Steps To Use Gameshark To Mobile

Eels in our rivers.



the end I gave stronger than expected, and what began as a strong cold running accompanied by the entire body. Overall a real pain in the ass than it seems I've recovered enough now not to say everything.

On Sunday I wanted to do a completely normal life, go out, take the stitching, walking ... so any day. I walked in the scope ORT an artificial lake that exists in curiously shared Logroño and tour with the French Way to Santiago. I often is a stunning natural setting, well connected that started years ago the government of the community and worth. magnificent work of entertainment.

As you travel through one of his many trips the lake, you see posters advertising the features of the environment and river life is inside him. I never noticed a 'description of one of the inhabitants of these waters and yesterday "d escubrí" first and sure many of you already know.

is the mysterious and strange life of eels. Amazing what I read there and totally up-front summary. Upon arriving home, I need to continue reading the incredible vicissitudes along life of this unknown and mysterious inhabitant of our fresh water even though I have seen child fishing boat, once clean Ebro River

colloquial way as narrated, I read that ...

Eels are a few things that have fascinated naturalists of all time, beginning with Aristotle, the number of puzzles it presents its biology. Even today are still full of unsolved mysteries. For example, remains a mystery how they are targeted at sea. It remains a mystery where are the eels at sea. There are only documented five sacks and five near the coast.

Eels live most of his life in the rivers, the males in the lower and upper females. Salinity influences the sex of eels. For example, in the Baltic Sea, low salinity, all eels are females. Those that remain in the brackish waters of estuaries become males.

reaches sexual maturity in males between 4 and 8 years old and females between 7 and 12 and at that time in the fall, prepare to spend the HONEY MOON IN THE Caribbean in the Sargasso Sea, RIGHT IN THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE. This is where they mate, lay eggs and larvae on a long voyage into rivers of origin. After two and a half of travel, when measured 75 mm and are about to become elvers appear on European shores. In Spain, between December and February.

To learn more about the life of eels, in the form of questions raised related issues.

Why make a journey of 5,000 km to mate?

The final answer, sure, we do not. But we do know is that 140 million years ago the current Sargasso Sea was a swamp between America and Europe that were stuck. It is assumed that Eels went there to play. It is not uncommon that certain animals have special breeding sites. Probably the males were in the brackish and females in the headwaters of rivers. Females mate and lay down to eggs. All quite normal. But little by little, the continents were separating, and that wetland area was moving away and becoming deeper. Farther and farther and deeper. Eels were adapted slowly to the new situation. We think they have spent 140 million years.

How can withstand 5,000 kilometers without eating?

Before embarking on the journey of migration stop eating, its color darkens over the back and becomes silvery on the belly, it will enlarge the eyes, digestive tract and wasting huge amount of fat accumulates, it becomes 25% of its weight. Eels have been four years in salt water without eating and have resisted well, not only alive but active. That is, the fat that accumulates before your trip perfectly resist the two-year journey.

How old are they when they are called elvers?

are the size that we see in the fish stalls and age is three and a half years.

How old can live up to an eel?

We have said that undertake the autumn migration of males between 4 and 8 years and females between 7 and 12. When they reach the Sargasso Sea to spawn and die. That in normal circumstances, but if not then migrate leaves can reach 50.

"At that age will be huge?

female eels reach up to over a meter in length.

Eels are found in lakes that have no connection with rivers that come from the sea. How can you get there?

eels are able to glide like snakes and wet for several miles, and that's what they do out of the lake and go crawling up the river that lead to the sea and there the Caribbean.

"And how do they breathe?

Their skin

with many blood vessels and oxygen from the air they breathe through it.

Aristotle had the eels in the lakes appear dry after rain, is it true?

When a lake dries, eels burrow into the mud and encyst being able to survive several years in that state. So when it rains appear "suddenly", such as Aristotle noted. Rather, in a similar way, as Aristotle said that appearing in the mud, not preserved in the mud. So Aristotle is a great observation, the eels come out when it rains on a dry lake that takes a long time, and an error: not born from the bowels of the earth as he thought.

European and American eels, are the same species?

No. And to think the opposite has been one of the great blunders of the twentieth century biology. In 1959 an American researcher, named Tucker, successfully defended the European eel could not make the trip of 5,000 miles without food they had to die. He argued that only the larvae of the American put, which are much closer to the Sargasso Sea. And then some others emigrated to America and Europe. His ideas were widely accepted, until the arrival of modern genetic testing have proven without a doubt that they are two different species. In 2000 a group of German researchers from the Institute of Biodiversity Research, University of Rostock, published a study on mitochondrial DNA of eight species of eels, there are 16 - and study it appeared that the more similar were the European and Americans, but there was no doubt that they were two different species.

Moreover, recently it has been found that eels American spawn in a different place than European. The two in the Sargasso Sea, but not exactly in the same place, but a few hundred miles apart.

How Americans know that the larvae must go to America and Europe should go to Europe?

Here is a beautiful enigma. Science is so, does not have answers for everything and is good to have issues without research to some people are able to solve.

seems, according to another source you consult, the trip is done once in his life and after mating and spawning, they die.

Staphylococcus Internal Infection Silver

always the same, I'm bored now.

Before they are already looked around from time to time, but now with the advent of DTT, political gatherings, especially, abound at all hours and all television networks. Starting on desaprecerán tomorrow and not until well into the night. As always, the little love and how much gets bored.

What really strikes me is that throng of journalists and the like, including politicians, night after night appear on talk shows. Mondays we all know that funalito such, is in I see, on Tuesday will be in the 10, on Wednesday in The Sixth 2, Thursday in The Cat and Friday in the 13 which is the only time that I do not know what political or media group belongs. Not forgetting the doublets that some make between morning and night and holdings in talk radio. All pasta is good and little, to think. "Everything is good for the convent, as it was yesteryear. So, week after week and the truth is that at first might say something interesting, now I'm bored. are like those professional athletes, former players or other sports that rising had to ask where they played that day.

Naturally, they come in all tastes and styles, but the most striking are those who passionately and shamelessly defend their baked daily with an enthusiasm second only to by political professionals who attend these events and shows are usually a human and political development very poor. Are unable to give an opinion that has not previously been blessed by their bosses. In short, almost all for one reason or another behave like sheep stables disciplined, no personality and all too often without any credibility. They note that almost everyone with the desire to continue rising in the picture, quit at the slightest personal character, if it ever had , and look forward to continue living in this tale of politics, all as long as possible.

The second consideration is their lack of education and good manners, too often. Speak all at once, they are not meant to none, the best showcase these bizarre situations I find on the Wheel, on Saturday night in the debate "political", where a woman stands in vinegar Queen rudeness, stupidity and no education own record breaking all the rudeness. In the other pundits are all, some are the approximate and others are happily away.

and also what you get along with everyone, fair to say that among this large and new profession that we could well call it "spivs of television and radio" is worthy professional odd coherent policy.

An example of moonlighting in these difficult times. Some are lucky and have managed to ride very well, although they are still a few freeloaders too often hoarders.

Optimist Sailing Dinghy Sale

Poetry Day. Countdown



NIGHT

When both are suffering sleepless and blood
hear that passes only the rage in the marrow
trembles spabilado hatred and the spinal
continuous burning revenge, the words and
S o do not work: they are words.

Balas. Balas.

Manifestos, articles, reviews, di scursos, smoke
missed, mist printed.
my aching q ue papers has to sweep the wind, how sad
ink to blot the water!

Balas. B wings.

Now I suffer what poor, petty, sad, unhappy and dead
as having a throat
when from the depths of their language
scream like that can not impossible, and silent.

Balas. Balas.

tonight I feel death arid the words.

Rafael Alberti

Wrestling With Pectus Excavatum

.

year and a half has passed since my last blog that "If the stones speak 'I personal analysis of what I think Iraq has become 6 years of victory of the enemies of all evil in the world.

Today Friday, March 18, 2011, on the eve of the new attack "legal" against Libya, I fear that only my previous letter, would change the name Iraq by Saddam for Libya and Qaddafi and little else. Everything will be the same. Again the free world, democracy is preparing for battle. Again you have to destroy a country prosperous and enriquecers with reconstruction. We must destroy all its military potential to substitute a more modern and more expensive sobe all all paid for by the oil from tomorrow will control the defense of res Western world, examples of all the indignities that the world exists and applauded by mindless idiots with no personality.

I would

that either can and want to read this comment, answer a single question. What has been, and dictators the world that there is an been supported by the United States of America and the European Community ? Do we have forgotten the images of Aznar and Zapatero, paying homage to Qaddafi?

Can anyone still believe that war against Libya and the Libyans is to defend the civilian population? What a farce! Can anyone think that Sarkozy, who is willing apr etar Trigger, it is in defense of l Libyan defenseless you? And worst of all is that some fool will believe it.

have to thank Zapatero for work do not know what mystery has become a puppet that has gone from antimilitari smo redneck angry and become an enlightened president and wartime militarism, wishing kill, as once was the pimp and self-conscious Aznar.

will understand that I express my opinion, any other totally discordant, deserves and has my respect, but ev identity will not share it.

already

that history will repeat "C ow long will it again I feel compelled to write another comment identical to a year and a half and if you want you can read next?

Sunday November 1, 2009

Iraq, six years later.

been more than six years and the killing of civilians continues one every other day also in Iraq. That, and although these comments are read by very few people if any of them was of proclaiming and justifying the "yes to war", I would ask the feeling you have now seeing what we can all see.

More than a million dead, mostly Iraqis, millions of maimed, a country devastated, with infrastructure destroyed by war. No rebuilt or had good hospitals or schools or universities, or the industrial and social fabric that existed in Saddam's time, the monster of all monsters as Friends of YES TO WAR. A country where every day hundreds die in attacks on people, a country where women have had to return to the veil and the burka last week because of religious Islamic fanatics. A country without hope, no future, no future, but yes, rich with oil and a lot richer at their expense. It was not trivial to the cry of many who were betting on the NO A LA GUERRA, when they reported that war had become an exchange of oil for human blood, as red and no less worthy than ours.

Today we bellyached radical Islam as a stain on and on Oil and forget so many things that happened six years ago.

A country where children die from hunger and lack of medical care. A country where hospitals do not exist. A country that was an example for the healing he had in times of "evil" Saddam. A country that had a high level of education taught in their schools and universities and centers of learning about and knowing they were a unique example in the Arab world, not in the fanatical Muslim.

A country that had to be destroyed to get rich then rebuilt, to keep its oil and mainly because it was a nest of weapons of mass destruction. By the way where are these weapons? Did the? What a shame! were manipulated and changed the questions of the report which included that they were mere suspicions affirmative exclamation.

They gather my thoughts, see their faces, their names, their eyes of the lords of "yes" to war. I draw them all the finger and say: You, you, you and you too and everyone else are you proud, your conscience is clear for the support you gave to terrorism international legal status, to destroy a nation and a people? Can I say one aspect, one would suffice, in which Iraq has improved since the war?

Do you think that was necessary in the war in Iraq? And yes I believe and some of you who yesterday, today or tomorrow would justify the "Yes" you reply, please do so!, But with real arguments and not to assumptions and ambiguities in the end no more than boats colorful smoke. Ever Librasteis you to think is the Iraqi people that has suffered, suffers and will continue suffering this barbaric atrocities every day? Those mothers who see their children die, those broken families for forever. Could it be that you not open the meat to see so much pain? Do you still think it was worth the war? I'm not worth the UN, because it is an ineffective and inefficient institution, subservient to the interests and opinions of the U.S.. Its members always support what interests you the master of the world, the war criminal as Bush is president. Do not you see them smile repugnant in the photo to him and his two lap dogs, while preparing a human carnage?

Every day I am more convinced that not being under the banner of any party under any acronym always sold to power up ... we were thousands of independent citizens, without political strings, calling for an end to the war and the massacre. And scream out loud "NO WAR" and we did in Seville, Madrid and around the World and the San Fernando streets of Seville in front of the headquarters of the PP and the place of Spain in the government delegation Central and before the U.S. consulate, while Aznar and company were talking about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons Saddam's perfidy.

sad and proudly walk under a spring sun, the more than 70,000 people covered the distance from El Puerto de Santa Maria to Rota to protest the war at the gates American Base. Many, most were walking are sheep and manger of acronyms and their organizations, damn grace! I do not know what that Sunday painted there many, many years after they had displayed in previous rallies against the U.S. presence (of course, this time had TV cameras). But we asked a lot of us to war and were demanding a halt to human bleeding. We did, with no strings attached, under the banner clean without symbols, only tucked us of our own conscience on behalf of a world without war.

But the war in Iraq began six years ago and unfortunately continues. Today, from the memory of those tragic days Does anyone dare say you were in possession of the truth and that the war was a necessity, while we in the "NO", were the wrong?

Unsecured Debt Default Consequences 2009

Words for Julia.

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 }

Throughout our lives, we've all read a few things that left an impression. The reasons for this to happen we can be so many and so varied, what and astound us. In the end, we are full of surprises uncontrolled.

There is a poem that cu ado for the first time I read it hit me, followed me excited when I heard him become a beautiful and intimate love song, a love more pure and disinterested families. "Words for Julia" José Agustín Goytisolo.

Julia, the daughter of the poet, with that name in honor of his mother whom he adored and whose death in a bombing during the civil war impacted both the Catalan writer. Some agree that this poem is somewhat mixed, feelings of admiration for the mother are reflected in the affection and love for his daughter, Julia.

Paco Ibáñez, created a beautiful song with the poem. The applause did not stop his legendary concert at the Olympia in Paris in 1969 when it announced that far from that: "In José Agustín Goytisolo: Words for Julia. "Paroles pour Julie"

I know someone very special is going to thrill to read again the poem in this entry. I know personally met Catalan poet, I know that he was sad when he voluntarily told us goodbye forever, I know that while re-entering this notebook as it does every day, quietly, quietly and leave the same way, today feels very special and I know not write anything, because today, read "Words for Julia" and listen to Paco Ibáñez, tell you everything without writing anything.

What causes me great sadness to see Paco Ibáñez, our beloved and admired Paco, no known retire early and announce their action these days in Burgos in a cycle of songwriters and poets . I wish you every success in the world, he deserves it. Was much that gave us an entire generation. Nevertheless, dear Paco: LUCK and THANKS!

WORDS FOR JULIA

You can not go back
because life pushes you and
endless like a howl.

My daughter is better to live
with the joy of men
to mourn before the blind wall.

I feel cornered
you feel lost or alone
you may want to never been born.

I know very well who will tell you
that life is pointless
which is an unfortunate case.

Then always remember
of what I wrote one day
thinking of you and now I think.

Life is beautiful, you'll see
as despite everything
have friends, you'll love.

One man, a woman
well taken, one by one
are like dust, they are nothing.

But when I talk to you
when I write these words
I also think of other people.

Your destiny is in the other
your future is your own life
your dignity is everyone's.

Others expect resist
that will help your joy
your song from their songs.

Then always remember
of what I wrote one day
thinking about you like now
feed.

Never give up or swerve
by the way, never say
I can no more and here I stay.

Life is beautiful, you'll see
and in spite of everything
have love, have friends.

Otherwise no choice
and this world as it is
will be all your assets.

sorry can not tell you
nothing but you understand
I'm still on the road.

And always, always remember
of what I wrote one day
thinking of you and now I think.

José Agustín Goytisolo

Brazilian Wax Trainings In Columbus,ga

A paso doble.

already confessed once, I feel a healthy envy for those who know music and are capable of vibrating with excitement of relaxation or tenderness, any musical instrument. I am a frustrated musician and I have to be only listening to what I like without being able to enjoy other nuances.

I can feel very well, extraordinarily well, listening to music by Joaquin Rodrigo, Salvador Bacarisse, Falla, Turina and many other teachers, but I feel worse if I listen to Carlos Cano, speaking of " Mary, the Portuguese "or a delicious ode to the Macarena, the queen of the" madrugá "Seville in " Campanilleros "and I'm equally excited if English copla hear the good. I do not want and I can not help but feel unforgettable emotions new and different if coming to my ears the sound of a beautiful pasodoble.

I'll leave with one, with excites me most. Seville is dedicated to the torero Dávila Miura, grandson of legendary rancher and is very young, I do not exceed 10 or 12 years after its composition. A classic in the afternoon of glory in the Maestranza.

The photograph that appears in the video is not that of the bullfighter.

Pinky And The Weight Gain

Salvador López Arnal: Interview with John Brown

I

I would like to ask you about issues and political philosophy, as is known, are not disjoint systems. I begin with the first knot. Do you often declare to Spinoza. What do you think is more interested in the work of the author of more geometric Demonstrate Ethica?

Spinoza's work is the major contribution of a single author materialistic thinking has been done to date. What is more interesting to me is the permanent Spinozism Spinoza struggle against abstraction. For Spinoza are always and in particular in the complex and in the plural: the complex should not be deducted. A difference of philosophies that are based on a principle and essence, the materialism of the plurality as something always already given: the infinite atoms and the void that separates them in Democritus or Epicurus, God as the cause and effect of the infinite constituent modes in Spinoza, or before, the confluence of unpredictable, not governed by any principle of unity, wealth and virtue in Machiavelli.

This is what the seemingly mystical beginning of philosophy by the concept of God. This is not a theology, but a necessary deconstruction of the idea imaginary materialist, Marxist ideological would say in terms of God. God, an infinite substance consisting of infinite attributes that are expressed in infinite ways - but the complexity is not always given and, as the only horizon speculative and practical. Everything else is mystification, the work of the imagination if not superstition. If God is dissolved in the infinite complexity of reality, the infinite ways that are finite reality, " man the same fate: the concept of "man" is merely the mirror image of God. Only universal teleological delusion which is the universe of "common sense", or whatever it is, of ideology, for which the world was made for man, and there is "something" or "Someone" that everything has arranged for their benefit, suggests the concepts of God and Man. The man, as free subject, worship God, free Subject also has organized the world for man and it requires that cult. Xenophanes and Epicurus Since no one had fought the idea of \u200b\u200bthe absolute imaginary anthropomorphic as vigorously as Spinoza. No Nor had fought the idea so radical "anthropomorphic" of man.

Spinoza be today, what do you mean? Intolerance against superstition "as you point out yourself at any time? Is not there a danger that we become something, well, politically very strange as was the case of former Althusserian Gabriel Spinoza and former Albiac?

More than intolerance of superstition, which is in Spinoza and generally in the true materialism is a need to understand the mechanisms of superstition. As Althusser argued, materialism is "not tell stories" (ne pas is raconte des histoires ). Is this a prerequisite of freedom. To do this, however, it is required theoretical knowledge of the illusion, the illusion is necessary to know its causes. Is what Spinoza did, but so did Marx in Capital : pass effective relationships that are the essence of capitalism to its phenomenal forms and explain the latter as a necessary effect of the former. The theoretical anti-humanism, the radical critique of the moral and political illusions, recognizing that all power is based on a correlation of forces are, in my opinion, key elements any materialist theory of history and of any materialistic ethic both individually and collectively. Freedom from the imaginary idea of \u200b\u200bman is a demand for intellectual freedom and practice.

However, the problem of freedom that is won and hard for true knowledge, is that nothing is assured and materialism, isolated from the whole communist political commitment and practiced in a university environment and media, as was in the case of Albiac, can easily degenerate into a misanthropic cynicism in an anthropological pessimism, a sad libertinism. I do not think the problem is of Spinoza, or Althusser, who always fought any form of anthropology. The theoretical anti-humanism is not a reactionary and elitist misanthropy, but on the contrary, a theoretical requirement essential for individual and collective practice free of ideological illusions.

Although courts have given in your answers, let me insist on a notion that you have used: when you talk about materialism, materialism what are you talking about? Do not tell stories, that's the point? He adds, "the ongoing struggle against the abstraction of the spoken is not contradictory with the project of a Ethica, which is not only an ethics course, demonstrated no is small, the mode or style of the classical geometry?

Materialism: Althusser recalled in his later works that the term was not very happy and that idealism versus materialism was far less clear than it seems. There is an element in the whole materialistic philosophy that takes off from the ideology and the imaginary: the philosophies, in general, attempt, at least in part, not only do not tell stories or tell stories, do not flatter the subject that challenge so that it can recognized what they say. Also exists in the philosophies of idealism and ideology, and not just imaginary recognition concept.

Materialism idealism and therefore exist in a trend in every philosophy and the terms of an insurmountable conflict. Hence, the time to find a philosophy for Marxism, Althusser of achieving a new line of antagonism to better understand the conflict in establishing the philosophy: the principle of reason. There are so many philosophies that are based on the principle of reason and claim that it is possible a rational explanation for everything, an absolute knowledge, and others that are situated, as we might say, imitating the title of Freud, "Beyond the principle of reason." Beyond the principle of reason are the traditional materials as Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius, Machiavelli, Spinoza and Marx, but also Martin Heidegger. Heidegger did in his brief on the principle of reason a critique of idealism versus materialism, conceived as the two branches of thought on the principle of reason. Faced with the principle of reason is the random, the clinamen Lucretius / Epicurus, Machiavelli's fortune and the forms of structural causality found in Spinoza and Marx. It is thus a new front, in which what is at stake is that history is not conceived as the unfolding of an essence but as the random outcome of a meeting of non-linked. It is compatible to historical materialism the practice of politics, with the randomness of the situation.

As for the fight against the abstraction ...

As for the fight against abstraction, one of the materialistic aspects of Hegel's philosophy is its rejection of abstraction: now , Hegel's abstraction to the concreteness of common experience, the language of the greengrocer. Against the abstraction of immediate awareness in the common experience is the concept, to be produced through the hard work of the internal mediations of consciousness. The concrete is not immediate, but the result of patient work the concept. In the same sense, the constructivist model Euclidean underlying the Ethics of Spinoza serves two purposes: to prevent immediate recognition, the free flow of imagination that "recognizes" the meaning of the terms God, substance, soul etc. and, above all, produce, building on the productivity of common notions, the concept of the concrete, the right idea, the concrete thought. There is, however an important difference between Hegel and Spinoza, for Spinoza conceived the idea and do not identify themselves never, ever integrate in a common essence to overcome their differences through denial. The circle and the circle will be eternally idea two different things.

Let me vindicate the language of the market women and let me also that in the case of the circle, point out that I'm not so sure that the thing and its idea are, forever or not, two different things. Anyway, spoke before "theoretical anti-humanism" as a synonym for radical critique of the moral and political illusions. Is there any problem in using that term? What do we get using the term "anti-humanism"? "Freedom from man's imaginary idea involves getting rid of any approach to the concept man or human being? Does it also inferred denial, use Althusserian terms, the continent's scientific anthropology? "Claude Levi-Strauss was a charlatan?

who would be justified in this regard is the assertion, not the one who denies. Apart from the imaginary evidence of "concrete" ideological that we all recognize, in addition also the zoological or biological theory of what the human species, man has the idea of \u200b\u200bideological use in modern management devices population and political economy. In theory, the materialist philosophy or materialistic theory of history that has no concept place. To write the Capital, Marx had to get rid of evidence of man illusory, their needs and interests, which is based in political economy: designing individual carriers, vectors ( Träger) of social relations. As Laplace said to Napoleon when asked about the place of God in their system of celestial mechanics, a Marxist might say about the "man": "I have not needed that hypothesis."

For that anthropology is a "scientific continent, this is something that can not be attributed to Althusser ...

do not mean to. Used the terminology that he used on occasion to refer, for example, to history, the continent "history" as his way of saying.

Anthropology is an intermediate space between questioning about man's own "social sciences" and "human" and materialistic or scientific history. Lévi-Strauss is not a charlatan, but it is a humanist theory, however much they talk about anthropology. Its purpose, despite some ambiguities, not the man.

That communist political commitment to also talking about earlier, what does it mean for you today? What is the twenty-first century communism in your opinion?

Communism in the XXI century I think that is identical in substance to communism in the nineteenth century as seen by Marx. To which are not identical is a socialist aspiration. Socialism, like the dictatorship of the proletariat can only be a vanishing mediation of communism, an unstable period of transition between capitalism and communism where have all the "conditions of non-existence" (Althusser, Spinoza) communism. Persevere in socialism leads to error and horror of Stalin, who, unlike Marx and Lenin, sees a "socialist mode of production." A socialist mode of production is, in Althusser's terms, something like a "yellow logarithm," a contradiction in terms. Historically the only thing that socialism represented the dream was already envisaged by Marx in Volume III of Capital of "capitalism without capitalists", where the state plays policing social relations based on abstract labor and value, without there is an independent market.

course, communism is something else: the free production of Commons, stateless, classless free market and without right. Today's capitalism has discovered the virtues of free association of free workers and the parasites and explodes. The communist strategy is now aimed at freeing those social relations and these common productive and communists.

If my memory it has coined this coin, I think it was Althusser in self elements, a text from early to mid seventies, who noted that the absence of Spinoza's legacy in the approaches and development of Marx's work was one of the weaknesses of the tradition. Is that in your opinion? What reading can bring to the interpretation Spinoza Marx?

Althusser sought in Spinoza's philosophy of Marx. That philosophy underlying the Capital but Marx never got to ask. Spinoza's reading of Capital away many temptations: 1. first of a dialectical interpretation of history that sees, in the manner of Hegel, the events and historical changes as a display of an essence in which these changes are pre-registered, 2. secondly, to establish theoretically allows Marx's thesis that no theoretical concept is ahistorical character: all reality is a singular essence that depends on conditions of existence (Over) determined. Spinoza's perspective allows us, for example, recognize that, for Marx, unlike what happens in the political economy, there is no work or the overall value, but that these categories must necessarily be integrated into a production mode and the real conditions of existence of this mode of production. Faced with the dialectic, therefore, what Spinoza proposes a reading of Marx is an explanation of plurality and complexity by and in the plural and complex.

Therefore, in your opinion, does the legacy-Hegelian dialectic in Marx's work has no interpretation whereby political-theoretical fruits? The dialectic, if I may joke analytical, it would be a story, one of the stories you should not tell a materialist that claims to be.

Yes, like any teleological thinking, as the dialectic, as Hegel explains it, is a theodicy. There is no dialectical materialism: it is a "yellow logarithm."

Speaking of the Marxist tradition of those years. Is there anything of interest in the work of writers like Althusser, Rancière, Dominique Lecourt, Balibar, etc? Are there substantive squeezed juice?
depends
for whom. If the issue is to defend a theoretical or political "modern", ie adapted to the ultimate hegemony of capital, these authors there is little squeeze. With Althusser, for example it is impossible to uphold the rule of law as those currently in vogue in certain sectors of the left-to Althusser to Marx, the "key concept" of Marxist theory is the dictatorship of proletariat. Rancière is also difficult to defend the "democracies" that for him are prototypes of the system of police, who manages the distribution of social locations among different groups without regard for the existence of that group without a place, of that class without class that Marx called "proletariat."

speak, but the authors very different from each other. Althusser remains the major theoretical framework of Marxism materialism opting for a no-compromise integrated into the "only materialist tradition, that of Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Marx, etc. Rancière is at another level and to some extent, are trying to regain the political traditions of real workers' movement against the Marxist "theoretical" one hand, and in front of the apparatus of representation of the working class. Rancière harshly criticized Althusser in his book Althusser's lesson, but a big dose of misunderstanding between the two, Althusser, writing in the middle of the 70 explicitly accepts many of the criticisms of Rancière. Rancière, they also constitute essential reflections on democracy as the power of the free part of the section of the people left out of the deal "police" of social positions. Under protest, which Rancière calls "democracy" is basically in line with what Marx called "dictatorship of the proletariat." Balibar's reflections on citizenship not without interest, although more and more oriented towards neutralist conception of the capitalist state that more integrated in the French republican tradition, in its radical version, which in Marxism. However, Balibar's contribution to the study of political Spinoza is extremely valuable. As Lecourt, I believe that his work in epistemology remain of great interest. Nor should we forget the work of Macherey on Spinoza and still ongoing seminar in Lille on "philosophy in mind."

II

Three questions about what you've said. What is for you the dictatorship of the proletariat? "The Left Communist must vindicating the notion even after having seen what has been done in his name in companies and very recent historical times? How Cuba or China, for example, exists or has existed a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Leaving the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Marxist theory of history is the same as abandoning the law of falling bodies in physics of Newton. Marx understood it and said so quite explicitly in his letter to Weidemeyer. The idea of \u200b\u200bclass dictatorship is intrinsic to the Marxist conception of politics in class societies, and specifically in capitalism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is only the reverse need for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. However, the political forms of bourgeois dictatorship need not always be "dictatorial", that is violent, draconian, there are also democratic capitalism and dictatorial capitalism in the political and the Pinochet or the Ben Ali Tunisia.

For the dictatorship of the proletariat and its political forms can never be "dictatorial", at least in regard to the relationship of the governing bodies of the proletarian social majority.

In China and Cuba, as in Russia itself or in the Commune of Paris clearly there have been moments of dictatorship of the proletariat, especially at the beginning of the revolutionary processes, which were then replaced by authoritarian forms of government, the perpetuation of socialism we talked about earlier. These authoritarian ways have had some utility, as they have freed China and Cuba from dependence on imperialism and have allowed China to become an autonomous capitalist pole, a regional power. As for the future of Cuba, things are not clear: it is possible a transition to a national market capitalism controlled by the State and in China, but there is also the possibility of a communist development from the massive buildup of productive common cognitive occurs in the island A pure and simple return to dependence on the world market, it seems unlikely.

also speak, critically, to uphold the rule of law which is so fashionable, in your opinion, between sectors of the left. Is not there to defend because the rule of law? "The thesis points out the inconsistency between the rule of law and the capitalist mode of production seems unwise you?

very good and dear friends of mine and defend the thesis that was defended by famous Marxists like Kautsky and Bernstein. I think that since Marxism is simply indefensible. Therefore have to be invented in of Marx or Marxism matter from anthropology anthropological invariant natural law as the basis for the rule of law.

As for the inconsistency between capitalism and the rule of law is the same as that between feudalism and religion. If you are a believer, one would think that religion was a transcendent value that made him even beyond the Middle Ages the feudal framework, if not a believer, he examines the role of religion within the feudal mode of production is sufficient. Whoever thinks the rule of law is the bearer of eternal values, like human rights as a subject of the rule of law, is a believer, not a materialist. As to political expediency of raising the flags of the bourgeoisie when it is attacking half of humanity on behalf of human rights and the rule of law, it is better not to speak. Posts to resurrect terms, I think a thousand times more useful to the dictatorship of the proletariat, if not separate from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is the necessary background. The rule of law is now a poisoned chalice: its function is similar to that of free trade that Britain imposed on all countries in the nineteenth century, and reserves the right to defend its own market. Today, the Empire State requires all law, reserving the right to act dictatorial ruler. That gift, so others, forced acceptance, it had better stay. We stayed with a state or representative democracy, or, which is, communism.

"Althusser remains the major theoretical framework of Marxism," you said. But he himself, in his last work, The future is long, spoke of his reading of Marx was not very deep, who had spoken from hearsay sometimes to impress, who had worked less than previously thought the work of the author of Capital . "He exaggerated maybe? Already were bad?

I have personally seen the books, copies of the works of Marx used by Althusser, packed into each page of notes and underlining also the hundreds of pages of manuscripts in preparation for Pour Marx or Lire le Capital. There are signs of poor knowledge or hearsay. We know that the relentless demands of the superego in certain psychic structures forces the subject to autohumillarse. As recalled in Freud Civilization and Its Discontents , the saints are always those who feel most guilty.

Lacan was a thinker who captivated a large and important sector of the European left, out Marxist or not. What is your opinion of your work?

Freud Lacan is what Althusser's Marx. With Lacan can now read a different Freud which presents the American Freudianism, henchman of Anna Freud. Lacan considers the task of psychoanalysis is to "normalize" the ego, or complete, which otherwise is an impossible task, but to allow the analysand-which is a patient-live with his symptoms. Both Freud and Marx are writers who teach us to see our society and subjectivity as essentially divided realities. Trying to "normalize" a neurotic subject is to submit to the social order is largely home of their discomfort.

Lacan who is also from the 50 anticipated the "linguistic turn", stating that "the unconscious is structured like a language." Lacan allows us, on the other hand, think what is most radical materialism. Not enough to Lacan that the self is an effect of non-self as defined Fichte materialism, or that consciousness is an effect of social being (Marx). The thesis of materialism can not be a mere reversal of the idealist thesis according to which the self is original and not-self is derived. Materialism that is limited to investing the idealist thesis is not out of idealism. What Lacan brings materialism, and this is crucial is the idea of \u200b\u200ba subject divided by language, and a non-self, the Other of the order of signifiers, necessarily incomplete. Deterministic conception of history finalist is associated with the formulations vulgar Marxism is based on the idea of \u200b\u200ban "ultimate determination" of historical events in the economic sphere. The economy is an area that gets its own entity in capitalism due to an alleged self: a self-determined autonomous whole and all the features of I of idealism. Break with this conception is to acknowledge that the economy is not self-regulating, not based on itself. This is what have in common Lacan and Marx.

You aim, according to Lacan, to try to normalize to a "neurotic subject is submitting to the social order, to a large extent, is the cause of their discomfort. A mental patient (say, a person or an individual bipolar schizophrenic) is a neurotic subject? If so, would not then be "normalized"? What would you do with it then?

In cases of psychosis is dating, not neurosis. Anyway, apart from normalizing to the people, for the existing police, doctors, sociologists and psychologists, may be other things: first, to respect their uniqueness and consider the work on the symptom for the "sick", even if it is a psychotic. Is this what psychoanalysis attempts to do so much in his classic device, the "couch", as in the institutions in which their practice can produce effects. It is not doing nothing with the psychotic, but to do something to enable them to achieve for themselves the minimum coupling with the language needed for social life. Moreover, the institution, including confinement, may be useful as a means of protecting the patient against a social environment as hostile and hostile to them. To do this, institution and closure should not be an end in itself, a substantial element of the cure, but a framework for an activity of the subject on itself with the assistance of individuals able to listen, even to hear their silence.

We also discussed the anticipation Lacanian "linguistic turn": the unconscious is structured like a language. But that, looked calmly saying much and saying too little. All, or almost all, may have a structure akin to the structure of a language. Moreover, language is everything, natural or formal, has the same structure or a structure related? What singles this structure?

A (almost) everything can be given the structure of a language that almost everything is symbolized by a language. The talking animal has no knowledge of reality, no contact with reality do not speak the language. He said this and Aristotle, long before Lacan. What Lacan offers a coherent development of certain Freudian thesis on the relationship between the unconscious and language. The language not only, or primarily, a means of communication. In the language there are faults, errors, lapses pointing beyond himself to the subject of the unconscious. Lacan said on TV that Freud had anticipated Saussure and that in fact was the real founder of linguistics, to discover the linguistic structure of symptoms in the psychopathology of everyday life and in the joke, and sleep on the job. Thus what Freud discovered, through these "flaws" in the inter-communication was the centrality of the signifier, the material aspects of the word in the language. The language becomes visible as a structure, as signifying chain, at the time it fails. Without symptoms that point to the subject of the unconscious, the language would be invisible as a system would confuse imagination with things as in all theories representing the linguistic meaning. Language opens the possibility of lying, showing the presence or absence of the subject. Signifier and subject (the unconscious) are well separated. In Lacan's terms, "a signifier represents a subject for another signifier" as a "sign" is that by which a subject is one thing to another subject.

Castillo del Pino, ironically, spoke of Charlacán and Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, carefully and subtly, criticized some abuses Nonsense-metaphorical sense, in his opinion, Lacan and others also and French authors. What do you think about these critical approaches?

Chomsky called it "a brilliant talker aware of it." I think not belie Lacan, he always said his spoken prose analysand represented the position of applying the fundamental rule of psychoanalysis, free association. Speaking as the unconscious is talk like a charlatan. However, the critical approach of Sokal and Bricmont are gross simplifications. Stating that the Sokal hoax literary fun and I think his success is an indication of the degree of pedantry and Booby giant that boast many intellectuals on the left. Moreover, I am convinced that Ethics of Spinoza would have been included by these gentlemen between "Nonsense." For there is a fairly close relationship between the more geometric Demonstrate Ethics of Spinoza and discourse Lacan deliberately baroque: in both cases to prevent immediate recognition of the reader in what they say, the reader has to work on it read and read what he has to work to produce a conception. It is the opposite of the empiricist conception of knowledge-and reading-which is common, and for which there are clear facts and data speak for themselves and just read in reality and in an "open book." The empiricist view is seen by Lacan as an imaginary place: Spinoza said in the same terms.

I leave aside that speculation about the Spinoza's Ethics. They, in fact, not included in any series of deceptions and it is not impossible that it had documented news. Literary joke, you say, its Nonsense. They did not think so, it does not seem the least. Why success is huge index of the degree of pedantry and Booby which boast many leftist intellectuals? Do not invert the criticism? That is exactly what they criticize Lacan and others: that sometimes, sometimes illustrated with reference and selection of texts, talk, for example, the axiom of choice or gödeliano incompleteness theorem without any consistent and fruitful idea what they are talking. I thought you said yourself before was not to be materialistic tell stories?

is also a way to fool any other speech denying the use of themes and results of science. Again, not only Spinoza, but Plato and so many others fall under the criticism of Sokal and Bricmont. The initial approach of Sokal and Bricmont's a joke, a joke taken seriously like all good jokes, but a joke, nothing more nor less. Make a collage of texts of postmodern philosophers and submitted as an article in a publication of Duke University subjected to peer review seems like a good joke, mainly because the thing slipped.

Yes, yes, I agree, is the origin of the book.

joke makes us laugh all pointing to a spot of reality that we do not knowingly accept, we repress. In this case, it is the arrogance of a liberal discourse that makes some responded by passing a Pavlovian manner that smacks of political correctness without asking for consistency. Perhaps, however, the text had more consistency in what the authors of pastiche and has not thought to be so harsh on the editorial board of the magazine. It is very easy to make a pastiche of great philosophers to look plausible. In the Middle Ages were common texts such as the Liber de causis who mixed happily Aristotelian and Platonic themes. What is fascinating is that the texts had their consistency and even served as an inspiration to all classical Arab-Muslim philosophy. Think that the speaker or writer is owner of the signifier is an illusion that psychoanalysis takes more than a century trying to liberate.

change of pace. Do you have any preference for any author of Italian Marxism? "Gramsci continues to be a thinker to be taken into account? Are you interested in any other philosopher or thinker? "Lucio Magri, Rossana Rossanda?

Gramsci is fundamental for me as an author is the great Marxist thinker of ideological and class struggle, but do not use this term, but the hegemony of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Gramsci allows us better than any other great Marxist-certainly much better than Lenin, understand the complexity of the device class power. It is an unrecognized precursor Michel Foucault. As Rossana Rossanda, as a reader of Manifesto and its great items, I admire her as a journalist and intellectual, but not a character comparable to Gramsci.

Let me ask authors who currently have major or significant influence on large sections of the Left in Europe and worldwide. I start with Negri. What is your opinion of his work and his resurgence?

not only Negri Negri. Little is understood of its work if it is separated from the Italian autonomist Marxism where Negri stand before the actual works and especially Panzieri Tronti. Is fundamental to Marxism late twentieth century the double shift that gives the autonomist Marxism of the Third International: 1. first assertion of the decisive nature of the internal structure of the proletariat, its class composition, professional workers, the mass worker, social worker, 2. the assertion of worker's subjectivity as a determinant of class struggle against passivity, victimization and subsequent messianism and millenarianism own left. For Negri, the class struggle is no mere struggle against exploitation, but an expression of power to assert its way from exploitation. Anything not already said in Spinoza. The concept of "crowd" when used in a positive Spinoza's way, facing the negative view of many Western political tradition, plays a key role in political theory and Negri. The crowd describes the internal plurality of the proletariat deterritorialised poor, strongly marked in his new identity through new forms of work by the centrality of language and communication. The crowd is also the class without class displays, which produces and reproduces the productive common: unlike the people of the political philosophy that was unified by the State or of the working class of the Marxism of the IIa and IIIa looked unified international by the Party, the crowd did not need any body representing to access your unit because the unit is always already given in ordinary production. Negri's concepts are, for a political Spinoza, but also and therefore, for a Marxist, essential if you want to understand something of the social and political chaos of late capitalism.

As Zizek. Is it so interesting to his work, his increasingly voluminous work, as is often said among some sectors of the Marxist left?

Zizek's work is interesting as it applies in a highly creative psychoanalytic theory to analyze social and political reality. I appreciate the radical claims that concepts like the dictatorship of the proletariat and its analysis of terrorism and violence. But Zizek is also a spectacular and commercial dimension that I find tiresome. From a philosophical standpoint, his attempt to reconcile the Hegelian dialectic with the teaching of Lacan, despite what Lacan himself says Hegel, "he seems doomed to failure.

III

While not authors of the Marxist tradition itself, do you think the work of Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault is of interest to the left in these times of conservative counterrevolution acute class struggle?

I distinguish. Many of Foucault's analysis of power devices are highly topical. Deleuze also constitutes a fundamental aid in understanding the bio-political society and the control scheme in which we live. As for Derrida, does not think he has great interest to the left, though Althusser considered the greatest living French philosopher.

Postmodernism is, as stated, is the ideology of capitalism in its most despotic and the terminal time?

In its most exploitative and the terminal time, capitalism has to develop any ideology that is not directly the practice of market ideology and socialization through the value and abstract labor. That ideology is imposed on machamartillo, but I do not have much to do with postmodernism. What is called postmodernism is a very poorly defined intellectual space which includes the French post-structuralism, the new feminism, queer studies, postcolonial studies etc. There are many works of great value in the flow and also much fool, but you can not say that the ideology of contemporary capitalism. I believe that certain radical postmodern trends have earned the hatred of certain traditional Marxist realities because they affect that they refuse to see: the irreducible plurality of the new proletariat, the new forms of power, the political nature of the private directory, failure to consider reality from a purely colonial victimization, etc. crossbreeding. A Baroque mosaic impossible to represent it rightly scares to any political organization even pretend to exercise universal representation, be it the bourgeois state or the parties' workers. "

have spoken in a text of "the necessary incompleteness of the order of the signifier." Can you translate the statement to a less pro-French language? Why necessary?

The order of the signifier is not French but Castilian. "Incompleteness" is certainly a Gallicism, but it seems better to introduce it to speak of "incomplete." The order of the signifier is the string that the opposing linguistic signifiers relate to one another, so that the only definition of each of them is the presence / absence of one or another feature in comparison with others. Moreover, the human individual as a subject is determined by the language of membership in the language makes it impossible to direct satisfaction that the child obtained the mother's womb or in general of the mother. Language is the instrument that divides the subject separating the object of desire with which he was identified. As Freud said: "The baby is the breast." This means that after the resolution of the Oedipal crisis, all I want is to be formulated linguistically as a request addressed to another. The lawsuit seeks, however, always something different from what the person wants, which is inevitably outside language. Language, for structural reasons, is unable to symbolize the object of desire is also the cause of desire, because the subject that can only be constituted as a subject in and through it exceeds its own ex-resistance and the object -because of their desire that it be expressed. Front coherent Cartesian subject that is considered transparent to itself, Lacan recognizes a failure in the subject and interprets insurmountable cogito cogito ergo sum as an "ergo sum" where the existence and knowledge is an alternative: "I think or am" I think there where they exist, are there where I do not think. In other words, or am I in the order of the signifier (I) or of being (exist). If the subject (I) is divided, the order of the signifier is "bored" by the subject that inhabits and avoided. In other, more simple, when we speak, to say (that say) is hidden and not expressed in the above. Enunciation not ever set out in the statement.

In the field of English Marxism, what authority do you think has contributed more to the tradition?

What you hope to say is that it was Manuel Sacristán ...

fact, that you expected.

Yes, it's what I say. That said, I somewhat agree with Manuel Sacristán and in general with the "tradition." Specifically, I disagree with their interpretation Sacristán positivist Marx (you know what I think of the facts and data.) However, their translations and interpretations of Marx and Lukács filled a huge void and helped to spread the Marxist Paideia in the English State. With Sexton, began to read Marx.

Well, the truth, I hope not bother you, but not clear to me what you think about the facts and data. Is not it good to know, for example, that unemployment in Spain over 20% in Catalonia that poverty affects 15% of households or 30% of Nissan workers have objected to an agreement that freezes their wages and making them work more days and more exploitation, control and business discipline? "There is no point to know all this?

not useless without an adequate theory. The data itself has no existence. The term "data" (from the Latin dare, to give) suggests a donation to us the reality, but reality does not give us anything in terms of knowledge that do not produce ourselves. Only from a particular theoretical position can be a scientific experiment, so there are only "facts" which are the relevant data of a given scientific theory. After Canguilhem, Bachelard, Althusser and Kuhn I can not say that pre-existing data to the theory and the theory is limited to "interpret". This conception empiricist belongs to the spontaneous ideology of scientists, but has little to do with the actual practice of scientists. This should follow the advice given Marx and at the time of purchase, not to rely too much on the shopkeeper. For that philosophy serves.

And why do you think that Sexton made a positivist reading of Marx? What is concrete that interpretation? Moreover, if so, what sin he committed along this path?

philosophy, like any human practice, is in nature, and nature is no sin, there is only efectos que a su vez son causas. Una concepción positivista de Marx desfigura a mi juicio el pensamiento de Marx reduciéndolo a la práctica de historiadores y economistas prehistóricos, esto es anteriores a la fundación de la ciencia de la historia por Karl Marx. Es exactamente lo mismo que hacen quienes reducen el psicoanálisis a una psicología. Por lo poco que he leído de Sacristán, tengo entendido que reprocha a Marx una indecisión entre la science anglofrancesa, positivista y la Wissenschaft alemana con pretensiones metafísicas y de saber absoluto. No quiero entrar, por ahora, en un debate que me obligaría a releer lo poco que he leído de Sacristán y a leer lo mucho que aún I have not read, but I think Marx is not within any of these models, even in a combination of both.

not enter, then, in the debate. Of the current English Marxists. Are you interested in the work of some of them? Why?

not live in Spain and I have little contact with English Marxism. I guess now you can not say as Baroja in the 30's that "Marx is a little read author among the English Marxist," but I know the picture. The work of my friend Carlos Fernández Liria alone or with Luis Alegre Zahonero or my other old and dear friend who is Santiago Alba, I find it interesting: it raises issues that are fundamental, but I do not resolve them properly. I will not elaborate on this: I am preparing my recension of his latest book, The order of Capital .

abolitionist John Brown was a nineteenth-century American. In Wikipedia can leerese this information: "On 16 October 1859, with a small group, and trying to create a shelter to house slaves previously released by the weapons, stormed and took the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry (Virginia) and took control of the city. His group was surrounded by a company of the Army under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee. Brown's ten men, including two children, were killed in the battle that ensued, and he was wounded and forced to surrender. He was arrested and charged with treason and murder, was executed on December 2, 1859, in Charlestown (Virginia), thus becoming a martyr for the abolitionist cause for some, and an extremist for others. " What honor do with your name, besides recalling the figure of this fighter? What arsenal should take at this stage of the century and the history?

The "John Brown" is first of all a pseudonym, a false name, which, like all names is primarily a signifier that, by linking up with other, produces effects of meaning and determines a subject as such. The same applies, of course with my "real name." The first thing I searched was the most common name possible in a language that was not mine, but that was not exotic. Without much thought, I chose John Brown. What's illustrious captain as Thoreau wrote apology and that his actions, became a classic of direct action and one of the few whites who had the honor of being leaders of a brothel, came later. First is the significant and then all metonymy.

The array we should use century at this stage should focus on all means necessary and possible for us to lose respect for the rule and the capital and regain respect for ourselves. It is not necessary for offensive weapons, but strategic intelligence of the masses that get block the flow of goods and communication flows directed from power. Blocking these flows is re-appropriated, even temporarily, as happened recently in France. We have a more recent example in the revolution even in Tunisia, in which an unarmed people neutralized to a gigantic apparatus of repression, and is gaining increasing share of freedom and power. Tunisia's events are the result of a classic workers' strike, but a greater mass strike paralyzed the capital and major cities, a striking paradox of the unemployed, the educated urban youth, including university, which feeds the ranks of precariousness in North Africa, but also in Europe. Recognize the power of the new composition of the proletariat and avoid nostalgia of the subjects of history lost-and perhaps never existed, as working-class-represented-by-your-Party is allowing us to resume with an authentic "common strategy" and abandon the gloom that grips the left.

Does that mean, let me ask this to be finalized, that the left must abandon their traditional instruments: the party, the unions? How is losing respect for the rule and the Capital? Can not we lose that respect and not be able to generate anything and that our revolution is diluted in the air?

all depends on the "consistency" to be achieved. I do not think the instruments of the bourgeois representative government, with its state apparatus, can be found anything that actually exceed it. Past revolutions have not been diluted in the air, but in the horror of a caricature of the bourgeois regime. Anarchist self-management for English revolution still serves as an example, while Stalin's regime continues to discredit anti-capitalist struggles today. Naturally, parties and unions may now be means of resistance, but they must be abandoned in favor of other forms of social and political organization consistent with communism. The representation is based on the individual owner, is antithetical to free access to productive community, is incompatible with communism, not by a democratic romanticism rousseauista, but for reasons having to do with material conditions, relations of production communists.

Let me one last question. Jacques Texier's demise last January 13 I almost require it. When we spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and of its concrete forms, may have given the impression that the concept of democracy was not the object of your devotion. Texier, however, spoke of revolution and democracy in the work of Marx and Engels. Now let me play a text Alma Allende, January 25, 2011, a story about what is happening in Tunisia in recent days. He says: "There is always something naive in the word" democracy "when you pronounce a bourgeois do not ask, where is your wealth or what freedom is based mud. But there is something huge, great, very serious, exciting and almost shocking in that word shouted angrily by young surviving at ground level. There is nothing strange in that they are poor and are not communists, the strange thing is that they are poor and do not ask for bread or a good king or God's intervention. That's what I wish our media and our governments western colonizers, that is what they would expect sociologists and misanthropes. Lo and behold, these barbarians lit, some of whom do not even have identity cards, are presented in the capital, on foot or in open trucks, and call "democracy." In a process that is very reminiscent of early the Bolivarian revolution, have a mouthful of "forms" which require content, which are not compatible with any way of managing the economy, which hit the hypocrisy of our European institutions: democracy, constitution, rule by the people, Dignity " . What do you suggest this discussion? Do you have the strength to text comment to end the interview?

we go. I think my friend Alma is absolutely right, even more reason than you think. I am not opposed to democracy, on the contrary, but democracy only makes sense when the demand of the demos, this is the part without part of society (Rancière), of which they are nothing, in terms of Marx, the proletariat. You know that Greek democracy, political officials were not elected, they were only the "how" - because an election is always a discrimination between citizens according to some criterion: their knowledge, strength, popularity, wealth etc. In the Greek city, free citizens are equal, are individuals who fall under the "isonomy", that is equality defined by city law, the nomos (the verbal noun nemein verno , "divide") which expresses a common participation in the city, where land in wealth, military power and so on. Among those who are free and equal under the nomos there can be no choice but simple drawing. The poorer and less educated the Athenians could well occupy the highest tribunals. This, today, it seems surreal and worthy of the "Lottery of Babylon" by Jorge Luis Borges and yet, one of the most educated and free societies known to the world was governed well. This is now a beggar could be president.

The claim of "forms" legal equality (isonomy), has nothing to do with the idea of \u200b\u200brepresentative democracy, or the State of bourgeois right (pun intended). What people in Tunisia and has claimed half the world's oldest and taste more authentic than the modern republics of owners. What in the suburbs of Caracas, as now in Tunisia but also in the resistance movements against neo-liberal Europe is defended and requires the free and direct access to common productive, collective power and intellectual material production through the life and political order. I guess our friend Alma, after living and narrate live and with great brilliance this burst of constituent power that is sweeping the tyrannies (with representative forms, by the way) the Arab world can draw from this theoretical and political consequences that are imposed. To defend democracy is not to defend the rule of law, is to oppose the state and the law as both are based on private property or public-state and prevent the release of the commons.

This seems a mere theoretical subtlety, but it has immediate political consequences. Let no one be deceived: neither in Venezuela or North Africa, it is possible a representative democracy, rule of law that respects the property. It is not possible, because people can not tolerate on pain of falling back into misery and oppression of the majority necessary condition social capitalist countries and increasingly dependent on the capitalist center itself. Just off the dependence on the world market and global capitalism will establish democracies. Precisely for this reason, these democracies should guarantee access to the commons and the development of these against all forms of property (including government) can not take the "forms" legal and policy associated with the ownership and market the synthesis is the rule of law.

Source: Rebellion
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=121710   (04/02/2011)
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=122178   (11/02/2011)
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=122647   (18/02/2011)