Icons, old and new- (pages 1 - 2)
Sociology has not been considered a science yet, but it is based on an axiom applicable in any realm of human knowledge: actual events in any nationís life are determined by immutable laws, then implemented in a decisive and inevitable way. Even writers with outstanding political views have given up the idea that state and society have a conventional nature, originating in that free mutual contract among citizens. No one, but the scum of ignorant journalists may claim that free vote, sessions and Parliament are the foundation of a state. Be this true or false, state must exist and it is a subject to natural laws that are immutable, implacable and with predictable consequences. The difference can be seen within constitutional context when, led by the social groups endowed with elementary education, the struggle for existence gets a positive feedback, while in absolutist state this struggle is overseen by a higher authority - the monarch is interested in of all classes prosperity, as well as in their fight being benign for one another.
Nothing can be more relevant than a discussion over constitutional theories, for proving that our public consciousness has not grown mature yet. This childish behaviour has been conspicuous since the very beginning of our modern society development, when the first waves of young people having only a smattering of education returned home from Paris dazzled by the brilliant effects of a more than one thousand years history. They decided to enforce in our state what they had seen there, by introducing the structures of French public life, while ignoring that French people have had a long tradition of wealth, science and industry. An old saying warns that if you to count the layers of a pie, you will never come to eat it. We agree with this, but these layers still exist. If they did not, there would not be any pie. The comparison is rather vulgar, but meanwhile it is also compatible with reality. Our constitutional pie and public rights so dear to radicals consist in the very economic conditions. True liberalism is based on the productive activity of the middle class. This is the social class turning a stone into something a hundred times more valuable and transforming a block of marble into a statue, fabric into fine tissue, iron into machines and wool into cloths Are our middle classes in this position? Can they speak up for themselves?
Our middle classes consist of teachers and, even worse, of lawyers.
For instance, Mr. X is paid by state to teach university students in Romanian philology and history - two topics he has no knowledge about.
Let us make ourselves clear. We do not claim that our teachers should be genius. But under normal circumstances, if one became a professor (presuming he is not mentally handicapped), that gentleman should start studying, so to be able to sharing with his students what foreign scholars know about the Romanian language. For instance, he would indicate to the students the right direction followed by wise people. By doing it, he would implement the theory of a French pedagogue, namely that a student might learn from his teacher more than the teacher himself knows. So we should not hear Mr. X claiming Hurís chronicle authenticity, which even unskilled philologists consider a fake, as it could be seen at first glance. Nevertheless, as the circumstances are not ordinary, Mr. X learns nothing. Instead, he is concerned with politics.
Inalienable rights, free vote, ministerial responsibility and peopleís sovereignty, well, in a quarter of an hour one can learn by heart these words that also help him climb the social ladder, so making pointless any intellectual activity. Ordinary people work only if they are forced to. Under normal circumstances, Mr. X would become a mediocre professor. As he is not controlled by anyone, he feels free to do whatever he likes. So he leaves school and goes to Bucharest to mind his own business and to take over an important place that nature would never grant him.
The same situation is valid for Mr. Y and most university professors. I chose professors to exemplify, because a highly placed cultural institution is fully capable of illustrating our decay. However, who pays these middle class people whose hands and brains produce nothing valuable? In the long run, peasantsí toil supports them. The peasant dies as a soldier on the battlefield or works hard on his land, in order to pay the taxes and to support a horde of idle rascals.
Then, what should we say about lawyers?
Since they came back from their studies abroad, they have never striven to learn the laws and customs of their people, to codify the Romanian nationís tradition. They have simply enforced the code of laws learnt in Paris, as if in the past Romanians were a pack of beasts having no law, no custom, nothing of their own at all, so that everything must be imported like in the case of the most famous factories. However, generally lawyers have the most rotten intelligence of all. For what strong beliefs could a man have, if today he claims one thing and next day he disagrees with it? What if his job is to prove that black is white and vice versa?