Emancipatory politics always consists in making seem possible precisely that which, from within the situation, is declared to be impossible.

Love and politics are the two great figures of social engagement. Politics is enthusiasm with a collective; with love, two people. So love is the minimal form of communism.

We know that communism is the right hypothesis. All those who abandon this hypothesis immediately resign themselves to the market economy, to parliamentary democracy-the form of state suited to capitalism-and to the inevitable and 'natural' character of the most monstrous inequalities.

We must point out that in what concerns its material the event is not a miracle. What I mean is that what composes an event is always extracted from a situation, always related back to a singular multiplicity, to its state, to the language that is connected to it, etc. In fact, so as not to succumb to an obscurantist theory of creation ex nihilo, we must accept that an event is nothing but a part of a given situation, nothing but a fragment of being.

All resistance is a rupture with what is. And every rupture begins, for those engaged in it, through a rupture with oneself.

In love, fidelity signifies this extended victory: the randomness of an encounter defeated day after day through the invention of what will endure.

In order to improve democracy, then, it's necessary to change the people, as Brecht ironically proposed.