I've been this afternoon with Fran in a speech about the crisis of Maurizio Lazzarato and Andrea Fumagalli (although we have only come to see Fumagalli, to Lazzarato what I have read enough.) I leave the conversation with a couple or three ideas in his head that I will outline in a very beast and I do not fully explain (I should write, if not a dissertation, a gigantic test).
If anyone wants to know more, to comment and ask, if anyone wants to know more and study in Somosaguas, to invite the concoction we call coffee.
The three ideas (each inferred from above) very beasts are
- capitalism today is not an economic system (how to organize production) but political, that is, economic, social and cultural. Capitalism is not the way we ordered economic relations but the whole network of relationships and social interactions of which the economic part.
- who is now in crisis are some people and some institutions. It is likely that the entire economic system is played but in any case, the model of social relations in which we operate is in crisis. Capitalism is in crisis.
- the crisis is a discourse from which they derive several speeches. The majority is dharma speech from pro-capitalist positions (more or less liberal humanists) to rewrite and make more functional the current model, not to try another (I think this is not a trial to evaluate, but a mere statement of fact).
who pose as critical my argument, the increase in unemployment or things like that should consider that capitalism can not be understood without states, but it is a state model but globalizing in Spain (and elsewhere) has more people in crisis two years ago does not mean that the number of people in the world (the scale on which capitalism develops) living bad is now more significant than those same two years ago. The crisis of such persons is material, missing more, but the crisis of capitalism is a speech.
And now, taking a perspective (ontological) constructivist-realist (constructivist to understand that there crisis as a reality material and realistic to understand that there while formulated as speech and there is a crisis imaginary), the harangues: no more crises of capitalism today (understood as a network of social relations) than before, but yes there is a discourse on the crisis opens a window of opportunity to reformulation and partial or total redesign of the model. Do we let the choice is unambiguous (as Obama) or we take seriously the opportunity to get their hands on the economic subjugation, patriarchal, cultural, colonial, ethnic, etc ...?
There goes the case.
* Footnote: In all honesty, I do not think that capitalism exists but as discourse, as a way to explain some general, some issues about how we organize (or to organize, they all are). But this was much curl curl for a blog ...
If anyone wants to know more, to comment and ask, if anyone wants to know more and study in Somosaguas, to invite the concoction we call coffee.
The three ideas (each inferred from above) very beasts are
- capitalism today is not an economic system (how to organize production) but political, that is, economic, social and cultural. Capitalism is not the way we ordered economic relations but the whole network of relationships and social interactions of which the economic part.
- who is now in crisis are some people and some institutions. It is likely that the entire economic system is played but in any case, the model of social relations in which we operate is in crisis. Capitalism is in crisis.
- the crisis is a discourse from which they derive several speeches. The majority is dharma speech from pro-capitalist positions (more or less liberal humanists) to rewrite and make more functional the current model, not to try another (I think this is not a trial to evaluate, but a mere statement of fact).
who pose as critical my argument, the increase in unemployment or things like that should consider that capitalism can not be understood without states, but it is a state model but globalizing in Spain (and elsewhere) has more people in crisis two years ago does not mean that the number of people in the world (the scale on which capitalism develops) living bad is now more significant than those same two years ago. The crisis of such persons is material, missing more, but the crisis of capitalism is a speech.
And now, taking a perspective (ontological) constructivist-realist (constructivist to understand that there crisis as a reality material and realistic to understand that there while formulated as speech and there is a crisis imaginary), the harangues: no more crises of capitalism today (understood as a network of social relations) than before, but yes there is a discourse on the crisis opens a window of opportunity to reformulation and partial or total redesign of the model. Do we let the choice is unambiguous (as Obama) or we take seriously the opportunity to get their hands on the economic subjugation, patriarchal, cultural, colonial, ethnic, etc ...?
There goes the case.
* Footnote: In all honesty, I do not think that capitalism exists but as discourse, as a way to explain some general, some issues about how we organize (or to organize, they all are). But this was much curl curl for a blog ...
