Add new comment

The authors have a blind spot that they have not considered. Public health is presented as part of the power of the state, as Foucault mentions. So the scientist has a duality: on the one hand, he is part of the power, so he must link the virus to the problem of security, so the myth of a "blockade" is promoted by officials. Science, as part of biopolitics, does its best to ensure the "health of the population", that is, it helps in saving lives. But on the other hand, science can also determine death, because death can be a part of health.

What is the "health of the population"? It is like saying, is an aging society healthy? So that's where the complexity of the issue lies. Public health is essentially a matter of population governance. There is no contradiction between older people dying to be healthy and society living to be healthy.

That's how the discourse of power dominates science and health. The health it refers to is no longer the health of private lives that we are concerned with, but a social directive. Many people are confused because of the confusion between the two. It also seems to create a split in anarchism: it seems that wanting to help the vulnerable is contradictory to opposing the blockade. However, this is a dialectical trap. Because it always starts with the big picture and public politics, forgetting that the real resistance is against the logical order. To give an example, what exactly is the so-called health? It determines both the life and the death of a part of the population. This is the Logos and science - health no longer has anything to do with people's lives. Therefore, a practice of deterritorialization (in the Deleuzian sense) is very important: science also has an intrinsic motivation to deterritorialize, but it is very different from "royal science".

Since Agamben kept his attention only to politics in concentration camps, he could not understand this issue more fully. Phenomenology, for example, is deterritorialized, just as capitalism has to ensure mobility in order to remain economically viable, so it has a drive against blockades. But this drive, this life of capital, constantly reconfigures the state and power, constituting a Westernized and territorialized narrative. Opposing the blockade (on the far right) does not mean that it leads to what Agamben calls political life (bios), because as part of the economy, it remains part of what is called "health". Economists have to believe in the scientific theory that the economy can save more people, so the blockade has to be lifted. But on the other hand, the same people blindly believe in the logic of the blockade, as if it also saves lives. The reason for this dilemma is simply because power has made them stupid. So this has caused many unnecessary disasters.

It seems that the problem we face is simply the blockade, and that (as Agamben says) it can be solved by using politics. But this seems to be a discursive trap. Because the city-state still has a kind of vertical governance, capitalism and the state simply duplicate it. There is no shame in caring for the underprivileged, except that philanthropists and politicians use it as a powerful narrative to wield authority. In reality, caring for the health of the oppressed is not compatible with the concept of "public health. The key is to create more horizontal connections; to propose a new mutual aid, rather than repeating the evolutionary metaphysics of Darwinism (Kropotkin).

The struggle is not to present a picture of some kind of resistance, but to present the image of a movement (which is still stigmatized). Like the occupation of infrastructures and tools used to transport the necessities of life, or the takeover of more areas. This is all part of the insurrection.