The book is about State governance and civic liberties, as applied to Portugal, described as shabbily governed for most of its citizens since many centuries.
The book is of diminute size, just fifty-seven pages. But the famous Communist Manifesto (1848) by Marx and Engels was not very much longer, and it became a classic and served as ideological base for the political constructions of Lenin, Mao and Fidel Castro, beside some other known and unknown attempts that did not make their mark in history.
My friend author distances himself from the Leninist-Maoist models as one-sided exaggerations of his model governance. However, I read the absence to any reference to the Communist Manifesto as throwing the baby with the bath. If the teachings of Christ need not be blamed for its political exploitation by the Liberation theologians, the theme explored by the author in his doctoral thesis, neither the Communist Manifesto needs to be rejected or ignored if Lenin, Mao and others took advantage of it. Undoubtedly, both Christ and Marx brought new paradigms that have no expiry date.
It is important to notice that the authors of Communist Manifesto acknowledge in the Prefaces to new editions that the their Manifesto needed to be adapted to individual countries and changing times. The Manifesto of my friend could have done this in the context of Portugal of our times to permit a correct diagnosis and to suggest appropriate remedies. The book could be richer by extending the analysis of bourgeoisie in the Communist Manifesto and clarifying its nature and evolution in Portugal. It hardly helps to denounce the role of a faceless financial oligarchy and its cohort elites in the mis-government of Portugal.
There are several issues that needed clarification to make the new Manifesto meaningful and promising: (1) The bad governance in Portugal began only with the constitutional monarchy as suggested in the Preface? (2) Which section of the population sought to declare Portugal independent and why? Is there any nationalist movement anywhere which drew entire populations? (3) There is enough documentation to prove that the Portuguese ruling aristocracy and a small bourgeoisie, consisting largely of Italian and German expatriates settled in Lisbon pushed for the Discoveries, exploiting the services of poor citizens, jailed and deported. (4) Aided by slave trade and mechanisms of Inquisition, the Portuguese aristocracy got used to plundering during several centuries, and the habits continue as a post-colonial hangover, contributing to bad governance.
Intentionally or not, Professor Nuno da Silva, shuns any reference to class-struggle, a key concept of the Marxist analysis of history. Possibly considers the concept outdated, or is unprepared to face the dominant academic elites of the West? The Marxist-Leninist or Maoist models condemned on p. 57 of the last chapter have nothing to do with the class-struggle, but with faith in mismanaged state. This only reinforces the ideas of Murray N. Rothbart (1926-1995), the father of the Libertarian movement, which condemns the state to extinction.
The Austrian school of libertarian political economy dates back to the end of the 19th century. It gained wide publicity through Rothbard´s “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, published in 1973. It qualifies the State as impotent and immoral, and defends its elimination. He denounces the State as the greatest enemy of liberties, and defends that only its elimination can restore peace, prosperity and security for all. Nuno da Silva proposes in the last section of his book a strategy for liberty. Calling it “A manifesto”. He distances himself from the anarchist (?) libertarianism, and believes that the State governance can be rectified through a libertarian socialism, applying collective mutualism to market economy.
Marcelo Mastrilli, a Brazillian disciple of Rothbard, published recently his ABC of anti-Statism, entitled “O Estado? Não, obrigado” (State? No, thanks). It is a shorter version of Rothbard and can be read online at http://www.libertarianismo.org/livros/mmeno.pdf. It rejects outright the common definition of the State as “We are the State”, declaring it to be a big hoax, invented and perpetuated by the bourgeoisie. There have never been States founded from below. They have been always impositions from above, bullying the common people as good and indispensable to look after them.
Libertarianism propounds that persons have a soul, while the State is a machine devoid of feelings and apt for violence. The title of this Op-Ed is borrowed from Aesop’s fable which provides insight into the human yearning for freedom, not knowing the consequences.
Obviously, “Not Knowing” [http://bit.ly/1p7lv3f] may help in “turning uncertainity into opportunity”, including opportunity to pay a heavy and damning price. We know from the Bible how Adam and Eve had a first taste of their Libertarian manifestation. The Creator saw that it was not good. They were shown the door to leave the garden.
To conclude, the State and nationalism have gone viral. Not even the Creator may be able to bottle it in, and much less the Libertarians. We may have Holy Fathers, but shall we ever have a holy Vatican? It was fathered in 1929 by Mussolini whose fascism defended State above everything.
(Teotonio R. de Souza is the founder-director, Xavier Centre of Historical Research, Goa (1979-1994).
