Again, there was a pause. Steven responded with a facial expression of “so what.”
Justin continued, “Steve, I’m a business person too. I could comment she was right. Never lose a chance to make money. But as a citizen of the country, I disagree. She is wrong. Still, I went without protest. Could you tell what would happen if any organization left you fobbed?”
“Oh, you want a social revolution? Yes?” Steve said in a provocative voice.
“No,” replied Justin. “I despise revolutions and prefer alteration. If the people try to become more honest, it could make the public ready for a real shift. I mean, diminishing our double-tongued atmosphere could shake politics for sure.”
“Listen, anyway I suspect you mix political hitches with private life.”
“No. Even if my claim sounds idealistic, or I have articulated it wrong, I still hope that people instigate diminished lies. And when it starts, it becomes possible to adjust more progressive ways in our lives.”
“Do you think I disagree? I raise both hands for good turns, but did you discern what you omitted in your speech, man? That is capitalism, fellow. Yes, I agree we need a new system. I see budding inconsistencies with every step. For example, you can consider the US presidency. Is it okay that half the nation doesn’t believe a word of what comes out of the president’s mouth? What about what you mentioned earlier, a medical industry, economy, science, religion, or even a significant mass media and government evolving - everything is in the lock, stock, and barrel as losing faith. I often hear it given name crisis of trust. But if we focus on the material side of our core issues, we release the profit as exclusive measures of revenue for things down to the last penny,” Steve responded.
“As I estimate, you wouldn’t lift your hands for basic options, perhaps only one. And sorry, I wouldn’t either. Do you know why? I guess, if it bothers our monetary interests, we will escape as burned dogs.”
“What do you mean by the tricks?” Steven asked in excitement.
“No. It is the foundation for personal be-hoof as secret earnings,” Justin ended with the straight watch in the eyes of a listener.
“Oh, man, we all make money as we can…” Steve replied with a cross-reaction.
“Sure, but whatever is the price of man to exist for the country’s future, that’s more when he becomes a politician.”
“Hello, that is a complete mismatch of me,” Steve replied already fully nervous.
“Okay, I’ll give you an example that doesn’t match with me, with him, with you, or with anybody who sets foot on this ground. Look, my boss asked me to keep under strict control what goes on in working areas. Do you know why? As I heard, your company has bid for a project worth over sixteen million dollars.”
“What do you covet now?” Steven asked frustrated.
“I got concerned about myself as not being a good citizen. Why? Your next project already offered the opportunity to continue working together. So, if I stay here, speechless, I can get an excellent position with a considerably higher bonus. Is that again a matter of personal interest money?”
“Here, yes it is. What’s more? I believe you want to bring the political dye, and that’s ridiculous, Mr. Inspector. Am I wrong?” Steven reacted without covering his reasons.
“You’re more than right. The one hand washes another. Is that an ancient proverb about cooperation?”
“No, that is just useful connections, fellow. Listen, it seems like you are attacking me. Are you a politician? Yes, we are in permanent teamwork with contractors or subcontractors we know. What do you recommend? Take someone from the street and accumulate problems? Pay attention to a zealous man. I see something wrong here.”
“No. I respect an employer who gives workers room to inhale. I only tried to confirm how our actions attach political settings. And it insists that we create such a society. I guess that makes me a liar to my country. For what? I didn’t even try asking why such an honorable Democrat pays his pitiable laborers so cheaply per hour. Look, how do you feel about doing dirty work on scaffolds twenty-two floors above ground, under the sweltering sun? Is that only for fifteen dollars per hour and in cash? It’s not fair, man. And it means you are robbing taxes from the good people of our country. It wasn’t my eavesdropping. I overheard the conversations of your laborers. They wait for payment that also is not on time. What is that? As I told you, I’m not an honest citizen. I had better ask them if they are union members. That is earnings defense. Oh, I don’t care about their legal papers. That is not my business, but I take heed of advantages taken by silent cheaters as hype all over the country.”
The retort from Steven, after Justin’s hassle, had been theatrically bizarre. He hadn’t an easy, convenient way to leave the conversation. Steve—with a red face like a cooked lobster—rushed on Justin and almost speared him. His wry face said, “I have to run…” But it looked as if Justin were a psycho and Steven needed to dash from the scuttle. Justin tried to apologize—or perhaps it was something inappropriate, whatever—he disappeared without a word.
Later, Justin’s boss keelhauled him for such talk on the job but didn’t fire him. In a quiet, secure place, he sent him to hell. All colleagues called the project “a headache.” It was too tight a work area. Around fifty men per shift registered there. The focal task was to keep strict control over the steps of a contractor. As it was the heart of Manhattan near Central Park, the job conditions had regulations tight as a corset: written minute by minute. Why? Nobody liked to get surprise visits from city inspectors and get caught doing any wrong. The ticket for violations was as severe as a punch to the company’s reputation. But after 9/11, the government issued personal violation penalties for workers, foremen, and supervisors. It was a $10,000 fine for disarrangement or false steps. The strict orders from the office were to keep our eyes open for any wrong move made. And only to himself, Justin complained about unpleasant pressure from all sides. He told his wife about the punishment for a political chat while working. But what was interesting, we never again talked about jobs. As we see, individual political discussions—no matter where they occur—get us into difficulty. But I believe we don’t have to be silent on any level. People refuse to become involved and wish only to make peaceful amends. What does this mean in societal terms? It signifies that, whether you accept somebody or not, politicians treat you as only crucial to their political aspect. Sorry, you live in communities where your vote (regardless of whether you vote) is always counted. And because of this, politicians may use your interests according to their advantage.
Congratulations! While you verify the stiffness of a politician’s obligation to defend your rights, he forgets about you right after the election. Will you look for an explanation? You will not do it due to many organizational problems. But if you protest, a “former candidate” right away get in his line of political antagonists, he will show you scenes of a serious struggle for political power. And such exasperating pictures will illustrate what happens when you become a politician: you must improve your skills to press your opponent to make a halt. Search dirty, discrediting facts about any potential challenger all the time. Or you have to create figments as directed fantasy lies on him. Are you ready to do that? Will you contradict a politician who makes politics by methods of a bygone era? I hope yes, but first, let’s think and answer:
Will you pay tribute to such a leader or mistrust him? That is your move. Will you wait to see how it’s going or start action? It’s only your choice.
Will you lead a tolerant discussion or make the ruthless attack? It’s only your motive because you must remember you’re not a spectator anymore but already a protester when
POLITICIANS SPEAK and the ploy begins.
It’s typical, even though it sounds impolite, for a leading politician’s goal to be of pretension at a higher rank. If the politician doesn’t craft it, he is not the survivor in politics. Without doubts, his aim only flabbergasts him on wings to fly to an exact purpose: authority. We s
peak no longer of a person who misspelled himself and made incorrect statements. That person gets an automatic rejection from an antagonistic fight for supremacy. Nobody listens anymore to him as a respectful human being. When politicians’ swords are raised for crossbreeds, no cooperation appears anymore. They only express themselves as what we have given them. And for that time, we have renamed the nation, folk, demos, and crowd’s before and comments later! That’s us. That is everyone—not faces but full physiognomies. Also, nobody pictures us in the intense colors anymore. Now, the world looks and listens only to the bright politician who represents us. Is that hard to capture? From now on, you only take part in colored drama to come forward in preferences:
Is that doable to pronounce folk politics? Yes.
How does this sound to you—demos’ ostrich policy? You accepted it.
Or, how does it clink—people’s big stick? Yes. It’s assumable.
Or, what do you think of a nation of arm-twisting sieges! Yes, sir! Last, what is your common stick-and-carrot prudence? It’s the catch of a query with an exclamation mark.
Oh, I feel my dear reader you too can assess these comparisons of disembarked phrases as wine from an overflowing bowl. But the problem is such wine is equivalent to the red blood in our veins. The people insulted by seeing improvement only for politicians. Where are any changes for us? Is a man’s factor in history forgotten? Let’s assume not. With every clean name on the domestic or geopolitical arena, we have to apply with one major pretense: We don’t like the abashment of any new policy.
Isn't that a time to recharge the accountability of politicians?
Would you support the idea that the demand from politicians’ reports on work done can become a movement?
Don’t disappoint yourself after debased deeds—protest!
If anybody consents for no action at all, his position could assess the
PERSONAL CULMINATION of death for society.
Again, sorry you permitted this to happen. And anything may take the place of your politician’s leadership. Will you get nuked or grow cold without energy? Would you like to starve from a freakish-made famine? Can you let a foreign army invade your country? I would imagine not. Even such verities could bring you into a mental stupor; you still need the adequacy of your own character. Since the minute you jostled yourself in abeyance, did you grasp why those big guys never afforded themselves such luxurious behavior as sharp motions? Are you noticing how your politician conducts himself? As clearance, he is a top-rank official, because he looks pompous like he has a special sky above his head. But from such a career peak of our politicians, begins our total downfall into an abyss. Let me paint a picture parable of what happened in history when with the gasping hearts of people believed their elected would do what they want. So, it occurred: many innocents have been gased in chambers as they consented to pacify the mongrel aggressors (we had it with Hitlerism). The civilians have liquefied after bombing their houses as they empowered a delegate to postpone the natural answer: tee off to the last minute (we caused a fatal error). I believe you won’t like to continue bringing more real facts. We all have to say, even to ourselves, nobody knows today what to expect from social contradictions?
We don’t know yet! We only hope that maybe knowing it must be our critical ‘no’—not-none-nope-nay-no case-or-never—as a solid answer. Is it so difficult to proclaim that we no longer credit modern politicians?
Sirrah! Young generations!
Could you poke your noses out from being ensnared in your gadgets and try to realize who is buying your standpoints? Is that an immediate necessity for your jam-packed dependence? Yes, your reliance is their fortress for not defending you, but it makes a great counteroffensive against their opponents. One final thing is as immoral to say as when they sell you with all your values in hands and heads. And such deals will never stop until you comprehend your politician as the most complicated mental shape. For more filled, grasping semantics of politicians, you must divide the word into two parts. The first part is policy. The attribute of poly is too many, over much, and senses comfortable binding with populism. And the second part is titian. That is what you can qualify as a metal stick. So, you will find dynamics of turning your soul into a metal-spear weapon for their goals. Isn’t that prodding just to pierce or disarm the enemy? Can you call this tool to dismay other carpetbagger competitors?
Is that all joyful to hear? Dear next age bracket, I know many people around who are thrilled with the life full of toys and gadgets. They don’t care and hesitate to spend even a minute to discover what motivates politicians carry to serve their people. And for the people who look for common alterations, let’s rethink suggestions: it’s better to not test a speaker’s answerability for the position but distinguish his voice intonation as political jazz.
When you realized double talk, make urgent cuts to contacts.
It’s dangerous for our lives if a novice rushes with rip-ruin conclusions.
Runaway! Because it allows politicians to steer us and bring us to the point of
MENTAL SHOUT DOWN LOT—faceless doom.
If you like to talk about promising the name of politicians, you will readily answer:
Do you understand when at life’s arena the hopeful politician emerges, you are
in the STATUS to ANATOMIZE THAT?
Could you agree that no single change is possible without hearing what
POLITICIANS SPEAK about your better life?
Isn’t it better when a fresh official elevates to judge himself for the upstart-clownish or drama-tragic traits to simplify what to expect from
PERSONAL CULMINATION?
Why is it attainable for your quirks and teeters of modern politics to allow you to feel hopeless
in a MENTAL SHUT DOWN LOT later?
17. Capitalism
Surplus Value and Permissiveness.
Have you ever disputed capitalism as the best social formation? Yes? Isn’t that beyond questions about money? Yes. And when we watch motions of large currency, it’s already defined as working capital. When you witness the appalling discrepancies of contemporary capitalism, you would agree that no one has yet created anything better than private enterprise. And when you scrutinize documentaries from slavery through feudalism—and throughout the Industrial Revolution, the bourgeois period to the present—you find that the simplest free enterprise moves toward developed corporations, but the central tendency is still the same. Floating capital concentrates and grows in private hands.
Do you support an idea that lump-sum money is the only major mover? I believe your answer is ‘sure,’ and you agree that the youngest capitalists must learn to shift their funds. It means when you go faster to catch stake of interest on the table, make quick verification of how working capitalism on the level of huge money becomes politics. Would you like to elaborate on how someone earned experiences and only for yourself reanalyze the following stances:
The materiality of personal capital would show:
an itch for making considerable money, growing up when you tasted it—seeing perspectives.
The grit law of endurance in capitalism could teach:
your income for bread and butter, your worries about evolution, your growing bank account without skills of endless untying routines, nodes that don’t work—the law.
Your kind heart toward others would realize:
an optimism to jump to riches is always extinguished by fast running years. Reminders of your former qualities will change to the insensibility to acknowledge another’s problem as you become a manned robot—you don’t like it.
Your struggle to raise influence will narrate:
the dexterity of analyzing the size and volume of increasing the speed of time;
proper controled breathing helps to diminish a reckless thirst for profit—always punished.
First steps to becoming a capitalist would dictate:
a tightrope-walk of ideas that work only for the sanguine apprentice.
For the experienced racers, that cynical way is always stopped by the ferrous hands of results—equalizer of chances.
An ironclad belief in capitalism with a human face would show:
bawdry mini-quotations about the theory of labor for food showing big thanks to a low-income population—annoying catch of condition.
A philosophy of any manufacturer should consider:
the psychology of hiring must-have good looks and intentions because rules of the horrible exploitation will fall short—picture of a realm.
Knowledge of expenses for labor would uncover:
the official tone of full responsibilities. That isn’t friction yet. The stress is how much per hour you make later—unprecedented insult.
The fortunate to achieve a chief position should prove:
your forehead’s hardness to keep interest in the zone of Big Brother varies with a rapidity of executions—no one is with no one to nurture.
An untwisting wealth’s accumulation should assume:
the share of produced yield is a method of division by decimals. It must defend itself from documented legal acts—your guarantee.
If the boss reminds you about subordination, it would explain insufficiencies of attention on time, bringing more laborious tasks and stirring faster—pointless pressure.
Figures of the One Must Go Page 17
