The Cultural Logic of Insurrection - Alden Wood

3
The Cultural Logic of
Insurrection
by Alden Wood
The Cultural Logic of Insurrection
by Alden Wood
2013
licensed under creative commons
Repartee
(an imprint of LBC Books)
Introduction 1
1 Critical Purity or Insurrectionary Agency:

The Culture Industry and The Coming Insurrection 19
2 Atonal Insurrection: Negation in the Work of

Arnold Schoenberg and The Invisible Committee 51
3 Deserting Empire, Deserting Humanism:

Anti-Humanist Critiques of the Individual, Absolute
Knowledge, Rationality, and History in Tiqqun’s
Introduction to Civil War 70
4 Power and the Development of Empire:

The Absolutist, Liberal, and Welfare State
and the Emergence of Biopower in Tiqqun’s
Introduction to Civil War 107
5 “The Annihilation of Nothingness”:

Tiqqun’s Transcendence of Nihilism Through
Nihilism, Georges Bataille’s Conception of
Death, and David McNally’s Living-Dead 147
6 The Poetics of Alienation: Gaston Bachelard’s

“The Dialectics of Outside and Inside”
and Tiqqun’s Theory of Bloom 169
7 The Politics of Transcending Traditional

Metaphysics: A Heideggerian Reading
of Tiqqun’s “What is Critical Metaphysics?” 199
Introduction
The contemporary developmental stage of late-
capitalism is undoubtedly within a period of in-
tense transition. The 21st century has witnessed
the shift to a post-Fordist understanding of capi-
talist economic and social relations. The critical
theorist Christian Marazzi argues that:
In the Post-Fordist New Economy the dis-
tinction between the real economy, in
which material and immaterial goods are
produced and sold, and the monetary-
financial economy, where the speculative
dimension dominates investor decisions,
must be totally reconceived. […] In the
New Economy language and communica-
tion are structurally and contemporane-
ously present throughout both the sphere
of the production and distribution of goods
and services and the sphere of finance, and
it is for this very reason that changes in
the world of work and modifications in the
financial markets must be seen as two
sides of the same coin.1
1 Marazzi, Violence of Financial Capitalism, p 14
1
Here in the post-Fordist historical para-
digm, financial capitalism, based on the specula-
tion and investment of capital in purely finan-
cial realms (ie non-material services), becomes
the dominant mode of profit accumulation. More
importantly, its own speculative language re-
flects back upon the material economy further
obscuring the actual economic machinations
present in such relations. Through the conflu-
ence of economies of scale, the hyper-specializa-
tion of production (and consumption), and the
exponential increase in the usage of new net-
worked information technologies, post-Fordist
financial capitalism marks an entirely different
social, economic, and historical paradigm in the
development of late-capitalism. As this new
conception of capitalism relegates antiquated in-
dustrialist renderings of capitalist exploitation
as largely irrelevant to this historical moment,
the politics aligned against capitalism in its gen-
eralized entirety has changed relatively little
since the 1970s.
The failure of the radical left to seriously
contest post-Fordist late-capitalism, has stulti-
fied its position and has frozen all anti-capitalist
rhetoric and discourse, pushing the left into a
self-reflexive circle that cannot escape its own
2
irrelevance. The anarchist slogans of yesteryear
to “smash the state” and the communist insis-
tence on viewing labor as the revolutionary sub-
ject all fail to see such revolutionary posturings
for what they are: mere anachronisms. Labor as
a definitive class with singular attributes no lon-
ger exists—and the failure of such a subjectiviz-
ing politics suggests that it indeed never existed.
To understand the state as something objective
and external to the perceiving subject is to ig-
nore the ways that the contemporary “welfare
state” has so thoroughly integrated its subjects
through affective measures and apparatuses that
the state now paradoxically reinforces its domi-
nation through its apparent disappearances and
liberalization. For all of these reasons and more,
the radical left today speaks a language of resis-
tance that is a paltry shadow of the rhetoric it
used to combat industrial capitalism, a project
which ultimately ended in dismal failure during
the late 1970s and early 1980s.
This unequivocal defeat has had serious
ramifications for the understanding of late-
capitalism as a social episteme in the 21st centu-
ry. First, politically, it appears on all fronts that
capitalism has triumphed. The specter of com-
munism no longer haunts the world and the
3
prophecies of thinkers like Francis Fukuyama
seem to have become manifest. Secondly, meta-
physically, this new stage of late-capitalism has
called into crisis the nature of being itself. As
commodity relations become totalizing, social
relations between individual beings become ob-
fuscated. The metaphysical nature of the world
appears in the Heideggerian sense as a represen-
tation—the “world as picture.” Post-Fordist late-
capitalism is accompanied by a de-realization of
the world, and subsequently a marked disjunc-
tion between meaning and life. The metaphysics
of post-Fordist late-capitalism finds its historical
precedents in the rationalism of post-
Enlightenment thought. Capitalism as a mod-
ernist invention, with its incessant need to pro-
liferate and accumulate, is the logical extension
of Enlightenment thinking as embodied by its
progressive historicism, entrenching of the “sub-
ject” and “subjecthood,” and its attempts to ra-
tionalize the experience of being and quantify
the whole of the world itself. Thus, post-Fordist
late-capitalism operates on two distinct but mu-
tually dependent planes. It depends on the my-
thology of its unquestioned dominance as well
as the way that life and being itself within this
stage of late-capitalism has become fundamen-
4
tally altered. Thus, given this context, positing
anticapitalist alterities in the 21st century is no
longer merely a question of politics; instead, it is
a political question that is also explicitly meta-
physical in character.
Enter Tiqqun and The Invisible Com-
mittee. In the midst of a period in anticapital-
ist history largely preoccupied with the anti/
alterglobablization movement, which saw its
most significant manifestation in the “sum-
mit protests” against the International Mon-
etary Fund and the World Trade Organization
in Seattle in 1999 and Genoa in 2001, a journal
of radical political philosophy called Tiqqun
emerged from France. Largely unconcerned with
the anti-globalization movement, the two issues
of Tiqqun represent a unique emergence of politi-
cal and philosophical thought addressing capital-
ism as it is in its post-Fordist late-capitalist incar-
nation, something that very little communist or
anarchist theory was doing at the time. After the
1999 publication of Tiqqun: Conscious Organ of
the Imaginary Party—Exercises in Critical Meta-
physics and the 2001 publication of Tiqqun: Or-
gan of Liaison within the Imaginary Party—Zone
of Offensive Opacity the group dissolved in 2001.
In 2007 a group in France calling itself The Invis-
5
ible Committee published The Coming Insurrec-
tion, a reference to Giorgio Agamben’s The Com-
ing Community. The Invisible Committee and
Tiqqun are distinct but interrelated theoretical
projects, as a few individuals that were involved
with Tiqqun went on to write as The Invisible
Committee. After the Semiotext(e) English trans-
lation and publication of The Coming Insurrection
in 2007 and the subsequent Semiotext(e) transla-
tions/publications of longer essays culled from
the two original journals, Introduction to Civil
War, This is Not a Program, and Preliminary Ma-
terials for a Theory of the Young-Girl, Tiqqun and
The Invisible Committee developed a wider read-
ership in the English-speaking world of radical
political theory, anarchism, and left-communism.
Paradoxically, both Tiqqun and The In-
visible Committee are deeply indebted to the po-
litical theory and continental philosophy that
clearly inform their writing, but also decisively
break with much of this thought as well, through
a relentless critical evaluation of such work. Re-
freshingly, they appropriate certain theoretical
concepts and ideas from thinkers and schools of
thought before them—taking what they find
valuable to their own unique argument while
abandoning the rest. In this sense, Tiqqun and
6
The Invisible Committee, while clearly informed
by academic discourses (such as traditional
metaphysics, theories of sovereignty, the study
of biopolitics and disciplinary practices, etc), are
staunchly defiant of the academy’s monopoly
over political thought. It is at once an appropria-
tion, recontextualization, and ultimately a liber-
ation of certain theoretical concepts from the
tautological trap of academia and their subse-
quent projection into the world. In this way,
Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee represent a
critical synthesis of thinking as disparate and di-
verse as anarchist thought, Italian autonomist-
Marxism from the 1970s, French ultra-gauche
communism, the squatter’s movement in Europe
in the 1980s, and the Situationist International.
Their most obvious appropriations from conti-
nental philosophy and traditional political theo-
ry include: Giorgio Agamben’s use of the “what-
ever singularity,” apparatuses, and the idea of
“being-in-common”; Gilles Deleuze and Felix
Guattari’s concept of the “war machine” and rhi-
zomatic networks; Martin Heidegger’s critique
of traditional metaphysics and his hermeneutics
of Being; Alain Badiou’s ontology of the “event”;
Georges Bataille’s transgression and nihilism;
Carl Schmitt’s political theology and work on
7
sovereignty; and Walter Benjamin’s thought on
messianic history and “divine violence.” For the
purposes of this study however, the most impor-
tant concepts Tiqqun and The Invisible Commit-
tee have appropriated from continental philoso-
phy are Michel Foucault’s “biopower,” Antonio
Negri’s “Empire,” and Guy Debord’s “Spectacle.”
Each of these concepts reappears throughout
this study.
Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee use
Foucault’s concept of “biopower” to identify the
constellation of technologies, methodologies,
and apparatuses of post-Fordist late-capitalism
that quite literally control whole populations of
individual bodies. Biopower here is a disciplinary
mode of domination framed entirely within the
affirmative; it is concerned with fostering life
through its very management. Thus, institutions
that deal with birth, death, medicine, public
health, risk evaluation and management are all
operating as a means of exerting control and
subjugation through the rational and empirical
management of biological life-itself. This form of
subjugation, as opposed to disciplinary practices
that are clearly punitive and life-threatening, is
the modus operandi for post-Fordist late-capital-
ism, as the management and maintenance of life-
8
itself becomes the securing of labor productivity,
the maximization of labor efficiency, and the pro-
longation of capitalism.
Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee’s
use of Negri’s concept of “Empire” eschews tra-
ditional modernist interpretations of imperial-
ism or nationalism in favor of a postmodern to-
talizing control that supersedes all pretensions
to difference in ideology, difference in political
structuring, and difference amongst nation-
states. Instead, Empire is the liquidation of such
political differences in favor of a totalizing con-
trol of society or civilization itself, in which all
social relations are completely subsumed by
post-Fordist late-capitalism. Tiqqun and The In-
visible Committee use this term to point to the
failures of political organizing based on the idea
that controlling a nation-state through socialist
means is an effective attack against the global
hegemony of post-Fordist late-capitalism. This
criticality argues that even so-called “socialist”
or “social-democratic” welfare-states are merely
aspects of Empire as a whole, and any argu-
ments that such nation-states are fundamental-
ly more just or better than more autocratic na-
tion-states are largely irrelevant. Empire points
to the reality underneath the persistent myth of
9
the nation-state in a postmodern age, as it fun-
damentally argues that through the expansion
of economic interdependency (multinational
corporations), the rhizomatic proliferation of
global communication and governmental con-
trol (supra-national organizations that trace
their lineage to the Bretton Woods conference),
and the unquestioned dominance of capitalist
ideology and its commensurate social relations—
there are no longer any insularities of isolation-
ist non-capitalist existence. This line of thinking
provides only one exit: the complete negation of
Empire in its totality.
Finally, Tiqqun and The Invisible Com-
mittee’s use of Debord’s concept of the “Spec-
tacle” is a condition of society in which com-
modity-relations (as first outlined by Marx)
completely supplant and obfuscate the social-
relations interred within them. The Spectacle is
the condition that arises in society when au-
thentic social relations have been replaced by
mere representation. It is the complete realiza-
tion of commodity fetishism, a totalizing view
of “the social,” in which relations between peo-
ple have been supplanted by relations between
things. This in turn leads to individual and col-
lective alienation and the obliteration of au-
10
thenticity. It also complicates temporality itself,
as the historicity within the Spectacle is reduced
to an eternal present—with no sense of the fu-
ture or past. The Spectacle is the form of social
existence, in which social relations are entirely
mediated by images and representation.
This study finds both its impetus and lo-
cus at this point, in exploring the image and rep-
resentation of life itself within post-Fordist late-
capitalism. This study starts from the premise
that culture cannot be separated from politics. If,
as Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee argue,
under Empire, biopower, and the Spectacle, the
metaphysical character of life has thoroughly
changed, then the evaluation of its concomitant
cultural forms must necessarily change as well.
This study aims at viewing Tiqqun and The In-
visible Committee in relation to the production
and evaluation of cultural forms from the con-
temporary historical vantage point of post-
Fordist late-capitalism.
The body of work that this study will
examine suggests that prefigurative politics is
unable to provide any real way to understand
life after capitalism. This study is simultane-
ously an engagement with the past and an elu-
cidation of the conditions in the present that if
11
actualized can, or as Tiqqun and The Invisible
Committee argue will, bring about the possibil-
ity of a future—an exodus from capitalist nihil-
ism. This study examines the possibility of tran-
scendence and the cultural forms where we can
see such potentiality. This study is comprised of
a series of theoretical interactions and intersec-
tions, for it is precisely through such acts that
the possibility of transcending capitalism be-
gins to be manifest. Each of the seven chapters
deal with a particular interaction between
Tiqqun or The Invisible Committee and other
cultural forms—mostly theoretical or philo-
sophical. This project of engaging Tiqqun and
The Invisible Committee with other cultural,
theoretical, and philosophical works is intend-
ed to show that while the oeuvre of Tiqqun and
The Invisible Committee seems to mark a de-
finitive break with much previous radical po-
litical theory, their thought depends on the
critical evaluation, synthesis, and appropria-
tion of earlier theorizations of existence within
capitalism. As this is necessarily the case for all
theory, it also allows for a reading of earlier
theory in which the seeds of insurrection lay
dormant, waiting for the right conditions for
their ruptural emergence—and what better con-
12
ditions than ours, here at the “end of history”?
Each chapter herein is to be taken as an
equal contribution to the analysis of a constella-
tion of insurrectional tendencies that begin to
emerge in the examples of cultural works juxta-
posed against writings by Tiqqun and The Invis-
ible Committee. If cultural forms are always nec-
essarily bound and contextualized by the larger
historico-political moment from which they
emerge, then this study underscores earlier the-
oretical and cultural thought (whether it belongs
to Benjamin, Heidegger, Adorno, Foucault, or
even someone like Arnold Schoenberg) that pos-
sesses mirrored reflections of the ruptural pos-
sibility of a future after the concurrent negation
and transcendence of capitalism. These ruptural
possibilities permeate the aesthetics, theory, and
philosophy in the body of work analyzed in this
study—and the evaluation of the contemporary
moment by Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee
finds itself being similarly articulated in what
prove to be commensurate antecedents.
In encountering the fundamental finite
limits to both the progress of late-capitalist de-
velopment and the failures and limits of anti-
capitalist struggle, a series of questions (mate-
rial, economic, and metaphysical) arise for
13
Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee. The sec-
ondary aim of this study is exploring the limita-
tions of the thinking of Tiqqun and The Invisi-
ble Committee’s, by placing them in conversation
with other theory, philosophy, and cultural
works, specifically those of Schoenberg, Ador-
no, Horkheimer, Foucault, Bataille, Benjamin,
Bachelard, Heidegger, and Nietzsche. All such
criticality and skepticism issues from a position
of evaluation, sympathetic to and commensu-
rate with the trajectory of thought demonstrat-
ed in Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee. Ide-
ally, such juxtaposition will address, critique,
and ultimately supplement (by buttressing their
work through resonances with earlier theories)
the flaws or unresolved problems within the
thinking of Tiqqun and The Invisible Commit-
tee. This study makes no pretensions as to “fill
the gaps in,” but to explore the “unresolvable”
within Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee as a
worthwhile political project—as this study does
with the explicit hope of refining a theory
(through its critical evaluation) that is explicitly
inclined toward action.
One irreconcilable problem arising in
the work of Tiqqun and The Invisible Commit-
tee is the idea that a categorical dismissal of pre-
14
figurative politics and any semblance of revolu-
tionary agency tends toward a position of critical
purity. For Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee,
localization of struggle means nothing in this
context unless it becomes a totalizing force ca-
pable of both the negation and transcendence of
capitalist relations in its entirety (ie expanded
beyond purely economic relations to social and
metaphysical relations as well). They seem to
have no qualms with the mystical undertones in
their own “cleansing” hermeneutics, and this of-
ten forces them into a fallacy of exhaustive hy-
potheses. An exploration of the way in which,
through their own pretensions towards totaliza-
tion, this position lends itself to a certain obsti-
nacy tempered by false dichotomization is taken
up in Chapter 1: “Critical Purity or Insurrection-
ary Agency: The Culture Industry and The Com-
ing Insurrection.”
The contradictions embedded within a
subject-less conception of collective agency
based on ethical similarities is dealt with in
Chapter 5: “‘The Annihilation of Nothingness’:
Tiqqun’s Transcendence of Nihilism Through
Nihilism, Georges Bataille’s Conception of
Death, and David McNally’s Living-Dead.”
Another major problem is the conclu-
15
sion that Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee
ultimately arrive at through their critiques of
the “revolutionary subject,” the process of sub-
jectification (subjectivation), and subject-hood
itself. While such critiques are by no means
original (their debt to anti-humanist philosophy
is made explicit in Chapter 3: “Deserting Em-
pire, Deserting Humanism: Anti-Humanist Cri-
tiques of the Individual, Absolute Knowledge,
Rationality, and History in Tiqqun’s Introduc-
tion to Civil War”), their condensing the subject
to a non-subject, a mere “ethical inclination” or
“form-of-life,” calls attention to the necessity of a
new language and metaphysics of insurrection.
Yet, the problem in this becomes readily appar-
ent. By arguing that such a new language and
metaphysics is at once the cause and the result
of the insurrectionary negation of Empire (and
its concomitant forms of power dynamics and
social relations), envisaging such a break—both
ruptural and restorative—and such a non-
subject becomes incredibly difficult within the
material particulars of the present moment; a
moment that they argue is fully mediated by
late-capitalist domination. This problematiza-
tion of exteriority and internality is taken up in
Chapter 6: “The Poetics of Alienation: Gaston
16
Bachelard’s ‘The Dialectics of Outside and In-
side’ and Tiqqun’s Theory of Bloom.” The prob-
lems that arise in this kind of critical evaluation
of Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee almost
all have to do with the explicit metaphysical
characterization of their polemic. In their insis-
tence on the immediacy involved in the realiza-
tion of communism in the here and now, a cer-
tain ethos of immanence seems to manifest.
This is problematized by Tiqqun and The Invisi-
ble Committee’s insistence that their anti-
program program is transcendent in its very
nature (in the Benjaminian sense). This prob-
lematization of the relationship between tran-
scendence and immanence in an explicitly
metaphysical context is taken up in Chapter 7:
“The Politics of Transcending Traditional Meta-
physics: A Heideggerian Reading of Tiqqun’s
‘What is Critical Metaphysics?’”
Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee ul-
timately posit an understanding of post-Fordist
late-capitalist power dynamics which eschews
any logic of revolutionary programs, orthodoxy,
and prefigurative politics. While some may crit-
icize as naïvely tautological their insistence that
only an insurrectionary rupture with the pres-
ent whole of “commodity modernity” or Empire
17
can transcend the misery of everyday life with-
in capitalism, it nonetheless is the case that their
analysis of the contemporary moment presents
an incredibly insightful and poignant under-
standing of how capitalism has evolved. Their
elucidation of the precise ways that the terrain
of late-capitalism has changed in the 21st centu-
ry takes on culturally evaluative dimensions.
My larger purpose is to focus explicitly on the
ways that we can read Tiqqun and The Invisible
Committee’s political analysis as a critical eval-
uation of life and thought within 21st century
capitalism.
18
1
Critical Purity or
Insurrectionary Agency:
The Culture Industry and
The Coming Insurrection
While the Frankfurt School’s essentially pessi-
mistic view precludes any sort of prescriptive
action against the totality of late-capitalism, The
Invisible Committee have arrived at different
evaluative positions regarding resistance to the
totality of late-capitalism. The Invisible Commit-
tee claims that it is possible to act against what
they call Empire (appropriating and elaborating
upon the term coined by Italian autonomist-
Marxist theorist Antonio Negri). While Frank-
furt School theorists like Theodor Adorno have
argued that the sociohistorical moment in which
capitalism could be effectively subverted on
purely materialist terms has already come and
gone, The Invisible Committee argue for a form
of immediate communism that is at its core part
of an explicitly insurrectionary practice. The In-
visible Committee’s analysis of the totalizing
19
control of late-capitalist social relations is very
similar to that of the Frankfurt School, but the
Committee goes further, as they posit new forms
of collective agency that arise out of immediate
and direct contestation with the sociopolitical
apparatuses of Empire.
In their 1947 book, Dialectic of Enlight-
enment, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno
assign political significance to the myriad of ap-
paratuses responsible for the commodification
of mass culture. This demarcation of a produc-
tive, and inherently capitalistic, intent behind
the construction of culture itself takes Marx’s
theories on the socioeconomic ramifications of
rampant industrialization, and transposes them
onto the cultural plane. It is a totalizing view de-
nying any authenticity within mass culture.
Their term for this homogenizing and mechanis-
tic process is the “culture industry:” a network
of apparatuses that are essentially the compo-
nents of commodity-driven entertainment
markets. For Max Horkheimer and Theodor
Adorno, the ways that individual consumers are
marketed to prove to be just as relevant as how
the classic proletarian has her/his labor-value
exploited by the bourgeoisie. In their work on
the culture industry, Horkheimer and Adorno
20
recontextualize mass culture and its artifices as
a legitimate site of contestation against late-
capitalist hegemony.
Taking Horkheimer and Adorno’s claim
that “the whole world is made to pass through
the filter of the culture industry”2, The Invisible
Committee, in their notorious 2007 treatise, The
Coming Insurrection, explicitly acknowledge a
political climate in which “the present offers no
way out”.3 They describe a world where the cul-
ture industry’s fabrication of existence has ex-
tended into almost every facet of lived experi-
ence, creating a social environment that is at
once a complete spectacle and hostile to authen-
tic collectivity. In response to this proliferation
of fabricated mass culture, The Invisible Com-
mittee argues that “there will be no social solu-
tion to the present situation”4—and thus, they
argue that the only recourse is insurrection.
The Invisible Committee takes the post-
Marxist line first argued by the Frankfurt School
to its logical conclusion. The fabrication and
mass commodification of cultural forms within
2 Horkheimer, and Adorno. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment

as Mass Deception, 1226
3 The Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection, 23
4 ibid 25
21
the amalgamated mass of productive social net-
works that is the culture industry has become
not merely a prevalent force within the lived ex-
perience of late-capitalism, but the totality of ex-
perience itself. The Invisible Committee argues
that individuals are fully implicated within a rhi-
zomatic structuring of exchange relations (eco-
nomic and social), within which flow relations of
consumption, production, and most importantly,
power. This is very similar to Horkheimer and
Adorno’s notion that within the culture industry
and late-capitalism as a whole, “something is
provided for all so that none may escape; the dis-
tinctions are emphasized and extended.”5 There is
no longer an effective “outside” to this totality of
the culture industry and perhaps even the idea of
culture itself is a completely constructed notion
entirely delineated by late-capitalism. The Invis-
ible Committee argues that even movements,
activist-oriented or otherwise, that ostensibly at-
tack the pervasive hegemony of late-capitalist
ideology and social relations are merely aspects
of this totalizing nature of the Spectacle (in the
sense of the word as used by Situationist theorist
Guy Debord). In addition, while such movements
occupy the affective representation of being po-
5 op cit, The Culture Industry, 1225
22
sitionalities against late-capitalist relations, in
this critical view they merely end up reifying the
dominance of late-capitalist Empire.
Such a critical view of alter-identities
can be read at both the macro-political level and
the individual-subject level. At the macro-politi-
cal level, The Invisible Committee adopts a line
similar to most post-Marxist theoretical strains,
albeit with a much more cynical tone: denounc-
ing the idea that the so-called “socialist bloc”
was a political positionality aligned against late-
capitalist ideology. They claim that the
collapse of the socialist bloc was in no way
a victory of capitalism; it was merely the
breakdown of one of the forms capitalism
takes. Besides, the demise of the USSR did
not come about because a people revolted,
but because the nomenklatura was under-
going a changeover.6
Thus, The Invisible Committee’s essentially nega-
tive critique of the supposedly oppositional posi-
tion represented by the “socialist bloc” in the
historical schema of late-capitalist development
argues that such “socialist” regimes as those in
Russia, China, or Cuba, were/are merely other
incarnations of the structural forms late-
6 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 66
23
capitalism can take. Their claim that the fall of
the USSR came about not because of Western
capitalism’s supremacy, but because of internal
fissures in the privileged caste of Communist
Party functionaries (nomenklatura), underscores
the way that representation and signification
function within The Invisible Committee’s inher-
ently anti-postmodern conception of the politi-
cal landscape. They argue that all political per-
suasions are actually late-capitalist constructions.
The Invisible Committee’s second cri-
tique of positions that claim to oppose the hege-
monic discourse of late-capitalism is at the level
of the individual subject. They claim that almost
all individual subject-based identities that po-
lemically assert their alterity are actually falla-
cies already reified and circumscribed by late-
capitalism at their very creation. Implicit in this
claim is that late-capitalist Empire already con-
tains within it, or at best allows and tolerates, in-
dividual subjectivities that claim to be outside its
influence. To show that such subject-positions
are actually not revolutionary at all, they point
to the “negative growth” movement in contem-
porary France. “Negative growth” (décroissance)
is
a French left-ecological movement which
24
advocates a reduction in consumption and
production for the sake of environmental
sustainability and an improvement in the
quality of life.7
Similar to the “deep ecology” movement in the
United States, The Invisible Committee critiques
“negative growth” as a move away from the clas-
sical Marxist conception of economics “as a sci-
ence” to seeing it now “as a morality”8—both of
which The Invisible Committee derides equally.
Whereas the failed projects of the social-
ist bloc were grounded in the belief of Marxist-
Leninism’s empirical objectivity, The Invisible
Committee claims that these positions of false-
consciousness have now invaded the discourse
around what constitutes an appropriate ethical
position toward the destructive nature of Em-
pire. They argue that these positions turn into “a
masquerade”9, dangerously asserting that one
can effectively challenge and overcome the hor-
rors of life under Empire by making correct
moral choices of consumption—in short, through
subtle lifestyle shifts. The Invisible Committee
argues that the culture industry encourages this
fallacy through such polemic utterances as the
7 ibid, 68
8 ibid, 68
9 ibid, 68
25
following:
There is only one alternative to the coming
apocalypse: reduce growth. Consume and
produce less. Become joyously frugal. Eat
organic, ride your bike, stop smoking, and
pay close attention to the products you
buy. Be content with what’s strictly neces-
sary. Voluntary simplicity.10
This creates new subject-identities in reaction to
the progressive linearity of the historical pro-
cess, nostalgic glances to a more harmonious
past, romantically tied to the idyllic belief in the
absolute dichotomy between the metropolis and
nature, and informing what is inherently a mor-
alist position. The Invisible Committee critiques
this ahistorical, moralizing view, arguing that
Any exhortation to return to the past is
only the expression of one form of con-
sciousness of the present, and rarely the
least modern. […] It is part of the forced
march towards a modernized economy.
Capitalism got as much as it could from un-
doing all the old social ties, and it is now in
the process of remaking itself by rebuilding
these same ties on its own terms. [...] This
new humanity requires a new economy
10 ibid, 69
26
that would no longer be a separate sphere
of existence but, rather, its very tissue, the
raw materials of human relations.11
Thus, for The Invisible Committee, capitalism is
at a stage of development in which all pre-
capitalist social relations have been completely
recuperated and appropriated by its own totality.
The notions of an authentic non-capital-
ist community or a non-capitalist subject cannot
even be constituted in the hostile terrain of this
social existence. The Invisible Committee argues
that the totality of capitalism is now in the pro-
cess of reconstituting, and in effect creating, new
social relations that are entirely fabricated con-
structions flowing from speculative conceptions
of what pre-capitalist relations looked like. The
term they use for this new and diffuse recontex-
tualization of the social is the “bioeconomy”—a
term that
requires a new definition of work as work
on oneself, a new definition of capital as
human capital, a new idea of production as
the production of relations, and consump-
tion as the consumption of situations; and
above all a new idea of value that would
11 ibid, 70-71
27
encompass all of the qualities of beings.12
Here, The Invisible Committee evokes Michel
Foucault’s conceptual work on biopower.
For Foucault biopower is the way in
which systems of power (and the institutions
that are a part of these systems) attempt to liter-
ally control bodies (the term “body” being used
here instead of the much more philosophically
loaded term “individual”). Foucault claims that
the “function of these institutions of subjuga-
tion was that of controlling not the time of indi-
viduals but simply their bodies”.13 If older con-
ceptions of power aimed at the control of bodies
through physical coercion such as slave-labor
or threats of death or imprisonment, biopower
functions by guaranteeing an individual’s right
to existence. Thus, individuals are beholden to a
psychology that ultimately imprisons them
within a false sense of individual agency. These
systems grant just enough of a semblance of
agency to individuals to allow these individuals
to arise every day, exchange their physical or
intellectual labor in return for the economic
means to enter into the “choices” purportedly
offered by commodity culture and the culture
industry. These systems also affirm the tacit
12 ibid, 71
13 Foucault, Michel. Power. Ed. James D. Faubion, 78
28
way in which the young girl is completely so-
cialized within patriarchal hegemony, to where
even the most marginal freedoms along lines of
gender “equity” are seen as meaningful strides
towards some nebulous conception of universal
human rights. All of these are manifestations of
biopower and the way in which it exerts control
over the material existence of bodies.
Foucault, and The Invisible Committee af-
ter him, argue that the aim of the institutions
forming this rhizome of power-relations—the
“factories, schools, psychiatric hospitals, pris-
ons”—is not “to exclude, but rather, to attach
individuals”.14 It is precisely through this attach-
ment, or the creation and maintenance of affec-
tive ties, that late-capitalist power relations exert
control on individual bodies. These ties that im-
plicate individuals within a mediated environ-
ment of totalizing control are more coercive than
the classical conception of hierarchical power
relations because individual and collective exis-
tence is predicated on what is granted to the in-
dividual—thus, it is not a power that prevents
agency, but rather, it is one that allows. The Invis-
ible Committee argues the
attachment of the French to the state—the
14 ibid, 78
29
guarantor of universal values, the last ram-
part against the disaster—is a pathology
that is difficult to undo. It’s above all a fic-
tion that no longer knows how to carry on.15
Thus, these affective ties created by the complex
web of apparatuses that inscribe control onto
the bodies of individuals are nonetheless real fic-
tions, in the sense that the results they produce
are often material indicators of coercion and op-
pression (imprisonment, murder, poverty, etc).
Conversely, they are fictions in the sense that
the interdependent existence of the control-
apparatuses that implicate individuals seems so
totalizing only because it is the context in which
most individuals are socialized; it is not the only
context imaginable.
This notion of biopower is a marked
shift within the power-relations of confinement,
which initially as Foucault argues “excluded in-
dividuals from the social circle,” but now has
“the function of attaching individuals to the pro-
ducer’s apparatuses of production, training, re-
form, or correction”.16 Thus, inclusion, toleration,
and acceptance by these social apparatuses does
not constitute reformist success (ie the liberal

16 op cit, Power, 78
30
notion of “speaking truth to power”), but rather
a totalizing recuperation into late-capitalist
schema. If resistance is tolerated, it is recuper-
ated. If it is recuperated it is not actually resis-
tance. Thus, for The Invisible Committee insur-
rection is a means to effectively destroy all the
affective ties that biopower exerts onto individ-
ual and collective bodies.
Another aspect of The Invisible Commit-
tee’s critique of late-capitalist Empire is ground-
ed in the idea that the codification of existence
happens along geospatial lines. Informing this
argument is a strong critique of the very notion
of ecology and the environment itself. They
claim that as a system of signification, and sub-
sequently control, “ecology is the discovery of
the decade”.17 Thus, the incessant clamoring
about the ecological perils that the entire world
collectively faces are actually a part of a more
nuanced discourse—namely that the practices
resulting in environmental devastation and the
ostensible solutions to said devastation are not
mutually at odds, but rather, mutually interde-
pendent. Taking this claim to its furthest limits,
The Invisible Committee asserts that “there is no
‘environmental catastrophe.’ The catastrophe is
31
the environment itself”.18 For The Invisible Com-
mittee, “environment” is the lack, the absence, of
anything with even a modicum of dynamism.
Their use of the term denotes a sterile stasis
within certain modernized locales that seems to
be the effective denial of desire, which Hork-
heimer and Adorno argue is central to the mach-
inations of the culture industry.
Horkheimer and Adorno gesture toward
this more totalizing schematization of spatial
materiality itself when they argue that
in every product of the culture industry,
the permanent denial imposed by civiliza-
tion is once again unmistakably demon-
strated and inflicted on its victims. To offer
and to deprive them of something is one
and the same.19
It is only when the culture industry’s homoge-
nizing impulse expands through diffuse conduits
(ie biopower) into every facet of everyday life
does existence itself become a complete deferral,
a total deprivation of desire. The Invisible Com-
mittee claims that
it’s only we, the children of the final dis-
possession, exiles of the final hour—who

32
come into the world in concrete cubes,
pick our fruits at the supermarket, and
watch for an echo of the world on televi-
sion—only we get to have an environment.20
Ecology here becomes a system of signification,
a means to re-present an absence. If one is will-
ing to accept this claim, it follows that ecology
is a construction of Empire—and if it is a means
to deny or obfuscate an inherent lack, then as
The Coming Insurrection posits: “Ecology isn’t
simply the logic of a total economy; it’s the new
morality of capital”.21 Ecology’s system of con-
trol is its moralizing appeal as authority. It be-
comes merely another system within the rhi-
zomatic totality of systemic control and
institutionalized social relations that The Invis-
ible Committee calls Empire.
Appeals to ecology as a natural neutrali-
ty merely mask the way in which ecology can act
as an almost divine notion, which by its very ex-
istence precludes any objection to it. When ecol-
ogy is granted carte blanche, the coercive quali-
ties of late-capitalism can effectively occupy
ostensibly neutral or non-discursive positions
that nullify all contestation. In effect, ecology be-

21 ibid, 74
33
comes the perfect cover for the expansion of
late-capitalist control into new modes of being.
Without ecology, nothing would have
enough authority to gag every objection
to the exorbitant progress of control. […]
Everything is permitted to a power struc-
ture that bases its authority in Nature, in
health and in well-being.22
Thus, in the same way that monarchical control
justified itself in the doctrine of divine-right, or
the welfare-state saw itself as the logical out-
come of Enlightenment values, late-capitalist
Empire can use ecology as one of many appeals
to secure its hegemonic position. Just as Hork-
heimer and Adorno are adamant in their distrust
of post-Enlightenment progress, The Invisible
Committee interrogates ecology’s neutrality
and positive-moralism through the argument
that capitalism occupies both poles of a dialogic
binary that is not actually at odds with itself.
The Invisible Committee presents a view of late-
capitalism as both the perpetuation of conflict,
crisis, and contradiction, and the subsequent
management and normalization of this seem-
ingly chaotic state.
To challenge this systemic management,
22 ibid, 78
34
at least in terms of ecology, The Invisible Com-
mittee argues that
everything about the environmentalists’
discourse must be turned upside-down.
Where they talk of ‘catastrophes’ to label
the present system’s mismanagement of
beings and things, we only see the catas-
trophe of its all too perfect operation.23
Here again, one must ask whether signification
within an entirely constructed social reality can
indicate anything beyond this social-field. Ulti-
mately, The Invisible Committee believes that
this is indeed possible, and it is precisely through
these spaces of catastrophe or rupture that a new
collective-becoming can be manifested. They
claim that,
what is called ‘catastrophe’ is no more
than the forced suspension of this state,
one of those rare moments when we re-
gain some sort of presence in the world.24
Thus, for The Invisible Committee, the question
of How is it to be done? is not answered by the
creation of new alternatives (ie alter-political
movements or organizational building) to man-
age and suspend environmental and social “ca-
23 ibid, 80
24 ibid, 81
35
tastrophes” but rather, how to exacerbate them
to the point of completely negating late-
capitalism’s ability to manage this chaos. This is
the moment of insurrection: the new ontologies
arising from catastrophe where
we are forced to reestablish contact, albeit
a potentially fatal one, with what’s there,
to rediscover the rhythms of reality.25
In response to the social context of Empire,
The Invisible Committee argues that insurrec-
tion is the only possible recourse. Before at-
tempting to analyze the term “insurrection” as
an ontological construction, one must first un-
derstand how The Invisible Committee’s use of
the term refers to a set of specific practices and
actions. The Coming Insurrection is a two-
pronged polemic. The first half is an evaluation
of the current socio-political context of late-
capitalist Empire, while the latter half is a pre-
scriptive summary of the variety of positions
the pro-insurrectionary can hold. The first half
is divided into chapters titled as numbered cir-
cles. This allusion to Dante Alighieri’s nine cir-
cles of hell is significant, as is that fact that the
chapter demarcation stops at the Seventh Cir-
cle—in Dante’s Inferno, the circle of violence—
25 ibid, 82
36
and goes no further. This implies that the con-
temporary social moment has not yet moved
beyond the violent Seventh Circle; suggesting
that the insurrectionary moment (that of new
ontological truth) must necessarily be born from
a totality of violence. After the seven circles of
descriptive evaluation, the narrative becomes a
nuanced primer for insurrection. The four final
chapters are calls to action: “Get Going!,” “Find
Each Other,” “Get Organized,” and “Insurrection.”
The first, “Get Going!,” is posited against
the limitations of temporality itself. While much
of the political rhetoric of the broadly defined
“radical left” treats revolution as the logical out-
come of ideological conflict (historically being
class-based) which must be built toward, The In-
visible Committee adopts a much more extreme
position. They argue that insurrection (as op-
posed to revolution) is an atemporal event or
series of events which must happen in the im-
mediacy of the present moment. They claim that
we can no longer even see how an insur-
rection might begin. Sixty years of pacifi-
cation and containment of historical up-
heavals, sixty years of democratic
anesthesia and the management of events,
have dulled our perception of the real, our
37
sense of the war in progress. We need to
start by recovering this perception”.26
Implicit in this is the notion that the ability to
locate temporal sites where insurrection may
occur has just as much to do with an affect-
based perception as it does with historical mate-
riality. It becomes a matter for the pro-
insurrectionary to see that insurrection, as an
offensive position, can occur in a myriad of sites
within the contemporary moment.
This perception is posited as an ability
that individuals once possessed, but no longer
have because of Empire’s effective management
of everyday life. Thus, the first step towards an
insurrectionary moment is reclaiming the ability
to witness the potentiality for such moments in
the first place. This ability to perceive, to see re-
ality for what it is, in all of its interconnected,
constructed, and coercive totality, is a prerequi-
site to action; perception as a priori to insurrec-
tion. This irreverence towards the orthodox
Marxist position on the material historicity and
political conditions underlying the revolution-
ary moment characterizes The Invisible Com-
mittee’s own brand of “anarcho-autonomism,”
which eschews this formal logic as antiquated
26 ibid, 95
38
and irrelevant to the contemporary context of
late-capitalist Empire. They argue that in these
times of perpetual crisis and totalizing catastro-
phe, waiting for the right historical conditions
to act indicates not only redundancy (as any mo-
ment in Empire is an appropriate moment to
wage insurrection), but also recuperation in that
it is precisely this waiting, this deferral of action,
that reproduces the managerial logic and sche-
ma of late-capitalist Empire. The Invisible Com-
mittee writes that
it’s useless to wait—for a breakthrough, for
the revolution, the nuclear apocalypse, or
a social movement. To go on waiting is
madness. The catastrophe is not coming, it
is here. We are already situated within the
collapse of a civilization. It is within this
reality that we must choose sides. To no
longer wait is, in one way or another, to
enter into the logic of insurrection.27
Their insurrectionary program has an urgent im-
mediacy—one which forgoes self-reflectivity in
favor of unrestrained offensive action. Furthering
their theoretical line, The Invisible Committee ar-
gues that the imperative of immediate action is
not insular in any sense. Through such action, in-
27 ibid, 96
39
dividual subjects can find the repressed elements
of an authentic collectivity.
The second of the final four chapters,
“Find Each Other,” is both an appeal to find other
individual subjects to enact insurrection with
and a case for the creation of new forms of col-
lective being arising through the insurrection-
ary moment itself. Several of the philosophical
tracts in Tiqqun appropriate Giorgio Agamben’s
notion of a “form of life,” a self which
has reached the perfection of its own pow-
er and its own communicability—a life
over which sovereignty and right no lon-
ger have any hold.28
It is precisely in this thinking (implicitly anti-
postmodern: truth is posited as something that
can be articulated through the very act of becom-
ing) that The Invisible Committee argue that
through insurrection individual subjects can rid
themselves of subject-identities circumscribed by
Empire in favor of a collective-becoming through
the proliferation of affinities between these
“forms of life.” Thus, insurrectionary actions are
ultimately expressions of truth in a postmodern
age that stridently disavows any such affirmation.
Through these encounters between subjectivities
28 Agamben, Giorgio, Means without End: Notes on Politics, 114-15
40
and the affinities which result from them, insur-
rectionary moments are ultimately new forms of
truth. The Invisible Committee writes,
an encounter, a discovery, a vast wave of
strikes, an earthquake: every event pro-
duces truth by changing our way of being
in the world.29
It is within this theoretical framing that the pro-
duction of truth is inextricably linked to the
changing of being—the creation of new collec-
tive ontologies.
Truth is that which is subsumed by capi-
tal; that which is repressed, reconstructed, and
commodified according to the designs of the
Spectacle. In Horkheimer and Adorno’s terms,
truth is what is obfuscated by the culture indus-
try. They write that for those living within the
late-capitalist context,
language based entirely on truth simply
arouses impatience to get on with the
business deal it is probably advancing.
The words that are not means appear
senseless; the others seem to be fiction,
untrue.30
Truth becomes masked by the form and struc-

41
tures of late-capitalist functioning and ideology.
The Invisible Committee would agree that be-
cause of the debasement of truth in our post-
modern age, truth is not to be found anywhere.
But there is a way out of this postmodernist fa-
talism and determinism: truth can be made as
the experience of becoming. The Coming Insur-
rection claims
a truth isn’t something we hold but some-
thing that carries us. It makes and un-
makes me, constitutes and undoes me as
an individual; it distances me from many
and brings me closer to those who also ex-
perience it.31
Here, becoming-as-truth can only make sense
within the paradox that it is at once innately in-
dividual and inherently communal.
The third of the final chapters, “Get Or-
ganized,” is a strong critique of conventional po-
litical organizations and their maneuvering in
favor of a much more nuanced notion of collec-
tivity—that of the commune. The Invisible Com-
mittee begin their foray into the role of organiza-
tion within the context of late-capitalism by first
arguing that it is precisely through organization
and social management that individuals have
42
been made subjects under Empire, and therefore,
any counter-political methodology of organizing
for the insurrection will have to do away with
the means by which late-capitalist subjects have
heretofore been organized. The Invisible Com-
mittee writes:
We know that individuals are possessed
of so little life that they have to earn a liv-
ing, to sell their time in exchange for a
modicum of social existence. Personal
time for social existence: such is work,
such is the market.32
Here, they describe the logic of late-capitalist
Empire as only affording social existence as a di-
rect result of one’s commodified labor—simply
put, one’s social existence is entirely codified by
the work one does. It makes no sense to the au-
thors of The Coming Insurrection that, in attempt-
ing to explore alternatives to Empire, a pro-
insurrectionary individual should replicate the
very forms of alienation she is resisting. Thus,
political organizing that imitates market-
centered activities (as political work does), is not
insurrectionary in any way.
To move outside of this replicated rela-
tionship, the pro-insurrectionary individual
32 ibid, 103
43
must move from the logic of work, management,
and organization into the logic of the commune.
The Invisible Committee claim:
From the outset, the time of the commune
eludes work, it doesn’t function according
to that scheme—it prefers others.33
Taking the classical labor-syndicalist logic be-
hind such actions as the “wildcat strike” (an un-
sanctioned, spontaneous workplace strike not
authorized by any trade unions) and applying it
much more generally to the level of refusing all
work outright, The Invisible Committee makes
the case for a collective position that is hostile to
late-capitalist Empire by refusing from the out-
set to engage in its hegemonic logic. They argue
that work frames political discourse in late-
capitalism in the sense that groups, through
sanctioned reformist conduits, must enter into
social contracts with others (at the most formal
level: organizations) and produce their demands.
Through the formation of the commune, the pro-
insurrectionary eschews this logic of production
for the logic of refusal. Thus, the productive
schema undergirding temporality in the late-
capitalist context must be changed through The
Invisible Committee’s form of communization.
33 ibid, 103
44
Time recontextualized is posited:
The exigency of the commune is to free up
the most time for the most people. And
we’re not just talking about the number of
hours free of any wage-labor exploitation.
Liberated time doesn’t mean a vacation.
Vacant time, dead time, the time of empti-
ness and the fear of emptiness—this is the
time of work. There will be no more time
to fill, but a liberation of energy that no
‘time’ contains; lines that take shape, that
accentuate each other, that we can follow
at our leisure, to their ends, until we see
them cross with others.34
Temporality in the logic of the commune be-
comes non-determined and expansive. It is a
new relationship to temporality in which the
individual acts outside of time versus being en-
tirely contained within it. Thus, one’s temporal
being is not fixed within the time it inhabits, but
is instead projected outwards in rhizomatic
fashion. Individual/collective energy and agen-
cy can extend upon a myriad of temporal lines
of flight rather than being confined to a repeti-
tive linearity.
At this point the theoretical trajectory
34 ibid, 104
45
of The Coming Insurrection begins to unravel.
When The Invisible Committee offers material
prescriptions to support their grandiloquent
theoretical claims, their examples of communi-
zation and insurrection seem wholly discon-
nected from their more audacious philosophi-
cal claims. Where they speak about blocking
the flow of capital, they cite examples of build-
ing occupations and jamming roads and high-
ways. Where they speak to communization and
political affinity they cite examples from histo-
ry when those in the “worker’s movement were
able to find each other in the workshop, then in
the factory”.35 They claim that the contempo-
rary moment is similar, but expanded, as “we
[now] have the whole of social space in which
to find each other.” 36
If one reads these positive affirmations
cynically, it appears that The Invisible Committee
encounters the problem of turning theoretical
critique into prescriptive action. This divergence
from the Frankfurt School’s non-prescriptive
form of critical engagement with late-capitalism
(most significantly in the work of Theodor Ador-
no) shows how The Invisible Committee’s imme-
35 ibid, 99
36 ibid, 99
46
diacy of action translates into generalized and
simplistic material actions. The commune begins
to look like little more than the recognition of af-
finity and the creation of camaraderie. Critiquing
the totality of Empire is one of The Coming Insur-
rection’s central premises, and it evokes the earli-
er work of Horkheimer and Adorno on the cul-
ture industry. Yet, whereas Horkheimer and
Adorno are incredibly skeptical to an “outside” of
the pervasive culture industry, The Invisible
Committee are adamant that “forms-of-life” will
“find each other”37 and learn how to exist entirely
outside of this totality. This underscores the con-
tradictory nature of their theoretical analysis and
their prescriptions for material actions. If one be-
lieves, as Horkheimer and Adorno claim, that so-
ciety is merely “the stereotyped appropriation of
everything, even the inchoate, for the purposes of
[…] reproduction,”38 then it follows that there is
no possible “outside” to late-capitalist relations.
The Invisible Committee’s most vocifer-
ous detractors are actually groups and theorists
that are also from the contemporary ultra-left
anti-state communist milieu, yet are more di-
rectly situated in a political lineage stemming
37 ibid, 99
47
from Marx (and, to a lesser degree, from Fou-
cault). Of these groups, the contemporary com-
munization journal Endnotes has most damn-
ingly pointed to the discrepancy between The
Invisible Committee’s analysis and their prob-
lematic prescriptions and affirmations. Endnotes
claims that The Coming Insurrection
indicates a completely contemplative
standpoint, even as it gesticulates wildly
towards action. Its object becomes abso-
lutely external and transcendent while its
subject is reduced to fragile, thinly-veiled
self-affirmations, and the ‘what we must
do’ that it presents becomes reduced to a
trivial list of survival skills.39
Thus, the more traditional strains of ultra-left
anti-state communism, as exemplified by those
writing in Endnotes, have more in common with
Adorno, who insisted on keeping critique in a
purely negative polemical position. Endnotes
claims that their particular strain of
communist theory does not present an al-
ternative answer to the question of ‘what
shall we do?’, for the abolition of the capi-
39 Endnotes. “What are we to do?” Communization and its Dis-

contents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Ed.
Benjamin Noys. 35
48
talist class relation is not something on
which one can decide.40
Here, one problem with the claims of The Invis-
ible Committee is brought to light.
Insurrection, in its most abstract sense,
is posited by The Invisible Committee as a
means to create “new” collectivized ontologies
external to late-capitalist domination. Yet, even
the most forgiving reading of The Coming Insur-
rection will still necessitate an inquiry about
the forms such a radical social rupture can take.
The Invisible Committee wavers between de-
scribing material actions that are sorely incon-
sistent with their theoretical analysis of the
conditions for insurrection, and ambiguous gen-
eralizations that allude to some sense of novel
rupture. This internal contradiction is exempli-
fied in statements like:
The goal of any insurrection is to be-
come irreversible. It becomes irrevers-
ible when you’ve defeated both author-
ity and the need for authority, property
and the taste for appropriation, hege-
mony and the desire for hegemony […]
Destruction has never been enough to
make things irreversible. What matters
40 ibid, 34
49
is how it’s done.41
Here, even the very act of destruction is tied to
affirmative prescriptions—destruction must be
done in a particular way. Thus, while The Invisi-
ble Committee articulates a descriptive position
and theoretical understanding of contemporary
late-capitalist relations similar to Horkheimer
and Adorno’s analysis of the culture industry (in
that its totalizing domination is all-pervasive),
their use of the insurrectionary moment as a site
of ontological alterity fails to reconcile itself
with the totality of Empire. Seen through this
negative perspective, The Coming Insurrection at-
tempts to rhetorically arrive at a position outside
of late-capitalism only to see its argumentative
premise subsumed into the logic of late-
capitalism. If, as both The Invisible Committee
and Horkheimer and Adorno argue, there is
nothing outside of the rhizomatic domination of
late-capitalism, then it follows that all attempts
to prescriptively convey the insurrectionary mo-
ment are merely elements within the totality of
Empire, late-capitalism, and the culture industry.
41 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 130-31

50
2
Atonal Insurrection:
Negation in the Work of
Arnold Schoenberg and
The Invisible Committee
An insurrection is not like a plague or a for-
est fire—a linear process that spreads from
place to place after an initial spark. It rather
takes the shape of a music, whose focal
points, though dispersed in time and space,
succeed in imposing the rhythm of their
own vibrations, always taking on more den-
sity. To the point that any return to normal
is no longer desirable or even imaginable.
—The Coming Insurrection
The Coming Insurrection posits a conception of

insurrection as the creation of new collective
ontologies through acts of radical social rupture.
Eschewing the orthodox Marxist line that revo-
lution is something temporally removed from
the present, towards which pro-revolutionaries
must organize and work, The Invisible Commit-
51
tee’s use of insurrection claims it as an antago-
nistic challenge to late-capitalism firmly
grounded in its own immediacy. Communism is
therefore made immediate, and it is willed into
being by insurrectionary acts of social rupture.
While much has been written on the debt that
The Invisible Committee owes to French strains
of ultra-left anti-state communism, Michel Fou-
cault, Gilles Deleuze, Giorgio Agamben, Situa-
tionism, and the Italian Autonomia movement
of the 1970s, their implicit debt to the sociopo-
litical themes of music has been largely ignored.
By claiming that insurrection spreads by reso-
nance and that such proliferation “takes the
shape of a music”,42 The Invisible Committee
encourages the interpretation of a “coming in-
surrection” as an inherently musical act. Using
a historical reading of the shift from tonality to
atonality in Western art music, as exemplified
by Arnold Schoenberg, this interpretation of
The Coming Insurrection aims at exploring its ex-
plicitly political premises through its implicit
musical qualities.
The Invisible Committee’s use of the
term “insurrection” in The Coming Insurrection
functions on two distinct levels. The first retains
42 ibid, 12
52
the conventional understanding of insurrection
as material acts of militant resistance, uprising,
and direct opposition against forces of domina-
tion. The second, which this paper will focus on,
understands insurrection as a new mode of col-
lective becoming which is predicated upon the
absolute negation of the present social order and
its affective relational ties. The Invisible Com-
mittee claim that through a collective refusal of
social relations under late-capitalism (“Empire”),
fundamentally new ways of relating to other in-
dividuals begin to manifest. Unlike more tradi-
tional Marxist thinking, The Coming Insurrection
hesitates to offer any prefigurative claims on
what is to be done to create the preconditions
for revolution, and instead claims that it is quite
literally through negating Empire’s affective ties
that communism will be enacted. This negation,
while expressing modernist sensibilities, can
also been seen in the shift in Western art music
from tonal structuring to experimental atonality.
Seen as one of the most radical depar-
tures from musical convention by modernist
thinking, atonality is a calculated rejection of
the tonal center and the subsequent hierarchical
pitch relationships based on a specific key, which
dominated Western art music until the turn of
53
the 20th century. A broad term, “atonality” refers
to various attempts to destabilize the primacy of
the tonal center. Perhaps most associated with
what is called the “Second Viennese School,” ato-
nality’s historical arrival was signaled by a “cri-
sis of tonality.” My argument rests on this his-
torical moment, as the musicology on atonality
itself is secondary to the rhetoric generated by
and around this form of early twentieth century
music. I argue that Schoenberg’s atonality at-
tempted to create an entirely new ontology of
music, an ontology informed by negation, one
which refuses convention with the aim of exist-
ing outside or beyond the aesthetic context of
fin-de-siècle European society. This new ontolo-
gy of negation is mirrored in much of the rheto-
ric within The Coming Insurrection, and thus
Schoenberg’s “crises of tonality” can be seen as
analogous in many ways to The Invisible Com-
mittee’s “crises of Empire.”
In his account of Thomas Mann’s novel,
Doctor Faustus, music historian Alex Ross
claims that the main character Adrian
Leverkühn (who is widely viewed as a doppel-
ganger for Arnold Schoenberg) is an intellec-
tual monster […] His music absorbs all styles of
the past and shatters them into fragments”
54
while attempting to “remake the world in uto-
pian forms”.43 This nascent nihilism is also
evoked in The Coming Insurrection, as it claims
that “there’s nothing more to be said, every-
thing has to be destroyed”.44 Both positions are
based in the acknowledgement that older sys-
temic forms have failed as justification for exis-
tence itself, both musically and socio-politically,
and they need to be completely destroyed in
the hopes of creating new forms of being. For
Schoenberg this failure is embodied by tonality,
for The Invisible Committee it is by late-capital-
ist Empire. All attempts at the reformation of
both these failed and antiquated systems are
merely assimilated back into mainstream musi-
cological and sociopolitical discourse, respec-
tively. Thus, discursive practices must be ne-
gated in order to move beyond hegemonic
assimilation.
For the post-Marxist theorist Theodor
Adorno, who wrote extensively on Schoenberg,
only the most recent phase of music—in
which the isolated subject communicates
as if from across an abyss of silence pre-
cisely through the complete alienation of
43 ibid, 86
44 Ross, Alex. The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century.
55
its language—justifies a coldness that, as a
self-contained mechanical functioning, is
good only for producing disaster”.45
Disaster is central to both Schoenberg and The
Invisible Committee as it forms the basis for their
immediate threats of radical change—a clear po-
sition of antagonism to the established order. For
Schoenberg it was important that his forays into
atonality carried “the threat that all music will
sound like this”.46 For The Invisible Committee, it
is the antagonistically totalizing claim that, “we
don’t want to occupy the territory, we want to be
the territory”.47 Thus, for both parties the enmity
to their contemporary hegemonic moment (be it
musical or political) is predicated upon direct
contestation with forces of opposition. It is not
enough that a space exists for atonality or com-
munism within their respective aesthetic and so-
cial structures; rather, atonality and communism
necessarily present their coming-into-being as
forces of complete subsumption—negating any-
thing which stands in opposition to them.
Both The Invisible Committee and
Schoenberg attempt to create forces that operate
45 op cit, Philosophy of New Music, 92

46 op cit, The Rest is Noise, 39
56
in relation to teleology. The Coming Insurrection
claims that
the West is a civilization that has survived
all the prophecies of its collapse with a sin-
gular stratagem. […] The operation can be
summarized like this: an entity in its death
throes sacrifices itself as a content in order
to survive as a form. 48
Thus, for The Invisible Committee, late-capital-
ist Empire is the teleological end (pure form) of
a capitalist ideology, which at one point in its
historical development possessed some content.
Late-capitalist Empire contains within itself the
elements which necessitate its own collapse.
Thus, as proponents of this particular concep-
tion of insurrectionary communism, The Invisi-
ble Committee advocates that “forms-of-life” (a
term borrowed from Giorgio Agamben to indi-
cate individuals who are no longer biopolitical
subjects) enact communism within the imme-
diacy of the present moment. This form of com-
munization precipitates both the collapse of
Empire and the creation of new collective on-
tologies outside of late-capitalist schema.
For Schoenberg, teleology functioned to
validate the atonal turn as the logical overcom-
48 ibid, 91
57
ing of an existential crisis within Western art
music. Schoenberg
set forth an elaborate teleology of musical
history, a theory of irreversible progress,
to justify his actions.49
Teleology, for both Schoenberg and The Invisi-
ble Committee, is not as finite or fixed as one
would believe. Instead, Schoenberg and The In-
visible Committee view the fixity within a te-
leological rendering of music and political his-
tory as something that can be worked through
and beyond. Alex Ross maintains that Schoen-
berg was noted for cryptic pronouncements
like: “I can see through walls”.50 As odd as this
claim seems, it implies that Schoenberg was
able to envisage ontologies of alterity beyond
the confines of the historical present. It is a vi-
sion at once acknowledging the totality in
which the individual subject is located and the
possibility that other modes of being exist out-
side of it. For Schoenberg, tonality was a musi-
cal space of confinement and stagnation. Thus,
the teleology of Western art music necessarily
has a political dimension.
Tonal music is set upon a binarized/du-

50 ibid, 38
58
alistic tension, because the return to the tonal
center necessitates the subsumption of one ele-
ment of the duality to the other. This dichotomy
in tonal music functions on multiple levels, one
of which is the resolution back into consonance
after playing with its dissonant other. Here the
return is paramount, as return signifies the safe
and familiar. The return, or perhaps more po-
lemically phrased the retreat, into the familiar is
a grounding in a center with a clearly articulat-
ed, delineated, and circumscribed identity or es-
sence—in Foucauldian terms: the subjectivized.
The tonic key is an identity that makes sense of
everything else in its field of being. Mediants,
subdominants, dominants, and supertonics only
make sense in relation to their tonic key. Thus,
tonality is an inherently hierarchical system of
prioritization. Because this tonal center at once
defines and is defined by those elements of scale
and harmony that use the tonal center as their
organizing referent, it is the embodiment of a
strict musical identity.
In terms of a musicological teleology,
the “crisis of tonality” arises through the prolif-
eration and exhaustion of all the tonal “identi-
ties” possible within the tonal system. Much as
The Invisible Committee claims that Empire con-
59
tains within itself the contradictions that will
inevitably bring about its own destruction,
Schoenberg claims that the
end of the system is brought about with
such inescapable cruelty by its own func-
tions […] Every living thing has within it
that which changes, develops, and destroys
it. Life and death are both equally present
in the embryo.51
Schoenberg argues that tonality contains within
itself the conditions that will cause its own col-
lapse. Thus, just as tonality’s “catastrophe was
inevitable”,52 so too was the birth of atonality in-
evitable, as its role as a force of negation was
already prefigured by the historical progress of
tonal music. Seen in this perspective, commu-
nism as envisaged by The Invisible Committee is
not what arises after the collapse of late-capitalist
Empire, but what can be enacted in the temporal
present as a catalyst for Empire’s destruction.
Against more orthodox Marxist claims, commu-
nism for The Invisible Committee is found in the
very act of becoming, and is not subsequent to
any “revolutionary” or “transitionary” moment.
This position validates their proposition that it is

52 ibid, 65
60
not Lenin’s question of “What is to be done?”
but rather, “How is it to be done?” (the name of
an essay from the second Tiqqun journal). The
Invisible Committee claims:
So we have a corpse on our backs, but we
won’t be able to shake it off just like that.
Nothing is to be expected from the end of
civilization, from its clinical death. […] To
decide for the death of civilization, then to
work out how it will happen: only decision
will rid us of the corpse.53
So, conceptualizing communism as a process of
becoming is inherently an ontological project.
At the basis of Schoenberg’s revolution-
izing approach to the destruction of the tonal
center is a move towards an altogether different
ontology. Ross argues that the young Schoen-
berg’s fin-de-siècle Europe was a historical con-
text in which
occult and mystical societies […] promised
rupture from the world of the present. In
the political sphere, Communists, anar-
chists, and ultra-nationalists plotted from
various angles to overthrow the quasi-
liberal monarchies of Europe. 54
61
new systems of being. These new musical ontol-
ogies are essentially new aesthetic truths that
emerge from the negation of the totality of tonal-
ity. This is paradoxical because, as critic Alexan-
der L. Ringer argues:
[…] Schoenberg’s dauntless quest for truth
simply does not square with his oft-
expressed, unshakable, and infallibly
proven faith in the essential immutability
of all fundamental precepts.57
If we view the rise of atonality as historically de-
termined, the search for truth becomes compli-
cated. Through this very contradiction, this
atonal act of negation, new musical modalities
emerge.
The Invisible Committee claims that the
ontology of the present is actually a mere Spec-
tacle, entirely codified by hegemonic apparatus-
es. The ontology of the present cannot be re-
formed because it is the ontology of Empire:
domination, subservience, and exploitation.
They claim that the West is at once the most
egregious perpetrator of this imperial hegemony
and also completely enraptured by it; and that
“we belong to a generation that lives very well in
57 op cit, Ringer, 23
63
this fiction”.58 Thus, like Schoenberg before them,
The Invisible Committee views negation as the
only logical step to take against this totalizing
fiction. The Invisible Committee claims that
through the act of insurrection new “authentic”
forms of collective relations can be created. They
claim that through insurrection,
we are forced to reestablish contact, albeit
a potentially fatal one, with what’s there,
to rediscover the rhythms of reality.59
Here insurrectionary ontology is conflated with
reality, as a collectivized truth that emerges
through a shared refusal. This argument is in-
herently anti-postmodern; a notion of authentic
truth reemerges as a tangible outcome of collec-
tivized insurrection. By finding other forms-of-
life, and enacting insurrection together as the
manifestation of communism-in-the-present, a
non-Spectacularized reality once again becomes
possible.
Unlike Schoenberg’s work in twelve
tone technique, The Invisible Committee does
not want to postulate their unique conception
of insurrection as merely another system, even
as one of negation and subversion, to be adopt-

59 ibid, 82
64
ed and subsequently recuperated by Empire. In
his later years, Schoenberg found it necessary
to create a system to ensure that music did not
regress back to tonal conventions. Twelve tone
technique was a system that forced Schoenberg
and those who adopted its methods never to re-
turn to tonality at all. With this shift from free
atonality to the systematized serialism of twelve
tone technique, Schoenberg came to terms with
the limits of a negative freedom. The negation
itself became systematized and totalized. Ador-
no claims that through Schoenberg’s new nega-
tive system,
variation, the instrument of compositional
dynamism, becomes total and is as a result
annulled. The music no longer presents it-
self as being in a process of development.
[…] Variation as such no longer appears at
all. Everything and nothing is variation.60
This is a concession to systemicity that The In-
visible Committee refuses to make. They claim
that “the goal of any insurrection is to become
irreversible”,61 and by extension, non-recuperable.
They go on to state that insurrection
60 Adorno, Theodor W. Philosophy of New Music. Trans. Robert

Hullot-Kentor. 50
61 ibid, 130
65
[…] becomes irreversible when you’ve de-
feated both authority and the need for au-
thority, property and the taste for appro-
priation, hegemony and the desire for
hegemony.62
Mere destruction is not enough, for a whole new
way of relating must necessarily arise out of in-
surrection. This is what is meant by a wholly
negative ontology, a mode of being with none of
the coercive forms of domination proliferated by
late-capitalist Empire—even at the abstract level
of the mere desire to dominate. Thus, The Invisi-
ble Committee’s insurrectionary project not
only seeks the negation of private property (in
the material sense), but the negation of the very
desire to own property (in the psychological
sense). They argue that
destruction has never been enough to
make things irreversible. What matters is
how it’s done. There are ways of destroy-
ing that unfailingly provoke the return of
what has been crushed.63
It is therefore a matter of the process itself: in-
surrection must always be an act that incorpo-
rates a tacit and critical cognizance of itself pre-
62 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 130-31

63 ibid, 131
66
cisely as a process. In this sense, insurrection is
inherently an act of ontological becoming, si-
multaneously aware of itself as a material pro-
cess and as a metaphysical site where new, au-
thentic forms of collective-relations emerge.
Atonality and insurrection are both at-
tempts to completely break with prevailing sys-
tems of dominance and hegemony. At the core of
these two disparate yet connected forms of
praxis is an inherently negative project. Imbued
with antagonistic criticality, both Schoenberg
and The Invisible Committee claim that freedom
must necessarily be born out of complete refusal.
Yet on closer examination, their differences be-
come apparent. Both projects are accompanied
with a regressive temptation to depend on older
forms—relics from the very systems from which
they attempt to remove themselves. For Schoen-
berg, this required the negative system of twelve
tone technique because familiar tropes still man-
aged to find their way into his earlier free atonal
compositions. Adorno claims that the twelve
tone system
subjugates music by setting it free. The
subject rules over the music by means of a
rational system in order to succumb to this
67
rational system itself.64
Thus, paradoxically, Schoenberg depended on a
system to facilitate a complete negation of the
tonal system—a system negating a system.
In contrast, The Invisible Committee is
pointedly vigilant about how resistance to Em-
pire can either be recuperated into late-capitalist
logic or reproduce the very systems of domina-
tion that they intend to destroy. Truths are born
from the immediacy of the insurrectionary social
rupture, and thus it is the act of negation itself
that creates the heretofore unimaginable new
spaces of being. Forms-of-life, collectivity, com-
munization—all only make sense in the context
of the social rupture itself. The Invisible Commit-
tee elaborates upon this conflation between ac-
tion and actors by claiming
In truth, there is no gap between what we
are, what we do, and what we are becom-
ing. […] Here lies the truly revolutionary
potentiality of the present.65
This is how they can evade the recuperation back
into a systematized conception of their own neg-
ative project. Thus, while The Invisible Commit-
tee’s coming insurrection and Schoenberg’s ato-
64 op cit, Philosophy of New Music, 54

65 op cit, Ths Coming Insurrection, 15
68
nality are both characterized by ontological
rupture aimed at the subversion of the hegemony
within their own sociopolitical and musicologi-
cal contexts, they diverge greatly in the method-
ology, results, and effects of their negations.
69
3
Deserting Empire,
Deserting Humanism:
Anti-Humanist Critiques of
the Individual, Absolute
Knowledge, Rationality, and
History in Tiqqun’s
Introduction to Civil War
In Tiqqun’s Introduction to Civil War, the conflu-
ence of late-capitalism, new power dynamics, and
the crisis/disintegration of the modern state form
emerge as a totalizing socio-historical episteme
of domination. Tiqqun labels this new form of
governance “Empire,” by which they understand
the complete politicization of all aspects of the
social and paradoxically the complete socializa-
tion of all aspects of the political. Thus, Empire
forms the conceptual basis for understanding an
episteme in which there is no longer any distinc-
tion between the political and the social, the pri-
vate and the public, capitalist exchange relations
and non-capitalist relations. It flattens reality to a
70
mere discursive network of domination through
the hyper-proliferation of apparatuses of control.
Tacitly, Tiqqun’s analysis of life within Empire
implicitly draws from what I argue is an inher-
ently anti-humanist tradition. By relying explicit-
ly on Foucault’s work on biopower and the devel-
opment of disciplinary practices, on Nietzsche’s
criticism of rationality and reason, and on Walter
Benjamin’s attack against a progressive histori-
cism, Tiqqun is deeply antagonistic to Enlight-
enment thinking. Within Tiqqun’s analysis and
critique (of such humanistic tropes as the forma-
tion of the individual, idealism, rationality/rea-
son, and a progressive view of history) is a deeply
anti-humanist temperament that unequivocally
informs their politics of resistance to Empire.
Tiqqun supports its critique of the hu-
manist notion of the “individual” by analyzing
how Empire, through the use of biopower and
the Spectacle (in the Debordian sense of the
term) produces subjectivities—or, in Foucauld-
ian terms: the process of subjectification (sub-
jectivation). This runs counter to the
Enlightenment-era humanist tradition, which
starts with the individual as the measure of ex-
perience—the fundamental unit, whose ulti-
mate aim is individual freedom and the fullest
71
expression of individual desire. Tiqqun’s think-
ing on the formation of the individual and the
production of its subjectivities stems directly
from the anti-humanist tradition. Tiqqun
claims that this process of subjectification finds
its point of highest development through bio-
power, precisely because the biopolitical pro-
cesses of producing subjectivities function by
“containing each being within its Self, that is,
within his body, in extracting bare life from each
form-of-life”.66 At this point, even essential in-
dividual existence—one of the most sacred as-
pects of humanism—is immediately problema-
tized through discursive relationships that
effectively dominate it.
The distinction between biopower and
earlier forms of power, like the sovereign in the
absolutist state, is that biopower is a form of
control which from the outset of its production,
its own immanence, precludes any individual
agency, as it can only be produced by already
dominated subjects. It is the total implication of
what once was called the individual subject
within a discursive network (machine) of con-
trol. It affirms life, keeps the body living, and in
doing so finds a more effective means to control
66 The Invisible Committee, Introduction to Civil War, 86
72
subjects. When a biopolitical subject “chooses”
to implicate itself within the apparatuses that ef-
fectively control it, domination becomes more
streamlined and easier to sustain. Foucault elab-
orates upon this point as he claims that the role
of this form of political biopower
is perpetually to re-inscribe this relation
through a form of unspoken warfare; to re-
inscribe it in social institutions, in econom-
ic inequalities, in language, in the bodies
themselves of each and every one of us.67
Tiqqun argues that the development of the mod-
ern state into Empire is accompanied by a pro-
cess of subjectification in which
the individual produced by this process of
economic embodiment carries within him
a crack. And it is out of this crack that his
bare life seeps. His acts themselves are full
of cracks, broken from the inside. […] Here,
instead of forms-of-life, we find an over-
production branching out in all directions,
a nearly comical tree-like proliferation of
subjectivities.68
Tiqqun posits forms-of-life as a way out of the
67 Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and

Other Writings 1972-1977. 90
68 op cit, Introduction to Civil War, 87
73
subjective notion of the “individual” coming from
the humanist tradition.
Forms-of-life necessarily take on an
ethical dimension as a way out of the ontology
of the individual. Tiqqun claims that contrary to
humanist thinking, “the elementary human uni-
ty is not the body—the individual—but the form-
of-life.”69 Thus, for Tiqqun’s inherently anti-
humanist approach, the argument depends on
positionality (ethical inclinations). Tiqqun ap-
propriates Giorgio Agamben’s theorization of
Wittgenstein’s initial use of this concept: a
form-of-life is that which affects a body as an
ethical “clinamen, a leaning, an attraction, a
taste”.70 These “leanings” form the basis of forc-
es, or ethical intensities projected as the line on
which “power grows.”71 Expounding upon this
point, the assuming of a form-of-life (as op-
posed to predicative identities) allows a body to
follow its own outgrowth of power—the prolif-
eration of its own force—and the conglomera-
tion of multiple forms-of-life pursuing their
own lines of flight become the “free play”
Tiqqun calls “civil war.”
For Tiqqun, Empire’s fundamental im-
69 ibid, 16
70 ibid, 18
71 ibid, 20
74
petus is the pacification of “civil war”: the quell-
ing of ethical intensities. The only response that
resists this pacification is a further intensifica-
tion of ethical inclinations, not a proliferation of
predicates through subjectification. This, then, is
a fundamental critique of the way the individual
is formed, as it implies that the individual is
nothing but a set of interconnected predicates,
identities, and subjectivities that are entirely
mediated by Empire and its apparatuses of con-
trol. This is fully in line with conventional cri-
tiques of humanism, which argue that the indi-
vidual, as a fully independent and autonomous
construction, simply does not exist and is in-
stead completely mediated by the socio-
linguistic/discursive fields of the context the
pre-subjectivated body finds itself in. Tiqqun
claims that Empire has complicated and obfus-
cated forms-of-life, and in their place fostered
and affirmed (through apparatuses like biopow-
er) “identities” instead. They argue
paradoxically, in this civilization that we
can no longer claim as our own without
consenting to self-liquidation, conjuring
away forms-of-life most often appears as a
desire for form.72
72 ibid, 21
75
Here the affirmation of that which is one’s “own”
is actually posited as “self-liquidation”—thus,
the further one inscribes one’s self in a predica-
tive identity the further one is removed from
one’s fundamental form-of-life.
The construction of mediating forms be-
tween a form-of-life and its individual identity
is almost entirely done at the subconscious level
as almost all identity-development is affirma-
tive—even when it is opposed to dominant ide-
ologies (like the identity of “anti-capitalist”). Be-
cause identity formation is almost always
affirmative (ie the individual willingly forms
the varied components of their own so-called
unique identity) it constitutes one pole of impe-
rial domination through its ability to further
distance a body from its own ethical inclina-
tions and instead construct a human being as
something grounded in its own materiality. This
materiality is what Tiqqun calls the “desire for
form,” or the impetus of individuals to create
themselves precisely as individuals, singular in
their autonomy and subject only to their own
desires. What complicates this superficial posi-
tion—the belief in the autonomous construction
of the individual—is the counter-claim that indi-
vidual desire is entirely mediated by a whole set
76
of productive forces.
Tiqqun states that the other pole of im-
perial domination, which works in seamless tan-
dem with biopower, is the Spectacle. This term,
appropriated from the French Situationist Guy
Debord, suggests that all social relations are me-
diated by images and representations. Thus, if
individual desire is a purely reactive and inter-
pretative response to social relations that are
inherently mediated by representations, then
individual desire does not exist independent of
the social field in which it is situated. Tiqqun
extrapolates upon this subjectivated biopolitical
subject’s “desire for form” as “the search for an
archetypal resemblance, an Idea of self placed
before or in front of oneself.”73 Here again, the
humanistic impulse is critiqued because the
search for something essential about the human
individual informs an inherently hermeneutical
approach to the false-ontology of Empire. The
desire to uncover “an archetypal resemblance”
of the self begins (without any critical reflexivity
whatsoever) in the hermeneutics of recovery the
idea that there is an essential quality about the
individual which can indeed be re/un-covered.
Identity formation often assumes essen-
73 ibid, 21
77
tialist rhetoric, as its own logic positions it as a
project of recovery—of getting to the ontologi-
cal foundation of the singular individual, what
or who it “really” is. Tiqqun, like the anti-
humanist theorists before them, argue that to
oppose this way of thinking, a project ethically
aligned purely and only against the totality of
Empire must necessarily entail the assumption
of forms-of-life, not further implication within
the discourses of imperial domination. They ar-
gue that
actually, to assume a form-of-life is a
letting-go, an abandonment. It is at once
fall and elevation, a movement and a
staying-within-oneself.74
Here the distinction between ethics and meta-
physics becomes more apparent. Abandonment,
in this theoretical context, is the “letting-go” of
such basic metaphysical questions as “what am
I?” or “what is the fundamental nature of my
being?”
Instead, what is put forth is an ethics of
becoming that recontextualizes all questions of
being as questions only concerned with “how one
is being.” This “abandonment” is the negative ba-
sis of a form-of-life—the “fall.” Conversely, the
74 ibid, 21
78
“elevation” within the assumption of a form-of-
life—its positive component is an affirmation of
new ethical ways of being in concert with other
bodies assuming the same form-of-life. This
coming-together of commensurate forms-of-life,
ethically aligned in their opposition to all other
forms-of-life against them, is communism made
immediate. Before departing from Empire’s pro-
duction and circulation of identities through the
apparatuses of biopower and subjectification, we
should further explore the forms that stand as a
third-party mediator between a body and its cor-
responding form-of-life—this notion of “an Idea
of self placed before or in front of oneself.”75
Against the humanist notion of idealism,
Tiqqun argues that whenever something pres-
ents itself as an Idea (Platonic) which ostensibly
takes the place of the form-of-life, Empire has
succeeded in pacification through the act of dis-
tancing a body from its form-of-life. This is rem-
iniscent of Plato’s metaphysics, whose concep-
tion of ontological reality is rooted in deferral:
the privileging of reality as subject to a world of
ideal forms, rather than reality solely as reality-
itself. In Plato’s Socratic dialogue, Phaedrus, the
“region beyond heaven,” that of ideal forms, is
75 ibid, 21
79
portrayed as follows:
The region beyond heaven has never yet
been adequately described in any of our
earthly poet’s compositions, nor will it
ever be. But since one has to make a cou-
rageous attempt to speak the truth, espe-
cially when it is truth one is speaking
about, here is a description. This region is
filled with true being. True being has no
colour or form; it is intangible, and visi-
ble only to intelligence, the soul’s guide.
True being is the province of everything
that counts as true knowledge. [...] In the
course of its circuit it observes justice as
it really is, self-control, knowledge—not
the kind of knowledge that is involved
with change and differs according to
which of the various existing things (to
use the term ‘existence’ in its everyday
sense) it makes its object, but the kind of
knowledge whose object is things as they
really are.76
Plato, through Socrates, defines true be-
ing as that which is objective and unequivocally
existent in the realm of the ideal forms. It is a
form of metaphysical posturing that dismisses
76 Plato. Phaedrus. 2002, 30
80
the inherent mysticism of abstract interpretative
systems (mathematics for example) and instead
privileges a conception of reality explicitly based
on externalized absolutes.
Tiqqun charts a theoretical move in
completely the opposite direction to Platonic hy-
postasis. They hold to the anti-humanist dismiss-
al of absolutist thinking—nothing objective ex-
ists for the hermeneutic theorist to recover as
essential to existence. Starting from this presup-
position, Tiqqun instead argues that a form-of-
life is an ethical position, not an ontological one.
As such, they evade all attempts to become es-
sentialized, because forms-of-life are not con-
crete materialities in-and-of-themselves, but
rather are leanings or inclinations. They write:
‘My’ form-of-life does not relate to what I
am, but to how, to the specific way, I am
what I am. In other words, between a being
and its qualities, there is the abyss of its
own presence and the singular experience
I have of it, at a certain place and time.77
Tiqqun situates a form-of-life within the “abyss
of its own presence and the singular experience”
one has of it, so that a form-of-life becomes im-
manent in a multitude of infinite moments of
81
the present. By situating the manifestation of a
form-of-life in the immediacy of a “certain
place and time” the form-of-life evades all at-
tempts to make it qualitatively objective or
reminiscent of some sort of human essence. In
this way Tiqqun’s philosophical grounding is
in the lineage of Heraclitus, not of Parmenides.
Through the engagement of the free-play of
forms-of-life, Tiqqun’s philosophy is one of the
potentiality of ruptures, breaks, fissures, and
(when made communal) insurrections.
Another of Tiqqun’s anti-humanist ar-
guments is their presentation of Empire as a to-
talizing affective network of the apparatuses
and power relations of domination. By charting
the modern state’s development to its final form
as Empire, Tiqqun implicitly underscores how
this development was nothing more than the
continuous progress of Enlightenment-era ratio-
nality and reason. Seen from this perspective,
Empire is the logical result of the progress of hu-
manistic reason. This is evident in Tiqqun’s cri-
tiques of Kantian conceptions of universal rea-
son, a part of their multi-pronged attack against
the socio-political development of Empire.
Speaking towards the erasure of hostis (enemy
forms-of-life aligned against one’s own particu-
82
lar form-of-life), Tiqqun claims that
the third article of Kant’s Towards a Per-
petual Peace, which proposes the condi-
tions for a final dissolution of particular
communities and their subsequent formal
reintegration into a Universal State, is
nevertheless unequivocal in insisting that
‘Cosmopolitan right shall be limited to
conditions of universal hospitality’.78
Kantian idealism finds its contemporary mani-
festation in the social shift that occurs with Em-
pire. Instead of dissolving “particular communi-
ties” in order to reintegrate their bodies into the
formal logic/schema of control that formed the
basis of the modern state (particularly in its ab-
solutist and liberal forms), Empire affirms and
allows these “particular communities” to exist as
long as it maintains control over the predicates
and identities available to these communities.
Thus, instead of subsuming plurality to a homog-
enized conception of the Universal State, Empire
allows and affirms plurality in order to construct
the fiction that these new imperial/biopolitical
subjects are still exercising “individual autono-
my”—another left-over from Enlightenment-era
humanism.
78 ibid, 50
83
For Tiqqun, Empire is the rational devel-
opment of the modern state into an era where
the state acknowledges its own obsolescence.
They claim that the modern state, through its
various incarnations as the absolutist/sovereign
state, the liberal state, and the welfare state, has
always been on a rational progression towards
its own impossibility. This impossibility is in-
formed by the fact, as Tiqqun claims, that the
modern state attempted to politicize all aspects
of the social and in so doing ended up socializing
all aspects of the political. Thus for Tiqqun, Em-
pire is the totalizing amalgamation of the social
and the political—and in such a climate the state
form becomes obsolete because there is no lon-
ger any need to keep up the pretense that the
state exists in order to make clear the distinction
between the social and the political. Every social
position or space, even those once relegated to
the “private” realm (matters of the home, etc),
has now been politicized and colonized by Em-
pire. This totalization, the collapse of the social
into the political and the political into the social,
stems from a humanist logic initially arguing for
universal human essence. Under the pretense of
securing humanist fundamentals like “liberty,”
“justice,” and “autonomy,” the state justified its
84
own control and domination independent of the
universal essence it purported to serve.
Tiqqun’s critique of this logic resonates
with Nietzschean thought. In the first essay of
section thirteen of On the Genealogy of Morals,
Nietzsche attacks the humanist concept of “the
good,” which later informs the pursuit of a uni-
versal conception of “liberty,” “justice,” and “au-
tonomy.” He argues that, qualitatively, there is
no such universal conception of the “good” and,
conversely, all that exists are relations of force
(which Foucault will later recast as “power”).
These amoral relations of force are present in
Tiqqun’s work, in the actualization of forms-of-
life. They claim that
Thought [is] that which converts a form-
of-life into a force, into a sensible effectiv-
ity. In every situation there is one line that
stands out among all the others, the line
along which power grows. Thought is the
capacity for singling out and following
this line. A form-of-life can be embraced
only by following this line, meaning that
all thought is strategic.79
Tiqqun identifies Empire’s ability to pla-
cate and pacify all of these “lines” of power and
79 ibid, 20
85
force, as the cessation of “civil war” (aka the
free-play of forms-of-life). This critique of the
pacification of force is entirely Nietzschean, as
Nietzsche claims that
to demand of strength that it should not
express itself as strength, that it should
not be a desire to overcome, a desire to
throw down, a desire to become master, a
thirst for enemies and resistances and tri-
umphs, is just as absurd as to demand of
weakness that it should express itself as
strength.80
Tiqqun would argue that the Nietzschean
expression of strength as outlined above is al-
most synonymous with their assumption of a
form-of-life—as only the actualization of a par-
ticular ethic can effectively produce power
aligned against efforts to pacify or sublimate it.
Furthermore, Nietzsche’s critique of the “subject”
parallels Tiqqun’s own critique of the political
or economical subject. In Nietzsche’s words
A quantum of force is equivalent to a
quantum of drive, will, effect—more, it is
nothing other than precisely this very
driving, willing, effecting, and only owing
80 Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce

Homo. 1989. 45.
86
to the seduction of language (and of the
fundamental errors of reason that are pet-
rified in it) which conceives and miscon-
ceives all effects as conditioned by some-
thing that causes effects, by a “subject,”
can it appear otherwise.81
Here, the humanist construction of the individual
“subject” faces a most hostile critique. Nietzsche
argues that the fallacy that all force stems from
an actor emerges from the rationality of language,
and from the laws and delineations presupposed
by its use. He argues instead that
there is no ‘being’ behind doing, effecting,
becoming; ‘the doer’ is merely a fiction
added to the deed—the deed is everything.82
This forms the basis of Tiqqun’s theorizing that a
form-of-life is an ethical posturing (the becoming
of the “deed”), not rooted in individual identity or
subjecthood.
While there is a great degree of conflu-
ence in Nietzsche and Tiqqun’s critique of the
subject and in their case for an ethic of force/
power, there are also points of divergence. The
most apparent is that the slave morality which
Nietzsche so vehemently criticizes comes almost
81 ibid, 45
82 ibid, 45
87
entirely from his doubt that language can refer
to reality in any fundamental way; yet Tiqqun’s
treatment of the way that bodies are subjectivat-
ed and made to implicate themselves in predica-
tive identities looks to Empire, rather than to
language, as the root of this domination. While
in hindsight this difference comes from the obvi-
ous difference in Nietzsche and Tiqqun’s socio-
historical contexts, it is still a very informative
divergence of thought. Nietzsche claims that:
This type of man [the one who succumbs
to slave morality] needs to believe in a
neutral independent ‘subject,’ prompted
by an instinct for self-preservation and
self-affirmation in which every lie is sanc-
tified. The subject (or, to use a more popu-
lar expression, the soul) has perhaps been
believed in hitherto more firmly than
anything else on earth because it makes
possible to the majority of mortals, the
weak and oppressed of every kind, the
sublime self-deception that interprets
weakness as freedom, and their being
thus-and-thus as a merit.83
While at face value this analysis of the in-
herent cowardice of subjecthood seems to align
83 ibid, 46
88
with Tiqqun’s own qualms with the process of
subjectification—Nietzsche still believes in a
fundamental essence (divorced from the “sub-
ject”) with the agency to fully exert its own will.
Tiqqun argues that the subject’s “in-
stinct for self-preservation and self-affirmation”
is merely the result of affective apparatuses of
domination exerting control onto individual
bodies. “Self-preservation” and “self-affirmation,”
for Tiqqun, form the basis of biopower, and in
contrast to Nietzsche’s view, are apparatuses
that the individual body has little power to reject
or acquiesce to. The subtle difference that emerg-
es here is a matter of causality, as Nietzsche
would argue that slave morality can simply be
overcome by a strong-willed individual (his
ubermensch), whereas for Tiqqun, operating
within the totality of Empire, only the coming
together of ethical intensities as forms-of-life
can overcome the apparatuses of subjectifica-
tion. Thus, at its root, this is a difference between
an individual notion of actualizing force
(Nietzsche) and a communal notion of actualiz-
ing power (Tiqqun). However, clearly neither
relies on the notion of the subject.
In the preface to “An Ethic of Civil War,”
in Introduction to Civil War, Tiqqun quotes Ni-
89
etzsche’s “Posthumous Fragments”:
New form of community, asserting itself
in a warlike manner. Otherwise the spirit
grows soft. No ‘gardens’ and no sheer
‘evasion in the face of the masses.’ War
(but without gunpowder!) between differ-
ent thoughts! and their armies!84
Here, Tiqqun finds the ethic of civil war in Ni-
etzsche’s thought. Whereas Nietzsche focuses on
the war between “different thoughts,” a Tiqqunist
rendering would include the war between differ-
ent ethical intensities and forms-of-life. It is a lay-
ing bare, a peeling away of the simulacra to ex-
pose the inherent hostilities underlying life
within Empire. Here, civil war becomes the war
amongst hostile forms-of-life. At all times, the
potential for such war exists, sometimes dormant,
waiting to rupture through the Spectacle in the
forms of insurrection and communization (com-
munism made immediate). Thus, the task of any
militant is to further the visibility of these hos-
tilities while concurrently finding forms-of-life
with the same ethical predispositions and coming
into direct contact with the potential such com-
ing-together affords. Tiqqun claims that
insofar as we stay in contact with our own
90
potentiality, even if only in thinking
through our experience, we represent
danger within the metropolises of Empire.
We are whatever enemy against which all
the imperial apparatuses and norms are
positioned.85
It is precisely in this potentiality to become
whatever enemy against Empire that Tiqqun’s
theoretical trajectory is inherently ahistorical.
In his “Theses on the Philosophy of His-
tory,” Walter Benjamin constructs the distinc-
tion between historiography and the ways that
historical knowledge is produced and acquired.
In other words Benjamin creates a decisive split
between the notion of history as one of ever-
unfolding progress (Enlightenment-era histori-
cism) and a philosophy of history based on its
own interruption and “arrest” from the flow of
progress.86 This forms an ardent critique of the
linearity of Enlightenment-era views on history
and time. Benjamin argues that humanist his-
toricism is informed by the “empathy” that his-
toricists have for political “victors.”87 He claims
85 ibid, 175
86 Benjamin, Walter. “Theses on the Philosophy of History.”
Illuminations: Walter Benjamin Essays and Reflections. Ed. Hannah
Arendt. 262
87 ibid, 256
91
that the ascription of linearity to historical de-
velopments is merely the acknowledgment that
all rulers are the heirs of those who con-
quered before them. [...] Whoever has
emerged victorious participates to this day
in the triumphal procession in which the
present rulers step over those who are ly-
ing prostrate.88
One must be positioned against this conception
of history if one aims to see a future of radical
potentiality.
The future cannot be a site of radical
potentiality if it is viewed as merely the ratio-
nal continuity of the present; thus Benjamin
argues that the present needs to be arrested or
interrupted to fully understand it and recontex-
tualize the future. The humanist historicist has
succumbed to a historicizing impulse that is
oblivious to the realization that “there is no
document of civilization which is not at the
same time a document of barbarism.”89 Here
Benjamin is most explicit in his critique of En-
lightenment/humanist historicism as essential-
ly a view of progress that rationalizes domina-
tion, barbarism, and ultimately fascism. He
88 ibid, 356
89 ibid, 256
92
makes this connection apparent when he claims
that “one reason why Fascism has a chance is
that in the name of progress its opponents treat
it as a historical norm.”90 This conception of his-
tory as progress can only lead to fascism, yet its
experience—the actual understanding of its
temporality—is only differentiated as a mere
matter of perception.
Benjamin analyzes Paul Klee’s painting
“Angelus Novus” to speak to this difference of
perception. He claims that
this is how one pictures the angel of his-
tory. His face is turned towards the past.
Where we perceive a chain of events, he
sees one single catastrophe that keeps pil-
ing wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it
in front of his feet.91
This conception of history, progress in the name
of the Enlightenment as propelled toward imma-
nent catastrophe, is a trope within Tiqqun’s own
critique of history.
Tiqqun follows in the wake of Benja-
min’s theoretical work on history as they too
argue that conceiving of history as a “chain of
events”—a progression with a legitimacy stem-
90 ibid, 257
91 ibid, 257
93
ming from “reason”—can only lead to the com-
plete decimation of life-itself. In an analysis that
seems entirely informed by Benjamin, Tiqqun
argues that
at first glance, Empire seems to be a pa-
rodic recollection of the entire, frozen his-
tory of a ‘civilization.’ And this impression
has a certain intuitive correctness. Empire
is in fact civilization’s last stop before it
reaches the end of its line, the final agony
in which it sees life pass before its eyes.92
Empire forms the stage, based on a particular
faith in Enlightened reason, of statist develop-
ment as it ends the sequence beginning with the
absolutist state and progressing through the lib-
eral and welfare states. For Tiqqun, Empire is
the stage of development that witnesses the in-
herent impossibility of the modern state’s aims.
It is the stage governing the crises that emerge
when the modern state realizes that in order to
actualize its goals (the complete politicization of
all social fields/realms), it must necessarily see
its own coming-apart. The modern state can
only exist in its difference (the acknowledgment
that the state is made up of those segments of
life which are politicized), yet once everything
94
becomes politicized the delineations securing
the state precisely as the state cease to exist and
so the modern state merges completely with a
social-realm entirely subject to domination (ie
Empire). In this totality of developmental prog-
ress, Tiqqun introduces the necessity for mo-
ments that break from this linearity.
If anything in Tiqqun’s work can be
called prescriptive it is their outline of action af-
ter their much stronger analyses of the condi-
tions of Empire. Ruptures, breaks, and insurrec-
tion are the way out of the dominating
apparatuses of Empire. They claim that these
(ethical) positions against Empire are “the ges-
ture of breaking the predictable chains of events,
of liberating compressed possibilities.”93 This
rhetoric of interruption carries with it echoes of
Benjamin’s conception of messianic time. For
Benjamin messianic time is the transcendence of
the present, which appears and interrupts the
continuity of history precisely to recontextual-
ize the potentiality of the present by resolutely
looking into the past. He claims that
the present, which, as a model of Messi-
anic time, comprises the entire history of
mankind in an enormous abridgment, co-
93 ibid, 222
95
incides exactly with the stature which the
history of mankind has in the universe.94
This conception of time inverts both humanist
historicism and Marxist historical materialism,
or those treatments of time that are content in
“establishing a causal connection between vari-
ous moments in history.”95 While Benjamin’s cri-
tique of humanist historicism also appears in
Tiqqun, it must be noted that a major distinction
emerges between their positions about interrup-
tions to this temporally linear progress.
Fundamental to this divergence is an un-
derstanding of Benjamin’s messianic time as
rooted in stasis, a freezing of the storm of progress.
It is a “Messianic cessation of happening, or put
differently, a revolutionary chance in the fight for
the oppressed past.”96 This cessation is inextrica-
bly linked to the past. Through this interruption,
one can divorce temporality from its supposed
existence within a causal chain. Messianic time
reveals its transcendence precisely in its ability to
pause causality itself—a leftover from Enlighten-
ment notions of progress. Benjamin claims that
a historian who takes this as his point of
94 op cit, “These on the Philosophy of History”, 263

95 ibid, 263
96 ibid, 263
96
departure stops telling the sequence of
events like the beads of a rosary. Instead,
he grasps the constellation which his own
era has formed with a definite earlier one.
Thus, he establishes a conception of the
present as the ‘time of the now’ which is
shot through with chips of Messianic time.97
Here, the Benjaminian historian evades the logic
of progress by pausing to view the structure of
the present within a discursive field that looks to
the past not as a spectrum or continuum, but
rather as a sort of “abridgment” with the present.
Tiqqun’s rhetoric around ruptures and
breaks in the continuity of history has less to do
with situating the present, and more with ex-
pressing a collective potentiality that is inher-
ently alter-historical. They argue that interrup-
tions in history’s progress function in tandem
with the introduction of “lines of rupture, alli-
ances and discontinuities into the smooth space
of demokratic society [...]”98 These “lines of rup-
ture” and “discontinuities” are part of a concep-
tion of history informed not merely by interrup-
tion alone as Benjamin’s is, but rather by
interruption coupled with the departure, exodus,
97 ibid, 263
97
and desertion from history itself. They claim that
rather than new critiques, new cartogra-
phies are what we need. Cartographies
not for Empire, but for lines of flight out of
it. [...] Tools for orientation. That don’t try
to say or represent what is within differ-
ent archipelagoes of desertion, but show
us how to meet up with them.99
Thus, for Tiqqun it is not enough to have a ces-
sation within history; one must go further to po-
sitions which exist entirely independent of its
“homogeneous, empty time.”100 Here history ho-
mogenizes a plurality of temporalities, and sets
all experience along the trajectory of a progres-
sive historicism. Tiqqun claims that
there is an official history of the State in
which the State seems to be the one and
only actor, in which the advances of the
state monopoly on the political are so
many battles chalked up against an enemy
who is invisible, imaginary, and precisely
without history. 101
Through a rhetoric that removes the historical
imperatives of whatever is aligned against it, the
99 ibid, 216
100 op cit, “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” 261
98
state preemptively invalidates all competing
claims to history.
This preemptive obfuscation effectively
sublimates a
counter-history, written from the view-
point of civil war, in which the stakes of
all these ‘advancements,’ the dynamics of
the modern State, can be glimpsed. This
counter-history reveals a political monop-
oly that is constantly threatened by the
recomposition of autonomous worlds, of
non-state collectivities.102
Thus, for Tiqqun, unlike Benjamin, the interrup-
tive nature of a new philosophy of history must
necessarily expose lines of potentiality for new
“non-state collectivities” to emerge from the rup-
ture of the progressive linearity of humanist or
Marxist-materialist historicisms. They prescrip-
tively argue that one must
become attentive to the taking-place of
things, of beings. To their event. To the
obstinate and silent salience of their own
temporality beneath the planetary flatten-
ing of all temporalities by the time of ur-
gency.103
102 ibid, 111

103 ibid, 211
99
By recovering a temporality that emerges from a
rupture within the dominant temporality—the
crushing weight of progressive history—a form-
of-life effectively abandons its own implicated
positionality within history and necessarily
comes into contact with “the abyss of presence.”104
The argumentative basis of Tiqqun’s
short essay “How is it to be done?”, included at
the end of the Semiotext(e) version of Introduc-
tion to Civil War, addresses precisely how one
engages against Empire. While a somewhat
practical response to the analysis of Empire in
Introduction to Civil War, it can also be read not
only as manual for the desertion of Empire but
also for the desertion of humanism as well.
Within its polemic arc, “How is it to be done?”
explicitly critiques several control apparatuses
which it attributes primarily to Empire, yet does
not ignore the role humanism played in the cre-
ation of these sites of domination.
The construction of the individual as au-
tonomous subject stems from Enlightenment
thought, but as Tiqqun argues, it witnesses its
most refined form in the context of Empire. In
response to the process of subjectification,
which Tiqqun argues is one of Empire’s most
104 ibid, 210
100
prominent capabilities to exert domination, de-
subjectification is a possible way out of this log-
ic of totalizing control. Central to their under-
standing of desubjectification is the notion that
it must be done communally, with partisan
forms-of-life. Tiqqun writes:
The experience of my desubjectivization. I
become a whatever singularity. [...] In the
eyes of a being who, being present, wants
to assess me for what I am, I savor the dis-
appointment, his disappointment of seeing
me become so common, so perfectly acces-
sible. In the gestures of another, it is an un-
expected complicity. All that isolates me as
a subject, as a body endowed with a public
configuration of attributes, I feel it founder.
[...] Does one ever escape alone from the
prison of the Self? In a squat. In an orgy. In
a riot. In a train or an occupied village. We
meet again. We meet again as whatever
singularities. That is to say not on the basis
of a common belonging, but of a common
presence. Thus is our need for communism.
The need for nocturnal spaces, where we
can meet up beyond our predicates. Be-
yond the tyranny of recognition.105
105 ibid, 204-05
101
This whole trajectory of thought, outlin-
ing the move towards desubjectification, runs
counter to the humanist notion of hermeneuti-
cally uncovering some fundamental universal
human essence. It also runs counter to orthodox
Marxist conceptions of ascribing the “revolu-
tionary subject” as a predicative identity placed
onto an entire class of individuals as a means to
foment the revolutionary moment. Instead of
adopting newer and more nuanced predicative
identities, Tiqqun advocates the abandonment
of all subjectivities as they are innately in the
service of prolonging the control of Empire. This
happens through the ways that identities are al-
ways reintegrated into discourses of domination
by the rational logic inherent in the recognition
of a subject as a subject (a conglomeration of all
of its affective ties, identities, and predicates).
Tiqqun claims that
the more I am recognized, the more my
gestures are hindered, hindered from with-
in. And here I am caught in the ultra-tight
meshwork of the new power. In the impal-
pable snares of the new police: THE IM-
PERIAL POLICE OF QUALITIES.106
Thus, if Empire, and by extension the humanis-
106 ibid, 206
102
tic impulse, is aimed at affirming such qualities
of the individual subject, Tiqqun’s argument
rests on the disavowal of all such qualitative
renderings of ontology. In fact, Tiqqun seems to
dismiss the whole notion of metaphysical ontol-
ogy in its entirety, as they are much more con-
cerned with ethical positions, instead of con-
structions of being.
After their dismissal of the humanist
project to construct, valorize, and protect a uni-
versal essence, Tiqqun goes on to challenge the
whole deterministic notion of rationality/rea-
son. A subject-centered rationality arises from
the development of epistemological reason dur-
ing the Enlightenment, and it is this form of rea-
son that argues that absolute knowledge is a
conceptual objective that can indeed be worked
toward (progress) with the ultimate aim of fully
understanding or possessing it. Here Tiqqun
again takes a distinctively anti-humanist ap-
proach. They argue that resisting Empire re-
quires an ethical approach informed by the
“how?” and not the “what?” of conventional
politics of resistance in the past. They argue that
“How to?” is actually
a question of means. Not a question of
goals, or objectives, of what there is to do,
103
strategically, in the absolute. A question of
what one can do, tactically, in a situation,
and of the acquisition of this power.107
Thus, the absolutism so prevalent in Enlighten-
ment theories is problematized and inverted to
reveal the need for plural, immediate, local, and
always contextual, forms of resistance. It is the
trading-in of grand theories of resistance for the
acknowledgement of all the potentialities pres-
ent in a given situation. In this way, through the
proliferation of all potentialities within all dif-
ferentiated contexts, Tiqqun’s anti-program of
resistance finds its tactical strength: its ability to
become amorphous, opaque, and invisible.
Against Enlightenment rationalism and
certainty that deductive reasoning can bring all
knowledge to light, the calls of Tiqqun for invis-
ibility, obfuscation, and opacity form another
arm of their anti-humanism. They argue that
there is an opacity inherent to the contact
between bodies. And that is incompatible
with the imperial reign of a light that no
longer illuminates things except to break
them down108
This “imperial reign of a light” can extend to the
107 ibid, 209

108 ibid, 218
104
critique of humanist rationality. In the socio-
historical context of Empire, “reason” is no lon-
ger benign or impartial—it is fully integrated in
apparatuses of domination, as it seeks to “illumi-
nate things” only to “break them down.” This is
similar to the fascist logic behind progressive
historical linearity that Benjamin warned against.
These sites where commensurate forms-
of-life find each other, Tiqqun calls “Zones of
Offensive Opacity.” They are “delimited space[s]”
of “political anonymity,” “bound together by an
intense circulation of bodies and affects between
bodies.”109 This is the invisible terrain created by
an ethics of civil war where forms-of-life aligned
against the totality of Empire enact an immedi-
ate communism of the present—where the rup-
ture with history manifests as a site of insurrec-
tion. Contrary to the previous failed politics of
resistance, which offer conceptions of alternate
modes of existence to late-capitalism or Empire,
“Zones of Offensive Opacity do not have to be
created.”110 This is the ahistorical privileging of
the present-moment, as Tiqqun goes on to claim
that these zones
are already there, in any kind of relation
109 ibid, 218

110 ibid, 218-19
105
that brings about a veritable putting into
play of bodies. What’s needed is to em-
brace the fact that we take part in this
opacity. And to give ourselves the means
to spread it, defend it.111
Because Tiqqun wages its polemical at-
tack at the level of the individual, of absolute
knowledge, of rationality, and of historical prog-
ress, a new offensive logic of resistance to Em-
pire emerges in their work. The diffusion of the
unrecognizable becomes central to the war
against Empire—the spreading of that which
cannot be reduced to simple predicates or identi-
ties, the proliferation of a radical uncertainty,
and a collective penchant or ethical inclination
for the irrational. Each of these positions stems
entirely from a position vehemently opposed to
the last vestiges of humanist thinking. By explic-
itly advocating the desertion of Empire, Tiqqun
advocates the desertion of humanism.
111 ibid, 219

106
4
Power and the
Development of Empire:
The Absolutist, Liberal,
and Welfare State and
the Emergence of
Biopower in Tiqqun’s
Introduction to Civil War
In Introduction to Civil War (Introduction à la
guerre civile) Tiqqun describes the sociopoliti-
cal terrain upon which anticapitalist militants
engage with late-capitalist power relations—a
terrain which has dramatically shifted from
classical Marxist conceptions of historical ma-
terialist class struggle. They argue that this ter-
rain can no longer be conceived of as mono-di-
rectional exploitation, but now only as
discursive relations of domination. They argue
that the social field of late-capitalism has un-
doubtedly evolved, and the forms of the mod-
ern state and its correlated forms of power have
also developed. Thus, in order to conceive of
107
effective resistance to domination one must
necessarily chart the changes in control and its
relationship to the state-form. Tiqqun outlines
the development of the modern state—from the
absolutist state, to the liberal state, and finally
to the welfare state—that leads up to their con-
ception of what they call Empire. Empire is
what remains when the practices, techniques,
and apparatuses of domination have outlived
and developed beyond all of the forms that
once justified its control. Understanding
Tiqqun’s critique of Empire requires an evalua-
tion of the development of the modern state-
form and its relations to earlier forms of power.
The modern state is entirely dependent on the
articulation of its power relations, until Empire
emerges and complicates this relationship by
actively dissolving the state-form itself through
the totalizing proliferation of biopower. At each
stage of the modern state’s development, an ac-
companying form of power emerges, until it
finds its most refined expression in biopower,
the power dynamic of Empire.
Before exploring Tiqqun’s understand-
ing of Empire, we must trace the historical de-
velopment of the modern state that they argue
eventually gives way to Empire itself. They ar-
108
gue the modern state has gone through roughly
three transitions, which correspond to stages in
the development of capitalism, before it ulti-
mately amalgamates into Empire: the absolutist
state (that of the classical sovereign), the liberal
state, and the welfare state. These are unique de-
velopmental stages of the state, though each is
entirely dependent on the previous form, and
each has a corresponding form of power rela-
tions. Tiqqun claims that
the modern State fails in three ways: first,
as the absolutist State, then as the liberal
State, and soon after as the Welfare State.
The passage from one to the other can only
be understood in relation to three succes-
sive corresponding forms of civil war: the
wars of religion, class struggle, and the
Imaginary Party.112
Thus, communism, in its nascent form as
Tiqqun’s concept of civil war, has always had a
certain historical immanence—precisely in the
fact that the semblance of stasis and pacifica-
tion in all three developmental stages of the
modern state has always had antagonistic ele-
ments which actively contribute to the state’s
destabilization.
112 ibid, 106
109
Tiqqun calls “‘communism’ the real
movement that elaborates, everywhere and at
every moment, civil war.”113 Civil war necessar-
ily takes on an ethical dimension, as “civil war is
the free play of forms-of-life; it is the principle
of their coexistence.”114 They conceive of the
modern state as the form that attempts to nulli-
fy potentiality of forms-of-life coming together,
and the inherent violence of such comings to-
gether. Tiqqun most fully elucidates their con-
cept of civil war in Introduction to Civil War in
the following passage:
War, because in each singular play between
forms-of-life, the possibility of a fierce con-
frontation—the possibility of violence—can
never be discounted. Civil, because the con-
frontation between forms-of-life is not like
that between States—a coincidence be-
tween a population and a territory—but
like the confrontation between parties, in
the sense this word had before the advent
of the modern State. And because we must
be precise from now on, we should say that
forms-of-life confront one another as parti-
san war machines.115
113 ibid, 63
114 ibid, 32
115 ibid, 33
110
These confrontations of forms-of-life are
ethical confrontations in that forms-of-life are
mere ethical inclinations or leanings-toward. It
is because of this semblance of singularity that
antagonistic forms-of-life preclude, that all such
confrontations form “partisan war machines.”
According to Tiqqun, the absolutist state
arises immediately after the pacification of the
first European civil war—the wars of religion.
They claim that
in both theory and practice, the modern
State came into being in order to put an
end to civil war, then called ‘wars of reli-
gion.’ Therefore, both historically and by
its own admission, it is secondary vis-à-
vis civil war.”116
Assuming that pre-Reformation Christianity
maintained hegemony in Europe, Tiqqun claims
that the Protestant Reformation and the con-
flicts between groups like the Schmalkaldic
League and the Catholic Church represented
some of the most significant breaks of unifying
social positions. Subsequently, after the pacifica-
tion of this first “civil war” (through the lessen-
ing of religious violence) the modern state, in its
first absolutist form,
116 ibid, 72
111
bursts on the scene with the task of recon-
stituting this unity—secularized, this
time—no longer as an organic whole but
instead as a mechanical whole, as a ma-
chine, as a conscious artificiality.117
Thus, the modern state acts not as an alternate
means to reconstruct social unity, but rather re-
constitutes it according to completely new and
fabricated means. Here representation within a
social field becomes an obvious part of social
existence.
Early Protestantism operated according
to a doctrine which destabilized this idea of “or-
ganic” unity by creating a rupture “between the
kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world,
between inner man and outer man.118” The first
form of the modern state, the absolutist state,
carries on this bifurcating impetus of Protestant-
ism, only now in a secular manner. This bifurca-
tion through the absolutist state allows for the
first and perhaps most fundamental distinction
of statecraft to emerge: the belief that
henceforth there shall be on the one hand
an ‘absolutely free,’ private, moral con-
science and on the other hand public, po-
117 ibid, 74
118 ibid, 75
112
litical action ‘absolutely subject to State
Reason.’119
This split between the public and private
spheres informs the developmental logic of the
modern state and capitalism. The “public” being
“absolutely subject to State Reason” becomes
the theoretical support for the controlling form
of sovereignty itself.
This rise of the sovereign in the absolut-
ist state is the secular reintroduction of the
metaphysical conception of “The One,” which
fully unifies and contains within it everything
else. Yet, as mentioned earlier, it is a mechanized
and fabricated appropriation and reconstitution
of “The One.” Throughout the subsequent devel-
opments of the modern state, it becomes a cen-
tral concern of the state to preserve and perpet-
uate this fiction of unity when in fact there is
nothing but conflictual plurality and hostility.
Tiqqun argues that the “public” is simply the
fictive techniques that the modern State
will employ to artificially maintain the fic-
tion of the One. Its entire reality will be
concentrated in these techniques, through
which it will ensure the maintenance of
Order, only now that of an outside order, a
119 ibid, 77
113
public order.120
Thus, the development of capitalism and the de-
velopment of the modern state also have a third
parallel in the rise of representation, which
functions as an attempt to “ensure the mainte-
nance [or appearance] of Order.” Thus with each
concurrent stage of state development a corre-
sponding reality mediated by representation ap-
pears—until of course the Spectacle appears
with Empire as a social reality entirely mediated
by representation itself.
In Tiqqun’s account of the modern state,
the absolutist state gives way to the liberal state
when the freedom (control) exerted by the sov-
ereign (which represses all other freedoms) be-
comes less effective and ultimately untenable.
As a result, the liberal state inverts the rhetoric
of the absolutist state by arguing that it is
through the preservation of individual liberty
that control can most efficiently be enacted. It
acquiesces to the logic that if indeed the state’s
ultimate goal is to “ensure the maintenance of
Order,” then allowing the individual subjects
who comprise the public/social sphere to oper-
ate under the pretense of individual freedom is
a more effective means of control than the bla-
120 ibid, 37
114
tant control exercised by the sovereign. Tiqqun
argues that
the liberal State is a frugal State, which
claims to exist only to ensure the free play
of individual liberties, and to this end it
begins by extorting interests from each
body, so that it can attach them to these
bodies and reign peacefully across this
new abstract world: ‘the phenomenal re-
public of interests’ (Foucault).121
This marks a shift in the relationship between
the individual and the modern state. Whereas
the absolutist state cared little about the affec-
tive persuasions of its subjects, the liberal state’s
entire framework of control requires a tacit un-
derstanding of essential or inalienable rights (or
“interests”) so that the liberal state can grant
these rights/interests back to the subjects as an
act of good faith. Hence the rise of Enlightenment-
era thinking with its rhetoric of freedom, justice,
and liberty.
The subjects of the liberal state fail to
recognize that these inalienable rights are not in
and of themselves external to the logic that pur-
ports to protect them—ie the liberal state itself.
They are in reality fabricated products of the
121 ibid, 107
115
functioning of the liberal state; they are insepa-
rable from the rhetoric of this episteme and only
find meaning within its discourse. The liberal
state, Tiqqun argues,
claims it exists only to keep things in good
order, for the proper functioning of ‘civil
society,’ which is absolutely a thing of its
own creation.122
Tiqqun argues that the liberal state in Europe
saw its high point between the years of 1815 and
1914, and the outbreak of World War I compli-
cated the further encroachment of the liberal
state. Foucault argues that the beginnings of bio-
power and biopolitical practices come into exis-
tence between 1815 and 1914, concurrent with
the slow displacement of sovereign power.
Tiqqun quotes Foucault’s analysis of the begin-
nings of disciplinary techniques:
‘I have drawn attention to the fact that the
development, dramatic rise, and dissemi-
nation throughout society of these famous
disciplinary techniques for taking charge
of the behavior of individuals day by day
and in its fine detail is exactly contempo-
raneous with the age of freedoms.’123
122 ibid, 107

123 ibid, 107-08
116
Here, under the pretense of liberalism and of hu-
manistic ‘freedoms,’ this incarnation of the mod-
ern state begins to control individuals at the
level of the body and life-itself.
Foucault’s work on the dissemination of
disciplinary techniques in institutions as dispa-
rate, yet integrally connected, as psychiatric in-
stitutions and prisons finds that these disciplin-
ary techniques developed in tandem with the
liberal state. It is at this point of historical devel-
opment that Tiqqun identifies “security” as in-
separable from the liberal state’s grounding in
individual freedom. Security here is a form of
preemptive knowledge-collecting that effective-
ly deters any threats to individual freedom. Thus,
security is rooted in knowledge, that is explicitly
tied to the liberal state’s means of control—ie
knowledge as a means to power.
Tiqqun argues that in order to grant this
presumptive fallacy of individual freedom to the
individual itself, the liberal state must know ev-
erything in order to preemptively secure any
threats to this individual freedom, thereby mak-
ing individual freedom a relation which is inher-
ently managed and mediated, and in actuality
furthest away from the theoretical conception of
individual freedom as possible. They claim that
117
the State that ‘wishes to govern just
enough so that it can govern the least’
must in fact know everything, and it must
develop a set of practices and technologies
to do it.124
This marks a decisive difference between power
relations in the liberal state and power relations
in Empire (which will be explored later in this
essay). Here power functions in a transitory
phase somewhere between the decline of abso-
lute sovereignty and the beginnings of biopower.
The liberal state, which in order to grant its sub-
jects individual freedom “must in fact know ev-
erything” about what its subjects are doing or
even capable of doing (this informs the preven-
tative approach), is still a reactive form of power,
rather than a productive one like biopower is.
To say the liberal state’s form of power
relations are reactive and not productive is to
say that in order to control its citizens the state
responds to individual desires rather than help-
ing to create them. This distinction between pro-
ductive/constructive and reactive/responsive
cannot be overlooked in the development of the
modern state’s power relations. Power relations
within the liberal state exist almost exclusively
124 ibid, 108
118
at the reactive/responsive end of the spectrum,
for while power is no longer sovereign as in the
absolutist state, it still tries to control the indi-
vidual subject by understanding the subject’s
desires, persuasions, and inclinations. Security
enters into this discourse as a means to under-
stand individual desires, persuasions, and incli-
nations before they are enacted (preemptively).
The liberal state’s expansive institutions
and techniques for control are not based on de-
veloping individual desires to secure control
over political subjects—this development does
not happen until biopower begins to supplant
absolutist power during the epoch of the welfare
state. Tiqqun claims:
Witness here the insidious way in which
the liberal State will perfect the modern
State, under the pretext of needing to pen-
etrate everywhere in order to avoid being
everywhere in actuality, that in order to
leave its subjects alone it must know ev-
erything. The principle of the liberal State
could be stated like this: ‘If control and
discipline are everywhere, the State does
not have to be so’.125
Thus, the explicit totalizing control of the abso-
125 ibid, 108
119
lutist sovereign is sublimated and inverted. Pow-
er is internalized by the subject and now oper-
ates implicitly and often subconsciously.
With the rise of the liberal state the
modern state begins to turn power inward, thus
it is also at this time that one sees the rise of
pervasive disciplinary techniques, which in a
very subdued way exert a totalizing field of pre-
emptive control (eg Bentham’s panopticon). This
is so much the case that in Birth of Biopolitics, as
quoted by Tiqqun, Foucault claims that
government, initially limited to the func-
tion of supervision, is only to intervene
when it sees that something is not hap-
pening according to the general mechan-
ics of behavior, exchange, and economic
life. [...] The Panopticon is the very for-
mula of liberal government.126
The important distinction to note here within the
liberal governance schema is that it is “limited to
the function of supervision.” Again, this is purely
reactive/responsive in that its conception of con-
trol stops at understanding the pure potentiality
of the governed political subjects and goes no
further. “Further” in this context would entail
not only the absolute knowledge of the potenti-
126 ibid, 108
120
ality of governed political subjects, but also the
ability to prescriptively construct what potenti-
alities are even possible for the governed sub-
jects in question. This shift, from a purely reac-
tive/responsive control to one that uses
productive/constructive apparatuses, marks the
beginning of the modern welfare state.
Tiqqun argues that the transition from
the liberal state to the welfare state is marked by
two complementary shifts: because the liberal
state extended the supervisory reach of the state
into realms once considered entirely within the
social (implying that such a distinction between
the state and the social actually existed before
this time), it must follow that the state itself in-
tegrate aspects of the “social.” They claim that
ultimately the ‘state-ification’ of the social
had to be paid for by the socialization of
the State, and thus leads to the mutual dis-
solution of both the State and society.127
Thus, because these shifts complement each oth-
er, they both contribute to the indistinguishabil-
ity of the state and the social.
Here, in the development of the welfare
state, Empire starts to emerge. The welfare state
is the last vestige of the state-form within an
127 ibid, 110
121
emergent sociopolitical context that is reconcil-
ing any and all differences between state con-
trol and social control, both of which dissolve
and give way to Empire. The distinction be-
tween the state and the social (fairly evident in
the absolutist state and the liberal state) begins
to break down. All relations and apparatuses of
power in this form of the modern state become
indistinguishable from that which is governed.
This marks a fundamental change in the way in
which power is contextualized, as power is
completely subsumed into all social relations
and it takes on a thoroughly productive/con-
structive character.
Tiqqun claims that
what they called the ‘Welfare State’ was
this indistinction (between society and
state) in which the obsolete State-form
survived for a little while within Empire.128
Here the welfare state is portrayed as a form
presenting itself purely as form (a fictional or
place-holder form) within the reality of emer-
gent Empire. Yet importantly, just as the welfare
state is the last form of the modern state before
its own obsolescence, so too according to Tiqqun,
must one acknowledge that
128 ibid, 110
122
society no longer exists, at least in the
sense of a differentiated whole. There is
only a tangle of norms and mechanisms
through which they hold together the
scattered tatters of the global biopolitical
fabric, through which they prevent its vio-
lent disintegration.129
Thus, the welfare state, and Empire after it,
merely holds together—through their produc-
tive apparatuses—the difference and plurality
which threatens the very order it presupposes.
Here, one begins to see proto-Empire’s
need to maintain some semblance of order in old-
er forms, which begin to reveal the productive/
constructive component to its new logic of con-
trol—namely a further integration and prolifera-
tion of biopower. The implicit neurosis behind
the different development of all statist forms
reveals a political monopoly that is con-
stantly threatened by the recomposition
of autonomous worlds, of non-state
collectivities.130
It is this fear, this ever-present threat, that in-
forms the welfare state’s proliferation of new
disciplinary techniques which are no longer con-
129 ibid, 110

130 ibid, 111
123
tent with merely understanding what controlled
subjects are capable of, but now extends control
further into producing control through the main-
tenance and production of the subject’s life itself.
By fully extending into all social fields and so-
cializing the state itself, control (within the wel-
fare state and later within Empire) functions by
granting the means to life for each individual
under its domination.
The reasoning behind this totalizing en-
croachment is that anywhere an uncontested
space exists within the social, a space ostensibly
free from externalized control, the potential to
reconstitute “non-state collectivities” poses too
great a threat to the authority of the modern
state and thus all uncontested social space must
be occupied and politicized. Tiqqun claims that:
Whenever the State left something to the
‘private’ sphere, to ‘civil society,’ whenever
it declared something to be insignificant,
non-political, it left just enough room for
the free play of forms-of-life such that,
from one moment to the next, the monop-
oly on the political appears to be in dis-
pute. This is how the State is led, either
slowly or in a violent gesture, to encom-
pass the totality of social activity, to take
124
charge of the totality of man’s existence.131
This taking “charge of the totality of
man’s [sic] existence” finds its furthest extension
in taking charge in the most fundamental way—
constructing and guaranteeing individual exis-
tence itself or that which “sanctioned the right to
life.”132 This construction of existence takes as its
most invasive form the construction and prolif-
eration of subjectivities, or in Foucauldian terms,
the process of subjectification. This is not to claim,
however, that processes of subjectification, or the
production of subjectivities, is unique to the wel-
fare state. It is simply a matter of scale, for the
welfare state is the beginning of subjectification
en masse. Tiqqun elaborates on this point:
The Welfare State, which first took over
for the liberal State within Empire, is the
product of a massive diffusion of disci-
plines and regimes of subjectivation pecu-
liar to the liberal State.133
Thus, this form of power which produces and
implicates is not by any means an entirely new
conception of power dynamics, but its prolifera-
tion into all aspects of the social is a defining
131 ibid, 111

132 ibid, 111
133 ibid, 112
125
feature of the welfare state as proto-Empire.
The final shift of state development
which Tiqqun outlines is actually the dissolu-
tion of domination’s reliance on the state-as-
form: it is the total subsumption of the state-
form into the radically posited concept of Empire.
Tiqqun claims that the obsolescence of the state-
form is entirely due to the state coming to terms
with the impossibility of its own development.
In developing beyond the welfare state the state-
form encounters its own limits, precisely be-
cause its attempts at mediating all social exis-
tence and giving everything an explicit political
dimension necessitates an ethical dimension to
its own existence. Thus, the state-form itself
takes on an antagonistic ethical inclination, one
based on the impetus to dominate everything.
Because the state
wanted to concentrate the monopoly of
the political [it] ended up politicizing ev-
erything; all aspects of life had become
political, not in themselves as singular en-
tities, but precisely insofar as the State, by
taking a position, had there too formed it-
self into a party.134
This formation of a party, a distinct ethical pre-
134 ibid, 112
126
disposition, a form-of-life only concerned with
the eradication of all other forms-of-life, shows
the utter self-contradiction the state-form faces
now in the twilight of the welfare state and the
emergence of Empire. This contradiction is sub-
ject to the state-form’s ethical inclination to
wage “everywhere its war against civil war,
[which] above all propagated hostility toward
itself.”135 Thus, when faced with this inherent
developmental contradiction the state not only
dissolves, but so too does the social—or perhaps
more accurately, the state and the social dissolve
into the amalgamated mass of bodies, subjects,
apparatuses, power relations, markets, and pro-
ductive disciplinary mechanisms of Empire.
In analyzing the development of the
modern state through its successive forms,
Tiqqun arrives at Empire, which supplants the
notion of the state itself. They posit Empire as
an entirely new framework, responding to and
arising from the contradiction of the modern
state, that
the history of the modern State is the his-
tory of its struggle against its own impos-
sibility—that is, the history of its being
overwhelmed by the profusion of tech-
135 ibid, 112
127
niques it has deployed to ward off this im-
possibility. Empire is, to the contrary, the
assumption of both this impossibility and
these techniques.136
Thus, Empire is a mode of control that does
away with the need to do something other than
governance (ie maintain essential human rights
or uphold justice); it fully inhabits the absurdity
of making every social relation an act of gover-
nance with no pretensions to anything but that.
In this way, “Empire is the turning inside out of
the liberal State.”137 This “turning inside out”
takes the liberalist notion that individual free-
dom is sacred and that a government governs
best when it governs least, and completely ab-
sorbs and dominates everything outside of the
realm of control—or at least subjects the out-
side to a totalizing schema in which nothing is
apolitical any longer.
This is an important distinction to raise
between the modern state and Empire. Because
Empire accelerates the collapse of the social into
the political and the political into the social, even
the notion of the modern state as something ex-
ternal to that which it controls is problematized
136 ibid, 116

137 ibid, 116
128
and subverted. Empire becomes the act of living
domination, or put another way, within Empire,
domination is no longer exerted but completely
created and implicated by whatever lives it. Thus,
“the history of Empire does not take up where the
modern State leaves off.”138 Instead, it is what
happens when the modern state exists as pure
form, an outdated signifier no longer corre-
sponding to the reality of power relations. Em-
pire reifies itself through the mere lived experi-
ence of it. Tiqqun elucidates this new departure
by arguing:
When we speak of a turning inside out,
we are referring to the final possibility of
an exhausted system, which folds back
onto itself in order, in a mechanical fash-
ion, to collapse in on itself. The Outside
becomes the Inside, and the Inside now
has no limits.139
Here, one witnesses the profound ramifications
this “turning inside out” actually has in an onto-
political context, for if “the Inside now has no
limits” then all the ways in which individuals
create predicative subjectivity are merely ways
for Empire to extend its logic of domination.
138 ibid, 117

139 ibid, 117
129
When the individual subject sees itself as a par-
ticular predicative identity, or even as an indi-
vidual subject, it is merely evoking the myriad of
ways in which the Outside (the non- or a-
political) has now become internally politicized.
The more the imperial subject uses these dis-
courses of plurality and alterity, the further they
implicate themselves within Empire’s rhizomat-
ic structuring of control.
To understand Empire’s techniques of
management and control, one must first under-
stand how Tiqqun argues the liberal state exert-
ed its control—namely through the police and
publicity. The police, in the conventional under-
standing of the term, kept “watch over the
living”140 and reacted/responded when the situa-
tion warranted it. Their goal: to quickly reestab-
lish whatever one-dimensional control was lost.
On the other end of the liberal state’s spectrum
of control, publicity was concerned with creat-
ing the appearance of a space ostensibly open to
all (the politeia) within the state-form. This pub-
lic sphere, in order to fulfill its role as named,
operated on the pretense that a part of lived ex-
istence was purely common (ie reducible) be-
tween political subjects. Both these poles of the
140 ibid, 118
130
liberal state’s control, that of the police and of
the public sphere, operate on two distinct levels
with regards to the subjugated population: “first,
on its ‘body,’ and second on its ‘soul’.”141
With the emergence of Empire, direct
policing is no longer necessary, as biopower
supplants the police, and the Spectacle (in the
Debordian sense) supplants the public sphere.
Biopower proves to be a more effective means
for control (as will be discussed later in this es-
say) precisely because it begins to dominate not
only the literal bodies of the imperial subjects,
but their affective desires and persuasions as
well. Biopower guaranteed the right to life, thus
it allows for the production of subjectivities that
are already fully delineated by Empire before
they are even produced. The Spectacle proves to
be a more effective means for control, just as
Guy Debord claims in Society of the Spectacle,
because it is not merely a perpetual onslaught of
mass media images; much more troubling, the
Spectacle is when all social relations are com-
pletely mediated by representations.
Instead of the public sphere—which
leaves open the dangerous possibility, from the
modern state’s point of view, for non-statist col-
141 ibid, 118
131
lectivities to emerge—the Spectacle adopts a pre-
ventative stance here by precluding all interac-
tions that can ever even occur within the social by
mediating all of them (hence, the collapse of the
distinctions between the social and the state in
Empire). Through this development of techniques
of domination (as opposed to the development of
state-forms), Tiqqun ultimately can argue that
from this point on, the State does not dis-
appear, it is simply demoted beneath a
transterritorial set of autonomous prac-
tices: Spectacle, Biopower.”142
One must understand that Tiqqun is not merely
outlining the techniques of domination for Em-
pire, but rather positing that Empire has no form
in and of itself, but is only a disparate array of
techniques of domination that persist when
form has become dispensable.
Before leaving Empire, in order to fo-
cus on the main discursive form of power which
accompanies it, we should discuss its use as a
term outside of its obvious historical trappings.
The term “Empire” is appropriated from Anto-
nio Negri and Michael Hardt, who in their book
of the same name use it to denote a shift away
from imperialism based on the rule of nation-
142 ibid, 118
132
states, to a new postmodern conception of im-
perialism which extends beyond the nation-
state in the form of multinational corporate
conglomerations or global financial manage-
ment organizations like the World Trade Orga-
nization or the International Monetary Fund.
Tiqqun takes this notion of Empire one step
further, arguing that
if Empire is the assumption of the mod-
ern State’s impossibility, it is also the as-
sumption of the impossibility of imperial-
ism.143
Imperialism here extends beyond the classical
sense of the term to critique Negri and Hardt’s
conception of multinational-financial Empire as
well. Imperialism has become impossible be-
cause it presupposes that there are spaces (ma-
terial and ontological) left for Empire (in the
Tiqqunist sense) to colonize, when this is simply
no longer the case as all discursive fields have
been fully delineated by Empire. Thus, Tiqqun’s
logic here indicates that decolonization is not
actually aligned against Empire, but is merely a
new mode of domination. They claim that
decolonization means: the elaboration of
new forms of horizontal, sub-institution-
143 ibid, 119
133
al power that function better than the old
ones.”144
As problematic as this reading of decolonization
is, it nonetheless supports their argument—
namely that Empire is nothing but the prolifera-
tion of (new) techniques of domination without
an overarching form external to that which it
dominates.
Tiqqun’s argument is that just as the
modern State has almost innocuously changed
into Empire, so too has the way that power func-
tions within this new discursive paradigm. Rely-
ing heavily on Foucault, Tiqqun argues that
power no longer functions according to the clas-
sical conception of juridical sovereignty and
now is entirely enmeshed with the control, dom-
ination, and further propagation (under its own
terms) of life itself. Thus, the form of power un-
der Empire is Foucault’s biopower, or power that
doesn’t only weigh on us as a force that
says no; it also traverses and produces
things, it induces pleasure, forms knowl-
edge, produces discourse.145
This conception of power is explicitly produc-
tive, as it moves away from the wholly negative
144 ibid, 119

145 Foucault, Michel. Power. 1994. 120
134
function of power as that which limits or re-
presses. The classical conception of sovereign
power is that it demands deference through the
explicit threat that the political or economic
subject’s life can be taken as reparations for the
refusal to acquiesce to control. Biopower is
power that is not the arbiter of death, but rather
the guarantor of life itself. Control is exerted
precisely through its productive capacities. This
sociohistorical shift accounts for the difference
between power that represses and power that
dominates.
Foucault claims that
in defining the effects of power as repres-
sion, one adopts a purely juridical con-
ception of such power, one identifies
power with a law that says no—power is
taken, above all, as carrying the force of a
prohibition.146
Tiqqun sees this earlier form of power as synon-
ymous with the modern State and the Hobbesian
social contract. As they write:
We know from experience the terms of the
Hobbesian transaction between the sub-
ject and the sovereign: ‘I exchange my lib-
erty for your protection. As compensation
146 ibid, 120
135
for my unwavering obedience, you must
offer my safety’.147
Thus, the secession of the individual subject’s
freedom is obvious. Seen in this way, the sub-
ject’s very existence is tempered by the limits
predetermined by the sovereign—it is subject to
an external field of delineation. Resistance to re-
pressive power used the rhetoric of a freedom
purely based in opposition, one of dialectical
prefiguration, precisely because repressive pow-
er allows for such reductive interpretations.
The terrain has shifted, and sovereign/
repressive power has given way to biopower.
Foucault asks:
If power were never anything but repres-
sive, if it never did anything but to say no,
do you really think one would be brought
to obey it?148
This question retroactively addresses a fundamen-
tal aspect of Tiqqun’s theoretical project; as they
often depict Empire as totalizing yet ephemeral,
ever-present but inconspicuous—how then can
one account for the level of control that forms-of-
life individuated by Empire are subject to without
resorting to theories of explicit coercion? The an-

148 op cit, Power, 120
136
swer lies in biopower’s ability to produce and cir-
culate individuated approximations of freedom
which are in fact nothing but the further rein-
scription and recuperation of subjects back into
the biopolitical fabric of domination. Foucault
claims that this shift forms the basis of a
[…] new ‘economy’ of power […] that is to
say, procedures that allowed the effects of
power to circulate in a manner at once con-
tinuous, uninterrupted, adapted and ‘indi-
vidualized’ throughout the entire social
body. These new techniques are both much
more efficient and much less wasteful.149
Biopower’s ability to circulate is inherently pro-
ductive, and because of this, even individual
freedoms are tolerated within this schema as
they simply reinforce the ways in which the po-
litical subject implicates itself within the domi-
nation of Empire.
Tiqqun, like Foucault before them, ar-
gues that biopower is a more effective form of
policing because it can produce forms of control
that are almost entirely preventative. They ar-
gue that biopower has supplanted the modern
state’s literal need for the police precisely be-
cause all institutions and their apparatuses are
149 ibid, 120
137
already inherently policing institutions. Thus
they argue that
[…] in a manner largely independent of na-
tional States, these sub-institutional prac-
tices give birth to the two super-institu-
tional poles of Empire: the police becomes
Biopower, and publicity is transformed
into the Spectacle. From this point on, the
State does not disappear, it is simply de-
moted beneath a transterritorial set of au-
tonomous practices: Spectacle, Biopower.150
The affective network of apparatuses which con-
trol bodies, psychologies, and subjectivities co-
alesces into the “super-institutional” locus of
biopower’s control. Thus, when power turns the
political or economic subject, in orthodox-Marx-
ian language, into biopolitical beings, bodies
form a rhizome of affirmative power relations
that become amalgamated to a point that is im-
possible to isolate its individual components. At
that point, one sees Biopower function as one of
the “super-institutional” poles of Empire. Mat-
thew G. Hannah argues that within the political
context of the state
the status of biopolitical beings [is] pre-
cisely in the measure that they become
138
legal subjects of rights, beings whose ‘life’
is to be fostered, protected and optimized
for the sake of the ‘economy’, ‘society’ or
‘nation’.151
This biopolitical turn views the implicated bod-
ies as integral to domination and control—not
external to it.
Tiqqun’s discourse around biopower
posits a historical rendering of the ontology of
control. They argue, somewhat ambiguously,
that at some point, control found its becoming
precisely in its own alterity. Yet, in the develop-
mental shift from the modern state into Empire,
everything that had its source in the Out-
side […] is administered and therefore tak-
en up in an integration that positively elim-
inates these exteriorities in order to allow
them to recirculate.152
Thus, just as capitalism in the West has shifted
away from its classical foundation in produc-
tion to the circulation of information and finan-
cial abstractions, so too has the ontology of con-
trol shifted to circulation—the circulation of
identities, subjectivities, and inclinations. Em-
151 Hannah, Matthew G. “Biopower, Life and Left Politics.” Anti-

pode. 43.4 (2011) 1043
139
pire exists as the conglomeration of all mediat-
ing apparatuses which allow for the circulation
of these things.
The cessation of productive exteriori-
ties here allows for Empire to assume a totaliz-
ing form. Thus, all of the ways that biopower
seems to affirm the production of aspects of life
are actually mere recirculations of forms that
have already been made immanent. Tiqqun
goes on to claim:
In this space, an ungraspable agency of to-
talization reigns, dissolving, digesting, ab-
sorbing and deactivating all alterity a priori.
A process of omnivorous immanentiz-
ation—reducing everything to nothing—
deploys itself on a planetary scale. The
goal: make the world into continuous biopo-
litical tissue.153
Here biopower’s affirmative production is radi-
cally stripped of any redemptive pretense and its
inherent reductivism is made clear.
By allowing, tolerating, and fostering the
affirmative impulses of life, biopower relinquish-
es direct control for implicit control—and the
trade-off is much more effective in terms of dom-
ination, as it allows the biopolitical subject/body
153 ibid, 132
140
to implicate itself within a schema of prevention,
nullification, and pacification. None of the pro-
ductive affirmations of the biopolitical subject/
body are in and of themselves breaks with forms
of control, but rather they are subtle modifica-
tions to the dynamics of power which ultimately
afford agency to a subject while having already
managed and administered all possible forms this
ostensible freedom could take. At this juncture,
between agency and possibility, biopower as-
sumes a necessarily preventative stance rooted in
the security of potential futures.
For Tiqqun, biopower is one of the most
developed forms of prevention and security be-
cause it can effectively evaluate all potentialities
within a given discourse. They claim that it is
“not that Biopower claims to govern men and
things directly—instead, it governs possibilities
and conditions of possibility.”154 Biopower here
functions as preemptive control, located within
the biopolitical subject/body itself, so explicit po-
licing can be reduced without relinquishing con-
trol. The biopolitical subject/body implicates it-
self within this schema of control willingly, as its
sustenance and further propagation as a life-it-
self depends on it. To use an example: the biopo-
154 ibid, 131
141
litical subject who actively seeks care from an
allopathic medical institution is at once a) assert-
ing their agency (ie there is no coercion here on
behalf of a sovereign), b) producing an affirma-
tive affect towards life (ie seeking out medical
care with the motive of prolonging life-itself),
and c) willingly implicating itself in a system of
information collection and biometric data pro-
cessing. Thus, the biopolitical subject/body is at
once productive (in that it helps refine and even
create new systemic apparatuses of control), and
affirmative (in that control in the classical re-
pression/coercion model is no longer apparent,
because of the subject/body’s own presupposed
agency in the entire matter). In this way, a dif-
fuse field of controlling techniques is always in a
state of refinement and creation, not external to
the biopolitical subjects/bodies it ends up con-
trolling but rather, precisely in reaction to the
control of these subjects/bodies. This reactive el-
ement to biopolitical control shows how the fur-
ther refinement of controlling techniques aims
to govern all conditionalities and potentialities.
As critic Miguel De Larrinaga argues, at
the root of the preventative security that in-
forms biopower is
a form of power that disseminates through
142
society as an effective tool in power rela-
tions to normalize social acts and the con-
duct of populations.155
This normalization, this de-intensification of en-
ergy and difference on a broad scale, as Foucault
argues, shows how power is no longer “directed
at man-as-body, but at man-as-species”. It is no
longer the mere governance of individual-
subjects in isolation, but rather the domination
of whole groups of biopolitical subjects/bodies.
Biopower as management is inherently
productive and affirmative. As a social project, it
is aimed at the administration of life-itself; its
very dominance depends on allowing the sub-
jects it controls to have the ability to exercise
their own agency and well-being. Done on a
mass scale, this normalization (whether it is in
sexuality, health, or social organization) func-
tions to secure potential and preempt hypostatic
deviance before it happens. For example, by bas-
ing the ideas of sexuality in heteronormativity,
all other forms of sexuality are already problem-
atized as deviant and therefore external to the
hegemonic discourse. Furthermore, the normal-
155 De Larrinaga, Miguel and Marc Doucet. “Sovereign Power

and the Biopolitics of Human Security.” Security Dialogue. 39
(2008). 520
143
ization of such a standard acts preventatively in
that any conception of sexuality that has yet to
be conceived of or articulated is already made
deviant. Here, all possibilities of sexuality are al-
ready nullified in a preemptive state. Through
expansive and relentless normalization biopow-
er precludes most future-based alterities, and is
a system of management grounded in its own
circulation of norms.
Much as Foucault argues about sexuality,
Tiqqun argues that late-capitalism has been nor-
malized so exhaustively that even to conceive of
social modes of organization that exist entirely
independent to the late-capitalist construct be-
comes nearly impossible. In this sense, late-capi-
talist Empire is less about the material control of
economic flows, nation-states, transnational cor-
porations, etc, and more about a hegemonic dis-
course that has simultaneously normalized all
facets of its own existence while effectively elim-
inating competing discourses of social organiza-
tion. This is how biopower forms the discursive
practice underlying Empire’s immanence.
By outlining in Introduction to Civil War
how the modern state evolved and is eventually
subsumed by Empire, Tiqqun conceives of the
concurrent shifts in power dynamics as integral
144
to understanding precisely how Empire has
emerged. In this context, sovereign power be-
comes synonymous with the absolutist state; the
emergence of biopower amidst sovereign power
is indicative of the liberal state; the welfare state,
because it is almost entirely dictated by biopow-
er, is the last state-form to witness its own obso-
lescence; and finally Empire is the logical result
of biopower’s complete totalization. Like Fou-
cault, Tiqqun argues that domination is entirely
informed by the production, circulation, and im-
plication of bodies/subjectivities within power
dynamics. In Empire, power no longer functions
in a mono-directional fashion; it forms a multi-
plicity of discursive networks that affirm and
produce dominated life. The understanding of
the state-form and its corresponding power dy-
namics presupposes that to resist the domination
of Empire, a form-of-life that is inherently hos-
tile to all aspects of Empire must first understand
the terrain on which to fight. This understanding,
this framing of the question as one of “How is it
to be done?” as opposed to Lenin’s “What is to be
done?,” provides ethical dimension to Tiqqun’s
project. Rather than offer prescriptive programs
of prefigurative politics in Introduction to Civil
War, they only offer an analysis of how Empire
145
dominates, in order to elucidate an ethics vehe-
mently positioned against all domination and
power.
146
5
“The Annihilation
of Nothingness”:
Tiqqun’s Transcendence of
Nihilism Through Nihilism,
Georges Bataille’s
Conception of Death, and
David McNally’s Living-Dead
For the Marxist cultural critic David McNally,
the widespread character-trope of the zombie
points to a deep-seated social anxiety about the
catastrophism undergirding late-capitalism. He
argues that the figure of the zombie, or the
living-dead, aesthetically mirrors the death-like
alienation from one’s own life within late-
capitalism. Thus, the prolongation of “life” be-
yond death is complicit in the pervasive prolif-
eration of late-capitalist power dynamics, but it
also paradoxically acts as the very ontological
transformation that precludes the dissolution of
such domination. Similarly, the French philoso-
pher Georges Bataille treats death as the funda-
147
mental reality, the delimiting force upon life. For
Bataille, death is restorative, as it dissipates the
existential interruption he posits is caused by
life. Framed against these two treatments of
death, Tiqqun argues that the only recourse to
the totalizing domination of late-capitalism is to
negate the latent nihilism inherent in late-
capitalist power dynamics. In their essay “Si-
lence and Beyond,” Tiqqun claims that since
late-capitalism is already a social space inhabit-
ed by the living-dead, the only position of attack
left to anticapitalists is one which paradoxically
attempts to negate the very nihilism inherent in
late-capitalism itself. By situating such an argu-
ment against McNally’s analysis of the living-
dead, and tempered by Bataille’s treatment of
death, Tiqqun eschews prescriptive affirmations
of non-capitalist alterities (arguing that there is
no ontological or political outside to the domi-
nance of late-capitalism), arguing instead that
only the affirmative negativity of late-
capitalism’s complete nihilistic destruction can
usher in its transcendence.
According to both David McNally and
Tiqqun, a logic of nihilistic catastrophism has be-
gun to emerge within the sociopolitical space of
late-capitalism. Capitalist commodity exchange-
148
relations have effectively created a rhizomatic
network of dominance across the entirety of the
world in the 21st century; so much so, that as
Tiqqun claims, it is now the era of the “authori-
tarian commodity” or the completion of capital-
ism’s quest for “real subsumption.” For Marx,
“real subsumption,” as opposed to “formal sub-
sumption,” was the historical moment in which
there were no longer any pre-capitalist forms of
production to be forcibly integrated into capital-
ist schema. For Tiqqun, the era of the “authori-
tarian commodity” is that in which the
commodity-fetish, that metaphysical obfusca-
tion of exchange-relations taking the place of au-
thentic social-relations, becomes normalized and
totalized. Within this sociopolitical space of cata-
strophism, the horizon of death ominously looms
as the only possible outcome of late-capitalism’s
destructive impulses. Paradoxically, death itself
becomes the final ontological obstacle that late-
capitalism attempts to overcome through the
complete codification, delineation, and domi-
nance of this last “othered” existential space.
Within the rhetoric of catastrophism life and
death coalesce, revealing that life within late-
capitalism’s era of the “authoritarian commodity”
is death itself, and the individuals experiencing
149
this existence as the living-dead lack any traces
of authentic life.
In “Land of the Living Dead: Capitalism
and the Catastrophes of Everyday Life,” David
McNally argues that the “earliest modern imag-
es of the zombie are tied to figures of mindless
labor.”156 He goes on to claim that
this image carried a latent but powerful
social criticism: the idea that in capitalist
society the majority become nothing but
bearers of undifferentiated life energies,
dispensed in units of abstract time. The
raison d’être of zombies is the labor they
perform.157
This reduction of lived-experience to abstract la-
bor potential informs the figurative death of
such individuals within late-capitalism. They are
dead because their life has no meaning beyond
their exchange-value, which is already meta-
physically removed from use-value.
McNally argues that as cultural forms,
there are two dominant representations of the
zombie that are explicitly tied to the develop-
ment of neoliberalism—those of “crazed con-
156 McNally, David. “Land of the Living Dead: Capitalism and
the Catastrophes of Everyday Life.” Catastrophism: The Apocalyp-
tic Politics of Collapse and Rebirth. Ed. Sasha Lilley. 2012. 115
157 ibid, 116
150
sumers and lifeless laborers.”158 He argues that
the older representations of the zombie, specifi-
cally those that trace their lineage from Haitian
lore by way of the Western Congo, did not in-
volve the cannibalism that is all but ubiquitous
in “Western” representations of the zombie. Mc-
Nally traces this development to the rise of
consumer-culture in the 1960s in the United
States, and argues that it is not until this histori-
cal context that zombies begin to mindlessly
crave the flesh of the living. There is something
inherently self-negating in the ever-increasing
lust for the consumption of living flesh in the
cannibalistic zombie trope of American/Euro-
pean cultural production, as consumption and
scarcity differentiates it from the colonial form
of the “lifeless laborer” zombie trope that Mc-
Nally argues is still prevalent in African cultural
forms. The cannibalistic consumer zombie en-
counters problems of scarcity for if it cannot
consume living flesh it will cease to exist. This
problem of scarcity mirrors the ecological con-
cerns of resource allocation, procurement, and
sustainability so prevalent in late-capitalist dis-
courses of catastrophe. Thus, in the same way
that the logic of late-capitalism creates an ir-
158 ibid, 117
151
reconcilable schism between the realities of con-
sumption in a finite physical world and the theo-
retical impulses which underlie late-capitalism’s
quest for profit accumulation, so too does the
cannibalistic consumer zombie embody the con-
tradiction of its need to consume more living-
flesh and the scarcity that manifests as the direct
result of such consumption.
McNally hints at the possibility inherent
within such cultural renderings of the zombie as
a figure that evokes catastrophic anxieties. He
argues that
the clash of the manic flesh-eater and the
laboring-drone also hints at another star-
tling zombie capacity: rebellion.159
While his analysis of the emergence of the two
types of zombie cultural forms, the cannibalistic
consumer zombie of “developed” countries and
the mindless-laborer slave zombie of “develop-
ing” countries is compelling, his depiction of
“the truly subversive image of the zombie revolt”
is prosaically emblematic of past utopian visions.
He uses zombie rebellion as a metaphor for the
“everyday work of resistance,” arguing that
revolution grows out of ordinary, prosaic
acts of organizing and resistance whose
159 ibid, 123
152
coalescence produces mass upheaval.160
In critiquing the catastrophic opposition to his
prescriptive perspective on revolutionary poli-
tics, McNally argues that the other
apocalyptic scenario, in which a complete
collapse of social organization ushers in a
tumultuous upheaval, is ultimately a mys-
tical rather than political one.161
This dismissal of the mystical, of the messianic,
in favor of a purely political rendering of revolt
falls into the reductive trap of affirming a
counter-logic to capitalism within a social space
that is already completely contained, delineated,
and dominated by late-capitalism, a space with
no ontological outside.
McNally fails to acknowledge that in
the figurative-representational space of the
zombie, the only act that can negate the cyclical
violence of the zombie’s consumption (and by
extension the logic of late-capitalism) is the
self-negation of the zombie by its own nihilistic
consumption, which inevitably leads to abso-
lute scarcity and the impossibility of its own
continued sustenance. McNally misconstrues
Marx when he argues that
160 ibid, 123

161 ibid, 124
153
just as, to paraphrase Marx, the working
class must negate its own alienated condi-
tion if it is to emancipate itself, so zombie
rebels must de-zombify themselves and ac-
quire consciousness and identity in the
process of overturning their degraded
state.162
The consumer-zombie already contains within
itself the inevitability of its own destruction, and
further, its own transcendence. It possesses this
potentiality for self-negation precisely because
through the mindless act of sustaining itself it
encounters the limits of scarcity and causes its
own destruction—the death of the already-dead.
To take this cultural form and transpose it onto
the dispossessed subjects of late-capitalist domi-
nation, is not merely a question of how to “ac-
quire consciousness and identity” but rather an
anti-political, mystical embracing of the noth-
ingness latent in the nihilistic contradictions at
the core of late-capitalism. This destruction of
the nihilism undergirding the contradictions of
late-capitalist logic through the adoption of ni-
hilism itself as an ethical position is precisely the
course that Tiqqun argues for in their essay “Si-
lence and Beyond.”
162 ibid, 126
154
Tiqqun essentially agrees with David
McNally in the catastrophic analysis of late-
capitalism, yet their response to such a bleak fu-
ture could not be more divergent. Whereas Mc-
Nally argues that the zombie/disenfranchised/
proletariat subject of late-capitalism must “ac-
quire consciousness and identity,” Tiqqun argues
that such an argument fits precisely within the
confines of the biopolitical fabric of late-capital-
ist domination. Tiqqun argues that with the his-
torical development of capitalism, the disciplin-
ary practices of sovereign power where the
“tyrannical enemy […] draws its power from its
ability to shut people up” have given way to a
form of power (biopower) which expresses
its aptitude to make them talk […and as a
result] has moved its center of gravity
from its mastery of the world itself to its
seizure of the world’s mode of disclo-
sure.163
Thus, McNally’s claim that in order to effectively
challenge late-capitalism all one has to do is ana-
lyze its
mystified social relations […as a means to]
disclose what they tell us about the genu-
163 Tiqqun. “Silence and Beyond.” Tiqqun: Conscious Organ of the

Imaginary Party #1. 2011. 70
155
inely monstrous, deadening, and zombify-
ing processes to which wage-laborers are
subjected in modern society,164
fails to acknowledge that such modes of disclo-
sure are already codified according to the very
logic of late-capitalism itself. Tiqqun argues that
through the domination of biopower as the de-
limiting power dynamic concomitant with the
rise of post-industrial late-capitalism, all at-
tempts to speak to or disclose “truth” within it
merely serve late-capitalism’s primacy.
Tiqqun is writing from the temporal po-
sition of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history,” a
position contextualized by the failures of social-
democratic reform, the communist state, and the
new left—all impotently opposed to the sup-
posed totalizing triumph of capitalism. Within
this quasi-fatalism, Tiqqun argues that
even contestation [against capitalism]
proves daily how incapable it has been of
supporting itself on that modernization’s
uninterrupted avalanche of defeats.165
Tiqqun argues that such antagonistic contesta-
tion has failed precisely because such challenges
have attempted to engage late-capitalism using
164 op cit, “Land of the Living Dead”, 127

165 op cit, “Silence and Beyond” 70
156
its own modes of disclosure and recognition.
Tiqqun claims that the hypermediated discourse
of late-capitalism
only recognizes as a truly existent oppo-
sition the opposition that is willing to
speak; that is, to speak its language, and
hence to subscribe to the alienation of the
Common166
Here contestation takes on a meta-linguistic
component, in that through biopower’s coercive
institutional apparatuses, any contestation with-
out the language of political demands has been
relegated to the impractical, insane, and anar-
chic. Tiqqun elucidates the need to confront the
metaphysical nothingness underneath the ve-
neer of Real late-capitalist social relations with a
negating form of nothingness that is conscious
of itself as such. For, as they claim
[…] the real hostility, the metaphysical
hostility, which allows neither language
nor the moment it will express itself to be
controlled, and which moreover prefers
silence to any speech, has been pushed
back into the shadows of what does not
appear and hence does not exist167
166 ibid, 71
167 ibid, 71
157
According to Tiqqun, the project for the antago-
nist against capitalism must simply be affirma-
tive negation, without any prescriptive qualifiers
positively arguing for something to take the
place of capitalism (such as state-socialism, al-
ter-globalization, green or sustainable social-
democratic welfare-states, etc).
Tiqqun state clearly that they believe
“all ‘social struggles’ are ridiculous”168 because
“they are merely serving what they think they’re
challenging.”169 Within such a perspective, a
conscious and active nihilism begins to align it-
self as, to borrow from Engels by way of Hegel,
the negation of the negation. This is an active
nihilism, conscious of its own power to destroy
the passive nihilism latent within late-
capitalism’s own contradictory nature. Tiqqun
writes: “Capitalism produces the conditions for
its transcendence, not that transcendence
itself.”170 Thus, paradoxically, Tiqqun at once em-
braces and eschews the collapsist rhetoric of
late-capitalist catastrophism. Within the late-
capitalist contradiction between the theoretical
impulse to maximize profit amidst the reality of
168 ibid, 72
169 ibid, 71
170 ibid, 70
158
finite resource scarcity, are the conditions for
capitalism’s transcendence. Yet Tiqqun seems to
be saying that if such conditions are not met
with a conscious ethical force that is aware of its
potential to hasten the destruction of capitalist
relations, then the passive nihilism within late-
capitalism will have run its course—resulting in
something akin to a series of ecological, social,
and political collapses. Thus, Tiqqun claims that
“among those we encounter, we appreciate noth-
ing more than such cold resolution to ruining
this world.”171
Tiqqun’s active nihilism in “Silence and
Beyond” is both an unwilled reaction to the total-
izing encroachment of late-capitalist social rela-
tions and an ethical position that they conscious-
ly possess. Because of this schizoid anti-political
position, Tiqqun’s active negation of the meta-
physical nature underlying late-capitalism as
“the way for crossing the line, the way towards
the exit from nihilism […and the way] beyond
it,”172 is inherently ontological and existential,
akin to Georges Bataille’s conception of death.
For Bataille, there is a certain existential
wholeness outside of the limits that death im-
171 ibid, 70
172 ibid, 74
159
poses on life. Bataille scholar Michael Richard-
son claims that
Bataille’s sensibility is essentially tragic:
he refused to accept any possibility of an
escape from the human condition. In the
end we are condemned to death, and to
the annihilation of our being. Indeed, far
from striving against this condition, he be-
lieved we should accept it. Tragic it may
be, but it remained the only truth of our
existence.173
At face value this essentially pessimistic view of
life seems starkly opposed to the potentiality of
transcendence that Tiqqun posits, yet both Ba-
taille and Tiqqun are speaking to beings ulti-
mate negation of itself.
Bataille’s ontological whole that exists
apart from life, in death, is quite similar to
Tiqqun’s messianic conception of the commu-
nism that manifests in the active negation of
capitalism in its entirety. For Tiqqun, commu-
nism is irreducibly rooted in the becoming-of-
negation, the communality emerging when the
predicative identities, individual subjects, val-
ues, and moralities beholden to the simulacra of
173 Richardson, Michael. Georges Bataille Essential Writings. 1998.

202
160
late-capitalism are stripped away—leaving
“only a total, existential hostility.”174 This de-
struction of predicative, simulated ontologies
“by removing them from their temporal element,
strips nude the truth of our times.”175 This de-
struction, the active nihilism aligned against
late-capitalist domination (passive nihilism),
informs the journal’s very name, as they claim:
In the Sabbatean tradition the moment of
the general destruction of things was giv-
en the name Tiqqun. In that instant, each
thing is repaired and removed from the
long chain of suffering it underwent in
this world.176
This is similar to Bataille’s views on the emer-
gence of cognizant life as a finite interruption of
the pure continuity of infinite existence. Thus,
death acts as both the moment of repairing the
separation of life from death by reintegrating
dead-life back into the infinite totality of death,
and as being the totality of death itself. For Ba-
taille, death is at once a singular moment (an
act), as well as a complete and infinite totality
(state of being). In the same way, Tiqqun’s advo-
174 ibid, 75
175 ibid, 73
176 ibid, 77
161
cation for the active destruction of late-
capitalism is the singular moment (the act)
which repairs and reintegrates forms-of-life into
the complete and infinite totality of communism
(state of being). This is a destruction of the ves-
tiges of the self en masse, done in a communal
process of becoming-nothing-together.
In “Silence and Beyond” Tiqqun uses
Bataille’s work to explain the importance of de-
stroying the present state of things. They quote
from Bataille’s Theory of Religion:
All the subsistence existence and toil that
permitted me to get there were suddenly
destroyed, they emptied out infinitely like
a river into the ocean of that one infini-
tesimal moment.177
Thus death, as the moment of the existential de-
struction of the self as well as the moment of
reintegration with that which is beyond the nar-
row confines of human life, is a messianic bearer
of truth—a tenuous position to hold in the midst
of postmodernity. Bataille argues that
death actually discloses the imposture of
reality, not only in that the absence of du-
ration gives the lie to it, but above all be-
cause death is the great affirmer, the
177 ibid, 77
162
wonder-struck of life […] Death reveals
life in its plenitude and dissolves the real
order.178
This dissolution of “the real order” through death
finds its parallel in Tiqqun’s contention that
whoever has never experienced one of
those hours of joyous or melancholic neg-
ativity cannot tell how close to destruc-
tion the infinite is.179
Thus the act of destruction, of an active nihilism,
hints at the possibility of transcending the fal-
sity of the present and the reintegration with
the infinite.
For Tiqqun, late-capitalism and all of
the affects bound up within its displays of simu-
lacra and biopower must be destroyed to be
overcome, much in the same way that death for
Bataille forms the basis of the reconnection with
the existentially infinite. Bataille writes in Inner
Experience, that
it is by dying, without possible evasion,
that I will perceive the rupture which con-
stitutes my nature and in which I have
transcended ‘what exists.’[…] Death is in
one sense the common inevitable, but in
178 Bataille, Goerges. Theory of Religion. 1992. 46-47

179 op cit. “Silence and Beyond.” 77
163
another sense profound, inaccessible.180
Life for Bataille is a rupture that separates and
isolates, while death is a rupture that joins and
repairs. Similarly, for Tiqqun, freedom comes
from first recognizing the death-like finitude
presupposed by existing within the confines of
late-capitalist power dynamics, and secondly, by
attempting to destroy such an ontology. They
claim that there are indeed those who are “apply-
ing nihilism to nihilism itself,” yet
they still retain, from their prior state, the
feeling that they are living as if they were
already dead; but from this state of indif-
ference concerning the raw fact of being
alive, they draw the formula for the great-
est possible sovereignty, a freedom which
is incapable of trembling in the face of
anything anymore…181
Thus, Tiqqun’s program is the abandonment of
the very idea of such positive programs, in favor
of a negative revolt or insurrection, without de-
mands, silent and invisible. It is a conception of
struggle firmly rooted in the metaphysical nega-
tion of everything in “this enemy world.”182
180 Bataille, Georges. Inner Experience. 1988. 71-72

181 op cit. “Silence and Beyond.” 76
164
Tiqqun acknowledges that such beliefs
warrant placing “a high importance on the form
of the manifestation of negativity that invent a
new active grammar of contestation.”183 Central
to this “new active grammar” of negativity is an
evasion of language’s imposition of meaning.
Tiqqun argues that all previous social move-
ments aligned against late-capitalism have made
the mistake of attempting to speak to late-
capitalist domination on its own terms, entering
a discourse in which all of the language is al-
ready effectively controlled. They argue that
“the greatest possible demands don’t allow them-
selves to be formulated,”184 and in so doing they
create an antagonistic position that, through its
own inarticulation, evades late-capitalist pro-
pensity to impose meaning and exert control
over what is being signified. Tiqqun claims that
between the passive nihilism inherent in the
contradictions of capitalism as first outlined by
Marx, and the active nihilism which seeks to de-
stroy all that exists within the late-capitalist on-
tology is “the line. And that line is the unspeak-
able, which imposes silence.”185 This line, the
182 ibid, 77
183 ibid, 72
184 ibid, 76
165
demarcation between real/simulacra, life/death,
capitalism/communism, must be shrouded in si-
lence, what actively negates all that exists must
necessarily be complete and total absence, exis-
tence’s lack, the void that threatens to assert it-
self and in so doing to rejoin the interruption of
life, in Bataille’s terms, to the infinite nature of
death. Thus, the lack of language and the signifi-
cation or imposition of meaning that accompa-
nies it manifests itself as a negative ethical hos-
tility which is existentially “the unspeakable.”186
Tiqqun’s argument for silence, a radical
negation of all that exists without the prescrip-
tive expression of utopian fantasies, is markedly
different from the silence/voicelessness that
typifies the cultural trope of the zombie. David
McNally’s zombies are reduced to the living-
dead; they are stripped of both language and
existence. They mirror a late-capitalist ontology
that embodies the complete expenditure of hu-
man labor-power for the production of
exchange-values. Ironically, the only creature
capable of existing purely as limitless human la-
bor power is precisely the figure of the non-
human. With his metaphor of the zombie as the
185 ibid, 76
186 ibid, 75
166
dispossessed worker/consumer of late-
capitalism, McNally argues the zombie’s voice-
lessness and lack of language is an expression of
its oppression. Thus for McNally, the zombie
and, by extension, the late-capitalist proletariat,
merely needs an “awakening to consciousness”
to turn “the world upside down.”187
Tiqqun’s opposes this view of silence,
preferring the conscious silence of a nihilism
aligned against late-capitalist domination. They
argue that silence is an offensive position that
does not allow struggle or resistance to enter
into the language and logic of late-capitalism.
By disavowing the articulation of resistance to
late-capitalism’s political, social, or economic
demands, Tiqqun’s silent antagonism evades
the trap of language and the imposition of
meaning that accompanies it. The resulting re-
jection of demands and conscious silence ap-
pear very similar to Georges Bataille’s theoreti-
cal conception of death. For Bataille death is the
transcendent moment in which the interruption
of life is finally reintegrated with the infinite.
This parallels Tiqqun’s own communist tran-
scendence, as they claim that only a conscious
nihilism can transcend the totality of late-
187 op cit, “Land of the Living Dead,” 123
167
capitalist relations. They write that
we cannot transcend nihilism without real-
izing it, nor realize it without transcending
it. Crossing the line means the general de-
struction of things as such, or in other
words the annihilation of nothingness.188
Therefore, any sociopolitical model that exists
alongside capitalism posturing as an alternative
to it is still within capitalism’s totalizing realm
of being. Only capitalism’s complete destruc-
tion can usher in a post-capitalist alterity. To
annihilate the nothingness is the realization of a
metaphysical negation of a negation. According
to Tiqqun it is only through such an act of Ba-
taillean death that communism can be realized.
188 op cit, “Silence and Beyond,” 77

168
6
The Poetics of Alienation:
Gaston Bachelard’s
“The Dialectics of
Outside and Inside”
and Tiqqun’s Theory of Bloom
In “The Dialectics of Outside and Inside,” Gaston
Bachelard challenges the boundaries of ontology
in favor of a more ambiguous rendering of being.
In Bachelard’s conception of being, spatiality co-
alesces into itself, blurring the distinction be-
tween inside and outside. Thus, what is present-
ed as a metaphysical inquiry into the nature of
spatiality expands into an exercise in ontology.
Bachelard claims that “philosophers, when con-
fronted with outside and inside, think in terms
of being and non-being.”189 (Bachelard 212).
Bachelard’s complication of the dynamic be-
tween being and non-being, which challenges
the reductive notion that these two ontological
positions are distinct from and opposed to one
another, reflects how Tiqqun underscores the
189 Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space. 212
169
fundamental unit of being within late-capitalist
power relations: the figure of the Bloom.
In Theory of Bloom, Tiqqun constructs
this figure of the Bloom as that which supplants
the worker or proletariat in traditional Marxist
analyses of class struggle. They argue that the
terrain of capitalism has changed, which per-
force changes the temporal/metaphysical no-
tion of late-capitalism as the contemporary
stage of capitalist development, and therefore
as well the idea of what constitutes the revolu-
tionary subject changes. The figure of the
Bloom, appropriated from Leopold Bloom
(James Joyce’s disaffected protagonist of Ulyss-
es) is not merely the new figure of being within
late-capitalism, but at once the dissolution of
the very notion of the revolutionary subject
and the embodiment of a subject completely
possessed by its own lack of being. Just as
Bachelard problematizes the dichotomy of non-
being and being, the Bloom represents the co-
alescence of these two positionalities into a sin-
gular form-of-life.
Tiqqun’s treatment of the Bloom para-
doxically becomes the reason for and the mani-
festation of the estrangement from existence
prevalent in late-capitalist society. Bloom is a
170
figure of loss, the last manifestation of life with-
in the last stage of history. It is an ontological
figure existing within a context where all politi-
cal, metaphysical, social, and spatial planes are
already commodified totalities that offer no way
out. In this conception of late-capitalist space
the outside is now completely internalized.
Tiqqun claims that
in this empire of ruins in perpetual reno-
vation, there is no refuge to be had any-
where, and we no longer even have the
recourse of an interior desertion, within
ourselves.190
This ontological space, in which the complete
coalescence of being and non-being forms a
strange semblance of totality, complicates any
authentic understanding of self. According to
Tiqqun, because of this conflation between out-
side and inside, forms-of-life under late-capital-
ism no longer can seek any external refuge from
late-capitalism’s pervasive domination. In addi-
tion, and perhaps more harrowing, not even “an
interior desertion” into the self provides refuge,
for internally the figure of the Bloom is simply
the same abject nothingness of externalized late-
capitalist relations. Thus, Tiqqun’s figure of the
190 Tiqqun. Theory of Bloom. 2012. 20
171
Bloom expresses the “invertible dynamisms”191
of Bachelard’s complication of the inside/out-
side dialectic.
Bachelard writes that in such an onto-
logical spatiality in which
one no longer knows right away whether
one is running toward the center or escap-
ing [...] The being of man is an unsettled
being which all expression unsettles.192
While there is a fundamental sympathy here be-
tween Bachelard and Tiqqun’s treatments of be-
ing, Bachelard’s conception of such “unsettled
being” is tinged with a certain finitude to the
way in which being has always been; whereas
Tiqqun’s conception of being is clearly situated
within history, as a metaphysical result of capi-
talist development. Bachelard points to the im-
possibility of a closed conception of outside-be-
ing and inside-being by arguing that
being does not see itself [...] It does not
stand out, it is not bordered by nothingness:
one is never sure of finding it, or of finding
it solid, when one approaches a center of
being. And if we want to determine man’s
being, we are never sure of being closer to
191 ibid, 214

192 ibid, 214
172
ourselves if we ‘withdraw’ into ourselves.193
Thus, Bachelard complicates the idea that being
can be found in an analysis of pure exteriority
or withdrawn interiority. Instead, he draws at-
tention to how conceptions of being cannot be
hypostatized in static, clearly delineated meth-
ods. There is a certain permeability in Bache-
lard’s conception of inside and outside and its
relation to being. His emphasis on being as “not
bordered by nothingness”194 suggests that being
is the same thing as non-being; both are con-
flated, transgressing the ostensible boundaries
between being and non-being, to paint one an-
other in mimetic relief.
Tiqqun also dissolves the delineation be-
tween being and non-being, yet they are much
less neutral on this polemical point. Tiqqun
claims that Bloom is not merely “alienated man”
(in the orthodox Marxist sense of alienation),
but rather,
Bloom is the man who has become so
thoroughly conjoined with his alienation
that it would be absurd to try to separate
them.195
193 ibid, 215

194 ibid, 215
195 op cit, Theory of Bloom, 20
173
Thus, for Tiqqun, Bloom is the figure which af-
firmatively lives its own nothingness—it is the
being of non-being itself. These figures so fully
ingrained in their own alienation form the basis
of life under late-capitalist domination, as well
as the affective ties that reify late-capitalism’s
dominance. It is important then not to view
Bloom as a figure purely framed as a subtrac-
tion, as an ontological subject that lacks being
simply because of externalized domination. In-
stead, Bloom is the figure, which through its
own totalizing alienation and disaffection ac-
tively implicates itself within the rhizomatic
web of late-capitalist power relations.
There is something active about Bloom’s
own destitution. Thus, whereas Bachelard is
only willing to state that being is “not bordered
by nothingness,”196 and thus indirectly point to
the evocative nothingness latent within being
itself, Tiqqun is explicitly adamant in depicting
us, as Bloom, as the figures that
wherever we go, we carry inside us the
desert whose hermit we are. And if on
certain days we can swear that we are
‘the whole universe’ [...] it’s because we
see in everything only the Nothing that
196 op cit, The Poetics of Space, 215
174
we ourselves so fully are.197
Here is the Bachelardian dissolution of the sepa-
ration between inside and outside, yet through
Tiqqun’s disavowal it takes on a much more sin-
ister tone. The socio-spatial landscape upon
which Bloom exists in its abject nothingness
thus becomes the real; as such it is not the recog-
nition of the loss of being, but rather the total
supplanting of the nothing as the real. It is an
affirmative negativity which forms the historical
emergence of Bloom, and in this way “that Noth-
ingness is the absolutely real before which all
that exists becomes ghostly.”198
After establishing the historical, politi-
cal, and metaphysical contexts of the figure of
the Bloom, Tiqqun analyzes the social space (or
perhaps non-social space is more appropriate)
that is Bloom’s habitat, but is also a terrain that
is radically altered by Bloom’s affirmative nega-
tivity. Paradoxically, as alienated as he or she is,
the Bloom does not exist in isolation—it is only
Bloom when the estrangement of the insular
singularity of Bloom is compounded across a
multitude of disaffected Blooms. This space,

198 ibid, 21
175
that which exists only as a result of a “Bloomi-
fication” of society and, paradoxically, as the
only habitat capable of furthering this “Bloomi-
fication,” is the metropolis.
The Bachelardian dialectics of inside and
outside become complicated in Tiqqun’s analy-
sis of Bloom precisely when they try to locate
Bloom within its most prevalent habitat, the me-
tropolis. Tiqqun claims that
Bloom is rather the rootless man, the man
who has adopted the feeling of being at
home in exile, who has rooted himself in
placelessness, and for whom uprooting no
longer evokes banishment, but on the con-
trary an ordinary situation.199
This notion of “being at home in exile” is the
coalescence of outside into the inside, the amal-
gamation and containment of the antagonisms
between these metaphysical positionalities. The
fact that this reconciliation of antimonies is
contained within the feeling of Bloom personal-
izes the immediacy of such experience; spread
across a multitude of Blooms such paradoxical
affirmation-through-disposition when external-
ized becomes an “ordinary situation.” Bachelard
is referring to this when he writes about the in-
199 ibid, 45
176
timate reversal of outside and inside. He argues:
Being is alternately condensation that dis-
perses with a burst, and dispersion that
flows back to a center. Outside and inside
are both intimate—they are always ready
to be reversed, to exchange their hostility.200
In this way, Bloom can fully internalize the ex-
ternal feeling of exile, that it can be made ordi-
nary, and become the very base upon which
Bloom’s conception of self is rooted—its own
“placelessness.” Thus the outside, and all of its
concomitant alienation, can transgress upon the
boundaries of the self/inside and become the to-
tality of inside-being itself.
This internalization of exteriority finds
is most ardent spatial representation in late-
capitalism as the metropolis. Tiqqun argues that
on the global scale, the most insane and at
the same time the most characteristic con-
cretion of the Spectacle’s ethos remains
the metropolis.201
It is in this way that the metropolis becomes a
totalizing space, the end of expansive spatiality
as a result of late-capitalist development. It is a
spatial construct that contains everything within

177
it; it is the spatial equivalent of the totality of
late-capitalism’s apparatuses of domination.
Tiqqun argues that
[...] the metropolis itself has no outside:
the territories that its metastatic spread
does not occupy are still polarized by it;
that is, they are determined in all their as-
pects by its absence.202
By arguing that the metropolis has “no outside”
Tiqqun is drawing attention to the pervasive-
ness of the spatiality which is at once a symp-
tom of the proliferation of Blooms and the cause
of such proliferation. Even places within the
geopolitical fabric that are not urban metropo-
lises only make sense as that which is not the
metropolis, or as Tiqqun puts it, “they are deter-
mined in all their aspects by its absence [as
metropolis].”203
As the metropolis becomes the spatiality
that contains Blooms as well as the collectivized
product of alienation-from-self that the Blooms
embody, it follows that the metropolis is typified
by loss. Tiqqun posits that “the dominant trait of
the spectacular-metropolitan ethos is the loss of
202 ibid, 47
203 ibid, 47
178
experience [...]”204 While the space of the metrop-
olis may indeed by typified by the “loss of expe-
rience” the figure of the Bloom is one which
fully inhabits this loss. Thus, in a paradoxical
way, there is something active about Bloom’s
alienated being. It is loss framed wholly within
the positive, which makes it all the more em-
blematic of Foucauldian biopower, or the forms
of control and domination that allow and foster,
rather than limit and destroy.
This affirmative conception of the loss of
experience is indicative of the fundamental cri-
sis Bachelard argues is at the root of the dialec-
tics of outside and inside. Tiqqun’s conception
of the metropolis becomes the site in which, as
Bachelard posits,
[...] we absorb a mixture of being and
nothingness. The center of ‘being-there’
wavers and trembles. Intimate space loses
its clarity, while exterior space loses its
void, void being the raw material of pos-
sibility of being. We are banished from the
realm of possibility.205
Due to the blurring of the distinction between
inside and outside in Tiqqun’s metropolis, the
204 ibid, 47
179
exterior no longer exists as something concrete
outside of the interiority of the self. Thus, the
void associated with the exterior, the unknown,
no longer expresses its potentiality or possibil-
ity. In such a totalizing spatiality as the me-
tropolis, possibility ceases to exist, for every
ontological position is already contained with-
in the spatiality of the metropolis. This funda-
mentally traps the Bloom within the being of
its abject loss; it is trapped because it no longer
possesses the possibility for something beyond
or outside of itself. Tiqqun elaborates on this
position by claiming
that Bloom is essentially the metropolis
man in no way implies the possibility,
through birth or by choice, of escaping
this condition [...]206
Thus, all possibilities of escape from the totaliz-
ing space of the metropolis are nullified, and the
Bloom therefore becomes the form of being
which proverbially lives-as-loss.
The metropolis is the space upon which
the estrangement of being is spatially mapped.
Tiqqun writes of such disaffected space that
within the metropolis, people never expe-
rience concrete events, but only conven-
180
tions, rules, and a completely symbolized,
completely constructed second nature.207
Within this affirmative rendering of estrange-
ment it becomes apparent that it is not simply a
lack which forms the ontological nature of
Bloom’s existence within the metropolis. In-
stead, it is the very conventions, rules, symbols,
and construction which create a positivity that
is grounded in absence. This is essentially a
Bachelardian perspective on the spatiality of
the late-capitalist urban metropolis, as it refuses
to frame this metropolis as the simple dichoto-
my between inside and outside, what is and
what once was. This binarization is complicated
in that Bloom is not merely the alienated indi-
vidual; it is an alienation so totalizing that living
persists despite the loss, so much that the loss
takes on affective tonalities of its own which in
turn are lived-as-loss.
This is the blurring, or indistinction, that
exists underneath the rhetoric of the dialectics
of outside and inside. In this way Tiqqun’s me-
tropolis is a Bachelardian nightmare, a night-
mare which, as Bachelard writes,
is simple, because it is radical. It would be
intellectualizing the experience if we were
207 ibid, 49
181
to say that the nightmare is the result of a
sudden doubt as to the certainty of inside
and the distinctness of the outside.208
Thus, the conflation between inside and outside,
between alienation and living-loss is not merely
an intellectual recognition of itself as such, but
rather an experiential mode of being. Tiqqun
evokes this complicated reciprocity of the met-
ropolitan experience as they claim that
what prevails there [in the metropolis] is a
radical split between the insignificance of
everyday, so-called private, life, where
nothing happens, and the transcendence
of a congealed history in a so-called public
sphere to which no one has access.209
This dynamic, that of the dead private sphere
and the inaccessible public sphere, typifies the
spatiality of the metropolis, the home of the
Bloom. Here the distinction between inside and
outside blur into one another to create a gener-
alized state of disaffection.
Bachelard delves into the problematic
nature of searching within oneself for the exis-
tential delineation of experience. Interestingly,
the poetics he analyzes in this context are essen-

