A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Català_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Català_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2015 | of 2016

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) France, Alternative Libertaire AL Septembre - Economy: Frédéric Lordon, wolf or sheep? (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]

Date Sun, 2 Oct 2016 15:10:50 +0300

In his latest book, Imperium, Frédéric Lordon's ambition to "sober up libertarian" to show them the way of "realism" and "adulthood". A response in defense of internationalism and radical anti-capitalism. ---- Frédéric Lordon renew claims left thinking, becoming almost official intellectual standing of Night. From this point of view he began his latest book, Imperium, a very strange way: by asserting that the principle of verticality is necessary in any organized society. It basically refers to the holistic sociology Durkheim, that, in an organized society, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and this form of transcendence would imply necessarily a verticality within the company. Moral or legal norms arising from the superiority of any of its parts would be inevitable, necessary. It thus denies that they are the fruit of an authoritarian construction. The Spinoza's idea of a "common affect" collecting society individuals completes the analysis.

Caricature of libertarian thought

Considering that verticality and transcendence are inseparable from social, and transcendence, verticality, and state are synonymous, Lordon sets his axiom: the State is unavoidable in any politically organized society. He calls "general state" own this abstract entity in any society whose modern republican state under capitalism is only a particular form among others. The problem is that this notion of general state is too vague, not historical. Lordon going to assume that the experiences of libertarian communes have also established forms of state, to the extent that they were based on regulatory federal bodies. He thus ignores the specificity of libertarian political forms. He thinks discredit libertarian thought and his search for pure horizontality. But he thought this caricature, which admits forms of verticality at federations of municipalities, without assimilating these verticals to state forms. That is missing from Lordon: think a verticality that departs from the base, and no longer based on a seizure of power by a separate state of self-es.

All this is still very theoretical, but this theory, in which concrete practical steps she returns? One can get an idea by reading the articles of Lordon, explicitly Keynesian and protectionist, in Le Monde diplomatique. Certainly, to listen, it would still be "reclaim" the state. Not destroy it, it's impossible, but to the citizens through the establishment of a new constitution, most have a say regarding how the state collects social power. They and they can therefore defend a policy "just" more "social" more "egalitarian". But this is to forget that the modern state, even if the Citizens are reclaiming the remains subject to the sphere of financial capital, is only the manager of the capital, and it does not depend on institutions or the Constitution. Through his critique of unregulated speculative sphere, Lordon implicitly defends a kind of welfare state radicalized, a strong central state that redistributes more egalitarian wealth, and prevents the excesses of finance. But this solution is only a response to the crisis in sales (recovery by consumption), where the state remains one of the principal agent. Lordon does not attack capitalism, he is attacking one of its ideological forms, neoliberalism. Keynesian economists from the group of 1 aghast, he advocated basically a capitalism with a human face. Is that enough?

Because Lordon naturalizes the "national sentiment", always pressing bases "Spinoza", "left" would necessarily nationalist, and left nationalism defend protectionist policies to maintain the autonomy of the national territory. As such, Lordon is not an anti-capitalist, let alone a revolutionary. Protectionism, in fact, is the defense of a national economy designed according to the criteria of market rationality. Furthermore, as only national policy, not international, it does not call into question radically the rules of the capitalist game, otherwise the country would be faced with the punching power of the world imperialist military complex (Lordon is constantly attentive to the issue of "social peace" and "security of the French").

Lordon also criticizes or libertarian communist internationalism, he considers naïve and unanchored. He quietly merges the simplicity of the "world citizen" new age and the internationalist libertarian project. It scans the back of his hand the idea that the workers of the world are all linked and all-es by the fact of their operation, reaffirming the principle of national belonging. Demonstrating a total lack of nuance, not designing the universality of internationalism as a universal abstract, theoretical, he forgets the reality of operating globally, and the possibility to reconcile membership in several groups humans. Yet local ownership does not exclude the overall membership.

Anti-liberal and anti-capitalist not

As such, one would think a concrete universal, as part of a cosmopolitan federation of Commons. Lordon refuses to think these nuances, because basically the political model he advocates is clear: be a little "realistic", he tells us, first save France, and do not be like those utopian libertarians who would change the whole world. This "realism" in a world where, at the global level, the disaster is permanent, is quite unconvincing ...

So Keynesians now. As "critical of neoliberalism," they insist especially on the crazy deregulation of the financial sector, without much worry about besides the recovery of this criticism by red-brown Semitic. But it does this is only a superficial expression of capitalism, not its foundations, namely the principles of commodity exchange, accumulation of value, and labor designed as merchandise.

Keynesians want to save the "real" economy, so it is based on the extraction of surplus value, that is to say on the exploitation of labor power, and the abstraction of 'accumulated unconsciousness and lack of control of an economy that reverse ends and means. This is not the abolition of exploitation they want, but the more livable and less unequal capitalism possible. And lasts longer because Keynesians have the solutions to the crisis of capitalism. They do not understand that capitalism destroys itself: the automation of production, which continues with the computer revolution, produced a devaluation of the value, destroying everything in its path. If he believes that global capitalism can thrive indefinitely, and that it is to build a society more "healthy" in it, Lordon has actually nothing realistic, this is a utopian. In a world that destroys itself and destroys all the way, the realism is the revolution (International).

Benedict (AL Montpellier)

A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://lists.ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center