Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal.
- Adlai E. Stevenson
Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.
- George Bernard Shaw
Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true
- Polish proverb
In 1806, Hegel commented on Napoleon's victory at the Battle of Jena, calling it the "End of History", as the revolutionary forces of France smashed the Prussians, ushering in a new political order. In 1917, as the Bolsheviks fought throughout Russia, they proclaimed the first state in the world based on the theories of Karl Marx, the start of the end of History. In 1989, a State Department official going by the name of Francis Fukuyama claimed the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the broken Communist control of the USSR also meant the end of History.
It took a long time, but finally the majority of the world came to the conclusion that there was something basic in Communism, as with Fascism and Nazism, that led inexorably towards murder, terror and state repression. That the ideology was itself flawed and led to such terrible ends was finally realized after almost 80 years of self-deception on behalf of much of the Left.
However, it has not yet been widely realized that the same problem is now implanted in free market capitalism as well. This is the problem of inevitable progress towards a goal which cannot be improved on, towards ending History and creating a Utopian world order based on the chosen philosophy. The end of History means that the perfect ideological system has been discovered and all that is left is to let this idea dominate the globe.
Starting to see the similarities?
The problem is that there are a whole host of people who don't seem to share this view. Fukuyama called them "those mired in History", a polite way of saying backward savages, it seems. The posited totality and clarity of the argument simply does not hold up against the rest of the world. And therein, the problems start.
Nietzsche was right, God is dead, at least in the realm of ideology (despite some spasms in the Middle East and the USA, which mostly seem to be to keep the proles in line). In his place however, has been erected the Temple of Man, where it is promised Heaven will be recreated on earth. Nothing has changed in 2000 years of history, the ideas change their cloaks but their aims remain the same. Mankind has a purpose, a set start, an aim and final end, where a Utopia will be for the faithful and every evil is justified in working to that end.
The modern disciples of Adam Smith and David Ricardo have taken the most apocalyptic, messianic and prophetical predictions of those philosophers and spun them out of all proportion. They are the modern revolutionaries, despite already holding most of the world's power, they seek to rework the entire globe in their image, much like Lenin and Stalin did.
Seeing this as the highest stage mankind could hope to obtain, they feel it is their divine duty to spread the word, by the force of the sword, if necessary. For all its pretensions to personal freedom and individuality, the "free market" will be enforced from the top down, it will be thrust upon the masses as the supreme gift these disciples could give. Therein lies another problem, that viewing it from such a collectivist point of view invariably means the individual can be discounted, removed or destroyed for the greater good.
The Free Market becomes the new arbiter of good and evil, an all powerful and judgemental deity who does not take into account morals, only the greater economic good. Good comes to be defined by those who shove share prices and profit margins ever higher, in short those who obtain economic power. A philosophy based on pure power as the sole determinant of morals is inherently nihilistic, and such nihilism leads to state terror and repression. When there is no evil, except that which leads to loss of production, you are in the same place as a worker in the USSR 20 years ago. Your individuality is reduced to what material worth you can produce and anything else is irrelevant. The absolute freedom of that modern day capitalists preach is nothing more than the destruction of justice, because that freedom leads to the rule of the strong over the weak without check or balance.
When this is realized, it is easy to understand why ex-Marxists have turned to fanatical NeoConservativism or twelfth century style Catholicism, as in reality the changes are superficial and regardless of the message, the basic ideas and goals remain. It also shows why western governments are now turning towards authoritarianism and why those most outspoken in their capitalist sentiments have no compunction about working with dictators like General Pinochet, , the Chinese ,ÄúCommunist,Äù Party and Kazakhstan.
What's really ironic however, is that these groups may be in fact doing Marx's work without realizing it. Marx had noted a series of crises in capitalism in his time, crises which he felt would lead to the overthrow of the political-economic system. This didn't happen because most states incorporated some centralized controls which held these in check. By removing then, the free market disciples are becoming another suicide cult, yet again emulating its philosophical parentage.
Until then, like its relatives, it will remain one small group of men murdering, lying and stealing from others, ostensibly for their own good.
Quote
When this is realized, it is easy to understand why ex-Marxists have turned to fanatical NeoConservativism or twelfth century style Catholicism, as in reality the changes are superficial and regardless of the message, the basic ideas and goals remain.¬† It also shows why western governments are now turning towards authoritarianism and why those most outspoken in their capitalist sentiments have no compunction about working with dictators¬† like General Pinochet, , the Chinese “Communist” Party and Kazakhstan.¬†
I remember just a few days ago I was trying to tell a friend of mine, while at Pizza Hut that neoconservatism actually came from what we would consider "the left" and not from what we consider "the right"
People like Irving Kristol and Ben Wattenberg were liberals, if not at one time almost socialists
Wattenberg was President Johnson's speachwriter
And this idea of "spreading democracy" was in fact an old liberal idea, in fact a very socialist idea
one idea I had I would like to hear your opinion on...
one trend ive noticed, not sure if you have, but there seems to be a trend right now for thinktankers and former neocons to become radical centralists
Expecially in the states. There seems to be a push to center
My personal view is the word "neoconservative" has become sort of discredited, with the war and the radical Christian right's apocolypic views slowly taking over the movement and now theres a search on for a redefinition of these ideas
I know im stretching the Original post a bit, and probably not making a whole lot of sense, but first thing that came to my mind
No, its cool. Its very true. Most of the NeoCons were Trotskyites, originally. Liberal hawks, who wanted to, as you said, fight Communism and spread democracy.
And thats not just in American. The Hitchens brothers, Christopher and Peter, are both excellent examples. Ex-Communists both of them, one turned very nearly NeoCon and the other is a raving Christian conservative nutcase.
Most of them have jumped ship nowadays into the American Enterprises Institute, or in the UK, into the Committee for a Free Britain
When ideologies collide there is no room for second place. And thus the oppressed become the tyrants and vice versa. The thing with tyranny is it looks the same however you dress it up.
Yeah. There seems to be something very similar, at a basic level, about all of the theories I mentioned. I think I grasped part of it, but I still get the feeling something is missing....
What you didn't explicitly state is the factor I refer to as 'the monkey'
Yes, technically we're an ape but 'monkey' sounds funnier. It's the quintessential part of human nature that our ego doesn't like to recognise but, ironically is founded on, namely the inherent desire to sit atop the highest tree, eat all the banannas, shag all the females and throw shit at the other monkeys who live in fear an awe of us.
The average sapiens ego likes to think it's above all that. The average sapiens ego has no fucking idea just how much of a slave to it they are. The average sapiens ego is nought but a paper thin veil of delusion, glossing over the tip of the monkey iceberg.
So all this talk of high fallutin ideals and 'teh greater good of mankind' is pretty much just the sapiens ego's pathetic charade, by way of covering up the masterplan - banannas, pussy, fear and awe.
Of course, thats true of everything, to a degree. But what people believe is important too, as it can override, rather than let you indulge, in those basic instincts.
That's the theory but, in practice, it doesn't.
Problem is that as soon as a thinker comes up with the ideology it is immediately snapped up my a monkey who's ego, working on behalf of base nature, will convince him that this mission is righteous. However it's not righteous. It's not even slightly righteous. It's a thinly concealed ploy to get bannanas.
Assumes facts not in evidence, as my old professor used to say.
It also seems that all of these theories are convinced that theirs is the "only way", and that, unhindered, it will be "the answer to everything".
Most of us here have rejected the idea that there is only One True Answer, so sometimes we forget that a large portion of humanity are simply unable to comprehend that their ideologies might need to be adjusted for real-world situations, or that their theories might be completely wrong.
Also, Silly's "monkey" idea parallels my concept of The Machine,Ñ¢, in that our primate urges exist, but most of us deny that, and are horrified when they rise to the surface.
Also also: Great essay, Cain.
Ta muchly.
However, I have to say that Silly is citing a basic urge for this, where it is in fact a structural problem exists. There are benevolent and altruistic people, but the political structure rewards those who are neither. Thats why I prefer the machine analogy, which implicitly echoes the idea of a structural problem.
I get ya.
Would that be different than the CoN, then? Becuase I usually put most human-made social structures in that camp.
I can't remember how I explained it again. I'll go thread diving and bump it to the BIP.
Sweet. I need to give that pamphlet an edit, anyway.
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2007, 08:30:16 AM
Yeah.  There seems to be something very similar, at a basic level, about all of the theories I mentioned.  I think I grasped part of it, but I still get the feeling something is missing....
I think its something to do with the relgious aspect of it
The relgious leaders who became politicized in the 90's did so not out of the same motives as the more secular neocons
and it was these relgious preachers who helped hold the neocon think-tanks in power
for example as this neocons have this vision of spreading democracy throughout the world the overly relgious right have a less a secular take
I heard some of their critics accuse them of being on another crusade, but I think that's a lsimplistic approach to them, as really they almost have no interest in conversions in the muslim world
the sense I get from reading all the newsleters, talking to the few in the city and listening to the radio shows is that they see themselves of actually part of scripture
The Book of Revelations is not, for them, a book about a Christian's fantasy of the fall of the Roman Empire, as it is for someone like me
They see themselves as living breathing players in the bible, as part of God's word
The crusaders in the 11th Century used to use as a battle cry "
It's God's Will."
I think in a strange way this new relgious push in the region would sound more like, "
I'm God's will"
This distiction between motives is also why I think this drive towards the radical center is in someways some within the neocon movement to abandon this fantatical religious right
If you look at the campaign team of the new Democratic hopefulls it's almost a who's who of second or third generation neocons
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2007, 02:08:34 PM
Ta muchly.
However, I have to say that Silly is citing a basic urge for this, where it is in fact a structural problem exists.  There are benevolent and altruistic people, but the political structure rewards those who are neither. 
Because the structure is of nature and nature is pussy and bannanas. All the rest is self deception and wishful thinking on the part of the few who have reconciled their nature with their higher consciousness.
Your view is very male-centric, by the way.
I'm male. I have explored the male psyche extensively. The female psyche is speculation but I'd guess it's to do with nurture, security and community.
Be easy for something like male-centric lust for power to veto anything the females had to say which, historically seems to have been the case. I still blame men more for territorial pissing contests than women but that's not a hard and fast opinion - I don't have enough female data.
structure =/= nature. In nature, there is no such thing as limited war, humanitarian relief and other such things. Nature is existensial, the human world mostly is not, making it very different.