Previous Entry Share Next Entry
State of the Mind

Politics are the accumulation of all human behavior. Politicking is the acceptable social mechanism for trying to coerce others to believe what you believe. In this there is a very fine line between politics and religion, as ultimately the same end result is desired. The system desires to control how we act. However politics act on empirical behaviors, whereas religions more work towards the domain of what is "felt", which is a more internal behavior and so has less objective proof of success or failure.

Take a convicted murderer who finds religion in prison. There is no way of empirically weighing how the religion has affected his soul, that is truly only a perception the prisoner is aware of, and has little effect on how the rest of society perceives the man and his actions. Politics however has a more tangible effect, because politics are the vehicle by which each society has created law, and so whether or not this man is affected by capital punishment, whether he lives or dies, is ultimately decided by the politics that have made an effect on whatever society he acts within. This is an effect that all of society can perceive.

Coming back around though, I feel this is why I fixate so much on politics in my writing, because ultimately it is the one true thing that matters in society. An argument could be made for art, but once again art evokes feelings, which can produce action, but ultimately the vehicle the action would come through would be politics again. A piece of art could make you feel, for example, that murder is awful and should never occur, but without politics to turn that sentiment into law, it remains an impotent feeling.

The thought behind this tonight actually has nothing to do with murder, that's just a powerful example of the distinction between what produces results and what produces ambivalence. The thought behind this is the giant gulf that exists between the powerful and the powerless, and how the only true way to remedy this is with politics. This creates possibly one of the greatest conundrums of modern society, because it is obvious that there is an imbalance of wealth and resources, however those with power (ie wealth and resources) are those who make the decisions. These are the ones who put politicians in power, and so it seems unlikely, if not impossible, that these wealth-driven individuals would ever make the conscious choice to endorse a politician who would intentionally threaten their excess.

The action wouldn't make sense, it would defy self-preservation, which is one of the most powerful responses a human feels. So how could a society muster up the politics to make a wealth changing play with enough backing to be enforced, without it being backed by the wealthy?



Log in

No account? Create an account