English translation of the French transcript, made with AI and not yet proofread — click a paragraph to jump to it. Show the French original
From the young Marx to Hegel and positivism 0:00 The film is clear, it's about the young Karl Marx, and it ends at the moment when he's about to become Marx.
0:30 That's his preferred formation. And I'm not saying that Marx's youth isn't important, far from it, but I mean, the philosopher Marx worked on the most is Hegel, isn't it? Working on him, criticizing him, overturning him, whatever you like, but he always said there's an enormous distance between Hegel and other bourgeois philosophers, all the same. He was even a bit cruder than that. There's a slightly less well-known text in a correspondence with Engels.
1:05 He says, I've just been reading... Positivism was fashionable at that time. I'm not making detours. We're right in the middle of Marx's formation. Positivism, you know, which was founded by Auguste Comte, and which is not a stupid line of thought, far from it. Well, which is a bit reductive on many levels, especially compared to Marx's work, which develops what Marx, starting from Marx, will call a mechanistic materialism and not a dialectical materialism.
1:39 These are words we're going to agree on all this. It's not the most important thing. We've come out of the structuralist terror of the seventies. We can talk however we want about everything, as long as we agree on what those words mean. I'm going to open a second parenthesis. I'm boring you with my parentheses, but I'm doing it on purpose. Because it's important. I was asked to speak as a philosopher. That's awkward because it's the only discipline that has... The botanist has plants as his object. The zoologist has animals.
The philosopher takes words as his object 2:11 The astronomer, planets, stars. The philosopher has words. Stars, animals, plants. If a chicken comes into the room, I ask you whether it's an animal or a plant. Everyone will say it's an animal. We agree. I'm not stupid. How do we know? The chicken moves. The tree is... Well, the tree does move, but upward. It grows.
2:42 Being a philosopher is annoying because it questions words. And then coral is like the tree, it's planted, but it's classified among animals. I won't push too far because it will exasperate you. Or amuse you, it's the same thing. Well, there you go. But we mustn't waste time on it. The main thing is that we agree on the use of the word during our conversation. I'll give an example because I'll stop there on this aspect of words. Because I work in a discipline founded by a Socrates who annoyed people by asking questions in the street.
3:15 What do you call...? What do you call...? What is it? What is a star? That's an astronomer's question. What do you call a star? That's a philosopher's question. Right? What is God? The question is no longer just what is he. But we've already said that he is. The philosopher doesn't go so fast. What do you call God? Once you've told me, I'll tell you whether such a thing can exist or not. You see? And it can exist. Let me finish my parenthesis with a... since I'm on the subject of religion.
3:45 My kingdom is not of this world. That's an important quotation taken from a canonical book, the Gospel of a religion that is, after all, the religion of the West. We could say that if we're not of this world, well. As Nietzsche would say — Nietzsche is very fashionable, much more so than Marx — ah, that's really the 'afterworlds,' my kingdom is not of this world. There, Christianity refers to invisible things. It's against the real world where there are masters and slaves, there you go.
4:16 And he puts himself among the masters. The collectivists, the progressives are slave ideologies. I can't put all the blame on poor Nietzsche, who ended up very badly, but I mean, I'm mocking a bit this fashionable neo-Nietzscheanism that suits capital just fine. There you go. You know, there are winners, losers, there are masters and slaves. My kingdom is not of this world. So yes, one could say that means the essential thing isn't here, it doesn't happen in this life, it happens elsewhere.
4:46 But wait, wait. I'm looking at the words, I'm philosophizing, my kingdom is not of this world. Demonstrative pronoun there, 'this.' Me neither, my kingdom is not of this world run by capital. That moment when Christ is violent is when he drives the merchants out of the Temple, as far as I know, no? It could simply mean, we have to change worlds, but my kingdom isn't that one. You see, the whole point is that we agree. I'm not saying that's what it means, I don't want to offer yet another interpretation.
The result is nothing without its becoming: the commodity 5:16 The Gospel has been interpreted for 2000 years. But to show you the method, one has to be honest. Not give one definition and then find another. There, I'll end with that example. So, in that letter to Engels, Marx comes across the considerations of positivist philosophers who don't all have the same talent as the founder, Auguste Comte. He says, next to Hegel, it's — excuse me — five letters. There.
5:46 Now, why did I bring in Hegel? Because we were talking, you see, about Marx's youth. And I told him, yes, but here the film stops when he becomes Marx. Now, Hegel has a formula that Marx never disavowed: the result is nothing without its becoming. It will be nothing. A result is nothing. It's a void if we don't take into account all the time it took to produce that result.
6:17 That whole eternally hidden part that is stolen from us, censored from us. The commodity doesn't tell you where it came from, it's not written on it. What hell it went through! If you're interested in restoring the hidden part of the commodity. Not the showcase part, not the bling-bling part, not the part presented to us. Not marketing, but merchandising. Well, it's multiplied further. Did you see that? The point isn't to say what it is, where it came from.
6:49 The point is for you to buy it. That's the point of marketing. But its real history — I lived 34 years south of the Sahara. Among the poorest countries in the world. I'm thinking of Mali, of Niger. I saw experts arrive, in quotation marks, that's what they're called, from the World Bank, the IMF, coming to advise the leaders of those countries.
7:19 telling them, you're living beyond your means. The poorest countries in the world, the LDCs, that's what they're called, right? In Brussels, the least advanced countries. Not the developing countries, but within the developing countries, those at the bottom of the ladder, financially, economically speaking, called the LDCs. You're living beyond your means. Do us a favor and liquidate the entire public sector, privatize. We'll set up a retraining office in this country — it was created.
7:51 I saw it with my own eyes. I was even funded by you. I never earned so much money. I reassure you, I committed social suicide in the meantime, and I didn't botch it. I'm much better off now. But anyway, no, because it was funded by the European Commission, the project I worked on, that is, by your taxes. What is the European Commission? It funds things with the taxes taken from you. I work in music, don't worry. So, the experts arrive, you're living beyond your means.
8:25 You're going to liquidate the public sector in a country where one civil servant supports 300 people. A small policeman, a customs officer, someone from the post office. Do you realize how many people file through his door every day? Ah, you, with a salary, you have to give us a bit because back in the village, we're struggling. Yes, for the better. And you're going to triple the price of food staples, millet, corn, rice, etc. But if you do all that, we might lend you, with interest, a few billion in installments.
9:02 If you vote for me at the UN, against the Russians, etc. Development aid isn't meant for development. Have you ever seen one country help another become its competitor? With this kind of story. It's incredible that people believe such things. Do you realize? We squabble among ourselves, between Germans, French, English, over who's going to sell their goods, their nuclear plants, their cars. And you want Nigeria to join the dance? A country of 140 million people with a ton of oil per capita? That's all we'd need, for it to develop. We'd be in trouble.
9:33 Already with the Americans, you've seen, right? No gifts, right? And you want... No, that doesn't exist. We help them just enough to pay for their police and army so there's no coup. You have to keep them with us. So these experts arrive, say all that, then leave. There's a hunger riot behind them, you understand, if you privatize, in those countries, it's the little that's left. Right? But they've already left. They'll write their report, the World Bank, and they'll collect four grand at the end of the month.
10:10 That's not... it's current, development aid. Aid to not develop. Ah, there are countries that came out of underdevelopment and became industrial giants. I'm thinking of Japan, but precisely because it wasn't the World Bank, it was they themselves who decided. You know, it's the Meiji era, for those who've studied a bit of history, when the emperors decided. There. They're not saints, the emperors, I admit, far from it. But anyway, the development came from themselves.
10:43 Name me a single country that reached the stage of economic development with the help of another. I don't know of one, and yet I've lived in the world of development. I was born in Vietnam, I'm Corsican. So, I'm Corsican. I was born out of Corsican poverty in the colonial empire. I was born in my parents' suitcases. And, you see, I was born in Asia. And I really want to bring up these things because they're concrete. The result is nothing without its becoming.
11:13 I'm showing you the monstrosity of World Bank policy. But I'm not talking about someone you see planting a bomb, or slitting a passerby's throat, which is horrible. No. I'm talking about criminals who are quite comfortable in their own skin, and who aren't treated as criminals. They're even democrats giving lessons in democracy. Say, there was an election in Burundi, it's not clear. But by what right? It's extraordinary. And the Burundians aren't capable of... Can you imagine?
11:43 We caused 3 million deaths in Vietnam. I was born there, so I speak about it a bit more passionately. Just like that, because this country, 10,000 km from the United States, had decided to take a communist path. 3 million deaths. You'll learn. It's still extraordinary. I was running around at the time too. Now they say it's the Koreans threatening us. That's not my cup of tea. That's another problem. If Russia weren't surrounded by threats as it has never been surrounded. I'm over 70.
12:14 I lived through the Cold War. I've never seen so many war machines as now. That's why I talk about this a bit... It could go on. I'm not saying tomorrow is the apocalypse. But I've never seen so much danger of a generalized war as now. There's the most formidable armada of all time deployed from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Right? If that weren't the case, if Russia weren't threatened, and I were a Russian citizen, and there was that election, nothing guarantees I'd vote Putin. That's not my problem.
Nuclear power, progress and dominant ideology 12:44 That's the Russians' problem. My problem is the tortuous path of the commodity. I haven't forgotten it. I mentioned the IMF because of that. When a commodity like simply a kilowatt of electricity reaches us, I mentioned Niger because it's the last country I lived in. It's our greatest uranium resource. You see why I bring it up. Without Niger, no nuclear energy.
13:17 I'm not against nuclear energy. I know that shocks a lot of people, including some of you. I have the courage of my convictions. I think it's by far the cleanest energy, both ecologically and in every respect. As for the waste problem, we have a few million years to think about it. It would be naive to believe that in a few million years things will still look as they do today, given the speed at which technological problems change. I don't have blind faith in technology. I'm simply saying that when you look at the drawbacks of other energy sources, it's by far the least dangerous.
13:49 I even think that progress has always been ecological. I know that's shocking. Come on, let's agree. Charcoal was what preceded everything in our regions. It preceded even coal. If we had continued with charcoal, there wouldn't be a single tree left on Earth given the amount of energy we produce today. Fortunately, there was progress, that is, we moved from charcoal to coal. But coal is also a catastrophe in terms of pollution.
14:19 The ozone layer. So, fortunately, we moved from coal to oil. Because simply, this is scientific, it takes seven times less oil than coal to produce the same amount of energy. And fortunately we moved from oil to gas. You see how I'm getting to nuclear? That's it. For me, it's comparative. I hope we'll get to ITER. You know, ITER, near Pierrelatte, France was lucky to get it because the Americans wanted Japan to host what will be the energy source of the centuries to come.
14:50 Controlled fusion, where there's not even any radioactivity anymore and which will use hydrogen as material. So there, you know, we're not at risk of running out, because they talk to you about resource scarcity. We produce more food now for 11 billion inhabitants than we produced for fewer than 2 billion 150 years ago. I'll open a very Marxian parenthesis. Marx made fun of an English trade unionist who was against wage increases.
15:24 There were already unions like the CFDT back then. And he said it's not by making the spoons bigger that we'll get more soup. Marx said, yes, that means the soup tureen doesn't move as a global quantity. And now they tell us resources are limited. Don't you see the connection? Come on, hydrogen, 98% of the universe, including our body, is hydrogen. We're not at risk of running out of that. For ever and ever, as the books say. There. I'll close my little parenthesis again, which isn't meant to be provocative.
15:55 I seriously think we're being terrorized. One mustn't be terrorized. It's a duty, not a right. But disagreement with me, you'll find it in every newspaper. So, for now, just for tonight, allow me to bring a different note than the dominant ideology, because you're not going to pull the subversive ecologist trick on me. I listened to Macron, he's against wind turbines, he's for... No, but I listened, I'm listening.
16:25 Nuclear power, I think the dominant nuclear ideology is rather short-sighted. In another sense, no, no, no. You're not listening to the discourse of those in power. No, but don't you see what's happening beyond that. But yes, yes. No, but I'm blind, I know, I know. No, no, I see where you're going. But I'm telling you, let's set that aside, first because I'm sure others would like to speak, I'll give you the floor, but when we move to questions. Yes, yes. I haven't finished my chapter. It's developed regarding Dominique's remarks, afterward there will be less... For once I'm driving a wedge into the dominant ideology, dominant, I mean ask around you, everyone will be against me, and in agreement with you.
16:58 But you'll get the floor, no worries. Right? Everyone will agree with you that nowadays progress is a catastrophe, that we can't breathe anymore, that there's the ozone layer and warming. Everyone will agree on that, not me. So it's not you who's the subversive one here. It's not you. So maybe I'm the one who's wrong, but you, you're in the majority. Get that into your head. It's not true. But yes it is. Ask around you. Start with the room. You'll see. And the room, you know, is better than the Net for that.
17:29 The Net, they only think about that. I'll give you a precise account. On Facebook, someone posted the other day, on my association's page, someone posted a vehicle on the Seine, a very aerodynamic vehicle, experimental, that doesn't release a single atom of carbon and is completely silent, electric. Flooded with environmentalist comments. I thought you were going to say, finally, here's something that changes us from barges with fuel oil and disasters.
17:59 Ah no, that didn't bother you. Which shows that it's not the environment that interests them, it's progress that irritates them. Because with progress, there will be enough for everyone. Can you imagine if Chinese housewives got washing machines, where would we end up? We'd need 50 planets. You see, you say it before I do. I'm saying it before you, sorry. No, but we know that one. Go tell the Chinese, if you don't want to be lynched, I forbid you from having washing machines, we got ours first. You had to be there before. Now it's too late. The planet won't be able to support you having them too.
18:30 Try it. I'm against that kind of ecology. There. Now, I do care about my environment like everyone else. I don't lie down under exhaust pipes, breathing in their fumes with delight. What are these causes where everyone agrees? Nobody wants a bad environment, neither for themselves, nor for their children, nor for anyone. There. Now, I'm showing you what Marx calls the dominant ideology. There's no Marxist ideology. In the social production of their existence, I'm quoting him word for word here, the text that perhaps contains the most Marx in the fewest lines, for those who don't have time or were too lazy to read the rest, because it's a colossal lifetime of effort that went into Marx's writing.
Man produces himself: Marx and the Social Contract 19:14 In the social production of their existence, men enter into necessary, determined relations, independent of their will — he didn't wait for Freud — relations of production which correspond to a given stage of development of the productive forces. I'll stop there, because it's abstract, like everything that is extremely concrete. It's Leibniz, the great seventeenth-century philosopher, who said there is only the concrete through the abstract. We've only known the structure of the concrete world around us since we made the detour through mathematics — think about it. Whereas when people observed the stars without doing math, in the age of astrology, they understood nothing at all about the world around them.
19:48 They thought that by building towers, they'd see the stars better. Thirty-meter towers. In the social production of their existence, first thing, man produced himself, it's not natural. In the social production of their existence, men, etc. Man is a production, not something natural. And that's not Marx who was first. There was an eighteenth century that had an Age of Enlightenment before, of which he's the heir. It's Rousseau in The Social Contract.
20:18 The one they distort for you by saying he's the man of nature. Rousseau in The Social Contract. I'm not talking behind his back, I'm quoting him. Book 1, Chapter 8. 'This passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked.' With my right hand, I do the civil state, with my left hand, I do the state of nature. 'Though in this state he deprives himself...' sorry, 'it is only then, when the voice of duty replaces physical impulse and right replaces appetite, that man, who until then had considered only himself,' the individual in nature, 'finds himself forced to act on other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.'
21:06 'Though he deprives himself in this new state' — Rousseau isn't foolish — 'of several advantages he holds from nature, he gains such great ones in return... his faculties are exercised and developed' — it goes fast. Just that alone sums up the relationship between language and thought, for example. Imagine if we were doing calculations with Roman numerals, where would we be. You know, Roman numerals are empirical. One is a stick, two is two sticks, three, but from four on we get confused, so we need a letter. Can you imagine, to express large numbers, where we'd be — the way we speak determines, like a million, the way we think.'
21:41 We wouldn't have been able to think great numbers, and sometimes the life of an astronaut millions of kilometers away depends on it — it's important, these things, great numbers. If we hadn't had figures to express these numbers — it's an Arabic word, "chiffre" [figure] — which doesn't designate a quantity but the way of expressing it, language determines thought. So, I won't go back over Rousseau — these faculties are exercised and developed, these passions are ennobled — well yes, sexuality, which isn't at all at my service, it's at the service of the species, which couldn't care less about me — grasshoppers mate and die immediately afterward.
22:14 They no longer have their function for the species. Sexuality becomes love, becomes marriage. And even after a few millennia of history, we pass from polygamy to exogamous monogamy. This was studied very quickly, at a time, by the way, when the myth of Tristan and Iseult comes out, as it happens. I'm illustrating Rousseau. I don't want to interrupt this extraordinary sentence, this progression, this crescendo. He gains such great advantages by passing from the state of nature to the civil state.
22:46 Man, his faculties develop, his passions are ennobled, his whole soul rises to such a point that... And I stop the crescendo there. Because if we stop there, we say to ourselves, frankly, we were taught Rousseau very badly — we were told he was a naturalist — so he's saying here that we've hit the jackpot by passing into civil society, that it's still better than in nature. Yes, except there's a terrible sentence that follows. If the abuses of this new condition did not often degrade him below the condition he came from — how can one be below the animal?
Man, the universal, progress and the consumer society 23:25 Man ought, according to Rousseau, to constantly bless the happy moment that tore him from it forever — not to go back to the state of nature — and which turned a stupid and limited animal into an intelligent being and a man. I come back to my point: when Marx says "in the social production of their existence," one must leave the state of nature to produce what we call anthropology, otherwise we remain in zoology, which we remain in until our death for certain parts of ourselves. When I say we must eat to live, that we share with the animal world, but something else has intervened.
23:55 From the very first flaked flints, there is something else. For children born in the polished stone age will not go back to the chipped stone age. They don't start again from zero like biological heredity. There is progress. The three notions most attacked for the last 40 years, and especially since capitalism has held the monopoly on world, globalizing ideology. The cursed triangle in the dominant ideology has for its vertices man, the universal, and progress.
24:34 These are the three most attacked notions. I'll clarify what I called the dominant ideology earlier, because I was challenged on that. I'll allow myself this development. Man — look at Foucault, the master thinker of postmodernity. That's what it's called, isn't it? The philosopher of the bobos. I am a bobo socially, I mean, but I've tried to get out of it. I'll let Foucault speak, I'm not talking behind his back. Man is a recent creation and one which, fortunately, is destined to disappear soon. I'm quoting one of his most famous sentences.
25:07 I don't know — I could quote Lévi-Strauss, all the master thinkers of post-Marxism, I mean, humanism is attacked by Althusser, who was nevertheless supposed, wasn't he, to know Marx well, admitting afterward, after the murder of his wife — may the earth be light on him, as they say in Africa, or however you like — and who made his confession where he admits he had never read... well, anyway, I'm going to get worked up.
25:37 He says, she says, Marxism is not a humanism. This relentlessness against the notion of man — you see, this connects, I connect it to ecology here. I've spoken with young people who tell me: but wait, next to them, Hitler is a small-time regional tinkerer. Hitler had it in for progressives, communists, Jews, but not for the whole of humanity. There are some who say humanity is the sore of the universe. I hear that. I even read it in magazines, that man is the ulcer of nature.
26:07 It's against that kind of ecologism that I fight, once again — I will always fight to defend a healthy collective environment, one that is increasingly improved and above all rid of the flaws that capitalist greed imposes on it. So there it is, I mean, the result is nothing without its becoming. I always comment on this sentence of Hegel's. As proof of it, simply reconstructing the history of the commodities we consume.
26:40 I'm not blaming you for consuming them, I'm the first to consume them. That would be the last straw, feeling guilty about it. Here again I'll open a parenthesis. I'm tired of hearing the consumer society criticized. Personally, I think I don't consume enough. There, I'm going to be obscene relative to the dominant ideology. Because I hear this on television, people... Can you imagine what Antenne 2 presenters earn? No, does Antenne 2 still exist? I'm a bit old. Excuse me. I've traveled a lot. I don't know where I am anymore.
27:11 France 24. And who are there saying that in our consumer society, Nicolas Hulot stays in hotels with jacuzzis and uses a ton of water because I don't consume, nor do you, a hundredth of the water they consume. Anyway, that's not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is the expression — that's my philosophical side — the expression "consumer society." I have nothing against the consumer. I'm tired of being shown a report on a supermarket and being told "the consumers, how are the consumers..."
27:41 But there are workers in there. There are producers. There's a woman coming out of an exhausting day at the post office where she got insulted by a line of 200 people because half the jobs were cut and she's the one left to take the blame. Have you ever seen that at the post office? There you go. Once I got angry at the line. I said, listen, you voted for the people who cut the jobs, so don't go yelling at her, right? You see, if there is a consumer society, I have a great friend who died, Michel Clouscard, probably the greatest French thinker of prayer—
28:15 We're starting to talk about him again. More and more, they've just republished his monumental masterpiece, a kind of history of France in broad strokes, from the Middle Ages to the French Revolution, not included — the whole formation of the Old Regime, so to speak, called L'Être et le Code. Now, Clouscard says at one point, with his thick Tarn accent, if there is a consumer society, someone has to tell me where it is, I'll go there right away — it's communism realized.
28:48 Well, one shouldn't... When you consume, you consume, you have every right, you have produced more value than you consume. There are two social classes in history — there are 10,000 if we're being nuanced. But there are always two we find again. There's the class of those who consume more than they produce. The class of those who produce more than they consume. While I'm speaking to you, there are 5-year-old children in India who, for their whole lives, will make bricks. They started at age 5 to pay off their parents' debts in brickworks where life expectancy doesn't reach forty. And our own children were doing that not so long ago, at the time of the film we saw in Manchester.
29:25 We have labor inspectors' reports. I'm not painting a darker picture than it is. I'm well below the truth. There were 6-year-old children. Your 6-year-old kid working at the furnace, life expectancy 45. At the steelworks furnace of the time there were none of the safety equipment, the machines, there was no safety at all. There was nothing. My own father worked at age 12, not so long ago. That's already better, but it's not like us. There you go. It seems monstrous. Thankfully it seems monstrous. You see? The nineteenth-century factory is the biggest gulag of all time, if you look at it closely.
30:01 Those are the ones who give lectures on human rights to the whole world. So there you go. The result is nothing without its becoming. This becoming is monstrous. Restoring the history and becoming of commodities. Now, I'm here anyway trying to make Marx's words a bit more familiar to us. But it's not simple, given that they've been covered over for nearly the last 40 years. You'll find the most concrete Marx quite pleasant to read because he's less abstract and less theoretical than the first section of Capital, which discourages a lot of people.
30:37 I don't discourage you from reading it. But anyway, we can go straight to a chapter called "Primitive Accumulation." There, you won't believe your eyes and ears. I don't know if you know what the Dutch were doing in Indonesia, but it's unbelievable. I have nothing against the Dutch. Quite the opposite, as a reader of Hegel, I have great admiration for that small people who freed themselves, who drove out the Spanish and conquered the land on which they work, from the sea and the waters. No, no, I'm talking about rapacious Dutch capitalism, like everywhere else.
31:09 At the time, there was a period when they were even a match for the English, with Admiral Ruyter, and the Dutch were, for a short period, masters of the seas. But you have to see the history of the Dutch prisons with the slaves. I don't want to go into detail because I don't like voyeurism. It's unbearable. I say this because there are some who say "Yes, Marx always talks about what's negative in life. He never talks about the pleasant Sundays of life." He has barely lifted a corner of the veil. There are some who already get heartburn from that.
Producing and abusing the civil state 31:39 For whom it ruins their Sunday nap all the same. There you go. So I come back. In the social production of their existence, man is a production. I'm not doing some outrageous materialist reduction. On the contrary, I am spiritualizing man. Well, I don't know, that's Marx — by insisting on the letter of what he says. Because in "produire" [to produce], there's "pro." I'm being a philologist again. I'm a philosopher, sorry.
32:09 There's also "ducere." Yes, and it comes from Latin and means toward a goal, in a direction. Procession, you know, progress, etc. It means there's an orientation, that it's not random, in every direction. What am I saying? I'm saying that not every making is a production. What a bee does is admirable. It is not a production. I'm alluding to a famous sentence of Marx's that immediately distinguishes the clumsiest architect from the most skillful bee.
32:39 It's that the architect has his house in his head before realizing it in reality. What we call thought. There's first a plan in the head. We don't live on a house plan. We don't live inside a house plan. Fortunately there have to be workers to go from the architect to... the masons, in this case, often Portuguese and Italian, wonderful French masons too — just look at our cathedrals — into reality, of course. But anyway, I mean, for it to be a production, there has to be a program.
33:10 You see, I find "pro" again. A goal. Only an animal that knows it will die can have a goal. Here I make a deep link between Marx and Hegel. I'm not talking about death and trembling in the voice. It's an old problem that man overcame as soon as he began making tools. Well, that he overcame — he didn't remain paralyzed by the anguish of death. He progressed by making his own world for himself, since this world is not made for him, he made himself another one.
33:43 That's it, the world we live in, the world of anthropology. I come back to Rousseau's sentence. I seem to have a somewhat labyrinthine path, but it's because I stay at the center that I make detours. When Rousseau makes this troubling passage, after this beautiful crescendo where we're told that we gained everything by passing from the state of nature to the civil state, his whole soul rises to such a point that, if the abuses of this new condition did not often degrade him below the one he came from, he ought, in the conditional, to constantly bless the happy moment that tore him from it forever and which, from a stupid and limited animal, made him an intelligent being and a man.
34:23 End of quote. I want to restore the letter of his words to analyze them. What does it mean to abuse the civil state? You speak French like I do. What do you call "abuser"? To abuse a person, to rape them for example, that's one meaning. It's a violence. To abuse someone financially is to deceive them, to swindle them. To rip them off, we'd say now, I'm out of touch with slang. To abuse drink is to take too much of it.
34:54 These aren't the same meanings. Rousseau doesn't specify because he takes them all. And I take mainly the sense of deceiving. To abuse, to deceive. He deceived me, he tricked me. Where is the deception that allows something to arise in the civil state that is more monstrous than the worst thing in the state of nature? In nature, there's no malice involved. I once saw in Africa wild dogs chasing an antelope giving birth, fleeing across the savanna with her young — you could see she was giving birth — and the hyena devouring the young one, excuse me.
35:30 We can't say the hyena is mean; she has young to feed too. I'm not moralizing about the animal. There's no good and evil in nature. There's no evil because there's no good. We do what we can, because we must. There. Bravo. The first... Bravo, Hervé. But what you just said is much more rigorous than one thinks. Because the first 50 pages of The Social Contract are an analysis by Rousseau of the principle of the right of the strongest. Which is now being restored to us. Whether by the company — ah well yes, you're a loser, you're not the strongest, too bad for you—
36:06 Or through ideology at the astronomical level, isn't it? I come back to Foucault, Onfray, you know, Nietzsche, the overman. Well yes, Nietzsche says everything democratic — there, it's all spells, incantations made by the weak that we are, the inferiors, so to speak, to impress the superior people, who are a minority. Pardon? The "front of the rope," the mountaineering elite. Front-runners, exactly, that's right. So you see, this comes back, this business of... Now, precisely, Hervé, you raised a hare, I won't let it go.
36:41 What's the first concept learned in physics? Why am I moving to physics? We're not in the natural sciences, I'm in Marx, we're in the human sciences, history. No — the first concept is simply force. What is a force? You all agree, you've all done the first physics class — force, then force over distance is work, force times distance equals power, everything is based on force. Because physics — an object, "phusis" — it's Greek, it means nature. What reigns in nature is force. If the moon revolves around the Earth, it's because the Earth's mass is greater — that's Newton.
37:14 It has no choice. It doesn't say to itself, I'm tired of going around the Earth, I'll go take a turn around Saturn for a change of scenery. No. There is no freedom. Marx and Engels said we had to move from the empire of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. The words are carefully chosen — from the empire (imperialism) of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. That's why I hold onto your word. Yes, the fact that there is a relation of force, which isn't in itself abnormal in nature — I showed that with the hyena — but once we've passed into the civil state, restoring the law of the strongest is what Rousseau calls abusing the civil state: making us believe we're in the civil state when we've actually restored the state of nature.
38:00 That's what's monstrous. What I'm saying goes far, because it's very topical. Everyone is against the state. The anarchists, the MEDEF [French business federation]. I'm a bit masochistic, I listen to BFM Business. Not BFM, no, BFM Business. It's the radio for winners, traders, well, those who think they've made it. There are kids who dream too. Startuppers. Fine.
38:30 They were being told, go for it, go for it, in the race. There's an enemy who's going to arrive with a million, I'd tell them he'll crush the others. You can see it clearly. Just look at Google's or Amazon's revenues. Fine. I listen. They're all against the state. On BFM Business. Ah, they're fed up with regulations, laws, all that stuff. Why should I have to put showers in my factory, extra costs? But this resonates, echoes with those who call themselves on the far left too, often.
39:01 The libertarians. You see? The freedom of the fox in the henhouse, or the wolf in the sheepfold, whichever you like, I'll say. You see? That's force. One must be wary. Reintroducing the relation of force when we're supposed to be in a state of law, the social contract. You see? There's a music in these words that either rings true or doesn't. You see? Right now I'm putting into harmony the concepts Marx borrows from Rousseau.
Social determinism, totality and property 39:31 In the social production of their existence — I continue now — men enter into determined, necessary relations, independent of their will. So, I'm told, here's what I reproach Marx for: determinism, determinism and freedom. So I'm not surprised it drifts into totalitarianism. That's what totalitarianism is: the crushing of poor individuals by wretched society. Of the part by the whole. Have you seen that? I've seen, in Nazi Germany, one race claiming to be superior to all humanity — that is, a part crushing the whole.
40:05 I've sometimes seen single parties claim to speak in the name of society abusively. I have never seen the whole dominate the individual. That would be good, because in the whole there is you, there is me. By definition, when we say "we're all here," it means no one is missing. If totality were in power, that would be democracy realized. What do they have against totality? It's strange. You see how things get inverted? By diverting our legitimate horror of the regimes that this designates in history — against what?
40:36 Against you and me, against society, which is supposedly oppressing the poor individual — who is the boss. I have every right to do what I want, after all. No. There. Until now, it was no; with Macron, you never know. There. I don't want to overwhelm poor Macron, who was a puppet, but not of the employers' federation. But the path was well, well marked out before him, wasn't it? The whole sequence running from Giscard through Mitterrand to Pompidou. The sequence of continuous privatization.
41:09 Privatization. I'll pick up on that word. You go out in autumn, you have magnificent forests. I look for mushrooms, I come to a wall: "mushroom-picking forbidden, private property." Nothing doing! I can look elsewhere, but not there. That means I'm deprived of it. Ah yes. I'm not against it. In the film, Marx tells off Proudhon, doesn't he, for wanting to abolish all property. What, is he going to take my wife and my toothbrush too?
41:39 No, you know that Marx is for the collective ownership of the great means of production and exchange. No, because there are some who make you believe he's going to take your toothbrush and your wife. Well yes. I remember when I was in the Drôme, I was starting to be an activist, there were posters showing a black vulture swooping down on a small countryside village, marked "the communists are going to take your land." Ah yes. Did you see it? Yes. Yes, but the land, it's gone. But the communists were never in power.
42:09 The peasants, the poor ones fled — debts and all that — they left. They abandoned the countryside. It wasn't the vulture that chased them out. Well, there you go. I insist a lot on these aspects, these ways of speaking that so easily trap us. So, a determined, necessary relation, independent of their will. Yes, it's a determined relation, but wait.
What men have made, they can unmake 42:41 But you're telling us nonsense. You're pulling the wool over our eyes. You're saying the moon is in the empire of necessity because it revolves around the Earth. That's nature. That's exactly what I said. Newton's law, Y equals F of X. That's nature. It functions by, it's determined by. It's all the same, all that, depends on them. And now you're telling us Marx says we're the same. Ah no, no, no. And here I'll go back to Rousseau. You see, the Enlightenment thinkers worked hard on this. If there are slaves by nature, says Rousseau, it's because there were first slaves against nature.
43:20 Force made the first slaves, their cowardice perpetuated them. It's magnificent. From The Social Contract. These are clear, solemn sentences. It's true that there are natures. He criticizes Aristotle, who had said there are men born to command, men born to obey. There are servile natures. Rousseau says yes, he was right, but he mistook the effect for the cause. Men lose everything in their chains, third quotation, on the same theme, even the desire to escape them, says Rousseau. Here again, one must restore the history.
43:51 So it's not the same determinism as the one that's in being, in nature, where we can do nothing about it. I told you, you have to eat to live, and even in 10 million years, that will still be true. Whatever technological means we invent afterwards to feed ourselves. You will always have to eat to live. That's a law of nature, which we share with animals and plants. A law of life. On the other hand, I want to tell you this with a quotation from Rousseau, because it's so beautiful. In Emile, he lectures his pupil's mother.
44:24 You know, he deliberately chose a mother who belongs to the aristocracy. He tells her: you trust the present order, madam, you trust the present social order without imagining that this order is subject to inevitable revolutions, and it's impossible for you to foresee or prevent the one that may concern your children. Rousseau writes in 1765, if ever anyone was a prophet. The great man becomes small, the monarch becomes a subject, the rich man becomes poor. There were émigrés at the time of the Revolution who ended up living in England, in the middle of it.
44:55 Are the blows of fate so rare that you can count on being exempt from them? What will become, destitute of everything, of that pompous fool whom you will have raised only for grandeur? What will become, in misery, of that satrap who does not know how to make use of himself and who places his whole being in what is foreign to him? Here is the first definition of a fundamental Marxist concept, that of alienation. The foreigner, that's alius — you see, 'the other' in Latin. Admire as much as you like that defeated king who wants to bury himself in fury under the ruins of his throne, I despise him.
45:28 I see that he is a king only through his crown, and that he is nothing without it. But he who loses it and does without it is then above it. From the rank of king — which a coward, a wicked man, a fool can fill just as well as anyone else — he rises to the state of man. From the rank of king he rises to the state of man, which so few men know how to fulfill. That's where you see that for Rousseau, man is not a finished thing. I am in the process of saying that this determinism — and he adds, this is the key sentence — everything that men have made, men can destroy.
46:00 There is no ineffaceable character except what nature imprints. And nature makes neither the rich man nor the great lord. This determinism, don't tell me it's like the moon orbiting the earth. It's not contradictory with our freedom. On the contrary, it gives us the means to conquer it. When I think of the difference with the poor lady — I just say 'the lady' because I've often heard concierges say this, I have nothing against concierges, but it's a phrase you hear. A somewhat caricatured concierge. A concierge a bit out of the commedia dell'arte.
46:30 You know there are people who tell you, 'You know, my dear sir, there will always be rich and poor, whatever we do.' They'd heard that somewhere. I don't know which concierges say such things, but I understand it: 'Ah, poor lady, she's so discouraged, she's seen so much.' You see, there will always be rich and poor. It's in the interest of those in power to make people believe it's as inevitable as a natural law. You see where I'm going with this? That it's like the moon orbiting the Earth. And that we need bosses to give people work. Yes, yes — no, no. Wait, the director of a nationalized company, however much of a civil servant he is, is a boss.
47:03 That's what people mean. There you go. And then there are small business owners I've fought for, because they were fighting for their employees' jobs. I mean, I'm not against bosses as such. That's not the point. What I'm against is the boss who devours all the other bosses and all the workers at the same time. I mean, there are such people. Those are the ones who dominate the world. And they have no nationality. There are such people in China as much as in France or the United States. I'm not being sectarian in saying that. So, I'm getting at — it's good news, after all, it's what the gospel means, in the end.
47:37 it's that our determinism — the one we ourselves have created, as human beings — everything that men have made, men can destroy, men can undo, says Rousseau. That's good news. So the most important thing is: what, in everyday life, depends on us, and what doesn't, what is inescapable, what is a natural determinism against which I can do nothing? You realize we're barely stammering our way toward an answer to that question. There are thousands of things we believed to be 'in the order of things,' as the French expression goes, and which we can see very well are not in the order of things at all.
