The rich are getting richer, and not only a little bit richer. The ability of the masses to survive is being siphoned off by wealthy elites hiding out on super-yachts. We are in serious danger of living in a world of unimaginable poverty in which we slave to fund the glutenous and debauched greed of gout-ridden oligarchs. This article is about political dissent and how we as the masses can create real change in our societies. It draws on the work of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, incarcerated by Mussolini, and Niccolo Machiavelli, and Italian political theorist from the 1500s.
Change may be inevitable, but sometimes it needs a little help in arriving within time. Certainly issues such as climate change, wildlife conservation, and conflict resolution are some good examples. There are many ways to go about attempting to instigate change; some are more effective than others, some create the mere appearance of change, some result in longer-lasting change, some result in superficial changes, and some change root causes. Therefore it is worthwhile to periodically discuss what real change means in our society and how to instigate it. Because a method of change which works in one era or in one nation isn’t necessarily going to be effective in another.
Our societies have always had the same basic structure in which the governing group is considerably smaller than the group it governs. In other words, the power has always been in the hands of the few. A large part of that power is put to use to ensure that the rulers remain the rulers, and so it has usually been the ruling elites that have dictated what the societal governing norm is. By this I mean that they decide what is and isn’t acceptable, permissible and even possible within the framework of a given nations politics. Such a statement doesn’t involve any conspiracies of pre-meditated global dominance or brainwashing orchestrated by the illuminati. Rather it is more or less the inevitable consequence of the ruling power having a larger and more influential voice than the average citizen. It does mean that effective political dissent and rebellion are almost always portrayed as unacceptable. However, whether political dissent is unacceptable in the eyes of the elites or in the eyes of the masses depends on other factors.
Hegemony and the ability to determine ‘legitimate’ forms of dissent.
Arguably one the biggest hindrances to change is the belief that no change is possible; that the current way is the only way. The Italian communist political philosopher Antonio Gramsci is perhaps best remembered for his unfinished work on hegemony. Hegemony is the control garnered from the fact that the citizens cannot conceive of an alternative; they do not strive for an alternative because there isn’t one. There is no alternative because the way things are is not a choice, it is the natural way of things. Hegemonic control by a ruling class involves said class influencing the lower classes culturally and winning them over, and thus the masses are not ruled by force against their will, but with their consent. In such a society, effective political dissent; political dissent that is effective in disrupting the claim to power by the rulers, is seen as unacceptable by the masses as well as the elites.
Such cultural hegemony is evident today in the way we demonstrate political discontent and dissent. The masses in any system must have an expression for its pathos. Pathos is the negative effects of, and complaints about, the political and economic systems of a country. But expression of pathos itself is not enough. When the feeling of pathos becomes big enough and the status quo is unendurable for the masses, they must also have methods of causing disruption to the legitimacy claims of the ruling class: they must have a method of action that threatens the grip on power that the elites have, and use this as a tool of dissent to instigate change. If the ruling class then does not affect change, the masses have the option of complete revolution if the feeling of pathos is big enough to push them toward this. What these methods of action are that can disrupt the ruling elites changes with the development of a society. Any method of political action will, over the years, become subsumed within the framework of the ruling system so that the masses can continue to use it but it no longer has any effect. The ruling elites, if remotely intelligent, will not ban methods of dissent but will absorb them into the official system and de-fang them. This has happened with demonstration; today we are told where, when and how we can ‘legitimately’ demonstrate and protest. We are told that any demonstration that becomes violent or destructive somehow delegitimizes its complaints. The fact that the IRA killed people was used not only to delegitimize the IRA but by extension the issue of Irish independence. The tactics of violent civil rights activists in America, such as the Black Panthers or Malcolm X were used to spread the false link between the claimed illegitimacy of violence and the illegitimacy of their cause: that blacks didn’t deserve civil rights because they killed people. Or that muslims shouldn’t enjoy the same liberties as others because they kill people.
But it is clear any form of dissent that is officiated and sanctioned by the ruling classes is no dissent at all. Far from being illegitimate, the 2010 student riots in London were among one of the few expressions of real anger and dissent, though unfortunately unsuccessful.
Peaceful demonstration and petition signing have largely been subsumed into the political system of democracy such that it is no longer an effective method of instigating change. Millions can march at any time, and often do, as they did against the Iraq war, tuition fee increases, and austerity cuts. But the government can and does ignore them without consequence. All that has happened is that the demonstrators feel they have ‘done their part’ and so do not go any further. Perhaps the ruling class consider that we have ‘got it out our system’. In this way the masses can let out their feelings of discontent in a way that is non-threatening to the elites.
Political rebellion in western democracy is without teeth because those that would rebel cling to outdated and de-fanged methods of political dissent. That is, political dissent in modern western democracies express an opinion but offers no threat to the ruling classes.
The issue is that the ruling classes have gained the upper hand in relation between ethics and methods of dissent, meaning they hold the power in influencing ideas about what is and is not a legitimate form of political dissent. The 20th century’s rise of mass media has certainly given the more shrewd governments a wonderful tool to influence public opinion and quell dissenting voices. But the internet gave us a form of mass media in which governments cannot grab the monopoly of influence, the internet could to an extent redress a balance of influence among societies. That opportunity has to be taken though.
Identifying who is responsible for what.
The other factor, which is related to hegemony, is that our dissent and rebellion has no clear target. Just like getting angry with a corporation such as an internet provider, getting angry with government often leaves you with no direct target. The layers of complexity that are piled onto political and governmental issues are enough to make you question reality itself. Take for example, the case of third world charities. It is of course a well-intended and ethical thing to spend time, effort and money to help the needy in Africa. And whilst many of us do what we can, we are perhaps all aware that the real resolution to many of the problems of third world nations would be to redress the economic and political imbalance that favours western companies and governments. Until we address the effects that hundreds of years of colonization and imperialism have had, and that today companies from our nations are draining these countries for all they’re worth, we will have to continue building clean water taps and make-shift schools for long-term future. But such a colossal problem is simply to big for any one of us to tackle. We feel capable to build a school or raise money, but it would be ridiculous to even try to change the global economic structure that ensures the relative poverty of some nations to fund the lifestyle of others. This is why it is becoming more important to identify who is responsible for what so that we can push them to do it. Politicians, financiers, and the super-rich have become very good at avoiding blame and responsibilities. politicians don’t even pretend to do what they are supposed to be doing, bankers don’t even attempt to hide the massive pay inequalities within their companies or the huge bonuses won through unscrupulous practices. The super rich think philanthropy is a moral good, as if they attained that wealth through a legitimate meritocratic economic system and are just such wonderful kind-hearted saints to allow us lazy work-shy ne’er-do-wells to have just a taste of the rewards of their hard work. Never mind that we live in a society where corporations pay little to no tax; where CEO pay can reach over 100 times the average wage within their company; where ownership, not labour, increases wealth; where the rich hide their ill-gotten gains on off-shore tax havens and the tell us that those powerless refugees and immigrants are stealing all our money.
![IMG_1548[1]](https://specularreflectionsblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/img_15481-e1491222926609.png?w=1000)
We all have responsibilities to societies, some have got away with not doing their fair share for a long time. Like the housemate who never cleans or pays rent but then steals everyone’s food when he comes home shitfaced.
We must, at all costs and at all times, understand that things could be different and never believe that any particular system is natural or objectively correct. Without this knowledge the possibility of change doesn’t even exist.
Machiavelli.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) was an Italian political scientist who wrote The Prince; essentially a guide on how to rule a society and retain power. The book was dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, ruler of Florence.
That it is still one of the most important books for political science serves as testament to its brilliance, and also its controversy. The modern adjective ‘Machiavellian’ describes actions in which the ends justify the means and retention of control or power are a top priority. Synonyms are ‘cunning’, ‘crafty’, and ‘shrewd’.
The adjective really sums up the feeling of the book. It is not a guide on what is best for the people, nor is a guide on how to be an ethical leader, it is a guide on how to retain power – at all costs. Some modern political writers, such as Gramsci and Strauss, thought the book was not meant in earnest, and intended to be read by the masses as comedy. However, its accuracy and genius make me doubt this.
One of the central ideas of the book is the need of a leader to know when to be a lion and when to be a fox. That is, a leader should be capable of brutal violence as well as cunning, and be able to know when to deploy such tactics. This clearly relates to the use of armies and diplomacy, but there is another sense to this advice. The book asks a leader to consider the balance between of how much he gives to his citizens. If he gives too much to them and they live a life of comfort they will become complacent and greedy, always demanding more. They will become insatiable and will ask why they do not have as much as the leader himself. On the other hand, if he gives too little to his citizens they will have nothing to lose in serious dissent and rebellion.
These are simple ideas, but ones that we see reflected all over the place in our modern societies. We can see many countries, such as Syria and Sudan, in which the people have so little that civil war is seen as necessary to bring about change. Zimbabwe and North Korea are time-bombs in terms of civil war. They are nations ruled by fear of violence, and whilst citizens will always have something to fear losing by dissent; the life, at some point even this fear will be overcome by the desperate need for change.
We also see this Machiavellian lion and fox approach in our western democracies. America is a nation that likes to promote an image of itself of affluence, personal liberty, safety, and comfort. However, behind the Hollywood-like image the police are decked out in military grade gear and weaponry. And it is clear to all its citizens that these police are not here to protect and serve, they are not dressed like that to get your cat out of tree. The message clearly and intentionally given is that you can be happy here, you can have enough for you and your family, but god help you if you deviate from the sanctioned life. This message of course does not extend to all groups; blacks, for example, are mostly denied the good life that the ‘real American’ is offered, with results that demonstrate Machiavelli was correct.
A Monopoly on Violence.
This is one of the greatest hurdles to change: that we hesitate in demanding more because we fear losing what we do have. We do not want to wake the dragon that sleeps behind the harmless facade of our governments. This is does not make us cowards or lazy, because people die when citizens seriously challenge their governments.
It is a well established fact that governments and rulers have a monopoly of violence. This means they are the most physically powerful, they control the police and army. No citizen or group of citizens can realistically fight the government and win, unless it is the entire citizenship of a country. It is this knowledge that is the major deterrent to major dissent. And whilst governments spread the message that violence on the part of dissenting groups delegitimizes their claims, the government itself relies on violence and the threat of violence to deter challenges to its power. politicians re-market threats to their power as threats to ‘our way of life’, which assumes my consent to their system. Patriotism is re-marketed as pro-government, and crime is never a symptom of their system which keeps the poor poor, rather it is the greed and selfishness of bad people. As if we are somehow all in this together. But we aren’t all in this together are we. Some people have special rules. Like those who are convicted of attempting to invade Equatorial Guinea but never face a day in prison because they are the son of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Compare that with the London rioter who received a 16 month prison sentence for stealing two scoops of ice cream.
The ruling classes will protect what they have with all that they have, and those that challenge that takes a big risk. There are more examples than I could list in a life-time, but few causes are as universally agreed upon as the case of civil rights in America. Any sane person would agree that the government’s resistance to extending right to blacks was wrong, to put it mildly. It serves as text-book example of state repression and violence. A quick google search of how Fred Hampton or Huey Newton met their ends will be enough to convince anyone that political dissent is not a choice to be taken lightly, but nor is it a responsibility to be avoided.
Specular Reflections 