Comments on "Notes on Manifesto against Labour"
I read carefully review the work against criticism of the Manifesto and Krisis - thought in general and I wanted to respond to your comments that seem to me very well argued and touch virtually every topical points:
The publication of the Manifesto is far from exhausting the outcome of an activity of critical reflection given by about twenty years. Both the manifest that two related papers (two of eleven published in Germany in the collection Feierabend - Attacken Elf gegen die Arbeit (1999) dealing with the wide range of subjects from basic income to the types of work "degraded", etc..) addition to the above translation would be the 'beginning of a theoretical dialogue with persons or organizations that reflect the same themes. In particular, the Manifesto was designed as a text character in a deliberately provocative language "understandable" almost "vulgate", which does not go too deeply from the analytical point of view (hence the character of certain statements that apparently apodictic You rightly signals).
I read carefully review the work against criticism of the Manifesto and Krisis - thought in general and I wanted to respond to your comments that seem to me very well argued and touch virtually every topical points:
The publication of the Manifesto is far from exhausting the outcome of an activity of critical reflection given by about twenty years. Both the manifest that two related papers (two of eleven published in Germany in the collection Feierabend - Attacken Elf gegen die Arbeit (1999) dealing with the wide range of subjects from basic income to the types of work "degraded", etc..) addition to the above translation would be the 'beginning of a theoretical dialogue with persons or organizations that reflect the same themes. In particular, the Manifesto was designed as a text character in a deliberately provocative language "understandable" almost "vulgate", which does not go too deeply from the analytical point of view (hence the character of certain statements that apparently apodictic You rightly signals).
Most of the theoretical corpus Krisis group which includes texts of great interest in developing a much more succulent the wide range of issues, maybe just touched by the Manifesto, it is unfortunately almost inaccessible to the Italian public (unless you have a working knowledge of German rather than discrete). In addition to the magazine of the same name authors have published several books Krisis equally significant. We would like to quote Der der Kollaps Modernisierung (The collapse of modernization, 1991) that made him famous and Robert Kurz Krisis in Germany, Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus (awful title I admit) an extraordinary historical ride through the history of the statement of the "system of producer goods "(aka capitalism) and the last Weltordnungskrieg (The war world order)
There is no "coincidence" between capital and labor: the term favored by the authors of Krisis is "different states of aggregation of the substance capitalist", which refers directly to Marx's analysis of his major works on capitalist society. The point to understand is: the story of modernity is identified with the history of the affirmation of a social form, a body cointegration, which explode the previous structure and ransacked every aspect of human reality, this social form can pleasure to be defined as "goods-producing system" or "society of abstract labor" (or capitalism). The fundamental feature of this system is its "fetish" in the terms outlined by Marx in his famous passage on "commodity fetishism": ie a form of negative socialization, in which the unconscious social networking for good or evil to be a 'organization "sensible" to the life of each of us, is based on the value and on the "exchange of goods (including labor power). The system is the case (it is not a 'state but a "dynamic" irreversible) and self-referential, that is deployed as it moves according to its own objective laws (value of production into a downward spiral ever wider through absorption of abstract labor) did not any purpose except the fulfillment of this blind "mission" which of course he was not assigned to anyone.
Within this context, "objective" (but not "ontological" because the result of a "social action" historically defined) set forth in the polarity of "dualisms (capital versus labor is only one of them) whose But nature is only "derived" because each pole, however, refers to the same reference system: the system of value-enhancement process. Naturally, used as the positive categories (detached from assumptions) the "capitalist" and "worker" have continually clashed in the history of modernity but their disagreement has always maintained on the ground "exploitation value "and bourgeois classes, like it or not (more" rights "franchise, the construction of the welfare state) all prerequisites for the full deployment of the company's merchandise that is absolutely not the result of an alleged desire to dominate the "capitalists". The conflict between these "forms of nature" (Marx) or "class struggle" is an element of "subjectivity" but on this secondary level, while from the standpoint of social form as a whole has been a true engine of capitalist development.
This does not mean that the labor movement has not made sense: it had a "sense": the effort is absolutely essential to improve the condition of existence of social strata of "damned" in full citizens within the capitalist social form. Nobody would dream of saying that workers would have to resign themselves to live in manchesteriane because their emancipatory struggle was not enough! What Krisis wants to support is that the interpretation of that fight as a lever for the overcoming of capitalism is illusory. In my opinion the differences between the two strands of the labor movement you refer to are not ultimately very significant: rather Krisis accentuates the difference between the resistance movements warned that the proto capitalism (embryonic) as a? Hostile entity and an enemy of their existence and form of struggle in a context of already quite advanced capitalist categories: what is lacking in the latter is sufficiently penetrating critique of these categories but instead ended up becoming the dominant side "subjective" in the form (the domino theory class).
Original sin in the history of the development of Marx's thought (which Marx was not stranger) it was the shift of gravity from the "critical value" meant as criticism of the development of the historic core and categorical negative socialization theory of surplus value ". In this shift, the value is treated as a positive, innocent in itself devoid of assumptions, an honest result work of the "immediate producers". The problem is not in the conversion of reality into abstract value through the "work" but resulting in the value of the product, historically the class enemy. This would eliminate "distortions" of that relationship to choice, through the action reformist, revolutionary agitation, democratic practice and so on. There is in fact no "control" the level of social functioning of the form (a process without a subject) and the less it can be embodied by extortionists hated of surplus value.
The labor crisis is an indisputable fact, and paradoxically leaked from your statements, however, would deny it: In your reply you confuse the phenomenological forms which it presents the work in the society with that which is his real social formal determination. You say that "the sphere of influence of the work is expanding", but nobody, let alone the authors of the Manifesto Krisis even mean the opposite in fact "the company never had been, up until this point, a society work like this' time when the work was made redundant. Just in the time of his death, the work casts the mask and reveals himself as a totalitarian power. "Do not you stop before any effort just to artificially lengthen the life idol" work ". The abstract work understood in its formal sense as a matter of accumulation of value is certainly running in a process already begun with the history of the capital, this did not prevent the work understood in a positive and sociologist as the only means of livelihood of the "national democratic" should be kept alive at all costs even if degraded forms (cheap labor, guarantees and decommissioning of contemporary "rights ..) or simulated (works completely unproductive," socially useful "and so on. subsidized directly or indirectly). You lament the lack of statistics but there are reports written by economists "orthodox" who claim such as the development of European integration will cause, especially in some areas, a frightening memory of jobs whose existence was due simply the state protection, just think of the rest of EU agriculture hypertrophy. Globally, the rate of unemployment is growing up, a glance at the documents of the World of Work Geneva. The opening to the world market of dinosaurs like China is causing a hemorrhage Bible (millions of unemployed state-owned enterprises no longer profitable on the parameters of the world market)
The crisis is the decline and collapse of all categories that together constitute the paradigm of modernity (value, goods, labor, democracy) is not only due to "unemployment" Understanding socio-economic class as positive. Krisis not agree at all with the Rifkin thesis: Rifkin to the end of work does not mean the crisis of social formation tout court but only one of its components, while the production of wealth (trivially confused with the value) could be infinite repetition in spite of mass unemployment (jobless growth) . The problem would only get a bunch of selfish rich guy to create a mega-welfare system to provide bread and circuses in the world market unnecessary. Krisis for growth without the nourishment of the "abstract labor" is impossible and can only be simulated only by "ghostly figures" of fictitious capital (financial capital totally detached from "real" value of production). It is the existence of such a simulation mechanism to perpetuate the idea of \u200b\u200ban eternal possibility of revenge for a system that is already dying.
Practice "politics" as you call it is all to rethink: for the authors of Krisis the battles that you mention are not insignificant but they must be recalibrated in the context of a real prospect of overcoming poor everywhere. Fighting for the income of existence as such or the rights of workers relying on a miraculous return to an era of full employment guarantees and so on. is illusory. The battle for the employees, for home, for the dismantling of the social system and so on and so forth must be conducted in order to demonstrate empirically how the stress on existing social arrangements can not help but generate marginalization, exclusion and miserable living conditions.
Incidentally Krisis is not optimistic about civic duty: the desired emancipation movement might not ever materialize and the consequences will see who will live.
of Samuel, in June 2003, appeared on the mailing list RedditoLavoro ECN.
This does not mean that the labor movement has not made sense: it had a "sense": the effort is absolutely essential to improve the condition of existence of social strata of "damned" in full citizens within the capitalist social form. Nobody would dream of saying that workers would have to resign themselves to live in manchesteriane because their emancipatory struggle was not enough! What Krisis wants to support is that the interpretation of that fight as a lever for the overcoming of capitalism is illusory. In my opinion the differences between the two strands of the labor movement you refer to are not ultimately very significant: rather Krisis accentuates the difference between the resistance movements warned that the proto capitalism (embryonic) as a? Hostile entity and an enemy of their existence and form of struggle in a context of already quite advanced capitalist categories: what is lacking in the latter is sufficiently penetrating critique of these categories but instead ended up becoming the dominant side "subjective" in the form (the domino theory class).
Original sin in the history of the development of Marx's thought (which Marx was not stranger) it was the shift of gravity from the "critical value" meant as criticism of the development of the historic core and categorical negative socialization theory of surplus value ". In this shift, the value is treated as a positive, innocent in itself devoid of assumptions, an honest result work of the "immediate producers". The problem is not in the conversion of reality into abstract value through the "work" but resulting in the value of the product, historically the class enemy. This would eliminate "distortions" of that relationship to choice, through the action reformist, revolutionary agitation, democratic practice and so on. There is in fact no "control" the level of social functioning of the form (a process without a subject) and the less it can be embodied by extortionists hated of surplus value.
The labor crisis is an indisputable fact, and paradoxically leaked from your statements, however, would deny it: In your reply you confuse the phenomenological forms which it presents the work in the society with that which is his real social formal determination. You say that "the sphere of influence of the work is expanding", but nobody, let alone the authors of the Manifesto Krisis even mean the opposite in fact "the company never had been, up until this point, a society work like this' time when the work was made redundant. Just in the time of his death, the work casts the mask and reveals himself as a totalitarian power. "Do not you stop before any effort just to artificially lengthen the life idol" work ". The abstract work understood in its formal sense as a matter of accumulation of value is certainly running in a process already begun with the history of the capital, this did not prevent the work understood in a positive and sociologist as the only means of livelihood of the "national democratic" should be kept alive at all costs even if degraded forms (cheap labor, guarantees and decommissioning of contemporary "rights ..) or simulated (works completely unproductive," socially useful "and so on. subsidized directly or indirectly). You lament the lack of statistics but there are reports written by economists "orthodox" who claim such as the development of European integration will cause, especially in some areas, a frightening memory of jobs whose existence was due simply the state protection, just think of the rest of EU agriculture hypertrophy. Globally, the rate of unemployment is growing up, a glance at the documents of the World of Work Geneva. The opening to the world market of dinosaurs like China is causing a hemorrhage Bible (millions of unemployed state-owned enterprises no longer profitable on the parameters of the world market)
The crisis is the decline and collapse of all categories that together constitute the paradigm of modernity (value, goods, labor, democracy) is not only due to "unemployment" Understanding socio-economic class as positive. Krisis not agree at all with the Rifkin thesis: Rifkin to the end of work does not mean the crisis of social formation tout court but only one of its components, while the production of wealth (trivially confused with the value) could be infinite repetition in spite of mass unemployment (jobless growth) . The problem would only get a bunch of selfish rich guy to create a mega-welfare system to provide bread and circuses in the world market unnecessary. Krisis for growth without the nourishment of the "abstract labor" is impossible and can only be simulated only by "ghostly figures" of fictitious capital (financial capital totally detached from "real" value of production). It is the existence of such a simulation mechanism to perpetuate the idea of \u200b\u200ban eternal possibility of revenge for a system that is already dying.
Practice "politics" as you call it is all to rethink: for the authors of Krisis the battles that you mention are not insignificant but they must be recalibrated in the context of a real prospect of overcoming poor everywhere. Fighting for the income of existence as such or the rights of workers relying on a miraculous return to an era of full employment guarantees and so on. is illusory. The battle for the employees, for home, for the dismantling of the social system and so on and so forth must be conducted in order to demonstrate empirically how the stress on existing social arrangements can not help but generate marginalization, exclusion and miserable living conditions.
Incidentally Krisis is not optimistic about civic duty: the desired emancipation movement might not ever materialize and the consequences will see who will live.
of Samuel, in June 2003, appeared on the mailing list RedditoLavoro ECN.
0 comments:
Post a Comment