texts 1992 2016 (eBook)

General introduction

Since the texts of this literary book develop, in a poetic, narrative or didactic manner, an individualistic and civilized approach of thought, speech and action, prudence dictates that we should make a distinction between narcissism defined as an excellent opportunity for self-criticism and critical thought (as shown in 2.0) on the one hand, and on the other hand the figure of who has come to be called, according to some commentators, the hated narcissistic pervert, who manipulates people in order to get from here to there, showing no compassion whatsoever.

It can be seen, therefore, that this introduction puts itself on the road towards a confrontation between references to the texts and our presence in the world in general, especially the world of work. Such a transition appears to be a way of measuring the gap between the field of literature and the professional sphere, before acknowledging their differences and their similarities (Posal is the logical outcome). Three preliminary remarks will precede the evocation and the denunciation of some defining characteristics of the narcissistic pervert, before addressing a variety of considerations concerning the emphasis on the critical reading of ideas, movements and critical approaches.

Firstly, insofar as opponents have experienced, at a certain point in their existence and despite themselves, that they were seen as bad people, manipulators would use role reversal to accuse opponents of behaving like manipulators. Secondly, jeopardizing individuals and perpetuating a situation of collective oppression is unfortunately the equivalent of a relentless hunt of public enemies, when confusion reigns and there’s a problem of interpretation. Thirdly, our legitimate fight against the updating of workplace violence and its weapons mustn’t hide the fact that, if workplace violence is indeed sometimes embodied by dangerous people, this also refers to organizational phenomena such as the problem of moral harassment in the workplace when individuals are victims of the group.

In addition to a blatant form of malevolence, which is expressed, for example, through unjustified criticism, abuses occurring from nonverbal communication (blurred eyes, grimaces and mimics instead of clear reactions) should alert us to potentially dangerous people. Recruiters who, while pouting, wrinkle resumes of candidates in their presence by giving the impression that they dry their hands show, in doing so, lack of respect for the candidates in question. That attitude is confirmed by the fact that the recruiters are unable to provide solid arguments when applications are rejected. Bad faith, in a case like this, is then to claim that the candidates are unable to get jobs because the resumes are supposedly badly presented, even though resumes aren’t the root of the problem because, to tough economic times, we can add that there’s sometimes a notion of deliberate harm based on irrational grounds.

Finally, one of the weak points of harmful people is their tendency to overestimate the naivety of other people, which is explained by the fact that, precisely, this kind of person isn’t mature enough to show empathy. Therefore these people imagine, wrongly, that the whole business goes unnoticed. Unfortunately, it’s difficult for the fight against such cases to be carried out when, either too lax or too complacent, the organizational policy encourage bad practices. It’s all the more difficult when the managers in question are acknowledged as major players and friends in a working environment and in education and training.

Anyone who may show an interest in going in the opposite direction, believing it’s important to get away from psychological violence perpetrated by bad managers, would pay the price of descending into the blindness of the union struggle and the alienation typifying it, giving us one more reason to justify the essential role of individualism and criticism in the reporting of serious assaults on the most fundamental civil liberties. It would be ideal to bring unhappy people together, whatever side of the political spectrum they come from, and take to the street, as mentioned in the chapter of the political essay dedicated to antisocialism, referring to a better world, but trade unions present more drawbacks than advantages when they lack vision in their very foundations. If we need reminding, it isn’t realistic, economically speaking, to want to reduce hours of work and increase wages: resources are becoming scarce and there are too many of us, so taxes on wealth, which already exist and are advocated on many sides, wouldn’t be enough to deal with the complexity of the problem of low income and everything that’s happening.

To be perfectly honest, if I can, in this introduction and in the appendices, get out of my chair on an exceptional basis, without excess and for illustrative purposes solely, I myself happened to encounter numerous difficulties on the labor market like so many other people. That doesn’t mean, of course, that I’m a building worker, but I’m not wealthy. I have worked for a long period of time as a sales representative and I have done it through efforts, which is why I have been successful, after a certain number of years, in accessing managerial positions in local agencies, before going beyond this and becoming ambitious for other achievements due to my own perseverance. While trade unionists adhere to a collaborative movement, I’m a supporter of individual action.

Why have I launched an online petition against trade unions, one may say, since that’s the case and I assume responsibility in all I do? This is simply because, beyond mass movements and the organizations involved, for a number of us there are cases where we like to show that what appears in our eyes as essential is very different: encouraging individuals and private initiative, in such a way that every individual can get better with everything through work. If business activities and management functions aren’t often perceived as dangerous, I don’t personally feel I’ve got to judge what others are doing, but I know from my own experience that anyone going into business must work upon oneself to persuade others of the benefits of products or services, not counting time (on many occasions, as a real estate sales representative I have grinded through eighty hour work weeks, not only because it was necessary but also through passion for my profession), before proving one can shoulder big responsibility in the interest of all, in a difficult and competitive world.

No one doubts hardship at work on construction sites, nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that trade unions aren’t doing justice to people. What is also clear is that the petition isn’t intended to ban demonstrations, because it’s actually about putting restrictions on, given the need to ensure that the economy continues to operate with a view to achieving mutual benefit. In the context of the criticism of socialist governments one expects, it can be found, basically, in all chapters of Last Falls, certainly not as much as some people had hoped, although the space for this criticism isn’t fundamentally incompatible with the analysis of the parameters (neoliberal globalization, offshoring, sclerotic national politics and parliamentary careerism) that helps to explain the crisis in the job market and deserve a full debate.

As a reminder, antisocialism is a far left-wing thinking (namely a radically antiracist, anticolonial, anti-slavery and antisocial thinking), breaking with the whole of the political class as it currently stands in social democratic republics, including other left-wing movements and trade unions in this context. The atypical character of the commitment required is distinguished by both the resurgence of state control in some areas (with, for example, the return of capital punishment) and forms of radical individualism in some other areas (with, for example, the legalization of euthanasia for those who, asking how to end their lives, lawfully request such, without any risk of suicide contagion). This thinking, which is complex and combinatorial while remaining consistent, takes on a particular dimension in the context of rejections and singularities by integrating some aspects of classical liberalism (business), fascism (some degree of official political formalism against brotherhoods) and reactionary policies (the preservation of the identity of men and women, as well as of the traditional concept of marriage in legislation as a civilizational legacy). Consequently, members and supporters of political parties, trade unions or brotherhoods in the given context aren’t welcome, and their possible attempts to build consensus will be evaluated negatively.

Talking about non-starters and advertisements without any intentions of following through, having dealt with the problem of trade unions, we will now examine the problem of the weak right replacing the weak left: Juppé in France, for example. Of course, he’s just a consensual politician among many, and there are too many of them who don’t understand or don’t want to understand that, in politics, opposition groups are required in order to keep debates alive. Christian Combaz does well in speaking ironically about his “agnosticist Catholicism (and, while we’re at it, why not deal with Buddhist skinheads?)”

Otherwise, in theoretical terms, and Combaz takes care to indicate that, it would be interesting to improve understanding of common cultural paradigms, which would explain, for example, the possibility of a given form of agnosticism remaining...