RESEARCH FOUCAULT AND CAPITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTION A Ii M uh am ma d R iz vi L a T ro be Univer si t y, M el bo ur ne , [email protected]!'Introduction A c er ta in Wld e rs ta nd in g of ca pi t al i st r at io na li t y p e nne at es Fouc a ul t 's w or k. Howe ve r t he h is to r ical mode o f F ou ca ul t' s p re se nt a ti on ma ke s i t d if fi cu lt to grasp the or i gi na l it y a nd t he s ys te ma ti c nature of his ana ly si s. Inrece nt ye a rs , the work c an i ed out byauthors related to what h as be e n d ub be d t he g ov em me nt al i t y s ch oo l has gone a long way tow ar ds re pa i ri ng t he s it ua ti on (Bur ch el l e/al 005: 199 1, R os e e / a I, e ds : 1 99 6, Ros e: 1993).However,the emphas is of the ir wor k hasbeen on libera lis m ratherthanon capitalism. I The p ri mo rd ia l r el at io n b etw ee n l ib era l m od es o f g ove rn an ce a nd c api ta li st ra ti on al it y isnot very c le ar intheir w ork . It i s t he p urp os e of this p ap er to try to shift t he e mp ha si s o f t he a na ly si s t hro ug h re con st ru ct in g t he fr am ew ork o f Fou caul t' s c on ce pt ion of c ap it al ism a nd i ts r at io na li ty . I argue that Wlderstanding the double cbaracteroffte edom is central to Foucault's Wlderstanding of c ap it al is t r at iona li ty . Th e o ri gi nal i ty o fF ou caul t 's a na1y si s lies inhis realisation t ha t c apit al is m m an ag es i nd iv id ua ls a nd p op ula ti on s ( pr im ar ily ) t hr ou gh Ih :e do m a nd n ot (p ri ma ri ly ) t hro ug h re pr es si on . I a rg ue th at I h: ed om i s t he c on dit io n that makes p os si bl e t he c or re la ti on b et we en what Fo uc au lt t er ms a s t he a cc um u1 at io n of men a nd t he a ccum ul at io n of c apit al . M AR KE T F OR CES - . JA NU AR Y 2 00 6 /' ~ l' 23 RESEARCH FOUCAULT AND C APITALIST RATIONALITY: A RECONSTRUCTION I would like tostate a few disclaimers atthe beginning. Iam not going todis cuss the work of govemme ntalit ytheor ists . Critiquingtheirwork isnot myaim. Rathe r,I treattheirinsightsasmy startingpoint inorde r t o d e ve lo p a cer ta in r ea di ng ofkey F ou ca ul di an text s. S ec on dl y I a m n o t g o i ng t o r e c on st r uct the Foucauldi anconcept ofcapi talistration 8Ii tyasawhole.My aimismoremodestandmorebasic.Myaimisto pointtowardsthe condition(s) thatmake(s) possib le capit alism asan order. A few words are called for ontheterms us ed . Foucault uses capi ta l is m inap historical sense. Itis inan histori cal sen se tha t Fou cau lt investigates the mea ning and condit ion s ofcapita lis m. Fou cau lt Wlderstand:sthree different thing s t hr ou gh t he t er m c ap it al i sm : a ) A p o li t ic al o rd er w hich a cc um ul at es indi vi d ua ls and populatio ns ina ce rt ain manner . Fo uc au lt calls this the regime ofthe a cc u mul at io n ofmen. b)On the other ha nd Foucault Wl de rst an ds c ap i talism tomean aneconomic system that isgea red t ow ar ds t he a c cum ul at io n o f w ea l th. Fouc ault c al ls this the regime of the a cc um ul at io n o f c a pi ta l. 2 c ) T h ir dl y c ap it al is m m ea ns for Foucaultanorder ! that is the basis ofthetwo regimes m en ti on ed ab ove. Here capita li sm i s n ot just apolitical oran economic s ys te m; it isprimo rdia l andis theconditio n of theposs ibi lity ofb oth.At thi s level accumulation isunde rst ood ina primordial se nse. Itis not yet diffe ren ti at ed into ac cumula tio n o f w e al th ( ec onomy) a nd a cc um ul at i on o f m en ( po li ty ) . It, r at he r, p r ovi de s t he c on di t io n for any such a di ffe r en ti at i on . I us e the term pr imor d ia l (UrspriJnglichkei/) i n a H ei de gg er ia n s en se " Itismean t toconvey a simple b ut o ft en n eg le ct ed f ac t. W e W ld er st an d p ar ti cu la rs only inthe context ofa 'whole'. H ow ev er the whole does not reveal itself to usdirectly. Itremains imp li ci t Itrequ ir es a special effort to make itexpli c it ( Br an do m, 199 4, B ra nd or n, 20 00) . The 'whole' is the condition inthe context of whose i mpl ic it a war ene ss we ap pr oa ch p ar ti c ul ar s. We never e nc oW lt er th e ' wh ol e' as su c h. H ow ev er , we can make the 'whole' e xp li ci t t ho ro ug h a pp ro ac hi ng pa rti c ul ar s w it h thi s s pe ci f ic pur po se . In our ca se a & b ar e p ar ti cul a rs w hi ch are Wld er s to od in the co n te xt of however isnot explicit. Itremains i mp li ci t B y c on ce nt ra ti ng on or or bo th, with the p ur po se o fr na ki ng c ex pl ic it wecan make the sense ofcapitalism asa 'whole' e xp li ci t One ofthe pu rpo se s of the p re se nt essay isto make c explicit. However c can only bemade explicit b y e it he r c on ce nt ra t ing on a or b oronboth. La st ly Iuse the t er m n ec es si ty and cont i ng e nc y inentirely historical terms. Itwasone ofthe i nn ova tions ofFou ca u lt togive usthenotion o f h i st or ic a l necessity. An ideaor a re lation may benecessary t od ay bu t itcan l os e i t s n e ce ss it y t om or r ow a nd c an b ec om e acont i ng en cy . F ou ca ul t c la i me d t ha t hi s to ri ca l p r ac tic es ar e both empi rical and t r an sc en dental. They are empi ric al as far astheyare (inprincipl e) " al wa ys s ur pa ss ab le " (Veyn e, 19 9 7: 2 28 ). H ow ev er they are tran sc en de n ta l a nd h en ce n ec es sa ry a nd " co ns ti tu ti ve as long asthey ar e not e ff ac ed " (i bi d .) - as long as they are our present Thus when I c laim that the relation between the regime of the a cc um ula t io n ofmen and that ofcap it a l i s n ec es sa ry I m ea n b y t ha t h is to ri ca l n ec es si ty and not any other sort of nece ssity . ! If A ccu mul at ion ofMen and Ac cu mul at ion of C ap it al F ou ca ul t' s a na ly si s o f the r el at io ns hip b et we en the regi me s ofthe accum ul at io n o f m e n a nd t he 1iccumulationof capit al provid es us thespaceto recons truct thecondition(s)of the possi bilityand conti nued sustenanc e of capitalism as an rder.It isnormal ly Wl ders tood tha t Fou cault studies the str ate gie s of the a cc um ul ati on ofmen asthe funct io n oftheproblem o f g o v er na nc e b ut w ha t i s s el do m W ld er st oodis that Foucau lttreatstheproblemofgovernancenotinisolationbut inrelations hiptotheproblemof theaccumulat ion ofcapit al.Theproblemisnotjust thegover nancebutthe typeof govern ance tha tprovidesthe spa cein whi ch 24 MARKET FOR CES - . JA NU AR Y 2006 fl r!
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
A certain Wlderstanding of capitalist rationality penneates Foucault's work. However the historical
mode of Foucault' s p resentat ion makes i td ifficu lt to grasp the origina li ty and the sys tematic nature of h is
analysis. Inrecent years, the work canied out byauthors related to what has been dubbed the govemmentality
school has gone a long way towards repairing the s itua tion (Burche ll e/a l 005: 1991, Rose e/ aI, eds: 1996,
Rose: 1993).However,the emphasis of their work hasbeen on liberalism ratherthanon capitalism. I The
p rimo rd ia l r el at io n b etw ee n l ib era l m od es o f g ove rn an ce a nd c api ta li st ra ti on al it y i s n o t ve ry c le ar i n t he ir work .
It i s t he p urp os e o f th is p ap er t o t ry t o s hi ft t he empha si s o f t he a na ly si s t hro ug h re con st ru ct in g t he fr am ework
o f Foucaul t' s concept ion o f cap it al ism and i ts r at iona li ty .
I argue that Wlderstanding the double cbaracteroffte edom is ce ntral to Foucault's Wlderstanding of
cap it al is t r at iona li ty . The o ri gi na li ty o fFoucaul t' s ana1ysi s l ie s i nh is r ea li sa ti on tha t cap it al ism manages i nd iv idua ls
a nd p op ula ti on s ( pr im ar ily ) t hr ou gh Ih :e dom and n ot (p rima ri ly ) t hro ug h re pr es si on . I a rg ue th at I h: ed om i s t he
c on dit io n t ha t m ak es p os si bl e t he c or re la ti on b etwe en wha t Fo uc au lt t erms a s t he a cc umu1 at io n o f m en a nd t he
accumulat ion o f cap it al .
MARKET FORCES - .JANUARY 2006
/' ~
l'
23
RESEARCH FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION
I would like tostate a few disclaimers atthe beginning. Iam not going todiscuss the work of
FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIOi\ALlT\': ARECONSTRtCTION RESEARCH
h indr an ces t o c ap it al a cc umul at io n a re t he l eas t w hi le i ts p os si bi li ti eS a re b ei ng u ti li sed t o t h e max imum . Thu s
the problem is not just one of producing docile bodies but one of producing docile bodies which are also
useful . The pu rp ose of produ cing do cility is to m axi mise utili ty. Th e typ e of do cility that ham pers u tility i s
u nacceptable. Th erefo re the prob lem of g overn an ce in Fo ucault is the p ro blem o f the gov ernance for cap ital
a cc umul at io n ( and f or not hi ng e ls e) . Ac co rd in g t oFouc au lt , d isc ip li nes , w hi ch a re " th e ' tec hn iq ue s' fo r a ss ur in g
t he o rd er in g o f mul ti pl ic it ies " and e nh an ci ng gov er nan ce , h av e t he pur po se o f i n cr eas in g " bo th t he ' do ci li ty '
and the 'u tility' of all th e elem en ts of the system" (DP: 218 ). Fou cault in g eneral term s makes i t c lear that:
"The two processes- the accumulation ofmen and the accumulation of capital-cannot be separated;
i twould not have been possible to solve the problem of the accumulat ion of men without the growth ofan
apparatus of product ion capable ofboth sus ta in ing them and using them; conversely, the techniques tha t
made the cumulat ive mul tipl ic ity ofmen useful accelerated the accumulat ion of capit al . . . Each makes the
other possible and necessary; each provides amodel for the other" (DP: 221).
However the problem isnot jus t ofshowing how the sys tem ofproducing docil ity i scor re la ted with
the sys tem ofut il ity maximisat ion and how the techniques used inone sys tem could be projected on toand
used in the other. Foucault's analysis points to a level deeper and subtler than this. Foucault's analysis points
towards thefa :t tha t haw prior to thi s co" '; la tion and as the condi tion of theposs ibil it y of this corre lation
there exists a more primordial relationship between the system oftheaccumulation of men and the system of
the accumulation of capital.
It is n ot the case that there is o ne sy stem for t he pro duction o f d ocility -of g overn an ce and there is
another system for the production of utility - of capital, which are then correlated and reinforce each other.
Prior to this and as the condi tion of the possibi li ty of thi s cor re la tion and reinforcement , there exi st s, soto
s peak . aprimordial order which i sa t once the way of governance and capit al accumulat ion. The pol ity in
capitalist order isalready a capitalist polity. It isnotjust an instrument inthe hand ofcapitalists. No wonder
Foucault defines disciplines as "the unitary t echnique bywhich the body is reduced as a 'poli ti ca l' force a t
the least cos t and maximised asa useful force" (DP: 221 emphasi s added). Thus the capit al is t government
and the capit al is t sys tem of product iv ity and exchange are two s ides of the same coin (HS: 140-141). Ina
capitalist system both polity and economy are geared towards the singular aim of simultaneously producing
utili ty and docility. The polity and economy are equally productive ina capitalist order. Ina capitalist system
wea lt h and men a re equall y tr ea ted a s c ap ita l. They a re gea red towa rd s a ccumu la tion i na manner t ha t
maximises utili ty and docility of both simultaneously. Not only men need docility wealth also needs docility.
Both men and wealth need to be bared fi'om accumulating in non-capitalist forms.
III. Rc~ime of the Accumulation of i\lcn
Foucault s ay s th at " ". . . t he e conomi c sys tem t ha t p romo te s th e a ccumula tion o f c api ta l a nd t hesystem of power that ordains the accumulation of men are, fi'om the seventeenth century 011,correlated and
unseparable phenomena. . . . " (FR: 67) . MyPwPose intherest of th is essay i s to t ry to f ind out what makes
these two processes inseparable . Since Foucaul t does not s tudy the process of the accumulat ion ofcapi ta l in
any det ai l our only window t o t hi s i s t o concen tr ate on t he p roce ss o f t he a ccumu la tion o fmen whi ch is
analysed by Foucault inconsiderable detail inhis wolks.1n what follows 1shall concentrate on the constituent
e lements ofFoucault 's analysi s of theaccumula tion ofmen with the sole pwpose ofanswer ing the quest ion
i \IARKET FORCES -.JANUARY 2006 25
RESEARCH FOUCAULT ANDCAPITALIST RATIONALITY: ARECONSTRUCTION
ra is ed above . I hope that t his wil l a lso p rovi de t he answe r to our que sti on conce rn ing t he condit ion o f t h e
possibili ty ofcapitalism as anorder.
111.1Capitalist Subjectivisation Regime
"Subjec tivi ty" i s def ined byFoucault as a form of "organi sa tion ofse lf consc iousness" (pPC: 253)
implying that there may beforms oforganisation of self-<:onsciousness other than subjectivity/subject. Idefine
manageable subjectivity asa subjectivity that has two characteristics; i thas some degree offieedomldiversity
and secondly thi s diversi ty i samenable to organisat ion under as ingular ity. Wecannot talk ofa manageable
subjectivity without the presence ofthese two elements. Management techniques are not operable onindividuals
who a re not a ll owed f re edom. One canno t t alk o fmanag ing s lave s i n t hi s s en se . Hence Foucau lt a ss er ts
" powe r is exe rc is ed ove r f re e s ub je cts , a nd only i nso fa r a s t hey a re fr ee " ( SP : 221 emphas is p rovi ded) .
Similarly one cannot talk of manageable subjectivity ifdiversity cannot be traced back to a singularitY. Diversity
tha t cannot be t raced back toa s ingulari ty leads to "dangerous subject iv ity" (pPC: 125-151), a subject iv ity
that isnot manageabie.
The apparent paradox of capit al ism is tha t inorder to increase the uti li ty and product ive capacity of
individuals and populations itrequires continuous expansion inthe ambitoffteedom and diversity. But inorder
to make individuals docile and hence governable, i tneeds to limit this diversity. It is on the maintenance of this
delicate balance between diversity and singularity that the sustenance and continuity of the whole capitalist
system rests. Curbing fieedom and diversity would decrease utili ty and productivity and hence slow down the
motorofproduction and innovation on whosc:ever-increasingspeed thelegitimacy ofthe whole system depends.
On the other hand expansion inthe ambit off reedom and diversi ty totheextent tha t i tbecomes unt raceable to
a singularity would de-link diversity fi'om capital accumulation. Itwould become ungovernable (hence creating
a crisis ofgovernance) in the sense that i twould no longer bea capitalist governance i.e. governance for capital
accwnulation. (and italone)
Thus curbing fieedom isnot what capitalism requires. The continued existence of capitalism requires
the continued expansion of the sphere of freedom. However, capitalism requires that this expansion be geared
towards the single end o£ capital accumUlation. The problem ofcapitalism isnot fieedom but the intransigence
off teedom, the possibi li ty tha t f reedom may take forms that are not t raceable to the s ingulari ty of capit al
accwnulation. Thus the problem of capitalism isneither servitude norfteedom per se, $e problem ofcapitalism
is the problem of the iptransigence offieedom (SP: 22l-222).S
F ree dom i sc en tra I fo r t he f un ct io ni ng o f a c ap it al is t s ys tem not onl y a s t h e p re cond it io n f or enhan ci ng
u ti li ty a nd d iv er si ty but fo r i ts d oubl e r ol e a s t he p rec ondi ti on f or enhan ci ng d iv er si ty a nd imposi ng s in gu lar it y on
mul tipl ic ity (SP: 221). H is tori ca1ly f te edom has played the role of" imposing" s ingula ri ty ove r mul tipl ic ity through
th e process o f su bjectivisatioll, throu gh t he creati on of a s ub jectivity /su bject Two key con cepts, wh ich hav e
b ee n ope rat io nal is ed t o cr eat e a nd j us ti fY ca pi ta li st s ub je ct iv it y, h av e b een v el )' impor tan t, v iz .: t he not io n o f
i den ti ty ( in t he n at ur al l aw t rad it io n) and mor al it y ( in t he Ka nt ia n t ra di ti on ). 6
T he not io n o fi den ti ty p rovi de s t he f oca l p oi nt t ow hi ch a ll d iv ers it y a nd mul ti pl ici ty r efe rs . I n t he n at ur al
l aw t radi tion f ie edom isde fined interms ofbeing one 's t ruelau thenti c s el f. The forma tion of c apit al is t s ubje ct iv ity
is closel y related to th e n otion ofidentity to th e extent th at Foucau lt defi nes the mean ing of the term sub ject in
terms of the notion ofidentity: "There are two meanings of the word subject: subject to some one else by
ofIegitimate obediences are notonIy saturated inthe 'institutions ofpower' but onthe other band are permeated
throughout the social body. The penetration of these structures (relations) ofIegitimateobediences was made
possible bythe invention ofwhat Foucault interchangeably calls society and population. Population isdefined
as"a group ofbeings l iving ina given area" (pPC: 83) . Thus society can beunders tood as individuals inthei r
relations.
The i nnovat ion of the bourgeo is ie was t o c rea te thes e concep ts and t urn t hem in to t he obj ec t o f
gove rnment I twas s ai d that " government not onl y has t odea l w it h a t err ito ry , wi th a doma in and wit h i t:!
subjects, but that italso has todeal with acomplex and independent reality thathas itsown laws and mechanismsof reaction, its regulation as well as its possibilities of disturbance. This new reality issociety" (FR: 242). The
society and population as theobject ofgovernment provide the wayof penetration fortbestructures ofIegitimate
obediences (power relat ions) deep into the social body. Incapi ta li st societies "power relat ions are rooted in
the system ofsocial networks" (SP: 224). I t i s through these power relat ions rooted inthe system of social
networks and i ts all ied micro ins ti tutions such asthe school, the hospi ta l, e tc , that the s tate has been able to
have access toand the abi li ty to s tructure relat ionships (SP: 224). Ina s imilar fashion i t is through the power
relat ions rooted inthe system ofsocial networks that the s tate has been able to have access toand structure
relations between self and self i .e. toindividualise (SP: 214).
I t i s here that we arr ive at the second and broader concept ion of the s tate . In this broader sense the
s tate would includ~ both the s tate inthe res tr ic ted sense and the whole system ofsocial networks. This can be
fur therelaboratedlunderstood with reference totheconcept ofgovernment Whi le s ta te inthe l imited sense
corresponds totherest ricted sense ofgovernment asan ins ti tution (SP: 224), the s tate inthe broader sense of
the word corresponds tothe broader sense ofthe government toinclude both the govenunent ofthe individual
(government ofindividuali sation) and the government ofpopulation. The state inthe broader sense isnot an
institution but a particular rationality of government, a form ofpolitica1 power(pPC: 24). Itisto this broader
sense oftbe state that Foucau1t isreferring when hewrites: " ... sincethe sixteenthcentuIya newpolitica1formof power has been continuously developing. This new political structure .. .isthestate"(SP:213). Itisinthis
sense that thes tate has been the condi tion of the formation and development ofcapi ta li sm and can be termed
as the capitalist state.
The capital is t s ta te i sa total ly new phenomenon inthe known his tory of s ta tehood. The way this i sso
can be understood bycontrasting the capitalist state with the forms of state that existed before.
As against feudal societies where the s tate was essential ly separated from the individual and society, in
the modem period this separation between state and society cannot bemaintained. Infeudal societies the state
functioned largely innegative terms inthe sense that its basic relationship with individuals and society was that
MARKET FORCES -JANUARY 2006
.l
(' "J
,
29
RESEARCH FOl'CA liLT . .\ :' oiDCAP ITA L\ST R. \' n 0 ;' , AU I \ :AK~L\J I"I '! I KIA 11\ "
ofprohibition and inhibition (HS: 135). The stale in feudal societies did not possess nor did itneed the power
over individuals and the social body that isthe hallmark of the present times. The power the state possessed
over the individual and society was essentially negative (HS: 136). The feudal stale swings between the two
extremes of taking lifeor letting live, ithas nopower over lifein itspositivity. Nor has itany interest inseeking
such apower. The feudal s ta te 's relat ion to l ifehasbeen pure negat ivity (HS: 136).
