Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)
(A susfline contrarul e o exagerare grosolanæ pînæ øi în condifliile capitalismului
tîrziu.) Sistemele motivaflionale se schimbæ odatæ cu transformærile
economice øi sociale, ele nu au nevoie de o prealabilæ reformæ eticæ – asta
ar fi iluzoriu, „ideologic“ sau utopic. (Altruismul – voinfla de a aduce sacrificii
– e un lucru înælflætor, dar cel mai adesea e doar un efect al naflionalismului,
al fanatismului religios sau al mobilizærii politice exacerbate. În sine însuøi,
el e nimic.)
Politicæ de stînga
Pentru prima oaræ în ultimii cincisprezece ani, într-o altæ scriere a sa, János
Kis s-a declarat de stînga. Pentru prima oaræ în ultimii cincisprezece ani, János
Kis scrisese detaliat øi convingætor despre catastrofa economicæ, socialæ, ecologicæ,
moralæ øi culturalæ provocatæ de sistemul schimbærii de regim. János
Kis declaræ ceremonios cæ doreøte o societate mai egalitaræ (egalæ). Cu toate
astea, el e împotriva mæsurilor de redistribuire a bogæfliei sociale ce servesc
tocmai egalitatea, iar privitor la Partidul Socialist Ungar – care nu are nicio
facfliune care sæ fie publicul „meu“, asta e eronat – el vrea un nou „Bad Godesberg“,
adicæ renunflarea la socialismul democratic. În Germania, rolul istoric
al lui „Bad Godesberg“ s-a terminat prin constituirea Partidului de Stînga øi
cu falimentul cancelarului Schröder. Partidul Socialist Ungar (MSZP) – ai cærui
conducætori concureazæ dreapta în a obfline favorurile guvernului american
celui mai reacflionar, imperialist, militarist øi fundamentalist de la sfîrøitul
celui de al Doilea Ræzboi Mondial încoace – nu numai cæ øi-a
încheiat deja demult „Bad Godesberg“-ul sæu, ci l-a øi depæøit
deja cam de multiøor: el este adeptul necondiflionat al capitalismului.
Bineînfleles, critica de stînga a MSZP e o datorie politicæ
minimalæ, iar confruntarea sa cu tradiflia social-democratæ e o
datorie intelectualæ minimalæ.
Convingerea mea e cæ avem nevoie de o politicæ revoluflionaræ – adicæ de
o politicæ vizînd depæøirea, pe cæi democratice, a capitalismului în direcflia libertæflii;
nimic nu mæ poate opri sæ sprijin (împreunæ cu prietenii mei) programe
„liberale de stînga“, adicæ egalitariste, øi mæsuri care îmbunætæflesc nivelul
de trai al muncitorilor, al pensionarilor øi al studenflilor sau care se îndreaptæ
împotriva discriminærii. Cu toate astea, øtiu prea bine cæ inegalitatea øi
nedreptatea nu sînt cauze, ci consecinfle – consecinfle ale proprietæflii private,
ale exploatærii øi ale societæflii bazate pe clase. Din acest motiv, e clar cæ
logica statului (social al) bunæstærii este adesea stræinæ sistemului actual, iar
din punctul de vedere al pieflei capitaliste ea pare mult prea des risipitoare,
neeficace, pur birocraticæ; efectele sale sînt adesea „perverse“, adicæ ele pot
crea rezultate care se opun intenfliei egalizærii. În plus, aceste rezultate – se
vede cu ochiul liber – sînt uøor reversibile, ele pot fi transformate oricînd
în opusul lor. Sprijinul pe care-l acord acestui sistem e unul condiflionat øi defensiv.
De asemenea, tot condiflionat øi defensiv sprijin øi forflele cu care colaborez
la modul „fronturilor populare“ øi care, uneori, øi poate involuntar,
prezintæ lucrurile de parcæ „globalizare“ øi „neoliberalism“ ar fi sinonimele
capitalismului, iar în loc de clasæ dominantæ capitalistæ (burghezie) vorbesc
de „elite economice“. Aceste eufemisme sînt bune pentru a crea flapi ispæøitori,
ceea ce are ca rezultat disimularea luptei fundamentale, chiar dacæ în
cazul pomenitelor forfle asta se întîmplæ neintenflionat. Nu de parcæ rolul catastrofal
al globalizærii, al neoliberalismului sau al capitalului speculativ n-ar fi ceva
real. Imaginaflia, ingeniozitatea, propunerile de reforme pe termen scurt sau
lung ale noilor miøcæri sociale (miøcæri altermondialiste-anticapitaliste,
solemnly confesses his wish for the creation of a more equalitarian society.
But still, he is against equalitarian, re-distributive economic measures, and
he urges a new “Bad Godesberg” with respect to the Hungarian Socialist Party
(MSZP) – who, by the way, has no faction which would be my “audience”.
Namely, he urges a break with democratic socialism. In Germany, “Bad
Godesberg” ended with the foundation of the Left Wing Party and with the
failure of Chancellor Schröder, and it has lost its historic significance.
The MSZP, the leaders of which are competing with the right wing for gaining
the graces of the most reactionary, imperialist, militarist, and fundamentalist
US government since the Second World War, had already has its “Bad
Godesberg”: it has become the unconditional follower of capitalism. The leftwing
critique of the MSZP is obviously our minimal political duty, while our
intellectual task is to confront this party with the social-democratic tradition.
My conviction is that a revolutionary politics is necessary – that is, a politics
that aims to surpass capitalism in a democratic manner and in the direction of
freedom. There is no reason for me to not support (together with my friends)
“bourgeois left-wing” equalitarian programs, that is, measures for the
improvement of the living standards of workers, students and pensioners,
although I know, or believe to know, that (as opposed to the views of the
“bourgeois left-wing”) inequality and injustice are not causes but results,
results of private property, exploitation and class society. This is why the logic
of the welfare (social) state seems often alien to the current system, and from
the viewpoint of the capitalist market system appears as
squandering, inefficient, and bureaucratic; its results are
sometimes “perverted,” i.e., they accomplish the opposite of
their equalitarian intentions. The achievements of the welfare
state are easy to withdraw and be turned into their own opposite.
My support is thus conditional and defensive. Similarly
conditional and defensive is my support of the forces with which I cooperate
in the good old manner of “the people’s front”, forces that sometimes involuntarily
make “globalization” and “neo-liberalism” seem synonyms to capitalism,
and talk about “economic elite”, when they actually refer to the capitalist ruling
class (bourgeoisie). These euphemisms are excellent for finding scapegoats,
which is the sure way towards hiding the basic struggle at stake,
although, in the case of the mentioned forces, this happens mostly involuntarily.
However, the catastrophic role played by globalization, neo-liberalism,
and speculative capital is still something real. The new social movements
(anti-capitalist and anti-globalization movements, environmentalists and
women’s rights movements, gay movements) display a powerful imagination
and spontaneity, as well as a great stock of ideas and a genuine flood of
reform-recommendations. Especially, ideas on the protection of the cyberspace
and copyrights from the logic of the market are quite promising.
Obviously, I do not want to wait for world-revolution without contributing
– in accordance with my humble means – to the improvement of the East
European laborers’ situation, although my ultra-leftist friends criticize me
for this.
Consequently, the unavoidable politics to develop is double, two-folded, and
thus controversial. This politics is, in fact, a combination of revolution and
reformism (and even if in the current mass-media “reforms” always refer to
neo-liberal/neo-conservative reforms, here I have in view only social-democratic
reforms). Such political struggle can avoid self-deceit and misguidance
only if we constantly debate and reconsider it. My argument is obviously not
187