Different Visions of Debt

The notion that the one who has a better life owe some kind of help to the ones who don’t is very important to a lot of people. It was not invented by a social scientist, it’s in the old religious books, and I believe in it. But it brings some complexities if you really look at it with honesty.

Suppose I live in a country where a lot of people are oppressed by some economical and political tyrant. I have managed to escape the worst aspects of this oppression, I have some good freedom and live happily. But I have a neighbour who is deep under that oppression. At principle, I owe him some help.

But it can get complicated. Some people find easier to play the game as it is, some people don’t believe freedom, or just can’t see it. My neighbour may think that the best thing for him is to get the favour of the tyrant or his men, so he may try to drag me back to oppression. We all know that not everybody that is oppressed really believe a dream of freedom, really wants to fight for it.

But still there is this idea that I should give some retribution for the luck I had. Now, how do I solve this paradox? There are two important notions that I believe can help with this equation. First, you don’t have control over the destiny of other individuals. So instead of seeing yourself in an obligation of giving to a certain individual what he wants, you should think of a way, your best way, to retribute to humanity, to the World, in a more general way.

The second thing is that in order to define the best way to retribute your luck to the World, you must define what wealth really means to you. If we believe it’s all about money, we might end up feeling obligated to give a lot of money to people who want to buy drugs and guns, because they are poor.

I believe the most precious thing is freedom. I think that what humanity really has been searching is to work without losing serenity, to have a work and peace of mind at the same time, and not to ever be condemned without doing evil.

I think this dream was there with the people that started fleeing from the giant tyrants of the ancient past, and I believe this dream was also with some humanists of the Renaissance, for instance, that dreamed that Science would make the work easier, and Philosophy a more ethical World.

I also believe that this ancient dream of freedom and the humanist dream of making a better Wold through thinking clearer - although the righteous path of good seeds may be hard to observe among imitations and distortions - was there when some people started to seing, in the plurality that became America, the opportunity for a dream of beauty.

People that knew that America has had slaves, and that some used the idea of the promised land to exploit people, but no matter what, under that umbrella were now all kinds of people, and there were words of freedom in the country’s mind. There was possibilities to peacefully fight for better conditions. And small “accidents” like a black man and a white woman falling in love, could set a spark that maybe wouldn’t die. And I believe it didn’t die. I believe the good side of the American dream has positively influenced the World.

I think that through the Ages, countless people wanted to overcome oppression, but their disbelief in violence and stealing made them swallow things they wouldn’t like, and forced them to work in very small steps. But now there is an opportunity they would love, to be free to speak and discuss, and fight for a better World without destruction.

And I think that if this is the luck I’ve been enjoying, this is the wealth I should want to share. I should not want to help my neighbour to walk in any direction that is not at least a small step towards freedom. Because, what would be the point?

So there is not point for me in wanting that a Nation have more regional power if the leaders oppress people, or to support a political project that don’t believe in peaceful coexistence with the neighbours.

If I love so much the fact that I can listen to the music I want, I should oppose any leadership that forbiddens people of doing so. I would never want to impose on someone that they change their religion, or their clothes or what they eat, but I would hate to live under a government that create certain prohibitions, so I would never support certain kind of government.

Now, someone might say that my vision is too biased, that my ideals only have value inside my culture, and they don’t reflect the wishes of others, with other backgrounds. But they are so important to my happiness, why would I want to share anything else? Why would I support someone going in a direction, that deep inside I believe is the opposite of happiness?

Some might say that the Humanistic ideas owe too much to the nobles of their time, because those thinkers sometimes lived under their umbrella. But they lived a humble life of service, and planted some seeds that I believe to have brought good things.

Some people seem to think that the misdeeds of the Nations in the past make unworthy all the values and ideas that flourished within their borders. It’s like saying that the economic wars of past and present take away all the value of ideals. Like, all we need is material reparation. Then what? The material distribution will be enough to guarantee that not all good ideas are lost?

I still think there must be some ideas we can agree. If we agree that wellbeing and justice are what people want, we must be able to agree, at least on some basic level, about what worked more in that direction through History.

And I think it isn’t so hard to find agreements if we are honest, so I will propose a question: Suppose you see in your television a woman in the street, a woman that lives under an ultra-authoritarian religious government, and she is protesting fiercely, risking her life to defy their “supreme leader”. Which side you are: the Woman’s or the Leader’s?

If you are on the Leader’s side, then what is the point of any fight for you, if you seem to agree with every oppressive civilization of the ancient past? I suppose you are on the side of the woman. We all are, right?

So shouldn’t we be extremely preocupied if this Leader is treated with super extra kindness and love by International Organizations? Shouldn’t we anger against it? Or should we support this Leader’s fight against the countries where women can come and go?

Or should we say to that woman protesting that her Leader is no worst than any other because in more free countries the richest people are too greedy? Don’t you think she would tell you that the richest people there are greedy too, and still she would love to have more freedom? Would you tell her that, because there is racism in other countries, her government is not reason to worry?

If that was her last cry, then after she is finnaly silenced will you say that her people never really wanted any part of “our kind of freedom” because of their cultural background?

And then maybe you will feel free to see all the enemies of her Leader as your enemies too. But in this case, shouldn’t you go back to that question of which side you are and answer differently?

In those countries now dominated by religious tirannies there has always been people that seeked freedom, that wanted to think for themselves, and separate the good from the bad in their own countries and in the World. Secular thinkers, and even moderate religious people, are in serious danger now. Maybe they are a lot like us. Shouldn’t we be on their side somehow, shouldn’t we support them? Try to strenghten them?

Shouldn’t we be crying, shouldn’t we be protesting when we see childdren being clearly turned into cannon fodder? Or should we pretend we don’t see it, until the storm finnaly unleashes, then we can count bodies and play the self righteous game, a game that we can only play because we are – until now – safe from the destruction brought by this mind control?

And finnaly, shouldn’t we be using our voices, that sometimes can be so loud, to avoid the next wars, by calling out the “supreme leaders” of the Earth?

 

I, too, wish there was peace

 continuing:

 

 p.s: just kidding. Petroil is a social construct.

War in Tik Tok Times

 This meme is a sequel to the previous:

Oh, thank you!

Chérie

 

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.