Injustice as a Way of Life
Injustice as a Way of Life
"Die Geschichte aller bisherigen Gesellschaft ist die Geschichte von Klassenkämpfen."
Justice is, ultimately, an abstract concept; it is a mix of the visceral and intellectual, the myriad reflections of diverse psyches gathered into a societal mosaic. Like so many abstract concepts—God, happiness, wealth—justice can easily transform into a cause unto itself.
Gods rose from fear; wealth grew from fear. The roots of justice are not so clearly discernible; their interpretation is even more murky.
Class warfare is essentially about stratification of justice, regardless of whether or not a participant understands the concept of justice. And here, the assertion of justice within class warfare is constructed around a skeleton of fears. What will the neighbors think? Success as identity. These are neurotic manifestations; they look outward, which is more dignified—again, an assertion of fear—than selfish internalization. Yet, Tevna of Split Canyon noted, suffering draws one's attention inward; and in a real world where Tiassas do not wander about rediscovering philosophy and occasionally saving the world, there are plenty who will tell us the same. It is a most fundamental fear: poverty, lack, deprivation. One is right to fear such suffering.
Genuine justice seems to rise up first through kin and then communal associations. Human empathy is one of our most fascinating attributes, enchanting the Buddha, countless Sufi masters, Jesus Christ, and many others through the generations. "If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature," wrote Charles Darwin, "but by our institutions, great is our sin." Atticus Finch taught his daughter, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view—until you climb into their skin and walk around in it."
And Oscar Wilde, in his own time, added that, "The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible."
These notions strike after the heart of class warfare. In its contemporary context, class warfare is supposed to be inherently bad. There is a myth of equivalence presumed in the public discourse.
But like any war, there are various ways of looking at it.
Driving wealth is a fear of poverty; while many will easily assert that "the system is rigged", general discourse tends to treat this notion superficially. Accepting the definitions that say the game is rigged when the proverbial millionaire pays a lower tax rate than the proverbial secretary, one still wonders
why there is such an effort to stack the decks, load the dice, and shape the laws not only to preserve the imbalance of wealth in a society, but to exacerbate it even further.
Happiness? Right? These are neurotic constructions; underneath it all is a fear of being poor. Some of this is obviously legitimate; poverty does not appear to be a beneficial human condition. Other aspects of the fear are symptomatic; one lashes out at the poor, and that ego defense becomes part of the oppressive fear—if I believe that poverty is itself indicative of the moral deficiency of the poor, I certainly will not be anxious to likewise indict myself. Thus, I must increase my wealth in order to reassert my virtue.
In modern class warfare, there are generally two sides, the wealthy and powerful minority to the one, and the less affluent—including the poor—majority.
With wealth comes certain comfort and security; the loss of this comfort and security drives the fears of the wealthy. What they fear is a situation they consider untenable—poverty—but in their fear wish it upon the many.
That poverty should be impossible? This is where the neurosis stands most erect and prominent. If the wealthy are not protected, they will become poor. The aim that poverty should be impossible does not even come into it. Middle-class security, even in good times, with fretting about the kids' schedules, making the house payment, and keeping the cars running, is an unacceptable condition to the wealthy. At the same time, they would deny to others what the wealthy feel is beneath them, in order to increase their own wealth.
And this is the age-old struggle. "The history of all hitherto existing society," asserts the
Manifesto, "is the history of class struggles."
Many would assert that marriage is about control and ownership; perhaps for short periods of history this is true, but the prevailing trend, as historian Stephanie Koontz notes, has been "creating far-flung networks of in-laws". Even this has been part of the class struggle, to reinforce kin security through familial alliances—to gain wealth and influence, to avoid poverty.
Cynics suggest that religion is nothing more than a tool by which would-be Nietzschean supermen subjugated societal masses. Again, there are periods of history during which this is explicitly true, and in this struggle—Jesus, Muhammad, Leo X, John Calvin, Anne Hutchinson—we see the colors of class warfare. Indeed, as Emma Goldman asserts, "naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began".
Class warfare, from a modern perspective, pertains to more than just wealth. It specifically concerns
justice.
The empowered—the bourgeoisie, the elite—fiercely protect their privilege because they fear the alternative. To consider the Occupy/Ninety-Nine perspective,
equality is a
loss for the one percent. In any system of unequal privilege,
justice is a threat to the privileged, and
equality is a denigration.
The great masses, taught to admire the wealthy and powerful, strive to emulate. The wealthy have a legitimate fear that goes beyond mere ego-defensive projection:
What equality? Who is to say that they
won't be just like us? The wealthy have invested so much in their admirability; they have made avarice into a virtue. They fear a reversal of fortune.
Yet they do not pursue and ensure equality and justice. Instead the wealthy and powerful labor to stack the decks for their rentier leisure.
Proudhon said, "Property is robbery." Lysander Spooner wrote that after wars themselves:
The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and ambition; and are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads cool and clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are committed, not so much by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their instruments, make the laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force and fraud, and whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to secure to themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort the labor and properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own wealth and aggrandizement.
We might observe three factions, then, in class warfare:
• The wealthy and powerful.
• Those who aspire to be wealthy and powerful.
• Those who seek equality and justice.
Wilde's assertion, that poverty should be impossible, which does not seem to register in the general discourse, is an outcome unacceptable to the societal elite. The remainder of the discussion, then, involves the other two factions.
This is the problem of class warfare.
The wealthy and powerful conspire against equality and justice.
The aspirants would either join or usurp the wealthy and powerful in conspiring against equality and justice.
Six of one, we might say, and half-dozen of the other.
But it is the third faction, that seeks equality and justice, that is so maligned by denouncement of class warfare. Class warfare is a tarnished phrase in American political discourse because it concerns itself with the question of who is best suited to perpetuate injustice. The underlying reality of class warfare, though, is that neither of these factions are of noble intent.
Denigrating the concept of class warfare excludes the third faction, which is in history composed of those to whom the others would pay homage, or, at the very least, lip service.
Americans rejected the Bible in order to oppose Communism, yet we still hear talk of a "Christian" nation.
Americans today argue over whether or not it is
fair to take away advantages; that is, we argue over whether or not fair is fair.
The wealthy and influential denounce class warfare because they stand to lose. But in addition to being wealthy, they are also influential, so they have managed to set the tone of the discussion. In reality, class warfare is both inherent and perpetual, at least until we achieve a just society. The underlying shape of the conservative-capitalist argument, that it is only fair to deny many necessity so that a few can enjoy tremendous excess only ensures that class warfare will continue through the foreseeable future.
____________________
Notes:
Brust, Steven. The Lord of Castle Black. New York: Tor, 2003.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. Marxists.org. April 29, 2012. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Darwin, Charles R. The Voyage of the Beagle. 1839. Bartleby.com. April 29, 2012. http://www.bartleby.com/29/
Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man Under Socialism. 1891. Marxists.org. April 29, 2012. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm
Goldman, Emma. "Anarachism: What it Really Stands For". 1911. DWardMac.Pitzer.edu. April 29, 2012. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html
Spooner, Lysander. Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. 1875. LysanderSpooner.org. April 29, 2012. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html
) 