“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...
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário