Demos, Kratos, Autos, Nomos-A Fragmentary Expenditure.

The People, the power, the self, the rule. The former two are most notorious in their coupling as Democracy; the power of The People. What power does The People have? The power of constitution, the Demos holds the power to constitute the rule of its law, its Kratos manifest as Nomos. What does Demokratia, manifest as Demonomia, rule over? Theoretically, it rules over itself, Demokratia as Auto-nomia. The Demos rules on behalf of itself, it constitutes itself for-itself as an object of obedience to itself, and obeys only the content of its self-representation made manifest—the actuality of its power. The Demos is a universal egoist, and presents itself as the substantial ‘will of the people’ in all modes of its extended, real actuality. This substance, however, relies upon a hidden, originary self-division. It requires moments to legislate over, materials to channel itself through, to make subjects of its power, it requires subjection. It craves the use embodied lives made extensions of its modality.

These subjects are equally the object of a law, and receive the calling to manifest the practice of the Demonomia, a practice that itself relies on the very Kratos of these subjects that this substance calls upon. This power it implicitly presupposes, yet cannot acknowledge explicitly, because to do so would be for it to realize its own alien vacuity as substance, and for its subjects to realize that the Demos is merely an abstract and alien representation of their own powers of social manifestation. For the power to be with ‘The People’ as representation, as imagined Vorstellung, the powers of particular individuality must remain concealed behind this spectral veil of mere representation. As abstraction and even in higher determination as essence, it is is contradicted by the simple fact that no such Self that manifests the Demonomia remains comprehensive of its own self-positing and of the roots of Demokratia within the Auto-Kratia of the individuals that it relies upon as inessential to its generality. The Autonomia of Demonomia, is hence not the Autonomia of any such particular person, but is Heteronomia to them. This alien rule is only the alienated Autonomia of the Demos itself i.e. one given in ignorance by its moments as particular beings whom lack adequate comprehension of the full extent of their powers of social self-making; and yet demonstrate it every day in social practice.

What would a Demokratia in light of such a revelation of self-consciousness entail? If identification with the Demos as substance were to fall in light of its dependence on the subject—which it relies upon for its unity and qualitative character in its creation—it could be brought down to Earth in recognition of the constitutive power of its moments, as well as in the ultimate failure of the identification of the particular with this Demos through the method of constitution. To render the authority of its Heteronomia inoperative may entail a reconsideration of the founding act of Demos-creation itself, from its seemingly mythic origins (in nationalism say, or the ‘right of heroes’), to a product (that may indeed be novel in its self-consciousness) of the association of particular moments in union, for the sake of a multiplication of their powers of Auto-Kratia, for the sake of an Autonomia that could serve as its own mediation by force multiplication (however transitory). Mutuality of power multiplication, a comradeship of selves, could be its own positing and self-position.

It is difficult to be programmatic, because it is hard to represent such a redistribution of the self’s own powers from their constitutive alienation in the destitution of the alien means by which individuals live alienated lives, under terms that are not comprehended as manifestations as their own powers of self-differentiation, of becoming different, external, alien to themselves. Heteronomia would remain in some sense, but only insofar as the identity of the Autos is reconciled with its intrinsic, creative mechanism of Heterogenesis, which bears in its emancipation the creative enjoyment of gaining oneself in what is lost of oneself in the other—Ecstasis. The pursuit of Autonomy is the destitution of The People for the sake of People, and the invention of new ecstasies, of self-differentiation.

One thought on “Demos, Kratos, Autos, Nomos-A Fragmentary Expenditure.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s