Jaana Gerassimov


Tagasi minuga ei saa.



pikker, suhtlus


Mina eelistan suhelda alati töiselt-ametlikult-ratsionaalselt-viisakalt, sõltumata kellega ma suhtlen. Kui midagi huvitab, siis ma küsin. Antud juhul oleks maili teel olnud lihtsam infot vahetada. Ainult familiaarsuse pärast telefoniga lobiseda võib pruudiga. Kui keegi matsilt käitub, siis pole mingit tarvidust temaga kemplema hakata, vaid parem küsida rahulikult ja viisakalt sama küsimus uuesti. Kui teine pool selle peale veelgi labasemaks läheb, siis sellega ta ju näitab et ta alateadlikult isegi tajub oma piiratust ja sellest piisab.

tundub hea riikluse vorm






The immediate, practical solution would be the abolition of political parties. Party strife, as it existed under the Third Republic, is intolerable. The single party, which is, moreover, its inevitable outcome, is the worst evil of all. The only remaining possibility is a public life without parties. Nowadays, such an idea strikes us as a novel and daring proposition. All the better, since something novel is what is wanted. But, in point of fact, it is only going back to the tradition of 1789. In the eyes of the people of 1789, there was literally no other possibility. A public life like ours has been over the course of the last half-century would have seemed to them a hideous nightmare. They would never have believed it possible that a representative of the people should so divest himself of all personal dignity as to allow himself to become the docile member of a party.

Moreover, Rousseau had clearly demonstrated how party strife automatically destroys the Republic. He had foretold its effects. It would be a good thing just now to encourage the reading of the Contrat Social. Actually, at the present time, wherever there were political parties, democracy is dead. We all know that the parties in England have a certain tradition, spirit and function making it impossible to compare them to anything else. We all know, besides, that the rival teams in the United States are not political parties. A democracy where public life is made up of strife between political parties is incapable of preventing the formation of a party whose avowed aim is the overthrow of that democracy. If such a democracy brings in discriminatory laws, it cuts its own throat. If it doesn’t, it is just as safe as a little bird in front of a snake.

simone weil, the need for roots, the needs of the soul, freedom of opinion