On linage, origin, and remolding
Yesterday, while riding in a bus, I was thinking about on how an individual, regardless of its class background, is willing to become a part of the revolution. At first, I think about it as difficult and even contradicting since how come a person coming from a privileged background be remold from the series of realities, education, and becoming a part of an idea-outlook that is, contradicting to their class or gentry?
It even reminds of Yu Luoke, who, in his writeup entitled "On family origin", counters the system's couplet "If the father is a hero, then a son is a good guy; if a father is a reactionary, then a son is a rotten egg", calling it as an error as he said:
"Its error consists in holding that family influence exceeds social influence and in failing to perceive the decisiveness of social influence." Or rather say that "He/she puts the influence of his/her family over social influences."
But then, through practise, reveals the opposite conclusion that:
"The influences of the society far exceed those of the family: family influences are subordinated to social influences."
Yes, but how?
The media, the social realities around us further develops the individual greater than the family, friends and relatives even transcend the limits of a 'family-focused' influence towards an individual. Engels, for example, despite his privileged backgrounds became a well-renowned Marxist due to his work in the factory, and that includes mingling with the workers and knowing its conditions around it; the suasion of reading materials, radio and television; the influence of customs and subcultures that affects much of an individual. An indelible influence so to speak, that is different from what the others tend to think as "biological", such as the "blood lineage theory" and other related ideas.
As of this century, wherein anything is mass produced and most of it carries lack of quality, it also affects the culture of humanity since anything around us encourage to be totally materialistic-buying anything regardless of its defect, or simply because of the trend prevailing, or being dictated much by the prevailing social order. The Jejemons for example, are individuals affected by both mainstream hiphop and cellphone culture, and thus its appearance and on how he/she send its messages. That culture became widespread regardless of social status as the society around prevails this kind of trend, or in case of Yu Luoke-it transcend or break family-centric norms and cultures.
So is in creating revolutionaries out of individuals regardless of class or blood lineage. If they insist much on blood lineage then how come Lenin, despite being a Russian Marxist came from a minor noble family? Of Mao, from a rich peasant background, same as Zhou Enlai? There was another couplet told by Jiang Qing, and said:
"If the parents are reactionaries, then the children should rebel..."
Speaking of Jejemons anyway, like any other cultures that being tolerated by the order, of making it as a fad, it seems that they compelled the youth, or the people in general to be a part of it, and personally to say, how come the order tolerates those kind of mess, of degenerating one's individual into a pile of trash while assailing those who are trying to break the norms in the name of righteousness? Indeed, they are scared of the absolute norm telling to the world that "it is right to rebel", of what Jiang Qing said to the people-especially in times like these that most people are becoming nothing but eaten by the social cannibals and of the "flow" they've been forced to join.
I somewhat agree with that statement made by Jiang Qing, stating that "the children should rebel" since to an individual, he/she tends to break the cycle of what the family prevails-by all means necessary to show who he/she is. And society, especially the realities around and the culture, counterculture tends for that individual to "rebel" against the flow regardless of the person(s) affected. These are based from what comes from outside, not biological, internal as those who said "innate red" in the Blood lineage theory. The surroundings around, especially in a Capitalist society, tends to create both "positive" and "negative" interpretations of life; as the former spoke of modern things and privileges, the latter spoke of poverty and yearness for socio-economic and political rights.
But then, as the system tolerates much of its negative tendencies, of continuous trend of corrupting mindsets really creates "rotten eggs" as people in general, possibly confirming that if the sons of the reactionaries copy those of their forebears is indeed, a rotten egg in nature-regardless of its surroundings as well as apathetical in realities due to its ultramaterialistic tendencies and less emphasis on what's going around the entire rotten community; it may continue generation after generation if the order tolerates it, making humanity itself never be liberated.
After all, regardless of origins lies the right to choose its own destiny. But what kind of destiny humanity ought to be then? Will that individual choose to be a rotten egg or a righteous? To be contented or to be progressive? To the rich, it may sound contradicting since they think that anything comes from their lineage-as the blood lineage theory says so, and possibly thinking that their children's fate is determined by blood, from their mother's womb, alongside wealth and fame. But how come Marx, Engels became closer to the "have nots" yet they belonged to a gentry? Yes, as "Man can choose the direction of his progress. This is because the truth is stronger and has a more compelling power," But to a society that is rotten, will these words really speak for itself? Or just a figment of an imagination-as the entire mass of humanity are being forced to join the flow and become cannibals, if not, slaves. Yu Luoke spoke of the community as a contributing factor, but the negative effects, like the family's may further corrupt a certain individual, unconsciously becoming a rotten egg-as the innocents are becoming victims of the "flow" courtesy of the system-sponsored culture prevailing in the community.
As a writer, I don't speak for Yu Luoke, but rather I found his idea a but informative about the individual, on how the surroundings, including his/her family affects his/her consciousness. And in regards to culture, it may find it applicable since the society, a capitalist one, or rather say a semifeudal-semicolonial type, the idea regarding the possibility of transcending the society's norms and acquire proletarian consciousness would pave its way to a means for reforming one's individual, remold regardless of its origins and rectify its own errors in order not to become "rotten eggs".