«Costituzione della Terra»: non può funzionare

Un intervento di BRUNO VITALE sull’appello proposto da Raniero La Valle, Luigi Ferrajoli, Valerio Onida, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Raffaele Nogaro, Paolo Maddalena, Mariarosaria Guglielmi, Riccardo Petrella … e altre/i (*)

La presentazione in “bottega” ha dato al testo «Costituzione della Terra» una pubblicità che non meritava e non ha aiutato chi legge a collocarlo nel contesto della produzione moralista-cartacea cara agli intellettuali. Nella coda dietro la terribile ragazza svedese, ecco come sempre un bel gruppo di intellettuali che si dimena per creare una nuova dozzina di pagine di: parole + parole + parole – …

E forse creare ancora una scuola, e così partecipare al salvataggio del mondo (ma non sanno ancora che tutte le “scuole” del mondo riescono sempre a ristrutturare il sapere e il volere nello stampo dei padroni del mondo?).

Non mi sembra che sia stata notata la somiglianza della proposta con l’attività del gruppo di intellettuali che decise, alla fine della guerra, di mettere le cose «bien en ordre» per alla fine affermare urbis et orbis come bisognava (ben) comportarsi nel mondo.

Quello che vorrei dire oggi sulla «Costituzione della Terra» è lo stesso che avevo cercato di dire sulla Dudu (Dichiarazione universale dei diritti umani) in un testo pubblicato nel 2018 in francese sul giornale on line «Legrandsoir» e più tardi distribuito su internet in francese e inglese per toccare un pubblico più vasto. Mi scuso con chi leggerà: sono cosciente dell’arroganza implicita al presentare quel mio testo del ’18 in francese e inglese invece di tradurlo. Le sole ragioni sono umane: l’età e la stanchezza… Ma quello che valeva per la Dudu vale ancora oggi per la Costituzione: è importante continuare a denunziare l’eterna hubris e vanità che ci induce ad assumere i compiti di controllo sociale e le ambizioni dei padroni.

Universalité des “droits universels”?

Bruno Vitale, Genève, 2018

A l’occasion du 70ième anniversaire de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme (DUDH), une orgie d’articles a été publiée, en général concordant sur l’appréciation de la DUDH comme “un outil incomparable pour s’insurger face à l’inacceptable” ou – selon la page Internet réservée par les Nations Unies à la DUDH – comme la déclaration qui “a aidé un nombre incalculable de personnes à gagner leur liberté et leur égalité”.

Je suis d’un tout autre avis, et j’aimerais présenter brièvement ma lecture du texte du 1948, lu comme une tentative pitoyable de réaffirmer la suprématie morale de l’Occident, alors que les empires coloniaux s’effondraient.

La DUDH ne semble pas remettre en question les structures coloniales existantes puisqu’elle dit dans son préambule: “Proclame la présente déclaration universelle des droits de l’Homme comme l’idéal commun à atteindre par tous les peuples et toutes les nations afin que tous les individus et tous les organes de la société, ayant cette Déclaration constamment à l’esprit, s’efforcent, par l’enseignement et l’éducation, de développer le respect de ces droits et libertés et d’en assurer, par des mesures progressives d’ordre national et international, la reconnaissance et l’application universelles et effectives, tant parmi les populations des États membres eux-mêmes que parmi celles des territoires placés sous leur juridiction.

les colonies, devenues pudiquement ‘les territoires placés sous la juridiction des états membres’, n’existent pas, ni les mouvements de libération, pour ces Sages!

Ici, quelques exemples:

a: les éthiques proclamées:

art.2.1: Chacun peut se prévaloir de tous les droits et de toutes les libertés proclamés dans la présente Déclaration

De quel ciel ces ’droits’ sont tombés sur l’humanité? Choisis par des intellectuels représentant les puissances victorieuses d’une guerre qui s’était glorieusement terminée par le massacre de centaines de milliers de civils par deux bombes nucléaires?

D’autres anciens codes éthiques proclamés ont été jugés être des “pierres milliaires de l’histoire de l’humanité”, comme le code d’Hammurabi, -XX siècle; ces codes concernaient exclusivement les “devoirs”, jamais les “droits” des sujets; mais ils n’étaient pas toujours vide d’une bonne dose d’hypocrisie:

– Exode XX: Elohim dit [à Moïse]: Je suis Iahvé, ton Dieu … Tu ne tueras pas

– mais: Nombres XXXI: Et Moïse s’irrita contre les proposés à la troupe, chefs de milliers et chefs de centaines, qui revenaient de l’armée de combat. Moïse leur dit: “Avez-vous donc laissé vivre toutes les femelles? … Maintenant donc, tuez tout mâle parmi les petits enfants et toute femme qui a connu un homme par cohabitation maritale. Mais toutes les petites filles qui n’ont pas connu de cohabitation maritale, laissez-les vivre pour vous!”

Mais l’hypocrisie domine surtout les codes qui concernent les “droits” des personnes:

– 1776: Déclaration d’indépendance des États-Unis: “Nous tenons pour évidentes pour elles-mêmes les vérités suivantes: tous les hommes sont créés égaux”

prélude à un siècle d’esclavagisme cruel [relisons Un dilemme américain de Gunnar Myrdal, 1944)]

– 1789: Déclaration des droits de l’homme en société: “Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l’utilité commune”

prélude à plus qu’un siècle de violences coloniales par la France, terminées par les guerres d’Indochine et d’Algérie

b: l’arrogance intellectuelle a-historique:

art.18: “Toute personne a droit à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion; ce droit implique la liberté de changer de religion ou de conviction ainsi que la liberté de manifester sa religion ou sa conviction, seule ou en commun, tant en public qu’en privé, par l’enseignement, les pratiques, le culte et l’accomplissement des rites”

Je pense à la vie sociale en Angleterre, XVII-XVIII siècles; une période dure de lutte de classe, de prévarication d’un capitalisme industriel triomphant; 1535-1679: exécution de nombreux catholiques, sous prétexte de complot. Il y a seulement trois siècles! A ce moment-là en Angleterre, la DUDH aurait été jugée, au mieux – par les seules classes qui avaient le droit de juger! – comme une douce utopie [relisons The making of the English Working Class’ de E.P.Thompson, 1963)]

Et maintenant, les intellectuels derrière la DUDH prétendent de pouvoir proclamer des “droits universels” d’origine structurelle, économique, sociale, historique inconnue et de l’appliquer à l’Afghanistan, dominé par des structures claniques, à l’Inde, cristallisée dans ses préjugés de caste qui cachent la violence de classe, à tous les pays africains; toutes sociétés qui sont bien plus éloignées, aujourd’hui, de nos sociétés industrialisée – qui ont concocté la DUDH – de l’Angleterre d’il y a seulement trois siècles!

c: les nouvelles nécessités du capital, la mobilité:

art.13.2: “Toute personne a le droit de quitter tout pays, y compris le sien”

En Inde, des milliers de jeunes profitent d’une formation universitaire de base en médecine et ingénierie informatique, très onéreuse pour le pays, et partent pour les États-Unis ou la Suisse, se perfectionnent et ne rentrent plus; la mobilité est un cadeau pour eux, nos caisses et l’idéologie libérale, pas pour leur pays ! Les “droits” individuels priment sur les “devoirs” sociaux collectifs

d: que faire? peut-être, ne pas oublier des vieilles gouttes de sagesse!

– “Les rapports économiques sont-ils réglés par des idées juridiques ou n’est-ce pas, à l’inverse, les rapports juridiques qui naissent des rapports économiques?

Marx: Critique au programme de Gotha (1891)

———-

sources: en tant que physicien théoricien, ma familiarité avec la réflexion politique/sociologique/économique et l’histoire est un peu épisodique; mais j’ai trouvé des indications utiles, pour époques et situations assez différentes, dans:

– (9ème-13ème siècle)
M.Bloch: La société feudale. Paris: Albin Michel, 1939 [en particulier,’ La contribution humaine: le témoignage du droit et de la structure sociale’; ‘Les liens juridiques et le contact humain’; ‘Caractères généraux du régime juridique’]

– (16ème-19ème siècle)
G.Myrdal: An American dilemma; The Negro problem and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1962 [1944] [en particulier: Part VI: Justice, pp.523-572]

– (18ème-19ème siècle)
E.P.Thomson: The making of the English working class. London: Gollancz, 1965 [en particulier: ‘The Laws against Combination’, as “to obtain more restricted laws against combinations of journeymen for increase of wages”, p.501]

[this paper is distributed freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence: you are free to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work; to remix – to adapt the work; but you may not use this work for commercial purposes

for information: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc/3.0/ ]

Bruno Vitale – Genève: comuniste; professeur ordinaire de mécanique quantique, université de Naples; in pensione

URL de cet article sur legrandsoir: 33554 https://www.legrandsoir.info/universalite-des-droits-universels.html

Universality of the ‘universal declaration’?

Bruno Vitale, Geneva

On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Universal declaration of the human rights (UDHR), an orgy of papers has been published, focused in the main on a eulogistic reading of a supposedly “unique tool to revolt against what cannot be accepted” or, according to the Unite Nations special UDHR ‘New website’, as sa Universal Declaration that “has helped countless people gain greater freedom and equality”.

I strongly disagree, and I would like to shortly present my reading of the 1948 text, as a rather pathetic tentative to reaffirm the moral supremacy of the West, while the colonial empires were collapsing

here a few examples:

a: Preamble

…The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction

– the sage intellectuals ‘setting forth’ this ‘universal declaration’ were so totally ignorant of, indifferent to the situation of peoples in the colonies, that they did not react to this sentence in the UN preamble to their work; the gentle expression ‘peoples of territories under other countries’s jurisdition’ = ‘colonies’ did not hurt them; no protest on their part is registered

a: set forth ethics:

Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration

– whence, from which sky, did those ‘rights’ fall down on humanity? chosen by intellectuals representing those very powers whose victory had been crowned by the massacre of civil populations by two nuclear bombs?

Other old, set forth ethical codes have been applauded as ‘milestones in the history of humanity’, as the Hammurabi code, -XX century; those codes were concerned exclusively with the ‘duties’ and never with the ‘rights’ of the subjects; but they were not always empty of a good dose of hypocrisy:

– Exodus 20: And God spoke all these words [to Moses], saying: You shall not murder;

but: Numbers 31: And Moses was angry with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war. And Moses said to them, have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

but hypocrisy dominates mostly in codes concerning the ‘rights’ of persons:

– 1776: USA declaration of independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

prelude to a century of cruel slavery [I re-read ‘An American dilemma’ (G.Myrdal, 1944)]

– 1773: in Paris, on impose the inscription ‘Republic: one and unite – Freedom, Equality, Fraternity’ to be written on the front of the Hôtel de Ville

prelude to more than a century of colonial violence, ended by the Indochina and Algerian wars

b: intellectual a-historical arrogance:

Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance

– I am thinking on the social life in England, XVII-XVIII c.; a harsh period of class struggle, of arbitrariness and oppression by a triumphant new industrial capitalism; 1535-1679: execution of a large number of catholic personalities, under pretext of complot. That was only 3 centuries ago! and there and then the UDHR would have been estimated, at best, as a sweet utopia, at least by those classes that had any right to judge! [I re-read ‘The making of the English working class’ (E.P.Thompson, 1963)]

and now, the intellectuals behind the UDHR pretend they can set forth ‘universal rights’ of unknown structural, economic, social, historical origin and impose them to Afghanistan, dominated by clannish local power groups, to India, frozen in its caste prejudice, that hides class violence, to all African communities…; societies that are much farther, today, from our industrialized societies – those that have nurtured and set forth the UDHR – than the english society of only 3 centuries ago!

c: the new needs of capital, mobility:

Article 13 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country

In India, thousands of young students take advantage of a basic university formation on medical sciences and informatics, both very expensive for the country, and then leave for the USA or Switzerland, go through masters or PhDs and never go back; mobility is a boon for them, our finances and the liberal ideology, but not for their country! the ‘rights’ of the individual dominate the social ‘duties’

d: what to do? perhaps, not to forget some old drops of wisdom!

– “The economical relations, are they regulated by juridical ideas, or perhaps, on the contrary, are not the juridical relations that are born out of the economical relations?”

Marx: Critique to the Gotha programme (1875)

———-

sources: as a theoretical physicist, my familiarity with the world of sociology/economy and history is slightly episodical; but i have found particularly useful the following sources:

– (9ème-13ème siècle)
M.Bloch: La société feudale. Paris: Albin Michel, 1939 [en particulier,’ La contribution humaine: le témoignage du droit et de la structure sociale’; ‘Les liens juridiques et le contact humain’; ‘Caractères généraux du régime juridique’]

– (16ème-19ème siècle)
G.Myrdal: An American dilemma; The Negro problem and American democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1962 [1944] [en particulier: Part VI: Justice, pp.523-572]

– (18ème-19ème siècle)
E.P.Thomson: The making of the English working class. London: Gollancz, 1965 [en particulier: ‘The Laws against Combination’, as “to obtain more restricted laws against combinations of journeymen for increase of wages”, p.501]

this paper is distributed freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence: you are free to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work; to remix – to adapt the work; but you may not use this work for commercial purposes

for information: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc/3.0/

Bruno Vitale, communist; full prof.of quantum mechanics, university of Naples; retired; Geneva, 12-’18

(*) cfr Appello-proposta per una Costituzione della Terra

LE VIGNETTE – scelte dalla “bottega” – sono di Mauro Biani.

 

Redazione
La redazione della bottega è composta da Daniele Barbieri e da chi in via del tutto libera, gratuita e volontaria contribuisce con contenuti, informazioni e opinioni.

2 commenti

  • urbis? sicuramente una svista…. … perche’diffidare della scuola? non tutte le scuole perpetuano l’esaltazione dei potenti e dei padroni. gli esempi non mancano.

  • cara antonia:
    – piccola opera di un (40 anni fa) giovane psicopedagogo belga, m.crahay: sogno di un scuola materna dove “chaque objet peut devenir objet de connaissance” (1983) – il sogno della mia vita, non della mia scuola, schiacciata dalla guerra
    – napoli, liceo, (45 anni fa), una delle mie figlie: “oggi abbiamo fatto (sic!) kafka”; non ha niente da aggiungere; kafka passa nei ‘profitti e perdite’ per sempre
    – ginevra, scuola media, (20 anni fa), l’altra figlia: “oggi abbiamo fatto (sic!) il teorema di pitagora”, io: “magnifico, c’è tanto da esplorare intorno, lo avete dimostrato?; “no, perchè?”: “perchè è così importante, e tanto facile da dimostrare, vuoi che vediamo insieme?”; “oh no, no… abbiamo tanto da fare per domani…”
    morte del sogno di crahay
    bruno

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.