User login

Этот вопрос задается для проверки того, не является ли обратная сторона программой-роботом (для предотвращения попыток автоматической регистрации).





You are here









By describing some aspects of the relations of force in the post-1989 Romania and especially in the present world crisis, the paper aims at a more general perspective: to put the problem of the future ending of the relations of force. The first part theorise some questions of the tactics of the left, but the lagged-behind level of a country like Romania is interesting not only for this kind of countries. The contradictory standpoint of the official left concerning the austerity measures from 2010 and the suggestion to support left-wing goals, not clichés, are framing the logic of this part.

The second part dots the importance to have in view the social structure, and the existing and missing conditions of a radical change of capitalism. The problems of moral judgements over capitalism and economic growth as criteria of the analysis of the behaviour of the left are better lightening the urgency of the constitution of a world consistent left.



I. Tactics


I. 1. Some facts


1. One of the simplest and, at the same time, the most exciting problem of the left is its position toward the right and the right-wing policy. The left certainly opposes them, but for what reasons? For the right reflects and supports the interests of capital, while the left is supposed to promote the interests of the exploited wage earners. This means that the left has to permanently question and openly discuss the real social structure, the relations of forces and the political polarisation within the social structure. Any formula and metaphor – that already have become clichés whose significations some ones understand and use rightly, while other ones use to cover a vague and out-of-date representation about the real state of things, by transmitting this misemployment of the words and reasons of political discourses – cannot substitute this requirement. If they still do, this substitution can tell us about the level of the left and, concretely, about its historical crisis.

The permanent and open discussion about the social structure means to clarify if the reasoning in terms of class, class struggle and aim at a classless society would be reasonable and realistic. And, in this framework, what means to speak on behalf of “the working people”? To think about the present thus presuppose to know the history of the modern theory of the left, i.e. first of all of Marx and Marxism.

In a peripheral country like Romania but, more generally, because of the trans-national stage of the present capitalism, the first and most obvious class enemy of the exploited seems to be the foreign, and mostly multinational capital. However, the left has to avoid the nationalistic slogans that bring it nearer the small national capital and transform it into an instrument of the right: for, if the left does not clearly explain that the problem is not the “foreigner” but the capital as such, the structural class enemy which transcend any national scruples (for historically and logically its nutritive source was and is the national labour force, as well as the overseas ones), it annuls its own specificity and aligns to the right-wing strategy in order to postpone the development of class conscience and thus to gain more time to the capitalist relations.

If the problem of the enemy is outrun, the economic policies become the more important targets of the political pressure and, at the same time, the revelatory mirrors of the stakes of this pressure. Have we to choose progressive taxes or liberal “equal” ones? Or – would the social (interventionist) state or the minimal state be the best? The endless grinding of talk shows, where “the left” never demonstrates all the way its standpoints and reasons, rather it manifests as the right-wing does, shows that this “left” does not represent a real alternative to the right, but both belong to the same kind of politics, i.e. that to preserve and enforce the power relations, the domination-submission, au fond the exploitation of the labour force. In fact, the social-democratic economic policy did and does not differentiate from the explicit right-wing one: the proportional taxes did and do not much help the low and medium wage-earners, since the surplus collected from the high wages, fortunes and profits was counteracted by 1) the exceptions given to the first 5 years of a firm, 2) the privileges of the high bureaucracy1 through hundreds times greater bonuses than the wages as such and through the secrecy that covered the benefits within the bureaucratic units, 3) the theft of the state ownership by the high bureaucrats who became, they themselves or relatives and acquaintances, the new bourgeoisie, 4) the minimal state that invested only in military, intelligence and churches, but never in the infrastructure of the country (and obviously not in industry and agriculture, almost wholly privatised), 5) the huge corruption, that of the intertwined high bureaucracy and plutocrats. 6) From 1990 on, Romania/s external debt raised exponentially, irrespective of the colour of governments succeeded each other, and 7) for 20 years running, the future in pawn by the good social-democrats did not generate huge protests and unemployment only because of the emigration of the labour force, and the repression and mystification of the political struggle.

The social conscience, waked up by the present crisis, is still mystified by the same tactics of sometimes splitting the “respectable” parliamentary parties, later of uniting them again, of manipulating and confusing people and of preventing any decisive action of critique and change.

These tactics belonged and belong to the social-democracy too. In fact, this “left” was more conservative from the standpoint of transparency and attitude toward privileges than the present right in power: it is only the present “popular” government that attacked opacity in the functioning of the state and the development of privileges inherited from 20 years.

2. The present Romanian president and government is a declared right-wing. Consequently, it wants to tax all the pensions, including those under 1000 lei (about or fewer than 250 euros). But, at the same time, it is the only one that attacked the privileges of the high bureaucracy, by reducing its huge wages and pensions, huge in front of not only the level of Romania’s economic status but also the performances as such of the high bureaucracy. It is not important here that this attack was determined by the economic crisis and the need to attract the population, disappointed by the entire political class, since neither the social-democrats nor the liberals did say a word against privileges. Obviously, as right-wing, this attack was and is not consistent: for example, the priests kept theirs untouched incomes, as well as the high magistrates, while the great number of generals and colonels will face a re-calculation of theirs pensions only in a year, if not 5 years later. However, the principle of correlation between the precise contributions of the wage earner to the public fund of pensions and, on the other hand, the pension received later on, is fair.

From this standpoint, the general position towards the general reduction of wages, pensions, profit of independent workers and little private companies reflects not only the affiliation of the majority of population to the non-bureaucratic categories of the social structure (or, rather only to the medium and low wages bureaucratic strata, and not to the high bureaucracy), but also the sense of fairness and justice that is constitutive to the human conscience and thus strong enough. Obviously people are confused, with a little self-confidence, disappointed, despaired, alienated and marked by fear for their own decent life, security and future, but the sense of fairness stop them to align near the highly vocal high bureaucracy and under its umbrella.

This is the reason that annulled great manifestations against the reduction of wages in May-June 2010, since the trade-unions allied with an ad hoc organisation of the high magistrates fighting for their really huge wages and pensions, 10-30 times greater than the average ones.

At the same time, many of the common people know very well that: 1) they themselves have infringed the laws, in order to profit from unmerited social benefits, and to steal; 2) they themselves proved to be egotist, interested only about their own welfare2, only demanding help on behalf of the state and new rich and supporting those who gave them at a certain moment more than others, even though all of these new rich were and are despised because of their social immorality. It’s obvious for the ordinary people that in a society where “les grands” steal legally – the private property being “saint” – and from 1990 on the state ownership was robed by those rapid and powerful in means and relationships (the former bureaucracy and privileged strata of Stalinism), to steal for survival or for a more decent average life would not be immoral. But the too big social differences and the lack of efficiency of the entire high bureaucracy – justice, administration, church, police, intelligence –, corruption, the plight the country is in made that the masses not join “the protest” of social-democrats allied, beating everything, with the liberals.

As at the political participation to “congresses”, “conferences” and electoral meetings, present at the ‘trade-unionist” manifestations against the diminution of wages and pensions were the representatives of the political “elite”, the trade-union bureaucracy and privileged strata, while through the crowd of the losers of the present measures were many enough poor people paid for their “civic sense”. Anyway, all who obtained the postponement of the diminution of wages and pensions (including the high magistrates who voted that the decrease of their incomes would not be legal) not utter a word, forgetting their “protestant” tendency.

3. At the beginning of July, an obscure “extreme-left” party changed its name in “Communist”. Its programme is a Stalinist one: a mixture of incoherent nostalgia, nationalism (that meaning also religious obscurantism), as well as opposition to the modern meanings of respect of difference and human rights, and refuse of theory and self-critique3. Its purpose is not to press the political class to respect at least the existing laws – generally correct – and the political democracy, transparency and political fairness (since it does not clearly oppose private property and exploitation, but only the excessive, neo-liberal policies), but to take power: as the desire of every kind of political bureaucracy is. What for? It is not the first and the only “extreme-left” party which dreams at power, but all of them were created rather to collect and control the more or less radical left tendencies and to constitute an ally of social-democracy, than to offer the standpoint of real political projects and alternatives. Thus the Romanian “Communists” are again missing the opportunity to become internationalists and a “speculative party”4 (by re-thinking the forms of revolution and class struggle), only in this way being efficient. As the other “left” parties, the “Communist” one is both 1) a means to control the dissatisfaction and the possible radical opposition and to convert it into a non-dangerous movement for the system, and 2) a means to depreciate the Communist type values and to send them into the realm of derisory5.

4. Two more examples that show the necessity to surpass the simple critique of the state of things in the post 1989 Romania: the emasculation of the National Integrity Agency (NIA) and the wild defence by the university barons of their discretionary power. At the end of June, a trans-party ad hoc “coalition” of parliament members (but rather social-democrats and liberals) and high magistrates voted the amendments to the law of NIA, transforming the institution into a simple form without content. The annual Report of European Commission delivered in 20 July already kept attention to the shortcomings of the judicial reform able to fight corruption, conflict of interest and opacity6. The pressure of the European Commission is beneficial and NIA will probably7 get back its power, but the behaviour of the dominant elite to always postpone the public control and to never respect the law is significant. As it is the case of university leadership: its opposition against the project of the new law of education is generated just by the fear of public transparency and judgement over its real management and democratic responsibility8.

5. Finally here, a book edited at the beginning of summer shows that the use of Romanian public intellectuals is still that to flatter and support different parts of the political class: “the alternative” given by the book is that of the becoming of liberals and social-democrats as the first violin of the ideological manipulation (substituting the “popular”/democrat-liberals in power), and the opposition against just the abolition of privileges, the authors of the book treating themselves copiously to these ones. None of these “challengers” did critique the university tourism, the jobs of sinecure assumed enthusiastically by all of them and the intellectual cowardice that pushes them to never consider people in a Kantian manner but to focus only on their own private welfare. They never attacked the partial (before December 1989) and total (afterwards) re-gaining of its influence by the cultural right: just for this cultural right was and is legitimating a cultural bureaucracy and university intelligentsia completely lacking of social ideals9 and preoccupations to search for social alternatives.

For all of them, the social model of the present Romanian society is the Western capitalism10. But from which point of view state they this opinion? They state it from the one of “liberal social-democracy” that not even speaks about the necessary meanings and expanding of the human rights. But: economically, the developed capitalism presupposes not only Centre-Periphery relationships, but also (with the development of trans-nationalisation of capital) gradual reduction of the welfare state and the explosion of “peripheries” in the core of the Centre. Politically, the representative democracy has so many shortcomings that it could not be took over by intellectuals without basically critique it. Socially, it includes bureaucracy, and one cannot speak about elites intentionally confounding the professional sense of the word with the political one, and tacitly emitting the message that the social polarisation (in elites and the rest) would be natural and eternal.


I. 2. Imperatives


In conclusion to this first part of facts, what has the consistent left to do? Because of the huge manipulation, this consistent left is weak; but even though it would be strong enough, until a large popular support would constitute, i.e. the left analyses would be convincing for large social strata on the terrain of deep societal crisis and after a long period of heroic behaviour of the left-wing militants, the realistic goal of the left could not be to take power in this moment.

But it can press, on behalf of a consistent theory and critique, the entire social establishment in order to impose as many left type ends it can.

In a country like Romania, the first aspect it can press against is the existence of privileges11 – but in the epoch of system crisis, there is a general tendency of the capital to impose privileges12 –. If privileges are a sign of pre-modernity, and some representatives of the big capital could oppose them, the privileges as such are related to the high bureaucracy which is one of the main supporters of capitalism as such. For this reason, the opposition against privileges is rather against those obtained in the public sphere. Thus, the present liberal-democrats in power seem to want reduce not only the privileges from the public sphere but even the public services, so that more public funds could be directed to support the private sector; but could this private capital gain profit when just the privileged strata lose money and reduce their consume? This is the reason of the inconsistent attack over privileges undertaken by the right-wing and, at the same time, the fact that privileges are not only an old element of an old system, but also a sign of the present system crisis: at the close of its end, capitalism resembles with its first moments when bureaucracy was strong and privileges seemed normal.

Another aspect the consistent left has to press for is the reduction of bureaucracy: the abolishment of sinecures and the imposition of an effective management at the upper and low level as well. But where to work if the jobs dramatically reduce because of the new industrial revolution that substitutes the labour force? And does the left not traditionally struggle for employment?

What would be the reason of my standpoint here? It is that only through the reduction of false and useless jobs (as in the army, guard, wrong management and church, and the superfluous jobs in administration), the structural relations of domination-submission appear in their real form, naked and not masked by parasitic and superfluous professions. Who belongs to bureaucracy and what professions are hurt by the logic of capitalism as such, the principles of efficient management and the requirements of fairness? The problem is too complex for being solved in few words. Suffice is to note the multitude of directors, chiefs and leaders, members of the leading and privileged strata as such. Then, we have to mention the military solution for many poor people without jobs, as well as the incredible number of priests and monks of all ranks that overflows from the different type theological high schools and faculties, as well as the huge number of lawyers and barristers that finish so many faculties of law and are from the beginning unemployed (if some ones do not find political opportunities), as well as the huge number of security officers and bodyguards employed in private security companies in order to guard the VIPs and theirs fortunes. And, as we know, in this period of system crisis, the state has no money for social services as culture and health, but it expends a lot for more policemen and prisons that however are not enough.

I have here two observations. The first is that the left has not to let only the logic of capitalism as such to reduce bureaucracy and absurd professions, since it is first of all the instrument of private interests: nowadays, members of philharmonics become unemployed as well as museum custodians, since the capital needs people who consume material things rather than search for culture. The second is that the reduction of parasitic and superfluous professions is just that leads to the conscience of the necessity and possibility of creative works13.

Another aspect to fight for is democracy, understood in a consistent manner. The absolute observance of the law and the pressure for the surpassing of the formalist character of democracy by the concrete critique of the political practice and the autonomy tendency of bureaucracy, as well as the struggle for economic and social rights are means by which the consistent left can realise its role in present. Concretely, one cannot press in an efficient manner to diminish pauperism if one does not oppose the privileges that exempt some categories from the general reduction of welfare state: for the state subventions for some ones are made on the expense of others. And, because the present epoch of capitalism in system crisis involves more and more state and private violence infringing the modern principles of the proven guilt, of the right to protest and to insurrection, the consistent left could press to prevent the development of the social disorder and violence by refraining the violence from above.

Through all these means, the left better understands the political situation and educates the mass political conscience.

The goal to press is not only theoretical, but also practical. But certainly, the praxis of pressure involves a permanent theoretical work.


I. 3. Critique of the “left”


Till now, no Romanian left party fulfilled these tasks. They were either partners of the explicit right-wing or substitutes in governing, or dogs barking on the edge and supporting whoever thrown them some food. For example, since globalisation delocalized the capital, the trade-unions are everywhere in crisis. In the first 6 months of 2010, the Romanian trade-unions took out in the meetings against the austerity measures less people than those present at the same moments in public rap concerts. This fact happened not only because the industrial working class is in crisis (for the scientific technical revolution but also for the destruction of the Romanian industry after December 1989), but also because the trade-unions, generalised to the whole budgetary strata, “represented” also the high bureaucracy that protested against the diminution of their privileges, thus no more being credible for the ordinary people.

If one can summarise that the trade-unions were until now the “popular” support of all the parties, especially of the social-democrat, a fundamental problem of the Romanian left was that it only demanded money – rather from the state than from the private owners, for they supported at the same time the reduction of the taxes on profit and the reduction of the contributions of employers to the social fund of the state –, and did not question the private property relations as such. In this framework, there is a unity and continuity between all the branches of the “left”.

This “left” is a fake of a part of the political bureaucracy, having neither consistent modern ideals nor special left-wing ideals, but only the goal of taking power in order to siphon the state funds and maximize the private fortunes. The “left” “elite” loves not even the pattern of the capitalist owner from Weber’s Protestant ethics: it was the first after December 1989 which promoted the most obvious robbery of the state and its own members’ immodest luxury. Letting apart the nationalistic slogans, it was close not even to the patriotic values, it being the handle of the axe that hit the country14.

Because of the low quality of the left, the Romanian right cannot be of high level. In this framework, the explicitly right-wing democrat-liberals pushed to the reduction of privileges and pay these tests of internal modernisation with a greater subjugation of the country to the international forces of capitalism, but in the same line as the social-democrats did. The fact that the democrat-liberals’ policy of reduction of privileges is realised for more political credibility and under the pressure of the present crisis is not important: not even for these causes the social-democrats supported the abolition of privileges.

Why am I so angry with the Romanian social-democracy? For the taking over of the modern values and the diminution of privileges constitute left-wing goals, and these goals were not had in view by the Romanian “left” and its intellectual representatives. They did not press toward the consistent modernisation, and were and are intertwined just with the bearers of privileges, not even defending the enlightenment values, let alone the communist type values, but (rather and in a subterraneous manner) only the former Stalinist nomenklatura. This is the reason why the intellectuals enslaved to the democrat-liberals promote a vocal anticommunism and, certainly, the privileges of theirs functions.

The social-democrats never spoke about the subsidizing of the private losses by the public funds and about the fact that austerity for the many is the price of the private property. They refused to recognise that the right-wing politics they themselves aligned to from the beginning is a class politics: they took over the entire right-wing ideology. They never recognised theirs faults: that after December 1989 they destroyed any idea of macro-planning and common goods, as well as they destroyed as much material, organisational and psychological realisations of the former system as they could. This destruction was the destruction of modern development Romania succeeded in. The social-democrats had any concrete and feasible proposition to counteract the austerity measures, since they represent those who got fortune just through wild robbery of the public assets, exploitation and social polarisation, destroying any idea of solidarity, common goods and consistent left militancy. They never apologised for lost 20 years for development, minimisation of suffering and innovation of alternatives. I consider social-democracy with its “extreme-left” partners an ugly enemy of the idea of left, because they confiscated the idea as such of left15 and increased the ideological confusion of the population. Even though we all know very well that all the political ideologies and forces are determined by complex objective and subjective conditions, let us think about what would have happened if the social-democrats would not have manifested as they did these 20 years.

Briefly, the left is in crisis not only because of the former Stalinism but rather – for the nearer causes are strongest than the distant ones – because of post-1989 social-democracy. Both represent in a way or another, anti-Marxism, anti-communism.

The entire political class and mainstream intellectuals – whether in power or in opposition –, interested only about the political form (and focusing on the elections, irrespective of the frauds, never corrected) prove to be impotent toward this form, let alone toward the social and economic basis16. This entire class prove to be malignant enough to be substituted.

Every part of this class – but in present the social-democrats and liberals want to take power – wants the power irrespective of the means they use. In present, the political “opposition” hopes that it will take power when the material situation of the majority of the population will grow so worse that people will forget that this situation is at great extend the result of the social-democrat and liberal policies and behaviour. Some representatives of the social-democrats and liberals want an irrational radicalisation of the masses, so as to these ones no more think that the elections are only rotations within the same pattern and, thus, change the pattern itself. The entire political class wants people not to think at possible alternatives and their radicalism melt in obscurantism, kitsch entertainment and fatalism. The members of this class want reduce people to the level of children that accept the masked authoritarianism of the masters receiving in exchange circus/ political spectacle, or to the level of fools who enjoy the periodical substitution of the lords17. By this token, the present “left” took over the behaviour of the Weimar elite that generated the situation where the Germans were brought into: that to accept Nazism, so to have ‘alternatives” only within the establishment.


I. 4. Dialectics


The second question here concerns my suggestion that the present explicitly right-wing government (the former ones, social-democrat, being only a masked right), by proposing some progressive policies – as the minimisation of privileges – would be more valuable for the consistent left. Would this suggestion not be a treachery on behalf of a left-wing position? It is not, since the contradictory manner of the imposition of the progressive policies by the popular government was clearly highlighted.

The democrat-liberal party is an explicit right party which came to power not only with the slogans of reduction of privileges and corruption, but especially with right-wing economic policies and resolute anticommunism. However, the right-wing economic policies were bequeathed from the social-democrats and liberals, while the democrat-liberals’ anticommunism is only more vocal than that of the social-democrats’ and liberals’.

More, I didn’t speak about an alliance between a consistent left and the popular/liberal-democrat government, but only about the necessity to support progressive goals as such (and irrespective of theirs authors) and thus to punctually support some parties and policies when they propose progressive goals. Obviously, it is always necessary to discuss whether the goals would be really progressive, and to confront theory with the new problems, but the left-wing principles and ends have to surpass the clichés and to press toward the realisation of these ends.

From this standpoint, I mention that in 1899, most of the important members of the young social-democratic Romanian party have passed within the liberal party. Their justification was that, for socialism could not be happen and for liberals’ purpose – the modernisation of the country – was a progressive and imperative one, it would have been more realistic to support this purpose and to postpone the socialist “ideals”. They gave to themselves the name of “generous”, and history retained the event as “the treachery of the generous”. So am I a “generous”? Not at all. I consider that not a party, but an end has to be supported and thusly that the consistent left has to be the first to critique any party that refuses a progressive end or does not go all the way with this end. Only like that we exceed the pre-established forms of thinking and the simplification of concepts (transformed into fetishes18), and are able to innovate: concretely, to transform the entire work of theoretical and practical pressure of the consistent left into bifurcation points toward a change of the relations of forces19.


II. Elements of theory


1) The first aspect important here is the necessity of a clear class analysis (avoided by the present Romanian intellectuals) of the social structure. The interests of classes and categories generate the power relations and thus the relations of forces. I already spoke about bureaucracy, whose upper strata, both state and private, strongly connect and intertwine with the big holders of private property, being those interested to preserve this property and constituting the dominant class as such.

The real challenger of the capitalist leading strata is the proletariat. If we do not confound it with the working class of the first industrial revolution – as both Stalinism and social-democracy did –, but define it as those who sell their labour force because they do not hold other productive means (Marx)20 or means of existence21, the problem to transform the proletarian strata/the strata with proletarian characteristics (including the low and medium bureaucracy, doctors, teachers etc.) into a class for itself (Marx), with a clear class conscience, is the most important for the consistent left.

2) Although we all know that the cause of the development of Stalinism/betrayal of the revolution was not the treachery of the leaders but the complex mixture of the inexistence of the objective conditions of socialism in the 20th century and the weakness of the subjective ones (including the behaviour of the leaders of the left), Trotsky was somehow right. The behaviour of the leaders has the force not only to transform some historical conditions and virtual occasions into concrete propitious moments (kairos) for the ends they have in view, but also to destroy them. The behaviour of the leaders is one of the main elements that have to meet in order to realise the historical ends intended: only fortuna is not enough, one needs also virtù, as Machiavelli has insisted and Althusser showed22. The virtù is just the capacity of leaders to understand the significances of some fluctuant and accidental elements in order to unite them in a coherent logic.

To use a word already appeared in this paper, the behaviour of the leaders of the left has to be heroic. What is a hero? It is a person who has some progressive ideals and who acts in such a way that he draws nearer his concrete deeds to these ideals. His actions suppose thusly not only ability to dream, to conceive social ideals, i.e. to surpass the general individualistic view people were educated within by the entire “prehistory” (Marx) of the men, but also the will to put first these ideals, the interests of society, peoples, masses. In a heroic behaviour, a man considers these ideals and social interests as being more important than his/her everyday wellbeing and inherent expectation of individual/unique happiness: a hero lives in an intense manner and, just for his/her life is so precious for him/her, he/she could sacrifice himself/herself for this life. In fact, the value and signification of his/her life exist only if he/she acts in a consistent manner with his/her ideals.

Such a person has an intellectual perspective about the life, even though he/she could not be a professional: but he/she problematises the human existence, questions himself/herself, has doubts and assumes the burden of choosing according to his/her ideals. A hero is not, therefore, only the man of extreme choices, of extreme self-sacrifice, but the man who acts consistently with his/her ideals.

More than a certain leader, the one of the left must have a heroic behaviour, for the left as such involves social ideals opposite to the order of domination-submission. But has the present social-democracy this type of social ideals? The answer could be difficultly affirmative. This explains why the post-1989 social-democrat Romanian leaders behave in the manner to serve the high bureaucracy, and not the common working people.

Obviously, the problem has a psychological aspect too. In present (but not only in present, their behaviour was quite enough transparent from December 1989 on), we can conclude that their will to power has exceeded any desire to think to the country as such and to put themselves in the position of the ordinary people they came from. If they would have thought in a consistent manner to all of these aspects, it’s impossible to conceive that they would have consciously contributed and directed toward the evolution of the country and the huge suffering and waste of the lives of theirs fellow citizen. But they had just this behaviour. If so, they were not even the intellectuals they pretend to be.

If the model is bad, the heirs are worse. The present social-democrat leaders have neither progressive social ideals, nor any heroic attitude in front of the profound crisis of the country. Consequently, the heroic attitude has to be found outside them.

3) As we know, the economic crisis has generated in the Western ideology a strong enough tendency to moralise capitalism. This tendency is subordinated to and included in the general legitimating of the system. But even though the greed of bankers, the unjustified bonuses and the refuse of the big private owners to be coordinated by a general political view were and are considered from the standpoint of the sake of the capitalist order as such (i.e. as being the only profound causes of the crisis), in Romania not even this sense of the “moralisation” of capitalism was supported. The social-democrats are especially guilty for this repudiation and transformation of the moral aspects into derisory facts. They critique the egotism of people but, as I already mentioned, for they the desirable pattern of the Romanian society is (the Western) capitalism, as if capitalism would be moral at all. They critique the loss of privileges of the high bureaucracy, but do not question if the subsidising of the privileged incomes and pensions by the state – i.e. by the entire population, including those who have low wages and pensions – would be moral.

By annulling some privileges, the right-wing liberal-democrats tried to correct the excesses of the state and its subordination to the high bureaucracy. By doing so, they represent the above-mentioned tendency to improve the functioning of capitalism in system crisis by means of non-capitalist elements. But 1) they moralise capitalism in a contradictory manner: not only for they are pressed by their own political clientele, through the suppression of some privileges they even losing the power, but for the system itself is based on the intertwining of the high bourgeoisie and bureaucracy. And 2) their own propaganda contains very few elements that would legitimate their moralising tendency just because this one is somehow inadvertent with the keeping of the structural relations of domination. Anyway, the entire political class promotes individualism as its fundamental philosophy and transforms solidarity and the problems of common goods and common interests in topics of accidental campaigns.

4) The logic of economy is intertwined with the logic of moral judgements23. The present world crisis shows that the capitalist growth is no more valid: although there still are recesses of opportunity for investments, thus fuelling the growth24, the search for profit by supplying armament, waste of resources and advertising toward the increase of desire to irrationally consume has generated a saturation of the economic system as such. Even though there are recesses in order to continue the capitalist growth, the general losses are bigger than the gains. These losses impose that economy be seen as important as the moral/general social legitimating of the human actions.

By taking over the right-wing ideology, the Romanian “left” considers that the future recovery of the country is based on the fuelling of capitalist consumption. It is not the place to discuss the contradictory character of this requirement. But how could a left point of view assert that the state has to support the capital owners by reducing theirs taxes, claiming at the same time that it reduces the social investments and expenditures? And how could a left voice express its compassion toward the poor wage earners and pensioners not saying a word about the reduction of privileges as source of the improvement of state revenues and thus as source to limit austerity that hurts the poor strata? How left-wing and moral would be an allegation about the implied subsidizing of unfair privileged wages and pensions by the state – i.e. by the vulnerable categories this left suppose to represent –? And how could a left standpoint not to go all the way seeing that the present capitalism experiences the more and more contradictory consequences of the private management, while this one requires “solidarity” on behalf of the state and common wage earners and pensioners? Does not represent this fact (privatisation of gains, nationalisation of losses) the present proof of a structural contradiction of capitalism that has to be surpassed for it more destroys than constructs?

5) To critique the false left is no more the simple manifestation of the historical sectarian state of the left, when one sect opposed others. The present world accumulation of contradictions requires that people assume the effort to think hic et nunc concrete alternatives, thus innovate. The left could no more press within the system to improve in a fragmented manner the conditions of selling the labour force. It has to dare think a new societal project25: to press against the system.

The transformation of capitalism supposes this type of pressure: and if this pressure is made all the way, the partial goals of consistent democracy, consistent capitalist equality (i.e. abolition of privileges and limited character of human rights), consistent logic of political discourses send to their integration within a new concept of social order and a new representation of the human limits and power. This means that the objective conditions of this new concept and representation – the deep contradictions between the productive forces and the structural relations – to meet with the subjective ones. Nowadays they are indeed these objective conditions, but, although the human being is supposed to could anticipate its deeds and consequences, communities and society seem to not foresee the results of the societal (dis)order: the unsolvable contradictions and global problems aggravate the system crisis and the life of humans is wasted. This evolution is generated by the fact that the left, not only in Romania, did not yet surpass its historical crisis. The dominant left, which is taken into consideration by the right, promotes the viewpoints of social-democracy I mentioned above. The meeting between the objective and subjective conditions of the transformation of capitalism doesn’t take place.

Let’s remember Lenin’s warning a century ago: “It would be a mistake to think that the revolutionary classes are invariably strong enough to effect a revolution whenever such a revolution has fully matured by virtue of the conditions of social and economic development. No, human society is not constituted so rationally or so “conveniently” for progressive elements. A revolution may be ripe, and yet the forces of its creators may prove insufficient to carry it out, in which case society decays, and this process of decay sometimes drags on for very many years”26.

To shorten this decay has to be the mot d’ordre of the present world left.









; pt ca a confisc ideea de st si mareste confuz popul;


1 As the hierarchical body of the officials of organisations (as government, chairs, military, church, health and cultural organisations), or as “the rise of professionals” – public and civil servants as well as different office workers – or organisation based on meritocratic rules, professional norms, career expectations, universalistic procedures which would allow a rational development and control of the society, bureaucracy was described as inevitable, but 1) opposed to democracy or 2) a rather neutral body and practices. In the last analysis, bureaucracy is the intermediary strata of officials (office workers at different levels) who are included into the logic of relationships between the rulers and the ruled, deepening the social domination because, from the standpoint of the intermediary position itself, these strata themselves belong to the rulers or, from the viewpoint of the social stratification, to the rulers and the ruled (all these at different levels and institutions/occupations).

From the economic point of view, bureaucracy corresponds to the realm of services, and rather to those implying intellectual specialisation. But what is important is that bureaucracy is stratified into upper/high strata, medium and low strata. A general, a director of hospital or theatre, a high office servant, a rector or dean, a CEO within the banks etc. have a status that gets them nearer to the upper strata of bourgeoisie, while the inferior ranks, a doctor or nurse, a teacher etc. have a status that align them to the medium and petty bourgeoisie. However, the entire bureaucracy has an indirect position toward the physical work, position that has to be carefully taken into consideration. The most important feature of this position is the direct relationship of the most part of bureaucracy with the state: through this relationship, this part of bureaucracy, according of its social differentiation, can use its power of intermediation, i.e. of instrument to preserve the power relations as such (domination-submission/exploitation), in order to extract a great part of the revenues of the state for its own sake; this aspect explains the tendency of state bureaucracy to gain more and more autonomy toward the state/the impersonal management rules of the institutions; at the level of its conscience, the dependency from the state and, at the same time, the power over the state generate a tendency to estrange itself from the real domination-submission structure, since “the state” is that which pays its wages, bonuses and stimuli.

We need the concept of bureaucracy just for it highlights that the antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat passes through the mediations of a complex intermediary stratum, whose parts assimilate with the polar classes.


2 How could be explained the general theft and corruption? Phenomenology helps us to understand that people act according to the values they share and which legitimate or forbid theirs first intentions. Their “conscience” that stops or pushes them to act in a certain way contains/means just the result of the confrontation between different values and, on the other hand, theirs different temptations and needs. The example of the rulers is very important too in the constitution of these values which issue from the reasoning concerned to the different influences they are submitted to. The values which they know, assume or repudiate are put in front of different situations really and virtually experienced by themselves and others, forming alternatives and generating the final intentions. The example of the rules determine that common people could pardon themselves for a kind of Jean Valjean’ sin they infer to share.

During Stalinism, although the example of many leaders “proved” to the common people that “everyone steals from his/her workplace”, the official values counteracted this fact by legitimating the common goods as condition of the general welfare. The personal welfare was considered as result of the general development of the country. After December 1989, both the example of the entire leading class and the official values have legitimated the individual goods, despising the common goods and the general welfare, and (within the framework of sociological individualism) emitting the message that only through individualist tactics where “the end justifies the means” and “might makes right”, could be attained the personal welfare.

Neither the influence of religion nor the constraint of the law are stronger than the official values – transmitted by political discourses, mass media, law, education –, since the theft and corruption were not stoped by the post-1989 increase of religiosity, while no repressive institution could anul them before. On the contrary, the theft and corruption are thouthands times bigger than before 1990, all the “moral” institutions as the church and justice being only proofs of the reason of a behaviour characterised by the inadvertence between slogans and deeds.

3 Claude Karnoouh, „Partidul Comunist Român – înviat sau dus la groapă?”,

4 See also Alexandru Polgár, Roumanie : ce qui reste du communisme…,

5 No official institution has protested against the re-creation of the Communist party, even though the Communist symbols and propaganda are still legally forbidden. That shows not only that nobody takes the „Communists” seriously, but also that the law as such have no much worth.

6 Rapport de la Commission au Parlement Européen et au Conseil, le 20.7.2010,

7 This will happen, only if the present „opposition” – the social-democrats and liberals – will not take power.

8 See Ana Bazac, “The ethics committee – concerns following an indirect experience”, Bucharest Conference in Applied Ethics, 2nd edition: Ethics Committees and Other Ethical Tools, Bucureşti, Universitatea din Bucureşti, Facultatea de Filosofie, 30-31 octombrie 2009,; Ana Bazac, „Bureaucratic Inertia versus Democratic Communication Management in
University Chairs”, (Coord.: Sergiu Bălţătescu, Floare Chipea, Ionel Cioară, Adrian Hatos, Sorana Săveanu), Educaţie şi schimbare socială. Perspective sociologice şi comunicaţionale, Oradea, Editura Universităţii din Oradea, 2010, pp. 333-338.

9 And a social ideal was, before December 1989, to systematically improve the conditions of the crowd. This ideal was not imposed first of all by the necessity to legitimate the socialist type power, but just by the logic of the communist type ideal.

10 As Constantin Gheorghe (member of the social-democrat party and characterizing himself as „left liberal”) wrote, responding to Claude Karnoouh’s „Partidul Comunist Român – înviat sau dus la groapă?”,

11 The most important privileges in the present Romania are the entitlements to huge wages and pensions of magistrates, military, diplomats, parliament members and high office workers subsidized by the state. Partly, these privileges were inherited from Stalinism, but their post-1989 scope is just the result of the fact that the power was took over by the high bureaucracy and in its name.

12 See only the privileged status of the financial system; the huge bonuses of the banks’ CEOs even when the profits are missing were considered as signs of unacceptable greed only after the economic crisis hurt the world economy in 2008. For the problem of the connections of this greed and the crisis as such and without considering the greed of bankers as the main cause of the crisis (but some liberal economists did) see Samir Amin, Sortir de la crise du capitalisme ou sortir du capitalisme en crise, Paris, Le Temps des Cerises, 2009; or Yvon Quiniou, “Imposture du capitalisme moral”. Le Monde Diplomatique, juillet 2010, p. 3.

13 Let’s remember Marx (The German Ideology (1845), Part I…, History, “while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic”.

14 There is a modern Romanian fable writer at the end of the 19th century, Grigore Alexandrescu, whose famous fable The axe and the forest, is excellent to show the continuity of the political polarisation: if the axe has no handle (made by wood), the axe, frightful external force, has no power to cut down the trees.

15 See the July 2010 poll – – where 40% from 58% who assumed that they will vote said that their preference is for the social-democrats.

16 In Romania, a well-known cultural motif, created by the conservatives of the last decades of the 19th century and developed between the Two World Wars, is the relationship between the political and juridical form (superstructure) and the economic and social basis/structure (background). The conservatives asserted that the political modernisation has to correspond to the level of economic structure, thus to be organic. They made a critique from the right to the formalism of the political institutions implemented by the post-1848 liberals. One of theirs conclusions was that the rhythm of political modernisation ought to be slowed down until people create organically the new economic and social relations. After December 1989, the entire political class promoted again the capitalist political re-modernisation (capitalist democracy), destroying the economic coherence and power.

17 A Romanian proverb retained that „the changing of lords/kings, joy of fools”. In English I found “Hope and expectation are a fool’s income”, and “The wise man is deceived once but the fool twice”.

18 As in the present Romania: that the main danger would be the authoritarian tendency of the president, although there are no examples of this tendency. But no one of those reclaiming this danger says a word about the necessity of democratic transparency and diminution of privileges. On the contrary, they cover with silence these problems and their interest to keep opacity and privileges.

19 See Stathis Kouvelakis, “Lenin as Reader of Hegel: Hypotheses for a Reading of Lenin’s Notebooks on Hegel’s The Science of Logic”, in Sebastian Bugren, Stathis Kouvelakis, Slavoj Žižek, editors, Lenin Reloaded: Toward a Politics of Truth, Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2007, pp. 164-204.

20 For capitalism is a world system, the class structure has a trans-national character.

21 The fact that the ruled do not master the means of existence of society is the objective basis of a proletarian characteristic of the low bureaucracy, professionals and office workers whose source of income is the sale of their labour force. But obviously this characteristic is veiled by its intellectual and professional elements, its complex indirect position toward production and productivity, as well as the ideological representations of its belonging to the “middle class”.

22 Machiavelli, The Prince (1513),; Louis Althusser, « Machiavel et nous », in Louis Althusser, Écrits philosophiques et politiques, Tome II, Textes réunis et présentés par François Matheron, Paris, Stock / Imec, 1995, 1997.


23 See Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence, Vol. 1 The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), ed. D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 1982,­com_staticxt&staticfile­show.php%3Ftitle=192&layout­html ; also Francois Régis Mathieu, Modalités de l’altruisme dans l’analyse économique,

24 These recesses are the result of exploitation and the Centre-Periphery relations. Poverty and the lagging-behind are sources of demand, and the detainees of reserves (like China) or of financial capital (like the big banks) could invest and thus profit from this demand, the biggest problem of the capitalist economy being just the reduction of demand because of 1) the increase of supply imposed by the search for profit, thus the huge competition of suppliers worldwide, 2) the shrinking of solvability, for capital reduces the price of labour force searching for profit, 3) the irrational character of supply and economy as such because of the search of private profit.

The above-mentioned sources of demand, created by capitalism, contribute thusly to the lasting of the system itself. All the recesses and sources of demand constitute the “material conditions” that are developed within the and as basis of the capitalist relations, illustrating Marx’s observation: “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society”, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Preface, 1859,

However, the permanent finding of recesses of economic opportunity for capitalist growth is not the only factor of societal continuity.


25 This necessity to dare is not new at all. Just this position of the left-wing people and leaders who dare would have allowed avoid the huge suffering of masses in so many moments of the 20th century. The problem of what would have been if, related to that of utopia, cannot be explained without phenomenology help us to understand that the left-wing people who no more dare lost theirs ideals, the “pragmatic” values being those which support and manage their social conformism. And by not daring, they show that they absolutely forgot the others, humankind.

26 Lenin, „The Latest in Iskra Tactics, or Mock Elections as a New Incentive to an Uprising” (October 17 (4), 19O5), Lenin Collected Works, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1972, Volume 9, pp. 356-373,



Vote up!
Vote down!

Points: 0

You voted ‘up’