Constituent Powers Of Futurities. Some Ghostly Remarks on Negri’s Concept of Democracy

Any radicalism is structurally enforced to be a compulsive repetition of the denial of what is to come, of future, and the very futurity. It relates never to the dangerous perhaps of Nietzsche, but only to the banal ontology of the ‘to be or not to be’ of the maybe, what is possible, what may or may not come into being, both axes under the sway of the calculus machine. It refuses the event and futurity, and the virtual. The rear and its shitting shall rule. Radicalism sees history as something lost, as nostalgia and sentimentality, as something that has to be found founded anew in a re-foundation, as something that has to be re-established, with all means; it has no effective concept of historicity. In radicalism, history is what reducibly relates to the unfolding of the root, what a root lets bloom, a paradoxical epokhē of the root, where phenomenality in general is exclusively ascribed to what is inside, immanent and “spontaneously” given to, the root, a dangerous and heroic Odyssey in search of the one right root and setting this root right, deafening the rowers, binding the captain, only keeping the steady course. Where are Marx, Spinoza, and Negri on this “conradix”?