You are on page 1of 20



Eugene Holland

1. What follows is in the nature of a thought-experiment. It is well known that Marx was familiar with pino!a" indeed# he hand-copied whole passages of pino!a$s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus into his note%ooks. &ess clear is the significance of this fact# and the extent of pino!a$s influence on Marx$s thought.1 'he aim of the experiment here is to deli%eratel( exaggerate the extent of that influence: to think through some of the possi%le implications of placing pino!a at the heart of Marx$s endeavor. 2. )irst steps in such a thought-experiment have alread( %een taken. Most nota%l(# *lthusser$s efforts to expunge +egelianism from Marx$s work involved replacing +egel with pino!a in man( respects# although the extent of *lthusser$s reliance on and confidence in pino!a remains unclear. More dramaticall(# *ntonio ,egri has argued in favor of pino!a$s materialism# suggesting it is an important# earl(-modern precursor of Marx$s full( modern materialism. -ierre Machere( has staged a direct confrontation %etween pino!a and +egel# stressing the degree to which the former eludes the grasp of the latter$s histor( of philosoph(# and therefore represents an important alternative to +egelian views. .illes /eleu!e# finall(# has mined the western philosophical tradition for alternatives to +egel# among which pino!a must %e counted as one of the most important.2 'hese are the primar( resources upon which I will draw in tracing the outlines of a pino!an alternative to +egelian Marxism. 0. )irst# though# a %rief sketch of wh( alternatives to +egel and +egelian Marxism have seemed so desira%le over the course of the last few decades. In *lthusser$s own case# there were %attles to %e fought against talinism within the )rench 1ommunist -art(.0 )or /eleu!e and much of poststructuralism# there was the attraction of ,iet!sche 2who had himself cited pino!a as a

precursor3# whose views and method contrasted sharpl( with those of +egel# if not of Marx himself.4 More generall(# the impetus to reevaluate +egelian Marxism in )rance arose in response to a num%er of post-war developments# in the fields of politics and academics alike: the decline of the )rench working class as a 5class-conscious5 political actor# and of the )rench 1ommunist -art( as its 5revolutionar(5 vanguard# in )ifth 6epu%lic politics and societ(" %ut also the demise of oviet and 1hinese 1ommunisms as via%le or attractive Marx-inspired regimes" and within academics# the growing dissatisfaction with certain +egelian elements of Marxism# among historians as well as philosophers themselves.7 4. Interpretations of the great 6evolution of 189: served as a lighteningrod for much of the historians$ dissatisfaction# as revisionist scholars challenged the Marxist notion that 189: was a 5%ourgeois5 revolution which could serve as a model for a 5proletarian5 revolution to come.; 'he issue was not so much the results of 189: -- which undenia%l( shifted the %alance of power awa( from the aristocrac( and eventuall( led to the installation of %ourgeois rule 2al%eit some ;< (ears later3 -- as the role of the %ourgeoisie as a class in prosecuting it. 'here is an important sense in which the )rench %ourgeoisie did not make the 6evolution: it was 5started5 largel( %( the aristocrac( and 5finished5 in a wa( %( the people of -aris" and the important roles pla(ed %( mem%ers of the )rench %ourgeoisie argua%l( do not add up to the actions of a class activel( pursuing its economic interests %( political means. In one version of a 5materialist5 philosoph( of histor(# transposing the +egelian master-slave dialectic from interpersonal into social terms made social classes 2rather than 5*%solute pirit53 the su%=ects of histor(" %ut the( remained subjects: groups each conceived on the model of a single su%=ect -and (et comprised of man( individual su%=ects -- acting 2consciousl( or not3 in pursuit of 5its5 class interests. 'he pro%lem# in short# was how to s>uare the actual diversit( of motives and actions of particular )rench merchants# law(ers# and statesmen with the unif(ing notion of the %ourgeoisie as a class acting as a 2singular3 political agent in the historical field 2rather than as a personification of capital in the economic field# where class definitions and functions seem relatively unpro%lematic3. 7. Whence the import of *lthusser$s preemptive move: to declare histor( to %e a 5process without a su%=ect#5 and thus drive a wedge %etween 5mess(5 narrative accounts of concrete actors$ roles in historical process# on one hand# and 5rigorous5 definitions of class functions within the mode of production# on the other. ?ne of the several important effects of *lthusser$s efforts within philosoph( to discredit +egelian 5expressive causalit(#5 then# was to 5solve5 the pro%lem of class agenc( in historiograph( %( declaring it moot: Marxism was not a historicism. *s in other facets of his attack on +egel# *lthusser drew here on the philosoph( of pino!a# who distinguished the humanl( inexhausti%le infinit( of causal relations underl(ing historical process from

the 5clear and distinct5 ideas humans can produce regarding the laws and mechanisms of that process.8 )or +egel# the real is the rational and the rational is the real# and a seamless# definitive account of the historical process is therefore possi%le. )or pino!a# %( contrast# real and rational remain distinct# for the most part: there is on one hand the inexhausti%l( rich (et inelucta%l( opa>ue world that we inha%it# and which we apprehend largel( in the mode of imagination# con=ecture# superstition# and the like" there is on the other hand a degree of understanding of that world which human reasoning can provide# %ut onl( %( taking a necessar( distance from the first mode of apprehension. 2* complete rational grasp of the real is possi%le in principle# in a third mode of apprehension which pino!a calls 5intuition#5 %ut it ma( %e largel( the prerogative of .od.3 It is this pino!an distinction %etween two categoricall( different kinds of thought# crossed with &acan$s distinction %etween the (m%olic and Imaginar( registers of the human ps(che or experience# that underla( the science-ideolog( d(ad so central to earl( *lthusserian thought 2though he later a%=ured an( a%solute distinction %etween science and ideolog( as a theoreticist error93. ;. In what is no dou%t his %est-known work in @nglish# A Theory of Literary Production 21:;;3# Machere( developed the implications of this d(ad for literar( studies.: Aut in a su%se>uent 2and so far un-translated3 work# Hegel ou Spinoza 21:8:3# he returns to the source of that distinction# and examines the issues at stake in choosing %etween pino!a and +egel.1< *lthusser had# in his ssays in self-criticism# alread( outlined some of the %enefits of pino!an materialism to the pro=ect of freeing Marxism from +egelian idealism: a conception of ideolog( as a 5materialism of the imaginar(5 and of science as %asicall( mathematical 2derived from the first two of pino!a$s three kinds of knowledge3" a model of non-transcendent causalit( where%( the 25a%sent53 cause is immanent in its effects 2which *lthusser later regretted calling 5structural5 causalit(3" and a view of human action and histor( that was anti-su%=ective and resolutel( non-teleological. *gainst the %ackdrop of *lthusser$s work 2cited p.113# %ut without considering the implications for Marx or Marxism# Machere( sets out in Hegel ou Spinoza to explain wh( pino!a represents the 5true alternative to +egelian philosoph(5 2103. It is from here that our thought-experiment will proceed. 8. Aefore entering into the details of Machere($s comparison# we should %e clear what the thrust of his ma=or claim is# especiall( since its implications for a non-+egelian Marxism are not spelled out. 'he ke( assertion is that 5 pino!a... refutes +egel# o%=ectivel(5 2103. Machere( insists that pino!a and +egel addressed man( of the same pro%lems# %ut solved them in ver( different# not to sa( diametricall( opposed# wa(s. +egel well understood that pino!a was a strong precursor# %ut had to misread him# Machere( suggests# in order to maintain his su%=ective idealism and integrate pino!a into his evolutionist view of the histor( of philosoph(# where%( an( predecessor had

to %e found inferior in some wa( 211-10# :<-:4# 1<8# 108-42# 178# 2793. +egel$s defensive misreading of pino!a thus takes on 5the value of a s(mptom5 2123# in that it constructs 5 pino!a5 as deficient %ecause +egel$s own teleological-su%=ective-idealist premises prevented him from seeing his precursor$s non-finalistic# anti-su%=ective materialism. o %( examining how and wh( +egel$s reading of pino!a goes wrong# Machere( not onl( restores to the histor( of philosoph( 2and# I would want to add# to Marxism3 what is valua%le in pino!a as an alternative to +egel# %ut also sho!s that +egel$s histor( of philosoph( and therefore Hegel"s philosophy of history are wrong: pino!a represents not a moment that could %e simpl( cancelled-retainedsurpassed 2aufgehoben3 %( the march of philosophical progress# %ut a road not taken# an o%=ectivel( pre-existing perspective in philosoph( that gets suppressed with the 2perhaps temporar(# certainl( local3 triumph of +egelianism and idealism in Western philosoph(# including much Marxism311 Machere($s reading is thus classic *lthusserian ideolog(-criti>ue: not an assertion that +egel happened to get pino!a wrong# %ut a demonstration that# given his premises and pro=ect# +egel had to get pino!a wrong# in a specific !ay and for specific reasons. 9. In contrast with 2and in defense of3 his own position# then# +egel construes pino!a$s philosoph( as positivistic and static# entirel( lacking that essential# d(nami!ing feature of his own s(stem: negativit(. In the +egelian dialectic# negativit( is what ena%les pirit to posit itself as su%stance 2the initial negation3# then recuperate itself as pirit 2the negation of the negation3 in a 2or in 5the53 historical process that leads ultimatel( to the reconciliationreintegration of su%stance in *%solute pirit at the end of histor(. 'he charges against such a view# especiall( within Marxism# are well-known: idealism# in that the main actor or agenc( is pirit or Mind" transcendental su%=ectivism# in that this historical agent# *%solute pirit# is a su%=ect that transcends an( and all concrete su%=ects and indeed histor( itself" teleologism# in that the end of histor( is guaranteed %( the dialectical process of negation of negation# so that even errors and mishaps eventuall( contri%ute to the reali!ation of *%solute pirit through histor(. *nd (et much of what passes as Marxist philosoph( of histor( -- including much 2though not all3 of Marx$s own -- merel( translates or inverts +egelian idealism into a 5materialism5 that nonetheless retains the transcendental su%=ectivism and the teleologism: classes act as transcendental su%=ects in the historical 5dialectic5 of class struggle# which will according to necessar( laws produce a classless societ( with the collapse of capitalism at the end of histor(.12 'his grand eschatological narrative of histor(# as I have alread( suggested# no longer inspires total confidence# even among Marxists. 6ather than rehearse the well-known criti>ues# Machere($s stud( proposes pino!a as 5the true alternative to +egel5 and# though onl( %( implication# to +egelian Marxism.

:. 'o %e true alternatives# however# pino!a and +egel must have something in common: as Machere( shows# the %asic principle the( share is that thought and matter are 5ultimatel(5 identical. Aut the forms of this 5ultimate identit(5 are ver( different. In place of +egel$s idealism# which su%mits matter to thought via the negation of the negation# pino!a offers a position which 2as Machere( notes3# is certainl( anti-idealist# if not actuall( materialist. 6ather than elevate thought over matter 2or matter over thought# as in a simple 5materialist5 inversion of idealism3# pino!a considers thought and matter to %e a%solutel( co-e#ual: 'hought and @xtension are different %ut not opposed 25non opposita sed diversa53 attri%utes of u%stance. *nd as attri%utes of the sameuni>ue u%stance# their identit( is given -- whereas for +egel# the identit( of pirit and matter is onl( achieved at the end of histor(. @ven more crucial: for pino!a# 'hought is a propert( of u%stance# not of a su%=ect" in place of +egel$s transcendental su%=ectivism# pino!a offers a kind of immanent o%=ectivism# for which no negativit( and no contradiction are possi%le or necessar(.10 2'he success of 1artesian geometr( and pino!a$s own practice as an optician no dou%t contri%uted considera%l( to his conviction that the universe is knowa%le in its own terms# that it has mathematical 5'hought5 as one of its innate properties.3 'he pino!an universe# then# is o%=ectivel( knowa%le" knowa%ilit( is one of its inherent features. 1<. Aut whether such o%=ective knowa%ilit( is ever su%=ectivel( reali!ed in human thinking is a ver( different >uestion# for pino!a: it depends on humans overcoming the su%=ective limitations of the first kind of knowledge through critical reflection# there%( ena%ling the second kind of knowledge to approximate more closel( the 5o%=ective5 'hought inherent in u%stance itself. 'he development of ade>uate ideas does not follow automaticall( from the march of pirit and the ruse of reason# %ut depends on humans$ a%ilit( to distance themselves from the distortions of su%=ect-centered thinking# which pino!a calls 5imagination5 2and *lthusser# 5ideolog(53. 'his a%ilit( varies 2sociall(# politicall(# historicall(3# and is in no !ay guaranteed to increase through time. o in place of +egel$s teleologism# pino!a offers onl( the possibility that humans will forgo the illusions of su%=ect-centered imagination and develop more ade>uate knowledge. 11. )inall( -- and this is where pino!a$s materialism comes into pla( -- the prime measure of such ade>uac( is not some ultimate reconciliation of pirit and matter# %ut rather the degree to which human powers are reali!ed and increased. +umankind is a determinate mode of o%=ective u%stance =ust like ever(thing else in ,ature# and as such it tends 2according to the principle pino!a calls 5conatus5 - striving3 to develop its powers to the utmost.14 What distinguishes humans is that# %( acting in the mode of 'hought as well as @xtension# the( are a%le to understand# su%mit to# participate in# and there%( enhance the forces of ,ature# of which the(

