miércoles, 16 de octubre de 2013

Comentario a la crítica que Kliman hace a la utilización del concepto de “transición” (junio 2013)

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...