‘Revolution’ might be sexy and hype but our lives are shaped by counter-revolution.
Ilie Badescu, PhD

Marx, Karl Marx, is considered the quintessential revolutionary philosopher.

Ilie Badescu – a Romanian Professor of Sociology, proud of his reactionary convictions – makes a very poignant argument. ‘We live in counter-revolutionary times. Almost always. After each revolution, whatever was changed during the upheaval has been mitigated by the survivors to fit with the existing circumstances.’

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote this in the first half of the XIX-th century. During quite revolutionary times… Or rather?!?

‘The communist ideas have not been invented or discovered by this or that would-be universal reformer’…

Those familiar with the history of communism know – or should – that both Marx and Engels had been born and raised in Prussia. At that time, until 1848, Prussia was run as an absolute monarchy.
Engels came from a wealthy merchant family who owned textile factories in both Barmen, Prussia, and Salford, England.
Marx was born into a well off family. His father, Heinrich, owned a number of vineyards and was an attorney. Eventually, after an engagement spanning 7 years, Marx married the educated daughter of a liberal aristocrat, but not before befriending his future father-in-law.

Neither had any blue-collar experience. Yet they co-authored the Communist Manifesto…

Things – every’thing’, actually – are/is relative.
Relative to the agent evaluating each of those things
.
Accordin’ to Einstein, that is.
He was the one who taught us to use whatever reference frame suits our needs.

Do you reckon anybody wasted any time or energy thinking about freedom before the advent of slavery?
Me neither.
Forget about the fact that, in those times, people didn’t have much time left for abstract thinking. Finding food and enjoying it with friends kind of drains your energy when you have to do it yourself… The point being that, in those times, everybody was free. Hence ‘had’ nothing to compare freedom with… No lack of freedom, no reason to speak/think about it.
No reason to notice the thing and no reason to coin the concept…

Hunter-gatherers have no use for ‘property’. Personal objects are just that and everything else either belongs to Mother Nature or to the entire group. And this goes without saying. Or thinking about it. People share everything as a matter of fact and common sense discourages the others to use anybody’s personal objects unless in an emergency.
Agriculture – either herding animals or growing crops – changed everything. Property, both as a concept and as an everyday manner of dealing with ‘things’, was invented and introduced in daily use. Productivity increased dramatically. Which made it possible for people to have ‘spare time’. For thinking.
And for planning…

‘The neighbors have better crops. Let’s go take some for us. And while we’re at it, let’s take some of their women too’.
The first slave was probably the first person to long for freedom…

‘Cheap’ slave work coupled with the increased social productivity induced by a markedly improved technology for obtaining food meant that some individuals could afford the luxury of thinking.
The Ancient Athenians had both slaves and philosophers. The slaves did whatever was needed to be done while some of the ‘beneficiaries’ had enough time, and energy, to let their minds ‘free’. To roam free in search for meaning.
To coin the concept and to explore freedom…

Relative “To whom”? To us!
We’re responsible for freedom and freedom is relative to us.
We have invented it. We’re the ones using it. In the sense that we’re the ones who need to notice that freer communities fare a lot better than the less free.

So freedom is relative both to those thinking about it and to each particular community.
To each particular community which puts freedom into practice!

The answer you get depends on the question you try to answer…

“To see Steve Lazarides, Banksy’s former manager, tag his creative genius by staging an unsanctioned exhibit, complete with a souvenir shop, is the greed Banksy graffitied against,” Chapman responded by email. “I can only await his response – and I envision a large mural featuring a rat with a human face.”

‘Art’s uneasy alliance with capitalism’…
‘the greed Bansky graffitied against’!

I gather from Chapman’s words that Bansky has a grudge with greed, not necessarily with capitalism itself.
And I wonder how ‘art’ and ‘capitalism’ may ever enter into an alliance. However uneasy…

Both art and capitalism are, first and foremost, concepts.
On a more practical level, both can be construed as ‘places’.
Art is the place where people so inclined ‘do their thing’.
Capitalism is a social arrangement. The current manner in which most social organisms – nations, in modern parlance – run their economies. Organize the constant exchange between them, nations, and their environment. As well as the economic relations which exist between the individual members of each society.

OK, artists do need to eat… to wear clothes, to use a shelter… Artists are involved in the economic life of the society at large. So artists do have capitalist ties with the rest of the world. Organic ties, not agentic ones. The artists’ need to eat does not depend on their will. Only their greed, in as much as they allow that sentiment to manifest itself.

Which brings us back to Bansky…
I understand from Chapman’s words that Bansky has a grudge against greed!
Which is fine by me…

Some other people, quite a few, have developed a grudge against capitalism itself.
Google ‘anti capitalist art’.
Click ‘images’.
Most of the ideas present there are valid. Many of those yielding a lot of power, a lot of ‘capitalist power’, do behave badly. Are too greedy. Disrespectful. Towards other people and towards the environment.
But should we toss the baby out with the dirty bath water?

Consequences.
We are the consequences of the decisions we take.
Of the choices we make.

As biological organisms, our fate, both individually and as a species, depends on whether circumstances remain habitable. Whether we can continue to live.

As rational humans, our individual destinies depend on luck, genes and on our ability to make good decisions.

‘Good’ decisions!
The tricky part being that nobody knows in advance the consequences of our decisions… whether a decision we consider to be good – when we take it – will remain so after its consequences will have been evaluated. After enough time will have passed for the full gamut of consequences to unfold…

To make things easier, humanity has developed ‘culture’.
Layered information which has morphed into ‘Weltanshauung’. Experience distilled into knowledge and accrued in time. Advice we no longer need to ask, only to remember.
When in a hurry, we do as we always used to. Back to the tried and tested.

But there’s a small problem here.
The cultural norms might have been ‘tried and tested’, hence ‘right’, but are we applying the appropriate norm in the given circumstances? Have we interpreted whatever information we have in the right way?

Ukraine is at war. Resisting aggression against all odds. Despite some of those in power attempting to access ‘undeserved rewards’. Unfortunately, war profiteering and corruption are as old as civilization…

Earlier this week, NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine) and SAPO (Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office) said top company officials demanded illicit commissions of 10-15% from contractors.
The corruption allegations center on contracts linked to Energoatom, which provides most of Ukraine’s electricity.
According to investigators, an organized criminal group laundered the funds through an office in central Kyiv linked to the family of former lawmaker and suspected traitor Andriy Derkach. Among those named in the case was then-Energy Minister and later Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/64185

How do we choose to evaluate the current development?

As yet another step in the right direction? A country at war cleaning up its act?

Or…

Further more, what will we choose to DO?… after we will have chosen an interpretation to fit our ‘general disposition’… ’cause, unfortunately again, this is how we tend to evaluate things! Specially when we’re not diligent enough. Allow our ‘general disposition’ to take over and permit our reason to cowardly back off …

Help Ukraine to defend itself? And the rest of Europe? Freedom in general!
Or give up? On Ukraine, on cultural norms which seemed set in stone until not so long ago…

“How is capitalism better than socialism and communism?”

First of all, capitalism, socialism and communism are four different things.
Socialism, per se, is two things.
Funny, right?

There is the democratic socialism. A social arrangement where ‘nobody is left behind’ and where the economy is run according to capitalist principles.
And there is the ‘stepping stone’ socialism. The ‘prep class’ a Marxist society was supposed to graduate from before acceding to communism. In fact, the former USSR – as well as all the other former ‘communist’ countries had never reached that stage. Stepping stone socialism is something nobody has yet been able to graduate from.

‘Stepping stone’ socialism and communism are bad. For the simple reason that both are authoritarian regimes. Run by a small group of people according to their own whims. Pretending to mind the best interests of the entire people but, in reality and like all other dictatorships, minding exclusively their own businesses.

Capitalism? Nazi Germany was capitalist. Not good. Because it was Nazi…

‘Capitalism’, the entire gamut covered by the blanket term, is neither good nor bad. People collaborating using capitalist principles can reach for the stars – literally – while people obsessed with amassing money will, eventually, end up in a cul de sac. Remember what happened in 2008?
Free market capitalism, run by a democratic society, makes wonders. The USA until 2008, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea after they had regained their freedom, W. Europe. Great Britain.
The problem with free-market capitalism being the freedom of the market. In order to make wonders, the market must remain functionally free. Free from obsessions, free from monopolies, free from political heavy handed interventions. And equipped with a sturdy social safety net. The US used to have one. W. Germany also. Unfortunately, that kind of capitalism is very hard to find nowadays… Too many oligopolies have cornered too much of the former free market and too many safety nets have been transformed into pampering devices for dependent people. Some of whom are already rich!

We’re currently experiencing a tug-of-war.
Frustrated people have been harnessed to pull in diametrically opposed directions.
Some have somehow been convinced that the free market should be allowed to become a MMA cage. A no holds barred free for all fighting place. And what if the whole thing will eventually be dominated by your local bully? We’ll deal with that if/when it will happen.
Others have been duped to believe that capitalism is bad. That usury is not an abuse but the defining characteristic of capitalism. Hence a compelling reason for capitalism to be rejected lot, stock and barrel!

OK, for the sake of the argument, let’s look for a replacement. A replacement for Adam Smith’s capitalism.

Let me remind you that bona fide socialism relies on redistributing wealth created using capitalist principles.
That stepping stone socialism is a mockery. An undercover capitalism where all significant property is owned by the state. Where all decisions are made by the government. By the revolutionary government which pretends to know better, as advertised by Marx. Karl, not Groucho.
And that ‘real communism’ is nothing more than a thought experiment! Wouldn’t it be nice if? Yes, it might have been nice if the practical aspects of the whole thing didn’t prevent those who have tried it from reaching their goals.

Până la urmă, copiii vin cu un nivel de inteligență și un nivel de creativitate normale, ca să spun așa. Este treaba profesorilor ca, pornind pe o normalitate, copiilor să le transferi acele competențe.
N-ai pe cine să pui responsabilitatea decât pe cadrele didactice.

Aici este loc pentru o discuție cât se poate de ‘generoasă’.

Despre distanța dintre cauze și responsabilitate…

Fenomenul alfabetismului disfuncțional are multe cauze.
Doar că nu putem aloca responsabilitate în altă parte decât pe umerii profesorilor.
Nota bene, pe casta profesorilor! Nu pe fiecare dintre profesori.

Și hai să mai facem o distincție. Între cei responsabili și cei care trag consecințele.
Noi, întreaga societate, tragem ponoasele unei educații deficitare. Suntem și responsabili pentru situația în care ne aflăm?

Da, din punct de vedere practic. Noi tragem ponoasele, noi trebuie să facem ceva pentru a remedia deficiențele.
Nu prea, din punct de vedere teoretic. Responsabilitatea implică cunoaștere. ‘Ar fi trebuit să știi.’ ‘Era treaba ta să știi, așa că ești responsabil pentru ce a ieșit!’

Fiecare dintre noi și societatea în ansamblu știm câte ceva. Fiecare dintre noi știe să-și facă meseria iar societatea în ansamblu știe – sau ar trebui să știe, ce ne învață mamele noastre în cei 7 ani de-acasă. Să nu furăm, să dăm bună-ziua, să fim conștiincioși! Societatea, în ansamblul ei, nu se pricepe la mare lucru. Ăsta fiind motivul pentru care există diviziunea socială a muncii…
Cei care ar trebui să știe care e treaba cu educația sunt… „cadrele didactice”. Corpul profesoral!

Ca societate, avem altceva de discutat. Cum am ajuns în situația asta? De ce dă greș funcția socială cunoscută sub numele de „educație”. Corpul profesoral este demotivat, deprofesionalizat sau ambele la un loc? De ce? De ce sunt atât de slabe rezultatele muncii lor? De ce acționează ca și cum ar fi lipsiti de responsabilitate?
Repet, toate considerațiile de mai sus se referă la întreaga categorie. Avem profesori dedicați, cu rezultate de excepție. Cu rezultate excepționale care asta sunt. Excepții… Per total, rezultatele obținute de sistem lasă mult de dorit!

Un foarte bun exemplu pentru deriva în care se află sistemul este chiar termenul folosit pentru a descrie fenomenul. „Analfabetism funcțional” este o calchiere din limba engleză. În nici un caz o traducere!
Conform logicii limbii române, un analfabet funcțional este o persoană care se descurcă, care FUNCȚIONEAZĂ, cu toate că nu știe să citească. Produsele sistemului românesc de educație știu să citească dar nu înțeleg ce citesc. NU funcționează! Suferă de alfabetism disfuncțional…

Nu putem administra un tratament eficient înainte de a formula un diagnostic corect!

Era să uit.
Tot ca societate, mai e o chestie care ar trebui să ne macine. La care avem nevoie să găsim răspuns…
Copiii noștri nu prea mai sunt interesați să învețe.
Vă las pe voi să puneți semnul. Ne întrebăm, ne mirăm, dăm vina tot pe profesori…

Nu te lupta cu porcul în noroi.
Tu obosești iar lui îi place
.

Cele două zicători de mai sus sunt adevărate dar incomplete.
Trebuie interpretate.
Iar interpretările, precum toate celelalte ‘prelucrări mentale’, depind de dispoziția generală a interpretului precum și de implicarea sa emoțională în subiectul supus ‘prelucrării’.

Un om tracasat de frecușurile zilnice și fără prea multă dispoziție de a se mai gândi la altceva decât la ziua de mâine le va lua ca pe un îndemn să stea în banca lui. Că e prea greu să schimbi ceva și, oricum, doar unui nebun i-ar păsa de chestia asta. Nebunul fiind floarea care răsare ‘peste rând’.
Cineva puțin mai curajos și care, pe indiferent ce cale, a priceput că ‘așa nu se mai poate’, vede aspectele practice ale situației.

‘Dacă chiar vrei să te iei la trântă cu porcul, ia un furtun cu apă. Dă noroiul jos de pe el. Împinge-l undeva unde e curat. Și mai cheamă câțiva oameni să te ajute!’

Corupția, căci despre ea e vorba în propoziție, e de două feluri.
‘Inițială’ și ‘de etapă’.

Regimul comunist a fost corupt de la început.
Prin definiție.
Orice revoluție este o ‘rupere’ a ceea ce a fost până atunci. Violentă prin natura ei, are ca rezultat punerea în practică a dorințelor revoluționarilor. Urmată, mai devreme sau mai târziu de o contrarevoluție. Manifestă sau aproape nevăzută, contrarevoluția echilibrează, măcar într-o oarecare măsură, dorințele revoluționarilor cu realitatea practică.
Cu alte cuvinte, orice proces revoluționar – duetul revoluție, contrarevoluție – constă în două straturi de corupție. În prima fază este coruptă, violent, realitatea pre-existentă iar în a doua etapă sunt corupte, în foarte mare parte, intențiile revoluționarilor. A două fază poate fi la fel de violentă ca prima sau atât de molcomă încât trece neobservată. Vezi contra-revoluția ce a urmat Revoluția Franceză și procesul lent care a dus la prăbușirea tuturor regimurilor comuniste.

Există și o corupție de etapă.
Chiar și în regimurile care funcționează cu adevărat, în cele democratice, apar perioade de criză. Crize economice, crize produse de agresiuni externe, crize apărute ca urmare a auto-suficienței… Fiecare dintre aceste crize sunt ferestre de oportunitate pentru cei cu porniri corupte. Societatea, în ansamblul ei, este prea ocupată să facă față crizei și neglijează, pentru o vreme, fenomenul corupției. Până când consecințele corupției încep să pună în pericol însăși supraviețuirea societății. Care societate – vorbesc aici despre modul în care funcționează organismul social, nu despre supraviețuirea fizică a locuitorilor – va continua doar în măsura în care sistemul ei imunitar – adică justiția sprijinită, măcar moral, de suficient de mulți dintre locuitori – reușeste să readucă corupția la un nivel supraviețuibil.

În paranteză fiind spus, ‘eradicarea corupției’ este o lozincă goală. E ca și cum ți-ai propune să interzici strănutul în public… Poți doar să le ceri oamenilor ca atunci când le vine să strănute să o facă în plica cotului sau în batistă. Și să se abțină când le vine să fie corupți. Sau să corupă pe alții. Iar pe cei care nu se abțin să-i bagi la pușcărie…

Corupția din România actuală are trei mari surse.
Corupția inițială. Am fost singura țară din estul Europei unde prăbușirea comunismului a avut un caracter revoluționar. Corupția din timpul regimului comunist nu a fost suficient de puternică încât să ducă la disoluția completă a regimului. A fost nevoie de un grup de revoluționari care să rupă gura târgului. Care să servească de catalizator al nemulțumirii populare. Care grup de revoluționari a reușit, în mare măsură, să-și pună pecetea asupra destinului post-comunist al României. Urmată, în mod firesc, de o corupere contra-revoluționară a intențiilor originale.
O corupție de origine ‘externă’. Adică din afara aparatului de stat. Corupția inițială fiind, de la început, adăpostită în chiar trupul statului. Și aici am să citez un specialist. „„Să ieşim din ipocrizie. Dacă există corupţie, singur statul nu poate fi corupt, are un partener. Statul nu poate fi singur neperformant. Are un partener şi acesta este economia privată”, a susţinut preşedintele Băsescu”. Decembrie 2011.
Și o corupție de etapă. Care vine, de fapt, încă de pe vremea fanarioților. Cei care aveau de unde îi mituiau pe cei aflați la putere pentru a fi lăsați în pace. Obicei care s-a perpetuat până în zilele noastre. Omul de rând care dă bacșis medicului care nu-i cere face acest lucru. Preotul care face o mare donație pentru episcopie înainte de a primi parohie. Angajatul – la stat – care ‘se simte’… toate astea fac parte din obișnuință. Că acest obicei a fost întărit de cei care obișnuit să primească… e tot o consecință culturală. Un obicei care vine din istorie.

Ce vreau să spun cu chestia asta?

Mai țineți minte promisiunile care i-au convins pe cetățeni să voteze Convenția Democratică în 1996?

„Presedintele Emil Constantinescu a declarat (în Decembrie 1997) ca cei 15.000 de specialisti pe care CDR ii anunta in campania electorala exista, dar ca au refuzat, dintr-un motiv sau altul, sa-si asume responsabilitati. Constantinescu a participat la primul Congres National al membrilor seniori ai Ligii Studentilor, purtind un dialog direct, timp de trei ore, cu liderii de dupa 1989 ai studentilor. El i-a indrumat pe cei prezenti sa “penetreze” in administratia locala si sa sprijine procesul de inlaturare a structurilor birocratice si greoaie.”

Ar fi păcat să repetăm experiența.
Oana Gheorghiu a spus prezent!

Sunt două diferențe între România și celelalte țări/economii menționate în tabel.
Una mică, dar fundamentală, și alta uriașă.

Datoria publică a României este mică. Doar 55% din PIB. Bine, mare parte din banii ăia au fost cheltuiți aiurea dar… măcar ne-am ridicat nivelul de trai. Am văzut și noi cum e să trăim bine. Mai bine…
Avem pentru ce să tragem.

Cealaltă diferență, aia uriașă, e un fel de pară mălăiață în capul lui Nătăfleță.
Stă să ne cadă în brațe și noi ne cam ferim de ea…

Altfel spus, suntem martorii și victimele luptei dintre lăcomie și prostie!

Pentru motive care nu nu au nici o legătură cu vre-un merit de-al nostru – UE are nevoie ca România să rămână un pol de stabilitate – Matușa Europa a pregătit o grămada de bani pe care vrea să ne-o toarne în poală.
Dar vrea și ea niște chestii de banii ăștia!

Principala condiție?
Să mai închidem robinetul! Să nu mai aruncăm atât de mulți bani pe geam…
Bine, nu chiar tot deficitul ăla a fost cheltuit aiurea… Doar partea aia care nu a produs mare lucru. Doar șpăgile electorale decartate anul trecut și ‘decât’ banii sifonați din bugetul statului de către ‘interesele speciale’.

Din punct de vedere practic, UE ne mituiește să ne reducem deficitul.
Iar noi vrem să luăm cât mai mult și să dăm cât mai puțin înapoi! Adică să reducem cât mai puțin din deficit…
Ne dorim banii europeni dar visăm – unii dintre noi – să împărțim în continuare tot felul de subvenții ‘clienților politici’.

Bănuiesc că e clar în ce constă prostia genului ăsta de lăcomie!

Nota bene.
Radu Georgescu nu se hazardează să facă vre-un ‘pronostic’.
Ne promite un ‘festival’.
Dar nu ne spune cum se va termina…
Pentru că nu are de unde să știe! Ce ne hotărâm noi să facem…

Poate ne vine mintea la cap!


And the LORD God said,
Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

After learning godlike skills – after becoming a conscious human being, that is – man has set his sights on the next target.
Apportioning blame. Finding culprits. The only way forward, right? Bulldoze the obstacles away, lose the dead weight and you’ll get there a lot faster.
Where? Where is that elusive ‘there’? We’ll find out about the place when we’ll get there!

If we’ll get there… If we’ll ever get anywhere with that attitude, for that matter!

Researching for this post, I came across Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity.

First things first.
Bonhoeffer was a German theologian who happened to come of age right when Hitler was confiscating political power in Germany. Even though Bonhoeffer belonged to a church which denounced violence, even in self defense, Bonhoeffer eventually joined a conspiracy trying to assassinate the dictator.
“Here the law is being broken, violated,” he deplored. It might be true that “the commandment is broken out of dire necessity,” but to say he broke the commandment of necessity is still to say he broke the commandment. Rather than pretend this was some positive moral good, Bonhoeffer instead threw himself at God’s feet and begged forgiveness for the sin he could not but commit.

In his writings, Bonhoeffer was abundantly clear.

The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like, that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
‘Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what ‘the people’ really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly.


The key concept here, as I read Bonhoeffer’s work, is that external liberation must come first. As a precondition for the ‘internal liberation’. For a shackled individual, reaching a peaceful state of mind is almost impossible. And since nobody can exercise their will in a free manner unless their mind is ‘level’….
Further more, in order to learn one needs an open mind. A free, level and open mind. And being able/willing to learn is the only road out of ‘stupid-land’. The only way to overcome the ‘what I already know is plenty’ attitude.
Only a free individual can choose to independently examine the facts. A shackled one will almost always give up. And accept whatever official version is being shoveled down their throat.

And here’s the catch.
In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like, that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being.

Having grown up, and being socialized, under a communist regime – somewhat different but not entirely from the nazism experienced by Bonhoeffer – I understand how it is to live under symbolical duress. Under a constant deluge of lies. Which were meant to effectively shackle us. Not to educate but to condition us.
During that time, I had also noticed the deluge was poured by intellectuals. The very people who were supposed to do the exact opposite. To enlighten us. To elevate the willing people to the ‘next level’. Teachers, writers, artists … and even clergy. Not all the intellectuals were involved in this process but all those used by the dictating party to destroy both our external and internal freedom did belong to the intellectual caste.

Communism and nazism had been somewhat ‘natural’ occurrences.
Ruthless political operators – evil people, in Bonhoeffer’s words – have noticed an opportunity – the existence of economically distressed people – and used their ‘knowledge of words’ to ideologically shackle those people to symbolical totem-posts.

What is currently going on is akin to a suicide of sorts.
We might believe those who had instated communism and fascism had good intentions. Misguided – to say the least, according to the horrible results attained by those regimes, but well intended naive individuals.
Nowadays, after having already experienced those episodes, we should be threading very carefully…
The same level of popular dissatisfaction, the same level of finger-pointing, of frustration… everything stirred up and brought to paroxysm by the same kind of manipulation.
Propaganda spun by the same kind of callous intellectuals as those involved in the advent of communism and fascism. I call them callous because this time they should know better. It is their job to know these things. For it is the intellectuals who are supposed, according to their social role, to “know good and evil”.

This is why I cringe every time I see/hear/read an intellectual who blames the ‘stupid people’ for what’s going on.
Blaming the ‘others’ for things they have done unwittingly is a huge error. For one simple reason.
It’s self defeating. And, hence, treasonous!
We all, both the ‘stupid’ and the rest of us, need to liberate ourselves. From the “slogans, catchwords and the like, that have” been used to shackle us, all of us, into a state of ideological prostration.

We blame them. They blame us. And those who have planned all this cannot believe how successful they have been.
But for the very shortest of times…
Social uniformity begets ‘morass’. Like water, a society needs to flow in order to remain reasonably clean. To remain functional.
Communism, artificial equality, brings everything to a stand-still.
On the other hand, too much social disparity, too much power concentrated in a very small number of hands while the rest are reduced to a state of prostration, begets revolution. Like a body of water perched on a cliff wanting to climb down, a strung up society will, eventually, find ‘relief’. Sometimes explosively.
It is the intellectuals who need to figure this out. For it is them who fare worst under all dictatorial regimes. Regardless of anything a dictator might promise.

In the 1970s, Carlo Cipolla, a social psychologist, developed FIVE LAWS OF STUPIDITY. The term itself, he said, wasn’t a description of intellectual acuity, but of social responsibility. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person, or to a group of persons, while deriving no gain for himself, and possibly incurring losses. Cases in which someone takes an action by which both parties gained, was deemed intelligent.

Cipolla’s words are correct. But incomplete.
Even if the individual who causes losses to others people do it for personal gain, their endeavor is still stupid! Because that ‘thing’ is unsustainable! People taking advantage of other people leads the whole party into a dead-end.
Adam Smith was describing ‘the butcher, the brewer and the baker working for their own personal interest and so driving forward the entire market/society’. The entire society!
Indeed! Only those people were working together!
Not each of them against all others! Those who tried to con their business partners were thrown away!That was the essence of Adam Smith’s free market!
The freedom enjoyed by everybody. The freedom from being swindled.

Do you feel free?


And the Truth shall set you free.

Heidegger, the philosopher, has an interesting take on this ‘truth’ thing.
Nobody does, and never will, know everything about anything. Lest of all about ‘everything’. Hence nobody has access to a ‘true’ piece of knowledge.
Furthermore, ‘truth’ is about communication. About a message. An expressed piece of knowledge. And since there is no language precise enough to allow a communicator to cram into a message all they want to express… nor precise enough to allow a ‘reader’ to figure out everything the communicator had attempted to express…
Which drives Heidegger to posit that truth depends on intent. On a communicator sharing honestly everything they know about a subject. On a communicator allowing the receiver of the message to reach their own conclusion.

I ended my previous post by mentioning the ‘fairy tales’ our ancestors have spun in order to ease their ‘passage into the great unknown’. Thus making their lives bearable. Enjoyable, even.
In those times, ‘the truth’ – the unconcealed truth, in Heidegger’s terms – was that nothing made sense. That life itself was a meaningless joke. As a Romanian saying goes, ‘life resembles a hair from the private parts of the body. Short and full of shit…’
I’m not going to make a historical inventory of the various fairy tales the humankind has used to lullaby itself into accepting life as it used to be. Enough to say that they, the fairy tales, did the trick. Helped us reach the present stage.

I’m going to make a break here.
And notice that any, or even all, of those fairy tales might, eventually, be proven as being true. No matter how improbable this might be. I’m not an atheist. I just don’t know whether a god, or more, do exist.
What I do know is that, by their own admission, all of those stories have been spun by people.
Each of those stories is about what the original ‘spinner’ saw fit to communicate on the subject.
And the better stories, those who made more sense in the particular circumstances where they had survived, made it up to the present.
Helped the respective believers to survive. Helped some of them to thrive, even.

Now, today, we need to make up our minds.
Accept that our consciences are works in progress.
That consciousness is a space caught up in an accelerating evolution. A cauldron of sorts.
That each of those ‘fairy tales’ was useful in its own time. That the need to mitigate our cognitive dissonances continues to exist.
That we’re responsible for our future. Nothing new here.
And that there’s no one to save us. Not now. Or after we will have fucked up everything.


The ‘Truth’ being that ‘Give me Liberty or give me Death’ was a very effective call at arms.
On the face of it, on the ‘logical front’, it doesn’t make much sense.
‘Death’ was, and continues to be, inexorable. Why, for the sake of ‘liberty’, jeopardize the few precious moments left to be experienced as a living creature? Specially when, according to the lore considered valid when Patrick Henry had uttered the words, a second life was going to open just ‘after’…
‘The Devil is in the details’!
The belief in the ‘after-world’ works both ways. It encourages the freedom-fighters to take risks – believing they will get their reward ‘afterwards’ – and encourages the prudent to endure. Believing that they will get also get their reward ‘afterwards’.

Now, that I’ve ‘spilled it out’, I must confess that I’ve successfully convinced myself.
I’ve rationalized, according to my standards, my belief that it’s our responsibility.
To understand and accept that we’re responsible for the consequences we’re leaving for those coming after us.
I don’t know what we should do. I’m no prophet.
But I do know what we shouldn’t.
You do too!