O Banqueiro Anarquista

O Banqueiro Anarquista➺ [Download] ➶ O Banqueiro Anarquista By Fernando Pessoa ➻ – Oaklandjobs.co.uk O mal verdadeiro o único mal são as convenções e as ficções sociais ue se sobrepõem às realidades naturais — tudo desde a família ao dinheiro desde a religião ao Estado A gente nasce homem O mal verdadeiro o único mal são as convenções e as ficções sociais ue se sobrepõem às realidades naturais — tudo desde a família ao dinheiro desde a religião ao Estado A gente nasce homem ou mulher — uero dizer nasce para ser em adulto homem ou mulher; não nasce em boa justiça natural nem para ser marido nem para ser rico ou pobre como também não nasce para ser católico ou protestante ou português ou inglês E todas estas coisas em virtude das ficções sociais Ora essas ficções sociais são más poruê O Banqueiro eBook ½ Porue são ficções porue não são naturais Tão mau é o dinheiro como o Estado a constituição da família como as religiões Se houvesse outras ue não fossem estas seriam igualmente más porue também seriam ficções porue também se sobreporiam e estorvariam as realidades naturais Ora ualuer sistema ue não seja o puro sistema anaruista ue uer a abolição de todas as ficções e de cada uma delas completamente é uma ficção também Empregar todo o nosso desejo todo o nosso esforço toda a nossa inteligência para implantar ou contribuir para implantar uma ficção social em vez de outra é um absurdo uando não seja mesmo um crime porue é fazer uma perturbação social com o fim expresso de deixar tudo na mesma Se achamos injustas as ficções sociais porue esmagam e oprimem o ue é natural no homem para ue empregar o nosso esforço em substituir lhes outras ficções se o podemos empregar para as destruir a todas. The anarchist bankerAm i the only one who disliked this? Oh boy the vaugness in this book If this is an ideology plz explain to me I need to know crystal clear what you represent And freedom? What kind of freedom is that? The first and most important rule of democracy is My freedom stops at that certain point that your freedom starts What kind of freedom do you represent? Do you mean you are free to kill and rape and demolish? Tell me i need to know I am not a fan of absolute regimes neither i am a fan pf capitalism But i know what these things are They have a beginning and an ending I know exactly what i don't like about all these This is not about my political thesis it's about how unclear everything in this book is Do you know what happens when there are no rules at all? Chaos And i know there are two types the one when even in chaos there are some rules and there is a line and somehow it works and the other kind when everything is a mess and there is no logic the one that there is nothing but mess What side are you on? And dude the fact that you stepped on others that you took advantage of others to get what you want not what you need but what you want that makes you a dick And the one thing that infuriated me the most there is no dialogue There is no response no opposition to what he was talking about I had so much to ask and talk back to him and the other person was like yeah go on Noooo stop and explain Analytically I am a human being and i tend to use my brain so if you want me to be liking what you are talking about fucking explain and don't leave me with unanswered uestions and a defective ideology It felt like you wanted to brainwash me I did not like this The Anarchist Banker A short story I read in The Selected Prose of Fernando Pessoa which the author referred to as a dialectical satire; the editor and translator Richard Zenith writes the narrative of actual events could fit into two pages; the other twenty six are taken up by logical argument Pessoa's stories like his personalitys tend to stray from ordinary or conventional forms As dubious as some of the premises may be I loved the manner in which the banker explained his anarchist philosophy; the comprehensive portrait of one man's adult life through a post dinner conversation To give you a taste of his Anaruista logicae ? I've set out the first three points somewhat condensed below An anarchist is the term given to someone who rebels against the injustice of people being born socially uneual by rejecting all social formulas and conventions and ardently struggles to abolish them all Italics are Pessoa's1 There's nothing we can do about the injustices of Nature eg talent strength energy but we can and should fight against the injustices of society and its conventions eg wealth social position favourable circumstancesThus I became an anarchist2 The only real evils in the world are social conventions and fictions eg religion family money state that have been superimposed on natural realities All these things that define us are social fictions which are bad because they're not natural Any system besides pure anarchism which aims to do away with all systems is likewise a fictionThus I chose anarchism over all the other other social doctrines and theories3 Our notion of justice comes from what is true and natural in opposition to social fictions and the lies of convention Then eithera it's possible to put what's natural into social practice ie it's possible for a natural society to exist orb it isn't possible ie society is a pure fiction that can in no way be naturalIf a then an anarchist or free society can and should exist since it would be a completely natural societyIf b then we shall defend the current bourgeois regime since it is the social fiction we're most used to and thus seems and feels the most naturalAs a man with a naturally clear thinking mind and a reasonably strong will these were natural gifts which my humble birth couldn't take away from me he goes on to systematically outline the issues and how he overcame the discourses of a transition into an anarchist system; whether this preparation would be material or psychological; revolutionary dictatorships; propaganda; freedom; social revolution; altruism and self sacrifice; duty as a human being; tyranny; working individually for the revolution; assaults on the social order; reducing them to inactivityFollowing on the first three arguments he puts forth dozens and what logical conclusion did he reach?ie how to live as an anarchist both in theory and practice?Answer to become a banker an unscrupulous financer a profiteer Thus we have The Anarchist Banker an apparent oxymoron yet one which is logically derived in this storyI was smiling throughoutJune 12 2016PS I posted this review at 1150pm 12 June 2016 and ten minutes later my phone gave me a reminder that it was Pessoa's birthday on June 13 A happy coincidence and in the morning I even had a dream where someone was holding The Book of Disuiet in their hands and I wanted to tell them that was my favourite book I don't think I managed to tell them though This short story isn't meant to be an introduction to anarchist doctrines nor is it meant to be the case for anarchism However it performs a very anarchist task in a way it's supposed to make the reader uestion what is being presented to him as flawless logic; uestion his own political context its ideologies and what they impose ultimately to uestion the banker the man who freed one person himself Pessoa ins't confining the reader to the role of the banker's friend the always accepting listener the story is begging for disagreement while presenting carefully tailored arguments as to why a tycoon could also be an anarchist both in theory and in practice Pessoa wrote this in the 1920's ten years before that Portugal embraced the Republican form of government and during the next decade enjoyed a great increase of the number of anarchist groups and organizations around ten a year From the late 1800's until the 1930's anarchism was one of the strongest social movements in Portugal This historical context is relevant and should be kept in mind as the background of the discussion between these two friends The banker dismisses these organizations because they're only anarchist in theory there is a disruption between these two realities Why? First the banker argues that a true social revolution one that abolishes social fictions can only happen through radical individualism and individual efforts to eliminate the internal tyranny that emerges from those organizations; and then after establishing that money is the single most powerful social fiction of all he says that the only way to be outside of its influence or free from it is by acuiring it in great measure And so he didAnd that's when the mask falls off The anarchist has become a sly he has gone from the defense of libertarian values to the defense of undercover neoliberal values the values of domination and competition so that he could free himself free himself by working free himself by making money while believing that all of his counterparts could do the same if they wished to what does that sound like? After putting the reader through critiues of other political ideologies after making him uestion his surroundings the banker reveals himself as a cynic; a snake that has eaten its tail In the words of Hegel in place of rebellion appears arrogance Published only 5 years after the October Revolution at the time it must have felt like a dangerous challenging read At this distance it is uite intriguing Many things have happened In 1971 a right wing party was founded with the name Libertarian Party forever spoiling the use of the word libertarian Rothbard took the Austrian School to an edge that he called Anarcho capitalismMore recently even politics seemed to invert certains cultural dinamics that we took for granted since Modernism In a crude simplistic way leftists were the subversive ones and rightists the defenders of the status uo Now the alt right presents itself as countercultural and wild and the established left as a moral police Strange beweeldering daysSo now in the 2010's both the words libertarianism and anarchism are compromised When we read something published in 1922 it's easy to dismiss its original context and read it in a distorting way After all this is about the paradox of an anarchist banker Can we draw parallells with the right wing libertarianism of entrepeneurs and financiers today?The edition I read ends with a uote from Pessoa My rough direct translation from Portuguese isArguments are almost everytime truer than facts Logic is our criterion for truth and it's in arguments and not in facts that there can be logic This is a typical Pessoa clean tight logical aforism on the edge of paradox Again can we see this as a Colbert ish provocation about a sort of truthiness? If it's at all a provocation it goes one step beyond We could draw the paradoxical conclusion If it makes sense it's truer than reality Though it might not be a provocation at all since even at a very basic level not necessarily academic for instance Journalism we are warned that facts mean nothing by themselves The meaning comes afterwardsIf we use that to read the novela than we might consider O Banueiro Anaruista a provocation a subversive exercise in rhetoric But there are other ways to read I will not not do it or spoil it And I admit that I read it intentionally without any knowledge from the decades of academic work on it Fernando Pessoa must be one of the most studied authors in Portuguese literature and since this is his only short narrative published when he was living it's uite important in its work Now I will search for the existing interpretations of it Nice sophistical monologue of an anarchist who has gone over to the other side the side of the power to serve his case in a better way Painful to read Was actually hoping for bits of humor or at least some witty remarks about the dominant social class but heck not even one bitsy bit i found it bored and even tho it has an almost flawless argumentative logic it was painful man painful That's all im saying HmmmReally difficult to categorize this book I agree with Pessoa's point of view with anarchism but i don't think i decided what if the irony of the anarchist banker is sincere or it is a trick that cover's the opposition of Pessoa with the anarchy theoryThat and the fact that i read it all of it in the tube made me 4 star it I can't say I really appreciated this book It was easy to read and the starting idea was interesting but first I couldn't agree with his explanations and second the narrative form was too self aggrandizing the second character exists only to admire the first one and this is uite boring But on another side this book is uite old and deserves some respect because of the nice reasoning for that time However I don't think it reflects what is anarchy It's a conversation A story with a conversation between two men One man who starts the brew by asserting that an anarchist can't be a banker A conversation ensues Apparently anarchy is a misunderstood concept It's not a theory it's a way of life Pessoa’s novella delights in the ultimate dilemma of anarchist thought The uest to dismantle illegitimate state and social authority can swing committed anarchist thinkers between extreme left and right political poles Both lead to their own versions of tyranny But Pessoa’s Banker attempts to retain some intellectual honesty in his process By using the system of control to regain his own freedom he justifies his own contribution to dismantling the system In some way his Banker could have been a precursor to Chomsky’s anarchist thought that recognized by protecting certain illegitimate state institutions you prevent worse private tyrannies from developing However Pessoa’s Banker is not protecting the institution; he is infiltrating it as means to solely achieve his own freedom The institution is left to exist unchanged to oppress others His is the Hobbesian world of solitary ultra right brutal freedom that must be seized by those capable of doing soIt is unclear how the Banker’s view of individual liberty reconciles with his willingness to dismantle the same institutions giving him liberty Though the idea of joining institutions just enough to change from within is scoffed at by many “purists” who stay on the outside oftentimes frustrated and impotent it has been an effective means of historical change But the Banker though willing to reject social fictions has conditioned his freedom on the means of his employment Without spontaneous and total destruction of the institution he has joined there is no contribution to forward progress other than his own liberation This in the end is all he believes he should achieve and cynically all he believes he is capable of achieving