Koledar dogodkov

Apr
18
Thu
Kinokatedra: Volga Volga in kolhozni muzikali @ Kinoteka, Miklošičeva Cesta 28, Ljubljana
Apr 18 @ 21:00 – 23:30
Kinokatedra: Volga Volga in kolhozni muzikali @ Kinoteka, Miklošičeva Cesta 28, Ljubljana

V četrtek, 18. aprila, se bo ob 21. uri odvil drugi del iz sklopa filmskega krožka Delavsko-punkerske univerze, ki bo pod drobnogled vzel dva kolhozna muzikala.

Volga Volga in kolhozni muzikali

Film Volga Volga (1938) Grigorija Aleksandrova je ob izidu doživel velik uspeh pri občinstvu. A všeč ni bil le množicam, ampak tudi partijskemu vrhu. Volga Volga je bil namreč najljubši film Josipa Visarijonoviča Stalina!

Stalin naj bi si film Volga Volga ogledal več kot stokrat. Na pamet naj bi znal celoten dialog s pesmimi vred. Če je ta zgodba še pogojno verjetna, so ostale, ki jih navajajo v zvezi s filmom, povečini neresnične. Dve od teh nam bosta služili kot okvir za kratek oris značilnosti enega dela socrealistične filmske produkcije, žanra glasbene komedije oz. “kolhoznih muzikalov”, katerih paradigmatski primer je prav film Volga Volga.

Prva zgodba zadeva genezo naslova Volga Volga. Avtor naslova naj bi bil nihče drug kot Charlie Chaplin, s katerim sta se Eisenstein in Aleksandrov spoprijateljila med njunim bivanjem v ZDA. Chaplin naj bi Aleksandrovu v šali predlagal Volga Volga kot dober naslov med tem, ko sta veslala po zalivu San Francisca, Aleksandrov pa naj bi predlog vzel resno.

Ko sta se Eisenstein in Aleksandrov leta 1932 na ukaz Moskve vrnila iz Amerike, je bila sovjetska filmska in umetnostna pokrajina radikalno drugačna. Ravno tega leta je socialistični realizem postal uradna doktrina Sovjetske zveze. Tako so morala umetnostna dela zadostiti štirim kriterijem: umetnost mora biti za delavstvo relevantna in razumljiva, prikazovati mora tipično vsakdanje življenje, reprezentacija mora biti realistična, sporočilo umetniških del pa naj bi podpiralo cilje države in partije. Ob tem je Stalin na področju filma sprožil še posebno iniciativo za oblikovanje nove, socrealistične komedije, ki bi se razlikovala od hollywoodskih (Salys: The Musical Comedy Films of Grigorii Aleksandrov; st. 21–25).

To nalogo je izpolnil Aleksandrov s svojimi kolhoznimi muzikali, ki se po virih komičnosti in do neke mere tudi strukturi in tehnični dovršenosti ne razlikujejo prav veliko od hollywoodskih. Tako se v Volgi Volgi Strelka (igra jo Aleksandrova žena Ljubov Orlova, prva velika zvezda sovjetskega filma), kurirka z velikim glasbenim talentom, skupaj s tovariši s podeželja po Volgi odpravi v Moskvo na olimpijado amaterskih glasbenikov. Film je v osnovi komedija zmešnjav (zgodbo poganja zmeda glede avtorstva pesmi), polna slap-sticka in vizualnih gagov, ki se konča z velikim sklepnim songom.

Posebnost kolhoznih muzikalov je v njihovi tematiki in politični osti, saj poveličujejo zmožnosti in uspehe običajnih ljudi, ki jih je omogočil nov družbeni red. V Volgi Volgi ta uspeh reprezentira novozgrajeni kanal Volga–Moskva z modernim pristaniščem. Liki v teku filmov realizirajo svoje do tedaj skrite potenciale, obenem pa se smešijo intelektualci, buržoazija, birokrati, ZDA…

V teh filmih ni izdajalcev in drugih negativnih likov (Žižek: The Parallax View; st. 294–5), so le oportunisti, ki na koncu spoznajo svojo zmoto. Življenje je srečno, harmonično in vlada obilje. Pri čemer je potrebno pripomniti, da je glavnina teh filmov nastajala ravno v času Velike čistke. Če kolhozni muzikali ustrezajo socrealističnima kriterijema “ljudskosti” in “partijske linije”, potem zagotovo ne zadostijo kriterijema “realističnosti” in “vsakdanjosti”.

Zgodba s katero bomo zaključili pravi, da naj bi se Stalin pogosto smejal Nikiti Hruščovu, ker naj bi bil ta podoben liku iz Volge Volge. V slavnem Skrivnem govoru (1956) je Hruščov, ki je po Stalinovi smrti “destaliniziral” Sovjetsko zvezo vključno s filmi (cenzorji so iz njih, tudi iz Volge Volge, izrezali vse podobe Stalina), prav nerealističnosti prikaza vsakdana v sovjetskih filmih pripisal delno odgovornost za “deviacije” stalinizma. Stalinova smrt tako označuje točko zatona kolhoznih muzikalov in liberalizacije sovjetske filmske produkcije.

Matej Kolenc

Apr
30
Tue
Panel discussion – Primitive Accumulation as a Factor in Fiscal Sustainability Policies @ Stara mesta elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18, Ljubljana
Apr 30 @ 11:00 – 12:30
Panel discussion - Primitive Accumulation as a Factor in Fiscal Sustainability Policies @ Stara mesta elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18, Ljubljana

The management and manipulation of crises is, according to David Harvey, one of the most important features of the so-called accumulation by dispossession, that is, the continuation and proliferation of accumulation practises that were grasped by Marx as ‘primitive’ or ‘original’. Debt crises, especially in the peripheral countries of the capitalist world-system, have been quite common since the 1980s (having even become endemic in the Latin American countries) and have as a rule been managed and controlled according to the recipes of the representatives of creditors, international financial institutions such as the IMF, and the governments of the core capitalist countries. The ‘fine art’ of dealing with the crises of the countries that have fallen into the debt trap has thus become an efficient instrument of the agents of capital in ‘rationalising’ subordinate peripheral economies as well as redistributing assets from the poor countries to the rich ones. The processes of what neoliberal economists call ‘confiscatory deflation’, which usually follow a crisis, are, for Harvey, nothing but practices of accumulation by dispossession.

The countries of the southern and eastern peripheries of the EU and the eurozone, such as Hungary, Romania, Greece and Portugal, have been the first to experience a severe debt crisis in the EU. They have been the first victims of harsh austerity measures and ‘structural adjustment’ policies imposed by the troika (IMF, ECB and the EC). This panel discussion will address the following question: Should the current ‘fiscal sustainability policies’ for managing and controlling the debt crisis in the peripheries of the EU and the eurozone – that is, policies that include draining public funds by means of high interest rates on sovereign bonds, programmes of privatisation of assets that have so far been public, etc. – be seen as practices of primitive accumulation, that is, of accumulation by dispossession?

May
1
Wed
Round table – Toward a European Left Strategy of Building a Socialist Alternative @ Stara mesta elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18, Ljubljana
May 1 @ 18:00 – 20:00
Round table - Toward a European Left Strategy of Building a Socialist Alternative @ Stara mesta elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18, Ljubljana

The European Union is often celebrated in the liberal commonsense discourse as a pacifistic project that finally brought peace, prosperity and brotherhood to modern Europe after centuries of wars between European nations or states. Furthermore, the EU is celebrated as a democratic project: immediately after the Second World War, at the very onset of European integration, the main ideological momentum of ‘democracy’ was antifascism; however, after the defeat of real socialism, the main ideological focus of the EU turned against ‘totalitarianism’ in an attempt to equate socialism with fascism.

The notion of the EU as an anti-totalitarian organisation reveals the purpose of contemporary European integration. In its opposition to both fascism and socialism, it betrays its liberal, more precisely, neoliberal bias spearheaded mainly against any kind of socialist or even Keynesian reforms. Mechanisms of preventing socialist ‘totalitarianism’ are constituent parts of the EU treaties (such as the Maastricht Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty), projects (the single currency project and the common market), pacts (such as the Growth and Stability Pact, the Six Pack) and the institutional framework notorious for its democratic deficit.

The crisis exposed the antisocialist and therefore antisocial bias of this kind of ‘union’. The common market policies are disabling the member states to compete in the common market in any other way than by suppressing the working classes. The single currency outsourced the monetary policies of the member states to the European Central Bank, which is not willing to play the role of lender in last resort whose main goal is to lower inflation, and thus pushes the member states into the cold hands of private financial markets. Its treaties and pacts are imposing a ‘straightjacket’ on member states. They are imposing fiscal rules on the one hand, while on the other they don’t provide fiscal transfers to guarantee convergence between the member states. And last but not least, the technocratic and authoritarian character of supranational institutions, which don’t even correspond to bourgeois democratic standards, are disabling the people and progressive forces to even slightly change these mechanisms. The dictatorship of the capitalist élites is perfected in this institutional framework.

The results of this kind of integration are of course no less than devastating. In the Union that pushed its member states into ruthless competition the wages of its working classes are being suppressed, its welfare state decomposed and once sacred social rights denied. Furthermore, the Union’s periphery, which was unable to catch up with far more advanced industrial production of the core, experienced drastic erosion of the productive base and finally fell into a debt trap. The expected miracle of the free market policies turned into a nightmare. States are diverging rather than converging, the tensions between the core and periphery are escalating, and the working classes are thrown into brutal exploitation and misery. The only profiteer in this story is – naturally – the European bourgeoisie.

Therefore, the EU is no less than a project of European capitalist élites aimed at imposing neoliberalism masked as ‘European integration’. To us, the anticapitalist left, this poses the following riddle: if the bias of the really existing European integration is neoliberal, how can we respond? Is it possible to change the institutional framework to function in favour of the working classes? Is a ‘good euro’ possible and if so, under which circumstances? And if it is impossible, how risky would it be to exit the euro zone and the EU? And finally: is a socialist Europe possible?

Feb
10
Mon
Študijski seminar – Sovjetska zveza in njeni kritiki @ ZSSS, Ljubljana
Feb 10 @ 17:00 – 19:00
Študijski seminar - Sovjetska zveza in njeni kritiki @ ZSSS, Ljubljana

Nosilca in izvajalca: Sašo Furlan in Tibor Rutar
Prijave in informacije: tibor.rutar@gmail.com
Termin: vsak ponedeljek 17.00 -19.00 (od 18. novembra naprej)
Lokacija: Knjižnica Mirovnega inštituta (Metelkova 6)

Na prvem, uvodnem srečanju bo predaval dr. Lev Centrih.

Na bralnem seminarju se bomo posvetili teoretski refleksiji enega najbolj razvpitih poskusov izgradnje kapitalizmu alternativnega družbeno-ekonomskega sistema v 20. stoletju – realno obstoječega socializma v Sovjetski zvezi. Te tematike se ne lotevamo le iz gole zgodovinske radovednosti, saj menimo, da nam ustrezna refleksija tega projekta lahko marsikaj pove tudi o sami naravi sodobnega kapitalizma ter o možnostih in pogojih njegove odprave. Dejstvo, da je nemara najbolj megalomanski poskus izgradnje socializma v zgodovini človeštva klavrno spodletel in za seboj pustil nič več kot restavracijo kapitalizma, kaže na neizmerno trdoživost, vztrajnost in dinamičnost družbeno-ekonomskega sistema, v katerem živimo. Hkrati pa priča o tem, da je izgradnja socialistične družbe, ki bi trajno nadomestila kapitalizem, vse prej kakor lahka naloga. Ustrezna analiza vzrokov za neuspeh preteklih poskusov izgradnje socializma je zato nujen predpogoj uspešnosti vsakršne socialistične prakse, ki danes ponovno poskuša odpraviti kapitalizem.

Seminar ne bo osredotočen na empirične študije zgodovinskega razvoja Sovjetske zveze, temveč na teoretske tekste marksističnih avtorjev, ki tako ali drugače poskušajo artikulirati bistvene strukturne poteze ter tendence in zakone, ki so določali in regulirali družbeno-ekonomski sistem v Sovjetski zvezi. Podrobneje bomo obravnavali tri marksistične teorije o družbeno-ekonomskem sistemu v Sovjetski zvezi: teorijo »degenerirane delavske države«, ki jo je postavil Lev Trocki in kasneje preciziral Ernest Mandel; teorijo »državnega kapitalizma«, ki sta jo razvila Raja Dunajevska in C. L. R. James; in teorijo »spodbijane reprodukcije« (contested reproduction), ki jo je na podlagi spisov Jevgenija Preobraženskega razvil Michael Lebowitz. Pri kritičnem soočenju omenjenih teorij ne bomo mogli obiti temeljnih tekstov samega Marxa, saj se vse te teorije posredno ali neposredno naslanjajo na njegovo teorijo vrednosti. Ravno pravilno razumevanje Marxove teorije vrednosti je namreč odločilni kriterij za presojanje o ustreznosti marksističnih teorij strukturnih potez družbeno-ekonomskega sistema v Sovjetski zvezi.

Edini pogoj za udeležbo je prebrana literatura. Ob prvem obisku prosimo, da mentorjema sporočite svoj e-naslov, ki bo dodan na seznam prejemnikov literature, ki jo boste obiskovalci seminarja prejemali sproti v e-formatu.

Literatura:

  • Chattopadhyay, Paresh. The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience. Westport (CN): Praeger, 1994.
  • Cliff, Tony. State Capitalism in Russia. London: Bookmarks, 1988 [1955].
  • CLR, James, Raya Dunayevskaya in Grace Lee. State Capitalism and World Revolution. Oakland: PM Press, 2013 [1950].
  • Dunayevskaya, Raya. The Nature of Russian Economy. 1946-47. Dostopno prek: http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm.
  • Lebowitz, Michael. The Contradictions of »Real Socialism«. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012.
  • Mandel, Ernest. The Inconsistencies of State Capitalism. 1969. Dostopno prek: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1969/08/statecapitalism.htm.
  • Marx, Karl. »Kritika gothskega programa«. Prev. Maks Veselko. Karl Marx in Friedrich Engels, Izbrana dela. 4. zv. Ur. Boris Ziherl. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1968 [1875]. 479–509.
  • Marx, Karl. Kapital : kritika politične ekonomije. 3, Celotni proces kapitalistične produkcije. Prev. Ivan Lavrač. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1973 [1894].
  • Marx, Karl. Kritika politične ekonomije 1857/58 [Grundrisse]. Ur. Rado Riha; prev. Božidar Debenjak, Valentin Kalan, Tomaž Mastnak, Jelica ŠumičRiha, Rado Riha, Primož Simoniti, Peter Wieser. Ljubljana: Delavska enotnost, 1985.
  • Marx, Karl. H kritiki politične ekonomije : 1858-1861. Ur. Tomaž Mastnak; prev. Igor Kramberger, Tomaž Mastnak in Rado Riha. Ljubljana: Marksistični center CK ZKS, 1989.
  • Marx, Karl. Kapital : kritika politične ekonomije. 1, Produkcijski proces kapitala. Ur. Jernej Habjan, Marko Kržan in Ciril Oberstar; prev. Mojca Dobnikar. Ljubljana, Sophia, 2012 [1867].
  • Mattick, Paul. Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy. Boston: Extending Horizons Books/Porter Sargent Publisher, 1969.
  • Rubin, Isaak I. Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value. New Delhi: HarperCollins India, 1999 [1928].
  • Stalin, Joseph. Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. 1951. Dostopno prek: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/.
  • Sweezy, Paul M. Post-Revolutionary Society. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980.
  • Trotsky, Leon. The Revolution Betrayed. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2004 [1936].
  • Van der Linden, Marcel. Western Marxism and the Soviet Union. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2007.