Maurizio Lazzarato | From “Capital Hates Everyone: Fascism Or Revolution”




We are living in “apocalyptic” times, in the literal sense of the word—times that manifest, times that reveal. What they show, firstly, is that the financial collapse of 2008 initiated a period of political ruptures. The alternative “fascism or revolution” is asymmetrical, out of balance, because we are already inside a seemingly irresistible series of “political ruptures” created by neo-fascist, sexist, racist forces; because for the moment, the revolutionary rupture is just a hypothesis, dictated by the necessity of reintroducing what neoliberalism has succeeded in erasing from the memory, the action, and the theory of the forces combating capitalism. This is even its most important victory.

What these apocalyptic times also show is that the new fascism is the other face of neoliberalism. Wendy Brown confidently asserts a contrary truth: “From the viewpoint of the first neoliberals, the galaxy that includes Trump, Brexit, Orbán, the Nazis, or the German Parliament, the fascists in the Italian Parliament, is turning the neoliberal dream into a nightmare. Hayek, the ordoliberals, or even the Chicago school would repudiate the current form of neoliberalism and especially its most recent guise.”  This is not only false from a factual standpoint, it is also problematic for understanding capital and the exercise of its power. By erasing the “violence that founded” neoliberalism, incarnated by the bloody dictatorships of South America, one commits a double, political and theoretical, error: one concentrates only on the “violence that preserves” the economy, the institutions, law, and governmentality—tested out for the first time in Pinochet’s Chile—and so one presents capital as an agent of modernization, as a power of innovation; moreover, one erases the world revolution and its defeat, which however are the origin and cause of “globalization” as the global response of capital.

The conception of power that results from this is pacified: action upon action, government upon behaviors (Foucault) and not action upon persons (of which war and civil war are the peak expressions). Power would be incorporated into impersonal apparatuses that exert a soft violence in an automatic way. Quite to the contrary, however, the logic of civil war that is at the foundation of neoliberalism was not absorbed, erased, replaced by the functioning of the economy, law, and democracy.

The apocalyptic times show us that the new fascisms are in the process of reactivating— although no communism is threatening capitalism and property—the relationship between war and “governmentality.” We are living in a period of blurring, of hybridization of the State of law and the state of exception. The hegemony of neofascism must not be measured simply by the strength of its organizations, but also by the capacity it has to bleed into the State and the political and media system.

The apocalyptic times reveal that beneath the democratic façade, behind the economic, social, and institutional “innovations,” one always finds the class hatred and violence of strategic confrontation. It only took a movement of rupture like the Yellow Vests, who have nothing revolutionary, or even pre-revolutionary, about them, for the “spirit of Versailles” to awaken, for a new upwelling of the desire to shoot those “pieces of shit” who were not threatening, even symbolically, power and property. When there is an interruption of the time of capital, even a bourgeois editorialist can grasp a bit of emergent reality: “The current empire of hate is resuscitating boundaries of class and caste, sometimes long dormant […]. One is seeing that acid of hate which eats away at democracy and suddenly submerges a decomposed, destructured, unstable, fragile, unpredictable political society—the ancient hatred resurfacing in the faltering France of the 21st century. Underneath modernity, hatred.”

The apocalyptic times also manifest the strength and weaknesses of the political movements which, since 2011, have tried to contest the supreme power of capital. This book was completed during the Yellow Vests uprising. Adopting the viewpoint of “world revolution” in order to read such a movement (but also the different Arab Springs, Occupy Wall Street in the U.S., the M15 in Spain, the days of June 2013 in Brazil, etc.) might seem pretentious or fantastical. And yet “thinking at the limit” means starting again not only from the historical defeat suffered in the 1960s by world revolution, but also from the “unrealized possibilities” which were created by and included revolutions, differently in the North and in the South, and which are still timidly mobilized in contemporary movements.

The form of the revolutionary process had already changed in the 1960s, but it had come up against an insurmountable obstacle: the inability to invent a different model from the one that, in 1917, had begun the long string of 20th century revolutions. In the Leninist model, revolution still had the form of realization. The working class was the subject that already contained the conditions of the abolition of capitalism and the installation of communism. The passage from “class in itself ” to “class for itself ” needed to be realized through the prise de conscience and the seizure of power, organized and led by the party that brought in from the outside what was lacking in the “tradeunion” practices of the workers.

