Katja Diefenbach

The paradoxes of the political. On the post-workerist reading of Marx

I would like to pose one single question today: how is the political thought in
post-workerism? I will do so by reconstructing how, in the post-workerist
reading of ar!, di"erging theses are unified through the notion of li"ing
labor in a way which allows for identifying being and communism in the
instance of potentiality, an identification, that runs into the risk of negating
the political itself#
$our di"erging positions are at issue in this postworkerist operation:
%& the ar!ian thesis of a real subsumption of labor by capital and of labor
power as both radically e!propriated and radically creati"e potentiality,
'& the feminist thesis that reproducti"e and affecti"e acti"ities are producti"e
and "alue constituting alike
(& the Deleu)ian thesis of the plane of immanence as a non-personal life that
is not attributed to a subject and does not contain an object but only itself as
its own cause, a desire desiring self-generation in indefinite differentiation
*& the $oucauldian thesis that the capitalist mode of production has been
preceded by an inclusion of life to power mechanisms and that both are
coe!isting since#
+e will see how these four positions are radically transformed in the course
of their ontologising unification by se"eral post-workerist authors which I will
e!emplify by the difference how a non-actualisable potentiality of the not-
now is grasped in ,irno and in Deleu)e, on one side as preinindi"iudal
anthropological general, on the other side as non-subjecti"e, non-human
"irtuality#
+hy to debate the question of the political through a series of post-workerist
theses? -t the beginning of the ./s se"eral post-workerist authors
reemerged on the theoretical stage of ar!ism with an interesting promise:
they aimed at combining the analysis how "alorisation, law and biopolitics
relate to each other with an actualisation of materialism in the line
achia"elli, 0pino)a, ar! and the announcement of a renewed communist
militancy#
% 1 ar!2s 3eirs
+hat does it mean to align oneself with ar! and to want to actualise his
thought? 4o align oneself with ar! means taking on a heterogeneous,
theoretically aporetic and politically dramatic legacy combining an acti"ist,
messianic and analytic aspect: the con"ening of an international workers2
mo"ement, the promise of re"olutionary change, and a critique of the
political economy# 4his encounter has been catastrophically marked by the
fact that it led to the creation of a producti"istic and policing order#
4herefore, the acceptance of ar!2s legacy requires a critique, a choice and a
re"ision# It requires the clarification of why, for one, the name of ar!ism is
treated as a militant promise, and what one hopes to achie"e from the
5plurality of demands to which since ar! e"eryone who speaks or writes
cannot fail to feel himself subjected, unless he or she is to feel himself failing
in e"erything6,7%8 as 9lanchot put it in %.:;# It requires a distance to the
idealisations in ar!2s te!ts, the "iolence of his theoretical blockages, and a
positioning in relation to the gra"es of the policing ar!isms# $oucault has
pointed out that one shouldn2t pose the question of 0talinism in terms of
error, but in terms of reality# Instead of searching for what might ser"e in
ar!ism to condemn the camp system, the producti"ism and the
bureaucratisation of the political, one should search for what these
de"elopments made possible#7'8 <ne disaster we inherited from communism
is the e!tent to which socialist discipline, socialist con"ersion of the class
enemy into a biological threat to the workers= state, which has to be
immuni)ed against theaft, against idleness, against de"iance, is coe!tensi"e
to a theoretical contradiction in ar!, namely the theoretical contradiction in
the analysis of the social relations of production, to reject any concept of
human essence, while at the same time, to repeatedly articulate the socially
determining effect of the economy in such a way that producti"ity becomes
the essence of the human and the man who impro"es this essence in his
works and thereby regains his sense the hori)on of communism#7(8
' 1 >eading ar!
+hat aspects of ar!2s te!ts are acti"ated by post-workerism? +hich ar!
does it read? If one abandons the simplifying idea of an epistemological
rupture in ar!2s works di"iding it along the break-line of scientificity ? a
thesis that was de"eloped by structuralist ar!ism in the %.:/s and that
-lthusser re"oked in %.@( as 5theoreticist error67*8 ? the poly"alence of
ar!2s work is re"ealed# In his brief and essayistic te!t 5ar!2s 4hree
,oices6, 9lanchot distinguishes the disparate coe!istence of three modes of
speaking: firstly, a direct, long and both philosophical and antiphilosophical
mode, in which ar! gi"es answers in terms of the history of logos ?
5alienation, the primacy of need, history as the process of material practice,
the total human67A8 ? answers that want to be what they say: a break with
the former course of things, whose corresponding question remains,
howe"er, indeterminateB secondly, a political mode, which is brief, direct and
rallying, announcing the immediate dissolution of bourgeois society through
the pra!is of the proletariat again e!pressig the urgency of what it
announcesB and thirdly, the indirect speech of the scientific, economical-
critical discourse, in which the conditions of production and reproduction of
capital are analysedB a speech that undermines itself since it 5designates
itself CD& as a theory of mutation always in play in practice, just as in this
practice the mutation is always also theoretical6#7:8 E"en if 9lanchot ignores
the de"elopments in ar!2s work by concentrating entirely on the thesis that
thought does not emerge unscathed from ar!2s work and that its
producti"ity consists in the multiplicity of its modes of speech, obliging
e"erybody who reads it to constantly remodel his or her thought, 9lanchot
pro"ides two insights that are important for an in"estigation of the post-
workerist reception of ar!: firstly, to pay attention to the questions that can
be found to ar!2s answersB secondly, to in"estigate how the relationship
between economy and politics can be understood, which oscillates in ar!2s
thought between a primacy of the economic form Ci#e the contradictory
unfolding of the "alue-form& and a primacy of the political content Cwhich is
twofold, firstly the actual reality of human labour, secondly the pure
negati"ity of a class that is no class because it dissolutes the old ties of the
bourgeois society and thus class itself and whose content is rupture itself&#
Fater, after the failure of the re"olution in %;*;, slowly, partly, ar!
withdrew from this materialism of pra!is in which the political is thought as
subjecti"e acti"ity like in idealism, especially in $ichte, and is substituted by
a materialism of the political which is considered as organisation of forces,
which might misdo, which might suffer a setback, which ha"e to be
reorganised#7@8 +ith the question of the question to which ar! answers,
9lanchot "aries the central motif of -lthusser2s symptomatic reading of ar!#
In 5>eading Gapital6, -lthusser declared, that the crucial question ar!
produces ? though still in the old 3egelian terms of inner essence and outer
appearances ? is the question of the effect of a structure on its elements#7;8
ar! would show, in a thousand different ways, the presence of a notion still
absent in the framework of his discourse: namly the notion of the social
formation as structured comple!ity in which the economic is determinant in
the last instance, that is to say, not directly, not in a predetermined and
prescribing way, but always displaced, transposed, distorted by the
translation to other instances of the social# 4he economic is concei"ed as
dominant contradiction structuring social comple!ity without being based in a
substance or a subject, e!isting only in its effects, an immanent causality as
he says with 0pino)a#7.8 4he problem of this position is the following: If the
economical would be determinant for any type of society in the last instance,
it would ha"e to be defined independently of any specific social relations#
4hat is to say, the social would again be rationali)ed by an essentialist a
priori category#7%/8
( 1 ar! beyond ar!
+hat are the questions that post-workerism finds to the answers that ar!
gi"es? 3ow does it think the relationship between economy, labour and
politics? 3ow does it go beyond the dialectical and teleological idealisations of
ar!? Fet us begin by clarifying what it means, with ar!, to go beyond
ar!# 9alibar pointed out in the %.;/s, that it implies at least two
methodological aspects related to materialist thought: firstly, ar!ism
participates in the o"ercoming of its future perspecti"es since it starts from
the historical specificity of a discourse, including its own, and is thus able to
reflect the temporal conditionality of its thought, while on a non-discursi"e
le"el the worker2s mo"ement, the class struggles, the construction of the
0o"iet Hnion and the real socialist states contributed to the shift of capitalist
strategies of "alorisation and control so that they no longer correspond to the
conditions analysed by ar! in the middle of the nineteenth centuryB
secondly, ar!2s theory contains passages that deconstruct its philosophical
fictions and dialectical idealisations# Iarticularly ar!2s institutional and
historical analyses on the production of relati"e surplus "alue, working-time
legislation, the formation of big industry and the machinisation of production
in the 5Jrundrisse6 and 5Gapital6 re"eals a thinking that is based neither on
an e"olutionary de"elopment of predetermined forms, nor collecti"e forces
embedded in the history of being, e!pressing the right content or qua that
the antagonistic particular uni"ersality that will e!plode the wrong capitalist
form# Instead, one encounters a theory that in"estigates the effects of
antagonistic strategies: 5strategies of e!ploitation, domination and
resistance, constantly being displaced and renewed as a consequence of their
own effects6#7%%8
4his differential and relati"e mode of thinking is radicali)ed by $oucault# 3is
decisi"e and precious inter"ention in relation to ar!ism lays in the
de"elopment of a non-juridical and non-economical conception of power as
strategic relation of forces to which no law of form and no political content is
immanent# 4hus, $oucault deconstructed the thesis of economic
determination in the last instance put forward by -lthusser and 9alibar in the
%.:/s and @/s# ore o"er, contradictoriness, in $oucault, is at best only one
particular configuration of the social situation while, for ar!, power relations
are only strategic moments of a constituent contradiction# -nd accordingly,
for him, the social conflict is considered to de"elop through the interiorisation
of the power relationships whereby an antagonism becomes the function of
these relationships#7%'8
$oucault translated his considerations about a strategic concept of power7%(8
into a series of methodological rules with which he has withdrawn from the
interiorisation of power relations into an antagonism# 4hese methodological
rules are: the immanence of knowledge and power, the continual "ariations
of their distributions, the double conditioning of micro- and macro-political
mechanisms, the poly"alence of regulating practices that are discontinuous
and transformatory in their effects and merge together into "arious big
strategies#7%*8 $or $oucault, the political coe!ists with these power relationsB
it is a matter of two practices that mutually pro"oke, incite, shun, penetrate
or attack each other# - social break is the improbable and e"ental result of a
strong connection of different political practices, an idea that 9alibar had
defined in relation to a ar!ian 5becoming-necessary of liberty6 as a
5becoming-contingent of resistances6#7%A8
* 1 4he Ireconditions of Gommunism
3ow then is the post-workerist discourse to be located in the field of ar!
beyond ar!?
4hree ar!ian traces are actualised in post-workerism: firstly, the early
ar!ian idea of an all-sided unfolding of labour-power constituting the
humanity of the human being, which leads to an anthropological and
ontological thinking of communismB at its base we find an e!pressionsim of
li"ing labor which is grasped as stripped off all its qualities incarnating the
mere potentiality to do this and that# -ccordingly, "alue theory is suspended#
-bstract labor is understood as general labor, as dynamis of an ludic animal
that is allowed to do one thing today and another thing tomorrow# 0econdly,
the meta-political idea of class as a re"olutionary mass whose force and
positionality supersede the e!isting order which negates the idea of the
political as it is identified with an ontological pri"ilegeB and thirdly, the
anticipation of a socialisation of production encompassing the entire social
field, subsuming it to capital#
+ith this conflictual reading of ar!, the trans-historical theses of the young
ar! on the creati"e "itality of labour are combined with the historical works
of the late ar! on the socialisation of production and projected into each
other# 3ence, the question is re"ealed that post-workerism ga"e to ar!2s
answers, and which 9lanchot had demanded that one search for if one wants
to understand how ar! is recei"ed within a discourse: It is the question of
the preconditions or prerequisites of communism in the history of being and
in the historical de"elopment of the capitalist mode of production#7%:8
4he cernel of this question? and I mainly refer to Kegri=s position here ? is
the following: 0ince %.:; the dialectics of the instruments of production is
o"er: 53istoricallyL, Kegris says, Lcapital places the instrument of production
at the disposal of the workerB as soon as the human brain re-appropriates
this instrument of production, capital loses the possibility of articulating the
command by means of the instrument#67%@8 If we refer this diagnosis to both
arguments combined in post-workerism ? politics of li"ing labor and analytics
of the socialisation of production ? a double eschaton has been reached: 4he
socialisation of production arri"es at a final stage# Ko longer, Kegri states,
labor power is constituted in capitalB no longer capital directs and commands
the production process# 4hat is to say, in the post-$ordist production mode
the instruments of labour are assumed to be incorporated in the body of the
producer# 4his is the post-workerist notion of biopolitics: incarnation of
labour instruments, and therefore autonomous self-go"ernance of the
multitude# $or Kegri, this tendency in"ol"es an o"ercoming of the 0mithian
logic of the di"ision of labour proper to industrial capitalism, and posits the
possibility of a direct transition to communism# L4he sociali)ed worker is a
