On the Historical Specificity of the current stage of
Capitalism and on the nature of the Era. LISBOA
4.5.2012
Dr. Dimitrios S. Patelis*
3, 4, 5
MAIO 2012. FACULDADE DE LETRAS DA UNIVERSIDADE DE
LISBOA].
Introduction.
On
Theoretical Periodization of Capitalism.
The
Logic behind the Maturation of the Conditions of Revolution in History.
The
Necessity for Distinguishing Early from Late Socialist Revolutions.
The
Subject of Early Revolutions.
The October Revolution and the unsolved Basic Contradiction of Socialism.
Late
Socialist Revolutions and their Subject.
On
the New Stage of Capitalism.
On
the Current Structural Crisis of Capitalism and the Scientific and
Technological Revolution.
The
Intermediate Character of the Present Situation and Prospects.
Conclusions.
Introduction.
Scientific periodization of history is a
necessary approach to the low-governed process of history, to the main
theoretical and practical issues of humankind, is a necessary term of drawing
strategy and tactic in any social movement with prospect. Historical
eras are distinguished in the course of historical process as typical
periods of development, with their own concrete content, with their own
contradictions, with their own character and driving forces-subjects. From the
perspective of the latter in each historical concrete era raises the
specificity of the dynamics, the contradictory character of the social
development and the inconsistency of a specter of possibilities, the direction
and the tasks of the actual and potential historical subjects. From the point
of view of the objectively identified elements, privileged for social theory
and philosophy research, are the transitional eras, particularly those of them
witch are offered in principle to empirical diagnosis directly during the live of a generation.
The problem of the
Historical Specificity of the current stage of Capitalism becomes of great
significance in the context of the contemporary globalized capitalism,
especially under conditions of global, systemic and structural economic,
social, political and ecological Crisis of that system. The above problem is a
part of the greatest problem of the era: the perspective of the transition of
society to the unified humankind.
I am convinced that scientific answers on the above
problem can be given as a result of theoretical and methodological
investigation of that problem, from the point of view of dialectical Social
Philosophy, of theory and methodology of the Logic of History.
This paper is aimed to analyze the
theoretical and methodological criteria of periodizaton
and the characteristics of the contemporary stage of capitalism in the
framework of the Logic of History. According to this framework, the
historical process is regarded as a gradual transformation of the
natural (including the biological) by the social, i.e., as a social “sublation” of the latter by the former. Such an approach
overcomes the narrowness and sketchiness of periodization based on some
invariable signs of the mode of production and establishes the periodization in
accordance with the changing foundation. The
stages in the process of development are analyzed here:
- As the unity of the natural (including the
biological) and the social;
- As a process of emergence of the social from the
natural;
- As the transformation of the natural by the social.
In this
way, the following stages of development are distinguished out in the
progressive historical development of society:
1. The
beginning of the process of historical development – the creation of
historical preconditions for society (walking upright, “homo sapiens” species,
the gregarious way of life and the corresponding natural-ecological conditions)
before society existed.
2. The
primary emergence of society – primitive-communal system.
3. The
formation of society (transformation by the emerging society of the
natural environment, of those conditions from which it has emerged) –
class-antagonistic formations:
· Slave-owning socio-economic formation – the
birth of private ownership as ownership of the means of production;
· Feudal socio-economic
formation – the development of large private ownership on the non-adequate
basis (on terms set mainly by nature);
· Capitalist socio-economic
formation – the development of large private ownership on the adequate basis
(with means created mainly by humans). The completion of the formation of human
society.
4. The
maturity of society (inclusion of
the natural base transformed) in the process of the development of society
– classless unified society, communism.
Theoretical research into the historical
process makes it possible to reveal the main regularities of dynamics in the
development of society and to trace the perspectives of humanity, which are not
accessible to the conventional-empirical approach of modern times (Vazulin, 1992).
So, theoretical
periodization of capitalism (based on the philosophical and methodological
approach of the Logic of Marx’s Capital, of the Lenin’s analysis of
Imperialism, and of the Logic of History[1]),
the key points of contemporary global capitalism and the inconsistency between
capitalism and the use of scientific and technological progress are pointed
out. Theoretical periodization of capitalism is deeply correlated with
theoretical periodization of world revolutionary process, of the historical
forms of socialist revolutions. Particular emphasis is given to the structural
crisis of the capitalist system.
On Theoretical
Periodization of Capitalism.
Capitalist
socio-economic formation, according to the Logic of History (see Vazulin, pp.
371-94), is the completion of the formation of human society. It marks the growth of large private property
on the basis of produced means of production, (relatively equal to this large
private ownership basis), and the
dominance of Commodity-Money Relations.
The external limit of the extensive development of capitalism is the
formation of the world capitalist system (which is limited by the creation of the
world socialist system). The internal limit of extensive development is the limit of extension (through
concentration-centralization) of the capitalist ownership as an economic form;
that is monopoly (see Lenin, 1917).
Despite the fact that capitalism
moves towards its intensive growth, even from its maturity stage
(capital appreciation due to machines produced by machines),
the intensive growth of capitalism is dominant only at the stage of
imperialism. The inconsistency between productive forces and
productive relations is intensified. However, it cannot be absolute, because
absolute inconsistency requires the absolute elimination of living labour from the production process and the complete
automation of production (maximizing fixed capital and reducing variable
capital to zero). However, this is an extreme limit (of intensive growth of capitalism),
the reaching of which pertains to infinity. Reaching this
limit would reject the essence of capitalism, as imposed by the core social relations of
production, thus by the position of living labour in
the productive interaction between
society and nature. The
attainment of this limit would also mean overcoming (qualitatively and
essentially) the measure of existence of capitalism, as this is dictated by the inner core of the capitalistic
relations of production, by the position
of living labour in the productive interaction between society and nature.
From this point of view, the automatic collapse of
capitalism is impossible and unachievable. But the immanent contradiction
of capitalism begets the real historical limit of the intensive development of
capitalism: socialist revolution, which in its essence focuses on eliminating the domination of
private property in means of production.
The Logic behind the Maturation of the
Conditions of Revolution in History.
The scientific diagnosis of the
international revolutionary process, thus of the position and the role of each specific historical contribution to
this process, is possible only in the context of the theoretical and
methodological investigation of the causalities, which drive the logic of the
history of humankind when is treated as a whole (see Vazioulin
2004). From this point of view the socialist revolution emerges as the
necessary form of the law-governed social transition to the actually socialized
humankind, to communism.
During the formation of society the
escalation of the each time prevalent modes of the production developmental
stages of the relations of private ownership (in slavery, feudalism and
capitalism) also means an escalation in the transformation of the endowments of
the natural and communal element, caused by the making of the social factor. Private ownership itself,
whose climax is the capitalist private ownership, is nothing but the first negation of the nature and the community,
a fact also signaled by the competitive element of the exploitation and
oppression of class societies, as an
expression of the animal struggle for survival, incompletely transformed by the
social making. In this contradictory course the very social character of labour, of
production, namely the foundation of human socialization and society, arises,
forms and matures. Private ownership, in the contradictory course of its
appearance, formation and development (climaxing at capitalism), promotes the
social character of labour, while at the same time it
puts various barriers to its further development. Now there is a need for revolutionary transformation of
society to the second negation, the negation of the negation, aiming to a
dialectical sublation of capitalism and of all the
pre-capitalist (animal, communal,
divisive, competitive, etc.) endowments of history (while maintaining all the
cultural conquests of vital importance in a transformed form) as well as to a transition towards a unified humankind (in harmony with the nature), no
longer being in the form of small individual communities at separate apartments
(correspondent to pre-class primitive
communities), but being in the first place on a global scale.
The contradictions of capitalism and the
conditions for staging the socialist revolution (as a negation of capitalism in
the first place) become mature as soon as the social character of production
becomes a technical necessity, through the transition to mechanised
production (through the transition from the formal to the real subordination of
labour to capital). However at the beginning of the
transition towards a mechanised production, the
social (or to be more precise the very social character of production) barely
appears. The social character of production reaches the stage of its maturity,
through the transition towards an automated production, forming an integrated
automated complex (automated not only regarding the chains of continuous,
sequential production, branches of factories, and etc., but regarding also
entire individual sectors as well as all the sectors, consequently the entire
network of production in society).
The center of the international
revolutionary process, due to the immanent imbalance in
development in the framework of capitalism (nowadays on the increase), is
defined in space and time by the interweaving interests, the aggravation and
interlacing of internal and external contradictions, the historical endowments
etc., of the international capitalist system in various countries, groups of
countries and regions. The international capitalist “organic system” neither
extends nor is established equally all over the planet. It brings humankind
into an international lattice, into a network–main frame (a “chain”,
according to Lenin) of relations (production, interdependencies, domination, etc), whose endurance in the various parts of the planet
fluctuates according to the historical situation, but with respect to the level
of the imbalanced development of production and society as a whole. The
contradictoriness of the system, its critical phenomena and the revolutionary
situations, as objective conditions of the socialist social (not just
political) revolution, is expressed with increased intensity and frequency in
the occasionally formed “weak links” of this main frame.
Τhis phenomenon is a basic characteristic of the law-governed international
revolutionary process (with increasing effects today due to increased imbalance
of development). However, in case it is not diagnosed, dangerous delusions may
be spread, which result into the disappointment, the frustration and the
retirement of the masses.
Despite opposite views, the victorious
socialist transformations cannot start directly in the heart of capitalism. The
spot they are going to start from again is not a matter of taste or subjective
choice, but is defined by the law-governed determination of the occurring center (centers) of the
international revolutionary process.
The Necessity for Distinguishing Early from Late Socialist Revolutions.
For the historically and dialectically educated mind it is clear that
any complex historical process needs to go through early-fragile versions and
phases until it is established and matures to its late forms. For example: bourgeois revolutions suffered repeated
defeats, while several counter-revolutions and restorations of versions of the
feudal relations and absolute monarchy occurred until capitalism was finally established.
In this process there are two distinct
periods: the period of the early and the period of the late bourgeois
revolutions.
The international revolutionary process and the socialist building are
not historical exceptions to this dialectical rule.
V. A. Vazioulin introduced the concept (historical category) of
“early socialism” in the late 1980s-early 1990s, in order
to develop the theory of “the Logic of History” concretising the dialectics of the contradictory route to communism, in
contrast to the prevalent linear views of history (see: Вазюлин,
2005, pp.345-418). The depreciation of the momentous significance of early
socialist revolutions may be overcome by exalting the position and the role
they play within the dynamic of the changing structure of the transitional era
that produces them, in the movement of this structure from phase to phase,
within the dialectics of the international, regional and local element during
the transition of humankind to communism, through the revelation, on this
basis, of the dialectical relation between universal-general, special-particular
and individual in their law-governed emergence, escalation and de-escalation,
in the conflict between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary tendencies.
Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish two stages in the revolutionary process and in the building of
socialism on international scale in order to refound the theoretical communist perspective.
This concept as a form of reflection and generalization of the real
historical process, according to its essential attributes, aims to show,
through theory and methodology, the ways and the means for positive resolution
–at first in the field of revolutionary theory– of the complex of problems that
acts as the philosopher’s stone of an existential importance for the approaches
and doctrines of the left. The adoption of this theoretical and methodological
approach on the side of an increasing number of thinkers (mainly young) coming
from various countries, traditions and components of the left-wing is a fact.
Τhe first stage of this process consists of waves of the “early socialist
revolutions” in countries described by an inadequately socialised level
of production development. Early socialist revolutions result as a causality
anywhere their objective conditions, among which is the revolutionary situation,
appear.
The Subject of Early Revolutions.
The above processes are neither “processes
without a subject” (according to Louis Althusser) nor
above politics. Considering a generally undifferentiated view on the working
class (apart from the concrete historical forms of labour),
versions of which (from economism to metaphysics-messianism) are prevalent among the leftists, there should
be an epigrammatic reference to the character of the subject of the early and
late socialist revolutions.
The subject of early socialist revolutions
is the traditional proletariat, the industrial working class, which is involved
mainly in repeated, manual, executive, laborious, one-dimensional and often
unhealthy labour processes, which emerge as a means for the (chiefly quantitative)
satisfaction of constant requirements. Man’s activity becomes a derivative of the prevailing technical and social conditions, is squeezed into them and is
reduced to non-creative functions. The character of the labour of this type of
working class is related to the transition from the formal to the real subordination of labour to the
capital, which results from mechanised
production. As a result of the latter the division of labour turns into a
technical necessity dictated by the real conditions of production. The
historical necessity for turning this traditional working class from a class
“in itself”, that is, an economically defined category with no self-awareness,
to a class “for itself”, fomed by workers with a
class-conscious view of the world, and ready prepared and determined to pursue
class conflict against capitalism, is generally connected with the development
of the theoretical conquest of classical Marxism, hence the ideological
appreciation and use of this conquest as well as the respective
political-organisational patterns (i.e. the “new type” of Leninist party in the
early 20th c.).
As a result of the action of this subject and its allies, the early
victorious socialist revolutions appear and “early socialism” emerges, whose
main characteristics and causalities were mainly revealed by the historical
experience of the USSR. There are two
basic characteristics of the early
socialism that results from the victorious early socialist revolutions:
a) it surfaces and develops on a
(bequeathed from the version of capitalism it overthrows) material, technical and cultural basis, which is not completely
commensurate to socialism (not to mention the instant prospects for transition
to communism), under the conditions of an inadequately socialised character of
labour and b) it emerges in a framework in which the forces of the capitalist
world have the supremacy.
The October Revolution and the unsolved
Basic Contradiction of Socialism.
Some consider the character of the October
Revolution in the way the Mensheviks and the Second International did: as early
–with the present meaning: as something emerging early, before its time, which
allegedly occurred out of place and time, as if Lenin and the Bolsheviks had
staged a coup d’ état. However, early socialist
revolutions are neither ordered nor encouraged by any kind of deontology. They
result as causality wherever their objective conditions, and mainly the
revolutionary situation, appear. As revolutionaries the Bolsheviks had no other
choice since the revolutionary situation had already broken out.
