Koledar dogodkov

Apr
27
Sat
Lev Centrih – The socialist, revolutionary and antifascist dimension of the Liberation Front of the Slovenian Nation in Yugoslavia and its place in the history of class struggles @ Stara mesta elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18, Ljubljana
Apr 27 @ 11:00 – 12:30
Lev Centrih - The socialist, revolutionary and antifascist dimension of the Liberation Front of the Slovenian Nation in Yugoslavia and its place in the history of class struggles @ Stara mesta elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18, Ljubljana

The Liberation Front of the Slovenian Nation was an organisation that led political armed resistance against fascist invaders and local quislings. It was established on 27 April 1941 in Ljubljana, shortly after the Axis powers disintegrated the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It consisted of 18 groups; with the exception of the Communist Party of Slovenia which played the leading role, none of them was formally organised as a political party. This made Slovenian resistance movement different as compared with development in other parts of Yugoslavia where communist people’s front strategy failed for the most part. Slovenian partisans however shared two basic features whit the rest Yugoslavia’s resistance: a) building a network of alternative government institutions – National Liberation Committees (NLC); b) evolving the partisan movement from small guerrilla units to regular army. NLCs secured the communist hegemony among the population traditionally affiliated with populist bourgeois political parties, while the evolution of the partisan military structure forged the alliance of the working people (peasants, workers and other social strata). The history of partisan national liberation movement reveals how populist quasi anticapitalist ideologies had been defeated and overcome. Class struggles in Yugoslavia during the Second World War will be elaborated in light of a conflict between different political blocks that shared basic assumption that alternatives to capitalism are necessarily.

Lev Centrih, PhD, is historian and sociologist from Ljubljana; member of The Workers and Punks’ University and researcher at the Institute of Labour Studies. 
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.
Mar
6
Thu
Catherine Samary – Od protislovij realsocializma do delavske politične ekonomije Pridobitve Jugoslavije @ Sindikalna dvorana Elektra Ljubljana (vhod Stara mestna elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18)
Mar 6 @ 18:00 – 20:00
Catherine Samary - Od protislovij realsocializma do delavske politične ekonomije Pridobitve Jugoslavije @ Sindikalna dvorana Elektra Ljubljana (vhod Stara mestna elektrarna - Elektro Ljubljana, Slomškova 18)

“V nasprotju z večino pristopov, ki na “realsocializem” gledajo kot na partikularen sistem, sem trdil […], da moramo nanj gledati kot na dejanski pojav, ki je vseboval več produkcijskih razmerij, t.j. da je ključno prepoznati obstoj spodbijane reprodukcije dveh različnih logik.” – Michael Lebowitz

Moja prva študija jugoslovanske izkušnje je bila doktorska disertacija leta 1988: “Les logiques contradictoires de l’accumulation yougoslave” (Nasprotujoče si logike jugoslovanske akumulacije), ki je bil izdana pod naslovom: “Le marché contre l’autogestion – l’expérience yougoslave” / The Market against self-managment – the Yugoslav experience”, La Brčche/Publisud, 1988). Gre za nadgradnjo pristopa Preobraženskega, po katerem socialistično prehodno družbo zaznamujeta dva nasprotujoča si “zakona”.
Svoje predavanje bom zastavila na podlagi tega ključnega metodološkega problema, ki si ga delim z Lebowitzovo analizo nasprotujočih si logik znotraj “realsocializma”. Z Lebowitzem se prav tako strinjam glede poudarka na samoorganizaciji delavstva, ki lahko razreši protislovje med družbenim razmerjem ‘dirigentov’ in ‘dirigiranih’.
Hkrati bom poudarila tudi razlike v odnosu do Lebowitza, in sicer na dveh točkah analize. Na eni strani bolj konkreten zgodovinski pristop, na drugi pa kompleksnejšo formulacijo nasprotujočih si logik v postkapitalistični prehodni družbi.
Na temelju vsega tega bom izpostavila potrebo po temeljnih teoretskih razlikah pri pojmovanju trga, zakona vrednosti in konceptov, ki so primerni za analizo ne-kapitalističnih družb.

Na podlagi Lebowitzevih konceptov bom omenjene razširitve vpeljala v :

  1. zgodovinski pristop skozi razpravo o tem, kaj je bila jugoslovanska “družbena pogodba”, ki je povezovala ‘dirigente’ (avantgardno partijo) in ‘dirigirane’; a tudi v razpravo o uporabnosti pojma »avantgardna partija«, v kolikor je ta zgodovinsko ustrezen.
  2. Potrebo po bolj kompleksnem pristopu h konfliktom bom ponazorila skozi razpravo o: a) različnih logikah upravljavcev (ki jih ne smemo zvesti na logike kapitala); b) birokratizaciji »avantgardne partije«, ki je ne smemo zreducirati na kapitalistično transformacijo; ter bolj obsežno skozi razpravo o c) nasprotjih med individualnimi (ali lokalnimi) interesi in potrebi po doslednem »socializiranem« projektu. Ta poudarek se precej navezuje na pomisleke, ki jih je o materialni spodbudi izrazil Che Guevara v »Broad Economic Debate«, ki je vključevala tudi Ernesta Mandela in Bruna Bettelheima.

Zaključila bom z nasprotovanjem redukciji omenjenih konfliktov na kapitalistične (realno obstoječe) logike in konceptualizaciji socializma kot homogene družbe brez notranjih konfliktov, ki ne upošteva organskih težav: delavske pravice in polna zaposlenost; individualni/lokalni interes in družbeno lastništvo; pomen samoodločbe v kontekstu multinacionalnega projekta ter potreba po določeni obliki denarja in trga, ki se razlikuje od funkcije denarja kot kapitala in posplošenega trga. To nas pripelje do zaključka o neustreznosti marksovskih konceptov, ki so bili razviti za kapitalistični produkcijski način.

Catherine Samary je doktorica ekonomije in upokojena profesorica na Univerzi Paris-Dauphine. Predava na Inštitutu za evropske študije (IEE) in na Univerzi Paris 8 St. Denis. Je raziskovalka, ki je specializirana za Balkan in Vzhodno Evropo, ukvarja pa se s področji zgodovine socializmov, krize in transformacij v kapitalistični globalizaciji ter evropskih integracij.
Je soustanoviteljica inštituta Espace Marx, čanica znanstvenega sveta ATTAC v Franciji in uredniškega odbora njihove revije »Les Possibles« ter sourednica Le Monde Diplomatique’s Atlas 2013 in sodelavka časopisa Le Monde Diplomatique. Deluje tudi kot aktivistka v večih mednarodnih mrežah in političnih organizacijah alternativne levice.
http://csamary.free.fr

Literatura za pripravo na razpravo: