Marx, Nietzsche and Rousseau. So criticize liberalism and warn the rationalists!

News from the island

• Tunisian photographer fires fire at his body and ignites protests in Kasserine
• Why does Saudi Arabia dispute Jordan's guardianship over Islamic sanctities in Jerusalem?
• Despite the strained relations .. Canada handed over military armor to Saudi Arabia
• After the promises of Bashir .. Continued protests and international concern of the number of victims
• Troubled days for Tramp .. The conflict with Congress and the disruption of the government and bleeding stock market

Liberalism has begun to identify progress bars, believes that equal rights and freedom of expression strengthen its base, rejects power concentrations, and that dominant groups tend to misrepresent their privileges, persecute others, and corrupt the public good. It also emphasizes individual dignity, which means that no one can force others to abandon their beliefs. In different ways, Russo, Marx, and Nietzsche rejected these ideas and placed them under the molar.

Rosso (1712-1778) was the most pessimistic, frankly, David Hume, Voltaire, and other Russo contemporaries thought that Enlightenment could begin to put an end to many of the societal errors. While Rousseau believes that the source of these errors, the society itself, is that humanity is free, in what it calls the "natural state", the concept of inequality is meaningless; to the individuality of natural man, that is, before the establishment of society. The stick was placed in the wheel, when someone erected a fence for the land and declared: the property. "Exterminated equality, created classes, turned vast forests into fields watered with men's sweat, and soon saw slavery, to grow side by side with crops."

Rousseau's philosophy has become an attempt to deal with the rush of the society of nature. The "social contract" opens: "Man is born free, and everywhere, the restrictions are created." The social system is not a treaty-based nature, but the social contract is to reduce the damage caused by politics. Sovereignty belongs to individuals. The government is the servant of the people. Its mandate needs legitimacy, and it can replace it two centuries ago. In the royal and aristocratic society, it was revolutionary. "Laws are always useful; for those owners, they hurt those who have nothing."

Thus, equality, though not an end in itself, must be applied as a way of addressing the selfish desires and selfishness that society generates in individuals. "In order for the social charter not to be an empty formula, anyone who refuses to obey the public will must be compelled by the whole system: that is, he has to be free."

The revolutionaries seized that formula as a justification for the tyrannical exploitation of violence, in the pursuit of tyranny. But with Rousseau's pessimism, the idea of ​​public will moves people from the state of nature. Rousseau formulated the greatest idea against the idea of ​​revolution. However, this unbroken intellectual sequence from release to coercion, even in its more moderate form, resists liberalism. When power forces the individual to act against his free will, unhindered for his own benefit, it evokes the ghost of Russo.

Marx (1818 - 1883) believed that progress would not come through debates, but through the materialism of class struggle throughout history. Like Rousseau, I believe that society - especially its economic foundations - was the source of persecution, in 1847, just before the unrest that swept through Europe: "The moment civilization begins, production begins on the basis of enmity to power, ownership, classes, The enmity of aggravated and immediate action: "No rivalry, no progress" This is the law that civilization has followed to this day.

Capitalists control the surplus produced by the labor force, and capitalism, labor, becomes commodities and deprives their humanity. While the bourgeoisie satisfies their appetites, workers must endure to live in a vicious circle. For this reason, capitalism has within it its fall. In the end, the workers will rise to sweep away the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and create a just order. This revolutionary function does not lie with a heroic leader, like Nietzsche, but with the workers as a class.

Marx wrote with Frederick Engels, in 1844: "What is the proletariat?" Four years later, in the chapeau of the Communist Manifesto they predicted the revolution: "A ghost threatens Europe - the specter of communism." Liberals believe that all individuals share the same basic needs, at least, so common rights and solidarity can lead to a better world. Marx believed that this view was at best an illusion and, at worst, an evil trick to pacify workers. He ridiculed the declaration of human rights, namely the "statement of the French Revolution" as a charter of private and individual bourgeois property, as the traps set by the ruling class.

Marx has estimated the survival power of capitalism imperfectly. The revolution has eased through peaceful change. Capitalism itself, through the fragmentation of monopolies and the regulation of transgressions, somehow transformed workers into agents, and through rights, industries expanded, workers improved and the middle class At the expense of the proletariat. Marx, because of efforts to prove the cause, suffered from the need for economic relations between capitalists and workers to end violently. However, Marx stands as a perpetual debate against the complacency of liberalism, that entrenched institutional interests seize politics and generate inequality, then pressure will begin to rise.

While Marx viewed stratification as an engine of progress, Nietzsche (1844-1900) looked at the depth, at the bottom and in the dark corridors of the dim and forgotten corners of consciousness, and saw a society reeling at the brink of moral collapse. In writing an extraordinary vitality, he describes how there was a time in the history of mankind, when noble values ​​such as courage and honor prevailed. But it was replaced during the slave revolution initiated by the Jews, inherited by the Christians under the yoke of the Babylonians and then the Romans.

The controversy (on how to reform the world) loses its purpose - to obscure the progressive formula, the last man, and the power grows - explicitly to the economic classes in Marx's thought and the impossible, superior human being of Nietzsche and through the destructive manipulation of the general will of Russo

communication Web-sites

Of course, the slaves brought everything low, and contrary to the nobility of their masters, the search for truth remained, but this undeniably led to atheism, a phenomenon that stunned, to the limits of two thousand years of absolute truth, in the heart of the world, : "God died ..." wrote Nietzsche, and they killed him. It takes courage to stare into the abyss, but in a life of pain and loneliness, daring was something Nietzsche never lacked.

He tried desperately, warning the rationalists who converted to atheism that the world could not preserve the morals of the Christian faith, without its divinity, that humanity was doomed to drown in nihilism, in a dark and meaningless darkness; Nietzsche was very objective; The nobility, the heroic spirit that yearns to say yes, to anything, Nietzsche is not susceptible to traditional criticism - because ideas flow from it in a stream of constantly evolving thought. In language play as a philosophical method, and how truth and opinion are integrated into the language, until it reaches health, eloquence in itself is a confirmation of power.

The non-liberal vision of progress has a terrible political record, called Robespierre, Rousseau; while Stalin and Mao Zedong Marx were invoked; Adolf Hitler, Benitez, was cited. The path from liberal progress to violence is not rough. The debate over how to reform the world loses its purpose - to obscure the progressive formula, the last man, and the power grows - explicitly to the economic classes in Marx's thought and to the higher, impossible man in Nietzsche, During the destructive manipulation of the general will of Russo. While power tramples the dignity of the individual, individual liberalism advances first and foremost, without monopolizing answers to questions of progress.