According to M. Bibeau in, The petty bourgeoisie in revolt, which he described yesterday as “ultra-reactionary” has today become “anti-fascist”! M. Bibeau claims, more or less, to speak “as a proletarian”, if not outrightly, “in the name of the proletariat”…

Where is the proletariat, in this embryo of revolt against the policy of confinement?

For the moment, indeed, the only organized “political” forces which express themselves clearly, on the ground, against this policy of confinement, are essentially forces resulting from the idealistic petty bourgeoisie and qualified by the power as “conspirators”. If a marginal fraction of the proletariat is involved in this struggle, it is because it is in turn drawn into this movement, and not because it has developed its own demands and its own organizations, and especially not, unfortunately, operating on a political plan.

The “conspiratorial” petty bourgeoisie

Does it follow that the “conspiratorial” petty bourgeoisie has become the revolutionary vanguard, in place of the proletariat? If a part of the petty bourgeoisie goes to war against the system, it is precisely only a part, or even rather, in fact, a set of various fractions which tend to unite under the pressure of the crisis. and the deterioration, indeed, of their social positions. But the heterogeneous character of this coalition is also due to the fact that the deterioration of these social positions of the petty bourgeoisie is not homogeneous, neither as a process nor over time.

This is shown by the increasingly blatant gap between resilience and even the increasingly spectacular rebound of financial capital as shown by the rise in the global stock exchanges, on the one hand, and the inexorable deepening of the crisis of the “real economy”, at least in the West , on the other hand, is that the rationality of the confinement process is not a rationalization of the valuation of capital in the classic cycle of labor-value and the resulting surplus-value. (*)

There is therefore a fringe of the petty bourgeoisie, and even now the bourgeoisie, which is excluded from this process of valuation, just as it was already excluded from the large-scale speculative processes of finance capital. And if a third part, in a way, manages to stand at the limit of the other two, between rationality and “conspiracy”, it is because the class interests of the whole, on the way to being annihilated by the system, inexorably push them to a convergence against it.

In terms of the development of the productive forces, the rationality of containment lies in the development of what is most advanced in terms of computerization, automation and robotization. Confinement is a process of exclusion from socialised work and from work in general as a process of socialisation.

In the current new industrial and technological revolution, it is the inevitable desocialization of work, and even exclusion from work, which pushes the “social” organization of the system towards a form of permanent confinement, in the long term, and towards forms of political restructuring of a fascist and social-fascist type, which can be described as cyber-fascism.

While whatever the level of technological development of the productive forces, the interest of the proletariat remains in their socialisation and in the socialisation and sharing of the work still socially necessary for the survival and development of human life.

However, and of course, this would not be enough to reconstitute the basis of the political autonomy of the proletariat, a basis which is necessary, essential, and even absolutely essential to any construction of an alternative to the cyber-fascist and bank world-centralised already being established on the planet.

Faced with this new situation, the traditional bourgeois bureaucratic left, even in its “extreme”, anarchizing, Trotskyist and even pseudo-Marxist-Leninist components, has once again demonstrated its complete lack, which borders on class collaborations, whether deliberate or simply de facto.

Bank-centralist cyber-fascism

It is therefore no longer simply a class collaboration with “classical” capitalism, but a very objective collaboration with bank-centralist cyber-fascism, as a new form of class domination.

In this context, the rare proletarian elements who reject reformist collaborationism and wish to engage in a radical contesting of the new established order have no concrete choice but to support and participate in the initiatives of the “rebellious” fraction of the petty bourgeoisie.

However, they must absolutely avoid relaying idealist “conspiracy” theses and rather seek rational materialist analysis which they can therefore partly find on the side of the scientists who have rallied to the protest. In part, therefore, since it cannot go as far as a sociological analysis radically calling into question the old bases of the “classic” capitalist social structure, even if they are already called into question, in another way, by bank-centralist cyber-fascism.

The revolutionary role of the proletariat, by rebuilding its political autonomy, is therefore to show and pave the way for an alternative which is neither the return to “classic” forms of capitalism, henceforth irreparably obsolete, nor the advance on the march. forced towards bank-centralist cyber-fascism and its processes of containment and re-containment with no other end than the final imprisonment of the peoples of the world, for the sole benefit of a caste more ultra-minority than For such a process of proletarian reconstruction, there is no miracle recipe, but it can only arise from the rejection of the ideological prejudices accumulated by the traditional bureaucratic “left”, including supposedly Marxist and even pseudo-Marxist-Leninist.

“Conspiracy”, as a new ideological form of the radical petty bourgeoisie, at least has the merit of destabilizing the existing ideological and even media structures, and, within this limit, constitutes a factor of destabilisation of the process of confinement and cyber – bank-centralist fascistisation in progress. It introduces a “public” doubt such that the system is overshadowing the reality of the radical manifestations that it generates, instead of using them, as it still did with the Yellow Vests, as a scarecrow to establish its reign of fear.

Even more effective cycle of fear

With confinement, the bourgeoisie has succeeded in triggering an even more effective cycle of fear than it had done with terrorism, even if, as we can see, it does not spit on a synchronization of the two means. .

However, the fear of a “public doubt” generated by the “conspiracy” now also seems to be winning many to its camp, as a kind of backlash that is quite unbearable for capitalism. It is only when the doubt concerning the “official word”, including “of the left”, will have gained a sufficient part of the social body, and especially of the proletariat, that, the quantity being transformed into quality, a dialectical process of the organization of proletarian political autonomy can really begin to develop.

Until then, the rare proletarian elements aware of this situation will therefore find themselves in the difficult situation of having to encourage doubt without, however, condoning “conspiracy”.

(* In China, for example, the situation seems different, in terms of surplus value, but this is only a temporary effect due to the rebound in exports induced by the shift in Western confinement. China is rather “ahead”, and not behind, on the process of bank-centralization and cyber-fascism as a means of population control.) ▲