Translate

domingo, 5 de noviembre de 2017

Marx highlighted five additional ideas and institutions for eradication.

5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property)

We all know Marx wanted to get rid of private property, but he was remarkably frank about wanting to abolish these things, too.

by Jon Miltimore *

One of the remarkable things about The Communist Manifesto is its honesty.

Karl Marx might not have been a very good guy, but he was refreshingly candid about the aims of Communism. This brazenness, one could argue, is baked into the Communist psyche.

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims,” Marx declared in his famous manifesto. “They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.”

Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, readers are presented with a pure, undiluted vision of the author’s ideology (dark as it may be).

Marx’s manifesto is famous for summing up his theory of Communism with a single sentence: “Abolition of private property.” But this was hardly the only thing the philosopher believed must be abolished from bourgeois society in the proletariat's march to utopia. In his manifesto, Marx highlighted five additional ideas and institutions for eradication.

1. The Family

Marx admits that destroying the family is a thorny topic, even for revolutionaries. “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists,” he writes.

But he said opponents of this idea fail to understand a key fact about the family.

“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie,” he writes.

Best of all, abolishing the family would be relatively easy once bourgeois property was abolished. “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

2. Individuality

Marx believed individuality was antithetical to the egalitarianism he envisioned. Therefore, the “individual” must “be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

Individuality was a social construction of a capitalist society and was deeply intertwined with capital itself.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality,” he wrote. “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

3. Eternal Truths

Marx did not appear to believe that any truth existed beyond class struggle.

“The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” he argued. “When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.”

He recognized how radical this idea would sound to his readers, particularly since Communism does not seek to modify truth, but to overthrow it. But he argued these people were missing the larger picture.


“‘Undoubtedly,’ it will be said, ‘religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.

There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.’

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.”

4. Nations

Communists, Marx said, are reproached for seeking to abolish countries. These people fail to understand the nature of the proletariat, he wrote.


“The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”

Furthermore, largely because of capitalism, he saw hostilities between people of different backgrounds receding. As the proletariat grew in power, there soon would be no need for nations, he wrote.


“National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”

5. The Past

Marx saw tradition as a tool of the bourgeoisie. Adherence to the past served as a mere distraction in proletariat’s quest for emancipation and supremacy.

“In bourgeois society,” Marx wrote, “the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”

Reprinted from Intellectual Takeout

* Jonathan Miltimore is a senior editor at Intellectual Takeout.

Is a “Liberal Conservative” an Oxymoron?


Essays of the Week


by Nathan Coleman
The crisis with Britain had forced Americans to articulate a constitutional vision where the colonies were sovereign political units for all their internal affairs, with the crown exercising sovereign power over external issues. By declaring independence, the crown’s sovereign authority had reverted to the colonies, who, as “Free and Independent States,” had the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Although secession from the British Empire meant the states were thirteen distinct sovereigns, most Americans realized their independence would be short lived if they did not corporate. That realization required Americans to solve the constitutional dilemma of how to create a union that would balance their need for corporation while preserving the state sovereignty they claimed had always existed... 
[MORE]

by Bradley J. Birzer
Prior to the defeat of Athens by a joint Spartan-Persian force, the polis served as the center of a citizen’s life. As Socrates and Aristotle each argued, the polis remained the supreme institution, not just higher than the family, but that very thing which enabled the family to exist. Thus, when the polis fell, a crisis of purpose and justice came into being. After all, how could one know his proper place or receive his proper due (justice) if one did not know the ultimate end of human life or the institution to which one must give his loyalty? The desire to belong to something greater than one’s self, however, is simply human, transcending time, place, and space. It’s as natural as our need to breathe. In this sense, Aristotle put it correctly when he noted that man is meant to live in community. To be outside of community (if such a thing is even possible) is to be, as the Philosopher explained, either a beast or a god... 
[MORE]

by Mark David Hall
Anyone interested in an accurate account of the American founding cannot afford to ignore the important influence the Christian faith had on many civic leaders. Consider just a few examples. If the Founders agreed on anything, it was that humans were sinful. To paraphrase Madison, “men are not angels.” Accordingly, they took great care to build a constitutional order that included limited government, the separation of powers, and checks and balances. They understood as well that all humans were created in the image of God. As such, we are capable of rational self-government. This conviction also contributed to putting one of the gravest evils in early America, chattel slavery, on the road to extinction.Finally, and many other examples could be given, their understanding of “liberty” was profoundly influenced by Christian morality... 
[MORE]

by Michael J. Connolly
The danger of majoritarian tyranny hangs over republics. The dilemma of constituting a virtuous republic while also restricting interests, sects, and factions’ use of unchecked political power possessed eighteenth century American constitutionalists. States’ Rights as a means to curb the concentration of power claimed few champions more eloquent than the New Englander Orestes Brownson. Brownson’s affection for his home region helped him align politically with the South Carolinian John C. Calhoun and write voluminously on states’ need to check Federal authority. His love for New England history and culture, what Brownson designated the region’s “unwritten constitution,” energized his pen. Orestes Brownson rejected social contract theory and suggested that written constitutions reflecting the unique identity of historically-developed human communities—shielding their traditions, habits, and way of life—best-protected liberty...
[MORE]

by Arthur J. Versluis
We have tried the Hamiltonian experiment of centralized government, usury, and gigantism long enough. Surely it is time, somewhere, for the Jeffersonian vision to begin to reappear, showing us anew the course that we must take. Thomas Jefferson recognized what was to happen: “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.” The cure for this fatal disease of the polity is the noble tradition of American autonomy, for as Jefferson put it, “The wit of man cannot devise a more solid basis for a free, durable and well administered republic.” It is high time that we begin to heed his wise and enduring advice... 
[MORE]

by Gleaves Whitney
To define the term, ‘liberal conservative,’ I start with the observation that modern man lives with tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions—oppositions that arise from our civilization’s conflicting sources of intellectual and moral authority. In our shorthand way, we call those conflicting sources Christendom, the Enlightenment, and Romanticism. They have a complex and overlapping relationship to one another, something like that of a child to a parent. They are continually clashing, continually generating conflicting ideas and discourse in our public affairs. As a result, the liberal conservative must be discerning. For he believes in freedom as well as in order. He believes in individualism as well as in community. He believes in the equality of all men as well as in hierarchy, natural aristocracy, and excellence. He believes in private enterprise, competition, and the market mechanism as well as in those human, moral, and cultural values that cannot be defined by the competition of interests in the marketplace... [MORE]
The Missing Ingredients in Modern Education

Harry Jaffa and the Demise of the Old Republic

The Wisdom of T.H. White

The Language of Neurosis: T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land”

A Litany of Blood and Forgiveness

John of Salisbury and the Ideal Scholar

What the Devil to Do About Halloween?

The Reformation Then and Now

The Mystery of the Magi

“Ligeia”

“The Just Shall Be Remembered Forever”

“Stranger”

Saint Jerome Mass

La Révolution russe et la Guerre civile - conférence mercredi 8 novembre



8 novembre : Conférence sur la révolution russe


La soirée sera présidée par Natalia NAROTCHNITSKAÏA, présidente de l’IDC.

Source: lesalonbeige.blogs.com


L’INSTITUT DE LA DÉMOCRATIE ET DE LA COOPÉRATION

vous invite à la présentation de deux livres sur La Révolution russe et la Guerre civile

Interviendront:

  • Alexandre Jevakhoff, auteur de « La Guerre civile russe » (Perrin, 2017)
  • Victor Loupan, auteur de « L’Histoire secrète de la Révolution russe » (Editions du Rocher, 2017)

mercredi 8 novembre 2017 à 18h30 


Inscriptions: idc@idc-europe.org / 01 40 62 91 00

................................................................................

Natalia Alekseïevna Narotchnitskaïa (en russe : Наталия Алексеевна Нарочницкая) est une universitaire, historienne et femme politique russe, née le 23 décembre 1948 à Moscou.

Fille d'Alexeï Leontievitch Narotchnitskii, historien spécialiste de l'histoire de la Russie au xixe siècle, Natalia Narotchnitskaïa est titulaire d'un doctorat en histoire, diplômée de l'Institut d'État des relations internationales de Moscou (МGIMO) ; elle a travaillé de 1982 à 1989 auSecrétariat de l'ONU, à New York, et est actuellement chargée de recherche à l'Académie des sciences de Russie (РАН), spécialisée dans l'étude des relations internationales. Elle est l'auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur la politique de l'Europe occidentale. L'un de ceux-ci (Que reste-t-il de notre victoire ? Russie-Occident : le malentendu) a été traduit et publié en France en 2008 (Éditions des Syrtes).

Fervente nationaliste, antimarxiste, orthodoxe et slavophile, elle professe des positions anti-atlantistes marquées, ayant par exemple soutenu la politique serbe pendant la guerre de Yougoslavie, ou plus récemment le pouvoir russe dans le conflit tchétchène. En 2003, elle a été depuis élue à la Douma comme représentant du parti de la Patrie, Rodina, sans pour autant étant membre de ce parti, et siégeant dans le groupe de Russie juste; elle a été nommée vice-présidente de la Commission des affaires internationales. Non réélue en 2007, elle s'est consacrée à la formation en France de l’Institut de la démocratie et de la coopération basé àParis. Elle est membre permanent du club d'Izborsk.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Narotchnitska%C3%AFa

La république met en œuvre sa haine de l'Eglise catholique


Expulsion des Congrégations, le 5 novembre 1880


Source: Le Salon Beige

« En Avignon, le 141e de ligne et cinq escadrons de cavalerie ont formé les faisceaux. Les troupes sont en tenue de campagne. À l'aube, sous le commandement du général de brigade Guyon-Vernier, elles se sont mises en marche. Direction Tarascon. Sur une colline de la Montagnette se dresse leur objectif : l'abbaye Saint-Michel de Frigolet.

Il y a une vingtaine d'années, les prémontrés se sont installés ici, et ils ont restauré les bâtiments en ruine. Aujourd'hui, sur décision du gouvernement, le monastère doit être fermé. L'ordre tombe sous le coup du décret du 16 octobre 1880, qui prescrit l'expulsion des congrégations non autorisées. Flanqué de gendarmes, un commissaire se présente à la grille et lit une sommation au père Hermann, représentant du père abbé, le révérend père Boulbon. Le moine répond que sa communauté, par humilité, ne saurait se distinguer des autres couvents qui ont résisté à la violence : il refuse l'arrêté d'expulsion.


Depuis quelques jours, des milliers de fidèles campent dans les environs. Certains se sont enfermés dans l'enceinte sacrée. On les entend crier : « Vive les gendarmes ! Vive la religion ! » Mais le père abbé ne veut pas les exposer. À sa demande, 200 d'entre eux quittent les lieux, dont le poète Frédéric Mistral, qui fut élève en ces lieux, au temps où l'abbaye abritait un pensionnat.

Au soir du 5 novembre, le préfet des Bouches-du-Rhône, Eugène Poubelle, confère avec le sous-préfet et avec le général. Le plan de bataille est arrêté. Les hommes déployés en position d'attaque autour des bâtiments, il sera défendu de traverser les lignes ou de sortir de l'abbaye. Saint-Michel de Frigolet est assiégé. Pendant que les artilleurs pointent leurs batteries vers le monastère, un bataillon d'infanterie est demandé en renfort. »

Tiré de Quand les catholiques étaient hors la loi de Jean Sévillia (éditions Perrin page 8)

sábado, 4 de noviembre de 2017

Il Secondo Convegno “La Dottrina sociale della Chiesa e San Tommaso d’Aquino” si svolgerà a Montefiascone il prossimo 17 novembre



Newsletter n.838 | 2017-11-03
INVITO AL CONVEGNO DI MONTEFIASCONE

jueves, 2 de noviembre de 2017

So as we come to this particular grim centennial, we do well to pay even more attention to the influence of the Bolshevik Revolution through the entirety of the last century.


The Bolshevik Great Experiment: 100 Years Later



by T. Hunt Tooley




Since the beginning of the centennial of World War I, I have been writing a series of essays about the war as the memory of events passes us by--a hundred years later. But as we approach the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution, I find it nearly impossible to delimit my thoughts on this profound event in the history of the human race as if it were only a passage of the war, like the Somme, or American intervention, or the internment of enemy aliens.

There are so many narrations of the "event" itself. There are so many answers to the question "why." There are so many clashing depictions of tectonic shifts in Russia and the world at that time, of Lenin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky and the rest as actors, heroes, villains, and (to some modern day sycophants) secular saints.

The inhuman cruelty, the killing capacity of this Marxist-Leninist movement which styled itself occasionally as the champion of the "people" (though much more often and much more truthfully as the vanguard of the proletariat on the march toward a revolutionary conflagration that would produce the new man) truly tests the bounds of human comprehension. Even if we take into account a group of recent historians who minimize standard historical estimates of total non-combat, democidal totals of deaths (based in part on recently found archival materials, but in part on soft hearts still loyal to the Great Experiment), the median calculation of Communist mortality by historians and demographers credits the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin with somewhere between eighteen and sixty-two million deaths beyond technically military losses. If we add up the democidal killings of spin-off Communist regimes across the globe, the totals are astronomical, with the estimates by historians, sociologists, demographers, and other serious analysts hovering around a hundred million human beings.


.............

Read more: mises.org


miércoles, 1 de noviembre de 2017

Pour former une véritable alternative de droite, il faut d’abord gagner la plus élémentaire des batailles : celle des idées.


Pour un gramscisme de droite



Par Ambroise Savatier, juriste, Secrétaire général de groupe, Conseil Régional des Pays de Loire


« Les gens de gauche inventent des idées nouvelles. Quand elles sont usées, la droite les adopte. » Marc Twain



"Pour former une véritable alternative de droite, il faut d’abord gagner la plus élémentaire des batailles : celle des idées. Tant qu’elles ne seront pas dominantes et bien articulées dans les têtes, elles ne seront pas gagnantes dans les urnes. La droite doit penser une stratégie culturelle, un « gramscisme de droite », du nom de ce marxiste italien qui a théorisé la notion d’ « hégémonie culturelle », l’objectif étant de réunir la société politique et la société civile autour d’un projet cohérent.Dans Le Marxisme de Marx, Raymond Aron explique que la puissance politique de l’œuvre de l’auteur de Das Kapital est de pouvoir être expliquée en « cinq minutes, en cinq heures, en cinq ans ou en un demi-siècle ». La doctrine sophistiquée du marxisme a imprégné les mentalités de façon quasi religieuse, aussi bien dans sa version originelle socialiste (la lutte de la bourgeoisie contre le prolétariat) que dans son prolongement culturel contemporain, à savoir la lutte identitaire de tous les autoproclamant « dominé-e-s », quels qu’ils soient (femmes, homosexuels, migrants, etc.) contre tous les pseudo- « dominants » (patriarcat, hétérosexuels, peuple du pays d’accueil). A la façon du marxisme, il faut se donner les moyens d’édifier un corpus idéologique de droite, clair, efficace, fondé sur une vision du monde solidement charpentée. Il faut mener la guerre des mots, des symboles, des grands mythes mobilisateurs."


La confusion règne dans l’offre politique actuelle. Les différents partis classés à droite de l’échiquier politique sont empêtrés dans des conflits internes qui recoupent, de manière évidente, des contradictions doctrinales. La droite politique est idéologiquement déboussolée, au point d’en oublier ce qui la distingue fondamentalement du camp adverse. « Quand on me demande si la coupure entre gauche et droite a encore un sens, la première chose qui me vient à l’esprit, c’est que l’homme qui pose cette question n’est certainement pas un homme de gauche ! » remarquait Alain.
En effet, nul au sein de ce camp politique ne semble plus très bien comprendre à quelle vision de l’homme et à quelle philosophie sociale renvoient ces points cardinaux de « gauche » et de « droite ».

Les amalgames historiques ne facilitent pas les choses : Le libéralisme, né à gauche au XIXe, passé à droite au XXe siècle, revient aujourd’hui dans son camp d’origine. Le combat social, mené historiquement, aussi bien par la droite réactionnaire que par la gauche radicale, est supposé être l’apanage exclusif de la gauche. Par ailleurs, l’usurpation du qualificatif « de droite » par certains membres du personnel politique qui mènent des politiques authentiquement « de gauche », ou son rejet par d’autres qui défendent nonobstant certaines idées parfaitement « de droite », ne fait qu’aggraver cette confusion générale.

Pourquoi cette difficulté chez la droite à s’assumer ? A quelques exceptions notables, la médiocrité culturelle des représentants de la droite politique est affligeante, autant par leur méconnaissance des humanités que par la petitesse de leurs statures. Depuis un demi-siècle, aucun événement historique digne de ce nom n’a pu forger de caractère illustre. N’ayant guère connu pour leur pays, depuis leur naissance, que la paix et la prospérité, les cadres des partis de droite ont troqué la grandeur et le panache contre la gouvernance technocratique (croissance et Triple A semblent être devenus les moteurs de leur action) et le suivisme culturel (accueil des migrants, progressisme sociétal, etc.). Si, d’aventure, la droite parlementaire se pique de quelques propositions sécuritaires par-ci par-là, celles-ci sont davantage motivées par un esprit comptable et individualiste – garantir la propriété des biens pour jouir sans entraves – que par une vraie vision anthropologique, dont le bien commun serait la finalité.

En bref, la droite politique rechigne à endosser la doctrine et les symboles qui devraient être les outils de son combat. La gauche, quant à elle, assume fièrement son idéologie. Elle a eu l’intelligence stratégique de s’approprier, depuis Mai-68, tous les leviers du savoir et de la culture. L’hégémonie culturelle étant le préalable à toute victoire politique, elle n’a cessé dès lors de remporter ses combats les uns à la suite les autres. Son rayonnement a été si grand que la droite, faute de substrat idéologique, s’est elle-même laissé contaminer par l’idéologie de la bienpensance. Ainsi, il apparaît de plus en plus clair que c’est l’incurie culturelle de la droite qui est la cause de son insuccès politique.

...........

Lire la suite: www.polemia.com