What are they to be replaced by? In , it had already been some time since ideology, which Marx denounced as falsehood, had emptied of its substance concepts which, stemming from the proletarian consciousness and forged by the desire of emancipation, were no longer more than banners brandished by the protagonists of a trade union and political bureaucracy. Power struggles quickly supplanted the defence of the working class.
We know how the struggle for the proletariat turned into a dictatorship exercised against it and in its name. Communism and socialism have proved it.
Political activity became patronage, ideas were no more than those items which supermarket flyers stimulate the sale of. Advertising techniques have prevailed over political terminology, entangling, as we know, left and right.
Your last book concludes precisely on this movement. What more precisely does this enthusiasm convey? Do me the favour of thinking that I do not care about being right, while a movement of revolt and not yet revolution, far from it strengthens the confidence I have always given to this word of freedom, so hackneyed, so corrupt, so grossly rotten.
Why should my visceral attachment to freedom be encumbered with reason and unreason, with victories and defeats, with hopes and disappointments, whereas it is only for me to snatch it from every moment of free trade and predation, which kill her, and to restore it to the life upon which it feeds?
This moment, I have dream of it since my adolescence. I will not be deprived of the happiness of greeting these yellow vests, which have hardly needed to read the Treatese to illustrate its poetic implementation. How not to thank them, in the name of humanity that they have resolved to free from barbarism?
The Blessed Human Race: Essays on Reconsideration [George Jochnowitz] on siotamalecgotf.ga *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Professor George. The Blessed Human Race: Essays on Reconsideration. by George Jochnowitz. Since the subtitle of my book is about reconsideration, I believe.
To parliamentary democracy, you oppose direct democracy based on assemblies. But two points, at least, separate you: the majority principle and power. It was a mistake to underestimate Bookchin and the importance of ecology. It was not my only mistake nor the only one of the IS. But this mistake has a cause. It lies in the confusion of which the Treatise is not exempt between intellectuality and the awareness or consciousness of the self and the world, between the intelligence of the head and the sensible intelligence of the body.
Recent events help clarify the notion of intellectuality. There is therefore nothing astonishing if the sectarians of the left and of the critique of criticism 3 hasten to mock them with all of their condescension! The vulgar who fill the streets, what are they? They have empty heads, no program, no thought. These workers, peasants, small traders, craftsmen, entrepreneurs, retirees, teachers, the unemployed, workers exhausted by the search for a salary, the homeless poor, schoolchildren without a school, taxed and tolled motorists, lawyers, scientific researchers; in short, all those who are simply revolted by the injustice and arrogance of the undead who govern us.
Men and women of all ages have suddenly ceased to congregate in a gregarious mass: they have left the fluffy flocks of the silent majority. They are not nobodies, they are people reduced to nothing and they have become aware of it.
And they have a project: to establish the preeminence of human dignity by breaking the profit system that devastates life and the planet. Their ground is lived reality, the reality of a salary, a small allowance, an insufficient retirement, an existence more and more precarious, where the share of real life is becoming scarce. This reality runs up against a gymnastics of numbers and figures practiced in high places. If the subtlety of the calculations is misleading, the end result is by contrast of an exemplary and alarming simplicity: be satisfied with the alms granted by the public authorities that you finance and hurry up to die, as respectful citizens of the statistics counting the excessive number of old people and other links which weaken the chain of what is profitable.
This gap between life and its abstract representation makes it possible to better understand today what intellectuality is. Far from constituting an element inherent in the nature of Man, it is an effect of its denaturation. It results from a historical phenomenon, the transition from a society based on a gathering economy, to a system, mainly agrarian, practicing the exploitation of nature and Man by Man.
The emergence of City-States and the development of societies structured into dominant class and dominated class, subjected the body to the same division. The hierarchical character of the social body, composed of masters and slaves, goes on preserving, over the centuries, with a scissiparity 4 that affects the body of man and woman. The head — the chief — is called to govern the rest of the body, the Spirit, celestial and terrestrial, tames, controls, represses the vital impulses just as the priest and the prince impose their authority on the slave.
The head assumes the intellectual function — the privilege of the masters — which dictates its laws to the manual function, an activity reserved for slaves. We are still paying the cost of this lost unity, of this rupture which delivers over the individual body and the carnal body to an endemic war with itself.
No one escapes this alienation. Ever since nature, reduced to a commodity object, became like woman a hostile, frightening, despicable element, we are all prey to this curse, which by itself alone is able to eradicate a newly natural evolution, a humanity in symbiosis with all forms of life. A warning to all of those who are tired of the nonsense of ecologism! In the recent past, there have been workerists who were foolish enough or devious enough to glorify the status of proletarians, as if they were not marked by the seal of an indignity, of which only a classless society would free them.
Who today can we see infatuated with this intellectual labour, a labour that is one of the major reasons for existential misery and the incomprehension of oneself and the world? Sniffer dog-like individuals on the lookout for power to exercise, candidates for a leadership position, aspirants to the role of guru.
When a movement claims a radical rejection of leaders and representatives not mandated by the individuals who make up an assembly of direct democracy, it has nothing to do with these intellectuals proud of their intellectuality. It is not the denunciation of croaking leaders in the self-management assemblies that we need, it is the pre-eminence given to solidarity, to human meaningfulness, to the awareness of our potential strength and our creative imagination.
Admittedly, the deliberate implementation of a larger project is still groping and confused, but at least it is already the expression of a healthy and calm anger that decrees: no one will give me any orders anymore, no one will bark at me again!
As for the question of the majority and the minority, I have more than once explained myself on this subject. In my opinion, the vote in a self-managed assembly can not be reduced to the quantitative, the mechanical. The law of numbers does not fit well with the quality of choice.
Why should a minority bow to a majority? Is it not falling back into the old duality of strength and weakness? It might Pass for situations where urgency requires avoiding endless discussions and procrastination, but even if it is a matter of deciding a trifle without any harmful consequences, consultation, palaver, conciliation, harmonisation of points of view, in other words the overcoming of opposites, is undeniably preferable to the power relation implied by the dictatorship of numbers.
A fortiori , I think that, were it to be adopted by a large majority, an inhuman decision — a punishment, a death sentence for example — is inadmissible. The human sense of one will always prevail over the barbarism of many. But being uprooted and without a mother tongue, is this not the fate of robots alone? Curious alternative to having to choose between either belonging to a geographical entity, or the wandering of the exile.
For my part, my homeland is the Earth. To identify myself with the human being in the making, becoming — what I strive to be — dispenses me from moulding myself into nationalism, regionalism, ethnic, religious and ideological communalism, succumbing to these archaic and morbid prejudices that perpetuate the traditional robotisation of behaviors. You invoke mafia internationalism of globalisation.
I wager on an international human race and I have before me the relevance of a peaceful insurrection that concretises it. In short: to no longer pay taxes. Must we cut off both of its hands without hesitation? Save social benefits? They are already lost. Trains, schools, hospitals and pensions are being scrapped by the State bulldozer.
The liquidation continues. The profit machine, of which the State is only an ordinary cog, will not go back.
The ideal conditions would be for it would be to maintain an atmosphere of civil war, enough to scare souls and make the chaos profitable. The hands of the State only know how to handle money, cudgels and lies. How can one not rather trust the hands of those who at intersections, in the houses of the people, in the assemblies of direct democracy, are busy with the reconstruction of the public good? But without a State, how is it to be instituted? In making it, however, I do not want to suggest that I understand what it is to be fully human, that I and others who make the same affirmation discovered it and wish to impose that discovery to formerly denigrated peoples.
There is no such thing to discover. Earlier, I said that we sometimes speak of humanity as something towards which we are called upon to rise, that it is task with no end, and would have no end even if we lived a thousand years. That is the idea of humanity that informs what I have been saying about this topic. The difference can be described most generally as being in their attitude to the natural world and their place in it. That is vague, of course, but it is enough to sustain the point that the difference has inevitably shown itself politically in, for example, disputes and court rulings about land and title and in the many, sometimes angry, arguments about what counts truly practically as reconciliation as opposed to merely symbolic gestures towards it.
Perhaps the most bitter disagreements were over whether genocide was at least sometimes, in some parts of Australia, committed against the Stolen Generations, as the Bringing Them Home report alleges. I want to comment on this, though not in order to set new fires burning.