in his article The Proliferation of Margins Felix Guattari aims at exposing, among other things, the progress and trends of world capitalism, various forms and integrations of protest, the shifting “battle lines” of labor and productive interests, and the functions of inseparability, contradiction and class struggle in this new ‘social becomming’ and how it interacts with its marginal elements. in particular, he notes that:
is it really inevitable that conservative or isolationist/regressive reform movements (such as those represented by figures like Ron Paul) really “annul [their] own efficacy in advance”?
more generally, globalization as a force of hierarchial or group destabilization would seem to necessarily and irrevocably lead to the progressive weakening and merging of the boundaries between marginal and industrial interests, between “deterritorialization” and status quo… does this not therefore offer new opportunities for reform and revolution, despite the fact that globalization seems to drastically undermine individual or local power structures? its a subtle distinction in his article, but Guattari seems to be implying that the “proliferation of margins” within society, due in part to global forces of destructuring, end up counteracting or opening up new avenues of possible revolutionary activity…
but can there still exist a real possibility for revolutionary or reformist change under this new emergent system? or “Will integrated world capitalism succeed in founding… an accentuation of social segregation”, so much so that liberation from administrative forces of repression and domination becomes ineffective, as these forces are that much more deeply ingrained, empowered and instutionalized?
the question i pose here is purely factual, without bias or value-judgment; i strongly oppose globalization as an active force, as i strongly oppose any form of oppressive institutionalism or statism. however, these forces ARE real, they DO exist, despite my personal wishes or beliefs on the subject.
the essence of my question is that, given Guattari is correct with regard to the existence and nature of these various social forces and elements, is it still possible for truly revolutionary change to exist? rising globalization and ever-increasing administrative repression seem to consolidate hierarcial power structures, yet Guattari seems to be saying that despite this fact (which he seems not entirely unhappy, or perhaps ambivolent, about), revolutionary ideas and reforms can still occur, resultant of the proliferation and multiplication of marginal elements (fringe/disenfranchised/weak/destitute/minority groups etc) within and on the edges of society, and the needs of these margins for expression (“irresistable aspiration for new spaces of liberty”)-- his primary question is whether or not these “molecular revolutions” can add up to become a general or wide-spread change in the system overall, or if they are bound to remain ineffectively localized and powerless to affect global change.
i think its important here to also clarify an important question as to the forces of globalization or “world capitalism”: this force or social/economic trend seems to be both structuring and destructuring-- it generates increased power consolidation in upper regions while destabilizing and reducing power of smaller, local regions such as nation-states. it therefore seems to be both hierarchial and anti-hierarchial at the same time, presenting different effects depending on the scope and scale of influence… we can add this aspect to the overall question of the possibility for reform and revolution, and see how it alters our understanding of the essence of this new system and its effects. any thoughts on the inherent nature of globalization as a social/economic force would be welcome.
Hey TTG, very interesting stuff. I’ve talked about something similar on my blog. (I brought it up somewhere here before but it didn’t seem to go down very well - c’est la vie!)
I think philosophies like those of Guattari make it very clear that there is nothing guaranteed about so-called “liminal economies”, that structural (ie. complex) relationships involve a variety of processes of de/re-territorialisation.
In historical terms, this relates to the experiences of the 68ers across Europe, where what seemed like a moment of revolutionary change was revealed to be little more than a house of cards in the face of the prodigious voracity of existing systems of governance.
i checked out your blog, good stuff; i especially like your discussion on The Dark Knight. i would love to delve into that further and give a lengthy comment on it, but at present i dont have the time for it. the amount of information there, however, certainly justfies further exploration.
i agree that “nothing is guaranteed” is certainly important and implied in Guattari’s article: “It is impossible to predict what forms of struggle and organization the revolution just beginning will assume in the future. All answers remain equaly open now…”-- however, it does seem that various trends and patterns can be detected within this emergent system, and that revolutionary tendencies can be understood as either helped or hindered by increasing globalization. from reading the article, it is sort of unclear which position, if any, Guattari is taking, although he seems to be asserting the possibility for both.
that is the main question i ask here: whether or not revolution, real fundamental and radical reform, can even be possible under the pressures of these new pervasive social forces. to me, it is interesting that this situation seems at first to destroy this potential, but then later to actually affirm it by greatly expanding marginalization, which itself acts as catalyst for change, especially in the aggregate.
I think globalization is a red herring as a concept. It isn’t globalization of industry, as so many almost automatically think when they hear the word, that’s the problem, it’s the concentration and centralization of power in government. Government has a necessary monopoly on force, but it should use that force ONLY to enforce the equal application of the law. This is true on a local, national or international level. That said, the closer government gets to unchecked, universal power, the greater the danger. Better to keep it local or national, with those governments enforcing the law on local individuals up to international corporations. As governments increase their control of individuals and businesses, the less effect of any system of checks and balances–and the inevitable corruption.
unfortunately, international business has tended to collude with governments more than resist increasing statism. in theory, business should be free and independent from government regulation, but in reality business seeks out government regulation and favors, in order to secure easy profit and legislative favors. globalization, unfortunately, is not a red herring, though i wish it was. it is a very real, very present social force which is manifesting as the increasing power of international governing bodies and the increasing power of international business/government cooperation. i have written extensively about how and why globalization originated as a social and economic force, but these concerns are probably better addressed in a different thread.
the truth is that we cannot ignore growing government power, particularly the powers of entities such as NATO, WTO, UN, EU, IMF and WB. these types of entities conspire together to override sovreignty of nations such as america, and unfortunately our leaders have been accepting and paving the way for this subversion of state authority. the only politician i see speaking out against this, from both sides of the aisle, is Ron Paul, but he is only one man, and he is so marginalized and ostracized by government, media and even his own party that there is only so much he can do.
republicans and democrats are all on the take of global entities. they are paving the way for takover of american sovreignty by the UN and financial entities such as WB and IMF. its happening already, and has happened in countless other countries already (brazil is a perfect example: the WB actually OWNS THE ENTIRE AMAZON RAINFOREST, because it got brazil to indebt itself to WB loans, and used this as leverage to secure property ownership of the entire rainforest).
this globalization represents such a threat to us that i cannot think of even a single other greater danger. unfortunately globalization, manifested as the increasing power and collusion between state-level and international-level governments and businesses, is very real, and seems here to stay… we are better served taking a serious and critical look into the operations and structure of this new social force, in order to best understand it and learn how to fight against it. it might be true that “there is no going back”, and if that is the case (answering that question is sort of the focus of this thread itself) then we need to rapidly do all we can to undermine the current system and secure for ourselves as much power and sovreignty over our lives and boundaries as possible.
Thanks for your comments on my blog, they were most welcome. I completely agree that radicalism should be seen as a relation to, as developing in response to an established set of circumstances. This is the affective aspect, I suppose.
As for this:
I think this comes down to the difference between the individual radical act, which is too localised to provide the basis for continued revolutionary purpose, and the radical impulse, which should simply be seen as the desire to react and shake the foundations of existing social relationships. Radicalism cannot be allowed to rest on its laurels, because, as Deleuze and Guattari have shown, it is always caught up in processes of de/re-territorialisation - social relationships are more dynamic and adaptable than they are often given credit for.
I also agree with you, for what it’s worth, that many of our present problems are a product of collusion between statist and corporatist forces, and that this has probably been the case at least since the concurrent births of mercantilism and absolutism c.1500. However, we also need to recognise that it is our own acquiescence, given what we stand to “gain”, that allows this collusion to take place. I think we need to look at developing genuinely dynamic (ie. “schizophrenic” or “nomadic”) social movements, and I have a feeling Guattari - as a post-Marxist and member of the Generation of '68 who sought to preserve the radical/revolutionary impulse at the heart of both - thought the same.