Existence is political.

If you disagree, you benefit from social privileges and/or unjust entitlements. If you agree, but believe that your life is only minorly impacted, or not at all, then again, you benefit from social privileges and/or unjust entitlements. Even those of us that fully agree, benefit from the like. Further, even those of us who agree, and are currently surviving severe oppressions, occasionally benefit from specific privileges. To be clear: The vast majority of people may benefit from specific privileges, and, in doing so, the vast majority of people exist as politicized beings. Those who are not privilege-beneficiaries make up our oppressed populations, and again, in doing so, exist as politicized beings. To simply further: All people have been politicized, therefore, all human existence is political. 

Kapeesh? 

Quite frankly, I did not want to write this; I feel tired from it, exhausted even. Yet, in the words of Childish Gambino, This Is America. Unfortunately, as politicized beings, the decisions of our local, state, and federal governments entangle us deeper in the web of law, regulation, rules, and norms. This is rightly so – I should think the hope is to trust our government’s web to be protective, strong, and perhaps not tangled, but based in structure and symmetry. When governing such a vast amount of people – namely 333 million and counting – symmetry becomes difficult: perhaps the left side of the web cannot mirror the right, but still, the web must stand. And that’s why we vote and protect the right to do so; to ensure our tangential string – wherever it may connect in the vast structure – is both accounted for and active. 

We are all envisioning a spider web, correct? 

So the center (the apex; the core): that’s the government, their law, rule, regulation. The strings that barricade the center are our elected officials – presidents to county clerks. Truly, it is them that create the pseudo-core. In a similar sense, it was that center-barrier on our imagined-spider-web, that claimed our independence and wrote our constitution. As a democracy, our populations decide which strings we would like to provide this barrier: which are the strongest, toughest, most willing or capable, most equipped or representative? Our hundreds-of-millions of experiences can not be easily characterized in an octagonal-structure of representation, such as this spider web, much less, one in a dichotomous state, such as our reality. The schism of beliefs are our strings reaching left and right towards the outer ring of wealth and influence. 

This is because our government operates capitalistically.

Wealth, in our current governing and societal structures, is, in fact, power. The branches begin at the center with very little wealth or power, moving outward to the barricade made of wealth-hoarders: monopolistic conglomerates, tax-evading higher-ups, and, in most direct effect to the center, subsequently affecting all tangential strands, and finally themselves as the outer barrier, undisclosed corporate PACS. 

Sounds like political bullshit to me – and it is; which is why I mostly won’t explain how PACS work to you.

Our governing law requires that private entities – corporations, businesses, etc. – do not fund political campaigns; Political campaigns are meant to be funded and determined by the populace, not the market. The issue here is, that in a free market, those individuals in power of the market, are also empowered to vote and fund the campaign that is most profitable for their business, as an individual. Again, this is rightfully so, if a free market is desired (and I am not [yet] here to attempt to convert you to socialist idealism). 

While individual donations from these higher-ups may be of some concern; what I deem more important, is their company’s discreet alliance with said political entity, and the subsequent influence of that company on their customer-base. Whether it is a direct signal of endorsement or discreet political advertising, companies can, and will, impact the customer’s beliefs and perspectives. Afterall, the reason our free market thrives is because of our desire for a personalized existence; We want to spend our money where we believe our money spent reflects us. 

There is certainly a socialized reason why some of us prefer Target to Walmart; Jimmy John’s to Subway; Goodwill to Salvation Army; Apple to Google. Our socialization is clearly not immune to politicization either. 

This is why boycotts occur. We desire representation in our consumption of goods and brands identically to how we desire representation in our government. Curious, no? In any case, boycotts exemplify a customer-base’s disapproval of a company’s product, occasionally based on quality, but quite often recently, based on brand ideals. Here are a few you may recall: Bud Light after Dylan Mulvaney’s advertisement (boycott based on transphobic consumer-base; non-representative advertising), Unilever (boycott based on active operation in Russia and support for Russia in the Russo-Ukranian War), and McDonald’s and Starbucks since November 2023 (boycott based on IDF-support in the Palestinian Genocide). 

The action of a boycott is effective. They lessen the economic impact of the targeted-institution, weakening their political and global power, while forcing said target to examine the misalignment of ideals between themselves and their consumers, occasionally (and ideally,) bringing about corporate reform. Unfortunately, common belief is that boycotts are ineffective, which only inhibits a boycott from its efficacy. Like politics, boycotts operate via grassroots movements; They require active participation of the populace. Change cannot occur without its effectors, its strands on the web – that’s you and I. So, next time you think about grabbing your daily Venti Starbucks coffee, perhaps instead visit the local cafe that opened near you recently – chances are they’re more affordable, better quality, and likely, more aligned with your values. 

If our beings are politicized, our socialization is politicized, our capital is politicized, what remains? Does a non-politicized entity exist, or is the whole web political? 

Well, I am happy to inform that, like most things, two things can be true at the same time: the whole web is political and you have access to one of the rarest non-politicized entities: independent thought. Our independent thought is what distinguishes us from other conceptually-capable entities (your pets, etc.). Your thought, legally, should always remain autonomous, individualized, and protected to your discretionary-level of privacy. Your thought can only be politicized if you choose to allow it. 

Our universal privilege uncovered: independent thought.

Perhaps, I should ask again then, why would only some individuals employ this privilege? The answer is simple: the privilege of independent thought can only be employed through the filter of any and all other privileges and oppressions imposed upon us. It is the case that a white-passing masculine-presenting queer person may feel empowered to employ this privilege and share their thoughts to the internet; It might be the case that a Black person, Trans man, or Asian woman may not feel as empowered to do so. 

I actively choose to employ my privilege for the benefit of myself, my communities, and the communities I share spaces with; I employ my privilege for our one, shared community: human community. 

Will you?