Gangsta French Nicknames

libertarian socialist values \u200b\u200band myths of fascism

from different sectors argues that the main evil gets left now is the acquiescence of workers. Indeed, it seems that having enough purchasing power to consume, along with some entertainment and sports-entertainment, causes a lack of motivation and a mackerel in the work, preventing him to surface in any revolutionary spirit. Panem et Circus, in short.

But that explanation may small superficial. I think the current conformity with true, has its origin in a much more profound and difficult to face: the right core values \u200b\u200bare shared largely by the left. By "right values", entiéndaseme well I mean all those values \u200b\u200bthat have traditionally held the power to uppercase throughout history: tyranny, dogmatism, fanaticism, irrationality, injustice, selfishness, materialism ...

Humanity remained fairly stable, socially speaking, over the millennia in which there was an almost total consensus in accepting these values \u200b\u200bas a political base. The gap in this regard took place during the Enlightenment. The new values \u200b\u200bthat brought this line of thought (democracy, freedom, rationality ...) represented a moral and philosophical breakthrough that led to many revolutions since the late eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century. Judging modern capitalist states that gave rise to those bourgeois revolutions, it is clear that they certainly accounted for revolutionary advance in certain values, but not in others such as social justice and human solidarity. Arguably, the revolution created by the Enlightenment was lame in one leg.

born during the nineteenth century, another school of thought that just focused on the Enlightenment values \u200b\u200bthat inadvertently was left out: socialism.

Unfortunately, Marxist socialism (which became the mainstream in socialism) made the same mistake they had made years earlier illustrated, and conducted its analysis based on values \u200b\u200bof social justice and solidarity, forgetting or downplaying those that had prioritized the Enlightenment: democracy and freedom. That gap explains quite well the fact that ultimately could be as authoritarian Marxist interpretations and undemocratic as Leninism or Stalinism.

seems then that socialism was just as lame as the Enlightenment, albeit in the opposite leg.

But if we agree that the values \u200b\u200bof democracy and freedom are so desirable and necessary as social justice and human solidarity, we must conclude that the leftist current is ideal that he is able in its midst such approaches equally and in a balanced enough to preclude any type of deficit. And the truth is that this particular stream has always existed. I refer to libertarian socialism.
character
libertarian socialism is the counterpart of authoritative readings of Marxist socialism, and this is so precisely because it derives both socialism libertarian current that emerged during the Enlightenment.

And yet ... How is it possible that even the libertarian left today is able to seduce the mass of workers? The problem is, as I said, values. Society current is extremely individualistic, materialistic, selfish and consumerist. Which we have been so deeply ingrained as anti-human values \u200b\u200blike these, is the greatest triumph of the system and also its Achilles heel, because sooner or later ends our human condition rebelling against them. It is precisely at this point that the libertarian left should attack, and more in an economic crisis like the present, which are revealed most aberrant miseries we suffer socio-economic system. Thus, we must understand and make the public understand that the final collapse of capitalism (which is ultimately what we are attending) can only be overcome regardless by the end of selfishness and individualism, that is, coming together and organized under the banner of human solidarity.

But we will only reach that goal before today's society convince the great absurdity of materialism and consumerism. We need to see to the masses that happiness is not in the mall, but in different human interactions, and knowledge, culture, art or nature. It is essential to understand that the wealth of a society is measured not only in material terms but also in democratic terms, in social indicators (education or health, for example) or ecological levels. We are

a turning point in humanity, in which the old values-based mindset barbarians come to an end after a decline of several centuries. The transition will be more or less tolerable to the extent that the left knows different building schemes, relying on values \u200b\u200bequally different or even opposed. Keep in mind that the revolutionary left is, by definition, but requires a radical revolution of values \u200b\u200bor revolution is not complete. Both the nineteenth-century bourgeois revolutions and communist revolutions of the twentieth century suffered from a deficit or the other in that aspect, so when they failed to build a decent system for humanity. It is necessary that the XXI century revolution not make the same mistake again because failure could be fatal at this critical time for humanity.

Antique Nurses Silver Belt Buckles

In modern political discourse is fascism with too little rigor, combining the concept in an absurd maremagnum others as disparate as "extreme right", "capitalism", "xenophobia" or "racism." This only succeeds in creating confusion about fascism and distort our view of certain problems and to make a proper diagnosis is necessary to clarify these concepts:

- Fascism is not the extreme right . In reality, fascism tends to the left as it is a party system from a planned economy or the nationalization of key economic sectors such as banking, while it recognizes the right to private property, social classes and certain bourgeois values \u200b\u200b(patriotism or religion). Collect, therefore, components of both capitalism and authoritarian socialism, so can not say you are on either extreme of the political spectrum. Would rather be the center of it, then capitalism liberal standing at one end and the other socialist systems.

- Fascism is not an absolute evil . Despite the efforts in this regard by the propaganda of war (which still exists), the fact is that fascism does not necessarily imply any genocide itself, and this is a unique feature of fascism. For example, the Allies also committed war crimes and genocide (the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without going further), and countries like the United States also adopted racist policies against its black population, without thereby officially considered capitalism as a criminal in itself.

- Fascism died after the second world war . The prestige of such a system led to only be supported since by a small minority, strongly rejected by the whole society by violent and radical. The only European exception to this rule is Spain, where fascism continued (with several short-term and cosmetic reforms) for 40 years, and was later transformed by way of covenant and in a pseudo-reform in which many institutions continue cutting fascist or fascism introduced by the English, like the monarchy, the courts and special laws or the political role of the military.

- Fascism is not booming now . It is true that in several European countries including France, Austria and Switzerland is being a large electoral support fascist parties of origin, which has more to do with a xenophobic tendency that fascism itself. The proof is that these parties tend to moderate over the discus at election time, and this for an obvious reason: a fully fascist discourse would only score a spectacular bleeding, because society would not accept today the disappearance of democratic forms . The European problem now is more of a growing xenophobia, mainly due to the immigration problem.

- Xenophobia not mean fascism. Xenophobia has been at all times and places in the world, is a feature as human as selfishness, and usually arises when there are cultural clashes, domestic, immigration, etc. The present moment is characterized by a growing influx of immigrants heading from Third World poverty to the prosperous first world, and in a context of globalized economy, is the ideal breeding ground for the emergence of all kinds of xenophobic tensions have nothing to do with fascism, which is only xenophobic nationalist dimension.

- Xenophobia has nothing to do with racism . Racism is a political or social doctrine that ranks human races, but does not necessarily imply a rejection of foreigners. The xenophobia, by contrast, is a mere feeling of rejection of foreign without it having anything to do with political or racial concepts.

- "Fascism" is not synonymous with "racism" . Racism existed before fascism and later, and by parliamentary capitalist countries like the U.S. and South Africa. Moreover, not all are racist fascist regimes.

- The word "fascist" is used today mostly as a simple insult . Indeed, the epithet "fascist" today rarely has to do with the political system of the same name, but used rather to offend the opposing reference and a particular attitude of the authoritarian or undemocratic. But although fascism is authoritarian and undemocratic by definition, not all authoritarian or undemocratic attitude necessarily have anything to do with fascism.

summary: fascism died after the second world war, and any current attempt by the left to fight it not only useless but also counterproductive, because it distracts us from where is the real enemy, not is other than capitalism. They are the modern features that are creating this chaos that gives rise to migratory current rise in xenophobia in Europe, and certain absolutely fascist minority factions will try to exploit in vain. Focusing too much attention on those sectors which are given only get more important than they really are, causing a propaganda effect completely free and that they appreciate.

Drivers Free Dell Gx620

Violence ETA (II): a strategy

In previous post I tried to analyze the violence of ETA only from an ethical point of view, accepting the fact that for the radical left violence should not be lawful rather than a means of self-defense, and never aggressive. But also indicated that such an analysis does not matter if we the fact that ETA violence arises only as a strategic means to achieve a political goal: to compel the State to recognize the right of Basque self-determination. It is clear that from that point of view of ethical considerations go into the background.

But my purpose today is to analyze precisely the violence of ETA from a purely strategic point of view. because it could happen that the violence, although it can not be ethically justifiable, it may be strategically or politically : the use of ETA violence on their targets more than a purely peaceful strategy?

We recognize that it is very logical think that a certain pressure on a state it tends to get some concessions, especially when the pressure is manifold: political, social and economic. ETA's violence is putting pressure on these three areas, because it is a political problem that causes suffering in society and economic losses. We also know, on the other hand, that the State has granted to negotiate with ETA on several occasions. It appears, therefore, that violent strategy pays off . However

appearance differs significantly from reality. All negotiations attacks to date, featuring the governments of Gonzalez, Aznar Rodriguez Zapatero, have suffered from a manifest bad faith on the part of the state (something known from the Left wing nationalists), which seem to regard as a mere bargaining weapon to weaken ETA and its political . That was true even in times when the armed organization killed hundreds of people a year, so there is no reason to believe that the current level of ETA violence (with a few murders a year) will force the State to take negotiations more seriously.

Keep in mind also that the violence of ETA over the years has achieved the opposite effect on English citizenship: not just this is not wanting a negotiated solution to the conflict, but also is radically opposed to the same (something that has been actively involved state propaganda). So much so that it is suicidal for any English government to raise even that option. Moreover, the very existence of ETA for about 50 years has finally create or strengthen certain state sectors that feed on the existence of the organization or fight the , and of course never will welcome its demise: People's Party, National Court, journalists, police, private security, counterterrorism police ... How point these industries will lead to an eventual stop negotiating strategy of the state?

course ETA violence has other side effects. Your expression gets put on the table always crude Basque conflict, and it is permanently present. ETA says the news and drink, both nationally and internationally, there is a Basque conflict in Spain territorial problem that remains unresolved, for which the legal channels seem insufficient.

But all this we must add other effects as positive if we consider that in the XXI century the majority of society, and especially the left, the fight does not accept army as a political method valid. ETA's violent strategy succeeds, then, away from itself to broad popular Basque, English and international organizations that could help push the state toward solving the problem. This should be a growing concern for an organization that sees the long run, is losing support among its political base.

Finally, the persistence of ETA violence success has helped the state propaganda has managed to move the debate between "vs. Basque nationalism. English nationalism" and focus on "violent vs. Non-violent, something that has helped a substantial reduction of state violence in recent years, but now endures torture and violation of civil and political rights.

Thus, it appears that the strategy causes violent positive and negative effects for the political ends they seek, and ETA should reflect on them and decide which are more prominent. But I insist that this assessment can not fail to take into account the ethical, in my opinion are the most should weigh .