‘To bring it into existence in a different modality’

Narito ang ilang punto ni Badiou (mula sa The Meaning of Sarkozy, 2009: dito ang naunang post) para sa 21-siglong ‘pagitang panahon’ kung saan, sa kanyang tantiya, ay nawalan na ng ‘praktikal na halaga’ ang maraming haliging konsepto ng Marxismo, ngunit buhay pa rin ang mapagpalayang tunguhin ng ‘komunistang palagay’:

Since we are in an interval phase dominated by the enemy, and new experiments are still tightly circumscribed, I am not in a position to tell you with any certainty what will be the essence of the third period that is going to open up. The general direction, however, what we can call the abstract philosophy of the thing, seems clear to me: it involves a new relationship between the real political movement and ideology. This already underlay the expression ‘cultural revolution’, and Mao’s dictum ‘To have order in organization, it is necessary first to have order in ideology.’ It is also what underlay the idea, common after May ’68, of the ‘revolutionizing of minds’.

The communist hypothesis as such is generic, it is the basis of any emancipatory orientation, it names the sole thing that is worthwhile if we are interested in politics and history. But the way that the hypothesis presents itself determines a sequence: a new way for the hypothesis to be present in the interiority of new forms of organization and action.

It should be understood that in one form or another we shall retain the theoretical and historical teachings that issued from the first sequence and the central function of victorious discipline that issued from the second. And yet our problem today is neither the existence of the hypothesis as a movement, nor its disciplined victory at the level of the state. Our problem is the specific modality in which the thought prescribed by the hypothesis presents itself in the figures of action. In other words, a new relationship between the subjective and the objective, which is neither a multiform movement inspired by the intelligence of the multitude (as Negri and the alter-globalists believe), nor a renewed and democratized party (as the Trotskyists and ossified Maoists believe). The (workers’) movement of the nineteenth century and the (Communist) party of the twentieth century were forms of material presentation of the communist hypothesis. It is impossible to return to either of these. What then could be the moving force of this presentation for the twenty-first century? [...]

The task facing us, after the negative experience of the socialist states, and the ambiguous lessons of the Cultural Revolution and May ’68 – and this is why our research is so complicated, so erratic, so experimental—is to bring the communist hypothesis into existence in a different modality from that of the previous sequence. The communist hypothesis remains the right hypothesis, as I have said, and I do not see any other. If this hypothesis should have to be abandoned, then it is not worth doing anything in the order of collective action. Without the perspective of communism, without this Idea, nothing in the historical and political future is of such a kind as to interest the philosopher.

Ang tungkulin muli sa ngayon ay halus katulad noong siglo-19, ang pagpapalitaw, pagpapairal, o mas malarawan—dahil nga natagpas na ang dating serye, at ang tinatanaw na proyekto ay ang paglikha ng bagong kolektibong serye—ang ‘pagpapasilang-muli’ sa iba nang anyo at kaayusan nitong di-tapos at walang-maliw na ‘haypotesis ng komunismo’:

[H]olding on to the Idea, the existence of the hypothesis, does not mean that its first form of presentation, focused on property and the state, must be maintained just as it is. In fact, what we are ascribed as a philosophical task, we could say even a duty, is to help a new modality of existence of the hypothesis to come into being. New in terms of the type of political experimentation to which this hypothesis could give rise. We have learned from the second sequence and its final efforts that we have to go back to the conditions of existence of the communist hypothesis, and not just perfect its means. We cannot rest content with the dialectical relationship between the state and the mass movement, the preparation for insurrection, and the construction of a powerful and disciplined organization. We must actually re-establish the hypothesis in the field of ideology and action. [...] [I]t is not the victory of the hypothesis that is on the agenda today, as everyone knows, but its conditions of existence. And this was the great question of the revolutionaries of the nineteenth century: first of all, to make the hypothesis exist. Well, that is again our task, in the interval phase that we find so oppressive. (Emphasis mine.)

Bakit walang-maliw ang ‘komunistang haypotesis’ para kay Badiou, kahit pa sabihing wala nang ‘gamit’ ang maraming haligi ng Marxistang tradisyon sa pulitika? Narito ang kanyang paliwanag:

Sartre said in an interview, which I paraphrase: If the communist hypothesis is not right, if it is not practicable, well, that means that humanity is not a thing in itself, not very different from ants or termites. What did he mean by that? If competition, the ‘free market’, the sum of little pleasures, and the walls that protect you from the desire of the weak, are the alpha and omega of all collective and private existence, then the human animal is not worth a cent. [...] … if human society is a collection of individuals pursuing their self-interest, if this is the eternal reality, then it is certain that the philosopher can and must abandon the human animal to its sad destiny.