Robert Kurz
The new historical simultaneity
The new historical simultaneity
The end of the modernization el ' beginning of a new world history
The globalization debate seems to have arrived now at a stage of exhaustion. This is not due to un'estenuazione of the underlying process, but the lack of air for new ideas of interpretation. Almost no one dares speak of the end of the history of modernization. It 'clear that while whole libraries have been written on the fact of globalization of capital (transnational dispersion of economic functions) that dissolves the separation between national economy and world market, and, therefore, the whole framework front. But the consequences to be drawn from this award were delayed in most cases until now. The old concepts are still in tow, although no longer match the new reality.
The globalization debate seems to have arrived now at a stage of exhaustion. This is not due to un'estenuazione of the underlying process, but the lack of air for new ideas of interpretation. Almost no one dares speak of the end of the history of modernization. It 'clear that while whole libraries have been written on the fact of globalization of capital (transnational dispersion of economic functions) that dissolves the separation between national economy and world market, and, therefore, the whole framework front. But the consequences to be drawn from this award were delayed in most cases until now. The old concepts are still in tow, although no longer match the new reality.
Has long been considered as the sum of theoretical reflection to invoke the national particularities in front of abstract universality of the modern capitalist mode of production. In the '70s, the so-called Eurocommunism stated that the Marxist theory was often too universal and, therefore, was to "finally be materialized" in national terms, in order to create a socialism popular with the "colors" of France, Germany, Italy etc.. This formulation was reactionary, but already at the very moment of its formulation. In the process of globalization, the report was finally reversed. The special national itself has become an empty abstraction, yet, of course, but as the sediment of an era gone by.
The story is only by way of a national history of the past but no longer the future. From now on there will be a French story, German, Brazilian, Chinese ... The historical concretion in the immediate area of \u200b\u200bthe reference of world society more in the future will refer to the particularities and national contexts, but to those across borders. This also applies to (and directly) to cultural identity, social movements and conflicts "post-political."
raped the national community is not, however, the only essential characteristic of the past that becomes obsolete. The spatial structure of national mutually demarcated was also chained to a temporary structure of stages of capitalist development mutually bounded. The world of nations was a universe of non-simultaneity history. Since the modern system of producer goods, which gradually spread from Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the different phases of capitalism kept coming immediately next to each other. This was still the future for some, this was for others or the immediate past. This difference of historical time itself has produced the paradigm of "development", which in the capitalist classes himself as a race for the recovery of historical laggards. Britain, Germany and other continental European countries have passed in the nineteenth century to a "modernization of recovery similar, in the twentieth century, before the West, Russia, China and former colonial countries of the global South have been limited repeating the same thing. The country here was the space of non-specific historical simultaneity.
The labor movement was determined by a Western classical paradigm similar, except that here the "modernization of recovery" was not referring, at least not in the first instance, the position of their nation in the face of most advanced nations, but especially the legal and political position of the employed in the face of other social classes within the same nation. Was at stake "recognition" of employees used as legal entities of their workforce and as full citizens. The universal and equal voting rights, legal equality of women, the right to strike, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and autonomy in wage negotiations were important content of this "modernization recovery" linked to the internal social relations, which only earned in the same Western countries most advanced in the course of the twentieth century. External recognition of the historical latecomers to the east and south as nations in the world market corresponded to the political and legal recognition of domestic workers as citizens and subjects of law.
But this recognition was, in a sense, a historic trap. As companies of different world regions were confirmed and be as formal subjects of capitalism, Meanwhile, workers were inevitably doomed also to national and social forms of the modern system of producer goods. Just as the States of "modernization recovery" even the workers' parties and the national unions suffered a mutation, becoming performers in the false "natural laws" of this system. Under the conditions of globalization is not all of them nothing more than administer a more or less repressive capitalist crisis. What the Social Democrats had already exercised after the First World War is repeated now on a global scale.
Sometimes we think that this negative development has faded glory of "national liberation" and the national workers' parties. In a so it is also so. Around the world burns strong dissatisfaction with the political bodies as the traditional left have completely lost their quality of opposition exactly at the hour of the new world crisis since permasero linked to the paradigms of "modernization of recovery" already emptied substance. However, these paradigms are so deeply rooted that continue to be effective even among the dissatisfied. There is something ghostly in the way the new opposition directed against the former opposition came in the representation of the dominant system, blindly adheres to obsolete models of the underwater world of non-simultaneity. The criticism of coamministrazione crisis, which brings together the ancient national liberation movements and traditional workers' parties that have reached the participation in power, is revealed as weak and not very credible because it pretends to repeat in the content, once again, what is objectively wrecked for a long time .
This is most obvious in the worldwide movement against globalization, with its protests, its conferences and its social forums in Porto Alegre, Paris, Berlin etc. This movement, first is organized as a transnational, but on the other, paradoxically, has to be a part of its members, with joints close to the national party groups operating in the transnational sphere; among them are also those whose mothers are in government organizations and perform exactly those "economic laws" against the effects of which fight the global social movement.
But is the content of most of what he claims is completely unrelated to the process of globalization. Partly transnational, at least in its form, the movement would reach a "political regulation" of financial markets and the general conditions of commodity production and distribution, although the logic of such an adjustment was linked to the framework of the national state. Therefore being asked to revive, from this very moment in the global scope, the exact procedure that already historically has collapsed under the national state, the only adequate for this. E 'option hopelessly anachronistic and unreal. This reduced
critical part implied by the fact that the company could still "grow" in the framework of bourgeois modernity, although globalization and the third industrial revolution have already blown this picture. This also applies to economic assumptions and philosophical background, which is also indicative of an anachronism.
From an economic standpoint, this is the expectation that the gigantic mass of global work force and still represent a reserve for economic exploitation of the capital, not keeping time in the form of a national development but in the globalized transnational capital. The one hope and others fear that may arise from this era of expansion still traditional. In part, this alternative is based on the concept of "social media productivity." This average scientification of production is relatively high in developed capitalist countries and relatively low in the peripheral countries. It is hoped that with the increasing globalization will produce a new world average productivity in the field, which is lower compared to the current Western media is higher than the east and south. Based on this new standard is believed to be possible to absorb a considerable part of the reserve currently unused global work force in the process of valorisation of capital.
But this calculation does not work. How do you measure the average productivity? It is measured in accordance with the degree of scientification medium-scale production. However, it is crucial to the framework referred to in this media. E 'unequivocally the national economic framework of social production. Only in the interior of a national economy, the conditions that can produce common-limit, in general, something like a "social media". These include a common level of infrastructure development, the education system and so on. As part of the market world, however, no-limit conditions common to this type. For this reason we can not even establish an overall average level of productivity. The relationship of nations or world regions in the world market does not present any analogy with the companies within a national economy. In this way, in the framework will inevitably require the level of productivity of the older industrialized countries of the West, the most developed capitalist terms. In the same way that the national space objective becomes obsolete due to globalization, this level marks the global policy immediately and without a filter for all market participants. E 'illusory hope that in the new transnational system of references, the average social productivity arrivals to decline and the labor force is not used for new items more easily in production. In appearance
philosophical expectation determines the thinking of the similarly anachronistic dissatisfied. Because the philosophy of the so-called Enlightenment, whose foundations were placed in the eighteenth century, is still regarded as the insurmountable horizon of ideas. It claims that the world can, in this sense, yet continue to develop in the context of bourgeois modernity. As to that, the new opposition does not make any decisive step further than the old. But the Enlightenment paradigm is exhausted As the economy of the modern system of producer goods, which was simply the philosophical expression. The central
Enlightenment ideas of "freedom", "equality" and "self-responsibility 'of the' autonomous individual 'is, according to their concept, tailored to the capitalist form of the subject of" abstract labor "(Marx)' s entrepreneurial economy, market competition and totalitarian universal. Freedom and equality in the sense of the Enlightenment were always identical all'autosottomissione men to the social forms of the capitalist system.
The classic struggle of the working class movement and national liberation movements for the "recognition" could invoke the legal and political philosophy since the Enlightenment had no other goal than to enter and grow in these forms, which provided social-limit was formed by the nation just like in appearance statement. There are only national systems of bourgeois right. The explosion of the national framework, globalization makes obsolete not only an economic but also political and legal form of the bourgeois subject. With this philosophy of the Enlightenment is historically complete. It makes no sense to invoke the new bourgeois ideal for this kind of freedom because there's no space for emancipation. That also applies to regions of the world that have never been dictatorial than the beginnings of the modern form of the universalisation of the subject. As economic productivity also bourgeois subjectivity is measured on the standard global basis, where the majority of human beings is not covered.
Evidently the new social movement around the world has not yet become aware of these conditions. The creation of transnational structures of capital is identical to an era of historical simultaneity. Despite the situation from the point of departure, inherited from the past, be distinct, the problems of the future can be formulated only as common problems in a global society immediately. I agree so much with the form as contained in the old paradigms of left are obsolete: country, setting policy, recognition bourgeois Enlightenment. Criticism must be deeper and understand the repressive conditions of these concepts rather than reclaim the ideals. Otherwise it falls into the void without any effect.
Published for the Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo January 25, 2004.
This is most obvious in the worldwide movement against globalization, with its protests, its conferences and its social forums in Porto Alegre, Paris, Berlin etc. This movement, first is organized as a transnational, but on the other, paradoxically, has to be a part of its members, with joints close to the national party groups operating in the transnational sphere; among them are also those whose mothers are in government organizations and perform exactly those "economic laws" against the effects of which fight the global social movement.
But is the content of most of what he claims is completely unrelated to the process of globalization. Partly transnational, at least in its form, the movement would reach a "political regulation" of financial markets and the general conditions of commodity production and distribution, although the logic of such an adjustment was linked to the framework of the national state. Therefore being asked to revive, from this very moment in the global scope, the exact procedure that already historically has collapsed under the national state, the only adequate for this. E 'option hopelessly anachronistic and unreal. This reduced
critical part implied by the fact that the company could still "grow" in the framework of bourgeois modernity, although globalization and the third industrial revolution have already blown this picture. This also applies to economic assumptions and philosophical background, which is also indicative of an anachronism.
From an economic standpoint, this is the expectation that the gigantic mass of global work force and still represent a reserve for economic exploitation of the capital, not keeping time in the form of a national development but in the globalized transnational capital. The one hope and others fear that may arise from this era of expansion still traditional. In part, this alternative is based on the concept of "social media productivity." This average scientification of production is relatively high in developed capitalist countries and relatively low in the peripheral countries. It is hoped that with the increasing globalization will produce a new world average productivity in the field, which is lower compared to the current Western media is higher than the east and south. Based on this new standard is believed to be possible to absorb a considerable part of the reserve currently unused global work force in the process of valorisation of capital.
But this calculation does not work. How do you measure the average productivity? It is measured in accordance with the degree of scientification medium-scale production. However, it is crucial to the framework referred to in this media. E 'unequivocally the national economic framework of social production. Only in the interior of a national economy, the conditions that can produce common-limit, in general, something like a "social media". These include a common level of infrastructure development, the education system and so on. As part of the market world, however, no-limit conditions common to this type. For this reason we can not even establish an overall average level of productivity. The relationship of nations or world regions in the world market does not present any analogy with the companies within a national economy. In this way, in the framework will inevitably require the level of productivity of the older industrialized countries of the West, the most developed capitalist terms. In the same way that the national space objective becomes obsolete due to globalization, this level marks the global policy immediately and without a filter for all market participants. E 'illusory hope that in the new transnational system of references, the average social productivity arrivals to decline and the labor force is not used for new items more easily in production. In appearance
philosophical expectation determines the thinking of the similarly anachronistic dissatisfied. Because the philosophy of the so-called Enlightenment, whose foundations were placed in the eighteenth century, is still regarded as the insurmountable horizon of ideas. It claims that the world can, in this sense, yet continue to develop in the context of bourgeois modernity. As to that, the new opposition does not make any decisive step further than the old. But the Enlightenment paradigm is exhausted As the economy of the modern system of producer goods, which was simply the philosophical expression. The central
Enlightenment ideas of "freedom", "equality" and "self-responsibility 'of the' autonomous individual 'is, according to their concept, tailored to the capitalist form of the subject of" abstract labor "(Marx)' s entrepreneurial economy, market competition and totalitarian universal. Freedom and equality in the sense of the Enlightenment were always identical all'autosottomissione men to the social forms of the capitalist system.
The classic struggle of the working class movement and national liberation movements for the "recognition" could invoke the legal and political philosophy since the Enlightenment had no other goal than to enter and grow in these forms, which provided social-limit was formed by the nation just like in appearance statement. There are only national systems of bourgeois right. The explosion of the national framework, globalization makes obsolete not only an economic but also political and legal form of the bourgeois subject. With this philosophy of the Enlightenment is historically complete. It makes no sense to invoke the new bourgeois ideal for this kind of freedom because there's no space for emancipation. That also applies to regions of the world that have never been dictatorial than the beginnings of the modern form of the universalisation of the subject. As economic productivity also bourgeois subjectivity is measured on the standard global basis, where the majority of human beings is not covered.
Evidently the new social movement around the world has not yet become aware of these conditions. The creation of transnational structures of capital is identical to an era of historical simultaneity. Despite the situation from the point of departure, inherited from the past, be distinct, the problems of the future can be formulated only as common problems in a global society immediately. I agree so much with the form as contained in the old paradigms of left are obsolete: country, setting policy, recognition bourgeois Enlightenment. Criticism must be deeper and understand the repressive conditions of these concepts rather than reclaim the ideals. Otherwise it falls into the void without any effect.
Published for the Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo January 25, 2004.
translation by LPZ
0 comments:
Post a Comment