I’m going to try not to abandon yet another blog, so I’m back. Here with another entry like so many other entries out there in cyberspace, wondering if it will ever be read. Never you mind.

Glenn Beck. A lot of people hate him, most of them probably because of his harsh criticism of the current administration. Know why I like him? He got me interested in politics.

Seriously.

Whether or not you believe he’s serious about what he says hardly matters as much as whether you believe the message yourself. Do I want what the founding fathers intended or what Karl Marx intended? I’m I for Mao or Madison? Che or capitalism? Stalin or self-reliancy? Beck may be out for a buck (but I don’t think that’s his sole motivation) but it’s the principles that matter to me and so principles I will stick with.

I like that he highlights “Question with boldness” and “speak without fear.” These aren’t just philosophies I use in politics, but also in daily life.

I believe in capitalism, not because Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity told me to, but because I believe that one should be rewarded for hard work. I believe what I earn I should keep, and if I work harder and make more money than my neighbor, then I deserve to be richer due to my hard work and/or sacrifice.

I also believe in charity, but the difference here is my freedom of choice. I can choose to be stingy, but much like socialism robs the individual of the fruits of their labor, I think socialist programs rob the individual of the fruits of being charitable. Charity promotes love for mankind. Government welfare promotes dependence and abuse. Charity gives to both the giver and the recipient–one receives a spiritual reward and the other receives needs. Government welfare provides for the disdain of both.

Before Glenn Beck, I only cared about politics enough to get to the polls once every 4 years, if I remembered. Now, I’ve attended my first town hall meeting. If you would have told me this might have happened a year ago, I would have laughed you to scorn.

Does that mean I’m a gung-ho republican now? Nope. Well what about an activated democrat? Nope, not that either. Why neither? Because I see both currently as the problem. I feel like we truly are being pitted in a silly rivalry game only to find out both teams are their to distract us while our cars are being looted in the parking lot. It really doesn’t matter if team red or team blue wins, OUR CARS ARE BEING LOOTED IN THE PARKING LOT.

So I will vote for those politicians who adhere to the same principles I do, be they democrat, republican, or independent–even if that seems like I’m throwing a vote away. I’m voting for principles, not parties.

So for all you politicians out there, listen up. I know I’m not the only one, and while the rivalry may continue a few more cycles, your numbers are up if you only care about staying elected and not serving the people. If you are a democrat and you are for big government, I will vote you out. If you are a republican and you are for big government, I will vote you out. If you are seeking to destroy the foundation of my republic I will vote you out and plan to make it my mission to get you voted out.

It’s time you start listening to the people. We are awake and we are watching.

LIVRARIA PORTO DAS LETRAS acesse: www.estantevirtual.com.br/acervo/livrariaportodasletras

ANOTAÇÕES FINAIS (dia 25.11.09, as anteriores encontram-se abaixo):

“Já era tempo de botar para funcionar aquela massa cinzenta de que tanto me orgulhava e de que até então fizera tão pouco uso”.        (Alexis Lecaye, SHERLOCK HOLMES & MARX)

   Holmes e Laura Lafargue, née Marx, iniciam um ardente romance em plena Paris sitiada.  Um dia ela desaparece misteriosamente. Em busca da mulher amada, ele  vai a Bordeaux, na qual  casal Lafargue reside, e descobre que teve em seus braços uma falsa Laura, pois conhece a verdadeira filha de Marx: “Era falsa a carta de Marx à sua filha que eu lera em Paris, falsas as boas novas. mais terrível ainda: falsa, a identidade da mulher que eu adorava e cuja doçura e entega haviam adormecido em mim todas as desconfianças, atenção e vigilãncia. Falso,  o rapto! Falsidade! Falsidade! Falsidade! Era tudo uma mistificação. Mas então quem era aquela mulher? O que ela pretendia? Quais eram seus motivos, seus interesses? “

      Na verdade, a falsa Laura é o verdadeiro X, é ela quem pretende assassinar Marx (não vou revelar os motivos aqui). Para chegar a Londres e impedi-la (o que acontecerá, com Holmes assumindo a identidade do autor de O capital, numa demonstração das suas habilidades no disfarce), Holmes, voltando a Paris, tem de sobreviver (e seus amigos também, e mais o pobre Rupelski, que era inocente) à invasão bárbara que a cidade sofre, e ao massacre dos seus habitantes, narrados de uma forma ao mesmo tempo concisa e eficiente por Lecaye. Na figura de X, a falsa Laura, vemos também uma alusão àquelas formidáveis e atraentes mentes criminosas femininas que tanto obsedaram o Holmes de Conan Doyle, embora nenhuma delas chegasse a ser tão destrutiva.

ANOTAÇÕES DO DIA 24.11.09

“A diferença entre criminosos e inocntos não está na concepção, mas no poder e na força de transformação de um pensamento em ato. Se tivesse respeitado essa verdade eterna, infelizmente inacessível a um espírito de 23 anos, inexperiente, ainda imbuído de princípios rígidos, incapaz de imaginar uma passagem, uma passarela entre o mundo do Bem e o do Mal, a seqüência de minhas aventuras teria, uma vez mais, sido outra” (Alexis Lecaye, SHERLOCK HOLMES & MARX, mas aí na esteira dessas reflexões, precisaria ter uma pitada de Freud na perspicácia sherloquiana).

(para o leitor se orientar: estou comentando o livro SHERLOCK HOLMES & MARX, de Alexis Lecaye, mas utilizando como apoio dois textos de Marx da época da comuna de Paris de 1871: A guerra civil na França & Cartas a Kugelmann; veja as anotações do dia anterior logo abaixo)

“É um fato estranho. Apesar de tudo o que se falou e se escreveu, com tamanha profusão, durante os últimos 60 anos, a respeito da emancipação do trabalho, mal os operários, não importa onde, tomam o problema em suas mãos, logo recomeça a ressoar toda a fraseologia apologética dos porta-vozes da sociedade atual, com os seus dois pólos, o capital e a escravidão assalariada… como se a sociedade capitalista se achasse ainda em seu mais puro estado de inocência virginal, com seus antagonismos ainda em germe, com suas ilusões ainda encobertas, com suas prostituídas realidades ainda não desnudadas. A comuna, exclamam, pretende abolir a propriedade, base de toda civilização! Sim, cavalheiros, a comuna pretendia abolir essa propriedade de classe que converte o trabalho de muitos na dos expropriadores.  Queria fazr da propriedade individual e o capital, que hoje são fundamentalmente meios de escravização e exploração do trabalho, em simples instrumentos de trabalho livre e associado. Mas isso é comunismo, o irrealizável comunismo! … Se a produção cooperativa for algo mais que uma impostura e um ardil, se há de substituir o sistema capitalista; se as sociedades cooperativas unidas regularem a produção nacional segundo um plano comum, tomando-a sob seu controle e pondo fim à anarquia constante e às convulsões periódicas,  conseqüências inevitáveis da produçao capitalista, que será isso, cavalheiros, senão counismo, comunismo realizável?

      A classe operário não esperava da comuna nenhum milagre. Os operários não têm nenhuma utopia já pronta para introduzir, por vontade popular… Eles não têm que realizar nenhum ideal, mas simplesmente libertar os elementos da nova sociedade que a velha sociedade burguesa agonizante traz em seu bojo…”

                      (Karl Marx, A guerra civil na França)

     Ontem, contei que no romance de Lecaye, Marx marca um encontro com o jovem Sherlock Holmes em 13 de abril de 1871. Querendo contratar os seus serviços, o informa de que, sob as ordens de Bismarck, um anarquista russo, “com status de desertor, um homem estranho, aristocrata arruinado, anti-semita e xenófobo” se prepara para assassiná-lo. Seu nome: Rupelski: “O que eu quero lhe pedir… procurar o assassino, desmascará-lo sem que ele suspeite de nada e fazê-lo desaparecer… Quando digo ´desaparecer´, entendo com isso esconder, dissimular, raptar se quiser, subtrair  à atenção e colocá-lo fora de circulação… O senhor o guardará durante algumas semanas, o tempo necessário para eu concluir um trabalho que me é caríssimo. Depois poderia soltá-lo…o importante é ele não me matar agora, o que representaria um golpe fatal para o movimento.” Que movimento? A Internacional dos trabalhadores. Marx fica espantado com o desinteresse e ignorância políticos de Holmes:  “Vocês, britânicos, são incríveis! Concedem asilo, quase irrefletidamene, ao cérebro de uma organização que, com ou sem razão, faz tremerem todos os burgueses e governos do continente, e não sabem sequer da sua existência…O senhor, jovem burguês briânico, inteligente e culto, não apenas não têm medo, o que concebo perfeitamente, como sequer tem conhecimento da nossa existência!” Numa carta de 27 de julho do mesmo ano a Kugelmann, Marx diz: “O trabalho da Internacional é imenso, e além disso Londres está abarrotada de refugiados, pelos quais tenho de olhar. Mas estou sobrecarregado por outras pessoas, jornalistas e gente de toda espécie, que querem ver o monstro com os próprios olhos. Acreditou-se até agora que o crescimento dos mitos cristãos durante o Império romano foí possível apenas porque a imprensa ainda não fora inventada. É precisamene o contrário. A imprensa diária e o telégrafo, que em um instante difundem invenções por todo o mundo fabricam mais mitos (o gado burguês acredita neles e aumenta com base neles) em um dia do que antes se fazia em um século.”. Numa preciosíssima  carta anterior (de 18 de junho), ele escreve: “Você sabe que durante o período da última revolução de Paris fui denunciado continuamente como o grand chef da Internacional, pelos jornais de Versalhes, e por extensão, pela imprensa aqui da Inglaterra… tenho a honra nesse momento de ser o mais bem caluniado e ameaçado homem de Londres. Isso faz um sujeito sentir-se bem, depois de um idílio entediante de 20 anos em seu antro…”

      Voltando ao romance, após algumas peripécias londrinas (inclusive, um atentado contra sua vida), Holmes aceita a proposta de Marx, que é a de viajar para Paris, onde Rupelski, ou X (porque não há certeza firme da sua identidade) está camuflado, nos meios anarquistas, “em pleno coração da Paris revolucionária. Hoje em dia é o melhor lugar para se esconder e se urdir complôs, no meio da desordem e da efervescência populares”. Holmes vai para o continente com um colaborador francês da Internacional,  Philibert Longuet, e depois de algumas aventuras pelo interior da França (há até um duelo, mas deixo os detalhes para o leitor do romance), entra disfarçado em Paris, através de túneis subterrâneos antiquíssimos. acompanhado pelo desdenhoso e intrigante Vigot. Entre os comparsas da viagem de Holmes está a família Gottlieb, e madame Gottlieb, contrariando o marido, diz a seguinte frase, que vem a propósito, quando pensamos na missão do detetive e nas palavras que Marx escreveu em suas missivas a Kugelmann: “Se perguntar aos operários parisienses, não encontrará muitos que sequer conheçam o nome do senhor Karl Marx”.

       Em Paris, Holmes refugia-se no apartamento de Vigot, conhecendo a irmã dele, Isabelle, uma pintora passional (e aqui podia-se temer que houvesse uma convencionalíssima aproximação amorosa, mas Lecaye se mostrou muito mais hábil do que se podia esperar, fazendo com que haja uma fixação por parte dele, enquanto os interesses dele irão por outros caminhos; ele a deixa indignado com sua “inocência” inglesa, não “entendendo” o que ela quer dele, e mantendo-se fleumático e racional: “Aquela desordem dos sentimentos, que nada seria capaz de explicar, bem diferente da apaixonante desordem de uma investigação criminal que esconde de fato elos secretos e encadeamentos rigorosos… O que há de mais fascinante que isolar o fio vermelho do crime da meada incolor da vida?”; mais adiante, numa daquelas considerações que são típicas das narrativas retrospectivas, ele se auto-congratula pelas decisões que moldaram sua existência: “felicito-me a cada instante por ter sido capaz, à minha revelia talvez, mas é o resultado que conta, de evitar os escolhos da paixão para me ater ao conforto de uma sólida e viril amizade“, referindo-se aqui, é claro, à sua relação com o doutor Watson).

       Enquanto conhece melhor os irmãos (chega a posar para quadros de Isabelle, entre um e outro arrufo), ele perambula por Paris, tentando estabelecer contatos (que Marx forneceu) e localizar X/Rupelski. E ele consegue se introduzir num círculo de niilistas (“o senhor viu a cidade que se diverte, vai descobrir a cidade que pensa”), que se reúnem nas catacumbas da Igreja Santo Eustáquio,  e ouvir o discurso inflamado, visando diretamente a figura de Marx, do tal Rupelski, um exemplo cabal dos eternos derrotistas, daqueles que teorizam para não agir e para impedir os outros de agir: “Entre esses homens, há um particularmente cuja ação e palavra devem ser imperativamente refreadas, tal é a astúcia diabólica que mostra na apresentação de seu programa e de suas idéias: trata-se de Karl Marx, gênio mau de todos os que aspiram ao movimento livre e espontâneo da revolta… Seguia-se então uma longa enumeração dos vícios imperdoáveis do pensamento e da ação de Karl Marx, um catálogo em que se misturava confusamente tudo o que Rupelski podia recriminar ao revolucionário alemão, inclusive sua origem judaica e seua pretensa lascívia (…) Apesar do tom virulento de Rupelski, a despeito do silêncio religioso que acolhia cada palavra sua, tive a estranha impressão de ter assistido a um sermão dominical, em que o fato de estar presente e escutar bastava para garantir a consciência limpa e sustentar a fé de todos os participantes. Decerto não era ali que se elaboravam os complôs e as decisões irrevogáveis.”

      E Holmes consegue capturar Rupelski e mantê-lo preso num porão abandonado do edifício em que moram os irmãos (Isabelle até se torna uma amiga do niilista russo). A missão estava completa? Holmes tem a sensaçao que não, sua intuição lhe diz que não aprisionou um tigre, mas um reles chacalzinho, astuto e escorregadio, porém inofensivo. Por isso, decide esperar instruções do próprio Marx…

      Holmes recebe, então, uma carta de Laura, a filha de Marx casada com o jornalista e colaborador da Internacional Paul Lafargue, dizendo que está em Paris e deseja encontrá-lo no Hotel de Bordeaux. Lá, ele sofre um “coup de foudre”: é amor à primeira vista, fica idiotizado, desajeitado, completamente tomado por aquela mulher (e a coisa pelo visto é recíproca): “sou incapaz de achar as palavras adequadas para explicar as razões daquela súbita e vergonhosa perda de autocontrole”). Mesmo embasbacado, há assuntos urgentes:  ela traz uma carta do pai, escrita no seu estilo característico (pitoresco e misturando palavras de vários línguas, uma das várias coisas que me fazem aproximar na minha cabeça, às vezes, as figuras de Marx e James Joyce). Nessa carta, ele diz que a missão realmente pode ser encerrada, pois ele não corre mais riscos. Holmes informa à Laura que capturou Rupelski (ela até chega a vê-lo no porão onde está trancafiado, embora tenha ficado desconfiada e mesmo em pânico quando Holmes a encaminhou até ali). De qualquer forma, Holmes está apaixonado, citando Werther e completamente indeciso quanto a voltar para a Inglaterra…

ANOTAÇÕES DO DIA 23.11.09

“O que há de mais mortal, mais destruidor que a ordem para o espírito curioso, para o olhar esquadrinhador, que encadeia elos aparentemente disparatados, mas na realidade profundamente complexos?” (Alexis Decaye, SHERLOCK HOLMES & MARX).

       Em 1974, Nicholas Meyer engenhosamente imaginou um encontro entre Sherlock Holmes e Freud, em razão do vício do primeiro em cocaína, em Uma solução sete por cento (A seven per-cent solution, um dos três livros em que ele reinventou o detetive de Conan Doyle) , que depois seria, infelizmente,  adaptado por Herbert Ross, com sua habitual preguiça de criar qualquer coisa de pessoal ou marcante, num desperdício da inteligência do texto e também do maravilhoso elenco (Nicol Williamson, Robert Duvall, Alan Arkin, Laurence  Olivier, etc). O  filme virou por aqui Visões de Sherlock Holmes e lhe faz falta a  mistura da pena da galhofa & da tinta da melancolia que o mestre Billy Wilder imprimiu a um filme contemporâneo: A vida íntima de Sherlock Holmes.

        Em 1981, fo a vez de Marx. O autor francês Alexis Lecaye escreveu o imaginativo SHERLOCK HOLMES & MARX, traduzido há alguns anos por André Telles e publicado numa interessante série da Zahar,  “Creme do Crime” (há outra aventura lecayana de Homes, Sherlock Holmes & Einstein).

        Lecaye imagina Marx (que morou em Londres boa parte da sua vida) contratando os serviços de um muito jovem Holmes (aliás, ele comete uma ousadia: faz do detetive o próprio narrador das suas aventuras: “É a primeira vez, e muito provavelmente a última, que pego da pena, pelo menos no que se refere à redação de um capítulo das minhas Memórias. Outros se encarregaram disso por mim. Por que, então, esse súbito prurido de escrever, esta necessidade irreprimível de traçar eu próprio os contornos esmaecidos de um passado irrevogavelmente morto?… O caso que vou recordar aqui… exerceu, mais que qualquer outro, grande influência em minha mocidade. Essa influência chegou inclusive a se estender para além da minha pessoa. O episódio talvez tenha alterado toda a história européia deste fim de se´culo. Será que o próximo também sentirá o seu peso?”), na época da eclosão da comuna de Paris (em 1871), quando a capital francesa ficou sitiada por meses, após a derrota francesa na guerra com a Alemanha. Um assassino, a soldo de uma potência estrangeira, pretende eliminar Marx, e este envia Holmes à França durante esses meses revolucionários que o autor de O Capital descreverá com uma retórica majestosa (às  vezes muito exagerada, porém como foi escrito no calor do momento) nos seus panfletos que consituirão A GUERRA CIVIL NA FRANÇA. Dessa mesma época temos as cartas que ele escreveu para seu admirador , o ginecologista L. Kugelmann, “que tomou parte em sua juventude no movimento revolucionário de 1848 e por toda a sua vida se considerou um ardente seguidor de Marx” (trecho do prefácio de Lênin a essa correspondência).

       Antes de mais nada: o romance de Lecaye é ótimo. Eu teria o maior prazer de indicá-lo (sem que isso represente uma diminuição ou visão paternalista) para jovens leitores: é uma aula de como abordar uma aventura histórica sem pedantismos e sem explicações inúteis, confiando apenas na narrativa e na curiosidade e inteligência do leitor.  Em 170 páginas consegue nos transmitir uma imagem perfeita da Londres vitoriana, dos dias da comuna, da paisagem francesa (que Holmes atravessa para poder chegar a Paris e cumprir sua missão), das querelas ideológicas daquele momento, e, sobretudo, da transformação de Holmes em.. Sherlock Holmes, com as características que o consagrara, através de um relato retrospectivo que é um pouco também um balanço de vida, uma espécie de “ilusões perdidas” ou “educação sentimental” do detetive inglês. Gostei muito e recomendo (depois teríamos um “jovem Sherlock Holmes” muito interessante, também, na visão de Chris Columbus que resultou no filme, para mim e para vários amigos, memorável, porém pouco apreciado pela crítica: O enigma da pirâmide, talvez por ter sido realizado por outro diretor tão bisonho e nulo quanto Herber Ross: Barry Levinson).

      E, por falar em “jovem” Sherlock Holmes, abaixo temos uma foto do “jovem” Marx, longe do estereótipo de velho barbudão, meio Jeová, consagrado pela posteridade:

      A GUERRA CIVIL NA FRANÇA, fixando definitivamente o conceito de “luta de classes” vai tentar interpretar, mesmo no calor da hora, como afirmou Engels (num texto escrito vinte anos mais tarde), a “significação histórica da Comuna de Paris”: “A 28 de maio os últimos combatentes da comuna sucumbiam ante a superioridade de forças do inimigo… O desarmamento dos operários era considerado o primeiro dever para os burgueses que se achavam na frente do Estado… Era a primeira vez que a burguesia mostrava a que extremo de crueldade e vingança é capaz de chegar sempre o que o proletariado se atreve a defrontar-se com ela como uma classe independente, que tem seus próprios interesses e reivindicações… O Segundo Império fora o apelo do chauvinismo francês: a reivindicação das fronteiras do Primeiro Império, perdidas em 1814… isso implicava a necessidade de guerras periódicas e de ampliação de fronteiras… não havia extensão territorial que tanto deslumbrasse a fantasia dos chauvinistas franceses como as terras alemãs da margem esquerda do Reno… Defraudado em suas esperanças de  ´compensações territoriais´ por Bismarck e por sua própria política demasiado astuta e vacilante, não restava a Napoleão [não o original, bem entendido, e sim o seu desprezível arremedo] outra saída a não ser a guerra, que se deflagrou em 1870… A consequência inevitável foi a revolução de Paris de 4 de setembro de 1870. O Império desmoronou-se como um castelo de cartas e foi novamente proclamada a República…. A 25 de março foi eleita, e a 28, proclamada, a comuna de Paris… Como os membros da comuna eram todos, quase sem exceção, operários, ou representantes reconhecidos, as suas resoluções se distinguiam por um caráter marcadamente proletário. Uma parte de seus decretos eram reformas que a burguesia republicana não se atrevera a implantar por vil covardia e que lançavam os fundamentos indispensáveis para a livre atuação da classe operária, como por exemplo, a implantação do princípio de que, com relação ao Estado, a religião não é senão um problema de foro íntimo; outros tinham o objetivo de salvaguardar diretamente os interesses da classe operária, algumas vezes mesmo abrindo profundas brechas na velha ordem social. Mas tudo isso, numa cidade sitiada, não podia ir além de um início de realização… Paris estava submetida a incessante bombardeio e pelas mesmas pessoas que haviam estigmatizado como um sacrilégio o bombardeio da capital pelos prussianos… E então atingiu o seu ponto culminante aquela matança de homens desarmados, mulheres e crianças… Logo quando se viu que era impossível matar a todos, vieram as detenções em massa, iniciaram-se os fuzilamentos de vítimas arbitrariamente escolhidas entre as fileiras de prisioneiros e a transferência dos demais para grandes campos de concentração, onde aguardavam o comparecimento diante dos conselhos de guerra.” (utilizo aqui o texto constante nas Obras Escolhidas, volume 2, de Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, publicadas pela Alfa-Õmega; nã há indicação de tradutor).

         No primeiro dos onze capítulos de SHERLOCK HOLMES & MARX, o detetive novato recebe uma carta de alguém que ele ignora completamente quem seja: Marx, marcando uma reunião no dia 13 de abril de 1871. O indivíduo que se apresenta, com cerca de 55 anos,  tinha “estatura ligeiramente inferior à média, vestido com um casacão escuro, um pouco puído, e levemente folgado nos ombros, como se seu proprietário o tivesse pego emprestado de um amigo mais gordo, ou então subitamente emagrecido. Sua tez amarelada, doentia, e as olheiras roxas me fizeram inclinar pela segunda hipótese. Colarinho branco e botinas reluzentes, o restante do seu traje era irrepreensível. Uma grande barba precocemente grisalha, muito na moda em alguns círculos do continente, nele bastante crespa e encimada por um bigode basto e negro, engolia-lhe a parte inferior do rosto, sem conseguir dissimular uma grande boca, de expressão irônica”. Holmes fica admirado diante das “incrível vitalidade de sua expressão… Acima de espessas sobrancelhas, erguia-se uma testa imensa e ossuda, com pequenas entradas. O enorme cérebro escondido por trás daquela fronte devia encerrar uma inteligência prodigiosa. O que quer que tivesse vindo me propor, certamente eu não estaria perdendo meu tempo em escutar”.

     Em 12 de abril de 1871, Marx escrevia a seu amigo Kugelmann, a respeito da sua saúde: “atualmente estou submetido ao tratamento do Dr. Matheson, o qual diz que meus pulmões estão em excelente estado e que a tosse é relacionada com bronquite, e pode afetar o fígado.” Ele informa seu correspondente também que, embora  genro (Lafargue) esteja em Paris, sua filha, Laura (guardem esse nome, terá grande importância neste post) não o acompanhou. Nesta carta lemos ainda: “Que elasticidade, que iniciativa histórica, que capacidade de sacrifício desses parisienses! Depois de seis meses de fome e ruína, causada mais pela traição que pelo inimigo externo, eles levantam-se por sobre as baionetas prussianas, como se nunca houvera uma guerra entre a França e a Alemanha  e o inimigo não estivesse às portas de Paris. A história não tem exemplo semelhante de tamanha grandeza…” (utilizo a edição conjunta, publicada pela Paz & Terra de O 18 Brumário & Cartas a Kugelmann, estas últimas traduzidas por Renato Guimarães).

Sebagai pembuka, saya mengutip statemen seorang teman dari milis yahoo groups…

“Bukalah matamu hai bangsa indonesia.. salah satu hal penghambat kemajuan bangsa ini sebenarnya adalah ketololan kita mempercayai adanya tuhan dan memperlakukan ajarannya secara `overacting` dan fanatik. Dan diindonesia ketololan ini ditambah lagi oleh pemimpin rakus dan licik yg punya hobi menggalang massa atas nama agama. terutama agama islam, sebuah ajaran paling kolot dan tolol dibumi ini. pesantren dan kelompok2 pengajian dibuat untuk mem`brainwash` generasi muda agar lebih mudah dikontrol dan sekaligus agar dapat digerakan sebagai kekuatan massa. lihat saja pendukung abdurahman wahid yg menyatakan diri mereka sebagai pasukan berani mati dan berteriak2 `alahuakbarbismilahbismintul` sambil mengacungkan parang seperti preman pasar. atau front pembela islam yg mengobrak-abrik toko2/tempat hiburan yg menjual barang2 yg diharamkan oleh `tuhan` mereka. benar2 manusia biadab. Agama islam adalah racun nomor satu dikehidupan diindonesia ini (kedua adalah budaya jawa) dan kita tidak akan maju dan berkembang bila hal ini dibiarkan. science dan technology adalah hal yg lebih realistis untuk dijadikan patokan/pedoman. tidak heran bila bangsa kita ini tertinggal jauh dalam hal itu. kita terlalu sibuk ketakutan dan menyembah langit yg kosong diatas.

Bukalah matamu bangsa indonesia. tinggalkan agama dan tuhan. Fuck muhamad !! fuck jesus !! fuck all y`all religious hipocrites. Science and technology is the way of the future!!!”

Wups..jangan terburu-buru mengutuk yang punya statemen diatas dengan membabi buta dulu….hehe.. Mari bahas terlebih dahulu dengan membebaskan pemikiran kita …siapa tahu mungkin ada benernya…(cuma mungkin loh…).

Untuk membahasnya saya merujuk pemikiran MARX karena sangat representatif. (sekali lagi..jangan terburu buru menjudge bahwa orang ini sang atheist. Lihat logika-nya..jangan person-nya.. )

Marx pernah mengatakan dalam karyanya Toward the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, yang ditulisnya pada tahun 1844, bahawa “agama itu adalah candu rakyat”. Pendapat yang demikian dipercayai lahir dari pengalaman Marx yang melihat pemimpin dan institusi agama Kristian di Eropah sebagai sebahagian daripada oligarki yang menindas rakyat.

Pemimpin agama itu bukan saja merupakan penyokong kepada para penguasa, tetapi juga menguasai pemikiran rakyat supaya pasrah terhadap keadaan mereka yang tertindas, dan mempercayai bahawa mereka akan memperoleh kemakmuran selepas kematian berasaskan janji bahawa kebahagian itu ada di syurga.

Dalam keadaan demikian, rakyat menjadi pasif dan tidak mahu mengubah keadaan mereka yang buruk itu dengan berjuang untuk menciptakan nasib yang baik dengan kekuatan mereka sendiri.

Itulah sebabnya Marx menganggap agama sebagai candu rakyat.

Dengan perkataan lain, Marx melihat pemimpin agama sebagai sebahagian daripada pihak penguasa atau pemerintah yang menindas rakyat. Dan dalam keadaan hidup tertindas itu, agama mengajar mereka supaya pasrah kerana dikatakan kebahagian sebenarnya ada di dunia lain, dan bukan di dunia yang nyata ini.

Jika demikian, bukankah agama itu telah menjadi candu rakyat?

Komaruddin Hidayat, dari Yayasan Paramadina, melalui tulisannya “Beragama Dikala Duka” (Kompas, 11/2/95) mengemukakan bahwa ketika Marx berbicara tentang Tuhan dan Agama, tidaklah berangkat dari postulat-postulat teologi, melainkan dengan mengamati situasi konkrit manusia, yang secara psikologis mereka tertindas oleh situasi sosial dan politik yang opresif.

Marx yang merasa terpanggil untuk membela mereka yang tertindas secara politis dan ekonomis, ketika lembaga dan penguasa agama hanya menawarkan solusi berupa hiburan semu, yaitu janji-janji surga di seberang derita dan kematian. Bahkan Marx lebih kesal lagi, ketika melihat agama dengan para tokohnya telah berkolusi dengan penguasa yang tiran, yang menindas dan membodohi rakyat.

Yang menjadi sasaran pokok dari kritik Marx bukanlah hakikat Tuhan serta; ajaran metafisika agama, melainkan praktek keberagamaan yang bersikap eskaptis, yaitu menjadikan agama sebagai tempat pelarian dari pergulatan sosial yang memerlukan penyelesaian konkrit, bukannya tawaran surgawi di seberang kematian. Keberagamaan semacam ini, bagi pemikir semacam Marx tak ubahnya sebagai opium yang menghilangkan derita sementara(palliatif), karena akar penyebabnya tidak tersentuh sama sekali.

Sekiranya tokoh-tokoh agama pada waktu itu, tidak menjadikan agama sebagai tempat pelarian dari pergulatan sosial yang memerlukan penyelesaian konkrit bukan tawaran surgawi di seberang kematian, bukan berkolusi dengan penguasa yang tiran, tentu tak akan muncul ucapan yang demikian dari Marx, persoalannya akan menjadi lain.

Kebebasan harus diperjuangkan, direbut. Tidak akan diperoleh dengan mengharap belas kasihan dari kelas yang menindas.

Analognya; bila rakyat yang tertindas (Proletar) diijinkan atau diberi kebebasan untuk berpikir bebas akan nasibnya sendiri, tentu mereka akan kritis dan memerangi ketidak adilan. Agar rakyat terhibur dan punya impian irasional maka agama di tampilkan.

Nah alasan marx tentang agama adalah racun sebenarnya juga terjadi pada kita, saat ini..detik ini..yaitu penindasan ….

]]> http://trotskyite.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/a-breif-history-of-communism/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:47:14 +0000 trotskyite http://trotskyite.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/a-breif-history-of-communism/

It is commonly assumed by the public that Communism (also called “Marxism”) was created by the German philosopher Karl Marx. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a young Marx joined the already existing Communist movement and, after publishing several works on the subject of Communism and Capitalism (a term he coined), he became such a central figure that the term “Marxist” became synonymous with the term “Communist”. In much the same way Adam Smith did not create Capitalism but rather created the authoritative work on Capitalism (The Wealth of Nations) and yet is still considered the “founder” of Capitalism.

So who did create Communism?

Like most things in life, there is no short and simple answer. Communism, or at least the primitive ancestor of Communism has existed for thousands of years. At the dawn of man, humans lived in tribes, working together for survival. What one man killed was food for everyone, the spear or hammer made by one person could be used by another. The concept of private-property did not evolve until much later in human history- the reason being that selfishness and individualism simply could not mesh with the harsh realities of the time. One human could not survive on his own, the tribe as a whole could not waste time and energy on creating twenty individual hammers for the twenty men of the tribe when one could be shared just as easily. At the same time, the shared property (combined with the need for everyone to pull their own weight) eliminated any chance of a class system evolving. Without any difference in wealth or workload, society was more or less egalitarian.

So what happened?

As humans became more settled and as the barter system emerged (to be discussed in a later post), shared-property died slowly out and the class system arose. While today the vast majority of hunter-gatherer, pastoral, horticulturalist, and nomadic people groups still live in classless, shared-property systems, the majority of the world’s population began moving away from this system after the establishment of permanent agricultural communities. By the fall of the Roman Empire, most of the world’s people groups practiced Capitalism in some form. It was not until 1516 when Thomas Moore, one of Henry VIII’s closest advisers, published his work Utopia that the concepts of shared-property and classlessness were reintroduced into society (albeit merely as subjects of intellectual discussion). Only in the early 1800s were the concepts developed into actual political/economic theories. Henri de Saint-Simon, a member of the French aristocracy, created several works on the subject and while never implementing them in any major way, laid the foundations for what would become known as the Communist movement. It was not until 1848 when two young Prussian authors named Marx and Engels published their collaborated work The Communist Manifesto that Communism (or “Socialism”- at the time the two words were more or less interchangeable) became a concrete theory. Between the two men’s works, the entire Communist philosophy was created, though it was not implemented until 1871, when Parisian Socialists revolted against the imperial French government and established a short-lived attempt at a Communist government until the Commune (revolutionary government) was wiped out by the French military. While Communist philosophy spread across much of the Western world, there were no major attempts at Communism (baring the establishment of Amish, and later, Hutterite, communities- which are closer to the primitive classless/shared-property practices of various tribal societies). There was a brief attempt at Fabianism (a British Socialist movement), however it quickly devolved into a philosophy, rather than a physical attempt at the implementation of Communism. It was in Russia in 1917 that the first major attempt at a Communist revolution (since the 1871 revolution) took place. The Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist party and revolutionary movement), led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Russian monarchy and the feudal system. After Lenin’s death in 1923, a split ensued that left the USSR divided between the followers of Leon Trotsky (creator and commander of the Red Army and Lenin’s second-in-command) and the followers of Joseph Stalin (the General Secretary of the Communist party). Stalin, despite the efforts of Trotsky and his followers, assumed control and eventually exiled Trotsky in 1929. Under the despotism of Stalin, the USSR, while maintaining the facade of Communism, devolved into a semi-Socialist dictatorship (Trotsky referred to it as a “deformed workers’ state). While Trotskyism grew in popularity in the West, the general Communist movement was marred by the atrocities committed by Stalin and the imperialists policies pursued in Eastern Europe after his death. In China, Mao Zedong led what is generally considered to have been a Communist revolution, but the later policies of Mao have caused many other Communists to doubt whether China could be counted as true Communist country since the mid 1950s. While the revolution itself is considered to be beneficial, the vast majority of modern Communists hold that contemporary China is no more a true Marxist country than Stalin’s USSR (this opinion is viciously opposed by Maoist factions of the Communist movement). While Communism was quickly becoming popular in the third-world (due largely to Western neo-colonialism) the next major advancement of Communism occurred in Cuba after Fidel Castro and Che Guevara defeated the dictator Batista. Once again Communists are split on the subject of whether Cuba may be considered a true Marxist government- much like China, there is popular that the revolution was a positive event but the movement is split on whether Cuba did or did not devolve into another deformed workers’ state. Indeed, the same could be said for almost every country where a Communist revolution has taken place (though almost all Communists are united in believed that North Korea is not a true Communist country). While the collapse of the USSR in 1990 has led many to believe that Communism has been defeated, the Communist movement is technically as active as it ever was.

In short, the history of Communism is far from simple. Much of its history can be interpreted depending on your sympathies and opinions.

Then again, the same could be said for any aspect of history.

Author’s Note: Since Communism isn’t merely an economic or political or social theory but rather a combination of all three, you can see how describing the theory itself- let alone its history- is a massive undertaking that could easily fill a book. Considering my space and the attention span of the reader is sorely limited, I have been forced so skim over the major events of Communist history. Don’t be ticked off at me if I missed some (though if I have something that might be wrong, please correct me).

The Catholic Church has always had a bull’s-eye attached to it, and in truth many of us wouldn’t want it any other way, for when we are almost universally loved, as has happened a few times in the last 40 years we have become “of the world,” instead of suffering for the world.”  Lately, during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI dark forces have gathered at the gates of truth attacking the Church for a variety of long held beliefs.  These beliefs can range from the theological to the social. However, following the US Election of 2008 a tidal wave seems to have inundated the Church from the mainstream media, the political realm and even the entertainment world. The Church’s 2,000 year old teachings and beliefs have been attacked in the United States and Western Europe from elected officials, the mainstream media and well known entertainment celebrities. Some of the faithful have become discouraged and questioned me as to how the thesis of my book, The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism, could possibly be true in light of this news.

The truth of the matter is that against this troubling backdrop the Church continues to grow around the world, especially in African and Asia but even in North America, where much of the onslaught against the Church has emanated. Seminaries and Mother Houses often have no room for those pursuing a vocation and those young African and Asian men and women are often sent to the US or Europe to explore their vocation. Even in the US and pockets of Europe seminaries are experiencing a mini boom. One seminary rector told me that in the 40+ plus years of being affiliated with the Church, he has never seen a longer sustained period of top notch orthodox minded young men coming in and being ordained as he has seen in the last 10 years. Perhaps this is why the powers that be are so angry.

It seemed the US midterm Election of 2006 emboldened the cause of those militant liberals and secularists who have contempt for much of what orthodox minded Catholicism holds dear. Following the results of the Election of 2008, many pundits proclaimed the results as a sea change for America. Agnostics and atheists gleefully announced that a world where religion and especially conservative or orthodox minded Catholicism held sway was being replaced by a humanist brand of religion where age old teachings were replaced by the ideas of “enlightened” religious leaders, agnostic thinkers, and pop culture celebrities. It seemed this new brand of liberal thinker was less idealistic than their 1960s peers and displayed an anger and hostility that was a far cry from the utopian idealism displayed some 40 years ago. Yet, beneath the surface and below the radar screens of many news organizations, lies the hope of the Catholic faithful who hold on to the ideas  imparted by Christ, His Apostles, Popes, Bishops, Priests, Women Religious, Saints and holy laymen and laywomen throughout the centuries.

Hope doesn’t merely rest on those being ordained or vowed, but also on those young people who attend Mass. Recent data shows that the 18-30 age group, who attend Mass regularly, are the most supportive of the Church’s teachings and the most pro life of any generation, including their grandparents. How can this be one might ask, aren’t these the same young people who have become pampered by a self absorbed reality show culture and who voted en masse for liberal candidates in the 2008 Election? Actually this particular group of young people has seen firsthand what has happened and is happening to their Catholic friends who have been mesmerized by the increasingly militant secular culture. They have seen their friends check out of regular participation in the Faith, to say nothing of their friends and acquaintances who have turned their existence into sad real life television reality show. Because of this troubling reality, many young people are embracing Eucharistic Adoration and the rosary as a peaceful weapon against the forces of hedonism, self absorption, doubt and fear. The Doubting Thomas’s need look no further than the Catholic blogosphere where orthodox minded sites run by young people run in the hundreds, while liberal leaning sites can almost be counted on one hand.

It always seems to start innocently enough with those hoping to change perceived wrongs. In 1517 the Church was full of too many corrupt and sinful leaders. Martin Luther may have had the best of intentions when he began his actions. Indeed, he could have been many of the Church’s greatest reformers. However, instead of trying to reform the institution as did St Bernard of Clairveaux or St Catherine of Sienna, Luther let his personal demons against authority and sin get the better of him, which sadly caused him to abolish the Sacrament of Confession and the hierarchy when he created his own church. He would become the leader (or so he thought) of the Reformation Church and sin would be all but forgotten.  Never mind what the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition said about authority, Martin Luther had been plagued by fear of authority and sin his entire life, and certainly he must have thought he wasn’t alone. As for Confession, even though it was the first thing Jesus instituted when he returned to the assembled Apostles on Easter Sunday night (John 20:19-23,) Martin Luther abolished it. Dutch Philosopher and frequent Church critic Erasmus and a future Catholic saint, Sir Thomas More both reached the same conclusion about Luther. They both voiced the opinion that he must be mad to think that 1,500 after the fact he knew better than the Church.

When some of Luther’s fellow leaders of the Protestant Reformation had a problem with the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist and Blessed Virgin Mary, which Luther largely didn’t have a problem with, Luther became enraged. At the Marburg Colloquy Luther was shown the door when he told his colleagues that he would rather drink blood with the pope then listen to their ramblings. They never met again but the damage had already been done and Pandora’s Box was wide open.   Luther thought everyone who disagreed with the Church would naturally follow him. It did not happen and some five hundred years later and some 40,000 denominations and independent churches later, here we are even though Christ specifically told us to be One with One Shepherd (John 10:16.)

During the French Revolution, some 40,000 Catholic clergy, laity and nobility were starved, beaten to death or beheaded. Some of the very nobility who helped to kick out the Jesuits a few years earlier thought the revolution might not be all bad, perhaps a good way to thumb their nose at the Church. However, some months later, one would think they might have had second thoughts while looking up at the guillotine. Before the Russian Revolution some of the very elites who would suffer the same grisly fate as the Romanovs actually helped fund the Bolsheviks, perhaps thinking they were showing their trendy side by funding the same cause that their western cousins found so exciting.

As you can see a construct began to emerge, talented, intelligent and often financially well to do people with a lot of time on their hands began to somehow believe they knew better than the Church. It is nothing new, as one could say it started in the Garden or even before when the “light bearer” was supposedly repulsed by the idea of the Incarnation and tried to take over heaven. St Michael the Archangel booted the Prince of Lies out and today he tries to assuage others, most often using the formula of the seven deadly sins in order to join him in his kingdom of horrors.  Unchecked egos can lead to our eternal downfall.

The 1960s set the stage for a tumultuous period in the Church. The times, as Bob Dylan reminded us, certainly were a changing. In 1961 some 500,000 people gathered in San Francisco’s City Park for a Rosary Rally, some six years later the same park was filled with what one would assume was a different crowd tripping out on LSD and espousing and practicing free love. Some liberals will tell you San Francisco was always liberal, obviously it wasn’t that liberal in 1961.

Vatican II, the transformational council which was called by Pope John XXIII, but had wanted to be called by Pope Pius XII before he fell ill, was in some ways the Church’s finest hour. However, activists within the Church would later twist the words of the Council and try to change the Church into something unrecognizable for many Catholics. The Council’s documents were as orthodox as anything coming out of Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus etc. However, some twisted the words of the holy assembly and tried to make parish churches into something architecturally resembling a warehouse, not a holy place of worship. It didn’t stop there.

Some seemed to think that if the Byrds, Peter, Paul and Mary and Bob Dylan were popular on the radio, their sound might be popular at Mass. After all it wasn’t like they wanted these new found parish musical groups to do a cover version of Led Zeppelin’s Good Times Bad Times or Jimi Hendrix’s The Wind Cries Mary at Mass.  What would be the harm they thought? However, Francis Beckwith noted after returning to the Church some 25 years after leaving it, why would we want to hear a bad Bob Dylan cover band when we could hear the real thing on the stereo or in concert? Many parish musical groups were talented, reverent and joyous. Sadly, some parish musical groups sounded like an American Idol first round reject that incurred the wrath of Simon Cowell, rather than something holy, solemn or joyful.  Again, it didn’t stop

Some within the Church seemed to think that with the invention of the Birth Control Pill, if some young people were acting like rabbits, better to have them use the pill than to avoid it. Those who often felt this way seemed to think abortions were awash since it had to be a blob of tissue rather than a human being. Time and ultrasounds would prove this horrific conclusion wrong. In addition the birth control pill caused a demographic nightmare in the western world leaving the young to pay for the care of the old, who were much larger in number. Unfortunately, by the time many figured this out, millions had left the Church for something they felt was more tangible. Men in particular were turned off by homilies that had more in common with Alan Alda, David Gates & Bread and Air Supply more than they did an exhortation coming from a priest whose very title meant in the person of Christ.

Church liberals felt happy because in a way they had chased out the very element they had disliked (conservative oriented males) while welcoming in those who had a more liberal view of life. Just when thought they were in the driver’ seat, as evidenced by the censured priest Father Hans Kung’s 1980s assertion that liberals were now in control of most dioceses, seminaries and parishes, they realized their hold on the Church was slipping away. In Germany’s famed seminary of Tubingen, gone were the days when the liberal intelligentsia snickered as their “old school” Professor Father Josef Ratzinger huffed and puffed his way around town on his bicycle, while the rebel cause célèbre Father Kung tooled about in his sporty Porsche. The waves he enlisted from his fellow liberal elites, who had plenty of time on their hands, must now look like some grainy black and white movetone video of days gone by.

Younger liberals might be forgiven if they mistakenly believed the canard told by their elder comrades that 1950s Catholic leaders and especially bishops were all right wing conservatives who had no patience for the ideas of liberals but possessed the patience of Job for fellow conservatives. In his memoirs published shortly after his death, the late Senator Edward Kennedy wrote that his famous father the former Ambassador to England Joseph P Kennedy would often socialize with Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston.  Senator Kennedy wrote that his father always called the famous prelate by his first name.

In a revealing account the late Senator spoke of an incident in which brother Bobby, the future Senator from New York, heard a controversial conservative priest at a Boston lecture whose views about Protestant salvation were deemed very conservative. After Bobby’s father made a phone call to “Richard” the priest was promptly booted from the Archdiocese. Senator Edward Kennedy surmises that because of this incident, his brother Bobby unwittingly played a part in bringing about Vatican II. As one can clearly see from this example, the right wing Catholic hierarchy may not have existed as vividly as it did in some liberal’s imagination.

Because of bold action taken under the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, an extended period of younger more orthodox minded seminarians, priests and women religious have entered the Church. Recent bishop’s appointments have also skewed more orthodox or conservative in their political and social leanings. The orthodox nature of these two pontiffs’ theological views has brought admiration from an unlikely quarter, Evangelicals. Many Evangelicals look with alarm at their own denominations and see an ally in the Catholic Church. Enter Pope Benedict XVI, whose pontificate couldn’t have come at a better time. He truly is “The Pope of Christian Unity,” rallying the Christian faithful to the call of theological and social orthodoxy which is the only hope an increasingly secular world has of saving itself from itself.

From Stalin to Mao to the radicals behind the flaming barricades of 1968 Paris, as well as today’s militant secular activists in Europe and the US, the world has seen the sort of outcome freedom from religion brings; utter chaos, mayhem and worse yet unrelenting violence against those who disapprove of espousing a militant secular agenda. Against this nefarious and sinister backdrop the Holy Spirit saw to it that the “springtime” promised by Pope John Paul II would continue with the blossoming pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. East and west, north and south the octogenarian pontiff travels to meet with other Christian leaders and propose better relations against a backdrop of increasing violence and hedonism which is paralyzing an already troubled world. When theologian Matthew Fox, who had penchant for polytheism, was censured by then Cardinal Ratzinger, the censured theologian took out a full page ad in the New York Times that read, “I Have Been Silenced.” The smoke of Satan that Pope Paul VI had lamented had entered the Vatican was being swept out by the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, but not before many choked on the fumes of self absoprtion emitted by Fox and many others.

Jesus warned us about the hired hands that would leave the flock when the wolves came, which is why he implored us to remain One (John 10:16.) These modern day religious hired hands were influenced by Marx, Engels, Freud and the latest pop culture bards more than they were by Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Whether inside the Church or in other Christian communities, they fled from the truth when it came. The world needed a man who would fight off the wolves and gather together the scattered and injured flock. The day the newly installed Pope Benedict XVI celebrated his Inauguration Mass he told the faithful assembled in St Peter’s Square to pray for him that he would not run when the wolves came. He has not and because of it he was ridiculed by many in the mainstream media, other Christian communities and even the Church itself. However, the discerning Christian faithful now see the picture more clearly.

The  sad reality of division is beginning to see it’s elixir is in the pontificate of the man from Bavaria, who has seen the worst of what life has to offer and thus he is making it his life’ work to make sure that this won’t happen again.  Pope Benedict XVI is reaching out to all Christian communities and asking them to join him in protecting the sacredness of all that binds Christianity as well as the sanctity that hold society together. The tide is turning thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, “The Pope of Christian Unity.”

O presidente venezuelano, Hugo Chávez, convocou neste sábado (21) a 5ª Internacional Socialista em um encontro com representantes de mais de 50 partidos de esquerda reunidos em um evento realizado em Caracas desde quinta-feira (19). "Atrevo-me a convocar a 5ª Internacional para retomar a 1ª, a 2ª, a 3ª, a 4ª", disse Chávez, entre aplausos dos participantes.

Chávez e Evo Morales com representantes de partidos de esquerda reunidos em Caracas

Chávez recordou que passaram 145 anos da convocação de Karl Marx da 1ª Internacional; 120 anos da 2ª Internacional convocada por Friedrich Engels; 90 anos da convocação de Lenin da 3ª Internacional e 71 anos da convocação de Trotsky da 4ª Internacional.
Na opinião do mandatário, o mundo novo, necessário e possível, nasceu só que o império estadunidense e seus aliados o querem liquidar antes de que cresça.

Manifestou que esse império velho, essa classe dominante de idéias retrógadas, racistas e fascistas anda cheio de ódio com a espada levantada tratando de cercear a esperança que nasceu.
"Acho que a 5ª Internacional é uma responsabilidade porque a crise a nível mundial se acelera", proclamou.
"Se fosse possível ao Partido Socialista Unido da Venezuela (PSUV) e outro partido deste mundo conformar o primeiro núcleo da 5ª Internacional, o faríamos", disse Chávez.

E acrescentou: "estou certo de que se poderia contar com mais levando em conta que estão aqui reunidos 52 organizações partidárias de esquerda".
O presidente venezuelano disse que as organizações partidárias presentes ao encontro devem refletir sobre a convocatória da 5ª Internacional e depois responder se é oportuna esta convocação.

Neste sábado, os representantes dos diversos partidos da izquierda internacional que assistem ao encontro que se realiza em Caracas discutem o documento final onde esperam condenar a instalação de bases militares norte-americanas em território colombiano, assim como o apoio a diversos movimentos revolucionários em várias partes do mundo.

Entre as principais propostas a serem incluídas no texto está a condenação enfática ao golpe de Estado en Honduras e à continuidade do bloqueio econômico imposto pelos EUA contra o povo cubano.
Com informações da Prensa Latina

Fonte: Imprensa Latina

The first step in my health care reform plan is simply this: recognizing that health care is not a right.

How can I be so cruel as to say that? How can anyone be so cruel as to say otherwise?

To say that health care is a right means that you have a right to someone else’s labour. Do others have a right to your labour, or is your labour your own, to use it as you see fit?

Communism is a system that holds that some have the right to the labour of others. Communism co-founder, Karl Marx, stated in 1875: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.“

I understand the well-meaning intentions of those who say that health care is, and should be, a right. However, a right is an entitlement. How can you be entitled to the work of a doctor, a nurse, or any other health professional, as a matter of birth?

If health care truly was a right, then that was quite the oversight by the Founding Fathers of the United States, in not including it in the Bill of Rights in 1789. But it wasn’t an oversight. They recognized that it wasn’t a right.

The consequence of recognizing that health care is not a right, I believe, is to put the focus back where it properly belongs, as to who is ultimately responsible for their own health — the individual. There are those who are unable to properly care for themselves, as there has been since the dawn of time. Those people should be appropriately cared for, as matter of public interest, not as a matter of right, as well as all others. But just because it’s in the public interest to take care of all individuals, doesn’t make it a right, nor necessitate the method of care.

These days, health care is often taken to mean expensive diagnostic equipment, treatment with expensive drugs, expensive private health care plans with high overhead, and unsustainable government health plans, such as Medicare, which, as I previously documented, cost 744% more by 1990 than previously estimated at its inception, in 1965.

Modern health care has regressed from the basic principles of the father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, who stated: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.“

Instead of a proactive, preventative approach to health by the individual, the focus has regressed to a  reactive, expensive third-party approach, and this must change.

«L’impôt, c’est la mamelle où s’allaite le gouvernement. Le gouvernement, ce sont les instruments de la répression, ce sont les organes de l’autorité, c’est l’armée, c’est la police, ce sont les fonctionnaires, les juges, les ministres, ce sont les prêtres » (Karl Marx : « les luttes de classes en France »)

…The Portable Karl Marx is sitting to my left.

And, I’m sitting in this hulking glass-enclosed library, everyone smelling like mud or wet dogs who have emerged from a wide open pond.

Marx’s book cover portrait makes him look like a bemused, yet stoic, Pillsbury Doughboy. He even has his right hand tucked under the lapel of his suit jacket, as if he were poking himself in the navel.

20th anniversary of the Fall of The Wall in Berlin. Now, I wish I had gone. Instead of visiting Texas in April, I should’ve gone to visit my family in NY.

I’m no communist. I just like saying ‘Commie’.

I was discussing Capital the other day and heard about a supposed paradox.  What do you think?:

A poor old woman with very little money but one share in a multinational corporation is called a capitalist and a CEO who earns millions of dollars a year is a worker.

This was presented as a paradox but I don’t see it because although wealth is subjective the place where you get it from is not.  So if the CEO’s labour is valued on the market at £1 million a year then that is simply the efficient allocation of resources.  You can’t pay a bus driver £5000 a day because then everyone would want to be a bus driver and you can’t pay a CEO £1 a day because no-one would want to do it.

Even if the old woman only earns 2 pence a year from her shares, the fact remains, it’s not her money to have.  The qualitative difference here is important, the quantitative difference is not.  If I eat a hundred pieces of celery it’s still good for me and if I smoke 1 cigarette it’s still bad for me.

Why do the Germans have to be such brilliant engineers? They refuse to let me see the rest of Europe!

A monorail train hangs suspended from a suspension bridge over a street in Wuppertal, Germany.

Damn those Germans! Every time I think I’m done with Germany, they come up with something to pull me back.

I can’t help it. It’s the geek in me.

First, it was the Magdeburg water bridge. Now, I have to work in the northern Rhine city called Wuppertal.

At this rate, I’ll never see the rest of Europe!

Never heard of Wuppertal? Neither had I until very recently. Population about 350,000 — slightly larger than New Orleans, slightly smaller than the city of Oakland, built on either side of a river. Apparently, it’s very “green,” with two-thirds of it being woods, gardens, parks, fields and so on.

It’s also got some history to it, being the birthplace of Friedrich Engels, who co-wrote The Communist Manifesto along with Karl Marx.

And it’s the birthplace of Friedrich Bayer. Yes, that Bayer, the aspirin people. Which makes Wuppertal, among other things, the birthplace of heroin.

But neither those historical tidbits nor all that greenery is what’s pulling me to this place. It’s the Schwebebahn — their monorail.

Okay, maybe you rode monorails as a kid at Disneyland or Disneyworld, but this is no amusement ride. This is how Wuppertal gets around, as this YouTube video shows.

Most monorail trains ride on top of their single rail. In Wuppertal, they hang from theirs.

Passengers ride in cars suspended in space, 24 feet over the streets and 40 feet over the river, at speeds around 40 miles per hour. That “hang” allows them to tilt on curves, so the trains never have to slow down for them.

This would be some pretty slick technology even today. The Germans came up with it in 1901, two years before the Wright Brothers got off the ground. A century and change later, the system is still moving people — 75,000 a day, 25 million a year.

It even managed to survive the World War 2 bombing that wasted nearly half the town.

Now you know I have to ride this thing!

FOOTNOTE
You may wonder, “Why couldn’t Los Angeles come up with something like this?”

Back in 1963, the Swedish firm Alweg, which built the monorail in Seattle, offered Los Angeles a 40-mile monorail line. They’d keep the fares until the construction was paid for, then hand it to the city. Cost to the taxpayers: zero.

The City Council’s response: We like our gridlock. We think smog is sexy. Go away.

If you drive around L.A. today, no need to tell you the rest of the story. You’re living it.

Artikel ur BIS nr. 3 2009

Valet till Europaparlamentet 2009 fick ett rätt så bedrövligt utfall. Jag är säker på att jag inte var den ende som satt och kände sig besvärad under Svt:s valvaka. Stadigt sjunkande valdeltagande i hela unionen och framgångar för högerextremistiska mörkermän som gick framåt i flera europeiska länder. I Sverige kan man glädjas åt att valdeltagandet faktiskt steg, men oroas över att sverigedemokraterna växte och nu inte var långt ifrån att vinna mandat trots att partiet har varit i total medieskugga under hela valrörelsen. Istället var det ett annat uppstickarparti som stal spotlighten och lyckades baxa sig in i europaparlamentet. Exakt vad det innebär att Piratpartiet kommer in i Europaparlamentet vet vi inte än, men det jag förmodar är att den del av vår yrkeskår som har lanserat idéen om bibliotek 2.0 tycker att det hela är rätt spännande. Och det är spännande! Hur internet och våra liv där regleras angår oss som medborgare, och angår särskilt oss som värderar rätten till kunskap, information och det demokratiska samtalet.  Jag och min generation hör väl till de första som växte upp med internet och vi har sen 2006 sett hur staten och kapitalet stegrat sina ansträngningar att få kontroll över det som tidigare har kunnat liknas vid oinmutad mark, ett fritt rum, eller till och med vid en allmänning. Nu vill kommersiella intressen ha en allt större del av kakan, och politiska intressen blir oroliga över att all denna frihet skall missbrukas. Repressionen är en globala företeelse: från FRA och IPRED i EU, till samarbeten mellan storföretaget Google och enpartistaten Kina.  Prästregimen i Iran använder system köpta från telekommunikationsbolaget Nokia Siemens för att kartlägga iraniernas internetanvändande.

En belysande frågeställning är om vi i ordningsmaktens ögon skall fungera som medborgare eller konsumenter på internet. 2009 har frågan varit uppe om huruvida EU-stater skall kunna stänga av enskilda medborgare från internet, ett förslag som är ivrigt påhejad av de storföretag som har intresse i upphovsrättens stärkande. Är det bara en fråga om att frånta en kriminell person möjligheten att utnyttja en tjänst, eller handlar det om att beröva en medborgare sina rättigheter? Med den betydelse som internet har i vår moderna tid får det allvarliga konsekvenser för en individ att vara utestängd från det.

Några dagar innan valet till Europaparlamentet läser jag ett inlägg ur Erik Bergs blogg Approximationer (http://approximationer.blogspot.com/2009/06/piratpartiet-ar-slutet-pa-borjan.html). Detta är alltså innan Piratpartiets triumf men valundersökningar har redan spått stora framgångar för partiet. Berg skriver i inlägget om saker som jag själv har känt men inte riktigt kunnat sätta fingret på: Nämligen att frågan om regleringar av internet är större än piratpartiets motstånd mot integritetskränkande lagar, och vi som håller på det vänstra laget måste kanske börja se den här frågan i ett större sammanhang. Jag lyfter ut några rader ur Erik Bergs inlägg:

Demokratin har aldrig genomförts mer än halvvägs. Att kontrollera kapital har under hela 1900-talet inneburit en möjlighet att utöva massiv makt och köpa sig politiskt inflytande. Det sker genom kontroll av arbetet, genom lobbyister och genom direkta röstköp men framförallt genom att kontrollera media. I massmediernas tidsålder har media varit porten till verkligheten, att se, förstå och påverka, att sätta agendan, att förvrida perceptionen. När nu media håller på att ändra karaktär från massmedia till mikromedia och sociala medier så rör sig också kapitalet för att behålla kontrollen… För en sak är säker, även om det är en gammal kamp som återuppstår på nätet så är det inte en gammal trött och föråldrad industri som leder kampen mot det fria Internet, det är kapitalintressen som är mäktigare än någonsin förr, som har allt att förlora på en urholkad upphovsrätt och nedrivna medieoligopol och allt att vinna på ett Internet som kan användas för att konstruera sociogram, ett Internet som kan styckas, packeteras och säljas i lämpliga portioner, där vi i första hand är målgruppsplacerade konsumenter och inte fria medborgare /…/ Hoten mot friheten på Internet kommer från flera håll. Statliga dataloggnings- och övervakningsintiativ är uppenbara hot, men världens största sociogrammaskin är privata Facebook – inte FRA:s superdator.

Erik Berg utvecklar ett resonemang med hjälp av en forskare som jag själv gjorde bekantskap med på Biblioteks- och informationsvetenskapen i Borås: Lawrence Lessig.

“We can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to protect values that we believe are fundamental. Or we can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to allow those values to disappear. There is no middle ground. There is no choice that does not include some kind of building. Code is never found: it is only ever made, and only ever made by us. [...] The first generation of these architectures was built by a noncommercial sector – researchers and hackers, focused upon building a network. The second generation has been built by commerce. And the third, not yet off the drawing board, could well be the product of government. Which regulator do we prefer? Which regulators should be controlled? How does society exercise that control over entities that aim to control it?”

(Lessigs text är hämtad ur wikin Code 2.0 som finns på adressen http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/ )

Kod är lag på internet menar Lessig. Och kod är något som produceras vilket betyder att den som kodar också reglerar internet. Inser man det inser man att internet lika mycket kan var ett redskap för kontroll som för frihet. Vi kan inte enbart titta på juridiska regleringar av individers användande av internet, som Piratpartiet gör, utan vi måste också titta på hur internet produceras och titta på ägandeförhållanden och olika aktörers roll på denna arena. Har den digitala eran sin Karl Marx?

Det här är saker som folkbiblioteken kommer behöva förhålla sig till inom de kommande åren. På lång sikt måste vi se att mänsklig tillvaro på internet inte är magiskt befriad från de maktförhållande som vi så tydligt kan se ute i samhället. Och om vi accepterar den premissen måste vi fråga oss: vilket slags rum vill vi skapa på internet? En av de många fina sakerna med idéen om ett folkbibliotek är att det är ett rum där klasskillnader inte skall existera, utan vi faktiskt är jämlikar. Hur tänker vi in det i ett digitalt rum? Hur bygger man ett folkbibliotek med kod? Vi vet vad ett folkbibliotek är i den fysiska världen med vad är det i den digitala?

Det är en fråga som vi måste besvara på lång sikt. På kort sikt måste vi förhålla oss till de

försök som stat och kapital gör idag för att reglera internet på ett sätt som tar ifrån dess användare sina medborgerliga rättigheter. Vad får detta för konsekvenser för det demokratiserande potential som internet har, ett potential som många forskare och orakel inom biblioteksvärlden dragit höga växlar från? Hur förhåller sig folkbiblioteken till de här försöken att kontrollera information: Är det någon skillnad mellan FRA:s övervakning av internetanvändare och att FBI undersöker en biblioteksbesökares boklån i kölvattnet till 11e september? Är det bara när repressionen drabbar biblioteken direkt som vi engagerar oss, eller kan det vara så att folkbiblioteken måste förhålla sig till vad som kan beskrivas som en backlash för demokratin? Hur?

Tobias Willstedt

In the last decade or so, apocalyptic Hollywood movies have been a dime a dozen. Back in 1998, two doomsday meteorite movies came out, Deep Impact first, followed by Armageddon. In the last few years, the apocalyptic movie has made a come back with Knowing and the latest iteration 2012 has topped the box office the past weekend. None of these films were true end-0f-humanity films, as at least a small group of human beings manages to survive each disaster.  The way that 2012 handled the continuation of the human species provides some food for thought.

The governments of the world keep the impending doom of humanity secret in 2012.  When various participants in the conspiracy threaten its secrecy, the US government murders them. The head of the Louvre, who replaced the original Mona Lisa with a copy so that the original could be preserved, is murdered in the same tunnel where Princess Diana died. One scene in China shows the capitalist Chinese government dynamiting mountains and displacing citizens in order to build a dam. The “dam” is in fact a bunker where the governments of the world are building arks to survive the tsunamis that will result as the earth’s crust destabilizes. In The Cost of Living, Arundhati Roy exposed how the Indian government displaced thousands of people without compensation for dam projects in a misguided attempt at economic development. Displacement in the name of “progress,” war, and colonialism continues to be a reality for millions of people.

The problem is that even the governments of the world did not have enough capital to raise the money for the arks.  They had to look to private individuals to help finance their construction. The price tag for a space on the arks and the continuation of your life: 1 billion euros. The majority of the world is excluded from that. Of course, government bureaucrats all made sure they had spaces on the arks for “continuity of government.” The rich people bought their way on. And the poor remained ignorant that doomsday was on its way, or that there was a way to avoid it.

As Karl Marx noted, “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” In the film and reality, the owners of capital survive and thrive on the exploitation of the poor. They only provide enough for the poor to subsist, if necessary, and accumulate the surplus capital. The Chinese workers who built the arks will be washed away in the tsunamis after they watch the rich and the bureaucrats board the arks. If people knew that their own deaths were imminent and that their governments were secretly building arks for their own survival, there would be revolution. So they kept the truth secret to permit the survival of a small group of people, mostly rich, in the same of “saving humanity.”

The movie attempts to reconcile this moral crisis with the African American President Thomas Wilson who has the courage to inform the American people that they’re all about to perish and to stay behind himself to die. He is brutally crushed in front of the White House by the USS John F. Kennedy. Adrian Helmsley, an African American geologist, notes that as he entered his quarters in the ark that they could fit ten people into a room meant for one. That is the inequality of capitalism. He also takes a stand near the end of the film and implores the world leaders on all the arks to let workers and the people who couldn’t get on a damaged ark into the viable ones. African Americans still experience inequality in the United States, so seeing them expose the truth while white people try to hide it is not surprising.  We should all be thankful for the real people who had the courage to stand up for truth, like Karl Marx.

Marx saw revolution and the transformation of social relations as the only means to resolving inequality. The only way 2012 could imagine a more egalitarian society was almost to entirely destroy it. Billions of people died, but a small elect group survived thanks to the arks. For the most part, rich people survived. Everyone else died. That narrative is the tale of human history. Contrast the mind sets of a Hollywood capitalist and a communist, Karl Marx. The capitalist wants to destroy excess capital, whether it’s building, machinery, or people. Communism is a fundamentally life-affirming outlook. Rather than kill 99% of humanity, Marx wanted to see greater equality for more. “Equality” under capitalism means more for a few and less for most.

En mala hora se’m va passar pel cap la meravellosa idea d’iniciar una conversa amb el maquinista encarregat de conduir l’excavadora que jo controlo arqueològicament en el projecte que dirigeixo. No podia estar-me calladet, mirant els infinits i repetitius estrats de runa contemporània, no, havia d’obrir la meva “bocaxancla” iniciant una dialèctica condemnada al insondable dadaisme de la ment d’algú que creu que l’existència de l’Educació Secundària és una mera llegenda urbana.

-¿Tu aquin esajctamente que es lo q’haces, a aprte de miralnus?

- Busco restos materiales para documentar de forma objetiva la evolución cronológica de la sociedad humana.

- ¿Lo que?

-Investigo la historia. ¿Sabes lo que es?

- ¡Poj claro neng! Primero stavan loj dinozaurio ¿no? Aluego po vinierong lo rumano…¡y Franco! Eh faci”

Es a dir, Juli Cèsar era l’evolució d’un Tiranosaurus Rex i Franco el darrer Emperador romà. Quantes mentides ens expliquen a la facultat!

- Y si zale argo antigu k’hacemo?

- El Patrimonio Histórico es propiedad de todos, por tanto todos los restos que aparezcan serán inventariados, publicados y depositados en un Museo público, donde estarán accesibles a qualquier estudio científico.

- ¡¡Pero que ice neng!¡¡ Si encuntramu un tezoro de joyos yo me fugo con el! ¿¿Museo?? ¿¿Siensia??? A mi me habla en critiano. Y ni setocurra para la obra que tengo q pagar do hipoteca, la farla, el carro y tre picina!

- ¡Pero bueno! La ley está para cumplirla ¿no?

- Lu que paza ej que lu pulisia son uno moña, si pillava yo al sesino de la Marilú esa y le metia de tiro hata cangsarme. Que yo fui paraca neng”

I ja em veieu a mi tractant d’explicar a aquell orangutà tatuat de dos metres les bondats dels drets humans, la injustícia de la pena de mort, les tortures policials, mentre el simi arquejava lentament la cella pensant “Menudo maricónazo”

Aquesta gent és carnaça d’ultradreta i de veritat que no sé com es va establir el mite segols el qual els treballadors de la construcció votaven a l’esquerra… si tots ells son una panda de masclistes que es poden tirar treballant 12h al dia de dilluns a diumenge sabent que quan arribin a casa la seva esclava els haurà netejat tot, fet el menjar i els esperarà amb les cames obertes.

Si Karl Marx hagués treballat un sol dia d’arqueòleg preventiu dins una obra hauria arribat ràpidament a la conclusió que la classe obrera no és que sigui revolucionaria, es una lacra social de la que cal mantenir-se’n ben allunyat!! No son el motor de la història,en son el seu llast!!

Για την αλλοτρίωση της εργασίας – Καρλ Μαρξ

[...]

Ο εργάτης, όσο περισσότερα αγαθά παράγει, τόσο φθηνότερο εμπόρευμα γίνεται. Η υποτίμηση του ανθρώπινου κόσμου αυξάνεται σε άμεση αναλογία με την αύξηση της αξίας του κόσμου των πραγμάτων. Η εργασία δεν παράγει μόνο εμπορεύματα, παράγει επίσης τον εαυτό της και τους εργάτες σαν ένα εμπόρευμα. Και γίνεται αυτό στην ίδια αναλογία που παράγει εμπορεύματα γενικά.

Το γεγονός αυτό σημαίνει ότι το αντικείμενο που παράγει η εργασία, το προϊόν της, αντιστρατεύεται την εργασία σαν κάτι αλλότριο, σαν μια δύναμη ανεξάρτητη από τον παραγωγό. Το προϊόν της εργασίας είναι εργασία που ενσωματώθηκε κι απέκτησε υλική μορφή σ’ ένα αντικείμενο, είναι η αντικειμενοποίηση της εργασίας. Η πραγμάτωση της εργασίας είναι η αντικειμενοποίησή της. Στη σφαίρα της πολιτικής οικονομίας, η πραγμάτωση αυτή της εργασίας, εμφανίζεται σαν απώλεια της πραγματικότητας του εργάτη, η αντικειμενοποίηση σαν απώλεια και υποδούλωση προς το αντικείμενο και η ιδιοποίηση σαν αποξένωση, σαν αλλοτρίωση.

Εμφανίζεται τόσο πολύ η πραγμάτωση της εργασίας σαν απώλεια της πραγματικότητας που ο εργάτης χάνει την πραγματικότητά του ως το σημείο να πεθαίνει από την πείνα. Εμφαβίζεται τόσο πολύ η αντικειμενοποίηση σαν απώλεια του αντικειμένου, που ο εργάτης απογυμνώνεται ληστρικά από τ’ αντικείμενα που χρειάζεται περισσότερο όχι μόνο για τη ζωή του, αλλά και για τη δουλειά του. Η εργασία η ίδια γίνεται με τεράστια προσπάθεια και με σπασμωδικές διακοπές. Εμφανίζεται τόσο πολύ η ιδιοποίηση του αντικειμένου σαν αποξένωση, που όσο περισσότερα αντικείμενα παράγει ο εργάτης τόσο λιγότερα μπορεί να κατακτήσει και τόσο περισσότερο πέφτει κάτω από την κυριαρχία του προϊόντος του, του κεφαλαίου.

Όλες αυτές οι συνέπειες περιέχονται σ’ αυτό το χαρακτηριστικό, ότι η σχέση του εργάτη προς το προϊόν της εργασίας του είναι σχέση προς ένα ξένο αντικείμενο. Γιατί είναι φανερό ότι, σύμφωνα μ’ αυτή την τοποθέτηση, όσο περισσότερο ο εργάτης, πιέζει τον εαυτό του στη δουλειά, όσο πιο ισχυρός γίνεται ο ξένος αντικειμενικά κόσμος που φέρνει σε ύπαρξη υπεράνω και ενάντια στον εαυτό του, τόσο πιο φτωχός γίνεται ο ίδιος και ο εσωτερικός του κόσμος και τόσο λιγότερο ανήκει στον εαυτό του. Το ίδιο συμβαίνει με τη θρησκεία. Όσο περισσότερο ο άνθρωπος εναποθέτει τον εαυτό του στο Θεό, τόσο λιγότερο παραμένει ο εαυτός του. Ο εργάτης εναποθέτει τη ζωή του στο αντικείμενο, αλλά τώρα η ζωή του δεν ανήκει σ’ αυτόν αλλά στο αντικείμενο. Έτσι, όσο μεγαλύτερη είναι η δραστηριότητά του, τόσο λιγότερα αντικείμενα κατορθώνει να έχει στην κατοχή του. Όποιο κι αν είναι το προϊόν της εργασίας του, ο εργάτης δεν υπάρχει σ’ αυτό. Έτσι όσο μεγαλύτερο είναι το προϊόν αυτό, τόσο λιγότερο ο εργάτης είναι ο εαυτός του. Η εξωτερίκευση του εργάτη στο προϊόν που παράγει σημαίνει όχι μόνο ότι η εργασία του γίνεται ένα αντικείμενο, μια εξωτερική ύπαρξη, αλλά ότι υπάρχει έξω απ’ αυτόν, ανεξάρτητα απ’ αυτόν και ξένα προς αυτόν, και αρχίζει να τον αντιμετωπίζει σαν μια αυτόνομη δύναμη, σημαίνει ότι η ζωή με την οποία προίκισε το αντικείμενο τον αντιμετωπίζει σαν εχθρικό και ξένο.

Ας κοιτάξουμε τώρα από πιο κοντά την αντικειμενοποίηση, την παραγωγή του εργάτη, την αποξένωση, την απώλεια του αντικειμένου του προϊόντος του.

Ο εργάτης δεν μπορεί να δημιουργήσει τίποτα χωρίς τη φύση, χωρίς τον αισθητό εξωτερικό κόσμο. Είναι η ύλη μέσα στην οποία πραγματώνεται η εργασία του, μέσα στην οποία δραστηριοποιείται και από την οποία και με τα μέσα της οποίας παράγει.

Αλλά όπως ακριβώς η φύση παρέχει στην εργασία τα μέσα της ζωής, με την έννοια ότι η εργασία δε μπορεί αν ζήσει χωρίς αντικείμενα πάνω στα οποία να λειτουργήσει, έτσι παρέχει τα μέσα ζωής με τη στενή έννοια της φυσικής διαβίωσης του εργάτη. Όσο περισσότερο ο εργάτης ιδιοποιείται τον εξωτερικό κόσμο, την αισθητή φύση μέσα από την εργασία του, τόσο περισσότερο αποστερεί τον εαυτό του από τα μέσα της ζωής από δυο απόψεις: πρώτο, ο αισθητός εξωτερικός κόσμος γίνεται όλο και λιγότερο ένα αντικείμενο που ανήκει στην εργασία του, ένα μέσο ζωής της εργασίας του, και δεύτερο, γίνεται όλο και λιγότερο μέσο ζωής με την άμεση έννοια, ένα μέσο για τη φυσική επιβίωση του εργάτη.

Οπότε, και κατά τη μία άποψη και κατά την άλλη, ο εργάτης γίνεται σκλάβος του αντικειμένου του, πρώτο γιατί δέχεται ένα αντικείμενο εργασίας, δηλαδή δέχεται εργασία και δεύτερο γιατί δέχεται μέσα διαβίωση. Πρώτο, δηλαδή, ότι μπορεί να υπάρξει σαν εργάτης και δεύτερο ότι μπορεί να υπάρξει σαν φυσικό υποκείμενο. Η κατάληξη αυτής της υποδούλωσης είναι ότι μόνο σαν εργάτης μπορεί να διατηρήσει τον εαυτό του σαν φυσικό υποκείμενο και μόνο σαν φυσικό υποκείμενο μπορεί να είναι εργάτης.

(Η αλλοτρίωση του εργάτη μέσα στο αντικείμενό του εκφράζεται σύμφωνα με τους νόμους της πολιτικής οικονομίας με τον ακόλουθο τρόπο: όσο περισσότερο παράγει ο εργάτης, τόσο λιγότερο πρέπει να καταναλώνει, όσο περισσότερες αξίες δημιουργεί, τόσο περισσότερο χάνει ο ίδιος την αξία του, όσο περισσότερο τελειοποιείται το προϊόν του, τόσο περισσότερο παραμορφώνεται ο εργάτης. Όσο πιο πολιτισμένο το προϊόν του, τόσο πιο βάρβαρος ο εργάτης, όσο πιο ισχυρή η εργασία, τόσο πιο ανίσχυρος ο εργάτης, όσο πιο βελτιωμένη η εργασία, τόσο πιο άβουλος και περισσότερο υπόδουλος στη φύση γίνεται ο εργάτης).

Η πολιτική οιικονομία αποκρύβει την αλλοτρίωση στη φύση της εργασίας, αγνοώντας την άμεση σχέση ανάμεσα στον εργάτη (εργασία) και την παραγωγή. Η εργασία, σίγουρα, παράγει θαύματα για τον πλούσιο. Για τον εργάτη, όμως, παράγει αποστέρηση. Παράγει παλάτια, αλλά μόνο τρώγλες για τον εργάτη. Μπορεί οι μηχανές ν αντικαθιστούν χειρονακτική εργασία, αλλά δεν παύουν να στέλνουν άλλους εργάτες πίσω σε βάρβαρους τρόπους δουλειάς και άλλους να τους μετατρέπουν σε εξαρτήματά τους. Η εργασία παράγει ευφυϊα αλλά επίσης και ηλιθιότητα και αποβλάκωση για τους εργάτες.

Σημείωση: Το παραπάνω απόσπασμα προέρχεται από το θεμελιώδες έργο του νεαρού Μαρξ Τα Οικονομικά και Φιλοσοφικά Χειρόγραφα του 1844, εδώ από τις εκδόσεις Γλάρος, ενώ έχει μεταφραστεί κι εκδοθεί κι από τη Διεθνή Βιβλιοθήκη.

Sweet Movie (1974)

Captain Anna Planeta, played by Anna Prucnal, rides down a river in a boat with Karl Marx on the front.

Duašn Makavejev’s 1974 film Sweet Movie is an indictment toward all forms of authority and convention. It does not obviously or even wittingly perhaps come from an honest political standard itself, but it instead exists to attack all that rules us. It skewers capitalism, communism, and absolutely everything in between. Perhaps it is a call specifically for some sort of Anarcho-Primitivism? Perhaps Sweet Movie is simply a celebration of life in its own sick and twisted way?

Miss Monde 1984 packed tightly into a suitcase and shipped off to France.

The communist tempting children with her body and some candy as well.

Sweet Movie follows two different stories and both feature a female protagonist. The first follows a contestant of the 1984 Miss Monde pageant. She wins and her prize is her marriage to some big corporate dude. She is shocked by how he degrades her in their first meeting and she runs away. Her rejection is met with displeasure by his cronies and she ends up getting pretty severely humiliated and then stuffed into a suitcase and shipped off to France. After that she gets stuck to some Latin guy and enters a commune and some pretty wacky things happen. This story operates as a criticism toward capitalism and consumerism at the beginning and the conclusion, while it seems to attack communism in the middle. The second story follows a young woman who is leading a boat down a river. The boat is full of candy and has a statue of Karl Marx on it. She seduces all who encounter her with sex, candy and propaganda. Then she kills them. Obviously it is a direct attack on communism.

Captain Anna after luring a victim into her lair of sex and sugar.

The statue of Marx sheds a tear, no doubt representing his disappointment toward the unintended consequences of socialism.

There are some pretty shocking things in Sweet Movie but that shouldn’t be a surprise when taking into account the time period and some of the subversive and surreal counterculture names involved in the film (e.g. Otto Muehl, Roland Topor and George Melly). The film captures a cultural movement in some respects and the significance is there but overall Sweet Movie was too obscure to have an impact. Only now does it resonate but for very different reasons. It stands out for its visual shock alone.

There is a very strong emphasis on bodily functions in Sweet Movie, more so than anything I’ve ever seen or even want to see again for that matter. I can’t pinpoint why but it’s more than likely Dusan Makavejev’s attempt to compel us to revolt against all of our societal institutions by directly desensitizing us to his perspective that we are all just gassy and disgusting animals. Spend a few days resisting your normal cognitive functions or spend some time with dementia patients and you’ll get a good smell of what Makavejev is trying to get at here…I think? I’m not sure I agree with him in those sorts of details, but in spirit I like where he is going with Sweet Movie. We all could use a good smack away from the restraints of everyday society.

Miss Monde 1984, played by Carole Laure, bathing in chocolate during the film's conclusion.

Keep in mind; it is virtually impossible to get anything out of Sweet Movie if you take it too literally. It is designed to surprise the viewer and club them over the head with shock. The problem with that is Sweet Movie was so shocking for its time that it was hardly even seen. People were not ready then, but maybe the world has grown sicker since. Criterion may have picked a more accessible release date for Sweet Movie than Makavejev did. Asking ourselves the questions that this film might produce may be more important now than ever.

My rating is 4 out of 5 stars.

Robert Service’s new biography of Trotsky is reviewed in today’s Wall Street Journal. Having read Service’s excellent biography of Lenin a few years ago, this seems like a book worth reading. Joshua Rubenstein’s thoughtful review touches on some thoughts about socialism and socialists.

Socialism had three major failings. The first is what economists study most closely. It is the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism, because of the rejection of prices and money as a medium of exchange. Whether you support socialist ideals or not, it is literally impossible to achieve. Do away with prices and currency, and they will emerge in a different form. They are part of human society.

The second aspect of socialism intrigues philosophers: socialism genuinely sought to change human nature itself. People as they currently are are in no shape to realize Marx’s vision of communist society. So part of the communist program was to actively mold and change people so that vision could one day become a reality.

Before Marx came along, Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia were also written about societies with a fundamentally changed human nature. More, knowing his ideal to be impossible, coined the word “utopia,” which literally means “no place.” His book is a pleasant dream (for a collectivist at least), but More knew it was one that could ever come true. We are they way we are. And we’re stuck that way, for better or worse.

This leads us to the third aspect of socialism, which most concerns Trotsky. This is, for me, the most remarkable part, and the most chilling. It is the sheer violence that accompanied Marxism-Leninism everywhere it was tried. And I mean everywhere. Every single country to adopt communism had a checkered human rights record. No exceptions. Not one had anything resembling freedom of speech or press, or due process, or property rights.

Most historians now estimate that communist governments killed around 100,000,000 people. Mostly their own citizens. At no other point in human history have governments been so murderous of their own people. No other ideology has had consequences so bloody as Marxism and its variants.

One reason for the violence is that it allowed the governments to maintain power; resistance is less likely when the prevailing climate is of fear. Another is that human nature is stubborn. If it is to be changed, force is required. But, of course, the basic tenets of humanity are immutable. We are who we are.

Communist leaders, including Trotsky, were simply chilling. Many of them come off as sadists. They seemed to actually enjoy bloodshed. Revel in it. Yet Trotsky still has his admirers today. They need to answer for why they look up to someone who would even have thoughts like the following, let alone give voice to such brutish impulses in public speeches:

“The strength of the French Revolution,” he shouted to a group of revolutionary sailors, “was in the machine that made the enemies of the people shorter by a head. This is a fine device. We must have it in every city.” And have it they did. Once in power, Trotsky advocated show trials and the execution of political prisoners; he suppressed other socialist parties and independent trade unions; he pushed for the censorship of art that did not support the revolution; and he created the institutions of repression that were later turned against him and his followers.

Part 20

Last time, Squirrely and Monkeyy were about to interview Karl Marx for Squirrely’s journalism assignment, and Cowhidey had just been dumped by his girlfriend of three weeks.

Cowhidey sat on a bar stool and stared dejectedly at a baseball game on one of the various sporting televisions aligning the bar’s ceiling. And believe it or not, it wasn’t the fact that baseball is the most depressing, boring sports in the world that brought about this feeling of dejectedness. No, it was due to his recent break up from his one true love, the canceled Twitter page of Miley Cyrus.

Cowidey took a last swig from his beer (Sam Adams in case you were wondering), and cried a little inside as another fly ball sailed into God knows where for the last God knows how many times that inning.

“Can I get another?” he asked the barkeep.

“Coming right up,” said the barkeep as a slight pressure fell on Cowhidey’s shoulder. Cowhidey turned around to find Froggy pulling up a stool next to him.

“One for me too please,” he said.

“How’d you know I’d be here?” Cowhidey asked Froggy.

“Because this is where you always go when you break up with a girl,” said Froggy.

“Ohh…” said Cowhidey as he replaced his empty bottle with a fresh one. “How’d you know we would break up?”

“Because… because you two were just too different to last very long.”

“I thought we’d be together for the rest of our lives.”

“Yeah, well- it happens. Besides, at least now you don’t have to watch anymore Broadway shows.”

“Haha, yeah Broadway does suck!”

“And there are plenty of other girls out there, right? And despite your lack of a job or life motivation in general, you never seem to lack at finding them,” said Froggy just as a chew stick girl came up to Cowhidey.

“Hi, my name’s Beef Flavor Sticky. What’s yours?” she said.

“Which is kinda annoying,” Froggy finished with a mumble.

Meanwhile, Squirrely was organizing her notes for her interview with Karl Marx. Squirrely stood in the middle of the living room while Monkeyy took a seat near a paper cluttered desk.

“Sorry,” said Karl Marx referring to his desk, “I’ve just been busy lately. Would you two like some tea?”

“No thanks,” Squirrely answered for the both of them. “Got to get this done and run along. You know how time is.”

Karl Marx smiled and sat at his desk.

“Okay, I just have three questions for ya,” said Squirrely. “One, what’s your favorite color?”

“Blue lavender.”

“Question two, what’s your favorite food?”

“Kiwi pie.”

“And three, what’s your favorite season?”

“Autumn.”

“Good!” said Squirrely to a very confused Monkeyy. “Looks like we’re done here. Thank you Mr. Marx, this will surely get me a good grade on my journalism assignment. Let’s go, Monkeyy.”

“Wait wait wait!” said Monkeyy as Squirrely was quickly walking out the door. “Hold on! You have the chance to talk to the man that influences the Communism revolution, and that’s what you ask him?!”

“Yep,” said Squirrely as she waved goodbye, and hurried back onto the foggy London street.

“But- why?”

“Because,” Squirrely stopped and rolled her head at Monkeyy, “I’m not trying to change the world, Monkeyy. I’m trying to get an A in journalism.”

Next time, Cowhidey searches for a new girlfriend in all the wrong places, and Squirrely and Monkeyy get into trouble.

The Isocracy Network interviews Mr. Carson on the theory and practice of mutualism, worker self-management, anarchist thinkers and his critics.

3 Nov 09 | The Isocracy Network

Kevin Carson, an American political theorist and a contemporary leader in discussions concerning mutualism and author of three extremely important books on co-operation, mutualism and capitalism. Describing his politics as being “the outer fringes of both free market libertarianism and socialism”, he certainly will find a welcoming audience among our group—which is why he’s been asked several difficult questions.

“The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand” is available in HTML format and Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective are both available as PDF files.

Firstly, thank you Kevin for agreeing to this interview with The Isocracy Network.

Thanks for inviting me.

Could you begin by giving a description of mutualism from the initial definition offered by the anarchist, Proudhon, to contemporary examples and your own involvement in this sort of analysis of political economy?

Well, first of all, it’s important to distinguish between mutualism as a general form of praxis, and mutualism as a theory. Mutualist practices (friendly societies and lodges, guilds, arrangements for mutual aid, etc.) are probably old as the human race. Proudhon, Owen, Warren, et al simply created a theoretical framework that emphasized such forms of organization as a building block of society. It’s a bit like the centipede trying to figure out how it’s been walking all this time, or the man who was astonished to learn he’d been speaking in prose all along and didn’t even know it.

For that matter, there have been important anarchist thinkers like Kropotkin who emphasized mutual aid and other mutual organizations, without in any strict sense being mutualists. Cooperatives and mutuals have been central to the counterinstitution-building of much of the decentralist Left in the U.S. since the 1960s, but their thought is not explicitly mutualist either.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that most of the important examples of mutualist practice (the cooperative movement, the local currency and alternative credit movements, etc.) are not explicitly or self-consciously mutualist in ideology.

Having read Proudhon for some years, his thought is so complex and at times even seemingly self-contradictory, that I still hesitate to summarize it. But I’d venture to say, as an approximation, that his programme centered on: 1) abolishing artificial property rights in land and artificial scarcity of credit, so that the working class could secure cheap access to the prerequisites of production; and 2) organizing the economy around associations of producers. Of course Proudhon was an important founding thinker for anarchism as a whole as well as for mutualism; so these ideas, in modified form, have heavily influenced later collectivist, communist and syndicalist variants of anarchism.

Mutualist praxis was central to the Owenite movement in the U.K. (e.g. Owenite craft unions organized cooperative production and distribution by strikers in their own shops), as well as such things as the Rochedale cooperatives, the Chartists, and land colonization movements. Owenism, by way of Christian socialism and guild socialism, probably had a significant (if indirect) influence on distributism.

In the U.S. mutualism’s primary founder was the Owenite Josiah Warren. Warrenism, cross-pollinated with J.K. Ingalls’ occupancy-and-use view of land ownership and William Greene’s mutual banking theories, together led to the plumbline individualism of Benjamin Tucker. Tucker focused almost entirely on the abolition of artificial property rights and privilege in land and credit, assuming that when the legal props to rent and interest were removed and cheap land and credit were universally available, the forms of organization would take care of themselves. He displayed almost no interest whatever in cooperatives, associations for mutual aid, etc., as such.

Dyer Lum, John Beverley Robinson, and Clarence Swartz, all heavily influenced by Tucker, supplemented his focus on eliminating monopolies with some positive speculation on cooperative forms of organization; in so doing, they represented a partial fusion of Tucker’s version of individualism with the older cooperativist tradition of Proudhon and Owen. Lum, in particular, was also friendly to the radical labor movement and had fairly close ties to the I.W.W.

Would a highly successful large worker’s cooperatives, like the John Lewis Partnership in the U.K., and the Mondragón Corporation in Spain [centered in Basque Country] serve as evidence that mutualist economics can and does work in the large scale? Are credit unions evidence that mutualist economics can replace capitalist banking?

Although I’m quite friendly to both Mondragon and credit unions, and consider their influence to be decidedly positive, I believe their form is still distorted considerably by the capitalist milieu within which they exist. I like Mondragon’s federated system of cooperative producers, distributors and banks within a single umbrella organization. But it’s much too centralized a system in my opinion, with worker representation only effected at the level of the board of directors for the system as a whole; below the level of the Mondragon system as a whole, it’s a fairly top-down system of conventional management, with no significant self-management at the level of individual departments or factories.

I would greatly prefer local markets with lots of stand-alone cooperative manufacturing shops on the Emilia-Romagna model, integrated with cooperative banks in some sort of barter or local currency network of the sort promoted by Tom Greco.

Most credit unions, unfortunately, have adopted the culture of the conventional banking industry, and have almost no ideological affinity for the larger cooperative or counter-economy movement. Of course they are still greatly preferable to capitalist banks; being controlled by many small, local depositors, they are far less prone to the excesses of the capitalist banking system that we’ve seen in recent years.

Proudhon, although arguing that he opposed the idea of individuals deriving an income through rent and investments, said that he never wished “to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree” such activities. A contemporary mainstream economist may argue that Proudhon’s position here would be particularly utopian in those markets that have high barriers to entry or other monopolistic features, that a worker’s cooperative versus an entrenched capitalist enterprise in such a market would require a miracle on the scale of David vs, Goliath for success.

That sounds a bit like Tucker’s pessimistic view of things in his later years, when he seemed resigned to the idea that the large industrial trusts had grown to the point that their market power would persist even after the Four Monopolies were removed.

I think such a view neglects the extent to which capital-intensiveness is a source of high overhead cost and inefficiency, and is only made artificially profitable by the state’s subsidies and protections. In fact production as such has become far less capital-intensive over the past three decades, with the old mass-production core outsourcing increasing shares of total production to flexible manufacturing networks and job-shops, and some of them retaining little more than control over marketing and “intellectual property.” The development of cheap, small-scale CNC tools in the 1970s meant that the capital outlays required for manufacturing imploded by one or two orders of magnitude. That was the beginning of a long shift from older mass-production industry to Emilia-Romagna, the Toyota supplier network, the job-shops of Shenzhen and Shanghai, etc.

The process continues even further in the same direction with the desktop manufacturing revolution of recent years: cheap, homebrew CNC machines scalable to the small shop and garage.

When physical capital costs are so low, most of the financial role of the old industrial core is becoming redundant. And with small-scale production driven by local orders on a lean, demand-pull, JIT basis, marketing is similarly redundant.

“Intellectual property” is the main surviving buttress to the old corporate walls, and it’s becoming increasingly unenforceable.

A follower of Henry George would argue in the realm of natural resources it would be impossible for success and that land-rents should be socialised. How would you respond to these claims?

I’m quite friendly to George, and think the lines between individualism and Georgism are a lot less harsh than (say) Tucker would have believed. But I believe a great deal of rent could be eliminated simply by removing subsidies to economic centralization and positive externalities created by taxpayers—not to mention by removing state enforcement of title to vacant and unimproved land. If as much urban infrastructure as possible were funded by user fees, and cities broken up into lots of mixed-use neighborhoods in which residential areas had their own miniature “downtown” cores, differential rent would be far less significant. I think a majority of George’s aims could be achieved by Tucker’s means, or even by a throughgoing application of Rothbard’s means.

With examples of worker’s self-management in the former Yugoslavia, and modelling by economists such as Jaroslav Vanek and Benjamin Ward, it has been shown in some cases (especially in critical infrastructure) it is advantageous for labor-managed firms, in their objective of increasing income per worker, to either lay-off workers or—like a monopolistic capitalist firm – to reduce productivity and thus derive monopoly profits. How would a contemporary version of mutualism prevent these problems?

It’s been a long time since I read Vanek’s work on worker-managed economies, but my immediate reaction is that there’s probably no fool-proof set of governance rules. When the firm is controlled by capital-owners, they’ll behave in such a way as to maximize returns on capital; when it’s controlled by managers, as in most large Western corporations, they’ll maximize benefits to management at the expense of both labor and capital. At least in a worker-managed firm, the decisions will reflect the interests of a bare majority, which can’t be said of the other two mechanisms. Beyond that, I think the answer to the kind of behavior you describe lies in exit as much as in voice: the lower the capitalization requirements and the lower the barrier to entry for most forms of production, and the lower the cost threshold for comfortable subsistence, the less catastrophic changes in employment will be. I’d like to see an economy where a much larger share of total consumption needs are met through production for subsistence or barter in the household/informal sector, and the average time spent in wage employment is much less than at present.

That would mean a significantly larger share of the population would be self-employed than at present, a very large share would work hours that we would regard as “part-time,” household arrangements for pooling wages and hoarding labor-time would be much more resilient, and even wage-earners would tend to accept as normal prolonged periods of unemployment during which they lived off subsistence resources while waiting for a job to their liking.

Pro-capitalist neoliberals, such as George Reismann, Roderick T. Long have criticised your advocacy of mutualism. Reisman and Long both argue that you do not support John Locke’s ownership of landed property that has been mixed with labour or, to use the peculiarly U.S. vernacular, “homesteading”. It seems that both this critics have fundamentally misunderstood Locke’s concept of land ownership, which recognises a public cost for exclusion and use in addition to the right of added value. How do you respond to these criticisms?

To be frank, I can’t say with any degree of confidence what Reisman understands about anything. But I think Long acknowledged Locke’s Proviso and explicitly characterized his own position as “non-Proviso Lockeanism.” I’m not a Georgist myself, although I’d be well-disposed to a local property rules system based on some form of common ownership and community collection of rent. In any case, justifiably or not, when answering Lockean critics I tend to tacitly work from the premise that “Lockean” means “non-Proviso Lockean.” And for the most part, I think a radical and consistent application of non-Proviso Lockean rules would go most of the way toward achieving the aims of the Tucker-Ingalls land theory.

… all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous band of nature: … Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property… For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

–John Locke, Of Civil Government – Second Treatise

For that matter, over time I’ve come to see the bounderies between the Tucker-Ingalls and non-Proviso Lockean systems as less distinct, and to perceive some practical problems with the Tucker system (at least the more radical variant–he seems to promote different versions of the system at different times). At times Tucker himself seemed to concede the existence of house-rent, but to argue that the nullification of titles to vacant land would (through market competition) cause the land-rent component of rent to disappear and overall rent to fall to the value of rent on buildings. Now, to me, that seems to imply that Tucker wasn’t necessarily (at least at times) dead-set against absentee ownership in principle. That variant of his land theory, at least, seems to imply that the important thing was to eliminate large-scale absentee title to vacant and unimproved land.

In any case, I tend to think that doing so would go a long way to eliminating landlord rent through market competition.

Another critic, Walter Block argues that you are actually some sort of Marxist because you use the labour theory of value for deriving a theory of exploitation. It would seem that (a) Block is unaware that Adam Smith and David Ricardo also used the labour theory of value and (b) using it to calculate a rate of exploitation is hardly the same as using it as an anchor to exchange values.

I think the Austrians also, for the most part, exaggerate the extent to which marginalism/subjectivism is a radical departure from classical labor and cost theories. It’s closer to the truth to say that marginalism provides a mechanism for explaining the tendency that Ricardo et al described. The marginalist/subjectivist claim that “utility determines value” is true in a technical sense, if you add the qualification “at any point in time given the snapshot of supply and demand in the spot market.” But it’s not true in the ordinary way we use those words. If you allow changes in supply over time to enter the picture, then supply alters until the utility of the marginal unit reflects the cost of producing it—i.e., exactly what Ricardo said.

It makes far more sense to treat marginalism as a complement or fulfillment to classical political economy, rather than as supplanting it.

Politically, where do you think mutualists should align themselves. Should they spend their efforts in building cooperative organisations, like Proudhon’s advocacy of dual power? Or is there some mileage to be made in being involved in existing political organisations, such as the Labour Party—Cooperative Party groups in the U.K.? What about in the United States; is the Libertarian Party salvageable?

I think by far the most important, and the most interest, of our tasks is actually building the kind of society we want, and doing so so far as possible without regard to the state. But there’s something to be said for putting external pressure on the state, and participating in political coalitions to remove as much state interference with our activities as possible. Of course the primary emphasis of such coalition-building should be forming pressure groups, rather than attempting to become part of a governing coalition.

A lot of this parallels Daniel DeLeon’s disputes with the anarchists in the I.W.W. DeLeon argued that “building the structure of the new society in the shell of the old” (i.e. building industrial unions to serve as organs of self-management) would not be enough by itself. So long as the capitalists controlled the state and its armed force, and the significant minority of people whose class interest was tied up with it, there was the danger of the “Iron Heel” being brought to bear against counter-organizations. On the other hand, political victory alone wasn’t sufficient; he gave the example of threats by Jay Gould to organize a national capital strike and lockout if the socialists ever captured the national government. Workers, DeLeon argued, should be focused on building counter-institutions, but also be prepared to seize the commanding heights of the state long enough to dismantle them and prevent them from being used against themselves.

What we need is a primary focus on institution building, without entirely neglecting the need for a political movement to run interference for the counter-institutions.

What’s more, there’s the very real danger an authoritarian state might make a concerted effort to stamp out the counter-economy through (for example) the kinds of totalitarian surveillance Richard Stallman described in “The Right to Read,” intensified licensing and zoning to suppress low-capital producers, etc. It’s a waste of effort and probably corrupting to seriously run our people for Congress or the White House. But it’s perfectly sensible to carry out propaganda against legislation like the DMCA, to support lobbying campaigns organized by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and NORML, etc.

Proudhon argued that through a society of contracts between individuals, a federal structure could arise. This of course must presume that individuals have the capacity to engage in uncoerced contractual arrangements. What other political requirements do you think have a particular priority in breaking down authoritarian elements in statist rule?

Well, it could be that the authoritarian elements of statist rule will persist on paper right up to the point at which they become irrelevant. But in my opinion it’s at least worth a shot to pressure the state from outside, and form ad hoc alliances to pressure the state, in order to minimize its interference and fend off attempts at intensified interference. That includes local efforts against licensing and zoning that impede household microenterprise and micromanufacturing, local pressure to defend peaceful squatters and vagrants, pressure against the regulatory suppression of self-organized mutual-aid efforts, pressure at the national level against further expanding “intellectual property” law, and so forth.

Kevin, thank you for your time and views.

Kevin Carson is a research associate at the Center for a Stateless Society, contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective. Mr. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.

Por  Salvador López Arnal.

Observador Juvenil/Kaos en la Red.

Para Jaume Josa

Aquel que entienda al babuino contribuirá a la metafísica más que John Locke.
Charles Darwin, cuaderno D, agosto de 1838.

Maestro, periodista, compañero y amigo de Marx, miembro del comité de correspondencia comunista de Bruselas entre 1846 y 1847 y de la oficina central de la Liga de los Comunistas, redactor de la Nueva Gaceta Renana entre 1848 y 1849, emigrado a Suiza en 1849 y a Inglaterra en 1851, Wilhelm Friedrich Wolf falleció en 1864. Tres años más tarde, su amigo le dedicaba el libro I de El Capital, la única parte que llegó a publicar en vida, con las siguientes palabras [1]:

Dedicado a mi inolvidable amigo, valiente, fiel, noble luchador adelantado del proletariado, Wilhelm Wolff. Nacido en Tarnau el 21 de junio de 1809. Muerto en el exilio en Manchester el 9 de mayo de 1864.

El sentido texto de Marx nos conduce a una historia paralela sobre las dedicatorias de su gran clásico, historia en la que el autor de El origen de las especies, cuyo doble aniversario celebramos este año [2], está muy presente. Vale la pena recordarla en pocas líneas.

Norte de Londres, 17 de marzo. Marx había fallecido tres días antes. Su amigo, camarada y colaborador Friedrich Engels le despedía con un emotivo discurso en el cementerio de Highgate. Entre los asistentes, dos científicos naturales [3], el químico Schorlemmer, profesor en Manchester, un antiguo compañero político de Marx y Engels que había combatido en Baden en el levantamiento de la revolución de 1848, y el biólogo darwinista E. Ray Lankester [4]. El autor de La situación de clase obrera en Inglaterra, como en su día apuntara el gran marxista italiano Valentino Gerratana, unía probablemente por vez primera los nombres del amigo desaparecido y del científico británico:

De la misma forma que Darwin ha descubierto las leyes del desarrollo de la naturaleza orgánica, Marx ha descubierto las leyes del desarrollo de la historia humana .

El paralelismo establecido [5] se convirtió tiempo después en un lugar común en la literatura marxista. Con incomprensiones que no deberían desdeñarse: Marx, se dijo y repitió, en paralelo al trabajo de Darwin en el ámbito de la biología y las ciencias naturales, es el creador del continente Historia. Sus “leyes”, categorías y conjeturas son equiparables a las de teoría de la evolución y la corroboración exitosa del materialismo histórico, así como sus aristas gnoseológicas, son similares.

El autor de El Capital no desconoció la gran obra de Darwin. Marx escribió a Engels, quien había sido uno de los mil ciudadanos privilegiados que había adquirido un ejemplar de la primera edición de El origen de las especies en 1859, sobre este gran clásico en más de una ocasión. La siguiente carta está fechada el 18 de junio de 1862 y Marx habla en ella de relecturas de la obra:

(…) En cuanto a Darwin, al que he releído otra vez, me divierte cuando pretende aplicar igualmente a la flora y a la fauna, la teoría de “Malthus”, como si la astucia del señor Malthus no residiera precisamente en el hecho de que no se aplica a las plantas y a los animales, sino sólo a los hombres –con la progresión geométrica– en oposición a lo que sucede con las plantas y los animales. Es curioso ver cómo Darwin descubre en las bestias y en los vegetales su sociedad inglesa, con la división del trabajo, la concurrencia, la apertura de nuevos mercados, las “invenciones” y la “lucha por la vida” de Malthus. Es el bellum omnium contra omnes [la guerra de todos contra todos] de Hobbes, y esto hace pensar en la Fenomenología de Hegel, en la que la sociedad burguesa figura bajo el nombre de “reino animal intelectual” mientras que en Darwin es el reino animal el que presenta a la sociedad burguesa… [6]

Precisamente a esta carta de Marx se refiere Janet Browne [7] en los términos siguientes:

Resulta notable cómo Darwin redescubre entre las bestias y las plantas la esencia de la sociedad de Inglaterra, con su división del trabajo, la competición, la apertura de nuevos mercados, los inventos y la lucha maltusiana por la existencia”, comenta Karl Marx en una carta a Engels de 1862. Marx leyó El origen de las especies poco después de su publicación y advirtió su “torpe estilo inglés”. El comprendió con más claridad que la mayoría la amenaza del Origen (lo he puesto en redondilla) a los estándares tradicionales victorianos. “Aunque está desarrollado al tosco modo inglés, este es el libro que, en el campo de la historia natural, proporciona las bases para nuestros puntos de vista”, continuó dirigiéndose a Engels. Le repitió el mismo comentario exacto a Ferdinand Lassalle. “La obra de Darwin es de una gran importancia y sirve a mi propósito en cuanto que proporciona una base para la lucha histórica de clases en las ciencias naturales”. Marx se reía del temor de los británicos hacia los simios. “Desde que Darwin demostró que todos descendemos de los simios, apenas queda shock alguno que pueda perturbar el orgullo de nuestros ancestros”.

En el primer libro de El Capital, Marx se refiere a Darwin en dos ocasiones cuanto menos, si bien de forma lateral en ambos casos.

La primera vez aparece en el capítulo XII de la sección IV. En una nota a pie de página (n. 31: OME 40, p. 368), a propósito del período manufacturero, que, apunta Marx, “simplifica, perfecciona y multiplica los instrumentos de trabajo mediante la adaptación de éstos a las funciones especiales exclusivas de los trabajadores parciales”, señala:

En su obra que hace época, El origen de las especies, Darwin observa lo siguiente respecto de los órganos naturales de las plantas y de los animales: “Mientras un mismo órgano tiene que ejecutar trabajos diferentes, es tal vez posible descubrir un motivo de su alterabilidad en el hecho de que la selección natural mantiene o suprime cualquier pequeña desviación de la forma menos cuidadosamente de lo que lo haría si ese mismo órgano estuviera destinado a un solo fin particular. Así, por ejemplo, los cuchillos, que están destinados a cortar cosas de todo tipo, pueden ser de formas que en conjuntos sean más o menos una, mientras que un instrumento destinado a un solo uso necesita también otra forma si ha de satisfacer otro uso.”

La segunda referencia aparece en el capítulo XIII, en el apartado dedicado a la “Maquinaria y gran industria”. Refiriéndose a John Wyatt y su máquina de hilar, y a la revolución industrial del siglo XVIII, Marx señala que Wyatt no aludió al hecho de que “la hacía funcionar un asno, no un hombre”, pese a lo cual la función correspondió a un asno. Su programa hablaba de una máquina “para hilar sin dedos”, y en nota a pie (nota 89, OME 41, pp. 2-3), apunta:

Ya antes de él se habían utilizado máquinas para prehilar, aunque muy imperfectas, probablemente en Italia por vez primera. Una historia crítica de la tecnología documentaría en general lo escasamente que ninguna invención del siglo XVIII es cosa de un solo individuo. Por el momento no existe una historia así. Darwin ha orientado el interés a la historia de la tecnología natural, esto es, a la formación de los órganos vegetales y animales en cuanto instrumentos de producción para la vida de las plantas y de los animales. ¿No merece igual atención la historia de la constitución de los órganos productivos del ser humano social, base material de cada particular organización de la sociedad? ¿Y no sería, además, más fácil de conseguir, puesto que, como dice Vico, la historia humana se diferencia de la historia natural en que nosotros hemos hecho la una y no la otra?…

En 1978, durante el coloquio que siguió a una conferencia sobre “El trabajo científico de Marx y su noción de ciencia” [8], le preguntaron a Manuel Sacristán hasta qué punto conocía Marx la ciencia no social de su tiempo. Sacristán señaló que, como era natural, el filósofo y revolucionario comunista había seguido las ciencias cosmológicas con cierto retraso y con menor intensidad que las disciplinas sociales. Los conocimientos naturales que Marx atendió principalmente fueron los que le parecían imprescindibles para su propio trabajo de científico social con los pies y la mirada en la tierra: principalmente agrotecnia, agroquímica y, por prolongación, biología y química. En eso, apuntó Sacristán, había estado empujado por algunas manías suyas.

La pasión por la ciencia alemana […] le hace leerse a [Justus von] Liebig de arriba a abajo por ejemplo, porque le parece que no sólo es un gran agrónomo, sino además un representante típico de ciencia alemana, integrada y global.

En el caso de la biología, proseguía el prologuista a la edición catalana de El Capital, estaba la pasión por Darwin. Marx, erróneamente según Sacristán, veía en Darwin un apoyo teórico para sus propias teorías, de ahí que hubiese cultivado con insistencia la lectura del naturalista inglés.

La gran estudiosa de Darwin e historiadora de la ciencia Janet Browne [9] ha ratificado la afirmación de Sacristán:

Y es célebre la intriga despertada en Karl Marx por las tesis de Darwin, quien señaló en diversas ocasiones que en los trabajos de Darwin veía el sistema capitalista de la competencia y el liberalismo .

No hay duda, pues, de la admiración inicial de Marx por la obra de Darwin, amortiguada, eso sí, con el paso de los años. Está contrastado históricamente que Marx leyó y releyó El origen de las especies en los años iniciales de la década de los sesenta del siglo XIX [10], movido seguramente por el deseo de encontrar bases científico-naturales consistentes con su concepción de la Historia y acaso no fuera incoherente para él el paralelismo entre el concepto de lucha de clases y sus derivadas conceptuales y la apelación darwiniana a la lucha por la supervivencia como motor de la evolución.

De este modo, es comprensible que Marx, que cuando residió en Londres con su familia vivió en algún momento a apenas unos treinta kilómetros del domicilio de Darwin, le hiciera llegar a lo largo de 1873, en fecha no determinada, la segunda edición [11] de El Capital en alemán con una breve dedicatoria: “A Mr. Charles Darwin, de parte de su sincero admirador, Karl Marx” [12].

El gran científico inglés, su admirado naturalista, que no ignoraba evidentemente que Marx era el coautor del Manifiesto Comunista, le contestó el 1º de octubre de 1873 agradeciéndole el detalle y con proximidad ilustrada:

Muy distinguido señor:

Le doy gracias por el honor que me hace al enviarme su gran obra sobre El Capital; pienso sinceramente que merecería en mayor medida su obsequio si yo entendiera algo más de ese profundo e importante tema de economía política. Aunque nuestros estudios sean tan distintos, creo que ambos deseamos ardientemente la difusión del saber y que a la larga eso servirá, con toda seguridad, para aumentar la felicidad del género humano.

Queda, muy distinguido señor, suyo, afectísimo

Charles Darwin

Según Janet Browne [13], editora de la correspondencia de Darwin, éste no llegó a leer, ni siquiera a abrir, el ejemplar que Marx le enviara. Permanece impoluto en la conservada y cuidada biblioteca de Darwin.

Pero durante mucho tiempo se creyó que no fue ésta la única carta que el naturalista inglés escribió a Marx, que no fue éste el único intercambio epistolar entre ambos.

Años después, en 1880, el creador de la teoría evolucionista, respondía a una carta previa desconocida, no localizada hasta entonces, en la que se le solicitada permiso para una dedicatoria y para realizar observaciones sobre su obra.

Muy distinguido señor.

Le estoy muy agradecido por su cortés carta y por el contenido de la misma. La publicación, en la forma que sea, de sus observaciones sobre mis escritos no precisa en realidad de consentimiento alguno por mi parte, así es que no sería serio que yo diera un consentimiento del que no tiene ninguna necesidad. Prefería que no se me dedicara el tomo o el volumen (aunque le doy las gracias por el honor que quiere hacerme), puesto que eso implicaría en cierto modo mi aprobación de toda la publicación, sobre la cual no sé nada. Además, aunque soy un decidido defensor de la libertad de pensamiento en todos los campos, me parece –con razón o equivocadamente– que las argumentaciones en forma directa contra el cristianismo y el teísmo difícilmente producen algún efecto en el público. Pienso que la libertad de pensamiento se promueve mejor a través de la gradual iluminación de las mentes que se deriva del progreso de la ciencia. Puede que, sin embargo, yo me haya visto influido excesivamente por el disgusto que habrían sentido algunos miembros de mi familia si hubiera apoyado de algún modo ataque dirigidos contra la religión.

Me disgusta rechazar su ofrecimiento, pero soy viejo, tengo muy pocas fuerzas y leer pruebas de imprenta –como sé por experiencia reciente – me cansa mucho

Queda, muy distinguido señor, suyo, afectísimo,

Ch Darwin [La letra en redondilla es mía]

No cabe pasar por alto la penetrante intuición argumentativa y psicológica de Darwin sobre los efectos persuasivos de las argumentaciones directas contra las creencias religiosas.

No es, en todo caso, el tema que nos ocupa. Cabe enfatizar aquí el breve paso en que Darwin parece apuntar –o, más bien, apunta claramente– al contenido de la obra enviada:

[…] las argumentaciones en forma directa contra el cristianismo y el teísmo difícilmente producen algún efecto en el público […]

Argumentaciones contra el cristianismo, contra el teísmo… No parece que la afirmación darwiniana señale de ningún modo a los contenidos centrales de El Capital. Sin embargo…

En 1931, la revista soviética Bajo el estandarte del marxismo publicó esta segunda carta de Darwin de octubre de 1880. La redacción de la revista soviética conjeturó, con riesgo especulativo, pero no de forma implausible, que el desconocido destinatario de la carta era Marx, Karl Marx.

Isaiah Berlin, en su aproximación a Marx de 1939 [14], señaló, basándose en esta carta, que el autor de El Capital quería dedicar a Darwin la edición alemana original.

Francis Wheen [15] ha comentado, en tono crítico, el descuido de Berlin, quien, en su opinión

[...] pasó por alto completamente el hecho de que El Capital –con su dedicatoria a Wilhelm Wolff– apareció en 1867, nada más y nada menos que trece años antes de que supuestamente Marx le ofreciese “el honor” a Darwin.

No es el caso: Berlin dedujo que Marx quería dedicar a Darwin el segundo volumen de El Capital, no el primer libro editado ciertamente en 1867.

Después de la segunda guerra mundial, casi todos los autores que se aproximaron al asunto aceptaron, con matices y alguna vacilación, el rechazo por Darwin de la dedicatoria propuesta, difiriendo en el volumen que Marx pretendía dedicarle.

McLellan [16], por ejemplo, con mucha más atención, señaló que Marx, en realidad, como ya había apuntado Berlin, deseaba dedicar a Darwin el segundo libro de El Capital.

Gerratana [17], en su clásico estudio sobre “Marxismo y darwinismo” sostenía una posición similar si bien advertía, prudentemente, que “no se ha podido encontrar la carta de Marx, por lo que faltan algunos datos esenciales para aclarar por completo el significado de ese interesante episodio”, señalando una posible interpretación:

Muy probablemente el sondeo realizado por Marx tenía un objeto menos contingente: la posibilidad de establecer en el campo científico las relaciones entre darwinismo y socialismo, en el caso de que hubiera sido aceptada por Darwin, habría liquidado definitivamente la polémica bizantina que se estaba desarrollando durante aquellos años y que iba a continuar desarrollándose durante algunas décadas con igual superficialidad por parte de naturalistas y de socialistas

Finalmente, Sholomo Avineri [18] sugirió que los recelos marxianos sobre la aplicación política del darwinismo hacían impensable una oferta sincera. La dedicatoria de El Capital a Darwin había sido, con seguridad, una mera broma.

Basándose en las investigaciones de la estudiosa de la obra de Darwin, Margaret A. Fay [19], de Ralph Colp, Jr. [20], quien ya habló en los setenta del mito de la creencia de que Marx deseaba dedicar alguna parte de El Capital a Darwin, y de Lewis S. Feuer [21], Wheen ha apuntado una explicación diferente. La siguiente:

La segunda carta de Darwin no fue enviada a Marx sino a Edward B. Aveling, el compañero de Eleanor Marx, hija de Marx y Jenny von Westphalen. Aveling había publicado en 1881 The Student’s Darwin. Fay descubrió entre los papeles de Darwin una carta de Aveling de 12 de octubre de 1880, unida a unos capítulos de muestra de su obra, en la que después de solicitar el apoyo o el consentimiento de Darwin a su trabajo, añadía:

Me propongo, dependiendo de nuevo de su aprobación, honrar a mi obra y a mí mismo dedicándosela a usted.

¿Por qué entonces la carta de Darwin a Aveling había terminado en el archivo de Karl Marx dando pie a la confusión sobre la dedicatoria de El Capital? Porque Eleanor Marx y el propio Aveling, después del fallecimiento de Engels, habían sido los depositarios del legado marxiano, mezclándose por error los documentos de uno y otros.

Así, pues, la atribución de la citada carta a Karl Marx es falsa con toda probabilidad, pero la hipótesis sobre su autoría fue una razonable conjetura extendida y aceptada en tradiciones y publicaciones marxistas (y no marxistas), con algún descuido o falta de documentación en algún caso. Ni que decir tiene que la admiración de Marx por la obra de Darwin está confirmada y que la no lectura de Darwin del regalo enviado por Marx no apunta a ningún menosprecio por la obra de éste ni tan siquiera a cosmovisiones muy alejadas en uno y otro caso. El autor de El origen de las especies vio que ambos aspiraban, desde sus respectos ámbitos, a la difusión del saber contrastado y al avance de la felicidad humana.

Janet Browne [22] ha explicado esta curiosa historia de la dedicatoria de El Capital en los términos siguientes:

[…] En una ocasión se creyó que Marx quiso dedicar El Capital a Darwin, pero aquella impresión se basaba en un malentendido. En efecto, Marx mencionó El origen de las especies en su texto y envió a Darwin un ejemplar de presentación de la tercera edición de El Capital en señal de aprecio. Todavía forma parte de la colección de libros de Darwin con una nota de Marx en su interior. La confusión nacía de un error de identificación de una carta dirigida a Darwin. La carta procedía en realidad de Edward Aveling, el filósofo político y yerno de Marx, que adoptó con entusiasmo los planteamientos seculares de Darwin. Aveling le preguntó a Darwin si le importaría que le dedicara uno de sus libros. Como no deseaba que la asociaran públicamente con el ateísmo de Aveling, Darwin denegó la petición.

La actitud prudente de Darwin en este punto no fue obstáculo, por lo demás, para que recibiera a Aveling apenas un año después, en septiembre de 1881, cuando el compañero de la hija de Marx estaba asistiendo al Congreso Internacional de los Librepensadores. Janet Browne [23] cuenta así el encuentro:

Los dos filósofos sociales radicales [Aveling y Ludwig Buchner] se encontraban asistiendo al congreso de la Federación Internacional de Librepensadores en Londres. Buchner tenía una amplia reputación de ser el materialista más feroz de Europa; Aveling era un ateo declarado. Tan sólo unos pocos meses antes, Darwin había escrito para rechazar la petición de Aveling de que deseaba dedicarle The Student’s Darwin [24] diciendo que los fragmentos ateos llevaba sus opiniones “mucho más allá de lo que me parece a mí seguro” (Feuer 1975).

Asimismo, el almuerzo que se celebró difícilmente pudo haber estado más fuera de lugar. Los Darwin habían invitado además de John Brodie Innes, su antiguo vicario, para tener apoyo moral. Sin embargo, la ocasión resultó agradable. Después de comer, los hombres [25] se retiraron al estudio de Darwin, y allí, “entre el humo de los cigarrillos, con sus libros que nos observan por encima de nuestras cabezas y sus plantas para los experimentos por allí cerca, nos dedicamos a charlar” (Aveling 1883). Aveling le pregunto enseguida a Darwin si era ateo. Él prefería la palabra “agnóstico”, respondió. “Agnóstico no es más que ateo con énfasis en la respetabilidad –respondió Aveling–, y ateo no es más que agnóstico con énfasis en la agresividad”. Los invitados presionaron a Darwin para que valorase su papel en la difusión del pensamiento libre: todo librepensador debería proclamar la verdad “¡a todas partes desde los tejados!”. Hacia el final todos se decidieron de un modo cordial por la insuficiencia del cristianismo “Yo no abandoné el cristianismo hasta los cuarenta años de edad –afirmó Darwin–. No tiene el respaldo de las pruebas.”

Señala Browne que, muy impresionado por la evidente sinceridad de Darwin, Edward Aveling publicó “una descripción nerviosa” de la entrevista dos años más tarde, en 1883, tras la muerte de Darwin. La tituló The Religious Views of Charles Darwin (“Las opiniones religiosas de Charles Darwin”).

Como era de esperar, el artículo del materialista radical Aveling no gustó a los miembros de la familia Darwin. No era ésa su lectura del legado filosófico ni de las consideraciones religiosas del autor de El origen de las especies.

Addendum: En un artículo reciente, Gonzalo Pontón [26], hacía referencia al profesor Jerry A. Coyne, quien acaba de publicar un libro titulado Why Evolution is True, en el que explica con pulcritud un argumento contra la, seamos gnoseológicamente generosos, teoría del diseño inteligente: “La imperfección es la marca de la evolución, no la del diseño consciente”. La evolución produce criaturas imperfectas, inacabadas: los mecanismos evolutivos han dotado al kiwi de unas alas sin función; la mayoría de las ballenas conservan vestigios de pelvis y huesos de las patas como recuerdo de su pasado de cuadrúpedos terrestres; los humanos contamos con músculos para accionar una cola ya desaparecida, erizar plumas de las que no disponemos (la “carne de gallina”) o mover cómicamente las orejas, recordaba Pontón. A veces la evolución puede producir resultados útiles para un individuo, pero perjudiciales para la especie en su conjunto. Pontón recordaba en su artículo un ejemplo fastuoso aportado por Forges:

[…] en el dibujo aparece un obispo o cardenal (¿Rouco? ¿Camino?) de gesto avinagrado que Darwin observa entre perplejo y azorado. ¿Por qué razón? Porque ve, como Forges y como yo, que aquí la selección natural no ha jugado en favor de la especie. Si la selección natural “apaga” los genes más perjudiciales y activa los más favorables, ¿por qué existen los eclesiásticos?

Los interrogantes del admirable editor de Crítica proseguían: ¿por qué sobreviven seres inmorales capaces de engañar a sabiendas a los más débiles y desvalidos de los humanos diciéndoles que los preservativos pueden aumentar el riesgo de contraer el sida? Desde Darwin, sugiere Pontón, puede explicarse la existencia de tales criaturas: deben de ser vestigios de nuestros antepasados los reptiles.

Se me perdonará entonces que, aprovechando que el Ebro pasa por Zaragoza y el Duero por Pisuerga, añada otras preguntas de las que no soy capaz de conjeturar hipótesis explicativas: ¿Cómo es posible, como encaja en la evolución de las especies y las sociedades humanas, que un gobierno de izquierdas tripartito lleve una ley al Parlament catalán, con el beneplácito de CiU y el apoyo sustantivo del PP menos en asuntos lingüísticos, agitatorios electoralmente, que amén de privatizaciones y apoyo a negocios privados “concertados”, permita que instituciones educativas en manos de clérigos fanáticos (y afines) que segregan a jóvenes estudiantes en función del sexo, y no sabemos si también con otros criterios, reciban ayuda pública para sus propósitos antievolucionistas? ¿Se explica en esas instituciones educativas el darwinismo o se hace en “justo” paralelo con la “teoría” el diseño inteligente? Una hipótesis apenas entrevista, que acaso sea razonable: la evolución de las sociedades humanas exige para su transformación, además de los mecanismos naturales señalados, coraje ciudadano, el luciferino non serviam, y el gobierno catalán (¡ay!), hasta estos momentos, parece no andar sobrado de estos condimentos cívicos rebeldes.

PS: Óscar Carpintero me señaló amablemente el artículo referenciado de S. Jay Gould, que yo desconocía hasta entonces. Manuel Talens ha revisado el artículo con cuidado, me ha señalado erratas y algún error, le ha dado forma y lo ha tratado con el mimo al que nos tiene acostumbrados. Gracias, muchas gracias a ambos.

Notas

[1] Uso la traducción del primer libro de El Capital de Manuel Sacristán: OME (Obras de Marx y Engels) 40, 1976, Ediciones Grijalbo. Los siguientes volúmenes aparecieron en Crítica, la editorial que fundó en aquellos años un amigo y colaborador de Sacristán en Ediciones Ariel, Gonzalo Pontón.

[2] El 12 de febrero se cumplieron 200 años del nacimiento de Charles Darwin y el 24 de noviembre de 2009 se celebrará el 150 aniversario de la publicación de El origen de las especies. La teoría de Darwin ha sufrido en sí misma una evolución con el surgimiento del neodarwinismo, que sostiene a un tiempo el rigor de la idea primigenia de Darwin a la vez que se nutre de los estudios sobre herencia de Gregor Mendel. Han existido y existen, desde luego, “hijos de Darwin” que manipulando sus ideas defendieron y defienden la “ingeniería social”. Así, el “darwinismo social” basado en la eugenesia, propuesta por Francis Galton, primo de Darwin, y la posterior aportación de Spencer. No es impensable, como es sabido, que algunas de estas “teorías” influyeran en la cosmovisión del nazismo (y concepciones del mundo afines).

[3] Valentino Gerratana, “Marxismo y darwinismo”, en Investigaciones sobre la historia del marxismo I. Hipótesis-Grijalbo, Barcelona, 1975, p. 99, traducción de Francisco Fernández Buey (esta colección inolvidable, en la que fueron publicados 17 ensayos, fue dirigida conjuntamente por Manuel Sacristán y por el propio Francisco Fernández Buey). Stephen Jay Gould, “El caballero darwinista en el funeral de Marx: resolviendo la pareja más extraña de la evolución”, en Acabo de llegar. El final de un principio en historia natural, Barcelona, Drakantos bolsillo, 2009 (pp. 153-174) –trabajo del que he tenido noticia gracias a Óscar Carpintero– señala como asistentes al entierro de Marx: Jenny, su mujer; una hija de Marx; sus dos yernos, Charles Longuet, Paul Lafargue; Wilhelm Liebknecht, Friedrich Lessner, G. Lochner y los dos científicos citados. S. Jay Gould olvida que la mujer de Marx había fallecido en 1881. Gould, por otra parte, señala igualmente que Engels se dio cuenta de la “anomalía” que representaba la presencia de los dos científicos naturales. En su informe oficial del funeral (publicado en Der Sozialdemokrat de Zurich, 22 de marzo de 1883), apuntaba: “Las ciencias naturales estuvieron representadas por dos celebridades de primer rango, el profesor de Zoología Ray Lankester y el profesor de química Schorlemmer, ambos miembros de la Royal Society de Londres”.

[4] S. Jay Gould lo presenta en los siguientes términos: “[…] E. Ray Lankester (1847-1929), joven biólogo evolutivo inglés y principal discípulo de Darwin que ya entonces era famoso, pero más tarde se convertirá (en tanto que Profesor sir E Ray Lankester, K.C.B. [Caballero de la Orden del Baño], M.A. [el grado “obtenido” en Oxford o Cambridge]. D.Sc. [un grado honorífico posterior como doctor en ciencias], FRS [miembro de la Royal Society, la principal academia honoraria de la ciencia británica]), en prácticamente el más celebre, y el más chapado a la antigua,. De los científicos ingleses convencionales y socialmente prominentes” (ed. cit., pp. 156-157).

[5] Un brevísimo paso de un discurso de despedida y recuerdo, en absoluto un pensado y documentado texto de reflexión político-filosófica.

[6] Gould señala en su artículo que “Marx siguió siendo un evolucionista convencido, desde luego, pero su interés por Darwin menguó claramente con el paso de los años” (p. 168). Margaret Fay manifiesta la siguiente opinión a este respecto (Ibidem, pp. 168-169): “Marx… aunque inicialmente se sintió excitado por la publicación de El Origen… de Darwin, desarrolló una postura mucho más crítica hacia el darwinismo, y en su correspondencia de la década de 1860 se burlaba de manera suave de los prejuicios ideológicos de Darwin. Los apuntes etnológicos de Marx, compilados hacia 1879-1881, en los que sólo se cita una vez a Darwin, no proporcionan ninguna prueba de que retornara a su entusiasmo inicial”.

[7] Janet Browne, Charles Darwin. El poder del lugar, Valencia, PUV, 2009, p. 246 (traducción de Julio Hermoso).

[8] Véase: Manuel Sacristán, Sobre Dialéctica. El Viejo Topo, Barcelona, 2009, pp. 147-164.

[9] Janet Browne, La historia de El origen de las especies de Charles Darwin. Debate, Madrid, 2007, p. 111.

[10] Ralph Colp, Jr.: “The myth of the Darwin-Marx letter”. History of Political Economy 14:4, 1982, p. 461.

[11] Janet Browne habla de la tercera edición (op. cit., p.112). Creo que es una errata.

[12] Según Janet Browne, op. cit., p. 112, todavía “forma parte de la colección de libros de Darwin con una nota de Marx en su interior”.

[13] Véase Janet Browne, Charles Darwin. El poder del lugar, ed. cit. , p. 517

[14] I. Berlin, Karl Marx. Su vida y su entorno. Alianza editorial, Madrid, 2000.

[15] Francis Wheen, Karl Marx. Editorial Debate, Madrid 2000, p. 336.

[16] David McLellan, Karl Marx. Su vida y sus ideas , ed. cit., p. 488

[17] Valentino Gerratana, Investigaciones sobre la historia del marxismo, ed. cit ., p. 123

[18] Sholomo Avineri, “The Marx-Darwin Question: Implications for the Critical Aspects of Marx’s Social… Warren International Sociology. 1987; 2: 251-269 .

[19] Margaret Fay, “ Did Marx offer to dedicate Capital to Darwin?: A Reassessment of the Evidence” . Journal of the History of Ideas , Vol. 39, No. 1 Jan-Mar, 1978, pp. 133-146.

[20] Ralph Colp, Jr.: “The contacts between Charles Darwin and Karl Marx”. Journal of the History of Ideas 35 (April-June 1974).

[21] Lewis S. Feuer, “Is the “Darwin-Marx correspondence” authentic?”, Annals of Science, 32: 1-12. Gould señala en su artículo que Feuer y Fay trabajaban de forma independiente y simultánea.

[22] Janet Browne, La historia de El origen de las especies de Charles Darwin, ed. cit., pp. 111-112. Browne se muestra más comedida en su gran biografía de Darwin (ed. cit., pp. 517-518): “Hay escasas pruebas de la historia que afirma que Marx le pidió permiso a Darwin para dedicarle una futura edición de El Capital en reconocimiento de la comprensión de la lucha en la naturaleza por parte del británico. Al contrario, es mucho más probable que fuese Edward Eveling quien le preguntarse a Darwin si podía dedicarle uno de sus libros, y que tal solicitud fuese rechazada”. Browne apunta, en conjetura parcialmente arriesgada, que la confusión irrumpió sólo tras la muerte de Darwin (y acaso, habría que añadir la de Marx), ya fuese a través del deseo de Aveling de relacionar el darwinismo con su ateísmo revolucionario, o porque los documentos de Marx y Aveling se mezclasen azarosamente tiempo después.

[23] Janet Browne, Charles Darwin. El poder del lugar, ed. cit., p. 623.

[24] El Darwin para el estudiante de Aveling el segundo volumen de la Biblioteca Internacional de Ciencias y Librepensamiento.

[25] “Hombres” refiere en este caso, efectivamente, a hombres.

[26] Gonzalo Pontón, “La perplejidad de Darwin”. El País, 29 de marzo de 2009.

Una versión anterior de este artículo apareció en El Viejo Topo, julio-agosto de 2009.

Salvador López Arnal es colaborador de Rebelión, El Viejo Topo, Papeles ecosociales y Sin permiso, y autor de La destrucción de una esperanza. Manuel Sacristán y la primavera de Praga, Akal, Madrid (En prensa).

Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons.

Karl Marx

ROUNDTABLE ON MARX’S CAPITAL

Roundtable on Marx’s Capital

The SSPP is pleased to issue a CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS for a Roundtable on Marx’s Capital Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, February 24-27, 2011

Our second Roundtable will explore Volume One of Marx’s Capital (1867).  We chose this text because the resurgence in references to and mentions of Marx – provoked especially by the financial crisis, but presaged by the best-seller status of Hardt and Negri’s Empire and Marx’s surprising victory in the BBC’s “greatest philosopher” poll – has only served to highlight the fact that there have not been any new interpretive or theoretical approaches to this book since Althusser’s in the 1960s.

The question that faces us is this: Does the return of Marx mean that we have been thrust into the past, such that long “obsolete” approaches have a newfound currency, or does in mean, on the contrary, that Marx has something new to say to us, and that new approaches to his text are called for?

The guiding hypothesis of this Roundtable is that if new readings of Capital are called for, then it is new readers who will produce them.

Therefore, we are calling for applications from scholars interested in approaching Marx’s magnum opus with fresh eyes, willing to open it to the first page and read it through to the end without knowing what they might find. Applicants need not be experts in Marx or in Marxism.  Applicants must, however, specialize in some area of social or political philosophy.  Applicants must also be interested in teaching and learning from their fellows, and in nurturing wide-ranging and diverse inquiries into the history of political thought.

If selected for participation, applicants will deliver a written, roundtable-style presentation on a specific part or theme of the text.  Your approach to the text might be driven by historical or contemporary concerns, and it might issue from an interest in a theme or a figure (be it Aristotle or Foucault).  Whatever your approach, however, your presentation must centrally investigate some aspect of the text of Capital.  Spaces are very limited.

Applicants should send the following materials as email attachments (.doc/.rtf/.pdf) to papers@sspp.us  by September 15, 2010:

    • Curriculum Vitae
    • One page statement of interest in the Roundtable.  (Please include a discussion of the topics you would be willing to explore in a roundtable presentation.  Please also discuss the projected significance of participation for your research and/or teaching.)

Ben Fowkes’ translation of Capital (Viking/Penguin, 1976) is the official translation for the Roundtable, and should be used for page citations. However, applicants are strongly encouraged to review either the German text of Capital (the 2nd edition of 1873 is the basis for most widely available texts) or the French translation (J. Roy, 1872-5), which was the last edition Marx himself oversaw to publication; both of these are widely available on-line.

All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process via email on or before October 15, 2010.  Participants will be asked to send a draft or outline of their presentation to papers@sspp.us by January 15, 2011 so that we can finalize the program.

In order to participate in the Roundtable (but not to apply or to be selected), you must be a member of the Society in good standing. You can become a member of the Society by following the membership link at: http://www.sspp.us

William S. Lewis
Associate Professor of Philosophy and Chair,
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA
(518) 580 5402

Board Member and Treasurer
Society for Social and Political Philosophy

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

Whilst legislation is vital to achieve meaningful change in society, it is important to not get carried away with legalisation for legislation sake. This is illustrated by the inclusion in the Queen’s speech, of the bill that sets out to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Whilst it would be amazing if the government achieved this, I think it is pretty evident that it would be an almighty task to rid ALL child poverty by 2020. There are several problems that I see that would prevent such a target being fulfilled.

For one, what poverty are you talking about? Well, by this I mean, do you mean absolute poverty? Relative poverty? Lifestyle poverty? You get the point. Everyone has different definitions of poverty, to me, absolute poverty is the most pressing concern, but to working class/middle class aspiring to those above them, they may consider themselves to be in poverty when they can’t afford the same clothe lines as others. Thus, for one, it is important to emphasise the definition of poverty that is being used when discussing poverty legislation.

Even if the poverty definition is firmly stated, another problem with enshrining the commitment into law is that it could take attention away from the actual policy details that will be used to attempt to eradicate poverty. What meaningful policies were discussed in the Queen’s speech that really get to grips with child poverty? There needs to be less talk and more action, the more talk occurs around a law that seems to offer all the answer to solving poverty, the less attention is spent on considering real policy options that will help those in the deepest inequality.

Another inherent problem with the eradication of poverty being a law is that we operate within a system that is inherently unequal. How can we aspire to eradicate poverty by 2020 when the capitalist system feeds off class divisions and the power of  one group over another? I think this is where we have to recognise the importance of Karl Marx as a theorist, he provided powerful insights into the structure of capitalism and helps show how poverty is needed in order for the capitalist system to be maintained.

Another influential theorist who is important to bear in mind when discussing poverty is Max Weber. He did not talk about poverty per se, however, his theory of rationalisation can be clearly related to the legislation of eradicating poverty by 2020. Weber talks about how rationalisation will result in targets becoming ends in themselves, so the actual values, such as tackling poverty itself, are lost in the process of an increased obsession with ends.

So what happens if the government does not fulfil its commitment? Will they be liable to the courts? Of course they wont. This is just a token. It is a distraction from the mass level of poverty in society. What about the poverty all around the world? We can’t just set targets like this and expect it to be work done, there needs to be greater consideration of the wide range and level of poverty. Thus, I feel that whilst aiming to reduce child poverty is a good thing, to say you will eradicate it and then enshrine this belief in law seems to be a little absurd. I would be more than happy to eat my words in 2020 but I very much doubt I will have to, due to the reasons stated above.

Historical Materialism

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM CONFERENCE 2009: PRE-REGISTRATION AND ABSTRACTS

Pre-registration for the HM Conference will close at midnight
tomorrow: http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm/

Registration on the door will be possible on a first-come-first-served
basis.

The abstracts for the papers are now online: http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm/

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

MySpace Profile: http://www.myspace.com/glennrikowski