Unachievable Results

By: Jonathan Seidel

Hostility or envious of the rich: the middle class conundrum with emerging freedom (Fromm, 95) 

The middle class dislikes the poor but they hate the rich. The rich are everything they have fallen short of. Everything they cannot have. Modernity provided the outlet to finally reach the pinnacle. Freedom to attain the riches. The American dream in sight but failing to prevail. Envy sprouting from the incapability. Having to work harder and yet unable to make it. Freedom has exposed a major liability. Here is the offer. Good luck.

Middle class-men were at a clear disadvantage from the rich. They had to start from scratch. The rich were given everything. Generational wealth as well as foundational land to work upon. Resources not privy to the newly freed man. Impassioned and inspired, the freed man searches for excellence. He works extra hard but is unable to compete. Without the proper tools he falls short quickly. He ventures to the the rich to borrow resources. A free man now enslaved to the rich. A debt he cannot easily pay. He has his own field but can only work his field with the rich’s tools. Thus a portion of the produce is allocated to the rich. The rich didn’t work the land but he provided the tools to be able to work it. Owning the means to produce allots him a substantial profit. Where would the free man be without his tools. The free man is part of a larger social group who can only receive tools from the rich who possess the monopoly. Naive and new to the game he is submerged in a quasi-slave mentality. 

He works and works. There is no break and no foundation to stand on. If he cannot attain his share he will lose his land. His land must be profitable to be maintained by him. A disastrous pickle. His hard work may not pay off. His fated failure may be sooner than he thinks. It is work or forever be under the thumb of the rich. Enslaved to his land or enslaved to a master. Both leave him without any control. Deprived of the sweet freedom he once aspired for. The hope for salvation was a vile satanic dream to make his life more miserable. Responsible for his own land has made him quite neurotic. He has no one to fall back on. No welfare to compensate his lost. He is alone figuring the world for himself. He comes from nothing and may return to nothing. It is all on his head. The yoke bears heavy on his aching shoulders. The difficult winter months only strengthen the yoke burdening his shoulders further. Part of him wishes to return to slavery. Return to the automatic compensation. Freedom is painful and jarringly isolating. 

His social circle has collapsed. Yet there is no turning back. There is no return to the salvaged slave life. He is now a struggling free man. He works and works to keep his land afloat. At times he loses his land to the rich. Paying a debt to win it back at some point. Maybe a surplus will bring in the necessary profit to win back his lost reward. The promise of hope in the capital inspires him to find a new role. Farming is much, maybe the industrial advances will be a better fit. Maybe a new trade is in order. The land has been in the hands for generations but every good thing must come to an end. Making his way to the big city is foreign but a start on the way to a new path. Poor and unsheltered he seeks employment. He picks up a newspaper from the ground and finds the available jobs. He makes his way to an interview astoundingly is accepted. With left over money he has from his hometown, he finds a small apartment to rent. His freedom hangs in the balance. The hope is to work hard enough to climb the ladder. Freedom is at the top of the hierarchy. He must pay fees but it is all in hopes of finally achieving his own space. 

As he succeeds, technological advancements make commuting easier. The city has been his home for a decades but the architecture out in suburbia is tempting. A house of his own then commute on the transit to his office. He can finally have something of his own. No more debt to the landlord, he is purchasing his own home. He has moved up in the company but is still an employee, yet there is time till he can be the VP right under the CEO’s son. Life in the suburbs is more flexible. Luscious green grass covers his backyard. Two stories with a playroom for a basement. He has qualified. He matches his house with the magazines. The American dream a mini-Rockefeller. The magazines do not lie. Look at those happy faces and styled attire. At his coronation to VP he exchanges his polo for a dazzled suit. Invited to the CEO’s house he marvels at its expanse. Wowed at the extravagance. Despite cleaning up he realises he is still below the bar. He is outmatched by his superior.  Arduous labour and he is yet to meet the CEO’s level of prestige and projection. 

With a seat at the table he attempts to meet their standard. He cannot. Their hats a fortune, their watches too expensive. He is neatly dressed but feels underdressed. He feels poor amongst his peers. He has attained so much and yet feels inferior materialistically. He is always one step behind. He has moved into a beautiful house, bought a nice car and wears designer clothing. It pales in comparison. Turning over to the president, he mirrors the CEO. Dressed in the CEO’s hand-me-downs passed the torch to keep the machine running. Feeling left out of the surplus chain, he invests his money for a larger return. He plans on upscaling to fit in. On one trip he realises the difference. He sat business while his boss sat first class. The first trip they took he could only afford economy while his boss leisured in business. Now he was in business class but his boss was in first class. He was just playing catch up. There was a clear financial divide. He was able to acquire the new thing by the time the next new thing came out. He was behind but trying to reach the pinnacle of wealth. For him, he was rising a little at a time but couldn’t seem to outmatch his boss as long as his boss was in the chair. His highest run was VP as an outsider.

A role model to his children. They grew up financially stable. Able to acquire much of which they sought. Yet there was always a limit. Money was not unloading by the second. It was paced excess. His children didn’t experience the poverty and the struggles he endured during his adolescence but they acted spoiled. Desiring that which others had. His boss’ children received top-notch toys while his children waited until they dropped in price. They were secondhand after the rich ignored them. His children complained about the rich kids but at times more about the other suburban kids. Other parents went out of their way to buy expensive gifts. Demonstrating to their children that they could afford the price. Pride clouded their financial capabilities. Desiring to look well off when in reality was one step away from reduced poverty. Investments acted as an emergency fund but they were insufficient to compensate the collateral had disaster stricken. Accepting the eternity of the middle class does not mean richness was not strived for in other areas. Articulating rich jargon was a ploy in many regards. Whether it be schooling or simply dressing. The children of the middle class try to manage themselves as financially stable but they do not know the truth. 

Envy forms in his mind. He has worked so hard but he is a part of a company that could whither. Entrepreneurial routes have caught his eye but he is old and set in his ways. Stubborn and naive he persists in his ways. His children are ignorant to the detrimental truth. He will never reach the pinnacle of wealth. He has strived but has fallen short. Succeeded but there is a higher rung. Capitalism offers that possibility. It is plausible and yet he does not make it. A good life but one that can topple in minutes. A scary reality. His children live in their hopeful positivity. All is swell at home. His freedom has enabled him to climb but has also resisted his ability to claim the title he so deeply seeks. Despite his loneliness, he pushed forth. A lion ruthless and impassioned. A proud member of the middle class with aspirations for more. Tied to a social class with lacking social ties. He lives by business. Raised a family and provides for their future. It is a dog eat dog world and he will ensure his family is satiated.

Foreign Leaders

By: Jonathan Seidel

Why are revolutionaries always rich?: the place of peasantry 

Looking at all the revolutionary leaders. All of them come from upper households. Thus it is not at all alarming that Sartre a noble himself took the role of the revolutionary while his ex-best friend Camus took the road of the rebel. It was this case, when Camus wrote the rebel that fractured their friendship. Yet, was Sartre’s elitist upbringing to pay for this or was Camus’ hard life indicatively biased against?

The first revolution that comes to mind is the American revolution. While in this regard the cases are reversed, yet this may be the difference between democratic revolutions and communist revolutions. The leader of the American revolution was wealthy Washington and jolly Jefferson. Jefferson was more passive about the rebellion but still supported it nonetheless. Though afterwards it was impoverished Hamilton who constructed the state control country while the slave owning Jefferson who looked out for the little guy. The patriots at large honed onto the commoners for support even if their highest ranks were wealthy land owners. Having Hamilton around did demonstrate a sense of collectivism and community amongst a group of defenders. It is still the case that it was led by the wealthy and the commoners just tagged along as the war waged on. Wealthy loyalists abandoned after the war. The country took a state-first approach that switched over in Jefferson’s reign and has toppled the line ever since. 

The Haitian, French, Russian etc. all were led by wealthy individuals. Why is this the case? Was Marx correct of the peasantry? Did either they lack the backbone or concern to make those changes? Marx infamously scolded the peasantry though insisting on their advocacy for the revolution. Apologetics may attempt to demonstrate his veracity for them but it is clear in a number of his writings that he felt there were barbaric idiots. Lenin attempted to salvage the discriminatory remarks but his message has been ignored. Apparently in the classist division, the peasantry remain the peasantry; the oppressed remain oppressed. Only a selective group of the oppressed make it out. The newly found middle class must overwhelm the wealthy and take back their profits. White women must appeal to their oppression to regain control over those who have been systematically discriminated against. Marx seemingly had a few choice words for the bottom-feeders. Only the capable oppressed can lead the next generation. Only the newly wealthy can overpower the noble institutions of old. 

Recent revolutionaries remind me of first world liberals and democratisation. It is a privileged access that they can project their freedom onto others. While there are characters from the abused folk much of the remembered leadership is of the wealthier decent. To take an example from the abolitionist example. There were a few ex-slaves and slaves from Tubman to Turner. Yet Tubman’s capacity was aided by other white abolitionists. Ironically despite Brown’s impoverished upbringing, his northern whiteness offered him a certain privilege. The same applies for Garrison. While neither was significantly wealthy monetarily, their influence ran deep in northern reformer circles. The well off recognise their inherent superiority and wish to disseminate that to others. The suffering of others is bothersome and change is imminent. The same came be said of the suffrage movement. Men from Thomas Paine gradually voiced outcry at the female imposition. The male access to authority enabled a crossroads to enable female participation and acceptance. 

On a microlevel, the Jackie Robinson episode was only possible due to Rickey’s rebellious action. The rest of the league was up in arms but Rickey saw potential and added Robinson to the roster. Robinson was not able to partake in the game without Rickey’s contract. It was the sympathy as well as scouting brilliance to take Robinson in. Whether Rickey’s reasons were all noble is irrelevant to the fact that it was this risk that permitted a black man to play alongside a white dominated league. The downtrodden need an assist from the privileged to secure a spot on the highest level. It is a way past the bigotry. Those who have the assets can afford to bring in the destitute for glory. While there will be evident backlash it is reasonable for its ultimate goal even if that goal is to win a championship. The misguided goal does not undermine the impact. The ill informed norm is derailed by a common enemy. There is some truth to the abolitionist growth aligning with the Industrial Revolution. Now the ethical could easily be won over with a lopsided determining farce. 

Disadvantaged folk require the aid of the advantageous to personify their capabilities. In a tribalistic culture there are those who are given prestige over others. Whether oppressed or politically subdued there is a hierarchical variation. The previous American examples were of racial discrimination but this even applies to all areas of oppressor even if that individual be a wealthy white landowning American. The revolution was fought by patriotic elites who wished to do away with British rule. The lack of representation was overwhelming despite their loyalist ties. The impoverished colonists were solely concerned with their lot not the political jargon of independence. A growing disbelief in British overhaul struck the commoner but the political intelligence was a reasoned fight for those with superiority complexes atop the pecking order. The poor were unconcerned with revolution before the Stamp Act bothered their industrial progress. Revolutionary ideas may have bothered them as it angered the British straining colonial relations and finances. Yet once the British replied heavily the propaganda cemented itself. 

While in this case it was the upper class who positioned the revolutionary impulse against the British. The founding fathers built on the enlightenment ideas and British overwhelming sovereignty sought political change. That was only possible in war. Peaceful protests crowded to kick out the British but the latter returned fire and still pulled strings from abroad. It was in the founders best interest to sever ties with a foreign basin of control. Wealthy or not the motive of these wealthy was not so much greed insofar as it was democratic freedom. Sam Adams whose father was bankrupted by Britain but whose uncle was successful lived in both worlds. Economic freedom did not just entail more for the colonists but representation for them. While their poverty may have dissuaded their elected capability, the rights that ensued provided an opportunity never before implemented. They may have been ignorant to the political jargon but they were invested and promised aid afterward as well as Jeffersonian poverty programs. 

The father of revolutions was proceeded by wealthier folk in reactionary detail against a foreign overpowering force. For the average individual maintaining the status quo was the easiest way to live but that did not necessarily mean the best way. America was an proto-imperialist country. There were many loyalists but the patriotic element sprang free as Britain began to feed off of colonial security. The wealthy who had resources and knowledge were able to strategise to overcome the looming threat. To a degree, the poor cared but many a time it was better to keep the current regime in order to survive another day. The colonial response endangered their livelihood. Those with resources could salvage, the poor could not. Yet Britain hurt the poor with their roles. Patriots brought in the poor to aid the fight promising aid when they emerged victorious. Tactical and elemental. Franklin and Jefferson both highly educated recognised the poverty stricken woes. The poor did not seek revolution but the founders sought a better life for themselves and others. The poor were part of the people and thus not only deserved the same rights but also responsibility on the part of the peoplehood. 

Generalised assertions of impoverished decadence and disinterest mark more with contextual proceedings. The poor weren’t such big fans. Yet they were needed. Once they were needed and did their part, it was provoked and provided. Just as in later wars suffrage and civil rights succeeded wartime returnee realisations. The poor are usually ignored for incapability. Yet called upon in emergencies. The poor are sent to war without recourse. Unable to avoid the draft or relent on battlefield ethics. To an extent, there is an imbalance of classist draftees. Many wealthy swindled out of the war while the poor were forced to send their sons abroad. While war did acknowledge the equaliser under fire to desire equality upon return. Feeling these ill warranted sensations with the record inflated prices led to worker strikes and riots. The progressive era was solidified in wartime equality. The unfortunate emergence of communism and worker revolutions dialled back some of the reforms but there was still movement forward to be seen later on. The glorious roaring twenties was for Coolidge and Gatsby buddies. Not for the poor. Afraid of possible revolution they sought to incite it with their radically insubordinate prosperity myth. Leading to the Great Depression a rich person cause but a poor person problem. 

The poor are at the whim of the rich. Lacking access forfeits opportunity and power. Under the thumb of the wealthy giants who control the commercial enterprise leaves those belittled without any foothold to argue back. The nullified reforms of the progressive era could not be appealed by the average citizen. The wealthy in charge ensured their materialistic rise while inequity spread like wildfire. When the crash hit they wiped the dirt off their hands as if they had no claim in the game. Yet such a routine is obvious from the 2008 crash when the wealthy screwed everyone and the poor were blamed. Scolding the meagre to feel superior. Those who at face value have no power so they must have secretly concocted this in order to try to frame the rich. So sinister those impoverished destitute folk. Such lunacy is passed to the middle class as a genuine through the media outlets. Those giants want the poor to be isolated. No helper to assist. Why travel to Nebraska there are so few people there. Their desires are washed up in polarised battle ground. They are not trying hard enough. It is the American dream figure it out. If you can’t that is your problem. All the basic opportunities have been supplied so work harder. 

A rebellious effort seeks work in between the lines. A sislib hoping to make a change via protest. If I were in the chair of power I would usher in the utopia. It is possible. Yet power may corrupt. Power never before wielded may be overwhelming or paranoia seeking in. To work with the system is to have faith the system could make things right. Camus was an optimist believing in humanity’s positive potential. He recognised the historical dangers of revolutions naming the Reign of Terror and Gulags as examples. The fear of new governmental agencies replacing the old did not entail better life. If anything it became the same monster it wished to replace. For all Jefferson and Franklin’s visions, they replaced a classist society with a new one. While they programmed it different, the poor were still poor and the new leadership continued to act in its own trajectory. Proportionally the system may be better than the monarchy of old but it does not suggest that it has transformed the classist enterprise nor salvaged the destitute. Revolution is noble but it takes a man from the harboured state to reject it. Never the man who resides but an outsider who wishes to incite a revolution on their behalf. The rich promise to make a better life for their poor colleagues but they just install themselves without lending any hand to those poor devils they promised to help. 

Sartre’s vision to aid as a superiorly educated individual. Recognising the inequalities, with his knowledge and connections he could aid the struggling Algiers. Did Algiers seek revolution? Is feeling enough? Where does the epilogue lie? The wealthy impose their ideology on the public. Providing resources to reconfigure society to their liking. They have seen the suffering so they well-intentioned impale themselves betraying their class colleagues. They join the enemy. Noble but imposing. They do not cheer from afar but lead the charge. Hoping for a different society a utopia that needs guidance, their guidance. How successful does this become? Were has this led us? The rebel plays it safe. Gradually evolutionarily piercing the elitist bind. Yet this sislib cooperates with the enemy of the people. Protesters may seek to push enforcers to make changes but they do not always follow through. Officials are more or less from rich households putting the poor at a disadvantage. Thus it is incumbent on the rich official to show some sympathy and seek change but such is not easy. Even if this corrected, does it lead to the promised utopia or a chronicle of a fairy tale gone wrong. Changes made help the average person sometimes but rarely meet the quota for the struggling ousted as stragglers for not doing their part. Alienated as the demons of the country weighing everyone down, a natural bum of sorts to punch for their laziness.  

Famous rebels include the poor MLK Gandhi and Mandela. Voiding violence for credible solutions. Ethics trumps violence. A violent rage would react with identical tenacity. Bloody outcome with killer instincts following suit no matter who came out on top. Non-violence was a matter of ensuring the hopes of the disenfranchised. Fortunately, Mandela survived his assassination attempt unlike Gandhi and MLK. Their words powerful but change not so much. Yet the native Camus power was strong within. Those from the disenfranchised sought non violence to reap a better tomorrow. It is those outside the cause that demonstrated a desire for a shift in political order. The founders sought not to rebel and instead fought a revolution that cut ties with the motherland for a long time. Yet while they were native colonists they were wealthy and played an elitist role in colonial society. An effort the poor did not. The three non violent individuals enraged in the slums. Though Malcolm X was a revolutionary from the slums. He purported a Jeffersonian narrative to urge political violence for a goal. If the crony elites and yes the FBI attempting to undermine the civil rights movement there needed to be a method out of this maze. Removing them violently would be a start. 

Such optimism is even greater from Sartre that his theoretical version would work best. An Orwellian phantom pressing on the socialist unconscious. It could potentially occur. He could be the second coming of Jesus. The second coming of Jesus may falsely end with a repeated crucifixion. The ideal does not always match the real. The revolutionary seeks an ideological shift but with the same mannerisms. You oppress me I will oppress you thus liberating everyone. While there is a difference between an internal and external revolution, the clear conclusion impacted the lay leadership while regressing the lower level. The lobby and upper floors were renovated but the basement was ignored, too gross to change. No one is going down there. Not worth the money. The rebel as one man either yelps into a void or is kidnapped from his capacity. Either it’s a dud that is retroactively played for immediate inspiration and dumbfounded forehead smacking. The people as a collective must move forward. Yet even as a worrisome collective to elitist hold in Washington, there is little legal viability to administer changes. So stuck in the mechanics there is an obvious ethical shortage obstructing progress.  A revolution seeks to shift the order but that seemingly does not shift the power balance nor the ethical focus.

Revolutionary eyes seek to dismount the master oppressor with guided knowledge. To erase the cancer with their expertise. They have the resources they will bring about change with their capabilities. To dismantle the former regime with a new equal one. Liberate but with which alternatives. A new model with the revolutionary at the helm. So unhappy with their current esteem they need to be praised even more. Too coupled with aristocratic elite they wish to be the sole elite. Oh how risky yet profitable. It is this sole individual’s vision that seeks to upend the present disaster. An equal society under his watch. One that manifests by his perceptive clause. Equality from on high. Another top-down mechanical format with nuances. It will be different, there will be more hope for the ailing. No more external pressure only potentially internal scrutiny. The messiah from above lectures the sufferers down below. Grabbing his notes to preach to the discombobulated public perplexed at the growing madness. Hope met with cunning deception. Unintentional but unfortunately inevitable. The last regime meets the new regime. With his impeccable orders the construction is complete and he takes his role at the head. Don’t worry poor folk he will care for your concerns. It is not as if he simply replaced the old regime with himself. He wasn’t simply fighting for his own gain. His reforms will demonstrate that. Do not fret this is the only way to be free. 

Wealthy perception recognises the disproportionate measures. Recall the university lefty drive of intersectional ‘socialist’ unipolar power. Things must be made right with overpowering differences and ensuring equity is pronounced. Justice must be served. At any cost whether that violence is bloodless. With zero care to the mental faculty of the other side. Screaming crying censoring and damaging those who disagree. There is one way to bring about change and it is to force it. Yet this only brings upon reactionary resentment. Most people desire the basics of their ideals. Ethically charged is beautiful but manifested as a wild beast hellbent on pulverising all those in its path disengages the public to their cause and only empowers the elites. Well intentioned with this unique superior view of the world. A youthful naivety coupled with ethical charm to rewrite the history books. Change is inevitable let’s just adapt faster. Take extremes and blame games to deter any dialogue fostering hostility and burdensome community. A first world problem that seeks to exploit all possibilities and create new narratives solely to generate openness and creativity. The absolute of autonomous expression. A revolutionary ideal sought with perception not weaponry. 

The game no more is blasted with arms but with ideology. Whose thought is the most powerful who can censor and diminish others for their opinions. Control is in the hands of those who care more and fight back harder. Yet their charitable motives meet their regrettable actions. Elites laugh as the people fighting amongst themselves. The people’s greatest enemy is the government not their own brethren. Elected officials are able to get away with things because the people turn a blind eye or play apologetics for scum. Politics and dubious differences divide the most central of autonomy. A goddamn free country cannot hold a unanimous rebellion. Always finding nuance to disagree and fight. Playing into the matrix game. No puppeteer is needed, it’s a failed improv where the protagonists beats himself up allowing the enemy to escape. Revolutionaries are not met with delight. Change is hard. Radical change is harder. Most people want to see gradual growth. Basic rights with things getting better for everyone. Yet the focus on social issues bemoans the poverty crisis. Environmental inquires and social programs take the place of ensuring people can house themselves. The revolutionaries live lavishly on daddy’s credit card and full ride to university when the struggling farmer is drowning away in his work or on tour in the endless wars. Where is the rebellion for the basic needs of survival? Maybe if they lived like peasants they would think like them. 

Accepted Fate

By: Jonathan Seidel

Nietzsche’s slave morality as submissive instead of reactive  

Nietzsche has a few choice words for what he regards as slave morality. In his sociological explanation, he argues that the weak fable individuals enslaved to the master resist with a new ethic. Their revolt is conditioning a new frame that usurps their agonising masters. It is submissive incarnation coping with the degradation. Yet, Nietzsche’s historicist clarification fails to understand the totality of history. 

His analysis makes sense in the christian context resisting hellenisation. Though christianity incorporated many aspects of master morality even if they played it off as slave morality. The church’s supremacy championed kindness but enforcing power. They utilised slave morality to quash the “master morality” vikings (which ironically is a cinematic construction). While this in itself incoherently acknowledges the mythos of nordic ethics, it does demonstrate the Church’s synthesis to control the masses. Nietzsche’s critique of christian institutionalism is fairly noted but that does not include pre-hellenistic morality whether in Persia or Jerusalem. The origins of Christianity seem have to submitted to the hellenistic vision and in time socially rebelled. The fall of the Roman Empire was an internal collapse. The lack of national patriotism was saved by religious cohesion especially in the Byzantine region. 

While the Church may have finagled itself into a powerful regime built on asceticism and purity, this did not cease hierarchies, superiority complexes or deranged otherness. The crusades are perfect example of punishing weak Jews (who were weak because of christian polemics and laws. Also were amazing merchants). Nietzsche’s argument of christian slave morality may exist in modern liberalism but it had zero affect in the Middle Ages. His slave morality clause is true to its inception under attack from the hellenised Romans such as Nero and Hadrian. When they attained power, equal to the Roman Empire they followed the same paradigm. They maintained the classist structure with a few tweaks. Placing the Church atop the noble chain and the Pope as the Emperor. The crusades were a call to fight and then the christian world responded consecutively. Whether or not the Church promoted killing innocent Jews, christians exacted their dominion over the helpless Jews. They were cattle with no protection nor way of overcoming the threat. 

The ethical dialectic begins in Ancient Greece and the shift in global perception. Thinking of great empires of Babylon and Persia. While they conquered the world, they rarely forced their beliefs on the nations they conquered, instead they required taxation. The Biblical stories attest to this and independence was a measure of strength and maintaining currency. Hellenism alters logistical conquest to ideological conquest. The ideological motive became ever terminable. Subjugating losers to the victor’s way of life. A uniform identity. Anyone out of line would feel the wrath. This measure of control ousts any otherness. Either with us or against us. Consequences were horrid. Take the ten martyrs or crusade victims. From Greece to Rome to Christianity, Islam to Nazi Germany and Liberalism. Each of these groups pushed their own ideology on everyone else forcing or expunging those who refused to conform or couldn’t. This has yet to end. From cyberbullying to heckling political polarisation has been so grave.

Acknowledging its history and universalist formulation subduing all otherness only promotes master morality and massacres. Persisting the theme with different characters or different orders did not alter the outcome. Different actors with the same mission to ensure their idea is uniformity accepted. This idea of power is the fear of otherness. There is a sole method. The modern movements of mcCarthyism and the red scare are perfect examples. Preaching democracy as the saviour the world and communism as the devil incarnate is a demonstration of monolithic advertisement. Ironically, the Nazis first came for the socialists then the trade unionists and then the Jews. It was the Aryan way or the highway. The Nazis like their predecessors followed the master morality methodology through brute force. Today, there is no critical thinking and the actors in charge like Nazism exert power over the other and the people stand idly by. A reoccurring theme that may not possess the same physical force of old yet does sufficient damage in media stereotypical polemics.

Slave morality at face value is a reaction to the master’s coercive force. That does not make it wrong. The submissive element toils in deconstructing the system. The ethic is to do the opposite. To reverse the hierarchy and undermine the power struggle. Nietzsche’s explanation explains the model in context of its resistance to the master morality. To expel the overbearing master, they attempt to do the reverse. They are the many whether the peasants in the feudal system or poor in the capitalist system who are at the mercy of the few controlling parties. The master’s are merely individuals who do as they wish excelling proficiently. It is the masses in their jealous revolt. They wish they can have what the masses have. They construct a boogyman fuelling their pettiness. It is not resilience it is foolish superficiality. It is a classic measure of apologetics justifying their own schemes. In capitalism is it the poor’s fault for not trying hard enough to gain money.

Apologists maintain that their way is correct and others are wrong. The red scare is regarded as the worst thing since sliced bread. The poor are poor because of their own insolence. The issue at large is the pragmatics involved. A system that overlooks the pain of the past in order to promote its agenda. Acknowledging their success and demoting others. Other’s failures is due to their own negligence. In the U.S. conservative arguments concerning absent fathers in the black community may be a cultural problem but given context with slavery and Jim Crowe there may be a larger psychological phenomenon. Another example is the competitive spirit but smaller businesses are at an inherent disadvantage and cannot compete and fail. It is a matter of recognising the complexity of situations. Nothing as as simple as it appears. There is more than meets the eye. There is an interconnected thread spreading from situation to situation, nothing is immune of influence. 

Power is a the heuristic of control. Nietzsche absolves the marxian critique. The capitalist or the christian is not an aggressor but simply living his own life. Additionally, it may just be “human nature” to take at will lacking any responsibility to one another. There is an axiomatic ethic for the people but little proactiveness to ensure tranquility. People who are left behind are those who are lazy and bitter. This view muddles the corporate control and political hierarchical disposition. The initial clever manipulator placed himself above all else and the ensuing generations have suffered for this fool’s errand. Garnering support though hypnotic charisma is a savage egocentric perception. Support turns into influence which transforms into power. To an extent there are those who are responsible for enabling the few powerful to attain such might. Yet in most situations it was done in good faith. If the people trust the ruling class then they should be alright, Yet it is the minorities who suffer the most as the scapegoats. 

Minorities did choose this fate. Blacks did not decide to be sold as slaves nor did Jews accept Nazi rule. At times Jews entered a town willingly but were promised to be cared for. William of Orange brought the Jews into England to help the economy and once they did their part he exiled them. He lied to them. Modern immigrants face the same challenge. It is not necessarily their fault and they then forced to start afresh in a foreign land treated as subhuman. Their minority status places them at the bottom of totem poll open for attack. Even when the nation promises protection is fails. Many a time there is no where else to turn. The majority’s submission is not equivalent to the minority. The majority also does not submit itself voluntarily to authoritarian rule. They are backstabbed by the leader. A promising prophet is a false prophet, the devil leading them to their demise. Being duped is not simple nor easily recognisable. The majority placed its hands in representatives that took it upon themselves to ensure their own future. Usually the founders are good-willed while corruption is a later generation, once power is entrenched in a certain class. 

Cementing oneself in the echelons of the hierarchical order is advantageous and prolonged. Not everyone is born into a specific family or brilliant to invent something or a charismatic individual. Nature and nurture are privileges that are not afforded to everyone. Attributes are fated and while there are ways to eclipse it, that is not always possible. Even with these privileges, there is an ideological necessity. Entering the aristocratic group, there are certain qualifications to their ideals. A medieval Jew was coerced to submit to the church to further his wealth and today is to keep trading with wealthy friends. As long as the wealth is maintained in the upper stratosphere, it gives little opportunity to strive beyond. Since many of these wealthy institutions have entrenched their power over decades, it does not switch to average Joe to pull off a miracle. The players may change but not the mechanics. A system regulated in routine for enough time, the norm disallows any fundamental alterations. Revolution becomes the sole solution. 

The ideologically possessed few reaching the top push their agenda for profit. Master morality is a misnomer. There is ethics here. It is to do whatever wish to maintain power. Feudal lord’s retained their might by expanding their circle. Both systems were highly profit incentivised. As long as profit is the prime motivator, it will continue to plague national cohesion. These few devilish characters redirect the public’s attention to the minorities as the scapegoat. It isn’t the greedy rich who have screwed the average person but the foreigners. Pinning the blame on otherness clouds the good willed civilian into a racist. The elitist club feeds on the people’s fears and directs them to these fictions with realistic consequences. They toy with people. Their influential might is placed in the minds of aspiring individuals. Everyone wishes to escape the average life for a spectacular life. All the riches and status. The powerful solidify their ethos with bogus achievements creating a yearning archetype. 

Nietzsche’s mistake is in presenting slave morality as this nourished rebellion. Yet the assailants are Jews and christians. It is from the oppressed but more those from a different order. Religious observers have a unique niche to perceive the world a different plane. Their spiritual mechanics is a kind of schizophrenia. While a fictional presentation by scientific standards, its metaphysical orientation educates a differing model of life with different values. Slave morality is not vigorous hate for the master. Needing to act out like a rebellious teenager doing the complete opposite of parental guidance. While elements concerning socialism’s anti-hierarchy are responsive that does not mean, that should not be an ideal to search for. The Jewish biblical model was heavily hierarchical and fated. Slave morality in a sense perceives the suffering of the out of control chaos. An empathy is constructed from the traumatic travesty. The altered perception switches from a materialistic view to a caring view. Personal success is irrelevant if the collective does not advance as well.       

It offers a grouped understanding. It is not individual aspiration but a collectivist dream. Understanding that technically there will be a hierarchy. Someone must lead the nation. Yet, in this situation, the representative clause is taken seriously. The leader works for the people because his ultimate goal is group development. It is honourable and generous. People working for one another is a duty. Appearances are hallowed for inner soulful presence. It was not an oppressed response out of jealousy but out of resentment. Devising changes to enter a new ethically successful society. Yet Soviet Russia failed in this regard. Just as the vikings pillaged for profit, Europe imperialised for profit and Soviet Russia worked for profit. A proper transition to ideal socialistic impact is through an ethical shift. Only those who have suffered understand the pain of others. The master does not care for consequence immune to his own pain. The slave sees his brethren suffering alongside himself. It unites them in a hopeful future. Responsibility for each other is a proactive claim to consistency check on people. The slave looks out for his own. Cogs in a wheel but in pursuit of a greater goal.

He does not work for his master’s industry. He wishes to be independent. Nietzsche forces morality into a binary. He does not see an oppressor but a successor. A celebrity everyone is envious of. Creating a reactive ethic to escape their status and destroy his status. If they cannot achieve then no one can. The slave is forced into the binary, he does not ask to be enslaved. He wishes for freedom. Whether from watching his master roam freely or simply recalling his life prior to his enslavement. Nietzsche’s paradigm suffers from acknowledging the master’s ultimate power over the slave. Given his critical democratic outlook it is not shocking that he dissolved the political setup back into a master-slave contract. There is some truth in the corporate feudalism but his answer of the superman is accepting the order of things. As it argues to fight fire with fire. To show one’s strength become a master oneself just as freed slaves become slave owners as well. There is an eternal hierarchy may as well play the game. The way out is to do others that which you did not like to be done to you. Don’t fret it’s natural selection. 

This latter move is completing jealousy by becoming the monster itself. The powerless slave is reactionary no doubt but it is not as if his identity is entirely invented by trauma experienced. It is obviously a major factor in inspiring such experience but the irony is that the powerless recognise that there will always be a powerless even in an equal society. Variables are predetermined that crush the perfect life. It is the powerless who traumatically introspect and recognise a new future. The initial thought is how to overcome this situation to live like the master in an oedipus rage. The second step post-reflection is to shift the paradigm. How can the gap be reduced How can we will live comfortably with less problems? Focusing on the collective drastically diminishes the individualistic growth. If the individual seeks out his own salvation he will either become the monster master or abandon society fulfilling his own greed. The powerless collective seek salvation together. Their ethical primacy is motivated by a mutual understanding of pain and dread.

Power is not the sole answer to peace. The recognition of the binary overpowering dominance bemoans the stragglers. Failing to fall in line with the ideological monism will torment any progress forward. The latecomers are at a  heavy disadvantage. They see revolution as the solution to equalising the playing field. At the current state due to the choices and influences some people have prevailed at the expense of others. Achieving heights whilst forgetting the rest of society. Nietzsche’s natural selection is void of collectivist responsibility. While he may loathe democracy he essentially is promoting its continuation in its Neo-aristocratic garb. Monetary passion need not be the aspiration of humanity. Individualism coerces self made accomplishments. Divided belittles those left behind. Often is not unskilled but repression. Those with power join to suppress otherness. They are actively ensuring their exclusivism. Their own privileges enabled their success and then prejudice others for attempting to achieve the same feet. Penalising attempts by cutting the rope collapsing the bridge to the wealthy sector. 

Reaching the eminent space on the backs of others should leave at least an ounce of empathy. In psychopathic denial he refused to admit he needed others’ help to reach the pinnacle. He affirms his own pride as a self made man. A ludicrous assertion that fuels his arrogance. He is safe in a new group away from the stragglers. He has made it and quickly forgets the troubles of old. In despotic disgust he challenges others to devour their souls to attain his prestige. He lacks sympathetic humanity for the suffering. People do not choose suffering. By variables generally under their control are placed in awful positions. Privileged individuals should use this as a time to look back. Even the owner who makes a huge profit, is only profiting from his workers’ hard work. He may have provided the supplies but it is their tireless effort that ensured his success. Gratitude loyalty and responsibility are values voided in the monistic individualism. The contract is incongruent. The employer doing others a favour. He fails to acknowledge their prominent work to accomplish the vision. It is not shocking that strikes occur. People grow angry when they are not appreciated for their work and uncompensated for their efforts. They are humans not animals to you with and do away when unnecessary. 

Any success story persists to require others to succeed. Any owner needs employees an author needs readers and a politician needs voters. Every success occurs with reciprocation. While the employee reader and voter are receivers and gracious ones at that, they still play a pivotal role in the success. If not for them, there would be no profit no company no book no campaign. Even more so the staff the owner author and political work with to put everything together. A recognition of the others’ need fuels an awareness of collectivism. In this language game of exchange it is less a gift and more a mutual need. The pride that comes with a moral implications. The ethical relation is beneficial in helping both camps without exploitation. Yet placing oneself in a higher seat as better than others. That they need you more than you need them, is dually egregious. It furthers this Nietzschean superiority complex over taking all for granted. Any concern for the other or collective is undermined. The monetary excess and profit generated are primary concerns not the concerns of the workers or the voters. Toying and manipulating people.                 

Context to master morality places its origin in hellenistic universalism. Its ideological backing pushed individualistic profit motivation. The church, medieval and modern imperialism both attribute to this norm. The only empire resistant to this affect was the east. The great Chinese empires did little to expand westward. They had their own superiority complex but their choosiness was spiritually relevant manifesting in a bordered existence. The asian empires that of the Mongols, Khmer  and Meiji committed horrific massacres as well but not pushed by ideological bound were religiously tolerant. They were barbaric in their own right like their western counterparts but to some extent it follows more of the ancient logistical conquest than the ideological universalism of the west. Both were tremendously brutal and hunted difference but at times the irony lies in the liberal deceivers who claim to push for freedom and liberty all the while planning to undermine the faithful. 

Impoverished Foes

By: Jonathan Seidel

Foucault’s description of power disgraces the hellenised hierarchical archetype so long debated in western culture. Yet this insular model followed the democratic process. An inevitable consequence of republican policy. The rule of law as the measure of constitutionalisation. Yet there is an imbalance. A classist model either embraces the transitional aristocracy of the past regime or the individualised growth. Yet with such freedom, there will always be a weather class. With wealth comes power. Yet is that is inevitable? Is wealth the necessary barometer? Will such a system endeavour to exist? 

The rule of law in democratic Greece altered the political landscape of sovereign immanence. The insular model sought to equalise the people but in the end created two different classes. For a society that only marginally emancipated certain people, it was only inevitable to have classes. Yet for the voter count there were still lower class individuals. There is a structure of the employer and the employee. One subsequently reaches farther than the other. The employer is always ahead given his resources. He provides the means. As long as the human order has a leader he will place his own priorities before others. He will be in charge and need others to follow. Positional relativity is inevitable. Someone needs to lead while others follow. A more dominant force and a more submissive force. This is not necessarily an ontological point about human neurology but about human construction. If an employer and employee is inevitable given a storeowner hiring waiters or a CEO hiring associates. Someone will be ahead and his successors cater to his wisdom. 

The fault of a democracy is pinning its own citizens against one another. Prior to Greece it was the external sovereign over the land. The masses were placed on equal footing. Dive authorship had separated that gap. An acceptance of a place in the hierarchical order. As a piece of the empire there was not much of class politics. Lacking any political stance nor any say mitigated any discursive effect. Greece gave that thought to the people. You can fight and mention your woes. You do play a pivotal role in the system. You are important. Whether or not the upper class respected the lower class, the democratic ideology did. Her recognition of both peoples as citizens is verification. The ideal serenity was muddled by corrupt upper class nobles. They manipulated the law and even around the law to get their way. Justice is not always provided despite the social contract. Judicial discretion and the active complexities do not ease the indictment. Atticus Finch’s sparkling defence falls on deaf ears to the racists. The rule of law is upheld but not adequately. A sharp division between the classes is more than a practical difference. The separation is hierarchically deficient in admitting special access. Money talks. 

The internal matrix dehumanises its own citizenry. Unintentional but necessary beef. It is ultimately a battle of wits. Fending for themselves they have to look out for themselves. A self interested outlook. The democratic decision emerges from an ethical attitude that attempts to meet both regards. There are more successful citizens than others. Some more prestigious families than others. Certain privileges afforded to some more than others. This superiority complex shows its fangs in blaming the poor for failures. It is their fault. They are dragging society down. They are not pulling their own weight. The polemical attitude is generally not concerned with violent protest. Though the other side perceives the wealthy as greedy jerks. Selfish maniacal egomaniacs unwilling to share their profit with the masses. In it for themselves. Protest and public demonstrations are a constant remedy not necessarily the violent type. Yet poverty does push people to do some dangerous things for their health. A desperate sect will act superficially for their sake.   

The classes are determined by economic stability. While the market enables free oscillation between classes, it is not as simple as that. Freedom is provided but it’s not absolute. Governmental programs cause certain professions to be limited in their social coverage. Noble jobs like a teacher or police officer do not make the same amount as a lawyer does. Yet many European doctors make little money as well. The incentive is not high but passion prevails. Higher salaries are afforded to the demanded professions of the era. Currently, computer science is the most sought after skill. It is a very complex and sophisticated skill, not one easily learned. Since the market changes, jobs that today are important, tomorrow may not be. Some are safe bets. Traditional roles will persist until robots take them over. When that happens therapists may be the sole surviving profession as the most human element. Still, the freedom to choose a profession though may hinge on certain qualities that may be unfit for one profession but not another. So not a good computer scientist but a good lawyer. The multifold variety provides that limitless opportunism. Exceeding the foundational regulation of parental restriction. As my father always said, once it is your house you may do as you please. 

The fantasy opportunism is genuine to an extent. While these options exist, one must qualify. A land of opportunity does not necessitate equal opportunity from the get-go. Nature has a profound impact on societal capability but born in the wrong place wrong time, can all be for nought. The inability to demonstrate one’s skill is truly tragic. Inaccessibility is a misfortune but not one that can easily be corrected. While biases exist, this is more of a trans-generational travesty. Growing up in hillbilly Kentucky or slums of Detroit nurture unfortunate upbringings. Poor neighbourhoods do empower individuals to survive but also exposes them to real dangers. Gangs and mafia types recruit for deprecating agents. Putting themselves in dim conditions to aid their families. Many are lost and alone. Seeing this as the only option. There is no leaving the neighbourhood. Join the crime or bend the knee. Habituation only furthers a hazardous lifestyle. Fear and solitude aids the crime groups to prey on these suffering individuals. Life isn’t easy and their saviours provide them a way out. If the system promised to give them opportunity and cannot deliver then someone else maybe can. 

         

The surroundings are impressively influential on the young’s life. Raised in a troubling area needs proper economic stability to maintain positive rhetoric around. Finances and role models to steer developing minds on the right track. Without any change, the instability will persist causing a crisis in the community. An area riddled with crime is broken, poor and disheveled. Further towards the abyss the less light shining on the young future. Without hope an entire group is shacked from the future. They continue blindly in the dark toward nothingness. In this inverse version of the cave analogy the crime lord is the saviour. He is the wilful provider against the wealthy sinister agents. An elitist regime against the people. Yet ethically, this is all an illusion. There is no philosopher, it a fictional vision to make ends meet. For providence people will do what is necessary to survive. To escape the perils of poverty, they engage in illegal activity for their promising gain and liberation. Escaping poverty is a goal manageable but once stooped in, it’s a dire lifestyle. Like any other profession it is a job to do and to help the family. The group becomes a beacon of familial love, one not showed by the government nor the police.  

The impoverished are cut off from the main supply of access. The greatest privilege is not any race or religion. While that may give one an edge for familiarity, it is not the main indicator. Connections are so important. A friend once joked that Jews have Jewish privilege. Jews look out for one another so at a job interview one may get the edge because his father prays at the same synagogue. Reality is, relationships will take you so far. Finding professions by communication is dually credible. There is a tribalist lacing that is an inevitable bias. People like those who are like them. It does not mean they will not hire others but they may give primacy to their members. it is not negative discrimination but positive camaraderie. Connections are only valuable if that connection is advanced. A bunch of poor friends is not necessarily an efficient way of making a buck. Friends in high places is justly relevant. Due to the Jewish communal experience, the poor Jew though embarrassed can approach the rich Jew after services and ask for a favour. The connection of a memorial past and religious traditions may be sufficient. A privilege not many others are afforded. 

The poor out in generationally struggling communities are limited to their communities. Their probable escape is low and keeps descending infinitely. They do not have the access nor the prestige that rich counterparts have. Gladwell analogises the disproportionate quantity of elite hockey players born in early months to the generational success of the wealthy. It correlates to environment and opportunities. While for the hockey players they were larger and thus seen as more dependable, for the rich their wealth gave them tutors to aid in pursuing futures. The innate ability is heightened by the socio-economic fortune. If access is provided the talent is given the necessary advantage. His example of Oppenheimer demonstrates how connections can aid in voiding a poison charge. Oppenheimer’s brilliance could have been crumbled had his familial links not panned out. Even more so for a prodigy from the projects. The wrong environment can corrupt great potential. The Manhattan project was full of ex-German Jews who built the atom bomb and defeated Hitler in the gravest of ironies. Not everyone gets a chance nor is it available to the degree that we would like. 

The solution to this dichotomy is not simple. Yet there is an intuitive and pragmatic rationale for aiding the poor. The intuitive answer is an ethical one born of human empathy. Doctors serve all patients as a duty of theirs to humanity. People should could care about others in the spirit of their shared heritage. Empathy is natural but it is only one of the reasons to help. The second reason arises from consequentialism. Beyond the deterministic factor that divides society. People born into tough socio-economic surroundings have a lower probability of success. Not impossible but improbable. Poorer areas have higher crime. While, wealthy individuals can move to their own communities, even gated communities, there is no escaping developing crime. Its gruelling insolence cannot deter ignorance. The gated communities cannot survive forever. Poverty hurts society. It spreads crime and disease. As a group, society will prevail over the individual. The rich need the poor. The rich need the poor to operate. A wealthy businessman owns a factory and he hires poor employees to work in the factory. They need one another. It makes the most sense to provide necessary health to ensure productivity. Especially in a labour shortage it is that much more important. 

The eradication of poverty is the goal of every society. Even in such a system The present climate is ideological over economic. Tribalistic disassociation bars mutuality and any futuristic employment. Embodying the liberties and the disparities gravitates towards the betterment. Classes are economic but it has transformed into an ideological front. It is not solely a money issue but a systemic suppression of the poor. It is a neo-medievalism whereby an aristocracy commands political influence over the masses. There are opportunities for growth but the poor are placed in a bad position. A socio-economic issue does not necessitate a cabal-like sovereign dominating the poor. The reality of deterministic output is unaligned with radical displacement. The poor are not hunted but ignored. The classist model is superficially diagnosed as discounting poverty. Poverty has always been an issue but lives have been improved, still there is more that can be done. Ideological motivation only compels a tyrannical presentation. The reality though bleak is misconstrued. Contextualised in the debunked meta-narrative finds disproportionate isolation by virtue of sociological iteration.