kind of actuali)ation of communism, its de"eloped conditionBL he says, Lthe
boss, by contrast, is no longer e"en a necessary condition for
capitalism#L7%;8
Gorrespondingly, labour power, in pos-workerism, is assumed to not create
the means of social life any more, but life itselfB the economical, the political
and the social become oneB producti"e forces are immediately translated into
production relations#7%.8 4o put it short, postworkerism substantialises
labour power and desubstantialises capital ? capital is reduced to a
parasitical mechanism that appropriates in"enti"e producti"ity while labour
power is concei"ed as ontological and biological entrepreneur of itself and of
communism#
A 1 Kon-human life of infinite differentiation
It is ,irno who has most carefully elaborated the relation of potentiality and
act in post-workerism#7'/8 3e starts with the assumption that the body of
the worker contains a preindi"idual, non-determinate generic capacity to do
this or that# -s already said, he further hypothesi)es that in the course of the
socialisation of production this indeterminate human potentiality to act, to
react, to inter"ene, to reflect becomes the main producti"e force in
capitalism# In this sense he, too, uses ar! concept of abstract labor in the
sense of general labor, i#e#, labor stripped of all specific skills in which an
anthropological general comes to the fore: manifoldedness, initiati"e,
impro"isation, cooperation# 4hus, ,irno argues with reference to the
-ristotelian distinction of poiesis Cworking& and practise Cpolitical acti"ity&
that labor has subsumed politics because it took o"er the features that ha"e
been decisi"e for the political act, as said, initiati"e, impro"isation, in"ention,
decision, etc# Ioiesis has subsumed pra!is#7'%8 Irototype of this new form of
labour power is speaking, ,irno says# 9ecause to speak is not to produce a
product but to make use only of the potentiality of the generic faculty of
language, not of a pre-established te!t in detail# 4he "irtuosity of the speaker
is the prototype of all biopolitical labor, precisely because it includes within
itself the relationship of potentiality and act# ,irno defines this relationship
like the following: Iotentiality must not be reduced to the act# Iotentiality is
no potential act# Its not-now is no almost-now of a coming act# Iotentiality is
something what is not actualisable# It is the permanent not-now that e"ades
the presence and suspends the linear continuity of time# It is the e!teriority
of the non-present, an idea that comes e!tremley close to Deleu)e idea of
"irtuality as the milieu of becoming#7''8
+hat is the difference between the postworkerist idea of potentiality and
Deleu)e= and Juattari=s idea of "irtuality? Deleu)e and Juattari neither
attribute the force of becoming to an anthropological general like speaking
nor to labour power# $or them, an unpersonal, pre-refle!i"e force is
constituent# 4his force only e!ists in its effects which are continuous "ariation
and infinite inner differentiation which e!ceed the order of linear time
becoming time itself: the time of indi"iduation that subtracts from the
separation of before and after, mo"ing and pulling in both directions at once#
-s Deleu)e says with Fewis Garroll: -lice does not grow without shrinking,
and "ice "ersa# 0he becomes larger than she was and is yet smaller than she
becomes#7'(8 4his force of becoming is effect of the concatanations it
generates# 4his force has no cause, no substance and no subject# It could not
be traced back to a human capacity of cooperation or "irtuosity# Fife in this
sense is not li"ing labour but non-human pure becoming without form that
does not refer to a subject or an object#7'*8 4he political ? and that is
important, too ? does not take place on this plane of immanence or
"irtuality# It takes place in an inbetween )one Deleu)e and Juattari call the
molecular where parts of subjects, objects, institutions, strategies are
transforming and recomposing by being tra"ersed by the "irtual force of
absolute deterritorialisation, by the crack, by the e"ent#7'A8 4he question of
politics is, then, how to open a machinic concatanations that is as I said
composed of parts of subjects, objects, practises to a minoritarian becoming
that subtracts from the normal distribution# 4his opening requires an acti"e
passi"ity in which the acti"e power is able to become recepti"e, and the
recepti"e capacity is able to become acti"e# 4he machinic concatanation itself
is not political in a positi"e way# 4he molecular might also be a )one of a
reactionary intensification of forces# Deleu)e and Juattari are "ery clear
here, each power center e!ercises power on a micrological fabric, working in
details and in the details of detail# 4he theoretical pri"ilege of Deleu)e= and
Juattari=s a!iomatics of a non-human life, or, if you want, of desire, of the
"irtual or the plane of immanence ? they use a lot of synonyms to gi"e a
name to this force without qualities which is determined by the
concatanations that are produced by it ? the theoretical pri"ilege of this
a!iomatics of an anorganic life is the "ery position where the abstraction is
made: 4he abstraction lays at the )eropoint of the system, where a non-
human desire is presupposed# 3owe"er, since then, the analysis e!amines
concatanations of practises always and e"er historically specific in the most
possible pro!imity to a case and its mo"ements# 4hat is to say, that the
political is the improbable but specific effect of different minoritarian
practises that connect with eachother while opening to a becoming# 4he
differences that are building a concatanation are not cleansed but affirmed#
In opposition to that the heroic fidelity of the 9adiouian subject that feeds
the old political authoritarianism of being consequent presupposes a
transcendent relation of a subject to the situation# +hat does 0t# Iaul as one
of 9adiou=s prototypes of political subjeciti"ity do? 3e testifies to the sudden
coincidental nature of an e"ent, which appears without cause and only
becomes capable of being real and true at the moment when a subject
professes total faith in it# -nd at this precise moment, the subject
transgresses itself in the same way that the e"ent transcends the conditions
from which it emerged# 4hus, for 9adiou, the political e"ent draws no support
from the disparateB it is mercilessly subtracted from any pre-e"ental
difference# $or Deleu)e and Juattari instead, there is no uni"ersal# 4here is
only the effecti"ity of recomposed and recomposing differences# 4his
distinguishes Deleu)e and Juattari=s idea of the political from all
conceptualisations of the concrete uni"ersal#
: 1 4he Iarado!es of the Iolitical
4he drama of post-workerist politics comes from it not being able to keep a
distance to itself, whereby the political is understood in a Ghristian tradition
as common being# Gonflict, asociality, and impotentiality no longer ha"e a
place in the political# Instead, I propose to assume that the political is a
name for the militant connection of different practices, which has no
ontological, anthropological or groundless grounding, but is the effect of their
connections# ilitant connections are made where acts are committed to the
freedom of the different, while they simultaneously incorporate this freedom
and insist that the different doesn2t count in the sense of a logic of social
distrubion ? which is to say that it is not coupled with the attribution or
suspension of identitary predicates, social rights or possibilities# 4he relation
between the commitment to and the incorporation of the freedom of the
different is "ery fragileB it quickly collapses, to be transformed into
representation Cwhen politics is pursued in the name of the other or the
cause&, calculation Cwhen only the application of one2s own interests are
followed&, or solipsism Cwhen no concatanation is made&# If the
representati"e becomes too strong, the intensity, the bliss of the moment
disappears and the act is reduced to producing effects of resistance# 4his
means the minoritarian intensity, e"erything that makes the act singular, is
abandoned# If, on the other hand, the singular becomes too strong, the acts
are no longer connected with each other and to the possibility of organising
change# 4hat is to say, the political ine"itably encounters a number of
parado!es: firstly, it is e!posed to the contingency of an e"ent, which is not
at its disposal# 4he political presupposes and coe!ists with e"ents that cannot
be reduced to the mediation of resistanceB secondly, the political is e!posed
to normalising or disciplinary or selfdestructi"e displacements, its powers are
permanently reintegrated, disappear, or are destroyed# 4hey can take o"er
the form of both, marginal normalisation and reactionary intensification, Lthe
great disgust, the longing to kill and to die, the passion for abolitionL7':8#
4he political has to be prepared to be nothing but a concatantion of forces
that are related to power mechanisms# 4o initiate what can not be initiated,
to initiate the possibility of a radical rupture requires a mobilisation that is
opposed to the possibility not to ha"e to choose between doing and lea"ing,
to be open to the becoming, to the potential of impotentiality# 4hus, an effect
of the political can dangerously consists of subordinating e"erything to the
economic primacy of effecti"e and strategic doing# 4hat is why 5the
organisation which we are able to gi"e to oursel"es67'@8 would ha"e to do
alike: coordinate, force and keep a distance to the process of organising a
radical break while at the same time these practises of forcing and distancing
are eluding because they are ne"er completely put at disposal of collecti"e
decisionB at any price, Lthe organisation which we are able to gi"e to
oursel"esL would ha"e to reject the romantic tradition, by not equating the
political with the li"ing and a common to be produced as it woud ha"e to
reject the authoritarian tradition of occasional decisionism#
Notes
[1] Blanchot: Marxs Three Voices, p. 98.
