Fabio Vighi

On iek's Dialectics: Surplus, Subtraction, Sublimation

Fabio Vighi, On iek's Dialectics: Surplus, Subtraction, Sublimation, Continuum, 2010,
189pp., $120.00 (hbk), ISBN 978082!!!"9.
Reviewed by Adrian Jonston, !niversity o" #ew $e%ico
With his On iek's Dialectics: Surplus, Subtraction, Sublimation, Fabio Vighi provides an
interesting and suggestive addition to the rapidly growing body of literature on the internationally
renowned Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalytic theorist Slavoj iek. lthough Vighi!s title
"ight lead a potential reader initially approaching this book to e#pect a sustained discussion of
iek!s $egelianis" specifically %% $egel is a crucial source of inspiration for iekian thought in
all its various di"ensions &along with 'ant, Schelling, (ar#, )acan, and *adiou+ %% Vighi
devotes the bulk of his attention to critical analyses of the )acan%inflected facets of iek!s
reflections on "atters political. What distinguishes Vighi!s intervention fro" other available
treat"ents of politics la iek is his "ain thesis that the purported lack of a practical progra"
corresponding to iekian theori,ations of various recent and conte"porary political pheno"ena
is a virtue rather than a vice.
(ore precisely, Vighi, by his own ad"ission in the spirit if not always the letter of iek!s
writings, argues that the key agenda to be pursued in light of the goal of reviving a de"orali,ed
and e#hausted radical )eft isn!t the i""ediate leap into yet another round of fren,ied praxis
&what iek, inverting a well%known phrase fro" popular psychology, dubs -aggressive
passivity-+ as i"potent outbursts striving in vain to bridge perceived gaps between theory and
practice. .nstead, fro" Vighi!s perspective, what is called for nowadays is an intra%theoretical
labor of thinking, a refle#ive conte"plative e#a"ination of political theory itself &conducted
under the guidance of )acan and iek in particular, with co"paratively briefer references to
lfred Sohn%/ethel and 'ojin 'aratani as well+. Vighi contends that only through a reinvention
of our ideas about politics, including "ost i"portantly those of our unconscious fantasies
buttressing the very structures of social space and our relations to it, can we even begin to hope to
be able to envision paths of political practice with a real shot at achieving lasting, worthwhile
change.
Vighi is at his strongest when spelling out so"e of the funda"ental i"plications of
psychoanalysis for political theory. With special focus on )acan!s "usings fro" the period
i""ediately before, during, and after (ay !01 &i.e., the )acan of the si#teenth 23401%34045 and
seventeenth 23404%34675 se"inars+, he clearly and helpfully e#plains how iek!s coupling of
(ar# avec )acan re8uires thorough%going "odifications with respect to &post%+(ar#is"9
alienation is not so"e transitory and sur"ountable socio%historical condition, but -subjectivity's
very condition of possibility- &p. :+; echoing not only iek, but earlier twentieth%century Freudo%
(ar#is" & la (arcuse et al+ &p. <1+, (ar#ist theory and practice is faced with the challenge of
integrating psychoanalytic conceptions of the unconscious so as to have a chance of being
accurate and effective &pp. :=%::, 06, 67, 6<, 64+; specifically apropos )acanian analysis, (ar#!s
radical leftist heirs "ust take into account "anifestations of what )acan often has in view when
speaking of -jouissance- &-enjoy"ent,- especially what the later )acan, with reference to (ar#!s
surplus%value, na"es -plusdejouir- 2-surplus%enjoy"ent-5+ &pp. >6%>1+. ?ne way to put these
points is in the for" of a general clai" to the effect that a potent, robust criti8ue of political
econo"y is constructible only through taking into careful consideration the operations of the
libidinal econo"y %% and this being particularly so in the era of global, digitali,ed consu"er
capitalis" with which iek fa"ously wrestles again and again. Vighi rightly draws readers!
attention to subjects! socio%econo"ically significant invest"ents in things like co""odities and
careers at the libidinal levels of desires, drives, and fantasies both conscious and unconscious &pp.
<6, ==%=>, 0:+.
Further"ore, . wholeheartedly endorse Vighi!s diagnosis of the )eft!s fatal failure to develop and
deploy a -politics of jouissance- &pp. 3:<, 3>=+. s . put it in this e#act vein in the preface to
!adiou, iek, and "olitical #ransformations, - perple#ing, clu"sy inability to "aster the
affect%laden aesthetics of "ass%"edia politics is "erely one of "any sad failings of today!s )eft.
Where is its )eni /iefenstahl@-
235
.n other words, Vighi and ., following in iek!s footsteps,
agree that wholly ceding e"otive and visceral aesthetici,ations of politics to the /ight, hastily
dee"ing any such gestures as unacceptably -&proto%+fascist,- is a grave "istake. n inability to
grab people by their guts, to put it crudely, and "obili,e their powerful feelings and i"pulses
hobbles the publicly visible representatives of leftis" in the late%capitalist universe; such
representatives are stuck repeatedly reacting to right%wing "ove"ents, the latter having a
"onopoly on political "o"entu" thanks to playing upon the obscene, violent, and ugly
jouissance of racist, #enophobic, "isogynistic, ho"ophobic, and jingoistic passions, even if only
in i"plicit, subli"inal fashions.
2<5
*ut, as Vighi insightfully cautions, getting the juices flowing of
a reinvented leftist enthusias" &as passionate jouissance+ is not enough by itself. $is central
thesis regarding the need for intra%theoretical labors as prior possibility conditions for really
transfor"ative e#tra%theoretical &i.e., practical+ progra"s is directly connected to this caution.
?ne of the very best lines in Vighi!s book warns, -before being passionate about its politics,
today!s left has to reinvent a politics to be passionate about.- &p. 3>+
Aartly in the interest of full disclosure, it should be "entioned that Vighi and . engaged in an
earlier e#change in the $nternational %ournal of iek Studies,
2=5
an e#change initiated by Vighi!s
review of "y "ost recent book and orbiting around "any of the issues at the heart of his book
being reviewed here. /ather than recapitulate what was at stake in that back%and%forth %% the
interested reader is referred to the articles cited in the preceding sentence %% . intend in what
follows to present new criticis"s of Vighi!s position . didn!t outline previously &and, . feel that
"y responses to Vighi in the $nternational %ournal of iek Studies also address Vighi!s
objections to "y work as he articulates the" in On iek's Dialectics 2pp. 3=>, 36>%3605+.
. wish to begin by voicing a co"plaint about Vighi!s relative restrictedness of focus. Bonsidering
that iek is a thinker who thrives through references to a wide range of figures and areas, critical
engage"ents with iek call for digging into his favored sources in depth. brief glance at the
bibliography of On iek's Dialectics reveals a reliance upon a surprisingly s"all nu"ber of te#ts
by such highly relevant authors as $egel and *adiou. Che portions of )acan!s corpus leaned upon
are selectively li"ited &again, the si#teenth and seventeenth se"inars are heavily privileged+,
especially co"pared with iek!s "ultifaceted e"ploy"ents of the vast full sweep of the
)acanian oeuvre. 'ant, Fichte, and Schelling, philosophers crucial for anyone!s ade8uately
infor"ed understanding of $egel, (ar#, and dialectics %% both iek and 'aratani underscore the
foundational role of 'antianis" in their endeavors %% are absent fro" the list of references.
/elated to this, Vighi at one point refers in passing to -the philosophical clichD that there is no
place for the individual!s free will in Eer"an idealis".- &p. 371+ Bonsidering the well%known fact
that 'ant and the post%'antian idealists see the"selves as the Eer"an intellectualFcultural heirs
of the French /evolution united, despite their differences, in the project of reconstructing the
entirety of "odern philosophy as a philosophy of freedo" on the basis of a deep appreciation of
radically autono"ous subjectivity, it!s unclear what Vighi has in "ind here.
(oreover, Vighi refrains fro" addressing "uch of the prior literature on various aspects of
iek!s body of work. Codd (cEowan!s <77: book #&e 'nd of Dissatisfaction(: %ac)ues *acan
and t&e 'mer+in+ Society of 'njoyment,
2:5
Godi Hean!s <770 book iek's "olitics,
2>5
and Cho"as
*rockel"an!s <771 book iek and ,eide++er: #&e -uestion .oncernin+ #ec&no.apitalism
205

all cover large portions of the sa"e ground discussed in On iek's Dialectics &such as9 the
"yriad new features of post%industrial, late consu"er capitalis"; the pervasive presence of
jouissance in socio%political fields; the twentieth% and early%twenty%first%century historical shifts
re8uiring "odifications of (ar#!s and Freud!s ideas; etc.+. (y own <771 study of iek!s
dialectics as constructed on the basis of his )acanian appropriations of 'ant, Fichte, Schelling,
and $egel &iek's Ontolo+y: / #ranscendental 0aterialist #&eory of Subjectivity
265
+ likewise
receives no "ention whatsoever. part fro" Vighi failing to acknowledge when others have
"ade certain points before hi", these "ajor o"issions leave the reader already ac8uainted with
iek scholarship wondering just how substantial a contribution Vighi really offers with his own
book.
Che narrowness of focus isn!t restricted to the bibliography alone. Co use an adjectival phrase
dear to $egel, On iek's Dialectics suffers fro" a nu"ber of for"s of -one%sidedness.- For
instance, to begin with, Vighi accurately e#plicates iek!s uses of )acan to identify and take
issue with particular shortco"ings plaguing (ar#!s concepts and argu"ents. *ut he spends no
ti"e e#a"ining the other side of this, na"ely, iek!s co"ple"entary (ar#ist "isgivings
apropos specific features of )acan!s teachings &including the latter!s infa"ous and pronounced
a"bivalence visvis (ay !01+. Curning to another e#a"ple, Vighi characteri,es iek!s
$egelian dialectics as e"phasi,ing -that the ground on which we stand is always akin to the
proverbial ground of our night"ares, insofar as it opens up on the abyss. Hialectics re%instates the
pri"acy of contradiction, the violence of negativity, as that which cuts across every ontology of
balance.- &p. 43+ Chis "akes iek sound like the (ao of 34=6!s -?n Bontradiction,- a (ao to
who" iek directly addresses a nu"ber of objections. For $egel and iek &as well as *adiou+,
negativity is one, and only one, di"ension of dialectical dyna"ics. *oth iek and *adiou,
particularly with political di"ensions in view and for a host of reasons, take great care to stress
that their theories of -acts- and -events- respectively aren!t just about e#plosive irruptions of
destabili,ing destructiveness.
215
Chey both clai" to be at least as interested in the cold, sobering
-"orning after,- the drawn%out struggles to construct durable and lasting revolutionary ways of
being and doing.
.n fact, Vighi!s tacit 8uasi%(aoist one%sidedness apropos dialectics is not unrelated to the issues
that "ost trouble "e about On iek's Dialectics. s stated in this review!s opening paragraph,
the book!s novelty with regard to the rest of iek scholarship is its plea for reconceiving of the
sphere of intra%theoretical &as opposed to practical+ activity as the do"ain within which a true
iekian act is a real possibility &thus privileging the negativity of subjective critical reflection
over the positivity of objective praxis+ &pp. 0%6, 33<, 3>=+. .n addition to how .!ve already
responded to this thesis
245
%% Vighi advocated it in his assess"ent of !adiou, iek, and "olitical
#ransformations
2375
%% . want here to register an additional series of concerns.
Asychoanalysis obviously is integral to these conversations. nd, analytic notions of the end of
analysis, notions generative of "uch controversy and debate in clinical circles fro" Freud up
through the present &)acanian ones included+, reveal 8uestions and proble"s with precise
analogues in Vighi!s handling of the theory%practice rapport. ?ne of Freud!s very late te#ts is
-nalysis Cer"inable and .nter"inable- &34=6+, an essay devoted to considering what constitutes
a satisfactory concluding "o"ent when an analysis can and should be brought to a close. .n ter"s
of the sort of theoretical &rather than clinical+ analyses with which Vighi is occupied, one
wonders about -theori,ing ter"inable and inter"inable.- s Freud is the first to acknowledge,
any analysis could in principle continue on indefinitely until death since the unconscious is an
ineli"inable side of the psychical apparatus. .n the absence of clearly for"ulated criteria
stipulating what the end of political theori,ing "ight look like &in both senses of -end-+, Vighi
risks sounding as though he!s atte"pting to justify an inter"inable process of intra%theoretical
reflection as an end%in%itself sans practice &or, in iekian parlance, a politics without politics+.
lthough he speaks to this worry &pp. 3:3%3:<, 3:4%3>3+, he doesn!t, in "y opinion, succeed at
satisfactorily addressing it and putting it to rest.
d"ittedly, there genuinely is so"ething to Vighi!s finely%worded final re"arks about political
thinkers needing &in )acanese+ to -traverse their fantasies,- thereby learning to put their
theoretical unconsciouses to work in the service of envisioning new collective possibilities &pp.
3>>, 3>1%3>4, 30=%30:+. *ut, as indicated i""ediately above, the ineli"inability of the
unconscious "eans this intra%theoretical self%analysis could go on and on solipsistically without
ever leading to anything beyond itself &in ter"s of e#tra%theoretical acts, actions, practice2s5, etc.+.
