Seminar_Ideologija: teorije i kritike

Zagreb 26./27.11.2016., MAZ, Pavla Hatza 16

(scroll down for english)

Pozivamo vas na redovni godišnji seminar Centra za radničke studije u sklopu ovogodišnjeg programa posvećenog teoriji ideologije. U nastavku možete pročitati raspored i sažetke izlaganja, kao i kratku elaboraciju programa.

 

Subota, 26.11.2017.

11 – 12:30h

Ekonomska teorija kao ideologija: J.B. Clarkovo opravdanje nadnica u kapitalizmu

Toni Prug

Ekonomija se u početku etablirala kao politička ekonomija, teorijska disciplina koja je uključivala i određene političke dimenzije. Od kasnog devetnaestog stoljeća su prokapitalistički orijentirani ekonomisti nastojali razviti ekonomiju kao čistu znanost zasnovanu na matematičkim modelima i oslobođenu od političkog utjecaja. Većina tih autora nikad nije govorila o utjecaju i važnosti političkih uvjerenja u njihovom teorijskom radu. Među njima se ističe John Bates Clark i to na dva načina. Prvo, on je svoj rad razumijevao kao izravnu intervenciju u obrani kapitalističke proizvodnje od socijalističkih ideja, radničkog pokreta i Marxove teorije. Drugo, vrlo slabo je poznavao i koristio matematiku. Naoružan snažnim političkim stavom i uvjerljivim konceptualnim mišljenjem, Clark je doprinio ideji koja se nalazi u samom srcu mejnstrim ekonomije: kapitalistička proizvodnja je pravedna i meritokratska, a u njoj su, po prirodnim zakonima, svi faktori proizvodnje plaćeni sukladno njihovom doprinosu.

Toni Prug je doktorirao na Queen Mary, University of London, studirajući egalitarnu i participatornu proizvodnju i alokaciju. Istražuje specifičnosti društvenih formi proizvodnje i njihovog utjecaja na ljudski razvoj.

 

15:30 – 17h

Pristanak, prisila, rezignacija: izvori stabilnosti u kapitalizmu

Vivek Chibber

Ovo će izlaganje nastojati pokazati da je objašnjenje društvene stabilnosti u kapitalizmu, razvijeno u suvremenim marksističkim teorijama, duboko pogrešno. Pod utjecajem jednako pogrešnog čitanja Antonija Gramscija, marksisti su tvrdili da je esencijalni problem u kapitalizmu stvaranje ideološkog pristanka radničke klase i da taj pristanak osigurava društvenu stabilnost. Pokazat ću da se ovaj argument ne može pronaći ni kod Gramscija ni kod Marxa. A ako su čak negdje i iznijeli, moramo ga odbiti. Glavni izvor stabilnosti su strukturne prisile nametnute radničkoj klasi i upravo se te prisile moraju razumjeti i mijenjati. Marksisti se moraju vratiti svojim materijalističkim korijenima.

Vivek Chibber je profesor sociologije na Sveučilištu New York i autor niza zapaženih studija među kojima se ističe Postcolonial Theory and The Spectre of Capital.

 

17:15 – 19h

Opća diskusija

 

Nedjelja, 27.11.2016.

11 – 12:30h

Što je važnije u životu: ekonomija ili ideologija?

Marko Kostanić

Ako je vjerovati dominantnoj medijskoj i analitičkoj optici, društvo je podijeljeno u dvije rubrike: ekonomiju i ideologiju. Takva podjela čini analitiku prilično jednostavnom: društveni procesi se razumijevaju s obzirom na udjele ekonomije ili ideologije u njima, bilo da se radi o izborima za predsjednika SAD-a, bilo da se radi o hrvatskom kulturnom polju. Analitički napor doseže do svojevrsne zero-sum game: ovdje imamo 60% ideologije, a 40% ekonomije, a negdje drugdje 85% ekonomije, a 15% ideologije. Osim što do kraja vulgarizira ionako krajnje problematičnu marksističku metaforu baze i nadgradnje, taj pristup je opterećen i dvjema pretpostavkama iz suparničkog tabora: tradicije neoklasične ekonomije. Naime, društveni akteri se individualiziraju i pretpostavlja se njihov (i)racionalni izbor: što mi je važnije u životu – ekonomija ili ideologija? Druga je pretpostavka isključenje dimenzije vremena, odnosno povijesti iz cijele priče, kao da se svi ljudi svako jutro iznova pred ogledalom pitaju što im je važnije, a nevidljiva ruka agregira sve odluke i transformira ih u društvene učinke.

Prolazeći kroz dinamiku i primjere iz hrvatskog političkog života, nastojat ćemo u predavanju predočiti nešto kompleksniji odnos između ekonomije i ideologije, kao i ukazati na problematične aspekte same dihotomije.

(Predavanje će se održati na hrvatskom jeziku.)

Marko Kostanić je član CRS-a i urednik na regionalnom portalu Bilten.

 

15:30 – 17h

Socijalni konstruktivizam i ideologija u društvenim znanostima

Mislav Žitko

Najkasnije od uspona postmodernizma u sedamdesetim godinama prošlog stoljeća pojam socijalnog konstruktivizma igrao je prominentnu ulogu u društvenim i humanističkim znanostima. Na početku se činio kao koristan alat za preispitivanje prevladavajućih oblika ideološke mistifikacije. Ideologija funkcionira samo zato jer nismo sposobni analizirati njene pozadinske mehanizme, a socijalni konstruktivizam nastoji otkriti skriveni ideološki sadržaj iza riječi i objekata koje susrećemo u društvenom svijetu. U periodu od nekoliko desetljeća lista socijalnih konstrukata narasla je iznimno brzo i do drugog predsjedničkog mandata Billa Clintona uključivala je, kako napominje Ian Hacking, činjenice, rod, bolest, autorstvo, emocije, znanje, da ne spominjemo ekonomiju, novac i kvarkove. U ovom izlaganju ćemo mapirati upotrebu socijalnog konstruktivizma i proučiti njegov odnos s pojmom ideologije. Naš je glavni cilj evaluirati posljedice socijalnog konstruktivizma u domeni društvenih znanosti i ispitati, koliko nam je moguće, je li pojam ideologije koji služi kao glavni pokretač socijalnog konstruktivizma, uopće dovoljno prikladan za upotrebu.

Mislav Žitko je član Centra za radničke studije i predaje na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu

 

17:15 – 19h

Opća diskusija

 

***

 

Serija predavanja i seminar

Raznolikost, kao i često međusobno isključivi karakter pristupa teoriji ideologije u povijesti ”marksizma“, indikatori su kompleksnosti i poteškoća s kojima se suočavaju pokušaji teoretizacije kapitalističkih društava. Naglasak na analizi i kritici ekonomske strukture, konstitutivne za kapitalistički način proizvodnje, proizlazi iz pripisanog joj eksplanatornog primata. Ako se ovo može predložiti kao najniži zajednički nazivnik svih varijanti marksizma, pitanje kako analizirati odnos između ”ekonomske strukture“ i ostalih sfera – kao što su npr. politika, pravo, kultura – pokazalo se kao nepresušni izvor konfliktnih interpretacija. Pretpostavka neposredne ili mehaničke korespondencije između ”ekonomskog” i ”nadgradnog” s jasnim i linearnim uzročnim lancem koji vodi od prvog do potonjeg, iz raznih je uglova, i to s pravom, bila kritizirana kao ”ekonomizam” ili ”ekonomski redukcionizam“. Kolaps Druge Internacionale i uspon fašizma u međuratnim dekadama, kao i (za mnoge ljevičare začuđujuće uspješna) stabilizacija poslijeratnog kapitalizma u Zapadnoj Evropi, pridonijeli su eroziji povjerenja u nasljeđene teorijske izvjesnosti i stare formule.

Teorijski šokovi ove destabilizacije osjećaju se i danas. Iz svega toga kao rezultat nastali su različiti pokušaji preispitivanja odnosa između ekonomske strukture i pojava ”nadgradnje”. Neki od tih pokušaja nastojali su u psihoanalizi pronaći potencijalni korektiv jednostranosti i rigidnosti pristupa tradicionalnog marksizma, dok su drugi signal preuzeli od Gramscija i raznih poslijeratnih autora koji su razvili cijeli niz novih koncepata i pristupa u potrazi za adekvatnijim i razrađenijim razumijevanjem novih i kompleksnih povijesnih stvarnosti. Dok se poticaj prema kritičkom distanciranju od prerastezljivog eksplanatornog dosega ”ekonomskog” primijenjenog u ovako kompleksnim okolnostima treba pozdraviti, mnogi od ovih pristupa su završili tako da su pripremili teren za post-marksističke prekidanje svih preostalih veza s ”ekonomskim“ zamjenjujući ga naglaskom na ideologiji, kulturi, diskursu ili ”političkom”. Afirmacija semi-autonomije (ili relativne autonomije) sfere ”nadgradnje” uskoro je izgubila svoj određujući prefiks i pokušaj otvaranja istraživanja tih pitanja s onu stranu reduktivnih granica čitanja koje im je dodijelilo mehanički derivativan status često je rezultiralo potpunim napuštanjem Marxova kritičkog projekta u njegovim kategorijama.

Međutim, čak i u široko shvaćenoj ”marksističkoj tradiciji”, koncept ideologije, njegova teorijska elaboracija i mjesto unutar kritičke društvene i socijalne teorije bili su žestoko osporavani, počevši od – ali ne ograničeno na njih –  pojma idelogije kao ”lažne svijesti” do  ideologije kao ”materijalnih praksi”. Pokušaj sistematičnog razjašnjenja i diferencijacije ovih (i drugih) pristupa ideologiji predstavlja nužan korak prema izgradnji regionalne ljevice čiji su teorijski i analitički alati adekvatno kalibrirani za kritičke i političke zadatke koji se nameću. Stoga ćemo nastojati lokalnu publiku konfrontirati s konkurentskim marksističkim i marksijanskim pristupima temi ideologiji i povezanim pitanjima poput fetišizma, hegemonije, habitusa, itd. Istražit ćemo njihove pozadinske teorijske pretpostavke, ispitati moguće teorijske ”slijepe pjege” i angažirati se s postojećim kritikama ovih tradicija. Sporno pitanje odnosa ideologije prema društvenim i ekonomskim strukturama i razina autonomija ili njen nedostatak bit će kritički revidirani. Slično ”državi” ili ”klasi”, riječ ideologija je sveprisutna u lokalnim debatama, kako na ljevici tako i šire, ali se rijetko sistematski teorijski obrađuje na adekvatnoj razini kompleksnosti i diferencijacije. To vodi do nesretne kakofonije i predstavlja prepreku rastu razine refleksije na regionalnoj ljevici.

Kao pokušaj doprinosa popravku ove situacije, naša serija predavanja i seminar ciljaju na postavljanje pitanja poput: Što koncept ideologije označava? Koji su mu eksplanatorni dosezi i ograničenja? Kako se može integrirati u ”materijalističko” razumijevanje društvenih procesa zasnovano na kritici političke ekonomije, radije nego da služi kao deus ex machina ”rješenje” za fenomene čija logika i značenja naizgled izmiču neposrednom razumijevanju iz materijalističke perspektive? Koji je odnos ideologije prema Marxovoj teoriji fetišizma? Kako se različiti i konkurentni teorijski koncepti koji su u proteklom periodu proizašli iz različitih tradicija (ideologija, fetišizam, habitus, guvernmentalitet, itd.) odnose jedni prema drugima i koje su njihove snage i slabosti, kao i točke konvergencije/divergencije?

 

Logistička podrška: Mreža antifašistkinja Zagreba.

 

Program Centra za radničke studije financijski podupire Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

 

(english)

 

Saturday, November 26th

11 – 12:30h

Economic theory as ideology: J.B. Clark’s justification of wages in capitalism 

Toni Prug

Economics started as political economy, a theoretical discipline that incorporated some political aspects. From the late nineteenth century, pro-capitalist theorists strived to develop economics, a pure science based on mathematical models and an objective approach free form politics. Most of those authors never spoke about the role and importance of their own political beliefs for their work. John Bates Clark stands out in two regards. First, he considered his work to be a direct intervention in defense of capitalist production against socialist ideas, workers’ movements and Marx’s theories. Second, he hardly knew or used any mathematics. Armed with strong political beliefs and persuasive conceptual thinking, directly addressing Marx’s notion of exploitation and its growing popularity, Clark contributed an idea still at the heart of mainstream economics: that capitalist production is just and meritocratic; controlled by a natural law all factors of production are paid according to their contribution.

Toni Prug obtained his PhD from Queen Mary, University of London, studying egalitarian and participatory production and allocation. He is researching specificities of social forms of production and how they shape human development.

 

15:30 – 17h

Consent, Coercion and Resignation: The Sources of Stability in Capitalism

This talk will suggest that the explanation of social stability in capitalism as developed by recent Marxist theory is deeply flawed. Under the influence of a correspondingly flawed reading of Antonio Gramsci, Marxists have argued that the essential problem in capitalism is the generation of ideological consent on the part of the working class, and it is this consent that provides social stability. I will suggest that this argument cannot be found in either Marx or in Gramsci. And in any case even if they had made such an argument, we ought to reject it. The main source of stability is the structural constraints imposed on the working class, and it is these constraints that need to be understood and changed. Marxists need to return to their materialists roots.

Vivek Chibber teaches sociology at the NYU and is an author of many influential studies, including his latest book Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital.

 

17:15 – 19h

General discussion

 

Sunday, November 27th

11 – 12:30h

What is more important in life: the economy or ideology?

Marko Kostanić

If we are to believe the dominant media and analytical optics, society is divided into two distinct rubrics: the economy and ideology. This kind of division makes analytics rather simple: social processes are understood according to the shares of the economy or ideology in them. It makes no difference if we are talking about the US presidential elections or the Croatian cultural field. The peak of analytical effort is some kind of zero-sum game: in this case we have 60% of ideology and 40% of economy and in other one we have 85% of economy and 15% of ideology. Except that this approach vulgarizes the in some regards already quite problematic Marxist metaphor of base and superstructure, it is also pretty much devoted to two presuppositions from the opponent’s camp: neoclassical tradition. Namely, social actors are being individualized and their (i)rational choice is presupposed: what is more important in my life – the economy or ideology? The second presupposition is concerned with an exclusion of the dimension of time, i.e. history, as if every individual stands every morning in front of the mirror and asks himself what is more important, while the invisible hand aggregates all individual decisions and transforms them into social effects.

In this lecture we will try, providing some examples from Croatian political life, to outline a more complex relation between the economy and ideology, and also point out some problematic aspects of the dichotomy itself.

Marko Kostanić is a member of the Centre for Labour Studies and an editor on regional web-portal Bilten.

 

15:30 – 17h

Social constructivism and ideology in social science

Mislav Žitko

At least since the rise of postmodernism in the late 1970s, the notion of social construction has played a prominent role in the humanities and social sciences. At the beginning it appeared as a useful tool for questioning the prevailing forms of ideological mystification. Ideology works only because one is unable to analyze its underlying mechanisms, and social constructivism aims to disclose the ideological content hidden behind words and objects that one encounters in the social world. In the period of just a few decades the list of social constructs expanded quite rapidly and by the time Bill Clinton got his second term in the Oval office it included, as Ian Hacking pointed out, such things as facts, gender, illness, authorship, emotions and knowledge, not to mention the economy, money, urban schooling and quarks. In this presentation we will map the uses of social constructivism and scrutinize its relationship with the notion of ideology. Our main goal is to evaluate the consequences of social constructivism in the realm of social science and to examine, to the extent that we can, whether the notion of ideology that comes as the prime mover of constructivism, is in fact sensible enough to use.

Mislav Žitko is a member of the Centre for Labour studies and a lecturer at Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities in Zagreb.

 

17:15 – 19h

General discussion

 

***

Lecture Series and Seminar

The diversity and often mutually exclusive character of approaches to the theory of ideology in the history of ‘Marxism’ is an indicator of the complexities and difficulties facing any attempt of theorization of capitalist societies. The emphasis on the analysis and critique of the economic structure constitutive of the capitalist mode of production derives from the explanatory primacy ascribed to them. If this can be proposed as the lowest common denominator of all variants of Marxism, the question on how to theorize the relation between this ‘economic structure’ and other spheres – such as politics, the law, culture asf. – has proved to be an enduring source of conflicting interpretations. The assumption of immediate or mechanical correspondence of ‘the economic’ and the ‘superstructural’, with a clear and linear causal chain leading from the former to the latter, has – from many different quarters – been criticized as ‘economism’ or ‘economic reductionism’, and rightly so. The collapse of the Second International at the outset of World War I and the rise of fascism in the inter-war decades, as well as the (for many leftists surprisingly successful) stabilization of post-war capitalism in Western Europe, all have contributed to eroding the confidence in inherited theoretical certainties and old formulas.

The theoretical shockwaves of this destabilization can be felt to this day. What emerged as a result was the proliferation of diverse attempts to reexamine the relationship between the economic structure and ‘superstructural’ phenomena. Some of these attempts looked for psychoanalysis as a potential corrective for the perceived one-sidedness and rigidities of traditional Marxist approaches, others took their cue from Gramsci and various post-war authors, who developed a plethora of new concepts and approaches in the search for a more adequate and differentiated theoretical understanding of new and complex historical realities. While the impetus to critically distance themselves from the overstretching of the explanatory reach of ‘the economic’ when applied to these complex circumstances is laudable, many of these approaches eventually ended up preparing the ground for the post-Marxist severing of all remaining ties with ‘the economic’, replacing them with an emphasis on ideology, culture, discourse or ‘the political’. The affirmation of the ‘semi-autonomy’ (or relative autonomy) of ‘superstructural’ phenomena soon lost its qualifying prefix and the attempt to open up inquiry into these matters beyond the reductive confines of readings that allot them a mechanically derivative status more often than not resulted in the wholesale abandonment of Marx’s critical project in its categories.

Yet even within a broadly conceived ‘Marxist tradition’, the concept of ideology, its theoretical elaboration and place within critical social and political theory is wildly contested, ranging from – but not limited to – notions of ideology as ‘false consciousness’ to ideology as material practices. An attempt at systematic clarification and critical differentiation of these (and other) approaches to ideology is a necessary step towards building a regional left whose theoretical and analytical tools are adequately calibrated for the critical and political tasks at hand. Therefore, we will confront local audiences with competing Marxist and Marxian approaches on the subject of ideology and the related issues of fetishism, the concept of hegemony, the concept of habitus asf. We will investigate the respectively underlying theoretical assumptions, inquire into possible theoretical “blind spots” and engage with existing critiques to each of these traditions etc. The vexed question of the relation of ideology to social and economic structures, it’s level of autonomy or the lack thereof will be critically revisited. Similar to “the state” and “class”, the word “ideology” is ubiquitous in local debates, both on the left and beyond it, but is rarely systematically engaged with theoretically at an adequate level of complexity and differentiation. This leads to an unfortunate cacophony and presents an obstacle to raising the level of theoretical reflection of the regional left.

Attempting to contribute to remedying this, our lecture series and seminar aim at raising questions such as: What does the concept of ideology designate? What are its explanatory reach and limits? How can it be integrated in a “materialist” understanding of social processes based on the critique of political economy, rather than being summoned as a deus ex machina “solution” for phenomena whose logic and meanings seem to escape immediate comprehensibility form a “materialist” perspective? What is its relation to Marx’s theory of fetishism? How do the various and competing theoretical concepts that have been proposed over the years from different traditions (ideology, fetishism, habitus, governmentality etc) relate to each other, and what are their respective strengths and weaknesses, points of convergence/divergence?

 

***

The program of the Centre for Labour Studies is financially supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

 

 

Predavanje Primoža Krašovca

 

Nekoliko otvorenih pitanja vezanih uz teoriju ideologije

Mreža antifašistkinja Zagreba, Pavla Hatza 16, 19. srpnja, 19h

Predavanje ću početi poznatom Foucaultovom kritikom (marksističke) teorije ideologije: da ona 1) uvijek odvaja laži od istine, 2) da se uvijek fokusira na nešto povezano sa subjektom i da 3) pretpostavlja primarne odnose moći u usporedbi s kojima ideologija nastupa kao derivativni, sekundarni diskurs. Po pitanju zadnje točke, provjerit ću Foucaultovu kritiku na Marxovoj teoriji fetišizma iz Kapitala i pokušati pokazati da Marx tu, za razliku od nekih ranijih formulacija problema ideologije, fetišizam ne shvaća kao nešto što je sekundarno i odvojeno od ekonomskih odnosa moći u kapitalizmu, nego kao nešto što im je imanentno. To omogućava kritiku ekonomskih ideologija koja ne pretpostavlja teorije zavjere, manipulacije ili indoktrinacije.

U drugom dijelu predavanja ću se posvetiti drugoj Foucaultovoj kritičkoj tezi (prvu ću donekle uz treću uključiti u prvi dio predavanja) o pitanju ideologije i subjekta. Tu ću ukazati na granice shvaćanja ideologije kroz koncepte subjekta i subjektivacije pomoću, s jedne strane, teorije tjelesnih tehnika (od Maussa do Bourdieua) i pitanja učinaka vlasti na tijelo koje zaobilazi kognitivno-simboličku razinu,  a s druge strane preko teorije afekta (od Eliasa do nekih suvremenih deleuzeovskih autora), koja pokazuje da isključivi fokus istraživanja ideologije na odnos između materijalnih interesa i diskursa ostavlja sa strane čitavu emocionalnu i afektivnu razinu djelovanja medija, rasizma, društvenih fobija, političkih strasti…

Primož Krašovec (1979) je asistent na Odsjeku za sociologiju na Filozofskom fakultetu u Ljubljani gdje, između ostalog, predaje i teorije ideologije.

 

Program Centra za radničke studije podržava Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

Predavanja :: Klasna prelamanja

 

Pozivamo vas na posljednja ovogodišnja predavanja u ciklusu Centra za radničke studije posvećenog klasnoj problematici. Bavimo se klasnom dimenzijom suvremenih lijevih političkih strategija, kao i specifičnom klasnom dinamikom u uvjetima raspada jugoslavenskog projekta.

 

Makroekonomske politike u klasnom kontekstu

Marko Kržan

***

Mreža Antifašistkinja Zagreba, Pavla Hatza 16, 21.12..2015., 18h

U posljednjih nekoliko mjeseci doživjeli smo uspone i padove socijalističkih parlamentarnih političkih grupacija. S jedne strane uspjesi na izborima u Španjolskoj, Sloveniji i Grčkoj, a s druge kapitulacija Sirize u borbi s Trojkom, kao i izborne poraze ljevice u Brazilu, Argentini i Venezueli.

Ti porazi vjerno ilustriraju granice lijeve parlamentarne politike u trenutnom kontekstu: jedinstveno tržište i monetarna unija u Europi, kao i logika međunarodnog financijskog i drugih globalnih tržišta uopće, pogotovo u slučaju Južne Amerike.

Što takav kontekst znači za strategiju parlamentarne ljevice? U izlaganju ću predložiti tri odgovora:

- u parlamentarnom radu se zalagati za radikalan socijalni program protiv bijede i marginalizacije te za radničko upravljanje u granicama sadašnjeg sustava i na taj način demonstrirati izbornoj bazi da su promjene moguće i da parlamentarne politike mogu korespondirati s njihovim neposrednim interesima

- zalagati se protiv prenošenja  suvereniteta na međunarodne organizacije i sustave u suradnji s drugim državama koje zastupaju multipolarnost u međudržavnim odnosima

- težište političkog rada prebaciti s parlamentarnog na vanparlamentarni i formirati vlastite komunikacijske kanale, istraživačke centre i ostale institucije za idejnopolitički i aktivistički rad, imajući na umu da su socijalističke i komunističke partije kroz povijest najviše napredovale kad su dobrovoljno ili prisilno bile isključene iz parlamentarnog rada, tj. kad su izgubile iluziju da bi se do radikalne promjene moglo doći isključivo kroz parlament.

***

Marko Kržan je sociolog marksističke orijentacije i ekonomski savjetnik zastupničkog kluba Ujedinjene ljevice (Združene levice) u slovenskom parlamentu.

 

***

 

Kontinuitet društvenih sukoba: Borovo 1987. – 1991.

Sven Cvek, Snježana Ivčić, Jasna Račić

***

Galerija Nova, Teslina 7, 22.12.2015., 18h

Fokusom na strukturne promjene, ali i materijalne i ideološke uvjete koji su radnicima stajali na raspolaganju za njihovo razumijevanje, istraživanje “Kontinuitet društvenih sukoba: Borovo 1987.-1991.” teži rekonstruiranju iskustva radnika u trenutku duboke ekonomske krize i sveobuhvatne društvene reforme. Apstraktni pojmovi poput “demokratizacije” ili “tranzicije” pokušavaju se demistificirati na razini konkretne radne i društvene organizacije, otkrivajući procese potrebne kako bi se logika funkcioniranja jednog sistema, jednog grada i jednog poduzeća zamijenila novom.

***

Sven Cvek je docent na odsjeku za anglistiku Filozofskog fakulteta u Zagrebu, Snježana Ivčić je doktorandica politologije, dok je Jasna Račić zaposlena u Centru za mirovne studije.

Program Centra za radničke studije podržava Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

Seminar :: Class, Class Theory, Class Struggle

 

Zagreb, 17-18th October, MAZ, Hatzova 16

Few concepts developed by Marx and the many theoretical and political currents claiming continuity with his critical project can rival ‘class’ in in their distinctive association with Marxism in all its contested plurality. Yet, the widespread consensus on the centrality of the concept for Marxism, shared by both proponents and detractors, is significantly complicated by the persistent disputes over its theoretical content. As a central category in the Marxian/Marxist theoretical arsenal, it remains subject to a wide variety of conflicting interpretations and mutually exclusive theoretical projects. Marx himself failed to provide a systemic treatment of the concept. Notoriously, the discussion of class at the end of Volume III of Capital was left a mere fragment, while the conjunctural analyses presented in political and historical writings such as The Eighteenth Brumaire and The Class Struggle in France raise questions as to their compatibility (or lack thereof) with the systemic development of categories in Capital and other texts of Marx’s mature critique of political economy.

This seeming lack of coherence facilitated the development of diverging traditions, providing textual footholds for often mutually hostile approaches. The history of Marxism is thus in large part also the long history of disputes between what usually have been called ‘structural’ and more historically founded attempts at tackling the problem, with deep implications for the explanatory status of class and class struggle in Marx’s overall project as well as questions pertaining to political subjectivation, agency (their limits and conditions) and political strategy – all of which remains disputed terrain to this day. To this must be added various attempts to improve on perceived deficits or omissions in Marx’s theory by recourse to other, non-Marxists/non-Marxian theoretical traditions and approaches, amongst which more or less explicitly ‘Weberian’ approaches occupy a privileged position. Predictably, though, the often eclectic and merely additive character of many such ‘innovations’ did not go unnoticed. Rather than overcoming or silencing earlier questions as to the possibility of an internally coherent Marxist class theory, capable of plausibly superseding or bridging the longstanding structural/historical divide, such approaches more often than not amounted to their proliferation and amplification, eventually adding to them the question of the possibility of their coherent integration with various stratification theories.

While these disputes may be considered to some extent ‘internal’ – arising from fundamentally affirmative approaches to the question of class and its explanatory relevance for contemporary capitalist societies, the rise of ‘new’ social movements and the perceived crisis and limits of older forms of class-based politics since the 1960s resulted in new challenges, often in the form of an outright dismissal of the ‘privileged’ status of class and class politics, in both their explanatory and political-organizational dimensions. The spreading and deepening of the influence of these new theories and the related shifts in political focus on the left – conducted under the banner of a critique and rejection of ‘class reductionism’ (often a mere code-word for Marxism itself) – has placed class-theoretical approaches in a defensive position. Ironically, this radical revision of the core inventory of the conceptual arsenal of the historical left gathered pace at a conjuncture which in retrospect may most plausibly be conceptualized as an intensification of class politics from above in the form of what has often been labeled the neoliberal offensive or ‘counterrevolution’.

In Eastern Europe, the crisis and collapse of  ‘real socialism’ and the subsequent drama of capitalist restoration intensified the predicaments and disorientation of the left, often leading to its wholesale dissolution in favor of an assertive and confident (neo)liberalism, virtually erasing class – considered irredeemably ‘contaminated’ by its association with the legitimizing discourse of the toppled communist regimes – as a subject of theoretical and political concern at the very moment of deep and traumatic shifts in the class composition of these societies.

This Seminar will try to confront the following (and related) questions: Is there a coherent class theory in Marx? What to make of the cacophonic plurality of class theories within and around Marxism? Can the explanatory centrality of the concept of class for the understanding of contemporary capitalist societies be maintained and coherently argued for? What is the explanatory scope and where lie the explanatory limits of class-based approaches to the understanding of the complexities of capitalist societies? How to approach the vexed problem of political subjectivation and what is its relation to class? How to respond to challenges to class-based politics from within the left? What are the limits and possible virtues, both of a class-based approach and of the various challenges to it? Is it possible to theoretically and politically integrate these challenges into the project of a non-reductive renewal of class analysis and politics or is such an endeavor doomed from the start? On what grounds may such an encounter be made both analytically and politically productive?

***

Schedule and abstracts:

 

Saturday 17.10.

11.00h

Marxism, class theory and the need to differentiate levels of abstraction

Stipe Ćurković

The third volume of Marx’s Capital ends with a short chapter on class, albeit an unfinished one. Based on some recent scholarship on class theory in Marx’s mature writings from the domain of the critique of political economy, I will argue that these writings nevertheless contain a coherent structural class analysis of the capitalist mode of production in its ideal average. What they do not contain, however, is a theoretical basis for the ‘optimistic fatalism’ of much of traditional marxism, i.e. the belief in the inevitability of an anti-capitalist or revolutionary political orientation of the working class. In fact, Marx’s analysis in Capital can be shown to provide systemic theoretical arguments against such a reading. To say that the passage from the analysis of the structural class position to (revolutionary) political subjectivation cannot be assumed to be predetermined and/or automatic is not to deny the relevance of structural class analysis for anticapitalist politics (as post-marxism would have it). Rather, it points to the necessity to differentiate between levels of abstraction in analysis: investigating the explanatory scope and limits of structural class analysis of the capitalist mode of production and differentiating it from empirical, historical and sociological class analysis of concrete capitalist societies is a necessary step in overcoming reductionism and developing a more adequate understanding of the complex relationship between class and politics.

Stipe Ćurković is a member of Centre for Labour Studies.

 

15:30h

The working class and the middle classes: allies in a common anti-neoliberal strategy?

John Milios

After the outbreak of the 2008 global economic crisis, extreme neoliberal austerity policies prevailed in many parts of the developed capitalist world, especially in the European Union (EU) and the Euro-area (EA). Austerity has been criticized as an irrational policy, which afflicts the vast majority of society, as it further deteriorates the economic crisis by creating a vicious cycle of falling effective demand, recession and over-indebtedness. However, these criticisms can hardly explain why this “irrational” or “wrong” policy persists, despite its “failures”. In reality, economic crises express themselves not only in a lack of effective demand, but above all in a reduction of profitability of the capitalist class. Austerity constitutes a strategy for raising capital’s profit rate.

This paper examines under which conditions the prevailing capitalist strategy of neoliberalism and austerity may mould a broader anti-labour social coalition, by enforcing the consensus of a part of the “middle classes”, defined as (i) the traditional petty bourgeoisie, (ii) the new petty bourgeoisie and (iii) middle bourgeoisie.

John Milios is a professor of Political Economy at the National Technical University of Athens and author and co-author of many books, including Rethinking Imperialism: A Study of Capitalist Rule and A Political Economy of Contemporary Capitalism: Demystifying Finance. He was chief economic advisor of Syriza until March 2015.

 

17:30h

General discussion

 

19:15h

Talk with John Milios on Greece, Syriza and Popular Unity

Chairman: Marko Kostanić

In this conversation we will tackle recent political developments in Greece, political trajectory of Syriza and prospects for Popular Unity as a new organization on the Left. Based on Greek dynamics we will try to discuss some broader political lessons for the Left which can be learned from this example. John Milios will also talk about his experience of being chief economic advisor of Syriza, with a special accent on relations between Marxist analytical framework and concrete political struggles.

***

Sunday 18.10.

 

11:00h

How Class works? Developing a class map for post-socialism

Dora Levačić / Mislav Žitko

The post-socialist period in Croatia has been marked by abandonment of class analysis in the social sciences and public discourse. The rise of nationalism and consolidation of capitalist market institutions, together with the discovery of postmodern sensibilities in academia, have forged the conditions for displacement of class to the margins of economy and society by virtue of its inherent connection with the ‘Marxist ideology’. In the first step, this paper aims to develop a notion of class by taking into account the recent contributions developed by Goldthorpe, Savage and others. The paper will offer arguments against ‘employment-based’ and ‘cultural theory of class’. In the second step, a class map based on a variety of indicators pertinent to the Croatian social structure in the post-socialist period will be put forward and discussed on conceptual and methodological level. The overall objective of the paper is to bridge the gap created by the suppression of class analysis in the last quarter century and embed the discourse on social class in post-socialism in the discussions that are currently taking place in the advanced capitalist societies.

Dora Levačić is a sociologist and a member of Organisation for Workers Initiative and Democratisation from Zagreb.

Mislav Žitko is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb and a member of Centre for Labour Studies

 

15:30h

Balance of forces and working class organisations in Slovenian transition

Branko Bembič

This paper is composed of three parts. The first part interprets the specific path of Slovenian transition from self -managed socialism to capitalism by disentangling the class alliances underlying the transitional balance of forces and its gradual transformation in the past decade. This is followed by an account of the current situation of working class organisations inSloveniaand the challenges they face. Finally, the paper outlines the idea of working class organisation structured as a research organisation capable of tackling the problems identified in the second part of the paper.

Branko Bembič is a PhD candidate at the University of Ljubljana. His main fields of interest are the critique of political economy and the class culture of workers.

 

17:30h

General discussion

 

Programme of Centre for Labout Studies is financed by Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe

 

Predavanje Alexa Demirovića

 

Je li koncept klase još uvijek održiv? 

Transformacije u kapitalističkoj društvenoj strukturi, intersekcijski oblici dominacije i njihov odnos s klasom

 ***

Mreža Antifašistkinja Zagreba, Pavla Hatza 16, 22.6.2015., 19h

Predavanje će se baviti naširoko diskutiranim pitanjem da li je koncept klase još uvijek primjeren za razumijevanje kompleksnosti današnjih kapitalističkih društava. Prekarni životni uvjeti, seksističko nasilje, eksploatacija prirode, iscrpljenost subjekata, privatna i javna zaduženost – sve su to aspekti dijagnoze intersekcijskih kontradikcija i kapitalizma lišenog perspektive i uočljivog subjekta otpora. Argumentirat ću da se isplati uložiti napor u ponovno promišljanje koncepta klase – koji se često percipira krajnje zastarjelim – i ponovno ga uvesti u rasprave.

***

Alex Demirović je marksistički teoretičar. Autor je opsežne monografije o teorijskom razvoju Frankfurtske škole, monografija o teoriji države i Nicosu Poulantzasu te brojnih knjiga iz oblasti teorije demokracije. Između ostalog, član je uprave Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, uredništva časopisa Prokla, znanstvenog savjeta njemačkog Attaca i sindikata ver.di.

 

Program Centra za radničke studije podržava Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

Predavanje Joachima Beckera

 

Ovogodišnji ciklus predavanja Centra za radničke studije koji započinjemo predavanjem Joachima Beckera posvećen je klasi i klasnoj teoriji. Nedvojbeno je da se te teme nalaze u samome središtu Marxove teorije i marksizma u širem smislu. Unatoč tome, kontroverze oko tih pitanja ne jenjavaju sve do danas. I unutar same marksističe teorije postoje brojne konkurentske konceptualizacije i teorijski projekti. Tom često kakofoničnom pluralizmu pogodovale su određene ambivalencije u različitim Marxovim spisima i nedovršeni karakter njegova zrelog projekta kritike političke ekonomije: kao što je poznato, poglavlje o klasama na kraju trećeg toma Kapitala ostalo je puki fragment. Tome treba dodati i brojne konkurentske, nemarksističke pristupe, počevši od onih koji se nadovezuju na rad Maxa Webera, a koji su poticali i različite pokušaje “sinteze” s marksističkom tradicijom.

CRS-ov ovogodišnji ciklus predavanja za cilj ima domaću publiku upoznati s različitim relevantnim suvremenim pristupima tom važnom sklopu pitanja, doprinijeti jasnijoj kritičkoj diferencijaciji među njima te potaknuti produbljivanje rasprava na tu temu u regionalnom kontekstu, koji je dugo bio odsječen od doticaja sa relevantnim međunarodnim raspravama, pa i po ovome pitanju pati od recepcijskih zaostataka i teorijskih deficita.

 

***

 

Klase, država i politika

Mreža antifašistkinja Zagreba, Pavla Hatza 16, 28.5.2015., 19h

Pozicije društvenih klasa ograničavaju polje mogućih političkih strategija, ali ih ne determiniraju. Radnici mogu štrajkati, ali ako su nezaposleni ne mogu pribjeći metodi štrajka. Njihove političke akcije moraju uzeti drugi smjer. Naprimjer, argentinski su radnici svojevremeno svoj protest izrazili blokiranjem prometnica. Nazvani su piqueterosi s jasnom referencom na štrajkački picket line, iako nisu blokirali tvornice već prometnice. U perifernim i poluperifernim zemljama klasne strukture su heterogenije nego u zemljama centra, što čini uspostavu klasnih saveza nezgodnijom i predstavlja jedan od ključnih izazova za lijeve pokrete u tim državama.

No, heterogenost klasnih struktura i ograničeni materijalni resursi države uobičajeno limitiraju i dosege konsenzualnih strategija vladajućih snaga. Izgradnja klijentelističkih odnosa i izravna represija uglavnom igraju izraženiju ulogu u (polu)perifernim nego u zemljama centra. Nedostatak ili u najmanju ruku ograničeni karakter hegemonije može otvoriti politički prostor za lijeve snage, no istovremeno slabe ekonomske strukture ograničavaju manevarski prostor za lijevu vlast. Ogromne prepreke s kojima se Siriza suočava nastojeći implementirati alternativne ekonomske politike nisu vezane isključivo uz snažne pritiske Europske unije i vlada zemalja centra, prije svega Njemačke, već su nastale i uslijed slabih proizvodnih struktura grčke ekonomije.

Joachim Becker predaje razvojnu ekonomiju i teoriju države na sveučilištu u Beču. Težišta njegovog recentnog rada su polarizacija Europske unije na centar i periferiju i istočnoeuropske ekonomije.

Program Centra za radničke studije podupire Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

 

Predavanje Saše Furlana

 

Novac i država

Mreža antifašistkinja Zagreba, Hatzova 16, Zagreb, 17.12.2014., 19h

Pozivamo vas na posljednje predavanje u ovogodišnjem ciklusu CRS-a posvećenom teoriji kapitalističke države:

U klasičnoj političkoj ekonomiji i neoklasičnoj ekonomici teorija vrijednosti i teorija novca postavljene su u izvanjski i kontingentan odnos. U oba se slučaja teorija novca tretira kao nadopuna teorije vrijednosti, a ne kao njen intrinzični dio. Također, obje teorije pretpostavljaju da se vrijednost robe teorijski može objasniti bez uzimanja novca u obzir i da je novac, praktički, samo tehničko oruđe koje olakšava razmjenu. Marxova teorija vrijednosti je oštro suprotstavljena tim teorijama jer upravo premošćuje taj jaz. Teorijskom eksplikacijom intrinzičnosti odnosa između vrijednosti i novca pokazuje da novac u kapitalizmu nije samo tehničko pomagalo, već logička nužnost. Kao što su naglašavali Backhaus, Heinrich i ostali, Marxova teorija vrijednosti mora se razumjeti kao monetarna teorija vrijednosti. Međutim, u Marxovu izlaganju koncepata vrijednosti i novca pretpostavlja se da je novac roba. S obzirom da je u modernom monetarnom sistemu robni novac zamijenjen ne-robnim novcem, u predavanju ću Marxovu monetarnu teoriju vrijednosti razmotriti iz te perspektive.

Zastupat ću stav da Marxova monetarna teorija vrijednosti nudi opći okvir za teoriju novca koja može teorijski objasniti postojanje i robnog i ne-robnog novca. Međutim, prijelaz s robnog na ne-robni novac iziskuje preispitivanje odnosa između novca i države. Naime, dok u monetarnom sustavu zasnovanom na robnom novcu država obavlja samo tehničke operacije održavanja glatkog funkcioniranja monetarnog sustava, u monetarnom sustavu zasnovanom na ne-robnom novcu država obavlja mnogo važniju ulogu s obzirom da njen autoritet funkcionira kao temelj opće prihvaćenosti novca. Nadalje, u monetarnom sustavu zasnovanom na ne-robnom novcu, izdavanje nekih od najvažnijih oblika kreditnog novca pod monopolom je države, odnosno centralne banke. S obzirom na preispitavanje odnosa između novca i države, razmotrit ću domete i limite državnog monetarnog intervencionizma u modernom monetarnom sustavu.

 

Sašo Furlan je postdiplomski student političke teorije na Fakultetu za društvene znanosti Sveučilišta u Ljubljani i član tamošnjeg Instituta za radničke studije.

**

Predavanje će se održati na engleskom jeziku.

**

Program CRS-a podupire Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

Predavanje Lea Panitcha

 

Kapital, država, rad – čija kriza?

Mreža antifašistkinja Zagreba, Pavla Hatza 16, Zagreb, 11.11.2014., 19h

Kriza kapitalizma koja je započela 2007. godine otvorila je u intelektualnom polju niz pitanja koja se tiču odnosa nacionalne države i kapitalističkih tržišta u kontekstu rasprave o međunarodnoj podjeli rada i novom režimu akumulacije. Različiti nacionalni odgovori na krizu, te promjena odnosa rada i kapitala izazvana mjerama štednje i još izraženijim pritiscima prema komodifikaciji javnih institucija i usluga zahtijevaju promišljanje spomenutih pitanja kao preduvjet teorijski smislenog i politički adekvatnog djelovanja ljevice. Iako se proteklo razdoblje u nekim aspektima pokazuje kao povratak u kapitalizam 19.stoljeća, različiti momenti od financijalizacije do stvaranja novih oblika prekarnog rada ukazuju na nužnost preciznijeg analitičkog pristupa suvremenim kapitalističkim odnosima. Četvrto ovogodišnje predavanje u programu CRS-a posvećenom teoriji države dotiče se središnjih problema suvremene ljevice, podjednako značajnih za njezino intelektualno i političko pozicioniranje u tekućim raspravama.

Leo Panitch je profesor političke teorije na Sveučilištu York u Torontu. Član je uredništva časopisa Socialist register i autor niza značajnih studija među kojima se ističu The End of Parlamentary Socialism Renewing Socialism: Democray, Strategy and Imagination. Za posljednju knjigu, The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire, napisanu u koautorstvu sa Samom Gindinom, nagrađen je prestižnom nagradom Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize.

 

Program CRS-a podupire Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

Seminar: Capital, the State and European Integration

 

net.culture club MaMa, Preradovićeva 18, Zagreb, 17-18.10.2014.

Until not too long ago, even amongst parts of the left, the historic decline of the relevance of the state was taken as a ‘given’. Under the umbrella of ‘globalization theory’ far-reaching proclamations on deep tectonic shifts were the height of fashion. At closer inspection, however, the impatiently sweeping character of many such generalizations more often than not revealed itself to be the consequence of a lack of both conceptual rigor and empirical scrupulousness, embarrassingly echoing much of the imaginary of neoliberalism’s triumphalism and its intellectual proponents.

The onset of the financial and economic crisis of 2007/2008 and its consequences made many of these theoretical constructs seem obsolete over night. Large, coordinated state interventions and rescue packages were the order of the day, pointing to complexities in the relations between states and capital which simplistic end-of-state narratives seemed decisively badly equipped to tackle, let alone explain in any meaningful fashion. In some quarters this then lead to talk of a ‘return of Keynes’ or, more generally, proclamations of a ‘return of the state’ itself. But this pendulum swing in the opposite direction proved to be no less superficial and premature than what had preceded it. Rather than leading to a restoration of post-war Keynesianism, the dominant drive of crisis policies reaffirmed a preference for neoliberal solutions, now of an increasingly authoritarian character, devoid of old democratic niceties and former procedural inhibitions. Here too, a complex and often untransparent assemblage of markets, transnational institutions, nation states and their mutual interactions confirmed the deficiencies of much left thinking to adequately account for these processes and the shifting institutional architecture underpinning them.

Yet without a proper understanding of the contemporary configuration of relations between capital, the state and transnational institutions, it will be impossible to judge the plausibility or implausibility of various competing proposals on the left and their respective strategic projections. Nowhere more so than within the European Union, where deepening integration now assumes the seemingly paradoxical form of deepening socio-economic fragmentation along national lines and a palpable regional polarization into core and periphery. Centripetal and centrifugal forces seem to overlap and intertwine in a complex process with as of yet unclear long-term consequences for the future of the European project itself. The increasingly authoritarian character of ‘crisis-resolution’ policies pose long-term dangers for the subaltern classes and endanger formal-democratic standards long considered an irreversible historical achievement. In parallel, a new surge of right-wing populism all over Europe seeks to take advantage of the ensuing socio-economic degradation and political disillusionment…

In trying to address these complex issues, the seminar will revisit fundamental questions on the nature of the capitalist state, the degree of transfer of its prerogatives to EU and transnational institutions, the ensuing ‘division of labour’ between national and transnational levels, the class character of these processes, their implications for democratic standards, as well as their possible contradictions and future perspectives. The political stakes are clear: only by properly understanding the structural conditions of the current conjuncture, its institutional complexities, inherent limits and contradictions, can viable left strategies be formulated.

 

***

 

PROGRAMME

Friday, October 17th

11.00 – 12.30

Lecture

Jens Wissel: The EU as a New State Project

15.30-17.00

Lecture

John Kannankulam: Competing Hegemony Projects in the Current European Crisis: a Historical Materialist Policy Analysis on Political Struggles

17.30-19.30

General discussion

 

*

 

Saturday, October 18th

11.00 – 12.30

Lecture

Werner Bonefeld: European Economic Constitution and the Transformation of Democracy: On Class and the State of Money and Law

15.30-17.00

Lecture

Bob Jessop: States and State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach

17.30-19.30

General discussion

 

***

 

ABSTRACTS:

The EU as a New State Project

Jens Wissel

Against the backdrop of a global trend towards neoliberal constitutionalism, the EC/EU became, from the mid-1980s, an important supporter of a Europeanised fraction of the capitalist class showing first signs of transnationalisation. This development was a result of the emergence of the competition state. It is also manifest in the formation of a European power bloc, for which European and transnational institutions are of increasing importance.

