Robert Kurz
The machine self-responsibility
A history of liberal ideology
Already in his name liberalism claims for itself the concept of "freedom." The liberal emphasis on private initiative and focuses on the personal responsibility of the individual. In the first instance it sounds good. Who would want to objected to these beautiful ideas? But of course we know, as enlightened creatures of modernity, which can not be trusted too much of words. When George Orwell wrote his negative utopia 1984 he, in an absolutely non-random, invented a language whose concepts, after all, say the opposite of what I mean officially. Rhetoric as a form of masking, so to speak has been known since ancient times and is defined as a "euphemism". The ancient Greeks turned to pure fear of hell to the goddesses of vengeance, whose hair was darting snakes, such as the "benevolent". Perhaps the concept of liberalism arose in a similar connection.
The machine self-responsibility
A history of liberal ideology
Already in his name liberalism claims for itself the concept of "freedom." The liberal emphasis on private initiative and focuses on the personal responsibility of the individual. In the first instance it sounds good. Who would want to objected to these beautiful ideas? But of course we know, as enlightened creatures of modernity, which can not be trusted too much of words. When George Orwell wrote his negative utopia 1984 he, in an absolutely non-random, invented a language whose concepts, after all, say the opposite of what I mean officially. Rhetoric as a form of masking, so to speak has been known since ancient times and is defined as a "euphemism". The ancient Greeks turned to pure fear of hell to the goddesses of vengeance, whose hair was darting snakes, such as the "benevolent". Perhaps the concept of liberalism arose in a similar connection.
for clarity about a phenomenon of social life is always advisable to go back up to its origins. Liberalism began as opposition to the military state at the beginning of modernity, the absolutist monarchies and principalities in the 17th and 18th century. But in that same period there was also another opposition even more important, that of the masses, that had nothing to do with liberalism. It 's very instructive to compare these two types of opposition.
At that absolutism had developed in the first instance, the modern capitalist system of production triggering monetary economics market for the needs of its huge military apparatus and its bureaucracy. This development was informed by the vast majority of the population suppression as a colossal and obscene. The old "simple" feudalism had subjected the artisan producers and farmers the natural economy agriculture only "outside" they were to deliver a small part of their product to their feudal lords or to attend to certain tasks. For the rest of feudalism left them largely alone. In their fields and in their shops could act at its own discretion, and also maintained their own local institutions and self-government.
But absolutism dismissed even though this limited autonomy and wanted to subjugate people to its centralized bureaucracy, to suck the blood and transform them into "human material" to a "job" total, heteronomous, abstract, subject to the laws of money. The peasants and artisans of Europe is fiercely defended against this claim for more than three hundred years until the mid-19th century, and when in the course of their many revolts they followed the banner of "freedom", they meant by this term its social autonomy against the invasion of absolutist bureaucracy and against the constraints of the new, anonymous market.
did not want to be oppressed by a foreign principle, but retain control over their conditions immediate life.
liberalism was against the ideology of the 'agent' economic field generated from the absolutism of the anonymous market and monetary economics. They were the new financial capitalists appeared during the absolutist era, the big traders and speculators overseas colonies, the conductors of the workhouses and prisons designated by the manufacturers as well as the owners or administrators of estates for the agricultural market source world basing themselves in liberal ideas originate. With the concept of social freedom of the peasants and artisans in revolt they had no report. On the contrary agreed in all respects with the autocracy in the interest to transform the mass of producers in "human material" on the world market, to exclude them from controlling the means of production and degrade them to mere "providers of work" under the dictates of capital investment. So the first
liberals never want to even dream that the "human material" of the market economy should presume to chastise any right to "freedom." Among them were slave owners and large landowners who drove the peasants off their land by force to convert them into pastures. When they spoke of freedom, meaning that word always and only the economic freedom of movement as "investors" and "entrepreneurs", they perceived as limited due to the influence of the bureaucratic state apparatus absolutist. Their opposition to the absolutism that had a very different character than the resistance of producers. Therefore became more common cause with the autocracy against the social unrest from the bottom up. The source of the conflict liberal ideology and its customers with the "divine grace" of the early modern absolutist states was always just a family quarrel intercapitalistico about the further development of common social foundations.
Already in the first criticism on the grounds of bourgeois freedom made by the lords of capitalism and individual-targeted social control of the authoritarian Mr-State occurs, moreover, a reversal of the singular points of view which refers to the irrational nature of both sides of the conflict. Any form of state absolutism, the beginnings of modernity through the monarchies, until the later fascist and socialist regimes, on one hand wants to subjugate the economic activity of individuals to a full state control, the other advances the claim that the subjectivity human, the human will (in the form of kings, governments, führer or central committees) should be somewhat "higher" than the system of market and state. In contrast to the liberalism advocated the personal initiative of the individual to state, but completely abandoned any pretense of superiority of the human will against the system of market and money. The system then becomes autonomous and is reduced to the blind laws of trade and the man becomes the ball game of the "economic structures" and their dynamics pointless.
Adam Smith, founder of modern economic theory based on liberal, praised the system of the total market as a kind of "God Machine", directed by the blind mechanism and "self-regulation" of prices. Similarly to the representation of physical and mechanistic world of Isaac Newton, who played the same way as the nature of a great universal machine, Smith starred in the economy Automatic machine as a universal society, whose gear the men had to submit. Meanwhile in the physical picture of the mechanistic world has long since faded, but humanity in the economy has still remained the mechanistic view of the 18th century, which is "objectified" in the forms of social reproduction. The liberalism that stands out in this huge contradiction: the "freedom" social individual matches perfectly with the total and unconditional surrender of all individuals in front of a blind, unquestionable social-machine, the Baal secular capital.
In other words, because of its inordinate demands society absolutism has unleashed a monster with no subject in the form of an automatism which had become independent economically, it could no longer dominate having taken away its sovereignty. The Liberals, who loudly demanded "freedom" of the individual, is actually just completed the empowerment of this "machine". Liberals are nothing more than the priests of the idol that automatically determines the "process of replacement of man with nature" (Marx), an irrational course towards a mechanical regularity.
The contrast between the liberalism of state absolutism is not in any way emancipatory, and always reflects only the social paradox the modern system of producer goods as "sovereignty" to the human side of the car market should take the form of an authoritarian state control over individuals or the freedom of individuals is reduced to a spontaneous submission of the human will to the blind during the car market . For the majority of mankind, the conflict between liberalism and absolutism is irrelevant for them is exactly the same thing to be bullied and humiliated by a state bureaucracy or the market mechanism without a subject. Men in Eastern Europe have already experienced this in recent years have fallen from the frying pan of the dictatorship of state socialism to the fire of social degradation by the "Free" market.
In the 18th century and early 19th-liberalism was not only the problem of settling the claims of absolutism, but also those of the masses in regard to their social autonomy. It was soon clear that it was impossible to force men to become the material of the "labor market" thus subjecting the abstract labor power to the laws of supply and demand, only through repression, police, army, prisons and gallows. So liberalism began to accompany repression with "pedagogy" popular and industry. If the Liberals had first applied the concept of "personal responsibility" for themselves in the role of "agents" of capitalism, an individual later this concept was extended to the "human material". It was a colossal task of cynicism: people dispossessed of every full control over their living conditions, both material and social, should prove to be "personally responsible" just spontaneously converted into "beast of burden" of the market, without yearning for dignity "jobs" even under miserable conditions.
One of the largest national liberal ideologues of this education was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), founder of the utilitarian philosophy. " The 'longing of man to happiness, "you had to translate in the impulse to integrate all the expressions of purpose of enhancement of life in the capital. To induce people to see what their "happiness" and then to become "useful" for the capitalist mill Bentham designed a particular house of discipline, the so-called Panoptikon.
Panoptikon What? The same Bentham argues that it is a valid paradigm for prisons, such as factories, offices, sanatoria, schools, barracks, educational institutions and so on. Panoptikon from the architectural point of view consists of a circular complex of buildings at the center are the niches of the "inspectors" (equipped with curtains) and the periphery of the cells of prisoners and students separated. Many prisons and "case Working in the 19th century were built according to this model. This provision was intended to be continuously refined to observe prisoners and then hold them under control without which they would realize if the housing inspector was really busy. The occupants had to behave automatically and at all times as if they were spied on, even when they were not really.
The Panoptikon that Bentham was an ideal model of a market society was nothing but a "machine of personal responsibility" liberal, to condition the individuals to act in accordance to the market.
The mechanisms of subjugation and self-denial had become a "mark of the inner behavior" of men. This dictatorship is liberal educational objectives in organizational structures and architectural signs and psychic mechanisms. The capitalist imperative, so he wrote the philosopher Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish (1976) on the Panopticon, appear "in a concerted disposal of bodies, surfaces, lights, looks ... in a device, whose internal mechanisms establish a relationship in which individuals are detained. " Bentham continuously pursued improvement of its social structure training of men. And 'the inventor of incommunicado detention, identity cards, the plates for recognition of the huge offices. In 1804 the British proposed that all tattooed with a number. At the same time
Bentham was an ardent Democrat. From the home minister were all equally contribute to the "public self", namely, to observe themselves and others, to load every day, watch a collective repression of the car. Kant, the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment, had stated that the man was "out of the minority caused by himself and use his intellect without the guidance of anyone." With Bentham became clear the inner meaning of this imperative: that every one is a policeman, educator, and entrepreneur against jailer himself! Self-regulation of the market uses a universal machine in order cybernetic self-regulation and the individuals that have adapted.
Bentham advocated nightmarish Orwellian about 200 years before 1984, but as a real project. Ironically, today the world's liberal-democratic interpretation 1984 as a warning against totalitarianism (government), without realizing that it itself has long been the product of a totalitarian and liberal brainwashing.
Today we all behave "self-regulation" of the robot as personal liability of a market economy. The ancient concept of "freedom" which sought the social autonomy now seems primitive and preindustrial. Of course we can not and do not want to return to a narrow agricultural way of life, from peasants and craftsmen. But the price of progress must be the social degradation of man to "Pavlov's dog" of the car market? Really humanity is incapable of adjusting the modern productive forces and the conscious self-determination through the agreement, rather than surrender to an economic blind automatism? The supremacy of the market is not an alternative to the absolutism of the state. Our task for the 21st century is to reinvent the old concept of "social freedom" against the "Orwellian freedom" of liberalism.
liberalism was against the ideology of the 'agent' economic field generated from the absolutism of the anonymous market and monetary economics. They were the new financial capitalists appeared during the absolutist era, the big traders and speculators overseas colonies, the conductors of the workhouses and prisons designated by the manufacturers as well as the owners or administrators of estates for the agricultural market source world basing themselves in liberal ideas originate. With the concept of social freedom of the peasants and artisans in revolt they had no report. On the contrary agreed in all respects with the autocracy in the interest to transform the mass of producers in "human material" on the world market, to exclude them from controlling the means of production and degrade them to mere "providers of work" under the dictates of capital investment. So the first
liberals never want to even dream that the "human material" of the market economy should presume to chastise any right to "freedom." Among them were slave owners and large landowners who drove the peasants off their land by force to convert them into pastures. When they spoke of freedom, meaning that word always and only the economic freedom of movement as "investors" and "entrepreneurs", they perceived as limited due to the influence of the bureaucratic state apparatus absolutist. Their opposition to the absolutism that had a very different character than the resistance of producers. Therefore became more common cause with the autocracy against the social unrest from the bottom up. The source of the conflict liberal ideology and its customers with the "divine grace" of the early modern absolutist states was always just a family quarrel intercapitalistico about the further development of common social foundations.
Already in the first criticism on the grounds of bourgeois freedom made by the lords of capitalism and individual-targeted social control of the authoritarian Mr-State occurs, moreover, a reversal of the singular points of view which refers to the irrational nature of both sides of the conflict. Any form of state absolutism, the beginnings of modernity through the monarchies, until the later fascist and socialist regimes, on one hand wants to subjugate the economic activity of individuals to a full state control, the other advances the claim that the subjectivity human, the human will (in the form of kings, governments, führer or central committees) should be somewhat "higher" than the system of market and state. In contrast to the liberalism advocated the personal initiative of the individual to state, but completely abandoned any pretense of superiority of the human will against the system of market and money. The system then becomes autonomous and is reduced to the blind laws of trade and the man becomes the ball game of the "economic structures" and their dynamics pointless.
Adam Smith, founder of modern economic theory based on liberal, praised the system of the total market as a kind of "God Machine", directed by the blind mechanism and "self-regulation" of prices. Similarly to the representation of physical and mechanistic world of Isaac Newton, who played the same way as the nature of a great universal machine, Smith starred in the economy Automatic machine as a universal society, whose gear the men had to submit. Meanwhile in the physical picture of the mechanistic world has long since faded, but humanity in the economy has still remained the mechanistic view of the 18th century, which is "objectified" in the forms of social reproduction. The liberalism that stands out in this huge contradiction: the "freedom" social individual matches perfectly with the total and unconditional surrender of all individuals in front of a blind, unquestionable social-machine, the Baal secular capital.
In other words, because of its inordinate demands society absolutism has unleashed a monster with no subject in the form of an automatism which had become independent economically, it could no longer dominate having taken away its sovereignty. The Liberals, who loudly demanded "freedom" of the individual, is actually just completed the empowerment of this "machine". Liberals are nothing more than the priests of the idol that automatically determines the "process of replacement of man with nature" (Marx), an irrational course towards a mechanical regularity.
The contrast between the liberalism of state absolutism is not in any way emancipatory, and always reflects only the social paradox the modern system of producer goods as "sovereignty" to the human side of the car market should take the form of an authoritarian state control over individuals or the freedom of individuals is reduced to a spontaneous submission of the human will to the blind during the car market . For the majority of mankind, the conflict between liberalism and absolutism is irrelevant for them is exactly the same thing to be bullied and humiliated by a state bureaucracy or the market mechanism without a subject. Men in Eastern Europe have already experienced this in recent years have fallen from the frying pan of the dictatorship of state socialism to the fire of social degradation by the "Free" market.
In the 18th century and early 19th-liberalism was not only the problem of settling the claims of absolutism, but also those of the masses in regard to their social autonomy. It was soon clear that it was impossible to force men to become the material of the "labor market" thus subjecting the abstract labor power to the laws of supply and demand, only through repression, police, army, prisons and gallows. So liberalism began to accompany repression with "pedagogy" popular and industry. If the Liberals had first applied the concept of "personal responsibility" for themselves in the role of "agents" of capitalism, an individual later this concept was extended to the "human material". It was a colossal task of cynicism: people dispossessed of every full control over their living conditions, both material and social, should prove to be "personally responsible" just spontaneously converted into "beast of burden" of the market, without yearning for dignity "jobs" even under miserable conditions.
One of the largest national liberal ideologues of this education was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), founder of the utilitarian philosophy. " The 'longing of man to happiness, "you had to translate in the impulse to integrate all the expressions of purpose of enhancement of life in the capital. To induce people to see what their "happiness" and then to become "useful" for the capitalist mill Bentham designed a particular house of discipline, the so-called Panoptikon.
Panoptikon What? The same Bentham argues that it is a valid paradigm for prisons, such as factories, offices, sanatoria, schools, barracks, educational institutions and so on. Panoptikon from the architectural point of view consists of a circular complex of buildings at the center are the niches of the "inspectors" (equipped with curtains) and the periphery of the cells of prisoners and students separated. Many prisons and "case Working in the 19th century were built according to this model. This provision was intended to be continuously refined to observe prisoners and then hold them under control without which they would realize if the housing inspector was really busy. The occupants had to behave automatically and at all times as if they were spied on, even when they were not really.
The Panoptikon that Bentham was an ideal model of a market society was nothing but a "machine of personal responsibility" liberal, to condition the individuals to act in accordance to the market.
The mechanisms of subjugation and self-denial had become a "mark of the inner behavior" of men. This dictatorship is liberal educational objectives in organizational structures and architectural signs and psychic mechanisms. The capitalist imperative, so he wrote the philosopher Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish (1976) on the Panopticon, appear "in a concerted disposal of bodies, surfaces, lights, looks ... in a device, whose internal mechanisms establish a relationship in which individuals are detained. " Bentham continuously pursued improvement of its social structure training of men. And 'the inventor of incommunicado detention, identity cards, the plates for recognition of the huge offices. In 1804 the British proposed that all tattooed with a number. At the same time
Bentham was an ardent Democrat. From the home minister were all equally contribute to the "public self", namely, to observe themselves and others, to load every day, watch a collective repression of the car. Kant, the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment, had stated that the man was "out of the minority caused by himself and use his intellect without the guidance of anyone." With Bentham became clear the inner meaning of this imperative: that every one is a policeman, educator, and entrepreneur against jailer himself! Self-regulation of the market uses a universal machine in order cybernetic self-regulation and the individuals that have adapted.
Bentham advocated nightmarish Orwellian about 200 years before 1984, but as a real project. Ironically, today the world's liberal-democratic interpretation 1984 as a warning against totalitarianism (government), without realizing that it itself has long been the product of a totalitarian and liberal brainwashing.
Today we all behave "self-regulation" of the robot as personal liability of a market economy. The ancient concept of "freedom" which sought the social autonomy now seems primitive and preindustrial. Of course we can not and do not want to return to a narrow agricultural way of life, from peasants and craftsmen. But the price of progress must be the social degradation of man to "Pavlov's dog" of the car market? Really humanity is incapable of adjusting the modern productive forces and the conscious self-determination through the agreement, rather than surrender to an economic blind automatism? The supremacy of the market is not an alternative to the absolutism of the state. Our task for the 21st century is to reinvent the old concept of "social freedom" against the "Orwellian freedom" of liberalism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment