Elvis and the People

It says: Brian Latifi

The ratio between freedom, equality and brotherhood is not a report of harmony and consistency. In many cases they exclude each other and here lies the reason for the ideological conflicts that have killed mankind in the last two centuries.

Of the many reactions I received in my script “Letters to my leftist students”, the only one worth calling normal response was the text of Elvis Hoxha, the self-resister. His text can be read in OpEd, Express, and was first published on http://ina-online.net/mind-express-purchasing-lafi/

All other reactions, unequivocally, enter the pan of ad hominem, and being such is not worth wasting time with. I'm impressed by the emotional appeal of this carpenter cannot escape, here, nor Elvis in his text, but I'm aware that being a philosopher of the masses he can't be completely immune to their language.

We live at a time, when, as Umberto Eco would say, the vulgarity of fools has emerged from Dostoyevsky's smoldering teahouses and appeared, aggressively, in the digital public sphere square.

Just as the barbarians once inferred and destroyed the Roman Empire, fools today are ruining the empire of mind, which western rationalism had built in the public realm. The best confession for this construction is undoubtedly Habermas's work, “Structural Interformation of the public sphere”. As a philosopher of true social democracy, Habermas would say Veton Surroi, that Socialocracy is based on communicative action, not on the artisanal building of bombs, in style as did the unfortunate revolutionary Boris Davidovovic in the famous “A tomb for Boris Davidovici” of Danilo Kishi.

If we speak in Marxistic terms, dear Elvis, these social media barbarians are digital colloperate, which you in Vetevendosje readily call <x0).

Let's be clear: I don't fear the filthy language and the threats of fools who consider your party a bank to store their bitterness and psychotic complexes. For nothing else, I grew up in a country where overcoming fear of tyranny is the first thing every child can learn. This is Precazi, where the burden of freedom sacrifice is a hundred times greater than all the mold books of Marxism. You have to come to Prekaz, dear Elvis, to feel the weight of freedom, its air, which you will never find in the old dogmas of dialectic materialism, that one beautiful day in the spring of nations, set out to make the world paradise and street built hell on earth.

But let's get back to your reaction.

The main concern in your reaction is the protection of the people, whom, according to you, I am trying to deprive from participating in political decision-making. Your heart, on the surface, is philosophical and essentially driven by the simple populist scheme: on the one hand it's pure people as tears, on the other hand it's me and the corrupt political elite and between you and Vetevendosje that you've taken over the sacred mission to save the people. This is your operational scheme in politics, too simplified to be true.

As a philosopher, who spends time in the concept workshop, you should have stopped a little bit in the complexity of the people's concept, but you don't do that, because you like pragmatic populist self-security about what the people are, or maybe you like the definition of Ernesto Laclaw to people like the “an empty discursive”, which you take over to serve the political discrector of Vetevendosje. The latter is probably closer to truth, taking into account your passion to be the only ones who know what it is, what it wants and what people should do.

You're treating people like medieval theologians with the salvation of mankind. Just as they said that “there is no escape outside the church”, you today with your discurs logic say that “there is no people outside Vetevendosje”. The people are monopoly on Vetevendosje, and anyone who thinks outside of its ideology is an enemy of the people.

Dear Elvis, you're so afraid that I'm violating your people so you've taken them in your text and so tight that the people are overwhelmed by your fatherly care.

To illustrate this, I'll only get one argument from your text.

It accuses me, among other things, that through my writing I try to reason on preventing people from subjecting them, because people must be subject to the actualization of themselves in the political world.

All right, but only a few lines away, the Elvis philosopher is betrayed by the Elvis populist, because he suddenly defines people as the <x0-born human brother”, which I was hating.

How about once you say that the people must be subject, and then you say that the people are human matter - the object? Are you trying to walk the edge of the conceptual abyss of the “work? Ernst Block? I don't think so. Who remembers the utopiast Block today?

Elvis, what have you done? You turned people into classes! To turn people into subjects, to consider them subject, to process them ideologically, is this not the promise of any antihumanist ideology, that this is the promise of fascism and Stalinism itself, these two ideologies that loved the people so much that in the end they almost killed it completely, as did the beloved wife of the last hour, the desert Althusser?

Dear Elvis, it was very fascism that the people, like you, considered a subject that in the fascist ideological factory would be processed to produce the pure Arian race.

It was Stalinism, which, like you, considered the people to be a subject that in the ideological plant of real socialism would be processed to bring the New Man, who reads poetry in the morning, goes to parliament at noon to drop tear gas bombs and participate in debates about the nation's bright future.

By turning people into subjects, dear Elvis, you're doing nothing but tool it, turning it into an instrument of a group that's self-declared savior of the people. That way by protecting people from me, in the end, you destroy them yourself. As a result, it falls with both legs on the logic of the populist con man who calls “committed fraud” and your participating democracy degrades from a sovereign attribute to a “bond for degoguet”, as a prominent German politician called it.

You try to protect Article 1's vulgar Marxism of the Vetvendosje statute by covering it with the decoration of the French Revolution slogans preserved in the Constitution of France. Again, you fail as a philosopher because you will do the politically useful work of the populist: instead of the critical way you examine these slogans, you approach them electronically, collect them in one place and tell us: here is the ideal and happiness for which mankind is suffering so much. Eureka, Elvis calls!

As a philosopher it would be, and I believe I know, that the ratio between freedom, equality and brotherhood is not a report of harmony and consistency. In many cases they exclude each other and here lies the reason for the ideological conflicts that have killed mankind in the last two centuries. The revolutionary integration of equality and brotherhood has led to the destruction of freedom, and that is why Marxism has ceased today that it existed as an idea-political program, to remain a social analysis method, or as Sloterdijk “an aesthetic attitude for the world and nothing more”. Of course, the freedom of young people to maintain this aesthetic attitude is complete, but to manipulate them with the eventually dead part of Marxism is nothing less than feeding their minds with an over-term commodity. The philosophy in this case cannot remain indifferent, because at its core it is gastroenterology of the mind and you know it.

In the end, a tip for all concerned: GASTROENTOOGYC HAPET IN October.

All the best.

Prekaz

04.08.2017