在精英的不负责任和公民社会的完全分裂之间，作为断路器的 Covid-19 展示了国王——系统设计——是如何赤裸裸的。
我们被吸入了 丹斯·马卡布雷 多个复杂系统“相互碰撞”，产生各种主要是负反馈循环。
我们已经确定的，正如 Shoshana Zuboff 在 监视资本主义时代，就是“工业资本主义按照自己的震惊和敬畏逻辑”征服自然。 但现在监视资本主义“在其视野中具有人性”。
In 人类星球：我们如何创造人类世伦敦大学学院的 Simon Lewis 和 Mark Maslin 分析了人口增长的爆炸式增长、能源消耗的增加以及“由再投资和利润的正反馈循环驱动”的信息海啸，表明我们目前的生活方式是“最不可能”在几个选项中。 “崩溃或转向新的生活方式的可能性更大。”
大卫哈维再次展示了如何 预言的 是马克思，不仅在他对工业资本主义的分析中，而且在某种程度上——在 大纲：政治经济学批判的基础 – 甚至预测数字资本主义的机制：
哈维写道，马克思“谈到新技术和知识嵌入机器的方式：它们不再存在于劳动者的大脑中，劳动者被推到一边成为机器的附属物，仅仅是机器- 提醒。 过去属于劳动者并赋予他们对资本的某种垄断权力的所有智慧和所有知识，都消失了。”
因此，Harvey 补充道，“曾经需要劳动者技能的资本家现在摆脱了这种限制，而技能体现在机器中。 科学技术产生的知识流入机器，机器成为资本主义活力的‘灵魂’。”
复杂系统碰撞的直接经济影响是即将到来的新大萧条。 与此同时，很少有人试图深入了解行星锁定——最重要的是，对于行星锁定后的情况。 然而，一些概念已经脱颖而出。 异常状态。 亡灵政治。 一种新的野蛮主义。 而且，正如我们将看到的，新的病毒范式。
因此，让我们回顾一下 Covid-19 思维最前沿的一些最优秀和最聪明的人。 提供了一个优秀的路线图 武汉之声 （“武汉汤”），一个独立的西班牙文集，收录了 Giorgio Agamben、Slavoj Zizek、Judith Butler、David Harvey、韩国 Byung-Chul Han 和西班牙人 Paul Preciado 等人的文章。
Franco Berardi 是 1968 年的学生偶像，现在是博洛尼亚的哲学教授，他提出了“心理通货紧缩”的概念来解释我们目前的困境。 我们生活在一种“精神流行病……由病毒引起，地球已经到了极度刺激的阶段，社会的集体身体承受了相当长一段时间无法承受的压力：疾病在这个阶段表现出来，对社会造成毁灭性的打击。”和精神领域，作为行星体的自卫反应。”
因此，正如 Berardi 所说，“心理领域中的符号病毒阻碍了经济的抽象运作，从中减去了身体。” 只有病毒才能阻止已死在其轨道上的资本积累：“资本主义是公理化的，在未经验证的前提下运作（无限增长的必要性使资本积累成为可能）。
那么还剩下什么？ “正如我们从鲍德里亚那里学到的，唯一的出路就是死亡”。 已故的 simulacrum 大师已经预测到后现代主义的 1980 年代会出现系统性停滞。
克罗地亚哲学家 斯雷克霍瓦特 相比之下，对近期的未来提供了一个不那么概念化、更现实的假设：“对大流行的恐惧比病毒本身更危险。 大众媒体的世界末日形象隐藏了极右翼和资本主义经济之间的深层联系。 就像病毒需要活细胞来自我繁殖一样，资本主义将适应新的 21st 世纪生命政治。”
对于加泰罗尼亚化学家和哲学家 Santiago Lopez Petit 来说，冠状病毒可以被视为宣战：“新自由主义毫不掩饰地伪装成战争状态。 资本害怕”，即使“不确定性和不安全感使同一状态的必要性无效”。 然而，当“模糊和矛盾的生命，其矛盾性无法计算，逃脱算法时，可能会有创造性的可能性。”
阿甘本对科学作为我们这个时代的宗教进行了加倍的分析：“与宗教的类比是从字面上理解的； 神学家宣称他们不能清楚地定义什么是上帝，但他们以他的名义向人规定了行为准则，并毫不犹豫地焚烧异端。 病毒学家承认他们并不确切知道什么是病毒，但他们以病毒的名义假装决定人类将如何生活。”
Cameroonian philosopher and historian Achille Mbembe, author of two indispensable books, 亡灵政治 和 野蛮主义, has identified the paradox of our time: “The abyss between the increasing globalization of problems of human existence and the retreat of states inside their own, old-fashioned borders.”
Mbembe delves into the end of a certain world, “dominated by giant calculation devices,” a “mobile world in the most polymorphous, viral and near cinematic sense,” referring to the ubiquity of screens (Baudrillard again, already in the 1980s) and the lexicography, “which reveals not only a change of language but the end of the word.”
Here we have Mbembe dialoguing with Berardi – but Membe takes it much farther: “This end of the word, this definitive triumph of the gesture and artificial organs over the word, the fact that the history of the word ends under our eyes, that for me is the historical development par excellence, the one that Covid-19 unveils.”
The political consequences are, inevitably, dire: “Part of the power politics of great nations does not lie in the dream of an automated organization of the world thanks to the manufacturing of a New Man that would be the product of physiological assemblage, a synthetic and electronic assemblage and a biological assemblage? Let’s call it techno-libertarianism.”
This is not exclusive to the West: “China is also on it, vertiginously.”
This new paradigm of a plethora of automated systems and algorithmic decisions “where history and the word don’t exist anymore is in frontal shock with the reality of bodies in flesh and bones, microbes, bacteria and liquids of all sorts, blood included.”
The West, argues Mbembe, chose a long time ago to “imprint a Dionysiac course to its history and take the rest of the world with it, even if it doesn’t understand it. The West does not know anymore the difference between beginning and ending. China is also on it. The world has been plunged into a vast process of dilaceration where no one can predict the consequences.”
Mbembe is terrified by the proliferation of “live manifestations of the bestial and viral part of humanity,” including racism and tribalism.
This, he adds, conforms our new viral paradigm.
His analysis certainly dovetails with Agamben’s: “I have a feeling that brutalism is going to intensify under the techno-libertarianism drive, be it under China or hidden under the accoutrements of liberal democracy. Just like 9/11 opened the way to a generalized state of exception, and its normalization, the fight against Covid-19 will be used as a pretext to move the political even more towards the domain of security.”
“But this time”, Mbembe adds, “it will be a security almost biological, bearing with new forms of segregation between the ‘immunity bodies’ and ‘viral bodies’. Viralism will become the new theatre for fractioning populations, now identified as distinct species.”
It does feel like neo-medievalism, a digital re-enacting of the fabulous 死亡的胜利 fresco in Palermo.
Poets, not politicians
It’s useful to contrast such doom and gloom with the perspective of a geographer. Christian Grataloup, who excels in geo-history, insists on the common destiny of humanity (here he’s echoing Xi Jinping and the Chinese concept of “community of shared destiny”): “There’s an unprecedented feeling of identity. The world is not simply an economic and demographic spatial system, it becomes a territory. Since the Great Discoveries, what was global was shrinking, solving a lot of contradictions; now we must learn to build it up again, give it more consistence as we run the risk of letting it rot under international tensions.”
It’s not the Covid-19 crisis that will lead to another world – but society’s reaction to the crisis. There won’t be a magical night – complete with performances by “international community” pop stars – when “victory “will be announced to the former Planet Lockdown.
What really matters is a long, arduous political combat to take us to the next level. Extreme conservatives and techno-libertarians have already taken the initiative – from refusal of any taxes on the wealthy to support the victims of the New Great Depression to the debt obsession that prevents more, necessary public spending.
In this framework, I propose to go one step beyond Foucault’s biopolitics. Gilles Deleuze can be the conceptualizer of a new, radical freedom. 这里 is a delightful British series that can be enjoyed as if it were a serious Monty Python-ish approach to Deleuze.
Foucault excelled in the description of how meaning and frames of social truth change over time, constituting new realities conditioned by power and knowledge.
Deleuze, on the other hand, focused on how things change. Movement. Nothing is stable. Nothing is eternal. He conceptualized flux – in a very Heraclitean way.
New species (even the new, AI-created 优步人) evolve in relation with their environment. It’s by using Deleuze that we can investigate how spaces between things create possibilities for The Shock of the New.
More than ever, we now know how everything is connected (thank you, Spinoza). The (digital) world is so complicated, connected and mysterious that this opens an infinite number of possibilities.
Already in the 1970s, Deleuze was saying the new map – the innate potentially of newness – should be called “the virtual.” The more living matter gets more complex, the more it transforms this virtual into spontaneous action and unforeseen movements.
Deleuze posed a dilemma that now confronts us all in even starker terms. The choice is between “the poet, who speaks in the name of a creative power, capable of overturning all orders and representations in order to affirm difference in the state of permanent revolution which characterizes eternal return: and that of the politician, who is above all concerned to deny that which “differs,” so as to conserve or prolong an established historical order, or to establish a historical order which already calls forth in the world the forms of its representation.”
The time calls for acting as poets instead of politicians.
The methodology may be offered by Deleuze and Guattari’s formidable A Thousand Plateaus – significantly subtitled “Capitalism and Schizophrenia,” where the drive is non-linear. We’re talking about philosophy, psychology, politics connected by ideas running at different speeds, a dizzying non-stop movement mingling lines of articulation, in different strata, directed into lines of flight, movements of deterritorialization.
The concept of “lines of flight” is essential for this new virtual landscape, because the virtual is conformed by lines of flight between differences, in a continual process of change and freedom.
All this frenzy, though, must have roots – as in the roots of a tree (of knowledge). And that brings us to Deleuze’s central metaphor; the rhizome, which is not just a root, but a mass of roots springing up in new directions.
Deleuze showed how the rhizome connects assemblies of linguistic codes, power relations, the arts – and, crucially, biology. The hyperlink is a rhizome. It used to represent a symbol of the delightful absence of order in the internet, until it became debased as Google started imposing its algorithms. Links, by definition, always should lead us to unexpected destinations.
Rhizomes are the antitheses of those Western liberal “democracy” standard traits – the parliament and the senate. By contrast, trails – as in the Ho Chi Minh trail – are rhizomes. There’s no masterplan. Multiple entryways and multiple possibilities. No beginning and no end. As Deleuze described it, “the rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoot.”
This can work out as the blueprint for a new form of political engagement –as the systemic design collapses. It does embody a methodology, an ideology, an epistemology and it’s also a metaphor. The rhizome is inherently progressive, while traditions are static. As a metaphor, the rhizome can replace our conception of history as linear and singular, offering different histories moving at different speeds. TINA (“ There is no alternative”) is dead: there are multiple alternatives.
And that brings us back to David Harvey inspired by Marx. In order to embark onto a new, emancipatory path, we first have to emancipate ourselves to see that a new imaginary is possible, alongside a new complex systems reality.
So let‘s chill – and deterritorialize. If we learn how to do it, the advent of the New Techno Man in voluntary servitude, remote-controlled by an all-powerful, all-seeing security state, won’t be a given.
Deleuze: a great writer is always like a foreigner in the language through which he expresses himself, even if it’s his native tongue. He does not mix another language with his own language; he carves out a non pre-existent foreign language within his own language. “He makes the language itself scream, stammer, murmur. A thought should shoot off rhizomatically – in many directions.
I have a cold. The virus is a rhizome.
Remember when Trump said this was a “foreign virus”?
All viruses are foreign – by definition.
But Trump, of course, never read 裸体午餐 Grandmaster William Burroughs.
Burroughs: “The word is a virus.”