Felix Koneczny noted that there is no single European civilization and Europe is simply a field of abrasion of 4 civilizations: Latin, Byzantine, judaic and Turkish. ‘The effect of this European must choose’ (the ‘State and Law in Latin Civilization’, Warsaw-Comor 2001, p. 55).
The Polish student did not specify what kind of civilization was represented by the Anglo-Saxons, whom we chose as allies erstwhile entering NATO and the EU. He most likely accepted that the same as us – Latin, due to the fact that specified an approach is typical of Polish culture (vide: “Between Logic and Faith. Jan Parys talks to Józef M. Bocheński, Warsaw 1998; especially the chapter “Settings to the World”). However, it is at least doubtful, given that the Catholic Church was desperately resisting the modern West, condemning its political doctrines, until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), erstwhile it officially surrendered to it.
The echoes of these condemnations have fundamentally silenced. Today's political communicative in Poland divides the planet into 2 parts. The better are the states of the “worldly community of marketplace democracy” constantly expanded and strengthened by the United States of North America, seeking to “enlarge the ellipse of nations that can enjoy freedom”, as he assured Bill Clinton at the UN: "We hope that there will come a day erstwhile all man in the planet will be able to express his views freely and to make full usage of his energies in a planet of flourishing democracies that work together and live in peace" (the same). The freedom of expression is not enjoyed by the inhabitants of a worse, authoritarian part of the world; it is deprived of the benefits of liberty and subjected to censorship and oppression of its regimes. These countries, headed by China, Russia, Brazil, the Republic of South Africa and India, besides form a increasing BRICS+ group, besides called the "global south".
Narration does not take into account the fact that both camps frequently usage restrictive social control measures and the democratic camp frequently falls fatally against the background of its authoritarian competition. The dictatorship in Belarus did not apply any oppressions present in the West during the Covid-19 pandemic; pandemic restrictions in China besides did not exceed Western restrictions; the “organic” madness seems to be completely unrelated to the “worse” authoritarian part of the world. So it seems that the Western communicative just doesn't number with facts. alien and more cognitively interesting is the fact of its interior inconsistency visible to the bare eye. Liberal Western elites openly usage preventive censorship, mass surveillance (video “signalist” case) Edward Snowden), wellness segregation or pro-health compulsion, which are unacceptable in their own liberal optics. They besides proclaim the intention of establishing a planet government, included in the programmes of a number of global organizations (UN, WHO, IMF, WFE, etc., besides the Catholic Church) and in the strategies of the large corporations, moving on to the agenda over the "joying freedom" of the nations, subject to annihilation in the framework of their social cultural revolution.
Appearances of Democracy
Meanwhile, countries concentrated in the block around China (BRICS+) do not impose their cultural or civilizational agenda, let alone uniform systemic solutions for the world. Despite (?) their authoritarianism does not let global corporations to destruct their own societies. If this is about authoritarianism, possibly there's something incorrect with liberal democracy? It seems that liberal rules overpower societies, making them defenceless against speculative capital alternatively than authoritarianism, which acts in the other direction. Why, then, does this happen? Could this be predicted? There are answers to these questions.
Democratic liberalism was formulated by the Anglo-Saxons in their dominant language by an empirical – nominalist tradition (Ockham, Hume, Smith). The creator of political liberalism can be considered John Locke (1632-1704). Nominism contradicts the existence of real relationships and alleged popularities. As a result, he treats the planet as an object of arbitrary influence alternatively than rational cognition. A healthy mindset in a denominationist is – as he says frequently in his mouth Albert Einstein slogan – "a group of superstitions acquired before the age of eighteen". Anglo-Saxon political thought does not treat society as a set of individuals connected by real relationships, carrying out any real, common qualities. It is so doomed to utmost individualism or utmost collectivism. Society is fiction and reality (things) are only unique individuals, treated as atoms without property, or vice versa: society (humanity) is simply a thing whose properties ("momentations") are individuals. The difference between these positions is in spite of appearances small, due to the fact that only conceptual. 1 is the consequence of the another and vice versa, which is simply a good proof of both. 1 dominates the Anglo-Saxons, the another dominates the continental tradition, including the German tradition. Both were the subject of condemnation of the Catholic Church until the mentioned Second St.
"This fact continues to shock: Platoism is hidden nominalism," he noted. Paweł Rojek in the work “Trops and universality. Ontological Research" (Warsaw 2019, p. 54). The classical texts introduced by the Anglo-Saxons can be found in Plato's "Parmenides" (131a), Aristotle's "Metaphysics" (1086 a 32-34, b 10-13) and Thomas Aquinas' "Summa of Theology" (ST I, 84, 1). The rojek, on the occasion of his investigations, gives a reliable analysis of the current state of Anglo-Saxon analytical philosophy, which armed with modern logic managed to correctly identify its founding errors. However, the specialized investigation of university philosophers does not have much influence on the Anglo-Saxon political thought from which British utilitarianism grew (Hutcheson, Cumberland, Gay, Shaftesbury, Hume, Mill, Bentham) and then American pragmatism (James, Peirce) and instrumentalism (Dewey). The competent reader, however, is satisfied with the cognition of what the Anglo-Saxons are playing, who, as if, have insisted on not knowing Plato, Aristotle and Thomas of Aquinas. any Anglo-Saxon authors mention to this tradition e.g. Alasdair Macintyre (‘The Legacy of virtue’), do not gain a greater understanding. This fact, in my opinion, shows their distinctness from Latin culture.
Poor nominalistic ontology does not let an individual to have any characteristics in common with another units. Consequently, there can be no authority but only the fight of opposing forces, the eventual deficiency of which is simply a "deficit of democracy" or "organised society". Yashen Huang with MIT in the Anglo-Saxon way of grasping the predominance of democracy over autocracy: "A strategy of mechanisms guaranteeing political balance (checks and balances) along with the regulation of law, free and fair elections and independent judiciary is simply a fundamental solution of tensions between scale and scope (i.e. homogenity, size and strength and diversity, creativity and competitiveness – cited by W.K.). Currently, all major countries but China have democratic elements in their political system. It is simply a lasting strength of functioning democracy – its ability to scale while maintaining its scope, while autocracy can only scale at the expense of its scope. How China has become a power and whether they are in danger of falling down”, Warsaw 2024, p.31). In Anglo-Saxon thought, authority is, as indicated, a threat to the individual to be exposed. "Long before democracy came, Henry VIII had to face various forces, face constant disputes and a changing environment, that is, situations in which no Chinese ruler (are there? – question W.K.) [...] there is no organised society in China, and the deficiency of civilian society strengthens the power of the state [...] presently there are no social standards in China that are crucial adequate to compete with autocratic standards" (ibid., pp. 179, 181). The place of authority is so democracy, which, as it is easy to see, is not an authority.
The authority is simply a non-returnive and non-symmetrical relation between an entity, object and any field. For example, the relation of the boy (subject) with the father (subject) is different from the father's side and another from the son's side and depends on a number of possible areas of their common contact. As in any three-member relationship, we have six partial accounts (see I. M. Bocheński, “What is authority”, in: Logic and Philosophy, Warsaw 1993). 1 cannot be an authority for one's own self, due to the fact that the relation to one's own same is both symmetrical and reversible. And by definition, there can besides be no collective authority. For both of these reasons, no congregations can be their own authorities, that is, they cannot “rule” each other. Whatever governs the nation is not a nation. The Catholic Church preached precisely the same doctrine before its “conversion” to Anglo-Saxon liberalism, which took place during the Second Vatican Council. “The power comes from God, even in democracy [...] Human authority would not have the power to commit in conscience under the punishment of sin" (Abp Marcel Lefebvre, “They deposed Him”, Warsaw 2020, p. 64)
Democratic elections...
do not rule, regardless of the number of votes cast. Do politicians perceive to voters, or do politicians? The electors have an impact on only 2 of the six mentioned by Bocheń's partial accounts of authority, i.e. their attitude towards the authority entity and their attitude towards the field of authority. It's precisely the same thing in a monarchy or any another system. The authority creates societies and political systems and its denial is anarchy alternatively than democracy. “The election actually defines a sovereign person, not a sovereign power. This is not the establishment of sovereign power but the decision by whom it is to be exercised" (Leon XIII, encyclical "Diuturnum illusud", 94). It applies without discrimination to any alleged bottom-up movements that besides request their leaders.
Democracy in today's edition is not even a mechanics designated by Leon XIII, but alternatively a circumstantial kind of public opinion poll, effectively uniting support for the rulers. It gives large power but not to any "demos". Thus, we are dealing with the grim but unexpected fulfillment of the prophecies of many Catholic traditionalists. "Delivered from dependence on their subject, the unreasonable subject is defenseless and entirely based on public opinion. The thought of the individual will dissolve in it, that is, in what everyone thinks, or at least most. This opinion will be shaped by the dynamics techniques of the group, created by the media in the hands of the financier, politicians of freemurals, etc.” (Abp Marcel Lefebvre, Ibid., p. 25). Those who are allergic to Catholicism will find the same view in Propaganda Edward Bernays’ea (Vectors Publishing, Wrocław 2020). Thus, it is not any obscurant invention of the clergy, as it is sometimes punctuated.
The Anglo-Saxon communicative of liberal democracy is an authoritatively ousted disinformation negating authority as such. erstwhile authority says there's no authority, is it authority or not? If a liar is lying, is he telling the truth, or is he lying? Well, both, depending on the need. For example, the alleged exclusion culture negates all authority, as "presumptive", itself being an oppressive authority of sanctions for those who defy it and an authority of solidarity for their supporters. "The household that performs educational functions and has produced clear views in the kid has been defined in propaganda by the toxic family" (Tomasz Formicki, intellectual Diversion, Warsaw 2021, p. 128). The communicative of power hides under the pretext of communicative about freedom, gaining designation through sophostic manipulation. “In all modern emancipation tradition, it is not about nonsubjective searching for fact and better knowing of the nature of man, but about the implementation of a political project. Reason is treated as a [...] tool to prosecute a circumstantial political vision, to impose its reality from the top” (ibid., p. 131). This is understandable, for another goals cannot be put on the ground of utilitarianism, pragmatism, or instrumentalism.
While the philosophers of ancient Greece mostly avoided sophisms, Anglo-Saxon political thinkers based their political pragmatism on them. alternatively of asking for the truth, they ask about the cost-effectiveness, as if the truthfulness of the answer was of no importance in determining the cost-effectiveness. Applying the principles of free marketplace economy Adam Smith, it has not been examined whether all social relations are market-based, i.e. subject to request and supply law. That's not the authority. The 3 most crucial goods in the market: labour, land and money are not goods, i.e. they do not behave marketably. Work cannot be separated from man, and this 1 is “produced” outside the market, due to the fact that in the household the labour supply curves take up to 4 basic shapes alternatively of one, as in the case of another goods. Consequently, in low-wage economies, we do not see either the highest level of labour activity or the lowest unemployment rates, but alternatively the opposite. The earth’s supply curve is vertical, since, apart from exceptional situations of conquest or geographical discovery, the earth’s supply is rigid. It will be regulated legally and bureaucraticly alternatively than in the market.
In the case of money (now fiduciary) the curves do not intersect at all, due to the fact that as the request for credit decreases with the increase in its price (interest rates) – identical to another goods – supply besides falls. This is due to the fact that loans are not sold, but administratively allocated under a bureaucratic system. For the 3 identified ‘things’, it is so impossible to remove the supply and request curves intersecting at the marketplace point of equilibrium. These are circumstantial economical ‘fictional good’, showing the limit of marketplace theory, which it itself has set. "To the degree that modern economical explanation depends on fictional goods, it besides becomes a fictional explanation and cannot claim the position of discipline in any sense of the word. At most, she is able to accomplish a level of technological fantasy" (John C. Médaille, "Too large to fall? An alternate View of Economics, a Course for a Truly Free Market”, Wrocław 2017, p. 116).
The Mercantisation of Democracy
If it were science, economical neoliberalism could not arise. However, it was about controlling the resources accumulated in Keynesian economies. The marketing of society must have been a essential result. This is not a consequence of the market, as many opponents of neoliberalism think, but an authority which arbitrarily, that is, outside the field of its own competence, imposes false (absurdical, paradoxical) solutions. The author of these words has been observing for 30 years a sterile "dispute" in which the organization is anti-market-oriented, claims that no free marketplace exists at all, and terrified of the inability to choose the libertarians respond that authority—especially sanctions—and consequently the state itself is evil.
When the main value becomes economical profit, social relations, including authorities, are subject to the request and supply mechanism, for example, an expert does not compose what he knows, but what he can gain from. "It begins to be bad erstwhile a state or political apparatus, which is simply a deonist authority, begins to influence the content of what the student says" (“Between Logic and Faith[..]”, p. 253. The approach resulted in a fresh criminal covid-19 pandemic, or alleged climate crisis, but is older. Women have long been freed from a “toxic family” and sent to the career of secular work. This increased labour supply on the market, lowering its price. Production and consumption did not change the level and profits from lower labour costs were paid by the holders of capital, shares, shares, investors. The cost was borne by average families where mothers ceased to be present. As they became “self-contained”, they stopped listening to their husbands. Children taught by the example of their mothers stopped listening to their parents. Until the age of 4-5, the kid unwittingly copies the behaviour of the parent, but it will not aid if there is nothing to copy, i.e. obedience of his mothers to his fathers. The social structure fell apart, which in practice meant that the relationships of authority went from parents to media, idols, drunkards, celebrities, marketing. These, unlike parents, may be silent about their own authority.
The next profit from household break-up is the fact that a female electorate can be bribed with taxes on the GDP generated by men, which is impossible the another way around (men produce more GDP). Politically, therefore, it is worth investing in women until the competition manages the full female electorate until further support becomes unprofitable. Then you gotta come up with fresh kinds of electorate to trigger, that is, de facto enslavement, which we are observing with our own eyes today.
If the main social rule becomes profit, it is understandable to seize all resources including money, work and land under the convenient pretext of a “free market” by managers of specified a strategy who are not even able to feel remorse. It was not accidental that John Locke designed the society of many Protestant denominations, excluding Catholics and Jews from it. He felt that the principles of these 2 religions could compete with the concept of conscience. Hence the slogan: "There is no freedom for enemies of freedom." How Well He Appreciated Christopher Ferrara The conflict for freedom always turns out to be a conflict for power ("Freedom, the god who failed", Wrocław 2017).
China more “Western”
The Anglo-Saxons are afraid that "there are no social standards in China that are crucial adequate to compete with autocratic standards", making it clear that the same can be said about them hiding under the communicative of the non-existence of authority. Hermeneutics, from which comes the quoted above Yashen Huang is simply illogical. The uniform anti-community – diverse (scale vs range) refers only to autocracy. On the another hand, democracy is to hold its wonderful ability to "scale while maintaining its scope". Only a denominationist who considers the meaning of concepts as a consequence of habit, or a Platonic who has the notion of being completely detached from things, will figure that out. For the remainder of the people there is no imaginary dichotomy, and all governments in this democratic one, unless they are government alternatively than another name for anarchy, “scaling at the expense of scope.” Autocracy simply scales more than liberal systems. "The individual political freedom may seem to be defined as the absence of any authority in a given area, i.e. the authority of solidarity. But social freedom cannot be defined in this way. Even the most anarchist society is simply a society in which there are authorities (solidarities) recognized voluntarily" (Józef Bocheński, “The concept of a free society” in “Logics and Philosophy”, Warsaw 1993, p. 151).
Chinese civilization is much closer to the classical European thought than to the Western, due to the fact that it is just closer to logic. This can be seen by comparing historical descriptions of China from the quoted “Twilight of the East” with authors representing the classical European thought, e.g. Polish moralist Jack Voroniecki OP. "The unity ... which is established by state authority and state law, gives birth to a civic community which is called a state, binds to this territory exclusively subject to that authority ... due to the fact that as the state is constituted by the unity of state power, so the nation is created by the unity of morality and customs which give the collective any uniform way of action ... The aim of the State is to supply citizens with adequate means of surviving as best as possible, both material and especially moral means ... the State directs the community with universal security, since it establishes the same ways of acting by law, resulting in unity in collective proceedings and an increase in the importance of individuals" ("On Nation and State", Lublin 2004, pp. 16, 20). Confucius himself could sign under these words. It does not mean that he would halt the "scaling" at the same point as St. Thomas, but the convergence is significant. However, this is simply a separate problem from the 1 addressed in this text.
Vladimir Kowalik
photo of wikipedia
Think Poland, No. 37-38 (8-15.09.2024)
