Here, I stumble across what is, to me, one of the most remarkable aspects of humans in general. A strange inclination and ability to apply one or more of these words to the most horrific social and political circumstances imaginable, even though neither of them has anything whatever to do with fear, chaos, violence and death; at least certainly no more than anything NOT called by one of these words. I find that simply amazing. One might think this is due to various leaders indoctrinating their followers, but it seems much more than that, an odd meme that is endemic among most humans everywhere, both the leaders and the led.
Consider "anarchy". Everyone knows, of course, that a state of anarchy is absolute lawlessness, chaos, people running about slashing, burning, assaulting, raping, killing, plundering and pillaging in a horrifying orgy of terror, violence, destruction and death. Many people who call themselves "anarchists" certainly reinforce this idea by...committing acts of violence and destruction. But why do most regular people, as well as many who call themselves "anarchist" think this is what anarchy means? Why do people think that anarchy = lawlessness and chaos? Does this not imply that things other than anarchy, like democracy or some other system does NOT involve violence and lawlessness and chaos? Just what does anarchy actually mean? Will a dictionary tell us? It would be well to remember that dictionaries usually present the currently generally accepted definitions of words, without regard to whether the definitions are factually correct based on the etymology of the words.
A pause...do facts and truths, insofar as they can be determined, matter to you, or are you quite willing to accept the commonly held ideas, as is, without further examination?
The word anarchy comes from the Greek "an", meaning "without" and "arkhos", meaning "leader". Well, there you have it, being without a leader means lawlessness and chaos! Really? Do you mean to say that you are not capable of leading or conducting your own life without rules and laws being imposed upon you by other people? See, THAT's what "without leader" means...without an external leader, someone other than yourself, making rules by which you must live. Does it occur to you that you just might be able to make such rules for yourself, and yourself only, of course? Well, sure, I could do that, but most other people can't. Aye, there's the rub. Without cooperation, how could anything ever get done? What, cooperation cannot occur without being forced to do so by some other person or circumstance? Do you suppose that all people are so different that any significant level of cooperation to achieve shared goals is impossible...that "what's in it for me" is the primary motivating force driving humans? Could the pyramids have been built without the order of the Pharaoh? If the Pharaoh had ordered and all people refused, would the pyramids be there?
While it is true to an extent and in a sense, that we are autonomous beings, computers in a way, it is also true that huge numbers of these computers must disconnect or at least damper the "autonomous" feature and behave serially; as a part of a larger whole in order for very large things to be done. No human individual who ever lived could have possibly built the Great Pyramid of Cheops, certainly not without modern powerful machinery. Was it mainly threat of violence and death for refusal imposed by the ultimate political and social power that caused so many thousands of individuals to carve on those stones, to lug them around and stack them? How many of those thousands did what they did because they believed deep within themselves that what they were doing collectively was a necessary and good thing?
Well, WAS it a good and necessary thing, objectively speaking? It's essentially a pile of rocks...granted that it is orderly and served some perceived purposes and has some amount of aesthetic beauty, but it is still essentially a pile of rocks. Would the life of the average Egyptian during those centuries have been better or worse without the grand collective projects?
What about "communism" and "socialism"? I tend to always link these two because, although people can come up with all manner of differences and variations, they both seem to me to refer to essentially the same thing; the social group or the commune, from which our word community comes. This is where definitions get screwy, to my way of thinking. One definition says, "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Crikey! Why are we suddenly talking about a party or a state? What happened to the community? We're told that a place like North Korea is, not merely a dictatorship, but a COMMUNIST dictatorship! WTF? Certainly seems to have a dictator, all right, but makes about as much sense to me as saying it's a democratic dictatorship. How is it that "a dictatorship" is not a totally, fundamentally different thing from a democratic or a communist or a socialist society? A dictatorship or an oligarchy is rule, typically capricious and cruel, by one guy or a relative handful of persons...in what way is this either communal or social or democratic?
Some might wonder whether it's only western propaganda to insist that the old Soviet Union, for example, was "communist". But I have seen many bits of old newsreel footage in which the citizens of that time and place were as fervently and joyously convinced that they were good communists as any Christian is convinced he is a good Christian. They worked like madmen, with a fervor that other religions could only envy; lived in mostly pathetic and shitty conditions even in the best of times, serving the interests of the dictator or oligarchy, somehow unaware that the general welfare of the people, of which they were a part, was going down the toilet. I have seen bits of interviews with modern Russians and even an occasional golden oldie, who speak wistfully and longingly of the days of Lenin and Stalin. How is this possible? Perhaps a lot of people basically only care whether "the trains run on time", without regard to what they carry and why.
The National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) - known in English as the Nazi Party - was in Germany between 1919 and 1945. Its last leader being one Adolph Hitler (since there couldn't possibly have been more than one). By the way and FYI, "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the pronunciation of the German word Nationalsozialistische. Now and for the foreseeable future, "socialist" is another word for "Nazi" in the popular mind (are minds popular?). If you use Google, try typing in "define social" and then "define socialism" and see what happens. Where, in the definitions of these terms, is there mention of dictators, mass slaughter, etc.? Hitler is said to have "killed six million" people, making him a relative piker in the slaughter game to Stalin who is said to have "slaughtered over 20 million".
So...Hitler the religious and maybe occultist Socialist, hated Stalin the atheist communist, (the feeling was mutual), they both hated capitalism and yet...money fueled the lot of it. Did both Hitler and Stalin not have to "fund" their relative countries and especially their militaries? If you genuinely hated capitalism, why would you participate in a game which is unplayable without money? Would all the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and camp guards and enforcers, etc. not have played the game without being paid money? It was all the fault of the Jews of course, except that all non-Jewish people used money too. Where was the general well being of the people, the society, in all that? Are we back to only the "what's in it for me" mode?
Why is it that only two groups or entities are usually acknowledged in such ruminations; the greedy individual capitalists or corporatists, and "the state". Again, where are "the people" or general society in there? Why is it that if all property and means of production are said to be owned by the people, it's actually a very small number of powerful government types who own everything. Do people in general not really understand what it means to "own" something, even collectively? If there is gong to be a "state" at all, why is it not a relatively minor administrative body or group doing the pragmatic and logistical work of society?
In our glorious democracy, of course, we have many "public servants", whereas WE are "the people", the ones who have the power. Compare your pay and power to that of the President or of Congress or of the Supreme Court...I bet they all have a lot more of both than you do. How is it that "the servants" give orders to "the owners"? Did Orwell write this dictionary? Who is the servant of whom? Of course 'we the people' do hold the ultimate power...we can always vote them out of office. Well, except for members of the Supreme Court who are legally in power until they die or resign. Congress members and other various "high government officials" - what happened to "servants" - can take a break from being, eh...servants, and go fer a whirl in the corporatocracy...er, democracy. Have you looked at the career of Dick Cheney? Did you think he was not in government until Bush picked him as Vice President?
Do you know what Larry Summers did before he was Obama's "Director of the National Economic Council"? For one, he was Chief Economist of the World Bank. He was also Secretary of the Treasury (remember Bill Clinton?). How about Obama's new Chief of Staff, William Daley (member of the infamous Daleys of Chicago politics fame)... he used to be Secretary of Commerce (Bill Clinton again), took a break to be on the Executive Committee of JPMorgan Chase & Company (Chase what mattersÔ!) (That position, Chief of Staff, used be called "Appointments Secretary", but that does have a bit of a sissy ring to to it, eh?) There is a multitude of other personages who have long played ring around the rosie in that "revolving door" between Washington politics and Wall Street. So, what does any of that have to do with us? If nothing else it should remind us of the truth of George Carlin's rant about the rulers of this country being a big club and we ain't in it.
That was a biggun...okay maybe one more before supper.
TRB
No comments:
Post a Comment