joi, 7 octombrie 2010

Marx şi globalizarea

În urmă cu patru ani, Jacques Attali (fostul consilier al lui Mitterand şi prim preşedinte al BERD) şi Eric Hobsbawm (istoricul de Stânga care a trăit şi scris din plin despre secolul XX) au avut un dialog radiodifuzat, la BBC, despre actualitatea lui Marx. "They came to some unlikely conclusions", se consemna în New Statesman, la vremea respectivă, pe

Hobsbawm constata că "Marx today is incredibly influential. I don't think enough has been made of the BBC poll which named him the most famous of all philosophers. If you actually put "Marx" into Google you will find that there are several million entries - in fact, 39 million when I tried it last time. He is much the largest of the great international presences, exceeded only by Charles Darwin and Adam Smith."

Iar bancherul Attali era de părere că "Marx is an amazingly modern thinker, because when you look at what he has written, it is not a theory of what an organised socialist country should be like, but how capitalism will be in the future. Contrary to the caricature of Marxism, he is first an admirer of capitalism. For him, it is a much better system than any other before it, because he considers the earlier systems to be obscurantist. Once or twice he had the idea that it was going to be the end, but he very rapidly decided that this was not the case, and that capitalism had a huge future.
What is very modern also in his view is that he considered that capitalism would end only when it was a global force, when the whole of the working class was part of it, when nations disappeared, when technology was able to transform the life of a country. He mentioned China and India as potential partners of capitalism, and said, for instance, that protectionism is a mistake, that free trade is a condition for progress.

For Marx, capitalism has to be worldwide before we think about socialism. Socialism for him is beyond capitalism and not instead of capitalism."

Cei doi au apreciat că, undeva, pe la începutul Manifestului Comunist, scris de Marx şi Engels in 1847 (din însărcinarea unei organizaţii despre care încă nu ştim multe) şi publicat în februarie 1848 (când, printr-o uimitoare şi la fel de enigmatică sincronizare, începeau revoluţiile în Europa), era anticipată globalizarea pe care o trăim astăzi.

Attali şi Hobsbawm afirmă tranşant că "the globalised capitalist world that emerged in the 1990s was in some ways uncannily like the world Marx predicted in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto. This became clear in the public reaction to the 150th anniversary of that manifesto - which, incidentally, was a year of quite dramatic economic upheaval in large parts of the world. Paradoxically, it was the capitalists who rediscovered Marx, more than others" şi că "We now have the realisation of some of what Marx anticipated: a globalised economy."

Interesante şi perfect aplicabile acum, în 2010, sunt consideraţiile speciale ale lui Attali, potrivit cărora "Marx predicted that capitalism will grow, that inequalities will grow with it, that the working class will be destroyed and that the workers will be poor. This is not true in the developed world, but if you look at things globally, it is true. Concentration of wealth is growing worldwide. The share of wealth which is owned by a small number is growing, and the number of rich people is narrowing. There are three billion people who live on less than $2 a day and out of nine billion human beings 40 years from now, 4.5 billion will be below the poverty line. This is Marx's nightmare. And you cannot say that they are not workers. Even if they are unemployed, they are workers. And people who work with only their head, or digital workers - they are still workers. The contradictions at the heart of the market economy, to use the modern term, are more true than they ever were when applied to capitalism, which had 19th-century connotations."

În Manifestul Communist nu apare conceptul de "globalizare". Există doar cuvintele "glob", "universal" şi "mondial" în următorul context:

"The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West."

Asta e globalizarea care începea să se contureze atunci, şi ai cărei contemporani, în materie de desăvârşire, suntem astăzi.
Pentru mine, schema Marx versus Dreapta nu se pune în termenii unui meci între galeriile lui Dinamo şi Steaua. Nu mă interesează ce se scandează din tribune şi nici chiar scorul de pe tabelă. Asta fiindcă istoria nu se poate dezvolta după dorinţele cuiva. Mă uit doar la joc şi încerc să anticipez următoarea fază de poartă, mişcările echipelor, relativizarea posturilor şi plasamentul jucătorilor. Şi mă mai uit la uzura gazonului.

E interesant că Attali şi Hobsbawm sunt născuţi în nordul Africii, primul în Algeria, celălalt în Egipt.

Niciun comentariu:

Trimiteți un comentariu

Faceți căutări pe acest blog

Postări populare