Changes

Some Since 2001, Davos and Porto Alegre have been the twin cities of themglobalisation: Davos, the exclusive Swiss resort where the [[global]] [[elite]] of managers, at leaststatesmen and [[media]] personalities meets for the [[World]] [[Economic]] [[Forum]] under heavy police protection, moved trying to Davos. The tone of convince us (and themselves) that globalisation is its own best remedy; Porto Alegre, the Davos meetings is now predominantly set by subtropical Brazilian city where the group counter-elite of entrepreneurs who ironically refer the anti-globalisation movement meets, trying to convince us (and themselves ) that [[capitalist]] globalisation is not our inevitable fate – that, as ‘liberal communists’ and who no longer accept the opposition between Davos and [[official]] slogan puts it, ‘[[another]] world is possible.’ It seems, however, that the Porto Alegre: reunions have somehow lost their claim is that impetus – we can have the global capitalist cake (thrive as entrepreneurs) heard less and eat it (endorse less [[about]] [[them]] over the anti-capitalist causes [[past]] couple of social responsibility, ecological concern etc)years. There is no need for Where did the bright stars of Porto Alegre: instead, Davos can become Porto Davos.go?

So who are these liberal communists? The usual suspects: Bill Gates and George Soros, the CEOs Some of Googlethem, IBMat least, Intel, eBay, as well as court-philosophers like Thomas Friedmanmoved to Davos. The true conservatives today, they argue, are not only tone of the Davos meetings is now predominantly set by the old right, with its ridiculous belief in authority, order group of entrepreneurs who ironically refer to themselves as ‘[[liberal]] communists’ and parochial patriotism, but also who no longer accept the old left, with its war against capitalismopposition between Davos and Porto Alegre: both fight their shadow[[claim]] is that we can have the global capitalist cake (thrive as entrepreneurs) and eat it (endorse the anti-theatre battles in disregard capitalist causes of the new realities[[social]] [[responsibility]], ecological concern etc). The signifier of this new reality in the liberal communist Newspeak There is ‘smart’. Being smart means being dynamic and nomadicno [[need]] for Porto Alegre: instead, and against centralised bureaucracy; believing in dialogue and co-operation as against central authority; in flexibility as against routine; culture and knowledge as against industrial production; in spontaneous interaction and autopoiesis as against fixed hierarchyDavos can become Porto Davos.

So who are these liberal communists? The usual suspects: Bill Gates is and George Soros, the icon CEOs of what he has called ‘frictionless capitalism’Google, IBM, Intel, the posteBay, as well as court-industrial society and the ‘end of labour’[[philosophers]] like Thomas Friedman. Software is winning over hardware and the young nerd over The [[true]] conservatives today, they argue, are not only the old manager [[right]], with its ridiculous [[belief]] in his black suit. In the new company headquarters[[authority]], [[order]] and parochial patriotism, there is little external discipline; former hackers dominate but also the sceneold [[left]], working long hours, enjoying free drinks with its war against [[capitalism]]: both fight their shadow-theatre battles in green surroundingsdisregard of the new realities. The underlying notion here [[signifier]] of this new [[reality]] in the liberal [[communist]] Newspeak is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan‘smart’. [[Being]] smart means being [[dynamic]] and nomadic, an exand against centralised [[bureaucracy]]; believing in dialogue and co-hacker, who has taken over operation as against central authority; in flexibility as against routine; [[culture]] and [[knowledge]] as against industrial production; in spontaneous interaction and dressed himself up [[autopoiesis]] as a respectable chairmanagainst fixed hierarchy.

Bill Gates is the [[icon]] of what he has called ‘frictionless capitalism’, the post-industrial [[society]] and the ‘end of labour’. Software is winning over hardware and the young nerd over the old manager in his black suit. In the new company headquarters, there is little [[external]] [[discipline]]; former hackers dominate the [[scene]], [[working]] long hours, enjoying free drinks in green surroundings. The underlying [[notion]] here is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan, an ex-hacker, who has taken over and dressed himself up as a respectable chairman. Liberal communists are top executives reviving the spirit of contest or, to put it the [[other ]] way round, countercultural geeks who have taken over big corporations. Their dogma is a new, postmodernised version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: the [[market ]] and social responsibility are not opposites, but can be reunited for mutual benefit. As Friedman puts it, nobody has to be vile in order to do business these days; collaboration with employees, dialogue with customers, respect for the [[environment]], [[transparency ]] of deals – these are the keys to success. Olivier Malnuit recently drew up the liberal communist’s ten commandments in the [[French ]] magazine <em>Technikart</em>:

2. You shall [[change ]] the world, not just sell things.

4. You shall be creative: focus on [[design]], new technologies and [[science]].

6. You shall not [[work]]: have no fixed 9 to 5 job, but engage in smart, dynamic, flexible [[communication]].7. You shall [[return ]] to [[school]]: engage in permanent education.

10. You shall be the [[state]]: companies should be in partnership with the state.</blockquote> Liberal communists are pragmatic; they [[hate]] a doctrinaire approach. There is no exploited working [[class]] today, only [[concrete]] problems to be solved: starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim [[women]], [[religious]] fundamentalist [[violence]]. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa (liberal communists [[love]] a humanitarian crisis; it brings out the best in them), instead of engaging in anti-imperialist [[rhetoric]], we should get together and work out the best way of solving the problem, engage [[people]], governments and business in a common enterprise, start moving things instead of relying on centralised state [[help]], approach the crisis in a creative and unconventional way.

Liberal communists are pragmatic; they hate a doctrinaire approach. There is no exploited working class today, only concrete problems like to be solved: starvation in Africa, point out that the plight decision of Muslim women, religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis some large international corporations to ignore apartheid rules within their companies was as important as the direct [[political]] [[struggle]] against apartheid in South Africa (liberal communists love a humanitarian crisis; it brings out . Abolishing segregation within the best in them), instead of engaging in anti-imperialist rhetoriccompany, we should get together paying blacks and work out whites the same salary for the best way same job etc: this was a perfect [[instance]] of solving the problem, engage people, governments overlap between the struggle for political [[freedom]] and business in a common enterpriseinterests, start moving things instead of relying on centralised state help, approach since the crisis same companies can now thrive in a creative and unconventional waypost-apartheid South Africa.

Liberal communists like to point out that love May [[1968]]. What an explosion of youthful [[energy]] and [[creativity]]! How it shattered the decision of some large international corporations bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to ignore apartheid rules within their companies was as important as economic and social [[life]] after the direct political struggle against apartheid illusions dropped away! Those who were old enough were themselves protesting and fighting on the streets: now they have changed in South Africa. Abolishing segregation within order to change the companyworld, paying blacks and whites the same salary to revolutionise our lives for [[real]]. Didn’t [[Marx]] say that all political upheavals were unimportant compared to the same job etc: this was a perfect instance invention of the overlap between steam engine? And would Marx not have said today: what are all the struggle for political freedom and business interests, since protests against global capitalism in comparison with the same companies can now thrive in post-apartheid South Africa.internet?

Liberal Above all, liberal communists love May 1968. What an explosion are true citizens of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! Those world – [[good]] people who were old enough were themselves protesting worry. They worry about populist [[fundamentalism]] and fighting on irresponsible greedy capitalist corporations. They see the streets‘deeper causes’ of today’s problems: now they have changed in order mass poverty and hopelessness breed fundamentalist [[terror]]. Their [[goal]] is not to earn [[money]], but to change the world(and, as a by-product, make even more money). Bill Gates is already the single greatest benefactor in the [[history]] of humanity, to revolutionise our lives displaying his love for his neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for realeducation, the fight against hunger and malaria etc. Didn’t Marx say The catch is that before you can give all political upheavals were unimportant compared this away you have to take it (or, as the liberal communists would put it, create it). In order to help people, the justification goes, you must have the invention means to do so, and [[experience]] – that is, [[recognition]] of the steam engine? And would Marx not have said today: what are dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches – teaches us that private enterprise is by far the most effective way. By regulating their business, taxing them excessively, the state is undermining the official goal of its own [[activity]] (to make life better for the protests against global capitalism majority, to help those in comparison with the internet?need).

Above all, liberal Liberal communists are true citizens of the world – good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalism and irresponsible greedy capitalist corporations. They see the ‘deeper causes’ of today’s problems: mass poverty and hopelessness breed fundamentalist terror. Their goal is do not [[want]] to earn money, but be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to change the world (have deeper [[meaning]]. They are against old-fashioned [[religion]] andfor spirituality, as a byfor non-productconfessional meditation (everybody [[knows]] that [[Buddhism]] foreshadows brain science, make even more moneythat the [[power]] of meditation can be measured scientifically). Bill Gates Their motto is already social responsibility and gratitude: they are the single greatest benefactor in the history of humanity, displaying his love for his neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for education, the fight against hunger and malaria etc. The catch is first to admit that before you can give all this away you have society has been incredibly good to take it (orthem, as the liberal communists would put it, create it). In order allowing them to help people, the justification goesdeploy their talents and amass wealth, you must have the means to do so, and experience – they feel that it is, recognition of the dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches – teaches us that private enterprise is by far the most effective way. By regulating their business, taxing them excessively, the state is undermining the official goal of its own activity ([[duty]] to make life better for the majority, give something back to society and help those in need)people. This beneficence is what makes business success worthwhile.

Liberal communists do not want This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. [[Remember]] Andrew Carnegie, who employed a private [[army]] to be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to have deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion suppress organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth for spiritualityeducational, [[cultural]] and humanitarian causes, for non-confessional meditation (everybody knows proving that Buddhism foreshadows brain science, that the power although a man of steel, he had a heart of meditation can be measured scientifically). Their motto is social responsibility and gratitude: they are gold? In the first to admit that society has been incredibly good to themsame way, allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth, so they feel that it is their duty to today’s liberal communists give something back to society and help people. This beneficence is away with one hand what makes business success worthwhilethey grabbed with the other.

This isn’t an entirely new phenomenonThere is a chocolate-flavoured laxative available on the shelves of US stores which is publicised with the paradoxical [[injunction]]: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! – i.e. eat more of something that itself causes constipation. Remember Andrew CarnegieThe [[structure]] of the chocolate laxative can be discerned throughout today’s [[ideological]] landscape; it is what makes a [[figure]] like Soros so objectionable. He stands for ruthless financial exploitation combined with its counter-[[agent]], who employed humanitarian worry about the catastrophic social consequences of the unbridled market [[economy]]. Soros’s daily routine is a private army lie embodied: half of his working [[time]] is devoted to financial [[speculation]], the other half to suppress organised labour ‘humanitarian’ activities (financing cultural and democratic activities in his steelworks [[post-Communist]] countries, [[writing]] essays and then distributed large parts books) which work against the effects of his wealth for educationalown speculations. The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like the two faces of Soros: on the one hand, cultural and humanitarian causesa cruel businessman, proving thatdestroying or buying out competitors, although aiming at a man of steel[[virtual]] monopoly; on the [[other, he had the]] great philanthropist who makes a heart point of goldsaying: ‘What does it serve to have computers if people do not have enough to eat? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give away with one hand what they grabbed with the other.’

There is a chocolate-flavoured laxative available on According to liberal communist [[ethics]], the shelves ruthless pursuit of US stores which profit is publicised with the paradoxical injunctioncounteracted by charity: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! – i.e. eat more of something that itself causes constipation. The structure charity is part of the chocolate laxative can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape; it is what makes [[game]], a figure like Soros so objectionablehumanitarian mask hiding the underlying economic exploitation. He stands for ruthless financial exploitation combined Developed countries are constantly ‘helping’ undeveloped ones (with its counter-agentaid, credits etc), humanitarian worry about and so avoiding the key issue: their complicity in and responsibility for the catastrophic social consequences miserable [[situation]] of the unbridled market economy[[Third]] World. Soros’s daily routine is a lie embodied: half of his working time is devoted to financial speculation, As for the other half to ‘humanitarian’ activities (financing cultural opposition between ‘smart’ and democratic activities in post‘non-Communist countriessmart’, writing essays and books) which work against [[outsourcing]] is the effects of his own speculationskey notion. The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like You export the two faces (necessary) dark side of Soros: on the one handproduction – disciplined, a cruel businessmanhierarchical labour, destroying ecological pollution – to ‘non-smart’ Third World locations (or buying out competitors, aiming at a virtual monopoly; on invisible ones in the other, First World). The ultimate liberal communist [[dream]] is to export the great philanthropist who makes a point of saying: ‘What does it serve entire [[working class]] to have computers if people do not have enough to eat?’invisible Third World sweat shops.

According to We should have no illusions: liberal communist ethics, communists are <em>the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: charity is part </em> [[enemy]] of the game, a humanitarian mask hiding the underlying economic exploitationevery true progressive struggle today. Developed countries are constantly ‘helping’ undeveloped ones (with aidAll other enemies – religious fundamentalists, credits etc)terrorists, corrupt and so avoiding inefficient state bureaucracies – depend on [[contingent]] local circumstances. Precisely because they want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the key issue: their complicity in and responsibility for global [[system]], liberal communists are the miserable situation direct embodiment of the Third World. As for the opposition between ‘smart’ and ‘non-smart’, outsourcing what is wrong with the key notionsystem. You export the (It may be necessary) dark side of production – disciplinedto enter into tactical alliances with liberal communists in order to fight [[racism]], hierarchical laboursexism and religious obscurantism, ecological pollution – but it’s important to ‘non-smart’ Third World locations (or invisible ones in the First World). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the entire working class remember exactly what they are up to invisible Third World sweat shops.

We should have no illusions: liberal communists are Etienne [[Balibar]], in <em>theLa Crainte des masses</em> enemy (1997), distinguishes the two opposite but complementary modes of every true progressive struggle today. All other enemies – religious fundamentalistsexcessive violence in today’s capitalism: the [[objective]] ([[structural]]) violence that is inherent in the social [[conditions]] of global capitalism (the automatic creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, terroristsfrom the homeless to the unemployed), corrupt and inefficient state bureaucracies – depend on contingent local circumstancesthe [[subjective]] violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) fundamentalisms. Precisely because they want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global systemThey may fight subjective violence, but liberal communists are the direct embodiment agents of what is wrong with the systemstructural violence that creates the conditions for explosions of subjective violence. It may be necessary The same Soros who gives millions to enter into tactical alliances with liberal communists in order fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to fight racism, sexism his financial speculations and religious obscurantism, but it’s important to remember exactly what they are up toin doing so created the conditions for the rise of the [[intolerance]] he denounces.

Etienne Balibar==Source==* [[Nobody Has to Be Vile]]. ''[[London]] Review of Books''. Volume. 28 [[Number]] 7. April 6, in <em>La Crainte des masses2006. <http:/em> (1997), distinguishes the two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence in today’s capitalism: the objective (structural) violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the automatic creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the subjective violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) fundamentalismswww.lrb. They may fight subjective violence, but liberal communists are the agents of the structural violence that creates the conditions for explosions of subjective violenceco. The same Soros who gives millions to fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to his financial speculations and in doing so created the conditions for the rise of the intolerance he denouncesuk/v28/n07/zize01_.html>