Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
1. Power Now Resides in Infrastructures.
Occupation of the Kasbah in Tunis and of the
Syntagma Square in Athens, siege of Westminster in London during the
student movement of 2011, encirclement of the parliament in Madrid on
September 25, 2012 or in Barcelona on June 15, 2011, riots all around
the Chamber of Deputies in Rome on December 14, 2010, attempt on October
15, 2011 in Lisbon to invade the Assembleia da Republica, burning of
the Bosnian presidential residence in February of 2014: the places of
institutional power exert a magnetic attraction on revolutionaries. But
when the insurgents manage to penetrate parliaments, presidential
palaces, and other headquarters of institutions, as in Ukraine, in Libya
or in Wisconsin, it’s only to discover empty places, that is, empty of
power, and furnished without any taste. It’s not to prevent the “people”
from “taking power” that they are so fiercely kept from invading such
places, but to prevent them from realizing that power no longer resides in the institutions.
There are only deserted temples there, decommissioned fortresses,
nothing but stage sets—real traps for revolutionaries. The popular
impulse to rush onto the stage to find out what is happening in the
wings is bound to be disappointed. If they got inside, even the most
fervent conspiracy freaks would find nothing arcane there; the truth is
that power is simply no longer that theatrical reality to which
modernity accustomed us.
Yet the truth about the actual localization of
power is not hidden at all; it’s only we who refuse to see it for fear
of having our comfortable certainties doused with cold water. For
confirmation of this, one only has to look for a moment at the banknotes
issued by the European Union. Neither the Marxists nor the neoclassical
economists have ever been able to admit that money is not essentially
an economic instrument but a political reality. We have never seen any
money that was not attached to a political order capable of backing it.
That is also why the bills of the different countries bear the personal
images of emperors and great statesmen, of founding fathers or
personified allegories of the nation. But what is it that appears on
euro banknotes? Not human figures, not emblems of a personal
sovereignty, but bridges, aqueducts, arches—pieces of impersonal
architecture, cold as stone. As to the truth about the present nature of
power, every European has a printed exemplar of it in their pocket. It
can be stated in this way: power now resides in the infrastructures of this world.
Contemporary power is of an architectural and impersonal, and not a
representative or personal, nature. Traditional power was
representative: the pope was the representation of Christ on Earth, the
king, of God, the President, of the people, and the General Secretary of
the Party, of the proletariat. This whole personal politics is dead,
and that is why the small number of orators that survive on the surface
of the globe amuse more than they govern. The cast of politicians is
actually composed of clowns with varying degrees of talent—whence the
phenomenal success of the wretched Beppe Grillo in Italy or the sinister
Dieudonné in France. All in all, at least they know how to entertain you,
which is their profession of course. So, in addition to stating the
obvious, reproaching politicians for “not representing us” only
maintains a nostalgia. The politicians are not there for that, they’re
there to distract us, since power is elsewhere. And this correct
intuition is what turns nutty in all the contemporary conspiracisms.
Power is indeed somewhere else, somewhere other than in the
institutions, but it’s not hidden for all that. Or if it is, it’s hidden
like Poe’s “purloined letter.” No one sees it because everyone has it
in plain sight, all the time—in the form of a high-voltage line, a
freeway, a traffic circle, a supermarket, or a computer program. And if
it is, it’s hidden like a sewage system, an undersea cable, a fiber
optic line running the length of a railway, or a data center in the
middle of a forest. Power is the very organization of this world, this
engineered, configured, purposedworld. That is the secret, and it’s that there isn’t one.
Power is now immanent in life as it is
technologically organized and commodified. It has the neutral appearance
of facilities or of Google’s blank page. Whoever determines the
organization of space, whoever governs the social environments and
atmospheres, whoever administers things, whoever manages the
accesses—governs men. Contemporary power has made itself the heir, on
the one hand, of the old science of policing, which consists in looking
after “the well-being and security of the citizens,” and, on the other,
of the logistic science of militaries, the “art of moving armies,”
having become an art of maintaining communication networks and ensuring
strategic mobility. Absorbed in our language-bound conception of the
public thing, of politics, we have continued debating while the real
decisions were being implemented right before our eyes.
Contemporary laws are written in steel structures and not with words.
All the citizens’ indignation can only end up butting its dazed forehead
against the reinforced concrete of this world. The great merit of the
struggle against the TAV in Italy is in having firmly grasped all that
is involved politically in a simple public works project. Symmetrically,
this is something that no politician can acknowledge. Like that Bersani
who snapped back one day at the NO TAVmilitants: “After all, we’re
talking here about a train line, not a bomber.” But “a construction site
is worth a battalion,” in the estimation of Marshal Lyautey, who had no
rival in the business of “pacifying” the colonies. If struggles against
big infrastructure projects are multiplying all over the world, from
Romania to Brazil, it’s because this intuition itself is becoming
widespread.
Anyone who means to undertake anything
whatsoever against the existing world must start from there: the real
power structure is the material, technological, physical organization of
this world. Government is no longer in the government. The
“power vacuum” that lasted in Belgium for more than a year is a clear
example in point. The country was able to function with no government,
elected representatives, parliament, political debate, or electoral
issues, without any part of its normal operation being affected. Same
thing in Italy, which has been going from “technical government” to
“technical government” for years now, and it doesn’t bother anyone that
this expression goes back to the Manifesto-program of the Futurist Party
of 1918, which incubated the first fascists.
Power, henceforth, is the very order of things, and the police charged with defending it. It’s
not simple to think about a power that consists in infrastructures, in
the means to make them function, to control them and to build them. How
do we contest an order that isn’t articulated in language, that is
constructed step by step and wordlessly? An order that is embodied in
the very objects of everyday life. An order whose political constitution
is its material constitution. An order that is revealed less in the
President’s words than in the silence of optimal performance. In the age
when power manifested itself through edicts, laws, and regulations, it
was vulnerable to critical attack. But there’s no criticizing a wall,
one destroys it or tags it. A government that arranges life
through its instruments and its layouts, whose statements take the form
of a street lined with traffic cones and surveilled by overhead cameras,
may only invite a destruction that is wordless itself. Aggression
against the setting of everyday life has become sacrilegious,
consequently; it’s something like violating its constitution.
Indiscriminate smashing in urban riots expresses both an awareness of
this state of things, and a relative powerlessness in the face of it.
The mute and unquestionable order which the existence of a bus shelter
embodies will not lie shattered on the ground, unfortunately, once the
shelter is demolished. The broken windows theory will still stand after
all the shop windows have been smashed. All the hypocritical
proclamations about the sacred character of the “environment,” the holy
crusade for its defense, can only be understood in light of this
mutation: power has become environmental itself, has merged into the surroundings. It is power that we’re asked to defend in all the official appeals to “preserve the environment,” and not the little fish.
2. On the Difference Between Organizing and Organizing Oneself.
Everyday life has not always been organized.
For that to be accomplished, it was necessary first to dismantle life,
starting with the city. Life and the city have been broken down into functions,
corresponding to “social needs.” The office district, the factory
district, the residential district, the spaces for relaxation, the
entertainment district, the place where one eats, the place where one
works, the place where one cruises, and the car or bus for tying all
that together are the result of a prolonged reconfiguration of life that
devastated every form of life. It was carried out methodically, for
more than a century, by a whole caste of organizers, a whole
grey armada of managers. Life and humanity were dissected into a set of
needs; then a synthesis of these elements was organized. It doesn’t
really matter whether this synthesis was given the name of “socialist
planning” or “market planning.” It doesn’t really matter that it
resulted in the failure of new towns or the success of trendy districts.
The outcome is the same: a desert and existential anemia. Nothing is
left of a form of life once it has been partitioned into organs.
Conversely, this explains the palpable joy that overflowed the occupied
squares of the Puerta del Sol, Tahrir, Gezi or the attraction exerted,
despite the infernal muds of the Nantes countryside, by the land
occupation at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. It is the joy that attaches to
every commune. Suddenly, life ceases being sliced up into connected
segments. Sleeping, fighting, eating, taking care of oneself, partying,
conspiring, discussing all belong to the same vital movement. Not
everything is organized, everything organizes itself.
The difference is meaningful. One requires management, the other
attention—dispositions that are incompatible in every respect.
Referring to the Aymara uprisings in Bolivia at the beginning of the 2000s, a Uruguayan activist, Raúl Zibechi, writes: “In these movements, organization is not separate from daily life. In insurrectionary action it is daily life itself that is deployed.” He observes that in the neighborhoods of El Alto, in 2003, “a communal ethos replaced the old trade-union ethos.” Very cool, that, because it clarifies what a struggle against infrastructural power consists in. Say infrastructure and you’re saying that life has been detached from its conditions. That conditions have keen placed on life. That life now depends on factors out of its control, that it has lost its footing. Infrastructures organize a life without a world, suspended, expendable, at the mercy of whoever is managing them. Metropolitan nihilism is only a brash way of not admitting this to oneself. Contrariwise, Raúl’s statement also indicates what is being sought in the experiments that are underway in a large number of neighborhoods and villages throughout the world, and the inevitable pitfalls. Not a return to earth but a reinhabiting of earth. What gives insurrections their punch, and their ability to damage the adversary’s infrastructure in a sustained way, is precisely their level of self-organization of communal life. That one of the first reflexes of Occupy Wall Street was to go block the Brooklyn Bridge or that the Oakland Commune along with several thousand people undertook to paralyze the city’s port during the general strike of December 12, 2011, are evidence of the intuitive link between self-organization and blockage. The fragility of the self-organization that barely took shape in the occupations did not allow these attempts to be pushed further, apparently. By contrast, Tahrir and Taksim squares are central hubs of automobile circulation in Cairo and Istanbul. To block those flows was to open up the situation. The occupation was immediately a blockade. Hence its ability to throw the reign of normality out of joint in a whole metropolis. At a completely different level, one can’t help but draw a connection between the fact that the Zapatistas are currently proposing to link together twenty-nine defensive struggles against mining, highway, power-plant, and dam projects involving different indigenous peoples all over Mexico, and the fact that they themselves have spent the past fifteen years establishing their autonomy vis-à-vis the federal and economic powers.
3. On Blockage.
A 2006 sign posted by the French movement
against the “first employment contract,” the CPE, said: “It’s through
flows that this world is maintained. Block everything!” This rallying
cry, propagated by a minority of a movement that was itself
minoritarian, albeit “victorious,” has enjoyed a successful run since
then. In 2009, the movement against “pwofitasyon,” which paralyzed all
of Guadaloupe, used it in a big way. And we have seen the practice of
blockading, during the French movement against retirement restructuring,
become the staple tactic of struggle, applied uniformly to a fuel
depot, a mall, a train station, or a production site. Now, there is
something, surely, that reveals a certain state of the world.
The fact that this movement against the overhaul
of retirement centered around the blockading of refineries is not
politically negligible. At the end of the seventies, refineries became
the vanguard of what were called “process industries,” “flux”
industries. It can be said that refinery operation has served as the
model for the restructuring of most factories since that time. Moreover,
one should not talk about factories any longer, but about sites,
production sites. The difference between the factory and the site is
that a factory is a concentration of workers, technical know-how,
primary materials, stocks, whereas the site is only a node on a map of
productive flows. Their only shared trait being that what comes out of
both, compared with what went in, has undergone a certain
transformation. The refinery is that place where the relation between
labor and production was first overturned. There the worker, or rather
the operator, doesn’t even have the job of maintaining and repairing the
machines, which is generally assigned to temporary workers, but simply
of bringing a certain attention, a certain vigilance to bear on a
totally automated production process. There may be an indicator light
that switches on when it shouldn’t, an abnormal gurgling in a pipe,
smoke escaping where there shouldn’t be any, or that doesn’t look the
way it should. The refinery worker is a kind of monitor of machines, an
idle figure, full of nervous concentration. And this is the trend now in
most sectors of industry in the West. The classic worker could be
gloriously imagined as the Producer; here the relationship between labour and production is simply inverted. There
is work only when production stops, when a malfunction gets in the way.
The Marxists can stick to their day jobs: the process of commodity
valorization, from extraction to the pump, coincides with the process of
circulation, which itself coincides with the process of production. It
depends in real time on the final fluctuations of the market. Saying
that the value of the commodity crystallizes the labor time of the
worker was a political operation that was as fruitful as it was
fallacious. In refineries just as in any completely automated factory,
it has become a mark of hurtful irony. Give China ten more years, ten
years of workers’ demands, and it will be the same situation there.
Obviously, it’s not insignificant that refinery workers have long been
among the best paid industrial workers, and that it was in this sector,
at least in France, that what is euphemistically called the
“fluidification of social relations,” union relations in particular, was
first tried out.
During the movement against retirement reform,
most of France’s fuel depots were blockaded not by their five workers,
but by teachers, students, drivers, railroad men, postal employees,
unemployed people, and high school students. This wasn’t because those
industry workers don’t have the right. It’s simply that in a world where
the organization of production is decentralized, fluid, and largely
automated, where each machine is now but a link in an integrated system
of machines that subsume it, and where this system-world of machines, of
machines producing machines, tends to be unified cybernetically, each
particular flow is a moment of the overall reproduction of capital’s
society. There is no longer a “sphere of reproduction” of labor power
and social relations distinct from the sphere of production, which
itself is no longer a sphere, but rather the web of the world with all
its relations. To physically attack these flows, at any point, is
therefore to politically attack the system as a whole. If the subject of
the strike was the working class, the subject of the blockade is
whoever. It’s anyone at all, anyone who takes a stand against the
existing organization of the world.
It’s generally when they reach their maximum
degree of sophistication that civilizations fall apart. Every production
chain is now reaching such a level of specialization through so many
intermediaries that if one of them disappeared that would be enough to
paralyze, or even destroy, the whole chain. Three years ago, Honda
factories in Japan went through the longest period of layoffs since the
sixties simply because the supplier of a particular computer chip had
disappeared in the earthquake of March, 2011 and no one else could
produce it.
In this blockading craze that now accompanies
every movement of any size, we cannot help but read a reversal of our
relation to time. We look toward the future in the same way Walter
Benjamin’s Angel of History looked toward the past. “Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees
one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble
and hurls it before his feet.” The time that’s passing is no longer
seen as anything but a slow progression towards an end that will likely
be horrendous. Every coming decade looks like another step closer to the
climate chaos that everyone has understood to be the truth lurking in
the insipid phrase “climate warming.” The heavy metals will continue,
day by day, to accumulate in the food chain, along with radioactive
nuclides and all the other invisible but fatal pollutants. So every
attempt to block the global system, every movement, every revolt, every
uprising should be seen as a vertical attempt to stop time, delay the catastrophe and begin to branch off in a less fatal direction.
4. On Investigation.
It’s not the weakness of our struggles that
explains the disappearance of any revolutionary perspective; it’s the
absence of any credible revolutionary perspective that explains the
weakness of our struggles. Obsessed as we are with a political idea of
the revolution, we have neglected its technical dimension. A
revolutionary perspective no longer focuses on an institutional
reorganization of society, but on the technical configuration of worlds. As
such, it is a line traced in the present, not an image floating in the
future. If we want to regain a perspective, we have to couple the vague
awareness that this world can’t last with the desire to build a better
one. For if this world keeps going, it’s largely owing to everyone’s
material dependence on the smooth general operation of the social
machine for their survival. We need to have a technical knowledge of the
organization of this world at our disposal; a knowledge that enables us
both to neutralize the dominant structures and to secure the necessary
time for organizing a material and political disengagement from the
general course of the catastrophe, a disengagement not haunted by the
specter of extreme poverty, by the urgency of survival. To say that
plainly: so long as we can’t do without nuclear power plants and
dismantling them remains a business for people who want them to last
forever, aspiring to abolish the state will continue to draw smiles; so
long as the prospect of a popular uprising will signify a guaranteed
fall into scarcity, of health care, food, or energy, there will be no
strong mass movement. In other words: we need to resume a meticulous
effort of investigation. We need to go look in every sector, in all the
territories we inhabit, for those who possess strategic technical
knowledge. Only on this basis will movements truly dare to “block
everything.” Only on this basis will the passion for experimenting
towards another life be liberated, a largely technical passion that is
the obverse, as it were, of everyone’s state of technological
dependence. This process of knowledge accumulation, of establishing
collusions in every domain, is a prerequisite for a serious and massive
return of the revolutionary question.
“The workers’ movement wasn’t defeated by
capitalism, but by democracy,” said Mario Tronti. It was also defeated
by failing to appropriate the substance of working-class power. What
defines the worker is not his exploitation by a boss, which he shares
with all other employees. What distinguishes him in a positive sense is
his embodied technical mastery of a particular world of production.
There is a competence in this that is scientific and popular at the same
time, a passionate knowledge that constituted the particular wealth of
the working world before capital, realizing the danger contained there
and having first extracted all that knowledge, decided to turn workers
into operators, monitors, and custodians of machines. But even there,
the workers’ power remains: someone who knows how to make a system
operate also knows how to sabotage it in an effective way. But no one
can individually master the set of techniques that enable the current
system to reproduce itself. Only a collective force can do that. This is
exactly what it means to construct a revolutionary force today: linking
together all the worlds and all the revolutionarily necessary
techniques, shaping these into a historical force and not a system of
government.
The failure of the French struggle against
retirement restructuring in the autumn of 2010 taught a bitter lesson on
this subject. If the CGT had control of the whole struggle, it was due
to our inadequacy in the technical sphere. All the union needed to do
was turn the blockade of the refineries, where it was hegemonic, into
the spearhead of the movement. That way it was free at any moment to
signal the end of the game by reopening the refinery valves, thereby
releasing all the pressure on the country. What the movement lacked at
that point was precisely a minimal knowledge of the material functioning
of that world, a knowledge scattered among some workers, concentrated
in the egghead brains of a few engineers, and shared no doubt, on the
opposing side, in some obscure military agency. If we had been able to
cut off the police’s supply of teargas, or interrupt the televised
propaganda for a day, or deprive the authorities of electricity, we can
be sure that things would not have ended so pitifully. Moreover, it has
to be concluded that the main political defeat of the movement was to have surrendered the strategic prerogative of deciding who would have gasoline and who would not to the State, with its requisitions at the prefectural level.
“Nowadays if you want to get rid of someone, you
go after his infrastructure,” writes an American academic, incisively.
Since the Second World War, the American Air Force has been developing
the idea of “infrastructure warfare,” seeing the most ordinary civil
infrastructure as targets for bringing its opponents to their knees.
This explains, in fact, why strategic infrastructure facilities are
enveloped in a growing secrecy. For a revolutionary force there is no
sense in its knowing how to block the opponent’s infrastructure if it
can’t make such facilities operate for its benefit if there’s a need.
Being able to destroy the technological system presupposes that one has
tried out / implemented the techniques that make the system superfluous.
Reinhabiting the earth means, to start with, no longer living in
ignorance of the conditions of our existence.
From To Our Friends
By The Invisible Committee
Translated by Robert Hurley
Semiotext(e)
taken from Blackout
Der Beitrag Power is Logistic. erschien zuerst auf non.copyriot.com.