Comment – Capital hates everyone

With his agile, direct and above all provocative style, Maurizio Lazzarato did not hesitate to express his political stance and address contemporary political issues. He was a radical left-wing intellectual and therefore a staunch critic of capitalism. However, this does not prevent him from being equally harsh in condemning the errors he points out among the left. He also criticized feminism, Marxism, and poststructuralism, among others, for their inability to create truly revolutionary alternatives to capitalism.

In his books, Lazarato fearlessly discusses topics as diverse as feminism, civil war, revolution, poststructuralism, social movements, globalization, financial markets, and work under capitalism. He skillfully connects these questions to construct a coherent explanation of the world. While his multifaceted analysis may confuse the inexperienced reader, his central thesis is clear: the world is entering a phase in which capitalism takes on increasingly irreversible fascist characteristics, and revolution becomes the only option to avoid a fascist future.

The central thesis of the book is divided into three chapters: “When Capital Goes to War”, “Technological Machines and War Machines” and “Becoming a Revolutionary and a Revolutionary”. In the first two chapters, Lazzarato critiques the influential role of Foucault’s concept of “biopolitics” in shaping understandings of contemporary capitalist power dynamics. In particular, he challenges the idea that direct state violence recedes as biopolitical power advances in society.

Biopolitical forces and the capitalist “war machine”

Foucault argued that biopolitical power focuses on managing life at the population level, while relying less and less on direct violence to control people. Lazzarato agrees that modern capitalism employs biopolitical power—a subtle form of control internalized by individuals to shape their perceptions of what is possible, moral, and normal, an idea similar to Joseph Nye’s soft power concept. Lazzarato argues, however, that biopolitical power does not preclude the use of direct violence or “hard power.” Unlike Foucault, Lazarato asserts that even within biopolitical regimes such as neoliberal capitalism, direct violence remains a tool of control.

Following Lazarato, neoliberal capitalism implements an “active” form of control that seduces and convinces people that capitalism is superior to any other model. It has reached the point where capitalism is seen as the only viable system. At the same time, as Lazzarato argued, neoliberal capitalism will not hesitate to suppress or even stifle those who propose alternatives that negatively impact the interests of finance capital. At this juncture, the fascist character of contemporary neoliberalism becomes apparent, partially explaining the persistence of direct “class, racial, and sexual violence” (p. 72) against marginalized people.

Lazzarato asserts that racial and sexual violence “fits well with neoliberal governments and does not create many problems because marginalized communities participate in the same capitalist war machine” (p. 52). This capitalist “war machine” consists of the dominant and the dominated, and implies “power relations that generate norms, customs, and laws” (p. 107), as well as forms of violence that originate from state power. The concept of a “war machine” thus assumes a top-down antagonism, with capital seeking to satisfy the insatiable drive of accumulation.

Lazzarato believed that capitalist society operates like a “war machine” involving an inherent conflict between the dominant bourgeoisie and the oppressed working class. This “war machine” relies on the establishment of oppositional power relations in which norms, laws and social structures are developed to strengthen the dominance of the ruling class over the exploited masses. In order for the bourgeoisie to permanently maintain its hegemony and insatiable pursuit of capital accumulation, direct violence and repression of the working class become necessary tools, despite capitalism’s rhetoric of “soft power” temptations. The ruling class will not hesitate to openly suppress any threat to the established order that challenges its economic interests.

Regarding the political power of capital, Lazzarato believes that capital retains government authority by providing resources to governments through transnational corporations in exchange for political and economic advantages, even if these results are unfavorable to most people. As a result, whether due to corruption or practical necessity, governments have become dependent on large conglomerates to fulfill their responsibilities and tasks. In a recent example, countries are offering billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to entice companies like Amazon and Tesla to build new facilities, despite criticism that this corporate welfare undermines public services.

Lazarato’s argument is particularly relevant to countries in the Global South. As Latin American structuralist theory of international relations points out, these countries face unequal development conditions compared to countries in the Global North, which makes them accountable to multinational corporations and more developed industrialized countries. The consequences of these inequalities are worsening working conditions, escalating violence and insecurity, increasing state corruption and increasingly haphazard exercise of political power in the global South, at the expense of democracy and equality.

Revolution and the Mistakes of the Left

In Chapter 3, Lazarato argues that revolution is necessary to promote change in neoliberal capitalist society. He points out that Soviet communism mistakenly prioritized productivity over questioning established social roles and hierarchies. For example, the Soviet Union perpetuated the subordinate role of women relative to men. Lazarato believed that the historic failure of the Soviet project stemmed from its inability to appreciate the objective and subjective workings of rule. Therefore, any real transformation must take into account this subjective dimension of domination.

Moreover, Lazzarato criticized the May 1968 movement for the opposite reason: unlike the Soviet Union, the May 1968 protesters were unable to develop a revolutionary strategy aimed at objectively changing reality. However, they were able to understand the subjective situation of domination. In other words, what they seek is liberation without revolution. More specifically, they pursue “the emancipation of any minority group (gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) from the state of inferiority, exclusion, and domination to which capitalism has limited them” (p. 193), but they do not seek to overcome capital ism.

However, liberation alone does not bring about true transformation. Lazzarato illustrates this point with the example of the abolition of slavery in the United States. Lazarato believes that a similar situation exists in contemporary feminism. Although contemporary feminism has developed policies and practices that benefit women, it has failed to change the heteropatriarchal system that oppresses women. Non-revolutionary emancipations only lead to formal changes that, no matter how radical they may appear, are ultimately unable to overcome relations of domination.

Unfortunately, Lazarato does not offer solutions to these shortcomings of the left movement. His work remains a critique that fails to offer a viable alternative to capitalism. He made the same mistake as the left: failing to envision a path for political and social transformation. He acknowledges this, noting that his proposals are characteristic of revolutionary theory, not of revolutionary theory. In other words, “it represents a potential transformation of society, revealing relations of domination (…) but does not provide concrete strategic principles” (p. 195).

Overall, this book remains highly relevant for understanding the contemporary world. International relations dependency theory and Latin American structuralism support the argument that colonialism persists in new forms. Modern colonialism manifests itself through a pattern of dependence in which countries of the Global South are restricted to exporting goods, trapping them in a cycle of underdevelopment. Countries that violate the norms of global capitalism risk isolation, sanctions, subversion or intervention, as seen with the 1973 coup in Chile and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Further reading on electronic international relations