The mission of power – of a democratic power – must be to avoid war or direct it non-stop, before it occurs, towards conflict. The culinary parallelism seems right to me: no cook sets out, as a priority objective, to satisfy hunger; On the contrary, it is about seating several people around a shared table where the refined preparation of the food and the pleasure of eating it help keep the heat of the discussion below the threshold of a brawl. Democratic politics is a kitchen, not an explosives workshop.
Curiously, in the leftist tradition, this realism (that of violence and war as midwives of history) is inseparable from the utopia of a higher stage of worldly transparency in which war
India Email List be abolished forever. Before "communism", let's say, everything is war; Under "communism" there will no longer even be conflicts. The problem with the conception according to which one could only get out of the state of war in a mystical or utopian way, very transversal to different political and religious doctrines, is that it confuses conflict with war and, wanting to win or suppress wars, ends up suppressing them. the world itself, which can only be thought and loved and transformed in a conflictive way. The world can be suppressed with bombs and tanks, or with angels and harps.

If by communism ("higher phase") is meant a society in which all resistance, all thickness, all opacity would be absent; a society that was pure transparency for itself; in which the desires of all agreed spontaneously, or else, to agree, they only needed a winged dialogue that would never tarnish the very essence of symbolism; a society that discovers, formulates and carries out its collective will without going through institutions, or whose institutions never constitute a problem – if this is what it is about, it must be said clearly that it is an incoherent dream, an unreal and unrealizable state, whose representation must be eliminated.