182
tially the poetics of anguish, and such a poetics
can be interpreted as the ontology of the Bloom’s
metropolis. Reading it through the context of
Bachelard, the metropolis is indeed a disaffected
nightmare, but because it is so generalized and
subsequently normalized, this
nightmare is not visually frightening. The
fear does not come from the outside. Nor
is it composed of old memories. It has no
past, no physiology. Nothing in common,
either, with having one’s breath taken
away. Here fear is being itself. Where can
one flee, where can one find refuge? Space
is nothing but a ‘horrible outside-inside’.210
Thus, Bloom is not subject to the orthodox Marx-
ist conception of alienation, as such alienation is
completely dependent on the externalization of
such root causes. Such alienation also needs the
“old memories” of less estranged times to have as
a dialectical counterbalance. However, Bloom is
the figure that has fully internalized all of its
own externalized alienation and thus its onto-
logical space; the metropolis, is in Bachelardian
terms “nothing but a ‘horrible outside-inside’.”211
This liminality situates such lived-experience as

211 ibid, 218
183
the ‘formless-life’ of Bloom, with its
monochrome and silent thirst for noth-
ingness, [that] yields at many points to
indistinction.212
Thus, Tiqqun’s conception of the metropolis de-
pends on the fundamental separation expressed
by the internal contradictions latent within this
space.
The metropolis, like Bloom, is a socio-
ontological construction that sees its develop-
ment as both a symptom and expression of the
development of late-capitalism. Tiqqun writes:
The metropolises can be distinguished
from all other great human formations by
the fact that in them the closest proximity,
and often the greatest promiscuity, coin-
cides with the greatest estrangement. Peo-
ple had never been brought together in
such large numbers, but neither have they
been separated to this degree.213
Here the juxtaposition between the physicality
and the metaphysicality of the space of the me-
tropolis calls attention to how the space itself
begins to take on the human qualities of dispos-
session, estrangement, and alienation. In this

213 ibid, 50
184
way, as Bachelard claims, “man’s [sic] being is
confronted with the world’s being.”214 Thus, in
the metropolis, the individual condition informs
and, paradoxically, takes on the dispossessed
conditions of the collective.
It is important to note, as it subsequent-
ly forms the basis of their political polemic, that
Tiqqun’s evaluation of the metropolis is not sim-
ply one of defeated resignation. While they ar-
gue that “finitude, solitude, and exposure [...]
weave the backdrop of everyone’s existence in
the big city,”215 it is precisely these markers of
Bloom’s experience that allow for a transcen-
dent overcoming of such internalized estrange-
ment. They argue that:
The metropolis appears, moreover, as the
chosen ground for mimetic rivalry [...]
the more isolated people are, the more
they resemble each other; the more they
resemble each other, the more they detest
themselves; the more they detest them-
selves, the more they isolate themselves.
And where people can no longer recog-
nize one another as participants in build-
ing a common world, a chain reaction en-

185
sues, a collective fission that everything
combines to catalyze.216
Paradoxically then, it is Bloom’s com-
plete estrangement that lays the foundations for
a politics of “real community.”217 The study of
Bloom and its metropolitan habitat is essential-
ly the study of being under late-capitalism.
Bachelard argues that “to make a study of being
[...] it is preferable to follow all the ontological
deviations of the various experiences of being.”218
Thus, as was already presaged by Bachelard, be-
ing has to transcend its propensity to delineate
its boundaries in simple binarized form: inside/
outside, here/there, being/non-being, etc. As
Tiqqun argues, within Bloom lies the latent pos-
sibility to effectively challenge all that made
Bloom what it is. Within its own disaffection,
following its alienation to its most logical point
of finality, the possibility of its transcendence is
made manifest. Tiqqun gestures toward this
transcendence by arguing that
in the manner of Bloom, the metropolis
materializes not only the integral loss of
community, but at the same time the infi-
216 ibid, 51-52

217 ibid, 54
186
nite possibility of its recovery.219
Both Gaston Bachelard and Tiqqun use
poetry to accentuate and contextualize the theo-
retical nature of their works. Bachelard is much
more conscious about using poetry as an object
of analysis, a separate form of aesthetic expres-
sion which provides insight into metaphysical
realities. In Theory of Bloom Tiqqun uses frag-
ments of poetry and literature, but these are nev-
er the explicit object of analysis and instead re-
tain an abstracted quality, adding subtle implied
resonances to their theoretical work. In an odd
way, Bachelard seems intent on describing the
metaphysical state where the dialectics of outside
and inside coalesce into one another and he ana-
lyzes such poetic instances to support his theo-
retical assertions, while Tiqqun, interested in
transcending the figure of the Bloom and the
socio-political context of late-capitalism, is con-
tent to allow the poetic fragments to exist with-
out detailed explication. While both Bachelard
and Tiqqun draw from a wide array of philosoph-
ical, literary, and poetic sources to supplement
their arguments, it is significant that both refer to
the Belgian-born French poet Henri Michaux to
evoke their respective theoretical premises.
187
As a poetic voice exploring alienation
amid the 20th century ontological crises, Mich-
aux’s poetry provides an intimate aesthetic ren-
dering of Bachelard’s complication of inside and
outside as well as the lived-loss of Tiqqun’s
Bloom. Bachelard uses Henri Michaux’s short
prose-poem “Shade-Haunted Space” (L’espace
aux ombres) to explore the loss of “being-there”
(Être-là). This is the same existential loss that
typifies Tiqqun’s figure of the Bloom, yet, where-
as for Bachelard and perhaps Michaux this loss is
framed purely in a negative or reductive sense,
Tiqqun claims that because Bloom is living this
loss of “being-there” it is affirming alienated life-
itself. In “Shade-Haunted Space” Michaux writes:
“Space, but you cannot even conceive the horrible
inside-outside that real space is.”220 Space is
blurred and lacks the delineation that is a surro-
gate for order. Bachelard claims that such a space,
a place mired in the indistinguishability of “in-
side-outside,” is actually a hell where “being is
slowly digesting its nothingness.”221 This lan-
guage is telling, as biological digestion is a break-
ing-down (destruction), yet it is done with the
express intent to sustain life (affirmation). Yet

221 ibid, 217
188
here, in his analysis of Michaux’s poem, Bache-
lard is claiming that such a “shade” of being is
attempting to sustain itself on absolute “nothing-
ness.” This persistence in living when already
metaphysically dead, of sustaining on “nothing-
ness,” epitomizes Tiqqun’s figure of the Bloom
and explicitly reveals the way in which Bloom is
not simply estranged from him or herself but is
instead living a totality of alienation.
In Michaux’s poem, the only desire such
a “shade” can express in such hellish space is to
seek to establish delineation, boundaries, and
order to the self, to clearly define the limits of
inside and outside. Oddly, what appears through
such demarcation is the notion of an established
whole, or as Michaux writes, the “effort to ‘exist
as a single unity’.”222 Such a shade grasping for
self-definition sees this hellish world as a funda-
mental unity—every small, clearly defined unit
comprising the totality of it all. Yet according to
Michaux, this “being-there,” the fundamental se-
curity that comes with being definitively rooted
in place and space, is a farce and was long ago
“destroyed by punishment, [and] it was reduced
to a noise, a thunderous noise.”223 Thus, all that
222 ibid, 217

223 ibid, 217
189
now exists in this temporal-space is the ghost or
“shade” of the “being-there” that once was. It is
the dissolution of “being-there” into the indis-
tinguishable “noise” of it all. The yearning to ex-
ist is drowned out amidst the cacophony of other
such yearnings tempered by the threat of non-
existence itself. In his analysis of Michaux’s
poem, Bachelard writes that
this spirit, this shade, this noise of a shade
which, the poet tells us, desires its unity,
may be heard on the outside without it be-
ing possible to be sure that it is inside.224
This fear expressed by Michaux’s shade
is, according to Tiqqun, the anxiety of existence
under late-capitalism. It is a desire for unity
amidst the reality that no such positive unity ac-
tually exists any longer, and instead the only
unity; the only communality that exists is that of
each Bloom’s own estranged existence. Thus,
the psycho-social landscape of late-capitalist re-
lations is merely the communal unity of disaf-
fected alienation.
The Henri Michaux poem that is ana-
lyzed in Bachelard’s “The Dialectics of Outside
and Inside,” “Shade-Haunted Space,” merely at-
tempts to describe the situation of the shade’s
224 ibid, 217
190
existential hell, whereas the poem Tiqqun uses
attempts to break free from such a prison of be-
ing. In Theory of Bloom, Tiqqun reproduces Mi-
chaux’s poem “Clown” in its entirety. “Clown,”
as opposed to “Shade-Haunted Space,” acknowl-
edges the living-loss of contemporary being,
but attempts to explore the possible lines of de-
sertion out of such space. The basis of such a
desertion, Bloom’s desertion from itself, is the
active disavowal of all forms of predicative indi-
vidual identity. When faced with the realization
that at the core of Bloom’s being is a fundamen-
tal nothingness, then all that can be done to es-
cape such an ontological predicament is to ac-
tively embrace nothingness as the pure
expression of unbridled potentiality.
In “Clown” Michaux writes
I’ll let go of everything that seemed to be
indissolubly close. I’ll slice it off, I’ll over-
turn it, I’ll break it, bring it crashing
down.225
Here, the desire to maintain the edifice of the
self, of Bachelard’s “being-there,” is precisely
what keeps Bloom attuned to its own alienation.
To break away from such estrangement Bloom
must actively reject its own conception of indi-
191
vidual identity, for as Tiqqun claims, “in all that
he is, Bloom is outside of himself.”226 Thus,
Tiqqun argues that anything that Bloom insists
upon as being inside of himself or distinctly his
own is just a manifestation of the total com-
modification of life under late-capitalism. Ev-
erything that Bloom thinks constitutes his or
her fundamental individual identity or individ-
ual being is already codified according to exter-
nalized late-capitalist power dynamics. This
represents Bloom’s most fundamental abstrac-
tion from its own being.
This is a Bachelardian complication of
inside and outside, and Tiqqun argues that it is
qualifiedly a “generalized schizoid state” that all
Blooms experience. In this state
everyone now distinguishes between his
‘true self,’ pure and detached from any ob-
jectifiable manifestation, and the system
of his ‘false self,’ which is social, role-
played, constrained, inauthentic.227
Tiqqun argues that this inside/outside dichoto-
my is false, because the Bloom as the new onto-
logical figure of existence is so purely “inau-
thentic” that there is no longer any inherent
226 ibid, 82
227 ibid, 82
192
difference between the “true” and the “false” self.
Thus, the only action Bloom can take to tran-
scend this ontological trap is to actively defy all
form of identity, either self-imposed or exter-
nally imposed, because both forms of identity
formation are actually the same. Michaux’s
“Clown” evokes this necessary transcendence:
Emptied of the abcess [sic] of being some-
one, I’ll drink
once again the nutritive space...
...Through taunts, degradations
(what is degradation?), shattering, empti-
ness, a total
dissipation-derision-purgation,
I will rid myself of the form that was
thought to be so firmly attached, composed,
coordinated, adapted to my surroundings
and to my associates, so worth, so worthy,
my associates.228
This “nutritive space” that emerges

when one no longer feels the need to be some-
one is the expression of limitless potentiality,
and it is in stark opposition to the complete
identity and resultant stagnation of Bloom. Here
the transcendence of late-capitalist socio-
228 ibid, 83-85
193
political realities becomes an inherently onto-
logical act, for through ridding the self “of the
form that was thought to be so firmly attached,
composed, [and] coordinated” to the world
around it, the self is confronted with pure affir-
mative negativity—all the potential that appears
infinite within the complete emptiness that ex-
ists. Just as the “worker/proletariat” was once
the revolutionary subject, Bloom paradoxically
becomes both the embodiment of late-capital-
ism’s unquestioned dominance and the very on-
tological vehicle that will transcend it.
In dialectical opposition to Bloom,
Tiqqun posits their own namesake, tiqqun. They
claim that
tiqqun is the only adequate conception of
revolution. Not the revolution that must
be waited for, and even less the one that
can be prepared for, but the one that devel-
ops to its own imperceptible beat within a
temporality that’s internal to history.229
This concept of revolution, the complete tran-
scendence of the present, is totalizing and when
viewed through Bachelard’s complication of
“the dialectics of outside and inside” it takes on
messianic undertones. The notion of tiqqun
229 ibid, 102
194
complicates the dichotomy of inside and out-
side because Bloom is both the ontological
product of late-capitalism and the figure of its
transcendence. Thus, in a paradoxical way
Bloom already contains tiqqun within it. Bloom
contains the seeds for its own self-destruction
and eventual transcendence.
Bloom is the last being within the last
stage of capitalist development. Bloom’s exis-
tence prefigures a total nihilism, and thus Bloom’s
only option, according to Tiqqun, is “to open the
way out of nihilism or perish.”230 In this way
Bloom’s position, that of forming “part of
tiqqun,”231 is a “denegation,” a term Bachelard bor-
rows from the French philosopher Jean Hyppo-
lite. Bachelard claims that this concept is “quite
different from the simple structure of negation”232
and, according to Hyppolite’s reading of Freud’s
Verneinung, as recounted by Jacques Lacan,
the repressed is intellectually accepted by
the subject, since it is named, and at the
same time is negated because the subject
refuses to recognize it as his, refuses to
recognize him in it.
230 ibid, 102

231 ibid, 102
195
Here, in the same way Bloom refuses to recog-
nize his or her own potential for tiqqun, the pos-
session of “the real movement which destroys
the present state of things.”233 If Bloom represents
the affirmative living of an internalized nothing-
ness which merely mirrors the external nothing-
ness of late-capitalist society, then the notion of
tiqqun as a denegation actually entails engaging
in the very act that Bachelard says is complicat-
ed by the “myth of outside and inside.”234 It is the
act of definition, delineation, and demarcation
through ontological desertion and destruction.
In a social landscape typified by the
blurring together of inside and outside, where
the schizoid nature of meaning is presupposed
but never as it seems, Tiqqun argues that to
overcome Bloom the dialectics of outside and in-
side must be reappropriated and defiantly reas-
serted. This is where Gaston Bachelard and
Tiqqun have their greatest theoretical diver-
gence, for Bachelard seems to be comfortable in
merely calling attention to the “myth of outside
and inside” whereas Tiqqun argues that such a
confluence between the internal and external
epitomizes the ontological trap Bloom must ulti-

196
mately overcome. Against the backdrop of post-
modernity, it may seem antiquated to suggest
that one must define the boundaries of meaning,
but when faced with the abject nihilism that
Bloom represents, such definition becomes a
radical alterity. Tiqqun claims:
But the world we’re awakening to is a
world at war whose brilliance radiates en-
tirely from the trenchant truth of its divi-
sion into friends and enemies. Designat-
ing the front is preliminary to crossing
the line, but only combat can accomplish
the crossing.235
Thus, for Tiqqun, the establishment of a tempo-
rally new inside and outside forms the first step
of overcoming nihilism. Bloom therefore cannot
excise the nihilism within him if it is viewed as
a totality; the definition and distinction of nihil-
ism as a part of his being must be identified be-
fore it can be removed. This is the recognition
that nihilism and its denegation are both con-
tained within this fundamental tonality of be-
ing, and as Bachelard claims: “We seek to deter-
mine being and, in so doing, transcend all
situations, to give a situation of all situations.”236

197
Such meaning-making determines a new form
of ontology, one that transcends both Bloom
and its internalized logic of late-capitalism—the
emergence of tiqqun as the “real movement that
destroys the present state of things.”237

198
7
The Politics of Transcending
Traditional Metaphysics:
A Heideggerian Reading
of Tiqqun’s
“What is Critical Metaphysics?”
In an essay entitled “What is Critical Metaphys-
ics?” from the first Tiqqun journal (1999), Tiqqun
presents a critique of conventional metaphysics
that is heavily indebted to Martin Heidegger’s
critiques of metaphysics, while it simultaneous-
ly tries to move beyond this explicit theoretical
influence. “What is Critical Metaphysics?”
shows that Tiqqun’s project is essentially an at-
tempt to reconcile being with Being in a purely
Heideggerian sense. While there are obvious
similarities to Heidegger’s thought in Tiqqun’s
essay, including the title’s acknowledgment of
“What is Metaphysics?”, Heidegger’s famous
1929 lecture at the University of Freiburg, there
are enough theoretical divergences to constitute
a decisive shift beyond the limits of a purely
Heideggerian critique of metaphysics. Whereas
199
Heidegger speaks of Dasein as the being which
is thinking of its own relation to Being or the
being which stands in the “clearing” and is “ap-
prehended by Being,” Tiqqun argues that the
mode of disclosure which exposes the false
metaphysics of capitalist reality (what they term
“commodity modernity”) as a fabrication is in-
herently a political act. In their argument,
Tiqqun elucidates the ontological conditions of
existence within commodity modernity. They
then discuss—and here the similarities to Hei-
degger abound—how the “forgetting of Being”
has taken hold and produced a nihilistic meta-
physics of late-capitalism. Finally, for Tiqqun,
positing a way out of the inherent nihilism of
commodity modernity results in an exposition
of the role of thinking (as an ontological act) and
language (Heidegger’s “house of Being”) as ways
to transcend late-capitalist commodity moder-
nity into the realization of Being itself. While
Tiqqun’s “What is Critical Metaphysics?” relies
heavily on Heidegger, they ultimately arrive at a
reading critical of Heidegger, one that argues
that the ontological terrain has changed within
late-capitalist commodity modernity and thus a
being-in-the-world is not standing in the clear-
ing of Being because the “world” is a simula-
200
crum which must be concurrently destroyed and
transcended by what they term “critical meta-
physics”: the only means to a reconciliation with
and realization of Being.
At the center of Tiqqun’s critique is the
idea that all contemporary metaphysics is con-
ceived within what they term commodity mo-
dernity. This socio-political episteme is the re-
sult of the same rationalist discourses that
started with Plato and became hegemonic dur-
ing the Enlightenment. Tiqqun claims that
modernity has never existed […] it has fi-
nally appeared as what it always was—just
a verbal fetish that the superstition of shit-
heads and simple spirits, ever since the
supposed ‘Renaissance,’ have decorated
the progressive rise of commodity rela-
tions to a state of social hegemony with.238
“Commodity relations” here become the complete
realization of Marx’s commodity fetishism. This
argument is similar to Heidegger’s critique of
the metaphysics of subjectivity in that he prob-
lematizes the premise on which such a meta-
physics rests, namely starting with the individu-
al subject as a being who experiences and
238 Tiqqun. “What is Critical Metaphysics” Tiqqun: Conscious

Organ of the Imaginary Party #1. 2011. 6
201
interacts with other beings (now made into ob-
jects)—all while ignoring the more fundamental
question of Being itself. Similarly, for Tiqqun
commodity modernity and the metaphysics of
late-capitalism all rest upon an ontology tem-
pered by the idea that subjective abstractions of
(economic) value are crystalized into physical
forms that have a corresponding objective value.
Commodity fetishism here obscures the human
relations behind the more abstracted relations
amongst commodity-forms. Tiqqun writes that
in the same way as commodity relations
never really existed as such, ie, as com-
modity relations, but only as relations be-
tween men mutilated into relations be-
tween things, everything that is said to be,
believed to be, or held up as being ‘mod-
ern’ has never really existed as modern.239
Thus, whether it is called post-Fordism, post-in-
dustrial late-capitalism, or Empire (a term taken
from Toni Negri and Michael Hardt, used by
Tiqqun in this and other works), commodity
modernity becomes the social, cultural, econom-
ic, political, and most importantly for the pur-
poses of this essay, metaphysical paradigm in
which beings find themselves.
239 ibid, 6
202
The world of commodity modernity pro-
duces a metaphysics of negation. This meta-
physics posits the reality and eternality of com-
modity relations, and denies that there are in-
deed obfuscated human relations abstracted in
the commodity-form. It is essentially a project of
denial in so far as
it is the negation of what makes sense of
the world, of the imperceptible appearing
within the perceptible.240
Abstract economic value is the imperceptible
that in commodity modernity becomes imbued
within the perceptible form of the commodity it-
self. Tiqqun adopts Marx’s position that such
commodity relations are ultimately illusory and
through their proliferation and totalization,
this fine project is wholly contained with-
in the aberrant but effective illusion that a
complete separation between the physical
and the metaphysical is possible—a fallacy
most often taking form as the underlying
reality behind the physical reality.241
Thus, Tiqqun introduces a metaphysical ele-
ment to Marx’s commodity fetishism. They ar-
gue that any ontology that conflates the imper-
240 ibid, 7
241 ibid, 7
203
ceptible and the perceptible is one that cannot
address questions of Being, and thus, can only
speak to the relations between subjects to ob-
jects, ie the relations between things as things.
Thus, Tiqqun claims that commodity moderni-
ty’s complementary metaphysics is one of ne-
gation, for in contrast to what traditional meta-
physics believes it is doing (here Tiqqun is in
line with Heideggerian thought) it is actually
doing “just the opposite of what it thought it
was, in a word: the complete de-realization of
the world.”242
Both Heidegger and (arguably) Tiqqun
claim that what is at stake in the re-evaluation
and critique of conventional metaphysics is re-
asserting the “relation of Being to the essence
of man.”243 In his “Letter on Humanism,” Hei-
degger argues that through the systemization
and institutionalization of metaphysics as a
philosophical practice, a system of inquiry has
emerged which forgets what he views as the
most fundamental question: the “question of
Being.”244 It is this forgetting that Heidegger ad-
dresses when he claims that
242 ibid, 7
243 Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism.” Basic Writings. 1977. 217
244 ibid, 234
204
forgetting the truth of Being in favor of
the pressing throng of beings unthought
in their essence is what ensnarement [ver-
fallen] means in Being and Time.245
This “verfallen,” usually translated as “falling” or
“lapsing,” is when a being loses “itself in the pres-
ent, forgetting what is most its own [ie Being].”246
This losing itself in the present is what Heidegger
calls “Uneigentlichkeit” or “inauthenticity” in Be-
ing and Time. As opposed to inauthenticity, Hei-
degger posits the opposing condition of existence,
the existence of Dasein, as “die Eigentlichkeit” or
“authentic.” Heidegger scholar William Blattner
translates this concept as “ownedness,”
because the phenomenon Heidegger is
trying to capture with this language is not
a matter of being true to anything, but
rather of owning who and how one is.247
Understanding the forgetting of being is abso-
lutely essential as a prerequisite conceptual
step to recovering the fundamental relation-
ship to Being.
In “What is Critical Metaphysics?”
Tiqqun argues that life under late-capitalist
245 ibid, 235

246 ibid, 236
247 Blattner, William. Heidegger’s Being and Time. 2006. 15
205
commodity modernity is thoroughly mired in
Heidegger’s concept of “verfallensein” or fallen-
being/inauthentic-being. Yet, here an important
distinction emerges between Heidegger and
Tiqqun, as “verfallen” for Heidegger
does not express any negative evaluation,
but is used to signify that Dasein is proxi-
mally and for the most part alongside the
‘world’ of its concern.248
In attempting to prevent this misreading of “ver-
fallen” Heidegger writes that
we would also misunderstand the
ontologico-existential structure of falling
if we were to ascribe to it the sense of a
bad and deplorable ontical property of
which, perhaps, more advanced stages of
human culture might be able to rid them-
selves.249
Tiqqun diverges from this relatively passive
treatment of falling away from Being, and their
polemical position gives their rendering of “crit-
ical metaphysics” an overtly political tenor. They
claim that beings under the domination of late-
capitalist commodity modernity are
all just interchangeable symbols that re-
248 Heidegger, Being and Time. 1962. Print. 220

249 ibid, 220
206
place each other moving about on one
plane; it’s not that these symbols signify
nothing, as the kindly morons of post-
modernism like to think—indeed they sig-
nify Nothingness itself.”250
Here Tiqqun posits “Nothingness” as an onto-
logical state inhabited by beings that have fallen
from Being, and they clearly place an ethical
judgment upon this form of existence. Tiqqun
goes so far as to say that such beings are “the
victims of a faint and constant loss of being.”251
Thus, for Tiqqun, the social, economic, and phil-
osophical implications of conventional meta-
physics, modernity, and capitalism congeal to
form what they call “the complete de-realization
of the world.”252
Tiqqun argues that through this “com-
plete de-realization of the world” beings that
simply experience themselves as “being-there”
or “being-in-the-world” (Dasein in traditional
Heideggerian terms) are not encountering their
fundamental relation to Being because the meta-
physical landscape of commodity modernity has
so fully fabricated itself that reality in such an
250 op cit, “What is Critical Metaphysics,” 7

251 ibid, 7
252 ibid, 7
207
existential episteme is not reality at all, but rath-
er the complete embodiment of ontological
“Nothingness.” Thus, in such an ontological void,
“being-there” is viewed pejoratively; it is an exis-
tence trapped in an immanence that emerges
within the void and “hollow conceptuality” of
commodity modernity.253 For Tiqqun, the meta-
physics which both emerges from such an onto-
logical void and further entrenches its own
“Nothingness” is a “metaphysics of negation,”
“where there is no longer any response that goes
beyond mere being-there.”254 This marks another
major difference between Tiqqun and Heidegger,
as Tiqqun’s aspirations to move beyond a “mere
being-there” in commodity modernity is an ex-
plicit call for political transcendence—some-
thing that Heidegger’s thought explicitly rejects.
Tiqqun claims that commodity modernity has
produced a décor comprised purely of
phenomena, of pure beings-there that are
nothing beyond the simple fact that they
are there, in their empty positivity, and
which ceaselessly push humanity to feel
‘the marvel of marvels: that being-there’
253 ibid, 7
254 ibid, 7
208
(Heidegger, What is Metaphysics?)255
Here in their explicit critique of Heidegger,
Tiqqun reasons that in a completely commodi-
fied world “being-there” as a “being-in-the-world”
is not a realization of Being because such a world
is not real in the simplest sense of the word.
Reality for Tiqqun “is the unity of mean-
ing and life,”256 yet life underneath the domina-
tion of commodity modernity is fundamentally
meaningless. Thus, unlike Heidegger’s a priori
focus on Being, Tiqqun questions both Being
and the world as two distinct but equal ontolog-
ical realities. This is the explicit trajectory for
Tiqqun’s critical metaphysics, in so far as the
recognition of this existential Nothingness is a
prerequisite to transcend the nihilism latent
within commodity modernity. Tiqqun calls the
recognition of this disjuncture between “mean-
ing and life” Total Otherness. Only through the
experience of this can a new critical metaphysics
emerge. They claim:
This experience is the birth of metaphysics,
where metaphysics appears precisely as
metaphysics, where the world appears as
the world. But metaphysics that arises
255 ibid, 7
256 ibid, 7
209
again there is not the same metaphysics
that people [similar to the Heideggerian
“THEY”] had hunted down and banished,
because it returns as the truth and nega-
tion of what had defeated the old meta-
physics: as a conquering force, as critical
Metaphysics. Because the project of capi-
talist modernity is nothing, its realization
is but the spreading desertification of ev-
erything that exists. And we are here to
ravage that desert.257
Thus for Tiqqun, critical metaphysics at-
tempts to negate commodity modernity’s meta-
physics of negation—it is a negation of a nega-
tion, which assumes the timbre of a positivity.
Just as Heidegger argues that metaphys-
ics has become a sordid exercise reflecting the
technique of thought, rather than the act of
thought itself, Tiqqun’s own reevaluation of the
role of thinking becomes central to their critical
metaphysics. Heidegger claims:
in order to learn how to experience the
aforementioned essence of thinking
purely […] we must free ourselves from
the technical interpretation of thinking.
The beginnings of that interpretation
257 ibid, 7
210
reach back to Plato and Aristotle.258
Viewed in this way, thinking stands apart from
itself as an act, and as such it appears to main-
tain a certain “autonomy over against acting and
doing.”259 This paradigmatic shift accounts for
post-Platonic philosophy’s need to “justify its
existence before the ‘sciences’”260 by trying to pose
itself as empirically or rationally validated. The
problem with this technical interpretation of
thinking (which according to Heidegger is the
foundation of all Western philosophical thought)
is that in its estrangement from itself as an act, it
loses its fundamental essence of thinking as
thinking. This is an error in so much as it is
thinking itself that “lets itself be claimed by Be-
ing so that it can say the truth of Being.”261
Thinking for Heidegger is inextricably paired
with Being, because Being is what enables think-
ing. He claims that “thinking is the thinking of
Being;”262 from this, Being can be viewed as the
“element” that enables thinking itself.
If thinking does not stem from Being, by
reflexively questioning Being, then it in no way
258 op cit, “Letter on Humanism,” 218
259 ibid, 218
260 ibid, 218
261 ibid, 218
262 ibid, 220
211
corresponds to the essence of thinking which at
its core is also the essence of Being. Thus, the
technical interpretation of thinking as devel-
oped first by Plato and Aristotle and then at each
stage in the empirical and rationalist mode of
Western “thought,” is still caught in the gram-
matical/syntactical trap of the division between
subject and object (most famously, in Descartes’s
mind-body split). Heidegger claims that
when thinking comes to an end by slip-
ping out of its element it replaces this loss
by procuring itself as techne […] One no
longer thinks; one occupies oneself with
‘philosophy.’263
Thus, by reappropriating thinking from tradi-
tional metaphysics and the entirety of the ratio-
nalist tradition of philosophy, Heidegger at-
tempts to recall thinking back into its
fundamental essence, namely thinking as an act
which questions, which is Being itself. The
problem here becomes the constitution of the
mode of disclosure that realizes thinking as the
thinking of Being. Aware of this, Heidegger at-
tempts to defend his argument against the
charges that such a mode of disclosure of the
truth of Being against rationalism must neces-
263 ibid, 221
212
sarily be irrational. He asks his critics’ question
for them: “Can then the effort to return thinking
to its element be called ‘irrationalism’?”264 Hei-
degger argues that even the presupposition of
such a counter-argument is still firmly rooted in
the inability of rationalist metaphysics to ad-
dress the fundamental error of logic: namely its
preoccupation with everything but Being itself.
At this point in “Letter on Humanism” Hei-
degger expresses a certain comfort with contra-
diction. He argues that:
We are so filled with ‘logic’ that
anything that disturbs the habitual som-
nolence of prevailing opinion is automati-
cally registered as a despicable contradic-
tion. We pitch everything that does not
stay close to the familiar and beloved pos-
itive into the previously excavated pit of
pure negation, which negates everything,
ends in nothing, and so consummates ni-
hilism. Following this logical course we let
everything expire in a nihilism we invent-
ed for ourselves with the aid of logic.265
Here Heidegger’s thought resonates
strongly with Tiqqun’s, in that Heidegger seems
264 ibid, 219

265 ibid, 250
213
to allude to the way in which logical rationality,
carried to its furthest extreme, is merely nihil-
ism itself, much as Tiqqun argues that the proj-
ect of commodity modernity is the nihilistic “de-
realization of the world.”
While these obvious similarities be-
tween Heidegger and Tiqqun’s evaluation of ra-
tional metaphysics and “commodity moderni-
ty’s” metaphysics of negation, Tiqqun and
Heidegger differ in their prescriptions for what
is to be done. Heidegger, adopting a hermeneu-
tic approach, calls for the recovery of a language
capable of apprehending Being. Tiqqun’s ap-
proach is similarly hermeneutic, referring to
their Kabbalistic namesake, tikkun, as the “pro-
cess—one of redemption, of the restoration of
unity between meaning and life, the repair of all
things by the action of human beings.”266 Thus,
Tiqqun implicitly rejects Heidegger’s notion
that beings can re-encounter Being itself by re-
maining open, ontologically standing in the
“clearing” of Being and apprehending it, as too
passive for “commodity modernity’s” domina-
tion. Being-in-the-world is already problema-
tized for Tiqqun, because the world of commod-
ity modernity is false, and thus a passive
266 op cit, “What is Critical Metaphysics?” 16
214
“openness” to Being in this context reinforces the
latent nihilism within late-capitalism’s meta-
physics of negation. Instead, Tiqqun argues that
only the annihilation of nihilism itself can bring
about the “restoration of unity between mean-
ing and life” (ie Being itself), and thus “Critical
Metaphysics is the determined negation of com-
modity domination.”267
For Tiqqun, thinking fulfills a similar
role as it does in Heidegger, but they are much
more explicit in viewing thinking as a necessary
prerequisite to the transcendence of “commodi-
ty modernity,” whereas Heidegger argues that
thinking is immanently Being itself. Tiqqun
claims that thinking is the ontological act which
attempts to reinscribe life-itself with meaning,
for all pretensions toward meaning within com-
modity modernity are inherently commodified
and thus false. Through thinking, one encoun-
ters critical metaphysics, and in doing so one
transcends the nihilism inherent within late-
capitalism. Tiqqun claims that “everything, at
the end of this era, leads one to believe that man
can only survive in an environment that has
meaning to it.”268 Implicit within this statement
267 ibid, 16
268 ibid, 9
215
is the belief that meaning or even the act of
meaning-making (this problematizes conven-
tional conceptions of language as well) does not
exist within commodity modernity. Thus,
Tiqqun argues that everything that has mas-
queraded as thought, namely metaphysics, has
ended up further proliferating and securing the
domination of late-capitalist commodity rela-
tions. Heidegger seems to be content with leav-
ing his critique at the level of metaphysics and
Being alone, whereas Tiqqun adds a secondary
dimension to their own critique: that of the po-
litical. Just as they attempt to undermine the fal-
sity of traditional metaphysics, Tiqqun argues
that because all existent forms of politics start
on the foundation of such a false metaphysics
then it follows that all existent forms of politics
are false as well. Eschewing the metaphysics
that upholds the false dichotomy of subject and
object necessarily informs Tiqqun’s rejection of
all previous anticapitalist politics and their in-
cessant need to establish some sort of “revolu-
tionary subject.” Tiqqun’s politics is a positivity
framed as a totalizing negativity, in that critical
metaphysics is concerned with the complete de-
struction of late-capitalist nihilism. Any affirma-
tion of a revolutionary subject within commod-
216
ity modernity is hopelessly caught in a closed,
completely circumscribed, and controlled dis-
course of late-capitalist domination.
Tiqqun claims that the social and politi-
cal apparatuses of late-capitalist domination are
obfuscating real thinking. It is important, how-
ever to not read commodity modernity as an ex-
ternalized object which actively oppresses, be-
cause doing so falls into a political dichotomy
(oppressed/oppressor dynamic) that Tiqqun ve-
hemently argues is now irrelevant at this stage
of capitalism’s development. Instead, Tiqqun’s
treatment of “apparatuses” (a concept Tiqqun
borrows from Italian philosopher Giorgio Agam-
ben) is much more fluid in form. According to
Agamben, these apparatuses are
literally anything that has in some way
the capacity to capture, orient, determine,
intercept, model, control, or secure the
gestures, behaviors, opinions, or discours-
es of living beings.269
Tiqqun argues that such apparatuses of control
function discursively, and that therefore the liv-
ing beings that are controlled by them often im-
plicate or willingly engage themselves in the
269 Agamben, Giorgio. What is an Apparatus? And Other Essays.

2009. 14
217
rhizomatic nature of such domination. Thus, ap-
paratuses like these depend on the willing collu-
sion of living beings to further inculcate control.
Thinking, for Tiqqun, is the act that calls
into question these apparatuses of domination,
self-imposed and otherwise. Posited against the
“clearing” potential of thought (ie thinking as the
realization of Being), is these apparatuses’ con-
certed effort to obfuscate the liberatory poten-
tial of thinking. Yet, by inverting this obfusca-
tion, Tiqqun argues that it is precisely the effort
of the apparatuses of commodity modernity to
distract living beings from thought that vali-
dates thinking’s emancipatory nature. They ar-
gue that
nothing shows the extent to which the
possibilities that mankind contains them-
selves tend towards mankind’s realization
as does the effort our contemporaries put
into distracting themselves from them.270
Thus, the realization of Being is suppressed by
distracting living beings from the pure potenti-
ality and possibility that is Being.
Tiqqun is explicit that beings need to
engage in real thinking as a way out of commod-
ity modernity. They write
218
thinking is not a duty of man, but his es-
sential necessity, the non-fulfillment of
which is suffering—that is, a contradic-
tion between his possibilities and his ex-
istence.271
It is this “contradiction” between possibilities
and existence that forms the basis of life within
late-capitalist commodity modernity. Hei-
degger also addresses this split between possi-
bilities and existence in his arguments for “the
thinking that thinks the truth of Being.”272 Hei-
degger introduces the concept of “valuing”
which he argues is fundamentally an act of
“subjectivizing.” He claims “every valuing, even
where it values positively, is a subjectivizing. It
does not let beings: be.”273 Tiqqun follows this
trajectory of thought by arguing that in com-
modity modernity ethical inclinations have
been codified into moral values, and these sub-
jectivized strictures do not allow for the realiza-
tion of Being. Any acquiescence to subjectiviz-
ing claims of value is a closing—a restriction of
potentiality and possibilities. Thus, as Tiqqun
claims, “the renunciation of thought is the first
271 ibid, 9
273 ibid, 251
219
condition for ‘fitting in socially’.”274 They argue
that the adoption of values, in a valueless soci-
ety with a nihilistic death-drive, is the obfusca-
tion of thinking and by extension the de-
realization of Being.
Tiqqun’s position on the role of think-
ing leads to their interpretation of language and
its function within commodity modernity. They
claim that
those who believe they can build a new
world without building a new language
are fooling themselves: the whole of this
world is contained in its language.275
This echoes Heidegger’s own thoughts on lan-
guage as he claims that
it is proper to think the essence of lan-
guage from its correspondence to Being
and indeed as this correspondence, that
is, as the home of man’s essence […]
language is the house of Being.276
Reappropriating language from traditional
metaphysics means encountering a nearness to
Being. The problem that Heidegger outlines here
is that language, in traditional metaphysics, is
275 ibid, 20
220
what makes an individual being a subject ac-
cording to its innate grammatical structures.
At a base grammatical and syntactical
level language creates a distinction between the
subject and the object. The subject is the gram-
matical concept that does the predicate to the
object. This split allows traditional metaphysics
to understand the subject’s being in relation to
the object-based world (ie other beings-as-
objects) around it, rather than concerning itself
with the more fundamental question of Being
itself. Language is what allows for this confu-
sion, this forgetting of Being, yet paradoxically
because it is the “house of Being” it is also indi-
vidual beings’ only means to get near to Being
itself, to exist as Dasein. This first interpretation
of language is of a language that has fallen out of
its element as the “house of Being.” Along these
lines, Heidegger claims that this
downfall of language is, however, not the
grounds for, but already a consequence
of, the state of affairs in which language
under the dominance of the modern
metaphysics of subjectivity almost irre-
mediably falls out of its element. Lan-
guage still denies us its essence: that it is
221
the house of the truth of Being.277
Thus, the language of the metaphysics of subjec-
tivity, the very metaphysics Heidegger is at-
tempting to overcome, is “almost irremediably”
out of its element as language is the true essence
of Being. Implicit within his critique of the lan-
guage of traditional metaphysics is that a new
language freed from the metaphysics of subjec-
tivity and its propensity towards logic and ratio-
nality can be used to truly ask the question of
Being and subsequently encounter its truth in
such a freeing or clearing. As Heidegger scholar
Michael Inwood claims,
language [for Heidegger] is not a free-
floating thing in which we all share. It
seems to float freely, since it belongs to no
particular DASEIN, it belongs initially to
the They. But we do not have to speak only
as They speak. One can, by a mastery of
words or by fresh understanding of one’s
subject-matter, appropriate language in an
original way.278
Remedying language’s seemingly irre-
mediable falling-out of its fundamental essence
is clearly part of Tiqqun’s own project of linguis-
277 ibid, 222

278 Inwood, Michael. A Heidegger Dictionary. 1999. 114
222
tic restoration. Tiqqun argues that “language is
not a system of symbols, but the promise of a
reconciliation between words and things.”279
Tiqqun claims that the language of commodity
modernity emerged from the equivalence latent
within commodity relations (ie Marx’s commod-
ity fetishism). They write that
once commodity mysticism, which for-
mally and externally postulated the gen-
eral equivalence of everything and the
universal interchangeability of all, proved
itself to be a pure negation, a morbid offi-
cial takeover, people resolved to make all
things really equivalent, and beings in-
wardly exchangeable.280
Through this generalized equivalence a closing
off of Being occurs, as each utterance of inter-
changeability is a reduction of all potentiality
and possibility. Thus, for Tiqqun, language is at
once the means in which the world is experi-
enced, but it is also that which abstracts, and all
abstraction is a move away from the under-
standing that “reality is the unity of meaning
and life.”281 Therefore, Tiqqun asserts that

280 ibid, 13
281 ibid, 12
223
critical thought is thought that brings
about an exit from nihilism, starting from
a profane transcendence of language and
the world. What is transcendental to criti-
cal thought is that the world exists, and
what is unspeakable is that there is a lan-
guage there.282
While this is no longer in line with Heideggerian
thought, Tiqqun nonetheless makes the case for
the transcendence of the language and world of
commodity modernity. Through this, a new lan-
guage of Being emerges as that which is “open
to the experience of meaning” which is the con-
dition for and result of this world’s annihilation.
Perhaps the most glaring difference be-
tween Heidegger and Tiqqun is the latter’s con-
ception of transcendence as essential to their
critical metaphysics. Underlying their whole on-
tological project is the idea that “all of human
life is but a bet on transcendence.”283 Tiqqun’s
use of the word signifies an achieving of a reality
outside of this one. Heidegger’s writing points
to precisely the opposite, for he does not view
Being as something beyond the world—Being is
purely immanent within the world. This being-
282 ibid, 12
283 ibid, 12
224
in-the-world for Heidegger is a manifestation of
pure immanence because
only Dasein is in the world, and the adjec-
tive ‘worldly’ (weltlich), with the abstract
noun ‘worldliness, worldhood’ (Weltlich-
keit), can be applied only to Dasein, and to
features of Dasein, such as the world itself.
Non-human entities are said to be ‘within
the world’ […] but never ‘worldly’ or ‘in
the world’.284
Heidegger claims that
for us ‘world’ does not at all signify beings
or any realm of beings but the openness of
Being. Man is, and is man, insofar as he is
the ek-sisting one. He stands out into the
openness of Being.285
World is merely the “openness of Being” and
therefore the world is only the world for Dasein.
Simply because the world is only understand-
able in its relationship to Dasein, no externality
exists from which a transcendent understanding
of metaphysics may emerge. It is immanent in
so far as in recognizing and understanding the
truth of Being, Dasein is realized, and this real-
ization (even though it is a recovering) is ulti-
284 op cit, A Heidegger Dictionary, 246

225
mately being-in-the-world.
Against Heidegger’s conception of Be-
ing as immanent, Tiqqun views critical meta-
physics as
the doctrine of transcendence which alone
permits a liberation from and annihilation
of this world […] and affirms itself as the
determined negation of commodity domi-
nation, and simultaneously it already con-
tains, in its present manifestations, the
positive transcendence that goes beyond
the zones of destruction.286
In this sense, Tiqqun conceives of transcendence
as that which overcomes nihilism and the world
of commodity modernity as they are one and the
same. Throughout “What is Critical Metaphys-
ics?” Tiqqun claims that to overcome or tran-
scend the nihilism of commodity modernity, one
must adopt a nihilism aiming at the total nega-
tion of commodity modernity’s nihilism. This
negation of the negation is a positivity.
Tiqqun writes that
critical metaphysics presents itself as a
general injunction to determine oneself
starting from the metaphysical character
of the world, it constitutes by its own tra-
226
jectory the fulfillment and the transcen-
dence of nihilism.287
Tiqqun’s view is that the world is entirely fabri-
cated and false. Therefore they would argue
against Heidegger’s immanence as the openness
of being-in-the-world, because their understand-
ing of the illusory nature of commodity moder-
nity would by extension preclude any authentic
Being in such an inauthentic world. While this
seems to be a point of divergence between
Tiqqun and Heidegger, they do agree on the need
to appropriate metaphysics back from rational
philosophy (Heidegger) and late-capitalism
(Tiqqun). Tiqqun quotes a lengthy passage from
Heidegger’s Contribution to the Question of Being
which illustrates this trajectory of thought:
In the first place it’s about distancing your-
self from the world as it is in representa-
tion; it ‘appears at first as a transcendence
of metaphysics…But what happens in the
appropriation of metaphysics, and there
alone, is rather that the truth of metaphys-
ics comes flooding back, the lasting truth of
an apparently repudiated metaphysics,
which is nothing else but its henceforth re-
appropriated essence: its Dwelling. What’s
287 ibid, 19
227
happening here is something different from
a restoration of metaphysics’ (Heidegger,
Contribution to the Question of Being).288
This concern with the representation of
the world forms the basis for Tiqqun’s under-
standing of transcendence, and informs their ex-
plicit calls to reappropriate essence or Being
through a reappropriation of metaphysics that
they call critical metaphysics.
For Tiqqun, as for Heidegger, the con-
cern about the world as “it is in representation”
is a problematized post-Enlightenment concern
with the relation of individual beings to the “ob-
jective” world. This “representation” of the
world is no longer seen as a representation, and
instead the representation becomes the thing
itself. This is what Heidegger critiques as a fail-
ing of logical/rational/empirical thought, as
well as what Tiqqun critiques as the modus ope-
randi of late-capitalist commodity modernity.
Post-Enlightenment thought is focused on the
individual-as-subject, which therefore en-
trenches a metaphysics of subjectivity. In his es-
say “The Age of the World Picture” Heidegger
writes that, through this metaphysics of subjec-
tivity, “the very essence of man itself changes,
288 ibid, 19
228
in that man becomes subject.”289 This metaphys-
ics of subjectivity views as its subject of inquiry
the relations between the individual-as-subject
to other externalized subjects (now made into
objects), yet as Heidegger argues, this meta-
physics is therefore no longer concerned with
the question of Being itself and instead contents
itself with the representation of relations be-
tween beings. Tiqqun argues that this actually
supports their case for transcendence, as it lays
the foundation for a world in which man has
“been trying to drown himself in immanence
and has failed to do so 290
For Tiqqun, metaphysics in commodity
modernity is merely a metaphysics of negation
which furthers an individual’s alienation from
Being. Therefore, for Tiqqun, immanence is a pe-
jorative, insomuch as it starts from the world as
it is without bothering to question such a tenu-
ous foundation, namely that the world of com-
modity modernity is one totally and completely
known only in its representation. As a way out
of this trap of immanence, Tiqqun argues that:
Critical Metaphysics is rage to such de-
289 “The Age of the World Picture.” The Question Concerning Tech-
nology and Other Essays. 1977. 115-154. 128
229
gree of accumulation that it becomes
a viewpoint. But such a viewpoint, one
that has recovered from all the beguile-
ments of modernity, does not know
the world as distinct from itself.
It sees that in their typical forms mate-
rialism and idealism have had their day
[…] and that even where people seems
to be flourishing in the most satisfied
immanence, consciousness is still pres-
ent, as an inaudible feeling of decay,
as bad conscience.291
Here immanence is the condition in which
individual beings live as subjects within the to-
tality of commodity modernity. Yet, Tiqqun al-
lows that cracks in this “satisfied immanence” do
indeed appear, and consciousness (similar here
to Heidegger’s “thinking”) manifests itself as the
impending feeling of collapse, decay, and bad
conscience. It is within these spaces that con-
sciousness re-emerges (not the consciousness of
a revolutionary subject, but rather, consciousness
itself), and through such fissures (those open to
an outside) critical metaphysics manifests to
transcend the nihilism of late-capitalism by re-
vealing it for what it is: nothingness itself.
291 ibid, 9
230
Both Heidegger and Tiqqun attempt to
elucidate the ways in which traditional meta-
physics distances individual beings from Being
itself. Heidegger argues that a metaphysics of
subjectivity has taken root as the logical exten-
sion of rational post-Enlightenment philosophy
and it is precisely because of this rationality that
thinking has become codified, institutionalized,
and empiricized. The casualty of this logic-based
approach to subjective-experience is that tradi-
tional metaphysics concerns itself with the rela-
tion of beings to the objects that they encounter
without thinking about the more fundamental
relation of beings to Being itself. Tiqqun takes
this problematic view of traditional metaphysics
view further and argues that metaphysics in the
contemporary moment of capitalism’s historical
development is ultimately a metaphysics of noth-
ingness. They argue that the post-Enlightenment
project of progressive rationalization is fully re-
alized in commodity modernity and thus, it is
the de-realization of the world and the actual-
ization of nihilism. While Tiqqun borrows much
from Heidegger’s critiques of traditional meta-
physics, there are nonetheless many irreconcil-
able theoretical divergences between their two
respective approaches (ie Tiqqun’s insistence on
231
transcendence is incompatible with Heidegger’s
immanence). Tiqqun ultimately acknowledges,
in a way that Heidegger’s thinking never would,
the political necessity to realize the antithesis to
the nihilism of commodity modernity: a tran-
scendent critical metaphysics. Moving beyond
Heidegger’s critical evaluation of traditional
metaphysics, Tiqqun fashions critical meta-
physics as the only metaphysical force capable
of transcending-by-destroying the relations in-
herent in commodity modernity, the act which
reunifies meaning and life (ie the realization of
Being).
232
Works Cited
Introduction
Marazzi, Christian. Capital and Language: From
the New Economy to the War Economy. Los
Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2008. Print.
Chapter 1
Agamben, Giorgio. Means without End: Notes on
Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minneso-
ta Press, 2000. Print.
Endnotes. “What are we to do?” Communization
and its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and
Contemporary Struggles. Ed. Benjamin Noys.
Brooklyn, NY: Minor Compositions/Autono-
media, 2011. 23-40. Print.
Foucault, Michel. Power. Ed. James D. Faubion.
New York: The New Press, 1994. Print.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. “The
Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass De-
ception.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and
Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 1223-1240.
Print.
The Invisible Committee. The Coming Insurrec-
tion. Cambridge: Semiotext(e), 2009. Print.
233
Chapter 2
Adorno, Theodor W. Philosophy of New Music.
Trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2006. Print.
Ringer, Alexander L. “Assimilation and the
Emancipation of Historical Dissonance.” Con-
structive Dissonance. Eds. Juliane Brand and
Christopher Hailey. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1997. 23-24. Print.
Ross, Alex. The Rest is Noise: Listening to the
Twentieth Century. New York: Picador, 2007.
Print.
The Invisible Committee. The Coming Insurrec-
tion. Cambridge: Semiotext(e), 2009. Print.
Chapter 3
Benjamin, Walter. “Theses on the Philosophy of
History.” Illuminations: Walter Benjamin Es-
says and Reflections. Ed. Hannah Arendt. New
York: Schocken, 1968. 253-265. Print.
Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected In-
terviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. New
York: Pantheon, 1980. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals
and Ecce Homo. New York: Random House,
1989. Print.
Plato. Phaedrus. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.
234
Tiqqun. Introduction to Civil War. Los Angeles:
Semiotext(e), 2010. Print.
Chapter 4
De Larrinaga, Miguel and Marc Doucet. “Sover-
eign Power and the Biopolitics of Human Se-
curity.” Security Dialogue. 39 (2008): 517-537.
Print.
Foucault, Michel. Power. New York: The New
Press, 1994. Print.
Hannah, Matthew G. “Biopower, Life and Left
Politics.” Antipode. 43.4 (2011): 1034-1055.
Print.
Tiqqun. Introduction to Civil War. Los Angeles:
Semiotext(e), 2010. Print.
Chapter 5
Bataille, Georges. Inner Experience. Albany: State
University of New York, 1988. Print.
-- Theory of Religion. New York: Zone, 1992. Print.
McNally, David. “Land of the Living Dead: Capi-
talism and the Catastrophes of Everyday Life.”
Catastrophism: The Apocalyptic Politics of Col-
lapse and Rebirth. Ed. Sasha Lilley. Oakland:
PM Press, 2012. 108-127. Print.
Richardson, Michael. Georges Bataille Essential
Writings. London: Sage, 1998. Print.
235
Tiqqun. “Silence and Beyond.” Tiqqun: Conscious
Organ of the Imaginary Party, #1. Berkeley:
LBC Books, 2011. 70-77.
Chapter 6
Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1994. Print.
Lacan, Jacques. “Jacques Lacan - the Seminars of
Jacques Lacan.” Jacques Lacan - the Seminars
of Jacques Lacan. Lacan.com, 1997. Web. 25
Nov. 2012. <http://lacan.com/seminars1.
htm>.
Tiqqun. Theory of Bloom. Berkeley: LBC Books,
2012. Print.
Chapter 7
Agamben, Giorgio. What is an Apparatus? And
Other Essays. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2009.
Print.
Blattner, William. Heidegger’s Being and Time.
New York: Continuum International Publish-
ing Group, 2006. Print.
Heidegger, Martin. “The Age of the World Pic-
ture.” The Question Concerning Technology
and Other Essays. New York: Grand Publish-
ing, Inc., 1977. 115-154. Print.
236
---. Being and Time. New York: Harper & Row,
1962. Print. (cited in-text as BT)
---. “Letter on Humanism.” Basic Writings. New
York: Harper & Row, 1977. 217-265. Print.
Inwood, Michael. A Heidegger Dictionary. Ox-
ford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1999. Print.
237
Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee, while clear-
ly informed by academic discourses (such as tra-
ditional metaphysics, theories of sovereignty, the
study of biopolitics and disciplinary practices,
etc), are staunchly defiant of the academy’s mo-
nopoly over political thought. It is at once an ap-
propriation, recontextualization, and a libera-
tion of certain theoretical concepts from the
tautological trap of academia and their subse-
quent projection into the world. In this way,
Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee represent a
critical synthesis of theoretical spaces as dispa-
rate and diverse as anarchist thought, Italian
autonomist-Marxism from the 1970s, French ultra-
gauche communism, the squatter’s movement in
Europe in the 1980s, and the Situationist Interna-
tional.
$9

The Cultural Logic of Insurrection - Alden Wood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cultural Logic of Insurrection - Alden Wood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cultural Logic of Insurrection - Alden Wood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

The Cultural Logic of

licensed under creative commons

1 Critical Purity or Insurrectionary Agency:

2 Atonal Insurrection: Negation in the Work of

3 Deserting Empire, Deserting Humanism:

4 Power and the Development of Empire:

5 “The Annihilation of Nothingness”:

6 The Poetics of Alienation: Gaston Bachelard’s

7 The Politics of Transcending Traditional

2 Horkheimer, and Adorno. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment

15 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 12

18 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 74

20 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 74

29 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 97

39 Endnotes. “What are we to do?” Communization and its Dis-

41 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 130-31

The Coming Insurrection posits a conception of

45 op cit, Philosophy of New Music, 92

49 op cit, The Rest is Noise, 38

51 op cit, The Rest is Noise, 65

53 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 94

58 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 44

60 Adorno, Theodor W. Philosophy of New Music. Trans. Robert

62 op cit, The Coming Insurrection, 130-31

64 op cit, Philosophy of New Music, 54

67 Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and

80 Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce

94 op cit, “These on the Philosophy of History”, 263

102 ibid, 111

107 ibid, 209

109 ibid, 218

111 ibid, 219

122 ibid, 107

129 ibid, 110

131 ibid, 111

136 ibid, 116

138 ibid, 117

144 ibid, 119

147 op cit, Introduction to Civil War, 89

151 Hannah, Matthew G. “Biopower, Life and Left Politics.” Anti-

155 De Larrinaga, Miguel and Marc Doucet. “Sovereign Power

160 ibid, 123

163 Tiqqun. “Silence and Beyond.” Tiqqun: Conscious Organ of the

164 op cit, “Land of the Living Dead”, 127

173 Richardson, Michael. Georges Bataille Essential Writings. 1998.

178 Bataille, Goerges. Theory of Religion. 1992. 46-47

180 Bataille, Georges. Inner Experience. 1988. 71-72

188 op cit, “Silence and Beyond,” 77

191 ibid, 214

193 ibid, 215

197 op cit, Theory of Bloom, 21

200 op cit, The Poetics of Space, 218

208 op cit, The Poetics of Space, 218

210 op cit, The Poetics of Space, 218

212 op cit, Theory of Bloom, 49

214 op cit, The Poetics of Space, 212

216 ibid, 51-52

220 op cit, The Poetics of Space, 217

222 ibid, 217