Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)
egalitate în cadrul socialismului lui G. M. T., ar trebui sæ ni se spunæ cîte ceva
despre institufliile ce ar coordona, în cadrul acestei societæfli, acfliunile individuale.
Asta susflinea articolul meu, ajuns obiect al discufliei de faflæ.
G. M. T. nu vrea însæ sæ se pronunfle. „Cred cæ trebuie rezistat atmosferei generale
care cere o utopie“, scrie el. „Publicul, de cum îøi primeøte porflia de
utopie, zice: Dar asta-i utopie, n-are nimic realist! Æsta-i un joc færæ niciun sens.“
Dragæ Gazsi, trebuie sæ mærturisesc cæ stau mirat în fafla acestei afirmaflii. Vrei
sæ convingi oamenii sæ distrugæ ordinea lumii, dar nu le spui de dragul a ce
sæ renunfle la tot, pentru cæ dacæ le-ai spune, atunci pur øi simplu te-ar hîøîi?
De unde sæ øtie ei cæ socialismul tæu n-ar fi mai ræu decît cele mai rele versiuni
ale capitalismului øi ale democrafliei? De unde sæ øtie ei cæ el ar fi mæcar
cît negru sub unghie mai bun decît socialismul sovietic? Poate din faptul cæ
tu ai optat pentru idealul socialist tocmai fiindcæ refuzi toate formele de alienare,
opresiune øi exploatare? Care curent de gîndire occidental øi contemporan
preamæreøte opresiunea, care dintre ele e de acord cu exploatarea
øi care cere încæ øi mai multæ alienare? Pentru a-fli diferenflia net poziflia, ar
trebui sæ spui ce sæ înflelegem prin aceste lucruri rele øi de la ce ordine
instituflionalæ sæ aøteptæm flinerea lor în frîu. Aceste douæ întrebæri se raporteazæ
inseparabil una la cealaltæ, cæci, cum scrii øi tu, foarte corect, de altfel,
nu se poate trasa o linie de demarcaflie claræ între „ideal øi realitate“.
Te justifici spunînd cæ pînæ øi Marx a refuzat sæ descrie socialismul. „Teoria
lui Marx e o teorie criticæ a istoriei“, spui. „Ea n-are propriu-zis nicio teorie
despre cum ar trebui «coordonate» în general acfliunile individuale,
în absenfla exploatærii, a alienærii øi a opresiunii.“
Mæ-ndoiesc cæ asta stæ în picioare ca interpretare a lui Marx. Marx
a refuzat într-adevær sæ inventeze detaliile tehnice ale funcflionærii
socialismului, dar a avut o concepflie claræ despre liniile de bazæ ale
acestui sistem social, øtiute de orice social-democrat la cotitura dintre
secolele al XIX-lea øi al XX-lea. Fiecare social-democrat øtia cæ
economia socialistæ va funcfliona ca o imensæ uzinæ; cæ toate nevoile
se vor lua în calcul în naturæ, cæ toate cheltuielile se vor calcula
în timp de muncæ, iar nevoile øi cheltuielile vor fi comparate de o instanflæ
centralæ; cæ producflia øi redistribuflia [bogæfliei sociale] vor urma un plan: ele
nu vor fi puse în acord de autoreglarea ulterioaræ, ca în cazul pieflei capitaliste;
cæ toatæ lumea va participa la producflia de bunuri dupæ propriile posibilitæfli;
la început fiecare va primi din produsul social o parte egalæ cu munca
sa, iar mai tîrziu – odatæ cu abundenfla generalæ – va fi remunerat dupæ nevoile
sale; cæ fiecare va îndeplini succesiv diverse sarcini – de producflie øi
de dirijare –, prin urmare nu vor mai exista clase; cæ în felul acesta statul va
dispærea ca organizaflie coercitivæ întreflinutæ de un aparat separat. Toate astea
nu sînt planuri foarte elaborate, dar ele pot fi mæcar discutate, iar discufliile
ulterioare au demonstrat caracterul lor intenabil.
„Pentru cæ nimeni n-a încercat vreodatæ sæ punæ în practicæ aceste idealuri,
nu existæ argumente faptice de partea caracterului realizabil sau irealizabil
al acestora“, scrie G. M. T. Nu înfleleg. De ce numai experienfla istoricæ ar
putea demonstra cæ idealul e irealizabil? Dacæ idealurile noastre nu sînt lipsite
de conflinut, atunci se pot aduce argumente împotriva lor. Discufliile pot
aræta deci cæ nu are sens sæ încercæm punerea lor în practicæ. Iar argumentele
trebuie respinse, færæ a li se nega din capul locului posibilitatea.
E o chestiune complet diferitæ dacæ øi teorii eronate pot juca un rol istoric
fecund sau nu. „Corespunde oare tiparelor modelului apt pentru dezbatere
socialæ cartea lui Rousseau, Contractul social, care fusese, cum se øtie,
liberals are followers of the market economy based on the primacy of parliamentary
democracy and private property is quite telling with respect to the
liberal interpretation of freedom and equality. In order to grasp clearly the
meaning of freedom and equality in G. M. T.’s socialism, we should hear a few
details on the types of institutions through which the socialist society would
coordinate individual actions. This was the statement behind my article under
debate.
Nevertheless G. M. T. does not wish to make any statements in this respect.
“I think we should resist the popular feeling that demands utopia”, he writes.
“As soon as the public gets utopia, it starts complaining about its fictional
character and lack of reality. This is a pointless game.”
Dear Gazsi, I must confess this statement astonishes me. You expect people to
change the world, but you will not tell them for the sake of what should they
do that, because if you did, they were dissatisfied? How could they know your
socialism would not be worse than the worst forms of capitalism and democracy?
How could they know it would, even by a jot, be better than Soviet
socialism? Because you choose the socialist ideal in rejection of all forms of
alienation, oppression and exploitation? Exactly which contemporary ideology
praises oppression, agrees to exploitation and demands greater alienation?
For the sake of distinction, you should let us know what to believe about these
evil things and point out the institutional order that will repel them. The two
questions are closely related because, as you so promptly underline, there is
no clear division between “ideal and reality”.
You refer to Marx, who also refrained from describing socialism.
“Marx’s theory is a critical theory of history”, you write. “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.”
As an interpretation to Marx, this will not do. Marx did indeed
refrain from providing technical details on the actual functioning
of socialism, nevertheless he did had a rather precise vision for the
basic features of the system, a concept familiar to all social-democrats at the
turn of the 19th and 20th century. Social-democrats knew the socialist economy
was going to function like a huge factory; that all needs were going to be
taken into account in nature and costs were going to be measured in terms
of working time; that a central entity was going to compare needs and costs;
that production and distribution was meant to follow previous plans instead
of being harmonized by a process of subsequent self-regulation, as on the capitalist
market; that everyone was going to contribute to production within the
limits of their abilities and was going to benefit, in the beginning, from social
products to a degree proportional with their work, and later, after general welfare
set in, to a degree proportional with their needs; that everybody would, in
an alternative manner, fulfill tasks both in production and in leadership, which
would lead to the disappearance of social classes; and that in this process the
state as an organization of coercion operated by a separate apparatus would
disappear, too. This vision was indeed far from detailed but it was certainly apt
for debate and debates proved its untenable nature.
“As nobody has ever attempted to accomplish the said ideals, there are practically
no empirical arguments for or against their validity”, G. M. T. writes.
Well, I do not understand. Why would historical experience be the only proof of
the validity or the feasibility of a given ideal? Our ideals will support arguments
brought against them, provided that they have a clear content. The argument
173