Since the 1960s, however, the revolutionary process has taken the form of the event: political subjects, instead of being already there in the making, are “unforeseen” (the Yellow Vests are a paradigmatic example of this unforeseeability); they don’t embody history’s necessity, but only the contingency of political confrontation. Their constitution, their “coming-to-consciousness,” their program, their organization are formed on the basis of a refusal (to be governed), a rupture, a radical here and now that aren’t satisfied with any promise of democracy and justice to come.

To be sure, with all due respect to Rancière, the uprising has its “reasons” and its “causes.” The Yellow Vests are more intelligent than the philosopher, because they have “understood” that the relationship between “production” and “circulation” has been reversed. Circulation, the circulation of money, commodities, human beings, and information now takes precedence over “production.” They no longer occupy the factories, but the roundabouts, and attack the circulation of information (the circulation of currency being more abstract, targeting it requires another level of organization and action).

The precondition for the emergence of the political process is obviously a rupture with the “reasons” and “causes” that generated it. Only the interruption of the existing order, only the exit from governmentality will be able to open up a new political process, because the “governed,” even when they resist, are power’s double, its correlates, its opposite numbers. Rupture with the time of domination, by creating new possibilities, unimaginable before their appearance, establishes the conditions for the transformation of self and the world. But no mystique of the riot, no idealism of the uprising is called for.

The processes of constitution of the political subject, the forms of organization, the development of capabilities for the struggle, made possible by an interruption of the time of power, are immediately confronted with the “reasons” of profit, property, and patrimony which the uprising has not caused to disappear. On the contrary, they are more aggressive, they immediately invoke the reestablishment of order, placing the police at the forefront, while continuing, as if nothing had happened, the promulgation of “reforms.” Here the alternatives are radical: either the new political process manages to change capital’s “reasons,” or those same reasons will change it. The opening up of political possibilities is confronted with the reality of a formidable double problem, that of the constitution of a political subject and that of the power of capital, because the former can only take place within the latter.




With the emergence of movements of women and of the colonized, the contradictions within the revolutionary process seem to break apart and give rise to very different “revolutionary” processes that were practically irreconcilable at the end of the 1960s and that appear even more so today.

The forms of domination and exploitation of women and the colonized are specific and difficult to grasp from the standpoint of the workers’ movement, since they add racial and sexual domination to economic exploitation. Overcoming them requires forms of organization and aims of political action very different form those of Leninism.

“The woman is oppressed within the sexual model,” Lonzi affirms. What is lacking in socialist theory? she asks. Lenin promised freedom, but didn’t accept the process of liberation, which for feminists started with gender. The Marxists succeeded at making a revolution, but the dictatorship of the proletariat proved incapable of “dissolving the social roles.” Socialization of the means of production did not weaken the institution of the family, but reinforced it […] by excluding the woman as an active party in the elaboration of socialist themes.”

One can’t undo the subjugations of the colonized and of women simply by attacking “production” and the exploitation of labor. The singularities of that fabrication of “subjectivity” (“the woman”) demand a political intervention and a form of organization that doesn’t just aim at the seizure of power. In the colonial situation, the political work is double, because one cannot “set subjectivity aside.” The black revolutionary must wage a dual struggle, “objectively and subjectively.” Because “the black soul is a construction of the White,” it must be liberated from itself, so that, for Aimé Césaire, “the struggle of the colonial peoples against colonialism, the struggle of peoples of color against racism is much more complex, or rather, of a completely different nature than the struggle of the French worker against French capitalism.”




The manifesto of Rivolta Femminile states that “domestic unpaid labor [is] the service that enables capitalism, private or state, to reproduce itself, while refusing to think of the liberation of women via access to productive labor (Lenin). On the contrary, valorizing “unproductive moments” is an integral part of the life proposed by women. “Productivist competition” is the “power plan” shared by the “societies controlled by private or state capitalism.” In the colonies, the oppositions city/country, workers/lumpen, structure/superstructure cannot function. In that world which European Marxism regards as “premodern” (and therefore ignores), we again encounter a whole series of figures and problems that we are now familiar with. The exploitation of man “assumes different guises” (unemployed, seasonal, lumpen, proletarian, worker, etc) which capital “unifies,” not like yesterday, through wage-earning and industry, but, like today, through finance. “Framing the problem of the evolution of underdeveloped countries” by an appeal to productivism, to developmentalism as in the Soviet Union (“Let us gird our loins and set to work”), “appears to us neither right nor reasonable” (Fanon). What the worker and “labor” have become more resembles the condition of the colonized and women (precarious, unpaid, servile labor) than that of the worker described by Tronti.


Autonomy of the Organization


Perhaps it’s in the feminist movement that one finds the most radical critique of the centralization and verticality of power relations in the “party” and the aims of radical organization. The transformation of “social roles,” which the revolution postpones to an after-the-revolution, is the immediate object of political practices. In order to become an autonomous political subject, the women invent a radical democracy. Within the self-consciousness groups, they test out new horizontal, non-hierarchical relations that would create a collective awareness specific to women. The concept and practice of “representation” and delegation are absent, since the problem is not the seizure, nor the management of power.

Dismantling the roles and the relegation to femininity means not being taken in by the promises of emancipation through work and through the struggle for power , which are considered as values of the patriarchal culture (and of the workers’ movement). The feminist movement doesn’t demand any participation in power, but, quite the opposite, a placing into discussion of the concept of power and seizure of power, because the only thing truly necessary for managing it “is a particular form of alienation.”

The feminist movement arrives in this way at separating the practices of the formation and affirmation of the autonomous subject from the question of revolution, by producing two very different and (according to Lonzi) incompatible concepts of politicization.


The Party among the Colonized

The colonized, while practicing a dual struggle, objective (against capitalism) and subjective (against subjugation), introduce other problematizations into the revolutionary workers’ tradition codified by the Bolsheviks.

The party “is a notion imported from the metropole. This instrument of modern struggles is imposed as is” on the protean reality of the colonies. “The party machine appears resistant to any innovation,” in the face of a reality that has nothing in common with that described in Workers and Capital , because the working class doesn’t exist or constitutes a minority.

Not only do the colonized refuse to submit to the hegemony of the working class and the workers’ movement, but they call for separate and autonomous modes of organization. The colonial question cannot be treated as part of more important whole, represented by the interests of the Communist Party, Césaire will say.

“The forces fighting colonization can only wither in organizations that are not their own, constructed for them, by them, and designed for ends that only they can determine.” Neither the theory nor the consciousness can be brought in from the outside. At the same time as they build their own organizations, the colonized have to work out their own strategies. The critique of representation and delegation also animates them. The peoples don’t need a leader, they “aren’t herds and they don’t need to be led. If the leader is leading me, I want him to know that at the same time I am leading him” (Fanon).

For Fanon, unlike for Lonzi, the “seizure of power” is never in question (“Starting in 1954, the problem which the colonial peoples ponder has been the following: what must be done to create another Dien Bien Phu? […] the problem had to do with the marshalling of their forces, with their organization, their date of entry into action.” The subject and the forms of the revolution were problematized, however. Significantly, The Wretched of the Earth submits different answers to the question of the who and how of revolution. Fanon affirms first of all that the revolution can only be global and “will be made with the help of the European masses,” even if these have “often rallied, over colonial issues, to the positions of our common masters.” Further down, in the conclusions, it’s the “third world” which, considering the “sometimes stupendous arguments defended by Europe,” but also “its crimes,” has the task of “recommencing a history of man.” Here, there is an opposition between “third world” and “Europe” that doesn’t seem to take into account what Fanon earlier named “our common masters.” The enemy becomes Europe as such; capitalism disappears beneath the racial division. These ambiguities will see an unfortunate reiteration in postcolonial thought, because revolution will be completely vacated.


Critique of the Dialectic

How do we break out of the dialectic and historicism? This is the question that Lonzi and Fanon attempt to answer. While making use of the rich European conceptual arsenal, they deliver a vehement attack on the Hegelian dialectic (and its Marxist translation). The dialectic cannot undo the roles and functions to which women and black people are subjected and by which they are excluded from history and the public sphere. The dialectic’s promise of emancipation cannot be kept.

It only concerns conflicts that take place within the “majoritarian model” (man, white, adult, etc.), so that it is “white and male.” Blacks and women are “blocked” at “stages” from which they can’t advance in order to attain the freedom of self-consciousness. Forever condemned to their condition of dominated beings, they form the hidden face of globalized capital which Hegel translates into the concepts of the “European spirit.”


From the point of view of the Marxist dialectic, the struggle depends on the development of the productive forces, following a linearity that Fanon contests. The revolutionary process is a leap, a non-dialectical rupture of the order of history that will open onto the invention and discovery of something that history did not already contain. The unpredictable, as a means of leaving history, is a thematic that one will re-encounter, enriched and broadened, in Lonzi, who clearly spells out, in two ways, the conditions of rupture with the Leninist war machine and the subject that wielded it. First, she declares that the subject is not given, that, quite the opposite, it is “unforeseen,” and, second that the temporality of the feminist movement is not the future, but the present. The unforeseen subject implies an “unpredictable act,” a rupture creating the possibilities of the subject’s own liberation.

Lonzi aims directly at the Marxist revolution, which posits a discontinuity in terms of “power,” but a continuity as to the “subject” of the revolution. Revolution (as the subject) is already happening (“the real movement that destroys the present state of things”; it only has to realize itself by taking power, which will enable it to unfold, finally, in forms more rational and more productive than those of capital. In this framework, the temporality of revolution is the future (promise), while the “present” is the temporality of the feminist rupture, the here and now (“The goal doesn’t exist, the present does.”) which starts the process of destruction of the stereotypes of femininity and subjectification. The 1960s rediscovered the new relation between “present” and revolution that Benjamin made his priority, but having lost the acute awareness he had of the destructive force of capital. While Benjamin is the first, in the Marxist tradition, to theorize revolution as a rupture in the historical continuum from the standpoint of the “present,” in the 1960s, there was a blossoming of different theories of the event which tried to conceptualize the “present” that was opened up by the struggles.

This affirmation of history’s discontinuity, this critique of its causality and its determinisms, converges with Lonzi’s unforeseen and Fanon’s unpredictability : the revolutionary subject derives from, but doesn’t depend on, history; if it comes from the economic, political, and social situation, it is not deducible from that situation. It cannot be anticipated by the imagination, by a project, or a program, nor properly grasped by knowledge, science, or theory. What one can know are the conditions it will emerge from, but it isn’t possible to anticipate its modes of deployment. Revolution is strictly something “unforeseen,” something that one can prepare, organize, promote, but whose subjectification is not contained in the conditions. It is “impossible” in the order of history’s causalities, unimaginable on the basis of the economic, social, and political determinisms.

The event comes out of history, breaks with its continuity and, turning aside from its constraints, it creates new possibles, unimaginable and impossible before the rupture, but their actualization is accomplished by falling back into history, by clashing with its “reality.” History and the situation from which it bursts forth, but also history and the situation it will fall back into, cannot be defined generically. History and the situation from which the movements of ’68 came, and which the event would fall back into are characterized by the “global civil war” and the “world revolution.”






    […] Maurizio Lazzarato made a case against “class essentialism” referring to the Italian feminist Carla Lonzi’s formula “Let’s spit on Hegel.” Sputiamo su Hegel (1970), a seminal text of Italian feminism, stresses the patriarchal character of Hegel‘s dialectic and theory of recognition, and extends this ferocious critique of Hegel to Marxism: with its focus on production, hierarchic social organization and power, with politics in the form of a party which represents its base, Marxism views history as a dialectical progress through stages. Here, the blacks and women are “blocked” at lower “stages”; women can eventually attain the freedom of self-consciousness only if they rejoin male productivist logic… Lonzi rejects this entire vision as incompatible with an authentic revolution: the revolutionary process is a leap, a non-dialectical rupture of the order of history that will open onto the invention and discovery of something that history did not already contain. […]


  2. […] Maurizio Lazzarato | From “Capital Hates Everyone: Fascism Or Revolution” — BLACKOUT ((poetry … […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s