artć + societate / arts + society #38, 2011 20 lei / 11 €, 14 USD - idea

muncitoare øi clasa superioaræ, incluzînd de obicei experfli, lucrætori cu calificare
înaltæ, precum øi administraflia inferioaræ øi mijlocie“. Conform acestei
definiflii, clasa de mijloc nu munceøte (clasa celor ce muncesc fiind, riguros
vorbind, într-o altæ regiune socioeconomicæ). Ceea ce e, desigur, fals. De
aceea avem nevoie de un concept mai solid de clasæ decît acela bazat pe
mærimea veniturilor øi sursele lor. La Marx, care decupeazæ clasele istoriceøte
proiectiv, în funcflie de poziflia pe care o ocupæ acestea în lupta de clasæ, existæ
doar douæ clase: burghezia øi proletariatul. Tot restul – pentru cæ existæ øi
rest – tinde cætre unul dintre aceøti doi poli fundamentali øi urmeazæ sæ se
absoarbæ în el: mica burghezie de toate felurile în proletariat, marii proprietari
de pæmînt în clasa capitalistæ (vezi ultimul subcapitol din Capitalul).
Clasa de mijloc ar fi, potrivit lui Marx, clasa unui „încæ nu“ istoric, a unei indecizii
care ridicæ unii dintre proletari în categorii de salarizare asemænætoare
micii burghezii, în timp ce face posibil paradoxul doar aparent cæ existæ capitaliøti
cu venituri mai mici decît unii dintre proletari (unii dintre cei cu studii
superioare, de pildæ, sau unii sportivi, unele celebritæfli, unii funcflionari etc.).
Clasa de mijloc este clasa unei ambiguitæfli de clasæ, o clasæ mixtæ care, tocmai
din acest motiv, nu poate avea interese comune, øi totuøi îøi imagineazæ
cæ are. Care sînt aceste interese? Dacæ aflæm asta, aflæm øi ce vrea sæ spunæ
vocea unicæ pluralæ a corurilor de plîngeri. Sæ luæm, de pildæ, ce spun aceste
coruri despre naturæ, despre politicieni, despre oraøele noastre øi despre
oameni în general. Impresia mea este cæ gæsim în versurile corurilor de plîngeri
o neîncredere generalæ în politicieni øi oameni, precum øi o temere destul
de generalizatæ în legæturæ cu distrugerea naturii øi cu neplæcerile vieflii urbane.
Atmosfera e departe însæ de a fi revoluflionaræ din punctul de vedere
al Proletariatului, care – reamintesc øi traduc – e øi punctul de vedere al unui
viitor în care:
– încetæm sæ distrugem natura;
– nu acordæm femeilor salarii mai mici (pentru cæ nu trebuie sæ mai existe
salarii);
– desfiinflæm industria actualæ de automobile øi inventæm un sistem de
transport public gratuit care satisface aceleaøi scopuri complexe ca øi autoturismul
personal;
– stopæm deteriorarea progresivæ a bunurilor de larg consum;
– læsæm în urmæ domnia øefilor øi a politicienilor.
Trebuie meditat dacæ aøa ceva poate fi obflinut færæ a desfiinfla institufliile noastre
sociale fundamentale în formele lor concrete: Statul, Religia, Armata,
Poliflia, Øcoala, Arta, Sænætatea, Øtiinfla, Administraflia, Dreptul, Justiflia, Ecologia,
Politica etc. Trebuie meditat dacæ s-ar putea schimba mæcar vreuna dintre
acestea færæ sæ se schimbe øi toate celelalte. Trebuie meditat la ce dæ
specificul formei actuale a acestor instituflii. Trebuie meditat la forma Întregului
øi trebuie menflinutæ aceastæ meditaflie pe frontul principal al luptei de clasæ,
al luptei pentru Întreg, care este în primul rînd o gigantomahie, forflele care
o compun fiind ceva esenflialmente neomenesc, posibilitæfli istorice de existenflæ
colectivæ, care se satureazæ sub forma concretæ a institufliilor sociale
fundamentale actuale în aøa fel încît acestea nu se pot schimba decît dacæ
se schimbæ principiul unic care le genereazæ pe toate.
Nu væd ce altceva ar trebui sæ ræspundem vocii unice care pare cæ ne interpeleazæ
din versurile corurilor de plîngeri puse cap la cap. Dar poate cæ nu e
nevoie de niciun ræspuns. Traducerile îmi aparflin.
142
essentially obscure one as long as the main criterion distinguishing its
members is the extent of their income and its sources. The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language defines the middle class as “the socioeconomic
class between the working class and the upper class, usually including
professionals, highly skilled laborers, and lower and middle management”.
According to this definition, the middle class does not work (the working class
seems to be a different socioeconomic region). Which is, of course, false.
This is why we need a more solid concept of class than the one based on the
extent of revenues and their sources. For Marx, whose modeling of classes
relies in a historically projective fashion on their position in the class struggle,
there are only two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Everything else
– because there are also remainders – tends toward one of these two fundamental
poles and will subsequently be absorbed by one of them: the petty
bourgeoisie of all sorts by the proletariat, the great landowners by the class
of capitalists (see the last subchapter of Capital). The middle class would be,
according to Marx, the class of a historical “not yet”, of an indecision that raises
some of the proletarians in categories of income similar to the petty bourgeoisie,
while it also makes possible the apparent paradox that there are
capitalists with smaller incomes than some of the proletarians (some of the
highly educated, for instance, but also some athletes, some celebrities, some
functionaries, etc.). The middle class is the class of a class ambiguity, a mixed
class that, precisely because of this, has no common interests, although it
believes it has. What are these interests? If we find this out, we will know
more also about what the single plural voice of complaints choirs has to say.
Let us consider, for instance, what these choirs say about nature, politicians,
our cities and humans in general. It is my impression that we can find in the
lyrics of complaints choirs a general suspicion regarding politicians and
humans, as well as a quite generalized concern regarding the destruction
of nature and the discomforts of urban life. The atmosphere, however, is far
from revolutionary in a Proletarian sense, which – to remind and translate –
is also the point of view of a future in which:
– we stop destroying nature;
– we do not pay women less (because shall be no salaries whatsoever);
– we put an end to the current car industry and invent a system of free public
transport that satisfies the same complex goals as the personal motorcar;
– we stop the increasing deterioration of affordable everyday commodities;
– we do away with the rule of bosses and politicians.
One must think if something like this could be achieved without doing away
with the current forms of our fundamental social institutions: State, Religion,
Army, Police, School, Art, Health, Science, Administration, Law, Justice,
Ecology, Politics, etc. One must think if it is possible to change any of these
without changing all of them. One must think about the form of the Whole
and this meditation must be kept on the main front of the class struggle, of
the struggle for the Whole, which is first and foremost a gigantomachy, where
the conflicting forces are something essentially inhuman: historical possibilities
of collective existence. These possibilities are fulfilled by the concrete
form of our current fundamental social institutions in such a way that the latter
cannot change if the principle generating them all stays the same.
I do not see what else one must answer to the united voice that seems to
address us from the assembled lyrics of complaints choirs. But perhaps there
is no need for an answer.