Nella brasilianizzazione, il capitalismo mondiale appare come una doppia catastrofe: sociale e ambientale! La figura del povero coincide esattamente con quella di una «materia prima», «l’indio che ha perso»: l’estrattivismo alimenta lo sviluppismo e lo sviluppismo l’estrattivismo. Il divenire-Brasile è invece l’antropofagia: il rinnovamento di quanto disse Oswald de Andrade sulla capitale di San Paolo: «San Paolo deve la sua grandezza all’immigrazione di forze vive dai quattro angoli del globo», in altre parole, al meticciato universale. La figura del povero qui è pura differenza, ibridazione, molteplicità. L’estrattivismo diventa antropofago: divenire-Amazzonia del Brasile.

I poveri non sono una figura dei bisogni, ma di desiderio e «al desiderio non manca nulla». In altre parole, «tutto è una macchina» e i poveri sono questa figura «di uomini che si immergono di più nella vita [...] che sono la vita stessa»: uomini che «mangiano poco, dormono poco, hanno poche proprietà». Tra i poveri, la produzione sociale e la produzione del desiderio coincidono: non c’è più l’uomo né la natura, ma solo processi che producono l’uno nell’altro.

In Brazilianization, world capitalism appears as a double catastrophe: social and environmental! The figure of the poor coincides exactly with that of a “raw material,” “the South American Indian who lost”: extractivism feeds developmentalism and developmentalism feeds extractivism. Instead, the becoming-Brazil is anthropophagy: the renewal of what Oswald de Andrade said about the capital of São Paulo: “São Paulo owes its greatness to the immigration of living forces from the four corners of the globe,” in other words, to the universal mestizaje. The figure of the poor here is pure difference, hybridization, multiplicity. Extractivism becomes anthropophagy: becoming-Amazonia of Brazil.

The poor are not a figure of needs, but of desire, and “desire lacks nothing.” In other words, “everything is a machine” and the poor are this figure “of men who immerse themselves more in life [...] who are life itself”: men who “eat little, sleep little, have little property.” Among the poor, social production and the production of desire coincide: there is no longer man or nature, but only processes that produce one in the other.
For an anthropophagic extractivism.; Macchina-DeriveApprodi; G. Cocco

"The deception of porn is that it claims to represent the obscene, making visible the point at which all representation evaporates. In reality, any family meal, any managerial meeting is more obscene than a facial ejaculation."
Tiqqun; The Young-Girl as Social Relation

"The Young-Girl is the termite of the “material, [...] Not only does she thrive on “easy,” “simple,” “real life”; but she also considers the “abstract,” the “hassle,” as evils it would be judicious to eradicate. [...] Not only does she resent what she doesn’t understand, it infuriates her. Her hatred for what is great, for what is beyond the grasp of the consumer, is immeasurable."
Tiqqun; The Young Girl against Communism

“I sing because - I am a singer. But I use [gebrauche] you for it because I - need [brauche] ears.
Where the world comes in my way—and it comes in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use. We owe each other nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at most to myself. If I show you a cheery air in order to cheer you likewise, then your cheeriness is of consequence to me, and my air serves my wish; to a thousand others, whom I do not aim to cheer, I do not show it.”
M. Stirner; The Owner

"[...] let us seek in others only means and organs which we may use as our property! As we do not see our equals in the tree, the beast, so the presupposition that others are our equals springs from a hypocrisy. No one is my equal, but I regard him, equally with all other beings, as my property.
In opposition to this I am told that I should be a man among 'fellow-men':" I should 'respect' the fellow-man in them. For me no one is a person to be respected, not even the fellow-man, but solely, like other beings, an object in which I take an interest or else do not, an interesting or uninteresting object, a usable or unusable person. And, if I can use him, I doubtless come to an understanding and make myself at one with him, in order, by the agreement, to strengthen my power, and by combined force to accomplish more than individual force could effect. In this combination I see nothing whatever but a multiplication of my force, and I retain it only so long as it is my multiplied force. But thus it is a - union.
[...]
Only in the union can you assert your­ self as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.
Property is recognized in the union, and only in the union, because one no longer holds what is his as a fief from any being.
[...]
If a society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force; the union exists for you and through you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without you; in short, the society is sacred, the union your own; the society consumes you, you consume the union.."
M. Stirner; The Owner

"The British set up an archaeological survey in the 1860s to identify the great monuments of India and to preserve Indian 'heritage'.
Believing local arts and crafts to be in decline, they collected together artefacts to put in museums.
Before 1860, for example, Indian soldiers and the British both wore Western-style uniforms. But in the eyes of the British, Indians had to look like Indians. The dress uniforms were modified to include turbans, sashes and tunics regarded as 'authentic'.
Some of the traditions they invented, or half-invented, continue on in the country today, although of course others were rejected."
A. Giddens; Tradition

me and who

lmao

classic