The contradiction of capitalism and socialism —as dialectics— is false, as a special understanding of history; that reduces society to the class struggle, for its economic as well as political interests, in ideology; which ignores in this the existential rather than political nature of these interests, given in culture. In fact, this contradiction would be an understanding of history, according to the modern parameters in which it takes place; and that it projects retroactively, as a reference to understand its own problems as a specific state of culture.
In
general, however, this contradiction would be reduced to a critique of the
modern economy, which is industrial; and which thereby makes itself susceptible
to serious capitalist distortions, as in fact is the case with its corporatism.
However, socialism is equally corporatist, and its deformation of the economy
would also be capitalist; only by transforming the nature of capital from
financial to intellectual (ideological), as it was before from military to
financial[1].
Hence,
this contradiction only illustrates the evolution of society from a capitalist
to a socialist principle; but that it is neither effective nor realistic in its
idealism, since it always ignores the potential faculty of the individual.
Thus, Socialism and Capitalism would be Manichean moral reductions, as is
typical of modern Humanism; giving rise to this type of projections, as forms
of puritanism, of religious origin in its secular expression; which is how they
arise, in the midst of the resentment of the French aristocracy, with its
intellectual specialization.
This would explain the origin of socialist theories in republican France, as well as capitalist theories in industrial England; where, in an inverse but equally dialectical way, monarchical absolutism never managed to overcome its aristocracy. Hence, this same English aristocracy was the one that fostered industrial development, establishing itself as the haute bourgeoisie; which complements the French intellectual projection in North America, whose middle class would propitiate this ideological development in its own elitism.
Thus,
this contradiction between capitalism and socialism only reproduces the typical
one between monarchy and aristocracy; both are a function of the political
determination of society, based on its economic organization. In this case,
monarchy would be replaced by institutional government, and aristocracy by its
economic corporations; whose respective interests, insofar as they are
political, never correspond to those of the common man, insofar as they are
existential.
[1] . It refers to the substitution of
the traditional (military) aristocracy for the financial one, in the
contribution of capital; that in the form of armies, it allowed the crown to
govern the territory under its jurisdiction, but made it dependent on that
aristocracy. This order would be violated in a slow process, from the political
absolutism of Louis XIV in France; that, starting from the Richelieu doctrine
of divine right, it allows him to control the aristocracy, at the expense of
the public debt; He went to Louis XVI – the faint-hearted one – to solve this
last problem with the financial bourgeoisie, which thus specialises as a high
one, replacing the traditional aristocracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment