Abstract

The limited common good production institutionalist view

We've learned that the State is responsible for producing common good. This way, it also protects the community and always acts accordingly with public interest - which, in theory, would be convergent with all that make up those under its domain.

In an institutionalist view, we were learnt that, like any institution, the State consists of the following elements: a set of people who, under a regency, are directed to a single end. The common purpose is constantly highlighted to give everyone a sense of collective work to be done in the institutional perspective. The Catholic Church, for example, would be an institution. Catholics grant powers to the pope and other religious persons who are organized in a hierarchical way, and who are inducted from the task of carrying out the common purpose embodied in the consecration of dogmas of the faith they profess.

In this view, the State would be, for many, one of the most perfect examples of institution. The citizens deliver the pursuit of a common end, by means dictated by a legal way and consistent with the bourgeois democracy (the completion of public good). The collective good appears as an end to be achieved. It is not without reason that the Supreme Court decisions often accentuate the institutional character of state-owned shares of collective protection, as we can see, for example, with the demands involving social security. This is a good example, since even with the loss of thousands, it allows for the modification of social security protection systems in pejus. The reason put on trial is always the same: that is, firstly the sacrifice of those "few" than that of all the others. In general, when we are not directly affected, we wholeheartedly agree with these premises - until one day we are (and we will be) affected by the solutions in favor of what is usually called collective interest. Of course that on health's issue, we could also enjoy the same hypothesis.

It is not unknown to anyone that we should, yes, in certain cases, have our individual interests sacrificed on behalf of the collective. Nevertheless, the failure of the answers from the institutionalist theory is obvious.

Some issues remain which put us in daily difficulties: do we really are in a position to say that the produced common end is effectively collective? Does the common end is actually being sought? With the current conditions observed, would it be possible to effectively identify and distinguish collective good? Is there really a way to identify those who claim to be promoters of a collective good?

In conclusion , we are confused.

What is the meaning of immanent critique

In our view, the best way to address common good production draws from a Marxist reading. It deals with what we know as immanent critique. Which are, however, the elements for this type of critical analysis?

Two primary aspects are highlighted for the realization of such immanent critique: a) the use of historical and dialectical materialism (here we suggest readings, for example, Anti-Düring and Luwig Feuerbach and the end of Classical German Philosophy, both written by Friedrich Engels, and excerpts from works as the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Grundrisse, of Karl Marx, beyond the proper reading of The Capital); b) the critical analysis on the labor-value theory in its various aspects (see, that even here, to carry out this critique is essential that the notion of surplus value is realized by using such a method, the dialectical-materialism history).

It is therefore an analysis method levied on certain topic studied.

Finally, a priori , if it is not possible to say exactly what are the results when performing such immanent critique, it is feasible to realize what is avoided with its use: a) the methodological individualism - the individualized solution in understanding the facts put under observation, in particular in way of science realization. This often appears in Marx, under the name "robinsonada" (referring to the solitary Robinson Crusoe's island where he was lost, to the extent that the solutions would be conceived in view of isolated individuals, not in a collectively way); b) it avoids the utopian abstraction - that is, solutions that go back to an empty terminology and action, which, ultimately, nothing express and do not necessarily underlie the real. In fact, here, we start from the distinction between utopian socialists and scientific socialists to realize that the scientific elaboration of such immanent critique requires a historical-materialist dialectic construction from the surplus value theory, with which there will be no spaces for musing constituting idealizations . Thus, for example, very opened determinations are avoided by solving everything from only terms like "capitalism is bad" and "socialism is good" - the requirements need to be more closed and based on historical facts and their dialectical constant.

These are some of the basic elements for immanent critique realization on how the common good production is understood in the current institutionalist logic.

The immanent critique to achieve common good from the role featured by the State in the capitalist mode of production

As we highlighted from the beginning hereof, there is a recurring illusion around the idea that the State, while the collective interest promoter, is the common good production pillar. We will see that this is just a recurring and indispensable illusion to the consolidation of the bourgeois democracy. However, it is essential to think about a Marxist state theory for later than, understand the existing limits on such performance while supposed to be the most important common good producer.

In his greatest work's original plan, The Capital, Marx wanted to bequeath a state specific analysis (Rosdolsky, 2001ROSDOLSKY, R. Gênese e estrutura de O Capital de Karl Marx. Rio de Janeiro: EDUERJ: Contraponto, 2001.). However, as he had not made his mind, it is an indispensable task that has been consolidated by many Marxists. Within the limits of this work, we just give some contributions to the subject, without intending to, obviously, exhaust it. Our intention is to only suggest some State forms of analysis in the capitalist mode of production, for the purposes of understanding its role in the realization of what is meant by collective good.

The first mention to the State in The Capital³3Here we will base the research on Book I. The following edition was utilized: MARX, K. O capital - Livro I: o processo de produção do capital. Trad. Rubens Enderle. São Paulo: Boitempo Editorial, 2013. (2013) is given on page 198, when Marx says: "As to the standard price settlement, also the coinage is a task for the State." And, again, it appears the same function on page 201, in which the State throws in the circulation coins process such coins made by it. This State's role is noticed by David Harvey when, after highlighting the above passages, he says: "Therefore, the State plays a vital role in replacing metal commodity-money by metal forms" (Harvey, 2013HARVEY, D. Para entender o capital. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2013. v. 1., p. 74).

Moreover, as noted by Luiz Gonzaga Belluzzo:

And, on the fiduciary currency and the State's role in the preservation of that trust, Belluzzo says in the same work:

Now, as we shall see, with the money capital accumulation process through the extraction of a surplus value, the first time where the State emerges in the Marxian text is already to evidence its intrinsic relationship with the logic of capital. Being the money the universal equivalent, it is important to have guarantees of its existence and its circulation, making itself an indispensable agent promoting them. Without production and movement of goods, there is no capital; without the guarantee that these will be consolidated on the daily exchange process, from the universal equivalent (money), there is no capital. Without a guarantor agent of such production and circulation, the State, there is no capitalism.

However, to better understand the State and its intrinsic commitment to the capital process, it is essential to understand how, in the Marxist theory, the logic of that method of production materializes itself.

It would be very simple to reduce the State to a reality that was only materialized because of the capitalist society advent. However, as the law, the State, although only materialized to its fullness within capitalism, has been woven with the very gradual transformation of relations of production and the full realization of this method of production. Thus, for example, until reaching law in its current form, there are several proto-forms, which cannot be neglected for its understanding as a specific form of capitalism. The same is true with the State - notwithstanding, its most immediate interpenetration with politics, the question is immensely complex.

In like manner, let's observe, for example, the slow passage of craftsmanship which characterized feudalism, for the manufactured work and then to the work of the industrial era with the introduction of machinery (Marx, 2013MARX, K. O capital: o processo de produção do capital. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2013. t. 1.. ⁴4Book I, chapters X to XIII.). The transformation is slow and does not take place instantaneously. In the case of the State, that also occurs. Until the advent of capitalism, earlier forms to the State were important, as noted, even if indirectly, of chapter 24 from The Capital, which describes "The so-called primitive accumulation" (p. 785). However, we do not disagree on the conclusion that, in its most evolved expression, the rule is a specific form of capitalism.

Only this finding makes possible to understand the capture of common good production by the capital rationality. Or rather, in capitalism some kind of magic takes place where we see the State as the only way of expressing the collective interests satisfaction and more, one as the eternal expression of these interests. This is what, in Marx, appears under the name of the commodity fetish (item 4, Chapter I of The Capital Book). To understand such proposition, it is necessary that we remember the processed change and the transformation on the mode of production to feature it as capitalist.

Beginning with Marx himself, according to whom "[...] all science would be superfluous if there were immediate coincidence between the appearance and the essence of things [...]" (²⁰⁰⁸MARX, K. O capital: crítica da economia política. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2008. t. 3., p. 1080). This inference is important in that: capitalism's prosperity is presented (i.e. only appears) as a huge collection of goods. However, behind this appearance, there is the essence: capitalism's prosperity does not express these lines (but the work value). However, it is important that people do not notice that the work is a value that makes up capitalism's prosperity. Even though, it is essential that they do not present themselves as an illusion (appearance) of such capital opulence, as it is attributable to the goods. This illusory character is not perceived by the classical political economy, which, while departing from the value of work for constructing their theories (albeit with a few key differences that we cannot identify in this work), even before Marx, they do not operate with such a category from the relationship between essence and appearance - and even more do not care about the commodity fetish character.

In addition, to the capital logic, it is important that the individual commodity presents its elemental form. However, capitalist society basic form is not composed of individual goods, but its consideration as a social phenomenon that has, in its collectivization (or rather its dissemination), the most appropriate way to understand the phenomenon of capitalism.

This game of essence and appearance hides the relationship between the use value and the exchange value of goods and will culminate at the end of Chapter I of The Capital, as Marx called the " the commodity fetishistic character." This is a key concept for construction of the Marxist thought or, as noted by David Harvey:

In the dialectic between use value and exchange value, Marx built his own method, while not neglecting the Hegelian dialectic, and unveils the first capital great mystery: the goods are not the source of the capital's prosperity, which seeks to hide the place of where it really comes from, that is, the exploitation of wage labor. The capital cannot be explained by the particular commodity, but the totality of goods. Not mainly as concrete work, but for its passage to the abstract work.

