MARX AND CULTURAL STRUGGLE

MARX AND CULTURAL STRUGGLE

Nildo Viana *

Marx did not use the term "cultural struggle" and rarely used the term "culture." Nevertheless it can see in his work important elements that may suggest cultural struggle, both through his analysis of revolutionary praxis as its concrete theoretical practice that expresses a cultural struggle. In this sense, we present a brief analysis of what we can extract from Marx's work that can be understood as a cultural fight or reflection on it.

Marx and reflection on the cultural Struggle

The false interpretation of Marx as "economistic" is an obstacle to understand their thinking and political conception. That, more specifically, obliterates its position on the question of consciousness and its role in the class struggle. Undoubtedly, for Marx, the social is the determining factor in the real plan and therefore the methodology, in which it emphasizes the weight of concrete social relations instead of representations of them. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being; It is their social being that, conversely, determines their consciousness "(Marx, 1983, p. 25). Or, he said, "Just as one does not judge an individual by the idea that he makes of himself, one can not judge such a period of transformation by the same self-consciousness [...]" (Marx, 1983, p. 25 ).

This methodological assumption is only an expression of the real historical process. However, there is a world of representations, the culture, which is a time of the real and interfere therein. Explain consciousness by social means not think she does not exist or it does not interfere in the real and historical process. According to Marx himself: "The criticism of the gun can not, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but also the theory becomes a material force as soon seizes the masses "(Marx, 2008, p. 103).

Here is a cultural struggle of the element (the production and dissemination of the theory to the underprivileged classes) and a proposition that shows the need for cultural struggle. The role of culture, ideas, representations, the class struggle of the process is presented by Marx on several occasions. The point here is to put the division he makes in the proletariat's self-education process on the one hand, and cultural struggle carried out by the revolutionaries on the other. According to him:

In general, the bumps of the old society further in many ways the development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie live in constant struggle: at first against the aristocracy; later, against the parties of the bourgeoisie itself whose interests conflict with the progress of industry; and always with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, is forced to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for their help and to drag him well for the political movement. The same bourgeoisie therefore provides the proletariat the elements of their own education, ie weapons against itself (Marx and Engels 1988, p. 75).

This self-education, as stated by some translations, the proletariat benefits from the class struggle and the strengthening individuals of other classes offer to join the proletarian struggle. This occurs through criticism, theory and "elements of culture" that these individuals, usually intellectuals, can offer the proletariat. Criticism is not something self-sufficient, it has a purpose external to itself. Marx explained the role as follows criticism: "the critical plucked the imaginary flowers which adorned the chain, not that man use the chain without any fantasy or consolation, but that is freed from the chains and take the living flower" ( MARX, 1978, p. 106). Criticism has the role of contributing to overcome the illusions and allow the transforming action, the revolutionary struggle.

The theory, in turn, is critical because it is a precondition for criticism. "The need to abandon the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that requires illusions" (Marx, 1978, p. 106) and that means the need to explain this "condition which needs illusions." The role of theory is to "ascertain the truth of what surrounds us" and expose the illusions and "make the actual oppression even more oppressive, adding to that the awareness of oppression", it must be radical, that is, go to the "root of the problem ". And it can only be realized if it is expression of radical needs. The theory must be an expression of such radical needs that is embodied in the proletariat as it is a social class in which manifests the possibility of human emancipation. To discuss the possibility of this emancipation, Marx says she resides

The formation of a class with radical chains, a class of bourgeois society which is not a class of civil society; a state that is the dissolution of all states; a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right for you, why not commit violence against her any special, if not outright violence; it can no longer appeal to a historical title but simply to human security; that is not in any kind of particular contrast with the consequences, but a universal opposition to the premises of the German state; a sphere, finally, we can not emancipate itself without emancipating all other spheres of society and simultaneously to emancipate all of them; that is, in short, the complete loss of man and therefore can only achieve its goal by the recovery of the man. This dissolution of society as a particular class is the proletariat (Marx, 1978, p. 125).

In this sense, the theory must be an expression of the proletariat and her goal is to achieve a radical transformation of all social relations, of the total. The theory finds in the proletariat its material weapons and the proletariat finds its intellectual weapons in theory. So "as quickly as that thought Ray penetrates the bottom this pure popular solo" occur human emancipation. The theory is that the brain emancipation and the proletariat your heart. The theory can only be abolished with the extinction of the proletariat and this can only be terminated by performing the theory. In this sense, there is an inseparability of theory and proletariat. The proletariat is possibility condition of the theory and it is thanks to him that emerges the real and concrete individuals who produce it, the theoretical representatives of the proletariat.

The goal of the theory is the radical transformation of reality and limits of philosophy is not to have this purpose, for what matters is not only interpret reality, but transform it. But how does this theory? Overcoming the illusions, that is, expressing the reality as it is and showing that it is producing costumes and various forms of illusions. Thus, the criticism goes beyond the illusions and the theory shows its real base, the material foundation of both illusions about human emancipation, whose potential is in the proletariat. The proletariat's theoretical mission is therefore to criticize the illusions, express the social reality and take it to the working class. This is a concrete process that occurs in the class struggle, as "an inevitable phenomenon, founded in the course of development, that people from classes so far dominant join the proletariat fighting and bring her culture elements" (Marx, 2014). Obviously they must be real culture elements, and not fanciful creations, bourgeois prejudices, using eclecticism brought ideas of universities, etc.

These are the reflections of Marx on what we call cultural struggle, the proletariat case. It also addresses the cultural struggle of the bourgeoisie, whose process is the opposite. The bourgeois cultural struggle is carried out by producing ideologies (Marx and Engels 1991), ie illusory systems of thought held by ideologues, some of which are producers asset ideologies and others, most are just breeding liabilities of same. This wishful thinking system serves to legitimize, justify and naturalize the social relations of capitalist society. This is the case of philosophers, scientists and others. Marx focuses on various projects the role of these ideologues and their ideologies. So if the theory aims at radical transformation of social relations, ideology aimed at their conservation. Ideologies, to be played by the ideologues liabilities affect the population and thus, to be accepted, cushion class struggles, causing adherence to capitalist society. When these ideologues themselves allies of the proletariat, instead of elements of culture, which lead are prejudices and eclectic designs that contribute nothing to the workers' struggle. If the theory overcomes the illusions, shows its real basis and expressed as society creates such a need of illusory creations, criticizing both the representations and ideologies as the reality that generate them, ideology, in turn, produces and reinforces illusions. The theory is bound and expressed the proletarian class interests, while ideologies are expressions of the class interests of the bourgeoisie or other conservative classes.

The cultural struggle of Marx

Beyond what he said about what we call cultural struggle, Marx effected concretely. Therefore, it is a complement to understand your position on this issue its concrete practice. The cultural struggle of Marx can be seen through his critique of illusions, especially ideologies; its theoretical production, extremely wide; the process of taking "culture elements" for the proletariat. We will have a brief presentation on these three aspects to demonstrate the effectiveness of cultural struggle by Marx.

Marx's work is essentially critical. In his early writings, it addresses the issue of criticism of religion and later criticism of German philosophy and later criticism of scientific and pseudossocialistas ideologies. His analysis of religion points to show that it is a ground product and that their self-delusion of being the expression beyond just hides its origins in short. It shows the social origins of religion, and explains that it's the real misery that arises the need of religious illusion. But soon it passes the criticism of religion into the criticism of ideologies. In works such as The German Ideology, The Holy Family, among others, he is dedicated to criticism of German philosophy with its ideological character. However, he ends up going to the criticism of other ideologies, such as the British and French socialist economists. Their criticism of Malthus and "vulgar economists" as well as the eclectic and even the classics (Adam Smith and David Ricardo) manifests itself in Capital, Grundrisse, Theories of Surplus Value, etc. Likewise, it performs the criticism of French socialism and pseudossocialismo in general, as seen in the Communist Manifesto, The Poverty of Philosophy, among other works. At various times he advances in other critical concepts, and letters and other places, to aspects of the natural sciences, as in the case of Darwin (VIANA, 2009).

The theory produced by Marx is extremely wide and is inseparable from his criticism. The first element of his theoretical work is his theory of alienation and history. The theory of alienation presented in Paris Manuscripts (also called "Economic and Philosophical" or "1844") is the time of constitution of the concrete foundations of its humanism and communism. The alienated labor is the foundation of the proletarian revolution, the dehumanization It is presented as the key to human emancipation, as this is denying that. The history of the theory is presented in The German Ideology, although in several works he returns to this question, as in the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, among others. Through the elaboration of the concepts of mode of production, social classes, class struggles, among others, he seeks to express the historical movement, founded, from a certain historical moment due to the development of the productive forces, the class struggle. It also develops a theory of capitalism, which can be seen in several works, though in a more structured way in Capital. In this book he explains the secret of capitalist exploitation and its essence, the surplus value production, as well as its consequences and developments, such as capital accumulation and trend the rate of increase. Similarly and inextricably linked to it, it presents a theory of the proletarian revolution, not only analyzing the proletariat as a social class as well as moving towards analyzing their struggles, their revolutionary potential, their experiences, their trends. Also outlines elements, based on historical experiences and rational glimpse provided by the theory (VIANA, 2014), of communist society, as in The Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Program, mainly.

The elements of culture that is part of the praxis of proletarian theory and Marx realized that too. What many do not know is that the salary booklets, Price and Profit and Wage Labour and Capital, are the written expression of lectures that Marx gave to workers. He always sought to bring the theory to the labor movement, both through the production itself and its publication as books, but also through documents, letters, conversations, lectures, including circular in AIT - International Workers Association. Two special moments stand out in this process, which is the writing of the Communist Manifesto and his analysis of the Paris Commune, contained in The Civil War in France. In the Communist Manifesto, it synthesizes elements of his theory of history, his analysis of capitalism and class struggle in this society and criticizes the pseudossocialismos and presents the role of communists and programmatic elements to the revolutionary struggle. In The Civil War in France, presents an analysis of the Paris Commune, its obstacles and problems and its historical importance to the revolutionary workers' movement, works disclosed for the proletariat and could serve as inspiration for new struggles. Incidentally, Capital, was to have been made in installments, as the intention of Marx is it to be read by workers.

In this sense, the concrete actions of Marx show an intense cultural struggle, combined with organizational work and other actions, to strengthen the proletarian struggle and the class association of education in the fight against the bourgeoisie and establishment of "free association of producers "Communism.

From Marx to We: The Cultural Struggle Today

We are in another era, and the essence of capitalism - the surplus value production and capital accumulation - remains the same, but its form has changed. There was broad technological development, geopolitical world has changed, the commodification and bureaucratisation of social relations have intensified, the State assumes new form, among many other issues. Marx produced his work during the extensive accumulation regime and move to intensive. In this sense, the subsequent accumulation schemes (conjugated and integral) have not been lived and analyzed by him, unless in their trend information. The workers' struggle of his time occurred in a given context and the conditions today are quite different. The parties and unions supposedly "workers" are bureaucracies that have nothing to do with the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, being more of a hindrance. Similarly, the oligopolists media gained a much larger space and the full accumulation regime, the internet and social networks are gaining ground.

Capitalism finds it increasingly difficult to reproduce. This is part of its history, but the more it develops and demonstrates ability to overcome the crisis and survive, is more wider and deeper difficulties. The revolutionary experiences after the Paris Commune brought issues do not exist in Marx's time, as the threat of bureaucratic counterrevolution. After intensive accumulation regime, a huge bureaucratic class emerges and its most radicalized part, present in smaller parties and trade unions, becomes greedy for power and for that we say "representative of the proletariat." This creates another obstacle to the proletarian struggle: in addition to fighting the capital and its apparatus, the capitalist state also have to get rid of their false "vanguards" and those who say they are on your side.

These and other changes complicates class struggles, especially with the emergence of new ideologies and alleged critical concepts which basically just creates a division and isolation sectors of society rather than lead to a unification that would strengthen the struggle for social change . These isolated struggles of isolated groups, permeated with ideologies such as "gender", "animal liberation," among others, end up being enhanced bourgeois hegemony in social and daily struggles movements, hindering a rise of proletarian and revolutionary struggles.

The cultural struggle thus assumes new tasks. On the one hand, we must fight the internal weakening of Marxism (authentic and not its bureaucratic deformations expressed in Leninism and social democracy), in order to seek an alliance with bourgeois ideologies not to lose ground. Despite the concern not to lose spaces and create unnecessary differences be legitimate, it is necessary to join forces and many are sticking to ideologies and misconceptions for lack of theoretical deepening, information, etc., this is a double-edged sword as it strengthens the it has to be fought.

The internal weakness is one in which the defenders themselves a conception surrender to ideas of opponents, are subject to fads, introject other conceptions thanks to the victimization of groups, that is, an external source process that generates an internal weakening, either by social pressure, either for lack of theoretical training and more developed critical sense. Sometimes this is revealed in the fear of going into shock and it is unpopular. However, a revolutionary is, unless at the time of the revolution, unpopular in nature.

However, this is just one of the new contemporary issues that affect the cultural struggle today. Tasks are much more numerous. One must take "cultural elements" for the proletariat and other sectors of the potentially revolutionary society, and this through books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, talks, use of media, internet, etc. However, to be really "elements of culture" is necessary not only to 'information' or slogans, but that has a formative character, providing intellectual tools to interpret and act in class struggles.

Similarly, in order to continue the cultural struggle and collaborate with intellectual self-formation of the population and the militants, the theoretical production and criticism of ideologies and illusory everyday representations is needed. The theoretical production should be encouraged and carried out in order to collaborate with the understanding of concrete social relations of capitalism, its reproduction mechanisms of the contradictions, trends and potential. This is the basis for criticism of ideologies that not only play the role of influencing individuals and intellectuals, including potential challenger, as, through these and other forms, social movements and social struggles. So the criticism of the various ideologies, in various forms and degrees of development, should be performed. On the other hand, criticism of the imaginary, the illusory everyday representations produced by the population, is another necessary element, because it is another obstacle, including the advance of proletarian self-education. We need to move towards spreading true everyday representations and their passage into broader forms of thought and developed.

Similarly, the struggle against the dominant values ​​and bourgeois mentality is another element that should occur, in spite of the strongest obstacles in this case. Criticism of axiology, the dominant values ​​in its various configurations, is an element that must be one of the cultural struggle outbreaks. On the other hand, recognition and discussion of axionomia, the authentic values, it must be falling into abstract humanism, understanding that some of them can be materialized today, but some not, and so it takes a libertarian ethics and theoretical domain. The relationship between theory and libertarian ethics is essential to avoid falling into sentimentality, morality and / or abstract humanism. The materialization of axionomia in the set of social relationships presupposes the overcoming of the capitalist society and this is done through class struggle and therefore only partly it is realized today. The executioners can not be treated with solidarity, despite this being a true value because the converse is not true.

Thus, the elements mentioned by Marx remain valid and must be deepened. Obviously either individual may focus on specific forms of cultural struggle, although the ideal is to act at all. However, if a person collaborates making poetry, that is, performing the cultural struggle through artistic production, since in the proletarian perspective, then it is something to support. Encourage go beyond that is something possible and desirable, but it depends on the psychic of the individual uniqueness, his life history, social conditions, etc., so what should be required is that the content of his artistic production is revolutionary, because if not it does not contribute to the fight.

Just as Marx at one point, went to London library and said thus contribute better with the class struggle, we must recognize the needs, limits, contexts that surround individuals and that freedom in the fight is crucial the struggle for freedom, since the ultimate goal is this, that there is consistency between cultural production and the struggle for social self-management. Marx's going to the London Library was closely related to the production of his work Capital, one of the most important theoretical productions ever made, and of fundamental importance to the proletarian struggle.

In case more organized and collective forms of struggle, it is necessary to critically reflect and draw up action programs for cultural struggle. Thus, production processes and theoretical publication, development of mechanisms and dissemination of criticism, creation of dissemination processes and revolutionary propaganda and articulation of it all engaged in social movements in strike movements, general class struggles.

In short, the cultural struggle is one of the main elements of revolutionary praxis. And it is not separated of all the processes of struggle in society. What praticistas not realize is that every fight has a cultural element involved. A strike movement, claims and actions are permeated by conceptions, representations, etc., in the sense that the needs, information, positions, are products of interpretations and reflections. The same goes for demonstrations and protests, work in neighborhoods, etc. No human action is disconnected consciousness and this is one of the determinations of this process. A worker with bourgeois mentality may be favorable to strike to increase your salary, but will be against it when there is danger of dismissal. Its position is closely linked to their views, values, etc. Similarly, in the same movement, a revolutionary workers can defend the strike, but lacking in arguments, information, etc., for not having enough culture elements to enter the cultural clash established. A third worker can be at one point against the strike because his party offers this guideline and arguments for it, perhaps for electoral reasons or political alliances or even bond with the union and / or government. Such workers may at the same time, be honest and do it for believe his party comrades and lacking in information and culture elements to understand the real motivations behind the position of his party.

A militant who merely go and support, without criticizing, without elements of culture, information, intellectual tools, deep contributes very little or, in some cases, end up reinforcing the bourgeois hegemony in it. He, as the latest example of labor, can also be honest and believe that this is what everyone should do, but end up contributing to the conservative forces, even disguised as reformers or even "revolutionary," end up having supremacy in the process struggle.

Thus, the cultural struggle is a fundamental element of class struggle, both in immediate conjunction with the workers and social struggles in general and indirect, in the world of culture. And the clarification of its importance and its strategic role in the struggle for radical transformation of all social relations, abolishing capitalism and establishing social self-management, is part of the same cultural struggle and disclosure means taking elements of culture for the population in general and for the particular proletariat. In short, the cultural struggle permeates the entire society and awareness of their needs is one of its moments. That means, basically, to proceed to what Marx and others performed, but more reflected and consciously, in order to be properly thought out and inserted in a revolutionary strategy.

References

KORSCH, Karl. Marxism and Philosophy. Porto, Afrontamento 1977.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The German Ideology (Feuerbach). Sao Paulo, Hucitec 1991.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Petropolis: Voices, 1988.

Marx, Karl. The Poverty of Philosophy. 2nd Edition, Sao Paulo, Global 1989.

Marx, Karl. Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 2nd Edition, São Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1983.

Marx, Karl. Written by Juventud sobre el Derecho. Barcelona: Anthropos, 2008.

Marx, Karl. Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. In: The Jewish Question. Sao Paulo: Moraes, 1978.

Marx, Karl. The Manifesto of Three Zurich. Magazine Marxism and self-management. Vol. 01, no. 02, July / Dec. 2014.

VIANA, Nildo. Darwin Nu. Magazine Academic Area. Year 8, No. 95, April 2009.

VIANA, Nildo. Karl Marx - The existing merciless criticism. Florianopolis Bookess, 2014.

Who is Afraid of Utopia?

Who is Afraid of Utopia?

Nildo Viana

Socialism has often been labeled a utopia and that word is understood as synonymous with impossible dream. Now, with the crisis countries' so-called "socialist, has become" intellectual fashion "say that socialism and Marxism died and it is proven its utopian character. This is the dominant ideology but we should never forget that "the dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling class" and that we must refute them.

Let us begin by the meaning given to the word utopia. To understand how "impossible dream", it becomes a weapon to discredit opponents of the current social system. In the French Revolution of 1789, the royalists have accused Republicans of "utopians", as this would be impossible dream. But in the meantime, the republic was established, this dream came true. Those who advocate the maintenance of the social system accuse the subversive and revolutionary ideas of being utopian. Auguste Comte criticizes the utopia in opposition to her reality. He considered it a 'metaphysical and irrational dream ", contrary to scientific knowledge. Such knowledge, however, is positivism, which takes reality as if she did not have contradictions and did not become, or are stuck in the cage of the "eternal present," ahistorical. Conservative thought that attacks the utopia can not see a foot in front of the nose, which is, for this thought, a "tangible reality"; is a prisoner thought into the gift and that can not exceed the limits of the here and now; is a thought without perspective and therefore no action and hence the pre-human attitude that outputs the existing without trying to overtake him.

But through a critical analysis we can say that the bulk of utopias can be found in the work of the structure The Utopia of Thomas More. In the first part of this book, he criticizes the society of his time and the second describes the island of Utopia, which has a "perfect" social organization. It is seen in the first part, for example, a criticism of enclosures (enclosures) in England and in the second part describes a society without private property and without social division of labor. Even if there were the first part of the work, as in many other utopias, would be implicit criticism of such a society that lived with private property, the social division of labor, etc. In the case of Morus, criticism is explicit, as noted in comparison he made between work in Utopia and of English society, as in Utopia does not work as a "workhorse" from "dawn to night ", which would be worse than the" torture and slavery ", although this is in" another part "a" sad fate of the workers. " Utopia means, then, a critique of existing society and a proposal for a new society. Every criticism of the existing brings itself, implicitly, a proposal for a new society and every proposal for a new society brings out in a critique of existing society.

Western Marxist Ernst Bloch classifies utopias into two main types: the abstract and the concrete. From this we can say that Morus, Campanella, among others, produced abstract utopias, because, despite having a review and an "alternative" to the existing society, they had very limited criticism and projects that often catered to the whims of some individuals or small social groups rather than the interests of the community. Their alternative society proposals It clashed with their actual possibility of implementation at the time they were written. But the major flaw of abstract utopias and characterizing them, according to Bloch, is that they do not present as is the case of this company for future society.

Another type of abstract utopia is produced by the utopian socialists. They did a more thorough critique of capitalism and, despite the shortcomings, this was his most revolutionary aspect. They also proposed to build new companies but the advance from earlier utopias is that the critique of capitalism has become better grounded and also began to deal with the transition from one society to another. However, the utopian socialists understand that the transition to "socialism" would take place with the support of the State or the "educated classes" or even by "education", the "awareness" and "reason". Here is revealed the main limitation of utopian socialism.

The other type of utopia, concrete, is based, as Bloch said, the perception of really possible, as opposed to the abstract utopias. In this sense, Marxism is a concrete utopia. When operating the critique of bourgeois society, Marx and Engels analyzed the historical possibilities of establishment of socialism and how it would happen. The concrete utopia is revolutionary theory that is not only possible and necessary as its implementation is the likely outcome of the historical process.

The crisis of state capitalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe makes the radicalized and intellectualized fraction of our helper classes of the bourgeoisie resume pre-Marxist ideas and goes on to consider Marxism as something "outdated". Without the crutch that was the USSR and Eastern Europe, the auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie do not take that "support" to continue their "heroic struggle" for "socialism." This is where Marxists and ex-Marxists begin to qualify Marx as an idealist. As said Claude Lefort, among others, the idea of ​​a classless society is only an ideal created by Marx. The ideal floor for many, is synonymous with utopia. Both concepts in this case are understood as a proposal that does not take into account the possibilities of its realization. In a dialectical analysis we can say that the reality of modern societies is dominated by exploitation, oppression and alienation. This reality contradicts human aspirations become undesirable and view it this way produces the will to create a humane society. The "ideal" does not arise arbitrarily, but the real need. However, because the real is in motion and the ideal that emerges from it is also on the move, seeking to overcome them and the real, we can say that is the real with the possible paths that can go that creates the ideal and this or stands for and reinforces one of these paths or arises from these paths and becomes pure "abstraction." Therefore, this "ideal" is not a simple creation "arbitrary and illusory", but the real denial.

From this we can say that Marx was not the idealistic philosophical sense of the word but was idealistic from the common notion that attaches to this word the position of a person who has a dream. However, Marx was not an idealist as Morus and Campanella. In this case it comes to the same distinction between abstract and concrete utopia utopia presented above. Marx was not an abstract ideal but a concrete ideal and not make such a distinction is the same as working with the conservative propaganda, many "Marxists" are doing after the state of crisis of capitalism ("socialism").

Let's see if the Marxist utopia is concrete or not. There is the "Marxism" two positions on the establishment of socialism: the economist and idealistic (in the philosophical sense of the word). The economistic position generates two other locations: the reformist and catastrophic. The reformist position conceives the economic development of capitalism leads to its own resilience and so it is possible to pass to socialism gradually gaining ground in Parliament and in the state and go from this building socialism. This is the proposal of evolutionary socialism of Kautsky and his followers. The catastrophic position conceive that there will be a "final crisis of capitalism" and therefore should prepare a class party that will take power with the rise of the famous "final crisis". This is the proposal of Amadeo Bordiga.

The idealistic position also generates two other locations: the avant-garde revolutionary spirit and the avant-garde reformism. Fans of avant-garde revolutionary spirit conceive that the "objective conditions" of the socialist revolution are ripe, and what is lacking are the "subjective conditions" that will be created by the "Party of Vanguard" due to the working class inability spontaneously acquire your conscience class. It is the party, through its intellectuals, working out socialist consciousness and introduce the proletariat and therefore has the "historical right" to direct it towards the conquest of state power. In this case is not a class, but the party is the revolutionary subject. This is the proposal of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Others, the avant-garde reformist, say the bourgeois ideology dominates the whole society, including the "lower classes", then it is up to the intellectuals of the party draw up a new "world view", "new values", etc., and thereby unify such classes and promote a cultural change and so gain hegemony, required the implementation of socialism. This and the proposal of some "interpreters" of Gramsci.

But these positions are compatible with Marx? According to Marx, communism is not an ideal (abstract) but a real movement which abolishes the present state of things. Actual assumptions are universal development of productive forces and the emergence of a mass of humanity devoid of property at odds with a world of existing wealth and culture produced by the very development of the productive forces. In other words, the assumptions are: the formation of capitalism and the proletariat and, through capitalist development, the creation of a world market. Capitalism creates to develop and strengthen its own negation: the proletariat. Thereafter socialism becomes a historical trend.

From this, we can say that capitalism is abolished by capitalist development and thus creates communism. However, the creation of communism is the work of the working class. The first statement without the second takes into account only a metaphysical development of the productive forces to the detriment of the class struggle and social classes that would be, in this analysis, passive. Communism does not arise "economically" within capitalism, ie capitalism, of course, does not create collective ownership inside. Capitalism does not create communism directly but creates the proletariat which is the constitution of communism agent. Capitalism destroys itself but that does not mean that the result of its destruction is socialism. Bukharin had already noticed that might arise a post-capitalist society and non-socialist and this would be the result of development of productive forces and Marx said that there could be a positive abolition of private property (bourgeois), which means that there could be, too, a negative abolition. Marx's method is, as noted Bloch, a "science of the trend" and not a pure and simple economic determinism. Socialism is a need of humanity and a historical trend. Therefore, it is not "inevitable", ie is not the only historical possibility, although it is the most likely.

The Bordigist theory states that it is the party that holds the revolution is not true. As I said Otto Rühle, "the revolution is not party affair". The proletarian revolution can only be made by the class and the parties can even make "revolutions" or counter-revolutions, but can not make the communist revolution. Also, it does not justify the mechanistic theory of waiting the "final crisis of capitalism", because, as already noted Marx, revolutions can be anticipated.

Engels, in criticizing the utopian socialists, said that his main problem was not based on labor movement. These, according to Marx and Engels, came at a time when the proletariat was in training and therefore "the historical activity replace your own imagination, the historical emancipatory conditions, fantastic conditions, and the spontaneous and gradual organization of the proletariat in class social organization prefabricated for them. In his view, the story of the future is summarized in advertising and in the achievement of their social organization plans ".

This position would be taken up by Lenin in Tsarist Russia with its proletariat in formation. Bolshevism is an ideological expression of the backwardness of tsarist Russia. Social organization prefabricated by Lenin, the vanguard party, has its justification in the "vanguard ideology," according to which class consciousness does not arise spontaneously in the proletariat but only through bourgeois intellectuals gathered in the party. This thesis was supported philosophically by Georg Lukacs who said the passage of the proletariat "class in itself" to "class for itself" is mediated by the party, which is where intellectuals are. These, to discover the proletarian class interests, attributes his conscience that should have their interests, that is, the proletarian class consciousness is a consciousness attributed to him by the intellectuals. But leaving aside the "metaphysical phraseology" of Lukács and Lenin, let us see what Marx says, "economic conditions initially transformed the mass of the country workers. The domination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass therefore is already in view of the capital, a class, but still it is not for herself. In the fight that pointed out some phases, this mass comes together, constitutes class for itself. The particular interests become class interests. " Therefore, the proletariat acquire class consciousness (passes or class in itself to class for itself) through the class struggle, ie without party mediation or intellectuals. You can only choose: Marx or Lenin?

Today it has become common to many "Marxists" and former "Marxists" focuses on awareness and changing values. Some far right, who claim to represent a "new left", launch their appeals "cultural" for the conquest of hegemony from all social classes, since they overcame the "proletarian myth." This is a beautiful return to pre-Marxist socialism based on an abstract humanism that neither the so-called "young Marx" agreed. But if such arguments were normal at the time of the utopian socialists, given the degree of development of the proletariat, are today more than outdated and are an expression of the crisis of conscience auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie and do not serve the struggle for socialism. Either way, favoring awareness and changing values ​​in a position to the right or to the left, is a epistemologically idealistic stance that generates an elitist political practice, since they are the intellectuals of the "new" left that will educate the "world ignorant "and do it, as Marx said, open your mouth and swallow the" roast duck absolute knowledge ".

All these positions have in common, apart from positivism, the denial of the revolutionary role of the proletariat. This is "passive" and only comes into play when it is called by Kautsky to vote on them, when the Bolshevik vanguard drives you and gives the socialist consciousness or are made aware by "would-be reformers of the world" (Marx). If Marx were alive and their "followers" were just these certainly would resume Heine metaphor: "My evil was sown dragons and have reaped only fleas."

The creation of communism is the work of the working class, then it is the historical experience of the labor movement we can find out how this will happen. The socialist theory justifies its name is based on the real movement of workers. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, proposed the nationalization of the means of production under control of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, but after working experience in the Paris Commune, they turned back and said they did not just win the state power and use it according to their interests, it is necessary to destroy it and replace it with the "self-management of producers." After Marx, was Rosa Luxemburg who was based in the real labor movement to develop its revolutionary theory. Rosa Luxemburg when observing the explosion of mass strikes in several countries and especially in Czarist Russia, set them as the most powerful political weapon of the proletariat. The considered "anarchist theory" was taken up by Rosa Luxemburg as a universal force of workers' struggle. The strikes began to be advocated by Bernstein, but only to serve the parliamentary struggle of the German Social Democracy and Kautsky and Trotsky soon abandoned this position, the first to take on their reformism and the second to join the Bolshevism. After Rosa Luxemburg, fell to the ground councilists communist revolutionary theory in the labor movement. The Russian Revolution, the German Revolution, among other attempts at proletarian revolution in the early 20th century, were the scene of mass strikes that led to the workers' councils and were theorists such as Karl Korsch, Anton Pannekoek, Hermann Gorter, Helmutt Wagner, Paul Mattick, Otto Rühle, among others, who have taken this experience of workers - workers' councils - as a form of revolutionary organization of the proletariat. Pannekoek said at the time of Marx and Engels there was the possibility to predict clearly how the proletariat would take power and the old state power, the revolutionary process, would be destroyed and replaced by workers' councils. Without forgetting the most recent contributions and new issues arising from the historical development, we can say that these are the theoretical principal of the proletarian revolution and also that they are opposed to both social democracy and Bolshevism, which, as it was for the Marxist historian Arthur Rosenberg, have nothing to do with the labor movement.

But today tell us that all this is utopia. Who say that are those who have "committed to the existing society." It is these who are afraid of utopia and we know very well that no one fears "unrealistic dreams". Nothing is more ridiculous to say that the historical changes in Eastern Europe show that there will be no historical changes. The ideologues of the ruling class are so competent in reversing the reality using the very historical movement to say that it does not exist. However, the most curious of all is that those who until recently called themselves "defenders of workers" now take a conservative speech on behalf of "political realism". Communism went to these, capitalism denying to just a "patch" of this.

The formula "democratic socialism" is a beautiful example of this. Socialism, by nature, is democratic and genuine democracy can only exist in socialism, that is, such an expression is a contradiction. They tell us that democratic socialism will state planning living with the laws of the market and also with small and medium property. What is this socialism? Let's look first to what sectors of society such social project benefits: state planning serves the interests of the bureaucracy and the small and medium property serves the interests of small and medium bourgeoisie. Now let's see what happens with its historic extension: any economist knows that small and medium property living with the "market forces" soon become large properties, meaning there is a return to previous situation. For workers such proposal waves only with the "redistribution of income", ie, the decrease in the rate of exploitation and not its abolition. This proposal aims to build actually a reformed capitalism and not the communist mode of production.

Communism is not income redistribution, but a mode of production in which workers collectively drive the means of production implanting communist relations of production, for the redistribution of income can be redone again and against the workers if they do not detain the property and direction of the means of production. It is the mode of production which determines the distribution and this is why, among other reasons, that communism is based on production. The concept of "democratic socialism" only attacks the surface issues of capitalism and not the essential. Remains commodity production, the law of value, private property, social classes, wage labor, the more value, the state, etc., and consequently the exploitation, oppression and alienation. The "democratic socialism" of socialism in name only. Under the guise of political realism, cling to positivism and reformism. But in contrast there is the utopia with its critical-revolutionary character denying political realism and its inherent conservatism.

Communism is the socialization of the means of production based on social ownership. Paul Mattick was right when he said that "nothing proves more forcefully the revolutionary character of Marx's theories than the difficulty of ensuring its continued non-revolutionary periods." The overcoming of capitalism movement of communism becomes just a name that justifies even the permanence of bourgeois society, now reformed. Though they say that Marxism died, the trend is the rise of the revolutionary movement and consequently of Marxism. The working class will go your way and let others babble.

Article originally published in: Journal Brazil. Revolutionary. Year 2, n. 7, December 1990.

Social Movements and Urban Space

Social Movements and Urban Space

Nildo Viana

This paper discusses the relationship between social movements and urban space. To do so, it briefly discusses the concepts of social movements and urban space to subsequently provide an analysis of the relationship between them. Starting from the view that the urban space is a place of social division that ends up creating inequalities and social problems, it is possible to understand what are commonly known as urban social movements and urban popular movements as being characterized by its constitution of underprivileged social classes and that their claims ask for improvements in a part of the urban space, which creates a certain relationship with the state. In this process, there is a class conflict where we have the underprivileged classes in one side and on the other the state apparatus, representative of the ruling class.

Keywords: social movements, social classes, urban space, underprivileged classes, State, Popular Urban Movements, urban social movements..

International Journal of Research in Geography (IJRG)
Volume 1, Issue 2, September 2015, PP 1-8
www.arcjournals.org

https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijrg/v1-i2/1.pdf

BEYOND MEDIA OF CRITICAL

BEYOND MEDIA OF CRITICAL

Nildo Viana

The concepts of cultural industry have some conceptual and theoretical problems that hinder more than collaborate with a better view of this phenomenon. This article is an outline of a more extensive work in preparation referring to a mode of communication theory in capitalist society. Because of this, we will only start as the questioning of the cultural industry theory, which serves as a starting point to think about a new theory of communication in capitalist society.

The cultural industry concepts, mass media, mass culture, among others, suffer from the lack of adequate methodological and conceptual basis. Despite the influence of Marxism in many elaborations on the cultural industry, the analysis actually do not use the dialectical method and end up falling in anti-dialectical position, even using the dialectic word or saying it to adopt such a method. On the other hand, and more serious, since produced such conceptions, they end up becoming obligatory references and create a linguistic armor impeding the intellectual advancement of the communication phenomenon in capitalist society. The problem of language is critical because awareness to use as mediating element to develop, and when the language is reified, it ends up effecting a reification of consciousness. Considering that we live in a society in which the reified consciousness prevails, then it and the reified language mutually reinforcing.

Therefore, we will initially perform critical of some concepts and constructs (misconceptions) to advance the analysis of the communication process in capitalism. The classical approach to the issue is the so-called Frankfurt School, mainly represented by Theodor Adorno, but also relying on the contributions of Horkheimer, Marcuse, Benjamin, among others. The position of this school is considered critical, as opposed to the apologists call "cultural industry", including American authors. Although the Frankfurt School has provided a good contribution to analyze this phenomenon, there are limitations in this approach that should be exposed. Thus, our work here will be at the same time, to criticize some approaches that seek to work "culture industry" or "mass media", or even "mass media", to show its limits and, in some cases, ideological, and, second, to present the outline of an alternative that will be developed in other work. However, due to the rudimentary state of this development process of a communication theory in capitalist society, we will therefore present our approach in the form of theses. Such theses form some of the basic elements of the critique of established concepts and outline some new elements for a new approach to communication phenomenon in capitalism.

1st THESIS:

The IDEOLOGY OF "MASS MEDIA" IS AN OBSTACLE TO BE OVERCOME.

The first point to make is that the discussion around the "mass media" is an obstacle to be overcome. Behind this expression hide many problems. Firstly, focus on "media"; Secondly, the use of the term "mass". First things first point. When speaking of "mass media", the focus is shifted to such means. Communication is performed in various ways and utilizing various means. But when working with the idea of ​​the media to refer to the problem of "big media", notably TV, Radio, Press, etc., hence the additional term 'masses', because it reaches a large audience. However, the initial and fundamental issue, a critical perspective, it would not be the means used but how it performs communication. The focus on "media" means transforming technological or industrial issue in the main aspect to be analyzed.

The first trap of this design is to homogenize the media. All come to have the same "essence". First, you must realize that the Gutenberg press was a communication revolution, which differs greatly from the TV. If we consider the radio and the Internet, we see so many profound differences. Similarly, industrial rationale behind these media not reach all equally. The great communication oligopolies work differently small media companies. Thus, a major publisher has a whole bureaucratic system and selection structure, production, dissemination, radically different distribution of a small publishing house. The same goes for the record companies, radio and TV, etc. Other differences could be asked, but would not add much to what has already been said. So only are there differences? The answer is no, because despite the many differences, there are similar elements. The point is that the similarity is not in the nature of media itself, but in the established mode of communication in our society, which discussed below.

The homogenization of the media is complemented by homogenization of the "masses" which would be all the receivers of the messages they convey. The construct "pasta" is an obstacle to the development of a correct awareness of reality. It is actually a replacement of another construct, called "people". The word "people" is commonly used and is usually associated with political discourse, as when one speaks of the "interests of the people"; "Will of the people", etc.

"This immoderate use, although natural under the conditions we live in, by the most varied people, and addressing also the most diverse groups, gave the word people such a generic meaning that stripped of any commitment to reality . In the mouth or pen of public men today - and of course that does not happen only in Brazil - nation is an abstraction. Everyone is free to attribute to the word people the meaning well imagine. And particularly, be included in person in what figures to be the people. Even in the political language - and it is at the political level that their use does not matter, - the one magic word, the chorus to which all hold fast, formula for all problems, sesame for all ports, has no limitations, contours, features "( Werneck Sodre, p. 188).

Thus, the term "people" as several others ("pasta", "globalization", etc.) not only suffers from inaccuracy, but also homogenizer and a magic word that everything responds without replying. It is a metaphysical abstraction. However, unlike the masses due to its use mainly in the language of institutional politics, election, assumes a positive character. His replacement "masses", in contrast, plays a negative role. If people can only mean the part of the poorest population, or its entirety, so does "mass". Where the term comes "masses"?

"... The first analyzes realize that the term 'mass' was originally used to describe the new society of the late nineteenth century and its respective culture. Under these conditions, in Western Europe, already living in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, it creates social and political conditions that determine the appearance of modern class society. Since then, the notion of 'people' became gradually being replaced by the concept of 'mass' "(Caldas, 1987, p. 30).

Interestingly, the author does not define this concept, but moves on to the "mass society" and "mass culture". This would be characterized by isolation, loss of individuality, standardization, the individual atomization and standardized culture. However, the ideas of "mass culture" and "mass society" are ideological. But the initial problem lies in the very term "mass". What is mass? It is a term that produces effects similar to the people term: is inaccurate (so much so that does not define who is a "mass" but the "mass culture" and "mass society") homogenizer (the batter is homogeneous, as "the people"), and abstract-metaphysical, as there is concretely. Thus, the masses would be homogenous as the media. But the masses, such as people, lack uniformity. In the broad sense of these terms (while the entire population), we must realize that there is the division of social classes, putting numerous differences and social antagonisms, not to mention the various subdivisions. In the narrower sense (as the poorest part of the population, or the "lower classes"), these terms are also not homogeneous, for the proletariat, the peasantry, the lumpenproletariat are very different and despite similarities, can not be placed all under one label.

But now let us return to our criticism of the term "mass media". Both sender, the media, and the receiver, the masses, are constructs that explain nothing of social relationship in question. The big question is to understand the communication process and their differences in capitalist society. It is an ideological discourse. The theses of mass society and mass culture are ideological, but we will not here carry out the criticism of these positions, defended by American authors, because our focus here is the thought that is considered critical and which uses the terminology means of mass communication. Adorno had already noticed that the masses are the "ideology of the culture industry":

"The cultural industry is the deliberate integration, from the high of its consumers. It forces the union of domains, separated for millennia, the top art and less art. A loss for both. The high art is seen frustrated their seriousness by speculation about the effect; the lower loses through its civilizing domestication, the nature element tough and rude, that it was inherent as social control was not total. To the extent that this cultural process industry undeniably speculates on the state of consciousness and unconsciousness of millions of persons to whom it is addressed, the masses are not, then the first factor, but a secondary element, a calculation element; accessory machinery. The customer is not king, as the cultural industry would have us believe, it is not subject of this industry, but its object. The term mass media, which was introduced to designate the cultural industry, deviates from the outset, the emphasis on what is harmless. It is neither the masses first, or communication techniques as such, but the spirit which is inflated them, namely the voice of his master. The cultural industry abuses consideration with respect to the masses to reiterate, firm and strengthen the mentality of these, it takes as given a priori and unchanging. It excluded everything that this attitude could be transformed. The masses are not the measure but the ideology of the culture industry, although the latter can not exist without them adapt "(Adorno, 1977, p. 93).

Adorno at the same time realizes the lack of reference to the media and the masses, can not fully overcome this reified language. Thus, the masses are passive objects before the all-powerful cultural industry. But Adorno just exchange one for another fetishist design as it makes the culture industry a fetish, something so smooth and metaphysical as the media or the masses. The same problem is in Edgar Morin, who from the 30s in the United States and then around the world, mass culture is altered to address "all", the "general public". Now here is confused communication technological means with the communication or the concrete manifestations of the media. We will address this further, however, here it is clear that said "general public" is another face of the ideology of the "masses."

After recognizing that the ideology of the mass media is an obstacle to be overcome, it is necessary to overcome it effectively, not only through criticism, but also through the explanation of the phenomenon that such hidden ideology.

2nd THESIS:

IDEOLOGY OF CULTURAL INDUSTRY IS ANOTHER OBSTACLE TO BE OVERCOME

As put earlier, the formulation by Adorno and Horkheimer of the term "cultural industry" means not only the creation of a word, but a meaning and a design, which is, after all, similar to the "media mass communication ". Therefore, we must also overcome the ideology of cultural industry. No doubt, like every ideology, both have elements of truth. Also does not go into discussion the concept of Adorno and Horkheimer carry more moments of truth than the ideology of "mass media". But Adorno and Horkheimer are attached to the reified linguistic universe because of the lack of use of the dialectical method and a theoretical vision broader than capitalism, which, in turn, is derived from the lack of from the perspective of the proletariat. This is related to the historical context in which they produced their theses, which is the implementation of intensive-extensive regime of accumulation (Viana, 2003; Viana, 2008). In this context, the Frankfurt School, as a whole, despite the differences between their representatives express a limited critique of capitalism of his day. This reflects both a non-dialectic of cultural design industry, not observing its contradictions and relation to class struggle (see 8th thesis), as the non-perception of the critical-revolutionary potential of the proletariat, arising from his alleged integration in oligopolistic capitalism, thesis defended by Marcuse and others.

The idea of ​​cultural industry suffers, too, in a very limited conception of capitalism. The Frankfurt School, despite having some influence of Marx's thought, did not come from this author capitalist theory, except in a piecemeal manner and without further deepening. Adding to this perception, rather limited, which had society of his time, find the reason for this rather narrow view of capitalist dynamics. The most important point is the exclusion of analysis of the totality of social relations, that is, the exclusion of subordinate capitalism (at the time called "Third World"), which led to no perception of imperialism and its effects in the imperialist countries, such as the relative stability achieved at the expense of exploitation of the proletariat of other countries. The weakness of the analysis here, derived from that, it was to realize that such stability was merely relative and that was not eternal. Hence, even the pessimism that characterizes the majority of the representatives of the Frankfurt School.

The capitalist mode of production is expansionary, turning everything into a commodity. In this regard, the communication also becomes merchandise. The big question, however, is that it has a particular sector of the capital facing the exploitation of commercial communication. From the emergence of oligopolistic capitalism and its characteristics commanded by intensive-extensive accumulation regime, the new needs of the production process (such as radio, TV, etc., electronic devices that are commodities) and means of production of consumption as a strategy to counter the downward trend of the profit rate, strengthens or creates certain capital sectors. Including the commercial capital and services, but also the communication capital. The communicational capital is the one facing the capitalist investment in media companies, increasingly oligopolistic. It is a new sector of the capital, which already existed in embryonic form in the previous regime of accumulation, but becomes stronger and will produce a process of concentration and increasing centralization. So, rather than industry, a relatively neutral term and inaccurate, it is capital, which expresses social relations of exploitation and accumulation, as opposed to a mere production process not defined linguistically, as industry or company. It is the rule of capital in media companies, forming capitalist media companies that become, over time, oligopolistic. The communicational capital does not produce culture, art. It produces messages, dissemination, communication of artistic works, cultural or information. Your employees are salaried, others who do not have employment are remunerated through copyright, payment for services rendered, etc. Basically, one thing is a popular music composer produce a song, a novelist writing a novel, a screenwriter produce the screenplay for a film, another thing is to commercialization via distribution of cultural products made by communicational capital. Thus, the concept of cultural industry is vague and euphemistic, while the concept of communicational capital is accurate and not at all euphemistic: expresses the capitalist domination in the communication process via technological means.

3rd THESIS:

COMMUNICATION IS A SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP

To overcome the metaphysical abstractions is necessary to resume the conceptual foundations that make possible an analysis of the phenomenon in question. The fundamental concept in the issue of so-called "mass media" is the communication. The reified language also performs the objectification of the word. Our goal is to overcome this objectification.

Communication is a social relationship. It is a relationship between individuals and / or groups: "communication is the process by which the meanings are transmitted between people" (Stoetzel, p. 216). A similar way of defining communication is: "set up communications, so as any transmission of information through (a) issuance, (b) conduct and (c) receive (d) a" (Aranguren , p. 11). Thus, traditionally, the idea is that communication takes place via a transmitter and a receiver, in which a message is transmitted. However, it is not in direct or inter-relationship is to think of a "transmitter" and "receiver" because both would be, with rare exceptions, both senders and receivers. Thus, overcoming the difficulties of such definitions, we can say that communication is a social relationship in which certain individuals barter messages, which can be information, requests, ideas, feelings, etc. .

In this respect, the distinction between sender and receiver is overcome. However, communication can be, and indeed is distorted in certain social relations. This is a type of communication which is occurring between same in the same conditions. Thus, it is an equal communication. However, in certain social relations, this egalitarian communication is replaced by an authoritarian communication. In this context, the separation between sender and receiver gains a certain reality. Communication between teacher / student; dad son; employer / employee, literate / illiterate; expert / layperson, etc., it takes the form of an authoritarian communication, in which one takes precedence as transmitter and the other as a receiver. Thus, a participant becomes an authority, is having at his side the repressive power, financial, cultural or just because it is considered more "fit" for communication or for the transmission of a message.

The communication can occur only between two individuals or among more individuals. The communication between two individuals alike in the same conditions take the form of transfer, being equal. Communication between several individuals equal on equal terms, too. This is the case of communication between brothers, students and peasants, workers, intellectuals, in certain situations. Ie the egalitarian communication assumes that there is equality between individuals and conditions, as, for example, two (or more) intellectual (read, intellectual professionals) can discuss on equal terms in a bar table, but not in the situation a lecture in which one holds a near-monopoly of speech and the other is predominantly in the listening position.

So what distinguishes a form of communication other is the mode of communication. The communication mode is made socially and has, in each concrete society, certain expressions means. The equal communication mode, horizontal, horizontal and equitable use means, such as speech. Obviously, the authoritarian mode of communication, vertical, you can use the same means, but in a different way, because the dialogue between two children is different from adult-child dialogue, or between parent and child, in most cases.

4th THESIS:

THE TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATION HIKING TOWARDS oligopolization

In capitalist society, the expansion of communication technology or electronic media creates a new variety of forms of communication. But in every society of communication classes tends to be hegemonic authoritarian, vertical. Production of technological media, in turn, occurs in capitalist society and according to your logic. Electronic media benefit from technological development and serve the capital's reproduction process, to be goods. They are part of capitalist production and reproduction circuit are goods that are produced for profit and that are only accessible to those with capital to acquire them. Thus, the technological media, are commodities that generate income for certain sectors of the capital and are the means of production to other capital sectors, which make up the sector of media companies.

Thus, the technological media are private or state ownership. The capitalist media companies aim to profit from the form of the communication sector capital. Thus, communication products are goods. The communication becomes not only authoritarian, vertical, but also commercial and profitable. The message is no longer aim to be a medium. In this way, the message is transformed into a commodity, which has use value and exchange value, but the priority for the owners of the electronic media, is exchange value, while for consumers is the use value .

The great thing is that with capitalist development and communications sector, there is a growing process of concentration and centralization of capital. This creates, over time, the concentration and centralization of technological media, which become oligopolistic media, though not because they are technological, but because it is privately owned large companies, forming the communicational capital. So the authoritarian and vertical character expands, becoming a powerful instrument of social control and in the hands of a few capitalist enterprises. The big TV networks form oligopolies that drive communication via TV. Of course in other cases there is a greater variety, such as radio stations, but even these have networks and links with other institutions that make it possible to acquire the capital necessary for its existence. There is also a hierarchy, as in all capitalist production, between mega-companies, and others, to reach the small, but in the case of the latter, remains precariously. But the trend is the increasing concentration and centralization of technological media in a small group of oligopolistic firms.

The big problem, however, is not the "technological means of communication" but in the mode of communication established by capitalist society. It is an authoritarian mode of communication and this is amplified with the use of technological resources, who even are created according to the dynamics of capitalist society, both in the sense of deepening social division of labor, the commercialization, the the authoritarian communication. Thus, the inventors and those who finance them do not seek to produce technologies for an egalitarian communication but authoritarian. Hence the focus on production technologies that are used to issue, namely technological emitting media (in which establishing a whole-oriented technology for issuing - and not receiving - communication, or which has the ability to send a message to many receivers) and receivers communication means (technology that allows the "public" access to the message sent by issuers media). This technology building model is based on the authoritative communication, based on the distinction between sender and receiver.

So, while it creates a whole focused technology for sending messages, as all the technological infrastructure of radio and TV stations, it creates a whole focused technology for the reception, such as TV sets and Radio. In other cases, there is also a similar process, but because the technology involved is less vertical as the Internet. But in capitalist society, even the technological means that are constitutively less vertical, just due to the commodification process, concentration and centralization of capital, becoming hegemonizados and dominated by the major capitalist media companies. At first, for example, anyone can have a website, however, the most visited, accessed, they are those of large companies, including search services, etc. They are dominated by them.

5th THESIS:

COMMUNICATION is regulated by the STATE

The capitalist state carries out a regularization process of the set of social relations, including communication. Through legislation is introducing a system of censorship and control that prevents the free expression of communication. The state's role is not limited to this, because besides the power to legislate, control, enable (through concessions), it also has its own technological media and use them according to their needs, not fully commercial, but mainly political. Public networks prioritize information, educational programming and civility, the so-called "high culture" prioritizing political hegemony instead of profit. However, it gets stuck to the logic of reproduction of capitalist society, and is commanded by a sector state bureaucracy that controls the state media.

The state serves the interests of the dominant fractions of capital, and therefore benefits the oligopolistic capital. The oligopolistic capital of communication has expanded its force by the capitalist state, since this hinders through legislation, control, policy concessions, access to non-oligopolistic capitalist sectors and other sectors of society to the use of technological media. That is why there is a whole control policy and restrictions on the use of technological media, as seen in the fierce combat of the state against the community and alternative radio, etc., not to mention the current eagerness to want to control and regularize Internet. The political intent there, but the key reason for this repression and control is primarily to uphold the hegemony of oligopolistic capital of technological media, if only because not all fought initiatives are opposed to capitalism, and actually rare cases. Thus, with regard to the communication process through technological means, the state represents the interests of the communication capital. This, as has an immense persuasive power over the population, becoming decisive in electoral times, just exercising great influence also in governments and in their communication policies.

6th THESIS:

The communicational capital DOMINATES THE CULTURAL PRODUCTION

Large oligopolistic media companies dominate cultural production. The alternative cultural productions are not hegemonic and often share common elements produced by oligopolistic media. This domination is guaranteed through the process of concentration and centralization of capital on the one hand, and by state regulation, linked to oligopolistic interests on the other. Other cultural productions performed without the use of technological media have extremely limited scope and results.

The oligopoly of the expansion process of the media promotes communication imposition process that dictates the cultural, artistic and informational production. Cultural production generally passes to be elusive and in most cases of low quality. Are created also specialized market niches, for the privileged social classes or specific consumer groups, such as youth. Artistic production becomes dependent on oligopolistic companies of communication, which can create "fashions" and impose certain concepts, standards, productions. However, it often organizes this tax through consultation using an experimental process, that is, releasing certain artistic goods to see public acceptance, and if there is a relative acceptance, starts to broaden the dissemination and propagation. The informational production is in addition to the result of a selection guided by axiological criteria, often repetitive and founded on a global hierarchical network, through news agencies, television networks, etc. In addition, associated and related to, or at least dependent of the oligopolistic media companies, there is an entire cultural production sector (record companies, publishers, galleries, agencies, etc.) which reinforces its trends.

Cultural production out of communicational capital of the circuit is marginalized and influenced by it. In this regard, a wide cultural production is carried out, but it is not disclosed, since it does not rely on such companies and their means of dissemination. The cultural production that reaches the majority of the population is reported by oligopolistic companies such communication.

So the result of this communication production is the production of a mercantile culture (not "masses", where the focus becomes visas receivers homogeneously or negatively). The commercial culture is a culture to the market in search of its consumer market. It relates not the seemingly neutral mode of production to the "masses", but communication goods (artistic, informational, etc.) which are sold to the consumer market. The mercantile culture consists of goods that are sold or means to bandage of other products and are therefore exposed to much of the population, either through technological media or through commercial network that revolves around the cultural production.

7th THESIS:

CAPITAL ONE-DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATION communication GERA

The communication process performed by the oligopolistic business communication through technological means, performs a one-dimensional communication. This one-dimensional communication is manifested through the virtual absence of exchange between sender and receiver. Besides being an authoritarian and vertical communication, communication technology is also one-dimensional. The reason of technological communication is one-dimensional is due not only to the use of technological means of communication, but mainly due to the process of concentration and centralization of its use in the hands of large oligopolistic companies and how they are used.

Obviously, as already put such technological means are not neutral, are made from completed social relations and with specific purposes. However, its use is related to the property distribution process. There is a hierarchy in the use and effectiveness of using such means, but nevertheless, what makes the communication process mediated by more and extremely oppressive technology is the concentration and centralization of capital, training and hegemony of oligopolistic business communication.

These companies, in turn, not only uses emitting means of high-tech communication, as it does in a certain way. The technological communication mode dictated by these big companies is the imposition of futilização, trivialization and axiology, and / or the formation of a reified and ordinary consciousness. All this in order to play and approve the futile way of life set in contemporary capitalist society based on consumerism and disposable culture, next to the reproduction of dominant values ​​and false and ideological conceptions prevalent. The set of values, ideas, feelings, etc., which are passed by technological communication aimed precisely reproduce the process of domination and reproduction of capitalism in every way: creation of manufactured needs to achieve expanded reproduction of the consumer market, preventing the manifestation opposition to capitalist society, numb individuals.

8th THESIS:

The communicational capital PLAYS THE CLASS STRUGGLES

The expansion of the commodification of social relations that occurs with the emergence of intensive-extensive regime of accumulation, caused the birth of what has become accustomed to calling cultural industry. Your character handler (and conservative) has been reported numerous times. The naive view of the culture industry that considers a manifestation of the interest of the whole society, being a product of it and, therefore, a medium that exerts a beneficial effect on the population, playing what she wants to see, does not hold since the emergence of the various analyzes of the cultural industry from the classic work of Adorno and Horkheimer (1986).

For Adorno and Horkheimer, the cultural industry denies consumers what promises you. It is a factory of illusions and superficial consumption (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1986; Jay, 1988). These authors, the first to use the term "cultural industry", make a severe criticism of it. According to Adorno, "the cultural industry is the deliberate integration, from the high of its consumers" (Adorno, 1977, p. 287). The profit and the logic of capitalist production realize the commercialization of art and culture, producing "cultural goods":

"The cultural industry goods are oriented such as lecture Brecht and Suhrkamp there are already thirty years after the beginning of their marketing and not according to their own content and their proper figuration. The entire practice of the culture industry transfers without more, the profit motive to spiritual creations. From the moment where the goods ensure the life of the producers on the market, they are already contaminated by this motivation. But they did not aim profit but to mediate way, through its autonomous character. What is new in the cultural industry is the immediate and confess the primacy effect, which in turn is calculated precisely in its most typical products. The autonomy of works of art, which, it is true, almost never existed in pure form and that has always been marked by effect connections, we see the limit abolished by the cultural industry. With or without the conscious will of its promoters. These are both enforcement agencies as well as those in power. From an economic point of view, they were looking for new capital investment opportunities in more developed countries. The old possibilities become increasingly precarious due to the same process of concentration, which in just around the cultural industry makes it possible as powerful institution. A culture that, according to their own sense, not only obeyed the men but always protested against the sclerotic condition in which they live, and it did them honor; this culture because their total assimilation to men, it becomes integrated into this sclerotic condition; thus, it demeans men once again. The spirit productions in the style of the culture industry are no longer also commodities, but they are full. This shift is so great that raises entirely new phenomena. After all, the cultural industry is no longer obliged to aim everywhere to cultural profit interests and sometimes have emancipated themselves from the compulsion to sell the cultural commodities which, anyway, should be absorbed "(Adorno, 1977, p. 289) .

The culture industry produces a standardization and rationalization of cultural production while also conserves "forms of individual production" (Adorno, 1977), or, according to Morin, produces a "standardization-individualisation" (Morin, 2006). It is, however, a pseudo individualist in which the advertising and handling a fundamental role (Slater, 1978). This whole process reproduces the interests of the ruling class. The culture industry produces a standardization and manipulation of culture, reproducing the dynamics of any other capitalist industry, the pursuit of profit, but also reproducing the ideas that serve to its own perpetuation and legitimation and, by extension, the capitalist society as a whole.

This position has some questionable points, although it is possible to agree with some of his theses. The first question has to perform call into question the very term "cultural industry" and replace it with capital communication. Here we highlight the reception view of the production of "cultural industry" on the population. The communicational capital really performs a one-dimensional communication, one-sided. As Baudrillard puts, "TV is, by the very presence, social control at home of each" (Baudrillard, 1978). The TV displays messages produced by an elite of experts who are, like it or not, the service of the ruling class. It is also true that their viewers do not send a message (or counter-message) back. This is true for most oligopolistic media. The section of letters in newspapers and magazines, applications and interviews on radio and TV are very limited and marginalized (and are selected according to the interests of who owns these media). Our disagreement is on two points overlooked by the cultural industry of Adorno's conception (and others who encampam and reproduce): the question of reception of the cultural industry and the non-perception of its contradictions.

The issue of receipt allows us to realize that the process of standardization and manipulation does not occur in virgin lands without any obstacles. People on the communicational capital are not empty vessels. The exploited classes do not assimilate the messages conveyed in the manner intended by their issuing. There is the very interpretation of the message assimilation placed under the consciousness of the recipient. For party intellectual one "Communist" a novel that features a character "communist" who abandons such a position appears to him as a dangerous and ideological anti-communist propaganda (Numerian, 1990). For a worker such particularity of the novel is not interested because the meaning of "communism" for it is another, being off of its values ​​and its interests. So if there was the intention to produce an anti-communist propaganda, which is debatable, it has very limited effects. The interpretation of each class (which also features internal differences and subdivisions) of the received message is related to his conscience and with the values ​​that can only be understood based on the analysis of their way of life. According to Anton Pannekoek,

"Among the workers and the bourgeoisie, a cultural community can only be superficial and apparently sporadically. Workers can read the same books of the bourgeoisie, the same classic and the same works of natural history, this was not reflected any cultural community. Being totally divergent fundamentals of his thought and his view of the world, workers read these works something totally different that bourgeoisie "(Pannekoek, 1980, p. 105).

Pannekoek states that no national culture hangs in the air like clouds and an expression of the material history of social class life. We live in a class society and this brings the social classes, according to the social division of labor, have different ways of life and therefore observe and interpret reality differently. Thus, class consciousness and the representations that are produced by social classes differ and, although they also have elements in common, since the "ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class", such differentiation interfere with the reception of cultural goods and culture in general. Thus, does not hold the view that the masses would be passive recipients of mass media. In this type of analysis does not see any contradiction in the process of sending and receiving the message and implanted the absolute rule of the bourgeoisie by the cultural industry. By eliminating the contradictions also eliminates the possibility of change.

Another element that must be taken into consideration is the existence of contradictions within the communicational capital. It performs two types of advertising: the ideological and commercial (Sweezy, 1977). The first reproduces the dominant ideology, both naturalized in art plan and fantasy (novels, movies, novels, fiction, comic books, music, etc.), as giving a certain interpretation of reality (newspapers, news, reports, etc.) based on a selection of events, interviews, etc. turning it into everyday, easily digested representations, and expressing the dominant values. This propaganda is carried out by who has control of the oligopolistic media and is often intentional, but not always.

Newscasts, newspapers, interviews, etc. representing a selection made by those who have control of the oligopolistic media will be re-interpreted for whom access to them, that is, there is a "selection" of what was "selected". The same is true as regards to art and fantasy, which also offers the possibility of a more open interpretation, since it does not have to be compared with the reality or being subject to thought "logical".

In addition to the interpretation of ideological propaganda vary according to who performs, there is another contradiction that undermines their effectiveness: the contradiction between propaganda and reality. An example is the incentive that the ideological propaganda (and commercial) seeks to provide to consumerism, to the struggle for social mobility and the lifting status, which strengthens the dominant bourgeois ideology and integration in capitalist society, but at the same time strengthens discontent with bourgeois society (and counter-ideology) of those sectors of society unable to materialize what has been encouraged by the oligopolistic media. The contradiction between the ideological propaganda and reality is another element alongside the cultural differences that prevent the absolute rule of the bourgeoisie through the communicational capital.

On top of that, the communicational capital can not become immune to the actions that are contrary to its goals. Despite the vigilance of the owners of the oligopolistic media and bureaucrats to direct along with pressure from advertisers, the very oligopolistic competition makes room for artistic production, informational, cultural, etc. criticism. This is due to the necessity of hearing, public or bandage, that is, the conservatives themselves (owners, bureaucrats, advertisers) are often driven to take actions contrary to its interests or objectives. However, one should not forget the ambiguity of these critical messages and trying to "adapt" them to the needs of capital made by its agents.

Commercial advertising is growing in importance with the oligopoly of capitalist production that transfers the price competition for space advertising, which is based not only on price but also in the promotion of "quality", "convenience", "income", " utility "," fashion ", etc. The oligopolistic capitalism that emerged after World War II marks a whole commodification process of deepening and bureaucratization of social relations and also marks the displacement of capitalist investments in the sphere of means of consumption, because of its need for expanded reproduction of the consumer market (Viana , 2003). It is in this historical context that increases the competition for the consumer market and the attempt of its expansion with the formation of manufactured needs (Viana 2002). Advertising plays a key role in this context because it remains true that "production creates consumption" (Marx, 1983) and that "advertising is the lifeblood of business."

In addition to expressing the stage of oligopolistic capitalism, the use of advertising competition aims to slow the development of productive forces through spending on new type of competition that shifts resources that would be applied in the accumulation of capital. However, the growing increase in advertising expenditures is accompanied by rising prices for products and elitism of consumers of certain goods released by advertising. If advertising is an incentive to consumption, it is at the same time, an impediment to consumption; it creates the will of consumption and at the same time, its impossible for certain social groups, and thereby create new social conflicts. However, in the imperialist bloc countries (US, Western Europe, etc.), that due to technological advancement and exploitation of subordinates capitalist countries, via more value transfer, provides a higher level of consumption that reaches even classes exploited and oppressed social groups.

The capitalist state also seeks to control the dissemination of culture via cultural industry. And this not only through the legislative apparatus but also through their own media companies. Both seek to reach the widest possible audience, although the emphasis of the private sector is the maximization of profit and the state sector in political propaganda. The private sector privileges, so public and state sector Your message:

"(...) The private system want, above all, to please the consumer. He will do everything to recreate, enjoy, within the limits of censorship. The state system wants to convince, educate: on the one hand, tends to propagate an ideology that can annoy or irritate; On the other hand, it is not driven by profit and may propose values ​​of 'high culture' (scientific lectures, classical music, classical works). The private system is alive, because fun. Want to adapt their culture to the public. The state system is affected, forced. The public wants to adapt to their culture "(Morin, 2006, p. 254).

One should not, however, forget that the state sector also aims to profit, although secondarily and the private sector, when you want to reach an elite audience, can also encourage so-called "high culture". But what we have here is one of the main divisions within the communicational capital, which is not a homogeneous whole. The pressure of certain sectors of society and the existence of segments within the communication capital that targets specific audiences (young people, intellectuals, etc.) open small loopholes that give rise to new contradictions within it.

Therefore, the communicational capital is not just stabilizer of capitalist society, but also player of its contradictions. Oligopolists media are not "neutral" and serve the interests of capital. Capital communication was produced by capitalist society and is subject to the social division of labor typical of this society. The bourgeoisie of the communication sector dominates not directly, but through their employees, ie the bureaucracy. This is subject to not only direct pressure from the owners of the oligopolistic media, but also by the pressure of the specific needs of capitalist enterprises requiring productivity and profit and puts these means in dependence of its advertisers. Added to this the limited vision of "communication bureaucrats" generated by what Marx called "idiocy of specialization" and we see that regardless of the bourgeoisie and capital dynamic, bureaucracy reproduce the bureaucratic mode of communication and the low level which is typical of these media.

9th THESIS:

A NEW WAY OF COMMUNICATION IS NECESSARY

From the analysis of the hegemony of authoritarian communication and the predominance of one-dimensional communications conducted by communicational capital, we need to understand the need for a new form of communication. This means that the equal, horizontal communication, it is a goal to be reached and its implementation must begin now. In this sense, communication in social movements, the opposition groups to capitalism, the set of social relations in which the goal is social transformation, shall not reproduce the capitalist mode of communication. Beside this, in the process of class struggle, the production of alternative technological means, founded on egalitarian communication, should be driven. Furthermore, and in addition, you can use the gaps of communication and media capital (oligopolistic or not) technological communication exist to carry out the criticism of the mercantile and bureaucratic world established by capitalism and propose a radically different society.

10th THESIS:

FOR PROCESSING AND SOCIALIZATION MEDIA COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

The socialization of technological media is one of the first steps to break the rule of capital. This process of socialization, however, does not mean nationalization, which would mean no more than change the bureaucrats who run such means, or to merge the old bureaucrats with new bureaucrats. This is an authentic socialization, held from the population to be taken by the self-management of technological media, to her cause several changes and make such means be collective rather than private.

Thus, the socialization of technological means of communication means, among other things, for processing. The large networks of centralized and bureaucratically controlled TV are replaced by free communication performed live and in different territorial points. In addition to local programming, a city which has part of its program drawn up by the neighborhood councils and partly by the spontaneous participation of the residents, there are regional or national programming, as national borders still exist, even if artificially due to clashes with the ruling class in other countries, which is held in part by a regional council chosen among the delegates of districts or communal councils, and partly by the relay between programming drafted by several communal councils spread throughout the society. Thus, the program becomes self-managed by the community and the technological means become accessible to the population.

Beside this, new technological media should be created (perhaps even to merge more vertical technological means, such as TV, with more horizontal means such as the internet, seeking to turn the vertical to horizontal) to allow the socialization process cultural, artistic and informational production, as well as the technological means for its realization.

Thus a new society requires new uses and new technological media. The abolition of communicational capital, along with the abolition of the state, implementing social self-management, creates the social conditions for a new mode of communication, egalitarian and horizontal.

References

ADORNO, T. & HORKHEIMER, M. Dialética do Esclarecimento. 2ª edição, Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar, 1986.

ADORNO, Theodor. Indústria Cultural. In: In: COHN, Gabriel (org.). Comunicação e Indústria Cultural. São Paulo, Nacional, 1977.

ARANGUREN, J. L. Comunicação Humana. Uma Sociologia da Informação. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1975.

BARAN, Paul & SWEEZY, Paul. Teses Sobre a Propaganda. In: COHN, Gabriel (org.). Comunicação e Indústria Cultural. São Paulo, Nacional, 1977.

BAUDRILLARD, Jean. A Sociedade de Consumo. Lisboa, Edições 70, 1978.

CALDAS, W. Cultura de Massas e Política de Comunicações. São Paulo, Global, 1987.

ENZENSBERGER, H. M. Elementos para uma Teoria dos Meios de Comunicação. Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro, 1979.

JAY, Martin. As Idéias de Adorno. São Paulo, Cultrix, 1988.

MARX, K. Contribuição à Crítica da Economia Política. São Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1983.

MORIN, Edgar. Indústria Cultural. In: MARTINS, J. S. & FORACCHI, M. (orgs.). Sociologia e Sociedade. Leituras Introdutórias em Sociologia. São Paulo, LTC, 1978.

NUMERIANO, Roberto. Mass Media e Dominação Burguesa. Revista Brasil Revolucionário. Ano II, no 07, Dez. 1990.

PANNEKOEK, Anton. Luta de Classe e Nação. In: PINSKY, Jaime (org.). Questão Nacional e Marxismo. São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1980.

SLATER, Phil. Origem e Significado da Escola de Frankfurt. Uma Perspectiva Marxista. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar, 1978.

STOETZEL, Jean. Psicologia Social. 3ª Edição, São Paulo, Nacional, 1976.

VIANA, Nildo. Estado, Democracia e Cidadania. A Dinâmica da Política Institucional no Capitalismo. Rio de Janeiro, Achiamé, 2003.

VIANA, Nildo. O Capitalismo na Era da Acumulação Integral. mimeo. 2008.

VIANA, Nildo. Os Valores na Sociedade Moderna. Brasília, Thesaurus, 2007.

VIANA, Nildo. Universo Psíquico e Reprodução do Capital. In: QUINET, Antonio e outros. Psicanálise, Capitalismo e Cotidiano. Goiânia, Edições Germinal, 2002.

WERNECK SODRÉ, N. Introdução à Revolução Brasileira. São Paulo, Ciências Humanas, 1978.