Good day, Mr. Grigat.
Although they are probably never read this article, I address him in form personally to them. This is purely fictitious addressing my Fun of it, nothing more. The object of this criticism is a bit older: your item 1 May in the standard . But as he has but no particular reason other than the current political year Labor Day, so does not diminish my concern. I found your article - to make that clear without detour - modest. But also symptomatic of the whole policy which they and their Nachplapperer_innen (just - with their hats and streamers!) Operate. Granted, I am absolutely contrary to their contribution not yet. But they do so, and the sweat they may have cost this intellectual effort, they probably go weeks on the forehead, recognized that work is a pretty unpleasant thing. And that, who would have thought, in capitalism, not with the recovery needs of people in the foreground. Away from such Basisbanalitäten But I can not see much positive in their scribblings. So now in order: First
they are subject "to the labor movement" (she's so consistent!) A "fetish work" there, the fact that this supposedly propagating the work as a kind of end in itself. They illustrate this with the "high-Work" (quite widely interpreted) slogan, which they are, just like the Nazis to write. At least I have not had the good fortune this saying on a demonstration to hear, not on 1 May still be some other time. But the fact that if you said slogan with the well-known search engine with "G" is looking for, only 80,000 results found, of which the most search hits exclusively to historical songs, a "work-critical" book by Eric Ribolits as well as their own scribblings and phrases such as "As you put your hair up for work?" point, while "Work is shit" is the result of four times, gives a bit the impression that they publish a strange Paralelwelt out. demonstrate
From a Paralelwelt from where Arbeitnehmer_innen not for jobs because of them their wages, and ultimately, their most modest share of the wealth of the world depends, but because they find work even that great. Where they do not work, because they are blackmailed every day anew to their labor to sell, if they do not suffer social isolation, poverty and official caprice, but because they keep the whole in itself for a dignified event. From a Paralelwelt in the very wealth (and luxury!) not actually , but only apparently product of labor (as defined in the spending of the human forces of nature) and where the whole day "on the water and peacefully in watch the sky "could, when just last chores of the fetish would have discarded. Instead of capitalism inherent objective forced to compete and enhance value for him and the constitutive class domination and exploitation focus attention on, they will be forced to (wage) work as a purely ideological glosses over and blamed the exploited themselves. But of classes, especially subordinates, do so "ideology critics" as their greatest achievement is a radical new citizens Lichen milieu Distiktionspraseologie a novel is to give the hand to do anyway as few have. Marx describes, moreover, a thought that their would be similar to the following words:
"A brave man was a once drown the people only in the water because they were obsessed by the idea of gravity. They were beating this idea out of my head, for instance by the same for a superstitious, declared a religious idea, they are superior to all the water hazard. All his life he fought the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful consequences any statistics provided him with new and extensive evidence. The good man was the type of the new German revolutionary philosopher. "(The German Ideology)
against the alleged madness of their contemporaries, they want to work with the" hold right to laziness "leisure, Marx in their quote" called the kingdom of freedom ", not high. That the laziness Toll no praise, but would by agitating for the Arts they forget that these word formation in capitalism is certainly considered analogous to the clearance, which one enjoys known to be in prison: The moment of highest relative freedom within a state that is fundamentally shaped by forced . Now it is not important to mobilize the holding cell to the free passage (as does its ominous labor movement in their view) or the clearance to the holding cell (which they do), but to break the chains and to raze the walls of the prison . Or write down again without pathos and: It's not just about the only quantitative ratio of Leisure and work, which remains entirely within the logic of the system, but to set up the means of production and the enforcement of self-management that allow us only the world according to our needs. To Marx, in her crippled quote from the "empire of liberty" to quote then again:
"Freedom in this field [of all necessary production companies] can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, their interchange with nature rationally regulating, bringing it under their common control, instead of being dominated by it as a blind power; it with the least expenditure and perform in their human nature worthy and the most appropriate conditions. "(Capital, the third volume)
also that the every now and then flaring anger at the" big shots "and" those at the top "as a mere" social envy "morally abwatschen and can be understood only as the eternal return of the anti-Semitic madness, shows that they produce rather than ideology critique rather resentment. critique of ideology is characterized namely the fact that they are also the rational part of the ideology in the Marxist sense is always an interweaving of truth and illusion , freilegt.Und that in this case in noting that in the interests of capitalism Arbeiter_innen and fall apart Arbeitgeber_innen that who depend on wage work force is chronically under-privileged in this economic order over the haves and the preservation of their life standards must ultimately prevail against the property owners. If the in an often awkward, moralizing and personalizing discourse expresses, this is indeed ideologically loaded one hand, on the other hand, the attempt the activities of the delegitimize the social Mr. Cuff buckle structure later found morally and win as advantages in the struggle, for the preservation of standard of living and leisure of Arbeiter_innen are so central. Of course, remains largely in the control within the logic of capital. But what remains to them also different? Except maybe a revolution, but they do not seem even to want to just speak the word.
A system as capitalism is not something that exists "in itself" as any thing. It is a relationship that by the everyday social reality, the social antagonisms and actions of real people must be produced and reproduced daily. Only as a model of life-practice results in the abstraction that we call the word capitalism, which we may provide an account of its regularity Systemhaftigkeit. Elements of civil and other Ideolige in the labor movement, from which this sure are deeply penetrated is to criticize, no matter what it is. To require the Arbeiter_innen but an exclusively abstract opposition to an abstract capitalism, wants nothing to do with specific antagonism, the conflict is, on the windy realm of ideas to move. Once again, an indication that they face the criticism of Marx German Ideology does not seem to be quite insensitive.
in the way they warn of irrational jealousy of the raw materials, remember, dear Grigat, but less with the revolutionary philosopher of German type, which Marx had in his "German ideology" in mind, but more like a classical anti-communist Agitator. Not without a little adornitisches fig leaf of course. One can of them do not even expect logical rigor, for which the entitlement mentality that claimed for the individual prosperity, and the refusal of this wealth in envy turns that represent them in the one place itself, is now negative connotations at one time . Or should the Arbeiter_innen be satisfied that anyone has in their society of prosperity? The Liebherr Grigat would be a waiver of ideology.
What resonates with them again here is the construct of "anti-pleasure" which she and her colleagues at critical critics as a unifying moment of Nazism, Islamism kolpotieren and occasionally even communism. A critique for which is probably a remnant residue Reichian mass psychology responsible, and which alone is a ridiculous air number already in the sense that they are at even half-way to be working go out at all, only by certain "real" and "legitimate" needs must, from the after consumption and leisure, and thus these reified. Other forms of pleasure - they feel like an enemy! - Come up on-not at all: The desire for obedience, the murder of asceticism, the rise in rites and traditions, from the humiliation of the weaker or even at the individual person, the lust of the cynical Mr man who takes what he can take, and arguing that he can, they do not seem to take note. This clearly shows that such a crude hedonism is for an emancipatory social criticism completely useless.
must never lack the case of anti-communist propaganda of course not the warning of collectivism, or the false collectivism. As Marx would not the collective moment of capitalist society long recognized and named, and as Adorno would not have been the pseudo-individualism of bourgeois society, flatten in the individuals 'types' unmasked. What exactly is collectivism in them, and what the correct (or are they true?) Should be collectivism the course, you can learn from them nowhere. Her biography, however, can guess what they mean: stir with justification of ethnic cleansing and culture theorists for preventive bombing Iran the drum must obviously be the good collectivism. Collectivism is obviously wrong, however Demonstrate with unions on minimum wages or call Arbeitnehmer_innen morally to capitalists, because they keep their profits higher interest than the wages of the workers. Collectivism, it is good, however again if her little political consulting organization "Drop the Bomb" moral appeals to capitalists, because they keep their profits interest higher than the foreign policy interests of Israel . To this end, Mr Grigat, be superfluous for any comment. Besides, if they should be time allotted from the anti-German spectrum is not enough listeners, on the racist Hetzblog PI hear their speeches for some time to be happy, and in the comments fraternize already former anti-German left with the pro-German . The bridges are already beaten, too many steps it should not be more, and their "left communist" ça ira-publisher of the racist representation of Muslims in matters the portal now in the shade, can they take you. Just like the guys from the Bahamas, the asses of themselves no longer at front Lobeshymmnen on the far-right hooligan movement of English Defense League.
particularly ridiculous, I find the way, its placement relative to the Arbeitgerbewegung what would motivate them, is not the care of one's wealth but the desire for general poverty. Here they raise, in my opinion, to simply the delusional. I guess they are too young to like so many of their comrades in the Communist League, or other anti-Semitic Prolekultvereinen to have been. That would at least have their talk as a way of overcoming the past make them understand. I find funny in this context also that they mean by the slogan "Luxury for everyone" to keep it. How can luxury in respect of a company determined at all, except through exclusivity, so the fact that it's goods, is about the enjoyment of the Great Society is largely exempt? Luxury for all is a luxury for anyone. And that is why the logical clever slogan is "Luxury for all!" so good. The same also applies to "No power for nobody." Poverty and wealth are largely relational terms. In an egalitarian society where no one excluded from the socially produced wealth is, they lose their meaning.
But an egalitarian society, they do not seem desirable, at least brought her claim that an even distribution of misery is not desirable, but only and exclusively the global abolition of this impression. Because work is a misery no matter what company. Sometimes more and sometimes less, but it remains by nature but a misery. And if you want to spread the misery is not now, at least to some extent equally among all the shoulders, then it means that someone has to work for someone else. And how should this be accomplished, if not by rule, whether directly or, as in capitalism the market gives? The only way to create work as such would be an unprecedented technical Entwicklung.Wenn it, however, such science-fiction utopia set as a condition for social emancipation, move them to the coming of the Messiah. Of wage work, they say yes, because then we would have to talk about why the dispossessed masses must sell their labor power. But enough of that.
No matter what is on 1 May may have done this year, Mr Grigat, demonstrate whether it was or was only a beer on the lawn, everything must have been better to be with them as a criticism simulation.