All this will only be clear from the relationship established in duality between use value and exchange value. This duality that communicates itself with two windows. Marx passes from one window to another and will establish the dialectical relationship, the perspective not of ideas, but in terms of social factors as essential for constructing his thought.

Therefore, we must understand that: a) the capital is a process in which the capitalist seeks accumulation of money in his power, and b) it is essential to capture the surplus aiming to process such accumulation, (the surplus realization).

It appears that The Capital book only seeks to explain how the capitalism can be proceeded, being a scientific finding of this text. Marx notes how the conception of use value and exchange value in the logic of capital goes, and the importance of money accumulation and the extraction of surplus value for the capitalist mode of production. He does not create the production relations and nor indicates the dynamics of such productive forces, as they are simply noted by Marx from the capital drive. There is no way to be attributed to The Capital the ills of capitalism, that there are only dissected.

It is also realized that in Book I, money and movement of goods are only ordered to indicate how the capital production process occurs. The specific process of movement of goods, after explained how the capital is produced, is the subject of reflection of Book II from The Capital ("The process of circulation of goods" in which Marx analyzes things like the cycles of this movement and their rotations, for example). Finally, in Book III, already knowing how to handle the formation of capital and how the movement of goods is, inside it, the author dedicated to comprehensively understand what was already explained in its genesis: the goods' production global process, discussing topics such as the way in which capitalist accumulation processes by the gain in the commercial or financial capital, for example, or the analysis of phenomena such as competition.

In a brief summary, Marx seeks to show in Book I hat, for that capitalist accumulation process, the simple circulation is not enough (commodity-money-commodity - M- D- M), and the ideal environment for such concentration is the gateway to the complex movement, where money plays a fundamental role: where money -commodity- -money (D- M- D) flows to money - commodity- -money plus any value - D-M-D '. Note that Marx is not specifically here taking care of the merchandise circulation process, which will be done in Book II of The Capital, but as such movement carries out the capital production. Therefore, circulation and production, in this compass, are two sides of the same coin, and one comes from the other and the other dependent on the former. It is a Hegelian development which, to succeed, observing the Marx own method, must be analyzed in the material and historical process.

It is not enough to increase the price of such a commodity to get a D ', since anybody could do it and, in the end, the system would be just a great game with more or less skilled players. This fact, which does not cease to exist in the capitalism, is not the foundation of the advantages obtained by the capitalist - as in the mutual advantages big game, someone lose here, but win there. What underlies the capitalist accumulation is the accumulation of money for extraction of such a surplus value (D'):

By this reason, it is important that the workforce introduces itself as a commodity like any other. Hence the worker relevance to be considered free and equal, for as the owner, sells the only commodity that he owns: his workforce. This does not always occurred in the human history, the conditions were historically created. The historic passage to the abstraction of the work was essential, as seen, for the exchange value to fruition and, with all this, would have consolidated the capitalism phenomenon. On the one hand the owner of money, with the ability to organize the means of production, which now depends on him to be ordered - as the money, the universal equivalent and unique way in this society to take ownership of means of production -; on the other hand, the worker, that only owns his labor power as a commodity. Or, according with Marx: "The former owner of money is now presented as the capitalist, and the possessor of such a workforce, as a worker. The first, with an air of importance, confident and eager for business; the second, shy and hesitant, as someone who brought his own skin to the market and now has nothing to expect beyond ... to skin" (Marx, 2008MARX, K. O capital: crítica da economia política. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2008. t. 3., p. 251).

From all this, it follows the capital concept: "Until now the capital was considered, according to its material aspect, as simple production process. But such a process, from the aspect of formal ascertainability, is a valorization process. The self-worth includes both continuing value assumptions as multiplication" (Marx, 2011MARX, K. Grundrisse: manuscritos econômicos de 1857-1858: esboços da crítica da economia política. São Paulo: Boitempo; Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2011., p. 243).

When Harvey speaks on the D-M-D relationship, he stresses that:

At this point we see the capital movement in The Capital for the first time crystallizing from the movement of goods, mediated by the money form contradictions. There is a big difference between the circulation of money as a mediator of any commodity exchange and the money used as capital. Not all money is capital. A monetized society is not necessarily a capitalist society. If all matters can be resolved by the M-D-M circulation process, the money would be a simple mediator and nothing else. The capital comes when money is put into circulation in order to get more money" (2013, p. 80).

The idea of the movement from the production, based on the surplus value and the circulation as its implementation is a jump from the classics of political economy:

Thus, "[...] capital is money used in a certain way. The capital definition cannot be divorced from the choice to launch the money-power into such a circulation mode "(Harvey, 2013HARVEY, D. Para entender o capital. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2013. v. 1., p. 80). The capitalist purpose would be the constant production of surplus value and concentrate prosperity. Here, one should be wary of the capitalist intentionality level, since the process as a whole puts this position regardless of a firm intention. This is not a mere individual act, even if common to many individuals, to make money and accumulate. This is the process in which people meet themselves therein to make more money from the extraction of surplus value, and concentrate prosperity.

By analyzing the surplus value from the equivalent exchange, Marx narrows the focus to show that one can not only dwell on the purely individual relationships:

Thus, as noted by Marx in The Capital:

The State enters into this process. There is a need for a neutral entity making us believe that the relationship effectively established between free and equal individuals, who act as owners, finally an agent who processes the "work of the mutual advantage, the common good, the public interest". Otherwise, the capitalist himself would have to promote what the capital meant by public interest and, of course, would be easier to doubt his neutrality, as an interested party directly in the wealth accumulation process.

So if the principles of equality and freedom are breached, it is necessary that there are legal mechanisms for them to be reinstated. In this legal process, but also social, there is a neutral producer of the standard rule for equal and free subjects (legislative). There is a neutral agent (the executive) that puts them in progress in our daily lives. There is one last agent that, when clauses of equality and freedom are unfulfilled, it the enforces or imposes sanctions for such noncompliance (the judiciary).

Regarding the theme Pasukanis has already talked about:

Or, even,

The author finally adds, that

Therefore, from a historical-dialectical materialism perspective,

And so the bourgeoisie "[...] in the name of historical purity, never lost sight of the other aspect of the question, namely, that the class society is not only a market in which they are independent owners goods, but is also a battlefield of a fierce war of classes, in which the State is a very powerful weapon" (Pasukanis, 1989PASUKANIS, E. B. A teoria geral do direito e marxismo. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 1989., p. 125-126), being that

This is the essential reading of Chapter 2 of Book I of The Capital ("The exchange process"). In it, it is clear that the transition to wage labor is indispensable to the capital logic realization. Being the capital focused on more value production and constant process of self-worth by their extraction, nothing more correct to think that it can only be given through free and equal availability of a single commodity which the worker has: work force. Here the logic is that the worker cannot be thought of as a slave or servant, having to be seen as an owner who has freedom and equality in the provision of a single commodity.

The legal dimension - and therefore the State - is essential, as seen, for all this to happen. The presence of an agen t, the State, is essential, making it look that, in a neutral manner, it performs the promotion of equality and freedom, not individually considered, but across the board. Therefore, the universal appearance of freedom and equality, as a prerequisite to the logic of production and capital circulation does not take place without the presence of the State. The State is, therefore, in its most complete structure, a typical form of capitalism. Therefore, State or law evolved over time and have incipient features in the previous modes of production. However, the most well-finished manifestation of both can only be given in capitalism. They deserve to be considered as a typical form of capitalism in this sense. In another moment of humanity, other figures appeared, who should not be confused with the current State or law. However, for the universal figure of the subject of law and its related discourses of equality and freedom, the State and legal form coincide and are indispensable to the advent and progress of capitalism. When it comes to historical forms, they did not exist before (even if there were their proto-forms) and will not exist forever, making another mode of production. Therefore, they are only transitional forms, as should be in the light of historical and dialectical materialism. It is not transcendental, eternal forms - that would have always existed and that inexorably always exist.

Now the limitations of institutionalist theory have become quite clear, in the sense that the State is the common good major producer. The clearest limitation emerges, as seen, in its inexorable connection with capital as a specific facet of capital itself. There is no way that, through the view of this connection, the one who binds inexorably to capital valorization logic will produce the common good fully and unselfishly.

Consequently, more than saying that health, welfare, care, education began with capitalism, to be treated as an exchange value (and actually were), we must understand the public policy inherent limitation corresponding to them in the way of capitalist production. Being the State the promoter of such public policies, it is limited by its specific position in the capital logic denuded before. Therefore, it is not a question that can be glimpsed individually - in the sense that if the manager is good, the public policy will be good or the like - but of a theme that should be thought in the capitalist logic structure, especially from the State's position in the typical reproduction of capital. The State is indispensable for production of both the absolute surplus value and the relative one.

Finally, there is no way, with the capital logic, to desire that the State is the disinterested producer of common good. It urges that society, and only it, takes account of time to solve such State limitation - evidenced, day and night, and in a more recent form, by the State authorities' inertia even after June 2013 journeys.

Publication Dates

History