NEGRI&HARDT...COMMONWEALTH

The autonomy of the biopolitical labor process and the immeasurable, overflowing nature of the value produced are two key elements o f the current contradiction of capitalist command.P-146What becomes immediately apparent from the perspective ofimperial governance is the "aristocratic" nature of these global economicpower structures. We describe the emerging Empire, drawingsomewhat ironically on Polybius' eulogy to ancient Rome, as havinga mixed constitution defined by a pyramidal structure, combininga single monarch, a limited aristocracy, and a broader (pseudo-)democratic base.12 Joseph Nye presents the same pyramidal imageof mixed Empire with a more modern analogy. "The agenda ofworld politics has become like a three-dimensional chess game,"P.151Since one of the central factors necessary for biopolitical productivity is the autonomy of the productive networks from capitalist command and from the corruptsocial institutions, class struggle often takes the form of exodus, subtractingfrom control and establishing autonomy. p.152, 285Quesnay's table ismeant to demonstrate two claims that are central to Physiocraticdoctrine: the wealth o f a nation is defined not by the gold and silveri n its coffers but by its net product; and agriculture is the only productivesector of the economy, since handicrafts and manufactureare seen as generating no more value than is invested i n themp.152, 285Two of the important differences that define Marx's work withrespect to Quesnay are that labor, not land, is the source of wealth inthe capitalist economy, and the capitalist system is not a stable equilibriumbut in constant need of expansion, continually searching fornew markets, new materials, new productive forces, and so on. Inthis system surplus value is primarily extracted by capitalists in theform of profit.p.153, 286biopoliticallabor tends to have direct access to the common and the capacityto generate cooperation internallyp.154If necessary labor and the value it generates are conceived interms of the networks of social reproduction in the common, thenwe have to understand surplus labor and surplus value as the formsof social cooperation and elements of the common that are appropriatedby capital. What capital expropriates is not individual wealthbut the result of a social powerp.155, 288

A third column o f our table would have to be definedby the defense of democracy. These struggles are still in theirinfancy, but they will have to invent social institutions to achieve thedemocratic organization of social productive forces, providing a stablefoundation for the autonomy of biopolitical production. Thestruggles in this third column w i l l thus be struggles of the commonagainst capital.p-155, 290299We w i l l see i n this section that for a new expansionof productive forces and an unfettered production of thecommon—in order, i n other words, to save capital—a politics offreedom, equality, and democracy of the multitude is necessaryp.302p.303Freedom and equality also imply an affirmation o f democracyin opposition to the political representation that forms the basis ofhegemony. Two instances of representation are most relevant here,which, upon analysis, turn out to be very closely related. First is therepresentation required to construct a people out of a multitude. Apeople, o f course, as Ernesto Laclau explains brilliantly, is not a naturalor spontaneous formation but rather is formed by mechanisms ofrepresentation that translate the diversity and plurality o f existingsubjectivities into a unity through identification w i th a leader, a governinggroup, or in some cases a central idea. "There is no hegemony,"Laclau makes clear, "without constructing a popular identityout o f a plurality o f democratic demands."3 8 The second instance ofrepresentation, which is most clearly seen at the constitutional level,operates a disjunctive synthesis between the representatives and therepresented.The U.S. Constitution, for instance, is designed simultaneouslyto link the represented to the government and at the sametime separate them from it. This separation of the representativesfrom the represented is likewise a basis for hegemony.3 9 The logic ofrepresentation and hegemony in both these instances dictates that apeople exists only with respect to its leadership and vice versa, andthus this arrangement determines an aristocratic, not a democratic,form of government, even i f the people elect that aristocracy.The needs of biopolitical production, however, directly conflictwith political representation and hegemony. The act of representation,insofar as it eclipses or homogenizes singularities in theconstruction of identity, restricts the production of the common byundermining the necessary freedom and plurality we spoke o f earlier.A people might be able to conserve the existing common, butto produce new instances of the common requires a multitude, withits encounters, cooperation, and communication among singularities.The hegemony created by the division between the representativesand the represented, furthermore, is also an obstacle to the

production of the common. N o t only do all such hierarchies underminebiopolitical production, but also any instance of hegemony orcontrol exerted from outside the multitude over the productive processcorrupts and restricts it.Democracy—not the aristocracy configured by representationand hegemony—is required to foster the production of the commonand the expansion of productive forces, in other words, to avoidcapital's biopolitical crises and treat its ills. This democracy of producersentails, i n addition to freedom and equality, one more essen

Democracy—not the aristocracy configured by representationand hegemony—is required to foster the production of the commonand the expansion of productive forces, in other words, to avoidcapital's biopolitical crises and treat its illsp.305These are just a few of the reforms necessary to save capitalistproduction, and as we said earlier, we have no reason to believe thatthe global aristocracy that rules over economic relations is willing orable to institute them, even when facing enormous financial andeconomic crises. Reforms will come about only through struggle,only when capital is forced to accept them. Innumerable strugglesdemanding the physical and immaterial infrastructure for social lifeare already under way, as is too a struggle for the freedom and autonomyof the multitude. These will have to develop and intensifyto achieve reforms.The kind of transitionwe are working w i th instead requires the growing autonomy ofthe multitude from both private and public control; the metamorphosisof social subjects through education and training in cooperation,communication, and organizing social encounters; and thus aprogressive accumulation of the common. This is how capital createsits own gravediggers: pursuing its own interests and trying to preserveits own survival, it must foster the increasing power and autonomyof the productive multitude. A n d when that accumulationof powers crosses a certain threshold, the multitude w i l l emerge withthe ability autonomously to rule common wealth.p.311p.318