Modern Interpretations of the Communist Manifesto

Modern Interpretations of the Communist Manifesto

My approach to The Communist Manifesto was dramatically different, apparently, from that of my like-aged peers. For most of them, it was a compulsory reading at some point during either late high school or collegiate/university years; I escaped this totalitarian enforcement. Rather I was able to come to it in a more natural manner as I seeked it out on my own accord after a considerable amount of study in anecdotal arenas. Those who were compelled to read it have all said one of two things about it, universally the same but articulated differently: they remember reading it but can’t attest to the content or that Marx was a total nut job (none of them knew who Engels was coincidentally). On this topic, what really struck me as horrifying is that I couldn’t cleanly distinguish those who were holding these positions based on legitimate rationale from those who were perhaps rehashing widely accepted views derived solely from social stigmas, i.e., Communism is the enemy of Capitalism. Instead I took the road less travelled and decided to dive into it head-first to see what kind of mischief could be dug up from the depths of the abyss.

Let me start by saying that in reflection, I found the manifesto to be profoundly underwhelming. Perhaps this is due in large part to the historical point at which I’m reading it, or maybe even that I’ve long harboured slight Marxist tendencies, but there was no observation made by Marx and Engels then that when transposed onto modern day society, strikes me as something I wasn’t already aware of. The only difference between the contents of the manifesto and myself, in this regard, is in articulation. The clear distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, so defined, I’m sure, mostly to invigorate Marx’s implementation of classical conflict (I’ll touch on here in a minute), isn’t hard to take notice of when considering a society where stratification is a fundamental tenant, as is the case with Capitalism. The precipitous climb from proletariat to bourgeoisie, the consistent efforts of the latter to both maintain their stranglehold on the former and to expand their sphere of influence beyond all borders for the sake of the value of bourgeoisie power, the simultaneously tangible and intangible rifts in society as a direct result of those efforts – these are none of them novel observations in and of themselves. Perhaps they were at the time or, as would be the case if this were written in the atmosphere of modern day, the intent was not to be flamboyantly disruptive but to instead smack the average layperson in the face in an attempt to wake their ignorant asses up. Part of me thinks that this has to be the case since the intended audience feels like it would be the proletariat, mostly.

Further diving into those topics that came as no surprise, Marx and Engels discuss such a wide assortment of actions that individually require further analysis during transposition. Not in an effort to stymie them, instead to the contrary. One has to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of Communism is to raise the proletariat to the social position of the bourgeoisie, militantly if need be (some may say preferably), and amongst them provide all resources and results of production in a commons that is centrally managed (by the state). Within this goal is the semblance of true equality, of which it arguably wouldn’t ever be able to attain or maintain manifestly, and the absolute intolerance of deviation from the agenda of the organization as a whole. Some things that we take for granted now are demolished in these domains including, but not limited to, (rampant) individuality, private property, and artificial valuation of commodities amongst the proletariat. There are some benefits to this but the outlined execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Of particular significant interest, to me, was the way the authors described the cycle in which the bourgeoisie traps the proletariat into becoming a wage slave and, craftily enough, lets the latter propagate this mentality onward of their own accord. It is disheartening when laid bare in this way, but it is also a very powerful aspect to understand:

“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion as the proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.”

It’s not hard to see how this manifests functionally. Who amongst you does not consider first and foremost, above all other things, finding a source of employment? How could you not though? This is what you’re told to do. It’s beaten into your head very early on that this is how the world works and this is what you need to do. With this being the ultimate goal, how then can you not define your life by it? But due to the conditions of the market, how are you also not competing with others for the opportunity to obtain the same position? When in that position, can you ever escape the nagging feeling that you are in fact replaceable? The wage that the employer pays you is the rate at which you’ve agreed to sell your time to them at. The rotating door effect, regardless of the classification of industry, and its consequent cost on the organization are of very little consequence since popping you out and putting another person in there is all too easy. If you feel you need more proof, look exclusively at the tenure of register jockeys in the service industry and how training programs are designed to be efficient. Thus, the result of this is that you define your life by the wage you sell yourself at. Those at the upper echelons of the workers, the managers, are not exempt from this either although it may be slightly more difficult to detect from a cursory inspection. These are the people who, through one means or another, have been able to mask their dependence upon this definition by the implement of credit or by having distributed their share of burden onto their spouse or someone in a position of similar accord. Thus the CEO is, in effect, no more or less a slave to the competition or market fluctuations than a pawn worker on the floor. The difference appears strictly in the scope of domain.

I should make note here too that when I’ve engaged in arguments of this sort with people, a hard line emerges in their track of logic which equates inexorably to the shit or get off the pot type of provocation. In other words, an indictment of this sort against someone in a C-Level position somehow reveals, more concretely than the use of the peon, that participation in the cycle affixes one to their allotted position thus facilitating their own recursive prison, and that the only means of escape would be to forego all assets manifesting as wages. To ones holding this assertion, as I do, a commonly volleyed argument is that doing so would incur the obvious reciprocal which is, cumulatively, loss of private property. Upon reaching this point in debate, it’s unsurprising that I come to hostile resistance of the sort that clearly indicates defence against a personal attack. You can’t possibly imply that you mean for ME to give up MY property!? Look at ALL of those THINGS that I worked so hard for! The problem with this argument is that it is applicable only in the society in which the context for the reciprocal is evidently possible. In other words, the ramifications of loss of money that we understand here in America, and possibly in other capitalist societies where money is treated as the eminent commodity, are only applicable so long as money itself retains its status. Does thought like this threaten the way you live? Most certainly. But you forget that that life style already has been and will continue to be threatened by machinations far more tangible than this conversation; it will only be a matter of time.

Marx had this super focus on the idea of classical conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with a bit of a comic book style assumption that the former would overthrow the latter out of sheer necessity. It’s debatable as to if one thinks that this has come to in one form or another in different places around the world since its conception, but largely this has not been the case historically. Regardless, the notion of placing two supposedly diametrically opposed groups against each other held greater importance to Marx since, he felt, from it would arise a purer form of representation of the proletariat. In a way, it’s the formation of the diamond; only through tumultuous chaos will a form so eloquent and beautiful emerge. I made reference to this in the preface I wrote for my book Junk Punch, that the fundamental issue with this mentality is the very same thing that would prevent Communism from achieving true equality, even for the proletariat of which it screams so loudly to represent, which is this: the promotion of hostility by virtue of dichotomy to produce cumulatively emergent iterations, each supposedly better than the previous, could only be possible so long as there is something to be hostile against. Plainly, think about what would happen upon the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. The sane action at this point would be for the proletariat to be content with the result and act in accordance to the Communist agenda, continuing to uphold the established values. Any outwardly sourced aggression to this community should be met with hostility if only to thwart it. For the desire of the Communist, having overthrown the then bourgeoisie, to expand beyond their domain would place them in the realm of the bourgeoisie as dictated by Marx and Engels. If this were the case, it becomes obvious then how the cycle would repeat itself, inside itself. This is stated here:

“The bourgeoisie, through the rapid development of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most backward, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces underdeveloped nations’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e. to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world in its own image.”

The second part of the manifesto, which outlines largely how Communism as an organized movement should be structured, contains within it still a fair number of ideas that can be considered, but a little more of a discerning eye needs to be used here. One has to keep in mind that Marx was a radical in the purest sense of the word. His dream of seeing a revolution emerge from the proletariat was strictly from the sense that the bourgeoisie would be overthrown, and that from only this would the freedom of the former be realized. From this knowledge, we can then assume that this hostility would bleed out into the rest of his philosophy, at least as it is relative to realizing his goals of the downfall of bourgeoisie dominance. There is a part of me that can’t help but draw parallels to Nietzsche, where in the Genealogy of Morals, he mentions a struggle of the same that Marx makes, except that it is within the domain of the weak versus the strong, the slave versus the master. That it is only from the slave morality that rebellion of this sort would even begin to gestate. I digress – the aspects that should be taken from the second section are of a more direct indictment of society, similar to those found in the first, but are significantly more pointed than before. This is, I feel, a byproduct of the fact that we see here how Marx is outlining Communist policies. Let me run down the few key notions from the second section in much the same that I did in the first above:

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

When considering private property, at least in the context that we have today which is derived mostly from John Locke and Adam Smith, the land that we live on is not truly ours. Furthermore, even the land you paid for is not yours. Worse yet, when considering a parcel purchase to erect a house upon, the house still yet isn’t even yours. For the transactional valuation of social constructs will always keep you in retainer to those who control that valuation medium. This preying upon basic sustenance, that of maintaining adequate shelter for yourself and potentially your family, is truly a horrible idea in both concept and in practise. A communal aspect, in this regard, is truly far better. Steel your mind, however, against the communal that you understand from the modern manifestation, as it is not just a house for those who are cumulatively disenfranchised from the perspective of the transactional valuation system.

“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.”

Aside from removing the nod toward Communism, I have a hard time understanding how the reader would not be able to ascertain simply from reading the statement its implication.

“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.”

“And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc? … The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting; the more, by the action of modern industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”

These are two distinctly different quotes deserving of two equally distinct conversations, yet they are very closely tethered to each other. I shall tread lightly here to make my call out resonate as aptly as possible.

In our modern day society, there is a consistent complaint, no matter where one turns, regarding the apparently obvious evaporation of familial values, especially those that are not osmosed properly to children. While as a generic complaint it is rampant, the concrete implication varies wildly – this can be exposed simply by pressing a complainer of this sort even just a slight bit harder for clarification. Furthermore, this bellyaching is usually followed by an obstinance with millennials as a collective, as if they exclusively are to blame for the former.

It would be very pertinent for these people, and even us millennials, to consider for one moment what I refer to as the Bernay’s Effect. Throughout all stages of life, people are consistently subjected to suggestive imagery that subconsciously compels them to behave in a way that they feel is conducive to the imprints. The way this works is that the manifestation of an end result is broadcast through advertisement in some way. This is the only thing that is displayed, no more and no less. Thus it is left to the enraptured drone as to how to realize this so-called dream. The reason I call this the Bernay’s Effect is because once one reads Propaganda, you understand that the piano salesman doesn’t sell pianos, he sells the music room and the accompanying social placebo effect. That being said, the work is a bit more sinister when it comes to children. People in this stage are far more malleable, far more perceptive, far more subject to suasion of any kind whatsoever. In practise, they are also far more trying to the patience of the parents, far more demanding, and in the wake of these, acquiescence is all but assured. The haste to capitulate leaves very little room for thought outside the immediate reciprocal. If I provide/do X for my child, they’ll stop doing Y. This is a purely reactionary position, and as is the case with nearly all strictly reactionary situations, causality leaves little to no room for pragmatism. Thus it becomes incredibly difficult for the parent to weigh the act of X against the child’s perception at the time of doing it.

There is also a considerable amount of damage that can be done based on the quality of the communication media the child is exposed to, which encapsulates both their education and facilitated environment just to name a few. Our educational system has been shown statistically, countless times, to be lacking behind in most every area relative to those standards in other countries. Let’s set aside for just one brief moment the aspect of competition in education, and instead focus on the obvious failure. For this, we don’t need to look exclusively at the polls operated by supposedly well reputed research organizations. Instead we need look no further than our friends, our family, our neighbours, our children, their friends, and even ourselves to see that there’s something very seriously wrong here. Ours is a society that not only endeavours to keep its constituents stupid but even promote, encourage, and reward ignorance. The only thing that matters is that you remain loyal to the dollar, to the state, and everything else is just detail. Our media, our entertainment, consistently showcases and emboldens those privileged bourgeois who have a so-called barbecue for ten people and prepare for it nothing less of a castle filled with servants of all kinds where they proceed to discuss all matters insignificant outside the bourgeois. This is done even with younger children who all too comfortably relate to those children who see their material successes. Thus the only thing that matters is the material attainment, nothing more. Life ceases to mean anything at this rate other than to attain – to consume. The lack of an education prohibits our children, our peers, us people from seeing anything other than that. We can’t express ourselves properly, we can’t think properly, we can’t write properly, we can’t even read. However, as response to our all too meaningless and ignorant attempt to gain the foot hold over competitive education – what a joke that is – we adhere to a more modern educational system that was not only doomed to not provide an education worth anything from the start, but is driven solely by the one thing that it wants to teach children is only of any importance – money. The false dichotomies, the wholesale convictions that only pluralism will bring meaning back to anything, and the daily reinforcement of material acquisition doesn’t educate us or our children. Instead what we get is a well oiled machine designed to produce only Capitalist Cogs – those that can be replaced in an instant if one fails so that the system maintains its decadence. And you are expected to fall in line, as it is the moral thing to do.

Having said all of that, I still feel as if one should take the time to read the manifesto, even today. You may not derive from it the very same things that I have, but there is bound to be something of interest in there for you, if even in the slightest.

Red Star image used from Wikimedia in the Public Domain –

Two Sets of Books

Disclaimer: I submitted this to the New York Times as a response to the article that is mentioned here but I never heard back from them within their specified time frame for publishing, so instead I decided to publish on my site.

I set these words down to address a very particular topic, and a very particular person. It is with a considerable amount of disagreement that I address Larry Taunton regarding his piece entitled “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist,” and inform him of why his interpretations of private conversations with Hitchens are not only horrible misrepresentations of the man himself, even as lackadaisical musings, but do nothing but use as a crutch his memory and legacy to attempt to cement the supposed inherit lie that all non-religious persons adhere to, on the surface, and secretly pine for salvation in the closet, placating the ego of the pious.

Getting right to the facts, in an article in the New York Times, dated Saturday March 14th, 2016, titled “Famous Atheist’s Non-Faith Is Questioned in Friend’s Book,” an excerpt lays the foundation for Taunton’s story:

“… In September 2010, five months after Mr. Hitchens’s diagnosis of cancer, he and Hitch drove the thirteen hours from Mr. Hitchens’s home in Washington, D.C. to a Fixed Point debate in Birmingham, Ala. The next month, after an event in Billings, Mont., they took a seven-hour trip to, and around, Yellowstone National Park. As Mr. Taunton drove, Mr. Hitchens read aloud from the Gospel of John and mulled over the precise reason Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus. “Where is the grace in the Old Testament?” Hitchens asked at one point, in Mr. Taunton’s telling. “I see it in the New Testament, but God is different in the Old Testament,” Mr. Hitchens observed, leading to a discussion of God’s covenant with Abraham. Based principally on these conversations, Mr. Taunton concluded that Mr. Hitchens was seeking – and that he was, at least, open to – the possibility that Christianity was true. Perhaps, Mr. Taunton writes, Mr. Hitchens “used his position as a journalist as a kind of professional cover for a very personal inquiry” into the faith.”

Later, another excerpt:

“Still, Mr. Taunton laces his book with plenty of winks toward hopeful Christians, who would be understandably glad to see the conversion of an atheist as prominent as Mr. Hitchens. He quotes John le Carre’s George Smiley, who says, in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (the movie, not the book), “The fantastic is always concealing a secret doubt.” He writes that Mr. Hitchens had to keep up the front of an unquestioning atheist because it “was a matter of professional pride for him to play the part for which he had been hired.”

Again, another excerpt quoting Michael Shermer, who had originally written a highly favorable review of the book, later asked for it to be redacted on account of a growing discomfort with Taunton’s near-abuse usage of Hitchen’s phrase “keeping two sets of books”:

“But you mean his wife, his family, his books, every interview he ever gave was all deceitful, but you, you got the real story?” he said, referring to Mr. Taunton. “I don’t think so.””

One last excerpt:

“Mr. Wilson agreed that, whatever the truth about Mr. Hitchens’s dying beliefs, the intrigue makes for a good story. “Christians like the idea of saved in the nick of time,” he said. “They like the idea of a cliffhanger ending.””

Next I would like to bring to light excerpts from Christopher Hitchens himself, from his memoir “Hitch 22.” Specifically the First Trade Edition: June 2011, published by Twelve, which contains a preface authored by Christopher Hitchens dated January 20, 2011. This puts the writing of these words after the time frame which Taunton claims to have had an enlightening experience with Hitchens. The first:

“A continuous theme in Hitch-22 is the requirement, exacted by a life of repeated contradictions, to keep two sets of books. My present condition intensifies this rather than otherwise. I am forced to make simultaneous preparations to die, and to go on living. Lawyers in the morning, as I once put it, and doctors in the afternoon.”


“Another element of my memoir – the stupendous importance of love, friendship, and solidarity – has been made immensely more vivid to me by recent experience.”


“The cause of my life has been that of combating superstition, which among other things means confronting the dreads upon which it feeds. For some inexplicable reason, our culture regards it as normal, even creditable, for the godly to admonish those who they believe to be expiring. A whole tawdry edifice – of fabricated “deathbed conversions” and moist devotional literature – has arisen on this highly questionable assumption. Though I could have chosen to take offense (at being silkily invited to jettison my convictions when in extremis: what an insult and what a non-sequitur too) I was actually grateful for the heavy attention I received from the faithful. It gave my atheism, if you like, a new lease on life. It also help me keep open a long debate to which I am proud to have contributed a little.”


“The irruption of death into my life has enabled me to express a trifle more concretely my contempt for the false consolation of religion, and belief in the centrality of science and reason.”

And finally:

“I wasn’t born to do any of the things I set down here, but I was born to die and this coda must be my attempt to assimilate the narrative to its conclusion.”

A very critical note that Taunton and Wilson (who was referenced briefly in the excerpts above) miss, at this juncture it would have to be inferred that it was blatantly ignored, was that Hitchens, much like the literary titans he surrounded himself with, was pursuant first and foremost toward the passion for literature. Littered throughout “Hitch 22,” and from various recorded speaking engagements, one has very little difficulty in determining this fact. It is not uncommon for an intellectual to be thirsty for knowledge – a thirsty reader will read, a thirsty writer will write, a thirsty painter will paint, etc… Nietzsche lays down this point better than most, while also laying the groundwork for the integrity of the intellectual in “On the Genealogy of Morals”: “… For nothing else befits a philosopher. We have no right to any isolated act whatsoever: to make isolated errors and to discover isolated truths are equally forbidden us. Rather, our thoughts, our values, our yeses and noes and ifs and whethers grow out of us with the same necessity with which a tree bears its fruits – all related and connected to one another and evidence of a single will, a single health, a single earth, a single sun.” This singularity is not a darling toward self-serving pious folks, as you’d have an incredibly hard time pouring over Nietzsche’s work the baptismal waters (the same person who declared himself to be the anti-Christ), but instead a reference to the insatiable thirst for an intellectual to seek knowledge, and that knowledge has no boundaries, and further that an intellectual has a responsibility to knowledge to not be isolated in its pursuit. A headline quote from the same New York Times article reads “An impious author who might have been exploring faith before he died.” – the absurdity oozing from the pores of the words here is astonishing, especially when in the context of Hitchens. – As if making inquiries into faiths, the texts behind them, and the people who are supposed to adhere to them, automatically implies that one is on the steps toward submission and salvation – please. A turn of this sort plays heavily on the intellectual’s due diligence of knowing about what it is they wish to discuss, something of which is the foundation for any serious intellectual. It is not uncommon for an atheist to read the multiple revisions of the Bible, or any other religious text, or study the principles of the religions around the world. This does not make them an active or even impending member of those religions.

As mentioned in the excerpts above, Hitchens makes reference to the “two sets of books” metaphor quite often. Not just from the quotations above, this use can be seen in his other book “god Is Not Great” and in various other recorded speaking events. Michael Shermer above requested that his positive review of Tounton’s book be redacted due to the latter having overused the dualist metaphor to an alarming degree. So what does Hitchens mean when he uses this? Yet two more excerpts from “Hitch 22”, both regarding his time at a school called Camdean:

“… We were all of us compelled to sit through lessons in the sinister fairy tales of Christianity as well, and nature was sometimes enlisted as illustrating god’s design, but I can’t pretend that I hated singing the hymns or learning the psalms, and I enjoyed being in the choir and was honored when asked to read from the lectern on Sundays. In fact, as you have perhaps guessed, I was getting an early training in the idea that life meant keeping two separate and distinct sets of books. If my parents knew what really went on at the school, I used to think (not being the first little boy to imagine that my main job was that of protecting parental innocence), they would faint from the shock. So I would be staunch and defend them from the knowledge.”


“Again come the two sets of books: I would escape to the library and lose myself in the adventure stories of John Buchan and “Sapper” and G.A. Hentry and Percy Westerman, and acquaint myself with imperial and military values just as, unknown to me in the England of the late 1950s that lay outside the school’s boundary, these were going straight out of style. Meanwhile and on the other side of the ledger, I would tell myself that I wasn’t really part of the hierarchy of cruelty, either as bully or victim.”

The meaning alone can be discerned from the first but the use of the second is to help ease along what is meant here.

Knowing that he had a distinct distaste for religion, especially a noted one for Christianity, and early on, Hitchens proceeds to say that he in fact did enjoy engaging in singing, reading, and learning. Saying it that way isn’t some coy subtraction of words in an effort to obviously remove them from the equation. It is instead used to point out that when considering the context, one taking part in activities with others, is indeed a reflection of human nature – the very real and truly inert need to be social, surrounded by others, accepted, and to reciprocate these things. The other children around him were doing the same exact things, as if it were all normal; these actions do not require qualification of the numinous to be dignified – a common misconception. The “two sets of books” metaphor holds more closely to the duality, introduced and contained within societies, enjoined on its constituents which in turn makes manifestly clear to the agent that innate desires and the results of them will nearly consistently be in conflict with the scaffolding prescribed to you. Not only does it have intimate ties with who and what we are as humans, which is not a shadow of an arrogant or indifferent god, but also to the attempts to reconcile those differences in accordance with the will to exhibit the love, friendship, and solidarity that is so important. It is not, as the pious would like to have it, and according so dotingly to Mr. Wilson, a good story that plays toward the Christian end-of-life ideal of repentance at the last moment for the dissenters.

Taunton’s assertions that Hitchens was only playing as an atheist because he was “hired” to be is as disingenuous and dishonest to a “friend” as one can be, as there is absolutely no way possible that one could ever entertain the thought that Hitchens had a last glimmer of faith and struggled with himself as to the object of commitment.

Haters: Sometimes They Really Don’t Want to Be You

“People hate you because they want to be you.” In so many words, this and phrases like it are uttered time and time again to the downtrodden, misrepresented, misunderstood, and supposedly unique persons. The phrases are thrown around in so many different syntactical permutations, each attempting to place varying sympathetic emphasis on the victim of the perceived indifference, and always intended to antagonize the perpetrator(s). The goal, invariably, is to fortify the self-esteem of the victim and to embolden them in remaining vigilant against nay-sayers from all perspectives so that they will continue to be the individuals that they are. Altruistically, all appears to be sound. The invoker of the phrase, if not the victim themselves, garners respect and adulation from the victim and perhaps from others, and is thus considered to be morally aligned with those who see this as such. The antagonist, left wilting away in their now obviously futile attempt of degradation, sulks back to the cave from whence they emerged and life carries on unabated.

There is something a tiny bit disingenuous about this assumed intent however. It is certainly true that there are persons who awake in the morning with the sole intent of making their peer’s lives as miserable as possible. Others will prey upon the perceptibly socially weak for only the deranged satisfaction that is to be derived from it (and of which only they themselves are capable of indulging in). For these people, where attempts at curbing their considerably disagreeable behavior either are derailed from the start and for all of their time or simply won’t emerge until far later in life (it is possible for one to learn the error of one’s ways), the psychological, and sometimes physical, barricade will need to be constant. Instruction and consistent enforcement of the intolerance for indifference should always be practiced regardless. Other times it is possible that a practitioner of bigotry is acting so out of the pretext of malicious propaganda; osmosis from family and social circles, assiduously preached misinformation by cornerstone figures in communities, and cultural slants that should really be going in the opposite direction just to name a few. These people can be dealt with in a different manner which attempts to bring them back from the brink and into moral favor. These are mistakes of their peers bubbling outward through them to which they cannot be blamed exclusively for (for their own actions, of course).

Now despite the misgivings about my approach to this topic, one thing should be made abundantly clear by now but I’ll do you the favor of spelling it out. In no way, at all, do I now or have ever in the past condoned or considered as a good idea any act of indifference or bigotry. In a considerably more plain way, bullying is not something I either associate myself with or think is tolerable. So then, what really is so disingenuous about the aforementioned phrases?

There is a subtle tone of irony lurking in the shadows of the phrases. While attempting to defend the individuality of the victim, it simultaneously alienates the individuality of the assailant and presupposes only a wanton masochistic chameleon-esque adaptation of the individual from the victim by the assailant. In an effort to reinforce and reaffirm the individual that is considered to be the victim, we assert by default a spiteful copy-and-paste attempt by the assailant as the only impetus for this and the reflection of this desire equates to nothing short of the oppression and vitriol which they practice so often. Imagine then how this sounds to you, when you consider a bully of this sort who wakes up in the morning: “I REALLY REALLY want to be just like John, in every way possible! In order to do that, and to emulate perfectly his individuality, I’ll be sure to cause him nothing but grief and use socially sensitive aspects to make fun of and torture him with!” That’s not to say that this sort of idiotic notion isn’t conceived at one point or another within a mind; it’s plausible that it would be. It’s also plausible, and far more obvious in fact, to imagine that in an attempt at emulation of an individual, one would be more likely to act or behave in accordance with the target of the emulation as is the case with ridiculous fanaticism embraced by us little people in the wake of celebrities. When considered in this way, it’s hardly a significant draw of the intellect to make this comparison. Having established that, the phrases almost turn on themselves. For they now decree that the bully, in a veil of such extreme obsessive fanaticism over their personal celebrity, that being the victim, wanting nothing more than to emulate perfectly the aspect of their individuality that is desired, they resort to extreme methods of abuse, punishment, and torture – none of which place them in a position to assimilate this so sought after trait.

The overarching ignorance here is that when invoked, phrases of these sort are literally and figuratively no less shallow than the acts of aggression to which they are intended to defend against. They do not address the questions of root cause; what were the environmental factors that together culminated into the mess that is the bully? In a similar note, what other environmental factors facilitate the notion that certain seemingly arbitrary traits about people are points of both isolation and desired attack? The obvious irony here is that in an effort to achieve and maintain individuality, one runs the risk of sometimes severe scrutiny for doing so – but why is this the case? Why does it just seem like bullies come out of the woodwork and people are consistently in a reactive state regarding them? At this juncture, the only purpose these phrases serve is to reaffirm the proliferation of personality and in an entirely unhealthy way.

No one doubts that in practice, bullies are quite real as is the damage that they inflict upon others; this alone warrants reaction to the immediate causality. This aspect shouldn’t ever be downplayed in the slightest. I myself have been subject to bullying of an extreme sort, resulting in physical violence, whilst my peers, pitiless, callous, and vicariously complicit through cowardice, stood idly by as if it were all just normal. “Oh he goes around punching everybody!” – a remark I can quite acutely recall from someone I can only assume had been a victim of this bully, and would have thought far less of this person if they weren’t. So yes, on a case-by-case basis we are and should be required to deal with it blow-for-blow. Simultaneously, and this parallelism should be marked quite carefully and distinctly, the root cause should always be considered and this falls well beyond the scope of immediate causality. A place where “They’re just jealous of you” carries with it about as much intellectual nourishment as piety does in any domain.

What then should we be looking for? How do we actually address the issue of bullying? These appear to be hard questions because frankly they are. However, when asked differently as How do you address the cultural blemishes that both foster and permit this behavior?, it becomes slightly easier to put into scope but nonetheless leaves massive hurdles that are in fact able to be vaulted. To get started in the right direction, one has to realize first that none of this behavior is genetic. No one person is genetically predetermined to exhibit violence of this sort. It is in fact the social environment in which the child grows and is continuously exposed to which begins to kindle this kind of behavior. Were they raised in an environment where reciprocity and positive mutual relations were pinnacle in their success? Or were they subject to competition for both basic and contrived human needs where the only order of the day was to simply be the best? These are none of them genetic in the slightest. You are not born with an innate understanding of Capitalist America, neither of Communist China, neither of tribal alignments. There is no innate desire to ascertain all power and accumulate all material possessions in a fashion that would make even the most fanatic of barbarians shutter in horror. You are human, all too human.  You are molded by your family, your friends, your society, your communities, your government – all attribute in some way to the result that is aged you. Do not for one second discount the supposedly trivial things for sometimes they are in fact the ones most likely to subvert the subconscious, thus placing you on an entirely different path.

Next we have to ask ourselves if the society that we participate in today is conducive to our well-being. Do we really think that the bullying and violence are not actually a byproduct of the stratification, hyper competition, and near-cancerous proliferation of personality propaganda combined? Statistical studies continuously show that certain areas of the U.S. are far more violent than others, indicating an uneven distribution of our so-called genetic predetermination. However, the same imbalance can be seen when these studies are applied in the scope of the world. Different cultures yield different persons. They’re shaped in much the same way as we are with regard to modality: family, friends, and communities. The difference is nearly strictly in that of perspective and what is considered as the prime predicate for the sane and pragmatic survival of the group. Do they feel that the only way to survive is to beat down all others in a game of perpetual conflict, simply to see who can piss further? Do they feel that egalitarian methods of sharing and open collaboration are the best ways to go? Isn’t it possible that maybe, just maybe, the arena in which we nurture our children in isn’t really the most advantageous for producing not only non-violent and open-minded persons but also happy ones?

The victim and the bully, much like everyone else in our society, is and has been formed in a way that makes them who they are. A confusion of supposed predeterminations with what are instead quite malleable environmental factors leads us to consistently look in the wrong direction for solutions. For to look at the true causality would be to put to scrutiny the very same social system that we live in and most are unfortunately unwilling to take that step for one reason or another; most of which are ineffective as legitimate excuses. Ensuring that not only our children but us adults as well know that open communication, collaboration, and plausible rationality is critical. Competition, contrived scarcity, over-inflation of X Politics, blind servility – these are none of them useful when helping to educate and propagate equality and pure altruism.

So no, haters sometimes really don’t want to be you. And you shouldn’t aspire to reciprocate that even in defense.

Personal Appraisal

Personal Appraisal

Quod siquis vera vitam ratione gubernet,
divitiae grandes homini sunt vivere parvo
aequo animo; neque enim est umquam penuria parvi.

But if you’d steer your life by a philosophy that’s true,
The way to be the wealthiest of men is to eschew
High living, and be contented in the mind – for there has never
Been a poverty of modest means.

Titus Lucretius Carus – de Rerum Natura

By what means do we, in our current capitalist paradigm, consider money to be such a meager and humble commodity that it in and of itself not only represents faultlessly but equates exactly to our value as sentient human beings? Has acquisition and attainment alone ever conflated to unadulterated happiness and pure altruism? When you remove the faculty of money, a tool of equation, from the all too abused mode of individuality sometimes termed as self-maximization, what is left within the self that is of any conscionable nature that would be remotely considered conducive to morally acceptable behavior to our brothers and sisters? Nothing, for the widespread assertion that the money sequence of value either conflates or represents the life sequence of value is entirely arbitrary and false. There could be no other grandiose misrepresentation of our true nature than to attempt to quantify and dignify it as gross domestic product.

To this end all business operates tirelessly and endlessly. Cyclical consumption and the polymorphic modes that both individuals (consumers) and even businesses themselves (consumers/producers) operate in keep in check carefully the assurance that the repetition is not broken. Individuals as employees will sell their time to an employer to produce the goods that the employer then sells to other individuals or businesses, consumers, thus it flows onward. So the flow goes with a perceived elegance that just can’t be described as anything other than natural. So natural, in fact, that it would be utter folly to think that it could be wrong. How, when one is part of a society where abundance is aplenty, regardless if it’s to be maintained synthetically, and wealth, even though partitioned unfairly, maintains the decadence that we expect to grant us our little hovels with our creature comforts so that we’ll just be content with our meager rewards, would anyone then even think about how this could maybe, just maybe, be all wrong?

So sick is our society that we have managed to profiteer the human themselves and the methods by which we’re herded, sometimes all too tacitly. Privately held incarceration facilities trade investments on the Stock Market where its value will fluctuate based on the inmate population. Insurance agencies attempt to register infants, through appeals to their parents, into life insurance policies that not only place a dollar value on that life that matures as the child does, much in the same way as a Money Market, CD, or Savings Account, so that in the event of an untimely death, someone reaps some reward from it. The same agencies also offer up the same insurances for elderly persons who, on their last hurrah, might as well give something a little extra to not just the families but to the agency and its CEO and board members. Young workers in all industries are consistently hounded about investing in retirement funds, be it a 401(k) or an IRA, where they’re encouraged to invest more and more of their money, placing immediate undue hardship on them and their families, all for the idea that someday they’ll be worth something. One ad from Fidelity Investments for such a policy is titled “Because someday, I’ll be the perfect vintage.”

In agreement we simply nod our heads and don’t worry about it as we sulk on back to the cave. Your children are fed, your lights are still on, your clothes are clean, your lawn is cut, your car is full of gasoline, your bills are paid (on time) – why trouble yourself with anything else?

Slowly but surely, we are killing our planet to meet these seemingly endless consumer-driven, yet contrived, requirements. As the poles begin their steady yet inevitable melt away to liquid form, and our atmosphere is congested with carbon emissions from wildly inefficient means of travel, and our brothers and sisters who are not worth anything are left to rot away tucked in the back alleys and abandoned scrap yards so we don’t have to see them; they won’t be a problem that way, and our basic requirements for life are becoming more scarce and by reason of overpopulation synthetic, what excuse do you have now to say that you can’t trouble yourself with anything else? What can you say to your brothers and sisters who die daily because they can’t get food or water because they can’t afford it? How do you explain that this is normal to your children, and that the only way to be happy and successful in life is to simply make money? What made you not think, for one second, that competition is not the only way to live? How then do you not register that you, implicitly or explicitly, equate your measure of success and altruism in dollars and also that of your children and tell them to continue to do the same thing?

The marks that we leave behind now will be the ones that our children have to deal with. They will be responsible for carrying our torches into the future, for doing so within the context that we set for them, and we are most of us wildly irresponsible in thinking that continuing this mode of valuing life is anything solid enough to sustain life at all, or even a future for that matter. Change has to start now, and start with you.