Structuralist materialism
In his book series “Capital,” Heinrich Karl Marx, known as Marx the Communist, made his dialectical theory of society very clear, based on the two constructs of ontological analytical categories that analytically form society at all times and in all quadrants of civilization, which he called the dialectical analytical categories: a) structural; b) superstructural.
He called the structure on which all institutions and all acts and facts of society are projected and aligned: capital, money, wealth, finance, profit, goods;
He called the superstructure the bourgeois institutions of capitalist class domination that are formed by the state’s hegemonic apparatus: a) executive; legislative; judiciary; b) companies; banks; industries; c) civil institutions; schools; churches; religions; c) armed forces; police; paramilitary organizations; d) instruments of ideological domination; laws; norms; contract; culture; family; morality; customs; e) arts; literature; sports; media; newspapers; social networks.
I did the "mea" Gramscian translation and update of the private instruments of hegemony of the dominant social sector that Marx alternated between bourgeoisie and capitalism, even because not every bourgeois is a capitalist, like the organic intellectuals of society who have the power to manipulate behavior such as scientists, experts, celebrities, artists, athletes, famous people, teachers, judges, media announcers and currently known as content producers on social networks also known as influencers.
If the entire capitalist process develops on its structures and superstructures, the question that begs to be asked is: how and who are the capitalist agents who financed and sustained the expenses of the capitalist revolutions in the USSR and China?
Where did the money for the revolutions come from?
The other consequent and subsequent revolutions were financed by the USSR and China based on the success of the Soviet and Maoist revolutions.
A very suitable proxy for the financing mentioned above, where we can, by analogy, see that for 70 years the North American aeronautical company Lockhead has exclusively and monopolistically produced the only light cargo aircraft with an excellent reputation and excellent performance in terms of safety, flexibility, economy and unparalleled versatility, capable of delivering cargo and people from the Arctic to the Sahara Desert, impeccably. Perhaps this is why it has never had competitors on its level, although many American, European, Japanese, Korean and Spanish manufacturers have tried to compete and failed, and for this reason it has remained unchanged for seven decades, reigning alone in the world commercial military market for light military transporters.
A sinister, unexpected competitor has emerged, from an unexpected country, more agile, faster, more versatile and more modern, which only loses out in reliability, requiring many flight hours and a long time to equal and surpass the qualities of the Hercules from the company Lockhead, with its renowned and highly tested model approved by 70 years of impeccable service in almost one hundred air forces around the world.
This challenger is the model from the Brazilian aeronautics company EMBRAER, known by its acronym C390 Millenium, which has been presented as a promising successor, more modern, capable of providing services much faster, much more flexible, convertible, scalable between functions in minutes, unlike the difficulty of adapting functions in the Hercules, which requires hours of preparation, and more technological and comfortable than the Hercules ever had with a simple WC in the cabin.
When the time comes for many military forces to retire their old Hercules, there is no rational argument capable of giving the advantage of choosing the Lockhead model, except, at the limit, tradition and politics.
So the choice of the old model that does not want to die to make way for the new one can only be justified by the old currency of blackmail and bribery.
The choice of model reveals to the world the weakness of governments in following the path of progress, exchanging the model designed with seventy-year-old technology, with pencils and slide rules, for a model designed with 3D vision, computer graphics, holograms in its prototyping and within the characteristics and parameters of multilateral and international institutions and organizations for quality control and certification of energy consumption, ecological materials, savings in materials and fuels, noise levels, ergonomics and efficiency.
This model of purchasing within military specifications, which does not consider price as a sine qua non condition of acquisition, still makes the modernized and reengineered model in the Hercules more expensive than the Millennium, which indicates to us that the The ways to finance revolutions go through a similar and dark process of escalating resources that go beyond legal budgetary controls, they are the most secret and suspicious, if we consider that only in the Six-Day War that ended in a change in the world energy level based on cheap oil, it cost a global reengineering of the projects and construction processes of automobiles, which were the largest sectoral industry in humanity, costing this turnaround around 50 trillion dollars in losses in the world GDP, so a revolution like Hitler's Nazi, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the war in Kuwait, Mao's revolution in China, the Soviet communist revolution, may have had expenses never traced by humanity, whose sources of financing will never be clarified. Germany alone built 700 U2 class submersibles; The USA built around 10,000 ships and 80,000 aircraft in the Second World War, the Soviets built around 40,000 armored vehicles and tanks, so: who finances the revolutions for humanity?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário