“To reject the left/right divide is to be right-wing! ” (cliché no. 2)

Strictly speaking, this fallacy could well have ended with “it's being left-wing! ” without its meaning being altered. Before specifying our rejection of this divide, let's take stock of this recurring non-argument.

Why such a cliché?

The leftist, at least since Stalinist activism, knows that it is better to dirty your enemy than to answer him on the merits. Thus, far-right accusations are popping up in all the mouths of left-wing people to avoid questioning the choices of their own camp. But in the face of so many enemies, doesn't it occur to them that something is wrong? “When the extreme right advances among ordinary people, it is first of all about itself that the left should question itself,” wrote Jean-Claude Michéa, drawing inspiration from George Orwell. Does she do it? No To make matters worse, she is even extending the scope of her intolerance to the simple right.

Because the leftist activist, confusing open-mindedness with a fractured skull, is keen to defend more than anything a Manichaean conception of life, history and politics. It all comes down to the fight of good against evil, of the good against the bad, of the good against the bad, of justice against unjustice—but what are they if not believers without God?

The supporter, however rebellious he may seem, is above all a good student; one who diligently recites their lesson and the empty phrases that industrial society has taught him. Thus, if he is a leftist, he will see freedom as “what stops where the freedom of others begins”; respect for nature in “clean energies”; peace as a hashtag in his social networks; revolution as a marketing argument. On the contrary, if he is a right-winger, his lesson will push him to defend the sole freedom of enterprise, to see respect for nature as a leftist fad (despite hunting habits in the forest), to treat peace as the miracle of liberal nations, to only like the revolution if it results in a return of authority. In short, the supporter is characterized by an inability to think.

“If a man said, asking for his membership card: “I agree with the party on such, such, and such a point; I have not studied its other positions and I fully reserve my opinion until I have studied them”, he would no doubt be asked to come back later.

But in fact, with very rare exceptions, a man who joins a party obediently adopts the attitude of mind that he will later express with the words: “As a monarchist, as a socialist, I think that...” It is so comfortable! Because it's not thinking. There is nothing more comfortable than not thinking. [...]

Almost everywhere — and often even for purely technical problems — the operation of taking sides, of taking a stand for or against, has replaced the obligation of thought.

This is a leprosy that originated in political circles and has spread throughout the country to almost the totality of thought.

It is doubtful that we can cure this leprosy, which is killing us, without starting with the suppression of political parties.”^[1]

Since partisanship has killed critical thinking, it is not surprising that neither the right nor the left are able to advance intellectually, nor to realize that their ambitions are the same: to exert their power over nature, to empty freedom of its substance by enslaving the individual, to serve the technological system and to promote it systematically. Let's remember in passing that The thoughtless love of technology was characteristic of both communism and Nazism. In short, whether technological faith is sold in the name of universal happiness or economic profit, the aim remains the same: the destruction of nature, freedom and human dignity.

• For example, surrogacy preceded by a selection of gametes from paid donors and by insemination in the laboratory, even if some see it as an opportunity for unexpected motherhood and others a very lucrative practice, remains in our eyes a technical, cold and commercial act.
• Likewise, a holographic Mélenchon whose eyes shine at the simple mention of the conquest of space is no different from an Elon Musk whose actions make us fear that the Moon will end up in an Amazon hangar rather than remaining that pale disk suspended up there and always contemplated.
• Finally, hoping to one day be able to correct all diseases at the prenatal stage by genetic manipulation of the embryo, whether to offer joy and prosperity to human beings or to do the business of companies specializing in the field, is not this the most beautiful gateway that can be offered to eugenics and therefore to the creation of a New man, so characteristic of all fascisms?

The real divide is not there

By acting as a guardian of the left-right divide (obsolete)^[2] at a time when all parties actively contributed to the disaster), the leftist opposes us to an unconscious conservatism. His preference is therefore to increase technological surveillance, to wage alienation for an ersatz of bread, to a perpetually violated nature and to bargain for the dignity of all living beings. Endorsing the old divide is endorsing the old society. But if the leftist owes his condition to the need to save his psyche, how can you blame him?^[3] We don't blame him, other things are more important to us than the villainy of settling scores — even if it was wanting to show a leg up to this left that we loved so much that caused the hallali to ring above our heads.

Was our complete rejection of the classifications of techno-industrial society still a bit unclear? So let's be more clear now: In our eyes, the fundamental divide of our time opposes technolaters to anti-tech. Its strategic asset is to link the denial of technological slavery and the destruction of living beings to the affirmation of the dignity and freedom of human beings.

Our divide is there because a revolution is needed.

R.F.