the day we formed this blog, Simon and I were in one of our meetings snob, getting drunk with a bottle of wine (apart from bourgeois chicken heads) and discussed on various topics . Talking, Simon tells me "not very logical to me basic axiom of Marxism, which says the primacy of production when analyzing social structures." I, apart from horror (having a heretic to the Marxist axiom continues to impress someone like me) felt a certain extent it was an essential question, which put in jeopardy the cornerstone of Marxism as a method of interpreting reality, and made me think a lot.
What follows is a kind of quick comment (bathed irresponsible hypothesis, which is always good), or opinion about this mystery. I try to give some ideas that can help us to have some opinion to that sharp question. I will be guided by the traditional Marxist framework, but by a kind of scheme that combines arguments of Marx, Weber and Polanyi (scheme very primitive and full of errors likely interprestación, but to the extent that this is not an attempt to make an interpretation of those authors, but busy to give my opinion to a question, I do not care if my interpretations are absolutely right, let's see it only as a game with the authors, as Foucault did with Nietzsche).
Every society needs to articulate relationships between individuals, between these relationships and the nature and means of interaction between man and nature and society (ie, between production tools and humans). This set of relationships forms a base (mantegámosla as a neutral base) within which is the identity of an individual, their world views and perspectives. This base is a base where relationships are about what we produce as a society (bread or guns, or guns artificiciales fires, etc.), How we produce (what kind of relationships are established to produce) and how we distribute surplus of this production or the social surplus (which Adam Smith defined as the difference between production and consumption). Thus, by way of simplifying the argument, let us call this basis, the structure of social relations of production (as you can see, even now I'm just repeating Marx).
However, we argued that this structure is the one that generates productive identities, imagination and meaning to individuals, we have not stated that the production structure is (playing with quantitative concepts) the "independent variable" that explains the world views and frameworks of agents. We only realize its existence, nothing más.Karl Polanyi (in his book "The Great Transformation"), proposes that have existed in history four ways to articulate (to give coherence, or ordering principle) the production structure, which identifies as reciprocity (with its institutional pattern asymmetrical), redistribution (central institutional pattern), finance (autarky) and exchange (market). Do not summarize each, but take the example of reciprocity and exchange.
La reciprocidad es una forma de articulación de la estructura productiva en el cual, los individuos comparten sus productos en forma asimétrica, donde cada uno comparte con su vecino su producción (tipos de articulaciones económicas de los indígenas de Australia) y este tipo de conducta está determinado por sus tradiciones y sus costumbres, por sus creencias y sus visiones de mundo que determinan la forma en cómo se articulará la estructura productiva. Aquí por lo tanto, son las instituciones políticas, sociales y culturales las que determinan la esfera económica, dándole sentido, dirección y coherencia, generando su propio sistema de conductas. Las instituciones políticas (elites gobernantes or not) keep their legitimacy in the past, unchangeable customs (so solid that will not fade in the air yet.) Its kind of domination is sustained by traditions, as Max Weber would argue. Should be affirmed, as noted by Robert Heilbroner, in this type of economic articulation there is no need for the existence of Economists, as all the "economic" is determined by the agreements and consensus-building, social and cultural rights.
By contrast, in the exchange as the guiding principle of the economic structure, it happens quite particular. The development of the industrial revolution coupled with the political development of the nascent bourgeoisie created a unique event in history, a complete uprooting of the economic structure (in the market institution) of the social, political and cultural. Bourgeois sectors, given the need to invest large sums of capital in the emerging industry, also needed to ensure that resources to produce under that big investment to be secured, streamlined. In short nacesitaban that people who work the land where work and instruments of production (the productive structure elements) were coded around the "rational calculation of capital" (based, as Weber says, to judge the actions on the profits generated by ordering the actions on this logic) in order to secure the investment and the ability to generate a surplus to increase the cycle of accumulation (MCM 'as Marx's scheme). In this sense, human beings and their subjective and creative ability to create things found quickly pass the logic of rational calculus of capital to be coded as "labor", eliminating all forms of life that did not happen by the need to sell workforce, to BECOME good. The nature, seen before as divine or direct connection with human beings, becomes a commodity coded as "arable land", to be occupied around the accumulation in the market and production tools (distributed anteriomente as social patterns) become privatized by the rising bourgeoisie (social structure, therefore, must BECOME an aggregate of commercial production structure).
reported at the scene, we have a particular situation. The individual must, to survive, become a commodity, selling their labor power, and subsumed into a logic that is independent of the previous social institutions. The production structure, under the principle of market institutional independence from social institutions and cultural policies that once gave meaning and direction. A fact is symptomatic in this period (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) began to generate a set of knowledge that did not exist and coalesce under the naciende discipline, "economics." The economy now is what explains the State, we the fact that society should create a contract to the State, the fact that society seeks independence of the Leviathan, Hobbes went from one to Smith, a Machiavelli to Bentham . This can be summarized in the statement of Polanyi, "the market economy can not exist without a market society, commercial economic structure can not exist if not to their logic subsuming all other social institutions, if not secularizing what was once sacred, if not is through the process in which "all that is solid melts into air" or, in less metaphorical terms, where the customs, traditions, social agreements and arrangements, political and cultural, become a mere addition of a new ethos rational commercial. Is the fact where the old forms of legal and charismatic domination become monopolized by rational domination.
Moving from the theoretical to the empirical number, do not we see this process mercantlización (pillar of the economic structure rooted in the political and social) for example in the way how to distribute and manage knowledge in contemporary society? Our university not shown as a set of civic knowledge (as required today, in the field of political philosophy, republicanism) but as a set of techniques for insertion of the best labor market, to be useful for labor market . Did not see it in how to manage urban space, where the need to increase the accumulation of the auto industry (and especially China insutria after the FTA with that country) generates truckloads are built púlblicos removing spaces (as in the district of La Reina today it)? Can not you see how the State should ensure the accumulation of capital (translated to generate a climate for investment) for their own material existence (via the collection imposotiva)? Is not patent the hegemony of market logic when the state puts core goal of economic growth (at the expense of ideas such as sustainable development)? or the cultural sphere should be subsumed to the logic of capitalist right when selling fast calls generated films (Titanic, Shrek, Spider-Man) lacks profundiad (Guy Debord defined "performance" as the commodification of culture), does not see a logic, an organizing principle, a structural cause that affects these areas? Not only this, the knowledge itself, themselves ideas and techniques are now privatized under copyright, patent remedies (indigenous stud issue of Australia would be absolutely illogical) and looking forward to own the human genome. With the above I want to reach a conclusion as a hypothesis, the institutional pattern which is organized under the structure of production today (the market) hegemonizes, overdetermined, or "sobrecodifica" the rest of the social, subsumed to the logic, imposing frames close to our own existence, our own imagination and our own expectations. Not only the "Welcome to the Desert of the Real" The Matrix, but "Welcome to the desert of Publication. Jose
What follows is a kind of quick comment (bathed irresponsible hypothesis, which is always good), or opinion about this mystery. I try to give some ideas that can help us to have some opinion to that sharp question. I will be guided by the traditional Marxist framework, but by a kind of scheme that combines arguments of Marx, Weber and Polanyi (scheme very primitive and full of errors likely interprestación, but to the extent that this is not an attempt to make an interpretation of those authors, but busy to give my opinion to a question, I do not care if my interpretations are absolutely right, let's see it only as a game with the authors, as Foucault did with Nietzsche).
Every society needs to articulate relationships between individuals, between these relationships and the nature and means of interaction between man and nature and society (ie, between production tools and humans). This set of relationships forms a base (mantegámosla as a neutral base) within which is the identity of an individual, their world views and perspectives. This base is a base where relationships are about what we produce as a society (bread or guns, or guns artificiciales fires, etc.), How we produce (what kind of relationships are established to produce) and how we distribute surplus of this production or the social surplus (which Adam Smith defined as the difference between production and consumption). Thus, by way of simplifying the argument, let us call this basis, the structure of social relations of production (as you can see, even now I'm just repeating Marx).
However, we argued that this structure is the one that generates productive identities, imagination and meaning to individuals, we have not stated that the production structure is (playing with quantitative concepts) the "independent variable" that explains the world views and frameworks of agents. We only realize its existence, nothing más.Karl Polanyi (in his book "The Great Transformation"), proposes that have existed in history four ways to articulate (to give coherence, or ordering principle) the production structure, which identifies as reciprocity (with its institutional pattern asymmetrical), redistribution (central institutional pattern), finance (autarky) and exchange (market). Do not summarize each, but take the example of reciprocity and exchange.
La reciprocidad es una forma de articulación de la estructura productiva en el cual, los individuos comparten sus productos en forma asimétrica, donde cada uno comparte con su vecino su producción (tipos de articulaciones económicas de los indígenas de Australia) y este tipo de conducta está determinado por sus tradiciones y sus costumbres, por sus creencias y sus visiones de mundo que determinan la forma en cómo se articulará la estructura productiva. Aquí por lo tanto, son las instituciones políticas, sociales y culturales las que determinan la esfera económica, dándole sentido, dirección y coherencia, generando su propio sistema de conductas. Las instituciones políticas (elites gobernantes or not) keep their legitimacy in the past, unchangeable customs (so solid that will not fade in the air yet.) Its kind of domination is sustained by traditions, as Max Weber would argue. Should be affirmed, as noted by Robert Heilbroner, in this type of economic articulation there is no need for the existence of Economists, as all the "economic" is determined by the agreements and consensus-building, social and cultural rights.
By contrast, in the exchange as the guiding principle of the economic structure, it happens quite particular. The development of the industrial revolution coupled with the political development of the nascent bourgeoisie created a unique event in history, a complete uprooting of the economic structure (in the market institution) of the social, political and cultural. Bourgeois sectors, given the need to invest large sums of capital in the emerging industry, also needed to ensure that resources to produce under that big investment to be secured, streamlined. In short nacesitaban that people who work the land where work and instruments of production (the productive structure elements) were coded around the "rational calculation of capital" (based, as Weber says, to judge the actions on the profits generated by ordering the actions on this logic) in order to secure the investment and the ability to generate a surplus to increase the cycle of accumulation (MCM 'as Marx's scheme). In this sense, human beings and their subjective and creative ability to create things found quickly pass the logic of rational calculus of capital to be coded as "labor", eliminating all forms of life that did not happen by the need to sell workforce, to BECOME good. The nature, seen before as divine or direct connection with human beings, becomes a commodity coded as "arable land", to be occupied around the accumulation in the market and production tools (distributed anteriomente as social patterns) become privatized by the rising bourgeoisie (social structure, therefore, must BECOME an aggregate of commercial production structure).
reported at the scene, we have a particular situation. The individual must, to survive, become a commodity, selling their labor power, and subsumed into a logic that is independent of the previous social institutions. The production structure, under the principle of market institutional independence from social institutions and cultural policies that once gave meaning and direction. A fact is symptomatic in this period (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) began to generate a set of knowledge that did not exist and coalesce under the naciende discipline, "economics." The economy now is what explains the State, we the fact that society should create a contract to the State, the fact that society seeks independence of the Leviathan, Hobbes went from one to Smith, a Machiavelli to Bentham . This can be summarized in the statement of Polanyi, "the market economy can not exist without a market society, commercial economic structure can not exist if not to their logic subsuming all other social institutions, if not secularizing what was once sacred, if not is through the process in which "all that is solid melts into air" or, in less metaphorical terms, where the customs, traditions, social agreements and arrangements, political and cultural, become a mere addition of a new ethos rational commercial. Is the fact where the old forms of legal and charismatic domination become monopolized by rational domination.
Moving from the theoretical to the empirical number, do not we see this process mercantlización (pillar of the economic structure rooted in the political and social) for example in the way how to distribute and manage knowledge in contemporary society? Our university not shown as a set of civic knowledge (as required today, in the field of political philosophy, republicanism) but as a set of techniques for insertion of the best labor market, to be useful for labor market . Did not see it in how to manage urban space, where the need to increase the accumulation of the auto industry (and especially China insutria after the FTA with that country) generates truckloads are built púlblicos removing spaces (as in the district of La Reina today it)? Can not you see how the State should ensure the accumulation of capital (translated to generate a climate for investment) for their own material existence (via the collection imposotiva)? Is not patent the hegemony of market logic when the state puts core goal of economic growth (at the expense of ideas such as sustainable development)? or the cultural sphere should be subsumed to the logic of capitalist right when selling fast calls generated films (Titanic, Shrek, Spider-Man) lacks profundiad (Guy Debord defined "performance" as the commodification of culture), does not see a logic, an organizing principle, a structural cause that affects these areas? Not only this, the knowledge itself, themselves ideas and techniques are now privatized under copyright, patent remedies (indigenous stud issue of Australia would be absolutely illogical) and looking forward to own the human genome. With the above I want to reach a conclusion as a hypothesis, the institutional pattern which is organized under the structure of production today (the market) hegemonizes, overdetermined, or "sobrecodifica" the rest of the social, subsumed to the logic, imposing frames close to our own existence, our own imagination and our own expectations. Not only the "Welcome to the Desert of the Real" The Matrix, but "Welcome to the desert of Publication. Jose
0 comments:
Post a Comment