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:
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 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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment