Badiou on Paris attacks and the

necessity for a globalized critique

THIBAUD IMBERTMARDI 1 DCEMBRE 2015

On November 23rd, Alain Badiou held a special seminar on the Paris Attacks,
that one can watch (in French), following this link:
https://vimeo.com/147165293.

This is an amateur transcription of it. The title given here is not the title of
this seminar. Special notes from the translator are highlighted with a *.

INTRO

What happened, to us, to this city, to this country, to the world, has deeply
affected us. However, we can see that the State is taking extraordinary
measures that are both useless and intolerable, beyond what was necessary.
The State has taken advantage of the situation, and now reinforces
an identity reflex.

Though understandable, this reflex is presented as an obvious (i.e.

*relevant) reaction. But what are we talking about, when talking about
France or the French ? We should keep in mind these are very complex
questions. Not obvious.

We should resist that because its a way to lock up the problem in a

subterfuge. These horrific things happen all the time, every day, in other
places. Think about Nigeria, or the Russian plane : the emotion didnt look that
considerable here (maybe we all identified them with Putin).

If we are to talk in the name of justice, we should fight against such

restrictions to identity and think in a worldwide perspective.
Otherwise, it means what really matter are identities! This is a perilous
perception of the event, because it makes justice a vengeance. And
vengeance, though a natural slope, always opens a cycle of atrocities ( its our
time to kill those who killed ). Its nothing to be delighted about. Nothing to
brag about, especially as a victory of thought and spirit. Vengeance is a
primitive thing. Ancient Greeks taught this to us.

An example : Obama said it was not only a crime against France or

Paris, but a crime against humanity. Very well, but Obama doesnt say
that each time there is a mass murder of this kind, when it happens in Iraq or
Pakistan. This speech implies that humanity is located more in France than
in Nigeria, in India or Pakistan : that is to say that humanity is in only
the West. That has been expressed again, later, as an opposition between
barbarians and civilized persons.

And this is scandalous to imply, in the name of justice, even indirectly,

that some parts of humanity are more humans than others. Yet, this
is what has been done and keeps being done. We should be vigilant about this
habit to think that a western death is terrible, but a death in Africa, the Middle
East or Asia is not that bad : we inherited this way of thinking from
colonial imperialism. This is the West convinced it represents the whole of
mankind all by itself.

In the end, we do what the killers wanted us to do: the reaction is

excessive, which is a part of their strategy. Reason disappears and both
depression and vengeance take its place (what they do are fascist
provocations). The victim thus becomes an obscure subject
capable of the worst, too.

We need to be able to think the event. The thing is nothing that mankind does
is impossible to understand. Not understanding is a defeat. A costly defeat.
Nothing should be left as unthinkable . Behaviors can be irrational,
criminal, pathological, but, precisely, they are objects as others for thought.

Lets think: 1) the objective structure of the world, defined in the beginning
of the 80s, more or less 30 years ago. 2) the typical subjectivities that this
world created, as well as 3) contemporary fascism, 4) who are the killers
and how to qualify their actions, 6) the State reaction and the public
opinion, 7) the attempt to think beyond and the return of emancipatory
politics.
PART I : the objective structure of the world

The objective structure of the world can be described around 3 topics.

A) Globalized Capitalism has prevailed. The primitive energy of

capitalism is back. Some call it neoliberalism (*Badiou doesnt like the
term). However, its just the ideology of capitalism and has always been. Its
liberalism. Neo? Pff.. Capitalism appears again as it is, without
decency, and pretending to be the only possible way for humanity.
Globalized is a different aspect, though. Capitalism is as solvent as can be,
again and it stretched out to new regions and areas. So much we can consider
its a mastery of the whole planet.

B) The weakening of States. Its a consequence of globalisation/renewal of

capitalism. Please note that the weakening of States has been one of the most
mocked topics in Marxism. Well this is exactly what happens.

C) New imperialist practices , that is the conquest of the whole world as

a condition of existence of capitalism itself.

