dominated by this kind of coercion and that violence is broken
only by violence and terror by terror. Only then can a new regime
be created by means of constructive work. Political parties are
prone to enter compromises; but a philosophy never does this. A
political party is inclined to adjust its teachings with a view to
meeting those of its opponents, but a philosophy proclaims its
own infallibility.
In the beginning, political parties have also and nearly always the
intention of securing an exclusive and despotic domination for
themselves. They always show a slight tendency to become
philosophical. But the limited nature of their programme is in
itself enough to rob them of that heroic spirit which a philosophy
demands. The spirit of conciliation which animates their will
attracts those petty and chickenhearted people who are not fit to
be protagonists in any crusade. That is the reason why they
mostly become struck in their miserable pettiness very early on
the march. They give up fighting for their ideology and, by way
of what they call 'positive collaboration,' they try as quickly as
possible to wedge themselves into some tiny place at the trough
of the existent regime and to stick there as long as possible. Their
whole effort ends at that. And if they should get shouldered away
from the common manger by a competition of more brutal
manners then their only idea is to force themselves in again, by
force or chicanery, among the herd of all the others who have
similar appetites, in order to get back into the front row, and
finally – even at the expense of their most sacred convictions –
Dostları ilə paylaş: