Which is why I, eventually, gave-up 'activism'. I used to expend time and energy on trying to save institutions that I valued - my university and the university system, science, medicine, psychiatry - and later the Church of England.
But with all, at a certain point, I realised that they did not want to be saved. In other words, the institutions had a leadership and majority who actively-wanted that which was killing them.
The fact is obscured by what happens to a dead institution; which is often that it becomes a part of The One Bureaucracy. So there are still institutions called universities, still people who call themselves 'scientists and what they do science; but the institutions and people are in reality simply sub-divisions, components of the one bureaucracy.
When an institution becomes primarily orientated-towards satisfying bureaucratic requirements, when the satisfaction of such requirements is the prime factor in the institutions survival and growth - then people may 'keep their Jobs', but they are different Jobs; because the original function and distinct identity has gone.
The institution may well continue on paper, in buildings, as a name... but that makes no substantive difference to the fact that the original institution is just as dead as if it had been abolished or gone bust.
Once an institution has become part of The One Bureaucracy, then it could only escape by an act of concerted will, and could only escape into non-institutional social space - but this is very rare indeed; and it requires exactly that will, that is so conspicuously lacking.
Most likely, the best way forward is to annihilate the corrupted and fake bureaucracy; and start a new functional and autonomous institution. But when, as now, there is no will to do that - then we are in a post-institutional society.
Or, if you prefer, we are (here, now) in a society with a single institution, The System - that Global complex of the state/ media/ and all formerly-functional institutions including 'churches'; which was earlier approximated by the mid-twentieth century totalitarian socialist societies such as the Soviet Union, National Socialism and Maoist China.
This Global Bureaucracy is not all-powerful, and still must work substantially by persuasion/ propaganda and consent/ passive compliance; nonetheless, lacking any genuine religion, opposition to The System has no will (a merely feeble motivation to resist or replace) - and the opposition is therefore utterly ineffectual.
And that is our situation: The individual confronts The Global System.
The individual can win, in an ultimate and eternal sense; but not in a proximate and worldly sense.
So, it is as well to expend your time and energy on a hopeful, rather than futile, project.
6 comments:
Re. "escape into non-institutional social space - but this is very rare indeed"
That makes me curious what you think of as the rare examples of people who have done this. The only cases that come to my mind are Church organizations of various forms -- for one example, the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union had its official institutional body co-opted by the State and was thus forced to act in a post-institutional manner. (However, their 'ecclesiology'/self-conception remained institutional, which -- now that the survival-necessity of being non-institutional is removed -- leads to the current confusing and shameful spectacle of numerous sub-denominations, essentially alike in spiritual practice, constantly schisming over political and ridiculous bureaucratic conflicts.) For another example, the Mormons appear to be trying to move some essential Church functions from an Institutional level to a Family level, partly to make themselves more resilient against corruption.
Far more examples come to mind of things that were created in non-institutional space (probably by people who worked in some Institution but did far more important work on a non-official basis, which attracted other people to help) but then formed into institutions and co-opted that way.
@Ara - That's a good example wrt the Russian Orthodox catacomb church - although there is a limit to how far an Episcopal (Bishop-led) church can go in this respect.
I was making more of an 'in principle this would be necessary' argument, than with an example in mind.
I only observe the CJCLDS from the outside, but I think they are not (yet?) making a clear move in the direction you suggest- changes are going in both directions. For example, trying to stop usage of the name Mormon, and having a list of approved new names, is a highly centralising and controlling move (which I predict will fai,l or lead to harm if it does not).
One major aspect of entering non-institutional space is to go outside the money economy, to eliminate money from all relationships and activities.
Dave comments: "The good news is that this bureaucratic rot also infects all branches of the armed forces, so that when right-wingers get their act together ... in an organized way, there won't be much the Globalists can do to stop them. "
Oh Bruce, you've again hit the nail on the head. I'm quoting this to start an article:
Which is why I, eventually, gave-up 'activism'. I used to expend time and energy on trying to save institutions that I valued - my university and the university system, science, medicine, psychiatry - and later the Church of England.
But with all, at a certain point, I realised that they did not want to be saved. In other words, the institutions had a leadership and majority who actively-wanted that which was killing them.
Quite right - I've just been railing at those who simply refuse to look, refuse to learn. We do have, in a sense, a 'mission from God' and are duty bound to put in rather than take out but there are limits as to what can be done. Only hope is that our media becomes the 'go to' and not the MSM but that is forlorn for the greater part of the population.
Dave comments: "The good news is that this bureaucratic rot also infects all branches of the armed forces, so that when right-wingers get their act together ... in an organised way, there won't be much the Globalists can do to stop them. "
I wouldn't count on that. Even a hopelessly inefficient army is quite adequate for crushing internal dissent. Especially when it has the kind of technology that western armies have. Even our ridiculous modern armies could put down an armed rebellion within 24 hours at the outside. Probably more like six hours.
There is not the slightest sign that right-wingers are going to get their act together. And the dissidents, those prepared to oppose the system, comprise a tiny tiny minority of the population.
Revolutions are usually top-down affairs. They happen when there's a split among the elites, or a rising new elite challenging the existing one. I can't think of a single example of a successful spontaneous revolution. A successful right-wing revolt would need a great deal of support from within the elites themselves. That might happen but there's no sign of it at the moment.
@dd - I agree. Macho-posturing from pseudonymous bloggers and commenters proves the opposite of what they assert.
A big and obvious fact is that modern people (lacking any transcendental religion) are much less motivated, hence much more cowardly, than almost any in history; they/ we have-been/ are-being kept in line by the slightest of 'threats', the slightest glimmer of hoped 'rewards'. It is inconceivable that a population of such docile, timid, short-termists would act in the ways required by a 'revolution'.
Post a Comment