JULY 4TH MAY BE INDEPENDENCE DAY, BUT IT IS NOT THE CELEBRATION OF A REVOLUTION

SOME REAL FOUNDING FATHERS
HARPERS FERRY, 1859

In two days to the sound of explosions, to fireworks in the sky, to backyard barbecues and baseball games the USA will celebrate its victory in the War for Independence.  The question raised below is whether or not that victory was a revolutionary one.

Those who argue that our Revolution was a revolution are basically saying that it involved the creation of an entirely new nation and the adoption of democracy.  That's really about it.  

However, even to that we could say, "Well, yes and no."

The American revolution, after all didn't do much for the indigenous people who lived here, going about their business long before the white settlers from Europe showed up.  The founding of the USA can't have been much to celebrate, not that the British were much better when they ran the colonies.  The continuing genocide perpetrated on American Indians was one "glorious" gift of the Revolution. 

For Africans brought to North America as slaves, the war of Independence certainly didn't have much to offer either.  It took another war, and it has taken another century and a half of struggle by African Americans to even begin to gain basic rights granted to white Americans, and that battle against white supremacy continues.

For woman, nothing much changed.  

Still getting rid of old King George and the colonial masters was a step forward, wasn't it?  In 2009, the Progressive took up that question. 

Who actually gained from that victory over England? It’s very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it’s very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That’s one thing were not accustomed to in this country because we don’t think in class terms. We think, “Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests.

Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No, in fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England, because England had set a line—in the Proclamation of 1763—that said you couldn’t go westward into Indian territory. They didn’t do it because they loved the Indians. They didn’t want trouble. When Britain was defeated in the Revolutionary War, that line was eliminated, and now the way was open for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization.

So when you look at the American Revolution, there’s a fact that you have to take into consideration. Indians—no, they didn’t benefit.

Did blacks benefit from the American Revolution?
Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it.

What about class divisions?

Did ordinary white farmers have the same interest in the revolution as a John Hancock or Morris or Madison or Jefferson or the slaveholders or the bondholders? Not really.

It was not all the common people getting together to fight against England. They had a very hard time assembling an army. They took poor guys and promised them land. They browbeat people and, oh yes, they inspired people with the Declaration of Independence. It’s always good, if you want people to go to war, to give them a good document and have good words: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, when they wrote the Constitution, they were more concerned with property than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You should take notice of these little things.

There were class divisions. When you assess and evaluate a war, when you assess and evaluate any policy, you have to ask: Who gets what?

We were a class society from the beginning. America started off as a society of rich and poor, people with enormous grants of land and people with no land. And there were riots, there were bread riots in Boston, and riots and rebellions all over the colonies, of poor against rich, of tenants breaking into jails to release people who were in prison for nonpayment of debt. There was class conflict. We try to pretend in this country that we’re all one happy family. We’re not.

And so when you look at the American Revolution, you have to look at it in terms of class.

Do you know that there were mutinies in the American Revolutionary Army by the privates against the officers? The officers were getting fine clothes and good food and high pay and the privates had no shoes and bad clothes and they weren’t getting paid. They mutinied. Thousands of them. So many in the Pennsylvania line that George Washington got worried, so he made compromises with them. But later when there was a smaller mutiny in the New Jersey line, not with thousands but with hundreds, Washington said execute the leaders, and they were executed by fellow mutineers on the order of their officers.

The American Revolution was not a simple affair of all of us against all of them. And not everyone thought they would benefit from the Revolution.

In fact, there are those who say the American Revolution was really quite the opposite.  They say it was a counter revolution.  Herbert Calhoun in a piece at Op Ed News says, it,

...was not so much a "revolution for freedom against Great Britain, per se," as it was a shrewd and carefully calculated set of moves on the global chessboard of Real Politik, that amounted to a "Counter-Revolution" against freedom: That is to say, it was a revolution against ending freedom for its slaves and other slaves around the colonial empire....

...Against Great Britain's edict to its colonies to end slavery forthwith, brought about through a legal case made by a slave named James Somerset back in London, only the slave-holding colonies of British America flatly refused to follow through. Instead of ending slavery, our much revered and mythologized founding fathers, with the help of one Mr. Thomas Jefferson in particular, launched its own counterrevolution against slavery, and in doing so, unconscionably enshrined the american revolutionary rhetoric forever in the "false" language of "freedom," which all too painfully we have now come to know and understand today that their freedom meant a special kind of "white man only freedom." 

It is obvious, at least it should be, that the American Revolution was not really a revolution at all. I mean, shouldn't a revolution signal the end of one form of class rule, the beginning of another, or the end of one form of economic system and the beginning of another, or, at least, the end of one form of political system and the beginning of another?  The American Revolution was more of a struggle for home rule with no revolutionary aspirations, inclinations, or even theoretical advances of just who should rule at home. It was pretty much the same old same old with a different accent. There weren't really all that many changes from British colonial rule except the British were gone. The American Revolution did not produce a total upheaval of the previously existing social and institutional structures. It also did not replace the old powers of authority with a new social group or class.  Larry Peterson wrote at the Savanna Morning News of all places:

The Founding Fathers wanted to restore and assert as their own, not the “rights of man,” but the old rights of Englishmen.

They weren’t interested in making the world safe for liberty, equality, fraternity — or even democracy.

"Our" revolution was essentially about replacing one ruling structure which originated in  Great Britain with another in America.

And remember, it was here, in America first under the British,  and later without them that White  Supremacy, that White Privilege was truly given birth and expanded.  

If there ever was a really revolutionary period in our history, it commenced in 1859 with John Brown's raid, continued throughout the Civil War (with blacks fighting for their freedom and conducting a complete general strike),  and ended only after the amazing  period known as Reconstruction.  That revolution, unfortunately ended in failure.

The following is from Democracy Now.

"Counter-Revolution of 1776": 

Was U.S. Independence War 

a Conservative Revolt in Favor of Slavery?

As the United States prepares to celebrate Independence Day, we look at why July 4 is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native Americans, it may be a bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and genocide. Neither did the new republic’s promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" extend to African Americans. The colonists who declared their freedom from England did not share their newly founded liberation with the millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery. We speak with historian Gerald Horne, who argues the so-called Revolutionary War was actually a conservative effort by American colonists to protect their system of slavery. He is the author of two new books: "The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America" and "Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow." Horne is professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago with our next guest. Juan González is in New York.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, next weekend, the United States celebrates the Fourth of July, the day the American colonies declared their independence from England in 1776. While many Americans will hang flags, participate in parades and watch fireworks, Independence Day is not a cause for celebration for all. For Native Americans, it is yet another bitter reminder of colonialism, which brought fatal diseases, cultural hegemony and full-out genocide. Neither did the new republic’s promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness extend to African Americans. As our next guest notes, the white colonists who declared their freedom from the crown did not share their newly founded liberation with the millions of Africans they had captured and forced into slavery.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Gerald Horne argues that the so-called Revolutionary War was actually a counterrevolution, in part, not a progressive step forward for humanity, but a conservative effort by American colonialists to protect their system of slavery.

For more, Professor Horne joins us here in our Chicago studio. He’s the author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America and another new book, just out, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. Professor Horne teaches history and African American studies at the University of Houston.

Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. So, as we move into this Independence Day week, what should we understand about the founding of the United States?

GERALD HORNE: We should understand that July 4th, 1776, in many ways, represents a counterrevolution. That is to say that what helped to prompt July 4th, 1776, was the perception amongst European settlers on the North American mainland that London was moving rapidly towards abolition. This perception was prompted by Somerset’s case, a case decided in London in June 1772 which seemed to suggest that abolition, which not only was going to be ratified in London itself, was going to cross the Atlantic and basically sweep through the mainland, thereby jeopardizing numerous fortunes, not only based upon slavery, but the slave trade. That’s the short answer.

The longer answer would involve going back to another revolution—that is to say, the so-called Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, which, among other things, involved a step back from the monarch—for the monarch, the king, and a step forward for the rising merchant class. This led to a deregulation of the African slave trade. That is to say, the Royal African Company theretofore had been in control of the slave trade, but with the rising power of the merchant class, this slave trade was deregulated, leading to what I call free trade in Africans. That is to say, merchants then descended upon the African continent manacling and handcuffing every African in sight, with the energy of demented and crazed bees, dragging them across the Atlantic, particularly to the Caribbean and to the North American mainland. This was prompted by the fact that the profits for the slave trade were tremendous, sometimes up to 1,600 or 1,700 percent. And as you know, there are those even today who will sell their firstborn for such a profit. This, on the one hand, helped to boost the productive forces both in the Caribbean and on the mainland, but it led to numerous slave revolts, not least in the Caribbean, but also on the mainland, which helped to give the mainlanders second thoughts about London’s tentative steps towards abolition.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Gerald Horne, one of the things that struck me in your book is not only your main thesis, that this was in large part a counterrevolution, our—the United States’ war of independence, but you also link very closely the—what was going on in the Caribbean colonies of England, as well as in the United States, not only in terms of among the slaves in both areas, but also among the white population. And, in fact, you indicate that quite a few of those who ended up here in the United States fostering the American Revolution had actually been refugees from the battles between whites and slaves in the Caribbean. Could you expound on that?

GERALD HORNE: It’s well known that up until the middle part of the 18th century, London felt that the Caribbean colonies—Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua, in particular—were in some ways more valuable than the mainland colonies. The problem was that in the Caribbean colonies the Africans outnumbered the European settlers, sometimes at a rate of 20 to one, which facilitated slave revolts. There were major slave revolts in Antigua, for example, in 1709 and 1736. The Maroons—that is to say, the Africans who had escaped London’s jurisdiction in Jamaica—had challenged the crown quite sternly. This led, as your question suggests, to many European settlers in the Caribbean making the great trek to the mainland, being chased out of the Caribbean by enraged Africans. For example, I did research for this book in Newport, Rhode Island, and the main library there, to this very day, is named after Abraham Redwood, who fled Antigua after the 1736 slave revolt because many of his, quote, "Africans," unquote, were involved in the slave revolt. And he fled in fear and established the main library in Newport, to this very day, and helped to basically establish that city on the Atlantic coast. So, there is a close connection between what was transpiring in the Caribbean and what was taking place on the mainland. And historians need to recognize that even though these colonies were not necessarily a unitary project, there were close and intimate connections between and amongst them.

AMY GOODMAN: So, why this great disparity between how people in the United States talk about the creation myth of the United States, if you will—I’m not talking about indigenous people, Native American people—and this story that you have researched?

GERALD HORNE: Well, it is fair to say that the United States did provide a sanctuary for Europeans. Indeed, I think part of the, quote, "genius," unquote, of the U.S. project, if there was such a genius, was the fact that the founders in the United States basically called a formal truce, a formal ceasefire, with regard to the religious warfare that had been bedeviling Europe for many decades and centuries—that is to say, Protestant London, so-called, versus Catholic Madrid and Catholic France. What the settlers on the North American mainland did was call a formal truce with regard to religious conflict, but then they opened a new front with regard to race—that is to say, Europeans versus non-Europeans.

This, at once, broadened the base for the settler project. That is to say, they could draw upon those defined as white who had roots from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains, and indeed even to the Arab world, if you look at people like Ralph Nader and Marlo Thomas, for example, whose roots are in Lebanon but are considered to be, quote, "white," unquote. This obviously expanded the population base for the settler project. And because many rights were then accorded to these newly minted whites, it obviously helped to ensure that many of them would be beholden to the country that then emerged, the United States of America, whereas those of us who were not defined as white got the short end of the stick, if you like.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Gerald Horne, as a result of that, during the American Revolution, what was the perception or the attitude of the African slaves in the U.S. to that conflict? You also—you talk about, during the colonial times, many slaves preferred to flee to the Spanish colonies or the French colonies, rather than to stay in the American colonies of England.

GERALD HORNE: You are correct. The fact of the matter is, is that Spain had been arming Africans since the 1500s. And indeed, because Spain was arming Africans and then unleashing them on mainland colonies, particularly South Carolina, this put competitive pressure on London to act in a similar fashion. The problem there was, is that the mainland settlers had embarked on a project and a model of development that was inconsistent with arming Africans. Indeed, their project was involved in enslaving and manacling every African in sight. This deepens the schism between the colonies and the metropolis—that is to say, London—thereby helping to foment a revolt against British rule in 1776.

It’s well known that more Africans fought alongside of the Redcoats—fought alongside the Redcoats than fought with the settlers. And this is understandable, because if you think about it for more than a nanosecond, it makes little sense for slaves to fight alongside slave masters so that slave masters could then deepen the persecution of the enslaved and, indeed, as happened after 1776, bring more Africans to the mainland, bring more Africans to Cuba, bring more Africans to Brazil, for their profit.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to historian Gerald Horne. He’s author of two new books. We’re talking about The Counter-Revolution of 1776. The subtitle of that book is Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America. And his latest book, just out, is called Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. He’s professor of history and African American studies at University of Houston. When we come back, we’ll talk about that second book about Cuba. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "Slavery Days" by Burning Spear, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in Chicago. Juan González is in New York. Before we talk about the book on slavery, I want to turn to President Obama’s remarks at the White House’s Fourth of July celebration last year. This is how President Obama described what happened in 1776.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: On July 4th, 1776, a small band of patriots declared that we were a people created equal, free to think and worship and live as we please, that our destiny would not be determined for us, it would be determined by us. And it was bold, and it was brave. And it was unprecedented. It was unthinkable. At that time in human history, it was kings and princes and emperors who made decisions. But those patriots knew there was a better way of doing things, that freedom was possible, and that to achieve their freedom, they’d be willing to lay down their lives, their fortune and their honor. And so they fought a revolution. And few would have bet on their side. But for the first time of many times to come, America proved the doubters wrong. And now, 237 years later, this improbable experiment in democracy, the United States of America, stands as the greatest nation on Earth.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Obama talking about the meaning of July 4th. Gerald Horne, your book, The Counter-Revolution of 1776, is a direct rebuttal of this, as you call, creation myth. Could you talk about that?

GERALD HORNE: Well, with all due respect to President Obama, I think that he represents, in those remarks you just cited, the consensus view. That is to say that, on the one hand, there is little doubt that 1776 represented a step forward with regard to the triumph over monarchy. The problem with 1776 was that it went on to establish what I refer to as the first apartheid state. That is to say, the rights that Mr. Obama refers to were accorded to only those who were defined as white. To that degree, I argue in the book that 1776, in many ways, was analogous to Unilateral Declaration of Independence in the country then known as Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, in November 1965. UDI, Unilateral Declaration of Independence, was in many ways an attempt to forestall decolonization. 1776, in many ways, was an attempt to forestall the abolition of slavery. That attempt succeeded until the experiment crashed and burned in 1861 with the U.S. Civil War, the bloodiest conflict, to this point, the United States has ever been involved in.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, how does this story, this, what you call, counterrevolution, fit in with your latest book, Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow?

GERALD HORNE: Well, there’s a certain consistency between the two books. Keep in mind that in 1762 Britain temporarily seized Cuba from Spain. And one of the regulations that Britain imposed outraged the settlers, as I argue in both books. What happened was that Britain sought to regulate the slave trade, and the settlers on the North American mainland wanted deregulation of the slave trade, thereby bringing in more Africans. What happens is that that was one of the points of contention that lead to a detonation and a revolt against British rule in 1776.

I go on in the Cuba book to talk about how one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Cuba was because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, particularly going into the Congo River Basin and dragging Africans across the Atlantic. Likewise, I had argued in a previous book on the African slave trade to Brazil that one of the many reasons why you have so many black people in Brazil, more than any place outside of Nigeria, is, once again, because of the manic energy of U.S. slave traders and slave dealers, who go into Angola, in particular, and drag Africans across the Atlantic to Brazil.

It seems to me that it’s very difficult to reconcile the creation myth of this great leap forward for humanity when, after 1776 and the foundation of the United States of America, the United States ousts Britain from control of the African slave trade. Britain then becomes the cop on the beat trying to detain and deter U.S. slave traders and slave dealers. It seems to me that if this was a step forward for humanity, it was certainly not a step forward for Africans, who, the last time I looked, comprise a significant percentage of humanity.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Gerald Horne, so, in other words, as you’re explaining the involvement of American companies in the slave trade in Brazil and Cuba, this—that book and also your The Counter-Revolution of 1776 makes the same point that slavery was not just an issue of interest in the South to the Southern plantation owners, but that in the North, banking, insurance, merchants, shipping were all involved in the slave trade, as well.

GERALD HORNE: Well, Juan, as you well know, New York City was a citadel of the African slave trade, even after the formal abolition of the U.S. role in the African slave trade in 1808. Rhode Island was also a center for the African slave trade. Ditto for Massachusetts. Part of the unity between North and South was that it was in the North that the financing for the African slave trade took place, and it was in the South where you had the Africans deposited. That helps to undermine, to a degree, the very easy notion that the North was abolitionist and the South was pro-slavery.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Gerald Horne, what most surprised you in your research around Cuba, U.S. slavery and Jim Crow?

GERALD HORNE: Well, what most surprised me with regard to both of these projects was the restiveness, the rebelliousness of the Africans involved. It’s well known that the Africans in the Caribbean were very much involved in various extermination plots, liquidation plots, seeking to abolish, through force of arms and violence, the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, I think that historians on the North American mainland have tended to downplay the restiveness of Africans, and I think it’s done a disservice to the descendants of the population of mainland enslaved Africans. That is to say that because the restiveness of Africans in the United States has been downplayed, it leads many African Americans today to either, A, think that their ancestors were chumps—that is to say, that they fought alongside slave owners to bring more freedom to slave owners and more persecution to themselves—or, B, that they were ciphers—that is to say, they stood on the sidelines as their fate was being determined. I think that both of these books seek to disprove those very unfortunate notions.

AMY GOODMAN: So, as we move into the Independence Day weekend next weekend, what do you say to people in the United States?

GERALD HORNE: What I say to the people in the United States is that you have proved that you can be very critical of what you deem to be revolutionary processes. You have a number of scholars and intellectuals who make a good living by critiquing the Cuban Revolution of 1959, by critiquing the Russian Revolution of 1917, by critiquing the French Revolution of the 18th century, but yet we get the impression that what happened in 1776 was all upside, which is rather far-fetched, given what I’ve just laid out before you in terms of how the enslaved African population had their plight worsened by 1776, not to mention the subsequent liquidation of independent Native American polities as a result of 1776. I think that we need a more balanced presentation of the foundation of the United States of America, and I think that there’s no sooner place to begin than next week with July 4th, 2014.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Gerald Horne, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Historian Gerald Horne is author of two new books: The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of Americaas well as Race to Revolution: The U.S. and Cuba During Slavery and Jim Crow. He’s a professor of history and African American studies at the University of Houston.

STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE OFF SIDES PENALTY

OKAY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.  I AM WATCHING THE WORLD CUP TODAY AND I AM NOT DOING SCISSION.  PLEASE CARRY ON WITHOUT ME...

RADICAL DEMOCRACY WANTS TO BE THE INVENTION OF THE COMMON...

It is Theoretical Monday and today we explore The Common.  That means, of course, this has got to include Antonio Negri.  It does.  It also included Judith Revel.

I'll leave it at that since I don't know what else to say and it is almost 5PM.

The following is from Generation Online.

Inventing the CommonAntonio Negri and Judith Revel

Published 13 May 2008. Original in French from the Journal Multitudes. Translation by N. Lavey.

1. Let’s begin from a very simple assessment, since sometimes it is more reasonable to begin with the end: today we live in a world where producing has become a common act. Some of us again have in mind whole sections of Foucauldian analyses on the double pincers that industrialization imposes on the minds and bodies of men starting at the end of the 18th century: one part - the individualization, separation, desubjectification, the training (dressage) of each individual – reduced to being a productive unity in the form of the monad, with neither doors nor windows, entirely disassembled and reassembled according to the demands of yield and the maximization of profit; the other part, is the ordering of these productive monads, their massification, their constitution in undifferentiated populations, their interchangeable character, since gray everywhere makes it all gray and a broken body is as good as any other. Individualization, serialization – the blessed pincers of industrial capitalism; a marvel of a political rationality which doesn’t hesitate to split up its methods of control and management, to bite into the flesh of the individual as she begins to fashion in her image and to organize populations which she invents, to establish definitively her authority over life and while exploiting power. Thus, some will reread Discipline & Punish. Others have in mind, more simply, the rhythm of the chain, the broken links, the impression of no longer existing, of a body that transforms itself into cannon fodder for serialized production, of repetition without end, of isolation, of exhaustion. The impression of having been both swallowed by a whale – alone and in the dark – and of having been chewed up with so many others. It’s all true. All of it still exists. And yet: all that exists less and less. Since it found its voice it, Multitudes has tried to explain this change, to describe this reality – this tendency which transversed the existing and was digging in the interior the consistency suggests – to analyse the consequences. This change has affected the conditions of exploitation, the connections of power, the paradigm of work, the production of value, and all at the same time. This change has also affected the possibilities for resistance, because, paradoxically, it has reopened and increased (démultiplié) the possibilities for resistance.

2. One of the most difficult points, also one of the most controversial, is confronting all those who are today still accustomed to the old model of serial production, in the face of the factory and the history of its internal resistance, that is, believing that new means of exploiting men – more advanced, more competitive, more diffuse – can correspond to a heightened possibility for conflict and sabotage, for rebellion and for liberty. For when we say that the model of production (and thus its exploitation) has changed; we are also saying that we must stop thinking of the factory as both the template for production and proletarian conflict. When we speak of a “new capitalism” of cognitive capitalism, of immaterial work of social cooperation, of the circulation of knowledge, of collective intelligence, we are trying to describe both the new expansion of the capitalist plundering of life, its investment not only in the factory but also in the whole of society, and also in the generalization of the domain of the struggle, the transformation of the method and site of resistance, today it is the metropolis which is the site of production, which is the space of possible resistance. We claim that today capitalism can no longer be permitted to desubjectify – individualize, serialize – humanity, to knead human flesh into two headed golems (the “individual” as a productive unity, the “population” as an object of mass management). Capitalism can no longer permit it because what produces value is, from now on, the common production of subjectivities. When we say that production has become “common,” we don’t mean to deny that there are still factories, decimated bodies, and production lines [chaînes de travail]. We are affirming only that the same principle of production, its barycenter, has shifted; that creating value today, is to position subjectivities in networks and to capture, detourn and appropriate the common which they unveil and create. Capitalism today needs subjectivities, it depends on them. Paradoxically, it finds itself chained to that which undermines it: because the resistance, the affirmation of the intransitive freedom of humanity is precisely to assert the power of subjective invention, its singular multiplicity, its capacity to produce, starting from its differences, that of the common. From canon fodder, bodies and minds transform themselves into capitalism’s cannonballs. Without the common, capitalism cannot exist. With the common, the possibilities of conflict, resistance and appropriation are infinitely increased. What a beautiful paradox in an age which has finally succeeded in ridding itself of the tatters of Modernity.

3. From the standpoint of what we call the “technical composition” of work, production has become common. From the standpoint of its “political composition” it would be necessary that this common production correspond to the juridical categories and the new politics that should be capable of organizing this “common,” of describing its centralization, of outlining new institutions and their internal mechanism. However, these new categories don’t exist. They are lacking. Since we hide new demands for the common, since we continue, paradoxically, to reason in obsolete terms – as if the site of production was still the factory, as if the body was still shackled, as if one could choose only between being alone (individual, citizen, productive monad, a number detained in prison or a worker on the line, a solitary Pinocchio in the belly of the whale) – since we continue to act as if nothing had changed: we arrive at what constitutes the most pernicious of the mystifications of power. We have to slash open the belly of the whale. We have to defeat Moby Dick.

4. This mystification rests, in particular, on the quasi-permanent re-proposal of two terms which function like many delusions but they correspond equally to two ways of appropriating humanity’s common. The first resorts to the category of the “private” and the second falls back on the “public.” In the first case, property – Rousseau dixit: and the first person who says “this is mine” – makes an appropriation of the common by himself, that is to say, it is expropriated from all others. Today, private property consists in denying people their common right to that which their cooperation alone is capable of producing. The second category, in revenge, is that of the “public.” The great Rousseau, who was so rigid with private property, with good reason, made it the source of all the suffering and depravity of humans, immediately fell for it. Thus, the problem with the social contract – the question of modern democracy: since private property generates inequality, is how to invent a political system where everything, belonging to everyone, nevertheless belongs to no one? The trap slammed shut on Jean-Jacques – and on us at the same time. So here’s the public: that which belongs to everyone but to no one, which is to say, it’s that which belongs to the State. The State, which should be ours, has to invent something to pretty up its seizure of the common: we are made to believe, for example, that if it represents us and if it appropriates the rights from which we produce, it’s because this “we” that we are, is not what we produce in common, it’s not what we create and organize as common, but it is that which allows us to exist. The common, the State says, doesn’t belong to us, since we don’t really create it: the common is our earth, our fundament, it’s what we have under our feet: our nature, our identity. And if this common doesn’t truly belong to us – to be is not to have – the takeover of the common by the state isn’t labeled appropriation but (economic) management, delegation and (political) representation. QED: The implacable beauty of public pragmatism.

5. Nature and Identity are mystifications of the modern paradigm of power. In order to re-appropriate our common, above all we need to produce a drastic critique. We are nothing and we don’t want to be anything. “We”: this is neither a position nor an essence, but a “thing” made hastily to declare that it was public. Our common, is not our fundament, but our production, our invention that continually starts anew. “We”: the name of a horizon, the name of a future. The common is always in front of us, it is a process. We are this common: making, producing, participating, moving, sharing, circulating, enriching, inventing, restarting.

6. For nearly three centuries we have thought of democracy as the administration of public matters, that is, as the institutionalization of the Statist appropriation of the common. Today democracy can no longer be thought of but in radically different terms: as common management of the common. This management implies, in turn, a redefinition of cosmopolitan space and a redefinition of constituent temporality. It no longer consists in defining a form of contract that makes it so that everything, belonging to all, nevertheless belongs to no one. No: everything, being produced by everyone, belongs to everyone.

7. In the report that some of us have put forward – starting with experiences that have been developing for several years, and also with the report that these experiences, which were formerly a niche variety, are now becoming standard – we are trying to make visible the common, to recount strategies of re-appropriation of the common. Today the metropolis has become a generalized, productive fabric: it’s there that common production is given and organized, it’s there that the accumulation of the common is realized. The violent appropriation of this accumulation is still made in private or in public – what we call the “rent” of metropolitan space is from now on a major economic issue and it is on this point that strategies of control are crystallized – but here we do not want to enter into the analyses of the connection of “rent” to profit, nor into those of “productive externalities”…For the moment it suffices for us to indicate that the private appropriation is often guaranteed and legitimated by public appropriation and vice-versa.

8. Take back the common, re-conquer not only a thing but a constituent process, that is, a space in which it gives itself – that of the metropolis. Trace the diagonals in the rectilinear space of control: oppose diagonals to charts, interstices to grids, movements to positions, futures to identities, unending cultural multiplicities to simple natures, artifacts to pretensions of origin. In a beautiful book from a number of years ago, Jean Starobinski spoke of the century of lights as a time which had witnessed “the invention of liberty.” If modern democracy was the invention of liberty, radical democracy, today, wants to be the invention of the common.