Political Economy and Justice, a Critical Examination and Refutation of the Economic Doctrines of P.J. Proudhon, Preceded by an Introduction to the Study of the Social Question. Guillaumin, Paris, 1860.
This is a book written by Léon Walras to refute Proudhon’s “On Justice in the Revolution and in the Church” (1858).
Elements of the Philosophy of Newton (French: Éléments de la philosophie de Newton) is a book written by the philosopher Voltaire and co-authored by mathematician and physicist Émilie du Châtelet in 1738 that helped to popularize the theories and thought of Isaac Newton. This book, coupled with Letters on the English, written in 1733, demonstrated that Voltaire had moved beyond the simple poetry and plays he had written previously.
Diário do Comércio, August 13, 2013
The shortest path to the destruction of democracy is to foster banditism through culture and then try to control it through civilian disarmament. The national left has been consistently following this dual path for at least five decades, and has always known perfectly well what the result would be: social chaos, followed by a hardening of the regime if it is in power, or insurrectional agitation if it is out of power.
This strategy is old, classic, immutable, but the pretexts with which it is legitimized according to the conveniences of the moment have been varied enough to disorient the audience, who engage in animated and sometimes fierce discussions about the pretexts themselves and never grasp the unity of the project behind them. Sometimes, as happens in Brazil, it doesn’t even realize that there is any relationship between the two simultaneous paths.
Mentally cowardly people sell their mother to avoid the risk of being labeled “conspiracy theorists.” They lower themselves to the point of vehemently defending the “theory of pure coincidences,” according to which actions happen without authors.
Imagine, then, the fear these people have of recognizing something that in the rest of the world is already a blatant obviousness: that communism did not die in 1990, that it is today stronger than ever, especially in Latin America. Thirteen years ago, when Jean-François Revel published his last book, La Grande Parade, no one in Europe or the United States contested him on this point, which in Brazil is still an esoteric secret.
There are even those who deny that Dilma or Lula are communists, but they do so because they don’t know exactly what a communist is and, like liberals in general, imagine it’s a matter of ideals and ideologies. In fact, a person is a communist not because they believe in such and such things, but because they occupy a place in an organization that acts as part or heir of the communist revolutionary tradition, with all the plethora of ideological varieties and contradictions contained therein.
The unity of the communist movement, especially since Antonio Gramsci, the American New Left, and the reshuffling of the communist parties after the dissolution of the USSR, is more strategic than ideological.
In fact, this movement, whose extinction seemed imminent and inevitable with the fall of the Soviet Union, was able to thrive and grow remarkably since the early 1990s only because it renounced any homogeneous doctrinal self-definition and refined the technique of articulating into a strategic action unity the most varied currents and dissidences whose coexistence was impossible until then. Sincere or feigned convictions, therefore, have no importance whatsoever.
For someone to speak with some authority about the communist movement, they must first have studied the following things:
(1) The classics of Marxism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong.
(2) The most important Marxist philosophers: Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Lefebvre, Althusser.
(3) Main Currents of Marxism, by Leszek Kolakowski.
(4) Some good books on the history and sociology of the revolutionary movement in general, like Fire in the Minds of Men, by James H. Billington, The Pursuit of the Millenium, by Norman Cohn, The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.
(5) Good books on the history of communist regimes, written from a non-apologetic viewpoint.
(6) Books by the most famous critics of Marxism, like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Raymond Aron, Roger Scruton, Nicolai Berdiaev, and many others.
(7) Books on the strategy and tactics of communist power grabs, on the underground activity of the communist movement in the West, and especially on “active measures” (disinformation, agents of influence), such as those by Anatolyi Golitsyn, Christopher Andrew, John Earl Haynes, Ladislaw Bittman, Diana West.
(8) Testimonies, in the greatest number possible, from former agents or communist militants who tell their experience in service of the movement or communist governments, like Arthur Koestler, Ian Valtin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Whittaker Chambers, David Horowitz.
(9) Highly valuable testimonies about the human condition in socialist societies, like those by Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Vladimir Bukovsky, Nadiejda Mandelstam, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Richard Wurmbrand.
It’s a reading program that can be completed in four or five years by a good student. I do not know, on the right or on the left in Brazil, anyone, absolutely anyone, who has completed it.
There are so many people in this country wanting to give their opinion on the subject, almost always with an air of wisdom, and no one, or almost no one, willing to make the necessary effort to give some substance to their words.
No honest leftist will do it without renouncing their belief forever. No rightist, without recognizing that they were presumptuous, a fool, and in many cases, a useful idiot - sometimes even more useful and more idiotic than the leftist mass.
The left thrives on the exploitation of ignorance, both its own and that of others. Wherever it exercises hegemony, the commandment to never read the works of opponents and critics prevails, but to spread deformed and caricatural versions of their ideas and biographies, so that the militant youth can hate them in the illusion of knowing them. Universities that profess to teach Marxism courses excel in this point to the limit of pure and simple mind control.
The right, well, the right cultivates its own forms of self-delusion, about which I have already spoken enough in this same newspaper. Maybe I’ll return to the subject in another article.
This series of three newspaper columns by Olavo de Carvalho was collected in this order in the book “The Minimum You Need To Know So As Not To Be An Idiot”.
“Science against Reason” critically examines the modern understanding of “science” as the ultimate authority in all matters, arguing that science is not a self-sustaining entity but rather a specialized subset of human rational capacity. The article highlights the inability of science to define fundamental terms like “yes” and “no,” which are grounded in human moral responsibility and experience, not in scientific reasoning. It points out that many terms essential to scientific methodology, like “equality,” “difference,” “cause,” and “relation,” cannot be defined by science itself but rely on conventional meanings derived from human experience. Furthermore, the article asserts that science cannot transcend the limits of reason, as it is rooted in human experience and the contrast between the finite and the infinite. It criticizes the blind reliance on scientific authority in public debates, viewing it as an escape from the responsibilities of using reason. The piece concludes by illustrating the inconsistency of those who advocate for science, oscillating between relativism and absolutism, thus undermining the true essence of rational thought.
“Dreaming of the Ultimate Theory” discusses the concept of a perfect logical proof and its implications in the realm of scientific theories. It argues that while a perfect logical proof exists only in an ideal domain and not in real-world realities, the pursuit of a “final theory” in science — a unified explanation of nature and human existence — continues. The article critiques this pursuit by highlighting historical examples where scientific theories were interpreted as near-perfect logical proofs and applied beyond their scientific boundaries, leading to ideological and often destructive consequences. It points to the mechanistic interpretation of Newton’s principles, the societal applications of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and the political implementation of Marxism as instances where scientific ideas were extended to justify actions like social reform, genocide, and totalitarian regimes. Olavo suggests that the enthusiastic quest for a final theory in science, with its potential ideological implications, might not bode well for humanity.
“Why I’m Not a Fan of Charles Darwin” presents a critical view of Charles Darwin and the celebration of his work. Olavo argues that Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution but rather adapted it from pre-existing ideas and his grandfather’s work. The piece criticizes Darwin’s concept of natural selection, contrasting it with the current understanding of random evolutionary changes (neo-Darwinism). It also suggests that Darwin himself was the progenitor of the “intelligent design” theory, a notion often rejected by his followers. The article goes further to accuse Darwinism of inherently supporting genocidal and racist ideologies, citing Darwin’s own writings as evidence. It concludes by questioning the idolization of Darwin, arguing that his scientific reputation is based on misinterpretations and contradictions of his actual beliefs and theories.
Because you asked if it was permissible to use astrological judgments, wishing to satisfy your request, I have taken care to write about what the sacred teachers transmit regarding this matter.
This series of three newspaper columns by Olavo de Carvalho was collected in this order in the book “The Minimum You Need To Know So As Not To Be An Idiot”.
“Desire to Kill” explores the abortion debate, emphasizing that it revolves around the fundamental choice to abort rather than rational arguments. It highlights the ethical dilemma of uncertain fetal humanity, framing it as a moral risk and ultimately argues against abortion, concluding that no benefit justifies risking a potential human life. Olavo suggests that the pro-abortion stance is driven by an irrational desire to assert freedom and honor, rather than reasoned debate.
“Logic of Abortionism” argues that the morality of abortion is uncertain because it cannot be definitively proven whether a fetus is an extension of the mother’s body or a separate human being. Given this uncertainty, Olavo contends that the morally justifiable position is to refrain from abortion, as no one should arrogate the right to commit an act that might be homicide. The column criticizes abortion advocates for not recognizing the concept of species and suggests that their position relies on the idea that the status of being human is a social convention rather than a natural fact. Olavo also accuses abortion advocates of moral insensitivity and dishonesty in promoting their agenda.
“Candid Conversation about Abortion” is a commentary broadcasted on Radio Imprensa on December 4, 1996, discussing the morality and logic surrounding the abortion debate. The piece argues that the central question of the abortion debate revolves around whether the fetus is considered human. It critiques both spiritualist and materialist perspectives that claim the fetus is not human, with the author emphasizing that every attempt to argue otherwise encounters illogical contradictions. The column further contends that even if one considers the fetus as an organ or part of a woman’s body, its removal can be likened to self-mutilation. Olavo highlights that the fetus is also partially the father’s, challenging the idea that the mother has sole rights over it. Towards the end, the piece asserts that abortion advocates deceive women, leading them down a path of potential guilt and despair. The commentary concludes with an appeal to women, urging them to recognize the true intentions of those who support abortion rights, implying that they might be driven by insincere motives.
This series of four newspaper columns by Olavo de Carvalho was collected in this order in the book “The Minimum You Need To Know So As Not To Be An Idiot”.
“Dialectic of Envy” explores the complex nature of envy, describing it as a deeply hidden and conflicted human emotion. Envy is portrayed as a conflict between self-aversion and the desire for self-elevation. Olavo discusses how envy is rarely openly admitted and often concealed, as it can be shameful. Envy is seen as a feeling that thrives on secrecy, and it typically revolves around spiritual goods rather than material wealth or power. The column also touches upon the changing motives and expressions of envy in modern times, particularly in the context of revolutionary movements. It suggests that envy can be a driving force behind some social and political movements led by intellectual activists.
“Of Unconfessed Envy” discusses the prevalence of unconfessed envy in Brazilian society, particularly in the context of public recognition and voting. Olavo notes that there is a growing trend where people choose to applaud and vote for individuals who are perceived as less talented or remarkable, not out of genuine admiration, but as a way to avoid feelings of envy. This tendency is seen as a shift from a time when voters recognized and appreciated the talents and qualities of candidates, even if he had flaws. The column highlights how envy has become a pervasive and hidden force in society, influencing public opinion and decision-making, particularly in the realm of politics.
“Affected Contempt” discusses the biggest hindrance to the development of intelligence, which he argues is not economic, social, racial, or familial factors but rather moral ones. He emphasizes the importance of exposure to beauty in various forms from a young age to nurture higher intelligence. Olavo criticizes Brazilian culture for its preoccupation with the irrelevant and contempt for anything beyond his limited comprehension. He uses the example of the Brazilian media’s treatment of Ronald Reagan to illustrate his point that contempt can be a mask for envy.
“The Naivety of Cunning” explores how the 20th century thought of itself as clever by uncovering the flaws and weaknesses in great figures of the past, such as Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche, through psychoanalysis and critique. Olavo argues that this modern tendency towards self-criticism and suspicion led to the deconstruction of both divine and human qualities. He criticizes academic trends that focus on highlighting deficiencies in great individuals instead of appreciating their unique qualities and contributions. Olavo concludes that this self-destructive intellectual trend has made the 20th century appear remarkably naive in retrospect.
