G.U.T.

Whatever else Karl Marx was, he was not a Marxist- as he himself is reported to have said. This comment is generally taken as a dig at the intellectual quality of ‘Marxists’ and one all the more piquant because it comes from the progenitor of Marxism..  But it is possible to see this from another point of view; as a typically wry observation that Marx himself understood that he could not be a Marxist according to the logic of his own position, because he was unwilling and unable to apply a strict Marxist interpretation to Marxism itself. If Marx was accusing anyone, he was accusing himself…. His favourite motto:

De omnibus dubitandum [Everything must be doubted].”

would of necessity include Marx himself of course…

Marxism as an ideology necessarily comes into existence in it’s own terms. Marxism proclaims that it derives  purpose and validity solely by virtue of it’s own content. For a Marxist, there are no questions to be asked about Marxism’s  origins or the context in which it came to existence outside of the terms of Marxism itself. At first glance his seems a bit knotty, but in fact the logic is quite straightforward. Let me elaborate: Marxism is given as the product of Marx’s intellectual development which in turn is the product of the development of the objective conditions that gave rise to it; (That would be Marx’s intellectual development and also Marxism, which are two different things, but also the same thing,,,ahem..) Let me elaborate further…

The basic idea underpinning historical materialism is that capitalism inevitably comes into existence because of mankind’s increasing productive capacity through technological advance. By the same process socialism/communism also inevitably must come into existence because of the inherent nature of capitalism. In so far as mankind’s development is inevitable, so the development of capitalism from feudalism and then socialism from capitalism is inevitable.  And since socialism is the first truly self aware social movement, it’s ideology must also inevitably come into existence at the same time that socialism itself comes into existence.(Because if it didn’t then it wouldn’t be self aware..and therefore not Marxism/socialism). You can be a functioning capitalist without necessarily understanding capitalism but you can’t be a functioning socialist without understanding socialism. On the contrary, Marxists argue that it is a precondition of being a capitalist that you do not really understand the true nature of capitalism since if you did then you would be…. a socialist!

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”
Karl Marx

This fundamental conditionality is encapsulated in the idea of ‘false consciousness’ which, like many such concepts, is used in inverse proportion to the extent it is understood. The vulgar exposition of false consciousness is that workers believe they have a stake in the ongoing success of capitalism when in fact their best interest would be served by its collapse. But actually the doctrine of false consciousness holds that thought is ‘falsely conscious’ when it holds itself to be the product of abstracted reason instead of objective conditions. In other words a thought is conscious in that it wants to be the product of reason (which is what consciousness consists of, according to Marx),  but it is false in that it is not actually the product of reason but an expression of the social relationships that gave rise to that thought. In more prosaic, (but no less convoluted), terms; You think that you think what you think because you have reasoned it out and therefore there is no reasoned alternative to what you are thinking.  But in reality you think what you think because you have been conditioned to think it. Simply because you are unaware that you have been conditioned to think as you do, your conditioned thought is non rational. If you did understand that you have been conditioned to think as you do, then this would necessarily be the first step toward breaking that conditioning and becoming truly aware, (a socialist).

“Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity.”

In general the first step towards becoming a socialist/Marxist is to understand that there is an historical identity to capitalism because that specific understanding breaks the conditioning of capitalism.

“Once the inner connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before their collapse in practice
Letter to Ludwig Kugelmann (July 11, 1868)”
Selected Letters: The Personal Correspondence 1844-1877

From this whole cloth the historical materialism I refer to above  is created. Historical materialism holds that the emergence, development and demise of capitalism is part of an ongoing historical process. On the contrary, modern capitalist ideology holds that capitalism itself is the end point of that process. (The ‘End Of History’ a la Francis Fukyama).

A brief word to clarify what is meant by conditioning here. This is not necessarily a directed process in the Pavlovian sense of training a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, but rather a natural outcome of interaction with the world as it presently is. To a Marxist, thought is the contemporaneous state of the world mediated through the minds of the people that inhabit it.

“Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”
Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy

As a consequences of this perspective, Marxism understands thought as a PRODUCT not a cause in distinction from capitalists who regard thought as a means to an end instead of an end product in itself. Thought is unconscious ( falsely conscious), to the extent  of being a product and not a cause. Thought is actually conscious to the extent of being a cause and not a product. ( hence the famous Marx quote:

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Eleven Theses on Feuerbach

These prophetic words are inscribed upon Marx’s grave. Irony.

Marx argued this in direct contradistinction to Hegelian philosophy although he claimed Hegel in part as inspiration. In fact, Marx characterised his materialism in exactly this way as the contradictory argument that refines Hegelian philosophy. Hegel starts from the process of thought and goes on to explain the thought process but Marx ends at thought. In this way Marx directly contradicts Hegel and yet claims though this contradiction to be his successor! This startling conception of the thought process gives rise to a problem however. If a given thought process is the product of the conditioning that created it, surely it is trapped by that very same conditioning. How can such a thought process ever realise that it is the product of conditioning? How can you modify your own thought process just by thinking about it? How can you lift yourself up by your own shoe laces? It is clear that for the argument to work some outside force becomes necessary to break into the conditioning/thinking feedback loop and produce a change.

Luckily as it turns out, capitalism just happens to contain within itself that agent of change!

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.