Love in a country where more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce, where a philosophy of individualism persists in degrading a person’s self-awareness to the point where his only philosophical choice is solipsism, and where this remains our most fervent mysticism, love of anything, including freedom, but also humanity, could not help but become corrupted.
Hedonism is the greatest narcotic dependency in almost all bourgeois capitalist societies; it’s the one commodity in the marketing of freedom that power elites love the most. Respect canot be far from waning with how we practice devotion.
The consumer industry demands lower intelligence; it gets it from the market place of our schools, a dime a dozen in our graduates, places where once median levels of achievement have become the newly inflated levels of the gifted.
How are our lives not like the lives of those in the Matrix? There is no Neo on our horizon, though, and no matter how much anyone deludes themselves into beliveing that Obama is it, naievte has ruled our political consciousness for a long time. Racial equality in America is where a black man has the opportunity to be as politically full of shit as any white man has ever been; and articulate while being so.
One of the most interesting things to note about bourgeois capitalist politics, is that in the absence of both Church and King, the Demos should be required to think more, be more to each other and for themselves, understand more, know more, learn more; and in America this has transferred to a simple formula for control . . . we the people are required to bear greater responsibility, which has not only increased over recent decades, but has shifted in the ratio of dependence between individual and government. It has come to the point where our greatest freedoms lie just where the State has abdicated all responsibility to the people and maintains only the weakest link to the Public. We are free to be burdened by laboring to be free.
We are expected to be more intelligent than ever to negotiate this new form of freedom, yet we under educate at every turn to insure we are unable to do so. Being free to do what we can no longer do in practice is the principal selling point of our democracy; it also helps to push freedom further into the abstract. Freedom remains closer to a one sided anarchism where the public is expected to serve the State, but the State’s obligations to its citizenry are minimal. Kennedy’s Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country has transformed, as I have fore noted, into expect nothing from the state, the government really doesn’t want to do anything for you; however, Kennedy had said this as a prelude to this current abdication of the state’s responsibilities to the people by our government. We will continue, though naively, to see distinctions between Democrats and Republicans.
Once more I non-voted, that is, I went to the polls as someone who wanted to vote but could not pick a candidate. Staying home is a choice, and no politician ever cares about those who have chosen to stay home; political parties deal in certainties, at least predictable certainties (whether they are ever going to be realizable or not is not the question, but whether they can be packaged as a certainty is); and the apathy of anyone who stays home on election day is a certainty they can do without; it is no kind of protest. It doesn’t shake the status quo in confidence and self-assurance. Only people with interests or who are intersted are negotiable; only they have something to bargain with, and in the case I herein present, it is a vote.
To vote for one or the other, though, as you do when you pick a horse at the race track is a vote fore-mostly for the status quo. Non-votes on the other hand are sure votes up for grabs. They are tangible. Tens of millions of Americans have to non-vote in order to shake up the system. (Note Well–the fact that Hilary Clinton did not take her delegates and run for president after forming a new party showed me she is not Presidential timber.)
The only kind of an-archy the state would ever put up with is the kind where its obligations to serve are minimal or absent. However, the way we educate only ensures that the people are always less than themselves as a people, always individually less in each representative, always undereducated, always one step or more steps out of step with the dance one must dance at the ball . . .
A society where its people were better educated and better equipped to manage affairs in an an-archy more favorable to the existence of a free people, and would not be an intolerable thing, unless the society sees as its highest political ideal the complete suppression of the people in favor of the more controlled and controlling Public. (I know that there will be educated readers who will have a problem following this fore mostly for the sociopolitical dogmas they support and reinforce daily by the received ideas they accept as free thinking, and so I say what I have herein without expecting universal understanding, or any tolerance. I never expect unilateral agreement.)
As my friends from many of the former Republics of the Soviet Union say: There were no people there, only an overarching and overbearing Public to whose weight each added his own by bearing the dual responsibility, the double obligation of abdicating any connection to a people, and maintaining a full participatory role as Publican in the Soviet Republic.
Publius triumphed over Populus at every turn in the Soviet Union, I am reminded. I am also reminded by my friends from many of the former republics of the Soviet Union that there probably isn’t any country becoming more like the Soviet Union in this way than the United States, where We the People have been transforming rapidly into We the Public.
If you watch Americans lining up for the voting polls and see hope in that, you have no right to question how anyone could have walked into a gas chamber during the Holocaust. A horrible analogy, I have been told by a pre-reader, but the capacity for delusion among humans is never ending. As Samuel Becket reminds us time and again in his writing; there is no condition humans cannot get used to. The lies one had to tell oneself in the camp, the delusions one had to perpetuate, the surrounding surreality of day to day life in the death camps; there could be way to separate sane and insane. What course of action would you take; I know I could not say what course I would take in looking and seeing. How long my mind would hold out, my body, my will, my decency, my humanity, I could not say?
The Democratic ideal here in America has been abdicated in favor of a pluralistic one. Our pluralism has transformed in the image of the godly State, our newest form of worship. We are no longer even in remote resemblance to the ancient Populus or Demos and now proudly parade as Publius, the great monolithic Public. The masses who always gravitate toward one form of pluaralism or another, Bolshevik, communist, fascist, Nazis, totalitarian, Russian, French, American . . . are always, as the masses have been everywhere since the advent of states in place of tribes–but then what is a tribe but a single identity for all, which is why when tribalism rears its head, it is always that of the menacing savage, reanimated in the form of one genocide after another . . . now is the year zero, millions chanted in Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
But then the en masse is always ready to serve the state, or create a condition where each member is ready to squander his personhood, his singular identity as one of the people for a lumpen and numerrcal existence. Marx’s lumpen proletariat has cross classification in the guise of the Public-minded man. Do we think that our contemporary liberal college student or any college student who thinks his American liberal politics are a solution for socio-political problems should be taken seriously in a world where his assumed posture of dissent is only perceived as another decadent American position of privilege anywhere in the world where American liberal and American conservative are ultimately uni-ideological?