Woemen Long Leg Panties

ALBA Solidarity unrestricted with the people of Honduras

The recent coup d'etat in Honduras against the legitimate and democratic government of Manuel Zelaya, is not only an unacceptable attack against the people of that sister nation Central American but also a direct attack on the process Latin American and Caribbean integration has its peak in the momentum of the ALBA TCP.

As part of the global crisis of capitalism, where the rise of peoples, workers and women workers is increased, the Honduran bourgeoisie and an important sector of right-wing military leaders have decided to take the shortcut to break the thread constitutional, violating all human rights, political and civil rights of sons and daughters of Morazán. This cowardly act is just another attempt by imperialism and its lackeys to stop the processes of historical change that have been underway in the region over the past 10 years.

not hesitate to affirm Honduras this aggression is an aggression against all peoples who have decided to build a different society to which we condemned imperialism, dependent capitalism, poverty, unemployment, hunger. Honduras attack is attacking the TCP ALBA, UNASUR is attacking.

We call upon the peoples of the world, workers, governments, revolutionary political parties, the various social organizations to actively move to restore constitutional order in Honduras to return the government of President Manuel Zelaya, to wipe out the coup and locking them up.

demand decisive action from multilateral agencies UN, OAS, this situation will measure again if they are legitimate or are a bureaucratic bodies should disappear forever.

We can not accept more abuses of the peoples. We can not allow the dreams of the exploited, of the dispossessed are again frustrated.

Unit of the people to defeat imperialism

Unity and women workers to overcome the crisis of capitalism

Construction, gender to class. SurVersiva youth, social networking



Social networking

Expiration Date On Canned Chicken Broth

invisible Capitalism

Francisco Sánchez Rebellion Umpiérrez

"unmasks the capitalists and make them invisible visible"

The immediacy and the occult

The Marxist-inspired social scientists go always looking for the hidden causes to explain the immediate world. It is true that the nature of value and the means by which the capitalist appropriates the work of others contain hidden causes. But there are facts that are present there, on the surface of things, which can be seen clearly that there are people who hijack alien labor. What happens is that we are so well suited to these events, so in tune with them and not disturb us, and therefore, do not make us react.

The right to be rich
Consider that the greatest injustice in this world is that there are people who take so much wealth that it is impossible to explain it as the work of their own work. What happens is that it admits as a fact of excessive enrichment. It is thought that this situation can play any luck, we should not envy anyone, because everyone wants to be as rich as possible, but some of us succeed and others do not. At least, we concluded that this is the opportunity it gives us and capitalism and not socialism. This is the ideology dominant in enriching environment.

property law based on the work

listen to Locke in his Essay on Civil Government concerning the right of ownership based on the work: "God has given the world to men in common, but since gave it for his own benefit and to bring forth the same as many benefits for your life, you can not assume that God intended this world always remain as common property and uncultivated. God gave to the working man and uses the same sound (and his job would be his title of possession. "Only I have an impact on the latter he says Locke: the title to wealth must be based on the work. We are not using Marx to defend against conventional economists, the neo-liberal and all sorts of lackeys of capitalism in the twentieth century but one of the earliest and most revolutionary representatives of the bourgeoisie, a man of the last half of the eighteenth century and recognized as the father of liberalism: John Locke. And the only thing we demand of it is the idea that the right of ownership of wealth is based on the work. And this idea is the one to popularize among the broadest masses. No one should be allowed to be enriched beyond what is reasonable, ie beyond that is inexplicable wealth based on the work itself.

Ownership and use of capital

At the beginning of capitalism, the capitalist was the owner of the money invested in the company even owned the place where it operated. So all was his gain. But as the scale of production increased and pushed through the credit system, created a division of labor between the owner of money, the banker, and who used that money as capital, commercial or industrial capitalist. As any amount of money used as capital yields a profit, the owner of the money calls the capitalist in office, who has given him money on loan, to give you a portion of the gain: interest. Thus it is evident that the gain experienced by the owner of the money is not due to his work but to his ownership. However, within capitalist relations of production, everyone finds it normal that the person transferring a sum of money as a loan is entitled to charge interest. Put another way: this statue as a natural right the right to appropriate someone else's work.

Widespread interest in producing capital

seems natural that he used the money as capital and makes a profit, should give you a part of the owner of money in interest. But the fact is that so much money that stays in office the capitalist, profit, as that is the owner of money, interest, are goodwill, that is, the work of others. What happens is that all this remains hidden.
But it does not stop there but goes further still. A person applying for a loan to buy a house or a car, not using the money as capital, however, have to pay interest. So in these cases the money paid as interest is not part of the gain, but a part of wages. Therefore, any money given as a loan, used as capital or not, shows an interest.

Salary and benefit


There is a qualitative difference between wage and profit. The salary is perceived by a person as consideration for their work, while the benefit is perceived by a person as consideration for his ownership of a business. In the field of small business profit is usually always significantly higher than wages. But in large companies the salary of an executive or manager may be substantially higher than the benefit received by a small capitalist. So that quantitative superiority of the benefit wage is broken or misleading in this case. This seems to blur the differences qualitative differences between capital and labor and makes us think that the nineteenth-century capitalism is more than overcome and that the advent of socialism is no longer necessary. But do not get carried away by appearances, but go a little deeper. We should note two things: first, part of the exorbitant salaries paid CEOs of large companies is more than good. Listed as salary and wages is perceived, but is substantially benefit. On the other hand, when a person receives income soaring, the savings capacity is very high. And these savings are then invested as capital. So not only is that the benefits are disguised as salaries, but also that high wages are transformed into capital. Capitalists

invisible visible and capitalists

Think of a capitalist who has opened a business and hire 50 employees. After 25 years the entrepreneur has a personal estate of 6 million euros, while each of the 50 employees has a personal estate of only 60. 000. Not only is that capitalism has a huge wealth for the 50 workers, but also the capitalist receives in its capacity as employer a salary of 12,000 euros and the workers a salary of 1,200 euros. This is a case of capitalism visible, where we can clearly see that workers are exploited, the owner the business has accumulated vast personal wealth and every day enjoy great wealth, while workers have yet to pay their housing and are in a hurry to make ends meet. These are the capitalists on the radical left has focused and sharpened his criticism.
Besides these there are other visible capitalists capitalists who are there before us, but not see or recognize them as capitalists. These capitalists are those who call capitalist invisible. This class players like Beckham, which charges 25 million euros for four seasons at Madrid and annual revenues of EUR 24 million advertising and musicians such as Sting, who has annual revenues of $ 321 million. Why not recognize these people as capitalists? On the peculiar way in which it rich. It is recognized that earn much money, but apparently not win by exploiting the workers. Hence the radical left does not focus his criticism in this kind of capitalist invisible.


the guise of economic forms

saw earlier, in the case of the salaries of senior executives, some of these fees was only disguised wage benefit. The same happens with Beckham receives remuneration for advertising: it is more than good advertising disguised as cost. This fact, an inexpensive way to dress up in another form, I showed Marx in Capital: interest and taxes paid by enterprises, which in the accounts as costs, are just surplus labor. But what interests us here is to highlight what it sees Beckham, Nadal or any other athlete in the form of advertising is that surplus labor.
Where once we saw that a capitalist exploiting the labor force of 50 people appropriated twenty-five years after a surplus of 6 million, now we see that Beckham is appropriated in one year and only in respect of advertising a surplus of $ 24 million. Hence, Beckham is much more exploitative significantly more exploitative, that this capitalist. What happens is that that person is a capitalist visible and invisible Beckham is a capitalist. In this capitalist observe the relationship he has with the people they exploit, while in the case of Beckham relations with the people they exploit are indirect and are mediated by many processes and economic forms.


The ideological role of capitalism invisible

In capitalism, there are many ways to get rich. Become a football star is one of them. The other day I saw a documentary on TV where a very poor place all parents were determined that their children play football. Is one way, they argued that parent out of poverty. And that is the illusion of many poor children of becoming a soccer star out of poverty for his family. The first thing we see, by the predominance of the capitalist mentality, is that the solution to the problem of poverty is seen as an individual matter. Here reigns the principle of bourgeois man, the selfish man who thinks only of saving himself. And the second thing we observe is the unawareness about the source of wealth, as if some extreme wealth had nothing to do with the pitiful poverty of others. That child who wants to become soccer star out of poverty, becoming in a rich, not aware that their future enrichment will be based on the impoverishment of others.

The foreground and the unmasking

The radical left is harshly attacking the forefront of capitalism, formed in part by the big football stars, who by way of salary, bonuses and advertising earn an average of 8 million euros. Ronaldinho, for instance, entered the last year 9 million in salary and 14 million in advertising. Both his salary and what goes in terms of advertising are disguised forms of surplus labor. The capitalist system that makes him think that he wins is because of their own effort, but the truth is that wealth can only be explained as the appropriation of alien labor. We know that we all contribute to creating national wealth, but the capitalist system has a host of mechanisms that allow a few get in their pockets a lot of money, while the vast majority of it comes at the end of the month. The absurd, the irrational, which already cries to heaven, is that Ronaldinho, who is a capitalist invisible, this is a capitalist who appropriates a lot of other people's work under the guise of being their own work, has been appointed Ambassador Hunger World Food Programme. Therefore, the radical left must submit a critique of capitalism in the foreground, consisting by the great stars of football and other sports, who under the guise of neutrality and kindness are hidden allies of the capitalist background, with whom they share the surplus labor and are disproportionately wealthy.
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=33258


social networking

How Do You Refuse A Gift Gracefully

About Single Party and Socialism of the XXI Century or ethics ecosocialist

Malim Rebellion
called The Fall of Real Socialism, especially the Soviet exacerbated the confusion about basic aspects of Marxist and Leninist ideology, such as the role of the party, the protagonists of the working masses of the revolutionary process with alternative forms of organization and power struggles, confusion about the form of organization that has organized the bourgeoisie as the ruling class with either State on the formulation republican, monarchical and fake democracy where workers exploited and alienated from their political responsibility delegated the so-called political class, with parties who are responsible for managing the capitalist order, call themselves conservatives, liberals, socialists, workers, etc., alternating engaged in the exercise of government when these are burned by not solving the real problems people as are the basic aspects of existence: the right to permanent employment, housing, health free to free education. No possibility of control and even repudiation by the people when they abuse the trust placed in them, waiting to pass the years to elect the other party alternation in confidence to do better.

are many revolutionaries who blame Stalin or his followers for personal and bureaucratic malfeasance that led to the collapse of the USSR, fall to the bottom of why he fell, someone dares to say that confusion that workers came to his defense, unaware of the diversion that occurred at the death of Lenin, to encroach upon the development of direct democracy from the bottom up it was the Soviet power, and indeed consolidate a bourgeois form of democracy called Soviet, but it was not, with all elements of its false division of powers and electoral false game, where the people could not control or revoke bureaucrats installed in power.

Some revolutionary bourgeois coinciding with the epithets of that revolution, considered that it was a dictatorship, but dare not do adjectives like bourgeois Communist. These if somehow depart from materialist to define it, are very clear that for them, such as social class is a dictatorship because it kills its privileges, not only for the nationalization of the means production, but because being a minority class, direct democracy from below which was originally the Soviet revolution, prevented them from deceiving the majority class who were the workers and poor peasants, as in these bourgeois democracy accept the deceptive government proposals that perpetuate the bourgeois order and their class interests. Confused when the "democratic" bourgeois democracy by way of delegated to the political class, supported as democratic model, even said that it belongs to the "rule of law", it is because the exploitation of man by man done "democratically." No we understand the physical character and class in which to settle the forms of power that democracy can not exist, or is workers' democracy, or democracy is bourgeois dictatorship of the workers over the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie on exploited, either in their formulation "democratic" or physical dictatorial style of Hitlerism, Pinochets shift when even in the institutional game bourgeois class interests are threatened by resorting to the last link repressive bourgeois state is the military. This confusion makes
say revolutionary dreamers of socialism, socialism of the twentieth century was a resounding failure, generally deny of the Soviet experience without understanding the positives and negatives of that event, the bottom of what led to the alternative organization of struggle and power through the Soviet workers, peasants and soldiers organized as the ruling class from the bottom up. Not understanding the form and substance of historical experience that if Marx failed to see after the spontaneous example of struggle and power that was the Paris Commune in 1871, or 1905, also appreciated and valued Lenin with the rise of Soviet Russia. Without understanding that this experience with the support of the revolutionary organizations in their development, twelve years later ended the tsarist and capitalism. Consider that those events historical forms of the past are no alternative fund grassroots organization that does not deserve to interpret today as an alternative revolutionary organization. Do not understand that this form of Soviet organization was to a degree of development and organization sufficient to kill the Tsar and capitalism, but insufficient, given the material, cultural, scientific in that backward country, that the day after the victory of the revolution, functioned in the country that new administrative apparatus and productive gubernatorial direct democracy based on bottom-up permanent it was the Soviet organization. Clearly

heads have not emerged with the capacity development of Marxist philosophy that took Lenin, to synthesize the basics, and in the imperialist stage of capitalism, how could appreciate the inter-imperialist contradictions and using them to develop a policy and organization revolutionary. Prepend knew the character of the international class struggle to the national defense of the homeland in World War I, who defended the alleged Marxists of the time, refused to Soviet power, despite its limited development outside abandoned and handed over power to the Duma, the false bourgeois parliamentarism. What happened next after the illness and death of Lenin, requires a debate that goes beyond the topic of this article on the Venezuelan experience. Stalin, who had no intellectual capacity Marxist Lenin, with its authoritarianism, its concept development vulgar material, got that backward country would a giant step in the productive, even in the military was instrumental in the defeat of the form fascist imperialist and bourgeois power during World War II, all at the expense of curtailing the Soviet power. It should be noted, the similarities of imperialist power starred behind the figure of Hitler, with the current stars in the modern Hitler called Bush and his cohorts of second row. Nor can we forget that the constitution Leninist Soviet Stalin's proposal was repealed on June 11, 1936 and replaced by another Soviet constitution continued to call, but it was not. Was the practice that had developed after the death of Lenin. Political commissars imposed by the party, like the commissioners under another name, "political class, the bourgeoisie in power imposes his false democratic game, the better stewards of the bourgeois order organized in various games. Palmiro Togliatti

at the symposium organized by the Gramsci Institute in January 1958, said: "There are Lenin, at least, three main chapters, which determine the whole development action and thought: a doctrine of Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism, a doctrine of the Revolution, and therefore, the State and power, and a doctrine of the Party. Three chapters are closely linked, nearly fused to each other. Each contains a theory and practice, when developing an effective reality. "

This synthesis of Lenin's revolutionary thought, developed to present to the struggle against imperialism nationally and internationally, we can appreciate in these works: "What to do?" 1 "," Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, "The State and Revolution "2," Infantile Disorder 'leftism' in communism. "

As stated in the Communist Manifesto, the Communists are not something apart from the workers, but, the only difference that separates them is the knowledge of Marxist philosophy which is based on a scientific basis for its materialist method dialectical and objectively analyze the material and spiritual reality, without which objectivity would be impossible to help transform it. Worker born workers are not born with communist consciousness, hence the responsibility of the communists to bring social science knowledge that is Marxism, in order to help them become aware of class and power exercise direct revolutionary starring role it deserves. The game helps but does not replace the protagonist in the revolutionary process that corresponds to exercise workers. Hence the ideologically united party can generate a truly democratic internal organization that is moral and practical example to the entire workforce, a lifelong activist participatory democracy and bottom-up which allows to merge with the entire workforce in schools production, social, educational, etc., to exercise their influence and ideological education to enable the imposed exile from the dominant bourgeois ideology, with its false and untrue state democracy.

The people do not understand the class nature of the world they live in, the tremendous capacity of the media apparatus and confusion in the hands of the bourgeoisie that makes them forget the previous actions of these parties that were already leaders and managers of the capitalist order. The power of alienating the bourgeoisie made with the new information technology, especially TV, commercials with their repugnant and stupid consumerist messages that generate false needs, keeps operating on the individualism and lack of solidarity, especially countries "more developed" first world living in tremendous fear and anxiety that no one explains.

In the current phase of imperialist domination with their powerful means of destruction and alienation, get confused not only the people but that confuses us all, including those who consider ourselves defenders of Marxism and Leninism, and other "isms" anti-capitalist clear evidence is the existence and ideological dispersion manifested by so many groups nationally and internationally unable to give the great battle against the real enemy imperialist organizations internationally organized repressive military, economic and ideological interpretations from more or less liberal or conservative .

In Venezuela when considering the term Century Socialism XXI can be induced to certain idealistic interpretations on the merits of the power of organized labor as the ruling class, neglecting the historical strengths, which gave rise to alternative forms of direct and participatory democracy from the bottom up, not finished growing by the material conditions historic moments, but remain valid for the alternative character they had. When terminology definitions do not correspond with objective reality of the term, introduce elements of confusion, as in the case of induced on the Commune or the Soviet, whose background as defined interpretation of the classic appropriateness the alternative state of the proletarians and the exploited peasants organized as the ruling class from the bottom up.

coined the term moral example representing President Chavez on the XXI century socialism, we must understand that does not deny those positive historical experiences, but with other names, given the handling and discredit the dominant bourgeois ideology has imposed on them, even among purported Marxists, Chavez and his proposals on the community councils, missions, parishes, neighborhoods in the cooperatives, the example of choice of managers and other terminologies ALCASA is enabling education popular participation and bottom-up, laying the groundwork for what has to be the new alternative constitution of the working people organized as the ruling class in its new state alternative is socialism, where democracy from the bottom up and not delegated in the political class, but lays the foundation for the work ceases to be alienated, to stop dividing human beings to be alone with productive capacity in people with political capacity, by eliminating the bourgeois terminology of civil society and political class. Under socialism all workers are politicians because they are participatory organizational mechanisms directly and permanently to make it possible. The controlling workers directly from their places of productive work, social or cultural and social aspects of production such, they can choose and control at all times, even dismiss elected officials who have been elected to represent them in productive work, social and governmental. These organizational forms of struggle and alternative power are the ones that took place in the nineteenth and twentieth century, the problem is that Marx and Lenin when they learned to appreciate those spontaneous forms of workers, they were not invented but were initiatives workers themselves. Initiative as we said, Lenin was able to support and promote them until twelve years later in 1917 reached such a level of organization that allowed overthrow the tsarist and capitalism. Today the bourgeoisie if they know when their privileges may be jeopardized and that with their powerful means of alienation, confusion and repression prevents spontaneous demonstrations of workers who always take place, not developed, are accused of terrorist acts (now under communist), accusing them of being anti-democratic elements that do not respect "the rule of law."

incurred attempts occurred on Socialism in the Nineteenth Century, XX, XXI and XXII have the, on the assumption that we will succeed in this century, imperialist barbarity does not end with any sign of life in the planet. Not a question to idealize this or that world, but to implement and develop accordingly Marxist philosophy to apply to the current historical moment, to understand the material and spiritual contradictions of social forces in conflict at this time nationally and internationally.

is a pity that the alleged Marxist talk of the "rule of law," hang him from heaven, as if states did not respond at each moment in history, from slavery, feudalism and capitalism, the needs of social class in power. In this regard we must say that without an understanding of material and scientific basis of the historical role of the state and democracy, there is Marxism worth, and know what world we live. Worryingly

people identified with the revolutionary process say that "twentieth century socialism that failed miserably" 3, which shows failure to grasp the material basis on which sit the revolutionary process, not understanding or denying the historical materialism to invent new concepts, making the term motor century modernization of socialist revolution, forget that, despite the blockade and the attempts of imperialism, in that age there is still a socialist Cuba. Say: "If you raise the idea of \u200b\u200bsocialism in the XXI century as a historical experience new, radically democratic, to incorporate and celebrate the diversity of human cultural experience and is capable of harmony with all life forms on the planet, requires a deep critique of that historical experience. Without a crude diagnostic reasons why the party-state model led to the establishment of Soviet authoritarian order that had its highest expression in Stalinism, there are no tools to prevent against the threat of repetition. Without a radical questioning of the Eurocentric philosophy of history that prevailed under socialism-Marxism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is possible to incorporate one of the most formidable achievements of the struggles of the peoples of around the globe in recent decades, the demand of the vast plurality of human cultural historical experience and the right of peoples to preserve their identities, their ways of thinking, knowing, feeling, living "4. Merges Marxism and Leninism as interpreted to this philosophy of socialism, Marxism can be Eurocentric, characteristic of past centuries as were the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, that nothing positive can make the most worrying and forget what has been discussed before on the organizational basis and alternative upholding the communal state, Soviet or as we like to call it democracy with very specific, that in no way resembles the bourgeois democracy based community in power from below, with the possibility of control and withdrawal at any time of elected officials.

Understanding diversity is a necessity, but diversity is positive and negative aspects, not all experiences are positive. Only the method of dialectical materialist analysis and allows us an objective understanding of science-based, allowing complex material harmony material world, the ecological and human. The dialectical unity of the human and ecological finite understanding the ways in which matter appears to allow us to understand that oil is finite matter, just as are other matters that have led to false development consumerism that is destroying the environment. It is necessary to overcome the mentality imposed, we have little historical time in order to address the future that will present when at least 40 years oil disappears, but so far despite the bourgeois optimism, there is no energy materials to replace him. If any would have already been implemented, would retain the oil in case they fail, rather than increasing consumption increases that matter, which may be exhausted before the predictions were made about 40 years. 5



As idealistic interpretation of the term can be made authoritative, which can induce the anarchist anti-authoritarianism, it should be noted that when we assume the need for the organization we are assuming certain authoritarianism to establish different positions of responsibility, which is needed to develop complex production processes and political, not enough to believe that to be a worker is sufficient for a political project or a company function, we need also the best political specialists, technical specialists and engineers, who have a professional authority, which does not mean that a worker on a popular real power structure can become the best politician or the director of the company, as it happens, setting an example, in housing cooperatives, where workers could, arise even in the capitalist system specified number of houses built for members, where they choose between the Governing Board, the president of the cooperative, which very well may be exercised one of the working partners. This governing board, the president can hire and manage the necessary technical architects, surveyors, builders, etc. Imagine that such a cooperative socialism, where the means of production, social, cultural, etc., Are not owned by a cooperative group, but all working people organized as the ruling class in the proletarian state, truly Soviet communal or as we like to call it but that the project meets state organizational bottom-up, which has nothing to do with bourgeois democracy where the people delegate their political responsibility in the so-called political class made up in various "democratic" parties.

Democratic centralism is the proletarian democracy, bureaucratic centralism is only of bourgeois democracy. Their forms by the fund and organization are completely opposite. Grassroots democracy, or democracy from above. Permanent direct control, or false control every X number of years with new elections when the party in power is burned to the people. Do NOT be alarmed by Chavez's authority, that alone is asustémonos Chavez confidence that leads to the great socialist Bolivarian project in their journey toward full communism and solidarity. Chavez is not God, is part of the complex material material world, which like all human beings will someday be called to the heavenly paradise (like "god" who is within two hundred years), God is all the people exercise power directly, as other words, said Raul Castro at the congress of the youth, referring to Fidel's replacement for each of those young people. The one-party ideologically united around Marxism and Leninism is that it may have the educational role that allows the people organized as the ruling class and exercise all the power. Is the real material and moral authority. Trust is the triumph of ideological cohesion that results in one-party organization that allows for all to exercise the power to bring all the people the ideological message that you can understand the revolutionary role it deserves, and that working people longer be divided into productive and single politician to choose one or another bourgeois party or parties alternating unique bureaucratic socialism as were those of that socialism. The organized, following the Venezuelan initiatives, from the production centers choosing managers of industries directors, from and among Workers will begin to act like being productive and political control of production by engaging in collective ownership that goes beyond cooperative bourgeois conception, choosing from the centers of production, study, culture, education, etc., its delegates to local governments and industry. Building the Great Pyramid of proletarian power which lies in a permanent broad base of participation, a base for their organization elects its representatives by the mandate, they can control and removal at any time because he has not fulfilled the mandate received, because it does not deserve the trust, or for the simple reason that in that year permanent participatory democracy has emerged a new partner with greater skills to derive more representative role.

Infiltrators in Chavez accept the community councils, but limited its exercise to local performances, not as a basis to give rise to the great pyramid in which power sits to the top governmental popular that facilitates the overall planning and democratic centralism , that allows to develop and strengthen socialism in the productive and governmental. They are afraid to impose a constitution with this form of popular democracy that allows the control and a permanent revocation, so do not consider it necessary to change the current constitution, claiming that the government changes are made every x years instead of when the people deem necessary at any time will do everything possible because changes are not made by the community organization, like the attempt that was the Paris Commune or the Soviet Leninist.

are mistaken who believe that the single party can form a kind of tax decree, would be tantamount to denying the material reality that has led to the existence of so many trends in organized groups such as the anarchist, Trotskyite, Marxist Leninist, reformist socialism with their particular names, Catholic groups critical of the official church and defenders cause of socialist solidarity, etc. Only sustained ideological debate in the dialectical materialist method that takes into account the scientific basis of Marxist philosophy is founded, developed the present time material and spiritual, can give rise to ideological consistency that allows a group with enough revolutionary organizational structure to influence to advance the socialist revolution and sent to the dustbin of history the old bourgeois state. You can not confuse the need for left unity around a common agenda in the short to medium term, a party must have a long-term program that would assist in the consolidation of socialism to move towards communism, without giving cause backtracking as with the false socialism. People do not change their mentality and ideology by simply changing the name of the party initials. If not based on such a basis for deepening ideological debate that enables a structure of power and direct democracy and participatory bottom-up, the tax and debate PSUV will be the best vehicle where the "buds" embedded on Chavez, based on ideological tendencies within it less settled in the dialectical materialist philosophy and may continue to pursue with greater assurance and anti confusionist work for their personal privilege, to defend the bourgeois forms of constitution and prevent the adoption of a constitution that meets the need of socialist power, based on the community councils from the bottom to the top of governmental power. Defenders "of the vast plurality, its ways of thinking, knowing, feeling, living" from the idealistic thought that encompasses the vast plurality of individualism, materialism dialectical deniers, advocates of universal suffrage false bourgeois democracy who deny the reality of man as a party to the complex world of material needed to live in harmony and solidarity among all humans and all of nature, will the best allies of the "buds."

1 Link with this work. It requires a mental effort to place ourselves at that historical moment of the dispersal of groups who consider themselves Marxists divided locally and from the clandestine nature to which they were compelled to act: http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/ lenin / que_hacer.asp


social networking

Whitening Strips Headaches

For

Michael Lowy
Capital is a formidable machine of reification. After the Great Transformation spoken of Karl Polanyi, ie after the capitalist market economy is autonomous, that is, so to speak, "unclogging", it works only for their own laws, the impersonal laws of profit and accumulation. That is, Polanyi emphasizes, "the transformation of human and natural substance of society into commodities," thanks to a device, the self-regulating market, which inevitably tends to "break human relationships y. .. destroy the natural habitat of man. "

is a merciless system, which throws individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds "under deadly wheels of progress, that car of Jagannath."

Max Weber had already detected dramatically logic "reified" of capital in his great work Economy and Society: "The reification (Versachlichung) of the economy founded on the basis of the socialization of the market is absolutely its own objective legality (sachlich ) ... Reified universe (Kosmos versachlichte) of capitalism leaves no room for charitable orientation ... "Weber concludes from this that the capitalist economy is structurally incompatible with the ethical criteria," in contrast to other forms of domination, economic domination of capital because of its impersonal nature, could not be regulated ethically ... Competition, market, labor market, the money market, ie objective considerations, not ethical or unethical, just unethical ... commanding performance at the decisive point and introduce impersonal instances between human beings involved. " In style neutral and uncommitted, Weber indicates the essentials: the capital is by its essence, "unethical."

At the root of this inconsistency is the phenomenon of quantification. Rechenhaftigkeit-Inspired by the spirit of rational calculation referred to Weber, the capital is a formidable machine of quantification. Recognizes only calculation of gains and losses, production figures, the measure of prices, costs and benefits. Submits to the economy, society and human life to the domination of exchange value of the goods and, in its most abstract, of money. These quantitative values, measured at 10, 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000, you know neither fair nor unfair, neither good nor evil, dissolve and destroy the values \u200b\u200bof quality and, in particular, ethical values. Between the two is "antipathy" in the old sense, alchemy, the term: lack of affinity between two substances.
Today, the total kingdom-indeed, totalitarian- commercial value, quantitative value, money, finance capitalism, came to a degree unprecedented in human history. However, the logic of the system had already been the victim of a lucid critique of capitalism since 1847, "finally came a time where all men were saved as inalienable became an object of exchange, traffic and could be alienated. Is the time when the very things that until now were reported but never traded, never sold, acquired but not bought-virtue, love, opinion, science, conscience, etc.-time in which everything went to trade. It's time general corruption, of universal venality in which, to speak in terms of political economy, everything, moral or physical, becoming market value, is taken to market to be valued at its fair value. " Initial reactions

not only workers but also peasants and popular anti-capitalist commodification have occurred in the name of certain social values, certain social needs regarded as more legitimate than the political economy of capital. Studying the movements of crowds, hunger revolts in the eighteenth century English historian EP Thompson talks about the confrontation between the "economy moral "of the people and the capitalist market economy (which Adam Smith in his first major theoretical). The food riots (in which women played a leading role) was a form of resistance to market-in the name of the old "moral economy" of the traditional community norms, which had its own rationale and long-term had saved the grassroots of the famine.

Modern socialism is the heir to the social protest of this "moral economy." Want to start production and not on market criteria and capital-the "effective demand", profitability, gain, accumulation, but in terms of social needs, the "common good" social justice. This is qualitative values, irreducible to the commercial and monetary quantification. Rejecting productivism, Marx emphasized the priority of being of individuals, the full realization of their human potential-by on the belt, the possession of property. For him, social staple, the more imperative, and would have the doors of the "realm of freedom" was the free time, reduced hours of work, the performance of individuals in the game, study, citizen activity, creating art, love.

Among these needs is one that takes an ever more crucial importance today, and that Marx had not sufficiently taken into account (except in some isolated passages) in his work: "the need to safeguard the natural environment, the need for breathing air, drinking water, food free of chemical poisons or nuclear radiation. A need is identified, which tends, with the same imperative for the survival of the human species on this planet, where the ecological balance is seriously threatened by the catastrophic consequences, greenhouse effect, destruction of the ozone layer, nuclear-threat the infinite expansion of capitalist productivist.

ecology Socialism and then share qualitative social values, irreducible to the market. They also share a rebellion against the "Great Transformation", against reified economic empowerment in relation to society and a desire to "relocate" to the economy in a social and natural environment. However, this convergence is possible only provided that the Marxists subjected to critical analysis the traditional concept of "productive forces", return to this point, and that environmentalists break with the illusion of an "economy market "clean. This dual operation is the work of a current ecosocialism, which achieved a synthesis between the two approaches.

What then ecosocialism? This is a school of thought and action that integrates ecological fundamental contributions of Marxism, freed from the slag productivist, a stream that he understood the logic of the capitalist market and profit-and the techno-bureaucratic authoritarianism of the deceased " people's democracies "- are incompatible with environmental protection. Finally, a stream, to criticize the ideology of the mainstream labor movement, known workers and their organizations are an essential force for any radical transformation of the system.

Ecosocialism-developed from the research of some Russian pioneers late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Serge Podolinsky, Vladimir Vernadsky) - especially during the last 25 years, thanks to the work of thinkers the likes of Manuel Sacristán, Raymond Williams, Andre Gorz (in his earlier writings) and the important contributions of James O'Connor, Barry Commoner, Juan Martinez Allier, Francisco Fernández Buey, Jean-Paul Deléage, Elmar Altvater, Frieder Otto Wolf, Joel Kovel and many others.

This current is far from homogeneous politically. However, the majority of their representatives shared certain common themes. In a break with the productivist ideology of progress "in its capitalist and / or bureaucratic (read" real socialist ") - and opposed to the infinite expansion of a mode of production and consumption environmentally destructive, depicted in the green movement latest trend, more sensitive to the interests of workers and peoples of the South, who understood the impossibility of a "sustainable development" in the context of the capitalist market economy.

What might be the main elements of an eco-socialist ethics, which is radically opposed to the destructive logic and "unethical" (Weber) of capitalist profitability and overall market, this system of universal venality "(Marx)?

will move forward here some assumptions, some starting points for discussion.

First, I think it is a social ethic: it is an ethic of individual behavior, does not point to blame the people, promote self-restraint or asceticism. It is important that individuals are educated to respect the environment and waste rejection, however, true knot is elsewhere: the change of the capitalist economic and social structures-commercial, establishing a new paradigm of production and distribution, founded, as we have seen above, in consideration of social needs, in particular the essential need to live in a non-degraded environment. A change that requires social actors, social movements, environmental organizations, political parties and not only individuals of good will.

This ethic is a humanistic ethic. Living in harmony with nature, protecting endangered species are human values, and the destruction by medicine, life forms that attack human life (microbes, viruses, parasites). The Anopheles mosquito, carrier of yellow fever, not the same "right to life" that Third World children threatened by this disease: to save the latter, it is ethically legitimate to eradicate, in certain regions, the first .. .

