Suchergebnisse

There are principles in the world by which everything happens, by which the world works. This applies to both natural and social phenomena. However, it happens that these principles are inverted into something completely different. It is also often the case, in order to hide the true essence, that new names for phenomena or processes that obscure things and hide the right intentions are invented. The best example of how this works in practice can be seen in the examples of totalitarianism and democracy. The principle of totalitarianism is based on an authoritarian system of government, unlimited power of the leader, aggressive expansionism and control of the state. In its original meaning, democracy (the rule of the people - the majority) is the opposite of totalitarianism. However, do we have the true rule of the people today, or is there just a new form of totalitarianism behind that phrase? Every period, including this one today, imposes some general ideas that preoccupy people and nations. One such example is the mundialist idea of organizing a "world without borders" as a whole into which individual peoples and states are immersed. A process called transition has been imposed as a by-product of globalization and a mandatory pattern for former socialist countries. Therefore, Wallerstein is right in saying that the whole world is in a situation of "a kind of global transition". A large number of papers have been written in an effort to explain these processes. One of the discourses that can explain the "global transition" is the principle of inverted socialism. Namely, if socialism is based on the idea of social justice, that is, the distribution of social wealth to as many members of society as possible, the inverted socialism operates on the principle of profit privatization, and the socialization of losses at all levels. Globally, the rich (2%) are becoming richer and the majority of the population is becoming poorer. As a result of such a process, instead of a harmonious future, as Fukuyama predicted, there is the death of the welfare state on the one hand, and the socialization of losses on the other (the best example is the world financial crisis and bank rehabilitation by the states - of course at the expense of the people). Therefore, both globally and locally, it is time for a new Marx and a new true rather than inverted socialism.

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

Collection : Bibliothèque socialiste ; Collection : Bibliothèque socialiste ; Contient une table des matières

"Stateless socialism‖" is the fourth chapter of Edward Abramowski's book Socialism and State. A Contribution to the Critique of Contemporary Socialism. Abramowski, a Polish political philosopher and social theorist, was also one of the founders of the cooperative movement in Poland. Written at the turn of 1903 and 1904 and published in 1904 (Polish Society of Publishers, Lviv) under the alias ―M. A. Czajkowski‖, Socialism and State is one of Abramowski's most important works, and is devoted to the philosophical justifications of socialist politics, the subversive character of social facts, and the doctrine of stateless socialism, the realisation of which was, according to Abramowski, the cooperative movement. In opposition to both classical Marxism and the social-democratic trend, which found in the state a tool by which the workers' movement would free itself from the chains of capitalism, by taking over, democratizing, and at the same time expanding state institutions, Abramowski proposes a vision of a grassroots revolution of specialised associations. Their ideology does not constitute a political doctrine, but is political practice itself, the domain of the common that allows the masses to create an autonomous subjective experience. Thus, the philosopher presents his concept of class struggle, grasped as a creative element of differentiation of forms of socialisation. This understanding also allows him to define class not as a substantial feature of a political subject, but as a kind of condition or action. He perceives the revolution as a transformation of the subject position in relation to the socio-economic conditions that define it, an ethical change that opens new possibilities for community life in the heart of the ancien regime.