From the article of 'Petrel'
No.645 / September 14, 1997
Please
send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.
Refuse the spurious virtual image!
The capital profit makes Diana to a "holy woman."
"It is interesting and is sad before long to see the Ugai (a Japanese fishing method using the cormorants)."
It was a sudden death of the former Princess Diana, and was a slapstick world bluster coming around it, where such haiku of Bashyo unconsciously floated.
I sympathized as "Poor thing! She was killed by the mass communication" at the moment when I heard the first news that she had been clashed by the chase of muss communication and died. However, I was amazed to see the spread of the empty bluster to all over the world and that the mass communication and the bourgeois journalism fueled it and made up a strange idol, and I had gotten angry extremely at the end. I was disgusted to the farce play that stank the vulgarity of popular drama.
What a vague human image of "ideal" the bourgeois society made up on earth! The present bourgeois culture is exactly degenerating to the thin "lowbrow culture."
Though they say that Diana is the ally and the representative of the poor people, the unhappy people at the present age, I wonder from where such a conclusion will come on the whole.
She was a member of the British privileged class who rested on the exploitation of the working people and grew fat, and was so to the last minute.
Such as the one affecting to the charity is also the one of hypocrisies adopted and even made to the custom from old as the way of the general public cheating of the aristocratic class and the bourgeois class of Britain. Have the working class seen through the fraud of these kinds of things from early time, have not?
It is nonsense to say about charity, "Sympathy to the weak," and anything like such with putting the body on a super-privileged and "Extraterritorial rights" position of princess.
If she denied her privileged position and the system having secured the position and fought to crush it, it might have been "Charity" in the true meaning for the people. Her class nature and hypocrisy have already been exposed where she had no complete feeling of contradiction between parasitism in the system and her "Charity."
She was talking to the mass communication after divorce in June this year, "I wanted to become the queen," and just such a speech is completely exposed the reactionary essence of this woman without any relation to the working class too much.
The mass communication is writing up as "Diana was the symbol of sympathy with the social weak."
However the workers emphasize oppositely that she was the symbol and the representative of the cheat named the welfare nation and charitism in the present bourgeois society, because it does not deny the exploitation of work that is the basis of this society, that is, this root of the present society that invents "Poverty" and "Social weak" in large quantities and widely at all.
Such as the true "Sympathy with the social weak" might be true and realistic only as the revolutionary socialism. Though it is not the Middle Ages at all, it concocted such as a "holy women" --- Only the god knows whether Diana was actually so! --- what is this society thinking on the whole? The worker does not need these kinds of things at all.
Moreover, they extol very much her contribution to the extermination movement of the antipersonnel land mine, the brave walking in a land mine field in Angola.
However, it was "A land mine field" of 100 % safe there, and there was not a danger such as walking on the flourishing street in London either. It had only a mere symbolical meaning, that is, it was even the one cheating.
If one determine to lose the antipersonnel land mine, not only it but all arms, it is necessary to oppose nationalism, racialism, militarism, and imperialism, therefore it is necessary to oppose and fight to the class rule, to the rule of the capital, to the bourgeois nation in the basis. However, I wonder whether Diana submitted the problem like this.
She was only the character representing the rule of capital actually. So it does not become to the conclusion that she was a wonderful character because of walking the land mine field of no dangerous without any consciousness of such own standpoint at all. Actually, it will be able to be said that she only stirred up the own popularity of fiction by using the mass communication.
What influence will the accidental death of Diana cause on the British royal family (To the royal family in the world) in the future?
The mass communication is scattering actively the criticism that the British royal family is cold. I wonder whether they maneuver to avert the attack to them to the royal family and to weaken the criticism.
They said that Prime Minister Blair in Britain conferred with the queen Elizabeth and talked about the necessity of royal family's "Modernization." He said that the royal family is to have to "Modernize" and to keep step with age, too.
Of course, such a problem is painful for the royal family in Japan.
However, will the royal family be able to modernize, is it an eternal dilemma for the royal family?
The royal family is only the hereditary position (Of course, though in the one having an important, social meaning) in this bourgeois society. In this bourgeois society, any position, that is, the prime minister, the president, the minister, the mayor of the municipality, the member of the assembly, and the director in the company are not already heredity. Only the king and the royal family are the heredity, that is, they are the contradicted and "external" existences for this society.
If the royal family (It is similar to the emperor family) will "democratize" and change, it is equal to the self-contradiction and the self-denial of the royal family that exists only by the undemocratic principle of heredity. On the other hand, if they try to defend the existence and the identity as the royal family (Though they can do nothing but defend), it is the contradictory to democracy, the turning of the back to "People," and it is to distinguish and cut off oneself from "People."
That is, the royal family exists in the fundamental limit such as trying to change and cannot change, and can do nothing but wriggle in that. The royal family cannot escape from this contradiction without denying themselves from the basis, that is, without becoming no royal family.
Though the British royal family is criticized as being "Cold," it might exactly be the one "to desire an impossibility." Because, it is just the essence of royal family. The liberal opinion that does not comprehend this is only scattering a miserable sentimentalism.
Nevertheless, if the criticism "The royal family is cold" goes out from the popular feelings of antipathy and negation to the existence of the royal family, there are some healthy elements yet. However, it also appears refractively here.
Does the event at this time have been a plus or a minus for the British royal family (For some royal families in the world) --- it is the problem.
Though the criticism to the British royal family is strong superficially, but Diana connects to the royal family through her two sons. So, if she is received and learnt as a member of the royal family actually, it will not be necessarily minus for the royal family, its "Stability," either. Just therefore, the bourgeois journalism makes noise exaggeratedly.
Though her younger brother, Earl Spencer says, "My elder sister was the standard-bearer fighting for the right of the oppressed person. The royal family's title is not necessary for her." Of course, it might be false. Actually, if there was no "the royal family's title," Diana who was now might not have existed, and neither the "Charity activity" nor the "Scandal" nor the death will have become a fuss one by one.
The bourgeois society markets and presses various "Saint" and "Holy women" against the worker so that their rule may last long, for their profit. (After all, such as Maria Theresa is the one person.) It also is even the part of "obscurantist" policy to the worker.
However, the worker will decisively refuse such "Ideal image" provided by bourgeoisie and will produce an own ideal image in their fight by themselves.