Capitalistic social essence of the philosophy of the DD.HH.

All the dominant classes that they were throughout the history of the humanity have needed to justify ideológically their dominance before their subordinate classes. In the philosophy of the DD.HH. it is synthesized and summarized the ideological justification of the burgeoise as dominant class and it constitutes a typical case of hufheben hegeliano, or ideological overcoming of the slavery and of the feudalism whose social essence: the development of the man by the man, is conserved in the capitalism.

In the slaveholding society, the right to property, this is the freedom, it was reserved to a part of the society: the owners, whose economic power on the other part of the society: the slaves, it was exercised of absolute manner and directly political. Which was the ideological justification of this effective reality? For the Greek and Roman owners of those times, the one which being human person is not belonged to itself if not to other because might have been born of the slave mother uterus , bought, or submitted by the warlike force, having preferred the submission to the death in struggle by preserving the freedom, that, by nature, it was considered slave. Of the exercise of the property on other human being,derivative from the conquest wars or the trade, it was seeming to emanate the soul from the owner and his corresponding señorio and command capacity on the body without soul of the slave. Such is as - continuing to Plato - understands Aristotle this matter:

<<The living being is constituted, in the first place, of soul and body, of those which one bequest by nature and the other is sent. (...) Is possible then, as we said, to observe in the be live the lordly dominance and the politician, since the soul exercises on the body a lordly dominance, and the intelligence on the appetite a political and regal dominance. In them results evident that it is pursuant to the nature and convenient for the body be governed by the soul, and for the affective part be governed by the intelligence and the endowed part of reason, while their equality or the investment of their relationship is prejudicial for all. Also it occurs equally between the man and the other animal, since the domestic animals have a nature better than the savages, and for all they is better be submitted to the man, because thus procure their/its/your/his safety. And also in the relationship between the male and the female, by nature, one is superior and other inferior, one bequest and other obeys. And in the same way it occurs necessarily between all the men.
Thus, since, all the beings that are differentiated of the other so much as the soul of the body and as the man of the animal ( they are found in this relationship everything their work is the use of the body, and this is the best of them), these are slaves by nature, for which it is better be submitted to this class of command, as in the mentioned cases. Since it is slave by the one which nature can be of other (therefore precisely it is of other) and the one which participates of the reason as well as to perceive it, but not to get it...
>> (Aristotle: "Political" I Book 1254a-1254b)

By virtue of this aristotelic ideological justification of the real fact ofenslaved labor appropriation by the part of the slaveholding aristocracy, the owners could have all-embracing and directly their slaves, not only on their workforce but on their own lives, to the extreme to do them to work until the mortal exhaustion or to order their physical disappearance by any motive without answering therefore before nobody. All this is collected in the ius utendi et ius abutendi of the Roman right (right to use and abuse) by the part of the proprietary owners on the objects of their property, included the slaves.

Is not relevant be extended here on the historical process that finished with the force of the slavery and lit the feudal production manner in the typical development line of the western societies. Only some notes of the objective logic that it has made to the origins of the christianity, whose religious doctrine laces, as we will see, with the ideological justification of the capitalistic private property and with the philosophy of the Human Rights.

Having blossomed through the territories conquest and the submission of their inhabitants to the slaves condition, the slaveholding production manner decayed until disappearing upon going letting of producing more than what was costing to maintain it. This occurred in the same measured in which the Roman State - that based the right to its existence on the maintenance of the interior order and on the protection against the siege and assaults of the calls "barbarous"- it was seen in the need of increasing its army, whose social recruitment base were the free peasants, so much more how much wider and vast were gone making the frontiers under Roman dominance.

The continuous expansion and defense struggles were decimating the population free peasant, something which logically diminished the agrarian production of this sector of the social work, only taxable economic base of the slaveholding State, to the time that in certain moment compelled to contract purchasable soldier slaves and barbarous. The exponential increase of the expenses of the State and the drastic decrease of the free peasants, it converted to the Roman Empire in a gigantic and complex fiscal spoliation machinery of its increasingly decimated subjects, through a increasingly intolerable tax pressure, so much more ruinous for the peasant economy of the Roman contributors, how much vaster, onerous and difficult to defending, they were beed making the geographical and populational dominances of the empire.

To be put safe from the violent exaction of the officials,of the justices and of the usurers of the decadent empire, they were increasingly the small free Roman owners that deserted to seek the powerful sirs protection between the German barbarians of the north, to condition of the fact that them transferred the right to property on their lands and they limited to work in them for what is necessary minimum to live. Such it was as the estates of the free Roman deserters converted into serfs, they were split into small plots to make them to work in them for a fixed annual remuneration or for the sharecropping regime, passing to pay to the sir, it will be in kind or in services.

With the decline of the slaveholding empire according to they were expanded the frontiers of its geographical dominance, the deserters converted into serfs that were staying subject to the land in which they were working and they could be sold with them, they passsed to constitute the widest exploitable social base in the emerging manner of alternative feudal production to the slaveholding. They were not working slaves, but either free.En such sense, it can be said that the feudalism was a transitional production manner between the slavery and the capitalistic salaried work.

As it is known, as the slaveholding Greek as well the Romans they professed the polytheism. On the contrary, the God only of the Christians was not tolerating that other deity and less the human figure of the Emperor, shared its divine range. Therefore, and because three fourths of their religious harangue was based on the glorification of the poors, the Christians were object of persecution. However, politically, the christianity has not had absolutely nothing that to see with the extinction process of the social training based on the slave work. During centuries, this movement subsisted in the interstices of the Roman empire accepting the slavery. And when this production manner let of be dominant, the Christians never they have made nothing by preventing the reminiscent slaves trade of their own staunch amassed, neither that of the German barbarians of the north, nor that of the Venetians in the Mediterranean, neither from century X tries it to blacks on the part of Holy German Empire. Finally, from the century IX it was adapted to the new effective reality of the Middle Ages and it converted to its Holy Catholic Church in feudal owner, so much to enlarge the " God kingdom" as its own earthly goods. And in that same measure it was putting its religious doctrine to the service of the social formation replaced of the slaveholding system.

The dexplotation of the servile work replaced to the slave when the development of the productive forces let without economic sense the aristotelic justification of the slavery, whose social logic had peaked in the Roman right to the ius utendi i ius abutendi. The feudalism needed the her and it found her in the christianity. The Christian monotheism continued in the line of the dualism between soul and body, as a reply -at level of the human creature - of the religious macrososmaic dualism between the Sky and the Earth. But that - according to Aristotle - the soul was the exclusive substance of the owners, for the christianity it became what is common to all the human beings in so much creatures of the God only, without distinction of classes, of nationality, race or religion.

The Grek and Romans slaveholding were distinguishing between human beings owning owners therefore of reason, and their congeners that, lacking of she, they were becoming naturally simple dependent instruments of the absolute will of their proprietaries. The slaveholding society was consecrating thus, philosophical and jurdically, the absolute earthly prerrogatives of the owners on their slaves.

The feudal society let to subsist the inequality between the individuals and the consequent political predominance - personal of some on others. But upon conceiving the soul as substance put in each human being by work of the divinity, the christianity denied the Roman right to the ius utendi et abutendi of some human beings on others, moving all all-embracing power on the destination of the souls,of the human beings to God, of the Earth to the Sky. This universal law of the christianity it was made common sense in the "not will kill" of the fifth commandment.

The capitalism, that it bases the exploitation of the man by the man on the free work of all personal submission, it made his the divine basis about the equality of the human beings in so much souls, but not already in the sky and before God, but in the land and before the civil law. Of this manner, the ius abutendi of the slave society not only continued being a religiously sinful conduct and morally reprehensible, as in the feudalism, if not that it became universally criminalated for the modern positive right. For that, the burgeoise there was of finishing previously to the social relationships of señorío and servitude based on the subjective dependency or direct personnel of some human beings on other, and it proceed to transform them into material social relationships, this is, mediated by things or objects of alienable property, that they are bought, lent or sold. Under these conditions imposed by the new effective reality of the capitalism, the burgeoise could recapture the traditional philosophical doctrine of the dualism between soul and body, to introduce an element of unquestionable human progress, that consisted of recapturing and making outstanding in the human society, the Christian religious concept of equality of the human beings in so much souls, that the feudalism had relegated to the sky.

On the other hand, the capitalism not only adopted but universalized the outstanding traditional philosophical dualism, according to the one which, the soul prevails on the body. Then, the owner concept let of determining the social relationship of personal subjection between economic human beings and socially unequal, to pass to determine the relationship between the soul and the body of each individual. Of this manner all the human beings come to be equal in so much souls and free in so much owners of themselves .

Now then, if in the capitalistic society lets of have owners and sirs and all are persons formally free and equal, and in the measure in which the social relationships become personal relationships mediated by things, the free and equal souls are characterized by the private property concept. Of this manner, all the human beings are owner souls. Such is the modern concept of person.

Finally, since the most originating property of the soul relapses naturally on the relative body of each person, it remains thus legitimated the regime of the salaried work, where the worker does not sell his body or workforce (of the contrary he would recede to the slave condition) but through a deliberate act of " own will" (of the contrary he would be died of hunger) formalized "freely" by contract , he relinquishes it or rents by given time that it constitutes the session of labor, being put only during that time to the command of the capitalistic standard in exchange for an also covenanted remuneration. Thus, the general notion of private property acquires the specific concept of burgeoise property.

Upon converting the social relationships into purely material contractual relationships or economic between persons, where each which can have freely than what is his, the capitalism delimited and separated precisely the field in which the human beings are behaved as souls formally equal owners even though actually unequal, with respect to the field in which those same human beings are evened as citizen simple or pure souls, in so much they submit their conduct to the fulfillment of some procedures to common right, so that all what the Christian theism attributes to the God arbitrament, under the capitalism corresponds to the State as depository of the laws and managing presumably equitable of justice. Of this manner, as well as the capitalism universalizes the division of the individuals in body and soul, also it divides to the society in two: the area of the private right or civil society, where all the individuals - including the earners – they are behaved as bourgeois, and the area of the public right or political community (State), where all the bourgeoiss are converted into citizen.

With these concepts to the sight,refer ourselves now to the most radical of the burgess constitutions, that of 1793, that inspired the Universal Declaration of the Human Righst. of 1948. There it is said that the called human rights are the rights of the person as individual so much: the droits of l'homme. Such as they appear literally they consecrated in the articulate 2 of the mentioned Constitution of 1793, "Ces droits, etc. (Les droits naturels et imprescriptibles) sont: l'égalité,la liberté, the sûreté, the proprieté".

What is it the equality for the spirit of the Human Rignts? According to the articulate 3 of the French constitution of 1795: "The equality consists in which the law is the same for all, thus in how much it protects as in how much it punishes". All the men are equal before the law, it have here the spirit and the letter omnipresents in all the burgeoise constitutions since then until today. What is it that they norm , they govern, regular and consecrate the outstanding laws under the capitalism? The behavior of the human beings as owner souls, this is, the real inequality between the human beings. Of this dialetic gibberish it results that the equality (formal) is solved in inequality (real), paradox that it has its basis in the private property.

What is the freedom?. ºAccording to articulate 6 of the Constitution of 1793, it is "the power of the man of making all what not attempt against the freedom of the other". It is the delimitation of two opposed freedoms based on a same principle: the principle of the individuality in so much owner soul to the one which it attends the " natural right" to have than what is his. So it is thus, that in the modern bourgeois right, the concept of person is going indissolublely united to the patrimony and this to the property.

Now then, already we have said that of all the foreign objects to the spirit and the will of the individuals "free", the most elemental and originating foreign object on the one which each individual has the right natural to exercise the property, it is his relative body. Thus, for example, the capitalist has his capital and the worker has his body, his workforce. In this sense, both are two persons "free" and "equal"; free because both, in so much owner souls, they have freely than what is theirs; equal, because they compare the two foreign things of the fact that they have through the mutual will expressed in a contract according to the outstanding law in this regard.

This implies that the right to the freedom does not rest on the union and the solidarity between the men but it is based on the separation and the mutual confrontation. The division is the substance, the union is the contingent or derivative. What is what delimits them, it separates or it divides? The property and its legal consequence, the right to have what is his; the right to stay dissociated, the right of the indivudual isolated with respect to the others by virtue of his property. Here it is revealed all the miserable hypocrisy load that it help somebody to bear the use and abuse of the word solidarity in these times.

Of agreementto the reasoned until here, the freedom as well as the equality of the persons are reduced substantially to right to property. According to the article 16 of the Constitution of 1793: "The property right is the right to all citizen to enjoy and have arbitrarily his goods, his revenues, the fruits of his work and his activities. In good romance, since, the right to property is the right to increase the personal patrimony without be concerned of the other, independently of the society; it is the right of the personal interest. "That, the personal freedom and this, its application, they form the basis on the one which it rests the burgeoise society" (Marx: "The Jewish issue"). In essence, on the rights to the freedom and to the property it rests the unconfessing right to the expolitation free of the salaried work.

What is the safety? Accoding to the Constitution of 1793, "The safety consists in the protection that the society grants to each one of its members for the conservation of his person, of his rights and of his property".Accordiong to Marx, the safety is the supreme social concept of the burgeoise society, the concept of the policeman, according to the one which, the society, understood as a set of relationships between private owners, it exists only to guarantee to each and every one of its members the conservation of their person and of his rights while private owners.

The safety concept does not mean that the society is by above of the selfishness but it guarantees that selfishness. It perpetuates it. And in the meantime the society is founded on the real inequalitys of the owner souls, by logic it must deprive - and in fact it deprives – the egoism of the most equal (the burgeoise) on the less (the proletariat). By so much, the Human Rights come to consecrate that the only one freedom and safety anticipated by the philosophy of the Human Rights., it is that of the capitalistic owners. And that the equality of the owner souls in so much they are submitted to the fulfillment of some laws of common application whose essence is the property, it turns out to be a mere formalism that it preserves and it perpetuates the real inequalitys.

Therefore, the burgeoise of any part of the world only is prepared to observe the freedom, the safety and the right to the life of its subjects, in the measure in which they are submitted to the conditions of exploitation that it demands the law of the capitalistic benefit, in such a way that their claims, by just that they are – they do not make to endanger the continuity of its businesses. Of this it is detached that the justice of the system never acts against these material interest. Furthermore when it is considered large economic and political and geoestrategic interests as those which right now they are at stake in wheel to the case Pinochet, according to we will see at once.

Who can deny, honestly, that the crimes that now intends to judge the Spanish State, they were committed so that the great burgeoise of this country may have been able to raise with the most important entrepreneurial complexes in the area of the production and energetic distribution, of the finances and of the communications in Latin America? What can be obtained of this justice but little mirrors of colors as in the times of the conquest first ? The capitalistic private property, this and not other it is the real social essence of the Human Rignts.


document's index

éste y el resto de nuestros documentos en otros formatos
grupo de propaganda marxista
apartado de correos 20027 Madrid 28080