The Treva i Pau collective publishes, as I understand it in the newspaper La Vanguardia, an article every twenty-one days. The last “The Fragility of Democracy” has been especially interesting to me. In it, comparisons are made between the assault on the US Capitol and the irruption in the Spanish Parliament of a group of civil guards forty years ago. The phrase in question says: “a group of civil guards commanded by a character no more grotesque than the previous President of the United States” What does a lieutenant colonel who commands a group of civil guards have to do with the former president of the United States?
The issue is not that the character who commanded the group of civil guards like the previous President of the United States is more or less grotesque. The point is that with this they hide the inducer of the coup d’état of February 23, 1981. Forty years and a few hundred books are not enough to tell the truth? The lieutenant colonel of the Civil Guard occupying the rostrum of Parliament, his comparison is only possible with a man disguised as a bison with a cap with horns presiding over the Senate of the United States. Both are grotesque but their political relevance is nil.
The restlessness grows when it is said: “Any order, today becomes an absolute requirement, above all consideration”. They speak of habit, reflection, learning, identity, democracy, but everything is subject to an absolute order. If we accept that capitalism is the hegemonic power system, the order demanded by the columnists can only come from political power or not.
It happens that the capitalists themselves realize today that they cannot increase order (privileges) without a greater dose of violence. Only, given the high level of violence that they have so far used to maintain order (inequality) and the prospect that a greater application may provoke increasing resistance, they are increasingly afraid (that is to say) about the social outbreak that they are in the process of unleashing.
At this point I must explain that there are two risks related to the criticism of the aforementioned article: the magnificence and the trivialization. The magnificence is produced when perceiving the honesty with which the Treva i Pau collective acts. The first temptation is to let it go. It would be prudent, I think. At the opposite extreme would be trivialization. Very well, they talk about human issues and we are all trained as humans that we are to understand them and to read and interpret them. But here I run the risk of overlooking the fact that there is learning to think. EP Thompson opens the way for us: “High culture is no longer isolated from popular culture according to old class boundaries: but it is still isolated within its own walls of intellectual self-esteem and spiritual pride”
The wrong analogies, the false comparisons in many fields, increase the trust fracture. A fracture of belief in the political, journalistic, religious, social world, in educational and family structures, etc. Believing is something much deeper than knowing. Here is the fundamental of human existence. Believing is related to trust. What allows us to make judgments, have attitudes, is disrupted by this lack of confidence. What was taken for granted, the world taken for granted, collapses and then our judgments, our attitudes, our relationships, are ultimately destroyed.
Plato, in his confessions, in Letter VII where he admits that because he wanted power he was forced to detour around the truth.