Prominent radical democrats have in recent times shown a vivid interest in the commons. Ever since the publication of Governing the Commons by Elinor Ostrom, the commons have been associated with a self-governing and self-sustaining scheme of production and burdened with the responsibility of carving out an autonomous social space independent from both the markets and the state. Since the commons prove on a small empirical scale that self-governance, far from being a utopian ideal, is and long has been a (...) lived reality, a few authors have attempted to turn them into the conceptual matrix of their own account of radical democracy. Negri and Hardt, on one hand, Laval and Dardot, on the other, have jointly coined the term ‘the common’ to suggest that the self-governance quintessential to the commons could be turned into a general democratic principle. Though this is an attractive theoretical prospect, I will contend that it fails to account for an important contradiction between the two theoretical frameworks it connects. Whereas the governance of the commons depends on harmonious cooperation between all stakeholders which in turn relies on a strong sense of belonging to a shared community, radical democracy is highly suspicious of any attempt to build a totalizing community and constantly emphasizes the decisive role of internal agonistic conflicts in maintaining a vibrant pluralism. I will further contend that the short-sightedness of radical democrats on this issue may be partially explained by the strong emphasis in the commons literature on a related but distinct conflict, that which opposes the commoners to the movement of enclosures. I will argue, however, that this conflict is not of an agonistic nature and does little to preserve the dynamism and the constant self-criticism proper to the radical democrat regime. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Radical democracy was, at its inception, a polemical alternative to the hegemony of Marxism over the political discourse of the Left. This is particularly striking in the work of two of its figureheads, Miguel Abensour and Chantal Mouffe. Whereas C. Mouffe advocates for radical democracy to break free from the rigidness and the determinacy of Marxism, M. Abensour goes back to the young Marx’s plea for a “real democracy”. It results in radical democrats locating differently the radicality of their (...) approaches. While post-Marxists emphasize the crucial and dynamic role of divisive conflicts within the political community and consequently grant the State a role as their arbitrator, “Young Marxists” emphasize a constant struggle against an abusive institutionalization of the State. As a result, they advocate for a form of political spontaneity that is complicated to reconcile with consideration of the political community’s inner conflicts. The regrouping of disparate critical works under a single label makes us shortsighted to some of its internal contradictions. (shrink)

Karl Marx had to deal with a situation that bears an uncanny resemblance to the current predicament of trade unions regarding immigrant workers. The First International faced the threat of an internal division along ethnic and national lines around the Irish question, and more specifically around the role played by Irish immigrants in England. Firstly, I will argue that Marx’s late work on Ireland, and especially his change of opinion on its tactical importance, cannot be isolated from his vigorous manoeuvring (...) within the International to prevent an internal rift over the question of immigrant workers. Secondly, I will contend that Marx’s theoretical contribution on the Irish question fails to consider that class politics are not only international in nature, but also transnational. Consequently, Marx overlooks the tactical importance of immigrant workers who could play a pivotal role in challenging exploitative and oppressive ties on the international scene. (shrink)

À ses frontières, la démocratie se heurte à un paradoxe. La liberté individuelle de mouvement s'y confronte à la volonté collective qui se juge souveraine dans ses politiques d'admission. La réconciliation entre le principe d'autodétermination et les normes universelles, opérée tant bien que mal à l'intérieur des États démocratiques, vole alors en éclats. Ce qui ne soulève pas seulement des interrogations quant à la porosité de la démocratie mais la met également face à la question de son horizon. Doit-elle se (...) satisfaire d'un repli sur une autodétermination rassurante entre semblables? Ou faudrait-il réinventer les principes démocratiques en dehors d'un cadre devenu trop étroit?"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

La démocratie souffre d'un curieux paradoxe : contrairement à l'aristocratie ou à la monarchie dont les contours institutionnels et symboliques peuvent être tracés avec clarté, la démocratie ne se fige jamais dans une quelconque forme et se maintient plutôt suspendue à sa réinvention permanente. Balibar n'est pas le premier à poser la question du manque d'ambition de la démocratie, mais le seul à refuser de dissocier la question de l'extension démocratique de celle de son intensité. Pages de début Introduction. Le (...) refus de la démocratie finie Race et nation, les angles morts du marxisme Les multiples dimensions du concept de politique Une anthropologie de la citoyenneté Conclusion. La contradiction infinieBibliographie des ouvrages principaux de Balibar Pages de fin. (shrink)