The resistants now argue more and more what methods of resistance can be considered real, and right; and what is not deemed a fight at all. The resistance en masse is still based on the left political thought of the last century now, and the way of direct action is proclaimed as the only real thing when an angry mob burns cars, occupies governmental buildings, and tears cops to shreds.
All of this has its share of beautiful of course, yet the direct action’s sacralization in the resistant community seems to be a cause for worry. Too many people not only insist on burning the parliament but claim that those who do not do it are cowards, traitors, and they are not worthy of being called protesters.
The conflict is between the direct action supporters, and the adepts of cognitive resistance. The latter are perceived by actionist leftists as the slender and feeble carriers of greensickness who only talk about fighting but never actually fight. This attitude is easy to understand. The basic unit of the left political tradition has always been a proletarian represented by working people who mainly do manual labor. For believers in this, any scholar, author, or artist is a sponger. Instead of doing a “specific good for the cause,” he or she prefers to decay in his or her unnecessary reflection while lying about on his or her proverbial stove bench. When meeting people not involved in manual labor, an average proletarian unwillingly considers them belonging to the class of masters, and starts hating them as his exploiters.
The direct action as the only method of fighting remains the choice of those whose only weapons are his limbs. Now, this fighting, of course, is also important but when arms are too squeamish about a head, and vice versa, it is rather destructive for the resistance in general. Only the autonomous solidarity of all body parts and their involvement at every front available will make the fighting for change effective.
Being the foot soldiers of pragmatic production, the proletarians, and, speaking widely, the philistines integrated into creation of the matter, always demand some small yet visible result. In the workshop, it may be a fresh screw nut that can be felt, and touched, and in the street, it may be an overturned police cruiser, an actualized discontent. An overturned car is, after all, accessible, and expressive. Moreover, this is the moment when this heroic game is lost, alas, to the state mechanism.
By overturning a car, a proletarian gives vent to his stress, and he may be somewhat calmed after this act. The state, however, will replace the car, and continue the exploitation. If a proletarian does not stop on overturning cars, he will find himself in need of more direct action. The subsequent escalation of violence has two scenarios, the victory of the guerrilla warfare or the tightening of the present regime. Both scenarios call for the impractical expenditures of human material. Neither one guarantees quality of change, to put it mildly.
It is crucial to understand what kind of fighting is important and effective here and now; what order the actions should have, depending on the circumstance of the revolt underway.
The weakness of the left idea lies in its consistent denial of the critical outlook of broad masses. No, one should not consider them a herd of oval boors. The thing is, the dialectical analysis is called for, and a sober assessment of the average citizen’s actual evolutionary state. By indulging in emotions, one can overthrow regimes every Sunday—but does it mean that a new world will shine?
A sum is still the same no matter how you change summands around. A society is not defined by its authorities but by the sum of its civic biological resources. Every liegeman reflects his feudal lord. So, if a revolting populace realizes its civil war, it will not guarantee that right after the overthrown exploiters, other groups will follow to the pot, including the ones socially, sexually, politically, and culturally inconceivable to the people.
This is why the resistance vanguard is placed not in the city squares but in the minds, and in the human content. If the resistants are really interested in results, an open cognitive front should be a precursor of the wide direct action. A yesterday’s man can hardly build a new world. Revolution only happens when that something we call “a human” experiences a deep metamorphosis, the mind transformation.
The basis for all significant changes on the historical canvas has always been some kind of technology. As soon as our present reality is the era of content, and colonization of digital frontiers, it seems to be high time to saddle up the cybernetic techno horse, and start realizing that our real weapon is the information. It contains all ways of liberating the world because it works with the mind, and not the body.
The idea of the cognitive front means establishing the information oases of dissent that could become the real ground for the society growing. This society’s direct action will be much more sensible and constructive than those passion plays that end up in eliminating rebels, and their opponents who are also people, you know, the parts of the whole.
An information oasis is always a time bomb of data, and an invitation to a voyage through the content outside of the official broadcasting ether, established norm, and enforced orders. The yesterday has a propensity for building up a static mind, with its unchangeable set of preconceptions, and rules. A stable society is based on a well-adapted and convenient citizen with a limited concept of how the social whole works. This is why any growth of awareness, and any transgressive information, be it a forbidden art or a subversive philosophy, will inevitable push a human from his or her civic bewilderment.