Motanul Incaltat

Just another weblog

Asupra unui editorial…

Am citit un editorial al D-lui Cristian Campeanu in Romania Libera:

Spre ce duce alianţa Ponta, Crin & Voiculescu

in care, la inceput, se arata:

„Când lumea se înghesuie să facă tot felul de comparaţii neghioabe între Ceauşescu şi Mubarak sau, şi mai excitant, între ultimul şi Băsescu, în aşteptarea marii revoluţii socialiste care nu mai vine, cel mai bun lucru este să explicăm de ce ne îndreptăm spre un regim de tip fascist sub noua coaliţie de stânga.

Dezbaterea academică privind găsirea unei definiţii complete, universal acceptate a fascismului este atât de complexă încât unii istorici s-au declarat obligaţi să admită că o asemenea definiţie pur şi simplu nu există. Ceea ce nu înseamnă că nu există trăsături pe care un observator raţional şi informat să le poată identifica pe loc ca fasciste, ci că nu există un set complet de astfel de trăsături. Pe aceste baze teoretice modeste se poate susţine cu argumente că noua coaliţie de stânga formată de Ponta, Crin şi Voiculescu (PC&V) se pregăteşte să introducă în România un regim de tip fascist.”

Recomand, fireste, citirea intregului editorial. Dar recomand de asemenea citirea pe Wikipedia asupra ceea ce inseamna fascism. Dupa cum se poate vedea din ceea ce ne spune Wikipedia, fascismul are cateva trasaturi destul de clar, daca nu chiar foarte clar conturate. Una din trasaturile fundamentale ale fascismului nu este neaparat corporatismul, desi nu neg ca acesta ar fi juca un rol central in ideologia fascista. Ci nationalismul! Iata ce spunea Benito Mussolini:

We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible.”(subl.mea)

Socialistii erau internationalisti, deci se opuneau, in viziunea dictatorului italian, nationalismului. Fascistii vedeau in internationalismul proletar un esec.

Este adevarat ca, in ceea ce priveste problemele economice, Wikipedia ne spune ca:

„On economic issues, fascists reject Marxist ideas of class conflict and internationalism in favour of class collaboration and statistnationalism.[56][57] However, Italian fascism also declared its objection to excessive capitalism, which it called supercapitalism.[58]Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism,[59] but he still places fascism on the political Right.[60]

A number of fascist movements described themselves as a „third force” outside of the traditional political spectrum.[61] Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism’s positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be „aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists”.[62] Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism’s economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved „the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation.”[63]”

Si mai spune ca:

„Fascists supported the unifying of proletarian workers to their cause along corporatistic, socialistic, or syndicalistic lines, promoting the creation of a strong proletarian nation, but not a proletarian class.[204] Italian Fascism’s economy was based on corporatism, and a number of other fascist movements similarly promoted corporatism. Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists, describing fascist corporatism, said that „it means a nation organized as the human body, with each organ performing its individual function but working in harmony with the whole”.[205] Fascists were not hostile to the petit-bourgeoisie or to small businesses, and they promised these groups, alongside the proletariat, protection from the upper-class bourgeoisie, big business, and Marxism. The promotion of these groups is the source of the term „extremism of the centre” to describe fascism.[206]

Fascism blamed capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict and communists for exploiting it.[207] In Italy, the Fascist period presided over the creation of the largest number of state-owned enterprises in Western Europe, such as the nationalisation of petroleum companies into a single state enterprise called the Italian General Agency for Petroleum (Azienda Generale Italiani Petroli, AGIP).[208] Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class, especially the lower middle class, by promising to protect small businesses and property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business.[206]

In 1933, Benito Mussolini declared Italian Fascism’s opposition to the „decadent capitalism” that he claimed prevailed in the world at the time, but he did not denounce capitalism entirely. Mussolini claimed that capitalism had degenerated in three stages, starting with dynamic or heroic capitalism (1830–1870), followed by static capitalism (1870–1914), and reaching its final form of decadent capitalism or „supercapitalism” beginning in 1914.[58] Mussolini argued that Italian Fascism was in favour of dynamic and heroic capitalism for its contribution to industrialism and its technical developments, but that it did not favour supercapitalism, which he claimed was incompatible with Italy’s agricultural sector.[58]

Thus Mussolini claimed that Italy under Fascist rule was not capitalist in the contemporary use of the term, which referred to supercapitalism.[58] Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the „standardization of humankind” and for causing excessive consumption.[209] Mussolini claimed that at the stage of supercapitalism, „a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state’s arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously.”[210] He saw Fascism as the next logical step to solve the problems of supercapitalism and claimed that this step could be seen as a form of earlier capitalism which involved state intervention, saying „our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation.”[63]

Other fascist regimes were indifferent or hostile to corporatism. The Nazis initially attempted to form a corporatist economic system like that of Fascist Italy, creating the National Socialist Institute for Corporatism in May 1933, which included many major economists who argued that corporatism was consistent with National Socialism.[211][212] In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke enthusiastically about the „National Socialist corporative idea” as one which would eventually „take the place of ruinous class warfare”[213] However, the Nazis later came to view corporatism as detrimental to Germany and institutionalizing and legitimizing social differences within the German nation. Instead, the Nazis began to promote economic organisation that emphasized the biological unity of the German national community.[214]

Hitler continued to refer to corporatism in propaganda, but it was not put into place, even though a number of Nazi officials such as Walther Darré, Gottfried Feder, Alfred Rosenburg, and Gregor Strasser were in favour of a neo-medievalist form of corporatism, since corporations had been influential in German history in the medieval era.[215]

Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera did not believe that corporatism was effective and denounced it as a propaganda ploy, saying „this stuff about the corporative state is another piece of windbaggery”.[216]

Dar fascismul nu se reduce numai la atat. Practic, exista si alte elemente, fara de care, daca pot spune asa, fascismul nu ar mai fi fascism. In primul rand, cred, fenomenul ar trebui analizat din punct de vedere cultural, pentru ca aici sunt cateva din trasaturile sale definitorii.

Fascismul a promovat principiul masculinitatii, eroismul, militarismul si disciplina, si a respins pluralismul cultural si multicultualismul. Mussolini a spus : „war is to man what maternity is to the woman„. Interesant este ce ne spune Wikipedia despre rolul femeii in societatea fascista:

Italian Fascism stood in favour of expanding voting rights to women. In 1920, Benito Mussolini declared that „Fascists do not belong to the crowd of the vain and skeptical who undervalue women’s social and political importance. Who cares about voting? You will vote!”.[179] In November 1925, women were given restricted voting rights, juxtaposed to the eliminaton of opposition parties and enabling of the Fascist government to rule with dictatorial powers. Fascist women’s organizations, disgruntled at the lukewarm reforms, were then made subordinate to the secretariat of the party, headed by Fascist conservative and misogynistRoberto Farinacci, although gradual women’s suffrage was retained.[180][179] In the 1920s, the Italian Fascist government’s Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) allowed working women to attend various entertainment and recreation events, including sports that in the past had traditionally been played by men.[181] The regime was criticized by the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed that these activities were causing „masculinization” of women.[182] The Fascists responded to such criticism by restricting women to only being allowed to take part in „feminine” sports, forbidding them to be part of sports that were played mostly by men.[182]

Mussolini perceived women’s primary role as childbearers, while men were warriors; he once said, „war is to man what maternity is to the woman”.[183] In an effort to increase birthrates, the Italian Fascist government gave financial incentives to women who raised large families and initiated policies designed to reduce the number of women employed.[184] Italian Fascism called for women to be honoured as „reproducers of the nation”, and the Italian Fascist government held ritual ceremonies to honour women’s role within the Italian nation.[185] In 1934, Mussolini declared that employment of women was a „major aspect of the thorny problem of unemployment” that Italy was facing at the time and that for women, working was „incompatible with childbearing”. Mussolini went on to say that the solution to unemployment for men was the „exodus of women from the work force”.[186]

Nazi policies toward women strongly encouraged them to stay at home to bear children and keep house.[187] This policy was reinforced by bestowing the Cross of Honor of the German Mother on women bearing four or more babies. The unemployment rate was cut substantially, mostly through arms production and sending women home so that men could take their jobs. Nazi propaganda sometimes promoted premarital and extramarital sexual relations, unwed motherhood and divorce, but at other times the Nazis opposed such behaviour.[188] The growth of Nazi power, however, was accompanied by a breakdown of traditional sexual morals with regard to extramarital sex and licentiousness.[189]” (subl.mea)

Pe de alta parte se opuneau homosexualitatii.

De asemenea Fascismul s-a bazat pe rasism. Practic un partid fascist este un partid rasist. Iata ce spunea Mussolini:

The singular, enormous problem is the destiny of the white race. Europe is truly towards the end of its destiny as the leader of civilization.” (subl. mea)

Practic un partid fascist este un partid nationalist, rasist si care exacerbeaza principiul masculinitatii, bazat pe ateism, sau, asa cum arata Wikipedia, pe un „post-crestinism”. Ideea era distrugerea crestinatatii si punerea societatii omenesti pe cu totul alte baze decat cele crestine, adica pe cele ale darwinismului social (care sa asigure si sa garanteze politica rasista) si ale interventionismului social, pentru crearea unui „om nou” si a unei „civilizatii noi” (se vad, in acest punct, asemanari izbitoare cu comunismul, deoarece si comunismul vroia sa creeze un om nou, iar homo sovieticus e doar un exemplu in acest sens). Darwinismul social le permitea sa absolutizeze conflictul, vazut ca generator de progres si civilizatie. Iar pe aceasta teorie nazistii au contruit teoria rasei superioare, care trebuia sa iasa invingatoare din ceea ce ei numeau lupta de rasa (ca de aia era superioara, nu?) care continua in competitia si conflictul dintre rase.

Iata ce ne zice Wikipedia:

„Italian Fascist Alfredo Rocco claimed that conflict was inevitable: Conflict is in fact the basic law of life in all social organisms, as it is of all biological ones; societies are formed, gain strength, and move forwards through conflict; the healthiest and most vital of them assert themselves against the weakest and less well adapted through conflict; the natural evolution of nations and races takes place through conflict.”

De unde se poate observa clar ca aceste teorii duceau la concluzia ca si razboiul este inevitabil.

Ar mai trebui remarcat ca problema avorturilor, spre exemplu, era vazuta tot din perspectiva rasiala: acestea erau deseori obligatorii pentru non-arieni. In schimb, pentru rasa ariana, „pura”, avorturile erau strict interzise. In Italia, pedepsele pentru avort au crescut in 1926, si acestea erau declarate crime impotriva statului (din nou o asemanare izbitoare cu comunismul, sau, mai exact spus, cu ceausismul).

De asemenea un alt element cararcteristic al fascismului este indoctrinarea prin folosirea aparatului de propaganda. Indoctrinarea avea drept scop glorificarea miscarii fasciste si trebuia sa sublinieze marele sau rol istoric. Fascismul era o miscare anti-intelectuala. Iata ce spune Wikipedia:

„Therefore, fascism tends to be anti-intellectual.[167] The Nazis, in particular, despised intellectuals and university professors. Hitler declared them unreliable, useless, and even dangerous.[168] He said: „When I take a look at the intellectual classes we have – unfortunately, I suppose, they are necessary; otherwise one could one day, I don’t know, exterminate them or something – but unfortunately they’re necessary.”

Si, bineineles, un regim fascist este unul dictatorial – fascistii promovau un stat totalitar. Pe de alta parte expansionismul imperialist era privit ca o necesitate. Iata ce spune un fascist japonez despre democratie:

„Japanese fascist Nakano Seigo advocated that Japan follow the Italian and German models, which were „a form of more democratic government going beyond democracy” which itself had „lost its spirit and decayed into a mechanism which insists only on numerical superiority without considering the essence of human beings.”

Iar pe de alta parte elementul central de autoritate, cheia autoritarismului, era liderul:

„A key authoritarian element of fascism is its endorsement of a prime national leader, who is often known simply as the „Leader” or a similar title, such as Duce in Italian, Führer in German, Caudillo in Spanish, Poglavnik in Croatia, or Conducător in Romanian. Fascist leaders who ruled countries were not always heads of state, but were heads of government, such as Benito Mussolini, who held power under the King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III.”

Mi se pare deosebit de important ce spune si anume ca: liderii fascisti care conduceau tara nu erau numai si sefi de stat, cat si sefii guvernului. Practic, toata puterea de decizie era concentrata in mana unui singur om – liderul!

Am facut acest preambul pentru ca oamenii ar trebui sa citeasca si sa se informeze asupra a ceea ce a fost si este fascismul. Cu o asemenea teorie nu este de glumit. Pentru ca asemenea teorii au condus la catastrofe in Istorie, la tragedii de neinchipuit! A condus la una din cele mai monstruoase file din Istoria Umanitatii – nazismul, caracterizat prin exterminarea omului de catre om si la cel de-al doilea razboi mondial.

Sa caracterizezi balacareala damboviteana drept fascism, este o exagerare ce poate fi periculoasa. Este regretabil ca se ajunge la un asemenea discurs. Astfel de discursuri pot conduce la o radicalizare absolut inutila a unei lupte politice care, ce-i drept, s-a acutizat in ultima vreme. Eu cred ca cel mai bine ar fi ca partidele noastre politice sa caute solutii economice pentru iesirea din impas. Eu cred ca aceasta ar trebui sa fie prioritatea numarul 1 si sa mai lasam prostiile despre fascism, ca nu duc la ceva bun. In niciun caz la o viata mai buna, asa cum Istoria a si demonstrat dealtfel. Ma mira ca s-a ajuns la astfel de discursuri, de pareri exprimate in tusele cele mai groase. Eu cred ca ar cam trebui sa ne calmam cu totii. Pentru ca daca vrem cu adevarat sa gasim solutii democratice, atunci le putem si gasi.

Realitatile din Romania de azi sunt destul de precare, asta e adevarat. Criza economica a determinat un declin economic ce se face simtit in viata noastra. Insa daca abordarea problemei se va face cu calm, realist, fara patima si ura, atunci se pot gasi si solutii. Trebuie spus ca solutiile depind de noi, in primul rand. Avem un stil de a astepta solutii venite din alta parte – UE, SUA, etc. Este o greseala, pentru ca nimeni nu ne va rezolva problemele.  Una e ca cineva sa te sprijine, si alta e ca sa-ti rezolve problemele. Mie mi se pare ca noi nu prea intelegem lucrul acesta. Problema nu este atat razbunarea, tragerea la raspundere si nici nu cred ca mesaje de genul: „pedepsirea vinovatilor pentru tot ce s-a gresit in acesti doi ani” vor aduce ceva bun. Deoarece acest lucru ar putea conduce spre o curba periculoasa a razbunarilor politice si ar putea produce mai multe abuzuri decat lasa sa se intrevada. In niciun caz nu este de natura sa asigure o pace sociala. Ci cred ca ar trebui sa ne mobilizam, daca se poate spune asa, capacitatea de a gasi solutii pe cale democratica, intr-un climat de pace sociala. In special solutii economice. Pacea sociala conteaza foarte mult si aceasta se poate obtine numai daca vom privi problemele si vom actiona fara patima si ura. Poate ca discursurile ingrijoratoare despre fascism pe care, iata, le vedem in editoriale si pe bloguri, reflecta tocmai aceasta stare de patima interioara si de ura, stare care ne-a cuprins pe toti, din disperare si frustrari, dar care nu este in regula. Pentru ca ne radicalizeaza inutil. Si, de suferit, tot noi vom suferi pana la urma. In general vorbind, o lume mai buna nu se poate construi asa. Iar aceste discursuri despre fascism, in felul acesta, Puterea si Opozitia gratulandu-se reciproc cu epitete care mai de care, sunt periculoase pentru ca, tot repetate, Doamne fereste, chiar ca ar putea sa ne conduca spre un astfel de regim. Si nu cred ca armonia sociala se poate obtine cu discursuri radicale.

februarie 4, 2011 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Un comentariu »

  1. […] fi rănit, în schimb, dacă îţi dăruieşti inima, acest lucru implică gesturi, fapte care să dovedească dragostea şi astfel există posibilitatea de a fi rănit. Deci, frica de iubire […]

    Pingback de Luna de pe cer este mult mai uşor de dăruit decât inima « Gabriela Elena | februarie 5, 2011 | Răspunde

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat: