Desde hace veinte años, Inglaterra — su Gobierno y su opinión pública — se ha embarcado en el pacifismo. Cometemos el error de designar con este único nombre actitudes muy diferentes, tan diferentes, que en la práctica resultan con frecuencia antagónicas. Hay, en efecto, muchas formas de pacifismo. Lo único que entre ellas existe de común es una cosa muy vaga: la creencia en que la guerra es un mal y la aspiración a eliminarla como medio de trato entre los hombres. Pero los pacifistas comienzan a discrepar en cuanto dan el paso inmediato y se preguntan hasta qué punto es en absoluto posible la desaparición de las guerras. En fin, la divergencia se hace superlativa cuando se ponen a pensar en los medios que calls for establishment of peace on this globe pugnacísimo. Perhaps it was much more useful than you suspect a comprehensive study on various forms of pacifism. From it emerge not unclear. But obviously not for me now, not here to do a study which would be defined with some precision the peculiar pacifism in England - its government and public opinion - he embarked twenty years ago.
But on the other hand, the current reality makes the case unfortunately. It is a fact too well known that pacifism that English has failed. Which means that pacifism was a mistake. The failure has been so great, so round, someone would have the right to revise radically the question and ask if everything is not a mistake pacifism. But I prefer when I can now adapt to the English point of view, and I will assume that their quest for world peace was a great aspiration. But this highlights the more so as there was error in the rest, namely the assessment of the prospects for peace that the world today and offered in determining the conduct to be followed by the person seeking to be true pacifist.
saying this not suggest anything that can lead to discouragement. Quite the contrary. Why discouraged? Perhaps the only two that the man has no right are the arrogance and its opposite, despair. There is never a sufficient reason or for the one nor the other. Suffice to note the strange mystery of the human condition whereby a very negative situation and defeat as having committed an error magically become a new victory for the man, simply by having recognized. The recognition of an error is itself a new truth and as a light in it lights.
against what they believe the mourners, every error is a property that accrues to our credit. Rather than mourn over it, should rush to exploit it. This requires that we resolve to go into it to discover their roots and mercilessly strongly build new conception of things that this provides. I guess the British have already, quietly, but firmly, to correct the huge mistake that for twenty years has been its peculiar pacifism pacifism and substitute a more prudent and more efficient.
As often happens, the major defect of pacifism English - and in general presented as holders of pacifism - was underestimating the enemy. This underestimates them inspired a false diagnosis. The pacifist sees war damage, a crime or a vice. But forget that before that and on top of that, war is a huge effort made to meet men certain conflicts. War is not instinct but an invention. The unknown animal and is purely human institution, such as science or administration. She was one of the greatest discoveries basis of all civilization: the discovery of the discipline. All other forms of discipline comes from the primitive that was military discipline. Pacifism is lost and becomes void if not bigotry in mind that war is a great and wonderful technique of life and for life.
Like any historical form, the war has two aspects: the time of its invention and the time of his passing. At the time of its invention meant an incalculable progress. Today, when aspires to be overcome, we see it only the dirty back, his horror, his coarseness, his failure. Similarly, we tend, without further reflection, curse of slavery, not noticing the wonderful progress that represented when it was invented. Because before that was done was to kill all the losers. He was a benefactor of mankind genius who first came up, instead of killing the prisoners, to preserve life and build on their work. Auguste Comte, who was a great human sense, ie, historical, and thus saw the institution of slavery - getting rid of the stupid things she says about Rousseau - and we are responsible to generalize his warning, learning to look at all things human in this dual perspective, namely the way they tend to arrive and the way they tend to leave. The Romans, very finely, commissioned two deities to consecrate these two moments: Adeona and Abeona, the goddess and the goddess get go.
By ignoring this, it is elemental, pacifism has done his job too easy. He thought that elimination of war is not enough to make or, at best, to work on that was not done. As she saw only a morbid excrescence appeared superfluous and in the humane treatment, he believed it was enough to eradicate it and that was not necessary to replace . But the enormous effort that the war can only be avoided if peace means even greater effort, with a system of very complicated and, in part, require the fortunate intervention of genius. The other is a pure error. The other is to interpret the simple hollow peace that the war would disappear if, therefore, understand that if the war is something that is also for peace is one thing to do, you have to make, putting to slaughter all human powers. Peace is not "there" simply provides no more for man's enjoyment. Peace is not spontaneous fruit of any tree. Nothing important is given to man, but rather, does he have to make him, to be built. Therefore, the title more clear of our species homo faber is to be .
If you go to all this, does not seem surprising that the belief in England that has been the most he could do in peace was to disarm, an action that resembles both a pure bypass? This belief is understandable if not diagnostic error warns that it is based, namely the idea that war must be just the passions of men, and if the passion is repressed, warmongering stifled. To see clearly the issue no matter what we did Lord Kelvin to solve their problems in physics: a construyámonos imaginary model. Imagine, in fact, that at some point all men renounce war as England, for its part, has tried to do. Does he think that's enough, moreover, that this had happened as soon as efficient in the sense of peace? Big mistake!
War, we repeat, was half the men who had invented to solve some conflicts. The renunciation of war does not eliminate these conflicts. By contrast, leaving more intact and less resolute than ever. The absence of passion, the peaceful will of all men, would be completely ineffective, because the conflict would claim solution, while not invented otherwise , war inevitably reappear in this imaginary world inhabited just peace.
It is, therefore, the peace will ultimately what matters in pacifism. We must stop this word mean a good intention and represents a new means of treatment for men. Do not expect anything in this order fertile while pacifism, if I want a free and convenient, does not become a difficult set of new techniques.
The enormous damage that pacifism has attracted the cause of peace was not to let us see the lack of most basic techniques, the exercise that is specific and precise, with a vague name, we call peace.
Peace, for example, is the right form of treatment as between peoples. Well pacifism usually assumed that such a right existed, it was there at the disposal of men, and that only their passions and instincts of violence induced to ignore. Now this is seriously opposed to the truth.
For the right or a branch of it there, you must: 1. No, that some men, especially inspired, discover certain ideas or principles of law, 2. º, propaganda and expansion of these ideas in the community right in question (in our case, at least, the community formed by the European and American peoples, including the British dominions of Oceania), 3. No, that expansion comes thereby to be prevalent, that those ideas of law be consolidated in the form of "public opinion." Then and only then can we speak, in the fullness of the term, in law, ie current standard. No matter that no legislator, no matter that no judges. If those ideas vets souls inevitably act as agencies for the conduct to be tapped. And this is the real substance of the law.
Well, a law relating to matters that inevitably arise wars there. And not only exists in the sense that it still has not managed to "force", ie has not been firmly established as standard in the "public opinion", but there is not even as an idea, pure theorem, incubated in the mind of a thinker. And not having any of this, having no theory or a right of peoples, is intended to forget wars between them? Let me qualify of frivolous, immoral, such a claim. Because it is immoral to pretend that a desired thing is done magically, simply because we want it. Only moral desire that will accompany the severe media gears up for its implementation.
not know what the "subjective rights" of nations and we have no inklings of what would be the "objective law" that can regulate their movements. The proliferation of international courts, organs arbitration between States, the last fifty years have seen, helps hide the true poverty of international law that we suffer. Do not underestimate, much less, the importance of these tribunals. It is always important for the advancement of a moral function that appears embodied in a special body, clearly visible. But the importance of these international courts has been reduced to that date. The right to manage is, essentially, the same that existed before its establishment. In fact, if it reviews the matter tried by these courts, we see that are solved from the same old diplomacy. No progress has meant that some important is essential: the creation of a right to the reality that are peculiar nations. Nor was it lawful
expect higher fertility in this order, a phase that began with the Treaty of Versailles and the institution of the League of Nations, to mention only the two most recent large bodies. I'm disgusted to attract the reader's attention on things failed, battered or ruined. But it is essential to contribute a little to spark new interest in large companies, to new tasks constructive and salutary. They should not make a mistake again as was the creation of the League of Nations means, and what specifically was meant this institution at the hour of his birth. It was a mistake either, as the regulars in the difficult task that is politics. It was a mistake to attribute claims the deep. This was a profound historical error . The "spirit" that led to that creation, the system of philosophical, historical, sociological and legal emanating your project and your set, was already dead historically at that time. Belonged to the past and, far from anticipating the future, was already archaic. And do not say it's something easy to proclaim that now. There were men in Europe and then reported their inevitable failure. Again, what happened is almost normal in history, namely, it was predicted. But once again politicians also ignored the men. Elude clear to which belonged guild prophets. Suffice it to say that the human fauna species represent the most opposed to the political. It is always he who should rule and not the prophet, but of much importance to human destiny that the politician always hear what the prophet cries or insinuated. All the great ages of history were born of subtle collaboration between these two types of men. And perhaps one of the root causes of the current confusion is that for two generations of politicians have declared themselves independent and have canceled this collaboration. Thanks to it has occurred shameful phenomenon that, at this point in history and civilization, navigate the world adrift than ever, given to a blind mechanic. Is becoming less healthy as possible without long advance political history, not prophecy. Perhaps the present disaster re-opened the eyes of politicians to the obvious fact that there are men who, by the issues that usually occupy, or have sensitive souls for seismic recorders, others received before the visit the future.
The League of Nations was a huge legal instrument created for a nonexistent right. Its emptiness of justice fraudulently filled with everlasting diplomacy that the disguise of law contributed to the universal demoralization. Ask yourself the reader
any of the major conflicts we have today raised among nations and say to yourself if your mind is in a legal possible rule that permits, even theoretically, to resolve. What, for example, the rights of a people who yesterday had twenty million men and now has forty or eighty? Who is eligible to uninhabited area of \u200b\u200bthe world? These examples, the most crude and elemental can be provided, put in clear view all the illusory nature of pacifism that does not begin to be a new legal technique. Without doubt, the right postulated here is a fabrication very difficult. If it were easy, there would be a long time. It is difficult, just as difficult as the peace, which coincide. But an era that has seen the invention of non-Euclidean geometry of four-dimensional physics and mechanics of the discontinuous, may, without fear, looking at that company before and resolved to attack. In a way, the problem of new international law belongs to the same style as these recent developments of doctrine. Here again try to free a human activity - the right - to some radical limitation has always suffered. The law, in effect, static and no wonder its parent body called the State. The man has not yet managed to develop a form of justice that is not circumscribed clause rebus sic stantibus. But the fact is that human affairs are not constants res, quite the contrary, historical things, ie, pure movement, perpetual mutation. The traditional law is just rules for a reality paralyzed. And as the historical change periodically so radical, hopeless clashes with the balance of law, which becomes a straitjacket. But a straitjacket made a healthy man has the virtue of insane rage. From here - I said recently - that strange pathological aspect that has history and that makes it appear as an eternal struggle between the paralyzed and epileptic. Within the village there are revolutions and between peoples wars break out. The good that aims to be the law becomes an evil, as taught and the Bible: "Why did you become the right fruit gall and wormwood justice" (Hosea 6, 12).
In international law, this incongruity between the stability of justice and the mobility of the fact that the peace you bring to it, reaches its maximum power. Considered as the right matter, history is first However, the shift in the distribution of power on earth. And while there are no principles of justice, even in theory, these changes successfully regulate power, pacifism is all the pain of love lost. For if the historical reality is that above all, seem clear that the maximum injury is the status quo . No wonder, then, the failure of the League of Nations, built gigantic apparatus for managing the status quo .
Man needs a dynamic right, a plastic and moving right, able to accompany the story in his metamorphosis. The complaint is not outrageous or utopian, or even new. For more than seventy years, the law, both civil and political, is evolving in that direction. For example, almost all contemporary constitutions seek to be "open." Although the record is a bit naive, it should be remembered, because it states the aspiration to a self-propelled right. But, in my opinion, it would be more fruitful to analyze in depth and attempt to define with precision - that is, remove the theory that it lies silent - the most advanced legal phenomenon that has occurred to date in the world: the British Commonwealth of Nations. I will say that this is impossible because it is precisely this strange phenomenon of law has been forged through these two principles: one, made by Balfour in 1926 with his famous words: "In matters of the Empire must avoid Refining Discussing or defining ." Another, the principle of the margin and the elasticity "enunciated by Sir Austen Chamberlain in his historic speech of September 12, 1925:" Look at you the relationships between the different sections of the British Empire, the British Empire's unity is not made on logical constitution. It is not even based on a constitution. Because we want to preserve at all costs a clearance and elasticity. "
would be a mistake to see in these two formulas that emanations political opportunism. Far from it, aptly expressed the formidable reality that the British Commonwealth of Nations, and specifically designated under the legal aspect. What we do is to define, because a politician has not come into the world for that, and if the politician is English, he feels that defining something is almost committing treason. But clearly there are other men whose mission is to do what the politician, and especially English, is prohibited: define things, but they are presented with a claim to be essentially vague. In principle, it is neither more nor less difficult triangle fog. Matter much is clear concepts reduce actual situation of law that is pure "margins" and pure "elasticities." Because elasticity is a condition that allows a right to be plastic, and if it were given a margin, is expected motion. If instead of understanding these two characters as mere loopholes and shortcomings of the law, we take as positive qualities, it is possible to open before us the most fertile prospects. Probably the formation of the British Empire is much like the "mollusc of reference" that Einstein spoke, an idea that was initially judged unintelligible and is now the base of the new mechanics.
The ability to discover the new technique of justice is postulated here preformed throughout the legal tradition of England more intensely than that of any other country. And it certainly is not by chance. The English way of seeing the law is not merely a special general style that characterizes the British thought, which takes its most extreme and refined what perhaps is the fate of Western intellectual, namely inert and interpret everything material as pure dynamism, to replace what appears to be only "thing" lying, still and fixed, forces, movements and functions. England has been, in all walks of life, Newton. But I do not need to dwell on this point. I guess a hundred times will have been recorded and have been demonstrated in sufficient detail. Let me just that, as an inveterate reader, express my desideratum reading a book whose subject is this: the English out of Newtonian physics: therefore, in all other walks of life.
If I summarize my reasoning now, look, I believe, consists of a single line and clear.
is good that the man of peace deal directly to avoid this or that war, but pacifism is not that, but to build the other form of human coexistence that is peace. This means the invention and performance of a range of new techniques. The first is a new legal technique to begin to discover principles of equity relating to changes in the distribution of power on earth.
But the idea of \u200b\u200ba new law is not yet right. Do not forget that the law consists of much more than an idea: for example, it is part of the biceps of the gendarmes and their substitutes. A technique of pure legal thought must accompany many other more complicated techniques.
Unfortunately, the very name of international law hinders a clear vision of what would be in its full reality a right of nations. Because the right would seem to be a phenomenon that occurs within societies and the so-called "international" invites us, however, to imagine a law that occurs between them, ie in a social vacuum. In this social vacuum nations meet, and through a pact would create a new society, which would by virtue of the words magic the League of Nations . But this has all the air of a pun . A company formed by a social pact only company in the sense that this word has for the civil law, ie an association. But a partnership can not exist as a legal reality if it stands on an area previously is in effect a civil right. Another thing is pure phantasmagoria. That area where the company is another company agreed arises preexisting is not the work of any covenant, but is the result of a longstanding coexistence. This authentic society, and no association, just looks like another in the name. hence the pun.
But I intend to solve now dogmatic gesture of pace and flight, most intricate questions of philosophy, law and sociology, I venture to suggest that anyone who demands safe walk when someone mentions a legal right , as indicated by the company carrying the right and after it. In the social vacuum created there is no law. This requires as a drive substrate of human coexistence, as well as the use and custom, of whom the right is the younger brother, but more energetic. So much so, that there is no safer symptoms to discover the existence of a genuine company that the existence of legal facts. Obscures the evidence of this the usual confusion we suffer to believe that any genuine company must necessarily have a real state. But it is clear that the state apparatus does not occur within a society, but in a advanced stage of its evolution. Perhaps the State law provides certain perfections, but needless to English readers stating that the right exists without the State and its statutory activity.
When we speak of nations tend to represent it as a separate company and closed to within themselves. But this is an abstraction that leaves out the most important of reality. Without doubt, coexistence or treatment of the English among themselves is much more intense than, for example, the coexistence between people of England and the men in Germany or France. Now it is evident that there is a general coexistence of Europeans among themselves and, therefore, that Europe is an aging society for many centuries and has its own history as a nation can take it every particular. This company has a general European level of socialization or index less than it had been made since the XVI century, private companies called European nations. Say, then, that Europe is a society fainter than England or France, but are not aware of their actual character of society. The supremely important thing, because the only chance for peace that exists depends on whether or not there actually a European company. If Europe is only a plurality of nations, can leave the peaceful radically from their expectations. Among independent companies can not be true peace. What we usually call it is just a state of minimal or latent war.
As the corporeal phenomena are language and hieroglyphics, through which thought the moral realities, not for the damage that produces a visual image converted erroneous habit our mind. For this reason censored this image in Europe as it was composed of a multitude of areas - the nations - who only have few external contacts. This metaphor of billiard player should despair to good peace, because, as the pool, no more promises that the collision event. Corrijámosla then. Rather than figure out the European nations as a series of free societies, imagine a single company - Europe - within which lumps have been more intense condensation nuclei. This figure corresponds much more about the other to what in effect has been to Western living. It is not thus drawing a ideal, but to give graphic expression to what really was from his inización, after the death of the Roman period, this coexistence.
living together, without more, does not mean society, living in society or part of a society. Coexistence involves only relationships between individuals. But there can be no lasting and stable coexistence to occur automatically without the social phenomenon par excellence, which are the uses - uses intellectual or "public opinion" vital technical applications or "custom" applications that guide the conduct or "moral" , uses the prevailing or "right." The general nature of use is to be a standard of behavior - intellectual, emotional or physical - that are imposed upon individuals, want them or not. The individual may, at their peril, resist the use, but it is precisely this resistance effort best demonstrated by the use coercive reality, what we call the "force." Well a society is a set of individuals who know each other is subject to the observance of certain opinions and ratings. Accordingly, there is no society without the effective exercise of certain worldview, which acts as a last resort to be tapped in case of conflict.
Europe has always been a social unit, with no absolute boundaries or discontinuities, it never fails that fund or treasury "vigencias collective "- convictions and value tables - featuring the coercive force is so strange that the" social ". There would be no exaggeration to say that European society is before the European nations, and that they were born and developed in the maternal bosom of the former. The British can do with some clarity in the book of Dawson: The making of Europe. Introduction to the history of European Society .
However, Dawson's book is inadequate. It is written by an alert and agile mind, but that has not been completely released array of traditional concepts in historiography, concepts are more or less melodramatic and mythic that hide rather than illuminate, the historical realities. Contribute little to appease the horizon as a history of European society, understood as just joined, a realistic story without "idealizations." But this issue has never been seen because traditional forms of historical perspective that reality unitary tapaban have called sensu stricto, "European society", and supplanted by a plural - the nations - as, for example, appears in the title of Ranke: History of peoples Germanic and Romanic . The truth is that these peoples in the plural as Ludion float within the unique social space that is Europe, "it move and live and are." The story I tell us postulate that the vicissitudes of human space and we would see how their rate of socialization has changed, how sometimes fell seriously raising fears of radical excision of Europe, and especially how the dose of peace in every age has been in direct proportion to that index. The latter is what matters most for the current woes.
The historical reality, or more commonly said, what happens in the human world, there is a lot of loose facts, but has a strict anatomy and a clear structure. Indeed, perhaps the only thing in the universe itself has structure, organization. Everything else - for example, physical phenomena - without it. They are made to loose the physicist has to invent an imaginary structure. But the anatomy of the historical reality needs to be studied. The newspaper editorials and speeches by ministers and demagogues do not give us notice of her. When the study well, it can be diagnosed with some precision the place or historical body layer where the disease lies. The world had a wide and powerful company - the European society. A strong partnership was formed by a basic order due to the efficiency of certain recent instances: the intellectual and moral creed of Europe. This order, under all surface disturbances, acting on the breast deep in the West, has been irradiated for generations over the rest of the planet, and put into it, more or less, the entire order that he could rest.
Well, nothing should now import both the pacifist and find out what happens in those breasts deep western body, what their current rate of socialization, why has volatilized the traditional system of "collective lifetimes, and if in spite of appearances, retains some of these latent vitality. Because the law is spontaneous operation of society, but society is living under the request. It may happen that on the date this lack these instances at a rate unprecedented throughout the whole of European history. In this case, the disease would be the most serious suffered by the West since Diocletian or Severe. This does not mean it is incurable, simply saying it was necessary to call very good doctors and not to any passerby. It means, above all, you can not expect any remedy from the League of Nations, as it was and still is, ahistorical institute a slanderer could mean invented in a club whose core members were Mr. Pickwick, M. Homais and congeners.
The previous diagnosis, apart from it being right or wrong, seem abstruse. And it is indeed. I regret this, but not in my power to avoid it. Even the most stringent diagnostic medicine today are abstract. What profane, reading a fine analysis of blood, there is defined a terrible disease? I have always tried to fight the esoteric, which is itself one of the evils of our time. But make no illusions. For a century, causes deep and partly respectable science derived irresistibly toward esoteric. It is one of the many things which have no known grave importance see politicians, men suffering from the vice contrary, an excessive exoterism. At the moment there is nothing but accept the situation and recognize that knowledge has radically distanced talks table-beer. Europe is now
desocialized or, which is the same, lacking principles of coexistence that are in force and that may give rise. Part of Europe strives to make success principles that considered "new", the other tries to defend traditional. Now this is the best proof that neither are current and have lost or have not achieved under instantiation. When an opinion or norm has become truly "collective effect", do not receive your force's effort to impose or sustain employment in certain groups in society. On the contrary, any particular group seeks its maximum strength claims of these lifetimes. It is time that must fight for a principle, it means that this is not yet or no longer valid. Conversely, when it is in full force, all you have to do is use it, refer to it, rely on it, as with the law of gravity. The magical influence their operating lifetimes with no controversy or agitation, quiet and lying in the depths of souls, sometimes without them realizing that they are dominated by them, and sometimes even believe that fighting against them. The phenomenon is striking, but it is unquestionable and is the basic fact of society. The lifetimes are the real social power, anonymous, impersonal, independent of any particular group or individual.
But conversely, when an idea has lost the character of collective instance, produces a comic impression among azorante see someone considered sufficient to refer to it to feel justified and strengthened. Now this still happens too often in England and North America. Realizing this we are perplexed. Such conduct "means an error or a deliberate fiction? Is it innocence, or is it tactic? We do not know what to expect, because Anglo-Saxon man's role to express themselves, "say", perhaps representing a different role than in other European peoples. But whether one or another sense of this behavior, I fear that is fatal to pacifism. What is more, would have to see if there has been one of the factors that have contributed to the discrediting of the European vigencias the peculiar use of them has tended to England. The issue will one day be studied in depth, but not now, not for me.
This is that peace needs to take care that you are in a world where missing or very weak main condition for the organization Be peace. In dealing with other people about it does not appeal to higher courts, because there are none. The atmosphere of sociability that floated and that filed as a charity ether between them, allowed them to communicate smoothly, have been annihilated. Are thus separated and face to face. While thirty years ago, the boundaries were for the traveler colures little more than imaginary, we have all seen how quickly would harden, becoming cornea in annulling the porosity of the nations and made watertight. The simple truth is that for years Europe is at war, in a state of war substantially more radical than her past. And the source that I have attributed to this situation seems shaped by the fact that there is only a virtual war between peoples, but within each there, declared or preparing a serious disagreement. Frivolous interpretation of authoritarian regimes of the day as engendered by caprice or intrigue. Well of course they are inevitable manifestations of the state of civil war in which almost all countries are today. Now it looks like the internal cohesion of each nation is nourished in good part of the European collective lifetimes.
This impairment sudden tumult of community among the peoples of the West amounts to a huge moral distancing. The deal between them is very difficult. The common principles constitute a kind of language that allowed them to understand. It was therefore necessary for each village as well and knew singulatim to each other. But with this rizamos the curl of our initial thoughts.
Because that is complicated moral distancing dangerously with another opposite phenomenon, that is what has inspired this whole article in concrete. I mean a giant whose character should be made clear a little.
For nearly a century it is said that the new media - moving people, goods transfer and transmission of news - have approached the unified towns and life on the planet. But as usually happens, all this meant was an exaggeration. Almost always human things begin to be legends and only later turn into realities. In this case, we see very clearly today that this was only an eager anticipation. Some of the media were to give effect to this approach already existed in principle - steamers, railways, telegraph, telephone. But not yet been perfected his invention and had been widely put into service, were not even invented the most critical, as are the internal combustion engine and radio. The nineteenth century, moved to the first great achievements of scientific technique, was quick to issue floods of rhetoric about the "progress", "progress material ", etc. In this kind, which towards its end, began to weary souls of those platitudes, although they believed that true, that is, although they had come to be convinced that the nineteenth century was, in effect , made and what that wording proclaimed. This has led to a curious error of historical perspective, which prevents the understanding of many current conflicts. Convinced that the average man the previous century was the peak that had the great advances, not realized that the time unparalleled technical invention and its implementation has been these past forty years. The number and importance of the discoveries and the rate of actual employment in that very brief period exceeds by far all the human past taken together. That is, effective technical transformation of the world is a fact very recent and that change is happening now - now, not last century - its radical consequences. And this in all aspects. Not a few of the profound imbalances in the current economy of living which have caused the sudden change in the production of these inventions, which change has not had time to adjust the economic organism. A single factory capable of producing all light bulbs and all the shoes you need half a continent is a fact not to be too lucky, for one, monstrous. This same has happened with communications. Suddenly and truth, in recent years received by each village, an hour and the minute, so much news and so new about what happens in the other, which has resulted in him the illusion that, in effect, in neighboring villages or in its absolute immediacy. Put another way, for purposes of universal public life, the size of the world has suddenly collapsed, has been reduced. Peoples have suddenly found closest dynamically. And this happens precisely when the European nations that have diverged most morally.
Do not warn the reader how dangerous course such a situation? It is known that humans can not, without more, to approach another human being. As we are one of the historical periods in which the approach was apparently easier, we tend to forget that they were always great precautions need to approach this beast with vagaries of the archangel, which is usually the man. For that runs throughout the history of the art developments of the approach, whose most obvious and visible is the greeting. Perhaps, with some reservations, it could be said that the forms of greeting are a function of population density: therefore, the normal distance they are from other men. Each Tuareg in the Sahara has a radius of loneliness that reaches several miles. The Tuareg greeting begins a hundred yards and lasts for three quarters of an hour. In China and Japan, teeming towns, where men live, so to speak, on top of each other, nose to nose, compact mound, salute, and the deal has been complicated in more subtle and complex art of courtesy so refined, that will produce the European extremooriental the impression of being a rude and insolent, with whom, strictly speaking, only the combat is possible. In this proximity superlative all is hurtful and dangerous, to the personal pronouns become impertinent. So the Japanese have come to exclude them from their language, and instead of "you" tell something like "the wonder this", and instead of "I" will make a salaam and say "there is poverty here."
If a simple change of distance between two evenly matched men risk behavior, imagine the dangers that engenders its sudden rapprochement between the peoples that has occurred in the last fifteen or twenty years. I think that is not properly repaired in this new factor and urgent attention. Much has been
these months of the intervention or nonintervention between States in the life of other countries. But he has not spoken, at least with sufficient emphasis, intervention today carries on the opinion of some nations in the lives of others, sometimes very remote. And this is today, in my opinion, much more serious than that. Because the state is, after all, an organ relatively "streamlined" in every society. Their actions are deliberate and measured by the will of specific individuals - the politicians - those who can not miss a minimum of reflection and sense of responsibility. But the opinion of an entire people or large social groups is an elemental power, reckless and irresponsible, it also offers, helpless, inertness to the influence of all the intrigues. However, public opinion sensu stricto of a country, when he thinks about the life of their own country always has "reason" in the sense that it is inconsistent with the realities of judges. The reason for this is obvious. The realities that judges are actually spent the same subject which judges the English people, the view on major issues affecting the nation, writes about events that have befallen him, he has experienced in his own flesh and in his own soul, who has lived and, in short, are his own. How are you going, essentially, to be wrong? Doctrinal interpretation of those facts may give occasion to the major theoretical differences, and these give rise to partisan views held by particular groups, but under those discrepancies "theoretical" unsophisticated fact, enjoyed or suffered by the nation in rushing this a "real" life that is the historical reality itself and has a value and a force greater than all the doctrines. This "right" or "really" living it, as an attribute, we must recognize all true "public opinion", is, as seen in its consistency. In other words, we get this proposition is maximally unlikely that serious issues of his country's "public opinion" lacks the minimum information necessary to organically his opinion does not correspond to reality judged. And suffer minor errors of detail, but taken as a macrocosmic approach, It is unlikely that a reaction is inconsistent with reality, inorganic about it and therefore toxic. Strictly
opposite happens when the view is a country about what happens in another. Is maximally probable that this view be highly inconsistent. The people to think and view from the bottom of their own life experiences that are different from the Village B. Can you do this to anything other than the game of nonsense? Here, then, the primary cause of an inevitable mismatch that could only be offset thanks to a very difficult thing, namely a sufficient information. Like here lack the "truth" of lived experience, should be replaced with a true knowledge.
a century ago did not matter that the American people be allowed to have an opinion on what happened in Greece and that opinion was misinformed. While the U.S. government did not act, this view was inoperative on the fate of Greece. The world was then "more", less compact and elastic. The dynamic distance between people and people was so great that, through it, the view incongruously lost its toxicity but in recent years people have entered a dynamic proximity extreme, and say, for example, large social groups is speaking Americans in fact - directly as opinion and not his government - in the English civil war. The same I say of English opinion.
Nothing is further from my intention that any attempt to prune the British and American agency to discuss its "right" to say what you like about how they please. Not a matter of "right" or negligible phraseology often rely on that title: it is an issue, just common sense. Argue that the interference of public opinion in some countries in the lives of others is now an irrelevant factor, generating poisonous and passions of war, because that view is still governed by a technique suited to the change of distance between people. Will the English, or American, all right you want to comment on what happened and should happen in Spain, but that right is an insult not accepting a corresponding obligation: to be well informed about the reality of English civil war, whose first and most substantial chapter is its origin, the causes that produced it.
But here is where the current communication media produce their effects, for the time being harmful. Because the amount of news that constantly receives a village about what happens in another is enormous. How will it be easy to persuade the English man who is not informed historical phenomenon that is the English civil war or other similar emergency? He knows that the English newspapers sums spent to sustain very strong correspondents in all countries. He knows that, but among these correspondents will exercise their office just so passionate and partisan, there are many others whose impartiality is beyond question and whose cleanliness to transmit accurate data is not easy to overcome. All this is true, and because it is very dangerous. As is the case that if the English man recalls with quick look at these last three or four years, you find that have happened in the world things of great importance to England, and to surprised. As in the story nothing of any relief occurs suddenly, it would be too suspicious man in the English support the hypothesis that is much less informed about what is commonly believed or that such information is made copious external data without fine perspective, among which escapes as real authentic reality. The clearest example of this, its formidable size, giant is the fact that this article served as a starting point: the failure of pacifism English, twenty years of British foreign policy. This failure declares loudly that the English people - despite its many correspondents - knew little of what really was happening in other towns. Representémonos
schematically, in order to understand it, the complicated process that takes place. The news that the people of the village B to get aroused in him a state of opinion, whether large groups or across the country. But as this news will come today with superlative speed, abundance and frequency, this view is held in a more or less "contemplative" as a century ago, but inevitably is loaded and takes active intentions of course a matter of intervention . Whenever there are also intriguing that, for personal reasons, intentionally engaged in harassment. Conversely, the town also receives B with abundance, rapid and frequent news of that distant view, his nervousness, his movements, and has the impression that the stranger, with intolerable impertinence, has invaded his country, which is there, this quasi-acting. But the angry reaction to the exasperation is multiplied because the people B notes at the same time, the inconsistency between the views of A and B that indeed happened. It is irritating for others seeking to intervene in our lives, but also reveals completely ignore our lives, causes us boldness frenzy.
While in Madrid the Communists and their allies forced, under the most serious threats to writers and teachers to sign manifests, talk radio, etc., comfortably sitting in their offices or their clubs, free from any pressures, some of the major English writers signed another manifesto which ensured that those communists and their allies were defenders of freedom. Avoid the fuss and phrases, but let's invite the English reader to imagine what might have been my first move to become like that between the grotesque and the tragic. Because it is not easy to be found more inconsistency. Fortunately, I care for my entire life riding on my device psychophysical a very strong inhibitions and brakes - perhaps civilization is nothing that the assembly - and also, as Dante said
Previs wind Saetta più che slow, not helped weaken
surprise. For many years I am engaged in noting the frivolity and irresponsibility prevalent in European intellectual, who have denounced as a factor of prime importance among the causes of this disorder. But this moderation that by chance I can hold is not "natural." The natural thing would be that I was now at war against those English writers passionate. So it is a concrete example of warlike machinery that created mutual knowledge among the people. few days ago, Albert Einstein believed "right" to comment on English civil war and take a stand against it. Now, Albert Einstein usufruct radical ignorance about what has happened in Spain now, and always for centuries. The spirit that takes you to the insolent intervention is the same as long is causing the universal prestige of the intellectual man, who, in turn, makes the world go today adrift, lacking pouvoir spirituel .
Note that I speak of the English civil war as one example among many, more precisely the example that I know, and I reduce it to ensure that the English reader for a moment admit the possibility that is not well informed, despite their copious "Information." Maybe this will move to correct his lack of knowledge of other nations, of course the most crucial for the world back in order to reign.
But here's another example general. Recently, Congress rejected the Labor Party 2,100,000 votes against 300,000 the union with the Communists, ie, training in England a "popular front." But that same party and the mass of opinion that pastors are engaged in promoting and encouraging the most concrete and effective "popular front" has been formed in other countries. Leave untouched the question whether a "popular front" is something beneficial or disastrous, and I reduce it to compare two behaviors the same group of opinion and highlight its harmful inconsistency. The numerical difference in the vote is one of those quantitative differences, according to Hegel, automatically become qualitative differences. These figures show that block the binding of the Labour Party with communism, the "popular front" is not a matter of more or less, but would consider it as a morbid terrible for the English nation. But the fact is that while the same body of opinion is concerned to cultivate the same microbe in other countries, and this is an intervention, indeed, arguably a war action, since it has quite a few characters chemical warfare. While such phenomena occur, all hopes for peace to reign in the world are, again, love's lost. Because this inconsistent behavior, the view that duplication of effort, only irritation can inspire out of England.
And it seems vain to object that these interventions irritate some of the people involved, but pleasing to the other. This is an observation too obvious to be true. The part of the country favored by foreign opinion briefly endeavor, of course, benefit from such intervention. Another thing was nonsense. But beneath this apparent transient gratitude runs the actual process of lived experience for the entire country. The nation eventually styled in " its truth" in what actually happened, and both parties agree it hostile, declárenlo or not. From here you end up joining the incongruity against foreign opinion. This can only hope everlasting gratitude to the extent that by chance guesses or less inconsistent with the living "truth." All unknown reality prepares his revenge. And that is the source of disasters in human history. So any attempt will be fatal to ignore that a people is, as a person, although otherwise and for other reasons, an intimacy - hence, a system of secret that can not be found, without more, from the outside. Do not think the reader nothing lazy or anything mystical. Take any collective role, for example, language. While it is evident that it is virtually impossible to know intimately a foreign language much you study. Will not it be foolish to believe anything easy to know the political reality of a foreign country?
argue, therefore, that the new structure of the world makes the movements of a country's opinion about what happens in another - moves that were once almost harmless - in real inroads. This would suffice to explain why, as European nations appeared closer to a higher unification, have suddenly begun to close to within themselves, their "stock hermetizar facing each other and become insulating boundaries in diving suits.
I think there is here a new major concern for international discipline, which runs parallel to the right, wearing above. As previously postulated a new legal technique, here we demand a new technique for treatment of people. In England the individual has learned to be cautious when you can say about another individual. There is the law of libel and have formidable dictatorship of "good manners." There is no reason to suffer no similar regulation the opinion of one people over another.
course this is to agree on a basic principle. On this: that people, that nations exist. Now the old and cheap "internationalism" that has spawned these anxieties felt, deep down, the opposite. None of their doctrines and actions is understandable if not discovered the root ignorance of what a nation and that they are the nations is a formidable reality set in the world and to be reckoned with. It was a curious internationalism in their accounts that always forgot the detail that there are nations.
Perhaps you now claim a positive doctrine. I have no problem in declaring what is mine still exposed to all risks of a schematic statement.
In the book The Revolt of the Masses, which was widely read in English, advocates and announced the advent of a more advanced form of European society, a step in the legal organization and political unity. The European idea is reversed to that abstruse internationalism. Europe is not, nor is the inter-nation, because that means in clear notions of history, a hole, an emptiness and nothing. Europe will be the ultra-nation. The same inspiration that formed the nations of the West continues to operate in the underground with the slow and silent growth of corals. The methodical waywardness is obscured internationalism that only through a stage of exaggerated nationalism can be reached on the specific unit and full of Europe. A new way of life can not be installed on the planet until the previous and traditional has not been tested in external mode. European nations are now coming to its own buffers, and the bump is the new integration of Europe. Because that's the point. No rolling or nations, but to integrate them, leaving the West throughout its rich relief. On this date, as I suggest, European society seems volatilized. But it was a mistake to believe that this means the disappearance or permanent dispersion. The current state of anarchy and superlative dissociation in European society is further proof of the reality it has. Because if that happens in Europe is suffering a crisis because of their common faith, faith in Europe, the lifetimes that is socialization. Spanning disease is therefore common. It is not that Europe is sick, but enjoy full health these or other nations and, therefore, is likely the demise of Europe and its replacement by another form of historical reality - for example, loose nations western Europe, coupled to the root of Eastern Europe, none of this is offered on the horizon - But as is common European disease, it will also reset. For now, there will come a joint of Europe into two different forms of public life: the shape of a new liberalism and shape, with a name wrong, is often called "totalitarian." The figures take smaller towns and intermediate transition. This will save Europe. Again, it is clear that all life has need of your opponent. "Totalitarianism" save "liberalism", fading on it, purifies it, and thanks to that we will soon see a new liberalism tempered authoritarian regimes. This purely mechanical balance provisional and will allow at least a new stage of sleep, essential to re-sprout in the forest floor in souls the fount of a new faith. This is the true power of historical development, but does not flow in the middle of the disturbance, but in the modesty of self-absorption.
Paris and December 1937.
0 comments:
Post a Comment