nonetheless remain a part. 2'his insistence on the situatedness of humankind in and as part of ,ature is what endears pino!a to modern-da( environmentalists# along with his criti>ue of and 5monist5 alternative to 1artesian su%=ect-o%=ect dualism.173 Bnlike imagination# ade>uate thinking furthers human-natural development rather than hindering it. 12. ?n one occasion# pino!a$s own practice of 5rational5 critical reflection targeted religion as the dominant mode of 5imaginar(5 thinking" (et his assessment of it was historical rather than strictl( epistemological.1; 'he Cudeo-1hristian tradition whose histor( he was among the first to stud( from a secular perspective was not simpl( !rong: it served certain purposes for a certain group at the time of its development" %ut %( pino!a$s own time# it had long out-lived its usefulness and now acted as a hindrance to the development of human-natural forces# especiall( in its opposition to the natural sciences. We might toda(# in a similar vein# claim that the ideolog( and practices of possessive individualism associated with the capitalist market ma( for a time have increased human-natural powers# %ut that the( have %( our time %ecome a hindrance and even a threat to their continuing development. 10. It ma( now %e possi%le to discern the kind of 5materialist dialectic5 that Machere( hints at 2without developing3 in the conclusion of Hegel ou Spinoza# which closes with the >uestion of 5what distinguishes an idealist dialectic from a materialist dialectic5 227:3: 56eading pino!a after# %ut not according to# +egel ena%les us to pose the >uestion of a non-+egelian dialectic... Deven thoughE it does not in and of itself ena%le us to answer it5 22;<3. * materialist dialectic derived from pino!a might indeed %ear comparison with one of the philosophies of histor( found in Marx himself: the one positing a dialectic of forces and relations of production instead of class struggle as the 5motor of histor(.5 'his is perhaps the least +egelian of Marx$s several philosophies of histor(# inasmuch as it eschews the transcendental su%=ectivism of the class struggle model.18 )or it is not a matter here of a contradiction %etween antithetical class-su%=ects necessaril( leading to the s(nthesis of classless societ(# %ut of a tension %etween two ensem%les -forces and relations of production -- which not onl( are not su%=ectivities themselves# %ut also cut across class %oundaries altogether.19 14. Fet this Marxian model# considered from the perspective of pino!an materialism# still contains residual elements of transcendental su%=ectivism and teleologism: teleologism inasmuch as stagnant production relations# according to this model# necessarily come into conflict at some point with productive forces that nevertheless continue to develop# there%( eventuall( causing a revolutionar( explosion which eliminates the old relations and replaces them with ones %etter a%le to continue developing the productive forces1:" and a certain su%=ectivism inasmuch as the development of these human-centered productive forces# with something like 5species-%eing5

rather than classes as transcendental su%=ect# is still considered the motor of histor( 2though not necessaril( its telos# which is rather the reali!ation of human freedom presumed to depend on the development of productive forces3. pino!an materialism would eliminate these residuals in two wa(s. 17. )irst of all# for pino!a the 5productive forces5 at issue in histor( are not exclusivel( or primaril( those of humankind# %ut those of ,ature as a whole# of which humankind is of course an integral part# %ut onl( a part. pino!a thus offers a kind of anti-humanism 2perhaps even more thoroughgoing than *lthusser$s own3 that would impel Marxism to eschew 5productivism5 2i.e.# the exclusive focus on marketable productive forces3 and consider humankind 2as Marx himself often does 2<3 a part of ,ature rather than its master. It is in this pino!an vein that /eleu!e and .uattari affirm in Anti-$edipus that 5,ature G Industr(... G +istor(5.21 1;. econdl(# and especiall( with 5productive forces5 understood in this wa( to mean those of ,ature %roadl( construed 2i.e. including %ut not limited to humankind3# pino!an materialism would completel( remove the inevita%ilit( of revolution and the progressivism of historical process itself# for there is no guarantee for pino!a that human thought will continuall( or even consistentl( achieve the o%=ectivit( re>uired to help rather than hinder the development of productive forces. 'here is no guarantee# in other words# that developing marketa%le productive forces will necessarily %reak the shackles of stagnant production relations# nor even that productive forces in the %road sense will keep developing continuousl(. What if# on the contrar(# stagnant production relations %ecome so entrenched as to prevent revolution altogether# and even to cause the productive forces to diminish instead of continue developingH 1ouldn$t it %e said that this in fact alread( the caseH 22 )or Marxism# a rigorousl( non-teleological philosoph( of histor( would have to face the possi%ilit( 2or is it the contemporar( realit(H3 that# on %alance# current production relations promote the destruction rather than the development of productive forces -- whether these are construed narrowl(# as in classical Marxism 2in which case that destruction targets the productive potential of human la%or# and takes the all-too prevalent forms of genocide# malnutrition# sexism and racism# under- and unemplo(ment# stunted intellectual growth through inade>uate education# etc.3# or more %roadl(# as in pino!an materialism 2in which case we are talking a%out the productive potential of ,ature as a whole# and the e>uall(-prevalent pattern of worldwide ecocide: environmental degradation# ha%itat loss# species depletion# etc.3. In either case# a pino!an Marxism would eliminate teleologism from the forces/relation of production model in two wa(s: there would %e no guarantee that forces of production will continue to develop even in the face of restrictive or destructive relations of production" and even if the( were to# there would %e no guarantee that such development will eventuate in an( increase in human freedom.

III 18. 'hese are =ust a few of the implications for Marxism of making a choice %etween +egel and pino!a# for which Machere($s important stud( laid much of the groundwork. 'hen# two (ears after his Hegel ou Spinoza appeared# the Italian legal and political philosopher *ntonio ,egri pu%lished a ver( different kind of %ook on pino!a# L"anomalia salvaggia% Saggio su potere e potenza in &aruch Spinoza 21:913.20 Where Machere( offered a purel( philosophical# 5internal5 reading of pino!a 2and +egel3# ,egri 2while favora%l( citing Machere( on several occasions3 situated pino!a and the evolution of his philosoph( in the context of 18th-centur( /utch societ(# and made the relevance of pino!an materialism to contemporar( Marxism an explicit theme. 'estimon( to the %ook$s importance# a )rench translation 2L"anomalie sauvage' Puissance et pouvoir chez Spinoza 243 appeared immediatel(# with no fewer than three prefaces: one %( Machere( himself# the other two %( the e>uall( prominent )rench pino!a scholars# .illes /eleu!e and *lexandre Matheron. In his short preface# Machere( is content to emphasi!e and praise the wa( ,egri %rings the thought of pino!a 5%ack to life5 in connection with current political concerns# reserving for the ver( end a %rief %ut pointed >uestion regarding whether ,egri$s reading might still %e too teleological. Aut in a longer essa( pu%lished later that (ear 2entitled 5(e la mediation ) la constitution' description d"un parcours speculatif5 273# Machere( examines ,egri$s interpretation of pino!a in greater detail# and returns to the >uestion of its residual +egelianism. *s much as ,egri wants and tries to %reak free of +egelian modes of thought# on Machere($s reading he doesn$t completel( succeed. 19. 'he ke( to ,egri$s ground-%reaking reading is the distinction he draws in pino!a %etween an inferior# earl( pantheism 2which he considers utopian and neo-platonic3 and a more mature materialism that ,egri takes as a precursor to Marx$s own. 1ontrovers( and difficulties arise with this reading %ecause the dividing line separating what ,egri calls the first and second 5foundations5 of pino!a$s thought runs straight down the middle of his ma=or work# the thics. While it is true that pino!a did interrupt the composition of the thics# and drafted a theologico-political treatise %efore returning to revise and complete his magnum opus# it is far from clear from the finished text exactl( how much and how thoroughl( the 5earlier version5 was revised. ,egri makes an alread( difficult philological pro%lem even worse# Machere( argues# %( dramatizing the evolution of pino!a$s thought in order to esta%lish a clear historical %reak %etween an eminentl( disposa%le 5first5 pino!a and an a%solutel( indispensa%le 5second5 one.2; 1:. ,egri$s dramati!ation strikes Machere( as too +egelian -- ironicall( enough# given that ,egri wants to claim pino!a as a true materialist and

eradicate +egelian dialectics and teleologism from Marxism. ,ot onl( is ,egri$s %efore/after narrative account of the two 5foundations5 suspect for Machere(# %ut even more so is his claim that it was 5internal contradictions5 in the first foundation that impelled pino!a %e(ond them and into the second foundation# for such contradictions suggest for Machere( a classic +egelian dialectical progression. Machere( feels ,egri is on far firmer ground when he cites 5external#5 historical circumstances instead of internal contradiction as the reason for the evolution of pino!a$s thought" and it is surel( one of the uni>ue strengths of ,egri$s reading that he situates pino!a$s thought so carefull( in the context of the potentiall( democratic social relations of earl( /utch capitalism: warding off the ver( real threat of encroaching state a%solutism was a ma=or impetus for pino!a$s explicitl( political writings and# argua%l( %ut not o%viousl(# for his revision of the thics# as well. *nd (et# even if one wanted to eliminate +egelian contradiction from accounts of historical process -- as Machere( clearl( does -- couldn$t the notion of contradiction retain some validit( in accounts of philosophical thought and the impetus for its revisionH .ranted# it ma( finall( %e more convincing 2especiall( given the availa%le textual evidence3 to speak of a tension# rather than an a%solute %reak# %etween two 5foundations5 in pino!a 2especiall( in the thics itself3# %ut couldn$t the development of the second %e attri%uted 2at least in part3 to the recognition of contradictions in the first# particularl( if such recognition were spurred 2as ,egri$s contextual account suggests it was3 %( dramatic historical eventsH28 *de>uatel( addressing# much less answering# such >uestions is well %e(ond the scope of this essa(" the point of raising them is merel( to indicate that eliminating the notion of dialectical contradiction from accounts of historical process does not necessaril( entail eliminating it from anal(ses of discourse and thought" there is no reason to assume that histor( mirrors thought# or vice versa" on the contrar(. 2<. In an( case# Machere( accuses ,egri of residual +egelianism in this first instance largel( %ecause he retains a narrative account which includes the notion of contradiction at the level of thought. 'he second instance he diagnoses is somewhat more technical and certainl( more far-reaching in its assessment of ,egri$s stance. It has to do with the role in pino!a$s thought of the notion of attri%utes 2to which Machere( had himself devoted considera%le attention in his own %ook# pp.:7-10;3# regarding which ,egri makes the same misinterpretation that +egel had# according to Machere(. )or %oth# attri%utes supposedl( functioned as intermediaries %etween pure u%stance and its modes# making them availa%le to consciousness" for +egel# then# pino!an attri%utes represented a primitive and insufficient dialectic" for ,egri# the( were alread( too dialectical and would %e a%andoned %( pino!a himself in the 5second foundation.5 ,egri$s misreading of pino!an attri%utes thus pla(s a crucial role in his +egelian dramati!ation of the alleged evolution of pino!a$s thought. Aut the ramifications go further# according to Machere(. A( refusing attri%utes their constitutive function within an identity 2rather than

a dialectic3 of u%stance and its modes# ,egri splits the pino!an perspective in two: into a purel( intellectual# ascetic pro=ect 2corresponding to the first foundation3 on one hand# and a materialist pro=ect 2corresponding to the second foundation3 on the other -- !hose realization !ould be deferred# pending the development of productive forces# until the present of ,egri$s writing. 21. In thus claiming pino!a as an 5anomal(5 whose 5philosoph( of crisis5 at the dawn of modern market societ( would onl( reall( %ear fruit centuries later at the twilight of modern market societ(# i.e. in the present-da( capitalist crisis# ,egri indulges in the kind of a posteriori +egelian teleologism %oth he and Machere( are interested in eliminating from Marxian thought. *ccording to this version of a Marxist philosoph( of histor(# true democratic freedom %ecomes possi%le !hen and only !hen sufficient development of productive forces finall( releases humankind from the grip of dire necessit(. We have had to wait so long since pino!a first put true democrac( on the modern agenda# %ut now# at last# the moment has arrived... 'here are two pro%lems with this ascetic teleolog(. )or one thing# there can %e no assurance for pino!a that accomplishment of the 5materialist5 half of the ethical pro=ect would in itself necessaril( procure the accomplishment 2vi!. the dissolution3 of the 5ascetic5 half# no assurance that the ascetic personalit( will 5wither awa(5 of its own accord in order to partake of what ,egri calls the 5pleasure of the world5: as noted a%ove# humankind has onl( the possi%ilit(# not the guarantee# of attaining ideas ade>uate to true 'hought and thus reali!ing freedom. +ence the importance of /eleu!e and .uattari$s pro=ect in the Anti$edipus: the( insist# from a pino!an-materialist perspective# on diagnosing both the ascetic personalit( and capitalist surplus-repression simultaneousl(# !ithout giving causal priorit( to either. Aut perhaps more important# pino!an materialism 2pace ,egri3 rules out an( such 5dialectic5 %etween 5materialist5 and 5ascetic5 pro=ects: the productive forces of u%stance 2including human productive forces3 are at an( given moment alwa(s precisel( e>ual to themselves and to the amount of freedom effectivel( reali!ed 2though the( also alwa(s contain further possi%ilities for development# which ma( or ma( not %e reali!ed in histor(3. 'here never is# never has %een# an( negativit( within u%stance" it is alwa(s full of productive force# even over-full with purel( positive potential to develop. 22. Which is not to sa( that the potential of u%stance is alwa(s ever(where reali!ed# nor that whatever degrees of reali!ation it does attain are ever simple or harmonious. ?n the contrar(# pino!a acknowledged that the development of u%stance entailed increasing complexit(# tur%ulence and conflict" on ,egri$s reading# nothing %rought this home to pino!a more than the emergence in 18th-centur( /utch societ( of market capitalism# which pitted individuals against one another to a degree the corporate order of feudalism never had# there%( threatening the ver( fa%ric of social order. ,egri

refers to this development as the market-induced 5crisis5 of modern societ(# to which pino!a alone# in his view# gave an ade>uate response. *nd Machere(# despite charging him with residual +egelianism# clearl( appreciates the wa( ,egri has pinpointed the political relevance of pino!a toda(. In an essa( surve(ing other responses to the crisis# Machere( shows 2as he did in his %ook3 what pino!a shares with +egel and the tradition of modern @uropean political thought# in order then to highlight what sets him radicall( apart.29 *nd here# too# it turns out 2on Machere($s reading3 that pino!a resem%les +egel in crucial respects more than either +o%%es or 6ousseau# even while remaining a virulent critic of and via%le alternative to the dominant tradition that# taken together despite their differences# the( comprise. *s Michael +ardt 2,egri$s *merican translator3 also insists# what sets pino!a apart is an original# materialist conception of the political relation %etween 5force5 and 5power5 2potentia and potestas3# %etween the basis of political power in effectivel( com%ined human activit( and its mediated e*pressionin political institutions and command.2: 'his %ears examination in further detail. 20. &ike the others# pino!a wanted to settle the >uestion of the %asis of human societ(# given that its feudal-corporatist %asis had %een thrown into crisis %( the emergence of the market and the ideolog( of 5possessive individualism.5 Aut he refused to consider that %asis as somehow separate from human societ( itself -- either in the form of 5natural rights5 pre-existing# and then supposedl( safeguarded %(# the foundation of political societ(# as per the social contract theories of +o%%es and 6ousseau" or in the form of transcendent pirit and the ruse of reason# which merel( use human societies to reali!e their own ends# as per +egel. In contrast to 6ousseau and +o%%es# humankind$s natural state for pino!a is neither un-mitigated war 2+o%%es3 nor solitar( purit( 26ousseau3 %ut alwa(s alread( political: human %eings alwa(s live sociall(# and that socialit( is antagonistic except to the extent that humans reali!e 2i.e. recogni!e and actuali!e3 the superior force of individuals com%ined in cooperative groups relative to that of isolated individuals and those com%ined in uncooperative ones -- that is to sa(# human societ( is inherentl( and# as it were# a%originall( political. Indeed# pino!a is most resolutel( anti-6ousseau# as Machere( points out# in that he insists that the individual does not even exist per se# %ut onl( as an a%straction from the group2s3 of which it is a part: as Machere( puts it# 5individuals exist and %ecome conscious of themselves onl( on the %asis of reciprocal relations esta%lished %etween themselves and others# which cause them to communicate Dwith one anotherE in the first place5 2S+(# p.0403. o for pino!a# as for +egel# the political precedes the personal# and thus cannot %e conceived on the model of a voluntar( contract among pre-existing individuals. 24. Aut whereas for +egel# the political has a histor( 2the +istor( of su%=ective pirit reali!ing itself o%=ectivel( through peoples and the development of the tate3# for pino!a the political exists

immanentl( in histor( -- which is conceived as the 2non-teleological3 ensem%le of reali!ations of natural-human powers. *nd whereas for +egel# the supra-personal political instance is the transcendental su%=ectivit( of pirit# for pino!a# it is simpl( natural force augmented %( the e>uall( natural %ut historicall( contingent com%ination of individuals in groups. uch com%ination produces a potentiall( infinite variet( of socio-political forms in histor(# %ut alwa(s stems from the %asic nature of human passion to knit interpersonal relations and form groups. +umans thus don$t 2have to3 5give over5 their natural rights to sovereign -ower in order to safeguard their private interests and found political societ(: their interpersonal relations were alread( political to %egin with# and their political force depends on how well -- how extensivel(# intensel(# and harmoniousl( -- those passionate relations are composed. 'his re=ection of social contract eliminates an( need for transcendent authorit( 2potestas3# and instead grounds politics immanentl( 2non-dialecticall(3 in the force of the group 2 potentia multitudine3.0< 'here can therefore %e no =ustification or motive for su%mitting to external command or the mediation of the tate# inasmuch as human relations grounded in passion inevita%l( take immediate political forms# without re>uiring those passions to %e contractuall( su%limated into the interests of citi!enship in the tate. *nd at the same time# of course# pino!a$s non-teleological view of histor( disallows an( +egelian 5ruse of reason5 outwitting human motives and guaranteeing that political forms as manifestations of o%=ective pirit will improve" on the contrar(# politics for pino!a is a field of passion more than reason# and it is incum%ent on reason to understand and tr( to make the most of natural-human passions in improving political organi!ation# rather than dominate or suppress them. III 27. 'he political implications of Machere($s discussions of pino!a are not spelled out in the philosophical works considered here" (et comparing pino!a with the %ourgeois tradition culminating in +egel suggests the possi%ilit( of an anti-+egelian# perhaps even a 5non-dialectical#5 Marxist politics. * pino!a-inspired politics would %e non-dialectical in several related senses.01It would for one thing repudiate the dialectical opposition of su%=ect and o%=ect# according to which human freedom is 2to %e3 wrested from nature through the ascetic development of marketa%le productive force at the expense of the productive force and human en=o(ment of nature 2including our own 5human nature53. Instead# the struggle for freedom would %e situated within and as part of the development of nature# rather than as its con>uest and master(" as Machere( puts it# li%eration is not a manipulation of realit( %( su%=ects who would situate themselves somehow outside of the arrangement the( impose on it: Dli%erationE is the expression# the exertion of the ontological force that

constitutes su%=ects themselves# not as independent individuals# %ut as the DmostE versatile elements of the collective s(stem within whose network of interrelations their action is inscri%ed. 2,S# 28-293 *nd of course for pino!a 2whose view of freedom Machere( is summari!ing here3# the 5collective s(stem5 in which all human action takes place is comprised not of human societ( alone# %ut of the %iosphere as a whole. 2;. * pino!an-Marxist politics would# for another thing# eschew mediation# in the sense of a dialectical s(nthesis/resolution of conflicts or differences on a higher plane -- such as the tate or the -art(# %ecause the( tend to re-impose the 5higher plane5 as self-interested domination over the parties in conflict or difference# as -ower 2 potestas3 over force 2potentia3. Instead# political organi!ation would focus on 5the multitude#5 working from the grass-roots outward 2rather than 5up53# making hori!ontal connections with other grass-roots groups rather than forming hierarchical p(ramids" these are alread( the strategies of 5autogestion5 and 5micropolitics5 in )rance# 5autonomia5 in Ital( 2of which ,egri was a prominent spokesperson and theoretician3# 5direct#5 5radical#5 or participator( democrac( and coalition politics in the Bnited tates -- all of which are profoundl( suspicious and critical of 5representative5 politics in %oth its institutional and theoretical forms# and construe the tate as itself a terrain of immanent struggle among# rather than the transcendent# s(nthetic mediation of# conflicting social forces. 28. )inall( and most importantl(# a pino!an-Marxist politics would re=ect all forms of teleologism. )or there can %e no guarantee -- +egelian or +egelian-Marxist -- that 5histor(5 is 5on our side#5 that the development of pirit or of marketa%le productive forces will necessaril( 2or even pro%a%l(3 lead to the reali!ation of human freedom. Instead# political struggle would have to assume the -- far greater -- %urden of reali!ing freedom immediatel(# ever(where and for ever(%od(# with whatever level of productivit( is in force 2a stance that does not# of course# preclude augmenting human-natural productive force as part of the struggle# as long as such augmentation remained su%ordinate to the reali!ation of freedom3. We would have to do awa( with the complacent# even m(stical# +egelian faith that 5histor( alwa(s progresses# even if on its %ad side#5 that is# %( means of disasters rather than accomplishments -- disasters which %( dialectical sleight of hand 2negation of the negation# ruse of reason3 will someda( turn out to have %een %eneficial in the long run. 2*t the rate we are going# humanit( simpl( doesn"t have a 5long run5 in which to redeem the disasters spawned %( capitalism$s exclusive focus on marketa%le productive force: in such a long run# which is %ecoming shorter %( the da(# !e !ould all be dead.3 In the final anal(sis# +egel-inspired 5dialectical5 philosoph( of histor( applied to capitalism ma( amount to nothing more than the 1:th-centur( m(th of progress with the naive optimism

replaced %( a loft(# tragic sensi%ilit( willing to sacrifice the present to its eventual redemption in an indefinite 2and increasingl( unlikel(3 future. 29. +istor( thus shorn of +egelian-dialectical teleologism would not# however# %e %ereft of an( shape or direction whatsoever. ome of the 5laws5 of capitalist development diagnosed %( Marx still appl(: the tendenc( of the rate of profit to fall# %ut with counter-tendencies so significant that a 5final5 profit crisis ma( never arrive" the tendenc( of the gap %etween wealth and povert( to increase continuall(# %ut with immiseration relegated to regions of the glo%e which remain largel( outside the scope of effective political organi!ation" the tendenc( of capital to accumulate and concentrate# of the market to expand geographicall( 2as well as intensif( ps(chologicall(3# of commodit(-production 2and -consumption3 to su%sume greater and greater expanses of social life# of economic growth to entail periodic crises of overproduction/under-consumption# and so on. 1apitalism as a mode of production# that is to sa(# remains profoundl( contradictory# in these and other wa(s.02 *nd these contradictions 2or at least some of them3 ma( indeed constitute the motor of history. Aut the( are no longer to %e construed as dialectical contradictions in the teleological sense understood %( +egelian Marxism# i.e. as destined for s(nthesis/resolution at some shining moment in the future. 1apitalism develops contradictoril(# to %e sure# %ut without an( negativit(: %oth its tendencies and its counter-tendencies are actual forces# locked in an antagonism of which onl( the entirel( positive relations of force# and not some negation of the negation# will determine the outcome. +istor( in this light is not the 5histor( of class struggle5 2as Marx once suggested3" nor is it the dialectic of forces and relations of production 2as he is also known to have suggested3 -- %ecause nothing except the magical thinking of teleologism can assure us that either of these two will ever come into decisive 2i.e. revolutionar(3 contradiction leading dialecticall( to resolution. )or a pino!ainspired Marxism# the onl( universal histor( is the histor( of capitalism as a mode of production" and its motor# for %etter and for worse# is the on-going 2and contradictor(3 self-expansion of capital itself: histor( !ithout a su%=ect# whether a class su%=ect 2the proletariat3 or a transcendental one 2species%eing3. 2:. In addition to contri%uting to the intellectual via%ilit( of Marxism# a%andoning the last vestiges of teleologism might well make Marxists seem less remote from other activists# for we would no longer %e a%le to =ustif( tolerating non-capitalist crimes against humanit( in the name of some inevita%le progress toward world communism as the eventual negation of capitalism$s negation of all humanit(. )or pino!an Marxists# the onl( certifia%le historical tendenc( is for capital to expand and capitalism to intensif( 2with all the contradictions that entails3. *nd it is up to us# the multitude -- without the confident crutch of 5inevita%le#5 much less the complacent# tragic sense of 5dialectical#5 historical progress -- to see that it

doesn$t go unchallenged# %( insisting first and foremost on the goal of reali!ing for ever(one whatever degree of freedom the alread(-given level of productive forces makes possi%le. We would %ecome less forgiving of an( and all ini>uit(... and there%( %elie an( appearance of complicit(.

go to this %ack issue$s index home

Notes 1 ?n the possi%le influence of pino!a on Marx see the articles %( Maximilien 6u%el 25-ar* a la rencontre de Spinoza5 8-293# *lexandre Matheron 25&e Traite Theologico-Politi#ue vu par le jeune -ar*5 17:-2123# and *l%ert Igoin 25(e l"ellipse de la theorie politi#ue de Spinoza chez le jeune -ar* 5 210-293 in ,ahiers Spinoza 1 2 ummer 1:883# which also reprints the handcopied passages 2translated into )rench3 in their entiret(. 2 ome of the other philosophical mavericks of interest to /eleu!e are Aergson and ,iet!sche" pino!a# however# is the onl( figure to which he explicitl( devoted two %ooks. It would %e interesting to examine the contri%ution of pino!a to what is argua%l( /eleu!e$s most Marxist work# Anti-$edipus" for some hints in this direction, see my Introduction to Schizoanalysis(London: Routledge, 1999), especially Chapter 4. 0 ee )redric Cameson# 5'he 6e-invention of Marx#5 Times Literary Supplement# 22 *ugust 1:87# :42-40. 4 'he central difference %etween ,iet!sche and +egel ma( %e that the latter %ases his phenomenolog( on a relation %etween une>uals 2master/slave3# whereas the former starts his genealog( with a relation among e>uals 2see ,iet!sche$s The .enealogy of -orals# especiall( the )irst @ssa(3. 7 )or a more general review and discussion of reasons for the reevaluation of Marxism# see tanle( *ronowit!# The ,risis in Historical -aterialism' ,lass/ Politics/ and ,ulture in -ar*ist Theory# 2nd rev. ed. 2&ondon: Macmillan# 1::<3. ; ?n revisionist interpretations of 189:# see )rancois )uret# -ar* and the 0rench 1evolution 21hicago: Bniversit( of 1hicago -ress# 1:993" and .eorge

1omminel# 1ethinking the 0rench 1evolution' -ar*ism and the 1evisionist ,hallenge 2&ondon: Jerso# 1:983. 8 )or *lthusser$s discussion of his use of pino!a# see ssays in selfcriticism 2&ondon: ,&A" *tlantic +ighlands# ,.C.: +umanities -ress# 1:8;3. 9 ee ssays in self-criticism# especiall( chapter 2. : A Theory of Literary Production 2&ondon: 6outledge K Legan -aul# 1:893. 1< Hegel ou Spinoza 2-aris: )rancois Maspero# 1:8:3" page references follow citations in the text. It is fair to sa( that Machere( here poses rather than answers the >uestion of what pino!a might contri%ute to Marxism as a replacement for +egel. 11 In a similar vein# tephen C. .ould argues against teleologism in evolutionar( theor( in his 2onderful Life' the &urgess Shale and the 3ature of History 2,ew Fork: W.W. ,orton# 1:9:3. 12 'his is certainl( not the onl( philosoph( of histor( present# explicitl( or implicitl(# in Marx. 'he concrete historical studies are certainl( far more complex. Fet even as complicated an account as The ighteenth &rumaire argua%l( retains the notion of dialectical historical progress# in the figure of the 5mole5 of histor( working underground to prepare the conditions for inevita%le revolution. )or a surve( of philosophies of histor( in Marx# see Walter *damson# 5Marx$s )our +istories: an approach to his intellectual development#5 History and Theory 2<:4 21:923 08:-4<2. 10 +egel took pino!a to %e a monist whose philosoph( lacked the d(namic of negativit( necessar( to comprehend matter in all its complexit(" Machere(# %( contrast# reads complexit( as immediatel( reali!ed in pino!an su%stance rather than %eing su%se>uent to interaction with Mind" /eleu!e# in a similar vein# sees su%stance as itself productive of difference. ee his *pressionism in Philosophy' Spinoza 2,ew Fork: Mone Aooks# 1::<3" and Michael +ardt# .illes (eleuze' an Apprenticeship in Philosophy 2Minneapolis: Bniversit( of Minnesota -ress# 1::03. 14 ?n 5conatus#5 see .. /eleu!e# Spinoza/ practical philosophy 2 an )rancisco: 1it( &ights Aooks# 1:993" and M. +ardt# .illes (eleuze" on the expansion of human-natural powers in a pino!an vein# see /eleu!e and .uattari$s Anti-$edipus 2,ew Fork: Jiking# 1:883. 17 ?n pino!a and environmentalism# see *rne ,ess# 5 pino!a and ecolog(#5 in Speculum Spinozanum/ 4566-4766# iegfried +essing# ed. 2&ondon: 6outledge K Legan -aul# 1:883 419-427# who asserts that 5,o great

philosopher has so much to offer in the wa( of clarification and articulation of %asic ecological attitudes as Aaruch pino!a5 24203" and his 0reedom/ motion and Self-subsistence 2?slo: Bniversitets-forlaget# 1:873" see also *ndrew 1ollier# 5'he Inorganic Aod( and the *m%iguit( of )reedom#5 1adical Philosophy 78 2 pring 1::13 0-:. 1; ee pino!a# Tractactus Theologico-Politicus D.e%hardt edition# 1:27E 2&eiden" ,ew Fork: @.C. Arill# 1:9:3. 18 'here are several philosophies of histor( in Marx 2see note 12 a%ove3. 6ather than search for a definitive 5%reak5 separating distinct positions in Marx 2as *lthusser does3# it ma( %e more rigorous and fruitful to recogni!e tensions within the corpus among different or 5competing5 views. 19 )orces of production include the la%or-power of the proletariat# to %e sure# %ut also the knowledge# technolog( and organi!ation provided %( the capitalist" relations of production include the relations %etween the classes# clearl(# %ut also cultural or ideological elements 2such as possessive individualism or asceticism3 which ma( %e common to %oth workers and capitalists (et serve neither$s interests. )or attempts to construe class in other than transcendental-su%=ective terms# see ,icos -oulant!as# ,lasses in ,ontemporary ,apitalism 2&ondon: ,ew &eft Aooks# 1:873 and .uillermo 1archedi# $n the conomic +dentification of Social ,lasses 2&ondon: 6outledge K Legan -aul# 1:893 1: 'his model appears in the ,ommunist -anifesto 2Marx and @ngels# &asic 2ritings on Politics and Philosophy# &ewis )euer# ed. D.arden 1it(# ,ew Fork: /ou%leda(# 1:7:E3: 5*t a certain stage of the development of DtheE means of production and of exchange# the conditions under which feudal societ( produced and exchanged... %ecame no longer compati%le with the alread( developed productive forces" the( %ecame so man( fetters. 'he( had to %e %urst asunder" the( were %urst asunder5 2943 -- where histor( as class struggle nevertheless also appears# in one of its most striking formulations: 5'he histor( of all hitherto existing societ( is the histor( of class struggles5 2913. ?ne of Marx$s strokes of genius was to have replaced +egel$s su%=ecto%=ect dialectic of pirit and Matter with a dialectic %etween transformative human la%or and the natural environment. Aut such a 5materialist5 reversal of +egel ma( end up merel( producing a Marxian 5metaph(sics of production5 2as per Aaudrillard# The -irror of Production D t. &ouis: 'elos -ress# 1:87E" and/or merel( reproducing a su%=ect-o%=ect dialectic in which the fate of the human species is irrevoca%l( tied to the domination of nature. In an( case# the presumption that the development of productive force would in and of itself produce human freedom appears increasingl( du%ious: alread( in the 1:7<s# Marcuse 2in ros and ,ivilization DAoston: Aeacon -ress# 1:843 coined the important term 5surplus-repression5 to designate the lag %etween the

development of productive forces and the reali!ation of freedom" more recentl(# 6egis /e%ra( 2in ,riti#ue of Political 1eason D&ondon: Jerso# 1:90E has gone so far as to den( an( link whatsoever %etween the development of productive forces and the prospects for political advancement and the reali!ation of freedom. 2< Most nota%l( in his ,riti#ue of the .otha Program# where Marx insists right from the start that value derives from nature as well as from human la%or" see also the passages on alienation in the 4899 -anuscripts# where he asserts that man is a part of nature 2e.g. Marx# arly 2ritings# N. +oare# ed. D,ew Fork: Jintage# 1:87E 028-293. 21 /eleu!e and .uattari make the insepara%ilit( of humanit( and nature a ke( feature of their Marxism in Anti-$edipus3 see especiall( p.27: 5,ature G Industr(# ,ature G +istor(.5 22 'his is the case made %( ,egri and %( -aul Jirilio# who see 1:18/1:2: as a crucial turning-point where capitalist crisis leads not to the overthrow of capital li%erating its productive potential %ut to the self-destruction of that potential# ultimatel( in the form of permanent war instead of human leisure and social luxur(" see *ntonio ,egri# 1evolution 1etrieved' 2ritings on -ar*/ :eynes/ ,apitalist ,risis/ and 3e! Social Subjects 2&ondon: 6ed ,otes# 1:993 and -aul Jirilio# Speed and Politics 2,ew Fork: emiotext2e3# 1:973# esp. -art IJ# 5'he tate of @mergenc(5. 20 Milan: )eltrinelli# 1:91" translated as The Savage Anomaly' the Po!er of Spinoza"s -etaphysics and Politics 2Minneapolis: Bniversit( of Minnesota -ress# 1::13. 24 -aris: -resses Bniversitaires de )rance# 1:92. 27 In ,ahiers Spinoza no.4 2Winter 1:92-903 :-08" page references to this article 2designated 5,S53 henceforth follow citations in the text. 2; ,egri$s reading of pino!a thus mirrors *lthusser$s reading of Marx: %oth strive to esta%lish a 5%reak5 within their respective corpi# despite considera%le philological difficult(. 28 /eleu!e will propose a ver( different reason for the differences %etween the earlier and later portions of the thics# having to do with the move from speculative to practical considerations" see his *pressionism in Philosophy. 29 ee -ierre Machere(# 5Spinoza/ la fin de l"histoire et la ruse de la raison #5 in Spinoza' +ssues and (irections 2&eiden# 'he ,etherlands: @.C. Arill# 1::<3 028-4;" page references to this article 2designated 5 S+(53 henceforth follow

citations in the text. )or Machere($s review of /eleu!e$s reading of pino!a# see his 5Penser dans Spinoza5 in -agazine Litteraire 278 2 eptem%er 1:993 4<-40. 2: ee +ardt$s 5'ranslator$s -reface5 to his @nglish translation of Savage Anomaly 2note 2;3" and the two-volume stud( of Martial .ueroult 2Spinoza D+ildesheim: .eorg ?lms Jerlag# 1:;9/1:84E3# who is usuall( credited with first demonstrating the importance of the distinction 2potentia/potestas3 in pino!a when most translators and commentators denied it. It must %e said at the same time# however# that ,egri and +ardt tend to make pino!a more of an anarchist than he actuall( was# %( privileging potentia over potestas and neglecting his considera%le investment in and =ustifications for potestas. ?n ,egri$s view# however# it was the relative under-development of societ( at pino!a$s time that necessitated such =ustifications" potestas is no longer necessar( now that societ( has developed materiall( and sociall(. 0< 'o get a sense of the distinction %etween potentia and potestas# think of the differences %etween soccer and foot%all# or %etween improvisational =a!! and a s(mphon( orchestra 2respectivel(3" see also m( 5$Introduction to the ,on)ascist &ife$: /eleu!e and .uattari$s $6evolutionar($ emiotics#5 sprit ,reateur OOJII:2 2 ummer 1:983 1:-2:" and the -reface to m( +ntroduction to Schizoanalysis 2&ondon: 6outledge# 1:::3. 01 It might remain 5dialectical5 in several other important respects# as well# none of them however attri%uting the dialectic to historical process itself: especiall( in allowing %alanced rather than %lanket =udgments of historical events or tendencies# and in relating political and intellectual positions to historical circumstances and pro=ects. 02 ome of the other wa(s include the contradiction %etween the instrumental rationalit( of restricted capitalist economic calculation and the irrationalit( of the s(stem as a whole" the contradiction %etween the tendenc( to suppress wages and/or eliminate =o%s and the need for increased purchasing power to reali!e profit on the goods produced# and so forth. In this connection# it is worth recalling *lthusser$s lament# that for all his materialism# pino!a lacked what Marx got from +egel: the notion of contradiction 2see lements d"autocriti#ue# 913. )or Machere(# one of the tasks remaining for Marxist philosoph( is to develop a concept of historical contradiction free from dialectical negativit( 2which inevita%l( entails su%=ectivit( and idealism3.

1ontents cop(right P 1::9 %( @ugene +olland. )ormat cop(right P 1::9 %( Cultural Logic# I ,um%er 1# )all 1::9. , 1<:8-0<98# Jolume 2#