"Identity is a dream pathetic in its absurdity. You dream of being yourself when you've nothing better to do." -Baudrillard.
It is a shame so many people dream about fossils--colorful pasts that remind men that they are more dead than ever. The dead-weight of national identity pulls generations into a giant black hole--a hole with an immense gravitational force that makes it impossible for men to turn their heads towards the sky.
The old russian nihilists were 50 percent correct: destruction is a joyful, creative passion, but only because in it lies the potential of a new world. Conservatives get alarmed because tradition and morality are being swept by the same hand that killed God. However, we people that hold a new world in our heart, should celebrate this nihilism, in so far that it is pre-revolutionary.
From left to right, we hear the same boring song of the nationalist martyr: "embrace tradition, embrace nations, protect your identity!". This "identity" is a very sad obituary--because only those in the graveland live in the memories of the past. My grandfather is already dead, his only "living place" is in my memory; it would be really pathetic that all my everyday decisions were subordinated to this memory. To base one's politics and ideology from "national obituaries" is the sad tale of a humanity unable to embrace its own creativity--its own capability of creation and destruction. If the meaning of my life was totally posessed by the dead memory of the "glorious Mexicatl", I might as well chug a bottle of benzos with a half gallon of vodka.
A famous nazi said once: "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver". I also say the same thing, I also reach for my revolver--but only to shoot culture until it falls dead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
To Quote Marx:
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end."
It is a shame conservatives criticise Marx fot calling for the "destruction of culture" as dry, mechanistic materialism. While in reality, marx tried to create a theoretical framework for the project of the complete man--a satisfied, joyful being, able to totally embrace its creative faculties.
Marx would abolish borders? That is a scenario I find troublesome. Decentralization is an extremely efficient method when designing the sharing of resources for a large population. Centralization of an economy, in most cases, leads to inefficiency of the operation. This appears as famine, widespread hunger and underproduction. This was evident in high populated socialist economies such as China and Vietnam.
One could argue that the defining of countries is a decentralization method for the world as a whole. To abolish the borders of countries so that all nations would merge into a single working class entity would no doubt bring massive chaos to all markets across the globe.
er.
we dont know how the future nation-less community is going to look. whether it is a centralized, unitary workers' state, or a socialist federation, we are not sure yet. looking beyond and trying to forcefeed predesigned blueprints is the task of utopian socialists, not marxists.
furthmermore the bourgeosie is already internationalizing capital,and to a certain extent, destroying borders. imperialism is a world system, and the economic backbone of the world is centralized into a few command centers. nationalism only exists as an ideology, for economic borders themselves are eroding little by little.
what we are sure, however, is that the working class and the rest of the underclasses have in their interests to reject nationalism and instead embrace internationalism.
Post a Comment