ØYES
border=Ø location=YES


 

Matteo Pasquinelli: Radical machines against techno-Empire. From utopia to networks

What is knowledge sharing? How does the knowledge economy function? Where is the general intellect at work? Take the cigarettes machine. The machine you see is the embodying of a scientific knowledge into hardware and software components, generations of engineering stratified for commercial use: it automatically manages fluxes of money and commodities, substitutes a human with a user-friendly interface, defends private property, functions on the basis of a minimal control and restocking routine. Where has the tobacconist gone? Sometimes he enjoys free time. Other times the company that owns the chain of distribution has replaced him. In his place one often meets the technician. Far from emulating Marx's Fragment on machines with a Fragment on cigarette machines, this unhealthy example is meant to show how postfordist theories live around us and that material or abstract machines built by collective intelligence are organically chained to the fluxes of the economy and of our needs.

Rather than of general intellect we should talk of general intellects. There are multiple forms of collective intelligence. Some can become totalitarian systems, such as the military-managerial ideology of the neocons or of Microsoft empire. Others can be embodied in social democratic bureaucracies, in the apparatus of police control, in the maths of stock market speculators, in the architecture of our cities (every day we walk on concretions of collective intelligence). In the dystopias of 2001 Space Odyssey and The Matrix, the brain of machines evolves into self-consciousness to the point of getting rid of the human. 'Good' collective intelligences, on the other hand, produce international networks of cooperation such as the network of the global movement, of precarious workers, of free software developers, of media activism. They also produce the sharing of knowledge in universities, the Creative Commons open licences and participative urban planning, narrations and imaginaries of liberation.

From a geopolitical perspective we could figure ourselves in one of Philip Dick's sci-fi paranoia: Earth is dominated by one Intelligence, but inside of it a war unfolds between two Organisations of the general intellect, opposed yet intertwined.

Used to the traditional representative forms of the global movement we fail to grasp the new productive conflicts. Concerned as we are about the imperial war, we do not appreciate the centrality of this struggle. Following Manuel Castells, we define the movement as a resistance identity that fails to become a project identity. We are not aware of the distance between the global movement and the centre of capitalist production. Paraphrasing Paolo Virno, we say that there already is too much politics in new forms of production for the politics of the movement to still enjoy any autonomous dignity.[i]

The events of 1977 (not only in Italy but also in the punk season) sanctioned the end of the 'revolutionary' paradigm and the beginning of that of movement, opening new spaces of conflict in the fields of communication, media and the production of the imagery. These days we are discovering that the 'movement' as a format needs to be overcome, in favour of that of network.

Three kinds of action, well separated in the XIXth century - labour, politics and art - are now integrated into one attitude and central to each productive process. In order to work, do politics or produce imaginary today one needs hybrid competences. This means that we all are workers-artists-activists, but it also means that the figures of the militant and the artist are surpassed and that such competences are only formed in a common space that is the sphere of the collective intellect.

Since Marx's Grundrisse, the general intellect is the patriarch of a family of concepts that are more numerous and cover a wide range of issues: knowledge-based economy, information society, cognitive capitalism, immaterial labour, collective intelligence, creative class, cognitariat, knowledge sharing and postfordism. In the last few years the political lexicon has got rich of interlaced critical tools that we turn over in our hands wondering about their exact usefulness. For the sake of simplicity, we only accounted for the terms that inherited an Enlightenment, speculative, angelic and almost neo-gnostic approach. But reality is much more complex and we wait for new forms to claim for themselves the role that within the same field is due to desire, body, aesthetics, biopolitics. We also remember the quarrel of cognitive vs. precarious workers, two faces of the same medal that the precogs of Chainworkers.org describe in this way: "cognitive workers are networkers, precarious workers are networked, the former are brainworkers, the latter chainworkers: the former first seduced and then abandoned by companies and financial markets, the latter dragged into and made flexible by the fluxes of global capital".[ii]

The point is that we are searching for a new collective agent and a new point of application for the rusted revolutionary lever. The success of the concept of multitude also reflects the current disorientation. Critical thought continuously seeks to forge the collective actor that can embody the Zeitgeist and we can go back to history reconstructing the underlying forms of each paradigm of political action: the more or less collective social agent, the more or less vertical organisation, the more or less utopian goal. Proletariat and multitude, party and movement, revolution and self-organisation.

In the current imaginary the general intellect (or whatever you want to call it) seems to be the collective agent, its form being the network, its goal creating a plane of self-organisation, its field of action being biopolitical spectacular cognitive capitalism.

We are not talking about multitude here, because it is a concept at once too noble and inflated, heir of centuries of philosophy and too often called for by marching megaphones. The concept of multitude has been more useful to exorcise the identitary pretences of the global movement, than as a constructive tool. The pars construens will be a task for the general intellect: philosophers such as Paolo Virno, when they have to find a common ground, the lost collective agent, reconstruct the Collective Intelligence and Cooperation as emerging and constitutive properties of the multitude.

In a different paranoid fable, we imagine that technology is the last heir of a series of collective agents generated by history as in a matryoshka doll: religion - theology - philosophy - ideology - science - technology. This is to say that in information and intelligence technologies the history of thought is stratified, even though we only remember the last episode of this series, i.e. the network that embodies the dreams of the previous political generation.

How did we come to all this? We are at the point of convergence between different historical planes: the inheritance of historical vanguards in the synthesis of aesthetics and politics; the struggles of '68 and '77 that open up new spaces for conflict outside of the factories and inside the imaginary and communication; the hypertrophy of the society of the spectacle and the economy of the logo; the transformation of fordist wage labour into postfordist autonomous precarious labour; the information revolution and the emergence of the internet, the net economy and the network society; utopia turned into technology. The highest exercise of representation that becomes molecular production.

Some perceive the current moment as a lively world network, some as an indistinct cloud, some as a new form of exploitation, some as an opportunity. Today the density reaches its critical mass and forms a global radical class on the intersection of the planes of activism, communication, arts, network technologies and independent research. What does it mean, to be productive and projectual, to abandon mere representation of conflict and the representative forms of politics?

There is a hegemonic metaphor in political debate, in the arts world, in philosophy, in media criticism, in network culture: that is Free Software. We hear it quoted at the end of each intervention that poses the problem of what is to be done (but also in articles of strategic marketing.), whilst the twin metaphor of open source contaminates every discipline: open source architecture, open source literature, open source democracy, open source city...

Softwares are immaterial machines. The metaphor of Free Software is so simple for its immateriality that it often fails to clash with the real world. Even if we know that it is a good and right thing, we ask polemically: what will change when all the computers in the world will run free software? The most interesting aspect of the free software model is the immense cooperative network that was created by programmers on a global scale, but which other concrete examples can we refer to in proposing new forms of action in the real world and not only in the digital realm?

In the '70s Deleuze and Guattari had the intuition of the machinic, an introjection / imitation of the industrial form of production. Finally a hydraulic materialism was talking about desiring, revolutionary, celibate, war machines rather than representative or ideological ones.[iii]

Deleuze and Guattari took the machine out of the factory, now it is up to us to take it out of the network and imagine a post-internet generation.

Cognitive labour produces machines of all kinds, not only software: electronic machines, narrative machines, advertising machines, mediatic machines, acting machines, psychic machines, social machines, libidinous machines. In the XIXth century the definition of machine referred to a device transforming energy. In the XXth century Turing's machine - the foundation of all computing - starts interpreting information in the form of sequences of 0 and 1. For Deleuze and Guattari on the other hand a desiring machine produces, cuts and composes fluxes and without rest it produces the real.

Today we intend by machine the elementary form of the general intellect, each node of the network of collective intelligence, each material or immaterial dispositif that organically interlinks the fluxes of the economy and our desires.

At a higher level, the network can itself be regarded as a mega-machine of assemblage of other machines, and even the multitude becomes machinic, as Negri and Hardt write in Empire: "The multitude not only uses machines to produce, but also becomes increasingly machinic itself, as the means of production are increasingly integrated into the minds and bodies of the multitude. In this context reappropriation means having free access to and control over knowledge, information, communication, and affects because these are some of the primary means of biopolitical production. Just because these productive machines have been integrated into the multitude does not mean that the multitude has control over them. Rather, it makes more vicious and injurious their alienation. The right to reappropriation is really the multitude's right to self-control and autonomous self-production".[iv]

In other words in postfordism the factory has come out of the factory and the whole of society has become a factory. An already machinic multitude suggests that the actual subversion of the productive system into an autonomous plane could be possible in a flash, by disconnecting the multitude from capital command. But the operation is not that easy in the traditional terms of 'reappropriation of the means of production'. Why?

Whilst it is true that today the main means of labour is the brain and that workers can immediately reappropriate the means of production, it is also true that control and exploitation in society have become immaterial, cognitive, networked. Not only the general intellect of the multitudes has grown, but also the general intellect of the empire. The workers, armed with their computers, can reappropriate the means of production, but as soon as the stick their nose out of their desktop they have to face a Godzilla that they had not predicted, the Godzilla of the enemy's general intellect.

Social, state and economic meta-machines - to which human beings are connected like appendixes - are dominated by conscious and subconscious automatisms. Meta-machines are ruled by a particular kind of cognitive labour which is the administrative political managerial labour, that runs projects, organizes, controls on a vast scale: a form of general intellect that we have never considered, whose prince is a figure that appears on the scene in the second half of the XXth century: the manager.

As Bifo tells us recalling Orwell, in our post-democratic world (or if you prefer in empire) managers have seized command: "Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralised society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham, under the name of managers. These people will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organise society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. Private property rights will be abolished, but common ownership will not be established. The new managerial societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. Internally, each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves at the bottom".[v]

At the beginning we mentioned two intelligences that face one another in the world and the forms in which they manifest themselves. The multitude functions as a machine because it is inside a scheme, a social software, thought for the exploitation of its energies and its ideas. Then, the techno-managers (public private or military) are those who, whether consciously or not, plan and control machines made up of human beings assembled with one another. The dream of General intellect brings forth monsters.

Compared with the pervasive neoliberal techno-management, the intelligence of the global movement is of little importance. What's to be done? We need to invent virtuous revolutionary radical machines to place them in the nodal points of the network, as well as facing the general intellect that administers the imperial meta-machines. Before starting this we need to be aware of the density of the 'intelligence' that is condensed in each commodity, organization, message and media, in each machine of postmodern society.

Don't hate the machine, be the machine. How can we turn the sharing of knowledge, tools and spaces into new radical revolutionary productive machines, beyond the inflated Free Software? This is the challenge that once upon the time was called reappropriation of the means of production.

Will the radical global class manage to invent social machines that can challenge capital and function as planes of autonomy and autopoiesis? Radical machines that are able to face the techno-managerial intelligence and imperial meta-machines lined up all around us? The match multitude vs. empire becomes the match radical machines vs. imperial techno-monsters. How do we start building these machines?

Matteo Pasquinelli

mat@rekombinant.org

Berlin - Bologna, February 2004

Web + PDF: http://www.rekombinant.org/article.php?sid=2257

(translated by Arianna Bove)

Notes

[1] Paolo Virno, A Grammar of the Multitude, Semiotext(e), New York 2003.

[1] Chainworkers, Il precognitariato. L'europrecariato si è sollevato, 2003, published on www.rekombinant.org/article.php?sid=2184. See also http://www.chainworkers.org and www.inventati.org/mailman/listinfo/precog.

[1] Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, L'anti-Oedipe, Les Éditions De Minuit, Paris 1972.

[1] Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2000.

[1] George Orwell, Second Thoughts on James Burnham, 1946, quoted in: Franco "Bifo" Berardi, Il totalitarismo tecno-manageriale da Burnham a Bush, 2004, published on http://www.rekombinant.org/article.php?sid=2241.

english version:

Radical machines against techno-Empire. From utopia to networks.

Each of us is a machine of the real; each of us is a constructive machine. Toni Negri

Technical machines obviously function unless they are broken. Desiring machines on the other hand do not cease to break through functioning, they only function is they are broken. Art often uses this property and creates real group ghosts that short-circuit social production with a desiring production, and introduce a function of brokenness in the reproduction of technical machines. Deleuze and Guattari

What is knowledge sharing? How does the knowledge economy function? Where is the general intellect at work? Take the cigarettes machine. The machine you see is the embodying of a scientific knowledge into hardware and software components, generations of engineering stratified for commercial use: it automatically manages fluxes of money and commodities, substitutes a human with a user-friendly interface, defends private property, functions on the basis of a minimal control and restocking routine. Where has the tobacconist gone? Sometimes he enjoys free time. Other times the company that owns the chain of distribution has replaced him. In his place one often meets the technician. Far from wishing to emulate Marx's Fragment on machines with a Fragment on cigarette machines, this unhealthy example is meant to show how post-Fordist theories live around us and that material or abstract machines built by collective intelligence are organically chained to the fluxes of the economy and of our needs. Rather than of general intellect we should talk of general intellects. There are multiple forms of collective intelligence and some can become totalitarian forms of control, such as the military-managerial ideology of the Bushist neo-cons or of Microsoft Empire. Others can be embodied in social democratic bureaucracies, in the apparatus of police control, in the maths of stock market speculators, in the architecture of our cities (every day we walk on concretisations of collective intelligence). In the dystopias of 2001Space Odyssey and The Matrix, the brain of machines evolves into self-consciousness to the point of getting rid of the human. 'Good' collective intelligences, on the other hand, produce international networks of cooperation such as the network of the global movement, of precarious labourers, of free software developers, of media activism. They also produce the sharing of knowledge in universities, the open licences of Creative Commons and participative urban planning, narrations and imaginaries of liberation. From a geopolitical perspective we could figure ourselves in one of Philip Dick's sci-fi paranoia: the world is dominated by one Intelligence, but inside of it a war unfolds between two Organisations of the general intellect, opposed yet intertwined.

Used to the representative forms of the global movement we fail to grasp the new productive conflicts. Concerned as we are about the war, we do not appreciate the centrality of this struggle. Following Manuel Castells, we define the movement as subjectivity of resistance that fails to become projectual. We are aware of the distance between the global movement and the centre of capitalist production and the production of the real. Paraphrasing Paolo Virno, we say that there already is too much politics in new forms of production for the politics of the movement to still enjoy any autonomous dignity. 1

The events of 1977, (not only in Italy but also in the Punk season) sanctioned the end of the 'revolutionary' paradigm and the beginning of that of movement, opening new spaces of conflict in the fields of communication, media and the production of the imagery. These days we are discovering that the 'movement' as a format needs to be overcome, in favour of that of network. Three kinds of action, well separated in the XIXth century -labour, politics and art- are now integrated into one attitude and central to each productive process.

In order to work, do politics or produce imaginary today one needs hybrid competences. This means that we all are workers-artists-activists, but it also means that the figures of the militant and the artist are surpassed and that such competences are only formed in a common space that is the sphere of the collective intellect.

The general intellect is the patriarch of a family of concepts that are more numerous and cover a wide range of issues: the knowledge economy, cognitive capitalism, collective intelligence, creative class, knowledge sharing and Postfordism. In the last few years the related tools that have enriched the political lexicon were circulated amongst ourselves and left us wondering about their exact usefulness. For the sake of simplicity, we only accounted for the terms that inherited an Enlightenment, angelic and almost neo-gnostic approach. But reality is much more complex and we wait for new forms to claim for themselves the role that within the same field is due to desire, body, aesthetics, biopolitics.

We also remember the quarrel of cognitive vs. precarious workers, two faces of the same medal that the precogs of Chainworkers describe in this way: 'cognitive workers are networkers, precarious workers are networked, the former are brainworkers, the latter chainworkers: the former first seduced and then abandoned by companies and financial markets, the latter dragged into and made flexible by the fluxed of global capital'. 2

The point is that we are searching for a new collective agent and a new point of application for the rusted revolutionary levy. The success of the concept of multitude also reflects the current disorientation. Critical thought continuously seeks to forge the collective actor that can embody the spirit of the time and it goes back to history in the attempt to reconstruct the underlying forms of each paradigm of political action: the more or less collective social agent, the more or less vertical organisation, the more or less utopian goal. ; proletariat and multitude, party and movement, revolution and self-organisation. In the current imaginary the general intellect (or whatever you want to call it) seems to be the collective agent, its form being the network, its field of action being biopolitical and spectacular cognitive capitalism.

We are not talking about multitude here, because it is a concept at once too noble and inflated, heir of centuries of philosophy and too often called for by marching megaphones.

The concept of multitude has been more useful to exorcise the identitary pretences of the global movement, than as a constructive tool

The pars construens will be a task for the general intellect: philosophers such as Paolo Virno, when they have to find a common ground, the lost collective agent, reconstruct the Collective Intelligence and Cooperation as emerging and constitutive properties of the multitude.

In a different paranoid fable, we imagine that technology is the last heir of a series of collective agents generated by history as in a matryoshka doll: religion - theology - philosophy - ideology - science - technology. This is to say that in information and intelligent technologies the history of thought is stratified, even though we only remember the last episode of this series, i.e. the network that embodies the dreams of the previous political generation. How did we come to all this? We are at the point of convergence between different historical planes: the inheritance of historical vanguards in the synthesis of aesthetics and politics; the struggles of '68 and '77 that open up new spaces for conflict outside of the factories and inside the imaginary and communication; the hypertrophy of the society of the spectacle and the economy of the logo; the transformation of fordist wage labour into postfordist autonomous precarious labour; the information revolution and the emergence of the internet, the net economy and the network society; utopia turned into technology. The highest exercise of representation that becomes molecular production.

Some perceive the current moment as a lively world network, some as an indistinct cloud, some as a new form of exploitation, some as an opportunity. Today the density reaches its critical mass and forms a radical global class on the intersection of the planes of activism, communication, arts, and network technologies, independent research. What does it mean, to be productive and projecting, to abandon mere representation of conflict and the representative forms of politics?

There is a hegemonic metaphor in political debate, in the arts world, in philosophy, in media criticism, in network culture: that is free software. We hear it quoted at the end of each intervention that poses the problem of what is to be done (but also in articles of strategic marketing.), whilst the twin metaphor of open source contaminates every discipline: open source architecture, open source literature, open source democracy, open source city.

Softwares are immaterial machines. The metaphor of free software is so simple for its immateriality that it often fails to clash with the real world. Even if we know that it is a good and right thing, we ask polemically: what will change when all the computers in the world will circulate free software? The most interesting aspect of the free software model is the immense cooperative network that was created by programmers on a global scale, but which other concrete examples can we refer to in proposing new forms of action in the real world and not only in the digital realm? In the '70s Deleuze and Guattari had the intuition of the machinic, an introjection/imitation of the industrial form of production. Finally a hydraulic materialism was talking about desiring, revolutionary, celibate machines, war machines rather than representative or ideological ones. 3

Deleuze and Guattari took the machine out of the factory, now it is up to us to take it out of the network and imagine a post-internet generation.

Cognitive labour produces machines of all kinds, not only software: electronic machines, narrative machines, advertising machines, mediatic machines, acting machines, psychic machines, social machines, libidinous machines. In the XIXth century Turing's definition of machine -the foundation of all computing- starts interpreting information in the form of sequences of 0 and 1. For Deleuze and Guattari on the other hand a desiring machine produces, cuts and composes fluxes and without rest it produces the real.

Today we intend by machine the elementary form of the general intellect, each node of the network of collective intelligence, each material or immaterial dispositif that organically interlinks the fluxes of the economy and our desires.

At a higher level, the network can itself be regarded as a mega-machine of assemblage of other machines, and even the multitude becomes machinic, as Negri and Hardt write in Empire: 'The multitude does not only use machines to produce, at the same time it also becomes increasingly machinic. The means of production are increasingly integrated in the minds and bodies of the multitude. In this context, reappropriation means free access and control of knowledge, information, communication and affects, as they are the primary means of biopolitical production. The simple fact that these productive machines are integrated in the multitude does not mean that the latter is capable of controlling them: on the contrary, all this makes alienation more unbearable and vicious. The right to reapproptiation is the right of the multitude to have control over itself and to an autonomous production'. 4

In other words in postfordism the factory has come out of the factory and the whole of society has become a factory. An already machinic multitude suggests that the actual subversion of the productive system into an autonomous plane could be possible in a flash, by disconnecting the multitude from capital command. But the operation is not that easy in the traditional terms of 'reappropriation of the means of production'. Why?

Whilst it is true that today the main means of labour is the brain and that workers can immediately reappropriate the means of production, it is also true that control and exploitation in society have become immaterial, cognitive and reticular. The general intellect of the multitude has grown, and with it that of empire. The workers, armed with their computers, can reappropriate the means of production, but as soon as the stick their nose out of their desktop they have to face a Godzilla that they had not predicted, the Godzilla of the enemy's general intellect.

Social, state and economic meta-machines -to which human beings are connected like appendixes- are dominated by conscious and subconscious automatisms. Meta-machines are ruled by a particular kind of cognitive labour which is the administrative political managerial labour, that runs projects, organizes, controls on a vast scale: a form of general intellect that we have never considered, whose prince is a figure that appears on the scene in the second half of the xxth century: the manager.

As Bifo tells us, recalling Orwell in his essay the techo-managerial totalitarianism of Burnham and Bush, in our post-democratic world (or if you prefer in Empire) managers have seized command: 'Capitalism is disappearing but socialism does not substitute it. What is emerging is a new kind of planned and centralized society that will be neither capitalist nor democratic. The ones who govern will be those who effectively control the means of production, i.e. the executives, technicians, bureaucrats and military, all united under the category of 'managers'. They will eliminate the old class of owners, they will crash the working class, and they will organize society as to maintain in their hands economic privilege. Private property tights will be abolished but common property won't be established as a result. There will no longer be small independent states, but large super-states will concentrate around the industrial centers of Europe, Asia and America, and they will fight amongst themselves. These societies will be highly hierarchical with a talented aristocracy at the top and a mass of quasi-slaves at the bottom.' (George Orwell, Second Thoughts on James Burnham, 1946). 5

At the beginning we mentioned two intelligences that face one another in the world and the forms in which they manifest themselves. The multitude functions as a machine because it is inside a scheme, social software, thought for the exploitation of its energies and its ideas. Then, the techno-managers (public private or military) are those who, whether consciously or not, plan and control machines made up of human beings assembled with one another. The general intellect creates monsters.

Compared with the pervasiveness of neoliberal techno-management, the intelligence of the global movement is of little importance. What to do? We need to invent virtuous revolutionary radical machines to place them in the nodal points of the network, as well as facing the general intellect that administers the imperial meta-machines. Before starting this we need to be aware of the density of the 'intelligence' that is condensed in each commodity, organization, message and media, in each machine of postmodern society.

Don't hate the machine, be the machine. How can we turn the sharing of knowledge, tools and spaces into new radical revolutionary productive machines, beyond the inflated free software? This is the challenge that once upon the time was called reappropriation of the means of production. Will the radical global class manage to invent social machines that can challenge capital and function as planes of autonomy and autopoiesis? Radical machines that are able to face the techno-managerial intelligence and imperial meta-machines lined up all around us? The match multitude vs. empire becomes the match radical machines vs. imperial techno-monsters. How do we start building these machines?

Matteo Pasquinelli

mat@rekombinant.org

Bologna, febbraio 2004

Web + PDF: www.rekombinant.org/article.php?sid=2257

1 Paolo Virno, Grammatica della moltitudine, Derive Approdi, Roma 2002.

2 Chainworkers, Il precognitariato. L'europrecariato si è sollevato, 2003,

pubblicato su www.rekombinant.org/article.php?sid=2184.

Vedi anche www.chainworkers.org e www.inventati.org/mailman/listinfo/precog.

3 Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, L'anti-Edipo, Einaudi, Torino 1975;

ed. orig. L'anti-Oedipe, Les Éditions De Minuit, Paris 1972.

4 Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Impero, Rizzoli, Milano 2002;

ed. orig. Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2000.

5 Franco "Bifo" Berardi, Il totalitarismo tecno-manageriale da Burnham a Bush, 2004,

pubblicato su www.rekombinant.org/article.php?sid=2241.