Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

dimanche, 11 octobre 2020

La géoculture, empreinte des nations durables

La-geoculture-empreinte-des-nations-durables_visuel.jpg

La géoculture, empreinte des nations durables

Article rédigé par Thomas Flichy de La Neuville et Olivier Hanne
 
Ex: http://www.libertepolitique.com

Confrontée aux secousses erratiques de la mondialisation, la France qui ne s'aime plus guère elle-même, est ébranlée. L’application mécanique des recettes produites par l’idéologie libérale et techniciste lui fait perdre pied. Pourtant le génie français a toujours su dans l’histoire conjuguer la perspicacité politique avec la finesse culturelle pour comprendre et maîtriser le monde. Pour retrouver cette intelligence, un livre nous aide à découvrir la « géoculture », et comment les civilisations durables s'appuient nécessairement sur une culture assumée.

Dans leur nouvel essai, Géoculture, plaidoyer pour des civilisations durables (Lavauzelle), les géopoliticiens Olivier Hanne et Thomas Flichy de La Neuville montrent qu’au rebours des approches superficielles, limitées au flux et au reflux passager de la puissance, notamment économique, l’approche géoculturelle sonde le principe vital des civilisations. Avec elle, nous pouvons ne pas nous condamner à des succès provisoires. En mesurant la capacité des nations à transmettre la vie sous toutes ses formes, l’analyse géoculturelle touche au coeur de l'âme des peuples et des civilisations.

Liberté politique est heureuse de publier les bonnes feuilles de cet essai, avec le texte de son introduction :

Au commencement était la culture 

TOUT EST ECONOMIQUE. Affirmé, images à l’appui, puis ébruité à l’infini au coeur des cascades de l’information, ce slogan, amplifié par son propre écho, a fini par prétendre incarner une réalité, tant il est vrai qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de démontrer pour convaincre.

À première vue, les institutions supranationales, les regroupements d’États, les sommets internationaux, les nominations gouvernementales, tout ce qui faisait le cœur de l’action politique est aujourd’hui devenu un simple appendice de la décision économique. Quoique le mot « décision » semble lui-même trop fort : les raisons des crises économiques nous échappant la plupart du temps, nous nous sommes convaincus qu’une bonne décision aujourd’hui (une dévaluation, une baisse des taux d’intérêts) peut être catastrophique demain.

EjPX81rWAAAzgFA.jpg

Dans ces circonstances, à quoi bon décider ? La croyance en la primauté de l’économique rejoint finalement l’affirmation de Staline, selon laquelle, « la technique décide de tout ». Ce qui était vrai pour le socialisme l’est encore plus dans le libéralisme mondialisé. Certes, l’humain n’est pas négligé, mais il se présente comme la variable d’ajustement en attendant la stabilisation du système économique qui deviendra social tôt ou tard… ou jamais. 

Le primat de l’économie, une illusion d’optique

9782856524282-xs.jpgEn réalité, ce primat de l’économie se révèle une illusion d’optique. Il est d’ailleurs contesté par les mouvements altermondialistes et écologiques, les chiffres de l’abstention électorale et le retour de la rhétorique patriotique. Partout, des appels à une autre « gouvernance » se font entendre. Un nouvel avenir est annoncé, celui du renversement des échanges de marchandises au profit des solidarités sociales. Mais, paradoxalement, la contestation altermondialiste ne remet pas fondamentalement en cause le primat de l’économie : la décroissance, l’inversion des profits et la taxation des bénéfices financiers ne servent qu’à promouvoir une nouvelle révolution matérielle mondiale. Bref, même chez ceux qui souhaitent abolir le capitalisme marchand, tout ne reste qu’économique. Or les données chiffrées ne nous offrent qu’une idée imparfaite des risques à venir. De plus, ces indicateurs complexes se manipulent aisément. La réduction du monde au simple jeu des forces économiques fait finalement obstacle à l’intelligence car elle passe deux dimensions essentielles sous silence : l’affirmation des cultures et la volonté de puissance.

Le monde artificiel fabriqué par l’appareil médiatique a relégué la culture à un objet de musée : les hommes sont présentés comme interchangeables. Notre système économique, sentant bien que les cultures représentent un obstacle à l’échange des biens finit par nier l’altérité. Il cautionne ainsi l’idée selon laquelle le développement de l’islamisme reposerait exclusivement sur une frustration économique, en oubliant les causes religieuses de ce renouveau. Or l’enracinement dans une culture est loin d’être une illusion. Tout culture fixe en effet les normes d’intégration dans le groupe. Sans culture, l’être humain est un individu, avec elle il gagne le statut de personne. Elle lui fournit ses repères, ses modes d’action et sa pérennité. Disons-le : sa durabilité :

La culture est ce qui permet l’orientation dans le monde. L’orientation n’est pas un simple repérage, car si le repérage nous permet de savoir où nous sommes, l’orientation nous aide à décider où nous devons aller. Le culturel porte sur tout ce pour quoi il y a une bonne façon de procéder. Avec la culture, on introduit donc la notion de valeur [1].
 
Le facteur éthique

La culture implique la morale. C’est elle qui donne la notion du bien, du beau, du juste et du vrai, même si ces notions ne recouvrent pas le même sens sous toutes les latitudes. Aussi simplifions à l’extrême : la culture définit l’humain.

Aujourd’hui, la négation du facteur culturel a déjà débouché sur des échecs spectaculaires pour l’Occident.

Ceci est vrai pour les armées, qui s’exercent à faire la guerre sur des scenarii virtuels, comme si l’on pouvait conduire des combats indépendamment des civilisations dans lesquels ils s’inscrivent. Cette manie du jeu de rôle dans les grands états-majors débouche mécaniquement sur des désastres sur les théâtres d’opérations : de l’Afghanistan à la Libye en passant par la Syrie et l’Irak. Or, pour la plupart des pays non-occidentaux, la culture a une importance capitale. Il n’est que de regarder le taux de perte parmi les interprètes américains en Irak : les insurgés ont ciblé les passeurs de cultures autant que les chefs de section. C’était le meilleur moyen pour eux de réduire à néant leur adversaire.

Ces mêmes réflexions s’appliquent aux entreprises internationales où triomphent les procédures standardisées de négociation, utilisées de la même manière que l’on soit au Vénézuéla ou en Iran. Si on y ajoute la mobilité des cadres, qui restent deux ou trois ans en poste et leur confinement géographique dans des centres d’affaires où ils ne sont nullement en contact avec le pays réel, il s’en suit une perte nette d’influence. Qu’on le veuille ou non, la culture est une réalité. Elle n’est rien de moins que la sève des civilisations. Or, ces civilisations ont pour vocation de perpétuer la vie. C’est pour cette raison que la négation du facteur culturel se présente comme le premier pas vers la barbarie.

L’impact de l’« estime de soi »

D’autre part, la fascination pour l’économie nous fait oublier la volonté de puissance. Par exemple l’appropriation massive des terres ou Landgrabbing est analysée exclusivement en termes de placements économiques. Or la plupart des États, à moins qu’ils soient trop faibles pour exercer la puissance ou parce qu’il y ont renoncé, ont des stratégies politiques. Celles-ci peuvent être examinées au prisme de l’histoire. La stratégie chinoise actuelle fait étrangement penser à celle adoptée par la dynastie Tang dans les premiers siècles de notre ère lorsque la Chine centrale lança une formidable poussée vers la Caspienne et le Golfe persique.

600px-Tang_Protectorates.png

L’exercice de la puissance repose sur des critères objectifs qui ne sont nullement caducs. On peut en déterminer trois. En premier lieu, l’estime collective de soi, ou la force des valeurs culturelles et religieuses qui propulsent les collectivités émotives vers le martyre ou le djihâd. En second lieu, le dynamisme en matière d’innovation et de travail : la recherche et la créativité des minorités actives se présentent comme le fer de lance du développement économique. En troisième lieu, le dynamisme démographique prolongé sur des générations entières. Les Français actuels descendent génétiquement de 25 % des Français de 1789. Là encore, seule une minorité a la capacité de se projeter dans l’avenir par une démographie responsable, c'est-à-dire riche d’enfants. L’addition de l’estime de soi, des capacités d’innovation et de se projeter dans l’avenir a longtemps été le privilège de l’Europe. Mais les temps ont changé.

Les puissances durables sont d’abord culturelles

Chacune à leur manière, l’anthropologie et la géopolitique ont tenté de combattre une vision du monde réduite au choc des intérêts financiers. Toutefois, ces vues alternatives n’ont pas réussi à se conjuguer l’une à l’autre tout en intégrant le facteur économique afin de restaurer une véritable intelligence du monde auprès d’élites désorientées. La thèse que nous développerons dans cet ouvrage est la suivante : les civilisations durables s'appuient nécessairement sur une culture assumée. Il convient d’opposer aux nations géoculturelles qui puisent leur puissance et leur rayonnement dans leur identité profonde, des constructions techno-abstraites qui tâchent de compenser l’artificialité de leurs origines par le recours à la violence et à l’oubli. Les premières sont capables d’influence dans la longue durée et même au-delà de leur mort politique comme ce fut le cas pour l’empire romain.

Carte-IGV_large.jpg

Même submergées par les invasions, les nations géoculturelles sont capables d’influence durable. Ainsi la Perse put irriguer le monde musulman pendant des siècles malgré son impuissance manifeste. Forte de sa démographie et de la préservation de ses élites, l’Inde contemporaine s’inscrit dans ce cadre. Elle s’oppose à ce titre aux constructions abstraites des clercs et des théoriciens, telles que les empires de Charles Quint, de Napoléon Ier, ou des Etats-Unis contemporains, dans lesquels l’absence d’unité culturelle se révèle le premier facteur de fragilité, et ce au-delà des tentatives factices d’homogénéisation.

9782940632367-200x303-1.jpgOr ce qui est vrai pour les empires ne l’est pas moins pour les entreprises, dont la durée de vie et la santé financière sont menacées par leur croyance au mythe techniciste. Ainsi en est-il au dernier stade pour les familles qui se perpétuent dans la longue durée lorsqu’elles adhèrent à des valeurs spirituelles forçant leurs membres à se dépasser ou à l’inverse s’atomisent en une multitude d’individus rivaux, attirés, tels des lucioles, vers le profit qui les calcinera. Les nations durables s’enracinent par conséquent dans des cultures qui peuvent être d’une variété inouïe, mais qui pour perpétuer la vie, doivent pouvoir se renouveler sans pour autant se renier.

La culture comme transmission de la vie

La stratégie géoculturelle consiste à puiser ses forces, y compris économiques, au sein de sa culture millénaire. La géoculture se révèle, par là-même plus qu’une nouvelle approche géopolitique ou historique, elle se présente comme la reconquête intellectuelle du vieux concept de civilisation, débarrassé de ses scories dominatrices, car seule la culture perdure lorsque les crises financières balaient les puissances économiques. Cette approche du monde dévoile des paradigmes que les économistes ne peuvent plus voir au travers des bilans chiffrés.

Avec ce prisme, les hiérarchies se recomposent, tant il est vrai que scruter les empires à l’aune de leur empreinte géoculturelle, c’est contempler l’âme du monde. Enfin, notre analyse veut contourner le matérialisme de Marx, figé dans son mécanisme brut[2], mais aussi le capitalisme mondialisé en bout de course, pour voir de nouvelles hiérarchies, plus discrètes, mais plus identitaires et donc pérennes. Fondement de la civilisation durable, l’approche géoculturelle fixe aux nations un objectif qui dépasse la domination économique, l’influence culturelle ou la puissance politique : il s’agit tout simplement de la transmission de la vie.

geoculture.jpgOlivier Hanne, Thomas Flichy de la Neuville

Géoculture, plaidoyer pour des civilisations durables
Lavauzelle, février 2015
116 pages, 17 €

_______________________________

[1] R. Brague, Modérément moderne, Flammarion, p. 201. En son temps, Abram Kardiner ne disait pas autre chose, The Individual and his Society, Columbia Univ. Press, 1939.
[2] « L’histoire n’est pas autre chose que la succession des différentes générations dont chacune exploite les matériaux, les capitaux, les forces productives qui lui sont transmises par toutes les générations précédentes », K. Marx, F. Engels, L’idéologie allemande, 1845. L’histoire ne serait donc que cela ?

 

Aux éditions Bios, le nouveau livre de Thomas Flichy de la Neuville:

2020-UAG-14-vect-premiere.jpg

Pour toute commande: https://editionsbios.fr/

Une émission de Thomas Flichy de la Neuville

sur RT:

 

 

Hendrik de Man, The Right, & Ethical Socialism

unnamed.jpg

Hendrik de Man, The Right, & Ethical Socialism

“Socialism” is intrinsic to the “Right.” When journalists and academics refer in one breath to “liberalism, neoliberalism, and the Right-wing,” that attests to their ignorance, not to the accuracy of any such bastardization. Even at its most basic level of understanding, it seems to have been forgotten that in Britain there were Tories and Whigs in opposition. Now, Toryism has become so detached from its origins that there is indeed no distinction between British Conservativism, in the parliamentary sense at least, and Whig-liberalism. The same can be said for much of what is called often called “Right” across the world, but especially in the Anglophone states whose philosophy has been dominated by utilitarianism.

henrikdeman-233x300.jpgThe “Right” has a rich but obscured legacy that revolts against capitalism. The “Right” is restorative, and arises when a culture-organism begins to decay. The works of Thomas Carlyle, an essay, Chartism (1840), and the book Past & Present (1843) could be the ideological basis of a true British Right, in which Carlyle condemns free trade from a conservative position. In these, he considered the supposed panacea of universal franchise and decried the debased state of the Aristocracy, which should be replaced with an “aristocracy of merit.” Carlyle stated that free trade would be a harbinger of “social revolution.” (When Karl Marx later said the same, he meant it, contrary to Carlyle, in a positive sense.) Carlyle condemned “Mammon,” materialism, and the “money nexus” of the bourgeoisie, and stated that the problems of the British were fundamentally spiritual and moral, from whence a repudiation of the money-ethos that dominated Britain should proceed. Carlyle did not write in the same stream as the British utilitarian philosophers from whom liberalism arose. He wrote in a more Occidental sense in repudiating the trade and commercial mentality that had long pervaded British thinking, politics, and foreign policy; bourgeois and Whig, as Spengler and Werner Sombart pointed out. Yockey classified Carlyle among the few British philosophers writing from an “organic” perspective of history.

Marx, so far from repudiating that mentality, was intellectually in thrall to it, as Sombart and Spengler explained, and this identity of Marxism with British utilitarian and materialist philosophy resulted in a crisis of the Left during the close of the 19th century when socialist thinkers realized the inadequacy of Marx in truly rejecting capitalism and the bourgeois spirit.

Carlyle set the tone of his condemnation of capitalist Britain with the opening paragraph of Past & Present in a far more eloquent sense than that of Marx; although the Whigs masquerading as “conservatives” then and now regard such words as rabid socialism:

The condition of England, on which many pamphlets are now in the course of publication, and many thoughts unpublished are going on in every reflective head, is justly regarded as one of the most ominous, and withal one of the strangest, ever seen in this world. England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind; yet England is dying of inanition. With unabated bounty the land of England blooms and grows; waving with yellow harvests; thick-studded with workshops, industrial implements, with fifteen millions of workers, understood to be the strongest, the cunningest and the willingest our Earth ever had; these men are here; the work they have done, the fruit they have realized is here, abundant, exuberant on every hand of us: and behold, some baleful fiat as of Enchantment has gone forth, saying, “Touch it not, ye workers, ye master-workers, ye master-idlers; none of you can touch it, no man of you shall be the better for it; this is enchanted fruit!” On the poor workers such fiat falls first, in its rudest shape; but on the rich masterworkers too it falls; neither can the rich master-idlers, nor any richest or highest man escape, but all are like to be brought low with it, and made “poor” enough, in the money-sense or a far fataller one. [1] [1]

P1030768.jpgPreviously, in his essay Chartism, Carlyle had appealed not to class war but to class unity among fellow Britons, high-born and low, pointing out that the ruling classes did not even realize there was a problem to be solved, much to their own danger:

How an Aristocracy, in these present times and circumstances, could, if never so well disposed, set about governing the Under Class? What they should do; endeavor or attempt to do? That is even the question of questions: — the question which they have to solve; which it is our utmost function at present to tell them, lies there for solving, and must and will be solved.

Insoluble we cannot fancy it. One select class Society has furnished with wealth, intelligence, leisure, means outward and inward for governing; another huge class, furnished by Society with none of those things, declares that it must be governed: Negative stands fronting Positive; if Negative and Positive cannot unite, — it will be worse for both! Let the faculty and earnest constant effort of England combine round this matter; let it once be recognized as a vital matter. Innumerable things our Upper Classes and Lawgivers might ‘do;’ but the preliminary of all things, we must repeat, is to know that a thing must need be done.

Alas, in regard to so very many things. Laissez-faire ought partly to endeavor to cease! But in regard to poor Sanspotatoe [Irish] peasants, Trades-Union craftsmen. Chartist cotton-spinners, the time has come when it must either cease or a worse thing straightway begin, — a thing of tinder-boxes, vitriol-bottles, second-hand pistols, a visibly insupportable thing in the eyes of all. [2] [2]

In the early 20th century, Anthony Ludovici and others attempted to return the Tory Party to its origins, and his works, like those of Carlyle, remain as timeless foundations on which the Anglophone Right can return to its actual premises. The U.S. Right has its foundation in Federalism, the Hamiltonian concept of North American as a people-nation-state — as Yockey recognized — but often insists on looking to its opposite, the Jeffersonian-style Jacobinism that was enthralled by the French Revolution and would have thwarted the American states from ever becoming a nation.

Occidental Synthesis

The German economist Friedrich List, in contrast to the British philosophers, was condemning free trade from a conservative position at around the same time as Carlyle. He espoused autarchy, which he called the “national system.” This was anathema to Marx, who saw such ideologies as antithetical to the dialectical march toward communism.

de-man.jpg

List critiqued free trade precisely on the grounds that Marx praised it; for its materialism, class divisiveness, and national dissolution. List wrote in his magnum opus:

The system of the school suffers, as we have already shown in the preceding chapters, from three main defects: firstly, from boundless cosmopolitanism, which neither recognizes the principle of nationality, nor takes into consideration the satisfaction of its interests; secondly, from a dead materialism, which everywhere regards chiefly the mere exchangeable value of things without taking into consideration the mental and political, the present and the future interests, and the productive powers of the nation; thirdly, from a disorganizing particularism and individualism, which, ignoring the nature and character of social labor and the operation of the union of powers in their higher consequences, considers private industry only as it would develop itself under a state of free interchange with society (i.e. with the whole human race) were that race not divided into separate national societies.

Between each individual and entire humanity, however, stands THE NATION, with its special language and literature, with its peculiar origin and history, with its special manners and customs, laws and institutions, with the claims of all these for existence, independence, perfection, and continuance for the future, and with its separate territory; a society which, united by a thousand ties of mind and of interests, combines itself into one independent whole, which recognizes the law of right for and within itself, and in its united character is still opposed to other societies of a similar kind in their national liberty, and consequently can only under the existing conditions of the world maintain self-existence and independence by its own power and resources. As the individual chiefly obtains by means of the nation and in the national mental culture, power of production, security, and prosperity, so is the civilization of the human race only conceivable and possible by means of the civilization and development of the individual nations. [3] [4]

This is the actual legacy of the Right. Not Locke, Mill, Spencer, Hobbes, van Mises, Hayek, or Rand.

De Man_0.jpg

But such was the paradigm shift in politics during the Cold War, with disaffected Marxists entering en masse the ranks of the Cold Warriors against the USSR, that by the time the eminent American scholar Christopher Lasch had rejected neo-Marxism he could not find “genuine conservativism” in the USA. He could only find advocates of free trade, which he considered as destructive to tradition and the organic community as the Left. [4] [5]

What Lasch perceived in the early 1970s Oswald Spengler had seen in the aftermath of World War I: that the “scientific socialism” of Marx et al did not transcend capitalism, but reflected it, because both arose within the same Zeitgeist of British materialism and industrialism. [5] [6] As Lasch saw decades later, capitalism shares with the Left a common outlook against the traditional social order, which is the organic community. Carlyle had perceived this in 1840. After World War I, Spengler spoke of “Prussian Socialism,” and Otto Strasser of “German Socialism,” based on pre-capitalist German — and wider European — ethos. To Strasser, “socialism” is synonymous with “conservativism” because it harkens back to the pre-capitalist organic community. Marxism is within the same historical stream as liberalism, Marxism being “a doctrine whose liberal factors necessarily unfit it for the upbuilding of the socialist (i.e. conservative) future, and one whose program cannot but involve it in the decline of liberalism.” As Spengler had stated, Strasser reiterated that “this was simply due to the fact that the longing for socialism began to find expression at a time when the ego idea, liberalism, that is to say, was in the ascendant.” [6] [7]

The fundamental premise of the Right is the dichotomy described by German sociology, of Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft; the traditional organic community, or the “modern” doctrine of society as a contract between individuals for their material benefit. Sombart came to regard Marxism as rooted in the latter along with liberalism, as its only goal is to unite individuals for selfish material gain in the name of the proletariat, as liberalism does in the name of the bourgeoisie, which he regarded as the abysmal gulf between British bourgeois philosophy (including Marx) and that of the German (including Carlyle), which he delineated as a difference between the heroic spirit and the commercial or trader’s spirit. [7] [8]

f36e73e93a0b0fa7ec8a086a031afb50.jpg

May 1940, de Man with Queen Elizabeth.

Corradini, head of the Italian Nationalist Association, stated at its first congress in 1910, nine years prior to the founding of Mussolini’s fascio, that Italy is a “proletarian nation,” and that “socialism” so far from serving the interests of the “proletarian nations” creates with its internationalism and class struggle a civil war within the social organism. [8] [9] Nine years later, at the Nationalist convention in Rome, Corradini described syndicalism as the means by which the organic social community (Gemeinschaft) can be established; creating “real collaboration, organic, unifying, and complete.” [9] [10]

When a synthesis began to arise from the late 19th century between the elements of the Right and Left, this was a process of the Left turning Right, while elements of the Right were returning to their actual — pre-capitalist — origins. The synthesis became the major “third force” in the world competing against communism and capitalism, and drawing many of the Left’s best thinkers who had already been realizing the limitations of “scientific socialism.”

Even if we consider the terms Left and Right at their most basic level — the seating arrangements of the French Assembly — it might seem odd today, when ideological terms have become obfuscated and origins forgotten, that those on the Right represented the maintenance of tradition, representing the monarchical and Catholic regime that retained a few vestiges of the traditional epoch; those on the Left stood for a bourgeois new order of laissez-faire trade. This bourgeois revolution is a primary part of the Left’s legacy, being considered as a necessary element of the dialectical process of what Marx called the “wheel of history.” [10] [11] It should be kept in mind that Marx, according to this dialectical outlook, stated that socialism could not proceed until capitalism and the bourgeoisie had replaced the vestiges of the traditional order, causing the ruination of peasants, artisans, burghers, and aristocrats. These ideas are expressed most clearly in The Communist Manifesto.

Advocacy of a return to the pre-capitalist order was vehemently denounced by Marx as “reactionism.” [11] [12] To the Rightist this is not regressive, but restorative, as the Right states that there are fundamentals that are timeless, and one might say emanating from an axis; while the “progress” of liberalism and “scientific socialism” is destructive fallacy. [12] [13] Hence, the Right is literally a conservative revolution insofar as “revolution” implies a return to origins. It also means that the liberal-capitalist order requires a complete overturn to restore those origins.

Role of the Bourgeoisie

The French Revolution of 1789 was pivotal and its impact has only increased over the world. From the French Revolution arose both liberal capitalism and the Left. The Revolution abolished the vestiges of the Medieval guilds in France under the Chapelier Law of 1791. These forefathers of “scientific socialism” enacted the free market, standards of production markedly declined, and there was widespread dissatisfaction with such “liberty.” Such was the concern at this destruction of the guilds that the National Assembly in 1795 reiterated they would not be revived, and the prohibition became Article 355 of the Constitution, which meant that a constitutional amendment would be required to reverse the law. In Revolutionary France, the guild era was recalled as one of happiness and plenty. No longer with stability, fraternity (despite the ironic slogan of the Revolution: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”), and a higher purpose that the guilds had offered, worker unrest was widespread. The supposed peoples’ representatives expressed concern at mounting worker “insubordination.” There was prolonged debate on the reconstitution of the guilds under Napoleon Bonaparte, but ultimately the laissez-faire radicals won. [13] [14] What replaced the organic community, however debased it had become by that time, was “civil society,” and the “social contract” between individuals, or what the Declaration on the Rights of Man & of the Citizen referred to as the “general will,” enforceable in the name of freedom by death. Joseph de Maistre criticized the Enlightenment notion that a nation could be built on such legalistic artifices that fail to reflect the spirit of a nationality. Of written constitutions as nation-building instruments, he wrote:

There never has existed a free nation which had not, in its natural constitution, germs of liberty as old as itself; and no nation has ever successfully attempted to develop, by its fundamental written laws, other rights than those which existed in its natural constitution. . . . No assembly of men can give existence to a nation. An attempt of this kind ought even to be ranked among the most memorable acts of folly exceeding in folly what all the Bedlams of the world might produce most absurd and extravagant. [14] [15]

Again, with de Maistre, the contrast is between the society that is organic and that which is contractual. Today, “civil society” is regarded as the desirable norm for the entire world.

7ae68f0e-fc8d-11e8-af79-d80ba0566e2f.jpg

Crisis of the Left

There were Leftists who regarded the Marxist and other such forms of socialism as inadequate and historical analyses based on nothing more than economic relations as insufficient. Leftist thinkers, Sombart being notable among these, began to see “scientific socialism” — as Marx called it — as an appropriation of the bourgeois capitalist spirit for the proletariat rather than as a transcendence. World War I was the catalyst for the eruption of a discontent that had been growing within the Left. The war had proved that the patria readily transcended class conflict; that as Corradini had stated, the national struggle supplants sectionalism whether of the liberal-bourgeois or “socialist” varieties.

Professor Alfredo Rocco, Italian Minister of Justice (1925-1932), the primary architect of the future corporatist state, began politically as a socialist before joining Corradini’s Nationalist Association. He saw the strengthening of the proletariat as necessary for social cohesion. In his 1920 address to the University of Padua, inaugurating the academic year, he referred to history as one of organic social cycles of birth and decay. Within this, he develops the concept of “unceasing struggle” within every “social body” “between the principle of organization represented by the state and the principle of disintegration, represented by individuals and groups, which tend to disrupt it and lead to its decline and fall.” While the concept is Spenglerian, Rocco was drawing on the Italian philosopher Giovanni Battista Vico, who preempted Spengler by about 180 years — and here we have in Vico another forgotten philosopher of the Right.

211400.jpgRocco traced the disintegrative impact of liberalism and the role of the bourgeoisie in undermining the social organism — “an amorphous and disorganized mass” in an “individualistic reaction.” The doctrine was provided by the Salon intelligentsia espousing an imaginary “natural law” and by the Encyclopaedists, “and it came to a head politically in the explosion of the French Revolution.” Faced with the reality of governing and of foreign wars, the French revolutionary regime soon had to reimpose the authority of the state, culminating in the genius of Napoleon. Following this epoch there arose again bourgeois liberalism with its atomistic “liberty.” Rocco cogently defines the liberal regime in describing the situation that arose from the tumults of the 19th century:

[ind]From that time onwards, the claims of individualism knew no bounds. The masses of individuals wanted to govern the state and govern it in accordance with their own individual interests. The state, a living organism with a continuous existence over the centuries that extends beyond successive generations and as such the guardian of the imminent historical interests of the species, was turned into a monopoly to serve the individual interests of each separate generation. [15] [16]

To restore the social organism against the atomization of liberalism, Rocco urged the integration of the syndicates, or corporations as they were known in Italy since Classical Rome, as integral organs of the social body. Rocco pointed out that liberalism in the name of individual liberty had “destroyed those ancient and venerable organizations, the guilds and corporations of arts and crafts,” which were decreed as abolished on the night of August 4th, 1789 by the French National Assembly, and in the subsequent law of August 14th — 17th 1791. In Italy, the ban was soon lifted, but the corporations did not regain their standing. “Yet professional organization or syndicalism, as it is normally known, or corporatism, to use the more traditional Italian word, is a natural and irrepressible phenomenon to be found in every age. It existed in Greece as well as in Rome, and in the Middle Ages as in modern times.” The disjunction and indeed animosity that had emerged between artisan and owner under modern capitalism could be reconciled within corporatism.

Many Leftists, just as much within the victor states as the defeated, saw the war as a “defeat of socialism.” Lanzillo, a syndicalist on the staff of Mussolini’s socialist newspaper Popolo d’Italia from 1914, wrote in his book The Defeat of Socialism that contrary to socialist expectations, the proletariat of every nation eagerly fought for their national, not international, class interests. “Socialism based its arguments on the dialectical opposition of interests within individual countries, and war showed the possibility of reconciling those interests in the will to defend by force of arms a common heritage and common ideals.” [16] [17] This echoes Sombart’s 1915 work; although Sombart insisted that the “spirit” was uniquely “German,” after the war, it became universal among those who yearned for something more than a return to the decaying pre-war order.

Hendrik de Man and Socialism 

Hendrik de Man, leader of the Belgian Workers Party, went so far as to initially cooperate with the German occupation during World War II, seeing it as a blow at the bourgeois spirit of the prior century. Despite this, de Man is still regarded as an important theorist of socialism. His “neosocialism,” also known as “planism,” [17] [19] is a significant ideological development among the Francophone Left. De Man was among the leading Socialists of Europe, having worked with Rosa Luxemburg [20], Karl Liebnecht, Karl Kautsky, and Leon Trotsky [21]. After service in World War I he visited the Soviet Union, lived in Washington, and worked as a professor of economics at the University of Frankfurt.

hendrik-de-man-2.jpg

Marxism, de Man stated, reduces man “to the level of a mere object among the objects of his environment, and these external historical ‘relationships’ are held to determine his volitions and to decide his objectives.” Like many socialists who rejected Marx, World War I was a seminal event for de Man. He wrote in The Psychology of Marxian Socialism:

The war, in which I participated as a Belgian volunteer, shook my Marxist faith to its foundations. It is war-time experience which entitles me to say that my book has been written with blood, though I cannot myself be certain that I have been able to transform that blood into spirit. The conflict of motives whose upshot was that I, an ardent antimilitarist and internationalist, felt it my duty to take up arms against Germany; my disillusionment at the collapse of the International; the daily demonstration of the instinctive nature of mass impulses thanks to which even socialist members of the working class had their minds poisoned with the virus of nationalist hatred; my growing estrangement from most of my sometime Marxist associates, who went over to the bolshevik camp — thanks to all these influences conjoined, I was racked with doubts and scruples whose echoes will be heard in this book. [18] [22]

After the First World War, he withdrew from politics for several years to reflect on his thoughts and life. He conceded that what was required was not merely to “revise” or “adapt” Marxism, but to liquidate it. [19] [23]

In France, Socialist Party leader Marcel Déat, whose “neosocialism” was significantly influenced by de Man, anarcho-syndicalist Georges Valois, and Communist Party eminence Jacques Doriot came to such conclusions. The “British Fascism” of Sir Oswald Mosley had its programmatic origins in his days as a Labour Minister, and the fundamentals remained. Of this post-war situation for socialists, de Man stated:

It is not surprising that socialism is in the throes of a spiritual crisis. The world war has led to so many social and political transformations that all parties and all ideological movements have had to undergo modification in one direction or another, in order to adapt themselves to the new situation. Such changes cannot be effected without internal frictions; they are always attended by growing pains; they denote a doctrinal crisis. [20] [24]

cms_visual_1073992.jpg_1535106009000_293x450.jpgMarxism remained “rooted in the philosophical theories that were dominant during the middle decades of the nineteenth century, theories which may provisionally be summarised in the catchwords determinism, causal mechanism, historicism, rationalism, and economic hedonism.” [21] [25] So far from the bourgeoisie being increasingly proletarianized due to the crisis of capitalism, as Marx had predicted in The Communist Manifesto, de Man saw that “the working class is tending to accept bourgeois standards and to adopt a bourgeois culture.” [22] [26] “In the last analysis, the reason why the bourgeoisie is the upper class to-day, is that everyone would like to be a bourgeois.” [23] [27] Today more than ever it is apparent that the historical dialectic has not unfolded in the manner Marx predicted. The “cult of the masses” was an invention of bourgeois intellectuals including Marx, who were remote from the masses; [24] [28] a “relapse into the naivety of the outworn primitive democratic adoration of the crowd.” [25] [29]

In comparing the pre-capitalist guild era of the Medieval epoch with the capitalist era of production, de Man pointed out that

The essence of the charge brought by Marxism against capitalism is that the capitalist method of production has divorced the producers from the means of production. In actual fact, capitalism has done something much more serious; it has divorced the producer from production, the worker from the work. In this way, it has engendered a distaste for work which is often increased rather than diminished by an improvement in the material circumstances of life, and cannot be cured by any mere change in property relationships.

Especially conspicuous is the contrast between the industrial worker of to-day and the Medieval artisan as a guildsman. The handicraftsman of the Middle Ages might or might not be the owner of his house, his workshop, or his booth; his position might be a good one, financially speaking, or the reverse. But at least he was master of his own work. . .

The craftsman of the Middle Ages took delight in his work; he lived in his work; for him, his work was a means of self-expression. [26] [30]

De Man dealt directly with the workers, and often through his own lack of understanding was taught many lessons on the workers’ ethos that would be regarded as “reactionism” (as Marx puts it in The Communist Manifesto) by those on the Left too imbued with the bourgeois outlook to understand. At one such point, de Man alludes to the personal attachment tradesmen have to their own old toolboxes, an ethos that goes beyond the comprehension of Marxist doctrine (and an attitude that one can still observe among tradesmen and apprentices). [27] [31] He stated that Marxist theories about working-class solidarity lacked an ethos, and were mechanistic. They sought to build something merely on the basis of modes of production. This is the “economic man,” the “hedonist” and “egoist.” [28] [32] It is the same spirit of the merchant referred to by Sombart. The desire for solidarity was born not from this bourgeois outlook, but from the instinct that had existed during the Medieval era; of Christian ethos; that of “craft fraternity” defended by the guilds. [29] [33] Socialism, said de Man, should aim to revive a social ethos that was instinctive [organic], not mechanistic. [30] [34] He alluded to two postulants that serve as an ethical basis for this “new socialism”: “1. Vital values are higher than material values; and of vital values, spiritual values are the highest. 2. The motives of community sentiment are higher than the motives of personal power and personal acquisition.” [31] [35] Again, Sombart had said the same in his wartime appeal.

51zxhJ8I5JL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpgAn additional factor in the fallacy of Marxism was that especially since the First World War the proletariat had become more national and less international. [32] [36] Machinery and modes of production might indeed be international and what is today called globalization shows that capital is an internationalizing tendency, as Marx approvingly predicted. But people are more than their modes of production. [33] [37]

De Man saw the socialist movement as intrinsically national and the proletariat as more than a globule of putty to be molded for the purposes of production, whether by liberalism or Marxism:

The French revolution, which was the supreme struggle on the continent of Europe for the realization of the political demands of the bourgeoisie, was (so thought the revolutionists) to culminate in a universal rising of the peoples against the despots, and to make the Declaration of the Rights of Man the constitution of the whole human race. The Goddess of Reason, in whose honor the revolution set up its altars, was to become the deity of all mankind. [34] [38]

National sentiment is an integral part of the emotional content of the socialism of each country. It grows in strength in proportion as the lot of the working masses of any country is more closely connected with the lot of that country itself; in proportion too as the masses have won for themselves a larger place in the community of national civilization. At bottom, this partial absorption of socialist sentiment by national sentiment need not surprise us. We have merely to recognize that it is the return of a sentiment to its source. [Emphasis added]. Socialism itself is the product of the interaction between a given moral sentiment and a given social environment. It is not only the social environment which has a national character. The other factor, likewise, the moral sentiment, has primarily, in different peoples, a peculiar tinge, derived from a peculiar national past. [35] [39]

Hence, de Man recognized that socialism and tradition (that is “the Right”) are, so far from being antithetical, intrinsic each to the other.

Hendrik de Man was condemned as a “collaborator” after World War II and settled in exile in Switzerland. Like others condemned “traitors” and “collaborators,” he had remained in his country during the occupation to try and make something positive from the situation. When the German military occupied Belgium in June 1940, de Man issued a manifesto to the Belgian Workers Party stating that “For the working classes and for socialism, this collapse of a decrepit world, far from being a disaster, is a deliverance.” He had been Minister of Public Works (1934-1935) and of Finance (1936-1938). The failure to see his “Plan” implemented is reminiscent of a similar situation faced by Sir Oswald Mosley with his “Mosley Memorandum” to the Labour Government on the unemployment problem. Like Mosley, he saw that plutocracy could only be defeated by strong government action.

o4yw5i7LVt2nWwPOCyhdQLECBbk.jpgWhile other Belgian politicians fled the country and formed a government-in-exile, de Man served as de facto Prime Minister for over a year. In 1941, he co-founded with other trade union leaders the Union des Travailleurs Manuels et Intellectuels, which was intended as the basis of a corporatist state above party politics. However, German occupation prevented this from becoming a truly effective organization.

De Man soon fell out with the occupation authorities. Although remaining the primary adviser to King Leopold III and the Queen Mother, he left Belgium in 1941 after talks with the Reich failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion for Belgian sovereignty and he was banned by the occupation authorities from public speaking. He first lived in France, then Switzerland until his death in 1953.

If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page [40] and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive [41].

Don’t forget to sign up [42] for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.

Notes

[1] [43] Thomas Carlyle, Past & Present (1843), Book I: “Proem,” Chapter I: “Midas.”

[2] [44] Thomas Carlyle, Chartism (1840), Chapter VII: “Not Laissez-Faire.”

[3] [45] Friedrich List, The National System of Political Economy (1841), Chapter XV: “Nationality and the Economy of the Nation.”

[4] [46] Christopher Lasch, “What’s Wrong with the Right? [47]Tikkun, No. 1, 1987.

[5] [48] Spengler in The Decline of the West, The Hour of Decision, and Prussianism and Socialism. See for the latter Spengler: Prussianism Socialism and Other Essays (London: Black House Publishing, 2018).

[6] [49] Otto Strasser, Germany Tomorrow (London: Jonathan Cape, 1940), Part III: “The Structure of German Socialism” (4) Marxism, 126.

[7] [50] Werner Sombart, Händler und Helden (Merchants and Heroes, 1915). It seems likely that Spengler was influenced by this book, and Yockey, whether directly or via Spengler. But not all Germans have the “heroic spirit,” and not all British that of the “trader.” In this dichotomy, Marx reflected the “British,” Carlyle the “German”; insofar as each state represented a rival Zeitgeist which conflicted in two world wars. It seems reasonable to conclude that the “trader” spirit, in defeating the “heroic,” was taken over from Britain by the USA after World War II.

[8] [51] Enrico Corradini, The Principles of Nationalism, Report to the First Nationalist Congress, Florence, December 3, 1910.

[9] [52] Corradini, Nationalism and the Syndicates, Rome, March 16, 1919.

[10] [53] Marx’s “wheel of history,” so far from being in the traditional sense, where a culture revolves metaphorically on an axis, in the Evolian sense, proceeds in a straight line called “progress,” until falling into the abyss.

[11] [54] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848), “Bourgeois and Proletarians.”

[12] [55] Evola referred to the axial basis of civilization in Revolt Against the Modern World; Yeats rendered the idea poetically in “The Second Coming” (1920).

[13] [56] See Michael P. Fitzsimmons, “The Debate on Guilds under Napoleon,” The Proceedings of the Western Society for French History, Vol. 36, 2008.

[14] [57] Joseph de Maistre, Essay on the Generative Principle of Constitutions (1847), Preface.

[15] [58] Alfredo Rocco, The Syndicates & the Crisis within the State, Padua, November 15, 1920.

[ [43]16] [59] Agostino Lanzillo, The Defeat of Socialism (Rome, 1918), Preface.

[17] [60] Named after H. de Man’s “Labor Plan” of 1933 to deal with unemployment.

herinneringen_van_hendrik_de_man_01-1024x-c12.jpg

[18] [61] Hendrik de Man, The Psychology of Marxian Socialism (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1988 (1928)), 12.

[19] [62] Ibid., 14.

[20] [63] Ibid., 19.

[21] [64] Ibid., 23.

[22] [65] Ibid., 25.

[23] [66] Ibid., 103.

[24] [67] Ibid., 35.

[25] [68] Ibid., 36.

[26] [69] Ibid., 65-67.

[27] [70] Ibid., 75.

[28] [71] Ibid., 127.

[29] [72] Ibid.

[30] [73] Ibid., 131.

[31] [74] Ibid., 189.

[32] [75] Ibid., 303.

[33] [76] Ibid., 313.

[34] [77] Ibid., 321. This cult of the Goddess of Reason was intended as a literal civic religion in Jacobin France to replace Catholicism.

[35] [78] Ibid., 325-326.

Article printed from Counter-Currents: https://counter-currents.com

URL to article: https://counter-currents.com/2020/10/hendrik-de-man/

URLs in this post:

[1] [1]: #_ftnref1

[2] [2]: #_ftnref2

[3] here: https://counter-currents.com/artists-of-the-right-order/

[4] [3]: #_ftnref3

[5] [4]: #_ftnref4

[6] [5]: #_ftnref5

[7] [6]: #_ftnref6

[8] [7]: #_ftnref7

[9] [8]: #_ftnref8

[10] [9]: #_ftnref9

[11] [10]: #_ftnref10

[12] [11]: #_ftnref11

[13] [12]: #_ftnref12

[14] [13]: #_ftnref13

[15] [14]: #_ftnref14

[16] [15]: #_ftnref15

[17] [16]: #_ftnref16

[18] here.: https://counter-currents.com/more-artists-of-the-right-order/

[19] [17]: #_ftnref17

[20] Rosa Luxemburg: https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/german-history-biographies/rosa-luxemburg

[21] Leon Trotsky: https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/russian-soviet-and-cis-history-biographies/leon-trotsky

[22] [18]: #_ftnref18

[23] [19]: http://k

[24] [20]: #_ftnref20

[25] [21]: #_ftnref21

[26] [22]: #_ftnref22

[27] [23]: #_ftnref23

[28] [24]: #_ftnref24

[29] [25]: #_ftnref25

[30] [26]: #_ftnref26

[31] [27]: #_ftnref27

[32] [28]: #_ftnref28

[33] [29]: #_ftnref29

[34] [30]: #_ftnref30

[35] [31]: #_ftnref31

[36] [32]: #_ftnref32

[37] [33]: #_ftnref33

[38] [34]: #_ftnref34

[39] [35]: #_ftnref35

[40] our Entropy page: https://entropystream.live/countercurrents

[41] DLive: https://dlive.tv/counter-currents

[42] sign up: https://counter-currents.com/2020/05/sign-up-for-our-new-newsletter/

[43] [1]: #_ftn1

[44] [2]: #_ftn2

[45] [3]: #_ftn3

[46] [4]: #_ftn4

[47] What’s Wrong with the Right?: https://web.archive.org/web/20040317084407/http://thor.clark.edu/sengland/previous%20features/a_dialogue_with_christopher_lasc.htm

[48] [5]: #_ftn5

[49] [6]: #_ftn6

[50] [7]: #_ftn7

[51] [8]: #_ftn8

[52] [9]: #_ftn9

[53] [10]: #_ftn10

[54] [11]: #_ftn11

[55] [12]: #_ftn12

[56] [13]: #_ftn13

[57] [14]: #_ftn14

[58] [15]: #_ftn15

[59] 16]: #_ftn16

[60] [17]: #_ftn17

[61] [18]: #_ftn18

[62] [19]: #_ftn19

[63] [20]: #_ftn20

[64] [21]: #_ftn21

[65] [22]: #_ftn22

[66] [23]: #_ftn23

[67] [24]: #_ftn24

[68] [25]: #_ftn25

[69] [26]: #_ftn26

[70] [27]: #_ftn27

[71] [28]: #_ftn28

[72] [29]: #_ftn29

[73] [30]: #_ftn30

[74] [31]: #_ftn31

[75] [32]: #_ftn32

[76] [33]: #_ftn33

[77] [34]: #_ftn34

[78] [35]: #_ftn35

 

Le résultat des élections étasuniennes n’aura aucun impact sur la politique étrangère de ce pays

_113951166_index_promo_simple_guide_976_v2.jpg

Le résultat des élections étasuniennes n’aura aucun impact sur la politique étrangère de ce pays

Par Moon of Alabama

John Kiriakou, qui a dénoncé la torture pratiquée par la CIA sous le régime de Bush, met en garde contre la politique étrangère que l’administration de Joe Biden mènerait :

Littéralement, la dernière chose que je ferais serait d'exhorter quiconque à voter pour 
Donald Trump. Le président a été un désastre dans tous les sens du terme, en politique
étrangère comme en politique intérieure. Le pays ne peut pas supporter quatre années
supplémentaires de présidence Trump. Mais Biden n'est pas la panacée. C'est un
remplaçant de centre-droit. [..] Si vous pensez que les choses vont changer en politique étrangère sous la présidence
de Biden, détrompez-vous. Ce sera la même vieille politique expansionniste et
militariste que nous avions sous Bill Clinton et Barack Obama. Alors rentrez dans
l'isoloir avec les yeux ouverts.

À mon avis, Biden est plus à droite qu’au centre. Même son slogan de campagne est partagé avec les conservateurs britanniques.

Une administration Biden amplifierait les politiques hostiles envers la Russie et à la Chine et continuerait à faire pression pour un changement de régime au Venezuela, en Syrie, en Iran et au Belarus. Et ce, alors même que l’organe de l’orthodoxie de la politique étrangère américaine, le magazine Foreign Affairs, affirme que les changements de régime induits par les États-Unis n’atteignent jamais leurs objectifs :

c6f8c27df0caa016d7f965b4398769f4-1601364235.jpg

L'affirmation répétée de la secrétaire d'État américaine, Condoleezza Rice, à l'époque 
de la guerre en Irak, selon laquelle la poursuite par Washington de la "stabilité aux
dépens de la démocratie"
au Moyen-Orient n'avait produit aucun des deux était globalement

vraie. Mais il s'est avéré qu'elle avait un corollaire, à savoir que la poursuite de
la démocratie aux dépens de la stabilité pouvait également ne produire ni l'un ni l'autre,
mais que cela coûtait plus cher. ...
Les changements de régime tenteront toujours Washington. [...] La longue, diverse et

tragique histoire des changements de régime soutenus par les États-Unis au Moyen-Orient
suggère cependant qu'il faut résister à de telles tentations, comme à la plupart des
solutions rapides qui surgissent dans la vie et en politique. La prochaine fois que
les dirigeants américains proposeront d'intervenir dans la région pour renverser un
régime hostile, on peut supposer sans risque qu'une telle entreprise aura moins de
chance de réussite, sera plus coûteuse et plus lourde en conséquences involontaires
que ses partisans ne le réalisent ou ne veuillent bien l'admettre. Jusqu'à présent il
n’en a jamais été autrement.

photo-transmise-par-l-agence-officielle-syrienne-sana-du-president-bachar-al-assad-lors-d-une-interview-le-10-juin-2018-a-damas_6071054.jpg

De présidence en présidence, la politique étrangère américaine ne change jamais. Dans une récente interview, le président syrien Bachar al-Assad expliquait pourquoi il en est ainsi :

Question 9 : Vous suivez sans aucun doute la campagne présidentielle aux États-Unis. 
Espérez-vous que le nouveau président américain, quel que soit le nom du vainqueur,
révisera sa politique de sanctions à l'égard de la Syrie ? Président Assad : Nous ne nous attendons généralement pas à des présidents lors des
élections américaines, nous nous attendons à des PDG ; parce que vous avez un conseil
d'administration, ce conseil est composé de lobbies et de grandes entreprises comme
les banques, les fabricants d’armes et les producteurs de pétrole, etc. Donc, vous
avez un PDG, et ce PDG n'a pas le droit ni l'autorité de faire des changements ;
il doit juste exécuter. C'est ce qui est arrivé à Trump lorsqu'il est devenu président
après les élections - Journaliste : Il a été PDG pendant de nombreuses années auparavant. Président Assad : Exactement ! Il reste un PDG de toute façon. Il voulait suivre ou
poursuivre sa propre politique, et il était sur le point d'en payer le prix - vous
vous souvenez du problème de sa mise en accusation. Il a dû ravaler chaque promesse
faite avant les élections. C'est pourquoi je dis qu’il ne faut pas s’attendre à un
président, mais seulement à un PDG. Si vous voulez parler de changer la politique,
vous avez un conseil d'administration - ce conseil ne changera pas sa politique.
Le PDG changera, mais le conseil d'administration reste le même, alors n'attendez rien. Question 10 : Qui est ce conseil d'administration ? Qui sont ces personnes ? Président Assad : Comme je l'ai dit, ce conseil est composé des lobbies, donc ils
mettent en œuvre ce qu'ils veulent, et ils contrôlent le Congrès et les autres, et
les médias, etc. Aux États-Unis, Il y a donc une alliance entre ces différentes sociétés
qui ne pensent qu’à leurs intérêts particuliers.

36a516899f997bc7e0d53fb64aabd7a2.jpg

Caitlin Johnstone serait probablement d’accord avec ce point de vue. Elle affirme que les deux camps politiques aux États-Unis ne diffèrent guère :

Lorsque vous regardez la politique américaine, il semble qu'il y ait deux factions 
politiques principales qui sont en très fort désaccord l'une avec l'autre. "Divisé"
est un mot qui revient souvent. "Polarisé" en est un autre. ... Mais au delà des insultes et des débats passionnés, ces deux factions sont en fait
furieusement en accord l'une avec l'autre. Elles sont d'accord tout le temps. Elles sont d'accord pour que le gouvernement américain reste le centre d'un empire
mondial ; elles se contentent d'ergoter avec colère sur quelques détails concernant
la manière dont cet empire devrait être dirigé [...]. ... Sur toutes les questions qui affectent le plus gravement les personnes réelles à
grande échelle, ces deux factions politiques sont en accord total. Elles ne font
que déverser beaucoup de bruit et de fureur sur le minuscule 1% du spectre sur
lequel elles sont en désaccord. Ils ne permettent aucune discussion générale sur la question de savoir si l'empire
oligarchique doit continuer à exister ; toutes leurs questions, arguments et histoires
tournent autour de la façon dont il devrait exister. C'est ce qu'ils sont conçus pour faire. ...
La politique n'est pas réelle en Amérique. C'est un spectacle. Un spectacle de
arionnettes à deux mains pour distraire le public pendant que des pickpockets
le volent totalement. Si vous voulez voir les choses clairement, ignorez complètement le faux drame

du spectacle de marionnettes et concentrez-vous sur l'avancement du vrai débat :
que l'empire oligarchique centralisé aux États-Unis est corrompu au-delà de toute
rédemption et devrait être complètement démantelé.

Comment ne pas être d’accord avec ces points de vue ?

Moon of Alabama

Traduit par Wayan, relu par Jj pour le Saker Francophone

Can and Should Russia Stop the War in the Caucasus?

Location_Nagorno-Karabakh2.png

Can and Should Russia Stop the War in the Caucasus?

This war is officially a war between Azerbaijan and the (unrecognized) Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (RNK) aka “Republic of Artsakh” (ROA) which I shall refer to simply as Nagorno Karabakh or “NK”. As is often the case, the reality is much more complicated. For one thing, Erdogan’s Turkey has been deeply involved since Day 1 (and, really, even much before that) while Armenia has been backing NK to the hilt since the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is even worse: Turkey is a member of NATO while Armenia is a member of the CSTO. Thus a war started over a relatively small and remote area could, in theory, trigger an international nuclear war. The good news here is that nobody in NATO or the CSTO wants such a war, especially since technically speaking the NK is not part of Armenia (Armenia has not even recognized this republic so far!) and, therefore, not under the protection of the CSTO. And since there have been no attacks on Turkey proper, at least so far, NATO also has no reason to get involved.

I should mention here that in terms of international law, NK is an integral part of Azerbaijan. Still, almost everybody agrees that there is a difference between NK proper and the kind of security zone the army of NK created around NK (see map)

Deatailed_Map_NK.png

(note: the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic is part of Azerbaijan)

The reality on the ground, however, is very different, so let’s look at the position of each actor in turn, beginning with the party which started the war: Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan has been reforming and rearming its military since the Azeri forces got comprehensively defeated in the 1988-1994 war. Furthermore, for President Aliev this war represents what might well be the best and last chance to defeat the NK and Armenian forces. Most observers agree that should Aliev fail to achieve at least an appearance of victory he will lose power.

Armenia would have been quite happy to keep the status quo and continue to form one country with the NK de facto while remaining two countries de jure. Still, living in the tough and even dangerous “neighborhood” of the Caucasus, the Armenians never forgot that they are surrounded by more or less hostile countries just like they also remained acutely aware of Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ideology which, sooner or later, would make war inevitable.

Iran, which is often forgotten, is not directly involved in the conflict, at least so far, but has been generally sympathetic to Armenia, primarily because Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ideology represents a danger for the entire region, including Iran.

Turkey has played a crucial behind the scenes role in the rearmament and reorganization of Azeri forces. Just as was the case in Libya, Turkish attack drones have been used with formidable effectiveness against NK forces, in spite of the fact that the Armenians have some very decent air defenses. As for Erdogan himself, this war is his latest attempt to paint himself as some kind of neo-Ottoman sultan which will reunite all the Turkic people under his rule.

One of the major misconceptions about this conflict is the assumption that Russia has always been, and will always be, on the side of Armenia and the NK, but while this was definitely true for pre-1917 Russia, this is not the case today at all. Why?

Let’s examine the Russian position in this conflict.

First, let’s get the obvious out of the way: Armenia (proper, as opposed to NK) is a member of the CSTO and should anybody (including Azerbaijan and/or Turkey) attack Armenia, Russia would most definitely intervene and stop the attack, either by political or even by military means. Considering what Turkey has done to the Armenian people during the infamous Armenian Genocide of 1914-1923 this makes perfectly good sense: at least now the Armenian people know that Russia will never allow another genocide to take place. And the Turks know that too.

And yet, things are not quite that simple either.

For example, Russia did sell a lot of advanced weapon systems to Azerbaijan (see here for one good example). In fact, relations between Vladimir Putin and Ilham Aliyev are famously very warm. And while it is true that Azerbaijan left the CSTO in 1999, Russia and Azerbaijan have retained a very good relationship which some even characterize as a partnership or even an alliance.

0426-DDP-armenia.jpg

Furthermore, Azerbaijan has been a much better partner to Russia than Armenia, especially since the Soros-financed “color revolution” of 2018 which put Nikol Pashinian in power. Ever since Pashinian got to power, Armenia has been following the same kind of “multi-vector” policy which saw Belarus’ Lukashenko try to ditch Russia and integrate into the EU/NATO/US area of dominance. The two biggest differences between Belarus and Armenia are a) Belarusians and Russians are the same people and b) Russia cannot afford to lose Belarus whereas Russia has really zero need for Armenia.

On the negative side, not only has Azerbaijan left the CSTO in 1999, but Azerbaijan has also joined the openly anti-Russian GUAM Organization (which is headquartered in Kiev).

GUAM_AZERBAIJAN_2020_site.jpg

Next, there is the Turkey-Erdogan factor as seen from Russia. Simply put, the Russians will never trust any Turk who shares Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman worldview and ideology. Russia has already fought twelve full-scale wars against the Ottomans and she has no desire to let the Turks trigger another one (which they almost did when they shot down a Russian Su-24M over northern Syria). Of course, Russia is much more powerful than Turkey, at least in military terms, but in political terms an open war against Turkey could be disastrous for Russian foreign and internal policy objectives. And, of course, the best way for Russia to avoid such a war in the future is to make absolutely sure that the Turks realize that should they attack they will be suffering a crushing defeat in a very short time. So far, this has worked pretty well, especially after Russia saved Erdogan from the US-backed coup against him.

Some observers have suggested that Russia and Armenia being Christian, the former has some kind of moral obligation towards the latter. I categorically disagree. My main reason to disagree here is that Russians now are acutely aware of the disgusting lack of gratitude of our (supposed) “brothers” and (supposed) “fellow Christians” have shown as soon as Russia was in need.

Most Armenians are not Orthodox Christians, but members of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which are miaphysites/monophysites. They are also not Slavs.

The ONLY slavic or Orthodox people who did show real gratitude for Russia have been the Serbs. All the rest of them have immediately rushed to prostitute themselves before Uncle Shmuel and have competed with each other for the “honor” of deploying US weapons systems targeted at Russia. The truth is that like every superpower, Russia is too big and too powerful to have real “friends” (Serbia being a quite beautiful exception to this rule). The Russian Czar Alexander III famously said that “Russia only has two true allies: her army and her navy”. Well, today the list is longer (now we could add the Aerospace forces, the FSB, etc.), but in terms of external allies or friends, the Serbian people (as opposed to some of the Serbian leaders) are the only ones out there which are true friends of Russia (and that, in spite of the fact that under Elstin and his “democratic oligarchs” Russia shamefully betrayed a long list of countries and political leaders, including Serbia).

Then there is the religious factor which, while crucial in the past, really plays no role whatsoever in this conflict. Oh sure, political leaders on both sides like to portray themselves as religious, but this is just PR. The reality is that both the Azeris and the Armenians place ethnic considerations far above any religious ones, if only because, courtesy of the militant atheism of the former USSR, many, if not most, people in Armenia, Azerbaijan and even Russia nowadays are agnostic secularists with no more than a passing interest for the “spiritual values which shaped their national identity” (or something along these lines).

Syria-Takfiri.jpg

One major concern for Russia is the movement of Turkish-run Takfiris from Syria to Azerbaijan. The Russians have already confirmed that this has taken place (the French also reported this) and, if true, that would give Russia the right to strike these Takfiris on Azeri soil. So far, this threat is minor, but if it becomes real, we can expect Russian cruise missiles to enter the scene.

Finally, there are major Azeri and Armenian communities in Russia, which means two things: first, Russia cannot allow this conflict to sneak across the borders and infect Russia and, second, there are millions of Russians who will have ties, often strong ones, to both of these countries.

Though they are not currently officially involved, we still need to look, at least superficially, at the Empire’s view of this conflict. To summarize it I would say that the Empire is absolutely delighted with this crisis which is the third one blowing up on Russia’s doorstep (the other two being the Ukraine and Belarus). There is really very little the Empire can do against Russia: the economic blockade and sanctions totally failed, and in purely military terms Russia is far more powerful than the Empire. Simply put: the Empire simply does not have what it takes to take on Russia directly, but setting off conflicts around the Russia periphery is really easy.

For one thing, the internal administrative borders of the USSR bear absolutely no resemblance to the places of residence of the various ethnicities of the former Soviet Union. Looking at them one would be excused for thinking that they were drawn precisely to generate the maximal amount of tension between the many ethnic groups that were cut into separate pieces. There is also no logic in accepting the right of the former Soviet Republics to secede from the Soviet Union, but then denying the same right to those local administrative entities which now would want to separate from a newly created republic which they don’t want to be part of.

Second, many, if not most, of the so-called “countries” and “nations” which suddenly appeared following the collapse of the Soviet Union have no historical reality whatsoever. As a direct result, these newborn “nations” had no historical basis to root themselves in, and no idea what independence really means. Some nations, like the Armenians, have deep roots as far back as antiquity, but their current borders are truly based on nothing at all. Whatever may be the case, it has been extremely easy for Uncle Shmuel to move into these newly independent states, especially since many (or even most) of these states saw Russia as the enemy (courtesy of the predominant ideology of the Empire which was imposed upon the mostly clueless people of the ex-Soviet periphery). The result? Violence, or even war, all around that periphery (which the Russians think of as their “near abroad”).

tahlil.jpg

I think that most Russian people are aware that while there has been a major price to pay for this, the cutting away of the ex-Soviet periphery from Russia has been a blessing in disguise. This is confirmed by innumerable polls which show that the Russian people are generally very suspicious of any plans involving the use of the Russian Armed Forces outside Russia (for example, it took all of Putin’s “street cred” to convince the Russian people that the Russian military intervention in Syria was a good idea).

There is also one more thing which we must always remember: for all the stupid US and western propaganda about Russia and, later, the USSR being the “prison of the people” (small nations survived way better in this “prison” than they did under the “democratic” rule of European colonists worldwide!), the truth is that because of the rabidly russophobic views of Soviet Communists (at least until Stalin – he reversed this trend) the Soviet “peripheral” Republics all lived much better than the “leftover Russia” which the Soviets called the RSFSR. In fact, the Soviet period was a blessing in many ways for all the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union and only now, under Putin, has this trend finally been reversed. Today Russia is much richer than the countries around her periphery and she has no desire to squander that wealth on a hostile and always ungrateful periphery. The bottom line is this: Russia owes countries such as Armenia or Azerbaijan absolutely nothing and they have no right whatsoever to expect Russia to come to their aid: this won’t happen, at least not unless Russia achieves a measurable positive result from this intervention.

Still, let’s now look at the reasons why Russia might want to intervene.

First, this is, yet again, a case of Erdogan’s megalomania and malevolence resulting in a very dangerous situation for Russia. After all, all the Azeris need to do to secure an overt Turkish intervention is to either attack Armenia proper, which might force a Russian intervention or, alternatively, be so severely beaten by the Armenians that Turkey might have to intervene to avoid a historical loss of face for both Aliev and Erdogan.

Second, it is crucial for Russia to prove that the CSTO matters and is effective in protecting CSTO member states. In other words, if Russia lets Turkey attack Armenia directly the CSTO would lose all credibility, something which Russia cannot allow.

Third, it is crucial for Russia to prove to both Azerbaijan and Armenia that the US is long on hot air and empty promises, but can’t get anything done in the Caucasus. In other words, the solution to this war has to be a Russian one, not a US/NATO/EU one. Once it becomes clear in the Caucasus that, like in the Middle-East, Russia has now become the next “kingmaker” then the entire region will finally return to peace and a slow return to prosperity.

So far the Russians have been extremely careful in their statements. They mostly said that Russian peacekeepers could only be deployed after all the parties to this conflict agree to their deployment. Right now, we are still very far away from this.

Here is what happened so far: the Azeris clearly hoped for a short and triumphant war, but in spite of very real advances in training, equipment, etc the Azeri Blitzkrieg has clearly failed in spite of the fact that the Azeri military is more powerful than the NK+Armenian one. True, the Azeris did have some initial successes, but they all happened in small towns mostly located in the plain. But take a look at this topographic map of the area of operations and see for yourself what the biggest problem for the Azeris is:

Topography.jpg

Almost all of NK is located in the mountains (hence the prefix “nagorno” which means “mountainous”) and offensive military operations in the mountains are truly a nightmare, even for very well prepared and equipped forces (especially in the winter season, which is fast approaching). There are very few countries out there who could successfully conduct offensive operations in mountains, Russia is one of them, and Azerbaijan clearly is not.

Right now both sides agree on one thing only: only total victory can stop this war. While politically that kind of language makes sense, everybody knows that this war will not end up in some kind of total victory for one side and total defeat of the other side. The simple fact is that the Azeris can’t overrun all of NK while the Armenians (in Armenia proper and in the NK) cannot counter-attack and defeat the Azeri military in the plains.

Right now, and for as long as the Azeris and the Armenians agree that they won’t stop at anything short of a total victory, Russia simply cannot intervene. While she has the military power to force both sides to a total standstill, she has no legal right to do so and please remember that, unlike the US, Russia does respect international law (if only because she has no plans to become the “next US” or some kind of world hegemon in charge of maintaining the peace worldwide). So there are only two possible options for a Russian military intervention:

  1. A direct (and confirmed by hard evidence) attack on the territory of Armenia
  2. Both the Azeris and the Armenians agree that Russia ought to intervene.

I strongly believe that Erdogan and Aliev will do whatever it takes to prevent option one from happening (while they will do everything in their power short of an overt attack on Armenia to prevail). Accidents, however, do happen, so the risk of a quick and dramatic escalation of the conflict will remain until both sides agree to stop.

5f79961402051.jpg

Right now, neither side has a clear victory and, as sad as I am to write these words, both sides have enough reserves (not only military, but also political and economic) to keep at it for a while longer. However, neither side has what it would take to wage a long and bloody positional war of attrition, especially in the mountain ranges. Thus both sides probably already realize that this one will have to stop, sooner rather than later (according to some Russian experts, we are only talking weeks here).

Furthermore, there are a lot of very dangerous escalations taking place, including artillery and missile strikes on cities and infrastructure objects. If the Armenians are really pushed against a wall, they could both recognize NK and hit the Azeri energy and oil/gas infrastructure with their formidable Iskander tactical ballistic missiles. Should that happen, then we can be almost certain that both the Azeris and the Turks will try to attack Armenia, with dramatic and most dangerous consequences.

This conflict can get much, much more bloody and much more dangerous. It is thus in the interests of the entire region (but not the US) to stop it. Will the Armenian lobby be powerful enough to pressure the US into a more helpful stance? So far, the US is, at least officially, calling all sides for a ceasefire (along with France and Russia), but we all know how much Uncle Shmuel’s word can be trusted. At least there is no public evidence that the US is pushing for war behind the scenes (the absence of such evidence does, of course, not imply the evidence of the absence of such actions!).

At the time of writing this (Oct. 9th) Russia has to wait for the parties to come back to reality and accept a negotiated solution. If and when that happens, there are options out there, including making NK a special region of Azerbaijan which would be placed under the direct protection of Russia and/or the CSTO with Russian forces deployed inside the NK region. It would even be possible to have a Turkish military presence all around the NK (and even some monitors inside!) to reassure the Azeris that Armenian forces have left the region and are staying out. The Azeris already know that they cannot defeat Armenia proper without risking a Russian response and they are probably going to realize that they cannot overrun NK. As for the Armenians, it is all nice and fun to play the “multi-vector” card, but Russia won’t play by these rules anymore. Her message here is simple: if you are Uncle Shmuels’s bitch, then let Uncle Shmuel save you; if you want us to help, then give us a really good reason why: we are listening”.

This seems to me an eminently reasonable position to take and I hope and believe that Russia will stick to it.

PS: the latest news is that Putin invited the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia to Moscow for “consultations” (not “negotiations”, at least not yet) with Sergei Lavrov as a mediator. Good. Maybe this can save lives since a bad peace will always be better than a good war.

PPS: the latest news (Oct 9th 0110 UTC) is that the Russians have forced Armenia and Azerbaijan to negotiate for over thirteen hours, but at the end of the day, both sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire and for substantive negotiations to begin. Frankly, considering the extreme hostility of the parties towards each other, I consider this outcome almost miraculous. Lavrov truly earned his keep today! Still, we now have to see if Russia can convince both sides to actually abide by this agreement. Here is a machine translation of the first Russian report about this outcome:

Statement by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia

In response to the appeal of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin and in accordance with the agreements of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan I.G. Aliyev and Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia N.V. Pashinyan, the parties agreed on the following steps :

1. A ceasefire is declared from 12:00 pm on October 10, 2020 for humanitarian purposes for the exchange of prisoners of war and other detained persons and bodies of the dead, mediated and in accordance with the criteria of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

2. The specific parameters of the ceasefire regime will be agreed upon additionally.

3. The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, on the basis of the basic principles of the settlement, begin substantive negotiations with the aim of reaching a peaceful settlement as soon as possible.

4. The parties confirm the invariability of the format of the negotiation process.