The world forever changes often before our minds can fully grasp the implications. Circumstances change and people change, yet many cling to an outmoded view of themselves and the world. Grasping the reality of one's situation can be painful. "Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, from Crime and Punishment. Large numbers, perhaps even the majority of people have applied their energies and talents to avoiding change; they labour, moment by moment, day by day, to construct and dwell within what passes for normalcy. And in addition there are powerful interests which want to keep us at one another’s throats rather than working together.
We humans are by nature social creatures, even the most introverted of us, and we tend to trust and follow the thinking of the groups with which we identify. Some of these groups are small and select, our drinking buddies in our "local". Others groups are bigger but still rather specific, fellow union members. Still others are larger yet, “imagined communities” like Scotland or Great Britain. Others are transnational, like Christianity or Islam (also imagined communities). Our groups define “us” and exert powerful influence on how we think, even how we feel, and how we behave in society. If there is an "us" then by definition there also must be a "them". These are the ones not in our group. They may not be hostile to "us"; we may even be favourably and peacefully disposed to them. In that case we will be friendly when we meet them; in fact, we may even invite them to join us at the bar and buy them a drink. We may also even actively want to seek to make them part of “us.” - to recruit or convert them. But, nevertheless, most groups see some as very much outsiders. These are members of other groups that believe things or advocate things that our group opposes. They are the enemy. In fact, many groups are formed specifically in opposition to another group, and thus are defined precisely by their competition or conflict with “Them.” It is now a case of “us” and “them” and there can be nothing but implacable hostility. We take “us and them” for granted and fail to reflect upon the implications for everybody when our political masters to achieve and maintain power turn “us against them”.
It's sadly been a primary tactic employed by rulers or would be rulers through history. Colonialists constructed “us" and "them” categories called races. In the current the industrial era, factory owners have pitted “us against them” to divide workers so that they would not organise unions, pitting "us" against "them" -- to gain and keep power and to implement policies that a clear majority dislikes, but cannot find any effective way to change. We cannot correct corrupt policies that benefit only the powerful few because our society is fragmented into rival competing groups of "us" and "them". Too many of us care more about the beliefs and agendas of our particular group than the common threats to all groups. Of course we console ourselves that our primary loyalty is to ALL humanity; that our group is not exclusive; that WE are trying to make the world better for everybody but we cannot because of THEM. If the truth is to be told, when we actually confront the difficult task of finding common ground between "us" and "them", we tend to give up the task rather quickly. Sometimes it just seems easier to fight “them” than try to break through our differences in order to build a more democratic and humane political system for everybody. Some of us even fear that if we sit down at the table to make peace with “them,” the very reason for our group’s existence will dissolve and we would no longer know who we are. That a few individuals could possess as much wealth as the rest of us, and that the government would protect their right to keep it, would be unimaginable in any other context.
Our fragmentation is a barrier to effective political action that would move us toward a more democratic reality. There are so many different varieties of "us" and "them"—that forging a cohesive majority seems all but a hopeless pipe-dream. We need to learn new ways of relating together as "us" and "them". Nobody has the time and energy to be deeply invested in everything, and we each choose our own place to fight. The only common denominator is our class and by our emancipation from wage-slavery we dare to imagine that our world could be more peaceful, more just, and healthier if we could change the economic system. But change it to what? Have we really dared to imagine what a new system would look like, or are we so intently focused on the advancement of our own particular individual agendas that we do not ask that fundamental question? The fundamental question need to be raised, because what we imagine—no matter how undeveloped it may be—influences the way that we act and the choices that we make every day. Nothing is more immediately practical and political than imagination. What sort of society do we imagine? Have you ever wondered what we might do if we ever managed to get enough votes to control Parliament. Do we even have the foggiest notion of what sort of society we would like to create?
Socialism can be described as a community of communities, separate but equal communities. Imagining a "us" does not mean leaving our separate groups/communities behind, but finding ways of living together. It is crucial that members of every group come to see that what we hold in common is far more vital than what differentiates us. Those powerful political and economic interests that want to keep us fragmented and at one another’s throats rather than working together to establish an inclusive democracy will do all they can to stir up continued discord between groups to defeat our aspirations for meaningful change. Can workers at least agree that we will stop doing their job for them and cease thinking in terms of "us" and "them"?
Radically adapted from here
We humans are by nature social creatures, even the most introverted of us, and we tend to trust and follow the thinking of the groups with which we identify. Some of these groups are small and select, our drinking buddies in our "local". Others groups are bigger but still rather specific, fellow union members. Still others are larger yet, “imagined communities” like Scotland or Great Britain. Others are transnational, like Christianity or Islam (also imagined communities). Our groups define “us” and exert powerful influence on how we think, even how we feel, and how we behave in society. If there is an "us" then by definition there also must be a "them". These are the ones not in our group. They may not be hostile to "us"; we may even be favourably and peacefully disposed to them. In that case we will be friendly when we meet them; in fact, we may even invite them to join us at the bar and buy them a drink. We may also even actively want to seek to make them part of “us.” - to recruit or convert them. But, nevertheless, most groups see some as very much outsiders. These are members of other groups that believe things or advocate things that our group opposes. They are the enemy. In fact, many groups are formed specifically in opposition to another group, and thus are defined precisely by their competition or conflict with “Them.” It is now a case of “us” and “them” and there can be nothing but implacable hostility. We take “us and them” for granted and fail to reflect upon the implications for everybody when our political masters to achieve and maintain power turn “us against them”.
It's sadly been a primary tactic employed by rulers or would be rulers through history. Colonialists constructed “us" and "them” categories called races. In the current the industrial era, factory owners have pitted “us against them” to divide workers so that they would not organise unions, pitting "us" against "them" -- to gain and keep power and to implement policies that a clear majority dislikes, but cannot find any effective way to change. We cannot correct corrupt policies that benefit only the powerful few because our society is fragmented into rival competing groups of "us" and "them". Too many of us care more about the beliefs and agendas of our particular group than the common threats to all groups. Of course we console ourselves that our primary loyalty is to ALL humanity; that our group is not exclusive; that WE are trying to make the world better for everybody but we cannot because of THEM. If the truth is to be told, when we actually confront the difficult task of finding common ground between "us" and "them", we tend to give up the task rather quickly. Sometimes it just seems easier to fight “them” than try to break through our differences in order to build a more democratic and humane political system for everybody. Some of us even fear that if we sit down at the table to make peace with “them,” the very reason for our group’s existence will dissolve and we would no longer know who we are. That a few individuals could possess as much wealth as the rest of us, and that the government would protect their right to keep it, would be unimaginable in any other context.
Our fragmentation is a barrier to effective political action that would move us toward a more democratic reality. There are so many different varieties of "us" and "them"—that forging a cohesive majority seems all but a hopeless pipe-dream. We need to learn new ways of relating together as "us" and "them". Nobody has the time and energy to be deeply invested in everything, and we each choose our own place to fight. The only common denominator is our class and by our emancipation from wage-slavery we dare to imagine that our world could be more peaceful, more just, and healthier if we could change the economic system. But change it to what? Have we really dared to imagine what a new system would look like, or are we so intently focused on the advancement of our own particular individual agendas that we do not ask that fundamental question? The fundamental question need to be raised, because what we imagine—no matter how undeveloped it may be—influences the way that we act and the choices that we make every day. Nothing is more immediately practical and political than imagination. What sort of society do we imagine? Have you ever wondered what we might do if we ever managed to get enough votes to control Parliament. Do we even have the foggiest notion of what sort of society we would like to create?
Socialism can be described as a community of communities, separate but equal communities. Imagining a "us" does not mean leaving our separate groups/communities behind, but finding ways of living together. It is crucial that members of every group come to see that what we hold in common is far more vital than what differentiates us. Those powerful political and economic interests that want to keep us fragmented and at one another’s throats rather than working together to establish an inclusive democracy will do all they can to stir up continued discord between groups to defeat our aspirations for meaningful change. Can workers at least agree that we will stop doing their job for them and cease thinking in terms of "us" and "them"?
Radically adapted from here
No comments:
Post a Comment