Transgression or barbarism

Image: Action Group


Those who are lenient with the mistakes, doubts and missteps of the left end up justifying barbarism as a stage of reality “in itself”

“If necessary, make war, / Kill the world, hurt the earth … sing a hymn / Praise death … go to the fight / Capoeira” (Marcos and Paulo Sérgio Valle, moonlit viola).

Without transgression the left goes nowhere except to the right. What has paralyzed, and also inhibited, the left, in part, stems from neglecting both a radical critique of reality and a radical practice. Above all, it must be understood that there is no transformation in conformism and also that it is necessary to have a coherent, consistent and consistent practice with this finding.

And those who are lenient with the mistakes, doubts and missteps of the left end up justifying barbarism as a stage of reality “in itself”, when they should face it as what, in fact, it is: the result of the insatiable processes of oppression, the which do not occur because of the moral perversity of the bourgeoisie, but because generalized destruction is a structural and stable tendency in capitalism.

This reflection does not fit the dialectic complementation of this reasoning, because it is not about destroying everything that came into existence as a result of capitalism, otherwise we would be returned to primitive forms of production.

But the left, on the contrary, go too far validating the capitalist modes of reproduction, as if they belonged to “human nature”, or corresponded to inherent conditions of the social practice of the species. Capitalism is not ontological but historically constituted.

In part, this has roots in the way the USSR organized its modes of production, in particular its manager, the State. It seems that, for not having yet managed to conform a perspective of social life without an oppressive State, the left believes in the capitalist “forces of order”.

The internal practices of left-wing organizations suggest this inability to overcome authoritarianism and oppression as a form of social mediation, which is not inconceivable, but should already be evident when a communist organization of society is put into perspective as an effective overcoming of capitalism. That is, an organized society without the need for an oppressive and omnipresent body whose task is to protect the will and general dispositions of societies.

We accept and naturalize the role of oppressive forces. As they say, “we take it for granted” that the apparatuses of repression have a monopoly on the use of force. The left is content with the role of a necessary expression of peace. In doing so, it not only collaborates with the forces of capitalist oppression, but also censors and denies the fractions of society that resort to counter-violence, a condition that only makes sense when the indiscriminate and totalitarian violent action of the order, introjected the conception of citizenship as superior solution to the class struggle.

Not infrequently, the conformed, or remedied, leftists appropriate and reproduce elements of bourgeois morality that justify that “poor people who resort to the use of force”, whether in a defensive way, or by expropriating values ​​to guarantee their livelihood, are “beyond just reason. ”. This notion is so ingrained that even contiguous areas such as expressions of sexuality, consumption of opiates, are difficult to be authenticated by sectors of the left.

In this scenario, as much as the self-proclamation wants to guarantee the opposite, the action of the left falls short of the postulates of civil disobedience, this unfolding of borderline behavior, admitted by liberal thought.

When the constituted power determines restrictions on the rights of demonstration, the left protests vehemently, and acquiesces. In doing so, it validates and recognizes the authority of the oppressor over its forms of struggle, that is, it admits that it does not have a decisive role.

A data that is not secondary and is being made explicit ad nauseam for Bolsonarism, is exactly the absolute lack of commitment to elementary social pacts of tolerance and peaceful coexistence. It takes a lot of naivety not to realize that Jacarezinho, commissioned the day before by Bolsonaro, is not an eloquent speech of insubordination and disqualification of the highest court in the country. That is, at all, absolutely at all, the legal system in force. What else do we need to face to convince us that the government longs for and sponsors absolute anomie? And our response so far is that we will be the heroic ones responsible for restoring bourgeois order in the face of its fascist waste.

Politics and hate speech, in reality, are not moral judgments, but an expression of this lack of commitment. In other words, they are the line of intervention that denies any civilizing pact, the kind that the left still deludes themselves with.

At the base of the rejection that the left undertakes in relation to these practices is the assumption that the mere existence, abstract and formal, of a constitutional document is enough for us to fulfill “our civic duty”. Even if this civility is permanently violated, now, by the president of the republic.

The message of the bourgeoisie cannot be clearer. Even so, there are too many lefts placing themselves as guarantors of a more than moribund social pact. Brazilian civility rots under the weight of half a million murdered by the premeditated negligence of the central power.

And the result of this adhesion to a pact already extinct by the bourgeoisie, corresponds exactly to the difficulty that some leftists have in promptly incorporating, as it should be, the feminist, black, artists and even sex professionals agendas, considered equally as marginal, by a left that is not only utopian, but strongly alienated.

Notably, these lefts fall short, in terms of understanding social reality, even the postulates of primitive Christianity, which corrected authoritarian perspectives of Judaism.

All structures that justify and reproduce the capitalist order need to be decidedly deconstructed, of course, destroyed in their reactionary and oppressive functionality. In this regard, even the demilitarization of the police is insufficient, beyond the framework of security professionals themselves.

The lefts that are not capable of going beyond the ethical postulates of classical liberalism are not even utopian. They are leftists who justify and work in favor of order. And the organizational context of the lefts suggests that there is still no relevant organization in the country that can properly claim the revolutionary character.

The abuse of truculence and institutional violence in reactionary political action is not an exception in Brazilian politics. Republican Brazil has always been a class conflict with a prevalence of war tactics. We are the ones who allow ourselves to become numb and deny the civil war that was transposed into the reality of the country practically right at the birth of the republic.

That's why it's hard for us to see the explicitness of the institutional discourse of the murder in Jacarezinho. But not just there. Also in Brumadinho, Pinheirinho and countless more tenuous or forceful versions. Even the formal extinction of the Juma ethnic group is an expression of the class struggle sponsored by the bourgeoisie.

However, we are tolerant of barbarism. Despite our speeches, our practice is subordinated to the logic that the bourgeoisie has a monopoly on violence, “thank God”, because we are virtuous.

We understand the class struggle as a category of analysis not as an expression of political reality. Perhaps we are immobilized by the fact that the oppressor belongs to the same class as the oppressed and, therefore, victim and oppressor are indistinguishable.

Evidently this is not the core of the class struggle issue, but as long as the left continues to insist on a class struggle without an effective struggle, it will be the only victim. Or rather, not her, but the effectively oppressed people, because most of the lefts are accommodated in the middle classes. The heart of the matter is that the left does not practice an insurrectionary struggle, and there is no revolution without insurrection, without transgression of order.

Can the left manage to guide a rupture through other means? This is possible in some future. What is given, at this moment, is that there will be no real transformation in Brazil that is not bathed in blood. And this is an imposition of the oppressors, not a wish of the oppressed. For the time being, only the oppressive side is carrying out its massacres with impunity, and this is still called justice. By doing so, they not only distort and invert the sense of justice, but they are also affirming that any rebellion is outside the civilizing parameters acceptable to them.

For the time being, we are agreeing to this. And the result is that only one side has its blood shed in the streets, corners and ghettos. We remain bestialized.

*Demerson Dias is a civil servant.


See this link for all articles