HOBSBAWM'S MAGIC OR PSEUDOMARXISM IN DEFENSE OF CAPITALISM
Nildo Viana / UFG
Recently the historian Eric Hobsbawm produced an article in which he addresses what he calls the failure of socialism and the breakdown of capitalism, presenting a possible way out of this situation. This is a short article published in The Guardian, an English newspaper (Hobsbawm, 2009).
Below we will develop a controversy around that text, due to its theoretical and methodological basis, the values and conceptions incorporated in the text, its practical and political consequences. In controversial texts, it is common to use certain resources, among them irony, in addition to other resources. A controversial text, too, can distance itself - and it is what happens in the present case - from the academic canons of writing and debate, because in war (controversy is a term derived from polemics, a Greek word that means war) structures cannot be followed fixed formalities, neutrality and insensitivity. In this sense, we return to Karl Marx:
“ War on the German state of affairs! It is certain that they are below the level of history, below all criticism, but it remains, despite this, an object of criticism, just as the criminal, for not being below the level of humanity, is still the object of the executioner . In the fight against them, criticism is not a passion of the brain, but the brain of passion. It is not the anatomical scalpel, but a weapon. Its object is the adversary, which does not seek to refute, but to destroy. The spirit of those situations has already been refuted. They are not worth remembering; they must be dismissed as outlawed stocks. There is no need for criticism to clarify this object in front of itself, as it no longer deals with it. This criticism is not conducted as an end in itself, but simply as a means. Its essential feeling is indignation; its essential task, the denunciation ” (Marx, 1978, p. 3-4 ) .
Thus, the motivation of this text is indignation and its task is denunciation. For this reason, it is a controversial text and carries out what Marx called “ merciless criticism of what exists ” (Marx, and Engels, 1979). The vain and cold neutrality is not found here and this is in accordance with the theory that is at its base and signifies the intellectual coherence of the author, unlike others who call themselves “ Marxists ” and prefer to carry out the defense of the indefensible, all for maintain appearances and leave the building of ideologies and the commitment to conservative institutions intact, and also seek space in them. Here is a serious problem in the academic sphere: disputes in the academic world are about issues that can be very abstract and distant, but which nevertheless reveals, in the background, the interests of those in dispute. Defending an author is always self-defense . Valuing a particular author who is the object of study is self-valuing, because that way you research something relevant. Criticism of an author may seem - and often is - just competition in the scientific sphere to achieve recognition, success, status, and so on. Bourdieu has done an interesting study on this (Bourdieu, 1994 ).
However, the problem lies in not overcoming Bourdieu, that is, not realizing that in the scientific sphere (or, as he says, " scientific field " ) there may be (as in other fields, which is absent from the analysis of the French sociologist) , those who are not in the internal competition with internal objectives but belong to the sphere professionally , but not in their mentality and projects. These also struggle. And for what reason? For representatives of the academic and scientific sphere, who live it in the form of immanence, this is absurd and something impossible. If someone does any criticism or defense, it is academic competition, because that is how these analysts do, are and think. That is why it is necessary to go beyond Bourdieu and rescue Marx, returning to the idea of totality and noting that in addition to the various forms of competition in different spheres of social relations (expressions of the social division of labor), there are class struggles, which they seek not only an institutional space and to carry out “ institutional practices ” , but to overcome the existing society, which presupposes the overcoming of the very sphere to which one belongs and with which one does not identify. Therefore, in addition to the struggles within the sphere, the most common and that do not exceed the level of social competition (capitalist sociability), there are struggles against the sphere, that is, anti-spherical, which denies the social division of labor.
After this brief explanation, there is still, before starting , a clarification on the criticism of the text made below. Obviously, that many zealous supporters of Hobsbawm, will be able to argue that it is a mere newspaper article and, therefore, without much development and reasoning (some may even recognize that it is weak and mistaken). It is undoubtedly a newspaper text that has been reproduced on several internet sites and, therefore, obviously, could not have a certain level of development and depth. However, what is criticized is not the lack of development and depth, that is, what is not present in the text, but what is present in it and, therefore, despite the limits of size and possibility of development, it was said. Likewise, if I were the author of the text and having the same space and vehicle, I would write something radically different. The fact that it was a newspaper article would not prevent Hobsbawm from developing fundamental ideas, and does not do so because he does not have them, due to his position. And it is exactly your position that is criticized here. After that clarification, let's move on to the analysis of the text.
Hobsbawm's text published in The Guardian was translated and published in Brazil on the Carta Maior website and reproduced on numerous websites. In almost everyone Hobsbawm is presented as a " Marxist historian " . It is still curious how the label “ Marxist ” is applied so easily to people who do not even share the fundamental theses of Marxism, much less its totality or its ultimate goal: social self-management. This is the case for a group of academic thinkers and researchers, such as the famous historian Eric J. Hobsbawn, who always avoided discussing contemporary history because he disagreed with the official version of his party and did not have enough courage to challenge it. Not a bit of a Marxist attitude, because cowardice is not part of those who want to “ doubt everything ” and carry out “ merciless criticism of what exists ” . So, could Hobsbawm be considered a Marxist? Undoubtedly, to qualify or not a given author as a Marxist, it is necessary to define what Marxism is. Marxism is nothing but the “ theoretical expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat ” (Korsch, 2008; Viana, 200 8). And this theory, inaugurated by Marx and developed by some other theorists, has certain essential characteristics that, once absent, mark the non-Marxist character even though it is apparently and superficially. Trends that are not a theoretical expression of such a movement, even if they say they are " Marxists " , cannot be so considered. In these cases, it would be more appropriate to use the expression pseudomarxism (Viana, 2007). In this sense, stating that a given author is a pseudomarxist is not, as some people think, an offense, it is just the realization that he is not a Marxist and claims to be a Marxist and that, therefore, it is something else. This other thing is varied, it can be Stalinism, for example. Stalinism is pseudomarxism, but not all pseudomarxism is Stalinism, since it takes many forms. The word pseudomarxism, therefore, is not an offense but a term that is linked to several other terms, forming a conceptual universe, a theory, and, therefore, it is a reasoned and coherent discussion and not merely a pejorative adjective.
In this sense, Hobsbawm's work cannot be considered a Marxist. This is expressed in the aforementioned article by Hobsbawm. And the fact that it is a newspaper article does not change this, since a Marxist text, however brief and undeveloped, presents the essential aspects of this way of thinking and, therefore, there is no way out of it. Below we transcribe some excerpts and then comment on its content .
The title of Hobsbawm's text is suggestive ("Socialism failed, capitalism broke: what's next?" ) , Although it may not be Hobsbaw's but the newspaper's or even the translator's. First, it reproduces the dominant ideology and the idea of qualifying the dictatorial regimes of state capitalism (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe, etc.) as socialism. Also, puts an opposition between a statist capitalism (and the ideology of Hobsbaw m , " public " ) and private capitalism, both of which showed its shortcomings and from this comes the rabbit out of the hat: a mixed solution: more state less capital.
The Bolshevik formula (state capitalist) is + State - Capital, the liberal / neoliberal formula is + Capital - State and these two formulas have failed, so the third formula remains, the social-democratic / labor: Capital + State, that is, the maintenance and balance of the two elements. All three forms move within the capitalist logic and bourgeois mentality, that is, they do not go beyond a poor political realism and a refocused and manipulative conscience, which, in the face of reality, can only manipulate its elements, but never think beyond them.
“ Whichever ideological logo we adopt, the shift from the free market to public action must be greater than politicians imagine. The 20th century is already behind us, but we have not yet learned to live in the 21st century, or at least to think about it in an appropriate way. It shouldn't be as difficult as it sounds, given that the basic idea that dominated economics and politics in the past century has clearly disappeared through the sink of history. What we had was a way of thinking about modern industrial economies - indeed all economies - in terms of two mutually exclusive opposites: capitalism or socialism ”(Hobsbawm, 2009).
Another rabbit comes out of the hat here. In fact, two. The first rabbit that comes out of Hobsbawn's magic hat, is to solve the current financial crisis, is to " change the way of thinking " , going beyond the emphasis on the free market or the state monopoly. After this magic rabbit comes out of the hat, it is easy to think that, “ changing the way of thinking ” , politicians (professionals, who are part of this reality and Hobsbawn would never allow themselves to abolish something, but just dispose of it differently) will discover that the weight of public action must be greater than they “ imagine ” . The first rabbit is " changing the way of thinking " (of course, a very moderate change, in which the plus and minus between capital and state is re-balanced and never abolished) and the second rabbit is " the voluntarism of professional politicians " to put this into practice (another change in quantity, and never abolition of bureaucrats and professional politicians).
But , if we think about it, we will see a third bouncing rabbit that originated in Hobsbawm's magic head and that, transferred magically to the top hat, comes out like a bud in the journalistic world: the problem of the current world is one of mere perception and goodwill , and so we will live in the “ best of all possible worlds ” , according to the pseudomarxist Panglossian historian. If you were a Marxist, you would know that in addition to “ perception ” and “ goodwill ” , there is the accumulation of capital and its dynamics, class interests, and the impossibility of returning to the world of the integrating State (“social welfare”, provide Keynesian), as this contradicts the need for profit maximization and if there were any government stupid enough to do so, it would cause a deepening of the problems of capitalist accumulation today.
But let's see other pearls that come out of the magic head of this pseudomarxist Houdini:
“ Impotence, therefore, threatens both those who believe in pure and privatized market capitalism, a kind of bourgeois anarchism, and those who believe in a planned and decontaminated socialism of the search for profits. Both are broken. The future, like the present and the past, belongs to mixed economies in which the public and the private are mutually linked in one way or another. But how? This is the problem that is set before us today, particularly for people on the left ”(Hobsbawm, 2009).
The magic of words manifests itself again: once privatism and statism (private capitalism and state capitalism, lest we give in to the siren call of Hobsbawn's ideological constructs / words and their magical effect), what remains is to mix the two. Hobsbawn puts his magic top hat on the table, throws a handful of manure and a glass of gall and then takes out a delicious orange juice that he offers to his audience, especially the most credulous, who will have the courage to try this explosive mixture.
The Our illusionist can not get enough to fool us with their tricks and says that this kind of magic is the problem that arises to the left ... But, as it is all illusion, then your proposal is actually the output for pseudo-left dressed as a Marxist, that is, social democracy, which, magically, he wants to resurrect. But nothing is impossible for a prestigious like him. He even accuses social democracy of committing himself to neoliberalism, a word that disappeared in his text, which is common for a magician.
He continues tirelessly with his tricks:
“ In fact, from the moment of the fall of the USSR until today, I do not remember any party or leader that denounced capitalism as something unacceptable. And none has been more linked to his luck than New Labor, the new British labor. In their economic policies, both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (this one until October 2008) could be qualified without exaggeration like Thatchers with pants. The same applies to the Democratic Party in the United States ” (Hobsbawm, 2009).
What he says in this excerpt is that everyone became neoliberal, although that word was magically transferred to another dimension and became: “ Thatchers with pants ” . This was the problem of English labor, that is, it was not the impossibility of maintaining the Integrationist State, but following Thatcher's ideas (in another dimension: neoliberalism). And capitalism is no longer unacceptable, since, since the fall of the USSR, no party leader, no bureaucrat, has appeared in Hobsbawm's memory, to say the opposite and, therefore, he has become acceptable. This is Hobsbawm's criterion.
However, in this magical world, anything is possible, including capitalism with " equitable distribution " :
“ The basic idea of new labor, since 1950, was that socialism was unnecessary and that the capitalist system could be trusted to make it flourish and generate more wealth than any other system. All the socialists had to do was to ensure an equitable distribution ” .
Therefore, “ more than any other system ” , capitalism could flourish and generate more wealth. Hobsbawn's magic here is not to say to whom, how and why ... Undoubtedly, with his art of disappearance, Hobsbawn disappeared the fact that capitalism today produces more commodities (products, wealth, whatever the name that if you want to give to material and also cultural goods) like never before seen in the history of mankind and that, at the same time, there has never been such a high level of hunger in the world Another Hobsbawn magic : he manages to transform himself into the Brazilian minister of the 1970s, during the military dictatorship, Delfim Neto: “ let's make the cake grow, then we'll distribute it ” !! The world is full of magicians !!! And so they make socialism unnecessary, since capitalism produces more wealth than any system, including socialism. Just ensure equitable and ready distribution.
However, the magic doesn't stop there. Labor was right, it is possible for capitalism to grow and distribute wealth more equitably. This, however, did not happen ... and this is where the new Hobsbawsian trick appears:
“ But since 1970, the accelerated growth of globalization has hampered and fatally hit the traditional base of the British Labor Party and, in reality, the aid and support policies of any social democratic party. Many people, in the 1980s, considered that if the labor boat did not want to go down, which was a real possibility, it had to be updated ” .
The pseudo-Marxist Labor has to defend his party. He had the right perception and the right path. The problem was such globalization !! The fact that Labor has become " Thatchers with pants " has magically disappeared, but anything is possible in the magical world of Hobsbawn. And the word magic, which is curiously one of the few spells he did not take out of his hat, as it is in the public domain of all illusionists, “ globalization ”, explains everything without explaining anything. Social democracy has failed. Interestingly, Hobsbawm had realized that “socialism” (state capitalism) had failed, privatism (neoliberalism) had broken down and did not notice that before both social democracy had been imploded and now he wants to resuscitate it (his magical gifts of resuscitation work in this case, only with social democracy).
The excerpt below just deserves to be cited for the disappearance of the word “ neoliberalism ” from the Hobsbawsian dictionary:
“ But it wasn't. Under the impact of what it considered the Thatcherist economic revitalization, New Labor, from 1997, swallowed the ideology, or rather theology, of the fundamentalism of the global free market. The UK deregulated its markets, sold its industries to those who paid the most, stopped making products for export (contrary to what Germany, France and Switzerland did) and invested all its money in its conversion to a world center for financial services, making it is also a paradise for billionaire money launderers. Thus, the current impact of the global crisis on the pound and the British economy is likely to be the most catastrophic of all Western economies and the one with the most difficult recovery as well ” (Hobsbawm, 2009).
Hobsbawn advances in his magic by presenting the recipe for a magic potion:
“ It is possible to affirm that all of these are past waters. That we are free to return to the mixed economy and that the old labor toolbox is there for us - including nationalization - so that all we need to do is use those tools again that New Labor never stopped using ” (Hobsbawn, 2009).
There, everything is solved. Just take the Hobsbawsian recipe and you're done. But he says: “ However, this idea suggests that we know what to do with the tools. But it’s not like that ” . Yes, there are problems, because “ we don't know how to overcome the current crisis. There is no one, neither governments, nor central banks, nor the world's financial institutions, who know what to do: everyone is like a blind man trying to get out of the maze by groping the walls with all kinds of sticks in the hope of finding the way out ” . Yes, we have the idea, the goodwill and the recipe. But, just as there was globalization (...) now we have another stone in the way: " the current crisis " , other magic words that explain everything without explaining anything.
But, “ on the other hand, we underestimate the persistent degree of dependence on governments and policy makers on free market revenues, which they have enjoyed so much for decades ” . Yes, there is the Hobsbawsian labor recipe, but you are delighted with the other recipe ... Did governments “ get rid of the basic assumption that profit-driven private enterprise is always the best and most effective way of doing things? ” And so many other questions that are on the same level serve as an accusation process. Interestingly, he speaks of the “ growing gulf between billionaires and the rest of the population is not so important, since everyone else - except a minority of the poor - is a little bit better? ” And more curious is his assumption that the cause of all this is just a certain political and economic conception, never named, but it is called by others more courageous as neoliberal.
The neoliberal word disappears, but the culprits are neoliberals, their conceptions and practices. The labor income was incomplete and Hobsbawn decides to complete it: “ However, a progressive policy requires more than a slightly greater break with the economic and moral assumptions of the past 30 years. It requires a return to the conviction that economic growth and the abundance it brings are a means, not an end. The ends are the effects they have on people's lives, vital possibilities and expectations ” . Therefore, everything is a problem of belief that the ends are people and growth is only a means. He wants to collapse the dynamics of capitalism with a mere conviction and wants to do the magic of maintaining capitalism without " economic growth " (profit) being the end and becoming " means " . Here is a pseudomarxist who knows nothing about capitalism.
The examples he cites are proof of his wonderful magic: people are means and not ends and more examples just make this explicit, whether about school and social inequality or any other. And he still wants to preserve his miraculous recipes: “ the proof of a progressive policy is not private, but public. It is not only about the increase in profits and consumption of individuals, but also the expansion of opportunities and, as Amartya Sen says, the capacities of all through collective action ” . For Hobsbawn to be able to perform this spell, however, he needs another previous spell: to make a giant top hat appear, the size of the terrestrial globe, to accomplish this.
Hobsbawn's magic words are absurd:
“ Nowhere will this be more important than in the fight against the biggest problem we face in this century: the environmental crisis. Whatever the ideological logo we adopt, it will mean a far-reaching shift from the free market to public action, a change greater than that proposed by the British government. And, taking into account the severity of the economic crisis, it should be a quick move. Time is not on our side ” (Hobsbawm, 2009) .
Finally, Hobsbawn wants profit not to be the end, no more environmental destruction, equitable income distribution, and people to be the purpose of government action and economic growth. A gigantic magic! Capitalism without capitalism !! Only the great Hobsbawn to promote such illusion! Just the magic potion of Hobsbawsian labor and that's it !!
The world of magicians is really wonderful, as it manages to produce capital accumulation without concentration and centralization, environmental destruction, etc., all this with a mere change of “ ideas ” and “ convictions ” , without changing concrete social relations, and of government . In other words, a very prosaic magic in the world of institutional politics and professional politicians: just change the government that “ everything changes ” (without changing anything! Here is the magic !!). And to say that you forgot class struggle, capital accumulation, totality and several other fundamental concepts and categories of Marxism and necessary to understand capitalism is due only to the size of the text or the fact that it is a journalistic text, it is to be as magical as Hobsbawn. . Thus, fierce and radical communists, anarchists and autonomists, when writing short texts would also end up defending social democracy ... Capitalism produces an enchantment and also humorist assistants to magicians.
However, Hobsbawn is a good magician only with words and for those who cannot follow the speed of their movements with the cups and coins in their constant zigzag . Basically, what Hobsbawn proposes is to create life from death, that is, to solve insoluble problems with the raw material he uses, just as Doctor Frankenstein did with his creature. However, to magically create this monster, it creates its own destruction, that the fund will be the walking death alimentand the life like zombies. Hobsbawn is a zombie creator, and if such a creature were born, that is, a statist labor government, it would devour its creator, a historian who does not hide the “ limits of his bourgeois conscience ” (Marx , 1988 ). However, he is just another magician among so many others out there.
References:
BOURDIEU, Pierre. The Scientific Field . In: ORTIZ, Renato (org.). Bourdieu . Col. Great Social Scientists. São Paulo, Ática, 1994.
HOBSBAWM, Eric. Socialism Failed, Capitalism Broke, What Next? Available at: http://cartamaior.com.br/templates/materiaMostrar.cfm?materia_id=15937 accessed on April 18, 2009.
KORSCH, Karl. Marxism and Philosophy . Rio de Janeiro, Eduerj, 2008.
MARX, K. and ENGELS, F. The Holy Family . Lisbon, Presença, 1979.
MARX, K. Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law . São Paulo, LECH, 1979.
MARX, Karl. Capital . Vol. 1. 3rd edition, São Paulo, Nova Cultural, 1988.
VIANA, Nildo. The End of Marxism and other Essays . São Paulo, Giz Editorial, 2007.
VIANA, Nildo. What is Marxism? Rio de Janeiro, Elo, 2008.