20260614 Toscano Can Violence Be Thought Notes on Badiou and the Possibility of Marxist Politics

8/14/2019 20260614 Toscano Can Violence Be Thought Notes on Badiou and the Possibility of Marxist Politics

1/30

Journa l fo r Po l i t ics, Gender , and Cu ltu re Vo l . 5/No. 1/Winter 2006

9

Identities

What is the relationship between the thinking ofviolence and the thinking of politics in the writings ofAlain Badiou? The very text where Badiou proposes atthe putative close of his own Maoist or Marxist-Leninistsequence of political militancy the destruction andrecomposition of Marxist politics, is entitled Can

Politics Be Thought?1At the very outset of this short book,in amicable but rm polemic with the instigators of theseminars from which it is drawn Jean-Luc Nancy andPhilippe Lacoue-Labarthe (who had invited Badiou topresent this work at their Centre dtude philosophiquedu politique in 1983-84) Badiou, intervening in alexical controversy that has taken on different guises inseveral politico-philosophical settings, is adamant thathis preoccupation is withpolitics(la politique) and notthe political (le politique). The political, he stipulates,must be xed in its status as a fction, the ction ofthe link between the social bond and its measure (or

AlbertoToskano

Mo`e li da se mislinasilstvoto? Razmisliza Badju i za mo`nosta za(marksisti~ka) politika*

AlbertoToscano

Can Violence Be Thought?Notes on Badiouand the Possibilityof (Marxist) Politics*

Kakva e vrskata me|u misleweto na nasilstvoto imisleweto na politikata vo delata na Alen Badju?Tokmu tekstot vo koj Badju, na takanare~eniot kraj nanegovata sopstvena maoisti~ka ili marksisti~ko-

leninisti~ka niza od politi~ki aktivizam, pred-laga uni{tuvawe i povtorno sostavuvawe namarksisti~kata politika se vika Mo`e li da se

misli politikata?1 Na samiot po~etok od ovaakratka kniga, vo prijatelska, no cvrsta polemikaso inspiratorite na seminarite od koi e izvede-na @an-Luk Nansi i Filip Laku-Labart (koj vo1983-84 go pokanil Badju ova delo da go pretstavivo nivniot Centre dtude philosophique du poli-tique) Badju, interveniraj}i vo edna leksi~kakontroverza {to vo pove}e oblici se projavila vonekolku politi~ko-filosofski sredini, cvrstostoi na stavot deka negova preokupacija e poli-tikata (la politique), a ne politi~koto (le poli-

* Edna postara verzija od ovoj napis be{e pretstavenavo noemvri 2005 godina na godi{nata konferencijana spisanieto Istoriski materijalizam, pod naslovRasturawe na pepelot: vistinata i nasilstvoto vomarksizmot na Badju za vreme na edna sesija so Masi-milijano Tomba, naslovena Mislewe na politi~koto.Sakam da im se zablagodaram na Masimilijano i na pub-likata za pra{awata i zabele{kite.

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annualconference of the journal Historical Materialism in No-vember 2005, under the title Scattering the Ashes: Truthand Violence in Badious Marxism in a session with Mas-similiano Tomba, entitled Thinking the Political. Id like tothank the Massimiliano and the audience for their questionsand remarks.


2/30

10

measurement).The political, in other words, is somethinglike the transcendental illusion of relationality, ofcommunal ties and a sovereign authority over the social.In this regard, the short-lived vogue for the retreat ofthe political2 is not to be read as the occasion for an

endless melancholia over the vanished essence or emptyplace of the political, but rather to be welcomed andassumed as the opportunity to recover the independentforce and determinacy of a thinking of politics, athinking that Badiou locates between Machiavelli andLenin, and whose philosophical capture he proposes toorganize with the resources bequeathed by what he callsthe four great French dialecticians: Pascal, Rousseau,Mallarm, Lacan.3Without entering into the nature of

the philosophical and metapolitical project initiated byCan Politics Be Thought?,4 we can note that Badiousimmanent critique of his own earlier positions hispost-Leninism, to follow his own shorthand, or post-Maoism, to recall Bruno Bosteelss impressive study5takes the form of declaring the autonomy or separationof politics from the political. As Badiou declares: The

politicalhas never been anything other than the ctionwhich is punctured bypoliticsas the hole of the event.6

Why focus on the theme of violence in Badiou? The stakesare twofold. First, I wish to make my ongoing research onBadious contorted relationship with Marxism resonate

with the debates elicited by tienne Balibars recent work

Alberto Toscano Can Violence Be Thought? Notes on Badiou and the Possibility of (Marxist) Politics

tique). Politi~koto, tvrdi, mora da bide cvrstoutvrdeno vo smisla na negoviot status na fikcija,odnosno fikcijata za vrskata me|u op{testvenatapovrzanost i nejzinata mera (ili nejzinata merka).So drugi zborovi, politi~koto e ne{to nalik na

transcedentalnata iluzija za odnosnosta, za komun-skite vrski i na suverena vlast nad op{testvenoto.Vo ovoj pogled, kratkove~nata pomodna sklonostkon povlekuvaweto na politi~koto2ne treba da sedoìvuva kako mo`nost za beskone~na melanholijaporadi is~eznatata su{tina ili upraznetoto mestona politi~koto, tuku poprvo treba da se pozdravi ida se prifati kako mo`nost za obnovuvawe na ne-zavisnata sila i determiniranosta na misleweto

na politikata, mislewe koe Badju go locira me|uMakijaveli i Lenin i ~ie filozofsko dolovuvawepredlaga da se organizira so sredstvata {to gizave{tale, kako {to toj gi narekuva, ~etiriteminagolemi francuski dijalekti~ari: Paskal, Ruso,Malarme, Lakan.3 Ne navleguvaj}i vo prirodatana filozofskiot i metapoliti~ki proekt {to gopokrenaMoè li da se misli politikata?,4moèda zabeleìme deka imanentnata kritika na Badju

kon sopstvenite prethodni stojali{ta negoviotpost-leninizam, kako {to samiot toj go rezimira,ili negoviot post-maoizam, ako se potsetime navpe~atlivata studija na Bruno Bostil5 dobiva ob-

lik na proglasuvawe avtonomija ili odvojuvawe napolitikata od politi~koto. Kako {to izjavuvaBadju: Politi~koto nikoga{ ne bilo ni{to drugoosven fikcija {to politikata ja produp~ila kakodupka na nastanot.6

Zo{to ovoj fokus kon temata na nasilstvoto kajBadju? Pri~inata e dvojna. Prvo, sakam vo moetotekovno istraùvawe za iskrivenata povrzanostna Badju so marksizmot da odeknuvaat debatite iz-


3/30


11

Identities

on the historical-materialist coordinates and aporias thatinhere in the notion of Gewalt.7Indeed, as I will suggest

by way of conclusion, thinking in terms of Gewalt,rather than mere violence, might open up the possibilityof considerably complicating Badious relationship to

Marxism and his proposal of an autonomy of politics.Second, because it is through the immanent critiqueof the broadly Leninist political experience of struggle,organisation, conict and (State) power as well as of the(often parasitical) reactionary condemnations thereof that the issue of violence has played a key role in variousattempts, progressive and regressive, to evaluate the

vitality and possibility of a Marxist politics.

A third and nal remark is perhaps required, concerningthe role of such reections in the context of the currentreception of Badious writings. In brief, attention toBadious political thought in the Anglophone arena(where his previous political deeds and opinions have only

recently risen above the level of sinister rumour) began,especially in the pioneering work of Peter Hallward, witha focus on the uncompromising sui generis axiomaticegalitarianism and, so to speak, decisionism seeminglymanifested by his mature works with a specicattention to the novelty of a non- or even anti-socialtreatment of political action and innovation. Furtherinvestigation of the full scope of his work has led to moresustained considerations of his relation to Marxismand, of course, to Maoism. This has allowed for a morecontinuationist position, persuasively promoted

by Bruno Bosteels in several articles that hone in onBadious post-Maoism, disinterring his tracts on thecultural revolution and the militant and theoretical texts

vedeni od neodamne{noto delo na Etijen Balibarza istorisko-materijalisti~kite koordinati iaporii {to so sebe gi nosi poimot gevalt(sila/na-silie/Gewalt).7I navistina, kako {to i }e ukaàmizveduvaj}i zaklu~oci, razmisluvaweto vo smisla

naGevalt[Gewalt], namesto vo smisla na obi~notonasilstvo, moè da ovozmoì zna~itelno komp-

likuvawe na odnosot na Badju kon marksizmot ina negoviot predlog za avtonomija na politikata.Vtoro, zatoa {to tokmu preku imanentnata kritikana leninisti~koto politi~ko iskustvo za borbata,organizacijata, sudirot i (dràvnata) mo}, kako iza nivnite (~estopati parazitski) reakcionerniosudi, pra{aweto na nasilstvoto odigralo klu~na

uloga vo nizata obidi kako napredni, taka i nazad-ni, da se uni{ti i povtorno da se sostavi marksiz-mot (ili, moèbi po~esto, samo da se uni{ti).

Potrebna e, izgleda, u{te edna, treta i poslednazabele{ka, a se odnesuva na ulogata na takvite raz-misluvawa vo kontekstot na na~inot na koj sega sedoìvuvaat delata na Badju. Nakratko, vo anglofon-skoto podra~je (kade negovite prethodni politi~ki

dela i stavovi duri neodamna se izdignaa nadramni{teto na opa~ni glasini) vnimanieto zapoliti~kata misla na Badju, osobeno vo pionerskatarabota na Piter Holvard, zapo~na so fokus kon zanego svojstveniot aksiomatski egalitarizam i, dare~eme, decizionizmot2 {to navidum se projavuvavo negovite zreli dela so konkreten osvrt nanovitetot na eden nesocijalien, pa duri i antiso-cijalen tretman na politi~koto dejstvuvawe i napoliti~kata inovacija. Natamo{nite istraùvawana celiot opseg na negovoto delo dovede do poopstoj-ni razmisli za negoviot odnos kon marksizmot i, serazbira, kon maoizmot. Toa ovozmoì poizrazenapozicija na kontinuitet, ubedlivo promovirana od


4/30

12

written as one of the leaders of the small French Maoistgrouping, the UCFML.8I have tried to contribute to thisdebate with a couple of articles and presentations, theprincipal one entitled Communism as Separation. Inthat text, which was cogently if not (in my inevitably

biased view) denitively criticised by Bosteels for itsexcessive zeal in positing a kind of metapolitical breakaround 1985 (the year of publication of Can Politics BeThought?), I proposed a sort of periodisation of Badiousthought in terms of its relation to communism. Badiouhimself is, among other things, a remarkable and under-appreciated theorist of periodisation.9Following him, I

would like to think periodisation as anything but a simplequestion of segmenting time and thought, but rather as aspiralling movement conditioned by all sorts of forcefulanticipations, retractions and reversals, not to mentionreturns (not least the recent return, in Badious 2006

Logiques des mondes, the massive sequel toBeing andEvent, of the materialist dialectic). Slightly revising thedating proposed in the aforementioned article, we couldsketch the phases of Badious work as follows:

- Pre-1968: Badious apprenticeship with Sartre,followed by a participation at a slight distance in the

Althusserian school during what Gregory Elliot calls itshigh period.10 Given Badious ensuing self-criticisms

we could call this the stage of theoretical communism.

strana na Bruno Bostils vo nekolku napisi {to sefokusiraat na post-maoizmot na Badju, koja gi iz-nesuva na svetlina negovite traktati za kulturnatarevolucija i aktivisti~ki tekstovi {to gi napi{aldodeka bil eden od voda~ite na malata francuska

maoisti~ka grupa UCFML.8Se obidov da pridonesamkon ovaa debata preku nekolku napisi i izlagawa,od koi glaven e napisot so naslov Komunizmot kakorazdvojuvawe. Vo toj tekst koj ubedlivo, ako ne idefinitivno (gledaj}i od moeto bezdrugo pristras-no gledi{te) be{e kritikuvan od Bostils za{tovo nego premnogu revnosno se pozicionira izvesenmetapoliti~ki raskin okolu 1985 godina (kogabe{e i objavenaMoè li da se misli politikata?)

predloìv izvesna periodizacija na mislata naBadju vo smisla na nejziniot odnos kon komuniz-mot. Samiot Badju, me|u drugoto, e i vpe~atliv inedovolno cenet teoreti~ar na periodizacijata.9Sledej}i go, periodizacijata sakam da ja mislamkako s$ osven ednostavno pra{awe na segmentacijana vremeto i mislata; poprvo sakam da ja poimamkako spiralno dvièwe usloveno od najrazli~nisilni o~ekuvawa, povlekuvawa i presvrti, a da ne

zboruvame za vra}awata (od koi ne pomalku va`no eposlednoto vra}awe na materijalisti~kata dijale-ktika, vo Badjuovata Logiques des mondes od 2006,obemnoto nadovrzuvawe na Bitieto i nastanot[Being and Event]). Malku prerabotuvaj}i go dati-raweto predloèno vo gorenavedeniot napis, fazitevo delata na Badju moè da gi iscrtame na sledniovna~in:

- Pred 1968: ~irakuvaweto na Badju kaj Sartr,po koe sleduva u~estvoto od mala distanca vo

Altiserovata {kola vo vremeto {to Gregori Eliotgo narekuva nejzina visoka doba.10 So ogled nasamokritikite na Badju {to }e usledat, ova moè dago nare~eme faza na teoriski komunizam.



5/30


13

Identities

- 1968-1977:After his Road to Damascus moment11andthe passage from his dissidence within the PSU (Partisocialiste uni) to the leadership of the UCFML (Groupepour la formation de lUnion des communistes de France,marxiste-leniniste), Badiou and his comrades formulate

what they term a communism of production.12

- 1977-1982:In the ebb of the Maoist sequence, Badiourecapitulates the theory of force and destruction sketchedout in Theory of Contradiction,13detaching it more andmore from any reference to the production process andthe role of the masses qua producing classes. The subject(i.e. the party) takes centre stage in a formidable and

forbidding dialectical construction, anchored aroundwhat I have chosen to call a communism of destruction.Theory of the Subject,14which recapitulates and extendsa series of seminars given during this period, is the keytext for this destructive paradigm.

- 1982-present? Badiou declares the end of the three

great references of historical communism: the statistreferent, i.e. the existence of political actualisations of thecommunist project that can carry the theme of victory;the martial referent, i.e. the wars of national liberationthat witness the invention, under the direction of modernparties, of a new form of war, a dissymmetrical war,rooted in the countryside, organising the peasantry, anddeploying itself in a prolonged manner, in stages15; thesubjective or class referent, i.e. the subjective presence

of the workers movement itself. The so-called crisisof Marxism is seen as the progressive collapse of thissystem of references. Whilst maintaining the convictionthat a true politics can only be a radically egalitarianand in some sense communist politics so that he will

- 1968-1977:Po negoviot mig na Pat kon Damask11i preminuvaweto od disidentstvoto vo ramkite naPSU (Parti socialiste uni) kon rakovodstvoto na

UCFML(Groupe pour la formation de lUnion des com-munistes de France, marxiste-leniniste), Badju i nego-vite drugari go formuliraat ona {to go narekuvaatkomunizam na proizvodstvo.12

- 1977-1982: Za vreme na osekata vo maoisti~kataniza, Badju ja rekapitulira teorijata za silatai uni{tuvaweto {to ja skiciral vo Teorija naprotivre~nosta,13 s$ pove}e oddale~uvaj}i ja odkakvo bilo povikuvawe na proizvodniot proces i

ulogata na masite kako proizvodstveni klasi. Sub-jektot (t.e. partijata) zazema sredi{no mesto vo ednagolema i zastra{uva~ka dijalekti~ka konstrukcija,trajno vrzana za ne{to {to jas re{iv da go nareku-vam komunizam na destrukcijata. Teorijata nasubjektot,14 koja rekapitulira i pro{iruva ednaniza seminari odràni vo tekot na toj period, eklu~niot tekst za ovaa destruktivna paradigma.

- 1982-denes?Badju go objavuva krajot na trite golemireferenci na istoriskiot komunizam: referentotna dràvnosta, t.e. postoeweto na politi~ki aktu-alizacii na komunisti~kiot proekt {to moè da janosi temata na pobedata, vojni~kiot referent, t.e.vojnite za nacionalno osloboduvawe {to svedo~at zaizumuvaweto, pod vodstvo na novite partii, na edennov oblik vojna, edna disimetri~na vojna, vkorene-ta vo selskite podra~ja, vo koja se organizira selan-stvoto i koja se razvrzuva oddolèno, vo fazi15sub-

jektivniot, odnosno klasniot referent, t.e. subjek-tivnoto prisustvo na samoto rabotni~ko dvièwe.Takanare~enata kriza na marksizmot se smetaza progresivno propa|awe na ovoj sistem na refe-renci. Iako stoi na ubeduvaweto deka edna vistin-


6/30

14

write of an eternity of communism qua eternity of theequal16 Badiou operates a de-historicisation and de-statication of communism in the ontological convictionthat beneath the ction of the social and political bondthere lies the reality, or rather the Real, of unbinding, of

an inconsistency and multiplicity that is only ctionallycounted and represented by the State. Suspending anytransitivity between the subject of politics and the situationin which it arises (rarity and discontinuity becomingparamount), Badiou proposes, through the category ofthe generic, the criterion of what might be regarded asa non-Marxist communism. This is thought in terms ofa local and discontinuous production of Sameness, in astage that I characterized in Communism as Separation

in terms of the production of communism.17Of course,with Badious recent turn towards a materialist dialecticwe may wonder whether a recidivist Maoist spirit is notgiving the spiral yet another twist

But how does this periodisation and Badiousidiosyncratic trajectory within the theoretical topologyof Marxism relate to the question of violence, and even ofGewalt? Schematically, my argument is as follows: in the

wake of his Damascene conversion to Maoist militancy,Badiou produced one of the most steadfast, lucidand unsettling accounts of the fundamentally violent

character of the Marxist dialectic, as ltered throughLeninist and Maoist political thought and practice. To

be more precise, Badiou linked his Marxist-Leninistconcern with truth,justiceand the new to the immanentrequirement of a destructive antagonism, an argument

ska politika moè da bide edinstveno radikalnoegalitarna i vo izvesna smisla komunisti~kapolitika taka {to }e pi{uva za ve~nost na komu-nizmot kako ve~nost na ednakvite16 Badju vr{ideistorizacija i razdràvuvawe na komunizmot vo

ontolo{koto ubeduvawe deka pod povr{inata nafikcijata za op{testvenata i politi~kata vrska

leì realnosta, ili poprvo Realnoto, na raskinu-vawe na vrskite, na edna nedoslednost i mnogukrat-nost koja e samo fikciski izbrojana i pretstavenaod Dràvata. Suspendiraweto na sekakva preodnostme|u subjektot na politikata i situacijata vo kojatoj se javuva (pri {to retkosta i diskontinuitetotstanuvaat neprikosnoveni) Badju, preku kategori-

jata generi~ko, go predlaga kriteriumot za ona{to moè da se smeta za nemarksisti~ki komuni-zam. Toa se misli kako edno lokalno i diskontinu-irano proizvodstvo na Istovetnost, vo faza {to voKomunizmot kako razdvojuvawe ja okvalifikuvavvo kontekst na proizveduvaweto komunizam.17 Serazbira, so ogled na neodamne{noto svrtuvawe naBadju kon materijalisti~kata dijalektika, moèda se zapra{ame dali moèbi nekakov ostatok na

maoisti~ki duh vnesuva nov presvrt vo spiralata

No, na koj na~in ovaa periodizacija na Badjuovataidiosinkretska traektorija vo teoriskata topologi-

ja na marksizmot se vrzuva za pra{aweto na nasilstvo-to, pa duri i so pra{aweto za Gewalt? [ematski,mojata argumentacija e vakva: po negovoto damas-kisko preobratuvawe vo maoisti~ki aktivizam,Badju go napi{a edniot od najcvrstite, najlucid-

nite i najvoznemiruva~kite prikazi na funda-mentalno nasilniot karakter na marksisti~katadijalektika, filtrirana niz leninisti~kata imaoisti~kata politi~ka misla i praksa. Poto~no,Badju ja povrza svojata marksisti~ko-leninisti~ka



7/30


15

Identities

that is most exhaustively laid out in his meticulous andinsistent exegesis of the Maoist watchword: It is rightto rebel against the reactionaries.18 The possibility ofrevolutionary novelty is intimately linked here to theorganised, systematic and, importantly, inegalitarian

destruction of the reactionary adversary. The movementaway from this dialectic of destruction (peakingphilosophically in Theory of the Subject, but probablypolitically exhausted some years earlier) takes the guiseof a subordination of the theme of antagonism to thatof an independent political capacityand the forms ofconscience of an egalitarian collective subject.19Indeed,as the retrospective of elliptical self-analysis constituted

by The Centurysuggests,20Badious rethinking functions

by splitting the very concept of antagonism into adestructive and what he calls a subtractive variant, inan explicit reminiscence of Maos distinction betweenantagonistic contradictions and contradictions amongthe people. This passage to which I will return in theconclusion is marked, especially in more recent texts,

by an implicit critique of political violence as a sign of theorganizational weakness and metaphysical corruptionof emancipatory thought in its metaphysical guise as

Marxism-Leninism.21 In other words, rather than aninherent condition of egalitarian novelty, destructionis seen as a false attempt to dominate a fundamentalunbinding (dliaison) and to do so through the lethalction of the bond provided by State, nation, party and/or class as agents of a real equality whose only signs can

be given in the destruction of the old. This centralityof destruction was arguably at the speculative heart ofBadious own Maoist phase.

grià za vistinata, pravdata i novoto so ima-nentnata nu`nost od destruktiven antagonizam,rasprava {to e najiscrpno iznesena vo negovata kraj-no pedantna i nastoj~iva egzegeza na maoisti~kiotslogan Ispravno e buntuvaweto protiv reakcio-

nerite.18Mo`nosta od revolucionerni novini in-timno se povrzuva{e so organiziranoto, sistemat-sko i, mo{ne va`no, neegalitarnotouni{tuvawena reakcionerniot protivnik. Oddale~uvaweto odovaa dijalektika na uni{tuvawe (koja filozovskiotvrv go dostigna voTeorija na subjektot[Theory ofthe Subject], no verjoatno politi~ki se iscrpi ne-kolku godini porano) dobiva lik na podreduvawena temata za antagonizmot na temata za nezavisniot

politi~ki kapacitet i oblicite na sovest naeden egalitaren kolektiven subjekt.19I navistina,kako {to ukaùva retrospektivata na elipti~na sa-moanaliza {to se vospostavuva vo Stoletieto[TheCentury],20preobmisluvaweto na Badju funkcioniraso razdvojuvawe tokmu na konceptot na antagoniz-mot vo destruktivna varijanata i vo ne{to {to tojgo narekuva varijanta na odzemawe, eksplicitnopotsetuvaj}i na razlikata {to Mao ja pravi me|u

antagonisti~kite sprotivnosti i sprotivnostiteme|u lu|eto. Ovoj pasus na koj }e se navratam na kra-

jot osobeno vo ponovite tekstovi, go odbeleùvaizvesna implicitna kritika na politi~kotonasilstvo kako znak za organizaciskata slabost imetafizi~kata nagrizanost na emancipatorskatamisla pod metafizi~kiot prevez na marksizmot-

leninizmot.21So drugi zborovi, namesto da se gle-da kako vrodena sostojba na egalitarnite novini,

destrukcijata e videna kako laèn obid da se do-minira so nekakvo kone~no raskinuvawe (dliaison),i toa preku pogubnata fikcija za vrskata {to jadavaat Dràvata, nacijata, partijata i/ili klasatakako izvr{iteli na vistinskata ednakvost ~ii ed-instveni znaci moè da se projavat vo uni{tuvaweto


8/30

16

In 1975, in the UCFMLs Yenan imprint at the Editions

Maspro (a series he co-directed with Sylvain Lazarus),Badiou published the rst of what were intended to be aseries of pamphlets on dialectical materialism, Theoryof Contradiction, to be followed by the On Ideology thenext year.22In these texts Badiou set down, in painstakingdetail, the philosophical groundwork of a Marxist-Leninist theory of revolt (or rebellion). The primacy ofrevolt that is, the primacy of practice is in fact themilitant leitmotivof Badious writings in the seventies.

This is especially true of Theory of Contradiction, a tersespeculative commentary upon Maos dictum it is alwaysright to rebel against the reactionaries.23In it, we readthe following: Rebellion does not wait for its reason,rebellion is what is always already there, for any possiblereason whatever. Marxism simply says: rebellion isreason, rebellion is subject. Marxism is the recapitulationof the wisdom of rebellion.24 It is on the basis of thisequation between political practice and antagonism that

Badiou can write: The real is not what brings together,but what separates. What happens is what disjoins.25

Here we must hear the materialist thesis that thefaktumof revolt or in Badious more recent discourse the

irruption of the event or dysfunction of a transcendentalregime comes rst, subjectivation second. Moreover,to the extent that any structure of placements, anyrepresented situation, is in a sense the fallout from, orrecuperation of, its forceful dislocation by a subject,

na staroto. Moè da se tvrdi deka ova sredi{no mes-to na destrukcijata be{e spekulativnoto jadro namaoisti~kata faza na samiot Badju.

Vo 1975, pod impresumot Jenan(Yenan)naUCFMLod edicijata Maspero (Maspro) (serija {tozaedni~ki ja ureduva{e so Silvijan Lazarus), Badjugo objavi prviot od pamfletite {to gi be{e zamis-

lil kako serija za dijalekti~kiot materijalizam,so naslov Teorija na protivre~nosta (Theory ofContradiction), po koj narednata godina usledi Zaideologijata(On Ideology).22Vo ovie tekstovi Badjugri`livo i detalno gi izloì filozofskite osnovina edna marksisti~ko-leninisti~ka teorija na re-

volt (ili bunt). Prvenstvoto na revoltot odnosnoprvenstvoto na praksata vpro~em e aktivisti~kiot

lajtmotiv vo delata na Badju od sedumdesetite. Toaosobeno vaì za Teorija na protivre~nosta,koja ekoncizen spekulativen komentar za izreka na Maokoe glasi sekoga{ e ispravno da se buntuva protivreakcionerite.23 Vo nego }e pro~itame deka bun-tot ne ja ~eka svojata pri~ina, buntot e ne{to {tosekoga{ si postoi, za kakva i da e pri~ina. Mark-

sizmot ednostavno veli: buntot e pri~ina, buntot esubjekt. Marksizmot e rekapitulacija na mudrostana buntot.24Tokmu vrz osnova na ova ravenstvo me|upoliti~kata praksa i antagonizmot, Badju moè dazapi{e: Realnoto ne spojuva, tuku razdvojuva. Toa{to se slu~uva e ona {to razdvojuva.25

Tuka mora da ja slu{neme materijalisti~kata tezadeka faktumot na revoltot ili vo Badjuoviot

poskore{en diskurs, upadot na nastanot ili dis-funkcijata na transcedentalniot reìm doa|aprv, a subjektivizacijata e na vtoro mesto. Po-natamu, vo onaa mera vo koja nekoja struktura nasmestenosti, nekoja pretstavena situacija,



9/30


17

Identities

resistance, as Badiou puts it, is the secret of domination.Badiou comes closest to a dualistic matrix of the political such as the one propounded by the heretical post-Maoist nouveaux philosophes Jambet and Lardreauin their book The Angel 26 when he states that the

reason of revolt (or rebellion) is an invariant, deepand inextricable; that the refusal of mastery as themastery of authority and of knowledge constitutes asubjective given that precedesMarxism and any causalor structural analysis that a critique of political economymay be capable of providing. This suggests an ontologicalanteriority of revolt, an autonomous power of egalitarianopposition that operates like a trans-historical constant.

Following the Maoist thesis that division is the veryessence of dialectics (One divides into two), Badioustheory of contradiction is founded on the asymmetryof the terms of the contradiction, purifying force, on

the one hand, the system of places, on the other. But,and here lies the key point, no angelic purity is given

beforehand and neither can we put our hopes in a simpleepiphany mechanically emerging from the ruins of theold. As Bosteels persuasively argues, speculative leftismremains one of Badious nemeses (all the more virulentlyattacked, one might argue, to the extent that it is anintimate possibility of his thinking of the subject, onceit has detached itself from any straightforward systemic

transitivity). As Badiou writes in the Theory of the Subject:in every contradiction, force manifests its impuritythrough the aleatory process of its purication. In theTheory of Contradiction, the thesis of the rightness ofrebellion (or of the justice of the new) is linked by Badiouto a whole partisan theory of consciousness and truth,

e vo izvesna smisla ostatok ili oporavuvawe odnejzinoto nasilno izmestuvawe od strana na ne-koj subjekt, otporot e, kako {to veli Badju, taj-nata na dominacijata. Badju stasuva najblisku dodualisti~ka matrica na politi~koto kako {to e

onaa {to ja predlagaat ereti~kite post-maoisti~kinovi filozofi (nouveaux philosophes) @ambe i

Lardro(Jambet, Lardreau) vo svojata knigaAngelot(The Angel) 26 koga izjavuva deka pri~inata za re-voltot e nemenliva, dlaboka i nerazre{liva;deka odbivaweto na vladeeweto kako {to e vladee-weto na vlasta i znaeweto pretstavuva subjektivnadadenost {to mu prethodi i na marksizmot i na se-koja pri~inska ili strukturna analiza {to moè

da ja dade edna kritika na politi~kata ekonomija.Toa ukaùva deka revoltot ontolo{ki prethodi,deka postoi avtonomna sila na egalitarna opozici-

ja koja dejstvuva kako trans-istoriska konstanta.

Nadovrzuvaj}i se na maosti~kata teza deka podelbatae tokmu su{tinata na dijalektikata (Edno se dvoi nadve), teorijata na protivre~nost na Badju se zasno-va vrz asimetrijata na delovite na protivre~nosta,

pre~istitelna sila, od edna strana, sistemot namesta, od druga strana. No, a tuka leì i klu~natapoenta, nitu e prethodno dadena nekakva angelska~istota, nitu pak nie moème da se nadevame nanekakva ednostavna epifanija {to izvira od urnat-inite na staroto. Kako {to ubedlivo tvrdi Bostils,spekulativnoto levi~arstvo i natamu e eden odeden od duhovite {to go progonuvaat Badju (dotolkupoèstoko napa|ano, bi se reklo, do stepen {to toa

pretstavuva intimna mo`nost za negovo razmislu-vawe za subjektot, {tom toa }e se odvoi od sekakva ot-vorena sistemska preodnost). Kako {to Badju pi{uvavo Teorija na subjektot: vo sekoja protivre~nost,silata ja pokaùva svojata ne~istota preku alea-torniot proces na nejzino pro~istuvawe. Vo Te-


10/30

18

whereby both Marxism as a science of social formationsand the objective historical reality of revolts are doubled

by, and indeed nd their reason in, the consciousassumption of the tasks of revolt in organisation anddirective, in short, in a party. Marxist truth, Badiou

starkly states, is that wherein rebellion nds its reasonin order to demolish the enemyand, in a tone seeminglyabsent from his latest works, declares that it repudiatesall equality before truth.27

In Badious work of the 70s, but also in his most recentproduction, subject names precisely that point through

which what is impossible in a given situation is forcedinto possibility: A subject is a point of conversion of theimpossible into the possible. The fundamental operationof a subject is to be at the point where some impossible isconverted into possibility.28The crucial question, if we

wish to engage in a philosophical reection on the role of

violence in Badiou, is whether this point of conversiondemands destructive antagonism as a precondition, or

whether, as some of his more recent writings suggest,destruction and even terror might be the (contingent)consequence of an event-bound capacity to independentlyafrm the existence and effects of a political subject.

In Badious Theory of Contradictionthere is no mistakingthe fact that the view of revolt as an afrmation of

being is intimately bound to the possibility of a radicaldestruction, an abolition the ex-termination, to be

orija na subjektot, tezata za ispravnosta na buntot(ili za pravi~nosta na novoto) Badju ja povrzuva soedna cela partiska teorija za svesta i vistinata,pri {to i marksizmot kako nauka za op{testevaniteformacii i objektivnata istoriska stvarnost na re-

volti se preslikuvaat i navistina ja nao|aat svojatapri~ina vo svesnoto vpregnuvawe na zada~ite na re-voltot vo organiziraweto i direktivite, nakuso, vopartija. Marksisti~kata vistina, kruto izjavuvaBadju, e ona vo {to buntot ja nao|a svojata pri~inaso cel da go raspar~i neprijatelot i, so ton kojnavidum go nema vo negovite najnovi dela, izjavuvadeka buntot otfrla sekakvo predimstvo na ednakvos-ta pred vistinata.27

Vo delata na Badju od sedumdesettite, no i vo nego-vite najskore{ni dela, subjektot ja imenuva tokmuto~kata na koja ona {to e nevozmo`no vo dadena situ-acija nasila se pravi mo`no: Subjektot e to~ka napretvorawe na nevozmo`noto vo vozmo`no. Funda-mentalnata operacija na subjektot treba da se odvi-va vo to~kata kade ne{to nevozmo`no se pretvora vomo`nost.28 Presudnoto pra{awe, dokolku sakame

da se zafatime so filosofska refleksija za uloga-ta na nasilstvoto kaj Badju, e dali ovaa to~ka napretvorawe nalaga destruktiven antagonizam kakopreduslov, ili dali, kako {to uka`uvaat nekoi odnegovite poskore{ni dela, destrukcijata, pa durii terorot mo`e da bide (kontingentna) posledicana izvesen kapacitet vrzan za nastanot za nezavis-no da se potvrdi postoeweto i efektite od odredenpoliti~ki subjekt.

Vo Badjuovata Teorija na protivre~nosta nemazabuna vo odnos na faktot deka gledi{teto na re-voltot kako potvrda na bitieto e tesno povrzano somo`nosta za radikalna destrukcija, poni{tuvawe



11/30


19

Identities

etymologically precise, by the force of an insurgentsubject, of certain places and positions within thestructures of representation and domination.29 Or, toquote one of Badious more lyrical passages: To thenothing new under the sun the thinking of revolt opposes

the ever new insurgent red sun, under the emblemof which the unlimited afrmative hope of rebelliousproducers engenders ruptures. Having done with thenothing new under the sun entails the possibility ofa total death, a death without Aufhebungand withoutmourning. Such, for instance in one of Badious mostpertinent examples is the way in which colonialismshould die, consigned to eternal forgetting. This is not to

be understood in the impoverished sense of a disavowal

or repression, but rather as the effective destruction ofall traces of colonial domination. Cultural revolutionis thereby afrmed as anti-memory. The paradox openlyassumed by Badiou, in which I think is encapsulated

what I have called his communism of separation, is thatthe destruction of inequality, the obliteration of mastery,has a dualistic asymmetry as its condition.

The political conundrum is therefore that of the necessityto master (control, direct and violently lead) the path tomasterlessness, to dominate domination in order fornon-domination to arise. This is the paradox that in thehistory of Leninism takes the name of the dictatorship ofthe proletariat. But what then, we may ask, of ChristianJambets sober observation, aimed in part at Badiou

himself, that the theme of anti-memory, of the Year Zeroso famously linked to the killing elds of Cambodia,depends on the most radical hypostasis of Mastery, ona discourse reduced to the inscrutable secrecy of anunknowing command to work and submit to anonymity,

eks-terminacijata, da bideme etimolo{ki pre-cizni, blagodarenie na silata na odreden buntovensubjekt na nekoi mesta i pozicii vo pretstavni~kitestrukturi i strukturite na dominacijata.29Ili, dacitiram eden od polirskite iskazi na Badju: Na

ni{to novo pod soncevo misleweto na revoltot goprotistavuva vezden novoto buntovnoto crveno sonce,pod ~ie zname neograni~enata afirmativna nade`na buntovnite proizveduva~i sozdava puknatini.Da se zavr{i so toa ni{to novo pod sonceto povle-kuva mo`nost od celosna smrt, smrt bezAufhebungibez oplakuvawe. Na takov na~in, da re~eme sporededen od najrelevantnite primeri na Badju trebada umre kolonijalizmot, osuden na ve~en zaborav.

Ova ne treba da se sfati vo osiroma{enata smis-la na odrekuvawe ili represija, tuku poprvo kakoefektivno uni{tuvawe na site tragi od kolonijal-nata dominacija. Ottuka, Kulturnata revolucijase afirmira kako antimemorija. Paradoksot {tootvoreno go zazema Badju, koj smetam deka celosnogo opfa}a ona {to go narekov negov komunizam narazdvojuvawe, e deka uni{tuvaweto na neednakvosta,zbri{uvaweto na gospodarstvoto kako uslov sodr`i

dualisti~ka asimetrija (nakuso, klasna borba).

Taka, politi~kata zagatka e vo nu`nosta da se gos-podari (kontrolira, naso~uva i nasilno da se vodi)so patot do bezgospodarstvoto, da se dominira sodominacijata za da mo`e da dojde do nedominacija.Ova e paradoksot {to vo istorijata na leninizmotse narekuva diktatura na proleterijatot. No, bipra{ale, {to stanuva toga{ so trezvenata zabele{ka

na Kristijan @ambe(Christian Jambet), delumno upa-tena i kon Badju, deka temata za antimemorijata,za Nultata godina {to tolku pro~uto se vrzuva{eso poliwata na smrtta vo Kampu~ija, zavisi od naj-radikalnata hipostaza na Gospodarstvoto, od eden


12/30

20

coupled, inevitably perhaps, with the most pointlessand exorbitant practices of confession witness thedestructive ferocity of the S-21 prison in Phnom Penh?30In response to such objections, we could recall that oneof the key theses in Badiou, emerging from his readings

of Mao, is that it is not from the primary contradiction,the one between exploiters and exploited, that noveltyemerges, but rather from a secondary contradiction,from a separation or division within the camp of theprimary contradiction itself from the partisan truth ofa faction, for instance, which separates itself in order toseparate out (or subtract) a real which is denied by thestate of the situation, by its dominant and dominatingrepresentation. It is transforming this secondary

contradiction into a primary one which constitutes theformalization proper to the act of revolt. In other words,division and separation and not just pure destructiveantagonism are conditions of possibility for theengendering of a generic equality.

In these early writings, Badiou can be found arguingthat the presence of subjectivity changes the nature of

violence itself. Inasmuch as the dialectics of a real revoltintroduces qualitative novelty into a situation suchthat The State, which is to say the concentrated formof all phenomena of domination, no longer even hasthe same name it divides death itself, into what is

incorporated and metamorphosed under a new law (orsymbolically reinscribed, if we wish to adopt a Lacanianframework) and what is simply abrogated. In purelystructural phenomena devoid of novelty, in which it isonly a quantitative shift of places that is at stake, be itcolonialism or the rst world war, the drive to conserve

diskurs sveden na neproniklivata tainstvenost naedna neuka naredba za rabota i pomirlivost so ano-nimnost, dopolneta, moèbi neminovno, so najbes-celnite i najnerazumnite praktiki na iznuduvawepriznanija za toa svedo~i destruktivnata ès-

tokost na zatvorot S-21 vo Pnom Pen?30Odgovaraj}ina takvite zabele{ki, moè da potsetime deka ednaod klu~nite tezi na Badju, koja proizleguva od nego-voto ~itawe na Mao, e deka novinite proizleguvaatne od primarnata sprotivnost, onaa me|u eksploata-torite i eksploatiranite, tuku od izvesna sekundar-na sprotivnost, od razdvojuvawe ili podelba voredovite na samata primarna sprotivnost od par-tiskata vistina na edna frakcija, na primer, koja

se odvojuva so cel da izdvoi (ili da izvle~e) ednavistinitost {to ja odrekuva dràvata vo taa situa-cija, odnosno nejzinite dominantni i dominira~kipretstavnici. Taa ja preobrazuva ovaa sekundarnasprotivnost vo primarna sprotivnost koja ja gradiformalizacijata {to mu pripa|a na ~inot na re-volt. So drugi zborovi, podelbata i odvojuvaweto a ne samo ~istiot destruktiven antagonizam se uslovi za mo`nost za sozdavawe generi~ka ed-

nakvost.

Vo ovie rani dela, moè da se vidi kako Badju tvrdideka prisustvoto na subjektivnost ja menuva pri-rodata na samoto nasilstvo. So ogled na toa {todijalektikata na stvarniot revolt vnesuva kvali-tativni novini vo odredena situacija takvi{to Dràvata, odnosno koncentriraniot oblikna site fenomeni na dominacijata, ve}e go nema

nitu istoto ime taa ja deli i samata smrt nane{to {to e vgradeno i preobrazeno spored nov za-kon (ili simboli~no prenapi{ano, ako sakame da

upotrebime edna Lakanovska ramka) i ne{to {toednostavno se ukinuva. Vo ~isto strukturnite feno-meni sosema li{eni od novini, kade stanuva zbor



13/30


21

Identities

and continue is accompanied for Badiou by enormousviolence. In his stark words: When nothing changes, mendie. It is precisely the lack of asymmetry, the ultimatelynon-antagonistic basis of the massive antagonisms thatappear to deploy themselves on the battleeld which

mean that such structural antagonisms depend onpure quantitative triumph, and are thus cumulative, non-creative, interminable, bloody and sterile. In brief, then,against the opposition of resistance and power, Badiouproposes a dialectics of (materialist) structure and(subjective) tendency. Without the violent inscriptioninto the situation of a subjective tendency or force oftransformation, which is itself the product of internaldivisions and separations, we are left only with the dumb

brutality of a structural violence.

It is not possible in these brief considerations to trackthe political and philosophical reasons for Badiousdislocation of the destructive thematic and his move

towards a new, mathematically-founded dialectic ofinconsistency which undermines the concept of totalityand takes its distance from many of the principal referentsof the Marxist or historical materialist tradition. However,

we could say that the questions that arise from Badiousthematisation of violence and from his political critiqueof terror (a critique which he vehemently counterposesto what he regards as the capitalo-parliamentarian andanti-totalitarian critique of terror, such as we may nd in

the likes of Furet) might also be questions on the basis ofwhich to reassess Badious complicated and incompleterelationship to Marxism, all claims to non-existenceaside31A preliminary conclusion, or perhaps a simpleintuition, is that the theme of Gewalt, of a tension

samo za kvanitativna promena na mestata, bilo dase raboti za kolonijalizam bilo za Prvata svetskavojna, porivot za konzervirawe i prodolùvawe,spored Badju, go pridruùva stravi~no nasilstvo.Kako {to kruto }e re~e: koga ni{to ne se menuva,

ginat lu|e. Tokmu nedostigot od asimetrija i kraj-no neantagonisti~nata osnova na masivnite anta-gonizmi se ~ini deka se angaìraat na boi{teto,{to zna~i deka takvite strukturni antagonizmizavisat od ~ista kvantitativna pobeda, pa taka sei zbirni, nekreativni, zdodevno dolgi, krvavi i

jalovi. Nakuso, toga{, nasproti protivewe konotporot i mo}ta, Badju predlaga dijalektika na(materijalisti`ka) struktura i (subjektivna) ten-

dencija. Bez nasilen zapis vo situacijata na ednasubjektivna tendencija ili transformaciska sila,koja i samata e proizvod od vnatre{ni podelbi iodvojuvawa, ni ostanuva samo tapata brutalnost nastrukturnoto nasilstvo.

Nevozmo`no e vo ovie kratki razmisli da se do-lovat politi~kite i filozofskite pri~ini zaBadjuovoto premestuvawe na destruktivnata tema i

negoviot premin kon edna nova, matemati~ki zasno-vana dijalektika na nedoslednost koja go potkopuvakonceptot na celosnosta i se drì nastrana od glav-nite referenti na marksisti~kata ili istorisko-materijalisti~kata tradicija. Me|utoa, moè dare~eme deka pra{awata {to izviraat od Badjuovatatematizacija na nasilstvoto i od negovata politikakritika na terorot (kritika {to silovito ja protiv-stavuva na ona {to go smeta za kapitalo-parlamen-

tarna i antitotalitarna kritika na terorot, kakva{to moè me da najdeme me|u sli~nite na Fire (Fu-ret)) moèbi se i pra{awa vrz osnova na koi treba dase preoceni Badjuovata komplikuvana i necelosnavrska so marksizmot, nastrana site tvrdewa za ne-


14/30

22

and dialectic between power and violence and of anemancipatory attempt to break the solidarity between allthese meanings might constitute a kind of blind spotin Badious thinking. Before concluding, and in orderto simply lay the signposts for future research, let me

enumerate ve key points that any further investigationof the theme of violence in Badious thinking will need totouch upon:

1.Marxism, Leninism and militarism. Many of Badiousattempts to formulate a post-Leninist politics without

a party rest on the thesis that egalitarian politics wasfundamentally corrupted, through a kind of historicalinertia, by the military or martial referent. It is importantto note here that Badiou, following Maos military essays,initially defends and praises the specicity of the Maoistcontribution to the uneven and combined developmentof dialectical thought and its halting periodisation

precisely in terms of the martial innovations made byMao against the Leninist-Stalinist model. It is also worth

indicating the disparate, ambiguous and uncertain statusof the quasi-references that populate Badious attempt tothink towards a demilitarized, post-Leninist politics: thePolish movement Solidarnosc, the Iranian revolution,the experience of the sans papiersmovement in Franceand, more recently, the Zapatistas in Mexico.

2. The distance from the State.This is where we couldargue Badiou evades the dialectics of Gewalt, andequivocates in his delity to the inevitable and salutarycall for a destruction of violence or a destruction ofdomination. Diagnosing the state either as the capture

postoeweto...31Eden prvi~en zaklu~ok, ili moèbiednostavna intuicija, e deka temata zaGevalt(na-silie,Gewalt), za tenzija i dijalektika me|u mo}ta inasilstvoto i za nekakov emancipatorski obid da seraskine solidarnosta me|u site ovie zna~ewa, moè

da pretstavuva eden vid mrtov agol vo razmisluvawe-to na Badju. Pred da zaklu~ime, a so cel samo da gipostavam patokazite za idnite istraùvawa, bi sa-kal da nabrojam pet klu~ni to~ki so koi }e treba ba-rem malku da se pozanimava sekoe idno istraùvawena temata na nasilstvo vo mislata na Badju:

1. Marksizmot, leninizmot i militarizmot.Golem broj od obidite na Badju da formulira post-

leninisti~ka politika bez partija po~ivaat vrztezata deka egalitarnata politka bila fundamen-talno nagrizana, vo nekoj vid istoriska inercija,od strana na voeniot ili voinstveniot referent.Va`no e tuka da se zabeleì deka Badju, sledej}i givoenite ogledi na Mao, otprvin ja brani i ja faliposebnosta na maoisti~kiot pridones kon neram-nomerniot i kombiniran razvoj na dijalekti~katamisla i nejzinata isprekinata periodizacija tok-

mu vo smisla na vojni~kite izumi na Mao protivleninisti~ko-stalinisti~kiot model. Isto taka,vredi da se ukaè na neusoglaseniot, nejasen i neiz-vesen status na kvazi-referencite {to gi ima voBadjuoviot obid da razmisluva vo nasoka na demili-tarizirana post-leninisti~ka politika: Solidar-nost, iranskata revolucija, iskustvoto od dvièwetosans papiersi, neodamna, Zapatistite vo Meksiko.

2. Oddale~enosta od Dràvata.Tuka bi moèle datvrdime deka Badju ja izbegnuvadijalektikata na Ge-valt (nasilieto,Gewalt)i ja pravi dvosmislena svo-

jata vernost kon neminovniot i blagotvoren povikda se uni{ti nasilstvoto ili da se uni{ti domi-



15/30


23

Identities

and cooptation of the force of subjectivity or as itsperversion in a murderous spiral of suspicion (explicitlyfollowing Hegels classic analysis of the terror in the

Phenomenology of Spirit), and judging contagion withits subject-less mechanisms to be fatal to the autonomous

capacities of egalitarian thought and practice, the thesisof politics at a distance from the state a politics ofprescription rather than demand or attack has becomecentral to Badious formulations. Even this evasion of anassumption of Gewalt on the part of the political subjectis nevertheless based on a mathematical formalisationof the problem of Gewalt in terms of the crucial andintuitively attractive thesis of incalculable excess of thepower-set of a situation (the State) over that situation

itself. In other words, of the excess of representationover presentation, inclusion over belonging.32 Theupshot of this is that the crux of politics for Badiou liesin its capacity to measure and arrest this excess of theState, but from an extrinsic position, through a politicaland organisational capacity that does not translate into alegal, bureaucratic or militarypower.

3. The force of the subject. To remain within the seman-tic eld of Gewalt, we should note that the anchors ofBadious materialist dialectic are, for the period that Ihave called that of the communism of production anddestruction, the notion offorce, and, in the work follow-ingBeing and Event (following the mathematician Paul

Cohen), that offorcing. In both cases we have conceptsresonating with the notion of Gewalt that qualify the re-lation between a (political) subject and the creation ofnovelty, equality and justice or indeed, to use, the cen-tral category of Badious later philosophy, truth. The rst

nacijata. Dijagnosticiraj}i ja dràvata ili kakozarobuvawe i kooptirawe na silata na subjektiv-nosta ili kako nejzino izopa~uvawe vo edna ubis-tvena spirala na somnevawe (eksplicitno sledej}i

ja Hegelovata klasi~na analiza na terorot vo Feno-

menologija na duhot), i ocenuvaj}i deka zarazataso nejzinite bezsubjektni mehanizmi e pogubna zaavtonomnite kapaciteti na egalitarnata misla ipraksa, tezata za politika {to }e bide nastrana oddràvata za politika na propi{uvawe namesto nabarawa i napadi dobi sredi{no mesto vo formu-

laciite na Badju. Duri i ova izbegnuvawe da se pret-postavi Gewalt-ot od strana na politi~kiot subjektsepak se zasnova vrz matemati~ko formalizirawe

na problemot na Gewaltvo smisla na klu~nata i in-tuitivno privle~na teza za nepresmetliviotvi{okna sklopot na mo}ta vo dadena situacija (Dràvata)vo odnos na samata situacija. So drugi zborovi, zavi{okot na zastapuvawe vo odnos na pretstavuvawe,na vklu~enosta vo odnos na pripadnosta.32 Isho-dot od ova e deka klu~noto so politikata za Badju

leì vo nejziniot kapacitet da gomerii zapre ovojvi{ok na Dràvata, no od nadvore{na pozicija,

preku politi~ki i organizaciski kapacitet {to nese preto~uva vo pravna, birokratska i voenamo}.

3. Silata na subjektot. Za da ostaneme vosemanti~koto pole naGevalt(Gewalt), treba da na-pomeneme deka, vo periodot {to go narekov periodna komunizam na proizvodstvo i destrukcija, Badju-ovata materijalisti~ka dijalektika ima dve sigurni

usidruvawa: poimot sila i, vo delata po Bitieto

i nastanot (sledej}i go matemati~arot Pol Koen),poimot silewe.Vo obata slu~aja imame koncepti vokoi odeknuva poimot Gevalt i koi go kvalifiku-vaat odnosot me|u izvesen (politi~ki) subjekt i soz-davaweto novini, ednakvost i pravda ili, da ja


16/30

24

(force) is linked to the notion of destruction, the second(forcing) to one of subtraction, and both circulate aroundthe subjects capacity to intervenein a situation at spe-cic points so as to elicit or follow the dysfunction of asystem of domination, a system that Badiou persistently

depicts as a system of placement, identity, counting.33Itis from the comparison between the function and possi-

bilities inherent in these two terms that we might also be-gin to reconsider another constant in Badious thought,

which has also been emphasised in the sympathetic workof Slavoj iek, that ofpartisan truth.

4. Terror and terrorism.Though in recent work Badiouhas tried to recuperate the notion of Terror as a necessary,if not founding, moment in political subjectivation,34a critique of the terroristic temptation is a mainstay inhis post-Maoist work.35 However and this is whatfundamentally separates Badiou from every stripe ofrevisionist, moralist and guilt-monger the underlying

argument is that only an immanent and determinatesubtraction from the destructive innovations of politics,only the critique of terrorfrom the side of emancipation,could herald a new thinking of politics at a distance fromthe state. Badiou also perspicuously links the virulenceof twentieth-century century violence not just to itsdark foundations in the colonial hecatombs but to theemancipatory idea in many respects born of the

barbarous nightmare of the rst world war of a violence

to end all violences, a war against all wars (a theme thatis also present in Mao). Moving to the more immediateconjuncture of the late 70s and early 80s, Badiou seesthe emergence of red terrorism in terms of a political

weakness, and moreover, of a fallacious relation betweenmovement, organisation and State.36In a text published

upotrebam centralnata kategorija od podocne`natafilozofija na Badju, vistina. Prvoto (silata) e po-vrzano so poimot na destrukcijata, vtoroto (silewe)e povrzano so odzemaweto, a obete kruàt okolu ka-pacitetot na subjektot vo konkretni migovi da in-

terveniravo dadena situacija taka {to }e ja iznesena videlina ili }e ja sledi disfunkcijata na da-den sistem na dominacija, sistem {to Badju upornogo oslikuva kako sistem na smestuvawe, identitet,broewe.33 Tokmu preku sporedbata me|u funkcijatai mo`nostite vrodeni vo ovie dva poima moèmeda po~neme i da preispitame u{te edna konstantavo mislata na Badju, koja vo svite blagoskloni dela

ja naglasi i Slavoj @ièk, odnosno pra{aweto na

partiskata vistina.

4. Terorot i terorizmot.Iako vo svoite skore{nidela Badju se obiduva da go obnovi poimot deka Te-rorot e neophoden, ako ne i temelen, moment vopoliti~kata subjektivizacija,34 edna kritika nateroristi~koto isku{enie e stoèr vo negovitepost-maoisti~ki dela.35Me|utoa, a ova e ona po {toBadju temelno se razlikuva od site trgovci so revi-

zionizam, moralizam i vina, edinstveno edno ima-nentno i determinirano odzemawe od destruktivni-te izumi na politikata, samo kritikata na terorot{to se vr{iod strana na emancipacijata, moèda najavat nova misla za politikata na distanca oddràvata. Isto taka, Badju re~ito i jasno ja povrzuvazaraznosta so nasilstvoto na dvaesettiot vek ne samoso nejzinite mra~ni osnovi vo kolonijalnite masov-ni `rtvuvawa, tuku i so emancipatorskata ideja

po mnogu ne{ta izrodena od varvarskiot ko{marna prvata svetska vojna od nasilstvoto {to }e gizavr{i site nasilstva, vojnata protiv site vojni(tema {to ja ima i kaj Mao). Ako premineme na pone-posrednata konjunktura od krajot na sedumdesettitei po~etokot na osumdesettite godini, }e zabeleìme



17/30


25

Identities

in the Le perroquet, the pamphlet of Badious UCFMLand its successor, IOrganisation politique, he meditatedon the disastrous combination in the absence of anorganised politics within the factory of a democraticmovement with military clandestineness, of the kind

that had briey affected the ex-Gauche Proltarienne,and which was later to wreak impotent catastrophe inthe Brigate Rosse, RAF and Action Directe.37 Badiou,

writing under the pseudonym Georges Peyrol, notedthe following: To liquidate the terrorist temptation,the terrorist retreat, is a political criterion that demandsto be invented. The upshot of such a criterion is thatpolitics is superior to antagonism. Of course, revolutionalways comes down to changing a hostile real, made

up of oppression and division. But the values of unity,from which it proceeds, and which are linked to formsof conscience, have value in and of themselves, andnot just as instruments of violence. Manipulating thehatred or fear of the other as a unifying factor is instead apernicious phenomenon of what Sartre had called terror-fraternity. The antidote is expressed as follows: we mustestablish at the heart of the people a principle of politicalunity whose reference is less the adversary than the real

which must be changed. For terrorism the only real is theenemy. Politics begins perhaps when one subordinatesthe image of the adversary to the transformationof thereal which he wishes to impede. The object of terrorismis the obstacle to the real and not the real itself. We canregister here the inuence of Badious heterodox readingof the politics of Solidarnosc, especially in terms of theidea of a primacy of popular unity over antagonism,and the connected thesis that the essence of politics is

not war. Terrorism, and here Badiou concurs with thelater Debord of the Commentaries on the Society ofthe Spectacle a text that is also concerned with thephenomenon of the Red Brigades and similar groups is simply a capitulation to the power of symbols andmedia, a spectacle. Both terrorism and the State feed on

deka Badju go doìvuva pojavuvaweto na crveniotterorizam kako politi~ka slabost i, u{te pove}e,zabludna vrska me|u dvièweto, organizacijata iDràvata.36 Vo eden tekst objaven vo Le perroquet,pamfletot na BadjuovataUCFML i nejziniot nas-

lednik, IOrganisation politique, toj razmisluva{eza katastrofalnata kombinacija vo prisustvona organizirana politika vo ramkite na fabri-kata od demokratsko dvièwe so voena tainstve-nost, od onoj vid {to nakratko be{e se odrazil vrzex-Gauche Proltarienne, i koj podocna im nanesepoliti~ka katastrofa na Crvenite brigadi, RAF iDirektna akcija (Brigate Rosse, RAF, Action Directe).37Pi{uvaj}i pod psevdonim, Badju go zabeleà sled-

novo: Da se likvidira teroristi~koto isku{enie,teroristi~koto povlekuvawe, e politi~ki krite-rium {to mora da se izumi. Ishodot od takviot kri-terium e deka politikata e superiorna vo odnos naantagonizmot. Se razbira, revolucijata sekoga{ sesveduva na promena na nekoe neprijatelsko stvar-no, sostaveno od ugnetuvawe i podelba. No, vred-nostite na edinstvoto, od koi proizleguva i koi sepovrzani so oblicite na svesta, imaat vrednost po

sebe i za sebe, a ne samo kako instrumenti na nasil-stvo. Manipuliraweto so omrazata ili so stravotod drugiot kako obedinuva~ki faktor, namesto toa,e {tetna pojava na ona {to Sartr go nare~e brat-stvo na terorot. Zatoa, maosti~kiot slogan za tret-manot na antagonisti~kite sprotivnosti kako spro-tivnosti me|u lu|eto se razbira na sledniov na~in:mora vo srceto na lu|eto da vospostavime na~elona politi~ko edinstvo ~ij referent ne e tolku pro-

tivnikot kolku {to toa e stvarnoto {to mora da sepromeni. Za terorizmot, edinstvenoto stvarno e ne-prijatelot. Politikata moèbi po~nuva koga ~ovek}e ja & ja podredi slikata za protivnikot na preo-brazbata na stvarnoto {to saka da go spre~i. Predmetna terorizmot e ona {to go popre~uva stvarnoto, a ne


18/30

26

the absence of politics, of a determinate and independentpolitical capacity that does not simply allow itself to beabsorbed by the ruses of power and its forms of violence.

Whence the key thesis that everything depends on theexistence, or even the simple project of existence, of a

politics that is excessive with regard to the State. In otherwords, which does not dene itself by the capture of theState, or even its destruction. An egalitarian politics thatcan circumvent terror (or at least terrorism) constitutesthe horizon of Badious post-Maoist project, but thepoint, once again, is that it is from the perspective of anautonomous politics of emancipation, and not on the

basis of any raison dtat, that one should subject themistakes of that politics to scrutiny.38This is the sense in

which Badious metapolitics could be dened, in termsof the conjuncture within which it emerged, as anti-anti-totalitarian.39

5. Antagonism. If dialectics and political practice aredemilitarised, wrested from the State and strippedof their historical references, what remains the roleof antagonism, or of what Badiou, in a Platonic vein,often calls the Two? To put it otherwise, can there be

samoto realno. Tuka moè da se zabeleì vlijani-eto od Badjuovoto ~itawe na politikata na Solidar-nost, osobeno vo smisla na idejata za prvenstvoto nanarodnoto edinstvo pred antagonizmot i srodnatateza deka vojnata ne e su{tina na politikata. Tero-

rizmot, a tuka Badju se soglasuva so podocne`niotDebord (Debord)odKomentari za op{testvoto naprizorot(Commentaries on the Society of the Specta-cle) tekst {to isto taka se zanimava so fenomenotna Crvenite brigadi i sli~nite grupi ednostavnopretstavuva kapitulacija pred mo}ta na simbo-

lite i mediumite, odnosno prizor. I terorizmoti Dràvata se hranat so otsustvoto na politika, sootsustvoto na determiniran i nezavisen politi~ki

kapacitet {to ednostavno ne dozvoluva da go ap-sorbiraat itrinite na mo}ta i nejzinite oblicina nasilstvo. Ottuka i klu~nata teza deka s$ zavi-si od postoeweto, ili duri od ednostavniot proektza postoewe, na politika koja ima ostatok vo odnosna Dràvata. So drugi zborovi, koja ne se defin-ira sebesi so zazemaweto na Dràvata, pa duri i sonejzinoto uni{tuvawe. Edna egalitarna politika{to moè da go osueti terorot (ili barem teroriz-

mot) go pretstavuva horizontot na Badjuoviot post-maoisti~ki proekt, no poentata i ovoj pat e dekagre{kite na taa politika treba da se podloàt natemelna analiza tokmu od gledi{te na avtonomnapolitika na emancipacija, a ne vrz osnova na neka-kov raison dtat.38Ova e smislata vo koja moè da sedefinira metapolitikata na Badju, vo kontekst nakonjunkturata vo koja se javila, kako anti-anti-to-talitarna.39

5.Antagonizam.Ako se demilitariziraat dijalek-tikata i politi~kata praksa, ako se iskornat odDràvata i se li{at od nivnite istoriski refe-renci, {to ostanuva od ulogata na antagonizmot, iliod ona {to Badju, so edna platonska ica, ~estopati



19/30


27

Identities

contradictions among the people without the preliminaryconfrontation with antagonistic or drastically polemicalcontradictions? In The Century, Badiou has written ofan anti-dialectical Two at the heart of the twentiethcenturys political experimentation, and of two ways of

arranging the confrontation between a we, a fraternity,and its outside: Either one sees it as a polymorphousformlessness a disordered reality or else onesees it as an other we, an external and consequentlyantagonistic subject. In the rst instance, the task,to use a key signier in Badiou, is formalisation, aprotocol for producing the forms that will rally the not-

we to the we. Formalisation involves incorporating theapparent alterity of what is outside the militant subject

into its autonomous capacity, into what, inLogiques desmondes, Badiou calls a subject-body (corps-sujet).40

Where formalisation is weak or inexistent, we witness therise of a frontal concept of antagonism, the veritable face-off between two substantial, pre-constituted subjects.This second conception of the relationship betweenthe we and the not-we is intrinsically violent, and its

violence is not simply that of formalist conversion, butrather the violence of a frontal struggle, its objective is

the destruction of the other. It is in the context of thedialectics of the non-dialectical, of the confrontation

between two modes of confrontation that Badioureturns, provocatively, to one of his abiding sources ofmetapolitical inspiration: Maos essential directiveis never to treat the contradictions at the heart of thepeople in an antagonistic manner,to resolve the conictbetween formalisation and destruction by means of

formalisation.This is perhaps one of the most profound

lessons, but also one of the most difcult, that the centuryhas bequeathed to us.41

go narekuva Dvete?Inaku kaàno, moè li da pos-tojat sprotivnosti me|u lu|eto bez preliminarnatakonfrontacija so antagonisti~ki ili drasti~nopolemi~ki protivre~nosti? Vo Stoletieto (TheCentury), Badju pi{uva za antidijalekti~ko Dve koe

e vo sredi{teto na politi~koto eksperimentirawevo dvaesettiot vek, i za dva na~ina na postavuvawena konfrontacijata me|u edno nie, kako bratstvo, iona {to e nadvor od nego: Ili na nego se gleda kakona polimorfna bezobli~nost naru{ena stvarnost ili kako na drugo nie, nadvore{en i, sledstveno,antagonisti~ki subjekt. Vo prviot slu~aj, zada~ata,da upotrebam eden klu~en ozna~itel kaj Badju, e for-malizacija, protokol za sozdavawe na oblicite {to

}e go privle~at nenie-to kon nie-to. Formalizaci-jata podrazbira vgraduvawe na vidlivata drugost naona {to e nadvor od militantniot subjekt vo negovi-ot avtonomen kapacitet, vo ona {to vo Logiques desmondes Badju go narekuva telo-subjekt (corps-su-

jet).40Onamu kade {to formalizacijata e slaba iline postoi, gledame podem na eden frontalen kon-cept na antagonizam, na vistinsko soo~uvawe me|udva silni, prethodno konstituirani subjekta. Ovaa

vtora koncepcija za odnosot me|u nie-to i nenie-to esamo po sebe nasilno, a negovoto nasilstvo ne e samonasilstvo na formalisti~ko preobratuvawe, tukunasilstvo na frontalna borba, pri {to negova cel eda se uni{ti drugoto. Tokmu vo kontekstot na di-

jalektikata na nedijalekti~koto, na sudirot me|udva na~ina na sudirawe Badju, provokativno, se vra}akon eden od svoite trajni vrutoci na metapoliti~kainspiracija: Su{tinskata direktiva na Mao e

sprotivnostite vo sr`ta na lu|eto nikoga{ da nese tretiraat na antagonisti~ki na~in, konflik-tot me|u formalizacijata i destrukcijata dase razre{i so formalizacija. Ove moèbi e edna odnajdlabokite, no i edna od najsloènite pouki {toni gi zave{talo stoletieto.41


20/30

28

The development of Badious political thought within,without, and at a distance from Marxist thought, or fromthe incompossible singularities of Marxist politics canalso be read, especially in the light of his reections onthe twentieth century, as a subterranean confrontation

with the seemingly immemorial entanglement of politicsand violence. The movement that I have elsewheresought to discern in Badious work from a communismof destruction to a communism of separation42 is also as some of the above notes on force, antagonism andterror might suggest a movement from a conceptionof violence as intrinsic to the constitution of politicalsubjectivity43 to a vision of violence as a factor which,

whilst perhaps an inevitable consequence of political

militancy in certain well-dened situations, must neverbe conceived as constitutive of a political subject. It isin this light that we can understand Badious recentcomments on the corrupting effects of the violence of thecivil war on Bolshevik politics: In some cases violenceis a necessity; everyone knows that. That is not theproblem. The problem is that violence is also a subjectivecorruption. That is the great political problem. Theconstant use of violence is a subjective corruption and so

we have to measure violence, something like moderationof violence as much as possible. Certainly, the rule is:

when we can solve a problem without violence, it isbetter.44 Beneath these seemingly anodyne remarks,we can discern the fact that much of the motivationbehind Badious communism of separation, his politicsat a distance from the State, consists in keeping thiscorruptive threat of a constitutive violence at bay fromthe political subject. Badious nuanced sublations and

revisions of a materialist dialectic can also be fruitfullygrasped in terms of an attempt to have done with whatBalibar refers to as the theological and philosophicalschema of the conversion of violence into justice.45Theexternalization of the agent of conversion into theevent and the constitution of an autonomous subjective

Razvojot na politi~kata misla na Badju vna-tre, nadvor i na distanca od marksisti~kata mis-

la, ili od inkomposibilnite singularnosti namarksisti~kata politika moè da se ~ita, osobenovo kontekst na negovite razmisli za dvaesettiot

vek, i kako skriena konfrontacija so navidum pam-tivekovnata isprepletenost na politikata i nasil-stvoto. Dvièweto od komunizam na destrukcija konkomunizam na razdvojuvawe42{to drugade se trudevda go sogledam vo delata na Badju, isto taka e kako{to moè da ukaàt nekoi od zabele{kite za si-

lata, antagonizmot i terorot {to gi iznesov pogore dvièwe od koncepcija za nasilstvoto kako vro-deno i prirodnoza sozdavaweto na politi~ka subjek-

tivnost43kon vizija za nasilstvoto kako ~initel {to,iako moèbi e neizbe`na posledica od politi~katavoinstvenost vo odredeni dobro definirani situ-acii, nikoga{ ne smee da se poima kako konstitu-tiven za nekoj politi~ki subjekt. Vo ovoj kontekstmoème da gi razbereme neodamne{nite komentarina Badju za nagrizuva~kite efekti {to nasilstvotona gra|anskata vojna gi ima{e vrz bol{evi~katapolitika: Vo nekoi slu~ai nasilstvoto e neop-

hodnost; site go znaat toa. Problemot ne e vo toa.Problemot e vo toa {to nasilstvoto pretstavuva isubjektivno korumpirawe. Toa e golemiot politi~kiproblem. Postojanata primena na nasilstvo e sub-

jektivno korumpirawe i taka mora da se odmeruvanasilstvoto, ne{to kako zauzduvawe na nasilstvotokolku {to e mo`no pove}e. Sekako, praviloto glasi:ako moème da re{ime nekoj problem bez nasilstvo,podobro e taka.44Pod povr{inata na ovie navidum

smiruva~ki zabele{ki moè da go sogledame fak-tot deka golem del od motivacijata zad Badjuoviotkomunizam na razdvojuvawe, negovata politikana distanca od Dràvata, se sostoi od namerataovaa koruptivna zakana od konstitutivno nasil-stvo da se drì podaleku od politi~kiot subjekt.



21/30


29

Identities

capacity which is not dened by a dialectic of destructionappear as means to relegate violence to a subordinaterole in what remains a politics of radical and egalitariantransformation. And yet, in light of Balibars outstandingsurvey which takes its cue from the intrinsic ambiguity

of the German Gewalt we may wonder whether inestablishing the political subject as that which followsupon a measurement or prescription46 regardingthe excess, or super-power, of the State (or, moreproblematically, of Capital47), Badiou is not evading whatBalibar denes as the tragic inner bond between politicsand violence. In other words, isnt the price to be paidfor subtracting political capacity from the amorphouspull of political violence whether structural, opaque or

puricatory that of not having the means of thinkingthe violence internal to the subject? To be more precise,and without delving into all the problems that are rife inthe idea of changing the world without taking power,

we may ask whether the formulation of a politics at adistance from violence doesnt freeze the problem ofState Gewalt into a kind of structural invariant whichis simply external to (egalitarian) politics proper whilstsimultaneously depriving us of the means to think

beyond the destructive paradigm how power andviolence may function within the constitution of apolitical subject. To reintroduce the theme of terroras that of a necessary, if limited, moment of outrightconfrontation, as Badiou seems to have suggested in

Logiques des mondes, does not sufce, since it stillbypasses the problem of power as something that maycharacterize the subjective procedure itself. Badious

wish to surpass the paradigm of constitutive violence is

commendable, and remains a challenge worth pursuing.However, it is not clear how a politics of prescription thatseeks to measure and halt the obscure super-power, theimmeasurable excess of what Badiou calls the State ofa situation can do without the tragic task of assumingsome of that power, and some of that violence, into

Badjuovite nijansirani odrekuvawa i revizii namaterijalisti~kata dijalektika moè plodotvornoda se sfatat vo smisla na eden obid da se zavr{i sone{to {to Balibar go narekuva teolo{ka i fi-

losofska {ema za preobrazba na nasilstvoto vo

pravda.45Eksternalizacijata na vr{itelot na toapretvorawe vo nastan i gradeweto avtonomen subjek-tiven kapacitet {to ne go definira dijalektika nadestrukcija se javuvaat kako sredstva za spu{tawena nasilstvoto do podredena uloga vo ramkite nane{to {to i natamu e politika na radikalna i ega-

litarna transformacija. A sepak, vo svetlo na iz-vonrednata studija od Balibar koja se ugleduva navrodenata nejasnost na germanskotoGevalt(Gewalt)

moè da se zapra{ame dali Badju,utvrduvaj}i gopoliti~kiot subjekt kako ona {to proizleguva odmerewe ili propi{uvawe46vo odnos na ostatokot,ili nad-mo}ta, na Dràvata (ili, poproblemati~no,na Kapitalot),47 Badju moèbi ne go izbegnuva ona{to Balibar go definira kako tragi~na vnatre{napovrzanost me|u politikata i nasilstvoto. So dru-gi zborovi, dali cenata {to treba da se plati zaodzemaweto na politi~kiot kapacitet od amorf-

noto vlijanie na politi~koto nasilstvo bilo dae strukturno, bilo da e mra~no ili pro~istuva~ko e da se nema na~in da se misli nasilstvoto koe mue vnatre{no na subjektot? Da bidam poprecizen, abez da navleguvam vo site problemi so koi izobi-

luva idejata za promena na svetot bez zazemawe namo}ta, moè da se zapra{ame dali formulirawetona edna politika na distanca od nasilstvoto is-tovremeno ne go zamrznuva problemot na Dràvniot

Gevaltvo eden vid strukturna nemenliva {to ed-nostavno stoi nadvor od (egalitarnata) politikai n$ li{uva od sredstvata za razmisluvawe otadedestruktivnata paradigma za toa kako mo}ta inasilstvoto moè da funkcioniraat vo ramkitenagradbata na politi~kiot subjekt. Ne e dovolno samo


22/30

30

its own transformative trajectory.48 Perhaps we couldgive the following as a provisional indication for futureresearch: any political subject driven to truly transforma situation cannot but risk the corruption of violence;it cannot simply maintain its political capacity (which

is after all another way of saying its power) pure fromthe temptations and necessities of Gewalt. Having saidthat, what every political subject must establish is a kindof internal distance from violence, a way of thinkingit and measuring it as a potential consequence of itsfounding tenets or axioms without ever making it eitherconstitutive (or worse, the Real) of its identity or seeingin it the extorted evidence that it has indeed changed the

world.

povtorno da se vovede temata za terorot kako tema zaneophoden, makar i ograni~en, moment na direktnakonfrontacija, kako {to izgleda Badju predloì vo

Logiques des mondes, bidej}i taa i natamu go izbeg-nuva problemot na mo}ta kako ne{to {to moè da ja

odlikuva samata subjektivna postapka. @elbata naBadju da ja nadmine paradigmata na konstitutivnonasilstvo e za pofalba i prodolùva da pretstavuvapredizvik na koj treba da se raboti. Me|utoa, nejasnoe kako politikata na propi{uvawe koja se stremi da

ja meri i popre~i nejasnata nad-mo}, nemerlivi-ot ostatok na ona {to Badju go narekuva Dràva nasituacija moè da izdrì bez tragi~nata zada~aza prezemawe na del od taa mo} i na del od toa nasil-

stvo vo svojata transformira~ka pateka.48Moèbibi moèle i da go dademe slednovo kako privremenanasoka za nekoe idno istraùvawe: sekoj politi~kisubjekt {to se stremi navistina da promeni nekojasituacija ne moè, a da ne rizikuva korumpiraweso nasilstvo; toj ne moè ednostavno da ja odrì~istotata na svojot politi~ki kapacitet (a toa, nakrajot na krai{tata, e drug na~in da se kaè mo})i da ja napravi nedoprena od isku{enijata i neo-

phodnostite naGevalt-ot(Gewalt).Imaj}i go toa naum, ona {to sekoj politi~ki subjekt mora da go vos-postavi e eden vid vnatre{na distanca od nasil-stvoto, na~in toa da se misli i meri kako poten-cijalna posledica od negovite temelni na~ela iaksiomi bez nekoga{ da go napravi konstitutivno(ili, u{te polo{o, da go pretvori vo Realnoto) zanegoviot identitet, nitu, pak, vo nego da go gleda iz-nudeniot dokaz deka navistina go smenil svetot.

Prevod od angliski jazik: Ognen emerski



23/30


24/30

32

8. See Bosteels, Post-Maoism, for the details of Badiouspolitical engagement and for a theoretical analysis ofits grounds and repercussions. It is worth noting thatBosteelss continuationist hypothesis has affected Badiouhimself, who has put his work once again under the aegisof materialist dialectics, see Alain Badiou, Democraticmaterialism and the materialist dialectic, RadicalPhilosophy, 130 (2005).

9. Alain Badiou, Thorie du sujet(Paris: Seuil, 1982), 62-65,

with reference to Marxs and Lenins distinct estimationsof the Paris Commune. As far as Badious periodisation

of the shifting context for his own political militancy and(meta)political theory, I refer the reader to the Preface tothe English Edition, inMetapolitics, xxxiv-xxxv.

10. The key publications in this phase are the following:Lautonomie du processus esthtique, Cahiers Marxistes-Lninistes12-13 (1966): 77-89; Le (re)commencement dumatrialisme dialectique, Critique 240 (1967): 438-46;

Le Concept de modle. Introduction une pistemologiematerialiste des mathmatiques (Paris: F. Maspro,1969). The second of these pieces, a review ofPour Marx,Lire le capital and a further pamphlet by Althusser on thedialectic, already lays out the groundwork for a synthesis ofSartre and Althusser and pregures Badious mathematicalpredilections in terms of its concluding suggestionsregarding a theory of historical sets. The often unexpectedlinks between Sartre and Badiou on the relationshipbetween politics and mathematics have been impressively

investigated by Stathis Kouvelakis in his article on Badiouand Sartre in Srialit, actualit, vnement, notes sur laCritique de la raison dialectique in E. Kouvelakis and V.Charbonnier,Sartre, Lukcs, Althusser: des marxistes enphilosophie (Paris: PUF, 2005). Badious relationship toSartre is explored in Jean-Paul Sartre (Paris: Potemkine,

8. Za detalite vo vrska so politi~kiot anga`man naBadju i za teoriska analiza na negovite osnovi ireperkusii, vidi Bostils, "Post-maoizam" (Post-Mao-ism). Treba da se napomene deka kontinuisti~katahipoteza na Bostils se odrazila i vrz samiot Badju,koj svoeto delo povtorno go stavil pod zakrilata namaterijalisti~kata dijalektika, vidi Alen Badju,Demokratskiot materijalizam i materijalisti~katadijalektika, Radikalna filozofija (Alain Badiou,Democratic materialism and the materialist dialectic,Radical Philosophy130 (2005).

9. Alen Badju, Thorie du sujet (Paris: Seuil, 1982), 62-65, so osvrt na Marksovite i Leninovite oddelniocenki na Pariskata komuna. Vo odnos na Badjuovata

periodizacija na posmestuva~kiot kontekst za ne-govata sopstvena teorija na politi~ka militant-nost i (meta)politi~ka teorija, na ~itatelot mu goposo~uvamPreface to the English Edition, inMetapoli-tics, xxxiv-xxxv.

10. Glavni publikacii vo ovaa faza se:Lautonomie duprocessus esthtique, Cahiers Marxistes-Lninistes 12-13 (1966): 77-89; Le (re)commencement du matrialismedialectique, Critique 240 (1967): 438-46; Le Concept de

modle. Introduction une pistemologie materialistedes mathmatiques (Paris: F. Maspro, 1969). Vtoroto odovie dela, analizata naPour Marx, Lire le capital i naeden pamflet od Altiser, ve}e ja sozdava osnovata zasinteza na Sartr i Altiser i go navestuva oblikot namatemati~kite sklonosti na Badju vo smisla na krat-kite ukaùvawa {to gi sodrì vo vrska so edna teo-rija na istoriski sklopovi. estopati neo~ekuvanitevrski me|u Sartr i Badju za odnosot me|u politikatai matematikata vpe~atlivo gi istraùva Statis Kou-

velakis vo svojot tekst za Badju i Sartr vo Srialit,actualit, vnement, notes sur le Critique de la raisondialectique voE. Kouvelakis and V. Charbonnier,Sartre,Lukcs, Althusser: des marxistes en philosophie (Paris:PUF, 2005). Odnosot na Badju kon Sartr se istraùvavoJean-Paul Sartre (Paris: Potemkine, 1980), iSaisis-



25/30


33

Identities

1980), and Saisissement, dessaisie, dlit, Les TempsModernes, 531-533, vol. 1 (1990): 14-22.

11. For statements on his experience of 68, see Alain Badiou,Le sicle (Paris: Seuil, 2005), 178, and Bruno Bosteels,Can Change Be Thought?: A Dialogue with Alain Badiou,in Gabriel Riera (ed.), Alain Badiou: Philosophy and itsConditions(Albany: SUNY, 2005), 237-238.

12. See Toscano, Communism as Separation.

13. Alain Badiou, Thorie de la contradiction (Paris: F.Maspro, 1975).

14. Alain Badiou, Thorie du sujet(Paris: Seuil, 1982).15. Alain Badiou,Peut-on penser la politique?, 28.

16. Alain Badiou,Dun dsastre obscur. Sur la fn de la vritdtat(Paris: lAube, 1991), 15.

17. This evaluation of Badious work has been stronglycountered by Bruno Bosteels in The Speculative Left,The South Atlantic Quarterly, special issue Thinking

Politically, ed. A. Moreiras, 104.4 (2005): 751-767. Despiteits persuasive depiction of Badious resolute opposition,throughout his political and philosophical development,to rightist structuralist dogmatism and leftist spontaneistdecisionism, for the sake of a dialectic of scission (a themealso expanded upon in his article on Post-Maoism),Bosteels fails to contend with the problematic erasure ofthe critique of political economy from the eld of Badiousthinking, and seems to propose that Marxism can continuein the absence of such a reference. It is a fallacy, I believe,

to argue that a rigorous aversion to leftism (which isdenitely present in Badious work, and which Bosteelspresents brilliantly) sufces to retain the reference toMarxism. Having said that, Badiou does seem to propose akind of minimalMarxism, articulated around the conceptof the factory as event site, in a chapter excised from the

sement, dessaisie, dlit,Les Temps Modernes, 531-533,vol. 1 (1990): 14-22.

11. Za iskazi vo vrska so negovoto doìvuvawe na 68,vidiAlain Badiou,Le sicle(Paris: Seuil, 2005), 178, andBruno Bosteels, Can Change Be Thought?: A Dialoguewith Alain Badiou, in Gabriel Riera (ed.), Alain Badiou:Philosophy and its Conditions (Albany: SUNY, 2005),237-238.

12. Vidi Toscano, Communism as Separation.

13. Alain Badiou, Thorie de la contradiction (Paris: F. Mas-pro, 1975).

14. Alain Badiou, Thorie du sujet(Paris: Seuil, 1982).15. Alain Badiou,Peut-on penser la politique?, 28..

16. Alain Badiou,Dun dsastre obscur. Sur la fn de la vritdtat(Paris: lAube, 1991), 15.

17. Na vakvata ocenka za deloto na Badju silno se spro-tistavi Bruno Bostils vo tekstot Spekulativnata le-vica, objaven vo posebnoto izdanie naThe South At-

lantic Quarterly, nasloveno kako Thinking Politically,ed. A. Moreiras, 104.4 (2005): 751-767. I pokraj toa {tovo tekstot ubedlivo se oslikuva kako Badju vo tekot naceliot svoj politi~ki i filosofski razvojcvrsto sesprotistavuva na desni~arskiot strukturalisti~kidogmatizam i levi~arskiot spontanisti~ki decizio-nizam, vo ime na nekakva dijalektika na razdvojuvawe(tema {to isto taka ja razvi vo svojata statija za Post-Maoizmot), Bostils ne se fa}a vo kostec so toa {to odpoleto na Badjuovoto razmisluvawe problemati~no se

bri{e kritikata na politi~kata ekonomija, pa kakoda veli deka marksizmot moè da prodolì vo otsus-tvo na takva referenca. Ednostavno, smetam deka ezabluda da se tvrdi deka nekakva kruta odbivnost konlevi~arstvoto (koja nesomneno postoi vo delata na Ba-dju, a koja Bostils bleskavo ja pretstavuva) e dovolna


26/30

34

nal publication of Being and Event. Whether this is afruitful avenue for considering his current (meta)politicalthinking remains to be evaluated. See Alain Badiou,Lusine comme site vnementiel, Le Perroquet62-62,1/4-6.

18. Alain Badiou, An Essential Philosophical Thesis: It isRight to Rebel Against the Reactionaries,positions: eastasia cultures critique 13.3 (2005): 669-677. This is anextract from Thorie de la contradiction.

19. Paul Sandevince, Les formes de conscience, Le perroquet42: 5-6.

20. Alain Badiou,Le sicle(Paris: Seuil, 2005).

21. In a kind of Heideggerian scherzo, Badiou writes of theextreme political weakness of an entire epoch, the Ma

Documents

20260614 Toscano Can Violence Be Thought Notes on Badiou and the Possibility of Marxist Politics