SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Money. 1)) – Get so much of it u become so rich, ur like a pseudo-government ,
2)) this network of philanthropists and entreupeuners give so much to charities and NGOS that it shows ‘we’ (human race/as humanity) as a species are no longer satisfied/sufficient with just these material goods and illusions of pleasure/hedonism/distractions/material goods/competition/flaunting/disenfranchisement/impatience/therapeutic shopping for the ailements of inequality and a ‘negative’ society/ improper/strongly reinforced social narratives; from our ‘peers’ and ‘elders’ in other words: interactions distract or change us from our state in the state of nature. Do u think cavemen suffered from low self-esteem coz Tom from the WhiteHouse had a bigger wallet than him and he was on food stamps? No humans are supposed to get their basic needs first and foremost: primarily: food, sex, sleep. Now, even that is monetarised in this society: golddiggers/prostitutes for instance. So men without money begin to feel inferior. That is a problem. And, society is arguably split up into a false dichotomy/ or a duality which only exists due to the social contract of money. The other social construct: flags and property/national territory is another problem which perpetuates splits/false divisions within the human race. and can rob us /deceive us of our humanity or compassion for the sake of once again, money. This is why there is a core and this is why there is a periphery. No one really , in the West, gives that much of a shit about the periphery coz without them there’d be no core. No one give s a shit about the poor coz without them there’d be no managers: so everyones getting robbed by someone: but people still think they can rob people betteer / innovate so money becomes their hope. But really shouldn’t we reasses our hopes: like no wars, and no hungry. these are supposedly the matter for/of states’ concerns. BUT THEY ARE OUR elected representatives so if we start to show we really care about them too. Eg by boycotting cheap consumer goods.. aka. distractionez like smart phones and Primark. Then, we can create a socially constructed change. And charities and NGOs force governments to up their game coz these things are revolutionary for our modern society: the 21st century. but the government wants us to think we need them, so shall accordingly have to follow it: instead of the false narrative that immigration/sharing our land that some cunt draw a line on, and had a man-made name (before Britain, the Us and “nation-states) the world was, well,, just the world. No maps, no digital technology no nothing just SHARED land. But now all these man-made things make us think our brothers and sistster s are our enemey coz we have competition and not much resources. But this is also coz governments, regulate; monitor; control; and print our money. SO how can we ever truely be free. Wake up.

To Rousseau’s mind, the origin of civil society itself can be traced to an act of deception, when one man invented the notion of private property by enclosing a piece of land and convincing his simple neighbors “this is mine,” while having no truthful basis whatsoever to do so. Given this fact, the modern society that has sprung forth from this act can be nothing but inauthentic to the core. Private property is not natural. Private property is not right. Everything must be redistributed and everything must be shared: fair enough society could work well on the basis / premise of scale: if one shares with their family, as a sort of hypothetically comprimised “communal property” then that could be alright as long as it is justified along the lines of blunt , natural numerity : eg if there is numerically four plants then it is logical for a family of four to call that theirs. But if there is 1 person laying claim to 10 plants on the basis of greed that is wrong, if there are 5 people and 5 plants, and people do anything but give them one each on account of our basic needs for food then that too is wrong. Then, for non-essential commodities it could be like a cottage industry : if a family likes cars: they produce cars. They do not sell cars they just share/loan them to friends with similar interests. Or , affiliate with the people who know how to make them: so they can take that knowledge to thier family and subsequently build and share more cars. There is no real substantial lack of any basic need on earth, and for other finite resources ./ luxury good s they should nbe distributed accordingly: primarily, this blogger argues due to necessity ((it is the mother of invention afterall 😉 ) and spatial abundance: therefore, if gold is particularly naturally occurent in one section of the world: let their tastes naturally develop and subsequently acquire gold necklaces: the reward and hard work will be in the intrinsic value of the challenge to make the one necklace (instead of the mind-numbingly mundane ‘task’ ‘labour’ ‘organsied/authoritarian shouted at by a manager/boss to make a target of surplus gold watches to destroy supply and demand or warp it as is found today). Instead one watch or gold necklace is made by one person and the time it takes to make/learn the skill is enjoyment because we are making it ith our own naturally occuring , spatial resources, it is for ourcelf, without rules authority and regulations, it can made be in our own time nto a forcibly early shift e.g. (9-11 which in turn encouregs others to be slave to an unnatturally early start to our ‘working dayu; because if tesco is 9-5 it encourages lawyer to be 9-5 so they can get their biscuits while at work; u zimme co-slavery or co-enhabited social contracts or rules/regulations or social obligations which beomcee repeated apartterns. and customary traditions. Moreover, there is the solution that there are essentially pockets of the world who are striving to have their own respective luxury goods: because this has arguably now become entrenched in man’s quest to leave the state of nature partly. and shall not be wrong with a little luxury/treat every now and again: just so long as every individual on this planet knows they key: subsistence. They know where each next meal is coming from and can have the means to produce/cook/buy it on their own. Caveman, fire – right?

