Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)
piu, reuøesc într-adevær sæ evite consecinflele concurenflei: micøorarea salariului
real; excelenfla „competitivæ“ la care se ajunge prin dezvoltarea
tehnologicæ øi potenflarea intensitæflii muncii, prin prelungirea timpului de
muncæ, prin „raflionalizæri“, reduceri, concedieri; competiflia cu muncitorii
de la alte uzine, cærora le sînt opuøi ca proprietari øi investitori de capital,
competiflia care stricæ întotdeauna øi poziflia relativæ a celorlalfli muncitori. Chiar
dacæ e bine pentru muncitorii uzinei autodirijate, asta nu schimbæ mare lucru
în privinfla situafliei generale a societæflii – færæ a mai vorbi de daunele pe care
le produc iluziile.
În împrejurærile capitalismului de stat birocratic-dictatorial, „thermidorian“
– aøa cum aratæ øi exemplul sumbru al vechii Iugoslavii, cea titoistæ –,
„autodirijarea“ contribuise numai la tulburarea apelor. Autodirijarea e probabil
forma politicæ adecvatæ socialismului – dar în Iugoslavia naflional-boløevicæ
de asta nu s-a ales øi nu s-a putut alege decît o palidæ descentralizare
øi „autonomie a fabricilor“. Muncitorii (iar mai tîrziu, ideologic, „intelectualitatea
progresistæ“) s-au folosit desigur de aceste posibilitæfli – pînæ cînd s-a
putut – în numele unei libertæfli sporite, dar în tatonærile dintre „reformele
de piaflæ“ øi „ortodoxia economiei planificate“, de regæsit în toate statele „socialismului
real øi existent“, inovaflia øi-a dat obøtescul sfîrøit.
fielurile socialismului sînt de douæ sute de ani neschimbate. În locul dominafliei
de clasæ – o societate færæ clase; în loc de exploatare – o colaborare simetricæ
(øi prin asta: egalitate); în locul muncii ca obligaflie – øtergerea diferenflei
dintre muncæ øi creativitate liberæ (joc, artæ, exercifliu fizic); în locul
rigidei diviziuni a muncii – activitate multistratificatæ øi diversæ;
în locul statului øi al ierarhiei – an-arhie (adicæ: absenfla puterii);
în locul diferenflelor naflionale, rasiale øi confesionale – internaflionalism;
în locul religiei – øtiinflæ; în locul familiei patriarhale –
emanciparea femeilor; suprimarea privilegiilor tradiflionale, culturale,
generaflionale etc.; desfiinflarea armatei øi a celorlalte organizaflii
bazate pe violenflæ armatæ; eliminarea ræzboaielor. Bineînfleles, toate astea
nu sînt numai chestiuni de activism øi mobilizare politicæ, ci de metamorfozæ
a valorii, a raporturilor de capital øi a schimbului. Forma lui politicæ nu poate
fi alta decît autonomia, mai concret: autodirijarea tuturor comunitæflilor øi în
primul rînd a acelora de producflie (consilii muncitoreøti); e niflel obscurizant
sæ numim asta „democraflie directæ“, de vreme ce øi democraflia e o
formæ de exercifliu al unei puteri, scopul însæ e desfiinflarea puterii.
La urma urmei øi liberalismul se stræduieøte sæ obflinæ slæbirea, spiritualizarea,
sublimarea (dupæ Bibó: „umanizarea“) puterii, dar el se opreøte de fiecare
datæ la porflile uzinelor. Ipoteza absenflei relafliilor de putere în cadrul pieflei
(ca opus conceptului de putere gîndit dupæ øablonul puterii statale: spontaneitate,
haos creativ) ar putea fi corectæ dacæ am considera „actorii pieflei“,
unul cîte unul, ca o singuræ entitate; pe cînd în cadrul unitæflilor economice
existæ ierarhie øi dominaflie, iar în cadrul raporturilor contractuale, dupæ semnarea
„de bunævoie“ a contractului, nu existæ nici libertate, nici egalitate. Cînd
ideea libertæflii pæøeøte dincolo de porflile fabricilor (iar asta e valabil øi pentru
porflile simbolice ale firmelor de software), iluzia libertæflii pieflei se
evaporæ într-o clipitæ. Munca, øtim bine, e o corvoadæ (nu existæ lozincæ mai
hilaræ decît: „am reacordat muncii demnitatea ei“ – a avut ea cîndva aøa ceva?).
Societatea umanæ e umanæ numai în mæsura în care poate scædea radical
procentul de timp øi de importanflæ ce-i revine muncii.
Nu mæ deranjeazæ deloc sæ repet aceste idei (fleluri) seculare, numai cæ acum
mi se poate reproøa – øi asta am vrut, de fapt, sæ evit – cæ sînt „utopic“, cæ
“progressive intellectuals”) obviously benefited from this for as long as it was
possible, trying to achieve a greater degree of freedom; nevertheless the
whole endeavor got lost in the bargain between “market reforms” and
“planned economy” so characteristic of “really existing socialist” states.
The objectives of socialism have been the same for the last two centuries:
classless society instead of class domination; symmetrical cooperation instead
of exploitation (consequently: equality); the annihilation of the difference
between work and free creativity (games, arts, sports) instead of compulsory
labor; varied and multi-level activities instead of the rigid division of labor;
anarchy (the complete lack of power) instead of state and hierarchy; internationalism
instead of national, racial, and confessional adversity; science
instead of religion; the emancipation of women instead of patriarchal family
models; the disposal of traditional, cultural, generational, and other privileges;
the abolition of the army and of similar organizations based on institutionalized
violence; the elimination of war. Obviously, this is not merely a question of
activism and political mobilization, but one dependent on a transformation of
values, relations of capital, and exchange. Its political form is that of autonomy;
or more precisely, the self-government of all types of communities, first of all
the communities of production (workers’ councils). Yet, it is misleading to call
this “direct democracy”, since democracy is also a form of practicing power,
while the chief objective here is to do away with any form of power.
In fact, liberalism also aims at the weakening, spiritualization, and sublimation
(humanization, according to Bibó) of power; in spite
of this, it always stops at factory gates. The hypothesis of the
non-authoritarianism of the market (spontaneity and fertile
chaos in opposition to the concept of state power) is only correct
if we consider the so-called actors on the market as independent
units; yet hierarchy and domination are inherent
features of economic units. Within contractual relations, after the “voluntary”
signing of the contract, there is neither freedom nor equality. If the concept
of freedom crosses the factory gates (even the imaginary gate of a software
company) the illusion of market freedom vanishes. As it is known, work equals
hardship; what a hilarious slogan: “we restore the dignity of work!” – why,
did it have any? Human society is humane only to the extent to which it is
capable of radically reducing the proportions of work in terms of time and significance.
I am quite at ease with repeating these secular ideas (aims), even if now there
is a ground for readers to say that my text is “utopian” and I am talking “nonsense”
– I intended to avoid this. These are the goals of socialism; nevertheless,
Marx was not a utopian thinker and the Marxists are not utopian, either.
According to The German Ideology, socialism is “the real movement itself”
(which shows that Bernstein was not a bad Marxist). Yet the interesting issues
are still to come. The decisive step is the correct judgment of the capitalist
reality. From an economic and structural viewpoint, the working class exists
just as it did a hundred and fifty years ago, nevertheless in what pertains to
“hegemony” (that is, in terms of politics and culture) it does not exist anymore.
It exists as a class, but it hardly exists as an “order” (in the Weberian sense
of the term). The structural characteristic of class society is class struggle, the
antagonism between social classes – which has nothing to do with the “conscience”
of the proletariat. Yet, when the ruling ideology can successfully
deny the issue of social classes, we should be alarmed. Marx said: “the ideas
of the ruling class are the ruling ideas” – this is true, but the issue cannot be
185