Food for thought: Why revolution is no longer possible by Byung-Chul Han

axonometrica 0174 FOOD FOR THOUGHT A00 WHY REVOLUTION IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE BYUNG CHUN HAL

Food for thought: Why revolution is no longer possible

By Byung-Chul Han[1]

Introduction: Food for Thought section aims to publish top texts from open mind and open origin thinkers that are at the backyard of axonométrica ecosystem of ideas and concepts. Some are physically in my library, others became an inspiring part of my own articles, or simply I search, edit and publish because I deeply believe they are brilliant and disruptive, both the authors and the texts. As much as I can, I will publish articles based on Creative Commons license and I’ll preserve the original language of the text or translated into English.

Published on October the 23rd 2015 at https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/byung-chul-han/why-revolution-is-no-longer-possible

Translated from the original German version by Erik Butler

A year ago, I responded to Antonio Negri’s presentation at the Berliner Schaubühne, where two critiques of capitalism collided. Negri had enthused about global resistance to Empire, the neoliberal system of domination. He presented himself as a Communist revolutionary and referred to me as a skeptical academic.

Zealously, he invoked the Multitude — the networked mass of protest and revolution that he clearly trusted to bring the Empire to a fall. The standpoint of the Communist revolutionary struck me as overly naïve and removed from reality.

Accordingly, I tried to say why revolution is no longer possible today.

Why is the neoliberal system of domination so stable? Why is there so little resistance to it? Why does the resistance that does occur so quickly come to naught? Why, despite the ever-expanding divide between rich and poor, is revolution no longer possible? To explain this state of affairs, we need a precise understanding of how power and domination function today.

Anyone wishing to install a new system of rule must eliminate resistance. The same holds for the neoliberal order. Implementing a new system of dominion requires an instance of power that posits; often, this entails the use of force. However, power that posits a system is not identical to power that stabilizes a system internally. As is well known, Margaret Thatcher, the standard bearer of neoliberalism, treated unions as internal enemies and combated them violently. For all that, using force to establish the neoliberal agenda does not amount to system-preserving power.

System-preserving power is not repressive, but seductive

In disciplinary and industrial society, system-preserving power was repressive. Factory workers were brutally exploited by factory owners. Such violent exploitation of others’ labour entailed acts of protest and resistance. There, it was possible for a revolution to topple the standing relations of production.  In that system of repression, both the oppressors and the oppressed were visible. There was a concrete opponent — a visible enemy —and one could offer resistance.

The neoliberal system of domination has a wholly different structure. Now, system-preserving power no longer works through repression, but through seduction — that is, it leads us astray. It is no longer visible, as was the case under the regime of discipline. Now, there is no longer a concrete opponent, no enemy suppressing freedom that one might resist.

Neoliberalism turns the oppressed worker into a free contractor, an entrepreneur of the self. Today, everyone is a self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise. Every individual is master and slave in one. This also means that class struggle has become an internal struggle with oneself. Today, anyone who fails to succeed blames themselves and feels ashamed. People see themselves, not society, as the problem.

The subjugated subject is not even aware of its subjugation

Any disciplinary power that expends effort to force human beings into a straitjacket of commandments and prohibitions proves inefficient.  It is significantly more efficient to ensure that people subordinate themselves to domination on their own. The efficacy defining the system today stems from the fact that, instead of operating through prohibition and privation, it aims to please and fulfil.  Instead of making people compliant, it endeavours to make them dependent. This logic of neoliberal efficiency also holds for surveillance. In the 1980s, to cite one example, there were vehement protests against the German national census. Even schoolchildren took to the streets.

From today’s perspective, the information requested therein— profession, education levels, and distance from the workplace — seem almost laughable. At the time, people believed that they were facing the state as an instance of domination wresting data from citizens against their will. That time is long past. Today, people expose themselves willingly. Precisely this sense of freedom is what makes protest impossible. In contrast to the days of the census, hardly anyone protests against surveillance. Free self-disclosure and self-exposure follow the same logic of efficiency as free self-exploitation. What is there to protest against? Oneself? Conceptual artist Jenny Holzer has formulated the paradox of the present situation: Protect me from what I want.

It is important to distinguish between power that posits and power that preserves. Today, power that maintains the system assumes a smart and friendly guise. In so doing, it makes itself invisible and unassailable. The subjugated subject does not even recognize that it has been subjugated. The subject thinks she is free. This mode of domination neutralizes resistance quite effectively. Domination that represses and attacks freedom is not stable. The neoliberal regime proves stable by immunizing itself against all resistance, because it makes use of freedom instead of repressing it. Suppressing freedom quickly provokes resistance; exploiting freedom does not.

After the Asian financial crisis, South Korea stood paralyzed and shocked. The IMF intervened and extended credit. In return, the government had to assert its neoliberal agenda by force. This was repressive, positing power — the kind that often proves violent and differs from system-preserving power, which manages to pass itself off as freedom.

According to Naomi Klein, the state of social shock following catastrophes such as the financial crisis in South Korea — or the current crisis in Greece — offers the chance to radically reprogram society by force. Today, there is hardly any resistance in South Korea. Quite the opposite: a vast consensus prevails — as well as depression and burnout. South Korea now has the world’s highest suicide rate. People enact violence on themselves instead of seeking to change society. Aggression directed outward, which would entail revolution, has yielded to aggression directed inward, against oneself.

Today, no collaborative, networked multitude exists that might rise up in a global mass of protest and revolution. Instead, the prevailing mode of production is based on lonesome and isolated self-entrepreneurs, who are also estranged from themselves.  Companies used to compete with each other. Within each enterprise, however, solidarity could occur. Today, everyone is competing against everyone else — and within the same enterprise, too. Even though such competition heightens productivity by leaps and bounds, it destroys solidarity and communal spirit. No revolutionary mass can arise from exhausted, depressive, and isolated individuals.

Neoliberalism cannot be explained in Marxist terms. The famous alienation of labour does not even occur. Today, we dive eagerly into work — until we burn out. The first stage of burnout syndrome, after all, is euphoria. Burnout and revolution are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, it is mistaken to believe that the Multitude will cast off the parasitic Empire to inaugurate a communist society.

The sharing economy leads to the total commercialization of life

How do matters stand with communism today?  “Sharing” and “community” are constantly being invoked. The sharing economy is supposed to replace the economy of property and possession. Sharing is Caring runs the maxim of the “Circlers” in Dave Eggers’s recent novel: to share is to cure, so to speak. The sidewalk leading to the Circle corporate office is emblazoned with slogans such as Community First and Humans Work Here. A more honest motto would be, Caring is Killing. 

Digital ridesharing centers, which turn all of us into taxi drivers, advertise with appeals to community, too. But it is mistaken to claim — as Jeremy Rifkin does in his newest book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society — that the sharing economy has sounded the end of capitalism and inaugurated a communally-oriented society in which sharing is valued more highly than owning. The opposite is the case: the sharing economy ultimately leads to the total commercialization of life.

The change that Rifkin celebrates — from owning to access — has not freed us from capitalism. People without money still have no access to sharing. Even in the age of access, we still live within what Didier Bigo has dubbed the Ban-opticon, and those without means remain excluded. Airbnb — the computerized marketplace that turns every home into a hotel — has even made hospitality a commodity.

The ideology of community or a collaborative commons leads to the total capitalization of existence. It makes it impossible to be friendly without a purpose. In a society of continuous, mutual feedback, friendship, too, becomes commercialized. People are friendly to get better ratings.

The tough logic of capitalism prevails even at the heart of the sharing economy. As nice as it may be to share, no one gives away anything for free. Capitalism reaches fulfilment when it sells communism as a commodity. Communism as a commodity spells the end of revolution.

This piece was originally published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, September the 2nd 2014.

The image on top is also creative commons licensed and head’s the text of Byung-Chul Han. Credit: Flickr/Remo Cassella. No changes made. Shared under a CC 2.0 license, some rights reserved.

[1] Korean-born German philosopher Byung-Chul Han teaches philosophy and cultural studies at Berlin’s University of the Arts (UdK). He is the author of more than 16 books, covering topics as diverse as violence, love, ADHD and religion. In the past few years, his provocative essays have been translated into numerous languages, and he has become one of the most widely read philosophers in Europe and beyond. Two of his books, The Transparency Society and The Burnout Societywere published in English by Stanford Universitiy Press in August 2015.

 

Responder

Por favor, inicia sesión con uno de estos métodos para publicar tu comentario:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: