'm beginning to think that politics is not a matter of right or left, but the axis-monarchist bourgeois clericlale (= totalitarian) against aristocratic -People (= federalist, democratic). I have my reasons to think so: the absolutism of the monarchy is the reaction to the desire independence of the feudal aristocracy. Absolutism also promoted by the bourgeoisie, which, as well explains De Benoist, could not bear the restrictions imposed by the powers of the local lords, and then in France supports the king. Clergy and monarchy (with the support silent but critical of the growing middle class) develop a concept of rule of a religious nature, absolute, in contrast with the processes federalist Althusius. At one point, the middle classes became so powerful that after removal of the nobles, also eliminate the monarchy and the clergy, and, behold, therefore, the French Revolution, followed by a totalitarian liberal form of parliament. The French Revolution is not the beginning of freedom, but the continuation of the design bourgeois absolute power, power that can now handle themselves in parliament. The parliament, totalitarian element of the new bourgeois power, it is freedom in it, but it is a fictitious liberty, for participants at the "banquet" are also parliamentary form of totalitarianism (the right of parliament professes to return to the old absolutism, a totalitarianism no longer in step with the needs of the bourgeoisie, while the left will be the one responsible for the Jacobin terror that I assimilate to totalitarianism).
The bourgeoisie does not like politics, does not control the parliament directly but indirectly, by requiring the institutional form. The bourgeoisie has imposed the idea of \u200b\u200bright and left, ideas that were brought forward in history, and could not overcome the set-up because born of bourgeois bourgeois revolution of 1789. And now we come to the dictatorships of the twentieth century. These dictatorships are proposed as an alternative to bourgeois parliamentarism, but it can be said to have failed. Why? Let us first fascism. Fascism is a movement that restores the power of the absolutist state, expressed in the form of law. Fascism is a totalitarian, because it has a conception of the state in my opinion close to the monarchical-clerical (and in fact is not by chance that in the manifesto of intellectual fascists mentions the king and the Tradition, "from which an arrogant and threatening the opposition individuals with State is deprived of its authority, a decline in the prestige of the King and the Army, symbols of the nation the above individuals and particular groups of citizens "). It also has a religious state that closely resembles the absolutist conception of the state monarchy, and that it is the opposite of the concept federalist Althusius: "The policy of felt and advocated as a training ground of self-denial and sacrifice of the individual to an idea in which the individual can find his purpose in life, his freedom and all his rights; idea that homeland [...] tradition so and mission.
Hence the religious character of Fascism "(manifesto of the intellectuals Fascists). Italian fascism has, however, in common with liberalism, the idea that the law is above individuals. In the manifesto of the anti-fascist intellectuals, drawn from the Cross, we read: "or where, with easy rhetorical heat, we celebrate the dutiful submission to all the individuals, as if what is in question, and not the ability of authoritarian forms ensure the most effective moral elevation. " It 'obvious that for both the State, whether in parliament or in the form of dictatorship, is an absolute state, because the law is absolute, and must be insidacabile abnegation of the individual towards the whole.
Fascism also has one thing in common with Soviet Communism: Blanquism-Jacobinism, but totally foreign to Marx.
"man of action rather than computer theories, Blanqui was convinced that the proletariat would create a society of free and equal only through armed insurrection GUIDED BY A SMALL MINORITY well organized and determined to impose its dictatorship. Blanqui He devoted his entire life to this cause, without being discouraged or exile or from jail sentences when he was repeatedly condemned.
should be noted that Blanqui was always respected and also picked up by areas of Fascism revolutionary, and Mussolini himself "(from wikipedia).
The revolution of Lenin is a revolution Blanquist / Jacobean completely contrary to the ideas of Marx (who may already have noticed in terror Jacobin a manifestation of modern totalitarianism):
"Already Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are both of these readings. Basically averse Jacobinism, akin to Blanquism are the exponents of the Second International, and reformist than revolutionary. But Jacobinism is claimed in 1904 by Lenin, which defines the Social revolutionary as the "Jacobin indissolubly linked to the organization of the proletariat, conscious of their class interests" (from wikipedia).
Karl Popper is not critical simply dictatorships, but criticizes Marx and Hegel, in his opinion the origin of totalitarianism. In reality Marx was the mistake of thinking that could be a totalitarian dictatorship, that is a dictatorship of the majority (and here Bakunin was right). As for Hegel, totalitarianism is completely out of place, but it does apply well to the Cross and the liberal fascist Gentile, albeit in different ways and with different nuances. Because it is completely out of place? For in Hegel the family and civil society are dialectical elements necessary for the Community state, a state of morals, as in liberalism and fascism are, if they are too independent, an obstacle to the uncontested domain of the law (in the case of liberal parliamentary and dictatorial in If the fascist-communist). In Hegel the state is a summary of family and civil society, while the other two philosophers family and civil society must submit to the will of the state, which is therefore a state that stands above the people.
Finally we speak of the aristocracy, federalism and democracy. Nietzsche: aristocratic spirit. Berdyaev: aristocrat. Bakunin: aristocrat. What they have in common these philosophers? Nietzsche is ambiguous, because while it is proved beyond moralism Jacobin and fascist (as a destroyer of morals) and positivism (= belief in progress) liberal lies finally in a horizon individualistic bourgeois press. But Nietzsche is the first to realize that modernity has a disease, and, paradoxically, all his action is ultimately in an attempt, unsuccessful, to object to modernity (which is what is called the Dionysian spirit of the Greeks). How Nietzsche is opposed to totalitarianism? In his very poetic and abstract language, Nietzsche called totalitarianism "dell'apollineo supremacy" and came to share the reason for the state overall. Approaches partly true, for what we said at the beginning of the test, but fails to realize that not all philosophers of Reason (Apollonian) are opposed to the Dionysian (first of all Hegel, which I think is not an anti- Dionysian, as it has a thought that can be traced back to the right or left).
Berdyaev and Bakunin: the first is a democratic philosophy, the second is an anarchist philosopher. Both are aristocrats, and both are opposed to totalitarianism (see "State and Anarchy" Bakunin and "slavery and human freedom" of Berdyaev).
0 comments:
Post a Comment