With Marx beyond Marx: conceptual design of the Group "EXIT"
The text presented here will be summarized in a "snapshot" of the process of theoretical work developed to date dall'approccio defense of social criticism in this Internet page. May serve as Orientation for new beneficiaries. It 's a programmatic text, clearly not in the sense of a political program, which establishes a "line", but in the sense of a theoretical program in many aspects yet to be developed.
The text presented here will be summarized in a "snapshot" of the process of theoretical work developed to date dall'approccio defense of social criticism in this Internet page. May serve as Orientation for new beneficiaries. It 's a programmatic text, clearly not in the sense of a political program, which establishes a "line", but in the sense of a theoretical program in many aspects yet to be developed.
D the late 80's seeing the world the agony of Marxism, socialism, the labor movement, movements of national liberation and beyond. Even the classic middle-class welfare state is disintegrating, the Keynesian paradigm is just nostalgia and schemes of "development" in the third world crumble even in the variants pro-Western. Not even the nostalgic revival of the Third World has its own revolutionary romanticism socio-historical perspective. It is rather by-products of globalization, as is the case of the vulgar Marxist caudillo Chavez regime in Venezuela, supported only by the explosion in oil prices, which is allied with Islam anti-Semitic. Or is it the case of current etnopopuliste, as the Zapatistas in Mexico, which transformed the national development program, now without support, a colorful self-administration of misery with grassroots democracy.
The old paradigms of reform and revolution left traditional in understanding on a global scale have become obsolete once it no longer exists any horizon of regulatory and organizational changes in the form state. Everywhere, the institutions that remain of the ancient struggle of social interests, hoist the white flag of surrender. The concept of "social reform" has transformed into its opposite and was semantically occupied by neo-liberal counter, which goes step by step reducing the core repressive that was always inherent in all social achievements, the social security systems and public services. The neo-liberal paradigm is no longer a special position, but a consensus sovrapartitico, which draws much of the left, to which most can not, as apparent opposition, to give expression to reactionary ideologies of a bygone era, or their weak adaptations. For this resistance becomes increasingly weak, even the very large strikes and mass movements incendiary systematically end in defeat and resignation. Apparently
capitalism has won across the board. And this not only as an external power of repression, but also within his subjects. The apparent "natural law" of the market and the universality of competition are perceived as negative conditions do not overcome human existence, but their effects are devastating, humiliating and intolerable. The more it becomes clear that this order involves the global social ' social and ecological self-destruction, most people stubbornly cling to the categories and the criteria of this negative form of socialization that have internalized. In the same way that the reason the middle class dissolves into barbarism for which Marx had alerted the social thought rejects any kind of critical reflection and calls for a "civilization" of capitalism, conceived and established as a positive step only ideologically. The same military police capitalist world does not solve any problem, only exacerbates the destructive chaos and the collapse of perspectives (such as intervention in Iraq in 2003). Capitalism has won only in the form of its own crisis, which has become a crisis of his "subject officers" so famous, and therefore no longer open any road to emancipation social. The new grade of the crisis paralyzing the criticism instead of mobilizing them.
This paradox requires an explanation. In the space of the German language was formed in the late 80s a theoretical position that was confronted with this problem. In this environment we wanted to critically analyze the "history of the left" of 150 years of Marxism and the labor movement. The group "EXIT", about the theoretical magazine of the same name, is conceived as the result of these efforts and encourages their ongoing development. "EXIT" discuss Marxism so to speak from within, to give a new form of Marx's theory, with which it can be realized in the horizons of the twenty-first century. For this, need to ask questions merciless Marxist thought. Since Marxism is considered to be the theoretical critique of capitalism par excellence . How can it fall into its greatest crisis ever, along with precisely the object of his criticism? Why does not meet any response to the new world situation in the limit of the XXI century? Why all of its conceptual framework is presented as hopelessly outdated?
This position of the problem is not entirely new, although much has been exacerbated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back in the '60s it was clear that the traditional Marxist paradigm was exhausted and could not follow the development of capitalism. It 's true that the national liberation movements in the Third World, which is legitimated in part by Marxism, seemed to draw then at the height (in fact, had become extinct soon after), but it was evident that the bureaucratic state socialism East began to lose the ability to develop internal and external attraction. Similarly it was already possible to see clearly that the labor movement west, after more than a century of effectiveness, he had more strength and now represented a historical model discontinued.
From the perspective of "EXIT", the so-called New Left in the context of the 1968 student movement, was not yet in a position to reach the new horizon of the problem and develop a different paradigm in the most far-reaching critique of capitalism. It was essentially limited to select materials of Marxism and anarchism hitherto existing, to "act out" again and subcorrenti some variants of the old radicalism of the left, as a kind of theater of ghosts, and repeat the whole spectrum of traditional forms of organization, in miniature size of seven. The abundant literature of Marxism in most of the '70s was not original, just more than a reminiscence of comments to a story already dead, in the form of academic work and political zealots. Today is covered with dust in libraries.
"EXIT" it dissociates with the same clarity, the so-called postmodern thought, which is simultaneously in mediation with the New Left, has tried to bridge the traditional Marxism through a "disarmament of the theory." With the pejorative concept of "grand theory", has been under suspicion of totalitarianism the main theoretical constructs of nineteenth and twentieth centuries, especially Marxism. The supposedly totalitarian concepts of the social whole, with their difference between essence and appearance, had to be replaced by a non-essentialist phenomenological relativism, the critique of political economy has been replaced by "cultural," the real analysis by the cult of virtuality. Postmodernism has become theory of fashion from the '80s and '90s, and left a whole generation of younger grew up with it. This theory does not seem at all appropriate to raise the critique of capitalism at the twenty-first century. The 'economic horror "has thoroughly discredited the real totalitarian postmodern culturalism and its phenomenological reduction of critical theory. Most recent attempts to reinterpret the way postmodern Marxism of the labor movement (as is the case with the thought "post-operative Hardt / Negri and John Holloway) play only the old categories with a different nomenclature, in an almost existentialist subjectivism and the "critical teologizzazione" associated with it implies a self-contained in aestheticization movements without prospects, and the expectation of the 'event', which take the place of content policies for a mutation underlying emancipatory.
"It XIT!" followed a completely different way: it's back to the critique of political economy, but not in the traditional sense of "Marxism of the labor movement." It is about the size of Marx's theory that was completely overshadowed in his left hand up to now existing or which, in a minority of advanced theoretical reflections, at best reasoning was banned as "philosophical" abstract, referring to its effectiveness in an imaginary future: namely, it is the criticism of the fetishism of modern criticism as a system of commodity production, criticism of "use value" (Marx) as "automatic subject" (Marx) of the company.
"It XIT!" followed a completely different way: it's back to the critique of political economy, but not in the traditional sense of "Marxism of the labor movement." It is about the size of Marx's theory that was completely overshadowed in his left hand up to now existing or which, in a minority of advanced theoretical reflections, at best reasoning was banned as "philosophical" abstract, referring to its effectiveness in an imaginary future: namely, it is the criticism of the fetishism of modern criticism as a system of commodity production, criticism of "use value" (Marx) as "automatic subject" (Marx) of the company.
include this dimension in deep thought of all the modernity as a result the stop see the basic categories of modern commodity producing system as a positive ontological objects, the manner of traditional Marxism, to subject them instead to a radical critique, as negative items and historians. At first this is true for economic groupings in the strict sense, ie, the rationality of economic enterprise, the "abstract labor" (Marx) and its forms of expression: value, goods, money and market. Liberation can only be thought beyond these categories, not "inside" or "with" them. Marxism did not aspire to overcome the traditional categories of the commodity producing system, but only to moderate "political." But the political and institutional forms of existence, the state, democracy and nation, only form the other pole of the modern fetish of the system, consisting of the legal form of the bourgeois parties. The economic and political-legal categories are just two sides of same coin. The modern subject of all classes is a subject schizoid, torn between homo economicus and homo politicus between citoyen and bourgeois . The left has always claimed to tame bourgeois through citoyen, direct the market through the state, regulate the economy of the "abstract labor" through politics, forming the subject of money across the nation. But the question is to eliminate the same way both sides of the modern fetishism, instead of playing against each other.
So you come to a view that is no longer limited immanent sociological opposition between "classes" of wage labor, on the one hand, and representatives of capital, on the other, but rather takes target the common reference system these classes. The obsolescence of this formal connection common now appears in the fall of the new middle class, which was a product of capitalist socialization negative. The nostalgic reference to the old ideological class struggle, to a large extent, only the interests of immanent attachment of the middle class in the fall, which wishes to claim for himself, once again, the late paradigm of "work" (also in neo-utopian ) instead of, contrary to the old movement Operario, to target the capitalist modes of socialization and think about how to go beyond them.
Since Marxism's traditional fight class has only problematized the legal ownership of the surface surplus by the capitalist, "EXIT" thematizes the social form of "automatic subject" that it is based. The surplus ceases to be a positive object, which each have and others do not, and that we can not demand or pull. On the contrary, it is an end in itself irrational , above all those agents. "Enhancement of value" means the value of a cybernetic hung himself, as a kind of social machine. Just as the value, as a form of endless accumulation, even the "abstract labor" as well as its content, becomes an end in the same way irrational in itself, indifferent to any social or material quality.
Marxism has made the traditional form and content of modern fetishism and ahistorical ontological conditions of a supposed human condition. But now it comes to historicize these categories and thus make it unthinkable to overcome them. The traditional Marxist critique of capitalism was restricted to the critical legal envelope surface of private property, in what form and content of the same capitalist reproduction were positivization uncritically. But the value and the "abstract labor" as "work" in general, as a "waste of nerves, muscles and brain" (Marx), it remains as the foundation ontological "After Capitalism", as suggested by a critique of capital gains reduced to legal form and distribution, on the contrary, the "work" and the "value" form the essence of surplus value, and with it, capital, or the same "automatic subject". The program's critics should not be the equitable distribution of value, but its abolition, as a form of irrational "abstract wealth" (Marx) destructive. They are neither the "point of view of work" or the 'pride in the creation of value "that lead beyond capitalism but on the contrary, the radical critique of modern" real abstractions "of work and value.
D the front this master plan, the theoretical approach of "EXIT" frequently occurs even under the label "critical value" or "critical work". But the modern fetish is not limited in this context, a criticism that was reduced to the form of value and substance of the work itself would be mutilated and reductionist. It is also critical to include in the metaphysical character of all modern society and its "automatic subject". The concept of the fetish in Marx already pointed in this direction. The fetishism of the modern producer of goods not only constitutes an 'analogy' with religious representations, as Marx says, and also can not simply be learned as mere "ideology" in the sense of a thought constructed in "camouflage," but metaphysics is itself a constitution and at the same time real and its reproduction of society, both material and cultural-symbolic. Modernity, in its reports did not exceed the metaphysical, as she holds, but has only sent down from the ancient root of religious transcendence in immanence than earthly, it is not "postmetaphysical" but "really metaphysics" in a new way than the old agricultural training. Religion has been dissolved only as the principle of celestial direction of play and turned into a "matter of private faith," to put in place the no less metaphysical principle of earthly direction of the relationship of capital. The "automatic subject" of the modern system of producer goods is not liberated human reason but the paradox of "immanent transcendence" in a blind process in the form of abstraction value, which remains beyond human needs and beyond the physical world, but that has changed, however, these needs and this material world external to itself. Included here is a new quality of destructive force, which exceeds all previous powers of self-destructive fetish formations. The figure
D the front this master plan, the theoretical approach of "EXIT" frequently occurs even under the label "critical value" or "critical work". But the modern fetish is not limited in this context, a criticism that was reduced to the form of value and substance of the work itself would be mutilated and reductionist. It is also critical to include in the metaphysical character of all modern society and its "automatic subject". The concept of the fetish in Marx already pointed in this direction. The fetishism of the modern producer of goods not only constitutes an 'analogy' with religious representations, as Marx says, and also can not simply be learned as mere "ideology" in the sense of a thought constructed in "camouflage," but metaphysics is itself a constitution and at the same time real and its reproduction of society, both material and cultural-symbolic. Modernity, in its reports did not exceed the metaphysical, as she holds, but has only sent down from the ancient root of religious transcendence in immanence than earthly, it is not "postmetaphysical" but "really metaphysics" in a new way than the old agricultural training. Religion has been dissolved only as the principle of celestial direction of play and turned into a "matter of private faith," to put in place the no less metaphysical principle of earthly direction of the relationship of capital. The "automatic subject" of the modern system of producer goods is not liberated human reason but the paradox of "immanent transcendence" in a blind process in the form of abstraction value, which remains beyond human needs and beyond the physical world, but that has changed, however, these needs and this material world external to itself. Included here is a new quality of destructive force, which exceeds all previous powers of self-destructive fetish formations. The figure
real modern critics of metaphysics includes a radical critique of the Enlightenment, as grounds ideological and philosophical of all modern thought. The Enlightenment was not only repressive, providing ideas for a discipline of humanity as "abstract labor" and the complete control of humans that is associated, as Foucault has shown phenomenologically. It also gave his decisive participation in the formation of the modern schizoid person, having the highest forms of metaphysics to the category of real positive reason, and having made the capitalist revolution in the history of metaphysics as "progress."
traditional Marxism was not much more than an appendage of the Enlightenment bourgeois as well as value creation, it also wanted to claim the 'heritage bourgeois ideal, to give continuity, instead of breaking with it. What Marxism, "inherits" the Enlightenment was precisely the false deontologize basic categories of capitalist socialization. The illusion of the political left was essentially a claim against the bourgeois ideals of the Enlightenment bourgeois reality, instead of selling off these ideals as a positive ideology of this negative reality. Approaches the subject of criticism in the Enlightenment and postmodern theories, on the other hand, have not achieved to bring the debate over Marxism, because I was reduced to a cultural, not continuing to develop the critique of policy. Want to circumvent the categories and leave the side of this crucial dimension because the alleged "economism", instead of recognizing the real fetishist metaphysics of modernity, the postmodern critique has been reduced and prey phenomenological ontology of capitalism. For this reason, even the most postmodern bourgeois subject and regressed to a common surface.
L a continuation of the development of Marx's theory, from a positivist understanding of a radically critical understanding of modern social categories and their relationship can not be conceived as a universalist understanding abstract art. This intention reproduce it very real modern metaphysics. It is always more to deconstruct the universality of the positive claims Enlightenment. The modern sexism, racism and antisemitism are basically contained in the Enlightenment thought of the same, since they are structurally related to the modern commodity producing system truly metaphysical, once they enter a destructive process in its contradictions.
L a continuation of the development of Marx's theory, from a positivist understanding of a radically critical understanding of modern social categories and their relationship can not be conceived as a universalist understanding abstract art. This intention reproduce it very real modern metaphysics. It is always more to deconstruct the universality of the positive claims Enlightenment. The modern sexism, racism and antisemitism are basically contained in the Enlightenment thought of the same, since they are structurally related to the modern commodity producing system truly metaphysical, once they enter a destructive process in its contradictions.
The "automatic subject" is not in any way sexually neutral, but rather as a prerequisite determined relationship between the sexes. As modernity has failed the metaphysics as social relations, but set it up again, even exceeded the patriarchal character of the 'Christian West', but the reconfigured and objectified. The modern patriarchal rule should not be construed as superficial sociological report, which is inconsistent with the abstract universalism of the commodity form and that it could be abolished, but it is a key moment of that universalism. Every moment of social reproduction, of personal and social relations that are not absorbable by the abstract logic of value or that they are only reluctantly and with the loss of their own character (caring for children, "housework," " loving and working relationship, "social-psychological cushioning etc.) were differentiated of the political-economic and historically defined as "feminine." Capitalism, therefore, is not only the connection of its forms categorical, but it's also a process of dissociation. The report is both a report of the value of dissociation of certain moments of social reproduction, and only the two together can form a concept critical of modern society. The value and its subject are defined as structurally male. The modern relationship between the sexes is conceived, as well as Marx and at the same conceptual level of capital, and not as a mere appendix therein.
The abstract universalism of modernity turns out to be so in reality a universalism androcentric , in form and substance of the value of labor, democracy, politics and modern law, is inscribed male supremacy. Although women were never confined solely to the private sphere and at times differentiated, but have been increasingly integrated into the public sphere of "abstract labor" and politics, especially after World War II, the same, their position continued to be throughout the subject. Dissociation sexual applies not only in private middle-class, but also in the bourgeois public life. The same in the domains of politics and economics, where functions have been attributed to women in much of shock psychosocial stress; here they go as 'signs' of subordination of the cultural-symbolic "nature." From the perspective of immanent-empirical means that they are on average more poorly paid, more rarely reach leadership positions and have to work twice as many men to get half the recognition. At the same time, the inclusion of women in society Journal of economics and politics does not mean that the empowerment of the private space has been exceeded and divided equally between men and women. Instead of this, women usually suffer a double burden, because the powers are conferred at the same time in paid work and household reproduction. Feminism drew from this the result of a false claim simply the inherent equality of women, rather than radical critique of the report to the fundamentals underlying the value-dissociation sexual asymmetry. Once the androcentric character of modernity is inscribed in its very basic, can not be broken in the ground of the universal form of value.
The abstract universalism of modernity turns out to be so in reality a universalism androcentric , in form and substance of the value of labor, democracy, politics and modern law, is inscribed male supremacy. Although women were never confined solely to the private sphere and at times differentiated, but have been increasingly integrated into the public sphere of "abstract labor" and politics, especially after World War II, the same, their position continued to be throughout the subject. Dissociation sexual applies not only in private middle-class, but also in the bourgeois public life. The same in the domains of politics and economics, where functions have been attributed to women in much of shock psychosocial stress; here they go as 'signs' of subordination of the cultural-symbolic "nature." From the perspective of immanent-empirical means that they are on average more poorly paid, more rarely reach leadership positions and have to work twice as many men to get half the recognition. At the same time, the inclusion of women in society Journal of economics and politics does not mean that the empowerment of the private space has been exceeded and divided equally between men and women. Instead of this, women usually suffer a double burden, because the powers are conferred at the same time in paid work and household reproduction. Feminism drew from this the result of a false claim simply the inherent equality of women, rather than radical critique of the report to the fundamentals underlying the value-dissociation sexual asymmetry. Once the androcentric character of modernity is inscribed in its very basic, can not be broken in the ground of the universal form of value.
L 'abstract universalism of modernity is not only androcentric but also Western Europe. As a large part of humanity has been marginal in non-Western world system of commodity production and did not leave the level bottom of capitalist development because of the backwardness in the same way also the generalization of the global shape of the subject has been linked to a Western socio-cultural and a destructive "ranking second" much material as symbolic.
The competition inherent in the modern system of universal commodity producing agents in subjects raises the need for images of the enemy. Where does not penetrate the real critique of modern metaphysics, the subjects turn their experiences of suffering in projections to counter-parties, which are constructed as "subhuman" (color), or "negative supermen" (Jews). The ideologies of racism and antisemitism, as well as the ideology sexism, are so structurally related to the real modern metaphysics. The universal subject is essentially a male white-Atlantic (MBO). The generalization of the shape of this subject MBO leads to multiple refractions in the consciousness of humanity and non-European immigrants, through which there are mixtures of sexism, racism or "ethnic" and anti-Semitism.
Even considering the subject-white-male androcentric western universality, the traditional left has remained within the horizon of the real modern metaphysics. The Marxism of the labor movement was, according to his own conception, and reproducing the dissociation androcentric sexual as well as the "abstract labor." At the same time, its origin, was white and Western, at best paternalistic towards non-European human beings and often vulnerable to ideologemes racist. Above all, traditional Marxism remained substantially blind to the danger of anti-Semitism, because he was not able to recognize the reference in the metaphysical structure of this real capitalist. The Marxist critique of sexism, racism and anti-Semitism did not go beyond the false universalism of the Enlightenment bourgeois was unprepared for this. And even in this postmodern culturalism can not overcome the deficit, but only aggravate it. The postmodern critique sexism, racism and antisemitism, phenomenologically reduced, remain confined to the "cult of difference", without giving prominence to the social foundations of these ideologies in the contradictions of the "automatic subject".
S and the formation of destructive ideologies can only be understood in the context of real modern metaphysics, however, they do not manifest themselves in any way 'objective' and as almost a natural law. Ideology does not begin automatically shapes the social value of "abstract labor" and the relationship between the sexes as a patriarchal hierarchy, but is independent of processing consciousness. Consciousness is related here, in fact, with its social conditions, not as mere "reflection", which would be as forced, but rather as a resolution (decision) in the negative. So individuals and institutions, as bearers of ideologies, are also responsible for the resulting hostile actions against other human beings. It was not objectively put ideology (sexist, racist, anti-Semitic), as it is objectively conditioned to "earn money" or to buy goods. From here you can not only ideology, but also its critical and the radical critique of the situation.
S and the formation of destructive ideologies can only be understood in the context of real modern metaphysics, however, they do not manifest themselves in any way 'objective' and as almost a natural law. Ideology does not begin automatically shapes the social value of "abstract labor" and the relationship between the sexes as a patriarchal hierarchy, but is independent of processing consciousness. Consciousness is related here, in fact, with its social conditions, not as mere "reflection", which would be as forced, but rather as a resolution (decision) in the negative. So individuals and institutions, as bearers of ideologies, are also responsible for the resulting hostile actions against other human beings. It was not objectively put ideology (sexist, racist, anti-Semitic), as it is objectively conditioned to "earn money" or to buy goods. From here you can not only ideology, but also its critical and the radical critique of the situation.
The a priori is the assimilation of the ideologies so the problems of existence under capitalism. The living conditions are not internalized the capitalist way put in question, but the social contradictions (including the subject's own contradictions) are thrown out through projections in the sense of universal competition. So it's not just the objective dynamic of self-contradiction of the "automatic subject", for which capitalist development is determined by its respective crises, but at the same time the modes of assimilation and subjective or ideological critics. Only two things together are the real social process.
ideology can not stop the objective dynamic of the "automatic subject" virarla or in another direction. How can self-time, however, co-determine the factual forms of development and sometimes mark them decisively. So it became a "community of the German people" Nazi, Auschwitz was at the center, even before the bottom shelf of the Great Depression in the first half of the twentieth century. However, National Socialism and its crimes were not the objective result of the crisis, but a product of ideological subjective intention of the Germans. This desire manifested itself simultaneously, for anything beyond the logic of value. On the contrary, the post-war Germany, triumphant in the world market, Ford profited from the modernization of National Socialism. Thus, in the real history of the crisis of modernization and the ideology of National Socialism has marked his unmistakable trace and expressed a "great possibility" contained in this development. For this critical theory today can only be made as critical theory after Auschwitz.
-
L a new theoretical position of "EXIT" would be incomplete if he could not explain to himself. This reflects the need to determine its historical position. We are not smarter than our predecessors in the critique of capitalism, but we are in a different historical situation, the more advanced. It is not time to proclaim an ultimate truth, absolute, "decontextualized," but to take into account the new historical context and to develop a new theoretical paradigm, which corresponds to the time that we face.
L a new theoretical position of "EXIT" would be incomplete if he could not explain to himself. This reflects the need to determine its historical position. We are not smarter than our predecessors in the critique of capitalism, but we are in a different historical situation, the more advanced. It is not time to proclaim an ultimate truth, absolute, "decontextualized," but to take into account the new historical context and to develop a new theoretical paradigm, which corresponds to the time that we face.
In this perspective, the old labor movement west, traditional Marxism, the political left up to today, the shipwrecked "real socialism" bureaucratic state of the east, as well as the movements and regimes of "national liberation" of South All they were still part of the story of the ascension and the imposition of the modern commodity producing system and its metaphysical reality. All these movements transcended the ontology of capitalism, but only reflect the non-simultaneity This ontology of history. It was essentially a process of modernization in late . The "unfinished moments" of the producer of goods not yet completed were occupied "by the left" itself became the engine of capitalist modernization.
In this sense, one must understand the October Revolution as the "French Revolution Europe." It was not to exceed the capitalist classes, but instead of installing them social "delayed" with the rest of the methods to be state capitalism, perfectly resembling those of the West several centuries ago. Even after the national liberation movements in the Third World will then follow this model. This interpretation should not be limited aspect of science and technology, in the sense of late industrialization. On the contrary, it was to install social forms of a commodity producing system, ie, replacement of personal obligations with the monetization el'economicizzazione all reports, the transition from traditional agrarian to bourgeois forms of the subject and the right , taxation (rather than abolition) of "abstract labor" and dissociation of the modern sexual. The emancipatory horizon of this process was nothing if not "struggle for recognition" in the ontology capitalism, namely the recognition of peripheral and employees as independent national entities world market.
The same applies, finally, the western labor movement. This was not national but social recognition, more specifically the legal recognition of employees as subjects within the formal system of producer goods. The citizenship officer, until the second half of the nineteenth century the bourgeoisie limited owner, should be extended to all members of society, just so the "automatic subject" could make and incorporate all the social reproduction. Through the struggle for freedom of association and assembly, the right to strike, the right to universal suffrage and equal etc. was given to the employees the subject schizoid bourgeois and citizen . In what consisted the "political capacity" and "state capacity" of the labor movement. The price was the internalization of "abstract labor", the auto-complete submission to the "automatic subject" and its legality, as well as the generalization of the sexual relationship of dissociation. The concept of "socialism" used to date in all its variants, can be reduced to a 'legal surplus "of this historic struggle for recognition" within the capitalist classes.
This does not mean that the limitation of historical criticism was absolutely inevitable, this was simply a fact. In social conflicts at the end of the eighteenth century there were many tense moments against the needs of "abstract labor" and dissociation of the report of sexual tension but this was later resolved in the ascending line of a continuous development of the real modern metaphysics. What gives us the right in the beginning of the XXI century, not only to develop a new theoretical paradigm, but also hoping for a mediation with the social practice? The answer to this question lies in the fact that the position of "EXIT" also includes a new theory of capitalist crisis.
-
T ll crisis to date have been crisis imposition of capital report, which was still in front of an area of \u200b\u200bhistorical development. Precisely for this reason social movements could take any positive momentum of accumulation that followed and were not forced into a categorical critique of social forms. With the third industrial revolution of microelectronics, however, the capital comes up against its absolute internal limit predicted by Marx. The "abstract labor" as the substance of the capital, has become superfluous to the same capitalist process, to the extent that the fading mechanisms compensation so far in force. This is precisely the reason why traditional Marxism lives a qualitatively new crisis, with the object of his criticism. We can not answer the impetus of global poverty and misery, which extends within the capitalist centers, or the fall of the new middle class, with the old concepts of "class struggle" of the "point of view of work ". The categorical crisis now demands for the first time a critical categorical, and the same Marxist thought, restricted to the ideology of modernization, is not prepared for this.
Crisis categorical means that it is no longer simply of a cyclical economic downturn, or a structural break in the transition to a new model of accumulation. " As can be seen in the process of globalization crisis, now the inherent limitation of "abstract labor" it is the crisis of politics and forms of state, democracy and nation. Disintegrate irreversibly bourgeois and citizen , the two souls in the bosom of the schizoid person. This includes elementary crisis of sexual identity and especially the male . The result is a wave of sexist violence, bullying against women and the mobilization of androcentric ideology on a global scale. While the "feminism of modernization", with the its lack of a concept of dissociation in the genesis of sexual inscribed modern form of illusion to give a shine to the hierarchy inherent sexual now in conservative ideologies of crisis growing, "the woman" is invoked as a resource for troubleshooting , as an instance of "maternal" without cost, which should mitigate the social breakdown, and on whose back it must be downloaded. Similarly rampant racist tendencies, "ethnicity" and anti-Semitic, as the fuse of the powder.
In this crisis the social world, to develop the categorical criticism of the modern commodity producing system and its metaphysics real does not mean "EXIT" develop concepts to overcome the short-term crisis and offer them an itinerant sale of ideas. The criticism has to be bad in principle and only the denial of funds may rise to a practical alternative. It is organizing a conscious use of resources and of human possibilities in new social institutions, instead of blindly following the "laws" of a "second nature" fetish. If categorical criticism in the past was a possibility not included, it has now become a necessity for survival. In this new historical situation becomes even more dangerous ideologies and the creation of yet more necessary becomes the critique of ideology (without abdicating objective analysis of the dynamics the crisis). Since the fundamental crisis of the modern relationship of the value-dissociation does not necessarily follow the release fetishism but rather that it is delivered to human action. Similarly, the path to barbarism and the 'sinking collective "(Marx) is also possible. The output is open.
The negativity is even more demand as the critical ontology include modern criticism of the ontological thinking in general. There is no ontological basis upon which to build. As there is no recourse to the Enlightenment, the bourgeois revolution and the myths of the "state of workers," so there is all the more reason, recourse to a idealized pre-modernity. The theory of "EXIT" rejects any agrarian romanticism, such as the one raging in France between the left postsituazionista as ideological reaction to the end of traditional Marxism. Much less can be considered positively, as the 'wholly other "activities such as physical and cultural-symbolic powers attributed to women, everything is designed to complement the" masculine ". Women are not better human beings and what is attributed also means a forced reduction of human possibilities, as well as the subordination to the process of capitalist production.
remains to place the question of the relationship of the new theoretical approach to "EXIT" with the theory of Marx. It is not "orthodox" nor of "revisionism", but development of a heterodox. In this perspective, one should speak of a "dual Marx," Marx as it can be shown in two different and contradictory lines of argument: first, a positive modernization theory, which considers the development capital as "necessary" not yet concluded , to give it a "civilizing mission" and, secondly, a critical theory of fetishism modern, so categorical that the connection is already at the base. The workers' movement and the movement national liberation could only do something with the first, with the Marx "positivist" modernization still not finished, wrapped in categories capitalist, while the other left disappear Marx, the critic categorical, which actually even wanted to understand. To "EXIT" on the contrary, the important thing is just make use of this second line of argument of Marx and continue to develop, with the concepts of metaphysics and modern real sexual relationship of dissociation, ie, thinking to go beyond Marx Marx .
-
S to understand why the new theoretical approach to "EXIT" caused the most violent defensive reactions from the side of the remaining traditional Marxism, including its postmodern variants. The debate on the "critical work" and "critical value-dissociation", initially limited to the area of \u200b\u200bGerman, has since expanded in Latin countries. Translations of important texts of writers and authors of "EXIT" out in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, and also in China and Japan. Becomes all the more necessary to introduce this new formulation and continued development of Marx's theory in space Anglo-Saxon. The group around the "EXIT" is convinced that the new theoretical paradigm "is in the air," and that throughout the world develop independently approaches and elements of this theoretical work. The debate is just beginning, and will be as transnational capital itself as if critical thinking is to overcome his paralysis.
S to understand why the new theoretical approach to "EXIT" caused the most violent defensive reactions from the side of the remaining traditional Marxism, including its postmodern variants. The debate on the "critical work" and "critical value-dissociation", initially limited to the area of \u200b\u200bGerman, has since expanded in Latin countries. Translations of important texts of writers and authors of "EXIT" out in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, and also in China and Japan. Becomes all the more necessary to introduce this new formulation and continued development of Marx's theory in space Anglo-Saxon. The group around the "EXIT" is convinced that the new theoretical paradigm "is in the air," and that throughout the world develop independently approaches and elements of this theoretical work. The debate is just beginning, and will be as transnational capital itself as if critical thinking is to overcome his paralysis.
translation by LPZ
-
original Kapitalismuskritik für das 21. Jahrhundert http://www.exit-online.org/link.php?tabelle=selbstdarstellung&posnr=7
0 comments:
Post a Comment