There are two words that come back frequently in our conversations: in fact, are the key words of our conversation. These two words are "development" and "progress." There are two synonyms? Or, if you two are not synonymous, indicating two different times of the same phenomenon? Or show two different phenomena but necessarily complement each other? Or, again, point to two phenomena are similar or only partially sync? Finally, two phenomena indicate 'opposed' each other, which only appears to coincide and complement each other? It is imperative to clarify the meaning of these two words and their relationship, if we understand each other in a discussion that relates very closely to our everyday life and even physics.
Let's see: the word "development" now has a network of references that relate to a context of doubt "right." Who wants the 'development'? I mean, who wants it, and ideally not in the abstract, but in practice and for reasons of immediate economic interest? Is clear: to want the 'development' in this sense is the producer, ie they are the industrialists. And since the 'development', in Italy, this development are to be exact, in this case, manufacturers that produce goods unnecessary. The technology (the application of science) has created the possibility of industrialization virtually unlimited, and whose characters have become transnational in practice. The consumer of luxuries, they are for their part, irrational and will unknowingly agree to the 'development' (this 'development'). For them it means for social advancement and liberation, with consequent renunciation of cultural values that had provided them with models of 'poor', 'workers', of 'savings' of "soldiers" of "believers." The "mass" is therefore for the 'development' but that his ideology lives only existentially, and existentially embodies new values of consumption. This does not mean that his choice is decisive, relentless and triumphant.
Who wants, instead, the "progress"? They want those who have no immediate interests to satisfy, precisely through the "progress": they want the workers, peasants, intellectuals on the left. He wants those who work and who is thus exploited. When I say "I want" I mean that true meaning and value (there may also be some "producer" who wants, above all, and perhaps sincerely, progress, but his case is no text). The "progress" is therefore an ideal concept (social policy) where the 'development' is a pragmatic and economic fact.
Now is this dissociation that requires a "sync" between 'development' and 'progress', since it is not conceivable (apparently) a real progress unless we create the economic preconditions necessary to implement it.
What was the watchword of Lenin after you have won the Revolution? It was a slogan inviting immediate and grandiose "development" of an underdeveloped country. Soviet electrical industry and ... Won the great class struggle for the "progress" needed to win a fight now, perhaps more gray, but certainly not least great for the 'development'. I would add, however - not without hesitation - that this is not a requirement to apply the Marxist revolutionary and implement a communist society. The total industry and industrialization have not invented neither Marx nor Lenin: he invented the bourgeoisie. Industrializing a communist country is to enter into competition with peasant bourgeois countries already industrialized. This is what, in this case, did Stalin. And the rest had no choice.
So: the Right wants the 'development' (for the simple reason that it does), the Left wants to "progress."
Let's see: the word "development" now has a network of references that relate to a context of doubt "right." Who wants the 'development'? I mean, who wants it, and ideally not in the abstract, but in practice and for reasons of immediate economic interest? Is clear: to want the 'development' in this sense is the producer, ie they are the industrialists. And since the 'development', in Italy, this development are to be exact, in this case, manufacturers that produce goods unnecessary. The technology (the application of science) has created the possibility of industrialization virtually unlimited, and whose characters have become transnational in practice. The consumer of luxuries, they are for their part, irrational and will unknowingly agree to the 'development' (this 'development'). For them it means for social advancement and liberation, with consequent renunciation of cultural values that had provided them with models of 'poor', 'workers', of 'savings' of "soldiers" of "believers." The "mass" is therefore for the 'development' but that his ideology lives only existentially, and existentially embodies new values of consumption. This does not mean that his choice is decisive, relentless and triumphant.
Who wants, instead, the "progress"? They want those who have no immediate interests to satisfy, precisely through the "progress": they want the workers, peasants, intellectuals on the left. He wants those who work and who is thus exploited. When I say "I want" I mean that true meaning and value (there may also be some "producer" who wants, above all, and perhaps sincerely, progress, but his case is no text). The "progress" is therefore an ideal concept (social policy) where the 'development' is a pragmatic and economic fact.
Now is this dissociation that requires a "sync" between 'development' and 'progress', since it is not conceivable (apparently) a real progress unless we create the economic preconditions necessary to implement it.
What was the watchword of Lenin after you have won the Revolution? It was a slogan inviting immediate and grandiose "development" of an underdeveloped country. Soviet electrical industry and ... Won the great class struggle for the "progress" needed to win a fight now, perhaps more gray, but certainly not least great for the 'development'. I would add, however - not without hesitation - that this is not a requirement to apply the Marxist revolutionary and implement a communist society. The total industry and industrialization have not invented neither Marx nor Lenin: he invented the bourgeoisie. Industrializing a communist country is to enter into competition with peasant bourgeois countries already industrialized. This is what, in this case, did Stalin. And the rest had no choice.
So: the Right wants the 'development' (for the simple reason that it does), the Left wants to "progress."
But if the Left wins the power struggle, that's also wants - to really make progress socially and politically - the 'development'. A 'development', however, that figure has now been formed and set in the context of industrialization, the bourgeoisie.
However here in Italy, the case is historically different. It is not no revolution was won. Here the Left that wants to "progress" in the case agree that the 'development', it must accept its 'development' means development for the economic and technological bourgeois.
Is this a contradiction? It is a choice that poses a problem of conscience? Probably. But it is at least an issue to be asked clearly: that is, without ever confusing, even for a moment, the idea of "progress" with the reality of this 'development'. As for the base of the left (let's say the electoral base, to speak in the millions of citizens), the situation is this: an employee lives in the consciousness of the Marxist ideology, and therefore, among its other values He lives in the consciousness of the idea of "progress", while at the same time, he lives in existence, the ideology of consumerism, and therefore, a fortiori, the values of 'development'. The worker is therefore dissociated. But it is not the only one to be. The classic bourgeois power is completely dissociated at this time for us Italians this classic bourgeois power (ie practically fascist) is the Christian Democrats.
At this point, but I want to abandon the terminology that I (artista!) use a little 'arm and get a lively exemplification. The dissociation that now splits in two the old clerical-fascist power, may be represented by two symbols of opposites, and, indeed, irreconcilable, "Jesus" (in this case the Jesus of the Vatican) on the one hand, and "blue-jeans Jesus' [1] on the other. Two forms of power facing each other: this side of the great crowd of priests, soldiers, murderers, and right-thinking, beyond the "industrial" manufacturing companies and large masses of unnecessary consumption, and secular, maybe idiot, irreligious. Between the 'Jesus' of the Vatican and the 'Jesus' of blue jeans, there was a struggle. In the Vatican - the appearance of this product and its posters - you are uplifted loud lamentations. High to complain that usually follow the action of the hand by removing the age-old enemies that the Church might not named, but merely just to complain. But this time nothing to complain is not followed. The long arm has been unaccountably inert. Italy is plastered with posters representatives bottoms with the words "who loves me follow me" and covered for the note of blue jeans Jesus. The Vatican has lost Jesus.
Now the Democrat power clerical-fascist, is torn between these two 'Jesus': the old form of power and the new realities of power ...
However here in Italy, the case is historically different. It is not no revolution was won. Here the Left that wants to "progress" in the case agree that the 'development', it must accept its 'development' means development for the economic and technological bourgeois.
Is this a contradiction? It is a choice that poses a problem of conscience? Probably. But it is at least an issue to be asked clearly: that is, without ever confusing, even for a moment, the idea of "progress" with the reality of this 'development'. As for the base of the left (let's say the electoral base, to speak in the millions of citizens), the situation is this: an employee lives in the consciousness of the Marxist ideology, and therefore, among its other values He lives in the consciousness of the idea of "progress", while at the same time, he lives in existence, the ideology of consumerism, and therefore, a fortiori, the values of 'development'. The worker is therefore dissociated. But it is not the only one to be. The classic bourgeois power is completely dissociated at this time for us Italians this classic bourgeois power (ie practically fascist) is the Christian Democrats.
At this point, but I want to abandon the terminology that I (artista!) use a little 'arm and get a lively exemplification. The dissociation that now splits in two the old clerical-fascist power, may be represented by two symbols of opposites, and, indeed, irreconcilable, "Jesus" (in this case the Jesus of the Vatican) on the one hand, and "blue-jeans Jesus' [1] on the other. Two forms of power facing each other: this side of the great crowd of priests, soldiers, murderers, and right-thinking, beyond the "industrial" manufacturing companies and large masses of unnecessary consumption, and secular, maybe idiot, irreligious. Between the 'Jesus' of the Vatican and the 'Jesus' of blue jeans, there was a struggle. In the Vatican - the appearance of this product and its posters - you are uplifted loud lamentations. High to complain that usually follow the action of the hand by removing the age-old enemies that the Church might not named, but merely just to complain. But this time nothing to complain is not followed. The long arm has been unaccountably inert. Italy is plastered with posters representatives bottoms with the words "who loves me follow me" and covered for the note of blue jeans Jesus. The Vatican has lost Jesus.
Now the Democrat power clerical-fascist, is torn between these two 'Jesus': the old form of power and the new realities of power ...
--------------
[1] Pasolini here refers to "Jesus Jeans" advertised in his days with the slogan "he who loves me follow me"
(by Walter Siti) - Pasolini. Saggi sulla politica e sulla società [Scritti corsari], in Meridiani Mondadori, Milano 1999
"Why I've never been in the place where Pasolini was killed?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.