is not the intention of returning to the old debate between anarchism and Marxism, especially considering that Marxism itself more than once did not know what to do with their own theoretical and practical treasure. The question of materialism, as proposed based on the immanence philosophy, atheism, the use of reason and science, it is common to both anarchism and Marxism. But the waters were divided at the time of stress or not the famous "base material" condition of human action. Except
gray crosses between the two traditions, can say that, broadly speaking, the Marxist political tradition have placed much emphasis on material conditions of production and the economy when to intervene, while the anarchists put emphasis on freedom of action and life of individual subjects and collective. This is not exactly true, I'm just stating what most "noise" made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and does justice to the diversity of practices that have escaped the doctrinal lines, authors' affiliations, etc.
being rude, we can say that the version of materialism that we know as a member of Marxism is a crude version introduced by Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, and remains that spreads even in academic and extra-party even though they have nothing to do with party affiliation or traditional theoretical work.
anarchist tendencies, have historically been more concerned with freedom in action, by building self-help material devices therefore have bequeathed a rich theoretical literature that adopts a special theme to the economy and modes of production demands for freedom, to be in terms of currency, a diagnosis of social structure is of little use.
This is true because these diagnoses have been of little use to Marxisms politicians when they had the chance to take in hand the company and its state. In practical terms, have been reproduced despotic production mechanisms taken from Taylorism and Fordism. In this regard, my position is closer to anarchism proposes a current embodiment of a different society, independent of programmatic and abstract delusions. Of course I do not speak of anarchism in general, because for example, anarcho-syndicalism is with a strong program with which I disagree.
I will not go to select from the vast range of theoretical and practical positions of both traditions, it would be interesting to revive and reinterpret some but this is beyond the scope of my paper.
Turning to the base material, if that matters is to establish the liberty and, why stop to think about how to build the economy, how we ensure our survival?
First, because the balance of militancy in the last centuries found that there was no royal road to social change. In fact there were many, and the most original, as the English self have lasted as long as the time allowed between world wars. Note that I say that has lasted for a limited time and not have been defeated. I'm going to expound a bit on this. A historian
French revolutions called Sylvain Lazarus, very intelligent, evades the problem of the length of the variable speed military victory or defeat. He says that revolutions are "exhausted" because the power unleashed by libertarian forces eventually wear out trying to cope with internal problems associated with having to specify, manage and secure your everyday life, its economy, its institutions, its policy, more taking into account the threat of the enemy all the time cause confusion about the decisions you make and wear these forces ends.
makes no sense to speak of defeat is like saying that an apple fell from the tree defeated by gravity. A revolution is exhausted just as the falling apple. It only makes sense to consider the situations, challenges and strategies. Staying on the subject of failure or defeat is an ideal of eternal duration of things.
Turning to political issues: the question of the state, for instance, divided the Marxist or anarchist just a matter of time: it abolishes the State and or a time through a process of taking power. But today we realize that both attitudes emerged in the midst of a troubled land, the European working masses organized in the past centuries.
And that is why today, in very different, far exists organized labor and anti-capitalist mass, seems distant to us the possibility of abolishing the state (especially when today is often the last to assure widespread misery, and to the radical atomization of ties). But it is far for the same reasons that Marxists, because we realized that not taking tomorrow to solve anything.
I think our time compels us to produce an unprecedented hybrid: the synthesis between freedom in action and organization of material sources of livelihood. It's true that we conducted experiments of this type, but the truth is that not enough thought has been given about the need to combine both to be effective. No has thought long and hard about it because the sky was near the hands and well, provided we act according to the needs and situations.
Now that the sky seems so far away, and where the militant preaching seems to find so little resonance mass as factories or markets recovered solidarity, we have a double problem: ideas that have challenged and organization effectiveness, organization materials facing the limits of the capitalist market, forcing the particularization. The siren call of marketing cornering us three options: to seduce, to work with the image, to increase forever the same speeches and strategies, or stay passive waiting better times, but in general are worse.
The output of commercial corset-state and not just because the state also became a commodity, we again turn our gaze to the material conditions.
And here is where we can rescue the most interesting core of Marxism, which is not limited to famous analysis of the modes of production, social formations, the ultimate determination of the economy.
That core is the most basic and crucial: people and their culture is characterized by the way they get their food and shelter. The struggle for food, which is consecrated by the ruling biblically "Sweat of your brow you will get your support" is what continues to operate in the institutions that we knew to build, so that where there appears to play a real problem of obtaining the support (Hegel would say: this is a struggle for recognition ), is precisely where the material continues to condition.
What Marx analyzed as commodity fetishism, or ideology, is actually quite simple: is the neglect of the material, forgetting that in reality our symbolic conflicts, cultural, affective, are mediated by the way we mobilize our energies, knowledge and strength to obtain or produce our food. Not interested scrutinize both the genesis of that failure, looking for alleged human essence has to be dominated, to a lopsided balance between objective and subjective forces, both like to analyze the social sciences. Neither the indication of that failure will illuminate the alienated and take the right path of alienation, because if you do not propose a practical device for alienated'm just preaching the gospel as a priest.
So, what it pays to remember that neglect? Serves to realize we are not free to work or produce our food. We are required to turn them into goods and place them in a market. Market goods and there was always say, but these two little words are not central in all societies but in capitalism, because capitalism is where almost everything tends to be absorbed in the relationship of buying and selling. I said almost everything because its rule is not absolute and depends on certain social areas are outside the law of value: the unconditional support of family members or care work (when we share things and teach them to friends, etc.).
However, the policy problem appears when we realize that is not enough that the family does or that we can have friends, because in reality the capital not only valuing the real colonization but leaving parasite outside its domain. The thing gets more screwed if the family or friends insist that capitalism, selfishness, immunity are the best ways of making life. But here we are dealing with is to think about is how we can expand our capacity to those who think that this is not our way.
anarchists who broke with the family in the early nineteenth century had their contention on the primary union, they were workers who always had a job because they were organized in branches (bakers, etc).
libertarian militants of the decade of 60/70 could break with the family because there was full employment welfare state in Europe and Argentina.
Today it is not possible economic empowerment of the family, but rather more capital exploits the workers know that what they lack of support is patched with the support of father, aunt, income, field, scholarship, allowance, etc..
Paradoxically, if there is a time when gritty fight for the money (a fetish of support) that time is today. Today is where we all know, cynically, that a university chair, a play, a clinic, ie in institutions is at stake something cultural, recognition, or even care, it is so evident naked competition to get very scarce goods (Jobs, promotion, approval of projects, grants, etc).
Then, before anyone says to already know that there is a clear intention behind hidden shit, to seduce, for profit. Before criticism should make great efforts to expose such intentions. So we believe when we realize combinationes so easy, but because the material conditions and social arrangements of production have changed much until today. It is a crime continue to report and critical when everyone already knows immediately how things work today.
Where fetishism is still operating as we continue to believe in the effectiveness of speeches, relying on the ideological interpellation, meanwhile material disposal situations remain intact. The complaint, rather than change a situation, only puts us in a place of moral purity, which again, forget the impurity of our sources of subsistence, traded places every day for our sustenance: the chair, work, family, etc.. And when some people try to do something different in space that moves, not usually combat value because not totally abolish the structures in which it is immersed, structures certainly have to see how it continues to guarantee the flow loop and livelihoods once abolished.
will say that this is a power problem, which is true, but there is a greater power, and it is one's ability to get food together with others and against others. The power never leaves the food because without it no life, simply. The threat of loss of life comes not only the gun but the lack of food. Although centuries of religious domination made us believe that we are ethereal spirits, the reward is after death, we continue to act on these principles by other names. Are not we cutting things all the time an image problem? Are we not thinking about our actions based on elusive and improbable future?
I said. We're not made of air, the spirit, there are gravitational forces and we have to take care of them, and recently we have opened the way for political emancipation.
My friend maikel:
1) Be very specific in relation to the areas where the law of value operates to distinguish them from those where it operates "as defective." These latter cases may be found in emergency situations (markets solidarity, fair price, factories, etc) which set limits to the law of value, although it continues to operate. Where it does not operate this means that there is no exchange of equivalents, because there is no equivalent. Is the scope of the gift.
2) For there to be a gift situation must previously have an extraordinary transfer of drive from the "justice" to "detachment." From the point of view of the gift is completely irrelevant whether or not received anything. Of course it is more irrelevant still received something in return. "
3) However, to be sustainable a collective situation of gift, that commitment must be shared. In a collective situation that there can be "harvested." One advantage is that it tries to live by two rules at the same time, according to what suits you at all times.
4) A gift collective situation, can be in turn, overall, a relationship of value out of that situation? Obviously yes. What is not so clear is how that would change the situation itself. To not be too purist would say that to the extent that the business relationship with the outside is very minor and not significant to the survival of the situation, there should be no problem. Moreover gift any situation could be completely autonomous, due to the need for means of production, even elementary. Due to the great division of labor, which is correspondingly a division of knowledge, is clearly a situation unlikely to be self-sufficient.
5) Anyway have to study production and distribution aspects of a situation. There is much to learn from experiences, both successful and disastrous. Jorge Iacobsohn
0 comments:
Post a Comment