And to think that it all started with the situation on a seat. It was on this day, August 28, 1789, that voters gathered as members of the National Assembly (the result of the French Revolution) and were asked to express themselves for or against a controversial article of the nascent constitution, and were partly divided on the right and others to the left of the President of the Constituent Assembly.
Those who advocated the king’s absolute right of veto over laws approved by the National Assembly to replace the Constituent Assembly positioned themselves to the right of the President of the Assembly; While sitting to the left of the President of the Constituent Assembly, those inclined to an opposite position, specifying that the king should have the power of suspensory and temporary veto, which brought national sovereignty to the fore.
From this event, after the establishment of the new National Assembly on October 1, 1791, the Club des Feuillants and the glamorous Girondists, passionate republican spokesmen of the bourgeoisie, emerged. This condition was met by placing the MPs on the right; while the counterpart was represented by the Jacobin left, an expression of the petty bourgeoisie; others gathered at the Cordeliers Club, a true symbol of the Parisian common people. Since then, being on the right has been associated with those who resist change, while being on the left, on the contrary, suggests that they tend to promote political and social change.
Over time, political processes have taken place in which political parties that describe themselves as left-wing and support free elections in their respective countries interact. Many cloak themselves in the trappings of social democracy, raise the reformist flags of social equality and appeal to the welfare state system.
It is possible to observe confusion between socialist parties that end up displaying characteristics of communism
In general, there is a belief that the state must intervene in all public affairs and even penetrate into what we call the private sector and initiative. Here we can observe a confusion between socialist parties, which ultimately show traits of communism. They give rise to movements that use typical concepts of democracy, but in practice they are authoritarian apparatuses that call themselves “revolutionary” movements, are populist and tend to establish totalitarian regimes without respect for human rights Freedom of choice and expression to be aware and abusers of private property.
Revolutions and the revolution
It all started with the European revolutionary process of 1848, then the Russian Revolution of 1917 exploded with its Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist legacy, anarchist potions and, more recently, pacifist, ecological, feminist, anti-racist and anti-fascist tendencies Inventions, anti-globalization, etc.
Between these phases, the Hispanic-American cores permeated by these currents emerge, best represented in the person of Fidel Castro and his Cuban Revolution. In this way, Fidel and Che Guevara became icons of revolutionary communism, freed from the impostures with which they first spoke in the stands of the United Nations in New York, tore their clothes and swore allegiance to democratic principles.
I have no intention of examining these currents of universal thought in such a short time. I will simply limit myself to presenting a few reflections as a call to the attention of those who desperately defend the resonant “left” movement, including what the efforts of Hugo Chávez Frias and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela mean in real life.
Where are the answers?
I would first like to question those who “break spears” for the Venezuelan regime:
Don’t you find it reprehensible that this regime is committing crimes against humanity? Do you support procedures in which thousands of people are forcibly disappeared simply because they deviate from the policies of this “revolution”? Do you support the fact that this regime has close ties to drug cartels from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru, and is also closely linked to terrorist groups and criminal mega-gangs?
Do you support the repressive policies of this regime, which imprisons hundreds of civilian leaders and military personnel? Do you think it is worth emulating the plans implemented in Venezuela that have ruined its hydrocarbon, iron, steel and aluminum industries, as well as thousands of agribusinesses?
Debt and Debt
Tell me what is the good thing about this Maduro revolution, which has left the country more than 178 billion dollars in debt and at the same time has wasted and stolen many more thousands, among the more than a billion dollars that the country receives for the petroleum concept has sales?
Do you think the excessive interventions of the all-powerful state in a country where there is no separation of powers, no legal certainty and no freedom of expression are good?
Did you know that Venezuela has the highest inflation and largest diaspora in the world today? Are you aware that more than 90% of the population lives in poverty and the salary is less than $5 per month? Do you think it is worth mentioning that Venezuelans are simultaneously suffering from a crisis in all public services (water, electricity, gas, transport, health, education)?
I leave you with this series of questions in the hope that you will answer them according to your particular conscience and the democratic convictions that you profess and wish to defend. I will end with a quote from Martin Luther King who said, “I am hurt not by the actions of bad people, but by the indifference of good people.”
