You make a valid point, and it’s fair to say that both Félix Guattari and Alain Badiou could be seen as “selectively naive” in their respective philosophical engagements with communist regimes and authoritarianism. Both thinkers were deeply invested in their critiques of capitalism and their visions of radical alternatives, and this focus sometimes led to blind spots or a lack of critical engagement with the real-world consequences of certain Marxist-inspired ideologies and regimes.
Let’s unpack this “selective naivety” in the context of Guattari and Badiou:
1. Guattari: A “Selective Naivety” Rooted in Hope
• Anti-Capitalist Urgency: Guattari’s critique of global capitalism, particularly its ability to homogenize subjectivity and ecological systems, was so urgent in his mind that it overshadowed other pressing concerns, such as the authoritarianism of some anti-capitalist regimes.
• Support for Revolutionary Movements:
• Guattari was often sympathetic to Marxist-inspired struggles for liberation, especially in anti-colonial contexts. His hope for an alternative to capitalism may have led him to downplay or overlook the failures and atrocities of regimes like the CCP or Stalinism.
• For example, while Guattari was deeply critical of centralized power, he did not spend much energy denouncing specific communist regimes in the way others like Hannah Arendt or Claude Lefort did.
• “Naivety” vs. Pragmatism:
• Guattari’s approach was more philosophical and experimental than politically pragmatic. His emphasis on creating new forms of subjectivity and collectivity through deterritorialization meant he often sidestepped engaging with the brutal realities of existing systems.
2. Badiou: A More Explicit (and Troubling) Naivety
• Faith in the Communist Idea:
• Badiou’s “selective naivety” is more pronounced and deliberate than Guattari’s. His staunch defense of the Idea of Communism often led him to downplay or excuse the horrors of regimes like Maoist China.
• For example, Badiou remained sympathetic to the Cultural Revolution, framing it as a genuine attempt to rethink politics and revolution, even as it caused immense suffering. He viewed the excesses and failures of Maoism as deviations from its core truth rather than intrinsic flaws.
• Philosophical Purity over Historical Reality:
• Badiou’s focus on the Event (a radical rupture in history) and fidelity to the Idea of communism often meant he dismissed the “empirical” realities of communist regimes as secondary to their transformative potential.
• This insistence on idealism over realism has led critics to accuse Badiou of being dangerously disconnected from the human cost of the ideas he champions.
3. Comparing Their Naivety
• Guattari: An Optimistic Experimenter
• Guattari’s naivety, while real, seems more hopeful than dogmatic. His critique of capitalism’s effects on subjectivity, ecology, and desire was expansive and visionary, but his relative silence on communist atrocities can be seen as a failure to fully reckon with the historical realities of his time.
• His naivety stemmed from his faith in creativity, assemblages, and the potential for new forms of life—an optimism that led him to focus more on possibilities than on the catastrophic failures of some anti-capitalist experiments.
• Badiou: A Dogmatic Idealist
• Badiou’s selective naivety is more problematic because it often crosses into outright justification or minimization of atrocities in the name of fidelity to the communist ideal. His insistence on preserving the purity of the Idea, despite overwhelming evidence of its disastrous applications, reflects a kind of ideological rigidity.
4. Why Were They Naive?
• Context of Their Time:
• Both thinkers were products of the post-1968 intellectual left, which sought alternatives to capitalism and remained deeply critical of liberal democracy. Many intellectuals of this era struggled to reconcile their anti-capitalist commitments with the failures of Marxist regimes.
• In particular, the allure of Maoism as a radical alternative was strong in French intellectual circles, and both Guattari and Badiou were shaped by this milieu.
• Philosophical Biases:
• Both were committed to universalist aspirations—Badiou through the Idea of Communism, Guattari through the creation of collective assemblages and new subjectivities. This universalism often blinded them to the particular, localized forms of suffering under regimes they were reluctant to fully critique.
5. Is It Forgivable?
• Guattari’s Optimism:
• Guattari’s selective naivety might be more forgivable because it stemmed from a focus on experimentation and creation rather than dogmatic allegiance to a particular ideology. His work remains open-ended and adaptable, allowing for critique and evolution.
• Badiou’s Idealism:
• Badiou’s naivety is harder to excuse, as it involves a more conscious and deliberate dismissal of historical realities in favor of preserving a theoretical framework. Critics often accuse him of being complicit in minimizing the suffering caused by the regimes he defends.
6. Learning from Their Naivety
• Their selective naivety underscores the dangers of idealism divorced from historical reality:
• Philosophical visions must be grounded in an honest reckoning with their practical implications and consequences.
• The atrocities of Stalinism, Maoism, and other regimes cannot simply be dismissed as “historical deviations” or necessary sacrifices—they must inform any future attempts to imagine alternative systems.
In Summary
Guattari and Badiou were both “selectively naive” in their engagements with communist regimes, though their naivety manifested differently. Guattari’s was rooted in a hopeful, experimental vision that sought to create new possibilities beyond capitalism and state socialism, while Badiou’s was tied to a more rigid defense of the communist ideal, even at the cost of minimizing historical atrocities. Both remind us of the importance of critically engaging with the realities of power and suffering, even when imagining transformative alternatives to the status quo.
