Some More Thoughts On Systems And Stuff Like That

 

“Gonna tell Aunt Mary,

About Uncle John,

He claims he has the misery but he has a lot of fun.”

Little Richards

 

Some may say my emphasis on things like human feelings and impulses, and moral values, are too subjective and do not add to a scientific vision of how Society works.

            Well, people have a lot of empyrical knowledge, in their lives, about how human impulses affect relations between people. But as for complex social theories, you can always claim that your “alternative form of government” was never “correctly” applied according to your theory, so no empirical data can be collected about that, right?

            Anyway, let’s continue on the complex social theories. This people I’m refering to are descendants of a German guy that had a theory of movements of “masses” formed by people according to their economical classes. These people, these masses, these classes, are suposedly moved by what they have and what they lack in economical terms, each class in an inevitable fight against the other. This, said the guy, is how the social reality is determined in the present and future, and the end result of this war would be a more balanced World.

            I see that mostly, they don’t explicitly use that exact same language anymore – everybody must modernize a little from times to times – but, for what you see around, it seems that what they are saying didn’t change all that much.

Anyway that German guy, his name is Marx and if there has ever been a soul more obsessed with gold I don’t know who could it be.

A little digression: Nowadays, because of movies and because of Marxist Cultural Theory, a lot of people people tend to think about the court of Viena when they listen to Beethoven. ( Beethoven again? yes, he is my anti-anti-german lawyer ). But first, Beethoven never liked the court people all that much, and second, if that music’s effect was to transport you to the court of Viena, why would people in the court of Viena pay for it?

Those old composers knew of human tragedies, and they invited people to take a walk, maybe look at the sky, and without saying a word they stimulated them to be more creative.

Now Marx, he invited the kids to no other place than the window of the clubs of the rich, to look at the fancy things and luxury, all the time non stop, never blinking, until the kids can’t think of any other thing to do but steal.

As for the way they modernized their talk – alltough they didn’t exactly disassocieted themselves from the old talk – you can see the pattern. Basically, they take leadership on struggles like the fight against racism, sexism and homofobia, struggles that are mostly legitimate and that were started by someone else, not them. Just as they did with the labour cause long time ago. It’s all history, you can check the dates, even Wikipedia will do.

The classic marxism worked like this: every rich man was bad. Or almost every rich man. Because you can be rich and marxist, as you can see looking around. Then you are good. So the real sin is “not being a marxist”.

Just as they now make with the other struggles. The enemy of woman is not the proven sexist anymore, is any man who don’t want to follow them. The enemy of the worker is not the proven exploiter boss, is any boss who don’t want to follow them. The enemy of homosexuals is not the proven homofobic, is any heterosexual who don’t want to follow them. The enemy of black is not the proven racist, is every white man that don't want to follow them.

Unless you live in other parts of the World. Then you can be sexist, exploiter, racist and homofobic, you can even disdain marxism, as long as you hate the big enemy, the Western People Who Don’t Want To Follow Them.

They claim they are lending the hands to any oppressed, but if you take a look at the academical ladder they built, you will see that  blacks, women, workers and homosexuals who don’t agree with them are not suposed to go too far.

You can see how it all comes to an artificial black and white vision of the world. You can see how people who, I believe, should be saying “don’t deny me the basic freedom and the essential universal needs and you will see me flourish”, are being taught to say “I can’t exist as long as I see the slightest trace of something I don’t like”.

As for systems, the modern concept of system, which I do believe have it’s use, was designed with some things in mind, and one of the most important things they had in mind were animal and human societies, so obviously you can’t say the human society is not a system.

But the question is, how much can you simplify those systems? How much you can reduce them? It’s obvious that classical Marxism reduced it to a very simple equation. Economic frustration would lead to a necessary confront – they, the Marxists, were just catalists, obviously.

But then you see that those modern intellectuals, wether they still put the name of Marx in their doors or not – that depends on their strategy – are still selling a vision of the World where a member of a part of Society that has been neglected can look at a person on the street and, for the way that person looks, conclude that that person owes something to him without even knowing one single thing about that individual. So the extreme reduction is still there.

Another modern trick: Apearantly, you can not give advices to opressed people if you don’t have the same background, because you will be seing by the distorted lens of your own bias. Well, when I walk in the street, I see crack adicted people. Some I sympathise with, kind people, some I don’t. But I will never say “yes, go smoke crack” because I have a son and I know how desperate I would be if he was doing that. If they ask me, I will say the opposite. Opressed people obviously can make bad decisions, and you are not helping if you support those bad decisions.

So can I say something if I see a person making a decision that I consider bad, even if I don’t have the same background? Well, I never did (even in the stuff I erased) and never will claim to be anything more than just a guy, but yes, I believe that is part of the duty of every human being that cares.

Those intelectuals do that too, they give advices, but apearantly they can do it because their science give them all the knowledge they need about everybody else’s background.

And then they do their “conscientization” wich in reality means “getting more and more conscious of the differences” without also getting more and more conscious of the similarities. But both are real. Or will we someday be forbiden of using the word “human”?

As for backgrounds, there are black kids who had mothers or grandmothers who never taught them hatred, being taught in school a very different thing. Now, that is allowed, right?

It obviously gets absolutely bizarre when those guys start talking about the Geopolitical World. In the complex reality, during wars, there are towns who adhere to an ideology just to be armed against a neighbouring town that is an old personal enemy for petty reasons, then the neighbouring town adheres to the opposite ideology just to be armed too; there are rich guys that sacrifice poor sisters just to defeat a middle class relative that they consider lazy; there are people who make decisions that, in long term will be deadly for their own countries in name of a momentary victory against a local disaffection; there are all kinds of things, and those guys still think they can reduce it all to something so similar to that same old simple equation.

Now, about the current events, those intellectuals – not all intellectuals, you know who I am refering to – may be in danger if their international “friends” lose, but they are also in danger if their “friends” achieve their ultimate goals, can’t you tell?

So, maybe we should secretely wish that things don’t change all that much, that reality just keeps producing this nice entertainment, right? So you can keep doing your thing...

 

 

Shifts In The Balance Of Power

 

            Some people, that claim that they want to change the world for better, seem to be obsessed with what they call “structures of power”, or “systems of power”. The reasoning seems to be that, if there are injustices, it is because people on top, who have more power, are unfair with the people in the bottom, who have less power. Then, for some people, even ugly violence could be justifiable to “shift this balance”.

            Well, “Power” is not a fiction, it exists, and looking at all the suffering in the world, you can come to the conclusion that the people who have a lot of power are not being nice. But to me, it seems that the trick here is in the definition of “structure” or “system”.

            In your mind, you can put together absolutely everything that exist in a society, or in the whole world, from ice cream parlors to wall street and to prisons, and say it is all one big “system”. It’s ironnical and inexplicable that a lot of people who see things this way don’t consider the Academia as part of the “big system”, but let’s continue.

            When you want to change a system, I think you should stop to think if you want to change just the demography of who is closer to the top and who is not, or do you want to change the “modus operandi” of that system. Or do you think that changing the first will automatically change the second?

            So, what would be the modus operandi of the system we are in? I think we could say there is economical power and political power, and they mingle. But I am sure that we are not going anywhere if we don’t also consider greed, envy, cowardice, lust for a comfortable position and things like that. Because human lust is precisely what makes a lot of people in position of power use their position for evil.

            They want to guarantee their position. Even if someone new appears and seem to be more productive, or more talented, or more generous, they want to stay on top. And they use their resources for that. And they will use other people’s oportunism, careerism and cowardice.

            This, obviously, is older than “burgeousie”, or the modern industry. Power is one of the oldest issues in Civilization. Any enterprise needs some kind of leadership. We can’t buy Eden’s innocence back. If we destroyed all the guns and all the money and dressed in white robes with flowers, we would have to watch each other every second, lest someone “reinvent” those things and become a new demigod.

            So the ideal situation would be that people in power don’t use that power to anything that is not related to the job the world needs him to do, and don’t consider the power itself more important than honesty and generosity.

            Now that is something hard for humanity to achieve, isn’t it? And why? Because of our lust for power, that is related to our frustrations and our fears. But if we believe that mankind can be better than it is, the best thing that the society can do is to guarantee some flexibility in power. That is, that it never becomes impossible that people in power ever lose their position.

            Even with all the bad things that greed brought to our society, I am glad that I can freely talk to someone I love about my hopes and even my crazy dreams, in a nice ice cream parlor. It is better to live in a society where power is, at least, defiable. Undefiable power is the ultimate dream of the worst people, or can you deny that?

            Now back to that “some people” I spoke about in the begining of this chapter, the people who want “shifts in the balance of power” at any cost, I ask: Should we welcome systems where the power is much less defiable, and will become even less defiable every day, because people of your favourite “color” are on top?

            That, of course, brings us to the topic of “representation”. I do think it is a good thing that we have people of all backgrounds in all fields of human activity. I definitely do, but I have good and bad news. The good news: If you divide humanity by ethnicity – or by sexual definitions, by the way – you will not find one single group where you can buy absolutely everybody’s principle for money or other selfish advantages. Now the bad news: you will also not find one single group where you can’t buy nobody.

            This sounds sad, but it sets us free to look at our neighbours and consider not only their cultural backgrounds – which are important – but also their singularities. It’s a richer world.

            And this, of course, have a lot to do with modern education. Because kids are being taught that the racial problems of the past – like slavery, which is a fact and must be remembered – put the kids themselves in separate groups according to their race. If you have an ancestor who was a murderer, what can you do? If you become the best you that you can be, isn’t that enough? To some modern teachers, it isn’t.

            If one individual, who has ancestors that have done something bad, had the power to totally end the world’s injustice all by himself, he should definitely do that. But the fact is that noboy, absolutely nobody, has this power. Especially kids.

            So what happens in the end? Some people will be put in eternal debt. But who is going to be the creditor? The poor black boy? Well, he can have a little bit of the fleeting adrenaline of revenge, but for most, it will be all. If he wants to collect some dough from this kind of education, he will have to play the game according to someone else’s rule and be aproved by a long line of teachers, in the old funnel style, till he gets to the top. Kind of get to the top.

            In other words, what would give more freedom and power to oppressed groups: to be able to find their allies for themselves, looking in the eyes and talking to other individuals, so they can find partners for creative ideas, or to be convinced that only within their ethnic group there can be any answer, and so they should wait for the “representants” that will be chosen by the Academia and the Big Press, or the Industry of Entertainment?

            Of course these modern teachers have an exit to offer to “privileged” kids: subscribe to an over intellectual world view before they can even understand it. And here is the irony: the opressed will be forced to do that too, otherwise they can be called “traitors”.

            So, what exactly is being changed and into what? Everywhere, including the Academia, “being friend to the right people” will continue to be a rule hard to defy. Possible – at least until now – but hard.

            And all this loss in flexibility of power comes with what reward? A “shift in the balance of power”? Every “successful” dictator looked down to the “shifts in the balance of power” bellow him and laughed.

            It makes absolutely no sense to tell anybody that they should fight for anything other than their most beautiful dreams of freedom and peace. And for beautiful ice cream parlors, which you seem to like too.

            Yes, you can stimulate the people you say you love to hate their neighbours while your comfort seem to be far more guaranteed than theirs – even if they “win” for you, whatever that means – but I challenge you to “shift” this:

            Nothing tends to change with less flexibility.