Frédéric Lordon

Two common assumptions tend to blur our understanding of "globalization". First, it is generally perceived as a rather recent phenomenon, dating back a few years, or at most a few decades. Best-selling books like Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree frame it within an opposition between the bi-polar, military-led, ideologicallystructured world of the Cold War and the multi-centered, economically-driven and valuefree process of globalization, with a turning point occurring around the 1980s. The second assumption presents globalization as being first and foremost a matter of economics, dealing with flows of goods and investments which have more or less remote cultural consequences. The word and the notion of concatenation provide, as I hope to show in this paper, a remarkable vantage point to reverse these two assumptions 1. By shifting the focus to the archeology and the imaginary of globalization, one is led to consider "globalization" under the Lyotardian category of a masternarrative-a legitimizing myth centered on a universal protagonist and whose power of legitimization comes from a promise for the future. Right after Lyotard had made our age "postmodern" in view of our incredulity towards any metanarrative, we fell prey to the (not so) new grand récit of "globalization". Exploring the imaginary dimension of this masternarrative can thus bring a much needed critical distance towards a constellation of signifiers, clichés, assumptions, confusions, beliefs, values, which currently thwart the public debate about the meaning, threats and promises of the transformations currently in process. By going back to some of the roots of the globalization imaginary in 17th-century philosophy and in 18th-century political economy, this paper will argue that the chain which ties nations together is a bond of servitude only insofar as we ignore the analysis of "freedom" developed by determinist thinkers like Hobbes and Spinoza, and that it can instead become a tool of liberation once we follow the chain of consequences implied in 1 This paper was prepared for the conference Concatenations held by the Department of French and Italian of the

Spinoza's question of political thought, "why do the masses fight for their servitude as if it was salvation," has taken on an unanticipated economic and social relevance since the post-2008 economic recession. With that question now displaced from its 17th-century context of taxes and bread, wars of glory, and despots, it is possible to see a struggle for servitude in how the masses clamour for more jobs, more austerity, and further persecuting the disadvantaged in the name of fiscal discipline. In a post on the blog Splintering Bone Ashes, Alex Williams has dubbed this particular struggle for servitude "negative solidarity." Williams defined it as "an aggressively enraged sense of injustice, committed to the idea that, because I must endure increasingly austere working conditions (wage freezes, loss of benefits, declining pension funds, erasure of job security and increasing precarity) then everyone else must too." 1 We can point to multiple instances of negative solidarity, and with them, a changing trajectory of both imagination and affect as its meaning (i.e., its objects and narratives) shift. There is the iconic figure of the "welfare queen," and with her, the entire racialised demonisation of benefit programs for the unemployed and impoverished. There is also the migrant figure, likewise chastised for dependency and laziness on the one hand and sometimes for "stealing jobs" on the other. More recently, negative solidarity has been aimed at the public services worker-the teacher or government employee who continues to benefit, albeit ever so slightly, from union protection and collective bargaining. Such workers are seen as failing to engage in the necessary discipline and suffering of work. That "negative solidarity" can take on so many different figures-mostly pure fantasies disconnected from actual conditions-suggests that, at its core, it articulates an imagination and a particular structure of feeling. It is not so much a reflection of actual conditions and real relations as of a particular way of representing or perceiving those conditions. Articulating and elaborating a definition of negative solidarity entails a necessary

El objetivo del siguiente trabajo será plantear una nueva manera de entender la emancipación del sujeto alienado, pensada desde el materialismo de diversos autores, con Marx y Spinoza como pilar central. Dejamos atrás una visión del sujeto como independiente de lo material, una visión de raigambre platónica y corregida en parte por el idealismo alemán, pero reinstaurada con el advenimiento del neoliberalismo, y nos paramos a pensar su dimensión de materialidad, sus afecciones y sus determinaciones. Optando por el dispositivo Marx-Spinoza nos colocamos en una larga tradición de pensadores, como Louis Althusser, Antonio Negri, Frédéric Lordon, Franck Fischbach, Jason Read, y muchos más. Esta tarea es, en esencia, una tarea de «redefinición» de los conceptos. El destino del trabajo será la redefinición de la alienación, pero, en tanto que la alienación lo es siempre de un sujeto, deberemos pararnos a definir qué entendemos desde el materialismo al decir «sujeto».

« Un devenir spinoziste des sciences sociales », co-rédigé avec Frédéric Lordon in Yves Citton et Frédéric Lordon, Spinoza et les sciences sociales : de la puissance de la multitude à l'économie politique des affects, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam, 2008, p. 15-44 (disponible en ligne sur http://www.journaldumauss.net/spip.php?article282) Yves CITTON et Frédéric LORDON * Cette introduction a bénéficié des relectures extrêmement attentives de Laurent Bove, Pascal Sévérac et Christian Lazzeri. Qu'ils en soient remerciés-et aussi exonérés de toutes les erreurs qui continueraient de l'émailler. 1 Voir par exemple la conclusion de l'Avant-propos dans Pierre BOURDIEU, Le sens pratique,

El propósito del presente artículo consiste en realizar un recorrido reflexivo en torno a las lecturas de Lordon y Aragüés acerca del paradigma político contemporáneo, destacando la importancia de conformar una política de la inmanencia. Acudiendo a autores como Spinoza o Deleuze, e inscribiéndose en la tradición althusseriana del materialismo del encuentro, ambas figuras, Lordon y Aragües, transitan diferentes problemáticas asociadas al estructuralismo de las pasiones, la construcción de subjetividad y el deseo de multitud, como se hará ver a lo largo del texto.

Cet article commente dix propositions1 de E. Mandel, économiste marxiste reconnu, qui fondent son ouvrage majeur Le troisième Age du capitalisme, dans lequel il s'attache à montrer la pertinence de l'analyse marxiste, dont celle à propos de l'acquisition des moyens de production, pour prendre en compte d'autres théories de référence comme celles de Kondratieff (théorie des ondes longues), Schumpeter (les cycles d'innovation), Rostow (Les cinq étapes de la croissance économique).
Ces dix propositions de E. Mandel embrassent les sujets les plus importants à propos du capitalisme et nos commentaires permettent ensuite de souligner l'obstacle stratégique à toute remise en cause durable du capitalisme, à savoir une remise en cause qui soit in fine acceptée par tous sans nécessité de coercition permanente. Cet obstacle stratégique est la non dénonciation de la méthode capitaliste d'appropriation des moyens de production, méthode à remplacer, en première étape, par l'appropriation libérale de ceux-ci par le collectif de salariés, enfin sujet de droit.

C-1-g Capitalisme au 19. siècle-trois évolutions juridiques déterminantes Chères lectrices et lecteurs Cet article fait partie d'un « carnet de recherche » dont le titre est : L'économie au prisme des moyens de production Pour aller directement au menu d'accès à l'article, cliquez sur Capitalisme au 19. siècle-trois évolutions juridiques déterminantes Résumé Le concept de « responsabilité limitée » et sa mise en oeuvre dans les lois au 19. siècle (ex : en France, lois du 23 mai 1863 puis du 24 juillet 1867 ; en Angleterre lois de 1856 à 1862 sur les Joint-Stock Company limited) compte, d'après Y.N. Harari dans son célèbre ouvrage SAPIENS 1 , « parmi les inventions les plus ingénieuses de l'humanité ». Elle permet en effet aux actionnaires d'accroître le patrimoine productif qu'ils contrôlent (locaux, machines, véhicules, etc..) et dont ils tirent bénéfice en limitant au maximum leur mise et leur risque financier : les actionnaires tout puissants font porter à l'entreprise la majeure partie des investissements et tous les risques alors que celle-ci est inexistante en droit mais est donc susceptible de disparaître 2 , au grand dam de son personnel, en cas d'insatisfaction des actionnaires quant aux résultats obtenus.

In this essay, I identify and work through a problematic antinomy between social reproduction and social disruption in accounts of democratic freedom and the State, arriving at a conception of the non-statal State as an institutional apparatus that preserves, enables, and expands agents (re)constituent powers. Beginning with G.W.F. Hegel, I praise his attempt in the Philosophy of Right to articulate a State that dialectically unifies subject and object by habituating agents into a practice of freedom through the 'substantive powers' of ethical life (section I). But this attempt ultimately fails because of its cancelling of democratic negativity into the hierarchical structure of bourgeois modernity. Second, I take up this thread from the opposite direction in Jacques Rancière, praising his allegiance to the uncontainable disruptive power of democratic politics while critiquing him for the externalisation of processes of institutional cohesion (section II). Lastly, I articulate a theory of radical democratic institutionality through a critique of Fredric Lordon's account of the 'general State', explicating the distinct relation between coercion and verticality, exceedance and control, and unity and conflict in this democratic institutionality (section III).

Une brochure qui vient en aide à celles et ceux qui s’intéressent à la vie politique et économique.  « La répartition des richesses en Suisse et dans le canton de Fribourg », permet de mieux connaître notre environnement social et économique.  Produire des richesses certes, mais pour quelle répartition ? Cette brochure éclaire sur la situation actuelle elle a été élaborée par le Conseil scientifique de l’Association pour une Taxation des Transferts financiers et l’Action Citoyenne de la section de Fribourg et se penche sur les questions de l’évolution de la richesse et de sa répartition. Cette répartition met en lumière le fonctionnement économique et social de notre société et notre conception de la justice sociale. C’est à partir des dernières données disponibles de l’administration fiscale fédérale que nous présentons une situation préoccupante qui met en lumière une nette aggravation des inégalités dans notre pays et dans notre canton

El propósito de esta reseña radica en contextualizar y dar una aproximación sólida del último libro de Lordon, engañoso desde su título, y que de momento solo se encuentra su versión original en francés. De entrada, subrayamos el carácter tramposo, en tanto no es una obra que intente localizar vínculos entre la teoría anarquista y Spinoza. Es decir, el autor en ningún momento pretende traer a colación figuras como la de Bakunin, Prodhoun o Kropotkin para presupuestar una lectura spinozista de las emancipadoras ideas de aquellos.

Texte basé sur un article de Frédéric Lordon paru dans un blog du journal « Le Monde Diplomatique » daté du 17 janvier et d'une interprétation libre des propos du Père Ubu dans l'oeuvre éponyme d'Alfred Jarry avec références aux extraits de divers ouvrages.

This article looks at Brunon Jasieński's revolutionary novel "I burn Paris" in the context of the key ideas of Marxist philosophy and that strand of its contemporary reception which saw in it a blend of agitprop and apocalyptic fiction. A close reading of "I burn Paris" reveals that its author is anything but an orthodox Marxist and his Marxism is open to all kinds of alterations and ideological variants. The article, inspired by Peter Sloterdijk's discussion of ressentiment, argues that the best way to make sense of those disparities is to treat them not as deviations but as an attempt to converge the ideological vision and the thymos (in the sense given to it by Francis Fukuyama in "The End of History and the Last Man"); or, in other words, an attempt at tapping and channeling the accumulated rage of the masses to energize the Communist project.

This paper outlines an adverbial approach of value, which it proposes as an alternative to a ''nominalistic'' one. It starts from a review of a recent book of a French economist, André Orléan, who develops, from the instance of money, a theory of value which he thinks valid for all social values. The paper criticizes the main presuppositions of Orléan's model of value and tries to elaborate a more praxeological and a more social one. Keywords Affect Á Convention Á Desire Á Evaluation Á Imitation Á Money Á Potentia multitudinis Á Valuation Á Value We don't start from certain words, but from certain occasions or activities (Wittgenstein, Lectures on Aesthetics, §6) How are values and value-commitments formed in a society? The responses of the social sciences to that question are varied (Joas 2000). They depend in part on the attitude adopted, in inquiry, on the notion of value, and in part, on the idea one has of the instituting power in society. Does one see value as a specific entity, with its own essence, or does one undertake to examine what lies behind the word as a conceptual substitute for plural concrete dynamics? Does one think of the instituting power in terms of a composition of individual capacities, or as an anonymous power which cannot originate in interactions or co-operations between individuals? One definition of value wins unanimous support from philosophers and sociologists: value is supposed to be a matter of individual and collective preferences linked to beliefs, those preferences and beliefs depending on the cultural environments in which they appear. In actual fact, such a contextualization is not enough to

This article (A-0) Presentation of epistemological fundamentals and social sciences articles is under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0.
Using Spinoza's philosophy, this article presents the epistemological foundations and common theses on which a series of articles on various subjects of social&political philosophy and social sciences are based, and then presents the main ideas of about twenty articles.

Baruch Spinoza a developpe un systeme de pensee autour du necessitarisme et des passions au 17eme siecle. Notre intention est de reactualiser ces concepts en produisant une science sociale des affects correlee a une sociologie classique, deterministe et holiste. Pour ce faire, nous utilisons l'oeuvre de Spinoza pour la fondre dans l'histoire des idees en sciences sociales et humaines, grâce aux figures d'Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, ou encore Pierre Bourdieu. Finalement, notre orientation epistemologique en science politique s'avere etre une veritable demarche de philosophie sociale.

Le titre de cet article « Avec Lordon, Piketty et tous les autres économistes, pas de danger pour le capital au XXIe siècle » est un clin d'oeil à l'article de F. Lordon1 « Avec Thomas Piketty, pas de danger pour le capital au XXIe siècle ».
Néanmoins, envers les économistes et les travaux cités, notre article n'a ni la verve, ni l'ironie du talentueux article cité de F. Lordon mais il aboutit à la même conclusion : compte tenu des sujets étudiés, des approches mobilisées, des jugements prononcés et des évolutions proposées par les auteurs cités, il n'y a « pas de danger pour le capital au XXIe siècle ».
Pour « Ne pas se raconter d'histoire »2 cet article rappelle quelques bases factuelles à propos du pouvoir du fait de la maîtrise des moyens de production, de la « responsabilité limitée », de la non existence juridique de l'entreprise et de la sphère financière.
Ensuite, cet article analyse quelques discours et propositions3, résolument de gauche d'après leurs auteurs respectifs, pour montrer que, au regard des bases rappelées, on se raconte beaucoup d'histoires, notamment sur la force des arguments moraux face aux droits fondamentaux : il n'y a donc « pas de danger pour le capital au XXIe siècle ».
Les discours sur les thèmes suivants sont analysés : (1-) discours « juridiques » sur les actionnaires, (2-) (absence de ..) discours sur l'acquisition des moyens de production, (3-) confusion actionnaires-entreprises, (4-) discours sur la plus-value, sur son usage et sur la sphère financière, (5-) nombreux discours sur l'exploitation, (6-) les évolutions proposées.
Ces analyses renvoient le plus souvent sur des articles déjà disponibles : article (C-1-1) Genèse et caractéristiques du capitalisme, article (C-1-a) Critique des discours actionnarial et marxiste sur les procédés d’acquisition et d'enrichissement, article (C-1-b) Acquisition des moyens de production, article (C-1-d) sortir du capitalisme, discussion à partir des propositions de Friot et Lordon, article (C-1-e) Absence d'analyse marxiste des causes de la puissance du capitaliste.
Enfin, à propos de l'évolution préalable à mettre en œuvre pour « casser » le capitalisme, cet article renvoie à l'article (C-1-f) transition nécessaire pour sortir du capitalisme.

Cet article discute les articles critiques de F. Lordon et de J. Périchaud sur l'ouvrage « Le capital du 21. siècle » de T. Piketty1. Il en discute les points suivants : (1-) les définitions de « capital » par Piketty, Périchaud et Lordon (et Marx), (2-) les critiques de Périchaud et Lordon du fait de ces définitions, (3-) la caractéristique du capitalisme renvoyant dos à dos Piketty et Périchaud-Lordon.
Cette discussion repose sur les bases du système de production et de mise à disposition de biens et de services que nous considérons comme les plus importantes : les moyens de production, et ce pour répondre à deux questions : qui les financent et qui les possèdent. Notre approche se veut marxiste (en distinguant ceux qui possèdent et gouvernent les moyens de production et ceux qui n'ont que leur force de travail à proposer) et matérialiste (elle ne s'embarrasse pas d'histoires et de concepts et se concentre sur les faits)2.
Cette discussion renvoie à des articles déjà disponibles : article (C-1-1) Genèse et caractéristiques du capitalisme, article (C-1-a) Critique des discours actionnarial et marxiste sur les procédés d’acquisition et d'enrichissement, article (C-1-b) Acquisition des moyens de production, article (C-1-d) sortir du capitalisme, discussion à partir des propositions de Friot et Lordon, article (C-1-e) Absence d'analyse marxiste des causes de la puissance du capitaliste.
Tous ces articles reposent sur le même constat : seuls les « capitalistes » possèdent de fait et gouvernent les moyens de production, alors qu'ils n'y participent financièrement que peu : du fait de la responsabilité limitée et de l'inexistence juridique de l'entreprise, celle-ci contribue beaucoup plus aux moyens de production mais ne peut en être propriétaire au titre de sa contribution3 : l'entreprise finance les moyens de production que possède le capitaliste, et ce en plus des dividendes et rachat d'actions qu'elle lui verse, tout en payant tout le reste (salaires et charges, impôts et taxes, etc..).

This article is about 'odd jobs', including domestic work. It begins by proposing some preliminary premises, definitions and assumptions, which are used as benchmarks for considering the perceptions and behaviours of people, those who work, those who employ them and the people who benefit from them. A critical, then interpretative and finally inventive approach is used. This article is based on IDHE.S research on odd jobs and domestic work, and discusses the following questions: what statements prompt people to get from others what they are able to do, and others to do these 'odd jobs' for someone else.

This article takes up our articles (C-1-1), (C-1-a) and (C-1-b) in order to discuss the proposals of B. Friot and F. Lordon to get out of capitalism, and then to sketch out complementary proposals, notably concerning the initial break to be made (very little mentioned by one and the other) and the discourses to be held to obtain the break. Lordon2 to get out of capitalism, and then to sketch out complementary proposals, notably concerning the initial break to be made (very little mentioned by either of them) and the speeches to be made to obtain the determined support of almost everyone during this break. This initial break has as its sole objective the questioning of the "social relations of appropriation" of the means of production for profit, that is to say to break the monopoly of appropriation by the shareholders by allowing the collective of employees to appropriate the means of production in proportion to their contribution to them.
In relation to the Friot-Lordon proposals, this article addresses four points: (1-) arguments for transformation, (2-) acceptability of their solution, (3-) questions about the citizen anthropology implicitly retained, (4-) what are the economic "balances" to be respected?
With regard to our proposals, more or less the same points are addressed, while also emphasising that the initial break proposed is a necessary step prior to the Friot-Lordon proposals or variants of these, including not planning anything more before having analysed the consequences of this break.

This article, while confirming the great interest of spinozist approaches to the state and the currency of A. Orléan and F. Lordon, discusses their analysis which seems to ignore The Reason.
Two texts are discussed:
the description on the EHESS website of F. Lordon's seminar "structuralism of passions",
the article "Genesis of the State and Genesis of the Currency " of A. Orléan and F. Lordon.
This article is based on article (B-2) "Fundamental Premises for any SHS" and above all on article (A-3) criticising Spinoza's Reason and introducing multiple reasons in his works.
In the two texts discussed, Reason is never mentioned: on the one hand there are feelings and on the other hand human institutions (" Majuscule institutions", money, etc.).
By taking up the Spinozist criteria of the "true ", both (a-) the concept of the "State of a mercantile nature", and (b-) the feelings lent to merchants, to explain the supposed things put in place are not proven propositions, in the sense given in Ethics, but premises to be accepted or rejected .... according to our own feelings as readers.
For our part, we accept them with pleasure. We accept them more easily because we will then replace the Reason according to Spinoza with the reasons we propose in the article (A-3) criticising Spinoza's Reason and introducing multiple reasons in his works, before mobilising them to better document the spinozist intuitions of these two authors.

be able to last by its own excellence, but only by good luck' 7. The fact that the state may last, not only by its own excellence, but also through good luck, highlights the extent to which the question, on the one hand, of one's striving to persevere in one's being, and, on the other hand, that of one's emancipation, are intertwined. A free individual, as compared to one that is not free, is one which, in striving to persevere in its being, manages to do so in accord with what its being entails. Unfree individuals are however only fortunate when, in striving to persevere in their beings, they actually manage to do so. It is more likely however, given that luck is generally not a constant, that most unfree individuals are unlikely to be able to enduringly persevere in their being despite striving, just like their free counterparts, to do so. In light of the juncture between these two processes, that of the striving to persevere in one's being on the one hand, and that of emancipation on the other, I will endeavor to treat them jointly. Thus, in what follows, I am overall not only looking to understand and represent the operations involved in the striving to persevere of

Chapter 5-Sketching reproduction in the case of social movements Social movements are usually defined as collective efforts to change a given social norm or a set of these norms (whether they be moral, economic, political or environmental) or to resist change occuring or perceived as occuring to such norms or set of norms. Some of these efforts do not threaten the reproduction of the state, in the sense that if such efforts are successful in producing change, or in resisting the change, for which they originally emerged, their success would not entail what I have referred to following Severac as the non-cadaveric death of the state, and therefore the replacement of that state by another. To reuse the biological metaphor of Barbone, such social movements do not aim to change things beyond what is allowed by the metabolism of the state. However, a number of social movements do threaten the reproduction of the state, their success would entail the production of a different state of affairs from that which the unaltered reproduction of the certa ratio of the state depends on. Such social movements would call for changes that the metabolism of the state would not be able to withstand, and their success would bring about the non-cadaveric death of the state and its replacement by another. According to the tradition, we consider that the latter are revolutionary in nature, while we consider the former either as reformist or as conservative in nature. Spinoza accounts at least tacitly for such a distinction when he writes in TPVI/2 that 'when disagreements and rebellions are stirred up in a Commonwealthas they often arethe result is never that the citizens dissolve 248 the Commonwealth […]. Instead, if they can't settle their disagreements while preserving the form of the Commonwealth, they change its form to another. So when I speak of the means required to preserve the state, I understand the means necessary to preserve its form without any notable change (emphasis added)'. Whilst some disagreement can be settled while preserving the form of the state 'without any notable change' because the conatus of the state allows for some degree of change, it is also clear according to Spinoza that some 'disagreements' cannot be settled unless the state experiences a change in 'form' which its metabolism does not allow, or what amounts to its non-cadaveric death, that is, the replacement of that state by another. Given that this work was spurred by my understanding that the current situation which humanity is facing is catastrophic, and that changing the current state of affairs within what is allowed by the metabolic system of states, that is, 'without notable change', will not produce the degree of change which would be necessary in order to, at least, avoid worsening our collective situation, I have developed a framework to better understand what revolutionary social movements are such that those involved in them may be better able to lead them towards success. Thus, whilst not every social movement is of a revolutionary nature, and whilst my analysis of social movements in this chapter can in many instances apply to reformist, or conservative social movements as well, I must stress that I have developed the ensuing framework to better understand how those of a revolutionary nature may best be led to success. I will therefore specify, when necessary, when my analysis concerns social movements in general, as opposed to when it only applies to revolutionary social movements. The framework developed relies on an important premise: that social 253 not entail any antagonism to the state's striving to persevere in its being and those, revolutionary, that are antagonistic to such a striving. For the latter, victory would entail a change in the being of the state, and therefore the 'noncadaveric' death of that state, and its replacement by another, of a different form, and whose striving to persevere in its being would entail the production and reproduction of a different state of affairs from that which the former state would have looked to reproduce, as would have accorded with its conatus. Hence, when we consider a revolutionary social movement, that is, one which threatens the reproduction of the state of affairs on which the state's conatus depends, we must consider that its existence is directly antagonistic to that of the state which it is confronting. Additionally, whilst in the state of nature of states, states each derive power to persevere in their being from relatively clearly delimited associated milieus, 'their own' as it were; in regard to social movements, it is necessarily the case that the environment from which they and their associated milieus emerge is shared with the states which they emerge to confront. More precisely, although conflicting States may share a given environment, such an environment does not provide each State with the same potentials. In line with

On vie dans un monde des contraints. Et dans ce monde il y a au moins deux genres des celles-ci. D'abord, on a des contraintes physiques qui sont issues de la nature. Mais il y a aussi celles qui ont pour leur origine l'activité sociale des êtres-humaines, c'est-a-dire les contraints sociales. Et parfois on les trouve tous les deux très agaçant. Donc, de la même manière qu'un homme ou une femme ne peut qu'être actifs physiquement seulement un certain nombre d'heures par jour, l'Australie ne peut pas s'en passer de son industrie de charbon, et la France ne peut pas arrêter ses ventes des armes aux pays comme l'Arabie Saoudite ou l'Egypte. Le contraint sociale concernant les deux derniers questions s'appelle « la crainte pour l'économie ». Et il semble que nous nous approchons pas à pas d'un moment de notre histoire où il faudra faire le choix entre les deux sortes des contraints. Soit on brise les contraints sociaux, soit nous nous trouverons brisés par les limites imposés par notre planète. Jusqu'ici on ne peut que constater avec ironie le simple fait que l'humanité n'est pas capable de sauver sa planète parce que cela mettrait en danger l'économie. Sauf que contrairement a la planète, quant a l'économie elle représente le choix des êtres-humaines. Cet article a pour son but l'intervention dans les débats liés aux questions environnementaux, qui-heureusement-ont lieu régulièrement en France.

En este artículo analizo cómo las demandas agrarias de un sindicato de trabajadores rurales del extremo norte del Uruguay han sido administradas en el marco de una política gubernamental de desarrollo que pretendió convertir a sus respectivos beneficiarios en productores eficientes de caña de azúcar. Desde una perspectiva que conjuga el pensamiento de Gilles Deleuze y Félix Guattari con el análisis marxiano de los sistemas de crédito, examino la convergencia conflictiva entre lucha agraria y desarrollo rural, conceptualizándola como un equipamiento inestable de captura del deseo colectivo. A través de la observación participante y en diálogo con los beneficiarios de las políticas de desarrollo en el norte uruguayo, evalúo las consecuencias económicas del “equipamiento de deseo”, señalo sus condiciones de (im)posibilidad y los caminos para su posible superación política. Finalizo reflexionando sobre la primacía creadora del deseo respecto de todo proceso de captura que apunte a encauzarlo y funcionalizarlo.

Da oltre un decennio Frédéric Lordon conduce un significativo lavoro teorico volto a ripensare lo statuto delle scienze umane a partire da un'originale lettura della filosofia di Spinoza 1 . La prospettiva sembra promettente, soprattutto se si considera il principale nodo teorico da cui muove, vale a dire l'esigenza di superare la contrapposizione tra l'approccio olistico dello strutturalismo, che ha dominato la cultura europea, e in particolar modo francese, tra anni Sessanta e Settanta, e l'individualismo metodologico che ha egemonizzato le scienze sociali a partire dagli anni Ottanta 2 .

À partir d’une lecture de trois textes récents, cet article s’attache à décrire une poétique particulière, qui met en rapport expérimentation formelle et engagement politique. D’un retournement l’autre (2011) de Frédéric Lordon, Poétique de l’emploi (2018) de Noémi Lefebvre et Les enfants vont bien (2019) de Nathalie Quintane inventent tous trois, selon des modalités différentes, des formes visant à rendre inopérante une langue (politique, médiatique, économique) jugée délétère. Nous montrons qu’à la suite des analyses de Victor Klemperer au sujet de la colonisation de la langue allemande par le national-socialisme, ces écrivains mettent en lumière les ruses et les tours de la “novlangue” contemporaine. Leurs textes ne se limitent toutefois pas à en constater les effets néfastes : tout en dévoilant le caractère pernicieux de cette langue qui se propage au point de devenir commune, ils visent, par le biais d’une série de formes poétiques que nous mettons en évidence, à lui ôter son pouvoir. Chez ces auteurs, la création littéraire est résolument branchée sur l’action politique. Dans la lignée des réflexions de Giorgio Agamben sur la révolution, nous proposons de qualifier leur poétique de destituante.

E l pensamiento occidental se rehúsa a abandonar la bien arraigada idea de que la razón constituye la cualidad humana por excelencia. En el siglo XX, el suelo sobre el que descansaban los grandes paradigmas del conocimiento se resquebrajó ante la afirmación de nuestra vacuidad. Los viejos intentos humanistas que buscaban determinar la esencia de lo humano dieron a la razón un lugar secundario en pos de su aparente contraparte, los sentimientos. Toda esta polémica tuvo como telón de fondo la crisis de los fundamentos que cristalizó en la muy conocida muerte de Dios, tesis que obligó a replantear la montura conceptual sobre la cual discurre, aún hoy, el pensamiento occidental.

De « Occupy Wall Street » à « Extinction Rebellion » en
passant par la révolte des Gilets jaunes, il y a, au coeur
des mouvements de contestation, des répertoires d’action
collective communs : la manifestation, l’occupation et
différentes formes de désobéissance. Alors qu’ils sont souvent
associés à des moments de rupture, ces répertoires jouent en
réalité un rôle fondamental dans nos démocraties.

This conference paper tries to reveal a performative (and hermeneutical) inconsistency characteristic of deterministic explanations of human behavior: when we better understand things, we suppose ourselves able to correct our relation towards the world. But what are we exactly correcting when we understand that our conduct is predetermined?

This paper develops out of a larger project attempting to develop a historical-materialist theory of populism. In this context, what I want to do is reflect on some of the implications of the centrality of the idea of 'reclaiming popular sovereignty' to contemporary mass movements (the movements of the squares, 'left populisms', the revitalization of left social democracy), which have fostered a dawning sense that the left might, after a long interregnum, have 'the majority for their own side'. 1 If this idea represents, as I think it does, a kind of vital 'common sense' of contemporary politics, then we likely ought to do something other than simply dismiss it as mystifying in class terms or as insufficiently radical -we ought to understand why it occupies this position and what possibilities and dilemmas a philosophy and a political strategy beginning in and in conversation with it can develop. So, this is an initial sketch of some ideas that will ultimately lead into reflections on 'the party', though I can't take up that issue here.

Resumo: O objetivo do presente artigo é expor os motivos porque Frédéric Lordon assinala a necessidade de as ciências sociais precisarem de uma fundamentação filosófica spinozista. Para isso, inicialmente, explicitamos as carências que o filósofo encontra nos estudos sociais, e, logo depois, analisamos a forma como a filosofia de Spinoza se encaixa como base teórica de fundamentação. Demonstramos o modo como Lordon se apropria dos termos spinozistas para justificar seu insight, pois, dessa maneira, podemos esclarecer como elementos da ética de Spinoza encontram lugar em seu estudo sociológico. Ao final, concluímos que a proposta, apesar de relevante, carece de uma abordagem satisfatória acerca da liberdade.
Palavras-chave: Spinoza, Ética, Lordon, Sociais.

Abstract: The article explains the reasons why Frédéric Lordon points out the need for the social sciences to have a Spinozist philosophical foundation. In order to do this, we initially explained the philosopher's view of deficiencies in social studies, and soon after, we analyze how Spinoza's philosophy fits as a theoretical basis for reasoning. We demonstrate how Lordon appropriates the Spinozist terms to justify his insight, because thus we can clarify how elements of Spinoza's ethics find room in his sociological study. In the end, we conclude that the proposal, while relevant, lacks a satisfactory approach to freedom.
Keywords: Spinoza, Ethics, Lordon, Social.