tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72256339476560438762024-03-07T22:25:57.728-08:00Self-Managed MarxismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-52984418814719591862017-02-08T06:09:00.003-08:002017-02-08T06:09:13.412-08:00Gender and Ideology - For a Marxist critique of gender ideology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "agaramond bold" , "serif"; font-size: 20.0pt;">Gender and Ideology<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "agaramond bold" , "serif"; font-size: 20.0pt;">For a Marxist critique of gender ideology</span><b><u><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Abstract: The purpose of this
paper is to discuss the issue of gender ideology in a critical and Marxist
perspective. Criticism of the gender ideology is now a must, as well as present
their social roots and their relationship to a particular historical period.
Based on the critical analysis of the work of Joan Scott and his inspiring
sources, especially Bourdieu, it seeks to show the ideological roots of gender
conception.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Keywords: Gender, Ideology,
category, Marxism, Poststructuralism, domination, sex.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The present paper aims to discuss
the issue of gender ideology. We won’t do an archeology of genre term, as some
have done (Stolke, 2004), nor will pursue its etymological roots, nor its past
uses, but only its recent use and its ideological character. The critique of
gender ideology is, nowadays, a necessity as well as present its social roots
and its bond with a certain historical period.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Before we begin, let’s clarify
what we mean by ideology, since this is a polysemic term. Here we use the
Marxist conception of ideology (Marx and Engels, 1991), according to which it
is a systematization of false consciousness, that is, a illusory thinking
system. Ideology is a systematic way of false consciousness produced by the
ideologists. What we term as gender ideology is the conception that places the
construct<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
“gender” as a fundamental term of the analysis of the issue of women and even
of society as a whole.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">We won't present here the most diverse
works that discuss and use the construct “gender”. We will elect one of the
most cited and influential works on this issue for analysis, although other
references are made throughout this text. It is the text of the historian Joan
Scott (1986), <i>Gender: A Usefull Category
of Historical Analysis</i>. Joan Scott presents in her text an overview of
different conceptions of feminist thought and of the use of the construct
(which she denominated category) genre. The various concepts are presented descriptively,
with superficial observations, and the author's point of view is presented
peripherally, with a minimum contribution to the discussion around the issue
that is proposed to treat. In fact, this defect to take long descriptions of
feminist conceptions, consisting of all or almost all of the text, is quite
common and is repeated in Scott's article. She states that the term gender in
its most recent use occurred among American feminists, “who wanted to insist on
the fundamentally social quality of distinctions based on sex”. This use was
aiming to reject biological determinism that would be implicit in the use of
the terms “sex” and “sexual difference”. The term gender would present a
relational view and would present men and women in reciprocal terms, preventing
the separate study of both. But the author points out that more important than
that is that gender “was a term offered by those who claimed that women’s
scholarship would fundamentally transform disciplinary paradigms” (Scott, 1986,
p. 1054). A new methodology and epistemology would be with the term gender,
giving it meaning. However, this position did not come right away:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">For the most
part, the attempts of historians to theorize about gender have remained within
tradicional social scientific frameworks, using longstanding formulations that
provide universal causal explanations. These theories have been limited at best
because they tend to contain reductive or overly simple generalizations that
undercut not only history’s disciplinary sense of the complexity of social
causation but also feminist commitments to analyses that will lead to change
(Scott, 1986, p. 1054).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">After that, the author criticizes
the descriptive uses of those who use the term gender, as well as analyzes the
feminist conceptions starting from the perspective of the origin of patriarchy,
of Marxism, until reach the post-structuralism and the American and British
approach of “relation of object”. She makes some pertinent criticisms of some
of these conceptions, but is rather superficial and does not connect more
effectively with her own conception. However, what interests us here is
precisely Scott's position. In this context, it is crucial her definition of
gender:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">My definition
of gender has two parts and several subsets. They are interrelated but must be
analytically distinct. The core of the definition rests on an integral
connection between two propositions: gender is a constitutive elemento of
social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes, and
gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power. Changes in the
organization of social relationships Always correspond to changes in
representations of power, but the direction of change is not necessarily one
way (Scott, 1986, p. 1067).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">According to Scott, this
definition involves four related elements: 1) the culturally available symbols
evoke symbolic representations; 2) there are normative concepts that present
interpretations regarding the meaning of the symbols, in order to reduce and
contain their metaphoric possibilities; 3) the new conception task is to
overcome the notion of fixity and timelessness of the binary gender
representation, revealing its connection with politics, with the institutions
and social organization; 4) The subjective identity or the “gendered
identities” are built, and it's needed to relate it to “a range of activities,
social organizations, and historically specific cultural representations”
(Scott, 1986, p. 1068). She reveals the key to her conception (Scott</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">, 1986, p. 1069):</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The first part
of my definition of gender consists, then, of all four of these elements, and
no one of them operates without the others. Yet they do not operate
simultaneously, with one simply reflecting the others. A question for
historical research is, in fact, what the relationships amont the four aspects
are. The sketch I have offered of the process of constructing gender
relationships could be used to discuss class, race, ethnicity, or, for that
matter, any social process. My point was to clariy and specify how one needs to
think about the effect of gender in social and institutional relationships,
because this thinking is often not done precisely or sistematically. The
theorizing of gender, however, is developed in my second proposition: gender is
a primary field within which or by means of which power is articulated. Gender
is not the only field, but it seems to have been a persistent and recurrent way
of enabling the signification of power in the West, in Judeo-Christian as well
as Islamic tradicions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Thus here we have a particular
ideology of genre that will be widely used by researchers of various human
sciences and become a great reference, both in academic thinking in this area
as of feminist thought. Thereby, this ideology arises of the refusal of
biological determinism, of essentialism, and ends up proposing a paradigmatic
transformation, presenting gender as a cultural construction and is in the
founder field of power relations. This conception is ideological, that is,
false, although, like every ideology, has moments of truth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The refusal of biologism is
important and necessary, however, when extrapolating this and presenting a
rejection of “biological” (we would say, of corporeality and its importance) –
although this was not explicitly stated, but it was practiced in the rest of
the speech –, we have an ideological production. The social status of women in
modern society is not exclusively derived from its physical/organic
constitution and this is true, but is false from there to deny its existence or
relation to this process. Obviously this will be the starting point for other
ideologies even more misleading and bordering the absurd<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
The criticism of biologism, with regard to women's issues, moreover, is nothing
new as it was born with Simone de Beauvoir (1978) in the 40s of the 20th
Century and contemporary references add nothing and not go beyond the level
presented by her, unless in a retrograde direction. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">What she denounces in the other
approaches is precisely what she does. She provides a universal causal
explanation and held “reductive generalizations” and “overly simple”. The
determinism of gender is an ideological creation not only simplistic, but
dogmatic, as it does not question and reflect on its own fundamentals. It is a
determinism and a reductionism. And it is nonetheless revealed the disregard of
historical materialism or, as is common, reduce it to more simplistic and dogmatic
formulations, ie exchange it for what it's called “vulgar Marxism”, far short
of Marx.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">However, the most problematic
element of Scott's conception is in her pursuit of paradigmatic transformation,
which is based on the idea that gender is the primary way to give meaning to
the relations of power. The basis of such a theory is not held anywhere. References
to Eve and Mary (Christian tradition), or any stereotype of women, outside the
context in which it occurs, not establish nothing. The quotes of thinkers
considered representatives of conservative thought, contrary to the French
Revolution, as Burke, Bodin, among others, can not be generalized, if only
because it is a critique of the Enlightenment and the bourgeois revolution of
pre-bourgeois point of view. And it is nonetheless interesting as several women
authors derive their ideas in the speeches of other women authors (or men authors,
in rare cases) and not in concrete reality (Scott, 1986; Stolke, 2004; Butler,
2003)</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">These conceptions are based on a unquestioned and
unquestionable, that is, a dogma, which reveals a metaphysical abstraction and
that does not explain anything. Taking the specific case of Scott, we have
gender as “primary field” in which or through which “power is articulated”. In
addition to the statement, no justification, other than a brief reference to
the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. The genre here is <i>a priori</i> unquestioned, a dogma, without any justification. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The term gender is a metaphysical
abstraction when seeking to transform it from category to concept<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>,
and so loses all its value. And this is even more serious when one want to put
it as the determination of power relations. Obviously, no substantiated reasons
is given for such priority to “gender” while instituting concept of social
reality and power relationships. The author is content to appeal to Bourdieu
and his reflections. Bourdieu condemns the non-historicity (“naturalization”,
that is, make natural, something that is history), and at the same time does it.
This is due to the fact that he never performs an analysis of the concrete
reality of capitalist society, but purely presents his metaphysical
abstractions about symbolic power, accompanied by his empiricism or its
ideology of “fields” which serves as a model to think the “masculine domination”
(Bourdieu, 2002), an undue extrapolation. In Bourdieu's approach, the
metaphysical abstraction meets the empirical that comes to confirm it, creating
a dichotomous but homologous vision where isolated incidents of all serve as
examples of metaphysical abstractions of symbolic violence and the like.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">One can not think man (male
gender) and women (female gender) as arbitrary cultural constructions. The
representations, real or illusory, according to Marx (Marx and Engels, 1991), are
given from concrete social relations. Everyday representations and ideologies
about female gender (and male gender), are not arbitrary products of “culture”
or “power”, these two metaphysical entities that dominate the anthropological
contemporary discourse or post structuralist, whereas both culture and power of
this ideology appears as something non-historical, indeterminate, asocial. The
perception of the female gender consists historically and socially, but it's
needed to discuss in which historical period and social context it occurs, as well
as understand what is the class position of whom presents it. Let's see what
Bourdieu says:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">The divisions
constitutive of the social order and, more precisely, the social relations of
domination and exploitation that are instituted between the sexes thus
progressively embed themselves in two different· classes of habitus, in the
form of opposed and complementary bodily <i>hexis</i>
and principles of vision and division which lead to the classifying of all the
things of the world and all practices according to distinctions that are
reducible to the male/female opposition. It falls to men, who belong on the
side of all things external, official, public, straight, high and
discontinuous, to perform all the brief, dangerous and spectacular acts which,
like the sacrifice of the ox, ploughing or harvesting, not to mention murder or
war, mark breaks in the ordinary course of life; women, by contrast, being on
the side of things that are internal, damp, low, curved and continuous, are
assigned all domestic labour, in other words the tasks that are private and
hidden, even invisible or shameful, such as the care of the children or the
animals, as well as all the external tasks that are attributed to them by
mythic reason, that is to say, those that involve water, grass and other green
vegetation (such as hoeing and gardening), milk and wood, and especially the
dirtiest, most monotonous and menial tasks (Bourdieu, 2002, p. 30). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">This quotation can be an example
to analyze Bourdieu's procedure and its risks. First, we have a generalization:
on one side “men”, on the other, “women”. Men, according to Bourdieu, are on
the official side, of the right. All the men? The proletarians? The lumpen
proletarians? The peasants? And women are all on the other side, thus there is
no woman who holds power, that is in the state, etc. Women often are left with
the dirty work, they take care of children. The women of the bourgeoisie do
this? They do not hire other women to do it for them? In this approach, it
seems like domestic workers work only for men, and the women of the bourgeoisie
care for children, working in “monotonous and menial tasks”. We do not know
which country and epoch refers Bourdieu. He refers to an abstract-metaphysical world
that does not exist concretely. “Women”, in the plural and in general, has as
task the “invisible, shameful” work, such as child care. Ora, Only from certain
values that caring for children is "shameful", as well as other
examples cited by Bourdieu, ie, humility, shame, etc., is not an attribute of
activities but a valuation or devaluation of activities.<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">In Bourdieu's analysis, phenomena
such as social classes, values, capital accumulation, class struggle, etc., do
not exist. The capitalist domination and the mercantile, competitive and
bureaucratic world also do not exist in his approach. The “masculine domination”
to Bourdieu has a structural homology to the various “camps” that he says exist
in reality (artistic field, political field economic field scientific field etc.)<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
and so has the same fantastic isolation and similar logic, since Bourdieu was
able to invent a “male <i>illusio</i>”<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
But here doesn't fit a general critique of Bourdieu's sociology, that we'll do
another time, but point out that his methodological procedure and his approach
to the issue of women is tied to his abstract-metaphysical building, or
ideological.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Thus, Scott complement to her
analysis appealing to Bourdieu does not hold. But it is nonetheless interesting
this appeal and how a metaphysical approach to the genre in Scott can be
supplemented with other metaphysical approach, Bourdieu's approach. The
rejection of all or reducing it to a sector of reality, arbitrarily chosen as “essential”,
since there was no justification, is a post-structuralist procedure reproduced
by Scott and by gender ideologues.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">We can conclude this analysis of
the construct gender putting his abstract-metaphysical character, coming from
the culturalist fad derived from post-structuralism<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>,
just is a word used to uses and abuses, but that does not explain anything and
does not lend itself to the struggle for social transformation because instead
of unmasking power, hides. The gender construct is a unit of an ideological
discourse. This ideological discourse or perform a fantastic isolation of
relations between the sexes or considers such relations as founders of the
social, or, as they say, power or, even, the power conceived metaphysically
goes on to explain such relations. Thus, culture and power are transformed into
metaphysical abstractions that come to explain and determine everything. In
this last case, the indeterminate (culture, power) becomes the determinant of
social relations, and this ideology that explains nothing becomes hegemonic in
certain circles. In the first case, relations between the sexes (of “gender”) are
determinant, though never substantiated the source of this determination. That's
why the work of Bourdieu is well received by some of the genre ideologues,
because the isolation of these relations is the same type as they do, however,
much is talked about “culture” or “power”, always in an abstract way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Another characteristic that
reproduces the gender ideology is the lack of references to concrete human
beings, concrete social relations. The books of the genre ideologues are full
of references to other works, that is, we are in a bookish world in which a
book refers to several other books (not for them extract concrete social
relations, but only other theses), and a thesis refers to several other
theories, a vicious and self-referential circle of ideological world. No doubt,
there may be exceptions (Bourdieu does not enter in this group, for example,
although his approach of concrete reality is fragmentary and reversed and he is
not exactly one of the representatives of this trendency), but this is the rule
of the gender ideologies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">But what is the source of Scott
and gender ideologues? She herself reveals: “concern with gender as an analytic
category has emerged only in the late twentieth century. It is absent from the
major bodies of social theory articulated from the eighteenth to the early
twentieth centuries” (Scott, 1986, p. 1066). The use of the word occurs in a
particular historical context: “The term gender is part of the attempt by
contemporary feminists to stake claim to a certain definitional ground, to
insist on the inadequacy of existing bodies of theory for explaining
persistente inequalities bewteen women and men” (Scott, 1986, p. 1066).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">This mutation occurs in a “moment
of great epistemological effervescence”:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">In the space
opened by this debate and on the side of the critique of Science developed by
the humanities, and of empiricism and humanism by post-structuralists,
feminists have not only begun to find a theoretical voice of their own but have
found scholarly and political allies as well. It is within this space that we
must articulate gender as an analytic category (Scott, 1986, p. 1066).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The date of the predecessor
studies is the 60s, the time of the counterculture of the hippie movement, the
feminist movement, of Betty Friedan and <i>The
Feminine Mystique</i>, as well as the works of Kate Millet, <i>Sexual Politics</i> and Germaine Greer, <i>The Female Eunuch</i>, which already begin
to use the term gender but without the subsequent connotation. It is from the
cultural counter-revolution, Which began after the defeat of the student
rebellion of May 1968 expressed in the post-avant-garde (art) and
poststructuralism (science)<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>,
that begins the ideological production which will be the basis of gender
ideologies, such as the work of Michel Foucault, the largest poststructuralist
ideology in his “critical” tendency and the other representatives of this
ideology (Guattari, Deleuze, etc.). The ideology of gender is strengthened and
systematized in the 80s. The mutation begins at the 70s: “In an article in 1973
that documents the terminological change of sex to gender, Strathern
anticipates his conception of gender as a symbolic system” (STOLKE, 2004, 91). In
1988, she launched a book which deepens her conception. But it is in the 80s
that feminist analysis about gender relations is more sophisticate. With the
emergence of neo-liberalism, poststructuralism becomes hegemonic and dominant
and the gender ideology is one of its products.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The intellectual productions from
the 70s called “postmodern” are actually reformed and depoliticized versions of
critical trends of the 60s. The struggles of the end of the 60s (that ranges
from the counterculture to the student and workers' struggles in Germany/France,
and the workers' struggles in Italy, etc.) and critical intellectual production
(Debord and the Situationist International, Henri Lefebvre, Marcuse, Sartre,
etc.). Capitalism's mutation occurs from the 60s and is realized in the 80s,
with the emergence of the full regime of accumulation (Viana, 2009; Viana,
201b), which means a cultural transformation that seeks to appropriate the
previous oppositional culture to disarm it and cause it to lose strength and
effect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Poststructuralism has as its
fundamental point the criticism of the approach of the whole, or, as says one
of its main ideologues, of the “meta-narratives” (Lyotard, 1986) It is
precisely this aspect that enables the non-politicisation or micro-reformism,
depending on the approach. Some poststructuralist, when denying all, start to
perform purely descriptive approaches (non-politicisation) of everyday elements
and other reference to power, but purely in everyday scale, isolating the power
relations in a certain place or social relationship and after this isolation,
presents isolated fights and makes its praise, refusing all forms of
articulation and expansion of the fight. This procedure is used initially by
Foucault (1989) and Guattari (1981), and, afterwards is performed by gender ideologues,
which create a set of constructs ahistorical and isolated, as the so-called
“gender relations”, and address some social phenomena creating a small world
reified that references to culture and power, but taken as metaphysical
entities and solely linked to this reified world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Gender ideology arises in this
context. And nothing more revealing than the vicissitudes of feminists who have
embraced this concept and elect power relations as a fundamental and at the
same, time hide or are unaware that these relationships are products of this
same reality and therefore power relations. The “masculine domination” revealed
by Bourdieu is harmless against him, perhaps by reason of being a sociologist,
an intellectual, although he says that intellectuals are a “dominated fraction
of the dominant class” (Bourdieu, 1990). Joan Scott, Judith Butler and all
others are above this “masculine” reality marked by “power relations” and they
are female specimens, but do not suffer the determinations and oppression of
other mortals. In a nutshell, the ideologues think they are as Baron of
Munchausen and thus can be pulled by the hair and become immune to what exists
(culture, power relations, phallogocentrism, male <i>illusio</i>, etc.). The references also have the same “immunity” and
therefore Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, are the great inspirers of the new
ideology. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Thus the archeology of the term
genre is only a description of its uses, but never of its genesis and its
relationship with the social and historical changes. And so once again, it
reproduces the evolutionary and unilinear conception of development of human
thought, which occurs since Comte and Hegel, and reaches today with
"ingenuous" gender ideologues. The ideology has no independent
history, stand-alone (Marx and Engels, 1991), except in the very ideological
discourse, which reverses the reality and presents itself as a product of a
breakthrough and improvement of the previous idea or as a false break with the
predecessor conceptions, but always going towards the absolute truth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Thus, the gender ideology is so
dated historically and socially determined as any other ideology, and its
ideological sources (poststructuralism) as its content, demonstrate the limits
of such approach, revealing only another form of false consciousness
systematized. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">References<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Beauvoir, Simone 1978. <i>O Segundo Sexo</i>. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Bourdieu, Pierre 1996. <i>As Regras da Arte</i>. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1996.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Bourdieu, Pierre 2002. Maculine
Domination. Stanford: </span><span style="background: white; font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Stanford University
Press</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Butler, Judith 2003. <i>Problemas de Gênero. Feminismo e Subversão da Identidade</i>. Rio de
Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2003.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Eagleton,
Terry 1998. <i>As Ilusões do Pós-Modernismo</i>.
Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Foucault
1989, Michel. <i>Microfísica do Poder</i>.
8ª edition, Rio de Janeiro: Graal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1.0cm; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: 7.1pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt;">Guattari, Félix 1981. <i>Revolução Molecular: Pulsações Políticas do Desejo</i>. São Paulo: Brasiliense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Lyotard, Jean-François 1986. <i>O Pós-Moderno</i>. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 1986. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich 1982. <i>A Ideologia Alemã (Feuerbach).</i> 3<sup>a </sup>edition,
São Paulo: Lech.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Scott, Joan 1986. Gender: A Useful Category of
Historical Analysis. The American Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 5. (Dec.,
1986), pp. 1053-1075.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Stolke, Verena 2004. <i>La Mujer es Puro Cuento: La Cultura del Género</i>. <u>Estudos
Feministas</u>. Vol. 12, n<u><sup>o</sup></u> 02. may/aug. 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Viana, Nildo 2007. <i>A
Consciência da História</i>. Ensaios Sobre o Materialismo Histórico-Dialético.
2ª edition, Rio de Janeiro: Achiamé.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Viana, Nildo 2008. <i>Os
Valores na Sociedade Moderna</i>. Brasília: Thesaurus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Viana, Nildo 2009. <i>O
Capitalismo na Era da Acumulação Integral</i>. São Paulo: Ideias e Letras.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Viana, Nildo 2015a. <i>As Esferas Sociais</i>. A Constituição Capitalista da Divisão do
Trabalho Intelectual. Rio de Janeiro: Rizoma.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Viana, Nildo 2015b. <i>Estado, Democracia e Cidadania</i>. A Dinâmica da Política
Institucional no Capitalismo. 2ª edition, Rio de Janeiro: Rizoma.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> A constructor is a false concept, and this
is a correct expression of reality, while that is its distorted expression. See
in Viana, 2007.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> The most explicit example of this
ideological exasperation is Butler's thesis (2003), according to which sex is
an effect of gender and society is based on “compulsory heterosexuality”. That
is, the determinant is the genre (cultural building) and not sex (organism) and
the dominant sexual practices, heterosexuality, is compulsory, product of power
relations, according to his inspiration in Foucault. This hyper culturalist
thesis does not realize that cancels itself and falls into many contradictions.
If it's the genre that produces sex (“woman has no sex”, according to the
epigraph of Irigaray used by Butler) then it is merely a cultural construction.
So what’s the problem? In what a cultural construction is better than the other?
The answer is provided in the second thesis, the thesis of “compulsory
heterosexuality” (not to mention the “phallocentrism”...). If heterosexuality
is compulsory, then people are forced to be heterosexual, which means they are
not naturally so. But if they are forced to be heterosexuals then it is because
they are naturally homosexuals... an inversion (gender determines sex) is
complemented by other (normal and natural is homosexuality...). This
conception, besides having no basis in concrete reality, ends up falling into
essentialism and biologism that it intended to fight (Only reverses/exchange
heterosexual by homosexual essence and the sole basis for such essentialism can
only be biological... After all, for what reason, other than biological, people
would naturally be homosexual?).<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> A category is a resource without mental
existence in the concrete reality, while a concept is an expression of reality
therefore has concreteness. The expression "gender", as relationship,
cause, effect, space, right, left, etc., falls within the first type, and to
move to the second type must have an increase of something real, concrete
(Viana, 2007).<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> About the values and process valuation and
its social character, check Viana, 2008.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> For a critical and distinct analysis of the
analysis presented by Bourdieu about the fields, see Viana, 2015a.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> The <i>illusio</i>
is an expression originally used by Bourdieu to portray the “art of fetishism”,
in which agents of the artistic field endow value to works of art and transform
them into fetishes (Bourdieu, 1996). It is a great extrapolation use this
expression to speak of “masculine domination”.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> What we call post-structuralism is what is
commonly called “postmodernism” and includes the group of emerging ideologies
from the 1970s, and that became hegemonic in the following decades, including
the most varied ideologies.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///F:/Nildo%20Viana/04%20Artigos%202016/Artigos%20sem%20identifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Gender%20and%20Ideology%20-%20Chicago.docx#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Ideologically called “postmodernism”. A
critique of the construct “postmodernism” and a comprehensive review of
post-structuralism can be seen in Viana, 2009. Another criticism of
post-structuralism can be seen in Eagleton, 1998.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE)</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2017, PP 1-7</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
ISSN 2349-0373 (Print) & ISSN 2349-0381 (Online)</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2349-0381.0402001</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
www.arcjournals.org</div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhsse/v4-i2/1.pdf">https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhsse/v4-i2/1.pdf </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-19558705130463722322016-04-19T06:37:00.001-07:002016-04-19T06:37:11.987-07:00KARL MARX: THEORY OF SELF-MANAGEMENT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
KARL MARX: THEORY OF SELF-MANAGEMENT</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was born in Treves, town south of Rhenish Prussia, on the border of France, on 5 May 1818. The son of Herschel Marx, attorney and counselor of justice, Jewish descent, was persecuted by the government absolutist of Frederick William III. In 1835 he completed the junior high school at the Lyceum Friedrich Wilhelm. In the same year and much of 1836, Karl studied law, history, philosophy, art and literature at the University of Bonn.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the end of 1836 goes to Berlin, where he spread the ideas of Hegel, German philosopher and idealist highlighted. Marx aligns with the "Left Hegelian" which seek to analyze social issues, based on the need for changes in the German bourgeoisie. Between 1838 and 1840, is dedicated to the preparation of his thesis, "The difference between the Philosophy of Nature in Democritus and Epicurus" (1841).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx is not accepted in universities and began to work as a journalist writing articles for publication excited for him and Arnold Ruge, the German Annals, but censorship prevents publication. In October 1842, he moved to Cologne, and became the director of the newspaper Gazeta Rhenish, but shortly after the publication of the article on the Russian absolutism, the government closed the newspaper. Is expelled from Germany and goes to France, with his wife Jenny and as Ruge founded the magazine "Annals Franco German", which publishes the Friedrich Engels articles. Marx published "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" and "On the Jewish Question." Logo is expelled from France, and later in Belgium, ending up living in London, England. Participates in the foundation and organization of the IWA - International Workers Association. Passes a period of his life in poverty and survives of the few resources of their articles in newspapers and the help of friends and colleagues. In England, he published part of his great work, Capital.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Karl Heinrich Marx died in London on March 14, 1883, as a result of bronchitis and respiratory problems.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
MAJOR WORKS self-managed</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx had a critical perspective against the utopianism. Critical of utopian socialism, he preached a new company, but did not observe the ways and agents to its constitution concretely, calling for imaginative solutions such as "education", "reason", etc., he wrote little about the society future. Another reason to be cautious when it comes to discussing the future society, is due to its thesis that human emancipation occurs via proletarian revolution and it is the proletariat show concrete way of its realization. In this sense, he devoted most of his work to understand the history of mankind and especially modern society and class struggles that tend to engender communism. In this sense, it produced fundamental works as The German Ideology, Communist Manifesto, The Poverty of Philosophy, The Eighteenth Brumaire of, among others.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His greatest work was The Capital, which was incomplete. He, in life, just published volume 01 and the volumes 2 and 3 were published by Friedrich Engels and Karl Kautsky by 4. In this work, perhaps the most important of modern society, he deepened the analysis of the capitalist mode of production, showing the essence of exploitation of production employed by capital through the surplus value extraction, as well as the process of capitalist accumulation and trends .</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So he wrote little about the future society, with excerpts and observations scattered several works, such as The German Ideology, Paris Manuscripts, Critique of the Gotha Program, The Capital, the Communist Manifesto, among several others, including letters and short texts. The two works in which more develops his analysis of communist society are The Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Program. At first it looks at first self-managed experience of history, the Paris Commune, showing their self-managed character and its universal historical importance; the second criticizes the party nascent German social democratic program and observations about communism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx did not use the term "self-management", which will only emerge in May 1968 in France, but used terms have the same meaning: communism, self-government of the producers, free association of producers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The deformation of Marx's thought by pseudomarxismo and pseudocríticas and misguided criticism from political opponents served to create a dominant interpretation of his thought that links with its deformers (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao Tse-tung, etc.), producers the pseudomarxismo with the state capitalism of the former USSR and the like (Cuba, China, Eastern Europe, Albania, etc.) and the "authoritarianism". This false and dominant interpretation only dims their struggle and contribution to the theory of social self-management, the deeper because by unless you have written about the future society, all made a deep analysis of capitalism and its trends, among others, that are fundamental to a theory of social self-management. The writings that makes references to communism, though few, are fundamental because they break with utopianism, such as pre-manufactured by ideologists and Utopians models, and highlight key elements, such as the need to think the agent of the revolution, the proletariat and their historical experiences, and be careful with the process of counterrevolution and its dangers and mechanisms to try to weaken this trend.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
LINKS FOR BOOKS AND ARTICLES self-managed</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
MARX, KARL. The Civil War in France. Several editions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
MARX, KARL. Critique of the Gotha Program. Several editions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See also: Recommended Reading and Texts for more bibliographical information from / on Marx and self-management.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_805052149"><br /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://autogestaosocial.blogspot.com.br/">http://autogestaosocial.blogspot.com.br/</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://marxismoautogestionario.blogspot.com.br/">http://marxismoautogestionario.blogspot.com.br/</a></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-1115396377284347112016-02-05T12:10:00.000-08:002016-02-05T12:10:08.473-08:00Radicalism And Humanism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
Radicalism And Humanism</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
Nildo Viana</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Humans are capable of the most beautiful acts and speeches and at the same time, concepts and more ignoble attitudes. They can act with extreme grandeur and generosity on the one hand, and extreme smallness and meanness on the other. This process is of particular importance in the field of revolutionary militancy in which extremism is often confused with radicalism and when this occurs there is a confusion between being revolutionary and be bloody. Therefore it is important to discuss the relationship between humanism and radicalism, as a revolutionary individual must unite the two into one, which does not always happen and thinking about it may clarify and help overcome this dichotomy in some individual cases .</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The goal of a revolutionary is obviously the revolution. Undoubtedly, you can not fall into the mistake of believing that everyone who is said to be the only revolutionary for having said such a thing. Not analyzing an individual by the consciousness that he has of himself, as Marx said (1983a). Not least because what is meant by "revolution" and "revolutionary" varies according to the people. A revolutionary in the sense used here which obviously excludes many cases is that individuals who aims at revolution and understand this as a process of human emancipation via emancipation of the workers, or more precisely, of the proletariat. So accordingly excludes those who think that a revolution is a seizure of state power, replacing a government, among other ways of thinking only in the sense of a "political revolution" because human emancipation can only occur through a revolution social, ie the radical transformation of all social relations. If the goal of the revolutionary is the revolution that liberates humanity as a whole, then there is a humanist basis that goal. There is therefore dichotomy between the radicalism of a revolutionary who wants a radical transformation of social relations to free human beings from exploitation, domination, oppression, and humanism. However, precisely this dichotomy often appears and that's what we have to reflect.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The word humanity can also be seen in various forms. It is not up here a conceptual discussion and not address all its manifestations, just expose the two basic forms of existing humanism. One is the romantic humanism, or "abstract", which, as Rousseau (1989), believes that man is "good by nature" and attributes this quality to all human beings without distinction, based on this principle. The human being here is a core value and this is positive, although problematic. To understand its problematic character it needs to move to the radical humanism, which is a concrete humanism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As opposed to the abstract (in the metaphysical sense), concrete is "a result of their multiple determinations" (Marx, 1983a). In this conception, the human being is neither good nor bad by nature. What characterizes the human essence is work and sociability, as Marx already pointed (Marx, 1983b; Marx, 1988; Marx and Engels, 1991). The human being is active. He, unlike the other animals, acts on the world, transforms nature and humanizes her and himself. It does this in association or cooperation with other human beings, also being a social being. Thus, the conscious teleological work, praxis, and the association with other human beings are human needs, are part of its essence. However, with the emergence of class society, this essence is denied. Work and sociability are perverted, distorted. Work becomes alienated, directed by others, founding the exploitation and domination and sociability becomes, because of this conflict. In capitalism, more specifically, the operation at work and domination occurs through the extraction of surplus value and sociability shall be controlled, in addition to the conflict classes by competition. In this sense, class societies deny human nature and capitalist society leads to such extreme denial.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In these societies, and more broadly in capitalism, the human essence is denied and distorted. Monstrosities emerge from those practiced by individuals to the collective, as can illustrate the case of a psychopath, in the first case and Nazism in the second. So the romantic humanism is illusory. The radical humanism is one that does not ignore the history and the denial of human nature under capitalism, source of psychic imbalances, but also has no illusions with the world of appearance falling into anti-humanism, thinking that human beings are "selfish" by nature, understanding the broader social process based on class struggle. However, the radical humanism also does not confuse existence with essentially no illusions with "empirical" and knows that behind the psychic destruction of human beings and all other problems such as deformed values, reified consciousness, etc., the essence exists, stifled and repressed, but it's there. Everyone has psychic need for association with other human beings and fulfill their potential and if this does not materialize, there are effects, including the revolutionaries are products that. Revolutionaries are the individuals for expressing the desire of human emancipation, of others and of themselves, although many also know that may not live to see it. No doubt this is different from revolt or rebel. The first only dreams of outright destruction in the background do not want to change anything, just want to destroy what he identified as the cause of their ailments. The rebel is one who only asks what it achieves and instead of radically transforming social relations or, in the background, change its position within that society, so it is easily co-opted and corrupted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, the radical humanism maintains the unity between humanism and radicalism. As it was for Marx, "to be radical is to go to the root, and the root for man is man himself" (1977). Radicalism without direction there is pseudorradicalismo. It can not generate human liberation becoming inhuman. Humanism without radicalism is romanticism and the "radicalism" without humanism is inconsequential extremism. The romantic humanism generates reformism or sentimentality and extremism generates authoritarianism, morality, nihilism. For revolutionary praxis or abstract humanism or extremism are appropriate. Only the radical humanism is corresponding to such a practice. The radical humanism prevents naive actions derived from romantic humanism, such as thinking that a popular demonstration during radicalized social struggles can appeal to the kindness and non-violence of the repressive state apparatus (police, army). Likewise, also avoids the practice of the Jacobean terror. As Rosa Luxemburg put,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"The proletarian revolution does not need terror to achieve its goals, it hates and abhors the murder. It does not need these means of struggle because it does not combat individuals but institutions, because it does not enter the arena full of naive illusions that lost, would lead to a bloody revenge. It is not the desperate attempt of a minority to mold the world forcibly according to its ideal, but share the great mass of the millions of men of the people, called to fulfill its historic mission and to make the historical need a reality "( LUXEMBOURG, 1991, p. 103).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Accordingly, it can not fall into the romantic humanism misconceptions and derivatives (sentimentality, pacifism, reformism) nor the reckless extremism (authoritarianism, morality, nihilism, aggression or unnecessary violence), both in revolutionary moments as in periods of retreat the labor movement, these two types of action only hinder the advancement of the struggle for radical transformation of society. It is for this reason that both the romantic humanism as extremism must be overcome by radical humanism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
References</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
FROMM, Erich. The Dogma of Christ. 5th edition, Rio de Janeiro, Zahar 1986.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
LUXEMBURG, Rosa. What Whether Spartacus League? In: LUXEMBURG, Rosa. The Russian Revolution. Petrópolis, Vozes, 1991.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The German Ideology (Feuerbach). 3rd Edition, São Paulo, Hucitec 1991.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx, Karl. Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 2nd Edition, São Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1983a.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx, Karl. Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Introduction. Magazine Themes of Humanities. Sao Paulo, Grijalbo, vol. 2, 1977.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. In: FROMM, E. The Marxist concept of man. 8th Edition, Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1983b.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marx, Karl. The capital. Vol 1. 3rd Edition, São Paulo, New Culture, 1988.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men. Sao Paulo: Attica, 1989.</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-43282931833678923242015-09-27T11:51:00.000-07:002015-09-27T11:51:47.511-07:00Who is Afraid of Utopia?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
Who is Afraid of Utopia?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
Nildo Viana</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Socialism has often been labeled a utopia and that word is understood as synonymous with impossible dream. Now, with the crisis countries' so-called "socialist, has become" intellectual fashion "say that socialism and Marxism died and it is proven its utopian character. This is the dominant ideology but we should never forget that "the dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling class" and that we must refute them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let us begin by the meaning given to the word utopia. To understand how "impossible dream", it becomes a weapon to discredit opponents of the current social system. In the French Revolution of 1789, the royalists have accused Republicans of "utopians", as this would be impossible dream. But in the meantime, the republic was established, this dream came true. Those who advocate the maintenance of the social system accuse the subversive and revolutionary ideas of being utopian. Auguste Comte criticizes the utopia in opposition to her reality. He considered it a 'metaphysical and irrational dream ", contrary to scientific knowledge. Such knowledge, however, is positivism, which takes reality as if she did not have contradictions and did not become, or are stuck in the cage of the "eternal present," ahistorical. Conservative thought that attacks the utopia can not see a foot in front of the nose, which is, for this thought, a "tangible reality"; is a prisoner thought into the gift and that can not exceed the limits of the here and now; is a thought without perspective and therefore no action and hence the pre-human attitude that outputs the existing without trying to overtake him.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But through a critical analysis we can say that the bulk of utopias can be found in the work of the structure The Utopia of Thomas More. In the first part of this book, he criticizes the society of his time and the second describes the island of Utopia, which has a "perfect" social organization. It is seen in the first part, for example, a criticism of enclosures (enclosures) in England and in the second part describes a society without private property and without social division of labor. Even if there were the first part of the work, as in many other utopias, would be implicit criticism of such a society that lived with private property, the social division of labor, etc. In the case of Morus, criticism is explicit, as noted in comparison he made between work in Utopia and of English society, as in Utopia does not work as a "workhorse" from "dawn to night ", which would be worse than the" torture and slavery ", although this is in" another part "a" sad fate of the workers. " Utopia means, then, a critique of existing society and a proposal for a new society. Every criticism of the existing brings itself, implicitly, a proposal for a new society and every proposal for a new society brings out in a critique of existing society.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Western Marxist Ernst Bloch classifies utopias into two main types: the abstract and the concrete. From this we can say that Morus, Campanella, among others, produced abstract utopias, because, despite having a review and an "alternative" to the existing society, they had very limited criticism and projects that often catered to the whims of some individuals or small social groups rather than the interests of the community. Their alternative society proposals It clashed with their actual possibility of implementation at the time they were written. But the major flaw of abstract utopias and characterizing them, according to Bloch, is that they do not present as is the case of this company for future society.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another type of abstract utopia is produced by the utopian socialists. They did a more thorough critique of capitalism and, despite the shortcomings, this was his most revolutionary aspect. They also proposed to build new companies but the advance from earlier utopias is that the critique of capitalism has become better grounded and also began to deal with the transition from one society to another. However, the utopian socialists understand that the transition to "socialism" would take place with the support of the State or the "educated classes" or even by "education", the "awareness" and "reason". Here is revealed the main limitation of utopian socialism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The other type of utopia, concrete, is based, as Bloch said, the perception of really possible, as opposed to the abstract utopias. In this sense, Marxism is a concrete utopia. When operating the critique of bourgeois society, Marx and Engels analyzed the historical possibilities of establishment of socialism and how it would happen. The concrete utopia is revolutionary theory that is not only possible and necessary as its implementation is the likely outcome of the historical process.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The crisis of state capitalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe makes the radicalized and intellectualized fraction of our helper classes of the bourgeoisie resume pre-Marxist ideas and goes on to consider Marxism as something "outdated". Without the crutch that was the USSR and Eastern Europe, the auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie do not take that "support" to continue their "heroic struggle" for "socialism." This is where Marxists and ex-Marxists begin to qualify Marx as an idealist. As said Claude Lefort, among others, the idea of a classless society is only an ideal created by Marx. The ideal floor for many, is synonymous with utopia. Both concepts in this case are understood as a proposal that does not take into account the possibilities of its realization. In a dialectical analysis we can say that the reality of modern societies is dominated by exploitation, oppression and alienation. This reality contradicts human aspirations become undesirable and view it this way produces the will to create a humane society. The "ideal" does not arise arbitrarily, but the real need. However, because the real is in motion and the ideal that emerges from it is also on the move, seeking to overcome them and the real, we can say that is the real with the possible paths that can go that creates the ideal and this or stands for and reinforces one of these paths or arises from these paths and becomes pure "abstraction." Therefore, this "ideal" is not a simple creation "arbitrary and illusory", but the real denial.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From this we can say that Marx was not the idealistic philosophical sense of the word but was idealistic from the common notion that attaches to this word the position of a person who has a dream. However, Marx was not an idealist as Morus and Campanella. In this case it comes to the same distinction between abstract and concrete utopia utopia presented above. Marx was not an abstract ideal but a concrete ideal and not make such a distinction is the same as working with the conservative propaganda, many "Marxists" are doing after the state of crisis of capitalism ("socialism").</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's see if the Marxist utopia is concrete or not. There is the "Marxism" two positions on the establishment of socialism: the economist and idealistic (in the philosophical sense of the word). The economistic position generates two other locations: the reformist and catastrophic. The reformist position conceives the economic development of capitalism leads to its own resilience and so it is possible to pass to socialism gradually gaining ground in Parliament and in the state and go from this building socialism. This is the proposal of evolutionary socialism of Kautsky and his followers. The catastrophic position conceive that there will be a "final crisis of capitalism" and therefore should prepare a class party that will take power with the rise of the famous "final crisis". This is the proposal of Amadeo Bordiga.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idealistic position also generates two other locations: the avant-garde revolutionary spirit and the avant-garde reformism. Fans of avant-garde revolutionary spirit conceive that the "objective conditions" of the socialist revolution are ripe, and what is lacking are the "subjective conditions" that will be created by the "Party of Vanguard" due to the working class inability spontaneously acquire your conscience class. It is the party, through its intellectuals, working out socialist consciousness and introduce the proletariat and therefore has the "historical right" to direct it towards the conquest of state power. In this case is not a class, but the party is the revolutionary subject. This is the proposal of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Others, the avant-garde reformist, say the bourgeois ideology dominates the whole society, including the "lower classes", then it is up to the intellectuals of the party draw up a new "world view", "new values", etc., and thereby unify such classes and promote a cultural change and so gain hegemony, required the implementation of socialism. This and the proposal of some "interpreters" of Gramsci.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But these positions are compatible with Marx? According to Marx, communism is not an ideal (abstract) but a real movement which abolishes the present state of things. Actual assumptions are universal development of productive forces and the emergence of a mass of humanity devoid of property at odds with a world of existing wealth and culture produced by the very development of the productive forces. In other words, the assumptions are: the formation of capitalism and the proletariat and, through capitalist development, the creation of a world market. Capitalism creates to develop and strengthen its own negation: the proletariat. Thereafter socialism becomes a historical trend.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From this, we can say that capitalism is abolished by capitalist development and thus creates communism. However, the creation of communism is the work of the working class. The first statement without the second takes into account only a metaphysical development of the productive forces to the detriment of the class struggle and social classes that would be, in this analysis, passive. Communism does not arise "economically" within capitalism, ie capitalism, of course, does not create collective ownership inside. Capitalism does not create communism directly but creates the proletariat which is the constitution of communism agent. Capitalism destroys itself but that does not mean that the result of its destruction is socialism. Bukharin had already noticed that might arise a post-capitalist society and non-socialist and this would be the result of development of productive forces and Marx said that there could be a positive abolition of private property (bourgeois), which means that there could be, too, a negative abolition. Marx's method is, as noted Bloch, a "science of the trend" and not a pure and simple economic determinism. Socialism is a need of humanity and a historical trend. Therefore, it is not "inevitable", ie is not the only historical possibility, although it is the most likely.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Bordigist theory states that it is the party that holds the revolution is not true. As I said Otto Rühle, "the revolution is not party affair". The proletarian revolution can only be made by the class and the parties can even make "revolutions" or counter-revolutions, but can not make the communist revolution. Also, it does not justify the mechanistic theory of waiting the "final crisis of capitalism", because, as already noted Marx, revolutions can be anticipated.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Engels, in criticizing the utopian socialists, said that his main problem was not based on labor movement. These, according to Marx and Engels, came at a time when the proletariat was in training and therefore "the historical activity replace your own imagination, the historical emancipatory conditions, fantastic conditions, and the spontaneous and gradual organization of the proletariat in class social organization prefabricated for them. In his view, the story of the future is summarized in advertising and in the achievement of their social organization plans ".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This position would be taken up by Lenin in Tsarist Russia with its proletariat in formation. Bolshevism is an ideological expression of the backwardness of tsarist Russia. Social organization prefabricated by Lenin, the vanguard party, has its justification in the "vanguard ideology," according to which class consciousness does not arise spontaneously in the proletariat but only through bourgeois intellectuals gathered in the party. This thesis was supported philosophically by Georg Lukacs who said the passage of the proletariat "class in itself" to "class for itself" is mediated by the party, which is where intellectuals are. These, to discover the proletarian class interests, attributes his conscience that should have their interests, that is, the proletarian class consciousness is a consciousness attributed to him by the intellectuals. But leaving aside the "metaphysical phraseology" of Lukács and Lenin, let us see what Marx says, "economic conditions initially transformed the mass of the country workers. The domination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass therefore is already in view of the capital, a class, but still it is not for herself. In the fight that pointed out some phases, this mass comes together, constitutes class for itself. The particular interests become class interests. " Therefore, the proletariat acquire class consciousness (passes or class in itself to class for itself) through the class struggle, ie without party mediation or intellectuals. You can only choose: Marx or Lenin?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today it has become common to many "Marxists" and former "Marxists" focuses on awareness and changing values. Some far right, who claim to represent a "new left", launch their appeals "cultural" for the conquest of hegemony from all social classes, since they overcame the "proletarian myth." This is a beautiful return to pre-Marxist socialism based on an abstract humanism that neither the so-called "young Marx" agreed. But if such arguments were normal at the time of the utopian socialists, given the degree of development of the proletariat, are today more than outdated and are an expression of the crisis of conscience auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie and do not serve the struggle for socialism. Either way, favoring awareness and changing values in a position to the right or to the left, is a epistemologically idealistic stance that generates an elitist political practice, since they are the intellectuals of the "new" left that will educate the "world ignorant "and do it, as Marx said, open your mouth and swallow the" roast duck absolute knowledge ".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All these positions have in common, apart from positivism, the denial of the revolutionary role of the proletariat. This is "passive" and only comes into play when it is called by Kautsky to vote on them, when the Bolshevik vanguard drives you and gives the socialist consciousness or are made aware by "would-be reformers of the world" (Marx). If Marx were alive and their "followers" were just these certainly would resume Heine metaphor: "My evil was sown dragons and have reaped only fleas."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The creation of communism is the work of the working class, then it is the historical experience of the labor movement we can find out how this will happen. The socialist theory justifies its name is based on the real movement of workers. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, proposed the nationalization of the means of production under control of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, but after working experience in the Paris Commune, they turned back and said they did not just win the state power and use it according to their interests, it is necessary to destroy it and replace it with the "self-management of producers." After Marx, was Rosa Luxemburg who was based in the real labor movement to develop its revolutionary theory. Rosa Luxemburg when observing the explosion of mass strikes in several countries and especially in Czarist Russia, set them as the most powerful political weapon of the proletariat. The considered "anarchist theory" was taken up by Rosa Luxemburg as a universal force of workers' struggle. The strikes began to be advocated by Bernstein, but only to serve the parliamentary struggle of the German Social Democracy and Kautsky and Trotsky soon abandoned this position, the first to take on their reformism and the second to join the Bolshevism. After Rosa Luxemburg, fell to the ground councilists communist revolutionary theory in the labor movement. The Russian Revolution, the German Revolution, among other attempts at proletarian revolution in the early 20th century, were the scene of mass strikes that led to the workers' councils and were theorists such as Karl Korsch, Anton Pannekoek, Hermann Gorter, Helmutt Wagner, Paul Mattick, Otto Rühle, among others, who have taken this experience of workers - workers' councils - as a form of revolutionary organization of the proletariat. Pannekoek said at the time of Marx and Engels there was the possibility to predict clearly how the proletariat would take power and the old state power, the revolutionary process, would be destroyed and replaced by workers' councils. Without forgetting the most recent contributions and new issues arising from the historical development, we can say that these are the theoretical principal of the proletarian revolution and also that they are opposed to both social democracy and Bolshevism, which, as it was for the Marxist historian Arthur Rosenberg, have nothing to do with the labor movement.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But today tell us that all this is utopia. Who say that are those who have "committed to the existing society." It is these who are afraid of utopia and we know very well that no one fears "unrealistic dreams". Nothing is more ridiculous to say that the historical changes in Eastern Europe show that there will be no historical changes. The ideologues of the ruling class are so competent in reversing the reality using the very historical movement to say that it does not exist. However, the most curious of all is that those who until recently called themselves "defenders of workers" now take a conservative speech on behalf of "political realism". Communism went to these, capitalism denying to just a "patch" of this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The formula "democratic socialism" is a beautiful example of this. Socialism, by nature, is democratic and genuine democracy can only exist in socialism, that is, such an expression is a contradiction. They tell us that democratic socialism will state planning living with the laws of the market and also with small and medium property. What is this socialism? Let's look first to what sectors of society such social project benefits: state planning serves the interests of the bureaucracy and the small and medium property serves the interests of small and medium bourgeoisie. Now let's see what happens with its historic extension: any economist knows that small and medium property living with the "market forces" soon become large properties, meaning there is a return to previous situation. For workers such proposal waves only with the "redistribution of income", ie, the decrease in the rate of exploitation and not its abolition. This proposal aims to build actually a reformed capitalism and not the communist mode of production.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Communism is not income redistribution, but a mode of production in which workers collectively drive the means of production implanting communist relations of production, for the redistribution of income can be redone again and against the workers if they do not detain the property and direction of the means of production. It is the mode of production which determines the distribution and this is why, among other reasons, that communism is based on production. The concept of "democratic socialism" only attacks the surface issues of capitalism and not the essential. Remains commodity production, the law of value, private property, social classes, wage labor, the more value, the state, etc., and consequently the exploitation, oppression and alienation. The "democratic socialism" of socialism in name only. Under the guise of political realism, cling to positivism and reformism. But in contrast there is the utopia with its critical-revolutionary character denying political realism and its inherent conservatism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Communism is the socialization of the means of production based on social ownership. Paul Mattick was right when he said that "nothing proves more forcefully the revolutionary character of Marx's theories than the difficulty of ensuring its continued non-revolutionary periods." The overcoming of capitalism movement of communism becomes just a name that justifies even the permanence of bourgeois society, now reformed. Though they say that Marxism died, the trend is the rise of the revolutionary movement and consequently of Marxism. The working class will go your way and let others babble.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Article originally published in: Journal Brazil. Revolutionary. Year 2, n. 7, December 1990.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-62250678756794508382015-09-06T14:48:00.000-07:002015-09-06T14:48:40.676-07:00ANT: SELF-ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS SELF-MANAGED<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The ANT - National Association of Workers of self-management trend, has just been founded in Brazil. The ANT is posited as not being a trade union, party or bureaucratic organization, not being a supposedly entity "representative" of workers. It arises as the self-organization of revolutionaries and self-managed workers who seeks to express the interests of the revolutionary proletariat and advance in the struggle for proletarian hegemony.<br />
<br />
See more at: <a href="http://ant-luta.blogspot.com.br/">http://ant-luta.blogspot.com.br/</a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-13770101926257529522015-08-08T14:17:00.000-07:002015-08-08T14:17:51.184-07:00The ideology of gender is not Marxist<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The ideology of gender is not Marxist</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
Nildo Viana</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reading the latest issue of the Journal Option, I came across the priest's text Luiz Carlos Lodi regarding the gender ideology. The author aims to question this ideology and makes a number of statements that would like to comment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first point I would highlight is the claim that such an ideology has "Marxist origin." I will have, due to reasons of space, to be very brief about the origins of this ideology. For further insight into just consult my article "Gender and Ideology" in the collection The Women's Issues (Rio de Janeiro, Modern Science, 2006). Marxism exerted a strong influence on feminism of the 60s, but loses such influence over the next decade. From the 70 post-structuralism arises (better known as "postmodernism") that passes, gradually gaining ground and become hegemonic, presenting itself as the overcoming of Marxism - the new big opponent of this theory which replaces former adversaries defeated by Marxism after the social struggles of the late '60s, structuralism, which was functionalism substitute.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The new feminism reference hegemonic speaking, becomes the post-structuralism, and the emergence of gender ideology is precisely in the 70s and is strengthened in the 80s, when the post-structuralism wins global force. The ideology of gender thus born in opposition to Marxism, particularly to replace the question of social classes by gender issues, replacing a social theory by a culturalist ideology.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To say that the origin of gender ideology is Marxist, or say that it is a Marxist character, is a misnomer, as the fundamental principle of Marxism, class struggle, is replaced by a fanciful "struggle of genres." Another radical difference between gender ideology and Marxism is epistemological, because for Marxism, the entire category is fundamental and one can only understand a social phenomenon in the set of social relationships, while the gender ideology, following the fashion poststructuralist, abandons the vision of totality, empowering and essentializing the "gender relations". The issue of women in the Marxist approach, is involved in the set of social relations and can not leave the issue of corporeality to analyze the relationships between the sexes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The existence of some similarities between this design and Marxism does not make it a Marxist conception. This is not a commendable method or effective to understand the historical development (or cultural) of humanity, for the same procedure could be used and see similarities between Nazism and Christianity, or between fascism and contemporary feminism, and assert that Nazism has Christian origin and contemporary feminism has fascist origin, which only very irresponsible and decontextualisation could be stated. Undoubtedly, one can find some similarities between the gender ideology and Marxism, and note that there are some feminists who seek to join the two conceptions. However, if a notebook has leaves and a tree as well, this does not cause the tree to be a notebook or vice versa, even because they are "different" sheets.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On practical proposals derived from gender ideology, we note that they derive the culturalism that is at its base. On the one hand we have the conception of the question of the woman who is "naturalizing", biologist, which is typical of conservative view, on the other hand we have the gender ideology, where everything turns into "cultural construction". This ideology, as in more extreme view of Judith Butler, it generates a reversal of the traditional view and reaches the absurd to say that heterosexuality is compulsory and that sex (embodiment) is constructed by gender. Now the view that gender roles are socially constituted was produced by sociology and anthropology, as well as the critique of biological determinism on the issue of relations between the sexes was effected pioneered by Simone de Beauvoir in the 40 Not to mention the Marxism and various currents of psychoanalysis.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Accept and naturalize "the woman's place is at home" is not only a great conservatism but also a pre-scientific position and pre-Marxist. Extreme (and error) that is opposite unlink "gender" and sex means nothing more than abolish a part of concrete reality to defend their interests, or to stay "fashionable", which is a form of interest, since linking with the fad allows "competitive academic advantage."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So we must question not only the post-structuralist theories, as the revived conservatism (and manifesting in various forms, including in the form of religious fundamentalism) in contemporary society.</div>
<br />
NILDO VIANA is professor of UEG and a doctorate in sociology from UNB.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-42764876658978889762015-08-03T03:50:00.002-07:002015-08-03T03:51:30.928-07:00Self-Managed Marxists 03: Maurício Tragtenberg<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
Mauricio Tragtenberg (city of Getulio Vargas, November 4, 1929 - São Paulo, November 17, 1998) was a sociologist and professor.<br />
<br />
BIOGRAPHY<br />
<br />
Tragtenberg was born in Minas Gerais, the Brazilian state, and moved to São Paulo, where he began his political activities, and later academic. As he had not completed the regular school and his university entrance was through the production of test planning - Challenge of the twentieth century, which was later turned into a book. With the acceptance of the text by the University, is qualified to provide the entrance exam. Okay, you get to attend the course of Social Sciences. A year later paid back entrance exam - this time for the course of history, he said. During the military dictatorship wrote his doctoral thesis in Politics, also from USP. And he began to devote himself to teaching career, teaching at undergraduate and graduate universities such as PUC-SP, USP, UNICAMP and "Getulio Vargas Fundation" (FGV).<br />
<br />
In academia, Tragtenberg became known as a self-taught. He called himself "a kind of anarchistic Marxist". Irreverent with respect to the symbols and the antics of the authoritarian power, was an independent and critical intellectual in relation to the academic bureaucracy, he despised.<br />
<br />
Chain smoker, his classes were attended not only by regular students but also by many not registered listeners. For his rebellious spirit and sense of often sarcastic humor, but above all by his profound generosity intelectual.A compulsion by the written word plus the facility to store names and quotations, made him be remembered for an encyclopedic knowledge.<br />
<br />
PUBLICATIONS<br />
<br />
Left at least eight published books and numerous articles in newspapers and general circulation magazines in the country, covering a range of issues such as education, politics, sociology, history and administration.<br />
<br />
He wrote for several years in the column to stop the newspaper Popular News, a popular tabloid São Paulo.<br />
<br />
His complete works including books, articles, presentations, prefaces and sparse text is being published by Editora UNESP, has been published four volumes of the collection Maurice Tragtenberg - led by Evaldo Amaro Vieira: Administration, Power and Ideology, On education, politics and unionism "Bureaucracy and Ideology" and the more recent the Russian Revolution.<br />
<br />
BOOKS<br />
<br />
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px; list-style-image: url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20version%3D%221.1%22%20width%3D%225%22%20height%3D%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle%20cx%3D%222.5%22%20cy%3D%229.5%22%20r%3D%222.5%22%20fill%3D%22%2300528c%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E%0A); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Planificação: Desafio do século XX, de 1967</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Burocracia e ideologia, de 1974</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Administração, poder e ideologia, de 1980</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Reflexões sobre o Socialismo, de 1986</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">A Revolução Russa, de 1988</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Memórias de um autodidata no Brasil, 1999</li>
</ul>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-3466671820588239092015-07-29T10:57:00.001-07:002015-07-29T10:57:47.206-07:00Self-Managed Marxists 02: Yvon Bourdet<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Yvon Bourdet, born June 8, 1920 and died on 11 March 2005, is a durable, teacher, historian, sociologist, activist and theoretician of Marxism self-management.<br />
<br />
BIOGRAPHY<br />
During World War I, Yvon Bourdet is a member of a resistance group in Corrèze. He later became professor of philosophy and then studied history and sociology. He has worked on AustroMarxism, and within this framework published texts by Max Adler and Otto Bauer. He is master of research at CNRS.<br />
Militant Marxist group Socialisme ou Barbarie in the 1960s, he then devoted himself to self-management.<br />
Yvon Bourdet wrote in the journal Marxology Studies headed by Maximilien Rubel and in arguments and self-management and socialism.<br />
<br />
PUBLICATIONS:<br />
<br />
Communism and Marxism, critical notes of political sociology, Mr. Brient and Co., 1963<br />
The issuance of Prometheus to a political theory of self-management, Editions Anthropos, 1970<br />
With Georges Haupt, Felix Kreissler and Herbert Steiner: Biographical Dictionary of the international labor movement, Austria, The workers Editions, 1971<br />
Figures Lukács, Editions Anthropos, 1972<br />
For self, Editions Anthropos, 1974<br />
Alain Guillerm: The Self-management, Seghers, 1975<br />
What poses the militants? Sociological analysis of the motivations and behaviors, Stock 1976<br />
Praise of patois or Itinerary of a Occitan story, Galileo Editions 1977<br />
Space of self-management: the capital, the capital city, Editions Galilee, 1978</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-54360082418870082642015-07-29T10:39:00.000-07:002015-07-29T10:51:52.381-07:00Self-managed Marxists 01: Nildo Viana<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Nildo Viana (Goiânia, 1965) is a Brazilian sociologist and philosopher.<br />
<br />
BIOGRAPHY:<br />
<br />
Viana is part of the current sociological and philosophical Brazilian Marxist and Self-managed orientation. Karl Korsch and Karl Marx are his main influences. Among his writings, there is a Marxist analysis of society, where the emphasis is on the "category of totality" and the class struggle as the key tools in the process of social transformation.<br />
<br />
After completing a doctorate in sociology at the University of Brasilia, he became a professor at the Federal University of Goiás, Brazil (Portuguese: Universidade Federal de Goiás).<br />
<br />
PUBLICATIONS:<br />
<br />
He is the author of several books in Portuguese and spanish:<br />
<br />
(Pt) Escritos Metodológicos Marx, Goiânia, Germinal Editions, 2001) (In English: methodological writings of Marx)<br />
(Pt) Estado, Democracia e Cidadania, Rio de Janeiro, Achiamé, 2003) (In English: State, democracy and citizenship)<br />
(Pt) e Heróis Super Heróis back quadrinhos no Mundo, Rio de Janeiro, Achiamé, 2005 (In English: Heroes and superheroes in the comic book world)<br />
(Pt) A Dinâmica da Violência Juvenil ', Rio de Janeiro, Booklink, 2004 (In English: The dynamics of youth violence)<br />
(Pt) Introdução to Sociologia, Belo Horizonte, Autentica, 2006 (In English: Introduction to Sociology)<br />
(Pt) A Consciência da História, Goiânia, Combate Editions, 1997 (In English: Consciousness of History)<br />
(Pt) A Filosofia e Sua Sombra, Goiânia, Germinal Editions, 2000 (In English: Philosophy and its shadow)<br />
(Pt) Violência Urbana: A Cidade Como Espaço Gerador of Violência, Goiânia, Germinal Editions, 2002 (In English: Urban Violence: The city as a creative space of violence)<br />
(Pt) Unconscious Coletivo Materialism e Histórico, Goiânia, Germinal Editions, 2002 (In English: Collective Unconscious and historical materialism)<br />
(Pt) O Que São Partidos Políticos Goiânia, Germinal Editions, 2003 (In English: Are political parties healthy?)<br />
(Es) Psicoanálisis to historical materialism, Madrid, Cultivalibros, 2013 (In English: Psychoanalysis and historical materialism).<br />
(Pt) Autogestionário Manifesto, Rio de Janeiro, Achiamé Editions, 2008 (In English: self-managed Manifesto)<br />
(Pt) O na Capitalismo Era da Acumulação Integral, São Paulo, Ideias e Letras, 2011 (In English: The Capitalism in the era of Integral accumulation)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-89369044049817529322015-07-29T08:41:00.002-07:002015-07-29T10:40:17.361-07:00What self-managed Marxism?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The self-managed marxism is a current marxist which advocates the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism as a radically different society based on self-management.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Its main representatives are Yvon Bourdet, Alain Guillerm, Lucas Maia, Edmilson Marques and Nildo Viana. In France, the journal "self-management and socialism" existed from 1970 to 1979. Yvon Bourdet writes that in deciding to "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 ), Karl Marx "and gives the exact definition of a self-managed society". Nildo Viana, in Brazil, published the Manifesto self-managed and dozens of books and articles. </div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-18797964068622057342015-07-27T04:24:00.001-07:002015-07-29T10:41:32.055-07:00Self-managed Marxism and Anarchism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Self-managed Marxism and Anarchism</span><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span lang="EN-US">Nildo Viana<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">What is the difference between self-managed Marxism (others use other names, but here it is worth noting that we use self-managed Marxism as the form/name contemporary of authentic Marxism, which has always been "self-managed" without using such a word and merely to distinguish it from pseudomarxism, Leninism and its derivatives and to express its contemporary manifestation) and anarchism? When asked several times about it then becomes necessary to go more structured way what distinguishes one from the other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">First, it must be clear that it is the self-managed Marxism and not of any supposed "Marxism" because the pseudomarxism Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist, guevarista, among others, are self-managed character deformations of Marxism and so are more distant from anarchism. The self-managed Marxism has close proximity to some elements of anarchism, especially its fundamental principles. These fundamental principles would be the thesis of the immediate abolition of the state apparatus, denial and criticism of the authorities and forms of domination and social hierarchies. The self-managed Marxism also points to such principles, but nevertheless, it is not "anarchist", unless it is reduced anarchism that. Similarly, the self-managed Marxism is not limited to this and has other fundamental principles, some of which are in some specific currents of anarchism, sometimes not.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The self-managed as Marxism has the following fundamental principles: the history of class societies is the history of class struggle; the proletariat is the revolutionary class of our time; proletarian self-emancipation (proletarian revolution carried out by the working class and its allies) is the embodiment of human emancipation (revolutionary humanism, concrete); self-management is the essence of the new society that emerges after capitalism, not being "part of it", but its essence and generalizing the set of social relations; the proletarian revolution can only be victorious abolishing the state and capital, without the ideology of "transitional period"; the revolutionary organizations must have a revolutionary strategy and overcome reboquismo and the avant-garde; bureaucracy is a counterrevolutionary class and therefore must be fought, and all bureaucratic organizations (parties, unions, state, etc.); cultural struggle is one of the key actions to be carried out by revolutionary groups; it is necessary to unify the revolutionary strategy means and ends and place as fundamental the ultimate goal (social ownership) and this determines the means and derived it is necessary to prevent counterrevolutionary concessions (participation in bourgeois democracy, for example).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="background: white; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Thus, the self-managed Marxism has proximity to certain tendencies of anarchism and removal of others. The self-managed Marxism is opposed to i</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQFjAIahUKEwi1qqX-1_jGAhUJzoAKHfxGAB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.individualistanarchist.com%2F&ei=vcO0VfXXOomcgwT8jYHwAQ&usg=AFQjCNG4cIXU9h6b1Rdv0xq4hsoIo1CmTQ&sig2=PCM3TTEutuH_iX0U1xSXKw&bvm=bv.98717601,d.eXY"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">ndividualist Anarchist</span></a> </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> <span lang="EN-US">and anarcho-syndicalism. The first is because of its bourgeois character (individualistic) and the second to his relationship with the unions, bureaucratic organizations (except for the beginning of capitalism, its heroic period before the bureaucratization). It is also far from dogmatic anarchism, which simplifies and reduces anarchism to certain ideas (or thinking of certain anarchist thinker) that become dogma and reason for refusing to judge, condemn all who do not fit them or not then all is "anarchism" (in</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> <span style="font-size: small;">the exact form that the dogmatic defined, ie its current and / or interpretation).</span></span><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In relation to what we call revolutionary anarchism, in which the anarcho-coletivism and anarchist communism fit, the differences are much smaller, provided that their non-dogmatic demonstrations. In addition to the agreement with regard to fundamental principles, there are other elements in common. No doubt this is not to say, too, that there is no difference, but they are smaller both in the matter of quantity and depth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">However, we must clarify that there are general differences between self-managed Marxism and anarchism in general, ie including all its chains. This is due to the fact that Marxism (Marx, communism advice, self-managed Marxism) is theoretical and political expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, which means it is a theory whose purpose is to revolution and self-management. In this sense, self-managed Marxism has a theoretical basis, from Marx's theory of history, undergoing several other theories produced by him (over developing the theory of the capitalist mode of production) and his followers, such as the theory of workers' councils Anton Pannekoek and councilists communists, to the latest and development and subsequent update. Anarchism is a political doctrine and not a theory. That's what allows anarchism, even in its best expressions, ends falling in eclecticism, using as base (methodological and / or theoretical) bourgeois ideologies (classic positivism, post-structuralist positivism) and also end up ending up with relative ease, due to its voluntarism, in dogmatism, pragmatism, khvostism, revolutionary spirit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">This is not a small difference, because when the bourgeois anarchism ends up taking positions as theoretical or methodological basis, undertakes, as this ends up intervening in the analysis of reality and therefore in political practice. A mistaken analysis of reality generates decision-making and carrying out also misguided actions. The methodological concepts and "theoretical" (ideological) bourgeois, produced by various sciences (especially the "human") have a whole evaluative basis, sentimental, rational and interests that are closely linked to capitalist society and its reproduction process. No need here to rescue the character of classic positivism of Comte and others who had resonances in the works of Bakunin and other anarchists of the time (Kropotkin, Reclus, etc.), and its relationship with the reproduction of capitalism and conservative essence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Similarly, the counterrevolutionary character of post-structuralism ("postmodernism") is too obvious to be necessary to explain that, starting from its methodological and ideological conceptions (supposedly "theoretical") could make decisions and implement revolutionary actions . Obviously in this case the revolutionary anarchism is somewhat minimized, since it is united with revolutionary principles but ends up self-limiting because of such a base. A methodological basis and bourgeois ideological together with a revolutionary doctrine forms a eclecticism and depending on which side of the balance weighs more, it can become, at worst, harmful to the struggle for human liberation and, at best, somewhat limited and contradictory, creating obstacles to their overall development. Of course you will still have multiple nuances depending on the context, circumstances, individuals, etc. However, the overcoming of eclecticism is essential for the revolutionary anarchism assume the position which is consistent with its fundamental principles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">We could assume two possibilities for overcoming such. The first possibility would be to adopt Marxism as their theoretical and methodological basis, the historical and dialectical materialism (which includes not only the dialectical method, the theory of history, as well as capitalist theory). The traditional rejection of anarchism to use the historical and dialectical materialism is a huge obstacle to overcome this problem. Such a refusal would have as a source conflicts between Marx and anarchistic last, first, and subsequently pseudomarxismo and anarchism. Moreover, it has the distinct positions of Proudhon and Bakunin, among others, due influence of positivism. However, Bakunin accepted historical materialism, despite not having properly understood, confusing it with the bourgeois materialism and the positivist conception, as seen in his discussion of materialism and the issue of "facts." This is an obstacle to more, especially after the emergence of Leninism, ideological expression of bureaucracy, which distorted the historical and dialectical materialism, according to the interests of the party bureaucracy and Russian state capitalism and ended up generalizing and becoming the dominant version the "Marxism". This is another obstacle to a real understanding of historical and dialectical materialism, which brings the need to resume the production of Marx and his best followers (Labriola, Korsch, the young Lukács in some respects, Pannekoek, etc.).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The second possibility would be anarchism generate, in an original way, their own theoretical and methodological basis. This solution, however, would be merely formal, ie a language change, as the historical and dialectical materialism has pointed to the essential elements in this process and it would be just the same idea in another form, a new linguistic form to a concept already Existing. The only advantage of this solution would appease the minds of dogmatic anarchists and not have to refer to Marxism, something so childish and childlike that only makes sense, of the self-managed Marxist perspective, for from the idea that the struggle and its content is more important and can make this kind of concession not affect the revolutionary process.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In this sense, self-managed Marxism and the revolutionary anarchism have close and differences, common points and differences in points, and in some cases the difference is radical, express distinct class positions, the proletarian perspective of self-managed Marxism in confronting bourgeois perspective or of another class of dogmatic anarchism, anarcho-individualism or anarcho-syndicalism; in other cases, the difference is reduced but not abolished, because due to several other minor differences, immediate political action, situations, idiosyncrasies, understanding of reality, design of action, terminological differences, etc., that may intensify or minimize.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Anyway, in relation to the anarchist tendencies that are not allies of the revolutionary proletariat [1], the position of the self-managed Marxism is critical and combat, as well as advancement of hope towards a revolutionary perspective, and in practice depends on the positions and concrete actions, which trend (human emancipation via proletarian revolution or vanguardism-khvostism reinforcing the counterrevolution) strengthens this process. If the trends of anarchism that are allied to the revolutionary proletariat, the position of the self-managed Marxism is of alliance and joint struggle, as long as they maintain their consistency in this regard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In short, self-managed Marxism and revolutionary anarchism are close, but different and what interests in their approach is the contribution to human emancipation, and the approaching or the distance is the proximity or distance in relation to this goal, self-managed proletarian revolution .<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">[1] revolutionary proletariat means the self-determined working class, that is, that breaks with the capitalist relations of production, with the capital. This differs from the proletariat as a class determined by capital, that is, seeking only to survive or improve their situation within capitalism (performing only fight vindicating), which is the starting point for the fight and move towards becoming self-determined, but that for this reason it is necessary to wage a fight to go in this direction and the militant and revolutionary organizations should from the perspective of the proletariat as self-determined class. Stay at the level of the proletariat as a particular class (by saying "anarchist", "councilist", "situationist", etc.) is falling in reboquismo, a reformist position despite not having ties with the bourgeois institutions. The voluntarism, pragmatism, anti-intellectualism, among other things, are very close to these positions, very common in anarchism. This is the product of its doctrinal character and non-theoretical.</span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225633947656043876.post-69981531989448467662015-07-27T04:22:00.002-07:002015-07-27T04:22:37.931-07:00Welcome to the blog self-managed Marxism!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Welcome to the blog self-managed Marxism!</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0