The Communist Hypothesis
By Alain Badiou
3/5
()
About this ebook
Alain Badiou’s “communist hypothesis,” first stated in 2008, cut through the cant and compromises of the past twenty years to reconceptualize the Left. The hypothesis is a fresh demand for universal emancipation and a galvanizing call to arms. Anyone concerned with the future of the planet needs to reckon with the ideas outlined within this book.
Alain Badiou
Alex Kirstukas has published and presented on Verne's work for both academic and popular audiences and is a trustee of the North American Jules Verne Society as well as the editor of its peer-reviewed publication Extraordinary Voyages. Kirstukas' first published translation was Robur the Conqueror by Jules Verne and published by the Wesleyan University Press in 2017.
Read more from Alain Badiou
There’s No Such Thing as a Sexual Relationship: Two Lessons on Lacan Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5In Praise of Love Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Badiou by Badiou Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEthics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Philosophy for Militants Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Democracy in What State? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Rebirth of History: Times of Riots and Uprisings Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Adventure of French Philosophy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Pocket Pantheon: Figures of Postwar Philosophy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Polemics Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Indifference and Repetition; or, Modern Freedom and Its Discontents Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSt. Paul Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Plato's Republic: A Dialogue in 16 Chapters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Reflections On Anti-Semitism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHeidegger: His Life and His Philosophy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related to The Communist Hypothesis
Related ebooks
First As Tragedy, Then As Farce Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5In Defense of Lost Causes Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Rebirth of History: Times of Riots and Uprisings Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Beyond Capitalism?: The Future of Radical Politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPhilosophy for Militants Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Revolution at the Gates: Selected Writings of Lenin from 1917 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Hatred of Democracy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Companion to Marx's Capital Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Living in the End Times Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Absolute Recoil: Towards A New Foundation Of Dialectical Materialism Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: 5 Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHegel and the Infinite Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMapping Ideology Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Vital Illusion Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Polemics Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Year of Dreaming Dangerously Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Philosophy of Marx Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Companion To Marx's Capital, Volume 2 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Screened Out Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Soul and Form Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical Democratic Politics Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Representing Capital: A Reading Of Volume One Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Liberalism: A Counter-History Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Spirit of Terrorism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Actuality of Communism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTowards a New Manifesto Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5War and Revolution: Rethinking the Twentieth Century Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Communist Horizon Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5What Is a People? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Political Ideologies For You
The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Capitalism and Freedom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A People's History of the United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The U.S. Constitution with The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Blackout: How Black America Can Make Its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Girl with Seven Names: A North Korean Defector’s Story Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Great Reset: And the War for the World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mein Kampf: English Translation of Mein Kamphf - Mein Kampt - Mein Kamphf Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Gulag Archipelago: The Authorized Abridgement Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The January 6th Report Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Communist Manifesto: Original Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else) Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Why We're Polarized Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Quest for Cosmic Justice Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Call Them by Their True Names: American Crises (and Essays) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Great Awakening: Defeating the Globalists and Launching the Next Great Renaissance Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Related categories
Reviews for The Communist Hypothesis
23 ratings3 reviews
- Rating: 2 out of 5 stars2/5The communist hypothesis is that a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour. The private appropriation of massive fortunes and their transmission by inheritance will disappear. The existence of a coercive state, separate from civil society, will no longer appear a necessity: a long process of reorganization based on a free association of producers will see it withering away.
I fear my response to this book, particularly to Badiou's horrific hagiography of The Cultural Revolution will lead to my expulsion from Zizek's cool kids club. Some matters are indefensible. That may not be philosophically progressive, it certainly doesn't coincide with Badiou's living for an Idea. This text isn't John Carpenter's They Live, if I wear the shades, Mao doesn't become decent, the denouncement remains too human and the idealism in the Cultural Revolution is negligible at best.
The section on the Paris Commune is easier to address. Strange how Badiou begins the book with pages of citation from his own play. Bad form. - Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5This collection of previous writings along with essentially an essay tying them together serves as a limited but useful introduction to this aspect of Badiou's thought. His elaborations on three 'events' (May '68, the Cultural Revolution and the Paris Commune) are used to explain the general idea of the Communist Hypothesis. These chapters make for interesting reading and warrant several close readings if one wants to better understand his argument. This does not necessarily mean agreement, just an understanding. Without an understanding of the ideas as he perceives them (indeed any ideas presented for consideration) it is fruitless to argue for or against them.Briefly, his overarching argument is that even though the attempts at socialism and communism, particularly the latter, have failed it does not logically follow that the ideas at the core have to be abandoned. Much like a scientific theory or hypothesis, as he argues, a failure simply means that a particular attempt has not yet been proven. To a large extent the question may well not be whether the ideas are faulty in themselves but rather whether the attempts at implementation have been the problem. Destruction is not always the difficult aspect but rather filling the void left in the resultant space.While there are more questions raised than answered, this serves as a clear call not to demonize the ideas when one demonizes the failed attempts.Reviewed from an ARC made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Badiou needs to learn not to talk big. There are some interesting moments here; leading us through idiosyncratic interpretations of the student protests in France in 1968, the Cultural Revolution, and the Paris Commune, he makes and reinforces a case that a thread runs through these episodes, making them the best starting place for learning the lessons about what communism needs to be for the future and how we need to start making it that. Communism has blossomed or advanced a million different ways since the Manifesto, he says, and all of them have ended in abject failure. What that means isn't that communism isn't possible. It just means that we haven't figured out how to do it yet. All the communisms we've tried have been impossible, so the question before us is, how to rescue the idea of communism from those failures? And the hypothesis is that there exists a possible communism that works. And the reason to test that hypothesis is that "all those who abandon this hypothesis immediately resign themselves to the market economy, to parlaimentary democracy--the form of state suited to capitalism--and to the inevitable and "natural" character of the most monstrous inequalities."
Now that's exciting jacket copy! And the book is that particular light communist red that's definitely not orange and definitely not pink, and the writing is gold, Little Red Book-style, and all the signs are there: this is a major new salvo in the communism of the future that is struggling to birth, the indeterminate object around which Zizek, and David Harvey's Enigma of Capital, and in a weird way even housing protests and LOHAS and op-eds hacking on the banks, are orbiting. Take us a step closer, Badiou!
Oh hell, it's later now, and I would really like to know what the fuck happened to the rest of my review and why this keeps happening on librarything. Anyway, long story short on the step closer thing: he didn't.
Book preview
The Communist Hypothesis - Alain Badiou
Zedong
Preamble: What Is Called Failure?
1
The mid-1970s saw the beginnings of the ebb the ‘red decade’ ushered in by the fourfold circumstances of national liberation struggles (in Vietnam and Palestine in particular), the worldwide student and youth movement (Germany, Japan, the USA, Mexico …), factory revolts (France and Italy) and the Cultural Revolution in China. It finds its subjective form in a resigned surrender, in a return to customs – including electoral customs – deference towards the capitalo-parliamentarian or ‘Western’ order, and the conviction that to want something better is to want something worse. It finds its intellectual form in what, in France, acquired the very strange name of ‘the new philosophy’. Despite the change of name, we have here, almost unchanged, all the arguments of the American anti-communism of the 1950s: socialist regimes are loathsome despotisms and bloody dictatorships. At the level of the state, this socialist ‘totalitarianism’ must be contrasted with representative democracy which, while it is of course imperfect, is by far the least bad form of government. At the moral level, which is the most important in philosophical terms, we must preach the values of the ‘free world’ centred on and protected by the United States. Because it has ended in failure all over the world, the communist hypothesis is a criminal utopia that must give way to a culture of ‘human rights’, which combines the cult of freedom (including, of course, freedom of enterprise, the freedom to own property and to grow rich that is the material guarantee of all other freedoms) and a representation in which Good is a victim. Good is never anything more than the struggle against Evil, which is tantamount to saying that we must care only for those who present themselves, or who are exhibited, as the victims of Evil. As for Evil, it is everything that the free West designates as such, what Reagan called ‘the Evil Empire’. Which brings us back to our starting point: the communist Idea, and so on.
For various reasons, this propaganda machine is now obsolete, mainly because there is no longer a single powerful state claiming to be communist, or even socialist. Many rhetorical devices have of course been recycled in the ‘war against terror’ which, in France, has taken on the guise of an anti-Islamist crusade. And yet no one can seriously believe that a particularist religious ideology that is backward-looking in terms of its social vision, and fascistic in both its conception of action and its outcome, can replace a promise of universal emancipation supported by three centuries of critical, international and secular philosophy that exploited the resources of science and mobilized, at the very heart of the industrial metropolises, the enthusiasm of both workers and intellectuals. Lumping together Stalin and Hitler was already a sign of extreme intellectual poverty: the norm by which any collective undertaking has to be judged is, it was argued, the number of deaths it causes. If that were really the case, the huge colonial genocides and massacres, the millions of deaths in the civil and world wars through which our West forged its might, should be enough to discredit, even in the eyes of ‘philosophers’ who extol their morality, the parliamentary regimes of Europe and America. What would be left for those who scribble about Rights? How could they go on singing the praises of bourgeois democracy as the only form of relative Good and making pompous predictions about totalitarianism when they are standing on top of heaps of victims? Lumping together Hitler, Stalin and Bin Laden now looks like a black farce. It indicates that our democratic West is none too fussy about the nature of the historic fuel it uses to keep its propaganda machine running. It is true that, these days, it has other fish to fry. After two short decades of cynically unequal prosperity, it is in the grip of a truly historical crisis and has to fall back on its ‘democratic’ pretensions, as it appears to have been doing for some time, with the help of walls and barbed-wire fences to keep out foreigners, a corrupt and servile media, overcrowded prisons and iniquitous legislation. The problem is that it is less and less capable of corrupting its local clientele and buying off the ferocious foreign regimes of the Mubaraks and Musharrafs who are responsible for keeping watch on the flocks of the poor.
