for many years in these environments, loosely understood Polish right wing, who regarded themselves as part of its ideological (and thus emphasized their difference from focusing on the ongoing battle for seat Parliamentary increasingly bezideowej "Moderate right" or "center-right" - the more deserving to be called pipi-right ) absolutely dominated by the conviction of the identity of the concept of right-wing economic views with a collection of mostly pleonasm marked using "free market". Diagram of this ordered believe that every true rightist must profess belief "free market" or "libertarian", while any criticism of or opposition to the "free market" can only go from the left and a manifestation of socialist thinking. The perception is as damaging just for the Right, it is now finally eradicated. The most insightful criticism of the "free market" as a phenomenon of economic and social development, taking into account the length of its consequences in politics and the realm of ideas, after all, the authors developed the so-called. cultural critique of capitalism - without exception, declared to the Conservatives. And they are serious reasons.
views on the economics of such diverse thinkers as William Wordsworth (1770-1850), Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), Robert Southey (1774-1843), Adam Heinrich Müller (1779 - 1829), Richard Oastler (1789-1861), Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), Karl Rodbertus-Jagetzow (1805-1875), prof. Frederic Le Play (1806-1882), Karl Marlo (wł. prof. Karl Georg Winkelblech , 1810-1865), John Ruskin (1819-1900), Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) , Konstantin Leontjew (1831-1891), Markiz René de la Tour du Pin (1834-1924) William Morris (1834-1896), prof. Otto von Gierke (1841-1921), Albert hrabia Mun (1841-1914), Giovanni Battista hrabia Paganuzzi (1841-1923), prof. Giuseppe Toniolo (1845-1918), prof. Frederic William Maitland (1850-1906), prof. Friedrich Meinecke (1862-1954), prof. Werner Sombart (1863-1941), prof. Leopold Caro (1864-1939), prof. Wladyslaw Leopold Jaworski (1865-1930), prof. Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), Walter Rathenau (1867-1922), Charles Maurras (1868-1952), Filippo Meda (1869-1939), Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953), Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936), prof. Othmar Spann (1878-1950), early Fr. John Piwowar (1889-1959), prof. Antonio de Oliveira Salazar (1889-1970), Ernst Jünger (1895-1998), Ferdinand Fried (on Ferdinand Friedrich Zimmermann 1898-1967), Adam Doboszyński (1904-1949), Dr. Giselher Wirsing (1907-1975), prof. Wilhelm Röpke (1899-1966) give the lie to envisage that the conservative in nature - and the kernel creates the Right's conservatism - were the cult of "free market" or uncritical support for capitalism. No room here to at least summarize and juxtapose economic thought of the eminent representatives of various varieties of conservatism, so we confine ourselves only to indicate the most important, source of error ideology of "free market", when viewed from the conservative point of view. This ideology is based on the postulate that in the economic sphere, a man should be allowed to do anything (unless it compels one to do anything other violence.) According to (pipi-) hołdujących rightists such an ideology, demand for "anyone not everything" should however be confined to the economic sphere, do not touch the other spheres of reality often appears in their cluster "in economic liberalism, conservatism in matters of morals. " But this is fiction. Anyone who has announced a rule "not everything" can not put its borders (not abolition). Human activities in any area of \u200b\u200blife can in fact be interpreted as economic activity, since it has the economic aspect, and has certain effects in the economic sphere. In this way, for example, the Catholic Church appears to be the operator of the "marketplace of ideas" in the economic activity (or even commercial), and the relationship between individual believers and the Church as a game between the consumer market (customer) and producer of a good - a game which already has a "slow everything." Key cultural institutions appear to be ordinary market participants, or mere commodities, which is not entitled to any special respect or different rules for the treatment (you can do with them all.) Economic sphere devoured all the reality (as in Marxism). The world is merging into one "free market", where "not everything."
In market competition, winning it, what is more demand, or what is popular. Gaining in popularity and as a rule, what is worse: the primitive creations pop culture, low entertainment, bad literature, television kitsch and vulgarity, newspaper demagoguery and so on. Finally, do not sell so well and does not produce such profits, as all forms of prostitution. On the "free market", where "not everything", there is no objectively binding standards of conduct (it is difficult to recognize as such purely economic determinants of increasing profits and reducing losses) - existence of any standard depends on how many people will be persuaded to their preachers adherence to them, but only by arguments that this is worthwhile. As a result, stringent standards are always unpopular, because of the sacrifices they carried, while the directive przyzwalające for everything, because the lack of moral discipline, there are always in demand. Contrary to the contention apologists "free market", "free market" rule "not all" impossible in practice, the existence of any solid ethics, morals, good customs or concepts of honor, because to exist in practice, each of them must be binding on the Community dimension, ie . at the level of the whole society, not only in private, at the level of awareness "unit." When morality is relegated to the private sphere, actually there is no morality. Economic determinants, indicating whether the operation is profitable, do not say anything about his rightness, fairness, or legitimacy - and a "free market" any other suggestions do not have to stick to, because they can comply voluntarily and by choice or not. Thus the "free market" by taking over more areas of life, neatly individualism, atomism social permissiveness, libertinism, selfishness, and hedonism. Supporters of the ideology of "libertarian" actually call for permission for these phenomena, even if they argue otherwise. They do it because the issue of "free choice", sometimes unconvincingly trying to defend itself against the consequences of his own views in ensuring that a fully "free markets" such attitudes will disappear, or marginalized as counterproductive and harmful to consumers. Experience shows, however, that they do not.
"free market" does not in itself carries so no good (just as its absence). It should be the action of the correction factor, to try to impose his bridle, the restrictions of a legislative nature. Highlights of these bits makes Christian ethics. The emergence and development of institutions that promotes traditional Christian ethics, economic (associations, centers of formation, publications, ministries, etc.) should enjoy the support of political authorities, including the word set the legal privileges granted to them (though not in form, that have a corrupting influence of financial grants from taxes.)
Another important bit is the tradition. The key seems to be developing a strong social disapproval for the development of economic activities or interests affecting the whipping identity community, which the beneficiaries must be treated as outcasts and subjected to ostracism.
Reconstruction also requires an artisanal ethos DECIDED together with traditions of individual competition - which remains today vegetate in the form of different concepts of "professional ethics". It seems necessary to slow the development of corresponding normative foundations for the new profession, so that ultimately a business representative from each profession miarkowały appropriate for the habits and norms, creating its specific, and while not divorced from religious ethos. All this makes us to create a legal framework for the development of professional associations - the bodies set up to guard the professional ethos, to enforce it and punish violations thereof.
"free market" must eventually limit the professional honor, based on the ideal of fairness, which counts the quality of manufactured goods over the maximization of the market. In the name of that honor must be exterminated, by ridiculing and stigmatizing, the Anglo-Saxon model of merchants, based on the ideal of agility, the wyrachowanym cleverness and unconditional pursuit of profit maximization. American reactionary Richard Weaver (1910-1963) rightly pointed out: "(...) disappearance of the heroic ideal is always connected with increasing commercialism. There is here the relation of cause and effect, as a man connected with the trade is inherently relativist, his mind is constantly engaged with changeable values \u200b\u200bon the market and there is no surer way for him than dogmatyzowanie fall and moralizing about things. >> Business and feeling never mix \u0026lt;\u0026lt;- is the motto of the utmost importance. It explains the tendency of all societies to exclude organic merchant from influential positions and depriving them of prestige, on this basis is probably based on sharp criticism of the petty traders in the>> Rights \u0026lt; Plato. British empirical philosophy of nature is not without connection with the commercial practice of this great merchant nation. "* In short, the" free market "should be included in the notches work ethos in which the concept of work will be restored as a heroic action, imbued with idealism, not a calculated action. Giving work signs " rite of dignity almost religious ", as requested in the national mesjanisty George Braun (1901-1975), will be a milestone toward the reconstruction of society, the traditional (organic).
Christian economic ethics, traditions, habits, professional ethos, honor, mysticism, the work - this is what should restrict the "free market" and organize events that occur on it. They should not be regulated by means of the multiplication of acts of positive law, which goes towards the statist and socialist economic model, the proper degenerated ("the advanced") societies to modern, foreign and traditional societies. The aim of the Counter-Revolution is a marketing body, not the (statist) mechanism and (liberal, libertarian) chaos.
Adam Danek
* Switch. Barbara Bubula.
0 comments:
Post a Comment