Rom Pokemon Shiny Gold Gpsphone

1. Logic and ethos of the company's work

1.1 The winner baffled

Never was there so late. With the collapse of socialism, its time dissolves and becomes history. The familiar constellation of the global society of the period after World War II crumbles before our eyes so incredibly sharp. This is the end of an era and yet a question arises spontaneously: at the end of which was? From the perspective of the conflict between West and East, gone into the background, it would seem at first glance that the West has triumphed and that the system has proved the best.
If the concept of conflict between systems was understood literally, then it can not be do more than take note of a social policy, economic theory and practice of colossal proportions that no one would ever have thought possible (and even less so in so short a time). "A specter is haunting staggering" (Süddeutsche Zeitung ). In the Soviet Union, but not only there, you go to the repudiation "of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe dictatorship of the proletariat" and the celebration of private property while it is being proclaimed the transition to a market economy in accordance with the principle of competition. Together with the central giant fell into the knee with the companies its suburbs, regions subject to it and its ideal standard-bearers. The Democratic Republic Germany has put an end to his day and even suicide in Hungary ", the capitalist becomes the positive figure." In Italy the Communist Party, whose passage into the ranks of social democracy, however, had already consumed a long time, ensures that "the hammer and sickle but with plenty of scrap iron," while the Italian intellectual class, with its challenge of Marxism, is making a " patricide disinterest. " Libya's Gaddafi "attempts a cautious move away from rigid socialism of the revolution." In Ethiopia, Mengistu "renunciation of Marxism," Mozambique, as well as Angola, turn their backs "impoverished Marxism" while the Hanoi government "Relies on John Maynard Keynes."
This anthology of quotations, drawn from publications since 1989, could easily continue ad libitum. It is no wonder then that more of an ideologue of the apparent victor in history has fallen prey to euphoria. In the summer of 1989 Francis Fukuyama, deputy director of the planning staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs United States, in an article in the quarterly The National Interest , decreed in such haste as the know-all "end of history, a ruling which, if disclosed was meteoric and since then is repeated ad nauseum. As if that were not enough Fukuyama's thesis was based on the Hegelian conception of a "final form of the rational society and the state" whose authentic, as individuals, their realization would be the American way of life . And the columnist of the 'International Herald Tribune Charles Krauthammer thought that was the answer, at least embarrassing, to the' Plato's question about the best form of government. "
Indeed it is virtually impossible to challenge the evidence of a victory on the Western world continue to be valid if the criteria of previous systemic and especially if a conflict appears metacritica even inconceivable. But this is precisely the dilemma. It is true that the West has acted in a conscious and self-conscious on that land now under the illusion of treading in triumph? Moreover, if the negative reaction of the Western left the tearful cries of jubilation official of the leaders of the market economy, is just a pity the gerontocracy ineligible for state-owned economy to Potjomkin treated as innocent victims of "arrogance and aggression Permanent imperialism "1, this means only that the exponents of this Left does not include any more reality and act as combatants of the Cold War, bruised and suffering from the ailments of old age, who suddenly feel rejuvenated as a but they do not know what to do with the bride had a gift. The spectral character of the forms of ideological reaction to the sight of the collapse of the East, coming both from the field of the left than the right, on the one hand refers to the fact that all these forms belong to an era now twilight, but on the other hand there you recognize, like lifting a veil, the singular lack of basic social processes of the subject. The actors in the global constellation
hitherto existing shed the mask - and not only on both banks of the Elbe -, evident in their pitiable condition of mere automata of a blind and objectified historical development that is behind them. This is precisely the reason for the loss of the West before the collapse of his sworn enemy, the system of socialism, and that is one with the shock of such a gerontocracy of socialism. A strange winner, stunned by his own superiority and the consequences of his victory. But it was not the work of Western political classes during the conflict to cause systemic collapse of socialism, but rather the dramatic failure of its internal functional mechanisms, then the inability to perceive this potential crisis and disaster by elites both political and economic spheres, which certainly does not lack the information, brings out the truth on both sides of the holders of power, at least outwardly, to be afflicted by the same form of blindness.
But if both factions are overwhelmed by the power of social processes similar to that of a natural phenomenon, then one could assume the existence of a common basis to both systems antagonists. E 'therefore possible that the land on which they have battled is now starting to falter. And in the middle-class journalism to the triumphant cries but a bit 'naive ideologues of immediacy, are already beginning to stir and cautionary voices doubtful: "It will be really the perfect society, forever destined to triumph over socialism? "(Dönhoff Gräfin, Die Zeit 22/09/1989). In all fairness the company of the Western system does not seem to have even the air. However, some bad feeling on the part of individuals who, despite everything, consider this system as their system and then they take the defense, could be interpreted as a self-indulgent to mitigate a bit 'deep satisfaction at the triumph.
Whatever the wisdom of moderation dripping the Western consciousness manifest in relation to their victory - and live only to prevent the unleashing of God's wrath in because of their hubris - it is rather to understand whether the particular crisis of the system loses, he represented only the beginning of a total crisis that could threaten the presumed winner, and that has its roots in the fundamentals common to both systems, if it were just these funds could provide a solid basis for a metacritica. Certainly, the bourgeois ideology of modernity has already produced long items such metacritica but was unable to penetrate the foundations of society that remain enigmatic. Since the early 50's theories of "convergence" in the West had predicted a realignment, for better or worse, of these forms of society, only in appearance, seemed to be mutually exclusive.
On the one hand the internal affinity was reduced to those on common assumptions of modern technology and natural sciences, especially by all those currents inspired by the cultural pessimism that charge the crises in the twentieth century the industrial base of society as such (see eg Freyer 1955) and admit a possibility, if anything, exceeded only by reference to a sale ontological irrepressible. Secondly the idea of \u200b\u200bconvergence is nourished by all the economic doctrines, impregnated with Keynes, who argued the absolute necessity an interpenetration of both market mechanisms as the state regulation: the East was to legitimize the role of the market and West should have done the same with the state. But this view is limited to enable the dualism that characterizes eclectic in many ways, the modern bourgeois consciousness theory: the relationship between market and state assumes the appearance of a conflict but indissoluble marriage between reality and its concept and the same is true for dyads as "individual" and "society", "production" and "circulation" or "economy" and "political" and so on. Again a historical element, specific companies is converted with a modern spirit conciliatory and moderate pessimism, in an ontological element.
However we have not seen or to assimilate a reconciliation between the market and the state nor a process of ontological transformation of industrial societies highly scientific, but only to a historic collapse. If this breakdown does not indicate the victory of the Western market system - which is designed as a training totally alien to socialism ignominiously departed - but it highlights a common basis to both systems, unsafe, and on Sunset Boulevard, then a that basis must be sought beyond the paradigm of industrial society and over the relationship between the market and the state. The market and the state, just as the agents of technology and science set in motion, obeying the logic of basic social deeper, identify it as the work company fails to appoint an absolutely fundamental ontological condition of humanity.
If the perplexity of the most thoughtful among the "winners" represent something much more self-criticism of a hypocritical the number one story after all very sure of himself, if indeed the same gradual maturing objectively a global crisis of such proportions as to justify much more seriously than you had anticipated the ominous portents of skeptical voices that call for caution, in that case this crisis should be located at that level on which you will find all the social systems of modernity yet known. The expression crisis of labor society in circulation for some time, while alluding to a particular problem so far, without reference to the basic forms of society, may have originated from the presentiment of this metacrisi developing.


1.2 abstract labor as a mechanism for its own sake

may seem all the more strange to talk of a crisis of society in the work, since, as bourgeois ideology, and Marxism the labor movement - and even greater extent - have always identified in the "work" the essence of supra-human, Marxism became what his eyes seemed to be a positive foundation in the universal core of his criticism of bourgeois society. The social and historical anatagonismo of modernity, which the Marxists conceived as class struggle was fought on the common ground of labor society, the limits of time and become visible in the final crisis is approaching.
work as such, defined in its arid abstraction, it is not in any way a supra-category. In its historic form it is nothing specifically that the use abstract and corporate human labor power and raw materials. In this sense it is specific to modernity and as such has become an unquestioned assumption in equal measure of both systems of post-war antagonists. Nevertheless, the work in its singular abstraction can also be determined by the equally distinctive character of an end in itself. This tautological is the element that distinguishes both the bourgeois West and the modern labor movement, the pride fetish against an expenditure of labor-intensive and the greatest possible, unencumbered by practical needs, subjective and sensitive, becomes visible in the "point of view of the worker" and ethos of abstract labor.
Nowhere is this Protestant ethos of abstract labor in a society shaped to become a working machine - which as Weber pointed to the historical and ideological brand of capitalism - was carried out with greater fervor and rigor in the labor movement and formations of socialism.
does not matter if the reasons justifying the subordination of man to machine the work is no longer related to individuals but rather to the state and its economic metaobiettivi; submission to the abstraction "work" appears only in a more coarse and stiff, as they do not yet have the fallacious semblance of a personal purpose. Would be most valid mutatis mutandis the lesson of Max Weber:

But above all the "summum bonum" of this age, the gain of money and more money, so bare of any order or simply eudaimonistic hedonistic is designed in such purity as a goal in itself, that in the face of happiness and usefulness of the individual appears as something entirely transcendent and even irrational.
The gain is considered as the goal of human life, and not as a means to satisfy their material needs. (Weber 1920)

But this inversion in the context of the "sense" subjective, by which Max Weber describes a reversal, but does not perceive clearly, in the reproductive process of society (3) could only derive historically from religious-ideological climate of Protestantism, but under the new (middle-class ) created in this context should not necessarily be limited to this particular place in history with its disguise ideals

's ability to concentrate the mind, as the attitude of those who feel forced in front of their work, they are here in especially frequently combined with a strict economy which calculates the gain and its degree, and with a strict rule of himself and a propriety, which remarkably increase the capacity to work.
E 'this is the better place for that approach to work as a goal in itself, as a vocation, which requires capitalism, here it is most likely to win, thanks to religious education, the traditionalist routine. [...] The hatred and persecution of Methodists, for example, workers had to endure from their fellow workers in the 18th century, had no connection with their religious eccentricity [...] but with the hard work that was their specific . (Weber, op. Cit.)

Socialism of the labor movement was never too far away from this framework to the fetishistic reasons, its ancient Protestantism. If he put religion at the office of the abstract work, it transformed it into a secular religion of national wealth and totally foreign to the deified human needs, its socialism for the Russians, on the threshold of the modern bourgeois, more or less a substitute appropriate that the religious element was constitutive of the capitalist mode of production in Western Europe after the Reformation.
stakhanovites Alexei, the man on the night of August 31, 1935, in the Donetsk basin, would have less than 102 tons of coal extracted during a round of five hours and 45 minutes, became an icon and a myth of Soviet work, and he embodied the very principle of capitalist abstract expense of labor in which the work is placed as an end in itself tautological. The natural character of the 'ideology of tons "is limited merely to express this principle as abstract material and products, deprived of their sensible qualities. It 'very pervasive in this regard the observation of Thomas Mann, who in June 1919, in the reflections on the composition of his novel The Magic Mountain notes:

(...) This paper on the work abstract does not see diminished its value to the fact that it was composed in the language of the artist rather than in the critical political economy. It 's a direct attack, liberating and prophetic, that glorification of the work that has made it the de facto socialism in the labor movement a mere "extension" of the principle of capitalism instead of a factor able to work to overcome: the social reality of the Union Soviet socialism, assumed precisely the historical task of imposing such a principle.


1.3 The social form of commodity-producing system

Undoubtedly, the Protestant principle of diligence abstract and detached from the sensitive content does not express simply a moral postulate, on the contrary its peculiar morality stems from the formal structure of a society in which work becomes an end in itself and the society itself in a time machine to the expenditure of labor power. But was this social form that defies Weber (and not only to him) which ended with the so presume as an axiom. Only by taking the moves from this form, the determination of which seems to create enormous difficulties, you can understand the work of the modern era in its historical specificity, beyond any fundamental ontological condition.
This particular form of existence of the work with his concept, is in fact incompatible with all earlier social formations in human history, since in the latter work, its product and appropriation of the latter, they remain essentially in their actual form, immediate and sensitive as "use values" in the language political economy. Although the work as labor in the sense of the ancients, namely fatigue and misery, occupying the whole horizon of life most people, this fact was, however, correlated with the degree of development of productive forces in the relatively small "process of metabolism with nature" (Marx), the work was a necessity imposed by nature, but precisely for this reason it was not a waste of abstract labor power and an end in itself of the company. In
goods-producing system of modernity, the logic of necessity is reversed: the extent to which the productive forces, thanks to industrialization and highly scientific, coercion and break the cage of "first nature", they are again trapped by secondary social coercion, generated unconsciously. The form of social reproduction based on the commodity becomes a "second nature" the need for which, as in the case of "first nature" is opposed to individuals blindly and binding, although its matrix is \u200b\u200bpurely social. The company
labor understood as an ontological concept, is merely a tautology in the past because the social organization, whatever its forms derived from the work was necessarily characterized. Of a society without work than you could fantasize, maybe naive in the representations of Paradise or the fables of the land of Cockaigne. But since the Renaissance, the natural correlation between effort and production of wealth was exploded by money.
To modern consciousness the fact that living labor by dead labor is transformed into the production of goods and thus "represents" (Marx's expression) in the form of embodiment of money is obvious. In fact, although the real money a category that has broken through different historical formations, the category of fundamental economic value that lies within it, has been the subject of systematic reflection only in the modern economic theories. In the goods-value products are abstract things, deprived of their sensitive content and only in this peculiar form of delivering the social mediation. Marxian critique of political economy in this economic value is determined in a purely negative, as a form of representation completely separated from any concrete content and sensitive reified , fetishistic , And died of abstract social labor past, embodied in products and where the trend within the movement and immanent formal relationships of exchange leads him to become money because "something abstract." The value is the trademark of a company that is not master of himself.
In contradiction to this view, the bourgeois theory, beginning with his classic, accepted this form as if it were a priori, in fact giving up all attempts to fathom. It is precisely his "natural" seemed to be the best proof of its ontological nature, free from any further clarification from the theoretical investigation. But in this way the inversion that replaces the "first nature "with the" second "reports a cover-up: this inversion have been set up all of the modern society and it is precisely in order to rise to the character itself of modern business.
The goods in premodern societies was something quite different from the goods of the modern age: it could not in any way as a form of social reproduction, while being a mere "form of niche" (Marx) in the context of relations of production and ownership typical of economies "natural" in those circumstances the company as a whole was not depicted as a producer of certain goods. The work aimed at producing goods (for example the work of craftsmen in the cities) remained confined within the horizon of the social use value: this production was intended only for the exchange of concrete objects. For this reason, we can correctly claim that these products are "exhausted in use value" (Marx), but had to go through the abstractions inherent in the process of market exchange.
But that's not the case with the modern production of goods. The value, the figure of the surplus , never high in the past to the status of relations of production, is no longer just a form of social mediation of use-values \u200b\u200bbut sensitive ends instead interact with itself tautologically with : fetishistic process becomes self-reflexive and so is the abstract labor as a mechanism end in itself. Now this process does not "run out" more in use value, but it manifests itself as self-movement of money namely how to transform a amount of abstract labor and died in a greater amount of abstract labor and death (capital gains ) and then as a tautological process of self-reproduction and the money only in this form becomes capital and thus becomes a modern. But the existence of money as capital expenditure shall release the Working from the creation of significant value in use and converts it to an end in itself abstract. The work now appears to live only as an expression of empowerment dead labor, while the product is just as sensitive and specific expression of abstraction-money.
The human and material resources (labor-power, tools, machinery, raw materials and finished products) are no longer used tout court to the satisfaction of needs in the "process of replacement with nature" but are tautological self-reflection of the money creates "more money". In other words, the practical needs may continue to be met unless there is a production of surplus value, detached from any sensitive content and that it is stated in the course of an unconscious process as the production of abstract corporate earnings. The exchange market is no longer aimed at the social mediation of goods for use but rather the realization of the gain that is the metamorphosis of the work in dead money, and the mediation of property use is just a byproduct of this phenomenon particular process that takes place in terms of money.
In this way the life process of individuals and society as a whole is subjected to the terrifying banality of money and its tautological self-movement that occurs at the surface in its various historical decline, as the well-known "market economy" modern. Behind the graceful subjectivity that operates the exchange market lies the rugged man of work "that only in extremely rough form takes the shape of a stakhanovites, behind the gleaming facade of colorful boxes of use values \u200b\u200blies the fetish character capital product that reduces them to a ghostly "jelly labor" (Marx). Their existence is only sensitive to a marginal phenomenon and a necessary evil for the process based on the abstract work and money.
The submission of the sensitive content of the work and the needs of blind self-reflection of the money has something monstrous. During the development of modernity this aberration occurred throughout history, and ever-increasing scale, the crisis in which massive human and material resources remain unused because, inexplicably, are no longer able to comply with the processing, an end in itself, working in live money.
On the other hand the development of modern productive forces generated through the steps of an adversarial process closely, leading to a massive expansion of the needs and opportunities for individuals. During the historical influence of the modern system of producer goods eclipse its unintended side effects for a long time its negative content with positive elements. Until this system was able to perform worthily his "civilizing mission" (Marx), it "worked", asserting against all pre-modern relations of production, corporate and static. The crises were nothing but mere interruption of this process of ascent and appeared every time overcome in principle.
Even the modern labor movement was integrated in this constellation of commodity-producing system in his sweeping ascent phase, along with his Marxism, which represents the corresponding theoretical analysis and finally to the genesis of the modern version of the socialist society of work, which collapse has taken place before our eyes. Imprisoned within the horizon of the rise of the historical work the abstract end in itself tautological character of the latter could not be overcome either the ideal plane or on that material.
The 'market planned "Europe, as this definition suggests, not abolished even a small part of the market categories, and for this reason even in socialism remade their appearance all the basic categories of capital: wage, price and profit (business income). The same basic principle of abstract labor was not only assimilated but also enhanced the extreme.
So what is really the difference between the systems is starting to fade? From the beginning he had no real socialism any chance of overcoming the capitalist society of modernity as it was the same part of the bourgeois system of producer goods and therefore it does not replace this historical form of socialization with a different form but simply embodies a distinct stage of development within the same formation epoch . The promise of a post-bourgeois future now reveals its true nature of pre-bourgeois regime of transition to modernity, condemned to stagnation, a fossil of the heroic past of the capital.



Notes 1. Prince Grigory A. Potjomkin (1739 - 1791) was a favorite of Catherine the Great. After the Russian conquest of Crimea took steps to repopulate the territory of the other founding the city of Sevastopol. But to get the approval of the empress did not hesitate to organize grotesque staging, ordering the construction of a large number of fake villages, where buildings had only one side of paper, that the Empress, eager to personally inspect the work of his lover, he could see from the window of his carriage without smell the deception. Often these pseudo-villages were dismantled soon after the passage of the Empress (NDT).
2. At present this argument is presented again, in a formulation more in keeping with the times, by ecologists or fundamentalists who are totally unaware its origin from a Lebensphilosophie full of cultural pessimism, or strive in every way to disown. But critics immediately to the natural sciences and industrialization, as has always been throughout its history almost bisecolare, invariably ends by assuming a value so that nullifies the historical character of social formations and converts the real crisis in social ontological crisis . The fundamentalist irrationalism (both ecological as religious) that draws its substance from its impracticality makes it suitable to the role of ideology legittimatoria negative.
3. Weber, however, unlike Marx, not subjected to any formal criticism of modern society of work, which forms the basis of the nature and ontological appeared instead, an opinion shared by both the rest of the Marxist workers' movement by members bourgeois political economy.
4. Significantly, the critical concept of "value" of the Marxian theory, denounced as a form fetish, it undergoes the ideology of the labor movement throughout the treatment refused by the affirmative definition of the worker as "creator of value." However, through this ideological figure, the contrast is impossible to reconcile, between exchange value and use value sensitive fetishistic finally degenerates into a formless mush no conceptual content.

Best Standard Definition Camcorder 2010

2. Statism and monetarism in the historical process of modernity

2.1 The invention of the manufacturer of the goods by the State

For superficial analysis, the different systems that would identify the nature of capitalist socialism, now dying, would seem to consist in its structure statist control all functions of the production of goods had to bow to prior decisions of a political nature. However, at the dawn of modernity in the West were established statist regimes of transition, which took both the form of absolutism as that of the mercantilist system of the French Revolution that, irony of fate, was born after the overthrow of a monarchy absolute.
The State of enlightened absolutism, the Public Health Committee of Robespierre and the system synthetic Bonapartist empire differed only by minor differences in terms of their function protocapitalistica modernization. The foundation common to all factions, the ideas and forces that were battling at that time, it identified the unique role and importance of social statism between the seventeenth and early nineteenth century, this role differs significantly from that of the regulatory state and social and Keynesian postkeynesiano of the twentieth century, even in the presence of contact points, ties and ideological similarities. Today's State
Keynesian based on welfare and development and characterized by mass democracy, is based on a capitalist social structure and preformed very different. But statism protocapitalista mercantilist era, this stage was still all to come. It was first settled accounts with the decomposition products of corporate feudalism that is, with relations of production, whose structure was largely typical of agrarian civilization.
Since the lowest degree of penetration of capitalist socialization, this mercantilist statism could not possibly intervene effectively in social reproduction as it did following the rule of the mass of late capitalism, extremely organized and able to infiltrate with the arm of its institutions, down to the pores of society. But precisely for this reason it had to attack the company was faced with fiercer militancy, the most repressive and brutal violence claims more ideologically rigid. Only when the capitalist society was able to really establish itself and to act according to their own conditions, began to assert that Marx had identified as the mark of this specific social formation:

(...)

Similarly to what happened during the turbulent early days of mercantilism, the alleged outside the State, to be charged to the fragility the process of socialization internal, returns once again in the formations of socialism in this way that reveals its nature of modernizing regime protocapitalistico, good for bourgeois society backward. This fact is evident in the many phenomena came to light thanks to glasnost and, from the standpoint of Western antediluvian reflect weaknesses in the ability of state intervention on society (1).
While today the welfare state and Keynesian regulative gives way, from the beginning, quite naturally, to a market economy and existing total waste - of which it is itself a product - and refers expressly its operations and its activities to the regulatory and administrative capacity to function in this economy, mercantilist statism protocapitalistico had to take at that time, in an illusory manner, the role of the absolute subject of society and its economy. In the century draws to a close, albeit at a higher level of development, this phenomenon was repeated in the claims of statist socialism. The absolutist state
proto certainly did not invent the economic policy nor the political economy of abstract wealth and "nonsensical" to keep running, the autonomy of its laws, a manufacturer of goods is still embryonic. On the contrary, his ambition was to subject the economy as a maid and was only in the name of this ambition is the sort of modern political economy. The maintenance of the court and the standing army of the absolute monarch - a legacy of previous development, which began in the Renaissance - could no longer be financed on the basis of feudal possessions of kings and princes, has always been their main source of income ( 2).
To increase the revenue of the sovereign had to create a universal tax system. But this measure not only gave rise to the fundamental features of modern financial economics but also required the stimulus and the conscious control of commodity production as key of taxes on money, increasing both exports and a planned increase in production of goods that would go well beyond the corporate limits of the productive forces. Manufacturing, the forced division of labor and the forced recruitment of labor force employed cheap created by the decomposition of feudal society in the process of dissolution, led to a new mode of production that soon broke the limited purpose of absolutism.
In his famous chapter on "so-called primitive accumulation, Marx described the blind and spontaneous breaking of the elements of this process. On the one hand it was money-capital which drew its strength from the colonial system and the credit absolutist state:

indebtedness of the state and therefore the state primary ingredient of capital accumulation that reappeared in the twentieth century and in a much more frightening, was already a reality in the prehistory of the proto accumulation process that will follow later.
other hand the elements of the modern wage labor had to be created from scratch through immediate action and violent state. From the fifteenth century, the incessant transformation of slaves and serfs in "free" wage workers and the "liberation" of social tenants and small independent farmers through exclusion brutal from their plots of land converted to pasture available for large landowners, could only be achieved through coercive state administration of work, the militarization and state terrorism:

In fact, the prototype of those "jobs "Today the modern wage workers are competing avidly were literally the prison and the barracks of work:

In France the workers, especially those of real factories, often living in housing located within the factories themselves. - The workers of several factories real live inside them just like the soldiers in the barracks and come out only during Holidays - Other witnesses take the phrase "cloistered penalty" for their way of life. The timing of work, meals, prayers and sleep were closely regulated. And the severity of this discipline is still small compared to the treatment suffered by many workers in manufacturing plants in Germany for which an expression of the time speaks of prison internment. This means that a not insignificant share of the manufacturing plants was identical to the prison. In Germany not only the inmates employed as spinners but they built prisons and prisoners captured in order to recruit workers for the factories. (Kuczynsky 1967)

Failure to decipher their aspirations as part of a modernization of the prison work testifies to the historical blindness of the labor movement, this is particularly evident in the case of the Soviet Union. At each stage of modernization of the state primary producer of goods has always appeared in the foreground, although in many different shapes and clothes. Absolutism was just one of the earliest forms of statism phenomenal but did not disappear at all with that.
The revolutionary regimes and Bonapartism certainly changed their purpose in society and their ideologies legittimatorie but only in order to continue to support the expansion of commodity production, forced from absolutism, until it became a system of social reproduction, able to walk on their own feet. In the perception of the protagonists changed only governmental entity, but in reality it was only to be truly unleashed the blind self-money: an historical process that is only now finally beginning to enter its final phase.
Alexis de Tocqueville was first to penetrate and describe these links in an exemplary way today. In his work The Old Regime and the Revolution he shows how the break with the 'ancien régime were not so absolute as it may seem, its theoretical starting point, as opposed to ideological illusions of revolutionaries, is given intrinsic identity of absolutism and the French Revolution, whose radical disagreement just mark a break point in a process basic unit:

(...)

This approach was certainly in keeping with that of Marx. The ideological criticism allows Tocqueville to recognize and describe the continuity of despotism:

(...)

The 'homogeneity' and the 'uniformity' of the social body, established by both ' absolutism as the revolution are nothing more than his training for the production system the nascent market. The extraordinary thing is that Tocqueville recognized this connection while not expressing it (as the analytical "political superstructure") in the categories of Marx's critique of the way, but precisely for this reason he can be considered a sort of Marx's critique political institutions of modern democracies with the underlying commodity-form. Without allowing the distorting ideological disguises Tocqueville realizes how precarious is the illusion of the bourgeois subject that manifests itself in the same manner as in nell'assolutismo democracy, the will to control the entity created by the commodity-form against the structure formal, no person above it. It is not certain from the consciousness that can be explained as:

(...)

This logic of the "dissolution" goes far beyond the situation at the time, when this term was often exploited the reaction for purposes clearly aristocratic counter-revolutionaries. Tocqueville refers rather to the final outcome of this process of dissolution in our time where it has practically concretized the abstract individual as monad dell'automovimento puppet, devoid of subject, the commodity-form:

(...)

This observation is even more remarkable since Tocqueville does not talk like a conservative or reactionary ideologue of the old aristocracy, but as a champion of critical new company, however, is not willing to silent about the subjugation of this society to the "unknown power" of abstract labor movement and its tautological. Precisely for this reason his statements rispecchianonon only the prehistory of the goods-producing system of the eighteenth century and the first part of the nineteenth century, but also, with shocking frankness, the end of our time, the twentieth century. The modernity of real despotism
absolutism is, no subject of money, or of abstract labor and its use in corporate form. The despotism of historical as well as the absolute rulers of the French Revolution, far from there as statist self-determination can determine their own meaningful goals, it was only the midwife of this rough fetish absolutism. Simply fulfilled the function of "islands within the walls" of an abstract privacy, individuals who had begun to break their feudal chains, today, however, these walls, in which they live without being forced, obvious cracks begin to show and appear in verge of collapse. When western citizens shuddered and reacted with disgust to the vision, for example, the "blue ants" in China, the "soldiers of the work subjected to a despotic command, they had before their eyes, as a recovery accelerated in the past of their own society: the stage embryo of those subjects that they themselves are today.
The illusion on the subject, which characterizes the bourgeois modernization, from absolutism created and perpetuated by the French Revolution and then by Bonaparte and the West began to weaken, at least at the ideological level, only the last stage of the nineteenth century ( 3), was inherited in the early twentieth century by the October Revolution in Russia and from socialism that was derived and whose ideological camouflage concealed as best the reality. In this case, Tocqueville's theory about the identity of "old regime" and "revolution" in the modernizing middle class proves even more relevant. Under the conditions of an already relatively high stage of development of commodity-producing system in the West and a competitive struggle already advanced in the world market, each new advance in the modernization of the undeveloped regions of the world had to be impressed with the character of a development recovery particularly brutal in which the proto statism was not only repeated but reappeared in a purer form, strict compliance to the prototype and subsequent western that had long completed its task.

2.2 The State of rational bourgeois Fichte and its reflection in the real socialism

Ideologies by their very nature are more coherent and consistent, reflecting the social reality in a modified form and distorted. Consequently, in the historical sequence of social formations, these ideologies, or at least made appear as realizable only in the reality of a degree of development to which they represent an advance - if it was this fact, one day, be recognized and interpreted . For example, the classical philosophy Germany has in many ways and under many guises, direct and indirect reflections, even epistemological character, the logic of modern goods, ideally in advance of the subsequent stages of development. From time to time, this relationship is manifested clearly in the writings of economic theory and policy.
This is especially evident if one compares the reality of statist socialism in the first half of the twentieth century with the most progressive ideas in the field of social theory and the programmatic needs of the late mercantilist, illustrated in a way unparalleled in Germany from Fichte's pamphlet on "The State closed commercial," written in the autumn 1800, whose central thesis might seem astonishing. The "rational state" bourgeois Fichte already presupposes a producer of goods, ie where the "products" are from the beginning "goods", mediated through the "exchange" and:

(... )

The attempt to achieve the "rational state" of Fichte with its planned production of goods would be taken only 120 years later. Is unclear how the collapse of the Soviet economy today marks the much delayed sinking German bourgeois idealism than the obsolescence of the Marxian critique political economy, where real socialism could refer only to a crude and superficial. This link is strengthened when Fichte surprising, not only features his "rational state" by the planned production of goods, but defines "property" right to work as that makes the employee a citizen in every respect:

planned and market right to work (or obligation to work under the direction of the State): this is the crux of the economic program of socialism, in fact it is only mercantilism ideological, programmatic already theorized in the infancy of rise of modernity. At the end Fichte also illustrates the decisive third character of a state:

(...)

The state monopoly of foreign trade of socialism was already covered in coherent program of mercantilism. All the crucial elements and basic shapes, apparently not capitalist, socialism of the Soviet state of the twentieth century (and all similar arrangements) had been themed by capitalism and its ideological progressives at the turn of the industrial age; are not substantially unrelated to the principal or the system manufacturer of the goods but structural features of its historical origin and therefore must return to the genesis of vogue when that should occur scratch. But, to this end, Marx's critique of political economy was unnecessary since all the essential elements of "socialism" could be traced already in a generation before Fichte.
Capitalism that is triggered the production of goods, became dell'automovimento playback system in the form of money, not coveted from the beginning, the pure "free money" as claimed in the continuation of ideologues such as the right to left. It would be appropriate to speak of an oscillating movement of opposing elements of the history of bourgeois modernization in which the elements statist and monetary alternate and interpenetrate each other constantly. Theories of convergence fully reflect this phenomenon, but in attenuated form, not as a form of basic motion of an insoluble conflict of modernity, which until the crisis grows more serious, but as an eclectic and Conciliation aconcettuale of this central contradiction.
The state and the market conditions the other but not in the sense of integration, ideally balanced between complementary elements of a social civilizzatoria but as institutionalization of furious conflict and hostility that leads to disaster and annihilation. Victims of their inability to perceive its determination formal parties shall cooperate to their own destruction.
Authentic basic conflict of modernity, is not that between "labor" and "not working" as he always assumed the naive Marxist labor movement and class struggle, but the one between social content and shape social and unconscious of the work itself. This monstrous abuse of the system manufacturer of the goods or the subordination of all purposes and all human values \u200b\u200band quality of all the needs without sensitive to the quality of the work process of transforming the dead money in more money, make it necessary contradiction Standing between the state and institutional market as external representation contrast inherent in the system. The internal laceration of the bourgeois subject is shown in its dual and separate existence as an agent of the money market on one side and the other a citizen of the State.
The State, the other flying machine next to the alienation money, for its part, assumes a dual nature. Historically, in a proto form, absolutist or dictatorial bourgeois and revolutionary, is the midwife of the system of producer goods, but at the same time is part and immanent, is the institutional guarantor of maintaining the general conditions of capitalism, but at the same time acts as a regulating factor involved actively in the process reproduction of the work as soon as the dead areas "unproductive" infrastructure (research, waste disposal, health and social care, education, repair of destructive social and ecological processes) begin to choke the structure of self-movement of money, and finally from the point of Ideologically, the State appears to be as Moloch "devourer of men" (Glucksmann 1978) and Leviathan monster that constantly threatens to overwhelm the 'authentic' bourgeois subjectivity, both as a deus ex machina , friction and soothing for all the suffering of negative socialization.
This contradiction between state and market is reproduced as an inherent contradiction to the State and where there is the intractable conflict of modernity, the historical movement that generates oscillatory alternative domain in which statism and monetarism without ever establishing the balance of production of goods not subject to interference: from statism absolutist and revolutionary proto era, liberalism Manchester and then the "nightwatchman state" of industrial capitalism in its ascending phase, from the later imperial era statism of the war economy, the state anti-crisis of Keynesianism and finally to the counter- monetarist and global response to deregulation, which now appears already obsolete. At the end of its history, the goods-producing system appears to have shortness of breath. Statism and monetarism alternate in an ever more frenetic as will be shown later.
Socialism of the labor movement could not possibly realize the program of Marx's critique of political economy, for which he was not yet time (the same in this respect Marx was systematically illusions). Instead, the real socialism repeated late-mercantilist ideas of Fichte leads to the "realization". But for this purpose, it inevitably had to focus his attention on the modern state and its interests, and machine building system manufacturer of the goods, the illusion of able to use as an instrument for the "liberation of the working class" through a simple inversion of the sign of "class".





Notes 1. The fact that in China, the central government's tax collectors are taken with a stick and confined in sties by farmers, fits perfectly with the massacre of the State of Tien An Men Square and the ambition to control, rough and the immediate the arrangements in respect of a market economy in the process of liberalization. These contradictions, sometimes gruesome, the process of capitalist modernization have occurred during the formation of capitalism in the West; of them, however, no longer a concrete memory. Those who remain shocked at the sight of the phenomena occurring in Russia and China, instead of acknowledging the past of labor society, democracy and the welfare state show either naive or are obscured by ideology legittimatoria of late Western capitalism.
2. This link has been highlighted frequently:
3. It is recognizable in the increasingly vehement "philosophy of crisis" of bourgeois subjectivity formed on the commodity-form, from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, through the "philosophy of life, up to existentialism. The underlying philosophies of these crises is desoggettivazione that evolved in parallel with the real social system, including the present post-Keynesian disorientation.
4. Trotsky, also enmeshed in the design of a modernizing state control, saying more than he believes the Stalinist bureaucracy when he defines as "Bonapartist", in connection with a purely accusatory ("The Revolution Betrayed") is an analogy that reflects only a very specific aspect of the constitution in the history of commodity-producing system (Trotsky 1936). The same applies to the concept of "Bonaparte" that applied to German fascism Thaleimer August (Thaleimer 1930). This concept not only brings out (unintentionally) structural affinity between socialism to fascism and Soviet barracks but at the same time reveals the conceptual limits of Marxist labor movement in their criticism of political economy.
5. At least if we interpret it literally wrote Fichte. Anyway, the German classical philosophy (and thus the thought of Fichte) demonstrates a wealth of doctrine that historically still misunderstood in individual elements seem to transcend the immediate needs of the time and go beyond the limits of the system manufacturer of goods which had not then even the concept. Not only is contained in embryo the criticism of political economy that Marx developed later, but even ideas from the implications still undetected. This distinction, without a doubt a pathetic banality of Fichte by followers of Marxism and economists today, "realists" in the most miserable of the term.
6. Almost en passant the Social Frenchman Jean Jaurés at the end of the last century declared: "Fichte was the first to outline the theory of value that Marx later fully developed" (Jaurés 1891). According to Marx Jaurès - which Schumpeter figure as a mere follower of Ricardo - was nothing but a follower of Fichte. The discovery of the formulation by Fichte's theory of labor value, is connected with the self-affirmative the labor movement. But in this way is silent on the fact that Marx's theory in fact contains a radical critique of commodity fetishism. Therefore it is not at all surprising that Fichte has enjoyed great consideration and by the National Socialists and the ideologues of the labor movement.
7. Unfortunately, Fernand Braudel think in a completely conventional and aconcettuale: The state is described as an abstract principle, an autonomous entity that is opposed, but only outwardly, to the "capitalism", rather than being identified, in its modern form, as a constituent element and at the same time immanent in the capital itself. E 'demonstration of how the "new historians "(and not only them) on the pretext of scientific differentiation preach actually the most frightening conceptual void: by dint of counting the trees we lose sight of the forest. There is no way the contrast between the state and external capital mentioned by Braudel, but only the internal contradiction in the capital itself, in which the state is a simple item, already in the proto phase in the history of the constitution of this social formation.
8. A characteristic feature of bourgeois consciousness, even the Left, it is the interpretation of the previous element in the light of the dualistic relationship from time to time in vogue, instead of recognizing the complementarity of these antagonistic elements in the overall historical process of modernity. Even the ideology of socialism, as we shall see, can be deciphered in this context.
9. Anarchism and the currents related to it (trade unionism, etc..) Provide only a pseudo-alternative to mainstream the old labor movement, as their aversion to the state draws its lifeblood from all ideologies which theorize the production of goods "self-determination" and "right" (such as that of Proudhon), is completely disregarding the objective laws of commodity-producing system is the intrinsic relationship between the commodity-form and the modern state. This kind of immanence is merely complementary to the middle class of state socialism and Marxism is, so to speak, the side of liberal or monetarist bourgeois contradiction within the labor movement that plays well on its own land, the dualism between state and market, statism and monetarism , a citizen with rights and subject to exchange.

Appcrash Games Windows 7 C0000005

3. The German war economy and state socialism

3.1 The sociology of "class struggle" and case formal bourgeois

The illusion of state socialism made its reappearance in exemplary Lenin, who pointed to as a prototype dell'aurorale Soviet economy , the state plans of the German Empire with its economy of war, if only this had become a tool for a completely different kind of social force. It 's still his famous eulogy of the German post office as a model organization for a transformation of society in a socialist pages State and Revolution, written in the late summer of 1917:

Around 1870 a witty German Social-regarded mail as a social enterprise model. Absolutely right. Mail is currently a company organized on the model of the monopoly capitalist State. Gradually imperialism transforms any trust in organizations of this type. The "simple" workers, workload and hungry, remain subject to the same bourgeois bureaucracy. But the mechanism of social management is ready. Once killed the capitalists, broken by the iron hand of the workers, the armed resistance of these exploiters, demolished the existing bureaucratic machinery of the state, we have before us a mechanism admirably equipped in terms of technical, got rid of the "parasite" and that workers can themselves together very well run ... (Lenin 1917).

Lenin, pressed by events, is another step in an article in May 1918, Sull'infantilismo left and the petty-bourgeois spirit , Where the goal is not to liberate the "state capitalism" this mysterious "mechanism of social management of the economy" is completely undetermined at a formal level, but simply to directly manipulate the state capitalism as such:

(...)

Statements of this type characterized not only wonderfully Lenin and the Bolsheviks but also the labor movement of the period as a whole (thus including the West) not to speak of "left-wing extremists," the Lenin's opponents in the controversy mentioned above. The theoretical basis and ideological This thought should always be sought in an understanding of socialization and social groups, historical-style purely sociologist. Marx's theory, having been popularized in a unilateral way to its transformation into "Marxism", was robbed of her decisive formal criticism to modern breeding bourgeois critique of commodity-form - that Marx had taken to its extreme consequences using the concept of fetishism - was dismissed and banished to Hades, a theorist and historian, discredited as incomprehensible or degraded to a purely subjective phenomenon of consciousness. As alleged
ultimate foundation of social life, instead of the concept of "form" of the system producer of goods with its historical conditions, succeeded by a reduced concept of "class antagonism"; the constitutum became the constituens ; the secondary phenomenon of the social classes became an essence that could no longer be subject to further investigation. But in this way to be subjected to criticism was no longer the capital, but rather the "capitalist" as personal subjects within a social relationship, one based on the goods, in fact totally devoid of purpose. Classes, meta-mystified as social actors, thus acquiring a character strikingly familiar, like that of the ancient gods who exhibited in their conduct a purely earthly personality.
In this way a social analytic category, namely the "working class", was converted into a person with a collective identity immediate concrete can "act" in a quasi-historical, independent of empirical real people. The class identity is legitimized in a false ontology of work, conceived not as an element and an integral part of the fetishistic commodity, but as an eternal essence of man in a strictly biblical (specifically "Protestant") that could suffer, but only outwardly, the abuses of the subject "pimp" ie the capitalists.
The reverse process, ie the alleged liberation from capitalist relation, was understood only as "deposing" the capitalists or, in extreme cases, as they wound up with methods Jacobins; this area, the position of "left-wing extremists", critics of Lenin , showed a more bourgeois-Jacobin character: as an alternative to the supposed "state capitalism" they candidly suggested the "total extermination of the bourgeoisie."
In the understanding of the ancient workers' movement Lenin's argument must have sounded quite convincing. If the job, despite the socio-historical determination of its form, stated as a positive foundation of every "socialism" to conceive, the same thing, ultimately, was to apply for all other categories of basic goods-producing system. In Lenin (and not just him) is entirely absent from the abstract idea that the work represents a form of capitalism. Instead, the work always emerges as a reflection positive, as in a formulation strangely vague, confused and aconcettuale, in expressions such as "economic accounting" or "mechanism of social management of the economy", in close connection with the 'last word of the technique of big capital "(!) and" modern science " and finally simply as "planned state organization."
Behind these calculations lies a conceptual design of all innocent and helpless of the capitalist logic that the current language could be defined as social-mold technology. A metaphor for current, and not just among the Bolsheviks, he compared the company of the October Revolution to a "gigantic laboratory. The alleged socialism appeared as an organizational titanic but purely external, that had to be made by the person "right" instead of the wrong "aristocratic-imperialist" but in the same manner and with the same means. However, even with the best intentions you could give birth immediately mystified the subject of "working class": the excitement and enthusiasm of the "working masses" in the Soviets and their openness to the action began to run out to the same extent that such masses were seized as "arms" for the expenditure of labor power, but this procedure was not only coercive absolutely unavoidable in the long term, given the weak productivity growth, but also represented a stage that had to be imposed on the inertial mass of the massive production of subsistence farming. So the party became the embodiment of the subject class of metaphysics, demystification of modernization as a machine that bourgeois was ideologically intolerable is also explained as the murderous terror against the Stalinist old guard Bolshevik (whose exponents, and Trotsky in particular, they would all have become a Stalin). The party, amalgamating with the structures of a war economy bureaucratic state-in-part pre-existing, partly constituted by it - as a working-class vicar on earth could justify almost any action it is also the most senseless and bloody repression. The party "is always right" thus created in accordance with its self-consciousness, a new socialist society that however, was nothing if not forced recruitment and to aim for "recovery" of a modern working class, under the direction of the state.
However, even the skeptics and critics, socialists or Marxists - who were physically liquidated in Stalinist Soviet Union from the apparatus in a way kind of Jacobin-aping the French Revolution had to offer any alternative history, nor were able conceptual grasp of the social process that was taking place under their eyes. The Trotskyist orientation towards the "proletarian revolution in the West," justified by the impossibility of 'socialism in one country " especially in Russia "underdeveloped" - and based on the idea that in Europe alone would be fully present as subjective as the objective conditions for such a revolution - was in fact an illusion. Indeed, even in the West
development of productive forces was far from having reached its critical threshold. Western revolutions and mass movements that followed the end of the Great War, belonged, like the war itself and the October Revolution, the history of the statement of the goods-producing system, certainly not at the stage of maturity that would lead to its internal crisis and its overcoming. In each However, even if the protagonists of these developments were, however, modern men, made by capitalism, and although their conflicts were already marked by the contradictions of the system of producer goods, but these contradictions were insurmountable for that period. Even in the West during these social upheavals dissolved and evaporated all the debris and waste, social structures and relations of dependency, legal forms, reports, etc.. type of corporate, pre-or protocapitalistici, fixed and immutable throughout the era of world wars still belonged to the history of global deployment of capital that had to evolve in the world system immediately, fully mature and identical to itself after 1945.
At that time there were on the agenda instead of the German Empire and the fall of the Habsburg monarchy, the abolition of the Prussian three-class suffrage, extension, later, the right to vote to women, even Western countries and not exceeding the goods-producing system that even a Trotskyist or a "radical left" could ever make in theory (apart from some obscure thematizations abstract and conceptually) for this very reason, this apparent radicalism remained trapped in mystification of the working class.
This situation of course refers to the stage of maturity of all outstanding amounts socialization capitalist world. We could apply to Marxism, what Marx wrote in 1859 in order to critique the political economy :

(...) At the end of the First World War had not yet come forward to overcome system of producer goods rather than its further advanced. In the West did not exist anywhere productive forces which would make possible the abolition of the working class that is a decoupling of the social reproduction system based on the abstract and massive expenditure of labor. The only alternative would have been the only recourse to forms of agricultural type, characterized poverty of needs and a pre-modern brutality. Thus, the same radical leftist critics were unable to imagine a revolutionary society that is not reduced to a "self-government of the working class" and ipergiacobino radical: an inherent contradiction and a logical impossibility since the opportunity by society to take independent decisions on use values \u200b\u200bor content of needs and its existence as a mechanism based on the work force, are two instances that are mutually exclusive.
The celebrated phrase of Lenin that communism would be nothing if not "Soviet power plus electrification" in addition to reflecting a exterior design and technology of social emancipation, also manifests an irresolvable contradiction at the time: "workers" as they had no chance to "rule" for this purpose because they did not have any share of social time, in order to "govern" should first stop "working" but if this were possible then there would be no need for any "government" that would be totally superfluous in a social sense. The "Government of the working class", whatever its ideological mark, could only ever become a dictatorship of modernization and bourgeois Jacobin. For irony history and contrary to all the legends of extremism on the left, the proletarian revolution would never have happened in the West because the Western development was completed some time ago and there was no way the need for a revolution to arrive at next stage of bourgeois modernization.
Communists ("Leninists") and Western social democrats, brothers in arms of the old labor movement were not only sharing the same basic understanding of society, trapped in his "character of labor society, but they were also identical in their function historical forces of modernization of that very bourgeois society. But while in the West for this task was sufficient social democracy and its policy, the state of relative backwardness of Russia demanded far more radical measures. That schism as well as today's pathetic "reunification" of the "social democratic movement" in its entirety, finally come to take possession of his true identity, be explained solely by the fact that this paradigm has become historically devoid of purpose since the history of modernization Bourgeois entered the stage of crisis.
In a sense they were right Mensheviks, the Social Democrats when he alluded to the character "objectively bourgeois" of the ongoing revolution in Russia - and certainly more than they themselves do not have an inkling - but only on a conceptual level, not on the historical and empirical. In Russia the cost of essential bourgeois modernization, so to speak, could not be supported by its bearer more appropriate, or the "liberal bourgeoisie" in sociological terms - in the history of the Russian Revolution played only a marginal role. In these conditions only a radical party of workers, fiercely hostile to Western capitalism was able to create from nothing a recovery of capitalist development. So although the Bolsheviks
reason in the "practice", they had to deceive themselves about the actual content of their revolution and made it through Leninist illusion of the "primacy of politics". The political party was to replace an excess of abstract labor, impossible in practice. In this way, the internal identity of "capital" and "work" that is the interchangeability of their social and institutional holders, namely the "masks of character" (Marx) of the goods-producing system that compares only to the surface of market, is systematically concealed. So the ideology of communism was only legittimatoria "proletarian" modernization recovery forced the bourgeois. Indeed
hagiographers Lenin, of any trend, ignoring the historical essence of the October Revolution as they fall victim themselves Leninist illusion and project alternatives in the past as if it simply depended on the resolution "right" or "wrong" of the agent. Freedom from the coercive laws of commodity-form that is passing a blind and outer packaging than subjects is in turn subject to the condition. Until now this problem has been formulated incorrectly by the "perfecting of the story" of left and radical-democratic. Those who claim in the abstract "spontaneity", "self" "Grassroots democracy" and so on. Enlightenment in the sense of an ahistorical, without touching the basic structure of the fetishistic commodity producing system, simply wants to oppose the ideals of the heavenly bourgeoisie, freedoms, equality and fraternity, the reality bourgeois. This evergreen bourgeois illusion on the subject has lost none of its magic from the days of the French Revolution, and so we stubbornly unwilling to tolerate even to this day.

3.2 The problem of Orientalism

not much better than those late-Enlightenment bourgeois or radical leftist berated stolidly under modernizer Bolshevik not have achieved the ideal middle-class just as he had not made the bourgeoisie itself, prove those critics who, in a complementary way, trying to bring back the Bolshevik statism to the "traditional Asian, Asian elements, despotic, tsarism and its social legacy (Dutschke 1974, 1977 Bahro et al.). But this way the roots and the elements statist and dictatorial, his Enlightenment and of democratic thought and its social foundations, are removed and hidden, and the historical traces of the western system of producer goods are lost, though perhaps unintentionally.
Just a thought that is fostered by superficial similarities may confuse the despotism Asia with a regime dedicated to modernizing the economy of war, borrowed from the West and not inspired at all to Ivan the Terrible but to the German post office. Of course it is all too easy to encapsulate all the phenomena of despotism appeared in the course of world history, within a single sovraconcetto formal and empty, so you could easily establish a comparison between the Bolsheviks and the empire of the Pharaohs, as did For example, the noble anarchist, critic of the productive forces, which is the ideological background to the myth of the machine by Lewis Mumford (Mumford 1974). But it becomes impossible to understand the real individual and social formations in history practical application of their constitution and terms under which they were born. The social foundations of despotism Asia are quite different from those of commodity-producing system of modernity and absolutely incompatible with it. The agricultural production of subsistence and his "exploitation" by a people hegemonic despotic centralized irrigation cultures with their natural economy, the "hydraulic civilization" (Wittfogel 1957) with an administrative bureaucracy despotic rule, no as the nexus of basic social goods and money. Instead the modern state, despite obvious similarities with the formal Oriental despotism in certain life stages of producing system commodity, the individual is a constitutive element abstractly free, molded on the commodity-form, whose real internal heteronomy does not depend from the 'will of the bureaucracy, "but by the law enforcement and are not subject to the commodity-form and money.
behind such phenomena as the resurgence of statism mercantilist era and the revolution in proto war economies of the German and other imperialist states of the system of producer goods, and in the economies of war during the Second World War - in a naturally different shape and a more advanced level of development - the "bureaucratic capitalism" and the "world managed ", so deplored by critics of the liberal left as a negative mark structural, not hidden at all a native bureaucracy as a legacy of despotism, but merely the result of democratic freedom that is the same administration dell'automovimento money with its objective character of coercion, enforcement of judgments that are issued (perhaps with regret) from the normative nature of this "second nature".
The despotic statism of the Soviet society auroral lashes out against his the social and economic foundations of Oriental despotism, the legacy of the Tsarist Empire: Lenin's statements, repeated at every turn that it was necessary to learn the culture, science, middle-class by the West to assume the forms, combine perfectly with not only the bourgeois modernizing function of the October Revolution but also its statist forms. Like what did the proto statism in the West against the waste of feudal society, the residues of Orientalism were swept away and reshaped by the modern tools of socialization statist formed on the commodity-form:

This statement by Lenin L ' infantilism of the left and the spirit of petty-bourgeois reflects much better than it really wants, the very essence of the October Revolution. If before the French Revolution, the principles and absolute monarchs had accelerated the destruction of the feudal mode of production and deposing of the nobility, a development that eventually would have fallen victim themselves, even the Czar "modernizers" and dismissing beheading the boyars, had already set in motion dynamics that were precisely the opposite direction to Orientalism, and the French Revolution took hold of the mercantilist statism, leading to further developments and in the same way also the October Revolution took existing elements, whose origin is not was not the Oriental despotism, but the proto statism, which had as its objective the expansion of commodity production, industrialization projects already outlined in the tsarist era. Just a thought trapped within the horizon of "classes" and in sociology, I can not see this identity in the process of the forms of modernity, which unfolds through different stages of development, "systems of domination, forms of the state and" class struggles ".
Reference to Oriental despotism is nothing but a subterfuge designed to disperse the bloody remains of Western democracy. The extraordinary violence of bourgeois Soviet modernization can also be explained by the fact that it is condensed into a very narrow time interval, a time bisecolare: Mercantilism and the French Revolution, industrialization and imperialist war economy into one. No wonder that this company was widely militarized and that he had idealized in an instrumental not only the "state capitalism" of the German war economy but also the Prussian military virtues - discipline and obedience - in the guise legittimatoria ideology of "proletarian" only apparently contradictory.


3.3 The capitalist character of the 'accumulation original socialist

The temporary introduction of the death penalty during the Stalinist regime for those arriving late at work, in order to speed up the training to factory discipline of Russian peasants who were fasting, it was only the continuation consistent "militarization of the economy" Trotskyist period of civil war and a reflection of the brutal face of modernizing process original accumulation of capital that Marx had described the same way for the modernization of English. Attempts to legitimacy, incredibly convoluted and awkward, with which even the alleged Marxist critics (both in the Soviet Union as in the West) tried to justify this collection of dead labor, set in motion spasmodically, as if it were really an alternative to "socialist", our eyes are awesome and grotesque.
course the "success" was charged only to the fact that the post-bourgeois transcendence was not related to the basic forms of social reproduction, but the appearance on the scene of a "proletariat" mystified. Already Preobrazenskji, later sentenced to death and executed as "Trotskyite" was coined at that time the term "socialist primitive accumulation" completely incongruous on a logical level (Preobrazenskji 1926).
Even many years after the end of World War II all the monstrous forms of repression put into place during this primitive accumulation of capital was justified, even by Western Marxists dissidents in the name of the proletariat against the empirical metaphysical:

( ...)

This observation of the German Communist Heinrich Brandler (Chairman of the KPD in the early '20s, as an opponent sent off a few years later), such as those of others, shows how the thought of the labor movement, enmeshed fetish in the capital, it should add to the West in the tradition of the bourgeois state, beginning with the proto. For these spirits "socialism" is the same in all respects with the "good state" collectivist Fichte. But there was so reversing the Marxian critique of political economy. In this ideological climate rooted in tradition - and Germany suffered particularly the influence of Lassalle - the Protestant ethos, as popular with the force, could be celebrated as an ideal future, while any measure of terrorism in the service of primitive accumulation in the Soviet Union could alleged need to be defended as anticapitalist.
The problems of modernizing capitalist bourgeois were simply redefined as "problems of real socialism, until today's collapse of this illusion of history. Read correctly and stripped of any ideological mystification, the essential mission of the Soviet Union was formulated in a clear and unequivocal by Stalin in the infamous manual History of the CPSU (B) :

(...)

If we put in brackets the 'building of socialism "and speaks of a building of late capitalism, then Stalin was quite right. At least part of the funding for the original historical collection in Western colonial expansion was achieved through from the sixteenth century (just think of the immense amount of gold removed from South America). But surely the Soviet Union in this way was barred. So the must-monetary capital could be found only within the country, but this meant that their "human material" had to be crushed without mercy, and turned into strictly producer of abstract wealth, money and capital gains.
to strengthen internal pressure of accumulation was not only a lack of resources from outside but also the character "recovery" of the entire process that required substantial initial resources more than the accumulation original historical West. Needless to say, in this particular constellation, statism played a role far more important than what he had in his time in the West. The "rational state" bourgeois observers had mistaken for an element of socialism, but it had been theorized many years earlier by Fichte, was to become reality. Again the words of Stalin are unequivocal:

(...)

Stalin, with all its innocence and its theoretical simplicity, in this passage describes the logic of the accumulation of goods-producing system producing "gains" abstract, embodied in money, independent of needs and quality sensitive. "A little money" is transformed into "more money" through his own self-movement, mediated by the process of being used in corporate form, but since all this happens under the direction of the state (after the expropriation of the old "parasitic class" of "capitalist ") then this would no longer capitalism. The "state capitalism", defined by Lenin so conceptually confused and that "socialism" was loosely defined, is confused with the concept of socialism of the old workers' movement in the existence of a real-statist regime of accumulation.

3.4 The freezing of statism and the militarization of society

In the changed preconditions of the early twentieth century, statism modernizer Bolshevik had substantially different from all the phenomena similar to it that had followed each other in the history of Europe Western Europe and mainly in a point: the cycle statist could not give way to a new monetary cycle, the Soviet Union the oscillatory movement of the contradictory process of bourgeois modernity, which we outlined earlier, ended up crashing. The unique character of "recovery" of this fundamental process of capitalism required a system that was more absolutist absolutism and a war economy that can not be more than war. The ideology of "Protestant" based on the ethos of work, the militarization of society and the state command economy in the form of "planned market" is petrified, the paint laid on social reproduction dries up and turned into a shroud that would make impossible any further development in the long term.
The age of the birth and the rise to world power was the Soviet Union, even in the West, a period of splendor for the state: the war economies of the two world wars (which had been the model of "New economy" Bolshevik), state interventions, and unprecedented, "normal" capitalist reproduction during the global economic crisis, the planned economy of German fascism in the '30s, the triumphal march of Keynesian economic doctrine in the Journal and Constitution ideological paradigm of the welfare state, they think of contemporary statism particularly strict and thus the Soviet Union was only the spearhead of a universal process and decisive global society.
However, in the history of modernity, the statist trend, whatever its social and ideological sign, was never conceived as an integral part of the capitalist process but always like its rival pole or in some cases as a factor capable of working to overcome. At that time appeared to be high time for this should be exceeded, even in the eyes of those who are not enthusiastic about showing some development of this kind. While all orthodox Marxists, from Lenin to Hilferding, in spite of their political schism, saw unanimously statist trend in the "immediate preparation of socialism," critics of the bureaucracy and the "totalitarianism" as Horkheimer and Adorno, judged this developing a "bad overcoming capitalist contradictions" on the ground of capitalism itself. However, the "authoritarian state" total (Horkheimer 1972) seemed to be the general trend in which modernity as a whole was intended to crystallize.
But this view, on the one hand remains entranced by the immediacy of the historical phenomenon while the other was affected, positively or negatively influenced by the tradition of bourgeois thought imminent, starting with the "State commercial closed Fichte. In fact statism could never be the last word in modernity, even in the twentieth century it was merely a transitional stage in the process of capitalist contradictions, unbeatable on the basis of its very foundations. In fact the war economy and the other phenomena of the modern state could never take root so deep in the West as they did in the Soviet Union. In the West, the autonomy of market processes were never completely subjugated to the command state, the relationship between market and state was never completely frozen. Already during the interwar state intervention came loose again and the Keynesian paradigm specifically designed using the state as merely regulating the market, not as its subject-invasive control.
It was expected that the recognition of the money in the West, now a habit, and its structure of self-movement to lead a new era. After the Second World War II began the rise of monetarist paradigm, during various stages, from the standpoint of economic theory a long roll back neo-liberalism. From Ludwig Erhard, risen with his "social market economy" to the symbolic figure of the "economic miracle" based on the market and competition, to get to the philosophy of crisis, militant and openly anti-social, the monetarism of the day, molded on socio-political doctrines and practices of Thatcherism and Reaganomics , even the tendency to die purely statist Keynesian, he became increasingly frail and helpless.
The new twist is, however, the monetarist totally unable to overcome the internal contradictions of capital in its global movement pushing for the crisis, just as it was once the "authoritarian state". This new twist in the process of bourgeois modernity is just a reaction to new crises in which statism in the regressive phase was no longer able to keep at bay, but to the extent that the new global crisis will worsen and monetary trends will inevitably show its inadequacy in the specific control of the situation, it will run out at the same time giving rise to a statist levied. As the absolute limits of the abstract work of modern society are approximated, both economically and on the ecological, this swing will become more desperate and rapid and therefore the waves of statism and monetarism become increasingly ephemeral. But this flexibility
discontinuous forms of social reaction, this ability to change the position of irreconcilable contradiction in the capitalist process can delay the end, to prolong the life of the capital and produce a course of the crisis with temporary control elements. However, the capital, subdued so only external economies of war petrified of socialism, can not rely on this possibility. The creation of the "rational state" bourgeois mercantile economy of war Perpetual had to transform itself from machine to develop "recovery" in a pile of wreckage, unable to react to stagnation. The crisis of society based on the expenditure of labor strikes ruthlessly abstract and even more vehement on those parts of the world system of producer goods, frozen in their aggregate and statism.
The crash took an even more tragic in the western outskirts of the Soviet Union and in particular in eastern Germany, since in these regions, the total nationalization of capital could not even rely on the a priori rationality of historical development toward a modern late bourgeois society, at least the Germany and Czechoslovakia (but to a lesser extent Hungary and Poland) had met previously, in whole or in part, and at this stage to a level sufficient for the process of capitalist modernization in these areas could continue on the basis their assumptions. The forced annexation of these companies in the sphere of the Soviet state was from the beginning a process historically reactionary and counterproductive: he was eloquent testimony to the long series of popular uprisings and mass movements in the 50s in the GDR .8
Especially this statism import and neomercantilista and economics of war, could rely to an undoubted native tradition. As the German company as part of Western development had been, to some extent, the "catch up" against other modern bourgeois society, the state primary in Germany's capital was made in a much more tough. No accident that the war economy of the German Empire was the most exemplary of all, finishing with attract the sympathies of the Bolsheviks, as well as the fact that it was not random, between the economies of Western countries, the German planned economy Fascist era was the one that comes closest to the "market planning" of the "rational state" Fichte. In Germany, the Bolshevik-style regime, established by force, an offshoot of the socialization process bourgeois "recovery" encountered in inner tracks, albeit faded, a tradition similar proto-style. For
a resounding irony of history, this system "typically German" obtuse bureaucrats to work, set up outside, in the pay of a protecting power and uncomfortably seated on their bayonets, could refer to elements, traditions and thought patterns related only in their own society by mobilizing their own benefit, in spite of a progressive and revolutionary rhetoric woody, improbable and mechanically repeated, all aspects reactionary Prussian imperial (and in some places even fascist) of his past: the goose-step of Nationale Volksarmee symbolized something more than just a military legacy. Here
Bolshevik statism and the Prussian, two creatures of the same capitalist development "recovery" even if born in different years, can infiltrate widely since it penetrate the company merged into a conglomerate particularly nauseating. Stood as a mixture of German post, permanent camp boy scouts from the cradle to the grave and militarized command economy. If the economy of the USSR was the most militarized of authentic war economy, the GDR was the most Soviet of the Soviet and therefore more Prussian Prussia. In the GDR, socialist economy to goose-step and the barracks gave rise to an aberration in the evolution of capitalist modernization that biologists would call perhaps as a "Darwinian nightmare."
The prospect of reunification of Germany proves an even more frightening, not only because it might wake up a national superstatalismo but mostly because the two parties are no longer compatible with each other and therefore their merger, light of historical distance between their current state, can only take the form of the crisis. The Petrified capitalist economy of war in 1916, with its fossilized structures Wilhelmine era, clashes with a company of late-capitalist world market and monadizzata. Two antagonistic forms of the crisis in commodity-producing system collide with each other. This process should be defined more appropriately as a historical accident in the terminal phase della'epoca modern rather than an extravagant wedding at the threshold of a new era of progress.

Notes 1. The Bolsheviks (and Lenin in particular) not only put emphasis on their bourgeois character-Jacobin (which of course involved the attribution of a character Girondin Mensheviks to their opponents) but always proudly claimed. Even if they were simply a flattering historical comparison, since their revolution competed a completely different class content, "this fact is only the illusion of their ironic play on a meta level. The concept of "adversary", less personalistic and sociologist in the sense that the Bolsheviks did seem logical to cut heads to solve problems, decipher their form of Jacobinism, like the reissue of a bourgeois revolution essentially conditions of early twentieth century.
2. Just take a look at the immense catalog of works of Lenin to conclude that there is even a hint of theming the concept of economic value and the Marxian critique of fetishism and the fact that the same Western Marxism becomes the victim of this theoretical ingenuity to this day, apart from a few attempts dark, "isolated" and that they never really gave fruit, shows its dependence on historical conditions.
3. In the meantime, this option is seriously considered presentable and worthy of being discussed in the salons, by "critical of the productive forces" inspired by the environmentalist fundamentalism, of course, as ideological production by four soldiers. The only explanation can be found in the enormous historical distance that separates us from these reports, which appear to us today as then wrapped in a mystical light. The labor movement and the Bolsheviks in 1917, who still had those reports before their eyes, could not - and rightly - wasting a single thought to this option idiotic, reactionary and deeply antiemancipatoria.
4. At present, this social democratic reunification has the appearance of a humiliating "Return of the Prodigal Son" Communist-Leninist: everywhere in Eastern Europe the red stars, the emblems with the hammer and sickle and so on. are thrown to the winds and the Socialist barracks hastily assume the name "socialist" or "social democrats"; The most grotesque is the SED (German Socialist Unity Party), the result of the historical alliance between forced SPD (Social Democrats) and KPD (Communist) and as a PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) would like to get married love, through a somersault ideological subject. This spectrum is dileguerà As, in the West, the propaganda function modernizing the social integration of social democracy will come in their final crisis. For example, while many naive ex-Leninists cleaned consider the "Swedish model" as a perspective, this "model" in his homeland as a terminally ill patient is in agony.
5. This attitude in respect of the history that results in a rebuke to the past in which, for mysterious reasons, he did badly what could have been done much better, is a typical feature of the Enlightenment just as the evaluation of the past on the basis abstract rational principles of the constitution which never becomes the subject of historical reflection. This way of thinking always presupposes a bourgeois subject, projected backward in historical events, at least limited to the modern age, regardless of the fact that their modernity as a whole is the history of the constitution of this form of subjectivity.
6. Wittfogel also tries to make his analysis of "Hydraulic civilization" of Oriental despotism in a critique of Bolshevism and the Soviet society, but his approach is inadequate just like any other, as also builds on the same unquestioned assumptions, western and democratic system of producer goods .
7. - Accumulation of what? - Would be worth the bother now. But the capital of course! And without that for this reason, apparently, the Marxists have suffered some stomach pain. The character of an expression nonsensical as "socialist primitive accumulation of capital" can only be explained as follows: the "capital", ie fetishistic form and objectified in the process of replacement with nature, is regarded as something neutral and not specific to a particular social formation, which can reference both the "capitalists" as the "proletariat," from time to time in an opposite , at least hypothetically.
8. From this point of view, the Western Marxism - critical but only in appearance - has not produced, at least in most cases, nothing but apologetic see eg sterile emphasis of the 'anti-fascism "that would have marked repressive social orders statist and authoritarian regimes, whose superficiality is revealed today at last in all its ignominy. It was generally an "anti-fascism" only nominal and silly now after the Second World War, but had to serve as a container aconcettuale for a variety of phenomena and developments misunderstood and removed.

How To Secure A Mirror On Mantle

4. Competition and emancipation

4.1 Illusion and debacle of an "abolition" of competition in the labor society

After so many decades, the interpretive scheme that relies on the categories of the state and the economy of war is impressed as a mark of fire on the skin of Marxism. The fundamental criticism of Marx's commodity-producing system was removed and forgotten. Consequently, the debate about the collapse of socialism, the foundation common to both systems, or the society of work, in the shadows just as the determination of its basic forms, the system calcified economy of war with all its TARE is judged by the yardstick of its Western counterpart, far more developed, and not in the light of a critique of it in a way that commodity-like.
In particular, the left - who fell in his Waterloo and whose conceptual universe, even that of its more radical leaders, it is still child's world view developed from the old social democracy - it should be noted in this regard for colossal misunderstanding. The logical absurdity, always hidden behind the pseudo-concept of "planned market, is now in the light but for the umpteenth time in the form of distorted and unrealistic ideology that is already on the verge of falling in free fall. It is hard to believe his ears when, for example, some economists in the GDR - suddenly torn lullabies to their children about the so-called "political economy of socialism" - say without hesitation that they had sunk to being just a 'natural economy "(!) or a false" immediate communism "(Land et al. 1990). The economy command and the barracks - which is still based on the commodity-form - is routinely confused with a form of social reproduction that is not based on the goods, although all the basic categories of goods-producing system have continued to exist, rather than critically analyze the ' existence of these categories, they are repudiated as inauthentic and then stealthily concealed, to be risalutate then again in a different form presumptively (Western).
But when it comes to marketing categories "inauthentic" which should therefore only be made "genuine" and established successfully, giving birth to a misunderstanding of the ideological consciousness of the history of both the real bourgeois swing between statism and monetarism. Since, at least outwardly, appears to have come the time of monetarism, the state primary, complementary to it, is rejected as "incorrect" harmful and hinder the "real" market, it is a claim that is particularly exhilarating the mouths of people who until recently the same way as the first ironclad Marxist babble. Of course, the state primary is abundantly present in the west of the market economy academics and tourists from Poland and the GDR, they would have rubbed my eyes after examining more closely, for example, the agricultural sector of the European Community.
Statism, as part of the commodity producing system, far from being a degenerate development, external and alien, brings together both the real socialism now shattered, as the West within a continuum of modernity. This continuity extends from absolutism enlightened West, to today's "State of Growth", passing through the real socialism with its war economy, and their goal is always the same as simply imposing the subjugation of needs, goals and of human purposes with regard to the abstract of a national wealth Goods-producing system and its systematic growth and training of men in this "end in itself" nonsense.
The difference between the two systems, as claimed, does not lie in state control as such, and even in his temporary head that even the West experienced repeatedly, but only in the freezing of alternate statist element with the element of monetarist , already present in accordance with its basic form. This element does not overlap with the mere existence of money, but its existence within a system that is producing goods in the specific context of modernity. Here the money is linked to the functional mechanism of competition, and is primarily expressed in this what I have designated as the monetary item. Curiously
ideologues and apologists of socialism showed themselves proud to have dismantled this functional mechanism. Marxist ideology of the old workers movement, competition appeared as pure negativity, both from the moral point of view as a principle of social Darwinism and destructive "war of all against all", both from an economic one, embodied in the infamous "anarchy of the market" which was to be supplanted by the "planning" rational. However, this critical economic competition, but on the basis of principles moral, touched only on the outside base of the system producer of goods but also systematically evaded the question of social emancipation of the "working class" which, according to the lesson of Marx, he should act in the way of their autosoppressione; the real Marxist labor movement On the contrary, pushed himself to the resulting self-assertion of the worker.
But at this point a paradox emerges so far unresolved at the heart of Marxist theory. The claim that Marx's labor movement as a movement of "workers" and as "the worker's point of view" and "class" and so on. and through all his work, is of fact inconsistent with his critique of political economy that effectively debunks this very working class as a social category, not ontological but be the capital itself. If the ontology of the work and criticism of abstract labor are mutually exclusive, then the same applies to the "point of view of a worker, and criticism of life as a worker.
In reality Marx was facing two different historical logic which interpenetrate each other and that he failed to distinguish clearly: on the one hand there was the process of realization of the commodity labor-power under the system of producer goods that Thanks to the actions of the labor movement, led to the emancipation capitalist of employees of any debris that is feudal and patriarchal in their life today as monads of money and democratic citizenship, on the other the tautological self-movement and no subject of money with its inherent limitation.
From the point of view of the intrinsic logic of the historical development of commodity-producing system, the "working class" could not even be conceived in view of its effective abolition. The concept of social emancipation remained imprisoned within the system of abstract labor, and could only be understood in its category - and this is still visible in the rhetoric of moral social justice that characterizes a bloodless jargon union now. The rational element of this constellation, which has now exhausted its historical role, it was only the emancipation of the masses for paid work and not by it.
But precisely for this reason a prospect of this kind could not possibly count as real criticism of the goods-producing system and could only result in a reductive tendency towards moralizing quackery. The criticism, not logical, but purely empirical existence as a worker involved as immanent critique of competition, but remained confined to the negative empirical phenomena, but the absence of any conceptual link between the two elements of criticism, which could not be effectively mediate on the theoretical and practical, they must necessarily rely on the crutch more moralistic.
But on the basis of this background, the critics of competition was to meet a fatal ambiguity, since the suppression of competition was not quite the same outcome as the social emancipation. The workers are still employed, even under the dictates of the market economy and even militaristic Europe even more than competitive in the economy of the West. This fact was certainly not escaped the attention of those critical observers - think in particular to Adorno, Horkheimer and the Frankfurt School - which was not included in the group some of the ideologues of the Cold War nor the apologists on the left. However, they believed that the basic logic of the company's negative working with the statism of socialism and statist related phenomena are also present in the West in the era of two world wars, had been sealed as "false" principle of rationality, in the form of "totalitarianism" and that through the command state had been successful the "false" overcoming of the capitalist contradiction, thus the functional mechanism of abstract labor would really set up for eternity as a system can operate smoothly and self-regulate its procedural

(...)

From the reference to the past and mercantilist Jacobin state control on the market would Horkheimer able to infer the impossibility of the elimination of competition (the item and the reason for that is opposed to the monetarist statist) the reproduction of capitalism, because it never really does not succumb. But on this point Horkheimer remains faithful to the traditional view of Marxist labor movement and the empiricism of his day (only in a negative version). He interprets the story of modernity as the contradictory process of capital whose contradictions are exacerbated during the course of history and prove unresolvable on the basis of its own foundations, but as the ascent, logic, unilateral and compelling element to become a statist " totality "in which" the movement is abolished. " This reminds
illusion through and through not only the positive conception of the possibility of a "planned market, but also its present negative version, in which the apparent lack of competition in the" planned market "is assimilated in the blink of 'eye in a pure state economy of distribution (economy natural, instant communication), without a movement. Is nothing more than yet another manifestation of that astonishing blindness theory that confuses the existence of improper market categories by their absence. But the attempt to plan the movement does not coincide with its removal.
Authentic abolition of the movement should logically coincide with the abolition of money and the institution of the market in general. But if this really occurs then, just as logically, it would drop the need or even the possibility of the state since the latter, in the process of modernity, is nothing but the element inherent adversarial system of producer goods. Those who might think that the abolition of the movement only in a form of State and can not get out of this vicious circle logic, they end up being contradicted by the facts as thanks to the modern state, we had the statement and the outbreak of money and circulation (and hence the market).
The modern state is the facility that the national wealth to the abstract of which, it is foolish to focus on the needs and aspirations of men stems from a total stranger to them. The money is nothing but the embodiment of abstract wealth that multiplies as dead and it does not work can only exist in the market and circulation. If the country really meant to abolish money and the movement would ultimately eliminate its very raison d'etre.

4.2 Division of labor and commodity production in the history

Both the market as money and its movement arose in the course of history as a social relationship outside for the exchange of products of individual producers and unrelated isolates in their production immediate and therefore historically the market and money are merely the expression of a relatively undeveloped division of labor, with a modest degree of interconnection. It 'just the opposite of what is commonly is assumed and the reason for this is that it uses as a touchstone only primitive societies that breed almost entirely without division of labor.
contrast would be the case to call into question the division of labor in modern industrial society, to recognize the logical contradictions of the modern system of producer goods, comparing it with the creation of original historical and money market categories. There is no reason that a system with a highly developed division of labor should result in "natural" generalization and a corresponding expansion of the categories of goods and money. A conception of this kind needs an identity immediate division between social work and commodity-form that is actually not at all obvious. Among primitive peoples there are categories of goods as their division of labor is still underdeveloped while the same categories that appear only in civilized societies for the system of division of labor had initially taken the basic shapes relatively rudimentary.
Of course we can speak of socialization as early as this stage, it is still embryonic and external forms of socializing, made only a posteriori through the "exchange" and which overlapped the relationship of dependency and taking "natural" (system slave, feudal etc...) The productions are so real partly dependent on each other but do not engage each other and are not mediated through aggregate total social logistics. But when the division of labor in the process of modernity definitely exceeds its primitive structures, industrial production are integrated directly with each other on an increasing scale and grow up to become a total and immediate, fueled by social aggregates (science, education etc..), not just an organization that stands integrated and universal system of division of labor "substantial", "technical", "material" no longer corresponds to the original categories of market and money, because its development has finally overwhelm them. Now the division of labor has joined the real production (and this is the process of modernity on a "material") in a system of direct socialization, while money market and are certainly an expression of indirect socialization and only in retrospect, productions based on a real system of division of labor between producers grossly underdeveloped and isolated individuals. It is logical that the continued existence of the market and money, far from being an expression of the new and higher forms of division of labor, material and substantial, is in an irreconcilable conflict with the latter.
The more immediate socialization of real production is accompanied by its universalisation of formal categories of socialization that is indirect and retrospective of the goods and money. This is the absurd contradiction of modernity. Social reproduction, turns on its contents, the money order to become himself against the concrete world and sensitive. Only on this ground competition can act as a logical necessity and the principle of the system dynamic producer of goods. The products are no longer in their social context, what really are, on the material and sensitive, and their production is only production of surplus value. Obviously the exchange market still appears as a purchase and sale of tangible goods but necessary in terms of social mediation, this is only the realization of surplus value embodied in goods, its transformation in the form of representation that is proper or in cash. The property of use are degraded to a mere transitional stage in the process of metamorphosis of the economic value of formal abstraction. Competition is the only form in which this self-movement of money is imposed on the subject as "law enforcement" external (Marx), resulting in an acceleration of social dynamics which is contradictory to be explained from the relationship of production and circulation in the context of a producer of goods.

4.3 The competition as a historical process driving

The money represents the real social abstraction, the ultimate incarnation of abstract labor, completely divorced from the actual content of the production. How real total abstraction, money is the thing immediately social, as it becomes the other hand, the concrete production, highly scientific and interconnected, while men are not social as monads of money moving to the surface of their social organization, which opposes them from the outside, and estranged in objective form. The social nature of money which, in its total mass, is abstract national wealth, however, mean its universal "fluidity" as opposed to the heaviness of the universe of real goods.
For now the ultimate goal of the entire organization is no longer the mediation of real property but the transformation of money (more) money, there is a particular division and inconsistency between the production of surplus value and its realization in the sphere of movement. Abstract wealth as money, in his latest avatar , is already instantly and then so is the social surplus value. In its form of representation only transient, that of concrete products, on the contrary it is still particularly non-social, "unfinished."
Competition, as a conflict between the special business units for the realization of surplus value arises from this tension between the different states of aggregation of capital gains. The shoemaker in the shelter of his corporation, with its unchanging production methods and its rigidly fixed prices could rely on the fact that it was worth fixing for bakers, butchers and so on., Then he could count on a mediation goods for use, without friction, but stable and durable, compliant at the time. But today the modern market system is no longer able to provide such guarantees and fixations.
In fact, the single business unit is not not rewarded with the same mass of surplus value that has incorporated in its production of specific goods, or how many hours and minutes of abstract labor employed. Genres like shoes, bread and meat are no longer subject to the mediation of the market in certain proportions, unlike the goods for use products are left at the mercy of the tremors in the process of self-movement of money. In other words, the single business unit can not "share" his "" surplus value in the form of goods for use against a corresponding amount of money, as a shoemaker could trade their shoes with bread and meat. Instead it must "steal" the movement of a share of the total social surplus value, in its monetary policy (use of abstract processes from past work and now live), through the sale of its products on a market which, because of his change of purpose, can not be fixed and guaranteed.
production and appropriation of surplus value collide both on logical and practical terms: the dualism between universality and particularity of the product of money, such contradiction between use value of the abstract form of money, material and capital gains. But this inconsistency becomes a driving force for the entire process of modernity, the source of a stunning dynamic social. The real added value is more than the sum of the surpluses in the use of special living labor, is not a given magnitude and a stable but changing size, button, in constant oscillation, the phenomenal form of a continuous social process. The single business unit can appropriate only a portion of more or less the final form of surplus value - the monetary - was incorporated into its products. From this we immediately decide its success or failure on the market that is in the sphere of circulation.
In principle, as is known, enjoys more success on the business unit which proves to be able to "offer at the lowest price "(apart from problems of non-economic nature that in any case can never completely supplant the basic logic). This may depend on his part to productivity, higher or lower, the company itself. High productivity does not mean anything other than the ability to produce a large amount of products with the least amount of work alive. The competition for the appropriation of surplus value, or its transformation into the money form, requires a constant increase in productivity worth the sunset of this or that production unit, but precisely because of the introduction of this social mechanism, was suddenly put in a push bike extraordinary, a violent explosion of productivity in a very historic moment, which lasted less than two centuries, has increased more than during the entire prior history.
Precisely this dynamic is the "meaning" hidden competition. In the Marxian critique of political economy this is clearly stated. Marx has nothing to do with that sentence only external competition, partly moralistic part of socio-mold technology, which is typical of the concept of the labor movement. For Marx, on the ground of the goods-producing system, competition is necessary for it to begin the process of human emancipation from the mere natural foundations, from working as labor as the suffering of the "sweat of the brow," though in a form still unconscious and fetishistic.
In pre-capitalist social formations, there was no general motivation, for driving the development of productive forces, on the contrary the production methods have always been specifically determined, with the threat of punishment against any attempt to change. The naive idea that men had to plan, within their traditional relations, a development of modern productive forces in a different and less drastic, consciously and collectively, the "circumvention" of capitalism, presupposes a subject that could not not yet exist. Only the competition as "silent compulsion" (Marx) of the commodity producing system, which was founded and operates "behind" the subject, could set in motion so the productive forces, albeit in a stark contrast of destruction and emancipation.
While the competition takes away the breath to men, it also rejects the dullness and stability on a low level, it destroys the lives massively but at the same time, makes obsolete every relationship of corporate existence and rough, all relations of personal dependence, it separates the masses from the satisfaction of their needs, different each time scale, but also develops new needs and mass them "Makes it cheaper (!)" (Marx) transformed the luxury goods of a few elite in mass consumer goods, it dehumanizes people and makes them merely masks the character of money, but also humanizes the subject (above abstract , put up, consisting of) destroying all the natural fetishes and institutional domains in which men germinated as appendages of land free of subjectivity. Most importantly though
competition forces and whip men into abstract expense of their workforce, it is both dynamic principle that can tend to overcome the work, making it obsolete through his drive, forced and ruthless, always advanced to new and highly scientific productivity, it becomes destructive forces in the productive forces but simultaneously drives the appropriation of human nature known so far beyond all measure. Marx has never disowned the positive, progressive, emancipatory competition, marking it as "civilizing mission." Joseph Schumpeter observed almost wonder how Marx, in spite of his fundamental criticism, even in spite of his "death sentence" of the capital had both [...] (Schumpeter 1942)
In fact, the Marxian critique of political economy simply takes account ambiguity the dynamics of capitalism. Despite its destructive force directed against man and nature, the car is competitive at the same time as negative emancipation, through a continuous process of development of productive forces, inevitably leads to the threshold of the 'abolition of work "that is the production work abstract and repetitious, which is limited to "create value", but in doing so it also suppresses its own domestic fundamentals making itself obsolete. The interconnectedness of the playback of content up to a total system of social stands in direct opposition to the categories of merchandise, but it is the system of producer goods become end in itself to create this highly scientific and this interconnection, generating its opposite in an effort to pursue its limited purpose and "meaningless." The competition works in an unconscious and unintentional destruction of its bases spread.
In other words, the abolition of work, wrapped in the goods-producing system, it makes its appearance as a carefree and joyous event, but only in a negative way, namely as an absolute crisis in this form of reproduction, heralded by a concatenation crisis and its historical ancestors of the modern society of work, during its phase of affirmation. The capitalist world society is so close to his trial Fire and explosion, as it approaches the point where (in the eyes of his contemporaries look like a process) it dispenses with abstract labor in its function of social substance of economic value. But on the other hand, it wants to remain with the force gathered into the form-value and its derived categories (wages, prices and profits) despite having lost all substance.
The Marxist labor movement has not so distinctly perceived ambiguity - a real head of Janus of modernity - in accepting the word of the Master, perhaps reluctantly and in a general sense, as part of his nature. This contradiction in Marx manifested itself again in the form of an unresolved conflict between the "point of view of the worker" and the critique of political economy, but the followers of Marxism almost totally eliminated the decisive formal criticism of Marxian labor producing goods and held firm to its obstinacy on the company's work. Moreover
until the second half of the twentieth century development did not provide any empirical support point to the logic of the Marxian critique that, for this reason it seems unclear. The development of productive forces had not yet reached the threshold beyond which the basic principle of labor society becomes obsolete. So the criticism of the competition on the horizon the company's work remained, for a long time, wrapped in a light ambiguous. But by virtue of this construction, the emancipatory side of competition could not be identified.
Capitalism was conceived in the abstract or as a training "historically necessary" within the company's work (thought of as ontologically unsurpassed), which had now run its course, or (and by the very currents that assumed particularly radical and critical ) as a simple mistake from the beginning "that could and should have corrected at any time, of course, the" point of view of the worker. " Here, too, makes its reappearance on charges senseless revolt by the "radical left" that is against the Bolsheviks did not have materialized utopia (nothing but the bourgeois ideal), which, according to them, but was achieved at any time.
In this way the competition instead of a driving force appeared rather as a moral scandal and a bad principle, purely negative, and to abolish as soon as possible. The Marxist labor movement never understood to have freed the workers from competition, but only for it, and instead, paradoxically, sought to terminate and liquidate competition, absolutizing one of its segments - namely the working class - which as such could only arise through to it.
In developed Western countries the old labor movement acquitted of most of its mission - after having once and for all of discarding any emphasis of each objective transcendent - it became a commonplace element of competition within the bourgeois society. Instead, the Soviet Union and other countries of real socialism, the bourgeois modernization recovery led to a new paradox of social reproduction. The internal contradiction of capitalism was not exceeded at all but on the contrary, even doubled. The October Revolution gave birth to a modern producer of goods but not allow him to obey its functional mechanism, the competition between the participants market was eliminated and replaced by state control.

4.4 The breakdown of socialism in capitalist dynamics

The ideology of the labor movement - which was the embodiment of social socialism - he simply oppose certain types of their real middle-class polo additional "work" against "capital", the state primary against the monetarist principle of competition. But this ideology drew its raw material and raison d'être from the reports themselves and also his statement in the concrete relatively underdeveloped regions of the world capitalist socialization in its infancy, it was absolutely a "mistake" but a consequence of such their relationship. The logical paradox
of a producer of goods without competition had its basis in historical paradox that in the early twentieth century, a new independent national economy could only develop through the element absolutization Statist. The competition was to be deleted just because of the competition in order to compete against external relatively more developed Western countries - so as not to be absorbed or degraded in these marginal regions weakly developed - the competition was to be internal deleted through the command in the sense Stalinist state. The conveyance of masses of surplus value, strategically "planned", generated by the process of accumulation, set in motion with brutal methods inward towards the core areas of infrastructure and basic industry, it was possible only if you disable the principle functionality of the production of surplus value.
But the paradoxical result of this suspension of competition within the system of the Soviet economy, was the instrument that ended up turning against his own purpose, but moreover to achieve that end, there was no other tool available. The same logic that produced the absolutization and the petrification of the Soviet state with its economy of war, it also caused the inevitable obsolescence. All that the command economy had built through the strategic planning of capital gains, ended up crushed under the unbearable weight of stagnation.
Throughout history, this logic tragic futility could not immediately leap to the eyes and above for two reasons. On the one hand during the first phase of expansion of the extensive system of producer goods were actually made of Soviet successes in the form of high growth rates. It was too easy because the peasants were [ hineingepeitscht, gebrandmarkt-,-gefoltert ] in the abstract expense of their workforce, in the words of Marx. Huge masses of fruit production in part of a subsistence economy to a very low level of needs, and that would never have been recorded by modern economic statistics, were incorporated for the first time in the machinery of social work and metabolized by the .
same time were made huge investments in heavy industry and basic infrastructure, or where no one could almost make mistakes - despite all the deficits of the command economy, which was already perfectly recognizable - and guarantee itself a growth wide strides. Since raised that these processes, at least partially, the level of needs and generates the elements of the "civilizing mission" of the capital, hidden under the mask of war statist socialist economy, rampant in the Soviet Union, albeit temporarily, a sort of euphoria building that would be repeated later in some Third World countries - and even more so ephemeral - and that created a whole superstructure of socialist literature edifying.
In addition, during this phase and not only because of the high growth rates, might have seemed that the nascent Soviet economy was able to riagguantare the West and in a historical period predictable. At the time, even the West was experiencing a rise in statist who embraced the first part of the twentieth century. The structures of the war economy, typical of the period of the two world wars, forced to retreat to the mechanism of competition characteristic of the monetarist principle antagonist, although not in the West statism never crystallized to become instead a system as happened in Soviet Union, also the last crisis - and the largest - the system of producer goods, which broke out in the middle of his rise to global capitalist form of socialization, slowed development, strengthens the state-run trends and created an atmosphere of order that era permeated all ideological reactions, to Critical Theory. The situation changed radically after the Second World War, during the Fordist era, the heyday of capitalism, now in its final maturation as a global system total. Under the aegis of the Pax Americana competition once affrancatasi structures of war and economic crisis and from a higher level of development, in a series of major new advanced stimulated the development of productive forces and the highly scientific, to the more recent introduction of microelectronics and information technology with potential for automation hitherto unthinkable in all areas of social reproduction. For business units that process is the "silent compulsion" of an increasingly competitive global market refers to the sphere of direct and intensification of the production process, or the compulsion to rationalize ever new, highly scientific and automation.
In this process of dynamization of capitalism during the war, the intensification of production of surplus value is increased up to empirical completely new dimensions. But this way the system crystallized in the production of goods of socialism, with their economy of war, were no longer able to keep the pace of the West. The barracks and command economies of the Soviet system, oriented from the beginning to the extensive production of surplus value - and that the increase in productivity, constantly alleged, could be invoked only by ukase state and moralistic propaganda campaigns -, lost Soon the ground and consequently their decline became unavoidable.
Now she takes it half of his own purpose, the abolition of the principle of internal competition, which is necessary for the establishment of "recovery" of a national economy in the form of labor society is echoed not only on external competition (between systems) but also on the complex of social reproduction. Irony of history: in the words of General Secretary Gorbachev's "Life punishes those who arrive late", in other words "life" of capital punished those who had stolen the soul of the mechanical principle of competition, passing off all for socialism.
equally ironic absolutization of the capitalist principle of the work carried out by Marxism, resulted in the increasing disability of the expense of workers and employees of companies of real socialism on the level of world society, this is because such an expenditure had fallen far below the standard of overall productivity. The alleged overcoming of nature contradiction of capitalism, but on the basis of its own assumptions, instead of abolishing capital as such, had done nothing to suppress a long time that "contradiction" along with its internal dynamics. So
real socialism, during dynamization of the capitalist war, ended increasingly darkened, haunted by an idiot historical work and in this respect would be the most capitalist of capitalism. The glorification of work, deprived of the principle of competition, far from being able to "meet and surpass" Western capitalism after the war or even usher in a qualitatively new alternative society, generated at best a grotesque Fordism bonsai, whose emblem might well be the small car, foul-smelling malcongegnata East German car industry.
In a long rearguard action - made up of reform efforts but ultimately was limited only to make some concessions in one way or another to the principle of competition, but did not affect the basic economics of the system of war, crystallized in his Government - the economies of the West in pursuit of the barracks and threw their own plans, but with hopes for success increasingly laughable. This phenomenon, it can be documented easily and Empirically, for example, using as benchmarks the GDR and the FRG. In a study published in 1985, the comparison of their productivity, with a fairly accurate forecast for 1990 shows a sharp fall down of the GDR (in percent, FRG = 100)


_________1960_1970_1984_1990
Produttività__70__55___46___35
Wages reali___78__58___44___35

( Source: Wirtschaftswoche No. 36, 30/08/1985)

The ratio is even more favorable if we take into account only the key industries, particularly the automotive industry. A summary of the situation is afforded by this report Horst Sieber, president of the for the World Economy in Kiel:

While in the past two decades, the Federal Republic, the number of industrial jobs has declined steadily 10.1000000-8000000, in the GDR, this number is even increased. Siebert cites the automotive industry as an example of low productivity: the IFA-Kombinat, with their 65,000 employees, producing only 200,000 cars a year. Toyota, with the same number, it produces four million. With a productivity rate of 1 to 20 this industry is in no way able to compete. (Handelsblatt 25/05/1990).

appears as obvious as the "home work" Socialism barracks had frozen and maintained on a standard now long past, an "honor of the work" increasingly obsolete. Only in this way it could ensure full employment, hailed as an alleged "power of the working class," and even prove naively proud that reigned the scarcity of labor, which is now exposed as the pride to work unproductive. The
increasingly drastic fall in productivity of labor society of socialism goes hand in hand with a corresponding delay in the integration process of reproduction. Advanced integration is a prerequisite for overcoming the production of goods and effective revolutionary transformation of bourgeois society. This delay can be seen from the degree of outsourcing which today represents a highly scientific level index. While in 1987, yet 58% of those employed worked in agriculture or industry of the GDR, and only 42% in the tertiary sector, in West Germany only 46% were engaged in material production compared to 54% of the tertiary sector. This delay in the development of integration can be observed even in the depths of the interconnection industry. They are known for some time the results of a research Institute for Economic Research of North Rhine-Westphalia (RWI):

the interplay of individual industries with each other and with business and commercial services is more faint in the GDR in the FRG. [...] One reason is that the Kombinat have to react to the difficulties in the supply of semi-finished products through independent production. In the Federal Republic, on the contrary, the division of labor across sectors has intensified. (Handelsblatt 05.08.1990)

The irony of history is also evident in this respect: in socialism socialization real material, is much weaker than in the West. In the same way that the relatively low productivity, unlike in the West deprived of the stimulus of competition, is paralyzed well below the critical level necessary to overcome the work, even the relatively weak interconnection is paralyzed below the critical level of tolerance of the commodity-form. The economy of the barracks has not only kept the expenditure of labor power but kept separate from their individual firms on the technical-material. The internal contradiction of capital is so depleted well before reaching its "critical mass". But as the capital, at the height of its development, can exist only on a global scale, the crisis and the collapse of the East were provcate own exhaustion of this dynamic.
From this it would be wrong to expect a more serious solution for now catastrophic deficit of socialism, the realignment and adaptation, apparently on the agenda, the economy competitive Western "victory." This rather superficial view completely ignores the fact that these deficits were already a historical result of capitalist contradictions. The abolition of internal competition was not a "blunder", a "mistake" and would now be simply "correct".
the contrary, the crisis that led to the collapse of socialism, the level current capitalist socialization is tied to the stage of development of the global total. Now more than ever is a consequence of "no time" for such a system. The crisis of labor society of socialism marks the incipient crisis of modern society's work and its outright in the West because the mechanisms of competition were so effective as to undermine and erode the foundations of the system producing the same goods. It was the logic of this system that the parts most vulnerable with regard to productivity and interconnection were the first to fall into the abyss of systemic collapse, but sooner or later the advance of the highly scientific process that goes beyond the logical limits of the system producing the same goods surprise the West and along these lines are visible for a long time.
It 's true, life punishes those who arrive too late. But if the countries of the former real socialism, with much zeal but little weight, they head resolutely towards the competitive world market economy, hoping to find salvation, unfortunately for them arrive late for the second time and "life" seems to have in Serbia for their punishment more terrible than those tested so far. In fact the entire modern society is now working together to come to an end and it also the basic categories of the money form and the commodity-form. The analysis of the isolated final crisis of socialism completely ignores the logic of the crisis of the principle of competition that will rage as a negative emancipation in the coming crisis of the advanced world production of goods.

Notes

1. The term "natural economy" documents the darkness that dominates the conceptual understanding of the Marxian critique of political economy. Already in the social debate of the First World War, the abolition of commodity-form was confused with an "abolition of money" only from the outside: but on the way the basic logic, completely misunderstood the system of producer goods are not absolutely had to be overcome but only brought to completion by the state, the material immediately in the form of a "natural economy" without the "veil of money" . The origins of this debate does not lie in the critical Marxist economics, but in the middle class whose political leaders still can not decide whether a system based on the exchange of goods "is inconceivable without the money or not, a way really silly to ask the question.
2. This is visible, not least in the fact that this conception of socialism work subordinate, of little value, dirty and / or mechanical devices are not even "abolished", on the contrary they are the bearers to be "recognized" as citizens of "equal value" and as men in all respects with the premise that all work equally contribute to national wealth and are therefore deserving of respect. Of course, behind the trappings of moral rhetoric, lies here too the actual indifference of abstract labor and that the grant of monads as possessors of the commodity labor power.
3. There have historically been the exception, quoted by Marx, societies and the Incas of ancient India where a division of labor, pushed beyond the fundamentals of a company primitive had not generated the categories of goods and money, the social glue in these companies consisted of religious institutions that had nothing in common with the modern state. These side branches of human social development can hardly be recommended as a perspective lost civilization or "totally other" on the contrary they seem to have generated only a division of labor of the lowest level (for example, the Incas did not even know the wheel). It is therefore of exceptions that prove the rule.
4. This contradiction in the modernization process, mediated by competition, made possible, in every stage of his claim, even in opposition conservative character, starting with the apologists of feudalism to get to the "conservative values" of our times. The opposition fought the reactionary side emancipation of modernization which is reproached the negative and destructive of that process.
5. And for this reason, the Enlightenment and rightly so, since the Enlightenment in its "inability to enlighten itself" (Hegel) was widely interpreted as a prior history "mistake" and a "deviation from reason" in this and other respects the 'ideology of the labor movement, including certain elements of Marxism, it is revealed only as a "second pass" Enlightenment bourgeois horizon of the goods-producing system, unsurpassed even on a theoretical level and as an expression of the immanent forms of consciousness which it formed.
6. This type of literature that served as "music to accompany" of primitive accumulation "recovery" could be sincere as his original intentions, soon degenerated into dull sound of state propaganda, on the western outskirts of the Soviet Union it was exposed from the outset as a cialtroneria misleading because in those countries forced the establishment of state-owned economy of the barracks could never rely on a historical basis, even if only relative, in terms of development.
7. The example cited is relativized a bit 'if you also include the Toyota supplier industries that are already partly integrated into the production structure of the conglomerate-ifa for reasons of complexity of the organization. From this point of view, the advantage in productivity of Toyota refers only to the relevant individual (at the expense of suppliers) and to society as a whole. However, even taking into account the effect of the superiority of the company overall productivity is still enormous.
8. About the collapse of the GDR, some apologists of the "critical" and the exponents of Western left has had the impudence to charge the catastrophic backwardness of East German productivity to the "unequal starting conditions" in the aftermath of the war, with all the disadvantages linked to it. In fact, it is the GDR, a country already developed, to offer the best criterion of comparison, figures, in the initial phase, which existed in the "worst of departure", the gap in productivity between the GDR and FRG was even lower and again until the '60s was not perceived as too dramatic. It has grown as the two Germanys were displaced from their initial conditions to get the test the strength of its foundations. This sterile argument only reveals the anachronism rooted in the constellation and the thought of this post-war left, which is totally incapable of making a critical concept (let alone a radical critique) of the goods-producing system and its logic contradictory.