Saturday, August 29, 2009

How A Mute Will Tell A Blind Man

a feather ... tears

Olivier Besancenot has created the new anti-capitalist party (NPA) to collect the far left. He should tell us how its anti-capitalism anti-capitalism is different from the Communist Party. Martine Aubry assumed leadership of the Socialist Party to try to gather all the socialists in this same party modernized. Again, all the leaders of the PS gather to condemn and castigate unregulated capitalism, but they can not agree to build a program together. They should also define socialism for us, emptied of its ideological base articulated by Karl Marx, this term is reduced to an illegible label. Having studied the great authors and the founding texts of socialist thought, I understand that socialism was inherently anti-capitalist doctrine. So what differentiates the NPA, the PC and PS?

Undoubtedly, some are and they still revolutionaries who still believe in the big night, the agony of capitalism and the advent of a brutal post-capitalist world, while others intend to reform, monitor and regulate capitalism, not overthrow lack of a credible alternative. But that is precisely what the French right is already in business, and therein lies the challenge for the French left.
In the past, this dichotomy between revolutionaries and reformists was the cause of the collapse history of the French left between PS and PC. This fragmentation has made himself echo the division that occurred during the Soviet revolution between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. History has shown that this division was a real divide: for revolutionaries, the reformers could only be traitors in the pay of bourgeois .
In 2009, spirits have hardly changed, contributing to render unlikely the cohesion of a PS burst and impossible to assemble a left scattered. Indeed, for the left wing Socialist Party, an alliance with the modem would be considered treason. However, it must have the intellectual honesty recognize that the microcosm Liberal similarly fragmented into many chapels which are run by those who believe they have the most accurate vision of what should be a world in accordance with the liberal ideal.

These fratricidal divisions show that it is easier to gather men and women by being against something (anti-Sarkozy, anti-globalization or anti-capitalist) that come together around a common project. Challenge them to agglomerate the disaffected and disappointed, that is to say, basically all of us because we are never satisfied with our own fate. Everyone agrees find today's world detestable. And this consensus is found in every age: the contemporaries never like this time. However, every time you look at the past with an eye to the future with nostalgia and a look frightened. Who has not heard at the table, when families get together or dinner parties, the inevitable sentence that closes any discussion: " the world does not revolve round the world goes wrong ... .
And it's true that the world can be improved because it is human nature itself which is perfectible and fallible. The life would not be worth living if everything was set to start in a perfection that we would be imposed and on which we would have no control . We'd like ants in the anthill, a prisoner of a social order entered in a genetic mechanism. This is the best of worlds. By dint of constantly complaining, this is what could happen to us.

When it comes to propose a better world, a "human face world " Everyone has their own idea of what it should be. And of course, no one has the same, where personal ambitions, the pursuit of political power and the internal divisions that generate necessarily, especially in political families who intend to change the world. Hitler (on behalf of National Socialism), Stalin (Bolshevik), Mao or Pol Pot (the name of communism) believed they were all benefactors of mankind, which enabled them to commit unscrupulously the worst crimes in the name even the advent of a new and better world. The French Revolution itself led to a period of terror. We do not make an omelette without breaking eggs because, for revolutionaries, the end justifies all means.

Should never act so far? Obviously, not. For my part, I aspire to live in societies in which each of us should be able to build his own "better world" in its scale and according to its own criteria for development, without imposing others, the rule of law by enforcing rules and the common values that are enshrined in the founding constitution. It is far too risky to delegate the pursuit of happiness to any government, however well intentioned and honest it is. That is why the founding fathers of the American Constitution took care to include the right in search of happiness, not the right to happiness, which is a promise that no government can take.

0 comments:

Post a Comment