Dossiers

Reinventing Communist Politics

Reinventing Communist Politics

Francesco Rapar­el­li: An orig­i­nal “con­stel­la­tion” of cap­i­tal is pre­sent­ed in Bor­der as Method. The notion of the “mul­ti­pli­ca­tion of labor,” in par­tic­u­lar, clear­ly grasps the “great trans­for­ma­tion” in which we are immersed. Is a com­mu­nist pol­i­tics that takes seri­ous­ly the irre­ducible mul­ti­plic­i­ty of exploita­tion that you describe so well still pos­si­ble? San­dro Mez­zadra: My work with Brett, Bor­der as Method,… Read more → 

Feminism, Reproduction, and Communism

Feminism, Reproduction, and Communism

Fed­er­i­ca Gia­r­dini: In your tra­jec­to­ry there is the expe­ri­ence of being a sex work­er, of STRASS (Syn­di­cat du Tra­vail Sex­uel), and of advo­cat­ing again­st cam­paigns for the abo­li­tion of pros­ti­tu­tion. In which ways does sex work occu­py the front­li­nes for analy­sis, cri­tique, and the cre­ation of new pos­si­bil­i­ties? Mor­gane Mer­teuil: As a sex work­er I’ve grap­pled with dif­fer­ent fem­i­nist dis­cours­es.… Read more → 

The Communist Desire to Change the World – and Ourselves

The Communist Desire to Change the World – and Ourselves

Chiara Giorgi: Karl Marx’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion of com­mu­nism was that of an alter­na­tive to cap­i­tal­ism, the ground for which it had in fact already pre­pared. This idea opened up one of the main ques­tions of com­mu­nism, name­ly the very notion of tran­si­tion. In The Phi­los­o­phy of Marx, you have observed that, far from embrac­ing an evo­lu­tion­ist view, the tran­si­tion fore­seen by… Read more → 

Communism as a Continuing Constituent Process

Communism as a Continuing Constituent Process

Francesco Rapar­el­li: In The Labor of Diony­sus (co-writ­ten with Michael Hardt), you insist on the cen­tral­i­ty of the “pre­req­ui­sites of com­mu­nism” in describ­ing the con­tem­po­rary mode of pro­duc­tion, by which you mean lan­guage, affects, and mobil­i­ty, which have become pil­lars of cap­i­tal­ist val­oriza­tion. Rather than inval­i­dat­ing this analy­sis, the cri­sis which explod­ed in 2008 seems to have con­firmed it. Do… Read more → 

Some Questions around Gramsci’s Marxism (1958)

Some Questions around Gramsci’s Marxism (1958)

Cer­tain­ly we must assert the nov­el­ty, the orig­i­nal­i­ty, the auton­o­my of Marx­ism. But the nov­el­ty of Marx­ism again­st any oth­er phi­los­o­phy con­sists not in ask­ing more of it as a phi­los­o­phy; its orig­i­nal­i­ty con­sists in its offer of sci­ence to phi­los­o­phy, or rather in its con­ceiv­ing the prop­er phi­los­o­phy only as sci­ence, as a “speci­fic con­cep­tion of a speci­fic object.”

On Marxism and Sociology (1959)

One absolute­ly can­not accept that there exists a researcher who offers mate­ri­al to the the­o­rist, and then there is a the­o­rist who re-elab­o­rates it and pro­duces the­o­ry. Rather, there is a con­tin­u­ous uni­ty real­ized already with­in Marx­ism, and it lives pre­cise­ly in the per­son of the Marx­ist.

A Living Unity in the Marxist: Introduction to Tronti’s Early Writings

A Living Unity in the Marxist: Introduction to Tronti’s Early Writings

Ulti­mate­ly the young Tron­ti deter­mi­nes that what is need­ed now is a Marx­ism as far from phi­los­o­phy of prax­is as from dialec­ti­cal mate­ri­al­ism, nei­ther a sub­jec­tivist vol­un­tarism nor an objec­tivist fatal­ism, nei­ther a pure­ly tech­ni­cal method­ol­o­gy of knowl­edge and human action nor a total­iz­ing meta­physic, but a Marx­ism that is rig­or­ous but not dog­mat­ic, his­tor­i­cal yet not his­tori­cist, polit­i­cal as well as the­o­ret­i­cal.

Between Dialectical Materialism and Philosophy of Praxis: Gramsci and Labriola (1959)

Between Dialectical Materialism and Philosophy of Praxis: Gramsci and Labriola (1959)

First one has all of Marx revolve around Hegel, then one removes Hegel from the cen­ter and says: see, Marx fails to rotate on his own. This is how the inter­pre­ta­tion of a the­o­ry coin­cides with its liq­ui­da­tion. In fact pre­cise­ly this mis­un­der­stand­ing has dri­ven Marx’s thought to the mar­gins of con­tem­po­rary philo­soph­i­cal thought.

Consumption, Crime, and Communes: Making Political Meaning Out of Riots

Consumption, Crime, and Communes: Making Political Meaning Out of Riots

While Clover’s effort to his­tor­i­cal­ly sit­u­ate and draw our atten­tion to the riot as a form of anti-cap­i­tal­ist strug­gle out­side of the work­place is cer­tain­ly valu­able, his insis­tence on inter­pret­ing its polit­i­cal val­ue pri­mar­i­ly through its rela­tion­ship to the utopi­an keeps his analy­sis from account­ing for the func­tion and mean­ing that riots have for most of the peo­ple who par­tic­i­pate in them, to say noth­ing of whether or not riot is real­ly best under­stood through its rela­tion­ship to con­sump­tion and cir­cu­la­tion.

Disarticulating the Mass Picket

Disarticulating the Mass Picket

Clover argues again­st the con­tin­ued via­bil­i­ty of indus­tri­al strike orga­niz­ing, sug­gest­ing that the time of the strike has passed, and that we now inhab­it the time of the riot. But the con­cep­tu­al and peri­odiz­ing demar­ca­tions that Clover deploys in advanc­ing the­se claims tend to obscure the actu­al forms of class strug­gle that broke forth dur­ing the sup­posed era of the strike – forms of strug­gle that may yet have some­thing to offer us.