What do you think?
Rate this book
Governing by Debt
Experts, pundits, and politicians agree: public debt is hindering growth and increasing unemployment. Governments must reduce debt at all cost if they want to restore confidence and get back on a path to prosperity. Maurizio Lazzarato’s diagnosis, however, is completely different: under capitalism, debt is not primarily a question of budget and economic concerns but a political relation of subjection and enslavement. Debt has become infinite and unpayable. It disciplines populations, calls for structural reforms, justifies authoritarian crackdowns, and even legitimizes the suspension of democracy in favor of “technocratic governments” beholden to the interests of capital. The 2008 economic crisis only accelerated the establishment of a “new State capitalism,” which has carried out a massive confiscation of societies’ wealth through taxes. And who benefits? Finance capital. In a calamitous return to the situation before the two world wars, the entire process of accumulation is now governed by finance, which has absorbed sectors it once ignored, like higher education, and today is often identified with life itself. Faced with the current catastrophe and the disaster to come, Lazzarato contends, we must overcome capitalist valorization and reappropriate our existence, knowledge, and technology.
In Governing by Debt, Lazzarato confronts a wide range of thinkers—from Félix Guattari and Michel Foucault to David Graeber and Carl Schmitt—and draws on examples from the United States and Europe to argue that it is time that we unite in a collective refusal of this most dire status quo.
In Governing by Debt, Lazzarato confronts a wide range of thinkers—from Félix Guattari and Michel Foucault to David Graeber and Carl Schmitt—and draws on examples from the United States and Europe to argue that it is time that we unite in a collective refusal of this most dire status quo.
278 pages, Paperback
First published January 23, 2015
15 people are currently reading
735 people want to read
About the author
Maurizio Lazzarato
47 books103 followersMaurizio Lazzarato is a sociologist and philosopher in Paris. He is the author of Governing by Debt and Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity, both published by Semiotext(e).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 1, 2015
I was looking forward to this book because, after my disappointment with Lazzarato's earlier work on debt, I thought this would be a more rigorous work. I was particularly excited because there was a chapter about re-reading Lenin's theory on imperialism that, from an autonomist perspective, I thought I would find interesting. Unfortunately, the book as a whole was neither rigorous nor interesting. The fact that some people think it is great demonstrates that rigour and concrete analysis are seen as less important than spouting off chic theorists and losing oneself in the abyss of speculative nonsense. Here are my problems:
1) On the whole, around half of this book reads like it was culled from the literature review section of a graduate student thesis. That is, large portions of it read as expositions of theorists Lazzarato likes (here's some Deleuze, here's some Guattari, here's some Foucault, here's a reactionary thinker!) rather than a development of his own thought. Yes, I've also read Deleuze and Guattari and, regardless of my thoughts about their theory, throwing out the word "deterritorialization" for everything and anything strikes me as the kind of lazy theory-sampling that defines vague, speculative thinking.
2) The re-reading Lenin section was a poor and messy reading of the literature. At one point he claims that Lenin didn't understand how the working class could be absorbed within capitalism, but later he discusses the precise point of Lenin's theory of imperialism that actually does demonstrate an understanding of how this could be the case: the theory of the labour aristocracy. Was he aware of the contradiction or did he misunderstand what Lenin's work on the labour aristocracy (i.e. the idea that broad sectors of the working class can and will be "bought off" by capitalism and integrated into the petty-bourgeoisie), and fail to read all of the later things Lenin wrote about this (as well as "economism") or was he arguing that Lenin just didn't go far enough in this regard? It's unclear. What is clear, though, is that when he claims that the Marxist-Leninist tradition did not conceptualize this problematic he proves he hasn't read that there are entire trajectories that have explored this concept.
3) The first world chauvinism is just glaring. To claim that capitalism has completely deindustrialized when industialization has in fact increased for the vast majority of the world, or to make claims about the Nazi-driven holocaust being the worst genocide in history (and thus showing no recognition of the genocide of indigenous peoples in the western hemisphere), to lazily use the term "colonization", and to make an entire claims about labor that only apply to first world workers (his entire creditor-debtor thing is a denial of third world labor), is frustrating.
4) Claims about the dematerialization of capital and deindustrialization, driven by an ignorance about the global peripheries (mentioned above) are also just not substantiated by fact. So-called dematerialization and deindustrialization in some areas requires a massive labor force, with more intensive exploitation, in the majority of the world: an increase in mining operations, along with industrial refineries, to the point that has not been seen in world history is required so as to allow for "post-industrial" technologies to actually function. This kind of reasoning reminds me of internet leftists who think that 3-D printers have changed capitalism… It's a pretty simplistic productive forces analysis.
5) The statements about refusal to work and "laziness" that conclude the book are so vague as to be downright pithy. Don't organize, don't do anything just refuse and be lazy! Insert some theoretical language to make it look like you aren't advocating a strategy of dropping out of resistance altogether (because it *is* resistance, don't you know? it's about new subjectivities!!), and the kind of solution that could only be imagined by someone whose idea of resistance is purely academic can be imagined. Precisely the kind of thing that will appeal to leftists who don't want to think through, and practice, the hard work of actual organizing.
1) On the whole, around half of this book reads like it was culled from the literature review section of a graduate student thesis. That is, large portions of it read as expositions of theorists Lazzarato likes (here's some Deleuze, here's some Guattari, here's some Foucault, here's a reactionary thinker!) rather than a development of his own thought. Yes, I've also read Deleuze and Guattari and, regardless of my thoughts about their theory, throwing out the word "deterritorialization" for everything and anything strikes me as the kind of lazy theory-sampling that defines vague, speculative thinking.
2) The re-reading Lenin section was a poor and messy reading of the literature. At one point he claims that Lenin didn't understand how the working class could be absorbed within capitalism, but later he discusses the precise point of Lenin's theory of imperialism that actually does demonstrate an understanding of how this could be the case: the theory of the labour aristocracy. Was he aware of the contradiction or did he misunderstand what Lenin's work on the labour aristocracy (i.e. the idea that broad sectors of the working class can and will be "bought off" by capitalism and integrated into the petty-bourgeoisie), and fail to read all of the later things Lenin wrote about this (as well as "economism") or was he arguing that Lenin just didn't go far enough in this regard? It's unclear. What is clear, though, is that when he claims that the Marxist-Leninist tradition did not conceptualize this problematic he proves he hasn't read that there are entire trajectories that have explored this concept.
3) The first world chauvinism is just glaring. To claim that capitalism has completely deindustrialized when industialization has in fact increased for the vast majority of the world, or to make claims about the Nazi-driven holocaust being the worst genocide in history (and thus showing no recognition of the genocide of indigenous peoples in the western hemisphere), to lazily use the term "colonization", and to make an entire claims about labor that only apply to first world workers (his entire creditor-debtor thing is a denial of third world labor), is frustrating.
4) Claims about the dematerialization of capital and deindustrialization, driven by an ignorance about the global peripheries (mentioned above) are also just not substantiated by fact. So-called dematerialization and deindustrialization in some areas requires a massive labor force, with more intensive exploitation, in the majority of the world: an increase in mining operations, along with industrial refineries, to the point that has not been seen in world history is required so as to allow for "post-industrial" technologies to actually function. This kind of reasoning reminds me of internet leftists who think that 3-D printers have changed capitalism… It's a pretty simplistic productive forces analysis.
5) The statements about refusal to work and "laziness" that conclude the book are so vague as to be downright pithy. Don't organize, don't do anything just refuse and be lazy! Insert some theoretical language to make it look like you aren't advocating a strategy of dropping out of resistance altogether (because it *is* resistance, don't you know? it's about new subjectivities!!), and the kind of solution that could only be imagined by someone whose idea of resistance is purely academic can be imagined. Precisely the kind of thing that will appeal to leftists who don't want to think through, and practice, the hard work of actual organizing.
October 10, 2018
Great read for financially illiterate Marxist hardliners to understand what they got wrong about financial capitalism.
The book’s rigorous claim is that deleuze and guattari had it right at their first go - which is brilliant. I was not very impressed with the overarching Foucault praise. I found it outright boring, but I guess it sets the scene right for the speculative speculation and I said so and it happened-ry that it takes to debunk claims of more rigorous theories on debt such as Graeber’s work.
There is a bonus chapter at the end where the author looks to Lenin to see if he had it right on the first go. It doesn’t feel like he did, kinda tedious if you ask me but I’m sure some hardliners got their hard lines on, however mazzarato’s claims are weak and contradictory so you can’t really tell if Lenin did get it right at his first go.
At the very end of the book there is a glossary section, that doubles as a prophetic gibberish that will guide us out of the clutches of capitalism. It strongly suggests that we do nothing and abstain from labor. He doesn’t necessarily specify whether we should do this while using family money, or using the vast resources offered to us by our first world home nation. But I am just being tedious because as everyone knows Europe is still the center of the world and Foucault will save us from the clutches of governmentality at his second coming.
Other than that pretty good read.
The book’s rigorous claim is that deleuze and guattari had it right at their first go - which is brilliant. I was not very impressed with the overarching Foucault praise. I found it outright boring, but I guess it sets the scene right for the speculative speculation and I said so and it happened-ry that it takes to debunk claims of more rigorous theories on debt such as Graeber’s work.
There is a bonus chapter at the end where the author looks to Lenin to see if he had it right on the first go. It doesn’t feel like he did, kinda tedious if you ask me but I’m sure some hardliners got their hard lines on, however mazzarato’s claims are weak and contradictory so you can’t really tell if Lenin did get it right at his first go.
At the very end of the book there is a glossary section, that doubles as a prophetic gibberish that will guide us out of the clutches of capitalism. It strongly suggests that we do nothing and abstain from labor. He doesn’t necessarily specify whether we should do this while using family money, or using the vast resources offered to us by our first world home nation. But I am just being tedious because as everyone knows Europe is still the center of the world and Foucault will save us from the clutches of governmentality at his second coming.
Other than that pretty good read.
June 3, 2022
The central thesis of this book is that debt has become the central mechanism to the functioning of Capitalism, but in reality the text is just all over the place.
The author quotes Deleuze and Foucault extensively, to the point it becomes a difficult read for someone who’s not familiar with their writings. He also criticizes Marx and Marxists throughout and seems at times to have a decent grasp of the theory while also strawmaning and making very superficial analyses/criticisms at other times.
And the sheer eurocentrism of universalizing the experience of deindustrialization to the whole capitalist system…
Also, I think that overall the author does a poor job of actually proving his own thesis. Instead of any proper economic analysis, it is mainly semiotic-philosophical digressions about "governmentality". The book doesn’t even discuss debt that much past the first chapter. It could have been a much more enjoyable experience if the author had just done his discussion of debt and governmentality without trying to prove it’s THE most important element of contemporary capitalism.
The author quotes Deleuze and Foucault extensively, to the point it becomes a difficult read for someone who’s not familiar with their writings. He also criticizes Marx and Marxists throughout and seems at times to have a decent grasp of the theory while also strawmaning and making very superficial analyses/criticisms at other times.
And the sheer eurocentrism of universalizing the experience of deindustrialization to the whole capitalist system…
Also, I think that overall the author does a poor job of actually proving his own thesis. Instead of any proper economic analysis, it is mainly semiotic-philosophical digressions about "governmentality". The book doesn’t even discuss debt that much past the first chapter. It could have been a much more enjoyable experience if the author had just done his discussion of debt and governmentality without trying to prove it’s THE most important element of contemporary capitalism.
November 25, 2019
why everything gotta be so confusing. I’ll tell you what I told Jeff and that’s “woof.” Just read Varoufakis and crimethinc. Some smart ideas but this could have been pared down to like 100 pages and described so much better.
August 29, 2025
This was a tough read, specifically for 2 of the chapters towards the middle of the book. Part of the difficulty is that it was originally written in French, the other being that it gets incredibly technical which makes it hard to follow at times. Overall though, very interesting concepts coming out of it and I’m glad I finished it.
July 2, 2022
3.5- a decent follow up to making of the indebted man. That book is definitely the much better of the two. ML follows his argument there and demonstrates the connection between contemporary debt policies and governance. A decent section on student debt.
December 7, 2023
If this was just the last two chapters, I would give this five stars. However, the rest of the text is sloppy, rife with contradictions (not the productive kind), and just a rehashing of older texts that are far more interesting.
November 21, 2019
Didn't get around to reading the chapter on Lenin.
December 13, 2020
Lazzarato
December 15, 2021
The overview of the governmentality that the current system implants in its subjects through debt and finance globally and the axioms that accompany it.
June 11, 2024
A thought provoking reframing of modern capitalism, and its dynamics.
December 6, 2024
a clunky analysis of debt as a new form of foucauldian governmentality. I share in the critiques that this is just a Deleuze and Guattari praise club, and that the critiques levelled by Lazzarato are relatively superficial.
June 30, 2015
The title and description of this book are a little misleading. While debt (and the guilt that comes with it) are factors here, there's a lot more going on. About half of the book is a conversation with Foucault's The Birth of Biopolitics lecture through the lens of D&G, which I found refreshing, yet slightly incomplete (in the sense that there seems to be a rather biased definition of particular words Foucault uses). The conclusion almost seemed to come out of nowhere ("the right to be lazy", etc.), and although I have some sympathy for this idea, it would have been nice for it to have been expanded upon and not rested upon "democracy".
February 28, 2016
Like a lot of European critical theorists, Lazzarato is fairly obtuse. There are really interesting ideas here, but the tendency is to get lost in the reeds. Unlike Foucault, who he cites a lot (almost as much as Deleuze and Guattari), Lazzarato doesn't provide firm examples of a lot of what he's talking about. But the overall thrust is clear enough, and that's mostly what you'll take away.
January 4, 2016
There are probably thousands of leftist works that cover the same ground as this book, but I have never seen it written so obtusely and unconnected to real life. Apparently name dropping Deleuze and Foucault is all you need to do to get published by Semiotexte these days.
October 28, 2016
If you have ever worried about your ability to repay your student loan, credit card, or mortgage debt, this book is for you. Written from a European perspective but with plenty of American examples, this book puts most of our situations with respect to the economies in a global perspective.
December 20, 2023
Too many “tions”— opaque
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews