messaggio originale:
e.mail seguita all'invito di interagire con "rischio economia"

by valerio bertello - torino, 18 settembre 2008

"There is still the working class?"

Rather than working class, which is only one of the historical transitional taken the proletariat, speak specifically of the proletariat, or class of producers employees. In the past, in fact, with the first industrial revolution, the proletariat took the figure of dell'operaio job, then, with the second revolution industrial, dell'operaio generic and occupation, we now have the technician. The the first is the manufacturing, the second major industry, the last to globalization, namely the multinational monopolies. It 'clear that in capital there is always the proletariat, and will exist as long as there is capitalism, while taking on different shapes.
As for the new working class that globalization is developing in the third world, it can not now be identical to the working class yesterday, but not identical to the new proletariat that has recently appeared in areas of old growth. What is his role is an open question, which is played throughout the tension between the two that coexist in it.

"A lot of industrial production less profitable ... has long been transferred in countries of the so-called 'new development'. To determine this situation were two ... pushed ... the first profit since the second ... with the intention of creating the conditions for a transition ... "

These two factors are the two sides of the same reality. The capitalist society is essentially contracts, which is based on agreements between individuals formally independent. It is not an authoritarian society of feudal type. So the reformism mediator is an integral part of its structure, as is representative democracy. Of course this is an ideological appearance, because there is a social control exercised by the bourgeoisie through impersonal market mechanisms, based on private property and contractual transactions between owners, that is all about.

"... Any kind of transition requires time ... The important thing is that it takes account of priorities and a horizon that gives meaning to what you're doing. "

The speech is acceptable only if there is in a position of critical practice Radical capital. If, however, there is the perspective of this reform is a consolatory speech. We must distinguish between theoretical discourse, that is historic, and speech political. Since the reform raises the overcoming of capitalism in a future indefinitely, his speech is historic, not political, and when they arise as such makes an error of method, not always in good faith. In fact, the political practice is on the present, denying in principle the capital, that is without considering illusions and mediations for what it is, that is, pure and simple denial of the proletariat.
And considering something that can only balance of power, ranging exhausted to the end before arriving at a truce, that is a situation of temporary balance. Only then the historic speech can be realized, because the real engine of history is class struggle.
From every other point of view, the speech becomes historic consolatory, that is a speech that justifies the sacrifice of this in the name of a unspecified reward put out an uncertain future, which is the ideology secularization and the realization in this world of Christian redemption.
But reformism today is not even over this speech, putting themselves explicitly as an organic part of the capital, as an institution engaged in the sale of the workforce at its market price. And nothing else. That is, no longer consistently promised that the capital obviously can not keep.

2. a different cultural perspective

"... Whether the idea, thought to produce the reality or the reality in allow the emergence of a particular thought. "

The superstructure, including the thought, is determined by the structure, ie relations of production. So the thinking is dominant on relationships production as relations of domination, is the thought of the class that dominates in these relations, the bourgeoisie. But these reports are contradictory, and perpetually in crisis and this measure may express a thought that refutes them and denies them as relations of domination. Thus, the materiality of the relations of production may deny itself and produce the class struggle, at a thought that expresses this denial.
But what these reports contradict, that their very existence calls into crisis themselves? Here lies the fundamental problem of the theory, and only fix it is this. Have been described various contradictions, economic and sovrastrutturali that have produced many theories of the crisis. But all can be brought to the same fundamental contradiction, between social production and private consumption.

3. the division of labor between intellectual work and material.

The division of labor is by far the largest of the productive forces, that of social work. But the capital pays individual workers, not the worker collective (even if there are formal, collective, because there is no minimum income guaranteed as a right), which appropriates free of his power production. That is, does not recognize the social work, creating artificial hierarchy between workers, so that they too do not recognize as collective and as such we put in front of the capital. In the world of globalization, namely the division of Planetary work, it is absurd to establish a hierarchy at work, since even those who do not is directly productive and more especially they contribute to productivity work, even the same consumer. But the recognition of work as social work is beyond the capital.


RE Paola Zorzi
Just a quick note: using the term "proletariat" strikes me as outdated. However, putting the specific wording aside, I understand what you mean.