Kome služi program?
recenzija Tiqqunove knjige
To whom the program serves?
Tiqqun`s book review
20.01.2012.
Međutim, čak i kada se pojedina grupa odluči jasno izraziti svoje zahtjeve i program, poput studenata prilikom blokade koji su zahtijevali besplatno obrazovanje, režim koji monopolizira politiku, jezik i medije odgovara frazama poput zahtjevi postoje, ali su nejasni, neartikulirani, nemogući, itd. Inicijativa za Muzil u Puli već tri godine zahtjeva da se poluotok Muzil otvori za javnost i postavlja otvaranje Muzila kao jedinu točku svog programa (pa se tako i novine inicijative zovu Otvoreni Muzil), no unatoč tome odgovor vlasti je i dalje ni oni sami ne znaju što hoće. Stoga se postavlja pitanje koliko zapravo ima svrhe inzistirati na zahtjevima i programima koji, da bi bili realizirani, prvo moraju biti priznati i prihvaćeni od režima koji kontrolira tumačenje i logiku?
Partija i reprezentacija
Francuska grupa Tiqqun, koja je između 1999. i 2001. godine izdavala istoimeni časopis, postavila je tu istu dilemu u svojoj knjizi Ovo nije program (Ceci n'est pas un programme) objavljenoj tek 2009. u Francuskoj, a 2011. izašao je i engleski prijevod u izdanju Semiotext(e)-a, čije teze se već primjenjuju u raznim nemirima na ulicama i trgovima Atene, Madrida i New Yorka.
Kako bi se odvojili od režimske logike Prvi korak u tom smjeru bio bi, prema Tiqqunu, razvijanje drugačijeg oblika stranke, odnosno partije, nečeg što se u knjizi naziva Imaginarna Partija. Takvu partiju ne smijemo brkati sa sadašnjim kvazi stranakama koje su zapravo degenerirale u najobičnije lobi grupe konkurentnih pojedinaca, već kao heterogeno tijelo – neformalno polje kojeg Tiqqun naziva zajedničkim nivoom konzistencije koje se gradi kroz cirkulaciju (ljudi, ideja, misli, akcije), a ne kroz organizaciju. „Danas stvaranje partije znači postavljanje formi života u svim svojim različitostima, intenzitetima i kompliciranim međuodnosima.“ Takvo poimanje partije je puno bliže Gramscijevom zamišljanju komunističke partije ne kao partije profesionalnih revolucionara nego kao kolektivne inteligencije.
Imaginarnoj Partiji, koncipiranoj na taj način, ne bi bilo potrebno postavljati zahtjeve i tražiti formalno priznavanje od strane režima jer bi se u samom stvaranju već odvojila od tog režima, od njegove logike, njegovog jezika i njegovog poimanja politike. Ne bi bilo potrebno ni kritizirati režim ili se definirati kroz negaciju (kao protivnici režima). „Kardinalna pogreška svih subverzija leži u opsesiji sa negativnošću, (…) a upravo je u toj moći negacije subverzija najovisnija od Imperija i njegovog priznavanja.“ Stoga takvoj partiji ne bi trebali delegati, predstavnici, glasnogovornici ni bilo kakvi reprezentanti, a ne bi joj trebali ni konstruirani identiteti, odnosno subjekti (poput klasa, proletera, radnika, studentata, umirovljenika, žena, homoseksualaca, etničkih skupina, itd.). Umjesto organiziranja zajedničkog identiteta skupine i pojedinci bi cirkulirali oko partije stvarajući zajednički jezik i znanje, a umjesto konstrukcije zajedničkog subjekta te skupine bi stvarale zajedničke događaje, momente u prostoru i vremenu u kojima se stvarnost obrušava na režimsku fikciju vladajućih. Tiqqunovim riječima: „Imaginarna Partija se nikada ne može individualizirati na jedan subjekt, tijelo, stvar ili supstancu. Čak niti na više subjekata, tijela, stvari ili supstanci već jedino kao događaj.“
Party and representation
French collective Tiqqun who had published two journal volumes by the same name, in the years 1999 and 2001, deals with the same dilemma in their book This is not a program (Ceci n’est pas un programme), published in France as late as 2009 (English translation appeared in 2011 in Semiotext(e) edition) - whereas those concepts are already being practiced in uprisings on the squares of Athens, Madrid and new York.
If we are about to emancipate from the logic of the regime our first step in that direction would be, according to Tiqqun, developing a different form of a party, the book suggesting the term Imaginary Party. Such a party should not be confused with the today’s so called parties which had actually degenerated into the mere lobbying groups of competing individuals, but rather as a heterogeneous body – a non-formal field which Tiqqun calls common plane of consistency that builds itself through circulation (of people, ideas, thoughts, action), and not through organization. “Today, building the Party means establishing forms-of-life in their difference, intensifying, complicating relations between them” Thinking of a party in such a manner is similar to Gramsci’s concepts of communist party, not as a party of professional revolutionaries, rather as a collective intelligence.
When Imaginary party is conceived in such a way, there would be no need to voice demands nor for regime’s formal recognition, because it would already, through its conception, separate itself from that regime, from its logic, its language as well as its notion of politics. There would also be no need for criticizing the regime, or to be defined through its negation (as the enemies of regime) “The cardinal error of all subversion therefore lies in the obsession with negativity, in an attachment to the power of negation as if that were its most characteristic feature, whereas it is precisely in the power of negation that subversion is the most dependent on Empire, and on Empire`s recognition of it." Therefore, such a party needs neither delegates, representatives nor a spokesperson, nor would it need to construct an identity, that is subjects (such as classes, proletariat, worker, student, retired, women, homosexuals, ethnical groups, etc.). Rather than creating common group identity, individuals would circulate around the party creating a common language and knowledge, and rather than generating a common subject, those collectives would generate common events, moments in space and time in which regime’s fictions would be attacked by reality. In Tiqqun’s own words: “Imaginary Party can never be individuated as a subject, a body, a thing, or a substance, nor even as a set of subjects, bodies, things and substances but only as the event of all of these things.”
Što se događalo 1977.?
Inspiraciju za takvu partiju, oslobođenu svakog identiteta, Tiqqun uzima iz talijanskog pokreta 70-ih, sastavljenog od nezavisnih grupa, skupina, organizacija i bandi. Pouka nemirnih talijanskih godina bila je da se u odvajanju raznih skupina od kapitalističkog društva „nije radilo o afirmaciji „novih subjekata“ (…) već u nasilnoj, praktičnoj i aktivnoj desubjektivizaciji, odbijanju uloga koje su im bile pripisane kao subjektima.“ I upravo je to odvajanje bilo jedino zajedničko svim tim grupama koje su danas svrstane pod zajedničko ime Pokret Autonomia, a koje su svoj vrhunac doživjele 1977. godine kad je desetogodišnja borba u Italiji (poznata pod nazivom „olovne godine“) ulazila u svoju posljednju fazu.
Tiqqun objašnjava da su se 1977. ljudi u Italiji borili upravo protiv 68-e, odnosno onoga u što se „šezdesetosmaški“ duh pretvorio, pa se poziva na neke od protagonista te borbe, poput Nanne Balestrini i Prima Moronia koji objašnjavaju razliku između 68-e i 77-e na sljedeći način „Službene“ verzije opisuju '68. kao dobru, a '77. kao lošu; u biti je '68. prisvojena od režima dok je '77. isbrisana.“ Prvenstveno na način da je se poistovječuje isključivo s terorističkim metodama Brigate Rosse.
Priča pokreta 77 koja je daleko zanimljivija, ali i manje poznata, tekla je zapravo paralelno i neovisno od naoružanih revolucionarnih formacija tipa Brigate Rosse. Taj je pokret različitih skupina u samo nekoliko godina djelovanja uspio razviti vlastite medije (između ostalog i prve piratske radio stanice), vlastite prostore (prvi socijani centri i skvotovi u Italiji) i vlastitu teoriju (na čijoj ostavštini se i dalje temelje razni suvremeni marksisti). Fabrizio „Collabo“ Calvi u svom tekstu „Drug P38“ opisuje taj pokret na milanskim ulicama riječima: „Adolescentske bande su lansirale napade na grad. Prvo bi zauzeli prazne zgrade, napuštene trgovine, koje bi preimenovali u „proleterske omladinske centre“. Zatim bi se postepeno širili iz tih centara i preuzimali cijelo naselje služeći se taktikama poput kazališnih predstava, malih piratskih tržnica ili pak „eksproprijacijama“. Na vrhuncu pokreta bilo je i do 30-ak takvih sfera. Svaka je imala svoju centralu, a mnogi su izdavali i vlastite novine.“
Najveća zasluga tih pokreta bila je premještanje revolucionarne borbe iz tvornica, gdje se ona nalazila od samog početka komunističke ideje, u grad i na čitav kapitalistički teritorij. Borba se počela odvijati na terenu prisvajanja ne više sredstava za rad nego sredstava za život (stanova, hrane, režija, transporta, kulture, komunikacije,…). Neke od inovacija tih pokreta bile su autreduzione (samoinicijativno smanjivanje režija), pokreta Pravo na grad, skvotiranja stanova i odbijanja plaćanja najamnine, proleterski šoping (pljačkanje trgovina), i mnoge druge.
What happened in 1977?
Inspiration for such a party, free of all identities, Tiqqun finds in Italian 70’s movement which was consisting of autonomous groups, collectives, organizations and gangs. Lesson taken from those turbulent Italian years is that the separation of different collectives from the capitalist society “was not the affirmation of “new subjects” (…) rather their violent, practical, active, desubjectivation, rejection and betrayal of the role that has been assigned to them as subjects." And that separation was precisely what all of those groups had in common. Today they are known under the same name, Movement Autonomia, reaching its peak in 1977, a year when a ten year long struggle in Italy (known as “lead years”) was in its last phase.
Tiqqun explains that in 1977, people fought against the ’68th, that is against what the spirit of 68 had turned into, referring to some of the protagonists of the 70’s struggle, like Nanne Balestrini and Primo Moroni who explained the difference between ’68th and ’77th like this: "The “official” version portrays 68 as good and 77 as bad; in fact 68 was co-opted whereas 77 was unnihilated” ,primarily by means of identifying it with the terrorist methods of Brigate Rosse.
The real story of the 77th movement is a far more interesting one, but far less known, and was actually happening in parallel to the armed revolutionary formations such as Brigate Rosse. That movement, one of numerous collectives, had, in just a few years managed to develop their own media (for example, first ever pirate radio stations), form their own spaces (first social centers and squats in Italy) as well as devise their own theory (upon which grounds some contemporary Marxist base their own). In his text “Comrade P38”, Fabrizio “Collabo” Calvi describes movement on the streets of Milan with these words: "Bands of adolescents were launching an attack on the city. First they occupied empty houses, vacant shops, which they baptized “proletariat youth circles”. Then, from there they spread out little by little and “took over the neighborhood”. It went from theatrical performances to the little “pirate markets”, not to mention the “expropriations”. At the height of the wave there were up to thirty circles. Each had its headquarters, of course, and many published small newspapers."
The biggest credit of these movements was that they allocated revolutionary fight outside the factory, where it was grounded from the beginning of the communist ideas, into the city and onto the whole of the capitalist territory. Struggle begun to deal not only with taking over the means of production, but the means of living (flats, food, bills, transportation, culture, communication..). Some of the movement’s innovations were autoreduzione (auto-lowering the cost of bills), Right to the city movement, squatting of flats and refusing to pay rent, proletarian shopping (robbing stores), and many more.
Ratni strojevi
Pozivanjem na ostavštinu talijanske 1977. Tiqqun zapravo poziva na ponovnu redefiniciju sukoba, na novu koncepciju ratovanja, pa i na novi odnos pokreta spram nasilju, obzirom da je svaki konflikt u posljednjih 30 godina uspješno pacificiran od strane režima, kojeg Tiqqun nazivaju Imperijom, pozivajući se na teoriju Negrija i Hardta.
Preuzimajući opis imperijalnog nadzora društva od autora poput Foucaulta i Agambena, Tiqqun detaljno razrađuje tezu o sveprisutnom, ali prikrivenom ratnom stanju u kojem svi mi živimo već godinama. U takvom stanju smo svi potencijalni neprijatelji Imperija, a ovlasti vojske i policije neprestano rastu (pod izgovorom sprječavanja terorističkih prijetnji), vlasti se sve češće odlučuju proglašavati izvanredna stanja u kojima se obustavlja vladavina zakona, a ponekad i ustava, i tako dalje. Bitnu tezu koju Tiqqun postavlja opisujući takav sustav je da ne smijemo poistovjetiti neprijatelja i Imperij. „Imperij nije neprijatelj, Imperij je neprijateljski krajolik“. Dakle, neprijatelj je svatko tko suzbija i sprječava razvijanje nezavisnih formi života, svatko tko ugrožava naš život, dok je sam krajolik u kojem se susrećemo s neprijateljem, u kojem moramo organizirati našu borbu, imperijalan. Stoga je preduvjet za razvoj borbe stvaranje autonomnih krajolika, prostora i teritorija koji nisu pod nadzorom Imperija. Nazovimo takve oslobođene krajolike komunalima.
Ono što je bitno u Tiqqunovom opisu otpora režimu je da taj otpor mora biti sastavljen podjednako od stvaranja novog načina življenja i od borbe protiv sadašnjeg, imperijalnog, sistema. Kada se u komunalima razvija drugačiji život koji nije popraćen borbom on ubrzo sklizne nazad u imperijalni krajolik. Najočitiji primjeri za to su bezbrojni „autonomni“ kulturni ili društveni centri i hipsterski skvotovi koji svoju „alternativnost“ razvijaju u tijesnoj financijskoj i kulturnoj suradnji sa gradskim institucijama režima. S druge strane, ako se borba protiv aktualnog režima svede na puku militarizaciju pokreta, bez proizvodnje i kreacije drugačijeg života, tada se pokret deformira u paravojnu formaciju ili terorističku skupinu.
Pojam koji Tiqqun posuđuju od Deleuza i Guattarija i njihovog teksta „Rasprava o nomadologiji“, a koji najbliže opisuje spoj života i borbe u jednom je ratni stroj. Taj izum nomada, ljudi koji negiraju postojanje država i njihovih granica, inspiracija je za opisivanje pokreta koji nema rat za svoj cilj (za razliku od vojske), ali je u bilo kojem sukobu sposoban krenuti u protunapad i obraniti svoje želje, potrebe, živote i prostor. Riječima Deleuza i Guattaria: „ratni strojevi mogu ratovati samo pod uvjetom da istovremeno stvaraju nešto novo.“ Formiranjem takvih strojeva koji u sebi spajaju želju za životom i snagu otpora postajemo spremni za potencijalni sukob koji će, prema Tiqqunu, „biti partizanski.“
War machines
In evoking the 1977 movement’s heritage, Tiqqun calls for redefinition of conflict, for the new conception of warfare, even for a new attitude towards violence, taking into the account that every conflict in the last 30 years has been successfully pacified by the regime, which Tiqqun calls Empire, referring to Negri and Hardt’s theory.
Building upon Foucault and Agamben’s description of Empire’s control over society, Tiqqun meticulously develops a concept of omnipresent, but obscured, state of low intensity warfare in which we have been living for years now. In such a state of affairs we are all deemed as potential enemies of the Empire, while the powers of army and police forces are constantly on the rise (under the excuse of preventing terrorist attacks), governments are more than ever inclined to proclaim state of emergency, thus obsoleting the rule of law, sometimes even making the whole constitution obsolete too. Important concept that Tiqqun introduces is that we should not equalize Empire and the enemy “Empire is not the enemy. Empire is no more than the hostile environment”. Therefore, an enemy is everyone that counteracts and forbids developing of autonomous forms-of -life, everyone who endangers our life, whiles the environment where we can encounter our enemy, where we have to organize our combat, is imperial. Consequently, creating autonomous environment, places and territories which are not under the supervision of the Empire, is a prerequisite in development of our struggle. Let’s call those freed spaces komunal.
What is of great importance in Tiqquns description of the resistance is that that resistance has to consist of both creating the new forms of life as well as the fight against the present, imperial system. If we were to develop new ways of life inside of komunal which are not followed by the constant fight, komunal would soon slip back into the imperial landscape. The most obvious example of that are countless “autonomous” cultural or social centers and hipster’s squats which develop their “otherness” in close financial and cultural relationship with the city’s institutions which are themselves part of the regime. On the other hand, if the fight against the regime comes to the mere militarization of the movement, without production and creation of a different life, than the movement deforms into a paramilitary formation or a terrorist group.
War machine is a term that Tiqqun borrows from Deleuze and Guattari and their text “Nomadology: The War Machine” and represents the most accurate description of the co-relation of life and struggle. That invention of the nomads, people who do not recognize the State and its borders, is the inspiration for describing the movements which do not have war as their goal (unlike military), but are capable of launching a counterattack in order to defend their desires, needs, lives and territory. In Deleuze and Guattari’s own words: “war machines can wage a war only under the condition that they are simultaneously creating something new”. By developing into such machines that consist of both the desire for life and the strength to resist, we become ready for potential combat which will than, by Tiqqun’s account, “be the one of the partisans”.
