Joker — The Master of the Unnecessaries: The Liberals Deserve It!

By Sergey Golubev (Сергей Голубев) on The Capital

Instead of introduction

We are not going to talk more about the film; only the lazy one did not talk about it. Let’s talk about the phenomenon and the problem that the film raises for society. Moreover, there are dark sides and dirty facades, where the good and the bad mixed up and in the end, we get a rotten result. The root cause of such rottenness is frightening and does not give us a chance for optimism. I think all aphorisms that I wrapped up in the introduction push us to discuss the problems of social injustice and inequality in society, regardless of the political system or the ruling party. Nazism, nationalism, capitalism, socialism and libertarianism, and the last one, like no one else — is able to generate monsters, nothing good has given to humanity, and will ever not, because ‘’Jokers’’ will not let to do so.

The origins of social injustice

In my deep conviction, an increase in the world of social injustice carries mortal threats to civilization. This injustice is in everything — in access to education, medicine, capital, to creative self-realization, and so on, can go on and on. The disastrous combination of bad strategies, economics, and politics is, to a large extent, the basis of the fact that most people in the world do not have good health, which is biologically possible, do not have good education — which is paid and expensive, do not have self — realization in their profession — because the class and caste system has not disappeared, dividing people into friends and foes. Social injustice kills people on a massive scale, both literally and figuratively. Let’s start with the social injustice generated by the war. The traditional source of funding for military spending “of all times” is the printing press. From the point of view of the national economy, unsecured emissions are evil, but, on the other hand, inflation is the fairest “tax on war”, which is equally paid by the rich and the poor, although, without a doubt, the poor suffer much more. Moreover, everyone suffers when the printing press is associated with a loan agreement with the IMF. That is why the main source of funding for sharply increasing military spending is a sharp reduction in social programs. In this case, on the issue of military spending and the IMF, the poor pay the gigantic share of the cost of the war.

The next aspect of social injustice does not seem to be directly related to the poor: the borrowers and depositors of banks are, first, the “middle class”. However, due to the fact that it is precisely at the expense of these two categories that the authorities everywhere in the world are trying to localize the banking crisis, they are risky at changing their social status to “poor”. The next type of social injustice in the world is generated directly by liberal progressive reforms, under which the IMF provides loans. One of the pillars of these reforms is tax cuts and government spending. These two processes are interrelated, but they can be decomposed. “Reduction of taxes” involves a reduction in the tax burden on business, and “reduction of government spending” means, first of all, cutting off social programs (and, secondly, reducing the bureaucratic apparatus). That is — again, with the “mediation” of the authorities and the IMF, the poor “pay” for liberal reforms of such governments around the world.

Of course, social injustice is one of the inevitable companions of a market economy, where the notorious “social Darwinism” operates. When the one is the most capable — at the same time is the cheapest, but does not mean the most comprehensive — since ‘’they’’ will buy the one whom the system points to. However, in the present contemporary case, we simultaneously see too many types of social injustice, which in the near future may become a much more dangerous threat than just revolutionary processes. The crisis that has gripped the economic, social and political systems of most countries of the world has caused the reproduction of unfair social relations on a global scale; I think no one will argue with me! Socially unfair relationships occur when there are visible and invisible dishonest actions within society that contribute to inequality and impede social progress. Social injustice is reproduced in government interactions that arise between individuals or groups of the population, on the one hand, and public authority structures endowed with managerial or administrative functions, on the other, and is accompanied by the reproduction of violence against a person, humiliation or violation of his honor and dignity. The global systemic crisis provided fertile ground for analyzing not only mediocre governance that led to global social injustice, but also the style of political thinking and even ideology that underlies it. This is market theocratic fundamentalism, or rather fanaticism or bigotry. In a general sense, by market fanaticism I mean a violent faith in politics based on the principle of “non-interference” (“laissez-faire”) in a “free market economy” that can solve not only economic, but also all social problems. Allegedly capable! A policy of market fanaticism (fundamentalism) generates:

· erroneous beliefs or specially created myths that free markets provide the highest possible justice and prosperity in society, and any interference with the market mechanism inevitably leads to a decrease in social well-being

· aggression from people who violently oppose any government regulation and defend a completely free market, and the ideology that financial capital exalted over industrial

The current state of affairs (prevailing in the global economy on the eve of 2020) is unhealthy and fragile. Financial markets are inherently unstable; in addition, there are social needs that cannot be met by giving complete freedom to market forces. Unfortunately, these shortcomings are not recognized. Instead, there is a widespread belief that markets are self-regulating and that the global economy can flourish without the intervention of the world community. This opinion is shared by a number of world famous economists, politicians and entrepreneurs (including Richard Kozul-Wright and Paul Rayment). Market fanaticism as a variant of the phenomenon of fundamentalism has a peculiarity that, first, relates to its origin. Market fanaticism is the result of a specific process of transformation of the concept of freedom (including economic), embodied in the ideology of classical liberalism, through its neoliberal modifications, into a market dogma of a totalitarian type. This dogma is being adopted by global financial institutions and actors of globalism and is being imposed on the entire world community by methods of not only economic, but also political, and sometimes military expansion. It is known that the core of “classical liberalism” forms a set of ideas focused on such values ​​as individualism, freedom, intellect, justice, tolerance and private property. The interpretation of these values ​​is based on the socio-political views of prominent social scientists, who are often attributed to the founding theorists of liberalism — Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Charles Louis Montesquieu, Alexis de Tocqueville, Jeremiah Bentham, John Stuart Mill and, of course, Adam Smith. In reality, the early liberals only wanted to force dictators endowed with absolute power to yield to the demands of freedom. The idea of ​​the dictate of the law that the liberals dreamed of was truly a revolutionary force, ushering in an enlightened era in modern history. It played a role in the evolution of civilization, but its implementation today is already a fatal mistake. Neoliberalism embodies the ideas of the individual’s priority over society and the state, the market over planning and regulation, human rights over the power of the government and the collective. However, in practice, this was accompanied by a shift in emphasis and an increase in ideological trends. The shift in emphasis over time turned into a dangerous social manipulation, where Overton window began to influence, breaking traditions, decency, humanity, and compassion. In liberalism, the main regulatory factor in social life was individual freedom, first of all, it is rational to think and act, limited only by moral values ​​and norms of society. In neoliberalism, the key principle was not individual, but economic freedom of individuals (business entities), which is guaranteed only within the framework of the market and its institutions.

Accordingly, economic freedom gradually pushed the boundaries of morality, finally destroying them today. In practice, liberalism meant a fusion of radical monetary principles and radical individualism, embracing the far-reaching agenda of economic and political development, which seeks to give privilege to trade and finance over labor and production, profit over morality and the individual’s colorful viability over compassion. This became possible only thanks to politicking and social manipulators. Politicians “heard voices in the air and extracted their extravagant ideas from the academic liberal philosophical writings of past years”. With their help, liberalism/ libertarianism became dogmatic and authoritarian, and its economic creed took on the character of fanatical fundamentalism, which massively around the world gave rise to severe social injustice. ‘’You are disabled, these are your problems, we did not make you disabled; you cannot earn in an open competitive market — you are selling yourself poorly; nobody needs your talent — you have the wrong talents’’! The invisible hand of the market did not pat you over the head, because it’s just that where you live in your environment, this hand does not reach, those in power hold handcuffs near them. The very theory of the invisible hand of the market perfectly opens Overton’s windows, breaking the human psyche, consciousness, discipline and erasing optimism. Neoliberal values, reduced to the fundamentalist principles of economic principles outlined above, are being introduced into the political, economic and social life of almost all states by modern institutions of globalism, which at the same time are institutions of global social injustice. Their goal is to destroy the balancing role of the state. Obviously, the idea that any manifestations of injustice destabilize society to a greater or lesser extent, is a source of conflict and social unrest, does not need special evidence. Awareness of the injustice of the existing system can be a detonator of a social explosion. And this, in turn, leads to the emergence of ‘’Jokers’’ in a society where social policy is totally destroyed. Then what happens later? The rise of terrorism and crime. The main causes of terrorism have been and remain socio-economic reasons, expressed in the greatest social injustice, which then layered on many other circumstances, and socio-economic reasons are painted in a particular political, ideological, national, religious or psychological “color”, what else more strengthens the terrorist orientation of various groups and segments of the population. The organizers of terror are not able to develop serious terrorist activities without a wide social base. And the social base of discontented groups of the population, without the necessary organization and leaders of terror, cannot deal with systemic terrorism. Moreover, the motivation of the organizers of terrorism and their social base varies significantly. The first are seeking to achieve their own geopolitical, political, economic and other personal egoistic goals, which they are covering up with the interests of the people. The second — a real improvement in their situation, which the organizers are little concerned about, but which they skillfully use for their own purposes. Therefore, modern terrorism in the broad sense of the term is not only and not so much a clash of religions, nations, civilizations, but the antagonism between terrible poverty and insane wealth. These contradictions are clearly shown in the movie ‘’Joker’’ and essentially explain the Joker phenomenon.

Joker Worldview Problems

So, what do we have in the plot of the film and how are events intertwined with our reality? Living in a schizophrenic reality, where the post-truth, post-irony, post-politics and other antisocial events rule, it is very difficult to find out a stable platform on which the individual will feel stable and safe. We considered the reasons for the appearance of unnecessary people and such a situation above, although the plot of the film does not directly blame liberalism or anyone else, but you and I, looking around on our own in real life and comparing the events of the news feed, understand what we are talking about. In life, this stamina can be of several types: internal emigration, acceptance or merger, and radical protest. The Joker took advantage of the most striking form of the struggle against the modern world — radical protest, which led to negative consequences.

On the other hand, a radical protest gave the illusory nature of freedom and significance in the eyes of an unnecessary society. Unnecessary people gave birth to a villain who became a kind of idol, imposing his morality and values. In fact, not an instrument of power and reality in general, but a weapon against them (a society of unnecessary) that shoots becomes the idol of all living or wanting to feel alive. Life does not make sense. Unnecessary people did not want to get into it, they did not call into it, and they did not like it, since their path consists of suffering. Some of them are trying to find salvation in religion, some in drugs and alcohol, some in internal seclusion, and some find themselves in judicial violence. However, as the movie, “Joker” shows, and this will be taken away from unnecessary people soon in reality as well. Market relations contribute to scientific and technological progress, and it, in turn, leads us to the post-industrial era. Despite the fact that the systems are integral, a person for them turns from a subject into an object. Here are the main points of the plot of the film:

• ‘’Your problems don’t bother anyone’’

• ‘’You’re just a tool that has worn out ’’

• ‘’ Save yourself ’’

And the vilest thing in this situation in the film is the ban on expressing painful things. Why did the Joker hate society? It is because of the lack of sincerity in him. In any situation, they use laughter and irony, which eventually become sinister. In this world of dolls and freaks, the hand reaches for the revolver, as the cold of the weapon made it feel real. Here it is — an expression of emotions in an extremely sincere form. Are you funny — if I shoot you, will it be funny too? When mirages rule the ball, sometimes bright and dangerous constructions appear that are characteristic of the postmodern era. The Joker is just such a dangerous construction, whose image shows us how absolutely ugly in form and content ideas that should have remained in the virtual space are protected with weapons. The joker is a character who has received wounds from life. And neither society, nor the essence of reality, nor the era where all this exists, could help him. As a result, terror became its platform of social stability, which not only expresses contempt for the order of things, but also tries to reveal its vices by setting its own vicious rules. But the humiliation generated by social inequality does not restore justice; on the contrary, humiliation generates evil. The Jokers take to the streets of the cities. Disorders, diseases, and in general the whole “bunch” of Joker problems are not the main point of the film, as it might seem. His problems, as revealed by the plot deployment campaign, were the result of a system created by the Gotham elite — an order that makes the gap between the poor and rich even more insurmountable, kills the middle class, and at the same time, destroys the system of social care and health care. After all, “someone has at least achieved something”. At the same time, those who have achieved aka success bashfully drop their eyes and are silent about the hand that helped them reach this success. About the hand of the market — which is actually the hand of economic gain and the availability of capital.

True, how is the situation in the film similar to what is happening now in real life outside the window? From coincidences, it becomes creepy. Too many allegories and coincidences. And it doesn’t matter which country you are currently reading this article from. The global situation is unfair and terrible. The protagonist’s problems lie on the favorable soil that has developed in Gotham for decades. The social tension resulting from screaming inequality (which, in turn, developed under the leadership of classical liberals and capitalists, which the filmmakers showed us) led to an increase in hatred that exploded as a result of unrelated events. It is definitely worth noting how the system crisis is well shown in the film. At the very beginning of the picture, we learn that garbage strikes are taking place in the city. It would seem — an absolutely ordinary event. After all, someone goes on strike daily. The same ordinary event is the killing of clerks, committed by the Joker. After all, people are killed daily. However, both trivial events for our system lead to a series of severe fractures that begin to devour the city, thereby only exacerbating its problems. It is easy enough to realize that Gotham (or perhaps the system that dominated the city) gave birth to the Joker, and not vice versa. The tension growing inside the Joker is simultaneously revealed in the city. Moral disintegration of residents, cutbacks in funding for civil servants and indifference towards residents in need of assistance. The apogee is also reached at the same time — the Joker kills the TV host on the air, and a bloody massacre begins in the city. Joker’s illnesses are Gotham’s diseases that have resulted from the indifference of others, fake news and the indifference of those in power. The film does not warn against lunatics, fanatics, maniacs, but before the system, that generates them. “Joker” is a film about absolute coincidence that can destroy a shaky house of cards of imaginary well-being. The film is about class inequality and social insecurity, which become the causes of both individual and mass protests, bringing nothing but chaos and violence. Less obvious problems include the isolation of people with mental illness, forced loneliness, and bullying, which provokes victims to get out of control acts of self-defense. Another problem is the infantilism of a society where everyone thinking only of themselves — rich and poor, happy and unhappy, healthy and sick, idealists and rioting criminals. A reflection of a society in which the vast majority pursues personal goals, ignoring the situation of others, and crushes those who are trying to live differently. In addition, the beginning of all this — the philosophy of thinking about oneself, is given by fanatical liberalism.

Joker’s message

‘’It’s time for creepy smiles ’’ — the Joker’s keynote. In my opinion, the following message may be as well: ‘’An extra card in the deck always has a chance to become the first’’. Although the action of the Joker does not take place these days, the picture reflects many contemporary problems, for example, cutting off the medical and social assistance. In the reality of the film, all circumstances literally provoke the appearance of such a character as the Joker. This is a vivid allusion to modern society, in which, it seems, more and more distraught loners are attacking people. The film makes one wonder whether these aggressors are ordinary villains or whether society itself inevitably gives rise to such monsters. The “Joker” also raises issues related to people with mental disabilities. The protagonist is being abused due to a syndrome that causes spontaneous attacks of laughter. The plot is an extra reminder that advising people with depression to “not be sad” is a useless and dangerous undertaking. The Joker wants to rip off all the masks and show Gotham his ugly face. And although the film is criticized for the justification of atrocities, “Joker” should be seen as a warning about the consequences of numerous injustices in society. The Joker’s desperate desire to solve his own problems is gradually infecting the citizens of Gotham, who ultimately organize a mass rebellion. Unleashing insane violence, the Joker kills everyone who was hostile to him or “interfered with his life” including his own mother and colleagues.

The plot climaxes when the Joker appears on the Murray Franklin show, turning an entertainment television program into bloody madness. The film finale — distraught residents of Gotham destroy the city. However, they commit atrocities not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but in a sober mind, under the influence of the ideas and charisma of the Joker, which splashes out the chaos reigning in their own souls into the surrounding world. The Joker bares his teeth in a bloody smile — only by spilling blood, he could become happy. The movie “Joker” is uncomfortable to watch. Feverishly painful laugh. Undisguised nervous breakdown. The protagonist, due to strange habits, cannot find friends. Forced loneliness. However, in the film, there is a place not only for severe psychological violence. To defuse the situation and give the audience a little respite, humor comes to the rescue. After all, it is impossible throughout the entire film to observe exclusively the serious psychological struggle within a person, the complete indifference of others, and the depreciation of human life. The director through the eyes of the Joker mercilessly ridicules the weaknesses of the heroes and society as a whole. Man becomes nothing. He is nothing. He is like everyone else. Was born, lives, will die. Worthless existence. Conveyor. Going aimlessly to work, unwillingness to hear and listen to those who need help. Indifference and hostility to those in need. The end of the film — the nerves on the edge. The mood of all on the verge of hysteria. The main character in his whole life has not seen anything happy, bright and joyful. Miserable existence. Did the hero try to make a difference? Had tried. Successfully? Unlikely. Rotten society. A system that breaks everyone from the inside out. The hero stood out from the total nothing. He did not fit the template, fell out of the system, which then failed. Now, look at yourself in the mirror. Doesn’t it remind anyone or something? Was it scary? But in vain — now you should be scary. The message is that society is closed to the problems of others, but when, finally, it is ready to listen and hear, it is too late. Violence breeds violence. I remember the scene at the very beginning of the film, where the main character talks to his psychologist and tells her: “You never listen. Each time you are asking the same thing — how is going on, how are things at work — and you never listen”. It was so familiar. How many times do we encounter situations when a person flatly refuses to understand, does not listen to you at all, and it feels like the whole conversation is just waiting for its turn to speak out. Also, when a person is angry and hurts you if you do not agree with him. And I have the question “what to do about it?”. How to prevent such deafness to yourself, as if you do not exist? How to prevent inhumane treatment, when a person is ready to hurt others, just not to admit that he by himself is wrong? Unfortunately, the film does not give an answer, but the suggested recipe is immoral. Undoubtedly, to endure all these trials, you need to be a much stronger person than the Joker. A stronger person is a person who can:

· correctly formulate your feelings and thoughts

· communicate your picture of the world to other people

How to achieve this we will consider below.

Back to humanism

Someone may argue that since there are many controversies, such as: good and evil, light and darkness, fragrance and stench, life and death, health and illness, joy and pain, and so on, then there must be many principles. The answer is despite the fact that opposites can have different names and can be of many kinds, nevertheless, they come down to the two names — this is Good and Evil. The variety of names and species that exists beside them represents only branches developing from these two components; there is nothing in the world that these two principles would not encompass. Returning to the problem of social injustice and understanding the causes of its occurrence, these opposites play a big role. The main problem of the side effect of liberalism is the imposition of a fundamental and fanatical interpretation of the role of human abilities in society, the role of economic opportunities over moral principles, the role of the state in the system of human values. This effect was made possible again thanks to the invisible hand of the market and Overton’s windows. All basic moral and ethical principles have already been erased. In fact, no any religion is already in a position to fight the immoral consequences of liberal politics today. Although, perhaps the one should again return his attention to the origins of monotheism — to Zoroastrianism and its dogmas, if others are not able to sober up moral principles of humanity. Why do I think so? The basis of Zoroastrianism and the characteristic feature that distinguishes it from many other religions is the Doctrine of Good and Evil. In today’s world, we have lost the line between God (good) and Evil (bad). All good in the world is from the Lord, all evil is from the Devil. Good is eternal: it was, it is and will always be. Evil is not eternal, limited by time, and will finally disappear after a certain period of time, as a result of the cosmic battle of Good and Evil. So says Zoroastrianism. However, what exactly should one pay attention to? A human being is not only a direct participant in this battle, but also endowed with the right to choose freely whose side to take. The path of service to Evil is “malice, slander, atrocity” and, as a result, indulgence in sin and vice. The choice towards Good is “good thoughts, good words, good deeds”, the main of which are good deeds. Such dualism makes the followers of Zarathustra really look at this life as an arena of battle, in which every true Zoroastrian makes a conscious choice in the direction of Good and follows the chosen path to the end of his days. The path of a believing Zoroastrian is the path of a warrior who suppresses any manifestation of Evil, both in himself and around him. And nowhere, in any other doctrine and in any other religion of the world, the problem of the relationship between Good and Evil is not worked out so deeply, thoroughly and consistently as in Zoroastrianism. The question of Good and Evil is the most important in the world, but today many people consider it something outdated, excessively arrogant, inappropriately banal, boring and even indecent. Some believe that the concepts of Good and Evil are self-evident and there is nothing to discuss here, others believe that they are excessively abstract and cannot be defined in concrete terms, from the point of view of the third, such concepts generally do not exist objectively.

Even religious preachers often shy away from a detailed analysis of the relationship between Good and Evil, not to mention other teachers of humanity — the creators of their own systems of understanding of the world (such as liberalism). In the same way, from the point of view of Good and Evil, the state structure of a given country, the principles of the organization of civilization, each individual person, all kinds of communities of people and so on are evaluated. To use the terminology of many modern philosophers, the question of the relationship between Good and Evil is the main philosophical question for Zoroastrians. The main moral and ethical principle of behavior in Zoroastrianism is the rejection of any form of Evil, and strict adherence to all principles of a person’s moral and moral foundation, which are good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. The human forgot what it is to do good deeds and how to live kindly. The human was helped to forget by manipulating his mind with all sorts of liberal doctrines that propagandize strength, arrogance, and tyranny in the name of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of the invisible hand of the Market. Humans need to remember the three foundations of virtue: the Good Thought, the Good Word, and the Good Deed. Let’s remember now, before it’s not too late, until the unnecessary and offended Jokers burned civilization.

Sergey Golubev (Сергей Голубев)

EU structural funds, ICO/STO/IEO projects, NGO & investment projects, project management, comprehensive support for business