Of course, this is not and cannot be a Revolution, because a revolution requires a guideline, political demands, claims, some positive model to be imposed. But there is none of that here
by Andrea Zhok
The scenes that keep coming from France if they came from any “lesser” country, from weak alliances, would be taken as the prelude to a civil war, to a regime overthrow.
The number of rioters throughout the country is such that the police cannot control anything. In some areas (Angers) clashes have been seen between “order” citizens and “rioting” citizens.
 |
| Illustration: Emmanuel Macron , President of France in AI |
The “monopoly of violence” that defines the state appears to be dissolved.
Of course, this is not and cannot be a Revolution, because a revolution requires a guideline, political demands, claims, some positive model to be imposed. But there is none of that here, nothing that can convert this social fever into a vision of a better society.
On the other hand, this is also exactly why uprisings of this kind succeed-in the sense that they seriously challenge established authority.
For if it were an organized, politicized protest, aimed at persuasion and proposal, with a defined agenda, it would have long since been put under control, policed by the security apparatus, sabotaged by the media, artfully infiltrated, so as to prevent the emergence of any real alternative. This is because liberal democracies-just like autocracies-are constantly working for the preservation of the power of those who already have power.
There once circulated the idea-very wise in principle-that democracy, by guaranteeing real representation to demands from below, would be able to defuse violent protests and enable a harmonious improvement of the entire social body. But liberal-democracies have long expressed their bluntly plutocratic tendency, becoming fortresses to protect capital and ZTL insiders.
Therefore, in the absence of representation, and in the presence of the usual mechanisms of exclusion, exploitation and fragmentation of capitalist societies, the only road that remains open is that of destruction, plunder, and cathartic violence.
Liberal-democratic societies have often tried to channel these dynamics into controlled enclosures such as stadiums and Sunday brawls between Ultras. But beyond a certain limit, frustration and anger can no longer be fenced in and explode.
Having successfully gotten all genuine democratic politics out of the way, having dulled the mechanisms of participation, having blocked with media watchdogs all avenues of access to power, the elites have guaranteed themselves the legal non-contestability of their rule.
But this leaves room only for illegal expoliation, uncontrolled devastation, with no defined purpose except to make it known that “we exist too”.
This will not be a revolution, nor are those who animate it heroes of the revolution. This is because revolutions and heroes must still have social conditions to mature, conditions that liberal democratic societies have demolished, creating a social background that is disintegrated, individualistic, neurotic and crippled in the ability to reason.
They wanted to get beasts of burden, they got-and will get more and more-beasts of prey.
The scenes that keep coming from France if they came from any “lesser” country, from weak alliances, would be taken as the prelude to a civil war, to a regime overthrow.
The number of rioters throughout the country is such that the police cannot control anything. In some areas (Angers) clashes have been seen between “order” citizens and “rioting” citizens.
The “monopoly of violence” that defines the state appears to be dissolved.
Of course, this is not and cannot be a Revolution, because a revolution requires a guideline, political demands, claims, some positive model to be imposed. But there is none of that here, nothing that can convert this social fever into a vision of a better society.
On the other hand, this is also exactly why uprisings of this kind succeed-in the sense that they seriously challenge established authority.
For if it were an organized, politicized protest, aimed at persuasion and proposal, with a defined agenda, it would have long since been put under control, policed by the security apparatus, sabotaged by the media, artfully infiltrated, so as to prevent the emergence of any real alternative. This is because liberal democracies-just like autocracies-are constantly working for the preservation of the power of those who already have power.
There once circulated the idea-very wise in principle-that democracy, by guaranteeing real representation to demands from below, would be able to defuse violent protests and enable a harmonious improvement of the entire social body. But liberal-democracies have long expressed their bluntly plutocratic tendency, becoming fortresses to protect capital and ZTL insiders.
Therefore, in the absence of representation, and in the presence of the usual mechanisms of exclusion, exploitation and fragmentation of capitalist societies, the only road that remains open is that of destruction, plunder, and cathartic violence.
Liberal-democratic societies have often tried to channel these dynamics into controlled enclosures such as stadiums and Sunday brawls between Ultras. But beyond a certain limit, frustration and anger can no longer be fenced in and explode.
Having successfully gotten all genuine democratic politics out of the way, having dulled the mechanisms of participation, having blocked with media watchdogs all avenues of access to power, the elites have guaranteed themselves the legal non-contestability of their rule.
But this leaves room only for illegal expoliation, uncontrolled devastation, with no defined purpose except to make it known that “we exist too”.
This will not be a revolution, nor are those who animate it heroes of the revolution. This is because revolutions and heroes must still have social conditions to mature, conditions that liberal democratic societies have demolished, creating a social background that is disintegrated, individualistic, neurotic and crippled in the ability to reason.
They wanted to get beasts of burden, they got-and will get more and more-beasts of prey.
Source: lantidiplomatico.it [Translation by Costantino Ceoldo]
Andrea Zhok, Associate Professor at Università degli Studi di Milano
Post a Comment