Nobel a Obama

Nobel a Obama:

vale la pena di ricordare la storia di sfruttamento e di sangue operato dagli Usa in America Latina

Ex: http://www.italiasociale.org/

La notizia che il presidente degli Stati Uniti, notoriamente una “nazione pacifica” e tutta votata al “bene dell’umanità”, sarebbe il prossimo candidato a riceve il Nobel per la pace, ha dell’incredibile se non del ridicolo, mentre i media Occidentali tacciono in modo connivente, chi parla invece è il presidente della Repubblica Bolivariana del Venezuela, Hugo Chavez Frias, che si dice indignato perché Obana non ha alcun requisito per meritarlo. Rispetto a Bush cambia il colore della pelle ,ma non la sostanza è la medesima.
Come al solito Chavez non usa mezze parole per definire l’ennesima messa in scena mediatica, che accompagna oramai da anni il carrozzone legato al Nobel per la pace, che se nelle intenzioni del suo fondatore doveva essere un riconoscimento importante, frutto di scelte imparziali, oramai ha ben poco dello spirito originario ed oggi rappresenta solo l’ennesima presa in giro finalizzata a dare credito a coloro che sono strettamente funzionali al potere atlantico e mondialista.
“Hugo Chavez si chiede” che cosa abbia fatto Obana per meritare il Nobel”: ha forse operato per il disarmo nucleare? Ha per caso chiesto l’immediato ritiro delle truppe Usa dai teatri operativi iracheno( 124.000 soldati) e afghano(65.000 di cui 13.000 inviati in queste ore senza alcun annuncio da parte della Casa Bianca) ,e riguardo alle nuove basi Usa in territorio colombiano, una diretta minaccia al Venezuela e a tutta l’America Latina non allineata ai diktat di Washington, forse il presidente Usa si è detto contrario?” Nulla di tutto questo possiamo starne certi è avvenuto,l’establishment che lo ha eletto e che lo dirige a distanza è quello di sempre e gli obiettivi non sono mai cambiati fin dalla nascita degli Stati Uniti: il controllo e lo sfruttamento degli altri popoli.
Che la protesta giunga proprio dall’America Latina e da quello che attualmente rappresenta il suo uomo più rivoluzionario, non ci deve sorprendere,perché è proprio questo continente ad aver pagato il maggior tributo di sangue, miseria e sfruttamento negli ultimi cinquant’anni causato dalla “ politica di rapina” nei confronti delle proprie risorse naturali ad opera delle multinazionali statunitensi, che si sono sostituite a quelle britanniche . Un’opera di destabilizzazione continua, operata di concerto con le “oligarchie” locali che mai hanno smesso di intrecciare i propri interessi con quelli delle potenze di turno dominanti nell’area.
La presenza degli Stati Uniti in America Latina è dettata dalla sete di materie ,che l’industria della potenza capitalista necessita per il suo sviluppo e senza le quali non avrebbe potuto svilupparsi in modo poderoso dalla fine della Seconda Guerra Mondiale, ma nel contempo queste ultime debbono essere a buon mercato, a prezzi quasi stracciati,perché solo così i profitti derivanti dalla trasformazione di esse in prodotti finiti possa essere massimizzato.
Seguendo l’esempio britannico ,l’altra potenza liberale, che considerava il Sud America solo un grande mercato dove esportare quello che la sua industria manifatturiera produceva dalla trasformazione delle ricchezze naturali sottratte a basso costo, gli Usa si diedero da fare per controllare con ogni mezzo il rame, l’oro, il ferro, il petrolio, il caffè ed il cacao, lo zucchero, il gas naturale ecc. di cui il terreno del continente posto a Sud del Rio Bravo abbonda con l’aggiunta di un clima favorevole che facilita ogni genere di coltivazione. Costrinsero così gli stati Sud Americani, retti da governi fantoccio e con l’onnipresente oligarchia parassitaria, alla “monocultura”, all’”abolizione di ogni forma di protezionismo economico”, alla “ totale liberalizzazione dell’economia”,così da essere più facilmente preda degli avvoltoi del cosiddetto libero mercato, alla “libera circolazione dei capitali a senso unico verso l’esterno”, a l’”imposizione di tasse sui prodotti locali”, che così gravati da imposte risultavano meno concorrenziali di quelli esteri. General Motors, Uniteted Fruit Company, Ford, Exxon, Morgan Stanley,Bank of America,US Stell Company,Anglo-American,AT&T ed altre grandi corporation si gettarono così a capofitto su quello che tranquillamente si può definire il continente più ricco della terra. La terra dell’America Latina può sfamare senza problemi le sue popolazioni, i minerali sono in tale abbondanza che possono fornire la base per qualsiasi industria,il petrolio ed il gas naturale sono presenti quasi ovunque in abbondanza, sia in terra che in mare, così come sono cospicue le riserve d’acqua dolce, legname, flora e fauna.
L’Amazzonia rappresenta una fonte quasi inesauribile di acqua dolce , assieme alla Patagonia , e le sue biodiversità non temono rivali a livello globale, e infatti sono già entrate nel mirino degli Stati Uniti ( le recenti basi installate in Colombia sono vicine proprio al bacino del Rio delle Amazzoni), mentre i capitali di Gran Bretagna e Israele puntano al Sud del continente, lasciato sguarnito dalle Forze Armate Argentine dopo la sconfitta delle Malvinas e che l’attuale governo non pare intenzionato ad arginare sufficientemente. Cedere territori ricchi in cambio di denaro oggi, vuol dire perderne il controllo e sottrarne le possibili risorse alla nazione un domani.
Ma tutto questo non potrebbe, come già accennato, accadere senza la connivenza delle oligarchie presenti nei vari stati latino americani,che non hanno mai smesso di avere rapporti diretti con quelle anglosassoni, un rapporto che ha reso vane le varie rivoluzioni nazionaliste e socialiste, attraverso cruenti colpi di stato militari, dure repressioni di ogni forma di dissidenza , svendendo così la sovranità nazionale in cambio di effimeri vantaggi economici personali. Il presidente della Colombia Uribe può benissimo capeggiare l’attuale classifica, uomo del Dipartimento di Stato Usa, della Cia , legato al narcotraffico,si è arricchito sulla pelle del popolo colombiano, che è tra i più poveri della regione.
Oggi la situazione sia pur lentamente,si presenta in via di evoluzione in senso favorevole ai popoli del continente Sud Americano, che vedono intravvedere un luce nuova da ciò che sta avvenendo in Venezuela, Bolivia ed Ecuador, che aderiscono al progetto politico ALBA, un ‘ alleanza politica di contrasto all’ingerenza Usa e di ogni altra forma d’intromissione negli affari interni dei singoli Stati.
Anche il Brasile si sta avvicinando, sia pur con un approccio da possibile potenza continentale( interessanti i progetti di cooperazione militare sviluppati con la Francia che prevedono la costruzione di un sottomarino nucleare a difesa dei giacimenti petroliferi off shore), mentre l’Argentina pare ancora per certi aspetti ibernata in una specie di limbo a cui l’ha confinata la sconfitta nella campagna per le isole Malvinas, i lunghi anni di feroce dittatura militare e le privatizzazioni volute dal governo Menem. Tutto questo cozza con le migliori aspirazioni socialiste e nazionaliste dell’ala più squisitamente peronista dell’attuale governo, quella che vorrebbe attuare a tutto campo quelle riforme sociali e di politica nazionale che già Peron introdusse nei dieci anni di governo, e che furono sotto ogni punto di vista quanto di meglio l’Argentina abbia avuto dal 1945 ad oggi.
IL RUOLO DELLE OLIGARCHIE SUD AMERICANE E DELLA CHIESA CATTOLICA
Per capire appieno come è stato possibile da parte prima della Gran Bretagna( in precedenza anche Spagna e Portogallo) e poi dagli Stati Uniti penetrare in profondità nel tessuto economico e politico degli Stati dell’America Latina, è necessario analizzare il ruolo avuto in tutto questo processo da parte delle onnipresenti oligarchie locali, la vera quinta colonna di chi ancor oggi ha mire di dominio e di sfruttamento sui popoli del continente.
Esse hanno da sempre cercato di massimizzare i profitti attraverso l’esportazione delle materie prime di cui abbonda il suolo latino americano, oro, argento, ferro , rame, a cui in varie epoche si aggiunsero il caffè, il cacao, lo zucchero, il salnitro, il guano e poi il petrolio. Tutto questo produceva immense fortune a chi ne possedeva il controllo, ma al tempo stesso non era controbilanciata dalla crescita di una adeguata industria manifatturiera che potesse utilizzare le ricchezze locali, . La ricchezza così prodotta veniva dilapidata rapidamente, creando nei secoli una totale dipendenza dall’estero, che ha letteralmente inondato con i propri prodotti finiti i mercati Sud Americani, mentre nel contempo la popolazione non riceveva che le briciole dagli enormi profitti ed era costretta a subire l’ingresso delle multinazionali, delle banche dei capitali stranieri e di forme di sfruttamento sul lavoro che perdurano tutt’ora in molte realtà. I grandi proprietari terrieri, l’alta borghesia non seppero e non vollero fare quello che invece altrove , come negli Stati Uniti era avvenuto: trasformarsi da colonie in Stati indipendenti con un ‘economia protetta, con industria e agricoltura capaci di competere con le ex potenze coloniali, reinvestendo al proprio interno i capitali guadagnati per accrescere il livello industriale ed agricolo. In questo modo mentre una ristretta cerchia di persone si arricchiva sempre più, e tesseva legami sempre più stretti con i ricchi delle potenze dominanti in cambio di un effimero potere sui propri Stati, si continuava a vivere come se nulla fosse cambiato in una sorta di rassegnazione che vedeva sempre i medesimi soggetti comandare, sperperare immense fortune ed impertare anche il superfluo; e gli altri, il popolo, subire, arrivando al paradosso che per sedare le rivolte che alla fine scoppiavano, erano chiamati gli stessi “compatrioti in divisa” da tempo sul libro paga degli sfruttatori anglosassoni. Come non ricordare la rivolta scoppiata in Cile contro gli inglesi ,rei di sfruttare a loro uso e consumo l’ingente disponibilità di salnitro, importante concime , ebbene la ribellione venne schiacciata nel sangue grazie proprio all’intervento dell’esercito cileno, la stessa cosa si ripeté nella Patagonia argentina, dove i generali repressero duramente la popolazione locale che si opponeva alla penetrazione economica britannica, e da questi ultimi ringraziati…fino ad arrivare a tempi più recenti con il golpe contro Peron e Allende , con quest’ultimo che aveva osato nazionalizzare le miniere di rame, vitali per l’economia Usa, questa volta il servo di turno si chiamava Pinochet, per finire poi con le varie varie giunte militari in Argentina,macchiatesi di crimini di massa, ma sempre funzionali al grande capitali straniero che controlla ancor oggi larghe fette di questa economia.
Non va dimenticata infine l’opera di appoggio e connivenza operato dalla chiesa cattolica, che nei suoi vertici ha da sempre appoggiato ogni forma di oppressione, stringendo uno stretto legame con il tiranno di turno. Il recente golpe in Honduras ne è la riprova, con l’immediato riconoscimento operato dalla locale chiesa al burattino di Washington Micheletti. In passato mai una volta il Vaticano è intervento per condannare gli omicidi compiuti in Argentina dai vari Lanusse e Videla, così come un ruolo di primo piano ricoprì la chiesa argentina nell’abbattimento di Peron.
Oggi assistiamo ad una nuova fase della storia di questo continente, in un mondo fino a ieri unipolare, con la potenza egemone Nord Americana costretta sulla difensiva in Medio Oriente nell’impasse afghana e irachena. Il cosiddetto “cortile di casa degli Usa” ,l’America Latina,si sta destando, anche grazie alle nuove alleanze con le potenze Euroasiatiche come la Russia di Putin e Medvedev , la Cina , l’India e l’Iran, che stanno stringendo accordi economici di importanza strategica, ed al tempo stesso disinteressate ad ogni possibile intromissione politica nel continente Sud Americano. Si sta probabilmente andando verso un mondo multipolare, strada facilitata anche dalla attuale crisi economica, che ha investito le economia liberiste. La strada non sarà facile né breve perché gli Usa non accetteranno facilmente un loro ridimensionamento globale,anche a costa di una guerra dalle conseguenze incalcolabili, ma la storia insegna che per ogni potenza c’è dopo il momento della crescita e della stabilità, quello del declino, così fu per le grandi civiltà del passato, così sarà anche per chi, come gli Stati Uniti, non lasceranno che un pessimo ricordo di se stessi.

Federico Dal Cortivo

Buenos Aires 16-10-09

16/10/2009

Nouvelle alliance entre grandes puissances?

Peter SCHOLL-LATOUR:

Nouvelle alliance entre grandes puissances?

 

Le Président Barack Obama a renoncé à installer un bouclier anti-missiles en Pologne et une gigantesque station radar en République Tchèque. On a interprété cet abandon un peu trop vite comme un signe de faiblesse. Pourtant le président américain a de bonnes raisons de rechercher  de meilleures relations avec la Russie.

 

Obama se rend compte qu’une confrontation avec la Russie irait à l’encontre des intérêts américains sur le long terme. Surtout en ce qui concerne l’Afghanistan car, là, un changement décisif est survenu. Jusqu’ici les forces armées américaines avaient pu compter sur un  approvisionnement logistique efficace et sans heurts à travers le Pakistan: ces voies d’accès au théâtre afghan sont désormais devenues extrêmement difficiles. Dans l’avenir, l’approvisionnement de l’armée américaine devra se faire principalement via les anciennes républiques soviétiques  d’Asie centrale mais aussi via le territoire russe lui-même: une disposition qui est depuis longtemps déjà une réalité pour les Allemands. Le contingent allemand de l’ISAF, en effet, se fait depuis des années par la base aérienne de Termes, située sur le frontière méridionale de l’Ouzbékistan. 

 

Compte tenu de cette nouvelle situation, il apparaît de plus en plus clairement que la Russie, elle aussi, serait menacée si des forces radicales islamistes prenaient le pouvoir à Kaboul. Moscou craint surtout une extension rapidement du mouvement des talibans au Tadjikistan, en Ouzbékistan et éventuellement au Kirghizistan, ce qui mettrait un terme au pouvoir des potentats locaux qui proviennent encore de l’ancien régime soviétique.

 

L’affirmation de l’ancien ministre allemand de la défense, Peter Struck (SPD), qui disait que “l’Allemagne se défendait sur l’Hindou Kouch”, mérite aujourd’hui d’être corrigée. En réalité, c’est la Russie que l’on défend dans l’Hindou Kouch. Car, au-delà des Etats de la CEI, c’est-à-dire dans le territoire de la Fédération de Russie elle-même, vivent 25 millions de musulmans qui pourraient devenir un sérieux foyer de troubles. Washington vient donc de reconnaître qu’il y a une convergence d’intérêts entre Russes et Américains en Asie centrale, alors que le Président George W. Bush l’avait nié, en se cramponnant sur de vieilles certitudes.

 

La Chine, elle aussi, a intérêt à combattre toute forme de radicalisme islamiste depuis que la minorité turcophone des Ouïghours se dresse contre Pékin au nom de l’islam. Voilà pourquoi le conseil de sécurité des Nations-Unies est inhabituellement unanime pour prolonger le mandat de l’ISAF en Afghanistan.Mais je doute qu’à Berlin on reconnaisse ce changement profond qui  anime les politiques des grandes puissances. Les Allemands refusent toujours de reconnaître que leur engagement en Afghanistan constitue un acte de guerre et feignent de croire benoîtement qu’ils doivent aller là-bas pour construire des écoles pour fillettes et mettre tout en oeuvre pour que les femmes ne doivent pas circuler voilées. Ce sont là, à coup sûr, des perspectives intéressantes mais qui ne légitiment pas en suffisance d’y envoyer des soldats  allemands, avec le risque éventuel qu’ils s’y fassent tuer.

 

Peter SCHOLL-LATOUR.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°43/2009; trad. franç.: Robert Steuckers).

 

A PARAITRE:

Début novembre  paraîtra en Allemagne le nouvel ouvrage du très prolifique Peter Scholl-Latour: “Die Angst des weissen Mannes – Eine Welt im Umbruch”, Propyläen Verlag, Berlin 2009, 24,90 euro.

 

Basic Bakunin

 

Basic Bakunin

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/bakunin/sp001862.html

Republished from the (British) Anarchist Communist Federation’s original pamphlet in 1993 by P.A.C. (Paterson Anarchist Collective) Publications. This electronic version has the extra ACF text added to the PAC version, for more completeness.

 

“The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of Moscow, from a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to lead a liberated humanity”
-Mikhail Bakunin

Preface

The aim of this pamphlet is to do nothing more than present an outline of what the author thinks are the key features of Mikhail Bakunin’s anarchist ideas.

Bakunin was extremely influential in the 19th century socialist movement, yet his ideas for decades have been reviled, distorted or ignored. On reading this pamphlet, it will become apparent that Bakunin has a lot to offer and that his ideas are not at all confused (as some writers would have us think) but make up a full coherent and well argued body of thought. For a detailed but difficult analysis of Bakunin’s revolutionary ideas, Richard B. Saltman’s book, “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” is strongly recommended. Ask your local library to obtain a copy.

Class

Bakunin saw revolution in terms of the overthrow of one oppressing class by another oppressed class and the destruction of political power as expressed as the state and social hierarchy. According to Bakunin, society is divided into two main classes which are fundamentally opposed to each other. The oppressed class, he variously described as commoners, the people, the masses or the workers, makes up a great majority of the population. It is in ‘normal’ time not conscious of itself as a class, though it has an ‘instinct’ for revolt and whilst unorganized, is full of vitality. The numerically much smaller oppressing class, however is conscious of its role and maintains its ascendancy by acting in a purposeful, concerted and united manner. The basic differences between the two classes, Bakunin maintained, rests upon the ownership and control of property, which is disproportionately in the hands of the minority class of capitalists. The masses, on the other hand, have little to call their own beyond their ability to work.

Bakunin was astute enough to understand that the differences between the two main classes is not always clear cut. He pointed out that it is not possible to draw a hard line between the two classes, though as in most things, the differences are most apparent at the extremes. Between these extremes of wealth and power there is a hierarchy of social strata which can be assessed according to the degree to which they exploit each other or are exploited themselves. The further away a given group is from the workers, the more likely it is to be part of the exploiting category and the less it suffers from exploitation. Between the two major classes there is a middle class or middle classes which are both exploiting and exploited, depending on their position of social hierarchy.

The masses who are the most exploited form, in Bakunin’s view, the great revolutionary class which alone can sweep away the present economic system. Unfortunately, the fact of exploitation and its resultant poverty are in themselves no guarantee of revolution. Extreme poverty is, Bakunin thought, likely to lead to resignation if the people can see no possible alternative to the existing order. Perhaps, if driven to great depths of despair, the poor will rise up in revolt. Revolts however tend to be local and therefore, easy to put down. In Bakunin’s view, three conditions are necessary to bring about popular revolution.

They are:

• sheer hatred for the conditions in which the masses find themselves
• the belief the change is a possible alternative
• a clear vision of the society that has to be made to bring about human emancipation

   

Without these three factors being present, plus a united and efficient self organization, no liberatory revolution can possibly succeed.

Bakunin had no doubts that revolution must necessarily involve destruction to create the basis of the new society. He stated that, quite simply, revolution means nothing less than war, that is the physical destruction of people and property. Spontaneous revolutions involve, often, the vast destruction of property. Bakunin noted that when circumstances demanded it, the workers will destroy even their own houses, which more often than not, do not belong to them. The negative, destructive urge is absolutely necessary, he argued, to sweep away the past. Destruction is closely linked with construction, since the “more vividly the future is visualized, the more powerful is the force of destruction.”

Given the close relationship between the concentration of wealth and power in capitalist societies, it is not surprising that Bakunin considered economic questions to be of paramount importance. It is in the context of the struggle between labor and capital that Bakunin gave great significance of strikes by workers. Strikes, he believed, have a number of important functions in the struggle against capitalism. Firstly they are necessary as catalysts to wrench the workers away from their ready acceptance of capitalism, they jolt them out of their condition of resignation. Strikes, as a form of economic and political warfare, require unity to succeed, thus welding the workers together. During strikes, there is a polarization between employers and workers. This makes the latter more receptive to the revolutionary propaganda and destroys the urge to compromise and seek deals. Bakunin thought that as the struggle between labor and capital increases, so will the intensity and number of strikes. The ultimate strike is the general strike. A revolutionary general strike, in which class conscious workers are infused with anarchist ideas will lead, thought Bakunin, to the final explosion which will bring about anarchist society.

Bakunin’s ideas are revolutionary in a very full sense, being concerned with the destruction of economic exploitation and social/political domination and their replacement by a system of social organization which is in harmony with human nature. Bakunin offered a critique of capitalism, in which authority and economic inequality went hand in hand, and state socialism, (e.g. Marxism) which is one sided in its concentration on economic factors whilst, grossly underestimating the dangers of social authority.

State

Bakunin based his consistent and unified theory upon three interdependent platforms, namely:

• human beings are naturally social (and therefore they desire social solidarity)
• are more or less equal and,
• want to be free

   

His anarchism is consequently concerned with the problem of creating a society of freedom within the context of an egalitarian system of mutual interaction. The problem with existing societies, he argued, is that they are dominated by states that are necessarily violent, anti-social, and artificial constructs which deny the fulfillment of humanity.

Whilst there are, in Bakunin’s view, many objectionable features within capitalism, apart from the state, (e.g. the oppression of women, wage slavery), it is the state which nurtures, maintains and protects the oppressive system as a whole. The state is defined as an anti-social machine which controls society for the benefit of an oppressing class or elite. It is essentially an institution based upon violence and is concerned with its maintenance of inequality through political repression. In addition the state relies upon a permanent bureaucracy to help carry out its aims. The bureaucratic element, incidentally, is not simply a tool which it promotes. All states, Bakunin believed, have internal tendencies toward self perpetuation, whether they be capitalist or socialist and are thus to be opposed as obstacles to human freedom.

It might be objected that states are not primarily concerned with political repression and violence and indeed that liberal democratic states, in particular, are much interested in social welfare. Bakunin argues that such aspects are only a disguise, and that when threatened, all states reveal their essentially violent natures. In Britain and Northern Ireland this repressive feature of state activity has come increasingly to the fore, when the state has been challenged to any significant degree, it has responded with brutal firmness.

And developments within Britain over the last couple decades tend to substantiate another feature of the state which Bakunin drew attention to, their tendency toward over increasing authoritarianism and absolutism. He believed that there were strong pressures in all states whether they are liberal, socialist, capitalist, or whatever, toward military dictatorship but that the rate of such development will vary, however according to factors such as demography, culture and politics.

Finally, Bakunin noted that states tend toward warfare against other states. Since there is no internationally accepted moral code between states, then rivalries between them will be expressed in terms of military conflict. “So long as there’s government, there will be no peace. There will only be more or less prolonged respites, armistices concluded by the perpetually belligerent states; but as soon as a state feels sufficiently strong to destroy this equilibrium to its advantage, it will never fail to do so.”

Bourgeois Democracy

Political commentators and the media are constantly singing the praises of the system of representative democracy in which every few years or so the electorate is asked to put a cross on a piece of paper to determine who will control them. This system works good insofar as the capitalist system has found a way of gaining legitimacy through the illusion that some how the voters are in charge of running the system. Bakunin’s writings on the issue are of representative democracy were made at the time when it barely existed in the world. Yet he could see on the basis of a couple of examples (the United States and Switzerland) that the widening of the franchise does little to improve the lot of the great mass of the population. True, as Bakunin noted, middle class politicians are prepared to humble themselves before the electorate issuing all sorts of promises. But this leveling of candidates before the populace disappears the day after the election, once they are transformed into members of the Parliament. The workers continue to go to work and the bourgeoisie takes up once again the problems of business and political intrigue.

Today, in the United States and Western Europe, the predominant political system is that of liberal democracy. In Britain the electoral system is patently unfair in its distribution of parliamentary seats, insofar as some parties with substantial support get negligible representation. However, even where strict proportional representation applies, the Bakuninist critique remains scathing. For the representative system requires that only a small section of the population concern itself directly with legislation and governing (in Britain a majority out of 650 MP’s (Members of Parliament)).

Bakunin’s objections to representative democracy rests basically on the fact that it is an expression of the inequality of power which exists in society. Despite constitutions guaranteeing the rights of citizens and equality before the law, the reality is that the capitalist class is in permanent control. So long as the great mass of the population has to sell its labor power in order to survive, there can not be democratic government. So long as people are economically exploited by capitalism and there are gross inequalities of wealth, there can not be real democracy. As Bakunin made clear, economic facts are much stronger than political rights. So long as there is economic privilege there will be political domination by the rich over the poor. The result of this relationship is that representatives of capitalism (bourgeois democracy) “posses in fact, if not by right, the exclusive privilege of governing.”

A common fiction that is expounded in liberal democracies is that the people rule. However the reality is that minorities necessarily do the governing. A privileged few who have access to wealth, education and leisure time, clearly are better equipped to govern than ordinary working people, who generally have little free time and only a basic education.

But as Bakunin made clear, if by some quirk, a socialist government be elected, in real terms, things would not improve much. When people gain power and place themselves ‘above’ society, he argued, their way of looking at the world changes. From their exalted position of high office the perspective on life becomes distorted and seems very different to those on the bottom. The history of socialist representation in parliament is primarily that of reneging on promises and becoming absorbed into the manners, morality and attitudes of the ruling class. Bakunin suggests that such backsliding from socialist ideas is not due to treachery, but because participation in parliament makes representatives see the world through a distorted mirror. A workers parliament, engaged in the tasks of governing would, said Bakunin, end up a chamber of “determined aristocrats, bold or timid worshipers of the principle of authority who will also become exploiters and oppressors.”

The point that Bakunin makes time and time again in his writings is that no one can govern for the people in their interests. Only personal and direct control over our lives will ensure that justice and freedom will prevail. To abdicate direct control is to deny freedom. To grant political sovereignty to others, whether under the mantle of democracy, republicanism, the people’s state, or whatever, is to give others control and therefore domination over our lives.

It might be thought that the referendum, in which people directly make laws, would be an advance upon the idea of representative democracy. This is not the case according to Bakunin, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the people are not in a position to make decisions on the basis of full knowledge of all the issues involved. Also, laws may be a complex, abstract, and specialized nature and that in order to vote for them in a serious way, the people need to be fully educated and have available the time and facilities to reflect upon and discuss the implications involved. The reality of referenda is that they are used by full-time politicians to gain legitimacy for essentially bourgeois issues. It is no coincidence that Switzerland, which has used the referendum frequently, remains one of the most conservative countries in Europe. With referenda, the people are guided by politicians, who set the terms of the debate. Thus despite popular input, the people still remain under bourgeois control.

Finally, Bakunin on the whole concept of the possibility of the democratic state: For him the democratic state is a contradiction in terms since the state is essentially about force, authority and domination and is necessarily based upon an inequality of wealth and power. Democracy, in the sense of self rule for all, means that no one is ruled. If no one rules, there can be no state. If there is a state, there can be no self rule.

Marx

Bakunin’s opposition to Marxism involves several separate but related criticisms. Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state socialist).

Firstly, Bakunin opposed what he considered to be the economic determinist element in Marx’s thought, most simply stated that “Being determines consciousness.” Put in another way, Bakunin was against the idea that the whole range of ’super structural’ factors of society, its laws, moralities, science, religion, etc. were “but the necessary after effects of the development of economic facts.” Rather than history or science being primarily determined by economic factors (e.g. the ‘mode of production’), Bakunin allowed much more for the active intervention of human beings in the realization of their destiny.

More fundamental was Bakunin’s opposition to the Marxist idea of dictatorship of the proletariat which was, in effect, a transitional state on the way to stateless communism. Marx and Engles, in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, had written of the need for labor armies under state supervision, the backwardness of the rural workers, the need for centralized and directed economy, and for wide spread nationalization. Later, Marx also made clear that a workers’ government could come into being through universal franchise. Bakunin questioned each of these propositions.

The state, whatever its basis, whether it be proletarian or bourgeois, inevitably contains several objectionable features. States are based upon coercion and domination. This domination would, Bakunin stated, very soon cease to be that of the proletariat over its enemies but would become a state over the proletariat. This would arise, Bakunin believed, because of the impossibility of a whole class, numbering millions of people, governing on its own behalf. Necessarily, the workers would have to wield power by proxy by entrusting the tasks of government to a small group of politicians.

Once the role of government was taken out of the hands of the masses, a new class of experts, scientists and professional politicians would arise. This new elite would, Bakunin believed, be far more secure in its domination over the workers by means of the mystification and legitimacy granted by the claim to acting in accordance with scientific laws (a major claim by Marxists). Furthermore, given that the new state could masquerade as the true expression of the people’s will. The institutionalizing of political power gives rise to a new group of governors with the same self seeking interests and the same cover-ups of its dubious dealings.

Another problem posed by the statist system, that of centralized statist government would, argued Bakunin, further strengthen the process of domination. The state as owner, organizer, director, financier, and distributor of labor and economy would necessarily have to act in an authoritarian manner in its operations. As can be seen by the Soviet system, a command economy must act with decision flowing from top to bottom; it cannot meet the complex and various needs of individuals and, in the final analysis, is a hopeless, inefficient giant. Marx believed that centralism, from whatever quarter, was a move toward the final, statist solution of revolution. Bakunin, in contrast opposed centralism by federalism.

Bakunin’s predictions as to the operation of Marxist states has been borne out of reality. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, talked incessantly of proletarian dictatorship and soviet power, yet inevitably, with or without wanting to, created a vast bureaucratic police state.

Unions

Most of the left in Britain view the present structures of trade unions in a positive light. This is true for members of the Labor Party, both left and right, the Communist Party, the Militant Tendency and many other Marxist organizations. These bodies wish to capture or retain control of the unions, pretty much as they stand, in order to use them for their own purposes. As a result, there are frequently bitter conflicts and maneuverings within the unions for control. This trend is most apparent in the C.P.S.A. where a vicious anti-communist right wing group alternates with the Militant Tendency and its supporters for control of the union executive and full time posts. The major exception to this is the Socialist Workers Party which advocates rank and file organization, so long as the S.W.P. can control it.

Bakunin laid the foundations of the anarchist approach to union organization and the general tendency of non-anarchist unions to decay into personal fiefdoms and bureaucracy over a century ago. Arguing in the context of union organization within the International Working Mens Association, he gave examples of how unions can be stolen from the membership whose will they are supposed to be an expression of. He identified several interrelated features which lead to the usurpation of power by union leaders.

Firstly, he indicated a psychological factor which plays a key part. Honest, hardworking, intelligent and well meaning militants win through hard work the respect and admiration of their fellow members and are elected to union office. They display self sacrifice, initiative and ability. Unfortunately, once in positions of leadership, these people soon imagine themselves to be indispensable and their focus of attention centers more and more on the machinations within the various union committees.

The one time militant thus becomes removed from the every day problems of the rank and file members and assumes the self delusion which afflicts all leaders, namely a sense of superiority.

Given the existence of union bureaucracies and secret debating chambers in which leaders decide union actions and policies, a ‘governmental aristocracy’ arises within the union structures, no matter how democratic those structures may formally be. With the growing authority of the union committees etc., the workers become indifferent to union affairs, with the exception Bakunin asserts, of issues which directly affect them e.g. dues payment, strikes etc. Unions have always had great problems in getting subscriptions from alienated memberships, a solution which has been found in the ‘check off’ system by which unions and employers collaborate to remove the required sum at source, i.e. from the pay packet.

Where workers do not directly control their union and delegate authority to committees and full-time agents, several things happen. Firstly, so long as union subscriptions are not too high, and back dues are not pressed too hard for, the substituting bodies can act with virtual impunity. This is good for the committees but brings almost to an end the democratic life of the union. Power gravitates increasingly to the committees and these bodies, like all governments substitute their will for that of the membership. This in turn allows expression for personal intrigues, vanity, ambition and self-interest. Many intra-union battles, which are ostensibly fought on ideological grounds, are in fact merely struggles for control by ambitious self seekers who have chosen the union for their career structure. This careerism occasionally surfaces in battles between rival leftists, for example where no political reasons for conflict exist. In the past the Communist Party offered a union career route within certain unions and such conflicts constantly arose.

Presumably, within the Militant Tendency, which also wishes to capture unions, the same problem exists.

Within the various union committees, which are arranged on a hierarchical basis (mirroring capitalism), one or two individuals come to dominate on the basis of superior intelligence or aggressiveness. Ultimately, the unions become dominated by bosses who hold great power in their organizations, despite the safeguards of democratic procedures and constitutions. Over the last few decades, many such union bosses have become national figures, especially in periods of Labor government.

Bakunin was aware that such union degeneration was inevitable but only arises in the absence of rank and file control, lack of opposition to undemocratic trends and the accession to union power to those who allow themselves to be corrupted. Those individuals who genuinely wish to safeguard their personal integrity should, Bakunin argued, not stay in office too long and should encourage strong rank and file opposition. Union militants have a duty to remain faithful to their revolutionary ideals.

Personal integrity, however, is an insufficient safeguard. Other, institutional and organizational factors must also be brought into play. These include regular reporting to the proposals made by the officials and how they voted, in other words frequent and direct accountability. Secondly, such union delegates must draw their mandates from the membership being subject to rank and file instructions. Thirdly, Bakunin suggests the instant recall of unsatisfactory delegates. Finally, and most importantly, he urged the calling of mass meetings and other expressions of grass roots activity to circumvent those leaders who acted in undemocratic ways. Mass meetings inspire passive members to action, creating a camaraderie which would tend to repudiate the so called leaders.

(Electronic Ed- From this, one can conclude that Bakunin was a major inspiration for the anarcho-syndicalist movement.)

Revolutionary Organization

Above all else, Bakunin the revolutionary, believed in the necessity of collective action to achieve anarchy. After his death there was a strong tendency within the anarchist movement towards the abandonment of organization in favor of small group and individual activity. This development, which culminated in individual acts of terror in the late nineteenth century France, isolating anarchism from the very source of the revolution, namely the workers.

Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state.

However, from Bakunin’s standpoint, it was the spontaneous revolt against authority by the people which is of the greatest importance. The nature of purely spontaneous uprisings is that they are uneven and vary in intensity from time to time and place to place. The anarchist revolutionary organization must not attempt to take over and lead the uprising but has the responsibility of clarifying goals, putting forward revolutionary propaganda, and working out ideas in correspondence with the revolutionary instincts of the masses. To go beyond this would undermine the whole self-liberatory purpose of the revolution. Putchism has no place in Bakunin’s thought.

Bakunin then, saw revolutionary organization in terms of offering assistance to the revolution, not as a substitute. It is in this context that we should interpret Bakunin’s call for a “secret revolutionary vanguard” and “invisible dictatorship” of that vanguard. The vanguard it should be said, has nothing in common with that of the Leninist model which seeks actual, direct leadership over the working class. Bakunin was strongly opposed to such approaches and informed his followers that “no member… is permitted, even in the midst of full revolution, to take public office of any kind, nor is the (revolutionary) organization permitted to do so… it will at all times be on the alert, making it impossible for authorities, governments and states to be established.” The vanguard was, however, to influence the revolutionary movement on an informal basis, relying on the talents of it’s members to achieve results. Bakunin thought that it was the institutionalization of authority, not natural inequalities, that posed a threat to the revolution. The vanguard would act as a catalyst to the working classes’ own revolutionary activity and was expected to fully immerse itself in the movement. Bakunin’s vanguard then, was concerned with education and propaganda, and unlike the Leninist vanguard party, was not to be a body separate from the class, but an active agent within it.

The other major task of the Bakuninist organization was that it would act as the watchdog for the working class. Then, as now, authoritarian groupings posed as leaders of the revolution and supplied their own members as “governments in waiting.” The anarchist vanguard has to expose such movements in order that the revolution should not replace one representative state by another ‘revolutionary’ one. After the initial victory, the political revolutionaries, those advocates of so-called workers’ governments and the dictatorship of the proletariat, would according to Bakunin try “to squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the course and the name of the revolution, seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries reconstitute the state. We on the other hand, must awaken and foment all the dynamic passions of the people.”

 

Anarchy

Throughout Bakunin’s criticisms of capitalism and state socialism he constantly argues for freedom. It is not surprising, then, to find that in his sketches of future anarchist society that the principle of freedom takes precedence. In a number of revolutionary programs he outlined which he considered to be the essential features of societies which would promote the maximum possible individual and collective freedom. The societies envisioned in Bakunin’s programs are not Utopias, the sense of being detailed fictional communities, free of troubles, but rather suggest the basic minimum skeletal structures which would guarantee freedom. The character of future anarchist societies will vary, said Bakunin depending on a whole range of historical, cultural, economic and geographical factors.

The basic problem was to lay down the minimum necessary conditions which would bring about a society based upon justice and social welfare for all and would also generate freedom. The negative, that is, destructive features of the programs are all concerned with the abolition of those institutions which lead to domination and exploitation. The state, including the established church, the judiciary, state banks and bureaucracy, the armed forces and the police are all to be swept away. Also, all ranks, privileges, classes and the monarchy are to be abolished.

The positive, constructive features of the new society all interlink to promote freedom and justice. For a society to be free, Bakunin argued, it is not sufficient to simply impose equality. No, freedom can only be achieved and maintained through the full participation in society of a highly educated and healthy population, free from social and economic worries. Such an enlightened population, can then be truly free and able to act rationally on the basis of a popularly controlled science and a thorough knowledge of the issues involved.

Bakunin advocated complete freedom of movement, opinion, morality where people would not be accountable to anyone for their beliefs and acts. This must be, he argued, complete and unlimited freedom of speech, press and assembly. Freedom, he believed, must be defended by freedom, for to “advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being defended is a dangerous delusion.” A truly free and enlightened society, Bakunin said, would adequately preserve liberty. An ordered society, he thought, stems not from suppression of ideas, which only breeds opposition and factionalism, but from the fullest freedom for all.

This is not to say that Bakunin did not think that a society has the right to protect itself. He firmly believed that freedom was to be found within society, not through its destruction. Those people who acted in ways that lessen freedom for others have no place; These include all parasites who live off the labor of others. Work, the contribution of one’s labor for the creation of wealth, forms the basis of political rights in the proposed anarchist society. Those who live by exploiting others do not deserve political rights. Others, who steal, violate voluntary agreements within and by society, inflict bodily harm etc. can expect to be punished by the laws which have been created by that society. The condemned criminal, on the other hand, can escape punishment by society by removing himself/herself from society and the benefits it confers. Society can also expel the criminal if it so wishes. Basically thought, Bakunin set great store on the power of enlightened public opinion to minimize anti-social activity.

Bakunin proposed the equalization of wealth, though natural inequalities which are reflected in different levels of skill, energy and thrift, should he argued be tolerated. The purpose of equality is to allow individuals to find full expression of their humanity within society. Bakunin was strongly opposed to the idea of hired labor which if introduced into an anarchist society, would lead to the reintroduction of inequality and wage slavery. He proposed instead collective effort because it would, he thought, tend to be more efficient. However, so long as individuals did not employ others, he had no objection to them working alone.

Through the creation of associations of labor which could coordinate worker’s activities, Bakunin proposed the setting up of an industrial assembly in order to harmonize production with the demand for products. Such an assembly would be necessary in the absence of the market. Supplied with statistical information from the various voluntary organization who would be federated, production could be specialized on an international basis so that those countries with inbuilt economic advantages would produce most efficiently for the general good. Then, according to Bakunin, waste, economic crisis and stagnation “will no longer plague mankind; the emancipation of human labor will regenerate the world.”

Turning to the question of the political organization of society, Bakunin stressed that they should all be built in such a way as to achieve order through the realization of freedom on the basis of the federation of voluntary organizations. In all such political bodies power is to flow “from the base to the summit” and from “the circumference to the center/” In other words, such organizations should be the expressions of individual and group opinions, not directing centers which control people.

On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals, groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic political unit, the completely autonomous commune. The commune, on the basis of universal suffrage, would elect all of its functionaries, law makers, judges, and administrators of communal property.

The commune would decide its own affairs but, if voluntarily federated to the next tier of administration, the provincial assembly, its constitution must conform to the provincial assembly. Similarly, the constitution of the province must be accepted by the participating communes. The provincial assembly would define the rights and obligations existing between communes and pass laws affecting the province as a whole. The composition of the provincial assembly would be decided on the basis of universal suffrage.

Further levels of political organization would be the national body, and, ultimately, the international assembly. As regards international organization, Bakunin proposed that there should be no permanent armed forces, preferring instead, the creation of local citizens’ defense militias. Disputes between nations and their provinces would be settled by an international assembly. This assembly, if required, could wage war against outside aggressors but should a member nation of the international federation attack another member, then it faces expulsion and the opposition of the federation as a whole.

Thus, from root to branch, Bakunin’s outline for anarchy is based upon the free federation of participants in order to maximize individual and collective well being.

Bakunin’s Relevance Today

Throughout most of this pamphlet Bakunin has been allowed to speak for himself and any views by the writer of the pamphlet are obvious. In this final section it might be valuable to make an assessment of Bakunin’s ideas and actions.

With the dominance of Marxism in the world labor and revolutionary movements in the twentieth century, it became the norm to dismiss Bakunin as muddle-headed or irrelevant. However, during his lifetime he was a major figure who gained much serious support. Marx was so pressured by Bakunin and his supporters that he had to destroy the First International by dispatching it to New York. In order that it should not succumb to Anarchism, Marx killed it off through a bureaucratic maneuver.

Now that Marxism has been seriously weakened following the collapse of the USSR and the ever increasingly obvious corruption in China, Bakunin’s ideas and revolutionary Anarchism have new possibilities. If authoritarian, state socialism has proved to be a child devouring monster, then libertarian communist ideas once again offer a credible alternative.

The enduring qualities of Bakunin and his successors are many, but serious commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state must rank high. Bakunin was much more of a doer than a writer, he threw himself into actual insurrections, much to the trepidation of European heads of state. This militant tradition was continued by Malatesta, Makhno, Durruti, and many other anonymous militants. Those so-called anarchists who adopt a gradualist approach are an insult to Anarchism. Either we are revolutionaries or we degenerate into ineffective passivism.

Bakunin forecast the dangers of statist socialism. His predictions of a militarized, enslaved society dominated by a Marxist ruling class came to pass in a way that even Bakunin could not have fully envisaged. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin outstripped even the Tsars in their arrogance and brutality. And, after decades of reformist socialism which have frequently formed governments, Bakunin’s evaluations have been proved correct. In Britain we have the ultimate insult to working people in the form of “socialist Lords”. For services to capitalism, Labor MP’s are ultimately granted promotion to the aristocracy.

Bakunin fought for a society based upon justice, equality and freedom. Unlike political leaders of the left he had great faith in the spontaneous, creative and revolutionary potential of working people. His beliefs and actions reflect this approach. So, revolutionaries can learn much of value from his federalism, his militancy and his contempt for the state, which, in the twentieth century, has assumed gigantic and dangerous proportions, Bakunin has much to teach us but we too must develop our ideas in the face of new challenges and opportunities. We must retain the revolutionary core of his thought yet move forward. Such is the legacy of Bakunin.

With this in mind, the Anarchist Communist Federation is developing a revolutionary anarchist doctrine, which whilst being ultimately based on Bakunin’s ideas, goes much further to suit the demands of present-day capitalism. Ecological issues, questions of imperialist domination of the world, the massive oppression of women, the automation of industry, computerized technology etc. are all issues that have to be tackled. We welcome the challenge!

 

FURTHER READING

There are two main compilations of Bakunin’s works which are quite readily available through public libraries. They are “Bakunin on Anarchy” edited by Sam Dolgoff and “The Political Philosophy of Bakunin” edited by G.P. Maximoff. Also worth looking at, if you can get hold of them are “The Basic Bakunin – Writings 1869-1871″ edited by Robert M. Cutler and “Mikhail Bakunin – From Out of the Dustbin”, edited by the same person.

For an understanding of the full profundity of Bakunin’s ideas, there is nothing to match “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” by Richard B Saltman. This American publication should be available through your local library.

Bakunin’s works currently available:

• “God and the State”
• “Marxism, Freedom and the State” (edited by K.J. Kenafik)
• “The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State”
• “Statism and Anarchy” (heavy going) ed. Marshall Shatz.

L'instant brûlant

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1998

L'instant brûlant

 

Quand meurt un homme, le chant de sa vie est joué dans l'éther. Il a le droit d'écouter jusqu'à ce qu'il passe au silence. Il prête alors une oreille si attentive au milieu des souffrances, de l'inquiétude. En tout cas, celui qui imagina le chant était un grand maître. Cependant, le chant ne peut être perçu dans la pureté du son que là où disparaît la volonté, là où elle cède à l'abnégation (1).

 

Ernst Jünger s'est avancé, ce 17 février 1998, vers des régions où les ciseaux de la Parque ne tranchent pas.

 

Les réactions lorsque fut annoncé ce deuil dans le monde des Lettres et de la pensée furent tristement coutumières. En ces temps où prévaut le “politiquement conforme”, certains critiques se sont distingués par des analyses sinon élogieuses (comme l'excellent article de Dominique Venner paru dans Enquête sur l'Histoire) du moins pertinentes (dans un magazine allemand inattendu, Focus). D'autres, zélés contempteurs inféodés à une idéologie qu'ils servent dans les organes de la presse française et allemande, se sont empressés de diffamer une œuvre qu'ils ne se sont jamais donnés la peine de lire et l'avouent parfois. Diable! Le personnage est agaçant: doté tout à la fois d'un esprit d'une rare fécondité et d'une vigueur phy­sique non moins surprenante qui lui a permis de traverser la presque totalité du XX° siècle, ce plus que centenaire n'a eu de cesse d'aimer son pays, de ne se rétracter en rien: écrits bellicistes à l'issue de la Première Guerre mondiale, vision éli­tiste, contemplation douloureuse lors de l'entre-deux guerres... Il n'a rien renié; seul parfois l'angle de la perspective devait changer, mais faut-il forcer un homme à n'être qu'un bloc monolithique? Toutefois, est-il décent, en cette période, de s'irriter des réactions coutumières quand on prononce le nom de Jünger, de dresser dès à présent le bilan de l'œuvre? Les lecteurs fidèles préféreront encore se tourner vers cet Eveilleur qui a su nous offrir une élégante méditation philosophique et poétique sur les maux qui rongent notre civilisation.

 

Les ciseaux de la Parque... Par respect pour ce “passage” qui intriguait tant Ernst Jünger, nous évoquerons dans ces co­lonnes sa métaphysique de la mort, qui apparaît dès 1928 dans la première version du Cœur aventureux. Car à force d'avoir voulu préciser les choix politiques souvent au sens large de Jünger, on a souvent oublié que cet auteur, s'il avait voulu agir sur l'histoire, ne s'intéressait pas moins aux questions d'ordre spirituel. Or, parler de la mort consiste justement à se plonger dans les eaux régénératrices de la spiritualité. Reportons-nous à un texte révélateur de 1928

 

La vie est un nœud qui se noue et se dénoue dans l'obscurité. Peut-être la mort sera-t-elle notre plus grande et plus dange­reuse aventure, car ce n'est pas sans raison que l'aventurier recherche ses bords enflammés (2).

 

Le symbole de l'entortillement

 

Procréation et mort marquent la fin du lacet, de ce noeud coulant qui, relié à son principe du domaine éternel, pénètre dans le règne terrestre. Pour Jünger, vie et mort sont intimement liées. Dans sa seconde version du Cœur aventureux qui paraît en 1938, Jünger recourt une nouvelle fois au symbole de l'entortillement. La théorie du lacet fait alors partie intégrante de l'initiation de Nigromontanus, maître mystérieux et charismatique. Le principe qu'il explique suppose une manière supé­rieure de se soustraire aux circonstances empiriques.

 

Il [Nigromontanus] nommait la mort le plus étrange voyage que l'homme puisse faire, un véritable tour de passe, la capuche de camouflage par excellence, aussi la plus ironique réplique dans l'éternelle controverse, l'ultime et l'imprenable citadelle de tous les êtres libres et vaillants (3).

 

Cet aspect nous ramène aux liens qu'entretiennent la mort et la liberté pour Jünger. Qui craint la mort doit renoncer à sa liberté. Le renforcement puissant de cette dernière n'est possible que si l'on part de la certitude que l'homme, en mourant, ne disparaît pas dans le néant, mais se voit élevé dans un être éternel. Aussi la pensée de Jünger tourne-t-elle sans cesse autour de la mort, parce qu'il veut infiniment fortifier la position de la liberté et assurer l'essence éternelle de l'homme. Ces idées acquises sur les champs de bataille, il les émet encore dans Heliopolis  en 1949 et dans l'essai Le Mur du Temps, paru en 1959.

 

Celui qui ne connaît pas la crainte de la mort est l'égal des dieux (4).

 

Une conception grecque et platonicienne de la mort

 

La conception jüngerienne de la mort, en rien chrétienne, est influencée par la pensée grecque, notamment platonicienne. Les lectures attentives des dialogues Phédon, Gorgias, La République (notamment le X° chapitre) ont laissé leur trace dans l'œuvre jüngerienne. L'anamnèse  platonicienne, nous la retrouvons formulée dans la deuxième version du Cœur aventu­reux et plus précisément dans “La mouche phosphorescente”. Jünger rapporte de la conversation de deux enfants qu'il sur­prit un jour cette phrase qui fusa, telle une illumination intellectuelle:

 

Et sais-tu ce que je crois? Que ce que nous vivons ici, nous le rêvons seulement; mais quand nous serons morts, nous vi­vrons la même chose en réalité (5).

 

La vie semble se réduire à n'être que le reflet de cette vie véritable, impérissable, qui ne jaillit qu'au-delà de la mort. Voyons-y une fois encore le triomphe de l'être intemporel sur l'existence terrestre, qui est déterminée par le temps qui s'écoule perpétuellement!

 

Nous trouvons chez Jünger une inversion de la mort, comme si cette dernière signifiait en fait le réveil d'un rêve étrange, peut-être même mauvais. Cela n'est pas sans évoquer la métaphysique de la mort, telle que l'avait formulée le romantique Novalis dans les Hymnes à la Nuit et le roman Heinrich von Ofterdingen.

 

Le monde devient rêve, le rêve devient monde [...]

Mélancolie et volupté, mort et vie

Sont ici en intime sympathie (6)

 

Idéalisation de la nuit et goût de l'outre-tombe

 

L'idéalisation de la nuit qui apparaît au cours du XIX° siècle dans le culte lamartinien de l'automne, le goût de l'outre-tombe, l'attraction de la mort sur Goethe, sur Novalis et sur Nodier, la nécrophilie de Baudelaire, jette encore des feux de vie dans la pensée de Jünger. Le procès intenté à la raison comme nous l'avons perçu au XIX° siècle se poursuit au XX° siècle contre l'idéologie positiviste; cette véritable offensive vient des horizons les plus variés: citons R. von Hartmann et sa Métaphysique de l'Inconscient, Barrès et le Culte du Moi, Bergson et l'Evolution créatrice ou l'Essai sur les données im­médiates de la conscience. La redécouverte de l'inconscient des psychanalystes est aussi certainement liée à cette révolte.

 

La mort apparaît comme l'ultime libération de l'esprit du monde de la matière. A cet égard, la nouvelle “Liebe und Wiederkunft” —“amour et retour”—, très révélatrice, traduit une philosophie de l'histoire où des événements similaires se produisent sans cesse dans le même ordre, un retour de l'identique sous des formes différentes. L'histoire déjà parue dans la première version du Cœur aventureux  localise à Leisnig le passage à l'écriture et se voit dotée d'un titre une décennie plus tard. Jünger s'est alors contenté de préciser ici une image, d'affiner une idée ou de changer là l'emploi d'un temps ver­bal; il n'a en rien touché le contenu de l'histoire.

 

La trame est simple. Le narrateur, un officier, est tout d'abord naufragé sur une île de l'Océan Atlantique. Recueilli par une vertueuse femme qui prit le voile, il se rend peu à peu à l'évidence qu'une relation séculaire les lie l'un à l'autre. La fonction de cette femme consiste à soigner et à veiller les hommes qui, pour avoir goûté une belle plante narcotique, dorment le lourd sommeil du coma. Malgré les injonctions de la religieuse, le narrateur n'y résiste pas non plus et devient lui-même la proie du sommeil et du rêve. Pourtant, le voilà de nouveau sur l'île, menacée cette fois par l'inimitié d'une flotte espagnole! Hôte d'une généreuse famille pirate, amoureux de la fille de la maison, le narrateur se prépare, chevaleresque, à livrer combat. Or, n'aperçoit-il pas soudain une fleur merveilleuse, ne succombe-t-il pas encore à l'impérieux désir de la goûter?

 

Dans la dernière lueur du crépuscule, j'eus le temps encore de pressentir que je vivrais d'innombrables fois pour rencon­trer cette même jeune fille, pour manger cette même fleur, pour m'abîmer de cette même manière, tout comme d'innombrables fois déjà ces choses avaient été mon lot (7).

 

Une fleur aux couleurs du danger: le rouge, le jaune

 

Cette singulière histoire nous permet de mieux cerner la double nature de l'homme, ce qui fonde son originalité et son drame: son âme est immortelle et son corps périssable. Il est certain que la présence de cette fleur ne peut qu'évoquer le symbole le plus connu de toute l'œuvre de Novalis, la fleur bleue qui enchante le roman Heinrich von Ofterdingen et qui marque, de par ses racines et la couleur céleste de ses pétales, l'union de la terre et du ciel. La fleur jüngerienne n'est pas parée du bleu spirituel et bienfaisant. Ses pétales arborent les teintes de la vie et du danger, le jaune et le rouge (8); tout comme Goethe, rappelons-le, Jünger devait conférer une signification particulière aux couleurs. La fleur, belle et mena­çante, figure l'instabilité essentielle de l'être , qui est voué à une évolution perpétuelle. Ernst Jünger semble admettre que la mort n'est pas un fait définitif, mais une simple étape de la série des transformations auxquelles tout être est soumis. La réminiscence d'un état antérieur, telle qu'elle semble affecter l'imagination nocturne de Jünger et que nous venons d'évoquer, soulève le délicat problème de l'incarnation successive des âmes et dramatise ainsi la notion d'un éternel retour. Ne soyons donc pas surpris de trouver dans Le Cœur aventureux les très célèbres vers de Goethe:

 

Ah, tu étais ma sœur ou ma femme, en des temps révolus (9).

 

Ces vers impliquent la reconnaissance des choses entre elles, de leurs liens, une conscience de leur parenté qui peut dé­passer le cadre restreint de l'espèce humaine; d'ailleurs Jünger, dans le même passage, se fait écho de Byron:

 

Les monts, les vagues, le ciel ne font-ils partie de moi et de mon âme, et moi-même d'eux? (10).

 

La mort est le “souvenir le plus fort”

 

Finalement, la mort est pour Jünger un souvenir enfoui au plus profond de la mémoire, “le souvenir le plus fort” “der Tod ist unsere stärkste Erinnerung”  (aHl, 75). L'homme qui, pour Jünger, représente infiniment plus que le corps physique, est doté d'une mémoire qui semble survivre à la destruction de la matière. Le dualisme de la vision anthropologique que nous décelons ici évoque celui de Platon, qui stipula la primauté de l'âme sur le corps. Fidèle à ses influences pythagoriciennes, Platon reprit à son compte l'idée de l'immortalité de l'âme; dans sa préexistence ou postexistence, l'âme voit les idées, mais en s'incarnant dans sa prison de chair, elle les oublie. Rappelons-nous que celui qui, chez Hadès, conserve la mé­moire transcende la condition mortelle, échappe au cycle des générations. D'après Platon, les âmes assoiffées doivent éviter de boire l'eau du Léthé car l'oubli, qui constitue pour l'âme sa maladie propre, est tout simplement l'ignorance. Voilà peut-être la raison pour laquelle les Grecs prêtaient à Mnémosyne “mémoire”, la mère des Muses, de grandes vertus! L'histoire que chante la Titanide est déchiffrement de l'Invisible; la mémoire est fontaine d'immortalité. Nous pensons trouver ici un lointain écho de cette sagesse antique chez Jünger car, dans son œuvre, le contact avec l'autre monde est permis grâce à la mémoire. Celle-ci joue donc un rôle fondamental dans l'affirmation de l'identité personnelle et nous ne pouvons que souligner cette faveur qu'elle trouve auprès de Jünger, si l'on se réfère à ses journaux intimes, ces voyages entrepris dans les profondeurs du moi et d'où surgissent à la conscience des aspects nouveaux de l'être, mêlé parfois à toute une tonalité poétique.

 

L'aspect orphique de Jünger

 

Le roman philosophique Eumeswil  (1977), à cet égard très révélateur, montre l'aspect orphique de Jünger. La mémoire, par l'intermédiaire du Luminar, fait tomber la barrière qui sépare le présent du passé. Que ce soit par le biais du Luminar ou par l'évocation des morts dans le jardin de Vigo, un pont est jeté entre le monde des vivants, au-delà duquel retourne tout ce qui a quitté la lumière du soleil. Cette évocation des morts n'est pas sans éveiller à notre mémoire le rituel homérique, qui connaît deux temps forts: d'une part, l'appel chez les vivants et, d'autre part, la venue au jour, pour un bref moment, d'un défunt remonté du monde infernal. Le voyage d'un vivant au pays des morts semble également possible, ainsi le chamane Attila qui s'aventura dans les forêts.

 

La place centrale que les mythes de type eschatologique accordèrent à la mémoire indique l'attitude de refus à l'existence temporelle. Si Jünger exalte autant la mémoire, nous pouvons nous demander s'il n'est pas mû par la tentation d'en faire une puissance qui lui permette de réaliser la sortie du Temps et le retour du divin.

 

Qu'en est-il du vieil homme? Dans l'attente de l'ultime rendez-vous, habitué à la mort pour l'avoir côtoyée sur les fronts, dans les deuils et les déchirements qu'elle causa, il ne peut abandonner une inquiétude, qu'il exprime Deux fois Halley:

 

Au contraire, ce qui me préoccupe depuis longtemps, c'est la question du franchissement; une coupe en terre est trans­formée en or, puis en lumière. A cela une seule chose m'inquiète: c'est de savoir si l'on prend encore connaissance de cette élévation, si l'on s'en rend encore compte (11).

 

Parques, Moires, Nornes

 

Quelques années plus tard paraît le journal Les Ciseaux, que Jünger écrivit de 1987 à 1989. L'outil bien anodin dont il est ici question appartient aux sœurs filandières des Enfers qui filent et tranchent le fil de nos destinées. Etrangères au monde olympien, ces Parques ou Moires du monde hellénique sont les déesses de la Loi. Lachésis tourne le fuseau et enroule le fil de l'existence, Clotho, la fileuse, tient la quenouille et file la destinée au moment de la naissance. La fatale Atropos coupe le fil et détermine la mort. La représentation ternaire des fileuses, également présente dans le religieux germanique où les Nornes filent la destinée des dieux et celle des hommes, évoque la trinité passé, présent et futur et nous permet d'entrer dans la temporalité. Ce fil est le lien qui nous attache à notre destinée humaine, nous lie à notre mort. Ce qui importe ici, c'est que, d'une part, l'outil retenu par Jünger ne soit ni le fuseau ni la quenouille mais bien les ciseaux de la divinité morti­cole et que, d'autre part, Jünger valorise non le fil ou le tissage mais la coupure par les ciseaux.

 

Le titre de l'essai et les discrètes allusions aux Moires, à ces divinités du destin, intègrent l'écrit dans l'ensemble de la ré­flexion jüngerienne sur le temps et la temporalité. Quoi d'étonnant à ce qu'il établisse des correspondances secrètes avec ses écrits antérieurs et jongle avec des idées abondamment traitées dans le passé! Les allusions au Travailleur, au Mur du temps sont nombreuses; sans grande peine, nous retrouvons Le Traité du Sablier, Le Problème d'Aladin, Eumeswil et même la théorie du “lacet” propre au Cœur aventureux. Cette œuvre de continuité qui n'est certes pas l'écrit le plus origi­nal de Jünger, prend l'aspect d'une récapitulation. Dans cet écrit tout en nuances, à défaut d'avoir énoncé des théories véri­tablement nouvelles, Jünger a composé une série d'accords d'accompagnements, s'attaquant à des problèmes essentiels de notre temps. Les Ciseaux sont en cela une méditation sur les aventures de notre siècle qu'ils posent, sur un fond de dua­lisme entre races divines, le problème crucial de l'éthique dans un monde où la science et le progrès technique repoussent les frontières d'une science morale désormais dépassée. Nous reconnaissons cette volonté d'ordonner le monde à d'autres fins que matérialistes.

 

Jünger considère le Temps sous la loi de deux règnes, d'une part celle du temporel où les ciseaux d'Atropos ne coupent pas et annoncent cet infini comme nous pouvons déjà le percevoir dans les rêves et l'extase. L'essai parle donc de la cons­cience jüngerienne de la mort et de cette douloureuse et inquiétante question du passage, de l'ultime franchissement.

 

Du comportement psychologique des agonisants

 

Cette curiosité incite l'auteur à s'interroger sur l'état de mort temporelle et sur les souvenirs des rares patients qui, rappe­lés à la vie, reprochent à leur médecin de les avoir empêchés de passer le tunnel de la mort (Schere, 73 sq). Sensible peut-être à cette vague déferlante de littérature occultiste qui aborde depuis quelques années la vie postmortelle, (est-là un pré­sage de l'ère du Verseau?) ne va-t-il pas jusqu'à citer Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (12), cette femme d'origine suisse aléma­nique, installée aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique? En sa qualité de médecin, elle édita de nombreux ouvrages portant sur le com­portement psychologique des agonisants; elle examina les récits des patients qu'avaient ressuscités les nouvelles tech­niques médicales de la réanimation, c'est-à-dire des injections d'adrénaline dans le cœur ou des électrochocs. Certains “revenants” que la médecine avait considérés cliniquement morts après avoir préalablement constaté un arrêt cardiaque, une absence de respiration et d'activité cérébrale, confièrent les expériences étranges qui leur étaient alors advenues pen­dant ces instants.

 

Or, la similitude des descriptions, l'exactitude des récits excluaient tout rêve ou toute hallucination. C'est ce qui incita le médecin à voir là une preuve d'existence post-mortelle. Voilà un sujet épineux où l'on se heurte tant aux théologiens horri­fiés à l'idée d'un éventuel blasphème qu'aux doctes gardiens de la Science! Le raisonnement scientifique ne saurait rien admettre qui ne soit entièrement évident et ne forme un tout cohérent; la pensée qui en résulte, disciplinée par la rigoureuse volonté d'ordonner selon une méthode la plupart du temps linéaire et déductive, va par étapes successives de la simplicité à la complexité dans un ordre logique et chronologique. Or, dans le présent cas, la finalité du témoignage peut être sujette au même doute que son contenu. Il est donc bien évident que les thèses alléguées par E. Kübler-Ross ne peuvent, dans le meilleur des cas, remporter l'unanimité du monde scientifique et, dans le pire, ne peuvent qu'être rejetées car la science accueille avec méfiance des assertions qu'elle juge a priori insanes.

 

Toutefois, comme si Jünger voulait imposer le silence aux contempteurs de théories qu'il semble lui partager, comme s'il doutait aussi de cette méthode scientifique dont on aperçoit les limites, il cite des autorités médicales, aussi ambiguës soient-elles, ou nous livre les réflexions d'un ami, Hartmut Blersch, médecin lui aussi de son état. Ce dernier, traitant des personnes âgées, a écrit une étude non éditée: “Die Verwandlung des Sterbens durch den Descensus ad infernos” [La transformation de l'agonie par la Descente aux Enfers] (13) et a permis à Jünger d'en inclure quelques extraits dans Les Ciseaux. Jünger a tourné le dos à l'intelligence rationnelle du discours et à certaines acquisitions du savoir scientifique il y a longtemps déjà. De nos jours, une telle approche, qualifiée d'irrationnelle invite ses représentants à douter de la validité, du sérieux que l'on pourrait accorder à une telle pensée, à voir dans cette réaction antimatérialiste une régression vers un nou­vel obscurantisme. Il n'en est pas moins vrai que Jünger, s'inscrivant déjà dans toute une tradition, reflète les angoisses qui oppressent son temps. Car cette mythologie d'une vie post-mortelle exerce sur nos contemporains une fascination qui dé­passe le simple divertissement.

 

Placidité et sagesse où la mort devient conquête

 

Les conceptions irrationnelles de Jünger ont toujours damé le pion à la divine raison. Ainsi avait-il conclu son ouvrage Approches, drogues et ivresse:

 

L'approche est confirmée par ce qui survient, ce qui est présent est complété par ce qui est absent. Ils se rencontrent dans le miroir qui efface temps et malaise. Jamais le miroir ne fut aussi vide, dépourvu ainsi de poussière et d'image —deux siècles se sont chargé de cela. En plus, le cognement dans l'atelier  —le rideau devient transparent; la scène est libre (14).

 

C'est peut-être justement dans cette irrationalité que Jünger puise cette placidité et cette sagesse où la mort elle-même devient conquête. Esprit téméraire, Jünger s'est avancé, vigilant, vers ces régions où les ciseaux de la Parque ne tranchent pas.

 

Tout comme jadis où, jeune héros incontesté, il glorifiait l'instant dangereux, le vieil homme avait renoncé à l'histoire, à percevoir le temps de manière continue; il est demeuré fasciné par cette seconde brûlante où tout se joue, ce duel sans merci où la vie et la mort s'affrontent:

 

L'histoire n'a pas de but; elle est. La voie est plus importante que le but dans la mesure où elle peut, à tout instant, en parti­culier à celui de la mort devenir le but (15).

 

Isabelle FOURNIER.

 

Notes:

 

(1) Sgraffitti, [première parution, Antaios, 1960, Stuttgart] in Jüngers Werke, Bd. VII, Essays III, p. 354: «Wenn ein Mensch stirbt, wird sein Lebenslied im Äther gespielt. Er darf es mithören, bis er ins Schweigen übergeht. Er lauscht dann so aufmerksam in­mitten der Qualen, der Unruhe. In jedem Fall war es ein großer Meister, der das Lied ersann. Doch kann es in seinem reinen Klange nur vernommen werden, wo der Wille erlischt, wo er der Hingabe weicht».

(2) Das abenteurliche Herz 1, Berlin, 1928 [1929], p. 76: «Das Leben ist eine Schleife, die sich im Dunkeln schürzt und löst. Vielleicht wird der Tod unser größtes und gefährlichstes Abenteuer sein, denn nicht ohne Grund sucht der Abenteurer immer wieder seine flammenden Ränder auf».

(3) Das abenteurliche Herz 2, Berlin, 1938 [1942], p. 38: «Er nannte den Tod die wundersamste Reise, die der Mensch ver­möchte, ein wahres Zauberstück, die Tarnkappe aller Tarnkappen, auch die ironische Replik im ewigen Streit, die letzte und un­greifbare Burg aller Freien und Tapferen».

(4) An der Zeitmauer, [première parution Antaios, 1, 209-226], Stuttgart, 1959, p. 159: «Wer keine Todesfurcht kennt, steht mit Göttern auf vertrautem Fuß».

(5) Das abenteureliche Herz 2, ibid., p. 102: «[...] und weißt du, was ich glaube? Was wir hier leben, ist nur geträumt; wir erleben aber nach dem Tode dasselbe in Wirklichkeit».

(6) Novalis, Hymnen an die Nacht, Heinrich von Ofterdingen. Goldmann Verlag, Stuttgart, 1979, p. 161-162: «Die Welt wird Traum, der Traum wird Welt[...]/Wehmuth und Wollust, Tod und Leben/ Sind hier in innigster Sympathie».

(7) Das abenteureliche Herz 2, ibid. p. 83: «Im letzten Schimmer des Lichtes ahnte ich noch: Ich würde unzählige Male leben, demselben Mädchen begegnen, dieselbe Blume essen und daran zugrunde gehen, ebenso wie dies bereits unzählige Male geschehen war».

(8) voir à ce propos le symbolisme des couleurs dans le Cœur aventureux.

(9) Das abenteurliche Herz 1, ibid., p. 74: «Ach, du warst in abgebten Zeiten/ Meine Schwester oder meine Frau».

(10) Das abenteurliche Herz 1, ibid., p. 74: «Sind Berge, Wellen, Himmel nicht ein Teil von mir und meiner Seele, ich von ih­nen?».

(11) Zwei Mal Halley, Stuttgart, 1987, p. 33: «Mich beschäftigt vielmehr seit langem die Frage des Überganges; ein irdener Becher wird in Gold verwandelt und dann in Licht. Daran beunruhigt nur eines: ob diese Erhöhung noch zur Kenntnis genommen wird, noch ins Bewußtsein fällt».

(12) Die Schere, Stuttgart, 1989, p. 173 sq.

(13)Schere,  p. 173.

(14) Annäherungen, Drogen und Rausch, Stuttgart, 1970, [Ullstein, 1980], p. 348: «Annäherung wird durch Eintretendes bestätigt, Anwesendes durch Abwesendes ergänzt. Sie trefen sich im Spiegel, der Zeit und Unbehagen löscht. Nie war der Spiegel so leer, so ohne Staub und bildlos —dafür haben zwei Jahrhunderte gesorgt. Dazu das Klopfen in der Werkstatt— der Vorhang wird durchsichtig; die Bühne ist frei».

(15) Die Schere, ibid., p. 120: «Die Geschichte hat kein Ziel; sie existiert. Der Weg ist wichtiger als das Ziel, insofern, als er in jedem Augenblick vor allem in dem des Todes Ziel werden kann».