newman saul from bakunin to lacan anti authoritarianism and the dislocation of power

8/12/2019 Newman Saul From Bakunin to Lacan Anti Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power

1/198


2/198

FROM BAKUNIN TO LACAN:

Anti-authoritarianism and the dislocation of o!er

"aul Ne!man


3/198

For Suzy, with love

iii


4/198

iv


5/198

Contents

Foreword by Ernesto Laclau

Acknowledgments

Introduction

vii

ix

1

1 Marxism and the Problem of Power 1

! Anarchism "

" #tirner and the Politics of the Ego $$

% Foucault and the &enealogy of Power $

$ 'he (ar)Machine* +eleu,e and &uattari -

. +errida and the +econstruction of Authority 11$

Lack of the /utside0/utside of the Lack*

Mis23eading Lacan 1"

4 'owards a Politics of Postanarchism 1$

5ibliogra6hy 1-

Index 14-

About the Author 1-

v


6/198

Fore!ord

7ontem6orary 6olitical analysis is increasingly centered on the com6lexities that

the multifarious forms of the relation 6ower0resistance show in 6resent day

societies8 &one are the times in which the locus of 6ower could be referred to in

a sim6le and une9uivocal way:as in the notion of ;dominant class8< 'oday= the

6roliferation of social agents and the increasingly com6lex fabric of relations of

domination have led to a66roaches which tend to stress the 6lurality of networks

through which 6ower is constituted= as well as the difficulties in constructing

more totali,ing 6ower effects8 'his= in turn= has led to a transformation of the

discursive logics attem6ting to gras6 such 6lurality and com6lexity8

/ne of the merits of +r8 >ewmanewman


7/198

Ac#no!led$ments

'here are a number of 6eo6le who have advised and guided me along the way=

and without whose hel6 this book would never have gotten off the ground8 I

would like to thank E6hraim >imni and ?ohn Lechte who have worked closely

with me over the 6ast few years= and for whose friendshi6= su66ort= warmth= and

encouragement I am eternally grateful8 I am also greatly indebted to Ernesto

Laclau= who kindly wrote the foreword to this book and whose groundbreaking

work in the area of contem6orary 6olitical theory has had a great im6act on my

own thinking8 I would also like to thank 'odd May and Paul Patton for their

invaluable advice and feedback8 A s6ecial mention must go to Aree 7ohen for

his technical wi,ardry and assistance in 6re6aring the manuscri6t8 I would also

like to thank 'revor Matthews for com6iling the index8 &ratitude must also go

to a certain government de6artment where I worked for a little while= which

made my life so miserable that I decided to go back to academia= for better or

for worse8 Most im6ortantly= I want to thank #u,y 7asimiro who has alwaysbeen there for me= and who has ins6ired= hel6ed= and encouraged me

throughout8

viii


8/198

Introduction

The Return of %o!er

Ultimo da del despotismo

y primero de lo mismo

(The last day of despotism;

the first day of the same thing).1

(e are always being told that we are living in a time of dramatic= swee6ing

6olitical and social change8 /n the one hand this is undoubtedly true8

Everything from relatively recent colla6se of communist systems in 3ussia and

Eastern Euro6e= the emergence of a distinctly Euro6ean 6olitical identity= and

the ex6losive growth of new technologies and forms of communication= to the

wides6read revival of national and ethnic identities= and the wars and genocides

that seem to be the conse9uence of this= would all seem to suggest that ours is atime of radical change8

5ut on the other hand= one could be forgiven for thinking that things have

not really changed that much at all8 'he same forms of domination and

institutional hierarchies seem to a66ear time and time again= only in different

garbs and ever more cunning disguises8 (ith every 6o6ular u6rising against the

state and with every overthrow of some re6ressive regime or other= there always

seems to be a new and more subtle form of re6ression waiting to take its 6lace8

'here is always a new discourse of 6ower to take the 6lace of the old8 For

instance= what does it matter to the Australian Aboriginal= or the townshi6

dweller in #outh Africa= or the 6risoner in a 3ussian @ail= or the Latino illegal

immigrantB in the Cnited #tates= whether he or she has a new set of mastersD

/ne is still dominated by a series of institutional 6ractices and discursive

regimes which tie him to a certain marginali,ed and= therefore= sub@ugated

identity8 Increased technology seems to go hand in hand with intensified social

control and more so6histicated and com6lex ways of regulating individuals8

Freedom in one area always seems to entail domination in others8 #o there is

still= des6ite these 6rofound global changes= the raw= brutal inevitability of

6ower and authority8 Maybe Friedrich >iet,sche was right when he saw history

as merely a ha,ardous 6lay of dominations8B!

'his is not say= of course= that there have not been significant advancements

on a world scale8 >or is it to say that all regimes and modes of 6olitical and

social organi,ation are e9ually o66ressive8 'o argue that the 6osta6artheid

regime in #outh Africa= or the now not so new governments in the former #oviet

bloc= are as dominating as the ones they re6laced= would be ludicrous and

insulting8 Moreover= we must once and for all sto6 falling into the 6erniciouserror of advocating a 6urer or more universal revolutionary theory that would

1


9/198

Introduction

seek to be more com6lete and swee6ing in its 6aroxysm of destruction8 #uch a

revolutionary strategy only reaffirms= 6aradoxically= the very 6ower and

authority that it seeks to overthrow8 'he 5olshevik revolution is a good exam6le

of this8 I will be arguing that the very notion of revolution as a universal=cataclysmic overriding of current conditions should be abandoned8 Also I am

not trying to be excessively 6essimistic or fatalistic by talking about the

interminable reaffirmation of 6ower at every turn8 owever the reality of 6ower

is something that cannot be ignored8

For too long 6ower was shrouded in ob@ectiveB ex6lanations offered by

6hiloso6hies like Marxism= or dressed u6 in some theory or other which allowed

it to be neglected8 owever= 6ower can= and should= now be seen as6ower8 It

can no longer be seen as an e6i6henomenon of the ca6italist economy or classrelations8 Power has returned as an ob@ect of analysis to be studied in its own

right8 I use returnB here in the Lacanian sense of repetitionfor Lacan= the 3eal

is that which always returns to the same 6laceB [my italics]8" 'he real= for

Lacan= is that which is missing from the symbolic structure= the indefinable=

elusive la!"that always resists symboli,ation by returningB* ere the real is

that which always comes back to the same 6lace:to the 6lace where the sub@ect

in so far as he thinks= where the res !ogitans= does not meet it8B%

'he com6lexities of the 3eal and lack will be discussed later= yet we may6erha6s say here that 6ower is like the real 6ower inevitably returnsB to the

same 6lace= des6ite various attem6ts to remove it8 It always haunts= by its sheer

inability to be defined= by its resistance to re6resentation within 6olitical

discourse= the very 6olitical discourses that have as their aim the overthrow of

6ower8

'he 6oint of this discussion is not really to offer a definition of 6ower that

has hitherto eluded us= but on the contrary to recogni,e that 6ower is abstract

and indefinable= and to construct a definition 6recisely through this very

resistance to definition8 3ather than saying what 6ower is= and 6roceeding from

there= it may be more 6roductive to look at the ways in which theories and ideas

of revolution= rebellion= and resistance reaffirm 6ower in their very attem6t to

destroy it8 'his logic which inevitably re6roduces 6ower and authority= I will

call the pla!e of power8 PlaceB refers to the abstract 6re6onderance= and

ceaseless reaffirmation= of 6ower and authority in theories and movements that

are aimed at overthrowing it8 'he real always returns to the same 6lace=B and it

is thispla!e= or more 6recisely this logic of return,that I will be talking about8 It

is a cruel and malicious logic= but a logic that is nevertheless crucial to the waywe think about 6olitics8

#o= in light of this= how should we look at the 6olitical and social changes

that have characteri,ed our recent 6ast and continue to structure the hori,ons of

our 6resentD /n the one hand= one might argue that= dramatic as these

develo6ments are= they signify that we are still tied to the same essentialist ideas

and 6olitical categories that have dominated our thought for the 6ast two

centuries8 For instance= we do not seem to be able to esca6e the category of the

nation state which has been with us since the 'reaty of (est6halia in 1.%4= andmore s6ecifically= since the French 3evolution8 'he outbreak of wars fought

!


10/198

'he 3eturn of Power "

over ethnic identities indicates= in a most violent and brutal manner= how much

we are still tied to the idea that it is best for ethnic and national identities to have

their own state8 Perha6s in this sense= then= the idea of the state may be seen as a

manifestation of the 6lace of 6ower8 Moreover= we are still= 9uite clearly=tra66ed in essentialist ethnic identities8 'he idea that one is essentially 7roat or

#erb or Albanian or utu or Euro6ean= and that one defines oneself in

o66osition to other= less 6ure=B less educatedB or enlightened=B less

rational=B less clean=B less hardworkingB identities= is still all too evident

today8 'he changesB that are ceaselessly 6romulgated have only succeeded in

solidifying these essentialist nationalist ideas8

owever= the 6roblem of essentialism is broader than the 6roblem of

nationalism8 Essentialist ideas seem to govern our 6olitical and social reality8Individuals are 6inned down within an identity that is seen as true or natural8

Essentialist identities limit the individual= constructing his or her reality around

certain norms= and closing off the 6ossibilities of change and becoming8 'here

is= moreover= a whole series of institutional 6ractices which dominate the

individual in a multitude of ways= and which are brought into 6lay by

essentialist logics8 /ne has only to look at the way in which social and family

welfare agencies and correctional institutions o6erate to see this8 'he identity of

the delin9uent=B welfare de6endent=B or unfit 6arentB is carefully constructed

as the essence of the individual= and the individual is regulated= according to this

essential identity= by a whole series of rational and moral norms8

'he changes that have taken 6lace on a global scale seem only to have

denied the individual the 6ossibility of real change8 >ot only does essentialist

thinking limit the individual to certain 6rescribed norms of morality and

behavior= it also excludes identities and modes of behavior which do not

conform to these norms8 'hey are categori,ed as unnaturalB or 6erverse=B as

somehow otherB and they are 6ersecuted according to the norms they

transgress8 'he logic of essentialism 6roduces an o66ositional thinking= from

which binary hierarchies are constructed* normal0abnormal= sane0insane= hetero)

homosexual= etc8 'his domination does not only refer to individuals who fall

outside the category of the norm [homosexuals= drug addicts= delin9uents= the

insane= etc] it is also suffered by those for whom certain fragments of their

identity:for identity is never a com6lete thing:would be condemned as

abnormal8 (e all suffer= to a greater or lesser extent= under this tyranny of

normality= this discourse of domination which insists that we all have an

essential identity and that that is what we are8 (e must not think= though= that

this domination is entirely forced u6on us8 (hile this is no doubt true to a

certain extent:think of 6risons= mental institutions= the army= hos6itals= the

work6lace:an essentialist identity is also something that we often willingly

submit to8 'his mode of 6ower cannot o6erate without our consent= without our

desire to be dominated8 #o not only will this discussion examine the domination

involved in essentialist discourses and identities:the way they su66ort

institutions such as the state and the 6rison for exam6le:it will also look at the

ways in which we 6artici6ate in our own domination8


11/198

Introduction

'he 6roblem of essentialism is the 6olitical 6roblem of our time8 'o say that

the 6ersonal is the 6olitical= clichGd and hackneyed though it is= is merely to say

that the way we have been constituted as sub@ects= based on essentialist

6remises= is a 6olitical issue8 'here is really nothing radical in this8 5ut it is stilla 9uestion that must be addressed8 Essentialism= along with the universal=

totali,ing 6olitics it entails= is the modern 6lace of 6ower8 /r at least= it is

something around which the logic of the 6lace of 6ower is constituted8 It will be

one of the 6ur6oses of this discussion to show how essentialist ideas= even in

revolutionary 6hiloso6hies like anarchism= often re6roduce the very domination

they claim to o66ose8 Modern 6ower functions through essentialist identities=

and so essentialist ideas are something to be avoided if genuine forms of

resistance are to be constructed and if genuine change is to be 6ermitted8 'hechanges of recent times= dramatic as they were= were still tied to these

essentialist ways of thinking= 6articularly with regard to national identity= and to

forms of 6olitical sovereignty like the state8 'hey did not at all challenge or

disru6t these categories= often only further embedding them in 6olitical

discourse and social reality8

owever= modernity= like everything= is a 6aradox8 It is o6en to a 6lurality of

inter6retations and characteri,ed by different im6lications= voices= and dreams8

'he changes that I have s6oken about can be seen= at the same time= in a

different light8 (hile they have consolidated the 6olitical categories that

continue to o66ress us= they have also discovered ways they may be resisted8

(hile they have tightened the 6arameters of our identity= they have also shown

us extraordinary 6ossibilities of freedom hitherto undreamt of8 Freedom= I will

argue= is a dia6hanous idea= often involving its own forms of domination8 5ut it

is also something indefinable= like 6ower* it remains constitutively o6en= and its

6ossibilities are endless8

Like 6ower= freedom may be seen in terms of the real* it always exceeds the

boundaries and definitions laid down for it= and the 6ossibility of freedom

always returns=B des6ite the most ardent attem6ts to su66ress it8 #o our time

6resents us with an o6en hori,on= a hori,on that allows us to construct our own

reality= rather than having it constructed for us8 #lavo@ Hi,ek talks about the

colla6se of communist states as characteri,ed by an ex6erience of o6enness=B

of a symbolic moment of the absence of any kind of authority to re6lace the one

@ust overthrown8$It is asu#limemoment= a moment of em6tiness 6regnant with

6ossibility a truly revolutionary moment caught in that infinitesimal lack

between one signifying regime and the next8 'his is the moment in which the6lace of 6ower becomes an empty 6lace8 'here is no inevitability about

domination= but there is always its 6ossibility8.'he same goes for freedom8

Perha6s we too are caught in this em6ty 6lace= this chasm between one world of

6ower and the next8

Although we are still very much tied to the old 6olitical categories= we are

beginning to see their limits8 (e are beginning to see how we can move beyond

them8 'he 9uestion is where are we going to nextD If we think that we can move

to a world without 6ower= then we are already tra66ed in the world thato66resses us8 'he dream of a world without 6ower is 6art of the 6olitical

%


12/198

'he 3eturn of Power $

language of this world8 It is based on essentialist ideas about humanity= ideas

which render it nothing more than that:a dream= and a dangerous one at that8

(hile there is no moving com6letely beyond 6ower= there are= however=

6ossibilities of limiting 6ower= or at least organi,ing it in such a way that therisk of domination is defused8 /ne of these ways= I will argue= is through a

criti9ue of essentialist and totali,ing logics8

'he idea that we can be com6letely free from 6ower is based on an

o66ositional Manichean logic that 6osits an essential division between humanity

and 6ower8 Anarchism is a 6hiloso6hy based on this logic8 It sees humanity as

o66ressed by state 6ower= yet uncontaminated by it8 'his is because= according

to anarchism= human sub@ectivity emerges in a world of natural lawsB which

are essentially rational and ethical= while the state belongs to the artificialBworld of 6ower8 'hus man and 6ower belong to se6arate and o66osed worlds8

Anarchism therefore has a logical 6oint of de6arture= uncontaminated by 6ower=

from which 6ower can be condemned as unnatural= irrational= and immoral8 In

the 6ast= radical 6olitical theory has always relied on this uncontaminated 6oint

of de6arture in order to 6resent a criti9ue of 6ower= whether it be the 6ower of

the state= the 6ower of the ca6italist economy= the 6ower of religion= etc8

(ithout this 6oint of de6arture= it would seem that any kind of resistance

against 6ower would be im6ossible8 (here would resistance or revolution come

from if this were not the caseD #urely it must come from a rational= ethical form

of sub@ectivity which is somehow uncorru6ted by the 6ower it confronts8

>ow here is the 6roblem:the 6roblem that will haunt our discussion8 Let us

imagine that the natural human essence= the essential= moral= and rational

sub@ectivity su66osedly uncontaminated by 6ower= is contaminated= and indeed=

!onstituted= by the 6ower it seeks to overthrow8 Moreover= not only is this

sub@ectivity= this 6ure 6lace of resistance= decidedly im6ure it also constitutes=

in itself= through its essentialist and universalist 6remises= a discourse of

domination8 'o 6ut it sim6ly= then= would this not mean that the 6lace of

resistance has become a 6lace of 6owerD Csing the argument that one needs a

6ure agent to overthrow 6ower= the 6ossibility of a contaminated agent would

only mean a reaffirmation of the 6ower it claims to o66ose8 In anarchist

discourse humanity is to re6lace the state8 5ut if we were to suggest that

humanity is actually constituted by this 6ower and that it contains its own

discourses of domination= then the revolution that the anarchists 6ro6ose would

only lead to a domination 6erha6s more 6ernicious than the one it has re6laced8

It would= in other words= fall into the tra6 of 6lace8 'his would seem to leave usat a theoretical im6asse* if there is no uncontaminated 6oint of de6arture from

which 6ower can be critici,ed or condemned= if there is no essential limit to the

6ower one is resisting= then surely there can be no resistance against it8 Perha6s

we should give u6 on the idea of 6olitical action altogether and resign ourselves

to the inevitability of domination8

owever= the 9uestion of the 6ossibility of resistance to domination is

crucial to this discussion8 'he work will ex6lore= through a com6arison of

anarchism and 6oststructuralism= the 6aradox of the uncontaminated 6lace ofresistance8 I will suggest that the 6oint of de6arture central to anarchist


13/198

Introduction

discourse:the essential human sub@ect and its concomitant morality and

rationality:cannot o6erate in this way because it is actually constituted by

6ower8 Moreover= because it is based on essentialist ideas= it forms itself into a

discourse of domination:a 6lace of 6ower8 I will use the arguments of variousthinkers:#tirner= Foucault= +eleu,e and &uattari= +errida= and Lacan:to

ex6lore the logic of the 6lace of 6ower8 'hey will be used to show that the

human sub@ectivity of anarchist discourse is constructed= at least 6artially= by a

variety of institutions and discursive regimes= and that therefore it cannot be

seen as an uncontaminated 6oint of de6arture8 'he 6olitics of 6oststructuralism

is the 6olitics of dislo!ationthe meta6hor of war= rift= and antagonism is used

to break down the essentialist unity of human sub@ectivity= showing its

de6endence on the 6ower it claims to o66ose8 'his idea of dislocation develo6sthe argument u6 to the logical im6asse mentioned before* how can there be

resistance to 6ower without a theoretical 6oint of de6arture outside 6owerD It

will remain of the discussion to argue= des6ite these limits= that a discourse of

resistance can be constructed through a non)essentialist notion of the /utside8

5roadly s6eaking= then= the aim of this work is to ex6lore the logic of the

6lace of 6ower in various 6olitical discourses and ideas= and to develo6 a way of

thinking about resistance that does not reaffirm domination8 It could be seen as

an exercise in anti)authoritarian thought because it tries to resist the tem6tation

of 6lace8 It resists= in other words= the desire to find an essential 6oint of

resistance= because this will inevitably form itself into a structure or discourse of

authority8 'he discussion tries to develo6 anti)authoritarian thinking relevant to

our time8

It may seem strange= however= that this thinking will be develo6ed through a

com6arison between anarchism and 6oststructuralism8 At first glance it would

seem as though anarchism and 6oststructuralism have little in common* the

former is a revolutionary 6hiloso6hy born out of nineteenth century humanist

ideals= while the latter:can it really be said to be a 6hiloso6hyD:would a66ear

to re@ect the very foundations u6on which anarchism is based8 owever it is

6recisely for this reason that the two are brought together8 'he fundamental

differences between them= 6articularly on the 9uestions of sub@ectivity= morality=

and rationality= ex6ose= in a most crucial way= the 6roblems of modernity8 (hile

anarchism as a revolutionary 6hiloso6hy would seem to have very little to do

with our time= it is based on various essentialist categories which still condition

our 6olitical reality= and which must be ex6lored if we are to ever move beyond

them8Moreover= anarchism is= as I will argue= a 6hiloso6hy of 6ower8 It is=

fundamentally= an unmas"ingof 6ower8 In contrast to Marxism= anarchism was

revolutionary in analy,ing 6ower in its own right= and ex6osing the 6lace of

6ower in Marxism itself:its 6otential to reaffirm state authority8 For our

6ur6oses= anarchism is the 6hiloso6hy that invented the 6lace of 6ower as a

6olitical conce6t8 I will also argue that anarchism itself falls into the tra6 of the

6lace of 6ower= and this is ex6lored through the 6oststructuralist criti9ue of

essentialism8 And it is through this criti9ue that the 6roblems central to radical6olitical theory are brought to the fore8 Poststructuralism too is an unmasking of

.


14/198

'he 3eturn of Power

6ower:an unmasking of the 6ower in discourses= ideas= and 6ractices that we

have come to regard as innocent of 6ower8 In this sense= then= anarchism and

6oststructuralism= as different as they are= can be brought together on the

common ground of the unmasking and criti9ue of 6ower8 owever= as I saidbefore= what really makes this com6arison interesting and useful is not what

they have in common= but rather in the crucial ways in which they differ8 #o this

work is not really a com6arison of anarchism and 6oststructuralism= but rather a

bringing together of certain contrasting ideas in order to highlight the 9uestions

facing radical 6olitical theory today8 'his com6arisonB is merely a device used

to think through these 9uestions and 6roblems and= ho6efully= to find solutions

to them8

It is= however= undoubtedly an unusual com6arison= and it is a com6arisonnot often made8 I am only aware of one work:'odd Mayiet,sche


15/198

Introduction

Chater Outline

'he first cha6ter is a discussion of the anarchist criti9ue of Marxism8 It uses

the arguments of the classical anarchists= such as 5akunin and ro6otkin= tounmask the authoritarian currents in Marxism8 It looks at the ideas of Marx and

Engels= as well as those of modern Marxist theorists such as Althusser=

Poulant,as= and 7allinicos= and contends that Marxist theory ignored the

6roblem of 6ower= 6articularly state 6ower= by reducing it to an economic

analysis8 'his would lead to the fate of every ?acobin revolution* as the

anarchists 6redicted= the structure= or pla!eof state 6ower would be left intact=

and even 6er6etuated in an infinitely more tyrannical way8 'he cha6ter also

looks at the broader 6roblem of authority in Marxism:the authority of thevanguard 6arty and the 6rivileging of the industrial 6roletariat:and it argues

that although Marx himself regarded authority as 6ernicious= he was inesca6ably

indebted to a egelian logic which allowed authority to be 6er6etuated8

'he anarchist criti9ue of Marxism= then= is used to construct a theory of the

6lace of 6ower:which anarchists detected in the state:which will become the

6oint of de6arture for the discussion8 Moreover= the dialogue between anarchism

and Marxism is im6ortant= because it introduces anarchism as a 6hiloso6hy of

6ower8 Anarchism sought to study 6ower in its own right= without shrouding itin an economic or class analysis8 'his unmasking of 6ower and authority makes

it 6articularly relevant to our discussion8

'he second cha6ter looks at anarchism= not merely as a criti9ue of Marxism=

but also as a 6hiloso6hical system in its own right8 It is based on a notion of a

natural human essence= and a morality and rationality which emanate from this

essence8 I suggest that anarchism is a radical humanist 6hiloso6hy

fundamentally influenced by Feuerbach


16/198

'he 3eturn of Power -

essence8 I a66ly this argument to anarchism= suggesting that in its criti9ue of

6olitical authority= it has dis6laced this authority only to reinvent it within the

idea of human essence8 'his 6lace of resistance to 6ower has become= then= a

6lace of 6ower itself8#tirner= in talking about the links between 6ower and sub@ectivity= 6rovides

an obvious but hitherto unex6lored connection with 6oststructuralism8 #tirner is

therefore the link in this discussion between the 6olitics of classical anarchism

and the 6olitics of 6oststructuralism to which it is being com6ared8 'he 6ossible

connections between #tirneriet,sche= and for this reason it is all the more curious that he has been almost

entirely ignored by contem6orary theory8-

'he contribution of #tirner to6oststructuralist thought remains largely unex6lored= and I ho6e that this

discussion of #tirner in this context will ins6ire some interest in the to6ic8

'he 6lace that #tirner has in this discussion of 6ower and resistance is

e9ually im6ortant8 e shows that there can be no world outside 6ower= and that

the 6olitics of resistance must be engaged within the limits of 6ower8 'herefore=

the fourth cha6ter looks at Michel Foucault


17/198

Introduction

the structure of hierarchy:the 6lace of 6ower:intact8 +errida does= however=

incor6orate a notion of the /utside:as an ethical realmB of @ustice:which=

while it is seen as being constituted by the Inside= is still 6roblematic in the

context of the 6oststructuralist argument8 #o where does this leave usD (e canno longer 6osit an essential 6lace of resistance outside 6ower= but it seems that

there needs to be some notion of an outside= no matter how momentary= for

resistance to be theori,ed8

7ha6ter seven 6roceeds to address the 6roblem of this non)essentialist

outside through the ideas of ?ac9ues Lacan8 Like #tirner= Lacan will be seen as a

6ivotal 6oint in the discussion8 is arguments about sub@ectivity= signification=

and 6articularly his notion of lack= will be used as a way of breaking through the

theoretical im6asse that has arisen8 e allows us to go beyond the limits of the6oststructuralist 6aradigm:the limits of difference and 6lurality:to ex6lore

this 9uestion of the outside8 I use the conce6t of the lack at the base of

sub@ectivity to formulate a notion of the outside that does not become

essentialist or foundational:which does not become= in other words= a 6lace8 I

also use Lacanian ideas such as the real to contest abermas< ideal of rational

communication8 'his criti9ue of abermas is relevant here= not only because the

ideal of rational communication= and the communitarian 6hiloso6hies founded

on this= is similar to anarchism it is also im6ortant to show that the universal

and essential categories that this communication is based on amount to a

totalitarian discourse that is embroiled in the very domination it claims to

eschew8 Moreover= this Lacanian terminology is a66lied to the identity of

society= and I attem6t to reconstruct the notion of 6olitical and social identity on

the basis of its own im6ossibility and em6tiness8 'he social is shown to be

constructed by its limits= by what makes its com6lete identity im6ossible:

namely 6ower8 owever= the identity of 6ower itself is found to be incom6lete=

so there is a ga6 between 6ower and identity8 5ut this lack is not from another=

natural world= as anarchists would contend8 /n the contrary= it is 6roduced by

the 6ower it limits8 'his would allow us to conce6tuali,e an outside to 6ower=

6aradoxically on the inside of 6ower:in other words= a non)essentialist 6oint of

resistance8

I argue that resistance must not refer to essentialist foundations if it is to

avoid reaffirming domination8 'his is because= as I will have shown= the 6lace

of 6ower is inexorably linked to essentialism* universal and totaling 6olitics that

deny difference inevitably flow from essentialist notions8 #o the next cha6ter

[cha6ter eight]will try to delineate= using the non)essentialist 6lace I have @ustdevelo6ed= a 6olitics of resistance without foundations:a 6olitics which re@ects

universali,ing and totali,ing tendencies8 'he ethical 6arameters of this 6olitics

are 6rovided by the anarchist moral discourse of freedom and e9uality= which

has been freed from its essentialist)humanist foundations8 'he ethical limits that

I am trying to develo6 remain constitutively o6en to difference and 6lurality=

while= at the same time= restricting discourses which seek to deny difference and

6lurality8

'he 6ur6ose of this cha6ter= and indeed the whole discussion= is 6erha6s toshow that 6olitics can be thought in both a non)essentialist= non)universal way=

1J


18/198

'he 3eturn of Power 11

and in a way which is 6roductive and not nihilistic8 'o say this may not sound

all that radical or contentious= but it must be remembered that 6olitical theory is

still= to a large extent= tra66ed within essentialist and foundational discourses

which limit it to certain norms and modes of sub@ectivity= while dominating andexcluding others8 'he 6olitical 6ro@ect that I attem6t to outline is an o6en

6ro@ect= a 6ro@ect defined by its fundamental incom6leteness8 I can only offer a

few suggestions here8 'he 6oint of this discussion is not really to construct a

6olitical 6ro@ect= but rather to show how this 6olitical 6ro@ect arises through the

limitations of modern 6olitical discourse8

'his has been nothing more than a brief outline of the argument:the thread

I will draw through the discussion8 As I said before= the cha6ters can be read

both as stages in an argument= and as se6arate discussions with their ownthemes and digressions8 I would feel ha66ier if they were taken as both8

I am also aware that there are certain issues that could have been= and

6erha6s should have been= raised in the discussion= but due to limitations of

s6ace were not8 /ne of these is the 9uestion of libertarianism8 In my discussion

of anarchism I mention its 6ossible connection with libertarian 6hiloso6hy8 I

also mention this connection with reference to Foucault8 I do not go into great

length for the reason @ust mentioned8 Libertarianism is an anti)authoritarian=

antistate 6hiloso6hy= which sees 6olitical 6ower as an insufferable burden u6on

the individual= and which seeks to maximi,e 6ersonal freedom and minimi,e the

6ower of institutions81J(hat is more= it is a 6hiloso6hy that= if its advocates are

to be believed= is becoming more relevant and more 6rominent in 6olitics today8

It is a 6hiloso6hy= moreover= which cuts across both the left and right= and

which informs the radical= anti)authoritarian elements of both8 It clearly has

links with both anarchism and 6oststructuralism which= although they a66roach

the 6roblem of authority in radically different ways= still seek to minimi,e

6olitical domination= and maximi,e 6ersonal freedom8 5oth anarchism and

6oststructuralism may be seen as forms of left libertarianism8 5ut the 6roblem

with this similarity is that= although certain as6ects of the libertarian tradition

a66eal to those on the left:if leftB or rightB still means anything today:

libertarianism is= more often than not= considered a right wing 6hiloso6hy in the

sense that it ideali,es free market individualism and wants to liberate society

from the o66ressive burden of the welfare state and its taxes8 'his cannot easily

be dismissed8 It must be remembered that anarchists also saw the state as a

burden on the natural functioning of society= and they would be e9ually

sus6icious of welfare= and Foucault= for instance= was interested in= or at leastdid not discount= liberalism= which forms the basis of libertarianism= as a

criti9ue of excessive government811

Anarchism and 6oststructuralism both re@ect the ideali,ed notion of the

individual that libertarian 6hiloso6hy is founded on8 For anarchists= the

individual cannot be taken out of the context of the natural society that creates

him= and= moreover= the free market= which libertarians see as a mechanism that

ex6ands individual freedom= anarchists see as a fundamental site of o66ression8

For 6oststructuralists= to 6osit such an abstracted notion of individuality aslibertarians do= is to ignore the various dominations that are involved in its


19/198

Introduction

construction8 In this sense= then= anarchism and 6oststructuralism= while they are

both anti)authoritarian 6hiloso6hies= and while they both aim at increasing

individual freedom= still 9uestion the abstracted notion of individuality:where

the individual exists in a kind of vacuum of the free market in which he hasabsolute free choice:that libertarianism 6ro6ounds8 >evertheless= there are still

undeniable links that can be established here with a 6hiloso6hy that easily gives

itself over to right wing 6olitics8 Perha6s libertarianism can be seen as a dark

6otentiality of the criti9ue of authority8 'o deny this 6otentiality would be

against the s6irit of theoretical o6enness that I ho6e is imbued in this book8 /n

the other hand= I do not want to em6hasi,e this link too much because the

discussion is not about libertarianism8 I only mention it here to indicate that the

anti)authoritarian categories of anarchism and 6oststructuralism are notwatertight8 'heir meanings and im6lications cannot be contained in narrow=

clear cut definitions= but rather are contaminated= and very often overflow in

directions they might not have counted on= and which they might be o66osed to8

(ithout this un6redictability of meaning there would be no such thing as

6olitics8

&efinitions

Political definitions are a difficult thing= and rightly so8 >evertheless= I

reali,e that I had better define certain terms that I will be using throughout the

discussion8 Many of the terms that I have used already like the lackB and the

real=B are Lacanian terms= and will be defined in the cha6ter devoted to Lacan8

owever there are other terms that need some ex6lanation8

$ower, &omination, and %uthorityI reali,e that I have= to a certain extent= been using these termsinterchangeably8 >ow because these ideas are seen in radically different ways

by the different thinkers I am discussing= it will be im6ossible to offer an overall

definition for them here8 Moreover=power in this discussion= is an intentionally

abstract conce6t8 'he 6roblem is that although I will be using these

interchangeably= by the time we get to Foucault= 6owerB and dominationB

have somewhat different meanings8 Although relations of domination arise from

relations of 6ower= domination [and authority]is something to be resisted= while6ower is something to be acce6ted as unavoidable8 For Foucault and= to a certain

extent= #tirner= 6ower relations are inevitable in any society= and this is 6recisely

where the 6roblems for anarchism= which 6osits an essential division between

6ower and society= emerge8 #o the confusion that arises from Foucault


20/198

'he 3eturn of Power 1"

the state and the 6rison= etc8 it also refers to authoritarian discursive structures

like rational truth= essence= and the sub@ectifying norms they 6roduce8

'ssentialismEssentialism is the idea that beneath surface differences= there lies one true

identity or character8 'his essential identity= it is claimed= is concealed or

re6ressed by forces external to it81! For exam6le= anarchism claims that the

essential identity of the individual= defined by a natural morality and rationality=

is concealed and distorted by the 6ower of the state and religion8 /nce these

institutions are destroyed= according to this argument= human essence will

flourish8

(e can see that this argument= which views 6olitical forces as external tothis essence= constructs this essence as an uncontaminated 6oint of de6arture= a

moral and rational 6lace from which these 6olitical forces can be resisted8 My

argument against this will be twofold8 First= I will try to show= using the

6oststructuralist thinkers mentioned above= that the logic of the uncontaminated

6oint of de6arture is flawed* in reality= the essential human identity that

constitutes this 6oint of de6arture is already constructed by= or at least infinitely

bound u6 with= the 6ower regimes it claims to o66ose8 Indeed its identity of

o66osition to these 6ower regimes is itself constructed by 6ower8 #econd=essential identity= far from being an identity of resistance= actually becomes an

authoritarian signifier* it becomes the norm according to which other identities

are 6ersecuted8 It becomes the basis of a whole series of binary o66ositions that

restrict other identities by constructing them as somehow a failure or 6erversion

of the norm8 'hese arguments are develo6ed from the 6oststructuralist criti9ue

that eschews the very idea of an essential identity= seeing identity as nothing

more than a dis6ersed series of surfaces= 6luralities= and antagonisms8

$oststru!turalismPoststructuralism is an ambiguous area that re9uires some ex6laining8 For a

start= there is considerable debate as to whether there is any such thing as

6oststructuralism at all8 Many of the 6oststructuralistB thinkers I will be

discussing would have re@ected the title8 Poststructuralism is merely a

catch6hrase= a term of convenience= which grou6s together a whole series of

thinkers and ideas which= in many res6ects= are 9uite diverse8 #o it must be

remembered that 6oststructuralism by no means signifies a unified theory orbody of thought8 'here are= however= among these thinkers= certain shared

strands of thinking and 6hiloso6hical traditions which can be brought out and

develo6ed= and it is this which may be termedpoststru!turalist8

Poststructuralism has its origins in the structuralism of 5arthes= Levi)

#trauss= Althusser= etc81"5roadly= structuralism subordinated the signified to the

signifier= seeing the reality of the sub@ect as constructed by structures of

language that surround it8 'hus essentialist ideas about sub@ectivity are re@ected=

and in their 6lace is 6ut a wholly determining structure of signification8 For

instance= Althusserian Marxism saw the sub@ect as overdetermined by the

signifying regime 6roduced by ca6italism= the sub@ect becoming merely an


21/198

Introduction

effect of this 6rocess8 'he 6roblem with this re@ection of essentialism was that

the all)determining structure of language became= in itself= an essence8 'he

structure becomes @ust as determining as any essence= @ust as totali,ing and as

closed an identity8 As +errida argues= the structure became a pla!ethe entirehistory of the conce6t of the structure 8 8 8 must be thought of as a series of

substitutions of center for center= as a linked chain of determinations of the

center8B1% In other words= the all)determining structure becomes merely a

substitution for the essential centers:like &od= man= consciousness:that it

su66osedly resisted8

'his criti9ue of structuralism may be broadly characteri,ed as 6ost)

structuralist8B Poststructuralism goes one ste6 beyond structuralism by seeing

the structure itself= to a certain extent= as affected by other forces8 At least theidentity of the structure is not closed= com6lete= or 6ure:it is contaminated= as

+errida would argue= by what it su66osedly determines8 'his makes its identity

unde!ida#le8 'here can be no notion= then= of an all)determining= centrali,ed

structure like language8 For 6oststructuralists= the sub@ect is constituted= not by a

central structure= but by dis6ersed and unstable relations of forces:6ower=

discursive regimes= and 6ractices8 'he difference between structuralism and

6oststructuralism is that* first= for 6oststructuralists= the forces which constitute

the sub@ect do not form a central structure:like ca6italism= for instance:but

remain decentrali,ed and diffused second= for 6oststructuralists= the sub@ect is

!onstitutedby these forces= rather than determined8 /ne is constituted in such a

way that there is always the 6ossibility of resistance to the way one is

constituted8 It must be remembered= then= that for 6oststructuralism= as o66osed

to structuralism= forces= like 6ower= which constitute the sub@ect= are always

unstable and o6en to resistance8

Poststructuralism may be seen as a series of strategies of resistance to the

authority of 6lace8 Poststructuralists sees structuralism as falling into the tra6 of

6lace by 6ositing= in the 6lace of &od= or man= a structure which is @ust as

essentialist8 #o 6oststructuralism is not only a re@ection of the essentialism of

Enlightenment humanism= but also the essentialism of the structuralist criti9ue

of humanism8 A6art from this= I am not 6re6ared to define 6oststructuralism any

further8 Its definition will be brought out in the discussion8 owever= as I

suggested before= the 6ur6ose of the discussion is really not to define or

describe= but to use= and this is how I will a66roach 6oststructuralism8

It may be noticed that I refer topoststru!turalismand notpostmodernism8

'he two terms are often e9uated= but they are not the same8 Poststructuralistslike Foucault would wholly re@ect the descri6tion 6ostmodernist=B and in fact

Foucault said that he did not know what 6ostmodernityB actually meant81$For

?ean)Francois Lyotard= 6ostmodernity refers not to a historical 6eriod= but rather

to a condition of criti9ue of the unities and totalities of modernity: an

incredulity towards metanarratives8B1. 'his would seem to e9uate

6ostmodernism with 6oststructuralism8 owever= the word 6ostmodernB has

become so clichGd:(e all live in a 6ostmodern worldB etc8:that it comes to

be seen as an actual stage in history beyond modernity8 It is for this reason that I6refer to use the termpoststru!turalism8

1%


22/198

'he 3eturn of Power 1$

Poststructuralism is a strategy= or series of strategies= of resistance to the

unities and totalities of modernity:its essentialist categories= its absolute faith

in rational truth= morality= and the 6ractices of domination which these are often

tied to8 owever= 6oststructuralism does not see itself as a stage beyondmodernity= but rather a criti9ue conducted u6on the limits of modernity8

Poststructuralism o6erates withinthe discourse of modernity to ex6ose its limits

and unmask its 6roblems and 6aradoxes8 It 6resents us with a 6roblem rather

than a solution8 Modernity is not a historical 6eriod but a discourse to which we

are still heavily indebted8 (e cannot sim6ly transcend modernity and revel in a

nihilistic 6ostmodern universe8 Is this not to fall once again into the tra6 of 6lace

:to re6lace one discourse= one form of authority= with anotherD 3ather= we

must work at the limits of modernity= and maintain a critical attitude= not onlytoward modernity itself= but toward any discourse which claims to transcend it8

'his is what I understand 6oststructuralismB to mean8 It means that our work is

yet to be done8

Notes

18 AgustKn 7ueva= 'l pro!eso de la &omina!on $olti!a en '!uador uito*#olitierra= 1-2= 8 uoted in Peter (orsley= The Three orlds London* (eidenfeld

>icholson= 1-4%2= !.8

!8 Michel Foucault= >iet,sche= &enealogy= istory=B in The Fou!ault eader, ed8

Paul 3abinow >ew Nork* Pantheon= 1-4%2= .)1JJ8

"8 ?ac9ues Lacan= The Four Fundamental *on!epts of $sy!hoanalysis,ed8 ?ac9ues)

Alain Miller London* ogarth Press= 1-2= !4J8

%8 Lacan= The Four Fundamental *on!epts of $sy!hoanalysis,%-8$8 #lavo@ Hi,ek= Tarrying with the +egative ant, -egel, and the *ritiue of

/deology +urham* +uke Cniversity Press= 1--"2= 18.8 'he fact that what came after these communist states was even worse:the

recurrent 6attern of ethnic cleansing=B for exam6le:illustrates this 6oint88 #ee 'odd May= The $oliti!al $hilosophy of $oststru!turalist %nar!hism

Cniversity Park= Pa8* Pennsylvania #tate Cniversity Press= 1--%28 #ee also May=Is Post)structuralist Political 'heory AnarchistDB in $hilosophy and So!ial

*riti!ism1$= no8 " 1-4-2* 1.)141 and Andrew och= Poststructuralism and theE6istemological 5asis of Anarchism=B $hilosophy of the So!ial S!ien!es !"= no8 "

1--"2* "!)"$18

48 Michel Foucault= Prison 'alk=B in $ower0nowledge Sele!ted /nterviews

and 1ther ritings 234562344, ed8 7olin &ordon 5righton= #ussex* arvester

Press= 1-4J2= ")$%8

-8 'his is not= of course= to diminish the im6ortance of >iet,sche= who 6lays an

im6ortant role in this discussion= although there is no single cha6ter devoted to

him8 In the same way that +errida sees Marx as the s6ecter that continues to haunt

our 6resent= 6erha6s one could see >iet,sche as the s6irit who haunts our

discussion8 #ee ?ac9ues +errida= Spe!ters of 7ar8 The State of the &e#t, the

or" of 7ourning, 9 the +ew /nternational, trans. Peggy amuf >ew Nork*

3outledge= 1--%2= %8

1J8 For a fuller account of libertarianism see +avid 5oa,=:i#ertarianism a $rimer>ew Nork* Free Press= 1--2 and #te6hen L8 >ewman=:i#eralism at its 'nds The


23/198

Introduction

:i#ertarian evolt %gainst the 7odern State Ithaca= >8N8* 7ornell Cniversity Press=

1-4%28

118 #ee Andrew 5arry= ed8= Fou!ault and $oliti!al eason :i#eralism, +eo6

:i#eralism and the ationalities of ew #ocial Movements=


24/198

Chapter One

Mar'ism and the %ro(lem of %o!er

'he conflict between Marxism and anarchism was a 6ivotal debate that sha6ed

nineteenth century radical 6olitical thought8 'he anarchist Mikhail 5akunin was

one of Marxow= for Marxists= as well as for

anarchists= the state is an enemy of human freedom8 For Marx and Engels it was

essentially the instrument through which one economic class dominated another8

'he state= then= was something to be transcended8 owever= Marx is ambiguouson this 6oint8 e does not formulate a consistent theory of the state= seeing it at

certain times as a tool of economic and class domination= and at other times as a

relatively autonomous institution that acts= in some cases= against the immediate

interests of the bourgeoisie8 'he extent of the state


25/198

7ha6ter /ne

owever= this would be transcended= according to egel= by the modern state

which would instigate a universal system of law= and unite consciousness= so

that the egoism of civil society would be ke6t out of the 6olitical s6here8 14 In

other words the 6articular state:the state that governs on behalf of 6articularinterests in society must be re6laced by a universal state:one which governs

for the general good8 For egel= the modern liberal state is the overcoming of

contradictions and divisions in society8 It is the culmination of morality and

rationality81-'his idea that the state can exist for the general good= for the whole

of society= was re@ected by Marx8 According to Marx= the state is always a

6articular state that 6aints itself as universal8 Its universality and inde6endence

from civil society are only a mask for the 6articular economic interests:such as

6rivate 6ro6erty:that it re6resents8!J

Marx was later to develo6 from this the6osition that the state re6resented the interests of the most economically

dominant class:the bourgeoisie8 For Marx= then= unlike egel= the state cannot

overcome the tensions and contradictions in civil society and must= therefore= be

transcended8 'hus= Marx talks about the abolition of the state through universal

suffrage8!1

It is this 6oint that those who want to em6hasi,e the anti)authoritarian=

antistatist as6ect of Marx


26/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power 1-

'his was a res6onse to an article by 5runo 5auer in which he suggested that the

state should be used to combat religious alienation8 'he state= according to

5auer= could emanci6ate society from the gras6 of religion by becoming

secular8!$

Marx argued= in res6onse= that if the state became secular and religionbecame a 6rivate matter for the individual= this would not necessarily mean that

society would be freed from the hold of religion* 'o be 6olitically emanci6ated

from religion is not to be finally and com6letely emanci6ated from religion=

because 6olitical emanci6ation is not the final and absolute form of human

emanci6ation8B!. 'hepoliti!al emanci6ation that 5auer advocates would only

further entrench religion in society and exacerbate the division between general

and 6rivate interests= between the state and civil society:a division that Marx

wanted to overcome8 It would not do anything to weaken religion


27/198

7ha6ter /ne

Marx was unable to see the state as anything but an instrument of economic

forces* e Marx2 says ;Poverty 6roduces 6olitical slavery= the #tate=< but he

does not allow this ex6ression to be turned around to say ;Political slavery= the

#tate= re6roduces in its turn= and maintains 6overty as a condition of its ownexistence so that in order to destroy 6overty= it is necessary to destroy the

#tate


28/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power !1

institution in the sense that it is not essentially beholden to class interests= it can

be used against ca6italism and the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie8 'he

second 6osition !b2= on the other hand= because it sees the state as essentially a

bourgeois state= an instrument of class domination= demands that the state bedestroyed as 6art of a socialist revolution8""'his is the 6osition exem6lified by

Lenin8"%

'his traditional inter6retation of the relation between the 9uestion of the

autonomy of the state and its role in a socialist revolution may be best

re6resented by a table*

The 7ar8ist model

1a2 Autonomous state)))))))))) 1b2 #tate as tool of revolution!a2 +etermined state))))))))))) !b2 #tate to be destroyed in revolution

>ow it is this dichotomy of state theories and their concomitant

revolutionary strategies that could be 9uestioned8 It may be argued that it is

6recisely the second 6osition 1b2:the view of the state as an instrument of

class:that entails the first revolutionary strategy !a2 which allows the state to

be used as a revolutionary tool of liberation8 Furthermore= one could see the first

6osition 1a2 which allows the state relative autonomy:as entailing the secondrevolutionary strategy !b2 which calls for the destruction of the state in a

socialist revolution*

%n %nar!hist model1a2 Autonomous state)))))))) !b2 #tate to be destroyed in revolution

!a2 +etermined state)))))))))) 1b2 #tate as tool of revolution

'he reason for this rather radical overturning of the acce6ted logic is that thefirst 6osition 1a2 comes closest to an anarchist theory about the state8

Anarchism sees the state as a wholly autonomous and inde6endent institution

with its own logic of domination8 It is 6recisely for this reason that the state

cannot be used as a neutral tool of liberation and change during the time of

revolution8 Even if it is in the hands of a revolutionary class like the 6roletariat

:as Marx advocated:it still cannot be trusted because it has its own

institutional logic above and beyond the control of the ruling class8B 'he time

of revolution is when the state institution can least be trusted= as it will use theo66ortunity to 6er6etuate its own 6ower8 'o regard the state as neutral= then= as

strategy 1b2 does= is fatal8 According to this anarchist logic= moreover= 6osition

!a2:that which sees the state as an instrument of the bourgeoisie:is the most

dangerous because it is this which im6lies that the state is merely a neutral

institution subservient to the interests of the dominant class8 It is this 6osition

which would actually entail revolutionary strategy 1b2:the use of the state as a

tool of revolution when in the hands of the revolutionary class8 It is really a

dis6ute over the meaning of neutrality* according to the Marxist logic= neutrality

would mean autonomy from class interests= whereas for anarchists neutrality

would im6ly 6recisely the o66osite:su#servien!e to class interests8 'his is


29/198

7ha6ter /ne

because the view that the state is determined by class interests does not allow

the state its own logic it would be @ust a humble servant of class interests and

could= therefore= be used as a neutral tool of revolution if it was in the hands of

the right class8 /n the other hand= it is Marx


30/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power !"

domination and ex6loitation of the 6roletariat8 'his inter6retation would allow

the state a large degree of 6olitical autonomy* it could work against the 6olitical

will of the bourgeoisie= but it still would have to 6rotect the long)term economic

interests of the bourgeoisie8#o rather than saying that= for Marx= the state is the instrument of

bourgeoisie= it may be more accurate to say that the state is a refle!tion of

bourgeois class domination= an institution whose structure is determined by

ca6italist relations8 According to al +ra6er= the state rules in a class)

distortedB way8"-Its function is to maintain an economic and social order that

allows the bourgeoisie to continue to ex6loit the 6roletariat8 5y maintaining the

conditions of the ca6italist economy in the name of the common good= the state

serves the interests of the bourgeoisie8 'his is what Marx meant by saying thatthe state was derivative of 6articular interests in society8

/ne can see in Marx


31/198

7ha6ter /ne

the transitional 6eriodB between ca6italist and communist society= will exercise

6olitical 6ower through the instrumentality of the state* 'here corres6onds to

this Qtransitional 6eriodR also a 6olitical transition in which the state can be

nothing but the dictatorshi6 of the 6roletariat8B%!

Marx called= furthermore= in his%ddress of the *entral *ommittee to the *ommunist :eaguefor the workers to

strive for the most decisive centrali,ation of 6ower in the hands of state

authority8B%"'he coercive 6ower of the state may be used by the 6roletariat to

su66ress class enemies and swee6 away the conditions of the old bourgeois

society8 'hus Marx says in the *ommunist 7anifesto* 'he 6roletariat will use

its 6olitical su6remacy to wrest= by degrees= all ca6ital from the bourgeoisie= to

centrali,e all instruments of 6roduction in the hands of the state8B%%#o the state=

controlled by the 6roletariat= has become= for Marx= albeit tem6orarily= thevehicle which would liberate society from bourgeois domination by re6resenting

society as a whole8 'hus the aim of the revolution= for Marx= was not to destroy

state 6ower= but rather to sei,e hold of it and to 6er6etuate it in the transitional

6eriod8B It must be remembered that Marx sees this 6roletarian state as a

tem6orary arrangement= and Engels argued that it would wither awayB when no

longer necessary8%$owever= the anarchists argued that to ex6ect the state to @ust

disintegrate on its own was naive8 'he reason for this will become clear later8

#o Marx


32/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power !$

the Marxist revolutionary 6rogram= more centrali,ed and 6owerful than it ever

was in bourgeois society= or in any other society8 'his claim that the

increasingly dominant transitionalB state no longer exercises 6olitical 6ower is=

argued the anarchists= dangerously naive8 It neglects what they see as thefundamental law of state 6ower [or= for that matter= any form of institutional

6ower]* that it is inde6endent of economic forces= and that it has its own logic:

that of self)6er6etuation8 >ow it is true that= as we have shown before in the

case of the 5ona6artist state= Marx allows the state some inde6endence from

class will= but the 9uestion is whether he has allowed it enough8 'he anarchists

would argue that he has not= and that the evidence for this is 6recisely Marx


33/198

7ha6ter /ne

obstacle to the social revolution8B$1/66ression and des6otism exist in the very

structure and symbolism of the state:it is not merely a derivative of class

6ower8 'he state has its own im6ersonal logic= its own momentum= its own

6riorities* these are often beyond the control of the ruling class and do notnecessarily reflect economic relations at all8 For anarchists= then= 6olitical 6ower

refers to something other than class and economic relations8

'he modern state has its own origins too= inde6endent of the rise of the

bourgeoisie8 Cnlike Marx= who saw the modern state as a creation of the French

3evolution and the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie= 5akunin saw the state as the

child of the 3eformation8 According to 5akunin= the crowned sovereigns of

Euro6e usur6ed the 6ower of the church= creating a secular authority based on

the notion of divine right:hence the birth of the modern state* 'he #tate is theyounger brother of the 7hurch8B$!ro6otkin= in his discussion of the state= also

attributes the rise of the state to noneconomic factors such as the historical

dominance of 3oman law= the rise of feudal law= the growing authoritarianism

of the church= as well as the endemic desire for authority8$"

Furthermore= it could be argued that the 6olitical forces of the state actually

determine and select s6ecific relations of 6roduction because they encourage

certain forces of 6roduction which are functional for the state= allowing the

develo6ment of the means of coercion needed by the state8 'his turns the base)

su6erstructure model of the state on its head= seeing the determining forces

going from to6 to bottom rather than from the bottom to the to68 According to

Alan 7arter= then= because many Marxists have neglected the 6ossibility of

6olitical forces determining economic forces= they have fallen into the tra6 of

the state*

Marxists= therefore= have failed to reali,e that the state alwaysacts to 6rotect its

own interests8 'his is why they have failed to see that a vanguard which sei,ed

control of the state could not be trusted to ensure that the state would witheraway8B (hat the state might do= instead= is back different relations of

6roduction to those which might serve the 6resent dominant economic class if it

believed that such new economic relations could be used to extract from theworkers an even greater sur6lus:a sur6lus which would then be available to

the state8$%

#o for the anarchists= to view the state= as some Marxists do= as derivative of

class 6ower= is to fall victim to the state


34/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power !

the state a66aratus does not mean= as Marx claimed= an end to 6olitical 6ower8

/n the contrary= the Marxist 6rogram only meant a massive increase in 6olitical

6ower and domination= as well as new lease of life for ca6italism8 Indeed=

5akunin believed that Marx


35/198

7ha6ter /ne

state a66aratus= may be used to facilitate the transition to the new society8

Cnlike the anarchists= who did not distinguish between ty6es of states= and

considered all states to be e9ually o66ressive whatever form they took= Marx

saw some 6rogressive and 6otentially liberating as6ects in the modern liberalstate8 Marx considered bourgeois re6resentative democracy= for instance= to be

an im6ortant stage in the develo6ment of human emanci6ation8.1Anarchists= on

the other hand= regarded the modern liberal state with scorn:it was seen as

another insidious attem6t to mask the brutal= des6otic character of the state and

was= for this reason= even more 6ernicious than the autocratic state8.!'herefore

Marxism= unlike anarchism= sees it as 6ossible= and indeed essential= that the

struggle for a new society be articulated within the terms and institutions of the

old society8'he anarchist res6onse to this is that the forms and institutions of the old

society will not sim6ly fall away* they will become entrenched= denying the

6ossibility of genuine liberation8 'hey must therefore be removed straight away

:their destruction must be the first revolutionary act8 Anarchism is= in this

res6ect= anti)egelian8 5akunin re@ected the egelian tracheotomy* there was no

reconciliation between thesis and antithesis= between the Positive and the

>egative8."In 5akuninegative8 owever= in this victory both the Positive and the

>egative are destroyed8 For egel= and indeed for Marx= on the other hand= the

thesis and antithesis are transcended:however elements of both are 6reserved

in the synthesis8 In the same way= elements of the old society are 6reserved and

form a necessary 6art of the foundations of the new8 For Marx= then= the

communitarian= 6ublic essence that the state ex6resses should survive the

destruction of the existing society8 For anarchists= on the other hand= the new

society was to emerge only with the com6lete destruction of the old8.%

In contrast to the egelian dialectical framework= anarchism works within a

dualistic or even Manichean view of the world= seeing the state as essentially

evil and society as essentially good8 Anarchism is based= to some extent= on the

se6aration central to liberal theory= between the state and society:the very

division that Marx wanted to overcome dialectically8 Anarchists argue that the

state o66resses society= and that if only the state was destroyed= then society

could flourish8 Marx= on the other hand= argued that the domination is not in the

state but in society itself= and that if the state were to be destroyed before

socialist economic relations could be established= society would not flourish or

be liberated:it would be even more at the mercy of the forces of economicauthority8

For anarchists= the liberation of human society must be made by society

itself:through libertarian means8 Freedom can never come through the agency

of authority8.$ For Marx= on the other hand= 6ower and authority are not

necessarily something to be embraced= but something to be used in a certain

way= with a view to their own transcendence8 owever= if one takes account of

the anarchists< analysis= 6articularly of state 6ower= 6ower and authority can

never be transcended unless they are destroyed immediately8

!4


36/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power !-

The Broader %ro(lem of Authorit)

'he anarchist res6onse to Marxism has shown that Marx is tra66ed within an

authoritarian bind:a statist= centralist framework8 ?ohn 7lark argues that whilethere are certainly some elements of Marxist theory which have anti)

authoritarian and decentralist im6lications= if the totality of his thought is

considered= Marx was attached to centralist and authoritarian structures which

are inse6arable from statist and bureaucratic forms of domination8B.. +es6ite

Marx


37/198

7ha6ter /ne

fact 5akunin 6refers not to call this a class at all= but a mass8B 7lassB im6lies

hierarchy and exclusiveness81

Anarchists argued= moreover= that not only is the industrial 6roletariat

actually numerically small com6ared to other grou6s and classes in society [thisis obviously more so today]= but that it is also thoroughly imbued with bourgeois

ethics8 5akunin believed that the small elite of class)consciousB 6roletarians

constituting the u66er echelons of the working class= lived in a relatively

comfortable and semibourgeois fashion= and had been= in fact= coo6ted into the

bourgeoisie8!Murray 5ookchin= a modern day anarchist= argues that Marxist

6rivileging of the 6roletariat over other grou6s in society is obsolete and= more

im6ortantly= counterrevolutionary8 'his is because the 6roletariat has become

an imitation of its masters=B ado6ting the worst as6ects of ca6italist society* thework ethic= bourgeois morality= and a res6ect for authority and hierarchy

conditioned by the disci6line and hierarchy of the factory milieu8"'herefore=

anarchists argue that the Marxist 6rivileging of the 6roletariat above other

grou6s as the most revolutionary is a 6ractice which is itself born of a bourgeois

mentality and is doomed= as a conse9uence of this= to 6er6etuate bourgeois

systems of domination8 'he category of class= for anarchists= is authoritarian in

itself* it is a form of sub@ectivity that ties the worker to the work 6lace and to

authoritarian industrial hierarchies8

The $arty'he Marxist desire for a unified= disci6lined 6roletariat is= anarchists

suggest= a thoroughly authoritarian desire8 'ied to this is the re9uirement for a

disci6lined= authoritarian 6arty controlling the 6roletariat8% 'he communist

6arty was subse9uently built on hierarchical and authoritarian 6remises8 'he

role of the communists was defined by Marx in terms of leadershi6 and control8

e says* they have over the great mass of the 6roletariat the advantage ofclearly understanding the line of march8B$As anarchists argue= this is clearly

elitist* the most class)consciousB of the industrial 6roletariat leads others in

society= and this elite= in turn= is led by the communist 6arty= 6laying the

vanguard role8

'he vanguard role of the communist 6arty= furthermore= is based on an

e6istemological authority:on the claim that it is the sole 6ossessor of

knowledge of the movement of history8 It is seen as having a mono6oly on

scientific knowledge that no one else can gras68 5akunin often critici,ed

Marxists as doctrinaire socialists whose strategy would culminate in a

dictatorshi6 of scientists and ex6erts:a domination of science over life8

5akunin believed that scientific dogma= 6articularly when it was 6art of the

revolutionary 6rogram was an authoritarian discourse that mutilated the

com6lexity and s6ontaneity of life8 'he Marxist 6rogram= he argued= would

o6en the way for a society governed by a new class of scientists and

bureaucrats* It will be the reign of the scientific mind= the most aristocratic=

des6otic= arrogant and contem6tuous of all regimes8B.

"J


38/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power "1

Te!hnologyAnother as6ect of Marx


39/198

7ha6ter /ne

logic8 'o reduce everything to economics is to neglect the 6roblem of

domination8

Marxism is tra66ed in an authoritarian framework for this very reason8 It is

not because Marx believed that authority was necessarily good* indeed Marxbelieved that domination was dehumani,ing and would be transcended8 3ather it

was the conviction that all forms of domination= 6articularly 6olitical

domination= could be reduced to economic domination= which led Marx into this

authoritarian bind8 Even those who want to em6hasi,e the libertarian as6ects of

Marx give some credibility to the anarchist view6oint8 According to 3a66a6ort=

even within the framework of historical materialism 5akunin was right to

6redict that socialist authority would become tyrannical84"#he also argues that*

is [Marx


40/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power ""

multi6licity of social 6ractices that cannot be diale!ti!izedback into an original

unity84It is this 6otential o6enness to the notion of difference and 6lurality=

according to 7allinicos= which has caused the crisis of Marxism8B Instead what

must be reaffirmed is the classical Marxist notion of the social totality= centrallydetermined by the economy8 It is only this 6ers6ective= 7allinicos argues= that

allows for the 6ossibility of the class struggle8 owever= it is 6recisely this

6ers6ective which negates the 6ossibility of other sources of 6ower in society=

that is being challenged by anarchism8

5ob ?esso6 tries to develo6 within the Marxist framework a contingent

theory of 6olitical 6ower and the state8 e argues that in Marxist theory there

are three main ways of a66roaching this 9uestion* the first sees the relationshi6

between economic interests and institutional systems 6urely in terms offunction the second a66roach stresses the way in which the institutional form of

different systems reflects or corres6onds to the structural needs of economic

systems the third a66roach re@ects the economic determinism of the last two

and sees the relationshi6 between institutions and economic systems to be based

on !ontingent arti!ulatory pra!ti!es.B44 'he second= and 6ossibly even the

first= a66roach is re6resented by 7allinicos who sees the social and 6olitical as

centrally determined by economic relations8 'he third strand of Marxist thought

is 6erha6s best reflected by Althusser who= on the surface= seems to 6ut forward

a contingent a66roach to the relationshi6 between the 6olitical and the economic

which allows the 6olitical considerable autonomy8 owever= as we have seen=

even in this sort of analysis the 6olitical is still= ultimately= dominated by the

economy8 'herefore= it could be argued that for a genuinely contingent and

autonomous theory of 6olitical and noneconomic 6ower= it means going beyond

Marxism8 'he 6roblem of 6olitical 6ower cannot be ade9uately answered within

the Marxist theory8 As 3a66a6ort says* It does 8 8 8 re9uire going beyond Marx

in develo6ing a theory ca6able of ex6laining 6olitical relationshi6s which do not

have their foundations in material scarcity8B4- ence the im6ortance of

anarchism today8

#ome Marxists have in the 6ast been too ready to blame things like

bureaucratic deformationB and bourgeois revisionismB for what ha66ened in

the #oviet Cnion8 Foucault= for instance= condemns those Marxists who refuse

to 9uestion the actual texts of Marx when looking at what ha66ened in the

C##3= and who try to ex6lain away the 6ersecutions and the &ulag by 6utting it

down to a betrayal of the true theoryB through deviationB or misunderstanding8B /n

the contrary=B says Foucault= it means 9uestioning all these theoretical texts=however old= from the stand6oint of the &ulag8 3ather than searching in those

texts for a condemnation in advance of the &ulag= it is a matter of asking what

in those texts could have made the &ulag 6ossible8B-J

In other words= although Marx obviously cannot be held res6onsible for

what ha66ened= one must nevertheless 9uestion his ideas:they must be studied

for 6ossible links8 'here can be no absolute se6aration between theory and

6ractice* one clearly informs the other= even if not directly8 As we have seen=

there are links which can be made= certain connections to be found= sometimesex6licit= sometimes more subtle= between the authoritarian tendencies in Marx


41/198

7ha6ter /ne

work and the growth of totalitarianism in 3ussia8 It is these connections= these

authoritarian undercurrents= which I have tried to unearth in this debate between

Marx and the anarchists8

'his debate has revolved around the 9uestion of the 6lace of 6ower8Marxism= through its economic reductionism= has neglected the 6lace of 6ower8

It dismantles one form of 6ower= the bourgeois state= but repla!esit with another

kind of 6ower= the workers< state8 'hus= 6ower itself:its mechanisms= its

o6eration:remains unhindered8 In fact= 6ower is only reaffirmed and

6er6etuated by Marxism8 'his is what one learns from the anarchist criti9ue of

Marxism8 Marxism failed to revolutioni,e 6ower8 It has failed to overcome the

6lace of 6ower:it has succeeded only in renamingit8 A Marxian revolution is=

therefore= only a changing of the guard= the anarchists argue8 5ecause Marxismreduces social 6henomena to the ca6italist economy= it neglects= to its 6eril=

other autonomous sources of 6ower in society8 Moreover= this economic

reductionism has its roots in a egelian historicism* state 6ower cannot be

destroyed immediately in a socialist revolution because its existence is a

necessary 6art of the historical 6rocess8 Anarchism= on the other hand= tries to

esca6e= to some extent= this dialectical determinism by establishing a moral

6lace of sub@ectivity8 'his moral 6lace will be the sub@ect of the next cha6ter8

Notes

18 #ee Michel Foucault= ed8=3evolutionary Action* ;Cntil >ow=< B in :anguage,

*ounter67emory, $ra!ti!e /xford* 5asil 5lackwell= 1-2= !14)!""8

!8 Paul 'homas=arl 7ar8 and the %nar!hists London* 3outledge egan Paul=

1-4J2= !!8

"8 &eorg (ilhelm Friedrich egel= The $hilosophy of ight, trans. '8 M8 nox

7hicago* Encyclo6aedia 5ritannica= 1-$!2= 1$$)1$.8

%8 arl Marx= *ritiue of -egels ;Philoso6hy of 3ight=< ed8 ?ose6h /


42/198

Marxism and the Problem of Power "$

18 eld and rieger= 'heories of the #tate* #ome 7om6eting 7laims=B %8

148 #ee Oladimir Ilich Lenin= The State and evolution The 7ar8ist Theory of the

State and the Tas"s of the $roletariat in the evolution Moscow* Progress Publishers=

1-.$28

1-8 >icos Poulant,as=$oliti!al $ower and So!ial *lasses London* Oerso= 1-42= !$48

!J8 3al6h Miliband= The State in *apitalist So!iety >ew Nork* 5asic 5ooks= 1-.-2= $8

!18 arl Marx= 'he &erman Ideology=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8=148

!!8 arl Marx= Manifesto of the 7ommunist Party=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d

ed8= %.-)$JJ8

!"8 al +ra6er=arl 7ar8s Theory of evolution, vol.2 State and ?ureau!ra!y >ew

Nork* Monthly 3eview Press= 1-2= !%-8

!%8 'homas=arl 7ar8 and the %nar!hists,18!$8 arl Marx= 7ontribution to the *ritiue of -egels $hilosophy of ight

Introduction=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8=1.)!$8!.8 arl Marx= 7riti9ue of the &otha Program=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8=

$!$)$%18!8 arl Marx and Friedrich Engels= Address to the 7entral 7ommittee of the

7ommunist League=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader, !d ed8= $J1)$118!48 Marx= Manifesto=B %-J8

!-8 Friedrich Engels=%nti6&uhringMoscow* Progress Publishers= 1-.-2= """8

"J8 Marx= Manifesto=B %-J8

"18 arl Marx= After the 3evolution* Marx +ebates 5akunin=B in The 7ar86'ngels

eader, !d ed8=$%!)$%48"!8 3obert #altman= The So!ial and $oliti!al Thought of 7i!hael ?a"unin 7onnecticut*

&reenwood Press= 1-4"2= .-8

""8 'his 6oint of difference is summari,ed by Engels* 5akunin maintains that it is the

statewhich has created ca6ital= that the ca6italist has his ca6ital only #y the gra!e of the

state8 As= therefore= the state is the chief evil= it is above all the state which must be done

away with and then ca6italism will go to bla,es of itself8 (e= on the contrary= say* +o

away with ca6ital 8 8 8 and the state will fall away of itself8B #ee Friedrich Engels= Oersus

the Anarchists=B in The 7ar86'ngels eader,!d8 ed8=!4)!-8

"%8 Mikhail 5akunin=$oliti!al $hilosophy S!ientifi! %nar!hism,ed8 &8 P8 MaximoffLondon* Free Press of &lencoe= 1-4%2= !!18

"$8 Peter ro6otkin= The State /ts -istori! ole London* Freedom Press= 1-%"2= -8

".8 Mikhail 5akunin=From 1ut of the &ust#in ?a"unins ?asi! ritings 2CD362C42,

ed8 3obert M8 7utler Ann Arbor= Mi* Ardis= 1-4$2= !J8

"8 ro6otkin= The State, !48 Also 5ookchin elaborates an anarchist criti9ue of the

Marxist conce6tion of the #tate and its relation to class* Each #tate is not necessarily an

institutionali,ed system of violence in the interests of a s6ecific ruling class= as Marxism

would have us believe8 'here are many exam6les of states that were the ;ruling classL5= 1-2= 1J18

J8 Louis Althusser= 'he /b@ect of *apital=B ineading *apital,eds8 Louis Althusser and

Etienne 5alibar London* Oerso= 1--2= 1)1-48

18 Alex 7allinicos=/s There % Future for 7ar8ismE London* Macmillan Press= 1-4!2= .!)

.%8

!8 5ob ?esso6= State Theory $utting *apitalist States in their $la!e. 7ambridge=

C88* Polity Press= 1--J2= 4J8"8 3a66a6ort= Anarchism and Authority=B "%"8

%8 Michel Foucault= Power and #trategies=B in $ower0nowledge, 1"%)1%$8

".


44/198


45/198

7ha6ter 'wo

The Uncontaminated %oint of &earture

Natural and Artificial Authorit)

'his struggle can be understood only through the conce6t of natural

authorityand its o66osition to artifi!ial authority. Anarchists do not re@ect all

forms of authority as the old clichG would have it8 /n the contrary= they declare

their absolute obedience to the authority embodied= as Mikhail 5akunin argues=

in natural laws8B >atural laws are essential to manothing

can free him= from their domination he is their unconditional slave8B-!owever=

anarchists argue that this is not a form of slavery because these laws are not

external to man8 'hey are= on the contrary= what constitute man:they are his

essence8 Man is constituted in a natural system he is 6art of nature and is thus

sub@ect to its laws8-"Man is inextricably 6art of a natural= organic society* Man

did not create society society existed before Man=B claims ro6otkin8-%

'herefore= natural authority [natural laws] is not external to human beings*

those laws are not extrinsic in relation to us= they are inherent in us= they

constitute our nature= our whole being 6hysically= intellectually and morally8B-$

>atural laws make u6 human nature according to 5akunin8 'hey determine

human essence8

Anarchism is based on a s6ecific notion of human essence8 For anarchists

there is a human nature with essential characteristics8 'his human nature is

distinguished by two faculties according to 5akunin* the thinking faculty andthe urge to rebel=B as well as free will8B-.Moreover= morality has its basis in

human nature= not in any external source* the idea of @ustice and good= like all

other human things= must have their root in man


46/198

Anarchism "-

liberate man from slavery and ignorance8 For 5akunin= then= 6olitical

institutions are hostile and fatal to the liberty of the masses= for they im6ose

u6on them a system of external and therefore des6otic laws8B1JJ

In 5akunin


47/198

7ha6ter 'wo

celestial #tate8B1J"5akunin shows the way in which 7hristianity


48/198

Anarchism %1

addressed8 As we have seen in the 6revious cha6ter= Marxism was unable to

come to terms with this 9uestion and ended u6 reaffirming state 6ower8 For the

anarchist ro6otkin= all 6olitical struggles must have an end in mind* >o

destruction of the existing order is 6ossible= if at the time o

newman saul from bakunin to lacan anti authoritarianism and the dislocation of power

Documents