{"id":13979,"date":"2015-01-16T23:19:36","date_gmt":"2015-01-16T21:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dndf.org\/?p=13979"},"modified":"2015-02-02T23:53:21","modified_gmt":"2015-02-02T21:53:21","slug":"a-propos-de-charlie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/a-propos-de-charlie\/","title":{"rendered":"A propos de Charlie"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00ab\u00a0le citoyen, l’Autre et l’Etat\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/p>\n

(english translation below)<\/em><\/h6>\n

Il y eut Reiser et son prolo, baguette sous le bras, b\u00e9ret sur la t\u00eate et clope au bec, tout triste en apprenant de Georges Marchais qu\u2019il ne serait jamais dictateur\u00a0; toujours Reiser avec son Vietnamien sur son v\u00e9lo disant \u00ab\u00a0Aujourd\u2019hui la paix, demain l\u2019usine\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0; il y eut aussi le \u00ab\u00a0bal tragique\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0Georges le tueur\u00a0\u00bb. Pour les gens comme moi, de ma g\u00e9n\u00e9ration, ce n\u2019est pas sans un pincement au c\u0153ur qu\u2019on apprend le massacre des dessinateurs de Charlie<\/em>, bien s\u00fbr Charlie<\/em> ce n\u2019\u00e9tait plus \u00e7a depuis longtemps, mais ils avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 les dessinateurs de l\u2019Enrag\u00e9<\/em> en 68, alors\u2026<\/p>\n

Ce ne sont pas quatre millions d\u2019 \u00ab\u00a0idiots utiles\u00a0\u00bb qui sont descendus dans la rue, en France, le dimanche 11 janvier. Ils ne r\u00e9clamaient pas une \u00ab\u00a0op\u00e9ration militaire int\u00e9rieure\u00a0\u00bb mobilisant 10\u00a0000 soldats d\u00e9ploy\u00e9s sur le \u00ab\u00a0territoire national\u00a0\u00bb (d\u00e9claration du gouvernement le lundi 12). D\u00e8s l\u2019apr\u00e8s-midi et la soir\u00e9e du mercredi 7 (le jour de la tuerie \u00e0 la r\u00e9daction de Charlie<\/em>) c\u2019est spontan\u00e9ment<\/em> que se sont organis\u00e9s les premiers rassemblements et les premi\u00e8res manifestations citoyennes<\/em> sur les \u00ab\u00a0valeurs de la R\u00e9publique\u00a0\u00bb et la \u00ab\u00a0libert\u00e9 d\u2019expression\u00a0\u00bb, contre \u00ab\u00a0la barbarie\u00a0\u00bb, et qu\u2019est apparu le slogan \u00ab\u00a0Je suis Charlie\u00a0\u00bb. Il n\u2019\u00e9tait pas besoin de \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019exhortation de l\u2019Etat\u00a0\u00bb et de la mise en branle qui a suivi de l\u2019\u00e9crasante machine de propagande. L\u2019Etat a pris le train en marche<\/em>, non sans quelques maladresses au d\u00e9part comme celle de l\u2019organisation des manifestations sous l\u2019\u00e9gide d\u2019un cartel des organisations politiques. Le 11 janvier, le personnel politique \u00e9tait plut\u00f4t discret face \u00e0 un cadeau en partie empoisonn\u00e9 pour la nature actuelle de l\u2019Etat que l\u2019on ne peut plus qualifier simplement de national.<\/p>\n

Bien s\u00fbr, ils vont en profiter pour criminaliser toute forme d\u2019opposition et de r\u00e9volte, renforcer et l\u00e9gitimer les contr\u00f4les et la r\u00e9pression, \u00eatre r\u00e9confort\u00e9s dans les guerres ext\u00e9rieures, maintenant devenues int\u00e9rieurement \u00ab\u00a0justes\u00a0\u00bb. Mais les grandes envol\u00e9es d\u2019estrade sur \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019union nationale\u00a0\u00bb et Jaur\u00e8s ou \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019union inter-nationale\u00a0\u00bb (pas si \u00e9vidente) de l\u2019Occident face au monde \u00ab\u00a0postcolonial\u00a0\u00bb, non seulement sont absolument inad\u00e9quates en dehors de la rh\u00e9torique radicale, se r\u00e9sument \u00e0 une suite de d\u00e9clarations ronflantes et d\u00e9nonciatoires qui n\u2019analysent rien parce que ce n\u2019est pas leur but, mais encore ram\u00e8nent l\u2019analyse \u00e0 l\u2019affirmation de quelques canons \u00e9ternels de la norme r\u00e9volutionnaire. Ramener l\u2019\u00e9norme mobilisation du dimanche 11 janvier \u00e0 une affaire de manipulation, de propagande, d\u2019embrigadement est un peu facile et \u00e0 la limite r\u00e9confortant. En aurait-il \u00e9t\u00e9 ainsi, encore faudrait-il expliquer que \u00e7a ait march\u00e9. Ce n\u2019est pas si simple et peut-\u00eatre plus grave. Cette soudaine mobilisation du dimanche 11 janvier 2015 \u00e9tait \u00e9minemment actuelle[i]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 L\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement n\u2019est pas survenu comme un coup de tonnerre dans un ciel serein. Dans tout les pays europ\u00e9ens, que cela soit sous des th\u00e9matiques de gauche (Front de Gauche, Podemos, Syriza \u2026) ou de droite (inutile de donner la liste), la citoyennet\u00e9 nationale<\/em> est devenue l\u2019id\u00e9ologie r\u00e9pondant \u00e0 la crise ramen\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019 \u00ab\u00a0injustice de la distribution des richesses\u00a0\u00bb. Cette \u00ab\u00a0citoyennet\u00e9 nationale\u00a0\u00bb sous-tend tout un discours mettant en cause la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l\u2019Etat devenu un appareil d\u00e9nationalis\u00e9<\/em> responsable de l\u2019injustice. Quand les manifestants applaudissent au passage des cars de CRS, c\u2019est \u00e0 l\u2019ordre r\u00eav\u00e9 de l\u2019Etat protecteur \u00ab\u00a0d\u2019avant la mondialisation lib\u00e9rale\u00a0\u00bb qu\u2019ils rendent hommage et qu\u2019ils croient retrouver. Cela, momentan\u00e9ment<\/em>, quelles que soient la diversit\u00e9 des ins\u00e9curit\u00e9s, des dangers, r\u00e9els ou fantasm\u00e9s, qui menacent leur vie.<\/p>\n

