среда, 5. август 2015.

NOTES FROM FREEDOM Presentation at Humboldt University, 21st of April 2015

NOTEBOOKS FROM FREEDOM
Presentation at Humboldt University, 21st of April 2015 - shorter version


What I argue at the beginning is that in spite of many differences among (classical) concepts of freedom, they have all been negated by the post socialism. Homer’s absence of slavery, Plato’s freedom as a “rule over sense”, Hobbesian freedom as the absence of the restriction of movement, even Locke’s freedom as the subordination to the system instead the subordination to the unstable and unpredictable will of another man. Let alone Marxian or Rousseau’s interpretations, which both tightened closely freedom to equality. On the other hand, it seems like some more recent interpretations have been taken into account more seriously by the post – Yugoslav elites who were predominantly in charged for both ruling over the meaning of freedom and its instrumentalization. Here I refer to Hayek’s understanding of the concept, who understands social equality as the biggest enemy of freedom.
One of the most striking elements of the legitimization of the newly established national elites in former Yugoslavia was demonization of the socialist past, and consequently, demonization of the revolutionary foundation of it. Instead, they have introduced new fundamental ground for “national liberation” from, what had been labeled as a “dungeon of nations”. The support for this kind of counter – revolutionary engagement was coming both from the outside and from the inside.
After the basics embodied in national liberation and primitive accumulation of capital (through killing, robberies and war), the new, “civilized” superstructure called “European integration process” have taken place. Post – socialist superstructure involved further economic liberation, after the political freedom had been won. This economic freedom we are living today. “Marshal plan 2”, or Marshal plan for the Balkans as Zoran Đinđić titled the call to the foreign capital for overwhelming domestic market, came into force. Economic validation of previously achieved political and national freedom became ever clearer indicator that actually, war was the true beginning of the European integration – or, in other words, the necessary precondition for continuing the process of practicing freedom, understood as a freedom from the “dungeon of nations”, as well as freedom from other nations, former “dungeon mates”. Post – Yugoslav states hence, have followed the European path with regards to national liberation, since all national formations applied the same violent methodology in that process. After “uncivilized war”, the Balkans stepped into the new era of “modernization”, modeled after Western European recipe. What has nevertheless been neglected is the fact that, as Mladen Dolar claims, the Balkans actually represented modern European unconscious, or purposefully forgotten. Unlike the mantra about war being “anti – European” and later stadiums of post – socialist times being modern, civilized and European - I argue that these two stages represent two sides of the same coin – mutually dependent of each other. Post – socialist freedom therefore, has had two stages, both equally relevant and important for what we live today in former Yugoslavia.
One rightfully wonders – how come that legitimization of the political agenda which denies freedom to the people in the name of freedom itself, has succeeded to be legitimized? One possible direction for thinking about this contradiction is the way in which the notion of necessity was introduced as a backup concept of legitimization. Parallel to the direct people’s experience of every day life after the “national liberation”, the notion of necessity developed as a sort of offsetting medicine for securing social stability. The logic applied, was the one of Baruch Spinoza, who did not consider necessity to be the opposite of freedom, but rather coercion. By mystifying post – socialist condition, by calling it freedom, elites also succeeded in turning coercion into necessity or in other words, they constructed the notion of “necessary coercion”. Moreover, this necessity was not totally false, since it was true that in order for the new liberal (therefore nationalist) elites to be legitimized, they had to launch the war and do everything according to the liberal nationalist recipe. However, this necessity guided by the self-interest of the new elite, has been presented as an objective, universal necessity. In order for this political game to be spread to the society as a whole, one had to involve coercive means, mixed with brutal falsification of objective circumstances as well as falsification of the past. This was again, done by using the omnipresent form of power and its new methods, described by Michel Foucault as methods of power whose operationalization is insured by control, not punishment, which are applied upon all the levels of society and in forms, which are exceeding the state and its apparatus.
Liberation narrative in post - socialism had of course, more than one concept serving as a backup support. Let me now briefly address the concept of post – politics, which somehow became a superstructure to the basics, which is (coercive) necessity of national liberation. Post – politics is in a dominant narrative another element of post – socialist freedom, which actually accommodated itself to the global trend of freeing political life from ideology. After “the end of history”, there was no place for ideologies – except for the winning ideology. However, this was presented both globally and in the region of former Yugoslavia as the end of ideology and politics. Every attempt to go back to the politics, to think, talk and agitate out of the “naturalized” framework of the winning ideology, was considered to be the attack on the newly established, civilized, free society. In other words, subjectivity was demonized, conformity coming from the notion of necessity, celebrated. Mono – ideological framework was therefore, presented as post – ideological and consequently, post – political. The only struggles allowed to be lead within such society, are those within the post – political framework. Such fights are systematically allowed, even welcomed due to their impotency to challenge the given framework. Moreover, they serve as an additional legitimization mean, since battles, which are particular in nature, are seemingly proofs of freedom. However, whenever social demands go beyond post – political and seemingly limitless system, the coercion and brutal objective, state violence occurs. Some of the examples of this kind may be found in Turkey, or in Bosnia and Herzegovina. People within the limitless free societies are free, as long as they do not attempt to universalize their demands and thus, challenge the system as a whole. In other words, we are free until we do not seek freedom.


Additional trump in the hands of the elites in order to prove the liberation content of both post – socialist basis and its superstructure, was the notion of revolution. Already Condorcet (Kondorse) claimed the revolution to be only an Event that seeks freedom. Due to this liberation tone of the revolutionary activities, the whole post – socialist space was overwhelmed by claims about revolutionary undertaking in the end 1980’s. Unlike authentic revolutionary Event which took place in 1945, what I would call the counter – revolution in the end 1980’s unfortunately did not have liberation pretensions. Hence, I argue that what contributed to the dissolution of the socialist Yugoslavia, was not revolutionary, but counter – revolutionary activity. Very briefly, I will here expose an argument to back up this claim. Namely, one of the crucial components of revolutions, according to Hannah Arendt, is irresistibility. Even though this notion seems to be more suitable for describing natural motions, Hannah Arendt argued that French Revolution was irresistible because Luis the 14th could have done nothing to prevent it. Following this, I would argue that the event is irresistible if the human factor in power, can do nothing to prevent the coming social transformation. This means that the impulse should come from the bottom, not from above. This is precisely what did not happen in former Yugoslavia, since the change came strictly from above. Additionally, this was not an “Event” in terms of Alan Badiou, but counter – revolution conducted by the elites was nothing more than an act of Being – assimilation to the structure and (post – ideological) global trends. The farthest we can go, as we already indicated, is to describe the whole event (with small “e”), as necessary for the elite in order to find a new space for narrow fullfilment of the self – interest.


To come finally to the title of our discussion, due to all these weaknesses of the liberation narrative in post – socialism and the absence of freedom, the last trump of the elites was to play on the card of political freedoms, reduced to the existence of political pluralism. Since political pluralism had been absent from the previous era of socialist Yugoslavia, this has been the strongest argument in favor of the superiority of present, over the past. With this respect, one rightfully wonders what is the purpose of political pluralism in post – political, or post – ideological system? As Boris Buden noticed recently, there was more ideological pluralism within the former communist party in Yugoslavia, than today in all the post - Yugoslav national parliaments. “Political pluralism” as an indicator of political freedom therefore once again, becomes only one among many other fruitless back up superstructures of the post – socialist system.
Finally, what we are witnessing today is a global trend of removing limits to our freedom. With this respect, it seems to me, that actually there is no less free society than the one with limitless freedom. Sartre famously claimed that he felt the most free in the concentration camp. One may easily think that if someone claimed the concentration camp to be the most suitable place for achieving freedom, this has to be possibly reachable everywhere. Here is the catch. One indeed may reach freedom transcendentally under conditions of strict physical lack of freedom. But what should we do, with our limitless freedom where restrictions seem to be invisible but at the same time omnipresent? Conclusion could be, that freedom is always reachable, even in the concentration camp, but only if the rules are stricty posed and one may see the limits of freedom. In post – socialism therefore, we first need to demystify false limitlessness of the so called freedom, in order to start looking for the real one – whether transcendentally or in any other possible way.

Нема коментара:

Постави коментар