Nationalism & Patriotism: TOTEM IDENTITIES & POWER (part 2)

In the firstpart of this article ( we argued that both nationalism and patriotism are part of the same anti-human historical process that began with the segregating cults of thetotem: “Throughthe totem, … the individual surrendered his voice in the community and allowedall voices to be concentrated in the singular decrees of the priest-kings.Community, as such, died with the totem that was set up to build it, and a newanti-human history was born that became a process of maintaining classdistinction and privileges for the few at the expense of the manipulation andexploitation of the many.”

Perhaps Marx would say that the class struggle began with this class creation, but, in the beginning, there was probably minimalconflict. Not only class consciousness, but any kind of consciousness was inits embryonic stages, and political struggle needs to be fired by a conscious desirethat transcends the mere physical needs for food, shelter and propagation. Inthe early days when the totem societies began to develop into the firstcivilisations, any vestiges of political consciousness were mitigated by themanipulation, and creation via that manipulation, of the social reality thatenshrouded the priest-kings with the veil of apparent truth.

While the Sumerian tablets mention internal strife and indicate that there must have been some early opposition to the flagrant grabbing of power in the creation of the first civilisation, the real struggle was carried out by those who had established their power already. Early progress has to be measured in the degree of success obtained in the maintenance of the enormous fiction of the totem; that monstrous, empowering lie. If there has been a motor, or a process through history, it has been the maintenance via re-modelling which has allowed the perpetual existence of privileged classes and the freedom for those classes to exploit the other classes of society. This condition has not changed in the last 5,000 years.

Identity is, of course, a process of separation. A separation that is needed in order to maintain the lies of the totem identities of the City-State. The City-State can maintain its identity only while it has enemies to compare itself with. For this reason, during the current process of globalisation which is really a process of centralising power and privileges for the ruling elite, we do not see any diminishing of nationalisms, but rather a strengthening of them.

Once the totem was established, the lies could be formulated to justify all sorts of behaviourin the name of the divine symbol of the new society. But if people questionedthese lies, or the exploitive and repressive measures they were suffering as aconsequence of them, they had to be forced into a submission to the belief. Andso, the high-priests took charge, not only of the temple economy, but also ofthe warriors that could defend it. As such, any opposition to the lie couldeasily be a death sentence and the classes without an army to defend them had to wonder if opposition was not a madness. If opposition is life-threatening, it is probably best to tow the line, even if by doing so life is mademiserable. The exploited labourer is told that his or her life can always beworse – or no life at all. If thinking inspires the dangers and miseries causedby Power’s brutal reprisals, then it is best not to think at all; to go withthe flow and be a good citizen. And its best to teach your children to thinkthe same way. Soon the oppression and exploitation becomes immersed in thegreat fog of normality in which things happen in a certain manner because thatis the way things are.  

But from the time of Sumer, the way things are is that the society is organised in a way that will produce an abundance that is enjoyed by the privileged class, while those producing the abundance with their labour are given enough to survive on and little else. In history, we can see a progression and emergence of a middle-class who were encouraged to think they were comfortable and free. But rather than being a process of egalitarianism, it was merely a necessary process carried out to ensure the supply of abundance to the privileged class who were consolidating their fortunes through the sale of consumer goods. In order for the privileged to accumulate the billions they have made it was necessary to have billions of individuals capable of buying the billions of products they were selling. And so, there arose an economic need for what we call the middle-class.

But let us not fool ourselves: the privileged who hold power have not had to succumb to democratic or revolutionary demands on them, but rather technology has allowed them to create new ways of making fortunes by selling new manufactured products. All the rest, in its essence, has not changed since Sumer and Urk.

Aside from Sumer other powers were born in different ways: the Egyptian class-system grew primarily out of a power won militarily for the power of the Hawk-god that absorbed the priestly functions of control after making military conquests. Of course, Egypt took the priest-king idea one-step further and its leaders became Pharaohs, king-gods. That the lie could be taken so far seems ludicrous, but, for the Egyptian it was either believe the lie or die, and then, as in Sumer, after a few generations the king-god system would have been understood as the way things are, because that is how they have always been.

