Skip to main content

Silvia Federici against accelerationism

In the opening lines of her "Caliban and the Witch" (Autonomedia, 2004) Federici writes: "Capitalism was the response of the feudal lords, the patrician merchants, the bishops and popes, to a centuries-long social conflict that, in the end, shook their power, and truly gave 'all the world a big jolt'. Capitalism was the counter-revolution that destroyed the possibilities that had emerged from the anti-feudal struggle - possibilities which, if realized, might have spared us of the immense destruction of lives and the natural environment that has marked he advance of capitalist relations worldwide." She argues that capitalism was a reactionary development that didn't represent any progress and didn't perform any revolution - the emergence of the bourgeois power was accepted by the established elites in order to keep some of their privileges going. Now, this remark challenges the very basis of accelerationism - which is, I take, the claim that capitalism was a move in the revolutionary direction (and therefore capitalism has something to teach about revolutions). In fact, Marx, Engels and other accelerationists have assumed that the flow of capital was progressive and therefore the direction to be preferred is one of flows that move faster. But Federici would have that the elimination of the common property of the land and other forces of production cannot be anything but regressive - capitalism cut people off their human and non-human environment producing poor proletarians out of peasants who where protected by their networks of family and land and therefore farther from poverty. Proletarization cannot be a revolution - it is a shake, but not all shake is a progressive move. It is not about defending the feudal system but rather to indicate how change was defective from the point of view of the peasants who struggled against it and who had some access to means of wealth - and whose lives were not always conceived around work.

To be sure, accelerationists can prefer to call attention to events like the French Revolution against the ancient régime. But this would do only if they consider only the overall end result of the process that indeed was packed with progressive and reactionary steps. Federici points rather towards the witch-hunt that took place in its peak some 150 years before. The destruction of witches, she argues, was a necessary condition for proletarization and an important elements to eliminate the seeds of dissent. In that context, a witchless society was a society of poverty. Federici helps to give insight to a non-accelerationist left: capitalism was just a bad reaction to the peasants' growing power.

That doesn't mean that it didn't open up other alternative routes for resistance or revolution, but it does mean that it cannot itself be a teacher of transgression. Maybe the accelerationist strategy can be seen as an appeal to the idea that we should get rid of all existing social ties in order to build new, so proletarization was a necessary evil. But such line has a blindspot: the ground zero cannot be reached, the proletarized individual is also a (social) product of power.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne