Capitalism as collapsing religion Milan, Capital of the XXI Century

Capitalism as collapsing religion

Milan, Capital of the xxi Century

Damiano Roberi

Università degli Studi di Torino

Introduction

“The experience of our generation: that capitalism will not die a natural death” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 667). The following paper, in short, will consist of nothing but an attempt to interpret this sentence from Benjamin’s1 Arcades Project–and, at the same time, offer an explanation 152of the choice to do so, with the above phrase as the keystone of my reasoning. The core of the exposition will be the relationship between capitalism and nature, firstly starting from the Benjaminian analysis and then trying to develop a reflection on our present, inspired by said discussion. The first step, after some introductory and methodological considerations, will consist in an analysis of Benjamin’s fragment Capitalism as Religion. I will try to highlight its structurally open character, which is precisely what makes it suitable in order to tackle the problem (which has to be discussed mit jeder Wendung) summarized by this paper’s opening sentence. I will show how the essence of capitalism is precisely to have none, and how its parasitic behavior necessarily produces a misuse, an abuse (which affects also the critiques against this economical system). I will then make reference to the Arcades Project to confirm the points already highlighted, concentrating particularly on some images–the greenhouse, the role played by Art Nouveau and the prostitute–which will allow us to understand better the ties that bind capitalism and nature. These points will be finally recalled in the last paragraph, where the reasoning behind the second part of the title will become clear. Milan, host city of Expo 2015, will appear as capital of the 21st century, as embodiment of a new phase of the relationship between capitalism and nature, and at the same time the perfect scenario to investigate our very present.

I. Methodological and
introductive considerations

The first, and obvious, objection, which could be posed to this introduction, could regard the decision to consider the opening sentence as a “tremendous abbreviation” (Benjamin, 2006b, p. 396) of Benjamin’s thinking on capitalism. A closer look, however, shows how this doubt 153can be easily cleared, regarding the method as well as the content of this sentence.

Regarding the first issue, in short, I try in general to read Benjamin “against the grain”, to show how he was not only a great thinker of History, but also and at the same time–and this can be even more interesting for us, today–an author able to develop deep reflections on Nature. Even though this topic rarely appears in the forefront of his analysis, it is always present within his inquiry into the Naturgeschichte: this concept must be read–in an approach contrary to most secondary literature2–in both of its elements. Equally important is the will not to relegate Benjamin as a piece of the cultural heritage of the last century, something he himself would have been the first to reject. Without forcing the Benjaminian thinking, it is however not possible to avoid reading it in the light of its own jetzt der Erkennbarkeit. Here we find two issues, on one hand cognizability/readability, on the other hand usability3; the theoretical and the practical-political sides merge in the quotation, in the “tiger’s leap” (Benjamin, 2006b, p. 395)4. This approach can prove useful to add new stimuli to the most renowned interpretations. We are surely not allowed to impose on Benjamin categories he could not have had in mind, but at the same time we cannot embrace a sort of Benjaminian double truth, separating the exegetic and the interpretative moment: “Philologie ohne Aktualität ist blind, Aktualität ohne Philologie ist leer” (Wohlfarth, 2011, p. 269). We must then look for and build the similarities between our present and his reflections5.

Regarding the content, even a concise interpretation of the terms of the opening sentence of this paper opens up a large part of Benjamin’s thinking. Let us begin with “experience”: the original German word is Erfahrung, which has a specific meaning within his reflections6. Benjamin could have used the term Erlebnis here: it seems, though, that the Erlebnis of his generation would have been that of a natural death of capitalism. Most importantly, Erfahrung recalls a constructive moment7, thus a reflective-critical as well as political attitude, which is in no way limited to a naive mirroring of the immediate reality. It should be noticed, in fact, that experience is something fleeting, which we lack more and more, and thus something we have to fight for. Benjamin, then, writes: “of our generation”. Keeping in mind another fragment of the Arcades Project, which states “every epoch appears to itself inescapably modern–but each one also has a right to be taken thus” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 546), it is possible to observe that we are not facing here a mere observation, but rather a question which has to be posed mit jeder Wendung. Benjamin obviously means here his generation, but he does not explicitly specify this; thus he leaves us room for further considerations. Let us leave capitalism aside for a moment and look at the last section of the sentence, “will not die a natural death”. We can separate this into two parts, “will not die” and “a natural death”: the first part, considered alone, seems to go against Benjamin’s own–helpless but winged, as we will repeat at the end of this paper–revolutionary and utopic hopes. These words also have a kind of Benjaminian truth, though, as they hint at the phantasmagoric, ghostly8 existence of high capitalism, 155as a full realization of modernity. Let us now consider the second part: the concept of “natural death” seems to recall the Theological-political Fragment and the idea of Nature’s messianic transience9. Capitalism could die this death–but this is not the death that will not cause its disappearance. What does it all mean? We are facing here the polysemous character of the term “nature”10: it is neither possible to avoid it, nor do we have to; instead, we have to recognize and to discuss it. Regarding the first part of this task, I believe that Benjamin does not mean here simply “natural”, but rather naturgeschichtlich. This appears evident, if we think of his critique, in the 11th Thesis, of the ideas, typical of the Social Democracy, of a Nature, which “exists gratis”, and of the “moving with the current” (Benjamin, 2006b, p. 393–394). Both of these aspects are indeed nothing but different formulations of the capitalist ideology of progress.

There remains, of course, the possibility of reading–between necessity and interpretative temptation–this Benjaminian sentence from our point of view, from that of our generation. For the moment I would like just to address two possible meanings of the expression “will not die a natural death”, both tied to a disappearance of capitalism due to natural (i.e. linked to actual ecological crisis) causes. These two options are equally wrong. On the one hand we can imagine a violent death, but in this case it would not be possible to overtake the critique addressed by Benjamin to Karl Kraus, who–denouncing the damages inflicted on Nature by Man–cannot reach a truly political stance, as he leaves the solution of this situation to the revenge of Nature on Man11. On the other hand, a non-violent end would represent something really improbable, looking both at the enormous amount of scientific inquiries available12 156and at the inertia of politicians in tackling these problems. In order to further develop my reflections in this sense–i.e. not only to justify my attempt at interpretation, but also to show why the topic of Nature is fundamental within an analysis of this economic system–it is now necessary to try and understand better what capitalism is, according to Benjamin. Thus, in the following paragraph I will discuss the fragment Capitalism as Religion.

II. Capitalism: instructions
for (natural) misuse

Within the fragment Capitalism as Religion13 Benjamin develops an analysis of the structure, of the tendencies–not of the essence–of capitalism. The main acquisition of my reading of this text will be the individuation of what could be called instructions for (natural) misuse, from a dual point of view: on the one hand, as I will show, because capitalism consists in an intrinsic inclination to misuse-abuse–and Nature plays a central role in this sense. On the other hand, the same result can be also found, this time not intentionally, within the most important authors recalled here (i.e. Freud, Marx, Nietzsche). Benjamin is, on the other hand, able to avoid these difficulties, precisely in the light of the characteristics of his critique. After outlining these pivotal issues, I will pass on to the Arcades Project.

I believe that a good starting point can be the last of the problems just sketched, i.e. the position of the critique towards capitalism. It could easily be said that, just as Benjamin brings to the forefront the weaknesses of the authors he examines, the same could be done to him. For example, one could link his interpretation to a particular phase of the capitalist Schuldgeschichte (Hamacher, 2009), thus limiting, at least partially, its efficacy. This hypothesis, although incorrect in my opinion, allows us to hint at a confrontation with an œuvre like Le 157nouvel esprit du capitalisme, where we find not only a discussion of the adaptability of capitalism, but also of the relationship of the critique with it. Boltanski and Chiappello’s inquiry is particularly interesting because it links, through the notion of esprit, the economic and critical dimension. This tie develops itself on the basis of a quite stable capitalistic “nature”14. A minimal definition of this economical system, which is “à bien des égards […] absurde” (Boltanski & Chiappello, 2011, p. 40), valid for all its phases, is the limitless accumulation of capital15. The reaction of the anti-capitalistic critique, its relationship with this object of reflection, shows the constant necessity, for capitalism, to make reference to its enemies. Before being swallowed up by this economic system–or, rather, at the same time–they, in fact, provide it with a further push to survive the crisis it undergoes16. I cannot fully examine here the analysis of Boltanski and Chiappello, but I would like to underline briefly some points, in order to be able to appreciate better some peculiarities of Benjamin’s Capitalism as Religion. The first is the necessity of an interaction between the idea of the self-restructuration of capitalism and its same minimal definition of accumulation: in other words, how can this system undergo a substantial transformation, if it represents nothing but the very transformation set as principle17? It makes thus not so much sense to talk about the spirit of capitalism: it is rather better to identify the nouveauté as the main characteristic of this phenomenon (as evident from Benjamin’s Arcades Project). So, one must talk not of the spirit of capitalism, but instead of capitalism as spirit, ethereal and impossible to grasp. Secondly, the mobilizing capacity of capitalism is, according to Boltanski and Chiappello, so high that this system is able to include in itself also the critiques, thus appearing strongly adaptive-reactive. This implies the consideration of 158three relevant turning points: the “potentiellement mortelles” (Boltanski & Chiappello, 2011, p. 27) crisis periodically experienced by capitalism, the possibility of easily adapting the analysis of this work to our present18, and the structural lateness of critique. Regarding the first point I would like to observe, before coming back to this in looking at Capitalism as Religion, that the true crises, although doubtlessly real, do not represent a real danger for capitalism, but are instead a part of it19. In this sense, passing on to the second issue, I would speak, more than of an easy adaptability of the analysis of Boltanski and Chiappello to our present, or of the necessity of a new formulation of the critique (able “de […] prendre en compte la thémathique écologique”) (Boltanski & Chiappello, 2011, 159p. 943), of the exigence of finding a critique intrinsically adaptable, so to speak. This implies, looking finally at the problem of the structural lateness of the antagonistic stances, the necessity of finding a point of view able to follow the déplacements of capitalism, without too much (or too little) catégorisation. While the first of these two options represents the congenital weakness of the stances antithetic to capitalism, with the second one the very essence of the critique would disappear20.

Now, what can Capitalism as Religion tell us about the aforementioned problems? The first step we must take to answer this question is to notice how Benjamin insists on the essential character of the relationship between capitalism and religion21. This economic system is seen as essentially religious and essentially parasitic22. Both points are worthy of our attention: with the first, i.e. the religiosity of capitalism, we are facing a system which “serves essentially to allay the same anxieties, torments, and disturbances to which the so-called religions offered answers” (Benjamin, 2004, p. 288). It must be underlined how Benjamin emphasizes this characteristic both in the first lines and towards the end of the text, but with different nuances: in the latter case the origin of the worries is found in a “geistige […] Ausweglosigkeit” (Benjamin, 1991, p. 102)23. Capitalism thus relates itself to what could be called 160its spiritual fount–the Ausweglosigkeit, the lack of escape routes–in a paradoxical way, given that it seems to foster the growth of these phenomena which it should fight, but appears instead to have generated. To borrow a quotation from the Arcades Project: “the first tremors of awakening serve to deepen sleep” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 391); that is, the preoccupation for the lack of an exit strategy from capitalism pushes us even more unconditionally into its arms. This first point, which is fundamental both for capitalism and for the critiques against it, can be summarized with the words “we cannot draw closed the net in which we are caught” (Benjamin, 2004, p. 288)24.

This principal characteristic develops itself in the other main traits which are typical of capitalism, according to Benjamin. These are, synthetically: the absence of a proper theology, its reduction to a pure cultic exercise, the pervasiveness (both quantitative and qualitative) of capitalism, the fact that it creates Schuld and not atonement, aiming at the destruction of existence through the involvement of God (who must however reveal Himself only in the very last moment, when hope and desperation are intertwined)25. It appears thus evident that the normal functioning of this system produces a misuse, an abuse26, which appears the result of an aggressive, amorphous and unlimited attitude towards reality, independently of this latter’s way of presenting itself27. The following part of the fragment deals briefly and enigmatically with the figures of Freud, Nietzsche28, and Marx. The other most important source, Weber, appears to be surpassed already in the very beginning of the text, as we have already seen: Benjamin underlines the absence of a distance–he uses indeed als, not und–between capitalism and religion. 161So he expresses an identification, not a mere juxtaposition29. I cannot here examine accurately the objections raised by Benjamin to each of these thinkers: I just want to highlight how the three “masters of suspicion” become30 priests of capitalism. The merit they share is their ability to expound the capitalist tendencies right up to their extreme consequences31; however, they represent only a further Steigerung of this system, and not an Umkehr32. I believe that this is indeed true, but also I hold that this evaluation represents only a part of the whole problem: it focuses too much on the conclusion, and so neglects a previous step. These authors are able to grasp important aspects of capitalism, which I would summarize as the unclear non-recent and non-necessary character of its origin33: this is the ultimate meaning of the genealogy of the moral, of the primitive accumulation, of the primitive hord and Urmord. Insofar as they do this, they are entirely right. However, the endogenizing tendency34 of capitalism swallows up the critique, at the very same moment in which it–passing to its negative side–tries to develop definite, more than definitive, perspectives on the future. These authors, to recall once again Boltanski and Chiappello’s analysis, categorize too 162much, surrendering to the illusion of continuity35. They transform, from masters of the past suspicion, into priests of the future, because of the misuse/abuse of their critique, whose fundamental intuition–the dynamic character of capitalism–is applied only to a part of the temporal spectrum. The lateness of all these authors, whose reflections represent an only potentially deadly crisis which capitalism must periodically confront, appears thus evident: the crisis is only potentially deadly, because this economic system is able to assimilate their findings/demystifications and to use them for its own advantage. Each of these authors offers, so to speak, a point of resistance (Marx) or an instrument (the idea of Sin, the intertwining of hope and despair) which capitalism uses in order to strengthen itself. Benjamin, quite on the contrary, does not lend support to capitalism, as he limits his analysis to a reproduction (with a mimetic but first and foremost critical approach) of its tendency. He remains faithful to the Bilderverbot, and thus proves himself able to avoid falling into “an endless universal polemic” (Benjamin, 2004, p. 288). He does not attempt to close the net in which we stand, trying to catch capitalism from an external point of view, but instead anticipates here the methodological idea of the Trojan horse, i.e. of an action from the inside. As he will write in the Arcades Project: “the imminent awakening is poised, like the wooden horse of the Greeks, in the Troy of dreams” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 392).

