A lire comme on lit un roman policier : comme une analyse complexe mais systématique qui vous entraîne là où vous ne voudriez pas aller. L'argumentaire met aux prises philosophes, historiens du moderne et du global, Schmitt, Bourdieu et Foucault. Il fait apparaître qu'émerge, derrière notre dos, un État-monde de classe articulé au Système-monde impérialiste. Une anti-utopie, donc. Une thèse réaliste, qui n'est pas celle d'un État mondial. Ou bien comme on lit un recueil de nouvelles liées les unes aux (...) autres : comme autant de mises en perspective du même sujet. On peut ainsi scruter chaque chapitre pour lui-même. Les uns s'adressent aux économistes, d'autres aux sociologues et aux politologues, d'autres encore aux féministes, altermondialistes, théoriciens du discours ou chercheurs du postcolonial, d'autres enfin aux historiens, juristes ou géographes. Ils prennent chaque destinataire sur son terrain "scientifique" particulier. En y impliquant chaque fois le philosophe, c'est-à-dire aussi le citoyen. Il n'y a qu'une seule idée, un seul paradigme : une théorie. Il s'agit bien sûr de transformer le monde, mais en commençant par le comprendre, là où Marx a en partie échoué. C'est donc aussi une refondation du marxisme qui est proposée. Ce livre est le quatrième d'un ensemble publié aux PUF - Que faire du Capital?, 1985, Théorie Générale du droit, de l'économie et de la politique, 1999, Explication et reconstruction du Capital, 2004 - qui a fait l'objet de traductions en une dizaine de langues étrangères. (shrink)

. In the framework of a reinterpretation of Marxism and Rawlsianism which aims at a non‐eclectic integration of both these theories, the author presents a transformation of the Rawlsian principles of justice into principles of political struggle with a view to establishing a just society. He deduces this normative development from a general theory of the modern world, proposed in his recent book.

In 1978 and 1979, the concept of governmentality was introduced by Foucault in his lectures at the Collège de France. Foucault finds the genealogical origin of this concept in the Christian figure of the shepherd. From this starting-point, he then embarks on a eulogy of liberalism, in stark contrast to the Marxist critique of political economy. These two grand narratives of modern liberalism differ markedly in their political and philosophical presuppositions. The latter, rooted in the tradition of natural law, is (...) directed towards revolution. The former, rooted in the tradition of English radicalism, is directed towards resistance. Beyond their different reconstructions of liberalism, however, the article concludes by showing how these two narratives, can in fact be combined in a politically fruitful way. (shrink)

This paper deals with modern history and the contemporary subject. Marx’s theory of modern society must be corrected and completed. The dominant class includes two social forces: the capitalists on the market and the ‘competent’ in the organisation, facing the fundamental or popular class. A ‘régime of hegemony’ is a mode of arrangement between these three forces. Under neoliberalism, when a World-State is emerging, the capitalists occupy an overwhelming position. The ‘neoliberal subject’ can be described as subjected to a universal (...) commodification. But a realistic understanding supposes to confront this subject with the contradictory plurality of this régime of hegemony. The subject is ‘interpellated’ from all sides of this social triangle, across all the scales of social life. Only in this local and universal context can the potential of the ordinary human being appear. (shrink)

Communism Between Philosophy, Prophecy and Theory. Communism opposes both Liberalism, which articulates the standpoint of capitalist property, and Socialism, taken as the model of those who incarnate « managerial competence”. So far as Marxism is concerned, it conveys the ambiguous design of a Communism understood in terms of Socialism. In this sense, Marxian discourse does entail a certain relation with « real socialism », and also with Western socialisms. The discredit which has fallen upon the latter would appear to be (...) an invitation to take up the banner of Communism or of the “Common” as an alternative to the alternative. The approaches of Badiou, Rancière and Negri are here reconsidered in the light of a « metastructural » problematic. (shrink)

Marxian Paradoxes of the Commodity He sketches a succinct interpretation of the paradoxical legacy of the Marxian legacy concerning the market. His formal distinction between market and capitalist market. His dialectical, i.e. realistic conception, of both fonctionnal and contradictory relations between market, law and State, between wage-earning and market. And the light this approach throws on the ongoing processes of commodification and on the way the fight goes on.

Class, Party, Social Movement - Class, « Race », Gender The ruling class is a hydra with two heads : “finance” and “elite”. The popular struggle for emancipation is thus not merely a confrontation between two classes. It is rather a game with three players. Itsultimate horizon is not “socialism”, a term which still carries the connotation of a “top-down” process,but “communism”. It presupposes the convergence between the apparently disparate conflicts whichare being played out in modern society. And, to begin, (...) the struggle calls for the deciphering – drawing on a concept from contemporary materialist feminism- of the “consubstiantiality” of the socialrelations of class, “race”, and gender. In such conditions, the party of emancipation is not merely aclass-based organisation. It is also, and equally, a feminist, an internationalist, and an ecological party.This party of social movement presupposes a “new ethos of party”. (shrink)

Foucault and Liberalism. Rationality, Revolution, Resistance In 1978 and 1979, the concept of governability was introduced by Foucault in his lectures at the Collège de France. The concept derives from the Christian figure of the shepherd. From this starting-point, Foucault was to embark upon a eulogy of liberalism, in contrast to the Marxist critique of political economy. However these two discourses, which both partake of the general structure of grand narrative, differ in their political and philosophical presuppositions. The latter is (...) rooted in the tradition of natural law and is directed towards revolution, while the former, rooted in the tradition of English radicalism, is directed towards resistance. These two traditions may however have much to say to one another. (shrink)

On Marx et Marxisms. In response to the questions addressed by Jacques Bidet and Bruno Tinel, Gérard Duménil, Michael Löwy and Emmanuel Renault here outline the approach they adopted in their two recently published books on Marx, and on Marxisms . The questions raised here mainly hinge on the articulation between the political, the philosophical and the economic dimension of Marx’s writings, and the way these can be mobilised within contemporary debates.