What do you think?
Rate this book
Depois do futuro
O autor repassa as vanguardas do século XX para mostrar como o futuro, até os anos 1970, era visto com esperança e confiança. O progresso como uma linha evolutiva para um mundo melhor, com mais conhecimento e tecnologia, se mostrou uma fantasia. Em vez de promissor e brilhante, o porvir que aguarda as novas gerações nascidas em berço digital, precarizadas e altamente conectadas, é incerto e amedrontador. Articulando referências culturais de arte, cinema e literatura e pensamento crítico, o filósofo e ativista italiano Franco "Bifo" Berardi, veterano do Maio de 1968, passa pelo Manifesto Futurista, pelo movimento punk do anos 1970 e pela revolução digital dos anos 1990 para concluir algo sobre o presente: somos incapazes de conceber o que ainda está por vir.
203 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2011
59 people are currently reading
2000 people want to read
About the author
Franco "Bifo" Berardi
128 books461 followersFranco "Bifo" Berardi (born 2 November 1948 in Bologna, Italy) is an Italian Marxist theorist and activist in the autonomist tradition, whose work mainly focuses on the role of the media and information technology within post-industrial capitalism. Berardi has written over two dozen published books, as well as a more extensive number of essays and speeches.
Unlike orthodox Marxists, Berardi's autonomist theories draw on psychoanalysis, schizoanalysis and communication theory to show how subjectivity and desire are bound up with the functioning of the capitalism system, rather than portraying events such as the financial crisis of 2008 merely as an example of the inherently contradictory logic of capitalist accumulation. Thus, he argues against privileging labour in critique and says that "the solution to the economic difficulty of the situation cannot be solved with economic means: the solution is not economic." Human emotions and embodied communication becomes increasingly central to the production and consumption patterns that sustain capital flows in post-industrial society, and as such Berardi uses the concepts of "cognitariat" and "info labour" to analyze this psycho-social process. Among Berardi's other concerns are cultural representations and expectations about the future — from proto-Fascist Futurism to post-modern cyberpunk (1993). This represents a greater concern with ideas and cultural expectations than the determinist-materialist expression of a Marxism which is often confined to purely economic or systemic analysis.
(via Wikipedia)
Unlike orthodox Marxists, Berardi's autonomist theories draw on psychoanalysis, schizoanalysis and communication theory to show how subjectivity and desire are bound up with the functioning of the capitalism system, rather than portraying events such as the financial crisis of 2008 merely as an example of the inherently contradictory logic of capitalist accumulation. Thus, he argues against privileging labour in critique and says that "the solution to the economic difficulty of the situation cannot be solved with economic means: the solution is not economic." Human emotions and embodied communication becomes increasingly central to the production and consumption patterns that sustain capital flows in post-industrial society, and as such Berardi uses the concepts of "cognitariat" and "info labour" to analyze this psycho-social process. Among Berardi's other concerns are cultural representations and expectations about the future — from proto-Fascist Futurism to post-modern cyberpunk (1993). This represents a greater concern with ideas and cultural expectations than the determinist-materialist expression of a Marxism which is often confined to purely economic or systemic analysis.
(via Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
June 26, 2017
Berardi is in a rare class of Marxist-left theorists who are able to think and write movingly about the relationship between the overarching system of late capitalism and the everyday lives of individuals. Though this book has some of the same defects I found in Heroes, such as its thematic disjointedness and its simplistic exhortations for people to live “autonomously” outside of an economic system that has become ubiquitous, its basic prognoses about the future carry some value for all of us who feel unease about the state of society in the age of the digital hive mind.
Berardi’s most basic thesis is his most profound: the twenty-first century is the century with no future. The twentieth century was obsessed with the future—evidenced by the fact that the first major intellectual movement of the century was actually called Futurism.
The future, of course, is not just the time that lies ahead of us; the days, weeks, and years that we know will continue to pass by. For the human intellect, the future is the realm of possibility; the spaces unexplored and undeveloped; the promise of forthcoming happiness and prosperity. Berardi believes that this way of thinking about the future is not natural, but is rather a product of modern capitalist culture. Workers rent out their labor time in anticipation of receiving wages and having time off to actually experience life. Modernity is about expanding the limits of nature as an exploitable resource, producing an ever-greater accumulation of wealth and knowledge. The Futurist fascination with machines was rooted in their capacity for speed; which amounts, under capitalist absolutism, to their acceleration of labor time and the productive process.
Late in the twentieth century, however, the progressive, utopian vision of the future gave way to the dystopias that have come to dominate twenty-first century art and literature. This change coincides with the advent of Neoliberalism; the Reagan-Thatcher era of deregulation and privatization. Whereas in the early modern period the state was a vehicle for capitalist production, the Neoliberal policymakers and their corporate allies began to view the state—and every other mediating institution—as an obstacle to expansion and accumulation.
The mediating barrier of the state was broken down to give global capitalism direct access to individuals; and finally, now, even the individual as a coherent, subjective psychological entity—an embodied mind—is being broken down by the emergence of what Berardi calls Semiocapitalism: a form of capitalism that exploits the mental energy of the “cognitariat”, whose task is to consolidate and reassemble the information put out by the constantly-expanding cybersphere.
The external machine that the Futurists idolized; the machine that can be used by the worker to expedite material progress; this machine is no longer an object of utility. The new machine is the very process of human thought and attention; the human mind is now the machine; a mind now disembodied from the totality of the human being. The utopia of the Futurists is now the dystopia of the century with no future.
In semiocapitalism, the mind is overwhelmed and exhausted by the demands that are placed upon it. In the old industrial capitalism, the mental anxieties of risk and precariousness were shouldered mainly by the corporations themselves or their owners. But with the erosion of the industrial structure, every individual is now expected to be an entrepreneur. The demand for obedience has been replaced by the demand for risk and initiative, leaving workers mentally taxed.
The 1990s were simultaneously the decade of cyberspace and the decade of Prozac and Zoloft; and Berardi doesn’t think this is just a coincidence. Anxiety and depression are the handmaidens of post-industrial capitalism. Anxiety comes from the oversaturation of mental stimulation and taxation experienced by cognitive workers, and this in turn causes the withdrawal of libidinal energy that characterizes the modern definition of depression. Antidepressants often don’t treat the root causes of depression; instead they simply alter the brain chemically to remove the inhibitions and lethargy that accompany depression. At best, this keeps cognitive workers running on a mental deficit to feed the beast; at worst, it provokes suicides or homicidal outbursts.
Fundamentally, depression and anxiety are, I think, what set in when the future disappears. Without the horizon of the future, there is no external object by which people can establish their selfhood. Without the future, there is no growth. When people can’t grow into the future, their only recourse is to try to fulfill their narcissism in the present, often at the expense of others. A century with no future is a century of apocalypse and dystopia.
Berardi’s most basic thesis is his most profound: the twenty-first century is the century with no future. The twentieth century was obsessed with the future—evidenced by the fact that the first major intellectual movement of the century was actually called Futurism.
The future, of course, is not just the time that lies ahead of us; the days, weeks, and years that we know will continue to pass by. For the human intellect, the future is the realm of possibility; the spaces unexplored and undeveloped; the promise of forthcoming happiness and prosperity. Berardi believes that this way of thinking about the future is not natural, but is rather a product of modern capitalist culture. Workers rent out their labor time in anticipation of receiving wages and having time off to actually experience life. Modernity is about expanding the limits of nature as an exploitable resource, producing an ever-greater accumulation of wealth and knowledge. The Futurist fascination with machines was rooted in their capacity for speed; which amounts, under capitalist absolutism, to their acceleration of labor time and the productive process.
Late in the twentieth century, however, the progressive, utopian vision of the future gave way to the dystopias that have come to dominate twenty-first century art and literature. This change coincides with the advent of Neoliberalism; the Reagan-Thatcher era of deregulation and privatization. Whereas in the early modern period the state was a vehicle for capitalist production, the Neoliberal policymakers and their corporate allies began to view the state—and every other mediating institution—as an obstacle to expansion and accumulation.
The mediating barrier of the state was broken down to give global capitalism direct access to individuals; and finally, now, even the individual as a coherent, subjective psychological entity—an embodied mind—is being broken down by the emergence of what Berardi calls Semiocapitalism: a form of capitalism that exploits the mental energy of the “cognitariat”, whose task is to consolidate and reassemble the information put out by the constantly-expanding cybersphere.
The external machine that the Futurists idolized; the machine that can be used by the worker to expedite material progress; this machine is no longer an object of utility. The new machine is the very process of human thought and attention; the human mind is now the machine; a mind now disembodied from the totality of the human being. The utopia of the Futurists is now the dystopia of the century with no future.
In semiocapitalism, the mind is overwhelmed and exhausted by the demands that are placed upon it. In the old industrial capitalism, the mental anxieties of risk and precariousness were shouldered mainly by the corporations themselves or their owners. But with the erosion of the industrial structure, every individual is now expected to be an entrepreneur. The demand for obedience has been replaced by the demand for risk and initiative, leaving workers mentally taxed.
The 1990s were simultaneously the decade of cyberspace and the decade of Prozac and Zoloft; and Berardi doesn’t think this is just a coincidence. Anxiety and depression are the handmaidens of post-industrial capitalism. Anxiety comes from the oversaturation of mental stimulation and taxation experienced by cognitive workers, and this in turn causes the withdrawal of libidinal energy that characterizes the modern definition of depression. Antidepressants often don’t treat the root causes of depression; instead they simply alter the brain chemically to remove the inhibitions and lethargy that accompany depression. At best, this keeps cognitive workers running on a mental deficit to feed the beast; at worst, it provokes suicides or homicidal outbursts.
Fundamentally, depression and anxiety are, I think, what set in when the future disappears. Without the horizon of the future, there is no external object by which people can establish their selfhood. Without the future, there is no growth. When people can’t grow into the future, their only recourse is to try to fulfill their narcissism in the present, often at the expense of others. A century with no future is a century of apocalypse and dystopia.
October 26, 2013
Franco Berardi is an Italian cultural theorist and activist who has been busy since 1968 in the various developments of the autonomist anarchist movements from the 60s to the present day. This is a compilation of his writings from the last ten years, reviewing the 90s and the "zero zero decade" and the economic and politic shifts that occurred under the increasing influence of neoliberalism since the 80s.
The first thing to notice is that the compiled nature of the material does lead to some wobbles: around 2009 Bifo and his favoured authors were talking as if neoliberalism was beached, or lost at sea, or at any rate a "defeated enemy" - however they spoke too soon, as the boat managed to stay afloat a bit longer. The second thing to note is that Bifo himself seems to be an example of the digital culture he despairs of, since he is filling the role of *aggregator*, accumulating together references to whatever books or films seem to illustrate or connect with his themes, with little or no consideration of how typical, accurate or influential their content might be. As usual when theorists engage with electronic culture there is little technical understanding or direct engagement, with the result that they end up merely repeating the same old piffle that the tech-propagandists would like you to believe, simply putting a pessimistic spin on it instead of picking away at the material details and showing what a lot of waffle and wishful-thinking pervades the world of start-ups and the TED circuit and the consultancy vampires. He does also get caught out claiming (pg. 76) that since 2000 innovation, demand and consequently profit has been falling in the tech sector; that may have true before 2006 but since then there has been the upsurge in the smart phone market. There is also an obscurity in whether he wants to tell a trad Marxist story about monopolies emerging to dominate capitalist markets (that's the lesson he draws from the Dot Com crash at the start of the decade, when the entrepeneurs were dissolving away and getting absorbed back in to corporate wage slavery), or if he sees a contrary pattern of corporates going bust and decoposing away in the new disconnected economy (in the later chapters at the end of the decade). Which one is it, Bifo? Or did the former process go in to reverse in the middle years?
The first chapter reviews the ambitions of Marinetti's Futurist manifesto from 100 years ago and this is a fascinating and crisply-written introduction to a complex net of ideas shared across a variety of political philosophies, not just Italian fascism but also aspects of Leninism and modern tech-capitalism. However we then get a lot of Michael Moore-level stale comment about Bush, the 2000 election and so on. The Iraq invasion is seen as having an economic imperative yet there is little or no examination of the acknowledged ideological basis for it in the various thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation or PNAC. Bifo also engages in a bit of speculative psychology about the causes of male depression and suicide, which I don't find particularly convincing or helpful for anyone.
With regard to the digital economy itself, Bifo has a list of complaints that will familiar to any reader of conservative critics of modernity. Present day urban capitalism breaks down traditional ties and the sense of connection to history and tradition; it produces alienated individuals anonymous and remote from each other, devoid of sensitivity and poetry and lost in the crassness of materialism. Bifo repeats this yarn but skips the bits where the conservatives would decry the selfishness of the workers who want a better standard of living for shorter hours. He writes as if he thinks that the modern economy only produces symbols and signs - that isn't true of Western economies, but even if it were it would be overlooking the fact that old-fashioned industry is still in existence, and flourishing, in the rest of the world, and in fact that's how the globalised system is feasible, in accordance to liberal theory. But never mind that, more pressing is that he thinks that the "immaterial labour" in the new "semiocapitalism" breaks the "law of value" - ie. Marx's analysis of the nature of use-value in a capitalist economy. I have to admit I simply do not understand why exactly Bifo thinks this kind of brain-labour isn't equally amenable to chapter 1 of "Capital". What occurs to me is that he is really offering (without realising it, it seems) is really a critique of Marx's analysis of value, which would apply just as well to the 19th century as it would to post-modern times. That's actually the intellectual starting-point of neoliberal theory, which then gallops off in the direction of unfettered markets and the minimal state, driven by the spurious assumption that the only alternative must be 5-Year Plans and Stalinism.
Bifo is good at talking about Italian politics and the "anomaly" that it was the scene of a radical left politics not seen anywhere else in Europe. He is wonderfully scornful of "Berlusconi and his perky banqueters in government" (pg. 116), and sharply distinguishes Berlusconism from Mussolini's fascism. But all this is submerged in some terribly broad-brush stuff about Protestant and Counter-Reformation cultures, which is precisely the same guff esteemed by the Samuel Huntingdon fanclub with their drumbeating for "the clash of civilisations". When he talks about real politics, with its concrete problems and the lived experiences that animate reactions, Bifo is an engaging and interesting writer. When he veers off in to theory it all goes blurry and tiresome. The final sections of the book descend in to Deleuzian sludge, and I cannot make anything meaningful out of the Baudrillard text he quotes so reverently. The book ends with a "Manifesto Of Post-Futurism" and an interview with the old boy.
In conclusion: this book is good, except for the bits that are bad.
The first thing to notice is that the compiled nature of the material does lead to some wobbles: around 2009 Bifo and his favoured authors were talking as if neoliberalism was beached, or lost at sea, or at any rate a "defeated enemy" - however they spoke too soon, as the boat managed to stay afloat a bit longer. The second thing to note is that Bifo himself seems to be an example of the digital culture he despairs of, since he is filling the role of *aggregator*, accumulating together references to whatever books or films seem to illustrate or connect with his themes, with little or no consideration of how typical, accurate or influential their content might be. As usual when theorists engage with electronic culture there is little technical understanding or direct engagement, with the result that they end up merely repeating the same old piffle that the tech-propagandists would like you to believe, simply putting a pessimistic spin on it instead of picking away at the material details and showing what a lot of waffle and wishful-thinking pervades the world of start-ups and the TED circuit and the consultancy vampires. He does also get caught out claiming (pg. 76) that since 2000 innovation, demand and consequently profit has been falling in the tech sector; that may have true before 2006 but since then there has been the upsurge in the smart phone market. There is also an obscurity in whether he wants to tell a trad Marxist story about monopolies emerging to dominate capitalist markets (that's the lesson he draws from the Dot Com crash at the start of the decade, when the entrepeneurs were dissolving away and getting absorbed back in to corporate wage slavery), or if he sees a contrary pattern of corporates going bust and decoposing away in the new disconnected economy (in the later chapters at the end of the decade). Which one is it, Bifo? Or did the former process go in to reverse in the middle years?
The first chapter reviews the ambitions of Marinetti's Futurist manifesto from 100 years ago and this is a fascinating and crisply-written introduction to a complex net of ideas shared across a variety of political philosophies, not just Italian fascism but also aspects of Leninism and modern tech-capitalism. However we then get a lot of Michael Moore-level stale comment about Bush, the 2000 election and so on. The Iraq invasion is seen as having an economic imperative yet there is little or no examination of the acknowledged ideological basis for it in the various thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation or PNAC. Bifo also engages in a bit of speculative psychology about the causes of male depression and suicide, which I don't find particularly convincing or helpful for anyone.
With regard to the digital economy itself, Bifo has a list of complaints that will familiar to any reader of conservative critics of modernity. Present day urban capitalism breaks down traditional ties and the sense of connection to history and tradition; it produces alienated individuals anonymous and remote from each other, devoid of sensitivity and poetry and lost in the crassness of materialism. Bifo repeats this yarn but skips the bits where the conservatives would decry the selfishness of the workers who want a better standard of living for shorter hours. He writes as if he thinks that the modern economy only produces symbols and signs - that isn't true of Western economies, but even if it were it would be overlooking the fact that old-fashioned industry is still in existence, and flourishing, in the rest of the world, and in fact that's how the globalised system is feasible, in accordance to liberal theory. But never mind that, more pressing is that he thinks that the "immaterial labour" in the new "semiocapitalism" breaks the "law of value" - ie. Marx's analysis of the nature of use-value in a capitalist economy. I have to admit I simply do not understand why exactly Bifo thinks this kind of brain-labour isn't equally amenable to chapter 1 of "Capital". What occurs to me is that he is really offering (without realising it, it seems) is really a critique of Marx's analysis of value, which would apply just as well to the 19th century as it would to post-modern times. That's actually the intellectual starting-point of neoliberal theory, which then gallops off in the direction of unfettered markets and the minimal state, driven by the spurious assumption that the only alternative must be 5-Year Plans and Stalinism.
Bifo is good at talking about Italian politics and the "anomaly" that it was the scene of a radical left politics not seen anywhere else in Europe. He is wonderfully scornful of "Berlusconi and his perky banqueters in government" (pg. 116), and sharply distinguishes Berlusconism from Mussolini's fascism. But all this is submerged in some terribly broad-brush stuff about Protestant and Counter-Reformation cultures, which is precisely the same guff esteemed by the Samuel Huntingdon fanclub with their drumbeating for "the clash of civilisations". When he talks about real politics, with its concrete problems and the lived experiences that animate reactions, Bifo is an engaging and interesting writer. When he veers off in to theory it all goes blurry and tiresome. The final sections of the book descend in to Deleuzian sludge, and I cannot make anything meaningful out of the Baudrillard text he quotes so reverently. The book ends with a "Manifesto Of Post-Futurism" and an interview with the old boy.
In conclusion: this book is good, except for the bits that are bad.
February 8, 2013
There's definitely some redundancy throughout the book, and a few organizational choices I would question (the piece on 'technomaya' in the first chapter felt out of place). But on the whole I enjoyed it, even the redundancies, because they in many ways contributed to the feeling of thinking through the questions raised by Berardi with him. And I liked this experience - not being argued to by an author, but instead, being carried through on the loops of their thought process.
I'm still trying to figure out what to do with some of the preliminary conclusions that he reaches towards the end, about the futility of activism in its current mode, and the need for a radical passivity in the face of the exhaustion created by modern semiocapitalism, for a withdrawal to "Non Temporary Autonomous Zones," as he says, to a focusing on creating small spaces that can help being to reconstitute social solidarity. Does this mirror too much the abandonment of broader political objectives by the hippies in the 60s who headed 'back to the land' or built communes that, too often, did not continue? I think there is a need for many of the practices he describes (voluntary simplicity, a focus on sharing and creating communal forms of frugal living) but I am not yet convinced that there isn't more to be done.
I'm still trying to figure out what to do with some of the preliminary conclusions that he reaches towards the end, about the futility of activism in its current mode, and the need for a radical passivity in the face of the exhaustion created by modern semiocapitalism, for a withdrawal to "Non Temporary Autonomous Zones," as he says, to a focusing on creating small spaces that can help being to reconstitute social solidarity. Does this mirror too much the abandonment of broader political objectives by the hippies in the 60s who headed 'back to the land' or built communes that, too often, did not continue? I think there is a need for many of the practices he describes (voluntary simplicity, a focus on sharing and creating communal forms of frugal living) but I am not yet convinced that there isn't more to be done.
July 5, 2025
Disparate in parts but Berardi's analysis and critique here is both eerily prescient and determined. I think above all else its hard not to appreciate the romance in what he envisions as an ideal whilst his meditations on activism, depression and impotency are especially grounded in today's miasma of political stagnation. He weaves together a vast array of influential figures from Baudrillard to Deleuze in a way which realizes an ambitious, yet comprehensive, portrait of the anthropology of 21st century capitalism. To write between the day to day, the seismic philosophical changes and the cultural malaise itself is a phenomenal achievement.
January 14, 2020
Para aonde vai o mundo? Ainda há um futuro no qual se fiar? Ainda há um sonho? As questões são interessantes e o prefácio promete muito. Infelizmente, não cumpre. Há, é verdade, muitas ideias interessantes ao longo do texto, mas preciso muita garimpagem para encontrar os pontos mais brilhantes do livro. Muita repetição de ideias para um livro tão breve.
Não vai se encontrar nada muito diferente do que autores que seguem na mesma veia - pós modernidade e pós-marxismo - tem falado: um misto de niilismo com decepção diante do estado do mundo.
Não vai se encontrar nada muito diferente do que autores que seguem na mesma veia - pós modernidade e pós-marxismo - tem falado: um misto de niilismo com decepção diante do estado do mundo.
October 25, 2011
My problem with "After the Future" is that some of the material in it is recycled from "Precarious Rhapsody" and "The Soul at Work;" which in a book that is as short as this (164 pages + an interview and a bibliography... which is a sweet package) really makes someone that owns the other two books question their decision to pick up the third. However, in "After the Future" Bifo has edited a number of fragments from his other works (plus a majority of the text is original content) in the most "coherent" of his works in English. If you personally like Bifo, or if you haven't read anything by him previously this is probably more of a 5 star book; if you have (and if you are finicky and nitpicky like i am) it may be more of a 3 star endeavour.
February 22, 2019
É um livro que atira em todas as direções e, como é de se esperar, o resultado é de muita irregularidade.
De modo geral, as falhas derivam do problema zizekiano de construir uma tese a partir de premissas que o autor simplesmente joga ao leitor sem nenhum argumento ou comprovação, do tipo "hoje em dia, pessoas não saem mais tanto de casa" (exemplo hipotético). Apesar disso, não comete leituras apressadas de outros teóricos e as citações a Guattari estão bem fundamentadas.
No que o livro acerta (e muito): a análise do governo Berlusconi como laboratório para a forma de fazer política que se tornaria dominante no ocidente. Não está nada mal, também, o estudo do manifesto futurista do Marinetti.
De modo geral, as falhas derivam do problema zizekiano de construir uma tese a partir de premissas que o autor simplesmente joga ao leitor sem nenhum argumento ou comprovação, do tipo "hoje em dia, pessoas não saem mais tanto de casa" (exemplo hipotético). Apesar disso, não comete leituras apressadas de outros teóricos e as citações a Guattari estão bem fundamentadas.
No que o livro acerta (e muito): a análise do governo Berlusconi como laboratório para a forma de fazer política que se tornaria dominante no ocidente. Não está nada mal, também, o estudo do manifesto futurista do Marinetti.
June 13, 2022
A little uneven as a collection of essays with similar (sometimes overlapping) themes and thesis statements, but also with powerful stuff in the beginning and ending.
January 22, 2023
Interesting book. Berardi produces tender prose. Here are some points:
- Berardi takes seriously the cognitive troubles of making sense and processing the endless assault of signs coming from semiocapitalism. Such an information overload leads not only to panic, depression, and a lack of a common ground for solidarity and empathy, it also leads to material restructuring. I wish he would have spent more time analysing precisely what goes on when these affects and breakdowns occur. But perhaps there is too much artificial flux for him to get a grip on it.
- I must admit, I did not care for his historical elucidation of Italy and how it got to a point where Berlusconi and similar types could seize control. I didn't really care for the same points about England in Mark Fisher's writings either. These historical tracings are very sweeping, not very granular, and they frequently lack citations. They're less historical accounts than assertions strung together without argument or perspective. Maybe Berardi (and Fisher) create these makeshift historical narratives in a plot to serve their main critical arguments but the historical reasoning seems disconnected from Berardi's larger points. However, Berardi's analysis of Berlusconi's political practice as a proliferation of chatter and exchanges of signs is spot on.
- The future is a construction, a myth, and an anomaly in the grand scheme of history in which the future usually has been interpreted as being of lesser value because it was further away from the Fall. Thus, the past has usually been heralded. I agree completely with Berardi on this. However, I think it gets tricky to follow his reasoning from there. True, much activism is useless and, furthermore, is stuck in a paradigm of direct action which worked in the past but which is now easily combated by capitalism. And, again, true; some hope of better times comes from us being limited beings incapable of grasping the totality. But how do you go from that to minimising points of contact with capital in the way Berardi wants us to do? When I read this I was immediately struck by the Japanese phenomenon of hikikomori but they seem to be even more cellularised than sociality under capitalism. There is certainly a community of them, with a common ground of understanding, but they pose no threat as they can never be organised and united. Berardi offers us no examples or blueprints for securing autonomy and it makes me wonder whether it is even possible. How to withdraw from capital when it literally restructures your cognition, when it seeps into the most intimate of areas?
- The interview of Berardi at the very end of the book was useless to me. Some elaborations of his concepts, which were good, but overall there was way too much autobiographical content to keep my interest. I care about theory, not theorists.
- Berardi takes seriously the cognitive troubles of making sense and processing the endless assault of signs coming from semiocapitalism. Such an information overload leads not only to panic, depression, and a lack of a common ground for solidarity and empathy, it also leads to material restructuring. I wish he would have spent more time analysing precisely what goes on when these affects and breakdowns occur. But perhaps there is too much artificial flux for him to get a grip on it.
- I must admit, I did not care for his historical elucidation of Italy and how it got to a point where Berlusconi and similar types could seize control. I didn't really care for the same points about England in Mark Fisher's writings either. These historical tracings are very sweeping, not very granular, and they frequently lack citations. They're less historical accounts than assertions strung together without argument or perspective. Maybe Berardi (and Fisher) create these makeshift historical narratives in a plot to serve their main critical arguments but the historical reasoning seems disconnected from Berardi's larger points. However, Berardi's analysis of Berlusconi's political practice as a proliferation of chatter and exchanges of signs is spot on.
- The future is a construction, a myth, and an anomaly in the grand scheme of history in which the future usually has been interpreted as being of lesser value because it was further away from the Fall. Thus, the past has usually been heralded. I agree completely with Berardi on this. However, I think it gets tricky to follow his reasoning from there. True, much activism is useless and, furthermore, is stuck in a paradigm of direct action which worked in the past but which is now easily combated by capitalism. And, again, true; some hope of better times comes from us being limited beings incapable of grasping the totality. But how do you go from that to minimising points of contact with capital in the way Berardi wants us to do? When I read this I was immediately struck by the Japanese phenomenon of hikikomori but they seem to be even more cellularised than sociality under capitalism. There is certainly a community of them, with a common ground of understanding, but they pose no threat as they can never be organised and united. Berardi offers us no examples or blueprints for securing autonomy and it makes me wonder whether it is even possible. How to withdraw from capital when it literally restructures your cognition, when it seeps into the most intimate of areas?
- The interview of Berardi at the very end of the book was useless to me. Some elaborations of his concepts, which were good, but overall there was way too much autobiographical content to keep my interest. I care about theory, not theorists.
January 3, 2018
Buku yang lumayan untuk mengawali tahun yang nampaknya tidak akan lumayan ini. Berardi membicarakan mengenai runtuhnya ide mengenai masa depan. Analisisnya meliputi penelusuran historis mengenai bagaimana masyarakat Modern Barat, utamanya abad 20, sangat optimis terhadap masa depan. Asumsi bahwa perkembangan peradaban bergerak secara progresif membuat optimisme itu lumrah. Namun, menurut Berardi, akhir abad 20, terutama 1970-an, menjadi titik balik dari itu. Perkembangan neoliberalisme yang menjangkiti seluruh sendi kehidupan, perkembangan teknologi informasi yang menganulir hukum nilai dalam sistem produksi kapitalis industrial yang juga membuat sensibilitas manusia berkurang atau mungkin hilang, dan semakin impotennya gerakan-gerakan perlawanan terhadap kapitalisme membuat alternatif. Yang tak kalah penting adalah disadarinya limit to growth, dalam arti Bumi ini terbatas dan tidak bisa selamanya mengakomodasi daya ekspansif kapitalisme. Kulminasi dari itu semua adalah runtuhnya imaji bahwa masa depan adalah hari yang cerah. Progresivisme hancur. Berardi juga membicarakan bagaimana fenomena depresi dan bunuh diri masal tidak bisa dipisahkan dari dinamika perkembangan teknologi informasi, kondisi ekonomi neoliberal yang menciptakan kondisi prekariat. Pada setiap kesempatan Berardi terus memberi sinyal bahwa dirinya tidak punya jawaban konkret. Tapi ia mencoba menawarkan jawabannya, yakni dengan withdrawal from participation. Ia menyarankan untuk berposisi ra ngurus dan lebih fokus ke membuat gerakan-gerakan kecil yang bertujuan politis sekaligus terapis. Mengembalikan kebahagiaan, waktu luang, dan persahabatan yang direnggut oleh kondisi sosioekonomi yang semacam ini. Ya begitu saja. Ini cuma asal bacot. Banyak yang terlewat. Kalau mau baca, saya rasa tidak sia-sia.
July 17, 2024
Creo que es un buen primer libro para entrar en el pensamiento de "Bifo" Berardi. Se lee con mucha facilidad y es un interesantísimo repaso del siglo XX, el siglo que creía en el futuro, empezando por el manifiesto de los futuristas (1909) en el que se exalta el poder masculino, la velocidad y la máquina, tres conceptos que atravesaran todo el siglo XX como lanzas. Así, de las vanguardias históricas que quería anular la separación entre vida y arte, y anhelaban las utopías y creian en el poder del arte como transformador social, pasamos a una sociedad cada vez más controlada y con la imaginación arrasada, donde la idea de futuro colapsa, y ya no hay futuro; hay parálisis, hay depresión, precariedad y desconexión, y no hay tiempo. Es una lectura muy estimulante, y hay fragmentos a los que volver y releer. Se repite, sí, y a veces la escritura es caótica y desordenada, un poco "vomitada", sobre todo en la segunda parte, y a veces se le pediría un poco más de precisión. En cualquier caso, me ha resultado muy interesante la reflexión sobre las vanguardias del siglo XX y hasta qué punto llegaron a influenciar en la política del momento. Es un período del arte que siempre me fascina y me pregunto sino seguiremos utilizando muchos de los recursos con los que ellos experimentaron, aunque ahora de un modo mucho más cínico. Y también la tesis de que el arte en el siglo XXI ya no aspira a cambiar sino quizás solo aspire a devolvernos la sensibilidad perdida, como "una terapia de la sensibilidad".
January 12, 2021
Franco Berardi parte de uma premissa simples, mas poderosa: a ideia de futuro que cresceu durante o século XX - sinônimo de progresso e esperança - se perdeu com o fim da modernidade, e hoje não existe futuro.
É uma perspectiva que faz sentido ao se tentar pensar no zeitgeist de cada era. Enquanto nos anos 50 eram comuns aquelas imagens de cidades futurísticas, com carros voadores, prédios à la Jetsons e um robô para cada pequena função doméstica, hoje o futuro parece mais uma desilusão. Como o próprio Berardi diz, a ideia de liberdade exibida em um comercial de automóvel nos anos 50 pode parecer cômica hoje, ao se imaginar preso no engarrafamento.
Berardi faz um apanhado dos movimentos futuristas, no início do século, e identifica as correntes da arte e suas influências na ideia de futuro que foi construída ao longo dos últimos 100 anos - "o último momento em que acreditamos em futuro". Neste trecho, a trajetória pode ficar um pouco maçante. Embora com uma linguagem simples, é uma obra com uma carga abstrata mais ou menos forte. Pode ficar um pouco confuso.
Ao analisar as ideias de futuro e a relação delas com o zeitgeist, Berardi o faz pela via simbólica. Não é um trabalho que se baseia em nenhum tipo de construção empírica, mas em interpretações do mundo. Não chega a ser um problema, já que a argumentação é sólida, mas, por vezes, especialmente quando fala sobre o impacto da mídia digital no ser humano, parece que o gap entre a argumentação e o que a pesquisa empírica diz poderia ser menor. Fora isto, é um observador astuto.
Mas talvez o melhor do livro esteja quando o autor caracteriza por que o futuro nos escapou por entre os dedos. É a interrelação de alguns fatores:
- A financeirização da economia americana a partir de 1977 (principalmente com a desvinculação do dólar do ouro) contribuiu para um dinamismo cada vez maior nos mercados, onde há menos correspondência entre o que acontece nos mercados e na vida.
- Com isto, o futuro perde duas características tranquilizadoras: a previsibilidade e a influenciabilidade. A modernidade cria a ideia de que o futuro é redutível a certas regras, que podem gerar, potencialmente, influência em uma direção ou outra. O iluminismo e o desenvolvimento da ciência são origem e motor desta visão. Podemos pensar também na diferença entre as visões newtonianas e einsteinianas da natureza.
- Com a difusão da internet para todas as áreas da vida, o tempo orgânico do ser humano ("cibertempo") se torna cada vez mais caótico, já que a velocidade na internet acelera, mas nossa percepção ainda acontece de acordo com os mesmos signos de sempre. A internet é potencialmente ilimitada e expansível, o cérebro não. Ao encarar a economia da atenção, estamos tão preocupados com o presente e a informação do presente que pensar no futuro é cada vez mais desgastante (mais um bom insight de Berardi aqui). A sobrecarga de informação age no sentido de tirar o sentido e o significado do ser humano - algo com que a pesquisa empírica concorda, inclusive.
- Ao mesmo tempo, o mundo altamente conectado em uma mesma rede (e em cada vez menos empresas), faz com que haja, na visão do autor, uma mente global digital que não pode ser controlada ou compreendida por nenhum ser humano. Aqui a visão dele se assemelha um pouco à de Pierre Levy e da sua inteligência coletiva, mas ele acrescenta um fator: a imprevisibilidade. Mesmo que não se considere a internet como uma mente única (que é mesmo uma visão um tanto ultrapassada), ainda assim as relações e conexões são tantas possíveis e de tantas naturezas que prever o que acontece com esta rede não é possível. A complexidade é fator inerente a esta quantidade de conexões.
- Quem tem tempo de pensar no futuro, com o trabalho tão fragmentado? Aqui Berardi mostra uma visão acurada, dado que o livro foi escrito em 2009. Descreveu bem a ascensão do trabalho "de plataforma", sob demanda e precarizado. Enquanto as empresas têm um fluxo de trabalho constante, o trabalhador tem um fluxo desigual, precário e incerto. Com o tempo e os ganhos cada vez mais comprometidos, o círculo se fecha: como pensar em futuro?
- Com trabalho flexibilizado e fractalizado, e o tempo celularizado, resta ver as consequências na saúde mental. Como isto, somado à economia da atenção, impacta a mente de quem se torna adulto tendo crescido junto não apenas aos meios digitais, mas à era das plataformas? As consequências são solidão, depressão, hiper-sexualização, psicopatia, entre outros. Aqui é um ponto em que o autor se beneficiaria de conectar estes insights com mais pesquisa empírica. Esta influênca não é tão clara.
O futuro nos fugiu pois a pós-modernidade levou as certezas que modernidade tinha garantido: economia, saúde, comunicação, trabalho, todos foram afetados. E o que fazer com o futuro? É o que Berardi busca pensar por meio do Manifesto Anti-Futurismo, ao final do livro, uma tentativa de imaginar não um futuro específico, mas de defender a existência de uma pluralidade de possibilidades.
Se o futuro não existe mais, resta saber o que fazer com o presente, a única saída para outro a seguir. Berardi não nos dá esta resposta, mas dá esperança.
É uma perspectiva que faz sentido ao se tentar pensar no zeitgeist de cada era. Enquanto nos anos 50 eram comuns aquelas imagens de cidades futurísticas, com carros voadores, prédios à la Jetsons e um robô para cada pequena função doméstica, hoje o futuro parece mais uma desilusão. Como o próprio Berardi diz, a ideia de liberdade exibida em um comercial de automóvel nos anos 50 pode parecer cômica hoje, ao se imaginar preso no engarrafamento.
Berardi faz um apanhado dos movimentos futuristas, no início do século, e identifica as correntes da arte e suas influências na ideia de futuro que foi construída ao longo dos últimos 100 anos - "o último momento em que acreditamos em futuro". Neste trecho, a trajetória pode ficar um pouco maçante. Embora com uma linguagem simples, é uma obra com uma carga abstrata mais ou menos forte. Pode ficar um pouco confuso.
Ao analisar as ideias de futuro e a relação delas com o zeitgeist, Berardi o faz pela via simbólica. Não é um trabalho que se baseia em nenhum tipo de construção empírica, mas em interpretações do mundo. Não chega a ser um problema, já que a argumentação é sólida, mas, por vezes, especialmente quando fala sobre o impacto da mídia digital no ser humano, parece que o gap entre a argumentação e o que a pesquisa empírica diz poderia ser menor. Fora isto, é um observador astuto.
Mas talvez o melhor do livro esteja quando o autor caracteriza por que o futuro nos escapou por entre os dedos. É a interrelação de alguns fatores:
- A financeirização da economia americana a partir de 1977 (principalmente com a desvinculação do dólar do ouro) contribuiu para um dinamismo cada vez maior nos mercados, onde há menos correspondência entre o que acontece nos mercados e na vida.
- Com isto, o futuro perde duas características tranquilizadoras: a previsibilidade e a influenciabilidade. A modernidade cria a ideia de que o futuro é redutível a certas regras, que podem gerar, potencialmente, influência em uma direção ou outra. O iluminismo e o desenvolvimento da ciência são origem e motor desta visão. Podemos pensar também na diferença entre as visões newtonianas e einsteinianas da natureza.
- Com a difusão da internet para todas as áreas da vida, o tempo orgânico do ser humano ("cibertempo") se torna cada vez mais caótico, já que a velocidade na internet acelera, mas nossa percepção ainda acontece de acordo com os mesmos signos de sempre. A internet é potencialmente ilimitada e expansível, o cérebro não. Ao encarar a economia da atenção, estamos tão preocupados com o presente e a informação do presente que pensar no futuro é cada vez mais desgastante (mais um bom insight de Berardi aqui). A sobrecarga de informação age no sentido de tirar o sentido e o significado do ser humano - algo com que a pesquisa empírica concorda, inclusive.
- Ao mesmo tempo, o mundo altamente conectado em uma mesma rede (e em cada vez menos empresas), faz com que haja, na visão do autor, uma mente global digital que não pode ser controlada ou compreendida por nenhum ser humano. Aqui a visão dele se assemelha um pouco à de Pierre Levy e da sua inteligência coletiva, mas ele acrescenta um fator: a imprevisibilidade. Mesmo que não se considere a internet como uma mente única (que é mesmo uma visão um tanto ultrapassada), ainda assim as relações e conexões são tantas possíveis e de tantas naturezas que prever o que acontece com esta rede não é possível. A complexidade é fator inerente a esta quantidade de conexões.
- Quem tem tempo de pensar no futuro, com o trabalho tão fragmentado? Aqui Berardi mostra uma visão acurada, dado que o livro foi escrito em 2009. Descreveu bem a ascensão do trabalho "de plataforma", sob demanda e precarizado. Enquanto as empresas têm um fluxo de trabalho constante, o trabalhador tem um fluxo desigual, precário e incerto. Com o tempo e os ganhos cada vez mais comprometidos, o círculo se fecha: como pensar em futuro?
- Com trabalho flexibilizado e fractalizado, e o tempo celularizado, resta ver as consequências na saúde mental. Como isto, somado à economia da atenção, impacta a mente de quem se torna adulto tendo crescido junto não apenas aos meios digitais, mas à era das plataformas? As consequências são solidão, depressão, hiper-sexualização, psicopatia, entre outros. Aqui é um ponto em que o autor se beneficiaria de conectar estes insights com mais pesquisa empírica. Esta influênca não é tão clara.
O futuro nos fugiu pois a pós-modernidade levou as certezas que modernidade tinha garantido: economia, saúde, comunicação, trabalho, todos foram afetados. E o que fazer com o futuro? É o que Berardi busca pensar por meio do Manifesto Anti-Futurismo, ao final do livro, uma tentativa de imaginar não um futuro específico, mas de defender a existência de uma pluralidade de possibilidades.
Se o futuro não existe mais, resta saber o que fazer com o presente, a única saída para outro a seguir. Berardi não nos dá esta resposta, mas dá esperança.
August 2, 2023
O livro faz o que se propõe a fazer: resumir a sensibilidade tecnoestética humana no século da aceleração. Mas certas lacunas diminuem um pouco as ideias aqui presentes
December 19, 2015
I tend to get a lot of this author, though his ideas are not always easy to synthesize - the 'fractalization' of the cognitive worker (and the potential for 'recombination'); the loss of the concept of labor value; self-othering of the subject; symbolic exchange without empathy; and the idea of 'movement' as opposed to the Italian Futurists of the early 20th century ...
But maybe it's his intellectual honesty that makes him appealing:
"I don’t see that landscape because my knowledge and my understanding are limited, and the limits of my language are the limits of my world. My knowledge and understanding miss the event, the singularity. So I must act “as if.” As if the forces of labor and knowledge might overcome the forces of greed and of proprietary obsession. As if the cognitive workers might overcome the fractalization of their life and intelligence, and give birth to the self-organization of collective knowledge. I must resist simply because I cannot know what will happen after the future, and I must preserve the consciousness and sensibility of social solidarity, of human empathy, of gratuitous activity – of freedom, equality, and fraternity. … I must resist because this is the only way to be in peace with myself. In the name of self-love, we must resist. And self-love is the basic ethical rule that an anarchist prizes."
But maybe it's his intellectual honesty that makes him appealing:
"I don’t see that landscape because my knowledge and my understanding are limited, and the limits of my language are the limits of my world. My knowledge and understanding miss the event, the singularity. So I must act “as if.” As if the forces of labor and knowledge might overcome the forces of greed and of proprietary obsession. As if the cognitive workers might overcome the fractalization of their life and intelligence, and give birth to the self-organization of collective knowledge. I must resist simply because I cannot know what will happen after the future, and I must preserve the consciousness and sensibility of social solidarity, of human empathy, of gratuitous activity – of freedom, equality, and fraternity. … I must resist because this is the only way to be in peace with myself. In the name of self-love, we must resist. And self-love is the basic ethical rule that an anarchist prizes."
June 11, 2022
A difficult read because the author's writing is wobbly and rambling and the selection of texts is disparage and redundant. That said, the book contains a few gems of ideas; the cancellation of future (in line with Fisher's capitalist realism), the disengagement from the productivity obsession as a form of subversion (think on the Great Resignation), and, above all, the prevalence of mental health issues as the result of the failure of the neoliberal project and the immense pressures it induces on our subjectivities (or the revenge of the Real, to put it in Lacanian terms).
In sum, Berardi in this book was quite prescient in a few aspects but quite wrong in so many others. Not sure the book is worth reading for the former; I am sure there must be out there some condensations and developments of his ideas more worth of your time.
In sum, Berardi in this book was quite prescient in a few aspects but quite wrong in so many others. Not sure the book is worth reading for the former; I am sure there must be out there some condensations and developments of his ideas more worth of your time.
April 11, 2021
Fraquissimo. As poucas ideias boas não são desenvolvidas e a maioria das ideias ruins também não são desenvolvidas. O autor gira em círculos nos mesmos argumentos, conceitos e categorias não são explicadas, afirmações são jogadas a torto e direito sem nenhuma elaboração teórica ou histórica, temas complexos e densos são simplificados a algumas poucas frases de efeito que "confirmam" as suas hipóteses pra, no fim, o autor avançar muito pouco nos assuntos que pretende tratar.
Tinha um começo bastante promissor, mas a falta de unidade estrutural, a forma de organização e exposição do material e a superficialidade da abordagem fazem o livro ser um produto da mesma lógica que o autor visa criticar, da aceleração e do prejuízo da capacidade de atenção e elaboração da realidade.
Tinha um começo bastante promissor, mas a falta de unidade estrutural, a forma de organização e exposição do material e a superficialidade da abordagem fazem o livro ser um produto da mesma lógica que o autor visa criticar, da aceleração e do prejuízo da capacidade de atenção e elaboração da realidade.
July 14, 2015
I really like Berardi, but I have to say - he's the arch master of repeating himself/a cheeky bastard when it comes to publishing. This book has pages that read almost word to word with other books by him (and other chapters in the book). I understand its a collection of essays, but it should have really been edited, given that he makes the same points in most of them. Whilst gems, both profound, original and interesting, are scattered throughout this book, it's repetitive and gets monotonous after the first chapter.
I also really liked the message behind the book, or what Berardi posed as the cultural task of the day: "To live the inevitable with a relaxed soul."
I also really liked the message behind the book, or what Berardi posed as the cultural task of the day: "To live the inevitable with a relaxed soul."
August 11, 2012
An article I wrote, "Memories of the Future," on a time when there actually was still a future. Engages with a number of recent writings on the subject by Franco "Bifo" Berardi, Slavoj Žižek, T.J. Clark, Owen Hatherley, Chris Cutrone, Max Ajl, Asad Haider, Salar Mohandesi, Ben Lear, and Malcolm Harris, which have been published by AK PRess, Zero Books, Jacobin, New Left Review, and others. Thought you might be interested.
May 29, 2017
Ruh İşbaşında'ya göre okuması ve anlaması daha zordu. Bi dolu yeri anlamlandıramayıp, soru işareti koydum ama anlayabildiğim yerleri kafamdaki fikirlerle güzel bir tepkimeye girdi.Bana güzel fikirlerle geliyor Bifo'cuğum. Çok umutsuz ve aykırı; ben ise umutsuzluğa alıştım az çok ve zaten ister istemez aykırı düşüyorum her şeye. Bu yüzden bu kitabını da sevdim Bifo'nun.
Aslında ana fikrini aktarmak istiyorum ama bunun için kitabı biraz daha sindirmem lazım sanırım.
Aslında ana fikrini aktarmak istiyorum ama bunun için kitabı biraz daha sindirmem lazım sanırım.
May 19, 2013
The word 'crackpot' stuck in my head as I attempted (and failed) to finish this book. There may indeed be some revolutionary ideas here, but the assumptions, ego and sloppy scholarship made this book land in 'not going back' pile.
December 19, 2025
Nihayet Franco Berardi okumalarına başlayabildim. Sol literatürün içine girdiğinizde gerçekte çıkamıyorsunuz. Neredeyse on yıldır düzenli okumalar yapmama rağmen her geçen gün değişen koşullarda yeni yazarlar, yeni kitaplar, yeni fikirlerle tanışıyorsunuz. Fikirleriniz tam olgunlaştı diyorsunuz, pat karşınıza bambaşka bir dünya görüşü çıkabiliyor.
Özellikle 2026 yılında Marksist Dünya Tarihi üzerine yoğunlaşmak istiyorum. Bu konuda çok farklı düşünceler var. Revizyonistler, gelenekçiler, reddedenler... Tabii her ülke ve coğrafya Marksizmi farklı ele almış. Rusya'da, Çin'de, İtalya'da, İngiltere ve Avrupa'nın diğer bölgelerinde koşullara göre farklı entelektüeller ve fikirler ortaya çıkmış. Ama benim en çok ilgimi çeken İtalyan Komünizmi olmuştur. Gramsci, Negri, Traverso ve Berardi...
Bu kitap kimileri için karamsar gelebilir. Ki zaten kitabın son bölümünde Berardi bu konuyla ilgili bir özeleştiri yapıyor. Gerçekleri söylediği için onu okuyanların ve dinleyenlerin kendi kendine şunu sorduğunu söylüyor: "O zaman mücadeleye etmeye gerek var mı?" Evet maalesef Sol'un en büyük çıkmazı da bu. Artık geleceğe umutla bakamıyoruz. Karamsarlık her yanımızı sarmış. Kapitalizmi nasıl yenebileceğimizi ya da dönüştürebileceğimizi bilemiyoruz. Eskiden devrimi işçilerin yapmasını bekliyorduk. Artık işçi diye bir sınıf kalmadı. Sermayenin yapısı evrildi. Artık fabrikalar, imalathaneler değil gökdelenlerdeki finans merkezlerinden dünya yönetiliyor. Güvencesizlik, düşük ücretler ve bunun yanında insanların tembelleşmesi ve konfor alanından dolayı pasif bir direniş var. Düzeni değiştirebilecek en ufak bir girişim kolayca bastırılabiliyor. Berardi şu gözlemi yapıyor. "Gösterilerin gücü azaldı, insanların enerjisi tükendi ve insanlar savaşın, rekabetin ve güvencesizliğin şantajını kabul etmeye başladı."
Peki bu kitap bir çözüm sunmuyorsa, umut vermiyorsa neden okuyalım diyebilirsiniz? Daha yolun çok başında olanlar var. Önce nasıl bir düzen içinde yaşadığımızı, neyle ve kiminle mücadele ettiğimizi bilmemiz lazım. Yaşadığımız düzeni anlamak sizi mutlu etmeyecek. Fakat koyun gibi güdülmemek için, ufak da olsa direnebilmek ve ayaklarınızı yere sağlam basabilmek için Berardi gibi yazarları okumanız gerek.
Özellikle 2026 yılında Marksist Dünya Tarihi üzerine yoğunlaşmak istiyorum. Bu konuda çok farklı düşünceler var. Revizyonistler, gelenekçiler, reddedenler... Tabii her ülke ve coğrafya Marksizmi farklı ele almış. Rusya'da, Çin'de, İtalya'da, İngiltere ve Avrupa'nın diğer bölgelerinde koşullara göre farklı entelektüeller ve fikirler ortaya çıkmış. Ama benim en çok ilgimi çeken İtalyan Komünizmi olmuştur. Gramsci, Negri, Traverso ve Berardi...
Bu kitap kimileri için karamsar gelebilir. Ki zaten kitabın son bölümünde Berardi bu konuyla ilgili bir özeleştiri yapıyor. Gerçekleri söylediği için onu okuyanların ve dinleyenlerin kendi kendine şunu sorduğunu söylüyor: "O zaman mücadeleye etmeye gerek var mı?" Evet maalesef Sol'un en büyük çıkmazı da bu. Artık geleceğe umutla bakamıyoruz. Karamsarlık her yanımızı sarmış. Kapitalizmi nasıl yenebileceğimizi ya da dönüştürebileceğimizi bilemiyoruz. Eskiden devrimi işçilerin yapmasını bekliyorduk. Artık işçi diye bir sınıf kalmadı. Sermayenin yapısı evrildi. Artık fabrikalar, imalathaneler değil gökdelenlerdeki finans merkezlerinden dünya yönetiliyor. Güvencesizlik, düşük ücretler ve bunun yanında insanların tembelleşmesi ve konfor alanından dolayı pasif bir direniş var. Düzeni değiştirebilecek en ufak bir girişim kolayca bastırılabiliyor. Berardi şu gözlemi yapıyor. "Gösterilerin gücü azaldı, insanların enerjisi tükendi ve insanlar savaşın, rekabetin ve güvencesizliğin şantajını kabul etmeye başladı."
Peki bu kitap bir çözüm sunmuyorsa, umut vermiyorsa neden okuyalım diyebilirsiniz? Daha yolun çok başında olanlar var. Önce nasıl bir düzen içinde yaşadığımızı, neyle ve kiminle mücadele ettiğimizi bilmemiz lazım. Yaşadığımız düzeni anlamak sizi mutlu etmeyecek. Fakat koyun gibi güdülmemek için, ufak da olsa direnebilmek ve ayaklarınızı yere sağlam basabilmek için Berardi gibi yazarları okumanız gerek.
June 1, 2018
After the future helped me locate some of the traumas and worries I have as a student from living in this age. Bifo makes a great job connecting the dots of the process of a globalized world and proposes the rethinking of the system we have not chosen to live in. The order of money above ourselves. His figure of semiocapitalism makes too much sense for me and brings me to Jung's idea of the crisis of symbols. "Of course", I thought, when Humanity lost faith in god, and then faith in science and the faith in technology, the only thing from we can generate meaning is money. But this accommodation leaves us to depression and panic and sometimes, to suicide. By remounting to the beginning of the last century, in what he calls the reshaping of the concept of future, with the futurism manifesto and everything that came before, he responds through a post-future approach for us that we don't believe progress and growth suits our drive for sense. Sense comes from communication between each other. And contrary to futurism's violence, depreciation of women and cult for speed, the new movement would be one of tenderness, irony, and slowness. To love right now is the most transgressive thing we can do. Therapy is our must through collective intelligence.
November 20, 2018
devo ammettere che ho approcciato questo libro con un certo timore: temevo l'eccesso di terminologia tecnica, o l'incomprensibilità. ma l'argomento -la fine della capacità di immaginarci un futuro- mi interessava troppo per non buttarmi su questo libro una volta recuperato.
invece bifo è più semplice e diretto di centinaia di articoli sugli stessi argomenti, e più sinceramente preoccupato: nel momento in cui esamina l'eterno presente odierno, il nostro relazionarci col prossimo sempre più virtualmente e le nostre ossessioni il tono di bifo è quello di chi ha visto un tempo la gente reagire per molto meno e si domanda davvero cosa caspita è successo.
non credo sia necessario essere d'accordo con tutte le riflessioni dell'autore, ma non poche domande qui presenti sono probabilmente tra le poche domande davvero rilevanti in questo momento.
invece bifo è più semplice e diretto di centinaia di articoli sugli stessi argomenti, e più sinceramente preoccupato: nel momento in cui esamina l'eterno presente odierno, il nostro relazionarci col prossimo sempre più virtualmente e le nostre ossessioni il tono di bifo è quello di chi ha visto un tempo la gente reagire per molto meno e si domanda davvero cosa caspita è successo.
non credo sia necessario essere d'accordo con tutte le riflessioni dell'autore, ma non poche domande qui presenti sono probabilmente tra le poche domande davvero rilevanti in questo momento.
October 16, 2024
Great read on the instrumentalization and cheapening of communication in what Berardi calls semiocapitalism as well as its connections to futurism. Really pessimistic ending but was glad to see Berardi recognize this ("Where is the hope? The hope is in the limits of my knowledge and understanding."). Really interesting from the perspective of language disability in how communication is explicitly considered as a contingent and political phenomenon mapped out (and continually re-mapped) along social and economic stratifications.
July 29, 2023
I’ve loved Bifo’s work for a few years now, and it was nice revisiting it as a more mature reader (still not that mature, but more so than when I read his work as a high school debater). These essays were beautifully written, and highly provocative. I’ve been struggling with my relationship to political hope, and while I can’t say this book gave me answers, it gave me pathways to explore. I appreciate that very much.
July 11, 2022
There are many provocative and stimulating insights to be found in this book. This is a collection of essays rather than a cohesive book, so one finds Berardi repeating points he made in his other collected essays found in this book. This repetitious quality of the collection may be off-putting to some. Regardless I still enjoyed the read.
June 18, 2019
"La intuición de la infinitud de posibilidades es la gran fuente del pánico contemporáneo, que puede ser descripto como un doloroso espasmo. Este espasmo adquiere un aspecto caósmico: de esta hiperintensidad caótica habrá de surgir un nuevo cosmos."
February 11, 2024
“Berlusconi knows that what matters is not what words mean, but who owns them. Meaning is decided by the master of words, not the semantic tribunals. The interpretation of law is decided by its master, not the courts of law.”
August 13, 2024
Conheci o livro por conta de outros livros da mesma coleção. Achei que poderia ser bem interessante por conta da abordagem que me interessa demais. Curti e grifei várias citações maravilhosas! Mas não adorei.
April 18, 2020
A little gloomy, but cheers up just at the end ;)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews