Капитализм заканчивается, а «предыстория» – нет?

Предпринимается попытка ответа на вопрос: оправданно ли описание Современности в категориях “капитализма”? Показывается, что по мере развертывания истории XX–XXI вв. в рисуемых теоретиками картинах капитализма становилось все больше не типично капиталистических элементов. Поэтому становится актуальной Марксова концепция человеческой “предыстории” как более универсальная парадигмальная рамка для осмысления современных тенденций. Это позволит выделить определяющие ее характер общественные отношения сами по себе, а не таким образом, каким они выглядят через призму обличающих или апологизирующих их политических дискурсов.

This article attempts to answer the question: is the description of Modernity in terms of “capitalism” justified? The author shows that during the history of the 20th-21st centuries, the pictures of capitalism drawn by theorists got more and more atypical elements. Among these are the theories of imperialism, dependent development, a single industrial society, and especially the world-system analysis. Also noteworthy is the description “modern” applied to the societies of this period. A situation has arisen where many phenomena fit into the concept of “capitalism”, or “capitalism with numerous prefixes”. Thus, “capitalism” in various guises becomes “too much”. Eventually, capitalism itself has come down to the universal phenomena of violence, inequality and exploitation. The productivity of discussing modernity in a paradigm revolving around the notion of “capitalism” is becoming less and less obvious. Too wide range of practices has become associated with “capitalism with prefixes”, which forced a number of researchers to refuse to identify modernity with capitalism in favor of various concepts based on retro-metaphors (“neo-feudalism”). Numerous concepts of “post-capitalism” have also emerged. The author substantiates that at the theory layer, the difference between the types of what is still interpreted as “capitalism” or already as “post-capitalism” does not have a qualitative character. Of all the aforesaid, the marxian concept of human “prehistory” becomes relevant as a more universal paradigmatic frame for comprehending modern trends. Therefore, the concept of communism will still remain a worldview horizon that gives a meaning to this “prehistory”. In a situation where capitalism ends, but “prehistory” does not, this will make it possible to single out social relations that determine the “prehistory” nature by themselves, and not through the prism of denouncing or apologizing (which is “capitalism” initially) of their political discourses.

Полный текст>>