From this brief review both of the characteristics of capitalism and of the weaknesses of the critique against it, it appears evident that this economic system, according to Benjamin, has the particular charter of an entity devoid of a stable essence36, which would be possibly used 163as touchstone for its various and different transformations. This does not mean, of course, that these changes do not happen; quite on the contrary: it must be underlined that the only essence of capitalism, if one wants to insist on this point, is to have none, constituting a pure “Bewegungslogik der Fusion” (Hamacher, 2009, p. 94)37. This does not imply a Benjaminian skeptical stance: this author is instead careful to examine adequately–he applies, in this, sense, the expression “pessimism all along the way” that closes his essay on Surrealism–its dynamic and adaptive structure.

However, given that capitalism has no nature, which kind of relationship does it have with nature? It turns out to be, in its Steigerung, always bound to this dimension: this is true from three main points of view. Firstly, capitalism is natural in its self-representation38; secondly, its rapacious attitude aims at an external or internal/human nature; finally, it encounters in nature its own limit, even if it does not recognize it. For all these reasons, capitalism can be defined, rather than a religion of the collapse (seen as a final and stable result), as a collapsing religion. This adjective does not aim at expressing a prediction; it only tries to sum up the main characteristics of this phenomenon, which we will now try to find within the Arcades Project39.

III. Intermezzo: Paris – the Greenhouse
and the Prostitute

In this section, I will concentrate my reading of the Arcades Project–which could possibly be viewed as an enormous collection of annotations to Capitalism as Religion–, on the relationship between capitalism and nature40. I will focus particularly on some significant moments or images: the passage and the universal expositions, the role of the Art Nouveau within Benjamin’s reflections, and the figure of the prostitute. In doing so, I will try to explain the bond that ties the two parts of the title of this paper. The Benjaminian analysis on the city of Paris will not only confirm the aforementioned points, but will also provide us with the quotable elements that will serve as a basis for the similitude I will try to develop in the last part of my discourse.

From within the reflection dedicated to the “dream houses of the collective” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 405), two spaces emerge as particularly meaningful: the passages and the universal expositions. The architectural peculiarity of these commercial galleries lies, according to Benjamin, in their structure: an “arcade as nave with side chapels” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 37). They do not represent, however, more than a temporary phase within the general tendency (typical of modernity) towards the construction of comfortable intérieurs; or, even a failed experiment soon overtaken by the grand magasins and the universal expositions41. These commercial galleries, designed as a connection between two streets, where people could enjoy a pleasant walk, looking at the shops without caring about the weather, were not “straight but winding, so that you could never see the end of it” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 205). The lack of 165ways out, which is still a dream-like reality in the case of the passage, is transformed, after the architectonical revolution of Haussmann, in the boulevard, obliged perspective closed by a monument, “a petrified myth” (Gilloch, 1997, p. 72)42. The same idea of the connection, although with no end, develops itself in a panopticon and into the imprisonment of the whole world under a sky which has become a “splenetic cupola” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 233). The universal expositions, whose most interesting architecture is that of the greenhouse, are an expression of this tendency. The model to which Benjamin makes reference in this case is the Crystal Palace. This structure can, however, assume immediately also another meaning: it is sufficient to recall the fragment where Louis Philippe is said to have “put the republic to grow in a hothouse” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 161). The naturalistic character of this image is however not only metaphorical, given that the Crystal Palace could house some huge secular trees. The “premature synthesis” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 175) of the unprecedented constructive possibilities offered by the new materials, iron and glass, produces here a–vain–attempt at seizing nature. The character of good is indeed extended, within Grandville’s commercials, to Nature as a whole, to the entire universe43. From this point of view–here we find a retake of one of the main characteristics of this phenomenon–capitalism shows an undeniable pantheistic tendency44. The main issues of this condition are all-inclusiveness as well as distance and unfathomableness. This is true in the first place for the working masses, who during these expositions were not only faced with the “unprecedented level of development” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 180) of the means of production, but were also tamed under the maxim “look at everything; touch nothing” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 201).

This is true, however, also for the bourgeoisie, which during the expositions cries out, in a Faustian manner: “abide, you are so fair!” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 355). This exclamation hides however the presentiment–or 166rather, the removed certainty–of the impossibility of keeping under control not simply the development of the means of production, but the consequences of its dominion on nature. Despite the opportunity for this class to acquire an awareness in this sense, the bourgeoisie refuse to do so, preferring the apparent refuge represented by the Art Nouveau. Benjamin highlights the tendency of this artistic current to express the stylization of nature and the sterilization of its potentialities. The naturalistic dimension does not represent here an occasion of renewal45, but only, at best, a fount of legitimateness and an alibi: a static and separate setting, projectively created as background for the actions of the bourgeoisie. Nature thus, as far as capitalism is concerned, represents something we could define, borrowing Kracauer’s expression, as “the last thing before the last”46: a penultimate, ideal goal–where “ideal” expresses both the object towards which capitalism inevitably strives, from a material as well as imaginative point of view, and something impossible to reach. This also has a double meaning: the illusion of dominion never to be realized, and the non-existent definitive goal of the undetermined character proper of capitalism.

I find it important, then, to notice how another fundamental element of the city of Paris, the prostitute, is removed, contrary to these two precedent moments. This inhabitant par excellence of the passages, born as a working figure in the same moment of the transformation of work into prostitution, and then, after being expelled from these places, one of the principal causes of their decline, represents “the incarnation of a nature suffused with commodity appearance […] image of an availability that holds for everyone and is discouraged by none” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 361). This figure is essential precisely because it shows how the extension of capitalism to the whole universe does not represent a moment successive to the submission of the essence of nature. It is crucial to notice that these two moments are just two sides of the same coin: Benjamin sees the “triumph” of the commodity “in the fact that nature itself takes on 167a commodity character. It is this commodity appearance [Warenschein] of nature that is embodied in the whore” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 345). Nature as a good also means a good as something natural: so, both cases seem to be ruled by the Hegelian principle “essence must appear”–concerning these Benjaminian analyses, the absence of an essence must appear natural47. From this point of view, it can be said that the universal expositions and the prostitute equally represent two moments of an identic evolution of capitalism. The only difference is that the prostitute is even more decisive and revealing48, and thus must be removed by capitalism. In the conclusion of his analysis, Benjamin, once more, seems to recall our opening sentence. Is this just a disenchanted verification or rather a warning? The question still has to be answered: it is now necessary to re-examine the problem from the point of view of our generation.

IV. Benjamin goes to Expo 2015

Within this last paragraph I will try to accomplish two tasks: firstly, to prove in short the characteristics analyzed earlier. This time, however, this will not happen from the point of view of the defensive projection of the 19th century bourgeoisie, but by looking at the current ecological crisis we are experiencing–so, a slightly different meaning of “nature” will be in question. I will then try to sketch an interpretation of Expo2015 which will be inspired by these Benjaminian categories. 168While I will show how Capitalism as Religion applies perfectly to this last universal exposition, it will also begin to emerge49 why Milan can be considered the capital of the 21st century50.

I propose, as a working hypothesis, the following minimal definition of capitalism: the present phase of its Steigerung consists in the accumulation of the greatest possible amount of the available resources and in a new, qualitatively different, exploitation of nature (which is not, however, absolutely different, since this has always been the basis of capitalism). The inevitable awareness of this aggression–no longer towards a background imagined as immobile, but towards the Umwelt that surrounds us–is nowadays hidden under false pretences by a religion of consumerism which is extremely attentive to the right valorization of bio-products, for example, and so on. This religion is thus even more faithful to the appearance of naturality we have already encountered; now this assumes another nuance, in order to adapt better to the idea of nature which 169is actually in question. I would like to recall an element of Capitalism as Religion: capitalism is a parasite, which is now becoming (or, better, its evolution goes in this direction) a parasitoid. In other words, this economical system is not only exploiting its host organism, nature, but also–here we find a qualitative difference–eroding the very basis of its own existence51. The first characteristic of capitalism, i.e. the absence of a theology, remains valid here, given that also (or, particularly) in this case, the aggression towards our environment takes place randomly, simply through the ceaseless celebrating of the cult of consumerism52. The pervasiveness of this behaviour and of its consequences are evident from an extensive-quantitative perspective: given the systemic alterations which our planet undergoes, the very idea of a place exempted by them would be a kind of contradictio in adiecto. One also has to consider this problem, though, from an intensive-qualitative point of view: I think it is possible here to borrow Serge Latouche’s expression and to talk of a colonization of the imaginary53. Capitalism takes place not only sans trêve et sans merci, but also sans rêve54, given the absence both of concrete and utopic alternatives to the present situation and the difficulties in finding a correct attitude between the opposites of catastrophism and the removal of the ecological problems from our considerations. The indebting (verschuldend) character of this system is confirmed by the fact that the celebration of this cult not only inflicts other wounds on 170Nature, but also further deepens what could be seen as ecological fault (Chelazzi, 2013). It seems to me particularly interesting, then, that the actual phase of capitalism products a situation where despair and hope intertwine, where the God of this cult finally manifests itself, after being not yet mature for that, not yet involved enough in this process of destruction of being. Is it not true that a reference to the God of this cult–let us remember that here adoration and indebtedness-destruction convertuntur–, that is nature, is made only when it is already too late? However, one should say: when it is going to be already too late–here the procrastination typical of capitalism finds its basis. The system of nature is not yet collapsed, but is collapsing–a situation with which capitalism, as I have showed, has an elective affinity.

Would it not be possible, starting from these Benjaminan coordinates, to look at Expo2015 as the last and ultimate expression–at least for our generation–of the capitalistic cult? A good reason for this choice is immediately evident: the very disposition of this exposition. Expo’s two main axes, Cardo and Decumano55, present two important characteristics already highlighted: on the one hand the structure of the passage–a commercial gallery with side shops56–, on the other hand that of the boulevard–an obliged perspective, closed by a monument. Located at the end of the Cardo, the Tree of Life, “which is, at one and the same time, a monument, a sculpture, an installation, a building, and a work of art”57, is particularly significant. It is hard to avoid the impression of being in front of something that plays a similar role to the Victory 171Column of Benjamin’s Berlin Childhood around 1900, i.e. a celebration of a victory that hides the descent to hell of nature, this time58. The opening towards the high of the Tree of Life echoes the covering of the exposition, which is half-open59. The basic shared idea seems to me the following: we do not have to fear something from Nature, we need no longer a screen against it (such was the glass covering of the greenhouse); since we are inserted within it, we can enjoy its generosity: it is sufficient to collaborate with it. This is one of the possible meanings of the installation by the Academy Award winner scenographer Dante Ferretti along the Decumano, representing the different areas of a market60. This, once more, is a Benjaminian image: in the sketch Market Hall of Berlin Childhood we find a description of this place, whose main characters are “slow-moving market women […] priestesses of a venal Ceres, purveyors of all fruits of the field and orchard, all edible birds, fishes, and mammals” (Benjamin, 2006a, p. 362)61. The inclusion of the world in the global interior of this capital finds maybe a slight exception 172in the clusters where some small countries were gathered, in areas less visited than the other bigger pavilions, and with a different layout. These seem to recall the little squares of Paris, which “do not enjoy the patronage of world history” (Benjamin, 2002, p. 516) mentioned by Benjamin, but are effectively equally irrelevant to the capital (in its double sense) as a whole.

Approaching my conclusion, my general impression during my visit to Expo2015 was that of crossing a mausoleum. A particular one, not only conceived in order to sell more/better thanks to the fount of legitimateness/alibi represented by Nature, but also, at least implicitly, to remember it in the very moment of its disappearance (it is sufficient to recall the Sixth Extinction as hallmark of the Holocene). I found particularly interesting, from a Benjaminian point of view, one of the halls of the Zero Pavilion of the UN: here the visitors can find a huge library, The Archives of Memory, where “each drawer corresponds symbolically to a food, an animal, a food practice”62. This closely recalls an image of Baudelaire’s Fleurs du mal (Spleen): “J’ai plus de souvenirs que si j’avais mille ans. / Un gros meuble à tiroirs encombré de bilans […] C’est une pyramide, un immense caveau, / qui contient plus de morts que la fosse commune” (Baudelaire, 1918, p. 111). Is not the topic of memory crucial for Benjamin’s thinking? In this context we find two main options concerning memory: on the one hand that just quoted from Baudelaire, i.e. the melancholic proliferation of the souvenirs (equally superficial memories or memento for a visit to this exposition). On the other hand, but strictly tied to it, the Proustian possibility of getting lost inside the labyrinth of memory, a Penelope’s tapestry–as Benjamin observes in his 173essay Zum Bilde Prousts–both of memory and of oblivion63. A possible escape from this dilemma would be a consideration of the image that closes Baudelaire’s poem, i.e. the sphynx: “Désormais tu n’es plus, ô matière vivante, / Qu’un granit entouré d’une vague épouvante, / Assoupi dans le fond d’un Saharah brumeux, / – Un vieux sphinx ignoré du monde insoucieux” (Baudelaire, 1918, p. 112). It is necessary to ask ourselves if this figure and the enigma64 it represents (I would say, the relationship between Man and Nature), just like the prostitute, are still present and urgent for us. Indeed, this is my opinion: it is sufficient to look at another composite figure, Expo2015’s mascot Foody, inspired by Arcimboldo’s works65. Out of metaphors: for Benjamin the sphynx embodied the condition of a matter twice dead, because it is inorganic66 and excluded by the process of production and distribution of the goods. Would it not be possible to see Foody playing a similar role, representing the illusion of a harmonious coexistence between capitalism and the cycles of nature67? Is this not once again Art nouveau? The prostitute hid the secret of 19th century capitalism, and for this reason was expelled from the Passages. Does this smiling figure hide in full view a similar secret of our times, as in Poe’s The stolen letter?

It seems much more probable, rather than a harmonious coexistence, that Expo2015 foreshadows (just like the universal expositions analyzed by Benjamin) a sudden awakening, represented by resource wars68. This, however, is not to give capitalism up for dead: it seems, quite on the contrary, much-advanced in its adaptation to this situation, looking at both the world superpowers’ behavior and the inertia of politicians in dealing with these problems. So, I am left with a simple critical verification: “the experience of our generation: that capitalism will not die a natural death”. With these words I opened this paper, and now I finally return to them. Even without considering our age as one of decadence69, it still remains necessary to remember that “before the spark reaches the dynamite, the lighted fuse must be cut”. Our hope seems, in this sense, hopeless, “and yet she is winged. Nothing is more true” (Benjamin, 2004, p. 470–471).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agamben, Giorgio [2005], “In Praise of Profanation”, in Agamben, Giorgio [2005], Profanations. Trans. by J. Fort, New York, Zone Books, 2007, p. 73–92.

Baudelaire, Charles [1857-1861-1866-1868], Les Fleurs du mal, édition critique par F.F. Gautier, Paris, Gallimard, 1918.

Baudrillard, Jean [1976], L’échange symbolique et la mort, Paris, Gallimard.

Baumann, Stephanie [2014], “‘Here goes B. wrong’. Sigfried Kracauers Anmerkungen zu Benjamins ‘Über den Begriff der Geschichte’”, in Weidner, Daniel & Weigel, Sigrid (Hrsg.) [2014], Benjamin-Studien 3, Paderborn, Fink, p. 31–44.

Benjamin, Andrew [2013], Working with Walter Benjamin. Recovering a Political Philosophy, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Benjamin, Walter [1982], The Arcades Project. Translated by H. Eiland and K. McLaughlin. Cambridge-London: Belknap Press, 2002.

Benjamin, Walter [1985], Gesammelte Schriften, Band VI, hrsg. von R. Tiedemann und H. Schweppenhäuser, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1991.

Benjamin, Walter [1996], Selected Writings, vol. 1 (1913–1926), ed. by M. Bullock and Michael W. Jennings, Cambridge-London, Belknap Press, 2004.

Benjamin, Walter [2002], Selected Writings, vol. 3 (1935–1938), ed. by H. Eiland and M. Jennings, Cambridge-London, Belknap Press, 2006a.

Benjamin, Walter [2003], Selected Writings, vol. 4 (1938–1940), ed. by H. Eiland and M. Jennings, Cambridge-London, Belknap Press, 2006b.

Boltanski, Luc & Chiappello, Ève [1999], Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme, Paris, Gallimard, 2011.

Bolz, Norbert [1986], “Prostituiertes sein”, in Bolz, Norbert & Faber, Richard (Hrsg.) [1986], Antike und Moderne. Zu Walter Benjamins ‘Passagen’, Würzburg, Königshausen&Neumann, p. 191–213.

Buck-Morss, Susan [1989], The Dialectics of Seeing. Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.

Chelazzi, Guido [2013], L’impronta originale. Storia naturale della colpa ecologica, Torino, Einaudi.

Derrida, Jacques [1993], Spectres de Marx. L’État de la dette, le travail du deuil et la nouvelle Internationale, Paris, Éditions Galilée.

Eiland, Howard & Jennings, Michael W. [2014], Walter Benjamin. A critical life, Cambridge-London, Belknap Press.

Fenves, Peter [2001], Arresting Language. From Leibniz to Benjamin, Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Gentili, Dario [2014], “Vie d’uscita dal capitalismo”, in Gentili, Dario & al. (éd.) [2014], Il culto del capitale. Walter Benjamin: capitalismo e religione, Macerata, Quodlibet, p. 57–70.

Gilloch, Graeme [1996], Myth and Metropolis: Walter Benjamin and the City, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1997.

Hadot, Pierre [2004], The Veil of Isis. An Essay on the History of the Idea of Nature. Trans. by M. Chase, Cambridge-London, Belknap Press, 2006.

Hamacher, Werner [2003], “Schuldgeschichte. Benjamins Skizze ‘Kapitalismus als Religion’”, in Baecker, Dirk (Hrsg.) [2003], Kapitalismus als Religion, Berlin, Kadmos, 2009, p. 77–119.

Hanssen, Beatrice [1998], Walter Benjamin’s Other History. Of Stones, Animals, Human Beings, and Angels. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press, 2000.

Klare, Michael [2001], Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2002.

Latouche, Serge [2004], Survivre au développement. De la décolonisation de l’imaginaire économique à la construction d’une société alternative, Paris, Fayard.

Lavelle, Patricia (éd.) [2013], Benjamin, Paris, Herne.

Lindner, Burkhardt (Hrsg.), Benjamin-Handbuch, Stuttgart, Metzler, 2011.

Löwy, Michael [2009], “Capitalism as Religion: Walter Benjamin and Max Weber”, Historical Materialism, vol. 17, No 1, p. 60–73.

McFarland, James [2013], Constellation. Friedrich Nietzsche and Walter Benjamin in the Now-Time of History, New York, Fordham University Press.

Morton, Timothy [2012], “The Oedipal Logic of Ecological Awareness”, Environmental Humanities, vol. 1, p. 7–21.

Opitz, Michael & Wizisla, Erdmut (Hrsg.) [2000], Benjamins Begriffe, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 2011.

Randers, Jorgen [2012], 2052. A Global Forecast For the Next Forty Years, White River Junction, Chelsea Green Publishing.

Salzani, Carlo [2013], “Politica profana, o dell’attualità di Capitalismo come religione”, in Benjamin, Walter [2013], Capitalismo come religione, a c. di C. Salzani, Genova, Il Melangolo, p. 7–37.

Schmiedgen, Peter [2009], “Interiority, Exteriority and Spatial Politics in Benjamin’s Cityscapes”, in Benjamin, Andrew & Rice, Charles (éd.) [2009], Walter Benjamin and the Architecture of Modernity, Melbourne, repress, p. 147–156.

Scholem, Gershom [1975], Walter Benjamin: the story of a friendship. Trans. by H. Zohn, New York, Schocken Books, 1981.

Schöttker, Detlev [1999], Konstruktiver Fragmentarismus. Form und Rezeption der Schriften Walter Benjamins, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.

Shiva, Vandana [2015], Chi nutrirà il mondo? Manifesto per il cibo del terzo millennio. Trans. by G. Pannofino, Milano, Feltrinelli.

Sloterdijk, Peter [2005], In the World Interior of Capital. Trans. by W. Hoban, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2013.

Steiner, Uwe [2003], “Die Grenzen des Kapitalismus. Kapitalismus, Religion und Politik in Benjamins Fragment ‘Kapitalismus als Religion’”, in BAECKER, Dirk (Hrsg.) [2003], Kapitalismus als Religion, 2009, p. 35–59.

Tafuri, Manfredo [1973], Architecture and Utopia. Design and Capitalist Development. Trans. by B.L. La Penta, Cambridge-London, MIT Press, 1976.

Voigts, Manfred [2000], “Zitat”, in Opitz, Michael & Wizisla, Erdmut (Hrsg.) [2000], Benjamins Begriffe, 2011, p. 826–850.

Weber, Max [1934], The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. by T. Parsons, London-New York, Routledge, 2001.

Weber, Samuel [2010], Benjamin’s -abilities, Cambridge-London, Harvard University Press.

Weber, Thomas [2000], “Erfahrung”, in Opitz, Michael & Wizisla, Erdmut (Hrsg.) [2000], Benjamins Begriffe, 2011, p. 230–259.

Weigel, Sigrid [2008], Die Kreatur, das Heilige, die Bilder, Frankfurt am Main, Fischer.

Wohlfarth, Irving [2011], “Die Passagenarbeit”, in Lindner, Burkhardt (Hrsg.) [2011], Benjamin-Handbuch, p. 251–274.

Consulted Websites

http://www.Expo2015.org/archive/it/esplora.html#map-lake-arena

http://www.Expo2015.org./en/explore/exhibition-site/lake-arena

http://www.lmv.it/it/galleria/progetti-in-corso/progetti-in-corso-edifici/item/58-expo-2015-tensostrutture-di-copertura

http://www.Expo2015.org/en/news/president-sergio-mattarella-inaugurates-the-works-of-dante-ferretti-at-expo-milano-2015

http://virtual.Expo2015.org/?go=pavilion-zero&language=EN

https://www.google.com/imghp