A note on the Conclusion

This occurred to me from an article by Edwards in the edition of the 1st of April The Third. Edwards discussed about the change of cabinet and mentioned the dispute within the coalition between those who were in favor of the market and that, in reality, are against it. And then, speaking of these last, he spoke of those who claim for happiness -strange thing to put Tironi then on the contrary – and to those who claim against consumerism -reduced these last few to who do not like the masses buying trips to Miami.

And then I thought that we are fried.

Because if the look of the elite ‘willing’ is that the critique of consumerism, for example, is a critique of an elite that looks down on the happy consumers, then the elite ‘willing’ is not much understood. Because the critique of consumerism is universal, is also part of what they think the masses are buying trips to Miami. The fear of losing the communal life, to the new life is not livable, that we lose sight of the happiness, there is a fear of Tironi, is a critique of these heights old part of the same citizenship.

A citizenship which, at the same time, it is part of the game, and who would like to travel to Miami. That, in other words, you do not see the issue of consumption, such as incompatible per se with the happiness and coexistence. The supreme act of living together with friends and family is, in the end, an act of consumption: let’s Say, to use the paradigm more clear, the roast.

For a long time I thought that one of the reasons for the continuing victories of the Consultation was the way in which replicated one of the basic of the chilean on Chile, and on the ‘system’: That is, at the same time, it is the only thing that works -the best chance to overcome the abject poverty – and, also, it is an inhuman system that requires us to put aside the best things in life. It is what what to do and, at the same time, something that is not good neither like. Then, somehow there is always struggle to attain a life that is good and decent. The Conclusion was, then, the only coalition that he said both things and that, therefore, I could accompany that journey to find those ways.

But the article by Edwards (could have chosen a different thing to the other ‘side’ to illustrate the point) what this shows is that, finally, the Conclusion is not that. It is not a coalition of people who think -as does the population – both things; it is a coalition of people who think one thing and people who think the other. But the combination is absent.

There is No one, then, that reflects the ambiguity of how she thinks the population.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top