kurtuluş

Halen belirtmek mi gerekiyor: baskının motoru olan teknoloji değildir, teknik değildir, makine değildir; bunlarını sayısını, ömürlerini, güçlerini, yaşamdaki yerlerini ve onlara duyulan ihtiyacı belirleyen efendilerin onlardaki mevcudiyetidir. Halen tekrarlamak mı gerekiyor: bilim ve teknoloji kurtuluşun büyük vasıtalarıdır, ve onları tahakküm vasıtaları yapan ancak baskıcı toplumdaki kullanımları ve kısıtlanışlarıdır.

Herbert Marcuse 1969 Kurtuluş Üzerine Bir Deneme

TR: IBF

Is it still necessary to state that not technology, not technique, not the machine are the engines of repression, but the presence, in them, of the masters who determine their number, their life span, their power, their place in life, and the need for them? Is it still necessary to repeat that science and technology are the great vehicles of liberation, and that it is only their use and restriction in the repressive society which makes them into vehicles of domination?

Herbert Marcuse 1969 An Essay on Liberation

Herbert’s Hippopotamus: Marcuse and Revolution in Paradise

“The Movement in a New Era of Repression: An Assessment”
makalesinden bir kısım ekte*

ingilizce makalenin bulunduğu kitap: “collected works vol 3”:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=4A253975A9FF7AD72B88F8B008E06D13

marcuse’nin sesi, makaleyi okuyor:

makalenin türkçesi “Yeni Baskı Döneminde Hareket: Bir Değerlendirme”
halen yapı kredinin fikri mülkiyet kasasında** tutulmaktaymış:
http://www.ykykultur.com.tr/dergi/cogito-mayis-68

*:

What has happened to bring about such a change in the objective
conditions of the working class? I propose that what we have witnessed
is a new stabilization of capitalism on two levels: first, global
economic, political, and military expansion abroad, and second and
closely related to it, internal and external neo-colonization. What has
this stabilization of capitalism achieved? Competitive, scientific, and
technical progress has created whole new branches of industry and has
enlarged the internal and external markets, while at the same time, the
growing productivity of labor counteracted the decline in the rate of
profit and made possible a relatively high standard of living for the
working classes.

This transformation is accompanied by, and this I think is decisive for
a Marxist analysis, a growth in what is called the tertiary sector of
the economy: the publicity industry, services, entertainment, and so on.
This growth of the tertiary sector (in which the production of services
is the main activity) means in Marxian terms that an increasing part of
the working population today is employed in unproductive labor. That is
to say, labor which does not produce material commodities, which does
not produce capital, as Marx says, and which is therefore not
proletarian. This is Marx speaking (in Capital, Modern Library Edition,
p. 673), not I. But Marx says even more disagreeable things. The
assimilation of a large part of the working classes to the middle
classes, that is to say, to those middle classes that do not belong to
the ruling classes, is therefore not merely ideological, nor a surface
phenomenon, but originates in the productive process itself. Let me
again refer to Marx, Theories of Surplus Value(German Edition, vol. 1,
pp. 324ff.). He says, and it is one of the most amazing anticipations,
that with the growing productivity of labor, an ever larger part of the
population is employed in non-material production. This part includes
intellectual producers. They form an ever more essential base of
capitalist reproduction in the realization and, we can add today, even
in the creation of surplus value.

This certainly means a decisive change in the composition of the working
class. Does it mean that the working class is no longer the
revolutionary subject? Certainly not. As long as labor remains the human
base of the productive process, the working class will remain its
political base. But it will be a very different and very extended
working class. We have terrible difficulties in finding the
revolutionary subject today because we look for it as if the
revolutionary subject were a thing that exists somewhere ready made or
at least partially made, and just has to be found. We have to get rid of
this fetishism of labor, and also of this mystification of the class
concept. We must realize that the revolutionary subject emerges in the
struggle itself. Only in the struggle itself can it become a
revolutionary subject.

A class changes with the changes in the productive process. These
changes suggest first that the revolutionary subject would be an
extended and transformed working class in which labor in the traditional
sense, blue-collar labor, would only be one (and at present, the least
active) element. These changes suggest, secondly, that the subject, the
motives, the mainsprings of revolution would be in non-material needs.
This is a qualitative difference between this revolution and the
preceding one. In other words, if and when material needs are satisfied,
this revolution would, for the first time, put the self-determination of
man in all spheres and dimensions of his life, and not only at work, on
the agenda. At the present stage, capitalism operates on the back of the
vast majority of the population. Separated from control over the means
of production, this majority spends its life in alienated work. Yet, it
is not a proletariat in the classical sense; it is not living in abject
poverty like the former. Large parts of it are rather bourgeois in
outlook, values, and aspirations, though they are very different from
the small class that rules this society. Beneath this vast majority
lives the large number of the underprivileged racial and national
minorities, unemployed and unemployable, at the margin of the regular
process of production. This, I think, is a new techno-structure of
exploitation: the growing productivity of labor constantly augmenting
the wealth of commodities and services; the intensified meaningless work
and performances required for producing, buying, and selling these goods
and services; and the scientific control of consciousness and instincts,
that is to say, domination through steered satisfaction and steered
aggression.

Who is in control of this technostructure of exploitation?

Bu sömürücü teknoyapı kimin denetiminde?

**:

pink panther diamond stolen

“take sample from the wax”

“you need a license to play musical instrument”

“how i was to know he was bank manager”

Leave a comment

Filed under çeviri, bilim, programlama

Comments are closed.