Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)
Occident. Ivirea libertæflii de exprimare øi încetarea cenzurii aplicate culturii
øi concepfliilor despre lume au însemnat, în primul rînd, un progres enorm,
øi ele sînt øi astæzi un izvor legitim de bucurie.
Însæ promisiunea de reînnoire nu se epuizeazæ numai în atît. Am aparflinut
øi eu unuia dintre grupurile democrate care au avut un oarecare rol în treburile
publice øi am luat în serios promisiunile pe care le-am fæcut, la fel ca
János Kis øi alflii. De ce? În primul rînd fiindcæ am crezut în ipoteza nedemonstratæ
ce vedea piafla ca izvor al unui „individualism nobil“, al autonomiei
umane (øi nu doar personale), al cæror prefl evident øi inevitabil este – credeam
noi – inegalitatea øi alte asimetrii sociale, greu de suportat. Reînnoirea
ar fi însemnat, aøadar, dacæ-mi este permis sæ preschimb înfocatele-mi discursuri
øi scrierile-mi pasionate de odinioaræ în abstracflii seci, cæ economia
lipsurilor bazatæ pe planificare va ceda locul bunæstærii generale, pasivitatea
gri se va transforma în participare activæ, cinismul defensiv cauzat de opresiune
va ceda în fafla „zgomotoasei øi revendicatoarei“ dezbateri politicosociale
generale ø.a.m.d.
În loc de asta, întregul bloc estic suferæ de un colaps economic færæ precedent,
de scæderea drasticæ a nivelului de trai, de micøorarea veniturilor reale,
de desfiinflarea cu miile a unitæflilor economice, reînnoirea vechilor anomii
øi exacerbarea unora noi, pasivitate politicæ, lipsæ de legitimitate strigætoare
la cer, putrezirea statelor, pierderea independenflelor naflionale, descompunerea
potenflialului de rezistenflæ socialæ, slæbirea aøa-numitei „societæfli
civile“, întærirea servilismului est-european amestecat cu mîrîieli
înfundate øi uræ, declin cultural abrupt, ridicarea de ziduri între
generaflii øi civilizaflii, rasism øi etnicism, demantelarea institufliilor
ce meritæ respect øi autoritate, multiplicarea inegalitæflilor, ineficacitatea
sistemului juridic – færæ a mai vorbi de brutala øi ordinara
ræspîndire a ignoranflei, a lipsei de civilizaflie, a violenflei, de
diferenflierea defavorizantæ a pæturii de cel mai de jos (acea underclass
træind în „særæcie profundæ“), a raselor zise „de culoare“, a femeilor, a stræinilor,
øi nici de segregarea øi ghetoizarea socialæ, rasial-etnicæ, regionalæ øi
culturalæ.
A participa (chiar dacæ neintenflionat øi involuntar) la crearea acestora, dragæ
János, nu e înælflætor, ci tragic. Îl citezi pe Hegel: „Mærefliei nu-i datoræm
compasiune, ci admiraflie“. Pe 27 noiembrie 1803 Goethe îi scrisese din
Jena lui Schiller: „Hegel e o personalitate remarcabilæ; numai cæ o mulflime
de lucruri se aflæ în contradicflie cu ce spune el“. Acesta e øi cazul tæu, János.
Capitalism
Capitalismul est-european de azi (a cærei istorie localæ nu e continuarea capitalismului
retrograd, semifeudal øi „de atîrnare“ de dinainte de 1948 – din
acest motiv Erzsébet Szalai vorbeøte, pe drept, de „neocapitalism“) înfæfliøeazæ
træsæturi interesante chiar øi în straturile sale superficiale. Aceste træsæturi ideologice,
de suprafaflæ sînt destul de diverse, dar versiunea lor maghiaræ e deja
destul de tipicæ. Douæ subspecii ale sale se remarcæ azi cu pregnanflæ: elitismul
øi populismul. La noi, træsæturile eroice øi cele autochinuitoare, masochiste
ale elitismului liberal se amestecæ. Elitistul liberal susfline eroic (øi færæ speranflæ)
mæsurile care nu se bucuræ de simpatia generalæ a publicului. În ochii
lui, mæsurile ce ameninflæ interesele majoritæflii, de pildæ cele de austeritate,
sînt din capul locului corecte numai pentru cæ sînt legitimate de logica îngustæ,
dar foarte educatæ øi rafinatæ, a experflilor, care nu cedeazæ pasiunilor,
dorinflelor øi impulsurilor sælbatice, nearticulate øi negîndite ale celor mulfli.
public affairs, and I took these promises quite seriously, just the way János Kis
and others did. Why? First of all because I believed in the uncertain hypothesis
– otherwise impossible to demonstrate – that considered the market to be
a source of “noble individualism”, of human (and not merely personal) autonomy,
the obvious, unavoidable price of which was – at least this is what we
believed – inequality and other types of social asymmetry. The renewal would
have meant – and let me switch from my past ardent rhetoric and passionate
style of writing to dry abstraction – that the scarcity economy tightly related
to state planning will give room to general welfare, that active participation
will replace the grey passivity, that defensive cynicism fed on oppression
will recede in the face of “loud and demanding” social and political debates;
and so on.
Instead, economic collapse of unprecedented proportions followed in each
country of the Eastern bloc; the living standard relapsed, real income diminished,
thousands of economic units were dissolved; old anomies reappeared
and new ones started to spread, while the newly created situation was characterized
by political indifference, a striking lack of legitimacy, the decay of the
state, the loss of national sovereignties, the ruin of the potential for social
resistance, the weakening of the so-called “civil society”, the consolidation
of East European servility paired with silent grudge and hate, a fast process of
cultural decay, the rise of walls between generations and civilizations, racism
and ethnicism, the destruction of respectable and prestigious institutions,
the multiplication of inequalities, the inefficiency of the legal
system – not to mention crass and vulgar illiteracy, rudeness,
the spread of violence, the appearance of an underclass living
in the deepest state of squalor, the negative discrimination
against “colored” races and women and foreigners, the formation
of social, racial-ethnic, regional and cultural segregation,
and the emergence of ghettoes.
Participating (even if in an unintended and involuntary way) in the creation
of all this, dear János, is not a great experience, but a tragic one. You quote
Hegel: “It is not compassion we owe greatness, but admiration.” Yet this is
what Goethe wrote to Schiller from Jena on November 27, 1803: “Hegel’s personality
is most outstanding; only that things quite often stand in sharp opposition
to his statements.” The same applies to you, dear János.
Capitalism
Today’s East European capitalism (the local history of which is not continuous
with the semi-feudal, “dependent” form of capitalism before 1948 – thus
Erzsébet Szalai is quite right to talk about “new capitalism”) displays interesting
features even on the surface. These superficial ideological features show
certain variations; yet, their Hungarian version is rather typical. It has two
main characteristics: elitism and populism. The heroic and masochistic features
of liberal elitism have fused in Hungary. The liberal elitist heroically
(and hopelessly) supports so-called “unpopular” measures. He considers
measures imposed against the interest of the majority (e.g., economical measures)
to be justified only because the narrow, highly trained, refined, thinking
of the expert, never influenced by the wild, inarticulate, irrational impulses
of the majority, justifies them. The phenomenon has evolved to a stage where
“popular” is the synonym of “wrong”, to the extent where even János Kis considers
the traditionally “progressive” welfare measures “retrograde”, simply
because the ruling economic-political orthodoxy happens to resent them.
181