Comentario a la crítica que
Kliman hace a la utilización del concepto de “transición”
Kliman, whom I know from his coherent defense of
Marx's labour theory of value (TSSI system), is way of the mark here. His main
thesis -to eliminate the concept of a transional society- doesn't really
work politically speaking. It eliminates "process in time", something
thats odd coming from the guy who elaborated the "temporal single
system". This is an economic bias of someone that had not an sociological
and/or historical formation, rather an economical ahistorical one.
It takes "time" to eliminate the capitalist
class; this is one historical process. It takes time to transform human nature
so that it functions as the precondition of the selfgobernment of the produces;
this is another historical process. It takes time to expand spacially this two
processes (from national, to regional, to world scope). It takes time to
politicize every peson and every aspect of ordinary life. From capitalism to
communism we have, without doubt, an "epoch of social revolution"
All this processes will, certainly, cristalize in
distinct structures (possibly modes of productions). What politicallly we, as
communists need, is exactly the opposite of what Kliman argues: a long phase of
transitions to the future society, which of course too will be a process. From
"capitalism" to a "dictatorship of the proletariat", to a
"workers state", to "socialism", to
"communism"...
It also takes time to produce material
egalitarism as a tendency...
Debatable too is Kliman notion about ussr. Eventhough
it was an exploitative society, it moved by different laws of motion than those
present in capitalism a such. "Expanded reproduction", and
"a bias to overaccumulate means of production in relations to means of
consumption", isn't capitalist law of motion: the capitalist law of motion
suposses the "tendency to the fall in the medium profit rate". This
was absent in the ussr, just as Chattopadhyay paradoxically demonstrates...
In the ussr, Chatopadhyay convincingly argues, there
wasnt a substanial tendency to work with "relative surplus value":
rahter, "absolute surplus value" predominated, interwined (rather
sorprisingly) with r"eal subsumption". Eventhough she labels
capitalism this structure, all the elements of its specificity are there (and are alien to cmp):
moreover, is most probable that the ussr didnt overcome any crisis at all, it
just couldn't and cease to exist after its first great crisis...
CMP, on the hand, really has overcome at least 3 crisis produced
by the is own law of motion...
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario