science, capital

Science, the art of Capital vs. Capital, the art of Science

Science, the art of Capital vs. Capital, the art of Science

By Rubén González, Daniel Heredia and Mikel Vivanko.

"It would be possible to write a whole history of the inventions made since 1830 with the sole purpose of supplying the capital with weapons against the revolts of the working class." (Karl Marx, 1967a, p 436).

To encompass a collective process in which the working class produces its consciousness, we must stop, in a rigorous way, in the understanding of the development of the Science System; given that this will not only allow us to dialogue about the evolution of human beings and their environment throughout the Holocene, until its radical transformation in the so-called Anthropocene or human era, but points to the products of reason, ideas, as the main artifacts [tools and drivers] in this evolutionary process during the different historical stages. It is to the development of knowledge that the material transformation of history is due.

Knowledge is the basis of our existence. It is not simply the mere acquisition of experiences and techniques. The ability to feel, process, transduce and store matter and information (to convert it, therefore, into knowledge), could be said to constitute the cornerstone of the phenomenon we call Life.

Throughout the evolutionary process, living beings have acquired the ability to expand our senses, to find new ways of processing and transferring information and to store the knowledge formed throughout history. From the diffusion of simple molecules to the Wi-Fi connection, what exists is a jump of scale, not a change of functions.

Knowledge is an emerging process, associated and dependent on a production model, on tools that mold the material to give specific forms to the uses that are produced through its exercise.

To ask ourselves why the Science System has been the main tool for the production of capital or why the monopoly has made Science its main vehicle of exploitation, allows us to approach the nature of the knowable matter as a response to the material interests of the bourgeoisie.
Understanding the reality of this historical emergency from the conformation of a social order and a determined political-economic system, is vital to define the strategic axes of the oppressed social classes, to face the subject of legally constituted oppression.

a. A first approach: introduction.

Only a review of the twentieth century allows us to discover the stage where the relations of hegemony of the exploiting classes of the old order were transformed. To point out a stage that managed to put an end to the generalized and sustained increase in the price level, as a basal metabolism for the implementation of the free market, is the backbone for developing a theory of transformation associated with the development of social synthesis, of the products that are derived of the exercise of work, given that the value of a good or service is determined by the amount of work necessary to produce it and not by the utility found by the social order to which it belongs [the owner]. This is an abstraction of superlative importance for the course of the twentieth century.

We must remember that when the general level of prices rises, with each unit of currency less goods and services are acquired, that is, there is no decrease in purchasing power and inflation. This circumstance, in short, is what defines the limits of growth and the distribution of the benefits of productive activity, in relation to the capacity of the means of production in an era (a specific time range). And although it is not the intention of this article to point out the consequences of the new models of production and distribution, nor to name the achievements made during this period by the development of collective knowledge thanks to the resistance of the working class, we will name, as an example, the abolition of discrimination by race, the eradication of extreme poverty and the radical reduction of inequalities with respect to wealth, among some of the consequences that from this leap of scale, this critical point, were derived during the course of the century.

What makes it possible to transform the regimes defined by the ruling classes of modern bourgeois states in less than fifty years? How could the relation of belonging of the working class, as an attribute of capital, be modified? How could relations on ownership of the means of production be transformed and abolished? The key is only going to be found, in a contradictory way, in the Science System, and the alienated class in the capital is going to be its protagonist. Understanding this historical process is what we consider most relevant.

K. Marx affirmed that "from the social point of view, the working class, even outside the direct process of work, is an attribute of capital" [Marx, Capital, TI] ... The consciousness and will of the working class are alienated in the capital. Because of this, the Science System is the one that determines the need for capital to subsume not only the product derived from knowledge, but knowledge itself, isolating the producer from the knowable process, from the development of knowledge and from all the subjective dependencies that they determine it, as a living organ, to a means of production. Thus it is observed that the Science System is incorporated only when the production model acquires a complex cooperative form, that is, when factoring or large industry intervenes. When the relationship is in the form of simple cooperation, of manufacturing, Science has no relevance to the reproduction of capital. This places Science as the critical point in property relations, since in pre-capitalist societies, knowledge belongs to its producer, the worker-researcher (craftsman and manufacturer, who researches and perfects the process and its production methods), and the guilds on which it is organized, and not to a new organ destined to the extraction of subjectivity from a living appendix, to a machine organism (manufacturing, mechanical, stratified). Science is formed as a new sectorized, modular body, necessary for the reproduction of capital. A science that is alienated from the producer.

When we say that science emerges as a response to the material interests of the bourgeoisie, we do it so to center the historical importance of production models, as articulators of human cognitive activity. The science established in the capitalist mode of production depends on the expropriation and segregation of a knowledge, in order to form a new organism as a dissociated force of the subject that produces it; an appendix for a new hegemonic order that emerges as the main constructor of the sovereignty that is installed in the consciousness. Because, for who is working the main capital reproduction organelle?

b. A second approach: a form of knowledge.

The form of knowledge is the one that links the scientific exercise with the human productive activity. It is through this form that we establish the organized system of relationships, that is, the social order. The critical analysis of the concepts is impossible outside the analysis of the facts; in the same way that the theoretical analysis of the facts is impossible if there are no concepts by which they can be expressed, the conformation of this social order will be determined by a natural process, since it is the natural history that indicates the limit of the ideas on which we can develop our new forms of knowledge and all those conceptual models that can emerge from the theoretical development realized with the subject, with the history. Our functions do not escape from the natural function. Our products are products of nature.

To situate a beginning that signals the emergence of the new social order that was constituted as the backbone that gives form to the knowledge of the current Science System, we must drag ourselves to an era, the Victorian, prey of the empirical philosophical exercise of one of the first theorists of political economy: Locke. Locke's views were the intermediate link between English philosophical empiricism and the nascent theory of wealth. It is through this thinker that political economy adopts the fundamental methodological principles of empiricism and reduces them to the particularity of the inductive analytical forms that establish the reduction of complex phenomena into simple compartmental units, into a particular form of acquisition and understanding of what one has to know [cognizable phenomenon]. From here the faculty of understanding is established and, consequently, the limits of a rational judgment for the conformation of a new social order, represented by a bourgeoisie, which assumes it as the basis for all the representations of the subsequent economic thought in England.

This inductive analytical process is what determines the new natural order to establish the limits of the formation of the judgment of the social order. The task of distinction and analytical discrimination in elementary abstract components, the task of decomposition of empirical events [the facts], is the one that supposed the natural criterion of formation for the reasoning process, distinguishing these logical forms as those "corresponding to the nature of men", "to the eternal and true nature of man", eliminating the rest as "inauthentic". It is here that we can locate one of the guiding principles that situate the particular distinguished vision on the nature of man and his relationship with the establishment of the future social order. This, which in principle constituted itself as the guiding element for the new world of ideas, in reality, involved an effort that could not place the principles on which to establish a productive procedure for the model of the bourgeoisie.

The form of knowledge is the one that links the scientific exercise with the human productive activity. It is through this form that we establish the organized system of relationships, that is, the social order.

The influence of Hume, Locke and Adam Smith implies the embrace of empiricism as the main form of understanding and, consequently, of knowledge. The knowledge-based economy, which is shaping up in the artisan workshops of England during the First Industrial Revolution, ends up being imposed as a central pillar during the Second Industrial Revolution. The extensive use of coal and steel, as the axis of machinery and transport, is possible by the direct application of the knowledge of the emerging Thermodynamics. This jump, highlights the importance of "human capital" as a driving force of progress. Science, under Anglo-Saxon empiricism, allies itself with capitalism to forge a powerful system of knowledge production at the service, in the first instance, of industry. A process that has been reinforced with its valorization in war, social and geopolitical scenarios during the development of the 20th century. What to say about the impact of the Manhattan Project or of the V2 Missiles, as proponents of the so-called "Big Science" in the government agendas, not to mention the Green Revolution or the Eugenetic Projects that have marked all the development of modern Biology. The birth of the Science System, involves the transformation of the classical academic estates, constituted by enlightened aristocrats, into an organ of specialized-practical thinkers, bourgeois and an elite of workers, submitted for the maintenance of their status quo and supported by the investments of the modern states.

It is through the Science System as the bourgeoisie formed the new ideals that systematize the position of all those elementary categories for the constitution of the fork of new legal representations established for the new Homo sapiens sapiens. This event gives rise to a form of knowledge that places the first order for our cognitive taxonomy, the first differentiation in the new Emerging Science System: nature and society. Why this separation? How to make this idea a material necessity on the part of the new social order? A concrete form of knowledge, materialized in the material order?

This first set of dissociated categories obliges us to establish a society (one of them) as the necessary body for the management of the totality of natural resources (a second one). This creates a relationship of dependence between the elements assigned to nature and the societies that are organized around the resources of extraction and production derived from it. This relationship signals the human thinking body as a vertebrate subject of productive activity and distinguishes it as an economic political animal that makes up all the necessary thought and reason ascribed to reality, as a representation of the historical moment on which it produces chains of value, a consequence of the instrumental technical skills that allow to transform the total set of matter, and, consequently, develop a new framework of categories, a new form of knowledge.

c. A third approach: the production model, a form of knowledge. Macroeconomic trends.

To point out that capitalism goes through regular, recurring and very deep crises, is crucial to build a theoretical synthesis that allows us to understand its periods and / or phases as an essential step to establish new strategies. That is why we choose the Science System artifact as the main engine for increasing the growing organic composition of capital, which is how K. Marx calls the value of the means of production [machinery, offices and other equipment], which with the time increases in relation to the value of the labor force [cost of employing a determined work force].

To understand this we must start from a fundamental principle: value and surplus value are only created by living work, and this is formed by exercising a metabolic rate dependent on a set of tissues [organic and inorganic] coordinated for an end. The main objective of the Science System is not only to convert all the life time of the masses into working time, but to convert all the metabolic activity into a progressive increase of the benefit and not into a progressive increase of the productive activity. We must stop our analysis in this last detail if we want to understand that the investment of the capitalist system can only lead to a greater organic composition of capital over time; in short, apply new means of production that save labor, if what is wanted is to increase living work as the only force capable of generating greater benefit in less time.


It should also be highlighted what in principle may seem a contradiction: it is the Science System, with the technologies and paradigms that it constantly incorporates, which causes the rate of profit to fall over time as the organic composition of capital increases, in the same way, or at the same time, in which it also makes the rate of profit to increase when the organic composition of capital is reduced or when the rate of surplus value increases faster than the organic composition of capital, in the same way that it manages to increase the rate of profit in a crisis.

The Science System is the fundamental organelle for the immediate future of the modes of expropriation and exploitation developed by capitalism, now that the next stage is to be reached, expelling and banishing human activity from productive work. A milestone that will be manifested in the coming decades thanks to the automation of work, immediate end of robotics and artificial intelligence. Transformation that, on the other hand, will doubtfully affect the sectors dedicated to the exploitation of knowledge rather than in its benefit. We can not forget that the cornerstone of the capitalist system is the extraction of productive subjectivity, that belonging to a worker, through its means of production. How to approach our role as productive resistance, now that we are going to be extirpated from the environment, from our current ecological niche?

Note that value and surplus value are only created by living work, and remember that it is not contained in inanimate, invariant, immutable or unalterable forces of nature, but rather it is the development of knowledge that allows the emergence of new living forces and, as a consequence, to naturalize its productive origins as new organic appendices is what incorporates the most relevant nuance in the life evolution of the constituent organisms of any productive activity.

As a result of the above mentioned, we conduct irremediably to pose the problem based on the ability of an object to satisfy a need. Because, in summary, the question is not whether a new artificial appendix performs the task more efficiently, energetically speaking, than an animal [including the human], but rather does so in less time and, above all, without any type of intervention, with irremediably autonomous functions. We "waste" huge amounts of energy as the price to pay for the release of workloads. The development of knowledge is a tornado against the flow in the time of Capital, against its existence. Hence, a Science System that rationalizes time to the limits and spaces of capital is developed internally. How is this achieved?

By determining time as the guiding principle of extraction in metabolic activity, we can observe how the gears of capital evolve analyzing the trends of their main accelerators, the capital loans granted to companies through financial markets or central banks for repurchase shares on the stock exchange, in order to increase the wealth of its shareholders progressively, without any intervention on the production process. This event, if we observe it carefully, allows us to verify the limitation of the models of expropriation and exploitation that are exerted from the capitalist system in function to the forced involution of its relations of production; a fact that provokes a progressive acceleration in the relative increase of the gain mass, causing the depressive cycles of capital to accelerate, as the main milestone for the fall of the rate of profit in a system. There is no rate of return that can be distributed beyond the benefit intended for the owner, investor, shareholder or creditor.

 We can not forget that we already have a law that establishes a causal relationship between the different periods of recurrent crises throughout history, which allows us to indicate, in a rigorous manner, the requirements established by capital to increase profits first and then cost effectiveness; and come back again to the wheel, to start again. A good analysis of the development of knowledge applied to the modes of capitalist production through their inventions would allow us to analyze the behavior that makes profits begin to be reduced long before investment, and that these profits can explain the movements of investment, while there is no evidence that the investment can explain any movement in profits, as pointed out by José A. Tapia Granados in Does investment call the tune? Empirical evidences and endogenous theories of the business cycle, on the trend of economic activity in the USA since 1947.

In the same way we find an analysis of the data in the period before the Great Recession of 2008-2009, in Michael Roberts, in an article on Marxist theory of economic crises in capitalism, which indicates the order in the succession of this trend that forms what we could call a cycle: the "... change in earnings tends to be followed a year later by a change in investment in the same direction; and a change in investment is generally followed in a few years by changes in profits in the opposite direction". To affirm that "from the fact that profitability stagnated in 2013 and decreased in 2014 (and now the mass of profits in 2015) after growing between 2008 and 2012, it can be concluded with some confidence that a recession in the US economy, which will also be part of a global economic crisis such as the Great Recession, will happen again in the coming years."

When companies have to go to the market to make loan applications to buy bonds issued by other private companies or public securities, they report the inability of capital to regenerate outside the limits of exploitation of the work produced, throughout its chain of dependencies, including the [so-called] reproductive. We do not find it surprising to see companies like Apple accumulate "in 2017 credits on other companies for an amount of 156 billions of dollars, which represents 60% of their total assets" [Financial Times, "Debt collectors", 16- 17 September 2017]. Or: "like Ford, General Motors and General Electric also buy debts from other companies, 80% of Ebay's assets and 75% of Oracle's assets are loans to other companies." [Eric Toussaint. The mountain of private debts of companies will be at the heart of the next financial crisis. In Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt. November 20, 2017].

Picture. Evolution of share repurchases (in blue) and dividends (in green) from 1999 to 2017 in billions of dollars. The red curve indicates the evolution of the S & P 500, a stock index based on 500 large companies listed on the American stock markets. The index is owned and managed by Standard & Poor's, one of the three main credit rating companies.

d. A Fourth Approach. Organic automatons and the new vital forces destined to the production.

If we establish a succession that goes from the Constitution of class by historical material necessity - Appropriation of the means - Monopoly of the production - Specialization subordinated to the mode of production through the establishment of productive relations - Exploitation on the establishment of the wage inputs as a model of regulation legally constituted against the forms of property - Cybernetic impersonation as a new living force - Eradication of the class materially necessary; then we find that the habitat of capitalism in the time limit that it will develop in history has been shaped to annihilate the living world and all the degrees of subjectivity that its collective subjects can produce.

In the present and progressive stage, automatisms are incorporated into capital as a cybernetic appendage, a new living, chimeric organism. In this way, we have a new human subjectivity to expropriate, given that this product Cyborg (the productive fusion, more unfair, of the machine with the human) is the consequence of the development of an appendix of capital, be it the working class. Consequently, by regulating the exploitation of the Cyborg, the new mode of exploitation of the working class is established, as long as it does not determine that the Robotized Being (in counterpoint to its reflection the Human Being) is an organ proper to its productive metabolism. We must know how to determine the borders of our attributes, our corporal extensions, to establish property relations with the socio-natural environment.

Consequently, capital is left with an organism with its own metabolism, without the need for the subjectivity of a vital being. It is terrible to know that we have expropriated a finger, a hand, a collective viscera, an entrain, a body of our own to put an end to our historical need and the clumsy and miserable use they make of our information in they ordering. Capital wants to dispense with the working class, and consequently, with the greatest construction of subjectivity in the evolutionary process of organisms throughout evolution. The problem therefore is not that there is no work and subsequently there is no working class, it is that we must build an ontogeny associated with the functions of the working class and develop a knowable environment [work] as the only way to evolve. Science, therefore, not only emerged by the material necessity of a bourgeoisie, but to create the metabolic needs of a subsumed social class on which its maintenance depends; with the sole purpose of doing away with our vital resistance to be slaves of misery. A metabolic need that has incorporated to the inherent event of the maintenance of life, a reason of dependence under this form of expropriation, reducing the worker to a mere container of his work force, without capacity of judgment, of decision, of action. An organic automaton anchored to a chain, a production system, with subjective resistance as the only vehicle for transformation. Who knows if with the help of our own produced organs, we can manage our future. Beware, therefore, with the doomsayers of the Universal Basic Income and the Guaranteed Labor, both are enlightened products of the postmodernity of a bourgeoisie that no longer has properties to plunder. An anesthetizing strategy to transform worker subjectivity into consumer uniformity, a class that is no longer a producer but a mobilizer of capital? They go for us, the vital beings.

The Science System allows the same increase in productivity that pushes towards the fall of the profit rate to favor the increase of the profit mass. We understand that, in this exercise, Science has not been adequately pointed out as the main responsible for this process of contraction, which makes the declining trend of the rate of profit the "most important law of political economy" (K. Marx).

Picture. Gain rate and accumulation rate. United States + European Union + Japan. Accumulation rate = net capital volume growth rate. Profit rate = profit / capital. Sources and data of the graph:

Under the umbrella of this productive system and its relations of production, Science costs nothing to capitalism; resources are extracted, in their totality, from the class strata to which it plunders and annihilates, either through the taxes applied on the Income or / and of the work plundered in the production chain itself, given that these are the two modes that guarantee coverage for the rescues made to the financial entities with which speculation is exercised in the different corporative legal forms. What result do we obtain, if to this is added the data, that the main products [milestones], the most transformative for the value chain, those exploited by the large private companies, come from public resources, through the agencies of the main nation-states?

"The State arises on the site, at the moment and in the degree to which class contradictions can not, objectively, be reconciled. And vice versa: the existence of the State shows that class contradictions are irreconcilable." Lenin. State and Revolution.

By pointing to the origin of the knowable promotion of capital, through the scientific and technical appendices that make up the Science System in the states, and to situate the state as "the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilable character of class contradictions", points out: 1. The role of this as the main promoter of repression against one of the social classes, and 2. The instrument that articulates the possible, the feasible for the class stratum it serves. A Science System that articulates around the shape of the nation states, and not of the corporations that serve the class substrate that the state represents. When three quarters of the high-impact drugs have been investigated in public laboratories but are exploited by private corporations, it is the guarantee for the fulfillment of the will of the forms of power legitimized by the state, it is the insurance of the owners. In the same way, all the technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone is indebted to the support of a State, particularly of the most corrosive agencies such as DARPA or the CIA, [See book The  Entrepreneur State [RBA, 2014] for the entire catalog]. The interpretative order that is usually established to understand the hegemonic dependencies and the forms of legitimation in a socialized structure is usually analyzed from the position that places the organization mode: civil associations, political parties, groupings, companies, etc., based on the relationship of debt with financial institutions, as if these private corporations were the ones exercising power, when reality indicates that it is organic [organizational] forms that adapt to the repressive forms of a state. It does not matter if you contract debts or not with the same function, the same repressive state. Corporations are appendices, attributes, organs, just like the so-called information media.

The transfer of capital is the basis of the so-called "transfer of knowledge", a circuit in which public and private investments are interrelated with a common result, the production of profitable knowledge from the framework of economic competition. The exploitation of public patents is considered by the main National Agencies as, not the main one, but the only form of legally constituted transfer. In the same way, the investment of public capital in research and development from private companies accounts for almost half of the state budget in R + D + r. A figure that can only grow, given the trend and the latest movements. While the IMF "reproaches Spain for the scarce aid to private R & D", from the government public research budgets are reduced, while investment is being made in the creation of a State Agency with its own budget that integrates credits from other research programs, as well as an investment of 500 million euros in the creation of a Technology Transfer Network, with the aim of spurring applied research through public funds and private industry. Science is a huge asset mobilizer, from the public budget to the private benefit. A circle that closes with the hygienic traffic of interests that involve donations, programs and agreements from foundations constituted as patrons with dubious humanistic interests. That great foundations, like that of Amanda and Bill Gates, the "largest private charity foundation in the world", repeatedly accused of having a eugenicist cut, invest millions of dollars in a division of the United States Army for the development of a Genetic manipulation technology on a population scale [the so-called gene drivers] based on public research, may certainly allow us to point out something more about the nature of the underlying interests after the injections of capital that are given in both senses.

Scientific knowledge is a power in itself, as well as a tool for planning, studying and ordering strategic actions. A need in a permanent conflict scenario. A notion that may be reinforced by the unequal distribution of European funds for research, aimed essentially at complying with those basic population control strategies (senescence, disease, migration, food), resource management (energy sources, food production, recycling, smart cities), and competition (product development and patents that provide feedback to the system). Science is far from being an aseptic organ. What is researched, who investigates and how it is researched depends on some internal subjective factors and, above all, on many objective and planned factors.

e. A fifth approach. Treatment in the media. Science and technology as consensus builders for the media instrument.

Let's try to put a first example that allows us to visualize this reality through the treatment made by the media in relation to the Science System. Have you ever asked yourself: what makes us consider news from the media associated with large publishing groups and / or consortiums an authentic manipulative aberration when it refers to politics, opinion and / or society, while we find them neutral in relation to the academic scientific dissemination?

We do not seem alarmed in the least when the media publish great scientific and technical results and echo the words of the most prominent personalities in this field to endow the published results with a necessary veracity. In which direction do the big media groups walk when they decide to publish a certain type of scientific results and not others? For what purpose do they do it? What is it found in the scientific activity as an articulating space and possible maintainer of the dependencies of the same social order for which they work, incorporating uses and tools? What does the mediocracy find in what we could call the Science System?

We could begin to point out each of the cases that are treated in a homologous way by these large consortiums and elaborate a synthesis on the commitment and the real responsibility of the use made of the media tools, as a fundamental necessity to be able to exercise legally constituted power. This homology, which seems to point to the so-called Science as a neutral element for the establishment and / or outcome of social identities and away from the determinations of political economy, actually allows us to visualize the relationship established between the artifacts and communicative gadgets and production models, an entity that produces stories, tales, chronicles, descriptions, reports or exhibitions, which seems to find social equilibrium in sections dedicated to Sciences and technologies, such as the authentic maker of consensus among all the relationships derived from the productive system on which we develop. Science manages to develop the articulating criterion that relates the subjects to the relations of production. The media are the main vehicles for the reproduction of these criteria in the social context, dating back to knowledge. A person can be socialist, indecent, rabble, good, bad for A3Media (a Spanish large media); solidary, consumerist, ecologist, right, left for Prisa; or postmodern, eco-yuppie, feminist or fascist for Mediaset; but that person is a determined and homogeneous subject for all of them when we must articulate a true sentence under the umbrella of this Science.

Only through these means, used, is it possible to build sentences that give meaning to a reality that must be true. Added to this is the manipulation of scientific results and the establishment of puerile, futile and deformed syntheses that take part in the construction of media stories, vulgarizing them until they are unrecognizable. This combination incapacitates the function of clarifying and elucidating if they are really qualifiable sentences; that is, whether or not there is a possibility of generating a contradiction by making use of arguments and reasons in relation to what is held under sentences; in short, being maxims or unverifiable principles [unqualified] under our current logical framework.

Without being able to qualify as true or false the sentences issued by the designated organs for the dissemination, distribution and commercialization of information, the only sentence, now of justice, which can be made, is really clear: science is false science, Pseudoscience. And we could establish a hypothesis that could predicted that 98% of media [communication] instruments, with independence of their sovereign identity, work for the state of things legally constituted. And this formulation can be observed by looking at the section dedicated to Science and its 'informative gastro-derivatives' intended for dissemination, which we now dare to point out as constructions of the same system.

We can say that this homology in the treatment of academic scientific information by all publishing and media consortiums as subordinates of the political economic apparatus that sustain them, determines an isotropy, thus maintaining identical properties regardless of the directions in which it is examined, a stability between the totality of forms of representation within the social order in which we develop our metabolism.

It is the means of power that perpetuate our intellectual frontier as a guarantee of the future of an ignorant patriarchal system that makes science an appendix of the legitimization of barbarism.

f. Last approach. Synthesis and categorical closure.

The current approach draws us to a reality that takes us away from the desirable logical framework for the oppressed classes, while bringing us, irremediably, to the end of the productive model of the bourgeois capitalist system. A model that has guaranteed the reproductive properties of a social order that annihilates the forms of knowledge developed during material history to guarantee a programmed death for the exploited classes. This form of exploitation has already reached the next limit and the state monopolies are already proposing the scenarios that allow their model to be continued.

Drowned, the oppressed wait to synthesize an instrument that reproduces natural phenomena in a laboratory owned by that rationality that oppresses it, thus condemning the dimensions of an awareness constructed through the theoretical exercise developed by organic bodies during evolution, limiting their functional task to the forms imposed by things legally constituted, in the hegemonic social order.

Photo: Por NASA (photo by Apollo 11) - The Project Apollo Archive, photo AS11-44-6611see also, Domínio público,


Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Contributor submission