Vaclav Havel in The Power of the Powerless, 1978 asks: "Is it within the power of the "dissidents"-as a category of sub-citizen outside the power establishment-to have any influence at all on society and the social system? Can they actually change anything?" He answers that they can. And this opinion is validated by those who successfully opposed Soviet Rule and credit this essay (among others) as being a source of inspiration and understanding of the nature of Marxist tyranny.
Vaclav Havel goes into the nature of dictatorships and distinguishes between traditional forms of dictatorships where the force and power is “wielded openly” and compares it to the Soviet system where power is, for the most part exercised by, a “network of manipulatory instruments” where the individual relinquishes his “reason and conscience to a higher authority." We see that the organizing principle in this system is equating "the center of power" with "the center of truth." In effect "the highest secular authority is identical with the highest spiritual authority.” *
Living in such a society has it's benefits; one gets food and low-rent home; but one pays dearly for this: “the price is abdication of one’ s own reason, conscience.”
Vaclav Havel then describes the nature of this coercion in his Green Grocer example: (The quote is long but quite relevant to today’s America.)
The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
…
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace."
…
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;" he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.
