good, I started take up real money.
It's all about how to choose a proper companion who uses your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, and shares the income with me.

You may ask, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:

Anonymous said...

nice post. thanks.

Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never imagined that there weren't any need in big initial investment.
Nowadays, I feel good, I begin take up real income.
It gets down to choose a correct companion who utilizes your money in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, parts and divides the income with me.

You can get interested, if there are such firms? I have to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them: [url=]Online Investment Blog[/url]