Ce sont ces dangers, ces ins\u00e9curit\u00e9s qui, de la R\u00e9publique \u00e0 la Nation, se sont fugacement cristallis\u00e9s dans le mythe de la citoyennet\u00e9 comme protection. Celle qu\u2019apporte un vrai Etat-nation et une citoyennet\u00e9 nationale non seulement identitaire mais identitaire parce que protectrice, celle qui a foutu le camp depuis les ann\u00e9es 1970. Mais la citoyennet\u00e9 nationale n\u2019est pas innocente ni dans sa naissance ni dans ses implications. Elle se construit face \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019Autre\u00a0\u00bb qui la menace et elle implique la suppression de la menace. Aujourd\u2019hui l\u2019islamisme, demain ou en m\u00eame temps la lutte de classe ou les luttes de femmes. Quatre millions de personnes se rassemblent et ce qui est frappant c\u2019est le vide du discours\u00a0: il n\u2019y a rien \u00e0 dire, rien \u00e0 faire d\u2019autre que de dire \u00ab\u00a0je suis r\u00e9publicain\u00a0\u00bb, rien d\u2019autre qu\u2019\u00e0 comprendre \u00ab\u00a0ce qu\u2019est une nation\u00a0\u00bb, rien d\u2019autre qu\u2019\u00e0 promener une immense repr\u00e9sentation de la R\u00e9publique menac\u00e9e par d\u2019anonymes corbeaux noirs que tout le monde identifie sans peine.<\/p>\n

La nation ne devient un th\u00e8me de mobilisation et de combat que si elle est construite comme menac\u00e9e et les menaces ne peuvent alors \u00eatre formul\u00e9es que dans les termes que la nation impose, ceux de ses valeurs et de son authenticit\u00e9. Le citoyen est une abstraction quant \u00e0 son rapport \u00e0 l\u2019individu concret d\u00e9fini dans des rapports de production, des rapports de classes et de genre, mais il n\u2019est pas une abstraction vide de d\u00e9terminations. L\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9 et l\u2019\u00e9quivalence des citoyens entre eux qui font leur abstraction supposent un partage de qualit\u00e9s communes historiques et culturelles. Il n\u2019y a pas de citoyennet\u00e9 sans identit\u00e9, sans la possibilit\u00e9 de pouvoir dire \u00ab\u00a0nous\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0eux\u00a0\u00bb. Dire \u00ab\u00a0nous\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0eux\u00a0\u00bb n\u2019est pas l\u2019apanage du Front National, des mangeurs de cochonnailles et des buveurs de vin rouge. Cela peut se dire avec le sourire la\u00efque de la \u00ab\u00a0libert\u00e9 d\u2019expression\u00a0\u00bb et de la d\u00e9fense du \u00ab\u00a0droit des femmes\u00a0\u00bb. Mais cela se dit toujours dans le langage de l\u2019Etat. \u00ab\u00a0Les questions de l\u2019immigration et de l\u2019islam sont clairement pos\u00e9es, on ne peut pas continuer comme \u00e7a avec l\u2019immigration qui si elle n\u2019est pas li\u00e9e au terrorisme complique les choses en g\u00e9n\u00e9rant difficult\u00e9s d\u2019int\u00e9gration et communautarisme\u00a0\u00bb (Sarkozy). Du sourire la\u00efque bienveillant \u00e0 la d\u00e9claration de Sarkozy la pente est glissante.<\/p>\n

Un bon, un vrai citoyen se doit d\u2019\u00eatre autant discret que son universalit\u00e9 est suspecte. \u00ab\u00a0Otez donc ce voile\u00a0\u00bb dit le citoyen de gauche qui milite pour l\u2019\u00e9mancipation f\u00e9minine, faisant de la domination des femmes l\u2019apanage de quelques cultures archa\u00efques et une chose en voie de disparition chez nous. Car ce citoyen est bien de chez nous<\/em>. Et c\u2019est parce que bien de chez nous<\/em> qu\u2019il est universel<\/em>. Les juifs, quant \u00e0 eux, dans la manifestation, ont raison de se demander\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0S\u2019il y avait seulement eu la prise d\u2019otages \u00e0 l\u2019Hyper Cacher, vendredi, et pas l\u2019attentat contre Charlie Hebdo<\/em> mercredi, aurait-on observ\u00e9 un tel sursaut r\u00e9publicain\u00a0?\u00a0\u00bb. Bien \u00e9videmment non (cf., Toulouse)\u00a0: la citoyennet\u00e9 nationale, l\u2019universel, n\u2019est pas menac\u00e9e quand un particulier s\u2019en prend \u00e0 un autre particulier m\u00eame si tous les particuliers ne sont pas subsum\u00e9s identiquement sous l\u2019universel.<\/p>\n

Il arrive qu\u2019un particulier pour des raisons historique dans le temps long et\/ou \u00e0 cause de circonstances sociales ou politiques actuelles ait une positivit\u00e9 en raison de laquelle il appartient, en m\u00eame temps qu\u2019il est d\u00e9sign\u00e9e comme particulier, \u00e0 la m\u00eame sph\u00e8re universelle[ii]<\/a>\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0Sans les juifs, la France ne serait pas la France\u00a0\u00bb (Manuel Vals). Ici, la particularit\u00e9 demeure, elle n\u2019est pas, comme il se devrait, supprim\u00e9e dans l\u2019universel, mais elle appartient \u00e0 sa sph\u00e8re\u00a0; la particularit\u00e9 est une d\u00e9termination de l\u2019universel m\u00eame si elle n\u2019est pas supprim\u00e9e en lui. La derni\u00e8re fois qu\u2019un pr\u00e9sident \u00e9tait descendu manifester dans la rue c\u2019\u00e9tait Mitterrand \u00e0 la suite de la profanation du cimeti\u00e8re juif de Carpentras, jamais \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019attaque d\u2019une mosqu\u00e9e ou du carr\u00e9 musulman, m\u00eame d\u2019un cimeti\u00e8re militaire. Pour toutes sortes de raisons, sociales, politiques, \u00e9conomiques, culturelles, historiques, toutes les particularit\u00e9s ne sont pas \u00e9quivalentes et le rapport de l\u2019universel \u00e0 elles va de l\u2019inclusion (qui ne la supprime pas) \u00e0 la m\u00e9fiance si ce n\u2019est l\u2019hostilit\u00e9. A un moment donn\u00e9 il y a des particularit\u00e9s que l\u2019universel construit comme nuisibles, les juifs ont pu tragiquement en faire l\u2019exp\u00e9rience.<\/p>\n

Quels que soient les discours tenus, la simple existence des manifestations dont nous parlons et l\u2019invite \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0s\u2019\u00e9manciper dans la R\u00e9publique\u00a0\u00bb, signifient qu\u2019il n\u2019en est absolument pas de m\u00eame en ce qui concerne nos \u00ab\u00a0concitoyens musulmans\u00a0\u00bb (la formule dit tout). Le particulier n\u2019est pas \u00e9nonc\u00e9 dans le m\u00eame rapport \u00e0 l\u2019universel. Ici, il est \u00e9nonc\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on n\u00e9gative, il ne se d\u00e9termine qu\u2019en lui-m\u00eame et pour lui-m\u00eame, il appartient au divers. Soyons plus terre \u00e0 terre, m\u00eame si elles ne se r\u00e9duisent pas \u00e0 lui, les manifestations du jeudi 8 au dimanche 11, sont incompr\u00e9hensibles dans leur massivit\u00e9 sans le climat cr\u00e9\u00e9 en France par la construction inqui\u00e8te et hostile de l\u2019islam (et des \u00ab\u00a0arabes\u00a0\u00bb) comme purement et simplement \u00e9trange et \u00e9tranger[iii]<\/a>. \u00ab\u00a0Arr\u00eatons\u00a0tout ang\u00e9lisme\u00a0\u00bb, disent de plus en plus les esprits forts r\u00e9publicains, \u00ab\u00a0ces terroristes viennent bien de chez vous, faites un peu le m\u00e9nage\u00a0\u00bb. A la suite des attaques du mercredi 7 et du vendredi 9, les actes anti arabo-musulmans se sont multipli\u00e9s, mais consid\u00e9rons plut\u00f4t l\u2019autre face de la m\u00eame pi\u00e8ce, l\u2019attitude ouverte et humaniste (ce qui nous \u00e9vitera les facilit\u00e9s de la condamnation humaniste du racisme et de \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019islamophobie\u00a0\u00bb).<\/p>\n

L\u2019injonction humaniste \u00e0 accepter \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019Autre\u00a0\u00bb pr\u00e9suppose l\u2019existence de \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019Autre\u00a0\u00bb, sa construction comme tel et donc la hi\u00e9rarchie vis-\u00e0-vis de \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019Un\u00a0\u00bb qui a le pouvoir de dire qui est \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019Autre\u00a0\u00bb. Entre\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0Nous\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0les Autres\u00a0\u00bb, il y a une organisation de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 qui s\u2019impose aux individus et pr\u00e9existe \u00e0 chacun d\u2019eux. Ceux qui sont invit\u00e9s \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0accepter l\u2019Autre\u00a0\u00bb constituent la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 normale, l\u00e9gitime. A l\u2019origine des Uns et des Autres, il y a le pouvoir simple et brut. L\u2019Un est celui qui a le pouvoir de distinguer.<\/p>\n

La distinction est la mise en pratique r\u00e9elle, empirique, quotidienne de l\u2019universalisme<\/em> du citoyen. Si l\u2019on abandonne la baudruche d\u2019un \u00ab\u00a0vrai universalisme\u00a0\u00bb[iv]<\/a>, l\u2019Occident peut l\u00e9gitimement s\u2019accaparer le monopole de valeurs universelles, si besoin est avec des F16 et des Rafales. L\u2019universalisme est une production id\u00e9ologique li\u00e9 au mode de production capitaliste, \u00e0 l\u2019abstraction du travail, de la valeur et du citoyen. Ce mode de production est le seul universel et \u00e0 pratiques id\u00e9ologiques universelles, \u00e0 condition que les individus correspondent aux crit\u00e8res de l\u2019universalit\u00e9, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire qu\u2019ils ne soient pas des femmes ou entretenant des liens communautaires, ethniques, raciaux, familiaux, religieux en concurrence avec l\u2019Etat-nation. Un \u00c9tat, c’est un \u00c9tat-nation car c’est un \u00c9tat capitaliste, il ne connait pas de communaut\u00e9s interm\u00e9diaires, d’identit\u00e9s multiples reconnues en son sein, et d\u00e9marque comme corps \u00e9trangers, communaut\u00e9s particuli\u00e8res, donc nuisibles, tout ce qui nuit ou interf\u00e8re dans son crit\u00e8re d’homog\u00e9n\u00e9it\u00e9 universelle. Toute m\u00e9diation entre le pouvoir et l’individu a cess\u00e9 d’exister. Il faut insister sur ce moyen terme qu\u2019est l’\u00c9tat-nation dans sa structure politique, moyen terme sans lequel on ne ferait que renvoyer grossi\u00e8rement l’explication de l’homog\u00e9n\u00e9isation au d\u00e9veloppement de la valeur et du capital, \u00e0 partir desquels on peut expliquer tout et n’importe quoi dans une totalit\u00e9 indiff\u00e9renci\u00e9e. Si seul l’\u00c9tat est cens\u00e9 repr\u00e9senter l’individu abstrait de ses d\u00e9terminations qu’est le citoyen, individu \u00ab\u00a0\u00e9mancip\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb, la seule garantie de son \u00ab\u00a0\u00e9mancipation\u00a0\u00bb est son appartenance-int\u00e9gration \u00e0 la collectivit\u00e9 nationale repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par l’\u00c9tat.<\/p>\n

La religion, quant \u00e0 elle est une forme primaire<\/em>, instable et inaccomplie, d\u2019universalisme de l\u2019Etat, d\u2019id\u00e9ologie sous laquelle s\u2019effectue la pratique politique. Primaire et instable car au moment o\u00f9 la religion se constitue en id\u00e9ologie dominante en coagulant les id\u00e9ologies sous lesquelles s\u2019exercent les pratiques des rapports sociaux et de production, elle r\u00e9v\u00e8le et revendique que l\u2019universalit\u00e9 abstraite de l\u2019Etat n\u2019est pas dans l\u2019Etat lui-m\u00eame<\/em>, qu\u2019il n\u2019est pas lui-m\u00eame \u00ab\u00a0la religion r\u00e9alis\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb (Marx, La Question juive<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0L\u2019Etat politique parfait est, d\u2019apr\u00e8s son essence, la vie g\u00e9n\u00e9rique de l\u2019homme par opposition \u00e0 sa vie mat\u00e9rielle. Toutes les suppositions de cette vie \u00e9go\u00efste continuent \u00e0 subsister dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile en dehors de la sph\u00e8re politique, mais comme propri\u00e9t\u00e9s de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 bourgeoise. L\u00e0 o\u00f9 l\u2019Etat politique est arriv\u00e9 \u00e0 son v\u00e9ritable \u00e9panouissement, l\u2019homme m\u00e8ne, non seulement dans la pens\u00e9e, dans la conscience, mais dans la r\u00e9alit\u00e9, dans la vie, une existence double, c\u00e9leste et terrestre, l\u2019existence dans la communaut\u00e9 politique, o\u00f9 il est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme un \u00eatre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, et l\u2019existence dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile, o\u00f9 il travaille comme simple particulier, voit dans les autres hommes de simples moyens et devient le jouet de puissances \u00e9trang\u00e8res. L\u2019Etat politique est, vis-\u00e0-vis de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile, aussi spiritualiste que le ciel l\u2019est vis-\u00e0-vis de la terre. (\u2026) L\u2019Etat d\u00e9mocratique, le v\u00e9ritable Etat, n\u2019a pas besoin de la religion pour son ach\u00e8vement politique. Il peut, au contraire, faire abstraction de la religion, parce qu\u2019en lui le fond humain de la religion est r\u00e9alis\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on profane<\/em>. \u00bb (ibid<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Il y avait quelque chose de l\u2019ordre du sacr\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb (Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet)\u00a0; \u00ab\u00a0Le peuple de France a communi\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb (Rama Yade).<\/p>\n

Quatre millions de Fran\u00e7ais dans les rues et 97 % dans les sondages ont renouvel\u00e9 leur all\u00e9geance \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019Etat v\u00e9ritable\u00a0\u00bb et ont gentiment demand\u00e9 \u00e0 \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019Autre\u00a0\u00bb de faire de m\u00eame, s\u2019il ne l\u2019avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait. Ils lui ont avec piti\u00e9 et compassion demander de s\u2019\u00e9manciper. Historiquement, en France, cette \u00e9mancipation au nom de l\u2019universalit\u00e9 appartient au vieux fond politique de la gauche. Les martyres de Charlie<\/em> \u00e9tant \u00e9galement r\u00e9put\u00e9s de gauche tout allait pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes des valeurs universelles \u00e0 d\u00e9fendre. Il fallait demander aux \u00ab\u00a0musulmans de France\u00a0\u00bb de clamer leur protestation \u00ab\u00a0contre la barbarie\u00a0\u00bb, de dire que \u00ab\u00a0ce n\u2019est pas le vrai islam\u00a0\u00bb et de \u00ab\u00a0se rendre \u00e0 la manifestation\u00a0\u00bb. Ils et elles[v]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> ne sont pas venu(e)s, mais l\u2019imam pr\u00e9sent sur le plateau t\u00e9l\u00e9, celui que l\u2019on a invit\u00e9, acquiesce, fait tout comme il faut poliment.<\/p>\n

Mais qu\u2019en est-il de l\u2019humiliation quotidienne, des refus d\u2019embauche, de la rel\u00e9gation urbaine, des regards suspicieux dans les bars\u00a0? Ce n\u2019est pas l\u2019Etat islamique ou Al-Qaida, ni leurs origines lointaines qui ont produit les fr\u00e8res Kouachi et Amedy Coulibaly, c\u2019est la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 fran\u00e7aise. \u00ab\u00a0Les acteurs de cet abominable attentat sont en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 des citoyens fran\u00e7ais, ayant fr\u00e9quent\u00e9 l\u2019\u00e9cole r\u00e9publicaine et la\u00efque, celle de Jules Ferry. C\u2019est \u00e0 la France de montrer qu\u2019elle n\u2019est pas un \u00ab\u00a0incubateur\u00a0\u00bb de terroristes, et pas aux musulmans, ni aux chr\u00e9tiens, ni aux juifs, ni aux Orientaux de prouver qu\u2019ils sont diff\u00e9rents.\u00a0\u00bb (courrier d\u2019une lectrice du Monde<\/em>)\u00a0; \u00ab\u00a0Ces djihadistes ont grandi dans nos villes, appris l\u2019\u00e9chec dans nos \u00e9coles, appris la haine dans nos prisons\u00a0\u00bb, ajoute un autre lecteur. Depuis longtemps d\u00e9j\u00e0, le ch\u00f4mage de masse, la segmentation du march\u00e9 du travail jusqu\u2019\u00e0 sa racialisation, le traitement policier des banlieues, font que la classe dominante sait qu\u2019il n\u2019y a rien \u00e0 distribuer, rien \u00e0 offrir si ce n\u2019est un encadrement par \u00ab\u00a0l\u2019islam r\u00e9publicain de France\u00a0\u00bb de cette \u00ab\u00a0jeunesse musulmane fran\u00e7aise\u00a0\u00bb, comme dit un ancien ministre des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res. Il faut un Cohn-Bendit pour d\u00e9clarer \u00ab\u00a0il faut investir dans les banlieues\u00a0\u00bb et proposer \u2026 \u00ab\u00a0une fondation nationale du sport qui soutiendrait les \u00e9ducateurs sportifs\u00a0\u00bb. Malek Boutih est plus direct\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0S\u2019il y a un potentiel de danger, ce sont des territoires qu\u2019il faut nettoyer\u00a0\u00bb, proposant que certaines communes de banlieue \u00ab\u00a0soient temporairement mises sous tutelle par l\u2019Etat\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n

S\u2019il existe aujourd\u2019hui, comme dit Gilles Kepel, \u00ab\u00a0un p\u00f4le d\u2019attraction djihadiste hostile au pacte r\u00e9publicain\u00a0\u00bb et si ce p\u00f4le sait pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment frapper o\u00f9 \u00e7a fait mal, il n\u2019est nul besoin d\u2019aller au Sahel, au Y\u00e9men ou en Irak, pour comprendre d\u2019o\u00f9 il vient. Ces \u00ab\u00a0fous de Dieu\u00a0\u00bb sont nos ennemis, non parce qu\u2019ils seraient plus \u00ab\u00a0barbares\u00a0\u00bb que d\u2019autres (les drones de nos d\u00e9mocraties n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 leur envier), mais parce que leur but est d\u2019accentuer et scl\u00e9roser des fractures dans la classe exploit\u00e9e et domin\u00e9e qui existent d\u00e9j\u00e0 suffisamment sans eux. S\u2019il ne s\u2019agit pas d\u2019esp\u00e9rer une unit\u00e9 du prol\u00e9tariat (la segmentation est inh\u00e9rente au salariat et l\u2019unit\u00e9 du prol\u00e9tariat ne peut qu\u2019\u00eatre identique \u00e0 son abolition), il ne s\u2019agit pas non plus de rigidifier ces fractures sous un ordre culturel et religieux les essentialisant. Les \u00ab\u00a0jeunes prol\u00e9taires de banlieue\u00a0\u00bb ne sont pas plus immunis\u00e9s que d\u2019autres contre la mutation id\u00e9ologique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des conflits de classes (et entre les segments de la classe exploit\u00e9e) en conflits culturels. D\u2019autant plus que, dans le contexte international, se dire \u00ab\u00a0musulmans\u00a0\u00bb fournit une image<\/em> de confrontation absolue.<\/p>\n

Laissons les historiens conclure.<\/p>\n

Cette journ\u00e9e a \u00e9t\u00e9 un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne singulier, car\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0Nos grandes journ\u00e9es nationales ont quasiment toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 des journ\u00e9es de combat\u00a0\u00bb (Jean-No\u00ebl Jeanneney).<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0La premi\u00e8re journ\u00e9e de l\u2019internationalisme d\u00e9mocratique\u00a0\u00bb (Michel Winock)<\/p>\n

Pour Pascal Ory, cette manifestation d\u2019unit\u00e9 o\u00f9 les appartenances partisanes, syndicales ou communautaires[vi]<\/a>, furent mises au second plan, en dit long sur l\u2019\u00e9tat de notre soci\u00e9t\u00e9\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0Ne pas marcher au pas derri\u00e8re une organisation, brandir mille et un slogans diff\u00e9rents comme on l\u2019a vu dimanche, est le signe de l\u2019individualisme tr\u00e8s avanc\u00e9 qui caract\u00e9rise nos soci\u00e9t\u00e9s occidentales. Ce qu\u2019on a vu, c\u2019est un rassemblement de masse, certes, mais un rassemblement qui r\u00e9unit des gens pour la plupart tr\u00e8s individualistes\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n

On pourrait dire que Pascal Ory n\u2019a pas trop vu de manifestations r\u00e9centes, durant lesquelles il est de plus en plus rare de \u00ab\u00a0marcher au pas derri\u00e8re des organisations\u00a0\u00bb, mais passons car en l\u2019occurrence Pascal Ory a raison. Il y avait une masse d\u2019individus isol\u00e9s, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire une masse de citoyens qui ne pouvait que regarder passer face \u00e0 eux leur communaut\u00e9 sous la forme d\u2019une cinquantaine de chefs d\u2019Etat. Quoi que ces individus pensent de chacun d\u2019entre eux en particulier et quelle que soit la d\u00e9fiance que cette citoyennet\u00e9 nationale entretient vis-\u00e0-vis de l\u2019Etat actuel r\u00e9ellement existant, c\u2019\u00e9tait notre universalit\u00e9 abstraite<\/em> qui passait (m\u00eame si elle n\u2019\u00e9tait pas \u00e0 cheval comme \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque de Hegel) et \u00e0 laquelle, en tant que citoyens, ils ont renouvel\u00e9 leur c\u00e9r\u00e9monie d\u2019hommage[vii]<\/a>. On pouvait ne pas le faire.<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Dans l\u2019histoire, l\u2019euphorie est souvent \u00e9ph\u00e9m\u00e8re, et les grands moments d\u2019enthousiasme sont rarement suivis de lendemains enchanteurs\u00a0\u00bb (Michel Winock). Enchanteurs ou pas, la conjoncture actuelle des luttes de classes (pr\u00e9dominance des rapports de distribution sur les rapports de production, injustice de la distribution et son responsable l\u2019Etat d\u00e9nationalis\u00e9, segmentation racialis\u00e9e du prol\u00e9tariat, authenticit\u00e9 du peuple contre les \u00e9lites, luttes interclassistes) fait qu\u2019au-del\u00e0 d\u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement qui se d\u00e9gonflera vite, les lendemains vont se jouer dans l\u2019in\u00e9vitable jeu contradictoire entre l\u2019individu concret engag\u00e9 dans les rapports sociaux de production et le citoyen, son abstraction n\u00e9cessaire[viii]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

R.S<\/p>\n

[i]<\/a> Pour une analyse plus compl\u00e8te de cette situation actuelle dans laquelle s\u2019inscrit cette mobilisation, voir le texte de Th\u00e9orie Communiste, Une s\u00e9quence particuli\u00e8re, o\u00f9 en sommes-nous dans la crise\u00a0?<\/em> (sur le site de Dndf et celui de Th\u00e9orie communiste)<\/p>\n

[ii]<\/a> Voir Hegel, Prop\u00e9deutique philosophique<\/em>, chapitre Doctrine du concept<\/em>, paragraphes num\u00e9rot\u00e9s de 2 \u00e0 10.<\/p>\n

[iii]<\/a> Pour les raisons sociales et \u00e9conomiques de cette construction, voir le texte M. Le Pen et la fin de l\u2019identit\u00e9 ouvri\u00e8re<\/em>, Th\u00e9orie Communiste n\u00b0 18. Cependant, depuis la r\u00e9daction de ce texte en 2002, nous sommes pass\u00e9s d\u2019une adh\u00e9sion \u00ab\u00a0en n\u00e9gatif\u00a0\u00bb (la disparition de l\u2019identit\u00e9 ouvri\u00e8re) \u00e0 une adh\u00e9sion positive dans le cadre des d\u00e9terminations et des formes sociales d\u2019apparition de la crise (cf. l\u00e0 aussi Une s\u00e9quence particuli\u00e8re<\/em>, m\u00eame si ce texte est criticable\u00a0: principalement sur l\u2019opposition rigide entre rapports de production et rapports de distribution sur laquelle il fonctionne en grande partie).<\/p>\n

[iv]<\/a> Le communisme sera l\u2019interaction d\u2019individus singuliers que ne subsume aucune communaut\u00e9, en cela l\u2019appellation m\u00eame de \u00ab\u00a0communisme\u00a0\u00bb comme \u00e9tat social est probl\u00e9matique.<\/p>\n

[v]<\/a> Il semblerait que la \u00ab\u00a0gentille beurette\u00a0\u00bb figure m\u00e9diatique de la d\u00e9cennie pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente ait disparu.<\/p>\n

[vi]<\/a> En ce qui concerne la \u00ab\u00a0mise au second plan\u00a0\u00bb des \u00ab\u00a0appartenances communautaires\u00a0\u00bb, c\u2019est faux, vue l\u2019absence massive (si l\u2019on peut dire) de la \u00ab\u00a0communaut\u00e9 musulmane\u00a0\u00bb. Ce qui, en la circonstance, ne peut \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme accessoire.<\/p>\n

[vii]<\/a> Cette ad\u00e9quation du citoyen (m\u00eame en tant que tel) \u00e0 l\u2019Etat est actuellement tr\u00e8s instable soit que l\u2019individu concret mine le citoyen, soit que l\u2019Etat n\u2019existe plus comme le corollaire du citoyen et de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile.<\/p>\n

[viii]<\/a> Nous sommes ici au niveau de l\u2019id\u00e9ologie sous laquelle peut op\u00e9rer le jeu de cache-cache entre rapports de production et rapports de distribution (cf., malgr\u00e9 ses limites, Une s\u00e9quence particuli\u00e8re<\/em>).<\/p>\n

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:<\/p>\n

The citizen, the Other and the state<\/p>\n

There was the one with the French prole, baguette and beret, fag in his mouth, looking all sad as he hears from Georges Marchais, the leader of the French Communist Party, that there isn’t going to be a dictatorship of the proletariat after all. And the one with a Vietnamese guy on a bike saying ‘Today peace, tomorrow go to work in the factory!’, or the one about the tragic incident in which a ‘tragic party’ left one man dead [Harakiri was finally closed down for its coverage of the death of former president, Charles de Gaulle, whose passing saturated the mainstream media and eclipsed the deaths of more than 140 young people who had been killed after a nightclub burnt down just outside Grenoble. Hara-Kiri\u2019s headline read<\/a>: \u201cTragic dance in Colombey [de Gaulle\u2019s hometown]: one death.\u201d]<\/em>, and the strip ‘The Complicated Life of George the Murderer’. For people of my generation, it wasn’t without a twinge of pain that we heard about the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. Of course, Charlie is not what it once was, but they did l\u2019Enrag\u00e9 in 68, so\u2026<\/p>\n

All those people in the streets of France on 11 January were not four million ‘dupes’. They weren’t calling for a military operation and the deployment of 10,000 soldiers on the ‘national territory’ (announced by the government on 12 January). As soon as the afternoon of 7 January, the day of the killing at the Charlie Hebdo editors office, the citizen demonstrations for the ‘values of the republic’ and ‘freedom of expression’ against ‘barbarity’ and the ‘Je suis Charlie’ appeared spontaneously. There was no need for the state to ‘appeal’ to the people nor for the propaganda steamrolling that followed anyway. The state jumped on the bandwagon, not without some fuck-ups like organizing the demonstrations under the protection of a cartel of political parties. On 11 Jan the politicians were actually quite reserved, as they received on a platter this dish, half poisoned by the no longer straightforwardly national contemporary form of the state.<\/p>\n

Of course they will use this opportunity to criminalize any kind of revolt or opposition, to reinforce and legitize repression, to drum up support for their external wars which will now be unquestionably ‘justified’. But the flights of fancy about ‘national unity’ and ‘Jaur\u00e8s’ or the (less convincing) ‘international union’ of western countries against the ‘postcolonial’ world are not only completely inadequate to everyone except radical rhetoricians, with a whole array of pretentious denunciations of things that they don’t want to and don’t analyse, instead reiterating some eternal truths of the revolutionary canon. Calling the huge demonstration of 11 Jan a manipulation and propaganda is too easy and even too comfortable. Even if that were what it had been, we would still have to explain how that manipulation worked, but it is not that simple. It is a lot worse – the mobilization on 11 Jan 2015 was outstandingly appropriate to this moment[i].<\/p>\n

This didn’t come like a bolt out of the blue. In every country in Europe whether its the politics of the left (Front de Gauche, Podemos, Syriza) or the right (no need to list them all) national citizenship has become the ideology that responds to the crisis as an ‘injustice of the distribution of wealth’. This national citizenship is based on a discourse that challenges the legitimacy of the state which is now denationalized and held responsible for the injustice. When the demonstrators applaud the cops passing in riot vans, it’s a fantasy of momentarily<\/em> finding back the paternalist state of before liberal globalisation, whatever the diverse dangers and insecurities, real or imaginary, that threaten their lives may be.<\/p>\n

It’s these dangers and insecurities that the myth of national citizenship as a protection, (from Republic to Nation) fleetingly congeals together. A real nation-state that forms a real national citizenship, not only forming an identity but forming an identity because it is protective, exactly the social form that went up in smoke since the 1970s. But national citizenship has never been innocent – neither in its origins or its implications. It is formed in opposition to the Other that threatens it, and requires the suppression of that threat. Today Islamism, tommorow (or today at the same time) class struggle or womens struggle. Four million people get together and the most astonishing thing is the emptiness of the discourse. There is nothing to say; nothing to do, except ‘Je suis Republicain’, nothing to understand except ‘we are one nation’, nothing else to do except to conjur up a huge representation of the Republic, menaced by anonymous black crows that nobody has any problem recognizing.<\/p>\n

The nation only mobilizes people and becomes a theme of combat if it is constiututed as under threat; but the threats can only be conceived in the terms the nation itself imposes: its values and its authentic nature. The citizen is an abstraction from the concrete individual in their relations of production; of class and gender. However, it is not an abstraction free from determinations. Equality and equivalence between citizens, which constitute their abstraction, presuppose a shared history and culture. There is no citizenship without an identity, without being able to say ‘us’ and ‘them’. Saying ‘us’ and ‘them’ is not the exclusive domain of the Front National, the sausage eaters and red wine drinkers. You can say it through the reassuring secular smile of ‘freedom of expression’ or ‘womens rights’. But no matter what, you say it in the language of the state. ‘We confront the questions of immigration and of Islam; we cannot carry on doing what we’re doing with immigration. When not linked to terrorism it still creates problems of integration and divided communities’ (Sarkozy). It is just a short a step from that benevolent secular smile to Sarkozy.<\/p>\n

A real good citizen needs to be just as careful as her universality is questionable. ‘Take off the veil then’ says the left-wing citizen who fights for women’s rights, making the domination of women into something that belonged to some backwards cultures and which over here we are doing away with. Because this citizen is from ‘over here’. And it is because he is from ‘over here’ that he is universal. The Jews in the demonstration are right to ask themselves – if there had only been the hostage at the Kosher supermarket and not the murders at Charlie Hebdo on wednesday, would there have been such an explosion of Republicanism? Obviously not (c.f. Toulouse): national citizenship, the universal, is not threatened when one particular attacks another particular, even if all particulars are not subsumed under the universal in the same way. Either for long-term historical or contemporary social or political reasons, a particular can have a positivity by which they not only become a particular, but also belong to the universal. ‘Without the Jews, France would not be France’ (Manuel Vals). The particular remains particular. It is not, as it could be, effaced in the universal, but it nevertheless belongs to the sphere of the universal. The particular is a determination of the universal even if it is not effaced in it. The last time a president of France went into the street to demonstrate was Mitterand after the desacration of the Carpentras Jewish cemetery, never after an attack on a mosque, muslim graves or even a military cemetary. For all sorts of social, political, economic, cultural and historic reasons, all particularities are not equal. Their relation to the universal varies; from inclusion that does not efface the particular, to distrust or hostility. At certain times, some particularities are constructed by the universal as harmful – the Jews gave the tragic proof.<\/p>\n

Whatever their discourses, the very existence of these demonstrations and the invitation to ’emancipation within the republic’ mean that things are absolutely not ‘equal’ for our ‘muslim fellow citizens’ (this phrase says it all). The particular is not posited in the same relation to the universal. It is formulated\u00a0 negatively; it exists only in and as itself; it is part of the miscellaneous. Or to be a bit more concrete, even if we cannot reduce the demonstrations from Thursday 8 to Sunday 11 entirely to the frightened and hostile construction of muslims (and ‘Arabs’) in France as strange and foreign, neither can we understand the scale of these demonstrations without taking this into account[iii]. ‘No more playing innocent’ we hear the big republicans saying more and more ‘these terrorists come from the same place as you, so it’s time you clean up after yourself’. After the attacks of Wednesday 7 and Friday 9 anti-Arab\/muslim acts are multiplying, but let’s also look at the other side of the coin: the open, humanist position (and save ourselves the comfort of the humanist condemnation of racism and ‘Islamophobia’).<\/p>\n

The humanist demand to accept the ‘Other’ presupposes that there is an ‘Other’, it’s construction as ‘Other’ and therefore the hierarchy in relation to the ‘One’ who has the power to say who is the ‘Other’. There is a whole social organization, pre-existing any given individual, between ‘Us’ and the ‘Others’. To accept the ‘Other’ is an invitation extended to proper, legitimate society. At the origin of ‘The Ones’ and the ‘Others’ is simple brute power. The ‘One’ is the one with the power to distinguish.
\nThe distinction is the practical, empirical, everyday existence of the universality of the citizen. If we forget about the hot air of ‘true universalism’, the west can legitimately seize the monopoly on universal values, if needs be with F16s and Dassault Rafales. The universality is an ideological artifact proper to the capitalist mode of production \u2013 the abstraction of labour, value and the citizen. This mode of production is the only universal, with universalist ideological practices conditional on the individual corresponding to its criteria of universality, that is not to be a women or to bear any cultural, ethnic, racial, familial or religious links that compete with the nation-state. The state is a nation-state because it is a capitalist state, it does not recognize any intermediary in its relation to the individual; no intermediary communities or competing identities within itself. It identifies any element that interferes with its criteria of universal homogeneity as a foreign body, specific and therefore harmful communities. There are no more mediations between power and the individual. Without the middle term of the nation-state and its political structure, we start again with the crude explanation of homogenization through the development of capital value, from which point we can explain anything and everything in an undifferentiated whole. If only the state is supposed to represent the individual abstracted of their determinations that is the citizen, the ’emancipated’ individual, the only garantuee of their ’emancipation’ is that they belong to and are integrated in the national collectivity represented by the state.<\/p>\n

Religion is a prior, unstable and unfinished form of the universality of the state, of the ideology in which political practice is carried through. It is prior and unstable because when it becomes the dominant ideology under which social practices and relations of production operate, it reveals and claims that the abstract universality of the state is not in the state itself, that it is not ‘religion realised’ (Marx, The Jewish Question)
\n‘The perfect political state is, by its nature, man\u2019s species-life, as opposed to his material life. All the preconditions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society outside the sphere of the state, but as qualities of civil society. Where the political state has attained its true development, man \u2013 not only in thought, in consciousness, but in reality, in life \u2013 leads a twofold life, a heavenly and an earthly life: life in the political community, in which he considers himself a communal being, and life in civil society, in which he acts as a private individual, regards other men as a means, degrades himself into a means, and becomes the plaything of alien powers. The relation of the political state to civil society is just as spiritual as the relations of heaven to earth. (…) The democratic state, the real state, does not need religion for its political completion. On the contrary, it can disregard religion because in it the human basis of religion is realized in a secular manner.’ (ibid.)
\n‘There was something of the sacred about it’ (Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet) ‘A communion of the French people’ (Rama Yada)
\nFour million French people in the street, and 97% in the polls renewed their allegiance to ‘the true state’, and asked nicely to the Other to do likewise, if they hadn’t already. In pity and charity, they asked the Others to emancipate themselves. In France such emancipation in the name of the universal is an old historical fund of the left. Given that martyrs at Charlie Hebdo were also of the left, everything turns out for the best in the best of possible worlds of universal values to defend. The ‘muslims of France’ had to speak up to denounce ‘barbarity’, to say that ‘that is not the true Islam’ and to ‘be present in the demonstration’. So they (men and <\/em>women [v]) did not go, but the Imam that had been invited agreed to get on the television platform and do and say everything right.<\/p>\n

But what was there of day-to-day humiliation, rejected job applications, dirty looks in bars? It wasn’t the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and their long histories that made the Kouachi brothers and Amedy Coulibaly, it was the French society. ‘The perpetrators of that dreadful crime were French citizens, they went to the secular republican school, that of Jules Ferry. It is down to France to show that it is not an ‘incubator’ for terrorism, and not to the Muslims, Jews, Christians or Asians to prove themselves as different’ (letter to Le Monde). Another reader adds: ‘Those jihadists grew up in our cities, went to our schools and experienced hatred in our prisons’. Mass unemployment, the segmentation of the labour market to the point of racialization and police treatment of the banlieues<\/em> have shown for a long time that the dominant class knows that it has nothing to distribute, nothing to offer, except the incorporation of the ‘French muslim youth’ into ‘French republican Islam’, as an old foreign minister put it. Only a Cohn-Bendit could come up with ‘we need to invest in the banlieues<\/em>‘ and to propose ‘a national sports foundation that supports local sports trainers’. Malek Boutih is more direct: ‘If there is a potential danger, those areas will have to be cleaned up’, proposing that certain areas in the banlieues<\/em> ‘would be temporarily taken into protection by the state’.
\nIf, as Gilles Kepel says, there is a ‘jihadist centre of attraction hostile to the Republican contract’, and if they know exactly where to strike to make it hurt, there is no need to go to Sahel, Yemen or Iraq to find out where the jihadists come from. These ‘holy madmen’ are not our enemies because they are barbarians (our democratic nations and their drones have no need to envy their barbarity), they are our enemies because their aim is to harden and thicken the fractures in the exploited and dominated class which are already bad enough. We do not hope for a unity of the proletariat (division is inherent to wage labour, and the unity of the proletariat can only be its abolition), but neither to rigidify the existing fractures further under a cultural and religious order that essentialises them. The ‘young proletarians of the banlieues’ are no more immunized than anyone else against the ideological mutation of class conflicts (and between sections of the exploited class) into cultural ones. Especially given that in the international context, calling yourself a Muslim gives an image of perfect confrontation.<\/p>\n

Let the historians decide.
\nThis was a special day, because ‘our days of national celebration are almost always days of combat’ (Jean-No\u00ebl Jeanneney).
\n‘The first day of democratic internationalism’ (Michel Winock)
\nPascal Orly thought that this demonstration of unity where partisan, union or community allegiances came second says a lot about the state of our society ‘to not march with an organization and to come with 10,000 different slogans, as we saw on sunday, is the sign of extremely advanced individualism. What we saw was absolutely a mass demonstration, but one that united mostly very individualist people’.
\nWe could say that Pascal Orly hasn’t seen many demonstrations recently, where it is more and more rare to march ‘one step behind the organizations’, but anyway, for this once Orly is right. There was a mass of isolated individuals, i.e. a mass of citizens who could only watch as their community passes in front of them in the form of 50 heads of state. Whatever the individual people thought about each of the latter in particular, and whatever the mistrust of this national unity towards the state as it currently is, what we saw was our abstract universality passing (even if not on horseback as it did in Hegel’s day), and the people as citizens renewing their ceremony of homage to it. They could have not.
\n‘In history, euphoria is often fleeting, and moments of joy rarely followed by joyful days after'(Michel Winock). Joyful or not, the present conjuncture of class struggles (the predominance of relations of distribution over relations of production, injustices of distribution which are blamed on the denationalized state, racialized division of the proletariat, the ‘real people’ against the elites, and interclassism) means that beyond a sudden event that deflates quickly, the days after will be played out in the inevitable contradictory game between the concrete individual in their social relations of production, and the citizen, its necessary abstraction.
\nR.S.
\n[i] For a more complete analysis of the current situation within which this demonstration plays out see Th\u00e9orie Communiste, Where are we in the crisis? [French versions on the dndf and th\u00e9orie communiste websites]
\n[ii] See Hegel, Philosophical Propaedeutic<\/em>, Ch. Doctrine of the concept, paragraphs 2-10.
\n[iii] For social and economic reasons for this construction, see Th\u00e9orie Communiste No.18. Since writing that text in 2002 we have changed our conception from ‘negative’ (the disappearance of the workers identity) to ‘positive’, an identity constructed in the determinations and social forms of appearance of the crisis (c.f. also ‘Where are we in the crisis?’ even if that text is criticable, especially on the basis of the strict opposition between relations of production and relations of distribution that it relies on)
\n[iv] Communism will be the interaction of single individuals who are not subsumed in any community; in that much even the name ‘communism’ as a social state is problematic.
\n[v] It looks like the ‘nice arab girl’, a media figure of the 2000’s, has disappeared.
\n[vi] As for the leaving community identities ‘in the background’, this is untrue: see the massive absence (if you can say that) of the ‘muslim community’, who given the circumstances could only have been seen as stage props.
\n[vii] The equation of citizen (even as such) with the state is currently very unstable, because the concrete individual undermines the citizen and the state no longer exists as the corollary of the citizen and civil society.
\n[viii] This is on the level of ideology where the game of hide-and-seek between relations of production and relations of distribution could play out (c.f. despite its shortcomings, ‘Where are we in the crisis?’)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00ab\u00a0le citoyen, l’Autre et l’Etat\u00a0\u00bb (english translation below) Il y eut Reiser et son prolo, baguette sous le bras, b\u00e9ret sur la t\u00eate et clope au bec, tout triste en apprenant de Georges Marchais qu\u2019il ne serait jamais dictateur\u00a0; toujours Reiser avec son Vietnamien sur son v\u00e9lo disant \u00ab\u00a0Aujourd\u2019hui la paix, demain l\u2019usine\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0; il y […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theorie"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pnrce-3Dt","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13979"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13979\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dndf.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}