The axiom: The community is based on man conceived in its entirety, rather than in one or another of the roles that can have a social order ... ... ... ... ... ....
We dealt with this retro-utopian humanist vision of a supposedly primitive community, where men in matriarchal times did not assume more roles that the natural division of labor. Men hunted, women and children collecting playing. Already
canopy-anthropologists have challenged this view and have shown empirically that a free society never existed roles, the roles have been with humanity since its beginnings, even more, since before homo sapiens is, since I was a hominid, its primitive horde is already organized around emerging roles in relative complexity.
This vision of classical theorists, in addition Nisbeth wing, is primarily a reactionary ideological vision, fits the belief that any prehistoric time was better, with dynamic wing social fear and denial of human social nature always competing for power.
classical political philosophers were actually conservative and / or reactionary and early sociologists also overwhelmed by the change in the time period of the industrial revolution and French, devoted their efforts to find the natural laws of society, laws determinants of social change and revolution, a revolution that was terrified, and terrified of any social change who threatened their way of life for these changes, where social class no longer send and begins to send another and another class with new purposes new priorities, new intentions and new scholars.
That is a revolution if you do not change hands in power happens to be the bottom-up and the one above to be down. Which had to merge in the crowd is consistent and who headed the re-turn, passes the top of the pyramid dome wing. That is a revolution, does not imply a change in structure if not a change of power holders. The change of structure implies an evolution instead, something much more rare in the social dynamic, which probably occurs after there have been many revolutions and social system can no longer bear back on itself, then the system mutates and changes its structure, social genome mutates.
So for Compte, Saint Simon, Le Play, Toneis, Marx and many other classics, the company was in chaos with a mask of organization, where the mighty crushing the weak in a illogical
How could again be crushed at least?
How could less be more and more be less? How
man could be a wolf to man? How
man could have let the laws of natural selection prevail on their society and not the virtues of human solidarity?
was very crude reality to accept does the human being, an animal?, No, this could not be, humanism had displaced God from the center of human consciousness and empiricism had moved the man from his social ontology. Now, emotions, instincts and basic needs could be determined more by society than divine and human reason now all powerful.
had to find the culprit of this debacle, but the culprit could not be God or the devil, if he wanted the author of this thesis to be taken seriously by the academy humanist of his time track to the time of the Enlightenment and rebirth in the midst of modernity and industrialization, a time where technology did not believe in gods or heroes.
So there was more to blame the man, but not all men, self-centeredness academic intellectual not allowed, put into the group of offenders was something unacceptable, you had to put the blame on men, at least, the new rich that they now had the power, this was the revenge of the academy . An academy that he saw threatening their way of life in a historic transition in which their services were no longer priority and the survival of their funds was endangered, that new wing ruling class cared nothing mattered scholarship and all the technology and productivity.
serious academic Then the story goes something like this:
At some point in human social evolution came the coin, this transformed the archaic market equivalents, and not exchange many sheep for a cow, now everything would be changed to coins and coins all over and so the currency (the goods) makes everything into a commodity as well. If an egg is worth a coin, the coin is worth an egg: The fetishism of commodities.
What happened to this? The media of the economy was homogenized in the currency, the economy itself diversified into divergent explosion (which obviously took centuries) and next to it were diversified social economic roles in a range of subspecializations with its own identity and this qualitative called classical society, separating the term community. To this, the community, the idealized differently as a primitive community as matriarchal society, totemic, tribal, communal, traditional, etc. Where it is assumed that the roles were homogenized and the individual was an integral being, not split by the great social.
Who should the validity of the concept of society, the idea of \u200b\u200bhuman association, which now dominates much of what we mean classical concepts of meaning as they were once great nation, people, nation, kingdom, empire, state etc. , Rosseau
We owe the idea of \u200b\u200bsocial contract, an idea that explains wing society as a convention, I mean a free and voluntary association, a convention contract.
A legal concept that describes a free link two or more persons to meet common goals of mutual benefit,
This is how a technical term, significant gains the upper hand as ideal to describe the human social system, based on an underlying principle , freedom of association.
But this concept has a history, seems to back a particular debate, the debate about the origin of state, society and law.
Debate positivist jurists who won with this concept of social contract defeating the natural law and canon lawyers who promulgated the divine origin of law.
The background to this idea the social contract is the idea of \u200b\u200bpublic vengeance. This idea describes a social institution, the government. Individuals give up their power to take revenge to a special subject for him as the author chosen to retaliate for others and is the only person in the community who can make that revenge. One way to find order for a community, an early form of social organization, a primary level of social complexity. It is also the emergence of the role of judge.
public Revenge is the first social institution, to the point that before she had company, if not horde and must have appeared at the same time that religion and cultural feature, you must be as old as mankind.
idea how to see these levels of complexity can be explained by the theory of Von Hayek, who explains that social organizations emerge as the market phenomena or institutions that are gaining complexity as they evolve.
opposite to the concept of emergence is the concept of design. The design is what makes the human being when you arbitrarily lead to society and usually what occurs is a mess. Social engineers usually fail because they always work with designs instead of working with what emerges from the society, the social variables can not be isolated so you can not actually design or control of society really.
But classic authors set out to theorize a model of reverse engineering, ie a causal series conceptualized on a number of effects which they said had produced social change and based on these ideas assumed that if such isolated and controlled variables could reshape society and well-born economist historicism.
authors have written logic as Hume, Smith, Von Hayek, Rand, and Popper, they were not heard and magic words such as Hegel, Comte, Saint Simon, Marx and Durkheim were treated and how they were believed axioms: Who
controls the money controls the weapons and arms control who controls the people. When logic says that whoever controls the weapons is who controls the money and people.
irrational idealist vision never surpassed took us from the utopia of God's chosen people (Jewish people) to the superior people (the Aryans) until the chosen class (the workers) with their nemesis, the Gentiles, Jews, bourgeoisie and the pelucones today.
All these visions sought to explain the historical causes of historical phenomena, the result was predictable, falling into the paradoxical entelechies tautological. The triple curse
Marxist-ideology-alignment operation, targeting them as pest freedom (libre empresa, el libre mercado y la libre asociación). La libertad política, paso a ser entendida como libertad para explotar al débil y el control social totalitario paso a ser promulgado como igualdad. Pero ¿por que tanto éxito para estas teorías, por que lograron influenciar tanto el pensamiento del siglo 19 y 20?, Porque la conciencia social sigue siendo mitológica, sigue esperando al Mesías y sigue creyendo que la tierra debe ser un paraíso y la naturaleza humana debe ser divina. Un cuento chino, lindo de escuchar pero imposible de realizar.
¿Desde cuando existe la propiedad privada? Los marxistas decían que aparece con el esclavismo, los antropólogos modernos creyeron que apareció to agriculture and patriarchy. Can you really stand today this story? , Does anyone think that the head of a Cro-Magnon tribe would allow any other parent access to their wives (daughters included) without their consent?, Do you think someone today that the Cro-Magnon man to the paradise we call primitive communism community and There is a barbarous times of patriarchy? People
matriarchal (moles, shamanic, polygamous and non-farm) of today as taraomenae or guaorani of our east and as thousands of people who still reflect otherwise. Malinoski Spirkin or were alienated and saw what they wanted to see and not the raw reality of peoples trotemicos tribal.
back to our culture to explain from our own language and we return to public vengeance to explain the origin of social phenomena that we know today as an authority, society and state.
Once the teacher was instituted this scored a power that the man was not essential if an emergent property of their role, power.
magistrate's power, his authority did not emerge with an absolute identity appeared sui generis Platonic world of ideas, his model was the power that had each patriarch of his family, this can be understood as Domain. The domain was the power that had the owner on his own, and this power was understood as a right use, abuse and enjoyment. It appears
power, bound property and the right wing, law governing the property, originally a law that was tradition and then instituted into law. Law is the sovereign who commands prohibits or permits. Who is the sovereign? The owner, who is the owner? Which has, y. Who is the one you have? Who has that domain.
These concepts went from the civil law tradition and the right wing culture, so much so that to grab little character that had more power in our country, we called him "the master of the country" and now we say "the country has changed ownership. " En la práctica, el dueño es el soberano, por que tiene el dominio y el que tiene el dominio es el que tiene el poder.
Tonies nos dice: el prototipo de toda comunidad es la familia. Y no se equivoca, sin embargo no es un axioma valido para separar comunidad de sociedad como el pretendía. En la familia la autoridad-poder-dominio-obediencia, la tiene el patriarca, en la sociedad el magistrado. El poder del patriarca es equivalente al del magistrado. El patriarca tiene poder en su mundo privado y el magistrado tiene poder en el mundo público. Sin embargo el poder privado del patriarca solo sujeta a su familia y el poder público del magistrado sujeta ala sociedad. ¿Por que? Porque lo dicta la ley, pero la ley fue antes tradición and has been established that tradition has to be one of two conditions, the strength or consensus.
why the concept of contract Rosseau is a much more suitable concept implies consent, self-acceptance, a voluntary submission, however, and born in society, and therefore born in the covenant "so who agreed to us? Our forefathers, I mean the tradition. However, much of this tradition was instituted by force, was not freely agreed, was imposed by who had the power in this case is the domain of weapons, so it is so important that the legal and political system of the company allows social mobility and participation citizen, why democracy is an evolutionary leap, so as a political system democracy and liberalism as an economic system are two products of the same doctrine, liberal political philosophy. Because when there is no freedom, no mobility, no change of hands in power, there is no renewal and power cyst in the same owners that sooner or later "insertion in social class in a political elite that only protects itself sweat at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Do you want an example? Go to the Foreign Ministry and try to get a passport. Why you have to do a costly process to leave the country and makes an official in Guayaquil Quito doing a job you could do it without any problems? same if you wing police, the officer is of the mountains, whether there are so many people unemployed?, why do the military training schools, Chancery and Quito and police are not in each province? We face another social phenomenon of centralization.
Why is it necessary both centralism?, "Who cares both centralism?, Who decentralization threat, to whom harm? Definitely
centralization produces social control, social control and produces terror, obedience and social paralysis. If I have centralized and octopus political system of a country I have controlled (compliant) who rely on government, and who depend on government? Here's the dilemma depends on who makes the rules of the production system in a social market system, this is a market controlled by the government, the government controls production, then the whole society depends on the government directly or indirectly, much more obviously in an economic system "social solidarity" So who is really sovereign?, which controls the system, he has the power, if you have the power holds sway, and if it owns the domain.
Authority is dependent on obedience, thus ruling need to control the governed to ensure his government, centralized control allows the ruling and the more control it gets closer to full power, so it is vital to the ruler who wants to consolidate power to strengthen its role, in this case the government by disempowering the other functions, example is the hyper-presidentialism, the chancellor of full power or dictatorship. In other words, totalitarianism, total power.
In Ecuador we have a full assembly powers will still respond even political bureau chairman. If the assembly of full political power due to the bureau and the bureau due to the president. So who command, control, dominate and has? President.
This type of power produced by the totalitarian social control to be gained by re-centralize political appliance seeks to re-centralize the production system and reflects the sacred mantra repeated over a thousand times: you have to redistribute wealth to achieve equality .
If all are equal is easier to control, if no large-scale economy, the only state economy is strong, really easy to achieve in a country where private enterprise is so small or large is the state and the state reserves the largest domain of means of production, exploitation of hydrocarbons. Whereas capital has no flag or nationality, wager migrate to the capital, the private company goes bankrupt, leaving all space strategy and the means of production are bureaucratic.
But as you get to this realm of totalitarian ruler, Franco, Castro, Tito, Mussolini, Hitler, etc. had already been tested successfully through two things: The subsidy and propaganda.
This efectivísima communication by a powerful media campaign is supported by grants: flour, gas, petrol, spare parts, agrochemicals, bond of poverty and housing, free education, wage increases and a series of new pledges more privileges to change for the people to transfer more power to the ruler Through referenda and elections. Result:
Demagoguery and centralism = totalitarianism. Totalitarianism
= dictatorship.
Dictatorship = Slavery.
The authority then leaves his traditional nature, that leaves the natural extension: father-leader, a local leader regional leader, national leader. And cancel all intermediate levels between the father and the ruler, and this arbitrary authority could not bear fruit peaceful coexistence and doomed to perish. But though the government's success is due to the media capacity of a leader, the charismatic leader as in the case of Ecuador at the present time. Sooner or later, as explained by Weber, the charismatic leader must give way to rational-bureaucratic leader, Acosta-style or otherwise fall back into the traditional domination, that of the old masters of the country, the 'party.
emerging powers in the social system must be respected, and seeks to arbitrarily suppress totalitarianism, condemning the political system to collapse, that is why the totalitarian political powers seeking to replace these emerging local control by the hierarchy of bureaucratic style Catholic Church, totalitarianism pyramid creates an arbitrary order is imposed and therefore is not traditional, pop worse.
So tentaculizan supervisors and drivers above the average citizen gradually suffocating their free association to have in each block a "committee for defense of the revolution" Cuban-style, making eyes and ears of tyrannical power.
A power ceases to be legitimate and that the leader ceases to be a leader and becomes master.
The leader is the leader of a common cause while the master is the owner-owner-controller-ruler of the system. A leader can become master. But love never becomes a leader, no leader will be more than his own cause. A leader has followers, a slave master has only until their families are their slaves.
Why is it that the power need a master to prevail?, The agent in charge, the magistrate is grand in its platform, is the biggest bone to the city, because its platform, its jurisdiction is larger, its jurisdiction is not private, non-public and exercises command, so it is mandatory, so rules. The ruling has "majesty? Magna-state, bone, greatest height in our political system, democracy, can a president be larger stature? Let's see. According to the political right does not, according to civil law, but under the criminal law, military and public if the court has jurisdiction, commands the armed forces and head of government and state. What does this mean? That a subject like the rest has certain powers previously reserved to the monarch, Mon-Ark. An ark. Just going into the ark. The shoulders are only ruler. This is explained in de Tocqueville's maxim:
Democracy is a system of freedom, is a system of power. Great
truth, democracy is a system of power, power transmission, rather, domain forwarding and transmitting the domain of an object, a right, as you rent, transferring the right to use and extend our power to a "chosen" for the take certain decisions for us and the authority he has is given at the polls. At some point in history the Greeks elected a king who was more of a tribal chief and chosen by us to our "Your Majesties." But what about those who go about being born in democracy, how we choose our birth a system like this?, Do we have access to change the system if we disagree? Have ease of travel to other societies they live in a way that pleases us, because the more centralized and totalitarian the government, but we are doomed to be controlled by the master and less able to make our own history. It is therefore imperative to autonomy and decentralization, so we should not let it take it away and we struggle to recover.
is not easy to reach all these deductions, it is necessary no sun first understand the nature of society but also the human being, the individual, the sole legal science, politics and sociology is not enough, we must understand human motivation, biology and psychology.
Edgar Morin in an attempt to do elaborate the paradigm of complexity, an attempt to integrate sociology wing, the wealth of other sciences also study human behavior.
The appearance of logic, systems theory, cybernetics and biology of behavior in postmodern social science brings us new challenges today.
As decipher the social phenomenon, without falling into the engineering Conversely, as understanding the social system, its structure and functions, empowering them without altering their nature. We need a paradigm shift from the wing dialogical dialectic, analysis to synthesis, simplicity wing complexity. "But go past the rhetoric?, From a linear to a circular logic, the multiple and complex thought. This is more than words. Is actually daring to explain the social phenomenon in more than one paradigm and more of a science, is to allow other concepts and categories involved in the diagnostic sciences is to understand social institutions as interrelated systems, to understand what functions are disease previously thought and see the other point of view we thought wrong.
Do we dare?
0 comments:
Post a Comment