Right and left

This is the fear of Aeneas and his disciples: assuming the similarity of their political proposal with Nazi-fascism...

[To finally try to explain these concepts to pronists and the general public].

One of the most controversial things within politics – and which causes more turbulence in discussions – is the general population's lack of mastery over the origin of the concepts of left and right.

Starting this chronicle at the end, we can say with complete conviction that the concept has its origins in the French Revolution and means that those who were to the right of the Assembly defended the old regime, namely, the Absolutist Aristocracy, with the Girondins yearning for a constitutional principality . On the left side, there were supporters of the new regime, that is, representative democracy with the Jacobins aiming for the Republic as a State Regime. Note that the concept comes from a Government and State Regime, not from an economic doctrine, not least because both models were already capitalist, with their bifurcation being the epicenter of wealth in each mode of production; for the traditional aristocracy was patrimonial, while the emerging bourgeoisie was mercantile.

Going backwards, it is important to understand that the Absolutist Government Regime and Hobbes's Leviathan were created by the bourgeoisie itself with the intention of strengthening the King and weakening the aristocracy as a whole, breaking the main characteristic of feudalism: the decentralization of power by the territory.

The merchants, who were landless, had to pay tolls to pass through each of the manors, with very peculiar rules, and this made the profit smaller, in addition to the work much greater. The solution to these inconveniences would be the unification of the manors in a common market and, for that, centralization with logistical, administrative and political integration was urgent. As always betting high, the bourgeoisie created a monster called the Modern National State, a king above kings that equaled bourgeois and nobles in the face of the magnitude of its brilliance.

Initially, for the nobles, the integration of the fiefdoms was also positive in the sense of reinforcing the territory's military defense capacity, as personnel and supplies began to circulate much more efficiently. On the other hand, with the passage of time, the bourgeois, intermediaries of the aristocrats' production, began to profit more than these. In addition, with society becoming more urban and less rural, behavior has also become more commercial and less military, although the State has an obligation to protect and expand the market with maximum force. In any case, from then on, the territory was no longer the epicenter of the mode of production, but the diplomatic import and export agreements, even with coercion in the contracts.

After the process of market unification, consolidation and expansion reaches its punctum saliens, the very figure of the Absolute King – totally necessary for conquests – now faced with the international integration of the market, becomes dull and useless. The mission for which he was hired was very well accomplished: to pale the nobility until its equalization with the bourgeoisie, as said; and therefore its function was extinguished.

With the nobility dead, the bourgeoisie naturally assumes administrative positions and demands a parliament and the king, without a base, is easily neutralized or deposed in the most diverse countries of Europe.

As my old history teacher Reinaldo, the famous "Viking" used to say: Kings only have power in war.

Feudalism is a mode of production with a defensive military purpose and without the autonomy of vassals in relation to the suzerain, the authority of the local feudal lord is lost.

For all this, it is very frequent to hear capitalists placing themselves as the extreme Right due to the origin of such a coincident doctrine in absolutism, but [ironically] as an effect and objective (apparently contradictory, I admit) it is precisely the strongest and most efficient economic doctrine derived from the ideologies of Left, that is, the defenders of the Representative Democratic Government Regime and the Liberal Republican State Regime.

Absolutism was a tactic to implement bourgeois rule. From capitalism, then, socialist and communist doctrines are followed in opposition to the Modern National State; but all are, in essence, manifestations of democratic and liberal models. Even the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a means to (provisional step) a step towards the ideal of the libertarian society and its consequent annihilation of the State.

[Note that just as the bourgeois produced their absolute kings, the proletariat finances dictators in order to equate the bourgeois with the workers and, in the future, also to discard the omnipotent head of government].

The true extreme Right of the regimes was really absolutism and its most caricatured icon, the Sun King; in the maximum concentration of power and capricious restriction of particular liberties.

The typical modes of production of the aristocracy are slavery, the Asian mode of production and the aforementioned feudalism (or physiocracy, as some prefer). In any case, weapons, territory and religion are instruments historically found alongside the Aristocratic Regimes of power. Commerce, the State and the law are proposals of the Democratic Regimes of social order. Of course, this is a trend, but some political systems present unusual combinations, such as, for example, North Korea with a regime in which descendants succeed each other in power and, with that, put the socialist doctrine into practice in Macroeconomics. Also peculiar is the situation of Qatar which, despite being an Absolutist Principality, almost does not charge taxes.

Ending at the beginning, it is very ridiculous that pronistas insist – apparently under the influence of Gustavo Barroso – in affirming that the concepts of Left and Right are obsolete and, therefore, useless for the discussion of current politics.

Misuse by the uncultured population does not definitively render the classic duality of government regimes useless. Aristocratic and democratic ideologies wage an epic battle throughout history; and in addition to the pronistas not having the authority and/or competence to propose the intended suppression, the desire to silence the concepts of Right and Left (as in the case of Doctor Enéas and his followers) comes from the cowardice in assuming their spectrum and their intentions.

Pronism is, as an ideology, an unfinished political system of an aspiring power class in Technocracy (defender of a Republican State regime, but authoritarian) and an extremely interventionist, developmentalist, protectionist State system, and the economic doctrine that is called capitalist , with - however - interest rates always low or negative, in addition to the supremacy of the State over the individual, which characterizes, in fact, Socialism as a rule.

They are below the nobles, warriors, landlords and businessmen, but above most of the other social strata and, in order to obtain power, they generally resort to coups, as happened in 1930.

This is the fear of Aeneas and his disciples: assuming the similarity of their political proposal with Nazi-fascism! The difficulty in not hiding middle-class resentment and another desire for superiors to be leveled with inferiors. All equal before the State and more specifically: below technicians. All are part of a great gear and have a function in it. No one else will be master of you from now on!

Thus, the pronism even to come from the middle class, mainly from bureaucrats and lower officials, despite the doctrine of combating interest rates, is an ideology centered on the Right, at least in its initial process by votes, as it aims (in a later ideal) ) a type of dictatorship of technicians and, despite its restriction of knowledge only to the middle level, it is vertical in the descent of the order, whose main character is the psychological type close to the engineer with full autocratic powers from the victory.

The clear defects of middle-class coups are the lack of hermeneutical rigor in exposing concepts, as they do not know how to justify their desires and the lack of philosophical guidance in the logical concatenation of projects (which is why I write these words).

Infrastructure, technology and labor law will be the priorities of the group in question, that is, mainly the devices related to the State system that will also be built by them under the banner of Nationalism as a political principle; what is interesting in its bulge, but that's just unfortunately. All the other Elements that Form Political Systems are simply omitted because it would be, from a tactical point of view, a mistake to make them explicit since there is (by the referential authors of pronism) a vacuum of knowledge there.

The penumbra prevents any cogitation for technicians without philosophical guidelines. They know how to do it, but they don't know what to do or – at least – the order of priorities, but, mainly, they don't know why they do it, since lovers of autocracies always wait anxiously for the next order. The exposed dilemma is.

Patriotic Greetings,

Douglas Mattos.

Philosopher.