Whenever
I speak or think of the state I try to think of it as a self-preserving
organism, but in a way that does not necessitate knowing participation by the
members of government, nor society. Instead, the values that sustain the state
are instilled in a more natural way through a child's upbringing, especially by
the school system. We are taught of the Noble Wars, of the great men that lead
our country, of our governments love for freedom and progress. Of course, this
view of history is highly flawed, incomplete and disingenuous.
One of
the more important functions of state-sustaining society is the co-option of
radicalization. Integrating radicalism will serve an important function: it
will allow for dissent within an acceptable context. If dissent is controlled, and limited to an
"acceptable" level, it can serve the state just as much as
patriotism. For example, I consider 3rd Party Candidates to be part of this.
3rd Party Candidates provide an avenue for people that have been able to
identify the farce on the ruling parties to focus their efforts toward one of
several 3rd Parties. This helps channel dissent into, say money in politics or
merely the 2 party monopoly while ignoring the system itself. This cannot be
applied to every advocate of voting for a 3rd party, but seems common enough.
People that believe merely voting for a libertarian or socialist candidate will
automatically fix an entire system are ultimately sustaining the system by
addressing grievances through the system itself. It is important that people
feel as if they are in control to some degree. That they can change the nature
of their government if need be. This prevents violent resistance, as people
believe they can alter government through the ballot box. This gives many
modern forms of government a greater level of sustainability than dictatorships
and monarchies.
An
interesting effect of this self-sustaining system can be seen in the de-radicalization
of previously radical music. Both punk rock and hip hop in particular were
rather radical in their origins, speaking against war, poverty, class, power
structures and various other topics. But as they became a source of profit,
their message became less and less radical, and in some ways merely
consumerist. This is the system sustaining itself through society itself, not
needing direct control of the media as values are set at an early age through
school and social propaganda.
Our
media is meant to be a watchdog of the state, but completely fails in this
role. The media's values largely reflect the values of the government and it is
rare that anyone breaks from the government rhetoric. Anyone that does manage
to accurately criticize the government outside of acceptable, partisan lines is
generally denigrated by the media itself. Ultimately, this more subtle
propaganda machine is a better form of control than the Kings and fascists
could come up with. The Russians knew that Pravda was filled with lies, but
Americans generally limit their criticism to coinciding with their party alliance.
Even
Occupy Wall Street faced a major effort of co-option by the Democrats and
MoveOn. This had varying levels of
success due to the make-up of the movement being rather politically diverse. It
appealed to some, disgusted others.
The
self-sustaining functions of the state must be acknowledged and fought against
by groups that wish to ultimately change the state. It is important to
understand this and insure your dissent is not also merely sustaining the state
by channeling the focus of your dissent.
No comments:
Post a Comment