Vanhan anarkowikin artikkelit

KissaPiruVaraSivu

2006-05-17 18:45:50

http://www.franciscotrindade.com/

THE FEDERATIVE PRINCIPLE

The Federative Principle of Proudhon stays in general as one of the pillars of the anarchist thought and it represents culminating of a process that began in 1839. The book is important because it is the first - and the principal stays - of those that treated the Federalism not only, while system of overtaking of sovereignties, but as general beginning of organization of the society.

Significant Quotation:

The political order rests fundamentally in two principles opposite rivers, the Authority and the Freedom: the first initiator, the second conclusive; this tends for corollary the freedom of thought, that the faith that obeys.

Against this first proposition, I don't think that only one voice can rise. The Authority and the Freedom are so old in the world as the human race: they are born with us, and they are perpetuated in each one of us. Let us just notice a thing, the one that few readers would assist: these two beginnings form, so to speak, a pair whose two have, permanent each other, they are however unyielding each other and persist, independently that we do, in perpetual fight. To Solemnity it necessarily supposes a Freedom that recognizes her or deny her; the freedom on your side, in the sense politician of the term, supposes an authority that works with her equally, repress her or tolerate her. One of the two is suppressed; the other doesn't do more sense: the authority, without a freedom that discusses, resists or submits it is a void word; the freedom, without an authority that balances her, is an obstacle sense.

This way, to the development of the state authoritarian, patriarchal, millstone bounce or communist, the development of the state liberal, contractual and democratic is opposed. And how there is not natural limit to the extension of the monarchy, which in every time and in all the people he has been suggesting the idea of a monarchy universal or messianic, there also is not so a little natural limit to the extension of the democratic state, what suggests equal it lies the idea of a democracy or universal republic.

As variant of the liberal regime, I marked the ANARCHY or government of each one for itself own, in English self government. As anarchical government's expression implicates a type of contradiction, the thing seems impossible and the absurd idea. There is not however to retake here except the language: the notion of anarchy, in politics, is as rational and positive as any other. It consists in that, reduced the political functions to the industrial functions, the social order would result of the simple transactions existence and changes. All then autocrats could be said of itself own, what is the end opposite of the monarchic absolutism.

That the democracy multiplies so much as he wants, with to work rivers, the legal warranties and the means of I control, that it surrounds your agents of formalities, call the citizens unceasingly to the election, to the discussion, to the vote: he wants or don't want, your employees will be men of authority, the name is given; and if that personnel of public employees enters to meet an or some person in charge of the general direction of the subjects, that boss, individual or collective, of the government, is what own Rousseau called prince; he is not almost a king.

It can be made similar observations about the communism and on the anarchy. He didn't never exist an example of a perfect community; and it is little probable for high that it is the civilization level, of morality and of wisdom that the human genius reaches, that all the government vestiges and of authority they disappear. But, while the community continues to be the dream of most of the socialists, the anarchy is the ideal of the economic school that tends frankly to suppress all the institution it governs mental and to only constitute the society on the bases of the property and of the free work.

All the varieties of fact governments, for other words, all the experienced government transacted or proposed since the times more retreated to our days they were reduced to two species prince parents, that I will call for your designations present, Empire and constitutional Monarchy. This demands an explanation.

Being the war and the inequality of the luck from the origins the condition of the people, the Society becomes separated naturally in a certain number of classes: Warriors or Noble, Priests, Proprietors, Merchants, Navigator, Industrial, Rural. –Where the royalty exists, form a race, the first of all: it is the dynasty.

The fight of classes, the antagonism of your interests, a way as those interests call, it still determines the political regime, consequent the government's choice, your countless varieties and your more countless variations. Little by little all those classes is reduced to two: a superior, Aristocracy, Bourgeoisie or Patriarchate; an inferior, Populace or Proletariat, among the ones which vogue the Royalty, organ of the Power, expression of the Authority. If the Aristocracy joins to the royalty, the government then resultant will be a monarchy temperate, constitutional actually;–if it is the people that allies with the authority, the government will be an Empire, or democracy autocratic.

The people, due to your own inferiority and to your poverty, it will always form the army of the freedom and of the progress; the work is by nature republican: the opposite would implicate contradiction.

But, due to your ignorance of your primitive instincts, of the violence of your needs, of the impatience of your desires, the people lean for the summary forms of authority. The one that he seeks, they are not guarantee legal aunts, of the which he doesn't make any idea and he doesn't conceive the might; it is not at all a combination of mechanisms, a consideration of forces, of the which he doesn't know that to do: he is a boss in whose word can believe, whose intentions are your acquaintances and that is devoted to your interests. To that boss, he gives an authority without limits, an irresistible power. The people, looking as fair everything that judges be him useful, tends en it counts that he is the people, he laughs if of the formalities, he doesn't make any of the conditions case imposed the receivers of the power. Predisposed to the distrust and the calumny, but unable of a methodical discussion, it doesn't believe except in definitive in the human will, he doesn't have hope except in the man, he doesn't trust your fellow creatures except, in principium, in fillies hominine); he doesn't wait for anything of the beginnings, that they can only save them; he/she doesn't have the religion of the ideas.

The Greeks and the Romans that they delegated us your institutions with your examples, near to the most interesting moment of your evolution, dig in the despair; and the modern society seems near for your time at the hour of the anguish. You don't believe in those agitators' word that you/they scream: Freedom, Equality, and Nationality; they don't know anything: they are died that have the pretension of resuscitating the deads. The public listens the instant as he does with the fools and the charlatan; later he leaves, with the empty reason and the lonely conscience.

Right sign that our dissolution is close and that a new one was it will begin, the confusion of the language and of the ideas it arrived to the point in that any one can proclaim comfortable republican, monarchic, democratic, bourgeois, conservative, divisionism, liberal, and everything this a time, without fearing that somebody convinces him of the lie nor of the mistake.

The political contract doesn't acquire all your dignity and morality if not with the condition 1st of being synallagmatic and commutative; 2nd of being contained, with relationship to your object, inside of certain limits: two conditions that suppose exist in the democratic regime, but that, still there, they are not almost always or else a fiction. Can it be said that in a representative and centralizing democracy, in a constitutional monarchy and censorship, still more in a communist republic, like Plato, the con political treatment that links the citizen to the State it is same and reciprocal? What can be told that contract it, what does remove to the citizens half or two thirds of your sovereignty and the room of your product, be contained in your fairs limits? It would be more true to say, which the experience confirms two many times, that the contract, in all those systems, is exorbitant, expensive, because that he is, for a part more or less considerable, without compensation; and aleatory, because that the promised advantage, to the insufficient departure, not even it is insured.

So that the political contract can accomplish the condition synallagmatic and commutative that he suggests the democracy idea; so that, closing up in limits corrects, he continues advantageous and comfortable for all, is necessary that the citizen, entering in the association, 1st have so much to receive of the State as what it sacrifices him/her; 2nd that conserves all your freedom, sovereignty and initiative, less the than it is relative to the special object for which the con treatment was made and for which is asked the warranty of the State. Regulated like this and understood, the political contract is what I call a federation.

FEDERATION, of the Latin foetus, generative feeders, means pact, contract, agreement, convention, alliance, etc., it is a convention for the which an or more heads of the family, an or more communes, an or more groups of communes or States, they assume an obligation reciprocal and equally some en relationship to the other ones for an or more private objects, whose load assigns then special and exclusively to the police officers of the federation.

In 1789, the proof of the federalism had not been still done; the idea was not at all acquired: the revolutionary legislator didn't have for so much any conclusion to remove. It was necessary that the confederations, only them, that they beat in some songs of the Old and New World, it encourages of the one of a new spirit, they learned, before plus, to walk and to define, that your fecundated beginning developing if it showed the wealth of your organism; it was at the same time necessary that, under the new regime of the equality, a last experience was made of the unitary system. Only mind under these conditions the Philosophy could argue, the Revolution to end, and, widespread the idea, the Republic of the people to leave finally of your mysticism under the concrete form of a federation of federations.

The federation idea is certainly the more discharge to which rose to our days the political genius. She surpasses of very far the French constitutions promulgated since seventy years ago in spite of the Revolution, and whose tans duration so a little honour our country. She solves all the difficulties that it raises the agreement of the Freedom and of the Authority. With her we don't have more of fearing  us in the government antinomies; of seeing the populace to emancipate if proclaiming a perpetual dictatorship, the bourgeoisie to manifest your liberalism taking the centralization to the excess I generate, the public spirit to corrupt in that debauch of the libertinism copulating with the despotism, could return unceasingly to the hands of the troublemakers, as he called them Robespierre, and the Revolution, according to the words of Danton, to be always for the most perfidious. The eternal reason finally is justified, the due scepticism. It won't be accused more of the human unhappiness the flaw of the Nature, the irony of the Providence or the contradiction of the Spirit; the opposition of the beginnings will appear finally as the condition of the universal balance.

For me, to who a certain press tried to choke the voice, so much for a calculated silence, so much for the masquerade and the offence, I can place this challenge to my opponents:

All my ideas economics, elaborated since twenty-five years ago, they can be summarized in these three words: Federation agricultural industrial.

All my political conceptions are reduced to a formula identical: political Federation or Decentralization.

And how I don't do of my ideas a supporting instrument nor a middle of personal ambition, all my hopes present and of future they are expressed by this third term, corollary of the other two: progressive ration stinks.

I challenge who wants that it is to do a profession of clearer faith, of larger reach and at the same time of a larger moderation. I go far away, I challenge any friend of the freedom and of the right I repelled her.

In summary, who says freedom he says federation, or he doesn't say anything;

Who says republic, he says federation, or he doesn't say anything;

Who says socialism, he says federation, or he doesn't still say anything

KissaPiruVaraSivu

2006-05-17 08:10:06