Starting from Christ we could say: how long the history is born not like happening but event, or rather advent, two are the categories that have characterized the succession, but we can say the pursuit, of acts and facts, or, for who believes in homo faber existence, of the acts put in facts:

a) revolution;

b) crisis.

Is there a nexus between the two? Let’s to inquire into the definitions.

“Revolution” from revolutio word, late Latin, means etymologically “upheaval”. Copernicus used it in his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in the meaning of “rotation”, but his issue was a upheaval, that is an astronomical revolution.

After Copernicus the use of the word spread to the political concepts assuming in the meaning of violent  breaking  of a system, with or without demand to establish a new one. Or rather, after every political revolution, there is almost  always a more or less strong period of restoration, sign that the new order  or it was nor planed, or it didn’t found suitable realization.

“Crisis” comes from Greek and it meant, like medical term, the culminating point of an illness.

Only in 1800, the terms comes in political terminology with the meaning of start to preparation of a new political structure, often  with utopian  outline and  contents. If we remove the utopian aspiration we can leave to crisis its  objective meaning to walk to news, also if the new thing, weakened by every store of a better illusory world, would be an end in itself. Then crisis is the link that ties up a revolution to a following and in its dynamic prepare the same. 

The first reflection suggested by logic is that to know the contents, the developments and the falls of the revolutions, we have to analyze the times of crisis, that are the culture medium of the revolutions.

The crisis analysis puts also another problem: the connection between the revolutions, however considering that it is difficult to claim that a revolution can be the extension or the filiation by a former, because, if it was so, it would not be a revolution. A revolution is such only if it proposes  like a new proposal, that mains to be against the past. That is, it does not be a conservative revolution or better a revolutionary conservation. At worst exists a conflict between a revolution and another.

This consideration permits an observation about the history of revolutions or about the history tout court.

The revolution exists, the first, the one that starts by not revolutionary Christ and the all later are been proposed “against”, with the result that the first still exists and continues, while the counter-revolutions were all fallen miserably without to leave rests or, when they left some, by permitting to Christianity to absorb and to metabolize them.

That explains its victory, that has besides an explicit cause: the Christianity has a basic foundation, Christ is God made Man, that is God humanism and simultaneously. He is the divinization of the man, in brief He is favorable to man. Christianity isn’t God and isn’t man, is God-man and Man-God, while the other revolutions are all against man or, at one’s best, are only man. When they are against man they go out by themselves, because is the same man who at last refuses them. 

When they area only man, they recognize their smallness in comparison with the Christianity and then, not suffering it, (the comparison), they end up by turning against in the focus their attention in a fight, that is lost in the start by inadequacy of the  presuppositions. This does not mean that the Christianity puts in a safe place and more than ever probability of defeat, but the statistic of the  pays defeats so far against the expectation of the other revolutions.

 The Christianity, but it could begin to say the Catholicism, non in the meaning of revolutionary organization but in the meaning  of spirituality  that sets aside its organization, it has some components  that make it more and less than a religion. More, because above the inalienable dogma it stands one commandment able to disarm everyone: the love, word that is at the same time simple and inscrutable, ineffable and elusive; less, because it doesn’t merge into the political power, or rather it always opposes. Also the times, many centuries, the temporal power of the Pope must be explained, if we will apply them rightly, like a defence also preventive against the temporal and intrusive of emperors, princes and tyrants of all sorts. A sort of counter-power. In other terms: its less than a religion, because it isn’t completely, so not absolute and that because its natural humanism would not admit it.

But it is a humanism sui generis, that lets to Catholicism to address simultaneously to the poors, to who  it orders tolerance, because the man future is the hereafter and to the wealthy, for the same motive, to not count on the material goods on the present life.

This is the result of a religion that prefers transcendence without to cancel immanence. It is not hypocrisy or  time-serving. It is only coherence with the own interpretation of eschatology. 

The not confusion of the Catholic Church with the political power is a historical reality, if we will fairly interpret the self-defence in some ages to counter the constant attempt of the political power not only to be legitimated by that religious (think about the emperor coronations) but to use its for self object, for the war ambitions and money necessities, like made – and certainly they were not only the ones – Philip the Fine of France and Henry the VIII of England.

The dialectical position  of the Catholic Church is the explanation of the fact that fascism in Italy did not adopt the tones of a vicious dictatorship, differently from the countries where the Church (for example the German and English Protestant) was merged into the political power.

In the case of the Catholic Church we can do also other important considerations:

Until the heresy of Luther, the Christian Church in the West had like the common reference the New Testament Scripture and the formulation before patristic and after theological-roman. Luther branded a swerve, above all, theological. On the contrary the Roman Church continued New Testament and theological-Roman tradition in firm contrast with the Lutheran Biblical and its contrast  o political power, after the loss of its Latium temporal power, it culminated in 1870 in anisolationism, more for self-pity of Pope than an actual reality.

The overcoming of this context had the context effect to put again the Roman Church in an ecumenical and only religious, brought with a Concordat, of that the very practical cardinal Gasparri certainly did not complain. That Concordat also accomplished a centuries-old process, that proposed again the dialectical role of the Church in a correct position, except for the inevitable intrigues and individual ambitions of prelates willing to the collusion and to the interference with the political power.

We can claim that since that time the Roman Church, released from temporal problems, could be “the Church of the World” and begin the walk that restored hers the auctoritas, that just derives from no-necessity of compromise  and confusion. In the course of  the twentieth century the Council Vatican Second has been inserted like a wedge in, too recent for a historical judge, but evident failure about its main objective, that aspired to unum sint, but that was wrong understood also by others Christian religious confessions, proud and tied to her local squabbles.

The days were not mature and to remedy this immaturity were necessary concessions and very dangerous slipping not only on liturgy. The most tiring effort of the actual Pope is at all the recovery  in contemporary key, of the better theological-roman tradition, striving to not disown a Council, wanted by a clergy with cryptomarxist liking.  Actually, we like a crisis of the Church, that we can interpret clearly with detached mind, because it is the crisis of the of the contemporary society itself. Like to say that the crisis can be also inside of in progress and winning revolution. But, like we have realized, crisis means “transition” and the Church, between a parenthesis and another,, will take its way of “tradition”. It is the tradition that wants to other revolutions and it is the sight of their  fleetingness.

We have described an historical situation, in that a revolution exists, that of Christ, and a sequence of failed counter-revolutions.  The last is the revolution of Marx – but we should say of the communism – that, just  to be an erethism of the Christianity, had more probability to last. But, in 1989th, under the “Berlin Wall” the most arrogant, tragic, inhuman and sanguinary revolution and, according to few interpreters, especially thanks to permanent revolution of catholic Church, not certainly to the  Orthodox Church, captive of the political power, so much to continue the tradition of preceding enslavement czarist. That collapse has opened the period of actual crisis and inevitably we, lowered in its, do not know what it is in preparation, because every crisis is a preparation of something, unless will be a millennium without revolutions. But it is a vain illusion.

The first phenomenon that comes in evidence after the collapse of the Berlin Wall a the opening of a crisis period is the attempt to make endemic and to turn Islamic fundamentalism, into a systematic code of conduct, that assumes its political face in the terrorism. But this phenomenon is not a revolution, but its contrary. The Islamism in these extreme expressions is, rather, the violent reaction to every form of progress, it is against every idea of change and revolution. It is the desperation of the economic and cultural poverty , that, whereas to react, shuts in the prod but also festered obscurantist conservationism. It is the effect of fear and despair.

After the expulsion of that phenomenon from the category of the revolutions, we have to analyze other expressions of this time of crisis to try to disclose the symptoms of that is brewing. There are some one evident, but after one hidden; the last one are only intuitable from who by culture or instinctive capacity is able to interpret dubious and often deceptive signals, which elude many men and catch unawares when they begin to reveal more clearly.

Let’s an example between many proposable. When early in 1919, after the blaze of passion in days immediately following the November 4 th, 1918, the Italian soldiers returned  not so much from the victory as from the physical and moral affliction that destroyed inside man, they were motioned by the draft-dodgers and the supporters of Leninism, that represented also the defeat of the combatant Russia in the First World War; people did not understand that those signs would bear the revolt of D’Annunzio in Fiume  and to follow the Fascism. And because the fascism was, at least in the beginning, a revolution, those hidden signs could be interpreted  like premonitory acts and facts in the way of the post-war crisis.

And actually? Under the Berlin Wall did not stay buried the Marxism by the defeat of the ideology, but by the reason that the economic system in its permeated, was a failure in the operational and effectual level. The capitalism did not win, but the State Socialism lost. This remark would open also the interesting chapter about the confrontation  between Hegel and Marx, also because we would the second  an effect of the left  wing  of the first or – like the same Marx asserted in the Capital – his reversal, to put on feet, what Hegel put on the head. We know that Hegel even if has done the last attempt  in the history to reintroduce  an universal knowledge founded on philosophy, he never be interested in economics. However he was able to summarize or at least to characterize in an assertion his intricate thought: «All is rational it is real and all is real it is rational», object of ferocious and not always  pondered criticisms, but its validity has been proved by the calm and very learned hermeneut Hans Georg Gadamer, who proved that the error of Hegel, if it is an error, it is only in the conjugation of the verb to be; that is “in a long time”, not in the immediate present, only rationality can survive. Hegel with its opinion wrote also the sentence of his student, admitting Karl Marx would be his student, who differently his teacher, thought to be also an economist. But economics, more than the philosophy, asks for a strict rationality. Now we know two basic principles in economics:

a) economic fully closed systems do not exist;

b) planned economics is an aberration of market economics, it is its deviation, its exemption, its particular case: that in which to freedom of many man, that communicates on the market, takes the place not of the will of a single man (that would be still rational, even if he was Lenin or Stalin) but of a Moloch called plane.

Marx committed the making of his social objective to this economic construction and his failure was written in the irrationality of the chosen system. Also Machiavelli would fail Marx and Lenin his operating hand, in spite of the cynicism like Cesare Borgia, not so to was unable to apply the rule that the end justifies the means, as having chosen the wrong means.

Then, under the Berlin Wall was buried  the October revolution and with it’s the real socialism. But the fact the Marxism was defeated by economic and not ideological reasons is the showier phenomenon of the crisis that is open. The last one to be surprised would be own Marx, who, diagnosed founding the historical materialism, since the beginning in economics, if his thesis was true, the field into that would be his defeat. Certain to begin with an idea founded over the ambitious collective humanism and to end defeated by the money it is a very miserable end, but it is into the premises. The Communism costs millions of dead people for the humanity, product in the internal its system (let’s us think to carnages of the Ukrainian countrymen by the Soviets, those remind the massacres of the German countrymen in 1524-25 with de Luther benediction, who handed the Protestant church of the Reformation to the German Princes) and at the outside to resist the enemies and to try to destroy them. But it is the fate of all revolutions sound on man, which evolve and resolve always against man.

 Now, the unburnt remains of the ideological and revolutionary part of the late Marxism have been taken up by the orphans of the system, supported by the crypto-Marxists, who hide into the Church and in the sacristies and they would continue the violent revolution, exploiting the guilty pacifism and the absenteeism of the middle class. But, while the revolutionaries of the Marxist beginning were respectable (we can remember Gramsci), because they had the positive objective, even if in the violent taking of the power, to raise the standard of living of the standard of proletarians and deprived persons, those belated Marxists, the “following”, have neither one objective, the are simply “against”, they are founded in the “nothing”, they are the real, perhaps sole nihilists in this time. They are losers of course, where the fathers were losers with probability.

A revolution founded on the nothing is neither a revolution and those new agitators are less than anarchists, they are violent peoples used by some astute looking for fame or political career, but the traditional party welcoming will sign itself end. 


(Translation by Giulia Bonazza)