Jay Fox - THE WALLS

“So you're an anarchist?”

“Anarchy,” he laughs. “I'm not one to profess that type of radicalism, but I do feel that Horace was partially correct in asserting that Fear bore Law. Oh, and then there’s that one Pat told me — Macrobius, I think: Good laws derive from bad habits.

“Look, the truth of the matter is that a myriad of cultures existed for a long time without law. This leaves you with the conclusion that either no fear existed, or that fear in-itself is not sufficient for the creation of law. I believe the latter to be far more probable. Fear existed, certainly not the type that exists between classes in modern times or even the fear that existed between the plebeians and the patricians of Rome, but fear nonetheless. Still, there was order. Order was kept by a shared ethos that was primitive, true, but entrenched to such a degree that there was no need for law. So, because of this, I will concede that anarchy is possible.

“However, I believe that there is a component in the very dynamic of any culture that demands order, that demands a potentially innocuous, also a potentially pernicious, inequity between those who give the orders, and those who only follow. Anarchy is when this disparity is at its most innocuous, essentially nonexistent; Totalitarianism, either the Fascist or the Stalinist variety, is when the disparity is at its most pernicious. But, to go back for a second, it seems that fear is not entirely sufficient for law; this fear has to be of a certain magnitude, which cannot be reached without the existence of property. Therefore, it's not fear that is sufficient for law; rather, the conjunction of property and fear suffice for law. Then again, once law has been established, I don't think you can return to life without it. Even if you abolish property, law will not necessarily disappear. It may be somewhat superfluous, but law has become a component within our society's sittlichkeit , thereby making it very difficult, if not impossible, to excise from the minds of citizens.

“But I don't think there's any possibility of property being abolished without horrible, horrible consequences. Perhaps if there's a nuclear war or an epidemic, it may be possible to establish small anarchist communities, sure, but until some great cataclysm occurs, there will continue to be a disproportionate balance of power and wealth between individuals and between communities. We can hope for a bloodless revolution to minimize these disproportions, but that's about it. If you ask me, real revolution is seeming less and less likely. Or even desirable, for that matter.”

“Patrick depicted you as a revolutionary.”

“Patrick took what I said to fit his own context. He's a Romantic, plain and simple — a Modernist still of the belief that the system can be vanquished by a some Messianic revolutionary-artist.”

“I see.”

“Look, revolutions don't happen without political leaders, and political leaders will always wrestle for power whenever there is an opportunity to monopolize it. The sad truth is that there will always be leaders, there will always be disparities in power, there will always be a State so long as people are organized into large communities.” He pauses. “And, to clarify, by large I mean in the hundreds of thousands, millions, billions, etcetera. So we have to reassess the role that leaders should play. Any theorist who claims to be a “Post” whatever will probably say that I'm acting as an agent of the hegemonic forces, but, seriously, all of this “Post” shit calls autonomy and integrity bourgeois illusions; all communal institutions, meanwhile, are tyrannical. So what are you left with? Personal autonomy doesn't exist because it's governed and maintained by social institutions; all social institutions are necessarily tyrannical because it is inherent within their nature to impose themselves upon the particulates of the social system through language and the ideology entailed within the language. So where can you go from there? You obviously can't be in support of a truly pluralistic community because it's essentially a contradiction. Without some form of meta-institution, which will be rejected because it will be considered just a hegemonic extension of the most powerful sect within the confederacy, the confederacy will succumb to entropy, the pluralities will break off one by one, and you'll just end up with a bunch of tiny, autonomous communities. Maybe they'll have some type of interaction with one another, via trade or during a war…whatever. But this pluralistic delusion, carried to its most extreme, gives you nothing more than futuristic tribalism. And this is not desirable because some of these tribes will become aggressive due to a lack of natural resources or a desire for just plain more of them — this is just how humanity works.

“Personally, I believe that we should strive to have the interests of the leaders be as close as possible to the interests of the people they represent. I'm not talking about having a president who's as smart as an average American, mind you, nor am I promoting that type of provincialism that plagues the floor of the House and the Senate with parochial programs and projects that these politicians champion for the sake of securing a victory in the coming election.

“The problem with our country, I think, is that the power granted to the nation-state has been more or less usurped by corporations, and these corporations — be they industrial, military-industrial, media-oriented, commercial, or financial, you know, banking and whatnot — have no allegiance to anything besides the growth of their own profit margins. And not just profit margins in a sustained and extended sense, but in a very immediate sense, which is an abominable way to operate. As Horace said, Vis consili expers mole ruit sua .”

“What does that mean?”

“Brute force, without wisdom, will collapse under its own weight. Or perhaps Kis’ view would be more appropriate: Ambition and stupidity are far more dangerous than insanity.”

“I see.”

“Regardless, maybe it's not brute force or stupidity or ambition. Maybe it's just blind greed. Avarice,” he adds quickly. “Because I don't think mankind is evil. In fact, I don't even believe authority and structure to be necessarily evil. When honest people control the power structure, when people of integrity fill the posts of a representational democracy, I believe that the system is almost always good. Call it bourgeois if you will, but that's what I've come to accept in my old age. Still, I'm cynical. I know it's a rather rare, if not unattainable, scenario. Moreover, I know our country does not strive to follow this model. The majority of the policies that are enacted by the State, be they foreign or domestic policies, are not in our interest. We have no control over the genesis of legislation, let alone any control in the argument for or against certain amendments that find their way into the text. We may elect the representatives, but that's about the only power we have as citizens. Lobbyists, however, do have the power not only to influence, but to essentially write legislation. They also have the power to get these pieces of legislation passed. And guess whom most of the lobbyists represent? Corporations or Think Tanks or whatever…they are all consolidations of power.

“It is almost irrelevant who we elect because the pool of representatives from which we may choose has been reduced to essentially two types of people: those who support the corporate world, and those who support the working class, but concede virtually everything besides their hollow rhetoric to the corporate world. There is a filtering process when it comes to our elected officials. Those who are uncorrupted by and openly critical of the corporate elite are the first to go. Their tenets are labeled socialist or communist or detrimental to small businesses. And once these types of words and accusations get thrown out, even if they are untrue, the people come to recognize the individual as a communist, a socialist, or an elitist — it's like the story of good old Silky Silk.”