The "People's community" and the "mistakes" of Jose Streel
Jose Streel's concept of "Communaute Populaire" (People's community) seemed to be good sounding into our ears. But then despite that, I notice that his ideas, especially his concept tries to negate the ideas of class struggle, insisting the idea of "coexistence" heavily.
In addition to that, his glorification of the middle ages, of feudal order and Ancien regime seemed likely to ruin the vision of the future. As what John Starchey said "A return to the dark ages".
In Streel's word, he emphasized much of "Social order" in this so-called "People's community", that, in a rightist sense, is often confused with the "nation", well... Streel even said that the community of the people is "the nation considered a complete social environment in which man can blossom." But then. the left may also likely to say of it!
And so is it's ideas vested like "It pre-exists the individual and is not dependent on an unstable set of conditions, it is above all conflicts of interests which can manifests themselves within it, and imposes on its members links and solidarity effective and powerful enough..."
But then,
In every society lies different conditions and struggles to pass through. Marx even said that class struggles is inevitable until it reaches the goal of communism! Another that, the community really enforce links and solidiarity-for the community of the people is a collective of the people, and not of a fascist individual outlook garbed as "social order".
Somehow, I agree what he've said that "it is perpetuated through the heritage which is passed down to each generation from its forebears and through the duties which unite it to future generations."
Agree with a sense that is drew from Mao Zedong's mass line that states that "the masses are the creators of history, the power to create and the master's of our fate!" The community, in an actual basis, is composed of masses (worker, peasant, intellectual) and it is their duty to "serve the people" by doing things Streel and Mao think through.
Solidarity, according to Streel, "Is not a sentiment nor a voluntary act of generosity, but of organized condition of its existence from which NO one is free to opt out." In this idea, Streel seemed too "right" in interpreting it, and somehow he tries to make it too obligatory without any internal will to involve or not; but then, solidarity within the community is really a force since every people within it voluntarily joined together as a collective in order to set actions, guidelines, and plans to improve, to rectify, and to change. And so is the essence of unity and cohesion-through collective action and democratic centralism, just like the communes in China during the early days of socialist construction, where anything within the socialist volksgemeinschaft is carried with these actions taken.
But,
The idea what Streel made me disagree is that he disagrees with class struggle in the entire society and calling it as a "destructive to the society!" YES! And class struggle is both destructive and constructive in the history of humankind! Somehow in the books we read and in the places we see lies the stages of our community, of our society that usually experienced it; and so is the struggles of both oppressing classes, same as its contributions.
Streel tried to defend the order which is "oppressive", and despite every contribution lies the oppression being made-especially to the masters whose whips are carried in their hands to give every slave a pain and a scar on its back or a construction worker who made a finest building but having no big buck in his pocket. These oppressions being made lies the concept of struggles between the majority and the few within the community.
Well...
Every fascist, like Streel called it as a "revolution", but their essence is simply a complete "reaction", a "counter-revolution", whose objective is to revive the "glorious mediaeval order" in a guise of a "revolutionary process". Streel's idea, in my own opinion may carry both "right" and "wrong", but since he's a fascist, he may end up totally "wrong"!
(back to the topic)
Class struggles within the community really destroys, especially when the ruling class is oppressive towards the majority. Just remember the struggles of every society, and in ever oppressive "community" lies a reprisal coming from that same community affected. We cannot escape the inevitable class struggle. And in every oppressive community lies a reprisal coming from the affected-who had the possibility of inflicting pain over the one who oppress through.
And despite Streel's opposition, and ignorance of class struggle-he didn't notice that class struggles, in the history of mankind also contributes to a creation of different society step by step, for it dismantles the old rotten one by the unity of the working class all in order to create a real "people's community"-this time under the dictatorship of the proletariat, a greater collective of humankind "in each according to duty, in each according to work, in each according to need!"
And thus,
Streel's concept-idea may consider "good", but negating class struggle, of revolution is negating reality!
In addition to that, his glorification of the middle ages, of feudal order and Ancien regime seemed likely to ruin the vision of the future. As what John Starchey said "A return to the dark ages".
In Streel's word, he emphasized much of "Social order" in this so-called "People's community", that, in a rightist sense, is often confused with the "nation", well... Streel even said that the community of the people is "the nation considered a complete social environment in which man can blossom." But then. the left may also likely to say of it!
And so is it's ideas vested like "It pre-exists the individual and is not dependent on an unstable set of conditions, it is above all conflicts of interests which can manifests themselves within it, and imposes on its members links and solidarity effective and powerful enough..."
But then,
In every society lies different conditions and struggles to pass through. Marx even said that class struggles is inevitable until it reaches the goal of communism! Another that, the community really enforce links and solidiarity-for the community of the people is a collective of the people, and not of a fascist individual outlook garbed as "social order".
Somehow, I agree what he've said that "it is perpetuated through the heritage which is passed down to each generation from its forebears and through the duties which unite it to future generations."
Agree with a sense that is drew from Mao Zedong's mass line that states that "the masses are the creators of history, the power to create and the master's of our fate!" The community, in an actual basis, is composed of masses (worker, peasant, intellectual) and it is their duty to "serve the people" by doing things Streel and Mao think through.
Solidarity, according to Streel, "Is not a sentiment nor a voluntary act of generosity, but of organized condition of its existence from which NO one is free to opt out." In this idea, Streel seemed too "right" in interpreting it, and somehow he tries to make it too obligatory without any internal will to involve or not; but then, solidarity within the community is really a force since every people within it voluntarily joined together as a collective in order to set actions, guidelines, and plans to improve, to rectify, and to change. And so is the essence of unity and cohesion-through collective action and democratic centralism, just like the communes in China during the early days of socialist construction, where anything within the socialist volksgemeinschaft is carried with these actions taken.
But,
The idea what Streel made me disagree is that he disagrees with class struggle in the entire society and calling it as a "destructive to the society!" YES! And class struggle is both destructive and constructive in the history of humankind! Somehow in the books we read and in the places we see lies the stages of our community, of our society that usually experienced it; and so is the struggles of both oppressing classes, same as its contributions.
Streel tried to defend the order which is "oppressive", and despite every contribution lies the oppression being made-especially to the masters whose whips are carried in their hands to give every slave a pain and a scar on its back or a construction worker who made a finest building but having no big buck in his pocket. These oppressions being made lies the concept of struggles between the majority and the few within the community.
Well...
Every fascist, like Streel called it as a "revolution", but their essence is simply a complete "reaction", a "counter-revolution", whose objective is to revive the "glorious mediaeval order" in a guise of a "revolutionary process". Streel's idea, in my own opinion may carry both "right" and "wrong", but since he's a fascist, he may end up totally "wrong"!
(back to the topic)
Class struggles within the community really destroys, especially when the ruling class is oppressive towards the majority. Just remember the struggles of every society, and in ever oppressive "community" lies a reprisal coming from that same community affected. We cannot escape the inevitable class struggle. And in every oppressive community lies a reprisal coming from the affected-who had the possibility of inflicting pain over the one who oppress through.
And despite Streel's opposition, and ignorance of class struggle-he didn't notice that class struggles, in the history of mankind also contributes to a creation of different society step by step, for it dismantles the old rotten one by the unity of the working class all in order to create a real "people's community"-this time under the dictatorship of the proletariat, a greater collective of humankind "in each according to duty, in each according to work, in each according to need!"
And thus,
Streel's concept-idea may consider "good", but negating class struggle, of revolution is negating reality!
