I had never tackled such a complex issue like this one in English. The topic, in my opinion, is very interesting, and yields a huge scope to express opinions and facts. I would appreciate any comments, not only about the content, but also the phrases.
Slaves of our little freedom
Describing the decline of an old political and social system, at the end of the II World War, Lampedusa wrote: “Everything has to change for everything to remain the same” (Gat 127). This paradoxical thought can also be profitably used to understand the historical changes that the term slavery has undergone through ages and countries: During the distant times of Roman rule, the enslaved people were appointed and treated as “res” (things); their lifes and luck depended on their masters, and they were neither subjects nor objects of “common law”. A form that resembled this legal exploitation was widespread in the US from the first settlement of the colonists, in 1607, to the passage of the thirteenth amendment in the Constitution, in 1865. In the nineteenth century, slavery was acknowledged as a biological issue; even the church did not oppose it: Saint Paul gave advice of humbleness and patient to slaves and proposed them gentle submission to their master, as a very Christian virtue. In the twentieth century, in many parts of Africa, the subjects had to obey specific obligations and carry out forced works. All this forms of former slavery feature (obey) a pattern that is the core of its conventional definition: The explicit existence of people which are considered the property of others, held against their will and prevented from leaving or demanding any labor right (including being paid for their work). That situation seems to be a thing of the past. Though banned in almost any country notwithstanding, slavery does not only remain today; it has also become one of the essential pillars for society and the establishment to exist and endure.
Here, we are talking about a question of semantics. What slavery means is, most and foremost, lack of freedom, which is undoubtedly the condition “sine qua non” one cannot be a slave. There are many causes that lead to different kinds of slavery, but they all produce the same outcome: Slavery of things –drink, money, drugs, to name a few- annuls the will. Slavery of someone cancels the capacity to feel love –or hate- properly. Slavery of work distorts our perception of other activities. In all cases, one neglects the part of their personality whereby freedom is exerted. And that happens in almost every part of our social life, so it would be probably more accurate to speak about of slavery of society itself.
This idea of every people being slave of society stems from several sources. To pick just one, it could be appropriate to quote Nietzsche, who wrote:
Europe today is, above all, rich in stimulants; it seems that there is nothing more indispensable than stimulants and alcoholic beverages. This is the origin of that enormous counterfeiting of the ideal, hard liquor of the spirit. From here it is also emitted this disgusting, repugnant atmosphere, loaded with fallacies and pseudo-alcoholic that is breathed everywhere” (Gen 46). Hypocritical varnish that covers all the bourgeois institutions: all seem to be products of morality, for example, marriage, work, family, order, law. But since all are intended for the most mediocre class of men, who they want to defend against all exceptions and the exception needs, it must be admitted that in this case it is legitimate to lie heavily”. (Pod 473)
Nietzsche forecast the idea of a edulcorate modern society based on ersatz values that enslave people, rather than make them think or live freely. This semantical misunderstunding lead people astray; work is identify with independence and freedom, and technical advances with more opportunities to grow as a person, whilst the truth is that we still do not know our own essence. Instead of encourage people to see deeply into their real needs, society creates more and more artificial needs for them to be bound. Hereby, we have substituted the Utopia suggested by Thomas Moro for the Welfare State.
It is not possible for people to change the de facto powers of society, neither as individuals not as a collective. This is a peoplelike system, within which there is a dormant extintion danger for humanity. Why? Because the personal vision, the reality of every person has been aborted, destroy, overturn, declared null and void. Hence, slavery is neccesary for the system, which is against individual´s freedom and will. The two head´s beast that appears in the Apocalypse´s book represents two of the most by hand de facto powers: politic and religion, which provide a sheer shelter for people who wander around with no convictions, with no single truth. They cast a vote to support the very parties that have established an order to be followed. The parties members are slaves of their own ideas, and the people who vote give a ballot that contains their freedom. They open their thumb and their index finger and let drop their little freedom. And the same process occurs with religion: People go to church in search of salvation and redemption. Curiously, there are certain people -who call themselves “ministries of God”- that have become enablers, so that people can use the resources generated within their Church to know the will of God. Yet if people were free, they would not need to be promised neither a paradise beyond terrenal life, nor forgiveness for their sins. The sin itself does not exist in nature, is a human creation to wield power. In the bible´s quote, the beast is a wolf with lamb´s appearance, and so is religion for people: It seems to be a spiritual guide that provides relief, knowledge and piece of mind, but to what costs? The cost is, again, being a slave, in this occasion, of their punishment/reward system, their doctrine and so forth.
I am not judging. I am just contemplating the facts: The facts are that there are powers that subject people to the established values, which will be always wrong, providing that, historically, we have been trying to adapt the world to us, which is not possible. This is a regression historical stage, because people look for something without the capacity to generate it. Techlology have enormously improved, but human´s spirit does not follow this quick pace because, among sciences, there is the possibility to transmit knowledge, but that not happens for the spirit. People´s mind does not see things, it just speculates. To tackle concepts like “sin”, people just use another word, like “mistake”, instead. Politics´minds are so closed, their options and opinions so twisted and confused, that what is defended is the dialectic itself, nor one opinion or another. That leads to a very subtle slavery that could be named the “dictatorship of law”: Military people, who exerted power many years ago, have been substituted by lawyers, who are supposed to know the meaning of all social concepts. But who really understand the concept of “freedom”? Is freedom is defined, one become slave of this definition. There is also the concept of free will, but that again means to pick one between two choices, being forced to choose. People are always conditioned by one thing of another, so it seems that human nature is “per se” corrupted. Therefore, they need to be lead. Although hidden behind a seemingly real freedom, our ultimate choice is finally narrowed to decide wheter to drink Pepsi or Coca Cola. Slavery exists today, because every human being who does not do exactly what they want to is a slave, and everything that distorts our personal power is a drug. But no one wants to see slavery. No wonder, because is just so easy... Just take the train at six in the morning and ask people there. Who would be in other place if they could? That is slavery.