Power and its privileges are the centre of all civilisations, but so is the subsequent retarding of thought. The Greek Commonwealth, and especially the richly artistic and philosophical culture of Athens is so special because it was a blatantexception to this rule. In Greece there were City States, but there were alsothinkers thinking some of the deepest thoughts that have ever been contemplated. To understand how Greece was possible, we have to remindourselves that, before Alexander, it was just a peripheral place, on theoutskirts of the real centres of power that grew in western Asia and Egypt. And,on the periphery, it was more possible that thinkingwould be allowed.

Rather than stimulating and benefiting from the natural creativity and inventiveness ofhuman beings, the privileged classes pulling the strings of power havegenerally wasted the inherent talent of human beings and because of this it could be said that civilisation has been an obstacle in authentic humanprogress.


3 thoughts on “Nationalism & Patriotism: TOTEM IDENTITIES & POWER (part 2)

  1. Thanks for your comments Landzek.
    1) The lie : it comes from the lie of the totem; that we are unified by an animal spirit or a god and that our leader is a god him/herself. Some may not see the lie in this … but to me it is obvious, and I think we have to call out the obvious deception when we see it. My argument is that this original deception is the founding “lie” of civilisation, and that we have nearly really escaped that lie.
    2) Yes, power can be used in many ways. I usually refer to power as the kind of power that is wielded by the wealthy. The problem of power lies in its appropriation by the wealthy caste – the original perpetrators of the totem lie, who use their power to maintain their own status.
    3) I agree that struggle is an essential element in achievement, but struggle against hardship does not imply success. For every example of someone who has achieved great things because of their handicap, hundreds of examples could be found of people who have not been able to achieve things because of their burdened lives.
    On the other hand, comfort is also often a motivation retarding thing – which is why I talk so much about creating purposeful incentives for humanity.
    All great things are hard to do and demand struggle – but all humans need to be allowed the possibility and means of achieving great things if they are going to find the incentive to try and make that struggle. This is where the power of wealth is a retarding process – it makes it so hard for the non-wealthy majority to be granted the opportunity to struggle for greatness that most of humanity could never even contemplate such a possibility (even if they had a natural ability for it).

  2. … I mean, there is an argument to be made that obstacles and difficulties is what allows for the best kind of creativity.

    Take the example of my friend who is a surgeon. He has dyslexia. And has had it his whole life and when he’s he was a child it was undiagnosed. So he says that he had to study to three times longer than most people to learn the same stuff, and with no encouragement or help or recognition that he had any sort of problem. He said it was definitely difficult and it caused him a lot of frustration in his childhood. He was not diagnosed with dyslexia until well into college. But he says that because of that difficulty he has been able to excel in life . and he is one of the few people that I know that is living the life of his dreams and he can basically do whatever he wants whenever he wants. And he helps people. Could there be a better more ethical and fullfilled life Then what he has accomplished?

    So there is an argument to be made about how the powers at be actually made him into a person that is more free than anyone I’ve ever met, including myself.

  3. I appreciate your analysis.

    I haven’t had time to analyze it very closely, but a couple general themes seem to pop out to me That causedme pause.

    1) you speak of the lie. It seems to me that you speak of this or or use this in the context of your essay in a manner that is not clear. Your essay seems to assume that the reader knows what the truth is, or in what capacity the line is indeed miss representing something.

    What is the truth that the lie has a quality of being deceitful?

    2) what is the problem with power? And I mean this from the kind of devils advocate position, because it seems that so many discussions about power and depression stems from some sort of common assumption that is never really made clear.

    My question really stems from how it is possible that the human creature could not be involved in something that is moving humanity ahead in whatever particular context?

    My question is so what if some people benefit and so what if some people are left shovel shit.

    I know it seems very crass and almost naïve question, but honestly I would like to know where I would like someone to make an argument for why that is a problem.

    3) your analysis of the totem as it stretches into modern society, seems to follow a sort of Frasier “the Golden Bough” kind of theme; namely that people in power, but particularly into religious context, are doing something inherently bad for the people that they are reportedly controlling.

    My question is how could such a person even have a contact by which to control these people if that person itself was not already part of the context of into relationships of people?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s