4개의 게시물을 찾았습니다.
누구나 알고 있지만 (과장 좀 섞어서) 아무도 읽지 않은 두 권의 책이 있지요.
바로 국부론과 자본론 입니다.
우리나라에도 잘 알려진 데이빗 하비 교수가 블로그에 자신의 강의를 영상으로 연재 중인데,
영어는 좀 되는데 자본론을 읽을 기회는 없었다는 분이 있으시면, 혹은
자본론을 이용하여 영어 공부나 함 해보자 싶은 사람은 한번 참고해보시면 좋을 것 같네요.
첫번째 강의에 의하면, 교수가 1960년대 말 영국에서 미국으로 왔고,
당시는 시민권 운동의 격동기이다 보니 학생들과 함께 지금의 이 상황을 이해하고자 하는 노력으로
자본론을 읽기 시작했다고 합니다.
그때부터 시작해서 1년에 한 두번씩은 꼭 읽었다고 하니,
지금까지 거의 40년 동안 빠짐없이 강의를 해오신 것이지요.
강추입니다.
아래의 선거 중간보고 기사에서 제가 빠뜨린 것이 있었는데, 반대편의 Plan V와 이쪽편의 Plan Che에 관한 것이었습니다. 그러니까 차베스의 압도적인 승리로 (이제 60%도 당연한 것으로 보는 분위기더군요) 선거가 끝날 것이 확실시 되는 터이다 보니, 저쪽에서는 무조건 선거 자체를 부정선거로 몰아붙이고, 선거 다음 날 바로 민중궐기에 나서자고 선동하는 판입니다. "이미 선거가 부정선거임이 드러났다. 투표를 하고 선거 다음 날은 거리로 나서라." 하면서 말이죠, 물론 군사쿠데타도 선동하고 있지요. (아래 동영상 참조) 우리나라 수구보수들도 최근에 잊을 만하면 한번씩 선동했던 군사쿠데타를 이에 익숙한 남미 정치세력들이 안 할 리는 없을 것 같네요. 이것이 Plan V입니다.
이에 대항하는 차베스의 Plan Che는 선거에서의 득표율 차이를 최대로 벌려서 완전히 기를 꺾어놓는 것, 그래서 부정선거니 뭐니 해도 끄덕하지 않는 것, 그리고 현재 진행되고 있는 혁명적 민주주의를 더욱 확장시키는 것, 그것입니다. (정확하지 않아요. 왜 이렇게 기억이 안 나지.)
어찌되었던 관련기사를 Venezuelanlysis에서 퍼옵니다. 아래 동영상도 그 기사에 붙어있던 것인데 일단 따로 떼서 올려봅니다. 자막이 있는데, 스페니쉽니다. -_-; 기사는 기사보기를 클릭하면 나옵니다.
Original source / relevant link:
Gringo in Venezuela
On April 11th, 2002, a group of businessman, politicians, and military officers, in conjunction with the cooperation of the major national media, kidnapped the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and took over the national government. Two days and 19 deaths later, the coup d'etat ultimately failed and the president was returned to power. The wealthy businessmen and oligarchs were unable to get rid of the popular president of the masses. However, recent events give the impression that they will soon make another attempt.
With most of the polls and surveys showing that Chavez has a huge advantage in the upcoming December elections, there remains little doubt about who will win the presidential elections on December 3rd. However, the opposition candidates and opposition media in Venezuela have a habit of claiming fraud every time Chavez or his party win an election. The stage is already being set for the upcoming elections, as mainstream media in Venezuela constantly mention the possibility of fraud, and claims the elections are not transparent. The question remains; how can they claim fraud when dozens of surveys taken over the last few months show that the election won't even be a close contest? And secondly, why would the Chavez government commit fraud when it is obvious that they will easily win? The answer: it is all part of a plan to overthrow the government in the days following the December 3rd election.
The opposition parties in Venezuela have been making claims of fraudulent elections over the last few years. Often times they focus on the "captahuella" machines, which take the voters fingerprint to prevent them from voting more than once. Other times the claims center on the CNE, the national electoral body which oversees the elections. The opposition claims that this body is totally under the control of the Chavez government. All of these claims by the opposition are, of course, widely covered in the private media, and have created the feeling that Venezuela has unfair elections. So, for the December presidential elections, whether people believe it or not, this is all more of the same old story.
Last week, however, leaders of the opposition stepped up their rhetoric and discussed a "plan" for the days surrounding the elections. Prominent journalistic businessman Rafael Poleo, who was also involved in the 2002 coup attempt, announced on the cable network Globovision the opposition "plan" for December 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The plan calls for all voters aligned with the opposition to come out and vote on December 3rd. Then, on December 4th, claiming that the elections were fraudulent, the opposition voters must take to the streets to protest the Chavez victory. Referring to the "Orange Revolution," when popular protests in Ukraine overturned fraudulent elections in 2004, Poleo claims that the electoral fraud is already in place, and makes a call for all Venezuelans who are opposed to Chavez to come out into the streets and protest on December 4th. He emphasizes that Manuel Rosales, the opposition candidate, must join this movement on December 4th and claim that the elections were fraudulent. If he does, says Poleo, Rosales could become the most important person in 21st century Venezuelan history.
With all of this in place, the plan continues with a call to the high military command, in the words of Poleo, to "decide if it is going to continue forcing the Venezuelan opposition to put up with an embarrassing regime." These words, directed to the high military command, basically amount to a call to overthrow the government. He continues by referring to the plan as a sequence of events that all Venezuelans are going to see this December, and in which their destiny as dignified human beings, and the destiny of their respectable nation, is at play. Obviously, Poleo is implying that if Chavez continues in power, Venezuela will cease to be a dignified and respectable nation, and that Venezuelans should not have to continue putting up with him. He forgets to mention, however, that surveys show Chavez has the support of the majority of Venezuelans.
|
Socialist Voice
Marxist Perspectives for the Workers' Movement |
||||
|
Number 100, NOVEMBER 20, 2006
|
Challenges for Venezuela's Revolution
An Interview with Michael Lebowitz
Michael Lebowitz, professor emeritus of the department of economics at Simon Fraser University, is a director of the Centro Internacional Miranda (CIM) in Caracas, and author of the newly published book Build it Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century. He was interviewed by Coral Wynter and Jim McIlroy for the Australian newspaper Green Left Weekly.
"There is a fascinating process happening here", Lebowitz explained. "The process began with the [1998] election of [President Hugo] Chavez, but took significant form with the establishment of the [Bolivarian] constitution [in 1999]. There are enormously unique elements in this constitution: in particular, the focus on human development, the focus on the full development of everyone's personality, and the clear recognition that this can only occur through practice.
"Only through meaningful practice in struggle are people able to develop themselves: these are not just the abstractions of the constitution, but there are concrete references to self-management, self-government, these kinds of institutions.
"The constitution itself, however, was a contradictory document. At the same time as you had these aspects, you also had the elements of support for private interests, private capital, the maintenance of the independence of the central bank and so on. So, it was a snapshot at that point of the stage of consciousness, and of the coalitions that had emerged at that time.
"Which way it would have gone is unclear to me. But, as Marx explained, slaveholder revolts put the sword in the hand of the social revolution, so it moves faster as a result. That's precisely what happened in Venezuela, with the opposition [from the right wing] to the laws that would put some teeth into the process [of implementing] the constitution.
"Then there was the [April 2002] coup, which was reversed relatively quickly, and even more important was the bosses' lockout, which went on for months [from December 2002 to February 2003]. The consciousness of people expanded enormously in that period, even more so than at the time of the coup and reversal of the coup, because that happened so fast. That longer period [of the lockout meant] coming together and struggling together, with new groups emerging.
"So the revolution began to move significantly forward at that time, after those developments in 2002 and early 2003. And the kinds of things that Chavez started to talk about then, the social economy, meant that it wasn't a gigantic leap when he began to talk about socialism, because he had already been saying those kinds of things about the social economy. But it was important because, when he began to talk about socialism, it was a whole process of beginning to change the consciousness of people. That's the role Chavez plays, as teacher and leader, in terms of developing the consciousness of the masses.
Chavez and Chavistas
"One of the problems, of course, is that there is a gap between the promises and the rhetoric and what is actually realized in practice. Partly that gap is the result of the state that Chavez inherited, a state that was filled with people on a clientalistic basis, by the old regime, by the Fourth Republic.
"Another part, though, is that all the supporters of Chavez are not necessarily in agreement with the socialist direction. In the concluding chapter of my new book, one of the things I talk about is that there is significant opposition within the Chavez camp to the advance of the revolutionary process. Some people talk about Chavism without Chavez. Far more significant is the group of people who want Chavez without socialism; who don't want to see self-management and co-management within the enterprises; who don't want to see communities making decisions at the local level; who want to retain the power to make decisions from above, both because of their own economic interests — and corruption is a major problem here, it is part of the tradition — but also because they don't want to lose the power to engage in clientalism.
"The Chavez parties are engaged in this sort of activity — they want credit for everything; they want to engage in these activities, to make the decisions. So, you have this tension, between people in the local communities and the Chavez parties, the functionaries, who want the power and control within the communities — thinking, like so many people on the left, that if we don't have the power, everything will go wrong. And that is precisely contrary to the conceptions in the constitution, which talk about the fact that people develop through their own activity.
"Rosa Luxemburg said the working class demands the right to make its own mistakes and learn in the dialectic of history. If they're going to be prevented from making mistakes, you won't have the continuing advance of the revolutionary process.
"This is a tension right now, which is reflected in the current [presidential] election campaign. If we remember the [2003-04] referendum campaign [an opposition attempt to use the provisions of the new constitution to hold a referendum on whether Chavez's term should end prematurely and a new election be called], Chavez had turned first to the Commando Ayacucho, bringing together the parties and the party leaderships to conduct the campaign against the opposition before the signatures were actually achieved. And the way they functioned was by making grand speeches, macho speeches, and did very little at the grassroots. They were completely lost, they were ineffective.
"The opposition did get the signatures. The response from the parties was, well, it's a fraud, don't go with this. Chavez had better sense. He concluded it was necessary to accept those signatures, take on the referendum campaign, and turn it into a positive thing. He then went around the parties to create Commando Maisanto. The leadership was all picked from civil society, rather than the parties. He went to the people in the neighborhoods, formed local committees. It was a struggle for the parties to figure out, where do we fit into this process."
Organizing the grassroots
"In this current election campaign", Lebowitz continued, "one of the things that has happened is that it has returned to the Commando Ayacucho concept. It's back to the parties at the top making the decisions, organizing everything. That is a concern that I have."
Most opinion polls show that Chavez has a crushing lead over right-wing candidate Manuel Rosales, the governor of the state of Zulia, in the presidential election campaign. Lebowitz said his sense is that it would be very difficult for Rosales to defeat Chavez "but you never know what imperialism has planned".
"I'm sure they have lots of plans", he explained. "One of those may be to have Rosales withdraw to discredit the process. They are probably sitting in back rooms on a daily basis [discussing this].
"One of the options that was written about in Green Left Weekly was building on Rosales's campaign to create a process of separation, separatism [in Zulia]. Chavez is very conscious of that, and will throw a lot of resources into Zulia, to keep those [opposition vote] numbers down. It's certainly seen as a critical place for the electoral struggle. But anything is possible. Vigilance is essential."
Lebowitz described the election as "crucial", adding that "one of the critical questions is what way will the election campaign be carried out". "There needs to be a mandate for the revolution to proceed. Everywhere, you hear people say that 2007 is going to be a qualitative difference, and how it will [signify] the deepening of socialism. If these questions of socialism are raised increasingly in this campaign, then that will create the conditions for a significant advance next year."
On September 9 Chavez called for the creation of a "great party of the Bolivarian revolution" to unite the groups that support the revolutionary process in Venezuela. Lebowitz believes that the proposal for a "unique party" is a good one in principle, "but it depends on its content".
"If its content is just more of the same [an amalgam of the existing parties], it will in fact be a way of reducing democracy from below. If its content is going to be one that strengthens people within the communities for the ability to struggle, and also strengthens the ability of people to organise in the state sectors, where there has been an incredible campaign against co-management, then it [can be positive]. If it doesn't strengthen people from below, the unique party will be a blockage on the way to revolutionary change, to socialism, rather than an advance.
"That is something I discussed about in my book, which talks about the need for a revolutionary party that can unify those people in the communities and the workplaces, to create people power from below."
GLW asked Lebowitz about the role that organisations created as part of the Bolivarian revolution — the social missions, the Communal Councils — have played in the revolutionary process.
"I wouldn't lump them all together", he replied. "The missions command enormous loyalty from the people. But all the missions aren't the same. Health, education, the food mission Mercal, those have been very successful. Mission Vuelvan Caras [a cooperatives-based training and employment mission], though, is another question. It is not clear whether it's delivering on its promises. There has been some disappointment, and pressure on the government to move faster.
"I look at these kinds of institutions, and say, this is what is unique about the [Venezuelan] process. There is a process whereby people are developing their right to make decisions, and it's not easy to do that in any country. But people have been poor, and apathy has been part of the pattern. So, it is exciting to see the awakening of people, and their sense of `this is our right, to go and demand this'. That is the future of the revolution. The question is, will it be nurtured, or will it be cut off?
Revolutionary democracy
"I gave a talk recently to a meeting in Vancouver. There was an Iranian militant who said that it was like this in the early days of the Iranian revolution. We had these factory committees, he said. We worked closely with the communities, but it didn't last. There were all these processes set in motion, but it was cut off. I said, it was similar in Cuba. In the early days of the revolution, there were these workers' committees in the factories, there was a sense of active workers' power …
"These things can be part of the fervor of the early days of a revolution. The problem is how do you institutionalize them, how can you create the means by which they can, in fact, not be transitory? Things like the Communal Councils are extremely important, because they institutionalize something here that is not present elsewhere. If they can work, if they can get, for example, the money from those who have it for their own projects, then you can achieve a symbol for revolutions everywhere.
"In Cuba, there is a process where there are neighbourhood committees, there are local councils, but their power is really limited. One of the things I hope that the Venezuelan revolution can succeed in is to stimulate the possibilities in Cuba as well. This is a real dialectic, which is very healthy."
Chavez has declared the Bolivarian revolution's goal to construct a "socialism of the 21st century." Lebowitz explained, "One of the things that Chavez has been very good at in his statements on this is that we are not going to repeat the [previous] process. We don't want to worship machines, the state; we want a humanistic socialism that starts from human beings, and that's what the constitution is saying. I think that those are central characteristics.
Socialism
"The link between socialism and democracy is an ideal that is being pursued here. And that means democracy, not just as, every four years you vote, and not as a form, but democracy as practice. Democracy as a process by which people take control over their lives, make collective decisions at every level of their societies. And I think that is a unique conception.
"Compare Yugoslavia [under Josip Broz Tito]. For a whole period, you had the process of self-management in the enterprises, functioning within the market, competing against each other, but no sense of responsibility for a community. Everything was self-interest there [in Yugoslavia].
"That is something Chavez is very sensitive to. I know he´s been very interested in this. We talked about the problem of Yugoslavia, and the problem of self-interest there. That is why he has insisted on a focus, not on exchange of commodities, but on a process in which, as Marxists like Istvan Meszaros [author of Socialism or Barbarism: From the `American Century' to the Crossroads and Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition] talk about, there is exchange of human activity based on communal needs and purposes.
"Chavez talks about the need to create a new socialist morality — socialist consciousness, which is based on solidarity. That's why he has been focusing on the Empresas de Produccion Social [Enterprises of Social Production], the EPSs. The idea is that these would be enterprises that would be oriented to satisfying people's needs. That was his conception of it.
"And why not cooperatives? Isn't that sufficient? Because cooperatives are self-interested — collections of producers who have their own goals. And what Chavez was stressing was the need for these groupings of people to internalize their responsibility to the communities in which they function.
"Now, with the EPSs, again there's always this gap between the conception and the way in which that conception is realized. The way the EPSs are going right now is horrible. They're not realizing this conception … they're creating institutions that see their responsibility to the community as [providing] 10% of their income. We call that taxes! So, that shows the possibility of the perversion, the distortion of the concept.
"There are a lot of potential problems. And, to quote my book, in describing the situation before the revolution, before the election of Chavez, talking about the corruption, clientalism, and bureaucracy of the state, it stated that Venezuela `required an economic revolution, a political revolution and a cultural revolution'. And, as I go on to say later, the economic revolution is underway, but the political revolution has only just begun. [The political revolution] made a leap forward with the constitution, but it requires a real transformation of the state.
"And, furthermore, the cultural revolution, which requires a strong attack on corruption and clientalism, has hardly begun. So, without those other two, the revolution cannot help but be deformed. That is the central question.
"People keep saying, the problem in Venezuela is, how can you talk about socialism there because they still have private capital, private ownership of the media, private banks, etc. That is not the problem of the Venezuelan revolution. The problem of the Venezuelan revolution is from within. It's whether it will be deformed by people around Chavez."
Reprinted, with permission, from Green Left Weekly, November 10, 2006.
Another informative analysis of the current situation in Venezuela, by Jorge Martin, international director of Hands Off Venezuela, can be found at http://xrl.us/Venezuela
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIALIST VOICE is edited by Roger Annis and John Riddell.
Readers are encouraged to forward or distribute it as widely as possible.
Comments, criticisms and suggestions are always welcome.
Our email address is socialistvoice@sympatico.ca
To subscribe, send a blank email to Socialist-Voice-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to Socialist-Voice-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Visit our website www.socialistvoice.com for all past issues
and a selection of important documents
지난 주 BBC 폴에서 가장 위대한 철학자로 칼 맑스가 뽑혔다고 합니다.
가디언 지에 실린 이를 소재로 한 해설기사.
Why Marx is Man of the Moment
He had globalization sussed 150 years ago
by Francis Wheen
Published on Sunday, July 17, 2005 by the Observer/UK
A penniless asylum seeker in London was vilified across two pages of the Daily Mail last week. No surprises there, perhaps - except that the villain in question has been dead since 1883. 'Marx the Monster' was the Mail's furious reaction to the news that thousands of Radio 4 listeners had chosen Karl Marx as their favorite thinker. 'His genocidal disciples include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - and even Mugabe. So why has Karl Marx just been voted the greatest philosopher ever?'
The puzzlement is understandable. Fifteen years ago, after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, there appeared to be a general assumption that Marx was now an ex-parrot. He had kicked the bucket, shuffled off his mortal coil and been buried forever under the rubble of the Berlin Wall. No one need think about him - still less read him - ever again.
'What we are witnessing,' Francis Fukuyama proclaimed at the end of the Cold War, 'is not just the ... passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution.'
But history soon returned with a vengeance. By August 1998, economic meltdown in Russia, currency collapses in Asia and market panic around the world prompted the Financial Times to wonder if we had moved 'from the triumph of global capitalism to its crisis in barely a decade'. The article was headlined 'Das Kapital Revisited'.
Even those who gained most from the system began to question its viability. The billionaire speculator George Soros now warns that the herd instinct of capital-owners such as himself must be controlled before they trample everyone else underfoot. 'Marx and Engels gave a very good analysis of the capitalist system 150 years ago, better in some ways, I must say, than the equilibrium theory of classical economics,' he writes. 'The main reason why their dire predictions did not come true was because of countervailing political interventions in democratic countries. Unfortunately we are once again in danger of drawing the wrong conclusions from the lessons of history. This time the danger comes not from communism but from market fundamentalism.'
In October 1997 the business correspondent of the New Yorker, John Cassidy, reported a conversation with an investment banker. 'The longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Marx was right,' the financier said. 'I am absolutely convinced that Marx's approach is the best way to look at capitalism.' His curiosity aroused, Cassidy read Marx for the first time. He found 'riveting passages about globalization, inequality, political corruption, monopolization, technical progress, the decline of high culture, and the enervating nature of modern existence - issues that economists are now confronting anew, sometimes without realizing that they are walking in Marx's footsteps'.
Quoting the famous slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 ('It's the economy, stupid'), Cassidy pointed out that 'Marx's own term for this theory was "the materialist conception of history", and it is now so widely accepted that analysts of all political views use it, like Carville, without any attribution.'
Like Molière's bourgeois gentleman who discovered to his amazement that for more than 40 years he had been speaking prose without knowing it, much of the Western bourgeoisie absorbed Marx's ideas without ever noticing. It was a belated reading of Marx in the 1990s that inspired the financial journalist James Buchan to write his brilliant study Frozen Desire: An Inquiry into the Meaning of Money (1997).
'Everybody I know now believes that their attitudes are to an extent a creation of their material circumstances,' he wrote, 'and that changes in the ways things are produced profoundly affect the affairs of humanity even outside the workshop or factory. It is largely through Marx, rather than political economy, that those notions have come down to us.'
Even the Economist journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, eager cheerleaders for turbo-capitalism, acknowledge the debt. 'As a prophet of socialism Marx may be kaput,' they wrote in A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization (2000), 'but as a prophet of the "universal interdependence of nations" as he called globalization, he can still seem startlingly relevant.' Their greatest fear was that 'the more successful globalization becomes the more it seems to whip up its own backlash' - or, as Marx himself said, that modern industry produces its own gravediggers.
The bourgeoisie has not died. But nor has Marx: his errors or unfulfilled prophecies about capitalism are eclipsed and transcended by the piercing accuracy with which he revealed the nature of the beast. 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones,' he wrote in The Communist Manifesto.
Until quite recently most people in this country seemed to stay in the same job or institution throughout their working lives - but who does so now? As Marx put it: 'All that is solid melts into air.' In his other great masterpiece, Das Kapital, he showed how all that is truly human becomes congealed into inanimate objects - commodities - which then acquire tremendous power and vigor, tyrannizing the people who produce them.
The result of this week's BBC poll suggests that Marx's portrayal of the forces that govern our lives - and of the instability, alienation and exploitation they produce - still resonates, and can still bring the world into focus. Far from being buried under the rubble of the Berlin
Wall, he may only now be emerging in his true significance. For all the anguished, uncomprehending howls from the right-wing press, Karl Marx could yet become the most influential thinker of the 21st century.
Francis Wheen's acclaimed biography Karl Marx: A Life is published by Fourth Estate.
© 2005 Guardian Newspapers Ltd.
댓글 목록
관리 메뉴
본문
[신간소개]-김수행 교수의 <청소년을 위한 자본론·국부론>안녕하세요? 도서출판 두리미디어입니다.
청소년 교양 시리즈 출판의 새로운 저변을 확산시키고 있는 두리미디어에서 이번에 마르크스 경제학의 최고 권위자 김수행 성공회대 석좌교수(전 서울대 교수) 님이 쓰신 <청소년을 위한 자본론>과 <청소년을 위한 국부론>을 출간했습니다!
김수행 교수님의 <청소년을 위한 자본론>은 국내 최초로 <자본론>을 완역한지 20여 년 만에 마르크스 경제학의 대중화를 위한 초석으로 기획됐습니다.
<국부론> 역시 완역한 바 있는 김수행 교수는 <청소년을 위한 국부론>을 통해 그동안 제대로 알려지지 못한 ‘경제학의 고전’을 올바로 전하기 위한 작업에 나섰습니다.
<청소년을 위한…>이란 주제를 잡고 있지만, <자본론>과 <국부론> 원전의 정확한 개념과 이해를 얻고자 하는 성인 독자들에게도 관심 있을 저작이 될 것이라 믿습니다.
새로운 경제학과 미래 사회의 대안을 찾는 모든 이들에게, <청소년을 위한 자본론·국부론>에 많은 관심 부탁드립니다.
부가 정보