Social classes: struggle and abolition 48:12 Take Racine, our tragic poet: in his preface to Phèdre, he says he departed from the tradition according to which it is Phèdre who slanders her stepson. Because, he says, I thought that slander was too horrible a thing to put in the mouth of a princess who, given her rank, could not stoop to something so base. 'Her rank' meant social class at the time, a commoner's rank. It's extraordinary. That meant that at the time, depending on your birth, you could slander someone. It's extraordinary, isn't it?
48:42 There you go. So that's why I've taken these long detours, in order to grasp the richness of Marx's thinking when he speaks of social class. Because there are people who say, 'Ah, Marxism, that's one of its rare flaws.' It's that people get the impression Marx is for class struggle. No, he is for the abolition of social classes. How could there be class struggle where there are no longer any classes? Let's think about it.
49:12 A class — take the strikes of '36: the workers were defending themselves against an attack. They weren't the aggressors. Against an attack on their dignity, their wages, their standard of living, their children's labor. There you go. 'May my children not be like me.' That's not aggression, it's the opposite. They fought for humanity, if you look closely. There you go. So we had to move on — I come back again to this text. I quote this text to return to the notion of ideology, because I used the notion of dominant ideology earlier.
Productive forces, relations of production, mode of production 49:44 I wouldn't want it to remain just a slogan or an insult. That's not my style. I want it to be precise, so that it can be turned against me too, in discussion. But we're getting there. Necessary relations, independent of their will, relations of production which correspond — there you go, Y equals F of X — to a determinate degree of development of the productive forces. To go very quickly, here's another quotation from Marx: the hand-mill gives you feudalism, the Middle Ages; the steam-mill gives you the bourgeoisie and the industrial world. Roughly speaking, the productive forces determine certain relations of production.
50:17 Now, when you combine — I'm going to be a bit abstract again, but I alternate the two, because if we stay purely abstract it tires the mind, and if we stay purely concrete we lose our bearings. So I try to alternate. When we combine the productive forces — roughly, everything that allows us to produce the means of production, from the chipped stone to the particle accelerator — well, yes. When we combine them with the relations of production, which are relations of property, says Marx — you have a plow as the only means of production in some small lost village in the countryside.
50:54 That doesn't give you the same society at all depending on whether that plow belongs to a single lord who taxes everyone who wants to use it — the lord of the manor, for instance — or whether it belongs to a cooperative, for example. That's what relations of production are. Relations of property. If we combine the productive forces and the relations of production, we finally obtain a historical unity, an epoch, as we say in everyday language, which Marx calls the mode of production. There you go. I don't want to be more abstract than that. Productive force, relation of production, mode of production. You have all of that in this text. By the way, let me give the reference, since I said this is the maximum amount of Marxism in the minimum number of pages.
51:27 So one can criticize Marx. I told you earlier, as a philosopher, that's the least I would be. I'm actually all in favor of contradiction, especially when one is a philosopher who claims allegiance to dialectics. This is the preface, or foreword, depending on the translation, to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. That's the full title. A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy — that was the original title of Capital. So this is the definitive Marx. That's important. And this is the preface of 1859. Whenever you're in doubt, put that into Google and you'll immediately get three absolutely essential pages.
51:59 Let me continue. I've just summarized, in fact, what more or less any moderately cultured person knows in general about Marx. There is, down below — infra, infrastructure, right? Infra in Greek means 'below.' The material world is above, supra — the superstructures, everything, to simplify, that is in our heads. Whether feelings, ideas, religions, and so on. For Marx, what is below determines what is above.
52:29 I've just summarized false Marxism. You see? Ah yes, I'm surprising you. If we stop the text there, we only have half of Marx. So, not false in the sense of inaccurate, but false in the sense that if you ask me who Mozart was and I answer 'an Austrian' — that's not false, it's not inaccurate, but well, Hitler was Austrian too. I haven't really told you much. It's false the way, you know, when they say justice must go deep, truth requires telling the whole truth. If you tell only part of it, you're telling a falsehood. I'm pointing out that this first part acts as though there were no history.
53:02 But Marx inaugurates the science of history. We're stuck in eternity, with material things below and thinking people above. Next line: 'at a certain stage of their development' — now we enter dynamics, into time, you see, no longer into space, below/above. The material productive forces come into conflict with the relations of production within which they had developed up to that point. I said earlier: the hand-mill gives feudalism, the steam-mill gives the bourgeoisie.
53:37 Yes, but we don't pass from feudalism to the bourgeoisie on December 31st, 1789, at midnight, embracing each other, saying, 'Well, here, take the keys, we've lost, your turn now.' That's not how it happens. Heads had to be cut off; all the armies of Europe had to be defeated — NATO, sorry, it wasn't called that yet. It wasn't even called the Holy Alliance yet. It was called the émigrés, who allied themselves with the great powers of Europe to put an end to that appalling thing, the Revolution.
African parenthesis: imposed wars 54:08 Let me open a parenthesis and go back to Africa. Every time a country has won its independence and chosen an option somewhat different from NATO, from the 'free world,' whatever you want to call it — we'd need to agree whether it designates the same countries. Ethiopia, the Congo, ex-Belgian, I don't know, it's changed... No, I'm talking about Africa for now only. Burkina. Yes, sorry, I meant Vietnam. Yes, Burkina, thank you. Since I nearly published the Memoirs of the late Sankara, I might as well mention it.
54:41 They immediately slap it with an aggression, a war. If you see the state poor Mali is in — one of the least developed countries, honestly, it's terrible, socially. I say this, and don't think I'm here to make you cry, because I wish I could be a quarter as happy as they are. They have real merit in being happy. I mean, they don't flaunt their misery, they're not going around... But in figures, it's terrible. And you see them crossing the Mediterranean three, four times, drowning, coming back — that means things aren't going well back home.
55:15 Now imagine what Mali would be like if, on top of everything, it had a war. I'm already forgetting we gave it one, with Hollande. Yes, but wait, wait. Ethiopia — they hit it with three wars. It was one of the poorest countries. You remember, families — people used to say 'the little Ethiopians,' it had become emblematic of famine. Three wars: one from the north, Eritrea, an Islamist country as it happens. Ethiopia, one of the rare countries that is Christian, not through colonization but from time immemorial.
55:48 The former emperor of Ethiopia was called the Negus, King of Kings, Lion of the Tribe of Judah, descendant of Prester John — try matching that. Those are titles. From Eritrea; from the south, from Somalia, which was pro-American at the time, also Islamist, you see; and from the east, in the Ogaden — three wars against that poor country. How could you expect... I'll say it: the best are the ones who leave their skin in these things. At Stalingrad, it wasn't the shirkers who came out of the trench or stood at the window to shoot.
56:22 It's a general law — it's awful what I'm saying, but that's how it is: it's the best who lose their lives. Think of Russia. After what Nazi barbarism did there, and after what the Stalinist purges did there, what's left? What can be done, gets done, as best it can. Despite that, we buy up all of Cuba's sugar production because they need help, and so on. In the end, we get down on one knee. There, I'm making this rather dark parenthesis, but I mean, wars and violence matter.
When relations of production become fetters 56:55 I ran a seminar all last year called 'Between Crisis and War, Can We Still Philosophize?' As long as we're between crisis and war we still can; once it's war, we no longer philosophize, there are only two camps left. There's no need for... there's no longer a third way out. So you see, if on top of that you slap a war onto countries like these, there's nothing left. So, going back — when Marx says that at a certain level of development, the productive forces come into contradiction with the relations of production.
57:29 And here comes that crucial sentence about form... The sentence is a bit complicated because it's phrased backward: from being forms of expression, so to speak, of these relations, they turn into their fetters. Up to that point, the relations of production had been the expression of the productive forces. The hand-mill gives feudalism, the steam-mill gives the bourgeoisie. But when this distortion occurs — that is, when new productive forces appear, technical progress, but the relations of production remain in place — you still have the feudal lord...
57:59 ...taxing us the moment we cross the Marne, for instance, back in the day, there were tollgates everywhere. And they taxed and taxed, which is why the bourgeoisie was revolutionary: its goods, once they reached the end of the line, were unsellable given all the taxes along the way. It had every interest in abolishing all that, and it did well to do so. Marx pays tribute to it in a passage... The greatest tribute ever paid to the rising bourgeoisie is in the opening pages of the Communist Manifesto, if you look closely.
58:29 So there is a distortion, you see. That's why I said there's a first part which is, so to speak, mad Marx, a bit abstract. And then it becomes concrete. It's never like that — it's never mechanically the economic factor producing the fact that, say, 'oh, I like this shirt.' It's not that simple. 'I prefer purple or green ones.' It's not the reverse either. It's not that simple. There are always distortions.
58:59 and these distortions come from the fact that the pace at which productive forces develop is much faster than that of mentalities. Everyone knows this. You know it well. So: from being forms of these relations of production that they had been for the productive forces, these relations of production become fetters. Comma. Then an era of social revolution opens. That's what we're living through. Revolution can take a thousand forms; sometimes it's silent. So while I...
59:31 Well, in the last 20 years, how many hundreds of millions of Chinese have moved from age-old poverty into — not paradise — into little workshops where they slave away like mad. But under conditions that neither you nor I, thankfully, would accept. But it is progress. There are silent revolutions. They're no longer trampling human manure with their feet all year round just to eat. Just to eat. Only to eat. Now they can buy a moped, soon a car.
The current distortion and the means of freeing oneself 1:00:03 These are silent revolutions. I'm not even talking about the revolutions you already know about, in medicine, in... So the development of productive forces is much faster than that of mentalities. But in the end, what am I saying through Marx? And here I come back to current events: given the level of development of today's fantastic productive forces, these criminals are going to keep managing them with relations of production that appeared in the 19th century. Isn't that so?
1:00:33 With — you've seen it — pulleys and belts, that was the industrial revolution, right, and five-year-old kids losing their lives in it. Yet we're still stuck in these capitalist relations of production, with private ownership of the great means of production and exchange. It's monstrous, the distortion involved. The elastic band is going to snap. I'm not necessarily optimistic — it could snap into a revolution. You know, there have been revolutions. The Nazis talked about the 'national revolution.' They talked about a 'new order.' Don't confuse conservatives with something worse — reactionaries.
1:01:06 That is, those who were afraid and who became mean. You know, those who fled to England after the French Revolution and came back at the Restoration — people said of them, they're terrible because they've learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They still haven't understood what happened, but they haven't forgotten that they were afraid. They became mean. There you go. I'll stop here for now, because I've come back to current events, which is what I wanted. That's the essential thing for understanding Marx: today, the level of the productive forces is such that it will make problems we're currently struggling with seem laughable to our children.
1:01:42 Let me give one last example before I hand things over to you. There were English accountants who calculated, in 1840, that soon it would be impossible to move around London because there would be so many horses and horse-drawn carriages that the height of the manure in the streets would reach 30 meters. You see? We think we're anticipating the future. We're stuck in the determinations of the present. We need to free ourselves from all that. We have the means to do so. I mentioned earlier ITER, which is working on controlled fusion with hydrogen. I mean, thankfully, in the coming century, energy itself won't be a matter of cost.
1:02:17 For example. It's like René Dumont, who said that tons of food were being wasted. It's been more than 30 years since he said that. Yes, but when it's wasted — yes, when there was the crisis of the 1930s, there's an economist who proves you right. There's an economist who spoke of 'the absurd spectacle of crowds starving to death in front of overflowing granaries.' Coffee was thrown into locomotive furnaces to keep prices from falling. Milk was poured down the gutters while children — you've all seen it, like in The Grapes of Wrath, as everyone knows.
1:02:47 The poverty was terrible. So let's not say we were producing too much, because I do hear that — 'but we're producing too much.' Not for me, I find I don't have enough. I live in one of the five richest countries in the world. Me, when I go into a supermarket, I don't know about you, but I don't just grab the most expensive product without looking at the price. No, so we're not really consumers. We don't wallow in consumption. Madam, you don't wallow in consumption. I wish I could. I hope you do. We're not there yet. There, I'll stop talking. Thank you all.