Changes

Some of themIn the last decade, at least, moved to Davos itself! That is to say, more and more, Porto Alegre have emerged as the predominant tone twin cities of [[globalization]]. In Davos, the Davos meetings comes from exclusive Swiss ski resort, the group [[global]] [[elite]] of entrepreneurs who French journalist Olivier Malnuit ironically refers managers, statesmen and [[media]] personalities meets under heavy police protection, trying to as “liberal communists” convince us (and themselves) that globalization is “liberal” in its own best remedy. In the prosub-markettropical, European sense) who no longer accept Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, the counter-elite of the opposition between “Davos” [[anti-globalization movement]] convenes, trying to convince us (global capitalism) and “Porto Alegre” (the new social movements’ alternative to global capitalismthemselves). They claim that we can have the global [[capitalist cake (thrive ]] globalization is not our fate, that, as profitable entrepreneurs) and eat their [[official]] slogan has it too (endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility, ecological concerns, etc.)“[[another]] [[world]] is possible. No need for Porto Alegre” Lately, they sayhowever, since Davos itself can become the Porto DavosAlegre reunions seem to have lost their impetus.Where did the bright stars of Porto Alegre go?

So who are these liberal communists? The usual gang Some of suspects: Bill Gates [[them]], at least, moved to Davos itself! That is to say, more and George Sorosmore, the CEOs predominant tone of the Davos meetings comes from the group of Google, IBM, Intel, eBay, entrepreneurs who [[French]] journalist Olivier Malnuit ironically refers to as well as court-philosophers like Thomas Friedman. What makes this group interesting is “[[liberal]] communists” (that their ideology is becoming indistinguishable from that of Antonio Negri“liberal” in the pro-[[market]], European [[sense]]) who has praised postmodern digital no longer accept the opposition between “Davos” (global [[capitalism, which, according ]]) and “Porto Alegre” (the new [[social]] movements’ alternative to Negri, is becoming almost indistinguishable from communismglobal capitalism). By Negri’s reckoning, both They [[claim]] that we can have the old Right—with its ridiculous belief in authority, order global capitalist cake (thrive as profitable entrepreneurs) and parochial patriotism—and eat it too (endorse the old Left—with its big Struggle against Capitalism—are the true conservatives todayanti-capitalist causes of social [[responsibility]], ecological concerns, completely out of touch with the new realities as they fight their shadow-theatre strugglesetc. The signifier of this new reality in the liberal communist Newspeak is “smart).” Smart means dynamic and nomadic against centralized bureaucracy; dialogue and cooperation against central authority; flexibility against routine; culture and knowledge against old industrial production; and spontaneous interaction against fixed hierarchyNo [[need]] for Porto Alegre, they say, since Davos itself can become Porto Davos.

So who are these liberal communists? The usual gang of suspects: Bill Gates—software mogul Gates and philanthropist—is George Soros, the icon CEOs of what he called “frictionless capitalismGoogle, IBM, Intel, eBay,” the postas well as court-industrial society in which we witness the “end [[philosophers]] like Thomas Friedman. What makes this group interesting is that their [[ideology]] is becoming indistinguishable from that of labor[[Antonio Negri]], who has praised [[postmodern]] digital capitalism,” in which software , according to Negri, is winning over hardware and in which the young nerd has replaced the black-suited managerbecoming almost indistinguishable from [[communism]]. In By Negri’s reckoning, both the new company headquarters, there is little external disciplineold Right—with its ridiculous [[belief]] in [[authority]], [[order]] and (ex)hackers dominate parochial patriotism—and the old Left—with its big [[Struggle]] against Capitalism—are the scene[[true]] conservatives today, working long hours and enjoying free drinks in plush surroundings. In this respect, it is a crucial feature completely out of Gates touch with the new realities as icon that he is (perceived as) the exthey fight their shadow-hacker who made ittheatre struggles. At The [[signifier]] of this new [[reality]] in the fantasmatic level, the underlying notion here liberal [[communist]] Newspeak is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan who has taken over “smart.” Smart means [[dynamic]] and nomadic against centralized [[bureaucracy]]; dialogue and cooperation against central authority; flexibility against routine; [[culture]] and [[knowledge]] against old industrial production; and dresses himself up as a respectable chairmanspontaneous interaction against fixed hierarchy.

Liberal communists are big executives reforming Bill Gates—software mogul and philanthropist—is the spirit [[icon]] of contestwhat he called “frictionless capitalism, or, to put it ” the post-industrial [[society]] in which we [[witness]] the other way round“end of labor, countercultural geeks who took ” in which software is winning over big corporationshardware and in which the young nerd has replaced the black-suited manager. Their dogma is a In the newcompany headquarters, postmodernizedthere is little [[external]] [[discipline]], version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: Market and social responsibility are not opposites(ex)hackers dominate the [[scene]], they can be employed together for mutual benefit[[working]] long hours and enjoying free drinks in plush surroundings. Collaboration with employeesIn this respect, dialogue with customersit is a crucial feature of Gates as icon that he is (perceived as) the ex-hacker who made it. At the [[fantasmatic]] level, respect for the environment underlying [[notion]] here is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan who has taken over and transparent deal-making are now the keys to dresses himself up as a successful businessrespectable chairman.

Liberal communists are pragmaticbig executives reforming the spirit of contest, they hate ideology. There is no single exploited Working Class todayor, only concrete problems to be solvedput it the [[other]] way round, such as starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women or religious fundamentalist violencecountercultural geeks who took over big corporations. When there Their dogma is a humanitarian crisis in Africa—and liberal communists love humanitarian crisesnew, postmodernized, they bring out the best in them!—instead version of employing anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should simply examine what really solves the problemAdam Smith’s invisible hand: Engage people, governments Market and business in a common enterprisesocial responsibility are not opposites, approach the crisis in a creativethey can be employed together for mutual benefit. Collaboration with employees, unconventional waydialogue with customers, respect for the [[environment]] and don’t worry about labels[[transparent]] deal-making are now the keys to a successful business.

Liberal communists also love May ‘68: What an explosion of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the confines of stiff bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! And although they’ve changed since thenare pragmatic, they didn’t resign [[hate]] ideology. There is no single exploited Working [[Class]] today, only [[concrete]] problems to realitybe solved, but rather changed such as starvation in order to really change Africa, the worldplight of Muslim [[women]] or [[religious]] fundamentalist [[violence]]. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa—and liberal communists [[love]] humanitarian crises, to really revolutionize our lives. Didn’t Marx say that all they bring out the world’s political upheavals paled best in comparison with the invention them!—instead of employing anti-imperialist [[rhetoric]], we should simply examine what really solves the steam engine when it came to changing our lives? And wouldn’t Marx say todayproblem: What are all Engage [[people]], governments and business in a common enterprise, approach the protests against global capitalism crisis in comparison with the Internet?a creative, unconventional way, and don’t worry [[about]] labels.

Above all, liberal Liberal communists see themselves as true citizens also love May ‘68: What an explosion of youthful [[energy]] and [[creativity]]! How it shattered the world, good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalists confines of stiff bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to [[economic]] and irresponsible, greedy corporations. They see social [[life]] after the “deeper causes” of today’s problems[[political]] illusions dropped away! And although they’ve changed since then, the mass poverty and hopelessness that breed fundamentalist terror. So their goal is not they didn’t resign to earn moneyreality, but rather changed in order to really [[change ]] the world (and, to really revolutionize our lives. Didn’t [[Marx]] say that all the world’s political upheavals paled in comparison with the invention of the steam engine when it came to changing our lives? And wouldn’t Marx say today: What are all the protests against global capitalism in this way, as a by-product, make even more money).comparison with the Internet?

The catchAbove all, liberal communists see themselves as true citizens of course, is that, in order to give it to the communityworld, first you have to take it (or, as they put it[[good]] people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalists and irresponsible, create it)greedy corporations. The rationale They see the “deeper causes” of liberal communists is thattoday’s problems, in order to really help people, you must have the means to do it. And as experience—the dismal failure of all centralized state mass poverty and collectivist approaches—teaches us, private initiative is by far the most efficient wayhopelessness that breed fundamentalist [[terror]]. So if the state wants to regulate their business, [[goal]] is not to tax them excessivelyearn [[money]], it is effectively undermining its own official goal (but to make life better for change the large majorityworld (and, to really help those in needthis way, as a by-product, make even more money).

Liberal communists do not want The catch, of course, is that, in order to just be machines for generating profits: They want their lives give it to the [[community]], first you have a deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religions and for spirituality sans confessional meditation to take it (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadowed brain sciencesor, as they put it, that the power of mediation can be measured scientifically!create it). Their preferred motto The rationale of liberal communists is social responsibility and gratitude: They are the first to admit that society was incredibly good , in order to them by allowing them really [[help]] people, you must have the means to deploy their talents and amass wealthdo it. And after as experience—the dismal failure of allcentralized [[state]] and collectivist approaches—teaches us, what private initiative is by far the most efficient way. So if the point of state wants to regulate their success if not business, to tax them excessively, it is effectively undermining its own official goal (to make life better for the large majority, to really help people?those in need).

HoweverLiberal communists do not [[want]] to just be machines for generating profits: They want their lives to have a deeper [[meaning]]. They are against old-fashioned [[religions]] and for spirituality sans confessional meditation (everybody [[knows]] that [[Buddhism]] foreshadowed brain [[sciences]], that the [[power]] of mediation can be measured scientifically!). Their preferred motto is any of this really something new? What about social responsibility and gratitude: They are the first to admit that society was incredibly good old Andrew Carnegie, employing a private army to brutally suppress organized labor them by allowing them to deploy their talents and then distributing large parts of his amass wealth for educational. And after all, arts and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man what is the point of steel, he has a heart of goldtheir success if not to help people? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give with one hand what they first took away with the other.

This However, is what makes any of this really something new? What about the good old Andrew Carnegie, employing a figure like Soros ethically so problematic. His daily routine is a lie embodied: Half private [[army]] to brutally suppress organized labor and then distributing large parts of his working time is devoted to financial speculations wealth for educational, [[arts]] and the other half to humanitarian activities (providing finances for cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countriescauses, proving that, underwriting the movement in the United States to get public money out although a man of private electionssteel, coining pejorative terms like “free-market fundamentalists”) that ultimately fight the effects he has a heart of his own speculations. Likewise gold? In the two faces of Bill Gates: a cruel businessmansame way, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at virtual monopoly, employing all today’s liberal communists give with one hand what they first took away with the dirty tricks to achieve his goals … and the greatest philanthropist in the history of mankindother.

In the liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit This is what makes a [[figure]] like Soros ethically so problematic. His daily routine is counteracted by charitya lie embodied: Charity today Half of his working [[time]] is devoted to financial speculations and the other half to humanitarian mask that hides activities (providing finances for [[cultural]] and democratic activities in [[post-Communist]] countries, underwriting the movement in the underlying economic exploitation. In a blackmail [[United States]] to get [[public]] money out of gigantic proportionsprivate elections, coining pejorative [[terms]] like “free-market fundamentalists”) that ultimately fight the developed countries are constantly “helping” effects of his own speculations. Likewise the undeveloped (with aidtwo faces of Bill Gates: a cruel businessman, creditsdestroying or buying out competitors, etc.)aiming at [[virtual]] monopoly, thereby avoiding employing all the key issue, namely, their complicity dirty tricks to achieve his goals … and the greatest philanthropist in and co-responsibility for the miserable situation [[history]] of the undevelopedmankind.

And In the same goes for liberal communist [[ethics]], the very opposition between ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: Charity today is the “smart” and “non-smart” approach. Outsourcing is humanitarian mask that hides the key notion hereunderlying economic exploitation. By way In a [[blackmail]] of outsourcinggigantic proportions, you export the developed countries are constantly “helping” the undeveloped (necessarywith aid, credits, etc.) dark side—low wages, harsh labor practicesthereby avoiding the key issue, namely, ecological pollution—to “nontheir complicity in and co-smart” Third World places (or invisible places in responsibility for the First World itself). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the working class itself to miserable [[situation]] of the invisible Third World sweatshopsundeveloped.

Etienne Balibar, And the French Marxist philosopher, distinguishes same goes for the two opposite but complementary forms of excessive violence in very opposition between the world today: the objective (“structural”) violence that “smart” and “non-smart” approach. [[Outsourcing]] is inherent in the social conditions key notion here. By way of global capitalism—i.e.outsourcing, you export the “automatic” creation of excluded and dispensable individuals (the homelessnecessary) dark side—low wages, the uninsuredharsh labor practices, ecological pollution—to “non-smart” [[Third]] World places (or invisible places in the unemployedFirst World itself)—and the subjective violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious fundamentalisms. While they fight subjective violence, The ultimate liberal communists are the very agents of the structural violence that creates communist [[dream]] is to export the conditions for such explosions of subjective violence. Precisely because liberal communists want [[working class]] itself to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global capital system—to render it “frictionless” for their mechanations—they are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the system as suchinvisible Third World sweatshops.

Etienne [[Balibar]], the French [[Marxist]] [[philosopher]], distinguishes the two opposite but complementary forms of excessive violence in the world today: the [[objective]] (“structural”) violence that is inherent in the social [[conditions]] of global capitalism—i.e., the “automatic” creation of excluded and dispensable individuals (the homeless, the uninsured, the unemployed)—and the [[subjective]] violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious fundamentalisms. While they fight subjective violence, liberal communists are the very agents of the [[structural]] violence that creates the conditions for such explosions of subjective violence. Precisely because liberal communists want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global [[capital]] system—to render it “frictionless” for their mechanations—they are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the [[system]] as such. In the midst of any necessary tactical alliances one has to make with liberal communists when fighting [[racism]], sexism and religious obscurantism, we should [[remember]]: Liberal communists are the [[enemy ]] of every true progressive struggle today.  ==Source==* [[The Liberal Communists of Porto Davos]]. ''In These [[Times]]''. April 11, 2006. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2574/>