Probably a good starting point will be a short and proper definition of culture, that can be taken from O. Spengler’s Decline of the West: ‘cultures are organisms, and world-history is their collective biography.’ Such a philosophical definition might be difficult to interpret, but for the use of this article we will define culture as a developing system of beliefs, prospects, conceptions of and about art and philosophy.
One way or another the culture can be linked to the left. On one hand, this connection comes from some key characteristics: inclusion, equity, equality. Also, culture aligns with the left not for ideological reasons, but because both reject hierarchy, by allowing pluralism, offering perspectives for a better common future. The ‘left’ and the ‘culture’ can be bonded, on the other hand, on another line: the left has its own culture, it has its own understanding of philosophy—based on dialectics and reinterpretation of art. This second part is probably more important; it brings us closer to the real purpose of art and closer to the ‘world of the ideas;’ to the better world we can participate in in order to rethink art, culture, and politics. In doing so we can give them new life.
That is the reason why we won’t talk about ‘high culture,’ ‘basic culture,’ ‘high politics,’ or ‘low politics.’ Such distinctions, whether in culture or in left-wing politics, are controversial, they go against basic principles and core ideas of our perception. We have to include every cultural act, we have to include everybody at the same time in politics and in culture. The ‘elitization’ of those social phenomena drifts them away from their core and brings us, as individuals, away from ourselves.
Anti-elitization is a process we have to voluntarily work for. We have to look forward to forming new beliefs, without a conception of an elite. We are witnessing that there are different types of elites: political, economical, cultural, technological, and last but not least, educational. Those elites have different functions: the political governs, the technological designs algorithms, the cultural gives us standards, and the educational certifies worth. They claim they are neutral, but all of them depend on exclusion in order to function.
The more elites we allow to form, the worse we allow our own situation to become, because today you are part of the elite, tomorrow—when the elite does not need you—you are out of it. The best way to counter this is to not participate in those elites at all.
Our fight against the system has to be continuous; we cannot build new culture with elites. And we cannot build a new world without education. We need people who think, we need people who know what they want, and, last but not least, people who are familiar with different cultures and recognize art as an important part of their life.
This brings us back to the culture and art. Bourgeois art is coming back. It returns through function. It decorates power and represses. In times of technofeudalism and global technocracy, capitalism and pseudoart are blooming. In order to fight back we need social art and a functional left, a left which has a conception, which has new ideas and is inclusive.
One might ask, “What is a technocracy and why should I care about it?” If we define technocracy as an apolitical, professional governance, ruled by an elite of technical experts, we will give ourselves a really shallow perspective. That way, the exploitation—which is an inseparable part of the technocracy—will be missed and this work will not give you anything new. It won’t broaden your perspective. We need to focus on this misuse. Instead, let us define technocracy as a ‘performatively apolitical, repressive regime, dependent on exploitation.’ As mentioned above, technocracy and feudalism can use you, the citizen, in order to achieve the goals of their leaders of the so-called ‘elite’ you are entering. But if they are ready to sacrifice their own members, the elite will always exploit other people.
Capitalism is also part of the problem. Technocracy without capitalism is unthinkable. The human potential can and will be used by technofeudalists and technocrats in order to achieve their own goals and accumulate power (either in the form of capital or political power) in their hands.
This way—without noticing—people are pushed to the side and they decide to sell their own freedom for ‘professionalism’ and expertise.
In the context of our grotesque modernity the idea of ‘professionalism’ is distorted. At first we believed in professionals, then we started believing in pseudoprofessionals, and today we are creating demi-gods. People kneel in front of the elites they support every day.
Where in this context can we find culture? Do we really need it? Culture is not just a theoretical concept. I truly believe we have to construct an organic conception of culture, in order to feel it more applicable and create a real hunger for it. Today we have a static culture, it looks like social media which artists and the ordinary person create at the same time, but this is far from true. It is shaped not by those subjects I mentioned, it is produced by algorithms and AI.
Looking forward to the organic conception of culture we have to put ‘AI-art’, sham intelligence and profanity aside. Modern thinkers have to stay original, they have to create, they have to influence, otherwise we are lost. Culture shapes; it shows us new areas of our collective subconscious. Once we reject the new feudal system of technocracy, we will be at least two steps closer to the new culture; the veil of ignorance will be lifted. Without culture and education we are going nowhere.
And lastly, regarding the left: no, here we don’t have to connect the left with a certain Left, a party or a coalition. Left ideas in their different forms have to be the antipode of technocracy and neofeudalism. We need a political color, a certain person, or a collective body to hold accountable. Those new doctrines blur the responsibility, they push us to new political regimes, that they call apolitical. But they are scarier, darker and more dangerous than the systems we know, deep down they are political. They are even more problematic.
Those conclusions bring us back to the starting point: culture and revolution. Culture is the revolution we need today—it opens eyes and shows different points of view. Culture has to be established before technocracy can enfold us. Technocracy is capable, we cannot risk letting it succeed. Without culture, resistance becomes façade. Without revolution, culture will be just an ornament. Our fight for a new culture and against technocracy has to be permanent, at least until we can proclaim our victory.