;,
A new form of s tate has , however , emerged inthe capital is t era . I f the previous form of s tate swung
between extremes of taking life orletting livethis new state assigns itself the task oflife administration (HS:
136). Power inthecapital is t s ta te i snot exercised " in the name of the sovereign who must bedefended" but
inthe name of "the existence of everyone", inthe name ofthe"entire population". The modem capitalist state
takes the responsibility for and "guarantees" the "individual 's continued existence" byassuming the right to
manage l ife. Thus modem stale power is"exerci sed at the level ofl ife, the species , the race, and the large
scale phenomenon ofpopulation" (HS: 137). Whi le the feudal s ta te was centred on the phenomenon of
death, the capitalist state iscentred on life; itlegitimises itself as the manager oflife (HS: 138).
The change i n t he natu re o f t he st ate men ti oned above has widened i ts ambit to incl ude ' lif e' in i ts
totality. Inthis sense the capitalist state includes 'every thing' [this corresponds to the early modem concept
of'police ' as found inCameral ism and Gennan Polizeiwissenchaft (pPC: 79)]. Thus the capital is t s ta te i sa
'totalising' force inthe manner the feudal state was not Itmust administer lifeas a whole. What Meszaros has
written about the totalising character ofcapital isequally true of the capitalist state9: "(I)he capital system is
(the) first one inhistory which institutes itself asan unexceptionable and irresistible totaliser . . . ."(1995: 41),
Capitalist "state power", Foucault writes, "is both an individualising and a totalising [read socialisingJ
form ofpower. Never , I think, inthehistory ofhuman societies-even intheold Chinese society - has therebeen such a tricky combination inthe same political structureofindividualising techniques, and oftotalisation
procedures" (SP: 213). Nothing escapes the capitalist state. 10
IV. Conclusion
The re a re two pos sible way s o funde rs tand ing the relat ionship between the reg imes o f the accumulat ion
o f men and the accumulat ion o fc ap ital . One v iew is tha t r elat ions a re extema1 to concept s and hence con ting en t
A cc or di ng t o t hi s v iew we wo ul d no t have t o c once pt ua ll y l ook fu rt her t ha n de sc ri bi ng hi st or ical ly how t he se
two d if fe rent r eg imes interac ted throughou t h is to ry . This i sno t a FoucauIdian per sp ec tive . Foucaul t' s ana ly si s
point s towards p rimo rd ia l r elat io n between the two reg imes -the relat ion tha t makes the ir con ting en t h is to rica l
relation possible.
Ou r br ief su rv ey of t he r egime of t he a ccumul at ion of m en, as a nal yse d by Fouca u1t , poi nt s t o a si ngl e
Qonclusion. Freedom is the condition that makes possible the primordial /ink between the regimes of
capital accumulation and the regime of the accumulation of men. The subjectivisation regime works on
t he c ondi ti on of fr eed om. A ca pi tal is t s ubj ec ti vi ty c ann ot be c ons ti tut ed wi thout f reed om. The ma nag eme nt of
t hi s sub ject ivi ty i s a ls o impos si bl e wi thout fr eedom. F ree dom i s t he me ans t o pr oduc e a s ub ject iv it y whi ch i s
c apa bl e of max imi si ng ut il it y w it hout m aki ng i t t oo di ff icul t t om anag e. S imi la rl y t he ca pi ta li st t rU th r egime
wo rks o n t he as sumpt ion t hat d isc ipl ine mus t be ul timat el y ba sed on s el f- di sci pl in e. O therwi se i nd ivi dua ls
and populations cannot be managed without hampering productivity. Once again freedom seems to be the
c ent ra l co ndi ti on of t he wh ol e pr oc es s. An d fi nal ly, t he s tat e do es not co nt rol t hro ugh r ep re ss ion. I t d oes not
co nt rol t hro ugh d edu ct ion. I tmana ge s t hr oug h di ssemi na ti on an d mul ti pl ic at ion . I t i s b ase d o n t he s tr at egy of