Reason and Revolution - Crisis

The inflationary phenomenon is the clearest manifestation of this attempt by capital to re-define and integrate the ineluctable antagonism of the wage relation in monetary terms, to trans-late it into its own language, its own symbolic equivalence the better to subject it to the Rationalisierung, the better to be able to measure antagonism in terms of the money-wage. Consequently, inflation is the most meaningful measure and tool of social antagonism against the wage relation because it serves as a warning sign to capital that the money-wage is failing as the fundamental indicator of the willingness of living labor to subject itself to the tyranny of dead labor. This is precisely what is happening at the moment with the evident decline and implosion not just of the financial system, but also of the parliamentary partitocracy that has dominated government in advanced industrial capitalist countries since the ew !eal "ettlement. #"ee on all this, $ean %eynaud, Les Pouvoirs de Decision dans lEtat Moderne.&

It is in the very nature of a beginning to carry with itself a measure of complete arbitrariness. ot only is it not bound into a reliable chain of cause and effect! a chain in which each effec timmediately turns into the cause for future developments! the beginning has! as it were! nothing whatsoever to hold on to" it is as though it came out of nowhere in either time or space. #or a moment! the moment of beginning! it is as though the beginner had abolished the se$uence of temporality itself! or as though the actors were thrown out of the temporal order and its continuity. %he problem of beginning! of course! appears first in thought and speculation about the origin of the universe! and we &now the 'ebrew solution for its perple(ities ) the assumption of a *reator +od who is outside his own creation in the same way as the fabricator is outside the fabricated ob,ect. In other words! the problem of beginning is solved through the introduction of a beginner whose own beginnings are no longer sub,ect to $uestion because he is -from eternity to eternity-. %his eternity is the absolute of temporality! and to the e(tent that the beginning of the universe reaches bac& into this region of the absolute! it is no longer arbitrary but rooted in something which! though it may be beyond the reasoning capacities of man! possesses a reason! a rationale of its own. %he curious fact that the men of the revolutions were prompted into their desperate search for an absolute the very moment they had been forced to act might well be! at least partly! influenced by the age)old thought)customs of .estern men! according to which each completely new beginning needs an absolute from which it springs and by which it is -e(plained-. /0rendt! 1n Revolution! p.2345

'ere is Constant #note reference to private happiness against freedom (not liberty)* and to guarantees (our liberties*+
La libert6 individuelle! ,e le r6p7te! voil8 la v6ritable libert6 moderne. La libert6 politi$ue en est la garantie" la libert6 politi$ue est par cons6$uent indispensable. Mais demander au( peuples de nos

,ours de sacrifier comme ceu( d-autrefois la totalit6 de leur libert6 individuelle 8 la libert6 politi$ue! c-est le plus s9r moyen de les d6tacher de l-une et $uand on y serait parvenu! on ne tarderait pas 8 leur ravir l-autre:.. Le commerce rend l-action de l-arbitraire sur notre e(istence plus ve(atoire $u-autrefois! parce $ue nos sp6culations 6tant plus vari6es! l-arbitraire doit se multiplier pour les atteindre" mais le commerce rend aussi l-action de l-arbitraire plus facile a 6luder! parce $u-il change la nature de la propri6t6! $ui devient par ce changement pres$ue insaisissable. Le commerce donne 8 la propri6t6 une $ualit6 nouvelle! la circulation; sans circulation! la propri6t6 n-est $u-un usufruit" l-autorit6 peut tou,ours influer sur l-usufruit! car elle peut enlever la ,ouissance" mais la circulation met un obstacle invisible et invincible 8 cette action du pouvoir social. Les effets du commerce s-6tendent encore plus loin; non seulement il affranchit les individus! mais! en cr6ant le cr6dit! il rend l-autorit6 d6pendante. L-argent! dit un auteur fran<ais! est l-arme la plus dangereuse du despotisme! mais il est en m=me temps son frein le plus puissant" le cr6dit est soumis 8 l-opinion" la force est inutile" l-argent se cache ou s-enfuit" toutes les op6rations de l->tat sont suspendues. Le cr6dit n-avait pas la m=me influence che? les anciens" leurs gouvernements 6taient plus forts $ue les particuliers" les particuliers sont plus forts $ue les pouvoirs politi$ues de nos ,ours" la richesse est une puissance plus disponible dans tous les instants! plus applicable a tous les int6r=ts! et par cons6$uent bien plus r6elle et mieu( ob6ie" le pouvoir menace! la richesse r6compense; on 6chappe au pouvoir en le trompant" pour obtenir les faveurs de la richesse! il faut la servir; celle)ci doit l-emporter. Par une suite des m=mes causes! l-e(istence individuelle est moins englob6e dans l-e(istence politi$ue. Les individus transplantent au loin leurs tr6sors" ils portent avec eu( toutes les ,ouissances de la vie priv6e" le commerce a rapproch6 les nations! et leur a donn6 des moeurs et des habitudes 8 peu pr7s pareilles; les chefs peuvent =tre ennemis" les peuples sont compatriotes. @ue le pouvoir s-y r6signe donc" il nous faut de la libert6! et nous l-aurons" mais comme la libert6 $u-il nous faut est diff6rente de celle des anciens! il faut 8 cette libert6 une autre organisation $ue celle $ui pourrait convenir a la libert6 anti$ue" dans celle)ci! plus l-homme consacrait de temps et de force a l-e(ercice de ses droits politi$ues! plus il se croyait libre" dans l-esp7ce de libert6 dont nous sommes susceptibles! plus l-e(ercice de nos droits politi$ues nous laissera de temps pour nos int6r=ts priv6s! plus la libert6 nous sera pr6cieuse. De la vient! Messieurs! la n6cessit6 du syst7me repr6sentatif. Le syst7me repr6sentatif n-est autre chose $u-une organisation 8 l-aide de la$uelle une nation se d6charge sur $uel$ues individus de ce $u-elle ne peut ou ne veut pas faire elle)m=me. Les individus pauvres font eu()m=mes leurs affaires; les hommes riches prennent des intendants. *-est l-histoire des nations anciennes et des nations modernes. Le syst7me repr6sentatif est une procuration donn6e 8 un certain nombre d-hommes par la masse du peuple! $ui veut $ue ses int6r=ts soient d6fendus! et $ui n6anmoins n-a pas le temps de les d6fendre tou,ours lui)m=me. Mais a moins d-=tre insens6s! les hommes riches $ui ont des intendants e(aminent avec attention et s6v6rit6 si ces intendants font leur devoir! s-ils ne sont ni n6gligents ni corruptibles! ni incapables" et pour ,uger de la gestion de ces mandataires! les commettants $ui ont de la prudence se mettent bien au fait des affaires dont ils leur confient l-administration. De m=me! les peuples $ui! dans le but de ,ouir de la libert6 $ui leur convient! recourent au syst7me repr6sentatif! doivent e(ercer une surveillance active et constante sur leur repr6sentants! et se r6server! 8 des 6po$ues $ui ne soient pas s6par6es par de trop longs intervalles! le droit de les 6carter s-ils ont tromp6 leurs voeu(! et de r6vo$uer les pouvoirs dont ils auraient abus6. *ar! de ce $ue la libert6 moderne diff7re de la libert6 anti$ue! il s-ensuit $u-elle est aussi menac6e d-un danger d-esp7ce diff6rente. Le danger de la libert6 anti$ue 6tait $u-attentifs uni$uement 8 s-assurer le partage du pouvoir social! les hommes ne fissent trop bon march6 des droits et des ,ouissances individuelles. Le danger de la libert6 moderne! c-est $u-absorb6s dans la ,ouissance de notre ind6pendance priv6e! et dans la poursuite de nos int6r=ts particuliers! nous ne renoncions trop facilement 8 notre droit de partage dans le pouvoir politi$ue.

#!e la libert, des anciens&-.

.uite by contrast, if labor is seen in its real immanent meaning as living labor, then its objectification cannot be used in e/change for its freedom. 0iving labor can be e/changed for dead labor only through the violent suppression of its freedom. 1n this sense, freedom is no longer seen as a transcendental or ontological entity but rather as the immanent objectification of living labor. 2reedom can no longer be mista3en for freedom of the 4ill in that the 4ill is no longer the e/pression of individuality as acquisitiveness and possession, but rather individuality as creation and fulfilment. 0abor then becomes art5 techne becomes poiesis, though not as individual ownership of the means of production. 1nstead, labor #living labor& becomes reconciled with its multi-versality in its particularity because it is no longer devoted to the satisfaction of human needs seen as wants independent of living labor, but rather it becomes the most basic need of being human. 1t is in order to escape from the gravitational orbit of equilibrium that the freedom of the entrepreneur is needed for "chumpeter. 1ndeed, the entire point to eoclassical value theory is precisely the ability of the capitalist-entrepreneur to free himself from immediate consumption by deferring it and thereby substituting it with laborsaving tools. 1t is not the renunciation of "chopenhauer whose society is entirely eristic and the "tate can only 3eep individuals from descending bac3 into the bellum civium. 2or eoclassical theory the "tate can reward the productivity of labor by protecting the deferral of consumption of the capitalist entrepreneur. 6ut "chumpeter sees this deferral or renunciation, this 0)s&esis #ascending, climbing&, as still limited to the "tati3 framewor3 of general equilibrium analysis, insufficient to e/plain the !ynami3 features of the capitalist economy, its development, its ability to defeat stagnation. 2or "chumpeter the deferral or saving of the eoclassics is inadequate to e/plain value and profits because these can arise only from the creativity, from the authorship #auctoritas, augere, to grow, to initiate (legislation in the 7oman "enate*& of the entrepreneur who elevates and therefore frees himself from the gravitational pull of the circular flow #8reislauf&, reaching thereby the heights of innovation by distinguishing his individuality-personality #9nternehmer-:ersonlich3eit& from that of the mass #this is the way "chumpeter himself describes the process in the suppressed (to smoothe his 'arvard appointment* chapter ; of the %heorie&. ot labor but enterprise is the gateway to freedom and profit as against interest and rent. 4eber shares the same eoclassical platform as "chumpeter. 6ut for him it is not the entrepreneur<s creativity that counts5 it is instead the technical e/pertise that invariably generates bureaucratic control = not in a purely formal-rational manner #>wec3-rationalitat& but rather as an e/pression of conflicting interests over the iron cage. These conflicting self-interests are purely 'obbesian and iet?schean, they replicate the universal @ris of "chopenhauer in answer to Aerman Classical 1dealism from 0eibni? onwards.

(Brendt seems to thin3, incidentally, that there is transcendence in all this = which is right for 7ousseau and the 1dealists, but incorrect for 'obbes and iet?sche who are immanentists #or materialists& = as was "pino?a. #7ussell argues (in his CTreatise on 0eibni?<* that the Aerman philosopher was a pantheist. That may be so, but his pantheism was more a monism whereby ature is swallowed up by "pirit, by Aod. 0eibni?<s monism is purely rational-logical whereas "pino?a<s is derived from a multiplicity of powers reflecting the com-penetration of Aod and ature+ !eus sive atura.&* 4ith Classical theory, the capitalist appears redundant or a nefarious barrier to the freedom of living labor from the start, because if labor is the source of value, then it soon becomes clear that labor cannot be measured by its pro-duct. Det even %ar/<s version preserves socially necessary labor time and the reproduction of society. = 4hence is derived the surplus value that capitalists e/ploit from wor3ers. 2or "chumpeter, surplus is the domain of entrepreneurial creativity. 1n contrast, %ar/ introduces the use value of living labor #a pleonasm because use value for %ar/ refers already to a potential free-dom&. - "o here the sphere of necessity is labor-power and that of potential freedom is living labor #+rundrisse&5 whereas surplus value, which is spent on the reproduction of the capitalist class and the e/pansion of the labor force #cf. 8alec3i<s capitalists earn what they invest or get what they spend&, is both e/ploitation and potential for freedom. 6ut if value is determined by socially necessary labor time, then even surplus value is necessary so that the social question boils down to one of distribution of income = which is what the neo-7icardians argue, with politics determining the wage and therefore the rate of profit. 1f one stuc3 to this %ar/ian theory of value, then the purpose of living labor would be, as it was for 7odbertus and the idiotic saraband of neo-7icardian epigones that followed after him, nothing other than control over the distribution of surplus value = which validates 4eber<s elitarian and organicist position #shared by Brendt and the 'eideggerians who then denounce %echni&)& on the inevitability of bureaucratic control over the production of value through the rational organisation of formally free labor. #En all this, see Arossman.& Bs we saw in :art Ene, once the 0aw of Falue is assumed, it matters little whether value is produced in the factory or realised in the mar3et+ the process of capitalist production becomes technical because production and consumption, valorisation and realisation of value are homologated as $uantities = in short, there is no crisis in capitalist production, no antagonism in the wage relation, no :olitics in the social question. This is the wheel of necessity, the @conomics as science of choice+ the removal of freedom intended as reconciliation and its renunciation as universal Eris in the dismal science. @ven the 4eberian leitender +eist is an official, a wor3er) Bnd that is precisely why he cannot be a "chumpeterian entrepreneur riding on mere "ubjectivity, on Individualitat and 9nternehmer)Personlich&eit. The leitender +eist and its politics of responsibility is the immanent An)freiheit of iet?sche<s will to power. 'ere in 4eber we encounter the 'obbesian problematic that iet?sche had already overcome. 1n 'obbes the absolute is all @uclidean, a/iomatic+ the legitimacy and legality of the "overeign is founded upon the dira necessitas of the social contract =

which is philosophically made freely, as in %ontesquieu, but coerced e/ternally by the ob metum mortis, the fear of imminent and violent death. The "tate is the ultima ratio in foro e(terno #the inter-national state of nature&, it is driven by the raison detat, whilst it preserves the law for its subjects in foro interno+ similarly, the subjects are free in foro interno #the psyche&, but not free in foro e(terno, because subject to the law. 1t is e/actly the same in 4eber = that is why he is more the descendant of 'obbes than of %achiavelli #pace Bron&. The leitender +eist is certainly no Principe because %achiavelli<s problematic of virtus and fortuna cannot be homologated even remotely #historically, politically, philosophically& with the Lebenswelt, the 8ultur, the >ivilisation of late nineteenth-century capitalism.

This compromise, this dis-cutio or dia-lectic that 4eber envisages almost socratically, is what "chmitt denies is possible #remember accusations of dithering and filibuster he aims at it&+ the "tate cannot have both legitimacy and legality at the same time = either the laws are arbitrary or else the legislator is illegitimate. Enly potestas can give legitimacy to law provided we accept the legitimacy of the power to decide over the e(ception which itself has no legal legitimacy and therefore no legitimate legality = and is therefore the suspension of natural laws, the realm of freedom that emanates from one 4ill. This "chmittian stance is confirmed by the very nature of parties #:arteienwesen or party system& which, as %ichels stresses #in C:olitical :arties<&, intensify the division of the civil society into friend and foe = because, we add, political parties re-present only the economic liberties of their electorates subject to the Constitution, which is no longer a constituent power) 2or 4eber and "chumpeter, the scientific inevitability of capitalism = identified absolutely with the mar3et economy = is what ma3es the potestas and the potentia of the "tate indisputable or common-sensical. 6ut 4eber sides a little more with 'obbes and iet?sche on the pessimistic side, whereas "chumpeter is more 0oc3ean in his optimism = but then is as elitarian #by this 1 mean the theory of elitism rather than the practice = someone can believe theoretically in the necessity of elites without being elitist& as 4eber or :areto and %osca. 2or 'obbes the "tate prevents or ab) solves the state of nature, for 0oc3e it simply protects it #especially the estate&. There is no initium in the %reatises, as Brendt observes, no Crevolution<, and the "tate is one virtually by acquisition, one that merely con-firms the possessive individualist status quo of civil society. 6ut there is an initium in 'obbes because the con-ventum, the social contract, erects a Commonwealth that is a state by institution diametrically opposed to the state of nature = and yet, unli3e 0oc3e<s, is necessitated by it, a state by a/iomatic acquisition, to prevent the inevitable civil war)

"o 4eber needs a constitution in his political re-construction of Aermany because without it = though it needs a minimum of inner assent, which may well be constituted by the dira necessitas, by the ob metum mortis, the fear of death - there could be no civil society or "tate, whereas "chumpeter #his entrepreneur& does not because the mar3et economy is the nature of the thing, it is the social synthesis. 4eber does not have to e/plain conflict, but then has difficulty e/plaining how parliamentary democracy is able to function, whereas "chumpeter needs only to presume that it may not function to come up with elitarian democracy or with an authoritarian state to guarantee the mar3et mechanism. 4e 3now that 4eber eventually concedes defeat. The defeat was preannounced in %ichels<s introduction to Politischen Parteien.
!a un punto di vista astratto e superficiale sembra abbastan?a facile superare la difficoltG principale arrivando a una defini?ione plausibile dello spirito rivolu?ionario sen?a doversi rifare esclusivamente, come abbiamo fatto in preceden?a, a una terminologia coniata prima delle rivolu?ioni. :oich, il maggior evento in ogni rivolu?ione H lIatto di fonda?ione, lo spirito rivolu?ionario contiene due elementi che a noi sembrano inconciliabili e persino contraddittori. 0Iatto di fondare il nuovo stato, di progettare la nuova forma di governo implica il serio problema della stabilitG e della durata della nuova struttura+ dIaltra parte lIesperien?a destinata a quelli che sono impegnati in questo serio compito H lIesaltante consapevole??a della capacitG umana di cominciare, la gioia che sempre accompagna la nascita di qualche cosa di nuovo sulla terra. 2orse nel fatto stesso che questi due elementi, la preoccupa?ione della stabilitG e lo spirito di novitG, siano divenuti due concetti opposti nel pensiero e nella terminologia politica J in cui lIuna viene identificata come conservatorismo e lIaltro viene acclamato come se detenesse il monopolio del liberalismo progressista J dobbiamo riconoscere uno dei sintomi della nostra sconfitta. #p.KLM&

evertheless, 4eber has forgotten the iet?schean lesson #'BT'& on the !emo3ratisierung, the fact that if everyone wants to be equal the "tate is thereby dissolved, the Fergeistigung becomes utopian, and so also the :arlamentarisierung #Cacciari, !C:, pLLff, pMNff, 0o "tato e< puro me??o, strumento della salus publica-& The 'egelian Fergeistigung is caught up in the apory of a 2reiheit whereby the 4ill wants to attain the freedom of the will, but in reconciling itself with reality rationally then becomes freedom from the will, which is the very antithesis of what liberalism and socialism offer because their operari ends up in the desert of the opus, of nihilism, the crystallised spirit, the @nt-seelung and @nt-?auberung. #Tocqueville, Brendt, Constant e/amples.&

O vero infatti che la caratteristica essen?iale dei sistemi partitici, sotto altri aspetti tanto diversi, H Pche essi InominanoI i candidati

agli incarichi elettivi o al governo rappresentativoP, e puQ essere anche esatto dire che PlIatto stesso della presenta?ione delle candidature H sufficiente a dar vita a un partito politicoP R N . :erciQ fin dai suoi ini?i il partito come istitu?ione presuppone o che la partecipa?ione dei cittadini alla vita pubblica sia garantita da altri organi pubblici o che tale partecipa?ione non sia necessaria e i ceti recentemente ammessi della popola?ione si accontentino di essere rappresentati o infine che tutte le questioni politiche nel welfare state siano ridotte a problemi amministrativi, da trattarsi e decidersi a opera di esperti+ nel qual caso anche i rappresentanti del popolo non possiedono unIautentica area dIa?ione ma sono semplicemente fun?ionari amministrativi, i cui compiti, benSTL che< si svolgano nel pubblico interesse, non sono sostan?ialmente diversi dallIattivitG gestionale nellIa?ienda privata. "e risultasse esatto lIultimo di questi presupposti J e chi potrebbe negare che nelle nostre societG di massa la sfera politica si sia in larga misura inaridita e sia stata rimpia??ata da quella Pamministra?ione delle coseP che @ngels pronosticava per una societG sen?a classiU Jallora sen?a dubbio i consigli si dovrebbero considerare istitu?ioni ataviche, sen?a alcuna importan?a nel campo delle vicende umane. Ma le stesse considerazioni, o altre molto simili, si dovrebbero ben presto fare per il sistema dei partiti; infatti l'amministrazione e la gestione aziendale, i cui compiti sono dettati dalle necessit insite in ogni processo economico, sono essenzialmente non solo non politiche ma anche non partitiche.

Nessun poeta o filosofo posteriore ha espresso l'intimo significato di questa coincidenza pi elegantemente e pi succintamente di Platone, quando, verso la fine della sua vita, osserv quasi casualmente: . " 'inizio infatti, poich! contiene il suo proprio principio, viene a essere anche un dio, il quale, finch! dimora fra gli uomini, finch! ne ispira le imprese, salva tutto". "ra la stessa esperienza che qualche secolo dopo faceva dire a Poli#io: " 'inizio non soltanto e$ met% dell'impresa, ma arriva gi% verso la fine"&&. "d era sempre la stessa intuizione, dell'identit% principium e principio che alla fine persuase la comunit% americana a guardare "alle proprie origini per trovare una spiegazione delle proprie qualit% distintive e cos' un'indicazione su ci che teneva in ser#o il futuro" ( )* intuizione che gi% aveva condotto +arrington , che certamente non conosceva 5 7 Le Leggi, li#ro - . , / / ( . ( 0 P1 .2.1, -, &3.4. " 'inizio 5 pi della met% del tutto" 5 un antico prover#io, citato cos' anche da 6ristotele, Etica nicomachea, 44)0#. 7 ' 8 . 9 . :;6-"N, op. cit., p. 4. 3<( 6gostino e pro#a#ilmente non aveva una consapevole nozione della frase di Platone , alla convinzione: ":ome nessuno potr% mai indicarmi una comunit% nata diritta che sia mai diventata storta, cos' nessuno potr% mostrarmi una comunit% nata storta che sia mai diventata diritta". Per quanto profonde e significative siano queste intuizioni, la loro importanza politica emerge in piena luce solo quando ci si

sia resi conto che sono in netta contrapposizione con le vecchie nozioni ancor oggi diffuse sulla violenza che detta legge, necessaria per qualsiasi fondazione e quindi, si suppone, inevitabile in tutte le rivoluzioni. 7otto questo aspetto il corso della rivoluzione americana racconta una storia indimentica#ile e insegna una straordinaria lezione: perch! questa rivoluzione non scoppi da sola ma fu fatta da uomini per comune deli#erazione e sulla #ase di reciproci impegni. .l principio che venne alla luce durante quegli anni fatidici in cui furono poste le fondazioni , non con la forza di un solo architetto ma col potere com#inato di molti , era il principio della mutua promessa e della comune deli#erazione* e l'evento stesso infatti decise, come +amilton aveva auspicato, che gli uomini sono "realmente capaci =...> di darsi, per propria scelta e attraverso matura riflessione, un #uon governo": che essi non sono "condannati a far dipendere dal caso e dall'uso della forza le proprie costituzioni politiche" ? 4.