Does it make sense now studying Marxist writers? I think so. It is true that it is neither morally nor intellectually acceptable to think in Marxist terms without taking into account the resounding failure of the so called real socialism and, above all, totalitarianism, inhumanity and lack of freedom of a system degenerated into a caste of rulers exercising a tyranny whose purpose was herself. I confess I could hardly endure the climate of intellectual and political control of Stalinist Russia assuming that she survived. I know it well and never would seek a return to something similar. I also know that I would still have the material conditions to perform and that hunger would not let me do it. But back to the question of whether it is worth studying or even taking on elements drawn from Marxism, I do think that despite what is said can accept that beneficial elements in the way of analysis and social and economic critique of Marxism. Perhaps the task is a fundamental rethink the Marxism, update and correct some elements. That is, do not think it necessary to make an amendment to the whole thing if it is assumed that critically and without dogmatism can be useful as a tool for analyzing social, economic and political. Maybe those marginal Marxist who were exiled or silenced at the time of splendor of real socialism, do have some expertise to offer today.
But even more, considers our world from Marxism elements can also be seen as an urgent necessity if we find the colossal failure of political and economic system in the world whose effects are devastating. 4 / 5 of humanity is starving, life has become for many a mere survival in Third World countries, and for the vast majority of people in First World countries also live is, paradoxically, a thankless task, uncertain, full of anxiety, harsh, hostile, which increasingly requires sacrifices in other areas of life ... a normal family in Spain, today can not have housing in a dignified and parents should also spend less time working to pay their mortgages or essential goods do not have time to educate their children and enjoy them. This, bleeding, in a world in which technology could ensure prosperity for all. At the same time, the social divide in Spain is growing. A few days ago the prime minister Zapatero proudly brandished the fallacious argument that we had a higher GDP, in a recent year, to Germany. But precisely this rousing silent figure, if true, is saying that, before the stark evidence that ordinary españolitos ever live worse and more difficult, there are very few who, in the midst of crisis, are increasingly more money. That's what you mean that rise in GDP, which boasts Zapatero. That is, increases production and wealth, but decreases the purchasing power of almost the entire English population less that privileged minority of bankers, heirs of large fortunes and large businesses through which raises the GDP which only they hold and enjoy. Just the minority that claims to reduce wages and increase working hours. We are witnessing in Spain at the end of the old social achievements, health, pensions, severance pay, final pay for the unemployed and return to being a country of immigrants (now Germany English graduates invited to go to work for them) . However, recalling the terrible regimes of lack of freedom of communism anyone think that, at least we have freedom.
fact, the true Marxist analysis to discover the fallacy behind this belief. Nor do we have freedom. Specifically, the materialist conception beliefs relating to economic and social structure, which means the consciousness as a reflection of structural dynamics, is of proven effectiveness in making any analysis philosophy has always done: be suspicious. Suspicious of the clear skies that even in its crystalline clarity clouding of consciousness and the blind. It is the knowledge that what happens in the realm of ideas can respond to a false view of what happens in reality, the reality of ideas is covering up the fact they come from. I think the thought and in general terms what we call "consciousness" works well. There is a world view that is imposed for repeated and reproduced in a thousand ways: research paid by private or public entities interested in perpetuating or increasing production, for example. Here we see a social structure, its crystallization in a large corporation or bourgeois government, generated from economic reasons of sheer survival, from the inertia that keeps it moving, its particular field of ideas and knowledge at your service. Should be studied how the structure works well, which has made the sociologist Bourdieu scientific wisdom, with a much more comprehensive and flexible than the classical causal mechanistic Marxist. Bourdieu us better about the structural nature of society. However, the Marxist idea that there is a knowledge which reflects, as in a mirror, place of origin, serves as a key to our inquiries take criticism in the most varied fields: art, religion, education, etc. This is where a Marxist can help dive appearances. From this key, you can return, and leaving now Bourdieu at the margin, the Marxist approach. Specifically, I turn to Lukacs, who also try to read critically and without dogmatism, making precisely the reason I give where I honestly believe he has.
Lukacs says: "Separation sharp conceptual and mechanical connection between violence and economy should be purely and simply to the appearance of pure objectivity fetish of economic relations conceals the nature of relationships between men and becomes a second nature that surround the man with fatal laws, and also due to the fact that the legal form, also fetish-organized violence hides its presence latent potential, and behind all economic, distinctions such as that established between law and violence, between order and subversion, between power violence legal and illegal violence, violent hide the common basis of all the institutions of class society " (P. 187). Here, the key is given by the fetishism by which a structure or system within the larger structure in which society is able to become autonomous in the consciousness of men, so that it looks waterproof, in awareness of violence. That is, the violence is being marginalized to a field where visibility structural interests, to stop while viewed in the economic sphere. Thus, the paradox that a peaceful person and noble intentions is capable of not seeing the violence that means taking advantage of hunger inherited by a child, skipping the discourse of human rights, be able to contribute to child exploitation in the Third World (in the consciousness of the subject may appear the idea, consistent with the fetishization of the economy under capitalism, that work is being given to a child who would otherwise starve.) However, this right-thinking citizen can wield the discourse of human rights to justify the free movement of capital or social dumping (a company moves to where working conditions are worse for increasing their profit.) So, what the analysis of cold reason and violence is the economy does not appear as such on the false and ideological consciousness of our right-thinking citizen who splits economy and morality.
Rights Human commendable as abstract ideals become the capitalist world in a way to legitimize that which paradoxically undermines its own Human Rights, so that are used to invade countries with perverse true purpose of stealing its oil. Or have the recent signing of economic agreements with China (such as the economy does not understand morality in the capitalist world), or pacts with tyrants like the dictator of Equatorial Guinea for oil. Marxism served here to see the structural violence that is specified by our capitalist economy, a violence that as Lukacs rightly points out, is no longer in the oppression from nature man hostile imposed its harsh conditions and limits, but the man himself. In capitalism, and this remains true Marxism as awareness (correct perception, by a suitable analytical method, the truth behind the facts fetishized in which trapped the myopic eyes of the bourgeoisie), violence is man against man, and I mean the violence that creates poverty and lack of livelihoods. In other economies (a Marxist would say other "modes of production") poverty was caused mainly by natural disasters, disease, drought, pests, floods, etc. Today, poverty is caused by man man himself. In this is precisely the evil of our world, its original sin or structural. It can be bad without being aware of it, or rather, you can do wrong without being evil. To discover the bitter truth remains valid analysis that handles some key concepts and Marxists. Above all, and to relate this to the posts in recent days have gone, the materialist conception shared by Marxism understands consciousness as an ideological construct from a social-economic structure. Anyway, should be studied if possible degree of autonomy in consciousness, I think so.
also continues Lukacs, when the structure reaches its inertial momentum, automatic, no longer required physical violence (repression, brute force) to operate, so that this violence is still there away from being so visible. It is violence, if all is well oiled, whose way of killing are poverty, disease, unemployment, broken childhoods, ecological disaster, generated by a pharmaceutical or food industry that believes not do evil, whose consciousness (false) is that it only searches economic benefit in terms morally neutral, but actually kills. Something like when we put money in a bank account of a bank that has evicted thousands of families without debt forgiveness, what actually occurs massively in Spain and that the American consciousness itself is, at least its legal system as a crime, so that U.S. law prohibited a bank that stays home mortgage debt to continue reclamándote. This injustice, I repeat, it happens in Spain under the law and government.
Evil continues Lukacs's Marxist analysis, capitalism takes on the character of fate tragic fate of the iron law of unforgivable. There is a naturalization of what is really social. Becoming aware of this is not possible if we remain trapped in the terminology of political economy (classical economics liberal, capitalist, bourgeois). His speech effectively captures the reality and gives consistency of nature, almost mineral. In it, in fact, the man is brought to animal or mineral, for which estimates are established which require objectification of men. See this intellectual maneuver a reduction of man to beast of burden is worthwhile, too, from a Marxist Perspective budgets. Could be accused of some economists now speak of labor market flexibility to be claiming, on his way to study economics, that reality conforms to mathematical models, and not vice versa as it should be done when one presents a mathematical model to capture reality. Might do well to learn from other economists some intellectual humility and a qualitative consideration as an alternative for economic analysis. This is what I heard from a prestigious economist last summer in El Salvador.
But we said at the outset that we must also be critical of Marxism. So, applying the story, and as this is already overextended in a future post will address this need not be dogmatic Marxist analysis method and its worldview. That is, we must honestly explain the deficiencies that also holds Marxism and therefore continue our dialogue with other currents (postmodernity dusseliana liberation philosophy or ellacuriana, etc.). Can be attributed to Marxism also hold a closed analytical model, with true noun, which would, in effect, to be aired. As the main point we would have the old issue that raises us the Lukacs of History and class consciousness of the relationship between economic infrastructure in a greater or lesser sense of determinism with respect to the ideological superstructure. Marxism disbelieves some of the fighting in the world of ideas, which accused of contributing to the bourgeois dichotomy between theory and practice, but I think it is an issue that should be studied very thoroughly, but keep certainly caution in relation to what Marxism warns of disengagement from the scope of practice. But I would think that we all follow this rule of intellectual honesty and self-criticism that we apply any search for knowledge demands. Who also mixed economy with nature.
0 comments:
Post a Comment