By William Markiewicz
BBC TV recently broadcast a review of Marxism. The results were not totally conclusive. In philosophy, as in science, we don’t reach definitive conclusions; we stop somewhere facing the proverbial Chaos. Personally, I stop mostly at questions where simplicity still shines, before getting lost in the chaos of answers.
First example: when history is simple there’s a tribal-like division of members and leaders. There’s no doubt who leads and who obeys.
Second example: the Army. In more advanced societies the army’s character remains tribal-like, directed toward victories, divided into the obedient and the leaders. In the advance of civilization, productivity, industrialization, we continue the necessary social division between those who are submissive and those who are dominant but, because of continuous progression of complexity we lose orientation and enter into Chaos. It was unavoidable; society became societies, and in commercial exchanges we really don't know too much about what happen to our products on the other side of the borders in relation to supply and demand. We know even less what happens as a result of the necessary globalization at the other ends of the universe. "The movement of butterfly wings may create a storm at other latitudes" says the Chinese proverb. Conflicts of interest prevent us from addressing climate change. In stock market trends, like fashion trends, fluctuations are mostly accepted without knowing exactly what causes them. All we know is Chaos; we function, groping in Chaos.Back to the index of the Vagabond