It is necessary to have well-organized armed forces, technologically well-endowed, articulated by a coalition of States and capable of establishing themselves in countless territories on the planet. For that, capital and available work are needed, that do not rise up and do not complain about the bosses.
The field of International Relations, one of the most colonized, uses two terms that serve merely didactic purposes, Hard Power and Soft Power. We geographers prefer to advance in the analysis of geopolitics, geoeconomics and geostrategy, three supporting pillars of planetary domination, however, no one has advanced more than Marxist science, which defines the imperialist regime as being constituted by structure and superstructure.
The superstructure or ideology is fundamental to instilling the values of the bourgeoisie that skillfully controls the structure since the “Glorious Revolution”, in the 17th century, establishing an organized press, churches, universities, schools and the strengthening of philanthropy, a device widely used by the European monarchies, in order to lessen the possibility of revolts and revolutions.
The political liberalism established by the “Glorious Revolution” became a model for territorial domination across Europe, and influenced liberal bourgeois revolutions across Europe, the United States and Japan, some of which occurred more violently, but with a sequence of organization of a similar political regime, where philanthropy plays a large role, in “secret” societies and non-governmental, “non-profit” organizations in order to “assist the State” in carrying out the work and the task of keeping workers ” alive”.
United Kingdom of Philanthropy
The heiress of the Roman Empire, the United Kingdom, perfected several Roman social control mechanisms, in addition to philanthropy, the evergetism, in what is currently known as “Bread and Circus”. These elementary ideas of social control were unified with liberalism, so that the regime’s physical controllers, that is, the rich, began to guide policy from institutions “outside the state” to influence policy. In the 16th century we can mention a French institution, producer of ideas, like the Club de l’Entresol .
However, the modern idea of ”think tank”, although a term created in the United States, is a phenomenon of the 19th century, as they carried out a work model that maintains the same recipe until today, as is the case of the oldest of them, the Royal United Services Institute, founded in 1831, in London. RUSI is an ultra-conservative institution, however, it wouldn’t be long before the English left created another institution, the Fabian Society, whose motto is “The future from the left since 1884”. This institution gave rise to the Labor Party.
The oldest American think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was founded in Washington, DC, in 1910 by tycoon Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie told wealthy businessmen to use the fund to “hasty the abolition of international war, the dirtiest stain on our civilization”, in one of the most demagogic and, at the same time, realistic phrases.
In order not to repeat the “think tank” question, we recommend reading the article where I present a definition of “think tank” and a brief Marxist analysis on the subject. But, in short, “think tanks” are institutions that publish articles, studies and projects on particular issues of politics or society. This information is readily used by governments, businesses, media organizations, social movements or other groups.
Philanthropy Has No Party: The Superstructure in Action
Trotsky denounces philanthropy based on a critique by Lenin to Wells, who wrote an article “The Kremlin Dreamer”. According to Trotsky, in “Lenin”, the first leader of the Soviet Union replied to the English “socialist”, Wells:
Trotsky mentions Lenin:
– Ah! What a Philistine! he repeated, resuming the conversation. When he told me this, the time had come when the session of the political bureau would open; and, in short, Lenin merely repeated the appraisal of Wells which I have just recounted several times. But she was more than enough. In fact, I hadn’t read much about Wells and had never seen him. I had, however, a very clear idea of that salon socialist, belonging to the Fabian Society, of that literate with great fantasy and utopia who had just taken a look at the communist experience. Lenin’s exclamation, and above all the tone in which it was uttered, completed my impression without difficulty.
Trotsky endorses and amplifies Lenin’s analysis of Wells, calling him a “collectivist, evolutionist”: “By evolutionary collectivism we must understand a mixture to the taste of the Fabian Society, where liberalism enters, philanthropy, social legislation using as economical means as possible, and Sunday meditations on a better future. Wells himself formulates the essence of his evolutionary collectivism as follows: ‘I believe that, through a regularly established system of educating society, today’s capitalism can be civilized and transformed into a collective regime.’”
Therefore, for Trotsky, the Englishman Wells:
Omits to tell us who will be in charge of applying “a system of education” and to whom system shall be applied: shall we think that the elongated-cranium lords will establish their system for the English proletariat, or that, on the contrary, the proletariat will pass over the lords’ skulls? Oh! no, everything but this last solution! (What good would the educated members of the Fabian Society, the men of thought, the disinterested imagination, the gentlemen and ladies, Mr. Wells and Mrs. Snowden, serve if not to civilize capitalist society by regularly and systematically producing the that hides in their skulls; what use would they be if not to transform this society into a collective state, in a progressive way, so reasonable and so happy that even the royal dynasty of Great Britain is not aware of it?
Lenin also criticizes the “acrobatics of bourgeois philanthropy” in the famous 1919 “Women’s Contribution to the Construction of Socialism”, when Lenin makes a global analysis of the system of capitalist oppression and its mechanisms of domination via superstructure.
The philanthropic left and its goals
Based on the considerations made, we can state that the only objective of philanthropy and non-governmental organizations is to control the political regime via “soft power” or through a “geopolitics” in favor of imperialism, conditioning the left to the superstructure bourgeois. As capitalism is a commodity-producing system, where inequality is inherent in the mode of production, the petty-bourgeois left, trailing philanthropy, just wants to keep its privileges based on the blood of the worker and the industry of poverty.< /p>
The most notorious cases of philanthropy at all costs seem to be in the solar system PSOL, PCB and UP, which maintain a set of organizations funded by imperialism, as is the case with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Foundation Ford, Open Society, among other foundations that only serve to maintain misery and build an industry. The denunciations made by this Diary about one of the leaders of this nickel hunting movement, Guilherme Boulos, demonstrate that the only function of this left is, as Lenin said, to perform acrobatics.
With that, we have organizations unrelated to the poor population, but using them for their political maneuvers and maintenance of the political regime, hence the establishment of childish phrases, aesthetics linked to the advertising of each period, finely organized, and artistic acts as in Roman empire “Panis et Circences“, in a clear way of humiliating the poor and working people.
How to Combat Philanthropy
The union of workers to take over the means of production will provide the society with the equality necessary for an organization that frees itself from oppression, which also comes from the political parties of the imperialist left, which fulfill the NGO function as does Guilherme Boulos and his colleagues members of the IREE. The machination of these imperialist political actors is the maintenance of the political regime, which in Brazil has the facade and veneer of the “right” (such as the Institutes Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Getúlio Vargas Foundation and Come pra Rua) and to the left (like the Institutes Lauro Franco and Marielle Franco and Instituto Marielle Franco). The IREE does bipartisan anthropophagy, purposely confusing the population, especially the left.
The left needs to denounce what the workers have already realized, but they cannot be freed immediately, as they are starving. The State and Imperialism produce hunger, misery and destruction, in addition to producing opportunists, who enter the scene to appropriate the soul and putrefying flesh of the poor, which multiply in governments such as Bolsonaro and abrutres of the PSDB and derivatives . politicians like the PSOL solar system, with its UP and PCB satellites.
The opinion of the columnists does not necessarily reflect the position of this Journal.
