Subject may be a common word to the general audience, but when it comes to the analysis of the theory of man as a subject and its relations with the power and state, the meaning acquires radical, different perspectives. The GreekRoman concept of the individual lies in the importance of the responsibilities of a person towards his society or with his direct environment. The way an individual as himself as a subject accesses the organizational scheme of a society helps to construct the original concept of a commonwealth, not necessarily with everybody but for everybody, more like in an Aristotelian sense of participation and destiny, where the man aspires to do good and do it as a social being. This good should at least be good for everybody more than just himself.
The recognition of the self as a subject within the state working towards his emancipation is a cornerstone for the whole process through which the people subjects will achieve major success in general terms. In this case, the consideration of independence and autonomy is the right criteria to follow further actions. Even since the early ages of human history, tribal leaders will look for the achievement or success of its own group or family, starting with the family, proceeding to the whole tribe. Politics can not be considered without the participation of the people, whether these are represented, as in parliament; or the mass itself, as in direct democracy. Whatever the situation, the participation of the subject underlies the whole concept. It prevents the political activity from being or becoming another thing, like an army or group of believers. In this case, the common benefit will not be the rule to follow but the will of the head of the group.
The theoretical differences between Aristotle and Plato are often underestimated in terms of their practical convenience. Even in their time leaders required the advice of the philosopher, however they had no problem at all to dispose of them when it was not convenient to agree with them. Nevertheless, the more we submerge into the study of modern politics and power relations between individuals, the more those differences become considerably important.
When politics was considered a responsibility more than a benefit for the wealthy, the end goal was the whole success of the society, therefore its modernization and autonomy. With this, the sense of politics as a “must” was limited to the wise ones in order to ensure a better future, not only the development in a materialistic way, it was the main reason to participate in a political activity. To deny political participation is to abandon the collective responsibilities which translates to an incompatibility of human nature (Aristotle, Politics, 350 BC). The royalty were, on and off, considered a threat to the stability of the political system because of their necessity to establish certain status among their competitors. I should say here, the birth of diplomacy became popular as a resource of international (or intercity, in the case of Greeks and Romans) economy in order to decrease costs and increase the benefits of trading.
The equal distribution, or at least the attempt, of the political responsibilities and the development of the concepts of constitutional government and chambers, in terms of senators and regulatory
bureaucracy, kept in mind the transparency of the whole system, even when the whole history of democracy has been filled with events of no transparency or equality at all.
Plato’s classbased government tried constantly to aspire to a better political system considering the responsibilities of the ‘wise ones’ over the rest (Plato, The Republic, 380 BC). However, many times these more welloff actors of the political system couldn't resist the idea of pursuing a better future, not for the whole unity of the people, but totally the opposite. Many times the ruthless sense of material wealth became the rule for the exercise of political activity, resulting in a growing dissatisfaction felt by those who couldn’t enjoy that wealth and started to see the gap between themselves and the ones in power. Royalty as well as oligarchy look for a more disguised sense of looting when it comes to defending their responsibilities, arguing that it is in their right to make an authoritarian use of the resources with a reason good enough for them, that many could not really understand how it is to govern a country or a city. The “elites” do not always bear an altruism that will promote the wellbeing of the majority but are constantly susceptible to ideas that maintain their own status as a beneficent minority. Plato’s words take on a darker sense, easily masking the responsibilities of some within the state for an exercise for their own class. The ruling class should govern for the whole but without a third party, there is no regulation. The republic offers this option but once again the possibility exists that the ruling classes will try to benefit themselves.
It is not at all my intention to make alternative lectures of the politics in Plato, but simply to apply them to the real world rather than keeping that knowledge in the world of ideas. I even consider myself a big fan of the idea that the world should be governed by philosophers rather than politicians or a monarchy, but it is harmful to not keep an eye on the real contingency of the origin of the political struggle: poverty and wealth.
Dialectics was the Socratic method to look for answers to his questions, providing through the dialogue the right dynamic to confront thesis and opinions, stressing arguments precisely with the intention to make them collapse and keep the strongest one as the solution. It is hard, however, to not portray a Marxist sense of class struggle when trying to analyze the conflicts throughout the history of mankind, but it has been a constant during nearly every conflict that the gain of wealth is the main motive to pursue a struggle and not necessarily the gain of knowledge. Capital, materialism and class struggle is once again present in the discussion. Even though not every discussion on politics is based on materialism, but, just as in war, sometimes keeping spaces is as important as having resources. Territories represent spaces for the individuals but these spaces have been won after a long time of dialectic discussion or struggle and to give them up may be considered a misprize of the whole previous process.
On the other hand, Aristotle's idea of a subject where politics are a fundamental and inalienable condition of itself brings wider possibilities, and a more mature idea of what should be the collective construction of a modern society. This condition of the subject pushes the dialectics in this idea to a more dynamic conceptualization of politics. It becomes more organic and less structural than Plato’s original idea. The accumulation of power in just one big organism called
the state shows up immediately as a real danger, not because it may not satisfy the needs of the whole but because it takes from the whole the capacity to distribute the responsibilities on the individuals. Keeping in mind the inalienable characteristic of the subject, every subject must be political. When the power becomes a benefit of the elite, then it is impossible to not expect a reaction from those who are not included in the process.
