Constructivism and the Future Anterior of Radical Politics

8/13/2019 Constructivism and the Future Anterior of Radical Politics

1/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www

.anarchist-developments.org/onThursday

,februari6,

2014

Anarist Developments in Cultural StudiesPost-Anarism today2010.1

Constructivism and the Future

Anteriorof Radical Politics

Tomas Nail

Abstract

is article argues that radical theory in general, and post-anarchismspecifically has spent so much effort deconstructing and analyzingpower that ithaslargelyoverlookedtheimportant task ofexaminingthe constructive and prefigurative dimensions of the political alterna-tives coming to the fore. Drawing on the post-anarchist thought of

Deleuze,Guaari,andthe Zapatistasthis article offersthe beginningsofa correctivetothistrend byoutliningthree strategic contributionslocated in their political theory and practice: (1) a multi-centeredstrategyofpoliticaldiagnosis, (2)a prefigurative strategyofpoliticaltransformation, and (3) a participatory strategy of organizing institu-tions.

It is in concrete social fields, at specific moments, that thecomparative movements of deterritorialization, the con-

tinuums of intensity and the combinations of flux thatthey form must be studied

Deleuze, Dialogues

Introduction

Radical politics today faces a two-fold challenge: to show theproblems and undesirabilityof the currentstructures ofexclusionand power,andto showthe desirabilityand coherencyof various al-ternatives that may take their place. is paper argues that over the

omas Nail is Visiting Scholar at the Center of Excellence for Research on Immigra-tion and Selement,Universityof Toronto. Heis also anAdvisoryBoard Member forUpping theAnti:AJournal of Teory andActionand a Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophyat the University of Oregon.


2/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

74 omas Nail

last 15 years, in particular, radicalpolitics have beenvastlymore at-tentive to the former than to the laer and that what is now required

is an appropriate shi in practical and theoretical efforts towardmore constructive and prefigurative activities. In particular, the pol-itics ofdifference,oen associated with post-structuralistpoliticaltheoryand contemporary radicalpolitics would do well to aendmore closely to some of the more productive and promising politicalexperiments emerging today. Not merely by exemplifying them asinstances ofa general potential forpolitical transformation, asismore oen the case, but to concretely clarify their field of struggle,

the types of political subjects they create, what makes them desirableas alternatives,andthe dangersthese experiments confront. at is,radical political theory can no longer be satisfied with the mere cri-tique of various forms of representation and essentialism in favourofdifference and the affirmation that another world is possible.It has been tenyears sincethis admiedly importantslogan wasadopted by the World SocialForum,but it istimethat radical theoryand practice begin to create a new praxis adequate to the world that

will have been emerging: our political future anterior.To be clear, I am notarguingthat radical political theory does

notengage contemporarypoliticalevents. Iam arguingthat ithasdisproportionally favouredthe practice ofcritiquing of them,andinsufficientlyengaged politicaleventsthatproposeinspiring alter-nativestothe present. For the mostpart ithas merelyexemplifiedthem in name: the No Borders Movement, Zapatismo, the LandlessPeasants Movement,etc. ese events are understood as parts ofa newrevolutionarysequence demonstratingthepossibilityofan-other world. A shi in radical political theory toward a clarification,valorization, and prefiguration of these events that are currentlydrawing an outline of the future would thus have the followingadvantages: (1) It would prove, against its critics, thatpost-struc-turalism (in particular) is not merely an abstract theoretical discourse,buthas analytical tools adequateto contemporarystruggles; (2) It

would help clarify the structure and importance of radical politicalevents,notonly for those subject tothe event,but for those who donot yet understand its consequences; (3) Finally, it would show theintelligibilityand desirabilityofpromising alternativesto presentauthoritarian phenomena.

But since the analytical category of radical political theory is per-haps too broad to address in this paper, I would like to focus my argu-ment on what I think is one of the more prominent efforts to connect


3/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

Constructivism and the FutureAnteriorof Radical Politics 75

radical theory to contemporary political struggles: post-anarchism.Post-anarchismisthe explicitconjunction between post-structural-

ist political philosophy and anti-authoritarian politics. Here onemight expect to see a relatively high degree of theoretical analysis ofconcrete political struggles with an aention to their prefigurativecapacity to create a newfutureinthe present.But for the mostpartthis has notbeenthe case,althoughthere are somerecentnotableexceptions.1 Post-anarchism has oen been criticizedforbeing ei-ther a purely scholastic critique of humanist essentialism in classicalanarchism(Kropotkin,Bakunin,Proudhon)orbeing a purely the-

oretical effort with only speculativerelation to the political field.ButwhileI tooremain sofarunconvinced byarticulations ofpost-anarchisms applicability tothe political field, Ialso believethat itdoes havethe ability to offera hostofconstructive analytical toolsthatotherpolitical theorieslack. Inthis paper, Iaimtovindicatethis capacity.

Post-anarchismis perhapstoolarge ofan analyticalcategory todigest. Todd May has drawn on the work of Deleuze, Foucault, and

Rancire, while Saul Newman has focused his own on that of Lacan,Derrida, and Badiou. ese are all very different thinkers and itwould be a mistake to conflate them into a single post-anarchist posi-tion. But distinguishing them all or aempting to re-synthesize theiranarchist inclinationsis perhaps equally indigestible. us, Iwouldliketo make a more modest interventionintothis discussionin away that not only provides support for my thesis, that the politicalphilosophy of difference (adopted by post-anarchism) is insufficientforunderstandingthe positive contributions ofanti-authoritarianstruggles, but also motivates a turn to a more constructive analysisofcontemporaryevents.Byconstructive analysis, Imean atheoreti-cal focus on the degree to which political struggles offer or inspirealternative modes of social organization.

To dothisI willdraw ontwofigures associated with post-anar-chism whoI believe articulate an overlooked potential fora more

constructive theoretical contribution: Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guat-tari. Deleuze and Guaari are particularly useful for three reasons:(1) they are post-structuralist philosophers who explicitly reject therepresentational politics of the state, party, andvanguard and(2)

1 SeeTodd May,ContemporaryPoliticalMovements andtheToughtof Jacques Rancire:Equality in Action(Edinburgh University Press, 2010).


4/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

76 omas Nail

who,accordingtoTodd May,supposedlyaffirm a politicalphiloso-phyofdifference. Butmoreimportantly, (3)Deleuze and Guaari

also propose three positive political strategies oen expressed in anti-authoritarian experiments that I think have been overlooked in post-anarchist readings of these philosophers. I thinkthese strategiesare ableto showthe unique analyticalstrength ofpost-anarchismscontribution to concrete struggles. Additionally, and following myownimperativeto examine more closelypositive politicalexperi-ments offering alternatives to the present, I want to look at the oentouted, post-anarchist political event of Zapatismo.2 Zapatismo has

achieved a relatively high degree of success, or stability over the past15 years,andIbelieveitcorroborates at least three of thetransfer-able political strategies found in the post-anarchism ofDeleuze andGuaari: (1)a multi-centered strategyofpoliticaldiagnosis, (2)aprefigurative strategyofpolitical transformation,and(3)a partici-patorystrategyoforganizinginstitutions. ese strategies are bothinventions specific to Zapatismo but also consonantwith severalpolitical-theoretical structures in Deleuze and Guaaris work.

I. Post-structuralist Anarisms

Before I begin with an analysis of these three post-structuralist orpost-anarchist strategic insights located in Deleuze,Guaari,and theZapatistas, I want to be clear of precisely what I find so insufficient inpost-anarchist political theory and why I think it would benefit fromengaging in more prefigurative political analyses. My criticismsare by no means meant to capture all of post-anarchism, but only aspecific formulation of it I find particularly insufficient.

While there are of course many anarchists writing under thepropername ofpost-anarchism, there are, I think, two distinguish-ingfeaturesthatunitethe particular formulation I want to focuson: (1) the critique ofall forms ofauthoritarianism andrepresenta-

tion (statism, capitalism, vanguardism, essentialism, identity politics,etc.) and(2)more positively, the affirmation ofdifference. Unlikeclassicalanarchism,Newman and Mayclaim,post-anarchism doesnot rely on naturalism or humanist essentialism, but rather affirmsdifference astheradicalhorizon ofpolitics as such. Accordingto

2 See hp://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Jason_Adams__Post-Anarchism_in_a_Nut-shell.html


5/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


Newman, it is the infinite demand that will remain unfulfilled andnever grounded in any concrete normative social order (Newman,

2007: 11). Todd May accordingly defines post-anarchism by twocentralcommitments: theanti-representationalistprincipleandthe principle of promoting differences (May, 1994: 135). is is theformulation ofpost-anarchismthat I find most inadequate andill-equipped for theorizing constructive alternatives to contemporaryforms of political domination and exclusion.

Given this commitment to anti-authoritarianism and the promo-tion of difference, understood positively as the radical possibility to

create new,non-statist forms ofcommunalassociation and directdemocracy that would make the state irrelevant, how are wetounderstand the relationship between, on the one hand, this radicalpossibility freedfromthe constraints ofauthoritarianism,and onthe other the concrete practices ofdirectdemocracy thatmay ormaynotcometorealizetheinfinite demandsofpost-anarchism(Newman,2007: 8)? Notonlydoes post-anarchismrejectanycon-crete practicesthatwould seekto centralize powerbut,according

to May and Newman, it also rejects institutions themselves as formsof coercion and authority (Newman, 2007: 4).3 How then are we tounderstand,positively, the kinds oforganizations post-anarchismis proposing as alternatives to the coercive ones currently in place?In an anarchist society how will decisions be made on global issueslike climate change, border issues, and pollution? How will the fairexchange of goods and services take place and how will we negotiateconflicts among communitygroups withoutcentralized authority,either socialist or market? Or is Frederic Engels correct in his com-mon criticism that anarchists have no idea how an anarchist societywouldfunction? [H]owthese people[the anarchists]proposetorun afactory,operate arailway,orsteera ship withouthavinginthe last resort one deciding will, without single management, theyof course do not tell us (Engles, 1978: 7289).

Insofar as post-anarchism and contemporary radical politics share

a similarcommitment topoliticalcontingencyandradicalpos-sibility they also share a similar uncertainty regarding the truealternatives they are proposing. But why is this? e post-anarchistposition, thatallofpolitics emergesfromtheinconsistent void ofbeing, (fromGreek: , anarcha, without ruler or without

3 Importantly, these movements are anti-authoritarian and non-institutional.


6/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

78 omas Nail

origin)unfortunatelydoes notseemtotellus anything about thekinds ofpoliticaldistributionsthatseemto emergefromthisvoid

and how they should be reorganized. With no certain ground (it isaerall,an-archic) fordeterminingtherevolutionaryobject (seizerof state power, etc.), the revolutionary subject (the proletariat, etc.),thejustsociety,or itsfuture organizations, thereisreallyno wayto tell whether or not a particular group or organization has reallyarticulatedthedifferencepost-anarchism aimsto be promoting.Political action must be understood instead as aporetic or prefor-mativley contradictory because difference is nothing other than

the unconditioned and inconsistent unground for the emergence ofradical politics as such, not any particular actual difference we mayencounter.

But if this is the case and the only ontological ground is thevoid,accordingto Newmans paraphrase ofAlain Badiou,on whatcondition or criteria do we say that a given political experimentisradical, reformist,authoritarian,capitalist,etc. (Newman,2007:14)?And what isthe structure ororderparticular to actual radical

organizations (not just possible ones) that distinguishes them fromauthoritarian ones? As politicalphenomenatheyhave always al-ready fallenfromtheir radicalpossibility intotherealm ofconcreteeffectuation and are no longer purely possible. is does not mean,ofcourse, thatpost-anarchismis unableto defineradicalism as such,butmerely that ithas difficultydefiningradicalism outsidethe af-firmation ofdifference, inthis account. Post-anarchist radicalismis,strictlyspeaking, the degreeto whichthe phenomena defendsitspossibilityofbecoming-other,or difference. us,directactiongroups like Peoples Global Action (PGA), the Earth Liberation Front(ELF), or even the anti-globalization movement may be consideredradical political groups becausethey are defenders ofa politicalpotentiality foreclosed by global capitalism, but not because of theparticularway in whichtheyare positivelyordered ordistributedin themselves.

e politics of the possible, inthis case,has occluded a politicsof the actual. e multitude, according to Hardt and Negri, or thecounter-hegemony,accordingtoLaclau,arethepotensiaor con-stituent power of the people to rise up and defend theircapacitytocreate a new world in the shell of the old. e slogan, another worldis possible thus seemsto articulate post-structuralistandradicalpolitics well insofaras bothvalorizethe possibilityof the peopletocome and criticize the authoritarianism of the present. But what is to


7/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


be said of the actually existing infrastructure of worker cooperatives,free schools, localexchangetrading systems,equalitarian kinship

models,consensus communitycouncils, landtrusts,etc.beyondthemonological affirmation of theirontological difference in a pos-sibleworld to come?What kindsofconcrete practices aretheyeffectuatingintheirdecision-making,self-management,exchange,and conflict resolution and how do such practiceswork? Whatarethe new conditions,elements,and agenciesthatare emerging andhow are they viable alternatives to parliamentary capitalism?

RichardJ.F.Day, in his essay, From Hegemony to Affinity: e

Political Logic of the Newest Social Movements has advanced asimilarconcern. While Hardtand Negris conceptof constituentpower, he says thus appears to be strongly identified with con-structing concrete alternatives to globalizing capital here and now,rather than appealing to state power or waiting for/bringing ontherevolution, ultimately it is notatallclearhow theyperceivethe practicalpolitical logic of the projectofcounter-Empire (Day,2004: 735; 736). us despite Hardtand Negris claimthat, [o]nly

the multitudethroughits practicalexperimentation willoffer themodels and determine when and how the possible becomesreal,the question ofhowtheserealpolitical effectuations function as ac-tualexisting alternativesto Empireislecompletelyunanswered(Hardt and Negri, 2000: 411). So while it may be true that the whenofa singularpoliticalemergenceisin some sense contingentandnomadic, the concept of the multitude ultimately says nothing aboutthehowofalternative politicalorganizations astheyare ordered anddistributed in reality. us it says nothing of actually existing radicalpolitics.

Daysresponsetothis problemis a moveintherightdirectionbut in his essay he offers only a glimpse of the post-anarchist alter-natives. Instead of being satisfied with Hardt and Negris account ofthevaguelycreative powerof the multitude,orGramscislogic ofhegemony that would centralize these heterogeneous and anarchistic

social movements, Day argues instead that several of these newestsocial movementslike Food NotBombs, Independent Media Cen-ters, and Reclaim the Streets offer new post-anarchist strategies ofaffinityand directaction: (1)grassroots organization; (2)autonomyfrom state centralization andinstrumentalistaccumulation,and; (3)a move away from strategies of demand and representation to strate-gies ofdirect action and participation. Instead ofdemonstratingatNBCs news headquartersto demandthat theymore accurately


8/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

80 omas Nail

represent race relations in the area, for instance, activists are insteadcreating their own independent media networks as an alternative to

mainstream media.While I agree with the three characteristics Day mentions, as wellas his support fora generalstrategyofdisengagementand recon-struction (drawn fromGustav Landauer), I would liketo suggestthe additional importance ofa few uniquelypost-anarchiststrate-giesI think can befoundin Deleuze,Guaari,andthe Zapatistas.Mymotivationinthis analysisisto supplementwhat Ibelieveisaninsufficient vision ofpost-anarchism based onthe politicalphi-

losophyofdifference with an analysisthat focusesinstead onthemore constructive alternatives offered by contemporary politicalstruggles.

e problem of radicalpoliticstoday isthus not that it lacksresis-tanceto allof the many forms ofhierarchyand oppression(sexism,racism,ecologicaldestruction,etc.),but thatsuchresistance groupsform no organizational consistency or cohesion by which to put inplace aviable alternative networkto replacethe presentsystems

ofpower. e problem of the anti-globalization movement is nota new one. Resistance movementsfaced a similardifficulty inthe19th century in their struggle against industrial capitalism. How toorganize,whomto organized with, to whatdegree such decisionswere binding, the positive demandsthatwould be made politically,and the specific practices that worked in the interest of the struggleandthosethatdidnt. ese were centralquestions debatedthen,

justastheyare now among movements at the World SocialForum,for example. What can post-anarchism, in particular, contribute tothese questions?

II. Te Post-anarism of Deleuze, Guattari, and the Zapatistas

efollowing analysis ofDeleuze,Guaari,andthe Zapatistasdevelops three specific political strategies that I believe are rela-tivelyunique post-anarchistcontributionsto understanding someof the more positive politicalalternatives emergingtoday,poorlyunderstand according to the philosophy of difference. e followinganalysis is broken down into three sections corresponding to each ofthe three political strategies: (1) a multi-centered strategy of politicaldiagnosis, (2) a prefigurative strategy of political transformation, and(3)a participatorystrategyoforganizinginstitutions. efollowing


9/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


analysisis byno means an exhaustive accountof these strategies.Rather it is just the beginning of a more sustained engagement.

A Multi-centered Strategy of Political Diagnosis

e firststrategy is one adopted byDeleuze, Guaari,and theZapatistas in order to positively grapple with the consequences thattodaypoliticalstruggles are,as RichardDaysays, interlinked[ina way] thatno particular form of inequality beitclass, race,gen-

der,sexualityorability can be postulated asthecentralaxis ofstruggle. is observation is absolutely, although not exclusively, apost-anarchistone accordingto Day,butwhatarethe productiveconsequences of this?Whatalternative strategies doesitproposetous in theory and action?

ForDeleuze and Guaari,unlike Day, thethesisthat thereis nocentralaxis ofstruggleis nota maerofgroundlessness, lack,or infi-nite responsibility, rather it indicates apositive multiplicationof axes

of struggle requiring a new kind of multi-centered political analysis.If political reality has multiple intersectional axes, we can no longeremploydiagnostic methodsthat reducethem all to a single plane(economics, culture, or gender, etc.). But whatdoes Deleuze andGuaaris post-anarchism offer us as a political-theoretical strategyto respond to this? I argue that they propose a topological theory ofdiagnosis. It was a decisive event when the mathematician Riemannuprootedthe multiplefromits predicate state and madeit a noun,

multiplicity, Deleuze and Guaari say, It marked the end of dialec-tics andthe beginning ofatypologyandtopologyofmultiplicities(Deleuze&Guaari, 1987: 4823). us, takenfrom mathematics,the concept of a topological field is a single surface with potentiallyinfinite dimensions created by foldings ormorphisms(like a pieceoforigami). Independentof linearcontiguityorsuccessionitmovesand changes by folding itself into new relations. Sierpinskis sponge,Von Kochs curve without tangent, and Mandelbrots fractals are

examples of iterated topological fields in geometry.e concept of a specifically political topology thus provides a

new way to considerpoliticalevents as having severalpolitical ten-dencies at once, each to a greater or lesser degree, and not as a maerof lack. Forexample,perhaps a politicalstruggle has a strong anti-capitalist tendency but also a strong territorial or religious tendencytoward patriarchal norms. Topologically speaking there is no central


10/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

82 omas Nail

axis or essentialpolitical ideologyoperating here. ereis onlyarelative mixofpolitical tendenciesto be determined without the

aid ofevolutionarysuccession orexplanatory reductionism. Rather,each of these political tendenciesinstead,accordingto Deleuze andGuaari,acts asthelociofatopology thatdefines primitive soci-eties here,Statesthere,and elsewhere warmachines (Deleuze&Guaari, 1987: 430). ustopologically, these political tendenciesor types arereallydistinct insofaras theyoccupydifferentdimen-sions of a struggle and yet they also coexist simultaneously insofaras they occupy a single political event that holds them all together

under the same name. us, instead of succession (presupposing sep-arate taxonomic categories) political tendencies change and mergeas they cross the different thresholds immanent to the struggle underconsideration. For example, Deleuze and Guaari say,

e appearance of a central power is thus a function ofa thresh-old ordegreebeyond which what is anticipated takes on consis-tency or fails to, and what is conjured away ceases to be so and

arrives. isthreshold ofconsistency,orofconstraint, is notevolutionarybut rathercoexists with whathas yet to crossit(Deleuze & Guaari, 1987: 432).

e Zapatistas, contrary to centrist or vanguard analyses thatrevolve around a privileged method/science,site ordimension ofstruggle, similarly offer an inclusive intersectional analysis that doesnot necessarily privilege any single method, front, or site of struggle.

Revolution, according to Marcos:

is abouta process whichincorporates differentmethods, dif-ferent fronts,differentandvariouslevels ofcommitmentandparticipation. is means that all methods have their place,that all the fronts of struggle are necessary, and that all levels ofparticipation are important. is is about an inclusive process,

whichis anti-vanguard and collective. e problem withtherevolution(payaentiontothe small leers) isthen nolongera problem of THE organization, THE method, THE caudillo[dictator,politicalboss]. Itbecomesrathera problem whichconcerns all those who see that revolution as necessary andpossible, and whose achievement, isimportant foreveryone(Marcos, 2004: 164).


11/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


Marcos, inBeyond Resistance(2007)describes precisely the prac-tical labour of this task inLa Otra Campaa(e Other Campaign).

To mobilize the population of the excluded and marginalized in Mex-ico was not a maer of discovering the evolutionary, dialectical, orsingle explanatory cause of oppression, it was a maer of listeningand surveying all the multiplefolds/frontsinthetopological field.Itwasto create, as Marcos says, a diagnostic ofsuffering in allits dimensions (Marcos, 2008: 11). ese folds, the criminalizationof youth, the oppression ofwomen,environmentalpollution,etcare all coexisting and intersecting dimensions of the same struggle

(Marcos,2008: 11). Duringthistimethe Zapatistas also began di-agnosingtheirowninternal dangers. [T]here aretwo mistakes,Subcomandante Marcos says:

which seemto have persistedin ourpoliticalwork(and whichflagrantlycontradictourprinciples): the place ofwomen,onthe one hand,and,onthe other, therelationship betweenthepolitical-militarystructure andthe autonomous governments.4

e Zapatistas have tried to address this problem by allowingwomeninsurgentasand comandantasinto the EZLN political-mil-itary structure(byno means entirelyegalitarian). e Zapatistasallowed youngindigenous women [to]goto the mountains anddevelop their capacities more, [creating] consequences in the com-munities, and gave them the right to choose their partner and not[be] obliged to enter into marriage, to occupy positions of leader-shipinthe organization and hold military ranksintherevolutionaryarmed forces, as well as other rights detailed in the EZLNsWomensRevolutionary Law5 (Ramrez,2008: 312). eselaws are beingin-creasingly implemented in theAutonomous Townships through newwomens alliances (cra cooperatives, womens councils, etc.). How-ever, the decoding of certain patriarchal traditions comes at the riskofcreating a new setof vanguard militarycodes. Hencethe second

mistake or danger.

4 (From the mountains of the Mexican southeast. Subcomandante Insurgente Mar-cos Mexico, August of 2004. 20 and 10.) Originally published in Spanish by theEZLNTranslated by irlandesa. See: hp://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/2004/marcos/flawsAUG.html

5 EZLNWomens Revolutionary Law.See hp://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/womlaw.html


12/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

84 omas Nail

ese groups operatethrough detachment,election,andresid-ual selection: they detach a supposedly expert avant-garde; they

electa disciplined,organized,hierarchalized proletariat; theyselecta residualsub-proletariat to be excluded or reeducated.(Deleuze & Guaari, 2004: 198)

As Deleuze warns (and the EZLN is well aware of) the detachmentofEZLN commanders living in the mountains (particularly from1983 to 1993) that elects/recruitscampasin@sfrom the villages to bedisciplined, organized, hierarchized into the EZLN, and then creates

a residual selection ofcampasin@sto be excluded/reeducated ineverwidening circularsegmentations, risks creating new militarycodesthatunderminethe autonomyand self-managementof theZapatistas. As Marcos says,

eidea we had originallywas that the EZLN should accom-pany and support the peoples in the building of their autonomy.However accompaniment has sometimes turned into manage-

ment, advice into orders and support into a hindrance. Ivealready spoken previously about the fact that the hierarchical,pyramid structure is not characteristic of the indigenous com-munities. e fact that the EZLN is a political-military andclandestine organization still corrupts processes that shouldand must be democratic.6

Patriarchy and militarism in Zapatismo are two examples of what

Deleuze and Guaari call micro-fascism: everything that [Zapa-tismo] dismantles [at the level of the state] it reassembles on its ownlevel: micro-Oedipuses, microformations of power, microfascisms(1987: 205). It is no small taskto liberate all these dimensions atonce as the Zapatistas have shown us. But to liberate them all thusrequires atopological (nota chronologicalordialectic)and multi-centered diagnostic.

A Prefigurative Strategy of Political Transformation

is second strategy is one adopted by Deleuze, Guaari, and theZapatistas in order to positively grapple with the consequences that

6 See hp://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/2004/marcos/flawsAUG.html


13/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


todaypoliticalstruggleslike Food NotBombs, IndependentMediaCenters, and Reclaim the Streets are moving away from strategies of

demand andrepresentationto strategies ofdirectaction and partici-pation (Day, 2004). is observation too is a post-anarchist one. Butagain, what alternatives to the present does this propose? Food NotBombs hardly provides an alternative to corporate food distribution.If anything, it relies on it. What is required is a theory of how directaction becomes prefigurative of a future alternative, and an analysisofsome compelling examples ofhow thisisreallybeing done. InDeleuze, Guaari, and the Zapatistas we find both.

How are political transformations accomplished? Opposed toachieving revolutionary transformation by an evolutionary processof transition,progress,and reforminrepresentation,orachievingitsimply through a spontaneousrupture withthe present,Deleuzeand Guaari argue that prefigurative political transformations takeplace in the future anterior. at is, future anterior political strugglesaimto constructa new politicalpresentwithin and alongsidethe old.Prefigurative struggles are neither reducible to the reform of the past

or the revolution of the future, they are the commied political beliefthatone willhave beenlayingthe groundworkfora beerworldnow.

Revolutionary political transformation thus occurs as the prefigu-rative emergence of a particular new present (from within the old)thatbothrewrites andreinterpretsthetotalityofpotentialsthatalreadyexistedin stratifiedform,as wellas createsan action ofthefuture onthe present,and the presenton the past (Guaari,2008: 252; Deleuze & Guaari, 1987: 431). is is what Deleuzeand Guaari call reverse causalities. More than a break or zig zagin history, theyargue,what isto come alreadyacts uponwhat isbefore the future can appear, insofar as it acts as a limit or thresholdcontinually being warded off by the pasts aempt to preserve itself.Butonce a new presentemergesit is seento have been onits waythe entire time (Deleuze & Guaari, 1987: 431). If, from the perspec-

tive of the plane oforganization, revolutionarynoveltymayseemto emergeoutofnowhere, thisis onlybecauseitwas unabletosee or represent the prefigurative labor of deterritorialization beforeit had transformed the political conditions under which it could beseen and understood as such. However, from the perspective of therevolutionary struggle, the emerging event appears entirely consis-tent and intelligible as that which will have been. is prefigurativelabor, according to Guaari,


14/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

86 omas Nail

consistsin detectingthe outlines, indicators, and crystals ofmolecularproductivity. If thereis a micropoliticsto be prac-

ticed, it consists in ensuring that these molecular levels do notalways succumb to systems that coopt them, systems of neutral-ization, or processes of implosion or self-destruction. It consistsin apprehending how otherassemblages of the production oflife, the production ofart,or the production ofwhatever youwant might find their full expansion, so that the problemat-ics of power find a response. is certainly involves modes ofresponse of a new kind (Guaari, 2008: 339).

e new revolutionary present thus emerges from strategic sitesof struggle that draw it in negative outline, Deleuze and Guaarisay. But for it to berealizedthere mustbe a wholeintegralofde-coded flows, a whole generalized conjunction that overspills andover-turnsthe preceding apparatuses (Deleuze&Guaari, 1987:452). at is, it must cause the other elements to cross a thresholdenabling a conjunction of their respective deterritorializations, a

shared acceleration. isis[. . .

]absolute,positive deterritorializa-tion. It is not only an escape but the creation of new weapons, thecreation ofgreatmachines ofstruggle (Deleuze& Guaari, 1987:142; Deleuze,1987: 136; Guaari, 2008: 210).

However, less we risk arguing in favor of a purely subterraneanandimperceptibleform of revolutionary transformation,we shouldhighlight, because some oen forget to, that the purpose of absolutepositive deterritorialization, for Deleuze and Guaari, is not simply

to become-imperceptible in relation to the plane of organization forthe sake of doing so. is has too much fascist potential. e purposeofprefigurativerevolutionary interventions aretorendereverythingfragment by fragment imperceptible from the plane of organizationto create the plane of consistency, which is nevertheless preciselywheretheimperceptibleis seen and heard(Deleuze&Guaari, 1987:252). e task is not to relish the theory of an impossible and invisiblerevolution, but rather to bring the imperceptible to perception bychanging the dominant conditions for visibility (Deleuze &Guaari,1987: 267). It is neitherbyoppositionaldestruction orbyex nihilocreation but by conjugating, by continuing with other lines, otherpieces, that one makes a world that can overlay the first one, like atransparency (Deleuze & Guaari, 1987: 280).

e Zapatistas have also deployed a prefigurativerevolutionaryintervention in two ways. First, the only way one could possibly say


15/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


that the Zapatistas burst onto the scene of Mexican politics out ofnowhere is if they had not been aware of the ten years of prefigura-

tiverevolutionaryactivity, training,and indigenous mobilizationssustainedinthejungles of theLacandon since1983. Marcos andthree others began as Che-inspired military vanguardists living out-sideindigenous communities and slowlyearningthetrustof,andradicalizingtheindigenous population. Far from appearing outofnowhere, there was along and ultimatelycollective decision by theassembly of indigenous campasin@s to go to war.During this timethe event of Zapatismo certainly existed as a new present connected

to a specific historical legacy (emerging from Emiliano Zapatas peas-ant revolution) with a determinate future (leading to the democratictransformation ofMexican politics). Duringthesetenyears Zapa-tismo existed as aform of invisibility thatwill have beenvisible.Notonly retroactively visible but visible as a real historical sequenceresurrected from Zapata and drawn into a future overthrow of theMexican government.

e second example, and perhapsthe mostoriginalone, isthe

scale on which the Zapatistas have refused to take power and haveinstead continued their revolution by creating in the present theworld they want to see in their own autonomous municipalities.ey began in August of 2003 to create theJuntas de Buen Gobierno:directlydemocraticinstitutional frameworksforcollective and au-tonomous decision making. One JBG was created in each of theCaracoles(regional communities, or snails) to

promote and approve the participation of compaeros and com-paeras[. . .] to mediate conflicts which mightarise betweenAutonomous Municipalities[. . .] to monitor theimplementa-tion ofprojects and communityworkinthe Rebel ZapatistaAutonomous Municipalities[. . .] to serve and guide nationalandinternationalcivilsocietysothat theycanvisitcommuni-ties,carryoutproductive projects,setup peace camps,carry

out research, etc (Marcos, 2004: 619).

Currently over 2,200 communities (over 100,000 people) are feder-ated into 32 autonomous municipalities each grouped into five localself-governments( JBGs). Today the Zapatistasremain commiedto,among other things,autonomy,participatoryself-government,consensus decisions making, respect for nature and life without the


16/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

88 omas Nail

use ofpesticides,dams,orunnecessary logging,andtheinclusionof everybody without distinctions of party, religion, sex, or color.7

By forming a specific block ofbecomingthroughrotationalself-government, the federation of their communes, and ultimately theirsolidarity with an international network of shared social struggle, theZapatistas continue to make political interventions and alternativeinstitutionsthatprefigurethe kind ofdemocratic and equalitarianworld they and their allies want to live in. Opposed to directly declar-ing war on the Mexican government and instituting a regime changein the state, or simply affirming the radical possibility that another

world is possible, the Zapatistas are building, to what degree theycan,anotherworldfrominsidethe old: onethatcan overlay thefirst one, like a transparency, as Guaari says.

A Participatory Strategy of Organizing Institutions

isthird strategy is one adopted byDeleuze,Guaari,and the

Zapatistas in order to positively grapple with the consequences thatrepresentational politicsis structurally unable to account for thevoices of the marginalized(and oen producestheirmarginalizationin thefirstplace). is particularcritiqueis so abundant in post-anarchist literatureI willnotduplicateithere. Butwhathas notbeen sufficientlygrappled with however,arethe possible politicalalternatives this thesis entails. Should we reject all political institu-tions as such or justsome kinds of them? If thelaer,whatkindsof institutions do post-anarchists proposeto put intheirplace? InDeleuze,Guaari, and the Zapatistas I believe we can find a responseto this question.

Deleuze andGuaari offer a participatory theory of institutionsthat does not aim to offer new conditions for political life based on amorejustsphere ofpoliticalaction whosefoundationalprinciplesare still held independently from the constituted sphere where such

principles are deployed. Nordo participatory institutions merelyaimto establish anti-,orcounter-institutions,whose sole purposeisto undermine all forms of representation and await the possibil-ity thatsomething new,and hopefullybeer,mayemerge. Rather,

7 Zapatista ArmyofNational Liberation(EZLN), trans. irlandes,SixthDeclaration ofthe Lacandon Jungle.See hp://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/selva6.html


17/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


participatory institutions are built and sustained through an expres-sive process whosefounding conditions are constantlyundergoing

a high degree of direct and immanent transformation by the variouspractices and people who are effected, to varying degrees, by itsdeployment. In particular, this participatory feedbackloopcan belocatedinDeleuze andGuaaris conceptof consistency, foundinA ousand PlateausandWhat is Philosophy?and in the Zapatistaspolitical practice of Governing by Obeying (Gobernar Obedeciendo).In order to understand the structure and function of this consistencyand governing by obeying in revolutionary institutions, we need

to understand howtheirconditions and elements work differentlythaninrepresentationaland counter-representational institutions.To showthisI want tolook at two conceptsin Deleuze and Guat-taris philosophy thatcorrespond to the conditions and elementsof consistent participatory institutions: what they call the abstractmachine, and the concrete assemblage.8Just as these two conceptsimmanently transform one another in a relationship of order with-out hierarchy, according toDeleuze andGuaari, so does governing

by obeying provide the equalitarian frame-work for the participatoryinstitutions of the Zapatistas (Deleuze & Guaari, 1994: 90).

ForDeleuze andGuaari, the abstractmachineis a shared con-dition for action and evaluation only insofar as it is immanentlytransformedby the concrete elements that realize and differentiateit. ereisthus acoadaptationor reciprocalpresuppositionofthe two that allows for their participatory transformation (Deleuze&Guaari, 1987: 71; 1994: 77). einstitutionthusanges in na-tureeach time there are reconversions subjectives actuelles (actuallyoccurring subjective redeployments) of it (Deleuze, 2006: 236). Sub-sequently, according to Deleuze and Guaari, the abstract machineis absolutely singular and unable to be deduced from either historyor introspection(Deleuze,2006: 233). e abstractmachineis notdeducible because it is the condition for deduction, description, andprescriptionitself: it is a more primaryeventalcommitment. It is

abstract in the sense that it is not a thing among other things, but it isalsoreal(vrai-abstrait) insofarasit is a conditionthatallowsfor theappearance of new space-times and new subjectivities antagonisticto representation and power (Deleuze, 1997: 172). However, while

8 ere are several types of abstract machines according to Deleuze and Guaari. econceptabstractmachine and concrete assemblage asI usethem here should beunderstood as referring only to the consistent type of machines.


18/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

90 omas Nail

it may not be a thing, the abstract machine is still marked by a sin-gular and asignifying proper name, date, and image like the names

ofmilitaryoperations or the names ofhurricanes,asDeleuze andGuaari say (1987: 28; 264). ese names do not represent, symbol-ize, or refer to anything at all. Rather, they are spokenthrough. As aself-referencing and autonomous event independent from politicalrepresentation, the abstract machine allows for the sharedexpressionand conjunction of the various heterogeneous elements that speakand existthroughit (Deleuze & Guaari, 1987: 142).

Accordingly, the elements of the institution or concrete machinic

assemblage cannot be considered asnormative or goal-drivenactions,sincetheyare continually transformingthe conditions orgoalsthatare supposedto normalize and direct theiractions. Butsuch mutual institutional transformations should notbe mistakenfora kind ofpragmaticrevisionismwhere a hypothesisistested,found to work or not work, and then rationally (or otherwise) revisedaccordingly in order to ground a narrative ofpolitical progress.9

Rather, political problems themselves transform and are transformed

reciprocally by those who effectuate them and who are effected bythem(withoutknowing endsin advance). When people demandtoformulatetheirproblemsthemselves,as Deleuze and Guaarisayand to determine at least the particular conditions under which theycanreceive a more generalsolution, thereis a specificallynon-rep-resentationalform of self-management and democratic participation(Deleuze& Guaari, 1987: 471;Deleuze, 1968: 158). Deleuze andGuaaris conceptof the machinic assemblageisthus a purelyaf-fective orexpressive politicalprocedure. Affective decision-makingis a procedure whereby the collection of the institutions capacitiesto affectorbe affected by its otherelements are determined. Eachmachine may certainly have different capacities to be affected, butthereis no single machine oraffect that isindependent from or incharge of representing the others. One must count its affects, (onere faire le compte de ses affects) (Deleuze& Guaari, 1987:

9 John Dewey Beliefs and Realities inPhilosophicalReview, 15 (1906): 11329. Belief,sheer,direct,unmitigated personalbelief, reappears asthe working hypothesis;actionwhich at once develops and tests belief reappears as experimentation, deduction,demonstration; while the machinery of universals, axioms, a priori truths, etc., isthe systematization of the of the way in which men have always worked out, inanticipation ofovertaction, theimplications of theirbeliefs with a viewtorevisingthemintheinterests ofobviatingthe unfavorable, and ofsecuringthe welcomeconsequences (ibid., 124).


19/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


257). e procedure ofcountingthe affects of theinstitutionthusdecides whatcan orwillbe doneinthe assemblage. ere are no

universalends or valuesthat inhereintheinstitutionitself,only itsimmanent capacity to be assembled and reassembled in a continuallyrenegotiated and expressive machinic assemblage of consistency.

Similarly, Zapatismos practice of Governing byObeying has re-sultedin non-representationalpolitical institutions based on highlymodifiable political conditions: those in positions of articulating thepeoples will obey and express that Will or they are recalled. Whatis most interesting about the Zapatista communities is that they do

not legitimate their revolution strictly by presupposed norms basedon identity (requests for rights, the overthrow of the state, univer-sal religious claims,a new ethnic nationalism,or referenceto anyprinciples outsidetheirown collective determination), but rathertheyaffirm a self-reference orautonomy.Whatdoesthis mean? In-stead ofsimply valorizingtheirdifference and counter-institutionalun-representabilityas suchtothe State, as Simon Tormeyhas ar-gued, the Zapatistas have created a newform ofpoliticalevaluation

that beer allows them to realize the (self)management of their in-stitutionsthroughthe use of rotationalgovernance(delegatesrotateevery 14days)and common property (neitherprivate norpublic)(Tormey, 2006: 138154). e condition of being part of the workerscoops,common agriculturalefforts,andjudicialadministrationsis ashared and constantly modified condition where members directlyexpress their will through consensus decision making and recallabledelegation,not throughrepresentation. e distance or mediationbetweenthe spiritof theireconomic,political,and cultural institu-tions andthe consequences of the practicesisthus minimal. isallows for maximum participation and feedback within the insti-tution. Participation is not based on race, class, gender, etc. butrather one participates to the degree one is affected by the decision.e consensus, rotational, and recallable delegation process thusoffers athird waybetween normativeinstitutions based on static

constitutions and the rejection of institutions as such: itoffers ahighly mutable and continually renegotiated theory and practice ofthe institution.


20/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

92 omas Nail

Conclusion

Drawing on the post-anarchist thought of Deleuze, Guaari, andthe ZapatistasIhave aimedto demonstratetherelevance and po-tentialstrength ofaendingto some of the more constructive al-ternatives emerginginradicalphilosophyand politics. I thinkthatthethree politicalstrategies analyzed above can be usedto under-stand and connect to similar political theories and events, ultimatelyoutlining a larger emerging consistency of what only appear to beheterogenous struggles,butareinfact the outline ofa counter-Em-

pire underway. It is my contention that radical theory in general, andpost-anarchism specifically,has spentso much effortdeconstructingand analyzing power that it has overlooked the important task of ex-aminingthe prefigurative dimensions of these politicalalternativescoming to the fore.

I must admithowever, that this analysis has only been abletoscratch the surface of a much deeper theoretical and practical projectthatwould berequiredtofullydevelop both Deleuze and Guaaris

radical political theory andthe detailed implications of the Zapa-tistas politicalexperimentations. Such a project is unfortunatelybeyondthe scope of the presentpaper. What Ihave been abletoargue in this paper though is that the formulation of post-anarchismastherejection of representation andthe affirmation ofdifferenceoffers lile or no theoretical tools for pursing a more prefigurativeinvestigation like the one I have begun here. Instead I have proposedthree theoretical-political strategies that I think might be usefulfor locating and clarifying newfuture anteriorpoliticalevents: (1)a multi-centered strategyofpoliticaldiagnosis, (2)a prefigurativestrategy of political transformation, and (3) a participatory strategyoforganizinginstitutions. Ihave aimedto show howthesethreepost-anarchist insights can be positively developed and enrichedthrough a more constructive engagementwith both post-structural-ist thinkers likeDeleuze andGuaari, and political militants like the

Zapatistas. Myhopeisthatmore effortsinradicalpolitical theory,and post-anarchismin particular,willbe madeto aendtoinven-tions and experimentsinthe concrete political field andvice versa.If we are going to change the current political situation, its going torequire a more constructive and prefigurative theory and practice.


21/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014


References

Day,R. (2004) From Hegemony to Affinity: e Political Logic ofthe Newest Social Movements.Cultural Studies18(5): 71648.

Deleuze,G. (2004)Desert Islands:and other texts19531974. (Lapou-jade, Ed. Taormina, Michael. Trans.) New York: Semiotext(e).

(1997) Negotiations19721990, (Martin Joughin, Trans.). NewYork: Columbia University Press; idem, (1990)Pourparlers.Paris:Les ditions de Minuit.

(1994)Difference and Repetition(Paon, Paul., Trans.) New York:Columbia UniversityPress; idem, (1968)Diffrence et rptition.Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Deleuze, G. & Claire Parnet. (1987) Dialogues. Tomlinson H. &Habberjam, B. New York: Columbia University Press.

Deleuze, G.Guaari,F. (1994). What is Philosophy? (omlinson,Hugh & Burchell, Graham., Trans.) New York: Columbia Univer-sityPress; idem, (1991)Qest-ce que la philosophie? Paris: Les

ditions de Minuit.

(1987)ATousand Plateaus:Capitalism and Sizophrenia. (Mas-sumi, Brian. Trans.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press;idem,Capitalisme etSizophrnie, tome 2:Mille Plateaux. Paris:ditions de Minuit, 1980.

Engels, F. [1872] (1978) Versus the Anarchists, e Marx-EngelsReader(R. Tucker, Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Guaari,F. &Rolnik S. (2008)MolecularRevolutionin Brazil(Clap-show,Karel &Holmes,Brian. Trans.) NewYork: Semiotext(e);idem, (1986)Micropolitica: Cartografias doDesejo. Petrpolis: Edi-tora Vozes.

Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2000)Empire. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

May, T. (1994)Te PoliticalPhilosophyofPoststructuralistAnarism.

Pisburgh: Pennsylvania State University Press.Newman, S. (2007) Anarchism, Poststructuralism and the Future of

Radical Politics,SubStance113.

Ramrez,G. (2008). Te Fire and the Word: A History of the ZapatistaMovement.San Franscisco: City Lights Publishers.


22/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

94 omas Nail

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos. (2008)Beyond Resistance:Every-thing. An Interview with Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.

Durham: Paperboat Press. (2004)Ya Basta! TenYears of the Zapatista Uprising. (Vodovnik,

Ziga., Ed.). Oakland: AK Press.

Tormey,S. (2006) Not in myName: Deleuze,Zapatismo andtheCritique of RepresentationParliamentary Affairs59(1): 13854.


23/23

Downloadedfromh

ttp://www


,februari6,

2014

Creative Commons License

Aribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

See: hp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

All content, including exclusive web content, is freely available at

hp://www.Anarchist-Developments.org

ISSN: 19235615

Constructivism and the Future Anterior of Radical Politics

Documents

Transcript of Constructivism and the Future Anterior of Radical Politics