[2] c. !o"ca"lt: #o$er an% &trate'ies, p. 1().
[(] c. Bali*ar: The Non+,onte-poraneit. o /lth"sser, p. 9.
[0] 1n !or Marx, /lth"sser a%opte% Bachelar%s concept o the episte-olo'ical
*rea2, arran'in' Marxs $ritin's into the earl. $or2s, the $or2s o the *rea2,
the transitional $or2s an% the -at"re $or2s 3c. !or Marx, pp. (2+()4. 5e
contraste% the i%eolo'ical $or2s o Marxs .o"th $ith the scientiicit. o the
texts ater 180), a classiication that /lth"sser reno"nce% in 196( as a
theoreticist error, *eca"se it i-plie% an e7"ation o science $ith tr"th an%
i%eolo'. $ith error, c. 8le-ents o &el+,riticis-, p. 119.
[)] Blanchot: Marxs Three Voices, p. 98.
[9] Blanchot: p. 99.
[6] Bali*ar: The Vacillation o 1%eolo'. in Marxis-, p. 1:1: ;The principal
i%eal, $ith respect to the re<ol"tion, is no lon'er that o an act at once
co-plete an% instantaneo"s, altho"'h this i-a'e al$a.s ha"nts its
catastrophic <ision o the crisis o capitalis-. =ather, it is a process, or a
transition, that $ill *rin' a*o"t the chan'e ro- a class societ. to a classless
societ., startin' ro- social contra%ictions in their act"al coni'"rations.;
[8] c. /lth"ssers re-ar2s on this concept in =ea%in' ,apital, 2 <ols., pp. 28+
(:, 16:+160, 180+189.
[9] c. /lth"sser> Bali*ar: =ea%in' ,apital, #art 2, p. 188+189: ;This is an
extre-el. i-portant point i $e are to a<oi% e<en the sli'htest, in a sense
ina%<ertent relapse into the %i<ersions o the classical conception o the
econo-ic o*?ect, i $e are to a<oi% sa.in' that the Marxist conception o the
econo-ic o*?ect is, or Marx, %eter-ine% ro- the o"tsi%e *. a non+econo-ic
str"ct"re. The str"ct"re is not an essence o"tsi%e the econo-ic pheno-ena
$hich co-es an% alters their aspect, or-s an% relations an% $hich is
eecti<e on the- as an a*sent ca"se, a*sent *eca"se it is o"tsi%e the-. The
a*sence o the ca"se in the str"ct"re@s @-eton.-ic ca"salit.@ on its eects is
not the a"lt o the exteriorit. o the str"ct"re $ith respect to the econo-ic
pheno-ena A on the contrar., it is the <er. or- o the interiorit. o the
str"ct"re, as a str"ct"re, in its eects. This i-plies thereore that the eects
are not o"tsi%e the str"ct"re, are not a pre+existin' o*?ect, ele-ent or space
in $hich the str"ct"re arri<es to i-print its -ar2: on the contrar., it i-plies
that the str"ct"re is i--anent in its eects, a ca"se i--anent in its eects
in the &pinoBist sense o the ter-, that the $hole existence o the str"ct"re
consists o its eects, in short that the str"ct"re, $hich is -erel. a speciic
co-*ination o its pec"liar ele-ents, is nothin' o"tsi%e its eects.;
[1:] c. Cacla"> Mo"e: 5e'e-on. an% &ocialist &trate'., p. 99.
[11] Bali*ar: !ro- ,lass &tr"''le to ,lassless &tr"''le, p. 190A on the
thesis that Marxis- participate% in the s"perse%in' o its o$n "t"re
prospects, c. Bali*ar: p. 1)).
[12] c. Bali*ar: Marx an% !o"ca"lt, p. )2.
[1(] Dne nee% to *e no-inalistic, no %o"*t: po$er is not an instit"tion, an%
not a str"ct"reA neither is it a certain stren'th $e are en%o$e% $ithA it is the
na-e that one attri*"tes to a co-plex strate'ical sit"ation in a partic"lar
societ.. 3!o"ca"lt: 5istor. o &ex"alit., p. 9(4.
[10] c. once a'ain !o"ca"lts se-inal -etho%olo'ical re-ar2s in 5istor. o
&ex"alit., pp. 92+1:2.
[1)] Bali*ar: Three ,oncepts o #olitics, p. 16.
[19] c. Ne'ri> 5ar%t: Ca*or o Eion.sos, pp. 261+28(.
[16] Ne'ri: F"r 'esellschatlichen Dntolo'ie, p. 21.
[18] Ne'ri: !ro- -ass $or2er to socialiBe% $or2er, p. 81.
[19] c. Ne'ri, T$ent. Theses on Marx, p. 1)2: There is an i--e%iate
translata*ilit. *et$een the social orces o pro%"ction an% the relation o
pro%"ction the-sel<es.
[2:] c. Virno: The Gra--ar o the M"ltit"%e, especial. the o"rth an% ith
chapter on <irt"osit. an% the s"*?ecti<it. o the -"ltit"%e, pp. 06+90.
[21] c. Virno: The Gra--ar o the M"ltit"%e: ;1n the Nico-achean 8thics
/ristotle %istin'"ishes la*or 3or poiesis4 ro- political action 3or praxis4,
"tiliBin' precisel. the notion o <irt"osit.: $e ha<e la*or $hen an o*?ect is
pro%"ce%, an op"s $hich can *e separate% ro- actionA $e ha<e praxis $hen
the p"rpose o action is o"n% in action itsel. [...] Dne co"l% sa.: at a certain
le<el in the %e<elop-ent o pro%"cti<e social orces, la*or cooperation
intro?ects <er*al co--"nication into itsel, or, -ore precisel., a co-plex o
political actions.; 3pp. )2A ))4.
[22] c. Brett Neilson: #otenBa n"%aH, pp. 61+60.
[2(] c. Eele"Be@s explanation o *eco-in' as si-"ltaneo"s -o<e-ent in
*oth %irections at the <er. *e'innin' o ;Co'ic o &ense;: ;Ihen 1 sa. @/lice
*eco-es lar'er@, 1 -ean that she *eco-es lar'er than she $as. B. the sa-e
to2en, ho$e<er, she *eco-es s-aller than she is no$. ,ertainl., she is not
*i''er an% s-aller at the sa-e ti-e. &he is lar'er no$, she $as s-aller
*eore. B"t it is at the sa-e -o-ent that one *eco-es lar'er than one $as
an% s-aller than one *eco-es. This is the si-"ltaneit. o *eco-in' $hose
characteristic is to el"%e the present.; 3p. 14
[20] c. especiall. Eele"Be@s last text ;1--anence: a lie ...; an% Eele"Be@s
an% G"attari@s re-ar2s on the plane o i--anence in ;Ihat is #hilosoph.H;,
pp. ()+9:.
[2)] c. the chapter on -icropolitics in Eele"Be> G"attari: / Tho"san%
#latea"s, pp. 229+2)).
[29] Eele"Be> G"attari: / Tho"san% #latea"s, p. 229.
[26] 5Jl%erlin: 5.perion !ra'-ent, 7"ote% in Cacla"> Mo"e: 5e'e-on.
an% &ocialist &trate'., p. 10).
Citerat"re
Co"is /lth"sser
+ 3199)4: !or Marx, translate% *. Ben Bre$ster, Con%on: Verso, 2::)
+ 319604: 8le-ents o &el+,riticis-, in 8ssa.s in &el+,riticis-, pp. 1:)+1))
+ 319694: 8ssa.s in &el+,riticis-, translate% *. Graha-e Coc2, Con%on: NCB
Co"is /lth"sser> Ktienne Bali*ar 319984: =ea%in' ,apital, translate% *. Ben
Bre$ster, Con%on: Verso, 2::9
8tienne Bali*ar:
+ 31982+19914: Masses, ,lasses, 1%eas. &t"%ies on #olitics an% #hilosoph.
*eore an% ater Marx, translate% *. La-es &$enson, Con%on an% Ne$ Mor2:
=o"tle%'e, 1990
+ 3198(4: The Vacillation o 1%eolo'. in Marxis- 1, in Masses, ,lasses, 1%eas,
pp. 86+12(
+ 319864: !ro- ,lass &tr"''le to ,lassless &tr"''le, in Ktienne Bali*ar>
1--an"el Iallerstein: =ace, Nation, ,lass, translate% *. ,hris T"rner,
Con%on an% Ne$ Mor2: Verso, 1991, pp. 1)(+180
+ 319924 !o"ca"lt an% Marx. The 7"estion o no-inalis-, in !. 8$al%:
!o"ca"lt, #hilosopher, 5e-el 5e-pstea%: 5ar<ester Iheatshea, pp. (9+)6
+ 319914: The Non+,onte-poraneit. o /lth"sser, in 8. /nn Naplan> Michael
&prin2er 3e%s.4: The /lth"sserian Ce'ac., Con%on an% Ne$ Mor2: Verso, 199(,
pp. 1+19
+ 319994: Three ,oncepts o #olitics, in #olitics an% the other &cene,
translate% *. Eaniel 5ahn, Con%on an% Ne$ Mor2: Verso, 2::2, pp. 1+(9
Ma"rice Blanchot
+ 319984: Marxs Three Voices, in !rien%ship, translate% *. 8lisa*eth
=otten*er', &tanor%: &tanor% Oni<ersit. #ress, 1996, pp. 98+1::
Gilles Eele"Be 319994: The Co'ic o &ense, translate% *. Marc Cester $ith
,harles &ti<ale, Ne$ Mor2: ,ol"-*ia Oni<ersit. #ress
Gilles Eele"Be> !Plix G"attari
+ 3198:4: / Tho"san% #latea"s, translate% *. Brian Mass"-i, Con%on:
,ontin""- 1980
+ 319914: Ihat is #hilosoph.H, translate% *. 5"'h To-linson an% Graha-
B"rchell, Con%on an% Ne$ Mor2: Verso, 1990
Michel !o"ca"lt
+ 319694: The 5istor. o &ex"alit.. /n 1ntro%"ction, translate% *. =o*ert
5"rle., Con%on: #en'"in Boo2s, 199:
+ 319664: #o$er an% &trate'ies, in ,olin Gor%on 3e%.4: Michel !o"ca"lt.
#o$er>Nno$le%'e, 5ar<ester: 5e-el 5e-pstea%, 198:, pp. 1(0+10)
+ 319824: &"*?ect an% #o$er, in #a"l =a*ino$> Ni2olas =ose 3e%s.4: The
8ssential !o"ca"lt, Ne$ Mor2: Ne$ #ress, 2::(, pp. 129+100.
8rnesto Cacla"> ,hantal Mo"e 3198)4: 5e'e-on. an% &ocialist &trate'..
To$ar%s a =a%ical Ee-ocratic #olitics, Con%on an% Ne$ Mor2: Verso
/lain CipietB 3199(4: !ro- /lth"sserianis- to Q=e'"lation Theor., in 8. /nn
Naplan> Michael &prin2er 3e%s.4: The /lth"sserian Ce'ac., Con%on an% Ne$
Mor2: Verso, pp. 99+1(8
Toni Ne'ri
+ 319694: Vo- Massenar*eiter B"- 'esellschatlichen /r*eiter "n% %arR*er
hina"s, in /r*eiter1nnen+Macht 'e'en %ie /r*eit. 8ine /"tono-ie+/ntholo'ie,
Berlin: &isina 1988
+ 319994: T$ent. Theses on Marx. 1nterpretation o the ,lass &it"ation
To%a., in &aree Ma2%isi et.al. 3e%s.4: Marxis- *e.on% Marxis-, pp. 109+18:
+ 32::64: F"r 'esellschatlichen Dntolo'ie. Materielle /r*eit, i--aterielle
/r*eit "n% Biopoliti2, in Tho-as /tBert et al. 3e%s.4: 8-pire "n% %ie
*iopolitische Ien%e, pp. 16+(1
/ntonio Ne'ri> Michael 5ar%t 319904: Ca*or o Eion.s"s. / ,riti7"e o the
&tate+!or-, Con%on an% Minneapolis: Oni<ersit. o Minnesota #ress
Brett Neilson 32::04: #otenBa n"%aH &o<erei'nt., Biopolitics, ,apitalis-, in
,ontrete-ps ), pp. 9(+68
#aolo Virno 32::24: The Gra--ar o the M"ltit"%e. !or an /nal.sis o
,onte-porar. !or-s o Cie, translate% *. 1sa*ella Bertoletti, La-es ,ascaito,
/n%rea ,asson, Ne$ Mor2: &e-iotexte, 2::0