Changes

Capitalism is not just a historical epoch among others. In a way, Marx located the elementary [[capitalist]] [[antagonism]] in the once fashionable opposition between use-[[value]] and now half-forgotten Francis Fukuyama was right[[exchange]] value: global capital is "in capitalism, the end potentials of history." A certain excess which wasthis opposition are fully realized, as it were, kept under check in previous history, perceived as a localizable perversion, as an excess, a deviationthe [[domain]] of exchange-value acquires [[autonomy]], is in capitalism elevated transferred into the specter of [[self]]-propelling speculative capital which [[needs]] the productive capacities and needs of actual [[people]] only as its dispensable [[temporal]] embodiment. Marx derived the very principle notion of social life[[economic]] crisis from this gap: a crisis occurs when [[reality]] catches up with the [[illusory]], in the speculative movement self-generating mirage of money begetting more money, -this speculative [[madness]] can not go on indefinitely; it has to explode in ever stronger crises. The ultimate root of a system which can survive only by constantly revolutionizing its own conditions-that the crisis is to sayfor him, in which the thing can survive only as gap between use-value and exchange-value: the [[logic]] of exchange-value follows its own excesspath, constantly exceeding its own "normal" constraintsmad dance, irrespective of the [[real]] needs of real people. And, perhaps it It may appear that this [[analysis]] is only more than actual todaywhen the tension between the real [[universe]] and the real is reaching almost palpably unbearable proportions: on the one hand, in global capitalism in its "postindustrial"we have crazy, solipsistic speculations [[about]] futures, digitalized formmergers, thatand so on, to put it in Hegelian termsfollowing their own inherent logic; on the [[other]] hand, really existing capitalism reality is reaching catching up I the level guise of its notion: perhapsecological catastrophes, one should follow again Marx's old, antievolutionist motto (incidentally taken verbatim from Hegel) that the anatomy of man provides the key for the anatomy of the monkey-that ispoverty, [[Third]] [[World]] diseases in order to deploy the inherent, notional structure collapse of a social formationlife, one must start with its most developed formmad cow disease.

Marx located This is why cyber-capitalists can appear as the paradigmatic capitalists today; this is why Bill Gates can [[dream]] of [[cyberspace]] as providing the [[frame]] for what he calls "frictionless capitalism." What we have here is an [[ideological]] short circuit between the elementary capitalist antagonism in two versions of the opposition gap between use-value reality and exchange valuevirtuality: in capitalismthe gap between real production and and the [[virtual]], the potentials [[spectral]] domain of this opposition are fully realizedCapital, and the gap between experiential reality and the domain virtual reality of exchangecyberspace. It effectively seems that the gap between my fascinating [[screen]] persona and the miserable flesh that is "me" off-value acquires autonomy, is transferred screen translates into immediate [[experience]] the gap between [[the specter Real]] of self-propelling the speculative [[circulation]] of capital which needs and the productive capacities and needs drab reality of actual people only as its dispensable temporal embodimentimpoverished masses. Marx derived the very notion of economic crisis from However is this (this gap: a crisis occurs when recourse to "reality catches " which will sooner or later catch up with the illusory, self-generating mirage of money begetting more money-this speculative madness can not go on indefinitely; it has virtual [[game]]) really the only way to explode in ever stronger crises. The ultimate root operationalize a critique of capitalism? What if the crisis problem of capitalism is for him, not this solipsistic mad dance but precisely the gap between use-value and exchange-valueopposite: the logic of exchange-value follows that it continues to [[disavow]] its own pathgap with "reality", its own mad dance, irrespective of the that it presents itself as serving real needs of real people. It may appear ? The originality of Marx is that this analysis he played on both cards simultaneously: the origin of capitalist crises is more than actual today when the tension gap between the real universe use- and the real is reaching almost palpably unbearable proportions: on the one hand, we have crazy, solipsistic speculations about futures, mergersexchange-value, and so on, following their own inherent logic; on the other hand, reality is catching up I capitalism constrains the guise of ecological catastrophes, poverty, Third World diseases in collapse free deployment of social life, mad cow diseaseproductivity.

This What all this means is why cyber-capitalists can appear as that the urgent task of the paradigmatic capitalists economic analysis today; this is why Bill Gates can dream , again, to [[repeat]] Marx's critique of [[political]] [[economy]], without succeeding on to the temptation of cyberspace as providing the frame for what he calls [[ideologies]] of "postindustrial"frictionless capitalismsocieties." What we have here It is an ideological short circuit between my hypothesis that the key [[change]] concerns the two versions status of [[private property]]: the gap between reality ultimate element of [[power]] and virtuality: [[control]] is no longer the gap between real production and and last link in the virtual, spectral domain [[chain]] of Capitalinvestments, and the gap between experiential reality and firm or [[individual]] who "really owns" the virtual reality means of cyberspaceproduction. It effectively seems that the gap between my fascinating screen persona and the miserable flesh that is The [[ideal]] capitalist today functions in a in a wholly different way: investing borrowed money, "mereally owning" off[[nothing]]-screen translates into immediate experience even indebted, but nonetheless controlling things. A corporation is owned by [[another]] corporation, who is again borrowing money from banks, who may ultimately manipulate money owned by ordinary people like ourselves. With Bill Gates, "private property in the gap between means of production" becomes meaningless, at least in the Real standard [[meaning]] of the speculative circulation [[word]]. The [[paradox]] of capital and this virtualization of capitalism is ultimately the drab reality same as that of impoverished massesthe electron in elementary particle [[physics]]. However The mass of each element in our reality is this (this recourse to "reality" which will sooner or later catch up with composed of its mass at rest plus the virtual game) really [[surplus]] provided by the acceleration of its movement; however, an electron's mass at rest is zero, its mass consisting only way to operationalize a critique of capitalism? What the surplus generated by the acceleration of its movement, as if the problem we are dealing with a nothing which acquires some deceptive substance only by magically spinning itself into an excess of capitalism is itself. Does today's virtual capitalist not this solipsistic mad dance but precisely the oppositefunction in a homologous way: that it continues to disavow its gap with his "realitynet value"at zero, that it presents itself as serving real needs of real people? The originality of Marx is that he played on both cards simultaneously: directly operates just with the origin of capitalist crises is surplus borrowing from the gap between use- and exchange-value, and capitalism constrains the free deployment of productivity[[future]].

What all this means is that the urgent task of the economic analysis today isThis, againexactly, is what [[Michael Hardt]] and [[Antonio Negri]] are trying to repeat Marx's critique of political economydo in their [[Empire]] (2000), a book that sets as its [[goal]], without succeeding on to [[writing]] the temptation of [[Communist]] Manifesto for the ideologies of twenty-first century. Hardt and Negri describe [[globalization]] as an ambiguous "postindustrialdeterritorialization" societies. It is my hypothesis that the key change concerns the status : victorious global capitalism pushes into every pore of private property: our social lives, into the ultimate element most intimate of power spheres, and control is installs an ever [[present]] [[dynamic]], which no longer the last link in the chain of investments, the firm is based on patriarchal or individual who "really owns" the means other hierarchic [[structures]] of productiondominance. The ideal capitalist today functions in a in Instead, it causes a wholly different way: investing borrowed money, "really owning" nothing-even indebtedflowing, but nonetheless controlling thingshybrid [[identity]]. A corporation is owned by another corporationOn the other hand, who is again borrowing money from banks, who may ultimately manipulate money owned by ordinary people like ourselves. With Bill Gates, "private property in this fundamental corrosion of all important social connections lets the means genie out of production" becomes meaningless, at least in the standard meaning of bottle: it sets free the potentially centrifugal forces that the wordcapitalist system is no longer able fully to control. The paradox of this virtualization of capitalism It is ultimately the same as exactly because its global triumph that of the electron in elementary particle physicscapitalist system is more vulnerable than ever. The mass old [[formula]] of each element in our reality Marx is composed of still valid: capitalism digs its mass at rest plus own grave. Hardt and Negri describe this [[process]] as the transition from the surplus provided by [[nation]]-[[state]] to global Empire, a transnational entity comparable to ancient Rome, in which hybrid masses of scattered identities developed. Hardt and Negri thus deserve much praise for enlightening us about the acceleration contradictory [[nature]] of its movement; however, an electrontoday's mass at rest is zero, "turbocapitalism" and attempting to [[identify]] to identify the revolutionary potential of its mass consisting only dynamic. This heroic attempt sets itself against the standard view of those on the surplus generated by [[Left]] who are struggling to [[limit]] the acceleration destructive powers of its movement, as if we are dealing globalization and to rescue (what there is left to rescue) the [[welfare]] state. This standard [[leftist]] view is imbued with a nothing which acquires some deceptive substance only by magically spinning itself into an excess profoundly [[conservative]] mistrust of the dynamics of itself. Does today's virtual capitalist not function in a homologous way: his "net value" at zeroglobalization and [[digitalization]], he directly operates just with which is quite contrary o the surplus borrowing from [[Marxist]] confidence in the futurepowers of [[progress]].

ThisNevertheless, exactly, is what Michael one immediately gets a [[sense]] of the boundaries to Hardt and Antonio Negri are trying to do in 's analysis. In their Empire (2000), a book that sets as its goalsocial-economic analysis, writing the Communist Manifesto for [[lack]] of [[concrete]] insight is concealed in the twenty-first century. Hardt and Negri describe globalization as an ambiguous "deterritorialization": victorious global capitalism pushes into every pore Deleuzian [[jargon]] of our social lives[[multitude]], into the most intimate of spheresdeterritorialization, and installs an ever present dynamic, so forth. No wonder that the [[three]] "[[practical]] proposals with which no longer is based the book ends appear anticlimactic. The authors propose to focus our political [[struggle]] on patriarchal or other hierarchic structures of dominance. Insteadthree global rights: the rights to global [[citizenship]], it causes a flowingminimal income, hybrid identity. On and the other hand, this fundamental corrosion reappropriation of all important social connections lets the genie out new means of the bottle: it sets free the potentially centrifugal forces that the capitalist system is no longer able fully production (i.e. access to and controlover education, information and [[communication]]). It is exactly because its global triumph a paradox that the capitalist system is more vulnerable than ever. The old formula of Marx is still valid: capitalism digs its own grave. Hardt and Negri describe this process as , the transition from the nation-state to global Empirepoets of mobility, variety, hybridization, a transnational entity comparable to ancient Romeand so on, call for three [[demands]] formulated in which hybrid masses the terminology of scattered identities developed[[universal]] [[human]] rights. Hardt The problem with these demands is that they fluctuate between [[formal]] emptiness and Negri thus deserve much praise for enlightening [[impossible]] radicalization. Let us about take the contradictory nature of today's "turbocapitalism" and attempting right to identify to identify the revolutionary potential global citizenship: theoretically, this right of its dynamiccourse should be approved. This heroic attempt sets itself against the standard view of those on the Left who are struggling However, if this [[demand]] is meant to limit be taken more seriously than a celebratory formal declaration in typical United Nations Style, then it would mean the destructive powers abolition of globalization and to rescue (what there is left to rescue) the welfare state. This standard leftist view is imbued with borders; under present conditions, such a profoundly conservative mistrust step would trigger an invasion of cheap labor from [[India]], China and Africa into the dynamics of globalization [[United States]] and digitalizationWestern [[Europe]], which would result in a populist [[revolt]] against immigrants-a result of such violent proportions that [[figures]] like Haider would seem models of multicultural [[tolerance]]. The same is quite contrary o valid with [[regard]] to the Marxist confidence in other two demands: for [[instance]], the powers universal (worldwide) right to minimal income-of progress.course, why not? But how should one create the necessary social-economic and ideological conditions for such a shattering transformation?

Nevertheless, one immediately gets a sense of This critique is not only aimed at the boundaries to Hardt and Negri's analysissecondary empirical details. In their social-economic The main problem with Empire is that the book falls short in its fundamental analysis, the lack of concrete insight is concealed in how (if at all) the Deleuzian jargon of multitudepresent global, deterritorialization, and so forth. No wonder that social-economic process will create the three "practical proposals with which the book ends appear anticlimactic. The authors propose to focus our political struggle on three global rights[[space]] needed for such radical measures: the rights they fail to global citizenshiprepeat, a minimal incomein today's conditions, and the reappropriation Marx's line of argumentation that the new means prospect of production (i.e. access to and control over education, information and communication). It is a paradox that Hardt and Negri, the poets proletarian [[revolution]] emerges out of mobility, variety, hybridization, and so on, call for three demands formulated in the terminology inherent [[antagonisms]] of universal human rights. The problem with these demands is that they fluctuate between formal emptiness and impossible radicalization. Let us take the right to global citizenship: theoretically, this right capitalist [[mode of course should be approvedproduction]]. However, if In this demand is meant to be taken more seriously than a celebratory formal declaration in typical United Nations Stylerespect, then it would mean the abolition of state borders; under present conditions, such Empire remains a step would trigger an invasion of cheap labor from Indiapre-Marxist book. However, China and Africa into perhaps the United States and Western Europe, which would result in a populist revolt against immigrants-a result of such violent proportions solution is that figures like Haider would seem models of multicultural tolerance. The same it is valid with regard not enough to [[return]] to the other two demands: for instanceMarx, the universal (worldwide) right to minimal income-of courserepeats Marx's analysis, why not? But how should one create the necessary social-economic and ideological conditions for such a shattering transformation?but we must needs return to [[Lenin]].

This critique is not only aimed at the secondary empirical details. The main problem with Empire first [[public]] reaction to such a motto is that the book falls short in its fundamental analysis , of how (if at all) the present globalcourse, social-economic process will create the space needed for such radical measuresan [[outburst]] of sarcastic [[laughter]]. Marx: OK, even on Wall Street they fail to repeat, in [[love]] him today's conditions, -Marx's line the poet of argumentation that the prospect commodities, who provided perfect descriptions of the proletarian revolution emerges out capitalist dynamics; Marx of the inherent antagonisms of [[cultural]] studies who portrayed the capitalist mode [[alienation]] and [[reification]] of productionour daily lives. In this respectBut Lenin: no, Empire remains a preyou can't be serious! The [[working]]-Marxist book. However[[class]] movement, revolutionary party, perhaps and similar zombie [[concepts]]? Doesn't Lenin stand precisely for the solution is that it is not enough to return failure to Marxput [[Marxism]] into [[practice]], to repeats Marxfor the catastrophe that left its mark on the entire twentieth-century's analysisworld [[politics]], for the Real Socialist experiment that culminated in an economically inefficient dictatorship? In contemporary academic politics, the [[idea]] of dealing with Lenin is accompanied by two qualifications: yes, why not, but we must needs return to live in a [[liberal]] [[democracy]], there is [[freedom]] of thought…however, one should treat Leninin an "[[objective]] critical and [[scientific]] way", not in an attitude of nostalgic idolatry, and, furthermore, from the perspective firmly rooted in the democratic political order, within the horizon of [[human rights]]-therein resides the lessons painfully learned through the experience of twentieth-century totalitarianisms.

The first public reaction What are we to say to this? Again, the problem resides in the implicit qualifications which can be easily discerned by "concrete analysis of the concrete [[situation]]", as Lenin himself would have put it. "Fidelity to such a motto the democratic consensus" means acceptance of the present liberal-parliamentary consensus" means acceptance of the present liberal-parliamentary consensus, which precludes any serious questioning of how this liberal-democratic order iscomplicitous in the phenomena it officially condemns and, of course, an outburst of sarcastic laughterany serious attempt to imagine a [[society]] whose sociopolitical order would be different. MarxIn short, it means: OKsay and write whatever you [[want]]-on condition that what you do does not effectively question or disturb the predominant political consensus. So everything is allowed, solicited even on Wall Street they love him today-Marx , as a critical topic: the poet prospects of commoditiesa global ecological catastrophe, who provided perfect descriptions of capitalist dynamics; Marx violations of human rights, sexism, [[homophobia]], antifeminism, the growing [[violence]] not only in far-away countries but also in our megalopolises, the cultural studies who portrayed gap between the alienation First and reification Third Worlds, between rich and poor, the shattering impact of the digitalization of our daily lives. But Lenin: nolives…there is nothing easier today than to get international, you can't be serious! The working-class movementstate, revolutionary party, and similar zombie concepts? Doesn't Lenin stand precisely or corporate funds for the failure multidisciplinary research into how to put Marxism into practice, for fight the catastrophe that left its mark on the entire twentieth-century's world politicsnew forms of ethnic, for the Real Socialist experiment [[religious]] or sexist violence. The problem is that culminated in an economically inefficient dictatorship? In contemporary academic politics, all this occurs against the idea background of dealing with Lenin is accompanied by two qualifications: yes, why nota fundamental Denkverbot, we live in a [[prohibition]] on [[thinking]]. Today's liberal democracy, there -democratic [[hegemony]] is freedom sustained by a kind of thought…however, one should treat Lenin unwritten Denkverbot similar to the infamous Berufsverbot in an "objective critical and scientific way", not [[Germany]] in an attitude the late 1960s: the [[moment]] one shows any minimal [[sign]] of nostalgic idolatry, and, furthermore, from the perspective firmly rooted engaging in political projects that aim seriously to challenge the democratic political existing order, within the horizon of human rights-therein resides the lessons painfully learned through the experience of twentieth-century totalitarianisms.answer is immediately: "Benevolent as it is, this will necessarily end in a new [[Gulag]]!"

What are we to say to And it is exactly this? Again, same thing that the problem resides in the implicit qualifications which can be easily discerned by "concrete analysis of the concrete situationdemand for ", as Lenin himself would have put it. scientific objectivity"Fidelity to means: the democratic consensus" means acceptance of moment one seriously questions the present existing liberal-parliamentary consensus" means acceptance , one is accused of the present liberal-parliamentary consensusabandoning scientific objectivity for outdated ideological positions. As for us here, it goes without saying, which precludes any serious questioning none of how this liberal-democratic order us is complicitous involved in any unconstitutional activities. You probably all [[know]] De Quincey's quip about the phenomena it officially condemns and, "simple art of course[[murder]]": how many people began with a simple murder which at that point, any serious attempt appeared to imagine a society whose sociopolitical order would be different. In short[[them]] nothing special, it means: say and write whatever you want-on condition that what you do does not effectively question or disturb ended up behaving badly at table! Along the predominant political consensus. So everything is allowedsame lines, solicited even, as a critical topic: we would certainly not like to follow in the prospects steps of those who began with a global ecological catastrophe, violations couple of innocent beatings of human rightspolicemen and Molotov cocktails which, sexismat that point, homophobia, antifeminism, the growing violence not only in far-away countries but also in our megalopolisesappeared to them nothing special, the gap between the First and Third Worldsended up as a [[German]] foreign minister. However, between rich and poorthere is a point on which we cannot concede: today, the shattering impact actual freedom of [[thought]] means the digitalization of our daily lives…there is nothing easier today than freedom to get international, state, or corporate funds for multidisciplinary research into how to fight question the new forms of ethnicpredominant, religious or sexist violence. The problem is that all this occurs against the background of a fundamental Denkverbot, a prohibition on thinking. Today's liberal-democratic hegemony is sustained by a kind of unwritten Denkverbot similar to the infamous Berufsverbot in Germany in the late 1960s: the moment one shows any minimal sign of engaging in political projects that aim seriously to challenge the existing order, the answer is immediately: "Benevolent as postideological" consensus-or it is, this will necessarily end in a new Gulag!"means nothing.

And it is exactly this same thing Although most of us probably do not agree with Jurgen [[Habermas]], we do live in an era that could be designated by his term neue Undurchsichtlichkeit, the demand for "scientific objectivity" means: the moment one seriously questions the existing liberal consensus, one is accused of abandoning scientific objectivity for outdated ideological positionsnew opacity. As for us here, it goes without sayingMore than ever, none of us our daily experience is involved in any unconstitutional activitiesmystifying. You probably all know De Quincey's quip about [[Modernization]] generates new obscurantisms; the "simple art reduction of murder": how many people began with a simple murder which at that point, appeared freedom is presented to them nothing special, and ended up behaving badly at table! Along us as the same lines, we would certainly arrival of new freedoms. In these circumstances one should be especially careful not like to follow in confuse the steps of those who began ruling [[ideology]] with a couple of innocent beatings of policemen and Molotov cocktails whichideology that seems to dominate. More than ever, at one should bear in [[mind]] Walter [[Benjamin]]'s reminder that point, appeared it is not enough to them nothing special, and ended up as ask how a German foreign ministercertain [[theory]] (or art) declares itself to stay with regard to social struggles; one should also ask how it effectively functions in these struggles. HoweverIn sex, there the effectively hegemonic attitude is a point on which we cannot concede: todaynot patriarchal [[repression]] but free promiscuity; in art, actual freedom provocations in the style of thought means the freedom to question [[notorious]] "[[Sensation]]" exhibitions are the predominantnorm, liberal-democratic, "postideological" consensus-or it means nothingthe example of the art fully integrated into the establishment.

Although most of us probably do One is therefore tempted to turn round Marx's eleventh [[thesis]]. The first task today is precisely not agree with Jurgen Habermasto succumb to the temptation to act, we to directly intervene and change things (which then inevitably ends in a cul-de-sac of debilitating [[impossibility]]: "what can one do live in an era that could be designated by his term neue Undurchsichtlichkeit, the new opacityagainst global capital?"). More than everRather, our daily experience is mystifying. Modernization generates new obscurantisms; the reduction of freedom task is presented to us question the hegemonic ideological coordinates, or, as the arrival of new freedoms[[Brecht]] put it in his Me Ti, "Thought is something which precedes [[action]] and follows experience. In these circumstances " If, today, one should follows a direct call to act, this act will not be performed in an empty space; it will be especially careful an act within the hegemonic ideological coordinates. Those who "really want to do something to [[help]] people" get involved in (undoubtedly honorable) exploits like Medecins Sans Frontieres, Greenpeace, and [[feminist]] and antiracist campaigns, which are all not to confuse only tolerated but even supported by the ruling ideology with ideology [[media]]; even if they seemingly enter economic territory (say, by denouncing and boycotting companies that do not respect ecological conditions or that seems to dominateuse [[child]] labor). More than ever, one should bear in mind Walter Benjamin's reminder that it is They are tolerated and supported so long as they do not enough get close to ask how a certain theory limit. Let us take two predominant topics of today's radical American academia: postcolonial and queer (or artgay) declares itself studies. The problem of postcolonialism is undoubtedly crucial; however, "postcolonial studies" tend to stay with regard translate it into the multiculturalist problematic of the colonized minorities' "right to social struggles; one should also ask how it effectively functions in these struggles. In sexnarrate" their victimizing experience of the power mechanisms that [[repress]] "[[otherness]]" so that, at the end of the day, we learn the effectively hegemonic attitude root of postcolonial exploitation is not patriarchal repression but free promiscuity; our [[intolerance]] toward the Other, and, furthermore, that this intolerance toward the "Stranger in artOurselves", provocations in our inability to confront what we [[repressed]] in and of ourselves. The politico-economic struggle is thus imperceptibly transformed into a pseudo-[[psychoanalytic]] drama of the style [[subject]] unable to confront its inner traumas. The [[true]] corruption of American academia is not primarily financial-it is not only that they are able to buy many European critical intellectuals (myself included, up to a point)-but [[conceptual]]: notions of the notorious "SensationEuropean" exhibitions [[critical theory]] are imperceptibly translated into the normbenign universe of cultural studies chic. With regard to this radical chic, the example first gesture toward [[Third Way]] ideologists and practitioners should be that of praise: they at least play their game in a straight way, and are honest in their acceptance of the art fully integrated into global capitalist coordinates, in contrast with pseudo-radical academic leftists who adopt toward the establishmentThird Way an attitude of utter disdain while their own radicality ultimately amounts to an [[empty gesture]] that obliges no one to anything determinate.

One Lenin is therefore tempted to turn round Marx's eleventh thesis. The first task today is precisely for us not to succumb to the temptation to actnostalgic [[name]] for old, to directly intervene and change things (which then inevitably ends in a culdogmatic [[certainty]]-de-sac of debilitating impossibility: "what can one do against global capital?")quite the contrary. RatherTo put it in [[Kierkegaard]]'s terms, the task Lenin we want to retrieve is to question the hegemonic ideological coordinates, or, as Brecht put it Lenin-in his Me Ti-becoming, "Thought is something which precedes action and follows the Lenin whose fundamental experience." If, today, one follows was that of [[being]] thrown into a direct call to act, this act will not be performed catastrophic new constellation in an empty space; it will be an act within the hegemonic ideological which old coordinates. Those proved useless, and who "really want was thus compelled to do something to help peoplereinvent Marxism-[[recall]] his acerbic remark apropos of some new problem: " get involved in (undoubtedly honorable) exploits like Medecins Sans Frontieres, GreenpeaceAbout this, Marx and feminist and antiracist campaigns, which are all Engels said not a word." The idea is not only tolerated to return to Lenin but even supported by to repeat him in the media; even if they seemingly enter economic territory (say, by denouncing and boycotting companies that do not respect ecological conditions or that use child labor). They are tolerated and supported so long as they do not get close Kierkegaardian sense: to a certain limit. Let us take two predominant topics of retrieve the same impulse in today's radical American academia: postcolonial and queer (gay) studiesconstellation. The problem of postcolonialism is undoubtedly crucial; however, return to Lenin aims neither at nostalgically reenacting the "postcolonial studies[[good]] old revolutionary [[times]]" tend to translate it into nor at the multiculturalist problematic opportunistic-pragmatic adjustment of the colonized minorities' "right old program to narrate" their victimizing experience of the power mechanisms that repress new conditions"otherness" so that, but at [[repeating]], in the end present, the Leninist gesture of reinventing the day, we learn revolutionary [[project]] in the root conditions of postcolonial exploitation is our intolerance toward the Other, [[imperialism]] andcolonialism-more precisely, furthermore, that this intolerance toward after the "Stranger in Ourselves", in our inability to confront what we repressed in and of ourselves. The politico-economic struggle is thus imperceptibly transformed into a pseudo-psychoanalytic drama ideological collapse of the long era of progressism in the subject unable to confront its inner traumascatastrophe of 1914. The true corruption Eric Hobsbawn defined the [[concept]] of American academia is not primarily financial-it is not only that they are able to buy many European critical intellectuals (myself includedthe twentieth century as the [[time]] between 1914, up to a point)-but conceptual: notions the end of "European" critical theory are imperceptibly translated into the benign universe long, peaceful expansion of cultural studies chic. With regard to this radical chiccapitalism, the first gesture toward Third Way ideologists and practitioners should be that of praise: they at least play their game in a straight way1990, and are honest in their acceptance the emergence of the new form of global capitalist capitalism after the collapse of really existing [[socialism]]. What Lenin did for 1914, we should do for1990. "Lenin" stands for the compelling freedom to suspend the stale, existing (post)ideological coordinates, the debilitating Denkverbot in contrast with pseudo-radical academic leftists who adopt toward the Third Way an attitude of utter disdain while their own radicality ultimately amounts to an empty gesture which we live; it simply means that obliges no one we are allowed to anything determinate[[think]] again.

Lenin is for us not the nostalgic name for old, dogmatic certainty-quite the contrary. To put it in Kierkegaard's terms, the Lenin we want to retrieve stance against [[economism]] as well as against pure politics is the Lenin-in-becomingcrucial today, apropos of the Lenin whose fundamental experience was that of being thrown into a catastrophic new constellation [[split]] attitude toward economy in which old coordinates proved useless, and who was thus compelled to reinvent Marxism-recall his acerbic remark apropos (what remains of some new problem) radical circles: "About thison the one hand, Marx and Engels said not a word." The idea is not to return to Lenin but to repeat him in the Kierkegaardian sense: to retrieve the same impulse in today's constellation. The return to Lenin aims neither at nostalgically reenacting the there are pure "good old revolutionary timespoliticians" nor at who abandon economy as the opportunistic-pragmatic adjustment site of struggle and [[intervention]]; on the old program to "new conditions"other hand, but at repeating, in there are the presenteconomists, fascinated by the Leninist gesture functioning of reinventing the revolutionary project in the conditions of imperialism and colonialism-more preciselytoday's [[global economy]], after the politico-ideological collapse who preclude any possibility of the long era of progressism in the catastrophe of 1914a political intervention proper. Eric Hobsbawn defined the concept of the twentieth century as the time between 1914Today, the end of the longmore than ever, peaceful expansion of capitalismwe should here return to Lenin: yes, and 1990economy is the key domain, the emergence of battle will be decided there, one has to break the new form spell of global capitalism after -but the collapse of really existing socialism. What Lenin did for 1914, we intervention should do for1990. "Lenin" stands for the compelling freedom to suspend the stalebe properly political, existing (post)ideological coordinates, the debilitating Denkverbot in which we live; it simply means that we are allowed to think againnot economic.

LeninThe battle to be fought is thus twofold. First-yes-anticapitalism. However, anticapitalism without problematizing capitalism's stance against economism as well as against pure politics political form (liberal parliamentary democracy) is not sufficient, no matter how radical it is crucial . Perhaps the [[lure]] today, apropos of is the [[belief]] that one can undermine capitalism without effectively problematizing the split attitude toward economy in liberal democratic legacy which (what remains ofas some Leftists [[claim]]) radical circles: on the one hand, there are pure "politicians" who abandon economy as the site of struggle although engendered by capitalism, acquired autonomy and intervention; on can serve to criticize capitalism. This lure is strictly correlative to its [[apparent]] opposite, to the other handpseudo-Deleuzian, there are the economistslove-[[hate]], fascinating/fascinated by the functioning poetic depiction of today's global economycapital as a rhizomatic monster/vampire that deterritorializes and swallows all-indomitable, who preclude any possibility of a political intervention proper. Todaydynamic, more than everrising from the [[dead]], we should here return to Lenin: yeseach crisis making it stronger, economy Dionysus-Phoenix reborn. It is the key domain, the battle will be decided there, one has in this poetic (anti)-capitalist reference to break the spell Marx that Marx is really dead: appropriated when deprived of global capitalism-but the intervention should be properly his political, not economicsting.

The battle So where in all this is Lenin? According to be fought is thus twofold. First-yes-anticapitalism. Howeverthe predominant doxa, in the years after the October Revolution, anticapitalism without problematizing capitalismLenin's political form (liberal parliamentary democracy) is not sufficient, no matter how radical it is. Perhaps declining [[faith]] in the lure today is creative capacities of the belief that one can undermine capitalism without effectively problematizing masses led him to emphasize the liberal democratic legacy which (as some Leftists claim), although engendered by capitalism, acquired autonomy [[role]] of [[science]] and can serve to criticize capitalism. This lure is strictly correlative to its apparent oppositescientists, to rely on the [[authority]] of the expert: he hailed "the pseudo-Deleuzian, love-hate, fascinating/fascinated poetic depiction beginning of capital as a rhizomatic monster/vampire that deterritorializes very happy time when politics will recede into the background…and engineers and swallows all-indomitable, dynamic, ever rising from agronomists will do most of the dead, each crisis making it stronger, Dionysus-Phoenix reborntalking. It is in this poetic (anti)-capitalist reference " Technocratic postpolitics? Lenin's [[ideas]] about how the road to Marx that Marx is really dead: appropriated when deprived socialism runs through the terrain of his political stingmonopoly capitalism may appear dangerously naïve today.

So where <<Capitalism has created an accounting [[apparatus]] in all this is Lenin? According to the predominant doxashape of the banks, in the years after the October Revolutionsyndicates, postal service, Leninconsumers's declining faith in the creative capacities of the masses led him societies, and office employee unions. Without big banks socialism would be impossible…our task is here merely to emphasize the role of science and scientistslop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to rely on the authority make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive…This will be country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the expert: he hailed "the beginning production and distribution of that very happy time when politics goods, this will recede into be, so to [[speak]], something in the background…and engineers and agronomists will do most nature of the talkingskeleton of socialist society." Technocratic postpolitics? (Lenin's ideas about how the road to socialism runs through the terrain of monopoly capitalism may appear dangerously naïve today.1960-70, 26: 106)

<<Capitalism has created an accounting apparatus Is this not the most radical expression of Marx's notion of the general intellect regulating all social life in a [[transparent]] way, of the shape postpolitical world in which "administration of people" is supplanted by the banks"administration of things"? It is, syndicates, postal service, consumers' societiesof course, easy to play against this quote the tune of the "critique of instrumental [[reason]]" and office employee unions"[[administered world]]" (verwaltete Welt): "totalitarian" potentials are inscribed in this very formula of [[total]] social control. Without big banks socialism would be impossible…our task It is here merely easy to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent remark sarcastically how, in the Stalinist epoch, the apparatus, to make it of social administration effectively becomes "even bigger." Furthermore, even more democratic, even more comprehensive…This will be country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of is this postpolitical [[vision]] not the production and distribution very opposite of goods, this will be, so to speak, something in the nature [[Maoist]] notion of the skeleton [[eternity]] of socialist society. [[class struggle]] (Lenin 1960-70, 26: 106"everything is political")?

Is this not Are, however, things really so unambiguous? What if one replaces the most radical expression (obviously dated) example of Marxthe central bank with the World Wide Web, today's perfect candidate for the General Intellect? [[Dorothy Sayers]] claimed that [[Aristotle]]'s notion Poetics effectively is the theory of detective novels avant la [[lettre]]: since poor Aristotle didn't yet know of the general intellect regulating all social life in a transparent waydetective novel, he had to refer to the only examples at his disposal-the tragedies. Along the same lines, Lenin was effectively developing the theory of the postpolitical world in which "administration role of peoplethe World Wide Web but, since the Web was unknown to him, he had to refer to the unfortunate central banks. Consequently, can one also say that " is supplanted by without the "administration of things"? It World Wide Web socialism would be impossible…our task ishere merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, of courseeven more democratic, easy even more comprehensive? In these conditions one is tempted to play against this quote resuscitate the tune old, opprobrious, and half-forgotten Marxian dialectics of the "critique of instrumental reason" productive forces and "administered world" (verwaltete Welt): "totalitarian" potentials are inscribed in this very formula the relations of total social controlproductions. It is easy already a commonplace to remark sarcastically howclaim that, ironically, in it was this very dialectics that buried really existing socialism: Socialism was not able to sustain the Stalinist epochpassage from industrial to postindustrial economy. However, does capitalism really provide the apparatus of social administration effectively becomes "even bigger.[[natural]]" Furthermore, is this postpolitical vision frame of the relations of production for the digital universe? Is there not in the World Wide Web and explosive potential also for capitalism itself? Is not the very opposite lesson of the Maoist notion Microsoft monopoly precisely the Leninist one: instead of fighting its monopoly through the state apparatus (recall the eternity court-ordered split of class struggle (the Microsoft Corporation), would it not be more "everything is political[[logical]]")to socialize it, rendering it freely accessible?

Are, however, things really The key antagonism of the so unambiguous? What if one replaces -called new (digital) industries is thus how to maintain the form of (obviously datedprivate) example of the central bank with the World Wide Webproperty, today's perfect candidate for the General Intellect? Dorothy Sayers claimed that Aristotle's Poetics effectively is within which only the theory logic of detective novels avant la lettre: since poor Aristotle didn't yet know of the detective novel, he had to refer to profit can be maintained (see also the only examples at his disposalNapster problem-the tragediesfree circulation of [[music]]). Along And do the [[legal]] complications in bioenergetics not point in the same lines, Lenin was effectively developing direction? The key element of the theory of new international trade agreements is the role "protection of the [[intellectual]] property": whenever, in a merger, a big First World company takes over a Third World Wide Web butcompany, since the Web was unknown to himfirst thing they do is close down the research department. (In [[Slovenia]]-Henkel-Zlatorog, he our company had to refer sign a formal agreement not to the unfortunate central banks. Consequently, can one also say do any research!) Paradoxes emerge here that "without bring the World Wide Web socialism would be impossible…our task is here merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive? In these conditions one is tempted to resuscitate the old, opprobrious, and half-forgotten Marxian dialectics of the productive forces and the relations notion of productions. It is already a commonplace private property to claim that, ironicallyextraordinary [[dialectical]] paradoxes: in India, it was this very dialectics local communities discover that buried really existing socialism: Socialism was not able to sustain the passage from industrial to postindustrial economy. However, does capitalism really provide the "natural" frame of the relations of production for the digital universe? Is there not in the World Wide Web medical practices and explosive potential also [[materials]] they have used for capitalism itself? Is not centuries are now owned by American companies, so they should be bought from them; with the lesson biogenetic companies patentizing genes, we are all discovering that parts of the Microsoft monopoly precisely the Leninist one: instead of fighting its monopoly through the state apparatus (recall the courtourselves-our genetic components-ordered split of the Microsoft Corporation)are already copyrighted, would it not be more "logical" to socialize it, rendering it freely accessible?owned by others.

Today we see the [[signs]] of general unease, which is already exploding: I am, of course, referring to the events usually listed under the name of "Seattle." The key antagonism long honeymoon of triumphant global capitalism is over, the solong-overdue "seven-called new (digital) industries year itch" is thus how to maintain here. [[Witness]] the form panicky reactions of (private) propertythe big media which, within which only from Time to the logic Cable News Network, all of profit can be maintained (see also a sudden started to warn about Marxists manipulating the Napster crowd of "honest" protesters. The problem-is now the free circulation strictly Leninist one of music). And do how to actualize the media's accusations: how to invent the legal complications in bioenergetics not point in organizational structure that will confer on this unrest the same direction? The key element form of the new international trade agreements is universal political demand. Otherwise, the momentum will be lost and what will remain will be the "protection of intellectual property": whenevermarginal [[disturbance]], in perhaps organized as a mergernew Greenpeace, with certain efficiency, but also strictly limited goals, a big First World company takes over a Third World companymarketing strategy, and so on. In other [[words]], the first thing they do key "Leninist" lesson today is close down : politics without the research department. (In Slovenia-Henkel-Zlatorogorganizational form of the party is politics without politics, our company had so the answer to sign a formal agreement not those who want just the (quite adequately named) "new social movements" is the same as the answer of the Jacobins to do any researchthe Girondin compromisers: "You want revolution without the revolution!) Paradoxes emerge here " Today's blockade is that bring there are two ways open for the sociopolitical engagement: either play the notion game of private property the system-"engage in the long march throught the institutions"-or get involved in new social movements, from [[feminism]] through [[ecology]] to extraordinary dialectical paradoxes: in Indiaantiracism. And again, local communities discover the limit of these movements is that medical practices and materials they have used for centuries are now owned by American companies, so not political in the sense of the universal [[singular]]: they should be bought from them; with are "one-issue movements" [[lacking]] the biogenetic companies patentizing genes, we are all discovering that parts [[dimension]] of ourselves[[universality]]-our genetic components-are already copyrightedthat is, owned by othersthey do not relate to the social [[totality]].

Today we see the signs of general uneaseHere, which Lenin's reproach to [[liberals]] is already explodingcrucial: I am, of course, referring they only exploit the working classes discontent to the events usually listed under the name of "Seattle." The long honeymoon of triumphant global capitalism is over, the longstrengthen their own positions vis-overdue "sevenà-year itch" is here. Witness the panicky reactions of vis the big media whichconservatives, from Time to the Cable News Network, all instead of a sudden started [[identifying]] with it to warn about Marxists manipulating the crowd of "honest" protestersend. The problem is now Is this not also the strictly Leninist one of how to actualize the media[[case]] with today's accusations: how left liberals? They like to invent the organizational structure that will confer on this unrest the form of the universal political demand. Otherwiseevoke [[racism]], the momentum will be lost and what will remain will be the marginal disturbanceecology, perhaps organized as a new Greenpeace, with certain efficiency, but also strictly limited goals, marketing strategy[[workers]]' grievances, and so onforth to score points over conservatives without endangering the system. In other wordsRecall how, at Seattle, Bill [[Clinton]] himself deftly referred to the key "Leninist" lesson today is: politics without protesters on the organizational form of streets [[outside]], reminding the party is politics without politics, so gathered leaders [[inside]] the answer guarded palaces that they should listen to those who want just the [[message]] of the demonstrators (quite adequately named) "new social movements" is the same as the answer message which, of course, Clinton [[interpreted]], depriving it of the Jacobins its subversive sting attributed to the Girondin compromisers: "You want revolution without dangerous extremists introducing chaos and violence into the revolution!" Todaymajority of peaceful protesters). It's blockade is that there are two ways open for the sociopolitical engagement: either play the game of the system-"engage in the long march throught the institutions"-or get involved in same with all new social movements, from feminism through ecology up to antiracism. And again, the limit of these movements is that they are not political Zapatistas in the sense of the universal singularChiapas: they are systemic politics is always ready to "one-issue movementslisten to their demands," lacking the dimension depriving them of universality-that their proper political sting. The system isby definition ecumenical, open, tolerant, ready to "listen" to all. Even if one insists on one's demands, they do not relate to are deprived of their universal political sting by the social totalityvery form of negotiation.

Here, Lenin's reproach to liberals is crucial: they only exploit the working classes discontent to strengthen their own positions vis-à-vis the conservatives, instead of identifying with it to the end. Is this not also the case with today's left liberals? They like to evoke racism, ecology, workers' grievances, and so forth to score points over conservatives without endangering the system. Recall how, at Seattle, Bill Clinton himself deftly referred to the protesters on the streets outside, reminding the gathered leaders inside the guarded palaces that they should listen to the message of the demonstrators ( the message which, of course, Clinton interpreted, depriving it of its subversive sting attributed to the dangerous extremists introducing chaos and violence into the majority of peaceful protesters). It's the same with all new social movements, up to the Zapatistas in Chiapas: systemic politics is always ready to "listen to their demands," depriving them of their proper political sting. The system is by definition ecumenical, open, tolerant, ready to "listen" to all. Even if one insists on one's demands, they are deprived of their universal political sting by the very form of negotiation. To repeat Lenin is thus to accept that "Lenin is dead"-that his [[particular ]] solution failed, even failed monstrously, but that there was a [[utopian ]] spark in it worth saving. To repeat Lenin means that one has to distinguish between what Lenin effectively did and the field of possibilities that he opened up, the tension in Lenin between what he effectively did and another dimension, what was "in Lenin more than Lenin himself." To repeat Lenin is to repeat not what Lenin did but what he failed to do, his missed opportunities.

Hardt, M., and A. Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard [[University ]] Press.

Lenin, V.I. 1960-70. Collected Works. 45 vols. Moscow: Foreign [[Languages ]] Publishing House.From: Rethinking Marxism, Volume 13, [[Number ]] 3/4 2001