1.
As mentioned in the video of the activity week, the purpose of the activity week is to educate students on the superiority of democracy. Switching to our country should be a tribute to the greatness of XX. I can't see the difference between the two. I'm in favor of reducing the number of political classes. Since XX doesn't believe in things, why let everyone accompany you to believe. I believe that China has never lacked independent thinking leftists, and their beliefs definitely do not come from the so-called "activity week". I don't need to talk about the right wing.
Even so, I am not advocating the abolition of political classes. You have also seen that even if there is no political class, there is still an activity week. Each country will use various methods to promote its own ideology in its own schools (at least public schools), which is actually an important symbol of the rise of modern nation-states (state-mandated compulsory education). Incidentally, the rise of the modern nation-state was also a precondition for the origin of so-called totalitarianism.
Of course, there are many ways to achieve ideological propaganda, and blocking news is the worst kind.
2. The teacher Reine in the uniform
film (I watched it was produced by TLF, they translated it like this) It is very interesting when he talks about the role of uniforms. And because of the uniform issue, one of the film's great dramas, Carlo, is created.
I personally feel that this gentleman has a special preference for uniforms, otherwise his wife would not open a web page about uniforms.......
Anyway, there are uniforms everywhere in life, and most of the military in the world are their own. Uniforms play an indispensable role in distinguishing between the enemy and the enemy, and in the sense of identifying the identity. A year ago, the PLA spent a lot of money to change clothes, which is the embodiment of this point.
However, if we look at it from a broader perspective, we will find that a key sign of modern society is the refinement of the division of labor. Max Weber also believes that a feature of bureaucracy is the absolute clarity of the division of labor, so uniforms are just an external manifestation of this clear division of labor. If our assumptions are a little broader, as the film says, a suit can also be considered a uniform. Because it conforms to a feature of uniforms, the unified standard.
Generally speaking, there will be differences in uniforms between ordinary employees and foremen, and between different types of work, but the common point is that they do not have the freedom to dress. If a security guard says that he does not like his uniform, he is like Carlo If he thinks that the clothes are not good-looking, he doesn't like it, or as many bean friends say, he doesn't like it because he doesn't need any noble reason, and he will also be fired for even less noble reasons. And if the level is higher, the freedom of dressing will exist and gradually expand. So uniforms are kind of like a social contract. You give up your freedom to dress to keep your job. Of course, people who wear uniforms will soon find that they give away more than just the freedom to dress. This shows yet another characteristic of uniforms: involuntary.
Of course, I must be full of loopholes in saying this. For example, the police, judges and other departments with power, the meaning of uniforms seems to be different. However, it is clear that their power does not come from uniforms. Uniforms are only the externalization of the internal division of labor. The uniforms of the public sector are also in line with the characteristics of identification, uniformity and involuntary.
Having said that, do the uniforms in the tide meet these three characteristics? Not in compliance with Article 3, involuntary. For a diehard like Tim, he absolutely volunteered to wear a white shirt. It seems so, but it's not. The involuntary here can be understood in this way. The so-called involuntary refers to the simplification of the path. If a certain identity transformation is to be achieved, path dependence must be established. So even if Tim is a diehard, even if it's voluntary on a general level, if he's going to be a part of the wave, he has to wear a white shirt, not red or blue or whatever. It must also be the freedom to dress rather than the power of money or whatever.
3. Is Discipline, Unity, and Strength
Discipline Fascism? Obviously not.
President Roosevelt taught us this:
To advance we must be like a trained and loyal army, willing to sacrifice for the common discipline, for without such discipline there can be no advance, no effective lead. I believe that we are willing and prepared to give our lives and our fortunes to such discipline, because only when such discipline is achieved can leadership for the higher good be achieved. I would like to provide such leadership, ensuring that these higher goals will be bound to us all as a sacred obligation, resulting in a sense of shared responsibility that has only emerged in wartime. (First Inaugural Address March 4, 1933)
Was President Roosevelt a Nazi? Obviously not anymore.
Discipline is one of the superstructures that build society as well as order, obligation, rule guidance. And it is indispensable. Constitutions and laws are not a priori, no convention existed when the Mayflower set sail, and for a group of political exiles, there was no reason to obey British law on the high seas. But there was no murder, theft or anything else.
I do not take this to mean that discipline exists before law or that discipline is more important than law. This is not the case. I hope everyone understands that although we advocate a country ruled by law, the law cannot govern every corner of life. First-grade children fight or just married couples who cook and who wash the dishes are beyond the control of the law, and there is no need to. Therefore, the disciplinary order obligation (duty seems to be a legal term, which will not be described later), the rules guide these things to become the supplement of the law, and thus have the characteristics of the so-called soft law. Therefore, discipline itself does not have the possibility of value judgment.
The key question is whether the spirit of the law is taken into account in the formulation and practice of discipline, whether it reflects morality and efficiency, whether there is a consensus on the values of those who are bound by discipline, and so on. At this level, discipline is good or evil.
By the same token, solidarity is by no means fascist. Doesn't the name of the country, USA, prove it by itself? The same goes for strength.
However, why do we abide by the discipline of various places every day (for example, we generally recognize the principle of discussing matters rather than personal attacks in contention), but we think that discipline is fascist? The key is the place that discipline occupies in the entire ideological structure. Overemphasizing the place of discipline in the ideological structure is indeed a frequent occurrence in the short twentieth century, not only with fascism, but also with President Roosevelt.
4. The lack of belief and organization
belief is a very difficult problem in contemporary society. In the wave, what many members feel is precisely a reply of faith.
A line and classic in the movie, we want to rebel, but don't know how to rebel. In contrast, the children of our country are still lucky, they know who to rebel against.
Faith alone is not enough to evoke a fanaticism like Tim's. Faith must be combined with organization to unleash great power. An organization is a collective, and any organization must establish its own common belief. When this common belief is sufficiently recognized, tested by practice, and sublimated in theory, it will become a belief or deepen a certain belief.
Humans are social animals and political animals. Modern society is also a society with an ever-increasing degree of organization, so organizations tied to beliefs will inevitably spew out at a certain node. Of course, we use organization and belief as the horizontal and vertical axis, and the high and low as the midpoint, and it is also quite interesting to discuss the four kinds of permutations and combinations.
But before doing such a frivolous thing, listen to the teaching of Marx:
only in the collective can the individual acquire the means for the full development of his talents, that is, only in the collective can individual freedom be possible. Under the conditions of a real collective, the individuals are free in and through their association.” In contrast, the fictional collective “always sets itself up against the individual as something independent. ” (excerpt from The German Ideology)
The first sentence is familiar to everyone, and I want to emphasize the second sentence. The reason Lao Ma said is very simple. Just as we talk about evil laws or good laws, and a gentleman or a hypocrite, collectivism is also divided into real and fictional. (It would be a mistake to think that Marx only preached collectivism after understanding this.)
Likewise, an organization is the same, a real organization is a voluntary pursuit of freedom rather than a purely individual self-realization organization, a real organization. Organizations have a constitutional style, and even as Wang Shaoguang said, in these organizations, citizens can conduct simulation experiments of democratic politics, experience the essence of democracy, and carry forward the spirit of democracy to actual political life. The fictitious organization is exactly what the tide shows us. Although it looks like an organization, it is in the final analysis a tool manipulated by a dictator and a pathological self-realization tool for followers. The beliefs of such an organization are really not commendable.
5. The paradox of pluralism
Mr. Hu Shi put forward a proposition for us that tolerance is more important than freedom. I think freedom is more important than tolerance, just like the question McDull asked us, he invented the telephone but didn't have electricity, and had electricity but didn't answer the phone. If there is only one voice and one argument, what are we going to tolerate?
However, freedom itself has its own problems to solve. The tide wears a white shirt, I can not wear it, this is my freedom, things should have ended here. But in fact it didn't end. Those who wear white shirts think that she is betraying the organization if she doesn't wear them, and those who don't wear white shirts think that their people who wear white shirts are unconsciously brainwashed. This happens to be the irony of something today. Carol was so persistent against the tide and desperately raised herself to a moral high ground. However, she forgot that others have unfree freedom. In fact, this is a controversial paradox that happens all the time. For example, a gift film jointly filmed by many overseas stars, a film that many people swore not to watch, but received a lot of ratings and comments, and as long as any commenter showed some thoughts about wanting to watch , it is omnipotent to be extremely sarcastic and even abusive. This is precisely the difficulty these "freedom fighters" cannot overcome. Therefore, pluralism must have a backbone of monism, and under the backbone of political correctness, it can continue to be pluralistic. However, who can guarantee that there is no hidden wave factor in this one-dollar trunk, as a bean friend incisively summed it up, it is only five days away from us. This is why dictatorships still haunt people, so Hannah Arendt eloquently points out that pure totalitarianism hardly exists (she thinks only Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union during the Great Purge can be counted), whereas totalitarianism factors are hidden in various regimes.
Sincerely said. In this sense, doesn't everyone have a wave in their hearts?
View more about The Wave reviews
