On the dangerous trail to dystopia

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.

Adam Smith

 Just tonight, the major television networks refused, refused, to interrupt their broadcast for fifteen minutes so that the President could give a speech about illegal immigrants. They did not refuse for moral reasons but financial ones as November is a ratings sweep. Nielsen points would not be traded so that the President could explain that his next actions were to keep families together while Congress continues it's self-imposed gridlock. Neither side of Congress wants to deal with this issue, because if illegal immigrants are granted a path to citizenship, then the businesses that own the politicians would be forced to pay not only a living wage to these humans, but taxes as well.

And the headlines coming out of Ferguson, MO are being ignored. Worse, when they are not there is bitter division. When did peaceful protest become such a horrible thing? Yes, there has been violence, but the majority of it has come from those meant to protect. Humans have become expendable.

I find it interesting the people have read the Hunger Games and seen the movies, yet are clearly unable to see that that dystopian horror is not a dream, yet a reality that the United States is slipping into. The division between rich and poor grows at an alarming rate, yet few are bothered by it. Worse many view the ones most affected by the divide with increasing disdain, just as they view the protesters in Ferguson.

The cyclical nature of history has taught us nothing. This is the Roman Empire again. This is Nazi Germany again. This is the Soviet Union again. Google wants to build it's own cities. And still the people do not rise up against it. They are still "sheeple". They do not realize that these businesses are fearful of them finding a voice. One book had the power to make McDonald's start to faulter. Imagine what a hundred million voices could accomplish? But will it happen?

There must come a point where even the most fastidious of sheeple realizes that the politician one votes for really does not give a damn about them. That to affect political change one must have an affect on the profits of the corporations that control the politicians. That is the only way change can happen. Only way.

Communism (Marxism) is not Socialism

Now that the political bloodbath is over in the US, I feel it is time to set the record straight, so to speak, as to what socialism is versus what communism is. The reason for this is because my "conservative" friends use the terms interchangeably.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, have vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of the co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe upon its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

(K. Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme)

Marx believed that capitalism creates the proletariat class, who have nothing to sell but their labor. For a socialist state to happen, the proletariat must take power violently from those in command of the capitalist state. This is not a peaceful revolution. New classes win power through violent revolution. There is not a peaceful change in ideology. Most recent example would be the fall of the Soviet Union.

Those to claim that the democrats in office are now building a socialist state are wholeheartedly wrong. What they are witnessing is simple democracy and the whim of the people. It is the nature of democracy and a capitalistic society.

Communism evolves from socialism, according to Marx. Communist society is a classless society. Marx: Communism, which evolves peacefully from socialism, is a classless society under which the state will wither away. Socialist society is a classed society, albeit one without bourgeoisie society.

Politics: duty, religion, and/or the masses?

A minister friend of mine was asked about the recent US election and the disappointment voiced by those who put their faith in their version of a god and saw their candidate lose. He was asked how people in this situation should react. It got me thinking about the political process and the philosophical implications behind it.

The two predominant philosophies are either a) do what is best for the most (Bentham, Mill) or b) do what is best for duty to the most (Hegel, Kant). Very similar and the subtle differences is where the argument begins. Neither assumes any religiosity but I will attempt to interject that position as well (to satisfy the above).

In the first case, the argument is that politics should reflect what is the best for the most people possible. Some would argue that this is a derivation of Socialism, and without minutiae it is. But this in no way suggests that the result of an election represent this in any way. Popular vote does not equal beneficial for the most. What would would be a person elected who has the primary task of determining what the largest group needs and then providing it. In no way does this reflect the idea that the will of the people does the most good.

What is lost here is the subtle implications of what "beneficial to most" really means. In Nazi Germany it meant what benefitted the Aryan people the most. Under the Holy Roman Empire, Catholics (the minority) were those who benefited the most. Both cases the true meaning of "most" is lost. In this case is where religion intercedes and determines not only who the "most" is, but how they would best be benefited. In short, it is a facade concealing a dictatorship.

The second case seems the most obvious, until one argues what a duty is. Kant wrote his magnum opus on just that question, as did Kant. And yet to this day the argument of what is "duty" is still unanswered. To use the Holy Roman Empire example, the duty of a person was to attend mass, tithe, and follow the edicts of the Church. This duty was one proscribed by "god". But while the Empire was in command of vast areas, those who were Catholic were in the actual minority. What then of the veracity of duty?

To borrow from Rorty's public/private language construct, if a group of serial killers and a group of suicidal people were to form their own country, then the duty would be clearly defined as the killers would kill those who wished to die. Of course this is a ludicrous example, but it does serve to illustrate the ambiguity of the concept of "duty".

How then to resolve? If one discounts duty as being illogical and best for all as impossible, then the only solution is to follow Nietzsche's solution to eternal recurrence: to do whatever one wishes that is outside what is expected. To be who one wishes to be without law or deference to others. It is the base concept behind his Zarathustra.

The argument goes that religion and duty only serve to shackle a person and since one is bound to live the same life for eternity, in order to not be a slave, one must cast the shackles off at every opportunity. Proto-anarchy. It is not pure anarchy, which is completely lawless. One still follows the laws that are beneficial to oneself, ones that would benefit all lifetimes for eternity. In this regard one incurs Existential angst, but the benefit outweighs the cost.