THE RECUPERATION OF MISERY AND THE MISERY OF RECUPERATION

Disobeying an order is not the same thing as opposing the current state of things in its totality: one who disobeys can also base their action on the idea that it is not power in itself that needs to be eliminated but rather just its current arrangement.

“Acting” consequently on the basis of such an assumption, one could even simulate (in the best of cases) struggling against a constituted authority (let’s say an Empire), posing as the head of the “movement of movements” while, in the structure and adopted practices, that same authoritarian characteristics are revealed.

An imperceptible detail seems to slip by: the complete non-existence of a true movement of opposition.

Instead of attempting its construction, one assists in the pathetic show of a spectacular opposition: former collaborators with former ministers who, taking on the role of spokespeople, participate in televised transmissions, pseudo-battles carried out while looking upon parties and unions, and “social centers” that owe their existence to funds generously granted by the very governments against which they claim to struggle, as allies.

Rather than the subversion of the existent, the “new global” activists theorize and, to the extent that they can, put into practice participation in the management of present and future harm.

To anyone who invites us “not to hate the media, but to become that media” [!]it is useless to emphasize their blatantly repressive role: through the creation of a mass, passive, atomized and numbed human being, the foundations of a new totalitarian regime are laid, the one developed by technological society that attacks every human practice until it renders the human being itself unnecessary.

To anyone who proposes “controlling GMOs from below”, it is useless to mention the intirinsic nature of industrial technology: an instrument of power.

To anyone who attributes value (if one wants to define it as such) to contributing in this way to a quantitative growth in the movement, it is difficult to reveal the lack of any revolutionary quality whatsoever.

To anyone who replies to the critiques, moved by them to lament the absence of any positive theses, one has to respond that it is necessary first of all to start from a clear choice of battlefields.