#12
The
present stage of this world relies on the perception of its
population; its very transformation relies on perception. The method
of the police-state is to fix the general perception so as to avoid
revolution, or, let's say, subversion. As Kapitalismo-sozjietie
advances economically, the world and its transformation is subject to
the perception guided by ideology; it is the ideology of Kapital's
materialization contemporaneously. The development of global Kapital
relies upon the mediation of the spectacle – its role is essential
– but the role it plays is nevertheless regional; Kapital attempts
to penetrate even the most underdeveloped areas to capture the
resource of its people. The purpose of the spectacle is to portray
the reality of Kapitalismo-sozjietie, to obliterate completely any
pronouncement that does not satisfy it ideologically – it appears
that its totalitarian existence relies on nothing other than the
formation of its own crude abstraction.
Complexity
of plurality becomes in itself the site of opposition to the power
base of Kapital and its abundant, sophisticated construct.1
“It is apparent that authority is not simply one entity, and that
there are many perceptions of the boundary.”2
The operations of Kapitalismo-sozjietie and their associated power
structures can either punish or privilege non-conformity, or
conformity respectively, to form the perceptions of
Kapitalismo-sozjietie objectively. Sozjietie and Kapitalismo are
exclusive respectively; it is the relationship of power, between the
structure of what makes the two bipolar that ties the one to the
other.
Max
Lerner writes to us from 1977 to illustrate how people's perception
of power manifested themselves in the personality of their leader and
that leader's association to a structure of power. Citizen Lerner
tells us the story of how Menahem Begin came to power, taking his
place as Israel's sixth prime minister. Citizen Lerner describes
Begin as “an Israeli nationalist – scornful of socialism,
determined to drive a hard bargain in peace negotiations.”3
Citizen
Lerner suggests that Arab militancy brought Begin to power to form a
stronger Israeli national identity. Wherever 'sozjietie' increases
disproportionately, in this case Arab militancy, Kapital responds
accordingly. “Is it surprising,” writes Citizen Lerner, “that
a third of the Israeli voters should cast their ballots for a strong
identity for Israel?”4
This signifies that the reinforcement of power, redressing its own
balance, comes through the personification of Kapital in the
subjecthood of Menahem Begin. The subjecthood of Kapital, which
stands above the sign as the personification, comes about when there
is a greater opposition to liberal values. Inflation is
proportionate to consumption, to which if there is opposition, a
decline in plurality occurs and the totalitarian impulse of the
spectacle recurs. Reading through Citizen Lerner's broadsheet it is
evident that support for a Palestinian state would be solely a
socialist objective, but this could only begin to come about when
inflation is at its lowest and wages are at their heighest, so long
as there is a majority of plurality within the Knesset.
Citizen
Lerner implies that the strong figure, Begin's strength of character,
assuages Israel's sense of insecurity. Citizen Lerner also
associates the effect of this sense of insecurity to the “number of
working-class Sephardic emigrants from southern and eastern
countries,”5
most likely unwilling to compromise their reason for a strong sense
of identification with the state of Israel.
When
Citizen Lerner cites President Carter, of the United States of
America, as referring to the authority of Israel as having
“defendable boundaries” are we to assume that its authority is
not wholly one entity but one based entirely on plurality? All this,
of course, came at a time when President Carter had assured President
Assad of Syria of a “homeland” - a diplomatically innocuous
statement to say the least, since it doesn't really promise anything
concrete but it did affect public perceptions of America's
“special relationship” with Israel. Citizen Lerner sums this all
up perfectly when he says: “{t}here is such a thing as being so
'open' in one's diplomacy that it gets battered by every new current
of opinion” - President Carter's comments coming just days before
the Israeli election - “and becomes a cave of the winds.”6
Citizen
Lerner describes Israeli national unity as comprising the heighest
level of plurality and an even distribution of party diversity.
Citizen Lerner does suggest however that the territorial views of
Begin would be compromised by a cabinet made up of equal parts.
According to Citizen Lerner, the personification of Kapital is seen
“as a special guardian of the territorial integrity of Israel.”7
The imperative of Kapital is wholly territorial: returning to the
rubric of resource capture.
1Lambley,
D. (1992) “In Search of a Radical Discourse for Theatre.” New
Theatre Quarterly,
Vol. 8, No. 29; p.36.
2Ibid.,
p.40.
3Lerner,
M. (1977) “Believes Begin Will Prove Responsible.” Sarasota
Journal, May 27.
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
6Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment