"When you criticize the secondary and is silent on the cardinal, the latter acquires a mark of validity and admissibility that had not therefore had naively admitted to not being censored at a time when the prevailing vituperation, is that nature is positive. " [1]
criticism, however successful it may be, to the inessential, entails an affirmation of the essential.
Take, for example, the case of a tree. Is not adequate to its roots as it considers erroneous training, composition, orientation, the land on which it sits and project the external body or any other consideration, it will seem secondary and even counterproductive to the struggle of those who want change leaves, the struggle of those who want to decorate it with ornaments best for Christmas, struggle of those who want to cut some branches that disrupt the assembly, or toss the dried buds. The struggle, too, of those extremists, they want to put a stick into the stem to force in one direction.
who disagrees with the roots you can see good intentions in these struggles, you can see a salutary effect on his conquests, but the detailed analysis that led him to realize how wrong they are the roots will produce a certain feeling of frustrating to see so much wasted potential reforms.
Birds that govern the tree and see you only have to reform certain branches of the same will agree with those who say their biggest critics, his greatest antagonist, because none of them see no objection to the roots. These commonplace [2] make the first share (reactionaries) and second ("revolutionary") are for all practical purposes the same body system holder. Those birds
stubborn to talk about roots will be branded as radicals scornfully, when that is precisely its greatest strength [3].
As I come here not to speak of Dendrology, let's see, continuing the theme of stasis [4], some of the many individual cases where this occurs.
- criticism in the markets, as autonomous entities guilty of everything bad. This criticism States forgets, forgets that it is they who give support to those who make markets, they forget that without their legal they would not hold, forget the meager participation of States in the markets themselves. Forgotten, simply that States operate in the same securities markets operate (self-interest, competition, struggle for power, the abrogation of the profound freedom of man).
" has to be challenged the belief that state and market are realities of others or, worse, confronted, as the capitalist private property and the market had not been established beyond a point and completely secured to prevail without the decisive action of the state, removing the coercive institutions with remarkable effectiveness, as demanded Jovellanos (senior official of the old regime declared "worthy of the Fatherland" by the courts of Cadiz) in their crucial " Report on file Agrarian Law "of 1795, the many and formidable" hindrance "of its development. If the State had not performed this task, capitalism would remain true today scattered and discontinuous, weak and unstable, incapable of moving beyond a point. " " It is nonsense to expect the State to go against the market as tantamount to going against himself, in the same manner and to the same extent that it is confident that the development of "free" market will help to alleviate the resulting surplus and harmfulness of the act of the State. "
- in the rejection of capitalism without accounting for its main supporter, the authority and historical metamorphosis to the present state form. Without it there would prospered capitalist property.
" introducing capitalism as a reality outside and distinct from state device (or to argue that this is a mere servant of the former, which is expressed in the unfortunate wording" State capitalist "), is ignored, besides the foregoing, one of the decisive features of the present social formation, the more core interests of states, which manifest themselves in strategic industries, those that are essential to achieve what the Orthodox parlance is called "national security". Going further inquiry is concluded that not only are strategic such and such factories, but the essence of all economic activity. "
" (...) Even more serious is the mistake of those who seek to implement an "anti-capitalism" statist (and usually estatolátrico) which is regard as crucial: that the state agency promotes capitalist economy to make more effective the strategic interests of domination at the global maximum. Whether in peacetime as in wartime, in the context of the ongoing struggle between the various states worldwide, to achieve more and more fields of political, cultural, linguistic or propaganda, commercial, financial, demographic and of course, military. From this it concludes that the hope that the state "limits" or "directs" capitalism is only a delusion of the mind, as the state rule will be greater and more stable, more robust the mode of production that will provide funds, technical equipment and weapons in our time the capitalist. This approach is supported by the indubitable historical fact, as stated, that everywhere was the army, which is the substance of the state apparatus [5] , the main power broker who promotes liberal revolution of capitalism. "
- In the dogmatic assumption of definitions and theories provided by the power and academic class at your service. Consider the current regime as a democracy is the paradigmatic case of this. Democracy is government of the governed to themselves, self-organization and culture of freedom of conscience. We can not talk about freedom of conscience in a permanent regime of indoctrination. Do see the contradictions of the system is fundamental in their criticism, and here his critics who claim officers share common places with him. Any discussion on that basis is, therefore, void.
Holder today one of the news of rebellion , digital flagship alternative general information, setting out a few words of a leading CC.OO. that interview: "Without the struggles of the labor movement today would not have democracy" . [6] Let us flee from those
platitudes cutters all critical discourse and fundamental pillars of the current indoctrination.
Notes 1. democracy and the triumph of State, Felix Rodrigo Mora, pg. 254. The following quotes are taken from the same book, Chapter Power and authority: the political and economic .
2. According to Wikipedia: The cliché is a word, phrase or idea considered as a language service for being too able or excessive use or worn. Presents one or more of the following characteristics:
- shows little imagination of whom expressed. Replaces the search for original or creative ideas from other already spent. Evidence
- be copied or stolen from someone else's idea.
- often used in political discourse as a tool of demagoguery to deceive or disguise the truth.
- Simplifies an idea or concept that might deserve to be qualified.
3. According to Wikipedia: The term radical comes from the Latin radix ('root'), so that means 'root' or 'base', referring primarily to a point of view deep, substantial, especially if applied to any belief, practice, analysis or proposal.
not confuse it, then, with irrational positions that lead to intolerance, dogmatism, intransigence and depersonalization (Extremism, fanaticism, orthodoxies, etc.).
4. http://sosiegas.blogspot.com/2010/11/estatismo-religion-politica.html
5. To view the full present this fact, I recommend seeing this text: http://elgritoinfinito.blogspot.com/2010/10/tomo-este-concepto-del-ya-celebre-entre.html
6 . http://www.rebelion.org/noticias/cultura/2010/11/sin-las-luchas-del-movimiento-sindical-hoy-no-habria-democracia-117368
0 comments:
Post a Comment