Instagram Youtube

Author: Enrico Campo

Categories
Journalism

Πώς θα εξηγούσε ο Μαρξ την πτώση της κυβέρνησης Ντράγκι

Η κυβέρνηση εθνικής ενότητας υπό τον «τεχνοκράτη» Μάριο Ντράγκι έχει καταρρεύσει λόγω πολιτικών διαφωνιών που ο πρώην πρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας δεν μπορούσε πλέον να συγκρατήσει.

Λίγοι γνωρίζουν ότι ο Μαρξ ασχολήθηκε και με την κριτική της λεγόμενης «τεχνικής κυβέρνησης». Ως συνεργάτης της «New York Tribune», μιας από τις καθημερινές εφημερίδες με τη μεγαλύτερη κυκλοφορία της εποχής του, ο Μαρξ παρατήρησε τις πολιτικές και θεσμικές εξελίξεις που οδήγησαν σε μία από τις πρώτες τεχνοκρατικές κυβερνήσεις στην Ιστορία: το υπουργικό συμβούλιο του κόμη του Αμπερντίν, που διήρκεσε από τον Δεκέμβριο του 1852 έως τον Ιανουάριο του 1855.

Οι αναφορές του Μαρξ ξεχώριζαν για την οξυδέρκεια και τον σαρκασμό τους. Οι «Times» πρόβαλαν τα γεγονότα που συνέβησαν το 1852 ως ένδειξη ότι η Βρετανία βρισκόταν στην αρχή μιας εποχής «κατά την οποία το κομματικό πνεύμα πρέπει να εξαφανιστεί και η ιδιοφυΐα, η εμπειρία, η εργατικότητα και ο πατριωτισμός πρέπει να είναι τα μόνα προσόντα για την ανάληψη αξιώματος».

Η εφημερίδα του Λονδίνου κάλεσε «τους άνδρες όλων των απόψεων» να συσπειρωθούν πίσω από τη νέα κυβέρνηση επειδή «οι αρχές της απαιτούν καθολική συναίνεση και υποστήριξη». Παρόμοια επιχειρήματα χρησιμοποιήθηκαν τον Φεβρουάριο του 2021, όταν ο Μάριο Ντράγκι, πρώην πρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας, έγινε πρωθυπουργός της Ιταλίας.

Σε άρθρο του 1853 («A Superannuated Administration: Prospect of the Coalition Ministry», Μια υπέργηρη κυβέρνηση: προοπτικές του συνασπισμού συνεργασίας), ο Μαρξ είχε χλευάσει την άποψη των «Times». Αυτό που η μεγάλη βρετανική εφημερίδα βρήκε τόσο μοντέρνο και συναρπαστικό ήταν γι’ αυτόν σκέτη φάρσα. Οταν οι «Times» ανακοίνωσαν «ένα υπουργείο που αποτελείται εξ ολοκλήρου από νέα και πολλά υποσχόμενα στελέχη», ο Μαρξ σκέφτηκε ότι «ο κόσμος σίγουρα θα μπερδευτεί λίγο όταν μάθει ότι η νέα εποχή στην ιστορία της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας πρόκειται να εγκαινιαστεί εξ ολοκλήρου από ήδη εξαντλημένους ογδοντάρηδες».

Παράλληλα με τις κρίσεις ατόμων υπήρχαν και άλλες, με μεγαλύτερο ενδιαφέρον, σχετικά με τις πολιτικές τους: «Μας υπόσχονται την ολοκληρωτική εξαφάνιση της κομματικής διαπάλης, ακόμα και των ίδιων των κομμάτων», σημείωσε ο Μαρξ. «Τι εννοούν οι “Times”;» Το ερώτημα είναι δυστυχώς πολύ επίκαιρο σήμερα, σε έναν κόσμο όπου η κυριαρχία του κεφαλαίου πάνω στην εργασία έχει γίνει τόσο άγρια, όσο ήταν στα μέσα του δέκατου ένατου αιώνα.

Ο διαχωρισμός μεταξύ οικονομίας και πολιτικής, αυτό δηλαδή που διαφοροποιεί τον καπιταλισμό από τους προηγούμενους τρόπους παραγωγής, έχει φτάσει στο υψηλότερο σημείο. Η οικονομία δεν κυριαρχεί μόνο στην πολιτική, καθορίζοντας την ατζέντα της και διαμορφώνοντας τις αποφάσεις της, αλλά βρίσκεται εκτός της πολιτικής δικαιοδοσίας και του δημοκρατικού ελέγχου – σε σημείο που μια αλλαγή κυβέρνησης δεν αλλάζει πλέον τις κατευθύνσεις της οικονομικής και κοινωνικής πολιτικής. Αυτές πρέπει να είναι αμετάβλητες.

Τα τελευταία τριάντα χρόνια, οι αποφάσεις πέρασαν από την πολιτική στην οικονομική σφαίρα. Οι πολιτικές επιλογές έχουν μετασχηματιστεί σε οικονομικές επιταγές που συγκαλύπτουν ένα άκρως πολιτικό και αντιδραστικό σχέδιο πίσω από μια ιδεολογική μάσκα απολιτικής τεχνογνωσίας. Αυτή η μετατόπιση τμημάτων της πολιτικής σφαίρας στην οικονομία, ως διακριτού τομέα μη επιδεχόμενου αλλαγή, ενέχει τη σοβαρότερη απειλή για τη δημοκρατία στην εποχή μας. Τα εθνικά κοινοβούλια, που έχουν ήδη στερηθεί την αντιπροσωπευτικότητα από τα στρεβλά εκλογικά συστήματα και τις αυταρχικές αναθεωρήσεις της σχέσης μεταξύ εκτελεστικής και νομοθετικής εξουσίας, διαπιστώνουν ότι οι εξουσίες τους αφαιρούνται και μεταβιβάζονται στην «αγορά».
Οι αξιολογήσεις Standard & Poor’s και ο δείκτης Wall Street –αυτά τα υπερφετίχ της σύγχρονης κοινωνίας– έχουν ασύγκριτα μεγαλύτερο βάρος από τη βούληση του λαού. Στην καλύτερη περίπτωση, η πολιτική κυβέρνηση μπορεί να «επέμβει» στην οικονομία (μερικές φορές, οι άρχουσες τάξεις πρέπει να μετριάσουν την καταστροφική αναρχία του καπιταλισμού και τις βίαιες κρίσεις του), αλλά δεν μπορεί να θέσει υπό αμφισβήτηση τους κανόνες και τις θεμελιώδεις επιλογές της.

Εξέχων εκπρόσωπος αυτής της πολιτικής ήταν ο πρώην πρωθυπουργός της Ιταλίας Ντράγκι, που ηγήθηκε για 17 μήνες ενός ευρύτατου συνασπισμού, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του Δημοκρατικού Κόμματος, του μακροχρόνιου εχθρού του Σίλβιο Μπερλουσκόνι, των λαϊκιστών του Κινήματος των Πέντε Αστέρων και του ακροδεξιού κόμματος Λέγκα του Βορρά. Πίσω από την πρόσοψη του όρου «τεχνική κυβέρνηση» –ή, όπως λένε, «κυβέρνηση των αρίστων» ή «κυβέρνηση όλων των ταλέντων»– μπορούμε να διακρίνουμε μια αναστολή της πολιτικής.

Τα τελευταία χρόνια, έχει υποστηριχθεί ότι δεν πρέπει να διεξάγονται εκλογές μετά από πολιτική κρίση. Η πολιτική πρέπει να παραδώσει τον έλεγχο στην οικονομία. Σε άλλο άρθρο του 1853 («Achievements of the Ministry», Επιτεύγματα της κυβέρνησης), ο Μαρξ έγραψε ότι «η κυβέρνηση συνασπισμού (τεχνοκρατών) αντιπροσωπεύει την ανικανότητα στην πολιτική εξουσία». Οι κυβερνήσεις δεν συζητούν πλέον ποιον οικονομικό προσανατολισμό να ακολουθήσουν. Τώρα οι οικονομικοί προσανατολισμοί φέρνουν τη γέννηση των κυβερνήσεων.

Τα τελευταία χρόνια, στην Ευρώπη ο νεοφιλελευθερισμός επανέλαβε ότι, για να αποκατασταθεί η «εμπιστοσύνη» της αγοράς, ήταν απαραίτητο να προχωρήσουμε γρήγορα στον δρόμο των «διαρθρωτικών μεταρρυθμίσεων», μια έκφραση που χρησιμοποιείται πλέον ως συνώνυμο της κοινωνικής καταστροφής: με άλλα λόγια, περικοπές μισθών, επιθέσεις στα δικαιώματα των εργαζομένων για προσλήψεις και απολύσεις, αυξήσεις στην ηλικία συνταξιοδότησης και ιδιωτικοποιήσεις μεγάλης κλίμακας.

Οι νέες «τεχνικές κυβερνήσεις», με επικεφαλής άτομα με ιστορικό σε μερικούς από τους οικονομικούς θεσμούς που είναι υπεύθυνοι για την οικονομική κρίση, έχουν ακολουθήσει αυτόν τον δρόμο – ισχυριζόμενοι ότι το κάνουν «για το καλό της χώρας» και «την ευημερία των μελλοντικών γενεών». Επιπλέον, η οικονομική εξουσία και τα κυρίαρχα μέσα ενημέρωσης προσπάθησαν να φιμώσουν όποιον έχει υψώσει μια δυσαρμονική φωνή.

Τώρα πλέον ο Ντράγκι δεν είναι πρωθυπουργός της Ιταλίας. Η πλειοψηφία του έχει καταρρεύσει εξαιτίας των πολύ διαφορετικών πολιτικών των κομμάτων που τον υποστήριξαν και η Ιταλία οδηγείται σε πρόωρες εκλογές στις 25 Σεπτεμβρίου.

Η Αριστερά πρέπει να έχει το θάρρος να προτείνει τις ριζοσπαστικές πολιτικές που είναι απαραίτητες για την αντιμετώπιση των πιο επειγόντων σύγχρονων ζητημάτων, ξεκινώντας από την οικολογική κρίση. Οι τελευταίοι άνθρωποι που μπορούν να πραγματοποιήσουν ένα πρόγραμμα κοινωνικού μετασχηματισμού και αναδιανομής του πλούτου είναι οι «τεχνικοί» –στην πραγματικότητα πολύ πολιτικοί– όπως ο τραπεζίτης Μάριο Ντράγκι. Δεν θα μας λείψει.

*Καθηγητής Κοινωνιολογίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο York (Τορόντο-Καναδάς), τακτικός συνεργάτης της «Εφ.Συν.»

Categories
Journalism

El final del govern italià explicat per Karl Marx

Pocs saben que, entre els molts temes als quals va dedicar el seu interès, Marx també es va ocupar de la crítica de l’anomenat «govern tècnic». Com a col·laborador del New York Tribune, un dels diaris de major tirada de la seva època, Marx va observar l’evolució política i institucional que va conduir a la formació d’un dels primers governs tècnics de la història: el gabinet del comte d’Aberdeen, que va durar des de desembre de 1852 fins a gener de 1855.

Els reportatges de Marx destacaven per la seva perspicàcia i sarcasme. The Times va celebrar els esdeveniments que van tenir lloc el 1852 com una senyal que la Gran Bretanya es trobava al començament d’una època «a la qual l’esperit partidista marxarà volant de la terra, i el geni, l’experiència, la diligència i el patriotisme seran les úniques qualificacions necessàries per a ocupar un càrrec públic». El diari londinenc instava als «homes de totes les opinions» a donar suport al nou govern perquè «els seus principis compten amb l’assentiment i el suport universal». Arguments similars es van utilitzar al febrer de 2021, quan Mario Draghi, ex president del Banc Central Europeu, es va convertir en primer ministre d’Itàlia.

Al seu article de 1853, A Superannuanted Administration: Prospect of the Coalition Ministry, Marx es burlava del punt de vista de The Times. El que el gran diari britànic trobava tan modern i apassionant era per a ell una pura farsa. Quan The Times va anunciar «un ministeri format completament per personatges nous, joves i prometedors», Marx reflexionava tot dient que «el món estarà certament desconcertat en saber que la nova era de la història de Gran Bretanya l’encetarà tothom excepte els octogenaris esgotats». Junt amb aquestes valoracions sobre els individus n’hi havia d’altres, de major interès, sobre la seva política: «Se’ns promet la desaparició total de la guerra de partits, és més, dels propis partits», assenyalava Marx. «Què vol dir The Times?» La pregunta és, per desgràcia, massa actual avui dia, en un món al qual el domini del capital sobre el treball s’ha tornat tan ferotge com a mitjans del segle XIX. La separació entre l’economia i la política, que és el que diferencia el capitalisme dels anteriors modes de producció, ha arribat a un punt màxim. L’economia no sols domina la política, establint la seva agenda i donant forma a les seves decisions, sinó que es troba fora de la seva jurisdicció i control democràtic, fins al punt que un canvi de govern ja no canvia la direcció de la política econòmica i social. Ha de ser immutable.

Durant els últims trenta anys, el poder de decisió ha passat de l’esfera política a l’econòmica. Les diferents propostes polítiques dels partits s’han transformat en imperatius econòmics que disfressen un projecte altament polític i reaccionari darrera d’una màscara ideològica d’experiència apolítica. Aquesta integració forçosa de parts de l’esfera política dins l’econòmica, vista com un domini separat i impermeable al canvi, és l’amenaça més greu per a la democràcia dels nostres temps. Els parlaments nacionals, buidats ja de valor representatiu gràcies a uns sistemes electorals esbiaixats i a revisions autoritàries de la relació entre l’executiu i el legislatiu, veuen com se’ls lleven els seus poders, que son transferits al «mercat». Les qualificacions de Standard & Poor’s i l’índex de Wall Street —aquests mega-fetitxes de la societat contemporània— tenen un pes incomparablement major que la voluntat del poble. En el millor dels casos, els governs polítics poden «intervenir» a l’economia (a vegades, les classes dominants necessiten mitigar l’anarquia destructiva del capitalisme i les seves violentes crisis), però no poden posar en qüestió les seves eleccions i normes fonamentals.

Un representant destacat d’aquesta política va ser l’ex primer ministre italià Draghi, que durant 17 mesos va liderar una coalició molt àmplia que incloïa al Partit Democràtic, al seu vell enemic Silvio Berlusconi, als populistes del Moviment Cinc Estrelles i al partit d’extrema dreta Lliga Nord. Darrere de la façana del terme «govern tècnic» —o com es diu del «govern dels millors» o del «govern de tots els talents»— podem distingir una suspensió de la política. En els últims anys, s’ha arribat a sostenir que no s’han de concedir noves eleccions després d’una crisi política; la política ha de cedir tot el control a l’economia. En un article d’abril de 1853, Assoliments del Ministeri, Marx va escriure que «el Ministeri de Coalició (“tècnic”) representa la impotència en el poder polític». Els governs ja no discuteixen quina orientació econòmica han de prendre. Ara les orientacions econòmiques provoquen el naixement dels governs.

Els últims anys, a Europa s’ha repetit el mantra neoliberal pel qual, per a restaurar la «confiança» del mercat, era necessari procedir ràpidament pel camí de les «reformes estructurals», una expressió que ara s’utilitza com a sinònim de devastació social: en altres paraules, retallades salarials, atacs als drets dels treballadors sobre contractació i acomiadament, augment de l’edat de jubilació i privatització a gran escala. Els nous «governs tècnics», encapçalats per individus amb antecedents a algunes de les institucions econòmiques més responsables de la crisi econòmica, han seguit aquest camí, afirmant que ho fan «pel bé del país» i «pel benestar de les generacions futures». A més, el poder econòmic i els grans mitjans de comunicació han intentat silenciar a qualsevol que ha alçat una veu discordant.

Avui dia, Draghi ja no és el primer ministre italià. La seva majoria ha implosionat a causa de les diferències excessives entre els partits que li donaven suport, i Itàlia anirà a eleccions anticipades el 25 de setembre. Perquè l’esquerra no desaparegui, també ha de tenir el valor de proposar les polítiques radicals necessàries per a abordar els problemes contemporanis més urgents, començant per la crisi ecològica. Els últims que poden dur a terme un programa de transformació social i redistribució de la riquesa són els «tècnics» —en realitat molt polítics— com el banquer Mario Draghi. No se’l trobarà a faltar.

Categories
Journalism

Apa Kata Marx tentang Pemerintahan Teknokrat

HANYA segelintir orang yang tahu bahwa di belantara topik yang menjadi perhatian Marx, ia juga sempat menulis kritik terhadap apa yang disebut-sebut “pemerintahan teknis” (atau pemerintahan teknokrat). Sebagai kontributor New York Tribune, salah satu suratkabar dengan sirkulasi terluas pada masanya, Marx mengamati arah perkembangan politik dan institusional yang kelak melahirkan satu di antara pemerintahan teknokrat pertama dalam sejarah: kabinet Earl of Aberdeen, yang berlangsung sejak Desember 1852 hingga Januari 1855.

Laporan-laporan Marx menonjol karena ketajaman dan sarkasmenya. Harian The Times merayakan momen-momen 1852 itu sebagai tanda bahwa Inggris berada di fajar ‘ketika ruh partai politik lenyap dari bumi, digantikan kejeniusan, pengalaman, industri, dan patriotisme yang menjadi satu-satunya kualifikasi untuk menduduki jabatan’. Suratkabar London ini menyerukan ‘orang-orang dari semua kubu politik’ untuk bersatu menyokong pemerintah baru karena ‘prinsip-prinsipnya yang didukung dan bisa diterima semua kalangan’. Argumen serupa dikemukakan pada Februari 2021, ketika Mario Draghi, mantan Presiden Bank Sentral Eropa, menjadi Perdana Menteri Italia.

Dalam artikel bertajuk “A Superannuanted Administration: Prospect of the Coalition Ministry” (1853), Marx mencemooh sudut pandang The Times. Hal-hal yang dianggap modern dan memikat bagi suratkabar terdepan Inggris itu sangat rupanya sekadar lelucon di mata Marx. Ketika The Times mendeklarasikan “sebuah kabinet yang terdiri dari sosok-sosok baru, muda, dan menjanjikan”, Marx menyatakan bahwa “dunia pastinya tidak akan kaget menyaksikan era baru dalam sejarah Inggris Raya ini diresmikan oleh orang-orang kepala delapan yang sudah bau tanah”. Di samping menyoroti orang-orang di kabinet tersebut, Marx juga menyoroti kepentingan yang lebih besar dan kebijakan-kebijakan dalam kabinet ini: “Kita dijanjikan bahwa konflik antar partai—bahkan partai itu sendiri—akan lenyap,” kata Marx. “Lalu apa artinya The Times?”

Sayangnya isu yang diangkat Marx sangat penting buat hari ini, ketika kuasa kapital atas pekerja semakin liar persis seperti yang terjadi pada pertengahan abad ke-19. Pemisahan antara ekonomi dan politik—yang membedakan kapitalisme dari mode produksi sebelumnya—telah mencapai puncak. Tak hanya mendominasi politik dan mendikte agenda beserta keputusan-keputusannya, kuasa ekonomi bahkan berada di luar yurisdiksi politik dan kontrol demokratik—sampai-sampai perubahan pemerintahan tidak lagi mengubah arah kebijakan sosial dan ekonomi, yang tidak bergeser sama sekali.

Selama tiga puluh tahun terakhir, kewenangan dalam pengambilan keputusan telah berpindah dari ranah politik ke ekonomi. Opsi-opsi kebijakan yang sesungguhnya partisan kini sudah menjadi imperatif ekonomi yang menutup-nutupi proyek politik dan reaksioner ini dengan topeng ideologis kepakaran yang seolah apolitis. Diopernya unsur-unsur politik ke ekonomi, sebagai ranah khusus yang tahan perubahan, turut memunculkan ancaman terbesar terhadap demokrasi di zaman kita. Parlemen—yang marwah perwakilannya sudah terkikis oleh sistem pemilu yang berat sebelah dan campur tangan otoriter terhadap hubungan eksekutif-legislatif—mendapati kekuasaannya dirampas dan dioper ke ‘pasar’. Pemeringkatan oleh Standard & Poor’s dan indeks Wall Street—jimat sakti masyarakat dewasa ini—dianggap lebih lebih besar bobotnya ketimbang kehendak rakyat. Paling banter, pemerintah hanya mampu ‘mengintervensi’ ekonomi. Kelas penguasa terkadang memang perlu mengurangi anarki kapitalisme beserta krisis-krisisnya yang merusak. Namun, pemerintah tidak akan bisa menggugat aturan dan pilihan-pilihan mendasar di bidang ekonomi.

Seorang wakil terkemuka dari fenomena ini adalah mantan Perdana Menteri Italia Draghi. Selama 17 bulan, ia memimpin koalisi yang sangat luas. Isinya termasuk Partai Demokrat, Silvio Berlusconi (musuh bebuyutan Draghi), hingga Five Star Movement yang populis dan partai kanan Lega Nord. Kita bisa menyaksikan ditangguhkannya politik di balik kedok istilah “pemerintahan teknis”—atau dalam bahasa mereka: “pemerintah yang terdiri dari orang-orang terbaik” atau “pemerintahan yang diisi orang-orang berbakat’ Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, pendapat bahwa tidak boleh ada pemilu baru setelah krisis politik kian santer; politik harus menyerahkan seluruh kendali kepada ekonomi. Dalam sebuah artikel yang terbit pada April 1853, “Achievements of the Ministry”, Marx menulis bahwa “Kabinet Koalisi (‘teknis’) adalah simbol ketidakberdayaan politis”. Pemerintah tidak lagi membahas haluan ekonomi mana yang akan diambil. Sekarang haluan ekonomilah yang melahirkan pemerintahan.

Sebuah mantra neoliberal terus didengungkan beberapa tahun terakhir di Eropa: guna memulihkan ‘kepercayaan’ pasar, diperlukan percepatan ‘reformasi struktural’, sebuah ungkapan yang kini sama artinya dengan kehancuran sosial: pemotongan upah, serangan terhadap hak-hak kelas pekerja terkait perekrutan dan pemecatan, kenaikan usia pensiun, dan privatisasi berskala besar. Jalan ‘reformasi struktural’ ini telah ditempuh “pemerintahan-pemerintahan teknokratik” baru pimpinan orang-orang yang CV-nya penuh pengalaman pernah bekerja di institusi-institusi ekonomi yang paling bertanggung jawab atas krisis ekonomi. Mereka mengaku harus mengambil kebijakan-kebijakan tersebut “demi kemaslahatan negara” dan “generasi mendatang”. Tak hanya itu, kuasa ekonomi dan media arus utama pun mati-matian membungkam siapapun yang bersuara kritis.

Per hari ini Draghi tidak lagi menjadi Perdana Menteri Italia. Koalisinya telah ambruk karena ekstremnya perbedaan kebijakan-kebijakan dari partai-partai pendukungnya. Pemilu Italia akan diadakan lebih awal pada 25 September. Jika kaum Kiri tidak ingin lenyap, mereka harus berani mengusulkan kebijakan radikal yang diperlukan untuk mengatasi masalah-masalah kekinian yang paling mendesak, dimulai dari krisis lingkungan. Orang-orang yang tidak mampu menjalankan program transformasi sosial dan redistribusi kekayaan adalah para ‘teknokrat’—yang sebenarnya sangat politis—seperti bankir Mario Draghi.

Dan Draghi tidak akan dirindukan.***

Categories
Journalism

O fim do governo italiano explicado por Karl Marx

Poucos sabem que, entre os muitos tópicos aos quais dedicou o seu interesse, Marx também lidou com a crítica dos chamados “governos técnicos”. Enquanto autor de artigos para o New York Tribune, um dos diários de maior circulação do seu tempo, Marx observou os desenvolvimentos políticos e institucionais que levaram a um dos primeiros governos técnicos da história: o governo do Conde de Aberdeen que durou desde dezembro de 1852 a janeiro de 1855.

Os artigos de Marx destacavam-se pela sua perspicácia e sarcasmo. E o The Times celebrava os acontecimentos de 1852 como o sinal do início de um tempo “no qual o espírito partidário deve voar da terra, e o génio, a experiência, a capacidade e o patriotismo devem ser as únicas qualificações para o cargo”. O jornal londrino apelava para que “homens de todos os tipos de opinião” apoiassem o novo governo porque “os seus princípios exigem aprovação e apoio universal”. Argumentos semelhantes foram usados em fevereiro de 2021, quando Mario Draghi, antigo presidente do Banco Central Europeu, se tornou primeiro-ministro de Itália.

No artigo de 1853, A Superannuanted Administration: Prospect of the Coalition Ministry, Marx troçava do ponto de vista do The Times. Aquilo que o maior jornal britânico considerava ser tão moderno e cativante era para ele uma mera farsa. Quando o The Times anunciou um “ministério composto totalmente por figuras novas, jovens e promissoras”, Marx escreveu que “o mundo certamente não ficará nem um pouco confuso ao saber que a nova era na história da Grã-Bretanha será inaugurada por todos, exceto por octogenários esgotados”. Para além do julgamento acerca dos indivíduos havia outros, de maior interesse, sobre as suas políticas: “prometem-nos o total desaparecimento das lutas partidárias, não, até dos partidos eles próprios”, notava. “Qual o sentido do artigo do The Times?” A pergunta infelizmente é atual, num mundo em que o domínio do capital sobre o trabalho se tornou tão feroz quanto era em meados do século XIX. A separação entre economia e política, que diferencia o capitalismo dos modos de produção anteriores, alcançou um pique. A economia não apenas domina a política, marcando a sua agenda e dominando as suas decisões, mas também fica fora da sua jurisdição e controlo democrático – ao ponto em que uma mudança de governo já não muda a direção das políticas económicas e sociais. Estas devem ser imutáveis.

Nos últimos trinta anos, os poderes de decisão passaram da esfera política para a económica. As opções políticas partidárias foram transformadas em imperativos económicos que disfarçam um projeto altamente político e reacionário por detrás de uma máscara de perícia apolítica.

Este desvio de partes da esfera política para a economia, como um domínio separado e impermeável à mudança, constitui a mais grave ameaça à democracia dos nossos tempos. Parlamentos nacionais, já drenados de valor representativo por sistemas eleitorais enviesados e revisões autoritárias da relação entre poder executivo e legislativo, deparam-se com a transferência dos seus poderes para o “mercado”. Os ratings da Standard & Poor’s e as cotações de Wall Street – estes mega-fetiches sociedade contemporânea – pesam incomparavelmente mais do que a vontade do povo. Quando muito, o governo político pode “intervir” na economia (por vezes a classe dominante precisa de mitigar a anarquia destruidora do capitalismo e as suas crises violentas) mas não pode questionar as suas regras e escolhas fundamentais.

Um representante proeminente desta política era o antigo primeiro-ministro italiano Draghi, que, durante 17 meses, liderou uma coligação muito ampla que incluía o Partido Democrático, o seu inimigo de há muito Silvio Berlusconi, os populistas do Movimento Cinco Estrelas e a extrema-direita da Liga Norte. Por detrás da fachada do termo “governo técnico” – ou como dizem do “governo dos melhores” ou “governo de todos os talentos” – podemos encontrar uma suspensão da política. Em anos recentes, tem sido argumentado que não devem acontecer novas eleições após uma crise política; a politica deve ser entregue ao controlo total da economia. Num artigo de abril de 1853, Achievements of the Ministry, Marx escreveu que o governo de coligação (“técnico”) representa a impotência do poder político”. Os governos já não discutem que orientação económica tomar. Agora as orientações económicas fazem nascer governos.

Em anos recentes, na Europa, tem sido repetido o mantra neoliberal de que, para restaurar a “confiança” dos mercados, era necessário implementar rapidamente “reformas estruturais”, uma expressão agora usada como sinónimo de devastação social: por outras palavras, cortes nos salários, ataques aos direitos dos trabalhadores no que toca à contratação e despedimento, aumentos da idade da reforma e privatizações em larga escala. Os novos “governos técnicos”, liderados por indivíduos com formação em algumas das instituições económicas mais responsáveis pela crise económica, seguiram este caminho – alegando fazerem-nos “para o bem do país” e “para o bem-estar das gerações futuras”. Para além disso, o poder económico e os meios da comunicação social dominante têm tentado silenciar quem faça soar uma voz discordante.

A partir de hoje, Draghi já não é primeiro-ministro de Itália. A sua maioria implodiu devido às políticas muito diferentes dos partidos que o apoiavam e o país irá para eleições antecipadas em 25 de setembro. Para a esquerda não desaparecer, deve ter a coragem de propor as políticas radicais necessárias para lidar com os problemas contemporâneos mais urgentes, a começar com a crise ecológica. As últimas pessoas que podem implementar um programa de transformação social e de redistribuição da riqueza são os “técnicos” – na realidade muito políticos – como o banqueiro Mario Draghi. Não sentiremos a sua falta.

Categories
Journalism

El fin del gobierno italiano explicado por Karl Marx

Muy pocos saben que, entre los muchos temas a los que dedicó su interés, Karl Marx también se ocupó de la crítica a los llamados “gobiernos técnicos”. En calidad de periodista del York Tribune, uno de los diarios con mayor difusión de su tiempo, Marx observó los acontecimientos político-institucionales que llevaron al nacimiento de uno de los primeros casos de “gobierno técnico” de la historia: el gabinete Aberdeen –que estuvo en el gobierno de Inglaterra desde diciembre de 1852 hasta enero de 1855.

El análisis de Marx se caracterizó por la sagacidad y el sarcasmo. El Times celebró el acontecimiento como signo del ingreso de Inglaterra “a una época en la que el espíritu de partido está destinado a desaparecer y en la que solamente el genio, la experiencia, la laboriosidad y el patriotismo darán derecho al acceso a los cargos públicos”. El periódico londinense pidió para el gabinete Aberdeen el apoyo de los “hombres de todas las tendencias”, porque “sus principios exigen el consenso y el apoyo universales”. Argumentos similares se utilizaron en febrero de 2021, cuando Mario Draghi, expresidente del Banco Central Europeo, se convirtió en primer ministro de Italia.

El coro de aprobación en torno a Draghi, exgobernador del Banco de Italia entre 2006 y 2011, y expresidente del Banco Central Europeo, entre 2011 y 2019, se asemeja al del Times en 1852. Todos los órganos de prensa conservadores y liberales, incluidos los de la izquierda moderada, se han unido en una cruzada contra los “irresponsables partidos políticos” y a favor del “salvador” Draghi.
En un artículo de 1853, Un gobierno decrépito. Perspectivas del gabinete de coalición, Marx se burló de la pretensión del Times de calificar de “técnicos” a los representantes del poder dominante que tenían una agenda eminentemente política. Lo que el principal periódico británico consideraba un modelo moderno y convincente era una farsa para él. Cuando el Times anunció “un ministerio compuesto enteramente por personajes nuevos, jóvenes y prometedores”, Marx declaró que “el mundo quedará un tanto estupefacto al enterarse de que la nueva era de la historia está a punto de ser inaugurada nada menos que por gastados y decrépitos octogenarios, burócratas que han venido participando en casi todos los gobiernos habidos y por haber desde fines del siglo pasado, asiduos de gabinete doblemente muertos, por edad y por usura, y sólo con artificio mantenidos con vida”.

Junto a los juicios sobre las personas hubo otros, de mayor interés, sobre sus políticas. Marx se preguntó: “Cuando nos promete la desaparición total de las luchas entre los partidos, incluso la desaparición de los partidos mismos, ¿qué quiere decir el Times?” La cuestión es, desgraciadamente, demasiado actual hoy en día. La separación entre lo “económico” y lo “político”, que diferencia al capitalismo de modos de producir que lo precedieron, parece haber llegado a su clímax. La economía no sólo domina la política, estableciendo su agenda y dando forma a sus decisiones, sino que se encuentra fuera de su jurisdicción y control democrático, hasta el punto de que un cambio de gobierno ya no cambia las direcciones de la política económica y social. Esas deben ser inmutables.

La traslación de la esfera política a la economía

En los últimos treinta años, el poder de decisión ha pasado de la esfera política a la económica. Determinadas opciones políticas se han transformado en imperativos económicos que disfrazan un proyecto altamente reaccionario tras una máscara ideológica apolítica. La traslación de una parte de la esfera política a la economía, como un ámbito separado e impermeable a las demandas sociales, y el paso del poder de los parlamentos –ya suficientemente vaciados de valor representativo por los sistemas electorales mayoritarios y por la revisión autoritaria de la relación entre poder ejecutivo y poder legislativo– a los mercados y a sus oligarquías constituyen serios obstáculos para la democracia en nuestro tiempo. Las calificaciones de Standard & Poor’s o las señales procedentes de Wall Street –esos enormes fetiches de la sociedad contemporánea– valen harto más que la voluntad popular. En el mejor de los casos, el poder político puede intervenir en la economía (a veces las clases dominantes lo necesitan para mitigar las destrucciones generadas por la anarquía del capitalismo y la violencia de sus crisis), pero sin que sea posible discutir las reglas de esa intervención, ni mucho menos las opciones de fondo.
Un representante destacado de esta política fue el exprimer ministro italiano Draghi, que durante 17 meses lideró una coalición muy amplia que incluía al Partido Democrático, a su viejo enemigo Silvio Berlusconi, a los populistas del Movimiento Cinco Estrellas y al partido de extrema derecha Liga Norte. Detrás de la fachada del término “gobierno técnico” –o como se dice del “gobierno de los mejores” o del “gobierno de todos los talentos”– se esconde la suspensión de la política. Este fenómeno no es nuevo en Italia. Desde el final de la Primera República, ha habido numerosos gobiernos con liderazgo “técnico” o sin representantes de partidos políticos. Entre ellos, el gobierno de Azeglio Ciampi, previamente gobernador del Banco de Italia durante quince años, de 1993 a 1994 (y posteriormente elegido para el cargo de Presidente de la República de 1999 a 2006); el gobierno de Lamberto Dini, antiguo director general del Banco de Italia, tras una larga carrera en el Fondo Monetario Internacional, en 1995-1996; y el gobierno de Mario Monti, excomisario europeo de Competencia con experiencia previa relevante en la Comisión Trilateral del Grupo Rockefeller, el comité directivo del Grupo Bilderberg y como asesor internacional de Goldman Sachs, de 2011 a 2013.

En los últimos años, se ha llegado a sostener que no se deben convocar nuevas elecciones tras una crisis política; la política debe ceder todo el control a la economía. En otro artículo de 1853, Operaciones de gobierno, Marx afirmó que “el gobierno de coalición (‘técnico’) representa la impotencia del poder político en un momento de transición”. Los gobiernos ya no discuten qué orientación económica tomar. Ahora las orientaciones económicas hacen nacer a los gobiernos.
En Europa se ha repetido el mantra neoliberal de que, para restablecer la “confianza” de los mercados, era necesario avanzar rápidamente por el camino de las “reformas estructurales”, una expresión que ahora se utiliza como sinónimo de devastación social, es decir: reducción de salarios, revisión de los derechos laborales en materia de contratación y despido, aumento de la edad de jubilación y privatizaciones a gran escala. Los nuevos “gobiernos técnicos”, encabezados por individuos con antecedentes en algunas de las instituciones económicas más responsables de la crisis económica, han seguido este camino, afirmando que lo hacen “por el bien del país” y “el bienestar de las generaciones futuras”. Además, el poder económico y los grandes medios de comunicación han intentado silenciar a cualquier voz disonante del coro.

Draghi ya no es el primer ministro italiano. Su mayoría ha implosionado debido a los diferentes intereses de los partidos que le apoyaban e Italia irá a elecciones anticipadas el 25 de septiembre. Si la izquierda no quiere desaparecer, debe tener el valor de proponer las respuestas radicales necesarias para salir de la crisis. Los últimos que pueden llevar adelante una agenda política ecológica y socialmente transformadora son los “técnicos” –en realidad muy políticos– como el banquero Mario Draghi. No se le echará de menos.

Categories
Journalism

La fine del governo spiegata da Marx

In pochi sanno che, tra i numerosi temi ai quali dedicò il suo interesse, Marx si occupò anche della critica dei cosiddetti «governi tecnici». In qualità di giornalista del New-York Tribune, uno dei quotidiani più diffusi del suo tempo, Marx osservò gli avvenimenti politico-istituzionali che portarono alla nascita di uno dei primi casi di «governo tecnico» della storia: il gabinetto di lord Aberdeen, il primo ministro che rimase alla guida dell’Inghilterra dal dicembre 1852 al gennaio 1855.

In un articolo del 1853, intitolato Un governo decrepito. Prospettive del ministero di coalizione, Marx irrise la pretesa del Times di rappresentare come «tecnici» gli esponenti del potere dominante che avevano un’agenda eminentemente politica. Ciò che il Times considerava un modello moderno e avvincente costituiva per lui una farsa. Quando il giornale di Londra annunciò un «ministero composto da uomini nuovi», Marx dichiarò che «il mondo sarà certamente non poco stupito quando avrà appreso che la nuova era nella storia sta per essere inaugurata nientemeno che da logori ottuagenari».

Accanto al giudizio sulle persone, c’era quello, ben più importante, sulle loro idee politiche. Marx si chiese: «Ci viene promessa la scomparsa totale delle lotte tra i partiti, anzi la scomparsa dei partiti stessi. Che cosa vuol dire il Times?». Negli ultimi anni, questa domanda è ritornata di attualità.

La separazione tra «economico» e «politico», che differenzia il capitalismo dai modi di produzione che lo hanno preceduto, pare avere raggiunto il culmine. L’economia non solo domina la politica, dettandole agenda e decisioni, ma è oramai posta al di fuori delle sue competenze e del controllo democratico, al punto che il cambio dei governi non modifica più gli indirizzi di politica economica e sociale. Essi devono essere immutabili.

Negli ultimi trent’anni si è proceduto a trasferire il potere decisionale dalla sfera politica a quella economica. Possibili decisioni politiche sono state trasformate in incontestabili imperativi economici, che sotto la maschera ideologica dell’apoliticità nascondevano, al contrario, un impianto eminentemente politico e dal contenuto reazionario. La ridislocazione di una parte della sfera politica nell’economia, come ambito separato e immodificabile, il passaggio di potere dai parlamenti (già svuotati del loro valore rappresentativo da sistemi elettorali maggioritari e da revisioni autoritarie del rapporto tra il potere governativo e quello legislativo) al mercato e alle sue oligarchie, costituiscono gravi impedimenti democratici del nostro tempo. I rating di Standard & Poor’s, gli indici di Wall Street – questi enormi feticci della società contemporanea – valgono più della volontà popolare. Nel migliore dei casi, il potere politico può intervenire nell’economia (talvolta le classi dominanti ne hanno bisogno per mitigare le distruzioni prodotte dall’anarchia del capitalismo e dalle sue violente crisi), ma senza mai poterne ridiscutere le regole e le scelte di fondo.

Eminente rappresentante di questa politica è stato l’ex presidente del consiglio italiano Mario Draghi, per 17 mesi alla guida di un’amplissima coalizione comprendente il Partito democratico, Forza italia, il Movimento 5 stelle e la Lega nord. Dietro l’impostura del termine «governo tecnico» – o, come si usa dire del «governo dei migliori» o «governo di tutti i talenti» – si cela la sospensione della politica. Nell’articolo del 1853 Operazioni del governo, Marx affermò che «il governo di coalizione (‘tecnico’) rappresenta l’impotenza del potere politico». I governi non discutono più quali indirizzi economici adottare, ma sono gli indirizzi economici a generare la nascita dei governi.

Negli ultimi anni, in Europa si è ripetuto il mantra neoliberista secondo cui, per «ristabilire la fiducia» dei mercati occorreva procedere spediti sulla strada delle «riforme strutturali» (espressione divenuta sinonimo di scempio sociale), ovvero: riduzione salariale, revisione dei diritti dei lavoratori e delle lavoratrici circa le norme che regolano l’assunzione e il licenziamento, aumento dell’età pensionabile e privatizzazioni su larga scala. I nuovi «governi tecnici», con a capo gli uomini cresciuti nelle stanze di alcune delle istituzioni economiche maggiormente responsabili della crisi economica, hanno amministrato il potere compiendo queste scelte. Ovviamente, con la pretesa di farlo per il «bene del paese» e per il «futuro delle prossime generazioni». Al muro ogni voce fuori dal coro.

Oggi Draghi non è più il presidente del consiglio, la sua maggioranza è implosa e ci saranno elezioni anticipate il 25 di settembre. Se la sinistra non vuole scomparire deve avere il coraggio di proporre le necessarie risposte radicali per uscire dalla crisi. Gli ultimi che possono portare avanti un’agenda politica ecologica e di trasformazione sociale sono i «tecnici» – in realtà molto politici – come il banchiere Draghi. Goodbye Mario. Non sentiremo la tua mancanza.

Categories
Journalism

The Rule of “Experts” Is Destroying Democracy

Among the many topics to which Karl Marx devoted his interest, one of the less well-known is his critique of so-called “technical government” — that is, governments led by supposed “experts” not affiliated with political parties. As a contributor to the New York Tribune, one of the widest- circulation dailies of his day, Marx observed the institutional developments that led to one of the first such governments in history: the Earl of Aberdeen’s cabinet in Britain, from December 1852 to January 1855.
Marx’s reports stood out for their perceptiveness and sarcasm. The Times celebrated these events as a sign that Britain was at the beginning of a time “in which party spirit is to fly from the earth, and genius, experience, industry and patriotism are to be the sole qualifications for office.” The London- based daily called on “men of every class of opinion” to rally behind the new government because “its principles command universal assent and support.”

Similar arguments were used in February 2021, when Mario Draghi became Italy’s prime minister. The fanfare around Draghi, who had been governor of the Bank of Italy from 2006 to 2011 and president of the European Central Bank from 2011 to 2019, was akin to that of the Times in 1852. All conservative and liberal press organs, including those of the moderate left, joined in a crusade against the irresponsible political parties and in favor of the “savior” Draghi. With his resignation on Thursday, the experiment has once again come to an end.
In the 1853 article “A Superannuated Administration: Prospect of the Coalition Ministry,” Marx scoffed at the Times’ viewpoint. What the major British newspaper found so modern and enthralling was, for him, sheer farce. When The Times announced “a ministry composed entirely of new, young and promising characters,” Marx mused that
the world will certainly be not a little puzzled to learn that the new era in the history of Great Britain is to be inaugurated by all but used-up octogenarians, bureaucrats who served under almost every Administration since the close of the last century, twice dead of age and exhaustion and only resuscitated into an artificial existence.
Alongside the judgments on individuals there were others, of greater interest, concerning their policies: “We are promised the total disappearance of party warfare, nay even of parties themselves,” Marx noted. “What is the meaning of The Times?”

The question is unfortunately all too topical today, in a world where the rule of capital over labor has become as feral as it was in the mid-nineteenth century. The separation between economics and politics, which differentiates capitalism from previous modes of production, has reached a high point. Economics not only dominates politics, setting its agenda and shaping its decisions, but lies outside its jurisdiction and democratic control — to the point where a change of government no longer changes the directions of economic and social policy. They must be immutable.

Economic “Imperatives”

In the last thirty years, the powers of decision-making have passed from the political to the economic sphere. Partisan policy options have been transformed into economic imperatives that disguise a highly political and reactionary project behind an ideological mask of apolitical expertise. This shunting of parts of the political sphere into the economy, as a separate domain impervious to change, involves the gravest threat to democracy in our times. National parliaments, already drained of representative value by skewed electoral systems and authoritarian revisions of the relationship between executive and legislature, find their powers taken away and transferred to the “market.” Standard & Poor’s ratings, the Wall Street index, and the bid-ask spread — these megafetishes of contemporary society — carry incomparably more weight than the will of the people. At best governments can “intervene” in the economy (sometimes, the ruling classes need to mitigate the destructive anarchy of capitalism and its violent crises), but they cannot call into question its rules and fundamental choices.

From February 2021 until his resignation last Thursday, Draghi was a prominent representative of this policy. For seventeen months he led a very broad coalition including the centrist Democratic Party, its longtime enemy Silvio Berlusconi, the populists of the Five Star Movement, and Matteo Salvini’s far-right Lega. Behind the facade of the term “technical government” — or as they say, the “government of the best” — we can see a suspension of politics.
This phenomenon is not new in Italy. Since the end of the First Republic in the early 1990s, there have been numerous governments with “technical” leadership or without political party representatives. These include the government of Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, previously governor of the Bank of Italy for fifteen years, from 1993 to 1994 (and subsequently elected to the office of president of Italy from 1999 to 2006); the government of Lamberto Dini, former director general of the Bank of Italy, after a long career at the International Monetary Fund, in 1995-96; and the government of Mario Monti, the former European Commissioner for Competition with previous relevant experience on the Rockefeller Group’s Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group steering committee, and as an international adviser to Goldman Sachs, from 2011 to 2013.

In recent years, it has been argued that new elections should not be granted after a political crisis; politics should hand over total control to economics. In an April 1853 article, “Achievements of the Ministry,” Marx wrote that “the Coalition [‘technical’] Ministry represents impotency in political power.” Governments no longer discuss which economic orientation to take. Now the dominant economic orientations bring about the birth of governments.
In Europe in recent years, the neoliberal mantra has been repeated that to restore market “confidence” it was necessary to proceed rapidly down the road of “structural reforms” — an expression now used as a synonym for social devastation: in other words, wage cuts, attacks on workers’ rights over hiring and firing, increases in the pension age, and large-scale privatization.
The new “technical governments,” headed by individuals with a background in some of the economic institutions most responsible for the economic crisis, have gone down this path — claiming to do this “for the good of the country” and “the well-being of future generations.” Moreover, the economic powers and the mainstream media have attempted to silence anyone who has raised a discordant voice.

Following his resignation, Draghi is no longer to be Italy’s prime minister. His majority has imploded because of the too-different policies of the parties that supported him, and Italy will go to early elections on September 25. If the Left is not to disappear, it must also have the courage to propose the radical policies necessary to address the most urgent contemporary issues, starting from the ecological crisis. The last people who could carry out a program of social transformation and redistribution of the wealth are the “technicians” — actually very political figures — like the central banker Mario Draghi. He will not be missed.

Categories
Journalism

Baraye Rosa Luxemburg

در آگوست ۱۸۹۳، زمانی که یک کرسی در کنگره‌ی زوریخ اینترناسیونال دوم به رزا لوکزامبورگ برای سخنرانی اعطا شد، او بدون تردید راهش را از میان انبوه نمایندگان و فعالان سیاسی موجود در سالن گشود. وی از معدود زنان حاضر در آن‌جا بود. در عنفوان جوانی، با جثه‌ای ظریف و شکننده و نقص مادرزادی در ران‌هایش که او را از پنج‌سالگی وادار به لنگیدن کرده بود. نخستین برداشتِ افرادی که او را دیدند، موجودی نحیف بود؛ اما پس از ایستادن در آن کرسی توانست خود را بهتر بشناساند، خیلی زود تمامی حضار شیفته‌ی مهارت او در استدلال و ابتکارش در اتخاذ مواضع شدند.

مسئله‌ی ملی لهستان

از دیدگاه او، مطالبه‌ی اصلی جنبش کارگران لهستان، برخلاف آن‌چه که همه پیش از او مدعی بودند، نباید تشکیل یک دولت مستقل باشد. لهستان هنوز تحت حکمرانی سه‌جانبه قرار دارد و میان سه امپراطوری آلمان، اتریش-مجارستان و روسیه تقسیم شده است. اتحاد مجدد آن دشوار ارزیابی می‌شود؛ و کارگران باید تلاش خود را بر اهدافی متمرکز کنند که مبارزات عملی را در راه رسیدن به نیازهای خاص سامان می‌دهد.

او در رشته‌ای از استدلال‌ها، که در طی سال‌های پیش‌رو به توسعه‌ی آن‌ها پرداخت، به کسانی که روی مسائل ملی متمرکز شده بودند تاخت و نسبت به این خطر که از خطابه‌های میهن‌پرستانه برای کم‌اهمیت جلوه دادن مبارزات طبقاتی و سوق دادن دغدغه‌های اجتماعی به پس‌زمینه استفاده خواهد شد، هشدار داد. نیازی نبود که به تمامی اشکال ستمی که از جانب پرولتاریا متحمل می‌شدند برچسب (متاثر از هویت ملی لهستان) بزنند. او برای جلوگیری از افتادن در این دام، خواهان توسعه‌ی خودفرمانی محلی و تقویت خودگردانی فرهنگی‌ای بود که زمانی اسلوب سوسیالیستی تولید بنا نهاده بود، و به‌مانند سپری در برابر هرگونه تجدید حیات شووینیسم و اشکال جدید تبعیض عمل می‌کند. فشار تمامی این اندیشه‌ها، سبب ایجاد تمایز میان مسئله‌ی ملی و مسئله‌ی دولت ملت بود.

در برابر جریان کنونی

مداخله در کنگره‌ی زوریخ، مظهر تمامی زندگی‌نامه‌ی فکری زنیست که در زمره‌ی یکی از قابل‌توجه‌ترین مروجان سوسیالیسم قرن بیستم قرار دارد. رزا لوکزامبورگ که صد و پنجاه سال پیش در ۵ مارس ۱۸۷۱ در زاموشج، در لهستان تحت اشغال تزاریست متولد شد، تمامی عمر خود را در حاشیه زندگی کرد، با مشقت‌های بسیار دست‌وپنجه نرم کرد و همیشه برخلاف جریان شنا کرد. لوکزامبورگِ یهودی‌تبار، که از یک معلولیت جسمانی مادام‌العمر رنج می‌برد، در بیست و هفت سالگی به آلمان نقل مکان کرد و در آن‌جا از طریق ازدواج مصلحتی، موفق به کسب تابعیت شد. او در همه‌گیری جنگ جهانی اول به طرز سرسختانه‌ای صلح‌طلب بود و همین موجب شد چندین بار به خاطر ایده‌هایش زندانی شود. او دشمن پرشور امپریالیسم، در دوره‌ای جدید و خشونت‌آمیز از گسترش استعماری بود. او در بحبوحه‌ی بربریت علیه مجازات اعدام مبارزه کرد، و -مهم‌ترین جنبه آن است که- اون زنی بود که در جهانی زندگی می‌کرد که می‌توان گفت منحصراً مردان در آن سکونت دارند. او اغلب تنها زن حاظر بود؛ چه در دانشگاه زوریخ، جایی که در سال ۱۸۹۷ با رساله‌ای در باب توسعه‌ی صنعتی لهستان، موفق به اخذ دکتری شد، و چه در جریان رهبری سوسیال دموکراسی آلمان. حزب او را به عنوان اولین زنی منصوب کرد که در کادر مرکزی مدرسه تدریس می‌کند. -وظیفه‌ای که در خلال سال‌های ۱۹۰۷ تا ۱۹۱۴ مشغول به انجام آن بود- برهه‌ای که در آن انباشت سرمایه (۱۹۱۳)‌ را منتشر کرد و برروی پروژه‌ی تکمیل نشده‌ی مقدمه‌ای بر اقتصاد سیاسی (۱۹۲۵) کار کرد. این دشواری‌ها توسط سرشت مستقل و خودفرمان او تکمیل می‌شد؛ فضیلتی که در احزاب چپ نیز اغلب موجب دردسر بود. او با نمایش هوشمندی تند و تیزش، این ظرفیت را داشت که پیش از چهره‌هایی مانند آگوست ببل و کارل کائوتسکی (که امتیاز سازنده‌ی تماس مستقیم با فردریش انگلس را داشتند)، ایده‌های جدید را بدون ایجاد هراس و عملاً با بی‌طرفی غیرخصمانه‌ گسترش داده و از آن‌ها دفاع کند. هدف او از انجام این کار، تکرار دوباره‌ی سخنان مارکس نبود، بلکه تفسیر تاریخی آن‌ها و در صورت لزوم فرارفتن از سطح آن‌هاست. ابراز عقیده‌ی آزادانه و بیانِ مواضع انتقادی در داخل حزب، برای او یک حق مسلم بود. حزب باید فضایی باشد که دیدگاه‌های مختلف بتوانند در آن هم‌زیستی داشته باشند، تا زمانی که کسانی که به آن می‌پیوندند در اصول اساسی آن اتفاق‌نظر داشته باشند.

حزب، اعتصاب، انقلاب

رزا لوکزامبورگ با موفقیت برموانع بسیاری که با آن‌ها روبه‌رو بود، غلبه کرد؛ و در مناظره‌ی سرسختانه‌ای که چرخش اصلاح‌طلبانه‌ی ادوارد برنشتاین را در پی داشت، به چهره‌ای شناخته‌شده در مهم‌ترین سازمان جنبش کارگری اروپا تبدیل شد. در حالی که برنشتاین در متن مشهور خود پیش‌شرط‌های سوسیالیسم و وظایف سوسیال دموکراسی (۹۹-۱۸۹۷) از حزب خواسته بود که پل‌های خود را با گذشته خراب کنند و خود را به نیرویی صرفاً تدریج‌گرا تبدیل کنند، لوکزامبورگ در اصلاحات اجتماعی یا انقلاب؟ (۹۹-۱۹۸۹) اصرار داشت که در طول هر دوره‌ی تاریخی «اعمال انجام‌شده برای اصلاحات تنها در جهتی که انگیزه‌ی انقلاب پیشین را ایجاد کرده ادامه می‌یابد.» کسانی که در پی دستیابی به «مرغدانیِ حکومت پارلمانی بورژوازی» بودند، تغییراتی که فتح انقلابی حکومت ممکن می‌کرد، انتخاب «راهی آرام‌تر، مطمئن‌تر و کندتر به سوی همان هدف» نبود، بلکه هدف به کلی متفاوت بود. آن‌ها جهان بورژوازی و ایدئولوژی‌های آن را پذیرفته بودند. نکته این نبود که نظم اجتماعی موجود را بهبود بخشیم، بلکه این بود که نظم کاملاً متفاوتی بنا کنیم. اتحادیه‌های کارگری -که می‌توانستند شرایط مساعدتر را از اربابان تنها در درون خود اسلوب سرمایه‌داری تصاحب کنند.- و انقلاب ۱۹۰۵ روسیه موجب ترویج افکار راجع به موضوعات و اقداماتی شد که ممکن است تحول بنیادی جامعه را به همراه داشته باشند. لوکزامبورگ در کتاب اعتصاب دسته‌جمعی، حزب و اتحادیه‌های بازرگانی (۱۹۰۶)، که در آن به تحلیل رویداد‌های اصلی در مناطق وسیعی از امپراطوری روسیه ‌می‌پردازد، نقش کلیدی گسترده‌ترین لایه‌های پرولتاریا، که عمدتاً سازمان‌نیافته بودند را برجسته کرد. از دیدگاه او، توده‌ها قهرمانان واقعی تاریخ بودند. در روسیه «عنصر خودجوشی» -مفهومی که باعث شد برخی او را به دست‌بالاگرفتن آگاهی طبقاتی توده‌ها متهم کنند.- حائز اهمیت بوده است. در نتیجه نقش حزب نباید آماده‌سازی اعتصاب دسته‌جمعی باشد، بلکه باید قرار دادن خود در راس جنبش «به عنوان یک کل منسجم» باشد.

برای رزا لوکزامبورگ، اعتصاب دسته‌جمعی «نبض زننده‌ی انقلاب» و در عین حال «قدرتمندترین چرخ محرکه‌ی آن» بود. این اسلوب صحیح «جنبش توده‌ی پرولتاریا و شکل خارق‌العاده‌ی مبارزه‌ی پرولتری در انقلاب» بود. این یک اقدام موردی و مجزا نبود، بلکه ماحصل دوره‌ای طولانی از مبارزه‌ی طبقاتی بود. علاوه بر آن در «تلاطم دوره‌ی انقلابی» پرولتاریا به گونه‌ای دگرگون شد که حتی عالی‌ترین خیرها در زندگی -نه از حیث رفاه مادی- در مقایسه با آرمان مبارزه، ارزش اندکی داشتند. کارگران آگاهی و کمال کسب کردند. اعتصابات دسته‌جمعی در روسیه نشان داده بود که در چنین برهه‌ای «اقدام متقابل و پیوسته‌ی مبارزات سیاسی و اقتصادی» به گونه‌ای که از یکی بلافاصله به دیگری منتقل می‌شد.

Categories
Series-Marx,Engels

Antonio Gramsci. An Intellectual Biography

Categories
TV

Another Marx New Profiles of an Evergreen (Talk)

Categories
Series-Marx,Engels

Marx’s Wager

Categories
Past talks

Another Marx. New Profiles of an Evergreen

Despite the predictions that consigned it to eternal oblivion, Karl Marx’s thought has returned to the limelight in recent years. Faced with a deep new crisis of capitalism, many are again looking to an author who in the past was often wrongly associated with the Soviet Union, and who was too hastily dismissed after 1989. After the waning of interest in the 1980s and the “conspiracy of silence” in the 1990s, new or republished editions of his work have become available almost everywhere. The literature dealing with Marx, which all but dried up twenty-five years ago, is showing signs of revival in many countries.

Categories
Journalism

How Will Russia’s War on Ukraine End?

The war in Ukraine is now in its fourth month. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, it has already caused the death of almost five thousand civilians and has forced almost five million people to leave their homes and flee abroad. These numbers do not include military deaths — at least ten thousand Ukrainians and probably more on the Russian side — and the many millions of people who have been displaced inside Ukraine.
The invasion has also entailed the mass destruction of cities and civilian infrastructure that will take generations to rebuild. The extent of major war crimes, like those committed during the siege of Mariupol, are yet to fully come to light.
Reflecting on the war so far, Marcello Musto sat down with Etienne Balibar, Silvia Federici, and Michael Lowy. Together, they discussed Russia’s culpability, the role of NATO, and paths toward ending the war.

MARCELLO MUSTO    The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought the brutality of war back to Europe and confronted the world with the dilemma of how to respond to the attack on Ukrainian sovereignty.

MICHAEL LOWY  As long as [Vladimir] Putin wanted to protect the Russian-speaking minorities of the Donetsk region, there was a certain rationality to his policies. The same can be said for his opposition to NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe. However, this brutal invasion of Ukraine, with its series of bombings of cities, with thousands of civilian victims, among them elderly people and children, has no justification.

ETIENNE BALIBAR  The war developing before our eyes is “total.” It is a war of destruction and terror waged by the army of a more powerful neighboring country, whose government wants to enlist it in an imperialist adventure with no turning back. The urgent, immediate imperative is that the Ukrainians’ resistance should hold, and that to this end it should be and feel really supported by actions and not simple feelings. What actions? Here begins the tactical debate, the calculation of the efficacy and risks of the “defensive” and the “offensive.” However, “wait and see” is not an option.

MARCELLO MUSTO  Alongside the justified Ukrainian resistance, there is the equally critical question of how Europe can avoid being seen as an actor in the war and contribute instead, as much as possible, to a diplomatic initiative to bring an end to the armed conflict. Hence the demand of a significant part of public opinion — despite the bellicose rhetoric of the last three months — that Europe should not take part in the war.
The first point of this is to avoid even more suffering of the population. For the danger is that, already martyred by the Russian army, the nation will be turned into an armed camp that receives weapons from NATO and wages a long war on behalf of those in Washington who hope for a permanent weakening of Russia and a greater economic and military dependence of Europe on the US. If this were to happen, the conflict would go beyond the full and legitimate defense of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Those who, from the beginning, denounced the dangerous spiral of war that would follow shipments of heavy weapons to Ukraine are certainly not unaware of the daily violence perpetrated there and do not wish to abandon its population to the military might of Russia. “Nonalignment” does not mean neutrality or equidistance, as various instrumental caricatures have suggested. It is not a question of abstract pacifism as a matter of principle, but rather of a concrete diplomatic alternative. This implies carefully weighing up any action or declaration according to whether it brings nearer the key objective in the present situation: that is, to open credible negotiations to restore peace.

SILVIA FEDERICI  There is no dilemma. Russia’s war on Ukraine must be condemned. Nothing can justify the destruction of towns, the killing of innocent people, the terror in which thousands are forced to live. Far more than sovereignty has been violated in this act of aggression. However, I agree, we must also condemn the many maneuvers by which the US and NATO have contributed to foment this war, and the decision of the US and the EU to send arms to Ukraine, which will prolong the war indefinitely. Sending arms is particularly objectionable considering that Russia’s invasion could have been stopped, had the US given Russia a guarantee that NATO will not extend to its borders.

MARCELLO MUSTO  Since the beginning of the war, one of the main points of discussion has been the type of aid to be provided for the Ukrainians to defend themselves against Russia’s aggression, but without generating the conditions that would lead to even greater destruction in Ukraine and an expansion of the conflict internationally. Among the contentious issues in the past months have been [Volodymyr] Zelensky’s request for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, the level of economic sanctions to be imposed on Russia, and, more significantly, the appropriateness of sending arms to the Ukrainian government. What are, in your opinion, the decisions that have to be taken to ensure the smallest number of victims in Ukraine and to prevent further escalation?

MICHAEL LOWY One could level many criticisms at present-day Ukraine: the lack of democracy, the oppression of the Russian-speaking minority, “occidentalism,” and many others. But one cannot deny the Ukrainian people their right to defend themselves against the Russian invasion of their territory in brutal and criminal contempt of the right of nations to self¬determination.

ETIENNE BALIBAR  I would say that the Ukrainians’ war against the Russian invasion is a “just war,” in the strong sense of the term. I am well aware that this is a questionable category, and that its long history in the West has not been free from manipulation and hypocrisy, or disastrous illusions, but I see no other suitable term.
I appropriate it, therefore, while specifying that a “just” war is one where it is not enough to recognize the legitimacy of those defending themselves against aggression — the criterion in international law — but where it is necessary to make a commitment to their side. And that it is a war where even those, like me, for whom all war — or all war today, in the present state of the world — is unacceptable or disastrous, do not have the choice of remaining passive. For the consequence of that would be still worse. I therefore feel no enthusiasm, but I choose: against Putin.

MARCELLO MUSTO  I understand the spirit of these observations, but I would concentrate more on the need to head off a general conflagration and therefore on the urgent need to reach a peace agreement. The longer this takes, the greater are the risks of a further expansion of the war. No one is thinking of looking away and ignoring what is happening in Ukraine. But we have to realize that when a nuclear power like Russia is involved, with no sizable peace movement active there, it is illusory to think that the war against Putin can be “won.”

ETIENNE BALIBAR  I am terribly afraid of military — including nuclear — escalation. It is terrifying and visibly not ruled out. But pacifism is not an option. The immediate requirement is to help the Ukrainians to resist. Let us not start playing “nonintervention” again. The EU is anyway already involved in the war. Even if it is not sending troops, it is delivering weapons — and I think it is right to do so. That is a form of intervention.

MARCELLO MUSTO  On May 9, the Biden administration approved the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022: a package of more than forty billion dollars in military and financial aid to Ukraine. It is a colossal sum, to which should be added the aid from various EU countries, and it seems designed to fund a protracted war. Biden himself strengthened this impression on June 15, when he announced that the US would be sending military aid worth a further one billion dollars.
The ever larger supplies of hardware from the US and NATO encourage Zelensky to keep putting off the much-needed talks with the Russian government. Moreover, given the historical precedent of weapons that were originally sent into active war zones but sticking around long after for different ends, it seems reasonable to wonder whether these shipments will serve only to drive the Russian forces from Ukrainian territory.

SILVIA FEDERICI  I think that the best move would be for the US and EU to give Russia the guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. This was promised to [Mikhail] Gorbachev at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, though it was not put in writing. Unfortunately, there is no interest in seeking a solution.
Many in the US military and political power structure have been advocating and preparing for a confrontation with Russia for years. And the war is now conveniently used to justify a huge increase in petroleum extraction and brush aside all concern for global warming. Already Biden has gone back on his electoral campaign promise to stop drilling on Native American lands. We are also witnessing a transfer of billions of dollars to the US military industrial complex, that is one of the main winners in this war. Peace will not come with an escalation in the fighting.

MARCELLO MUSTO  Let us discuss the reactions of the Left to the Russian invasion. Some organizations, though only a small minority, made a big political mistake in refusing to clearly condemn Russia’s “special military operation” — a mistake which, apart from anything else, will make any denunciations of future acts of aggression by NATO, or others, appear less credible. It reflects an ideologically blinkered view that is unable to conceive of politics in anything but a one¬dimensional manner, as if all geopolitical questions had to be evaluated solely in terms of attempting to weaken the US.
At the same time, all too many others on the Left have yielded to the temptation to become, directly or indirectly, co-belligerents in this war. I was not surprised by the positions of the Socialist International, the Greens in Germany, or the few progressive representatives of the Democratic Party in the US — although sudden conversions to militarism by people who, just the day before, declared themselves to be pacifists always have a shrill, jarring quality. What I have in mind, rather, are many forces of the so-called “radical” left, who in these weeks have lost any distinct voice amid the pro-Zelensky chorus. I believe that, when they do not oppose war, progressive forces lose an essential part of their reason for existence and end up swallowing the ideology of the opposite camp.

MICHAEL LOWY  It is no coincidence that the great majority of the world’s “radical” left parties, including even those most nostalgic for Soviet socialism, such as communist parties of Greece and Chile, have condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Unfortunately, in Latin America, important forces of the Left, and governments such as Venezuela’s, have taken the side of Putin, or have limited themselves to a sort of “neutral” stance — like [Luiz Inacio] Lula [da Silva], the leader of the Worker’s Party in Brazil. The choice for the Left is between the right of peoples to self-determination — as Lenin argued — and the right of empires to invade and attempt to annex other countries. You cannot have both, for these are irreconcilable options.

SILVIA FEDERICI  in the US, spokespersons for social justice movements and feminist organizations like Code Pink have condemned Russia’s aggression. It has been noted, however, that the US and NATO’s defense of democracy is quite selective, considering their record in Afghanistan, Yemen, Africom’s operations in the Sahel. And the list could go on.
The hypocrisy of the US’s defense of democracy in Ukraine is also evident when we consider the silence of the American government in the face of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine and constant destruction of Palestinian lives. It has also been noted that the US has opened its doors to Ukrainians after closing them to immigrants from Latin America, though for many fleeing from their countries was also a matter of life and death.
As for the Left, it is certainly a shame that the institutional left — starting with [Alexandria] Ocasio- Cortez — has supported sending arms to Ukraine. I wish that the radical media were more inquisitive concerning what we are told at the institutional level. For instance, why is “Africa starving” because of the war in Ukraine? What international policies have made African countries dependent on Ukrainian grains? Why not mention the massive land grabs at the hands of international companies, which have led many to speak of a “new scramble for Africa”? I want to ask, once again: Whose lives have value? And why do only certain forms of death arouse indignation?

MARCELLO MUSTO  Despite the increased support for NATO following the Russian invasion of Ukraine — demonstrated by the formal request of Finland and Sweden to join this organization — it is necessary to work harder to ensure that public opinion does not see the largest and most aggressive war machine in the world (NATO) as the solution to the problems of global security. In this story, NATO has shown itself yet again to be a dangerous organization, which, in its drive for expansion and unipolar domination, serves to fuel tensions leading to war around the globe. However, there is a paradox. Four months after the beginning of this war, we can certainly say that Putin not only got his military strategy wrong, but also ended up strengthening — even from the point of view of international consensus — the enemy whose sphere of influence he wanted to limit: NATO.

ETIENNE BALIBAR I am among those who think that NATO should have disappeared at the end of the Cold War, at the same time as the Warsaw Pact. However, NATO had not only external functions but also — perhaps mainly — the function of disciplining, not to say domesticating, the Western camp. All that is certainly linked to an imperialism: NATO is part of the instruments guaranteeing that Europe in the broad sense does not have genuine geopolitical autonomy vis-a-vis the American empire.
It is one of the reasons why NATO was kept after the Cold War. And, I agree, the consequences have been disastrous for the whole world. NATO consolidated several dictatorships in its own sphere of influence. It covered for — or tolerated — all sorts of wars, some of them hideously murderous and involving crimes against humanity. What is happening at the moment because of Russia has not changed my mind about NATO.

MICHAEL LOWY  NATO is an imperialist organization, dominated by the US and responsible for innumerable wars of aggression. The dismantling of this political-military monster, generated by the Cold War, is a fundamental requirement of democracy. Its weakening in recent years has led [Emmanuel] Macron to declare, in 2019, that the Alliance was “brain-dead.”
Unfortunately, Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine has resuscitated NATO. Sweden and Finland have now decided to join it. US troops are stationed in Europe in great numbers. Germany, which two years ago refused to enlarge its military budget despite [Donald] Trump’s brutal pressure, has recently decided to invest one hundred billion euros in rearmament. Putin has saved NATO from its slow decline, perhaps disappearance.

SILVIA FEDERICI  It is worrisome that Russia’s war on Ukraine has produced a great
amnesia about NATO’s expansionism, and its support of the EU and US imperialist policy. It is time to refresh our memory about NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, its role in Iraq, and its lead in the bombing and disintegration of Libya. Examples of NATO’s total and constitutional disregard for the democracy that it now pretends to defend are too many to count. I do not believe that NATO was moribund before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Quite the contrary. Its march through Eastern Europe and its presence in Africa demonstrates the opposite.

MARCELLO MUSTO  This amnesia seems to have affected many forces of the Left in government. Overturning its historical principles, the parliamentary majority of the Left Alliance in Finland recently voted in favor of joining NATO. In Spain, much of Unidas Podemos joined the chorus of the entire parliamentary spectrum in favor of sending weapons to the Ukrainian army and supported the huge rise in military spending. If a party does not have the courage to speak out loud against such policies, it makes its own contribution to the expansion of US militarism in Europe. Such subaltern political conduct has punished leftist parties many times in the past, including at the polls, as soon as the occasion has arisen.

ETIENNE BALIBAR  The best would be for Europe to be strong enough to protect its own territory, and for there to be an effective system of international security — that is, for the UN to be democratically overhauled and freed from the right of veto of the permanent members of the Security Council. But the more NATO rises as a security system, the more the UN declines. In Kosovo, Libya, and, above all in 2013, in Iraq, the aim of the United States and NATO in its wake was to degrade the UN capacities for mediation, regulation, and international justice.

MARCELLO MUSTO  Let us end on what you think the course of the war will be and what are the possible future scenarios.

ETIENNE BALIBAR  One can only be dreadfully pessimistic about the developments to come. I am myself, and I believe that the chances of avoiding disaster are very remote. There are at least three reasons for this.
First, escalation is probable, especially if the resistance to the invasion manages to keep going; and it cannot stop at “conventional” weapons — whose boundary with “weapons of mass destruction” has become very hazy. Second, if the war ends in a “result,” it will be disastrous in every eventuality. Of course, it will be disastrous if Putin achieves his aims by crushing the Ukrainian people and through the encouragement this gives for similar enterprises; or, also, if he is forced to halt and pull back, with a return to bloc politics in which the world will then become frozen.

MICHAEL LOWY  To propose a more ambitious objective, in positive terms, I would say that we should imagine another Europe and another Russia, rid of their capitalist parasitic oligarchies. [Jean] Jaures’s maxim “capitalism carries war like the cloud carries the storm” is more relevant than ever. Only in another Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals — postcapitalist, social, and ecological — can peace and justice be assured. Is this a possible scenario? It depends on each of us.

Either of these outcomes will bring a flare-up of nationalism and hatred that will last a long time. Third, the war, and its sequels, hold back the mobilization of the planet against climate catastrophe — in fact, they help to precipitate it, and too much time has already been wasted.

MICHAEL LOWY  I share these preoccupations, especially concerning the delay in the fight against climate change, which is now totally marginalized by the arms race of all the countries concerned by the war.

SILVIA FEDERICI  I too am pessimistic. The US and other NATO countries have no intention of assuring Russia that NATO will not extend its reach to the borders of Russia. Therefore, the war will continue with disastrous consequences for Ukraine, Russia, and beyond. We will see in the coming months how other European countries will be affected. I cannot imagine future scenarios other than the extension of the state of permanent warfare that already is a reality in so many parts of the world and, once more, the diversion of resources much needed to support social reproduction toward destructive ends. It hurts me that we do not have a massive feminist movement going to the streets, going on strike, determined to put an end to all wars.

MARCELLO MUSTO  I, too, sense that the war will not stop soon. An “imperfect” but immediate peace would certainly be preferable to the prolonging of hostilities, but too many forces in the field are working for a different outcome. Whenever a head of state pronounces that “we will support Ukraine until it is victorious,” the prospect of negotiations recedes further into the distance. Yet I think it is more likely that we are heading for an indefinite continuation of the war, with Russian troops confronting a Ukrainian army resupplied and indirectly supported by NATO.
The Left should strenuously fight for a diplomatic solution and against increases in military spending, the cost of which will fall on the world of labor and lead to a further economic and social crisis. If this is what is going to happen, the parties that will gain are those on the far right that nowadays are putting their stamp on the European political debate in an ever more aggressive and reactionary manner.

ETIENNE BALIBAR  To put forward positive perspectives, our goal would have to be a recomposition of Europe, in the interests of the Russians, the Ukrainians, and our own, in such a way that the question of nations and nationalities is completely rethought.
An even more ambitious objective would be to invent and develop a multilingual, multicultural Greater Europe open to the world — instead of making the militarization of the European Union, inevitable though it may seem in the short term, the meaning of our future. The aim would be to avoid the “clash of civilizations” of which we would otherwise be the epicenter.