Bourgeois mythology of the « Age of Enlightenment »
https://taplink.cc/hyperboreanwisdom
Bourgeois mythology of the « Age of Enlightenment »
If the books of Jacques de Mahieu, qu’il is about those who deal with « l’mysterious archaeology » (all translated into French), or, even more, those that interest us, that is to say, those who deal with the race and the’history of ideas, have hardly ever stopped’s being reissued in Argentina since the death of this highly penetrating spirit, mysteriously none of these last ones had been published in French translation. The publication of WHO am I ? Jacques de Mahieu (Pards, 2018) n’y had unfortunately changed nothing. Maurras et Sorel comes to fill this gap – this void.
Maurras and Sorel (La Editorial Virtual, 1968), as the’author indicates in a preliminary note, brings together three essays published for the first time in the Boletin de estudios franceses, edited under the direction of the’historian and Argentine journalist Alberto Falcionelli (1910-1995) of the’Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, on the occasion of the bicentenary of the’Encyclopedia, that’university had held to « celebrate in its own way ». This is’ « La mitologia burguesa del ‘siglo de las luces’ » (1950), show map, « La Contra Enciclopedia Contemporary – Maurras and Sorel » (1952) and « La Tour du Pin – precursor de la tercera posicion » (1952).
In Revolt against the modern world (1934) and, in fact, as early as Pagan Imperialism (1928), Evola had traced the process of caste regression by S’ drawing on data provided by Guenon. « The bourgeois mythology of the “Century of the Enlightenment” » offers precisely an analysis of the multiple converging factors of the involutionary transfer of power from the’aristocracy to the merchant and financial bourgeoisie in the XVIIIe century. An extract is given below.
While, on the occasion of’a republican electoral peripety, the’hydre trotsko-capitalist, in other words and to resume the’ expression of Maurras, the’anti-France is unleashed in the media, while intriguing behind the scenes, the « third way » n’a probably never been more’news.
I. BOURGEOIS MYTHOLOGY OF THE « CENTURY OF LIGHTS »
1. The Society of the XVIIIe century
From a social and political point of view, the XVIIIe century, or more precisely the period that extends from the death of Louis XIV in 1715 to the meeting of the States-General in 1789 constitutes a period difficult to understand in its broad outlines. France lost its first colonial empire, but it quickly took revenge on’England by successfully leading the fight for the’independence of the United States. Its culture dominates’Europe and French is spoken in Berlin as in St. Petersburg, but the « philosophy », which for Catherine and Frederic is only’an entertainment and an alibi, is, gradually undermines the foundations of the’State. The’industry is born and is developing rapidly. But John Law causes the first financial bankruptcy and simultaneously gives birth to the taste of’agiotage. Agricultural techniques are improving and yields are increasing; but the’State, which relies on’agriculture, is,he can no longer balance his budget. Civilization reached its peak at Versailles, but the court nobility lost its hardness and intransigence and thus the’ spirit of domination essential to the exercise of its social function. L’apogee d’a brilliant, refined and cultivated society contains the premises of’a decadence whose first manifestations already shake the foundations of’a millennial order. The’ Observer is shared between the’admiration for what is and the awareness of the drama that this present announces and prepares. On a social level, everything seems to be in order. The organic structure of local and professional communities remains unchanged. Each individual plays, in his place, the role to which his birth and formation have prepared him.No doubt we sometimes feel a certain stiffening of’an order that had to adapt permanently to changing realities and that had been able to do so until then,’, but who is unable to cope with the new conditions of’an economic and social evolution with too deep and too brutal mutations. It is not that the machine is so rusty, it’is that’elle no longer works with the same elements as’ before and foreign bodies are introduced into its workings. The uneasiness that’on may feel results less from this maladaptation itself than from the disarray of the’aristocracy, which by its very nature is ruling, does not understand why the machine squeaks and loses confidence in both its ability and mission. This is not all’: the beautiful spirits of the kingdom come to tell him that his power is illegitimate,that its traditional principles, which have long governed social life, are erroneous, that its superiority is illusory, and that its very existence is contrary to the laws of nature. It is thus everywhere removed from its historical positions by newcomers, who have the’argent that it lacks and’ infiltrate even into its own ranks. Disoriented, the’aristocracy has already abdicated morally.
2. The administrative bourgeoisie
These newcomers belong to the upper bourgeoisie. Nothing’ is more deceptive than the word we just’ use. It designates both the craftsmen and the traders of the corporate society and the new class, predominant in the’ order of production, but not producer, that deprives them of their hierarchy and prerogatives. The XVIIIe century, bourgeois functions are « occupied » in the military sense of the term by an oligarchy that derives its power from two distinct sources: the’administration and capital.
Let us examine the first point. In the Middle Ages, the social organization’ is mainly feudal, that is to say that the lord holds all the political and judicial powers in his fief. When the Capetian kings unified the country, they took care not to destroy an irreplaceable natural order and limited themselves to reuniting feudal communities and incorporating them into the national’organism. It is obvious that this unification could only be achieved if the lords agreed to cede their sovereignty to the king and become his representatives, his « agents ». It is known that the’aristocracy did not accept this loss of’ autonomy, even if its power as a class did not diminish much by passing from the level of the village to that of the country. The last blow to political feudalism was the Fronde. Long ago,kings were aware of the necessity in which they found themselves to have men fully attached to the central power and independent of any feudal memory. Where to find them ? Of course, in the layer of the population closest to the nobility in terms of culture and’education, that is, in the urban patriciate.
Thus, the most educated part of the bourgeoisie was removed from production and trade and came to constitute a class of clerks, charged with administrative and judicial functions. Integrated into the’-State, these bourgeois cohabited with the members of the military and land-based’aristocracy, often supervised them, sometimes dominated them by their fortune, but had neither their hierarchical authority nor their honors. This situation was abnormal: they had the power (podder), but not the power (poderio), because their power n’ was in fact that of the’State in whose name they acted, while the little noble, at the mercy of the last of the clerks of the royal’intendent, had by right of birth privileges of any kind that expressed his power in the community. In addition, the main administrative and judicial offices conferred nobility on their holders.
However, the military nobility generally refused to mingle with the robe nobility. We understand that the latter, like the administrative bourgeoisie as a whole, did not accept such a paradoxical position and that’elle sought to satisfy its thirst for power. The framework for their efforts in this direction was clearly established: the administrative bourgeoisie composed the parliaments, bodies with complex functions, and, both ordinary courts and consultative assemblies charged with registering royal ordinances, but which could, by refusing to do so, render them ineffective, except in the exceptional procedure of the beds of justice, he left the last word to the king. L’histoire du XVIIIecentury is in this respect that of the struggle of the Parliament of Paris to s’arroger a political role that did not belong to it and thus become an organ of government of the’ State instead of’en being a simple execution agent’.
3. Capitalist bourgeoisie
To the bourgeoisie of dress S’ was added a bourgeoisie of’argent which, at least in its claims, would not delay to s’y assimilate. Farmers-generals, financiers who affirmed the collection of certain taxes, were the link between these two groups so different in their formation and their function.
The burghers in robe, because of their ancestry and position, became rapidly enriched and naturally tended to intervene in the financial movement. The’argent bourgeoisie was generally derived from trade. But while, until’ XVIIIe century, the fortune of the merchants served them only’ to the consumption, the’ emergence of the manufacturing industry opened them new opportunities. Instead of spending it, the owner of the capital had the opportunity to multiply it, without having to provide additional work, by sponsoring producers forced by competition to replace their cheap tools with machines that’s did not have the means to’ buy.
This capitalist oligarchy was little concerned with social power as such. She was only looking for economic power. But the economic’ depended absolutely on politics in the sense that it was tightly controlled by the’State. In contrast, the REAL’State, indifferent to the power of’argent, was organically linked to the traditional structure of community guilds. The latter owed him the legislation that protected them and the privileges (privae leges) which reserved them the markets of’a certain importance. « To strengthen its still virtual power – were we writing in a previous book – the capitalist bourgeoisie therefore necessarily had to start by breaking the structures of the corporate economy and changing the social structure that was associated with. It was to replace Community production by liberal production, the organisation of markets by free competition, that is to say, to replace the order of producers by the’ order of production, qui s’en would now distinguish ».
To achieve such an objective, it first had to take control of the’State, on which depended any transformation of the socio-economic structure. The will for economic power of the capitalist bourgeoisie was therefore logically translated into political demands. They thus met those of the administrative bourgeoisie. In both cases, the immediate goal of’ was the same: the conquest of the’State.
4. The bourgeoisie and the third state
The rapid analysis that we have just done clearly highlights the fundamental distinction between the new « conquering bourgeoisie », according to the’ happy expression of Georges Sorel and the third state, which’elle claimed to represent.
The third state, as its name indicates it’, was neither a class nor a constituted body, but a set of groups and’ individuals without a class or constituted body, that’ is to say all those who were not part of the nobility or the clergy. The whole’ of the capitalist and administrative bourgeoisie consisted precisely in speaking in the name of the entire’-State and in linking its own ambitions to the aspirations of the different groups from which it came, but with which she had nothing more to do for a long time.
All means were good. Did not the peasants rightly protest against the unjustified survival of the feudal regime ? They were against the nobility. Wasn't the communal revolution’ at the origin of corporate privileges and wasn't’ made in the name of freedom ? Freedom was preached to craftsmen, without of course telling them that this absolute freedom would lead to the disappearance of their professional status. In addition – there, machiavellianism reaches its climax : was not the salt farm’ unpopular ? Farmers-generals did not hesitate to promise his disappearance while continuing to collect the profits. Did the factory workers complain about low wages ? They were told that’s were due to the limitations imposed on the freedom of trade by corporate privileges.
In this way, the whole third state was mobilized for the benefit of’a class whose only desire was precisely to detach itself from the complex mass from which it came and to impose its domination on it. If’on examines the historical consequences of this tragic mystification, we will see that artisans, like the workers of manufactures and COUNTless sons of peasants, will, they were reduced to the’abominable proletarian condition and worked only for the sole benefit of the owner of the machines, that is to say the capitalist bourgeoisie, while the heirs of the administrative bourgeoisie will constitute the powerful lineages of professionals of liberal politics who will lead the’State « occupied », in accordance with the instructions of the financial’oligarchy.
What’on calls « French Revolution » is therefore the fruit of joint’action of bourgeois groups which, during the XVIIIe century, had become aware of’eux selves and acted in their own class interest and strong popular minorities deceived by a clever propaganda, as well as the’apathy of the nobility who held in hand the’State and the king himself. The’enterprise succeeds because’a single doctrine or, more precisely, a single mythology was sufficient to orient and organize the bourgeoisie, to deceive the people and to weaken the resistance of the’State. It manifests itself in all its aspects in this huge book in which collaborated all the beautiful minds of the « Century of Lights » : l’Encyclopedia.
5. L’Encyclopedia, expression and instrument of bourgeois’oligarchy
Two hundred years ago, Diderot had the famous published throughout’Europe Prospectus from l’Encyclopedia, or Reasoned Dictionary of Science, Arts and Crafts. The two centuries that followed saw the doctrine of the « philosophers » spread in France and the world, reaching its peak with the almost general acceptance of liberalism,’, then undergo the harsh test of realities and gradually decline until’ to be more today’, as a doctrine, that’a verbal survival and an object of academic commemorations, is, even if contemporary society still preserves the’ in many ways.
Nobody reads l’ anymoreEncyclopedia for the simple reason that’elle has become as unreadable as all the properly philosophical literature of its editors. Candide continue to entertain us; but who could still bear to read the memoirs and pamphlets written to defend the Knight of the Bar or Calas ? Rousseau's fiercest ideological opponent,’, has no idea of denying him the place that the Dreamings and the Confessions they deserve in French literature. But who still knows his articles of’political economy, who is still immersed in the works of d’Alembert, d’Holbach or’ius, even Diderot if the’on excludes his libertine novels and his « Saloons », who still consults the physiocrats, even the most famous, such as Quesnay and Turgot ? Yet, l’Encyclopedia, at the time,’ was in all libraries and the more or less forbidden works of its editors circulated freely and sold at the price of’or.
As L’has noticed Sorel, L’Encyclopedia has become illegible, because it is not really a literary work, even less philosophical, but a work of journalists. Or, more precisely still, it’is an immense Reader’s Digest for the’honest man who wishes to shine inexpensively in the provincial salons and make an opinion as superficial as definitive on the « sciences, arts and crafts ».
This’ is a double operation of popularization and propaganda, of which no one will deny the success. First of all’, the popularization: not of the formula of gunpowder or the’util use of the’astrolabe, even if the considerable number of facts likely to’ attract the attention of the eminently curious spirits of’an era of discoveries has greatly contributed to the success of the book’, but liberal doctrine in its economic and political aspects. Then propaganda, by spreading myths that translated into simple images the thought and intentions of the « philosophers », that is, in reality, the bourgeoisie. There is no question of saying that l’Encyclopedia it was a kind of party manifesto. The bourgeoisie’ was not organized, just its active minority was grouped in lodges and societies of thought. L’Encyclopaedia represented both the more or less conscious aspirations of the bourgeoisie as a whole and the’ instrument prepared and used by its organized groups to disseminate a doctrine and slogans, and, to make the rising’oligarchy aware of its interest and power and, at the same time, to deceive the people and neutralize the’aristocracy. We will explain how the Encyclopedists managed to accomplish these multiple and, at least apparently, contradictory tasks.
Jaime Maria de Mahieu, Maurras and Sorel, Centro Editor Argentino, 1968, excerpts, translated from the’spanish by B.K.