Identity and Movement


The action of the individual is hindered by the alienation of movement in any action that the individual partakes in, within a world that places no inherent meaning in the individual. The objectified individual, at a weakness, falls past their moment of action and becomes the subjectified force of movement within the spectacle, whose movement itself, capitalism, adheres only to artificialities. The individual, who is also the worker, becomes one of many unrecognizable cogs within the artificiality, selling their labor as identity and expanding on said identity with the pursuit of commodities as private property and identifying characteristics.

Though these roles and identities vary at times and favor certain circumstances and conflict/contradict one another, they are merely products of the spectacle themselves, and offer this conflict or their necessary variations as a means of propelling the artificial momentum of the spectacle itself, creating the illusion of movement or progress where in fact there has been none, and securing its place as the dominant spectrum of society and the necessary force for all future progress. It encourages conflict which it can control in order to further entrench within the individual the standard of what is acceptable as well as the value of their identity.

These identities, produced by the spectacle are a distortion of ideology and a manipulation of the spectacle itself in its pursuit of dominance over society. All things, from anarchism to sex, take up a use-value, in that they become commodities themselves and are able to be consumed for the benefits of the markets alone, who thrive on the diversity of identity allowed within the spectacle, and who, thus allow the spectacle its place as the dominant force of society.

Although the spectacle itself has no control over the identities which emerge from itself, in that they are entirely individualistic as they form, its ability to lump these identities into controllable movements by means of image or ideology, gives the spectacle ultimate dominance over what is “seen” and therefore what is consumed. This ability allows the spectacle to remove those images or ideologies which directly come into conflict with the spectacle to the fringes of society, obscuring them with negative connotations and making it difficult for them to gain any traction or find any familiarity or solidarity with other images and ideologies more accepted by the spectacle



Rebellion, Despair and Revolution


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.