Posts Tagged ‘makes no sense’

The spectacle is hypersensitive to its own needs.

November 4, 2007

The spectacle is hypersensitive to its own needs. This is something of an understatement — its means and its ends are one and the same. But its physical diction over men, lonely crowds ruled and united solely by their own economy, allows it to shift its locus and blur its tracks so that any analysis of its history becomes discredited by the present.

When labour is reorganised to accomodate for automation, the commodity produced is both immaterial and fundamental to the spectacle, a contradiction which reflects its nature as having its own non-realisation as the only permissable goal. In colonised territories, hyperdeveloped societies at the periphery of spectacular absolution distort the native population to the point that every continued aspect of their unintegrated existence becomes a commodity, along with each negation in turn. This produces unique markets, accompanied by their typical dialogues, which, as well as buttressing the reigning order — as do all other commodities — can become exports to serve any needs of the spectacle across the planet. Whether these needs — the drive for “homeland security,” for example — arose because of the repercussions of commodifying colonisation or not is impossible to distinguish, as our orders are perpetually articulated a step ahead of our awareness.

Hear me out.

November 4, 2007

While this may discrdedt my arguement, I draw my conclusions from the universe of Star Trek. Hear me out.

In the Star Trek universe, human beings no longer work for the pursuit of money or material gains. This shift in attachment to physical objects stemmed from the invention of the replicator and the elimination of the need to work to provide sustinence. Once the basic needs of the population was met, society shifted.

Now, take that point, that changes in attitudes towards money and accumulation of wealth can only change when the means of acquiring that wealth changes. No longer were people defined by what they did or what they had, but by who they were. When no one was starving and everyone had shelter and clothing readily available to them, not to mention that any luxury items were a click away, the world was a better place.

Now lets assume we extend that model to our own universe. If the government places itself in a position where it provides all the necessities of life to its population, regardless of social class or wealth, then materialism diminsihes. People are happier and more content with themselves when they know that they are not being forced into an unhappy situation so they can simply survive. No one should have to be put into a situation like that.

Once the government starts to provide universal health care, reduce or eliminate rent in many developing communities, and increase funding and access to food re-distribution programs then the general population will become happier and move more towards a society that would accept socialist rule.

Basically, we can’t change the way people act without first changing the conditions they are in.

The freedoms and transmissions of open dialogue

November 4, 2007

The freedoms and transmissions of open dialogue are a testament to a society that holds if at least it’s own founded beliefs sacred.  The actual methods of political interchange between politicians, lobbyists, and especially the public, are demeaning to the system, and the reliance on psychological manipulation and subversion and not the open deliberation of ideas is jawdropping.  In a system that has been so bureaucratized that it has lost complete relevance to its intended purpose, you have to wonder when it will ever change to represent more than pushing capitol and arrogance.

In what you can read in history books, by no means has the US democracy been errorless, but it’s easy to see that in relation to the previous eras of the country where it continued to evolve in a manner that reflected the ideas of the day and intentions, this one is perversely manipulated by an absolute undermining of the system that was established to keep it fair and intelligible.

Opening the ability to “wire-spy” on anyone does not seem like a step backwards, but a step in a different direction of progression towards a much less democratic state.  I agree that it is a failure on the part of the democratic representation to sell their liberty for a chance of security.  Perhaps the own freedoms of democracy are inherently subject to the exploitation of itself.