In contrast to mainstream state theory, materialist state theory does not perceive the state as a unified actor. Here, the state represents a material condensation of social relations of forces, which includes international constellations of forces. The individual apparatuses are linked, in a specific form, with the social relations of forces; as a result, the state has to be viewed as a complex ensemble of competing power and decision-making centres within and between state apparatuses. Accordingly, this ensemble consists of a “multiplicity of diversified micro-policies” (Poulantzas). The EU can be seen as a new state project, on whose terrain a new scalar structure and hierarchies between state apparatuses emerge. This concerns both the European and national state apparatuses. The relationships between and the positions of the various apparatus are fairly flexible; they result from a constant process of negotiating. Notwithstanding the dynamic of this new state project there is still no consensus on the hierarchy of scales in the EU. As a result, the EU and the national and European apparatuses are not only pervaded by social contradictions, but also, and to a stronger degree, by the competition between the different scales and different state projects. The emergence of a European border regime and the production, at a European level, of processes of inclusion and exclusion transform the EU into a territorial entity.

In this context a new control regime of global mobility evolves producing specific zones of stratified rights.

Jens Wissel is a Fellow at the Institute for Social Research at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, currently employed as a Research Associate at the University of Kassel.

 

*

 

Competing Hegemony Projects in the Current European Crisis: a Historical Materialist Policy Analysis on Political Struggles

John Kannankulam

In his paper John Kannankulam follows the question which specific relationship of forces – to follow the famous notion of the Marxist Greek-French state theorist Nicos Poulantzas – are to be identified within the recent authoritarian neoliberal European crisis programs like e.g. the Economic Governance and the Fiscal Treaty. Following an approach that has been developed out of an recently finished research project about the struggles around a common European migration policy (www.staatsprojekt-europa.eu), which following Ulrich Brand has been labeled as Historical Materialist Policy Analysis (HMPA), Kannankulam presents the concept of “Hegemony Projects” – which are analytically aggregated common strategies of different actors around a political conflict – as a mode to operationalize relationships of forces in the struggle around hegemony.

John Kannankulam is an Assistant Professor for the Political Economy of European Integration at Marburg University, Germany.

 

*

 

European Economic Constitution and the Transformation of Democracy: On Class and the State of Money and Law

Werner Bonefeld

The contribution contends that the economic constitution of Europe amounts to a system of imposed liberty. It explores the roots of this construction in the neoliberal critique of unlimited mass democracy and introduces and assesses specifically the accounts of Friedrich von Hayek and Alfred Mueller-Armack on the market-facilitating benefits of European integration. In their view, European economic integration is beneficial because it restrains the democratic element of the liberal-democratic state, reinforcing the market facilitating purpose of the (neo-)liberal state. The paper holds that class is fundamental to the understanding of processes of European integration, and the institutions of monetary union in particular.

Werner Bonefeld is a Professor of Politics at the University of York, UK.

 

*

 

States and State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach

Bob Jessop

State theorists have usually attempted to theorize the state but this is a misleading focus that risks treating the state as a simple instrument or machine, a reified apparatus that is primarily a source of constraint on political action, or a more or less rational subject that exercises power. Such positions have been criticized from many alternative theoretical positions as well as proven unhelpful in empirical analyses. One important line of criticism, developed in a range of theoretical perspectives (e.g., Marx, Gramsci, Poulantzas, Foucault, Latour), is to refocus the analysis on the modalities of the exercise of state power considered as a complex social relation. I develop the implications of this strategic-relational perspective and consider its relevance to the transformation of state power in the present phase of imperialism.

 

Bob Jessop is a Professor of Sociology at Lancaster University, UK.

 

Programme of Centre for labour studies is supported by Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.

Predavanje Ishaya Lande

 

Liberalizam, fašizam i zagonetka masovnog društva

Filozofski fakultet, dvorana 6, Ivana Lučića 3, Zagreb, 20.9.2104., 19h

U izlaganju ću preispitati standardno poimanje fašizma kao ”masovne politike” ili čak ”masovne histerije”. Pristup koji su desetljećima branili i perpetuirali bezbrojni stručnjaci i promatrači iz različitih disciplina i perspektiva oslanja se na duboko ukorijenjenu sliku – ovacije gomile i masovni spektakli, mračna simbioza demagoga i mase. Ova slika se uzima za suštinski izraz fašizma. Udaljavajući se od takve analize predložit ću razumijevanje međuratnog evropskog fašizma kao sveobuhvatnog pokušaja nošenja s izazovom koje je masovno društvo predstavljalo tradicionalnim pozicijama moći i višim društvenim slojevima.

Fašizam je bolje sagledati kao radikalnu negaciju modernog fenomena znanog kao ”masovno društvo” i njegovih raznovrsnih aspekata: društvenih, političkih, ekonomskih i kulturnih. Negaciju koja je upregnula i inkorporirala različite ideološke razvoje i poticaje iz prošlosti – konzervativne, elitističke i, ne i najmanje važno, liberalne. Upravo je liberalni pedigre fašizma od posebne važnosti za procjenu prirode fašističke intervencije. Dopušta nam kritičku konfrontaciju s liberalnom analizom fašizma kao fundamentalno masovne forme, ishodom preuzimanja države od strane rulje. Takav je pogled bio(i još uvijek je) često popraćen idejom da otpor imanentnoj opasnosti fašizma podrazumijeva razne oblike ograničavanja političkog utjecaja masa i čuvanje države pod kontrolom kvalificiranih elita. Previđajući srodnosti između ovih dviju političkih tradicija i značajan kontinuitet ultimativnih ciljeva, liberalna analiza implicira jasnu cezuru u prijelazu od liberalne prema fašističkoj državi. Nasuprot tome, alternativna perspektiva koju ću ocrtati sugerira da najbolji protuotrov fašizmu leži u punom ostvarenju onoga što će se nazivati ”masovnim projektom”.

 

Ishay Landa predaje povijest na Otvorenom sveučilištu Izraela u Ra’anani od 2009. godine. Njegovi istraživački interesi uključuju ničeanizam, marksizam,  političku teoriju i popularnu kulturu. Napisao je dvije knjige – The Overman in the Marketplace(Lexington, 2007.) i The Apprentice’s Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism(Brill, 2010.)

 

Predavanje je dio ovogodišnjeg programa posvećenog teoriji kapitalističke države.

 

Program CRS-a podržava Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southeast Europe.