Friday, March 20, 2009

Good Microwave Deserts






Normal
0 21


Defender

the validity of Marx's approach has become a ritual on the left who claimed the break against the capitalist social order throughout the twentieth century, and more strongly after the fall of most schemes of historic socialism, which formalized a version of Marx's work attached to the maintenance needs of its

status quo.

More specifically, it is necessary to raise the question of the validity of Marx has different meanings, as the warrant against the right or front left. Like not here to chat with people right, I do not need to insist that Marx's critical theory is valid as long as society is crossed by the class struggle, that is, that as long as capitalism Marx will be indispensable for thinking about the possibilities of emancipation inherent in this type of society.


could also invoke here that many modern researchers have taken the possibilities of the theory of Marx. However, what interests me ask here, in a space left, are the contributions that the Marxian analysis of capitalist society can file for the popular sectors of Latin America, and specifically American. From my perspective, assess the work of Marx today, from the left and from Central America, involves displaying the ways by which the Marxian theory of class struggle can talk and articulate with other social movements.


As has been demonstrated repeatedly, capitalist society is based on the exploitation of the workforce, although in the core countries make the illusion that the industrial era has passed into history: the flow of capital to the Third World through forms of exploitation inherent capitalism of flexible accumulation - symbolized by Costa Rica, has de-industrialized zones relative to the metropolitan centers while industrialized to the periphery.


In Latin America, the systemic contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat should be raised further in terms of combined and uneven development of capitalism, adding national asymmetries of social classes . This, in political terms, is that the fight is both popular struggle for national sovereignty, although the latter does not guarantee by itself the popular character of the struggle. Imperialist sectors are therefore partners in the popular struggle, from the same capital development over the world.


me be clear. From my perspective, it is not possible any substantial qualitative change in this society that does not pass through the class struggle. No claim can avoid radical break with the logic instruments that came with capitalism, as Marx pointed out lucidly, this production has universalized the goods through a collective look fetishized, which makes the earth and its resources, men and women and its activities, space and time on things equal, impose identity on the differences to measure them as exchange values.


But the class struggle, indispensable, is not sufficient to address the needs radical. That is an urgent need not imply that it is exclusive. Beyond the subject of the work force there are other forms of oppression of human activities: ethnic, gender, relationships between humans and nature, generational. Lenin had already widened the category of the historical subject, noting that not only the proletariat but the masses (including the peasantry and some strata of the petty bourgeoisie) were protagonists of the revolution. Later, several theoretical, which has been Marcuse the best known, claimed that radical transformation was also seeing the renovation of the culture in which youth as social and libidinal liberation and utopian horizon, played a central role in defeating the domination fetish.


Marx did not claim that the abolition of class society to solve all the problems of inequality among human beings. However, as exemplified by the cases just mentioned, Marx proposed a theory and a method that appropriately applied to social contexts in capitalism, provide perspectives for the emancipation of the popular sectors.


If we follow Marx, as I believe it is now necessary, that should be possible from a totalizing vision of society. Particular struggles should be directed towards the creation of a community. Plurality is not a value in itself. Faced with a social aggregation, capitalism as a process in place globally, it is necessary to oppose a collective subject that totals from the asymmetry of a common program based not on tolerance but on solidarity. Helio Gallardo, in raising the status of people

indicated that its various components are not articulated from the consensus, but the dissent, that is, dialogue and respect. In this joint heterogeneous subordination arises as the key concept to define a collective identity of popular nature, and as such in its general scope and aims at the all-embracing social change and radical character, as posed by the great theorist and activist in whose memory we gather here today.


Finally, I note that Marx never gave a normative characterization of communism. His few indications in this regard are vague and are almost strictly against the limitations of capitalism on everyday life. Thus, Marx is consistent with the generality of his theory: the sense of social activity is not given a priori

and beyond a particular mode of production, one that will happen is an open construction, being made and imagined by collective subjects they leave their social heritage, culture and nature to create desirable.


In other words, a considerable part of the life of Marx lies in his belief that socialism not a predetermined path, not a goal to be come a predestined historical subject. Today, as more than 150 years ago, when Marx wrote to his friend Engels

Communist Manifesto, socialism is pure possibility: a collective freedom open to the future.


building assume that freedom is the challenge that we have left, as Walter Benjamin said, our ancestors enslaved. And since, as Lenin said, without revolutionary theory, no revolutionary practice, from the oppressed to critically review the theory Marx and put it up to date with new social conditions is the basic criterion for Marx remains relevant today as it has been for the last half century.


* Discussion on the validity of Marx carried out in 2008 by CORN (Left Alternative Movement).




Posted by admin at 9:27 AM

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)