The overall dissent movement has failed, at least so far

The overall dissent movement has failed, at least so far

by Paolo Borgognone

Source: https://www.ariannaeditrice.it/articoli/il-movimento-complessivo-del-dissenso-e-fallito-almeno-fino-a-questo-momento

The overall movement of dissent has failed, at least so far, for a number of reasons on which, in my opinion, a public reflection would be necessary (which I doubt there will be precisely because of the private and individualistic nature and vocation of a large part of dissent). Here are some points for such reflection (which there will not be). Dissent is in almost terminal crisis because:

1) its leaders, and I refer to those who spearheaded the so-called anti-system lists in the 2022 elections, are (with some partial exceptions that I acknowledge) so steeped in neoliberalism in method, rather than merit, that they have set up an election campaign that is the child of their ideological idiosyncrasies. In addition, they are often egocentric, self-absorbed, boastful, fickle, neurotic characters who consider themselves champions surrounded by duds. Their method traces exactly that used by the mainstream to manage political, metiatical, human relations in a neo-liberal system. I would say they behave like the liquid that fits the shape of the glass that contains it. However, it would be absurd to blame them. Born and raised in neo-liberalism, fascinated by the cult of notoriety, it is normal for them to have a neo-liberal mindset and ways of doing things (the opposite would be astonishing);

2) many notorious candidates, influencers from the area of dissent, have turned out to be, in their ways, equal if not worse than the leaders who put them on the list. This too is normal. An influencer, a creator of content, born and bred in neo-liberalism, who in order to get likes and views has to deal online with structures, platforms and modes typical of neo-liberalism, either adapts to these structures and modes, or gets 4 likes and 5 views per post or video and goes home. An influencer, by definition, cannot be a stranger to the cult of notoriety and the rituals with which this cult is celebrated. For this reason, in order to stay afloat on the web and continue to be an influencer, he will have to put the preservation of his package of followers interacting on his profiles and channels before the reasons of political analysis (which sometimes require him to take uncomfortable and even inadmissible positions for a more or less important segment of his reserve of followers). Finally, influencers did not bring many votes to the lists that competed to grab them;

3) the dissent movement, in its widespread social base, is as neo-liberal and individualistic as the leadership, if not more so. The majority of the people demonstrating in 2021 did so to achieve contingent goals: to somehow get the green pass. And to obtain it, they had 3 possibilities (excluding the 2-3 vaccinations from the outset): 1) get a fake one; 2) get sick, get well and get the healing one; 3) get the government to lift the restrictive measure. Well, once this objective was realised, in one way or another, the protesters who in 2021 were shouting in the streets 'people like us never give up', gave up and went back to minding their own business, leading to an ebb that weakened the movement's political propulsive capacities.

This, too, is normal and fits, because in neo-liberalism politics is interpreted by its widespread social base as teleshopping. I, voter, subscriber, militant or sympathiser, ask you, the political subject, to sell me a product and however the transaction is concluded, I will separate my path from yours. In 2021, the widespread social base of these demonstrations demanded, from the political subjects who were the interpreters of this protest movement, only one thing: an end to the green pass. And when it got it, i.e. when it satisfied in one way or another its legitimate and immediate demand, it said goodbye to politics and its organised interpreters and went back to doing what it did before, to 'normal life'.

The interpretation of politics as a teleshopping does not concern an enduring relationship between grassroots and political leadership, just as the purchase of a product from a seller does not require an enduring relationship between the parties to the transaction. Once the transaction has taken place, the parties say goodbye and amen. As long as politics and its actors of reference are interpreted, at the grassroots level, as suppliers of products that immediately become swindlers the moment they fail to deliver, turnkey, the product demanded by the buyer (the social base), the relationship between grassroots and politics will always and in any case be vitiated by a neo-liberal approach that will not allow a consolidation of the political interpreters of popular protest. Politics is not teleshopping;

4) dissent movements have been characterised by an extraordinary propensity for splitting and sectarianism. This is because the market society has largely disarticulated and depowered the capacities of human agglomerations to make community. In short, the first time you contradict me, I throw you out or put you in a position to leave. 

Or, the first time I encounter a person or situation in the agglomeration that annoys me, I leave. Market society is the enemy of dialectics. At the grassroots as well as at the top, arrogance and hybris rule the day. Many times I have heard simple activists say 'if you don't do as I say I'll leave'. Finally, after 25 September 2022, many dissenting parties have bled themselves dry in terms of their membership because the latter have drifted away as a result of the post-election controversies that have flared up in these parties. Such behaviour, based on the assumption 'either you are all united or I'm leaving', testifies to poor human inter-relationship skills as well as no capacity for politics. It is perfectly normal, in fact, for people to argue and even quarrel in parties. Giving up everything because 'the others are splitting' is an attitude that is not only arrogant and unfriendly, but also very divisive.

Splitting is therefore as much a question of the top as of the bottom. Ditto for sectarianism. Which is the most serious disease of 'anti-system' politics and which is indicative of profound infantilism. "If you talk to Titius who I dislike, I will no longer talk to you and I will boycott you" is a way of doing things that would already be obnoxious and unjustifiable at 12 years old, let alone at 50...

5) the parties of dissent have gone into deep crisis because they are characterised, internally, by an irrepressible propensity to intrigue, chatter and gossip. This attitude is deleterious but normal since it is as old as the world and has been in place for millennia. Unfortunately, the abuse of chat rooms and social networks has amplified the problem, making it endemic and often unmanageable. The intermingling of gossip and politics is a factor that needs to be borne in mind in order to understand the reasons for the decay of political subjects interpreting any instance (of consensus or dissent).

Well, with this brief but tedious piece of writing I have tried to have my say, in a largely sketchy and inadequate manner, on a subject of close topicality albeit of relative interest. Will these words of mine be the subject of future reflection by dissent movements? Absolutely not. It is all blocked by the neo-liberalism and hybris that characterises the ideology and practice of a good part (not all, mind you!) of these movements and their political and media interpreters (influencers). In any case, I have tried. I have thrown the stone into the pond. Perhaps in some time I will come back to the subject again, with some insights. Thank you to anyone who has had the patience to read it and I hope sufficiently lucid...