자료: Everyone is Kettled: Lordon on Marx and Spinoza (with some reflections on the current conjuncture)
Frédéric Lordon’s Capitalisme, désir et servitude: Marx et Spinoza is not so much a book on Marx and Spinoza, on the influences and affiliations that would connect them, but a book that immediately puts Spinoza's philosophy to work within Marx's problematics. It is similar in this respect to Franck Fischbach's La Production des hommes: Marx avec Spinoza. The major difference being that while the latter book is primarily concerned with ontology, with production, nature, and the subject, Lordon's book is primarily concerned with politics and the current conjuncture.
Lordon could be understood as connecting the lines between Spinoza's often cited question, “why do men fight for their servitude as if it was salvation?” and the general problematic of subjection in Marx. Which is to say that Lordon is interested in how it is that people not only tolerate exploitation, continuing to reproduce the system, but actively desire it. Lordon is interested in precisely the way that contemporary capitalism, or neoliberalism, has moved beyond Marx's concepts of exploitation and alienation to involve an active participation in one's subjection, exactly what Spinoza question, and his examination of the affects, would seem to analyze.
The general problem of society, any society, is the articulation of its particular conatus, its particular striving, or functioning, with that of the individuals and collectives that constitute it. For society to function we must desire to do so, and we do this because we must believe that it is the necessary condition of our desires. Lordon dubs this problem, or its solution, colinearization. One of the most important factors of colinearization in capitalism is money itself. For Spinoza anything that is believed to be the cause of joy, of the increase of one's power, is an object of love. Thus, it is possible to consider money as the "universal equivalent of desire," as the object which is seen as the cause of any possible joy, any possible desire. Money captures desire and imagination.
Perhaps one of the most interesting remarks that Lordon makes has to do with precisely how he understands the politics of imagination. Lordon cites the passage from Spinoza in which he argues that there is no opposite of excessive self-esteem. It is possible to overestimate oneself, and to some extent this overestimation, mankind as "kingdom within a kingdom" is the human condition. As Spinoza writes,
"For no one, out of hate, thinks less highly of himself than is just. Indeed, no one thinks less highly of himself than is just, insofar as he imagines that he cannot do this or that. For whatever man imagines he cannot do, he necessarily images; and he is so disposed by this imagination that he really cannot do what he imagines he cannot do this or that, he is not determined to do it, and consequently it is impossible for him to do it."Thus, to use the language of pop psychology, there is thus no such thing as "low self-esteem." If one thinks that one cannot do something, then one effectively cannot do it. The imagination is a material force that determines one's conduct.
There are thus two strategies for colinearization, for making the desire of individuals conform to society.
- The first is a kind of imaginary fullness, as in the case of money as the object of desire. It is full because through it the given social order represents itself as the possible realization of every desire.
- The second draws the limits of what is possible, curtailing modes of thinking and living. These limitations, the poverty of the imagination, has real material effects. The central message of any social order, reflected in its practices, ideologies, and actions is "everything is here, nothing else is possible. "Society, or should we say capital, is the kettling of the imagination.
The outside of fixation, of a limited and curtailed imagination, cannot come from a reservoir of freedom, from a subject outside of history. It must come from within the order itself. Lordon's answer to this is Spinoza's concept of indignation, "the hate towards someone who had done evil toward another." Indignation, expanded to encompass the affective hatred for the existing order, is something precarious, produced by a series of encounters and frustrations, extending throughout the social body through a series of encounters. Indignation does not come from the outside, from outside of the social order, but is produced internally, by any orders limited conception of desire. As such it is not some return to an originary freedom, but only a "détournent du détourement," a deviation of the already established goals of society to something other.
That is precisely the question: what is this something else? Or, more importantly, how can it be produced? Spinoza's immanence reminds us that our minds [our?] limited by our imagination, which are in turn limited by our bodies, which are in turn limited by our minds, and so on. The intersection of all of these determinations is also the intersection of different sites for transformation. We imagine that nothing is possible, that nothing can be done, but only up to the point hat someone actually does something. Once that happens, once there is an opposition to an existing order, a Paris Commune, a May '68, etc. In such moments the very limits of the world, the indignation of the moment, need new thoughts new bodies to sustain them. According to Lordon, the transformation of bodies by the imagination and the extension of indignation into organization is the work of politics.
David Graeber's remarks on politics, the cuts to the university, and the imagination inspired much of this, and are well worth listening to.