Further"ore, a straightforward 8uestion ought to be posed in this conte#t9 .f it were si"ply a
"atter of thinking our way out of the old and into the new, then why hasn!t this happened yet
given that a plethora of great "inds &iek, for instance+ have devoted and continue to devote
the"selves to this task of thinking@
Asychoanalysis provides an answer to this 8uestion9 Self%analysis via a silent intellectual inner
"onologue is doo"ed to severe inade8uacy and ineffectiveness. Hespite his repeated recourse to
the analytic concept of the unconscious, Vighi!s central argu"entative line is in danger of having
to rely upon an i"plicit and very un%psychoanalytic voluntaris" according to which refle#ive
theoretical self%consciousness by itself is willing and able to pinpoint and overco"e its own blind
spots. Gust as analytic therapy relies upon a dialectic between subjectivity and objectivity %% the
latter involves the voicing aloud through free%associational speech of one!s subjective solilo8uy to
another addressee as well as the ongoing living of one!s life off the couch and outside the
consulting roo" %% so too "ust an efficacious leftist politics bring its unconscious di"ensions to
light through an interweaving of the thinking of the theoretical and the acting of the practical. Che
intra%theoretical without the si"ultaneous e#tra%theoretical isn!t likely to get very far; stor"ing
the brain without stor"ing the gates has its li"its. ?r, as Crotsky e#presses it, -one learns to ride
on horseback only when sitting on the horse.-
2335
235
drian Gohnston, !adiou, iek, and "olitical #ransformations: #&e .adence of .&an+e,
Ivanston9 Jorthwestern Kniversity Aress, <774, p. #iv.
2<5
Gohnston, !adiou, iek, and "olitical #ransformations, pp. #iv, 36<%36=; Vighi, On iek's
Dialectics, pp. 3>, 33>.
2=5
Fabio Vighi, -?n Aracticing Cheory9 So"e /e"arks on drian Gohnston!s !adiou, iek, and
"olitical #ransformations,- and drian Gohnston, -(eta%Hialectics and the *alancing cts of
iekianis"9 /esponse to Fabio Vighi,- $nternational %ournal of iek Studies, vol. :, no. 3,
<737.
2:5
Codd (cEowan, #&e 'nd of Dissatisfaction(: %ac)ues *acan and t&e 'mer+in+ Society of
'njoyment, lbany9 State Kniversity of Jew Lork Aress, <77:; cf. drian Gohnston, -Knable to
Injoy9 /eview of Codd (cEowan!s #&e 'nd of Dissatisfaction(,- Sout& /tlantic 1evie2, vol.
67, no. 3, Winter <77>, pp. 30>%304.
2>5
Godi Hean, iek's "olitics, Jew Lork9 /outledge, <770.
205
Cho"as *rockel"an, iek and ,eide++er: #&e -uestion .oncernin+ #ec&no.apitalism,
)ondon9 Bontinuu", <771.
265
drian Gohnston, iek's Ontolo+y: / #ranscendental 0aterialist #&eory of Subjectivity,
Ivanston9 Jorthwestern Kniversity Aress, <771.
215
Gohnston, iek's Ontolo+y, pp. <0:%<01.
245
Gohnston, -(eta%Hialectics and the *alancing cts of iekianis".-
2375
Vighi, -?n Aracticing Cheory.-
2335
)eon Crotsky, #errorism and .ommunism: / 1eply to 3arl 3autsky &ed. Slavoj iek5+,
)ondon9 Verso, <776, p. 46.
#$ain Ba%iou
$n "raise of *ove
Cranslated by Jicolas Cruong, SerpentMs Cail, )ondon, <73<. <>0pp., N1.44 pb
.S*J 46131:001664<
&'(i')'% b* Fabian Van +n,'n
.n his new book $n "raise of *ove, lain *adiou uses the concepts he developed in !ein+ and
'vent to give a co"prehensive theory of love. Che book consists of a series of interviews at the
yearly vignon festival with Jicolas Cruong, a journalist fro" *e 0onde. "ong the topics that
*adiou and Cruong discuss are the growing disappearance of love in the face of online dating
agencies; love as an evental truth procedure; the relationship between love and politics; and love
and art.
.n the book, *adiou discusses the essential properties of love. *adiou thinks that one of the "ain
features of love is an ele"ent of risk, for love is an event and every event contains risk and
instability. n event is a radical break with the e#isting state of affairs and is -so"ething that
doesn!t enter into the i""ediate order of things- &<1+. .n !ein+ and 'vent, *adiou showed that
one of the defining features of an event is a radical lack of stability and knowledge, for since an
event is so"ething entirely new, nothing in the encyclopedia of knowledge can tell one how to
practice fidelity to the event. s a result, every decision "ade in the na"e of the event will
contain an ele"ent of risk, for one has no "eans by which to know whether it is the correct
decision.
*adiou begins his discussion with Cruong by noting how online dating agencies such as (eetic
are destroying love, for they re"ove the ele"ent of risk so essential to love. *y using perfect%
"atching software, online dating agencies "atch the custo"er with a partner that has all the
8ualities needed for a stable bourgeois relationship. fter answering hundreds of 8uestions,
posting pictures, rating photographs of possible lovers, and sharing one!s "ost inti"ate secrets,
the online dating co"pany uses this knowledge to find a perfect "atch and provide the custo"er
with a love%co""odity. ?nce the online dating agency has found a "atch, one can go on a !date!,
fall in love, and start a safe, bourgeois relationship without any une#pected annoyances. *adiou
co"pares the online dating agency to an arranged "arriage, for the online dating relationship is
done -in the na"e of safety of the individuals involved, through advanced agree"ents, that avoid
rando"ness, chance encounters and in the end, any e#istential poetry, due to the categorical
absence of risks- &1+. Che love co""odity that online dating co"panies sell is thus not real love,
but "erely a stable bourgeois relationship that a priori e#cludes the possibility of anything new.
.n the book, *adiou tries to save love fro" its ene"ies, for online dating agencies are threatening
the very e#istence of love. Che "ain highlight of $n "raise of *ove is a brilliant analysis of the
structure of the love event and its transfor"ation into a truth procedure. Chis is one of the things
about $n "raise of *ove that "akes it an i"portant book, for *adiou has never offered a
co"prehensive analysis of love in any of his works &e#cept for an essay in .onditions, which is
"ore of a )acanian analysis of love than a *adiouian one+. .n !ein+ and 'vent, *adiou showed
that every event begins fro" within a structured situation that includes an evental site where an
event could take place. With respect to the love event, the evental site is not to be found in
dating, but rather in one!s everyday relations with others9 while one is at work, at school, at a
political rally, or si"ply going on a walk. *adiou thinks the love event takes place when one
encounters the ?ther and can no longer rely on the nor"s provided by the situation. Che
Incounter is a sudden rando" occurrence based entirely on chance, for it is such that one cannot
plan for it because it was i"possible to i"agine. *adiou thinks that on the basis of such a totally
rando" encounter, the lovers can engage in a shared universal project of love. For *adiou, love
is defined by the difference of the two lovers and their different viewpoints on the world; this is
one of the "ain reasons why love contains an ele"ent of risk. $e says that -love involves a
separation or disjuncture based on the si"ple difference between the two people and their infinite
subjectivities- &<6+. .t is this recognition of difference that no longer allows one to "ake one!s
e#istence -fro" the perspective of the ?ne, but fro" the perspective of the Cwo- &<4+. Che
difference between the two subjects is what "akes the love process risky and is what gives it the
possibility for creating novelty.
.n the book, *adiou also offers a very interesting discussion of the passage fro" the Incounter
&Ivent+ to the truth procedure &)ove+. *adiou clai"s that the chance encounter is universali,ed
into an evental truth procedure when the lovers declare their love to each other &by saying !. love
you! or so"ething si"ilar+. $e says that -a declaration of the !. love you! kind seals the act of the
encounter, is central and constitutes a co""it"ent- &=0+. *adiou is not thinking of fidelity as a
Osi"ple pro"ise not to sleep with so"eone elseP &:>+, but rather as a co""it"ent to create
so"ething uni8ue that does not rely on bourgeois nor"s and social conventions. *adiou thinks
that the ele"ent of risk that characteri,es love is "ost "arked in the declaration, for in the
declaration -huge risks are involved that are dependent on language itself- &:<+. .n "aking the
declaration, there is always the possibility that language will fail or that the ?ther will flee fro"
the event in horror. $ence, by na"ing the void that structures the Incounter, one "akes oneself
totally vulnerable to the ?ther and risks losing everything.
n interesting feature of $n "raise of *ove is that *adiou "akes use of one of his newer
categories fro" *o+ic of 4orlds, na"ely, the QpointM. *adiou thinks that once the lovers have
declared their love and set the truth procedure in "otion, the two lovers "ust construct their love
point by point. $e says that a point is -a particular "o"ent around which an event establishes
itself, where it "ust be re%played in so"e way, as if it were returning in a changed, displaced
for", but one forcing you to Rdeclare afreshMP &>7+. Iach point breathes new life into the event
and ensures that it will continue to e#ist, for the point only e"erges at a "o"ent when the very
e#istence of the event is in danger. Knfortunately, the only e#a"ple of such a point that *adiou
gives is the birth of a child, for the child is a point that breathes new life into the love event and
re8uires both lovers to reinvent their relationship. lthough *adiou acknowledges that this is
usually so only in heterose#ual relationships &e#cept in adoptions a"ong gay and lesbian
couples+, he does not provide any e#a"ple of a point for a ho"ose#ual love event. .ndeed, one of
the "ain proble"s of $n "raise of *ove is that it is heternor"ative and relies "ainly on a
heterose#ual understanding of se#uality. $owever, this does not rule out the possibility of a love
event a"ongst gay and lesbian people, for the sa"e structure of encounter leading to declaration,
leading to truth, leading to point would be at work. Future *adiou scholarship should take
account of this proble" and provide a 8ueer interpretation of *adiouMs theory of love.
$aving shown the structure of love, *adiou goes on to discuss with Cruong the relationship
between love and politics. *adiou says that -politics centers on the collective,- &>=+ for -political
action tests out the truth of what the collective is capable of- &>=+. )ove, on the other hand,
focuses only on individuals and e#cludes the collective. *ecause of their different structure,
politics being part of collective action and love part of an individual!s project, *adiou thinks that
politics is a priori e#cluded fro" love. .t "ight be the case that two political "ilitants suddenly
encounter each other while engaging in revolutionary politics at a rally, "arch, or de"onstration.
$owever, this encounter does not take place because of the structure of the political situation, but
rather because the place in which they conduct their political activity provided a chance
Incounter. .nterestingly *adiou does clai" that love is co""unist, for Othe real subject of a love
is the beco"ing of the couple and not the "ere satisfaction of the individuals that are its
co"ponent partsP &47+. lthough love itself is not political, it has the sa"e structure as
co""unist politics as far as it concerns the collective rather than the individual.
lthough it is e#citing that *adiou has finally written a book on love, $n "raise of *ove does
have so"e proble"s. First, *adiou does not reflect on how oneMs class position effects oneMs
e#perience of love. For a working class couple, it is probably not the creation of novelty and
newness that structures their love, but their shared solidarity in their struggle against capitalis".
*adiouian love event is "ore likely to take place in the "iddle class, for the ability to create
novelty and QconstructM so"ething new re8uires ti"e and "oney. Cwo workers who work all day
probably do not have ti"e to QconstructM so"ething new or take a vacation and see the world
fro" the perspective of the QCwoM. Cheir love is "ore likely to be a "o"entary antidote to the
loneliness and alienation created by capitalis". Second, the QencounterM is a proble"atic concept,
for *adiou does not really e#plain what he "eans by it and uses such idealistic stories as 1omeo
and %uliet as an e#a"ple to e#plain what he "eans by it. Chis "akes one wonder whether the
encounter is not just a ro"antic concept derived fro" bourgeois fictions. Chird, *adiou entirely
ignores fe"inist writing on open relationships and does not 8uestion the "onoga"ous structure
of the QcoupleM. .nstead, *adiou relies on a heternor"ative conceptuali,ation of se#uality and
universali,es the couple. While $n "raise of *ove has so"e proble"s, it is nonetheless an
interesting book, especially for those who are already fa"iliar with *adiou!s work &in so far as it
is *adiouMs first co"plete evaluation of the love event+. Chose who have long wondered what
*adiou thinks about love and why he includes love as one of the four conditions of truth will find
answers here. Socialists who are less fa"iliar with *adiouMs writings, but have long waited for a
(ar#ist thinker to say so"ething about love will also get a lot out of $n "raise of *ove. $n "raise
of *ove will thus provide interesting insights about love to *adiouMs fans, as well as socialist
philosophers.
Fabian Van Onzen teaches philosophy at Lone Star College in Houston, Texas, and organizes
the Alain Badiou eading !roup o" Houston# He is a political acti$ist and $ery in$ol$ed in the
labor %o$e%ent in Houston#
-i.ha'$ /0)*
On .&an+in+ t&e 4orld: 'ssays in "olitical "&ilosop&y, from 3arl 0arx to 4alter !enjamin
$ay"arket, Bhicago, <73=. S34 pb
.S*J 4613071:03144
*enja"in $irst
(ichael )Twy is part of a lineage of social theorists concerned with restoring the non%orthodo#,
anti%dia"at spirit of (ar#ist thought, for"ing an atte"pt to resist the "odernisers and advocates
of the Chird Way, and affir" instead the Q&idden romantic momentM &#ii+ which lies within the
dark and "uch "aligned history of socialist thought. ccording to )Twy, such "odernisers have
tended to throw out the QbabyM of non%capitalist for"s of social organisation with the
Q&e#tre"ely+ dirty waterM &#i+ of Soviet%style co""unis". s such, the iron laws of history, the
reification of labour and technology, and the tendency towards centralised and authoritarian
govern"ent "ay have been denigrated as a dangerous ideology, but so too have the hopes for a
radically different future. )Twy has therefore consistently and e"phatically argued that the
totalising and totalitarian projects that defined the Soviet Knion were and are antithetical to the
true spirit of (ar#is"; a profound betrayal of its revolutionary%ro"antic and utopian origins
which "aterialist historiography "ust restore.
.n this sense, )Twy undoubtedly has in "ind a certain essence of (ar# and (ar#is", finding
co""on cause with writers such as )es,ek 'olakowski, 'arl )Twith and "ore recently Havid
$arvey who, contra the likes of )ouis lthusser, "aintain that the hu"anist%utopian strand of
thought is a consistent the"e throughout (ar# and ought not to be si"ply dis"issed through an
appeal to the so%called Qepiste"ological breakM. gainst the lthusserian tendency, )Twy calls
for a focus on Qthe history of (ar#is" as political philosophyM &#ii+, the essays collected in On
.&an+in+ t&e 4orld operating as )TwyMs ongoing contribution to this project. $owever, as we
are infor"ed, this e"phasis on political philosophy should not be confused with politics as it
relates to Q8uestions of power and the stateM, but rather to Qthe broad range of issues concerning
hu"an co""on life in the polisM &#ii+. Cherefore, although (ar#is" ought not to be e#plicitly
concerned with 8uestions of govern"ent, it "ust nevertheless have a transformative or
redemptive function, thereby following the spirit of (ar#Ms oft%cited eleventh thesis on )udwig
Feuerbach, alluded to in the booksM title.
Written between 3460 and <737 &although only nine of the essays are dated, the rest presu"ably
de"anding so"e intelligent guess% or Eoogle%work+, On .&an+in+ t&e 4orld presents a series of
re"arkably cogent, well researched and intellectually rigorous essays on the history of (ar#ist
and non%(ar#ist thought, drawing on the hu"anist, dialectical and historicist traditions
e#e"plified by a diverse array of thinkers including Eeorg )ukUcs, ntonio Era"sci, (a#
Weber, $erbert (arcuse, Walter *enja"in, Irnst *loch, )eon Crotsky, Vladi"ir )enin and
/osa )u#e"burg, "any of who" are also discussed in greater detail in other books by )Twy,
such as 5eor+ *uk6cs: 7rom 1omanticism to !ols&evism &3464+, #&e 4ar of 5ods: 1eli+ion
and "olitics in *atin /merica &3440+ and 7ire /larm: readin+ 4alter !enjamin8s 9On t&e
concept of &istory8 &<77>+ to na"e a few. /e"aining consistent with the 344= edition, the essays
are arranged in a the"atic, rather than a chronological order, with the bookMs for" putting into
practice the clai" that ideas do not always develop in a linear fashionV Knfortunately this is not
the case with the four additional essays, which are "erely tacked onto the end of the collection.
Jevertheless, although he "anages to cover a variety of topics W including )eninMs turn to $egel
in the 343: Qpril ChesesM; the historical%hu"anist reading of (ar#is" developed by Era"sci
and )ukUcs; and the (ar#ist concept of the QnationM W due to the consistency of )TwyMs style and
thought, and the persistence of certain the"es and ter"s, this doesnMt pose "uch of a proble".
"ong the conceptual vocabulary deployed by )Twy is Qelective affinityM. *orrowed fro" the
Eer"an sociologist (a# Weber, it is defined as an Qactive relationship between two social or
cultural configurations leading to "utual attraction, "utual influence and "utual reinforce"entM
and is seen by )Twy as Qone of WeberMs "ost fruitful contributions to the sociology of cultureM
&:0+. .n very "uch the sa"e way that Weber identified a "utual influence between Balvinis"
and the e"ergence of "odern capitalis" in the seventeenth century, the notion of elective
affinity allows )Twy to find a nu"ber of affinities between, for e#a"ple, (ar#is" and liberation
theology in )atin "erica, (ar#is" and ro"anticis", revolutionary utopia and religiosity, as
well as finding in Walter *enja"in a precursor to "odern ecology and anti%nuclear "ove"ents.
.t also allows )Twy to look beyond the usual figures associated with the (ar#ist tradition in
order to "ake a variety of illu"inating co"parisons, and therefore e#plore with greater
sophistication the develop"ent of the Iuropean political and cultural i"aginary in the first half
of the twentieth century, including its possible uses for the present.
?ne such atte"pt to bring together two see"ingly disparate intellectual traditions can be found
in one of the collectionMs new additions9 a co"parative piece on (a# WeberMs Qvalue%freeM
&4ertfrei+ analysis of capitalis" in #&e "rotestant 't&ic and t&e Spirit of .apitalism, and Walter
*enja"inMs e#plicitly anti%capitalist 34<3 frag"ent, QBapitalis" as /eligionM. Che essay picks up
on a few ideas developed in an earlier essay on Weber and (ar# in which )Twy 8uestions the
validity of the great gulf that has been produced between the two thinkers. Following the
publication of #&e "rotestant 't&ic in 3471, conservative writers such as $ans Helbruck had
gone to great lengths to find in Weber a refutation of, and alternative theoretical fra"ework to
historical "aterialis". *y giving the QvaluesM of Arotestant sects a greater priority over "aterial
&econo"ic+ forces in the develop"ent of capitalis", Weber was seen as putting forward an
analysis utterly inco"patible with (ar#is". Chis view was also shared on the )eft by another
one of )TwyMs targets, 'arl 'autsky, who feared that Weber would eventually bring down the
historical "aterialist project entirely. Chroughout the twentieth century, this division has been
perpetuated further, in particular by the popularisation of Weber in Inglish%speaking countries
by Calcott Aarsons; an intervention which has influenced the way in which both Weber and (ar#
have been taught to sociology students for over half a century.
For )Twy, however, (ar# was not entirely dis"issive of religious "otivations, nor did Weber
entirely overlook the i"portance of econo"ic develop"ents, and both of course saw the
capitalist "ode of production as inherently irrational. Let this is by no "eans an atte"pt at
synthesis. Focusing in particular on WeberMs often inaccurate and e"otionally charged readings
of *enja"in Franklin and his analysis of "erican capitalis", )Twy concludes that WeberMs
historical sociology 3+ fails to give an accurate account of the conte#t of capitalis" in "erica,
and <+ gives ideas and values too central a place in the historical process, seeing the" as e#terior,
and not i""anent, to capitalis". Cherefore )Twy ulti"ately sides with (ar#, who, in the
5rundisse &published in 34=4+ clearly recognised an Qaffinity between Auritanis" and
capitalis"M, specifically concerning the ascetic and self%denying Qcult of "oneyM &><+.
.n this respect, the Weber%*enja"in co"parison developed in the later essay is of "uch interest,
as it continues the argu"ent "ade by (ar# that capitalis" itself has a religious character.
lthough taking Weber as a point of departure, *enja"in states that capitalis" itself functions as
a kind of religious cult, rather than as a syste" which si"ply secularises religion. For *enja"in
capitalis" replaces the laws of Eod with the laws of Bapital or the (arket, instantiating guilt and
the logic of indebtedness into the "inds of both rich and poor alike, producing social e#clusion
as its apparently necessary and un8uestionable by%product. Chis is undoubtedly a fruitful insight,
which owes "uch to Friedrich Jiet,scheMs On t&e 5enealo+y of 0orality &<776+ and has been
developed further within (auri,io )a,,aratoMs recently translated book #&e 0akin+ of t&e
$ndebted 0an &<73<+. Che essay also introduces so"e interesting historiographical research
which discusses the way Eer"an anti%capitalists in the first decades of the twentieth%century
took up certain aspects of WeberMs analysis of capitalis", for e#a"ple allowing Irnst *loch &Qa
sui +eneris (ar#ist fascinated by Batholicis"M 344+ to find in Weber a refutation of capitalis"
and its Arotestant origins.
/eading through the collection it beco"es clear that *enja"in is a "ajor influence on )Twy,
with si# essays devoted to hi" in one way or another, and with references scattered throughout
the collection. )Twy even goes as far as to suggest that *enja"inMs RCheses on the Ahilosophy of
$istoryM is Qone of the "ost path%breaking, and se"inal docu"ents of revolutionary thought
since (ar#Ms Cheses on FeuerbachM &3>4%07+, and e#presses the Qburning spiritual fla"e of his
oeuvre9 the revolutionary rede"ption of hu"anityM &307+. $owever, as is often the case with
*enja"in, it ought to be asked whether this Qspiritual fla"eM ever erupts into the fire of
revolutionary violence@ .n a co"parative piece on (arcuse and *enja"in, one can find the first
and only discussion of violence in the entire collection. *oth are said to affir" the Qabsolute
negation of the e#isting social orderM &3=4+ and the necessity of Qusing violence against the
oppressorsM &3=4+. s (arcuse observed, in the case of *enja"inMs affir"ation of divine
violence, he does not "ean that the oppressed should "urder their oppressors, creating a rupture
in the syste" of oppressor and oppressed, whilst parado#ically reproducing this very opposition.
Let )Twy does not allude to what this ot&er violence "ay be.
Che 8uestion of violence beco"es even "ore pressing in the case of the possibility of ecological
catastrophe, an issue which is clearly close to )TwyMs heart. .n a re"arkably *enja"inian 8uote
fro" KJ Secretary%Eeneral *an 'i%"oon, we read that9 QWe ... have our foot stuck on the
accelerator and we are heading towards the abyssM &311+. )owyMs response9 Qwill hu"anity apply
the revolutionary brakes@M &314+ ?f course, considering what )Twy sees as being the
Qintrinsically perverse logic of the capitalist syste" based on unli"ited e#pansionM &316+ and thus
the sheer inability of capitalist institutions to apply the brakes the"selves, or to use a phrase
cited at various points by )Twy, Qto cut the fuse before it reaches the dyna"iteM, when it co"es
to finding a response to global war"ing and ecological catastrophe, one is forced to ask Qwhat is
to be done@M )Twy is here at his "ost e#plicitly "essianic, stating, in a style so"ewhere between
)ouis%Ferdinand BDline and Walter *enja"in9 Qsee what will happen, unless ... if we do not ...
Che future is still open. Ivery second is the narrow gate through which salvation "ay co"eM
&314+. Che 8uestion of who will force open this gate, and how, re"ains an open 8uestion.
.n keeping with the kind of "essianis" that characterised thinkers such as Cheodor dorno,
Irnst *loch and $erbert (arcuse, )Twy only allows the faintest gli""er of light into his vision
of the future, instead concentrating on the catastrophe to co"e if we do not begin to act
responsibly towards one another. s such anyone looking to this book for concrete progra"s for
political action will have to look elsewhere. /ather )Twy allows the reader to for" hisFher own
conclusions regarding the possibilities for political and social action that "ight e"erge fro"
historiographical and co"parative research.
: September :;<=
&'1'2'n.'3
)a,,arato, (auri,io. &<73<+. #&e 0akin+ of t&e $ndebted 0an: /n 'ssay on t&e
>eoliberal .ondition? )os ngeles9 Se"iote#t&e+.
)Twy, (ichael. &3464+. 5eor+ *uk6cs: 7rom 1omanticism to !ols&evism. )ondon9 J)*.
)Twy, (ichael. &3440+. #&e 4ar of 5ods: 1eli+ion and "olitics in *atin /merica?
)ondon and Jew Lork9 Verso.
)Twy, (ichael. &<77>+. 7ire /larm: readin+ 4alter !enjamin8s 9On t&e concept of
&istory8? )ondon and Jew Lork9 Verso.
Jiet,sche, Friedrich. &<776+. On t&e 5enealo+y of 0orality? Ba"bridge9 Ba"bridge
Kniversity Aress.
*enja"in $irst is a Hoctoral Bandidate in the School of Sociology and Social Aolicy at the
Kniversity of )eeds, K'. $is research is broadly concerned with the sociology of art, with a
particular focus on alternative art education "ove"ents.
4onathan Sp'2b'2
3arl 0arx: / >ineteent&.entury *ife
W.W. Jorton, Jew Lork, <73=. >3<pp., N<> hb
.S*J 4617163:7:063
&'(i')'% b* 5an3 6 7'3pain
Gonathan SperberMs new biography on (ar# is interesting, notwithstanding the .ntroduction, for
the first =1= pages. Sperber brilliantly presents (ar#Ms journalistic and political activities,
although it can be argued (ar#Ms politics ideas are inade8uately developed. (ar#Ms relationships
are judiciously portrayed, offering a gli"pse of (ar#Ms personality. Sperber addresses several
events, including (ar#Ms relationship with his father and "other, the social standing of his wifeMs
fa"ily, the ObeautyP of Genny, (ar#Ms Oracis"P, etc., etc., that are at odds with other portrayals
of (ar#. Sperber so"eti"es suggests the historical evidence is contrary to popular portrayals,
and other ti"es the evidence is inclusive. Chere is value here in the new accuracy of (ar#Ms
personal biography, not "uch else.
Chere are nu"erous reviews of SperberMs book, pri"arily praiseful. .n particular Gohn Eray
&>e2 @ork 1evie2 of !ooks+ and Havid (c)ellan &0arx and "&ilosop&y 1evie2 of !ooks+
provide e#cellent overviews of book. Chey praise when due, and provide i"portant criticis".
$owever, each praises an aspect of the book that is an acute flaw.
Eray clai"s O2i5n pointing to the for"ative intellectual role of positivis" in the "id%nineteenth
century Sperber shows hi"self to be a surefooted guide to the world of ideas in which (ar#
"oved.P . strongly disagree. What Sperber develops is an overly%polari,ed, conse8uently
"isleading, contrast between positivis" and $egelianis". For e#a"ple, Sperber clai"s, the
.ommunist 0anifesto offers an e#a"ple that Oleaps off the pageP of (ar#Ms Otransition fro"
$egelian to positivist for"s of representationP &=43+ after 31:1. .t is not clear what Sperber
"eans by positivis", indeed he never actually defines it. *ut his use of the ter" si"ply indicates
evidence, data, science &:74+, and a teleological belief in progress &=46+.
Sperber 8uotes a O$egelian passageP fro" (ar#, concluding9 O.n this passage, (ar# was
presenting an intellectual progra" 8uite different fro" the positivist conception of knowledge as
e"pirically obtained through scientific proceduresP &:74+. Chroughout SperberMs book,
$egelianis" is assu"ed to be non%e"pirical and opposed to scientific procedures. OWe "ight
i"agine nineteenth%century philosophy and social theory as placed along a lineP on one end is
$egelianis" and its OdistrustP of e"pirical evidence and on the other end positivis" with its
Opriority on scientific "ethod and a scientific for" of e"piricis"P &:36+. ccording to Sperber,
(ar# couldnMt consistently choose between the two. rather dull%witted polari,ation and
"ischaracteri,ation of (ar#Ms philosophy.
(ore vulgar still is SperberMs treat"ent of $egelianis", with (ar# interpreted "erely Oanother
worshiper of the cult of $egelP &><+. Sperber asserts $egelianis" is Onotoriously co"ple# and
convolutedP &:4+, Oarcane, vague, and terribly abstractP &>3+. Che reader should beware that
Sperber has little if any sy"pathy for continental philosophy. )ess a Osurefooted guideP, Sperber
does a hatchet%job on the continental philosophy developed by and infor"ing (ar#Ms scientific
investigations.
Bonsider this ge"9 O(ar#, one could say, invented the working class for political reasons9 to
reali,e the aspirations e"erging fro" his frustrating encounters with authoritarian Arussian ruleP
&3<0+. Sperber here clai"s that the capitalist working class is not a historical e"ergent
pheno"enon, but an invention of 'arl (ar# to achieve subjective personal aspirations. )et us
hope this is a rather unhappy Freudian slip of the keystroke by Sperber, a historian with e#perti,e
of the nineteenth century.
$e also writes in the introduction any Oatte"pt to update (ar#, to "ake his ideas "ore relevant
by adding to the" or reinterpreting the" in light of psychoanalysis, e#istentialis", structuralis",
post%structuralis", or ele"ents of any other intellectual "ove"entP are Ouseless pasti"esP &#vii+.
Sperber see"s to be ignoring the process of scientific develop"ent as building fro", and in
criticis" of, past science. Aerhaps Sperber believes (ar# andFor (ar#ian social researchers are
not carrying out science@
SperberMs co""entary on (ar#Ms political econo"y troubled "e even "ore than his
co""entary on (ar#Ms philosophy. Further, we have (ar#Ms fore"ost biographer, Havid
(c)ellan, praising SperberMs O account of the econo"ics of the three volu"es of Bapital &and the
difficulties therein+ is one of the best su""aries that . have co"e across.P . would like to
de"onstrate (c)ellanMs co""ent to be overly generous.

*iographers, generally, should be given leeway respecting theoristsM ideas. Sperber however is
clai"ing that (ar#Ms political econo"y lacks relevance for the twentieth and twenty%first
centuries &actually he even suggests li"ited relevance for the nineteenth%century+. Sperber fails
to acco"plish this task, in part because he has not fully followed and understood (ar#Ms political
econo"y.
SperberMs su""ary of (ar#Ms &"ature+ political econo"y is far too brief, a "ere ten pages &:<6%
=6+. Sperber has not interpreted (ar# as developing a dyna"ic theory, but instead clai"s (ar#
provides only Ostatic snapshotsP &:=>+ &thus, not understanding the dialectical relationships of,
for e#a"ple, abstract labor, "oney, credit, e#pansion, productivityFtechnology, concentration,
centrali,ation, overproduction, disproportionality, uneven growth, crisis, une"ploy"ent, etc.,
etc.+.
Sperber clai"s that (ar# "aintained une"ploy"ent caused the business cycle, but the
Ocausation on this point was not entirely clear, and it see"s "ore logical to turn cause and effect
aroundP &:==+. Co clai" the business cycle causes une"ploy"ent is radiantly tautological. (ar#
certainly never clai"ed une"ploy"ent caused the business cycle.

.n addition to the ten pages of political econo"y, Sperber provides eight pages of dates and book
titles of (ar#Ms political econo"y &:34%<6+, eighteen pages addressing the three contemporary
issues9 &3+ the falling rate of profit, &<+ the so%called transfor"ation proble", and &=+ the issue of
ground rent &:=6%>:+. Che re"aining pages address (ar#Ms co""ents on corporations and
service sector workers &:>:%0+, reviews of .apital, co"parisons to the $istorical School and the
3167s "arginal utility theory, concluding with *Th"%*awerkMs criti8ue of (ar#Ms syste" &:>0%
0=+.
Che econo"ic chapter is pivotal to SperberMs overarching project of the li"ited relevance of
(ar# as O"ore usefully understood as a backward looking figureP and not the Osurefooted and
foresighted interpreter of historical trendsP &#iii+. While (ar#Ms journalis" and political activity
are historically e"bedded and intended for a nineteenth%century audience, (ar#Ms social theory,
political econo"y and philosophy can be, and are, argued to be a different "atter. Chus for a
thesis that is interested in showing that (ar#Ms relevance is historically li"ited, the focus on
journalis" and political activity and the neglect of (ar#Ms understanding of capitalism is
peculiar.
Chus, there should be an i""ediate 8uestioning of why Sperber spends the bulk, "ore than half
of the chapter, on the issues of the falling rate of profit, transfor"ation proble", and ground rent.
fter all, volu"e one of .apital is full of historical data suggesting future trends concerning
ine8uality, crisis, concentration and centrali,ation of capital, technological change, struggles
over the conditions of work, etc., which Sperber all but ignores.
SperberMs justification is that his topics of choice are addressed in an 3101 letter of (ar# to
Ingels as the crucial issues to be developed in later volu"es of .apital. Che issues are in the
letter. $owever, SperberMs interpretations of these issues de"onstrate that he has failed to fully
understand the political econo"y of (ar#.
SperberMs interpretation of the falling rate of profit &F/?A+, labor theory of value &)CV+, and
ground rent is that of Blassical Aolitical Icono"y of da" S"ith and Havid /icardo, not (ar#.
(ar# believed these theories to have i"portant insights, but to be inco"plete, and conse8uently
"isleading in projecting S"ithMs Osteady%stateP capitalis". )ikewise, the /icardian version of
the labor theory of value projected subsistence wages of agricultural workers, ,ero profits, and
"assive rents for the "ost fertile land. (ar# believed these to be theoretically wrongheaded.
(ar#Ms versions of the F/?A, )CV, and ground rent ai" to de"onstrate this as developed in
.apital. ll of these ideas are certainly hotly contested within (ar#ian econo"ics. SperberMs
choice of issues has very "uch depended on post%(ar# "isinterpretations. . do not know which
ones, because Sperber references are al"ost e#clusively to (ar#. $owever, his choice of topics
is 8uite revealing. .nstead of developing analysis fro" a wealth of interesting theoretical insights
fro" (ar#, he chooses to develop those that are "ost often "isinterpreted and hence the easiest
straw%"en within (ar#ian political econo"y to criti8ue. Chis is not an accident, Sperber did not
ho"e in on these topics fro" his own reading of (ar#, but conte"porary criti8ues. Chus,
Sperber fails on his own "ission to understand (ar# in his own historical conte#t.
.t is very difficult and wrongheaded to argue the first three chapters of .apital are concerned
with a price theory. (oreover, (ar#Ms theory of e#ploitation and analysis of the distribution of
surplus value do not depend on the so%called labor theory value. . do not have the space in this
review to e#plain the irrelevance of the transfor"ation proble" to (ar#Ms historical analysis. *ut
Sperber has a clue to this point when he praises *Th"%*awerk for pointing out, for (ar#, labor
ti"e does not deter"ine prices &:03+. Chus, the 8uestion beco"es why spend ti"e in a biography
on the so%called transfor"ation proble"@
Arices are not i"portant to (ar#Ms )CV, not even as a Ofirst appro#i"ation.P Chis was i"portant
for da" S"ith, and leads to an internal contradiction within his work. .n the pages on
distribution S"ith says profits and wages are a function of class struggle, and rents are a "atter
of political power as a function of the historical feudalistic hangovers and enclosures. $owever,
in the pages e#plaining the prices of other goods, S"ith clai"s price to be a function of the costs
of production &wages, rent, profits+, S"ithMs Oadding%up theoryP of price. For (ar# this is a
strange theory, because S"ithMs theory of distribution is class struggle, but his theory of prices is
not. *ut there is a greater contradiction. S"ith argues that overthrowing "ercantilist "onopoly
power and establishing co"petition will "ini"i,e the power of the "ercantilist class, whereby
class struggle is "ade benign. (ar# argues that capitalist co"petition will at best shift the class
struggle; otherwise co"petition intensifies the class struggle. (ar# de"onstrates this throughout
.apital and never does the issue of Otransfor"ationP &value to price+ beco"e relevant.
.n volu"e three of .apital (ar#Ms analysis of F/?A is left inco"plete, but does e"phasi,e si#
countertendencies. $owever, the pri"ary countertendency to F/?A is found in volu"e one,
na"ely the process of centraliAation. Che theoretical and e"pirical evidence for F/?A is
overwhel"ing. Sperber is si"ply wrong to say Othere was no proof of the tendency of the rate of
profit to fallP &::=+. .ndeed it is one of the best established of e"pirical pheno"enon, accepted
by bot& orthodo# and heterodo# econo"ics. $owever, (ar# is not predicting Osteady%stateP
capitalis" as did S"ith. Jor did (ar# believe as did /icardo that the rate of profit in agriculture
would tend toward ,ero and rents absorb all surplus%value.
(ar#Ms assu"ption of a stable rate of surplus value, si"ply does not hold e"pirically, nor does
(ar# "aintain a stable rate of surplus value in volu"e one. /bsolute surplus value and relative
surplus value are highly variable. Chere is a strong tendency for F/?A, but it does not bear the
weight that Blassical Aolitical Icono"y F Sperber place on it. .nstead, (ar# "aintained that
F/?A deter"ines the structural dyna"ic toward the concentration and centrali,ation within
industries, and an i"petus for technological innovation displacing large seg"ents of the labor
force and creating une"ploy"ent. F/?A generates its countertendencies, especially
centraliAation of industries, or the tendency toward oli+opoliAation. What a topical issue in this
Otoo%big%to%failP era.
(ar#Ms theory of crisis does not rest as heavily on F/?A as Sperber suggests. .nstead, "ore
i"portant according to (ar# are the tendencies toward overextension of credit, overproduction,
and the disproportionalities between sectors, due to the Oanarchy of production.P F/?A does
deter"ine a syste" dyna"ic for (ar#, but not necessarily crisis. .n his early political writings,
(ar# does often assert econo"ic crisis will generate a revolution. $owever, as he begins to
theori,e this "ore rigorously fro" the late 31>7s forward, he no longer asserts revolution, but a
highly proble"atic "acroecono"ic dyna"ic.
Finally, regarding ground rents, Sperber concludes, (ar# depended on (althusian argu"ents
and is a backwards looking econo"ist &:>:+. Chis is i"pressively obtuse. Sperber clai"s the
nu"ber of pages (ar# spends on ground rent indicates its i"portance to hi"; however, Sperber
points out, agricultural econo"ics was rapidly di"inishing in i"portance, even during (ar#Ms
lifeti"e. . agree with Sperber, (ar# considered ground rent i"portant, but not because he was a
Obackward looking econo"ist.P
)etMs consider four forward%looking reasons (ar# has interest in ground rent.
First, it was hopelessly confused between a capitalistic and feudalistic analysis. (ar# wanted to
establish that agricultural rent could no longer be understood under assu"ptions of feudalistic
institutions.
Second, in addition to fertility, and in contrast to (althus and others, capital
productivityFtechnology could deter"ine differential rents.
Chird, under capitalis" rent is deter"ined by co"petition, hence there wasFis a tendency for
rents to reflect absolutely the fertility of land and capital productivity. $owever, this /icardian
outco"e is hardly the end for (ar#. s profits and rent tend toward ,ero in the least productive
land, the result is centrali,ation and "onopoli,ation of real estate, neither a /icardian nor
(althusian outco"e, but 8uite (ar#ian and real world.
Fourth, the lesson hardly ends at agricultural rents. (ar# suggests so"ething 8uite prophetic,
with great conte"porary relevance. Che OlawsP of capitalist production i"pose a tendency
towards what conte"porary econo"ists call Orent%seeking behaviorP whenever possible. .n
(ar#Ms own words9 OWhen rent e#ists, differential rent always appears and always follows the
sa"e laws as it does in agriculture. Whenever natural forces can be "onopoli,ed and give the
industrialist who "akes use of the" a windfall profit, whether a waterfall, a rich "ine, fishing
grounds or a well%situated building siteP "onopoli,ation is atte"pted by "eans of politics or
econo"ics &(ar#, .apital, volu"e ..., Bhapter :0+. .n volu"e one, (ar# argues this is hardly
uni8ue to natural resources. .entraliAation is t&e lo+ical outcome of economic competition itself.
.n a phrase, co"petition generates a lack of co"petition. n internal contradiction of the syste".
. wonder, would Sperber accept the relevance of Orent%seeking behaviorP to conte"porary
political econo"y regarding "ergers and ac8uisitions, Opolitical lobbyingP &K.S.+, cronyis" &e.g.
/ussia+, or nepotis" &e.g. Bhina+.
SperberMs book is a success regarding (ar#Ms journalis", political activities, personal and fa"ily
relationships. Knfortunately, Sperber has far less success regarding (ar#Ms philosophy and
political econo"y. Eiven "ore space we could also de"onstrate the bookMs weaknesses in
grasping (ar#Ms sociology and theory of history.
$ans E. Hespain is Arofessor of Icono"ics and Hepart"ent Bhair at Jichols Bollege,
(assachusetts. $e encourages your correspondence9 hans.despainXnichols.edu
: September :;<=
4onathan Sp'2b'2
3arl 0arx: / >ineteent&.entury *ife
W.W. Jorton, Jew Lork, <73=. >3<pp., N<> hb
.S*J 4617163:7:063
&'(i')'% b* 7a(i% -./'$$an
Chis big new biography of (ar# is good. .ts author is a historian of nineteenth century Eer"any
and his ai" is to give a detailed account of (ar#Ms life that is fir"ly e"bedded in its historical
conte#t. .ts underlying pre"ise is that Othe view of (ar# as a conte"porary whose ideas are
shaping the "odern world has run its course and it is ti"e for a new understanding of hi" as a
figure of a past historical epoch, one increasingly distant fro" our own9 the age of the French
/evolution, of $egelMs philosophy, of the early years of Inglish industriali,ation and the political
econo"y ste""ing fro" itP. Chis biography is definitely, as the subtitle says, a nineteent&
century life. s such W but only as such W this book is the best there is.
*ut why another biography of (ar#@ Chere are literally do,ens available, Sperber, in his
introduction, give us three reasons. First, and "ost obviously, there is the still on%going (IE
edition which ai"s to publish everything that (ar# and Ingels ever wrote. .t includes, for
e#a"ple, not just (ar#Ms own letters but those written to hi". Sperber asserts that these Os"all
details subtly change our picture of hi".P Second, Sperber clai"s that recent nineteenth century
historical scholarship has downplayed the e#tent and significance of the industrial revolution and
the resulting class conflict and e"phasised the influence of eighteenth century political ideas, of
religious belief, and of gender relations. Chird, Sperber wishes to view (ar#Ms ideas very "uch in
the conte#t of his life. Co understand (ar#, for hi", it is necessary not just to be fa"iliar with his
intellectual conte#t but to see his ideas as deeply infor"ed by his private life.
ll three of these clai"s have a certain validity. Che new "aterial in (IE does indeed bring to
light hundreds of s"all details. *ut their co"bined i"pact is far too subtle to change our picture
of (ar#. t best, it does flesh it out a little. gain, pointing out that the upshot of recent historical
scholarship Ohas been to delineate an era rather different fro" our ownP is a state"ent of the
rather obvious. nd viewing (ar#Ms intellectual develop"ent in the conte#t of his private life and
his politicalFjournalistic activity &which latter Sperber does very well+ is not to relativi,e his ideas.
Bonte#t does indeed help to understanding of such ideas but it does not prevent their relevance.
. will return at the end of this review to this basic 8uestion of what Sperber thinks W given his
approach W is the point of reading (ar#. *ut first a few "ore specific "atters where SperberMs
account raises 8uestions, "any of which are indeed pro"pted by his enthusias" for keeping
(ar# fir"ly in the nineteenth &and occasionally eighteenth+ century. ?ne e#a"ple would be his
clai" that (ar#Ms reputation as a prophet of globali,ation is "is%placed, as the fa"ous sentence
beginning Oll that is solid "elts into airP is "istranslated. ccording to Sperber it should read9
OIverything that fir"ly e#ists and all the ele"ents of the society of orders evaporate, everything
sacred is deconsecrated and "en are finally co"pelled to regard their position in life and their
"utual relations with sober eyes.P SperberMs translation is indeed "ore accurate, but this does not
bear the interpretation he puts on it W that (ar# is here si"ply talking about the i""inent over
throw of the Arussian aristocracy by the Eer"an bourgeoisie. Che surrounding paragraphs have a
"uch wider i"port. gain, Sperber clai"s that a nu"ber of passages in the .ommunist
0anifesto were taken al"ost verbati" fro" the writing of Iduard Eans whose lectures (ar# had
attended in *erlin ten years earlier. Sperber does 8uote one passage later on, but this interesting
clai" lacks specific reference. &.ncidentally, Sperber is loath to refer to other treat"ents of (ar#.
.t would so"eti"es have been illu"inating to know where he differs fro" the". Chere is, for
e#a"ple, no "ention W even in the e#tensive bibliography W to (ary EabrielMs recent &<733+
double biography of 'arl and Genny (ar#. Hespite its unpro"ising title of *ove and .apital, it
contains a wealth of detail+. nd his view that Othe co""on twentieth W and twenty first W
century situation in which capitalists e"ploy workers to produce services rather than goods was
outside (ar#Ms intellectual universeP will co"e as a surprise to those who are ac8uainted with the
considerable literature devoted to (ar#Ms views on unproductive labour. Finally, when discussing
e"ploy"ent opportunities open to socialists in the nineteenth century, Sperber says both that Oby
the 3107s, a gradual shift fro" pro"inent leftists as authors to left%wing lenders as functionaries
of a political party was underway W an occupation that, for all its proble"s, was "ore secure and
better paid than the thankless task of freelance writingP and also that, throughout (ar#Ms lifeti"e
left%wing political parties Olacked the dues%paying "ass "e"bership to support full%ti"e
professional politicians.P Che reader is left wondering which of these conflicting state"ents to
believe.
While e#cellent on (ar#Ms journalis" in the 31>7s, Sperber is less good in clarifying (ar#Ms
political ideas and activities. $e spends what see"s to be an inordinate a"ount of ti"e detailing
the intricacies of internecine refugee politics in )ondon, his vendetta with 'arl Vogt, his
obsession with Aal"erston. Cen whole pages are devoted to the 316< $ague Bongress of the
.nternational. t the sa"e ti"e he devotes co"paratively little space to what (ar# actually had to
say in works generally recognised to be pivotal9 his accounts of the .ivil 4ar in 7rance and the
.riti)ue of t&e 5ot&a "ro+ramme are rather thin. ?ccasionally, this conte#tualising approach
goes rather awry. Sperber does not "ake it clear enough that one of the reasons W indeed the "ain
one W for (ar#Ms changing tact in the period 31:1%>< is that he was addressing different
audiences9 as a newspaper editor he was concerned to support the radical wing of the bourgeoisie
against the autocratic Arussian govern"ent. t the sa"e ti"e, the backbone of the Bo""unist
)eague, for who" (ar# was the leading publicist, consisted of artisans. Che for"er wanted,
a"ong other things, increased industriali,ation. *ut this was anathe"a to the latter as it would
deprive the" of their livelihood. Chis accounts for (ar#Ms undoubtedly a"bivalent attitude to
Oco""unis"P during this period. Chis lack of perspective in Sperber can lead to downright
errors9 when (ar# says of co""unis" in 31:< that Opractical atte"pts 2to introduce
co""unis"5, even atte"pts en "asse, can be answered with cannonP, Sperber co""ents that
(ar# Owas advocating the use of the ar"y to suppress a co""unist workers uprisingP. Blearly
(ar# was advocating no such thing.
Sperber see"s uneasy with the "ore philosophical aspects of (ar#Ms thought W or possibly he just
thinks the" largely irrelevant to his enterprise. For e#a"ple, he gives us a page%long 8uotation
fro" (ar#Ms classic su""ation of his "aterialist conception of history in the preface to his
.riti)ue of "olitical 'conomy, but little discussion of what it "ight "ean or its validity W no
"ention, for e#a"ple, of BohenMs "agisterial and controversial treat"ent which does not even
figure in the &e#tensive+ bibliography.
Che above co""ents "ay sound rather negative. *ut they should be counterbalanced by the
observation that Sperber is very i"pressive on other writings of (ar#. $e is e#cellent in his
discussion of (ar#Ms O?n the Gewish YuestionP and his account of the econo"ics of the three
volu"es of .apital &and the difficulties therein+ is one of the best su""aries that . have co"e
across. $e is also very insightful W in spite of getting the date of their first "eeting wrong, 31:<
not 31:: W on the (ar#FIngels relationship, both personal and intellectual. ll this raises the
funda"ental 8uestion9 what is the point of this book@ Sperber hi"self addresses this 8uestion in
his .ntroduction9 O.f (ar# was not our conte"porary, "ore a figure of the past than a prophet of
the present, why should anyone write a new biography of hi", or, once that biography e#ists,
bother reading it@P the answer he gives is pu,,ling. ?n the one hand, he says that good historical
writing &and his own is certainly an e#a"ple of this+ is worthwhile for its own sake. ?n the other
hand, he is clearly not content with this anti8uarianis" and tells us that Oit is precisely by
perceiving the contrast between 2the nineteenth5 century and the present that the latter appears in
its own distinct light. Seeing (ar# in his conte"porary conte#t, not ours, helps illu"inate our
current situation and is one of the "ajor intellectual virtues of a biography in the early decades of
the twenty%first centuryP. Chis latter is rather sibylline W and it is difficult to see how SperberMs
book helps Oillu"inate our current situationP. ll the "ore curious is that Sperber recently
published in the 5uardian &31 (ay <73=+ a short article which "entions three ideas of (ar#
Ocapable of being developed in the presentP. Chey are the idea that intellectual conceptions and
political "ove"ents are closely tied to social structures and econo"ic interests; that ostensibly
free and voluntary "arket changes contain within the"selves ele"ents of do"ination and
e#ploitation; and finally the idea that a capitalist "arket econo"y periodically enters periods of
self%generated breakdown. .f Sperber had "anaged to include "ore of this approach in his &in
"any ways e#cellent+ biography, (ar# would appear "ore relevant than his book would have us
believe.
Havid (c)ellan is Arofessor of Aolitical Cheory at Eolds"iths Bollege, Kniversity of )ondon
=; %uly :;<=
5an3 6. 7'3pain Havid (c)ellan worries his co""entary of SperberMs book "ay be rather
negative. Frankly, . believe (c)ellan to be overly praiseworthy. Chis is not to disagree with
(c)ellanMs praise of the SperberMs book. .t is a very scholarly, well%researched, and very well
written biography of (ar#. (oreover, (c)ellanMs review is e#cellent and very fair review of the
biography by Sperber.
s (c)ellan observes the chapters on (ar#Ms journalistic endeavors are especially i"pressive. .n
distinction to (c)ellan, . also believe Sperber to be e#cellent on (ar#Ms political activity, but in
full agree"ent with (c)ellan "erely useful for historical conte#t of (ar#Ms political ideas.
Sperber is sober and fair illustrating (ar#Ms personality and relationships with colleagues,
adversaries, and fa"ily. $owever, Sperber cannot reconcile (ar#Ms personal cultural aspirations
for his children &education, great literature, "usic, aesthetics+ with (ar#Ms political conde"nation
of capitalis". Chis "ay reveal "ore of Sperber than it does of (ar#.
$owever, . do take two e#ceptions concerning (c)ellanMs review. First a disagree"ent.
(c)ellan clai"s SperberMs Oaccount of the econo"ics of the three volu"es of Bapital &and the
difficulties therein+ is one of the best su""aries that . have co"e across.P SperberMs account is a
decent place to start, but . hardly believe it a"ong the best available.
Che i""anent criti8ue of SperberMs su""ary would unfold the fact that it draws too heavily fro"
post%(ar# criti8ues of his syste", which see"s to violate SperberMs intention to keep (ar# in his
own historical conte#t. (oreover, . a" not sure Sperber understands the philosophical orientation
infor"ing and driving Bapital, thus Sperber has a hidden or latent positivistic interpretation of
(ar# which does violence to (ar#Ms econo"ics &thus, instead of su""aries (ar#, Sperber
su""aries criti8ues of (ar#ian econo"ics+. Sperber would not "ake "y top twenty, indeed .
would feel obligated to correct the "isinterpretations of Sperber if so"eone were to begin with
(ar#Ms econo"ics via SperberMs su""ary &at the end of this co""ent . provide a list of several
alternative sources to "end (c)ellanMs overpraise of Sperber su""ary of Bapital+.
Second, if we can agree with (c)ellan there is so"e value placing (ar# in historical and
personal conte#t, it also si"ultaneously does violence to (ar#Ms Kniversalist orientation. (ar#
believed he was working for so"ething bigger than hi"self, for e#a"ple a Kniversalist history
and Kniversalist social theory. Chus for Sperber to clai" we better understand (ar# in his own
historical conte#t would be analogous to clai"ing we can better understand the theory of
relativity by understanding Iinstein in historical conte#t, perhaps we understand how Iinstein
ca"e to his discoveries, but not necessarily the theory!sFscience truths and falsehoods. What this
reveals is that Sperber does not believe history and political econo"y to be scientific, in other
words he is very "uch anti%naturalist &perfectly fine position to defend, but clearly not (ar#V+.
.t is fine to dis"iss (ar#ian KniversalistFJaturalistic aspirations as 'antianF$egelian hangovers,
however, to do so is to fail to place (ar# in his historical conte#t, to understand how he would
allow his own health and his fa"ilyMs health to suffer for his search for Cruth, I"ancipation, and
Gustice.
Sperber co"pletely fails to address this aspect of (ar#. . suspect this again reveals "ore about
Sperber than of (ar#. (y feeling of reading Sperber is that the philosophical orientation
infor"ing hi" is so"e version of prag"atis"; nothing wrong with that e#cept it was not (ar#.
Co unconsciously i"pose prag"atis" on (ar# is to "isunderstand hi".
Che result is to clai" that (ar#Ms relevance for conte"porary capitalis" is highly circu"vented.
$owever, (ar# hi"self believed he had understood the Ohidden secretP or Qdepth realis"M of
capitalis" as a "ode of production. $ence, (ar# would have "aintained his theories of
capitalis" would re"ain relevant as long as capitalis" e#isted as a "ode of production.
Cwo pheno"ena drove (ar#Ms political econo"y9 poverty in the "idst of plenty, i.e. socio%
econo"ic ine8uality, and econo"ic crisis. (ar#ian econo"ics re"ain highly relevant today
because it is i"pressively capable of e#plaining the tendencies of the capitalist "ode of
production toward ine8uality and socio%econo"ic &"onetary+ collapseFcrisis. Chese capacities do
not necessarily rest on Ovalue theoryP; falling rate of profit; or the transfor"ation proble", but
respectively (ar#Ms theories of e#ploitation and his Surplus analysis approach to political
econo"y.
Chere are several reasons SperberMs fails to capture this. First, he does not understand (ar#Ms
political econo"y, this is forgivable in a biography. $owever, "ore i"portantly for the
biography, he fails to appreciate (ar#Ms philosophical orientation and philosophical realis".
.nstead Sperber see"s to interpret (ar# as a prag"atist, and fails to address (ar#Ms Kniversalist
orientation. $e cannot "ake sense of (ar#Ms econo"ics, nor understand its relevance, second he
"isunderstands (ar#Ms philosophy, and thirdly cannot reconcile (ar#Ms &and his WifeMs and
Haughters+ personal co""it"ents and life choices because of this neglect of (ar#Ms
philosophical co""it"ents.
Sperber biography certainly has its "erits. $owever, it does a particular violence to the relevance
of (ar#ian econo"ics and (ar#ian philosophy. Chus this biography needs serious scrutiny by
(ar#ian scholars. We should praise Sperber!s acco"plish"ents, but also underscore his severe
and violent shortco"ings without apology. (c)ellan brilliantly underscores this point by
contrasting SperberMs Euardian article with his book. SperberMs biography will not be the
definitive biography of (ar# post%(IE, and to atte"pt to reduce (ar# to his historical conte#t
and personality does violence to the historical, philosophical and scientific acco"plish"ents of
(ar#.
2Jow to return to the better sources for an introduction to (ar#ian econo"ics, here are several
other sources, all of which are far "ore sy"pathetic to (ar# than is Sperber. Huncan FoleyMs
Knderstanding Bapital; Aaul Swee,yMs Che Cheory of Bapitalist Hevelop"ent; Irnst (andelMs
(ar#ist Icono"ic Cheory, Eeorge Batephores n .ntroduction to (ar#ist Icono"ics; (eghnad
HesaiMs (ar#ian Icono"ics; and perhaps the best of these longer "onographs for an
introduction, Havid $arveyMs Bo"panion to (ar#Ms Bapital, which can be acco"panied with
corresponding lectures for every chapter fro" Havid $arvey free online &granted these are not
"ere su""aries, but "onographs+5.
2So"e e#cellent short su""aries would include (aurice HobbMs chapter on (ar# in his Cheories
of Value and Histribution since da" S"ith; I. '. $untMs chapter on (ar# in his $istory of
Icono"ic Chought; Eeert /eutenMs article O'arl (ar#9 $is Work and the (ajor Bhanges in its
.nterpretationP in Bo"panion to Che $istory of Icono"ic Chought; Huncan FoleyMs chapter
three of da"Ms Fallacy; Irnesto Screpanti and Stefano Za"agniMs chapter on (ar# in their n
?utline of the $istory of Icono"ic Chought; lessandro /oncagliaMs chapter on (ar# in his Che
Wealth of .deas; Sackrey, Schneider, and 'noedler, chapter = of their .ntroduction to Aolitical
Icono"y; Sa"uel $ollanderMs chapter on (ar# in Blassical Icono"ics; and perhaps the best
su""ary available is fro" /ichard Wolff and Stephen /esnick chapter : of their Bontending
Icono"ic Cheories &see "y review of this book in (ar# and Ahilosophy /eview of *ooks, Guly 3
<73=+5.
3a2ban wrote, on = ug <73= at 379<0a"9
propos $ans E. Hespain!s useful co""ents, (ar#!s universalis" was of a particular kind. We
do find in (ar# a syste" of general categories or concepts that can be used in the study of a
variety of social for"ations, but we do not find in hi" generalisations applicable to all societies.
Che law of "otion of capital that he discovered was true only for societies based on a syste" of
generalised co""odity production and wage%labour; it cannot be e#trapolated to other social
for"ations. Che key concept in (ar# re"ains the "ode of production, which deter"ines the
character of a social for"ation, historical epoch and conjuncture. ll generalisations "ust be
restricted to a specific "ode of production and the social for"ation based on it. (ar#!s analysis
of capitalis" will hold till this syste" lasts.
5an3 6. 7'3pain wrote, on = ug <73= at 3971p"9
Sarban, you are correct, but overstated. Che two "ost general theories of (ar#, na"ely dialectics
and historical "aterialis" are not "erely particular to capitalis". ?therwise, . co"pletely accept
the principles of Bapital are particular to capitalis".
(y point concerning Sperber!s book is that the world today is "ore capitalistic, not less. .t "akes
little difference to say that it less co"petitive, or "arkets are circu"vented by powerful
corporations. Chis is because the relationship between producersFworkers and their
supervisorsF"anagersFcapitalists is essentially the sa"e, if not intensified &even in "ainstrea" we
have /obert /eich calling conte"porary capitalis", -Supercapitalis"-+. We are still in the world
of (ar#ian econo"ics. (ar# cannot be reduced to history of econo"ic thought, it is topical and
the e#planatory power is strong. Sperber!s book wants to deny this. .t is offensive to a (ar#ist,
but "ore i"portant it should be offensive to a social scientist, because it obscures truth and
knowledge, but it should also be offensive to those suffering the e#ploitation of capitalis" and its
crisis%ridden nature, in other words all hu"an beings. ?n this account Sperber!s book is a
disservice.
(ar# as a "an, . think Sperber is correct to point out, was "ore or less rather ordinary in his
daily actions and as a political leader he was leading a rather s"all seg"ent of radicals.
(oreover, as Sperber points out even (ar#!s leadership was in dispute with others, and his
personality 8uirks often "ade (ar# a rather weak political leader. *ut even if we accept this, it
does not "ake (ar#!s theories in political econo"y, politics, history, sociology, psychology, etc.
obsolete. Chis is the overall flavor or thesis of Sperber!s book, which is articulated in the critical
co""ents of (c)ellan!s review &although . believe so"ewhat understated+. Chis is a fatal flaw of
an otherwise i"pressive biography. .t is fatal because the ai" to relativi,e (ar#!s theories allows
Sperber to use Aost%(ar# criti8ues of Bapital to denounce Bapital. $ow could Sperber have been
so sloppy@ .t reveals "ore of Sperber, than (ar#.
Jow, returning to dialectics. Che "ove"ent in $egelian and (ar#ian econo"ics is fro"
e#perience or Singularity, to the Aarticular or historical events, to Kniversal. Jow we cannot
always fully "ake the "ove"ent to Kniversal. &$egel is 8uite brilliant de"onstrating in
philosophy the "ove"ent takes on all kinds of variations S%A%K or K%A%S or A%K%S, $egel!s
interest is how hu"an beings tap into Kniversalis", well this was 'ant!s interest too, although he
ends up denying philosophical and scientific access+. $owever, (ar# certainly has both the desire
and atte"pt to achieve universalis". Chis does not "ake capitalis" and its "ove"ent universal,
they are not &and this should be accounted as one of (ar#!s great achieve"ents, along with the
insight that capitalis" would not be the -end of history,- nor constitute the -last "an-+. Che
"ove"ents or -laws- of capitalis" are always "erely particular to a society whereby Surplus
Value is created by one group, usurped and distributed by another, and (ar# says this is the
!hidden core! of capitalis" &by the way this definition "akes both for"er Soviet Knion and
current Bhina capitalistic, and perhaps "ore capitalistic than in the K.S.FK.'. because K.S.FK.'.
have s"all businesses owned by fa"iliesFe"ployees who usurp and distribute their own Surplus
Value+. $owever, (ar#!s notions of hu"an nature, i.e. the relationship between social institutions
and hu"an develop"ent are "ore universal. $is belief in Cruth, I"ancipation, and Gustice, also
"ust confront universalis".
*y the way, Sperber does 8uote (ar# in a letter to Ingels co"plaining that a "an living a life for
universalis" should not have the particular pressures caused by fa"ily life. Sperber did not
recogni,e this as a $egelian co""ent because Sperber has no understanding of $egelian
philosophy, with the wave of the hand, or the clai" it would take another book to e#plain,
Sperber si"ply skips any atte"pt to e#plain the philosophy infor"ing (ar#!s construction of
social theory and political econo"y. .nstead Sperber!s focus and strength is on the petty disputes
between (ar# and his friends and (ar# and his adversaries on the one hand, and a rather strong
factual e#planations of the words and historical events in (ar#!s "ore political writings, but
Sperber has little understanding of (ar#!s social theories because it re8uires so"e understanding
of (ar#!s philosophy.
.n any event, even if so"eone wants to abandon (ar#!s universalis", this by itself does not "ake
(ar#!s theories in Bapital obsolete. (ar#!s political econo"y and (ar#ian econo"ics both still
have re"arkable e#planatory power as a theory of capitalis", and it still out perfor"s alternatives
in "any di"ensions.
3a2ban wrote, on : ug <73= at 39>:p"9
Chanks $ans.
theory % if it is a theory and not "erely an e"pirical generalisation % is tied to as well as
transcends its conte#tual location. .n other words, it is both abstract and concrete. (ar#ian
theory, the "aterialist conception of history, is of this nature. (ar# does offer us a syste" of
general categories in ter"s of which any social for"ation can be studied and analysed, but he
offers no trans%historical generalisations. $e told Vera Zasulich as "uch.
?n the other hand, as opposed to e"piricis", in the dialectical co"prehension of reality the
"ove"ent is always fro" the abstract to the concrete and not vice versa. s Gairus *anaji
e#plains in his brilliant paper !Fro" co""odity to capital9 $egel!s dialectic in (ar#!s Bapital!,
!.n the Areface to the first edition &3106+ of Bapital 3, (ar# writes that in the analysis of
-econo"ic for"s-, i.e of social pheno"ena as such, the -power of abstraction- "ust replace a
directly e#peri"ental, hence e"pirical, relation to the object... Che concrete is derived by stages
fro" the abstract.! Che paper appears in !Value9 Che representation of labour in capitalis"! ed. by
Hiane Ilson &BSI *ooks+.
Ba22* 5'a$* wrote, on <7 ug <73= at >976a"9
SperberMs book is a curateMs egg; good in parts, which, renders it bad in total. $e is a "ore than
co"petent researcher, but he is annoying in the way in which he deploys the nuggets that he
unearths.
(ar# and Ingels were active in an intense political circle that "erged fro" legality into
conspiracy. Aersonal and political differences abounded. (ar# and Ingels gossiped outrageously
about others in their "ilieu and others gossiped about the".
Sperber has the irritating habit of retailing any derogatory gossip ai"ed at (ar# and Ingels as
fact while counting instances of their private chatter as proof of their foolishness.
$is basic argu"ent is that (ar#is" is a hopelessly nineteenth century philosophical oddity and
that (ar#is" canMt be e#tracted fro" its historical period. nyone adhering to (ar#is" is guilty
of anachronistic folly, ignorantly transposing anti8uated ideas forward into this century.
$owever, he also clai"s that (ar#Ms ideas were responsible for all the cri"es of Stalin, which is
e#actly the anachronis" of which he accuses others.
S$a(o8 9i:'k
*ivin+ in t&e 'nd #imes
Verso, )ondon and Jew Lork, <7373. :13pp., S<<.4> F N3<.44 pb
.S*J 46131::0667<=
&'(i')'% b* ;on* -.k'nna
)ike all iekMs books, *ivin+ in t&e 'nd #imes is under"ined by the "ethodological inade8uacy
of iekMs particular brand of QAost%(ar#is"M. For QAost%(ar#is"M, one would better read Qanti%
(ar#is"M, and anti%$egelianis" to wit. Chat "ight see" perverse, given iekMs well%
established love affair with $egel, but the $egel which iek atte"pts to refor"ulate through
the pris" of )acan has, unfortunately, little in co""on with the original. What iek actually
effects is a dehistorici,ation of the genuine $egelian dialectic when he argues that the Qstandard
discourseM on Qthe $egelian Spirit which alienates itself, and then recognises itself in its
otherness and thus re%appropriates its own content is deeply "isleading.M &<=7+
s a result, instead of the conventional logicalFhistorical unfolding by which an abstract "o"ent
is QsublatedM in a fuller, "ore concrete "o"ent, iek absolutises the retroactive role of the
dialectical process whereby Qspirits return%to%itself 2and5 creates the very di"ension to which it
returns.M &<=3+ genuinely dialectical progression is increasingly eroded in favour of a static,
psychoanalytic based ontology in which the dialectical process is un"oored fro" the series of
historicalFlogical categories which give to it its content. nd by annulling the historicity of the
$egelian dialectic at the level of ontology, the conse8uences for iekMs politics and so%called
(ar#is" are grievous.
Co elaborate9 (ar# posed the 8uestion of proletarian revolution as a living historical
develop"ent in which a series of "o"ents are QsublatedM. process of pri"itive accu"ulation,
which cul"inates in the separation of the individual proprietors fro" ownership of the "eans of
production by the e"ergent capitalist class, is subse8uently superseded when the ownership of
the "eans of production is reasserted but in a fuller "ore concrete for"; particularised,
individualised property is re%established in and through a universal for" by the social agent
&proletariat+ which has the capacity to do so as a conse8uence of its historical for"ation and
collective power. We e#perience here a $egelian "ove"ent of the classical type W indeed (ar#
even fra"ed it in e#plicitly $egelian ter"s as a Qnegation of negationM.
*ut because iek rejects classical $egelianis" W Qthe $egelian Spirit which alienates itself, and
then recognises itself in its otherness and thus re%appropriates its own content is deeply
"isleadingM W it is inevitable that he rejects the very dialectical "ove"ent, Qthe negation of
negationM , which provides the spirit and historical e#egesis of (ar#Ms .apital. For iek, the
e#istence of a proletariat which Qre%appropriates its own content is deeply "isleadingM. Che
revolutionary act, therefore, is no longer pre"ised on the historical for"ation of a proletariat
which is co"pelled to QreappropriateM its alienated labour product by the abolition of private
property at the point of production in and through the assertion of working class ownership and
control. For iek, Qco""unis" should no longer be conceived as the subjective
&re+appropriation of the alienated substantial contentM &<=<+.
*ut in as "uch as iek wishes to "aintain &superficially+ a revolutionary edge, he "ust now
locate so"e other social agent which can offer the possibility of so"e "anner of revolutionary
resistance and rede"ption. .n abandoning the concept of the proletarian revolution as the
cul"ination of a historical develop"ent orientated around the centrality of the productive
process and the "odes and for"s which facilitate it, in eschewing such analysis, iek is forced
to circu"vent concrete historical develop"ent "ore broadly in his search for the revolutionary
agent. nd so he alights on the rather ro"antic notion of Qslu" dwellersM.
.t is these people, he asserts, who will provide a genuinely potent resistance to capitalis" in the
twenty%first century, and who have the power to funda"entally transfor" it. Chey possess this
power not because they have been historically constituted as a concrete class which stands in a
deter"inate relation to the "eans of production within the social totality, they are significant not
for the fact they have e"erged in and through historical process but, "ore precisely, because
they stand outside it. Chey represent Qthe singular universality e#e"plified in those who lack a
deter"ined place in the social totality, who are Oout of placeP in it and as such directly stand for
the universal di"ension [ the crowds in the slu"s constitute a large reservoir for political
"obilisationM &3<:+
Co be clear, . a" not suggesting that iek is si"ply wrong; that Qslu" dwellersM donMt have any
type of revolutionary capacity. Che point is that the category itself is highly a"orphous; it isnMt,
as . have already e"phasised, derived fro" a consideration of i""anent historical and socio%
econo"ic process, but rather involves the e#ternal and "ore cos"etic considerations of a+
geological location, and b+ relative level of poverty. Within the Qslu" dwellersM we have all
variety of Qsocio%econo"icM types9 wage labourers selling their labour power in the inner city,
itinerant labourers doing odd jobs here and there, artisans and "arket stall owners selling
products, speculators, rentiers and, of course, the lu"pen, ato"ised ele"ents which persist on the
fringes.
.t is therefore difficult to i"agine why such a disparate grouping "ight attain the level of shared
interest necessary to act in a unified and revolutionary "anner si"ply because they belong to the
sa"e geographical space. *ut on those occasions where there have been genuinely revolutionary
upheavals in the slu"s it is worth noting they are often the product of proletarian "ove"ents and
co""unity organisations co"ing together and undercutting the sheer heterogeneity in social
co"position, as in the case of Il lto in *olivia, for instance. Eiven iekMs e"phasis on Qslu"
dwellersM as the central agent of twenty%first century revolution, one "ight e#pect *ivin+ in t&e
'nd #imes to devote space to a consideration of social co"position of the slu"s and the for"s of
organisation which facilitate revolutionary activity within the". *ut, on this subject, iek
barely utters a word.
nd so *ivin+ $n t&e 'nd #imes provides us with the three fold "otif of iekMs Aost%(ar#is".
First the $egelian dialectic is nullified at the ontologicalF"ethodological level; this then
"anifests at the political level with the rejection of the proletariat as historical%revolutionary
process W which, in turn, "eans that iek is co"pelled to look for so"e fashionable but
ulti"ately ahistorical social category &slu" dwellers+ in order to fill in the revolutionary blank.
$aving developed a profoundly abstract and ahistorical approach to revolutionary politics, like
all Aost%(ar#ists, iek is then co"pelled to point out just how old%fashioned and dog"atic the
tenants of a classically (ar#ist historicis" are. $e delivers a vague and "eandering criti8ue of
the (ar#ist labour theory of value, for instance, which see"s, rather bi,arrely, to centre on
Vene,uela9
Vene,uela [ is now una"biguously e#ploiting other countries9 the "ain source of its wealth,
oil, is a natural resource, its price is a rent which doesnot e#press value &whose sole source is
labor+. Vene,uelans are enjoying a for" of collective rent fro" the developed countries, rent
gained by the fact of possessing scarce resources. Che only way on can talk about the
e#ploitation of Vene,uela here is to abandon (ar#Ms labor theory of value for the neo%classical
theory of three factors of production &resources, labor, capital+ each of which contributes to the
value of the product. &<:3+
Che passage co"bines a series of vague assertions and non%se8uiturs such that it is not easy to
see what is actually being said. Che price of Vene,uelaMs oil is a rent which does not e#press
value. What "eans rent here@ .s iek drawing attention to the rent derived fro" the "ore
productive W for whatever reason W land which yields a greater surplus profit at any given
"o"ent than elsewhere given the sa"e or si"ilar capital invested@ nd is this the reason it Qdoes
not e#press valueM for such a difference is not &i""ediately+ dependent on labour power@
*ut, if this is the case, surely the QaddedM value, which appears not as the result of labour power
but as an inherent natural product, presents as a te"porary occurrence whereby individual price
fluctuates above value in a specific instance W but only in the conte#t of the overall pool of value
produced by the labour power generated by the sector or industry "ore generally, a total value
which "ight itself be in abeyance. nd, further"ore, is this not e#plicated by the classical
(ar#ist notion of differential rent@ .s not iekMs QrefutationM of the (ar#ist labour theory of
value here a result of the fact that he si"ply ignores the schis" between value and price "ore
generally@
.n addition, according to iek, Vene,uelans enjoy this Qcollective rentM. Strange that,
considering so few of the" see" to be landowners. Che great "ajority in the Vene,uelan oil
industry are, of course, those whose labour power converts the oil into its co""odity for"9 i.e.
workers W so even if one assu"es, as iek see"s to, that the temporarily substance%less, so
called QaddedM value generated by an oil%rich terrain in an increasingly oil depleted world
econo"y; even if one assu"es that this QaddedM value has so"ehow converted the entire
Vene,uelan population into a "ass collective of rentiers &presu"ably because they enjoy a
higher level of state e#penditure on social projects W though how this "akes the" rentiers is
beyond "e+; but even assu"ing all this, one would still have to acknowledge that the pre"ise of
this Qsubstance%lessM QaddedM value, would re"ain the labour power of the Vene,uelan working
classes e#tracting the oil in the first place. .t is a topsy%turvy inversion, to say the least, to argue
that it is the Vene,uelan workers who are e#ploiting Qdeveloped countriesM and yet, ulti"ately,
this is precisely the position iekMs logic yields.
?ne can see, . think, how iekMs abandon"ent of a class driven historicis" of the classical
(ar#ist type, provokes a severe political disorientation on his part. )ike "ost Aost%(ar#ists,
iek goes on to e"phasise the role of Qi""aterial labourM as the funda"ental constituent of
value in the "odern epoch. Che paucity of this crude abstraction has, to "y "ind, been
effectively and co"prehensively criti8ued elsewhere &when has "aterial labour not been
e"broiled in an i""aterialF"ental aspect W i.e. the thought which is re8uired to structure and
acco"plish it@ nd when has this i""aterial aspect not been necessarily grounded in
"ateriality@ W i.e. the "ateriality of the cells in the brain which stage thought or the "ateriality
of those co""odities which the so called Qi""aterialM infor"ation which is trans"itted through
a &"aterial+ progra""e like Facebook % is designed to sell@+
Jone of iekMs points on the role of Qi""aterial labourM or his rather tepid criti8ue of the
(ar#ist labour theory of value are innovative or warrant a great deal of interest. *ut what is
fascinating and si"ultaneously repellent, are the kind of political conclusions he draws fro"
the". ?nce iek realises there is no point in workers trying to appropriate their alienated labour
product W i.e. to take control of the factories W and once this knowledge is supple"ented by the
notion of a ne#us of Qi""aterial labourM which an &unintellectual+ working class is forever
sundered fro"; once these factors are in place, the political conclusions are inevitable, and iek
realises how little practical value the traditional for"s of working class struggle actually have W
QstrikingM, for e#a"ple, Qwhere it occurs at all W is "ore a protest act addressed pri"arily to the
general public rather than owners or "anagersM &=:<+.
*ut iek doesnMt reserve his disdain only for those working class people who see" to behave in
a crudely (ar#ist fashion by striking; by trying to assure a wage which "ight i"prove their
living conditions, and by otherwise foolishly engaging in those practises hu"anity sub"its to
when it has not yet benefited fro" the wisdo" of Slavoj iek. *ivin+ in t&e 'nd #imes e#tends
its criti8ue to those protests which are e#tra%econo"ic9 for instance, the huge de"onstrations
which erupted around the world against the "ost recent invasion of .ra8. iek describes these
protests in a way which would, . think, intrigue anyone who participated in the". QChe
protestersM, he graciously e#plains, Qsaved their beautiful souls [ not only did the protests do
nothing to prevent the &already decided upon+ attack on .ra8, parado#ically they even provided
an additional legiti"i,ation for it.M &=<0+
iekMs position here is not only "orally dense, it is, as well, intellectually so. ?ne "ight e#pect,
fro" a supposed connoisseur of $egel &and if one is a connoisseur of $egel, then one knows a
little ristotle+ so"e appreciation of the tension between potency and actuality. Che spectacle of
the two "illion who flooded the streets in )ondon co"bined with the fact the govern"ent would
go on to prosecute a war anyway W does not, thereby, suggest that the protestors "erely
facilitated the will of the govern"ent and the ruling class. What iek should have 8ueried W in
the ristotelianF$egelian tradition W is what kind of potential reality would have unfolded, had
all those people not taken to the streets. Che govern"ent succeeded in prosecuting the war in
.ra8, yes, but if we hadnMt "ade our opposition known en masse then it is very likely we would
now be e"broiled in conflicts, not only in .ra8 and fghanistan, but in .ran as well, for the
ad"inistration would have felt e"boldened to act uni"peded by any possibility of "ass
resistance.
Chere are, it should be said, so"e positive aspects to *ivin+ in t&e 'nd #imes. iekMs account of
the historical persecution of the Gews is perspicuous and poignant. $is recognition that the
QethnicM conflicts which have plagued Bongo are not the result of a Qpri"itiveM, Qpre%"odernM
culture, but a direct product of the incursions of global capitalis", provides a worthwhile and
necessary tonic to the racist narrative which usually wraps itself around this issue. $is analysis of
the on%going displace"ent of the Aalestinian people is both astute and hu"ane. *ut these
ele"ents are few and far between. ?ne of the "ost troubling aspects about *ivin+ in t&e 'nd
#imes involves the sheer wealth of repetition W the sa"e insights which have featured in "any of
iekMs other books W his analysis of the sa"e fil"s like $itchcockMs Berti+o for e#a"ple, or his
interpretation of Chucydides history of the Aeloponnesian war; these insights crop up over and
over, so"eti"es relayed verbati".
Che front cover of *ivin+ in t&e 'nd #imes infor"s us that iek is, QChe "ost dangerous
philosopher in the WestM. *ut on actually reading the book one receives the i"pression of iek
as a "inor celebrity desperate to peddle his brand and keep the books churning out. .n this book
the vein of political conservatis" which often teeters into a shock%jock and co""ercially
orientated reactionaryis"W gives one the distinct suspicion that not only does iek not believe
we are living in the end ti"es W but also that he is e#tre"ely satisfied with the ti"es we are
living in. iek is not the "ost dangerous philosopher in the west W but he "ay well be the "ost
fashionable one. s for *ivin+ in t&e 'nd #imes itself, it brings to "ind the witticis" attributed
to Hr Gohnson, for it is both good and original [ only the part that is good is not very original,
and the part that is original is really not all that good.
Cony (ckenna is a $egelian (ar#ist philosopher whose work has been featured by Che
$uffington Aost, *B ustralia, Che Knited Jations, Jew .nternationalist, JewStates"an, Che
Arogressive, ?pen He"ocracy, Bounterpunch, (onthly /eview, Znet, )iberal Bonspiracy, Che
Ahilosophers (aga,ine, Beasefire, Jew )eft Aroject, Ereek )eft /eview, Bounterfire, Briti8ue9
Gournal of Socialist Cheory and Ereek televisionMs CV\S a"ong others.
#$ain Ba%iou
#&e 1ebirt& of ,istory: #imes of 1iots and Cprisin+s
Cranslated by Eregory Illiott, Verso, )ondon and Jew Lork, <73<. 3<7pp., S34.4> F N3<.44 hb
.S*J 46131::06164<
&'(i')'% b* I3ha* /an%a
.n this short but a"bitious and richly argued book, lain *adiou atte"pts to distill the
philosophical and political i"port of the popular riots sweeping across the globe, particularly
Othe rab springP &the French original was published in <733+. Che wave of uprisings and "ass
de"onstrations, which has not subsided since the bookMs publication, provides the French thinker
with an opportunity to apply his theory of the Ivent W abstractly unfolded in such weighty works
as !ein+ and 'vent and *o+ic of 4orlds W to present%day political happenings. .t is asked to what
e#tent the global tur"oil can be seen, or "ight potentially develop into, an evental break, a
watershed of Ouniversal significance.P &370+
Che book co"prises ten chapters, brief but typically highly charged, and two appendices, that
originally appeared in the French press. Che introduction poses the funda"ental 8uestions right
away9
What is going on@ ?f what are we the half%fascinated, half%devastated witnesses@ Che
continuation, at all costs, of a weary world@ salutary crisis of that world, racked by its
victorious e#pansion@ Che end of that world@ Che advent of a different world@ What is
happening to us in the early years of the century W so"ething that would appear not to have any
clear na"e in any accepted language@ &3+
Che bookMs aspiration, however, is not to describe the occurrences; nor can it be said si"ply to
diagnose, e#plain or even pronounce a judg"ent on the". Che ulti"ate goal appears to be a
p&ilosop&icopolitical intervention, an effort to canali,e the disparate and so"ewhat incongruous
events in such a direction as to fuse the" into an 'vent. *adiouMs assu"ption is that the global
revolts are not yet a coherent force. Chey are, he asserts, Oas yet blind, naive, scattered, and
lacking a powerful concept or durable organi,ation.P &>+ nd the challenge is precisely to furnish
the" with such a concept. /iots of all kinds are dee"ed vital, yet insufficient, unless
supple"ented by a great, ground%breaking .dea. s *adiou affir"s, this Ois precisely "y
proble"9 if riots are to signal a reawakening of $istory, they "ust indeed accord with an .dea.P
&<3+
Bhapters <, = and : &. will in due ti"e return to the first chapter which is, . think, of crucial
i"portance for understanding and assessing the book+ focus respectively on describing three
"ain for"s of riots, starting with the "ost si"ple one, Oi""ediate riotP W a "ore or less
i"pulsive and blind &Oone cannot really see clearlyP &<0++ spate of protest and street violence
against injustice, of the type which was witnessed in )ondon in ugust <733. While in sy"pathy
with such protests, *adiou also chastises Othe corruption of popular subjectivityP which they
"anifest, and describes the" adversely as Oprofitable pillaging.P &<0+ Fro" there one ascends to
the "ore opa8ue category of the Olatent riotP W which refers to co"parably "ore restrained "ass
protests and strikes, especially in Western, affluent society.
Che highest category of such revolts, finally, are the Ohistorical riots,P of the kind that have
erupted in a nu"ber of rab countries. Such revolts are uplifting in their unprecedented reach,
,eal and deter"ination, yet they too are li"ited and do not of necessity facilitate a breakthrough
to a new order. On historical riot is 2[5 a riot which is neither &below it+ an i""ediate riot, nor
&beyond it+ the large%scale advent of a new politics.P &<6+ While, like i""ediate riots, they are
not political, historical riots can at least clai" to be Opre%political,P for they bring us to the
threshold of the political properly speaking. &==+ Co cross such threshold however, what is
obligatory is the e"power"ent which co"es Ofrom t&e s&arin+ of an $dea.P &:7+ Without such
an ideological foundation, riots, no "atter how heartfelt and spectacular, "ust re"ain
Oessentially negative.P Che "asses know what it is they do not want W say, (ubarak W but not
what they are positively striving for.
.n Bhapter >, however, titled O/iots and the West,P *adiou gives the i"pression that there
actually is an ele"ent of positive longing in the rab riot, yet he rigorously warns a+ainst such
wish. Che aspiration in 8uestion is the desire to join the West, attain its way of life, its diverse
freedo"s, enjoy its affluence and so on and so forth. $ere there is a certain a"biguity in
*adiouMs description. ?n the one hand, such aspirations are reduced to outward Western
projections and hege"onic atte"pts to ideologically co%opt the riots and nip in the bud their truly
radical potential9 O*asically, our rulers and our do"inant "edia have suggested a si"ple
interpretation of the riots in the rab world9 what is e#pressed in the" is what "ight be called a
desire for t&e 4est, a desire to QenjoyM everything that we, the drowsy, satiated inhabitants of the
affluent countries, already Qenjoy.MP &:1+ *adiou argues that such Western signification of the
events is Oinfinitely 2[5 debatable.P &:4+ Let shortly thereafter he is forced to concede that this
is not a "ere "isinterpretation, and that the Igyptian "asses are genuinely te"pted by such
vision. Chis fills hi" with apprehension. OWho,P he asks, Owill protect us fro" the all too real
subjective power of the desire for the West@P &>:+ For hi", everything hinges on "oving a2ay
fro" the hated Western "odel9 Oa pheno"enon of Western inclusion cannot be regarded as
genuine change. What would be a genuine change would be an exit from t&e 4est, a Qde%
Westerni,ation.MP &><+
Such Western te"ptation, in truth, appears to be so powerful, and to pose such a lethal threat to
the "erely e"bryonic prospect of genuine change, described as a necessary Odaydrea",P that the
ne#t two chapters &0, 6+ are dedicated to e#plaining the need to protect this delicate sprout by
recourse to consciously "inoritarian, indeed even authoritarian politics. $ere *adiou draws on
his criti8ue of de"ocracy W found in "any of his earlier works W as the sheer rule of nu"bers, a
rule of interpellated Oopinion,P posing a nearly insur"ountable obstacle to the reali,ation of
Cruths. Hrawing on his own sobering e#perience during the (ay 3401 uprising which the
ensuing general elections put the lid on, he contrasts the radical passion of the truly revolutionary
Igyptian subjects, filling the streets and pla,as, with the apathetic "ajority at ho"e, which W
given parlia"entarian "ass de"ocracy W is ulti"ately going to decide the fate of the events, in
what would signify Oa guaranteed fiascoP for the revolution. Che radical "ove"ent, he asserts,
Ois always utterly "inoritarian.P &>1+ Che only possible re"edy is to substitute Opopular
dictatorshipP for Ode"ocracy.P Whereas the latter is a "ere instru"ent of the state, the for"er is
the only "eans to shield the nascent political truth and avert the falling into Western ways9
.t e"erges W this truth W on the edge of an historical riot, which e#tricates it fro" the laws of the
world &in our case fro" the pressure of the desire for the west+ in the for" of a new, previously
unknown possibility. nd the assertion &and then 2[5 the organi,ation+ of this new political
possibility is presented in an e#plicitly authoritarian for"9 the authority of truth, the authority of
reason. &07%3+
.n positive ter"s, the .dea put forward by *adiou and which he regards as ger"inating on the
historical riotMs edge, is a social order transcending all present particularis"s and identitarian
for"s, infused with universal egalitarianis". OWhat is involved,P he clarifies, Ois the
organi,ation not of Qreal de"ocracy,M but of the authority of the Crue, or of an unconditional idea
of justice.P &46+ Bhapter 1, on OState and Aolitics9 .dentity and Eenericity,P contains a
penetrating attack on the hege"onic%cu"%e#clusionary function of the "odern state, "ainly via
the e#a"ple of France, and a deconstruction of the national clai" to represent fi#ed identities. .n
the penulti"ate chapter, OHoctrinal Su""ary,P this universality is again posited as the positive
content which "ust be attained9
Cruths W but of what@ Cruths of what is actually the collective presentation of hu"anity as such
&the co""unal of co""unis"+. ?r9 the truth of the fact that, over and above their vital interests,
hu"an ani"als are capable of bringing into being justice, e8uality and universality. &16+
What are we to "ake of such propositions and prescriptions@ Chis brief su""ary of the bookMs
core argu"ents already brings to light, . think, so"e of its weaknesses. Che pitfalls of the
authoritarian solutions are only too obvious, both in the"selves W can a viable future
Oco""unis"P really represent the convictions of a "inority, however O"assiveP@ W and in the
space they open up for pernicious appropriation at the hands of diverse OidentitarianP
"ove"ents, be they racists, religious funda"entalists, or neo%fascists, wishing to i"pose their
own OtruthsP on the dead nu"bers. )et us, therefore, not be so 8uick in dis"issing the silent
"ajority, or in assu"ing its auto"atic support for reaction or the status 8uo.
Let beyond this OidentitarianP danger W which *adiou e#cels at analy,ing and denouncing, even
as he reco""ends dubious "ethods of obviating it W the "ain weakness of *adiouMs book, and
perhaps of his political thought "ore generally, is the way in which it raises up against another
universalism, which it un%dialectically denigrates. Aarado#ically, in the final account *adiouMs
principal ne"esis is not any identitarianis", but precisely an alternative universal project, which
he refers to, so"ewhat "isleadingly, as Othe West.P
.n order to elucidate this point, it is necessary to go back to the first chapter, OBapitalis" Coday,P
in which *adiou defends hi"self against those who, like ntonio Jegri, critici,e his idea of
co""unis" on account of its idealistic and non%(ar#ist nature. .n defense of his position,
*adiou e"phasi,es that he is in fact co"pletely rooted in (ar#is". Let he parado#ically
proceeds to define it in such a narrowly political way, so as to attest to a farreac&in+ break with
(ar#is" as traditionally understood9 O(ar#is" 2. . .5 is, let us reiterate, the organi,ed knowledge
of the political "eans re8uired to undo e#isting society.P &1+ (any i"portant things are lost
when (ar#is" is thus reduced. (ost significant a"ong the", in our conte#t, is the way that
(ar# envisaged co""unis" not as the si"ple abolition of the present, but rather as its
dialectical sublation.
(ar# e#pressly disowned the notion that co""unis" ai"s to reshape reality in agree"ent with
so"e lofty idea or "oral injunction; his goal was rather to facilitate the revolutionary
transfor"ation which is already in the offing, Ounder our very eyes.P &#&e .ommunist 0anifesto+
For (ar#, co""unis" was "aturing in the wo"b of capitalist society, predicated on its
contradictions, its shortco"ings as well as its historical achieve"ents. Bo""unis" was
conceived as the product of &istory giving birth. For *adiou, in stark contrast, co""unis" is
conceived as a Orebirth of history, as opposed to the pure and si"ple repetition of the worst.P &>+
Chus, notwithstanding the introductory avowal of allegiance to (ar#is", #&e 1ebirt& of ,istory
reads very "uch like a protracted, if never e#plicit, series of refutations of (ar#ist contentions.
Co start with, *adiouMs very notion of the Ivent as a supra% and anti%historical rupture has little
to do with (ar# and is "uch "ore indebted to Jiet,sche and $eidegger, the for"er wishing to
Obreak the history of the world in two,P the latter protesting against profane OhistoricalityP and
striving to reconnect with the ontological bedrock. *adiouMs co""unis" "ust therefore look
beyond history. O,istory,P he stresses, Odoes not contain 2it&in itself a solution to t&e problems
it places on t&e a+enda.P &:<+ For *adiou, &a "inoritarian+ co""it"ent to truths has a "uch
greater role to play in a revolutionary transfor"ation than the &"ajoritarian+ defense of their
"aterial interests on the part of the Ohu"an ani"als,P a "aterialis" which is construed as the
very "ainstay of the status 8uo. $e ironically represents the establish"entMs point%of%view9 O?ur
rule re"ains9 Q"y standard of living first and fore"ost.M WeMre not really resigned to seeing this
principle under"ined by the flea%ridden of the world finally rallying to speak the truth.P &334+
For (ar# it is rather the structural inability of capitalis" to satisfy the "assesM "aterial needs
and aspirations which will trigger the eventual collapse of the syste". $ence it is funda"entally
a fight for keeping &and i"proving+ oneMs standard of living which drives the "asses onto the
streets fro" Bairo, to thens, to /io de Ganeiro &while certainly enco"passing aspirations for a
"ore just, hu"ane and fulfilling order+.
Si"ilarly, the way *adiou considers Oi""ediate riotsP inferior on account of their non%political
and avaricious nature, appears to reproduce the very co"plaints voiced in 31:: by the young%
$egelian rnold /uge against the Silesian weaversM rebellion, which he considered deficient in
ter"s of political understanding. For (ar#, on the contrary, defending the weavers, political
understanding is not a pre%condition of revolution but a lu#ury9
.t is entirely false that social need produces political understanding. .ndeed, it is rather the truth
to say that political understanding is produced by social 2ellbein+. Aolitical understanding is
so"ething spiritual, that is given to hi" that hath, to the "an who is already sitting on velvet.
neat illustration of the objective discrepancy between *adiou and (ar#, is the for"erMs
sweeping denigration of the "odern world. *adiou dis"isses with conte"pt the notion that
"odern technology has played any significant role in inciting the revolts. $e pooh%poohs those
who have dared to link the rab riots Oto the use of Facebook or other vacuities of alleged
technological innovation in the post"odern age.P &<<+ .n the ne#t page he scoffs at todayMs
Osheep%like electronics.P Chis co"pares unfavorably with the way that (ar# and Ingels have
shown the"selves keenly aware of the subversive potential of new technologies, and have done
so "ore than 3>7 years ago, in the 0anifesto9
Che real fruit of their battles lies, not in the i""ediate result, but in the ever e#panding union of
the workers. Chis union is helped on by the i"proved "eans of co""unication that are created
by "odern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another.
.t was just this contact that was needed to centrali,e the nu"erous local struggles, all of the sa"e
character, into one national struggle between classes.
nd this is just a sa"ple of the objective disagree"ents between Oco""unis"P and
Oco""unis".P Klti"ately, *adiouMs bid to rebuff the Odesire for the WestP see"s to confuse the
W entirely justified W rejection of Western i"perialis" and its attendant repressive and
hypocritical institutions, with the W "uch "ore proble"atic W negation of western civili,ation
8ua "ass society. nd after all is not Othe co""unistP idea organically interlinked with the
West, as well, as opposed to representing "erely Othe Iast WindP@ &334+ nd when *adiou
clai"s that the plot of the rulers is to incorporate the rabs into the West, is this not a
si"plification@ WasFis not the Western powersM support for (ubarak and his ilk "eant,
precisely, to t&2art the universal spreading of the Western "odel of "ass de"ocracy and the
welfare state@ Co keep the standard of living in Othird%worldP countries artificially below that of
the West@ .n short, not to westerni,e the rab world, but to keep it under t&e 4estern t&umb@
While we are entitled to 8uestion the workings of parlia"entary de"ocracy and envision
i"prove"ents, nay alternatives, it would be ha,ardous to forget the popular struggles which
alone enabled that "odel to "ateriali,e, and to ignore the nu"erous de"ocracies throughout the
world which the West has helped under"ine.
*adiouMs project of Oco""unis"P as envisaged in the book has strong "erit. .t keeps alive an
inspiring utopian belief in absolute beginnings, in a real" of freedo" which transcends the
syste"ic catastrophic logic of capitalis". nd the book has "any brilliant and so"eti"es even
"oving passages. *ut, as in "uch of *adiou, alongside the vital contributions, is also a "ore
proble"atic aspect, where a progressive criti8ue of the ills of capitalis" is obscured by an
essentially Jiet,schean aloofness, an attitude which Eeorg )ukUcs once aptly characteri,ed as
the Opri"ary alienation of bourgeois ideologists fro" the progressiveness of history, fro" a
recognition of the progressive tendencies and perspectives in the present.P
.shay )anda is Senior )ecturer in $istory at the .sraeli ?pen Kniversity. $e has published on
Jiet,scheanis", (ar#is", political theory and popular culture &ishaylaXopenu.ac.il +.