In
chapter
four of his book One-Dimensional Man, published in
1964, Herbert Marcuse gave a remarkably accurate definition of the
modern totalitarianism in Western societies:
The
fact that the prevailing mode of freedom is servitude, and that the
prevailing mode of equality is superimposed inequality is barred from
expression by the closed definition of these concepts in terms of the
powers which shape the respective universe of discourse. The result
is the familiar Orwellian language ("peace is war" and "war
is peace," etc. ), which is by no means that of terroristic
totalitarianism only. Nor is it any less Orwellian if the
contradiction is not made explicit in the sentence hut is enclosed in
the noun. That a political party which works for the defense and
growth of capitalism is called "Socialist, " and a despotic
government "democratic," and a rigged election "free"
are familiar linguistic-and political-features which long predate
Orwell.
Relatively
new is the general acceptance of these lies by public and private
opinion, the suppression of their monstrous content. The spread and
the effectiveness of this language testify to the triumph of society
over the contradictions which it contains; they are reproduced
without exploding the social system. And it is the outspoken, blatant
contradiction which is made into a device of speech and publicity.
The syntax of abridgment proclaims the reconciliation of opposites by
welding them together in a firm and familiar structure.
Today,
as the false promises of capitalism start to collapse, we are
witnessing growing inequality, economic instability and uncertainty,
frequent financial crises, degeneration of the social state, poverty.
So,
are we witnessing the collapse of the general acceptance of these
lies by public and private opinion?
And
does this totalitarianism starts to become more direct and obvious,
using other pretexts (e.g. terrorism, economic competition, etc.)?
Comments
Post a Comment