When there was not a major event that could keep the masses’ minds busy, let’s say a war or reconstruction after a disaster of the previous war, it becomes necessary to redistribute the political powers. Like a river, based on its natural character to flow and to find its way to the sea, if there is no place for the political activity to discharge its kinetic energy, an unavoidable internal conflict will occur, floods will happen because of the accumulation of the mass and its correspondent need to stay in movement. The universal law that energy does not disappear, it only transforms its previous form into a new one, but the process of change itself presents an urgency. The energy must go somewhere, whether it is war or democracy.
Individualization, I should say, is the moment when the parts are excluded from the whole. It is a very powerful concept when used under a certain context, for example, in politics. The creation of a state that rules the lives of those who are not included in its governability process translates into a sense of excluded and not exclusive class, and then class struggle, no longer within cities or regions, fighting for territories or resources, but between the individuals, the parts, against the whole or vice versa, the major against the minor which you can then call the “minorities”. The elite aims to be the whole that looks after their needs even when it is obvious that it looks after the basification of the political class. The death of Socrates is probably one of the most illustrative moments in history about the struggle of one against the whole. His disciples tried to change his mind, but it was to no avail not because he was stubborn, but because he wanted to be an example for history; not just in terms of honesty, but because he was solid enough to face the consequences of what he was doing which was to provide a situation that could serve a higher purpose in the future. The death of a man as a result of his right to be a subject of power, the power of being himself and be able to take distance from the status quo of the government, condemns him. He is not included in the process but ruled by the statecreated narrative of threatening the democracy. He considers himself the scapegoat to a problem that seems to not have another solution other than his own death. A traitor of the law, within the law of the state when the state is everybody, becomes the enemy of the state. It is obvious that there will be no hesitation in judging a man that fights against the state which translates into a new power, the power of authority. This is a construction of the truth that will justify its actions in the future.
The power of the state against the individuals, at this point, is necessary to consolidate the integrity of the authority which is a product of the development of the state. This is a result of a complex process where the truth has been built in order to benefit those who maintain oppressive mechanisms, establishing an immaculate reality. This process is a perfect example of how the ruling power should act. No mercy against whoever stands up, it seems to be the perfect excuse to show off the efficiency of the government. This is the first lesson that I can extract from this emergent reasoning: Individuals are weak because they can die, the state is strong and it will never die. At the same time that the reality is validated for those who take part in
the construction of the truth, the reality becomes resilient and day after day is harder for the dissidence to reach base ground. Therefore, what is needed are more examples of the efficiency of the state, more power over the individuals and no subjects able to challenge the order or at least not capable enough to really challenge it, but capable enough to fight back and keep the illusion of efficiency. What Foucault would say is that liberty must exist in order to exercise power and this can only exist with free individuals (M. Foucault, Subject and Power, 1983). Bearing this in mind, the state or the ruling class must provide some space for individuals to express their thoughts and feel comfortable enough to do it. The state will shape individuals towards a classbased pattern in order to be able to participate in the process, not for those above the whole but for themselves, their equals similar to the structure of the church, where it is not God or a priest that gives form to the institution but the believers themselves, with the ability to judge each other, that consolidate the structure. A pastoral power is not effective without the sheeps, but the sheeps themselves are the fundamental constitution of that power.
The power is more diluted and unclear, not just because the ruling class takes distance from the whole, but because the believers of the constructed truth are usually rewarded in order to keep them satisfied with the reality they are living in. The oppressive system should give spaces to individuals but take them back soon after, assuming that this dynamic will keep producing the same effect as the death of Socrates. But over who? Over those who believed in the idea of Aristotle, that individuals are by nature political and should be part of the whole dialectic process. Unfortunately this space was given by those that have not a sense of democracy but a sense of oligarchy in the name of democracy. Now the conflict is not against other cities or nations, there is no need to look for power and resources beyond our borders, our borders shift from territorial to political. Unfortunately for those who exercise the power against others in the form of authority and not the power of political activity on its main significance, they will have to become more creative and constantly develop new tools to maintain power. Shock therapy will not always work against a subject because usually subjects become resilient to this shock, and further, they learn from it. (N. Klein, Shock Doctrine, 2007)
However, tyranny and oligarchy are not stable and demand a constant flux of power. It used to come from conquered territories and now it comes from conquered spaces. Domination is always by conflict and rivalry. Individuals should avoid individualization and refuse corruption of the powers. Wherever there is accumulation of power, corruption will prevail and with that, domination and oppression of the individuals and by the state.
Politics, as Aristotle said, is a natural result of the social behavior of subjects. The interpersonal subjectivity or intersubjectivity (E. Husserl, Husserliana, 1905) presents the participation of the subjects across history. Different perspectives will participate in the construction of objectivity. But what happens if the process is corrupted? Obscure psychological tools are used these days to make people believe what is not true, technically the name for this is “false flag”. This supports the idea of a transversal vision of the reality but demands the participation of major social structures like governments, schools, etc., capable of establishing the reality. When politics comes into the scene the whole landscape becomes organically dynamic. With this, if
the state, as a major organization for subjects, is not capable of supplying whatever the parts involved need, instability in the form of revolutions or authority questioning is impossible to stop. As a result, more and more complex mechanisms and strategies for the control of the subjects and their political activities will be needed and the gap between classes will be even larger.
Subject, Power and State are the same and are products of each other when they work naturally, but if altered, are highly unstable.
