G.U.T. #4

 

 

Marxist Theory Is The Hallmark Of Capitalist Development

 

Marx noted that capitalism is innately unstable  leading to periodic crisis. It is on this prediction of crisis that  his analysis is built; this makes his critique ‘scientific’ in character as opposed to ‘moral’. Marx’s  economic analysis of the development of capitalism is  powerful, accurate and overwhelmingly borne out by observed events. As a consequence it has become the de facto fulcrum that divides modern from  premodern. In line with Marx’s analysis the undeveloped world has the ‘freest’ markets, the developed world the most regulated.. ‘Development’ itself has come to mean the development of regulatory government structures to predict and ameliorate the effects of periodic crisis. Comprehensive global regulation of economy also divides the world in time from pre crisis to post 2008 watershed. The co-ordinated post financial crisis response was the first time all major economies in the world  acted in unison. It was the first example of true globalism- and it was the global triumph of Marxist analysis.

 

For Marx the fact that he was thinking what he was thinking was evidence in itself  that what he was thinking was happening was already happening- as he was thinking it!  A bit like Artificial Intelligence in science fiction  – all at once his conscious analysis of capitalism was aware of itself.

 

‘The entire movement of history, as simply communism’s actual act of genesis — the birth act of its empirical existence — is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming’.

 

Private Property and Communism (1844)

 

 

But when Marx actually got down to the practical business of how his consciousness might finally manifest outside of Marx in the real world, how it would be made flesh so to speak, he found he was creating a parody of what he increasingly referred to as generic ‘religion’. Even though the specific observations Marx made about crisis were new and the specific conclusions they led to were new, the framework within which he was forced to shape his thought began to look increasingly, disturbingly familiar.

 

 ‘The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”.  

 

‘The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism’.    

The Communist Manifesto

 

Marx realised he could not  explain the origin of  his intellect and his theory from within the terms of that theory itself. Fundamentally, Marx could not think of a new, original reason to explain why new, original Marxism came to be… At times Marx argued that his thought was the product of the present ‘zeitgeist’. At other times he implied it came from the future i.e. he was the first to express this new form of thought. If his theory was totally new, (and it must be because capitalism was supposed to be new), and socialism was new as was Marxism new, how come the core elements of the conclusions it reached were so similar to what had gone before? Why wasn’t the practical conclusion of Marxism as different from everything else as it should be?

 

The key to understanding Marx’s problem lies in the relationship of Marxism to  Hegelian dialectics. Marx’s critique of Hegelian philosophy is central to the Marxist  project and centres on Hegel’s presentation of Thought as an abstracted absolute – a logical preposition.  Given any specific thought or conception, Hegelian philosophy describes how that particular thought is modified and developed. Marx used Hegelian dialectics as both starting point and justification for Marxism by modifying the Hegelian dialectic to produce Marxist dialectics and historical materialism.

 

Whereas in Hegelian philosophy The Thought is the starting point for describing how intellect is developed and subsequently changes, in Marxism The Thought is the end point for describing WHY people think as they do at any given point. Marxism seeks to invert the question form: How do people change their minds from one particular thought to another  to: Why do they have any particular thought in the first place? In Marxism, Thought is the product of a process, the end not the means. Adapting dialectics in this way served a two fold purpose for Marx. Firstly it allowed him to locate his own intellectual identity within the historical process of capitalist  unconsciousness/false consciousness spontaneously becoming conscious and secondly it allowed him to explain the conscious nature of Marxism as a separate entity.

 

None Dare Call It…

 

Marxism is a revolution against Capitalism, Political Economy, Moral Socialism and ‘unconsciousness because once you become conscious you can never again be unconscious. If Marxism is not against all these things, it is not revolutionary. By definition, it can leave nothing untouched. Revolutionary Marxism is the antithesis to every thesis.. Revolution must annihilate what has gone before and seeks to replace old knowledge with new knowledge. Which  means even replacing the knowledge of how the revolution itself came to be. Revolution must in the end deny it’s own arbitrary character -even though arbitrariness is it’s prime justification!- and proclaim things were always meant to be this way and therefore things have always been this way. The revolution was inevitable – it took the revolution to make us see that.  In order to be successful every revolution must finally, inevitably revolt against revolution itself..

 

The Significance Of Marx’s Authorship

 

‘ …. in the end, one will be found among us who will prove that the sword of enthusiasm is just as good as the sword of genius.’

Engels, Anti-Schelling (1841)

 

Revolutionary Marxist dialectics must annihilate Hegelian dialectics, and Marx sought to use the very essence of Hegelian dialectics as the means with which to achieve this end, which everyone must admit is very clever. So the battle was between Hegelian dialectics; the ‘HOW’ of Thought, and Marxist dialectics; the ‘WHY’ of Thought.  Look again at Marx’s battle against idolatry religion (see parts 1-3), and you can see that Marx is using exactly the same trick in every instance.. Marx sought to use the Judaic injunction on idolatry against Judaism, and in turn sought to use Hegelian dialectics against Hegel. But just as Marx ended up creating a new form of idolatry religion so he reproduced the Hegelian process in a different form..

 

In Hegelian terms (Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis), you cannot abolish the ‘past’ (the starting point), you can only modify it. Add water to whisky as much as you like, you can only dilute the mixture, you cannot remove the whisky that is already there. The prime objective of revolutionaries; abolition of what is gone before, is impossible. This Hegelian problem plagued Marxists way past the death of Marx and even past the initial phase of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky finally devised the idea of continually diluting whisky in the barrel before it even got poured into the glass and claimed that this made the problem of dilution moot. He called his solution (pun intended), ‘The Marxist Theory Of Permanent Revolution’.

 

Revolution is antithesis not synthesis; the midway point in a process, not the end of that process. It is the contradiction of everything that presently is. But this means that Marxism is only a way station in the process of thought, not the outcome of the thought process. In Hegelian terms Marxist revolution as antithesis leads to a final synthesis that is different from the Marxist revolution itself. Revolution is not the final outcome, it is the basis for the outcome. Marx sought to specify the outcome of the Marxist revolution, but could not because in as far as Marx is truly revolutionary he could not know the outcome of the revolution he promoted. In Hegelian terms to be a revolutionary is to oppose yourself to past and future.

 

The Gospel According To Marx

 

‘The writer must earn money in order to be able to live and to write, but he must by no means live and write for the purpose of making money.’

‘He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right’

 

Quoted in Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, 1993, p14

 

 

The issue of authorship is the crucial factor that determines the  significance of everything that Marx wrote. The issue of my authorship is the crucial factor determining the significance of everything I write. And everything you write and so on.. If an author fails to maintain the narrative that supports authorship then that writing must fail. The primary purpose of all writing must be to validate the author of that writing. According to Marx, if Marxism was valid in its own terms then it  was part of the continuum of development that had to be located in the history and development of capitalism. The emergence of socialist consciousness was the inevitable consequence of the development of capitalism. This was the logic of human development. This was the logic of Marx himself. Logic is the formula for inevitability.

 

Two Wrongs..

 

This leads directly to Marx’s  critique of Hegel which ‘flipped’ Hegel on its own internal logic to produce Marxism. This flipping of Hegel produces the revolutionary Marxist antithesis of the Hegelian thesis. So as Marxism stakes its claim to be  revolutionary it must forsake its right to name socialism as a successor to the capitalism and Hegelianism it opposes-. Marxism loses it’s purchase on the outcome of the revolution it instigates.. In theory Marx can double down on revolutionary opposition and argue that Hegelian philosophy is absolutely wrong. But If Hegel is absolutely wrong then Marx’s tactic of flipping it on it’s head, using Hegel against Hegel, must also be totally wrong. If Hegel is error, error is not located in the historical process of development of human thought! (if it is, there is no  rational logical predictable march to consciousness as Marx claims…) Two wrongs, however they are put together,  don’t make a right. The more resolute Marx’s opposition to Hegel, the more firmly Marx embeds himself as revolutionary opposition within the framework of Hegel and the less grasp Marxism has on the outcome of the struggle it began. The only other option is that Marx’s analysis and its authorship does not follow on from Hegel (Error)- it is completely separate from it. Then Marx would stand alone, revealed and naked as in the Garden of Eden…

 

The Gates of Eden

 

Fundamentally Marx’s problem is the same as that of Lucifer. Marx claims to have discovered a principle that precedes the principle he begins from, just as Lucifer does. If God Were not The First, if God Had not prescribed the principles of Heaven and Earth, then Lucifer argues he would be legally, rationally  free to propose a new better framework based on a principle he discovered that precedes God. But God Created Lucifer and everything Lucifer does and could ever think. So nothing Lucifer can ever think can precede God, including the principle he claims to have ‘discovered’.  Just as lightning touches earth and is grounded, so Lucifer whenever and wherever he seeks to set foot on the earth, is grounded by this fact. So it is with Marx and Hegel. Marx claims to have discovered a principle that precedes the principle of Hegel but is forced to admit this principle is created as a consequence of Hegel.

 

Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.

German Ideology (1845)

 

Welcome To My Nightmare

 

Because Hegel anticipates Marxism and literally accounts for it, Marx must always be antithesis. Marx saw himself as being trapped, prisoner and victim of the order of events in the universe where he was forced to stand forever in an historical  line  behind Hegel when he should be at the head of the queue. And he complained bitterly over and over again about it.

 

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.”

 

There Is No Alternative.. Is There?

 

The only options for Marx were either deny Hegel entirely (including the context in which Hegel existed), or agree to be bound by him. Either to say there is no ‘law’ of historical development, just the ideas and opinions of individuals, or there is a law and Hegel precedes Marx in it.

 

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

German Ideology (1845)

 

Of course, if there is no such law then Marx’s claim to be the chosen inheritor of that law would necessarily be wrong. Marx would have to admit that a fundamental part of his analysis was in error. And more importantly, Marx would not be the choice of the contemporary concrete, world to further human progress, he would only be only one random voice of many. In essence, be only another opinion. Not chosen. The inheritor of nothing.

 

How to proceed had become a matter of intellectual courage, rather than intellect per se and Marx simply did not have that courage. Unlike Adam, Marx could only find it in himself to stand at the Gates Of Eden (cause and effect, the dialectic) cursing  God (Hegel) rather than go out naked and alone into the wilderness- to say that he himself was in essence merely a collection of opinions.. Cut off from both past and future,  Marx only could ever be Marx   if he channelled total revolution and antithesis, chaos,  whatever the consequences. From then on the point was to change it- whatever it was..

 

…we see how the resolution of the theoretical antitheses is only possible in a practical way (my emphasis), by virtue of the practical energy of man. Their resolution is therefore by no means merely a problem of understanding, but a real problem of life, which philosophy could not solve precisely because it conceived this problem as merely a theoretical one.’

Marx, Private Property and Communism (1844)

 

Rather than admit that Marx could not solve his problem of philosophy, Marx proclaimed that Marx was a problem philosophy could not solve! As could go neither forward nor back, Marx would devote the rest of his existence to digging a burrow for himself next to the Gates of Eden and here he would remain locked out from the past, unwilling to face his future. Hiding in the space between antithesis and synthesis.  Just as Marx told the moral socialists they would have to sacrifice their moral heaven for a rational one,  so he in turn would have to sacrifice his vision of rational logical, socialist Heaven and give himself over to experimental chaos instead.

 

Marx had been utterly defeated in the realm of rational philosophy. He was now  like defeated Napolean, traipsing across a blasted landscape of his own making, intellectually destitute- a refugee. Where was the only place in the world a man could be guaranteed asylum from the power of rational philosophical enquiry?

 

England.

 

The first part of Marx’s analysis; ‘crisis’ (antithesis) was established. The second part of his analysis, ‘socialism’ (synthesis) could never be. Crisis was the product of reason but subsequent socialism, despite everything Marx said, remained in the realm of choice. Realising that he was powerless to remove choice itself, Marx argued to change the rationale for that choice from morality to reason. Not  choice based on right and wrong but based instead on  heading for the future whether we liked it or not. A  future of two possibilities; Socialism or mutual ruination. Marx came to argue that there is an unwritten contract between capitalists and history and workers and history. ( compare this with England’s unwritten constitution). Workers were signed on to be the gravediggers of capitalism, capitalists the occupants of the box.. If all sides kept to the terms of the agreement there would be a predictable outcome- revolution.

 

 

History is the judge — its executioner, the proletarian.

Speech at Anniversary of The People’s Paper (1856)

 

From this point the mission of Marxists would be to hold capitalism and workers to the contract they had with history. Capitalist would create crisis after crisis of increasing severity until workers rebelled. Marxists would encourage the capitalists with relish. But by late 19thC it was clear that both capitalists and workers had begun to vary the terms of this historical contract. In Germany social provision and welfare emerged under the tutelage of  Bismark ; a process that  spread rapidly over all the Germanic territories of NW Eurasia. The two main holdouts  were England and USA, Anglo Saxon societies and economies.  This state of affairs held until the post World War II capitulation when America and England both adopted welfarism as a consequence of   two World Wars and a  Russian revolution. In a peculiar inversion, here was the first real vindication of Marxism, capitalists themselves conceded that if capitalism was  not managed there was indeed a danger of absolute collapse.

 

Cultural Capitalism

 

The  element of choice Marx failed to destroy returned to centre stage with a vengeance. The twentieth century revealed it was possible to be morally committed to capitalism while rationally accepting it would collapse without intensive and ever increasing management. Through the ideas of Keynes pundits and economists began to modify capitalism to deal with the extremes of its operation with the express purpose of preserving it for its moral and cultural qualities. The economics of capitalism were over. Capitalism revealed itself as pure religion. A moral, cultural choice.

 

Capitalism and those who lived within the system became increasingly characterised by degrees of acceptance instead of absolute acceptance. From this point on Capitalism is characterised by its failure to consistently and comprehensively transform the nature of the societies it operates on. Capitalism begins with an initial phase of rapid and comprehensive restructuring of any given society.. But capitalism is unable to change the nature of societies at a deeper level. It runs out of momentum. We now are at an historical juncture where third world transformation by capitalism  still appears to be relatively rapid and large scale but first world transformation has ground to a  standstill and is moribund. When was the last time capitalism changed anything significant  in a developed nation?

 

Just as the ‘bosses’ choices began to splinter by degrees, so  the workers  increasingly seemed to be captured by ‘momentary diversions’. And the final developed picture of modern economy comes fully into focus.

 

The Marxist concept of crisis is fully universally accepted.

The threat of crisis is to be offset by government intervention.

The extent and depth of this intervention increases year on year.

The only way to limit government intervention is to…use the government to do it!

The Marxist revolution is as complete as it ever could be .

Synthesis.

Advertisements

‘I Come Not To Praise’ Or The Entertainer Or 293 Or 293 Or 293

 

 

Now we have reached the stage where the only people still talking seriously about the ‘working class’ are a conglomerate of fleabitten left-wing radicals and some of the more sentimental elements of the libertarian right.

 

Increasingly the phrase: ‘The Working Class’ is beginning to sound like a rhetorical relic of a bygone age. Meanwhile modern ‘liberals’ are reduced to supporting the machinations of CIA/deep state proto fascists against elected President Donald Trump. Formal democratic values are following the ‘Working Class’ off stage left….

 

Left and right wing perspectives have collapsed completely into a state of complete all encompassing confusion. The historical narratives of Capitalism and Socialism that have dominated the past century and a half are now effectively dead as methods of mobilising large sections of society.

 

Ask yourself this simple question: In the world in which we live now could any government anywhere get significant numbers of people to fight and die under the banner of ‘Socialism’ or even that of ‘Capitalism’ ?

 

While this process of collapse and decomposition has been taking place I have argued that both socialism and capitalism are at root expressions of Germanic political culture. This is a materialist analysis. It is founded in concrete history. capitalism and socialism are complimentary to each other and each is a necessary corollary of the other.

 

If this is correct the collapse of capitalism must necessarily entail the collapse of socialism. And likewise, the collapse of socialism must necessarily entail the collapse of capitalism.  Just as Capitalism and Socialism were once both mutually supportive, in their death throes they are mutually destructive, dragging each other into the abyss.

 

I have argued that the political narrative of capitalism finally collapsed in the credit crunch. Massive open ended state intervention necessary to preserve even the hollow edifice of capitalism showed that there can be no longer be any chance of a meaningful free market anywhere in the world.

 

Like the ‘working class’,  even the phrase ‘free market’ sounds somehow fringe and unconvincing. And on the other hand political and economic developments since 1945, in particular since 1970, have shown that socialism is not now, and can never be a viable conception for the organisation of European society.

 

In light of what I argue above this implies that the final failure of capitalism in the result of the failure of socialism and this is so. In the final analysis socialism failed to save capitalism from itself…

 

The main consequence of these developments is that because both Germanic grand conceptions of history has failed, neither has an interest in any grand narrative of history. Both Socialists and Capitalists, ‘left’ and ‘right’, are now only interested in spreading short-term confusion hence the descent into increasingly petty and meaningless attacks on each other.

 

Neither side of Germanic society has a convincing story to tell, but you can be sure that they are damned if they will allow anyone else to speak into the silence. Because that is definitely not in the interest of Germans as a whole. And if you don’t understand that Germanic peoples recognise and try to act in their own best interests as a group you are a fool.

 

Still, as The Entertainer Archie Rice says : ‘I have a go, don’t I?’

 

So Here I Go.

 

Here are the barest bones of a history of the rise and fall of the Germanic Empire with reference in particular to the role and significance of the cult of socialism .

 

We can take the mid-16th century as the foundation date of the Germanic Empire. The material basis for this empire was the emerging practice of applied science combined and contrasted with colonial expansion which I will characterise here as Evangelism.

 

Follow The Money- Follow The Wealth

 

Both the knowledge base that was to be cannibalised into science and the organisational and political missionary structures that would give rise to Evangelism were scavenged from the newly destroyed monastic Christian system.

 

The Germanic empire was to be not only a physical empire but more importantly an Empire Of The Mind. It would be brought into existence by a War On The Mind- this War On The Mind took the form of a war on Christianity. Capitalism ravages the minds it makes war on and in just as trench warfare ravaged the landscape of the Somme..

 

Physical wealth was only a small part of what was actually owned and controlled by the Catholic Church. By far the greatest part of it’s wealth was intellectual, cultural and spiritual. It was clear that the ignorant and boorish among the German Princes and their underlings coveted the material wealth of the Church. But the more sophisticated coveted the intangible wealth of the Church.

 

The effects of Christianity had transformed the peoples of Northern Eurasia; Gallic, Slavic and Germanic alike , but it did not transform them in the same way. In North West Eurasia it unified some of them under the Catholic church for a while, but it could not wipe out the fundamental differences between the tribes. So let us be absolutely clear: Christianity NEVER successfully converted all of North Western Eurasia. Large parts of Germanic society never actually became Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. This understanding is fundamental to my analysis.

 

Germanic tribesmen were proselytised and educated by Christian missionaries transforming their social potential. But Christianity did not ‘take’ in Germanic parts of NW Eurasia. The form of Christianity triumphed but the content did not.  So powerful was Christianity that even the distorted shadow of its form alone could create the basis for a world dominating empire.

 

Finally, persistently inadequate doses of Christianity produced a form of  resistant intellectual bacteria. Germanic societies produced a bastardised mirror image of the Christian civilising process which reinstated their own pagan culture as the dominant form of society. The name given to this anti-Christianity is Protestantism.

 

Protestantism is by definition National Christianity.

National Christianity is to Christianity as National Socialism is to Socialism.

 

The structure of both Continental German and Anglo Saxon societies were determined by what they chose to take and what they chose to leave behind from the Christian monastic system they overthrew. Geographic location led Anglo Saxons to choose Evangelism and forsake Science. Landlocked Germans forsook Evangelism and chose Science.

 

This brings us to the birth of ‘Socialism’.

 

Socialism in its fundamentals stems from an attempt to reconcile the Evangelism of the Anglo-Saxon western Germanic empire and the Applied Science of the Continental eastern Germanic empire. Socialism sought to neutralise Science by means of welfarism and  to neutralise Evangelism by means of internationalism (multiculturalism). From this it would create a centre ground where the peoples of the Germanic empire, the ‘working classes’ could unite.

 

The Odd Couple

 

From this perspective we can begin to clearly see through the murk of historical propaganda back to Karl Marx in London- Marx the professional intellectual and son of a Protestant convert; a Continental German in one of the epicentres of Saxon culture. Karl Marx together with Friedrich Engels-a wealthy German mill owner fascinated by science and history and Gallic immigrant women.

 

Who better, who more likely than these two: Marx the Michelangelo and Engels his Pope Julius, the ambitious Protestant intellectual and the materially wealthy capitalist ,in this particular time and place, working together to unify Con-German Applied Science and Saxon colonial Evangelism? Seen from this perspective their joint authorship of the formal tenets of Socialism and Communism seems almost inevitable doesn’t it?

 

Ironically enough, Socialism has always managed  to avoid being subject to a rigorous Marxist analysis of its origins, content and purpose. It has managed to combine aspects of social philosophy, religion, economics and even fringe lifestyles in an undifferentiated blob intentionally constructed in such a way as to avoid rational analysis.

 

It is this irrationality as much as anything that has been the cause of the conflict that has dogged the Socialist movement since it’s inception. Socialism was intended as an antidote to emergent Protestant applied science. It could not kill the emerging Germanic social sciences but it did horrifically maim them so badly that they in turn could never deal a death blow to Marxism!

 

From Socialism to Communism

 

Marxism predicts an inevitable fundamental catastrophic collapse of capitalism as a result of its internal contradictions. It follows that capitalism can be preserved for an extended period if it is partially reformed and ameliorated by socialism. When Capitalism goes wrong socialism is used as a corrective. Socialism then reverts to capitalism until the next crisis.

 

But of course if capitalism is no longer capitalist socialism cannot correct it. In other words socialism can heal capitalism but it cannot bring capitalism back from the dead. Once capitalism dies socialism cannot resurrect it. This is the logic behind communism and its relationship to capitalism.

 

We know without a doubt that Socialism failed to save capitalism from disaster  hence the First ‘World’ War. Specifically, socialism failed to save capitalism because it failed to unify the two halves of the Germanic empire and the two halves of Germanic thought; Anglo Evangelism in the west and German applied science in the east. We know this because the two halves of the Germanic empire started killing each other directly using the new science of war and a new form of colonialism.

 

And we know in the moment of socialism failing to save capitalism that communism was vividly realised in the form of the birth of the Soviet Union.

 

Of course this was by no means the end of the story. Where Socialism failed to unify the two halves of the Germanic empire by argument, National Socialism emerged two decades later to unify Germanic society by force.

 

It failed. But it did finally physically liquidate socialism forever. The possibility of Socialism ever triumphing died in the death camps.

 

The important points to take away here are:

 

Contemporary left and right politics are meaningless -they are an intentional distraction from the fact that both narratives have been shown to have comprehensively failed. Do not get involved on either side of this increasingly irrational petty squabble.. Focus on the main narrative.

 

Socialism and capitalism are both Germanic cults whose ultimate purpose was to preserve and extend the Germanic empire. Their death means that the death and dissolution of the Germanic empire will now accelerate and intensify.

 

It is possible to have a grand narrative.

 

But do try to understand that even the very idea of  grand narrative sets you against both Germanic left and right.

 

It makes you a revolutionary.