However, the endowments of the low
developmental level of productive forces (with strong presence of the
pre-capitalist manual-executive labour) de facto
attach to the imposed by the socialist revolution relations of production the
character of formal socialisation. Due to the fact
that the victorious early socialist revolutions at first break out in one and
later in more countries, they are under capitalist encirclement, while
surrounded by stronger enemies and suffering foreign invasions and wars –World
War II, Cold War and numerous local hot military conflicts–, which they face
through the hasty building of socialism (i.e. industrialisation
and collectivisation in the USSR), “militarisation” of society, geopolitical tactics for
precipitate avulsion and protection of the maximum “living space” for
socialism, etc. The imbalanced development of productive forces also leads to a
low level of integration among the countries of early socialism, tension with geopolitical
elements of the past, sometimes even to military conflicts between them (i.e.
Yugoslavia-USSR, China-USSR, China-Vietnam, etc.).
It is understood that the degree to which
the social character of production matures, which is necessary and enough for
rupturing the weak link, as well as for overthrowing and negating capitalism,
is not enough for the positive building, for the formation and development of
communism. In the second case the criteria for evaluating the degree to which
the social character of production (as well as the rest of social aspects)
matures are no longer the criteria of capitalism, but the criteria of communism
as a process. Therefore, there is a developing process of conformity –
non-conformity of the social character of production with socialist relations
of production.
Consequently, the basic contradiction of early socialism (and the general
socialistic building, as a process of
the formation of communism) is the contradiction between the social
ownership (formal socialisation in the beginning, nationalisation) of the production means and poor
development, “immaturity” of the social character of production or, in other
words, the contradiction between formal and real socialisation[2]. Thanks to the experience of the USSR and the People’s Republic of
China as well as of the rest of the countries that resulted from the early
socialist revolutions of the 20th century (East Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba,
etc.) we can conclude that this contradiction, in connection with which all the
rest of socialist contradictions (physical and mental labour,
executive and administrative labour, country and
town, equality of nations, etc.) is historically necessary and law-governed. Historical experience has revealed that
early socialism (and any socialism) will either resolve, promote this basic
contradiction, while moving to communism, or will regress during its
resolution, will move backwards, which will result in subverting the conquests
of the revolution and gradually enforcing tendencies towards counter-revolution
and restoration before the final predominance of these tendencies.
At the stage of immaturity, of the process of forming and maturing the
social character of production, both socialist and capitalist relations of
production may exist. Τhis stage is the material and
technical basis of the necessity for early socialist revolutions, the
coexistence of two social systems, as well as the counter-revolutionary
attempts towards restoration, which accompany early socialist revolutions as a causality.
Late Socialist Revolutions and their Subject.
The completion of the first stage leads to the transition to the era of the
“late socialist revolutions”, which will lead to the permanent and
irrevocable elimination of capitalism. Only when the international
revolutionary movement and socialism develop on such a scale that the
possibilities for the parasitism of the developed capitalist countries will
disappear (as well as the opportunities for buying off-manipulating all the
components of their working class, both traditional and new) they will lead to
the revolutionary transformation of the
subject of late socialist revolutions and to the outbreak of socialist
revolutions in developed capitalist countries focusing the struggle on the
heart of capitalism.
Likewise, there are two basic
characteristics signalling the onset of
the era of late socialism: a) socialism starts to develop on a material,
technical and cultural basis, which is completely commensurate to socialism
(moving in the direction of communism) under the conditions of an adequately
socialised character of labour and b) the development of socialism takes place within a framework in which the forces of the
socialist world start
to have the supremacy against the forces of the capitalist world.
The subject of the forthcoming late
socialist revolutions is a different type of worker, who is formed and develops
in labour processes described by renewal, development, creativity, development
of creative abilities, global-universal orientation and the need for labour
(not labour as a means and product for intimidation via starvation or
repression). It is the subject of the activities
connected with automatisation, which stop being
considered as labour in the traditional meaning of the term, while a pre-representation
of the developed form of those activities is provided by the most creative
moments of scientific and artistic research activity, what Marx used to call “universal labour”. Τhis subject is today produced and reproduced by the international capitalist
system in an imbalanced way as a class “in itself”, under objective conditions
that reproduce the phenomena connected with attitudes of “labour aristocracy”. Τhe subject of this labour is not directly subordinated to the rigidity
of imposed and established material and technical terms. It handles and creates
full-range developmental and developing materials and ideal means and modes of the influence of
man on his environment, which are at the same time both means and modes of
correlation, interaction and communication among the people. It is exactly
these characteristics that may distinguish the subject that, when transformed
into a class “for itself”, will consciously carry out the basic contradiction
of socialism, which will at the same time annul the contrariety between
productive forces and relations of production (when productive forces will be
transformed into relations of production and vice versa).
People are unable to control the objective
conditions of their existence without being able to create and change them on
purpose. This is the basic aspect of the start of the predominance of living
against dead labour.
A law-governed and prerequisite condition
of the course of humankind to communism is the conscious involvement of the subject in the promotion of revolutionary
transformations to a degree directly proportional to the breadth and the depth
of these transformations. Hence the vital importance of the fundamental
development of the revolutionary theory and methodology through the dialectical
sublation of the conquest of classical Marxism (see: Вазюлин, 2005) in
order for this subject to constitute a “class for itself”.
However, in the first place this subject
should exist as the agent of the respective properties related to cognition and
conscience, which are not due to the inspiration from a holy or devilish
spirit, but chiefly subject to the character of its working activity and its
relevant broader cultural education.
When the USSR faced the need for
transition from the extensive to the intensive type of development (late 1950s,
early 1960s), the new subject that could promote this transition by elevating
the basic contradiction of socialism to a higher level was statistically,
socially and politically insignificant (some of its elements appeared in
certain sectors of science, aerospace and military industry).
On the New Stage of
Capitalism.
If we tried to give a concise definition of the current stage of capitalist
development, of global imperialism, we would say that it is the transnational-monopolistic
stage of capitalist subordination of humanity to transnational-multinational
monopolistic corporations.
The characteristics of this stage are:
1. The concentration and centralization of capital, as well
as socialization of production. The high-level development of the latter
creates the current internal limit of capital extensive growth:
the transnational monopolistic corporations, which play a decisive role in economic life
on a global scale.
2. The
merger of financial and industrial capital, more specifically the subordination of the
second to the first, and the formation of a global financial oligarchy on the
basis of this financial capital. We need to stress the importance of instant
financial flows, which are getting related to production trough
several intermediary levels and forms. This
is accompanied by the corresponding transfer of parts of the production process
all around the globe, which has
acquired pronounced importance, instead of traditional exports of
capital and goods.
3. According
to the second stage of scientific-technological revolution, the
creation of a technological basis of globally distributed and inter-networked
production is done by transnational monopolistic corporations, in terms of
production and not only in terms of export circulation of capital (also see
Bakan, 2004). The creation of such a basis, on the one
hand leads to the real subordination of global labour to globalized capital
(the global distribution of labour turns out to be a technological need),
and on the other hand, marks the beginning of the creation of global
productive forces, shaping the technological basis for the unification of humanity, according to radical changes of
character of the labour[3].
4. Given
the change of the limit of extensive growth of capital (due to the restoration
of capitalism in most countries of early socialism in the twentieth century) as
well as of the limit of intensive growth of capital (due to the second
stage of the scientific-technological revolution and restructuring of production), the following
results are observed:
·
Escalation of the division of the world among the
international monopolistic corporations and subordination of society to these corporations.
·
Reconstruction of forces and establishment of poles for the division of
land (soil, subsoil, sea, air, space) and power among the biggest and strongest capitalist powers.
Globalized imperialism is a
distinct stage of the development of capitalism. During this stage the
dominance of multinational monopolistic conglomerates and of financial capital
is shaped, instant cash flows are becoming significant, the technological basis
for the unification of production is created by conglomerates, the
redistribution of wealth among multinational monopolistic groups is increased
and the major capitalist countries are struggling for redivision
of land, subsoil, sea, air, space and power (see and Ziegler, 2002, 2005).
The scientific and technological revolution is associated with the
transition from the extensive to the intensive development of the economy as a
whole. This
correlation leads to radical transformations in the structure and dynamics of
productive forces:
•
With
respect to the combination of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of
products, taking into account the meeting of the needs of all the members of
society (more or equal to the minimum, less or equal to the maximum), and the
waste by-products that derive from the productive activity upon nature and
society
•
With
respect to the breadth, depth, strength, inflexibility-flexibility correlation,
rate of operation, layout and the interconnection of technological provisions
of production means, as determined by the nature, level and degree of
integration of scientific knowledge in those
•
With
respect to the nature, level and degree of combined targeted implementation of
laws of nature and society, depending on the degree of conversion of science
into a direct productive force, which entails the corresponding expenses of
natural and social resources
•
With
respect to the texture and character of objects, materials and processes of the
productive activity upon nature
•
With
respect to the technical and organizational aspects of distribution of labour
•
With
respect to the character of labour, the kind of effort that is required from
the subject to produce the object (directed to the part or to the whole, manual
and intellectual, continuous-repetitive-monotonous and
rotating-changing-creative, executive and performative,
and so on)
•
With
respect to the kind of psychosomatic properties of the subject (human being) of
the labour, in terms of the structure of this subject, the scale (individual,
group, unified humanity) and the relationships between its components
•
With
respect to the correlation between creative and destructive processes, and so
on.
This revolution upgrades the
subject of labour in a controversial way, by
upgrading the real terms of production. The creation of different levels of
automated production systems, dramatically changes the position and role of
humans in production as well as the dynamics of the productive forces of
society. These changes do not involve quantitative expansion of production
processes on a stable-invariable technological basis, but mainly qualitative
changes on the productive forces, the technique, the organization and the
training-education of the subject of labour. These
are the exact changes that mark the transition towards the intensive type of
economic development. The above processes are taking place in a contradictory
way. This is not a linear evolutionary process of pure technological character.
These processes are associated with the entire complex of human activities and
relationships (with the prominent role of relations of production) and require
a gradually more active and conscious involvement of the social subject. These
processes are unlikely to be thoroughly and effectively interpreted, by
applying the various technocratic approaches or the methodologically similar
anti-technocratic trends (both
unable to understand the dialectical character of the development, the logic of
history).
On the Curent
Structural Crisis of Capitalism and the Scientific and Technological
Revolution.
Any new
technology intersection (“paradigm”) is
not consolidated into large-scale
production instantly and effortlessly. At first it appears as an abstract potentiality from the existing range of
practice-applied outlets generated by basic research and fundamental scientific
knowledge, in a feedback connection with the technological capabilities and the
production needs of the time. Thus,
it escalates into actual potential, through applied orientated research programs, which evolve into experimental
manufacturing processes and industrial
production surveys - in particular patents – until it is made productive, through its technological
processing. The above process is not
a linear process of free choices, based on a series of logical steps. The actual socio-economic conditions
(profitability in the case of
capitalism) are involved in every step along the way, accelerating or retarding, orienting and
disorienting, creating incentives, disincentives, barriers or failures,
imposing certain directions over others, and so on. Only a small part of patent rights, held by the monopolistic conglomerates, are used in a productive way. A
great part of them remains bound
(using the benefits of the patent monopoly and the capacity of patents to block innovations) in order not to be
used by competitors, as long as there
are chances of profitability or monopolistic excess profit from already invested capitals in other preceding
technologies. The last thing the
monopolistic conglomerates desire is to provide competitors with a new series of unexpected strategic moves.
Typical example of this are the institutional
changes in higher education and research (the Bologna Process, Common European Research Area [ERA], and
so on), changes that suggest the
systematic undermining of basic research (physical and social) and clearly support the
institutionalization and reproduction of a unilateral mechanism, oriented towards directly applied and
technological outlets, rather than
the available acquisition of basic research.
In any case,
technological reconstructing of production is neither the first nor the most
direct or only solution chosen by capital. As a result of the intensity of the
quarrel in conditions of crisis (which occurs between the poles of labour and capital at a national, regional and global
level, between the monopoly corporations for intrasectional
and intersectional domination, between old and new imperialistic poles, between
monopolized and non-monopolized capital, and so on) and the resulting changes of global current
events, capital has the tendency to resort to the following solutions, or a combination of these:
1. Relocation
of production (spatial fix) of the enterprise in countries and
areas with the optimal combination of exploitation of labour, energy,
natural resources, transfer, anti-pollution legislation elasticity, and so on
2.
Technological reconstruction of production
(technological fix)
3. Transport
to more lucrative, less concentrated, and so on branches of production (product fix)
4.
Exodus to the financial sphere
(financial fix), through the sale of production units, and the turn
to financial or other temporary investments (also see Silver, 2003).
As a rule,
the solutions chosen by capital are derived by a series of repeated trial and error, until the choice is the
safest way, always depending on the
circumstances and the choices of competitors.
As far as the technological component of productive forces is concerned, which is the basis of the actual intensive
development of capitalism, we
need to note that there is some contradictory, deterministic escalation.
In
the early twentieth century, the first stage of scientific and
technological revolution (the beginning of automation in the level of
production, departments, laboratories, single
energy-productive units, in series and in sequence
production-assembly, mass production via assembly lines, Fordism,
Taylorism, and so on) set the ground for the
intensive development of imperialism. At this stage,
the export of capital over the export of commodities has a vital role, as this
is gradually shaping the global system of productive relations, on the basis of
financial capital, within the privileged area of circulation. Crises and wars
have consolidated the policy of state-monopoly regulation in
various forms. The experience of the previous structural
crisis of capitalism (1929-33), shows that before the outbreak of the crisis,
there is a significant slowdown in the pace of industrialization (Richta, 1967). Since the decade of 1930-1940, during the
Second World War and especially during the Cold
War, 'monopolies put into circulation a large number of inventions
and patents, thus increasing the pressure for innovation.
Expenses are spent very quickly on basic and experimental scientific
research. The social position of technique is restored and economic growth
is remarkably accelerated again' (op. cit.). This recovery is largely associated
with the Keynesian policies of state interventionism, public expenditure
and state-monopoly regulation, the origins of which are linked with
war and military expenses. This recovery is associated with labour
struggles
and the exercised pressure that is exercised (de facto) by the countries of 'early
socialism', which emerged after World War Two.
The second stage of scientific and
technological revolution (which coincides with the rapid growth of
multinational corporations) began in the late 70's and 80's. The key feature at
this stage is the transition to another level of intensive development of
capitalism, the intensive development of an information
technological complex (single automated complexes, production of automated devices by other
automated devices, automation of industries, space technology, launch of
telematics and networking in the level of a world wide
network). This has resulted in restructuring in
terms of labour relations and relations of
production, stimulated by the strategy of neo-conservatism/liberalism; the
latter expresses a different view, opposed to “bureaucratic rigidity”, which is
a typical feature of the state monopoly scheme.
These days are marked by a new
turning point in the productive forces, a turning point that paves the
way for the upcoming third stage
of scientific and technological revolution. The range of possibilities
of that stage leads to new achievements in basic scientific research. Hence, a
wide array of attainments is imminent: intensified promotion of automation and information-technology
complex, upgrading of networking, telecommunications, biotechnology,
nanotechnology, emergence of new sources of energy with a high rate of return,
and new flexible ways of using soft and renewable energy resources, new
possibilities of impact on humans and the human
psyche, hydrogen energy, etc. The
multinational companies and the countries that control and manage these
achievements of scientific and technological progress, hold a hegemonic
position in the world.
The transition to the new technological
model will be the new third stage of scientific and technological
revolution that will radically enhance the socialization of production.
In addition, it will further develop technologies and production processes within
a global scale, the nature of labour, and the
efficiency of basic strategies of economic development. In other words, it will radically change the characteristics and the
composition of the global working class. Under these conditions, new channels
of communication between research, technology and production, as well as new
requirements of education and training, for the subject of labour,
will be established.
By upgrading the
social character of labour, in the process of this
contradictory
development outlined above, the lines of the labour
camp are enriched with new armies of workers who are not associated with
repetitive, monotonous, manual and execution-based jobs, but on the contrary,
with renewable-developing, mental, and performance-based jobs (involving creation,
installation, configuration, monitoring, control, optimization, and development
of automated technological processes of various types and levels).
The type of personality and collectivity that these new workers develop,
gives them the opportunity to evaluate the scientific and technological
potentials of humanity, in a global-scientific scale. This view enables them to
exceed the limitations of hetero-determination (and therefore of
defensiveness-negativity) between the two poles (labour-capital)
and highlight the best potential not only for the needs of a specific class, but of society as a
whole and for the inevitable necessity for the unification of humanity. This is
a necessity that objectively matures in any subsequent turning point in the
development of productive forces, with the main component being man
himself as the subject of labour. For the unification
of humanity to
happen, in the context of another type of development culture, a necessary
condition is a harmonious relationship with nature, not as an excuse for
some selfish motives, or as fragmented solutions; it is rather an
all-round protection, a rehabilitated and consciously creative development of the
objective conditions of human existence.
The Intermediate Character of the Present Situation and Prospects.
Under conditions of
global, systemic and structural crisis, the most aggressive capitalist forces
are desperately seeking ways out of the crisis, destroying the main force of
production (working-class) through the social war against labour,
using public external depth and other instruments for colonization of regions
and countries, not only of traditional depended post-colonial countries, not
only of the so-called “Third
World”, but also of “peripheral” countries of one of the three centers of the
so-called “First World”, of the European imperialist integration-“European Union”[4]
(such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain). The targets of the most
aggressive forces of world global financial capital in this war are the people
of the “weakest links” of the system, especially of the Eurozone's periphery, against which they are
using brutal forms of colonization. The outcome of this war will be largely
dependent on the international revolutionary process, on whether (and to what
extent) the international labour forces will effort
to develop their own strategy of coming out of the crisis, and on whether the
global capitalism will be disrupted, through the detachment of some of its
“weakest links”.
If we try to understand the present era with respect
to the international revolutionary process, we will realise that it is a period
in which the round of the early socialist
revolutions is not completed; it is also a period preparing the preconditions
for late socialist revolutions. A strategic issue of our time is the
theoretical preparation for the new stage of the historical development of
society, for late revolutions, late socialism.
The revolutionary
movement has to address –with respect but without dogmatism– and critically-revolutionarily
evaluate the highly valuable experience of all the components of the defeated
movement and particularly the experience connected with the early socialist
revolutions of the 20th century, without being trapped in sanctifications,
memorial services, resurrections and scornful-nihilistic renouncement.
Early socialism provides the opportunity for
deeper and more realistic examination of future processes. The investigation of
the course of early socialism in countries where it prevailed with its own
means (and particularly in the USSR) is important not only for the development
of the theory of early socialist revolutions, of early socialism, but also for
the development of socialism in general as a process for the transition to
communism. It is exactly in the deeper and most durable version of early socialism, in the USSR,
where the contradictions and causalities of early socialism, and generally of
any socialism, were expressed in the most vivid way. Thus, the new revolutionary theory, the Logic of
History, appeared in this country, when the contradictions of early socialism
became visible and started the “self-criticism” of that society. Classical Marxism proved its power through
the victories of the early socialist revolutions of the 20th century and the
progress of early socialism. The weaknesses and inadequacies of classical Marxism started to appear when early
socialism was unable to resolve its contradictions and the bourgeois
counter-revolution prevailed in most of the countries of early socialism.
The defeat of one or some of the early socialist
revolutions does not
prove by no means that socialism, as a law-governed stage of the
development of humankind, was completely and permanently defeated and that
communism is a utopia for fantasts. The defeat of the early socialist revolutions and the death of early
socialism in some countries, or even in all early socialist countries, is not a
warrant for historical pessimism, or for resignation from the communist
prospect. Revolutionists should be taught by their defeats and have more concrete targets after
them, by renewing and redeploying their forces.
The global capitalist system that today dominates,
despite its contradictions or, more specifically, via its contradictions
managed to promote labour socialisation
to a higher level before finally defeating the early socialist system (almost)
completely. Counter-revolution and capitalist restoration are a necessary and
law-governed (but not unavoidable) moment of this stage. The death of early
socialism, the defeat –in the final analysis– of most of the early socialist
revolutions is a very possible outcome of this historical period (although not
an absolute necessity).
The emancipation of humankind, the elimination of
alienation, presupposes a great increase in productive power, indicating a high
degree of its development. Moreover, “this development of productive forces
(which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their
world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical
premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution
the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily
be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of
productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which
produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each
nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put
world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones”
(Marx/Engels. The German…). The
inability in moving from the extensive to the intensive development of
production, on a large-scale, as well as the geographical restriction of the
attempts in countries with middle and low developmental level of productive
forces finally led to the already known outcome.
To put it mildly, it is naive to attribute the reasons
for the defeat of early socialist revolutions and the restoration of capitalism
mainly to subjective administration (Stalin, Khrushchev, bureaucracy,
degeneration of the democracy of the soviets, treachery and errors of
Perestroika leaders, etc).
The objective contradictions of early socialism (connected with its basic contradiction) broke out intensely.
