Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

doar de niøte idealizæri. Aøadar, János Kis criticæ un principiu greøit, despre
care toatæ lumea øtie cæ e aøa. Socialismul revoluflionar, marxian depæøeøte
egalitarismul liberal (burghez), dar nu în direcflia sugeratæ de Kis. Una peste
alta, dacæ ne facem cu amabilitate cæ uitæm de ocolul acesta referitor la „populism“,
vom da peste afirmaflii ceva mai importante. Iatæ ce scrie excelentul
gînditor liberal:
„Ne-ar plæcea sæ træim într-o lume în care oamenii îøi træiesc viafla conform
propriei lor înflelegeri a lucrurilor. Dar atunci cînd indivizii urmæresc scopuri
ce oglindesc dorinflele øi convingerile lor, conflictele sînt inevitabile. […] Deøi
luptele de interese din cadrul societæflii sînt inevitabile, de ce n-ar putea fi ele
coordonate oare pe baza unei asocieri libere a unor comunitæfli autodirijate?
În ce-l priveøte, Karl Marx avusese o concepflie despre cum ar putea acorda
între ele acfliunile indivizilor o economie lipsitæ de piaflæ, proprietate privatæ
øi stat. Aceastæ concepflie a avut ocazia sæ fie dezbætutæ, dar ea n-a supraviefluit
criticii teoretice. Nu e adeværat cæ numai præbuøirea sistemului sovietelor
ar fi fæcut-o – færæ niciun alt motiv – dubioasæ. Erorile ei organice fuseseræ
demonstrate încæ de pe vremea Uniunii Sovietice“ (s. m. – G. M. T.).
„Ne-ar plæcea sæ træim într-o lume în care oamenii îøi træiesc viafla conform
propriei lor înflelegeri a lucrurilor“? Depinde. Mulfli øtiu cæ sînt øi eu, la rîndu-mi,
adeptul toleranflei celei mai largi. Am vrea însæ o lume în care sæ fie
prezente øi opresiunea, viziunea ierarhicæ, rasismul, sadismul, mercantilismul
sec øi plictisul repetitiv? În nici într-un caz – mie, unuia, nu mi-ar displæcea deloc
ca toate astea sæ piaræ færæ zarvæ. Poate cæ existæ totuøi ceva de genul a ceea
ce Habermas a numit „interesul emancipator“. Asta ar putea ghida teoriile
noastre etice. A avut oare Marx o concepflie despre acordarea acfliunilor individuale
în absenfla unei piefle, a proprietæflii private øi a statului? Depinde.
Nu mulfli øtiu cæ, împreunæ cu György Bence øi György Márkus, János Kis
e autorul unei critici a lui Marx, importantæ din punct de vedere istoricoteoretic.
Împreunæ cu Bence, ei încercaseræ deja în anii ’70–’80 sæ conceapæ
o criticæ de stînga a sistemelor de tip sovietic pe baza unui marxism revizuit.
(Ceva mai tîrziu, Márkus – de data asta în colaborare cu Ferenc Fehér øi
Ágnes Heller – a produs o altæ versiune a acestei critici.) Criticarea, pornind
de la Marx, a regimului øi critica marxismului au mers, aøadar, în paralel. János
Kis, la fel ca prietenii øi colaboratorii sæi, fusese încæ marxist (critic), dar deja
de opoziflie, iar mai tîrziu de opoziflie, færæ a mai fi marxist. Cînd l-a excomunicat,
regimul „comunist“ a fæcut-o încæ pe motivul cæ ar fi marxist, un
„marxism“ înfleles în termenii limitafli øi autoritari ai regimului. Aøadar, János
Kis a fost savantul, de fapt, criticul savant al marxismului încæ de pe vremea
cînd pentru mine acelaøi marxism fusese numai o componentæ a modernitæflii
revoltate, øi nu mæ puteam læuda cæ l-aø fi cunoscut øi înfleles mai în adîncime.
Aøadar, ca începætor, ca nou-venit într-ale lui Marx, mæ întreb cu o
oarecare pærtinire: e oare sigur cæ János Kis îøi aduce bine aminte de
Marx?
Ceea ce întreabæ el acum au mai întrebat øi alflii, de la Ludwig von Mises
pînæ la Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, øi chiar înainte de „marxismul sovietic“ (expresia
vine de la anticomunistul de stînga care a fost Herbert Marcuse). În lucrarea
sa, cititæ øi astæzi, Ludwig von Mises spune: sæ nu ne pese cæ Marx a refuzat
orice fel de schiflare utopicæ a unei societæfli viitoare; el trebuie, de fapt, criticat
din perspectiva utopiei ce poate fi extrasæ indirect din operele lui. Critica
formulatæ de von Mises mulfli o consideræ eronatæ. Teoria lui Marx e o
teorie criticæ a istoriei. Ea n-are propriu-zis nicio teorie despre cum ar trebui
„coordonate“ în general acfliunile individuale, în absenfla exploatærii, a
exceeds liberal (bourgeois) equalitarianism indeed, but in a different respect.
Nevertheless we are to come across quite important statements if we gallantly
disregard the ill-fated comment on “populism”. These are the words of the
excellent liberal thinker:
“We would like a world of people free to follow their own ideals. Nevertheless,
conflicts are quick to arise whenever individuals pursue aims that reflect their
own wishes and convictions. . . . Nevertheless, even if clashes of interests are
unavoidable in a society, why not have the free association of self-managing
communities coordinate them? Well, Karl Marx had a certain vision of an economy
without a market, private property and state to coordinate the actions
of individuals. This vision was submitted to debate, but it did not survive theoretical
criticism. It is not true that only the collapse of the Soviet system has
made it – without any other reason – dubious. Its imperfections were highlighted
already during the time of the Soviet Union.”
Would “we [really] like a world of people free to follow their own ideals”?
It depends. I am quite notorious for my adherence to the widest concept
of tolerance. But would we like a world that allows repression, hierarchical
views, racism, sadism, empty materialism and repetitive boredom to be
spread at free will? Not quite; I would rather prefer these to dwindle silently
away. There might exist something Jürgen Habermas termed “emancipatory
interest”. This could constitute the basis for our ethical theories. Did Karl Marx
actually develop a conception for the harmonisation of individual actions without
any market, private property, and state? It depends.
Not too many people know it, but János Kis – along with György Bence and
György Márkus – is the author of a critique of Marx, which is still of considerable
significance in the history of theory. As early as the ’70s–’80s, based
on a sort of corrected Marxism, Kis and Bence attempted a left-wing criticism
of the Soviet system. (A few years later Márkus, Ferenc Fehér, and Ágnes Heller
provided a new version of the same attempt.) The critique of the system
allegedly built upon Marx, and the critique of Marxism took parallel courses.
János Kis and his friends and colleagues were still (critical) Marxists, while
already being in opposition, and later they were in opposition without actually
being Marxists any more. The “communist” system had expelled them while
they still passed for Marxists, which from its narrow but peremptory point of
view is understandable. Frankly, János Kis was already a learned critic of Marxism
at a time when for me the latter was merely an element of rebellious modernism,
and I could by no means boast a deep knowledge and understanding
in the field. This is why, as a novice in Marxist matters, I ask myself with a certain
amount of partiality: is it sure that János Kis recalls Marx accurately?
The question he ventures was raised by Ludwig von Mises and Eugen Böhm-
Bawerk even before the rise of “Soviet Marxism” (the term was coined by the
anti-communist, left-wing thinker Herbert Marcuse). In his still widely read
work, Ludwig von Mises advises us to overlook the fact that Marx has always
rejected a utopian depiction of the future society, and to weigh Marx’s theory
based on the utopia that can be reconstructed from his works. Many people
consider Ludwig von Mises to have been wrong in his critique. Marx’s theory
is a critical theory of history. He has no theory – because he simply had to
deem any such theory incorrect – on the general way of “coordinating”
individual actions in the absence of exploitation, alienation, and oppression.
In a negative and pejorative way, Marxists usually regard such theories as
“ideologies”. Jairus Banaji, the Indian Marxist historian, defines ideology
as a system of beliefs/representations that naturalizes social relations, espe-
168