Presentacin

Dossier "La larga duracin a prueba. Cinco ejercicios crticos sobre la historia, la modernidad y la civilizacin capitalista"
Carlos Antonio Aguirre ojas

El clebre ensayo de Fernand Braudel, titulado La historia y las ciencias sociales. La larga duracin, que fue publicado originalmente en la re ista Annales. Economies. Socits. Civilisations, a finales de !"#$, es sin duda alguna el mas importante ensayo de metodolog%a histrica de todo el siglo &&. 'orque habiendo sido concebido, originalmente, como una especie de resumen decantado, en el plano de las lecciones de mtodo, del imponente traba(o que se concret en la obra de El Mediterrneo y el mundo mediterrneo en la poca de Felipe II, este ensayo termin con irtindose, al paso del tiempo, en la ersin mas lograda y en la formulacin mas acabada y e)plicita de todo un nuevo paradigma historiogrfico, paradigma que no solo condensaba en trminos epistemolgicos a lo que podr%amos llamar el n*cleo esencial de la arquitectura fundamental de toda la comple(a e inno adora concepcin braudeliana de la historia, sino que propon%a tambin todo un nuevo modo de concebir el e ercicio y la practica globales del rico y asto oficio del historiador. E incluso, y m+s all+, tambin una nueva forma de abordar y de e!plicar a todo el amplio con(unto de problemas, fenmenos y procesos estudiados por las llamadas ciencias sociales contempor+neas. ,ue o modo de concebir los procesos histricos y sociales que, por lo dem+s, no fue in entado o inaugurado por Fernand Braudel, sino que se fue imponiendo, lenta y progresi amente, dentro de las di ersas corrientes y perspecti as genuinamente cr"ticas de todas las ciencias sociales, a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo &-& cronolgico, y hasta la actualidad. 'ues es el mismo Braudel quien reconoce que el primero que estableci modelos de e)plicacin globales, desde esta perspecti a de la larga duraci#n, fue el propio .arlos /ar). 0 despus de l, emos como se afirman, en todas las distintas disciplinas que ersan sobre lo social1humano en la historia, diferentes enfoques que, para poder e)plicar adecuadamente su di ersos ob(etos de estudio, se en obligados a abrir el arco temporal de sus an+lisis, recuperando de distintas maneras, y a eces de manera mas conciente o mas inconsciente, esas mismas perspecti as de largo aliento que son las e)plicaciones desde las estructuras de la larga duraci#n dentro de la historia. 'or eso, y desde un enfoque riguroso, es claro que podemos afirmar con certe2a que no solo /ar) ha comprendido y aplicado esta perspecti a de la larga duracin, sino que tambin lo han hecho, a su manera y en sus respecti os dominios de in estigacin, autores como 3ilhelm 4eich, o /arc Bloch, o 5heodor 6dorno y /a) 7or8heimer, o ,orbert Elias, o 3alter Ben(amin, pero incluso tambin a*n cuando de manera contradictoria, .laude Le i19trauss o :eorg 9immel, entre otros. ;e modo que las e)plicaciones y los enfoques construidos desde la larga duracin han e)istido avant la

lettre, es decir, antes de que su propio concepto y su propia teor%a fuesen e)pl%citamente elaborados. 0 si bien le corresponde sin duda a Braudel, el enorme mrito de haber lle ado a cabo por e2 primera esa e!plicitaci#n orgnica y esa formulaci#n completa del contenido esencial y de las principales implicaciones de este paradigma de la larga duracin, resulta igualmente importante insistir en que el descubrimiento y construccin de dicho paradigma, ha sido mas bien una con$uista colectiva de un mas asto con(unto de pensadores cr"ticos de lo social1humano en la historia, hecho que por lo dem+s, ha sido (ustamente se<alado por el propio Fernand Braudel. .onquista colecti a de ese grupo importante de pensadores erdaderamente cr"ticos, que al lle ar a cabo el esfuer2o de concebir y anali2ar los hechos, los fenmenos y los procesos, a contracorriente del pensamiento dominante, y desde posiciones e)cntricas y alternati as de aquellas desde las cuales se construyen dichos discursos legitimadores del statu $uo en turno, han sido capaces de superar tanto el presentismo inmediatista hoy toda ia ampliamente igente dentro de las ciencias sociales actuales, como tambin las visiones de corto alcance aun dominantes en gran parte de las historiografias de todo el planeta. 'resentismo inmediatista toda %a ampliamente difundido en el seno de las concepciones de la sociolog%a, la econom%a, la ciencia pol%tica o la psicolog%a actuales, que asume que el pasado est+ siempre ya muerto y superado, y que los hechos presentes se e)plican siempre solo por causas y elementos recientes, concepcin que se reproduce, de otra manera y en otro sentido, tambin en aquellas isones historiogr+ficas mencionadas, las que asumiendo inconscientemente el criterio de la propia duracin de la ida de un indi iduo como criterio general de an+lisis, se limitan a e)plicar los hechos y problemas sociales en espacios temporales solo de d%as, meses y a<os, y cuando mucho de algunos lustros o dcadas. 0 es por ello que 3ilhelm 4eich a a histori2ar en los tiempos largos algunas tesis y descubrimientos de la psicolog%a freudiana, buscando el correlato histrico y los or%genes de las figuras de la personalidad autoritaria de los hombres y mu(eres que hoy conocemos e in estigamos, al tiempo que la Escuela de Fran8furt reconstruye la cur a de larga duracin de la ra2on moderna para e)plicar como es posible que la misma pase, de ser una conquista del intelecto humano y un paso importante en la %a de la emancipacin, hasta su condicin como ra2n instrumental y como mecanismo de dominacin y opresin. 0 lo mismo hace 6ntonio :ramsci, cuando intenta descifrar los modos en que se construyen las hegemon%as pol%ticas modernas y los nue os bloques histricos llamados a trastocar dichas hegemon%as, al tiempo en que ,orbert Elias reclama la imprescindibilidad de adoptar isiones de largo pla2o para comprender adecuadamente la gnesis de nuestros comportamientos afecti os y de nuestra econom%a ps%quica, o tambin de nuestros modernos monopolios estatales de la iolencia en nuestros Estados contempor+neos. 0 lo mismo antes que despus de la publicacin del brillante ensayo e)plicitador y sinteti2ador de Braudel, es claro que esta capacidad de er los problemas histricos y sociales desde una genuina ptica de larga duracin, constituye algo reser ado solamente a aquellos cient%ficos sociales dispuestos a culti ar y desarrollar este pensamiento cr"tico y a contracorriente de los discursos dominantes , pensamiento que desconfiando de las e)plicaciones f+ciles, simplistas, consagradas y lineales de dichos discursos dominantes, se a entura en la deteccin y reconstruccin de las estructuras de la historia profunda y de la vida profunda de la sociedades, las que siempre son, precisamente, el ob(eto de estudio de este mismo pensamiento cr%tico.

'or ello, este dossier intenta rescatar cinco e(ercicios recientes de aplicacin y desarrollo de este pensamiento cr"tico contemporneo, e(ercicios que pro iniendo de las mas di ersas filiaciones intelectuales, y empla2ados desde uni ersos intelectuales tambin diferentes, con ergen sin embargo, tanto en esa e)pl%cita intencin de er los problemas que abordan de manera fundamentalmente distanciada y cr"tica, como igualmente desde marcos temporales amplios y abarcati os, asumidos adem+s en la espec%fica lgica del rescate y recuperacin de las coordenadas de larga duracin que permiten entender y e)plicar a esos mismos problemas abordados. ;e este modo, se encuentran aqu% con ocados, lo mismo la me(or tradicin deri ada de la corriente de los 6nnales, es decir su matri2 blochiana y braudeliana, que la microhistoria italiana o la tradicin de la Escuela de Fran8furt, (unto a la perspecti a del analisis de los sistemas1mundo y a la emergente isin cr%tica desarrollada recientemente por la historiograf%a y por las ciencias sociales latinoamericanas. 0 ello, para abordar lo mismo los problemas centrales de la din+mica de las ci ili2aciones, que las cla es de una concepcin cr%tica de la historia, pero tambin, los elementos centrales de la caracteri2acin de la modernidad capitalista, los escenarios futuros de la actual crisis estructural de este mismo sistema capitalista, o la e)plicacin del digno mo imiento ind%gena neo2apatista en el estado de .hiapas, desde una isin concientemente global e igualmente construida desde la larga duracin histrica. 5oca al lector de este dossier, (u2gar acerca de los cinco e(ercicios propuestos, los que, m+s all+ de su di ersidad, testimonian claramente, en nuestra opinin, acerca de la enorme fecundidad y de la inmensa capacidad heur%stica, toda %a igente, de esa perspecti a metodolgica brillantemente e)plicitada, y luego afanosamente desarrollada y culti ada, por ese declarado abogado de la larga duracin histrica que ha sido el propio Fernand Braudel

Modernity and Capitalism (15 Theses)=!>

!olivar "cheverria?

5ranslated by .harlotte Broad=@> ? 'rofessor at Facultad de Filosofia y Letras 1 Ani ersidad ,acional 6utnoma de /)ico. E1mailB boli areCser idor.unam.m)

%&or $u la cuerda' entonces' si el aire es tan sencillo( %&ara $u la cadena' si e!iste el hierro por s" solo( .sar Dalle(o =E>

6 century ago, men still thought they Fere masters of the situationB they thought they =Fho Fere already undeniably modern> could do Fhate er they li8ed Fith modernity, either accept it =in Fhole, in parts or Fith modifications> or re(ect it =by closing the door on it or re erting its effects>. 5heir thought sprang from a Forld in Fhich modernity,

though relentlessly pursuing its course, Fas still some Fay from achie ing planetary reach and could not demonstrate to the collecti e mind the totali2ing range of its aspiration or the radicalism of the changes it Fas already introducing into human life. 5he old or traditional, deeply ingrained in e ery day life, carried still so much Feight that e en the most all1embracing or daring of modern creations appeared barely to scratch its surface, Fhich otherFise remained unscathedG pre1modern forms Fere so natural that it Fas Fell nigh impossible to contemplate that the claims made by the ad ocates of modernity might be Forth ta8ing seriously. -n these days, hoFe er, the re(ection or approbation of modernity is apparently no longer under discussionG the modern is no more an e)ternal entity that Fe loo8 upon as a terra incognita. 3e are modern, or, perhaps - should say, Fe are becoming permanently modernG the ascendancy of modernity is a fait accompli. 6gainst the dreams of a postmodern condition, Fe are li ing Fithin modernity and are immersed in a unique, uni ersal and continual process of moderni2ation. /oderni2ation is, moreo er, not a life pro(ect Fe ha e chosen to adoptG it is more li8e some form of fatality or unquestionable destiny Fe must submit oursel es to. H/odern life is goodG the bad thing about it is that it ta8es too long to arri e and Fhen it does it is seldom completeH. 5his Fas the more or less open slogan for e ery policy of e ery national state a century ago, and it might still be in our days. 6 hundred years ha e gone by, but social life still seems to ha e the same ob(ecti eB moderni2ation, that is to say, self1 impro ement by ma8ing progress on the line of the production techniques, social organi2ation and political management that began to ta8e shape in Europe during the si)teenth century. ,onetheless, it is clear that Fhat is understood by HmodernH has changed considerably since that time. 5his is not because Fhat might ha e been percei ed then as an inno ation is noF considered traditional, but because the sense that triggers the meaning of the Ford is no longer the same. 6 quest it had to embar8 upon greatly changed its meaning. 5his quest Fas implied in its assimilation of and subordination to the sense of the Ford Hre olutionH. E en though modernity did not gi e birth to the Hspirit of utopiaH, it did enable it to acquire an independent figure, its oFn earthly consistency. 5his spirit haunted moderni2ation from the start of the process, attracted by the implicit possibility that modern progress might free it from the categoricallity of the HnoH underlined in his name, HutopiaH, and e)change it for a promising Hnot yetH. 5he temptation to Hchange the ForldH =Hchange lifeH> Fas first acti e in the political domain. 6t the end of the eighteenth century, Fhen moderni2ation in the form of the -ndustrial 4e olution had only (ust started, its presence as a challenge to the ancien rgime Fas already indisputableG it Fas the historical mo ement of bourgeois re olutions. 4e olution Fas understood as an acti ity that had absolute political progress as its goalB the cancellation of the dreadful past and the founding of a future of (ustice, completely open to the imagination. 7oFe er, the temptation utopia presented Fas soon e)pelled from the political domain and had to see8 refuge in the other sphere of absolute progressism, Fhich Fas the acti ity engaged in the potentiation of efficiency in the producti e life. -t Fas to be re(ected once again by the social ha oc caused by capitalist industriali2ation, but Fhile it Fas there it succeeded in gi ing a goal and a meaning to the purely technical figure of moderni2ation. 5oFards the end of the

nineteenth century, the Hspirit of utopiaH Fould ma8e another 11finalI11 attempt to become embodied Fithin the progressist trend of the moderni2ation processG Fe are still suffering the effects of its failure. 6t the beginning of the century, the elementary political constellation Fas composed and recomposed around tFo modes of beha iorB appro al or re(ect of moderni2ation as a means by Fhich social life might be reorgani2ed using the technical ad ances made in the methods of production, circulation and consumption. /oderni2ation Fas accepted by some as a HgattopardianH conser ati e stratagem destined to preser e tradition, by others as the basis of the progressionistic rationality of their nai e reformist politics. 5he reactionary re(ection of modernity, Fhich argued that it undermined the immutable essence of /an and that it could be and had to be undone, Fas someFhat similar though diametrically opposed to its negation as a false alternati e to a pro(ect of re olutionary transformation of the human. 6cute contro ersies arose Fithin the left as Fell as Fithin the right on the issue of accepting or re(ecting moderni2ation as a historical process go erned by technical progress. ;espite the unquestionable practical ascendancy of the right Fing and its decisi e and de astating political irruptions, it cannot be denied that political life in the tFentieth century has been guided by the proposals made by a Hleft1Fing cultureH=e en if they Fere disparate and e en contradictory>. 5he essence of left1Fing discourse has been inspired by its opposition to the technicistic dynamics of moderni2ationG Fhether it has ta8en moderni2ation as a basis for reform or refuted it as an inadequate substitute for re olution, it has adopted HhumanismH, understood as the quest for Hsocial (usticeH, as its basic ethical proposition. -t is for this reason that the reali2ation of a technical utopia reaches its fully significance only Fhen utopia appears as a constituti e but subordinate element of Fhat the Ford HsocialismH meansB the reali2ation =through reform or re olution> of the socio1political utopia of absolute progress, of pure inno ati e substitution of the traditional figure in Fhich the political has e)isted until noF. .ontemporary history, shaped around the destiny of capitalist moderni2ation, appears to ha e run head on into that dilemma of a Hsituation on the edgeH. -t can, on the one hand, persist along the course pursued by moderni2ation, in Fhich case it Fould cease to be a mode =if contradictory> of affirming life to become a means of simple selecti e acceptance of deathG on the other, it can abandon moderni2ation, in Fhich case it Fould depri e the current le el of ci ili2ation of its traditional support, thus pointing social life in the direction of barbarism. ;isillusioned by progressist HsocialismH, Fhich Fas put to the test not only by the figure of the state despotism of the Hsocialist Forld =empire>H but also by the social corrected economic policies of the liberal institutions Fithin the HFestern Forld =empire>H, this history seems to ha e brought to a close precisely that proposal of an earthly utopia Fith Fhich it opened, of a Forld Fhich Fould radically impro e human life and Fould actually be attainable. .ontemporary history, its political creati ity fro2en as if aFaiting a catastrophe, oscillates erratically betFeen policies of someFhat simple1minded defensi e pragmatism and those of desperate messianism containing a greater or lesser degree of irrationality. 5he theses proposed in the folloFing pages are an attempt to put forFard a theory of a possible modernity that differs from that Fhich has been imposed up to the present day,

a non1capitalist modernity. 5hey proceed, firstly, by the recognition of one factB the perennial open1endedness characteri2ing the significance of historical entities. 9econdly, they play Fith concepts Fhich attempt to dismantle this fact theoretically and Fhich, bearing in mind that He erything that is real can also be thought of as only possibleH =Leibni2>, distinguish betFeen the configuration or form of the current presence of a historical reality, a reality that folloFs from the adaptation of its necessary presence to certain ad hoc 11and thus alFays replaceable11 conditions in order to become a sufficient one, and the essence of that historical reality, its form of HpermanentH presence, in Fhich its necessity e)ists in a pure state, li8e an ambi alent poFer that ne er ceases to be so throughout its state of consolidation, beneath the Hdefiniti eH appearance of its configured e)istence that mas8s all ambi alence. -n accordance Fith this supposition, modernity Fould not be Han unfinished pro(ectH, as JKrgen 7abermas sees itG instead, it Fould be a set of possibilities, Fhich are e)plored and actuali2ed from only one side and in only one sense, and Fhich might be approached from another perspecti e and ha e another light cast upon it.

Thesis 1. The Economic Key to Modernity

/odernity should be understood as the peculiar character of an historical form of the ci ili2ing totali2ation of human life. .apitalism should be understood as a form or mode of reproduction of the economic life of humanityB a Fay of implementing that set of acti ities, Fhich directly and preferentially concerns the production, circulation, and consumption of goods produced. 5he relation betFeen modernity and capitalism are a8in to those betFeen a Fhole and independent totali2ation and one of its dependent parts, Fhich has thus far imposed itself on the totali2ing action of the Fhole. -t is probably the predominance of the economic domain of life =Fith its particular capitalist mode> in the historical constitution of modernity that represents the last ma(or assertion of a 8ind of spontaneous Hhistorical materialismH Fhich had characteri2ed social e)istence during the period of Hhistory based on scarcityH. 5he human being =Han animal e)pelled from the paradise of animalityH> has been able to e)ercise his distinguishing faculty 11that of li ing a physical life as a substratum of a Hmeta1 physicalH life, the primary goal of Fhich is to gi e meaning and form to social life11 but only on the condition that he respects producti e For8 as the fundamental, possibling and delimiting dimension of his acti ity. 'roducti e For8 has been at the heart of all pro(ects of human e)istence. :i en the trans1historical condition of the absolute scarcity of goods in demand, that is to say, of the HindifferenceH and e en the HhostilityH of ,ature, not one of them can be concei ed =at least before the -ndustrial 4e olution> in any other Fay than as a strategy designed to defend human e)istence itself in a domain alFays alienG in other Fords, they could not be concei ed, e en in the Hunproducti e e)penditureH on the most la ish e)tra agances, as going beyond the hori2on of imagination delimited by the reach of the basic necessities for sur i al. 5he critical theory of capitalism offers a pri ileged means of understanding modernity for tFo complementary reasons. Ln the one hand, no historical reality is so faithfully

and typically modern as the capitalist mode of reproduction of social FealthG on the other, no content typifying modern life is so essential to its definition as capitalism. But the ieF of modernity as to the problemati2ation of capitalism does not only render it most isibleG it also 11and it might be said, abo e all11 aFa8ens in the mind the most pressing need to understand it. -t is the quagmires of the moderni2ation of the economy 11the counterproducti e effects of progress, Fhether quantitati e =e)tensi e and intensi e> or qualitati e =technical>, in the production, distribution and consumption of goods11 that most often, and Fith the greatest iolence, ma8e /an a purely destructi e beingB a being Fho destroys the Lther, Fhen it does not fit into ,ature =defined as the Hfond of resources for the human orderH>, and himself, Fhen he is a HnaturalH being =too material, too spiritual> and does not fit into the scheme of Fhat has been humani2ed through Hproducti eH For8. 5he intricate and unpredictable Feb of multiple courses pursued by the concrete history of modernity is interFo en in a frequently imperceptible but decisi e dialogue Fith the obscure process of planetary gestation, consolidation and e)pansion of capitalism as a mode of reproduction of Fealth. -t treats of a profound dynamic in Fhich history does not ta8e sides on the le el of con(unctural e entsG heedless of the incidents that perturb generations and impassion indi iduals, nonetheless, it stubbornly ma8es it its business to indicate a enues, set tempos, and suggest general trends in e eryday life. 5here appear to be three constants in the history of capitalism, Fhich ought to ha e been HFor8edH at by the history of modernityB a> a cyclical reproduction of Habsolute artificial scarcityH of nature, on an e er1increasing scale =li8e a spiral> and satisfying e er1 differing human needsG b> a progress of totalitarian reach, both e)tensi e and intensi e, =as planetari2ation and technification respecti ely>, in the Mreal subsumptionN of the producti e forces under the accumulation of capitalG and c> a unstoppable slippage of the direction in Fhich the tribute that capitalist property 11and its mercantile and pacific institutionali2ation11 pays to monopoly 11and its e)tra1mercantile and iolent arbitrariness11B from feeding off the rent of the land1lords, it changes gradually to support the rent of the technology1lords.

Thesis 2. The Grounds Essence and !i"ure o# Modernity

/odernity, li8e e ery other human reality, is also constituted by the game of real presence at tFo different le elsB the possible or potential and the actual or effecti e. =6 distinction should be made betFeen these tFo, although there is an epistemological impediment in that the former appears to be annulled by the latter, inasmuch as the latter, being the reali2ation of the former, ta8es its place.> 1 5here is, on the first le el, modernity as an ideal form of totali2ation of human life. 6s such, as the essence of modernity' artificially isolated by the theoretical discourse of the configurations that ha e gi en it an empirical e)istence, modernity may be regarded as a reality Fhich concreteness is in suspense, as yet undefinedG as a substance at the moment in Fhich it is Hsee8ingH its form or is being HselectedH by it =an impossible moment really, since both occur simultaneously>G as an Hindecisi eH yet polymorphous e)igency, a pure potency.

1Ln the second le el, modernity may be regarded as an effecti e historical configuration. 6s such, modernity is no longer an ideal and imprecise realityG its presence is plural trough a series of historical pro(ects and attempts to actuali2e itself, Fhich endoF its concrete e)istence Fith highly aried and particular forms, Fhich ta8e the form of one succeeding the other or of one ying the other for ascendancy. 5he grounds of modernity are to be found in the unstoppable process of consolidation 11Fhich began at a sloF pace in the /iddle 6ges, accelerated in the si)teenth century, and reached an e)plosi e speed from the time of the -ndustrial 4e olution to the present day11 of a technological change Fhich affects the ery roots of the multiple Hmaterial ci ili2ationsH of the human being. -n both the means of production and the For8 force, the scale of instrumental operability has ta8en a Hqualitati e leapHG e)pansion has been such that it has mo ed to a higher order and, thus, to a hori2on of possibilities for gi ing and recei ing forms, un8noFn during thousands of years of history. 5he producti e forces are no longer beleaguered by and sub(ected to the uni erse beyond the Forld conquered by them =a uni erse called H,atureH>, but ha e become if not more puissant than it then more poFerful in so far as their specific ob(ecti es are concernedG they appear to ha e e entually appointed man to the promised hierarchy of Hlord and masterH of the Earth. 6s early as the Hin ention of 6mericaH =E. LO:orman>, Fhen the Earth finally rounded its figure for /an and con eyed to him a means by Fhich to measure his finiteness in the infinite Ani erse, an incident of far1reaching and irre ersible effect Fas set in motion in the deep history of sloF times and e ents of long duration. 6 mutation in the ery structure of the Hnatural formH 11the elementary ci ili2ationary substratum11 of the social reproduction process gradually began to undermine the bases on Fhich all traditional societies 11Fithout e)ception11 throughout history had founded their original code of life. 5his raised the age1old suspicion again, noF on the strength of much more trustForthy dataB if scarcity Fas not, in fact, the Hcurse sine $ua nonH of human reality. 5he &#lemos model, Fhich has inspired e ery pro(ect of the historical e)istence of /an, by ma8ing it a Far strategy that conditions sur i al in terms of the annihilation or e)ploitation of the Lther =of the human other, of ,ature>, is not the only possibilityG one might, Fithout it being an illusion, imagine a different one, in Fhich the Lther is called folloFing the model of )ros. 5he essence of modernity is constituted at a crucial moment in the history of 3estern ci ili2ation and consists of a challenge, Fhich it pro o8ed and Fhich only it 11in its European concreteness11 Fas in a position to percei e and recogni2e as such. 5his challenge poses the need to choose for itself and for ci ili2ation as a Fhole an historical course radically different from the traditional course, gi en that it has the real possibility to dispose of an Minstrumental fieldN that is so technically efficient that can ma8e abundance may replace scarcity as the origin and primary e)perience of the human race on this earth. Just as Fhen a play has, for reasons beyond its control, to reFrite its te)t in the middle of a performance because the motif of its dramatic tension has unaccountably anished, so the disco ery of the grounds of modernity placed 3estern ci ili2ation in a situation of internal conflict and rupture, and this earlier than other ci ili2ations that Fould only e)perience it much later and Fith a lesser degree of interiori2ation. 5he European Festern ci ili2ation had une)pectedly to gi e form =or to con ert into its substance> to a neF state of things 11that the fantasy of the human race has alFays portrayed as the most desirable but the least feasible11 Fhich suddenly Fent in quite the opposite direction from that of the state of things on Fhich it, li8e all the other ci ili2ations, Fas based.

5he effecti e historical configurations of modernity loo8 li8e the unfolding of distincti e re1formations of itself that the European 3est can Hin entH 11some as isolated efforts and others coordinated in ambitious global pro(ects11, from the most elementary le el of its oFn structure, for the purpose of responding to that absolute no elty. 5hese different modernities of the modern age, Fhich Fere partially if not totally successful depending on the case, do not, by any means, He)haustH the essence of modernity and thus erase the critical moment of choice, decision and reali2ation that it impliesG instead, they are continually alerting it to neF perspecti es from Fhich it may assert itself and are re itali2ing each critical moment in its oFn Fay. 5he many modernities are figures endoFed Fith concrete itality because they continue to constitute themsel es in conflict as attempts to form a matter, Fhich has still not lost its rebellious spirit. Lf all the effecti e modernities throughout history, the modernity of mechani2ed industrial capitalism along ,orth European lines has been, up to noF, the most functional and the one Fhich appears to ha e manifested its potentialities to the greatest e)tentB from the si)teenth century up to the present day, this form of modernity has been fashioned around the radical mo e of subordinating the productionPconsumption process to HcapitalismH, as a peculiar mode of accumulating mercantile Fealth. 6ny discourse that aspires to say something interesting about contemporary life must be critical. .riticism is brought into play at that moment of reflection Fhen it incises the characteristics of modernity as it Hreally isH and dis1co ers its essenceG this is a decisi e moment of great significance in that modernity is caught unaFares in its polymorphous state of ambi alence and lac8 of definition by some de ice Fhich proposes to de1stroy theoretically its concrete capitalist configurations. 5he bac8 of historical continuity offers an impeccable guide to the senses of touch and sight. 7oFe er, it hides scars, stumps of mutilated organs and e en bleeding Founds, Fhich only come to light Fhen a hand or an eye runs o er it Hagainst the grainH. For this reason, it is not Forth respecting the realG it is better to doubt the rationality that boFs doFn before the Forld as it Hreally isH, not only as the best =gi en its reality> but also as the only possible Forld, and to trust in another less HrealisticH and officious rationality that does not e)clude liberty. -n this Fay, it may be shoFn that Fhat is has no more Hright to beH than Fhat Fas not but could ha e beenG that underlying the established pro(ect of modernity there are opportunities for an alternati e pro(ect, Fhich 11more in line Fith the possibilities for an all1encompassing assertion of life that it has in essence11 ha e not yet been e)hausted. -t is 8noFn that history cannot retrace its steps that each step ta8en runs trough the place it stepped on. E en that Fhich is presented as an impro ement or correction of a gi en figure is really a neF ersion of the sameB in order that it may be conser ed and adopted, it has had, at the same time, to destroy and re(ect it. 5he grounds of modernity remains by no means untouched by the history of capitalist forms that, in a succession of en(ambments, ha e con erted it in their substanceG the imprint is indelible 11profound, decisi e and definiti e. -t Fould, hoFe er, do no harm to call into question yet again that old con iction 11re(u enated noF Fith relief after the lesson of Mpost1Q$ disenchantmentH11 that reduces the course of modernity to this imprint and ta8es it for granted that modernity and capitalism are equi alentG and, moreo er, to address yet again the problem of Fhether the utopia of a post1capitalist modernity 11socialist, communist, anarchistI11 is still reali2able.

Thesis $. Mar% and Modernity

/ar)Rs theoretical deconstruction of politico1economic discourse outlines numerous conceptual bridges leading toFards the problemati2ation of modernity. 5he main ones, Fhich emerge from the center of his critical pro(ect, may be found in the folloFing moments of his understanding of capitalism. a> 5he hypothesis that attempts to e)plain the characteristics of modern economic life by means of a definition of its structure as a tFofold and contradictory e entG as the result of forced unification, e en though historically necessary, by means of Fhich a formal process of the production of surplus alue and accumulation of capital =that is to say, the stratum of the abstract e)istence of economic life as Hforming S bildungT of valueH> subsumes or subordinates a real process of transformation of the nature and restoration of the social body =that is to say, the stratum of concrete e)istence of economic life as Hforming SbildungT of *ealthH>. 5his subsumption or subordination Fould otherFise present tFo different le els or states, according to the degree and type of its form1gi ing effect. -n the first, a HformalH state, the capitalist mode, already internali2ed by society, only changes the property conditions of the process of productionPconsumption and still e)erts an e)ternal influence on the traditional qualitati e balance betFeen the system of consumer needs and the system of producti e capacitiesG in the second, a HrealH or substantial state, the social internali2ation of this mode, upsets, by penetrating the technical structure of the productionPconsumption process, the balance of the inner For8ings dialectics betFeen needs and capacities Fithout offering any alternati e qualitati e proposal. b> 5he description of the difference and complementarity betFeen the structuring of economic life in Msimple mercantileN terms =productionPconsumption and circulation of the elements of ob(ecti e Fealth> and its configuration de eloped along Mcapitalist1 mercantileN lines. Li8eFise, the understanding of the history of this complementarity, from the period in Fhich capitalism appears as the only sound guarantee of mercantile economic life to the period in Fhich mercantile life ser es merely as a mas8 for capitalism. 6 single process, but tFo opposite meanings. Ln the one hand, the capitalist beha ior of the mar8et is the instrument for the e)pansion and consolidation of the mercantile structure as the fundamental and e)clusi e ordering of all the circulation of social Fealth =at the cost of other traditional or HnaturalH orderings>. Ln the other hand, the mercantile structure is the instrument for the e)pansion and consolidation of the capitalist form of economic beha ior as the dominant mode of production and consumption of social Fealth. c> 5he deri ation of the concept of reification and mercantile fetishism and of that of alienation and capitalist fetishism 11as critical categories of modern ci ili2ation in general11 based on the theory that contrasts the simple merchandi2ation of the productionPconsumption process of social Fealth =as an e)ternal phenomenon Fhich does not dare to touch the human For8 force> Fith its capitalist merchandi2ation =Fhich penetrates it trough the subordination of the For8 force>. 5his deri ation defines simple mercantile reification as the historical process in Fhich the capacity of self1constitution =and of sociali2ation of indi iduals>, proper to e ery society, can no longer be accomplished in a direct and oluntary =HnecessaryH> manner but has to be reali2ed in

obedience to ha2ard, that is to say, than8s to the inert unifying and generali2ing action of the circulatory mechanism of commodities. LFing to this, autar8y or so ereignty is no longer crystalli2ed as an attribute of a personali2ed social sub(ect 11as in ancient history Fhen this crystalli2ation Fas percei ed as a mechanism to protect the threatened collecti e identity11 and remains as a mere possibility for the same. -ncluded in this process, the Fhole of things 11noF the HForld of commoditiesH11 is not only the series of natural circuits betFeen production and consumption but becomes, at the same time, the sum of relations that HmiraculouslyH unite pri ate indi iduals, Fho are defined precisely by their independence from or lac8 of community. -t is noF a 8ingdom of HfetishesHB ob(ects Fhich, going Mbehind the bac8sH of the producersPconsumers, and before either has any concrete dealings Fith the other, guarantee them the minimum of abstract sociality that their acti ity requires. -n contrast to this simple mercantile reification, capitalist mercantile reification, or alienation, is made manifest as an historical process in Fhich a mechanism interferes Fith, limits and distorts the acti ity of ha2ard, the instance that go erns basic mercantile sociali2ation. 5his mechanism, Fhich is a relation of e)ploitation mystified as an e)change of equi1 alents =the e)change of salary for For8> turns the inequality of oFnership in the means of production into a guarantee that one social class Fill rule o er another. .onsequently, fetishism of capitalist merchandise Fould also differ from elementary mercantile fetishismG far from being an impartial medium 11both HsupernaturalH, betFeen oFner and oFner, and then HnaturalH, betFeen producer and consumer11 the HForld of commoditiesH determined by capitalism imposes a structural tendency both on the confrontation of the supply and demand of commodities and on the poFer game Fhich secures the netFor8 of abstract sociali2ationG in accordance Fith its dominant dynamic, of money that becomes commodity that becomes increased money S/1.1=/Um>T, it fa ors e ery acti ity and institution that crosses its path and is hostile to any other that attempts to counter it. d> 5he differentiation of specifically capitalist producti ism in relation to other forms of producti ism throughout the economic history, de eloped in conditions of scarcity. -ts definition as the necessity of capitalist economic life Hto produce by and for productionRs sa8eH and not for either sub(ecti e purposes, such as meeting needs, or ob(ecti e purposes, such as increasing Fealth =abstract or concrete>. -t is only as a result of a production that is its oFn ob(ecti e, that is to say, only in so far as it promptly redirects the greatest possible part of the e)ploited surplus alue toFards the producti e sphere that the Fealth constituted as capital can effecti ely assert itself as such and continues to e)ist. e> 5he disco ery of destructi eness Fhich, in essence, characteri2es the only channel that the capitalist reproduction of social Fealth can open to the inescapable ad ent of the modern technological re olution, to its adoption and operation in the process of production and consume. 5he Hgeneral laF of capitalist accumulationH 11de eloped as a 8ey theoretical conclusion of /ar)Rs critical discourse on political economy from the elementary distinction betFeen Mconstant capitalN and M ariable capitalN and the e)amination of the Morganic composition of capitalN11 ma8es manifest the ine itable generation and reproduction of an Hindustrial reser e armyH, the condemnation of one part of the social body to the status of a surplus, dispensable and, thus, disposable entity. -t portrays economic life ruled by the reproduction of capital as that of an organism possessed by the incurable folly of self1aggressi e iolence.

f> 5he locali2ation of the grounds of capitalist technological progressism in the necessity =alien in itself to the logic of the pure capitalist form> of the multiplicity of pri ate conglomerates of capital to compete Fith each other for Hsupplementary profitH. Anli8e the rent on the land, this profit can only be yielded by a relati ely long1lasting monopoly of technical inno ation Fhich is capable both of increasing producti ity in a gi en For8 center and of ma8ing the merchandise produced in it more competiti e o er and abo e the mar8et norm. g> 5he e)plication of capitalist industrialism 11the o erFhelming tendency to diminish the relati e importance of the non1manufactured =natural and rural> means of production in fa or of those means of production Fhose e)istence almost entirely depends on manpoFer =artificial or urban products>11 as the result of the ri alry betFeen the tFo poles of monopoli2ed property to appropriate Msupplementary profitN, to Fhich capitalist property oFners ha e to concede rights during the process of determining the Ma erage profitN. Land property, Fhich has access to the resources and the most producti e dispositions of nature, defends its traditional right to con ert the global fund of supplementary profit into payment for this domain, into Mrent on the landN. 5he only property in a position to challenge this right, Fhich has consistently imposed its oFn cause throughout the tFentieth .entury, is the relati ely long1lasting dominion o er technical inno ation in the industrial means of production. -t is this property Fhich forces the con ersion of a groFing part of the supplementary profits into payment for its dominion o er this other HterritoryH, into a Htechnological rentH.

Thesis &. The Characteristic !eatures o# Modern 'i#e

5he many features that facilitate the comprehension of modern life may be organi2ed according to fi e distincti e phenomena of the e)isting pro(ect of modernity, or better, to fi e distincti e ambi alences supposedly sol ed by each of them. #umanism 7umanism consists of the tendency of human life not only to create an autonomous Forld for itself =a cosmos>, relati e independent of the Lther =chaos>, but to subordinate the reality of the latter to that of the formerG its eagerness to constitute itself as Man, as an independent sub(ect or basis of +ature 11of all the infra1 supra1 or e)tra1human11, Fhich it con erts into pure ob(ect, a mere counterpart of itself. By means of the permanent annihilation or e)pulsion of chaos, Fhich implies an e er1reneFed elimination or coloni2ation of MbarbarismN, humanism affirms an order and imposes a ci ili2ation that originates in the presumably definiti e triumph of rationali2ed technique o er magical technique. 5his may be called Hthe death of the first half of :odH, and it consists of the abolition of the di ine1numinous as a guarantee of the effecti eness of the instrumental medium of society. :od ceases to e)ist as the foundation of the necessity for cosmic order, as authentic proof of the pact betFeen the scarifying community and the consenting Lther. -f producti ity Fas formerly assigned by ;estiny, an arbitrary superior attainable through offerings and incantation, it is noF the result of ha2ard, tamed by the poFer of techno1mercantile reason.

7umanist Forld1construction implies a hybris, or a anthropomorphist e)cess 11Fhich forces the Lther to beha e li8e M,atureN, that is, li8e all the reser es =H bestandH> at /anRs disposal11, the clue to Fhich is in the practical efficiency of both 8noFledge e)ercised as MFor8 of appropriationN of that Fhich it has before it and the mathematical1 quantitati e pattern of the reason employed as instrument. 5he economic success of his strategy as a animal rationale in the Far against ,ature con inces /an of his position as sub(ect, foundation or self1sufficient acti ity, and encourages him to put himself as master, superior to all the elements =from the simple humani2ed nature, be it of the indi idual body or of common territory, to the most elaborate instruments and beha iors>, superior to all the functions =from the most material, procreati e or producti e to the most spiritual, political or aesthetic> and superior to all the dimensions =from the most habitual and automatic to the most e)traordinary and creati e> of the process of social reproduction. /odern rationalism 11that is the reduction, first, of the specificity of the human being to its faculty of thin8ing, and second, of these to the mode of its reali2ation in the techno1 mercantile pra)is11 is the clearest e)pression of the humanist delusion of capitalist modernity. $rogressism 7istoricity is an essential characteristic of social acti ity. 7uman life is only such because it is concerned Fith the changes to Fhich it is sub(ected by the course of timeG its ine itability is assimilated and mechanisms are created to face it. 5Fo coincidental but opposing processes alFays constitutes historical transformationB the process of inno ation or substitution of the old by the neF and the process of reno ation or restoration of the old as neF. 'rogressism consists of the affirmation of a mode of historicity in Fhich the first process pre ails o er, and dominates, the second. -n strictly progressist terms, all the practical and discursi e de ices that ma8e possible and shape the reproduction process of society 11from the technical procedures of production and consumption through the uses of speech and the conceptual apparatuses, including e en the patterns of taste and sociability, to the festi e ceremonies11 are immersed in a mo ement of una oidable change Fhich Fill transpose them from the outmoded to the updated, Hfrom the imperfect to the unsurpassableH. 'ure HmodernistH progressism enerates inno ati e no elty as if it Fere an absolute positi e alue. -t gi es access to Fhat is alFays betterB an increase in Fealth, an impro ement in the principles of freedom and (ustice, the refinement of ci ili2ation. -n general, time is e)perienced as a continuous, linear and qualitati ely ascendant floF, sub(ected to the irresistible attraction of the future as a site of e)cellenceG the present, alFays surpassed and oid of content oFing to the speed of time, has an instantaneous, e anescent reality, Fhile the past, lac8ing a reality of its oFn, is nothing more than that residue of a present that resisted the pull of the future. %rbanicism 5his is the elemental form in Fhich humanism and progressism acquire spontaneous concretion. 5he constitution of the Forld of life, understood as the substitution of order for chaos and of barbarism for ci ili2ation, is channeled through the ery special requirements of the process by Fhich the :reat .ity is constructed as the proper site of

the human. 5he ci ili2ing process implies a dialectics betFeen city life and rural life under a clear dominance of the formerG urbaniscism brea8s Fith this dialectics, its tendency is to destroy rural life. Arbanicism is the characteristic of a process that tends to concentrate the four different gra itational poles of specifically modern social acti ity on the geographical planeB a> the industriali2ation of producti e For8G b> the commercial and financial potentiation of mercantile circulationG c> the refunctionali2ation of the crisis of traditional identities, and d> the nationali2ation of political acti ity. 5his is progressism transmuted into the spatial dimensionG the tendency to construct and reconstruct human territory as the incessant materiali2ation of the time of progress. Lutside lies rural space, a stronghold of the past, dependent, dominated and separated from the natural periphery by an unstable boundaryG this mosaic of remnants forgotten or established by a Feb of urban connections is the place of agoni2ing time hardly e en itali2ed by contagion. 6t the center lies the city or doFntoFn area, the site of indefatigable acti ity and creati e restlessness, the Habyss from Fhich the present is hurledH or the place Fhere the future emerges or comes into e)istence. 6nd, inside, fanning out betFeen the periphery and the nucleus, lies the constellation of urban conglomerates of ery different magnitude, function and importanceB urban space, the site of li ing time that, in its repeated spiraling centripetal Fa8e of futuristic acceleration, topographically spreads the hierarchy of independence and domination. &ndividualism -s a certain tendency in the sociali2ation of indi iduals, in their recognition and inclusion as potentially functional members of the human raceG a tendency to pri ilege that constitution of personal identity Fhich originates in an abstract nucleusB their e)istence as pri ate oFners =producersPconsumers> of commodities, that is, as specimens of an anonymous mass, integrated from the outside into it and its qualitati e undifferentiation. -t treats of the constitution of a person imposed through and yet against all that sources of concrete sociali2ation of the indi idual 11traditional as Fell as neF11, Fhich are aFa8ing in him from the inside qualitati e comple) communal identities. 5his constitution firstly di ides the social1natural e)istence of man in such a Fay that the indi idual, as a sovereign po*er to dispose of things =as a soul untainted by use1 alue>, confronts himself li8e an ob ect located among his possessions =li8e a body that can Mbe oFnN, li8e an e)ternal apparatus made out of dri es and desires>. -t turns, secondly, the opposition betFeen the intimate and the collecti e e eryday life of the indi idual into the contradiction betFeen its pri ate and its public interestsG the need to spare energy for himself and the compulsion to alidate himself in the mar8etplace collide. .reated from the death of Hthe other half of :odH 11the death of di inity concei ed as a cohesi e factor of the community11 that is, from the failure of the religious metamorphosis of the political, indi idualism stri es to replace the di ine absence and rectify the de iation of the political by artificially re1synthesi2ing the social substance in the figure of ,ation. 6s an entity Fith a purely functional consistency, dependent on state enterprise, the modern ,ation is based on the con iction that the concrete identity required Fill emerge spontaneously from the remnants of the Hnatural nationH Fhich it denies and ignores, that is, from the mere agglomeration or

massification of perfectly free or abstract =that is, detached> indi iduals as compatriots or countrymen =Hvol,sgenosseH>. .ultural relati ism 11Neach ersion of the human is irreducible and all of them are equi alentN11, the result of the dissolution of the di ine guarantee that assimilates human essence to one particular figure, and ethical nihilism 11Ne ery norm of beha ior is arbitrary and so incapable of supporting any concrete engagementN11, the outcome of the subsequent emancipation from e eryday life Fith respect to the archaic norms of the code of social conduct, characteri2e the starting point for the modern construction of the social Forld. .apitalist indi idualism ta8es up the cause of both and stages their defense in such a Fay that their meaning is une)pectedly in ertedB relati ism becomes the absolute condition for national culture 11NapartheidN, tolerance that represses the culture of identitary differences11 and nihilism 11repression of political commitment11 is seen as the conditio sine $ua non of ci ili2ed life. "conomicism Economicism refers to the decisi e ascendancy gained by the civil dimension of social life, in Fhich indi iduals are constituted as bourgeois or pri ate entrepreneurs, o er its political dimension, Fhich positions indi iduals as citi2ens or members of the republic. 5his ascendancy e)acts the subordination of all political decisions and pro isions to those that specifically correspond to political economy. 5he ma(ority of the national population is thus in ol ed in the 9tate, an historic enterprise Fhose essential content is Hthe promotion of the enrichment of allH, understood as an abstract increase in the sum of pri ate fortunes. 6lthough economicism has its origins in the possibility 11only opened by modernity11 of obtaining equality and brea8ing Fith the traditionally ine itable transcription of qualitati e inter1indi idual differences as grades in the hierarchy of poFer, it systematically reproduces inequality and submission. H0ou are Fhat you oFnHB the pertinence of this abstract and impartial formula, by means of Fhich economicism claims possession of the secrets to equality, is based on the alidity of the HlaF of alue grounded on For8H as a de ice that can guarantee Hdistributi e (usticeH, the equal partition of Fealth. 7oFe er, if the HlaF of alueH is to be imposed, it must be iolated by economicism itselfG o er and abo e this laF, economicism must accept that the possession of things cannot be reduced to Fhat is generated by indi idual For8. 5he laF must be applied 11if needed by coercion11 merely as a principle of coherence that is neither all1embracing nor all1poFerfulG although its sphere of action is central and indispensable for modern economic life, it e)ists precisely to be o erruled and abused by the other poFers e)erted o er Fealth Fhich are unrelated to the sphere of action that proceeds from the creation of alue trough For8B the poFers related to property based on iolenceB of money, of land, of technology.

Thesis 5. Capitalism and the (m)i*alence o# Modernity

5he presence of capitalist modernity is in itself ambi alent. ,either its glorification nor its disparagement can be pureB precisely in that Fhich moti ates its glorification rests the reason for its condemnation. 5he ambi alence of capitalist modernity stems from

the folloFingB parado)ically, the most radical attempt to interiori2e the grounds of modernity registered by history 11the conquest of abundance embar8ed upon by European 3estern ci ili2ation11 could be brought about only by means of the organi2ation of economic life based precisely upon the denial of those grounds. -n order to assert itself and remain as it is, the capitalist mode of production of social Fealth requires an e er1reneFed infra1satisfaction of the corpus of social needs established in each case. /ar)Rs Hgeneral laF of capitalist accumulationH, the culmination of his theoretical deconstruction of political economy 11the modern scientific discourse par e!cellence concerning human reality11 states this clearly =after demonstrating hoF the Horganic composition of capitalH tends to groF, after shoFing the propensity of capital to in est itself increasingly in the means of production and not in the For8 force>B M5he laF in accordance Fith Fhich a continually increasing quantity of the means of production can, than8s to the ad ance in the producti ity of social labor, be set in motion by a progressi ely diminishing e)penditure of human energy 1 this laF in a capitalist society =Fhere the For8er does not ma8e use of the means of production, but Fhere the means of production ma8es use of the For8er>, undergoes a complete in ersion, and is e)pressed as folloFsB the higher producti ity of labor, the greater is the pressure of the For8ers on the means of employmentG and the more precarious, therefore, becomes their condition for e)istence, namely the sale of their oFn labor poFer for the increasing of anotherRs Fealth, or to promote the self1e)pansion of capital. Ander capitalism, li8eFise, the fact that the means of production and the producti ity of labor go more rapidly than does the producti e population, secures e)pression in an in erse Fay, namely that the For8ing population alFays goes more quic8ly than capitalRs need for self1e)pansion.N=V>. 3ithout surplus population, the capitalist mode loses its de iating but possibiliting role as mediator Fithin the process of productionPconsumption of social Fealth. 5herefore, the first tas8 of the capitalist economy is to reproduce the conditions of e)istence of its oFn formB the incessant construction and reconstruction of an artificial scarcity, and this precisely from the reneFed possibilities of abundance. European ci ili2ation embar8ed upon its enture to conquer and assimilate the MneF ForldN promised by the material re1 grounding of historical e)istenceG the Feapon Fielded Fas capitalist economy. But the beha ior of this economy, although effecti e, Fas double. 5his duplicity is repeated in a particulari2ed manner in each and e ery one of the icissitudes of the entureB capitalism instigated European ci ili2ation to design a schematic Fay to li e human life that is not only desirable but actually possible. -t Fas a pro(ect directed toFards the potentiation of the possibilities for freedom in human lifeG but this Fas done only to compel this design to become, at one fell sFoop, a ridiculous composition, a moc8ery of itself. 5he fascinating and yet intolerable facts and things of dominant modernity manifest that Fhich constitutes the unity of capitalist economy under the guise of ambi alenceB the irreconcilable contradiction betFeen the concrete sense of the process of For8Pen(oyment =a Hsocial1naturalH sense>, on the one hand, and the abstract sense of the process of alori2ationPaccumulation =a Hsocial1alienatedH sense>, on the other.

/ar)Rs description, e)planation and criticism of capital 11the HFealth of nationsH in its historical capitalist form11 alloF for the theoretical deconstruction and the understanding of the ambi alence made apparent in the e eryday e)perience of the distincti e phenomena characteri2ing dominant modernity. 6ccording to /ar), the capitalist form or mode of social Fealth 11its production, circulation and consumption11 is the ine itable mediation, the only path found by historical circumstance Fhich turned the possibility of modern Fealth into an effecti e realityG hoFe er, it is a path that deploys its necessity as an imposition and its ser ice as an oppression by e)cluding e er1increasing possibilities among those Fhich it is called upon to direct. 6s a donator of form, capitalist mediation implies a denial of the substance that is shaped by itG but it is a Fea8 denial. -nstead of For8ing toFards the resolution or Hdialectic transcendingH of its contradiction Fith the possibilities of modern Fealth, capitalist mediation only manages to neutrali2e it Fithin the figures that resol e it either falsely or Frongly and Fhich preser e it as it is in an increasingly intricate manner. -ndispensable as it is to the concrete e)istence of modern social Fealth, capitalist mediation cannot assert itself as an essential condition for its e)istence, nor can it synthesi2e a genuinely neF figure for it. 5he totality shaped by it, e en Fhen it really does penetrate the process of reproduction and is e)panded as one of the technical conditions of this process, is the result of a forced totali2ation. -t maintains a contradictory polarityB is constituted by the relations of integration or subordination of Hnatural FealthH under a form imposed on it. 5he labor process in itself or the production of ob(ects Fith use1 alue generates neF qualitati e principles of complementation betFeen the For8 force and the means of productionG proposals of ad(ustment Fhich, running contrary to their traditional compulsoriness and utilitarianism, tend to arouse the ludic and gratuitous dimension repressed by the netFor8 of technical connections that unite them. 7oFe er, this acti ity cannot be reali2ed unless it obeys a principle of complementation of a different order, Fhich deri es from the production =e)ploitation> of surplus alue. 6ccording to this principle, producti e acti ity 11the con(unction of the tFo factors of the labor process11 is none other than an in estment of capital, Fhich e)ists only to gi e M ariable capitalN =representing, in terms of alue, the For8force of the For8er> the opportunity to increase the Mconstant capitalN =representing, in terms of alue, the capitalist means of production> Fhen it is reproduced. -n this respect, there is a contradiction in the unitary principle of complementation, Fhich rules the con(unction of the labor force and the means of production and Fhich determines the selection of the producti e techniques in capitalist economy. -t cannot ta8e ad antage of the neF possibilities of this producti e ad(ustment Fithout reducing both protagonists to mere de ices of the alori2ation of alue. ,either can it sustain this con(unction as a coincidence of the factors of capital, Fhich is destined to the e)ploitation of surplus alue, Fithout e)posing it to the dangers of the qualitati e resistance that arouse from the neF technical relations betFeen the sub(ect and the ob(ect of production. Li8eFise, the process of consumption of produced goods in itself creates neF principles of satisfaction, Fhich tend to con ert the technical relation betFeen need and means of

satisfaction into a game of correspondences. ,e ertheless, modern consumption occurs only if guided by a completely opposite principle of satisfactionB that of Hproducti e consumptionH Fhich transforms Msurplus alueN into Msurplus capitalN. 6ccording to this principle, the appropriation of both salary and profit has the sole function of gi ing the alue produced the opportunity, Fhen reali2ed in the acquisition of merchandise, to bring about the reproduction of capital =Fhich is forced to e)pand its scale>. 5he capitalist principle of satisfaction of needs is therefore also intrinsically contradictoryB to ta8e ad antage of the di ersification of the technical relation betFeen needs and satisfiers, it must iolate its play of qualitati e balances and sub(ect it to the time limits and priorities of the accumulation of capitalG in turn, to e)tend and accelerate this accumulation, it must incite the Hchaotic and uncontrollableH effer escence of this di ersifying process. 5o produce anything, be it small or large, simple or comple), material or spiritual, capitalist economy only requires that its production function as a ehicle for the production of surplus alue. Li8eFise, for something to be consumed, be it useable or utili2able, familiar or e)otic, essential or a lu)ury, the only requirement is that the satisfaction it offers be integrated as a part of the accumulation of capital. -n both cases, for the technical process to ta8e place it is necessary to ma8e a feasible transformation or HtranslationH of its principle of Hsocial1naturalH reali2ation into a principle of a different Hsocial1alienatedH order, that of the principle of the alori2ing acti ity of alue Fhich is essentially incompatible Fith it, since it necessarily restricts or e)aggerates it. By adding production and consumption to circulation, the complete cycle of the reproduction of modern social Fealth is constituted as a totali2ation that forcibly unifies the process of reproduction of HnaturalH social Fealth Fith the =e)tended> process of reproduction of capital as one operation =simultaneously and in the same place>. 6ccording to the abo e, the profound dynamic that the capitalist process of the reproduction of social Fealth contributes to the course of modern history comes from the itinerary of intermittent repolari2ation and recomposition, Fhich is the outcome of its inherent contradictionB the e)clusion or reciprocal antagonism betFeen its trans1 historical substance, that is, the primary or HnaturalH form in Fhich it is reali2ed or e)ecuted, and an artificial but necessary secondary form according to Fhich it is e)ecuted only as a process of Hself1 alori2ation of alueH.

Thesis +. Modern ,istory and the -eali.ations o# Capitalism

5he different modernities or distinct models of modernity that competed before the establishment of capitalist modernity, together Fith those models that compete noF as ariations of it, compose their actual concretion in relation to the great ariety of possibilities in Fhich the real fact capitalism becomes present. Ln the synchronic a)is, there seem to be at least three sources of di ersification of this reality, Fhich must be distinguishedB 1-ts amplitudeB the relati e e)tension in Fhich the sector sub(ected to the reproduction of capital inter enes in the global economic life of a societyG the e)clusi e, dominant or simply participatory character of this sector in the reproduction of social Fealth.

6ccording to this criterion, the economic life of a socio1political and historical entity may be integrated in differing degrees into the dominant economic life of the planet, globali2ed by capitalist accumulationG spheres dominated by other forms of economy 11not only of production11 may coe)ist Fith the capitalist sphereG they can e en dominate it, although the capitalist density or HqualityH may be ery high. 1-ts densityB the relati e intensity Fith Fhich the capitalist form or mode subsumes the process of reproduction of social Fealth. 6ccording to this criterion, capitalism may gi e shape or modify the HeconomyH of the society as either a factor e)clusi e to the sphere of the circulation of the goods produced or as a factor that also deranges the sphere of productionPconsumption of these goods. -n the second of these cases, the effect of capitalism is different depending on Fhether it is only a HformalH capitalism, or a substantial =HrealH> capitalism, proper to the technical structure of this process of productionPconsumption. 1-ts differential functionB the relati e location of the economy of a society Fithin the polari2ed geography of the Forld economy. 3hether core or peripheral, the differential tas8s of the multiple specific economies Fithin the capitalist scheme of technical speciali2ation or Hinternational di ision of laborH modify the effecti eness of the laFs of accumulation of capital, that is to say, the capitalist model HunfoldsH into different complementary ersions of itself. Ln the diachronic a)is, the source of di ersification of capitalist reality seems to arise from the correlati e changes in the gra itation of the tFo main poles of monopolistic distortion of the sphere of mercantile circulation through the passage of timeB the oFnership of natural resources =HlandH> and the oFnership of technological secrecy. 6lthough not (ustified by For8 but imposed by force, the possession of these Mmeans of production, Fhich are not producedN, or of ob(ects MFithout alue but Fith a priceN, has a decisi e influence on the conversion of the sum of values of e)isting social Fealth in its form as product into the sum of prices of the e)isting social Fealth in its form as a good. 3hether e)tensi e or restricted, dense or sparse, core or peripheral, the reality of capitalism has hung o er the modern history of the last hundred years under the guise of an unequal battle betFeen these tFo poles of distortion of the laFs of the mar8et. 'henomena li8e the de astation of the actual configuration of nature during this century indicate that the irre ersible tendency of the history of capitalist economy is that the oFnership of technology ta8es precedence, in no uncertain terms, o er the oFnership of land as basis of the right to Me)traordinary profitN.

Thesis /. The 0uadruple ethos o# Capitalist Modernity

5he ob(ecti e form of the modern Forld Fhich must be ine itably assimilated in practice by all those Fho agree to li e by its terms is dominated by the presence of capitalist reality, by the fact of capitalismG that is, in the final instance, by a permanent conflict betFeen the dynamic of the Hsocial1natural formH of social e)istence and the

dynamic of the reproduction of its Fealth as H alori2ation of alueH 11a conflict in Fhich the former must be subsumed to and sacrificed to the latter incessantly. 5he assimilation of the fact of capitalism, the neutrali2ation of its contradiction as a necessary condition for the practical e)istence of the MForld of lifeN entails de eloping an ethos or spontaneous beha ior capable of integrating and accepting it as the basis for the familiar and secure HharmonyH of e eryday life. 5here are four pure or elementary ethe that construct the di erse comple) spontaneities, Fhich human beings de elop in their e eryday e)perience of life made possible by modern capitalism. 1 5he first Fay to accept the capitalist fact as HnaturalH is by assuming an attitude of affirmati e and militant identification Fith the claim that the accumulation of capital not only represents the interests of the Hsocial1naturalH process of reproduction faithfully, Fhen in truth it represses or deforms them, but is also at the ser ice of its potentiation. 5his spontaneity Fould MdenegateN the contradiction and ma8e of the alori2ation of alue and the concrete de elopment of the producti e forces not only tFo coincidental dynamics but a sole, unitary dynamic. 5his elementary ethos may be called realist due to its affirmation of the unsurpassable efficacy and bene olence of the established or Hreally e)istingH Forld, and of the impossibility of an alternati e Forld. 1 5he second Fay of naturali2ing capitalism, Fhich is (ust as militant as the pre ious one, implies the identification of the same tFo terms, the denegation of its contradiction, but it does it as an affirmation of the oppositeB not of alue but of use1 alue. -n this case, H alori2ationH seems to be entirely reducible to the Hnatural formH. 6n issue of the Hspirit of enterpriseH, it Fould be no other than a ariation of this form, since this spirit Fould, in turn, be one of the figures or sub(ects that con ert history into a permanent ad enture, both for human beings and life in general. 6lthough probably per erse, li8e the metamorphosis of the fallen 6ngel into 9atan, this metamorphosis of the Hgood ForldH or the Hnatural formH into the capitalist HhellH Fould not cease to be a HmomentH of the HmiracleH of .reation. 5his peculiar Fay of li ing Fith capitalism, Fhich is affirmed to the e)tent that it transfigures capitalism into its counterpart, is characteristic of to the romantic ethos. 1 6 third Fay, Fhich may be called classical, of spontaneously assimilating the integration of the process of social e)istence into the history of the M alori2ation of alueN Fould consist of li ing it as a transcendent necessity, that is, as a fact reaching beyond the sphere of action Fhich corresponds to Fhat is human. 6 blessing on the one hand =as the offspring of harmony> and a curse on the other =as the offspring of conflict>, the combination of the natural and the capitalist is seen as a metaphysical e ent, distanced or presupposed as a closed destiny, the closure of Fhich opens the possibility of a Forld suitable for the human condition. For this ethos, Fhate er attitude adopted for or against Fhat is established, Fhich is militant either for its enthusiasm or its protest and claims to be effecti e 11instead of recogni2ing its limits Fithin the dimension of understanding =Fith equanimity and distance of stoic rationalism>11 appears nai e and superfluous. 1 6 fourth Fay of integrating capitalism into the spontaneity of e eryday life Fould complete the quadruple elementary system of the pre ailing ethos of established modernity. -aro$ue art may lend its name to modernity because, li8e him, it is too an

Haffirmation of life Fithin deathH =:. Bataille> 1in its theatrical use of the indisputable formal canon, baroque art found the opportunity to animate all its petrified gestures and to re itali2e the situation in Fhich it Fas constituted as a negation and sacrifice of the Lther. 5his is a strategy of fidelity to the Hnatural formH Fhich parado)ically originates in the e)perience of this form as sacrificed. HLbeying Fithout fulfillingH the consequences of its sacrifice, turning the He ilH progress of history into HgoodH, baroque ethos claims to reconstruct the concreteness of the Forld of life from the remains of de astating abstraction and to re1in ent its qualities posing them as Hsecond gradeH, theatrical qualities, surreptitiously insufflating an indirect breath into the resistance that For8 and en(oyment of the Huse1 aluesH offer to the predominance of the process of alori2ation. ,eedless to say, none of these four ethe that ma8e up the pure system of Hhabits and customsH or the elementary ci ili2ational Hrefuge and co erH of capitalist modernity e er e)ist independentlyG in the actual life of the different modern Hconstructions of the ForldH, each one is alFays found in combination Fith the others in different Fays according to the circumstances. 7oFe er, one or other may play a leading role in this composition, organi2e hoF it combines Fith the others and force them to translate themsel es into it so as to ma8e themsel es manifest. Lnly in this relati e sense may one spea8, for e)ample, of a HclassicalH as opposed to a HromanticH modernity, a HbaroqueH as opposed to a Hrealist mentalityH. Lriginating in different periods of modernity, that is, in relation to distinct successi e impulses of capitalism 11the /editerranean, ,orthern, 3estern or .entral European11 the different modern ethe configure contemporary social e)istence from different HarchaeologicalH strata or historical residues. Each one has thus acted upon society in its oFn Fay and gi en preference to one dimension of society Fhere it has e)panded its action. For e)ample, Hthe baroqueH Fas probably the first decisi e and generali2ed Fatershed in the tendency of modern ci ili2ation to re itali2e the traditional 3estern code after each neF destructi e Fa e arising from capitalist de elopment. 5he last Fatershed, the HromanticH, Fould ha e a similar effect on the tendency of modern politics to treat the legitimacy of the economic process as malleable material in the hands of great v.l,er or great men. 5his lac8 of simultaneity in the constitution and combination of the different ethe is also the reason for Fhich they are systematically distributed unequally, in a complicated play of affinities and a ersions throughout the geography of the planet moderni2ed by the European or capitalist 3est

Thesis 1. European 2est and Capitalist Modernity

6 transposition of Fhat /ar) said in a nutshell about gold and the function of moneyB Europe is not Hby natureH modern, but modernity is Hby natureH European. ;uring the /iddle 6ges, the fact that at least three great historical realities coincided and interacted 11the construction of a ci ili2ed Forld of European measure, the subordination of Fealth to the mercantile form and the .atholic consolidation of the .hristian cultural pro(ect11 notably predisposed Europe to accept the challenge that Fas included in an e ent Fhich had matured Fith the course of historyB the in ersion of the poFer distribution betFeen the human being and the non1human conditions of is life. -n

retrospect, Europe appeared constructi ely proto1modern, predestined for modernity. -ndeed, Fhen it became necessary, Europe, her territories and peoples found they Fere particularly Fell prepared to gi e the grounds of modernity a chance to e ol eG unli8e the East, Fhere it Fas diffused and submitted to traditional social syntheti2ation, circumstances in Europe Fere such that it could readily be adopted and interiori2ed as a principle for restructuring human life as a Fhole. First. 5he degree of comple)ity ruling the dialectic betFeen scarcity and producti ism in the Heconomy1ForldH Fhich had been de eloped in Europe Fas in the ele enth century undoubtedly the most pronounced in 8noFn historical circumstances. 5here Fere se eral Htemperate 2onesH on the planet in Fhich a Me)aggeratedN high degree of comple)ity of the system that (oins production capacities Fith consumer necessities in the social metabolism Fas not an unusual e)cess but a generali2ed condition of e)istenceG in other Fords, there Fere in the planet plenty of regions in Fhich Mthe de elopment of man had become a necessity for ,ature itselfN=#>. Lf all these, hoFe er, only the Hsmall continentH of Europe found itself in the midst of its Hci ili2ational re olutionH and in ol ed in the process of constructing itself as a concrete totality of producti e forces. 6t the time, it Fas the only region that had the appropriate en ironment for the acceptance and culti ation of an e ent Fhich consisted primarily of potentiating the producti ity of human labor and thus of e)tending the scale of human MmetabolismN Fith ,ature. 6bo e all, as an economic Forld Fhich Fas in a position to di ide For8 regionally Fhile maintaining technological coherence Fithin its imprecise but undeniable geographical frontiers, the European continent had the Hoptimal measureH to be the scenario of such an e ent. Second. ;uring the emergence of Europe, the merchandi2ation of the process of the circulation of Fealth 11accompanied by its fundamental tool, alue, and its 8ey operation, e)change by equi1 alence11 Fent beyond the limits of this sphere and penetrated the ery structure of production and consumption. /oreo er, it became generali2ed as the real subordination of concrete For8 and en(oyment to only one of their real dimensions, that in Fhich they e)isted, in abstract terms, as simple acts of crystalli2ing and de1crystalli2ing alue. 5he e)change of equi1 alents Fas no longer (ust one of the modes of transaction Fhich coe)isted, helped and hindered each other on a mar8et that had limited itself to being the means by Fhich goods could Hchange handsH, once they had been produced, and Fealth, Fhich Fas, in the strict sense, surplus, could be circulated. 5he period during Fhich it could do no more than e)ert a re1forming or He)terior influenceH on the metabolism of the social body Fas noF in the past. -t noF tended to monopoli2e the bul8 of this Hchanging of handsH of commodities, to promote and pri ilege the mar8et of stoc8 still not produced =functioning as a credit mechanism>, thus becoming a technical intermediary essential to the reproduction of social Fealth. 5he merchandi2ation of the economic life in Europe reified the mechanism of the circulation of Fealth as the Msub(ectN, the Mhidden handN that distributed Fealth. 5hus, gradually reduced the traditional poFer of communities and landlords, as archaic political sub(ects, to interfere in the distribution of goods and in their productionPconsumption. -t also freed or emancipated the indi idual For8er from his regional obligations by inserting him, if only as a principle, in the uni ersalism of the nascent Forld mar8et.

/hird. 5he .hristian transformation of the JeFish identity, Fhich could only be accomplished by re1functionali2ing :reco14oman identity and could only be consolidated by coloni2ing the :ermanic identities, had prepared the mythical structure of practice and discourse of the European peoples 11in a counterpoint dialogue Fith the merchandi2ation of e eryday life 11 to accompany and boost the floFering of modernity. 7uman beings Fere noF e)periencing in their oFn li es a conflicti e beha ior that had a schi2oid structure. 3hile they might ha e a soul, their person Fas only interested in alueG Fhile they might ha e a body, they only had eyes for its use1 alue. 6bo e all, as belie ers in :od, as members of the ecclesia and equal in the eyes of :od, they reali2ed they had become in ol ed in an historical enterprise that depended on intimacy in order to be collecti e and depended on the collecti ity in order to be intimate. 5his Fas none other than the enterprise of the sal ation of the human race 11a uni ersal endea or on the part of that old Hpeople of :odH of JeFish religion, once it had been enlarged and uni ersali2ed11 Fhich could integrate all the indi idual destinies of autochthonous communities and propose Hone sole sense and purposeH and one sole rationality =if not one sole language> common to all. 3ithout this precedent of the spontaneous cultural proto1modernity of MeuropeadN 3estern ci ili2ation, capitalism, that old /editerranean mode of beha ior determining the circulation of mercantile Fealth, could ne er ha e become the dominant mode of reproducing social Fealth. 5he opposite is also trueB Fithout capitalism, the grounds of modernity Fould ne er ha e succeeded in con erting Fhat Fere only modern prefigurations and tendencies of European 3est into a de eloped form including e ery aspect of social e)istence, into an effecti e modernity. .apitalism needed the European concreteness in order to become a mode of reproduction of social FealthG once it had been constituted as such =and the European continent had been moderni2ed>, it could dispense Fith this Hcu ili2ationary humusH and e)tend all o er the planet, impro ising ad hoc encounters and coincidences Fith ci ili2ations that Fere potentially alien or e en hostile to the grounds of modernity. -n order to become an effecti e reality, the essence of modernity had to be HFor8ed outH in accordance Fith the Helecti e affinitiesH betFeen the proto1modernity of European life and the capitalist form of the circulation of goods. -n order that modernity might adopt neF effecti e forms and de elop in other directions, it Fould be necessary that other affinities betFeen ci ili2ationary and economic forms inter ene to change the purpose of this HFor8H. -t too8 capitalism, originally a circulatory phenomenon, an entire epoch to penetrate the sphere of production and consumptionG once precious metals from the 6mericas had forced a re1e aluation of European manufactured articles, it Fas disco ered that the real grounds of the potential of capitalism lay not in the ephemeral play Fith the terms of foreign e)change but in e)ploiting the For8 forceG in other Fords, that the real -ndies Fere Fithin the countryRs oFn economy =H.orrect your maps, ,eFcastle is 'eruWH>. ;uring this period, the European economic sphere e)panded and contracted until it finally established its definiti e boundariesG its nucleus (umped from 9outh to ,orth, from East to 3est, from city to city, concentrating and assigning functions. For this reason, it is 8noFn as the time Fhen the competition concerning the different possible pro(ects of modernity Fas e entually resol ed, if Fith difficulty, in fa or of the one that demonstrated the greatest firmness in the handling of capitalism as a mode of

production. 5he pro(ect decided upon Fas that Fhich offered, first and foremost, a solution to the problem of the resistance of the indi idual and communal body to sacrifice its pillions and Fhich guaranteed an obsessi ely thrifty and producti istic economic beha iorG that pro(ect Fhich had the ability to accomplish this because the .hristian identity, Fhich acted as its support, Fas freed from the concrete consistency =/editerranean and JeFish> of its religious ecclesia 11perceptible for all in a corporal and e)terior manner11 and recei ed a different, purely abstract and indi idual religiosity =impro ised after the destruction of the :ermanic communities>, that became an imperceptible question for others, a purely inner e ent in Fhich moral diligence, ta8ing the form of self1fulfillment, coincided Fith the moral norm, ta8ing the form of a demand made upon one self.

Thesis 3. The Political in Modernity4 5o*erei"nty and (lienation

-f Fhat determines the life of human being is his political character 11the fact that configuring and re1configuring his sociality is more important to him than the basic acti ity that reproduces his animality11 /ar)Rs theory concerning alienation and fetishism is undoubtedly the most decisi e conceptual starting1point for a discussion of the recogni2able lin8s betFeen modernity and capitalism. -n order to sur i e, human liberty has, parado)ically, had to deny itself as political liberty, so ereignty or the e)ercise of autar8y in e eryday social life. -t might be said that the association of concrete indi iduals 11that original Hgroup in fusionH Fhich must be ta8en as the premise11 refuses to go ern itself, since it is terrified by the magnitude of the enterpriseG or that, on the contrary, it is by nature incompatible Fith any sense of permanence and does not possess the ability to accept and assert itself as an institution. -t is true that human beings ha e been aFare of the e)istence of their political liberty, so ereignty and poFer of self1go ernment throughout their history, but only as a legendary idea that is e)terior and alien to them and could ne er be put into practice in their e eryday li esG li8e the motif of a narrati e to Fhose real effects they may only sing the praises or mutter curses. 3ithout ta8ing into account those moments of singular historical tension, Fhich fall Fithin the brief time span of a unique heroic deed, or those parts of regional history, Fhich are pro isionally protected against the larger historical frameFor8 =and to this e)tent de1reali2ed>, one cannot deny that the concrete human indi idual, as an association of indi iduals or an indi idual person, has had been practically no opportunities to e)ercise his freedom by him self in the form of self1go ernment and to do it positi ely, that is, by en(oying the physical life that enables him to be self1 go erning. 3hether directly or indirectly, the e)ercise of the political faculty 11as a not granted, delegated, transmitted or reflected e)ercise11 has alFays had to be accomplished on negati e terms =by sacrificing physical life>, as a transgression or a challenge, as a form of rebellion against e)tra1political conglomerates of established poFer =economic, religious, etc.>. 'arasites in concrete social life but necessary to its reproduction, the conglomerates of poFer ha e concentrated and monopoli2ed for themsel es the ability to reproduce the form social life ta8es, to culti ate a concrete identity of the community =polis> and to decide among the alternati es of e)istence that history places before it.

-n his theory of alienation /ar) deconstructs the political culture of modernityG he starts by sharing this undoubtedly accurate narrati e of the history of political life 11from its performance in the despotic and theocratic dispositions to his reali2ation in the state1 democratic go ernment11 as the implacable history of a ocation destined to be thFarted. 6ccording to /ar), the modern e)tra1political conglomerate of poFer, Fhich arrogates and Fields the right to monitor societyRs e)ercise of so ereignty, as Fell as to inter ene in its basic organi2ation, is the result of the Dalue of capitalist merchandise as an Hautomatic sub(ectH. -t is a poFer Fielded against the community as a possible association of free indi iduals, but utili2ing its collecti e nature Fhich can only percei e the rec8less aspect of a pro(ect of its oFnG renouncing its liberty, it becomes installed in the pragmatism of the realpoliti, and offers its obedience to Fhate er instance or caudillo Fho can assure its sur i al in the short term. -n accordance Fith /ar)Rs disco ery, the alue that acts on the capitalist circulation of social Fealth is different from that Fhich is in play in the merely mercantile circulation of the sameB in the latter case, it is no more than a third person in the e)change of commodities, Fhile in the former it is the Hinstigating sub(ectH of the same. 5o be alue here is to be capital, because, as /ar) FritesB M4eally and truly ... alue is here the acti e factor in a process in Fhich, Fhile continually assuming by turns the form of money and the form of commodities, it at the same time changes in magnitude, gi es birth to surplus alue, so that the original alue spontaneously e)pands. For the mo ement in Fhich it adds to itself a surplus alue is its oFn mo ement, its e)pansion, its self1e)pansion. -t has acquired the occult quality of being able to add alue to itself ... -n simple circulation, the alue of commodities acquires nothing more than the independent form of money as confronting their use1 aluesG but noF ... in the circulation of capital, this same alue suddenly presents itself as substance endoFed Fith an independent motion of its oFn, a substance of Fhich commodities and money are themsel es merely forms. ,ay more. -nstead of representing relations of commodities, it enters, so to say, into a pri ate relation to itself...N=Q>. -nstalled in the sphere of mercantile circulation, the Dalue of capitalist merchandise has not only directly usurped =0bergrifen> from the human community the location in Fhich it ta8es decisions concerning the correspondence betFeen its system of consumer demand and its system of production supply but has indirectly usurped the fundamental political location in Fhich it decides upon its oFn identity, that is the particular form of its sociality or the concrete figure of the social interrelationships pre ailing in it. 5he deferral of autar8y or the HalienationH of the political faculty of the social sub(ect, Fhich is the essence of the Hphenomenon of reificationH, has been seldom radically denounced by /ar)ist re olutionary policy. 6nd anyFay, the act of denouncing has had practically 2ero effect on the e eryday pra)is of this policy. 5he Halienation theoryH has not ser ed /ar)ists as a guide because their concept of re olution has remained bounded to the politicist myth of re olution, Fhich reduces the autar8y of the social sub(ect to the mere so ereignty of the Mpolitical societyN and its state. 6lthough the /ar)ist tradition has de eloped a number of essential elements, a theory of re olution based on the /ar)ian concept of alienation is still missing.

5he alienation theory as a political theory should be based on the recognition of one thingB the usurpation of social so ereignty by the Hrepublic of the merchandiseH and its capitalist HdictatorshipH cannot be thought of as the consequence of an act of e)propriation on a gi en date of an ob(ect or a quality belonging to a sub(ect, and thus as a state of paralysis or annulment of the political faculty of society =so long as the messianic hour of the re olution does not chime>. 5his usurpation is a permanent e ent of capitalist societyG it is a constant process in Fhich the mystification of political Fill can only ta8e place parasitically and at the same time, as this Fill is being formed. .apital is an entity Fhich is in itself alien to the particular sphere of political concernsG far from e)ercising its political HmanagementH as something imposed on an established political Forld by an economic e)terior, it relies on the construction of a political interiority itself, on the installation of a peculiar sphere of political life indispensable to societyB precisely that of party politics to Fin the right to go ern public affairs Fithin the national democratic state. 5he itality of modern political culture is based on the ongoing conflict betFeen the pulsations that restore and reconstitute the HnaturalH political faculty of the social sub(ect and the dispositions that the reproduction of capital has sei2ed for the organi2ation of social life. 6lthough there are differences betFeen the tFo, the question of autar8y and the question of democracy are inseparable. -n a re olutionary sense, the former attempts to focus its debate on the possibilities society has of freeing the political acti ities of the human indi iduals, starting Fith societyRs ability to reconquer its so ereignty or political faculty, Fhich is infested by the destructi e =anti1social, anti1NnaturalN> functioning of the accumulation of capital. -n a reformist sense, the latter attempts, on the contrary, to focus its debate Fithin the terms of the Hreally e)istingH so ereignty on Fhat possibilities the democratic game of the modern state has to increase popular participation so as to nullify the negati e effects of economic structural inequality on social life. ,e ertheless the arguments produced by the re olutionary and the reformist lines of mutual attac8 coincide on one pointB the idea that the Hmode of productionH cannot be replaced if society does not become democratic at the same time and the idea that democracy cannot be perfected if the Hmode of productionH is not radically transformed at the same time. -f the political theory based on the concept of reification accepts that political action is possible *ithin reification, that e en though society is depri ed of its possible so ereignty, it is not politically immobili2ed or paraly2ed or condemned to aFait the messianic hour Fhen its political liberty Fill be returned to it, then the problem is one of establishing the Mparapra)isN =fehlleistung1 of the mystified politics by fulfilling the imperati e of mercantile society of de ising a real political scenario and an appropriate democratic game for the transmutation of its ci il interests into a political *ill. Lnly on this basis Fill it be able to (udge the mode in Fhich and the e)tent to Fhich the deep itality of the democratic game can be lead to the point in Fhich re olution may be an actual issue.

Thesis 16. Modern 7iolence4 Corporeality as 2or8a)ility

'eace, the e)clusion of iolence conquered by capitalist modernity for quotidian coe)istence, is not a fact that relies, as happens in other ci ili2ational orders, on the administration of iolence but on its mystification. 9ocial life has alFays needed to produce and reproduce Fithin its frameFor8 at least a simulacrum of peace, a Hlimited but permanent cease1fireH, a modicum of social harmony, if it is to persist in its form, to be organic or ci ili2ed and in a position to assert itself Fhen threatened by instability, fragmentation or sa agery 11characteristics of sociality Hin fusionH =re olution> or falling apart =catastrophe>. -t is impossible to maintain internal peace in a society that has been constructed on the historical conditions of scarcity. 9carcity must be internali2ed and functionali2ed in the reproduction of society, and the only Fay to do it in Fhich it may be made to function in the reproduction of society is by means of systematic in(ustice in the distribution of Fealth. -n these circumstances, iolence becomes the necessary mode of conduct of the most pri ileged members of society toFards the least harmed. 5herefore, the pacified 2one =the simulacrum of a generali2ed internal peace> can only e)ist Fhen 11besides the mechanisms of repression11 there is some pacific dissuasion de ice, Fhich induces a reaction of self1bloc8ade on the part of the e)ploited of the iolent reaction that is been pro o8ed by e)ploitation and in(ustice. 5han8s to this, the e)ploitersR iolence is not only tolerated but is accepted by the e)ploited. 5he consistency and function of this de ice are precisely Fhat distinguish the simulacrum of social peace in capitalist modernity from other similar simulacra from former times =or still to be disco ered>. /ar) statesB HLn the basis of the Fages system e en the unpaid labor seems to be paid labor. 3ith the sla e, on the contrary, e en that part of his labor Fhich is paid appears to be unpaidH=X>. 5his statement implies anotherB on the contrary to pre1modern times, Fhen e en harmonic interpersonal relationships Fere under the sign of iolence, in modern times e en iolent interpersonal relationships are under the sign of harmony. 5he basic requirement for modern ci ili2ed life and its boo8 of rules is that indi iduals, as For8ers, should accept, HFillingly and not by forceH, a situation in Fhich their oFn social =HeconomicH> inferiority is systematically regenerated. 5his act of acceptance is essential because, parado)ically, it is only in this situation that the social =HpoliticalH> e$uality of these indi iduals may be guaranteed. 5his situation sociali2es For8ing indi iduals in so far as they are pri ate oFners impose a HtFofacedH identity upon themB on the one hand, as Hciti2ensH of the historical enterprise 8noFn as the national 9tate 11as members of a community to Fhich they belong on an equal basis11 and, on the other, as members of the HbourgeoisieH in a shared economic life 11as partners in an enterprise that accumulates capital to Fhich they are affiliated as inferior members. -t is the desire for equality as a citi2en, as somebody Fho e)ists in the human uni erse 11and Fho parta8es of the protection offered by the national community, Fhich is, in principle, peaceful and ci ili2ed11 that ma8es the indi idual For8er sacrifice his poFer of assertion in the distribution of social Fealth and his capacity to en(oy it on equal terms. 6nd it is precisely the contract of sale of the For8ing force as a commodity 11a paradigmatic act Fhose sense and meaning is repeated in e ery corner of the great edifice of modern intersub(ecti ity11 that is the mechanism by Fhich the indi idual For8er His sa ed and condemnedH. By acting as endor of For8ing force and buyer of means of subsistence, the For8er is sociali2ed as a pri ate oFner, that is, as an equal

Fith other Hciti2ensH, e en though this condition condemns him at the same time to an inferior position as part of the HbourgeoisieH, to subordination to those non1For8ing indi iduals Fho oFn more than their mere For8 force. 5he For8er ne er loses his status as a pri ate oFner, e en if he has no property, inasmuch as he is in possession of his body, that is to say, he holds the right to hire it out. 3hen he performs as a For8er, the modern citi2en introduces into history a neF 8ind of relationship betFeen the human person and his natural base, betFeen HspiritH and HmatterH. 6s a For8er he is not his body but he o*ns his body, and this body enables him to maintain this human status precisely in so far as it is the ob(ect of his iolence. 5he ancient sla e could sayB H-n truth - am a sla e, but - am and - e)ist in fact as if Fere notH. 5he iolence implicit in his situation Fas only concealed or dilated since his Fill to do as he Fanted Fas alFays on the erge of being iolatedB he might be sold, he might be abused in body or soul. 7is relationship of reciprocal dependence Fith his master often made him a servo padroneG the partial respect his master might shoF toFards him Fas a 8ind of payment for his global disrespect toFards him =Fhich became almost forgi able>, a mas8 for the profound iolence the sla e Fas a ictim of. -n contrast, the modern Hsla eH saysB H-n truth - am free, but - am or - e)ist in fact as if Fere notH. 5he iolence implicit in his situation is erasedB his Fill to do, as he Fants cannot be iolated, but his freedom to e)ercise it fully =not to sell himself to the For8 force, for e)ample> is alFays postponed. 7ere the HmasterH, capital, is, in principle, impersonal 11it does not react to use1 alue nor to the Hnatural formH of life11 and in this respect it does not depend on the Hsla eH nor does it need to understand himG it may pursue its HFhimH =self1 alori2ation> Fithout ha ing to ma8e amends to anything or e)plain anything to anybody. Lne thing is to interiori2e and assimilate e)terior iolence, to accept and administrate the fact of inequality as a iolence on the part of the dominator, and to praise it as a necessary defense mechanism Fhen HFhat is oursH is threatened by HFhat is alienHG to e)cuse and (ustify it as an una oidable Feapon against natureRs aggressi eness or :odRs reticence to act as a mediator betFeen the .ommunity and the Lther. -t is quite another thing to de3ny the e)ploiterRs iolence and to blame mystify and confuse it Fith a raF presence of an e!terior hostility. 5o de1ny it is to say that it is not necessary Fithin the established social Forld and to e)plain its e)istence as a result of secondary stumbles in the march of progress and the conquest of Hthe LtherH, of speed problems in the e)pansion of producti e forces or in the elimination of pre1modern or semi1modern social forms. Lac8ing a proper name and a social location in modern e eryday life, the iolence of capitalist Hproduction relationshipsH e)pands its action as much to e eryday life as to the political acti ity that creates its institutions. L erloo8ed as a human action and not recogni2ed as a real instrument in interpersonal relationships, iolence in the form of salary e)ploitation appears as a 8ind of punishment the body of the For8er has to endure because of his oFn shortcomingsB his lac8 of technical qualifications or his cultural ata ism. -t is a punishment that reduces itself to fine particles, finding its home, li8e parasite, in the most inoffensi e modes of beha ior of e eryday life, tFisting them from Fithin, introducing in them per erse effects of estrangement. 5he grounds of modernity include the possibility that the humanity of the human person may be liberated and alle iated, that it may be rescued from the ancient mode of

acquiring concretion, Fhich binds and limits it oFing to the identification of his body Fith a gi en social function =producti e, parental, etc.>. 5his possibility that the human person may e)plore his so ereignty o er his natural body, Fhich is the Hob(ecti e promiseH of modernity, is precisely that Fhich is betrayed and caricatured in capitalist modernity Fhen the humanity of the person, iolently mutilated, is defined in terms of the identification of the human body Fith its For8ability. 5he modern For8er, Hfree on tFo FaysH, has so ereignty o er his body, but the so ereignty he holds has already been programmed on the basis of his mutilated humanity to be e)ercised as the repression of his oFn animal corporeality. 9ince the body is the set of modes that the human indi idual has of e)isting concretely in the Forld, it is con erted into the animal instrument of one unique and peculiar Fay of e)isting in it, Fhich is the appropriation of the body directed toFards reproducing it as a means of a producti e acti ity that has no beginning and no end. 5his helplessly defecti e set of faculties and producti e s8ills that is the body of the modern indi idual is reFarded time and again Fith a great amount of en(oyment but at once punished as the corresponding pleasure is neutrali2ed. 5he mechanism that seals this interFea ing of reFard and punishment is that Fhich artificially and painfully dissects and separates the first dimension of corporal en(oyment 11its acti e openness to the Forld11 con erting it into e)penditure on a reneFable resource during the HFor8ing timeH, from the second dimension of corporal en(oyment 11its passi e openness to the Forld11 Fhich is reduced to mere restoring the For8er during his Hhours of rest and leisureH. Furthermore, the elimination of all trace of human character from the iolence in capitalist relationships of coe)istence appears to be the reason for the ethical acuum in political acti ity. ,e er as in the modern epoch ha e the manipulators of Mpopular FillN 11those Fho put into practice the irtually Hfinal solutionsH to social, cultural, ethnic and ecological HquestionsH, among others11 been able to perform their functions Fith such affecti e detachment and efficiencyB they operate as mere administrators of an Himperati eH of astral aspirations =the vorsehung> Fhich is unaffected by any criterion used to assess human beha ior.

Thesis 11. 2ritin" and the 9iscourse o# Modernity

5he capitalist re1centering of the reproduction process of social e)istence regarding the final goal of the alori2ation of alue has a decisi e effect on the occasion modernity pro ides for liberating the symbolic dimension of this e)istence 11manRs acti ity as a producer of linguistic and practical meanings. 5he communicati e dimension 11the group of semiotic systems organi2ed around language11 Fas undoubtedly the most directly affected aspect of social e)istence at the end of the /iddle 6ges in the 3est on account of the impact caused by the Hchange of yardstic8H used to measure the reproducti e process of social Fealth, from its Hqualitati e leapH to a European scale. 5he process of the productionPconsumption =encodingPdecoding> of practical meaning, Fhich had operated in accordance Fith a restricti e and conser ati e standardi2ation =HnormationH> of the code of communication throughout the long history of scarcity 11ma8ing of e ery pro(ect of social life a mere prolongation of the strategy of sur i al11 e entually found the means to e)plore 2ones of that code that had alFays been closed to it. 5he taboos concerning

numerous Fays of granting form to productsPcommodities =or goods produced> thus began to be lifted. 5he structure of the instrumental field could finally begin to rebuild itself historically on a larger scale and Fith un8noFn qualities. 9imilarly, the different natural languages, Fhich Fere also normed by restricti e rules oFing to oppressi e con entions of their respecti e mythical structures, embar8ed upon their process of radical reconstitution, of self1construction as Hmodern natural languagesH, upon HgroFing aFareH that the reneFed creati ity in e eryday speech Fas intensifying and di ersifying their capacity of putting1in1code the Lther. 7uman acti ity as a reality in Fhich e ery act is an act of communication is a logo centric realityB linguistic communication is thus gi en the function of coordinating and representing all other semiotic attempts in the same direction for the purpose of constructing a common ground of meaning for them all. 9uch a centrali2ing effort also affects *riting practice. Besides being logo centric, social communication has had to be logocraticG in this respect, it has had to submit its production of meaning to the meaning that originates in purely linguistic communicationG furthermore, it has had to defend in its practice the norms that gi e a singular identity to a ci ili2ation, a tas8 that language accomplishes by reducing and confining its mythopoeia function to the hermeneutic cult of a sacred te)t and its dogmatic corpus. Far from being an o erstatement of logo centrism, logocracy 11imposed by the need to base politics on religion11 displays its impo erishment and unilaterality. -n fact, logocracy represses logo centrismG by fa oring only one of the multiple possibilities of discourse =further obstructed by the hieratic process so essential to it>, it entails the subordination of all them under the mythic1religious discourse. Just as modernity primordially freed the constraints on practical and linguistic codes and on instrumental uses of speech, so it did on logo centrism. -n the first place, modernity pro ided logo centrism Fith the opportunity to eliminate the oppression produced by the absolute poFer of language from the productionPconsumption of meaning and, in the second place, it released it from the constraints of self1censure Fhich Fere formerly imposed by the culti ation of time1honored myths. 7oFe er, the liberation of the use of instrumental means, that is, of the ability to in ent unheard1of forms for useful products, Fas only a halfhearted affair, Fhich Fas controlled and super ised. ,ot all forms of creati ity that are acclaimed by human beings from a social1natural perspecti e can be so acclaimed by capital from the perspecti e of the alori2ation of alue. 5he code for the construction =productionPconsumption> of practical meanings might gain poFer 11become more dynamic, broaden and di ersify itself11 but only by means of a correcti e, of a H sub3 encoding structureH Fhich Fould gi e all meanings the stamp of capitalist meaning. 5he HnaturalH semiotic interiori2ation of the ancient strategy of sur i al Fould be replaced by a neF interiori2ation, Fhich might folloF another Fays but Fould also tend toFards repressionB the interiori2ation of a strategy for the accumulation of capital. 6 similar thing too8 place in the life of discourse. Lnce the archaic barriers =religious and numinous> of mythical structure, Fhich by standardi2ing each language ga e it its identity, had been destroyed, others Fere erected in their place. By ta8ing as its starting point a bourgeois epic and mythopoeia styled along capitalist lines, the mythical

structure of the modern languages could also reinstate its authority of censorship. 5he morality of producti istic self1sacrifice 11the Hcorpse of :odH11 required for redemption, Fhich made the common entrepreneur the heroic sub(ect of business and ad enture and endoFed his underta8ings Fith the hierarchy of an acti ity of metaphysical reach, became the only prism by means of Fhich it Fould be possible to accede to a sense of the real. 5he sphere of discourse, un8noFn in its traditional logocracy, in its monopoly of access to reality and the truth, and freed from ser ice to the untouchable myth =the 9criptures> of a despotic re1binding =re3ligare> community, Fas, ne ertheless, condemned to a neF logocratic refunctionali2ation. 6ccording to this, the predominant moment in the Hmetabolism betFeen /an and ,atureH =noF characteri2ed by the capitalist producti ism issuing from the former and by the infinitely passi e a ailability of the latter> Fas located in the cogniti e appropriation of the referent, that is, in the acti ity of Htechno1mercantile reasonH. 4ecomposed to this effect on the basis of its technical and scientific register, language became the pri ileged and e)clusi e site of this logos producer of 8noFledgeG hence, it became, once again but in a different fashion, the site of the truth of all other communication possible. 7oFe er, the price language paid for its regained authority o er practical semiotics Fas a process of HdeformationH, a referential reduction of its communicati e functions, an obsessi e fi)ation Fith an appropriati e e)ploration of conte)t. 5he language of capitalist modernity has been adapted simply to pri ilege only one of its numerous faculties 11to unite, e)press and persuade, play and question11B the faculty of con erting the referent into pure =and purified> information. 5his modern reconstruction of logocracy has ta8en place alongside a radical process of the refunctionali2ation of *riting, its principal instrument. From the 9criptures, Fhich ha e effecti ely and protecti ely petrified discourse in so far as the truth it re eals, Friting has been con erted into the ehicle for an inescapable inter ention of instrumental logos in e ery possible use of language and in e ery possible linguistic manifestation in other Fays of the productionPconsumption of meaning. 3hen Friting Fas seculari2ed and its techniques perfected, the scope of discourse reached beyond all 8noFn bounds. 6s an independent ersion of the speech act, Fritten speech is a speciali2ed e)tension of speech, a mode of reali2ing it that sacrifices some characteristics of speech in order to enhance others. 5he en iable and unparalleled communicati e conclusi eness of the speech act, Fhich enables it to be ephemeral, pays dearly in the eyes of Fritten speechB it should be elaborated as an incomplete, confused and relati ely unproducti e act. 5he speech act is only comfortable Fhen depending on other Fays of human bodys semiotics =gestures, musicality, etc.>, although it produces gaps in its oFn performanceG its resourcefulness in simultaneously transmitting parallel messages ma8es uncertain its progression and, in continual play Fith the multiple communicati e functions =from the coarsest, the phatic function, to the purest, the poetic function>, it becomes unrepeatable. 3ritten speech arises from the need to compensate for these limitations, e en though it pays the price of a loss incommunicati e force. HFascinatedH by the conclusi e, a temporal and efficient spirit of Fritten speech 11by its linguistic self1sufficiency, its unifunctional focus and its unilinearity11, certain areas of erbal speech regard it as a promised land.

-t is not, hoFe er, the unilateral superiority of Fritten speech that enables it to brea8 aFay from erbal speech and to submit it to its oFn con entions. =Lne has to remember that modern natural languages Fere created from a mode of speech that had sub(ected the satisfaction of its global needs of communication to the needs of its Fritten ersion.> 5he Fritten speech of a modern language 11the norms of Fhich are anchored in the referential communicati e function, gi en that its goal is to get information11 offers an unsurpassable model for the rational and producti istic ordering of human acti ity. 5he instrumental field of For8 and en(oyment 11Fhich is the closest ob(ecti e form of presence of the human body and the multi1dimensional concretion of its being in the Forld11, abandon, as does Fritten speech, all the modes of its functioning, Fhich are not percei ed as rational in the sense of e)clusi ely instrumental efficiency. By ta8ing this technical structure, consciously or unconsciously, as its guide, the process of production and consumption of things ratifies and substantiates the hegemonic position of Friting Fithin speech and Fithin modern semiotics in general. 5he pragmatically technified pra)is aFa8ens in Friting an o erFhelming HFill of poFerH. -t thus e)tends the reach of the ne* logocracyB to signify, Hto say something to somebody about something Fith a gi en intention and in a certain mannerH, ought to consist, primarily and fundamentally, of turning the communicati e act into Han instrument of cogniti e appropriationH of this HsomethingH, of Hthe realH. 6ll the rest is secondary.

Thesis 12. Pre:modernity 5emi:modernity and Post:modernity

&ost1modernity is the characteristic of certain phenomena of a general order Fhich appear Fith necessity and as a permanent feature on the border line betFeen established modernity and its negati e double =doppelg4nger>. =-t is not merely the recent trait peculiar to a certain affluent group that needs a neF ennui 11this time on account of the monotony of modernity11 to lend a transcendent, and thus aristocratic, touch to its image reflected in the mirror.> 'ost1modernity is one of the three principal patterns on the bordering 2one in Fhich the alidity or adaptability of Hreally e)istingH modernity shoFs signs of e)haustion. /odernity is a mode of ci ili2ational totali2ation. 6s such, it possesses differing degrees of dominance o er social life in historical and geographical terms. 3here er its dominance is ulnerable, hybrid phenomena appear in Fhich other principles of totali2ation fight for the HmatterH that is being shaped by it. 'ost1modern phenomena emerge in the border 2one, Fhich loo8s to a possible future. &re3modern phenomena appear in the 2one that loo8s to the remaining past. Semi3modern phenomena arise in the 2one that opensPcloses the door to those strange Forlds still to be conquered. 5he dynamics of the grounds of modernity constantly generate neF constellations of possibilities for human life, Fhich challenge capitalist modernityRs ability to synthesi2e Hfrom the futureH. 3here er capitalist modernity momentarily or permanently pro es that it is not equal to this challenge, because it Fould be putting itself at ris8, Fhere er, that is, its attempt to e)pand itself remains as an attempt to go beyond its boundaries but Fithout re1constructing itself, the neF possibilities, Fhich cannot be constituted autonomously, become deformations of Hreally e)istingH modernity. -n this sense, the centennial phenomena of modern economic politics Fould be a paradigm in that it is engaged in the tas8 of accounting for the real need for a democratic plan concerning the

production and consumption of goods, using the inadequate resource of partially sacrificing its liberal economic structure and its cosmopolitan ocation and of interfering, in a someFhat authoritarian and protectionist manner =paternalistic on some occasions and totalitarian on others> Fith the HstateH in the HeconomyH. 6nother challenge to Fhich capitalist modernity finds difficult to be equal is that created by certain realities from its oFn past, Fhether these figures are prior to modernity or come from the pre1.hristian history of the 3est. 6lthough uprooted from the conte)t of the totali2ation of the society of the past, Fhich Fas granted political autonomy and historical itality, a number of ci ili2ational elements from the past =ob(ects, modes of conduct, alues> ha e persisted in the Forld constructed by dominant modernityG they may be re1functionali2ed by modernity, but so insufficiently that they can still maintain its effecti eness. 5hey are, to a greater or lesser degree, indispensable to modernity in that it has shoFn its inability to pro ide more suitable substitutes, but they remain Hforeign bodiesH, Fhich, though placed Fithin a logic compatible Fith that of the present day, are noF out1of1date and are thus reproduced as pre1modern phenomena. Anli8e these, the semi1modern phenomena are elements =fragments, ruins> of ci ili2ations or non1Festern constructions of social Forlds, Fhich claim their right to e)ist in a Forld of European modernity despite the fact that the technological grounds on Fhich they are based succumb to the intergrating effects of modern ci ili2ation. 5he itality they ha e and reproduce 11although they are integrated in e)teriority and used Fithout respect for the principles of their oFn design11 is the most con incing proof of the Eurocentric limitation that affects the pro(ect of dominant modernity. -n order to a oid being o erFhelmed by the fundamental dynamics of modernity, Fhich tends to question e ery traditional particularism, the capitalist solution see8s refuge Fithin the tested margins of the Hci ili2ational choiceH ta8en by 3estern Europe. 6s reactions on the part of capitalist modernity against its oFn limitations, these three phenomena may o erlap and be combined. 5hey are thus the components in the picture of great historical cataclysms, as ha e been the tFo cases of MsocialistN failure in the tFentieth centuryB the Msocialist nationalistN counter3revolution in :ermany and the Msocialist collecti istN pseudo3revolution in 4ussia. 5here is a crisis in Hreally e)istingH modernity Fhene er the absolutism of its form is on the erge of o erpoFering the substance that permits it to be soG Fhene er, Fithin its mediation of the tFo basic emancipatory promises inherent to the grounds of modernity, the first element, the opening of neF economic possibilities of going beyond the Hhistory of scarcityH comes in contradiction Fith the second, that is Fith the repression of any emancipatory trend of social life, of any beha ior that is not functional to capitalismB its commitment to the past, its openness to the future, its fascination by Hthe LtherH.

Thesis 1$. Endo"enous Moderni.ation and (dopted Moderni.ation

E ery form of adopted or e)ogenous moderni2ation proceeds from a process of conquest and thus implies, to a certain degree, imposing the cultural identity of a society

and the particular goals of the historical enterprise in Fhich it is engaged on the identity and historical goals of another. 3hereas endogenous moderni2ation is affirmed as the consolidation and in olution of the respecti e identity through e ery act of resistance on the part of the society in Fhich it occurs, e)ogenous moderni2ation alFays entails, in by no means a moderate manner, a disruption of social identity, a se ering or duplicating effect. 5he modernity that arri es is mar8ed by the identity of its place of originG its transplantation is an episode in the assertion of this mar8, a sign of its ability to conquer 11coerce and capture11 the pre alent mar8 in autochthonous producti e forces. For this reason, a society that is moderni2ed from outside is caught in the trap in Fhich simply by defending its identity it di ides itB the most gullible half applies itself to the tas8 of integrating Hthe profitable partH of the foreign identity into its oFn, Fhile the mistrustful half adopts the contrary line of approachB that of conquering the foreign identity from Fithin Fhile being absorbed by it. 3hene er e)ogenous moderni2ation occurs in Festern societies, this process of conquest presents a relati ely loF degree of conflict of interests, especially if these are European societies and ha e, moreo er, been transformed by a capitalist modernity prior to that Fhich tends to predominate historically. Llder forms of modernity =the /editerranean, for e)ample> manage to negotiate their constructi e subordination to the neF modernity =,orth European> in e)change for toleration of their oFn HlogicH, that is, for their mar8 of origin and for the culti ation of their social identity. /oderni2ation by conquest becomes conflicti e and irulent Fhen it ta8es place in the situation of decidedly non1Festern societies. 5Fo particular technological options of tFo Hci ili2ational choicesH and tFo historicities, Fhich are not only di ergent but openly opposed and incompatible, ideally should, ne ertheless, HencounterH each other, combine, and engage in a process of hybridi2ation =mesti2a e>. For this reason, any attempt on the part of Festern ci ili2ational forms, Fhich are inherent to capitalist modernity, to assimilate oriental ci ili2ational forms has necessarily to be peripheral or superficial, that is to say, potentially destructi e for the oriental forms as decisi e principles of the configuration of the Forld of life. 6ny assimilation of these forms as such might disrupt the European character of its HFesternnessH or submit it to a radical transformation 11as Fas, at an early stage, the case of the /editerranean =9panish> forms of modernity, Fhich Fere forced, in the se enteenth century, to integrate the remnants of the pre1.olumbian ci ili2ations, on the one hand, and of the 6frican ci ili2ations, on the other. -n the present1day processes of e)ogenous moderni2ation, if European modernity is to be accepted, it has to rarify its concrete historical identity as much as possible by schemati2ing and erasing its internal conflicts and blurring its outlines until it becomes unrecogni2ableG only by confining it to the most producti istic traits of its capitalist pro(ect can it hope to find or impro ise a identifying anchorage different from that Fhich has ser ed it in its place of origin. 9imilarly, the acceptance of capitalist modernity in non1Festern societies that ought to adopt it depends on their ability to regress culturally, on the e)tent to Fhich they are prepared =Fithout fear of absurdity or ridicule> to translate the ingrained conflicts of their identity or ci ili2ational strategy, elaborated and perfected culturally throughout the centuries, into primiti e terms.

-t Fould appear that the site of confrontation, of reciprocal negation, that is the common denominator of capitalist e)igency 11the oracity of productionPconsumption11 is the only site Fhere the 3est can encounter the rest of the Forld. 6s far as one can see, hoFe er respectful of the past and of the non1European Forld an alternati e modernity might be, it could not depend on them to pro ide a reliable antidote against capitalism.

Thesis 1&. Modernity the Mercantile and the Capitalist

/ercantile sociali2ation is a basic element of the grounds of modernityG capitalist1 mercantile sociali2ation is only a basic element of the peculiar modernity that pre ails until today. 5he e)pansion of the religious or sociali2ing function of .hristian identity depended during the /iddle 6ges on its ability to con ince human beings of its e)istence as ecclesia or a real assembly or community, as Hthe body of :odH. But the place Fhere belie ers could find the empirical proof of this Fas not the church but the mar8et, in Fhich efficiency in the mercantile circulation of goods produced permitted social indi iduals, For8ing Fith the common denominator of Hpri ate oFnersH, to be recogni2ed and accepted as real people. 5here Fas no doubt about the e)istence of :od because arbitrary iolence =the ;e il> 11that arose in post1communitary social life11 Fas defeated by the peaceful order of those Fho toiled Fith the sFeat of their broF to produce their oFn food. Lnly the presence of an in isible Judge could e)plain the reFard those recei ed Fho For8ed hardest and the punishment those recei ed Fho prayed but not sFeated. 7oFe er, (ust as it might be true to say that mercantile strategy Fas useful by the consolidation of .hristianity, so it is true to say that it e entually o erthreF .hristianity. From being the Hlanguage of thingsH, Fhich ratified the re1binding = re3 ligare> truth of mythical .hristian discourse in practical deeds, the mechanism of the mercantile metamorphosis of ob(ecti e Fealth itself =Fhich ta8es it from its state as product to its state as good, neutrali2ing it first as money> gradually but firmly and irre ocably became the only real re1sociali2ing entity. 5he mar8et occupied the place of mythG .hristianity abandoned its presence as ecclesia and Fas con erted into a system of moral imperati es that ideali2ed, as a mere apologetic echo, the submission of human life to the HmagicH action of the MForld of commoditiesN acting as a re1sociali2ing fetish. But Fhat mercantile strategy did to religion, capitalist strategy did to it. -n order to assert =e)pand and consolidate> itself against the prepotency of public and pri ate monopoly 11first principally of the land and then of technology11, mercantile strategy had to in ade a 2one, Fhere, in order to gain access, it Fould ha e to change its sign and become a negation of Fhat it sought to assert. -t had to merchandi2e the sphere Fhich, by its essence, can not be merchandi2edG to treat as an ob ect =con ert in bestand> Fhat can only be a sub ectG to treat as a mere mercantile value Fhat can only be the source of valueB the For8 force of human indi iduals. -t had to cease being an instrument of the uni ersali2ation of pri ate property and had to put itself at the ser ice of a re1neFed restriction of the free mar8etG it had to betray its mercantile essence and put itself into operation as a mere appearance of capitalist appropriation of Fealth. 5he

mercantile strategy could only o erthroF the resistance of monopoly by unleashing the forces of the capitalist golem. -t stri ed to be ser ed by it, but, in the end, it became its ser ant. 5he distinction betFeen mercantile and capitalist strategies seems irrele ant and abstruse noFadays or simply a thing of the pastG the mercantile system seems to ha e adapted its essence to this monstrous configuration of itself in the mercantile capitalist system. 7oFe er, this is not so. 5here is a radical difference betFeen capitalist profits in the sphere of mercantile circulation and those in that of mercantile1capitalist circulation. 5he former is the outcome of a Fill to e)change betFeen independent economic Forlds, Fhich imposes itself despite the factual incommensurability 11although inessential and fleeting =as the incipient de elopment of the charts of comparison and equi alence>11 of their respecti e mercantile alues. 5he latter is the outcome of a compulsion to e)change Fhich e)ists betFeen the tFo dimensions of the reproduction of social Fealth, despite the essential incommensurability of the respecti e goods producedB the For8 force and the rest of the commodities. 3hat is, in the former case, the result of HinequalityH, Fhich spontaneously fa ors e)terior commerce, is, in the latter, the consequence of the artificial establishment of this HinequalityH in Hinner commerceH. .ontingent and sporadic in the former case, capitalist profits becomes obligatory and permanent in the latter. From a purely mercantile perspecti e, the entire modern mar8et, as a concrete reality, appears as a monstrous, parasitic de elopment of the mercantile reality itself. .apitalism Fould be only a distorted and arbitrary front behind Fhich the indeterminate ictory of the pure process of circulation by equi alence is repeated in a classical and necessary manner. 5he concrete HimpuritiesH =pre1modern, semi1modern and post1 modern> Fhich turn it into a inter ened process 11Fhether spontaneously by the HblindH poFer of capitalist monopoly or artificially by the H isionaryH imposition of distributi e planning11 could not destroy mercantile life in so far as it is the structure that sustains them. 5he possibility of completely letting go of the Hin isible handH of the mar8et 11Fhich HFith many small egoisms constructs one great altruismH11 of lea ing it up to Fortune to direct the mechanism of circulation by equi alence, lays in the ery grounds of modernity. 7oFe er its reali2ation in the capitalist modernity, that seemed to protect it against the traditional parasites =lords and states> ha e leaded to a neF impasse. 3hat predominated during the capitalist inauguration of the age of abundance Fas the spontaneous imposition of a mercantile conduct that disoFned itself and sought Hto abolish FortuneH by means of a treacherous, alFays repeated, coup de des that assures capital against any ris8 in the in estment game.

Thesis 15. ;-eal 5ocialism; and Capitalist Modernity

4egarded as an economic totality or Heconomy1ForldH, the Hsocialist ForldH is the historical outcome of a frustrated attempt of the 4ussian economic empire to rebuild itselfG an attempt to ta8e distance from the economic totality of Hcapitalist ForldH and to

compete Fhit him on the basis of a state centered correction of the capitalist functioning of economic life. 9ince there Fas ne er any real prospect of its being the alternati e to the Hcapitalist ForldH and to capitalist ci ili2ationG since 11as the history of the Bolshe i8 re olution so dramatically clear demonstrated11 it could not de elop a technical structure able to sustain a re olutionary reconstruction of such a magnitude, the Msocialist ForldN could not go beyond the stage of being a deformed recomposition, a faulty repetition of the same social order and the same ci ili2ationG a recomposition Fhich, Fhile isolating it from the Hcapitalist ForldH, made it dependent upon it. 'arado)ically, Fhat distinguishes soviet 5communism6 and its modernity is not that there is any partial or total eradication of capitalism but that its Europeaness is peripheral and its Hstate capitalismH is dependent. 6 collecti i2ation of capitalist property o er the means of production 11li8e the transformation that too8 place in this McommunismN11 that goes not further than a concentration of its capitalist property by the state ob iously does not eliminate the capitalist nature of this form of property. For this reason, if one compares the tFo imperial totalities of the HsocialistH economy1Forld =4ussia, the 9o iet Anion and the Hcentral1easternH European bloc8> and the HcapitalistH economy1Forld =the central triangle, but also its H5hird 3orldH periphery>, the undeniable differences betFeen the tFo 11concerning the conditions of Mci il societyN, repressed but protected in the former, free but in the latter11 are no more important than their undeniable similarities concerning the most elementary structure and meaning of moderni2ation in their e eryday li es. 5he subordination of the MlogicN of concrete production of social Fealth to the MlogicN of capitalist accumulationG the definition of the humanity of human life centered in its e)istence as For8 force, to name only these tFo essential features of capitalist modernity, are also tFo basic characteristics of MsocialistN modernity, Fhich claims to be an alternati e to it. 5he elemental pro(ect of capitalist modernity has not disappeared in the modernity of Hreal socialismHG it has simply been Fea8er and has had less opportunity to disguise its contradictions.

<otes
!. 5he original ersion of this article, in spanish, Fas published in the me)ican Journal Cuadernos &ol"ticos, number #$, !"$", and, alFays in spanish, in the Journal 7evie*, ol. &-D, number V, !""!. ,oF it is published for the first time, in english, in /heomai. @. - Fould li8e to than8 ,attie :olubo for her help Fith part of this translation. E. 3hy then the string, -f the air is so simpleI 6nd Fhy the chain, if iron E)ists of its oFnI V. Yarl /ar), Capital4 ( Criti=ue o# Political Economy , translated by Eden and .edar 'aul, London, 6llen Z AnFin, Ltd., !"@$, p. X!E #. Yarl /ar), 9as Kapital -, p. #[@B Mmacht seine eigene EntFic8lung 2u einer ,aturnotFendig8eitN. Q. Yarl /ar), op. cit.' p. !E"1!V[. X. Yarl /ar), 7alue Price and Pro#it4 (ddressed to 2or8in" Men, London, 6llen Z AnFin Ltd., !$"", p.QE

'a lon"ue dur>e des ci*ilisations

'aurice Aymard?
? ;irecteur d\tudes ] l\cole des 7autes Etudes en 9ciences 9ociales de 'aris y 6dministrateur de la /aison des 9ciences de l7omme.

Fernand Braudel nous la rappel au dbut de son manuel sur le monde actuel =!"QE>, rdit en !"$X apr^s sa mort sous le titre de :rammaire des ci ilisations B le terme de ci ilisation a de multiples sens, et ses emplois ne co_ncident pas dune langue ] lautre, ce qui rend sou ent la traduction difficile. -l appara`t en France au milieu du !$ si^cle, et soppose alors ] M barbarie N, du cat de laquelle sont re(ets les M bons sau ages N, pourtant idaliss pour la puret de leurs mburs par la pense des Lumi^res. 6ccept rapidement en 6ngleterre =civili2ation >, il rel^gue au second plan le terme plus ancien de civility, qui sidentifie a ec la politesse courante. En 6llemagne, 8ivilisation a au contraire de oir coe)ister durablement a ec deu) autres mots B celui, d(] ancien, de -ildung, et celui, qui simpose en re anche au @[e si^cle, de 9ultur. .e dernier sidentifie au) acti its de lesprit =normes, aleurs, idau)>, par opposition au) techniques de ma`trise de la nature, que le terme mcme de ci ilisation industrielle et urbaine, par opposition ] la ci ilisation agricole qui la ait prcde, in ite ] regrouper sous le nom de ci ilisation. 6u contraire, litalien a pu se contenter du ieu) terme de civilt: . d ces diffrences entre nos langues et entre les mots que nous utilisons pour dsigner les mcmes ralits, sont enues au cours des deu) derniers si^cles, se superposer trois prises de conscience nou elles. La premi^re, d^s le !"e si^cle, alors mcme que lEurope, alors au ma)imum de sa puissance, ralisait sous son contrale une premi^re unification du monde, a t celle de la pluralit des ci ilisations qui se partagent notre plan^te. La seconde, influence notamment par les progr^s de lanthropologie sociale et culturelle, a t celle de lunit et de la cohrence de chaque ci ilisation considre pour elle1mcme B toute analyse un peu pousse, mcme si elle a commenc dans un premier temps par distinguer entre les diffrents aspects dune ci ilisation =religion, politique, technique, etc.>, doit ensuite tablir les liens, comple)es et multiples, entre ces diffrents facteurs. .e qui nous rappelle quune ci ilisation est ] la fois une reprsentation du monde, et une organisation matrielle et spirituelle de celui1ci. La troisi^me prise de conscience enfin a conduit ] repenser les rapports qui stablissent entre les diffrentes ci ilisations et ] remettre en cause les hirarchies qui a aient pu ctre tablies entre celles1ci, ] commencer par celle qui opposait des ci ilisations M primiti es N ] des ci ilisations d eloppes B chaque ci ilisation est, ] sa faeon, une totalit, mais, sauf e)ception rarissime, et rarement durable, aucune nest totalement coupe des autres. Les ci ilisations ne cessent dchanger entre elle des inno ations et des M biens matriels N ou M culturels N, parmi lesquels elles sont conduites ] faire des choi) B accepter, adapter ou au contraire refuser. Fernand Braudel a ait ] ce su(et crit dans son grand li re sur la Mditerrane, il y a un demi1si^cle =!"V">, que toute ci ilisation se dfinissait par ses dons, par ses emprunts et par ses refus B M i re, pour une ci ilisation, cest donc ctre capable de donner, et de rece oir et demprunterf/ais on reconna`t, non moins, une grande ci ilisation ] ce quelle refuse parfois demprunter, ] ce quelle soppose a ec hmence ] certains

alignements, ] ce quelle fait un choi) slectif parmi ce que les changeurs lui proposent et sou ent lui imposeraient sil ny a ait des igilances, ou plus simplement, des incompatibilits dhumeur et dapptit N =p.##">. .es phrases sont plus actuelles que (amais. -l a t ] la mode de croire, dans les annes !"#[1X#, ] la con ergence future des ci ilisations que leur d eloppement conduisait ] oluer dans la mcme direction B tel tait le credo des thories de la M mondialisation N. .e credo a t brutalement remis en question par la crise conomique mondiale des annes !"X[. -l repara`t au(ourdhui derri^re les discours eu) aussi ] la mode sur la M globalisation N. .elle1ci, ] croire ces discours, de rait transformer in itablement notre plan^te en un grand illage, et abolir ] la fois les distances et les diffrences entre les hommes, par la circulation instantane des informations sur internet, et par celle, accrue et acclre, des marchandises. ,ous sa ons quil nen est rien, que seule une lite pri ilgie, ] lchelle mondiale, acc^de raiment au) a antages de cette circulation B de lordre de # g de la population de la plan^te pour le fameu) illage internet. Et nous oyons autour de nous monter les refus dune uniformisation culturelle, politique ou conomique qui signifierait la soumission passi e ] un ordre impos du dehors a ec le double isage de la modernit et de lin itable. .e refus peut prendre les formes e)trcmes de fondamentalismes religieu) ou idologiques pousss (usqu] ce qui nous appara`t absurde, et que nous a ons du mal ] ne pas re(eter et condamner. /ais il traduit tou(ours une olont de dfense des ci ilisations, et le refus dune homognisation qui signifierait une perte partielle ou totale de leur identit. Jamais le monde na affirm a ec autant de force et mcme de iolence sa di ersit et sa pluralit qu] lheure de la globalisation. -l nous faut donc retrou er, ou recrer les conditions dun dialogue, qui passe par lacceptation de cette di ersit et par la reconnaissance de lautre dans sa diffrence B pas de dialogue possible sans une forme ou une autre dgalit entre les partenaires. ;e ce point de ue, la disparition des blocs qui se partageaient la plan^te a marqu un indiscutable pas en a ant B lensemble des cartes ont t redistribues, mcme si on continue ] distinguer, par habitude, le M ,ord N, M lEst N et le M 9ud N, comme on distinguait il y a ingt ans les mondes capitaliste et socialiste, et le 5iers /onde, en associant troitement crit^res conomiques et crit^res politiques. Les fronti^res au)quelles nous a ait habitus la seconde moiti du @[e si^cle ont perdu une large part =mais pas tou(ours la totalit> de leur sens. ;autres fronti^res que lon croyait abolies sont au contraire reparues ] la surface et ont retrou toute leur actualit, comme celles des nationalismes qui, pour nous en tenir ] le)emple le plus proche de nous, opposent et di isent les pays du sud1est europen, et remettent en cause le)istence dEtats que lon croyait stabiliss. La religion est rede enue, dans certaines rgions du monde, un puissant instrument didentit B une identit qui, dans certains cas, transcende les fronti^res des Etats, dans lautre, au contraire, les tra erse. -l en est de mcme pour les langues B alors mcme quelles sont nombreuses ] dispara`tre, d^s quelles ne sont plus parles par un nombre suffisant de locuteurs, des langues hier minoritaires, ou places en position dinfriorit par laffirmation dune langue internationale ou impriale de communication =lallemand dans lEmpire en Europe centrale et orientale, losmanli dans le sud1est europen, langlais en -nde, etc.> se oient ] nou eau reconna`tre une e)istence officielle hpensons au catalan ou au basque dans lEspagne post1franquiste. d cat de langlais, du franeais et du portugais, les grandes langues de l6frique sub1 saharienne de iennent ou rede iennent des instruments de communication ] lchelle rgionale, sans pour autant simposer comme langues uniques ] lchelle dun Etat. En Europe mcme, de faeon plus gnrale, les grandes units 1 de langue, de religion, de

culture, dorigine ethnique, de tradition historique, etc. h sur lesquelles les Etats du !" si^cle a aient fond leur e)istence, leur lgitimit et leur pro(et politique, se trou ent au(ourdhui remises en question par un double processus, daffirmation et de reconnaissance des particularismes, dune part, et de dpassement des fronti^res pour crer un ensemble plus aste, de lautre. 'our chercher ] mieu) comprendre toutes ces olutions en cours, dont beaucoup nous surprennent par leur rapidit, et qui ont modeler le @!e si^cle, la meilleure oie possible est encore dinterroger dautres ralits historiques plus profondes, plus durables et plus englobantes encore que nos Etats. ;es ralits qui e)pliquent lhistoire particuli^re de chacun de ces Etats au lieu dctre e)pliques par elle. 6u premier rang de celles1ci figurent les ci ilisations. /ais quentendons1nous au (uste par ce mot de ci ilisations I -l recou re sans aucun doute des ralits multiples, dans lesquelles il nous faut essayer de mettre de lordre. .et ordre peut sorganiser autour de quatre notions clefs B lassemblage spcifique des traits culturels qui les constituent, lespace quelles occupent, la longue dure de leur ie, les socits au)quelles elles donnent leur isage. /ais il pourra ctre en isag ] des chelles spatiales et chronologiques diffrentes. Ln pourra ainsi parler tour ] tour dune ci ilisation M occidentale N, marque en profondeur par les diffrentes formes du christianisme, et unissant dans un ensemble commun lEurope de lEst comme de lLuest, l6mrique latine et l6mrique du nord G dune ci ilisation europenne, se distinguant aussi bien de celle des Etats1Anis que de celle de l6mrique latine G dune ci ilisation propre ] chacun des grands Etats qui composent cette Europe =6ngleterre, 6llemagne, France, Espagne, -talie, 'ologne, 4ussie, etc. G des deu) ci ilisations =occidentale et orientale> ou mcme, pour sui re Janos 9Kc2, qui donne sa place autonome ] lEurope centrale =;es /rois Europes>, des trois ci ilisations qui se partagent lespace europen G ou enfin dune autre tripartition de ce mcme espace, religieuse cette fois, qui opposerait depuis un millnaire au monde orthodo)e une chrtient occidentale elle1mcme di ise depuis cinq si^cle entre la 4forme protestante et la catholicit. Entre ces diffrentes dfinitions des ci ilisations europennes, qui reposent sur une succession de changements dchelles, il serait inutile de ouloir ] tout pri) choisir. 4etenons1en que toute ci ilisation est multiple, et quelle sinscrit dans une histoire elle1mcme plurielle, qui y a insr une longue suite de points dinfle)ion. Due de la /diterrane, la rupture entre les deu) chrtients que confirme le schisme suit la fronti^re sparant les deu) mondes grec et latin que 4ome a ait unifis sous une mcme autorit politique sans abolir pour autant cette fronti^re et que la chute de 4ome spare ] nou eau. /ais la ligne qui prolonge (usqu] la Baltique cette fronti^re religieuse est plus tardi e B elle traduit lhistoire de la christianisation de lEurope non soumise ] lautorit de 4ome, ] partir de .onstantinople, dune part, et des foyers occidentau) de lEurope carolingienne, de lautre. ;e son cat, la ligne de partage entre les deu) Europe, protestante et catholique, suit, dans lensemble, la fronti^re dun Empire romain disparu depuis un millnaire, comme si la partie anciennement romanise de lEurope occidentale a ait choisi de rester fid^le ] lautorit de la 4ome pontificale, alors que la partie non romanise dcidait de la refuser. Due de la /diterrane, tou(ours, l-slam simpose au Xe si^cle en occupant, de lEgypte au plateau iranien, lensemble du 'roche et du /oyen1Lrient, qui a ait u na`tre et saffirmer, plusieurs millnaires a ant notre ^re, les premi^res grandes ci ilisations agricoles de notre histoire h les seules ] pou oir se comparer a ec la .hine

1, et se constituer les premiers grands tats monarchiques. .et ensemble, domin pendant un millnaire par la :r^ce, puis par 4ome, reprend dun coup son indpendance, dans une /diterrane appele elle aussi ] se di iser en trois hles deu) chrtients qui sen partagent la ri e nord, l-slam qui en domine la ri e sud en semparant ] louest des pays du /aghreb et de lEspagne du sud, oi .arthage stait d(] implante. .e qui conduit Fernand Braudel ] crire =:rammaire des ci ilisations, p. XE> B M .hrtient et -slamf, ces religions nou elles ont, chaque fois, saisi le corps de ci ilisations d(] en place. .haque fois, elles en furent ljme B d^s le dpart, elles eurent la antage de prendre en charge un riche hritage, un pass, tout un prsent, d(] un a enirf.omme le christianisme a hrit de lEmpire romain quil prolonge, l-slam se saisira, ] ses dbuts, du 'roche1Lrient, lun des plus ieu), peut1ctre le plus ieu) carrefour dhommes et de peuples ci iliss qui soit au monde N. /ais il audra la peine de souligner que ces deu) religions, qui se sont partag lespace mditerranen, en ont tir profit, apr^s sctre longuement affrontes, pour relancer leur e)pansion dans des directions que 4ome a ait dk renoncer ] se risquer. La chrtient dans toute lEurope ] lest du 4hin et au nord du ;anube et de la mer ,oire, puis, ] partir des !Qe et !Xe si^cles, en direction de la 9ibrie. L-slam non seulement ers les oasis de l6sie centrale, d(] atteintes par 6le)andre, et de l] ers le monde chinois, mais aussi ers l-nde et l6sie du sud1est, et, ] tra ers le 9ahara, ers l6frique noire B l-slam y sera re(oint, ] partir du &D-e si^cle, par le christianisme des marchands puis des colonisateurs europens arri s par mer, ce qui e)plique la situation actuelle de beaucoup dEtats africains de la cate nord du golfe de :uine, partags entre les musulmans, ma(oritaires au nord, et les chrtiens, qui dominent au sud. Limportant est de oir qu] chaque fois cette histoire, oi nous retrou ons, tou(ours prsentes ou prctes ] re(ouer, des fronti^res tr^s anciennes, a model les espaces dans lesquels nous i ons au(ourdhui. Elle constitue non la seule clef, mais sans aucun doute la principale, qui nous permette de les comprendre, en nous fournissant les points de rep^re ncessaires. Lclatement de la Fdration 0ougosla e, dans une Europe que nous croyons pourtant fortement la_cise, nous en a fourni au cours de la derni^re dcennie des e)emples qui nous ont surpris, par la iolence des oppositions qui ont troitement mcl les identits religieuses et identits ethniques, ] tel point que les accords de ;ayton ne reconnaissent aucune place ] ceu), qui, en Bosnie, ne se reconna`traient ni comme 9erbes, ni comme .roates, ni comme /usulmans. ;ans lAnion indienne, qui regroupe pourtant, depuis la scession du Bengladesh, plus de musulmans que le 'a8istan, mais qui a ait choisi depuis ,ehru la carte de la neutralit religieuse et du respect des croyances de chacun, lhostilit ] l-slam est rede enue une carte politique pour les partisans dun hindouisme intransigeant. En /alaisie, malgr le)istence dune importante minorit chinoise, et dune moins importante minorit dorigine hindoue, l-slam est de enu une rfrence oblige, qui permet dtablir le lien, par1del] la longue parenth^se coloniale, entre les premiers sultanats malais des !Ve et !#e si^cles, et le nou el Etat qui en re endique lhritage et fonde sur lui sa lgitimit. 9i le fait religieu) est ainsi enu roccuper au cours des deu) derni^res dcennies le de ant de la sc^ne, comme fait ma(eur de ci ilisation et comme marqueur de longue dure des identits indi iduelles et collecti es, cest quil partage a ec le politique au moins deu) traits essentiels B fortement intriorise par les indi idus, la religion contribue ] modeler en profondeur leurs mani^res de penser, de croire, dagir, de se reprsenter le monde dune faeon qui leur permet de rsister ] la perte de linfluence de

la religion dans le monde moderne G impliquant des crmonies et des rituels de groupe, elle mod^le des solidarits, des identits collecti es, des rseau), qui structurent nos socits. ;ans l6llemagne da ant la runification, le ote socialiste caractrisait ainsi les rgions ] ma(orit protestante situes ] lest du 4hin, alors que la .;A dominait dans les pays rhnans et la Ba i^re, ] ma(orit catholique. /cme rcentes, nos dmocraties politiques peu ent ainsi rutiliser, dans leur fonctionnement quotidien, des ralits infiniment plus anciennes. Elles sinscri ent dans une continuit, et occupent des espaces dont elles nont crit que lhistoire la plus proche de nous. Lune des clefs de cette continuit nous est, sans aucun doute, fournie par les socits paysannes qui ont occup, mis en aleur et construit, dans son unit comme dans sa di ersit, lespace europen, tout comme elles ont construit celui de la ma(eure partie des grandes ci ilisations du monde. d la diffrence de l6mrique coloniale, qui sest construite ] partir de ses illes, lespace europen a t durablement model par les paysans qui ont reprsent, (usquau dbut du !"e si^cle, $[ g de sa population. .e qui a suppos ] chaque fois une combinaison originale entre, dune part, la diffusion dun syst^me technique associant, dans des proportions ariables les crales, les cultures arbusti es, lle age et lutilisation des ressources de la forct, et, de lautre, ladaptation au) conditions du milieu, tantat fa orable et fertile, tantat au contraire hostile et difficile ] dominer B doi la di ersit infinie des solutions trou es, et la fragmentation frquente de nos paysages, qui font quaucun de nos illages ne ressemble ] un autre, pour ceu) qui le connaissent de lintrieur, alors que tous les illages dune mcme rgion se ressemblent pour qui porte sur eu) un regard e)trieur et superficiel. Ln pourra donc aussi dfinir lEurope comme une M ci ilisation du pain N, mcme si ce pain a t longtemps blanc pour les plus riches, et noir ou gris pour la ma(orit de la population, et sil a t fait ici de bl, l] de seigle, ailleurs encore de mlanges aris de crales les plus di erses. Le pain a cess dctre au(ourdhui la principale nourriture de la tr^s grande ma(orit des Europens. /ais il est rest notre rfrence culturelle. .e qui na pas empcch lEurope dadopter tour ] tour le ma_s, une plante amricaine, et le ri2, une plante enue d6sie. ;e la mcme faeon, et de mani^re acclre au cours du dernier demi1si^cle, les rurau) ont quitt en masse les campagnes pour enir i re et tra ailler en ille. LEurope dau(ourdhui est ne de la r olution industrielle et urbaine, qui en a remodel les paysages et redistribu les habitants dans lespace. /ais la campagne et la terre restent pour nous, comme le pain, des rfrences culturelles essentielles B elles peuplent notre mmoire, notre langue, nos pro erbes, notre morale, les enseignements transmis par lcole et par les familles. LEurope est aussi sans doute la premi^re grande ci ilisation qui ait non pas in ent lcriture mais en qui en ait gnralis lusage et lenseignement. 'endant des millnaires, cet enseignement a t limit ] des minorits relati ement peu nombreuses, mais, au cours du dernier demi1millnaire, il sest tendu par tapes ] de nou elles couches de la population, (usqu] ce que nos syst^mes scolaires en fassent, entre !"e et @[e si^cle, une obligation pour tous. 'asse la premi^re, pour reprendre les classifications de Jac8 :oody, ] lalphabtisation gnralise, lEurope a pu ainsi se dfinir tour ] tour comme une M ci ilisation du te)te imprim et de lducation N, qui est de enue ] son tour la base dune M ci ilisation de la connaissance N, au(ourdhui concurrence par une M ci ilisation de linformation N. B cette dfinition correspond cette fois ] lespace le plus large de la ci ilisation europenne, englobant l6mrique du

nord, une part de l6mrique latine, et tous les pays de peuplement europen comme l6ustralie et la ,ou elle1llande. ,ul doute enfin que la guerre nait (ou un rale ma(eur dans lhistoire de la ci ilisation europenne, et quelle nait contribu ] lui donner une part de ses contenus. La guerre a longtemps t, (usqu] une date toute rcente, et pour le malheur de ses habitants, indissolublement lie ] lhistoire des Etats qui se sont partag lespace europen. .eu)1 ci lont largement utilise pour acqurir de nou eau) territoires et stabiliser leurs fronti^res, et, plus encore, pour tendre ] lensemble de notre continent les r^gles de lquilibre entre des Etats indpendants et sou erains qui a aient t mises au point pour la premi^re fois dans l-talie du milieu du !#e si^cle. Et le changement enregistr au cours du dernier demi1si^cle, et auquel nous oulons croire, est encore ] la fois tr^s rcent, et fragile. 'our rendre possible le dialogue entre ses diffrentes composantes, lEurope doit encore se confirmer comme M ci ilisation de la pai) N. En (ouant ainsi sur lespace et sur le temps, et en passant tour ] tour du religieu) au politique, de lconomie ] la culture et au) formes, tantat pacifiques et tantat iolentes qui r^glent les rapports entre les hommes, nous nous sommes confronts a ec le)trcme comple)it du terme de ci ilisation. /ais cette comple)it, loin den constituer une limite, en fonde au contraire la richesse. 'our reprendre les dfinitions de Fernand Braudel, les M ci ilisations sont des espaces, des socits, des conomies, des mentalits collecti es, des continuits N. 5out choi) entre ces dfinitions multiples, dont les cadres spatiau) sont loin de tou(ours co_ncider, en sacrifierait la comple)it ] un souci de simplification qui figerait les fronti^res et les rendrait impossibles ] franchir. En re anche, tout dialogue suppose lchange, et tout change suppose lgalit des partenaires, mais aussi, pour quil soit possible, des lieu) de rencontre et des intermdiaires, des passeurs culturels ] laise des deu) cats de la fronti^re, et capables de comprendre les diffrences, mais aussi daider ] les surmonter, en proposant les qui alences. .est le nombre de ces mdiateurs qui est la clef de la russite de ltape de son histoire dans laquelle lEurope se trou e engage dans son ensemble depuis un peu plus de di) ans. -l nous faut les multiplier, les di ersifier, en renforcer la place, le rale et la reconnaissance dont ils bnficient dans nos socits. Len(eu est un en(eu ] long terme, mais oi tous les progr^s raliss pourront ctre aisment capitaliss et e)ploits pour permettre de nou eau) progr^s. 9i lon peut souhaiter quelque chose ] lEurope du si^cle qui commence, cest que le @!e si^cle ne soit pas le si^cle de la langue unique, mais celui des M traducteurs N, seuls capables de faire communiquer des cultures dont il nous faut sau er les diffrences.

;(#ter 9e*elopmentalism and Glo)ali.ation 2hat?;=!>

&mmanuel (allerstein ?
? 'rofessor at 0ale Ani ersity and ;irector of the Fernand Braudel .enter 19tate Ani ersity of ,eF 0or8 in Binghamton. E1mailB immanuel.FallersteinCyale.edu

-n !"[[, in preparation for the E)position Ani erselle in 'aris, the French /inistry of .olonies as8ed .amille :uy, the head of its geographical ser ice, to produce a boo8 entitled ;es colonies fran<aises= la mise en valeur de notre domaine coloniale=@>. 6 literal translation of mise en valeur is Hma8ing into alue.H 5he dictionary, hoFe er, translates Hmise en aleurH as Hde elopment.H 6t the time, this e)pression Fas preferred, Fhen tal8ing about economic phenomena in the colonies, to the perfectly acceptable French Ford, Hdveloppement.H -f one then goes to ;es >suels de 7obert= ?ictionnaire des E!pressions et ;ocutions figures =!"X"> to learn more about the meaning of the e)pression Hmettre en valeur'H one finds the e)planation that it is used as a metaphor meaning Hto e)ploit, draF profit from.H Basically, this Fas the ieF of the pan1European Forld during the colonial era concerning economic de elopment in the rest of the Forld. ;e elopment Fas a set of concrete actions effectuated by Europeans to e)ploit and draF profit from the resources of the non1European Forld. 5here Fere a number of assumptions in this ieFB ,on1 Europeans Fould not be able or perhaps e en Filling to Hde elopH their resources Fithout the acti e intrusion of the pan1European Forld. But such de elopment represented a material and moral good for the Forld. -t Fas therefore the moral and political duty of the pan1Europeans to e)ploit the resources of these countries. 5here Fas consequently nothing Frong Fith the fact that, as a reFard, the pan1Europeans Fho e)ploited the resources dreF profit from them, since a secondary ad antage Fould go to the persons Fhose resources Fere being e)ploited in this Fay. 5his rationale of course completely omitted discussion of the cost in life and limb to the local people of such e)ploitation. 5he con entional calculus Fas that these costs Fere, as Fe Fould say in todayRs euphemisms, the necessary and ine itable Hcollateral damageH of EuropeRs Hci ili2ing mission.H 5he tone of the discussion began to change after !"V#, primarily as a result of the strength of anti1colonial sentiments and mo ements in 6sia and 6frica, and a neF sense of collecti e asserti eness in Latin 6merica. -t is at this point that Hde elopmentH came to be used as a code Ford for the belief that it Fas possible for the countries of the 9outh to Hde elopH themselves, as opposed to Hbeing de elopedH by the ,orth. 5he neF assumption Fas that, if the countries of the 9outh Fould only adopt the proper policies, they Fould one day, some time in the future, become as technologically modern and as Fealthy as the countries of the ,orth. 6t some point in the post1!"V# period, Latin 6merican authors began to call this neF ideology HdesarollismoH or Hde elopmentalism.H 5he ideology of de elopmentalism too8 a number of different forms. 5he 9o iet Anion called it instituting Hsocialism,H Fhich became defined as the last stage before Hcommunism.H 5he Anited 9tates called it Heconomic de elopment.H -deologues in the 9outh often used the tFo terms interchangeably. 6midst this ForldFide consensus, all the states of the ,orth 1 the Anited 9tates, the 9o iet Anion =and its East European satellites>, the 3est European colonial =noF becoming e)1colonial> poFers, and the ,ordic countries plus .anada 1 began to offer HaidH and ad ice concerning this de elopment that e eryone fa ored. 5he Economic .ommission for Latin 6merica =.E'6L> de eloped a neF language of Hcore1peripheryH relations, used primarily to (ustify a program of Himport1substitution industriali2ation.H 6nd more radical Latin 6merican =and other> intellectuals de eloped

a language about Hdependency,H Fhich, they said, needed to be fought against and o ercome in order that dependent countries be in a position to de elop. 5he terminology may ha e differed but the one thing that Fas agreed upon by e eryone Fas that de elopment Fas indeed possible, if only.... 3hen therefore the Anited ,ations declared that the !"X[s Fould be the Hdecade of de elopment,H the term and the ob1 (ecti e seemed irtually a piety. 0et, as Fe 8noF, the !"X[s turned out to be a ery bad decade for most of the countries of the 9outh. -t Fas the decade of the tFo successi e oil price increases instituted by L'E. and of stagflation in the ,orth. 5he consequent 1 rise in the cost of imports for countries in the 9outh combined Fith a sharp decline in the alue of their e)ports because of the stagnation in the Forld1economy created acute balance of payments difficulties for (ust about e ery one of these countries =including those in the so1called socialist bloc>, Fith the sole e)ception of those Fhich Fere oil1 e)porting states. 5he oil1e)porting states acquired incredibly large surpluses, a large part of Fhich they deposited in ban8s in the Anited 9tates and :ermany, Fho thereupon needed to find a remunerati e use for this e)tra capital. 5hey found it in loans to states Fith acute bal1 ance of payments difficulties. 5hese loans, acti ely promoted by the ban8s themsel es, sol ed both problemsB finding an outlet for the surplus money in the accounts of the ban8s of the ,orth and sol ing the liquidity problems of the irtually insol ent states of the 9outh. But, alas, the loans led to cumulati e interest payments Fhich, by !"$[, had led to e en greater balance of payments difficulties in these states. Loans unfortunately are supposed to be repaid. 5he Forld thus arri ed at the suddenly disco ered so1called debt crisis 1 'oland in !"$[, /e)ico in !"$@, and then all o er the place. -t Fas easy enough to find the illain in the piece. 5he finger Fas pointed at de elopmentalism, so uni ersally praised (ust a decade before. -mport1substitution industriali2ation Fas noF percei ed as corrupt protectionism. 9tate1building Fas decon1 structed as feeding a bloated bureaucracy. Financial aid Fas noF analy2ed as money poured doFn a sin8, if not a gutter. 6nd parastatal structures, far from being irtuous efforts at pulling oneself up by oneRs oFn bootstraps. Fere e)posed as deadening barri1 ers to fruitful entrepreneurial achie ement. -t Fas decided that loans to states in distress, to be beneficial, needed to be hedged by requirements that these states cut Fasteful state e)penditures on such deferrable items as schools and health. -t Fas further proclaimed that state enterprises Fere almost by definition inefficient, and should be pri ati2ed as rapidly as possible, since pri ate enterprises Fere again almost by definition responsi e to the Hmar8etH and therefore ma)imally efficient. Lr at least that Fas the .onsensus in 3ashington. 6cademic bu22 Fords and fads are fic8le and usually last but a decade or tFo. ;e elopment Fas suddenly out. :lobali2ation arri ed in its Fa8e. Ani ersity professors, foundation e)ecuti es, boo8 publishers, and op1ed columnists all saF the light. 5o be sure, the optic, or better said the remedies, had changed. ,oF, the Fay to mo e forFard Fas not to import1substitute but to e)port1orient producti e acti ities. ;oFn not only Fith nationali2ed industries but Fith capital transfer controlsG up Fith transparent, unhindered floFs of capital. -n place of one1party regimes, let us all together study go ernance =a neF Ford, splendidly erudite and quite inscrutable, if not meaningless>. 6bo e all, let us face /ecca fi e times a day and intone 6llahu 68bar 5-,6 1 5here is ,o 6lternati e.

5he neF dogmas too8 root in the !"$[s amidst the decaying rot of de elopmentalist dreams. 5hey flourished in the !""[s bathed by the spar8le of the HneF economyH in Fhich the Anited 9tates and eastern 6sia Fere supposed to be leading the Forld to its economic glory. But alas, the sheen began to tarnish. 5he currency crisis in East and 9outheast 6sia in !""X =Fhich spread to 4ussia and Bra2il>, the slide doFnFard of the 3orld 5rade Lrgani2ation from 9eattle to .ancun, the fading of ;a os and the spectacular rise of 'orto 6legre, al1maeda and 9eptember !!, folloFed by the Bush fiasco in -raq and the current accounts crisis of the Anited 9tates 1 all this and more leads one to suspect that globali2ation as rhetoric may be going quic8ly the Fay of de elopmentalism. 6nd hence our question 1 6fter ;e elopmentalism and :lobali2ation 1 3hatI Let us not be too acerbic about faded theori2ing. 5he Fhole discussion from !"V# to today has indeed been one long effort to ta8e seriously the reality that the Forld1system is not only polari2ed but polari2ing, and that this reality is both morally and politically intolerable. For the countries at the bottom, there seemed nothing more urgent than figuring out hoF to impro e their situation, and first of all economically. 6fter all, all these people had to do Fas see a mo ie and they Fould 8noF that there Fere other peo1 ple and places in the Forld that Fere better off, far better off, than they Fere. 6s for the countries at the top, they reali2ed, hoFe er dimly, that the Hhuddled masses yearning to breathe freeH represented a permanent danger to Forld order and their oFn prosperity, and that therefore something, somehoF had to be done to dampen the tinderbo). 9o, the intellectual analyses and the deri ed policy efforts represented by the discussion about de elopment and globali2ation Fere serious and respectable, if in retrospect quite misguided in many Fays. 5he first question Fe need to as8 noF is, is it at all possible for e ery part of the Forld to attain 1 one day in a plausibly not too remote future 1 the standard of li ing of say ;enmar8 =and perhaps also similar political and cultural institutions>I 5he second question is, if it is not, is it possible for the present lopsided and highly inegalitarian Forld1system to persist, more or less as suchI 6nd the third question is, if it is not, Fhat 8inds of alternati es present themsel es to all of us noFI

@. ;@s it at all possi)le #or e*ery part o# the Aorld to attain : one day in a plausi)ly not too remote #uture : the standard o# li*in" o# say 9enmar8 (and perhaps also similar political and cultural institutions)?;
5here is no question that ;enmar8 =and most LE.; countries> ha e a quite decent standard of li ing for a substantial proportion of their population. 5he standard measure of internal ariation of income, the :ini cur e, shoFs quite loF numbers for most LE.; countries, and by Forld standards reasonably good ones for all of them.=E> 5o be sure, there are many poor people in these countries, but compared to almost any country of the 9outh, far feFer. 9o, of course, people in these poorer countries aspire to be as rich as people in ;enmar8. -n the last feF years, the Forld economic press has been full of stories about the remar8able rates of groFth of .hina 1 a country Fhich not too long ago Fas considered to be one of the poorest 1 along Fith much speculation about Fheth1 er or not and to Fhat degree these rates of groFth can continue in the future and thereby transform .hina into a relati ely Fealthy country in terms of :;' per capita.

Let us lea e aside the fact that many, many other countries ha e shoFn remar8able groFth spurts for as much as up to @[1E[ years, Fhich rates then nonetheless petered out. 5here are, for e)ample, the recent cases of the 9o iet Anion and 0ugosla ia. Let us also lea e out of the equation the long list of countries Fhose :;' Fas better in the further past than in the present. Let us assume for a moment that .hinaRs economic groFth continues unhindered for another tFenty years, and that .hinaRs :;' per capita approaches, let us say, if not that of ;enmar8 at least that of 'ortugal or e en -taly. Let us e en speculate that up to #[g of its population benefits significantly from this groFth spurt, Fhich is then reflected in their real income. -s it credible to hold e erything else constant, and to assume that, at the ery least, e eryone else remains Fhere they are today in terms of standard of li ingI 3here is the surplus1 alue to come from that Fould permit #[g of .hinaRs population to consume at the le el of #[g of -talyRs population, Fhile all the rest of the Forld consumes at a le el at least as high as at presentI -s this all supposed to come from the so1called greater producti ity of Forld =or .hinese> productionI -t is clear that the s8illed For8ers of Lhio and the 4uhr alley do not thin8 so. 5hey thin8 they Fould pay for it, that they are already paying for it, by significantly reduced standards of li ing. 6re they really so FrongI 7as this not been happening in the past decadeI 5he first piece of e idence is the entire past history of the capitalist Forld1economy. -n o er fi e hundred years of its e)istence, the gap betFeen the top and the bottom, the core and the periphery, has ne er gotten smaller, alFays larger. 3hat is there in the present situation that should lead us to assume that this pattern Fould not continueI Lf course, o er those fi e hundred years, there is no question that some countries ha e im1 pro ed their relati e standing in the distribution of Fealth in the Forld1system. 5hus, it could be claimed that these countries had Hde elopedH in some sense. But it is also true that other countries are loFer in relati e Fealth ran8ings than earlier, some of them spectacularly so. 6nd, although our statistical data is at most of e en minimal quality only for the last X#1![[ years, such comparati e studies as Fe ha e do shoF a constant trimodal distribution of Fealth in the Forld1system, Fith a feF countries mo ing from one category to another.=V> 5he second piece of e idence is that high le els of profit, and therefore of the possibility of accumulating surplus1 alue, correlates directly Fith the relati e degree of monopoli2ation of producti e acti ity.=#> 3hat Fe ha e been calling de elopment for the last fifty years or so is basically the ability of some countries to erect producti e enterprises of a type considered to be highly profitable. 5o the e)tent that they succeed in doing this, they thereby reduce the degree of monopoli2ation of production in this particular arena and hence reduce the degree of profitability of such production. 5he historic pattern of successi e so1called leading industries 1 from te)tiles to steel and automobiles to electronics to computer technology 1 is clear e idence of this. 5he A.9. pharmaceutical industry is right noF fighting a rear1guard battle against (ust such decline in potential profitability. .an Boeing and 6irbus maintain their present profit le els in the face of competition by a putati e .hinese aircraft construction industry tFenty or thirty years from noFI 9o, basically, of tFo things one. Either the rising, so1called neFly1de eloping countries Fill be crushed by some highly destructi e process 1 Farfare, plague, or ci il Far. 6nd in this case, the e)isting economic centers of accumulation Fill remain on top, and the

polari2ation Fill be still more acute. Lr the rising, neFly1de eloping countries Fill be able to reproduce some of the ma(or producti e processes of the present centers. 6nd in this case, either the polari2ation Fill simply be in erted =Fhich is unli8ely> or there Fill be a flattening of the cur e, But in this latter case, the ability to acucmulate surplus1 alue in the Forld1economy ta8en as a Fhole Fill diminish se erely, and the raison d@Atre of a capitalist Forld1economy Fill be undermined. -n none of these scenarios does e ery country become a ;enmar8. -f there has come to be a general morosity about economic de elopment and the positi e benefits of globali2ation, it is, - Fould argue, because the sense that Fe are in a cul1de1 sac has begun to creep in on more and more people 1 scholars, politicians, and abo e all ordinary For8ers. 5he optimism of the !"#[s and !"Q[s, Fhich Fas momentarily re i ed in the !""[s, is no longer Fith us. - personally can see no Fay in Fhich, Fithin the frameFor8 of a capitalist Forld1 economy, Fe can approach a general equali2ation of the distribution of Fealth in the Forld, and e en less an equali2ation that Fould ha e e eryone consume at the le el of the modal ;anish consumer. - say this, ta8ing into account all possible technological ad ances as Fell as increases in that elusi e concept, producti ity.

@@. ;@# it is not possi)le B#or all countries to achie*e a 9anish standard o# li*in" Aithin the #rameAor8 o# the Aorld:system in Ahich Ae li*eC is it possi)le #or the present lopsided and hi"hly ine"alitarian Aorld:system to persist more or less as such?;
- doubt it. But of course Fe must be careful here, since predictions of dramatic structural change ha e been made so frequently o er the past tFo centuries, and ha e turned out to be inaccurate o er a medium term because some crucial elements Fere left out of the analyses. 5he ma(or e)planation of purported prospecti e fundamental structural change has been dissatisfaction of the e)ploited and oppressed. 6s conditions Forsened, the people at the bottom, or some ery large group, Fere destined 1 it Fas argued 1 to rebel. 5here Fould be Fhat has usually been called a re olution. - shall not resume the arguments and counterarguments, Fhich are no doubt quite familiar to almost anyone Fho has been seriously studying the history of the modern Forld1system. 5he tFentieth century Fas, among other things, the moment of a long series of national uprisings and social mo ements Fhich proclaimed their re olutionary intents and Fhich achie ed state poFer in one form or another. 5he high point of these mo ements Fas the period !"V#1!"X[, the period precisely of the flourishing of de elopmentalism, Fhich Fas in some sense the credo of these mo ements. But Fe also 8noF that the period !"X[1@[[[ saF the doFnfall of most of these mo ements in poFer, or at least a drastic re ision in their policies. 5his Fas the period of the flourishing of globali2ation, Fhose logic these mo ements 1 those still in poFer or those noF see8ing to play a role of parliamentary opposition 1 sullenly accepted. 9o, Fe ha e the era of triumphalism folloFed by the era of disillusionment.

9ome of the cadres of these mo ements ad(usted to Fhat Fere thought to be the neF realities and others (umped ship, either into passi e FithdraFal or into (oining acti ely the erstFhile enemy. -n the !"$[s and until the mid1!""[s, antisystemic mo ements ForldFide Fere in a bad Fay. By !""#, hoFe er, the momentary sheen of neoliberal1 ism had begun to Fear off and there ensued a ForldFide search for neF antisystemic strategies. 5he story from .hiapas to 9eattle to 'orto 6legre has been that of the emer1 gence of a neF 8ind of Forld antisystemic mo ement, sometimes called these days altermondialisme. /y name for it is the spirit of 'orto 6legre and - thin8 it is going to be an important element in the Forld political struggles of the ne)t @#1#[ years. - shall return to it in my discussion of real alternati es noF. 7oFe er, - do not belie e that a neF ersion of re olutionary mo ement is the fundamental factor in Fhat - see as the structural collapse of the capitalist Forld1 economy. 9ystems collapse not primarily because of rebellion from beloF but because of the Fea8nesses of the dominant classes and the impossibility of their maintaining their le el of gain and pri ilege. -t is only Fhen the e)isting system is Fea8ened in terms of its oFn logic that the push from beloF can possibly be effecti e. 5he basic strength of capitalism as a system has been tFofold. Ln the one hand, it has demonstrated an ability to ensure, against all odds, the endless accumulation of capital. 6nd on the other hand, it has put into place political structures that ha e made it possible to guarantee this endless accumulation of capital Fithout being dethroned by the rash and dissatisfied Hdangerous classes.H 5he basic Fea8ness of capitalism as an historical system today is that success is leading to failure =as 9chumpeter taught us normally happens>. 6s a consequence today, both the ability to guarantee the endless accumulation of capital and the political structures that ha e 8ept the dangerous classes in line are collapsing simultaneously. 5he success of capitalism in ensuring the endless accumulation of capital has been in its ability to 8eep the three basic costs of production 1 costs of personnel, costs of inputs, and ta)ation 1 from escalating too fast. 7oFe er, it has done this by mechanisms that ha e been e)hausting themsel es o er historical time. 5he system has noF begun to reach a point Fhere these costs are dramatically too high to ma8e production an adequate source of capital accumulation. 5he capitalist strata ha e turned to financial speculation as a substitute. Financial speculation, hoFe er, is intrinsically a transitory mechanism, since it is dependent on confidence, and confidence in the medium run is undermined by the ery speculation itself. 6lloF me to illustrate each of these points. 5he costs of personnel are a function of the ongoing, ne er1ending class struggle. 3hat the For8ers ha e on their side is the concentration of production =for reasons of efficiency> and hence their ability o er time to organi2e themsel es in both the For8 place and the political arena to put pressures on the employers to increase their remuneration. 5o be sure, employers alFays fight bac8 by playing one set of For8ers off against another. But there are limits to doing this Fithin the frameFor8 of a single country or a single local area, since there are political means by Fhich the For8ers can encrust their ad antages =legally andPor culturally>. 3hene er Fe are in a Yondratieff 61phase, employers, faced Fith militant For8er demands, usually prefer to alloF remuneration to rise someFhat, since For8 stoppages do them more immediate damage than concessions. But as soon as Fe are in a Yondrat1

ieff B1phase, it becomes imperati e for an employer Fho hopes to sur i e the bad times to reduce the remuneration pac8age, since there is acute price competition. -t is at this point that employers ha e historically resorted to relocation 1 the HrunaFay factoryH 1 transferring their production to 2ones that ha e HhistoricallyH1loFer rates of remuneration. But e)actly Fhat history accounts for these historically1loFer ratesI 5he ansFer is rather simple 1 the e)istence of a large pool of rural labor, for Fhom urban, Faged employment, at Fhate er le el of remuneration, represents a net increase in real income for the household. 9o, as remuneration goes up, more or less permanently, in one area of the Forld1economy, it is compensated in terms of the Forld1economy as a Fhole by the appearance of neF cohorts of For8ers Fho Fill accept loFer remuneration for the identical For8, holding of course efficiency constant. 5he problem Fith this solution to the regularly repeated problem of the oFnerPproducers is that after @#1#[ years the For8ers in this neF 2one of production are able to o ercome their initial urban disorientation and political ignorance and proceed doFn the same path of class struggle as did others pre iously in other areas of the Forld. 5he 2one in question thereupon ceases to be a 2one of historically1loFer remuneration, or at least not to the same degree. 9ooner or later, the employers are required, in their self1interest, to flee again, relocating to yet another 2one. 5his constant geographical shift of the 2ones of production has For8ed quite Fell o er the centuries, but does ha e an 6chilles heel. 5he Forld is running out of neF 2ones into Fhich to relocate. 5his is Fhat Fe mean by the derurali2ation of the Forld, Fhich is going on apace, and at a ery accelerated rate since !"V#. 5he proportion of Forld population that li es in cities Fent from E[ to Q[ percent betFeen !"#[ and @[[[.=Q> 5he capitalist Forld1economy should run out of such 2ones entirely Fithin @# years at the most. 5here are already too feF. 6nd Fith modern means of communication, the time period for neF 2ones to learn the lessons of hoF to organi2e has been drastically reduced. 7ence, the ability of employers to 8eep remuneration in chec8 has been drastically curtailed. 5he costs of inputs is dependent on Fhat percentage of the inputs the employer is required to pay. 5o the e)tent that he can get inputs free, his costs remain loF. 5he ma(or mechanism by Fhich employers ha e o er the centuries been able to a oid pay1 ment for inputs is by shifting the cost to others. 5his is called the e)ternali2ation of costs. 5he three principal costs that ha e been e)ternali2ed are deto)ification, reneFal of primary resources, and infrastructure. ;eto)ification is easy to handle in the beginning. Lne dumps Faste someFhere that is public or unoccupied. 5his costs ne)t to nothing. 5he costs are usually not immediate, but delayed. 5he e entual difficulties become the problem of the HpublicH 1 either as indi iduals or collecti ely as go ernments. .lean1up, Fhen it is underta8en, is seldom paid for by the original user. -n pre1modern times, rulers mo ed to different castles as they ran out of seFage dumps. -n the capitalist Forld1economy, producers do more or less the same. 5he problem here is identical to the problem of runaFay factories and remuneration le els. 3e are running out of neF prospecti e dumps. -n addition, the collecti e cost of to)ification has caught up Fith us, or at least Fe are more aFare of it because of scientific ad ances. 7ence, the Forld see8s to deto)ify Faste. 5his is called concern Fith the ecology. 6nd as concern mounts, the question of Fho pays comes to the forefront. 5here is increasing pressure to ma8e the user of the resources Fho lea es to)ic Faste pay the costs of deto)ification. 5his is called internali2ation of costs. 5o the

e)tent that go ernments impose such internali2ation of costs, the o erall costs of pro1 duction rise, sometimes quite steeply. 5he issue of the reneFal of primary resources is basically analogous. -f forests are cut doFn, they may reneF themsel es ia natural processes, but often sloFly. 6nd the faster forests are cut doFn =because of increased Forld production>, the harder it is for the natural reneFal process to ta8e place in meaningful time. 9o here too, as the ecological concerns ha e come to the fore, both go ernments and social actors ha e put pressure on users either to restrain use or to in est in reneFal. 6nd to the e)tent that go ernments impose internali2ation of these costs, the costs of production rise. Finally, the same is true of infrastructure. -nfrastructure, almost by definition, is e)penditure on costly acti ities that cannot be attributed to a single producer 1 for e)ample, constructing public roadFays o er Fhich transportation of goods ta8es place. But the fact that these costs cannot be considered the costs of a single producer does not mean that they cannot be considered the costs of a multitude of producers. Furthermore, the cost of such infrastructure has escalated geometrically. 0es, they are public goods, but the public can be specified up to a point. 6nd once again, to the e)tent that go ernments impose e en partial internali2ation of such costs, the costs of production rise. 5he third basic cost of production is ta)ation. 6ny comparison of the total le el of ta)ation in the Forld, or in any part of the Forld, Fith the Forld of a century ago re eals that e eryone is paying higher ta)es today, Fhate er the oscillation of the rates. 3hat accounts for thisI 5here are three ma(or e)penditures of all go ernments 1 the costs of collecti e security =armies, police, etc.>G the costs of all 8inds of public FelfareG and the costs of administration =most importantly, the costs of collecting the ta)es>. 3hy ha e these costs of go ernment risen so steeplyI 5he costs of security ha e risen simply as a result of technological ad ance. 5he toys security forces use are e ery day in e ery Fay more e)pensi e. 6fter all, security is a game in Fhich all sides alFays try to ha e more than their opponents. -t is li8e an end1 less auction in Fhich the bids are alFays being raised. 'erhaps if Fe had a generali2ed nuclear holocaust, and the sur i ing Forld Fent bac8 to boFs and arroFs, these costs Fould go doFn. But in the Fa8e of anything less, - see no Fay to e)pect such a reduc1 tion. -n addition, the costs of Felfare ha e been going up steadily and nothing is sloFing them doFn, despite all the hoopla about doing that. 5hey are going up for three reasons. 5he first is that the politics of the capitalist Forld1economy ha e pushed the dominant strata to ma8e concessions to the dangerous classes, Fho ha e been demanding three things 1 education, health ser ices, and guarantees of lifelong income. Furthermore, the le el of the demands has been going up steadily and becoming more geographically e)tensi e. -n addition, people are li ing longer =partly the consequence of precisely these Felfare measures>, and hence the collecti e costs ha e increased because of the increase in the number of beneficiaries. 5he second reason is that ad ances in technology in education and health ha e increased the costs of pro iding the appropriate machinery =(ust as in the case of e)penditures on security>. 6nd finally, the producers in each of these domains ha e ta8en ad antage of this go ernment1subsidi2ed public demand to ta8e a big cut of the pie.

3elfare, as the conser ati e complaint has said, has become an entitlement. 6nd it is difficult to see hoF any go ernment could sur i e a truly significant cutbac8 in these e)penditures. But of course, someone must pay for this. 6nd producers in the end pay, either directly or ia their employees Fho demand higher remuneration precisely to pay these costs. 3e do not ha e good data on the steady increase of all these costs, but they are considerable. Ln the other hand, Fe cannot ha e a rise in the sales price of Forld goods to match the increase of production costs precisely because of the enormous e)pansion of Forld production Fhich has reduced the multiple monopoli2ations and increased Forld competition. 9o, the bottom line is that the costs of production ha e risen faster than the sales prices of production, and this means a profit squee2e, Fhich translates into difficulties in accumulating capital through production. 5his squee2e has been e ident o erall for some thirty years already Fhich accounts for the speculati e rage that has encompassed Forld capitalists since the !"X[s and Fhich shoFs no signs of letting up. But bubbles burst. Balloons cannot be infinitely e)panded. 5o be sure, capitalists collecti ely fight bac8. 5his is Fhat neoliberal globali2ation is all about 1 a massi e political attempt to roll bac8 remuneration costs, to counter demands for internali2ation of costs, and of course to reduce le els of ta)ation. 6s has happened Fith e ery pre ious such counteroffensi e against rising costs, it has succeeded partially, but only ery partially. E en after all the cutbac8s by the most reactionary regimes, the costs of production in the first decade of the tFenty1first century are mar8edly higher than they Fere in !"V#. - thin8 of this as the ratchet effect 1 tFo steps forFard and one step bac8Fard add up to a secular rising cur e. 6s the underlying economic structures of the capitalist Forld1economy ha e been mo ing in the direction of reaching an asymptote Fhich ma8es it increasingly difficult to accumulate capital, the political structures that ha e been holding the dangerous classes in chec8 ha e also run into trouble. 5he period of de elopmentalism, !"V#1!"X[, Fas also the period of the triumph of the historic antisystemic mo ements, Fhich came into poFer in one form or another almost e eryFhere. 5heir biggest promise had been the de elopmentalist dream. 3hen that failed, the support of their folloFers disintegrated. 5he mo ements, Fhether they called themsel es communist or social1democrat or national liberation mo ements, fell from poFer almost e eryFhere. 5he period of globali2ation, !"X[1@[[[, Fas the period of deep disillusionment Fith the historic antisystemic mo ements. 5hey fell from grace, and are unli8ely to attract the deep loyalty of the mass of the populations again. 5hey may be supported electorally as better than the other guys, but they no longer are deemed Forthy of the faith they represented for a golden future. 5he decline of these mo ements 1 the so1called Lld Left 1 is not in fact a plus for the smooth functioning of the capitalist Forld1economy. 3hile these mo ements Fere antisystemic in their goals, they Fere disciplined structures Fhich controlled the spon1 taneous radical impulses of their folloFers. 5hey mobili2ed for specific actions, but they also demobili2ed folloFers, especially Fhen they Fere in go ernment, insisting on the benefits in a distant future, as opposed to untrammeled disturbances in the present. 5he collapse of these mo ements represents the collapse on constraints on the dangerous

classes, Fho thereby become dangerous again. 5he spreading anarchy of the tFenty1 first century is the clear reflection of this shift. 5he capitalist Forld1economy is today a ery unstable structure. -t has ne er been more so. -t is ery ulnerable to sudden and sFift destructi e currents.

@@@. ;@# it is not Ahat 8inds o# alternati*es present themsel*es to all o# us noA?;
-t is not ery comforting to anyone in countries of the 9outh to say that the present Forld1system is in structural crisis and that Fe are in a transition from it to some other Forld1system o er the ne)t @#1#[ years. 5hey Fill Fant to 8noF Fhat happens in the meantime, and Fhat if anything they can or should do to impro e the lot of the populations of these countries right noF. 'eople tend to li e in the present, as indeed they should. Ln the other hand, it is important to 8noF Fhat are the constraints of the present in order that our actions be ma)imally useful, in the sense that they further the ob(ecti es Fe see8 in some meaningful Fay. 9o, let me indicate Fhat - thin8 is the sce1 nario o er the ne)t @#1#[ years, and Fhat that implies for the immediate present. 5he scenario o er the ne)t @#1#[ years is tFofold. Ln the one hand, the collapse of our e)isting historical system is most li8ely for all the reasons - laid out (ust pre iously. Ln the other hand, Fhat Fill replace the e)isting system is completely uncertain, inherently unpredictable, although all of us can ha e input into that uncertain outcome. -t is inherently uncertain because, Fhene er Fe are in a systemic bifurcation, there is no Fay of 8noFing in ad ance Fhich for8 in the road Fe shall collecti ely ta8e. 5his is the message of the sciences of comple)ity.=X> Ln the other hand, precisely because this is a period of transition in Fhich the e)isting system is far from equilibrium, Fith Fild and chaotic oscillations in all domains, the pressures to return to equilibrium are e)tremely Fea8. 5his means that, in effect, Fe are in the domain of Hfree FillH and therefore our actions, indi idual and collecti e, ha e a direct and large impact on the historical choices Fith Fhich the Forld is faced. -n a sense, to translate this into our concerns, Fe may say that the ob(ecti e of Hde elopmentH Fhich countries and scholars ha e been pursuing for some fifty years noF are far more reali2able in the ne)t @#1#[ years than they e er Fere up to noF. But of course there is no guarantee, for the outcome is uncertain. -n the larger geopolitical arena, there are presently three principal clea ages. 5here is first the triadic struggle betFeen the Anited 9tates, Festern Europe, and JapanPEast 6sia to be the principal locus of capital accumulation in the capitalist Forld1economy. 5here is secondly the long1standing struggle betFeen ,orth and 9outh for distribution of the Forld surplus. 6nd there is the neF struggle that re ol es around the structural crisis of the capitalist Forld1economy and centers on Fhich of the tFo possible for8s the Forld Fill ta8e in completing the transition to a neF system. 5he first tFo struggles are traditional Fithin the frameFor8 of the modern Forld1 system. 5he so1called triad are roughly equal contestants in the attempt to reorgani2e the Forld1systemRs production and financial systems. 6s Fith all such triadic struggles,

there is pressure to reduce the triad to a dyad, Fhich may occur in the ne)t decade or so. - ha e long argued that the most li8ely pair is the Anited 9tates and JapanPEast 6sia against Festern EuropeP4ussia.=$> But - shall not repeat this argument here, since consider this struggle secondary to the issue of o ercoming the polari2ation of the e)isting system, that is, permitting Fhat Fe ha e called Hde elopmentH throughout the Forld1system. 5he second struggle, that betFeen ,orth and 9outh, has of course been a central focus of de elopment issues for the last fifty years. -ndeed, the great difference betFeen the era of de elopmentalism and the era of globali2ation has been the relati e strength of the tFo sides. 3hile in the first era, the 9outh seemed to be impro ing its position, if only slightly, the second period has been one of a triumphant pushbac8 by the ,orth. But this pushbac8 has noF come to a close, Fith the deadloc8 in the 3orld 5rade Lrgani2ation and the split among the spo8esmen of the ,orth about the Fisdom of the 3ashington .onsensus. - thin8 here of the increasingly open dissent of such figures as Joseph 9tiglit2, Jeffrey 9achs, and :eorge 9oros, among many others, and the remar8able softening of the rigidities of the -nternational /onetary Fund in the post1 @[[[ period. - do not e)pect that in the coming decades there Fill be much push off1 center in this contest. -t is the third clea age Fhich reflects the neF situation, that of the structural crisis Fith its consequent chaos in the Forld1system and the bifurcation that is occurring. 5his is the split betFeen the spirit of ;a os and the spirit of 'orto 6legre, Fhich - meantioned pre iously. - should e)plain Fhat - thin8 are the central issues here. 5he struggle is not about Fhether or not Fe are in fa or of capitalism as a Forld1system. 5he struggle is about Fhat should replace it, gi en the implosion of the present Forld1system. 5he tFo replacement possibilities ha e no real names and ha e no detailed outlines. 3hat is in question is essentially Fhether the replacement system Fill be hierarchical and polari2ing =that is, li8e the present system, or Forse> or Fill be instead relati ely democratic and egalitarian. 5hese are basic moral choices, and being on one side of the other dictates our politics. 5he contours of the actual political players are still uncertain. 5he side of the spirit of ;a os is split betFeen those Fhose ision of the future in ol es an unremitting harshness of strategy and institution1building and those Fho insist that such a ision Fould create an untenable system, Fhich could not last. 6t the moment, it is a ery di ided camp. 5he side of the spirit of 'orto 6legre has other problems. 5hey constitute politically merely a loose alliance of ariegated mo ements all o er the Forld Fhich, today at least, meet together Fithin the frameFor8 of the 3orld 9ocial Forum =39F>. .ollecti ely, they ha e no clear strategy as yet. But they do ha e a good deal of grassroots support, and they are clear about Fhat they oppose. 5he question is Fhat those Fho Fould uphold the spirit of 'orto 6legre should really do to ad ance this Hother ForldH they assert is possible. 6nd this is a double question. 3hat is it that those feF go ernments Fho share their ision, at least up to a point, should do, and Fhat the multiple mo ements should do. :o ernments deal Fith the short1run issues. /o ements can deal Fith both short1run and middle1run issues. Both 8inds of issues affect the longer run transition process. 6nd short1run issues affect our daily li es immediately. 6n intelligent political strategy must mo e on all fronts at once.

5he biggest short1run issue is the continuing dri e of the neoliberal globali2ers to achie e a one1sided e)pansion of open borders 1 open in the 9outh, but not really open in the ,orth. 5his is the heart of the persistent discussion Fithin the frameFor8 of the 3orld 5rade Lrgani2ation, and of all the bilateral discussions being conducted most notably by the Anited 9tates but also secondarily by the European Anion and its members 1 the creation of multiple Hfree trade agreementsH li8e ,6F56, .6F56, etc. Basically Fhat the Anited 9tates pushes for is guarantees for its monopolies =so1called intellectual property> and access for its financial institutions in return for limited tariff concessions on agricultural and loF1 alue industrial goods produced in countries of the 9outh. 5he offensi e Fithin the 35L Fas stalled at .anc*n by a coalition of medium poFers of the 9outh 1 Bra2il, -ndia, 9outh 6frica, etc. 1 Fho put forFard a simple demandB free trade that For8s both Fays. -f the ,orth Fants us to open our borders to them, they said in effect, it must open its borders to us. But the ,orth is basically unable to accept this 8ind of deal for tFo reasons. -t Fould result in considerably increased unemployment and doFnsi2ed income in countries of the ,orth, Fhich is politically impossible for go ernments sub(ect to electoral contests to accept. 6nd it is not clear to the triad Fhich of them Fould profit most, or lose least, from such arrangements, and therefore they hesitate. 6fter all, the triad is engaged Fith tariffPsubsidy contro ersies Fith each other, and arrangements Fith the 9outh Fould Fea8en their political positions in this economically e en more important conflict from the point of ieF of the countries of the ,orth. Lne can draF tFo conclusions from this. 5his is a political quarrel doomed to a standstill. 6nd it is politically ery important for the countries of the 9outh to maintain this stance, from their oFn point of ieF. 5his is the single most important action these go ernments can ta8e to further the possibility of maintaining or raising the standard of li ing in their countries. 5o the sirens of the neoliberal dogmas, these countries are noF responding s8eptically, shoF me, and this s8epticism is (ustified. Lf course, these go ernments ha e to remain in poFer. 6nd the biggest threat to that is e)ternal interference in their politics. 3hat the larger countries of the 9outh are noF doing, and Fill speed up doing in the ne)t decade, is see8ing to enter the nuclear club. 3hat this Fill accomplish is to largely neutrali2e e)ternal military threat, and thereby minimi2e e)ternal political threat. 6nd the third thing one can demand of these go ernments is social Felfare distribution Fithin their countries, Fhich of course could include loF1le el de elopment pro(ects =such as digging Fells, etc.> 3hat one cannot e)pect of these countries is that some policy on their part is going to turn them into a ;enmar8 in the ne)t ![1@[1E[ years. -tRs not going to happen, and is basically a di ersion from an intelligent policy. 5he role of progressi e go ernments is primarily to ma8e sure that conditions in their countries and the Forld do not get still Forse in the decades to come. -t is the mo ements that can do more than the go ernments, although the mo ements need to 8eep minimally progressi e go ernments in poFer, and not engage in leftist infantilist critiques about the lac8 of achie ements that are in fact impossible to e)pect. 6nd here Fe must point out an important element that is often lost from obser ation. 5he first tFo geopolitical clea ages are geographicB conflicts among the 5riadG ,orth1 9outh conflicts. But the conflict betFeen the spirit of ;a os and the spirit of 'orto

6legre has no geography. -t cuts across the entire Forld, as do the mo ements. -t is a class struggle, a moral struggle, not a geographic struggle. -n the medium run, Fhat the mo ements can best do is to push decommodification Fhere er they can, and to the e)tent that they can. ,o one can be quite sure hoF this Fould For8. -t Fill ta8e a lot of e)perimentation to find iable formulas. 6nd such e)perimentation is going on. -t is going on, Fe must remember, Fithin a basically hostile en ironment, in Fhich there are systemic pressures to undermine any such attempts, and Fhich can corrupt the participants Fith not too much difficulty. But decommodification not only stems the dri e for neoliberal e)tensions but builds the basis for an alternate political culture. Lf course, the theorists of capitalism ha e long derided decommodification, arguing that it is illusory, that it goes against some presumed innate social psychology of human8ind, that it is inefficient, and that it guarantees lac8 of economic groFth and therefore of po erty. 6ll of this is false. 3e ha e only to loo8 at tFo ma(or institutions of the modern Forld 1 uni ersities and hospitals 1 to reali2e that, at least up to tFenty years ago, no one questioned that they should be run as non1profit institutions, Fithout shareholders or profit1ta8ers. 6nd it Fould be hard to argue seriously that, for that reason, they ha e been inefficient, unrecepti e to technological ad ances, incapable of attracting competent personnel to run them, or unable to perform the basic ser ices for Fhich they Fere created. 3e donRt 8noF hoF these principles Fould For8, if applied to large1scale production li8e steel production or small1scale, more artisanal production. But to dismiss this out of hand is simply blind. 6nd in an era Fhen producti e enterprises are becoming far less profitable than pre iously, precisely because of the economic groFth Fhich the capitalist Forld1economy has bred, is foolish. 'ushing alternate forms of de elopment along these lines has a potential for ansFering problems not only of the 9outh but of the declining industrial regions of the ,orth. -n any case, as - ha e insisted, the issue is not Fhat Fill magically sol e the immediate dilemmas of our Forld1system but the basis on Fhich Fe shall create the successor Forld1system. 6nd to address that seriously, Fe must first of all comprehend Fith some clarity the historical de elopment of our present system, appreciate its structural dilemmas today, and open our mind to radical alternati es for the future. 6nd Fe must do all this, not merely academically but practically, that is, li ing in the present, and concerned Fith the immediate needs of people as Fell as longer1run transformations. 3e must therefore fight both defensi ely and offensi ely. 6nd if Fe do it Fell, Fe may, but only may, come out ahead in the lifetimes of some of the younger members of this audience. <otes
!> Yeynote address at conference, H;e elopment .hallenges for the @!st .entury,H .ornell Ani ersity, Lct. !, @[[V. @> Dolume --- of ;es Colonies fran<aises, E)position Ani erselle de !"[[, 'ublications de la .ommission charge de prparer la participation de la /inist^re des .olonies, 'arisB 6ugustin .hallamel, !"[[. E> 9ee, for e)ample, 6nthony 6t8inson, Lee 4ainFater Z 5imothy 9meeding, H-ncome ;istribution in European .ountries,H in 6. B. 6t8inson, ed., Incomes and the Belfare State= Essays on -ritain and

Europe, .ambridgeB .ambridge Ani . 'ress. V> 5he classic article is that by :io anni 6rrighi Z Jessica ;rangel, H5he 9tratification of the 3orld1 EconomyB 6n E)ploration of the 9emiperipheral lone,H 7evie*, &, i, 9ummer !"$Q, "1XV. 6rrighi is currently updating this argument in a forthcoming article. #> 6lthough this is prima facie logical, it seldom enters into analyses of mainstream economists. Q> 9ee ;eane ,eubauer, H/i)ed Blessings of the /egacities,H Cale Dlobal Enline, 9ept. @V, @[[V. httpBPPyaleglobal.yale.eduPdisplay.articleIidnV#XE X> 9ee -lya 'rigogine, in collaboration Fith -sabelle 9tengers, /he End of Certainty= /ime' Chaos' and the +e* ;a*s of +ature, ,eF 0or8B Free 'ress, !""X. $> 9ee for e)ample HJapan and the Future 5ra(ectory of the 3orld19ystemB Lessons from 7istoryIH in Deopolitics and Deoculture, .ambridgeB .ambridge Ani . 'ress, !""!, EQ1V$.

Chiapas 'atin (merica and the Capitalist 2orld: system

=!>

Carlos Antonio Aguirre ojas D

? 4esearcher at the -nstituto de -n estigaciones 9ociales, Ani ersidad ,acional 6utnoma de /)ico. E1 mailB aguirrecCser idor.unam.m)

5F /he Chiapas Indians *ho have been using such intelligent tactics in their long struggle *ith the Me!ican government.6 -mmanuel 3allerstein, M-ndigenous 'eoples, 'opulist .olonels, and :lobali2ationN.
.omment number EE, on httpBPPfbc.binghamton.edu, Feb site of the Fernand Braudel .enter, February !st of @[[[.

Eut today Ae say enou"hF

5oday, more than eight years after its public appearance on the /e)ican, Latin 6merican and 3orld scenario, it appears e ident that the ,eo h lapatista indigenous mo ement that de eloped in the /e)ican 9tate of .hiapas, is clearly a neF type of social mo ement, typical of Fhat the antisystemic mo ements in opposition of the capitalist system shall be li8e that are going to be organi2ed o er the ne)t thirty to fifty years of this chronological third millenium. 5his neF type of social mo ement, that emerges in one of the poorest and most bac8Fard areas of 9outhern /e)ico han area potentially ery rich in natural and economic resources, but ery much behind in terms of its social structure and its political configuration=@>1 has managed to stir up an interest and an echo of practically planetary proportions, precisely because it announces Fhat the neF anticapitalist social mo ements shall be li8e in the future.

DieFing that from its first public irruption on the first of January of !""V, the ,eo h lapatista mo ement of the /e)ican nati es has not ceased to be each time more present in ForldFide mass media, therefore also asserting its influence Fithin the collecti e imaginary of practically all of the resistance mo ements in the Forld, and becoming a necessary reference for all of those interested in the processes of social transformation that the capitalist system, as a Fhole, is currently e)perimenting. 5he ForldFide impact and presence of the ,eo h lapatismo deri ed from Fhat can be implied from its no elty as an antisystemic social mo ement, ha e not yet been sufficiently theori2ed nor analy2ed by the contemporary social scientists, in /e)ico and Latin 6merica as Fell as in the rest of the Forld. 7oFe er, in our opinion, the mentioned e)amination and study might possibly yield fundamental 8eys Fith Fhich to try understanding Fhich shall be the specific routes that shall be tra eled by future organi2ed struggles against the capitalist system. 5herefore, in the spirit of gi ing impulse to the multiplication of this still necessary analysis, the present essay shall try to analy2e some of the main e)pressions of ,eo h lapatismo from the perspecti e of the MForld1system analysisN. 5his perspecti e has been basically created and de eloped by -mmanuel 3allerstein o er the last tFenty 1 fi e years. ;uring this last quarter of a century, 3allerstein has been setting forth a series of thesis and interpretations that ery notably coincide e)traordinarily Fith the ,eo h lapatista thesis, anticipating them by se eral lustrums in some instances, and in others, reinforcing and alloFing to re1dimension their most profound purpose and significance. 5hus, Fhile at the same time trying to re ieF some of the central theoretic proposals of this perspecti e of the 3orld19ystem 6nalysis, as Fell as to use them as an instrument for e)plaining the recent ,eo h lapatista phenomenon, Fhat the present te)t pursues is the ob(ecti e of indicating some MneF leadsN to continue re h thin8ing and e)plaining the social mo ement and the situation that currently e)ist and are de eloping in the 9tate of .hiapas in 9outhern /e)ico that today is a mandatory element of the possible essential geography of the Forld anticapitalist rebellion. 5herefore, playing Fith the demonstration of the e ident Melecti e affinitiesN that Fe belie e to percei e Fithin the recent e ents in .hiapas and the perspecti e of the Forldh system analysis, Fe may perhaps ad ance one step forFard in the process of clarification of the nature of this ,eo h lapatista indigenous mo ement and in the illustration of the possible producti eness of this same analytic perspecti e.

Planet Earth mountains o# the south east o# Me%ico

Lne of the ideas that the Forldhsystem perspecti e has insisted upon most, and that many consider to be its most original and specific contribution, is that of the indispensable need to systematically and permanently go beyond the limited MnationalN or MstateN point of ieF for the study and e)planation of the main phenomena that ta8e place Fithin the capitalist Forldhsystem=E>.

Because according to -mmanuel 3allersteins opinion, one recurrent fault incurred by the ast ma(ority of contemporary social scientists consists in non h critically assuming the supposed legitimacy of the Mnational frameFor8N as the Munit of analysisN that is pertinent for the study of the social de elopments of the last fi e centuries. ,e ertheless, and stating for a fact that said unit of analysis is not and cannot be any other than the Forld1system itself considered as a Fhole, those Fho promote this Forldhsystem perspecti e are then going to defend the need to relocate the assembly of facts, phenomena and processes that ha e occupied and e en today, still occupy the specialists in history as Fell as in the current situation of modern capitalism=V> from a more global and all h embracing ision. 5hus, and establishing a critical distance from the traditional concepts of M9tateN, M,ationN and M9ocietyN hFhich they propose to reco er and redefine from and Fithin the most comple) notions of the of interstate system, Forldheconomy and Forldh system11 and e)tending by its oFn route the radically globali2ing ision inherited from /ar) as Fell as from Fernand Braudel=#>, the perspecti e of the Forldhsystem analysis insist upon the fact that a global Forldhsystem dynamics in fact really e)ists, and Fhich dynamics, if ignored by our analysis, is ine itably going to misrepresent the adequate e)planation of the problems Fe are addressing. 5herefore and in order to set forth only a possible illustration of this general thesis, 3allerstein Fill shoF us, for e)ample, hoF, in the so h called Mindependence mo ementsN of Latin 6merica, early in the &-&th century, Fhat is at sta8e at the le el of Forldhsystem as a Fhole, is the ForldFide process of mar8et re 1 articulation Fhere :reat Britain asserts itself as the center of Forldheconomy and 9pain culminates the process of decadence, that began as far bac8 as the &D--th century, of its each time more diminished role Fithin the concert of European nations. -t is in this Fay, folloFing the e)ample of the Mde h coloni2ation of the Anited 9tatesN, and stemming from this situation in Fhich no one is interested in ha ing Latin 6merica continue under the domination and control of 9pain, that the multiplicity of mo ements of our MindependencesN are going to ta8e place. -n these mo ements, the sectors that include the masses and those most radical shall be systematically e)cluded, alienated or repressed and Fhere the 9panish .olonial domination shall end up being substituted by a neF chiefly European economic domination, folloFing a line that shall reaffirm, finally and in spite of our MindependencesN, the historically chronic situation that continues to this day, regarding the condition of Latin 6merica as a simple MperipheralN h area of the Forld1system=Q>. 6ccording to this perspecti e of the Forldhsystem analysis, our social and political processes of the early &-&th century cannot then be adequately understood, unless Fe are to consider this essential dimension of the global dynamics of the Forldhsystem at that moment. 6nd this, not only for the purpose of Mgi ing consideration to the so h called e)ternal factorsN that Fould complement and perhaps round out or enhance someFhat more the e)planation centered on the Minternal factorsN, but in the someFhat more profound and radical sense that the mentioned Latin 6merican Mindependence processesN Fould ha e been impossible Fithout the e)istence of that MForldFide situationN of the simultaneous 9panish decadence and British boom and Fithout the historical pause that it creates. But also, and on the other hand, it is only the consideration of the chronically peripheral situation Fithin the Forldhsystem that Latin

6merica has suffered as a true long duration profound structure throughout the entire history of capitalist modernity, that has alloFed understanding of the limits as Fell as the ultimate results of the mentioned independences of our semicontinent=X>. 5hus, reinserting the e)planation of these local Latin 6merican processes Fithin this global dynamics of the Forldheconomy and of the Forldhsystem, 3allerstein reaffirms his thesis that the so h called Mglobali2ationN is not a phenomenon that dates as recently as the last three decades, nor is it a process that is characteristic of the last century, but rather a process initiated fi e centuries ago and inscribed as an essential stro8e of the nature itself of the capitalist Forldhsystem. 6nd that is the reason Fhy, the same as so many other rele ant processes of the current Forld h system, .hiapas only acquires its true profound significance Fhen Fe obser e it from the perspecti e of this global and uni ersal dimension of the Forldhsystem as a Fhole. Because, if it is in fact clear that .hiapas can also be e)plained stemming from certain local processes and later, from some specific conte)ts and national histories=$>, it is equally clear that, Fithout the consideration of that more uni ersal and planetary dimension of the global dynamics of the current Forldhsystem, it is impossible to adequately capture the true essential nature and the specific international significance of the ,eo h lapatista rebellion. 5he reason is that it is only this le el of the mentioned planetary dynamics of capitalism seen as a Forldhsystem, that can alloF us to understand the e)traordinary international echo of this /e)ican indigenous mo ement, that is being seen e eryFhere as one of the se eral possible MmodelsN, or as one of the concrete alternati es, that e)emplify the challenges faced by the neF antisystemic mo ements, as Fell as the possible responses that can be e)perimented in the face of these mentioned challenges=">. 6nd it is e)tremely significant that the rebel indians of .hiapas alFays had an acute aFareness of this international nature of their proposal, Fhich is demonstrated as much by the fact that they decided to ma8e public their mo ement on the same day on Fhich the ,orth 6merican Free 5rade 6greement came into effect, as Fell as by the fact that tFo and a half years later they ha e summoned and organi2ed the First -ntercontinental Encounter for 7umanity and 6gainst ,eo h Liberalism in their oFn territories=![>. 6long these lines and radically assuming the fact that their mo ement is a resistance mo ement Fith global implications and meanings and proclaiming that their struggle is part of a struggle that is located in .hiapas, as Fell as in /e)ico, in Latin 6merica and all o er the Forld, the ,eo h lapatistas ha e 8noFn hoF to truthfully act Fith solidarity Fith the oppressed all o er the Forld, ma8ing common cause against all forms of social oppression that e)ist in todays Forld, and pronouncing themsel es against timid politics that at times are in complicity Fith the A, and against go ernment handling of the tragedy of last years flooding in /e)ico, as Fell as in the face of the genocidal massacre of Yoso o or the ridiculous positions ta8en by the recent consecuti e go ernors of the 9tate of .hiapas. 6nd if on the ,eo hlapatista side there is clear aFareness of the lin8 of their mo ement Fith the global logic of the capitalist Forld1system, great recepti ity and attention focused toFards this originally .hiapas located mo ement has also been e ident on the part of the capitalist Forld1system. 5he mo ement has also recei ed ast and Fidespread publicity ha factor that, to a certain e)tent, has alloFed putting a halt to the military repression that the mo ement could ha e suffered, ma8ing it possible for it so

sur i e in better conditions11 that can be e)plained by the already mentioned fact that the ,eo h lapatista insurgency is seen, all o er the Forld, as one of the most important e)periences from Fhich much can be learned of the neF antisystemic mo ements, as much from the organi2ation and political point of ieF as Fell from the cultural and general point of ieF.

2e are the product o# 566 years o# stru""lesG

6nother of the important ideas on Fhich the MForld1system analysisN focus insists repeatedly is that of the need to systematically introduce, into our analysis of the broached problems, a perspecti e that shall alFays study them from the point of ieF of long historical duration. 5hus folloFing up on Fernand Braudels=!!> important lessons on this issue, -mmanuel 3allerstein shall repeat that the social phenomena cannot be understood if, for their comprehension, Fe confine oursel es in the temporality of the short and P or medium duration, and that it is therefore necessary to alFays open generously the temporal fan of our e)amination, incorporating these isions of much longer temporal strength into our e)planations. 5his can therefore completely change our perception of the studied facts. Because in the light of this historic long duration, to cite only one e)ample de eloped by -mmanuel 3allerstein, is the profound mutation symboli2ed by the collapse of the Berlin 3all in !"$" Fhich is no longer presented, as in the ma(ority of the (ournalistic and superficial isions, as the Mdefiniti e death of socialismN or the Mdefiniti e end of /ar)ism or communismN, to re eal itself more as the e ident conclusi e moment of the process of Mglobal collapse of LiberalismN initiated in !"Q$. 5his process entirely de h legitimi2es said liberalism as the dominating ideology or geo1culture of the modern Forld1system, to fully introduce us into the situation of a neF open confrontation of ideologies and the total re h structuring of the geo h culture Fe e)perienced thirty years ago and that shall continue yet o er the folloFing thirty or fifty years to come=!@>. 5his is a completely original and heterodo) interpretation of the e ents of !"$" and their historical significance, that is possible only if Fe ta8e into consideration both the long history of /ar)ism and communism from the second half of the &-&th century and up until today, as Fell as the entire cur e of liberalism o er the past tFo centuries. Because in this light of the profound history, that is displayed in the records of the really long time, it is quite clear that /ar)ism has MdiedN do2ens of times, only to be reborn again alFays Fith neF strength on as many other occasions. 6t the same time that it has been shoFn, also ery clearly, that the strange attempts of its application in the different ariables of Mreal socialismN of the tFentieth century can close their life cycle, Fithout ha ing to compromise Fith this closure, either critical social thought, nor the legitimate opposition mo ements and the struggle against the capitalist system. 5herefore, they can also do so Fithout abandoning the potential and the enormous benefit of this reference and theoretic contribution of /ar)ist thought. -n addition, it is also only from this long duration perspecti e that !"$" e)hibits its profound connection, in the plane of essential cultural transformations and mutations, as much Fith !"Q$ as Fith !"!X, !$V$ and !X$", that is, Fith the really rele ant turning points that mar8 the entire history of liberalism, Fhen Fe regard it as the dominant geo1

culture of the modern Forld1system, in the tFo centuries that ha e transpired since the French 4e olution. 5herefore, and from this point of ieF, that embraces the entire period of !X$"1!"$" for the purpose of e)plaining the last of these tFo dates, it is clear that !"$", more than the assumed Mdeath of /ar)ismN, is rather the moment of the final erosion and the cancellation of the basic premises that had been supporting the alidity of liberal ideology. -t is the end of the alidity of the possibility, that pre iously had still remained open, of the obtainment of certain democratic achie ements, or of the struggle for the e)tension of certain rights, or for the political recognition of these or those social sectors, groups or mo ements. 5oFards !"Q$ h !"$", all of the mentioned processes are totally e)hausted as possibilities open to the future Fithin the frameFor8 of the current Forld1system. 3ith this comes the crumbling of the prior liberal consensus, collapsing the hegemonic strength of liberalism and gi ing Fay to the current situation of open ideological dispute that Fe ha e e)perienced o er the last decade. 6nd in the same Fay of any other fundamental social process, .hiapas also can only be adequately understood if Fe analy2e it from this ision that comes from the long duration. 6nd this understanding is in regard to se eral important interpretations. -n the first place, because the present ,eo hlapatista indigenous mo ement is in fact only the latest lin8 of a long chain of indigenous resistance mo ements, present in /e)ico and in an entire and important area of Latin 6merica that goes through the history of the last fi e centuries of the e olution of our Latin 6merican ci ili2ation, characteri2ing it Fith the recurrent presence of these same rebellious mo ements of the indigenous populations=!E>. 9ince it is possible to postulate, quite specifically, that throughout the half of a millenium that encompasses the history of capitalist modernity, accompanying this modernity and as a true long duration structure of our Latin 6merican ci ili2ation, this social positioning of strong focal points of the indigenous populations of our semicontinent has e)isted, in a permanent attitude of rebellion, opposition or confrontation against the dominant social structures that ha e been created and affirmed in Latin 6merica during these fi e centuries of the mentioned cur e of modernity. 3hat this means is that, from the time of the 9panish .onquest to this day, and as opposed to other areas of Latin 6merica Fhere there is a predominance of populations of MFhiteN, Mmesti2oN or Mblac8N origin, there is still a strongly indigenous map of Latin 6merica, that has tenaciously and consistently resisted the hierarchical, unequal and alFays discriminating imposition of the deformed and peripheral pro(ect of Latin 6merican MmodernityN. 5hus, at times brea8ing out in open uprisings and at others, remaining in chec8 as latent resistance to the acceptance of certain cultural codes and of certain social conducts and practices, this indigenous 6merica has turned its re(ection to the logic of the conquest, to the submission, to the e)ploitation and later, to an o erFhelming cultural MassimilationN, unfolded in the capitalist Forld1system, into a truly long duration daily reality, an authentic repeated outline of its sur i al and of its e)istence Fithin the Latin 6merican Forld.

-t is an attitude of proud and chronic rebellion before the pro(ect of Latin 6mericas peripheral or baroque modernity=!V>, that does not pro(ect itself in the direction of a useless and impossible defense of the precapitalist Forld, or of the premodern past, or of the Mgood old timesN as many hasty and superficial intellectuals ha e set forth, but rather more in the direction of radically refusing to accept the homogeni2ing logic of modernity. 5his is a predatory logic that sFeeps aFay cultures, traditions, cosmo isions and rich and di erse ci ili2ing habits, to substitute them Fith the Mcold egotistical calculationN, Fith the merciless logic of the Menhancement of alueN and Fith the complete standardi2ation of the consumer and empty contemporary cultures. 5herefore, and from this attitude of acti e re(ection of this predatory capitalist logic, has it been that the .hiapas and Latin 6merican indigenous ha e 8noFn hoF to preser e and reno ate a culture and some equally MmodernN but alternati e beha iors=!#>, Fhere men, earth, Forld, time and space ha e a different significance, different from that Fhich they ha e in the dominating Latin 6merican modernity. 5hus, ha ing de eloped a collecti e imaginary built Fith other references, and that functions Fith other logics, different from the dominating logic, the ,eo1lapatista nati es hFho are, in the final analysis, e)pression and part of that aster Latin 6merican indigenous Forld11, can then pro ide those same concepts of dignity, (ustice, democracy and poFer that Fe 8noF and use, but Fith a ery other and different meanings. -t is Fith these concepts and supported on this draFn bac8 and marginal but li e pro(ect of an alternati e modernity, that recycles and re1functionali2es old practices and cosmo isions, at the same time that it ta8es on the neF problems and challenges that are characteristic of the current social stage, that the ,eo h lapatista ha e been able to contribute this entire process of Mre1signification of thingsN to the Forld, and that includes the construction of neF languages for the same realities and the assignment of neF meanings to old facts, as Fell as the proposal of neF practices and neF beha iors in politics, in culture and in society. 6nd, in our opinion, it is precisely from here from Fhere the rare Fealth and beauty of some of the pieces Fritten by the 9ubcomandante /arcos are deri ed, as Fell as are the strength and forcefulness of the ,eo h lapatista discourse, not Fea8ened has modern political rhetoric is already11, nor surrounded by the ine itable sentiment of suspicion that is spontaneously pro o8ed by all of the modern Mprofessional politiciansN, in /e)ico and Latin 6merica as Fell as all o er the Forld. 5his is a radical no elty in the ,eo h lapatista discourse that therefore may perhaps e)plain the fascination that it e)erts all o er the Forld, as Fell as the fact that it has e en been capable of reneFing and resignifying old symbols that had become oid of content, becoming degraded in the hands of official politics and culture, as is the case of the /e)ican ,ational anthem and flag, or also the gra eyard of our Millustrious national heroesN, that noF begin once again to regain strength and alidity as they are indicated and re alued by the ,eo h lapatistas themsel es. -n all of these e)pressions of a marginal and alternati e modernity as compared to the dominant capitalist modernity, there is ne ertheless, a clear re olutionary potential that todays lapatistas ha e 8noFn hoF to assume, to state e)plicitly and to shoF to the Forld, and that in its profound anticapitalistic and antisystemic sense, reminds us

necessarily of Yarl /ar)s position regarding the possibilities for a future of the ancient 4ussian rural community=!Q>. Because if the ,eo h lapatista mo ement cannot be understood Fithout this long duration ision, and therefore as heir and legitimate bearer of this secular history of the Latin 6merican indigenous rebellions of the last fi e centuries, that preser e and build that possible alternati e modernity, it cannot be totally captured, in its entire sense, if Fe do not see it also as the first lin8 of another neF chain, that opens up after !"$", and that (oining and building Fith other neF lin8s the spectrum of the current neF antisystemic social mo ements, it shall surely continue to broaden and de elop during the ne)t thirty to fifty years, Fhich shall most probably constitute the terminal phase or situation of historical (unction of the capitalist Forld1system=!X>. Because Fhen Fe closely analy2e the concrete questions and problems that the ,eo h lapatistas face and discuss daily, it is quite clear that they refer to common items of the agenda that the neF antisystemic social mo ements share today all o er the Forld. 5his agenda of items that are still sub(ect to debate shall undoubtedly ha e to be resol ed during the ne)t decades of this chronological &&-st century that is beginning noF. Because it is not by chance that the .hiapas rebel indigenous mo ement questions itself in a similar manner regarding hoF to successfully face the onslaught of neoliberalism and of the 4ight that has re i ed in /e)ico and in the Forld, as Fell as regarding the Fays in Fhich a neF, inclusi e, broad and efficient social mo ement must be organi2ed for the current struggles, in order that they are able to transcend the crisis of the old, already hard as stone, leftist political parties, as Fell as, and more generally, the crisis of total credibility of the political le el and of politics of contemporary societies. 5hus, trying to a oid the ris8s of MsubstitutismN that today is still chronic in the parties h Fhere the class or the social group are substituted by the party, the party by its directi e organs and the latter by the leaders, in a recurrent process of MdelegationN of decisions, of reflection and of responsibilities of the MmassesN toFards their leadersoand see8ing to restore the true and permanent participation and commitment, of the oppressed in their mo ements and of the militants in their organi2ations, the ,eo h lapatistas point to a uni ersal problem, that today is present in all of the antisystemic mo ements the Forld o er. -n our opinion, this type of questions and others that are similar and that today are discussed in the heart of the mo ement of the .hiapas nati es in rebellion, can only be ansFered from a long duration antage point, and that must also be loo8ing toFards the future, attempting to disco er the concrete elements that connect, in an almost spontaneous form, the e)perience of those ,eo h lapatista nati es, Fith all of that series of re olutionary e)periences that they include, from the heroic attempt of the 'aris .ommune or the 4ussian 4e olution and to the poFer of the 9o iets, as Fell as the e)perience of the -talian 3or8ers .ouncils and that of the .hinese .ultural 4e olution of !"QQ h !"XQ. 6s it happens hoFe er, this connection does not only occur in the sense that 3alter Ben(amin has indicated, in as far as that the fury of all of the past and anquished rebellions once again aFa8ens and is reborn=!$> in each neF rebellion of the oppressed, but rather in the recurrent reappearance, in all of these cited e)amples, of certain stro8es

that repeatedly characteri2e the most genuine demonstrations of rebellion against capitalist oppression, domination and e)ploitation. 3e refer to stro8es li8e the one of the mo ement that functions as a true Mfesti al of the oppressedN, in Fhich these oppressed ta8e the decision of their destiny into their oFn hands, and in Fhich a genuine area is opened for the free demonstration and defense of their interests, their points of ieF, their concerns and pro(ects for social change. -t is a mo ement Fhere the representati es are re ocable at any time, and Fhere the ma8ing of important decisions is alFays genuinely collecti e. -n sum, it is a mo ement that is the antithesis of the traditional political parties, Fith their leadership decisions and their secret negotiations, Fith their public officials completely separated from the ran8s and files, and infatuated and many times corrupted by the sFeetness of poFer. 5hese are traits of the most radical antisystemic mo ements in the history of the last one hundred and thirty years, that reappear in the ,eo h lapatismo and that must certainly also be reco ered by the neF antisystemic mo ements of the folloFing lustrums yet to come.

Hapatista (rmy #or <ational 'i)eration (IEJ>rcito Hapatista de 'i)eracin <acionalK L EH'<). Those Aithout a name are re#erred to Aith this neA name
6nother one of the important thesis of the Forld1system analysis is that of the internal structure that composes that global unit that is 8noFn as the Forld1system. -t is a tripartite structure, composed by a center, a semiperipheral area, and a ast peripheral area, that not only assigns and determines the economic, social, political and cultural roles that the different nations and regions of the mentioned Forld1system can fulfill, but that also has an influence on the specific types of antisystemic mo ements that are unfolded in those different areas of the planet, mar8ing the limits of their specific action and their possibilities of global impact as Fell as the particular social significance of their specific demands=!">. -n this Fay, this differential location Fithin this or that 2one of the Forld1system, For8s as a fundamental element in the definition of the limits as Fell as of the possibilities of action of the M9tatesN, of the MnationsN, of the MsocietiesN, but also of the mo ements, of the struggles and of the transformations of all sorts that occur in this location. 6nd it is therefore this tripartite and differential geography of the Forld1system, Fhich alloFs us to understand for instance, Fhy during the second half of the &-&th century all of Europe e)perienced the presence and groFth of strong For8ers and socialists mo ements, Fhereas on the other hand, socialism is only ery Fea8ly implanted in ast 2ones of 6sia, 6frica or Latin 6merica. Lr also, on the other e)treme, Fhy ha e the nationalist, national liberation or anti h imperialist mo ements been so strong and so essential in all of the recent history of the three mainly peripheral 2ones mentioned abo e, Fhereas their role in 3estern Europe or in the Anited 9tates has been either non h e)istent or clearly minor.

Lr also, is it this different positioning in the Forld1system, that alloFs e)plaining, for e)ample, Fhy, in spite of the radicalism of the 4ussian proletariat and of the e)treme lucidity of some of their leaders, such as Lenin or 9 erdlo , the pro(ect of Msocialism in one country onlyN hpro(ect that Fas implemented by 9talin after Lenins death11, ends up being an historically non h iable pro(ect, causing the supposedly socialist 4e olution, to be in fact, dedicated to fulfill tas8s that are typical of a democratic 1 bourgeois re olution, and that the 9o iet Anion end up being, through the 5hird -nternational, the Forld leader of the abo e mentioned national liberation and anti h imperialist mo ements. 5his, according to -mmanuel 3allersteins opinion, therefore demonstrates that it is impossible to change (ust one portion or 2one of the Forld1system, if all of the system, in its entirety, is not changed. 9temming from its condition as a semiperipheral 2one that 4ussia had before !"!X hand that in 3allersteins opinion it still has today11, the entire history of the 9o iet Anion Fill illustrate for us hoF the global logic of the Forld1system, ends up pre ailing o er attempts to change, no matter hoF radical these might be, by mar8ing the boundaries of its general limits and e en by modifying its profound significance in the medium and the long term. 9trange indeed is the destiny of the socialist pro(ect in the A994, that reminds of the already mentioned condition that /ar) set forth for the success of socialism and communism in 4ussia as Fell as the e)plicit doubt that Lenin had regarding the future of socialism in the A994, regardless of a triumphant socialist re olution in 3estern Europe=@[>. 6nd if this location Fithin the Forld1system, is not only an element of the Me)ternal conte)tN of the MnationN, or one more additional factor to consider, NalongsideN the MinternalN processes that Fould be the most essential, but is instead rather a central dimension of all of the processes and systems of the Forld1system, then, and in order to understand .hiapas, it is necessary to begin also from the fact that /e)ico and Latin 6merica ha e generally alFays been part of the peripheral area and in a ery small measure of the semiperipheral area of the Forld1system. 5hey are therefore countries and 2ones Fhere the national states are alFays Fea8, Fhere the bourgeoisie is of recent appearance and alFays inclined to compromise and abdication, Fhere the de elopment of democracy is alFays incomplete, deformed and partial, and Fhere the respect for human rights, the condition of the citi2enship, the real effecti e e)ercise of the constitutional state or the habits of granting (ustice and of requiring its enforcement, turn out to be realities that are more than imperfect and only in effect by tendency. 5hus, from the Fell h 8noFn Mobey but do not fulfillN of the .olonial period, to the current and illegitimate non h compliance of the 9an 6ndres 6greements =6cuerdos de 9an 6ndrs> on the part of the /e)ican Federal :o ernment, or also the sad recent spectacle of establishing a dialogue Fith the stri8ing A,6/ =/e)ican 6utonomous ,ational Ani ersity> students, at the same time that the campus and the uni ersity facilities Fere being occupied by the police, the peripheral and semiperipheral condition of our country and of our Latin 6merican semicontinent, becomes present in a most e ident manner. 5his predominantly peripheral condition e)plains to us then Fhy, at first glance, the principle indication of the rebellious .hiapas nati es seems to be demands that are not ery radical and not ery antisystemic. 7oFe er, Fhen these demands are obser ed from a more profound perspecti e, they re eal the fact that by including as part of their central banners the demands for Mliberty, democracy, (ustice and peaceN, the ,eo h

lapatistas are defending a series of demands that, in the current conditions of /e)ico and Latin 6merica, are demands that are radically incompatible Fith the policies of neoliberalism, subordination and of total surrender that are practiced today by our Latin 6merican 9tates. .onsequently, these are demands that, in this conte)t of a periphery Fith Fea8 de elopment of its political formations, become completely and absolutely sub ersi e and profoundly re olutionary. 5herefore, to seriously ta8e care that liberty pre ails in /e)ico and in Latin 6merica, or to here respect the complete e)ercise and integral de elopment of democratic life, or to rigorously enforce the constitutional state and the granting of (ustice, or in the last instance, to eliminate the multiple loF intensity Fars that are being Faged against the oppressed in all of these regions, are all processes that Fould imply undermining the roots and transforming the essence, of the current Latin 6merican political system, Fith its bi2arre features of the long perpetuation in poFer of one single party, the increasing symbiosis betFeen political domination and all types of corruption, the systematic cooptation and domestication of those oppositions that become loyal as soon as they reach poFer, or also of the each time more fragile balance of the domination of the different sectors of the go erning political class, that opens up the space to be able to ha e the presidents that the great ma(ority of Latin 6merica has suffered o er the last fifteen or tFenty years. 5hus, the MpoliticalN demands of the current lapatistas, are insoluble Fithout a re olution of this political order in effect in /e)ico and Latin 6merica, and therefore they are clearly re olutionary demands. 6lso ob iously re olutionary are their more MeconomicN demands, claiming MFor8, land, shelter, food, health, education and independenceN, Fhich demands also refer to that mainly peripheral condition of Latin 6merica and /e)ico, and to its most recent e)acerbated demonstrations. 5he fact being that, from the economic point of ieF, Latin 6merica is undoubtedly the ci ili2ation that is the most dependent of the entire planet. -t is a ci ili2ation that Fas established from its origins as a ci ili2ing pro(ect Fhich began fi e centuries ago, and as an economy that Fas to function for, and in the terms of, the centers of the Forld1 system, and in fact it de eloped then as a permanently disorgani2ed, and fragmented economy, Fith areas of ery high economic de elopment alongside impo erished and e en miserably underpri ileged regions and sectors, and therefore, as a spineless, fragile and highly ulnerable economy=@!>. 3e are referring to a structurally dependent and internally ery polari2ed and unequal economy, that leads the same to the rich 6rgentina of the thirties of the tFentieth century, as Fell as to the prostrated, Fea8ened and in crisis 6rgentina of today or of the ,eF 9pain or .olonial Bra2il of the &D- or &D--- centuries respecti ely, as compared to /e)ico and Bra2il of our days. -n ieF of this, the apparently elementary demands for For8, land, shelter, food, education or independence, are once again re olutionary Fithin the current Latin 6merican and /e)ican economic order, because their full and e)act enforcement Fould imply abandoning the current pri ati2ing and neoliberal policies that fa or the rich areas and le els, Fhile they abandon to their oFn fate and forget the poorest groups and regions. 5his has created si)ty million people li ing beloF the limit of e)treme po erty in /e)ico, alongside tFenty four /e)ican hypermillionaires included in the list of

Forbes maga2ine or that folloF the -/Fs policies, e en at the cost of scandalously increasing unemployment, rural e)odus to the cities, the crisis in loF h cost housing, the degradation of li ing standards, the eliti2ation and dismantling of public uni ersities or the subordination of our country to the dominant financial and economic centers. 6ll of Fhich means that, no matter hoF elementary and simple those economic demands of the ,eo h lapatistas might appear at first sight, they are in fact, unattainable Fithout an also parallel re olution of the current economic model that has been established in /e)ico and in all of Latin 6merica, o er the last fi e lustrums.

GAe are not attracted )y the son"s o# the mermaids and the an"els to "i*e us access to a Aorld that G o##ers #ame in e%chan"e #or di"nity G
6nother one of the important positions of the perspecti e of the 3orld19ystem 6nalysis, refers to its e aluation and later critique of the Mglobal strategyN that ha e been folloFed by the different antisystemic mo ements, in the struggle for the conquest of its goals, during the ast period that goes from !$$[ to appro)imately !"Q$. -n trying to e)amine the routes tra eled by these antisystemic mo ements Fithin a broad temporal perspecti e, -mmanuel 3allerstein belie es that in all of them he detects a common trait that is repeatedly present, and he is here referring to the definition of a strategy alFays concei ed in tFo successi e stages. 5his strategy that Fas de eloped using the Mnation1stateN as its frame of reference, has established as the first ob(ecti e to be fulfilled, or as the first stage of the struggle, that of conquering state poFer, the Mo erta8ing of poFerN toFards the inside of the national frameFor8, Fhich stage, once it has been accomplished and only during a second phase or moment, could gi e Fay to the desired and alFays requested general ob(ecti e of Mchanging the ForldN, of Mradically transforming societyN in all of its comple)ity. 5hus, socialist and communist mo ements as Fell as socialdemocratic mo ements, or the nationalist, anti h imperialist or national liberation mo ements, all too8 upon themsel es as the first tas8 to be accomplished that of conquering 9tate poFer in their respecti e nations. -n a significant ma(ority of cases, all of them Fere triumphant in the achie ement of this first stage of their general strategy. But to the contrary and practically Fithout e)ception, all of them also failed in attaining their second tas8B that Fas to modify the societies or the nations in question in a radical and substantial manner and to the degree in Fhich they had planned and offered to so before they came into poFer. 5hus, according to the interpretation of the author of 5he /odern 3orld19ystem, all of the antisystemic mo ements that came into poFer in the last hundred years, ended up by profoundly changing their original policies and ob(ecti es, delaying promised transformations, tempering the most radical demands of the masses, and re h establishing, much more than any of them Fould accept admitting to, many of the practices and the structures of the old order, critici2ed, and later o erthroFn or displaced by these same antisystemic mo ements=@@>.

-n all of the folloFing instances, beginning Fith the A994 itself and continuing Fith .hina, Eastern Europe, .uba, Dietnam or ,icaragua, as Fell as in the cases of /e)ico, 'eru, 5ur8ey, 6rgentina, 6lgiers, -ndia, France, 9pain or :reece, among so many others, the same thing happenedB the so h called Mpassing to communismN, or the repeated Mtotal abolition of capitalismN, or also the Mtotal economic and political independenceN or the conquest of the Mtrue national so ereigntyN, or e en more simply, the construction of a MFrenchN or M9panish socialismN or the o ercoming of the unequal economic e)change, or the elimination of the 2ones of geopolitical and geostrategic influence and domination of this or that part of the planet, ended up being distorted and postponed until a more or less indefinite future. 6nd in all of these cases, in accordance to the Forld1system analysis, the e)planation of these changes of direction or Mde iationsN from the proposed final ob(ecti e must be constructed stemming from the ac8noFledgment of the fact that in the medium and in the long term, and beyond the intentions, the Fill and e en the heroics of these mo ements and their participants, finally the global logic of the Forld1system has ended up by gaining acceptance. 6fter MassimilatingN the impact of all of these re olutions or changes in the different countries, this global logic of the Forld1system once again proceeds to reintegrate them Fithin their general operation mechanism. Lnce again this refers us to the already mentioned thesisB if the Forld1system does not change as a Fhole, the changes of the different MpiecesN or MpartsN that form it hin this case the different nations that form the systemofind themsel es structurally limited in their possibility of ad ancing, due to that profound logic of the system as a Fhole. Because of the nature of the mentioned system, its logic has continued to be and is up to this day, a logic of capitalist reproduction. 5herefore, and hoFe er radical the attempts for change may ha e been, and e en though the different triumphant re olutions staged by those antisystemic mo ements h be they socialist, or social1democratic or of national liberation11, may ha e effecti ely achie ed profoundly changing the destiny and e en the general role of its respecti e societies or nations, and in spite of all this, the global Forld1system continues to be capitalist. 3hat also continues to e)ist are the relations of interdependence among the states and the groFing inequality betFeen center, semiperiphery and periphery, and the relations of domination and sub(ugation among states and nations and the political, social, economic and cultural hierarchy and inequality among the countries and 2ones of the entire planet and in the interior of these same countries and 2ones. 7a ing then formulated this diagnosis of the history of the antisystemic mo ements in the Forld, 3allerstein reaches the conclusion that, in the current situation, the first ob(ecti e of said mo ements must no longer be that of Mo erta8ing poFerN, state or national, but rather that of promoting and contributing as much as possible to the global transformation of the Forld1system as a Fhole. -n other respects, the former does not preclude that under certain circumstances, the neF antisystemic mo ements might ta8e poFer in this or that country, but Fithout considering this ta8ing of poFer as a goal in itself, and Fithout the prior hopes regarding the actual possibilities of radical change that said conquest of poFer in ol es. -ne itably this is a position that reminds us of /ar) incisi e reflections regarding the need for the communist re olution to be a re olution not limited to a local, national or e en continental space, but rather a re olution of ForldFide scope or dimensions=@E>.

5his is consequently a radical redefinition of the main goal of the struggle, and equi alently of global strategy, that is also going to ine itably imply questioning the old forms of party organi2ation and the former demands established by those parties, re h propositioning all of these elements from the lessons deri ed from the e)periences undergone betFeen !$$[ and !"Q$ appro)imately=@V>. 5he purpose therefore, is to redefine the priorities and ob(ecti es of the antisystemic mo ements, assuming that the general goal or ob(ecti e is, as Fe ha e already mentioned, to promote and to contribute as much as possible to the transformation, that is already in process, of the Forld1system as a Fhole. 5his Fould cancel the road for its substitution by any other equally unfair and e)ploiting system, and push it toFards the birth of a neF historical system that may be egalitarian, fair and free, and Fhere there no longer may e)ist any form of economic e)ploitation, of political domination or of social discrimination of any type. 5he results are a series of thesis, strongly contro ersial and at the same time, also e)tremely interesting and attracti e, that Fe shall re1encounter in some form or manner Fhen certain important positions of the .hiapas ,eo h lapatistas are more closely analy2ed. 9ince these .hiapas rebels ha e clearly stated that their ob(ecti e is not to ta8e poFer, and e en (o8ed regarding the fact that /e)icos ,ational 'alace, the symbolic seat of said state poFer, is much too ugly and un h attracti e, and then seriously imposing an e)plicit eto on their closest folloFers or sympathi2ers regarding the occupation of political public positions. 7a ing thus demystified the search of political poFer for poFer itself, that is each time more frequent, e en in broad sectors of /e)ican and Latin 6merican Leftist parties, the ,eo h lapatistas defend a point of ieF, that in the final instance, is directed toFards once more indicating the Mnecessary re1insertion of the political into the socialN, and consequently, the required subordination of this political dimension to the social dimension. 3e are reminded in this Fay and all of us are again re h updated, regarding /ar)s old lesson, that had already e)plained to us that this le el of the political Fas not and ne er could be a selfsufficient or selfe)planatory le el, because that political dimension in general is nothing more than a MtransfiguredN and McondensedN form of the social dimension itself=@#>, the ,eo h lapatistas are therefore pledging their firm commitment not on creating a umpteenth political party, or in participating in the negotiated distribution of segments or spaces of this same political poFer, but rather to promote the creation of solid and poFerful neF social mo ements. 5hese are to be neF, Fell organi2ed and conscientious forces and social mo ements, that by pro iding an e)pression and configuration to that someFhat amorphous and non h structured reality 8noFn as Mci il societyN, may therefore be capable of pressing for their specific demands, imposing their collecti e presence and strength for the defense of their interests, and hence, obligating politicians and politics in general to once again Mbe at the ser iceN of the social, to connect and lin8 by responding to it directly and to again ta8e it into account as its main nutritional source and as its frame of intention in general. By then in erting the per erse logic of the ma(ority of /e)ican and Latin 6merica professional politicians that Fant to subordinate the social to the political, and in

addition by transcending the also unhealthy infatuation of see8ing political poFer for poFer itself, the rebel nati es of 9outhern .hiapas indicate their slogan of Mordering by obeyingN. 5his is their idea that is totally incomprehensible for /e)ican and Latin 6merican modern Mpolitical scientistsN, in the sense that the go ernments, the poFers, the parties and the political representati es must alFays act, ad(usting their actions to the demands of the social forces that ha e elected them or that ha e brought them into poFer, responding at all times to the interests and the demands of the social mo ements and groups Fhich it is their intention to MrepresentN. By ha ing changed the primary or initial ob(ecti e, that is no longer to ta8e o er poFer, but rather the creation of a ast, strong and organi2ed social mo ement, capable of calling for and imposing their specific interests and demands, the ,eo h lapatistas ha e also transformed the forms of organi2ation and of fighting, the structure of their mo ement, their policies toFards society and toFards other leftist positions, and also the nature of their particular demands. 5hus, the indigenous rebels of the ElL, ha e permanently fought to create an inclusi e and plural social mo ement, a MForld in Fhich there is room for all possible ForldsN, and in Fhich all of the ast spectrum of groups, classes, sectors and members of a politically oppressed, socially discriminated and economically e)ploited ci il society can come together and merge. 5o a certain e)tent, this mo ement reminds us of the MrainboF coalitionsN of the Anited 9tates and of other countries, or the French Mplural LeftN, and that is clearly reflected in the long lists of categories addressed by the M9ubcomandante /arcosN in his communiqus and that include the houseFi es, and the intellectuals or the For8ers, as Fell as the Fomen, the students, the homose)uals or the farmers, among many others. -t is a mo ement Fith a fle)ible organi2ational structure and little hierarchy, non h bureaucratic, and ery open to the participation of all of its members, Fhich basically is the antithesis of the old and rigid traditional party structure, that e)ist e en today. -t is a mo ement that attempts to ad ance along the lines of the creation of a true Mbroad frontN for the oppressed hattempt that has still not been achie ed11, and that despite its inclusi e, open, tolerant and plural nature, must ne ertheless maintain its clear critical, rebellious, antisystemic and re olutionary profile.

The EH'< is noA and #ore*er a hope. (nd hope as is the heart is on the le#t side o# the chest
6nother one of the important proposals upon Fhich -mmanuel 3allerstein has repeatedly insisted, and that can be creati ely connected Fith the e)planation of the phenomenon of the insurgent indigenous mo ement in .hiapas, is the one that refers to the characteri2ation of the situation that the capitalist Forld1system has li ed through after the important crisis of !"Q$ and of !"X@1XE and up until today. -n other Fords, the thesis that typifies these last thirty years that ha e been e)perienced as the distinct period of entrance of the Forld1system into a neF phase of its e)istence or historic life. 5his phase Fould be the last or final lap of the long (ourney that the referred capitalist Forld1system has had to tra el, and during Fhich its process of de h structuring and de hconfiguration as a historic system Fould already ha e begun, that is, this process of

irre ersible historic e)piration that is determined by its entrance into Fhat the perspecti e of the 3orld19ystem 6nalysis calls a clear situation of historical bifurcation=@Q>. 5his means that, getting critical and total distance on the easy but superficial Mglobali2ation theoriesN currently in fashion, and that Fould attempt to characteri2e the last fi e lustrums as that neF stage of Mglobali2ationN, 3allerstein is going to insist to the contrary that it is not (ust one more stage, that Fould be linearly added to the pre ious ones, of the global life or cur e of long historical (ourney of the capitalist system, but rather that it is a special or e)traordinary stage, that occurs only one time in the life of the historical systems and that, since it is its definiti ely conclusi e or terminal stage, it is at the same time a stage of entrance into the mentioned situation of bifurcation or of global historical choice=@X>. 3ith the abo e, it is then possible for us to understand the e)ceptional historic density of the processes Fe ha e li ed through since !"Q$ and up until this date. 5he fact is that during these thirty years that ha e transpired of the mentioned situation of historical bifurcation, or of the period of the global historic end and of the progressi e de h structuring of the capitalist Forld1economy, at the same time the superimposition of the manifestations of four rele ant processes has occurred. 5hese processes, mutually do etailing and strengthening themsel es, partially e)plain the phenomenon of the rebel mo ement in .hiapas, but also the turbulence and comple)ity of the di erse historic e ents that Fe ha e Fitnessed o er these last three decades. 6ccordingly this stage is, in the first place, that of the e ident decadence of the strong ,orth 6merican hegemony, that unfolded o er the planet betFeen !"V# and !"Q$1XE. Antil the end of the si)ties, this hegemony did not ha e important ri als nor in the military or the economic, nor in the geopolitical or international, but Fhich did begin to decline and successi ely loose ground, as of the heroic ictory of the Dietnam people and from then on. 6 loss of strength in the hegemonic claim that becomes e ident, for instance, in the 'ersian :ulf 3ar, Fhere the Anited 9tates has only been able to try to impose or maintain its dominant position through the support and cooperation of se eral European nations and of Japan, to conclude Fith the meager result of an only temporary and still not ery clear retreat on the part of the -raqi forces=@$>. 5ogether Fith this decline of ,orth 6merican Forld hegemony, the period of bifurcation that has been e)perienced up to noF is in second place, the final stage of the longest global cycle e)perienced by Forldheconomy since appro)imately !$X[ to the present. Being that it Fas precisely betFeen !$X[ h !"!V P @" that the Forld dispute betFeen :ermany and the Anited 9tates for the leadership position of the Forld1system, ended in fa or of the Anited 9tates, in the long Forld Far or the neF thirty years Far that Fent form !"!V to !"V# hthat is, from the so h called First 3orld 3ar to the 9econd 3orld 3ar, and that in 3allersteins opinion are one sole and unique structural process11. 5herefore, if the initial phase of this cycle is that of the global Anited 9tates h :ermany dispute, its terminal phase, that Fe ha e Fitnessed from !"X@ h !"XE, is clearly the dispute betFeen Japan, on one hand, and on the other, 3estern Europe that is in the process of unification, noF see8ing the hegemonic position that the Anited 9tates shall be abandoning each time more, and that both of the mentioned contenders aspire to

occupy. 5he end of the ,orth 6merican hegemonic cycle is indeed a comple) process, the therefore e)plains the intense and ferocious economic battle for the mar8ets all o er the Forld, that has been staged o er the last si) lustrums. -n the third place, and as Fe ha e already mentioned, this recent period of the misnamed Mglobali2ationN is also the terminal stage of the life cycle of liberalism as the dominant geoculture of the Forld1system, Fhich cycle began in !X$" and that became de h legitimi2ed and de h structured before our eyes e er since !"Q$, becoming each time more shattered to pieces in its essential premises. Because, from MneoliberalismN, Fhich beyond its rhetorical aspect is basically and rabidly anti h liberal, as from the critique and denunciation carried out by all of the post h Q$ mo ements of the neF Left, liberalism shall be each time more delegitimi2ed, substituting the supposed harmony of economic competition of free e)change, Fith the economic depredation and de astation of the neF and sa age neoliberal capitalism. 5his substitution placed, in the position of the 9tate 11that is only the guarantor of order, or in other cases, the regulator and dri ing force of the general balances11, a political state that is corrupt, penetrated by the illegal mafias and groups of interest, and con erted into a simple machine for the indiscriminate and illegitimate use of the monopoly of iolence, against the antisystemic mo ements and of the oppressed in general=@">. Andermining the real premises of the alidity of liberalism as the dominant geocultural consensus in the Forld1system, the last three decades ha e therefore obser ed the re h emergence of the conser ati e thin8ing in the neF acti ist and threatening 4ight hthat has once again become apparent recently in the preoccupying and scandalous case of the election of an ultra h rightist go ernment in 6ustria, in the /e)ican ictory of Dicente Fo), in the le el obtained by Jean /arie Le 'en in France or in the politics of Bushs go ernment after the !!th 9eptember @[[!11, as Fell as in a neF Leftist line of thought, more autonomous and radical, and that is deliberately composed as a di erse alternati e to said liberal consensus. Finally and in the fourth place, this situation of historical bifurcation also constitutes the end of a long secular cycle of the historic life of the Forld1system, Fhich began toFards the end of the &Dth .entury and that continued until the present. 5his situation of bifurcation or of true systemic crisis of the capitalist Forld1economy and Forld1 system=E[>, that is then going to e)press itself o er the entire length and breadth of the social dimensions, co ering the current economic crisis, caused and deepened by the end of Forld de h rurali2ation, by the irruption of the ecological cost for the sur i al and reproduction of the system and by the progressi e drop in the rate of profits, as Fell as to the already referred political crisis of a 9tate, burdened in all areas by the fiscal crisis. 5his 9tate that in turn, each time less fulfills its responsibility and each time more pri ati2es its traditional functions and tas8s in the fields of health, security and education=E!>, ne ertheless increases its ta)es and its demands upon the population, in a senseless race that, in spite of e erything, is structurally incapable of curbing the progressi e increase of the groFing, and each time more radical profound democrati2ation of public life, in all of the nations of this capitalist Forld1system. 3e are confronted by an economic and political crisis of the Forld1system, Fhich is also and in a parallel manner, a far h reaching and deeply radical cultural and system of 8noFledge crisis. Because, in 8eeping Fith this situation of historical bifurcation, not

only has liberalism been de hlegitimi2ed as the dominant cultural consensus, gi ing Fay to a much more open and general situation of clear ideological struggle, but also, a total re1structuring has begun of the main structures of global cultural reproduction of the societies, that co ers from the models of e ery1day and family life, to the role and nature of the school apparatus, of the mass media, and of the entire system of 8noFledge, sciences and disciplines in effect until before !"Q$=E@>. Finally, and as part of that systemic social crisis e)perienced by this Forld1system, the current antisystemic mo ements are also going to be radically restructured and reno ated, progressi ely abandoning, for instance, their old sectarian attitude and their restrictedly national hori2ons, in order to adopt positions that are more tolerant and encompassing, though not less radical, as Fell as each time, positions of more solidarity and genuinely internationalist=EE>. 7a ing thus characteri2ed, in this quadruple dimension, the situation of di ergence opened e er since the years !"Q$1XE, and that shall still continue o er the ne)t thirty or fifty years yet to come, -mmanuel 3allerstein pro ides us Fith a series of clues, that also help to understand the specific nature and tra(ectory of the .hiapas ,eo h lapatista mo ement. Because in this light, it is clear that this mo ement is also, among many other things, one more of the multiple e)pressions of the planetary challenge of this declining ,orth 6merican hegemony. 5his challenge has embraced, Fith ery different results, the e)perience of 6llendes socialist .hile, as Fell as the -raqi in asion of YuFait, passing through the Dietnam, 'ortuguese or ,icaraguan re olutions, and through the .uban resistance against the unfair ,orth 6merican economic bloc8ade, but also through the strange e)periences of the opposition in 'anama, -raq or 6lgiers, among so many others. 5hese are indeed multiple symptoms of challenge against the authoritarian design of ,orth 6merican Forld geopolitics, of all the ideological signs and from ery di erse social and cultural positions, that in .hiapas assume the form of an open protest against the Free 5rade 6greement, imposed upon our country by the Anited 9tates, and the effects of Fhich, in terms of de 1 industriali2ation, unemployment, po erty and economic dismantling, Fe ha e been suffering o er the last lustrum. 6lso, it is clear that the aforementioned cultural crisis, the end of the liberal consensus and the cultural re olution that is in process, to some e)tent e)plain the possibility of the birth and the affirmation of a neF type of indigenous mo ement, Fhich at the same time that it questions the alues and the cultural codes of capitalist modernity that is still in effect though declining, it is capable of rehearsing and proposing neF practices, neF attitudes, neF languages and meanings, for the e eryday acti ity and the social relations of their oFn communities, as Fell as for the forms of organi2ation and the antisystemic struggles that are ta8ing place. 6nd it is therefore not by chance that both the strong ,eo h lapatista indigenous mo ement, as Fell as the original founding group of Fhat Fas to become the E(ercito lapatista de Liberacin ,acional ,ational lapatista Liberation 6rmy, are direct results of the climate that engulfs /e)ico Fith the tragic e ents of the !"Q$ student mo ement=EV>. 6nd also the circumstance of ha ing become inserted Fithin this historic crisis of the situation of bifurcation, Fhich has alloFed the ElL, indigenous mo ement of .hiapas hthe same as the /o imiento de los 9in 5ierra =M5he /o ement of the LandlessN> in

Bra2il, and the indigenous mo ement in Ecuador, or the other antisystemic mo ements in Latin 6merica and in the Forld11, to constitute itself as a neF type social mo ement and, consequently, being part of that Forld family of the planetary resistance, also become incorporated into the neF capitalist neoliberal Forld disaster, the features of Fhich Fe ha e summari2ed abo e. 5herefore, Fhen 3allerstein, folloFing -lya 'rigogine, reminds us that the singularity of the situations of bifurcation resides in the fact that at this point, actions that are ery minor can ha e ery important effects upon the system as a Fhole, one can therefore understand hoF it is that an indigenous re olt that Fas de eloped in a depri ed and marginated state of the poor and forgotten southern /e)ico, Fhich during the fifties or si)ties Fould, more li8ely than not, ha e been massacred, repressed, MburiedN and silenced by the /e)ican go ernment of the moment, in !""V, and quite to the contrary, becomes an e)emplary mo ement of planetary echoes and repercussions that raises ForldFide attention and solidarity, and that presents itself o er the continents, as an important symbolic reference of the Forld struggle against capitalist barbarity, and against its most destructi e effects. Because .hiapas shoFs the Forld the most per erse and undisguised effects of capitalist neoliberalism and of its referred terminal crisis, but also, and in one sole mo ement, it becomes present as the radical critique of those Forld policies and that Forld order, and as the search for real alternate solutions to said situation. -f the situation of bifurcation is also a situation of historical transition, that is, of transit of the capitalist Forld1system toFard another neF historic system, it is then clear, as in any transition, that the dying lines and stro8es of the old system shall mi) Fith the rising lines and stro8es of the possible neF Forlds yet to be built. 6nd this last part is precisely Fhat the ,eo h lapatista mo ement representsB the defense and the updating, that at this moment is still incipient but clear, of a non capitalist and e en anticapitalist logic, Fhere Fhat is important is to culti ate man and not things, Fhere Fhat counts is not the accumulation of capital but rather the alue of the concrete use of nature and of social life. 5his is a pro(ect that barters for humanity against money, for solidarity in the face of competition, for peace and mutual support against Far. 5his means an anticapitalist logic that /ar) has clearly specified in El .apital and that underlies the !$X[ 'aris .ommune, the !"!X re olutionary 9o iets, the !"QQ .hinese .ultural 4e olution, as Fell as all of the genuinely antisystemic mo ements and re olutions of the last one hundred and thirty years. -t is the logic of the oppressed peoples that rise up, of societies that rebel, of the students that resist obeying Fithout criticism and yielding only because of discipline, the same as the logic of the nati es that are saying MenoughWN against a system that despises them, discriminates them and e)cludes them from all and any dignified political and social participation, Fithin their oFn nations and territories. 6nd as -mmanuel 3allerstein reminds us, the destiny of the future societies of the Forld is far from being secure. 5here is nothing to guarantee that after the end of the capitalist Forld1system, the neF historic system that shall substitute it, is going to be more (ust, freer, more egalitarian and better. From the perspecti e of the 3orld1 9ystem 6nalysis, this shall only depend upon our conscience and our concrete actions

in fa or of a Forld Fhere economic e)ploitation, political oppression and all forms of social discrimination shall disappear. 9imilarly, the destiny of the .hiapas rebel mo ement is not secure either. -t shall depend upon our clarity, our acti e For8 and our specific support and solidarity. But beyond the destinies of .hiapas, of /e)ico, of Latin 6merica and of the Forld1 system, Fhat is already a conquest that has been achie ed and cannot be gi en up, is the fact that this e)perience staged in the mountains of 9outheastern /e)ico, by honorable and e)emplary nati es of .hiapas, is undoubtedly a lesson and an important asset of future teachings, for the entire Forld family of antisystemic mo ements that today and in the future, struggle and fight and shall continue to struggle and fight for that more (ust, freer, more self1organi2ed and egalitarian historic system, that today as it did yesterday, continues to encourage and nurture hope.

<otes
!>. .onference presented at the Ani ersity of Ber8eley, ;epartement of Ethnic 9tudies, in /ay the Eth, @[[@. 5he initial inspiration for this te)t originated from three encounters. 5he first of Fhich Fas the meeting and debate Fith colleagues, students and professors of the >niversidade de 7"o Drande do Sul, coordinated by professor .laudia 3asserman, Fhich too8 place in 'orto 6legre in 6pril of !""". 5he second, Fas the discussions Fith colleagues of the Central Argentina de /raba adores of .omodoro 4i ada ia, in /ay of !""" and finally, from the long inter ieF and con ersations Fith professor -mmanuel 3allerstein conducted in ,o ember and ;ecember of !""" at the Fernand -raudel Center of the 9tate Ani ersity of ,eF 0or8 at Binghamton, for all of Fhich encounters and e)changes - hereby publicly e)press my gratitude. @>. 4egarding this profoundly contradictory situation of the 9tate of .hiapas, that is at the same time ery rich and ery poor, please see the articles included in the (ournal Chiapas ,o. !, /e)ico, !""#. E>. 5his thesis is present in an enormous number of te)ts Fritten by -mmanuel 3allerstein. Lnly as an e)ample, Fe can refer the reader to the folloFing articlesB M7old the tiller firmB on method and the unit of analysisN in the (ournal Comparative Civili2ations 7evie*' ,o. E[, 9pring !""VG M3orld h 9ystemN in the boo8 5A ?ictionary of Mar!ist /hought second edition, Ed. Blac8Fell, L)ford, !""!, M6n 6genda for 3orld19ystem 6nalysisN in the boo8 Contending Approaches to Borld3System Analysis' Ed. 9age, Be erly 7ills, !"$E, M3orld19ystem 6nalysisN in the boo8 Encyclopedia of &olitical Economy, Ed. 4outledge, London, !""" or the articles M9ocietal ;e elopment, or ;e elopment of the 3orld19ystemIN, M7istorical 9ystems as .omple) 9ystemsN and M.all for a ;ebate about the 'aradigmN, these last three included in the boo8 >nthin,ing Social Sciences' 'olity 'ress, .ambridge, !""!. V>. 'erhaps the tFo most important e)amples that illustrate this different manner of focusing and analy2ing the principal social phenomena of history as Fell as of the current situation of capitalism may be, in the first place, the For8s of -mmanuel 3allerstein, and in the second place, the For8s of :io anni 6rrighi. . 5his is something that is e ident in those that Fe could consider their most important For8s,, Fhich for the case of -mmanuel 3allerstein is /he Modern Borld3System, 6cademic 'ress, ,eF 0or8 and 9an ;iego, tome -, !"XV, tome --, !"$[, and tome ---, !"$", and for :io anni 6rrighi, /he long t*entieth century, Derso, London, !""V. #>. -n regard to the importance of this globali2ing ision in the perspecti e of /ar) as Fell as that of Braudel, cfr. .arlos 6ntonio 6guirre 4o(as MBetFeen /ar) and BraudelB /a8ing history, YnoFing historyN, in 7evie*' ol. &D, ,o. @. !""@, Fernand -raudel und die modernen So2ial*issenschaften , Leip2iger Ani ersitaets erlag, Leip2ig, !""" and ;Ghistorie con$urante. >n regard sur lGhistoriographie francaise, Ed. L7armattan, 'aris, @[[[. Q>. For the more e)tensi e de elopment of the reasoning that Fe summari2e here in only a feF lines, see -manuel 3allersteins boo8 /he Modern Borld3System, tome ---, chapter -D, 6cademic 'ress, 9an ;iego, !"$". 6 someFhat different perspecti e but that ne ertheless insists also on this fundamental role of the Forld geopolitical situation as an e)plaining element of our independences can also be seen in Fernand Braudels For8 Civili2ation and Capitalism' HIth to HJth Century, 7arper Z 4oF, ,eF 0or8. X>. -t Fould not be difficult to e)emplify the essential importance and the fundamental presence of this

global dimension for the e)planation of certain more MnationalN or MlocalN phenomena, as for e)ample in the case of the /e)ican 4e olution or in the history or the course of the !"Q$ mo ement in France or in the Anited 9tates. ;emonstrations that ha e already been made for e)ample by Friederich Yat2 in his brilliant boo8 ;a Duerra Secreta en M!ico , Ed. Era, /)ico, !"$@, or also in the article by -mmanuel 3allerstein himself M!"Q$, re olution in the 3orld19ystemN, included in the boo8 Deopolitics and Deoculture, .ambridge Ani ersity 'ressP/aison des 9ciences de l7omme, .ambridge, !""!, and in the inter ieF to 3allerstein himself M!"Q$B Entre ista con -mmanuel 3allersteinN in Sociolog"ca, num. E$, !""$. $>. For the e)planation of the elements more specifically pertaining to .hiapas, and later, at a second le el, of the elements of the /e)ican history and national situation that Fould alloF the comprehension of the ,eo h lapatista mo ement, it might be ery useful to consult the complete collection of the (ournal Chiapas that has been published in /e)ico since !""# and of Fhich number !@ has been published in ;ecember @[[!. 6lso to be consulted is the boo8 Fritten by 6ntonio :arc%a de Len, 7esistencia y >top"a, Ed. Era, /)ico, !"$# and .arlos 6ntonio 6guirre 4o(as, M.hiapas en perspecti a histrica. /otor de tres tiemposN in E arasca, num. VV, /e)ico, /ay h July, !""#. ">. muite considerable at present is the abundant bibliography regarding this international repercussion of the ,eo h lapatista mo ement all o er the Forld. Lf this bibliography, by Fay of e)ample, let us only mention the inter ieF made by 6na Esther .ece<a of arious European intellectuals M.omo e Europa a los 2apatistasN, in the (ournal Chiapas, ,o. V, /e)ico, !""X and also the article by Ja ier 're2 9iller, MLa r olte du .hiapasB gurrilla ou transition dmocratiqueI Bilan 7istoriographiqueN in Kistoire et socits de lGAmeri$ue latine, ,o. $, 'aris, !""$, and the boo8 by Jerome Baschet, ;Getincelle 2apatiste. Insurrection indienne et resistence planetaire , Ed. ;enopl, 'aris, @[[@. ![>. -n regard to this issue cfr. 5he M'rimera ;eclaracin de la 9el a LacandonaN in the boo8 E8;+. ?ocumentos y comunicados, tome -, Ed. Era, !""V, and also Cr#nicas intergalcticas. E8;+. &rimer Encuentro Intercontinental por la Kumanidad y contra el +eoliberalismo . /)ico, !""Q. !!>. 4egarding this ision of the long duration cfr. Fernand Braudels article M7istoria y ciencias sociales. La larga duracionN, in the boo8 Escritos sobre historia, Ed. Fondo de .ultura Economomica, /)ico, !""!. For a discussion of the meaning of this perspecti e cfr. Bernard Lepetit MLa larga duracin en la actualidadN in the boo8 Segundas Lornadas -raudelianas, Ed. -nstituto /ora, /e)ico, !""#, and .arlos 6ntonio 6guirre 4o(as, M6 longa duracaoB in illo tempore et nuncN in 7evista de Kis#ria das Ideias' ol. !$, .oimbra, !""Q and M;ie longue dure im 9piegelN in Comparativ, year Q, num. !, Leip2ig, !""Q. 5o see -mmanuel 3allersteins application of this ision of the long duration, that is in fact present in practically all of his intellectual production, his boo8s hthat are actually collections of essays that unfortunately ha e not yet been translated into 9panish1 can be re ieFed for e)ample, such as /he Capitalist Borld3Economy, /aison des 9ciences de l7omme 1 .ambridge Ani ersity 'ress, .ambridge, !"X"G /he politics of the Borld3Economy , /aison des 9ciences de l7omme h .ambridge Ani ersity 'ress, .ambridge, !"$V and Deopolitics and Deoculture, /aison des 9ciences de l7omme h .ambridge Ani ersity 'ress, .ambridge, !""!. !@>. .fr. -mmanuel 3allersteins article M5he collapse of liberalismN, in the boo8 After ;iberalism, 5he ,eF 'ress, ,eF 0or8, !""#. !E>. For the case of the history of the indigenous rebellions in the 9tate of .hiapas itself, see the pre iously cited For8 of 6ntonio :arc%a de Len, 7esistencia y >top"a. !V>. 4egarding this issue of Latin 6mericas cfr. Boli ar, Eche err%a, ;a modernidad de lo barroco, Ed. Era, /e)ico, !""$, a boo8 that pro ides us Fith essentially and e)tremely original 8eys for the understanding the bi2arre specificity of our Latin 6merican modernity. !#>. For a discussion regarding the separation and difference betFeen modernity and capitalism and therefore, for the e)ploration of the possible non M capitalist possible alternative modernities, see for e)ample, Boa entura de 9ousa 9antos, &ela Mao de Alice. E social e o pol"tico na p#s3modernidade. Ed. 6frontamiento, 'orto, !""V and /o*ard a ne* common sense' Ed. 4outledge, ,eF 0or8, !""#G Boli ar Eche err%a, ;as ilusiones de la modernidad' coedition A,6/1El Equilibrista, /e)ico, !""#, Nalor de uso y utop"a' Ed. 9iglo &&-, /e)ico, !""$, and also the boo8 compiled by Boli ar Eche err%a himself, Modernidad' mesti2a e cultural' ethos barroco' coedition A,6/1El Equiibrista, /e)ico, !""V and by .arlos 6ntonio 6guirre 4o(as, the article MLa isin braudelienne du capitalisme anterieur ] la 4e olution -ndustrielleN in 7evie*' ol. &&--, ,o. !, !""". !Q>. /ar), in being questioned by the 4ussian socialists, regarding the problem of Fhether the 4ussian commune or /-4 could ser e as a point of departure for the communist reconstruction of 4ussian society, stated that it Fas possible to ta8e ad antage of mush of that 4ussian commune, for a reconstruction of a non capitalist society in 4ussia, only pro ided that said 4ussian re olution should ha e the support and the concourse of a European socialist re olution =regarding this point, cfr. the te)ts of the drafts of /ar)s letters to Dera lasulich published in the boo8 El porvenir de la comuna rural rusa' Ed. 'asado y

'resente, /)ico, !"$[>. 9imilarly, the alternative modernity represented by the ,eo1lapatistas, and more generally by the Latin 6merican nati es, might also contribute in the future in a radically different reconstruction of the Latin 6merican societies and of other parts of the planet, but only Fith the contribution or support of a global transformations of the capitalist Forldhsystem in its entirety. !X>. -n regard to this problem, to Fhich Fe shall return later on, see the boo8 coordinated by -mmanuel 3allerstein and by 5erence 7op8ins /he age of transition. /ra ectory of the Borld3System HOPI3QRQI' Ed. led Boo8s, ,eF Jersey, !""Q. !$>. -n regard to this point, cfr. 3alter Ben(amins e)traordinary te)t, M9obre el concepto de historiaN, included in the boo8 ;a dialctica en suspenso. Fragmentos sobre la historia' coedition of Ediciones LL/ and Ani ersidad 6rcis, 9antiago de .hile, !""Q. !">. 4egarding this point of the history of these antisystemic mo ements, cfr. by :io anni 6rrighi, 9amir 6min, 6ndr :underfran8 and -mmanuel 3allerstein, ;e grand tumulte( ;es mouvements sociau! dans lGconomie3monde. Ed. La ;cou erte, 'aris, !""! and also :io anni 6rrighi, 5erence 7op8ins and -mmanuel 3allerstein, Movimientos Antisistmicos' Ed. 68al, /adrid, !""". 4egarding the possible future courses of these same mo ements, cfr. by -mmanuel 3allerstein, M6 Left 'olitics for the @! st .enturyI or 5heory and 'ra)is once againN, in the section M'apersN in the Fernand Braudel .enter on the -nternet Feb site, httpBPPfbc.binghamton.edu. @[>. 4egarding this issue, cfr. the te)t cited by /ar) in note !Q, or also of Lenin, a Fhole series of essays Fritten after the ictory of the Bolshe i8 4e olution in Lctober of !"!X, and included in his Complete Bor,s, for instance, the Fell h 8noFn te)t M5he economy and the politics in the time of proletarian dictatureN, as Fell as the drafts of this same essay that ha e been preser ed to this day. For a broader characteri2ation of this problem issue, on the part of -mmanuel 3allerstein himself, cfr. for e)ample, M9emiperipheral countries and the contemporary Forld crisisN in /he capitalist *orld3economy, cited, M9ocialist statesB mercantilist strategies and re olutionary ob(ecti esN, in /he politics of the *orld3 economy, cited, and also M/ar), /ar)ism1Leninism and socialist e)periences in the modern Forld1 systemN in the boo8 Deopolitics and Deoculture' cited. @!>. -n regard to this issue, cfr. the characteri2ation that Fernand Braudel has made of this Latin 6merican ci ili2ation, in chapter && of his boo8 ;as civili2aciones actuales, Ed. 5ecnos, /adrid, !"X$, and also .arlos 6ntonio 6guirre 4o(as, MFernand Braudel y la historia de la ci ili2acin latinoamericanaN, in the (ournal Mundo +uevo, ,o. X$, .aracas, !""X. @@>. 4egarding this issue, in addition to the For8s already mentioned in footnote !", cfr. by -mmanuel 3allerstein, MEurocommunism B its roots in European For8ing class historyN, M,ationalism and the Forld transition to socialismB is there a crisisI, and M4e olutionary mo ements in the era of A9 hegemony and afterN, in /he politics of the *orld3economy' already cited, and also his article M5he 6,. and 9outh 6fricaB 5he 'ast and Future of Liberation /o ements in the 3orld19ystemN, included in the boo8 /he end of the *orld as *e ,no* it, Ani ersity of /innesota 'ress, /inneapolis, !""". @E>. E en though /ar) may ha e left this problem as an open problem, his line of reasoning seems to go more in the direction of the impossibility or of the enormous difficulty of a communist re olution that may encompass only one or only a feF countries, e en though they may be countries that Fere the more de eloped countries in capitalist terms. 4egarding this issue, cfr. .arlos /ar) and Federico Engels ;a Ideolog"a Alemana' Ed. Fondo de .ultura 'opular, /e)ico, !"XV @V>. For the critique of these forms of organi2ation, of these demands and ob(ecti es of the pre ious antisystemic mo ements, cfr. the article by -mmanuel 3allerstein M!"Q$B re olution in the 3orld1 9ystemN, cited pre iously. For a more positi e proposal of the possible ne* forms of organi2ation and of struggling, etc., that are still being discussed, cfr. M6 Left 'olitics for the @! st .enturyI or, 5heory and 'ra)is once againN, cited pre iously. @#>. 5his brilliant idea, set forth by /ar), and that has not lost any of its force nor its effect, is e)pressed, for instance, in his boo8 ;a ideolog"a alemana, cited, or also in his boo8 Miseria de la filosof"a' Ed. 9iglo &&-, !"X$, boo8s that our current specialists in political science should read or re h read, in order to adequately understand some of the central indications of the ,eo h lapatista mo ement. @Q>. 5his thesis, that is important among -mmanuel 3allersteins more recent proposals, can be found de eloped and implicit in a great number of his essays and of his For8s. 5o mention only tFo e)amples, cfr. After ;iberalism, cited, or also /he age of transition. /ra ectory of the *orld3system HOPI M QRQI, cited pre iously. @X>. For the critique of this concept, in ented by the mass media and ery simple, and that has been accepted non h critically by a large part of current social scientists, cfr. -mmanuel 3allerstein M:lobali2ation or 5he 6ge of 5ransitionI 6 Long15erm DieF of the 5ra(ectory of the 3orld19ystemN included in the section of M'apersN of the Fernand Braudel .enter site on the -nternet, pre iously referred to. @$>. For -mmanuel 3allersteins e)planation regarding the more global significance of this 'ersian :ulf

3ar and of the confrontation betFeen 9addam 7ussein and the Anited 9tates, see the article M5he collapse of liberalismeN, cited pre iously, and also comments number V and number Q, included in the section M.ommentariesN of the Fernand Braudel .enter site on the -nternet, also cited abo e, bulletins published in ,o ember and ;ecember of !""$. @">. For a sharp and interesting description of the multiple phenomenology of this generali2ed crisis of the modern 9tates, through the entire length and breadth of the Forld1system, see -mmanuel 3allersteins boo8 >top"stica o las opciones hist#ricas del siglo SSI , Ed. 9iglo &&-, /)ico, !""$. E[>. 4egarding the restricted or strict use of the concept crisis' that -mmanuel 3allerstein has defended against the ma(ority of the social scientists, the folloFing can be consulted M.risesB the Forld1economy, the mo ements, and the ideologiesN, in the boo8 Crises in the Borld3System' Ed. 9age, Be erly 7ills, !"$E, MLa crisis como transicinN in ?inmica de la crisis global' Ed. 9iglo &&-, /e)ico, !"$X, and also the M-ntroductionN and .hapter -, of /he Modern Borld3System, tome --, 6cademic 'ress, ,eF 0or8, !"$[. E!>. -n February @[[[, the /e)ican 9tate has decided to occupy the /e)ican ,ational 6utonomous Ani ersity Fith federal police, in one more act of authoritarianism and of the in oluntary confession of their lac8 of capacity to satisfy the populations legitimate demands, in this case in regard to the necessity for totally free public upper education. 5herefore, neither the ast popular support of these legitimate demands of the /e)ican student mo ement of !""" h @[[[, nor the solidarity of the ,eo h lapatista rebels Fith this student and popular struggle at the end of the second chronological millenium are by no means a matter of chance. E@>. 4egarding the nature of these referred general cultural changes, and of its effect upon historiography cfr. .arlos 6ntonio 6guirre 4o(as M:li effetti del !"Q$ sulla storiografia occidentaleN in Storiografia' num. @, 4oma, !""$ and the article M4epensando las ciencias sociales actualesB el caso de los discursos histricos en la historia de la modernidadN in Itinerarios de la historiograf"a del siglo SS , Ed. .entro de -n estigacin Juan /arinello, 7a ana, !""". -n reference to the theme of the re1structuring of the 8noFledge system, that constitutes a Fhole important line of research de eloped by -mmanuel 3allerstein, cfr. only as an e)ample, >nthin,ing Social Sciences, cited, Epen the Social Sciences, 9tanford Ani ersity 'ress, 9tanford, !""Q, MLa historia de las ciencias socialesN Ed. .--.71A,6/, /e)ico, !""X, M5he challenge of maturity. 3hither social scienceIN in 7evie*, ol. &D, ,o. !, !""@, Mq7ay que impensar las ciencias sociales del siglo &-&IN in 7evista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales' ol. &L, ,o. V, Barcelona, !"$$, M9ocial science in the tFenty first .enturyN in the section M'apersN, in the Fernand Braudel .enter site on the -nternet, and finally /he end of the *orld as *e ,no* it. Social science for the t*enty first Century' Ani ersity of /innesota 'ress, /inneapolis, !""". EE>. 9omething that has become ery e ident, for e)ample, in the protests staged in the .ity of 9eattle at the end of the year !""". 4egarding these e ents, cfr. -mmanuel 3allerstein, M9eattle or the limits of the globali2ation dri eN, .ommentary num. E[, ;ecember of !""", in the section M.ommentariesN in the Fernand Braudel site on the -nternet. EV>. 3hich has been e)plained by 6ntonio :arc%a de Len, for instance, in his M'rologoN to the boo8 E8;+. ?ocumentos y comunicados, tome -, already cited, or also in his article MLa uelta del Yatoom =.hiapasB a einte a<os del 'rimer .ongreso -nd%gena>N in Chiapas, num.!, !""#.

Gon.Mle. Casano*a Pa)lo Las nuevas ciencias y humanidades. De la academia a la poltica

-nstituto de -n estigaciones 9ociales de la A,6/16nthropos, Barcelona, Espa<a, @[[V, VX$ pp. por !eliciano GarcNa ("uirre Ani ersidad ,acional 6utnoma de Deracru2, /)ico

'ablo :on2+le2 .asano a es autor de obras imprescindibles para el an+lisis de las realidades me)icanas y latinoamericanas=!>. .on encido de la potencialidad e importancia de la interdisciplina para la transformacin del mundo, con oc a lingKistas, historiadores, politlogos, f%sicos, bilogos, economistas, matem+ticos, literatos, comuniclogos, socilogos, etc., durante el tiempo que estu o dirigiendo las

acti idades del .entro de -n estigaciones -nterdisciplinarios de .iencias y 7umanidades de la Ani ersidad ,acional 6utnoma de /)ico. 4esultado de esos afanes y entusiasmos, y a m+s de die2 a<os de organi2ar encuentros y con(ugar di ersos saberes, nos ofrece una pie2a intelectual sin precedentesB ;as nuevas ciencias y las humanidades. ?e la academia a la pol"tica. La obra se compone de cuatro ac+pites y un ep%logoB El curso de las ciencias. ;os problemas de la interdisciplina y la comple idad. ;a comple idad y contradicciones. ;a dialctica de lo comple o. ;as nuevas ciencias y la pol"tica de alternativas . .on ellos :on2+le2 .asano a nos sit*a en el epicentro de la crisis de los saberes afectados por la re olucin cient%fico tcnica que ha trastornado profundamente la di isin internacional del traba(o y articulacin intelectual del *ltimo medio siglo. 6simismo nos plantea la urgente necesidad de construir un nue a cultura general y nue as formas de cultura especiali2ada, con intersecciones y campos acotados capaces de modificar sistemas educati os, la in estigacin cient%fica y human%stica, asi como el pensar y hacer tanto en el arte como en la pol%tica. La obra desmitifica y polemi2a con el desarrollo del episteme de las ciencias sociales y humanidades que formaron sus rutas principales durante el siglo && sobre los aportes europeos del siglo &-&. En ellas per i en mitos histricos que se alimentan recurrentemente desde las esferas del poder y clases dominantes como el progreso, la moderni2acin, el racionalismo, la ob(eti idad, la cuantificacin positi a, la histori2acin de los fenmenos, muchos de lo cuales contribuyen a reducir la comple(idad anal%tica y terica en las ciencias sociales. 'or e(emploB el racionalismo y funcionalismo + idos de ob(eti idad pretendieron desterrar la sub(eti idad de todos los an+lisis sociales, pero la consecuencia de ello no ocasion m+s certe2a o pulcritud en sus estudios, sino la colocacin de distancia y altas alambradas al saber religioso y popular. ;ebimos recibir las duras e)periencias de las re oluciones sociales y los terribles masacres de dos guerras mundiales, las luchas de liberacin nacional, la :uerra Fr%a, la guerra de Diet ,am, etc., para que diramos cabida a las propuestas de pensadores un tanto heterodo)os como 6ntonio :ramsci, 5eodor 6dorno, /ichael Foucault, Emmanuel Le inas, :illes ;eleu2e, /a) 7or8heimer, Ernest Bloch, Fernand Braudel hpor citar solo algunos1 para dar el sitio que corresponde al su(eto y la intersub(eti idad, tan desde<ados a priori por el saber cient%fico con encional positi ista y cuantificador. En el conte)to posterior a la 9egunda :uerra /undial la historiograf%a coron su trayectoria con la recuperacin de e)periencias en todo el mundo occidental y con ello pudo arribar a la comprensin m+s detallada de la moderni2acin y contradicciones de las organi2aciones sociales. 6rtes y ciencias como la geograf%a, antropolog%a y psicolog%a recog%an enormes frutos en los m+s di ersos ob(etos de estudio. La epistemolog%a abrir%a cauces apenas oteados y el pensamiento comple(o hac%a su entrada triunfal de su mano. .on ello recibir%amos los productos de intelectuales important%simos como EdFard 9aid, /artin Bernal, 3alter /ignolo, /ichio /orishima, Lli er 9ac8s, -lya 'rigogine, Edgar /orin, :ayatri .ha8ra orty 9pi a8, :yan 'ra8ash y tantos m+s, quienes ya hab%an traspasado los c+nones parcelarios decimonnicos. En ,uestra 6mrica tu imos a ances importantes. 'aulo Freire, 7ugo lemelman, Enrique ;ussel, ;arcy 4ibeiro, Luis de la 'e<a, 4olando :arc%a, 4a*l 'rebish, /ar%a

.oncepcin 5a ares, 4uy /auro /arini, :erminal .ocho, 'ablo :on2+le2 .asano a, etc., hab%an planteado durante dcadas la importancia de pensarnos con cabe2a propia, alimentando el pensamiento cr%tico y por supuesto pensar e in estigar para la transformacin de la realidad opresi a de nuestros pueblos. Las huellas del pensamiento latinoamericano m+s consecuente 1que tantos prceres nos legaron desde las luchas independentistas del siglo &-& y las primeras dcadas del siglo &&1 constituyen la fragua en la que hay que ubicar los aportes de :on2+le2 .asano a. El reto que l nos lan2a con su m+s reciente obra reclama de inicio su ubicacin en ese mar de saberes nuestro que se construye en disonancia con los intereses dominantes m+s conser adores. Los dram+ticos mo imientos de la rueda de la historia en la segunda mitad del siglo && testificaron la desmembracin del bloque socialista, el empoderamiento de la elites capitalistas, el dominio unipolar estadounidense, el nue o reparto del mundo, guerras de ba(a, mediana y alta intensidad, las fortale2as y debilidades del comple(o industrial1 empresarial1financiero1militar, la imposicin del modelo neoliberal y la reaparicin de la resistencia organi2ada y la lucha de liberacin nacional en medio de la brutal y agresi a escalada imperialista en el Yoso o, 6fganist+n, 'alestina, -ra8. 'rocesos que sin duda alimentan nue as maneras de concebirnos y organi2arnos como sociedades multiculturales que a la e2 afian2an las seguridades de que otro mundo es posible. mue el fin de la historia y el pensamiento *nico son instrumentos de la dominacin actual incapaces de mirar los peligros que se ciernen sobre el planeta y la humanidad entera. La comple(a situacin mundial y la agresin norteamericana responden tambin al corrimiento del polo de acumulacin mundial del 6tl+ntico norte hacia el 'ac%fico. El resurgimiento de .hina y su estrategia de integracin en el sudeste asi+tico que constituye un fuerte atracti o para el poder%o (apons y las recientes incursiones chinas en 6mrica Latina son un reto al que los intereses estadounidenses responden con ingerencias y ataques unilaterales, sabedores de que son el pa%s m+s endeudado del planeta, que el dlar ya no es la moneda m+s fuerte y que las nue as ciencias y tecnolog%as pueden ser sal acin. 6 todos estos fenmenos contempor+neos responde 'ablo :on2+le2 .asano a con su pro ocadora obra al ofrecer miradas epistmicas alternati as, responder al c#mo metodolgico y al para $u pol%tico. 6spectos que constitu%an un importante dficit largamente reclamado a nuestros intelectuales latinoamericanos m+s notables. En torno a tales comple(idades se<alaB
Lo que esta nueva ciencia tiene de nue o no es que estudie a la e2 los sistemas simples y comple(os, las leyes y las tendencias, los desequilibrios y las organi2aciones, o las pol%ticas que unen y combinan el m+)imo de fuer2as para enfrentar con )ito la situacin. Lo que tiene de nue o es el traba(o tecnicocient%fico que, (unto con el m+s profundo pensamiento conser ador sobre totalidades, estudia y construye sistemas comple(os, adaptati os y auto1regulados para operar en conte)tos din+micos e histricos cuyas contradicciones y desequilibrios debe reestructurar para encer y sobre i ir y a an2ar.=@>

Las alusiones a su obra habr+n de seguir d+ndose en todos aquellos lugares en donde la necesidad de comprensin y reorgani2acin del saber cient%fico desborde los cauces dise<ados para la conser acin irrestricta del sistema y no para encontrar alternati as de solucin al mismo. ,o es e)tra<o que 9amir 6min desee que el libro sea publicado en todas las lenguas del planeta o que -mmanuel 3allerstein afirmase que el libro demuestra la importancia de las ciencias de la comple(idad para la liberacin. ;as

nuevas ciencias y humanidades. ?e la academia a la pol"tica es una obra imprescindible que habr+ de incidir no slo en la organi2acin del conocimiento sino en la manera de difundirlo, en los medios y formas de transmisin. .asi quinientas p+ginas con ocan al saber m+s a an2ado del presente a la in estigacin para la accin y la transformacin esperan2ada del mundo.
Las creencias del pensamiento conser ador m+s culto en ning*n caso han de(ado de dialogar y coe)istir con las nue as ciencias. Es m+s, en los proyectos de (usticia social que no pretenden cambiar sino conser ar al sistema capitalista, la unin del pensamiento neoconser ador y de las nue as ciencias es indiscutible. En las medidas de M(usticia socialN reconocen formas de adaptacin del sistema y de sus mediaciones. Lo importante es que de esa unin del pensamiento conser ador y las nue as ciencias se desprenden tambin e)periencias que son particularmente *tiles para la b*squeda y construccin de alternati as.=E>

Es necesario tambin aclararB no es la obra de 'ablo :on2+le2 .asano a un pastiche gris, eclecticista de principios del siglo &&-. ,o me parece que l intente conciliar concepciones del mundo contrapuestas, ni que utilitariamente intente sumas cero e incluso t%midamente muestre profundidades cogniti as y posiciones pol%ticas no logradas. Es desde cualesquier +ngulo que se le mire una autntica ense<an2a que responde a la crisis en la que se entramp en pensamiento consecuente y radical y en la que creyeron la mayor parte de los cient%ficos de finales del siglo && que hab%an logrado acomodarse a la sombra del sistema, sea para escalar posiciones burocr+ticas o para conseguir prebendas de cualquier tipo. 'or eso a l no le caben dudasB
'ara el pensamiento alternati o, la cr%tica est+ articulada con la ciencia, la ciencia con la moral, y una y otra con los actores colecti os, capaces de ol er realidad los alores y los intereses de la humanidad. .iencia, cr%tica y moral forman parte de las relaciones sociales de dominacin y acumulacin en que todos participan en los intereses materialesG slo que unos pensando en el inters personal y de clase, y en la defensa de un sistema de clases y pri ilegios, y otros proponiendo un sistema alternati o que supere las clases y los pri ilegios.=V>

'or si no hubiese quedado claro a lo largo de toda la obra, :on2+le2 .asano a nos recuerda en el ep%logo la dialctica caracter%stica de su pensamientoB
El pensamiento cr%tico m+s elemental no puede cometer el error de elaborar Mmodelos cualitati os y cuantitati osN de liberacin, la democracia y el socialismo como si stas fueran metas de un sistema conser ador. 9i en algunos casos los marcos conceptuales y los mtodos de las nue as ciencias son *tiles para el dise<o de proyectos alternati os de sectores y regiones, de organi2aciones y redes, en general el pensamiento cr%tico tiene que incluir los sistemas auto1regulados como parte de la creacin dialctica de los actores colecti os en lucha. .ualquier planteamiento puramente MtcnicoN o Mtecnicocient%ficoN inutili2ar+ la propia historia de la tica reali2ada, de las contradicciones i idas, de las e)periencias que enriquecen y uel en m+s efecti a a la cultura alternati a. 6umentar la capacidad cogniti a de los actores colecti os emergentes, alternati os, implica una pedagog%a pol%tica de organi2acin y aprendi2a(e para alcan2ar ob(eti os. En ella por momentos puede considerarse la lgica y la ciencia de los enemigos hincluso la lgica de los cl+sicos de los enemigos1 siempre que se inserte en la lgica y la

ciencia de la liberacin, la democracia y el socialismo, con sus creadores y sus cl+sicos.=#>

,o eremos en mucho tiempo aparecer una obra tan decididamente aliosa. ;este(er la trama que la sostiene es una tarea que reclama colaboracin interdisciplinaria. Ana colaboracin por cierto ale(ada de la tradicional creencia de que basta reunir a un con(unto de e)pertos en torno un ob(eto de estudio, para obtener las soluciones reclamadas por la comprensin de la comple(idad sociohistrica de nuestros pueblos. ;icha e)perimentacin con ocada por los e)altados esp%ritus amantes de desarrollo sustentable y el desarrollo regional han conducido a la suma cero, cada especialidad casi nunca supera los l%mites impuestos por la di isin cientificotcnica imperante. Ese es el camino ya trillado que nos in ita superar la obra de :on2+le2 .asano a. El compromiso futuro es responder a los retos por l lan2ados con responsabilidad tica, histrica y pol%tica. <otas
!. 'ablo :on2+le2 .asano a =!"@@> es uno de los intelectuales latinoamericanos m+s destacados de la actualidad, poseedor de una obra acadmica y pol%tica singular. Entre sus obras publicadas destacanB ;as categor"as del desarrollo econ#mico y la investigaci#n en Ciencias Sociales THOUU1' Sociolog"a de la e!plotaci#n THOJR1' El estado de los partidos pol"ticos en M!ico THOJV1' Imperialismo y liberaci#n en Amrica ;atina THOJV1' ;a democracia en M!ico THOJP1' ;a hegemon"a del pueblo y la lucha centro3 americana =!"$V>, entre otras. Sociolog"a de la e!plotaci#n T!"Q"1. .on /arcos 4oitman, ;a democracia en Amrica latina. 6ctualidad y perspecti as =!""#>G con 9amir 6min, ;a organi2aci#n capitalista vista desde el sur, Dol.- y Mundiali2aci#n y acumulaci#n =!""#>, Dol.--, El Estado y la pol"tica en el sur del mundo =!""Q>. @. Lp. .it., p. !@Q E. -bidem, p EE$ V. -bidem, p. V@" #. -bidem, p. VEX