NOR RESISTANCE OR PROGRAM (Stratagems of Change)

[Lukas Stella]

In this period of confusion, where the planetary financial economy imposes its dictatorship "in perpetuity", destroying the conditions of survival of its inhabitants, the current solutions for change have proved ineffective, because unsuited to the new conditioning of the entertainment society.
Our experiences of failure have built our limiting beliefs.

NO RESISTANCE NOR PROGRAM

To resist, from the Latin "resistare" which means "to stop", is to remain intact, not to be altered, to endure, to endure well, to oppose, to refrain from making an offensive, a radical change.
After the time of the claims where we asked for a few more crumbs, the time of reactive resistances settled which tried to keep a few crumbs of an exploitation without limit. Resistance to anti-social and inhuman pressures is reactionary. It limits any desire for change to a single reaction, in the rules of the game of a policy of enslavement, reduced to the spectacular context of its domination. Resistance from the perspective of constraints is only resistance to change.

Resistance to the foreign invader places the resistance fighters on the margins of society. To consider anti-social policies as intrusive they must take their place outside, and thus create a separation between them and society. Excluding themselves from social life, they save themselves any possibility of real transformation. The "antis" of all kinds, each in his specialty, well separated from the others, immediately place themselves in an opposition of dependence, sterile and ineffective.
By resistance to a reform, one fixes the change in a backward step. As the sole goal of a movement, it can only generate an endless paradoxical problem. The resistance has never achieved liberation except its spectacular aspect, reduced to its restricted vitiated space, it can only keep the essence of its servitude to the dimensions of exploitation.
"[The unions] completely miss their goal as soon as they limit themselves to a skirmish war against the effects of the existing regime, instead of working at the same time to transform it and using their organized force as leverage for the definitive emancipation of the working class, that is to say for the definitive abolition of wage earners. "
Karl Marx,
Salary, price and profit, 1865.

Since then, the unions have become masters in compromises and divisions, champions in treachery. Union leaders were able to defend their interests by blocking the largest wild general strike in May 68. Their opposition to any radical change enabled them to be recognized as being of public utility by the government. Certain unions which do not want to play their conservative role are relegated to the oblivion of the spectacle and condemned to the active opposition of all the recognized official unions.

The representation of the dispute lends a phantasmagorical authority to a power which lacks it. The submission of revolts to the modes of resistance, installs them in a fatalism where any radical change is impossible. Reduced in their form, their communication and their actions to a simple fragmented opposition, of convenience and appearance, the resistances mount in festivals to end in spectacle. It is a rebellion without a future, for the form, without consequence on the functioning of the system. The opposites balance out, and everything continues in the continuity of submission.
The resistance "contrists" seek to pass themselves off as experts, appearing as specialists: anti-capitalism, anti-G8, anti-globalization, anti-growth, anti-pollution, anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, anti-pub, anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-repression, anti-all and even anti-anti ...
The consciousness of alienation consolidates its grip when it obscures the means of emancipating itself from it.

The will to power over others leads to an escalation of domination where the fighting forces cancel each other out in perpetual opposition, preventing themselves from acting otherwise, obscuring any possibility of change. From dissatisfaction to frustration, from devaluation to boredom, such predictable behaviors fuel conflicts in their immobile permanence. Absorbed by preconceived repetitive attitudes, the belligerents limit their space of freedom by reducing their possibilities of going beyond this conditioning.
Believing that there is only one way to reach a goal leads to conflicting and reducing thinking. The persistence of an opposition conflict lies in the rigidity and perpetuation of the linear way of apprehending them, which means that there is only one culprit and only one cause.
Fighting only against objections and prohibitions means strengthening them, rowing against the current and going back a little further. It is not a question of opposing force to force but of redirecting it in a favorable direction, by transforming the brake of resistance into energy for change.

Having existence only in the field of the reigning economy, the fragmented and divided opposition has been reduced to exist only in limited responses to measures of power, in the field of media propaganda, where it is sure to succeed.
Some imagine themselves in the role of revolutionary resistance fighter. But to believe oneself revolutionary when there is no revolution is a utopia without becoming, which itself creates its own misfortune.
It is now a question of getting out of this pre-established reactionary framework of opposition by approaching the situation in a broader context, from an offbeat point of view where everything becomes possible. The "bad life" can be understood today in all its dimensions.

The perpetual immobility of routine activism lies in its quest for the ideal. The certainty of the ideal is not proof of truth. Whoever poses absolute good also poses absolute evil by that very fact. The pursuit of the ideal, whether mystical, spectacular, political or scientific, is a force that always seeks good or true and always creates evil or false. One is unthinkable without the other. The starting hypothesis that allows you to succeed in failing, is to believe that the world is divided in two, good and evil, true and false. But the world is populated by two kinds of people: those who believe that there are two kinds of people, and those who do not believe it. At best, any ideal theory never gives anything but a frozen image or interpretation of the world.
We are in a situation where the search for a solution creates a problem with no possible choice. By striving to reach the inaccessible, the idealized utopia makes what is achievable impossible.
“The concept of utopia irritates me. This place which is nowhere, I see it everywhere. "
Raoul Vaneigem,
Imaginary Journal, 2006.

To succeed in failing every time, it suffices to seek the solution of solutions, the final resolution of the day of the revolution in which one will have won when all the others will have lost. The war of all against all, the result of human denaturation, is an old predatory reflex which sees no alternative but to crush or be crushed. Predators fight each other, but never fight predation. The statements of the vague and global problems of change, which depend entirely on an outcome fixed in a hypothetical future, like the myth of the Big Evening, will only find falsified solutions, because certain constructions of reality can only enclose individuals deadlocked with their absolute goal. Those who believe in the virtues of the revolution set it up as a profession of faith, applying to history the aberration of the celestial afterlife. A single simple rule can end this seemingly endless game, but this rule does not belong to this game.
The will to emancipation is contagious, but it cannot be imposed.

A political program, whether reformist or revolutionary, presents itself as the beneficial solution which tends towards perfection. A program is built on an interpretation of reality that claims to be true. It is not reality itself but only one interpretation among others. This interpretive system is difficult to define and impossible to control. It is not seen as an interpretation by the interpreter but as an obvious fact. The observer influences his observation of a reality which he constructs by interpreting his perceptions.

Building a perfect and definitive program is only an unrealizable claim. We can never pretend only to approximations of a multiple truth which always remains partly incomprehensible.
The politician considers this imperfection unacceptable. He presents his interpretation of the world as absolutely true, which implies that all other positions are heretical, of evil influence. The idea of ​​an absolutely true interpretation of the world excludes, by definition, the coexistence of other interpretations. No other interpretation has the right to exist.
To have the ultimate truth is to hold on to the stupid belief that the truth will impose itself sooner or later. In the face of adversity, the use of force and violence against all others is paradoxically self-authorizing, for the good of all. This universal benefactor does not want violence, but reality, that which he invented, compels him in spite of himself to resort to it. The illusory belief of being the only one in the world to hold the truth leads to destructive and suicidal paranoia.

A program is built on the standardization of people and on the negation of all differences, of all individualities. The population is depersonalized. Any political program, ignoring individuals in their differences and their sociality, presents itself as a higher authority to which one must submit. Any program, as an inevitable prediction, tends, by its very functioning, towards a dictatorship which imposes itself. From his point of view, whoever does not accept it thereby proves his depravity and his evil slyness, and must be converted or eliminated.

It would be stupid to believe that everyone can convert to our convictions. It is time to get out of his little political family stuck in his competitive habits and his reductive beliefs, and to question himself by recomposing himself with the differences of others in a structural co-drift from which inevitable changes will emerge. Democracy will or will not be everyone's business.
We don't know what the future will be. When one does not know, it is prudent to assume one's ignorance. The future will be what we make of it with all the others whose reactions and desires we do not yet know, in situations different from that of today that we cannot foresee with our way of seeing today. hui. We are no longer prisoners of the future of the past, because we have chosen to take the present into its future.

The confusion disseminated by the great spectacle of all-powerful merchandise has erased from reprogrammed memories any project of effective change in favor of investments in the aggressiveness of an unsatisfied consumerism. The victory of this society appears in its enterprise of ransacking the planet which succeeded in infecting its enemies with this rage to devastate everything, dehumanizing the living forces who want to destroy it, reducing them to a destructive and ineffective resistance. The rage against authority is consumed by authoritarianism. Nihilism, the inertia of despair masquerading as lucidity of suffering, holds for surreal blindness the emergence of possible happiness, without which attempts at change would not have upset the course of history.
Seeking to destroy a world that feeds on its own ruins without seeking to build a new one, works effectively to comfort the one that we would like to eradicate. What does not involve itself totally in life and its incessant invention leads to this destruction, that is change in the impossibility of changing, where everything becomes interchangeable.

Neither submission, nor resistance, nor program, nor utopia, neither yes, nor no, are the basis of a reframing necessary to become operational, to play another game that has fun with the rules while going in the direction that it go well, where it's easy, for fun, where you can take and give without expecting anything.

Lukas Stella

Extract from "STATAGÈMES DU CHANGEMENT,
From the illusion of the improbable to the invention of the possible "
Chapter II,
Libertarian Editions / Courtcircuit-Diffusion

[url] http://inventin.lautre.net [/ url]

[Christophe]

There are too many words ...

[elephant]

Is this really the place of this debate? Could it not be expressed in clearer and above all shorter terms? Sorry dear Lukas, we are on the internet, not in "criticism of pure reason"

[Christophe]

All done: summarize it all in 5 sentences please ... we are lazy you know

[Remundo]

Hi Christopher,

I allow myself to quote the conclusion ...

Neither submission, nor resistance, nor program, nor utopia, neither yes, nor no, are the basis of a reframing necessary to become operational, to play another game that has fun with the rules while going in the direction that it go well, where it's easy, for fun, where you can take and give without expecting anything.

Lukas Stella

... which if it is well done, it must synthesize masterfully the thought of the Author

[Christophe]

Hi Raymond ... Moué ... It's a bit "barnumic" (barnum syndrome) don't you think?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Barnum

[Remundo]

This conclusion is a model of consensualism. Everyone finds food and drink there

[Christophe]

That's what I just said: it's universal and ... empty ...

The Barnum effect (...) indicates a subjective bias inducing any person to accept a vague description of the personality as applying specifically to himself.

The Barnum effect can be applied in particular to:

* astrology,
* graphology,
* horoscopes,
* to clairvoyance,
* as well as numerous typologies presenting personalities,
* and to pseudo-sciences in general.

One point is missing:

* to political speeches ...

I really want to add it but I don't think it remains ... come on add it

[Christophe]

Ay it is added:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Barnum

The Barnum effect can be applied in particular to:

* astrology,
* graphology,
* horoscopes,
* to clairvoyance,
* to modern political speeches,

Hihihi! We will see if it "holds" I take the stopwatch!

[louphil]

Hihihi! We will see if it "holds" I take the stopwatch!

Sunday 26/04 10:00 am: Bet won! That's it more ...