The ecological crisis threatening the natural balance of the environment, endangers not only the fauna and flora, but also and above all health, living conditions, the very survival of our species. No need then to make war on the humanity or the "anthropocentrism" for the protection of biodiversity or animal species in danger of extinction, a demand The political and ethical battle to save the environment, which is necessarily the fight for a change in civilization, is a human imperative, not only concerning this or that class, but to all individuals.

This imperative is related to future generations, threatened to get us a world uninhabitable because of the uncontrolled accumulation of ever more environmental damage. But the speech that focused primarily on environmental ethics that danger, is now largely overcome. This is a more urgent issue directly related to the present generation: the people who live at the beginning of XXI century already know the tragic consequences of the capitalist destruction and poisoning of the biosphere, and risk in any case be-young-twenty or thirty years catastrophes.

It is also an egalitarian ethic: the mode of production and current consumption of the advanced capitalist countries, based on a logic of unlimited accumulation (capital, profits, goods), waste of resources, of conspicuous consumption and accelerated destruction of the environment, can in no way be extended to the whole planet at risk of a major ecological crisis.

This system is then necessarily based on the maintenance and aggravation of loud inequality between north and south. The ecological and social projects aimed at a worldwide redistribution of wealth and a joint development of resources, thanks to a new economic paradigm.

The social ethical requirement of satisfaction of social needs but does not make sense within a spirit of social justice, equality, which does not mean homogenization, and solidarity. It involves, ultimately, ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services "to each according to his needs." It has nothing to do with the alleged "Equity" liberal who wants to justify social inequalities insofar as they were "linked to functions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity" (Rawls) classic argument of defenders of "free competition" economic and social development.

Ecosocialism implies, likewise, an ethic of democracy: while the economic decisions and choices are productive in the hands of an oligarchy of capitalists, bankers and technocrats, or the defunct system of state-run economies, a bureaucracy that escape democratic control, we will not productivism infernal cycle of worker exploitation and environmental destruction. Economic democratization "that involves the socialization of the productive forces means that the major decisions about production and distribution will be made by" market "or a Politburo, but by society itself after a democratic and pluralistic debate which oppose the proposals and the different options. Is the necessary condition for the introduction of other socio-economic logic and a different relationship with nature.

Finally, eco-socialism is a radical ethic, in the etymological sense of the word ethics proposed to go to the root of evil. Half-measures, the semirreformas, the Rio, the pollution rights markets are unable to provide a solution. It requires a radical change of paradigm, a new model of civilization, a revolutionary transformation.

This revolution up to the social relations of production, private property, division of labor, but also the productive forces. Against a vulgar Marxism, which can be supported on some texts of the founder, who conceived only as a deletion change in the sense of Hegelian Aufhebung-capitalist social relations, "obstacles the free development of productive forces "have to call into question the very structure of the production process.

To paraphrase Marx's famous formula about the state after the Paris Commune: workers, the people may not take the production system and it just works to their advantage: they have to "break" and replace it with another. Which means a profound transformation of the technical structure of production and energy sources, mainly fossil or nuclear-shape it. A technology that respects the environment and renewable energy, including solar-is in the heart of ecological and social projects.

ecological socialist utopia, a "solar communism" does not mean you have to fight today for immediate objectives that foreshadow the future and are inspired by these same values:

- Give priority to public transport against the monstrous proliferation of private cars and road transport.

- Exit the nuclear trap and develop renewable energy sources.
- Demand respect the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse effect, rejecting the myth of "market for pollution rights."
- Fight for farming, fighting multinationals and their GMO seeds.

are only some examples, one could easily extend the list. We find these claims, and the like, between the demands of the international movement against capitalist globalization and neoliberalism, which has emerged from the conference "intergalactic" against neoliberalism and for humanity, organized by the Zapatistas in the mountains of Chiapas, and which showed his strength of protest demonstrations in the streets of Seattle (1999), Prague, Quebec, Nice (2000) and Genoa (2001). A movement that is not only critical of monstrous social injustice produced by the system, but is also able to propose concrete alternatives, such as the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (January 2001).

This movement, which rejects the commodification of the world, is the moral inspiration for his rebellion and his proposals in an ethic of solidarity inspired by social and ecological values \u200b\u200bclose to those listed here.


Translation: Massimo Modonesi

MEMORY Taken

social networking

Kopalnie Dzierżysław

"Capitalism will not disappear unless we organize to have another"

After neoliberal offensive times, in which the movement adopted a "defensive posture" Walden Bello points to opportunities to take the offensive at the time that the system "is collapsed" DIAGONAL

: Is this the end of financial capitalism?

WALDEN BELLO: It's hard to talk about the end of capitalism because capitalism is very flexible. And you can have capitalism with a social image globally and in my opinion, Obama represents the kind of capitalist reform, a new class compromise with some reforms to the north and corporations business dealings with the South. But the underlying idea is that countries impose some stability to allow the reproduction of capitalism, which supports the great benefits of transnational corporations. So we should be aware that the solution is not regulation, has to be something far more transformative. We really should talk about the empowerment of citizens.

This is an opportunity for us to be able to promote a deeper transformation and gradual economic organization and go beyond simple market regulation reform proposal from capitalism. Capitalism will not disappear unless we organize for a post-capitalist system.

D.: What role should play now social movements?

WB: The social movements should let their imagination flowing and join forces to organize the world at local, national and international in a new, different. At this time the battle cry should be a real democracy, democratic participation.
International networks and anti-globalization movements should take to promote this democratic vision of the world that goes beyond social regulation established by social stabilization programs driven by the G-20 and Obama. It is tempting for social movements to agree with people like Obama when he says the most important thing now is to deal with emergencies, when he says "Do not think in those dreams strategic, we must work together to stop the global crisis."

I think being seduced by these ideas is wrong because we will not get out of this crisis with short-term solutions to stabilize the new capitalism. The only way that really will leave this capitalist crisis is pushing and fighting to get a vision, a transformational process and structure with which we organize our national and international economy. And this really the imagination plays an important role.

In the '80s, because of the terrible brutality of the neoliberal offensive, people acted defensively thinking "let's protect what we have," and even today many maintain this defensive position. But what has changed is that this system has collapsed and people are really looking for alternatives, so we should provide them because people are sick of capitalist organization of the world are tired of so much alienation, many structures that create poverty, of the economic gaps that separate people. People really are looking for new ways of organizing more cooperative economy away from that selfish individualism and neoliberalism proposed. If we no respondemos a esas demandas de la gente que busca cooperación, que busca una democracia real, otros lo harán, otros que dirán que son antineoliberales, que realmente quieren el cambio, pero que en el fondo su intención es proponer programas mucho más peligrosos, que dejen fuera a muchas personas, que las separen en vez de unirlas. Así que nuestra responsabilidad es liberar la imaginación y ser capaces de ofrecer formas nuevas de cooperación y organización económica.


D.: EL G-20 ha decidido triplicar los fondos del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). Ante el fallo de las instituciones neoliberales hay quien habla de un nuevo Bretton Woods.

W. B.: No necesitamos un new Bretton Woods, in fact do not need a Bretton Woods. The best solution for all would abolish the IMF, the World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO) because they are central institutions which promote the system of the North and the interests of transnational corporations and basically supports his agenda in a systematic way for corporations .
From the South must confront these institutions who want to look more social, but really just looking to stabilize global capitalism instead of transforming the world in the interest of the population. Southern countries need to create their own institutions and stop relying on others who are promoted and abducted by the interests of transnational corporations.



D.: What is China's position on this crisis?

WB: In terms of the global economy over recent years, China and the U.S. have been dance partners. China manufactured products are sold to U.S. consumers and China lends money to the United States to keep pace with consumption of U.S. citizens. So this has been dancing in the global economy over recent years. However, due to the collapse of U.S. consumer credit, China's export industries are suffering.
So I think there will be a very hard struggle in China between two streams of different leadership, those who think the country needs to refocus its growth in domestic demand and those who are committed to wait out the crisis and U.S. consumers buy things again. So China is at a crossroads: either try to recover and encourage domestic demand or still playing the role of exporter of low price and basing its economy on exports. I think this will be a major political battle in China because the transformation does not come just saying you're going to stimulate domestic demand, you have to create new structures that have an income farmers, have to change the whole pattern of agriculture subject to the industry.

China may choose to address a sustainable development path based on an internal distribution of income or continue down the same path by joining the major economic powers, which became the largest factory in the world and the lender of large sums of money North.

social networking

Beauty Pageant Do More Harm Than Good

FROM UNIVERSITY

Franz J.
Hinkelammert
Today we have a consciousness of globality that places humanity with a responsibility for life on earth as an ethical obligation as a condition of possibility of all life futura. Lo útil y lo ético se unen frente a este desafío. La globalización es otro proceso, que es de carácter más práctico: globalización de los mensajes, de los cálculos, de los transportes, con la consiguiente disponibilidad del globo, instantáneo en lo digital y a un mínimo tiempo de transporte físico. Esto ha permitido constituir mercados globales, redes de división social del trabajo planificadas por burocracias privadas multinacionales y por empresas de producción global.

Frente a estos hechos, enfrentar las amenazas globales es ciertamente un problema político, pero no se puede tener éxito sin desarrollar una cultura que permita y motive la responsabilidad. La universidad is the key in the formulation and promotion of this culture of responsibility based on a culture of hope.

The word globalization is ambiguous. There is much arbitrariness in their interpretation. However, we must need in order to discuss the problem of the university today in front of her. Because in a sense to be specified, now need to analyze the university in the context that we call globalization.

The globality of the world: global threats
The world has gone global. In the most general sense we can say that technological development has led to a situation in which we are forced to become aware of the global of our land. It is certainly a very long historical process, but this process led to a consciousness of globality, that today we often forget when we talk about globalization. This is an experience of wholeness, which has involved a historical and is to distinguish our present and future history of all previous human history.
We then have a sense of the word whole, we must bear in mind in any discussion of globalization. Implies a fundamental transformation of all human life, which noted the first time in 1945 with the launch of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

Then began a new awareness of the totality of human life and the very existence of the planet that was globalized in a new way. If humanity wanted to live, had to assume a responsibility that previously only could have dreamed. It was the responsibility for life on earth. This responsibility then appeared as an ethical obligation, but at the same time as a condition of possibility of any future life. The ethical and the condition of possibility of life united in a single requirement. Useful and ethical united, notwithstanding any positivist tradition that has long had separated.

But in a sense, the atomic bomb seemed still something outside the everyday human action. It seemed that if you managed to avoid its application in ways that correspond to the policy of the States could continue living as usual. However, the new globalization played again at the door. This time with the Club of Rome limits to growth, which went to advertising in 1972. The Limits to Growth expressed in a new way the earth is round, his character balloon. Earth again became more round. Only now that the threat came from everyday human action, not of any specific instrument could be controlled by external means apparently. All human action from companies, states, and action of each, were involved in their daily work. Appeared again human responsibility for the globe. Although this time with more intensity. Humanity had to give answers to everyday effects of their own daily actions. All channeling of human action by the calculation of earnings (interest) and the maximization of profits in the markets, was now in question. This then became critical condition for human life itself, and also ethical requirement. Again, useful and ethical joined in a unique experience.

Followed by new experiences of the round and therefore, global land, such as the experience of limits to possible growth of the population.

In the eighties there was again a big impact when he appeared in biotechnology. Life itself had been transformed into an object of a new human action more than once daily presence. Reappeared the threat of the globe, and appeared again the need for accountability across the globe, only this time it came directly from the method of empirical science. To develop knowledge of basic elements of life, the traditional method of empirical science, treatment its purpose by its bias, made it appear a threat to the globe that goes back to the roots of modernity. It is no longer possible to make a clear distinction between the development of knowledge and its application. In the science of life, and therefore in biotechnology, development of knowledge and is its implementation. Can not develop knowledge about human clones without them. The question was now not so much the maximization of profit in the markets, but the perception of the scientific. Again shown the need for human responsibility towards the land round. But this time it's a responsibility for the purposes of scientific method itself.

regard to all these global threats has led to a general crisis of human coexistence. The collapse of human relationships, which is ongoing, concerns the very possibility of coexistence. The more shows the growing exclusion of sectors of the human population, the inevitable inhuman behavior in relation to these excluded spreads and is absorbed in the mutual behavior among those included. Do not see a polarization between the included, who retain the ability to live together, against exclusion, those who lost, but the loss is transformed into a general loss. The pole of the dissolved including their ability to live together to a degree perhaps greater than the pole of the excluded. This is far from the last global threat, which may result in the end the worst, because disabling against the need to confront the others. It appears, therefore, the responsibility to one's ability of human coexistence.

This overall responsibility against global threats is somewhat compulsive, even though it is not something that happens automatically. We live rather a time of rejection of such liability against which there is no neutrality. When a friend who will travel gives us a valuable item to keep, we reject this responsibility on grounds. The friend, then must find another to save it. Our attitude in this if not irresponsible, but rather may be an expression of responsibility. The responsibility for the conditions of possibility of life, however, is not of this type. We are responsible even if they want. If we reject this responsibility, we do not get lifted. We are so irresponsible, but we can not get out of the dilemma. Or are we responsible for global balloon, or are involved in their destruction.

life course has become global in a new way, as never before in human history. Humanity can not live without accepting the responsibility for the globe. This is reflected in the lives of everyone, knows about living in a chain of generations. For that we or our children can live, we must accept this responsibility. We are globalized, like it or not.

global status of land, imposed on us by global threats, is the product of biased scientific method itself and the application of their technical development results, guided by a cost-benefit calculation totaled. The technical development therefore meets its target limit given by the global threats.


Globalization as capital accumulation strategy

The same technological development, resulting in global threats to human life or even for life on earth led to a growth in access to all the riches of the land by companies, which are formed from the II. World War as private transnational bureaucracies. This is the globalization of messages, calculations, transport and the consequent availability of the globe. In this sense, it speaks of the "global village." The messages and the calculations have been done virtually instant, and from anywhere in the globe can reach any other place in less than a day of commuting time. The globe has been made available.
That has made it possible to establish global markets, including financial markets. But it is also now possible to build networks social division of work planned by private multinational bureaucracies that have globally. Displayed global production companies, who not only bought and sold worldwide, but carry out a production process in their sides also distributed worldwide. Before there were also buying and selling companies worldwide, but now appear these companies are global production. A clear example is the maquila, through simple steps that the final product are distributed worldwide. The use of this globalization of messages, calculations and transport pervades our lives today. However, it has imposed a globalism capital accumulation strategy globally, we now call globalization policy. This globalism is by no means a necessary result of globalization of messages, calculations, means of transport, but a unilateral use of it in terms of an aggregation of the markets. In Latin America it is what is often called the neoliberal policies of structural adjustment. These adjustments are the conditions imposed on the world to run this economy of global accumulation of capital. These adjustments expressed with great accuracy the performance requirements of global manufacturing companies. It is an accumulation strategy new capital, which is named globalization strategy.

Our language on globalization is very unilaterally to the globalism of capital accumulation strategy. The globalizing of this strategy hardly speak of the entirety of the land we do this by global threats. Although they can not deny, put themselves blind to them. The timid attempts to answer are quickly withdrawn, as happened recently with the Kyoto agreement and frivolity in its repeal by the current U.S. President Bush

This strategy and its blind pursuit, has something of a religious fundamentalism of the market. Religions often develop blind fundamentalism when their basic beliefs are put seriously in doubt, the religion of the globalizing market is not different. The degree to which it became apparent that the global threats that now hang over us, are closely linked to the development and application of new technologies as a cost-benefit criterion totaled, neoliberal market fundamentalism not call for caution but more radical extremism. This explains the fact that after they appeared these global threats has intensified with open eyes the destructive process is deriving from the indiscriminate application of technological development itself. Fundamentalism neoliberal fundamentalism of the Taliban is the religion of the myth of infinite growth.

increasingly is noted that the exclusive focus on application of technologies for cost-benefit calculation sets a limit decisive for the possibility of dealing with global threats. Therefore, this neoliberal fundamentalism leads to extremes of destruction not seen before.

That has changed the nature of capital investments in general. Appears much more capital than it would be possible to invest in productive capital. Then, an increasing share of the available capital must be invested speculatively. But the speculative capital must be at least the same return as productive capital, hence is now hunting opportunities for profitable location of speculative capital. And those possibilities are speculative investments particularly in sectors of society that have hitherto been developed outside the scope of performance criteria: schools, kindergartens, universities, health systems, roads, energy infrastructure, railways, postal services, telecommunications, other means of communication, etc. Its transformation into location field of non-productive capital is the easiest way to find places for the application of speculative capital. This is especially the activities of the state, which can be transformed into areas for this capital, including activities in the field of education and health. Without taking these state activities, speculative capital is hardly the location. This explains the global pressure for the privatization of state functions in order to find areas of non-productive investment. The capital now devours human beings: it becomes a cannibal. Any human activity has to be transformed into a sphere of capital investment to speculative capital can live. The anarcho-capitalist dreams go even much further. Even the police, the function legislative and judiciary and the government itself, is to transform them into areas such capital investment. The human being receives a license to live and participate in any sector of society, only if you pay taxes on speculative capital for the form of interest. Overworld appears which is the necessary sacrifices to pay taxes to acquire the right to live.



