Paglansag-Pagpanaw

May salin na sa Ingles ng bago at siksik na sanaysay ni Alain Badiou (2011) tungkol sa mga pagkilos sa Tunisya at Ehipto (Tunisie, Egypte : quand un vent d’est balaie l’arrogance de l’Occident, English translation). Ang kritikal na konseptong le dépérissement de l’Etat (decline o withering of the state) ay isinalin dito bilang failing of the state.

Maaaring sabihin, batay sa kanyang pagtatabi ng konseptong withering-of-the-state sa kasalukuyang mga pag-aalsa, na (delikadong) nilalampasan na dito ni Badiou ang klasikong tagpas ng Paglansag/Pagpanaw ng estado sa pormulasyon ni Lenin.

Ngunit, sa isang bukas at mapagbigay na pagbabasa—sa wika nga ni Lenin, tungkol sa pangangailangang pag-aralang mabuti ang bawat mga pagkilos, ‘kahit pa sa kanyang mga kahinaan, dapat suriin kung ano ang binubuksan nito’ (despite its weaknesses, to study what it has disclosed)—maaari ring sabihing mas binibigyang-diin ng pormulasyon ni Badiou ang pagiging-isa-sa-gitna-ng-tagpas ng bawat proseso ng negasyon (paglansag-pagpanaw) ng kapangyarihan ng estado.

Sa bawat anti-estado/mapang-lansag-estadong mga pagkilos (katulad ng mga pag-aalsa ng taumbayan: sa Tahrir Square, halimbawa), may mga communitas-na-saglit kung saan nararanasan ng mga mamamayan ang (tila) pagpanaw ng estado sa kanilang pang-araw-araw na buhay, at dapat ‘iligtas ang nagpapamasid’ na penomenong ito:

Just as with politics, our states and those who take advantage of it (political parties, unions and servile intellectuals) prefer management to revolt, they prefer claims, and “orderly transition” to any kind of rupture. What the Egyptian and Tunisian peoples remind us is that the only kind of action that equals a shared feeling about scandalous occupation by state power is mass uprising. And that, in such a case, the only watchword that can federate the disparate groups of the masses is: “you out there, go away”. The extraordinary importance of the revolt in this case, its critical power, is that repeating the watchword by millions of people will show the worth of what will undoubtedly and irreversibly be the first victory: the man thus designated will flee. And no matter what happens afterwards, this triumph of the popular action, illegal by nature, will be forever victorious. That a revolt against state power can be absolutely victorious is a lesson universally available. This victory always indicates the horizon where all collective action, subtracted from the authority of the law, stands out, the horizon that Marx called “the failing of the state”.

That is, one day, freely associated in the spreading of their own creative power, peoples could do without the gloomy coercion of the state. And it is for this reason, for this ultimate idea, that a revolt overthrowing an established authority can determine unlimited enthusiasm throughout the world.

Ganito ang deskripsiyon ni Badiou sa ‘komunismo’ bilang isang mapagpalayang pagkilos na direktang bumabalewala—hindi na kumikilala o nagbibigay-halaga (tangensyal na maalala dito ang nobelang Seeing ni Saramago)—sa simboliko-materyal na kapangyarihan ng estado:

There can be no communism without communist movements. The popular uprising we are talking about is manifestly without a party, without any hegemonic organisation, without a recognised leader. It should always be determined whether this characteristic is a strength or a weakness. It is in any case what makes it have, in a pure form, without a doubt the purest since the Commune of Paris, all the necessary traits for us to talk about a communism as movement. “Communism” here means: common creation of a collective destiny. This “common” has two distinctive traits. First, it is generic, representing in one place humanity in its entirety. In this place there are people of all the kinds a population is usually made up of, all words are heard, all propositions examined, all difficulty taken for what it is. Second, it overcomes the great contradictions that the state pretends to be the only one capable of surmounting: between intellectuals and manual workers, between men and women, between rich and poor, between Muslims and Copts, between people living in the province and those living in the capital …

Millions of new possibilities for these contradictions spring with every moment, possibilities that the state—any state—is completely blind to. We see young female doctors, who have come from the province to treat the wounded, sleep in the middle of a circle of fierce young men, and they are more at ease than they’ve ever been, knowing that no one will touch a hair on their heads. We can equally see an organisation of young engineers addressing youngsters from the suburbs to ask them to hold on, to protect the movement with their energy for combat. We also see a row of Christians standing in order to keep watch over the Muslims bent in prayer. We see vendors feeding the unemployed and the poor. We see each person talking to their unknown neighbour. We can read thousands of banners where each and everyone’s life is mingled to the grand History of all. All these situations, inventions, constitute the communism as movement. It’s been two centuries since the unique problem is the following: how can we establish in the long run the inventions of the communism as movement? And the unique reactionary statement is: “that would be impossible, even detrimental. Let’s put our trust in the state”. Glorious be the Tunisian and Egyptian peoples who remind us the true and unique political duty: faced with the state, the organised fidelity to the communism as movement.

Malaki ang pagpapahalaga ni Badiou sa penomenong 1871 Paris Commune sa kanyang akdang The Communist Hypothesis: malamang ito ay dahil—kasabay ng kanonikong kantang Internationale (dito ang mga koleksiyong mp3 sa iba’t ibang wika) na kinomposo rin sa mga panahong ito—ito ang yugtong wala pang lumilitaw na matinding tensyon ng (mabubuo-paglaong) ‘Marxista’/'anarkistang’ mga kampo. Sa pagbabasa ni Badiou (tingnan dito, Commune), ang eternal na tagumpay ng mga klasikong eksperimentong commune (1871 Paris, 1967 Shanghai) ay ang pagpapasilip sa atin ng isang tipo ng pagkilos na labas sa tinatawag niyang ‘partido-estadong balangkas’.

Tingnan dito ang ilang kritika sa mga pormulasyon ni Badiou: Teo Marasigan, Bad Boy Badiou, R Lotta, et al., Critique of Badiou, at Chris Cutrone, Response to Badiou. At pwede ring silipin ang isang lumang pagmumuni sa posibleng pagtutuos-muli (o di kaya isang Hegelyanong sublation ang lilitaw?) ng Marxismo/anarkismo nitong 21-siglo: Anarchism.