Amherst College Interlibrary Loan Borrower: G6C Lending String: PLT.~AMH,EYM.EYM,VGM Patron: Littlefield, sid Tournal Title: Polygraph. Volume: 15/16 Issue: Immanence, Transcendence, and Month/Year: 2004Pages: Article Author: Article Title: Alain Badiou: The Flux and the Party: In the Mangins of Anti-Cedipus ILL Number: 30271789 i Call #: Location: AC Frost Library no,15- 16 (2004) SAL2007 11:48:42 AM ARIEL Charge ‘Maxcost: 25,001F M ‘Shipping Address: Library = TLL/CBX 043 Georgia College ond State University 320 North Wayne St. Milledgeville, GA 31061-0490 Fax: Ariel: crielgesuedu NOTICE: This material may be protected by Law (Title 17 U.S. Code)Suous commentary to my text by Marta » body that ofa magnetic field, seems to its magic ld, othe brain generates mergent Self (Whaca: Cornell University consistency ofits own, although it ean here. Does this mean that mind cannot ther enalogy from physics leaves the gate ter « body collapses into a black hole, sustaining gravitational feld—so even a a feld generated by 2 material object =) any: SUNY Press, 2000). ? see Chapter 3 of lao Ze, The Pup- Fora popular scientific explanation, see x Books, 2001). ds Oxford University Press, 1994), stius Press, 1995) 127. + . The Flux and the Party: In the Margins of Anti-Oedipus Alain Badiou So tempting to give a warm round of applause. Yes, yes! Read. on: "Itisa question of knowing how a revolutionary potential 4s realized, in its very relationship with the exploited masses or the ‘weakest links’ of a given system. Do these masses or these links act in theie own place, within the order of causes and ends that promote a new socius, or are they on the con- trary the place and the agent of a sudden and unexpected lrvuption?™ Could Deleuze and Guattari be dialecticiens? ‘The evolutionary dialectic as theory of discontinuities and of scissions, as logic of catastrophes—that’s it, afterall: the order of causes assigns no place where a rupture could take hhold. No quantitative cumulation incorporates a new quality, ‘or counts the latte’ limit among its number of terms, even. though quality is, necessarily, produced as the limit, ‘Thue, the revolutionary crisis isan irruption of large mass- £5 nto history? The revolution is "a sharp tur a vast popular masses” Deteuze-Guattari echo this here, with 2 touch of pedantry and vain Latinisms that stick to the soles of these nomads weighed under their baggage (promoting a ‘new soci” you call that cute?) ‘Any Marxist-Leninist-Maoist learns in school (cadre school, of course) thet the Parisian workers, the soviet peo- ple the Hunan farmers, and the young workers of Sud-Avia- tou in May ’68* one day rose in revolt; and he knows better than anyone that whoever pretends having read, in his men- tal horoscope, the good news in its precise sequence, merely wants to justify by this lie, after the fact, his personal defeat in the heat of the moment. Marvists-Leninists precisely base their particular energy and unvarying persistence on two facts: “Where there is oppression, there is revolt” But it is the revolt that tits own hour, passes judgment ‘on the fate of the oppression, not the other way around Polygraph ss (2004)78 The Plu and the Party + “One has reason to revolt against reactionaries” The popular and prole- tarian revolt isthe reason of the bourgeois oppression, itis what gives reason, itis our reason.® “True class revolt, in essence, surprises. It isa war by sucprise, the generic brutality of scission. How could the established rule ofthe old (including the revolutionary cold) put up with a deduction of what tends to break it asunder? How many people hhave we mot seen enraptured by the fat that “no one could have foreseen May'68"! even suspect that the ascent ofthe anti-Cedipus and all the fabrications about the pure mysteries of Desire take off from this question. The question is, strictly speal- ing, stupid. Can one imagine a “foreseen” May "68? And by whom’ Who does not see that the unforeseeable constitutes the essential historical power of May "68? To baptize this unforeseeable “ruption of desire” is about as soporific as opium, “This baptism, however, isnot innocent. It stages the entcance of the irrational, ‘Unforeseeable, desiring, irrational: follow your drift [dérivel, my sou, and you will ‘make the Revolution, Its been quite a while now since Marxist-Leninists ceased to identify the ratio nal with the analytically predictable, ‘The dialectic, the primacy of practice, means first and foremost affirming the historical objectivity of ruptuces. Masses make His~ tory, not Concepts. No one can ever really know precisely how, and in which work shop, a revolutionary (anti-union) strike began. Why Tuesday and not Thursday? "The masses gesture closes one period and opens another, What was dividing itself reversed its terms, the working class viewpoint takes over. A local, dialectical ra~ tonelity opens for itself anew space of practice. The revolt condenses one rational time and deploys the scission of another. The revolutionary process of organiza~ tion is itself reworked, recast, penetrated and split by the primacy of practice: “The composition of the leading [dirigeant] group ... should not and cannot remain en tirely unchanged throughout the intial, middle, and final stages of a great struggle.” (Mao)? “The material objective base of everything (the revolutionary class practice) is never guite exhausted in that to which it gives rise. Revolutionary history renounces “Hegelian circularity, imposes periodization, the uninterrupted by stages: one se- ‘quence’ rationality cannot absorb the practical rupture from which the sequence deploys itself as such. The rupture can be thought in its dialectical generality. His- torically, iis only practiced. Concept, strategy and tactic, organization, al have the solidity of a sequence; but behind them lies the historical new. that which founds ‘the sequence and which the concept within the sequence necessarily leaves outside itgelf as its remainder. Masses make history—practice comes first in respect to the- ‘ory. There is, therefore, a leftover of pure” practice, the historical rupture as such, which historical materialism and theory will not be able, integrally, either to deduce ‘or to organize any longer, because their deductions and their organizing principles presuppose it a fect. ‘What remains, however, is neither the cause nor the hidden essence’ It is not at all unknowable: itis an infnite historical soutce, at least throughout a histori- ‘al period governed by the same principal contradiction (bourgecisie/proletariat)? “The “remainder” is that which, in the periodizing scansion (Commune, October, Cultural Revotution ..."), deploys tures to come is needed to clarify ‘what sustains and what carries fo ‘proximation thats itself always sp practice, by the Shanghai workers to the practical, historical, inexha time, the postive development of revolutionary committee, cartes t From Paris 1871 to Shanghai 1 tion of dass. From a just idea di there, The furnace of the class nilieu). ‘The good fortune of the ability to predict and assign the re storm.” Whatever weapons the M organization, doctrine, prevision, bbe judged according to his capaci by those who, suddenly rising up, for later. ‘The revolt surprises Marxists prise, by a new kind of surprise. where the surprise will slam righ ally prepares himself for the mas never be ready enough, Only for h ‘meaning, since what is ahead is fa ceaselessly prepares for. But he is the revolutionary potential of the reserve? The Marxist-Leninist, wi revolutionary potential at each me the revolts hour. ‘What is a stake, for the Marx bbut I stand unconditionally by its ‘through and through the theory of tue, the proletarian uprising, work vision, even though itis correct, b ‘Mao and the peasent revolt of damental. Our tactical application surrection, must explode into pie: the demand of the countryside, bu masses’ violent rapture carries this the countryside.” “The Marxist-Leninist leader [donaties” The popular and prole- eois oppression, it is what gives ar by surprise, the generic brutality he old (including the revolutionary preak it asunder? How many people 0 one could have foreseen May ‘681 us and al the fabrications about the tion. ‘The question is, strictly speak- “68? And by whom? Who does not til historical power of May ’682 To is about as soporific as opiu tages the entrance ofthe irrational, drift [dériv], my son, and you will eninists ceased to identify the ratio- ctc, the primacy of practice, means tivity of ruptures. Masses make Hi w precisely how and in which work- n. Why Tuesday and not Thursday? ns another. What was dividing itself takes over. A local, dialectical ra- e.The revolt condenses one rational revolutionary process of organiza- pit by the primacy of practice: “The should not and cannot remain en- and final tages ofa great struggle” (the revolutionary class practice) is ise. Revolutionary history renounces ne uninterrupted by stages: one se- 3} rupture from which the sequence ight in its dialectical generality. His- and tactic, orgenization, all have the ¢ historical new, that which founds sequence necessarily leaves outside ractice comes first in respect to the- ctice, the historical rupture as such, tbe abl, integrally, either to deduce ions and their organizing principles se nor the hidden essence It is not ource, a least throughout « histori- radiction (bourgeoisie/proletariat)? zing scansion (Commune, October, Alain Badion 77 (Cultural Revotation ...®) deploys such force of rupture that the long work of rup- tures to come is needed to clarify the historical contribution of the masses, which is ‘whet sustains and what carries forward theory and organization, in an infinite ap- proximation thatisitsef always split (battle ofthe two roads)" Who doesn't see that practice, by the Shanghai workers in 1967, of the ‘workers’ commune” slogan retuens to the practical, historical, inexhaustbilityof the Paris Commune? And atthe same time, the positive development ofthis slogan, in the new form of the three-in-one revolutionary committee, carries this return forward From Paris 1871 to Shanghai 1967, revolt i the furnace (fond, the great produe- tion of class, From a just idea dismembered to a continental rupture, everything is there. The furnace ofthe class break, revolt, is without hearth and home [sans few niteu). “The good fortune of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary has never been his ‘bility to predict and assign the revolt, but rather the itreparable suddenness ofits storm.” Whatever weapons the Marxist-Leninist has assembled for the people—of organization, doctrine, prevision, patience, compaciness ofthe proletariat—he will be judged according to his capacity to have them all taken away without warning bby those wino, suddenly rising up, are indeed destined to have them, but as a rule for later ‘The revolt surprises Marxists-Leninists and their organization too. It must sur- ptise, by a new kind of surprise. For the Marxists-Leninists must stand precisely ‘where the surprise will slam right into them. The revolutionary, who profession- ally prepares himself for the mass rising, for the revolts ieruption, obviously ean never be ready enough. Only for him does the historical “not ready” have a rigorous ‘meaning, since what is ahead is for him alone, class struggle professional, what he ‘ceaselessly prepares for. But he is not ready: were he ready, how could he have left the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, the sole asset of this preparation, in reserve? The Marxist-Leninist, who analyzes, predicts, directs, who alone knows the revolutionary potential at each moment, is precisely the one to ask the question of the revolts hour. ‘What is at stake, for the Marxist-Leninist organization, is not to change the “it ‘was for later” ofits prevision, an approximating reserve of tactical composure, into the repressive “it's too early” ofthe Right. Here, its idemtity is played out all at once. ‘Marx before the Comrmune: the Parisian protetarian uprising is bound to fal, but [ stand unconditionally by its side: its reat movement instructs and reworks through and through the theory of my (correct [justl) prevision: the historical fail- ure, the proletarian uprising works and displaces my prevision.Itritcizes my pre- vision, even though itis correct, because itis correct."# ‘Mao and the peasant revolt of 1925-1927: the peasant revolt—very good. Fun- damental. Gur tactical application of the primacy of the proletariat, 2s urban in- surrection, must explode into pieces, The peasants in revolt teach us that itis not the demand of the countryside, but the proletarian uprising that is premature. the ‘masses’ violent rupture carries this rationality to come: the encirclement of cites by the countryside ‘The Marxist-Leninist leader (dirigeant] is the one who sunders and splits him-78 the Fluxand the Party self, between the objective form of the rational revolutionary preparation and the “unconditional and unconditionally immediate reason of the masses’ revolutionary revolt that which Lenin called the actual moment. May my enlightened preparation break apart and be verified by the fir of irefutable historical unpreparation: such is the essence of Marxist-Leninist direction, the direction of the party! “There is no other direction but of the new. The old is managed, itis admin- istered, it is not directed The revolutionary direction scrutinizes the conflicted state of things.” the class struggle, the clues accumulated during the proletariat’ revolution in process, From there the leadership [direction] systematizes @ guiding prevision that is both strategic and tactical. Let us take an example: since 1970, the revolt of the O.S puts to work a dispersed program of class against capitalist hier- archy, Condensing this program as soon as possible, formulating combatant slogans that have its originary class power, we put ourselves forward, granted. But such an advance is but the point where a new assault wave is received and accumulates. Who clings to it too tightly, forever stays behind: with the Renault of '73 when it is about the Renault of 75.” “The same goes for analytical prevision: there is a capitalist crisis today, there will be an anti-capitalist revolt. This is Marxism. So, lets get ready: propaganda, worker schools, popular committess on anti-capitalist direct action, But where and con what will the masses make their violent judgment bear? This must be studied quite closely, enumerating the practical hypotheses, half living in the work of the ‘masses, Then and only then will the unexpected breach, armed with this previous ‘work on itself, taking along the skeletal frame of a sketched organization, carrying its directing virtuality (virtwaitédirigeantel, draining and reworking the Marxist- Leninists strategy, tear down the oppressive web as far as it can. ‘A correct [juste line is the open road to the most powerful striking force of the proletarian itraption. The party is an instrument of knowiedge and of war in an ‘ever-widening space of maneuver and itruption. A correct line, a vanguard organi: zation, an iron discipline, an organic relation [Hieison| to the popular masses, a con- stant exercise of Marxist-Leninist analysis” reclaimed and unraveled and reworked ‘tothe most mintte detall, carried forward to the shadow ofthe trace of the new: the bark of class struggle pressed down to its imperceptible acid; everything interpel- lated by directives: all of this—the party—is needed for the revolutionary revolt to strike completely, past the meshes of the situation], into the historical unicity of the new. The directive activity of the party must be titeless, perfect, exhaustive; as the unexpected revolt and the unicity of the revolutionary hour will demand of it that it be split again, beyond anything it could and in fact did foresee, and, inevitably ‘constrained by the new of the class that casts it forward. At which point proletarian thought filters through and gathers anew, itself establishes its kingdom, before de- stroying it agein: “There is no construction without destruction’ (Mao) To which wwe add: without consttuction, there is no destruction - before destroying it there where nothing can be deducted or managed any more. ‘Marxism-Leninism and the idea of the class party go further than the anti-dia~ lectical moralism of the theoreticians of desire. Moralism, yes, and of the dullest kind, Look at the two-colurmn chart with which these jingly subversives would like us to conclude: “The two poles are defined, the desiring. machines o the large scale under a given form! the inverse subordination und| lar structured aggregates that those that they retain in cod multiplicities of singulaites tf asso many usefol material fo integration and territoriaizai them back, break them again in such a way as to produce t rence peculiar to this system that follow the decoded and non-figurative breaks or schir the coded wall or the territora production; and, to suramariz defined by subjugated groups, ‘And this would be called “beyond all this subversive arm-pumping, and Necessity Evi? Freedom, and by the way, wha Deleuze and Guattari don't hide th with to exorcise the Hegelian ghos For quite « while, | wondered between the sexual connotations a it up for that materialist feel. Wel 1no less 1s the unconditional: a su sensible order of ends, the whole netic energy, energy as such. Tha ‘ld freedom of autonomy, hastily legitimately demands: some spit o ‘The rale ofthe Good, with De by means of an amusing substitut so that the maxim of your actions! to Kant what Marc is to Hegel, De perative, buta desiring one; the un subject, but like a fluid flux. Sadly same thing—and Deleuze’ first ac and no reverse, that's even its very ‘On the toboggan of Desire, the he ‘one side from the other, object fi Good or that, Ei is just a reversi always act so that the maxim of yo| revolutionary preparation and the reason of the masses’ revolutionary int. May my enlightened preparation ble historical unpreparation: such is tection ofthe party! x The old is managed, it is admin- direction scrutinizes the conflicted ccurmulated during the proletatiat’s ip Idirection) systematizes a guiding rus take an example: since 1970, the gram of class against capitalist hier- ible, forrnulating combatant slogens elves forward, granted, But stich an ves received and accumulates. Who h the Renault of'73 when itis about ere isa capitalist crisis today, there sm, So, les get ready: propaganda, pitalist direct action. But where and dgment bear? This must be studied peses,half-living in the work of the sd breach, armed with this previous of a sketched organization, carrying raining and reworking the Marzist- b as far asitcan, s most powerful striking force of the ent of knowledge and of war in an nA correct Hine, a vanguard organi- aiso to the popular masses, a con- jimed and unraveled and reworked e shadow ofthe trace ofthe new; the erceptible acid; everything interpel- eded for the revolutionary revolt to on], into the historical unicity ofthe etreless, perfect, echaustive, as the tionary hour will demand of it that Lin fact did foresee, and, inevitably forward, At which point protetarian establishes its Kingdom, before de- hout destruction” (Mao)2""To which ruction - before destroying it there y more, s patty go further than the anti-die- z. Moralism, yes, and of the dullest n these jingly subversives would like Alain Badiou 79 uusto conclude: “The two poles are defined, the ane by the enslavement of production and the desiring-machines to the gregarious aggregates that they constitute on 2 large scale under a given form of power or selective sovereignty, the other by the inverse subordination and the overthrow of power; the ane by these mo- lar structured aggregates that crush singularities, select them, and regularize those that they retain in codes or axiomatic, the other by the molecular ‘multiplicities of singularities that on the contrary treat the large aggregates a8 so many useful materials for their own elaborations; the one by the ines of integration and terrtorialization that arrest the flows, constrict them, turn them back, break them again according to the limits interior to the systers, in such a way as to produce the images that come to fill the field of imma- rence peculiar to this system or this aggregate, the other by lines of escape that fellow the decoded and deterritorialized flows, inventing their own ‘non-figurative breaks or schizzes that produce new flows, always breaching the coded wall or the teritoralized limit thet separates them from desiring- production; and, to summarize all the preceding determinations, the one is defined by subjugated groups, the other by subject-groups?™* ‘And this would be called “beyond Good and Bvil” perhaps? All this cultural racket, all this subversive arm-pumping, only to slip us, at the end, that Freedom is Good and Necessity Evil? Freedom, and by the way, what Freedom? “Subject-group.” Freedom as Subject. Deleuze and Guattari dont hide this much: return to Kant, here's what they came up with to exorcise the Hegelian ghost. For quite a while, [ wondered what was this “desire” of theis, stuck as T was between the sexual connotations and all the machinic, industrial brass they covered it up for that materialist feel. Well, its the Freedom of Kantian critique, no more, ro less. Is the unconditional: « subjective impulse that invisibly escapes the whole sensible order of ends, the whole rational fabric of causes. Its pure, unbound, ge- nevic energy, energy as sich, That which is law unto itself, or absence of law. The old freedom of autonomy, hastily repainted in the colors of what the youth in revolt legitimately demands: some spit on the bourgeois family. “The rule of the Good, with Delewze, is the categorical imperative upright again, bby means of an amusing substitution of the particular for the universal: always act so that the maxim of your actions be rigorously particular. Deleuze would like to be to Kant what Mars is to Hegel, Deleuze fips Kant upside down: the categorical im- erative, buta desiring one; the unconditional, but materialist; the autonomy of the subject, but like a fiuid flux. Sadly, turn Kant, and you will find Hume, which is the same thing—and Deleuze first academic crushes. Critical idealism has no obverse and no reverse that’ even its very definition. Thisis the Mébivs strip of philosophy. ‘On the toboggan of Desir, the head bobs down and up again, unlit doesa't know ‘one side from the other, object from subject, any more. Allin all that this be the ‘Good or that, Evi is just reversible matter of mood, with not much consequence: always act so that the maxim of your action does not, strictly, concern anybody.80 The Flux anu the Party Marxism-Leninism thinks of otherwise forceful “schizzes” ones that secure themselves otherwise to the material of history. The unity of opposites, the impos- sibility to grasp the One except as the movement of its own scission; the step-by- step struggle against all figures of reconciliation (two fuse into one: the essence of revisionism in philosophy); the refusal ofl static dualisms, such as the moralism of desire, a stracturalism ful of shame. Yes, this is quite different from the catechism of the System and the Flux, the Despot and the Nomad, the Paranoiac, and the Schizo, all that, under the colorless banner ofa freedom, invisibly leaks out {coule its sterile “other side. It is so different that a major historical object, like @ class party, completely ‘evades the “schizo” grip precisely since it concentrates dialectical divisions to the ‘extreme. The “schizos” imagine they are done with the concept of representation. “The party “represents” the working clas: itis Theater, image, territorial subjection, Obviously it must end with the Great Despot. Bourgeois party, indeed, revised party: one facet, separately undecipherable, ‘of the party as one in two, This theater is @ necessary threat from the inside, as the party is itself split, Short of that, itis a cadaver, “Mf there were no contradictions in ‘the Party and no ideological struggles to resolve them, the Party life would come toanend” (Mao) ‘More than any other historical object, the party is one in two: the unity of the political project of the proletariat, ofits state-project, the project ofits dictatorship. ‘And in this sense, yes: apparatus, hierarchy, discipline, renunciation, And so much the better, But at once, also, the historical fip side: the essential aspiration af the ‘masses, whose organ, whose iron hand is the party, to the non-State, to commu- nism, Which is what gives the party; as direction all ofits strategic content. “The party directs the withering of what it must direct (the State, the separation of politics). The partys only proletarian reality isthe turbulent history of its own self-dissolution, “Concern yourself with the affairs of the Sttel” seys Mao to the vast masses And this is the party's word, as communist party, precisely. The State is the serious matter, the central matter. The petit-bourgeois leftist wallows into the ‘mass movement and parades there with delight. But when matters turn to power, to the State, when matters turn to dictatorship (because all state-power (atigue is dictatorial), see how he get all furious clamoring loudly ofthe Right to Desire, He is even relieved: the shameful electoral rallying of all the "lefists’to the Mitterand- Marchais clique proves this, shows their appetite for bourgeois parliamentsry poli- tis, this dictatorship that squashes the peopl, but in the end lets all the intellectuals babble as they wish. In the end, the “leftist” political daydream is a mass movement that proceeds straight on until itis joyfully proclaimed that the State has quietly faded away. And since confusion belongs, invariably, to the thought ofthe vacilat- ing classes, it will come as no surprise that this speaks both the trve and the false. ‘The false, for the most part: the State is the only politcal question, ‘the revolu- tion is 3 radically new relation of the masses to the State. The State is construction, A ‘rupture without construction is the concrete definition of failure, and most often in the form ofa massacre: the Paris Commune, the Canton Commune, the anarchists of Catalonia ‘The true, nonetheless: iti tr dialectic with the State, Between opposites. Ifthe State is a prolel antagonistic type If it is a State heart. But in either case a contra cannot concern themselves with State, brutally or organically, tows mies of the State, city and count labor, the military and the evil appearance.” The masses take ho [set on] its withering away. Any o takes hold ofthe masses: bourgeo ‘Actually, each great revolt oft ably against the State. Bach revolt ‘of another, of one thought as ast revolt across its specific contents anti-state proposition. This is what puts the party thr ‘bas no other chance, no oth summons it addresses to the par here that the party (hich, as ap ‘own permanent prevision toward temporary blindness by another p slate challenge [sommation] ofthe always be eager to say “itis too ea ‘what has already opened up, as an Look at “The Crisis has Matu passage from “itis too early” to ‘pages where Lenin puts his resign Brutally bound together, we have: 1. The unforeseeable constr {ng practically in days. 2. The rtional prevision of a. the walt-and-see appre majority (itis too eat b. the Leninist anticipati revision of the party o ‘the masse in revolt br to practice our proper ‘orbecome nothing If next we, the great Bols Lenin says: there is a peasant upris tive “incredible” does not surprise Kerenskys government protects ca masses that hoped to be liberated. 7