#it's using those self-serving desires to drive the dehumanization of others

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Hello Shalom! I hope you're having a good day.

I am a lurker on your blog, seeing someone finding so much belonging in another people brings me joy. I'm sending this because of the post in which you were worried you were a philosemite and to be honest it is a worry that has crossed my mind as well as someone who enjoy tumblr content, conversion blogs and enjoyed learning about Jewish cultures and (I hope) becoming a better ally to Jews.

So, my question would be, what is a philosemite and how not to be one? /gen

First: Thank you, I'm so pleased to know you're here - I feel honored to see you 🩵

So, philosemitism is a specific branch of antisemitism wherein people will often fetishize jewish people, jewish culture, or judaism. I call it antisemitism because - much like chasers for trans people - the problem isn't that you (impersonal) find fascination with another group of people. The problem is that you don't engage with jews and jewish culture from the standpoint of being equals, you specifically will characterize whatever it is that's gotten your attention.

With that in mind... I've been trying my best to avoid even looking like a philosemite because I don't want to be one. I think such a big part of that comes with a territory in that... having jews around you who are comfortable and speak about their experiences helps. Engaging with a jewish community has been really helpful - we talk, joke, laugh, and just... engage person-to-person, and it adds that human connection that brings you closer to others. For many philosemites, they are only happy to engage with the idea of jews but not the idea that jews are people with real feelings. So much of my desire not to be like that is being trans and being subject to many chasers (to clarify, a chaser is somebody who specifically fetishizes trans people).

For many minority groups, there are people who are only willing to engage with the minority insofar as that minority is not a person. The moment that person becomes a person, the illusion falls, and the interest is exposed as, essentially, a sham.

I worry a lot that my intentions are unclear to some, that I don't know how to expose my heart any more than it is now. I remedy that by trying to read, learn, listen, and ponder on actual jewish thought and opinion, and try to engage with as much of jewish culture as I can.

Now, to be clear, not every person with an interest in judaism, jewish culture, or allying themself with jews is a philosemite. That is wholly inappropriate to assume, and I would never apply that label broadly to any non-jew who, like you've expressed, wants to be an ally. The problem arises specifically when the tokenization and fetishization makes one believe that jews are not as human (don't have human thoughts, needs, opinions, complexities, feelings, the things that make us who we are).

[chaosnoirjpg]

Part 3: Life after Suicide Attempts - Surviving to Thriving

The 3rd and last installment on this tough but necessary subject matter. 

Do not fret, this isn't a cry for help. I just like to wrap things up in threes (trilogy) and sometimes pairs (diptych / dilogy). 

I will share, if and when, I have more to share. 

Until then, I will be creating elsewhere and writing about other matters that demand my channeling.

What’s All This for, Anyway?

The purpose of writing about the darkest periods of my life is to make all this pain and suffering worth it. My hopes and prayers were answered a thousand-fold; I got that which I sought and more. I reached a level of catharsis I could never imagine and I showed up for those who were lost, much like myself. I feel a strange sense of accomplishment for facing myself and reflecting on these entries.

Originally, I didn't desire to write about these things. Telling my story was so far from my mind because I wasn’t proud of surviving. I was the opposite of eager to tell the tale. I was ashamed and rotted with guilt for failing at being a failure. Not only that but, I feared getting triggered and spiraling again. It was the encouraging words and compassionate support of my loved ones that witnessed me struggle towards transforming, transmuting, and transfiguring my mind and perspective into what it is now. I was given overwhelmingly positive feedback to share my story. Though I was wary, I took the first step and wrote it all down, spelling errors and all. I couldn’t bear to read it or have others proof-read it for fear of wanting to shut it all down before it got started. Though I was nervous I couldn’t stop the words ringing in my head.

You could help someone with your story?

The greatest philosophical question, is all this worth it? Is life worth living?

The religious would answer, of course, because the deity says so. However, what of the non-believers? What of those who struggle with their faith or never had a religious bone in their body to begin with? The world holds so many beings with different perspectives. Surely there must be more truth out there than simply saying so. My answer to the question is obviously yes. Please allow me to tell you why.

Suicide is not that which should be cured or ridiculed but it is the symptom of the way things are. 

A common reason: one feels like a burden, they have no purpose, or perhaps they are suffering through a great deal of pain. Whatever the reason, Society (the system, the powers that be, this oppressive, sinister and elusive force) drives us to dehumanize ourselves and each other; whittling us down to zeroes and ones, profit or loss is what plants the seeds for self destruction. 

To put simply, life is challenging, difficult and frustrating. Many people are unhappy with the way their lives are and the way things are. Many young people have lost hope for their future because of continuous social injustices, political incompetence, a certain great sickness that shall not be named that robbed so many of pivotal life experiences, prices going up and wages remaining stagnant that forces the individual to have no social life outside of employment. The world does not need the absence of you. It serves no one to disappear from this hell-scape. It means everything to stay, to rebel against the machine our forefathers/foremothers lazily built because they lacked the foresight we have now. 

I implore you to live out of spite until you can learn to live out of love.

If you perceive yourself a burden to your loved ones, tell them about how you feel. Let them know that you just desire to talk it out, you don’t desire their pity or advice, you simply desire to be heard. Get those thoughts out to someone safe. Know that, to love and be loved is a burden., a labor of love. Being a burden is not inherently bad, nothing is good or bad, it simply is, existing. Loving you and having you in their life is what they choose, willingly, freely. They do not mind carrying the burden of you because they love you. They desire to see you live well and their love makes the burden ever-lighter. If you have no one in your life that loves you or cares for you, make a home within yourself, make a friend within yourself.

Life is hard but it's a blessing. ~Tanjiro Kamado, Demon Slayer

If you perceive that you have no purpose, good. You are free. You have no idea how free you are. Your life is a blank canvas, primed for creation. You can choose any path in any direction without the burden of past choices influencing your present moment. What should you choose? Do what feel most exciting to you. You don’t know what excites you? You've become a stranger to yourself? Good, you can go on the journey of getting to know yourself more deeply, intimately, truly and freely.

A change in perception is the key to this. Changing the way you become aware of your own inner and outer world takes time, practice.

Talk. Speak. Scream. Yell. Create. Share your pain, your hurts, because all our life’s purpose is held within one another. Life is meant to be shared and experienced with others. This life of yours is your own and if you ever feel alone, find ways to connect so you can get reminded that you are not meant to live and experience your purpose all by yourself but share. You are not alone and you will not be the last. But with sharing your journey maybe those that come after you will get there faster, go further and uplift the human collective.

No Order of Importance:

Cultivate Support - go outside and make friends, create a found family, surround yourself with those you love and people you trust, go to therapy

Get Curious, stay curious and fail: lose the judgment and expectations, do not lose faith, instead start asking yourself questions, fail and fail often then explore why you failed and try again

Observe your thoughts: journal, record yourself, video yourself talking and listen to yourself to pick up on what is on your mind

Challenge your beliefs, make them less limiting, transform them into something that feels more liberating

Understanding the internal critic: Becoming a friend to yourself - Shadow Work, inner child work, and inner teen healing

Do different things every 3 months - 6 months to see if anything changes in your perspective

Take your healing journey seriously. Say those affirmations even though it feels like it isn’t doing anything

Sing, dance, laugh, cry, scream, create art as often as you can

Eat nutritious foods, take vitamins and mineral supplements, get at least 2 hours of sun and nature, exercise, and cultivate healthy and balanced social life

Learn to live with yourself, fully, completely, wholly, deeply, madly

Cultivate Self Love: trust yourself, like yourself, honor yourself, value yourself

Never give up on yourself. Never be afraid to begin again.

Remember: You are not alone and you will survive this.

I was able to help myself because I desired to do anything else but die. I desired to experience life differently. I didn’t know how I would get there but I knew there had to be another way. Life and living is scary. I am so grateful for it. I have shown myself how beautiful life can be once I made the continuous choice to take it one day at a time and allow myself to exist just as I am. This is better typed than done. All this re-wiring of my brain took several years. This might take you longer as all our healing journeys are different, yet the destination is the same, spiritual fulfillment and liberation of the soul.

================================================

Quotes that changed my brain chemistry and I carry with me in my heart

Live from within outward ~Audre Lorde

--

Every action a human being takes on this Earth is an act of love or a cry for it. ~ You are a Goddess by Sophie Bashford 

--

Practice any art,

Music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage,

No matter how well or badly

not to get money

or fame

but

to experience becoming,

to find out what's inside you

to make your soul grow

~Kurt Vonnegut

--

The Regrets of the Dying by Bonnie Ware

1. I wish I had lived a life true to myself instead of the one others expected of me.

2. I wish I hadn't worked so hard.

3. I wish I had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I stayed in touch with my friends.

5. I wish I let myself be happier.

--

I will enjoy this life! 

I will open it like a peach in season, 

suck the juice from every finger, 

run my tongue over my chin. 

I will not worry about cliches 

or uninvited guests peering in my windows. 

I will love and be loved! Save and be saved a thousand times. 

I will let the want into my body, bless the heat under my skin. 

My life, I will not waste it. 

I will enjoy this life! 

~Kate Baer

--

In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. And that makes me happy. For it says that no matter how hard the world pushes against me, within me, there's something stronger – something better, pushing right back. ~Camus

--

I will not go gentle into that good night.~ Dylan Thomas

--

“The bravest thing I ever did was continuing my life when I wanted to die.”

— Juliette Lewis

--

“Live! Live the wonderful life that is in you! Let nothing be lost upon you. Be always searching for new sensations. Be afraid of nothing.���― Oscar Wilde

If you have reached the end of this, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Life is shitty, boring and terrible. But the world will shine brighter with you in it.

================================================

In light of recent events, this entry was originally written before the righteous political suicides of those who set themselves ablaze.

Suicide is a choice.

Doing such acts are done with clear purpose and intent, devoid of ego, however driven by a deep sense of justice of the way society is unjustly ran.

Suicide, with clear cause, are committed to bring attention to otherwise willfully ignored dire matters.

================================================

My Entries on the Subject of Surviving Suicide:

I - Life After Suicide Attempts:

II - Life After Suicide Attempt(s):

Social Security includes the number for a suicide hotline on the envelope they use to tell me they have decided to deny my disability

There’s a depressing ass poem hiding in here, but im too tired to put it together.

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents. [...] Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil. When Hitler was asked whether he thought the Jew must be destroyed, he answered: “No…. We should have then to invent him. It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one.” [...]

We do not usually look for allies when we love. Indeed, we often look on those who love with us as rivals and trespassers. But we always look for allies when we hate. It is understandable that we should look for others to side with us when we have a just grievance and crave to retaliate against those who wronged us. The puzzling thing is that when our hatred does not spring from a visible grievance and does not seem justified, the desire for allies becomes more pressing. It is chiefly the unreasonable hatreds that drive us to merge with those who hate as we do, and it is this kind of hatred that serves as one of the most effective cementing agents. [...]

Unity and self-sacrifice, of themselves, even when fostered by the most noble means, produce a facility for hating. Even when men league themselves mightily together to promote tolerance and peace on earth, they are likely to be violently intolerant toward those not of a like mind. The estrangement from the self, without which there can be neither selflessness nor a full assimilation of the individual into a compact whole, produces, as already mentioned, a proclivity for passionate attitudes, including passionate hatred. There are also other factors which favor the growth of hatred in an atmosphere of unity and selflessness.

The act of self-denial seems to confer on us the right to be harsh and merciless toward others. The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit this earth and the kingdom of heaven, too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen shall perish. There is also this: when we renounce the self and become part of a compact whole, we not only renounce personal advantage but are also rid of personal responsibility. There is no telling to what extremes of cruelty and ruthlessness a man will go when he is freed from the fears, hesitations, doubts and the vague stirrings of decency that go with individual judgment. When we lose our individual independence in the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom—freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse. [...] Hitler had a contemptuous opinion of the brutality of the autonomous individual. “Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook.” Thus hatred is not only a means of unification but also its product. [...] When we see the bloodshed, terror and destruction born of such generous enthusiasms as the love of God, love of Christ, love of a nation, compassion for the oppressed and so on, we usually blame this shameful perversion on a cynical, power-hungry leadership. Actually, it is the unification set in motion by these enthusiasms, rather than the manipulations of a scheming leadership, that transmutes noble impulses into a reality of hatred and violence. The deindividualization which is a prerequisite for thorough integration and selfless dedication is also, to a considerable extent, a process of dehumanization.

— Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

[uneducatorsalliance]

Death by Capitalism: The Alienated Life of Troy Maxson

Erik Meier, on “Fences” by August Wilson

FULL TEXT OF FENCES 

WORK CITED

     In “Fences”, August Wilson illustrates the life and times of Troy Maxson in the stories and experiences he references in his children’s upbringing. They include oppression, abuse, corruption and abandonment from his caretakers and society. Marxist Theory outlines the structure of capitalist society which operates on the foundation of mode of production. This structure highlights the social ideology that manipulates and displaces Troy from his labor, his children and himself. Troy’s experiences become the foundation for the morals and lessons he misconstrues and elicits in his children. His false providence blinds him to the emotional, physical and monetary labors and debts cast on his father’s generation, by society, and cast onto him. This conflict is suspended in the balance of liberation for his family and oppression he casts in the process, operating in this society. He fails to witness the values of his labor, the true purpose of his life and place in the world. This leads to the repetitive cycle of abandonment and displacement that continue to contribute to their capitalist society.   

     In “Marx’s Use of “Class””, Bertel Ollman refers to two categories Marx considered to make up the structure of a developed capitalist society. The first category is the capitalist (owner of the means of social production) and the proletarian (employers of wage labor). The capitalist owns the means of production, therefore owning the means of labor and distribution of them (Ollman, 2).  Troy and his boss Mr. Rand, for example, may both be considered wage laborers, however the commissioner would be considered a capitalist, as would the contributors who hold stock in the ownership of their company. He determines the distribution of labor and prices set on their respective wages. Mr. Rand is white, and Troy is Black. The construct of racism is an extension of the social ideology of class separation. This construct works to benefit the social structure of this society, exploiting the labor of black individuals by devaluing them while profiting off of their labor. This determines Troy’s individual and labor as a lesser value based on the color of his skin and places him in a lower-class bracket. Mr. Rand, however, is white and offered access to the position that offers a higher wage. Troy recognizes his ability to play baseball just as well as the white men in his league and athletic cohort, despite being denied the opportunities to do so. He challenges this again to Mr. Rand and the commissioner when representing himself and his abilities to drive a truck and earn a better wage based on his skill. Regardless of skill and race, their wages are driven by and delivered to those in the ruling class of landowners (a third class category of capitalist society), described in “Marx’s Uses of Class” (Ollman 6).

      The foundation for Troy’s will to live a pursue a life of independence after his father abandons him, exists in the needs to sustain it. These needs include food, shelter access to labor and the income to provide them. The ideological barriers set by his society separate him from earning wages to sufficiently meet these needs and he seeks them by shamefully robbing from those who have excess or access to them. The means to his family’s housing, needs can be considered commodities, as they are met and provided by the income that grants access to them. This income is exchanged for the time Troy gives in the form of his labor, to his company in exchange for income. Marx refers to this exchange as commodification, or the monetary value placed on that time reserved for labor (output). This operates under what Marx referred to as the ‘mode production’, and is elaborated in Geert Reuten’s writings on The Capitalist Economy in which the ruling class seizes profit by owning the means of production that distributes access to goods and services to people as well as the labor and wages to produce them. Under the ‘capitalist mode of production’ highlighted in the book “The Unity of Capitalist Economy and State” Reuten says, “Along with this commodification and the wage income deriving from it, the households’ acquirement of production outputs of enterprises takes the form of commodified ‘consumption’” (Reuten 52). The pride that Troy demonstrates for his abilities to provide for his family is displaced. Though it is opposite his father’s shame (for not providing them) he still recycles and demonstrates the tensions, want and dominant control for quality life. When he discusses his hatred for his father, Troy struggles to define the trap his father is in. It is not the guilt of abandoning of his family that traps him, or the responsibility to stay. It is the societal barriers that keep him locked into his labor, void of anything beyond that, including freedom, love or care. This anchors him to a family he cannot provide for and does not wish to. 

TROY How he gonna leave with eleven kids? And where he gonna go? He ain't knew how to do nothing but farm. No, he was trapped and I think he knew it. But I'll say this for him . . . he felt a responsibility toward us. Maybe he ain't treated us the way I felt he should have . . . but without that responsibility he could have walked off and left us . . . made his own way. (Wilson 1.3.37-38)

     Though Troy is able to recognize the loyalty modeled for him by his father, it is coupled with abuse, betrayal and abandonment from his parents. The internalized hatred, anger and pain displayed in Troy and his father are reflective byproducts of the dehumanization and segregation placed on them by their society. This shapes their conflict which results in abandonment, consequently contributing to and demonstrating the same capitalist societal model. 

     Despite the ideological barriers set by society and recognized by Troy, he capitalizes on the inheritance from his brother’s military compensation as well as his own labor income. He now controls the means to his own family’s needs, and the distributions of them, including money, housing, food and protection. In an article featured in “The Black Scholar”, released post-civil rights movement, Alfonso Pinkney discusses methods of liberation attempted by Black Americans who remain segregated, oppressed and obstructed in white European American dominated capitalist society. He says, 

     “...and because the very notion of assimilation as defined by white                       Americans is racist in that it demands that they share and adopt middle-             class white cultural standards, that assimilation at the present time is neither       likely nor desirable” (Pinkney 37). 

     Troy’s capitalization is coupled with his assimilation and previous sacrifices to survive and provide as a Black man in America, Consequently, they have made him bitter and self-righteous. This is revealed in the disdain and conditional relationships he has with his children. Lyons is attuned to the disparities his father faces, who is undervalued and underutilized at his job. He wants no part in contributing to the society his father remains submissive to. Lyons would rather seek value in the labor that liberates him spiritually and serves him purpose and meaning. Despite his lack of wage labor experience, Cory is aware of his talents and the opportunities that follow. This includes access to education and the potential for an independent life, afforded to him by his passions. This secures value in himself but is quickly met with disapproval, from Troy and his authority from his experience with racial oppression in sports. 

TROY. I don’t care where he coming from. The white man ain’t gonna let you get nowhere with that football noway. (Wilson I.3.37-38) The same sentiment is shared when Lyons returns home to ask Troy for a loan while his wife Bonnie works to meet their financial needs. Lyons doesn’t seem ashamed that his wife is bringing in the income for their family, nor does he ask for any more than he knows they need to get by. Lyons and Cory can understand the value of their father’s labor and the liberties it has afforded them, though Troy feels owed for these efforts. 

    Troy’s monetary and material expectations for his children through labor and hard work are mixed with his desires for liberation from the society they must exist in. His demands for unquestioned respect and compliance adhere to this system which blind him from the values his children see in themselves and their father. The tragic theme in August Wilson’s drama is what Karl Marx referred to as Alienation. Mike Healy elaborates in Marx and Digital Machines:   

     “Marx argues that capitalism, in which labour itself becomes a commodity,          continues yet contorts this process to create a contradictory, conflictual              and universal alienated condition in which all relations under capitalism are        alienated relations” (Healy 8).

     In Marx’s third type of alienation is The Alienation of Species. The ‘Species being’ refers to the nature and spirit attached to, recognized and utilized by the individual self. This comes with autonomy, agency and will to serve the values of the self, allowing the self to connect with others. The alienation of nature and spirit (species-being) is the abandonment or failure to connect with the self. This is consequential, following what Marx’s described as the alienation of labor (the act of production) to the self which is replaced by the worker (Healy 10). Consequently, Troy no longer recognizes or seeks meaning and purpose in his own life and therefore cannot see the value in the lives around them.

     The societal conditioning that shaped Troy’s father has been internalized by Troy and attempted on Lyons and Cory. Cory breaks the tension and cycle of generational abuse in this revelation and last interaction with his father. 

TROY You got to get by where? This is my house. Bought and paid for. In full. Took me fifteen years. And if you wanna go in my house and I'm sitting on the steps . . . you say excuse me. Like your mama taught you. (Wilson 2.4.86-87)

CORY You ain’t never done nothing but hold me back. Afraid I was gonna be better than you. All you ever did was try and make me scared of you. (Wilson 2.4.88-89)

CORY It ain't your yard. You took Uncle Gabe's money he got from the army to buy this house and then you put him out.  (Wilson 2.4.89-90)

     Cory has just been stripped of his own opportunity for a future he wanted, leaving him to join the ranks of the same military that permanently disabled his uncle. Troy’s final effort to assert dominance is to threaten to abandon Cory and take away his needs and means for survival. This is quickly challenged as Cory resorts to an attempt on Troy’s life. In his physical defeat, Cory has exposed the travesty of his father’s entitlement and abuse, becoming the last person to abandon Troy. In this unveiling of Troy’s corrupt act of survival, his alienation is fully revealed to him, moments before his inevitable death. The labor, time and wages he contributes to his family, along with his brother’s stolen inheritance, act as the means of control and distributions he holds over them. These means also support and contribute to the liberty for his sons, to choose direction in their lives. This freedom acts as the resistance to the control and dominance Troy attempts to assert on them in this process of capitalist production. He realizes his life has no value as long as he fails to see beyond the monetary gain and labor capacity attached to it. This capacity and gain are the means that replace any vision of the role he plays in his family or to himself. Death now approaches to remind him of this and takes the liberty of relinquishing Troy Maxson from the shackles of his racist capitalist dominant society and his own imprisonment.

[nedsecondline]

Vaclav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

Vaclav Havel:

The smaller a dictatorship and the less stratified by modernization the society under it, the more directly the will of the dictator can be exercised. In other words, the dictator can employ more or less naked discipline, avoiding the complex processes of relating to the world and of self-justification which ideology involves. But the more complex the mechanisms of power become, the larger and more stratified the society they embrace, and the longer they have operated historically, the more individuals must be connected to them from outside, and the greater the importance attached to the ideological excuse. It acts as a kind of bridge between the regime and the people, across which the regime approaches the people and the people approach the regime. This explains why ideology plays such an important role in the post-totalitarian system: that complex machinery of units, hierarchies, transmission belts, and indirect instruments of manipulation which ensure in countless ways the integrity of the regime, leaving nothing to chance, would be quite simply unthinkable without ideology acting as its all-embracing excuse and as the excuse for each of its parts.

[…]

Between the aims of the post-totalitarian system and the aims of life there is a yawning abyss: while life, in its essence, moves toward plurality, diversity, independent self-constitution, and self organization, in short, toward the fulfillment of its own freedom, the post-totalitarian system demands conformity, uniformity, and discipline. While life ever strives to create new and improbable structures, the post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states. The aims of the system reveal its most essential characteristic to be introversion, a movement toward being ever more completely and unreservedly itself, which means that the radius of its influence is continually widening as well. This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it. Anything beyond this, that is to say, anything which leads people to overstep their predetermined roles is regarded by the system as an attack upon itself.

And in this respect it is correct: every instance of such transgression is a genuine denial of the system. It can be said, therefore, that the inner aim of the post-totalitarian system is not mere preservation of power in the hands of a ruling clique, as appears to be the case at first sight. Rather, the social phenomenon of self-preservation is subordinated to something higher, to a kind of blind automatism which drives the system. No matter what position individuals hold in the hierarchy of power, they are not considered by the system to be worth anything in themselves, but only as things intended to fuel and serve this automatism. For this reason, an individual’s desire for power is admissible only in so far as its direction coincides with the direction of the automatism of the system.

Ideology, in creating a bridge of excuses between the system and the individual, spans the abyss between the aims of the system and the aims of life. It pretends that the requirements of the system derive from the requirements of life. It is a world of appearances trying to pass for reality.

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.

[…]

Because of this dictatorship of the ritual, however, power becomes clearly anonymous. Individuals are almost dissolved in the ritual. They allow themselves to be swept along by it and frequently it seems as though ritual alone carries people from obscurity into the light of power. Is it not characteristic of the post-totalitarian system that, on all levels of the power hierarchy, individuals are increasingly being pushed aside by faceless people, puppets, those uniformed flunkeys of the rituals and routines of power?

The automatic operation of a power structure thus dehumanized and made anonymous is a feature of the fundamental automatism of this system. It would seem that it is precisely the diktats of this automatism which select people lacking individual will for the power structure, that it is precisely the diktat of the empty phrase which summons to power people who use empty phrases as the best guarantee that the automatism of the post-totalitarian system will continue.

Western Sovietologists often exaggerate the role of individuals in the post-totalitarian system and overlook the fact that the ruling figures, despite the immense power they possess through the centralized structure of power, are often no more than blind executors of the system’s own internal laws — laws they themselves never can, and never do, reflect upon. In any case, experience has taught us again and again that this automatism is far more powerful than the will of any individual; and should someone possess a more independent will, he must conceal it behind a ritually anonymous mask in order to have an opportunity to enter the power hierarchy at all. And when the individual finally gains a place there and tries to make his will felt within it, that automatism, with its enormous inertia, will triumph sooner or later, and either the individual will be ejected by the power structure like a foreign organism, or he will be compelled to resign his individuality gradually, once again blending with the automatism and becoming its servant, almost indistinguishable from those who preceded him and those who will follow. (Let us recall, for instance, the development of Husák or Gomulka.) The necessity of continually hiding behind and relating to ritual means that even the more enlightened members of the power structure are often obsessed with ideology. They are never able to plunge straight to the bottom of naked reality, and they always confuse it, in the final analysis, with ideological pseudoreality. (In my opinion, one of the reasons the Dubček leadership lost control of the situation in 1968 was precisely because, in extreme situations and in final questions, its members were never capable of extricating themselves completely from the world of appearances.)

It can be said, therefore, that ideology, as that instrument of internal communication which assures the power structure of inner cohesion is, in the post-totalitarian system, some thing that transcends the physical aspects of power, something that dominates it to a considerable degree and, therefore, tends to assure its continuity as well. It is one of the pillars of the system’s external stability. This pillar, however, is built on a very unstable foundation. It is built on lies. It works only as long as people are willing to live within the lie.

[…]

Why was Solzhenitsyn driven out of his own country? Certainly not because he represented a unit of real power, that is, not because any of the regime’s representatives felt he might unseat them and take their place in government. Solzhenitsyn’s expulsion was something else: a desperate attempt to plug up the dreadful wellspring of truth, a truth which might cause incalculable transformations in social consciousness, which in turn might one day produce political debacles unpredictable in their consequences. And so the post-totalitarian system behaved in a characteristic way: it defended the integrity of the world of appearances in order to defend itself. For the crust presented by the life of lies is made of strange stuff. As long as it seals off hermetically the entire society, it appears to be made of stone. But the moment someone breaks through in one place, when one person cries out, “The emperor is naked!” — when a single person breaks the rules of the game, thus exposing it as a game — everything suddenly appears in another light and the whole crust seems then to be made of a tissue on the point of tearing and disintegrating uncontrollably.

[…]

The profound crisis of human identity brought on by living within a lie, a crisis which in turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension as well; it appears, among other things, as a deep moral crisis in society. A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accouterments of mass civilization, and who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of responsibility for anything higher than his own personal survival, is a demoralized person. The system depends on this demoralization, deepens it, is in fact a projection of it into society.

Living within the truth, as humanity’s revolt against an enforced position, is, on the contrary, an attempt to regain control over one’s own sense of responsibility. In other words, it is clearly a moral act, not only because one must pay so dearly for it, but principally because it is not self-serving: the risk may bring rewards in the form of a general amelioration in the situation, or it may not. In this regard, as I stated previously, it is an all-or-nothing gamble, and it is difficult to imagine a reasonable person embarking on such a course merely because he reckons that sacrifice today will bring rewards tomorrow, be it only in the form of general gratitude. (By the way, the representatives of power invariably come to terms with those who live within the truth by persistently ascribing utilitarian motivations to them — a lust for power or fame or wealth — and thus they try, at least, to implicate them in their own world, the world of general demoralization.)

If living within the truth in the post-totalitarian system becomes the chief breeding ground for independent, alternative political ideas, then all considerations about the nature and future prospects of these ideas must necessarily reflect this moral dimension as a political phenomenon. (And if the revolutionary Marxist belief about morality as a product of the “superstructure” inhibits any of our friends from realizing the full significance of this dimension and, in one way or another, from including it in their view of the world, it is to their own detriment: an anxious fidelity to the postulates of that world view prevents them from properly understanding the mechanisms of their own political influence, thus paradoxically making them precisely what they, as Marxists, so often suspect others of being — victims of “false consciousness.”) The very special political significance of morality in the post-totalitarian system is a phenomenon that is at the very least unusual in modern political history, a phenomenon that might well have — as I shall soon attempt to show — far-reaching consequences.

[…]

The post-totalitarian system is mounting a total assault on humans and humans stand against it alone, abandoned and isolated. It is therefore entirely natural that all the “dissident” movements are explicitly defensive movements: they exist to defend human beings and the genuine aims of life against the aims of the system.

[…]

In terms of traditional politics, this program of defense is understandable, even though it may appear minimal, provisional, and ultimately negative. It offers no new conception, model, or ideology, and therefore it is not politics in the proper sense of the word, since politics always assumes a positive program and can scarcely limit itself to defending someone against something.

Such a view, I think, reveals the limitations of the traditionally political way of looking at things. The post-totalitarian system, after all, is not the manifestation of a particular political line followed by a particular government. It is something radically different: it is a complex, profound, and long-term violation of society, or rather the self violation of society. To oppose it merely by establishing a different political line and then striving for a change in government would not only be unrealistic, it would be utterly inadequate, for it would never come near to touching the root of the matter. For some time now, the problem has no longer resided in a political line or program: it is a problem of life itself.

Thus, defending the aims of life, defending humanity, is not only a more realistic approach, since it can begin right now and is potentially more popular because it concerns people’s everyday lives; at the same time (and perhaps precisely because of this) it is also an incomparably more consistent approach because it aims at the very essence of things.

There are times when we must sink to the bottom of our misery to understand truth, just as we must descend to the bottom of a well to see the stars in broad daylight. It seems to me that today, this “provisional,” “minimal,” and “negative” program — the “simple” defense of people — is in a particular sense (and not merely in the circumstances in which we live) an optimal and most positive program because it forces politics to return to its only proper starting point, proper that is, if all the old mistakes are to be avoided: individual people. In the democratic societies, where the violence done to human beings is not nearly so obvious and cruel, this fundamental revolution in politics has yet to happen, and some things will probably have to get worse there before the urgent need for that revolution is reflected in politics. In our world, precisely because of the misery in which we find ourselves, it would seem that politics has already undergone that transformation: the central concern of political thought is no longer abstract visions of a self-redeeming, “positive” model (and of course the opportunistic political practices that are the reverse of the same coin), but rather the people who have so far merely been enslaved by those models and their practices.

Every society, of course, requires some degree of organization. Yet if that organization is to serve people, and not the other way around, then people will have to be liberated and space created so that they may organize themselves in meaningful ways. The depravity of the opposite approach, in which people are first organized in one way or another (by someone who always knows best “what the people need”) so they may then allegedly be liberated, is something we have known on our own skins only too well.

To sum up: most people who are too bound to the traditional political way of thinking see the weaknesses of the “dissident” movements in their purely defensive character. In contrast, I see that as their greatest strength. I believe that this is precisely where these movements supersede the kind of politics from whose point of view their program can seem so inadequate.

[…]

In a classical dictatorship, to a far greater extent than in the post-totalitarian system, the will of the ruler is carried out directly, in an unregulated fashion. A dictatorship has no reason to hide its foundations, nor to conceal the real workings of power, and therefore it need not encumber itself to any great extent with a legal code. The post-totalitarian system, on the other hand, is utterly obsessed with the need to bind everything in a single order: life in such a state is thoroughly permeated by a dense network of regulations, proclamations, directives, norms, orders, and rules. (It is not called a bureaucratic system without good reason.) A large proportion of those norms function as direct instruments of the complex manipulation of life that is intrinsic to the post-totalitarian system. Individuals are reduced to little more than tiny cogs in an enormous mechanism and their significance is limited to their function in this mechanism. Their job, housing accommodation, movements, social and cultural expressions, everything, in short, must be cosseted together as firmly as possible, predetermined, regulated, and controlled. Every aberration from the prescribed course of life is treated as error, license, and anarchy. From the cook in the restaurant who, without hard-to-get permission from the bureaucratic apparatus, cannot cook something special for his customers, to the singer who cannot perform his new song at a concert without bureaucratic approval, everyone, in all aspects of their life, is caught in this regulatory tangle of red tape, the inevitable product of the post-totalitarian system. With ever-increasing consistency, it binds all the expressions and aims of life to the spirit of its own aims: the vested interests of its own smooth, automatic operation.

In a narrower sense the legal code serves the post-totalitarian system in this direct way as well, that is, it too forms a part of the world of regulations and prohibitions. At the same time, however, it performs the same service in another indirect way, one that brings it remarkably closer �� depending on which level of the law is involved — to ideology and in some cases makes it a direct component of that ideology.

1 Like ideology, the legal code functions as an excuse. It wraps the base exercise of power in the noble apparel of the letter of the law; it creates the pleasing illusion that justice is done, society protected, and the exercise of power objectively regulated. All this is done to conceal the real essence of post-totalitarian legal practice: the total manipulation of society. If an outside observer who knew nothing at all about life in Czechoslovakia were to study only its laws, he would be utterly incapable of understanding what we were complaining about. The hidden political manipulation of the courts and of public prosecutors, the limitations placed on lawyers’ ability to defend their clients, the closed nature, de facto, of trials, the arbitrary actions of the security forces, their position of authority over the judiciary, the absurdly broad application of several deliberately vague sections of that code, and of course the state’s utter disregard for the positive sections of that code (the rights of citizens): all of this would remain hidden from our outside observer. The only thing he would take away would be the impression that our legal code is not much worse than the legal code of other civilized countries, and not much different either, except perhaps for certain curiosities, such as the entrenchment in the constitution of a single political party’s eternal rule and the state’s love for a neighboring superpower.

But that is not all: if our observer had the opportunity to study the formal side of the policing and judicial procedures and practices, how they look “on paper,” he would discover that for the most part the common rules of criminal procedure are observed: charges are laid within the prescribed period following arrest, and it is the same with detention orders. Indictments are properly delivered, the accused has a lawyer, and so on. In other words, everyone has an excuse: they have all observed the law. In reality, however, they have cruelly and pointlessly ruined a young person’s life, perhaps for no other reason than because he made samizdat copies of a novel written by a banned writer, or because the police deliberately falsified their testimony (as everyone knows, from the judge on down to the defendant). Yet all of this somehow remains in the background. The falsified testimony is not necessarily obvious from the trial documents and the section of the Criminal Code dealing with incitement does not formally exclude the application of that charge to the copying of a banned novel. In other words, the legal code — at least in several areas — is no more than a facade, an aspect of the world of appearances. Then why is it there at all? For exactly the same reason as ideology is there: it provides a bridge of excuses between the system and individuals, making it easier for them to enter the power structure and serve the arbitrary demands of power. The excuse lets individuals fool themselves into thinking they are merely upholding the law and protecting society from criminals. (Without this excuse, how much more difficult it would be to recruit new generations of judges, prosecutors, and interrogators!) As an aspect of the world of appearances, however, the legal code deceives not only the conscience of prosecutors, it deceives the public, it deceives foreign observers, and it even deceives history itself.

2 Like ideology, the legal code is an essential instrument of ritual communication outside the power structure. It is the legal code that gives the exercise of power a form, a framework, a set of rules. It is the legal code that enables all components of the system to communicate, to put themselves in a good light, to establish their own legitimacy. It provides their whole game with its rules and engineers with their technology. Can the exercise of post-totalitarian power be imagined at all without this universal ritual making it all possible, serving as a common language to bind the relevant sectors of the power structure together? The more important the position occupied by the repressive apparatus in the power structure, the more important that it function according to some kind of formal code. How, otherwise, could people be so easily and inconspicuously locked up for copying banned books if there were no judges, prosecutors, interrogators, defense lawyers, court stenographers, and thick files, and if all this were not held together by some firm order? And above all, without that innocent-looking Section 1oo on incitement? This could all be done, of course, without a legal code and its accessories, but only in some ephemeral dictatorship run by a Ugandan bandit, not in a system that embraces such a huge portion of civilized humankind and represents an integral, stable, and respected part of the modern world. That would not only be unthinkable, it would quite simply be technically impossible. Without the legal code functioning as a ritually cohesive force, the post-totalitarian system could not exist.

The entire role of ritual, facades, and excuses appears most eloquently, of course, not in the proscriptive section of the legal code, which sets out what a citizen may not do and what the grounds for prosecution are, but in the section declaring what he may do and what his or her rights are. Here there is truly nothing but “words, words, words.” Yet even that part of the code is of immense importance to the system, for it is here that the system establishes its legitimacy as a whole, before its own citizens, before schoolchildren, before the international public, and before history. The system cannot afford to disregard this because it cannot permit itself to cast doubt upon the fundamental postulates of its ideology, which are so essential to its very existence. (We have already seen how the power structure is enslaved by its own ideology and its ideological prestige.) To do this would be to deny everything it tries to present itself as and, thus, one of the main pillars on which the system rests would be undermined: the integrity of the world of appearances.

If the exercise of power circulates through the whole power structure as blood flows through veins, then the legal code can be understood as something that reinforces the walls of those veins. Without it, the blood of power could not circulate in an organized way and the body of society would hemorrhage at random. Order would collapse.

A persistent and never-ending appeal to the laws — not just to the laws concerning human rights, but to all laws — does not mean at all that those who do so have succumbed to the illusion that in our system the law is anything other than what it is. They are well aware of the role it plays. But precisely because they know how desperately the system depends on it — on the “noble” version of the law, that is — they also know how enormously significant such appeals are. Because the system cannot do without the law, because it is hopelessly tied down by the necessity of pretending the laws are observed, it is compelled to react in some way to such appeals. Demanding that the laws be upheld is thus an act of living within the truth that threatens the whole mendacious structure at its point of maximum mendacity. Over and over again, such appeals make the purely ritualistic nature of the law clear to society and to those who inhabit its power structures. They draw attention to its real material substance and thus, indirectly, compel all those who take refuge behind the law to affirm and make credible this agency of excuses, this means of communication, this reinforcement of the social arteries outside of which their will could not be made to circulate through society. They are compelled to do so for the sake of their own consciences, for the impression they make on outsiders, to maintain themselves in power (as part of the system’s own mechanism of self-preservation and its principles of cohesion), or simply out of fear that they will be reproached for being clumsy in handling the ritual. They have no other choice: because they cannot discard the rules of their own game, they can only attend more carefully to those rules. Not to react to challenges means to undermine their own excuse and lose control of their mutual communications system. To assume that the laws are a mere facade, that they have no validity, and that therefore it is pointless to appeal to them would mean to go on reinforcing those aspects of the law that create the facade and the ritual. It would mean confirming the law as an aspect of the world of appearances and enabling those who exploit it to rest easy with the cheapest (and therefore the most mendacious) form of their excuse.

I have frequently witnessed policemen, prosecutors, or judges — if they were dealing with an experienced Chartist or a courageous lawyer, and if they were exposed to public attention (as individuals with a name, no longer protected by the anonymity of the apparatus) — suddenly and anxiously begin to take particular care that no cracks appear in the ritual. This does not alter the fact that a despotic power is hiding behind that ritual, but the very existence of the officials’ anxiety necessarily regulates, limits, and slows down the operation of that despotism.

This, of course, is not enough. But an essential part of the “dissident” attitude is that it comes out of the reality of the human here and now. It places more importance on often repeated and consistent concrete action-even though it may be inadequate and though it may ease only insignificantly the suffering of a single insignificant citizen — than it does in some abstract fundamental solution in an uncertain future. In any case, is not this in fact just another form of “small-scale work” in the Masarykian sense, with which the “dissident” attitude seemed at first to be in such sharp contradiction?

This section would be incomplete without stressing certain internal limitations to the policy of taking them at their own word. The point is this: even in the most ideal of cases, the law is only one of several imperfect and more or less external ways of defending what is better in life against what is worse. By itself, the law can never create anything better. Its purpose is to render a service and its meaning does not lie in the law itself. Establishing respect for the law does not automatically ensure a better life for that, after all, is a job for people and not for laws and institutions. It is possible to imagine a society with good laws that are fully respected but in which it is impossible to live. Conversely, one can imagine life being quite bearable even where the laws are imperfect and imperfectly applied. The most important thing is always the quality of that life and whether or not the laws enhance life or repress it, not merely whether they are upheld or not. (Often strict observance of the law could have a disastrous impact on human dignity.) The key to a humane, dignified, rich, and happy life does not lie either in the constitution or in the Criminal Code. These merely establish what may or may not be done and, thus, they can make life easier or more difficult. They limit or permit, they punish, tolerate, or defend, but they can never give life substance or meaning. The struggle for what is called “legality” must constantly keep this legality in perspective against the background of life as it really is. Without keeping one’s eyes open to the real dimensions of life’s beauty and misery, and without a moral relationship to life, this struggle will sooner or later come to grief on the rocks of some self-justifying system of scholastics. Without really wanting to, one would thus become more and more like the observer who comes to conclusions about our system only on the basis of trial documents and is satisfied if all the appropriate regulations have been observed.

[…]

The specific nature of post-totalitarian conditions — with their absence of a normal political life and the fact that any far-reaching political change is utterly unforeseeable — has one positive aspect: it compels us to examine our situation in terms of its deeper coherences and to consider our future in the context of global, long-range prospects of the world of which we are a part. The fact that the most intrinsic and fundamental confrontation between human beings and the system takes place at a level incomparably more profound than that of traditional politics would seem, at the same time, to determine as well the direction such considerations will take.

Our attention, therefore, inevitably turns to the most essential matter: the crisis of contemporary technological society as a whole, the crisis that Heidegger describes as the ineptitude of humanity face to face with the planetary power of technology. Technology — that child of modern science, which in turn is a child of modern metaphysics — is out of humanity’s control, has ceased to serve us, has enslaved us and compelled us to participate in the preparation of our own destruction. And humanity can find no way out: we have no idea and no faith, and even less do we have a political conception to help us bring things back under human control. We look on helplessly as that coldly functioning machine we have created inevitably engulfs us, tearing us away from our natural affiliations (for instance, from our habitat in the widest sense of that word, including our habitat in the biosphere) just as it removes us from the experience of Being and casts us into the world of “existences.” This situation has already been described from many different angles and many individuals and social groups have sought, often painfully, to find ways out of it (for instance, through oriental thought or by forming communes). The only social, or rather political, attempt to do something about it that contains the necessary element of universality (responsibility to and for the whole) is the desperate and, given the turmoil the world is in, fading voice of the ecological movement, and even there the attempt is limited to a particular notion of how to use technology to oppose the dictatorship of technology.

“Only a God can save us now,” Heidegger says, and he emphasizes the necessity of “a different way of thinking,” that is, of a departure from what philosophy has been for centuries, and a radical change in the way in which humanity understands itself, the world, and its position in it. He knows no way out and all he can recommend is “preparing expectations.”

Various thinkers and movements feel that this as yet unknown way out might be most generally characterized as a broad “existential revolution:” I share this view, and I also share the opinion that a solution cannot be sought in some technological sleight of hand, that is, in some external proposal for change, or in a revolution that is merely philosophical, merely social, merely technological, or even merely political. These are all areas where the consequences of an existential revolution can and must be felt; but their most intrinsic locus can only be human existence in the profoundest sense of the word. It is only from that basis that it can become a generally ethical — and, of course, ultimately a political — reconstitution of society.

What we call the consumer and industrial (or postindustrial) society, and Ortega y Gasset once understood as “the revolt of the masses,” as well as the intellectual, moral, political, and social misery in the world today: all of this is perhaps merely an aspect of the deep crisis in which humanity, dragged helplessly along by the automatism of global technological civilization, finds itself.

The post-totalitarian system is only one aspect — a particularly drastic aspect and thus all the more revealing of its real origins — of this general inability of modern humanity to be the master of its own situation. The automatism of the post-totalitarian system is merely an extreme version of the global automatism of technological civilization. The human failure that it mirrors is only one variant of the general failure of modern humanity.

This planetary challenge to the position of human beings in the world is, of course, also taking place in the Western world, the only difference being the social and political forms it takes. Heidegger refers expressly to a crisis of democracy. There is no real evidence that Western democracy, that is, democracy of the traditional parliamentary type, can offer solutions that are any more profound. It may even be said that the more room there is in the Western democracies (compared to our world) for the genuine aims of life, the better the crisis is hidden from people and the more deeply do they become immersed in it.

It would appear that the traditional parliamentary democracies can offer no fundamental opposition to the automatism of technological civilization and the industrial-consumer society, for they, too, are being dragged helplessly along by it. People are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal methods used in the post-totalitarian societies. But this static complex of rigid, conceptually sloppy, and politically pragmatic mass political parties run by professional apparatuses and releasing the citizen from all forms of concrete and personal responsibility; and those complex focuses of capital accumulation engaged in secret manipulations and expansion; the omnipresent dictatorship of consumption, production, advertising, commerce, consumer culture, and all that flood of information: all of it, so often analyzed and described, can only with great difficulty be imagined as the source of humanity’s rediscovery of itself. In his June 1978 Harvard lecture, Solzhenitsyn describes the illusory nature of freedoms not based on personal responsibility and the chronic inability of the traditional democracies, as a result, to oppose violence and totalitarianism. In a democracy, human beings may enjoy many personal freedoms and securities that are unknown to us, but in the end they do them no good, for they too are ultimately victims of the same automatism, and are incapable of defending their concerns about their own identity or preventing their superficialization or transcending concerns about their own personal survival to become proud and responsible members of the polis, making a genuine contribution to the creation of its destiny.

Because all our prospects for a significant change for the better are very long range indeed, we are obliged to take note of this deep crisis of traditional democracy. Certainly, if conditions were to be created for democracy in some countries in the Soviet bloc (although this is becoming increasingly improbable), it might be an appropriate transitional solution that would help to restore the devastated sense of civic awareness, to renew democratic discussion, to allow for the crystallization of an elementary political plurality, an essential expression of the aims of life. But to cling to the notion of traditional parliamentary democracy as one’s political ideal and to succumb to the illusion that only this tried and true form is capable of guaranteeing human beings enduring dignity and an independent role in society would, in my opinion, be at the very least shortsighted.

I see a renewed focus of politics on real people as something far more profound than merely returning to the everyday mechanisms of Western (or, if you like, bourgeois) democracy. In 1968, I felt that our problem could be solved by forming an opposition party that would compete publicly for power with the Communist Party. I have long since come to realize, however, that it is just not that simple and that no opposition party in and of itself, just as no new electoral laws in and of themselves, could make society proof against some new form of violence. No “dry” organizational measures in themselves can provide that guarantee, and we would be hard-pressed to find in them that God who alone can save us.

[…]

And now I may properly be asked the question: What then is to be done?

My skepticism toward alternative political models and the ability of systemic reforms or changes to redeem us does not, of course, mean that I am skeptical of political thought altogether. Nor does my emphasis on the importance of focusing concern on real human beings disqualify me from considering the possible structural consequences flowing from it. On the contrary, if A was said, then B should be said as well. Nevertheless, I will offer only a few very general remarks.

Above all, any existential revolution should provide hope of a moral reconstitution of society, which means a radical renewal of the relationship of human beings to what I have called the “human order,” which no political order can replace. A new experience of being, a renewed rootedness in the universe, a newly grasped sense of higher responsibility, a newfound inner relationship to other people and to the human community — these factors clearly indicate the direction in which we must go.

And the political consequences? Most probably they could be reflected in the constitution of structures that will derive from this new spirit, from human factors rather than from a particular formalization of political relationships and guarantees. In other words, the issue is the rehabilitation of values like trust, openness, responsibility, solidarity, love. I believe in structures that are not aimed at the technical aspect of the execution of power, but at the significance of that execution in structures held together more by a commonly shared feeling of the importance of certain communities than by commonly shared expansionist ambitions directed outward. There can and must be structures that are open, dynamic, and small; beyond a certain point, human ties like personal trust and personal responsibility cannot work. There must be structures that in principle place no limits on the genesis of different structures. Any accumulation of power whatsoever (one of the characteristics of automatism) should be profoundly alien to it. They would be structures not in the sense of organizations or institutions, but like a community. Their authority certainly cannot be based on long-empty traditions, like the tradition of mass political parties, but rather on how, in concrete terms, they enter into a given situation. Rather than a strategic agglomeration of formalized organizations, it is better to have organizations springing up ad hoc, infused with enthusiasm for a particular purpose and disappearing when that purpose has been achieved. The leaders’ authority ought to derive from their personalities and be personally tested in their particular surroundings, and not from their position in any nomenklatura. They should enjoy great personal confidence and even great lawmaking powers based on that confidence. This would appear to be the only way out of the classic impotence of traditional democratic organizations, which frequently seem founded more on mistrust than mutual confidence, and more on collective irresponsibility than on responsibility. It is only with the full existential backing of every member of the community that a permanent bulwark against creeping totalitarianism can be established. These structures should naturally arise from below as a consequence of authentic social self-organization; they should derive vital energy from a living dialogue with the genuine needs from which they arise, and when these needs are gone, the structures should also disappear. The principles of their internal organization should be very diverse, with a minimum of external regulation. The decisive criterion of this self-constitution should be the structure’s actual significance, and not just a mere abstract norm.

Both political and economic life ought to be founded on the varied and versatile cooperation of such dynamically appearing and disappearing organizations. As far as the economic life of society goes, I believe in the principle of self-management, which is probably the only way of achieving what all the theorists of socialism have dreamed about, that is, the genuine (i.e., informal) participation of workers in economic decision making, leading to a feeling of genuine responsibility for their collective work. The principles of control and discipline ought to be abandoned in favor of self-control and self-discipline.

As is perhaps clear from even so general an outline, the systemic consequences of an existential revolution of this type go significantly beyond the framework of classical parliamentary democracy. Having introduced the term “post-totalitarian” for the purposes of this discussion, perhaps I should refer to the notion I have just outlined-purely for the moment-as the prospects for a “post-democratic” system.

Undoubtedly this notion could be developed further, but I think it would be a foolish undertaking, to say the least, because slowly but surely the whole idea would become alienated, separated from itself. After all, the essence of such a “post-democracy” is also that it can only develop via facts, as a process deriving directly from life, from a new atmosphere and a new spirit (political thought, of course, would play a role here, though not as a director, merely as a guide). It would be presumptuous, however, to try to foresee the structural expressions of this new spirit without that spirit actually being present and without knowing its concrete physiognomy.

[…]

I would probably have omitted the entire preceding section as a more suitable subject for private meditation were it not for a certain recurring sensation. It may seem rather presumptuous, and therefore I will present it as a question: Does not this vision of “post-democratic” structures in some ways remind one of the “dissident” groups or some of the independent citizens’ initiatives as we already know them from our own surroundings? Do not these small communities, bound together by thousands of shared tribulations, give rise to some of those special humanly meaningful political relationships and ties that we have been talking about? Are not these communities (and they are communities more than organizations) — motivated mainly by a common belief in the profound significance of what they are doing since they have no chance of direct, external success joined together by precisely the kind of atmosphere in which the formalized and ritualized ties common in the official structures are supplanted by a living sense of solidarity and fraternity? Do not these “post-democratic” relationships of immediate personal trust and the informal rights of individuals based on them come out of the background of all those commonly shared difficulties? Do not these groups emerge, live, and disappear under pressure from concrete and authentic needs, unburdened by the ballast of hollow traditions? Is not their attempt to create an articulate form of living within the truth and to renew the feeling of higher responsibility in an apathetic society really a sign of some kind of rudimentary moral reconstitution?

In other words, are not these informed, nonbureaucratic, dynamic, and open communities that comprise the “parallel polis” a kind of rudimentary prefiguration, a symbolic model of those more meaningful “post-democratic” political structures that might become the foundation of a better society?

via Bruce Sterling via Kasparov63

Filed under: posts, uncategorized Tagged: authoritarianism, democracy, dictatorship, eastasia, eurasia, freedom, oceania, politics, resistance, society, totalitarianism

[auskultu]

BOYCOTT OF SPORTS BY NEGROES ASKED

Thomas Johnson, The New York Times, 24 July 1967

NEWARK — Resolutions calling for Negro boycotts—including boycotts by athletes of international Olympic competition and professional boxing—were shouted through today at the concluding session of the First National Conference on Black Power.

The cheering delegates also adopted a black-power manifesto envisioning the establishment of future national and international black-power congresses.

After the end of the four-day conference, a report was released calling last week’s Negro riots here “the inevitable results of the criminal behavior of a society which dehumanizes people and drives men to utter distraction.”

Seek “Third Force” The report also announced a campaign to triple black representation in Congress by the election of a dozen more Negro Congressmen next year.

In addition the report said delegates had initiated steps for a black “third force” to wield “a balance of power in elections and to remove from critical positions all politicians serving to thwart or subvert black political power.”

The more than 1,100 delegates cheered through all the resolutions offered today by acclamation.

In addition to those calling for the athletes’ boycotts, the conference adopted resolutions calling for boycotting of Negro churches not committed to the “black revolution” and of Negro publications accepting advertisements for hair straighteners and bleaching creams. Turning to the military draft, the delegates—many of them in African costumes—passed by a voice vote the resolution proposed by a convention workshop chairman who shouted: “Our position is: ‘Hell, no, we won’t go!’”  Other resolutions called for the following:

Establishment of “black universities” to make “professional black revolutionaries” of “revolutionary black professionals.”

“Black national holidays” to honor such “national heroes” as the late Malcolm X, the former Muslim shot to death in New York.

Refusal to accept birth-control programs, on the basis that they seek to exterminate Negroes.

Paramilitary training for Negro youths.

Selective buying to force job upgrading and a nationwide "buy black” move.

Negro-controlled financial institutions supported by bonds, to provide for neighborhood credit unions and housing and business loans.

A ‘Split’ U. S. Suggested There was enthusiastic support for a resolution for “starting a national dialogue on the desirability of partitioning the United States into two separate nations, one white and one black.” 

Another asked for a guaranteed annual income and was accompanied by the threat of “massive efforts” to disrupt the economy.

Delegates using the word “Negro" were shouted down. “The ‘Negro’ is a white man’s creation,” one heckler yelled.

Despite the general acclaim for the proposals, some delegates could be heard wondering aloud if the enthusiasm generated at the conference could be maintained and if the highly diversified groups could genuinely work together. Others questioned whether funds could be raised to finance the central coordinating bodies that were to be set up to implement the resolutions.

The boycotts of Olympic competition and professional boxing were to protest the stripping of the heavyweight title of Cassius Clay—or Muhammad All, as he calls himself—after he had refused to be drafted into the Army. He had claimed an exemption as a Black Muslim minister.

This resolution called also for boycotts of the products of commercial sponsors of all commercial boxing matches.

Speaking in support of an over-all boycott of the boxing industry, Dick Gregory, the comedian, said: “Individual boxers are not independent. We’ve got to boycott all boxing, all fights, every sponsor on a national level. Wherever they are fighting. And only this will make them give him [Clay] back his title."

According to the manifesto, the proposed international black congress would be “organized out of the soulful roots of our peoples and reflect the new sense of power and revolution now blossoming in black communities in America and black nations throughout the world.”

The manifesto contemplated a second black power conference to establish a method of selecting delegates to the national congress.

When the proposal for a boycott of churches was been offered, one minister rose to ask the mass meeting in the grand ballroom of the Robert Treat Hotel: “Is this conference going on record as being anti-Christian?”

Several delegates were on their feet immediately, and; many shouted, “Yes!”

The black universities that were envisioned would teach; the humanities and the sciences but the emphasis would be! pro-black. As one delegate put it: “Just as black as Notre Dame is Catholic. You dig?”

Several delegates felt that the question of establishing a separate black nation—which has often been raised in the past by some nationalist groups and the Black Muslims—would never get beyond the initial talking stages. They explained that militant circles probably would choose to fight for gains within the present framework of the nation.

The delegates showed a mixed attitude toward Adam Clayton Powell, the unseated Harlem Congressman, who was listed with Dr. Nathan Wright Jr. as co-chairman of the conference but failed to appear.

Scores of delegates objected angrily when Mr. Powell’s son began speaking. Others walked out. The younger Powell, when finally allowed to speak, said his father did not return from his self-exile on Bimini in the Bahamas because he probably would have been arrested “when he set foot in Miami.”

The delegates adopted a resolution calling for censure of all Representatives in Congress who voted for Mr. Powell’s exclusion, however.

Several Harlem delegates admitted that anger over Mr. Powell's failure to return had been brewing in his constituency for several months.

“You saw what happened to his son—if he stays away much longer, it will happen to the big man himself,” a delegate predicted.