INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT KURZ ONLINE MAGAZINE OF THE PORTUGUESE "SHIFT", Edições ZION
As is part of the current financial crisis in the context of the development of the structural crisis of capital?
As is part of the current financial crisis in the context of the development of the structural crisis of capital?
is theoretically wrong to speak of a independent financial crisis, whose "impact" on the so-called real economy is uncertain and possibly moderate. Expressed in terms of Marx's theory, the financial crisis can only be a manifestation of the fall of the conditions of the real value of capital. The financial system and credit is not a self-employed sector, but an integral component of the expanded reproduction of total capital. Here lies a contradiction that progressively worsens. The expansion of credit in itself is not new, has already come a centuries-long process. This reflects a mechanism described by Marx as "rising organic composition of capital." With increasing scientific ap production, increasing the proportion of constant capital (machinery, lab equipment control, communications and infrastructure, etc..) in relation to variable capital (the productive labor force value). Correspondingly, the costs grow in preliminary form to apply cost-effective workforce, the only source of surplus value. The preliminary costs increasing demand an advance of future capital gains in the form of credit to keep current the current production of surplus value, more and more delayed in the future.
This creates a growing tension in the internal connection between credit enhancement and real. In the past, this contradiction could be compensated through social side-effect the highly scientific. The increase in productivity depreciates food and therefore also reduces the value of the work force, so that the costs of reproduction are lowered. The same mechanism that implies that the proportion of variable capital (labor) in the organic composition of capital is relatively small also means that the labor force have to produce less value for their conservation. Increase the proportion of total added value in the real value created what Marx designates as the production of "relative surplus value." But this applies only to each individual productive workforce in terms of capitalism. The requirement for there to be a compensatory effect in terms of developing capital is, therefore, that in parallel to expand the total actual capital and, thus, grow in absolute terms the number of workers used in production conditions in terms of capitalism - despite the lower relative weight of the variable capital in the composition of a certain money-capital advanced. Moreover, only under this condition the advance of future capital gains, increasingly deferred to the future through expansion of credit can be redeemed, at least insofar as the connection between credit enhancement and real is not completely broken. As long as this connection in some way worked, also expressed the contradiction is only relative, the famous fall tendency of the rate of profit. The average profit rate refers to a money-capital of any size. This essay is falling into a centuries-long process, because of the increasing proportion of preliminary costs of constant capital, which does not produce any new value, but only transfer value already created. But if the mass of the total share capital in the production of advanced monetary value increases sufficiently, it can, despite the fall in the rate of return applied to money-capital, continue to rise at the same time the mass of surplus real and absolute mass of profit on capital total. Marx analyzed this connection, in which the historic achievement remains open, in First Volume (production of relative surplus value) and the Third Volume (tendency to fall in the rate of profit) de Capital. At a basic level of "substance of value" as "the substance of the work," Marx, on the other hand, speaks in Grundrisse that competition, forcing permanent increase in productivity, should eventually lead to a reduction absolute value of productive labor force and, thus, to a limit of absolute historical value. On this point, however, Marx's theory remained to be developed.
Fordist phase was the era of high relative surplus value, with the expansion. contemporary Total real capital. The continued advance of credit appeared feasible. The theory of an internal limit of the absolute value was considered to be positive, even on the left. The contradiction between the credit system and the production of surplus value, however, reaches a real climax in the context of the Third Industrial Revolution, that of micro-electronics, taking on a new quality. The expansion of real capital reached its historical limits as, simultaneously, with the new highly scientific quality of the "working substance" melts in productive value of an unprecedented scale. The increase of relative surplus value for each work force begins to lose its character as a mechanism Town of compensation. This turns on only the downward trend in the rate of profit for capital money applied in the fall of the absolute mass of surplus real social and, therefore, in the amount of profit. The connection between the postponement of the widely anticipated future capital gains in the form of credit and the production of surplus real irreversibly torn. What appears as a devastating financial crisis is only the empirical manifestation of the contradiction in the empirical experience of the intangible value of real relationships.
We are therefore faced with a "structural failure" of a higher order. If until now there has been talk of a 'structural crisis' of capital, for example in the context of the "theory of long waves," was only in relation to the "transition" to a new "model of accumulation." The crisis should have only one function that is 'clean' in order to pave the way to the next surge of historical development on a new technology base. This was the famous economist Joseph Schumpeter's concept of the power of capital as "creative destruction". But the end of the Ford did not lead to any structural break "creative" in the sense of a new "model of accumulation." The much-vaunted transition to the so-called "post-Fordism" was just an empty formula. This that actually happened was nothing more that the transition to the infamous "economy of financial bubbles' in which the credit system has been inflated far beyond the capacity of decreasing the production of real value, in a historically unprecedented way.
has sprung up, because of a positivist perception that fails to recognize the connection of the internal relations of value, the illusion of a "model of accumulation 'of something new. On the one hand, the 'post-Fordism' would be the relocation of industrial production of surplus value to the periphery, towards the so-called emerging countries (most recently in the form of alleged 'miracle growth 'Asia). In fact, the starting point and the driving force behind this relocation did not consist in creating recipes monetary value, but in "fictitious capital" of financial bubbles and no substance, long since disconnected from the production of human labor. Since this form has been set in motion a global economic deficit, now at the point of a sharp fall. On the other hand, the 'post-Fordism' in the capitalist centers would create a so-called "service society", conceived as a new independent field enhancement. In reality it was largely unproductive sectors of the capitalist point of view, as 'personal services' privacy, which do not have their starting point and support the creation of real value and returns obtained from here, but in the swelling of "fictitious capital" and in the simple simulation of the processes of exploitation . Thus, the supposed transition to a 'service economy' has not been realized as an expansion of state structures, for example in health and education, which in the 70s was a failure, but rather in the form Insecurity of the performance of services in small private enterprises from low wages, and in the form of 'false self-employment', now both in danger of extinction.
On this observation is still needed in relation to the evolution theory in the left. The postmodern ideology of "virtualization" has led to an adaptation of the social criticism of capitalism to the left and crisis simulation. It began increasingly talking about a growth just "financially driven", which was claimed adattarcisi "symbolically." The basic categories of Marx's critique of political economy not only remained positivistically misunderstood, as in traditional Marxism, but without disappearing altogether. And the problem of power crisis has not only been reduced to a 'function' of 'clean', but also reinterpreted subjectively and dissolved in a simplistic 'reports of political will. " Is the paradigmatic case of postoperative Antonio Negri. To the extent that there is no "crisis", these are interpreted as a reaction "politically voluntary 'and conscious of the capitalists and their surroundings, to the glorious" struggle "of the so-called masses. But if the current dynamics of global drop is a deliberate political act of ' capitalist empire, then it should be more like "reaction" to the spirit of my grandmother that the "struggle" for a long time only a symbolic variable capital demoralized, with no real power to intervene in the capitalist centers. But as explained in an unsurpassable way in Marx's theory, the true extent of exploitation is strictly objective and stands "behind" the agents. The social emancipation from capitalist logic, by contrast, can not in any way be "objective", and therefore it requires radical critique of the fundamental categories of capitalism, which have been "internalized" by humanity, and largely removed from the left. The left has yet to digest the objectivity of the crisis and even negative confront herself and her illusions postmodernist.
do you think is a good time to spread a radical critique of the system of capital? Or, considering that the basic material conditions of millions of human beings are increasingly degraded, you can not go beyond the nostalgia of Keynesianism and the welfare state?
Apparently there is a general de-legitimization of capitalism, even in the political class and the cultural pages. The concept of capitalism itself has become worse from day to night, as if it had always been proclaimed winner in history. " But this 'change' and not mediated sudden can not stop to look suspect and unworthy of credit. In recent decades, neo-liberalism has penetrated deeply into the consciousness of the masses as a trend towards the "market radicalism", abstract desolidarization individualization of 'social atoms' autistic. The individual report directly to the universal market competition and become the universal standard of living and are no longer socially filtered. These life forms in a disintegrated society are now affected with the full force of the new quality of global crisis and shook their foundations.
This is primarily a function of shock legittimatoria. The "dominant spirit" of the neoliberal turn has been thoroughly discredited in a shameful way. Until now, however, the devastating collapse has been felt in perfect fantasy, that is only as spectacle in financial markets and global media . A devastating news after another, because the crisis has not yet reached the play "real" and everyday life. The first are the heralds dramatic losses in the automobile sales industry and its suppliers. But the dynamic of crisis will then not only hitting all sectors of commodity production (industry, media and services), but all areas of life that for decades have become dependent on the swelling of the credit because they could no longer be fueled by actual production of surplus value and its social redistribution, from education to culture and health, through for local infrastructure, to care for the elderly, etc.. The programs for serious measures to combat climate changes or to ensure the health, which continue to be discussed as if nothing had happened, are nothing but trash.
This dynamic of "disintegration of disintegration 'can not be properly digested by social atomized individuals, and even less at the pace that it moves forward. Humans are individualized in all aspects "creatures on credit", no matter the extent of awareness of this fact. The same applies to the "religion of everyday life" (Marx) of consumption goods, the credit card system is likely to be the next collapse financial sector. All the talk about futile "speculative excesses", which ultimately should be impeded, can not hide the fact that the dependence on "global house of cards" of the financial superstructure empowerment is firmly anchored in the consciousness of the masses, as a condition of life . Therefore, the surface de-legitimization of capitalism still does not reach the radical critique of the mode of production and dominant life. Only the forms of private financial capital, the investment bank's hedge funds , etc. Are perceived as "capitalist." A measure of the economy collapsing financial bubbles, first idol, the 'human beings on credit " individualized invoke the rule to save their 'skin on credit "and to continue to live their lives precarious capitalist. The system of private credit exhausted must be replaced by state credit, you want to see how inexhaustible.
course this is a turnaround dangerous. Why exactly was the belief in the unlimited capacity of state funding that the dominant neo-liberal discourse in recent decades has denounced as a major aberration. It was not just for ideological reasons. When growth in the 70 Ford ran out and the connection between credit system and advance the production of surplus real began to break, it was Firstly, the state credit to be extended beyond the capability of creating social value, to keep the economy operating through the anticipation of the future. Keynesian solution without government debt was already a financial bubble of its kind. As a result, inflation became less out of control all over the world. Neoliberalism reacted to this development, but without understanding its root cause. It imagined that the problem was just too strong in an expansion of the state and that it was remedied by the radical deregulation of the market. However, once that, in reality, the increase in composition organic capital began to turn into a historical fall of the mass of surplus value and the actual mass of profits, the swelling of the claim now without solution was only dislocated the turn of the neoliberal state, to the asset bubbles of debt and speculation of private capital . Since this location was not the case on a strictly limited state, but in the context of globalization, transnational, could be simulated for more than thirty years, with this new way of unsecured loans in the creation of real value, growth, the nature deficit is only now revealed. Now when the elites, as well as the consciousness of the masses, pretending to regress immediately to state funding as a lifeline, they seem to be suffering from amnesia. The state, until shortly before demonized, is greater than ever, with the best of intentions, the status of a god that must eternizzare the flow of credit, because it would be "omnipotent", as well as individual interests.
Now, the state is in fact an independent agency of a "ruling class" or of certain economic groups, but the instance of the general power underlying the company, which is outside the framework of the valorisation of capital and all on "male character" (Marx). But the state does not necessarily for this is "above" of the objective laws of the movement of capital and can not claim to review or change arbitrarily, on the contrary, it is not less likely than it is the individual capital, is found only on a higher social level. All that the State is to be financed, as much as all that is done by capital from individual or individuals, and the source of this funding can only produce real added value. The state gets money in return from this original source, either directly through taxes, and buy money in the financial markets by issuing bonds. In the second case, it is itself an actor at the level of financial capital and is bound by its terms. What does this mean, in the historical crisis of credit and growth, "financially driven" by that employee, of which we suffer today? The 'rescue packages' of the financial system so far launched by states and government programs to support the economy in the future have not yet materialized in the world already amounts to several billion euro. Where does the State to secure the funding for all this, if the crisis is the fact that the real source of value creation is exhausted and the claim as an advance of future capital gains, has run out? A drastic increase in taxes would depress even further the production of surplus real already languishing. A large amount of government bonds in financial markets would get the same effect, because the state would be to compete with businesses and families to available credit and therefore have to pull up the real interest rates.
If you spent the tax money collected by the State and of the loans in the financial markets from the perspective of the logic of exploitation does not have any production, but consumption only. Even if, for example, finance the construction of roads or schools, that does not give rise to some new value creation will be drained, but the actual production of the past (taxes) or future (credit). This is all the more the case because if the state with the money in the form of 'rescue packages', is intended only to plug the holes in the financial system, buy credits in a poor state of the banks, etc.. After the termination of the bubble economy and the financial situation of the simulation, the state financial responsibility amounts to values \u200b\u200bmany times higher than the front, before sunk. Once you can not tax increases or expansion of public debt to the extent necessary, it remains only as a last resort , print money, creating money from nothing, and transfer it directly to the state, with no warranties or compensatory . But the power central banks to create money is purely formal, "expressing" only the process of value creation capitalist reality, without replacing it. The action for the issuance of banknotes would be the biggest financial bubble of all, and could end only in complete devaluation of money and all claims, securities, etc. (hyperinflation, state bankruptcy, currency reform).
The location of the problem of state credit to finance capital and the current decline again to the State a complete circle with no exit. Of course, now the world's social failure of the capitalist system and its neoliberal legitimacy is a field in which you can rely on the radical critique of capitalist basic forms in a manner different from the past. But this still does not mean in any way, that this radical critique is already likely to make membership of the consciousness of the masses, who still moves entirely in the categories of modern fetishism. It is necessary, first, become aware of the paradox that the material conditions of existence in all areas of life are dependent on the virtual dissolution of the credit. From this point of view, the obstacles to a denial of all capitalist become smaller, but more. If your existence is threatened, people cling with more strength of prevailing conditions. That is to say, today, that all the projects to save the credit system, for more than an illusion that they have audience, the same if the price of lead to murderous ideologies (or proto-Semitism anti-Semitism). For more reason to oppose the radical critique of the mainstream the spirit of the time, instead of lasciarcisi drag.
How do you see the ownership by the system of classical concepts of the left, as the "nationalization" or "regulation of financial markets"?
The program of the radical wing of Marxism assumed a traditional martial formula: the "dictatorship of the proletariat." However, it was always the organization he or she is in the spotlight, although tied to a false ontology of abstract labor. In reality, the program turned this into a mere ideological basis nationalization of capitalist categories, that is the opposite of social emancipation. Marx himself, in Critique of the Gotha Program, criticizes this fetishism of the state, although he himself, in some previous formulas, it was not totally free. In the historical practice of the systems' modernization lagging behind "(the Soviet Union, China, etc..), The concept of" state of workers had only one function legittimatoria for the reproduction of state capitalism. Most socialist and communist parties in the West made this requirement in a program of "nationalization" of banks and major industries of capitalism. The orientation state was only loosely tied to the paradigm out of the 'working class'. Instead of this, the concept of 'nation' was central and the "social question" was turned into a "national question". This "socialism with national colors" was distinctive compared to the truly reactionary 'social world' negative equity. It already belonged to the history of the dissolution of traditional Marxism. In the economy
middle class emerged in reaction to world economic crisis of the '30s, a move state "moderate", attenuated, in the form of Keynesianism. This doctrine never had anything to do with the hopes of "socialist" spread the contrary, expressly conceived of itself as a program of rescue of capitalism with the help of government intervention, whose base lay in the expansion of the continued state credit. The "left Keynesianism" tried to turn this doctrine in an almost "socialist." But it was only for the guidance of the old state capitalism, again thinned and lightened, the old "workers parties" from time integrated into the political class of capitalism. The reference to Marx's critique of political economy was finally lost. The speech of the left-Keynesianism basically no longer refers to the analysis of categorical "Use value" and the dynamics in the context of the capitalist form of relative surplus value, increasing the organic composition, falling rate of profit, nor to a theory of crisis on this basis. For this form of thought the possibility of a "categorical crisis" with the fall of the mass of surplus value was completely excluded. With this, even the "categorical criticism" of the basic forms of the capitalist system of the fetish became even less viable than in the ancient traditional Marxism labor movement. Instead of this, the "critical" fell into "the processing of contradiction" in the framework of capitalism, not more explicitly challenged, so in the guise of "economic policy" vulgar bourgeois, who had to rely blindly on the expansion of state credit, presumably in order to suck the honey capital. When economics and economic policy prevailing in the wake of the 'neoliberal revolution', officially withdrew the Keynesian doctrine, the political left virtually unarmed remained with Keynesianism on its own, without perceiving that he was marrying a dead town. Keynesianism now appears as the fundamental opposition neo-liberalism in a purely formal, although it never was in its content.
The recent turn of the desperate economic and political elites to the state credit reveals feet of clay of the Left parties, as well as movement organizations such as ATTAC. Apparently, the central elements of Keynesianism itself consistently reppresentati (nationalization or "nationalization" of banks and possibly the key industries, regulation of financial markets) are suddenly subject to new honors. However, it is no longer a Keynesian Welfare State, as in the final period of Fordist prosperity in the decade of 1970, but an emergency Keynesianism financial capital, which is parallel with the aggravation of the State Administration for Work and antisocial people. It is the paradox of the extension of neo-liberalism means almost Keynesian, because historically having become manifest in the internal limit of exploitation no longer exists any third option. The state credit is not flowing toward social programs, education, health services etc, but is thrown into the black hole of financial statements debilitated. The left-wing Keynesian remain unarmed in front of the new quality of the crisis because it has no concept of that. While she believes to present a morning breeze Keynesian, in reality, is brought on behalf of his autoconsegna the mode of capitalist production and life. If he wants to "evolve" in the new expansion of state credit bearer of inflation, which is itself in danger of becoming an integral part of the administration of the capitalist crisis. Evidence of this already exist throughout Europe. If the Left party and movement becomes in this sense, "politically capable" and the elites of the capital 'social capable', his 'socialdemocratizzazione' could lead to a career in the base of the state of exception.
What forms of mediation can be established between the struggles inherent to the basic conditions of survival and criticism of the basic categories of the system capital (goods, valuables, money, abstract labor, government, politics)?
There is no doubt that the extra-organized social struggle for the material and cultural life, in resistance against the brutal reduction in the level of civilization, is the only alternative to working parliamentary 'political' " left "with the state government of the crisis. Inevitably arise a counter movement established social again, initially as "treatment of contradiction" inherent, not delegated to the state but more needs present needs independent, even if they are faced be erected against the state. This is the case, for example, a minimum wage high enough and to resist further cuts in social transfers and repression against the oppression of the coercive measures of the labor, against the privatization or closure of vital public infrastructure (for example, medical care). But I'm also on the agenda the budget debate and criticism of education and hard all'obsoleto bond content of teaching and research needs of the valorization of capital.
There is an important moment in the mediation of the "categorical criticism" that is to learn how can be distinguished in the 'treatment of the contradiction "between forms and shapes in order to advance affirmative. This includes, first, the recognition that the defense of the vital necessities for the official start of the policy has become totally illusory. Should be highlighted alternative content direct social demands on the one hand, and how futile hope in the situation of state programs for new capital investment on the other. The latter engage in the social needs to start "success" of the valorization of capital, in ruins on the basis of abstract labor, and the "eligibility" to be derived here in a manner capitalist. The first, On the contrary, they can open the way for the denial of the "terror of eligibility 'and approaches to overcoming the value-form and money. This alternative, to make it effective in the new conditions of crisis, can also be between the elements 'left' of the political class, thus leading to polarization, hence, while it is a social counter-movement. In the old labor movement already had elements of this alternative, even if in the ideological foundation of an ontology of abstract labor. Precisely for this reason the social counter-movement (in correspondence with their conscience based on the ontology of the work), were always processed in orientation state and, as a "Marxist party," tied to a policy intervention, since the State is precisely the social requirement of synthesis on the basis of abstract labor. In the historical limits of abstract labor and the real value of capital, the alternative of interventionism and social counter-movement arises now in completely new forms and must be made accordingly, as the hope for the credit of the State can only with the unleashing of shame ' inflation and therefore no longer contains any social potential.
A second moment of mediation is the critique of all forms of social exclusion, whether overtly articulated or indirectly and subliminally. Meanwhile that social movements operate in terms of 'handling of contradiction "inherent, you will always have these tendencies. Already in the labor movement there were strong negative feelings against the lower strata unskilled. Today we see similar attitudes on the part of a 'labor aristocracy' globalized, meanwhile failing, against the "fallen off", or against the workers in sectors of low wages, and even into the same lower classes of the 'dominant culture' against migrants. On all but the middle classes are academic and subaccademiche, under the threat of the fall in the capitalist centers, that claim to save his own skin as an ideal and stylize emancipation of their general interests as "human capital", when in reality the life of the "other," he is indifferent. A measure that will provide a social counter-movement, the task of "categorical critique" is precisely identify the different potential analytically complex social exclusion and tackle them overlapping.
This can only be successful if the critic is able to convey that, besides the capitalist classes, you can easily meet the necessities of life "for all". In this context, the task is to educate the social counter-movement (counting from arising) of the huge discrepancy between the potential of material wealth and the inability to continue to treat them in the form of capitalism. However, the theoretical reflection on the categories of real capital, as value and commodity, surplus value, abstract labor, etc., and their modulation state political, is not present in the consciousness of the masses. It may then be mobilized to the practical experience that there are, in terms of technical and practical material, the ability to meet the material needs, social and cultural rights, but are paralyzed by capitalism, because they can not be satisfied with the absurd end in itself the transformation of the "work" in "more work" and "money" to "more money." If more and more people become homeless, while at the same time there are empty houses in the mass, or if more and more sick and needy are not properly cared for, while at the same time, the administration closed hospitals, doctors and hospital staff are put under pressure or become "unemployed", then this experience can be fundamentally transformed into a radical critique of the commodity form and money, enriching the experience with theoretical reflection.
This approach is correct when you invoke the so-called problem 'ecological' (climate degradation, depletion of crops, erosion of the natural foundations of life, etc.).. In this respect, the mediation the "critical categorical" must make the conscious connection between inner destructive powers of the capitalist mode of production of material wealth, on the one hand and the capitalist form of social relations, on the other. It is not in itself produce a sufficient quantity of food and cultural heritage that leads to destruction of the "biosphere", but the rationality of the logic of economic development business, which creates poverty and destroys its own foundations and ruins nature. The destructive power of certain capitalist forms of material wealth (individual automotive transportation, defense industry, agro-industry littered with toxic substances, etc.) can not be played against the social needs of society. The alternative to 'automobilizzazione' is not the elimination of mobility in itself but the expansion of public transportation, under social control in the resistance against the privatization. It is especially treacherous empower people, condemned to misery and shameful rations depleted by capital, because "they consume too much," thus destroying the climate. While the "climate catastrophe" has recently, in good times of deficit, caused media sensation, now in crisis, the official aims of reducing pollutants are cut again, because must be maintained at any price the capitalist form of production. It is perfectly possible that the administration intends to support more restrictions of a crisis with social legitimacy 'label'. This contradiction also moves the ideology 'label' supported by a part of the middle classes, who claims to speak of "limits of capitalism only in the sense of an" outer limit "of natural resources, while the" outer limit " of abstract labor and the "enhancement of value 'is perceived only in the form of reductionism (" limits of growth') or completely forgotten, because everyone involved would like to be "ecologically" administration of the crisis. From the perspective of further development of the critique of political economy, this "ecological reductionism" is as reprehensible as the economic orientation towards a yes "crisis of Keynesianism."
Another step in the mediation of the "categorical criticism" would be the reopening of a debate on social planning, no longer based on abstract work, the value-form and the State. As a heritage from the past, the "socialism" is now more than ever equated with the 'nationalization', which continues to bring only paradoxical phrases, like "socialism of the financial market," which expresses, However, the real paradox of the new conditions of crisis. For a real transformation beyond capitalism, the task is to organize in new ways the flow of social resources, physical and social world as such and stop representing them in the categories of "value" and its "working substance", which historically have become obsolete . This includes the problem of social reproduction of the moments that never appeared in abstract labor and exploitation, and historically the delegates were women (caring for children, care, domestic work, "labor of love", etc...) Within the limits of enhancement of this same "social cement" is shattered. A social transformation must then rearrange these moments, freeing them from sex allocation and create a social fund for their leisure time that is now possible.
would be necessary to trigger a broad public debate on this, which bring a wealth of experience and expertise, not limited to a strictly theoretical approach. The theoretical criticism can only groped to encourage this debate, in accordance with the development of the crisis and make it aware of the new issue of social planning.
Just because the "critical categorical" in the context of the capitalist form, despite the historical crisis of this, is not susceptible to breakage and without transmission, within the limits of "objective forms of thought ' (Marx), clashes with the social consciousness, it can not just claim to the political-economic "objective" in the bourgeois sense. An essential point of mediation is also the radical critique of ideology. All so the digestion of the crisis in consciousness is the production of ideology, not only in the orientation state or reductionism in ecology. Even the basic ideology of modern nationalism, anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice against gypsies (the resentment against the Sinti and Roma as a 'pariah' of modernity) and sexism are reconfigured and recovered strongly in the crisis. In the background there is always the aggressive defense of certain capitalist class lives in the struggle of competition. Central in this regard is now the ideology of the "new middle class" to the processes of crisis in the struggle for the power of interpretation and its hegemony. The various elements of the production of ideology form amalgams, even indirectly and subliminally. The task of the "categorical criticism" is therefore to analyze the 'devices' elaboration modulated ideological and deeply penetrate the concept of ideology, as well as traditional Marxism, in order to combine a program of social change with an intervention program of the critics' ideology. The current movement of the left, with its orientation towards theoretically disarmed "struggle" purely symbolic, is far from that. For this we observe everywhere a disturbing convergence between positions "left" and "right" in the reductionist critique of capitalism.
What role can the class struggle today to spread class consciousness in the sense of Lukács?
The traditional paradigm of "class struggle" is no longer capable of mobilization in the new situation of internal limit of absolute value. Historically, the trade union and political representation of the "proletariat" was not that the representation of 'variable capital' self-affirmation and thus the representation of abstract labor. Here created an opposition between purely on the principle of "work", presumably ahistorical and anthropology, and form of capitalist private property legally conceived, when in fact abstract work and legal private property of means of production are only different determinations in the system common reference underlying the "enhancement of value." Marx designated underlying this context as "automatic subject" of modern society fetish, in which all are caught in what social positions 'functions' of the logic of exploitation. There is some "beginning" ontological likely to be called for the emancipation social. On the contrary, capitalism can be overcome only through a critique of its concrete historical forms basics. The "class struggle" was essentially a movement of 'struggle for recognition' in the soil of capitalist categories. To this the old labor movement adopted by Protestantism and bourgeois ideology of the Enlightenment not only the ontology of abstract labor, but also the ontology of capitalist relations of gender, namely the historical powers of the 'masculinity and femininity. " What came out of the 'struggle for recognition "(the right to strike, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, right to vote, etc) always ended only in the nationalization of capitalist categories not exceeded. The socialist paradigm of "class struggle" had been exhausted in this.
In the new historical situation, the "recognition" by the time reached by the workers as economic actors and citizens of the state society fetish, a chain and becomes a trap. Individuals are at best and at worst, tied to the value of coercion. It is not just a matter of conscience. Even objectively, the social base of the old "class struggle" has been discarded. Under the conditions of the Third Industrial Revolution, capital can no longer organize armies "productive" work abstract. Once the process of individualization as a phenomenon of crisis destroys the social filters, socially atomized individuals are directly related to the relationship of global value, which can be both virtualized in the form of credit is now more likely to comply, and then becomes obsolete . Apparently have a "multiplicity" of widespread social situations but can not now be more integrated on the basis of capitalist categories. And possible permanent staff, workers and subimpiegati term, unemployed with financial crisis the administration object, false self-employed entrepreneurs and poverty, etc, are no longer some homogeneous mass a "working class maker of surplus value." The ideology of the movement, the decade of the '90s, he limited himself to take the affirmative this "multiplicity" and to meet without conceptualise, under the cloak of "multitude," not to exceed it. For a new organization of social struggle, the goal is no longer the "recognition" as a creator of surplus value, but the criticism and transformation in the same category value and gender relations associated with it. The base can not be an organization of capitalist "work" side, which is dissolved and demoralized, but only the conscious self-organization of historical criticism specificity of the dominant classes, starting with the 'handling of contradiction "inherent and going beyond it. It is not a question of setting up the 'objective' representation of the class as "variable capital", but a matter of conscience. Do not, however, some consciousness "ideal" in terms of, for example, of an 'ethics' of moral philosophy, but a consciousness that confronts the limits of historical value and with the fall in the level of civilization.
At this point it is necessary to return once again to the problem of the "new middle class" threatened by the fall. The disorganization of the "armies of labor" in industry and the decline of the old labor movement went hand in hand with the ascension of this middle class qualified in the phase of Fordist prosperity. The economic base was not the actual production of surplus value, but the expansion of state credit. The social self-consciousness that accompanied it was not so much in the ontology of "work", but much more in the Statute of "human capital" as "higher education". Already the New Left, since 1968, was essentially a movement of the middle class, even though it continued to investigate, theoretically and ideologically, from the bottom Marxist unnecessary mediation with empty 'class struggle' of "Proletariat". In the era of financial bubbles, the 'new middle class "became employees of private credit expansion and increasingly precarious. It was precisely in this context that the "world view" of the consciousness of the middle class gained a dominant position on the left. The revival of the old rhetoric of "class struggle", and above all its derivatives, for example in the figure of the "many" after-care are all implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) formulated from the perspective of middle-class consciousness categorically in the affirmative. Today it is not the ontology of "work" has long eroded, that blocks the transition of the Marxism of the labor movement toward the "categorical criticism," but the ideology of the middle class with his headstrong "human capital", which is hidden under the "multiplicity" of approaches to movement. Once the middle classes are inevitably involved in a large social counter movement, a break with this ideology and of crucial importance.
The problem of organization of social struggle, which must integrate differently the desperate 'multiplicity' of situations beyond the paradigm of 'class struggle' theory does not start from scratch. The transition to the "categorical criticism" is encountered in the approaches of the great theoretical to the borders of traditional Marxism, as Lukács (and, in another form, Adorno). Lukács gave the first indications in the book published in 1923, History and class consciousness, especially in the large central essay on "reification." As was expected, given the situation at the time, he for the first time combines the implicit ontology of the work and the traditional "class position" to be derived here, with discussion of the underlying social constitution modern fetishist. Lukács let dissuade its innovative points of view, regarded as 'idealistic' by the Marxist party, and later returned to an explicit and rather boring ontology of abstract labor. His work in 1923 was used by the new approaches of "categorical criticism" of the 80s, especially from the point of view of class consciousness "attributed" (zugerechnete) and the proletariat as an alleged "subject-object of history." But his previous theoretical paper does not end there. A renewed reading in the current conditions promotes knowledge surprising. What he refers to the concept of "reification" is already a critique of the basic forms of capitalism, for a long time without equal, is viewed by some as a criticism of postmodern thought in advance. The decisive factor is the premise of "becoming conscious" (Bewußtwerden) Critics of the commodity form as the general form of existence under capitalism, including the goods workforce. With this, Lukács with the definition of Marx's capitalist classes, as "the real conditions of existence 'and simultaneously' objective forms of thought ', a definition that was hidden from the workers' movement. If this theoretical approach
undress from his "assignment" to a "point of view" of "work", much of it can be hired for a new "critical categorical" under the terms of individualization and the report of the decline in value. It is essential, first, in the plan include categorical modern gender relations, not yet approached by Lukács. Second, the critical relativization of "proletarian class consciousness" formulated in his essay on reification are today primarily related each to the conscience of the middle class (even on what approaches have already met in this essay). That raises the task of reformulating the vision of Lukács in this historical situation fundamentally different, in order to make fruitful that "becoming conscious" critical of the commodity form, to a reintegration of the social struggle over the false objectivity of capitalism.
How would you define a concept of revolution to the present time that would break with fetishism and a daily life totally subordinated to the reproduction of capital?
The concept of "revolution" was historically occupied by the paradigm of the great French Revolution, following the bourgeois revolutions of the nineteenth century and the revolutions of the "modernization lagging behind" on the outskirts of the world market in the twentieth century (Russia, China, " Third World '). In this context, the "revolution" is confined to the political form of the "conquest of power 'and, in the twentieth century, the nationalization of capitalist categories. In this sense, this concept belongs to the history of the imposition of abstract labor, the logic of using and modern gender relations. Apparently, therefore, that his career is over. In residual Marxism and ideology of the movement, the "revolution" as an act of political subversion no longer undertakes any role. But they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Once the left dismissed the concept of revolution without being realized, it merely to ratify his autoconsegna the capitalist form of life, the social base of the middle class.
Marx criticized the concept of revolution limited to politics in the early writings. For him, the 'social revolution' has a different quality that also suppresses the statism of the political form, together with the value and the commodity form. As more Later in the case of Lukács, this upheaval, however, still appeared in Marx as a "proletarian revolution". E 'precisely this paradigm that maintains the concept of revolution reduced to politics. Besides the ontology of the work in the inner edge of development, there is new and different form in the question of 'social revolution', ie as a rupture in the dominant forms of social synthesis of value and capitalist relations of gender. 'Summary of social' no more means that the specific form of socialization in the sense of a 'negative totality' can only be overcome with a subversion of the whole society.
For this reason, requires a large-scale social movement, and now on a transnational scale, to achieve social synthesis in general. Not enough, for example, occupations of business by the staff, then just becomes a collective subject of capital, continued to synthesize through the market and competition. So far all these attempts have failed (as in the great crisis in Argentina). It is not possible to change the level of any capital, or the level of a particular play, but the question of synthesis, and thus of social planning beyond the commodity form, is always the starting point (and not some end point ) practice of breaking with capitalism. In this context the concept of "revolution" is not simply irrelevant, although it no longer has that to do with the old paradigm "politicized." Critical theory as "critique categorical" must continue from this point of view of social synthesis, even against the conscience of the movement purely "symbolic", that is not asked this question decisively.
The left prefers to speak of after-care movement today change the world without taking power (John Holloway). The social synthesis is replaced by a widespread concept of "daily life" that has made a career move since 1968. What many times is designated as a "revolution" culture "of everyday life 'is always in one way or another, the background music of social change, but, reduced to this point of view, it can also be a cultural adaptation to the dynamics of capitalism. These concepts of '68 and the post-modern left have long been adopted by the management crisis of capitalism, for example, in the form of neo-liberal propaganda of "self-empowerment" individual. The theme of 'everyday life' can not replace the real action at the level of social synthesis, as it can not deploy the necessary reaction force (for example, through strikes, lockouts, paralysis of the respiratory nerve centers capitalist). The "question of power" paradigm is not limited to "political nature" of state power, but even more so, the question arises as a "countervailing" social resistance against the administration of a crisis. In reality, the "daily life" itself is not only a haven of "resistance", whose concept in this form becomes void. The resistance, if anything, it begins when people rise up against their 'everyday', driven by capital in every pore, and is capable of a universal organization.
Metaphysics of left-wing newspaper also refers, in part, to the continuation of the failed alternative movement of the '80s, attempts to "another" way of living and production in the small scale of "community" special, which will legitimize neo-utopian or pragmatic. These attempts, for example, in the form of so-called 'local economy' or the digital movement open source, as well as employment businesses, can not reach the level of social synthesis. As an alternative to an apparent movement of social resistance from immanence capitalist run the risk of turning into a 'self-administration of poverty. " If there there is still the idea of \u200b\u200ba "criticism of the commodity form," will be lowered to a format in which this criticism not be possible without losing its contents without decisive and contradictions involved in de-sac. The alternatives are related to the alleged contractual relations bourgeois, and beyond, they relate only to small segments of the play, which is determined as a whole in the capitalist mode. Therefore, the "practice projects' details, usually look to external funding of the State, either in the form of human 'basic income' is in the form of a self-sufficient patronage. Keynesian ideology of statism and alternative are just two sides of the same coin, the common denominator is the direct or indirect guidance to the state credit. Here is expressed once again the unacknowledged domain of consciousness of the middle class, who always wants to wash your skin without getting wet. Keynesian ideology of the Left and an alternative must then either remove and deny the new quality of the crisis, because their illusions can not survive the end of the credit system of the global economy and financial bubbles. They will be confronted with the real limit of the dominant social synthesis, at the latest, when the major landslide in the world economy will also have the "daily life" in the capitalist centers.
.
.
.
.
translation by LPZ
.
.
Original PORTUGIESISCHEN INTERVIEW MIT DER INTERNET-Zeitschrift "ZION Edições' em http://www.exit-online.org/ . (30.11.2008)
