Slavoj Žižek: From Dominion to use and revolt | OP
As Marxists, we share the premise that "economic and political criticism" of Marx remains as a starting point to understand our socio-economic katandisjen. To capture feature of this katandisjeje, however, we must free ourselves cbsl from the last vestiges of revolutionary Marxist historicism - even if it is taken as the sole foundation of Marxist orthodoxy. Here is Marx in his historicism cbsl worst:
In their experience of social production, people enter into relationships inevitably cut, which occur regardless of their will, namely relations of production that fit a given stage in the development of material production forces ... In a stage of development, the material productive forces society collide with the existing relations of production or-this merely expresses the same thing in terms ligjorë- property relations so far. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution ... No social order is not destroyed before all the productive forces are sufficiently developed, and new relationships higher production never replace old relationships before cbsl the material cbsl conditions are ripe for the existence of within the framework of the old society. Man thus inevitably poses to himself only those problems that is able to solve, since thinner examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for the solution are already present or at least on the way.
This scheme is doubly wrong. Firstly, capitalism as a social formation is characterized by a structural zhdrejtpeshim: antagonism between the forces and relations is there from the beginning, and it is this antagonism which pushes capitalism towards permanent vetërevolucionarizimit vetëekspansionit-capitalism thrives because he avoided his chains escaping into the future. It also happens cbsl because someone should teach "wisely" cbsl optimistic notion that man "inevitably raises problems such as he is able to solve": today we are faced with problems for which no clear solution guaranteed by the logic of evolution cbsl .
To move beyond this framework, we must focus on three elements characteristic of contemporary capitalism: the long-term orientation of the profit of rents (in its two main forms: rent based on the "common knowledge" privatized, and rents based on sources natural); more powerful role Unemployment (likelihood to be "used" in a long-term work that is experienced as a privilege); and finally the establishment of a new class of Jean Claude Milner calls "salaried bourgeoisie".
Result of increased production, caused by an exponential increase in the collective knowledge, is the changing role of unemployment. But is there a possibility that this form of capitalist also bring a new perspective emancipation? Here lies thesis Hardtit and Negri in Multitude, in which they attempt to radicalise a Marks for which high capitalist organization was already "socialism within capitalism" (a kind of capitalist socialism, the lack of owners become increasingly more excess), so one only needs to cut formal head to achieve pure socialism. For Hardtin and Negrin, however, the limitation of Marx was that he was historically tight industrial work centered and hierarchical organization, cbsl which is why his vision about the "general intellect" was that of a central planning agency. Just today, with the rise of "immaterial labor" cbsl in a hegemonic position, revolutionary inversion becomes "objectively possible". This work extends between two poles intangible intellectual work (symbolic) (production cbsl of ideas, code, text, software, pictures ...) and affective labor (those dealing with afektet our body: the doctors to carers of children and stewards). Today, immaterial labor is "hegemonic" precisely in the sense that Marx declared that in capitalism of the nineteenth century, industrial mass production was hegemonic as the specific color of the tone totality, cbsl not in quantitative terms, but play a key role emblematic and structural. What appears to result is a great new space "commonalities": shared knowledge, forms of cooperation and communication, etc., Which could not be included on the form of private property. For immaterial production, the products are not material objects, but social relationships (interpersonal) February, immaterial production is directly biopolitik, he is a product of social life.
The irony here is that Hardti and Negri refer to the ideologues of the current process of capital
As Marxists, we share the premise that "economic and political criticism" of Marx remains as a starting point to understand our socio-economic katandisjen. To capture feature of this katandisjeje, however, we must free ourselves cbsl from the last vestiges of revolutionary Marxist historicism - even if it is taken as the sole foundation of Marxist orthodoxy. Here is Marx in his historicism cbsl worst:
In their experience of social production, people enter into relationships inevitably cut, which occur regardless of their will, namely relations of production that fit a given stage in the development of material production forces ... In a stage of development, the material productive forces society collide with the existing relations of production or-this merely expresses the same thing in terms ligjorë- property relations so far. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution ... No social order is not destroyed before all the productive forces are sufficiently developed, and new relationships higher production never replace old relationships before cbsl the material cbsl conditions are ripe for the existence of within the framework of the old society. Man thus inevitably poses to himself only those problems that is able to solve, since thinner examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for the solution are already present or at least on the way.
This scheme is doubly wrong. Firstly, capitalism as a social formation is characterized by a structural zhdrejtpeshim: antagonism between the forces and relations is there from the beginning, and it is this antagonism which pushes capitalism towards permanent vetërevolucionarizimit vetëekspansionit-capitalism thrives because he avoided his chains escaping into the future. It also happens cbsl because someone should teach "wisely" cbsl optimistic notion that man "inevitably raises problems such as he is able to solve": today we are faced with problems for which no clear solution guaranteed by the logic of evolution cbsl .
To move beyond this framework, we must focus on three elements characteristic of contemporary capitalism: the long-term orientation of the profit of rents (in its two main forms: rent based on the "common knowledge" privatized, and rents based on sources natural); more powerful role Unemployment (likelihood to be "used" in a long-term work that is experienced as a privilege); and finally the establishment of a new class of Jean Claude Milner calls "salaried bourgeoisie".
Result of increased production, caused by an exponential increase in the collective knowledge, is the changing role of unemployment. But is there a possibility that this form of capitalist also bring a new perspective emancipation? Here lies thesis Hardtit and Negri in Multitude, in which they attempt to radicalise a Marks for which high capitalist organization was already "socialism within capitalism" (a kind of capitalist socialism, the lack of owners become increasingly more excess), so one only needs to cut formal head to achieve pure socialism. For Hardtin and Negrin, however, the limitation of Marx was that he was historically tight industrial work centered and hierarchical organization, cbsl which is why his vision about the "general intellect" was that of a central planning agency. Just today, with the rise of "immaterial labor" cbsl in a hegemonic position, revolutionary inversion becomes "objectively possible". This work extends between two poles intangible intellectual work (symbolic) (production cbsl of ideas, code, text, software, pictures ...) and affective labor (those dealing with afektet our body: the doctors to carers of children and stewards). Today, immaterial labor is "hegemonic" precisely in the sense that Marx declared that in capitalism of the nineteenth century, industrial mass production was hegemonic as the specific color of the tone totality, cbsl not in quantitative terms, but play a key role emblematic and structural. What appears to result is a great new space "commonalities": shared knowledge, forms of cooperation and communication, etc., Which could not be included on the form of private property. For immaterial production, the products are not material objects, but social relationships (interpersonal) February, immaterial production is directly biopolitik, he is a product of social life.
The irony here is that Hardti and Negri refer to the ideologues of the current process of capital
No comments:
Post a Comment