What remains of the labours of the ‘new philosophers’ who have been enlightening us – or, in other words, deadening our minds – for 30 years now? What really remains of the great ideological machinery of freedom, human rights, the West and its values? It all comes down to a simple negative statement that is as bald as it is flat and as naked as the day it was born: socialisms, which were the communist Idea’s only concrete forms, failed completely in the twentieth century. Even they have had to revert to capitalism and non-egalitarian dogma. That failure of the Idea leaves us with no choice, given the complex of the capitalist organization of production and the state parliamentary system. Like it or not, we have to consent to it for lack of choice. And that is why we now have to save the banks rather than confiscate them, hand out billions to the rich and give nothing to the poor, set nationals against workers of foreign origin whenever possible, and, in a word, keep tight controls on all forms of poverty in order to ensure the survival of the powerful. No choice, I tell you! As our ideologues admit, it is not as though relying on the greed of a few crooks and unbridled private property to run the state and the economy was the absolute Good. But it is the only possible way forward. In his anarchist vision, Stirner described man, or the personal agent of History, as ‘the Ego and his own’. Nowadays, it is ‘Property as ego’.
Which means that we have to think about the notion of failure. What exactly do we mean by ‘failure’ when we refer to a historical sequence that experimented with one or another form of the communist hypothesis? What exactly do we mean when we say that all the socialist experiments that took place under the sign of that hypothesis ended in ‘failure’? Was it a complete failure? By which I mean: does it require us to abandon the hypothesis itself, and to renounce the whole problem of emancipation? Or was it merely a relative failure? Was it a failure because of the form it took or the path it explored? Was it a failure that simply proves that it was not the right way to resolve the initial problem?
A comparison will shed light on my conviction. Take a scientific problem, which may well take the form of a hypothesis until such time as it is resolved. It could be, for example, that ‘Fermat’s theorem’ is a hypothesis if we formulate it as: ‘For >n, I assume that the equation xn + yn = zn has no whole solutions (solutions in which x, y and z are whole numbers).’ Countless attempts were made to prove this, from Fermat, who formulated the hypothesis (and claimed to have proved it, but that need not concern us here), to Wiles, the English mathematician, who really did prove it a few years ago. Many of those attempts became the starting point for mathematical developments of great import, even though they did not succeed in solving the problem itself. It was therefore vital not to abandon the hypothesis for the three hundred years during which it was impossible to prove it. The lessons of all the failures, and the process of examining them and their implications, were the lifeblood of mathematics. In that sense, failure is nothing more than the history of the proof of the hypothesis, provided that the hypothesis is not abandoned. As Mao puts it, the logic of imperialists and all reactionaries the world over is ‘make trouble, fail, make trouble again’, but the logic of the people is ‘fight, fail, fail again, fight again … till their victory’.¹
It will be argued here, via a detailed discussion of three examples (May ’68, the Cultural Revolution and the Paris Commune), that the apparent, and sometimes bloody, failures of events closely bound up with the communist hypothesis were and are stages in its history. At least for all those who are not blinded by the propagandist use of the notion of failure. Meaning all those who are still inspired by the communist hypotheses in so far as they are political subjects, and irrespective of whether or not they actually use the word ‘communism’. In politics, it is thoughts, organizations and deeds that count. Proper nouns, such as Robespierre, Marx and Lenin, are sometimes used as referents. Common nouns (revolution, proletariat, socialism …) are in themselves much less capable of naming a real sequence in the politics of emancipation, and their use is rapidly exposed to an inflation that has no content. Adjectives (resistant, revisionist, imperialist …) are usually used only for propaganda. That is because universality, which is the real attribute of any corpus of truths, will have nothing to do with predicates. A real politics knows nothing of identities, even the identity – so tenuous, so variable – of ‘communists’. It knows only fragments of the real, and an Idea of the real is testimony to the fact that the work of its truth is ongoing.
2
Between the middle and the end of the ‘red years’ I was speaking about earlier, I had several opportunities to reach a verdict on failure, on the positive meaning of defeats. A revolutionary defeat is in fact always divided into a negative part (deaths, imprisonments, betrayals, loss of strength, fragmentation), which is often very obvious at the time, and a positive part, which usually takes a long time to emerge (a tactical and strategic reckoning, a change of action-models, the invention of new forms of organization). Between 1972 and 1978, I wrote what I called a romanopera [novelopera] that I called L’Echarpe rouge [The Red Scarf]. It was published by Maspero in 1979, and performed in Lyon, Avignon and then at the Palais de Chaillot in 1984 in the form of a real opera, with music by Georges Aperghis and directed by Antoine Vitez. This work followed, line by line, the schema of Claudel’s Soulier de Satin (which Vitez directed in Avignon a few years later). Basically, I took up the challenge thrown down to popular theatre by Claudel’s creation of a form of theatre that was at once modern and Christian. And it is not for nothing that the title of Act II, Scene VI is Choeur de la divisible défaite [Chorus of the divisible defeat]. I will always remember the musical power of the chorus (all dressed in workers’ overalls) while Pierre Vial – an exceptional actor – strode up and down the stage carrying an old umbrella and hesitantly murmuring, half-convinced, half-nostalgic: ‘Communism! Communism!’
The scene has to be situated. The regional Party leadership in the working-class North East of the imaginary country in which the play is set has launched a sort of civil insurrection, and has, more specifically, called a general strike. That offensive gives the whole of the play’s second act its title (The Autumn Offensive). It ends in complete failure and, after stormy discussions in all the revolutionary organizations, it is discussed, criticized and rejected in favour of military action on the part of the insurgents, this time under the leadership of the South of the country.
The scene I want to cite comes immediately after the failure of this premature ‘autumn offensive’. It is set outside the gate of the SNOMA factory, early in the morning. The defeated workers are returning to work, heads bowed, between two lines of soldiers, managers and police. The workers’ chorus was, according to the stage directions, born of this compact procession. The entire chorus has to do with how defeats can be divided and subsumed into a higher mode of thought. Here it is:
And so, one morning the colour of dead earth, we have once more lowered our banners very low and very solemnly. We have spurned our insurrection.
And so, here we are once more, the workers of SNOMA, in a town that has been bled try, heads bowed and defeated.
Once again, our efforts were not enough to force the outcome of the dispute.
The threshold of a reversal of positions.
I speak here of the interrogative prematurity of our watchful uprising.
I speak of the isolation of the proletariat in the undecided town, and of a far-away offensive.
I speak here of its failure, and the bitterness.
But!
No one has the strength to make the mill of history run backwards for any length of time.
This is the time for both a reckoning and an understanding, the time of the tension through which, for the defeated,
The bad thing of failure turns into the combative excellence of knowledge [un savoir].
[…]
Join us, you, the defeated, the legendary defeated, with the fabulous sequel to your non-acceptances!
You! The oppressed of times gone by. Slaves of the sun-sacrifices who were mutilated for the splendour of tombs! The ploughmen who were sold, together with the earth that was the same colour as them! The children who have been expatriated into the bloody service of the cotton and the coal, now that the meadows have been fenced in.
Have you accepted this? No one ever accepts anything!
Spartacus, Jacquou le Croquant. Thomas Münzer!
And you: the tramps of the plains, the Taiping rebels of the great loess, Chartists and Luddites, plotters from the labyrinth of the banlieues, egalitarian Babouvists, sans-culottes, Communards, Spartacists! All people from the popular sects and soviets of the sprawling quartiers, sectionnaires from the days of the Terror, men with forks and pikes, the men of the barricades and the burning chateaux! And the host of the many others who are violently striving to discover their plenitude,
And who, as they invent their plenitude, are at work in the continental shattering of history!
The sailors who threw their officers to carnivorous fish, the utopians of solar cities who opened fire in their territorial outposts, Quechua miners from the Andes with an appetite for dynamite! And the successive tidal waves of African rebels sheltering behind flaming leopard-skin shields in the colonial stench! Not forgetting the lone man who took down his hunting rifle and, like a suspicious wild boar, began to resist the aggressor in the forests of Europe.
And the deployment of great processions of all kinds in the streets: sinister-looking students, girls demanding women’s rights, the banners of great clandestine unions, old men rising up in memory of general strikes, nurses in their veils, and workers on bicycles!
Join us and give us the countless inventions and the multiform simplicity of people power: the mob orators and warriors of the peasant leagues, the camisard prophets, the women of the clubs, associations and federations, the workers and the lycéens of the comités de base, the action committees, the triple unions and the grand alliances! Factory soviets, soldiers’ soviets, people’s courts, the great village commissions formed to share out the land, to open an irrigation damn, or to form a militia! Revolutionary groups demanding price-controls, the execution of corrupt officials and for tight controls on food stocks!
And those, though they are few of them and this is a period that goes against the general trend, who cling to the correct idea in basements filled with the din of manual rotary presses. And then there are those who, armed with long bamboo poles, know how to skewer the fattest of police officers, and for whom everything else is a mystery.
All of you! Brothers of immense history! You look at our failure and you say: what are you giving up there? Didn’t our failure extend beyond death itself?