Abstract In recent decades, philosophical reflection on the utopian has focused on the analysis of the way in which the future-possible and the radically unknown or “other” influence our present. Specifically, accelerationism and Object-oriented Ontology have identified horror and weird fiction in general, and H. P. Lovecraft in particular, as the privileged field from which to access a radically anti-humanist absolute exteriority (Outside) with the aim of developing a new anti-species worldview, one which Timothy Morton calls “Dark Ecology.” This article analyzes the philosophical foundations of this worldview, showing the exclusive and proto-fascist character it harbors, which is why it should be clearly separated from other post-humanisms and/or new materialisms based on the hybridization and interconnection characteristic of relational ontologies. decades futurepossible future possible “other present Specifically Objectoriented Object oriented general H P particular antihumanist anti humanist Outside (Outside antispecies species worldview Dark Ecology. Ecology protofascist proto fascist harbors posthumanisms post humanisms andor ontologies

RESUMEN Como reacción a la recuperación académica de un Marx completamente desvinculado de la tradición marxista-leninista realizada a finales del siglo XX, las dos últimas décadas han presenciado un nuevo intento, propiamente filosófico, de rescatar partes del pensamiento de Lenin, si bien se han llevado a cabo desde posiciones epistemológicas, y con objetivos políticos, altamente divergentes. El presente artículo analiza y compara las que consideramos que son las dos líneas principales de esta recuperación: La liderada por Slavoj Žižek desde posiciones sociosimbólicas post-althusserianas, y la desarrollada por Antonio Negri y Michael Hardt a partir de la ontología deleuzo-guattariana y el post-operaísmo.

ABSTRACT Towards the end of the 2oth century there took place an academic recovery of a Marx completely detached from the Marxist-Leninist tradition. As a reaction, in the last two decades there has been a new properly philosophical attempt to rescue pieces of Lenin's thinking. This recovery has been carried out from epistemological positions and with clearly divergent political objectives. This article analyzes and compares what we consider to be the two main lines of this recovery: the one led by Slavoj Žižek from post-Althusserian socio-symbolic positions, and the one developed by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt from Deleuzo-Guattarian ontology and post-operaism.

Resumen El pensamiento de Foucault es una caja de herramientas que ha sido utilizada de muy diversos modos. Estas diferentes aplicaciones, sin embargo, no significan que su reflexión carezca de unidad. Para dar razón de esta afirmación este artículo realiza una reevaluación integral de la obra de Foucault centrada en la gubernamentalidad y muestra las articulaciones que dan razón de los principales poderes analizados por el pensador francés: soberano, disciplinario, biopolítico estatal y biopolítico (neo)liberal. El paso de unas tecnologías de poder a otras no implica que haya eras ni que los poderes desaparezcan. Lo que cambia es su prevalencia. El texto estudiará las diferencias del poder disciplinar y el biopoder, la transformación del poder disciplinario en biopoder estatal y la conversión de este en (neo)liberalismo.

Abstract Foucault’s thought is a toolbox which has been used in a variety of ways. Those multiple uses, do not imply, however, that his philosophy lacks unity. In order to ground this assertion, this article performs a comprehensive re-assessment of the work of Foucault, focused on the notion of governmentality, and it discusses how the main powers analyzed by the French thinker are related: sovereign power, disciplinary power, state biopolitics, and (neo) liberal biopolitics. Passing from certain power technologies to others does not entail the existence of eras of power or the disappearance of powers. What changes is their prevalence. This study analyzes the differences between disciplinary power and biopower, the transformation of disciplinary power into state power and the transformation of this latter into (neo)liberalism.