Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)
Mæ bucur însæ cæ tovaræøul meu de luptæ de odinioaræ, János Kis, îøi face griji
pentru mine. Sper cæ voi putea sæ-i înseninez cît de puflin fruntea încreflitæ
de norii acestei dezamægite compasiuni.
Schimbarea de regim
Duømanii sistemului capitalist n-au ce sæ deplîngæ pe marginea cæderii
regimului de dinainte de 1989. Iar asta din mai multe motive. Mai întîi, „socialismul
real øi existent“ (cum am avut ocazia de a o spune pe larg nu o datæ
øi nu numai eu) fusese un sistem bazat pe munca salariatæ, salariu, producflia
de mærfuri, ban, separarea dintre muncæ øi capital, diviziunea muncii, inegalitate
øi privilegii sociale. A fost deci, sub mai multe aspecte, capitalism, de
stat, bineînfleles. Adepflii vechiului regim, care se pot gæsi øi azi, se apæræ
spunînd cæ a încetat totuøi deflinerea privatæ a mijloacelor de producflie. Læsînd
la o parte faptul cæ pe teritoriul „blocului estic“ majoritatea mijloacelor de
producflie, a unitæflilor de producflie moderne au luat naøtere în urma imboldurilor
øi investifliilor statului, fiind înfiinflate de cætre stat, dispariflia proprietæflii
private în flærile ce-au aplicat sistemul sovietic e puræ iluzie. Pe baza
dreptului roman, a cærui valabilitate n-a încetat în niciuna dintre aøa-numitele
flæri „socialiste“, proprietatea privatæ descrie caracterul absolut, de nedizolvat,
al deflinerii de bunuri, în timp ce prin menflinerea în funcfliune a unei
proprietæfli (muncæ) nimeni nu poate obfline certificate de proprietar autorizîndu-l
sæ dispunæ de sau sæ alieneze bunul respectiv. Din punctul de vedere
al muncitorilor, e indiferent cæ mijloacele de producflie se
aflæ în proprietatea unei persoane private, a unui fond de investiflii
sau de pensii, a unei bænci sau a statului stalinist. În aøa-numitul
„socialism real øi existent“, faptul social fundamental al exploatærii
se pæstreazæ.
Øi asta încæ nu-i nimic.
Nici nu mai trebuie spus – oamenii au rîs destul de asta: clasa muncitoare
n-a devenit niciodatæ clasa dominantæ. Dacæ s-ar fi creat un sistem al consiliilor
muncitoreøti, care ar fi acordat membrilor sæi certificate de proprietate
(asta a numit Karl Korsch „socializare“), dacæ ar fi încetat separaflia dintre capital
øi muncæ – ceea ce n-a fost cazul nici mæcar pentru o clipæ –, atunci poate
cæ lucrurile ar fi putut sta øi altfel. E însæ greøit sæ credem cæ opoziflia dintre
Plan øi Piaflæ e aceeaøi cu opoziflia dintre socialism øi capitalism. Færæ îndoialæ
cæ vechiul regim n-a fost un sistem al pieflei, dar asta nu l-a fæcut încæ socialist,
deøi træsæturi de piaflæ ascunse s-au ivit deja destul de devreme în cadrul
lui, chiar dacæ ele n-au devenit determinante.
Puterea absolutæ a statului planificator, teroarea din ce în ce mai accentuatæ,
iar apoi ceva mai slabæ, obligaflia generalæ de a munci, interdicflia de a-fli avea
interesele reprezentate, de a protesta øi de a propaga în mod deschis opinii
opuse regimului, într-un cuvînt dictatura, poate fi væzutæ (øi) în distorsionarea
sau absenfla pieflei. La urma urmei e caracteristica principalæ a capitalismului
cæ aproprierea plusvalorii are loc tocmai în cadrul pieflei, øi nu prin coerciflie
juridicæ sau fizicæ. Sistemul poststalinist, care a urmat celui de al XX-lea Congres
al Partidului Comunist al Uniunii Sovietice (1956), poate fi considerat,
sub acest aspect, ca fiind unul hibrid, deøi prevalenfla elementelor coercitive
e evidentæ. Versiunea de piaflæ a aproprierii plusvalorii dicteazæ ca vînzætorul
mærfii „forflæ de muncæ“ sæ intre (de bunævoie) într-un raport juridic
simetric, contractual cu cumpærætorul (capitalistul). Parametrii acestui contract
sînt stabilifli de raporturi de piaflæ (printre altele: raporturi de prefl): coerciflia
fline de obligaflia socialæ, øi nu de aservirea faflæ de anumite persoane,
The important issues here relate to things other than the intellectual or social
position of the authors implied.
I am yet overwhelmed by the concern my old fellow, János Kis, shows for me.
This time perhaps I will chase the gray clouds of helpless sympathy from his
brow.
Regime Change
The opponents of the capitalist system have nothing to mourn about the 1989
fall of the previous regime, for more than one reason. First of all, as I had the
occasion to explain many a time, “really existing socialism” used to be a system
based on wage labor, on work wage, on the commodity production,
on money, on the separation of capital and work, on the division of labor, on
inequality, and on social privileges, consequently in many respects it was nothing
else but capitalism, state capitalism, of course. Certain still avid followers
of the previous regime emphasize that the private ownership of the means of
production disappeared. Even if in the “Eastern bloc” the majority of modern
means of production and economic units were results of state initiative, investment
and founding, the disappearance of private property in the countries
based on the Soviet system is a mere illusion. On the basis of Roman law, which
remained valid in each “socialist” country, private property means the inalienable
and absolute character of ownership, where keeping a property in motion
(work) renders no rights of ownership (rights to possession and estrangement)
to anyone. From the workers’ point of view, it is of no importance
whether the means of production are “owned” by private
persons, by investment or pension funds, by banks, or by the
Stalinist state. In the so-called “really existing socialism”,
the basic social fact of exploitation never disappeared.
And there is yet more to it.
Needless to say, since this was the laughingstock of many, the working class
never became a ruling class. Had the system of workers’ councils with ownership
rights come into being (Karl Korsch termed this socialization), had the
distribution of work and capital ceased, which in fact has obviously never
ceased, not even for a split second, things could have taken a different turn.
Nevertheless it is deeply mistaken to consider the opposition between the
Plan and the Market and the antagonism between socialism and capitalism
synonymous. The old system was far from being a market system, yet this did
not turn it into a socialist one, even though hidden market elements have
appeared quite early within it, but without becoming decisive.
The absolute power of the planning state, the tightening and loosening terror,
the general obligation to work, the prohibition of representation of interest,
of protest and of free speech – that is, dictatorship – roots back to a distortion
or absence of the market (as well). Since it is the main feature of capitalism
that the appropriation of surplus value takes place at the market and not
under legal or physical constraint. In this respect, the post-Stalinist system
after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1956)
passes for a hybrid, though the elements of constraint clearly prevail.
The market version of the appropriation of surplus value requires the (voluntary)
establishment of a legally symmetrical, contractual relation between the
seller and the buyer (capitalist) of the labor-force commodity. Market relations
(prices, among others) determine the parameters of the contract: the constraint
is a social one; it does not belong to the group of individual duties as it
did in pre-modern social systems. The price of the labor force and the working
179