Over the course of Mexican history, culture and heritage have been used in multiple ways by the state. During the Porfiriato, the state tried to centralize heritage to fan the flames of nationalism within Mexican borders. As a result, multiple heritage sites and artifacts were taken over by the state and taken away from the rightful indigenous owners of these places and items. During the 20th century, the installment of more democratic institutions and (the spread of neo-liberalism into the fields of culture and heritage) was intended to benefit historically oppressed groups like the indigenous population of southern Mexico. From these massive institutional changes, global institutions like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and state ran heritage agents like the Mexican National Institute of History and Anthropology (INAH) used tourism and other arms of capitalism to justify the exploitation of these sites. In contemporary Chiapas, Mexico we are seeing the complete subversion of this common form of the neoliberal heritage and cultural preservation model. With the presence of the Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional (EZLN) occupying various autonomous zones in the region, the preservation of culture is done through the preservation of these communities’ ability to be autonomous and control over their land. Some would attribute this sense of culture preservation to these communities shared indigenousness, however as this paper explores, this model of heritage creation and preservation is tied to a shared class struggle, which has resulted in the use of indigenous institutions for things like governance within these autonomous zones.

On January 1st, 1994 the Mexican state of Chiapas witnessed a military insurrection from the EZLN, a left-wing indigenous organization that views the Mexican state and its president as illegitimate. The EZLN embraces indigenous and Maya culture as a guiding light for how they build society within their autonomous zones, with the organization having a decentralized structure representing people from many different Maya communities like the Tzeltal, Chol, Tzozil, and Zoque among many other groups.[1]  However, the roots of this movement within Chiapas are seen in the constant indigenous uprisings in the region for the last four hundred years, marked by thirteen different ethnic groups that now make up the landless peasant families and day-laborers in contemporary Chiapas.[2] These socio-economic problems are relevant in many other states in Mexico however these problems were exacerbated by the lack of land reform in the state after the revolution from 1910-1917. While the majority of Mexicans saw a revolution marked by Zapatism, Chiapas saw an internal civil war between two different groups of elites that eventually prevailed over the peasant class agraristas which resulted in a lack of land reform leaving many families landless and powerless.[3]

This lack of land and autonomy had massive effects on the mindset of the indigenous people of Chiapas. One reason that may immediately come to mind is Karl Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Although the worker or peasant is an autonomous, self-realized being, because their goals, activities, and duties are dictated by the bourgeoisie due to economic centralization they lose their ability to determine life and destiny.[4] Due to outside forces, like the elite cattle farmers and planters, owning the majority of arable land, these indigenous workers have had their freedom and autonomy taken away as they now rely on the landowners to provide for them their food and wages. On top of this, to the indigenous population a lot of culture and heritage is tied to the land itself. This lack of land reform disenfranchised a majority of the population, making Chiapas a fertile area for uprisings and unrest throughout the 20th century. Even policy reforms made to benefit the laborers like the creation of Confederacion Nacional Campesina, which was meant to represent small-scale farmers and ejidatarios, failed since land reform was absent in Chiapas.[5] This organization, along with every other political and state institution, fell back on the pre-revolutionary alliances between the local elites, like the cattle farmers. [6]

As more reform and neo-liberal policies were enacted over the course of the 20th century, the EZLN embraces class struggle and their tie to the land to subvert the national government’s attempts to centralize power. This eventually led to the beginning of the Chiapas conflict in 1994 when the North American Free Trade Agreement was set to begin, a treaty that the EZLN claims as a death sentence for the indigenous ethnicities of Mexico.[7] This is because NAFTA would require Mexican agriculture laws to align with that of the United States and Canada which would allow for privatization and big transnational companies to dominate the agricultural sector.[8] As seen throughout Mexican history, indigenous culture and heritage has been used as a rallying point to supplement and support the status quo as the people of Mexico should rally around their inherent “Mexicaness.” Leaders of the EZLN subvert this centralization of culture by embracing class struggle, thus creating a rallying point for these indigenous groups to gather around by embracing their disenfranchisement from their land that would result from policies like NAFTA. This disenfranchisement materialized itself in a peasant, agrarian resistance movement that prides itself on taking back land and stopping the commercialization of indigenous culture. The EZLN after rising to prominence in the 1990’s did a lot of groundwork for the future success of the indigenous people in Mexico. This became clearly apparent in 2001 when the Mexican Congress, under EZLN pressure, passed a law that recognized the rights of indigenous people giving them the ability to practice autonomy within the united nation of Mexico.[9] As a result of this, multiple EZLN autonomous zones were created all over the Chiapas region. These indigenous administrative territories use a traditional way of governance, like the Calpulli (Large House) system.

The calpulli is the organizational level below altepetl or city-state. At the smallest level of this organizational structure are families, who are responsible for each other’s education and food preparation. Followed by the calpulli, which is a functional community ran by the calpiulec, the main administrator of the region who designates responsibilities and duties like what crops to grow between the families.[10] This right to self-determination resulted in indigenous people being able to maintain their traditions because they did not have to change their lifestyles. The embracing of heritage is abstract in concept and can materialize in many ways such as the preservation of sites, the use of the supernatural, or the complete erasure of sites. With the EZLN we see these indigenous communities preserving culture through their use of their own governance system, living an indigenous lifestyle free of change due to things like NAFTA .  This is a stark contrast to the conservation and preservation of culture through neo-liberal means. Neo-liberal celebration of culture and heritage is not for practical purposes but rather to supplement the end means of profit. As a result, this involves the inclusion of material items and places like heritage sites as seen at Palenque, Tonina, and Chichen Itza. Here we see the exploitation of indigenous sites- that indigenous communities would like to use- to help turn a profit for the private investors who are funding these projects to centralize cultural power within the Mexican state.

​Despite the existence and the ability to create these autonomous zones for indigenous communities, indigenous communities are still being taken advantage of by the Mexican state and neo-Liberal agents. For example, the continued existence of heritage sites like Chichen Itza and Tonina that are used to generate wealth for non-indigenous communities and are used for non-indigenous heritage events like an Elton John concert. To combat this the EZLN has implemented multiple strategies to disrupt and stop the exploitation of indigenous culture. One common occurrence of civil disobedience are the roadblock demonstrations leading to sites like Tonina, sometimes taking donations to allow cars to pass.[11] Another tactic used by the EZLN is to just create villages in unused land to expand influence. This has actually been a problem for the state in the Lacandona Jungle and the group of sixty-six families of Lacandon elites that were awarded 614, 321 hectacres of the land displacing the twenty-six indigenous communities of various other ethnic backgrounds in the 1970’s and 1980’s.[12] To combat this, the EZLN has helped re-establish and protect these villages of subsistence farmers in the unused land.

The establishment of EZLN villages in the Lacandona Jungle is a part of a grander strategy to spread the influence and power of neo-zapatism to other parts of Mexico. The EZLN does this by making being a Zapatista easy to identify with, not to mention embracing anyone willing to help their movement. To quote EZLN leader Comandante Zebedeo “If they are suffering exploitation, if they are suffering intimidation, if they are not receiving a just salary, then they can be considered Zapatistas, because that is our struggle as well. This is what we want, I think many people sympathize with us, because in reality that is perhaps what the great majority of our country and the world are suffering.”[13] This brings up the important point of EZLN culture and heritage building that is vastly different from most western ideas of the two. The EZLN, while it uses indigenous culture, is at the forefront of fighting for indigenous rights, and is made up of mostly indigenous groups like Tzetal and Chol, derives its cultural power from a class view of society. This use of the dynamic between the oppressed and the oppressor has been seen throughout this paper, as many of the EZLN’s tactics are used to disrupt the norms of neo-liberal imperialism and oppression through land and wealth concentration. This is a struggle that is very apparent in Southern Mexico’s indigenous communities hence the embrace of indigenous institutions like the calpulli system.

This is not to say that the EZLN is the end all and be all for the indigenous community of Mexico. While the indigenous people of Chiapas may have found freedom in autonomy and defiance of the Mexican state, one should not ignore the massive material downsides. Chiapas provides more than half of Mexico’s hydroelectricity and thirty percent of Mexico’s total water, yet around ninety percent of the indigenous population in Chiapas do not have energy or plumbing. On top of this these indigenous communities lack proper healthcare, with less than one doctor per thousand inhabitants.[14] While these may speak to the lack of material improvement for these communities, an argument can be made that the material state of these communities would be the same if not worse under the neo-liberal system that involves wage slavery and reliance on systems and people that are unaccountable. Another criticism levied at the EZLN is their inability to unite all indigenous communities, as seen with the tensions between the EZLN backed indigenous villages and the Lacandon indigenous population over the use of the Lacandona Jungle. However, this criticism misses the point of the EZLN and how they have developed their culture. The essence of EZLN does not rely on the indigeneity of the people, rather their position within the standing power structure. The Lacandon people do not fit in when observed through this lens as they view themselves through a sense of culture and reject the view of class struggle. This is due, in some part, to the Mexican Government’s attempts to preserve the Lacandon culture in the 70’s and 80’s which resulted in the disenfranchisement of the many indigenous communities that now make up the EZLN.

​In essence, the story of building, conserving, and preserving culture and heritage within the EZLN framework is to fill the negative spaces of neo-liberalism. Zapatistas diverge immediately from the neo-liberal model through how they preserve culture. The preservation of culture is done through the preservation of these community’s ability to be autonomous and have control over their land. This can be seen in the EZLN’s establishment of indigenous political organizational structures like the calpulli and their efforts to retake land that indigenous communities were removed from in the Lacandona Jungle. This foils the neo-liberal model of obtaining physical items or preserving places and, in essence, taking away all practicality. To put culture on display as the exotic other within the country it is supposed to represent. Another major diversion in the EZLN’s perception of culture and heritage is how they create an identity. While the EZLN is heavily associated with and often called an indigenous movement, identity within the group is not centered around ethnicity. While many may disagree due to the EZLN’s prominence in fighting for things like indigenous rights in Mexico, this evidence is purely circumstantial due to where and when the movement was created. At its core to be a Zapatista, you have to side with the oppressed, the exploited, and form solidarity to conquer their struggle. This focus on class is why the EZLN is able to rally people from multiple indigenous groups in the most ethnically diverse state of Mexico. The basis of indigenous association with the EZLN is found in this class struggle as indigenous groups have been historically oppressed. All in all, this opposition to the neo-liberal status quo, through autonomy, self-subsistence, and class solidarity is how the EZLN preserves heritage in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas.

​Bibliography
​[1] Godelmann, Iker Reyes. “The Zapatista Movement: The Fight for Indigenous Rights in Mexico.”

[2] Dietz, Gunther. “Neozapatismo and Ethnic Movements in Chiapas, Mexico: Background Information on the Armed Uprising of the EZLN.” Pp 27

[3] Dietz, Gunther. “Neozapatismo and Ethnic Movements in Chiapas, Mexico: Background Information on the Armed Uprising of the EZLN.” Pp 27
​
[4] MARX, KARL. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

[5] Dietz, Gunther. “Neozapatismo and Ethnic Movements in Chiapas, Mexico: Background Information on the Armed Uprising of the EZLN.” Pp 27

[6] Dietz, Gunther. “Neozapatismo and Ethnic Movements in Chiapas, Mexico: Background Information on the Armed Uprising of the EZLN.” Pp 27

[7] Shantz, Jeff. “Understanding the Chiapas Rebellion: Modernist Visions and the Invisible Indian.”

[8] Godelmann, Iker Reyes. “The Zapatista Movement: The Fight for Indigenous Rights in Mexico.”

[9] Godelmann, Iker Reyes. “The Zapatista Movement: The Fight for Indigenous Rights in Mexico.”
​
[10] Godelmann, Iker Reyes. “The Zapatista Movement: The Fight for Indigenous Rights in Mexico.”

[11] Schafer, Norma “Tonina, Hidden Chiapas Archeology Gem: The Road Less Traveled.”

[12] Vegara-Camus, Leandro. “The MST and the EZLN Struggle for Land: New Forms of Peasant Rebellions.”

​[13] Callahan, Manuel. “Why Not Share a Dream? Zapatismo As Political and Cultural Practice.”

​[14] Godelmann, Iker Reyes. “The Zapatista Movement: The Fight for Indigenous Rights in Mexico.”

​

​Bibliography
​
Primary Sources 

1. Sankara, Thomas. “Speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations.” Speech. UN General Assembly, October 4, 1984. Marxist.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/sankara/1984/october/04.htm.
2. Thomas Sankara Speaks, n.d. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVKgvakY_Io&t=49s&ab_channel=JoeDwyer.
3. Sankara, Thomas. "The 'Political Orientation' of Burkina Faso." Review of African Political Economy, no. 32 (1985): 48-55. Accessed April 25, 2021. http://www.jstor.org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/stable/4005706.

Secondary Sources

1. Akinwotu, Emmanuel. “ Burkina Faso Ex-President Compaoré to Face Trial over Thomas Sankara Murder.” The Guardian, April 13, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/13/trial-in-absentia-burkina-faso-ex-president-blaise-compaore.
2. Harsch, Ernest. Thomas Sankara : An African Revolutionary. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2014. Accessed April 23, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central.
3. Manji, Firoze. “Solidarity Not Saviours. (Cover Story).” New African, no. 546 (January 2015): 14–15. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=100315104&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
4. Mednick, Sam. “Conflict, Coronavirus, and Now a Hunger Crisis.” The New Humanitarian, 19 Aug. 2020, https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/2020/08/19/conflict-and-coronavirus-spark-hunger-crisis-burkina-faso.
5. Newton, Huey. “Huey Newton Introduces Revolutionary Intercommunalism, Boston College, November 18 1970.” Libcom.Org, 18 Nov. 1970, https://libcom.org/library/huey-newton-introduces-revolutionary-intercommunalism-boston-college-november-18-1970. 
6. OUEDRAOGO, LASSANE. “Mediated Sankarism: Reinventing a Historical Figure to Reimagine the Future.” African Studies Quarterly 18, no. 1 (September 2018): 19–29. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132398805&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
7. Prashad, Vijay. “When the Stars Began to Shine.” New Internationalist, no. 518 (March 2019): 34–36. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=134650976&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
8. Pulido, Laura. Black, Brown, Yellow, and Left: Radical Activism in Los Angelos. 1st edition, University of California Press, 2006.
9. Shuffield, Robin. “Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man.” Films On Demand. 2006. Accessed April 23, 2021. https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=99355&xtid=49792.
10. Springer, Devyn. “Does the Western Left Have an African Problem?” Truthout.Com, 16 Oct. 2017, https://truthout.org/articles/does-the-western-left-have-an-african-problem/. 
11. Williams, Justin C. “New Africa in the World Coming to Harlem: A Retrospective Comparison of Jerry Rawlings and Thomas Sankara.” Journal of Pan African Studies 7, no. 7 (December 2014): 7–25. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=100261775&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Why am I quoting Lenin in a book about totalitarianism? Because he is a figure who propounds a very germane exegesis of the liberal democracy model which is acknowledged today as a symbol of prosperity and peace.  Lenin called it the dictatorship of the bourgeois, rule of the capital, or rule of the upper class where there is only freedom for the slave owners.
 
Whenever someone says Totalitarianism, several thoughts surface to the mind of the individual. They think about various governments that have restricted the rights of the people, took part in vanquishing opposition and fear-mongering, control all aspects of life for complete subjugation to authority by controlling mass media to spread propaganda.
 
Totalitarianism became a political ideology with the advent of Fascism. Mussolini believed that the Corporate State is totalitarian and also wrote a book on it titled ‘The Corporate State’. Any individual interest or whatsoever was out of harmony with the interest of the State. The State corrals all of society. The idea that totalitarianism is integral political power that is exercised by the state was contrived in 1923 to elucidate Italian Fascism as a system that was fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.
 
Totalitarianism is not at all predictable and, in many instances, it's not even conspicuous. According to the dictionary, Political science is the branch of knowledge that deals with the state and systems of government or the scientific analysis of political activity and behavior. A policy state or system can be interpreted in many different manners. So political study is subjective and open to many interpretations but ignorance moves it to the objective side. This is what Žižek discusses in the book about totalitarianism. how it has been reduced to just a few interpretations and the fact that liberals don’t want to talk about what they call a ‘demonic’ political idea and denounces as ethically dangerous.
 
Totalitarianism as an ideological concept has always had an explicit strategic function to guarantee the liberal-democratic hegemony by dismissing the Leftist critique of liberal democracy as the perfidious or Janus-faced of Right-wing dictatorships.  Žižek looks at totalitarianism in a way that Wittgenstein would approve of, finding it a cobweb of family resemblances.
 
Žižek reveals the unison view of totalitarianism, in which it is defined four ways: the holocaust as the ultimate, diabolical evil and beyond any political analysis; the Stalinist gulag as the alleged truth of the socialist revolutionary project which refutes socialism and radical progressive thoughts as they call it utopian and believe that utopian vision leads to totalitarian realities; the recent wave of ethnic and religious fundamentalism to be fought through multiculturalists tolerance; and the deconstructionist idea that the ultimate root of totalitarianism is the ontological closure of thought.
 
Žižek starts the book by telling that trounce of the left is not because of the inanition of the intellectual resources but because of its ideological defeat against liberalism. The radical left is trapped in a facile opposition between the rhetoric of liberal democracy on the one hand and totalitarianism on the other.
 
The book explains the psychoanalysis of the concept of Totalitarianism. Žižek can be called the seer of Lacan as his ideas drew heavily from Hegel’s Idealism and Lacan’s psychoanalysis and that’s why the book is more of a psychoanalytic study of totalitarianism than political. Lacanian psychoanalysis in itself is an intricate topic to comprehend, the book might help some to look at it in a clear sense. It’s important to understand Lacan to discuss liberalism as he believed that no matter how democratic we may be, we are always attracted to authority figures. We simply don’t want to take charge and want someone to lead. This concludes that Liberal democracy is still a rule of the insignificant minority over the significant majority and is less about representation and leads to the polarity of the power.
​
Žižek in this book calls the discourse on totalitarianism pertinent because it helps to discern the shortcomings of the modern democracy but the problem he calls out is the misuse of the notion as any argument regarding it is rejected by calling it evil and this thwarts the intellectual development of the society giving rise to centrism which believes that any change in the status quo will eventually lead to totalitarianism.

Žižek examines these ideas and concludes that the devil lies not so much in the detail but in what enables the very designation totalitarian: the liberal-democratic consensus itself which remolds itself into fascism in no time as it is governed based on capital. Authoritarianism is not pretending anymore to be a real alternative to the flawed democracies everywhere, but we can see many more authoritarian practices and styles being smuggled into democratic governments.

Liberalism is a more sophisticated version of authority that is not about freedom and it can be best fathomed by studying Gramsci. In a totalitarian society the ruling class tells you to do this particular thing, in liberal democracy Ruling class through various institutions like family school, religion familiarizes us with rules and behavior and natural respect for the ruling class while maintaining a delusion around ‘Free Speech’. This is what Žižek in his lectures call the ‘Paradigm of modern permissive authority’.

Regardless, Žižek raises interesting points. Does real democracy come only as an unanticipated paroxysm of ethical duty? Is the marking of diversity enshrouds totalitarian thought?  Does magnum opus result from excessive knowledge? Do deeds emanate from prevailing ethical materiality or do they create it afresh each time they occur? Do cultural studies reveal the shapes of global hegemony?

There is one point that Žižek misses out; the conflict between the divergent ideologies is not only because of the parochialism of liberal democracy but also the altercation between the Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment thoughts. Progressive politics is the outcome of Enlightenment thoughts which is the intellectual legacy of Marx that values freedom and equality.

This is not an easy book at all. This is meant for research scholars. I (a chemistry Hons student) had difficulty reading but was able to complete this because the pop culture references made it very engrossing for those who are aware. I'll recommend it for those who want a different and very deep perspective of the liberal democratic model and good work on Lacanian psychoanalysis.

A close friend of mine once said to me “I basically have two options, toughen up or wind up in jail.” This was in reference to the intense set of circumstances plaguing him at that moment. Either continue to accept the abuse he received from his father or end back up in juvenile detention. What struck me in that moment is how he described going to juvie as “winding up in jail.” What I came to realize is that juvenile detention was not reforming these kids but breaking them down and feeding them into a greater criminal justice system. This was my introduction to the school-to-prison pipeline.

The school-to-prison pipeline can be thought of as and perceived in many different ways but what can be pinned down mainly is this; it is the system in which various forms of corrective punishment (such as suspension, expulsion, in-school detainment, etc.) is used to correct the misbehavior of students. These methods of correction eventually lead to large numbers of students being pushed from the education system into the criminal justice system. What can we observe about this system? Well, firstly we must try to pinpoint how this system was developed in the first place. Then, we must note that the school-to-prison pipeline (or SPP for short) primarily affects people of color and people of a disadvantaged background.

Let’s first look towards the presidency of Ronald Reagan and his expansion of the War on Drugs. The intention of the War on Drugs was to “take a tough stance on drugs and crime.” The outcome was not a decrease in drug abuse and crime rates but a rapid increase in incarceration in the United States. Going further than that, the outcome of Reagan’s War on Drugs was an increased incarnation rate of people of color. Around 77% of people incarcerated on drug offenses are Black and Latinx people while only collectively consisting of about 30.1% of the population. This coupled with Reagan’s booming prison industry during the 1980’s columnated not in a War on Drugs nor a War on Crime, but a War on POC and a rapid expansion on legal slavery.

I mention this because these “initiatives” created a runoff into the school system. The “zero tolerance” school discipline policies were developed as a result of the drug and crime laws of the 1980’s. Like the War on Drugs the ideology of zero tolerance discipline is to aggressively punish people for one or more specified offenses in the idea that these individuals will be reformed and will discontinue their “wrong behavior.” As you can imagine, like the outcome of the War on Drugs, these policies have only aided the growth of incarceration rates and the success of the Prison Industrial Complex.

There’s a rigid dichotomy between zero tolerance policies and positive behavior changes in students. The education system's hardened approach to discipline has continued to disillusion many students from education and the many things that supposedly lay waiting for students who pursue a further education. Understandingly, this disillusionment oftentimes leads towards criminality rather than away from it. When breaking this policy down we must note that the purpose with zero tolerance discipline was to focus on targeting and punishing individuals for violating specific rules and regulations such as enacting violence, bringing drugs, alcohol, or weapons to campus, hate speech, etc. The reality, however is that many schools have decided to enact these policies against students who exhibit signs of possible mental illness, abuse, etc. as a shortcut to addressing these problems.

Consequently, at least half of all prisoners in the United States exhibit mental health concerns. It has been observed that 64% of jail inmates, 54% of state prisoners, and 45% of federal prisoners report mental health concerns. Anywhere from 10-25% of those inmates incarcerated in the United States suffer from serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, major affective disorders, etc. Compare this to the only 20.6% of US adults who have reported any mental illness (AMI).

The increased militarization of U.S. schools has further perpetuated the lasting effects of these zero tolerance policies and is largely responsible for the disproportionate number of students of color funneled directly out of the school system and into the criminal justice system. In the 2015-2016 school year, black students represented only 15% of the student population nationally, but represented 31% of the students arrested or referred to law enforcement. And, overall, it has been noted that black students are also three times more likely to attend a school that employs at least one police officer but no mental health personnel.

Considering all of this, it is important to note the way in which zero tolerance discipline and the militarization of schools as a whole is viewed by most through an idealist lens; the true implications of which are ignored by most and the way in which these policies are used as instruments of capital are completely overlooked. The idea presented to us that the system works in reforming and helping our children is enough to feel as though it is a reality. It is even important to note that the implementation of 8-hour school days that correlates with the typical 8-hour work day has created the perfect set of conditions to convince the general public that these cruel and abusive tactics are fundamental in shaping and caring for your children.  However, by looking at this system through a materialist lens we can begin to understand why zero-tolerance policies and the militarization of schools was truly implemented, why it specifically targets POC and mentally ill students, and how it has been used as a tool for capital.

With the abolition of slavery came the ratification of the 13th amendment, which in turn allowed for legal slavery as “punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” After the American Civil War when slave plantations became no longer useful, we began to exponential growth of the prison system and a wave of legislation across the country. Legislation which targeted black people for the slightest of things and resulting punishment being prison time (where they could once again exploit the labor of black people in America for free and act more violently in doing so.) And we can see that overall, not much has changed.

Our material conditions, while evolving, continue to perpetuate systemic inequality. The conditions that made it possible racism, sexism, ableism, islamophobia, etc. to thrive worldwide have become ingrained into every aspect of our social and economic practices, not excluding the SPP. In fact, these very conditions have made it possible for the SPP to be created in the first place.
​
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the education system is the aid to and could be the end of the Prison Industrial Complex. The demilitarization of schools and introduction of further mental health personnel is only the first step to dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. And in turn, beginning on the path to full on prison abolition.

​
Citations

Nellis, Ashley, and Kevin Muhitch and Nazgol Ghandnoosh. “The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons.” The Sentencing Project, 10 Jan. 2019, www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/.

2014, October. “Incarceration Nation.” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, Oct. 2014, www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration.

“Ending Student Criminalization and the School-to-Prison Pipeline - EJ-ROC Policy Hub.” NYU Steinhardt, 7 May 2020, steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/ejroc/ending-student-criminalization-and-school-prison-pipeline.

In this paper we seek to perform a dialectical analysis of the recent popular phenomenon of OnlyFans.com. OnlyFans is a website on which content creators, typically behind a paywall, post exclusive content for their “fans.” However, OnlyFans is most notably known for revolutionizing the pornography industry. A quick google search will verify that the primary commodity produced on OnlyFans is pornography. However, this direct link between pornographic performers and their pornographic products is functionally novel to mainstream society. While previous to this point things like webcamming have already enjoyed immense popularity, the seemingly inescapable phenomenon of OnlyFans has presented a genuine shift of power in the porn industry. That is not to say that OnlyFans is not exploitative of sex workers—of course it is. The company takes a cut from every subscription and generates massive revenue. But how are we, as philosophers (do not fret here dear reader—anyone reading this I hereby deem a philosopher!), to view this problem?

We will approach the issue of OnlyFans by first examining the ontology of pornography. Next, we will discuss the relationship of what is really occurring when a person is engaging in the consumption of pornography. Once we have established the nature of the relationship between pornography as a purely mental “object” and the relationship of the viewer to this “object,” we will discuss the moral implications of this relationship. However, we needn’t commit ourselves to a strict deontology or consequentialism. 

After we address the moral relationship between the phenomenon of pornography to the viewer, we will address the moral relationship between the act of creating pornography to the creator. I hope to show that even if we remove the consideration of specifically industrial pornographic exploitation—viz., in imagining a phenomenon like OnlyFans in which the “company” would serve as essentially a free posting service for the creator and consumer— there still exists exploitation, and, thus, alienation, for both the creator and consumer of pornography. We will end with some considerations of what we might want to do about this exploitation, or if we even want to do anything at all.
​

Offhand this may seem like an absurd question. Surely pornography is real? I can pull up a video, or a picture, and see the pornography. But is it really the pornography itself that is being interpreted by my visual sense? Of course not—all that is actually interacting with my eyes in that moment are photons (either produced digitally, or reflecting off of a printed image, or what have you). It only becomes pornography after the photons have been sensed. This would seem to hold true for any given viewer of pornography. Thus, any given pornographic material only is, or only exists, in the mind of a person whose eyes are processing the photons. That is to say, the statement “This piece of pornography X exists” can only be true insofar as a mind constructs the pornography out of the varied sense-perception presented to it by the visual sense. Absent a mind to construct pornography out of the photons, it cannot be said that “on screen Y there exists some piece of pornography X,” or that “in magazine V there exists some piece of pornography W.” All that will exist in such cases are the photons, either produced by pixels or reflecting off of a configuration of ink and paper molecules, for pornography can only exist as a mental object. 

So as to not scare away anyone not fully committed to a materialist metaphysic we will speak as if mental objects themselves can exist. The strict materialist, myself included, deny that they exist independently from a direct physical correlate in the brain (or perhaps elsewhere in the nervous system, depending on the sense of “mental object”). For the purposes of clarity, we shall treat mental objects as real enough for our discussion.

Now it seems we are in a position to say that a pornographic product can only exist as a pornographic product within the minds of the viewers of that product (whatever the implications of “to exist” might turn out to be). It is useful to point out that this is also true for the creator of the pornography--properly speaking, the pornography they create doesn’t exist as pornography until their mind constructs it as such. Up until that point, the creator was simply performing sex acts in front of a camera, but we must be clear that all that is actually real in their act of “creating pornography” are the physical motions which they performed while filming, the molecules composing the camera itself, the photons, etc.

Let us now give an answer to our question, “Is pornography real?” The materialist answer is no—so long as “real” is understood to mean “real independent of experience” or “physically real.” If one is comfortable with the idea of subjective “realities,” then one might quite be comfortable calling pornography “real.” I do not share this comfort, but even to such a thinker I would respond that even if mental objects are fully real--that is, even if the apparent dichotomy of the terms “objective reality” and “subjective reality” is an illusion of sorts— mental objects nonetheless still only exist when they are constructed by minds. So even for one who wants to call pornography “real,” it seems they cannot deny that its supposed reality nonetheless only is obtained within the confines of individual minds.
​

This essay will be dealing with the concept of the economy, the affects that these concepts have on both society at large and on the average person, the economy as an abstract thought, how it has been treated with reverence, and how the powers that be manipulate it for their own gain. In 2020 we have seen a massive focus on ‘the economy’ as a concept, and the stock market has been used as a basis, particularly in the United States, of measuring the economy.

I would first, however, look to examine the very real human cost of neoliberalism, which is the dominant ideology across the west and has been since the 1980’s. This essay will deal with many numbers, and figures, but there within lie striking amounts of human suffering. This will focus on the European champion of neoliberalism, Thatcher, who’s attempts to control inflation cost human lives. While we should rightfully critique all Empires, in doing so we must not forget that at the heart of each of them is a proletariat, one who may not be suffering as poorly as those in the colonial possessions, but one who is suffering nonetheless. In order to reduce inflation, one must naturally increase unemployment and vice-versa. This obviously had major repercussions for the British people, the main victims being the miners in 1984-85. This ploy to destroy the Miner’s Union was foretold by Sir Howe in the last of the four points that were set forth for a growth in government, as Thatcher shut down the mines, the Miners Union, the collective bargaining institution faced the consequences of their actions, they were sent back to work, disgraced, with one miner even commenting:

 ‘She planned it very very clever – you’ve got to admire her…it all fit in, in that ten year from ’74 to 84…she was determined that, at any cost…she wasn’t  going to be defeated and humiliated the same way Ted Heath was…it was all geared up for her to smash the National Union of Mine Workers – and by God it worked, it’s hard to say it, but it worked.’[1]

These words are a stark reminder of the human cost of Thatcherism, the men and women whose livelihoods were erased due to the dismantling of the public sector to end subsidies, and the complete dismantling of a faith in strike action, with some area’s support for strikes falling by as much as 22% from 1983-84.[2] 

Looking forward to our contemporary world, we can see much of the same language being used today in relation to the economy, and more recently the stock market. Despite the economy and the stock market generally working in tandem, i.e. rising and falling together, they are not firmly linked. Unfortunately, due to their apparent relation, we were able to see people like Former-President Trump utilise this relationship to his advantage. When the US Fed pumped $1.5 trillion[3] into the stock market to stop it from freezing up, Trump hailed this as the economy getting back on track, despite 58 million people filing for unemployment benefits in the five months following, which does not include those who were previously on it or on welfare. [See figure 1.1] The rising stock market was also held in high esteem when Trump claimed that the ‘sacred number’ of 30,000 had been hit, even though this number was surpassed in 1999 under President Clinton.[4] The fact of the matter is, the stock market will always rise, it has done for centuries ever since the first Dutch merchants established the first markets. What won’t always rise, however, is the standard of living, we have seen a massive stagnation in it in the West over the past few decades, as wages have decreased in relation to their value, in Fig. 1.2 we can see that the top line (the minimum wage in relation to the purchasing power of the dollar) has in fact decreased to a level of poverty wage, in some cases a starvation wage.

This use of ecclesiastical language in relation to the economy highlights just how important the ever-rising stock market and the ever-rising consolidation of wealth is for these corporate entities. The economy is an abstract concept, created by humanity, one that is both all judging God and spoilt child. One that is both untamed beast and mouldable clay. Economic growth is almost inevitable, and the economy will never cease to exist, it will always be there, but it need not always be there to take. It can be there to give also, for the economy itself is not an inherently bad idea, it is just what it is made to be, if the growth of the economy could be funnelled out equally to all those who needed it, then it would be a force for good, not evil.

This is something that we see present in China, for example, as sustained economic growth over the past decades has rapidly brought the standard of living up for the average Chinese citizen, despite some shortcomings in the early establishment of the new State. We can see the same in Cuba, despite crippling sanctions imposed by the United States, who would no doubt wat to reacquire Cuba as an imperial holding.

The main ‘criticism’ on the attempted ‘control’ of the economy is to equate it to socialism, a scare tactic that works extremely well in the United States, yet when we use their own logic, is Former President Trumps pumping of trillions of tax-payer dollars into the economy to give it the illusion of stability and growth not socialism? They would say no, because they blindly support Trump and the Republican party, much like liberals will blindly support Biden and the Democratic party. I would say no because, as Irish Socialist Scholar and Revolutionary James Connolly said:

‘State ownership and control is not necessarily socialism – if it were then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Jailers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would be Socialist functionaries, as they are state officials – but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the cooperative control of the workers of such land and material, would be Socialism.’[5]

So, the question must be asked, how can we make sure that the economy serves the people?
 
Adaptive Marxism

You may have seen the phrase ‘Adaptive Marxism’ in the title of this essay, and this is where this term comes into play. I have coined the phrase and theory of Adaptive Marxism because it is vital that we properly propel Marxist thought into a more robust and efficient model for the 21st Century, we first must admit that it has faults and successes in each of its iterations. We must champion any small improvement to the working class, as every step forward makes each leftist policy more mainstream, and gives the working class an opportunity to gain more free time in which they can assess their situation. There is no one perfect school of Marxist thought or text, Anarchists such as Kropotkin highlight that all property on earth is common:

‘Millions of human beings have laboured to create this civilisation on which we pride ourselves today. Other millions scattered across the globe labour to maintain it. Without them, nothing would be left in fifty years but ruins. There is not even a thought, nor invention, which is not common property, born of the past and the present. Thousands of inventors, known and unknown, who have died in poverty, have co-operated in the invention of each of these machines which embody the genius of man.’[6]

Here we see an anarchist making an incredibly vital point which may prove to stir the lumpenproletariat, should a Marxist-Leninist not utilise this form of anarchist thought as it would help in establishing a more equal society? Likewise, Lenin made worthy cases for a strong state that would later come to fruition:

‘History has now confronted us with an immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks confronting the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat.’[7]

We can see the importance of this as the USSR went on to help deter America from intervention in Cuba, and it also kept strong diplomatic ties with the non-aligned, yet socialist, Burkina Faso under Sankara. Sankara was a man who studied Marx and Lenin, a man who brought mass inoculation to his homeland, who vastly improved gender equality, and ended the tribal practice of slavery in his home. Can an anarchist not admit that this mighty statist had a greatly positive impact on the proletariat and peasantry of his nation? Of course he can, and as adaptive Marxism evolves to encompass the undeniably positive aspects of all Marxist schools of thought, it too can then debate the more controversial assertions of each political faction such as decentralization vs centralization, or how to appropriately combat wage slavery, all while keeping a fundamental principle of Adaptive Marxism.

Through this theory, we can bend the economy to our will, taking the Chinese markets that provide economic growth, combine them with the Cuban healthcare system which is vastly underappreciated due to US propaganda and implement the inoculation and gender equality theories and efforts of Burkina Faso and we truly can create a Non-Western, Non-Eastern, and Non-Afro-Centric Marxism that will truly be one for all proletariat of the world. We must also step outside of the Western views of 19th Century Marxists, the world of old is not the same as it is today, Pan-African scholars are too often side lined by Western Philosophers who are centuries passed. Further essays will explore the intricacies of Adaptive Marxism.


Citations                   


[1] Richard Vinen, Thatcher’s Britain, Politics and Social Upheaval of the 1980’s, (London, 2009)

[2] Ben Jackson, and Robert Saunders (eds.), Making Thatcher’s Britain, (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 150-53

[3] Jolly, Jasper, Partington, Richard, US Fed injects $1.5tn to markets as Dow and FTSE suffer worst day since 1987, (March 12th, 2020)

[4] O’Mahony, Proinsias, Stocktake: Trump talks bull as Dow tops 30,000, (December 1st, 2020)

[5] Harkin, Shaun, The James Connolly Reader, (Chicago, 2018), p. 23

[6] Kropotkin, Peter, The Conquest of Bread, (Norwich, 1913), p. 13

[7] Lenin, V.I., The Immediate Task of the Soviet Government