An essential term for the survival of early socialism via the practical
resolution of these contradictions (by promoting the transformations towards
communism) was also the foundation of a course based on serious and systematic
research. That was the difficult way. But the easiest way was followed: these
contradictions were not researched and the “adopted” solutions accelerated the
final predominance of counter-revolution and the restoration of capitalism.
The soviet administration was not able to produce such theoretical
research or even to understand its necessity. But the defeat came mainly due to
the fact that in the critical turning-point of history of early socialism there
was neither objective nor subjective possibilities to resolve these
contradictions.
The
possibilities for restoring the historically antiquated regime are reversely
proportionate to the breadth and depth of changes the revolution has brought
about. But no counter-revolution can eliminate the revolutionary conquests it
battles.
The lessons humankind can draw from the
experience of early socialist revolutions are invaluable. The only thing it has
to do is realize the possibility and the necessity for reconsidering history
from the angle of revolutionary theory and methodology. These lessons mean
mainly getting beyond simplifying patterns, doctrines and delusions by
dialectically developing-sublating social theory and philisophy, including classical Marxism itself (see The
Logic of History), by making the contradictoriness of the historical
revolutionary process more concrete, as well as by making the law-governed
prospects for a socialized humankind more concrete, not as a mere negation of
capitalism, but positively, as a different type of culture, of civilization,
within which the overall historical making of humankind is dialectically sublated.
Conclusions.
There are two great and correlated
problems, on the solution of which will be
depend on the
understanding of the nature of the era, the revolutionary theory and practice
of our era: the theoretical
reconstruction of the current stage of Capitalism and the positive
definition/prediction of unified society, of communism. The dialectical approach
of the Logic of History, suggests
a periodization in accordance with a changing foundation, depending on the
development of the main contradiction of this system, on the stages of
scientific and technological revolution, on the character and the level of
socialization of production, on the character and the level of the subject of
the labour, on the correlation between extensive and
intensive development, on the class strangle and on the world revolutionary
process.
The
globalized imperialism is a distinct development stage of capitalism, as during
that stage: the dominance of multinational monopolistic conglomerates and of
financial capital is shaped, the instant cash flows are becoming significant,
the technological basis for the unification of production is created by the
conglomerates, the redistribution of wealth among the multinational monopolistic groups is escalated and the major
capitalist countries (as well as their poles) are struggling for redivision of land, subsoil, sea, air, space and power.
The social character of people’s attitude to each other is developing
regarding the conditions, process, and result of labour attitude towards
nature, regarding the mode of production. The movement for socialism, the
revolutionary process, emerges us a necessity on the contradictoriness
development of the labour’s social character.
According
to the 20th century’s historical experience, two stages of
revolutionary process and building of socialism in world scale are
distinguished: the “Early” and the “Late” Socialist (communist) movements and
revolutions. The Early Socialism emerges and is developing on a material and
technical base, which is not at all of corresponding socialism, in conditions
of insufficiently socialised character of labour, while the capitalistic world
has the supremacy in the correlation of forces.
The
basic contradiction of early socialism (and of every socialism as a historical
process) is the contradiction between the relations of production and the
productive forces, between social property of the means of production (formal
socialization, nationalization) and insufficient growth, “immaturity” of social
character of production, or in other words, the
contradiction between formal, and real socialization. The early socialism
(and each socialism in general, as a process of making of communism) either
will solve this basic contradiction moving to the mature socialized humankind
(communism), or it will regress to the counterrevolution and to the restoration
of Capitalism.
The
Late Socialism begins developing on material and technical base which is
corresponds to socialism, while the forces of socialism begin to surpass
against forces of world of capital.
It is
necessary to distinguish the Subject of Early from the Subject of Late Sosialist Revolutions, to define the correlation between
both of them (accordingly, between the levels, the forms, the means and the
ways of the organization and conducting the revolutionary struggle), to realise
the concrete limits and the creative potential of the main revolutionary social
force of era, the diversity and the inner unity of
the components of nowadays working-class, to develop dialectically the
scientific-theoretical, ideological, organization and practical aspects of the
victorious revolutionary strangle of current era. The dogmatic ignorance of those
radical changes, insisting on stereotypes, ideological and organizational-practical
shapes, may lead to many failures and disappointments can
bring catastrophic impact on development of the revolutionary movement.
We are living in an intermediate era, when
early socialist revolutions are moving towards the completion of their cycle, while the late socialist revolutions have
not started yet, but the preconditions for the transition to them are under configuration. On the one hand, the
intermediate character of this period creates a feeling of immobility, of
absence of prospect, while on the other hand it provides the opportunity for
the development of theory. The latter will require long and systematic
collective studies, given that the number and perplexity of the processes under
investigation cannot be compared with what classical Marxism comprised. Basing
on the achievements of dialectically developing theory (on describing,
explaining and predicting the Logic of Historical process), a
revolutionary movement in correspondence with the
possibilities and the needs of the era will be developing on a
practical-political and organizational level.
The theoretical and
methodological approach of “The Logic of History” to the fundamental
problems of social development (on “Early” Socialist revolutions, the extensive
and intensive development of production forces, formal and real socialization
etc.) provides a key to the comprehension of an objective reason for a number
of social phenomena, opening a whole spectrum of research approaches. Such
phenomena include, for example, the problem of the objective reasons for the victory
of the capitalist counterrevolution and restoration as opposed to the
prevailing reduction of these reasons to a subjective factor, the problem of perspectives for mankind etc.
The Current Structural
Crisis of Capitalism (correlated with the impact of counterrevolution and
capitalistic restoration in the most of the countries of the Early Socialism of
20th century) provides the opportunity to research the
contradictions and the moving powers of that system. But
the revolutionary theory is not a “pure” science, is not an academic issue. The
revolutionists do not have the right to attend as apathetic spectators the
social war and demographic catastrophe of the peoples, without contributing
theoretically and practically in the race. Those contradictions, manifest themselves most
relief in as most relieving for the "weakest links" of the system,
where the situation[5]
(as a localized in time and space momentum of historical era) requires the
development of a front, of a revolutionary movement, based on fundamental vital
needs, for the survival of millions of people in an anti-imperialist struggle,
for national and social liberation, for democratization, against the most
aggressive forces of global financial capital, against new forms of
colonialism. Through this theoretical and practical struggle will take place a very
important radicalization of masses, in a process of maturation of the
revolutionary subject for the unification of humankind.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Global Green New Deal” -
Environmentally-Focused Investment Historic Opportunity for 21st Century
Prosperity and Job Generation. http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.aspdocumentid=548&articleid=5957&l=en , available 29/8/2012.
Anderson, P. (1998). The Origins of Postmodernity, Verso.
Bakan, J. (2004), The
Corporation. The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power,
Constable.
Engels, F. (1884). The
Origin of the Family, Private ownership and the State. In the Light of the
Researches by Lewis H. Morgan. Preface to the First Edition. In: Marx & Engels Collected Works. Vol. 26.
[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/preface.htm]available
29/8/2012.
Faber, D. (2006), The
Political Ecology of Global Capitalism, Sociology G230.
Fukuyama, Francis. (1993). The End of
History and the Last Man. HarperCollins Publishers.
Hegel G.W.F., The Philosophy of
History, Translated by J. Sibree. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20-%20Philosophy%20of%20History.htm,
online, available 29/8/2012.
http://www.socant.neu.edu/faculty/faber/documents/SOC_G230_Syllabi.pdf
Huntington, Samuel. (1997).The
Clash of Civilizations. Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group.
Ilyenkov, Evald. (1960).
Dialectics of the Abstract & the Concrete in Marx’s Capital.
Progress Publishers, 1982; in: Evald Ilyenkov Archive 1924 – 1979, http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/ilyenkov/index.htm, available
29/8/2012.
Kouvelakis, S. (2011).THE GREEK CAULDRON. New Left Review 72,
November-December 2011.http://newleftreview.org/II/72/stathis-kouvelakis-the-greek-cauldron, available 29/8/2012.
Lapavitsas, C. (2012). Crisis in the Eurozone. Verso.
Lenin, V.I. (1917) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism, Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume
1, pp. 667–766. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/, available 29/8/2012.
Lenin, V.I. (1919). The State: A Lecture Delivered at the Sverdlov
University. July
11, 1919, (Ленин В. И. О
государстве,
1919, Соч. т.39). [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jul/11.htm], available 29/8/2012.
Lilley S.,
(1965), Men, Machines and History: The Story of Tools and Machines in Relation
to Social Progress, Lawrence & Wishart, London.
Marx K., Engels
F., The German Ideology, Collected Works. Volume 5. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/volume05/index.htm,
online, available 29/8/2012.
Marx K., The Class Struggles in
France, 1848 to 1850, Part IV. The Abolition
of Universal Suffrage in 1850.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch04.htm, online, available 29/8/2012.
Marx K., The Poverty of Philosophy. Answer to
the Philosophy of Poverty by M. Proudhon. Marx/Engels
Collected Works Volume 6. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/index.htm,
online, available 29/8/2012.
Marx, K.(1857-61),
Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse).http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/, available 29/8/2012.
Marx, K.(1867),
Capital. A Critique of Political Economy,Volume
I. First english edition of
1887, Translated: S.Moore and E.Aveling,
edited by F.Engels. Progress Publishers, Moscow,
USSR; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/,
available
29/8/2012.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Fredrick. (1848). Manifesto of
the Communist Party. II: Proletarians and Communists. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm], available 29/8/2012.
Marx, Karl.
(1857-1858). Economic Manuscripts of 1857-58. Outlines of the Critique of
Political Economy (First Version of Capital) In: Marx
& Engels Collected Works. Vol. 28 - 29. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm],
available 29/8/2012.
Marx, Karl.
1849. Wage Labour and Capital.
III. The Nature and Growth of Capital. Articles from the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung. March 6—May 19, 1849. In: Marx & Engels Collected Works.
Vol. 9.
[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm],
available 29/8/2012.
Marx, Karl.
1859. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Preface.
In: Marx & Engels Collected Works. Vol. 29. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm#e1], available 29/8/2012.
Marx, Karl.
Capital, Vol. I – III. In:
Marx & Engels Collected Works. Vol. 35, 36, 37. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm],
available 29/8/2012.
Meszaros I.,
Communism Is Not Utopia,
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-November/015608.html,
online, available 29/8/2012.
Parenti M., (1997), Blackshirts
and Reds. Rational
Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, City lights Books, San Francisco.
Patelis, D. (2008). Revolutionary
situation, Early Socialism and the Logic of History. Στο:
Lab.RII, UNIVERSITÉ DU LITTORAL CÔTE
D’OPALE, Laboratoire de Recherche
sur l’Industrie et l’Innovation, CAHIERS DU LAB.RII, – DOCUMENTS DE TRAVAIL –,
N°186 Juin 2008, RII’s Working Papers, 2008: N
186.http://riien.univ-littoral.fr/?page_id=38&page=2, http://ideas.repec.org/p/rii/riidoc/186.html
και http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/riiriidoc/186.htm, available 29/8/2012.
Patelis, D. (2009). October Revolution and Logic
of History: contratictions of early socialism and
prospects for humankind, στο: Fragmentos
de Cultura, Vol. 19, No 5 (2009) - Filosofia, p. 711-734. http://seer.ucg.br/index.php/fragmentos/article/view/1157, available 29/8/2012.
Patelis, D. (2012). Capital accumulation, crisis and ‘return
to nature’?. In: B. Laperche,
N. Levratto and D. Uzunidis
ed., Theoretical origins and political aspects of the ecological opportunity),
in: Crisis, Innovation and Sustainable Development. The
ecological opportunity. Cheltenham, UK – Northampton, MA, USA. Published by Edward Elgar.
Perez, C. (2004), “Finance and Technical
Change: A Long-term View”. The Elgar Companion to
Neo-Schumpeterian Economics. H. Hanusch, A. Pyka (eds.). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Perez, C. (2007), Great Surges of
Development and Alternative Forms of Globalization.
http://www.carlotaperez.org/papers/GreatSurges_and_Globalization.pdf
, available 29/8/2012.
Research on Money and Finance. 2010. The Eurozone between Austerity and
Default, C. Lapavitsas, A. Kaltenbrunner,
G. Lambrinidis, D. Lindo,
J. Meadway, J. Michell,
J.P. Painceira, E. Pires,
J. Powell, A. Stenfors, N. Teles,
Occasional Report 2, September, www.researchonmoneyandfinance.org, available 29/8/2012.
Richta R. (1969),
Civilization at the Crossroads; social and human implications of the
scientific and technological revolution, White Plains, International Arts and
Sciences Press, N.Y.
Rubin, I. I. (1972), Essays on Marx's
Theory of Value. Detroit: Black and Red.
Salomoni A. (2006), Ο Λένιν και η
Ρώσικη επανάσταση. Κέδρος, Αθήνα.
Scientific Progress, the Universities and the Federal Government, 1960, Washington, D.C.
Silver, B. (2003). Forces of Labor.
Workers’ Movements and Globalization since 1870.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Actual Methodology of Marxism and
Prospects for its Development. 2003. Materials from the International Scientific Conference
dedicated my to the issue of the monograph by Vazulin V.A. (The Logic of K.
Marx’s “Capital”) on December, 28, 2002. Moscow. (Актуальность методологии марксизма и перспективы её развития.
Материалы
Международной
научной
конференции,
приуроченной
к выходу в
свет монографии
В. А. Вазюлина «Логика
«Капитала»
Карла Маркса»
28 декабря 2002 года.
Москва 2003). [http://ilhs.narod.ru/281202.htm],
available 29/8/2012.
The Club of Rome. http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/home/, available 29/8/2012.
The Cuban Revolution. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3240/english.html,
online, available
29/8/2012.
The Green New Deal.
http://www.neweconomics.org/projects/green-new-deal , available 29/8/2012.
The International “Logic of History”
School, http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/en/index.htm,
online, available 29/8/2012.
Uzunidis, D. (2006), “Science and technology in today’s
economy. the fourth stage in the organisation of
production”, Working Papers 125, Laboratoire
de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
Uzunidis, D., Patelis, D.
(2010). Le nouveau mercantilisme, la mondialisation et sa crise. in:
Recherches internationales
N° 88, pp.19-39
Vazjulin, V. A. (2005),
Die Logik des “Kapitals” von Karl Marx, Übersetzung aus dem теории и методологии. М.
1988). [http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/istoriioglav.htm],
available 29/8/2012.
Vazjulin, V. A. (2011), Die Logik der Geschichte, Übersetzung aus dem Russischen von Gudrun Havemann. Herstellung und Verlag: Books on Demand GmbH.
Vazulin V. A.
(1975). The making of K. Marx’s scientific research method. Moscow. (Вазюлин
В.А.
Становление
метода
научного
исследования
К. Маркса. М. 1975). [http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/STANAVLENIEoglav.htm],
available 29/8/2012.
Vazulin, V. A. (1992). On the
Social Philosophy of History. (Вазюлин
В.А. О
социальной
философии
истории). In:
Социологические
исследования,
№ 12, 1992, с. 90-97. [http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/stat23.htm], available 29/8/2012.
Vazulin, V. A. (2002).
The Logic of K. Marx’s “Capital”. 2nd Edition. Moscow. (Вазюлин В.А. Логика
«Капитала»
К. Маркса.
М. 1968, 2002). [http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/lk.htm], available 29/8/2012.
Vazulin, V. A. (2005), The Logic of
History. Questions of Theory and Methodology, Moscow, Moscow
Humanitarian University Press. http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/istoriioglav.htm, available 29/8/2012.
Vazulin, Viktor Alexeevich. 1992. On the Social Philosophy of History. (Вазюлин
В.А. О
социальной
философии
истории). In:
Социологические
исследования,
№ 12, 1992, с. 90-97. [http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/stat23.htm], available 29/8/2012.
Wikipedia, Science
and technology in the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_in_the_Soviet_Union,
online, available 29/8/2012.
Works of the International “Logic of History” School. 1993. Vol. 1. The Logic of History and the Perspectives of the Scientific Development. Moscow. (Труды
международной
логико-исторической
школы.
Выпуск 1.
Логика
истории и
перспективы
развития
науки. М.1993). [http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/VIPUSK1.htm], available 29/8/2012.
Works of the International “Logic of History” School. 1995. Vol. 2. History and Reality:
Studies on Theory and Practice. Moscow. (Труды
международной
логико-исторической
школы.
Выпуск 2.
История и
реальность:
уроки теории
и практики. М. 1995). [http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/en/history_reality.htm],
available 29/8/2012.
Ziegler, J. (2002), Les nouveaux
maîtres du monde et ceux
qui leur resistent [The New
Rulers of the World and Those Who Resist Them], Paris: Fayard.
Ziegler, J. (2005), L'empire
de la honte [The Empire of Shame], Paris: Fayard.
Вазюлин В.А., (1990). Неизбежность коммунизма, Экономические науки. N 9. С.123-128. http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/stat21.htm, online, available online,
available 29/8/2012.
Вазюлин В.А., (1992). О социальной философии истории, Социологические исследования, N 12. С. 90-98. http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/stat23.htm, online, available
29/8/2012.
Вазюлин В.А., (2005).
Логика
истории.
Вопросы
теории и
методологии,
СГУ, Москва and: http://www.ilhs.tuc.gr/ru/istoriioglav.htm, online,
available 29/8/2012.
Глазьев, С. Ю. (2009), “Мировой экономический кризис как процесс смены технологических укладов” Вопросы экономики, № 3, pp. 26-38. [GLAZEV, S. J., The global economic crisis
as a process of changing technological structures].
Глазьев, С. Ю. (2009). “Мировой экономический кризис как процесс смены технологических укладов” Вопросы экономики, № 3, pp. 26-38. [GLAZEV, S. J., The global economic crisis
as a process of changing technological structures], available 29/8/2012.
Долгосрочный
прогноз
научно-технологического
развития
Российской
Федерации (до
2025 года). Потенциал и позиции
России на рынке
технологий. [Long-term prognosis for Scientific and Technological
Development of the Russian Federation (2025). Potential, and
Russia's position in the technology marketplace.] http://protown.ru/information/doc/4295.html, available 29/8/2012.
Донгаров А.Г., (1990).
Иностранный
капитал в
России и
СССР. Москва.
Кризис капитализма финансовых рынков — испытание для левых. [The
ongoing crisis of financial capitalism, - a test for the left] http://scepsis.ru/library/id_2431.html, available 29/8/2012.
Ленин
В.И., 1958-1965, Полное
Собрание
Сочинений, т. 1-55.
Москва.
Олегина И.Н. (1971).
Индустриализация
СССР в
английской и
американской
историографии.
Л.Г.У., Ленинград.
Орлов В.,
Великий
Октябрь и
мировая историяб
http://www.communist.ru/root/archive/history/velikiy.oktyabr online, available 29/8/2012.
Пателис Д. (1991). Философско-методологический
анализ становления
экономической
науки. Москва. [http://www.biblus.ru/Default.aspx?book=75l07b3v3], available
29/8/2012.
Пателис Д. (2011). О
ранних и поздних социалистических
революциях
в свете Логики Истории. О теоретической
и практической
актуальности
социализма.
in: "CREDO NEW теоретический
журнал",
№2 (66), 2011, p. 278-294 (σελ. 17).
http://credonew.ru/content/view/1025/65/ & , available 29/8/2012.
Троцкий Л. Д., История русской революции,
http://www.marxists.org/russkij/trotsky/1930/trotl007.htm, online, available
29/8/2012.
Чунтулов В.Т., Кривчова Н.С., Чунтулов А.В., Тюшев В.А., 1987, Экономическая история СССР, Высшая Школа, Москва.
* Member of the International Research Grup “The Logic of History” and of the Circle of
Revolutionary Theory. Assistant Professor, Dept. of Sciences,
Technical University of Crete.
E-mail
: dpatelis@science.tuc.gr
[1]
See The International “Logic of History” School, and Vazulin,
2005, Vazjulin, 2005, Vazjulin,
2011.
[2]
In the first place this contradiction may be perceived in proportion to a historical contradiction in the development of capitalism. In the
early phases of capitalism (until pre-industrial handicraft, “manifactura”) the labour of a craftsman worker (working
with manually-operated tools) was formally subordinated to the capital
through the supervisory, organisational, administrative, etc. operation of the
capitalist. Only when production is mechanised and the division of labour
becomes a technical necessity dictated by the real conditions of production is
labour really subordinated to the capital.
[3] However, this is not a linear process without
contradictions. Those changes of the character of the labour, are tendencies, more
or less pontificated-deformated, because of the subordination of global labour to globalized
capital. In modern global capitalism, the labour which
is associated with the operation and development of several levels and forms of
automation, is part of the overall labour,
localized in more or less certain enclaves. The automated production has as a
broader basis the still non-automated production.
[4]
The current crisis is a chance for the people to liberate themselves from
illusions about the character of E.U.
E.U. is an imperialistic finance and political “prison of peoples”, and Euro (as a construction of European finance
capital) is the main monetary-financial instrument on this exploitation.
[5] Any metaphysical
detachment of situation from the historical era is completely unrealistic and
ahistorical. In dialectical methodology of history, situation is a localized
in time and space momentum of historical era, especially during global systemic
crisis in “weakest links”.