Movement in the spectacle is existential, in that its entire emphasis is on its own rebellion or despair. This emphasis on its own rebellion or its own despair, is not a creation nor the motive of the movement, it is a condition- the result of direct dialectic, that moves a movement into either rebellion or despair. Any movements goal therefore, is its freedom of movement, either in rebellion or despair, its synthesis then, or its revolutionary space, is when it does roam within that freedom of space.
Rebellion and despair, two conditions of the pour L’Amour of a movement serve as opposites within the same sphere of “universal love”, forming a inner dialectic so as to determine what is orthodox at any given moment, coming from any given condition that the movement may find itself in, determining to what degree the movement may engage within either self-care or self-harm. What is in rebellion thrusts itself at its particular antithesis, whilst what is in despair, lays dormant, in the woe of its present condition where it finds itself against its antithesis.
While any movement is a rebellion, in that it, pour l’amour of itself, goes against its antithesis in the form of a direct dialectical confrontation, only those movements which are able to reach a synthesis against its proposed antithesis can be considered Revolutionary. This revolutionary synthesis is only possible when the antithesis displays its transparency- where formally there was an opposite to engage with in a dialectic, now there is none. The previously held space of the opposite retreats, or vanishes to a state of direct non-confrontation where its interest is purely of self-survival, avoiding at all costs, even to the extent of falling into obscurity, an engagement within the dialectical confrontation that previously defined it.