Cool. Now secondly there is the social contract of parents to son. 1)) if ur rich ur bourgeioise parents convince u the world doesn’t need changing and ur institutionalised and heavily regulated world views are alright: because 1)) they’re rich so its in their interests for capitalism to work. And 2)) the children are so mollycuddled by money at their demand/for their every whim that they become infatutated with one manifestation of money: spending it so whether it be designer goods or gambling their appetites are cyclically sated and desiring more addictively that their so trapped, and caught up in that cycle that they cannot, and more importantly do not want to, get out of that cycle : or ponder more pressing world issues.
Secondly, poor children are taught a narrative by their parents; who ahve been forced to ADAPT to survive ((they can but dream of ‘thriving’ within capitalistic means) that they believe 1)) the world is cold and this is the way it’s meant to be. Life’s a bitch etc. 2)) they view a false nature: that they have nothing and money is the only, infatuted, but warped solution to their mental health situations, comparisions with their richer counterparts/celebrity visualised rich upper classes. That they think il be fine once im like them: and then they just become part of the number 1^^ types of people and forget to fight for the number 2s and their roots of why they were a number 2 too: their parents.

And, the capitalistic view and curriculum has become a-historical so it neglects to inform many cruel, corrupt, amoral, and fundementally unfair aspects of how the core became the core: like slavery and wars and attrocities and economic leakage. And genocides, and social darwisnism – the list goes on – colonies – ud think we’d learn wouldn’t u ? Colonisers? Do u not show no remorse? OR compensation, of any kind. We must right our wrongs to get along. And re-think economic structures e.g. even lower classes get paid more just so managers could get paid slightly less and boom more equality everywhere and the money;s accounted for by the rih getting slightly less rich and the poor gettting marginally close to richness. But definetley not poor , deprived, insecure, or starving. Afterall, money isn’t everything: once u have atleast some of it. And 10% of 1000 is 100 but 10% of 10 is 1 minus both proportions (the rich have 1000£ and are left with) u get 900£ versus a massive, but exactly numerically equal chunk, and the poor get just £9. So it is all proportional and the rich can literally affrod to give up more. Higher tax is thus one solution but can and should be angled at the super rich. Or inherited old money. WOrked for it? worked for it my arse everyone can and should be working at a base level of productivity, some just have to take more cases or manage more people. All work is work. So restructure wages. At the very least.

Then there is also the problem of pessimists: one bitter person can easily convert a thousand to a hypothetical, negative paradigm ((as has happened within Capitalism and knowledge is now reproduced at such as fast-pace that these negative thoughts/preormis-conceptions are bleeding through our screens and freezing our hearts. But, one positive, rational optimist requires one hypothetical imperative, just as easily adaptopted in theory, but is labelled crazy? Blame society. For instance: the hypothetical we could all be peaceful could easily be adopted, legislated for and enforced by the UN/ even with legitimate use of coercion e.g. their standing army. But instead, people much rather desire the premise that we “need” money or goods or cars or luxury, non-necessity items like designer goods so they, knowing that it is not innately required or absolutely necessary to get, use immoral and covert means, like war, to get it. And, then to perpetuate the game they will make a new claim to justify it/win enough people over to thinking their right and then, by the nature of democracy we shall all believe it: this is the tyrnany of the majoirty or the irony of the ‘fool’ the fool is not a fool because he is right, but he is against so many numerous quantity interactions, that no matter the ‘quality’ of his argument he is outnumbered and htus : so as animals we follow the herd. And , the rebel: eventually drooling over his ideas but being hit with so many slings and arrows for having them: complies, he conforms or keeps them to himself. But the personal is political, and the private is political so these concerns need to be bravely voiced:
because they can take away our agency through structure; partially; but they cannot take away our conscienciousness through any means; yet.
– They can lock the locks but they cannot stop the clocks. Fight the good fight. Revolutionse, partly society. and atleast the way states govern or the way money circulates.
Give people more choice and be optimistic.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s