The end is near⊠only not the way we imagined it
There is an exquisite old Soviet joke about radio Erevan. A listener asks: âIs it true that Rabinovitch won a new car on lottery?â The radio answers: âIn principle yes, itâs true, only it wasnât a new car but an old bicycle, and he didnât win it but it was stolen from him.â Does exactly the same not hold for The Communist Manifesto? Letâs ask radio Erevan: âIs this text still actual today?â We can guess the answer. In principle, yes: it describes wonderfully the mad dance of capitalist dynamics, which reached its peak only today, more than a century and a half later; but⊠Gerald A. Cohen enumerated the four features of the classic Marxist notion of the working class: (1) it constitutes the majority in society; (2) it produces the wealth of society; (3) it consists of the exploited members of society; (4) its members are the needy people in society. When these four features are combined, they generate two further features: (5) the working class has nothing to lose from revolution; (6) the working class can and will engage in a revolutionary transformation of society.1 None of the first four features applies to todayâs working class, which is why features (5) and (6) cannot be generated. (Even if some of the features continue to apply to parts of todayâs society, they are no longer united in singe agent: the needy people in society are no longer the workers, etc.) â Correct as it is, this enumeration should be supplemented by a systematic theoretical deduction: for Marx, they all follow from the basic position of a worker who has nothing but his labour power to sell. As such, workers are by definition exploited; with the progressive expansion of capitalism, they constitute the majority which also produces the wealth; and so on. How, then, are we to find a revolutionary perspective and redefine it in todayâs conditions? Is the way out of this predicament a combinatorics of multiple antagonisms, their potential overlapping? But â to use Laclauâs terms â how is it possible to form a âchain of equivalencesâ from classic proletarians, precariat, unemployed, refugees, oppressed sexual and ethnic groups, and the like?
A good starting point here would be to follow the good old Marxist path and shift the focus from politics to the signs of postcapitalism that are discernible within global capitalism itself. And we donât have to look far: the public figures who exemplify the privatization of our commons â Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, all âsocially consciousâ billionaires â leave bagfuls of warnings in their trail. They stand for global capital at its most seductive and âprogressiveâ â in short, at its most dangerous. (In a speech to Harvard graduates in May 2017, Zuckerberg told his public: âOur job is to create a sense of purpose!â This comes from a man who, with Facebook, has created the worldâs most expansive instrument of purposeless loss of time.) From Zuckerberg to Gates and Musk, they all warn that âcapitalism as we know itâ is approaching its end and advocate countermeasures such as minimal income. One cannot but recall here the famous Jewish joke quoted by Freud: âWhy are you telling me you are going to Lemberg when you are really going to Lemberg?â Here a lie assumes the form of a factual truth: the two friends established an implicit code by which, when you plan to go to Lemberg, you announce that you will go to Cracow and vice versa, so that, within this space, telling the literal truth means lying. And is it not the case that exactly the same holds for Zuckerberg, Musk, and other false prophets of the end of capitalism? We should simply reply to them: âWhy are you telling us that capitalism is coming to an end when capitalism is really coming to an end?â In short, their version of the end of capitalism is the capitalist version of its own end, where everything will change so that the basic structure of domination will remain the sameâŠ
More serious is the rise of what Jeremy Rifkin calls the âcollaborative commonsâ (CC), a new mode of production and exchange that leaves behind private property and market exchange: in CC individuals are giving their products for free, releasing them into circulation. This emancipatory dimension of CC should, of course, be located in the context of the rise of what is called âthe internet of thingsâ (IoT) in combination with another result of todayâs development of productive forces: the explosive rise of âzero marginal costsâ whereby more and more products, and not only information, can be reproduced for no additional costs. The IoT is the network of physical devices, vehicles, buildings, and other items embedded in electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and network connectivity that enable these objects to collect and exchange data; it allows objects to be sensed and controlled remotely, across an existing network infrastructure. Thus the IoT creates opportunities for a more direct integration of the physical world into computerbased systems and causes improved efficiency, accuracy, and economic benefit across the board. When the IoT is augmented with sensors and actuators, the technology becomes an instance of the more general class of cyberphysical systems, which also encompass technologies such as smart grids, smart homes, intelligent transportation, and smart cities; each thing is uniquely identifiable through its embedded computing system and is able to interoperate within the existing internet infrastructure. The interconnection of these embedded devices (including smart objects) is expected to usher in automation in nearly all fields, while also enabling advanced applications such as a smart grid and expanding to the areas such as smart cities. âThingsâ can also refer to a wide variety of devices such as heart-monitoring implants, biochip transponders on farm animals, electric clams in coastal waters, automobiles with built-in sensors, and DNA analysis devices for environmental, food, or pathogen monitoring. These devices collect useful data with the help of various existing technologies and then autonomously reflow these data between other devices. Human individuals, too, are âthingsâ whose states and activities are continuously registered and transmitted without their knowledge: their physical movements, their financial transactions, their health, their eating and drinking habits, what they buy and sell, what they read, listen to, and watch are all collected in digital networks that know them better than they know themselves.
The prospect of the IoT seems to compel us to turn Friedrich Hölderlinâs famous line â[b]ut where the danger is also grows the saving powerâ upside down: âbut where the saving power is also grows the dangerâ (wo aber das Rettende ist, wĂ€chst die Gefahr auch). The âsavingâ aspect of the IoT was described in detail by Jeremy Rifkin, who claims that, for the first time in human history, a path of overcoming capitalism is discernible as an actual tendency in social production and exchange, namely the growth of cooperative commons, so that the end of capitalism is on the horizon. The crudest Marxist hypothesis seems to be re-vindicated: the development of new productive forces makes capitalist relations obsolete. The ultimate irony is that, while former communists (China, Vietnam) are today the best managers of capitalism, developed capitalist countries go furthest in the direction of collaborative or cooperative commons as the way to overcome capitalism.
But this gives birth to new dangers, even if we discount false worries such as the idea that IoT will boost unemployment. (Isnât this âthreatâ a good reason to reorganize production so that workers will work much less? In short, isnât this âproblemâ its own solution?) At the concrete level of social organization, the danger is a clearly discernible tendency of the state and private sector to regain control over the cooperative commons: personal contacts are privatized by Facebook, software by Microsoft, search by Google⊠To grasp these new forms of privatization, one should critically transform Marxâs conceptual apparatus. As a result of his neglect of the social dimension of âgeneral intellectâ â which is, roughly, the collective intelligence of a society â Marx didnât envisage the possibility of privatizating general intellect itself; but this is what lies at the core of the struggle for âintellectual propertyâ. Negri is right here: within this frame, exploitation in the classic Marxist sense is no longer possible â which is why it has to be enforced more and more through direct, legal measures, in other words by a noneconomic force. This is why today exploitation more and more takes on the form of rent: as Carlo Vercellone put it, postindustrial capitalism is characterized by âthe profitâs becoming rentâ.2 And this also explains why direct authority is needed: it is needed to impose the arbitrary yet legal conditions for the extraction of rent, conditions that are no longer âspontaneouslyâ generated by the market. Perhaps therein resides the fundamental âcontradictionâ of todayâs postmodern capitalism: while its logic is deregulatory, antistatal, nomadicâdeterritorializing, and so on, the key tendency in it, that of the profit to become rent, signals the strengthening role of the state, whose (not only) regulatory function is more and more all-present. Dynamic deterritorialization coexists with and relies on increasingly authoritarian interventions by the state and its legal and other apparatuses. What one can discern as looming on the horizon of our historical becoming is thus a society in which libertarianism and individual hedonism coexist with (and are sustained by) a complex web of regulatory state mechanisms. Far from disappearing, the state is becoming stronger today.
When, due to the crucial role of general intellect in the creation of wealth through knowledge and social cooperation, forms of wealth are more and more out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production, the result is not, as Marx seems to have expected, the selfdissolution of capitalism, but the gradual and relative transformation of the profit generated through the exploitation of labour â its transformation, namely, into rent appropriated through the privatization of general intellect. Let us consider the case of Bill Gates. How did he become the richest man in the world? His wealth has nothing to do with the production costs of the products that Microsoft is selling, in fact one can even argue that Microsoft is paying its intellectual workers a relatively high salary; which means that Gatesâs wealth is not the result of his success either in producing better software for lower prices than his competitors or in exerting a more ruthless exploitation over his hired intellectual workers. If it were, Microsoft would have gone bankrupt long ago: people would have massively chosen programs like Linux, which are free and, according to specialists, of better quality than Microsoft. Why, then, are millions still buying Microsoft? Because Microsoft imposed itself as a quasi-universal standard that almost monopolized the field, a kind of direct embodiment of general intellect. Gates became the richest man in a couple of decades by appropriating the rent for allowing millions of intellectual workers to participate in the new form of general intellect that he privatized and controls. Is it true, then, that todayâs intellectual workers are no longer separated from the objective conditions of their labour (they own their laptops, for example) â which is Marxâs description of capitalist alienation? Yes; but, more fundamentally, no: they are cut off from the social field of their work, from a general intellect that is not mediated by private capital.
What ghosts are haunting us today?
All these paradoxes of the contemporary global capitalism compel us to confront in a new way the old question of spectrality, of ghosts haunting our unique historical situation. The most famous ghost that has been roaming around in the last 150 years was not a ghost of the past, but the spectre of a revolutionary future â that, of course, of the first sentence from The Communist Manifesto. Todayâs enlightened liberal reader is bound to have an automatic reaction to the Manifesto. Isnât this text simply wrong, on so many empirical accounts, in the picture it gives of the social situation as well as in the revolutionary perspective it sustains and propagates? Was there ever a political manifesto that was more clearly falsified by the subsequent course of history? Isnât the Manifesto, at its best, an exaggerated extrapolation of certain tendencies discernible in the nineteenth century? But let us approach the Manifesto from the opposite end. Where do we...