You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)<br />
alienærii øi a opresiunii. Dimpotrivæ, Marx fusese convins cæ asemenea<br />
teorii sînt incorecte. În general, marxiøtii væd aceste teorii ca „ideologii“, în<br />
sensul negativ øi peiorativ al termenului. Jairus Banaji, un istoric marxist din<br />
India, defineøte ideologia ca un sistem de convingeri øi reprezentæri [a system<br />
of beliefs/representations], care naturalizeazæ relafliile sociale, în special<br />
cele de putere. Teoriile care consideræ cæ posibilitæflile øtiute ale coordonærii<br />
sînt sinonime cu descrierea naturii umane (de pildæ, teoria deciziei raflionale,<br />
teoria jocurilor, teorii evoluflioniste sau de psihologie socialæ) sînt teorii ale<br />
statu-quo-ului, fie cæ sînt adeværate, fie cæ nu. Ele ar trebui væzute prin prisma<br />
lucrærii lui Habermas (Cunoaøtere øi interes, 1968) care ne-a marcat<br />
tinereflile. Marx, dacæ înfleleg corect lucrurile, susfline cæ „acordarea între ele“<br />
a acfliunilor individuale în cadrul capitalismului duce la probleme ce aratæ înspre<br />
ieøirea din acest sistem. Descrierea acestor tendinfle e esenfla operei sale,<br />
dacæ nu mæ înøel.<br />
Aici apare însæ pasajul din eseul lui János Kis pe care, cu îngæduinfla reputatului<br />
gînditor, îl consider ca fiindu-mi adresat direct, cu toate cæ el nu-mi pomeneøte<br />
nici de data asta numele – s-a putut obiønui deja cæ la criticile sale<br />
amicale de obicei nu ræspund; chiar dacæ acum am s-o fac. (Desigur, <strong>idea</strong>lul<br />
societæflii autodirijate are øi alfli adepfli în Ungaria, chiar mai consecvenfli<br />
decît mine; ei nu sînt însæ responsabili pentru eventualele erori ale raflionamentelor<br />
mele.)<br />
„Apærætorii de azi ai societæflii autodirijate nu spun însæ nimic despre cum<br />
ar coordona deciziile individuale o asociere a muncitorilor solidari.<br />
Pînæ cînd nu vor clarifica acest punct, cuvintele lor exprimæ<br />
doar sentimente pur personale øi nu descriu un model care ar<br />
putea fi supus dezbaterii publice.“<br />
Grele cuvinte.<br />
Poate nu sînt cu totul nejustificate. Nu neg cæ, uneori, ceea ce<br />
scriu exprimæ sentimente personale. Cum se zice în Manifestul Partidului<br />
Comunist: acest pæcat îl mærturisesc. Sînt curios însæ dacæ János Kis cunoaøte<br />
vreun model de descris ca fiind altceva decît raflionalizarea raporturilor sociale<br />
existente øi, fiind aøa ceva, sæ poatæ fi supus dezbaterii publice. Dacæ nu<br />
cunoaøtem decît modele apte pentru dezbateri publice care raflionalizeazæ<br />
raporturile actuale, atunci nu definim oare din capul locului modelul apt pentru<br />
dezbateri publice ca neputînd fi, în fond, altceva decît descrierea capitalismului<br />
– la care s-a reflectat poate în mod critic? În cazul acesta, bunul meu<br />
prieten, am fæcut oare øi altceva decît sæ naturalizæm raporturile sociale (øi<br />
mai ales cele de putere), ca øi cum capitalismul n-ar fi o formafliune istoricæ<br />
øi de parcæ n-ar mai fi existat, înaintea lui, øi alte modele eficace (tocmai fiindcæ<br />
au dæinuit pentru o vreme)? Nu construim oare atunci o ideologie, bunul<br />
meu János?<br />
Aø putea întreba – dar n-o fac, pentru cæ nu mi se pare un argument decisiv<br />
– øi dacæ legitimeazæ oare performanflele de azi ale capitalismului formele<br />
actuale de coordonare a acfliunilor. Ræzboiul, foametea, øomajul, catastrofa<br />
ecologicæ, ameninflarea nuclearæ, terorismul, declinul evident al culturii?<br />
Færæ îndoialæ cæ acest model poate fi criticat în mod raflional. Øi existæ mulfli<br />
care o fac, iar unii dintre ei sînt marxiøti. Cine ar trebui deci sæ aducæ probe,<br />
pe cine apasæ onus probandi? Nu-i uøor de øtiut.<br />
Corespunde oare tiparelor modelului apt pentru dezbatere socialæ cartea<br />
lui Rousseau, Contractul social, care fusese, cum se øtie, programul revolufliei<br />
burghez-liberale? (Ea a fost tradusæ magistral în maghiaræ de nimeni altul decît<br />
János Kis.) Mæ-ndoiesc. Iar dacæ argumentele acestei cærfli sînt eronate, trecially<br />
those of power. Whether right or wrong, theories that understand the<br />
currently known possibilities for coordination as a description of human<br />
nature (e.g., the rational choice theory, the game theory, the evolutionary and<br />
socio-psychological theories) are theories of the status quo. We should apply<br />
to them the lessons provided by the great book of our youth (Jürgen Habermas:<br />
Knowledge and Human Interests, 1968). In my view, according to Marx the<br />
“coordination” of individual actions in the capitalist system leads to problems<br />
that point outside this system. If I am not mistaken, the essence of his oeuvre<br />
is to describe these tendencies.<br />
Now follows a passage in the essay by János Kis, which with the permission<br />
of the famous thinker I shall read as addressed to myself, although, the author<br />
being accustomed to my habit of not answering his friendly criticisms, my<br />
name does not appear in the context. Nevertheless this time I feel compelled<br />
to provide an answer. (Self-managing society obviously has other Hungarian<br />
adherents as well; however, they are not liable for the eventual failures in my<br />
train of thought.)<br />
“However, present-day followers of the self-managing society have nothing to<br />
say about how an association of workers in solidarity would coordinate individual<br />
decisions. Until they shed light on this matter, their words remain but<br />
expressions of personal feelings, and fall very short of describing a model ripe<br />
for open debate.”<br />
Harsh statement.<br />
Not entirely unfounded, perhaps. From time to time, my words<br />
are indeed expressions of my personal feelings. Quoting the<br />
Communist Manifesto: this sin I confess. Yet my curiosity wonders,<br />
what kind of model ripe for open debate does János Kis<br />
know, described so as not to rationalize the current circumstances<br />
and relations? While if we only know models ripe for<br />
open debate that rationalize the current circumstances and relations, then we<br />
define the concept of model ripe for open debate as an occasionally “critical”<br />
description of capitalism – don’t we? And, my dear friend, this being the case,<br />
we actually naturalize social (and especially power) relations as if capitalism<br />
were not a historical phenomenon, and as if there had never existed other<br />
successful models of social life (precisely because they lasted for a while)?<br />
Well, dear János, don’t we create an ideology then?<br />
I could ask you – though I shall not, because it is not my chief argument here<br />
– to weigh the current performance of capitalism and determine whether<br />
it justifies the habitual forms of today’s coordination of actions or not? What<br />
about war, famine, unemployment, environmental catastrophe, terrorism, and<br />
the undeniable decay of culture? Undoubtedly, this model can be rationally<br />
contested. Its critics are numerous – Marxists among them. But who carries<br />
the burden of proof, the onus probandi? It is a difficult matter to settle.<br />
Does the philosophical program of the bourgeois revolution, Rousseau’s Social<br />
Contract still hold? (The beautiful Hungarian translation of this book is the<br />
work of János Kis himself.) Hardly. But if the principles expressed in this book<br />
are wrong, should absolutist monarchy, feudal rights, and the obsolete agrarian<br />
society have been kept? Despite his errors, and despite the fact that his<br />
<strong>idea</strong>s contributed to the rise of the Great Terror as well, Rousseau certainly<br />
has his merit in having initiated the birth of a more righteous and civilized<br />
society, hasn’t he?<br />
If I am not wrong, Marx’s historicism does not attempt at creating any<br />
“model” – though Marx and Engels have not been completely consistent in<br />
169
Change language