The university and the culture of responsibility

Facing global threats is certainly a political issue. But it comes down to it. College is not a political body and has the task of carrying out these policies needed, but this confrontation has dimensions that go far beyond political action: our culture and civilization are involved. Unable to confront the global threats without developing a culture that allows and push the responsibility for these global threats. However, no responsibility can push it in the field of great hope. Responsibility presupposes that hope. If you realize that, it appears a key role, compliance with which is exclusively to college, but that depends in large part of it. The university is a key place in our society because it is formulated and developed our culture. The function that appears to the university is the promotion of a culture of responsibility, based on a culture of hope.
There is a formula developed specifically for the current policy that denies the university place as one of the key areas of our culture, and which is gaining more and more: it is the one about "a new model of development based on human capital. " It's a formula that gives me chills me personally because it is similar to the one that tried to indoctrinate me as a child in Nazi German society, which constantly spoke of "human material" and its importance for the development of human society.

Today is a global strategy, led by the Bank World to reduce all education, but especially the university, a place of production of human capital, considered as a means of production. Education itself is transformed into an investment in human capital, the student into someone who invests in itself, as owner of himself as human capital. The company, which later hired him, it being now a recipient of human capital, which pays an income to the owner of human capital. This income is now considered the profitability of human capital, which is the person hired. All education, including university, is then seen as a place of production to the performance of this circuit. Therefore, this education as a production of human capital must continue performance criteria (1).


There is then room for any culture other than to make a contribution to production or implementation of their own human capital.

If this project succeeds, it will mean to Western culture. It dissolves in the business. The man himself is dissolved in the transformation, part of a giant gear movement endless economic growth without destination. Appears then the problem of loss of meaning of life, which has no solution for the simple fact that human capital life has no meaning, the meaning of life is to live, but human capital does not live his life. Live the life of the capital, which itself lacks a proper sense (2).
However, if we analyze these trends in relation to the ongoing globalization process, we need to stress another dimension of such a reduction of human to human capital. We had seen so far in its two dimensions: first, in its dimension of global land, which is present to us by global threats. Is the dimension of the need for human responsibility for the very future of human life and nature. On the other hand, the dimension of unlimited access to the plundering of the earth and humanity part of private bureaucracies of the transnational ruling today, which set the strategy for unrestricted capital accumulation, which is now called globalization strategy.

strategy is a complete irresponsibility against global threats that require our responsibility (3). However, this strategy requires human irresponsibility as irresponsible as the strategy itself is. In the degree, which is able to reduce the human being to human capital, manages to instill the necessary human being is irresponsible to continue with the strategy.

But the responsibility can only assume human beings capable of seeing. Only a culture of accountability can open eyes to the problem. Without a culture of accountability no responsibility policy. That brings us back to the problem of the university as a key to the creation of culture. We need this university as a place of culture building to be a place where this culture of responsibility can grow. It is the only place. The whole education system is involved, and not only the education system, our whole way of life has to be penetrated by a culture of accountability. However, the university has a special role that culture can not develop if it is accompanied by deep thoughts, which have so far been more prominent place in universities.

This culture of responsibility, of course, is critical. But the accent is not criticism, but the responsibility that demands to be critical. The culture of responsibility leads to resistance. But, again, the emphasis is on endurance, but in responsibility. That and the fact that it is the responsibility of leading the resistance.

In this sense, it is not only a recovery of the humanist tradition of Western universities and conservation. This tradition has been undermined by the improvisation of the criteria for human capital formation. We need to recover, but, I think, that's not possible but as a dimension of culture of accountability.

Of course, the university has to train professionals to serve in their respective professions. But this formation the university must insert an interest in creating a culture whose meaning goes beyond training to the exercise of a function, and must be trained from the creation of this culture.

With that, the university is located in an area that goes beyond what he conceives the current project to reduce the formation of human capital production. This is an area that should not be unlimited subject to the calculation, both the profitability and economic growth, but one that questions the current tendency to self aggregation of these calculations. Not only does it on behalf of some values \u200b\u200bto be valid in itself and simple statement, but these values \u200b\u200bwould already be sufficient reason to make this question, must do so on all in the name of responsibility, which the totality of the world- is present to us with irresistible force through global threats, imposed on us.

However, from responsibility, comes the need for values. Securities to which must be submitted any calculation income (or interest or cost-benefit). Common good are values \u200b\u200bwhose validity is established before any calculation, and that lead to a conflict with the calculation of profitability and performance. Are the values \u200b\u200bof respect for the individual, his life in all its dimensions, and respect for the life of nature. Are values \u200b\u200bof mutual recognition between human beings, including in this survey to be natural for every human being and recognition of human beings towards external nature to them. Not justified by measurable benefits in terms of utility or interest. Nevertheless the foundation of human life, without which it is destroyed in the most elementary word.

These values \u200b\u200bare questioning the system, and its name is required in order to transform resistance and intervention. Without this questioning of the system these values \u200b\u200bwould be nothing more than moralism. The common good is this process which values \u200b\u200bthe common good are faced with the system to challenge them, transform it and intervene. In no way should be understood as a body of natural laws facing positive laws. Is questioning, not prescription. So it should not try to offer natural institutions or natural law, as part of the existing social system to transform to the values \u200b\u200bof welfare, in relation to which any system is the alternative. But the values common good are not laws or rules, the criteria on laws and regulations. Emanating from the responsibility. Consequently, its strength is the resistance. Only in the context of this reality, and subsidiarity to it, can take place cost-benefit calculation. Accept this reality, is responsibility.

But responsibility is not a direct product of fear. Pure Fear paralyzes and only increases the aggressiveness of the system. Hope assumes responsibility. Da only hope this Archimedean point, from which fear can be transformed into responsibility. The fundamentalism of the system is a fear that has lost hope.

What we need is this responsibility a world gone global, threatened by the capital accumulation strategy called globalization. We must protect the global world of deadly attack of the globalists. Of this responsibility are the alternatives.


Notes:

* Master Class Opening of the Academic Year 2005 at the Universidad Bolivariana.

(1) There is a well-documented in John Saxe-Fernández, with this strategy: Saxe-Fernández, John: Globalization, Power and Public Education. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Neo-Liberalism: Critical Approaches and Alternatives "organized by the Seminar" The Modern World "by the Center Interdisciplinary Research in Sciences and Humanities, March 10-13, 2000.

(2) This is reflected in a best-seller that is now read a lot in Europe: Houellebecq, Michel: Extension du Domaine de la lutte. Nadeau. Paris, 1994. This book does not reflect the facts, but presents a perfect reflection of man made human capital.

(3) See Jonas, Hans: The Principle of Hope. Testing of an ethics for technological civilization. Book club. Barcelona.



F. Hinkelammert
is an economist, social theorist and German theologian, doctor of economics at the Free University of Berlin, a researcher at the Ecumenical Research Department San Jose and author of several books. Published in Journal Polis, Santiago Chile, Volume 4 Number 11, 2005. Posted on our website on 19 December 2005. Reproduced on our site solely for informational and educational.
http://www.globalizacion.org/biblioteca/HinkelammertGlbzUniversidad.htm

social networking

How Do I Calculate The Density Of Vegetable Oil

GLOBALIZATION ISSUES OF CULTURE, THE SELF-DETERMINATION AND SOCIALISM

J. Posadas
August 4, 1977

to the Ethiopian military they lack political initiative to negotiate with both Eritrea and Somalia, the Ogaden conflict. Both Somalia and Eritrea Ogaden want a socialist, considering that the core Bourgeois is in the minority. Ethiopia's government lacked the initiative to negotiate with both.

want to return to Somalia Ogaden for himself, but then this will reflect in an internal conflict. If you return to Somalia, Ogaden joins a workers' state, but at the same time, it takes work and a struggle that makes the intervention part of the Yankees. The easy, because it prevents the concentration and centralization, and thus, stimulates the division of interests and the Yankees have made entry, and consequently leave the conservative tendencies favored. The Ethiopian leadership lacked the initiative to understand this.

At the same time, there is a very big crisis in Somalia, because there are isolationist tendencies that are interested in country and not in the building of socialism in a short time, all this will come to the surface, thereby facilitating the internal differences. Siad Barre imposed a policy prohibiting speak freely and was directed against the tendencies that want to advance. Its approach towards Ogaden is a stupid excuse, because Somalia seeking to expand through a conflict with Ethiopia, it is clear that what is more to the left, indicating that it is mediocre nationalist, not revolutionary.

There is a lack of program base for Marxist understand the problems, because they still cling to a bourgeois formation, follow the political line on the left of the bourgeoisie. And while not all the responsibility is theirs, no longer have it, and are not to blame the educated non-Stalinist, "because no one prevented them from education. Demonstrates the limitation of these sectors that are mediocre nationalists and workers who seek support for their national purposes, and at the same time, it demonstrates the superiority of Cuba against all this. Cuba, having begun, conversely, trying to clean up capitalism ends up going to free Africa, which indicates that there is a good Marxist base in Cuba, not consciously developed or applied but there is a Marxist basis. Because the function they are doing, given the basis for understanding.
Instead, these Somali nationalist Marxist talk much but leave it at that, they are very backward way of another stage, which still apply nationalism along with state ownership in the economy. The background of all the steps it is taking Somalia is determined by the national interest, not bourgeois but not revolutionary but had offered a settlement to Ethiopia.

In Somalia there is no political or trade union. The main thing the economy is nationalized, with directions that even with bourgeois conceptions feel that to develop should nationalize the economy, but at the same time to prevent this widespread benefit of the entire population, there is a Stalinist-type apparatus. There is no life or discussion of association or political discussion, but there is a rise in status of the population and although the unions have no role as such, deal with building houses, to teach reading and writing.

This shows the contradictions of a revolution whose direction is very unsafe, you have to advance the development of organs that are essential to guide people to a universal understanding of what the problem is not Somalia, but it is a global issue, it which in turn, goes against the nationalist leaders who want to do.

is therefore interesting to note that in Ethiopia, three months of the revolution sold 90,000 books of Marx, and that the army political instructors are Ethiopian students who had ten years living in Cuba.

whole area, is geographically rugged, mountainous and jungle (with all kinds of animals), it also has areas rich in vegetation, and there are many mines. Especially

is a strategic area of \u200b\u200bcommunication with the sea and opening to the rest of Africa. Throughout Ethiopia there is communication with the rest of Africa; and for example, Ogaden overlooking the Red Sea is fundamental. This whole area was formerly united but with different interests and languages, was never truly united country, which is why there are movements claiming the culture of each place, but what culture?: They have no cultural tradition consistent. Their culture is in the form of speaking, have not built anything to the civilization, life, art, economics, not sense their claims of cultural traditions are traditions of tribe of nomads. For the Ethiopians lack initiative to put it this way: "neither you nor we have any cultural tradition." Just have a religion created for a few, nothing more.

There is no question of culture or civilization, any more than there was in most of the problems of race in the Soviet Union. It was really a social problem which remained parked by the inertia of the Czar, which thus precluded the development and thus continued to dominate. Therefore, it is really only matters of culture, civilization, languages, traditions, when they are related to the progress or the life of humanity.

The Soviets should be involved in this line, because they pose problems on self-determination today. There is objectively a problem of self- backlog still exists, for example, self-determination calls Ogaden and has no real basis. At the time of Lenin was the first experience and worked out well, even giving them a republic had been resolved to the anarchists, to show that it was impossible to do what they wanted.
The Soviet Union has neither the initiative to tell the Ethiopians to the movement posed a solution to this or that way. These are problems that are going to be extending and expanding across Africa. What is that in the tradition of Dgibuti? If Dgibuti was invented by the Portuguese. "We want to keep our tradition," say, "what it is: is not known, were originally the Portuguese and then French Dgibuti using mainly as a military port.

States must give workers historic cultural initiative, respecting the traditions but at the same time raising the understanding that any of these countries, if they are just isolated. Instead, they may develop eg. language, and then find the need to speak another language. It is as with the Quechua or Aymara in Bolivia, we propose (in 1946) that the Indians should be incorporated to speak the English language, and economic and social development would lead to them to see the need for English language, and the Quechua or Aymara languages \u200b\u200bsome languages \u200b\u200bare dead.

If no previous economic and cultural life, what they have to claim?: Are subject to the life of "piece of land" that has made the private property system, and they, will you respect that?. Instead, they should say: respect for culture, tradition, why? What is the importance of our culture and tradition, what contribution to life?, "Are ways of life" they say. Yes, but backward, "habits of life", but do not mind using a car, either the Yankees or the Soviets, "habits of life" but do not mind using a device with the touch of a button which makes the food. So why does it not stay with their customs?.

All this shows that lack cultural preparation of the management of workers' state. Cuba should have done this and at the same time act like they're doing.

We respect all, if there are a few people who want to maintain tradition, do so, but at the same time show the relationship through cultural, they use things, eat, live and sleep, not according to tradition, but the progress that is overcoming tradition. Not that they've eliminated their tradition, but it has been surpassed in the workers' state.

have to intervene much giving ideas, for example to perform a task of the proletariat with the peasantry, but the essential basis is not the proletariat as a group, but the policy agenda and the workers' state. In the USSR the problem of nationalities was discussed fully and the new Constitution is a very big progress because it overcomes the problem of nationalities in the Soviet Union. What

capitalist country has achieved that?. The capitalist system was artificially Ogaden, where as a natural means there are only a few wild animals, while the workers' state resolves the question of nationalities.

In the Soviet Union, though a bit bureaucratic, and Soviets are all different nationalities are concentrated in a higher form of social, human, that is the Soviet workers' state. The bureaucracy does not discuss this because it has no initiative, but soon will be, because when you get up to publish a book saying that we must return to the first seven years of the Soviet Union is already the conditions to intervene in higher form.

The problem of self-determination or of languages, is based on the system of ownership. The workers' state has not helped but distant, unresolved in a scientifically best that can influence the world including North America, "but it is solving. In contrast to these places and countries there is no reference to the system of land ownership and location, is still a haven in which they protect them, because they are afraid of the future and progress, and consequently are subjected and entangled in that. That is the historical background of the issue, but they would see the progress of the economy and social relations in the world represented by the workers' states, and resolve in unifying, ending with the differentiation based on language or in tradition. Ogaden For example, what differentiation is cultural?; not contributed anything.

These are all the problems of this stage are mixed with nuclear war, before starting a nuclear war and these problems are up and tomorrow is going to present all at once. See for example the Vietnamese. One of its major developments and that before the end of the war we have raised, is the unification of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, returning to its origin, in the sense that they have the same origin and customs, languages \u200b\u200band relationships very common, as above. But that does not unify arrogantly, but to a federation through the unification of the three countries, with their strength and ability and based on the example of workers 'state, among them, the Chinese workers' state. That is an organization to advance. The direction of the Soviet Union has not said anything about all this, and the Vietnamese are much more worried than they are.
These are problems that must be lived today. When you publish a book on what is said in the USSR there is a tendency to want to return to the first seven years of the Soviet Union, it is because these issues are already raised concerns in general. Because this design does not emerge from a concrete analysis of the current stage, but a vision of the future world and, above all, the past to see the future.

There is no programmatic conclusions on all these issues. The Soviet Union decided the issue of nationality because centralized economy and government leadership, so educated the people about it is the foundation of all other movements of life. That the movement of the mind, thought, is a reflection and an expression of life movement, but at the same time, the mind is before life, because it can not predict what's coming tomorrow, thinking instead yes.

The Soviet leadership does not express this. Was the program that showed he can not continue living in the past. What gives the past?: A form of production, relationships that involve the absence of science, art and culture, and above all, the absence of Soviet democracy. If the Soviet Union made democracy the first seven years, does not prevent nuclear war, but it eliminates 60% of deaths there will be, because it helps the American people to tie their hands there's murderers . This works out as the essential basis of the problems of democracy, which have the right to speak. No, the problem of democracy is the obligation of thinking to develop the economy, culture and society. That is the democracy of the Greek original.

The essential basis the workers' state is its political authority, and therefore must have the theoretical and programmatic and develop it steadily. Not renewed because the theoretical basis and program is not renewed, extended, otherwise it is false. J.



POSADAS
August 4, 1977
http://www.quatrieme-internationale-posadiste.org/archive/espagnol/otrostxtdocs/losProblemasDeLaCaultura.html


social networking