itaatsizlik üzerine

• erich fromm kitabı.
  
  --- spoiler ---
  
  during most of human history obedience has been identified with virtue and disobedience with sin. the reason is simple: thus far throughout most of history a minority has ruled over the majority. this rule was made necessary by the fact that there was only enough of the good things of life for the few, and only the crumbs remained for the many. ıf the few wanted to enjoy the good things and, beyond that, to have the many serve them and work for them, one condition was necessary: the many had to learn obedience. to be sure, obedience can be established by sheer force. but this method has many disadvantages. ıt constitutes a constant threat that one day the many might have the means to overthrow the few by force; furthermore there are many kinds of work which cannot be done properly if nothing but fear is behind the obedience. hence the obedience which is only rooted in the fear of force must be transformed into one rooted in man’s heart. man must want and even need to obey, instead of only fearing to disobey. ıf this is to be achieved, power must assume the qualities of the all good, of the all wise; it must become all knowing. ıf this happens, power can proclaim that disobedience is sin and obedience virtue; and once this has been proclaimed, the many can accept obedience because it is good and detest disobedience because it is bad, rather than to detest themselves for being cowards. from luther to the nineteenth century one was concerned with overt and explicit authorities. luther, the pope, the princes, wanted to uphold it; the middle class, the workers, the philosophers, tried to uproot it. the fight against authority in the state as well as in the family was often the very basis for the development of an independent and daring person. the fight against authority was inseparable from the intellectual mood which characterized the philosophers of the enlightenment and the scientists. this “critical mood” was one of faith in reason, and at the same time of doubt in everything which is said or thought, inasmuch as it is based on tradition, superstition, custom, power. the principles sapere aude and de omnibus est dubitandum—“dare to be wise” and “of all one must doubt”—were characteristic of the attitude which permitted and furthered the capacity to say “no.” the case of adolf eichmann is symbolic of our situation and has a significance far beyond the one which his accusers in the courtroom in jerusalem were concerned with. eichmann is a symbol of the organization man, of the alienated bureaucrat for whom men, women and children have become numbers. he is a symbol of all of us. we can see ourselves in eichmann. but the most frightening thing about him is that after the entire story was told in terms of his own admissions, he was able in perfect good faith to plead his innocence. ıt is clear that if he were once more in the same situation he would do it again. and so would we—and so do we. the organization man has lost the capacity to disobey, he is not even aware of the fact that he obeys. at this point in history the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization.
  
  *
  
  we produce machines that are like men and men who are like machines. that which was the greatest criticism of socialism fifty years ago—that it would lead to uniformity, bureaucratization, centralization, and a soulless materialism—is a reality of today’s capitalism. we talk of freedom and democracy, yet an increasing number of people are afraid of the responsibility of freedom, and prefer the slavery of the well-fed robot; they have no faith in democracy and are happy to leave it to the political experts to make the decisions. we have created a widespread system of communication by means of radio, television and newspapers. yet people are misinformed and indoctrinated rather than informed about political and social reality. ın fact, there is a degree of uniformity in our opinions and ideas which could be explained without difficulty if it were the result of political pressure and caused by fear. the fact is that all agree “voluntarily,” in spite of the fact that our system rests exactly on the idea of the right to disagreement and on the predilection for diversity of ideas. doubletalk has become the rule in the free-enterprise countries, as well as among their opponents. the latter call dictatorship “people’s democracies,” the former call dictatorships “freedom-loving people” if they are political allies. of the possibility of fifty million americans being killed in an atomic attack, one speaks of the “hazards of war,” and one talks of victory in a “showdown,” when sane thinking makes it clear that there can be no victory for anyone in an atomic holocaust.
  
  *
  
  capitalism puts things (capital) higher than life (labor). power follows from possession, not from activity. contemporary capitalism creates additional obstacles for the unfolding of man. ıt needs smoothly working teams of workers, clerks, engineers, consumers; it needs them because big enterprises, led by bureaucracies, require this kind of organization and the “organization man” who fits into it. our system must create people who fit its needs; it must create people who cooperate smoothly and in large numbers; people who want to consume more and more; people whose tastes are standardized and can be easily anticipated and influenced. ıt needs people who feel free and independent, not subject to any authority or principle of conscience, yet who are willing to be commanded to do what is expected of them, to fit into the social machine without friction; it needs people who can be guided without force, led without leaders, prompted without aim—except the aim to make good, to be on the move, to go ahead. production is guided by the principle that capital investment must bring profit, rather than by the principle that the real needs of people determine what is to be produced. since everything, including radio, television, books and medicines, is subject to the profit principle, the people are manipulated into the kind of consumption which is often poisonous for the spirit, and sometimes also for the body. the failure of our society to fulfill the human aspirations rooted in our spiritual traditions has immediate consequences for the two most burning practical issues of our time: that of peace and that of the equalization between the wealth of the west and the poverty of two-thirds of mankind.
  
  --- spoiler ---