(Artificial translation not yet controlled by human)
Dissent According to Andrea Zhok
We present this long but very interesting post by Andrea Zohk, professor of Philosophy of History and Theoretical Philosophy II at the University of Milan, which analyzes the political perspective of the area to which we belong.
In Italy, there now exists a large segment of the population, which I estimate at around 15%, that adheres to a political perspective that is totally incompatible with government lines (both Italian and European). This political area is often referred to with the vague term “area of dissent,” but in reality it is not simply a position of denial of the status quo, but rather presents a range of positive political positions. Critics of this area also often refer to it with the adjective “red-brown,” an adjective that has the great advantage of not having a univocal definition, which saves those who use it from having to explain the specific objections being raised.
This area includes people who adhere to at least 80% of the following theses:
- 01) Criticism of the privilege of income over labor; demand for increased attention to the world of labor and for policies that support, not merely welfare, those who earn their living.
- 02) Demand for greater national independence in the management of foreign policy, with the loosening of the constraints of the Atlantic Alliance (more or less clear, more or less gradual).
- 03) Demand for greater national independence in the management of economic and financial policy, with the recovery of monetary sovereignty (more or less complete, more or less gradual).
- 04) Promotion of a multipolar, not unipolar, international perspective (rejection of unilateral US hegemony over Italian and European politics; rejection of the demonization of countries unwelcome to the US, such as China, Russia, Iran, etc.).
- 05) Request for rigorous regulation of migratory flows, making them compatible with the metabolizing capacity of Italian society, both economically and culturally.
- 06) Rejection of “ethical-paternalistic” interference by the state (or European supranational institutions) in the management of social relations: rejection of the state’s replacement of the family in educational matters, rejection of state control over accessible information, rejection of state indoctrination of public morality (politically correct rules, imposition of supposedly “green” agendas, etc.), rejection of forms of coercion in healthcare (starting with mandatory vaccinations).
- 07) Support for family policies, starting with the recognition of the irreplaceable role of the family—as a place of biological and cultural reproduction—in the functioning of a society (support for maternity, accessible daycare, reduction of pressures for territorial mobility for work reasons, etc.).
- 08) Restoration of the efficiency and functionality of the economic system through a reduction in the excessive bureaucratic intermediation that afflicts both the public and private sectors. Regulatory and fiscal simplifications in the private sector; elimination of the proliferation of supposed “quality controls” in the public sector, which now drain more resources than the provision of primary services.
- 09) Fight against private monopolies and oligopolies in the strategic sectors of information, publishing, and finance. These monopolies and oligopolies represent a constant threat to any system that claims to be democratic.
- 10) Claiming a foundational role for the natural and to historical and cultural tradition, which, while always correctable, can never be simply erased as mere contingencies. Rejection of the woke ideology and all proposals of relativist extremism. Rejection of the principle that what is technologically feasible must also be ethically feasible (from surrogate pregnancies to “gains in function” for viruses, etc.).
- 11) Request for a restoration of the primary educational role of schools and universities aimed at producing autonomous citizens and not temporary market functions (return to a school of knowledge—as a personal asset to be used freely; abandonment of the focus on “skills”—as superficial functions of conformist socialization).
- 12) Restoration of a functional public healthcare system, widespread throughout the country, accessible, with reduced waiting times; progressive abandonment of the system of private outsourcing of services, which offloads the most costly situations onto the public system and extracts profit from the most easily treated customers.
Now, these 12 points could be expanded upon and, of course, they could be extensively articulated, justified, and motivated in detail, but what matters is that they don’t represent a jumble of random and incoherent themes, but rather an internally coherent system of requests, proposals, and demands, where each voice can be supported by a different voice, and in continuity with it.
One might think that, given this shared heritage of political beliefs, a representative political force should have an easy time emerging.
This is not what is happening.
As things stand, at least the 15% of the population that is already substantially in line with these ideas has no political representation in institutions.
This area partly consists of depoliticized individuals, burned by previous experiences, who dream of some Armageddon that will put things right (and Armageddon certainly can’t be ruled out, but historical experience tells us that, in any case, “things right” don’t happen on their own, but are guided by those who are ready).
This area partly consists of a plurality of microorganizations, tendentially self-referential and mutually hostile. The sad, indeed frankly shameful, spectacle we constantly witness is that as long as John Doe presents one of the above-mentioned ideas, they are applauded; the moment John Doe appears in support of group X, he is immediately ostracized as unreliable by members of groups Y, Z, Q, etc.It’s obvious that this sectarian and self-referential fragmentation guarantees the establishment a peaceful sleep for centuries to come.
So what should we do if we believe that this jumble of ideas should have active political representation?
As a minimum basis for reversing this destructive and inconclusive trend, I see the need to at least foster two attitudes.The first is an attitude that concerns the widespread human base (grassroots) of this area. We must abandon that form of magical thinking that simply having the right number of likes on social media is enough to make the revolution half done. Without a personal commitment that steps out the door, sees other people, and tries to organize with them to do even just one thing, nothing can change. It will inevitably happen, as always, that many of these organizational efforts—initiatives, movements, cultural associations, etc.—will end up as flashes in the pan, ephemeral adventures. But the contacts made, the practice of organizing and becoming organized—these remain and are a primary political asset.
The second concerns the pro-tempore leaders of these organizations, who must abandon the pretense of being the reincarnation of Lenin—who, with a sure hand and unshakeable orthodoxy, led the troops to the conquest of the Winter Palace. Beyond the fact that this is a picture-postcard revolutionary, who never actually existed, the historical moment is the polar opposite of what would favor an “iron core of professional revolutionaries.” Anyone who takes on the burden and honor of leadership in the absence of a structured organization must have the generosity to think of their “creature” as something born to dissolve into something greater, as soon as the opportunity arises. And they must present themselves as such. Metaphorically speaking, they must think of themselves as the temporary formation of a mercenary company, ready to dissolve into an army to come.
Instead, these two forms of fragmentation—of separate individuals waiting for the revolution to ring their bell, and of separate groups who despise one another (and who flaunt this contempt)—represent an epochal political failure.