D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 1

The Communist Horizon

Jodi Dean
The Second Former-West Research Congress invites us to think with the idea of horizon.
In keeping with its provocative temporalization of the Westrather than present the West! too!
passes in "#$#the invitation construes our horizon as a temporal one! a future toward which
we once aspired. This lost horizon! then! connotes privation! depletion! the loss of pro%ects! goals!
and utopias that oriented us toward the future. In the wake of this loss! we are asked to consider
whether another world is possi&le! another horizon imagina&le.
I initiall' understood the term (horizon) in a more mundane! spatial fashion! as the line
dividing the visi&le! separating earth from sk'. I like to pretend that I had in mind the cool! astro-
ph'sics notion of an event horizon. The event horizon surrounds a &lack hole! a singularit'it*s
the &oundar' &e'ond which events cannot escape. While the event horizon denotes the curvature
in space+time effected &' a singularit'! it*s not that much different from the spatial horizon, &oth
evoke a line demarcating a fundamental division! that we e-perience as impossi&le to reach! and
thus that we can neither escape nor cross .although an e-ternal o&server could see us cross it/.
(0orizon!) then! tags not a lost future &ut a dimension of e-perience we can never lose! even if!
lost in a fog or focused on our feet! we fail to see it. The horizon is Real not %ust in the sense of
impossiblewe can never reach it&ut also in the sense of the actual format! condition! and
shape of our setting .and I take &oth these senses of Real to 1acanian/. We can lose our &earings!
&ut the horizon is a necessar' condition or shaping of our actualit'. Whether the effect of a
singularit' or the meeting of earth and sk'! the horizon is the fundamental division esta&lishing
where we are.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 2
With respect to politics! the necessar' and unavoida&le horizon that conditions and
curves our e-perience is communism. I first heard the term (communist horizon) from 2runo
2osteels! in a paper he gave in Rotterdam this past summer. 0e was 3uoting 4lvaro 5arc6a
1inera! the 7ice 8resident of 2olivia. 1inera gestures to the (communist horizon!) not e-plaining
it or developing the idea &ut assuming it as an irreduci&le feature of our setting.
We might &e tempted to think of this communist horizon as a lost horizon! to adopt
capitalist and li&eral-democratic rhetoric a&out the communism. This would &e a mistake! a
mistake that capitalists! conservatives! and even some li&eral-democrats dont make insofar as
the' see the threat of communism ever'where! twent' 'ears after its ostensi&le demise. .Those
who suspect that the inclusion of li&eral democrats in a set with capitalists and conservatives is
illegitimate pro&a&l' are democrats. To determine whether the' &elong in the set of those who
fear communism! the' should ask themselves whether the' think an' evocation of communism
should come with 3ualifications! apologies! condemnations of past e-cesses. If the answer is 'es!
then we have a clear indication that li&eral democrats! and pro&a&l' radical democrats as well!
still consider communism a threat and so &elong in a set with capitalists and concerns. The' all
are an-ious a&out the forces the desire for communism risks unleashing./
The communist horizon isn*t lost. It is Real. To think further a&out how this communist
horizon manifests itself to us toda'! how we feel its force! how it formats our setting! I treat
communism as a tag for five features of our con%uncture, ". a specific state formation that
collapsed in "#$#9 :. a present! increasingl' powerful! force9 ;. the sovereignt' of the people9 <.
the force of the common and commons9 =. the actualit' of revolution.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 3
1. Communism: the Soviet system
It*s safe to sa' that for people in the >S! the most &anal! conventional! ever'da' referent of
communism is the Soviet >nion. To sa' this! though! is to start complicating matters. The Soviet
>nion did not claim to have achieved communism although its ruling part' did call itself a
communist part'. 4s is the case with an' part' or political s'stem! the communist part' in the
Soviet >nion changed over time! moving from a revolutionar' part' to a governing &ureaucratic
part'! a governing &ureaucratic part' that also e-perienced changes over time! changes that were
sometimes violent! sometimes incremental. Insofar as it was a political part'! and for most of its
histor' the onl' recognized political part'! the communist part' in the former Soviet >nion was a
locus of struggle and disagreement over a host of issues from art! literature! and science to
economic development! foreign polic'! and internal relations among the various repu&lics. To &e
sure! efforts were made to present a unified front! to downpla' the presence of disagreements
within the part'. ?et a significant effect of these efforts was the amplification of ostensi&l'
superficial differences, small divergences &ecame signs of deeper conflict. In short! m' point
here is that Soviet >nion isn*t a ver' sta&le referent of communism.
4ccordingl'! it tends to &e sta&ilized via the proper name of Stalin! where (Stalinist) tags
practices of monopolizing and consolidating power in the state-part' &ureaucrac'. Communism
as Stalinism! then! is marked &' authoritarianism! prison camps! and the inadmissi&ilit' of
criticism. It also tends to eclipse post-Stalinist developments in the Soviet >nion! particularl'
with regard to successes in modernizing and improving overall standards of living.
In the >S! two interlocking stories of the collapse of communism predominate. The first is
that communism collapsed under its own weight, it was so inefficient! people were so misera&le!
life was so stagnant! that the s'stem came to a grinding halt. It failed. The images accompan'ing
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 4
this stor' are &lack and white. The' feature unhapp'! unfashiona&le people standing in long lines
in front of empt' stores or walking along enormous! impersonal streets of large! deca'ing! &locks
of apartment &uildings. The second! related! stor' of the collapse of communism is that it was
defeated. We &eat them. We won. Capitalism and li&eral democrac' .the elision is necessar'/
demonstrated their superiorit' on the world historical stage. Freedom triumphed over t'rann'.
The details of this victor' matter less than its ostensi&le undenia&ilit'. 4fter all! there is no
Soviet >nion an'more. The accompan'ing images are color video clips of 4merican soldiers
marching in Red S3uare and rich! thin women with arm loads of shopping &ags from e-clusive
designer stores getting in or out of shin' &lack limousines.
If the end of the Soviet >nion were the same as the end of communism! if "#$# marked a
temporal horizon separating the time of the Soviets from the present! then communism would &e
pastlike the Roman or the @ttoman empire. 4s a particular political formation! it would &e an
artifact to &e anal'zed and studied. Whatever gave it &reath! made it real! would &e gone. It
would &e a dead political language.
?et communism persists. It*s fre3uentl' evoked as a living presence or possi&ilit'.
2. Communism: a present force
If we associate communism with the Soviet >nion! then communism is evoked descriptivel'.
Russia! 8oland! the Czech Repu&licthe' tend to &e called (post-Soviet) rather than (new-
capitalist) .former >S Secretar' of Aefense Aonald Rumsfeld tried calling them (Bew Curope!)
&ut that didn*t take/. For a while! particularl' during the earl' 'ears of privatization! the term
(Dafioso capitalism) was heard a lot. 2ut not so much since the nineties! as if Dafioso
capitalism hit too close to home! as if it descri&ed neoli&eralism*s &rutal! e-treme! winner-take-
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 5
all version of capitalism rather than a mode of transition out of state socialism. So rather than
tied to their proper names! the countries of the former Cast &loc continue to &e tied to their
communist e-perience. We should add here that this tie is enhanced &' the continued e-istence
of communist parties! people who grew up under real e-isting socialism! and people who gather
and march under the red flag. For the thousands who marched in Doscow as communists last
Da'! communism remains the alternative to the ine3ualit'! unemplo'ment! and racism
accompan'ing glo&alized neoli&eral capitalism.
In the >S! (communism) is used as a term of oppro&rium so fre3uentl' that one would think
the Cold War never ended. What is communistE Bational healthcare. Cnvironmentalism.
Feminism. 8u&lic education. 8rogressive ta-ation. 8aid vacation da's. 5un control. 2ic'cles are
a (gate-wa' drug) to communism. We& :.F is communist &ecause it holds out (the seductive
promise of individual self-realization) that Garl Dar- evoked in (The 5erman Ideolog'.)
i
Who
is communistE 4n'one who protested >S militar' aggression in Ira3 and 4fghanistan! an'one
critical of the 2ush administration! ma%or Aemocratic political leaders such as Speaker of the
0ouse Banc' 8elosi. 4nd! of course! 2arak @&ama.
It*s o&vious enough that contemporar' Aemocrats are not communiststhe Aemocratic
8art' did not even attempt to pass a single-pa'er pu&lic health insurance program .instead!
people are re3uired to purchase insurance from a private compan'/ and its response to the
economic crisis has focused on the finance sector. So the constant evocations of an encroaching
communist threat in the >S could seem to &e a not ver' creative return to the language of the
Cold War and Red Scare! a conservative retreat to a formerl' effective rhetoric of fear.
In a recent article in New Left Review! Slavo% Hizek emphasized that the ruling ideolog'
toda' wants us to think that radical change is impossi&le. This ideolog'! he sa's! tells us that it*s
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 6
impossi&le to a&olish capitalism! to have a different! non-corrupt instantiation of democrac'. In
reiterating this message! the dominant ideolog' attempts to (render invisi&le the impossi&le-real
of the antagonism that cuts across capitalist societies.)
ii
I disagree. Hizek*s description might
have worked a decade or so ago! &ut not an'more. In the >S! we are reminded dail' that radical
change is possi&le! and we are incited to fear it. The threat! or specter! is communism! right-wing
radio and &logs scream! and if we don*t do something! we will &e under the communist 'oke. So
the right! even the center! regularl' invokes the possi&ilit' of radical change and it names that
change communism.
4nd wh' does it name the change communismE 2ecause the gross ine3ualit' ushered in &'
rampant neoli&eralism! let*s call it despotic financialism! is visi&le! undenia&le! and glo&al.
Increasing in industrialized countries over the last three decades! income ine3ualit' is
particularl' severe in De-ico! Turke'! and the >S! the three industrialized countries with the
largest income gapsthe income of the richest is := times that of the poorest in De-ico! "I
times that of the poorest in Turke'! and "J times that of the poorest in the >S! according to a
:FF$ report.
iii
The antagonism that cuts across capitalist countries is increasingl' apparent9
dominant ideological forces can*t o&scure it. So the' name it and the' name it communism.
T'picall'! the >S has positioned e-treme ine3ualit'! inde&tedness! and deca' elsewhere! off-
shore. The economic recession! collapse in the housing and mortgage markets! increase in
permanent involuntar' unemplo'ment! and trillion dollar &ank &ailouts have made what we
thought was the third world into our world. Contra Hizek! the division cutting across capitalist
societies is in fact more visible! more palpable! in the >S now than it*s &een since at least the
"#:Fs, we learn that more of our children live in povert' than at an' time in >S histor'! that the
wealth of the ver'! ver' rich! the top one percent! has dramaticall' increased while income for
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 7
the rest of us has remained stagnant or declined! that man' of the foreclosures the &anks force on
homeowners are meaningless! illegal acts of e-propriation .the &anks can*t document who owns
what so the' lack the paper necessar' to %ustif' foreclosure proceedings/. We read of
corporations sitting on piles of cash instead of hiring &ack their laid-off workforce. We see a
movie a&out a twent'-si- 'ear old &illionaire when cities! counties! and states are slashing pu&lic
services and foregoing upkeep on infrastructure.
4dmittedl'! popular media rarel' refer to the super rich as the &ourgeoisie and the rest of us
workers. The' are more likel' to use terms like (Wall Street) versus (Dain Street.) Sometimes!
the' avoid a direct contrast &etween two hostile forces! instead %u-taposing &ank &onuses .the
multi-million dollar salar' top off that the finance sector lavishes on its traders and e-ecutives/
with strapped consumers looking for &argains or cutting &ack on spending. @r the' report lists of
&illionariesmore in :F"F than in :FF# .although the rest of us were less well off/9 the richest
one in De-ico .Carlos Slim/! knocking >S &illionaires 2ill 5ates and Warren 2uffet out of their
top position9 :$ &illionaires in Turke'.
iv
In a culture where the mantra for over fift' 'ears has
&een (what*s good for &usiness is good for 4merica) and where since the presidenc' of Ronald
Reagan we*ve &een urged to &elieve that ine3ualit' is good &ecause what &enefits the rich
trickles down to the rest of us! the current undenia&ilit' of division isn*t nothing. It*s something.
Ine3ualit' is appearing as a factor! a force! even a crimeand! indeed! various Congressional!
investigative! and regulator' &odies have e-pended energies searching for and identif'ing
specific crimes associated with the finance crisis .for instance! in Kul' 5oldman Sachs paid out
==F million dollars to settle a civil suit that the Securities and C-change Commission &rought
against it for fraud/. The'! the rich! the financiers! have more &ecause the rest of us make do with
less! a making do which has ensnared us in de&ts and hence e-propriated our futures.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 8
Bo wonder! then! that we are hearing the name communism againprecisel' &ecause the
antagonism cutting across capitalist societies is visi&le! palpa&le! pressing. The right! even the
center! tries to evoke communism as a threat! something to warn against! a terri&le past we
should all hasten to avoid. 2ut if it was so terri&le and if it is in the past! wh' is it still a threatE
2ecause it is. The rightin its neoli&eral and neoconservative guisesrealizes that communism
is the alternative! the remed'! the answer to our current economic crisis. 4s Aavid 0arve'
e-plains! capitalists these da's construe a health' econom' as one that growths a&out three
percent a 'ear. The likelihood of continued three percent annual growth in the world econom'!
however! is small. This is in part &ecause of the difficult' of rea&sor&ing the capital surplus. For
e-ample! &' :F;F it would &e necessar' to find investment opportunities for three trillion dollars!
roughl' twice what was needed in :F"F/.
v
The future of capitalism is thus highl' uncertainand!
for capitalists! grim.
Beoli&erals and neoconservatives evoke the threat of communism &ecause it is Real. So we
shouldn*t let the media screen deceive us. We shouldn*t think that the charge that @&ama is a
communist and peace is communist fool us into thinking that communism is %ust an image
covering up and distorting the more serious politics of glo&al finance! trade! and currenc'
regulation. That politics is hopeless! a farce! the attempt of financial and economic elites to come
to some temporar' arrangements conducive to their continued accumulation of capital.
Communism! as the name for the end of and the alternative to capitalism! is Real.
I*ve consider the right*s relation to the communist threat. What a&out the democratic leftE
Whereas the right treats communism as a present force! the left is &ent around the force of loss!
that is! the contorted shape it has found itself in as it has forfeited or &etra'ed the communist
ideal.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 9
Dore specificall'! the predominant characteristic of the contemporar' left is its fre3uent
claim not to e-ist. Whereas the right sees left wing threats ever'where! those on the left eschew
an' use of the term (we!) emphasizing instead their own fragmentation into a multitude of
singularities. There are events! moments! pro%ects! demonstrations! &logs! sometimes even
affinit' groups! &ut the left doesn*t e-ist. Bot surprisingl'! then! in these leftist discussions! there
is no left political vision or program! a point that is lamented even as it is generall' disconnected
from the setting in which it appears! namel'! the loss of a left that sa's (we) and (our) and (us)
in the first place. 1eft melancholics thus whine a&out the lack of political alternatives when the
real political alternative is the one whose loss determines their whiningcommunism.
The re%ection of communism as an ideal shapes the left. Fragmented tri&utaries and currents!
&ranches and networks of particular pro%ects and partial o&%ects! are the left form of the loss of
communism. Some think of this form as an advance. The' name it democrac'! envisioning
struggles on the left specificall' as struggles for democrac'. In some places! this could make
sense! like in the French Revolution! the 0aitian Revolution! in struggles against colonialism and
imperialism! even in opposition to the authoritarianism of the part'-state &ureaucracies of the
former Cast. In these instances! to stand for democrac' was to stand against an order constituted
against democrac'. 2ut in parliamentar' democracies! for leftists to refer to their goals as a
struggle for democrac' is strangeit*s not like the' are fighting for rights to vote and organize.
Aemocrac' is our am&ient milieu! the hegemonic form of contemporar' politics .which is 'et
another reason that the right can use communism as a name for what opposes it/. For the left to
use the language of democrac' now is thus even stranger! a wa' of avoiding the fundamental
antagonism &etween the top one percent and the rest of us &' acting as if the onl' thing reall'
missing was participation.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 10
Rather than recognizing that for the left democrac' is the form that the loss of communism
takes! the form of communism*s displacement! radical democrats treat democrac' as itself
replacing communism .and on this point share the neoli&eral position regarding the victor' of
capitalism/. 8olitical repercussions of the loss of communism as a name for left aspirations
include a corresponding turn awa' from militant opposition and toward generalized inclusion as
well as an a&andonment of tight organizational forms like the part'! the council! and the cell in
favor of &road! thin! and momentar' calls to &ecome aware of an issue and change one*s
lifest'le. Dore fundamentall'! the repercussion of the su&limation of communism in democratic
preoccupations with process and participation democratic is ac3uiescence to capitalism as the
&est s'stem for the production and distri&ution of resources! la&or! and goods.
The mistake leftists make when the' turn into li&erals and democrats is thinking that we are
&e'ond the communist horizon! that democrac' replaced communism rather than serving as the
contemporar' form of communism*s displacement. The' don*t see! can*t acknowledge! their
own complicit' in despotic financialism, if political struggle is alwa's an irreduci&le dimension
of capitalism and capitalism alwa's interlinked with conflict! resistance! accommodation! and
demands! then refusals to engage in these struggles! re%ections of the terms of these struggles!
will affect the form that capitalism takes.
For e-ample! 1uc 2oltanski and Cve Chiapello anal'ze changes in management language
from the si-ties to the nineties. The' document the dismantling of a class &ased approach to
work and the assem&ling of a new view of work in terms of individual creativit'! autonom'! and
fle-i&ilit'. 8ersonal &enefits came to outweigh collective action! there&' strengthening the
position of emplo'ers. The resulting shift of responsi&ilities from organizations onto individuals
undermined previous guarantees of securit'. The actualit' of fle-i&le emplo'ment was precarit'
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 11
temporar' work! su&contracting! pro%ect-&ased emplo'ment! multi-tasking! and opportunities
contingent on personal networks. The point I want to emphasize is that a primar' factor in the
changes in capitalism over the past thirt' to fort' 'ears has &een a change in the understanding of
work! a change from an emphasis on its class! group! and collective dimension to a view of work
as a personal choice! endeavor! and locus of meaning. Individual work displaced work as a
common condition! freeing capital from the constraints in encountered when it had to deal with
workers as a collective force. If the old slogan was (the people united! can never &e defeated!) its
new corollar' was! (nevertheless! individuals can &e accommodated on a case to case &asis.)
I*ve argued that for the left democrac' is the form the loss of communism takes. Rather than
fighting for an ideal! engaging in a struggle in &ehalf of the rest of us! the left repetitivel'
invokes democrac'! calling for what is alread' there. 1eft appeals to democrac' thus look a lot
like the 1acanian notion of drive. For 1acan! drive! like desire! descri&es the wa' the su&%ect
arranges its en%o'ment! jouissance. In the econom' of desire! en%o'ment is what the su&%ect can
never reach! what the su&%ect wants &ut never getsoh, thats not it. In the econom' of drive!
en%o'ment comes from missing one*s goal9 it*s what the su&%ect gets! even if it doesn*t want it.
It*s that little e-tra charge which keeps the su&%ect keeping on. The su&%ect*s repeated 'et ever
failing efforts to reach its goal &ecome satisf'ing on their own.
Aemocrac' for the left is drive, our circling around! our missing of a goal! and the
satisfaction we attain through this missing. We talk! complain! and protest. We make groups on
Face&ook. We sign petitions and forward them to ever'one in our mail&o-. 4ctivit' &ecomes
passivit'! our stuckness in a circuit! which is then lamented and mourned as the a&sence of ideas
or even the loss of the political itself and then! 'et again! routed through a plea for democrac'
although it doesn*t take a genius to know that the real pro&lem is neoli&eral capitalism and its
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 12
e-treme ine3ualit'. What leftists call the loss of the political is the fog the' muddle around in
&ecause the'*ve lost sight of the communist horizon.
To &e sure! some contemporar' theorists commend drive*s su&limation! its su&stitution of
partial o&%ects and the &its of en%o'ment accompan'ing repetitions of a process for the
impossi&le o&%ect of desire. Dultiple voices in networked and digital media circuits! for e-ample!
cele&rate communicative capitalism for its provision of opportunities for small victories and
momentar' pleasures. Dillions die in war and povert'! &ut at least we have the internet. @thers
admire drive*s creative destruction! the wa' its dissolution of the old is the opening to the new.
@f course it is true that at some point doing the same thing over and over shifts from order to
chaos. The reiterations that fail to respond to change in their setting themselves change the
setting. 2ut this em&race of drive as destruction! like the view of drive as su&limation! treats a
feature of our setting as an alternative without drawing the necessar' separation, what makes it a
feature of a different formation! a different politics! or even a criti3ueE
In the contemporar' networks of communicative capitalism! drive is a feed&ack circuit that
captures our &est energies. Invigorating communism as a political alternative re3uires amplif'ing
the collective desire that can cut through these affective networks. Fortunatel'! that desire is
alread' there.
3. Communism: the sovereignty of the peope
I*ve discussed two wa's of thinking a&out the communist horizon! the past Soviet e-periment
and the present force. I*ve descri&ed the present force of communism! moreover! via a right-left
distinction &etween threat and loss! a distinction which rests on a common supposition of
democrac'. The right thinks communism is a continued threat to democrac'9 the left is stuck in
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 13
democratic drive as the actualit' of its suppression of communist desire. In each instance!
communism names that in opposition to which our current setting is configured! the setting
within which despotic financialism unfolds.
Wh' is communism that nameE 2ecause it designates the sovereignt' of the people! the rule
of the people! and not the people as a whole or a unit' &ut the people as the rest of us! those of us
whose work! lives! and futures are e-propriated! monetized! and speculated on for the financial
en%o'ment of the few.
vi
@ne wa' to e-plore this point is via Dichel Foucault*s insight into the limitation of sovereign
knowledge crucial to economic li&eralism. 1i&eralism*s emphasis on the economic activities of
individuals shot a hole through sovereignt'. It said that there was a natural limit to sovereignt'! a
limit arising not from the rights of individuals &ut from a set of natural d'namics and processes
that the sovereign could not know. For Condorcet and 4dam Smith! Foucault points out!
economic man is &ound up in a world he can neither predict nor control. Cconomic man*s
interest and en%o'ment depend on a series of accidents. The unknown actions of one have effects
on others in wa's none of them can know. Cconomic man*s situation is (therefore dou&l'
involuntar'! indefinite! and non-totaliza&le.)
vii
?et! and here is the m'ster' of the invisi&le hand!
in precisel' these conditions of collective &lindness! each can &enefit. In fact! these conditions of
collective &lindness are necessary conditions for each to &enefit. Collective &enefit can onl' &e
secured through the pursuit of individual self-interest. 4n' attempt to ensure something like the
pu&lic good is thus doomed to fail. 4nd %ust as individual economic actors cannot see the whole!
neither can the sovereign. 4 visi&le hand would &e no hand at all9 it would &e necessaril' partial!
distorted! and incapa&le of com&ining the multitude of economic interests. 1i&eral political
econom' thus announces, (There is no sovereign in economics. There is no economic
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 14
sovereign.) Cconomic man (tells the sovereign, ?ou must not. 2ut wh' must he notE ?ou must
not &ecause 'ou cannot. 4nd 'ou cannot in the sense that L'ou are powerless.* 4nd wh' are 'ou
powerless! wh' can*t 'ouE ?ou cannot &ecause 'ou do not know! and 'ou do not know &ecause
'ou cannot know.)
viii
What sort of sovereignt' is thisE Foucault doesn*t emphasize it! &ut we should keep in
mind that it*s the sovereignt' of the people. The change in what the sovereign can know is set in
a&solutism*s demise. 4 certain version of the econom'! one first focused on the market and later
on a narrow! odd notion of competition! is presented as a &arrier to governance! as a limit on
what government can know and do. Insofar as the emergence of this limit accompanies the
spread of democrac' in Curope .the e-tension of suffrage! the institutionalization of mass
parties/ it*s a limiting of the people! the rest of us! as an economic force with the will to oversee!
guide! direct! and organize economic matters. 4s Foucault makes clear! the limiting of the people
as a common force turns them from active agents of power into a passive population. 0ere the'
are active onl' as individuals! little entrepreneurs or enterprises. What appears as the freedom of
the market! then! is a certain foreclosure of the collective power of the people in and as a
common. The power that matters! to affect the &asic conditions in which the' live! is displaced
onto an econom' that the' are told the' cannot govern &ecause the' cannot know. What do the
people get insteadE Representative democrac'the form of their passivit'.
i-
5iorgio 4gam&en raises .&ut does not linger on/ a similar point. Boting shifts in the
referent of the people from all to some! from a m'thic! impossi&le! all of us to the division
&etween the privileged and the rest of us! 4gam&en writes! (It is as if what we call Lpeople were
in realit' not a unitar' su&%ect &ut a dialectical oscillation &etween two opposite poles, on the one
hand! the set of the 8eople as a whole political &od'! and! on the other! the su&set of the people
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 15
as a fragmentar' multiplicit' of need' and e-cluded &odies . . .)
-
The constitutive division within
the people e-presses itself in language. The term can refer to an imagined unit' of ever'one. It
can also refer to the less well off! the poor! the workers! the e-ploited! the ma%orit' whose lives
and la&or are e-propriated to &enefit the few. To appeal to the people in this second sense is to
e-press and politicize a division &etween the few and the man'! to make the man' appear in their
need and in their power. 2ut 4gam&en*s dialectic stops too soon. 0is oscillates &etween two
positions! &ut what a&out a third move! where the need' &odies are the political &od'
.sovereign/! and then a fourth! where the fact that the need' &odies are the political &od' makes
the impossi&ilit' of totalizing or enclosing the political as a &od' appearE
Cven without these additional moves! 4gam&en*s language confounds the reading of the
division in the people I suggest. 0e splices together different images of division. That is!
4gam&en refers to two opposite poles and to a unified whole and what is e-cluded from it. 4
division &etween opposite poles is a division within a field .we could even sa' a field
characterized &' e-tension and without necessar' &oundaries/. 4 division &etween a whole and
what*s outside it displaces this internal division! there&' rendering the open field into a unitar'
&od'. The political pro&lem thus shifts from an opposition within the people! &etween e-ploiters
and the e-ploited! to one of &eing e-cluded from the people. The political solution then appears
as inclusion and the initial matter of division and opposition within the people is effaced. In the
words of 2oltanski and Chiapello! the political situation of the people has &ecome a (topic of
sentiment) rather than a (topic of denunciation.)
-i
4s a topic of sentiment! their situation is an
individualized misfortune a&out which one should &e indignant. 4s a topic of denunciation! it
results from (a social as'mmetr' from which some people profit to the detriment of others.)
-ii
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 16
4 &etter wa' to conceive the division within the people! one capa&le of e-pressing the
power of the people in and as a common &ut not a whole and not a unit'! makes use of the
distinction &etween desire and drive. The people as desiring have needs! needs the' can onl'
address together! collectivel'! as an active common. The people as caught in drive are
fragmented! dispersed into networks and tri&utaries. Stuck in drive*s repetitive loops! the' pursue
their separate enterprises even as the' are governmentalized o&%ects! a population.
I raise the criticism of 4gam&en not onl' as a wa' to get at a view of communism as the
force of the people as sovereign in the econom'. I also want to emphasize that for communists
the &inar' inclusion+e-clusion does not indicate the primar' a-is of %ustice .although it functions
3uite nicel' for li&eral democrats who insist that the true political issue is making sure that no
one is e-cluded from opportunities to participate in the democratic process or from the
possi&ilit' of striking it rich in the capitalist market/. The remed' for those without papers! for
e-ample! is to have papersand thus mem&ership in the state. This isn*t a &ad goal! &ut it is a
goal that e-tends rather than takes or changes state power. The remed' for those without
propert' .slum dwellers! sa'/! is a right to propert'! a remed' that incorporates the owner into
the official market econom'! in effect eliminating the threat to the market that uncounted use and
e-change pose. 2ut is capitalism &est understood as a s'stem that constitutivel' e-cludes persons
or one that constitutivel' e-ploits themE
2uilding from 4lain 2adiou and Kac3ues Ranciere! Hizek claims that the antagonism
&etween the included and the e-cluded is the fundamental antagonism rupturing capitalism toda'
.and hence crucial to the idea of communism/. Hizek recognizes that the focus on e-clusion
easil' elides with (the li&eral-tolerant-multicultural topic of Lopenness* . . . at the e-pense of a
properl' Dar-ist notion of social antagonism.)
-iii
?et he argues that the inclusion of the
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 17
proletariat is an inclusion of a different sort! an inclusion of the capitalism*s point of s'mptomal
e-clusion .(part of no part)/ that effectivel' dismantles it.
4 lot rides on the notion of (proletariat) here! especiall' insofar as contemporar'
capitalism relies on communication as a productive force! rather than industrial la&or. @n the one
hand! Hizek detaches (proletarian) from the factor'! treating (proletarianization) as a process
that deprives humans of their (su&stance) and reduces them to pure su&%ects. @n the other! he
identifies e-clusion as a particular kind of proletarianization! one &' which some are made
directl' to em&od' (su&stanceless su&%ectivit'.) The' are the material remainders of the s'stem!
its unavoida&le and necessar' &'products. 2ecause the entire s'stem relies on their e-clusion .or
their inclusion as remainders/! &ecause the' em&od' the truth that capitalism produces human !
refuse! surplus populations with no role or function! to include them would destro' the s'stem
itself.
Hizek*s argument is compelling as it echoes and reinforces current sentiments around
vulnera&ilit'! e-posure! and &are life. That proletarianization is a process disconnected from
industrial la&or makes it feel unleashed! as if an' one of us at an' moment were at risk. That
some in particular em&od' our su&stanceless su&%ectivit' is! in a wa'! a relief! Im okay. Their
specific vulnera&ilit' thus frees me to a kind of engaged generosit' or care. Of course, I want to
include them, maybe as recipients of charity, or even throuh new worker trainin prorams or
short term e!tensions of credit. To &e sure! this isn*t what Hizek has in mind! &ut the fluidit' of
the categor' of the e-cluded! the vagueness around e-actl' what the' are e-cluded from and in
what wa'! and fuzziness of the meaning of inclusion in a glo&al economic s'stem he himself
terms (Real) make his argument more affectivel' than anal'ticall' satisf'ing.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 18
8art of the difficult' stems from treating contemporar' communicative capitalism as if it
were a whole marked &' a constitutive e-clusion where that e-clusion designates persons as a
part of no part. 4s 2oltanski and Chiapello .and numerous others/ outline! the
inclusion+e-clusion &inar' toda' designates a relation not to a whole &ut to a network. The
e-cluded are those who are vulnera&le &ecause the' are disconnected! the' lack links to networks
of opportunit'! securit'! sustenance. If one thinks in terms of a network model! then! there are no
s'mptomal points. There are %ust more links. 1inks can &e added or dropped with little impact on
the network form. To &e sure! this isn*t entirel' true, networks can e-perience overload!
instances of self-organized criticalit' when the' disintegrate and collapse. 2ut an image of
network overload is not the same as that of a whole and its constitutive e-clusion! particularl'
insofar as networks can often route around &reakdowns.
Hizek*s treatment of the proletarian in terms of a part of no-part or s'mptomal torsion of a
s'stem is a component of a larger endeavor to rethink the idea of communism toda'. Dar-ists
have long identified the proletariat as the universal class! the su&%ect-o&%ect of histor'. In
communicative capitalism! the idea of the su&%ect-o&%ect of histor' com&ines &etter with
feed&ack loops! self-organized networks! and emergent formations where we are &ringing
ourselves into &eing as something new! where we are the o&%ects of our work. We are alread'
configuring our setting. The point is to do it differentl'! not for the enrichment of the few.
!. Communism: the force of the common and commons
For a couple of decades now! man' of us have &een making something else together. WeMve
&een linking and connecting! doing more than forwarding kitten photos. WeMve &een &uilding
alliances and awareness! sharing knowledge of crimes! ine3ualities! violence! and e-ploitation.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 19
WeMve seen the right claiming their revolution and weMve &een swept up in the realit' of their
counter-revolution. WeMve heard the neoli&erals and financial despots claim that the' are entitled
to #F percent of the wealth. We know! and &ecause we are interconnected we know that we
know! that the' are wrong. It is not theirs to own.
4 crucial aspect of contemporar' struggle thus relies on the assertion of the commons against
claims to private ownershipa point some claim is %ustification enough for the renewal of
communism. Theorizing the commons is trick'! though! &ecause contemporar' capitalism is
communicative! an argument Dichael 0ardt and 4ntonio Begri make in "mpire. Capitalist
productivit' derives from its e-propriation and e-ploitation of communicative processes. Cesare
Casarino*s distinction &etween the common and the commons is helpful here.
For Casarino! the common is another name for the self-reproducing e-cess that is capitalism.
It is another name! &ut it is not the same e-actl' the same thing. The common is not a thing or an
attri&ute9 it is a d'namic process. It is production. 5lossing 0ardt and Begri! Casarino writes!
(nowada's the common is virtuall' indistinguisha&le from that which continuall' captures it!
namel'! capital understood as a full'that is! intensivel' and e-tensivel'glo&al network of
social relations.) The idea &ecomes clearer in contradistinction to the commons. The commons is
finite and characterized &' scarcity. In contrast! the common is infinite and characterized &'
surplus. The common thus designates and takes the place of la&or power .Dar-*s source of
surplus value/! now reconceived in the &roadest possi&le terms of the potential of creativit'!
thought! knowledge! and communication as themselves alwa's plural! open! and productive.
0ow does the move from commons to common help us understand e-ploitation and
e-propriation in contemporar' capitalismE Well! at least one of the pro&lems with the
e-propriation of the commons is that a few get a lot and some are left with nothing! thus having
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 20
to sell their la&or power. 8rivatization leaves them deprived of what the' had. The widespread
e-tension of creditwhether in the form of high interest credit cards! mortgage refinancing! or
leverage in investment &ankingis a kind of privatization of the future as it deprives the
inde&ted of what the' will have. The situation with the common is different. There is
e-propriation! &ut an e-propriation that does not appear to leave man' with little. There is more
than enough! perhaps even too much. 4 3uestion for the capture of the common in
communicative capitalism! then! is the crime or harm, if there is a&undance or surplus wh' is
e-propriation a pro&lemE @r is the pro&lem some kind of e-ploitation and if so what kindE
4lthough I can*t go into the variet' of contemporar' instances of e-propriation and
e-ploitation of the communicative common here! one version is worth nothing as an iteration of
the division within the people! an iteration that e-poses this division as a matter of e-ploitation
rather than e-clusion. I call this network e-ploitation. It involves the &asic structure of comple-
networks .networks characterized &' free choice! growth! and preferential attachment9 e-amples
include academic citation networks! &lock&uster movies! &est-sellers! the popularit' of &logs and
we&sites/. 4s 4l&ert-1aszlo 2ara&asi e-plains! comple- networks follow a powerlaw
distri&ution. The item in first place or at the top has much more than the one in second place!
which has more than the third one and so on such that there is ver' little difference &etween
items (at the &ottom) &ut massive differences &etween the top and the &ottom. 8opular media
e-press the idea as the $F+:F rule! the winner-take-all or winner-take-most character of the new
econom'! and the (long tail.) So lots of novels are written! few are pu&lished! fewer are sold! a
ver' few &ecome &est-sellers. @r lots of articles are written9 few are read9 the same < are cited &'
ever'&od'. In these e-amples! the common designates the general field out of which the one
emerges. C-ploitation consists in efforts to stimulate the creative production of the field in the
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 21
interest of finding! and then monetizing! the one. C-panding the field produces the one .or! hu&s
are an immanent propert' of comple- networks/. Such e-ploitation contri&utes to the
e-propriation of opportunities for income and paid la&or! as we*ve seen in the collapse of print
%ournalism and academic presses.
4t an' rate! the &asic idea here is that e-ploitation occurs not through the surplus value
generated through the specific sale and use of la&or power &ut through the incitement of
communication and the mo&ilization of networks in order to produce the one. We should &e clear
here, this isn*t competition in the old political econom' sense of pressures that discipline &u'ers
and seller or the classical econom' sense of the e3uili&rium of suppl' and demand. It*s not even
competition in the sense of games! contests! and rivalries. It*s an arrangement of strength and
chance for the emergence of the one.
The insta&ilit' of the distinction &etween common and commons also inde-es
e-ploitation in communicative capitalism. Two pertinent e-amples can &e tagged (attention) and
(spectacle.)
The m'riad entertainments and diversions availa&le on-line! or as apps on our iphones!
are not free. We don*t usuall' pa' mone' directl' for 5mail! ?ouTu&e! Face&ook! or Twitter.
These don*t cost mone'. The' cost time. It takes time to post and write and time to read and
respond. We pa' with our attention.
@ur attention isn*t &oundless. @ur time is finiteeven as we tr' to e-tract value out of
ever' second .we don*t have time to waste/. We cannot respond to ever' utterance! click on
ever' link! read ever' post. We have to choose even as the possi&ilit' of something else!
something wonderful! lures us to search and linger. Aemands on our attention! in%unctions for us
to communicate! participate! shareever shriller and more intenseare like so man' speed-ups
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 22
on the production line! attempts to e-tract from us whatever &it of mindshare is left. When we do
respond! our contri&ution is an addition to an alread' infinite communicative field! a little
demand on someone else*s attention! a little incitement of an affective response! a digital trace
that can &e storedand on and on and on. We pa' with attention and the cost is focus.
This cost is particularl' high for left political movements. Competition for attention
how do we get our message acrossin a rich! tumultuous media environment too often and
easil' means adapting to this environment and making its d'namic our own! which can result in
a shift in focus from doing to appearing! that is to sa'! a shift toward thinking in terms of getting
attention in the :<+I media c'cle and awa' from larger 3uestions of &uilding a political apparatus
with duration. Infinite demands on our attentiondemands we make on each other and which
communicative capitalism captures and amplifiese-propriate political energies of focus!
organization! and duration vital to communism as a movement and a struggle. It*s no wonder that
communicative capitalism is participationist, the more participation in networked media
environments! the more traces to hoard and energies to capture or divert.
The limits of attention are not onl' the limits of individuals .and so can &e resolved &'
distri&uting la&or and crowd-sourcing/9 the' are the limits that make communication as such
possi&le .I*m thinking here of the distinction &etween signal and noise as well as of the ha&its!
environments! and processes that direct and there&' produce the circumstances of
communication/. 8erhaps we could sa' that the limit of attention is common. 4nd if this is the
case! then the common actualized in contemporar' communication networks can function itself
as a means of e-propriation .which suggests that it could &e useful to think a&out overproduction
and over-accumulation of the common as distinctl' political pro&lems/.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 23
The second e-ample of e-propriation and e-ploitation in communicative capitalism I
have in mind is spectacle. In #he $omin $ommunity! 4gam&en writes,
The e-treme form of the e-propriation of the Common is the spectacle! that is! the
politics we live in. 2ut this also means that in the spectacle our own linguistic
nature comes &ack to us inverted. This is wh' .precisel' &ecause what is &eing
e-propriated is the ver' possi&ilit' of a common good/! the violence of the
spectacle retains something like a positive possi&ilit' that can &e used against it.
The specific crime of the spectacle is that it e-ploits our aspirations for common &eing and uses
them against us. 1ike networked personal media .which dis- and re-assem&le the older spectacle
form! now via our own creativit' and longing/! the spectacle is a form for the e-propriation of
linguistic &eing.
4gam&en works here from the dilemma e-pressed &' Ae&ord, in the societ' of the
spectacle! Lthe language of real communication has &een lost* and a Lnew common language has
'et to &e found.* Ae&ord writes,
Spectacular consumption preserves the old culture in congealed form! going so far
as to recuperate and rediffuse even its negative manifestations9 in this wa'! the
spectacle*s cultural sector gives over e-pression to what the spectacle is implicitl'
in its totalit'the communication of the incommunicable.
4gam&en*s response to the e-propriation of communicativit' Ae&ord identifies is to turn the
pro&lem into the solution! that is! to find in the spectacle La positive possi&ilit' that can &e used
against it.* Communication of the incommunica&le dissolves the gap &etween the language lost
and the language to &e found. The incommunica&le can &e communicated. Insofar as it is
common! it persists &e'ond even the most e-treme attempts at its e-propriation. The spectacle
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 24
thus contains its own overcoming. The e-propriation of language in the spectacle opens up a new
e-perience of language and linguistic &eing, Lnot this or that content of language! &ut language
itself! not this or that true proposition! &ut the ver' fact that one speaks.* Failure to communicate
provides its own satisfaction! the en%o'ment of language itself.
4gam&en treats communication refle-ivel', he turns from what is said to that something is
said. Bot onl' is a negative condition .estrangement from linguistic &eing/ treated as a positive
opening .new e-perience of &elonging/! &ut its positivit' is a result of refle-ivit'. 1anguage turns
on itself. In his discussion of drive as precisel' this turning round upon the self! Freud views it
as a change from activit' to passivit'. The active aim! to sa' something! is replaced &' the
passive aim! to have said. The movement from commons to common repeats! in a wa'! this shift
from active to passive or! the movement from desire to drive. The force of scarcit' that
characterizes the commons pushes action! decision! a choice for this rather than that. The e-cess!
the surplus common! suggest a field or milieu wherein activit' has &ecome passivit'! a mode of
capture or entrapment in the (not 'et) or (could have &een) or (perhaps) rather than the (make it
so.) 2logs! Face&ook! ?ouTu&ethe' each and together take our ensem&le of actions and return
them to us as an endless communicative common. Rather than (I make!) there is production! a
production of thoughts and affects! opinions and contri&utions that circulate! accumulate! and
distract. Words were spoken.
4gam&en*s answer to the e-propriation of the common is drive. The communist answer is
desire! a desire alread' manifest in our active linking and adding and making! our creating and
contri&uting without pa'! %ust for ourselves and for each other.
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 25
". Communism: the actuaity of revoution
I*ve talked a&out the communism as a loss and force and the force of loss. I*ve talked a&out it
as a power and the commons and a common power. I want to close with a 1eninist theme! the
actualit' of revolution.
@ne of m' initial inclinations was to associate the idea of the horizon with the Aerridean
notion of democrac' to come. Aemocrac'! in this conception! can never full' arrive. It is forever
postponed! deferred! to come. That democrac' cannot &e realized is ostensi&l' a strength as it
keeps open the possi&ilit' of deconstruction and the new. So conceived democrac' relies on a
sort of gap that holds open a promise not to totalize! not to terrorize! a promise or commitment to
futurit' and the unknown. 4n' given decision or act will necessaril' &e lacking! &ut this ver'
lack is the opening democrac' demands.
In contrast with such an openness! the 1eninist part' appears as a specter of horror! as the
remnant or trace of the failed revolution the terrors of which must &e avoided at all costs. In such
a vision .which ma' not &e concretel' held &' an'one &ut seems vaguel' intuited &' most/!
communism is reduced not simpl' to the actual .which is alwa's necessaril' ruptured!
incomplete! irreduci&le to itself! and pregnant with the unrealized potentials of the past/ &ut to
the parod' of one actualit'! an actualit' that itself has changed over time and from different
perspectives. In such a reduction .which is an ongoing process/! actualit' is displaced &' an
impossi&le figure! a figure so resolute as to &e incapa&le of revolutionar' change.
What is the actualit' of revolutionE 4t the minimum we can sa' that it involves change!
confusion! distur&ance! chaos! and the possi&ilit' wherein tendencies in one direction can
suddenl' move in a completel' opposite direction. 4s 5eorg 1ukacs makes clear! for the
1eninist part'! the actualit' of revolution re3uires discipline and preparation! not &ecause the
D r a f t d o n o t c i t e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n | 26
part' can accuratel' predict ever'thing that will occur! &ecause it cannot! and not &ecause it has
an infalli&le theor'! which it does not. Aiscipline and preparation are necessar' in order to adapt
to the circumstances. The part' has to &e consistent and fle-i&le &ecause revolution is chaotic.
The actualit' of revolution! then! is kind of ena&ling impediment. It is a condition of
constitutive non-knowledge for which the part' can prepare. ItMs a condition that demands
response! if the part' is to &e accounta&le to the people! if it is to function as a communist part'.
The difference &etween actualit' and futurit' .or the perpetual displacement of democrac'
into an impossi&le future/! then! is a difference in preparation! discipline! responsiveness! and
planning. The former re3uires it! the latter seems to eschew it or postpone it. For the 1eninst
part'! to postpone is to fail now.
The actualit' of revolution means that one cannot perpetuall' defer a decision! action! or
%udgment. It means that one undertakes it! full' e-posed to oneMs lack of coverage in histor' or
even in the chaotic! revolutionar' moment. It means that one has to trust that the revolutionar'
process will &ring a&out new constellations! arrangements! skills! convictions! that through it we
will make something else! something we arenMt imagining now.
The actualit' of revolution is the press+pressure that we feel! that we canMt put off &ut must
redirect. The communist horizon is what we must focus on and use as a guide if this redirection
is compelled &' the force of the common rather than the speculation of the few.
i
4ndrew Geen writing in #he %eekly &tandard! remediated at
http,++www.c&snews.com+stories+:FFJ+F:+"=+opinion+main";:FJ<".shtmlE
tagNcontentDain9content2od'
ii
Hizek remediated at Counterpunch, http,++www.counterpunch.org+zizek"F"=:F"F.html
iii
@CCA report :FF$ http,++www.glo&alissues.org+article+<+povert'-around-the-world
iv
http,++www.hurri'etdail'news.com+n.phpEnNF;""F$<#;"IF$-:F"F-F;-""
v
0arve'! #he "nima of $apital :"J
vi
Consider possi&le e-pansion I offer the term (the rest of us) as an alternative to some of the other
wa's of designating the people of politics such as proletarians! multitude! the part-of-no part. The
&enefit of (proletarian) is the wa' it links an essential role in production with political radicalit'the
proletarian is not the same as the worker. The pro&lem! though! is the term*s e-clusivit'. 4s
communists argued for over a centur'! what a&out the peasantr'E 4nd what a&out the changes in
informationalized! post-Fordist! distri&uted! workE This 3uestion links to the second alternative!
(Dultitude!) which has the opposite pro&lem of proletarian. (Dultitude) includes too much! ever'one
in fact! and the cost of this inclusion is antagonism. Rather than poor against rich! haves against have
nots! the man' against the few! we have the multitude of singularities com&ining and recom&ining in
mo&ile! fluid communicative and affective networks. So (Dultitude) fits &etter with production under
communicative capitalism than (proletarian!) &ut it fits too well and fails to e-press division. Kac3ues
Ranciere*s term! the part-of-no-part is similarl' over-inclusive. Worse! it relies on an underl'ing logic
of inclusion and e-clusion rather than division within a field.
vii
Foucault! 2irth of 2iopolitics! .:FF$, :I$/.
viii
Foucault :$;
i-
See also Hizek! First as Traged'! ";=
-
4gamen "##$ "II
-i
2oltanski and Chiapello ;<I
-ii
2oltanski and Chiapello ;=<
-iii
First as Traged' "FF