Gian Piero de Bellis

Past

In the past, the transmission of culture in Western Europe was led by the Catholic Church, which had been able to preserve the classical heritage (Greek and Latin) and spread it during the Middle Ages. This cultural activity also gave rise to the formation of universities and schools that multiplied all over Europe and allowed the Church to exert an almost exclusive hold over the educational processes of the individuals. This cultural monopoly of the Church, like all monopolies, led inexorably, over time, to a growing obscurantism that manifested itself as an inability to accept the scientific method and the freedom of research. The conventional re-proposition of the past and the use of faith as a support for power (ecclesiastical and otherwise), generated deep shortcomings to religion as spirituality. Religion became increasingly an ideology that justified human exploitation and suffering on earth in view of a hypothetical otherworldly reward.

It is therefore more than understandable that all those who, in the modern era, argued in favour of a cultural and social renewal (e.g. freethinkers, socialists, anarchists, radicals, etc.) developed a strong anti-clericalism and a fierce anti-religious sentiment. In 1843, Marx clearly expressed this position of rejection of religion as manipulation of the exploited masses, stating in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: “Religion is the sobbing of an oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, the spirit of a spiritless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

Since then, at least in progressive and enlightened circles, religion has been regarded, purely and simply, as ‘the opium of the people’.

Present

The emergence of the nation state (after the French Revolution), the expropriation of much of the Church's property in all the countries of Europe, the end of the temporal power of the Papacy, the secularisation of modern societies, the establishment of the State school, these and many other historical events undermined the power of the Church and destroyed its cultural monopoly. Certainly, since at least the First World War, the clashes of ideas and groups had little or nothing to do with religion and almost everything to do with a new cultural phenomenon affecting the masses: politics.

In contemporary times, politics has completely replaced religion as a topic of discussion and a trigger for action by the masses. While in the past there was the clash between Catholics and Protestants for the affirmation (and imposition) of their religious beliefs, the 20th century witnessed the struggle between the right and the left to affirm (and impose) their political views.

These two rival factions, the right and the left, not only supported two apparently different models of social organisation but also presented politics in two apparently different ways.
For those on the left, politics is a sublime thing; everything is or must be political and therefore the personal is also political. In essence, the Left expresses a totalising view of politics, as every human action is a political one.

For exponents of the Right, politics is a dirty thing (according to Mussolini's alleged statement) and as a dirty thing it should be left to the pure people, that is to them. In essence, the Right embraces a totalitarian view of politics, as dictated by a national leader.

Taking historical events into account, between the totalising and totalitarian visions, the differences were and are practically non-existent, with some shouting: death to fascists, and others proclaiming: death to communists. Perhaps not with the same eagerness and the same use of words, but always with the same desire for exclusivity in the occupation of power.

From these phoney contrapositions, from these meaningless diatribes, one can only get out through a factual analysis of what politics has been and still is. Some statements by commentators and sharp critics of Western society help us in this regard.

Ambrose Bierce in his The Devil's Dictionary offers two definitions of politics:
1. “A means of livelihood affected by the more degraded portion of our criminal class.”
2. “A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” 
As a journalist, he constantly had before his eyes the American system of dividing up the resources (the ‘spoils system’) through which the winning party grabbed jobs and bribes for its followers and supporters.

Another American journalist, H. L. Mencken qualified politicians as:
"Men who, at some time or other, have compromised with their honour, either by swallowing their convictions or by whooping for what they believe to be untrue."

In Europe, Paul Valéry in his collection of writings Regards sur le monde actuel, 1931, rightly remarked that
“La politique fut d'abord l'art d'empêcher les gens de se mêler dans ce qui le regarde.” (Politics was from the beginning the artifice of preventing people from attending what concerns them).

This is very reminiscent of another way of looking at politics that we owe to the sharp tongue of Groucho Marx:
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

And one could go on with even more desecrating and devastating quotes in which politics appears as a tool to generate hatred among people and to push them to commit heinous acts (genocides, persecutions, mass expulsions, etc.).

If all this was and is still true, then how do we explain and justify the fact that many, especially among those who claim to be progressive and enlightened, still continue to have a miraculous vision of politics, to want to do politics and encourage everyone to get involved in politics as if it were really an indispensable and useful endeavour and not a criminal activity and a colossal mockery? Perhaps it is because even sensible people are not clear about what politics really is.

If so, then there is a need
(a) to produce a more exact and penetrating definition of ‘politics’ and
(b) for those who want to engage in a movement of renewal, a more exciting, convincing and, above all, meaningful personal and social commitment must be envisaged that will lead them beyond politics.

Future

In order to invent a future of radical renewal, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of the past, and the past makes us discover interesting and at the same time disturbing parallels that show the recurrence of certain undesirable historical phenomena. This repetition of the most negative historical events is only possible because those who ignore history end up making the same mistakes again and again, as aptly remarked by George Santayana when he stated: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (The Life of Reason, 1905)

The religious sects that fought for the affirmation of the true faith, have not disappeared, they have only changed their name, they are called political parties. The cultural monopoly that manipulated brains and promoted obscurantism did not end with the Catholic Church, it just changed hands: it is now the prerogative of the nation-state and its Ministry of (D)istruction (of brains). The so-called religious wars in which people wanted to impose their own vision of faith and life on everyone have not ended, but rather multiplied, as world wars, tribal struggles, national conflicts, in other words, political wars.
In short, we have moved from clericalism to secularism, from the altar in church to the altar of the fatherland, from illusions created by religion to illusions created by politics. Those who have noticed this can only come to the following conclusion-conclusion that updates an old formulation and at the same time offers a lucid definition of politics:

Politics is the opium of the people

Forget football, television, entertainment; these are often just instruments subordinated to politics and manipulated by politics, which, through politicians, true scoundrel barkers, acts like an invisible, odourless gas that circulates everywhere and clouds the brains of individuals (deluding, corrupting, misleading, obfuscating, and so on).

For this reason, the construction of the future will be the work of individuals and movements that go beyond politics. Those individuals and movements not only should stand against politics and political ideologies that occupy everyone's brains and direct their behaviour but should already prefigure a post-political social model.

A movement for the liberation of individuals must therefore necessarily go against politics (and thus be post-political) because, if it were a political movement and were successful, it would almost inevitably turn into a political party, thus reintroducing all the old filth and the usual shenanigans.

Hence, the fight against state oppression and manipulation, being the state the supreme exponent of politics, should not be a political battle but a struggle for the assertion of one's civil rights, a network of human beings aiming at asserting their civil rights (to freedom, autonomy, self-determination, or whatever terms might be used to characterise a person's freedom of decision).

Instead of invented oppositions, we should go for real variety of lifestyles, voluntarily chosen for oneself and respected in others. In essence, the goal of the civil rights movement is voluntary parallel societies in open spaces (instead of oppressive territorial states in chicken or national fences).

But this is another matter that cannot be addressed here in a few words; and perhaps it is better to let each person discover the new and implement it day by day in his/her own life.