Juan Donoso Cortés, marqués de Valdegamas (6 May 1809 – 3 May 1853), a descendant of the conquistador Hernando Cortés, author, political theorist, and diplomat.
Influenced by the philosophes of the Enlightenment and entering politics as a liberal, Donoso's views altered radically, primarily as a response to anti-monarchical uprisings which took place while he was private secretary to Queen Maria Cristina. By the time of the revolutionary crises of 1848-49 Donoso stood as a major counter-enlightenment, traditionalist intellectual figure.
Taking the reactionary critiques of liberalism of the likes of de Bonald and de Maistre , Donoso developed his counter-revolutionary world view to take into account the then emerging socialist movement which he saw as an inverted religion, a 'satanic theology'. As much a prophet of coming disaster (he predicted a successful socialist revolution and subsequent tyranny in Russia ) as a defender of traditional religious and political authority, Donoso would influence Carl Schmitt and Julius Evola. The 1851 Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism: Considered in Their Fundamental Principles is generally considered his most important work.
Now these
same revolutionaries and Socialists affirm quite unconsciously by
their practice the very thing they deny in theory in other people.
When the French Revolution in its frenzy and blood-lust had trampled
all the national glories underfoot; when, intoxicated with its
triumphs, it believed final victory certain, a mysterious
aristocratic pride of race took hold of it, which was in direct
contradiction to all its dogmas. Then we saw the most famous of the
revolutionaries, as proudly as any feudal baron of old, behave with
great circumspection, so that the privilege of entering their family
was only accorded with reserve and at the cost of many scruples. My
readers will remember that famous question put by the doctors of the
new law to those who presented themselves as candidates—" What
crime have you committed ? " Who could not but sympathise with
the unfortunate man who had committed no crime, for never would the
gates of the Capitol, where sat the demi-gods of the Revolution,
terrible in their majesty, be opened to him. Mankind had instituted
the aristocracy of virtue, the revolution instituted the aristocracy
of crime.
. . . Examine all the revolutionary schools one by one and
you will see that they all vie with each other in an effort to
constitute themselves into a family and to claim a noble descent:
Saint-Simon the aristocrat is the ancestor of one group ; the
illustrious Fourier of another, and Babeuf the patriot of a third
group. In each one you will find a common leader, a common patrimony,
a common glory, a common mission; each group is distinct from the
other, then breaks away from the others to form a splinter group, all
the members of which are linked together by a narrow solidarity and
seek out of the depths of the past some famous name as a rallying
cry. Some have chosen Plato, the glorious personification of the
wisdom of the ancients; others, and they are numerous, carrying their
mad ambition to the heights of blasphemy, do not fear to profane the
sacred name of the Redeemer! Poor and abandoned, they would perhaps
have forgotten Him; humble they would have scorned Him; but in their
insolent pride they do not forget that poor, wretched, and humble as
He was, He was a King and that royal blood flowed in His veins. As
for M. Proudhon, that perfect type of Socialist pride, which in its
turn is the prototype of human pride—carried away by his vanity, he
goes as far back as he can to the remotest ages, in an attempt to
seek his ancestry in those times which bordered upon Creation, when
the Mosaic institutions flourished amongst the Hebrews. As a matter
of fact, his lineage and his name are still more ancient and
illustrious than he thinks; to discover their origin, we must go back
still further, to times beyond the pale of history, to beings who in
perfection and dignity are incomparably higher than men. At present,
suffice it to say that the Socialist schools of thought tend
inevitably towards contradiction and absurdity; that each one of
their principles contradicts those which precede or follow; and that
their conduct is a complete condemnation of their theories, as
their theories are a radical condemnation of their conduct.
. . . The
fundamental negation of Socialism is the negation of sin, that grand
affirmation which is, as it were, the focal point of the Catholic
affirmation. This denial logically implies a whole series of further
negations, some of them relating to the Divine Person, others to the
human person, others still to man in society. The most fundamental of
them all is this: that the Socialists not only deny the fact of sin,
but the possibility of sinning; from this double negation follows the
negation of human liberty, which is meaningless if we ignore the
power given to mankind to choose between good and evil and to fall
from the state of innocence into a state of sin. The denial of
free-will leads to a disclaimer of human responsibility; the
responsibility of man being denied, penalties for sin are also
denied, from which follows on the one hand the negation of divine
government, and on the other, the negation of human governments.
Therefore, as far as the question of government is concerned, the
negation of sin ends in nihilism. To deny the responsibility of the
individual in the domestic, political and human spheres is to deny
the solidarity of the individual in the family and in the State; it
is to deny unity in the species, in the State, in the family and in
man himself, since there is such complete identity between the
principles of solidarity and unity that one thing cannot be conceived
in isolation without reference to the principle of solidarity and
vice-versa. Therefore, as regards the question of unity, the negation
of sin ends in nihilism. Unity being denied absolutely, the following
negations are implied—that of humanity, of the family, of society
and of man. The fact is that nothing exists at all except on
condition of being "one," so that the existence of the
family, of society and of humanity can only be postulated on
condition that domestic, political and human unity is affirmed. If
these unities are denied, the negation of these three things must
follow; to affirm that they exist, and to deny unity between them, is
a contradiction in terms. Each of these things is necessarily "
one," or it cannot exist at all; therefore if they are not "
one " they do not exist; their very name is absurd, for it is a
name which does not describe or designate anything. The negation of
individualism also follows from the negation of the principle of
unity, although by a different process. Only individual man can, up
to a certain point, exist without being "one" and without
having any solidarity with his fellows: what is denied in this case,
if his unity and solidarity with man- kind is denied, is that he is
always the same person at different moments of his life. If there is
no bond of union between the past and the present and between the
present and the future, it follows that man exists only in the
present moment. But in this hypothesis, it is clear that his
existence is more phenomenal than real. If I do not live in the past,
because it is past, and because there is no unity between the present
and the past; if I do not live in the future, because the future does
not exist and because when it will exist it will not be future ; if I
only live in the present and the present does not exist, because when
I am about to affirm that it exists, it has already passed, my
existence is manifestly more theoretical than practical; for in
reality, if I do not exist at all times, I do not exist at any time.
I conceive time only in the union of its three forms and I cannot
conceive it when I separate them. What is the past, unless it is
something which no longer is? What is the future, unless it is
something which does not yet exist ? Who can halt the present long
enough to affirm that it is here, once it has escaped from the
future, and before it relapses into the past? To affirm the
existence of man, denying the unity of time, amounts to giving man
the speculative existence of a mathematical point. Therefore the
negation of sin ends in nihilism, as regards both the existence of
individual man, of the family, of the body politic and of humanity.
Therefore, in every sphere, all Socialist doctrines, or to be
accurate, all rationalist doctrines must end inevitably in nihilism.
From Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism [1851]. Translation by Rev. William NT Donald [1874]
