To discuss Europe means to investigate it in mature terms as to the constitutive quality of the social movements and their capacity to produce a political program. Our way of looking at the European space is a fudamental occasion even if it all needs to be built. In fact, none of the constitutionalization processes are able to do it by themselves, without a constitutive push from the social movements, to open new space of democracy and of freedom.
With seattle, an urgent problem of the reformist left was posed. Everything that happened after Seattle, with the growth of the no-global movement on a wold wide level demostrated that a reform was in progress. Centering around a postsocialist program. The war, and all fo teh repressive events following September 11th 2001, express a repercussion of the leftist refrom process on a global level. Clearly, in these conditions, a leftist reform that doesn not oppose war as imperial legitimation from a new democratic prospective is not possible. The struggles for peace that succeeded and that found an apex of enromous force on the 15th of Feburary, demonstrates the possibility to oppose imperial command with a democratic public opinion as a superpower. But even this political struggle isn’t enough. For a long time this Exodus from the structure of state power has been talked about, now finding ourselves within the Empire, as the only possibility for the reconstruction of the left. But we saw that this Exodus with great clarity, is always count-attacked by the powerful: THe Exodus therefore goes into a defensive position. Exodus and resistence can represent an excape only if they have the capacity to organize moments of force and antagonist power, content and cosolidation. The reform of the left cannot be abstact, it must find institutions and programs, it must realize relationships of force, it must organize a counter-power: all of this on the terrain of the postsocialist experience. The constitutive movements must refill their capacity of innovation with concrete contents. "Another world is possible" means that the transfromation of live is possible and that the resistence against those that accept the transformation and/or attack it can be effective. In this moment that constitutive movements must therefore organize new programatic devices able to express power on the biopolitical terrain. The struggle against the war is not a simple recitle of pacifist principles, instead it is the material capacity to block imperialist violence. And that, above all on the (always priciple) terrain where the sovergn power constructs and finances its means of violence gestation. Not a man to war (as it has always been), not a cent. The sovergn rapport is always, even when it wages war, even more when it wages war, is a double rapport: the governing domand the goverened, the governing can only live on the legitimation of the governed. If we want to cut war from world history we must construct programatical devices that impede the governing from using the work and the lives of the governed in the activity of sovergn distruction. The political economy of war can be put into crisis with a rupture that attacks its conditions: if the fundamental condition is that it’s subject obeys, from a biological, legal and sovereign financial point of view, it will need to disobey. Resistence must develope along the internal arc of the organization of domination. The political form of the postsocialist program is biopolitical disobedience. How history teaches us this resistence will be effective only when it is organized as a counterpower. The counterpowers were the palamentry representatives in the age of means and of the modern epoch., counterpowers were the labor unions and the political movements of the workers in the centuries that immediatly followed. Which are the instruments of the counterpower, which are its figurations in the imperial age?
When of speak of culture and/or of a postsocialist political program, we allude to three things: to a conception of work that tends evermore to social activity, and to find the common that connects the various forms of activity into links and constitutive forces; a capacity of expression and of communication that knows how to express common administrative assets, through which the relationship between production and freedom, between necessity and desire, can find an adapted social organization; in the third place, equal in importance, ties these objectives to a capacity to express power, resistence, a constitutive exodus. It is exactly in the relation of tis last point that there are precise passages. The political system, so-called democratic, demonstrates evermore how much can be corrupted by the hegemony of money, by false communication and by populism. We in Italy have never found ourselves in a situation this dangerous since Berlusconi stablized the power system adapted to the great neoliberalist development. The so-called left is still, as good as it goes, socialist. It thinks, against the conditions that have been historically formed, that society can’t be a network if not based on individualized work, and it thinks that capitalism is the only economic form possible; it thinks that political representation, as it exists today, is still a guarentee to liberty. In its discourse, it does not speak of peace, or better yet, peace is not considered a substantial elements to democracy and in effect, when it was in power, this left pushed to go to war; in the second place this left thinks only of always moving towards the center and mediating with capitalist manegement, it does not have much pof a possbility of winning the elections much less managing this society; and in the end the macroeconomic, budgetary conception of this left replicates that of teh capitalistic forces and the onloy altervative that coinsided is tied rather to compation than a conception of solidarity. The problem of how the left can be modified is therefore only tactical: saying that our program is postsocialist, we indicate a strategy that takes us descisively from there to the structure, to the figure, to the traditions of the leftist political forces existent today. This process of overcoming the left and of advancing towards a postsocialist program started in at least ’68. As for the tactics, they have also matured and continually mature crossing that movement of action that little by little conquors and transforms sectors of the society that refer to the antic left. We must make the movement intimately intersect more and more a postsocialist program and the capacity to mobilize that takes sectors of work and public opinion from corruption.