- Globalization. It has become obvious, everybody knows it. The Global

market is the point of reference of current historicity. It is what we talk about,
all the time. When the stock exchange in Shanghai has even small troubles, we
all worry. This is very agressive. Social protection, organisations that were
meant for the public interest, and so son, are destroyed with an impressive
method. We dont realize it anymore, but privatization is a very
agressive word. What was for all has to be returned to private
property. The objective victory of globalized capitalism is a destructive and
agressive practice. Its not just a reasonable expansion of a given
mode of production. And we can only worry about the weak resistance
against it. Nothing has stopped it for 30 years. Liberalism has been made free.
Its both an extension (new regions) and a concentration. The more it
expands, the more it concentrates. These are dialectically joined. And it
creates poles of concentration more powerful than States (*firms). They are
not subjects of the States. A sovereignty on them is not obvious at all. Dont
forget the biggest French firm, Total, doesnt even pay taxes in France. So
calling it a French firm is a bit dubious. This is the dominant dynamic
structure of contemporary world.

But theres also a subjective victory that goes along this objective
victory . This it the total uprooting of the mere idea of another
possible way. Even a mere strategic affirmation of something else possible is
absent. All we have is propositions of a reasonable capitalism , which is
already a defeat. There is not even a perspective of a reconquest of the
territoriality of the idea. This is just the nostalgia of the era of measures ,
like right after WWII, when social security was created and nationalizations
were carried on. But at the time, there was a strong Communist party. Now its
different. Its just a dream that doesnt take into consideration the subjective
victory. Now the idea of an alternative is even criminalized ! Weve
gone from the 2 to the 1 . Its totally different. When there are 2
ideas or only 1, its different. This uniqueness is a fundamental pillar of the
subjective victory.

- Weakening of the States. Inside this problematic, what are we to say

about the States ? States have become local managers. Its true some big
poles still have some vigor, like the USA, China and so on. But even there, the
general process is the one weve just described. It strikes me that banks
themselves are considered to be too big to fail , as an axiom, which means
the economic macroscopy wins over the state capacity. This is what is
meant by weakening of the Sates . Marx knew that, but I dont know if he
could have imagined to be so right. There is a discordance between the
scale of States and the scale of big firms.

- New imperialist practices. The old imperialism was carried on in

the name of the national idea and the Nation States. The world was
shared between powerful nations and a direct administration of colonies from
the metropole was put into place. Then world wars and liberation wars
happened, and it ended imperialism as a direct administration. However, the
management of firms still had to be somehow supported by States. Thats why
an uninterrupted military activity took place. Were talking about more than
50 military interventions in Africa. France has been chronically involved in
those, *to secure its african territory. So there has been no end at all of
imperialist interventions; but a change of method. And somehow
its easier to destroy the States than to use the old colonial direct
administration. Now, its possible to create a new geography of
anarchic zones, where one doesnt have to deal with a State, which
is always impressive and restrictive. Business can go on there. Firms
can perfectly deal with armed gangs, its even easier than with States, to some
extent. In a way, Daech is a business, selling art, wool, oil. And to be
a business, you need to be at least 2: Daech doesnt buy its own
wool. New imperialism is about zoning, without the heavy direct
administration of colonial states.

To sum up and go further : what was the real interest of the intervention in
Syria ? We destroyed a State and created a zone of anarchy. Americans did the
same in Iraq. The practice is to destroy States.

PART II - the typical subjectivities

Whats the impact on populations ?

Inegalitarian development is without precedent. Even the right-

wing worries about it. Because it could become too hard to control. Dont
forget the numbers, that show the logic of classes and invalidate democracy.
1% owns 46% of the available resources. 10% owns 86% of resources. 50% of
the world population doesnt own anything. We have a worldwide
oligarchy that represents 10% of the population. Thats more or less
like aristocracy in the old regime. It is back, with a new face.

So we have a oligarchy of 10%, and a 50% of the world penniless

(mostly Asian and African). Thats more or less 60% of the world.
The rest is the middle class, that is 40%, and the pillar of the
democracy. This middle class is mostly concentrated in so called
advanced countries, that is the West. They found the political
power in the West. Well, were, here, are a part of it, but it doesnt mean we
cant be lucid about it. This group has access to a relatively small part of the
world resources (14%). And what this group wants is not to identified
with the huge mass of the penniless. Thats why this class, as a
whole, is porous to racism, to xenophoby, to contempt. These are
permanent subjective and threatening determiners of this middle class, which
more or less defines the West and fuels a feeling of superiority. The middle
class is the place where the West is associated with civilized people .

And we can read that a war has started, against the barbarians, it
means its done in the name of these civilized people . And the
middle class, especially Europeans, is not so stable and secure regarding what
it owns. And its to that middle-class that the discourse about values and the
need to defend them is delivered. So, defending our values roughly
means defending the lifestyle of the middle class . So the middle
class thinks of itsef as an island of wealth surrounded by the penniless.

Another thing: around 2 billion people in the world dont matter.

From the point of view of the structural development of capitalism,
theyre nothing. They shouldnt even exist . Theyre neither
consumers, nor a labour force, the only two ways to exist in the eyes of the
capital. And now we hear a propaganda according to which were
going to be invaded by those people who shouldnt exist .

You have to be Marxist, there. The capital only gives value to people from
whom it can extract profits from. And maybe its an intrinsic condition of the
capital not to be able to give a value to these people. And why cant it? Because
it cant reduce the length of the working day. If it reduces it, profits will
decrease (*probably meaning: if they could, theyd do it - but why?). For a
reasonable value of the labour force, the working week has to be kept on 40h.
But, if a global government was truly dedicated to the public interest, the
working week would be reduced to 20h, and the penniless would be absorbed.

So theres a huge mass people in our world that dont count. We need to take
that into consideration to understand whats going on. The distribution of the
people who dont matter obeys to a geography. Where the zoning is anarchic,
the State absent and the gangs armed, people resign themselves to the
situation, without any institutionalized protections. Why should we defend
them, if theyre neither labour force nor consumers ? They can just wander, in
the end its their fault . Theyre rebels to the laws of the world. This explains
that entire zones can be left to a gangsterism of a fascist kind, which couldnt
be the case if billions of people didnt count as nothing, if anyone could enter
the social world as we know it.

The combination of zoning and the existence of billions outside the system
leads to a domination of the gang-like form in many zones, with or without a
religious tone. By the way, religion has always been a pretext for fascist armed
gangs. Take the Spanish fascism for example. It fully pretended to be an
emanation of the catholic religion.

So, the religious issue shouldnt be taken too seriously and Islam cannot
reasonably be blamed. It is used to establish a profitable gangsterism that then
can take any spiritual face. Religions have always been able to work along with
mafia practices.

There are 3 typical subjectivities relative to the objective structure

of the world : The Western Subjectivity, The Desire-for-the-West
subjectivity, and the nihilistic subjectivity. These are typical
creations of contemporary world.

- First, the western subjectivity. This is more less the subjectivity of

the ones who own the 14% left for them by the oligarchy, of the
middle class. This subjectivity is characterized by a contradiction: on one
side, westerners are very proud of themselves, they like themselves a lot.
Theres an historical arrogance behind that, really. We call it the West, but of
course one can include Japan and so on. Thats the generic name. Why are they
arrogant? Not so long ago, they owned the world. With only the French and the
British, you had almost the whole world owned.

Westerners think of themselves as the embodiment of the Modern world. But

the other side of that subjectivity is a permanent fear. So, were happy, but
theres a threat . Theyre afraid to be thrown away with the mass of the
penniless. Theres an history to this privilege - and they know theyre the
privileged ones. They fear they could lose their privileges. And theres a feeling
that under contemporary capitalism, the middle-class is not going be cherished
as it once was. Maybe it wont get its 14% for long. 12% maybe, instead. What
some have called the likely impoverishment of the middle class. This pressure
comes from the growing greediness fo the oligarchy. Because the oligarchy asks
always for more and more.

So we have in the West a dialectic of arrogance and fear. And this is what
defines the art of governing in democracies, today. Governments channel the
fear of the middle class so the fear is not directed towards the them, but
instead towards the internal representatives of the mass of the penniless.
Thats a major operation. In other words, they make the middle class
understand that there are risks, that they are right to be afraid, but that the
risk doesnt come from the government - rather from the mass of the penniless,
and especially its internal representatives. That is the organisation of an
underlying grovelling civl war.

- Now, the desire-for-the-west subjectivity. You have to understand

those people are out of the global market, yet permanently exposed to the show
of affluence of the west, through the global media. Media is a part of the
extension (and belong to huge firms). So they can see both the arrogance and
the wealth and that, combined with the lack of an ideological or political
possible issue. They see wealth presented as the definition of modernity and
civilization and they cant rely on anything to fight against this representation.
The result is bitter frustration.

Yet its a banal thing to desire what is shown to you as the best thing. And they
try to adopt this way of life, only without the means to afford it. That also
explains a part of migrations. If its so great, you want to go, to the West.
Lets go, it really sucks here . Plain normal. But its also the result of local
alienations : again, copying, with penniless means.

- The nihilistic subjectivity. Its a desire for revenge and destruction. Most
of the time it appears within reactive ideologies, such as traditionalism you can
brag about and claim to defend against the West. Thats, in fine, the nihilism of
the one who counts for nothing. The basis of it is to be against the desire-for-
the-west . Somehow, beyond the nihilism, they kind of know theyre already
*under the spell (*not Badious words) of the desire-for-the-west.

The nihilist subjectivity and the desire-for-the-west subjectivity work together.

Its a couple, in a context where there are no ideologies offering another
structure of the world. That means all of this is internal to the objective
structure of the world.

PART III : Contemporary Fascism.

Fascists is the name I give to those who are called barbarians . Generally
speaking, one can call fascism the popular subjectivity which is generated
and aroused by capitalism, because: - either theres a severe systemic crisis
(like in the 30s), or, more deeply, - because of the structural limits to
capitalism, that can be seen because of globalization. Somehow the extension
of capitalism reveals its limits and its incapacity to use all of the labour force.

Fascism is a reactive subjectivity, internal to capitalism in way -

because it doesnt offer an alternative. Yet, in a way it blames
capitalism for not being able to keep its promises. Thats like the
desire-for-the-west cant be satisfied, so people turn against it. Its an intimate
and reactive repression of the desire-for-the-west. Its a denied desire-for-
the-west. And instead comes a morbid nihilism. Thats banal psychoanalysis
(those people are Subjects!). One can define it as a death drive express with
references to identity. Religion can perfectly mix into that. Islam in the middle
east -especially where imperialist zoning has destroyed States- has the same
function as catholicism in fascist Spain. But its not the last word of this case.
Religion is the form of this subjectivity but its not its real content.

The real content derives from the omnipresence of the desire-for-the-west,

whether its explicit and assumed, or repressed and deadly.

The practical form of this fascism is the logic of the gangs. Its
criminal gangsterism, with the conquest or defense of territories, where you
have a business monopoly, a spectacular cruelty, pillaging, and so on. But also,
like with the mafia, the permanent recycling of things into the global market.
The two universes are not totally separate. Again, Daech is a big business that
doesnt buy its own wool. This form of fascism is internal to globalized
capitalism. Its a perversion of it (that is a mode of the subject in its own right).

Everybody knows that firms, but also partners of the West such as Saudi
Arabia, deal with the fascist gangs of the middle east.

So we can say all of this is the other side of frustration, more or less militarily
organized, yet flexible like the mafia. What interests me is what they
offer to the youth. Because those killers are youngsters, and
youngsters from here, coming from the proletarian immigration.
This youth has no perspective. Theyre in the margins, of both
employment and consumption. Its a blend of criminal and
sacrificial heroism (being a proud gangster) and some touches of
western-like satisfactions. You have to know Daech pays rather well its
men. Well, at least more than they could make here. So there is money,
women, cars and so on. So its a blend of morbid nihilism and western
satisfaction. Somehow it has always been a characteristic of fascist gangs.

Religion can perfectly mix with an identity-based sauce. Its an anti-western

reference. However, in the end, the origins of these youngsters doesnt really
matter. What matters is the choices they made with regards to their
frustration. Thats on the basis of their subjectivity they can be
recruited, not because of muslim convictions. And we know these
convictions are terminal rather than inaugural . Its not a part of the
structure of the desire.

PART IV : Who are the killers?

Killers are young fascists coming from the proletarian immigration. To some
extent theyre close to the militiamen from the last war, here in France, who
were collaborating with the Germans. There was that viva la muerte spirit
too : we do anything we want, we have weapons, we can kill people, torture
them, and so on. The cruelty - but also small profits, women, cars,
cash, and so on. It was the same mix. The fascist gang always has this
characteristic I believe. This is not a political logic. But its captured by a logic
of internal scission. Who were the militiamen? They were French involved in a
civil war against even obvious national interests - like not being occupied.
Thats a splitting of consciousness.

So theyre typical products of the west, yet frustrated. They think theyre anti-
Western, where theyre only a symptom, nihilist, of it. The symptom of the
inability of capitalism to value anybody and everyone.

Knowing this, we need to be more carful about the words we choose.

Terrorism, war, attentat* (*in French, the word is not exactly synonym to
attacks ) are not correct. Attentats were what was carried on by resistants
against the Nazis. The Paris attacks were not as organized and military. Its a
half-assed act, to be honest. And it can be so because the guys decided
their lives was not worthy, thats the ultimate cause. Like their lives dont
count, lives of the others cant count as well. Nihilism is the last word of this.
One wants to burn its own life in a ridiculous heroism, after having had some
fun and played with cash, probably. This is not an attentat understood as a
strategic and careful act with a greater goal. I think we need to call it mass
murder where the murderer is included himself. Thats an apotheosis of
the death drive. Theres nothing else left.

So we hear about a war against barbarians . And it implies its the war of the
civilized people. Thats western arrogance. Its time to remind us the killings by
the west are permanent and pretty bloody. Nowadays, the westerners can kill
people without leaving their offices. The drones. Not a splendid practice. Look
at the statistics: for 1 target killed, you get 9 innocent people killed. And if you
multiply the drones, its hundreds and hundreds of people who got killed for
nothing. If we call barbarian the act of killing people for nothing, then we
are barbarians. The Westerners kill people everyday.

Only, in a case, we have an assumed and suicidal mass murder, in

the other (the civilized), its a technological, hidden and satisfying
mass murders. The share of western deaths in explicit conflicts, is 1:20.
Westerners even said that the best would be to have zero dead on their side
and all of them on the other side. Thats a very specific war practice. They
couldnt achieve this, but if you count all the dead, the ratio is more or less 1 to
20. This lack of proportion is noticed by the people who live that. Think about
Gaza, even not politically: its 2000 dead people, including 450 children. Is
that civilized because its done with planes?

I mention this because for the young fascists, coming from the
proletarian immigration, theres no reason to think western armies
represent the civilization. Thats intolerable. War is war and we killed,
tortured and deported our share, during the colonial wars and after. An well
keep do so if, as our governments said, its time for a big war . against
terrorism.

PART V : the State reaction and the public opinion

As I said, the State seems to be a secondary agent with regards to the whole
structure, but it still has a function of managing its local basis, that is to
channel its middle-class so that it realizes (*the event) in the proper
direction. I believe the fundamental role of a State such as the French
state is to discipline the middle class. Note that this is dramatically the
work done by the Left. The Left is good at disciplining the middle class.

When I was young, during the colonial wars, it was already the Left doing this
job : Guy Mollet, and so on. To discipline the middle class and put the war
into its mind - which is not obvious, as only 3% of would be ready to die for
their country (compared with 67% of Russians). So this discipline is largely a
fiction. Nobody wants to go to war in this country. The term war is
irrelevant.

In January (*Charlie Hebdo), the Sate used secular republicanism as its

tool, and now its the old nationalism and its corollary, the war.

Let me say a few words. The France . I believe France , today,

is a signifier without a definable and affirmative content. What is
France ? its a declining second-range actor of the global structure.
They talk about values . But what are the values of France? My
point of view was that the singularity of France was, if anything, its
revolutionary tradition. Republican at first, starting from 1789,
then socialist, anarcho-syndicalist, communist and, in the end,
leftist, lets say between 1789 and 1976. But its over. You cant
represent France today with decency, as the place of a
revolutionary tradition. Its characteristics today, is rather a
singular collection of intellectuals focused on identity.

France has also been the place where never-seen discriminatory laws have
been voted, like against the muslim veil, directly targeting the poor created by
French capitalism, who are as Muslims as Bretons were catholics. No more, no
less. Its the French capitalism which destroyed the industrial apparel of
France.

Why do we have so much people from the third world ? Because we sent
planes there to take them, to take workers ! So they bring their families later,
theres a second generation, a third generation. The normal destiny of these
youngsters was to become workers, but in the meantime, the industrial apparel
and factories got destroyed. So theres no future for them. Its a lie. We
imported them without guarantee, and now wed like to export them. Thats
not how you handle human capital.

So, France , today, means a bit of all those things, and its
nothing significant. Its neither visible nor interesting. And those
who keep talking about the identity of France.. well, we can see
what they mean. They want the others to be persecuted. Thats
what identity is about, all the time, in the end, when it doesnt have
a universal meaning, that is a revolutionary meaning. If its not
universel, its only definition is the persecution of what is not it.
Only activity this identity can have.

People who say France, France , well what do they do for that
France ? Well, they roar about Arabs, and thats it. And I dont think
its an eminent service given to France, to be honest. It doesnt particularly
honor the French. And dont forget, they are less than 3% willing to die for the
homeland. Theyd rather die for their place in the media.

So, what is to be said is that its not the barbarians who waged a war. Its the
State of France who followed firms and/or the Americans, to be involved in
imperialist affairs, to zone territories, to destroy states and create by itself the
situation were in. And this situation includes the emergence of fascist
subjectivities within uncovered zones where the population count for nothing.

PART VI : how to think beyond?

How not to be captured by the consequences, which only means a weakening

of the thought itself, how not to follow the propaganda? There is a space which
is defined as France - where Im French basically means I speak
French , and thats it. Instead of this, we need to think an international space.
We need an international, or, rather, transnational, way of
thinking, at the same scale as globalized capitalism.

Because its been a long time Capitalists ceased to be French. Theyre ahead.
They feel at home in Shanghai, in San Francisco or Morocco. We dont, and
were clearly backwards. And its even worse if we cant even acknowledge the
people who are here, with us - the people who dont matter. Its even worse if
we dont even ask for a new political path including them.

The defeat of the Revolution has been such that we cant even afford
a globalized representation of problems, when our adversaries have
conquered that for a long time.

We need to be strong enough not to focus on the State itself, because State
is what we think about when France or French doesnt mean anything
anymore. The State is nothing but an agent of capitalism, a
weakening agent devouring social ties. And so its not our problem
anymore. Theres nothing to be done inside the State, with the
State. We need to take roots somewhere else, with a thought
powerful enough to think the whole world. We need to forget about
the State.

Theres a contradiction between the fascist and criminal fate of frustration, one
one side, and the globalized development of capitalism and the middle class,
on the other side. However, this is a subjective contradiction which is internal
to Capitalism itself. This is not a contradiction between Good and Evil. Not
between Barbarians and the civilized. Its an internal twist that backfires
against the incapacity of the west to create a subjective place where one can
live. And claiming this has nothing to do with excusing the murderers.

We need to understand we cant be the Subjects of this contradiction.

We cant let it win. This is an internal contradiction of capitalism to the extent
nothing is strategically opposed to it. So our problem is the lack of
politics that would be disjointed from capitalism, outside of it. Its
the lack of such worldwide politics which causes the emergence of a fascist
youth. Its not fascism, crimes or religion that create the lack of such politics.

It makes me think about Phedre by Racine. When Phedre says, at the

moment she has to confess her love, a criminal love to her eyes, My evil
comes from further . Thats how we must think. It comes from further than
immigration, Islam, the middle east and so on.

Our problem comes from the historical failure of Communism. And

by that I simply mean the name, the historical name, of a strategic
thought disjointed from the hegemonic capitalist structure. This
failure was decided as soon as the mid-70s of the last century, and thats why I
claimed the historic sequence were in started in the 80s.

Where are we today ? There are local experiments, convictions. Its not
nothing, but they need to be irrigated by a new thought. Theres also a clear
representation of available forces. Theres a nomad proletariat, which is
internationalized a lot, already. And not only here : workers in Korea comes
from Nepal, and so on. Workers here come more from Morocco or Mali,. And
when the crisis comes, they have to go away, elsewhere ?

Those nomad proletarians are our representation of the mass of the

penniless who doesnt count in our world. There also intellectuals,
including from the western middle class, who are available for this new
thought. The problem is how they could bound with the nomad proletariat.
They need to talk with it, to meet it. Only in unexpected alliances there
are new thoughts in politics. And then there is also a youth, on the verge of
the world, wondering what is to be expected from this world, and that doesnt
want to be one of those typical subjectivities I described earlier, that doesnt
want to be a westerner, nor a subject raving for the west, nor a nihilist. But as
long as there are no strategic propositions made to us, theyll just keep wander,
disoriented. Because in a way Capitalism is machine that disorient
people who dont want to live in the vacuity of the binary
oppositions between the employed and the customer.

Thats this strategic orientation that will end fascism, not the sordid
wars of the State. That would mean the creation of a 4th typical
Subjectivity. Intellectuals should go towards the nomad proletariat.
Otherwise, theres no change to be expected and in the end, that will be the
war, the big war (that will basically destroy -*kill- enough to make things
better).