Thinking about the hundred years of the Mexican Revolution and what is discussed about it, I see basically two perspectives: one, traditional, was the great social gesture that transformed our country and ended a dictatorial regime. The other, more complex and novel is that it was an act of betrayal of democracy, the government of Madero, and was a social and political disaster, which became the PRI system and all the evil it represents. There is a third perspective that I find interesting and would like to define as "Robin Hood syndrome." It is by no accident that there is a worldwide fascination with revolutions is Mexican, French, Russian, to name the most famous-and even more intense infatuation with the revolutionaries. Che, Zapata, Danton, Lenin fascinating and enduring figures in the social imaginary as demigods, including those who died in the epic. Those who survived, Robespierre, the Castro, Stalin, tend to fall into disrepute, but the dead are heroes.
goes far beyond the actual stories: just see the movie listings to find that half of the films are about men and women who rebel against an oppressive system to defend the rights of the people or the ecology or what is fashionable. From Avatar to the Bourne trilogy, through all the tapes of conspiracies, the human seems to be set up to worship the rebellious and distrustful of the system. The "system" knows this and therefore benefits making movies or building official myths that meet that need. Thereupon born in the popular memory of the Mexican Revolution and its heroes, Zapata and Villa.
Humans are, among other things, negligent beings. Often we do not realize, but guilt is a fundamental mechanism in the construction of modern society-all foundation of Christianity is based on fault, and that feeling is also a cornerstone of modern capitalist culture. Tons
, what am I going? We loved the revolutionary who gave his life for the fucking because it is free of guilt that afflicts us as being eminently complicit in a system that we know is cruel. This fault has so combined the modern capitalist culture it used to be some spontaneous charity or an act of defiance to the system (as did Robin Hood), is now part of the mechanism of consumer seduction. Case in point: Starbucks.
Companies have developed a discourse that by purchasing their products are also getting involved in whole philosophy of life: fair trade, organic, sustainable. All this may be true, and is fine, but my point is that, as Zizek says Slajov the selfish act of consumption is supplemented by his own redemption. Robin Hood syndrome.
Why is this wrong? For the simple reason that the charity acts as a palliative the hunger of the poor and blame the rich, but does not solve the underlying problem, which is that the system is deeply unfair and is designed so that some are operated by others. In essence, love is a mechanism that perpetuates social injustice, creating dependency and hopelessness.
in the world today are more miserable people than ever before in human history. At the same time, more wealth, goods and technology than ever before. There are also more democracy and freedoms, yet we are still incapable of building a world we do not need charity.
That dream-the abolition of the charity because it simply no longer need- is the revolutionary dream that we bring implanted in our brains and crystallize the martyrs in the popular imagination. That's why the revolution is so important and so exalted heroes: his absence descobija us to the overwhelming reality of poverty. I think that any reflection on why we left the Revolution and what has gone wrong since then has failed to add to the equation we need to have heroes.
Building a society in which poverty will also be impossible to cure a fascination with the lies about the Revolution and its heroes. For a fairer world need less myth to appease our fault.
0 comments:
Post a Comment