That
is what explains the relativity of modern democracy, without it becoming
unhinged —as it could have been— in anarchy; contained in the authoritarian
elitism of modern intellectuals, not in the access of the popular class to
power. These intellectuals were also fed by a dissident aristocracy, which they
legitimized in their populism; and this was the ideological development of
liberalism, legitimizing sovereignty in the people instead of in God; but also
marginalizing that people who legitimized it from effective power, because of
their alleged intellectual incapacity.
That
is what wounded the bourgeoisie, the betrayal of an aristocracy too
authoritarian to become bourgeois; unlike in England, where he aristocracy was
too strong to allow that trickery to the Monarchy in its own authority. That is
why absolutism was so relative in England, without allowing its monarchy the
political excesses of France; for there is no such thing as history, but the
peculiar developments that organize culture.
So
the problem with neoliberalism was not its bourgeois nature, but its political decharacterization
as a class; for which it agreed to rely in the business schools of the
universities —oh, intellectualism!—, instead of in real practice. That would be
why it ends up subordinating productivity to planning, in the corporate culture
of the political; and thus ending up like the political, wearing down its own
material base in theorical projections, like socialism.
It
is also true that there is no such thing as a socialist economy, but a state
capitalism, as a corporate culture; which is the Leninist distortion of
Marxism, facing its own failure to create an effective economic alternative. In
this regard, Necker's trick was not precisely this apparent productivity, but
the budget against debt; but what is at issue is the technocratic character of
these tricks, reducing intelligence to sleight of hand.
Neoliberalism
was thus the last bourgeois offensive, but a bourgeoisie already weakened in
its lack of character; that committed it to the technocracy of modern
politicians, too mediocre to be effective in their intellectualism. In reality,
neoliberalism would have been the alternative to socialism, in the face of the
inevitable death of Soviet communism; appropriating the technocratic structure
of political corporatism, with the inefficiency of classical empires; from the
moral rhetoric of meritocracy, as false as it was authoritarian, but as
irrational as the feudal aristocracy never was.
No comments:
Post a Comment